So, you've measured. How close do you have to get to hide the camera projection from view?

At least for wireless on Win7Pro, that's not true: "0000 00.. = Differentiated Services Codepoint: Default (0x00)"

Even I can create a robotic program which lets another robot walk into a hole. Here it is:

/* Hello World program */

#include

main()
{
printf("Stop! There's a hole!");
}

"I know very well what I'm doing."

Well, if you know very well that you're doing it wrong, why do you persist?

"Smaller things further away are easier to hide than close-up."

Not if the resulting images are adjusted so the pictured object is the same size. Unless you're reducing a detail to the single pixel range, that is. Additionally, the phone's lens would be more out of focus (when focused on the edge of the phone) when taken from a closer position - depth of field can be used to de-accentuate a feature. Finally, parallax would make the phone's camera appear smaller in proportion when photographed from a closer position.

You seem to be doing everything exactly, and perfectly, wrong. Are you trying to troll, or simply don't know what you're doing?

Straightedge across phone's camera and edge. Another across the front of the phone. The two straightedges will form a wedge - a lens inside that wedge will see only the side of the phone (no camera, no front). It's not clear why you were playing around with taking pictures from across the room, I doubt the wedge extends nearly that far.

You're doing it wrong. The closer you are, the easier it is to hide.

and couldn't program it to prioritize based on which one was seen first, was closest, was apt to fall first based on speed/distance, or any one of many other possibilities. You could even place weights on them, and throw a die at the end as a tiebreaker. The rule should be interpreted as "allow the least harm," not "allow no harm."

So, you like free gifts. What's your address? I'll have my dog crap on your lawn, FOR FREE! In other words, I'll "give a shit," and make sure it's not "petty bullshit." That should make you happy.

"For IPv4, QoS simply means reordering packets"

Uh, no. Do some reading on diffserv. There are mechanisms to accommodate a range of bandwidth (assurance) and latency (expediency) needs. QoS is much more than simply reordering packets, and includes things like classification, marking, queue management (strict vs. RED/WRED vs. WFQ), policing, shaping, trust relationships, etc.

"If you have a 12mbit connection vs a 20mbit connection how is it you think the traffic magically figures that out so it can send you traffic at the correct rate for your link?"

For most ISPs, that would be traffic policing, although some may use traffic shaping. Look it up, you'll learn something new.

You clearly don't understand the difference between QoS and congestion control, or between TCP and UDP, or that some protocols cannot degrade gracefully. Congestion control in no way replaces proper QoS.

"Simple they manage the outbound rate at which they send ACKs and let TCP on the rremote host figure out the rate limiting."

That's congestion control, not QoS. Many of the protocols where QoS is most desirable run over UDP, not TCP.

Your whole "defaults to EF, demote to EF" thing is confused. I think you mean DSCPs DF, EF and AF13, where EF is the extra-cost premium service.

It doesn't even do that. QoS on a home router is only going to prioritize the traffic leaving the box. It's all on an equal basis "best effort" from there. So, it only protects you from yourself - you can make outbound Skype continue working when you have a bunch of torrents running. But, the quality of the incoming Skype will still suck - you have no control. The ISPs would like to give you that control (and charge you more for it), but no, that would apparently be evil.

So, the OP was being clueless. Unless QoS is bidirectional (for most types of traffic), and end-to-end, it provides little value.

If you think that's how it works, you really don't understand QoS, networking, or what the ISPs would like to do. They want to provide QoS within their networks. That would allow better support for things like realtime services (Netflix, VoIP, Pandora, etc.). They can't simply trust users to appropriately mark packets - you'd have some who simply marked everything as high priority.

And exactly how does your hypothetical user control incoming bandwidth with their "home router?"

I have no problem with preferential "fast lanes," as long as they use bandwidth above and beyond a guaranteed baseline (call it a CIR, or SLA rate, or whatever). You don't want to pay to use it, you've lost nothing. Some service provider wants to pay to send preferred traffic to you? It has no impact on your base rate, you've lost nothing (well, perhaps a tiny bit of latency to serialization delay, but no bandwidth). This assumes, of course, that the CPE-ISP link is undersubscribed.

"Isn't QoS supported by most home type routers,"

If you're using a "home type router," my guess is you have no other internal hops. And, your ISP isn't going to pay any attention to how you mark QoS in what you send out.

So, exactly what do you expect that QoS support to do? QoS provides very little benefit unless it is end-to-end.