CA Fires ...

I know that they had recovered bits of the drone that hit the water bomber but haven't heard yet whether they have had any success in tracking down the loser who was flying/owned it. Hopefully they manage to catch him.

Drones are pretty cool but like most technology, they come with consequences that haven't always been thought out well to their conclusion. Hitting aircraft is one, potential for surveillance by authority is another....as opposed to the myriad of ways that's already done. Better bring me a new roll of tinfoil Martha, I think I need a new hat......
 
How are they going pay for rebuilding LA when they have to pay for reparations?
You get what you vote for.

On a side note, Newscum set aside 25 million dollars to fight lawsuits from Trump so he can protect his illegals.
 
Sadlsor said:
I would ask, is there any aspect of modern life that is NOT impacted by politics at some level?
Secondarily, is not politics by its very nature, "polarizing?"
You may well say, people all want the same things. (Which is obviously arguable in itself.) But the manner and means to achieve those wants, is where the difference lies.
What disturbs me, are people who can't simply disagree, and go on about their business.
Our world has problems... some we can fix, while some we can't.
Carry on, friends.
Click to expand...
Manners took a major slip during corona. Remember all of the unruly people on airplanes?
 
The first video show how politics skewed the hundreds of science reports.
The second video used those many skewed reports to show that the first video was wrong.
There is no such thing as global average temperature anyways.

Back in 2001 they threw out Well bore hole temperature data "because it did not fit"...
I looked at the data and realized why they threw it out, because it tells a different story.
The deep down data shows that the earth controls the climate.
The heat is stored 15 feet underground.....
The May and November curves speak volumes......

oneYear_heatpump1.jpg

This is my own theory, you will not find this anywhere else.
No one will publish my findings because it does not fit the agenda...
 
Oldbikefixr said:
Had not thought of that one very much but related insurance rates will increase nationwide, not just CA.
Click to expand...
Hey, the poor 'starving' insurance companies will have to make up the North Carolina/California losses somewhere ... :think1: ;)
In all seriousness, I won't be surprised if some of them file bankruptcy to avoid the claims before it is over with.
 
Uncle Phil said:
Hey, the poor 'starving' insurance companies will have to make up the North Carolina/California losses somewhere ... :think1: ;)
In all seriousness, I won't be surprised if some of them file bankruptcy to avoid the claims before it is over with.
Click to expand...
Yea, money worshippers who look down their nose at the little people.
 
Most insurers purchase insurance themselves against catastrophic claims called reinsurance. With respect to claims, they won't permit much leeway if something is excluded from coverage but if it's covered, it's covered. Typically, they either rewrite the policy wording after these kind of events or, as State Farm did, refuse to write policies in certain areas.

It's a difficult situation. People choose to live in areas that are prone to disasters; e.g., Calgary - people have built all along the two rivers that pass through the City. On flood plains. Where it's known that floods are going to happen, granted not as often/severe as in 2013 but still. Should they be entitled to insurance for a loss that is demonstrably likely to occur? If insurance isn't made available then does that mean the government is on the hook with disaster relief? Or do we say "you chose to live there, this is the consequence".
 
Weaselinsuit said:
Should they be entitled to insurance for a loss that is demonstrably likely to occur?
Click to expand...
Sure. Charge a price that's fair and agreeable to both parties, risks included, and cover any losses paid for.

It's like people who have restored older cars insured for their real value instead of just as a 50-year-old car.
 
Larry Fine said:
Sure. Charge a price that's fair and agreeable to both parties, risks included, and cover any losses paid for.

It's like people who have restored older cars insured for their real value instead of just as a 50-year-old car.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. The problem is that insurers write based on pools of risk. So either those who present little risk end up subsidizing those who present a greater risk. Or, if you restrict the pool to those who present the greatest risk, the cost of the insurance is often beyond their ability to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom