|
etalian posted:liberal california fails to create new jobs: How on earth did you get "liberal california fails to create new jobs" out of: quote:A respected economic study by researchers at UCLA says there are a record number of people with jobs in the East Bay.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How on earth did you get "liberal california fails to create new jobs" out of: p sure he was mocking conservatives who go on about how JOBS AND PEOPLE ARE FLEEING SOCIALIST CALIFORNIA
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
etalian posted:liberal california fails to create new jobs:
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:p sure he was mocking conservatives who go on about how JOBS AND PEOPLE ARE FLEEING SOCIALIST CALIFORNIA Also california the evil entitlement state even though it has budget surplus thanks to the economy roaring back after the recession.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Politicians are unhappy that Prop 47 passed last November, so the Assembly has passed a bill that re-authorizes DNA collection for those convicted of violent misdemeanors like with was intimidation and possession of a machine gun. Also briefly mentioned: the Senate is considering restoring felony charges for possession of date rape drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
"Possession of Date Rape Drugs" is such a wonderful phrase. It just outright promotes the concept that drugs that can be used for date rape are only used for date rape, and that possession of such drugs means you're a date rapist. To be clear: I'm sure there are date rapists out there using Rohypnol and they are bad. But possession of Rohypnol does not automatically make a person a rapist, for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Cross posting from the USPol thread If you think this poo poo is limited to Orange County, I have a bridge to sell you. Quotin' myself in the lawyerin' thread nm posted:poo poo's going down in CA though:
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"Possession of Date Rape Drugs" is such a wonderful phrase. It just outright promotes the concept that drugs that can be used for date rape are only used for date rape, and that possession of such drugs means you're a date rapist. Isn't alcohol the most popular date rape drug? Everyone with a beer is a date rapist!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Isn't alcohol the most popular date rape drug? Everyone with a beer is a date rapist! Alcohol doesn't usually require a prescription, although it would be pretty drat funny if it did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
nm posted:If you think this poo poo is limited to Orange County, I have a bridge to sell you. I'm disappointed that the judges are not showing solidarity at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"Possession of Date Rape Drugs" is such a wonderful phrase. It just outright promotes the concept that drugs that can be used for date rape are only used for date rape, and that possession of such drugs means you're a date rapist. My friend used to roofie himself before getting on a plane to overcome his crippling fear of flying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Papercut posted:My friend used to roofie himself before getting on a plane to overcome his crippling fear of flying. Hell, there are still fitness dudes (and male strippers) out there using GHB as a calorie-free, growth-hormone-stimulating alternative to getting drunk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
A dude tried to get me to sell chloral hydrate for him in college. He thought it would be "big with the frat boys". I flushed it down the toilet and made him watch. He was a sketchy dude. I hope he managed to find a way out of society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Meanwhile, the Sacramento Country Sheriff is intercepting your cell phone calls without a warrant then claiming they have no documentation of who they intercepted or why:quote:The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department (SCSD), the largest law enforcement agency in California’s capital region, has operated a stingray at least 500 times without a warrant in the last decade. But if you asked SCSD directly, even recently they wouldn't give you a definite figure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Literally nothing about any of that surprises me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
It's absurd that stingrays are legal, but given that they are, law enforcement using them without documentation, training, oversight or really any accountability at all is sadly par for the course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
"No responsive documentation exists" is code words for "our files are incriminating, and we don't think you're a big deal media outlet, so we're just going to ignore you."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"No responsive documentation exists" is code words for "our files are incriminating, and we don't think you're a big deal media outlet, so we're just going to ignore you." I forgot to include the link, and I'm on mobile now, but that piece was in Ars Technica, so SCSD is mistaken to think the inquiries are going to stop. Baby Babbeh posted:It's absurd that stingrays are legal, but given that they are, law enforcement using them without documentation, training, oversight or really any accountability at all is sadly par for the course. Seeing how police have been lying to judges to hide their stingray use, I wouldn't be so sure using them without a warrant is legal. edit: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/county-sheriffs-warrantlessly-use-stingray-500-times-claim-to-have-no-records/ Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jun 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Absolute information corrupts absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-police-shoot-suspect-near-Lake-Merritt-6311221.php Apparently the Oakland police shot a guy a few blocks from my house this morning. Protip: if you successfully evade the police after your burglary and succeed in finding a quiet spot to take a nap in your getaway car, don't leave your handgun and extended mag lying out on the seat next to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
withak posted:http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-police-shoot-suspect-near-Lake-Merritt-6311221.php quote:Then officers approached the car and smashed the passenger side window with a metal pipe in what police said was an “attempt to establish communication with the driver.” doctorfrog fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jun 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Have stayed right at 400 cu feet/mo of water (or 3,000 gallons) over the last few months, not sure what else I can cut back to get any lower on a 1750 sq foot house/8k sq ft lot with dead lawns. I will prob get a rain barrel or two this fall for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Have stayed right at 400 cu feet/mo of water (or 3,000 gallons) over the last few months, not sure what else I can cut back to get any lower on a 1750 sq foot house/8k sq ft lot with dead lawns. You could give up pooping! Don't even think about asking Big Ag to conserve more. The Chinese need their alfalfa and almonds at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:You could give up pooping! Badly timed post as ag just got its biggest water cut maybe ever announced today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Ehhh. The state is cutting allocations to senior rights holders. This isn't a cut based on what you're growing. Ideally we'd see the state drawing a distinction between using water to grow export crops like alfalfa, vs. using water to grow less water-intensive food crops for domestic markets. Also, the 1970s are a long time ago, but you make me feel really old when you imply that they were forever ago. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Ehhh. The state is cutting allocations to senior rights holders. This isn't a cut based on what you're growing. Ideally we'd see the state drawing a distinction between using water to grow export crops like alfalfa, vs. using water to grow less water-intensive food crops for domestic markets. Water cuts to senior rights holders is huge. Ag users without senior rights have seen their allocations already cut 25-100%. It is the senior rights that traditionally were untouchable and the fact they are no longer immune from allocation cuts is a huge change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
I agree that it's a big step. I'm not sure if it's going to affect the alfalfa crop or the almond crop or the pistachio crop, though. If it doesn't, then it's not directly addressing the problem. It's not so much that the senior rights holders haven't had their allocations cut since the 1970s: it's that they exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:You could give up pooping! I only poop once a day between 5:30 AM and 7:30 AM unless there is an emergency situation. I have been letting the yellow "mellow" during the day if I can but there is a point where doing that is gross too. To pile on that - one of my favorite golf courses (owned by a very wealthy multi-generational farmer family with $20m in assets*) is closing their awesome course down to grow more profitable almonds for the chinese (probably). I really like Almonds but I like golf too. This place has raised their rates to Bay Area prices too ($80) and it's full every time I'm down there 2x a year. Meh. Stevinson Ranch Golf Club in Merced County to close in July http://www.modbee.com/sports/golf/article21424293.html “It’s heartbreaking,” Kelley said. “We were just getting hammered to the point where our water situation was awful. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. We had to make a business decision – our family almond business had to come first over the golf business.” *I may have some family connections down there that may or may not have a peek into various estates/books/etc or through word of mouth, allegedly.  I also thought that the water rights being cut were for the mere millionaire farmers and not the Billionaire Oligarch Valley peeps that actually control all the water that's left and then sell it back to the State or L.A.. Keyser_Soze fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I agree that it's a big step. I'm not sure if it's going to affect the alfalfa crop or the almond crop or the pistachio crop, though. If it doesn't, then it's not directly addressing the problem. It would take decades to change water law in CA to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
I imagine it would require the state legislature to pass a bill that takes advantage of eminent domain to seize all water rights, normalize them, and dole them back out (along with compensation as appropriate) using a rights structure that is fair, enforceable, does not allocate more water than exists, and permits the state to restrict water usage for water-intensive crops (or perhaps just restrict maximum water usage per acre?), which is not possible today; and then the governor would have to sign it (unlikely); and then of course it would instantly land in court, where we would then see many years of injunctions and challenges and suits costing the state tens of millions of dollars, before it was all wrapped up. That's what I imagine. And you're probably right that whatever solution anyone came up with would take ages. But that's all the more reason to start now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
From the LA Times story:quote:Despite the 1977 precedent [in which some senior rights holders got no water], it is likely that Friday’s order will spark appeals to the board as well as legal challenges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
You know that weird sudden $0.50 price hike in gasoline prices earlier this year? You know how the gasoline refineries claimed it was because most of the major California refineries were stuck being closed for emergency maintenance? Maybe not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:You know that weird sudden $0.50 price hike in gasoline prices earlier this year? You know how the gasoline refineries claimed it was because most of the major California refineries were stuck being closed for emergency maintenance? Maybe not. The energy industry loves loving over California and blaming (anything) and watching the rest of the country lap it up. I think gas prices have been investigated several times in the last 20 years, but unlike Enron there wasn't a convenient bankruptcy and scandal to unearth it. The lack of any effective federal oversight in to industry collusion, in any industry, is really sad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:From the LA Times story: Well i'm hoping for a liberal judge to go "You know what? You're right AG they don't have a right to kindly ask you for restrictions.... they have a Supreme court right to seize the water". Sort of how Verizon sued the FCC and wanting to implement preferred lanes, and the FCC dropped the hammer on the whole industry by making them phone carriers. incoherent fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
The LA Times just came out with an article on the downfall of San Bernardino: http://graphics.latimes.com/san-bernardino/ I've never been to San Bernardino, so aside from hearsay, I've never really known how bad it could be there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Remember you poors don't pay as much taxes so you don't deserve as much water:quote:RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. — Drought or no drought, Steve Yuhas resents the idea that it is somehow shameful to be a water hog. If you can pay for it, he argues, you should get your water. "See if we'd stuck 160 people on the desert I bought for my family, they'd use a lot more water! You should be thankful we're such large land owners." Cry me a river. No seriously. Cry me a river, we need the water even if it is saltine. edit: Rancho Santa Fe is in officially a semi-arid climate, so yeah they walked right into this. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
quote:“You could put 20 houses on my property, and they’d have families of at least four. In my house, there is only two of us,” Butler said. So “they’d be using a hell of a lot more water than we’re using.” I'm trying to follow the logic of this. He's saying if they transplanted 20 families (who already consume X water regardless) they could fit on his property, and therefore he should be allowed to consume X water?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
tirinal posted:I'm trying to follow the logic of this. He's saying if they transplanted 20 families (who already consume X water regardless) they could fit on his property, and therefore he should be allowed to consume X water? The average house uses X water. I use Y water, which is more than X. However, an equivalent number of average homes on my land would use 20X water. Y is less than 20X.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The average house uses X water. I use Y water, which is more than X. However, an equivalent number of average homes on my land would use 20X water. Y is less than 20X. My understanding of residential occupancy is that families do not materialize out of thin air every time a house is built. If he put 20 families on his property, then they came from somewhere else in California where they're using 20X water already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
tirinal posted:My understanding of residential occupancy is that families do not materialize out of thin air every time a house is built. If he put 20 families on his property, then they came from somewhere else in California where they're using 20X water already. Or they immigrated from somewhere else. Or they came of age.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:05
|
|