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.

It is primarily about the psychological aspect. If you saw a car driving without a driver, you would have the police have panicked calls. Same if the person is reading at the wheel or whatnot. This is not about taking over the wheel, this is about not panicking the other drivers with a behavior which is unexpected on the road. My guess is that such requirement would be dropped after a while when self driving car pick up. But as long as 99.9% of the driver have a certain expectation, you pretty much have to deliver that expectation even in a self driving car.

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.

most initial propagation will be hemispherical in 1/r , so even our initial broadcast would be lost after a few AU, well beyond a light year. Our radio broadcast and tv with their power *never* reached alpha centauri before disappearing in the intergalactic noise at those frequencies. The only broadcast which may have reached some other star are the one semi directional sent intentionally (toward M24 IIRC?). And they were only of a few minutes total. Maybe 1 hour top.

The only things pretty much they would be detecting are intentional signal sent by ET "we are here!". But here is the food for thought : beside that 2 or 4 broadcast totaling about 1 hour or so, we would not be able to detect ourselves.

It was a spouse which found out their wife/husband cheated on them using such web site and decided to go vigilante and make life a living hell for other cheaters.

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. :)

That is why 1) noscript 2) adblock 3) two screens while watching TV, 1 for the film and 1 for browsing or doing stuff while advertising runs.
pretty much the only advertising I see are the rare panels on the side road, 99% of which are for product which I will never use. In fact I would be unable to tell you what current ad runs at the moment anywhere.

For the better or the worst, I am cut off from advertising. As for taking decision subconsciously , it is highly overrated. Sure you may influence overall people , like the infamous butt distance limit (forgot the name : in supermarket if you pack product too much each and make the alley between product not wide enough people buy less of *all* products, because our natural propension of keeping distance and feeling privately invaded when too near each others. But a wider alley and people buy on average a little more from all product in the alley). But most of the stuff is subttle - as in it only has a Limited influence and can only be checked over mass statistic. In other word you won't force people subconsciously against their will to buy a product by advertising changing color and fonts, but over the mass you may change your market share a bit.


"You've probably made thousands of decisions that have been very subtly manipulated by corporations" you amy done thousand decision which were subtely or even much less ubtely influence by everybody. When was the last time your peer, your significant other, your family, your friend did NOT influence your decision ? Saying corp influenced our decision a way or another is as bland and as empty as saying we are influenced by our peer. No shit sherlock. But the difference is that our peer are allowed to influence us directly (like the oh no so subtle reminder from my girlfriend that our 5 year anniversary is coming) whereas for some reason people get uneasy when corp do it. So they have to go for the subtle. But frankly, their influence is vastly more limited than your peer's.