Leaderboard

I'm reading it and assuming a sarcasm font was sorely missed when he wrote it.

You can calculate the minimum canopy size you are allowed in France at this link: http://www.ffp.asso.fr/tailledevoile/ You need to enter your naked weight (Poid nu) in kg and the number of jumps (saut) you have. For example, if you weigh 85 kg and have 252 jumps your minimum canopy size is 199 square feet.

I hate to be the one to derail your righteous pulpit. But science is on the side of GW. I wasn't referring to the actual science, I referring to exaggerations about climate change and sensationalism that ignorant people then spread like wild fire in counteractive attempts to win over skeptics, deniers, or whatever label you'd like to use. Right, that's why I called it objective. It objectively, and honestly addressed a variety of factors rather than the typical doom and gloom like the Time article I linked to, which by contrast was single-minded, apocalyptic in nature, and offered very little wrt practical solutions.

Here's a rather objective article that shows there aren't significantly more fires: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/09/14/you-may-not-believe-it-but-the-number-of-california-wildfires-has-been-going-down/ "For nearly 40 years, the number of wildfires in California has been declining." “The claim commonly made in research papers and the media that fire activity is increasing throughout the western USA is certainly an over-statement,” "The trend of fewer, but not smaller fires is apparent in recent years. State data regarding large wildfires (300 acres or more) from 2000 to 2015 show total numbers – not fire size – has been in decline" "One reason acreage may be up is from the record winter rains that replenished fuel for fires by spawning plant growth, including the return of grass that had disappeared from wildland areas throughout Southern California during the drought." "Grass fires tend to burn faster and increase the amount of acres burned, according to a 2008 paper published by UC Merced Sierra Nevada Research Institute’s Anthony Westerling." “People who have written on it tend to ascribe it to climate change, but I think we are a long way from knowing if that is what is going on,” he said. I would also add that the extra acres of replenished fuel don't pose an immediate threat, so they are left to burn while fighters focus on more populated areas. Contrast that with this: http://time.com/4985252/california-wildfires-fires-climate-change/ "Experts say we should continue to expect more extreme fires in California." "With longer fire seasons and faster-moving, increasingly aggressive wildfires, California can expect much of the same in the coming years." “These findings are profoundly serious and will continue to guide us as we confront the apocalyptic threat of irreversible climate change,” Depends where your town is. If it's a liberal town, then yes, the violent white biker gang and their cocaine is to blame! If the gang is black or MS-13, then it's those xenophobic gun loving white right wing racists that are to blame! If your town is conservative, then of course the blame is attributed to the blacks and MS-13, and rightly so. . . Personally, I think it's that crazy creepy quiet guy that crawled into that condo at end of the cul-de-sac. . .

Right, costs primarily due to lawsuits because of their faulty equipment that sparked 17+ major fires recently. So they file for bankruptcy to cap their liability and will most likely raise prices to cover their losses. I wonder how the whole climate change excuse will hold up in court. . .

"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has" -- Christopher Hitchens While he was referencing poverty it could also be applied to population control

I'm not so sure the world needs to look at population control. I think all we need to do is to give power to women and the problem will be solved.

I’m not feeling the love. I think he had to do something to cater to the audience with small screens. But this is looking like it could be the end for me. I’ll wait and see for a while. I haven’t found a search function yet. Without that a ton of rigging knowledge will be inaccessible. There is too much content here for this format to be effective.