Jessica in particular caught and corrected (some of ) my many errors, while pam encouraged me to think about the definition of the public domain in ways that have been vital to this book. Michael suggested valuable edits—though I did not always listen. Historical work by carla hesse, martha woodmansee, and Mark rose has been central to my analysis, which also could not have existed but for work on the governance of the commons by Elinor Ostrom, Charlotte hess, and Carol Rose. Kembrew McLeod and siva vaidhyanathan inspired my work on music and sampling. Peter Jaszi was named in my last book as the person who most influenced. Beyond the academy, my main debt is to the board members and staff of Creative commons, Science commons, and ccLearn. Creative commons, on whose board i am proud to have served, is the brainchild of Larry lessig and Hal Abelson; Science commons and ccLearn are divisions of Creative commons that I helped to set up which concentrate on the sciences and on education, respectively. The practical experience of building a creative commons with private tools—of allowing creative collaboration with people you have never met—has shaped this book far beyond the chapter devoted.
Review : Met, sine, thesis bike helmet
Balfour Smith, the coordinator of our Center, shepherded the manuscript through its many drafts with skill and erudition. Duke is the most essayer interdisciplinary university i have ever encountered and so the obligations flow beyond the law school. Professor Anthony kelley, a brilliant composer, not only educated me ibisworld in composition and the history of musical borrowing but co-taught a class on musical borrowing that dramatically influenced Chapter. Colleagues in the business school—particularly jim Anton, a great economic modeler and greater volleyball partner, and Wes Cohen, a leading empiricist—all left their marks. Robert cook-deegan, leader of dukes Center for Public Genomics, and my wife lauren Dame, associate director of the genome Ethics, law and Policy center, provided crucial support to my work with the sciences in general and synthetic biology in particular. I was also inspired and informed by colleagues and students in computer science, english, history, and political science. But the work i am describing here is—as the last chapter suggests—something that goes far beyond the boundaries of one institution. A large group of intellectual property scholars have influenced my ideas. Most importantly, larry lessig and Yochai benkler have each given far more than they received from me in the sharing economy of scholarship. If the ideas I describe here have a future, it is because of the astounding leadership Larry has provided and the insights into the wealth of networks that Yochai brings. Jessica litman, pam Samuelson, michael Carroll, julie cohen, peggy radin, carol Rose, rebecca eisenberg, mark lemley, terry fisher, justin Hughes, neil Netanel, wendy gordon, david Nimmer, tyler Ochoa, tim wu, and many others have all taught me things I needed to know.
Arti rais remarkable theoretical and empirical studies have helped me to understand everything from software patents to synthetic biology. Jerry reichman has supplied energy, insight, and a spirited and cosmopolitan focus on the multiple ways in which property can be protected. Jed Purdy and neil siegel commented on drafts and provided crucial insights on the construction of my argument. Catherine fisk, jim Salzman, Stuart Benjamin, jonathan wiener, mitu gulati, jeff Powell, Chris Schroeder, and many, many others helped out—sometimes without knowing it, but often at the cost of the scarcest of all resources: time. Amidst a brilliant group of research assistants, jordi weinstock and david Silverstein stood out. Jordi showed a dogged ability to track down obscure 1950s songs that was almost scary. Additional thanks go to jennifer ma, tolu Adewale, paulina essay Orchard, and Emily sauter.
Want that insignia torn off your car, dad? Then it would be in the public domain, right? My colleagues at duke are one of the main influences on my work. I am lucky enough to work in the only center for the Study of the public Domain in the academic world. I owe the biggest debt of gratitude to my colleague jennifer Jenkins, who directs the center and who has influenced every chapter in this book. David Lange brought me gift to duke. His work on the public domain has always been an inspiration to mine.
Reading, chapter 8: a creative, commons, further reading, chapter 9: An evidence-Free zone. Reading Chapter 10: An Environmentalism for Information Further reading Notes Acknowledgments The ideas for this book come from the theoretical and practical work i have been doing for the last ten years. None of that work has been done alone. As a result, the list of people to whom i am indebted makes Oscar night acknowledgments look haiku-terse by comparison. Here i can mention only a few. I beg pardon for the inevitable omissions. First and foremost, my family has tolerated my eccentricities and fixations and moderated them with gentle and deserved mockery.
Met, sine, thesis, helmet user reviews : 1 out of 5 - 1 reviews
The author has made this online version available under. Creative, commons Alike.0 License. You can buy a paper copy here. Contents, acknowledgments, preface: Comprised of at least Jelly? Chapter 1: Why, intellectual Property? Reading, chapter 2: Thomas Jefferson, writes a letter, further.
Reading, chapter 3: The second Enclosure, movement. Further reading, chapter 4: The Internet Threat, further. Reading, chapter 5: The farmers Tale: An Allegory, further. Reading, chapter 6: i got a, mashup. Further reading, chapter 7: The Enclosure of Science and Technology: Two case, reimagined studies, further.
That is, direct and explicit instructions to think outside the box did not help. That this advice is useless when actually trying to solve a problem involving a real box should effectively have killed off the much widely disseminated—and therefore, much more dangerous—metaphor that out-of-the-box thinking spurs creativity. After all, with one simple yet brilliant experiment, researchers had proven that the conceptual link between thinking outside the box and creativity was a myth. Of course, in real life you wont find boxes. But you will find numerous situations where a creative breakthrough is staring you in the face.
They are much more common than you probably think. From, inside the box: a proven System of Creativity for Breakthrough Results. Copyright 2014 Drew boyd. The public Domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind by james boyle. James boyle, enclosing the commons of the mind. Copyright 2008 by james boyle.
Wiggle, met, sine, thesis, road Helmet road Helmets
Most people assume that 60 percent to 90 percent of the group given the clue would solve the puzzle easily. In fact, only a meager 25 percent did. Whats more, in statistical terms, this 5 percent improvement over the subjects of guilfords original study is insignificant. In other words, the difference could easily be due to what statisticians call sampling error. Lets look a little more closely at these surprising results. Solving this problem requires retainer people to literally think outside the box. Yet participants performance was not improved even when they were given specific instructions to.
Indeed, the concept enjoyed such strong popularity and intuitive appeal that no one bothered to check the facts. No one, that is, before two different research —Clarke burnham with Kenneth davis, and Joseph Alba with Robert weisberg—ran another experiment using the same puzzle but a different research procedure. Both teams followed the same protocol of dividing participants into two groups. The first group was given the same instructions as the participants in guilfords experiment. The second group was told that the solution required the lines to be drawn outside the imaginary box bordering the dot array. In other words, the trick was revealed in advance. Would you like to guess the percentage of the participants in the second group who solved the puzzle correctly?
simple, clients tended to admit they should have thought of it themselves. Because they hadnt, they were obviously not as creative or smart as they had previously thought, and needed to call in creative experts. Or so their consultants would have them believe. The nine-dot puzzle and the phrase thinking outside the box became metaphors for creativity and spread like wildfire in, management, psychology, the creative arts, engineering, and personal improvement circles. There seemed to be no end to the insights that could be offered under the banner of thinking outside the box. Speakers, trainers, training program developers, organizational consultants, and university professors all had much to say about the vast benefits of outside-the-box thinking. It was an appealing and apparently convincing message.
If you have tried solving this puzzle, you can confirm that your first attempts usually involve sketching lines inside the imaginary square. The correct solution, however, requires you to draw lines that extend beyond the area defined by the dots. At the first stages, all the participants in guilfords original study censored their own thinking by limiting the possible solutions to those within the imaginary square (even those who eventually solved the puzzle). Even though they werent instructed to restrain themselves from considering such a solution, they were unable to see the white space essay beyond the squares boundaries. Only 20 percent managed to break out of the illusory confinement and continue their lines in the white space surrounding the dots. The symmetry, the beautiful simplicity of the solution, and the fact that 80 percent of the participants were effectively blinded by the boundaries of the square led guilford and the readers of his books to leap to the sweeping conclusion that creativity requires you. The idea went viral (via 1970s-era media and word of mouth, of course).
Met sine Thesis road bike helmet Update - bikerumor
Although studying is considered a legitimate scientific nowadays, it is still a very young one. In the early 1970s, a psychologist named. Guilford was one of essay the first academic researchers who dared to conduct a study of creativity. One of guilfords most famous studies was the nine-dot puzzle. He challenged research subjects to connect all nine dots using just four straight lines without lifting their pencils from the page. Today many people are familiar with this puzzle and its solution. In the 1970s, however, very few were even aware of its existence, even though it had been around for almost a century.