No, adequate available bandwidth is required for that. QoS systems are simply a prioritization scheme which throttles other competing demands on bandwidth to make the bandwidth available. Improving overall capacity is another way to do that.
I'm no expert, but my understanding is things like VOIP need not just bandwidth (actually it doesn't need that much bandwidth), but low latency. You could have an enormous pipe but still not have low enough latency to run good voip, which would then require QOS/shaping. Again, I may not know what I'm talking about so please correct me if I'm wrong.
I gave an example of something that would be perfectly legitimate, a positive thing for all parties involved, that would be outlawed by poorly written laws that attempt to support network neutrality.
What if I'm trying to distribute a competing product from my basement and I can't afford the money that Apple can throw at Earthlink to get fast delivery? Your scenario certainly wouldn't be a positive thing for me then.
I couldn't disagree more. The intention of an act shows in its language, context and the records of parliamentary (or congessional) discussion. (etc)
That's all true, but IMO still doesn't have any bearing on what the lawmakers actually care about. I agree there's a sinister intention to the DMCA and USA PATRIOT acts, and that's important. What's not important is whether the Congresscritters actually care about intellectual property and keeping the American people safe, or were just pandering to campaign contributors, voters, media, etc. If the clear intention of a child porn law is to protect children, I don't think it matters (legally) whether the lawmakers passed it because they care about children, or because they want to look tough on crime. Now this matter does of course have bearing on whether you want to reelect them, but that's a different issue.
I don't think it's as strong an argument. We are doing a LOT of things to help people not die in auto accidents, most of them compulsory. A legion of car safety regulations, traffic enforcement, seatbelt laws, driver education, DUI penalties... I'm probably forgetting some. You could just as easily say "shouldn't we be putting a proportionate amount of effort into solving problem X as we do toward solving auto fatalities?" Whereas we do almost nothing to prevent lightning deaths, or if we do it's sure not well publicized.
In any event, I think the reason terrorism gets more attention is because cars and lightning kill people all over the place, whereas terrorism kills a bunch of people all at once in the same place. This is why it seems more scary - "car accidents" equates to one person dying here and there, which while sad is not something that inspires fear in people. Whether our imaginations just aren't good at thinking of the hundreds of people who die in them or what, I don't know. But we all saw the 9/11 attacks, and we could see that it was big and scary and killed a bunch of people all at once. People just aren't very good at realizing that they're STILL more likely to die by getting hit by lightning (or trampled by a moose or your favorite statistic) than die in a terrorist attack. And pointing out the odds probably won't convince anyone who doesn't already realize it.
Why not take it back to the shop and get a refund or something else instead
What you would get instead is the store clerk informing you of their return policy. Namely, software and games cannot be returned under any circumstances once opened, unless the physical media is defective. In which case they can be exchanged for an identical item. At least that's the case everywhere I remember.
Legislating against the symptoms of a problem is like a band aid on a broken arm. Save the money and catch the guys who make it in the first place. Such a move would a) be more effective b) cheaper and c) not involve giving up civil liberties.
I'm all in favor of it, and I think that law enforcement is trying that, too. But I'm also not at all concerned about the liberty to possess child porn. If due process or other civil rights are violated in the attempt to track it down that's a problem, but if we want to pass laws that remove our right to child porn I have no problem with that.
Besides, do you actually swallow that crap about the legislature caring about kids?
It doesn't matter what the legislators cared about when they passed the law IMO. What matters is what effect the law has.
But I can see your precedent. Terrorists are killing us because we have freedoms. So the answer is to take them away! Then they don't have to kill because of our freedoms, because they'll have been taken away! Yipee! Republican logic at its giddy highs.
You realize the two arguments are not equivalent, and the invalidity of one does not imply the same about the other. Right?
I'm not sure I do agree, because I don't think it's practical or maybe even ethical to have the time fit the crime. IMO hurting a child is so much worse than embezzling millions of dollars that if the latter carries 1-5 years sentence the former would have to be something like being eaten alive by snails. I think if white collar crimes and child abuse were to have proportional punishments, either the former would be so lenient as to be meaningless, or the latter so severe as to be inhumane. I think disproportionate punishments are preferable to either of those alternatives.
That's all right on. However, what I was getting at is that if someone is contemplating a crime, whether the punishment for getting caught is six months or six years doesn't make nearly as much difference in their decision as their estimate of how likely it is they'll get caught. If they think they can get away with it they don't care if there's a severe penalty. This is just what I've read and I can't back it up with anything at all.
However, you, and those after kiddie porn, are both using tor for the same thing, to circumvent the rules. This is not a moral position, this is a quasi legal position.
First, I don't use tor. Second, even if I did I wouldn't necessarily be breaking any rules. Third, by stating that using tor for any reason to break a rule is equivalent, you're claiming that all rules are equal. So you now have to defend the position that a ban on IRC use is equivalent, either legally or morally, to a ban on child pornography. Or a ban on conspiracy to commit murder. Proceed.
Indeed, if you aren't using iTMS, iTunes is a pile of shit that gets in the way when you're trying to do common operations
I use iTunes because several other people at my office use it, and I can expand my available music to listen to a work tenfold. If it were not for that I probably wouldn't use it (I don't have an iPod and never use iTMS), but it does have non-iTMS uses.
Your car analogy is (predictably) terrible. But I hope you're right about open software. I'm not convinced, though. When Windows is essentially (or perhaps actually) free to the home user with the purchase of a new computer, and computers are so cheap, the financial incentive to switch isn't there. Most people don't care (or don't even know) about open source philosophically. A plethora of choices in terms of distros, shells, etc. is actually a demerit for the average buyer - they want to just pick out the computer and be done with it.
So there would have to be something different in the future to convince people to go to the effort and trouble of switching to a new OS - clearly that something isn't present today. Windows is already good enough for almost everyone. Maybe businesses will switch in large numbers (the case for switching is much better for them) and people using Linux at work will think about using it at home too? That might do it. I can't come up with anything else at the moment, unless MS makes their DRM/registration/etc so onerous that ordinary users are severely annoyed by it.
Whether a crime is committed depends only on two factors: How much is to gain and how likely is it to be caught.
Factor number 2 would not be a factor if there were no punishment after getting caught. The question is how much the degree of punishment increases the deterrent factor, and I've heard not much.
the people he sold it to would probably have been unlikely to purchase the software at all had it not been at such a deep discount.
That's an awfully big assumption. I don't think it's a good idea to give someone just a slap on the wrist for commercial piracy on a huge scale because "maybe they wouldn't have bought it anyway." If I see a piece of software (or anything) listed for $X in one place and $X/10 in another, I suspect something fishy is going on. But some people think "hey what a great deal, I was going to spend 100 bucks on this but now I can get it for 10!"
So, if you want to cite a comparison between immoral activities (such as the active sale of pirated software and something else), why not point the finger at professional lobyists, criminal defense lawyers and/or telemarketing firms?
OK, you got my interest. I'll concede there's a good chance a significant number of lobbyists have little respect for ethics. Defense lawyers, though? What would you rather we do, not give the accused representation? Should the lawyers not do everything they can to help their clients within the bounds of the law? How would you feel about defense lawyers if you were indicted for a crime? Assuming they abide by no-call lists, what's immoral about telemarketing? I know perfectly well they could be described as annoying, rude, distasteful, disrespectful... but immoral?
The theory is (you're talking about child porn right?) that the consumers of it create demand. Going after them reduces demand and helps keep this from happening to kids. I don't know if it works or not, but if it does it's certainly an appropriate strategy IMO.
You make the equation people hurt = morally bad. Well, er, that's your viewpoint, and mine, but it ain't neccessarily so. Moral values are relativistic/subjective.
Can you come up with any moral theory (that you didn't just make up) that doesn't condemn harming people? Technically you could make up anything and say that it's your moral theory, but let's talk about morals that are actually espoused and practiced by people in the real world.
Neither of us is right. It could even be said that the Daily Mail view has more moral value because it reflects the currant law of the land.
Law derives legitimacy from morality, but the reverse is not true.
Everything is so pristine, but you never the the laborers or even robots to keep it that way.
Why should the Enterprise be so much more dirty and worn than the Space Shuttle? In the videos I've seen from shuttle missions that place looks almost like an operating room. There are a lot of things to criticize about Star Trek, but the ships being too clean doesn't seem like a winner.
Third possibility: low-level long-term exposure can cause problems. Obviously we would not know about this yet, and it is not possible to extrapolate from short-term intense exposure to long-term low-level, so we have no way of finding out early.
No, public school children show horrible results compared to private school children. The children of typically wealthy parents that care enough about their child's education to go to the effort of putting them in a private school perform better in school.
Not according to the Department of Education. They quietly released a study that finds no significant differences in academic acheivement between public and private school students after controlling for variables such as wealth, income, geography, etc.
My mouse is designed to optimize the interface between me and my computer, thus it is ergonomic. Whether it succeeds at that design goal is another question, wouldn't you say? I love semantic arguments!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's as strong an argument. We are doing a LOT of things to help people not die in auto accidents, most of them compulsory. A legion of car safety regulations, traffic enforcement, seatbelt laws, driver education, DUI penalties... I'm probably forgetting some. You could just as easily say "shouldn't we be putting a proportionate amount of effort into solving problem X as we do toward solving auto fatalities?" Whereas we do almost nothing to prevent lightning deaths, or if we do it's sure not well publicized.
In any event, I think the reason terrorism gets more attention is because cars and lightning kill people all over the place, whereas terrorism kills a bunch of people all at once in the same place. This is why it seems more scary - "car accidents" equates to one person dying here and there, which while sad is not something that inspires fear in people. Whether our imaginations just aren't good at thinking of the hundreds of people who die in them or what, I don't know. But we all saw the 9/11 attacks, and we could see that it was big and scary and killed a bunch of people all at once. People just aren't very good at realizing that they're STILL more likely to die by getting hit by lightning (or trampled by a moose or your favorite statistic) than die in a terrorist attack. And pointing out the odds probably won't convince anyone who doesn't already realize it.
It doesn't matter what the legislators cared about when they passed the law IMO. What matters is what effect the law has.
You realize the two arguments are not equivalent, and the invalidity of one does not imply the same about the other. Right?
Is that supposed to be an acutal counterargument, or are you just messing around? I don't even know how to respond.
I'm not sure I do agree, because I don't think it's practical or maybe even ethical to have the time fit the crime. IMO hurting a child is so much worse than embezzling millions of dollars that if the latter carries 1-5 years sentence the former would have to be something like being eaten alive by snails. I think if white collar crimes and child abuse were to have proportional punishments, either the former would be so lenient as to be meaningless, or the latter so severe as to be inhumane. I think disproportionate punishments are preferable to either of those alternatives.
That's all right on. However, what I was getting at is that if someone is contemplating a crime, whether the punishment for getting caught is six months or six years doesn't make nearly as much difference in their decision as their estimate of how likely it is they'll get caught. If they think they can get away with it they don't care if there's a severe penalty. This is just what I've read and I can't back it up with anything at all.
Your car analogy is (predictably) terrible. But I hope you're right about open software. I'm not convinced, though. When Windows is essentially (or perhaps actually) free to the home user with the purchase of a new computer, and computers are so cheap, the financial incentive to switch isn't there. Most people don't care (or don't even know) about open source philosophically. A plethora of choices in terms of distros, shells, etc. is actually a demerit for the average buyer - they want to just pick out the computer and be done with it.
So there would have to be something different in the future to convince people to go to the effort and trouble of switching to a new OS - clearly that something isn't present today. Windows is already good enough for almost everyone. Maybe businesses will switch in large numbers (the case for switching is much better for them) and people using Linux at work will think about using it at home too? That might do it. I can't come up with anything else at the moment, unless MS makes their DRM/registration/etc so onerous that ordinary users are severely annoyed by it.
The theory is (you're talking about child porn right?) that the consumers of it create demand. Going after them reduces demand and helps keep this from happening to kids. I don't know if it works or not, but if it does it's certainly an appropriate strategy IMO.
You're missing some good ones!
My mouse is designed to optimize the interface between me and my computer, thus it is ergonomic. Whether it succeeds at that design goal is another question, wouldn't you say? I love semantic arguments!