CA should pay for its own water projects. There's no need for anyone else to pay for them.
And while you're at it, why don't cut out the passive-aggressive fake empathy that drips from every one of your posts? It's not fooling anyone.
It's offered as a counterpoint to the weird nastiness that seems to surround the water topic. It really is relatively simple to transport water from place to place. There's no reason for people to get upset about it. Why not just solve the problem? Really, why not?
Some people want to fight instead. I'd rather we stopped doing that all the time. Because it's bad for us.
Or maybe they'll be industrious and motivated enough to move water to where they want to live. They can choose to do that or choose to be a victim of the weather.
It's not "madness". It's progress. It's relatively simple to transport water to people. We just have to decide to do it instead of second guessing every choice everyone ever made about where they live and work.
There's plenty of water that belongs to no one. Ocean water can be desalinated if there are no better options -- though I'm sure there are better options.
Rather than fighting over a severely limited amount of water, we can choose to build the infrastructure to get more water to people. But you'd actually have to value people having plentiful water rather than valuing the opportunity to gain power by leading divided factions of people to fight each other over limited water.
Instead of trying to divide people into factions to fight over smaller and smaller amounts of water, why not just get more water from where water is plentiful to where people need it? Because dividing people is what really matters?
Yeah, whatever you want to call it. Sure. Bringing water to thirsty people is only good if you value people. If you don't value people, then it's understandable why you'd oppose helping them by making sure they have enough water.
Instead of spending $68 Billion on a single high speed rail line between 2 cities that are already linked by several adequate transportation options, maybe we should use a fraction of that money for water projects? Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem. Why not solve it instead of being a victim of the weather?
This is the most rote, politically correct, by-the-numbers news story I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. Are you building a portfolio to try to apply for a job at a North Korean news bureau? Are you getting paid or graded based on the number of silly, college-student-activist, progressive bromides you can pack into a paragraph?
People don't buy apps based on the "diversity" of the programming staff. App users don't care. It's a 100% equal opportunity for everyone. But that's not really what you want, is it?
Except none of this makes the case for strong positive feedback. Sure, it's not absolutely ruled out by my 3 sentence commentary, but why should anyone believe it's likely? None of these responses even address it.
If small changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide produced strong positive feedback leading to a "point of no return" situation, then how are we here at all? The atmosphere has had higher carbon dioxide levels in the distant past. Observations should tell us that the climate seems to stabilize at an equilibrium rather than spiral toward extremes.
Thanks. Your comment makes a political point and provides a social signal to like-minded peers. It obviously does not help any children. You have provided a valuable example.
But anyone who tells people to avoid having children without first forming a family is name-called. Because politics and social signaling are important to the name-callers, and children aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
CA should pay for its own water projects. There's no need for anyone else to pay for them.
And while you're at it, why don't cut out the passive-aggressive fake empathy that drips from every one of your posts? It's not fooling anyone.
It's offered as a counterpoint to the weird nastiness that seems to surround the water topic. It really is relatively simple to transport water from place to place. There's no reason for people to get upset about it. Why not just solve the problem? Really, why not?
Some people want to fight instead. I'd rather we stopped doing that all the time. Because it's bad for us.
You only transport water to where you need it. Why would anyone transport water "back"?
Why do you think you will be harmed if Californians have enough water? What could lead someone to believe something like that?
Agreed. CA can easily afford it.
Or maybe they'll be industrious and motivated enough to move water to where they want to live. They can choose to do that or choose to be a victim of the weather.
People live where they live, not where "it makes sense" to you that they should live.
Sounds like you'd rather punish people than help them (or even allow them) to live better lives. Why?
Yes, there's water to move.
It's not "madness". It's progress. It's relatively simple to transport water to people. We just have to decide to do it instead of second guessing every choice everyone ever made about where they live and work.
They won't. And no, we shouldn't just surrender to being a victim of whatever the weather is. We should make things better. It's called progress.
If we value the next generation, let's get water to where people use it so the next generation has water.
There's plenty of water that belongs to no one. Ocean water can be desalinated if there are no better options -- though I'm sure there are better options.
Rather than fighting over a severely limited amount of water, we can choose to build the infrastructure to get more water to people. But you'd actually have to value people having plentiful water rather than valuing the opportunity to gain power by leading divided factions of people to fight each other over limited water.
Instead of trying to divide people into factions to fight over smaller and smaller amounts of water, why not just get more water from where water is plentiful to where people need it? Because dividing people is what really matters?
Why can't we just solve the problem instead of the pointless partisan bullshit?
Yeah, whatever you want to call it. Sure. Bringing water to thirsty people is only good if you value people. If you don't value people, then it's understandable why you'd oppose helping them by making sure they have enough water.
Instead of spending $68 Billion on a single high speed rail line between 2 cities that are already linked by several adequate transportation options, maybe we should use a fraction of that money for water projects? Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem. Why not solve it instead of being a victim of the weather?
This is the most rote, politically correct, by-the-numbers news story I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. Are you building a portfolio to try to apply for a job at a North Korean news bureau? Are you getting paid or graded based on the number of silly, college-student-activist, progressive bromides you can pack into a paragraph?
People don't buy apps based on the "diversity" of the programming staff. App users don't care. It's a 100% equal opportunity for everyone. But that's not really what you want, is it?
Why would fast change or change with a choice be more likely to lead to strong positive feedback?
Except none of this makes the case for strong positive feedback. Sure, it's not absolutely ruled out by my 3 sentence commentary, but why should anyone believe it's likely? None of these responses even address it.
If small changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide produced strong positive feedback leading to a "point of no return" situation, then how are we here at all? The atmosphere has had higher carbon dioxide levels in the distant past. Observations should tell us that the climate seems to stabilize at an equilibrium rather than spiral toward extremes.
Thanks. Your comment makes a political point and provides a social signal to like-minded peers. It obviously does not help any children. You have provided a valuable example.
But anyone who tells people to avoid having children without first forming a family is name-called. Because politics and social signaling are important to the name-callers, and children aren't.
If you're interested in actually helping poor children, the example to look at is Louisiana.
A lot of people are interested in maintaining the current system because it works for them, regardless of how much it harms poor children.
They get paid regardless of whether they do a good job.
People aren't talking about the shirt. People are talking about the unjust bullying that the gender warriors engage in.