Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract? To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 12:55 pm In article , invalid@address.co.uk.invalid says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > >> Rather, the size of the penalty should reflect > >> the seriousness of the charge! > > > > Indeed, and that's why library fines are low, whereas penalties for > > distributing cracking tools are moderately high. > > Your argument is circular. You say it's a serious charge because it has a > serious punishment, and you say it has a serious punishment because it is a > serious charge. I'm saying that they tend to go hand in hand. Large fines are an indication that a government intends to take a crime seriously, or at least that it intends to pretend to take it seriously. Governments do this, as a rule, because they come under pressure from victims, or because the activity in question is the subject of moral outrage in a large and vociferous constituency. There's no universal ethical principle that can determine how serious a crime is. I didn't say what you suggest anyway. What I said was that library fines are low because returning books late is not seriously damaging to society. If it were, library fines would be set higher, or some other means of enforcement would be implemented. > > (Incidentally, the Elcomsoft software was written in English and > > advertised in such a way that it was clearly intended for sale in the > > US. It's completely irrelevant whether a particular sale was > > 'computerised'.) > > It doesn't matter whether the Elcomsoft software was intended for sale in > the US or not. It still wasn't in breach of Russian law, and Russian law is > the only law that applied to it. You keep on saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Anyway, the point was to demolish the argument that "I didn't know what my computer was doing, honest, guv". > >> So you think the Internet means the end of national sovereignty? How > >> interesting. > > > > I think it offers an arena which nations must needs regulate to some > > degree in accordance with international norms, lest they find their > > affairs forcibly regulated for them. > > I'm guessing that by "international norms" you mean US law, and by "lest > they find their affairs forcibly regulated" you mean that the US can blow > to bits anyone it doesn't like. If I'm wrong about that, please clarify. Blowing Russia or China to bits is hardly an option - but serious countries are amenable to mutual negotiations with regard to international trade and communications. - Gerry Quinn .