Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

  • Recount­ing the Dead — NYTimes​.com

    “So what? Above a cer­tain count, do the num­bers even mat­ter? Well, yes. The dif­fer­ence between the two esti­mates is large enough to change the way we look at the war. The new esti­mate sug­gests that more men died as a result of the Civil War than from all other Amer­i­can wars com­bined. Approx­i­mately 1 in 10 white men of mil­i­tary age in 1860 died from the con­flict, a sub­stan­tial increase from the 1 in 13 implied by the tra­di­tional esti­mate. The death toll is also one of our most impor­tant mea­sures of the war’s social and eco­nomic costs. A higher death toll, for exam­ple, implies that more women were wid­owed and more chil­dren were orphaned as a result of the war than has long been sus­pected. In other words, the war touched more lives and com­mu­ni­ties more deeply than we thought, and thus shaped the course of the ensu­ing decades of Amer­i­can his­tory in ways we have not yet fully grasped. True, the war was ter­ri­ble in either case. But just how ter­ri­ble, and just how exten­sive its con­se­quences, can only be known when we have a bet­ter count of the Civil War dead.”

    his­tory Civil-​​War morbidity-​​and-​​mortality count­ing
  • Sci­en­tific Amer­i­can Blog Network

    ‘While Adam Smith may be known as the philoso­pher who first pro­moted the idea that “greed is good,” his ear­lier work sug­gests we are not con­demned to exploit oth­ers for the ben­e­fit of a few. In his book The The­ory of Moral Sen­ti­ments, writ­ten in 1759, Smith pro­posed that sym­pa­thy for the plight of those who suf­fer is an inher­ent part of human nature. “When we see one man oppressed or injured by another,” he wrote, “the sym­pa­thy which we feel with the dis­tress of the suf­ferer seems to serve only to ani­mate our fellow-​​feeling with his resent­ment against the offender.” With the cur­rent occu­pa­tion of Wall Street and the inter­na­tional con­dem­na­tion of an eco­nomic model that would take advan­tage of those most in need, we are wit­ness­ing Smith’s pre­dic­tion in action. It is only when the real­ity of people’s suf­fer­ing is hid­den that greed is allowed to dic­tate pol­icy. While our cur­rent sys­tem has cho­sen the greed of the few over the needs of the many, the intel­lec­tual founder of mod­ern cap­i­tal­ism sug­gests it doesn’t need to be this way. “When we think of the anguish of the suf­fer­ers, we take part with them more earnestly against their oppressors.”’

    eco­nom­ics economic-​​crisis com­plex­ol­ogy cultural-​​dynamics
  • Guyot’s spec­i­man sheet | The Collation

    “So who was respon­si­ble and when is it from? Since the sheet is nei­ther signed nor dated, we can only make this asser­tion thanks to the sleuthing done by ear­lier schol­ars, most impor­tantly by John Drey­fus for his col­lec­tion of type spec­i­men fac­sim­i­les, and the source of much of the infor­ma­tion I give here.1 This sheet can be con­nected to its type caster thanks to the detailed records kept by the Dutch printer Christophe Plan­tin and the remark­able longevity of his press, now the home of the Plantin-​​Moretus Museum. Plantin’s 1575 inven­tory of fonts includes the dou­ble pica italic type­face shown on this sheet (it’s the largest size of the italic face, on the right-​​hand col­umn), with a note on the fac­ing page iden­ti­fy­ing it as “Ascen­don­ica Cur­sive de Guiot.” François Guyot was a type caster in Antwerp who worked from the 1540s until his death in 1570, and who was the main caster for Plan­tin from 1555 onwards; he also seems to have worked briefly for John Day in London.”

    nanohis­tory typog­ra­phy type-​​design early-​​modern
  • Thought You Should See This — Dis­rupt­ing the Con­fer­ence Business

    In other words, a stan­dard Open Space: “Essen­tially, it’ll be Wur­man and 100 of his pals (and as he so elo­quently put it, “I know fuck­ing every­body”) talk­ing about a par­tic­u­lar topic for a cer­tain amount of time. The “intel­lec­tual jazz” will be filmed in black and white, and then later released as an inter­ac­tive app. ”I’m ter­ri­fied,” said a coy Wur­man, look­ing absolutely noth­ing of the sort. ”I don’t know if I can pull it off.” And while a gath­er­ing of 100 big­wigs in some ways sounds like the worst kind of elit­ist hor­ror show, I actu­ally found myself root­ing for him. I mean, the world needs con­trar­i­ans, and Wur­man sure is one of them.”

    con­fer­ence non-​​fake-​​Wurman TED meet­ing ideas
  • nth­most » Blog Archive » Why The Inter­state Bat­tery War­ranty is Worthless

    “We Can’t Afford to Just Be Con­sumers Any­more In the clas­si­cal model of eco­nom­ics, a self-​​interested con­sumer like Josh would read­ily accept Interstate’s offer, see­ing no down­side. But Josh is part of a new class of con­sumers who under­stand the idea of “vot­ing with your dol­lar”, and it goes well beyond which brand of toi­let paper you bring to the check­out line. There are sev­eral imme­di­ate down­sides to the “res­o­lu­tion” Inter­state brought to the table: Fire­stone would be rewarded for their ridicu­lous 2-​​hour-​​minimum pol­icy to change the bat­tery. Inter­state would con­tinue to be unable to enforce their war­ranty. The cus­tomer (Josh) would have no rea­son to believe he’d be able to get a new bat­tery in the future with­out all of the non­sense implied by the res­o­lu­tion — namely, pay­ing for the 2 hours of labor him­self and then secur­ing reim­burse­ment from Inter­state. Josh looked at the options and decided not to enable the ven­dors in their bul­ly­ing of Inter­state, and not to encour­age Inter­state to bend over for them. And he real­ized his time in chas­ing down his due was worth more than the value of the prod­uct in question.”

    eco­nom­ics consumer-​​activism lawyers war­ranty object-​​lessons-​​in-​​contract-​​law

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

  • The Myth of the Sole Inven­tor by Mark Lem­ley :: SSRN

    “The the­ory of patent law is based on the idea that a lone genius can solve prob­lems that stump the experts, and that the lone genius will do so only if prop­erly incented. We deny patents on inven­tions that are “obvi­ous” to ordi­nar­ily inno­v­a­tive sci­en­tists in the field. Our goal is to encour­age extra­or­di­nary inven­tions – those that we wouldn’t expect to get with­out the incen­tive of a patent. The canon­i­cal story of the lone genius inven­tor is largely a myth. Edi­son didn’t invent the light bulb; he found a bam­boo fiber that worked bet­ter as a fil­a­ment in the light bulb devel­oped by Sawyer and Man, who in turn built on light­ing work done by oth­ers. Bell filed for his tele­phone patent on the very same day as an inde­pen­dent inven­tor, Elisha Gray; the case ulti­mately went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which filled an entire vol­ume of U.S. Reports resolv­ing the ques­tion of whether Bell could have a patent despite the fact that he hadn’t actu­ally got­ten the inven­tion to work at the time he filed. The Wright Broth­ers were the first to fly at Kitty Hawk, but their plane didn’t work very well, and was quickly sur­passed by air­craft built by Glenn Cur­tis and oth­ers – planes that the Wrights delayed by over a decade with patent law­suits. The point can be made more gen­eral: sur­veys of hun­dreds of sig­nif­i­cant new tech­nolo­gies show that almost all of them are invented simul­ta­ne­ously or nearly simul­ta­ne­ously by two or more teams work­ing inde­pen­dently of each other. Inven­tion appears in sig­nif­i­cant part to be a social, not an indi­vid­ual, phe­nom­e­non. Inven­tors build on the work of those who came before, and new ideas are often “in the air,” or result from changes in mar­ket demand or the avail­abil­ity of new or cheaper start­ing mate­ri­als. And in the few cir­cum­stances where that is not true – where inven­tions truly are “sin­gle­tons” – it is often because of an acci­dent or error in the exper­i­ment rather than a con­scious effort to invent. ”

    patents inno­va­tion intellectual-​​property lawyers

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

  • Sell­ing the Idea of a Chris­t­ian Nation: David Barton’s Alter­nate Intel­lec­tual Uni­verse | Pol­i­tics | Reli­gion Dispatches

    “I use the term “debate” in quotes because it is fraud­u­lent. Even advo­cates of the view­point of the “god­less Con­sti­tu­tion” (such as his­to­ri­ans Isaac Kram­nick and R. Lau­rence Moore) fully under­stand the reli­gious base of Amer­i­can his­tory. They sug­gest sim­ply (as Jon Stew­art was try­ing to get at) that the framers rather delib­er­ately excluded reli­gion, not because they sought an exclu­sion of reli­gion from the pub­lic square, but sim­ply to avoid any spe­cial priv­i­leges for it at the fed­eral level. Even­tu­ally, those views were incor­po­rated into state laws through the 14th Amend­ment, through the plu­ral­iza­tion of Amer­i­can life in the twen­ti­eth cen­tury, and through the epochal court cases of the 1940s through the 1970s. The Chris­t­ian Nation “debate” is not really an intel­lec­tual con­test between legit­i­mate con­tend­ing view­points. Instead, it is a man­u­fac­tured “con­tro­versy” akin to the global warm­ing “debate.” On one side are pur­vey­ors of a rich and com­plex view of the past, includ­ing most his­to­ri­ans who have writ­ten and debated fiercely about the found­ing era. The “other side” is a group of ide­o­log­i­cal entre­pre­neurs who have cre­ated an alter­nate intel­lec­tual uni­verse based on a his­tor­i­cal fun­da­men­tal­ism. In their drive to cre­ate a usable past, they show lit­tle respect for the past as a for­eign country. ”

    Chris­tian­ity con­ser­vatism history-​​is-​​a-​​feature-​​not-​​a-​​bug sto­ry­telling
  • Poor Mojo’s Newswire: Twit­pic qui­etly changes Terms of Ser­vice, they can now sell any pic you upload

    “You retain all own­er­ship rights to Con­tent uploaded to Twit­pic. How­ever, by sub­mit­ting Con­tent to Twit­pic, you hereby grant Twit­pic a world­wide, non-​​exclusive, royalty-​​free, sub­li­censeable and trans­fer­able license to use, repro­duce, dis­trib­ute, pre­pare deriv­a­tive works of, dis­play, and per­form the Con­tent in con­nec­tion with the Ser­vice and Twitpic’s (and its suc­ces­sors’ and affil­i­ates’) busi­ness, includ­ing with­out lim­i­ta­tion for pro­mot­ing and redis­trib­ut­ing part or all of the Ser­vice (and deriv­a­tive works thereof) in any media for­mats and through any media channels.”

    Twit­ter intellectual-​​property EULA licens­ing
  • Trade Secrets and Pub­lished Patent Appli­ca­tions — Patent Law Blog (Patently-​​O)

    “Patent Pub­li­ca­tion Elim­i­nates Trade Secret: In a straight­for­ward opin­ion, the appel­late panel held once pub­lished, the infor­ma­tion in a patent appli­ca­tion should be con­sid­ered “gen­er­ally known and read­ily avail­able” and there­fore are no longer amenable to trade secret protection.  ”

    patents intellectual-​​property lawyers nondis­clo­sure

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links: