It's about net water usage. Agriculture needs a lot of water. That isn't some 20th century capitalist evil symbol of waste... that's just a fact of the process. It's like complaining that melting steel requires a lot of heat. Yeah it does. It's how you do it.
Farms need water. They just do. They need a lot of it. They actually need it. They can use a lot less if you want... by producing less. I mean, you'll have more water but people will starve to death if they had to depend on those farms for food. You can choose.
What the cities keep doing is making short term decisions to kill off farms which allows them to delay their own inevitable infrastructure programs. It's going to happen. ANd if they keep killing farms until they're forced to finally fix their own problem then everything will be dead around the cities for hundreds of miles. Just desert and wind. And all the food will have to get shipped in from a thousand miles away likely from mexico or canada. it's crazy. California is one of the great agriculture farmlands in the world. We can put high quality inexpensive fruit on the table of every family in America and export more at a great profit. Our produce is amongst the best in the world. We have peers but no superiors. Beyond that, we have the premier agricultural scientists and universities in the world. We have genetic engineering labs and detailed crop breeding programs that go back nearly a hundred years. Ever heard of the Russet Potato? We invented it.
That is what you're killing if you kill the California agro business. We're like the Detroit of fruit and vegetables only we didn't go into some sad decline in the 70s. We're still brilliant. We're still very competitive. We just need water. We don't even need more water. We just need our water. Let the agro business have the water it has always had and amazing things will keep coming out of this industry. But starve it down to some tiny farms in northern California and a few wineries... and we're dead. It all dies with it. And as to the environment... who thinks the mexican farms are going to be more environmentally conscious then the californian ones? Exactly... it's stark raving foaming at the mouth lunacy.
I don't know whether to argue with these people or grab my butterfly net and march them off to the nuthouse. It's just very frustrating.
No, 80 percent of the water in our system is used by agriculture. And while you seem to think you're not using that water... you eat that food. In fact, you not only eat that food but you eat imported food that used lots of water somewhere else to be produced.
As to the water being wasted. California has some of the least wasteful practices as regards water in the world. Want to see wasteful? Go back east, look at east asia... Hell, the Europeans are more wasteful with water then the Californian farmer. Of course, they can get away with it because they have more water then we have.
As to run off and waste, what exactly is the farmer supposed to do with it after irrigating his field or watering his cattle? Is there some sewer we can put it in? Because I haven't seen one. By law we're not only allowed but we're supposed to put the water exactly where we do put it.
So make up your mind. Where do you want it? We can put it in bottles and sell it to you for 5 dollars a quart if that's your thing?:D
We had a big solar power plant shut down in california because it infringed on the habitat of a local lizard. It was in the middle of the desert... nothing around it for miles.
They always have a reason not to build something or shut something down. I don't care what it is or how you build it. They have a reason for shutting it down.
What they'll say is you can't build it right there. Then you say okay, how about over there? Nope that won't work either. Then you say, okay how about this other place? Nope.
After awhile the only place you can build something is some place where they don't have authority. If they can stop you they'll try.
Call that cynical but that's what we've seen. We can't build anything. Try it. Ask them where you can build something. They'll promise to get back to you with an answer. Twenty years later you'll ask them if they've made progress and they'll respond "what are you talking about?"... the point is to do nothing.
Sure, but isn't the water required for the food they eat something that should be considered on a per capita basis?
I mean, sure your home might only use so much and you might only drink so much. But if you consume products that required significant amounts of water to produce isn't it spurious to claim that the man is using the water more efficiently then the farm? If the farm stops making food the man dies from starvation. He needs the product of the farms. Further, most farmers in the west don't waste water. That's suicide. We have more land then water. We have whole deserts that could bloom with fruit trees if we had the water for them. The limit on our production is water. So a farmer that wastes water is a fool. Every bit of water he wastes is water that he can't use on more crops and increase his yield.
now, do some farms waste water? Sure. For example, there are some farms that grow rice or other crops that require flooding the field. That is crazy. But the vast majority are growing very reasonable crops from oranges to tomatoes. Every time you eat a tomato you have consumed the water it took to create that tomato. So all those people in their one room apartments eating their single serving salad can't claim to be disconnected from the system. Just as I'm connected to the Asian sweat shops that built the computer I'm using now. You are connected to the farm that grew your food.
Taking water away from the farmer will only mean they grow less food and you import more food from somewhere else which means you're using water there instead.
A more reasonable solution would be to see if you can get the farmer to produce the same amount of food with less water and no increase in prices. But don't be surprised if you only suck five percent out of their production by doing that. And everything you pull after that has a direct relationship to production.
Again, the farmers aren't using more water then they've ever used. In fact, they're using less. The cities are using more. taking water from the farmers isn't a long term solution. It's a short term solution which merely delays the city's own development requirements at the cost of destroying the farms.
It's a dumb move... you're just putting something off that you have to do eventually and you're ruining the farms as the price of procrastination. You have to see that.
You're threatening to knee the TSA agent in the groin and you're calling ME the tough guy?
Have fun with that irrational, impractical, self destructive, and immature idea. There's no way to show what a well adjusted, mature, and rational adult you are by attacking the TSA agent patting you down. I would pay for the CCTV video that if it weren't on youtube within five minutes.
As to being a bootlicker... hardly. This is how you break the system. They can't pat everyone down. they can pat down me if people like me are rare. But if people like me are common then it all falls apart. See, they're assuming most people are like you... eg stupid and afraid of being touched. Result is that they can use their scanners which are cheap and fast. patting people down is slow and it occupies a TSA agent for the whole process. You can't do that for tens of thousands of people every day.
As a child, I know you're bad with details, facts, and reality... but try to just think of the logistics for a second. I know that's a big word but you have google. Work it out. They can't do it.
If people think like the TSA wins because you're making it easy for them.
if people think like me the TSA becomes impractical and we win.
This is now an intelligence test. You either understand or you fail.
So if I said, "I'm worried about the safety of my home, if you want to enter, I'm going to have someone pat you down." You think it would be a violation of your personal freedoms to make that a requirement before you set foot in my home?
See your whole libertarian argument has a giant loophole. And I'm going to exploit it ruthlessly. On private property, private citizens can make just about any condition they want for entry into their home. If I say, you have to walk on your hands an bark like a dog before entering my home... I have every right to ask for that. It's my property. My house. I don't have to let you in at all.
Now of course the TSA is the government. But just for giggles what if the private airlines demanded it? Then suddenly your whole civil liberty argument goes up in flames with no material difference in who is groping you.
Thus the whole argument is pointless.
And beyond that, I've made clear repeatedly that this is the best way of STOPPING the groping and stopping the scanners. The scanners are sustainable. They can scan everyone. If everyone opts for pat downs they can't do it. The whole thing breaks down.
If you took your head out of your ass for five seconds you would see this would give you your liberties back by breaking the system.
What would you call someone that underwent discomfort to advance your liberty?
Okay, lets put it this way. Lets say I own 20 aces of land and there are 100 acres of land total. I'm not imposing scarcity on anyone else by using my land. It's mine. I don't need to pay you to use it. It's mine. I own this land. This isn't up for debate. I have a deed. It says right there. I get the first X gallons from this river. It's mine. I pay no usage cost for it. I pay no one for it. It's mine. Maybe I'll sell you some if I want and you make me a good offer. But I don't have to sell anything to you. I can take that water and dump it in the ocean if I want. Its mine.
See, you're coming from the eastern US perspective. In the east, it works more the way you suggest because there is more of it. In the west, someone isn't going to get water. Its' a game of musical chairs. Someone is going to get left out. Just how it is. We always need more.
So we have water RIGHTS. I don't have to dispense my rights to anyone else. They're mine. I own them. I can sell them if I choose but you can't take them. Possibly you could try some sort of eminent domain to pull them but that would be a hilarious political crapstorm.
Anyway, I don't know if I'm being clear. Be patient with me here because it's a way of seeing water that most places in the world haven't adopted because they either don't need it or didn't think of it. It's just how we do things. It's old legacy law from the bad old days.
These are water rights. It's a deed.
telling us to share is like me telling you to share your house with strangers because they need a place to stay. It's your house. You don't have to share it with anyone. If I took it from you or forced squatters on you that would be a problem.
I'm trying to make myself clear. Let me know if I'm making sense. I'm really trying.
Really? Are you so immature and insecure that you can't handle a half second of contact by a guy no more interested in touching you then you are in being touched...?
Furthermore, you seem to not get that this is how we stop all this nonsense. The worst thing you can do is go through the scanner. Go through the pat down. If enough adults are mature enough, we can break the whole thing in no time. Look them right in the eye. The logistics are unsustainable. They can't pat us all down. Make that their only choice and they'll be forced to change practices which will mean stupid little snots like you won't have to be scanned or patted down. Why? Because people like me were brave enough to stand there and make the world a better place.
You're welcome.
And for that you question my sexuality? What kind of a pussy is threatened by this crap? You claim laughably that I'm somehow less of a man because I'm not bothered. And look at you flipping out like a little girl about it. Lets go through some male archetypes just for fun... would John Wayne be bothered by a pat down? Nope. Clint Eastwood? Navy Seals? Nope. Astronauts? Nope. How about Conan the Barbarian?... Nope.
So what are you? A whiny little twit.
Part of being a man and an adult is being beyond your infantile nonsense.
Until you grow up the other adults are always going to see you as a child. You've currently demonstrating immaturity a beard couldn't hide. If anyone did grope you they'd probably find your balls hadn't dropped... perhaps that's what you're hiding.
again, the farms don't have a lack of water until the cities take it away from them.
The point I'm failing to get across here is that they had water.
The farms had water.
The farms that don't have water problems are the ones with old high priority water rights. They don't have water problems because you can't take their water away. They own it.
Los Angeles has high priority water rights on the Colorodo river... I think it might be as high as 20 percent of the whole river and it might be the highest priority which means if the river drops to 20 percent of it's normal flow LA gets 100 percent of that water. That's how water rights work in the west. It's different from the east. You own a specific amount of water every year. And there is a pecking order so everyone get to take their share in turns. If you're low on the poll it means you sometimes don't get any water at all. Zero. Now, some of the farmers have old water rights and that means they actually have priority for the water before the municiple water authority. And that means you can't take it away.
They don't have a problem.
The farmers that do have a problem are those with lower priority that that used to get water often but don't have one of these old awesome water contracts. So the cities can pouch the water from them rather then actually building anything.
When was hte last time LA built a major water project? And how much have we grown since? That's happening all over.
The cities need to build. The solution of ripping off the farmers is self destructive. Sure, it solves the problem for today. Just like borrowing money when you don't pull in enough. But it stops working eventually... eventually you've robbed all the water from everyone and borrowed all the money the creditors will let you have... and then what?
You've then ruined a once thriving farming business, made your population totally dependent on food imports, and your water issue is worse because now you don't even have a cushion to take you through bad times.
I think what we have here is another example of why business and politics don't mix. Falcone tried to shmooze his way through the system by budding up to the administration and it backfired by creating enemies.
I don't know if his tech is causing a problem or if it's all a big conspiracy to shut him down. It doesn't matter. He assumed he would pass inspection before the fact because he knew all the right people. He had made no preparation for rejection and that was stupid. Had he done what everyone else does... he would have waited until he tech was approved before making any big expenses.
Smart businesses make donations to both parties and focuses on avoiding conflict rather then making special friends. Friends come with their enemies and Obama has lots.
The only thing he can do is try again either with modified technology so he can pass inspection or try a different spectrum. Sucks... but it's that or give up.
Think the guy with blue gloves on is both gay and interesting in touching your penis? For women, they should be patted down by other women... so what is the theory here... that the invariably obese women is going to grope the female going through security?
An entirely separate but contextually related issue is that some people have body issues. They're exceptionally skittish about being touched and are prone to turn nothing into something. In the US it isn't so bad but in some cultures women have serious problems with being touched by anyone they don't know. Men typically don't care. As a separate issue, I think we should make a point of not confusing one problem with another. We have security issues and we have insecurity issues. They're not the same thing.
9/11 happened... we're going to get more security. it's just going to happen. It doesn't need to be obnoxious though. The scanners need to go and everyone needs to go through the pat down line. Eventually the PC crowd that doesn't like profiling will get ground down and they'll be forced to restrict the enhanced security for anyone suspect. if they do it for only ten percent it won't effect traffic much and it's likely even that is excessive.
We have lots of money. The problem isn't that we don't have the money to build. The problem isn't that we don't want to build.
The problem is that we have sever NIMBYism... you can't build anything. A big solar power plant was recently closed down because it infringed on the habitat of a local lizard... yes, it was in the middle of the desert. If they tried to build the golden gate bridge today, they'd never be able to do it. The bay bridge and the golden gate were built at the same time in less time then planning committees take to approve an addition for a house today. And rather then screwing around with making sure everyone's back is scratched on labor contracts they just built it.
This is not an economics problem. It's a cultural problem. Generations of people have grown up in cities and take everything for granted. They don't understand that it all has to come from somewhere and has to be maintained and expanded and improved. They don't care. They'd rather buy electricity from CANADA or Mexico... in california... then just build a power plant. It's not like anyone is suggesting we build a bunch of Dickensian coal stacks. They're shutting down solar power plants for environmental concerns. It's like dealing with mental patients.
So... I say the cities can deal with water rations before the farms get cut off because they're the ones using more. Or they can build more water infrastructure. They have the most money and they're the ones with increased need. The men that built Los Angeles dealt with much bigger problems and over came them with fewer resources then we have today. They built one of the most impressive water networks in the world with little more then oxen carts and human muscle power in 100 degree weather in the middle of the desert with no roads.
Anyone that finds the actual logistical problem a challenge is either less intelligent then the largely uneducated social planners from a hundred years ago or just enormous pussies. We've got the money. The technology is easy off the shelf engineering. We've got the water. If we run out of water then someone is clearly wasting oxygen and should probably stop breathing.
What we need is to make sure the pat down remains an option. I get that every time they want to send me through the scanner. I just go through the opt out line that lets me get patted down. A guy with blue gloves on lightly touches me to see if I have a suicide vest on or whatever and then lets me go through. I assure you he enjoys the process no more then me. Which is how it should be.
I'd rather not get bombarded by radiation in their scanner or have nude photos or whatever in their storage system.
What are the women afraid of here? They get patted down by a women. Think she's going to enjoy touching you any more then the guy that pats me down? Think again. The pat down is the solution to this...
And if enough people opt out of the stupid scanner then they'll stop doing it. And I don't think the pat downs are sustainable if everyone opts out which means they should start only doing it for some but not everyone. They can say they do it "randomly" if that makes the PC people happy but they're fools if they don't make a point of patting people down on watch lists.
We don't need advocates. We just need to make as annoying for the government to be annoying as it is for everyone else. If a TSA guy has to stand there and pat down every person that gets on the plane personally... then they'll be forced to adopt irritating practices.
In the meantime, it doesn't bother me. Any one man or women that has a problem with someone of the same sex doing a pat down has issues. And frankly, as a man, I really wouldn't care if a women did it. I grasp it's different for women and maybe they need someone special... I'm just over it. So long as it's isn't a chimp that rips my sack off I'll be fine.
That is fit for the 21st century. We had a food revolution in the 20th century, where we used massive amounts of fertilizer and massive amounts of water, this resulted in massive amounts of food. But at what cost? We chopped down most of the great rainforests and are quickly depleting what remains of the prime topsoil left in the world. We need a paradigm shift. We have the technology to make maximum use of water, we only need to make the investments needed to reap the savings. There are numerous small scale initiatives around the world, utilizing mangroves, saltwater irrigation, greenhouses, hydroponics. Wastage results in more than 1/3 of food going bad or being thrown away due to market conditions. Much work needs to be done if we are to feed 10 billion humans.
As to what the food amounted to... it amounted to your parents being able to eat and you being able to eat. Willing to go hungry to save the planet? Even if you are, which is unlikely most would beat you to within an inch of your life for a sandwich after going without food for a few days. Your moral position only survives if people stay well fed. If people go hungry everything breaks down and people just stop caring about everything but where to get food - NOW.
As to the environmental cost, you're mostly talking about the third world that is practicing slash and burn. Both Africa and south america have a big problem with that and it is destroying their environment. In the first world, it isn't a problem. Our agricultural revolution didn't do that. In fact, I think by most estimates we have larger forests today then we did 400 years ago. That sounds absurd, but apparently the old forests burned a lot and due to our land management... eg logging and fire departments... they don't burn down as much. I'm not 100 percent sure on that but I did hear that from what I considered a credible source.
As to prime topsoil, again this is mostly a third world issue. There are mismanaged farms in the US but they're the exception to the rule. Farming is a professional business. It's actually one of the more scientific and specialized fields in our society. Farmers... especially the large ones are run like long term investments. They're not going to let the farm go to hell because that would spell doom for their business.
As to mangroves... not sure what you're talking about there. How do you get food out of them? I don't think you can eat them no matter how they're processed. I supposed you could eat the cellos... but you wouldn't get any nutrition out of it. Some food companies add what is basically wood pulp as a filler to food... it's called "cellos" on the ingredients. On the bright side, it's low calories and won't hurt you.
As to salt water irrigation, that is an interesting idea but unfortunately most plant species are poisoned by salt water. Would you be willing to accept some genetic engineering of existing staple crops if it meant they could be raised on salt water? If so, that would be a real 21st century agricultural revolution. We've got wheat that will grow in subzero climate because we spliced it with icefish so it produces it's own antifreeze. Down side is that people that are allergic to fish can sometimes have a reaction to it. It's still a learning process but it's very promising.
As to greenhouses and hydroponics... Expensive. But possibly it's for the best. Some of the larger agro farms might be able to finance something like this but it would require a significant increase in food prices to be worth it. The problem is that if food prices in the US rise we'll just import the food rather then growing it locally. So to make this happen we'd either need to cut off trade to other countries or have food prices raised internationally which would cause the third world to starve... millions of dead babies. I put that image into your head because it's easy to say just raise prices in the first world. But in the third food is almost the only thing they actually buy. Rent for mud huts is not something that really happens. And th
As to the system only being needed in a drought... I feel like you're saying you only need shoes when you go outside or only need a knife you need to cut something. Sure, you don't need a knife when you go jogging or shoes when you go to sleep. But you need it because there will be a drought. And that can go on for a decade or more. In california we struggled with a long drought and our great dams drained year after year. But we had enough because prior generations had built them.
There has been much growth since they built those structures and there will be much more to come. We must be as kind to our children and grand children as our fathers and grand fathers were to us. We must build or there will be nothing for them but what their great grand fathers built. It will not be enough.
As to the eastern US not having lots of water. Oh my god. If the east thinks it isn't swimming in the stuff then they're like a rich man that is so incompetent with his finances that even the smallest checks bounce. If what you're saying is true then I have to laugh. I hope you're wrong because I don't want to think the water management people out there are outright morons.
As to it being too much or too little... you're not seeing a solution in there? Take a little from column A and add it to column B.
As to these areas flooding, they were told thirty or forty years ago this would happen and they had to raise levies. They didn't want to do that. Fine. Swim.
Seeing a theme here? I don't mean to come off like a dick here. It's just that everyone was told a full generation ago how to solve these problems. And everyone took the engineering diagrams and planning projects and dismissed them. Now we're having problems and it's just going to get worse. It's just bad planning.
As to some areas not having enough water. Pipe it. Los Angeles has water pipe lines going for hundreds of miles piping water from all over the state. My home city was made possible by men who thought big and long term. City builders. If the city is running out of water now then it's because the inheritors of my great city are not of the same stature. How many of them do you think have the stones to actually build a city like LA from the ground up? Not a one of the losers. The men that built my city were not nice people. They were not warm or cuddly or your friend. They weren't monsters but if they had to cut a throat to get the water... throats were going to get cut. Judge that how you like but my city of millions wouldn't exist without them. Many of them did all this without advanced educations or teams of scientists to work out long term consequences. They had neither the time nor the inclination to bother with it. They had problems and most had no solutions at all. They for all their faults came up with plans... hundreds of them. And they then did it. They actually went out there and did it. People told them it was impossible... it had never been done before. They didn't care. Say what you will but I have to admire the hell out of that. The carebear and latte crowd would have sat in mud huts wondering what to do... it's what they do best. If we just channeled a quarter of the old guts and determination that built my city all of these logistical problems would evaporate. I'm not claiming the world would be perfect... but stupid issues like "we don't have enough water" would be gone. We've got lots.
If you're having water shortage issues in the eastern US then you have much smaller and easier issues then we have out here. How many pipe lines and aqueducts have you built? The romans could have solved your problems and they lived in the bronze age. We had to have hundreds of miles of custom made pipeline custom built for us in Italy and then shipped all the way to san francisco where it was pulled by horses and oxen in huge numbers into position. And then with little more then brute strength piles large enough for a tall man to walk upright were bolted together one after the other. The temperature was frequently over 100 degrees. Th
Australians are dealing with it as well. The cities are drinking up more and more water. In the east where they have lots of water there is no question of starving the farms to feed the cities. But in the west water is a limited quantity.
Sure, we could kill the bread basket of the US... or in california's case it's fruit-basket. But to what end? We're already importing a lot of food from mexico because the farms have been starved for decades. Huge stretches of California that used to be covered in farms are now dust. It has nothing to do with land management. The land is fine... there is no water. And there used to be lots. The cities drank it.
Now, the cities need it... and if I have to choose between the cities getting the water or the farms then I'll choose the cities. But it's a dangerous game and the best solution is to build more dams, more reservoirs, more pipe lines, and more water treatment centers. All of that costs money but the cities have NOT built water infrastructure to keep pace with their consumption. The farms use a lot of water but their consumption has gone DOWN. The consumption of the cities has gone up and they haven't built anything. They just grow and grow without building new infrastructure for water. Even the big cities in the east aren't keeping pace. New York City has some giant water pipes under it that pump water out of an aquifer under the city. When initially built, the city only needed one of those pipes. The rest was extra for growth or if they wanted to shut down one for a time. Now they can't shut down any of them and are piping water in from farther away. But they've built nothing to deal with it.
Contrary to what many environmentalists are saying, sustainable growth doesn't mean "no growth" instead it means expanding our infrastructure as we grow so that we don't have shortages. Killing the farms to get water to the cities only shifts problems. Do that and all our food will say "product of mexico" or canada or some other place because we won't grow anything. The Australians are having the same problem. Huge amounts of water flow into the sea untapped in eastern Australia. Dams that were scheduled to be built 30 or 40 years ago were never built. It would apparently spoil the view or something. So farmers in Australia are literally committing suicide because their family farms are being starved of water and driving them out of business. To say nothing of the fact that the country is increasingly dependent on foreign importation of food when previously they were largely self sufficient.
Point being... Do not starve the farms. If the cities need water then stop looking at who to take it from. Man up and build more supply. There is plenty of water flowing out into the ocean that is never touched to say nothing of rainwater that is never touched. Furthermore, cities could much more readily make use of gray water for cleaning/etc then the farms. Starve the farms and you'll be sorry... it will just mean food prices start doubling and you lose all control over food quality standards because its all imported.
I'm not assuming the rich like to ruin the environment. I'm assuming that if you have five cars that an electric car will have no meaningful impact on the damage you've done by consuming at least five times as much as the average american house hold.
If you want to do it, have fun. It's your money. But don't pretend like you're doing more then the average guy on the street that just has one compact car. He's much more environmentally friendly then the guy that has five cars one of which is electric. Even if they're all electric... just having that many cars has to have an environmental impact.
I should point out, I'm not an environmentalist... at least, I don't think that ideology would count me as a member though as a resident of this planet I do care about the environment. I just get annoyed by fake environmentalists or fake animal rights activists.
We have lots of holier then thou twits walking around pretending to be better then everyone else because they only buy organic food. They're all a bunch of yuppie posers. Like those celebrities that fly around in private jets and then presume to be more environmentally friendly then joe blow because they bought carbon offset credits. What did those credits actually accomplish? No one seems to care. They're just indulgences. Pay x dollars, al gore buys himself another escort or hot tub... and some fool or corporation gets to pretend like they're doing something for the environment.
Sorry for the rant. I'm just irritated by the false presumption of moral superiority and the insincere nature of the moral debate. It's one thing for politics to be full of lies. That's to be expected. But it's problematic when the very nature of morality becomes little more then another pr campaign.
they're idiots then... if the cell phones, radios, microwaves, etc aren't cooking their brains then wifi isn't going to do anything.
If they're seriously this ignorant then it questions whether they're competent to teach. One could argue that they're teaching reading and mathematics mostly but that sort of mentality is itself regressive since we live in a post industrial economy and it's not acceptable to ignorant of common technological concepts.
I'm flexible as to how this is fixed but some education needs to happen here... unless they're playing games and are pretending to be stupid to get something. Again, I have seen that many times. I've seen people look me right in the eye, swear they're on the level, and then I find out weeks or months later that it was all an act. So call me cynical but I've been conned too many times by people with honest faces and apparent good will to not be suspicious.
We've researched it with short wave radio, FM, AM, CB, and even cell phones. We've even researched the health effects of 2.4 and 5.4ghz signals. Wifi falls within this research since it's using the same spectrum and is if anything lower power.
So... not only is the complaint stupid.... it's also wrong.
Are they actually upset about this for the stated reason or are they claiming a health reason to justify opposing it for some reason?
I've dealt with too many of these political issues to take it at face value. There is often something else going on.
That said, if you care at all about the morality of the matter you should avoid actually infringing on the technology of your employer.
We've had a lot of betrayal lately. Lots of people stabbing each other in the back. Just make sure your coding isn't taking proprietary technology or ideas from your parent company.
Whatever you think you're getting paid, if the customer wants that then you're probably more of a code smuggler then a coder. And you might be able to make a lot more money if you facilitated the transaction through your company rather then around it.
People that bring business into a company are prized above all others. I don't care how smart you are or how hard you work. The "rainmakers" are always top dog. If you can bring a big contract into your company then the company will love you. If you can do it repeatedly they'll give you your own private island and yacht.
Think big picture. Does the company have a product or service that is being undersold or that you know a new market to push it in? Try that. If you can make your company a lot of money then you might make a lot more money without having to work as hard.
Betrayal is a toxic behavior that destroys civilization and industry. We are most successful when we work together. We can accomplish things together that we cannot accomplish alone. Betrayal makes all of that impossible. And with a little trust and mutual cooperation we can make everyone far richer and pro productive then we would have ever been otherwise.
Now your company could betray you as well. If they're stupid then they might. Be careful about making it hard for them to back stab you if you actually have a good idea. But try to work through them if you can because the profits will be bigger if you can make the company itself wealthy in the process.
they've probably not spent anything on webdesign because their company doesn't make any money... and why would that be?
Boats are more expensive then cars. Ask anyone that owns one. They require constant maintenance which is not like cars. Subs are even worse because failing to maintain them doesn't mean your engine dies when you're at sea or you spring a slow leak. It means your hull cracks and you die.
Give them the same sort of info they'd have if they were doing the job for real.
No one cares if the engineer looks things up on the internet while working on something. It's all about results. If his solutions are correct and reliable then no one cares.
So test them with real world problems giving them no more info then they'd have outside your classroom.
Sure, just find the five million it will cost in your piggy bank and have a ball... tiny subs go about 15mph too... and have a range that can take them across a bay and back... maybe.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh that's very simple.
It's about net water usage. Agriculture needs a lot of water. That isn't some 20th century capitalist evil symbol of waste... that's just a fact of the process. It's like complaining that melting steel requires a lot of heat. Yeah it does. It's how you do it.
Farms need water. They just do. They need a lot of it. They actually need it. They can use a lot less if you want... by producing less. I mean, you'll have more water but people will starve to death if they had to depend on those farms for food. You can choose.
What the cities keep doing is making short term decisions to kill off farms which allows them to delay their own inevitable infrastructure programs. It's going to happen. ANd if they keep killing farms until they're forced to finally fix their own problem then everything will be dead around the cities for hundreds of miles. Just desert and wind. And all the food will have to get shipped in from a thousand miles away likely from mexico or canada. it's crazy. California is one of the great agriculture farmlands in the world. We can put high quality inexpensive fruit on the table of every family in America and export more at a great profit. Our produce is amongst the best in the world. We have peers but no superiors. Beyond that, we have the premier agricultural scientists and universities in the world. We have genetic engineering labs and detailed crop breeding programs that go back nearly a hundred years. Ever heard of the Russet Potato? We invented it.
That is what you're killing if you kill the California agro business. We're like the Detroit of fruit and vegetables only we didn't go into some sad decline in the 70s. We're still brilliant. We're still very competitive. We just need water. We don't even need more water. We just need our water. Let the agro business have the water it has always had and amazing things will keep coming out of this industry. But starve it down to some tiny farms in northern California and a few wineries... and we're dead. It all dies with it. And as to the environment... who thinks the mexican farms are going to be more environmentally conscious then the californian ones? Exactly... it's stark raving foaming at the mouth lunacy.
I don't know whether to argue with these people or grab my butterfly net and march them off to the nuthouse. It's just very frustrating.
No, 80 percent of the water in our system is used by agriculture. And while you seem to think you're not using that water... you eat that food. In fact, you not only eat that food but you eat imported food that used lots of water somewhere else to be produced.
As to the water being wasted. California has some of the least wasteful practices as regards water in the world. Want to see wasteful? Go back east, look at east asia... Hell, the Europeans are more wasteful with water then the Californian farmer. Of course, they can get away with it because they have more water then we have.
As to run off and waste, what exactly is the farmer supposed to do with it after irrigating his field or watering his cattle? Is there some sewer we can put it in? Because I haven't seen one. By law we're not only allowed but we're supposed to put the water exactly where we do put it.
So make up your mind. Where do you want it? We can put it in bottles and sell it to you for 5 dollars a quart if that's your thing? :D
What's more disturbing... pleasure or pain?
Or maybe I should just be ticklish and giggle... So many options...
We had a big solar power plant shut down in california because it infringed on the habitat of a local lizard. It was in the middle of the desert... nothing around it for miles.
They always have a reason not to build something or shut something down. I don't care what it is or how you build it. They have a reason for shutting it down.
What they'll say is you can't build it right there. Then you say okay, how about over there? Nope that won't work either. Then you say, okay how about this other place? Nope.
After awhile the only place you can build something is some place where they don't have authority. If they can stop you they'll try.
Call that cynical but that's what we've seen. We can't build anything. Try it. Ask them where you can build something. They'll promise to get back to you with an answer. Twenty years later you'll ask them if they've made progress and they'll respond "what are you talking about?"... the point is to do nothing.
Sure, but isn't the water required for the food they eat something that should be considered on a per capita basis?
I mean, sure your home might only use so much and you might only drink so much. But if you consume products that required significant amounts of water to produce isn't it spurious to claim that the man is using the water more efficiently then the farm? If the farm stops making food the man dies from starvation. He needs the product of the farms. Further, most farmers in the west don't waste water. That's suicide. We have more land then water. We have whole deserts that could bloom with fruit trees if we had the water for them. The limit on our production is water. So a farmer that wastes water is a fool. Every bit of water he wastes is water that he can't use on more crops and increase his yield.
now, do some farms waste water? Sure. For example, there are some farms that grow rice or other crops that require flooding the field. That is crazy. But the vast majority are growing very reasonable crops from oranges to tomatoes. Every time you eat a tomato you have consumed the water it took to create that tomato. So all those people in their one room apartments eating their single serving salad can't claim to be disconnected from the system. Just as I'm connected to the Asian sweat shops that built the computer I'm using now. You are connected to the farm that grew your food.
Taking water away from the farmer will only mean they grow less food and you import more food from somewhere else which means you're using water there instead.
A more reasonable solution would be to see if you can get the farmer to produce the same amount of food with less water and no increase in prices. But don't be surprised if you only suck five percent out of their production by doing that. And everything you pull after that has a direct relationship to production.
Again, the farmers aren't using more water then they've ever used. In fact, they're using less. The cities are using more. taking water from the farmers isn't a long term solution. It's a short term solution which merely delays the city's own development requirements at the cost of destroying the farms.
It's a dumb move... you're just putting something off that you have to do eventually and you're ruining the farms as the price of procrastination. You have to see that.
You're threatening to knee the TSA agent in the groin and you're calling ME the tough guy?
Have fun with that irrational, impractical, self destructive, and immature idea. There's no way to show what a well adjusted, mature, and rational adult you are by attacking the TSA agent patting you down. I would pay for the CCTV video that if it weren't on youtube within five minutes.
As to being a bootlicker... hardly. This is how you break the system. They can't pat everyone down. they can pat down me if people like me are rare. But if people like me are common then it all falls apart. See, they're assuming most people are like you... eg stupid and afraid of being touched. Result is that they can use their scanners which are cheap and fast. patting people down is slow and it occupies a TSA agent for the whole process. You can't do that for tens of thousands of people every day.
As a child, I know you're bad with details, facts, and reality... but try to just think of the logistics for a second. I know that's a big word but you have google. Work it out. They can't do it.
If people think like the TSA wins because you're making it easy for them.
if people think like me the TSA becomes impractical and we win.
This is now an intelligence test. You either understand or you fail.
Really?
So if I said, "I'm worried about the safety of my home, if you want to enter, I'm going to have someone pat you down." You think it would be a violation of your personal freedoms to make that a requirement before you set foot in my home?
See your whole libertarian argument has a giant loophole. And I'm going to exploit it ruthlessly. On private property, private citizens can make just about any condition they want for entry into their home. If I say, you have to walk on your hands an bark like a dog before entering my home... I have every right to ask for that. It's my property. My house. I don't have to let you in at all.
Now of course the TSA is the government. But just for giggles what if the private airlines demanded it? Then suddenly your whole civil liberty argument goes up in flames with no material difference in who is groping you.
Thus the whole argument is pointless.
And beyond that, I've made clear repeatedly that this is the best way of STOPPING the groping and stopping the scanners. The scanners are sustainable. They can scan everyone. If everyone opts for pat downs they can't do it. The whole thing breaks down.
If you took your head out of your ass for five seconds you would see this would give you your liberties back by breaking the system.
What would you call someone that underwent discomfort to advance your liberty?
Apparently you want to insult him.
You're welcome.
I'm still not making myself understood.
Okay, lets put it this way. Lets say I own 20 aces of land and there are 100 acres of land total. I'm not imposing scarcity on anyone else by using my land. It's mine. I don't need to pay you to use it. It's mine. I own this land. This isn't up for debate. I have a deed. It says right there. I get the first X gallons from this river. It's mine. I pay no usage cost for it. I pay no one for it. It's mine. Maybe I'll sell you some if I want and you make me a good offer. But I don't have to sell anything to you. I can take that water and dump it in the ocean if I want. Its mine.
See, you're coming from the eastern US perspective. In the east, it works more the way you suggest because there is more of it. In the west, someone isn't going to get water. Its' a game of musical chairs. Someone is going to get left out. Just how it is. We always need more.
So we have water RIGHTS. I don't have to dispense my rights to anyone else. They're mine. I own them. I can sell them if I choose but you can't take them. Possibly you could try some sort of eminent domain to pull them but that would be a hilarious political crapstorm.
Anyway, I don't know if I'm being clear. Be patient with me here because it's a way of seeing water that most places in the world haven't adopted because they either don't need it or didn't think of it. It's just how we do things. It's old legacy law from the bad old days.
These are water rights. It's a deed.
telling us to share is like me telling you to share your house with strangers because they need a place to stay. It's your house. You don't have to share it with anyone. If I took it from you or forced squatters on you that would be a problem.
I'm trying to make myself clear. Let me know if I'm making sense. I'm really trying.
Really? Are you so immature and insecure that you can't handle a half second of contact by a guy no more interested in touching you then you are in being touched...?
Furthermore, you seem to not get that this is how we stop all this nonsense. The worst thing you can do is go through the scanner. Go through the pat down. If enough adults are mature enough, we can break the whole thing in no time. Look them right in the eye. The logistics are unsustainable. They can't pat us all down. Make that their only choice and they'll be forced to change practices which will mean stupid little snots like you won't have to be scanned or patted down. Why? Because people like me were brave enough to stand there and make the world a better place.
You're welcome.
And for that you question my sexuality? What kind of a pussy is threatened by this crap? You claim laughably that I'm somehow less of a man because I'm not bothered. And look at you flipping out like a little girl about it. Lets go through some male archetypes just for fun... would John Wayne be bothered by a pat down? Nope. Clint Eastwood? Navy Seals? Nope. Astronauts? Nope. How about Conan the Barbarian?... Nope.
So what are you? A whiny little twit.
Part of being a man and an adult is being beyond your infantile nonsense.
Until you grow up the other adults are always going to see you as a child. You've currently demonstrating immaturity a beard couldn't hide. If anyone did grope you they'd probably find your balls hadn't dropped... perhaps that's what you're hiding.
again, the farms don't have a lack of water until the cities take it away from them.
The point I'm failing to get across here is that they had water.
The farms had water.
The farms that don't have water problems are the ones with old high priority water rights. They don't have water problems because you can't take their water away. They own it.
Los Angeles has high priority water rights on the Colorodo river... I think it might be as high as 20 percent of the whole river and it might be the highest priority which means if the river drops to 20 percent of it's normal flow LA gets 100 percent of that water. That's how water rights work in the west. It's different from the east. You own a specific amount of water every year. And there is a pecking order so everyone get to take their share in turns. If you're low on the poll it means you sometimes don't get any water at all. Zero. Now, some of the farmers have old water rights and that means they actually have priority for the water before the municiple water authority. And that means you can't take it away.
They don't have a problem.
The farmers that do have a problem are those with lower priority that that used to get water often but don't have one of these old awesome water contracts. So the cities can pouch the water from them rather then actually building anything.
When was hte last time LA built a major water project? And how much have we grown since? That's happening all over.
The cities need to build. The solution of ripping off the farmers is self destructive. Sure, it solves the problem for today. Just like borrowing money when you don't pull in enough. But it stops working eventually... eventually you've robbed all the water from everyone and borrowed all the money the creditors will let you have... and then what?
You've then ruined a once thriving farming business, made your population totally dependent on food imports, and your water issue is worse because now you don't even have a cushion to take you through bad times.
It's stupidity squared.
We do need to utilize these spectrums.
I think what we have here is another example of why business and politics don't mix. Falcone tried to shmooze his way through the system by budding up to the administration and it backfired by creating enemies.
I don't know if his tech is causing a problem or if it's all a big conspiracy to shut him down. It doesn't matter. He assumed he would pass inspection before the fact because he knew all the right people. He had made no preparation for rejection and that was stupid. Had he done what everyone else does... he would have waited until he tech was approved before making any big expenses.
Smart businesses make donations to both parties and focuses on avoiding conflict rather then making special friends. Friends come with their enemies and Obama has lots.
The only thing he can do is try again either with modified technology so he can pass inspection or try a different spectrum. Sucks... but it's that or give up.
Who is going to grope you?
Think the guy with blue gloves on is both gay and interesting in touching your penis? For women, they should be patted down by other women... so what is the theory here... that the invariably obese women is going to grope the female going through security?
An entirely separate but contextually related issue is that some people have body issues. They're exceptionally skittish about being touched and are prone to turn nothing into something. In the US it isn't so bad but in some cultures women have serious problems with being touched by anyone they don't know. Men typically don't care. As a separate issue, I think we should make a point of not confusing one problem with another. We have security issues and we have insecurity issues. They're not the same thing.
9/11 happened... we're going to get more security. it's just going to happen. It doesn't need to be obnoxious though. The scanners need to go and everyone needs to go through the pat down line. Eventually the PC crowd that doesn't like profiling will get ground down and they'll be forced to restrict the enhanced security for anyone suspect. if they do it for only ten percent it won't effect traffic much and it's likely even that is excessive.
The plants need water... not money.
We have lots of money. The problem isn't that we don't have the money to build. The problem isn't that we don't want to build.
The problem is that we have sever NIMBYism... you can't build anything. A big solar power plant was recently closed down because it infringed on the habitat of a local lizard... yes, it was in the middle of the desert. If they tried to build the golden gate bridge today, they'd never be able to do it. The bay bridge and the golden gate were built at the same time in less time then planning committees take to approve an addition for a house today. And rather then screwing around with making sure everyone's back is scratched on labor contracts they just built it.
This is not an economics problem. It's a cultural problem. Generations of people have grown up in cities and take everything for granted. They don't understand that it all has to come from somewhere and has to be maintained and expanded and improved. They don't care. They'd rather buy electricity from CANADA or Mexico ... in california... then just build a power plant. It's not like anyone is suggesting we build a bunch of Dickensian coal stacks. They're shutting down solar power plants for environmental concerns. It's like dealing with mental patients.
So... I say the cities can deal with water rations before the farms get cut off because they're the ones using more. Or they can build more water infrastructure. They have the most money and they're the ones with increased need. The men that built Los Angeles dealt with much bigger problems and over came them with fewer resources then we have today. They built one of the most impressive water networks in the world with little more then oxen carts and human muscle power in 100 degree weather in the middle of the desert with no roads.
Anyone that finds the actual logistical problem a challenge is either less intelligent then the largely uneducated social planners from a hundred years ago or just enormous pussies. We've got the money. The technology is easy off the shelf engineering. We've got the water. If we run out of water then someone is clearly wasting oxygen and should probably stop breathing.
What we need is to make sure the pat down remains an option. I get that every time they want to send me through the scanner. I just go through the opt out line that lets me get patted down. A guy with blue gloves on lightly touches me to see if I have a suicide vest on or whatever and then lets me go through. I assure you he enjoys the process no more then me. Which is how it should be.
I'd rather not get bombarded by radiation in their scanner or have nude photos or whatever in their storage system.
What are the women afraid of here? They get patted down by a women. Think she's going to enjoy touching you any more then the guy that pats me down? Think again. The pat down is the solution to this...
And if enough people opt out of the stupid scanner then they'll stop doing it. And I don't think the pat downs are sustainable if everyone opts out which means they should start only doing it for some but not everyone. They can say they do it "randomly" if that makes the PC people happy but they're fools if they don't make a point of patting people down on watch lists.
We don't need advocates. We just need to make as annoying for the government to be annoying as it is for everyone else. If a TSA guy has to stand there and pat down every person that gets on the plane personally... then they'll be forced to adopt irritating practices.
In the meantime, it doesn't bother me. Any one man or women that has a problem with someone of the same sex doing a pat down has issues. And frankly, as a man, I really wouldn't care if a women did it. I grasp it's different for women and maybe they need someone special... I'm just over it. So long as it's isn't a chimp that rips my sack off I'll be fine.
That is fit for the 21st century. We had a food revolution in the 20th century, where we used massive amounts of fertilizer and massive amounts of water, this resulted in massive amounts of food. But at what cost? We chopped down most of the great rainforests and are quickly depleting what remains of the prime topsoil left in the world. We need a paradigm shift. We have the technology to make maximum use of water, we only need to make the investments needed to reap the savings. There are numerous small scale initiatives around the world, utilizing mangroves, saltwater irrigation, greenhouses, hydroponics. Wastage results in more than 1/3 of food going bad or being thrown away due to market conditions. Much work needs to be done if we are to feed 10 billion humans.
As to what the food amounted to... it amounted to your parents being able to eat and you being able to eat. Willing to go hungry to save the planet? Even if you are, which is unlikely most would beat you to within an inch of your life for a sandwich after going without food for a few days. Your moral position only survives if people stay well fed. If people go hungry everything breaks down and people just stop caring about everything but where to get food - NOW.
As to the environmental cost, you're mostly talking about the third world that is practicing slash and burn. Both Africa and south america have a big problem with that and it is destroying their environment. In the first world, it isn't a problem. Our agricultural revolution didn't do that. In fact, I think by most estimates we have larger forests today then we did 400 years ago. That sounds absurd, but apparently the old forests burned a lot and due to our land management... eg logging and fire departments... they don't burn down as much. I'm not 100 percent sure on that but I did hear that from what I considered a credible source.
As to prime topsoil, again this is mostly a third world issue. There are mismanaged farms in the US but they're the exception to the rule. Farming is a professional business. It's actually one of the more scientific and specialized fields in our society. Farmers... especially the large ones are run like long term investments. They're not going to let the farm go to hell because that would spell doom for their business.
As to mangroves... not sure what you're talking about there. How do you get food out of them? I don't think you can eat them no matter how they're processed. I supposed you could eat the cellos... but you wouldn't get any nutrition out of it. Some food companies add what is basically wood pulp as a filler to food... it's called "cellos" on the ingredients. On the bright side, it's low calories and won't hurt you.
As to salt water irrigation, that is an interesting idea but unfortunately most plant species are poisoned by salt water. Would you be willing to accept some genetic engineering of existing staple crops if it meant they could be raised on salt water? If so, that would be a real 21st century agricultural revolution. We've got wheat that will grow in subzero climate because we spliced it with icefish so it produces it's own antifreeze. Down side is that people that are allergic to fish can sometimes have a reaction to it. It's still a learning process but it's very promising.
As to greenhouses and hydroponics... Expensive. But possibly it's for the best. Some of the larger agro farms might be able to finance something like this but it would require a significant increase in food prices to be worth it. The problem is that if food prices in the US rise we'll just import the food rather then growing it locally. So to make this happen we'd either need to cut off trade to other countries or have food prices raised internationally which would cause the third world to starve... millions of dead babies. I put that image into your head because it's easy to say just raise prices in the first world. But in the third food is almost the only thing they actually buy. Rent for mud huts is not something that really happens. And th
As to the system only being needed in a drought... I feel like you're saying you only need shoes when you go outside or only need a knife you need to cut something. Sure, you don't need a knife when you go jogging or shoes when you go to sleep. But you need it because there will be a drought. And that can go on for a decade or more. In california we struggled with a long drought and our great dams drained year after year. But we had enough because prior generations had built them.
There has been much growth since they built those structures and there will be much more to come. We must be as kind to our children and grand children as our fathers and grand fathers were to us. We must build or there will be nothing for them but what their great grand fathers built. It will not be enough.
As to the eastern US not having lots of water. Oh my god. If the east thinks it isn't swimming in the stuff then they're like a rich man that is so incompetent with his finances that even the smallest checks bounce. If what you're saying is true then I have to laugh. I hope you're wrong because I don't want to think the water management people out there are outright morons.
As to it being too much or too little... you're not seeing a solution in there? Take a little from column A and add it to column B.
As to these areas flooding, they were told thirty or forty years ago this would happen and they had to raise levies. They didn't want to do that. Fine. Swim.
Seeing a theme here? I don't mean to come off like a dick here. It's just that everyone was told a full generation ago how to solve these problems. And everyone took the engineering diagrams and planning projects and dismissed them. Now we're having problems and it's just going to get worse. It's just bad planning.
As to some areas not having enough water. Pipe it. Los Angeles has water pipe lines going for hundreds of miles piping water from all over the state. My home city was made possible by men who thought big and long term. City builders. If the city is running out of water now then it's because the inheritors of my great city are not of the same stature. How many of them do you think have the stones to actually build a city like LA from the ground up? Not a one of the losers. The men that built my city were not nice people. They were not warm or cuddly or your friend. They weren't monsters but if they had to cut a throat to get the water... throats were going to get cut. Judge that how you like but my city of millions wouldn't exist without them. Many of them did all this without advanced educations or teams of scientists to work out long term consequences. They had neither the time nor the inclination to bother with it. They had problems and most had no solutions at all. They for all their faults came up with plans... hundreds of them. And they then did it. They actually went out there and did it. People told them it was impossible... it had never been done before. They didn't care. Say what you will but I have to admire the hell out of that. The carebear and latte crowd would have sat in mud huts wondering what to do... it's what they do best. If we just channeled a quarter of the old guts and determination that built my city all of these logistical problems would evaporate. I'm not claiming the world would be perfect... but stupid issues like "we don't have enough water" would be gone. We've got lots.
If you're having water shortage issues in the eastern US then you have much smaller and easier issues then we have out here. How many pipe lines and aqueducts have you built? The romans could have solved your problems and they lived in the bronze age. We had to have hundreds of miles of custom made pipeline custom built for us in Italy and then shipped all the way to san francisco where it was pulled by horses and oxen in huge numbers into position. And then with little more then brute strength piles large enough for a tall man to walk upright were bolted together one after the other. The temperature was frequently over 100 degrees. Th
Australians are dealing with it as well. The cities are drinking up more and more water. In the east where they have lots of water there is no question of starving the farms to feed the cities. But in the west water is a limited quantity.
Sure, we could kill the bread basket of the US... or in california's case it's fruit-basket. But to what end? We're already importing a lot of food from mexico because the farms have been starved for decades. Huge stretches of California that used to be covered in farms are now dust. It has nothing to do with land management. The land is fine... there is no water. And there used to be lots. The cities drank it.
Now, the cities need it... and if I have to choose between the cities getting the water or the farms then I'll choose the cities. But it's a dangerous game and the best solution is to build more dams, more reservoirs, more pipe lines, and more water treatment centers. All of that costs money but the cities have NOT built water infrastructure to keep pace with their consumption. The farms use a lot of water but their consumption has gone DOWN. The consumption of the cities has gone up and they haven't built anything. They just grow and grow without building new infrastructure for water. Even the big cities in the east aren't keeping pace. New York City has some giant water pipes under it that pump water out of an aquifer under the city. When initially built, the city only needed one of those pipes. The rest was extra for growth or if they wanted to shut down one for a time. Now they can't shut down any of them and are piping water in from farther away. But they've built nothing to deal with it.
Contrary to what many environmentalists are saying, sustainable growth doesn't mean "no growth" instead it means expanding our infrastructure as we grow so that we don't have shortages. Killing the farms to get water to the cities only shifts problems. Do that and all our food will say "product of mexico" or canada or some other place because we won't grow anything. The Australians are having the same problem. Huge amounts of water flow into the sea untapped in eastern Australia. Dams that were scheduled to be built 30 or 40 years ago were never built. It would apparently spoil the view or something. So farmers in Australia are literally committing suicide because their family farms are being starved of water and driving them out of business. To say nothing of the fact that the country is increasingly dependent on foreign importation of food when previously they were largely self sufficient.
Point being... Do not starve the farms. If the cities need water then stop looking at who to take it from. Man up and build more supply. There is plenty of water flowing out into the ocean that is never touched to say nothing of rainwater that is never touched. Furthermore, cities could much more readily make use of gray water for cleaning/etc then the farms. Starve the farms and you'll be sorry... it will just mean food prices start doubling and you lose all control over food quality standards because its all imported.
I'm not assuming the rich like to ruin the environment. I'm assuming that if you have five cars that an electric car will have no meaningful impact on the damage you've done by consuming at least five times as much as the average american house hold.
If you want to do it, have fun. It's your money. But don't pretend like you're doing more then the average guy on the street that just has one compact car. He's much more environmentally friendly then the guy that has five cars one of which is electric. Even if they're all electric... just having that many cars has to have an environmental impact.
I should point out, I'm not an environmentalist... at least, I don't think that ideology would count me as a member though as a resident of this planet I do care about the environment. I just get annoyed by fake environmentalists or fake animal rights activists.
We have lots of holier then thou twits walking around pretending to be better then everyone else because they only buy organic food. They're all a bunch of yuppie posers. Like those celebrities that fly around in private jets and then presume to be more environmentally friendly then joe blow because they bought carbon offset credits. What did those credits actually accomplish? No one seems to care. They're just indulgences. Pay x dollars, al gore buys himself another escort or hot tub... and some fool or corporation gets to pretend like they're doing something for the environment.
Sorry for the rant. I'm just irritated by the false presumption of moral superiority and the insincere nature of the moral debate. It's one thing for politics to be full of lies. That's to be expected. But it's problematic when the very nature of morality becomes little more then another pr campaign.
they're idiots then... if the cell phones, radios, microwaves, etc aren't cooking their brains then wifi isn't going to do anything.
If they're seriously this ignorant then it questions whether they're competent to teach. One could argue that they're teaching reading and mathematics mostly but that sort of mentality is itself regressive since we live in a post industrial economy and it's not acceptable to ignorant of common technological concepts.
I'm flexible as to how this is fixed but some education needs to happen here... unless they're playing games and are pretending to be stupid to get something. Again, I have seen that many times. I've seen people look me right in the eye, swear they're on the level, and then I find out weeks or months later that it was all an act. So call me cynical but I've been conned too many times by people with honest faces and apparent good will to not be suspicious.
We've researched it with short wave radio, FM, AM, CB, and even cell phones. We've even researched the health effects of 2.4 and 5.4ghz signals. Wifi falls within this research since it's using the same spectrum and is if anything lower power.
So... not only is the complaint stupid.... it's also wrong.
Are they actually upset about this for the stated reason or are they claiming a health reason to justify opposing it for some reason?
I've dealt with too many of these political issues to take it at face value. There is often something else going on.
That said, if you care at all about the morality of the matter you should avoid actually infringing on the technology of your employer.
We've had a lot of betrayal lately. Lots of people stabbing each other in the back. Just make sure your coding isn't taking proprietary technology or ideas from your parent company.
Whatever you think you're getting paid, if the customer wants that then you're probably more of a code smuggler then a coder. And you might be able to make a lot more money if you facilitated the transaction through your company rather then around it.
People that bring business into a company are prized above all others. I don't care how smart you are or how hard you work. The "rainmakers" are always top dog. If you can bring a big contract into your company then the company will love you. If you can do it repeatedly they'll give you your own private island and yacht.
Think big picture. Does the company have a product or service that is being undersold or that you know a new market to push it in? Try that. If you can make your company a lot of money then you might make a lot more money without having to work as hard.
Betrayal is a toxic behavior that destroys civilization and industry. We are most successful when we work together. We can accomplish things together that we cannot accomplish alone. Betrayal makes all of that impossible. And with a little trust and mutual cooperation we can make everyone far richer and pro productive then we would have ever been otherwise.
Now your company could betray you as well. If they're stupid then they might. Be careful about making it hard for them to back stab you if you actually have a good idea. But try to work through them if you can because the profits will be bigger if you can make the company itself wealthy in the process.
they've probably not spent anything on webdesign because their company doesn't make any money... and why would that be?
Boats are more expensive then cars. Ask anyone that owns one. They require constant maintenance which is not like cars. Subs are even worse because failing to maintain them doesn't mean your engine dies when you're at sea or you spring a slow leak. It means your hull cracks and you die.
Understanding that you're kidding...
the personal subs are tiny... they dive and surface faster then they go forward.
Give them the same sort of info they'd have if they were doing the job for real.
No one cares if the engineer looks things up on the internet while working on something. It's all about results. If his solutions are correct and reliable then no one cares.
So test them with real world problems giving them no more info then they'd have outside your classroom.
Sure, just find the five million it will cost in your piggy bank and have a ball... tiny subs go about 15mph too... and have a range that can take them across a bay and back... maybe.
So have fun with that.