Page 1 of 269
Posted on September 16 at 10:59 a.m.
Well said discoboy. There are lots of loonies roaming the online Indy these days. Some could be sociopaths in real life who are enabled by anonymous posting. Or are under orders to post here as part of their court-appointed therapy.
Best to simply ignore them.
On Super Aerodynamic Solar Car Stops in Santa Barbara
Posted on September 16 at 10:51 a.m.
I used to have three very large blue gums on my property. Had to remove them because the base of the trunks had become unstable.
Still have one red gum which fortunately hasn't developed problems yet. It does a fantastic display of red flowers each fall and drops bell-shaped seed pods that my neighbors like to use in Christmas wreaths.
On Trees Being Cut Down at UCSB
Posted on September 16 at 10:40 a.m.
One of the more interesting aspects of that vehicle, and all the vehicles participating in the World Solar Challenge, is that they are designed to draw only a fraction of their energy from stored sources (i.e. a battery). The bulk of their energy must be drawn on-the-fly. This means that energy management (efficiency) is a key research aspect of these vehicles.
Posted on September 13 at 12:01 p.m.
Yes, please move to Bhutan and stay there JarvisJarvis. Your small-minded rhetoric is boring.
On Measure P: Who’s Scaring Whom?
Posted on September 13 at 11:57 a.m.
@Indyholio, I too have watched Gasland and the opposing FrackNation.
How about posting a summary of the flaws you see in Measure P? Bullet form would be nice. Then I can compare against the ballot text.
Posted on September 12 at 5:44 p.m.
I would add that I voted against the ban for genetically engineered food awhile back. That was because I felt the GMO risks were over-stated and the benefits under-stated.
For Measure P, the risk assessment is reversed. If the No on P side wants to win my vote, throw out some honest safety data and provide some links. Stop saying that fracking isn't currently being used because that is totally irrelevant. And stop trying to conflate P proponents with groups you feel have a bad reputation like 350.org. That strategy may work with ideological climate change deniers, but it doesn't play with folks who are aware of climate science. Also stop trying to insinuate that the acidification clauses in Measure P would prevent water wells from being maintained. If you see a specific loophole, point it out. But as far as I can tell from the ballot language, Measure P is about oil & gas wells, not water wells.
Posted on September 12 at 5:12 p.m.
It would be a failure in logic to assume all voters who support Measure P would agree that "losing a thousand jobs in Santa Barbara county was nothing". That is just that person's opinion.
I think a healthy economy is one that is diverse. You would employ the same reasoning to your investment/retirement portfolio. However, if we had a booming electronics factory that had the potential for polluting local drinking water or causing other irreparable damage, I wouldn't give it a pass just because the factory employed a lot of local and journeyman workers.
The risk calculation favors doing something about the factory.
Posted on September 12 at 4:45 p.m.
Kudos to Chris Wrather for digging up data about failure rates for well casings. As an engineer myself, I know it's not easy to search through proceedings journals.
It seems whoever is coordinating the No on P campaign wants voters to focus on potential effects on local workers. Fair enough. However, they are not honest (or mistaken) when they say "Big Oil" isn't a player.
Indeed Big Oil is a factor. The LA Times has reported Chevron has dumped large amounts of money into this campaign. And they have formed companies drilling in our area with names you wouldn't recognize like Aera Energy:
Whether or not Big Oil is involved is probably only important for gauging the corporate financial stakes at risk. And for forecasting the traditional and social media blitz to come.
On The Possibilities of Measure P
Posted on September 12 at 4:07 p.m.
Nothing wrong with 350.org.
Posted on September 12 at 2:12 p.m.
Its not an either or thing. In practice, both regulation and market forces are needed. Although if you can only have one, *well-written* regulations are more reliable than market forces. Why? Market forces depend on human behavior which as we know is not always rational.
In the case of Cuyama where a farmer owns his well, I believe he can pump it until the aquifer below is tapped out for him and other aquifer users. Nothing is affecting his cost of water as far as I know. So in this case, the state's new groundwater regulations are clearly needed.
On Cuyama Groundwater Study Presented to Supes