|
For comparison, NYC
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
withak posted:IIRC it is a sonic survey of the sea floor, done from some kind of apparatus towed behind a ship. It measures sea floor topography and subsurface stratigraphy, both of which can tell you stuff about whether there are any unknown faults present and how old they are. The problem is that the vibrations involved can be harmful to sea life. Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Xaris posted:This is true. Being young and living in Santa Rosa was really lovely and I couldn't wait to transfer out of Santa Rosa Junior College (and Sonoma County in general) because of how depressing it was. Bowling at the AMF in Petaluma was probably the highlight of things to do. It's definitely an elderly suburban or middle-aged overweight NIMBY Costco-goer setting with everything closing at midnight--usually much earlier. Novato is where I'm going to stay for a week via AirBnB, I figure that's the farthest I'm willing to commute. I don't Need the car for work, the ferry is an option but I'm concerned at how the presidio seems to be somewhat isolated from any major transit hubs, I'll give it a whirl certainly. The car requirement is mainly for when I'm working overtime, 10-12 hours a day I'm going to be outside normal operating hours of ferries and some bus routes. On the flip side that means I'll be commuting before and after rush hour so the drive won't be that bad. /edit The more I look into it, it's not really an option, the Ferries would be great if I worked a Finance job downtown, where I'm a few minutes walk from the terminal. Kinda like the LA red line and metrolink, great if your job is just off a station stop or near the downtown core. Big K of Justice fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Geared Hub posted:I'll be commuting before and after rush hour so the drive won't be that bad. Ha!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Geared Hub posted:Novato is where I'm going to stay for a week via AirBnB, I figure that's the farthest I'm willing to commute. I don't Need the car for work, the ferry is an option but I'm concerned at how the presidio seems to be somewhat isolated from any major transit hubs, I'll give it a whirl certainly. The car requirement is mainly for when I'm working overtime, 10-12 hours a day I'm going to be outside normal operating hours of ferries and some bus routes. On the flip side that means I'll be commuting before and after rush hour so the drive won't be that bad. Fortunately you have the option of taking PresidiGo , a mostly free shuttle that more or less reliably runs every 15/30 minutes. You'd have to walk about 5 minutes from the Ferry as shown on the map to the Transbay Terminal but that's nothing. Because it's a direct shuttle with no stops in between, it's quite efficient as compared to Muni buses that get so bogged down that it's quicker to walk half the time (during peak). Also withak laughs because everyone has the same idea. It's Game Theory 101. Now granted, if you arrive ridiculously early, say 5am-1 or 6-2 (which means leaving at 5ish) then yeah you might be able to make that work but 7-4 or 10-6 is generally out of the question. Xaris fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:edit: also, the Seattle Freeze is bullshit if for no other reason than half of the people in this city are out-of-state transplants anyway. Hell, it seems that half of SF is constantly turning over every 5 years with a new influx of spoiled 22-32 yr olds from the Northeast that are drawn to the Marina for some reason. Only "friendly" if you "summered" in the same spots as them and went to private schools, etc. Novato to Presidio guy: Find somewhere to stash a motor scooter by the Ferry Bldg.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Hell, it seems that half of SF is constantly turning over every 5 years with a new influx of spoiled 22-32 yr olds from the Northeast that are drawn to the Marina for some reason. Only "friendly" if you "summered" in the same spots as them and went to private schools, etc. That reason is the financial industry. Same with the tech industry filling the mission.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But compared to say Sacramento.... To be fair, Sacramento is one of the most integrated cities in the nation: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,340694,00.html That article's a decade old, but it's not like Sacramento's gotten less diverse since then. And on the topic of diversity, here are the 10 largest combined statistical areas (basically "greater" metropolitan areas) by racial diversity index in 2000 and 2010. The diversity index was released only in the 2000 census, but this dude here used the same methodology with 2010 data to find out what the updated numbers would be. Higher numbers show a more even representation of all races than lower numbers, with a score of zero equalling zero diversity (all people are of one race), and a sore of 100 equalling complete diversity (equal representation across all racial groups). Unsurprisingly, the Bay Area and the LA area are at the top, though I was surprised to see Houston in the number 2 spot in 2010: 2010 Index Rank 1. SJ-SF-Oakland CSA: 69.9 2. Houston CSA: 68.4 3. Los Angeles CSA: 66.4 4. New York CSA: 65.3 5. Dallas-Fort Worth CSA: 63.6 6. Washington-Baltimore CSA: 63.3 7. Atlanta CSA: 62.5 8. Chicago CSA: 61.8 9. Philadelphia CSA: 52.5 10. Boston CSA: 38.2 2000 Index Rank 1. SF-SJ-Oakland CSA: 66.2 2. Los Angeles CSA: 66.1 3. Houston CSA: 65.5 4. New York CSA: 61.2 5. Chicago CSA: 58.4 6. Dallas-Fort Worth CSA: 58.1 7. Washington-Baltimore CSA: 56.3 8. Atlanta CSA: 55.4 9. Philadelphia CSA: 46.2 10. Boston CSA: 31.1 Rah! fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That reason is the financial industry. Same with the tech industry filling the mission. Hell, I only made it 5 years there myself. I had to leave because I had to drive to San Mateo and then Mtn View every day for work, there wasn't all this telecommuting stuff yet (late 90's)  and didn't have parking when I got home and would forget where they hell I squeezed my car into sometimes....and I lived out by USF so it wasn't even "that" bad parking-wise. Meh. If I found some $250k/yr job I'd move back! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Nowdays if you work in Mountain View then your employer probably runs a free shuttle to and from SF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Glad to see we're in a post segregation society You cut off a little bit of the southern part of SF there...I might as well repost my version of that map in this thread, as it also includes Oakland, and some suburbs like Daly City, Berkeley, South San Francisco, Brisbane, Alameda, Emeryville, Albany, and parts of a few others:  edit: sorry, I forgot the key: blue = white red = asian green = black yellow = hispanic/latino grey = other Rah! fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Why don't you guys explain what these maps are? Do the different colors represent different races or are these heat maps with the colors representing homogeneity or what? e: vvv I don't know where you got the idea that buses in Seattle are free, but a bus ticket in Seattle in fact costs more than one in SF by $0.25. Papercut fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Yeah, gently caress statistics. Public transit in Seattle is way better than in SF because you say so. Yeah, I'm probably wrong. I was just impressed with my limited experience, is all. I've only been to Seattle a few times (flown in). Each time, I rode the light rail from Sea-Tac into downtown Seattle, and back again when having to fly out. It was super fast, clean, and maybe 2-5 bucks? If I remember correctly, riding the light rail there is basically an honor system. You could theoretically get on without purchasing a ticket. Also, the buses riding around inside the city are completely free, constant, fast, clean, you can get just about anywhere within the city, and they were always on time. However, I'm sure if the Seattle public transit system had to deal with the huge volume of people, organic layout, and everything the SF area has to deal with, it would be completely overrun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Why don't you guys explain what these maps are? Do the different colors represent different races or are these heat maps with the colors representing homogeneity or what? If you click on the link in the first post, you can see the key, which is absent in the post.  More on point, Sacramento is really diverse mostly because of the pretty effective implementation of equal opportunity policies, equal housing, and being the center of State Government, which adheres to those policies pretty strictly. You just have a lot of different races comprising the "Middle Class" in these parts. Not to mention things have more/less been completely renovated in the past 30 years from being pretty dilapidated to a huge renovation movement that raised property values and cleaned up a lot of the more 'ghetto' parts of Downtown and Midtown. Before https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWxga2a2g7c After https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIy-v1ni-hM
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Papercut posted:vvv I don't know where you got the idea that buses in Seattle are free, but a bus ticket in Seattle in fact costs more than one in SF by $0.25. OK, so I did a little research, as I thought I may be going crazy misremembering. Looks like I was riding in the "ride free area," and on top of that, they apparently did away with that about a year ago... http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/ride-free-area/ Go figure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:If I remember correctly, riding the light rail there is basically an honor system. You could theoretically get on without purchasing a ticket. Just a point on this. Light rail without turnstiles is absolutely not the honor system. LA does it this way and you'll get a very big fine if they check for tickets and you don't have one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
I believe that the LARGEST employer between Sac and Portland is Beale Air Force Base, they base a lot of Drone guys there. Some goons brought employer stats to the Sac Kings thread earlier this year and also noted that Intel has up to 5,000 emps there but everything else is way way smaller.....and it's obviously cheaper than Palo Alto but not cheap enough for large employers. It's almost too close to the Bay Area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Just a point on this. Light rail without turnstiles is absolutely not the honor system. LA does it this way and you'll get a very big fine if they check for tickets and you don't have one. Denver and Munich also do it this way too with the honor system with ticket buying. I guess it cuts down on crowd logjams at the busier stations but on the hand I'm sure they lose lots of revenue this year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
etalian posted:Denver and Munich also do it this way too with the honor system with ticket buying. In LA the fine for riding without a ticket is ~100$. I paid 38$ a month for a monthly transit pass and got checked for tickets about twice a month. Going without a ticket isn't economical at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:I believe that the LARGEST employer between Sac and Portland is Beale Air Force Base, they base a lot of Drone guys there. It depends on how you break it down. A lot of stats will separate all of the State Departments, but the State itself employs a MASSIVE number of people just around the Sacramento area. "BizJournals.com" posted:"California has about 239,600 state employees, which includes full-timers to Golden State retirees who continue with projects for the state, according to a recent State Controller’s report. You also have a couple other Tech campuses in Folsom, but nowhere NEAR as big as Intel (as you said.) There's also Aerojet, which staffs quite a few people (~3,500) in the area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
etalian posted:Denver and Munich also do it this way too with the honor system with ticket buying. LA Metro has also locked the turnstiles for most if not all of the Metro Rail stations, now that they've finally made Metrolink tickets compatible with TAP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
SF light rail on surface streets is also non-turnstiled. You need to have a ticket but nobody is checking when you get on. When I lived there (which is a decade ago now), a cop would check people for tickets every now and then, and since I was riding almost daily, I probably had my ticket (fast pass, actually) checked once or twice a month. They tended to board at a stop where it was a while to the next stop, too, so people couldn't just get off if they saw a cop get on.Trabisnikof posted:Glad to see we're in a post segregation society Others have responded, but they've been addressing overall diversity of a region, by which metric San Francisco is #1. But you seem to be actually talking about segregation of neighborhoods. But the policy of segregation in the South was an enforced one, by law or by de-facto law. Segregation usually refers in particular to racist separation of schools, public facilities, and voting rights. The tendency of neighborhoods in any city to be dominated by a single ethnicity is mostly a matter of choice, and/or economics. Immigrants tend to move to neighborhoods with a predominance of their ethnicity, which is why Chinatown is still full of Chinese people and there's a large population of Afghanis in Fremont. At the same time, people tend to move to (or are stuck in) the neighborhoods that fit their economic means, which is why black people (who are disproportionately poor) tend to congregate in poor neighborhoods (or be left in them, as a neighborhood in decline loses everyone with the economic means to flee). It's reasonable to point out that even in a city as ethnically diverse as San Francisco, the latter effect still holds true. The neighborhoods with the most black people are the poorest ones. Even in extremely-liberal San Francisco, there is still a lot of work to be done in regards to social justice, racist laws (especially sentencing laws), racism by landlords, racism in the criminal justice system, police profiling, gangs, drug culture, and so on and so on. SF is not immune, and although it's a city that has made a lot of progress (compared to most of the rest of the country), it plainly still has a long way to go. So, yes, we are in a post-segregation society. It's not "segregation" that causes a lot Asian folks to move to the Sunset district, nobody is creating an Asian ghetto there and forcing anyone who speaks Tagalog out of their white neighborhoods. But yes, SF is by no means immune from social justice problems, and as an extremely expensive city, the effect is particularly pronounced (Bayview/Hunter's Point and the narrow corridor of the Tenderloin are the shittiest most run-down neighborhoods, and that's where poor people can afford to live, if they haven't already been forced out of the city entirely).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:LA Metro has also locked the turnstiles for most if not all of the Metro Rail stations, now that they've finally made Metrolink tickets compatible with TAP. Speaking of random mass transit stories, one of favorite memories from the Munich metro was getting a free beer out one of those famous push around German beer carts while on the metro. Would never happen today since alcoholic drinks got banned in 2011.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:LA Metro has also locked the turnstiles for most if not all of the Metro Rail stations, now that they've finally made Metrolink tickets compatible with TAP. Just the Red Line, not the Blue, Green, Gold, Expo and Orange. There are no turnstiles(well most).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Casual Yogurt posted:Just the Red Line, not the Blue, Green, Gold, Expo and Orange. There are no turnstiles(well most). Yeah, they've only done the Red Line so far because all of its stations are underground. It'll be considerably more problematic to lock people out of, say, Expo Line stations that are on surface streets since said stations were not really designed for it. There's also the issue of the absurd cost of installing the turnstiles compared to even the best projected added revenue capture, but I guess we'll see how that plays out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But compared to say Sacramento.... I read that Sacramento is the most racially integrated town in, like, anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:I read that Sacramento is the most racially integrated town in, like, anywhere. Yup. Rah! posted:To be fair, Sacramento is one of the most integrated cities in the nation:
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
Lengthy article on Gov Brown in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. Suck it conservatives.link Brown still is disappointing when it comes to prisons
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Also, Chicago isn't in the top three. Granted, I've never been over there, but I hear people from around here in San Francisco rave all the time about how it's second only to New York. Yeah, its pretty loving awesome. That poo poo goes everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Yeah, its pretty loving awesome. That poo poo goes everywhere. As someone who moved from San Francisco to New York City: The subways/buses here in Manhattan are like a superpower, but outside of Manhattan they're of less utility. http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/subwaymap.pdf The subway system is kind of in a Catch22, though: Many more people go from Brooklyn or Queens to Manhattan than go between Brooklyn and Queens, and as you can see there's very tenuous subway connections between Brooklyn and Queens--and not much of a connection into Queens anyway, but buses are faster out there because there's much less traffic so that's not as important as it looks. But the existing infrastructure reinforces it's purpose: It makes it harder for Brooklyn or Queens to develop economically compared to Manhattan because they have much smaller markets that can be brought there efficiently by public transport. Brooklyn is succeeding economically by getting people from Manhattan to come out there and people who otherwise would have lived in Manhattan to live there, but this gentrifies it. If there were stronger connections between Brooklyn and Queens, it could be arguably a lot better for those boroughs and would result in communities improving economically without gentrifying. Here's a population density map which shows that while Queens and Brooklyn are less dense than Manhattan, there's still super-dense areas that aren't connected except in a long circuitious route through manhattan.   Sorry, that's a lot about New York for the California thread, but here is the comparison to the Bay Area:   Connections between East Bay and San Francisco are still clearly privileged, but the population dropoff is much more extreme, and the loop around that area is much tighter than in New York. San Francisco public transport is pretty slow and plodding compared to NYC transport a lot of the time, but there's very few places in the Bay Area where you can't plot a pretty direct route to your destination. In NYC, if you start out in Manhattan or are going there, the system is awesome, but if you're out somewhere else in NYC trying to get somewhere else in NYC, it's a lot less useful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
That is one of the very few arguments against city-to-city mass transit that I think are valid; that is, the idea that if it's easy to go from one city to another, then everyone will live in the less-expensive place and commute to the more-expensive place. And so the less-expensive place gets fat off of all those property taxes and home-provisions spending, and the more-expensive place has to raise business taxes because that's their only source of revenue, and then all the businesses go somewhere else and everything sucks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:That is one of the very few arguments against city-to-city mass transit that I think are valid; that is, the idea that if it's easy to go from one city to another, then everyone will live in the less-expensive place and commute to the more-expensive place. And so the less-expensive place gets fat off of all those property taxes and home-provisions spending, and the more-expensive place has to raise business taxes because that's their only source of revenue, and then all the businesses go somewhere else and everything sucks. If this way true places like San Francisco, DC suburbs or NYC Manhattan couldn't function from a basic tax perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:That is one of the very few arguments against city-to-city mass transit that I think are valid; that is, the idea that if it's easy to go from one city to another, then everyone will live in the less-expensive place and commute to the more-expensive place. And so the less-expensive place gets fat off of all those property taxes and home-provisions spending, and the more-expensive place has to raise business taxes because that's their only source of revenue, and then all the businesses go somewhere else and everything sucks. There is actually very good commuter rail service from San Bernardino, CA to Los Angeles. You can buy a house in San Bernardino for $100k (or less), while you struggle to get one for $400-500k in LA, yet no one is clamoring to move out here. The suburbs are not equal in many ways and people are beginning to see that. Less cultural opportunities, plus 1 hour each way is worth quite a bit of money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Super-long commutes for a cheap house only sound doable to people who haven't had to do them before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Also, property in places like San Brenardino will probably recover far more slowly from a property crash. For the most part you pay for what you get. In LA though it is a bit more brutal because car commute times are so extreme and alternatives are more limited. Also you're still going to need a car out there even if you take the train, and even if housing is cheap, transportation will be expensive. Public transportation in LA isn't useless obviously but the geography is just so vast, it is going to not a great option for most people unless you dumb a massive amount of money into it. You still need to probably drive over to the commuter rail station to pick it up, take it and then probably take a bus or light rail from there. Portland has some of the same problems but the city proper is small enough you can still find relatively cheap housing and be able to bike to downtown within 30 minutes or just take a single bus line to work. However, like any American city, it has its vast outer suburbs that are openly hostile to the idea of public transportation. In Portland, the obstacles are primarily political not geographic in nature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
nm posted:There is actually very good commuter rail service from San Bernardino, CA to Los Angeles. You can buy a house in San Bernardino for $100k (or less), while you struggle to get one for $400-500k in LA, yet no one is clamoring to move out here. I was about to respond how this isn't true since the Inland Empire is still one of the fastest growing areas of the country and has now surpassed 24 states in total population. You can see how the recession barely made a dent slowing down growth. Here's a population growth chart:  quote:From 1988, when the QER was founded (2.20 million) until 2012(4.29 million), the Inland Empire has added 2.09 million people, an increase of 95.0% (Exhibit 2) California added 9.62 million people in this period (34.3%). Significantly from 1988-2012, 21.7% of all new California residents were in the Inland Empire. The size of the area in 2012 was 420,000 people above Oregon (3.87 million), making it more populated than 24 of the 50 U.S. states. However, I did notice a graph that notes that nearly all the growth since the recession has been from within the region and we have less people from LA and OC moving in now.  So while the IE is still growing, and we're still mainly a commuter town, many people aren't moving in from other areas anymore. I predict as housing recovers more quickly in OC and LA and prices in the IE stay depressed, migration will pick up again. Meanwhile, all the cheap housing is being picked up by investors and flipped as rentals. 58% of foreclosed homes went to investors before even hitting the open market.  The unfortunately named SANBAG county website does a quartly economic report on the Inland Empire and it's a fascinating read if you're into stats are charts. If you're interested in the IE at all it's a good read. http://sanbag.ca.gov/news/pub_quart-econ-report.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
You're far more optimistic regarding the IE than me. The people moving here aren't the tax base from OC or LA, they're people priced out of other places. They don't want to move here, they have to. I don't think the days of the 2000s will be back where people who could afford to live closer moved out here due to being able to save money or getting more sq/footage. Maybe in Rancho, but no further. San Bernardino proper has abandonment that looks more like Detroit than SoCal. Even Redlands, which sort of a wealthy island, has way too many abandoned properties. Even abandoned properties in the hills which used to be unheard of (Newer construction only, older construction is still $500k+). We're talking about outer rings stealing the residential tax base from a more expensive inner city. That isn't happening here. nm fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Meanwhile, all the cheap housing is being picked up by investors and flipped as rentals. 58% of foreclosed homes went to investors before even hitting the open market. I guess history is repeating itself with another bubble given the appreciation numbers but I guess this time it's mainly investors driving the property feeding frenzy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
nm posted:You're far more optimistic regarding the IE than me. The people moving here aren't the tax base from OC or LA, they're people priced out of other places. They don't want to move here, they have to. Yeah, I think you're right. It seems like the 15 freeway is the limit as far as people are willing to move inland and still have a sane commute to their work in LA or OC. Once you move out further than that (maybe Riverside is the exception), you're really looking at people who can't afford to even buy a house in Corona but still work near the coast. Thea whole reason I moved out here from Orange County is because there was no way I could afford a larger home anywhere near my work. Now I didn't necessarily want a home as large and I got but it ticked all my boxes and was still in my price range. You have a few pockets of retirees like in Temecula/Murietta and odd areas like Norco (Horsetown USA) where the people moved out here for specific features of the area, but for the most part the IE is filled with people who would move back if housing became affordable again in LA/OC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
etalian posted:I guess history is repeating itself with another bubble given the appreciation numbers but I guess this time it's mainly investors driving the property feeding frenzy. The government is offering group purchases of foreclosed homes to hedge funds at deep discount; 60 percent of all home sales across the United States are now all-cash because of these programs. Basically, the government paid full market price for the homes when they bought the over-valued paper from the lenders, then the government turned around and sold them off to investors at a discount. The 1 percenters win on both ends, while the taxpayers/99 percenters are totally screwed as a result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 00:05
|
|
