If that means I can't afford California's products, I'll choose another product. None of the things that California grows are necessary staples.
Apparently you missed the fact that California produces over half the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. We're not talking about almonds, cotton and some of the other troublesome crops.
If that means the farmers aren't competitive any more, then they should choose a line of work whose profitability doesn't depend on government largess and piping in water from god knows where.
Actually those "staple" crops you refer to from the central regions of the US are going to need to import water too. Much of the central US has the *exact* same problem as California. Extremely fertile land but a shortage of surface water. The central US has been able to mine water from ancient aquifers that are not being refilled, they too will have to import water as mining becomes more and more difficult.
It's nonsense really. You don't subsidize a limited, necessary resource.
You don't seem to understand what the most critical resource for farming is. It is the land, fertile soil. Framers have been settling on fertile soil and moving water to that soil for over 5,000 years. California has an extra benefit due to a climate that allows production year round.
You let the supply demand curve determine the optimum price, and then if poor people can't afford to get drinking water, you subsidize them directly. Not to mention, when the price of water reaches its natural level, new sources like desalinization become economically feasible.
The problem in CA is not really price. That is something very annoying but water is fairly cheap for everyone, its just that some farmers get it ridiculously cheap. The real problem is that some farmers have very old federal and state licenses to get large amounts of water and many of the irrigation techniques are still quite wasteful. Its more of a shortage problem than a price problem.
I realize you are all caught up with your econ 101 price and demand curves but recall that all important caveat that your professor qualified everything with: all other things being equal. In reality today all other things are *not* equal which is why your econ 101 will not work.
How about move the people to where the water is instead?
Residential use accounts for only 10% of CA water usage, industry another 10%. Agriculture is the remaining 80%. The CA central valley is *not* a desert and it contains some of the most fertile land around and it has a climate that permits production all year. The CA central valley currently produces over half the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US.
Like much of the farm land in the central regions of the US the CA central valley lacks sufficient surface water. In CA the water gets imported. In the central regions of the US it tends to get mined from ancient aquifers that are not being refilled, these other farming areas will have to import water too someday.
Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem.
Moving water to where people live is indeed an engineering problem, but I'd hardly call it "simple". Especially given the quantities that would be involved.
Its not simple but it is something that was figured out thousands of years ago. Google Roman aqueducts.
Move people to where the water is instead. Or at least the farming.
Absolutely wrong. Farms should be where the fertile land is. Water is easily moved. For 5,000 years farmers have relocated to good land and then figured out how to get additional water there if necessary.
The California central valley is *not* a desert. It is incredibly fertile land, farming should take place there. Plus the climate allows many foods to be grown year round. California produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. That is *not* including some particular troublesome crops like almonds, cotton, etc which perhaps should be farmed elsewhere.
By the way, much of the farmland in the central portions of the US lack enough surface water for farming too. They have to mine ancient aquifers that are not being replenished. Each year they must mine deeper and deeper, they will have to import water like California one day.
There's no need to move water save for a few exceptional cases in rural areas where local farming has completely depleted the water table. The answer is much simpler: stop farming. It's 2% of CA's economy or around $40 billion. If we cut out the thirstiest plants first we can save tons of water without sacrificing much of the economic benefits.
Stop farming? That is an absolutely clueless position for two reasons:
(1) CA produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US.
(2) The CA central valley has the exact same problem as the areas where you thinking water should be moved into. The central valley is *not* a desert. Like those rural areas you mention it is incredibly fertile land with insufficient surface water. Plus the CA central valley has a climate that allows for year round production. Other parts of the US mine aquifers that are not being replenished and they will have to import water too at some point.
That said, note that the over 50% of fruits and vegetables does not include almonds, cotton and other troublesome crops. Moving those out of CA is probably a good idea. And modernizing irrigation and other techniques would also be a good idea.
How many of those fruits and vegetables are native to California and suited to the climate and habitat?
Nearly all are well suited to the climate, that's is why they have extra growing seasons for many of these crops in CA.
The habitat in CA is like much of the habitat in the rest of US agriculture in the central regions of the country, these traditional farming lands have potential productivity far in excess of available surface water. It is only by tapping additional water resources that the US can feed so many at home and around the globe. In the central US many regions are currently tapping aquifers that are not being replenished, aquifers that will run dry, and like California they will have to import water.
Importing water is not necessarily bad. Nature distributes it somewhat randomly, not wisely nor efficiently nor beneficially. What is bad is when we also fail to distribute it wisely or efficiently or beneficially, which is really the problem in CA.
Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY.
It is a good day when billions are fed well. And to do so we must produce beyond what the habitat allows. Else we fall into a Malthusian catastrophe and few will have a good day.
The California central valley is not naturally a desert. The problem in California is one that many other parts of the US shares. The potential of the land far surpasses the available surface water. In California the solution was to transport water many hundreds of miles. In other parts of the country the solution was to drill down and access ancient aquifers that are not be refilled, to drill deeper and deeper into the aquifer each year.
Transporting water to fertile farmlands will become a national issue, its not specific to California. Its just being seen in California first.
Many places east of the Rockies have a similar problem as California, the available surface water does not match the potential of the land. Many of these areas are mining water from aquifers that are not being refilled. Each year having to drill deeper and deeper. Like CA water will need to be shipped to these regions too at some point. Things are much more complicated than you suggest.
That said, totally agree with you regarding the artificial corn for fuel nonsense.
The California central valley is very much fertile farmland. Its just that natural water resources don't support the massive potential of the land.
East of the Rockies water is getting more and more difficult to find too. Many of those traditional farm lands you are referring to have been essentially mining local aquifers that are not being refilled. Having to mine deeper and deeper each year. Like CA the situation is that natural surface water is quite limited compared to the potential of the land.
Moving water around the country on a large scale is likely to be a necessity in CA and elsewhere.
You failed to understand my point. There is sometimes no need to bribe a majority of congress because occasionally we get a president that happens to agree with some policy for ideological reasons. The point being that a single decision maker is a more vulnerable point than many hundreds of a decision makers that have to work in concert.
And then we have the case where a President has not ideological bent one way or the other so donations or other means of influence can have an effect and garner presidential support or opposition for some issue. Consider all the occasions were it seemed mainland Chinese money was being funneled to Clinton. Again, a President is a single point of vulnerability.
He lost the Speaking fees. If he hadn't resigned, and he;d forced them to impeach him, he would have lost the rest, too.
Wrong, for example Nixon was paid over half a million dollars in 1977 for the David Frost interviews. His memoirs was a best selling book. He had many speaking engagements in the 1980s. He met with many foreign leaders, China actually forced Carter to invite Nixon to a state dinner at the White House.
And any President caught accepting money could likewise resign and avoid impeachment.
Your claim of post-presidential income being at risk just does not hold up.
CA should pay for its own water projects. There's no need for anyone else to pay for them.
OK. Then CA can stop selling water below market value to agriculture. Agriculture that consumes 80% of CA's water. Agriculture that supplies over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. In short, your groceries are subsidized by CA.
With 80% of water going to the agriculture that feeds you supplying some of the water is not exactly unjust.
That said, CA agriculture could use a lot of reform and modernization.
Actually the situation is that water is being sold below market value and wasted in inefficient agriculture practices to provide YOU with inexpensive food. So CA residents are subsidizing your food prices.
Residential use of water in CA accounts for 10%, industry another 10%, agriculture the remaining 80%.
Over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US come from CA.
Presidents are hardly immune from political donations and all the problems that arise from them. Modern example, Bill Clinton. Various questionable donations from middlemen covertly washing money from overseas donors. Donors lined up to support the upcoming Clinton Foundation once he retires from the Presidency. Pardons for financial criminals while on the way out the door.
Influence comes in many many forms.
You also compare 1 President vs 1 Congressperson. I compare 1 President to 535 Congresspersons, or at least a majority of those. That is something very different.
The 99% would have power if it wasn't that the 1% decided what they can vote for.
That statement is as flawed as the original. The 99% get to pick the candidates in presidential primary elections too for example. You might notice a wide range of people running who are not the choices of the 1%. Whether they have a chance is up to the 99% not the 1%.
Its easier to buy one President than 535 members of Congress.
And for some truly ill-advised and unpopular ideas its more practical to wait for a President of a suitable ideological bent than wait for a Congressional majority.
Hence the founding fathers wisely distributing powers amongst branches. Ie the executive negotiating a treaty, the legislature making it law, and the supreme court deciding if the law is constitutional.
... the most anti-american event in the history of this country was 2010's citizens united...
You don't seem to know what the Court said in Citizens United. What you read in the popular press and hear on TV is largely political spin mischaracterizing the decision. For example the "corporations are people" meme was a brilliant piece of spin by the losing side's PR team. What the Court actually said is:
(1) Groups of people have the same speech rights as individual persons.
(2) It does not matter what the nature of that group is; Trade union, corporation, activist organization, etc. They all have the same rights.
(3) Media corporations have no special privileges nor status. Every corporation has the same rights as a corporation that owns a TV station or newspaper.
You haven't been on this planet for long, have you? Just 'cause you get asked for your opinion every 4 years doesn't mean that it matters.
Actually most people forfeit offering an opinion by being loyal to a particular political party. When one is loyal to one party then both parties may ignore you. One already has your vote, the other cannot attain your vote.
Being a member of a party to promote an issue or message is fine. But do not vote for a party, vote for a candidate regardless of their party. That is the only way to make candidates care about your opinion.
Remember the true currency of politics is votes not money. As long as its one person one vote the 99% actually have the power, they just fail to use it. Party loyalty is one of various examples of how the 99% fails itself.
Yes. Congress is MUCH more responsible with the use of their power than the President is.
Both cooperation and gridlock are preferable to a lone individual making US trade policy. Some national policies must have a national consensus of some sort.
Yeah. You could probably replace the thing with a raspberry pi.... at each location... with a custom controller card.. and another one to control them all... for about $5,000. $2M ? Someone's pork barrel overfloweth.
A pi was my first thought too.:-)
While you are probably correct that there is a bit of profit in that quote, its seems everyone is only looking at one half of the equation. What about the other side, increased efficiency and the cost savings that would result?
It is plausible that over another 30 year timespan the cost of the new system could be outweighed by the savings it generates. I'm not saying this is surely the case, just part of the equation that is being overlooked so we don't really have enough information to judge the project.
That said, pi's and clocks and temperature sensors and etc are fairly inexpensive. A modernized more comprehensive student built system could be an awesome project. The school could have a computer engineering club that maintains and enhances the system. The education benefit may easily outweigh any additional benefit a high tech commercial installation might offer. This education benefit would include something terribly lacking in traditional CS/CE programs, an appreciation for maintaining existing software.
EPROMS are no more immune to bad data than flash memory.
Besides, being well into the era of malware I'm surprised that files aren't delivered as a complete image. Complete with a manifest of files and version numbers and each file being digitally signed.
Or maybe some developer did have such a manifest, his/her code detected the error, reported the error, but the error/exception was handled in a way that didn't rise to the pilot's attention nor prevent engine startup.
The checks in place for aircraft hardware is extremely rigorous.
Yes, but how many of those regulations and checks trace back to accidents versus an engineer's foresight? I'd expect that most items in a pilot's pre-flight checklist do trace back to accidents. And it seems the computer's pre-flight checklist will too.
I once heard that the expression "Navy regulations are written in blood" was used to explain to new sailors why so many tasks are to be performed exactly the way the regs say and in no other manner. The phrase was then elaborated on explaining to the sailors that when things were done otherwise sailors sometimes died, for small things like failing to properly secure a hatch (door).
Admittedly this was in major cities but not necessarily near the tourist hotels and such. Now in Paris I was spending time near a university so perhaps that helped. However I think it may also be a generational thing. I've been told that the most recent generation or two of Europeans generally speak English to each other when traveling within Europe. Perhaps more so in some countries than others. For example perhaps more English speaking in Prague.
Also I'm not necessarily referring to fluency. Just enough English for the clerk, waiter, etc to get the job done.
Perhaps America would be better off if we required all students to learn another language.
It seems pointless. I had a few years of Spanish in high school. While driving through Mexico we were on a desert highway, hundreds of miles south of the border, hadn't seen anything for many miles. A lone gas station becomes visible and we decide to stop. The driver had taken French in high school so I talk to the attendant and ask for a fill of unleaded gas. He repeats my request in perfect English to confirm. Seriously, the gas station attendant hundreds of miles from the border in the middle of nowhere spoke better English than people who grew up around me in California.
As I mentioned in another post, when traveling in Europe it seemed unnecessary to know anything beyond hello in a local language. When saying hello in the local language its as if the clerk, attendant, hostess, waiter, etc thinks "oh, its one of the polite Americans, I'll answer in English rather than pretend we have a language barrier". This really saps the motivation for learning anything beyond hello, please and thank you.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
If that means I can't afford California's products, I'll choose another product. None of the things that California grows are necessary staples.
Apparently you missed the fact that California produces over half the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. We're not talking about almonds, cotton and some of the other troublesome crops.
If that means the farmers aren't competitive any more, then they should choose a line of work whose profitability doesn't depend on government largess and piping in water from god knows where.
Actually those "staple" crops you refer to from the central regions of the US are going to need to import water too. Much of the central US has the *exact* same problem as California. Extremely fertile land but a shortage of surface water. The central US has been able to mine water from ancient aquifers that are not being refilled, they too will have to import water as mining becomes more and more difficult.
It's nonsense really. You don't subsidize a limited, necessary resource.
You don't seem to understand what the most critical resource for farming is. It is the land, fertile soil. Framers have been settling on fertile soil and moving water to that soil for over 5,000 years. California has an extra benefit due to a climate that allows production year round.
You let the supply demand curve determine the optimum price, and then if poor people can't afford to get drinking water, you subsidize them directly. Not to mention, when the price of water reaches its natural level, new sources like desalinization become economically feasible.
The problem in CA is not really price. That is something very annoying but water is fairly cheap for everyone, its just that some farmers get it ridiculously cheap. The real problem is that some farmers have very old federal and state licenses to get large amounts of water and many of the irrigation techniques are still quite wasteful. Its more of a shortage problem than a price problem.
I realize you are all caught up with your econ 101 price and demand curves but recall that all important caveat that your professor qualified everything with: all other things being equal. In reality today all other things are *not* equal which is why your econ 101 will not work.
How about move the people to where the water is instead?
Residential use accounts for only 10% of CA water usage, industry another 10%. Agriculture is the remaining 80%. The CA central valley is *not* a desert and it contains some of the most fertile land around and it has a climate that permits production all year. The CA central valley currently produces over half the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US.
Like much of the farm land in the central regions of the US the CA central valley lacks sufficient surface water. In CA the water gets imported. In the central regions of the US it tends to get mined from ancient aquifers that are not being refilled, these other farming areas will have to import water too someday.
Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem.
Moving water to where people live is indeed an engineering problem, but I'd hardly call it "simple". Especially given the quantities that would be involved.
Its not simple but it is something that was figured out thousands of years ago. Google Roman aqueducts.
Move people to where the water is instead. Or at least the farming.
Absolutely wrong. Farms should be where the fertile land is. Water is easily moved. For 5,000 years farmers have relocated to good land and then figured out how to get additional water there if necessary.
The California central valley is *not* a desert. It is incredibly fertile land, farming should take place there. Plus the climate allows many foods to be grown year round. California produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. That is *not* including some particular troublesome crops like almonds, cotton, etc which perhaps should be farmed elsewhere.
By the way, much of the farmland in the central portions of the US lack enough surface water for farming too. They have to mine ancient aquifers that are not being replenished. Each year they must mine deeper and deeper, they will have to import water like California one day.
There's no need to move water save for a few exceptional cases in rural areas where local farming has completely depleted the water table. The answer is much simpler: stop farming. It's 2% of CA's economy or around $40 billion. If we cut out the thirstiest plants first we can save tons of water without sacrificing much of the economic benefits.
Stop farming? That is an absolutely clueless position for two reasons:
(1) CA produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US.
(2) The CA central valley has the exact same problem as the areas where you thinking water should be moved into. The central valley is *not* a desert. Like those rural areas you mention it is incredibly fertile land with insufficient surface water. Plus the CA central valley has a climate that allows for year round production. Other parts of the US mine aquifers that are not being replenished and they will have to import water too at some point.
That said, note that the over 50% of fruits and vegetables does not include almonds, cotton and other troublesome crops. Moving those out of CA is probably a good idea. And modernizing irrigation and other techniques would also be a good idea.
How many of those fruits and vegetables are native to California and suited to the climate and habitat?
Nearly all are well suited to the climate, that's is why they have extra growing seasons for many of these crops in CA.
The habitat in CA is like much of the habitat in the rest of US agriculture in the central regions of the country, these traditional farming lands have potential productivity far in excess of available surface water. It is only by tapping additional water resources that the US can feed so many at home and around the globe. In the central US many regions are currently tapping aquifers that are not being replenished, aquifers that will run dry, and like California they will have to import water.
Importing water is not necessarily bad. Nature distributes it somewhat randomly, not wisely nor efficiently nor beneficially. What is bad is when we also fail to distribute it wisely or efficiently or beneficially, which is really the problem in CA.
Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY.
It is a good day when billions are fed well. And to do so we must produce beyond what the habitat allows. Else we fall into a Malthusian catastrophe and few will have a good day.
The California central valley is not naturally a desert. The problem in California is one that many other parts of the US shares. The potential of the land far surpasses the available surface water. In California the solution was to transport water many hundreds of miles. In other parts of the country the solution was to drill down and access ancient aquifers that are not be refilled, to drill deeper and deeper into the aquifer each year.
Transporting water to fertile farmlands will become a national issue, its not specific to California. Its just being seen in California first.
Many places east of the Rockies have a similar problem as California, the available surface water does not match the potential of the land. Many of these areas are mining water from aquifers that are not being refilled. Each year having to drill deeper and deeper. Like CA water will need to be shipped to these regions too at some point. Things are much more complicated than you suggest.
That said, totally agree with you regarding the artificial corn for fuel nonsense.
The California central valley is very much fertile farmland. Its just that natural water resources don't support the massive potential of the land.
East of the Rockies water is getting more and more difficult to find too. Many of those traditional farm lands you are referring to have been essentially mining local aquifers that are not being refilled. Having to mine deeper and deeper each year. Like CA the situation is that natural surface water is quite limited compared to the potential of the land.
Moving water around the country on a large scale is likely to be a necessity in CA and elsewhere.
You failed to understand my point. There is sometimes no need to bribe a majority of congress because occasionally we get a president that happens to agree with some policy for ideological reasons. The point being that a single decision maker is a more vulnerable point than many hundreds of a decision makers that have to work in concert.
And then we have the case where a President has not ideological bent one way or the other so donations or other means of influence can have an effect and garner presidential support or opposition for some issue. Consider all the occasions were it seemed mainland Chinese money was being funneled to Clinton. Again, a President is a single point of vulnerability.
He lost the Speaking fees. If he hadn't resigned, and he;d forced them to impeach him, he would have lost the rest, too.
Wrong, for example Nixon was paid over half a million dollars in 1977 for the David Frost interviews. His memoirs was a best selling book. He had many speaking engagements in the 1980s. He met with many foreign leaders, China actually forced Carter to invite Nixon to a state dinner at the White House.
And any President caught accepting money could likewise resign and avoid impeachment.
Your claim of post-presidential income being at risk just does not hold up.
CA should pay for its own water projects. There's no need for anyone else to pay for them.
OK. Then CA can stop selling water below market value to agriculture. Agriculture that consumes 80% of CA's water. Agriculture that supplies over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. In short, your groceries are subsidized by CA.
With 80% of water going to the agriculture that feeds you supplying some of the water is not exactly unjust.
That said, CA agriculture could use a lot of reform and modernization.
Actually the situation is that water is being sold below market value and wasted in inefficient agriculture practices to provide YOU with inexpensive food. So CA residents are subsidizing your food prices.
Residential use of water in CA accounts for 10%, industry another 10%, agriculture the remaining 80%.
Over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US come from CA.
What makes you think a President will lose pension, office budget, speaking fees etc? Nixon did not.
Presidents are hardly immune from political donations and all the problems that arise from them. Modern example, Bill Clinton. Various questionable donations from middlemen covertly washing money from overseas donors. Donors lined up to support the upcoming Clinton Foundation once he retires from the Presidency. Pardons for financial criminals while on the way out the door.
Influence comes in many many forms.
You also compare 1 President vs 1 Congressperson. I compare 1 President to 535 Congresspersons, or at least a majority of those. That is something very different.
The 99% would have power if it wasn't that the 1% decided what they can vote for.
That statement is as flawed as the original. The 99% get to pick the candidates in presidential primary elections too for example. You might notice a wide range of people running who are not the choices of the 1%. Whether they have a chance is up to the 99% not the 1%.
Its easier to buy one President than 535 members of Congress.
And for some truly ill-advised and unpopular ideas its more practical to wait for a President of a suitable ideological bent than wait for a Congressional majority.
Hence the founding fathers wisely distributing powers amongst branches. Ie the executive negotiating a treaty, the legislature making it law, and the supreme court deciding if the law is constitutional.
... the most anti-american event in the history of this country was 2010's citizens united ...
You don't seem to know what the Court said in Citizens United. What you read in the popular press and hear on TV is largely political spin mischaracterizing the decision. For example the "corporations are people" meme was a brilliant piece of spin by the losing side's PR team. What the Court actually said is:
(1) Groups of people have the same speech rights as individual persons.
(2) It does not matter what the nature of that group is; Trade union, corporation, activist organization, etc. They all have the same rights.
(3) Media corporations have no special privileges nor status. Every corporation has the same rights as a corporation that owns a TV station or newspaper.
You haven't been on this planet for long, have you? Just 'cause you get asked for your opinion every 4 years doesn't mean that it matters.
Actually most people forfeit offering an opinion by being loyal to a particular political party. When one is loyal to one party then both parties may ignore you. One already has your vote, the other cannot attain your vote.
Being a member of a party to promote an issue or message is fine. But do not vote for a party, vote for a candidate regardless of their party. That is the only way to make candidates care about your opinion.
Remember the true currency of politics is votes not money. As long as its one person one vote the 99% actually have the power, they just fail to use it. Party loyalty is one of various examples of how the 99% fails itself.
Yes. Congress is MUCH more responsible with the use of their power than the President is.
Both cooperation and gridlock are preferable to a lone individual making US trade policy. Some national policies must have a national consensus of some sort.
Yeah. You could probably replace the thing with a raspberry pi .... at each location ... with a custom controller card.. and another one to control them all... for about $5,000. $2M ? Someone's pork barrel overfloweth.
A pi was my first thought too. :-)
While you are probably correct that there is a bit of profit in that quote, its seems everyone is only looking at one half of the equation. What about the other side, increased efficiency and the cost savings that would result?
It is plausible that over another 30 year timespan the cost of the new system could be outweighed by the savings it generates. I'm not saying this is surely the case, just part of the equation that is being overlooked so we don't really have enough information to judge the project.
That said, pi's and clocks and temperature sensors and etc are fairly inexpensive. A modernized more comprehensive student built system could be an awesome project. The school could have a computer engineering club that maintains and enhances the system. The education benefit may easily outweigh any additional benefit a high tech commercial installation might offer. This education benefit would include something terribly lacking in traditional CS/CE programs, an appreciation for maintaining existing software.
EPROMS are no more immune to bad data than flash memory.
Besides, being well into the era of malware I'm surprised that files aren't delivered as a complete image. Complete with a manifest of files and version numbers and each file being digitally signed.
Or maybe some developer did have such a manifest, his/her code detected the error, reported the error, but the error/exception was handled in a way that didn't rise to the pilot's attention nor prevent engine startup.
The checks in place for aircraft hardware is extremely rigorous.
Yes, but how many of those regulations and checks trace back to accidents versus an engineer's foresight? I'd expect that most items in a pilot's pre-flight checklist do trace back to accidents. And it seems the computer's pre-flight checklist will too.
I once heard that the expression "Navy regulations are written in blood" was used to explain to new sailors why so many tasks are to be performed exactly the way the regs say and in no other manner. The phrase was then elaborated on explaining to the sailors that when things were done otherwise sailors sometimes died, for small things like failing to properly secure a hatch (door).
Admittedly this was in major cities but not necessarily near the tourist hotels and such. Now in Paris I was spending time near a university so perhaps that helped. However I think it may also be a generational thing. I've been told that the most recent generation or two of Europeans generally speak English to each other when traveling within Europe. Perhaps more so in some countries than others. For example perhaps more English speaking in Prague.
Also I'm not necessarily referring to fluency. Just enough English for the clerk, waiter, etc to get the job done.
Perhaps America would be better off if we required all students to learn another language.
It seems pointless. I had a few years of Spanish in high school. While driving through Mexico we were on a desert highway, hundreds of miles south of the border, hadn't seen anything for many miles. A lone gas station becomes visible and we decide to stop. The driver had taken French in high school so I talk to the attendant and ask for a fill of unleaded gas. He repeats my request in perfect English to confirm. Seriously, the gas station attendant hundreds of miles from the border in the middle of nowhere spoke better English than people who grew up around me in California.
:-)
As I mentioned in another post, when traveling in Europe it seemed unnecessary to know anything beyond hello in a local language. When saying hello in the local language its as if the clerk, attendant, hostess, waiter, etc thinks "oh, its one of the polite Americans, I'll answer in English rather than pretend we have a language barrier". This really saps the motivation for learning anything beyond hello, please and thank you.