🚀 go-pugleaf

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

In <_%lm6.28122$5M5.1736172@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
rockhead.com@bigbox.wan.vpn (Paul Newhouse) wrote:

>In article <C6km6.4107$S25.62260@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>	John Navas <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> writes:

>> I respectfully disagree -- what matters is the increase in demand for
>> public services.  There are no unused/free services.
>
>Free no. Unused much of the time. Parking spots aren't "free", but have
>large amounts of time spent "unused".

Emergency services are sized for sufficiency.  More demand means that
more services have to be provided.  Accidents don't confine themselves
to slack periods.

>> 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.
>
>Your examples were "(ambulance, hospital, etc.)" the last time I was close 
>enough to an accident to see the paperwork the ambulance service and the
>hospital were charging quite a bit against the insurance coverage.

I'm talking emergency services.  See below.

>> 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.
>
>Ok, except for self abuse can you think of any (hiring someone to abuse
>is still self abuse ;).

Of course not.  We're on the same page.

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