🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <RTjm6.27429$5M5.1720979@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
	rockhead.com@bigbox.wan.vpn (Paul Newhouse) writes:
> In article <c1hm6.4067$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.

Let's make that "uninsured" 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.