If you can encourage others by honestly explaining the benefits of your life experience, please do so!

I try to do so. I write software I hope people will get good use out of; I write about social issues, superstition, AI issues and more. I keep an oar in around here most of the time as well, as you'll see if you navigate my comment history.

I'm old and creaky now, so these are the things I can realistically do.

Ok, then and users bitten by new OS versions that break the user's software have no right to complain either, amirite?

"no right"... don't think that means what you think it means.

OS X has changed very little since 10.0, at the most basic level.

Yeah... no. They broke cron, they inflicted that insane "app nap" nonsense on us (broke damned near every real-time application out there... I spend a *lot* of time explaining to OS X users that it needs to be turned off or OS X will summarily stop giving the required amount of CPU time to the app) there's sand-boxing, the changes in spaces functionality, they utterly broke UTF-8 console printing (and didn't fix it... just left it broken unless you upgraded -- and yes, they knew about it in time, I talked to "Mr. CUPS himself about it), dropped PPC emulation, moved image support from apps to OS (which broke the dickens out of Aperture upgrades, among other things), they broke getting to local websites on your LAN, and they quit giving us actual media, which I simply find annoying and short-sighted. And they still haven't fixed many of the OS bugs, for instance, you still can't have more than one app listening to a UDP broadcast reception port as far as I know. I don't have any idea whose brilliant think it was to decide that "broadcast" meant only one app can listen, but there you go.

Definitely quite a few reasons to be reticent about moving to a new version of OSX. These things matter.

Anyone familiar with OS X 10.5 would be right at home with 10.10 Yosemite.

Sure -- if you don't mind a good deal of your stuff breaking. Inconveniently enough, I do mind. Hence, 10.6.8, and staying there as long as possible, too.

Did you even read what I wrote? Or was that just a convenient place to hang your remark? If that's the case, never mind, carry on. :)

I welcome change and advance, I think it does us all good in the long run. That doesn't mean I will choose to partake in same.

What's the point of this conversation?

Some things interest some people; other things interest other people. Sometimes there is overlap. Here on slashdot, considering the age, stability, and desirability of one OS version as related to another is quite topical in terms of the issues the site generally is understood to cover.

Perhaps you should wander off and find a story you are interested in. No need to read the ones that don't provoke an interest, you know. You do know that, right?

Still running OSX 10.6.8 -- an OS version ca. July 2011

Isn't broken in the sense that anything about it significantly impedes what I use the computer for; anything that was really crappy -- like Safari -- has been replaced with something that worked better.

Ergo, no need to "fix" it.

I have more interesting things to do with my time than adopt change for the sake of change.

There's a great deal positive that can be said for a stable OS environment, not the least of which is that software which I develop for it will work for more people than software that utilizes functionality only available from a later version of the OS. Speaking for myself, I view a statement about any application of the general form "requires late version of/latest OS" as an abject failure of the developer to think of the users.

That's not to say that others aren't, or shouldn't be interested in the latest OS version-- it's just that I am not, and that addresses the question that was asked.

You need to actually read the messages you reply to, and then think about what was actually said so you can respond intelligently, instead of erecting a series of straw men and then setting them on fire.

Cheers. :)

Yes, that's why we all use megaphones in public so only our own voice can be distinguished.

Oh, wait.

Turns out, we don't do that.

Who woulda thunk it?

Not you, apparently...

Modern marketing techniques are designed for people like you. They're specifically made for people who don't pay attention to ads.

So? Doesn't matter who they are designed for. What matters is if they work on me. They don't.

Nobody who lives in any community more dense than the human population of Kobuk Valley National Park is immune from the impact of modern marketing techniques.

Yes, I live in a very rural area, and further, I keep to my own property as much as possible and have done so for just a little short of thirty years now.

And I find it's the people who believe they are immune from advertising who are least prepared to defend themselves from its effects.

What you have "found" about W, X and Y doesn't mean that you will find the same about Z. You're falling into the trap of assuming everyone is gullible to the degree you are arguing, based on the evidence that that a lot of people are.

Consider for a moment why we have atheists and skeptics as well as the religious. The social pressure to "be" religious, at least here in the US, is considerable. Yet atheists don't buy in. If everyone is equally affected by propaganda and the various levels of social influence, how then can atheism and skepticism exist? It is quite clear that some people tend to follow the narratives they are presented with, while others tend to not do so. Denying that -- which is essentially what you are doing -- is a bankrupt POV, and appropriately enough, I find it insufficient to your argument, which is to say I am quite skeptical that you understand the issue you're so passionately trying to describe.

Wow, is that really what you think?

I looked at your search, and it made me laugh. Yes, that's precisely what I think. That stuff is almost entirely G-rated pap; not sexy at all. with the exception of one image that came up showing a very good-looking woman in stockings and garters, the rest left me cold. And that image, or anything like it, isn't going to appear in product advertisements for those things which I am interested in buying. So yes, sex is not being used in by far the majority of all advertising -- even if it would then work on me, which I assure you, it would not. I am well aware that I am not the actor (and they are actors) in the fictional situation presented by ads. Not only does the fictional depiction not represent my life or lifestyle, the actual ad itself is constructed of illusion -- actors, scripts, etc. To me, this is wholly obvious. To you, apparently not. The error you're making here is assuming others are like you. As per the bard, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

Also: When I say sex, I mean sex. I don't mean bikinis or pretty faces. When I say "sexy", I mean, sex is used to sell the product. The amount of advertising for which that is the case is miniscule. Even when it occurs, and I am exposed, and the sex gets me to look, it won't get me to buy. I am not them; they are not me; the depiction is fiction, or in the even rarer case where it might not be, I am still not them, nor do I have any urge to be them.

Then how the fuck would you know about the "industry's kowtowing to political correctness" causing them to divest themselves of sexy women in ads? Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Primarily, I am aware of the current state of affairs because relevant material is discussed quite often in the communities that I frequent, including this one. How many articles and associated commentary have you seen here that delve into issues like "booth babes" and "objectifying women" and the argument that physical beauty is a justifiably monetized resource just as athleticism and intelligence are -- and so on -- just on slashdot alone? I am also aware that there are whales in the sea, but that doesn't mean I've ever seen one. You present a decidedly shortsighted view of information gathering, I'm afraid. If you want to reason well about this issue, you're going to have to wrap your head around the idea that knowledge gathering is not constrained by personal engagement.

Did you even know that Ridged Tools still publishes it's calendar of sexy ladies every year?

No, I don't even know who they are. But assuming for the sake of your argument that said calender would get me to take an interest if I ran into it, it does not follow that I would ever lift a finger to buy a Ridged Tool. Because the things others do do not form the basis for my evaluation of my needs, nor does a fiction serve to affect my self-image in any significant way.

Sports Illustrated still makes with the camel toe every February.

There are only two sports of more than academic interest to me. Sex, and martial arts. Sports illustrated covers neither to any meaningful degree -- yes, I've seen the magazine -- and so lies totally outside my range of interests. And "camel toe", frankly, is not something I find sexy at all. You're clearly confusing what you think is sexy with what others think is sexy, and assuming therefore that you know how all others will react. You're wrong on every count. You don't know your subject here, and the surface-level, presumption-riddled arguments you are making are wholly insufficient to make your case.

I just watched a few minutes of the British Open on CBS and there was an ad for Mercedes with an entire line of supermodels in skimpy outfits.

That's you. I didn't. I wouldn't. I don't think "supermodels in skimpy outfits" are sexy. I don't care about the British open. I don't watch broadcast television. Catching on yet? These things are essentially irrelevant to the case you're trying to make. They're based on your mode of interacting with the world and how you think about it. Not mine. Your attempt to assign your reactions to me completely fails.

Friend, instead of imagining what the "PC Police" are doing to your eye-candy, you might want to take some time out to evaluate your strategy for "ignoring" advertising, because the people who are involved with modern advertising techniques are smarter than you and me and Neil Degrasse Tyson when it comes to getting people who "don't watch broadcast TV" to respond to their campaigns. They know what they're doing and they know that it works.

I am not making the case that advertising doesn't work. I am only making the case that it doesn't work on me. As a tech guy, you should have at least a basic grasp of statistics; as a member of society, you should understand that people differ; as a slashdotter, I suspect you've seen at least some evidence that some people don't buy into religion; As someone who spends their time watching television, but knowing others do not, you should be able to grasp the idea that someone who does not so do is going to be far less exposed to, and therefore influenced by, whatever goes on within the context of the medium. Even if you've convinced yourself that the actors in commercials and dramas represent something worthwhile to emulate or some kind of worthwhile depiction of reality, that does not mean that everyone else has done so. Finally, I am telling you straight out that I am not so convinced, nor do I indulge in imagining that to be the case. Fiction presents an entirely different use case as compared to fact for me. I'm fairly clear on how to treat them both, and I can assure you, those treatments are not even remotely like each other.

You'd be better off accepting the effect that advertising is having on you, being aware of it, and actively subverting it. Adbusters is a good place to start. Otherwise, you'll still be reaching for the brand name and not knowing why.

Brand names, eh? So you assume I gravitate towards products by brand now? Could you be any more presumptuous? Do you also assume I am Christian? That I buy clothing? That I think spectator sports are of interest? That I am Democrat? Republican? You would be wrong in every case.

Horatio, indeed. Wake up and smell the variety of the human experience. We are not all instances of you with minor differences. Some of us are really unlike you, and won't fit into your cognitive model of "other people" worth a tinker's damn.

If advertising didn't work, then who is paying for it?

Oh, it works -- it just doesn't work on those of us who are aware of it, block it, ignore it, lack respect for it, and consider it pablum for the masses. There are plenty of people out there who approach the world in a "consumer" mode, essentially a non-critical approach that is largely guided by suggestion rather than critical thinking. That's fine. But assuming everyone is like that is incorrect.

I suggest you study the IQ Gaussian and think through the implications. It doesn't tell you everything about a person by any means, but it does tell you a lot about distribution of analytic characteristics among the population. You should also consider the distinction between people for whom superstition is convincing -- belief in a god or gods, crystallomancy, dowsing, Ouija boards, etc. -- as juxtaposed against those for whom it is not: atheists and skeptics.

Many people are gullible for one reason or another; they don't think about a proposition, they simply react on an emotional level as to whether they find a narrative to be emotionally compelling. Or if they do think about it, they do so without the data they need to come to the most correct conclusion(s) and yet draw conclusions anyway, and/or they get on board because so-and-so said so, because "popular", because peer pressure, because fear or an idea is "nice" (again, see religion) and so forth.

Perhaps you find yourself influenced significantly by advertising, and through a failure on your part to realize that everyone is not like you, think your failure is then echoed by everyone else. It's just not so.

You may rest assured that advertising that makes it past my hosts list or which I otherwise encounter in daily life does not have its intended effect upon me. Nor does government propaganda, political correctness, religious mythology, "product placement", "style", and so on for quite a long list.

And yes, just as someone mentioned above, I do live in a very low population area, and I do generally keep to my own property. I also have lots of at-home undertakings that keep me fully engaged, from playing guitar to woodworking (my SO and I are building a home-class interior into an old church), from writing political and social commentary to programming.

When it comes to purchasing a product, there is another approach than "the ad looked good." Analyze your requirements, match these to the known characteristics of the product, see if the costs - both immediate and the relevant TCO factors - fit into your plans for yourself, and so on.

The bottom line is that the world is full of nonsensical messages. Some people get past that. Others are immersed and have no idea what is real, what is factual, what is rational. The existence of people of one type does not preclude the existence of others quite unlike them. Likewise, some people "go with the flow" and let the world happen to them. Others, considerably more proactive, are better described as "happening to the world." Assuming the characteristics of the one set largely apply to the other is naive.

Cheers. :)

The worst part is that when friends and family point out how its obviously a catfish, the victim turns on them and not the scammer

AFAIAC, the worst part is that these people vote.

Radio and TV are artificially expensive. The only reason they require ads or donor support is because the government has set up a completely unnecessary series of extremely high financial walls that must be leapt.

I could set you up a perfectly good AM or FM or television broadcast station for about $100, including a pretty good antenna sufficient for very broad local reach, say 30 miles or so. For a bit more, we can up the power and antenna significantly, and that's the end of your expenses. You can put up a pretty good tower for not much money too, if that's your inclination, and that will increase your range. I have a couple very nice towers myself, as well as one made out of 6X6 lumber that cost me all of about $100 to build (and really, since it's part of the support structure of my home's deck, half that cost would have been spent anyway. Huge antenna on top. :) No ads required to support all this, you can do it out of a cookie jar. 100 watts will get you an amazing amount of coverage, particularly if you're on a frequency no one else nearby is on (we have two stations here. The rest of the bands are completely dead during the day, AM comes alive at night, but you'd still reach the local listeners over those signals if you could set up a 100 watt station.)

But figure in the cost of FCC approved (laughable) equipment and FCC-approved towers and radiation patterns and location limitations and lawyers and licenses and so forth... ok, now you need funding. And a lot of it, too.

Or, create expensive content, again, now you need funding. But that would be a choice.

But radio and TV would be just fine without advertisers. Content would almost certainly change. Likely much for the better, IMHO. Competition would flourish: For instance, instead of the locals only having the option to listen to religious programming, there would be atheist stations (just as there are atheist websites... low cost of entry is required when there isn't a big organization pushing from behind the scenes.) Kids would have other influences other than those pushing mythology. There would be left-wing and right-wing and wingless stations. Sports stations and drama stations. Those who create their own content would flourish.

But you're not going to get that. No, you're going to get clear channel and Fox and etc. churning your ears and/or eyes with a very, very limited selection of programming that they want you to be exposed to, and very little else.

And the people who buy the argument that stations might interfere with each other, therefore we need all of the above impositions... they'll see to it that this will not change. It's a perfect situation under which to create and maintain a robust propaganda machine. And no surprise, that's precisely what we ended up with.

Exactly. The "we" discussed in TFS, and presumably in whatever it is summarizing, is not me, and therefore as far as I am concerned, resolve to a "them", as in, the person(s) who wrote it.

I don't pay any attention to advertising at all unless I am proactively seeking a product in a store, virtual or otherwise, and then only to specific instances that are relevant.

I don't watch broadcast television, I don't read billboards, I completely ignore banners and side-column ads, I don't open mail that isn't from a lawyer, a utility or some faction of the government, and I neither care what people want to put in ads nor am I affected by said content.

The only effect web ads have on me, at least until the IP shows up in my hosts list, is to slow pages down. Once it gets into the hosts list, it turns into an error message instead of an ad, and I ignore those too, while my browsing speeds back up (if you're not using your hosts file to nuke advertisers and their cookie-mining minions, you're foregoing a great tool, presuming you don't actually want to see ads, which I suppose is not a given.)

The only way they'll actually get my attention is with a sexy lady, and as the industry's kowtowing to political correctness has caused them to divest themselves of that particular tool, the advertisers, "they get nothing."

Your 9th amendment thesis is wrong. The 9th, in its entirety:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

There's absolutely nothing in the 9th that says states can override federal law authorized by the constitution. Not a word, not a syllable.

As for your idea of modifying copyright, bravo. Sounds fabulous to me. Now make it happen. That is where the rubber meets the road (this is slashdot, cars must be brought to bear on the matter at some point or geek cred decays.)