Re: DSC 832 on Cable VoIP

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 18, 6:27=A0pm, 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 =A0defend 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? ..... =A0So, 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 =A0it
> 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 =A0 ... is there? So then what is it
> again that your suppose to be concerned about? =A0Lets' see .....is it
> the continuation of your job or the safety of people?
>
> =A0Bullshit. It's buracracy and "Good ol boyism" =A0in 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 .....