Actually the key problem there would be the automatic price setting based on number of purchases for a non-scarce good.

Not really, was tired when I wrote that,so I could easily be wrong about why.

But starting at both ends won't optimize that algorithm in the general case, it is the most efficient algorithm known for the task it solves (there are optimizations for Djikstra's Algorithm but they are for reduced classes like spase graphs, or are heuristic and thus aren't guaranteed to find an optimal solution).
 

I think the problem there is the "on Friday" bit. "Good enough" can be any threshold you set, including rigorous security and maintainability thresholds where necessary, the arbitrary deadline isn't a part of the Agile process any more than its part of the Waterfall Model.

Also I'd have to say your answer is a bit flawed, a project that is 6000 lines of code shouldn't have a documentation trail the size of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. That's the attitude that drives people away from documentation heavy models, and its one of the great flaws with University teaching of Software Engineering, they require you to do rigorous documentation of a toy task, so the only thing it teaches people is that rigorous documentation is a pointless nuisance and waste of time.

Essentially appropriate documentation and testing for the task is the correct answer, you don't want to little or to much. If you're developing a life support system for hospitals everything should be documented and tested to the utmost extent.

That's because that optimization won't work if there's two (or more) equally good paths and you're forward and backwards route select different ones (in such a case you could actually be almost doubling the work). .

You've got the analogue conversion problem their for everything but interactive media. People can just record the clear text version on their display device.

You've got the key and lock problem for interactive media (that doesn't do a significant chunk of its processing server side and only send the results), ie you're trying to stop someone from accessing the content (making a copy) who you want to be able access the content (viewing it).

Encryption is great for stopping copying by intermediaries but as for stopping copying by the receiving party, the strength of the encryption is irrelevant (they have the key), you have to instead rely on the strength of your obfuscation of the key (and perhaps the encryption methodology).

Or he's figuring that if enough people regard a law as illegitimate and refuse to obey it (or aren't aware of it and its not intuitively obvious) , it becomes unenforceable whether or not they all deliberately try to get caught (like what happened with the Prohibition, where instead of stopping alcohol sales it created an impressive criminal market because people weren't impressed by the law).

Pretty much every English-as-a-first-language person on the planet is guilty of infringing on Happy Birthday, see how well the enforcement campaign on that one would go over.

Erm, the internet is a soapbox in this age. A far more effective one than standing on a street corner in terms of the number of people you can reach. Contrary to what some people believe there's no inherent virtue in doing something in the most inefficient way possible.

Probably because a real job in CS isn't what you (or a lot of CS graduates) think it is. CS is not a different way of saying Software Engineering. CS is about how computing works and more efficient ways to do it (like improving the algorithmic efficiency of sorting), not about how to efficiently and effectively produce 1 000 000 lines of code dedicated to special case X (e.g. flying a plane). Some fields are like that, there's a difference between being a physicist (perhaps a mathematician might be more accurate even in some contexts) and an engineer too.

I can't be the only one who parsed that first sentence as the US causing the financial meltdown of Greece,Ireland, Italy and Spain. Especially since that wouldn't be completely untrue.

This is true. Most people only avoid cheap wines (relative to their budget) in situations where there is social pressure to do so (like being at a restaurant or party with people they don't know), when buying wine to drink privately or in the company of friends of a similar social class people tend to buy cheap wine and its not unusual for them to buy it by the box.

By this logic nothing is stopping you building a house made of solid gold either.

As with the above there actually are practical concerns stopping him, like getting enough user base (both in terms of people using it for validation and in terms of sites using it for listing) for it to be practical.

They've just corrected the directory name: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf

This does not seem like an good argument.

In the case of a murder extradition, the person is extradited to the US if they've committed the murder in the US jurisdiction and then fled to another juridstiction.

In this case of copyright violation, the person is not necessarily ever in US jurisdiction nor is he necessarily targeting the action at the US. I'm not sure why they should be extradited on this basis. If they committed the crime in the US and then fled that would be another matter.

Under your theory of jurisdiction, you wouldn't be able to do anything anywhere in the world because you'd be subject to every law in every country in the world everywhere in it. This does not seem like a good thing.

That the US has actually succeeded on extradition for things of this nature (ie the crime was never committed in US jurisdiction), does not make me like it any better, it more or less proves that the US is a big bully and wants their laws enforced everywhere regardless of how the people of those countries feel about it.

He might be referring to people who confuse the word unlawful with the word immoral and then demand that all unlawful things be considered immoral without considering the impact (no more revolutions for oppressed people, no more ability to question whether or not the law is correct).

I agree civilization requires maintenance, on the other hand the maintenance is done by people from that civilization, if the civilization is self-destructive you're going to get the same self-destructive behavior in the enforcers (actually you'll probably get worse behavior in the enforcers because this is a privileged position which means unscrupulous people who want power will seek it out, and being unscrupulous is generally beneficial in rising in power (at least in the short term).

So the question becomes where does the balance lie ? I don't have an answer to this but I suspect that no perfect one exists because trying to solve human nature using humans is a self-defeating proposition, so chances are you're going to get a wide range of answers from people and I suspect many of them are equally good.