[Hdier]

How many here believe that law=good and chaos=evil? Probably not as many people on these boards, but I have definitely noticed that trend in the majority of people (and almost every book I've read with a big Good v. Evil plot; nearly every time you have Lawful Good v. Chaotic Evil). However, it seems to me that people just don't see as many examples of Lawful Evil or Chaotic good.

Apparently, Congress (in America) has recently passed a law that I believe to be evil (it offends my morals; it is not child-killing evil [can anyone say Revolutionary War II?], but I still consider it to be evil). They passed a law saying that all T.V. had to be digital. That's right; they are making laws about the quality that T.V. is broadcast in.

But on what grounds do they make this law? What gives them the right to say that it is punishable by law to broadcast T.V. waves in a lower quality than they think is good? I could not, to save my life, think of one good reason that justifies this law. They have no right to make it. That is why I consider it evil.

Please, somebody disagree with me. A conversation in which all parties agree tends to be boring.

[sriv]

Its making all broadcasting HD, right? Thats better for the general public because the picture is clearer. People will stop buying bad quality TVs and companies will push the cost of HD TVs down because of the competitive demand for them. Its all good.

Justice often manifests itself evilly. Hitler, death penalty. Whats the difference?

Evil often does good albeit in a selfish manner.

Most of the time Law gets paired with good and chaos gets paired with evil which makes more sense, but when they are mixed is when it gets spicy.

[acyckowski]

[QUOTE=Hdier;77557]They passed a law saying that all T.V. had to be digital. That's right; they are making laws about the quality that T.V. is broadcast in.
[QUOTE]

On this one, they've got some grounds. They've established in law, upheld by the courts, that the Government owns the airwaves. It makes sense when you consider how many frequency bands are required for defense and intelligence systems.

But yeah, requiring digital is more like doing it just because they can.

[thod]

	But on what grounds do they make this law? What gives them the right to say that it is punishable by law to broadcast T.V. waves in a lower quality than they think is good? I could not, to save my life, think of one good reason that justifies this law.

Bandwidth is limited. If you are broadcasting on a frequency then nobody else can. All the frequencies, limited by what transmits through air, are highly sought after. Not only broadcasters but emergency services, cell phones, computer connects etc want them. They auction them off and you pay the government for your bandwidth giving you exclusive rights. Digital TV uses less bandwidth and so allows for more channels or to use that bandwidth for other uses.

If they cut the bandwidth allowed to broadcasters down to free it for other uses then you wont be able to use analog broadcasts unless you want one channel. That is not in the interests of consumers.

[ShaiGar]

Chaos is needed for opportunities, Stability is needed for growth.
Small government is good. Big Government that attempts to rule every single fucking thing, is EVIL.

[Jakalwarrior]

	Originally Posted by ShaiGar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Chaos is needed for opportunities, Stability is needed for growth. Small government is good. Big Government that attempts to rule every single fucking thing, is EVIL.

So republican = good, and democrat = evil?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Looks like you aren't going to be happy with the result of the election this year. The media has decided that obama or clinton will win, and we have no choice because they influence the idiots which outnumber us.

[sriv]

Democrats seem to make the most out of hard times. True republicans like Calvin Coolidge seem to be able to retain status quo, but retaining it forever is impossible so we need a moderation of both. Neocons are evil.

[ShaiGar]

	Originally Posted by Jakalwarrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So republican = good, and democrat = evil? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Looks like you aren't going to be happy with the result of the election this year. The media has decided that obama or clinton will win, and we have no choice because they influence the idiots which outnumber us.

Except Republican and Democrat are both Big Government advocates.

Obama, is a guy I like.

[acyckowski]

	Originally Posted by ShaiGar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Except Republican and Democrat are both Big Government advocates. Obama, is a guy I like.

Everybody likes Obama, that's not really saying much.

Your first statement is true in practice, the primary distinction being what kind and how much.

Problem is there aren't any credible options. I'd love to go over to the Libertarian side, but they can't seem to get it through their heads that they'll never get into office if they keep trotting out decriminalizing drugs as their number one issue. Politics is a pragmatic business: if you can't get elected, you can't get your ideas enacted.

I don't have a problem with decriminalization, per se, but the order of business matters. Until you get rid of the mechanisms that force me to pay for somebody else's mistakes, don't ask me to make it easier for the dumbasses to screw up.

[dsday]

	Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How many here believe that law=good and chaos=evil? Probably not as many people on these boards, but I have definitely noticed that trend in the majority of people (and almost every book I've read with a big Good v. Evil plot; nearly every time you have Lawful Good v. Chaotic Evil). However, it seems to me that people just don't see as many examples of Lawful Evil or Chaotic good.

I don't believe in that, but sadly I think a lot of people do. Yet, I tend to err away from chaos at all costs, basically stemming form the Lockean side of me. However, I don't think all laws are good, or that more laws is inherently good either. It really all depends on the substance and the essence of the law at hand.

	But on what grounds do they make this law? What gives them the right to say that it is punishable by law to broadcast T.V. waves in a lower quality than they think is good? I could not, to save my life, think of one good reason that justifies this law. They have no right to make it. That is why I consider it evil.

I don't think it was such a bad policy a decision. In fact, it probably is much for the better. There has been two over-the-air infrastructures in the USA for a while, analog and digital. Since the market has been increasing moving towards digital technology, it is rather silly to me to maintain these two infrastructures, especially when the part of the radio spectrum analog TV takes can easily go to more productive endeavors. Moving this way was inevitable and hopefully will work our for the benefit of everyone in the USA.

Besides, I doubt it had anything to do with quality. If you look at the life cycle of long-standing institutions, you'll see they are almost impossible to kill. Virtually dead or useless institutions will remain in law for years beyond their good because the bureaucracy has no incentive to remove them. Someone probably lobbied (e.g. Verizon) probably lobbied enough to get them to do it. While the reasoning is behind the move likely isn't the greatest, I still think it will be more positive in the end.

[Hdier]

	Originally Posted by dsday To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I still think it will be more positive in the end.

This reminds me of 'the ends justifies the means'. While it is not exactly the same, what you seem to be saying is that (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that it's OK for them to pass this law because the result is beneficial. However, what I do not like is that they are (in my opinion) going out of bounds of their rights. Unless having analog TV is going to collapse the economy, they have (again, in my opinion) no right to tell us that we can't choose to watch analog TV. The problem is that they're taking away our choices 'for our own good' (or, at least, that's what it feels like).

For the same reason, I object to laws that prohibit smoking, drinking, etc. unless the side effects are that you turn into a mental/physical vegetable (or something equally severe). If people want to kill their brain cells, fine. I think that (for the most part) it's rather stupid, but it doesn't hurt anyone else (I don't consider acts of violence under the influence of alcohol the drugs fault; however I am making a generalization that has exceptions) and its their choice.

Just because it hurts them doesn't mean that people should lead them by hand to 'protect them'.

[Antares]

Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This reminds me of 'the ends justifies the means'. While it is not exactly the same, what you seem to be saying is that (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that it's OK for them to pass this law because the result is beneficial. However, what I do not like is that they are (in my opinion) going out of bounds of their rights. Unless having analog TV is going to collapse the economy, they have (again, in my opinion) no right to tell us that we can't choose to watch analog TV. The problem is that they're taking away our choices 'for our own good' (or, at least, that's what it feels like). For the same reason, I object to laws that prohibit smoking, drinking, etc. unless the side effects are that you turn into a mental/physical vegetable (or something equally severe). If people want to kill their brain cells, fine. I think that (for the most part) it's rather stupid, but it doesn't hurt anyone else (I don't consider acts of violence under the influence of alcohol the drugs fault; however I am making a generalization that has exceptions) and its their choice. Just because it hurts them doesn't mean that people should lead them by hand to 'protect them'.

I don't see anything wrong with having digital TVs. I maintain that it should be encouraged but not required, and in this case, if propaganda is what's required, then we need propaganda. I personally loathe it, but if that's the only way, I'd do it. The government has no right to decide our preference of entertainment.

I will allow drinking and smoking to the extent where it does not harm anyone else. Absolutely. If it starts going into other's boundary of rights, then it's not allowed. That means if my dad smokes, I'm not allowed to even breathe a breath of second-hand smoke. I'm fine with it as long as I don't have to deal with it. One breath, and it's either he quits or I move out. If just one strike come from a drunk, same result. As long as smokers, drinkers and drug abusers can promise me that, they can go do whatever they like.

[athenian200]

	Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How many here believe that law=good and chaos=evil? Probably not as many people on these boards, but I have definitely noticed that trend in the majority of people (and almost every book I've read with a big Good v. Evil plot; nearly every time you have Lawful Good v. Chaotic Evil). However, it seems to me that people just don't see as many examples of Lawful Evil or Chaotic good.

Honestly, I think that order is always better for people and life in general than chaos, even if it's evil. My alignment is Lawful Neutral, of course, so you shouldn't be surprised.

Apparently, Congress (in America) has recently passed a law that I believe to be evil (it offends my morals; it is not child-killing evil [can anyone say Revolutionary War II?], but I still consider it to be evil). They passed a law saying that all T.V. had to be digital. That's right; they are making laws about the quality that T.V. is broadcast in. But on what grounds do they make this law? What gives them the right to say that it is punishable by law to broadcast T.V. waves in a lower quality than they think is good? I could not, to save my life, think of one good reason that justifies this law. They have no right to make it. That is why I consider it evil.

I do find the law rather pointless, and think the government could better spend it's resources legislating more critical issues, but I wouldn't call it evil, because it doesn't harm anyone. If anything, it might make it so that people who still can't afford new TV's will no longer have the luxury of sitting at home watching television, and will be forced to go out and find a job if they want to watch TV. It doesn't do this as well as it could, though, because they're offering converter boxes for regular TV's. This is another waste of resources, in my opinion, and that's the real evil here rather than the law itself.

One thing I'd add, however, is that they aren't legislating the quality, but the allowed signal format and frequencies. As long as the station broadcasts digitally, they don't care if it's a low-quality digital signal or not. It could be anything from 1080i to 480i, as long as it's transmitted the way they ask.

I'm curious, though... who is going to use those older bandwidths once the government orders the stations to stop broadcasting on them? Will they just be forced to remain clear for no apparent reason, will they be used for specialized government purposes?

[lordrrr]

Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This reminds me of 'the ends justifies the means'. While it is not exactly the same, what you seem to be saying is that (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that it's OK for them to pass this law because the result is beneficial. However, what I do not like is that they are (in my opinion) going out of bounds of their rights. Unless having analog TV is going to collapse the economy, they have (again, in my opinion) no right to tell us that we can't choose to watch analog TV. The problem is that they're taking away our choices 'for our own good' (or, at least, that's what it feels like). For the same reason, I object to laws that prohibit smoking, drinking, etc. unless the side effects are that you turn into a mental/physical vegetable (or something equally severe). If people want to kill their brain cells, fine. I think that (for the most part) it's rather stupid, but it doesn't hurt anyone else (I don't consider acts of violence under the influence of alcohol the drugs fault; however I am making a generalization that has exceptions) and its their choice. Just because it hurts them doesn't mean that people should lead them by hand to 'protect them'.

It pisses me off when people think that smoking should not be banned. Look, if people want to go out and kill themselves, that's fine with me. Unfortuantly, there's a thing called second hand smoking. I have a right to breathe, dammit, put your damn cigarette out and show some courtesy.

[Hdier]

	Originally Posted by athenian200 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My alignment is Lawful Neutral, of course, so you shouldn't be surprised.

Mine is Neutral Good, if anyone was wondering.

...but I wouldn't call it evil, because it doesn't harm anyone. If anything, it might make it so that people who still can't afford new TV's will no longer have the luxury of sitting at home watching television, and will be forced to go out and find a job if they want to watch TV. It doesn't do this as well as it could, though, because they're offering converter boxes for regular TV's. This is another waste of resources, in my opinion, and that's the real evil here rather than the law itself. ... I'm curious, though... who is going to use those older bandwidths once the government orders the stations to stop broadcasting on them? Will they just be forced to remain clear for no apparent reason, will they be used for specialized government purposes?

[/quote]

I don't really object to the law specifically; as far as I can tell affects very little people. I object to the principle, the fact that the government should not be doing this, in my opinion, because I believe they have no right to. It's not that not allowing analog is a huge thing, it's that it's a smaller thing of a larger concept.

	One thing I'd add, however, is that they aren't legislating the quality, but the allowed signal format and frequencies. As long as the station broadcasts digitally, they don't care if it's a low-quality digital signal or not. It could be anything from 1080i to 480i, as long as it's transmitted the way they ask.

What exactly does this mean?

	Originally Posted by lordrrr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It pisses me off when people think that smoking should not be banned. Look, if people want to go out and kill themselves, that's fine with me. Unfortuantly, there's a thing called second hand smoking. I have a right to breathe, dammit, put your damn cigarette out and show some courtesy.

Originally Posted by Anteres

I will allow drinking and smoking to the extent where it does not harm anyone else. Absolutely. If it starts going into other's boundary of rights, then it's not allowed. That means if my dad smokes, I'm not allowed to even breathe a breath of second-hand smoke. I'm fine with it as long as I don't have to deal with it. One breath, and it's either he quits or I move out. If just one strike come from a drunk, same result. As long as smokers, drinkers and drug abusers can promise me that, they can go do whatever they like.

OK, I agree with you, I was summarizing the main idea of my opinion because I don't think that this thread should turn in to a thread about what people think on drinking/smoking laws.

[Blacklustre King]

Law and Chaos being associated with righteousness and evil are interchangeable perceptions of concepts that are vaguely defined.

Much of the "Law" where is live is more "evil" then the chaos around me. I completely disagree.

[Hdier]

I didn't really understand your post...can you or someone else explain it?

[Aronnax]

It was decided a long time ago that transmission frequencies are public property, and would be sold to private entities with FCC oversight. One of the conditions for sale agreement involves public access to transmission (think public radio and public access channels) that the current broadcasters must help pay for. In general it's a compromise that tries to allow both the general public access to the airwaves while allowing them to be developed by private enterprise.

The recent switch to digital broadcasting will free up bandwidth in order to provide a greater public benefit. Switching to digital freed up the 700 MHz frequency (old analog UHF channels) which was auctioned off and will most likely be used to create a nationwide wireless network.

I'm not sure how you perceive this as evil, could you clarify your position?

[athenian200]

	Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't really object to the law specifically; as far as I can tell affects very little people. I object to the principle, the fact that the government should not be doing this, in my opinion, because I believe they have no right to. It's not that not allowing analog is a huge thing, it's that it's a smaller thing of a larger concept.

Okay, I see. You think the government is regulating something it has no business regulating. I agree, if only because it's a waste of legislative overhead and tax money, and can also see it leading to socialism. I was too focused on specifics, sorry.

	What exactly does this mean?

Digital signals aren't necessarily higher quality than analog. A digital signal could be transmitted at a lower quality than an analog signal. It would be legal for a television station to transmit a low-quality digital signal, but illegal for them to transmit a high-quality analog signal. So technically, they aren't dictating quality, they're dictating the format and which frequencies can be used.

Does that make sense?

[Hdier]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not sure how you perceive this as evil, could you clarify your position?

	Originally Posted by athenian200 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Okay, I see. You think the government is regulating something it has no business regulating.

I think Athenian simplified it as best as possible...

	Originally Posted by athenian200 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does that make sense?

Yes, it does, thank you!

[schwartzie]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

... transmission frequencies are public property, and would be sold to private entities with FCC oversight. One of the conditions for sale agreement involves public access to transmission (think public radio and public access channels) that the current broadcasters must help pay for. In general it's a compromise that tries to allow both the general public access to the airwaves while allowing them to be developed by private enterprise. The recent switch to digital broadcasting will free up bandwidth in order to provide a greater public benefit. Switching to digital freed up the 700 MHz frequency (old analog UHF channels) which was auctioned off and will most likely be used to create a nationwide wireless network. I'm not sure how you perceive this as evil, could you clarify your position?

The contention that the government shouldn't regulate how competitors operate in public "air space" is problematic. The alternative, deregulation, could see radio transmitters built into competitors' broadcast areas, using the same frequencies. Receivers/listeners/users in the areas of overlap would have to deal with interference.

If it helps any, moving away from analog will allow for much more efficient use of this spectrum, and the impact on TV viewers is being softened by the gov't using part of the money raised from auctioning the spectrum to subsidize converter boxes for consumers who get over-the-air signals, but don't subscribe to cable or satellite. So, analog TVs will continue to be usable for their normal life.

The FCC auction of the licenses for the 700 MHz frequency was completed in March. Verizon Wireless won the nationwide "C" block of licenses. Frontier Wireless won airwaves in the E block, covering almost all of the United States. Thanks to the efforts mostly of Google, rules require a section of the C block to be set aside for devices and services that can be interchangeable by consumers among different vendors. Basically, open sourced devices. This may spur developments like those that happened when Ma Bell was forced to allow consumers to attach their own devices to the landline network-- we got the internet out of that!

[searcher]

Laws are there as guidelines, not rigid tethers.
Jesus promotes that we follow any laws that uphold the values described in the New Testament.
If a law does not uphold these, it should be ignored.
So you see, religion is not law - good, chaos - evil.