Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
Link Titanic disaster
"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht ... Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... [snip] Safety is paramount only for new cars. Car makers must certify to very rigorous MVSS (Motor Vehicle Safety Standards). I'm not familiar with individual state safety and emissions requirements so beyond California's very strict rules from CARB (California Air Resources Board) on tailpipe emissions, I'm sure there are at least some states that also do safety inspections, but our driver's licensing process is generally quite loose. e.g., in Michigan, you literally CANNOT fail the 10 or 12 question written test you must take only every 8 years. I asked which one(s) I missed the last time I took it and the clerk told me it didn't matter as EVERYONE passes! Then, what's the sense of a test?! To give some people a job maybegrin I was flabergasted when I heard that 6 years ago but after reflecting for awhile, it occurred to me that the licensing process is an easy money maker for the state as are plates and it is in the state's best interest to have as many drivers on the road as possible because they also buy gas which is taxed, they drive to work which is good for jobs and business, and they drive to shop which is also good for jobs, businesses, and taxes. So, I don't think that you're right. I have to say, but with a big GRIN, that your political leaning are creeping in here. We DO employ people just to employ them, but not very damn much because there simply isn't budget for planned inefficiency when the unplanned kind is so obvious and plentiful. If I'm informed well, sueïng is a hobby in the USA and the amounts of money they ask for minor things are high. I doubt that, also. "Sue the *******!" may be a good slogan and an easy way to earn money by going after those with deep pockets, but often people feel very strongly about alleged product liability injuring or killing their loved ones and there are all too many tragic examples of corporate greed and callous disregard for the public's safety. I can tell you more off-line if you ask about it. Not nessecaryly, I think people in the USA are sueïng faster and more than in The Netherlands. The Urban legend: "Dryïng a cat in the microwave" The cat died and the microwavefactory is sued because it was not in the disclamer;-) -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
#62
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht ... Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... Which part do we have in common? Does The Netherlands have some equivalent to our 2nd Amendment or do you just mean you think we share views on guns, specifically gun control? Thats the part I meant. The latter, I'll assume. Yep. I'll just crack the door open just a bit. If I were running things, I'd hardly ban guns except for the kind which only are used to commit crimes or terrorism, such as automatic weapons, assault rifles, etc. But, I'd strengthen the laws similar to Great Britain where you could OWN pretty much anything you wanted but must keep it in a controlled armory and apply in writing to take it to wherever you proposed to use it for target shooting, hunting, or perhaps a collecting show. In The Netherlands we have a law too that allows some people wearing guns. But they all should have a license. We call that a CCW, Carry Concealed Weapon. Rules for that vary quite widely amongst the "several states" but here in Michigan, one must first get a permit to buy the handgun or other concealable firearm or other weapon but that's relatively easy. Then one must submit to a somewhat more rigorous background check for a CCW and be absent any felony convictions but this requirement is often side-stepped or simply ignored so people in Michigan should ASSUME that everyone they see on the streets, in shops, in cars, anywhere are armed to the teeth. Scary, I think I'll stay where I am;-) Interstingly, one cannot carry a long gun such as rifle or shotgun in the open or concealed, barrel length is limited to 20" or more so sawed-off shotguns are illegal about everywhere, and one cannot even throw a long gun into their rear seat. It must be either disassembledd or stored in a secure case in the trunk of the vehicle or other wise not easily visible from outside the vehicle. What makes this such a peculiar law is that NO permit is required to buy a long-gun except to fill out an application at the store and show a simple photo ID. I never can get a licence, only when I am a member of a "shootingclub". But I'm not so fond of guns. -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
#63
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message ... wizofwas added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... [snip] I love it here. With the price of gas the way it is, I can get to anywhere I want by bicycle with no problems. In fact, I haven't driven a car since Christmas. St. Pete is getting real "biker" friendly more and more each year with new bicycle paths being added to the streets every year and even putting up bicycle racks in more areas. I'm not quite fond enough to move to Florida, but I do like it. I don't much like the cost of living nor them dang himmicanes that Kingfisher prefers I not mention. I think he views them as the "H" word. grin Miami area and south, and the panhandle are the worse places to live in Fla. if you worry about the Herricanes (or Himicanes, depending on the gender of the cane :-)). And the safest place is in the Jacksonville area. But at least we get ample warning when they are coming now. I've been here over 15 years now and have only had close calls with them. But you are right, it's not if you're going to get hit by one, just when. wizofwas |
#64
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
wizofwas added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
Born and raised in Clarkston, it was a great little town back then. And I've also lived in E. Lansing and Grand Blanc. Now I'm in St. Petersburg, Fla. My one year of sailboat racing, we took 1st in class (Tartan 10) in the Port Huron to Mackinaw race. Really?! Help out a lazy Michigander, wiz. Clarkston is north of Lapeer or NW, I can't remember which. I think the only time I've been there, and it isn't more than maybe 30 miles from me, is for a couple of funerals for the father or mother of one of my employees, and then later when HE suddenly and tragicly dropped dead a few years back after I'd retired. Clarkston is due west of Lake Orion, so that would be SW of Lapeer. Basicly it's at the intersection of Dixie Hwy, M 15 and I 75. I have to say Dixie Hwy, because I think they changed the number from US 10 to US 24, but I'm not susre, it's been a long time since I've been there. I must've blew right past this earlier today, wiz. Wow! I must have my compass next to a magnet or something, as I thought Clarkston was the other way or maybe I'm mixed up with the funeral home a little south of downtown that I talked about earlier. Hmmm. Gotta broom the cobwebs out of the old brain, methinketh! Now that I cogitate a little more, yes, I get off I-75 at the Lapeer Road exit right by the Palace of Auburn Hills where the Detroit Pistons play basketball but I keep going north to some Michigan 2-lane highway. No, I must still be mixed up, think I'll find a Michigan map and get myself turned around. William Beaumont Hospital has a satellite medical building just south of Lapeer, and just north of the Chrysler marshalling yard where I get my company lease cars. I see my urologist out there. It is a 25 minute rule out there and more than 2 gallons of gas but is FAR easier than fighting the parking deck at Troy Beaumont which is only 6 miles from my house. So, I trade some money and time for the convenience of parking right by the door and only a short walk down the hall. In the end, I actually SAVE time. And, Beaumont has full X-ray, CT, and MRI services so I use them also. Now, would you at all care to tell me what "wizofwas" means? I'd take a wild stab at something like "wizard of was something or the other". That at all close? Also, would you care to go off-line and maybe get to know each other via E-mail. I'd really like that as you and I can compare notes like I've just started doing with Kingfisher. I'm also enjoying the Hell outta talking to Bouler. If yes, do I un-munge your E-mail addy by just taking out the "nospam"? Hope you're agreeable, I think we can have some fun. -- HP, aka Jerry "You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!" |
#65
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
Link Titanic disaster
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht ... Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... [snip] Safety is paramount only for new cars. Car makers must certify to very rigorous MVSS (Motor Vehicle Safety Standards). I'm not familiar with individual state safety and emissions requirements so beyond California's very strict rules from CARB (California Air Resources Board) on tailpipe emissions, I'm sure there are at least some states that also do safety inspections, but our driver's licensing process is generally quite loose. e.g., in Michigan, you literally CANNOT fail the 10 or 12 question written test you must take only every 8 years. I asked which one(s) I missed the last time I took it and the clerk told me it didn't matter as EVERYONE passes! Then, what's the sense of a test?! To give some people a job maybegrin I was flabergasted when I heard that 6 years ago but after reflecting for awhile, it occurred to me that the licensing process is an easy money maker for the state as are plates and it is in the state's best interest to have as many drivers on the road as possible because they also buy gas which is taxed, they drive to work which is good for jobs and business, and they drive to shop which is also good for jobs, businesses, and taxes. So, I don't think that you're right. I have to say, but with a big GRIN, that your political leaning are creeping in here. We DO employ people just to employ them, but not very damn much because there simply isn't budget for planned inefficiency when the unplanned kind is so obvious and plentiful. If I'm informed well, sueïng is a hobby in the USA and the amounts of money they ask for minor things are high. I doubt that, also. "Sue the *******!" may be a good slogan and an easy way to earn money by going after those with deep pockets, but often people feel very strongly about alleged product liability injuring or killing their loved ones and there are all too many tragic examples of corporate greed and callous disregard for the public's safety. I can tell you more off-line if you ask about it. Not nessecaryly, I think people in the USA are sueïng faster and more than in The Netherlands. Do you mean "not necesarily" or "not necessary"? The former means you disagree with my thesis while the latter means you're not interested in talking about this anymore. Sorry, but this time I can't follow your English. The Urban legend: "Dryïng a cat in the microwave" The cat died and the microwavefactory is sued because it was not in the disclamer;-) A better example is this one, in my baileywick [sp?]: Ford has been sued to the tune of billions of dollars, most of which is still in litigation, for Ford Explorer SUV roll-over accidents once it became apparent it was somewhat unstable and even more so when somebody figured out that its Firestone tires were more vulnerable to handling problems than other brands. Plaintiffs sued on the grounds that Ford and Firestone knew of the defective handling and tendency to roll over yet dragged their feet for serveral years before they even tried to fix it. Here's the most outrageous one I'm aware of that I think is still winding its way on the way to the Supreme Court: Some Michigan woman traveling over 85 mph on rain and rainy snow on a limited access highway has to brake hard and change lanes violently to avoid hitting another vehicle. The Explorer rolls over multiple times and lands in the median strip. She is kills but NOT by the trauma of the rollover. She was not belted and was ejected out the driver's door window and killed when the Explorer literally rolled OVER her. Then, after the police investigated, it was found she was driving on a license suspended for too many speeding violations! Wait, it gets FAR worse! Ford damn near beat the first round lawsuit by bringing in expert witnesses and its own MVSS certification engineers and did a computer simulation and ejection at that speed would have been fatal even if the vehicle had NOT rolled on top of her, but if she HAD been fully belted with the combined lap and shoulder belts, the forces could be proven on a proving grounds crash simulator to be LESS than fatal. So, the plaintiff's family's attorney said that Ford should have made the window glass strong enough to keep her in the car! Now it really gets ludicrous because Ford them brought in expert witnesses and proved that even if it were technically feasible to put strong enough glass in the door - which it is NOT - the blunt force trauma of whacking a piece of 1" or more thick glass would have instantly killed the woman just from a cranial injury to the brain. And, the jury STILL returned a verdict of guilty for Ford and awarded something over $150 million in ordinary and punitive damages to the woman's estate! This was over 10 years ago, I know that Ford appealed but lost and I think has managed to tie this up in court ever since. Now, Ford also has several HUNDRED lawsuits still pendind, a couple of dozen of which are so-called class-action suits involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple injuries and deaths. Sorry to dive off the high board on the technical crash engineering stuff but it is the only way to explain how truly egegious this is. So, please clarify what your sentence meaning is and how you'd like to proceed here, if you do at all. Thanks, Bouler. -- HP, aka Jerry "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" |
#66
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
Interstingly, one cannot carry a long gun such as rifle or shotgun in the open or concealed, barrel length is limited to 20" or more so sawed-off shotguns are illegal about everywhere, and one cannot even throw a long gun into their rear seat. It must be either disassembledd or stored in a secure case in the trunk of the vehicle or other wise not easily visible from outside the vehicle. What makes this such a peculiar law is that NO permit is required to buy a long-gun except to fill out an application at the store and show a simple photo ID. I never can get a licence, only when I am a member of a "shootingclub". But I'm not so fond of guns. In Michigan prior to maybe 8 years ago, a private citizen had to show a legitimate need for firearm protection because of their line of work. For example, a free lance PI (Private Investigator), someone who works for a company that may be attacked and needs a privately owned weapon, or similar things. They just didn't let any yahoo carry a Dirty Harry around. But, Republican Gov. John Engler who was a big believer in the presumed 2nd Amendment's right to "keep and bear arms" took advantage of a friendly legislature to push through a general leniency of the permit to buy a handgun and a FAR more lenient law, the one I already talked about, for getting a CCW. I make no comment on what he did, but suffice to say that we are now in the same position as traditional gun states such as the Far West and Old South. So, do I interpret your brief comment to basically mean that The Netherlands has a much stricter law to obtain a CCW license, maybe like Michigan used to have? -- HP, aka Jerry "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" |
#67
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
Link Titanic disaster
"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht ... snip If I'm informed well, sueïng is a hobby in the USA and the amounts of money they ask for minor things are high. I doubt that, also. "Sue the *******!" may be a good slogan and an easy way to earn money by going after those with deep pockets, but often people feel very strongly about alleged product liability injuring or killing their loved ones and there are all too many tragic examples of corporate greed and callous disregard for the public's safety. I can tell you more off-line if you ask about it. Not nessecaryly, I think people in the USA are sueïng faster and more than in The Netherlands. Do you mean "not necesarily" or "not necessary"? The former means you disagree with my thesis while the latter means you're not interested in talking about this anymore. Sorry, but this time I can't follow your English. We have a sayïmng he "A small hole does a large ship sink". That is possible with language too. I simply meant I'm not interested in several story's about sueïng and and how things ended. Sorry for writing a word wrong so it had a total different meaning. The Urban legend: "Dryïng a cat in the microwave" The cat died and the microwavefactory is sued because it was not in the disclamer;-) This was a joke Jerry, Urban Ledgends never happened. A better example is this one, in my baileywick [sp?]: Ford has been sued to the tune of billions of dollars, most of which is still in litigation, for Ford Explorer SUV roll-over accidents once it became apparent it was somewhat unstable and even more so when somebody figured out that its Firestone tires were more vulnerable to handling problems than other brands. Plaintiffs sued on the grounds that Ford and Firestone knew of the defective handling and tendency to roll over yet dragged their feet for serveral years before they even tried to fix it. Here's the most outrageous one I'm aware of that I think is still winding its way on the way to the Supreme Court: Some Michigan woman traveling over 85 mph on rain and rainy snow on a limited access highway has to brake hard and change lanes violently to avoid hitting another vehicle. The Explorer rolls over multiple times and lands in the median strip. She is kills but NOT by the trauma of the rollover. She was not belted and was ejected out the driver's door window and killed when the Explorer literally rolled OVER her. Then, after the police investigated, it was found she was driving on a license suspended for too many speeding violations! Wait, it gets FAR worse! Ford damn near beat the first round lawsuit by bringing in expert witnesses and its own MVSS certification engineers and did a computer simulation and ejection at that speed would have been fatal even if the vehicle had NOT rolled on top of her, but if she HAD been fully belted with the combined lap and shoulder belts, the forces could be proven on a proving grounds crash simulator to be LESS than fatal. So, the plaintiff's family's attorney said that Ford should have made the window glass strong enough to keep her in the car! Now it really gets ludicrous because Ford them brought in expert witnesses and proved that even if it were technically feasible to put strong enough glass in the door - which it is NOT - the blunt force trauma of whacking a piece of 1" or more thick glass would have instantly killed the woman just from a cranial injury to the brain. And, the jury STILL returned a verdict of guilty for Ford and awarded something over $150 million in ordinary and punitive damages to the woman's estate! This was over 10 years ago, I know that Ford appealed but lost and I think has managed to tie this up in court ever since. Now, Ford also has several HUNDRED lawsuits still pendind, a couple of dozen of which are so-called class-action suits involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple injuries and deaths. Sorry to dive off the high board on the technical crash engineering stuff but it is the only way to explain how truly egegious this is. So, please clarify what your sentence meaning is and how you'd like to proceed here, if you do at all. Thanks, Bouler. Wow what one word can do;-( Lets stop talking about these things Jerry, they are to complicated for me and I'm not interested enough. -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
#68
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht ... snip I never can get a licence, only when I am a member of a "shootingclub". But I'm not so fond of guns. In Michigan prior to maybe 8 years ago, a private citizen had to show a legitimate need for firearm protection because of their line of work. For example, a free lance PI (Private Investigator), someone who works for a company that may be attacked and needs a privately owned weapon, or similar things. They just didn't let any yahoo carry a Dirty Harry around. But, Republican Gov. John Engler who was a big believer in the presumed 2nd Amendment's right to "keep and bear arms" took advantage of a friendly legislature to push through a general leniency of the permit to buy a handgun and a FAR more lenient law, the one I already talked about, for getting a CCW. I make no comment on what he did, but suffice to say that we are now in the same position as traditional gun states such as the Far West and Old South. So, do I interpret your brief comment to basically mean that The Netherlands has a much stricter law to obtain a CCW license, maybe like Michigan used to have? Yes thats what I meant. -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
#69
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
Link Titanic disaster
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
Not nessecaryly, I think people in the USA are sueïng faster and more than in The Netherlands. Do you mean "not necesarily" or "not necessary"? The former means you disagree with my thesis while the latter means you're not interested in talking about this anymore. Sorry, but this time I can't follow your English. We have a sayïmng he "A small hole does a large ship sink". Like the Titanic, right? That is possible with language too. I simply meant I'm not interested in several story's about sueïng and and how things ended. Sorry for writing a word wrong so it had a total different meaning. I think I once said "English is a language that is hard to understand but easy to misunderstand". The original author is believed to be George Bernard Shaw. The Urban legend: "Dryïng a cat in the microwave" The cat died and the microwavefactory is sued because it was not in the disclamer;-) This was a joke Jerry, Urban Ledgends never happened. How can anyone tell? By definition, urban legends are exactly the same as rumors - completely believable yet impossible to either prove or disprove. My wife just bought a bottle of some liquid from the DMSO, Inc. company which her best friend swears is an outstanding spray or wipe on topical pain killer, yet there are NO ingredients list whatsoever and NO suggested uses cited. Moreover, the "instructions" explicity say "do not apply to skin, eyes, or clothing, do not inhale or swallow or use in any way not specifically mentioned on this label. This product is strictly a solvent and should be used as such with no express or implied warranty as to any fitness of purpose whatsoever." Now, I am aware of a powerful drug call DMSO, which means DiMethylsSulfOxide, and comes in 50ml bottes by physician prescription only, and has the only function to attempt to relieve pain caused by bladder IC (Interstitial Cystitis). DMSO is inserted into the bladder by a temporary urinary catheter and is held in for as long as possible until the burning gets too much for the patient to bear. Guess how I know this? So, the DMSO, Inc. company CLEARLY knows this and has probably put distilled water in the bottle without even a flavor or aroma in the hopes that sufferers of anything at all might shell out six bucks for it, and yet the company attempts to indemnify itself from any legal liabililty for use or misuse. A better example is this one, in my baileywick [sp?]: Ford has been sued to the tune of billions of dollars, most of which is still in litigation, for Ford Explorer SUV roll-over accidents once it became apparent it was somewhat unstable and even more so when somebody figured out that its Firestone tires were more vulnerable to handling problems than other brands. Plaintiffs sued on the grounds that Ford and Firestone knew of the defective handling and tendency to roll over yet dragged their feet for serveral years before they even tried to fix it. Here's the most outrageous one I'm aware of that I think is still winding its way on the way to the Supreme Court: Some Michigan woman traveling over 85 mph on rain and rainy snow on a limited access highway has to brake hard and change lanes violently to avoid hitting another vehicle. The Explorer rolls over multiple times and lands in the median strip. She is kills but NOT by the trauma of the rollover. She was not belted and was ejected out the driver's door window and killed when the Explorer literally rolled OVER her. Then, after the police investigated, it was found she was driving on a license suspended for too many speeding violations! Wait, it gets FAR worse! Ford damn near beat the first round lawsuit by bringing in expert witnesses and its own MVSS certification engineers and did a computer simulation and ejection at that speed would have been fatal even if the vehicle had NOT rolled on top of her, but if she HAD been fully belted with the combined lap and shoulder belts, the forces could be proven on a proving grounds crash simulator to be LESS than fatal. So, the plaintiff's family's attorney said that Ford should have made the window glass strong enough to keep her in the car! Now it really gets ludicrous because Ford them brought in expert witnesses and proved that even if it were technically feasible to put strong enough glass in the door - which it is NOT - the blunt force trauma of whacking a piece of 1" or more thick glass would have instantly killed the woman just from a cranial injury to the brain. And, the jury STILL returned a verdict of guilty for Ford and awarded something over $150 million in ordinary and punitive damages to the woman's estate! This was over 10 years ago, I know that Ford appealed but lost and I think has managed to tie this up in court ever since. Now, Ford also has several HUNDRED lawsuits still pendind, a couple of dozen of which are so-called class-action suits involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple injuries and deaths. Sorry to dive off the high board on the technical crash engineering stuff but it is the only way to explain how truly egegious this is. So, please clarify what your sentence meaning is and how you'd like to proceed here, if you do at all. Thanks, Bouler. Wow what one word can do;-( Lets stop talking about these things Jerry, they are to complicated for me and I'm not interested enough. GRIN Be careful of what you wish for, Bouler, you may get it (that is, you may imply or appear to imply that you are asking a question or making a comment and someone like me will come along and write a major paper on the subject). -- HP, aka Jerry "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" |
#70
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
wizofwas added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message ... wizofwas added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... [snip] I love it here. With the price of gas the way it is, I can get to anywhere I want by bicycle with no problems. In fact, I haven't driven a car since Christmas. St. Pete is getting real "biker" friendly more and more each year with new bicycle paths being added to the streets every year and even putting up bicycle racks in more areas. I'm not quite fond enough to move to Florida, but I do like it. I don't much like the cost of living nor them dang himmicanes that Kingfisher prefers I not mention. I think he views them as the "H" word. grin Miami area and south, and the panhandle are the worse places to live in Fla. if you worry about the Herricanes (or Himicanes, depending on the gender of the cane :-)). And the safest place is in the Jacksonville area. But at least we get ample warning when they are coming now. I've been here over 15 years now and have only had close calls with them. But you are right, it's not if you're going to get hit by one, just when. Louisiana and Missippippi got the same warning for Katrina, at least a couple of days before landfall, but the damage, destruction, and loss of life was vastly different for a variety of reasons, but principly from what I know due to much of New Orleans being below the wind surge flood level behind levees that failed and 100 or so miles east wasn't, plus the Mayor of NO and the Gov. of Louisiana sat on their collective duffs and so did FEMA. Now, Florida has none of these problems, AFAIK, you'd obviously be a better judge of this than me, but if ANY coastal area or even 100 miles or more inland is going to get a direct hit by a 100 year wind, rain, and flood there just plain ain't no time to flee, nor any place to go anyway. So, because farming, ranching, manufacturing, and many, many industries are very profitable in hurricane belts and people all must live someplace, I imagine they just play the probabilities. I remember seeing a 15 or so high pole along the Grand Strand near Myrtle beach, wondered what it was and pulled over to see. Perched on top was a sign that read "100 year flood level". 15 feet above the road? Don't think anyone is gonna drive out from there! I know of no place on earth, certainly not wherever the earthquake hit in China, where weather and geological disasters aren't a threat to life and property, it is just a risk we must bear. -- HP, aka Jerry "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 2 of 5 DSC_8041_bewerkt.jpg | Tall Ship Photos | |||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 3 of 5 DSC_8042_bewerkt.jpg | Tall Ship Photos | |||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 1 of 5 DSC_8040_bewerkt.jpg | Tall Ship Photos | |||
NL [Friesland] various pictures - file 13 of 14 Friesland-13.jpg | Tall Ship Photos | |||
NL [Friesland] various pictures - file 12 of 14 Friesland-12.jpg | Tall Ship Photos |