Re: DSC 832 on Cable VoIP

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

tourman wrote:
> On Jan 18, 6:27 pm, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 4:49 pm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 12:35 am, Frank Olson
>>>> Bozo Companies aren't limited to the alarm trade either. The fire
>>>> protection industry is chalker-block full of "Bozos"...
>>> RHC: Oh great !! ....sounds like regulation and controls haven't added
>>> much other than regulations and controls-
>> I'm pretty sure I've said it in ASA before and I've said it often
>> enough locally that the Fire Marshals sort of don't like to see me at
>> meetings. It especially applies to those who are in "high" places in
>> the fire detection realm ( all the way to NFPA) and to a lesser degree
>> the security industry.
>>
>> These people are "safety zealots" They're in a position to make,
>> foster and/or enforce rules that govern the industry, and they are the
>> ones who benefit most from it by maintaining their jobs. In my opinion
>> they use the "if it saves the life of ONNNNNNE person, it's worth it"
>> justification phrase, to  defend and downplay the monitary effect, and
>> hardship it places on hundreds of thousands of people. No one can
>> answer their "it's worth it" lament without sounding like an uncaring
>> lowlife. My answer is .... NO, it's not necessarily "worth it".
>>
>> When I get into these types of "discussions" I always ask the
>> defenders of the "system" .... If the safety of people is your main
>> objective and not the perpetuation of your job, why is it that only a
>> so called .... "approved' fire system can be installed? How come
>> "some" detection isn't better than NO detection? How come the Ma and
>> Pa Deli can't have a fire alarm system that wont set them back
>> thousands of dollars? .....  So, because of your rules, they can't
>> have any system at all and if it is installed, not only them but the
>> installer can be fined and perhaps put out of business. How come you
>> can't provide any statistics to prove that your outlandish rules
>> actually DO save lives and property and are not just someones "OH I
>> got a great idea that outta saves some lives" rule, that you just tack
>> on to your already rediculous list that only "sounds" like it'll save
>> a life or two? No testing, No statistics. No followup. No proof. Just
>> another rule to cost the end user more money and allow you to have
>> something else to enforce, fine people for not having, and justify the
>> cost to the taxpayers for your office office and for all the personel
>> and documentation labor that ensues. Just another rule that ignores
>> the people that it excludes by promoting all the mythical people  it
>> will save. With no substantiation, no justification .... it's just a
>> "good idea" Because ..... "If it can save the life of ONNNNNNE
>> person..... it's worth it".
>>
>> Opppps! No answer for that one   ... is there? So then what is it
>> again that your suppose to be concerned about?  Lets' see .....is it
>> the continuation of your job or the safety of people?
>>
>>  Bullshit. It's buracracy and "Good ol boyism"  in it's best form.
>>
>> Obviously, I no longer install commercial fire systems. No sense
>> paying another fine for telling the fire marshal to shove his
>> rediculous rules up his ass.
>
> RHC: This may be off topic a bit but I just have to respond to that
> infamous argument "if it just saves one life" in trying to justify
> some action or other.  On the surface it would seem to be a difficult
> one to argue without looking like an uncaring fool. But over the years
> this argument has been used time and time again by (for example) the
> anti gun jealots when trying to justify their extreme positions on
> some regulation or proposed law.
>
> When you really think about it, there IS an answer and it's an obvious
> one. People in positions of power have to make hard choices all the
> time and do so based on costs versus benefits. Choices are made every
> day that govern the costs of a certain action versus the savings in
> human life - we do it in road design, in safety rules governing
> construction, in automobile design, in the placement (or not) of stop
> signs and stop lights, and in laws that govern our everyday public
> activities. There is no shame in making those kind of decisions which
> can involve calculating the loss of human lives versus the costs
> expended. That's just modern day life. Its using the dollars involved
> to provide the maximum benefit for the money expended and is what
> people in power are paid the big bucks to do.
>
> So to those who try to justify outlandish restrictions or pass
> unreasonable laws, and try to justify their extremism with that kind
> of foolish argument, that is pure unadulterated BULLSHIT. They are the
> ones who should be on the block to prove the worth of their proposals
> versus the human or financial costs of the counter position.
>
> As one example that comes to mind, idiot politicians up here recently
> used that argument to justify the expenditure of $2 BILLION dollars of
> public money to register all the long guns in the country,  on the
> premise that it was worth it if  "it saved only one life" That is
> deluded extremism of the worst kind. I'm sure we can all think of
> other examples.
>
> So the next time that argument is used, take a long hard look at the
> person or group using it and make 'em prove their position is
> justified based on the actual FACTS of both sides of the
> situation .....

But... but... It's for the CHILDREN!