SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bentway who wrote (356033)10/25/2007 1:18:39 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578704
 
I lived there for a decade, and nuttin' happened to me. I moved there in 1990, the year after the terrible San Francisco earthquake. The LA earthquake happened while I was living in Silicon Valley. I only felt one very minor earthquake the whole decade in CA. Although it looks awful on TV, the vast majority of people in CA are unaffected by what you see.

First living in SFOland is one thing; living in LAXland is something else. The weather isn't nearly as benign; the heat and smog can be hell on earth except for those wealthy enough to live by the ocean and then they have to contend with wildfires. I was in LA when the Northridge quake hit. If you lived there then, you would have a very different view of CA. Part of the 90s increase in Salt Lake's population was Californians who jumped in their cars with just their PJs on and relocated to SLC......right after the Northridge quake. And wildfires are not confined to Malibu.....they could happen in any of the canyons throughout the city, and occasionally Griffith Park in the heart of LA would burn.

Californians are convinced they live in the land of milk and honey. That probably was true once for S. CA and may still be true for N. CA......but with less milk and honey as before.

Let me clarify......CA is still beautiful around Arrowhead, Big Bear, Mammoth, Tahoe etc.....but the cities....not so much IMO.