🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <c1hm6.4067$S25.61442@typhoon.sonic.net>,
	John Navas <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> writes:
> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
> 
> In <97c3uq$hm1$2@news.panix.com>, snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott
> Norwood) wrote:
> 
>>
>>In article <Wggm6.4051$S25.60786@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>John Navas  <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>>>
>>>In <Zt%l6.65747$_D.12140610@typhoon.we.rr.com>, "Keith Paxton"
>>><neodoesntw@ntspamknac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>On the contrary -- compliance with seat belt laws, for example, was
>>>substantial prior to enforcement.  (It's better with enforcement, but is
>>>still not universal.)  Laws help to establish minimum standards of
>>>social conduct.
>>
>>Sorry, but you just hit a personal hot button with this comment.
>>What gives anyone the right to tell me what I can and can't do
>>within my own car that doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else?
> 
> 1.  Not being secured with belts makes you a more dangerous driver,
> which poses a risk to the public.
> 
> 2.  Your injuries in the event of an accident tend to be more severe if
> you are not wearing belts, 

Yes.

> which puts an increased burden on public resources 
> (ambulance, hospital, etc.).

This is only a problem if the number of accidents requires more resources
than are available.  Natural disasters are a candidate for this, but not
the average number of traffic accidents.

The financials of this are related to unisured motorists.

>>I do wear seat belts and I do believe that they significantly
>>decrease the risk of injury or death in automobile accidents, but
>>I still believe strongly that no one should be compelling me to
>>wear seat belts.
> 
> Frankly I don't care if you are foolish enough to drive without belts on
> private property, as long as you are not on the public highways.
> 
>>I suppose that the public health argument could
>>be made (higher rates of injury => higher costs for medicaid, etc.
>>if people get in accidents and then can't afford doctors' fees),
>>but the connection is pretty tenuous.
> 
> I think it's pretty solid.
> 
>>In any case, there's a distinct difference between port-scanning
>>and any sort of life-threatening activity, so this whole discussion
>>is getting totally irrelevant.
> 
> I disagree -- the issue at hand was whether laws can be effective
> without enforcement.

You think the law against "walking your pig on Sunday without a leash" 
(St. Paul, MN) lacks real enforcement commitment? I've never seen an 
illegally walked pig, anywhere on any day of the week.  Perhaps the 
enforcement techniques are to subtle to notice?

>>I would never argue that port-scanning someone else's hosts without
>>permission is a 'polite' or 'friendly' thing to do, but I would
>>still say that there's not a huge justification for laws against
>>something like this which is not destructive in and of itself,
>>but which 'might' lead to destructive or otherwise criminal activity,
>>especially since there is no serious threat to life or property as
>>the result of a portscan.
> 
> The problems are that: (1) there are serious risks to property; 

> (2) unauthorized scanning has no legitimate purpose; 

Some examples of "authorized" scanning, please.

Paul

> and (3) most scanning is neither 'polite' nor 'friendly'.

It's damn'd rude.

Paul
-- 
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.