However, the Chinese government does not have the right to torture, murder, or repress the freedom of its citizens. It is wrong and the practice should stop.
From the US Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Government in China has whatever rights are given to it by its people, no more, no less. So the government in China does indeed have the right to opress the Chinese, because there is no logical seperation of the Government of China and the Chinese citizen.
Without a recognized or enforced equivalent of the US Second Amendment in China, obviously the Chinese defending themselves from a corrupt government is harder, but certainly not impossible. A full popular revolt would be unstoppable.
Most Chinese I know, even those highly critical of the government, defend censorship in the name of social harmony. That is not the same view taken by the common US citizen for instance, but it is the Chinese view. We all view our freedoms and obligations of the government differently.
To give a third example on this point, India, a functioning democracy, employs great restrictions on freedom of speech and those are fully or nearly fully supported by the people of India. It is specifically illegal to make statements to cause social disharmony, and they have all kinds of restrictions on the use of the Indian Flag which would never fly in the US. Basically, they've outlawed being offended. In the US, the Supreme Court in a landmark flag burning case ruled specifically society cannot outlaw an act simply because the act itself is offensive to society. There was actually an article in an Indian newspaper around a month ago comparing the restrictions on the Indian flag with the US defense of Freedom of Expression (the context was someone was arrested for a Flag offense that in the US wouldn't even warrant notice - something like accidentally putting a drink on a Flag or something - my memory fails me a bit)
Different values. You can't judge China based on US values. What the government does is clearly acceptable to the people, who have the right to make that determination over their own lives. At such time the people do not support the government, the government will soon cease to exist.
He was saying that the government should crush and destroy those subcultures that are trying to gas dozens of millions of people in gas chambers and use them as fertiliser.
As the present and unbroken line leading to the current Chinese government has, sadly during its various terrors unleashed by its still hero, Chairman Mao, killed far more than the nazis in Europe, is your position that you advocate the censorship and blocking of everything Chinese? The Chinese government recently looked like it would finally acknowledge how bad Mao was, but in the end, they concluded "he was more good than bad."
The nazis were evil, really no arguing that point. What I find confusing, however, is the hesitation to draw the same conclusions about the China government (Chairman Mao, but also the organization he lead and is still there), or to mention in the same breath Khmer Rouge, Tamil Tigers, Stalin, or the others. Why the understandable zeal to denouce one evil, but not the same zeal on others?
What kind of outcome will it be when it's used to keep tabs on citizens' movements?
I guess that depends on which citizens and what is the process to keep tabs on their movements. Do they need a warrant and/or probable cause? Are they good, upstanding citizens or the blow-up-my-own-country variety just picked up in Toronto? In whose hands will the tool be? The "Protect & Serve" type of police or the "Shoot first and ask questions later" kind? Any tool is bad in the wrong hands.
Not only that, to sign up for DSL you also need to have a land line. In these days, paying for cell phone *and* a land line is not reasonable, especially for the one-person home.
You have the option of not having a cell phone.
Some carriers will sell you DSL without a fixed line phone. I worry about the damage to the phone infrastructure though. You see, without sealing current on the line (provided by the -40 VDC that powers your home phone), the copper twisted pair could degrade due to corrosion over time. I am a fan of line-powered DSL for that reason, although it is a very uncommon service. With line-powered DSL, you don't "plug in" your DSL modem and, just like your home phone, it works fine during power outages.
Not even close. The biggest thing is competition in the local phone market. Now the copper-loop provider competes in more and more markets with the cable provider, and is starting to compete with the power provider. Soon new providers may be offering Wireless Local Loop. AT&T also is far from having a monopoly on long-fiber: gas companies, power companies - even Google - have that stuff. It is this type of inter-modal competition that means it makes sense to merge. You have to bulk-up to compete. Not merging would be suicide.
At the end of the day, it is very likely the consumer will buy all of their communications products (voice, video, data, and mobile) from a single provider, and competition will be in the bundle. If providers don't offer all four, buying from them will make about as much sense is a buying from a car maker that sold the entire car minus the wheels and seats.
It is in fact de-regulation and intense competition that make this move necessary.
while using the best negative parts of IP law to keep out competition or screw customers out of $$$
It is this argument I never understand. Who is screwing who? When I choose to buy a song or use a technique I didn't come up with - I choose to. Life is sustained by food, water, shelter, and oxygen - not music and software. No one screws me out of anything, because if I know a seller as screwing me, I don't buy from them.
The CLEC can give me better quality of service (in fact, that's the only reason I see to go with the CLEC) but how can the ILEC be selling to it under cost to the CLEC and then sell it for even less to final customers? Are they making it up on volume?
Hehe, race to the bottom, fueled by asine regulations. I never said it made any sense.
One thing to remember is that telecoms price is fully regulated - not just the "max" price, but the price in general. Telecoms cannot lower the price without permission of the regulator, who often won't give it because they are trying to protect smaller competitors (sounds odd - but it is true and extremely frustrating).
The scenario is this: Regulator sets ILEC retail price at $20, and "unbundled price" (price chraged to CLEC) at $10, even though the cost of the ILEC of what the CLEC is buying is $15. Now, the CLEC can sell for any price greater than $10 (profit) and less than $20 (won't win customers with higher prices).
The real kicker is if CLEC sells for $14 ($4 profit). The ILEC cannot lower their price below the point of cost or they'll be killed for predatory pricing. That means their minimum price is $15.01.
Cost for the purpose of tariff (price) is different than cost for the purpose of TRO (what is charged to CLECs).
If you get this far and think - the entire industry regulatory framework has gotten so out of whack we should toss it and start over, you are right (in my opinion). I don't think anyone's long-term interests are served in the present situation.
Your statement implies that for one reason or another, you feel that the rates I'm being charged are too low. Care to justify your position? Do you feel that the rates I'm being charged are inadequate to maintain the integrity of the network infrastructure?
You misunderstand. I am talking about the rates that carriers pay other carriers under regimes such as UNE in the US or LLU in the UK. That is the basis for much CLEC-ILEC competition. I am not much of an expert in the area of retail rates.
Have you actually investigated how much small companies pay to telcos for network access?
I've spent my entire carrier in telecom, working for carriers on both sides of the "divide" between ILECs and the competitors. I've was around before the Act of 1996, lived through TRO in the US, worked directly with Ofcom regulators in the UK speifically on LLU - in this area, I am an expert. Since you are climbing up on your high horse, care to explain what makes you an expert?
In summary, you're completely full of crap and probably a shill besides.
Why don't you explain where I am wrong. I know for a fact that CLECs in the US paid less than the actual cost of loop access (such as the maintenance of copper plant). I have been on both sides - and on the CLEC side we used to joke about it.
What was the joke? At the CLECs, we knew it was below cost. We just knew politics was on our side, and the public mood was "beat up the incumbant". We spent as much money on gaming the system than we did on building infrastructure. We used to parse regulations for ways to beat them. We used to model what the real cost was (although would never make that public - because our public position was that we were paying cost) to know how much we were costing the ILEC (and how much we could undercut them by and still leave them unable to meet our price).
I'm surprised that there are still people who openly proclaim they don't believe in a free market.
I agree. I am not sure that people who are against free markets look around much. My favourite example is China. It was a serious backwater under Mao who tried to make everyone equal and have his own nanny state with the disasterous Cultural Revolution (I'm leaving the deeper issues of power and the sharing of it in the Communist Party aside, as it only complicates this point and is only germane to the cause, not the results, of the Cultural Revolution). Under Deng Xiaoping, they opened up markets. The more freedom - and less regulation - they introduce to markets, the better off the Chinese people are. It isn't speculation - it is fact backed up by data.
Unless we think that America is some other universe that does not live under the same economic laws as the rest of the world, how can anyone think regulation actually improves the lot of anyone? I understand the logic behind that thought (it is a bit counter-intuitive that the best thing you can do for the people is sometimes nothing), but look actual world experience.
Except the big telcos own the lines... where are the little guys going to get lines?
Like the big telcos, they can build them. And before you talk about double-build of the last mile, what about new housing? Anyone can build there, and everyone's cost is the same.
A lot of these small companies just want to live off the backs of the existing telcos - they don't have to invest in building and running the network, but they demand ultra-cheap rates and no committment to invest in the infrastructure.
Communication with others and the media is a fundamental property of civilisation. The government should fund it.
That falicy is that the government is able to fund anything : it isn't. It is only able to take from one group of citizens (consumers, shareholders, income-earners, whoever) and give to another group (government employees, contractors, suppliers). There is no "free" and there is no "government funded". There is only "government-coerced-from-one-person-and-given-to-a nother".
I don't know where this quote same from, but "The American Republic will ensure until politicians realise they can bribe the people with their own money." (no, not Tocqueville). How much longer does the American Republic have to endure?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this come through, but until it passes the peer review test, as a scientist, I will withhold my enthusiasm.
AIDS is the defining afliction of my generation. I am going to allow myself this evening to simply believe we've finally beaten it. What are hopes for if not to get them up?
but for the cure for a world epidemic, your belief of licensing such a drug is insane.
I agree, but why stop there? Let's outlaw investment into curing diseases. That prevents all of these investors demanding a Return on Investment. No more conflict. Let's just leave them to making "useless shit like viagra".
Don't think I'm saying we shouldn't cure disease. We should. Let's just disallow any money to be invested in curing disease, and only allow diseases to be cured for free. Doesn't that solve all of these problems?
Seriously take a look at Oracle's feature lists before jumping up and down about how MySQL is comparable.
As one of those big, corporate customers, I know you are right. I am familar with both, and things like Oracle's RAC just don't have an equivalent in the mySQL world.
But on topic, the question posed was "are all those features worth the money" (with the implication that many of those features are not used). Where I work, the cost of software for Oracle vs mySQL isn't even a factor given the relative cost of outage or data corruption on the vital applications. That means we can assume zero price on either database for planning purposes for vital applications, and can pick the best database for the job.
That is when you might end up buying Oracle over mySQL: when cost is not a factor (unless someone wants to argue that, cost aside, mySQL is a superiour product)
The idea of competition is that, when Verizon does something stupid that punishes customers, I can go somewhere else...And not even to try to hide their cooperation against consumers?!
Only specific types of collusion are illegal - it is not true that all collusion is illegal.
Let me give you an example from the labour market. Workers sell their product - labour - to companies. In many positions, workers compete, and companies - the consumers of the labour - buy the best available product at the best price. However, workers are allowed to band together for form unions, giving themselves a position of power to make demands. Not only is this out and out collusion not illegal, there are laws in many countries that protect this behaviour.
In many markets the government actually sponsors collusion. In the US and Canada, incumbant phone companies are simply not allowed to lower their voice line prices - the government controls the prices, and ensures everyone pays the same (a lot of people don't realise that the phone company is legally prevented from lowering the price for certain services).
So don't assume that collusion is always illegal. In the vast majority of instances, you'll find it is perfectly legal.
In a user-internet connection, the telco is the middleman, the one that sucks money without actually generating value.
As someone who works for a major telecom and is right now in the middle of a complex access upgrade and new buildout (ADSL2+), the statement above reeks of not understanding the challenges in running a major access provider. It is easy to sit on the outside and see several big companies doing it and thinking "it must be easy."
It ain't. Technology is hard. Doing a network build-out as I'm doing - which starts with construction, laying cable, and running power, all the way through aggregation, traffic management, assurance, etc, is a very serious and expensive undertaking. Even things like loop quality, cross-talk, and distribution plant are major efforts to manage. Anyone who has worked in the network heart of a major access provider or carrier knows what is involved. Add to that the various needs of voice over IP core networks, video, various kinds of data traffic (major customers who've paid for certain quality-of-service all the way through "best effort" end-users with special applications), and it boggles the mind that it all works at all.
Of course content is important. Without content, there is nothing to "access." But without access, the content would be pretty useless. The value is in the combination of content and in the ability to deliver it.
Really, the flaw in that logic is the idea that the Death Penalty has any measurable deterrent effect.
But what if the US actually used the dealth penalty? Right now, most people sentenced to death have a far larger possibility of dieing of old age. I firmly believe that if death were guaranteed within 30 days of that sentence, it would have a deterrent effect. The problem is that the penalty isn't really a reality, and criminals know that.
As an aside, I am against the death penalty, but for completely different reasons. I happen to think, in an ideal world, it is a just punishment for certain crimes. But:
1. I don't see many rich people on death row. If the justice system is fair, how do you explain that?
2. I am not convinced we can execute people quickly (a requirement for it to be a deterrent) and be sure we never execute an innocent person. I believe innocent people have been executed in the past. I am one of those old-fashioned types that believes it is better to let 10 guity people go free than punish an innocent man. Will the current implementation of the dealty hold up to that standard?
I don't buy things/support people/companies I think are "true evil".
If you were truly taking a principled stand, you would stop listening to the music altogether. It seems like you are trying to justify knowingly breaking the law with the reason "I like it." Interesting principled stand: "But I like it...."
You can't outlaw something that people don't think is illegal.
Yes you can. Not wearing seatbelts was legal, a law was passed, now everyone thinks it's illegal. Many, many examples of things that were legal at one time (so everyone would rightly believe they were legal), becoming illegal.
Just how outlawing liquor in the 30's made it more popular than ever.
Very overused example, and there are many the other way. Outlawing seatbelts did not result in less people wearing seatbelts - it results in a great rise of the number of people wearing seatbelts.
As an aside, there has never been any proof that outlawing liquor made it more popular. It certainly made hard liquor more popular due to economics of illegal beer vs illegal "bathtub gin" (among the other great drinks of the era). Drug use went up among then current drinkers. However, statistics did show that drinking indeed went down at the beginning of prohibition, only to later rise - but I've not seen documented that even at the peak of consumption the volume consumed per drinker was higher than pre-prohibition levels.
I love it when racist white people blame being firing from jobs on the desire of their employer to hire minorities.
It happens. When doing a round of layoffs, I was once instructed (2002) by HR to select only middle-aged white males, because "they can't sue." Back in 1998, when doing a lot of hiring, I was instructed to "prefer" minorities when evaluating candidates to increase our diversity. If you think discrimination against non-minorities does not ever happen, you should get out more.
That reverse discimination card is overplayed
There is no "reverse discrimination." Discrimination is discrimination. Period.
Would the townspeople really suffer if this boy were eaten by a wolf?
I was referring to the loss of the sheep, not the boy. The sheep the boy was guarding belonged to the townspeople in the story. I was pointing out that the townspeople were hurt by the loss of their sheep because they ignored the warnings of the boy. Perhaps the boy deserved what he got - and perhaps the townspeople did as well for ignoring his warnings and saying "he's said that before!"
Last I checked, the entertainment industry is alive and well.
That is the "Boy That Cried Wolf!" argument. But I take another view of that story: the third time, there really was a wolf, and the boy was killed and the sheep were eaten, hurting the townspeople.
I don't know whether or not new technology will destroy the recording industry, but it isn't logical to say "because they were wrong before about being killed," they are wrong now.
The first commercial transatlantic passenger route was inaugurated on June 28, 1939 by America's Pam Am airline using the Boeing's B-314 double-decker flying boat. The passenger shipping industry hardly noticed, saying people would prefer the luxury of ships compared with the cramped and noisy plane. Within 18 months, passenger traffic on ships fell by 80%, and the passenger ship industry was destroyed within a decade. If you are in business, it is foolish to ignore technological change.
If I were a recording industry executive, I would be handling these new technologies differently, but I would still see it as a threat. I would try to turn it into a business advantage, not outlaw it. But I would certainly not ignore it because "we were wrong before."
Slashdot Mirror
From the US Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Government in China has whatever rights are given to it by its people, no more, no less. So the government in China does indeed have the right to opress the Chinese, because there is no logical seperation of the Government of China and the Chinese citizen. Without a recognized or enforced equivalent of the US Second Amendment in China, obviously the Chinese defending themselves from a corrupt government is harder, but certainly not impossible. A full popular revolt would be unstoppable.
Most Chinese I know, even those highly critical of the government, defend censorship in the name of social harmony. That is not the same view taken by the common US citizen for instance, but it is the Chinese view. We all view our freedoms and obligations of the government differently.
To give a third example on this point, India, a functioning democracy, employs great restrictions on freedom of speech and those are fully or nearly fully supported by the people of India. It is specifically illegal to make statements to cause social disharmony, and they have all kinds of restrictions on the use of the Indian Flag which would never fly in the US. Basically, they've outlawed being offended. In the US, the Supreme Court in a landmark flag burning case ruled specifically society cannot outlaw an act simply because the act itself is offensive to society. There was actually an article in an Indian newspaper around a month ago comparing the restrictions on the Indian flag with the US defense of Freedom of Expression (the context was someone was arrested for a Flag offense that in the US wouldn't even warrant notice - something like accidentally putting a drink on a Flag or something - my memory fails me a bit)
Different values. You can't judge China based on US values. What the government does is clearly acceptable to the people, who have the right to make that determination over their own lives. At such time the people do not support the government, the government will soon cease to exist.
As the present and unbroken line leading to the current Chinese government has, sadly during its various terrors unleashed by its still hero, Chairman Mao, killed far more than the nazis in Europe, is your position that you advocate the censorship and blocking of everything Chinese? The Chinese government recently looked like it would finally acknowledge how bad Mao was, but in the end, they concluded "he was more good than bad."
The nazis were evil, really no arguing that point. What I find confusing, however, is the hesitation to draw the same conclusions about the China government (Chairman Mao, but also the organization he lead and is still there), or to mention in the same breath Khmer Rouge, Tamil Tigers, Stalin, or the others. Why the understandable zeal to denouce one evil, but not the same zeal on others?
I guess that depends on which citizens and what is the process to keep tabs on their movements. Do they need a warrant and/or probable cause? Are they good, upstanding citizens or the blow-up-my-own-country variety just picked up in Toronto? In whose hands will the tool be? The "Protect & Serve" type of police or the "Shoot first and ask questions later" kind? Any tool is bad in the wrong hands.
You have the option of not having a cell phone.
Some carriers will sell you DSL without a fixed line phone. I worry about the damage to the phone infrastructure though. You see, without sealing current on the line (provided by the -40 VDC that powers your home phone), the copper twisted pair could degrade due to corrosion over time. I am a fan of line-powered DSL for that reason, although it is a very uncommon service. With line-powered DSL, you don't "plug in" your DSL modem and, just like your home phone, it works fine during power outages.
Not even close. The biggest thing is competition in the local phone market. Now the copper-loop provider competes in more and more markets with the cable provider, and is starting to compete with the power provider. Soon new providers may be offering Wireless Local Loop. AT&T also is far from having a monopoly on long-fiber: gas companies, power companies - even Google - have that stuff. It is this type of inter-modal competition that means it makes sense to merge. You have to bulk-up to compete. Not merging would be suicide.
At the end of the day, it is very likely the consumer will buy all of their communications products (voice, video, data, and mobile) from a single provider, and competition will be in the bundle. If providers don't offer all four, buying from them will make about as much sense is a buying from a car maker that sold the entire car minus the wheels and seats.
It is in fact de-regulation and intense competition that make this move necessary.
It is this argument I never understand. Who is screwing who? When I choose to buy a song or use a technique I didn't come up with - I choose to. Life is sustained by food, water, shelter, and oxygen - not music and software. No one screws me out of anything, because if I know a seller as screwing me, I don't buy from them.
Hehe, race to the bottom, fueled by asine regulations. I never said it made any sense.
One thing to remember is that telecoms price is fully regulated - not just the "max" price, but the price in general. Telecoms cannot lower the price without permission of the regulator, who often won't give it because they are trying to protect smaller competitors (sounds odd - but it is true and extremely frustrating).
The scenario is this: Regulator sets ILEC retail price at $20, and "unbundled price" (price chraged to CLEC) at $10, even though the cost of the ILEC of what the CLEC is buying is $15. Now, the CLEC can sell for any price greater than $10 (profit) and less than $20 (won't win customers with higher prices).
The real kicker is if CLEC sells for $14 ($4 profit). The ILEC cannot lower their price below the point of cost or they'll be killed for predatory pricing. That means their minimum price is $15.01.
Cost for the purpose of tariff (price) is different than cost for the purpose of TRO (what is charged to CLECs).
If you get this far and think - the entire industry regulatory framework has gotten so out of whack we should toss it and start over, you are right (in my opinion). I don't think anyone's long-term interests are served in the present situation.
You misunderstand. I am talking about the rates that carriers pay other carriers under regimes such as UNE in the US or LLU in the UK. That is the basis for much CLEC-ILEC competition. I am not much of an expert in the area of retail rates.
Have you actually investigated how much small companies pay to telcos for network access?
I've spent my entire carrier in telecom, working for carriers on both sides of the "divide" between ILECs and the competitors. I've was around before the Act of 1996, lived through TRO in the US, worked directly with Ofcom regulators in the UK speifically on LLU - in this area, I am an expert. Since you are climbing up on your high horse, care to explain what makes you an expert?
In summary, you're completely full of crap and probably a shill besides.
Why don't you explain where I am wrong. I know for a fact that CLECs in the US paid less than the actual cost of loop access (such as the maintenance of copper plant). I have been on both sides - and on the CLEC side we used to joke about it.
What was the joke? At the CLECs, we knew it was below cost. We just knew politics was on our side, and the public mood was "beat up the incumbant". We spent as much money on gaming the system than we did on building infrastructure. We used to parse regulations for ways to beat them. We used to model what the real cost was (although would never make that public - because our public position was that we were paying cost) to know how much we were costing the ILEC (and how much we could undercut them by and still leave them unable to meet our price).
Who, exactly, is full of crap Ross?
I agree. I am not sure that people who are against free markets look around much. My favourite example is China. It was a serious backwater under Mao who tried to make everyone equal and have his own nanny state with the disasterous Cultural Revolution (I'm leaving the deeper issues of power and the sharing of it in the Communist Party aside, as it only complicates this point and is only germane to the cause, not the results, of the Cultural Revolution). Under Deng Xiaoping, they opened up markets. The more freedom - and less regulation - they introduce to markets, the better off the Chinese people are. It isn't speculation - it is fact backed up by data.
Unless we think that America is some other universe that does not live under the same economic laws as the rest of the world, how can anyone think regulation actually improves the lot of anyone? I understand the logic behind that thought (it is a bit counter-intuitive that the best thing you can do for the people is sometimes nothing), but look actual world experience.
Like the big telcos, they can build them. And before you talk about double-build of the last mile, what about new housing? Anyone can build there, and everyone's cost is the same.
A lot of these small companies just want to live off the backs of the existing telcos - they don't have to invest in building and running the network, but they demand ultra-cheap rates and no committment to invest in the infrastructure.
That falicy is that the government is able to fund anything : it isn't. It is only able to take from one group of citizens (consumers, shareholders, income-earners, whoever) and give to another group (government employees, contractors, suppliers). There is no "free" and there is no "government funded". There is only "government-coerced-from-one-person-and-given-to-a nother".
I don't know where this quote same from, but "The American Republic will ensure until politicians realise they can bribe the people with their own money." (no, not Tocqueville). How much longer does the American Republic have to endure?
You are right, I didn't... but I honestly don't know how me not liking trial lawyers made you think that. I think dislike of lawyers is bipartisan.
Welcome to the world of the Trail Lawyer's Bar. Just vote against anyone that lends them their support and our country will be a better place.
AIDS is the defining afliction of my generation. I am going to allow myself this evening to simply believe we've finally beaten it. What are hopes for if not to get them up?
I agree, but why stop there? Let's outlaw investment into curing diseases. That prevents all of these investors demanding a Return on Investment. No more conflict. Let's just leave them to making "useless shit like viagra".
Don't think I'm saying we shouldn't cure disease. We should. Let's just disallow any money to be invested in curing disease, and only allow diseases to be cured for free. Doesn't that solve all of these problems?
As one of those big, corporate customers, I know you are right. I am familar with both, and things like Oracle's RAC just don't have an equivalent in the mySQL world.
But on topic, the question posed was "are all those features worth the money" (with the implication that many of those features are not used). Where I work, the cost of software for Oracle vs mySQL isn't even a factor given the relative cost of outage or data corruption on the vital applications. That means we can assume zero price on either database for planning purposes for vital applications, and can pick the best database for the job.
That is when you might end up buying Oracle over mySQL: when cost is not a factor (unless someone wants to argue that, cost aside, mySQL is a superiour product)
Only specific types of collusion are illegal - it is not true that all collusion is illegal.
Let me give you an example from the labour market. Workers sell their product - labour - to companies. In many positions, workers compete, and companies - the consumers of the labour - buy the best available product at the best price. However, workers are allowed to band together for form unions, giving themselves a position of power to make demands. Not only is this out and out collusion not illegal, there are laws in many countries that protect this behaviour.
In many markets the government actually sponsors collusion. In the US and Canada, incumbant phone companies are simply not allowed to lower their voice line prices - the government controls the prices, and ensures everyone pays the same (a lot of people don't realise that the phone company is legally prevented from lowering the price for certain services).
So don't assume that collusion is always illegal. In the vast majority of instances, you'll find it is perfectly legal.
As someone who works for a major telecom and is right now in the middle of a complex access upgrade and new buildout (ADSL2+), the statement above reeks of not understanding the challenges in running a major access provider. It is easy to sit on the outside and see several big companies doing it and thinking "it must be easy."
It ain't. Technology is hard. Doing a network build-out as I'm doing - which starts with construction, laying cable, and running power, all the way through aggregation, traffic management, assurance, etc, is a very serious and expensive undertaking. Even things like loop quality, cross-talk, and distribution plant are major efforts to manage. Anyone who has worked in the network heart of a major access provider or carrier knows what is involved. Add to that the various needs of voice over IP core networks, video, various kinds of data traffic (major customers who've paid for certain quality-of-service all the way through "best effort" end-users with special applications), and it boggles the mind that it all works at all.
Of course content is important. Without content, there is nothing to "access." But without access, the content would be pretty useless. The value is in the combination of content and in the ability to deliver it.
But what if the US actually used the dealth penalty? Right now, most people sentenced to death have a far larger possibility of dieing of old age. I firmly believe that if death were guaranteed within 30 days of that sentence, it would have a deterrent effect. The problem is that the penalty isn't really a reality, and criminals know that.
As an aside, I am against the death penalty, but for completely different reasons. I happen to think, in an ideal world, it is a just punishment for certain crimes. But:
1. I don't see many rich people on death row. If the justice system is fair, how do you explain that?
2. I am not convinced we can execute people quickly (a requirement for it to be a deterrent) and be sure we never execute an innocent person. I believe innocent people have been executed in the past. I am one of those old-fashioned types that believes it is better to let 10 guity people go free than punish an innocent man. Will the current implementation of the dealty hold up to that standard?
If you were truly taking a principled stand, you would stop listening to the music altogether. It seems like you are trying to justify knowingly breaking the law with the reason "I like it." Interesting principled stand: "But I like it...."
Yes you can. Not wearing seatbelts was legal, a law was passed, now everyone thinks it's illegal. Many, many examples of things that were legal at one time (so everyone would rightly believe they were legal), becoming illegal.
Just how outlawing liquor in the 30's made it more popular than ever.
Very overused example, and there are many the other way. Outlawing seatbelts did not result in less people wearing seatbelts - it results in a great rise of the number of people wearing seatbelts.
As an aside, there has never been any proof that outlawing liquor made it more popular. It certainly made hard liquor more popular due to economics of illegal beer vs illegal "bathtub gin" (among the other great drinks of the era). Drug use went up among then current drinkers. However, statistics did show that drinking indeed went down at the beginning of prohibition, only to later rise - but I've not seen documented that even at the peak of consumption the volume consumed per drinker was higher than pre-prohibition levels.
Except the whiners that get caught claim they are unfairly targeted, why me, etc, etc, rather that just stepping up and saying "I gambled; I lost."
It happens. When doing a round of layoffs, I was once instructed (2002) by HR to select only middle-aged white males, because "they can't sue." Back in 1998, when doing a lot of hiring, I was instructed to "prefer" minorities when evaluating candidates to increase our diversity. If you think discrimination against non-minorities does not ever happen, you should get out more.
That reverse discimination card is overplayed
There is no "reverse discrimination." Discrimination is discrimination. Period.
I was referring to the loss of the sheep, not the boy. The sheep the boy was guarding belonged to the townspeople in the story. I was pointing out that the townspeople were hurt by the loss of their sheep because they ignored the warnings of the boy. Perhaps the boy deserved what he got - and perhaps the townspeople did as well for ignoring his warnings and saying "he's said that before!"
That is the "Boy That Cried Wolf!" argument. But I take another view of that story: the third time, there really was a wolf, and the boy was killed and the sheep were eaten, hurting the townspeople.
I don't know whether or not new technology will destroy the recording industry, but it isn't logical to say "because they were wrong before about being killed," they are wrong now.
The first commercial transatlantic passenger route was inaugurated on June 28, 1939 by America's Pam Am airline using the Boeing's B-314 double-decker flying boat. The passenger shipping industry hardly noticed, saying people would prefer the luxury of ships compared with the cramped and noisy plane. Within 18 months, passenger traffic on ships fell by 80%, and the passenger ship industry was destroyed within a decade. If you are in business, it is foolish to ignore technological change.
If I were a recording industry executive, I would be handling these new technologies differently, but I would still see it as a threat. I would try to turn it into a business advantage, not outlaw it. But I would certainly not ignore it because "we were wrong before."