Your strategy for dealing with the intrusive and obnoxious is to listen longer?
Strange as it may sound, this is the best way to 'hurt' the marketer. Even better is if you play along and feign interest in what they are selling, not only wasting their time, but making them think they are closing a sale, then suddenly snatching it away from them. That is if you really want to be nasty. On the other hand you might just stop to think that this is someone who is trying, like everyone else, to make a living, and that while you are not interested in their product, someone else might be. In that case simply say "I'm sorry, I'm not interested, you are wasting your time here," and they'll get out of your face quicksmart.
I shouldn't have argued from Sony v Universal to begin with. I should have cited the Audio Home Recording Act, which says that consumers can make digital audio recordings of broadcasts.
You most definitely should have! OK, so in the US, recording off the radio is cool.
> Clearly this does not apply to a situation where a song is being copied in lieu of being purchased.
It isn't clear to me. The Court actually said that broadcasters would have no objection to expanding their audience. I think this holds true to radio broadcasts.
OK firstly, the non-objection of broadcasters (or the other owners) was a matter of evidence (fact), not a point of law. In the case of Radio broadcasts of music, the artists, record companies and the RIAA might, as a matter of fact, have some objection. The point the court was making in Sony v Universal, was that some of the timeshifting was actually authorized by the copyright holders. So in the case of radio broadcasts "this" does not hold true.
One standard they cite is that the recordings aren't made for personal gain.
Indeed, but allow me to quote the court as to what criteria then come into play: A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.
In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting (my emphasis)
People don't usually tape songs from the Radio, not for the purposes of time-shifting, but merely to have a library of songs. Such a library of songs then takes up exactly the same ground that purchasing recorded music inhabits. "Some meaningful likelihood of future harm" would seem to be much easier to demonstrate in such circumstances. More than that, you can be pretty sure the RIAA have done their homework on gathering 'evidence' for such harm. They certainly are doing so in regard to file sharing.
I would argue that the Sony-Betamax case should apply to radio just as it does to TV, which means that you can tape radio for personal use.
Maybe I misunderstood the case, but my impression of the Sony-Betamax case was that it was a case concerning 'authorization,' that is, whether in selling VCRs, Sony was encouraging its customers to the infringe copyright. It was in demonstrating a legitimate use for the technology, that the court decided that 'time-shifting' (the pre-recording of programmes for later viewing), constituted a fair-use. IMHO, nothing in that case gives people a blanket right to copy broadcasts (TV or radio) simply "for personal use."
Additionally the court found it significant that in choosing to watch a particular TV broadcast at a later time (presumably with all the adds in tact), the broadcasters (and/or creators of the show) were suffering no financial loss. Clearly this does not apply to a situation where a song is being copied in lieu of being purchased.
The fact situation is unlikely to occur with regard to the recording off the radio. But you are right, I should have written "In almost all jurisdictions this constitutes a facial breach." Clearly there are 'fair-use' (and other) exceptions.
I don't know about the legality of recording off of the radio or not
Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright. In fact in some jurisdicitions playing the radio in a public (or sometime not so public) area counts as a public performance of copyrighted material and is also a breach of copyright.
... but it is obviously much less harmful given my points above.
I don't see how the fact that more effort is involved reduces the harm. Either you agree with the statutory monopoly set up by copyright law, or you don't. If you do, then any copying, not matter how easily this can be accomplished, must be seen as an illegitimate inteference with the owners exclusive right to copy the material.
One involes killing people, the other doesn't. Most reasonable people are against killing humans. But then you've got Saddam, Al Qaida, etc, who obviously see things differently and WOULD say that it is fine.
Yes, but this raises the question as the whether YOU want to argue that it is OK for them to kill, simply because they have a morality other than that shared by "most reasonble people"? If you think it is not OK for them to kill on that basis you would seem to have lost the argument the original poster was putting against moral relativism.
and then let's all laugh at the fact that this guy somehow managed to get his "case" heard by the highest court in australia.
No he didn't get his case heard, that's what that transcript was about, it was an appeal from a refusal to grant leave to have his case heard. The reason the High Court (as opposed to some lower court) heard this application, is that court has originial jurisdicition in regard to disputed returns in federal elections and the applicant stood as a candidate for the seat of Fraser, thereby enlivening his right at least to apply for leave to be heard.
First off, it seems the pro-global warming crowd are relying on technology themselves: medieval technology. They're relying on the ability of medieval people to accurately measure then-present temperature over the ability of modern people to measure temperature 1000 years ago.
First off the pro-global warming crowd are the crowd that want to keep on buring fossil fuels:P
But seriously. The assements of global temperature do not rely on medieval technology, not the ability of medieval people to measure temperature. Most of the picture of changes in atmopheric concentration and in temperature has come from an examination of various ice core samples. Far from relying on medieval technology, the assement of temperatures prior to the 'intrumental record' (1860s), requires assaying the ice to determine the relative concentrations of various oxygen isotopes and correlating these to surface temperature.
the French and Belgians seem to be doing just fine with their heavy reliance on nuclear reactors for civillian power generation
... unpopular though these facilities may be. Here you have a point. One can imagine that in meeting their Kyoto obligations, they will in fact be increasing their reliance on nuclear fuels. This is something that a lot of people who are (in my opion correctly) concerned about climatic change fail to take on board. The only realistic alternative to fossil fuels, at this time, are nuclear fuels.
Do you deny that there are those who despise the United States, and are strong detractors of capitalism, who use environmental issues against their opponents, regardless of the scientific basis for their arguments?
They may exist, but are an insignificant proportion the very large body of people who are quite concerned about environmental degradation. To focus on these people, to the point where you draw a dichotomy based on this groups is very cheap propaganda. It also evidences a certain level of paranoia in your view of environmentalism.
To demonstrate:Within the American population there are a) those who live quiet peacible lives and b) those who embrace murder as a way of life, who will utilise any means to satisfy their sadistic urges. Should someone regard this characterisation of the types of Americans as unfair, you simply reply: Do you deny that Charles Manson exists, and that he is American?.
How can environmental issues be used as a weapon? Easily. Look at the Kyoto treaty... That is clearly a weapon to wield against the US and capitalism...
Yeah right and invasion of Iraq is clearly a way that type b) Americans are using to satisfy their urges? This is not reasoning, this is simply hysteria and paranoia. Firstly the Kyoto Protcol is not the result of your (relatively insignificant) type b) environemtalist, its largely the product of serious scientific and economic analysis carried out in developed countries which will need to make sacrifices
comensurate with those the US would be required to make. The old Soviet Union position at the IPCC, you might remember, was to do nothing (on the basis that warming would allow wheat production at far more northern lattitudes than ever before).
in the case of a nuclear power plant, we can't really take that sort of risk
Supposing for a moment that the threat posed by fossil fuel consumption is as great as the scientific community is making out. What alternative form of energy do we have that can actually deliver?
Risks can never be entirely eliminated, risk managament is about minimising and balancing contending risks. Concievably, the risks posed by nuclear power plants will be dwarfed by those presented by global climatic change. In such a situation switching from fossil to nuclear fuels would seem to be the only realistic option.
To deny it would be to say that the people *don't* know what's best for themselves.
Isn't is just possible that (some) people *don't* know whats best for themselves? Dunno, but it might explain the existence of heroin addicts, for instance, or why people vote for political parties that are in fact acting against their best interests.
More fundamentally, your analysis fails to distinguish between what is an apparently rational choice for the individual, as an individual, and what is a rational choice for a society as a society. That is to say, what is facially in the individual's interest might not, when the interaction of the totality of such individual rationalities result in a situation that in that individuals best interests. Now this migh be otherwise if all players had perfect anticipation of all other players moves. It might even be different if all players were game theorists who might have half a chance at working out the likely moves of other players. But this is the real world, and in the main people make their choices on a basis of short term hedonic gain. "Uhh I've taken heroin, uhh if feels nice, I think it take it again!"
Of course this sounds wildly undemocratic, so I hasten to add that I, personally would not want to live in any society where I did not have the right to vote the government out of office. On the other hand we can fetishize 'popular sovereignty' to the point where it becomes impossible to say "people *don't* know what's best for themselves." And we should never put ourselves into an ideological position where we can no longer speak the truth.
Well, don't forget that CNN and NPR had US Army "psy-ops" officers working in their newsrooms as "interns".
OK! That explains it. I have been utterly unable to watch CNN (have to rely on BBC instead), because I got this gutwrenching feeling the whole time that psy-ops were being practised on me and not just the Iraqi population/army.
My personal take is that you can never get a true picture from a single side. The world is saturated with American media. Seeing news from other sources acts as a sanity check.
Moreover to a viewer saturated with American media, these other sources are likely to appear as 'biased'
And in reality you can trademark an existing, generic term, under certain conditions. Apple Computer comes to mind.
The use of 'Apple' pertaining to computers is in no way generic. Noone says 'my Apple' meaning my 'my Sun box' or 'my Intel box' etc. 'Genericity' does not simply mean a word in everyday usage. For the same reason the argument that Google resembles the word Gogol is irrelevant. Assuming there were no other search engines by that name, Google would have been free to call themselves 'Gogol'.
You could have Apple Real-estate, or Apple Shoes, without problem. But if you tried Apple Computer Consulting you might be asking for trouble.
Traditionally that was the case. What was necessary was the the brand was "sufficiently adapted to distinguish" the make (ie. all of the above would be work, but 'Apple Fruitsellers' might not), and that noone else in the same category of goods was using it. However under TRIPS (the WTO IP agreement), there is now protection for 'famous name' brands. Meaning that the big brands have protection across the range of all categories (without even having to pay for registration in each category). Of course this ditches the old liberal principle of equality before the law, but since the large corporations wrote these laws that's hardly surprising. Whether the 'Apple' brand name is famous enough to attract this special protection is a question for the courts to resolve.
Bottom line: Google is a perfectly valid trademark.
Absolutely. But if the use of the word 'google' becomes generic (ie if you can 'google' on alta vista), it may not remain so.
'Xerography' is not the same string as 'Xerox.' Nor even so visually similar as to be deceptive. Meaning that Xerox would not be able to defend 'Xerography' as a trademark pertaining to photocopiers, but that doesn't say anything about their exclusive rights to the word 'Xerox'. In any case the Xerox example is very borderline, arguable Xerox failed and the verb 'to xerox' or the noun 'Xerox Machine' have entered into generic use.
I thought that was patents that you had to defend?
The problem Google is faced with here is defending their trademark from Genericity. At least in some jurisdiction around the world, when your trademark becomes 'generic' you loose the right to enforce it. That is why Xerox pushed the name 'Photocopier' when they realised people were begining to call it a 'Xerox machine.' Problem is, if 'Xerox machine' enters into the language, any manufacturer could call their photocopier a "Xerox machine" and Xerox would be unable to stop them. This is also why McDonalds threatens any one who calls their restaurant McX.
What is wrong with letting the free market do the price raising?
1. Because the free market (as presently constituted) fails to allocate finite energy resources efficiently over time.
Specifically the exchange technology currently available to the market (money), fails to recognise that energy is in a category sui generis. That is to say energy IS wealth. Every utilitsation of wealth is a utilisation of energy, whether this energy is in a 'natural' form, or is expressed as human labour.
Perhaps it would be different if we used an 'energy standard' (like the old gold standard), but the current commodity neutral exchange technology fails in this fashion: A finite store of some particular energy reserve (eg oil), is consumed subject to a certain level of inefficiency. Now the market will find it 'inefficient' to invest an amount of money in rectifying that inefficiency until such time as the energy reserve dwindles and the price rises to a certain level. Until such time the energy is wasted (which might be as much as 25% with oil), resulting in a net loss of wealth.
2. More obviously to the point. As currently instituted, the market fails to percieve climatic change, it is an 'externality.' Your countrymen, when they buy the fuel that drives them to work or their children's library, do not pay for the destruction of Australian homes, properties and forests, (and only as taxpayers forthe destruction of American homes, properties and forests) for which their (and indeed Australian driver's) fule consupmtion is responsible.
The 'free market' is an efficient basal means for the allocation of resources. More often than not, well intentioned, but poorly designed, interventions in the market result in an overall net loss. That, however, does not mean the free market is either the efficient of all possible allocation schemes, nor even that it is a sufficient system for allocation. Maybe it is not easy to discern what kind of intervention will better the markets efficiency, but that, after all, is why we have economists. Well the pragmatic economists, not the ones who make a religion out of the free market
Yes I agree. Unfortunately that is *NOT* how the term is being used. In designing for the 'average' or 'regular' user, *nix GUI designers (at least Gnome designers) are aiming "for the corporate desktop," that is the 'average' win* user, not the 'average' Gnome user (nor even that 'average' likely future Gnome user). The idea of course, is that the average win* user will being to use Gnome (or KDE or whatever), but that is wild fantasy.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely there are different 'economies'.
Strange as it may sound, this is the best way to 'hurt' the marketer. Even better is if you play along and feign interest in what they are selling, not only wasting their time, but making them think they are closing a sale, then suddenly snatching it away from them. That is if you really want to be nasty. On the other hand you might just stop to think that this is someone who is trying, like everyone else, to make a living, and that while you are not interested in their product, someone else might be. In that case simply say "I'm sorry, I'm not interested, you are wasting your time here," and they'll get out of your face quicksmart.
Cool! Thanks for the reference.
Bzzzt!
Making a "backup" for your own use is exactly the same as time-shifing TV shows, which "in almost all jurisidctions" is legal.In which jurisdicitions, apart from the US federal jurisidiction, is time-shifting TV shows legal?
I shouldn't have argued from Sony v Universal to begin with. I should have cited the Audio Home Recording Act, which says that consumers can make digital audio recordings of broadcasts.
You most definitely should have! OK, so in the US, recording off the radio is cool.
> Clearly this does not apply to a situation where a song is being copied in lieu of being purchased.
It isn't clear to me. The Court actually said that broadcasters would have no objection to expanding their audience. I think this holds true to radio broadcasts.
OK firstly, the non-objection of broadcasters (or the other owners) was a matter of evidence (fact), not a point of law. In the case of Radio broadcasts of music, the artists, record companies and the RIAA might, as a matter of fact, have some objection. The point the court was making in Sony v Universal, was that some of the timeshifting was actually authorized by the copyright holders. So in the case of radio broadcasts "this" does not hold true.
One standard they cite is that the recordings aren't made for personal gain.
Indeed, but allow me to quote the court as to what criteria then come into play:
A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.
In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting (my emphasis)
People don't usually tape songs from the Radio, not for the purposes of time-shifting, but merely to have a library of songs. Such a library of songs then takes up exactly the same ground that purchasing recorded music inhabits. "Some meaningful likelihood of future harm" would seem to be much easier to demonstrate in such circumstances. More than that, you can be pretty sure the RIAA have done their homework on gathering 'evidence' for such harm. They certainly are doing so in regard to file sharing.
Maybe I misunderstood the case, but my impression of the Sony-Betamax case was that it was a case concerning 'authorization,' that is, whether in selling VCRs, Sony was encouraging its customers to the infringe copyright. It was in demonstrating a legitimate use for the technology, that the court decided that 'time-shifting' (the pre-recording of programmes for later viewing), constituted a fair-use. IMHO, nothing in that case gives people a blanket right to copy broadcasts (TV or radio) simply "for personal use."
Additionally the court found it significant that in choosing to watch a particular TV broadcast at a later time (presumably with all the adds in tact), the broadcasters (and/or creators of the show) were suffering no financial loss. Clearly this does not apply to a situation where a song is being copied in lieu of being purchased.
The fact situation is unlikely to occur with regard to the recording off the radio. But you are right, I should have written "In almost all jurisdictions this constitutes a facial breach." Clearly there are 'fair-use' (and other) exceptions.
Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright. In fact in some jurisdicitions playing the radio in a public (or sometime not so public) area counts as a public performance of copyrighted material and is also a breach of copyright.
I don't see how the fact that more effort is involved reduces the harm. Either you agree with the statutory monopoly set up by copyright law, or you don't. If you do, then any copying, not matter how easily this can be accomplished, must be seen as an illegitimate inteference with the owners exclusive right to copy the material.
Yes, but this raises the question as the whether YOU want to argue that it is OK for them to kill, simply because they have a morality other than that shared by "most reasonble people"? If you think it is not OK for them to kill on that basis you would seem to have lost the argument the original poster was putting against moral relativism.
No he didn't get his case heard, that's what that transcript was about, it was an appeal from a refusal to grant leave to have his case heard. The reason the High Court (as opposed to some lower court) heard this application, is that court has originial jurisdicition in regard to disputed returns in federal elections and the applicant stood as a candidate for the seat of Fraser, thereby enlivening his right at least to apply for leave to be heard.
Which is probably because my views are based on first hand experience.
Those who set the environmentalist agenda often fall into the b) campSo you say. Maybe if you repeat it often enough it will become true. It simply isn't right now.
One would hope not.
First off the pro-global warming crowd are the crowd that want to keep on buring fossil fuels :P
But seriously. The assements of global temperature do not rely on medieval technology, not the ability of medieval people to measure temperature. Most of the picture of changes in atmopheric concentration and in temperature has come from an examination of various ice core samples. Far from relying on medieval technology, the assement of temperatures prior to the 'intrumental record' (1860s), requires assaying the ice to determine the relative concentrations of various oxygen isotopes and correlating these to surface temperature.
the French and Belgians seem to be doing just fine with their heavy reliance on nuclear reactors for civillian power generationThey may exist, but are an insignificant proportion the very large body of people who are quite concerned about environmental degradation. To focus on these people, to the point where you draw a dichotomy based on this groups is very cheap propaganda. It also evidences a certain level of paranoia in your view of environmentalism.
To demonstrate:Within the American population there are a) those who live quiet peacible lives and b) those who embrace murder as a way of life, who will utilise any means to satisfy their sadistic urges. Should someone regard this characterisation of the types of Americans as unfair, you simply reply: Do you deny that Charles Manson exists, and that he is American?.
How can environmental issues be used as a weapon? Easily. Look at the Kyoto treatyYeah right and invasion of Iraq is clearly a way that type b) Americans are using to satisfy their urges? This is not reasoning, this is simply hysteria and paranoia. Firstly the Kyoto Protcol is not the result of your (relatively insignificant) type b) environemtalist, its largely the product of serious scientific and economic analysis carried out in developed countries which will need to make sacrifices comensurate with those the US would be required to make. The old Soviet Union position at the IPCC, you might remember, was to do nothing (on the basis that warming would allow wheat production at far more northern lattitudes than ever before).
Supposing for a moment that the threat posed by fossil fuel consumption is as great as the scientific community is making out. What alternative form of energy do we have that can actually deliver?
Risks can never be entirely eliminated, risk managament is about minimising and balancing contending risks. Concievably, the risks posed by nuclear power plants will be dwarfed by those presented by global climatic change. In such a situation switching from fossil to nuclear fuels would seem to be the only realistic option.
Isn't is just possible that (some) people *don't* know whats best for themselves? Dunno, but it might explain the existence of heroin addicts, for instance, or why people vote for political parties that are in fact acting against their best interests.
More fundamentally, your analysis fails to distinguish between what is an apparently rational choice for the individual, as an individual, and what is a rational choice for a society as a society. That is to say, what is facially in the individual's interest might not, when the interaction of the totality of such individual rationalities result in a situation that in that individuals best interests. Now this migh be otherwise if all players had perfect anticipation of all other players moves. It might even be different if all players were game theorists who might have half a chance at working out the likely moves of other players. But this is the real world, and in the main people make their choices on a basis of short term hedonic gain. "Uhh I've taken heroin, uhh if feels nice, I think it take it again!"
Of course this sounds wildly undemocratic, so I hasten to add that I, personally would not want to live in any society where I did not have the right to vote the government out of office. On the other hand we can fetishize 'popular sovereignty' to the point where it becomes impossible to say "people *don't* know what's best for themselves." And we should never put ourselves into an ideological position where we can no longer speak the truth.
OK! That explains it. I have been utterly unable to watch CNN (have to rely on BBC instead), because I got this gutwrenching feeling the whole time that psy-ops were being practised on me and not just the Iraqi population/army.
Moreover to a viewer saturated with American media, these other sources are likely to appear as 'biased'
Food is for the weak!
The use of 'Apple' pertaining to computers is in no way generic. Noone says 'my Apple' meaning my 'my Sun box' or 'my Intel box' etc. 'Genericity' does not simply mean a word in everyday usage. For the same reason the argument that Google resembles the word Gogol is irrelevant. Assuming there were no other search engines by that name, Google would have been free to call themselves 'Gogol'.
You could have Apple Real-estate, or Apple Shoes, without problem. But if you tried Apple Computer Consulting you might be asking for trouble.Traditionally that was the case. What was necessary was the the brand was "sufficiently adapted to distinguish" the make (ie. all of the above would be work, but 'Apple Fruitsellers' might not), and that noone else in the same category of goods was using it. However under TRIPS (the WTO IP agreement), there is now protection for 'famous name' brands. Meaning that the big brands have protection across the range of all categories (without even having to pay for registration in each category). Of course this ditches the old liberal principle of equality before the law, but since the large corporations wrote these laws that's hardly surprising. Whether the 'Apple' brand name is famous enough to attract this special protection is a question for the courts to resolve.
Bottom line: Google is a perfectly valid trademark.Absolutely. But if the use of the word 'google' becomes generic (ie if you can 'google' on alta vista), it may not remain so.
'Xerography' is not the same string as 'Xerox.' Nor even so visually similar as to be deceptive. Meaning that Xerox would not be able to defend 'Xerography' as a trademark pertaining to photocopiers, but that doesn't say anything about their exclusive rights to the word 'Xerox'. In any case the Xerox example is very borderline, arguable Xerox failed and the verb 'to xerox' or the noun 'Xerox Machine' have entered into generic use.
The problem Google is faced with here is defending their trademark from Genericity. At least in some jurisdiction around the world, when your trademark becomes 'generic' you loose the right to enforce it. That is why Xerox pushed the name 'Photocopier' when they realised people were begining to call it a 'Xerox machine.' Problem is, if 'Xerox machine' enters into the language, any manufacturer could call their photocopier a "Xerox machine" and Xerox would be unable to stop them. This is also why McDonalds threatens any one who calls their restaurant McX.
Should read: the most efficient of all possible allocation schemes.
1. Because the free market (as presently constituted) fails to allocate finite energy resources efficiently over time.
Specifically the exchange technology currently available to the market (money), fails to recognise that energy is in a category sui generis. That is to say energy IS wealth. Every utilitsation of wealth is a utilisation of energy, whether this energy is in a 'natural' form, or is expressed as human labour.
Perhaps it would be different if we used an 'energy standard' (like the old gold standard), but the current commodity neutral exchange technology fails in this fashion: A finite store of some particular energy reserve (eg oil), is consumed subject to a certain level of inefficiency. Now the market will find it 'inefficient' to invest an amount of money in rectifying that inefficiency until such time as the energy reserve dwindles and the price rises to a certain level. Until such time the energy is wasted (which might be as much as 25% with oil), resulting in a net loss of wealth.
2. More obviously to the point. As currently instituted, the market fails to percieve climatic change, it is an 'externality.' Your countrymen, when they buy the fuel that drives them to work or their children's library, do not pay for the destruction of Australian homes, properties and forests, (and only as taxpayers forthe destruction of American homes, properties and forests) for which their (and indeed Australian driver's) fule consupmtion is responsible.
The 'free market' is an efficient basal means for the allocation of resources. More often than not, well intentioned, but poorly designed, interventions in the market result in an overall net loss. That, however, does not mean the free market is either the efficient of all possible allocation schemes, nor even that it is a sufficient system for allocation. Maybe it is not easy to discern what kind of intervention will better the markets efficiency, but that, after all, is why we have economists. Well the pragmatic economists, not the ones who make a religion out of the free market
Yes I agree. Unfortunately that is *NOT* how the term is being used. In designing for the 'average' or 'regular' user, *nix GUI designers (at least Gnome designers) are aiming "for the corporate desktop," that is the 'average' win* user, not the 'average' Gnome user (nor even that 'average' likely future Gnome user). The idea of course, is that the average win* user will being to use Gnome (or KDE or whatever), but that is wild fantasy.