|
Space-Bird posted:Can someone please explain Foster City to me? Probably going to get liquidated if another huge earthquake hits.
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Can someone please explain Foster City to me? You can't go to a restaurant and just eat spices and savory meats. You also have to have some flavorless bread or other carbs to put that on. That's Foster City.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Can someone please explain Foster City to me? San Mateo Jr.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Can someone please explain Foster City to me? A bedroom community with attached large shopping center built on the confluence of Highways 92 and 101. Much of the housing fronts waterways, making it highly valuable. Most of it sits on bay mud and landfill, making it in theory quite vulnerable in a quake, as Jerry pointed out; on the other hand, most of it is fairly modern structures, so they were built with earthquake safety in mind. Most of foster city is at just a couple feet above high tide, though, so global sea rise is going to be a problem. Officially the city's elevation is 3 feet.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:They're just getting started, Ontario is expected to add about 200, 000 residents over the next 20 years. Ontario: "technically" "southern".
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:They're just getting started, Ontario is expected to add about 200, 000 residents over the next 20 years. As if there weren't enough people on the IE freeways as it is now.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Chinese San Mateo Jr. There we go. That's better.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Rah! posted:San Mateo Jr. Also has creepy beginning of 28 Days Later vibe it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
squelch posted:As if there weren't enough people on the IE freeways as it is now. And the 91 had that no compete agreement so its been clogged forevveerrrrrrrr. TildeATH posted:Why don't you just take the train? Aeka 2.0 fucked around with this message at 05:56 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:51
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
double post
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Ok, all the boats/water access in foster city are freaking me out. I've flown into SF at least 40 times, but this is the first time I've ever flown in seeing Foster City? and all those snakey weird inlets, water and houses that have bay access? It seriously spooked me out... I guess it was just a weird happenstance of sitting on the right side of the plane at the right time on a window seat...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Ok, all the boats/water access in foster city are freaking me out. I've flown into SF at least 40 times, but this is the first time I've ever flown in seeing Foster City? and all those snakey weird inlets, water and houses that have bay access? It seriously spooked me out... I guess it was just a weird happenstance of sitting on the right side of the plane at the right time on a window seat... The weird thing about those snakey inlets is they don't have any bay access for boats, even though the bay is right there...so if you live there, you can have a dock in your backyard with a boat (like many people do), but you can only go boating in the man made inlets that run behind everyone's houses. Seems like a waste of a boat to keep it there.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Oh god drat this drought. I always lol when the "agriculture takes up 80% of the water!" meme gets dropped. I've heard this bullshit many many times. Why does EVERYONE believe this?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Oh god drat this drought. I always lol when the "agriculture takes up 80% of the water!" meme gets dropped. I've heard this bullshit many many times. Why does EVERYONE believe this? Like data and poo poo?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
I WISH everyone believed it. The problem seems to be that not everyone DOES believe it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Oh god drat this drought. I always lol when the "agriculture takes up 80% of the water!" meme gets dropped. I've heard this bullshit many many times. Why does EVERYONE believe this? http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article17268866.html http://abcnews.go.com/News/californias-drought-plan-lays-off-agriculture-oil-industries/story?id=30087832 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers-gamed-california-s-drought.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/californias-water-conservation-slowed-in-february.html?_r=1 The only people arguing about it are right wing rags who are harping on about how "environmental regulations" are the real water problem.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Meme? That's 70-80% of developed water, not total Californian water, which is a big difference. The issue is, it doesn't really matter what % of water Ag uses, it's a rather meaningless metric. Efficacy and effieicncy matter much more. California's strict rules on the use fresh water for power plant cooling skews water use towards Ag when compared to other states. Want Ag to use a small % of total water? Use more in power plants! 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
Not when you're in the middle of a drought. "Oh hey we need to reduce water consumption but 80% of it is untouchable, whoops!"
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Not when you're in the middle of a drought. But that's patently false, we've already massively reduced the amount of water Ag is getting this year, for example the CVP didn't allocate any water to Ag this year.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
I think one of the points is "80%" is meaningless when you don't know the specific quantity consumed. Everyone in the state, including agriculture, could reduce their water use by 50%, and the metrics would still show agriculture at 80% even though in pure amounts, they'd have saved the most. It's useful as a one-time metric on what to tackle first, but going forward, unless you know what specific amounts of water are being used where, it's hard to use in any sort of comparison. Given the above "everyone cuts by 50%" scenario, it's very very easy to see people who are bad at math saying "AGRICULTURE IS STILL AT 80%?! WTF, I THOUGHT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO START USING LESS WATER". Dr. Eldarion fucked around with this message at 17:25 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Meme? So what you are saying is that 80% of 50% is the same thing as 80% of 100%?  I'm not very good at math. Maybe you should walk me through this.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The issue is, it doesn't really matter what % of water Ag uses, it's a rather meaningless metric. Efficacy and effieicncy matter much more. California's strict rules on the use fresh water for power plant cooling skews water use towards Ag when compared to other states. It is a useful metric when they are talking about requiring usage reductions for only some users. Requiring that usage be reduced by 50% doesn't sound as great when that reduction requirement only applies to a small fraction of the total stuff being consumed.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
withak posted:It is a useful metric when they are talking about requiring usage reductions for only some users. Requiring that usage be reduced by 50% doesn't sound as great when that reduction requirement only applies to a small fraction of the total stuff being consumed. Are you telling me that having to ask for a glass of water in a restaurant instead of it automatically being brought to me, isnt actually going to help the drought? Mind=Blown
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Are you telling me that having to ask for a glass of water in a restaurant instead of it automatically being brought to me, isnt actually going to help the drought? Do you actually have some point to make, or are you just being contrarian for kicks?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Are you telling me that having to ask for a glass of water in a restaurant instead of it automatically being brought to me, isnt actually going to help the drought? Even if we didn't use any water at all there would still be a drought. Mind=Blown
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
The 80% statistic is kind of a red herring. What is important is that a huge amount of the water used for agriculture in California, is used to grow water-intensive cash crops for export. Export out of the country, often. We don't need to be growing alfalfa in California. Our water-intensive nut orchards could be repurposed for less water-intensive crops. And no, reducing the cash-crop output of California would not impact our economy significantly, because ag is only 2% of CA's total economy. But we have a system in place that encourages these cash crops. The net output of pistachios has been rising in recent years even as we've plunged into a multi-year drought. When we're talking about water conservation efforts, surely we should aim for the, ahem, low-hanging fruit? That includes wasteful water usage wherever it exists, including residential. But it ought to also include some kind of system that would discourage water-intensive cash crops, and it plainly does not.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:I still need a car to get to the station in a timely manner. Once I get off the train near work I'd need to bike, or bus to work. All start becoming horribly impracticable if I have unexpected overtime and for normal days I'd need to get back home ASAP to take care of my kids so my wife can work. It's just easier to drive. It's easier to leave the house at 4am and then sleep in my car than take a bike on the train. I am SoCal.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
If we didn't grow pistachios we'd be losing one of the strongest donor class proponents for war with Iran so that's unacceptable </migfsay>
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The 80% statistic is kind of a red herring. What is important is that a huge amount of the water used for agriculture in California, is used to grow water-intensive cash crops for export. Export out of the country, often. Are you saying that a government subsidy caused an unintended consequence? Hmm... that usually doesn't happen. Do you think if the government stopped messing with free market water prices, we might not be growing such water intensive crops in the middle of the desert? That kind of makes sense, I guess. What do you guys think?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Are you saying that a government subsidy caused an unintended consequence? Hmm... that usually doesn't happen. Do you think if the government stopped messing with free market water prices, we might not be growing such water intensive crops in the middle of the desert? That kind of makes sense, I guess. What do you guys think? Well, seeing how most of the problems has to do with the existing water rights system rather than say, direct subsidizes, I don't actually think your point follows. Honestly, California just has to adjust to the fact that the state grew based on two faulty points: 1. That natural water flows are "wasted" and thus we grew assuming 0% allocation for environmental needs until courts forced otherwise. 40-50% of total water gets allocated to natural flows now. 2. Water allocations are based on historical wet period numbers. Now that the wet period has passed, there just won't be enough water to meet all of the previous allocations.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But we have a system in place that encourages these cash crops. The net output of pistachios has been rising in recent years even as we've plunged into a multi-year drought. When we're talking about water conservation efforts, surely we should aim for the, ahem, low-hanging fruit? That includes wasteful water usage wherever it exists, including residential. But it ought to also include some kind of system that would discourage water-intensive cash crops, and it plainly does not. Simplest thing is to make all or part of the ag industry pay full price for their water. The invisible hand will probably correct the situation rapidly.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, seeing how most of the problems has to do with the existing water rights system rather than say, direct subsidizes, I don't actually think your point follows. 40% of federal farm subsidies in California go to cotton and rice growers. Not sure if rice is a good crop to grow in the middle of the desert. Sounds like this entire problem can be summed up as: "unintended consequences of government regulation". Is that a fair assessment?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Are you saying that a government subsidy caused an unintended consequence? Hmm... that usually doesn't happen. Do you think if the government stopped messing with free market water prices, we might not be growing such water intensive crops in the middle of the desert? That kind of makes sense, I guess. What do you guys think? It wasn't a subsidy it was water restrictions having the unintended consequence of encouraging high value export crops. Basically farmers maximize $/gallon of water. The invisible hand of the market is fisting us again. I suppose we could remove the restrictions and hope the farmers act responsibly for the greater good of their own accord.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:40% of federal farm subsidies in California go to cotton and rice growers. Not sure if rice is a good crop to grow in the middle of the desert. The area wherr most rice is grown (Sacramento and points north) in California is not a desert. In fact, much of rice is grown in areas that were seasonally flooded and were wetlands. The reasonbthey aren't now us a combination of flood control and water diversions down south. Also, the crop everyone shouldbget mad about is Alfalfa. It takes a huge amount of water, can be grown anywhere, and a huge amount of it is exported. It isbofteb grown in the driest places like the Imperial Valley.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:40% of federal farm subsidies in California go to cotton and rice growers. Not sure if rice is a good crop to grow in the middle of the desert. You're obviously coming at this with a preconceived notion of who is to blame, as if the government just happened to gently caress up an benefit all those wealthy land owners by chance.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Do subsidies and regulations change behavior? I thought that was their purpose. I guess they don't change behavior in agriculture. That makes sense. If they don't change behavior though, why have them?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Family Values posted:It wasn't a subsidy it was water restrictions having the unintended consequence of encouraging high value export crops. Basically farmers maximize $/gallon of water. The invisible hand of the market is fisting us again. Wouldn't this just incentivize Ag to exhaust the current water supply as quickly as possible, probably leading to some sort of major ecological collapse before more efficient systems are put in place. I guess that's sort of happening anyway... There's no way out. 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Wouldn't this just incentivize Ag to exhaust the current water supply as quickly as possible, probably leading to some sort of major ecological collapse before more efficient systems are put in place. I guess that's sort of happening anyway... There's no way out. Do government water regulations create incentives? I'm not sure that they do. I don't think the government regulations change behavior very much.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Wouldn't this just incentivize Ag to exhaust the current water supply as quickly as possible, probably leading to some sort of major ecological collapse before more efficient systems are put in place. I guess that's sort of happening anyway... There's no way out. It was sarcasm. I debated adding a smiley but thought it was obvious enough without it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Do government water regulations create incentives? I'm not sure that they do. I don't think the government regulations change behavior very much. Make a point
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:40
|
|