On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 21:49:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 9/3/2013 11:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:06:35 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> The number of "botnets" around hasn't changes much, like, at all, so,
>>> the whole entirely reason for putting such a filter in, in the first
>>> place, is totally meaningless, which makes having it.. what? A good
>>> idea? lol
>>
>> That's like saying that not everyone follows the law, so we should get
>> rid of all laws.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Its more like insisting that you build walls around the city, and place
> armed guards at each entry, on the theory that it will stop you from
> being invaded, while the "invaders", have.. tanks, bombers, cruise
> missiles..

Well, no, because the open ports are just another door.

> What is the point of a law that can't be enforced? Its different if it
> can be. But, if all it does is turn your computer into the TSA...

That's not what I said, though.  I didn't say anything about the laws 
being enforceable or not.

So let's try again:

Murder is illegal.  We don't have a zero murder rate.  Should we get rid 
of laws that make murder illegal?

Speeding is illegal.  People still speed.  Should we get rid of speed 
laws?

Now....

Suppose we take out the measures that prevent the non-standard behaviour 
that you're trying to use.  Does the number of botnets /increase/ because 
there's a new option?  Perhaps it does - so then it could be argued that 
those limitations are helpful (just like anti-murder/speeding laws have 
some utility, even if they don't prevent 100% of violations).

Jim

Post a reply to this message