🚀 go-pugleaf

[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

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

>In article <c1hm6.4067$S25.61442@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>	John Navas <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> writes:

>> 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.

I respectfully disagree -- what matters is the increase in demand for
public services.  There are no unused/free services.

>The financials of this are related to unisured motorists.

It seems to me that the issue of insurance pertains primarily to care
after emergency treatment.  The cost of police and emergency services is
mostly paid for by the public.  Even in the case of insurance, costs may
exceed coverage limits, which again falls on the public.

This wouldn't be an issue if people could opt out of all public
services, but of course that isn't practical.  "Hey, Joe, he's got one
of those opt out license plates, so just leave him in the burning car!"
;-)

>> (2) unauthorized scanning has no legitimate purpose; 
>
>Some examples of "authorized" scanning, please.

Scanning my own computers to test for vulnerabilities.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>