Now you know one of the prices you are paying for legal protections. Legal protections are a good thing. Good things cost you. Knowing what good things cost you can help you decide how many good things you can afford.
What if we could all agree not to covet or (use the government to) steal money from each other? If we could collectively decide not to hire a politician to tax someone else's money or a lawyer to sue for someone else's money so we could spend it without earning it, then it wouldn't matter which group a person was in.
Who isn't willing to pay for it? CA should certainly pay for it. They think they're rich enough to buy a $68 Billion train, they should obviously agree they can afford some water projects. If I remember correctly, some water projects were on the ballot last election and they passed. So they're already paying for some.
Coastal California is a very wealthy area. Magic pixies are not needed. You just buy the pipes and the energy, install and operate. All it takes is a decision.
In a state with a growing coastal population and long drought cycles, changing allocation schemes might temporarily ease the problem at someone else's expense, but it's not a long term solution.
Ok, sure. But I'm still not getting why building water infrastructure isn't also part of the answer. Farmers need water. Just like cities and everyone else. And farming isn't the problem in areas like San Diego.
The "never build any water infrastructure" people seem to be motivated by enmity toward others who aren't like them and/or dogmatic environmentalism of some sort. And neither of those motivations lead to policies that are likely to be in the public interest.
Slashdot readers should be able to endorse a problem-solving mentality instead. A water shortage is an engineering problem.
There aren't very many residents there. There appears to be more water than the local residents need. And what makes it "their" water? Why do you think they own it?
And desalination will NOT solve the problem.
No one thing solves the problem. Desalination solves part of the problem in some places.
Do you think there's a limit to the idea that you can "solve" problems by taking resources away from people who aren't like you and using them for yourself?
Why isn't building more infrastructure so everyone can have more of what they need a better and more enlightened course of action?
But coastal areas of CA are very wealthy. They can afford to solve the problem for themselves. It's not exactly the third world out here. All we have to do is decide to solve it and build the needed infrastructure.
And they're building a desalination plant in Carlsbad. If more places followed that example, then the problem would be solved. If money is tight, we might want to think about doing that instead of building a $68 Billion train from LA to SF.
Slashdot Mirror
We need the government to save us from the consequences of the bad deal the government made last time.
Then the contractor will lose and a zillion more people will know they're a bad contractor because they sued and it became a news story.
that means the Vorlons are using mass drivers to attack your home world.
Do it in the name of tolerance.
Now you know one of the prices you are paying for legal protections. Legal protections are a good thing. Good things cost you. Knowing what good things cost you can help you decide how many good things you can afford.
If you believe in free speech, due process, and the most basic constitutional protections on college campuses, then FIRE is good.
What if we could all agree not to covet or (use the government to) steal money from each other? If we could collectively decide not to hire a politician to tax someone else's money or a lawyer to sue for someone else's money so we could spend it without earning it, then it wouldn't matter which group a person was in.
So your point is that some problems can't be solved. Indeed.
Just stay on the phone and complain until the problem is solved to your satisfaction, no matter how long it takes.
Who isn't willing to pay for it? CA should certainly pay for it. They think they're rich enough to buy a $68 Billion train, they should obviously agree they can afford some water projects. If I remember correctly, some water projects were on the ballot last election and they passed. So they're already paying for some.
Coastal California is a very wealthy area. Magic pixies are not needed. You just buy the pipes and the energy, install and operate. All it takes is a decision.
In a state with a growing coastal population and long drought cycles, changing allocation schemes might temporarily ease the problem at someone else's expense, but it's not a long term solution.
NASA should just stay on the ground. Because it's easier.
Ok, sure. But I'm still not getting why building water infrastructure isn't also part of the answer. Farmers need water. Just like cities and everyone else. And farming isn't the problem in areas like San Diego.
The "never build any water infrastructure" people seem to be motivated by enmity toward others who aren't like them and/or dogmatic environmentalism of some sort. And neither of those motivations lead to policies that are likely to be in the public interest.
Slashdot readers should be able to endorse a problem-solving mentality instead. A water shortage is an engineering problem.
The residents there don't need their water?
There aren't very many residents there. There appears to be more water than the local residents need. And what makes it "their" water? Why do you think they own it?
And desalination will NOT solve the problem.
No one thing solves the problem. Desalination solves part of the problem in some places.
There's no reason for anyone outside CA to pay for CA water projects. Who is even proposing that? No one that I've heard of.
The US Government is paying a few billion dollars for that high speed train though.
Droughts are caused by weather. There's no "kind of thinking" that leads to weather.
Do you think there's a limit to the idea that you can "solve" problems by taking resources away from people who aren't like you and using them for yourself?
Why isn't building more infrastructure so everyone can have more of what they need a better and more enlightened course of action?
Just looking at a map, there seems to be a lot of water in Modoc county and up near Redding. Also in the Pacific Ocean.
Because "the water table" matters? Except for the ability to use more water, why is one water table level good and another bad?
So don't use water produced by desalination for farming?
But coastal areas of CA are very wealthy. They can afford to solve the problem for themselves. It's not exactly the third world out here. All we have to do is decide to solve it and build the needed infrastructure.
We live on a planet where gravity pulls objects downward. We need to start acting that way.
NASA scientists who think we can't move water to people should be arguing for NASA to stop flying and wait for spacecraft to go up on their own.
How about if we all eat what we want and stop second guessing each other?
And they're building a desalination plant in Carlsbad. If more places followed that example, then the problem would be solved. If money is tight, we might want to think about doing that instead of building a $68 Billion train from LA to SF.