I agree about proper attention being given to technology. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.
As for the microphone issues, there's usually a TA in an adjoining room studying for another class while 'at the ready', and only one microphone (attached to professor's shirt, with transmitter on belt). I recall one occasion where an elderly professor (Gajski) started continuously screaming for the TA's assistance when his laser pointer stopped working. After 3-4 minutes of this (in which around half the lecture hall emptied out) the TA finally heard.
I don't oppose new technology and/or new implementations of old tech, just the reliance on these new items to 'properly' teach.
And how is a show of hands unable to provide you the same exact results? When you raise your hand in response to a polling, you don't want to feel like a dumbass, so you actually *try* to solve the problem. Most of my lecture halls contain 300-500 people, and this was the first I'd heard of The Clicker...
Is it? It's been my experience that classrooms + new gadgets = disaster waiting to happen. Murphy's Law in the extreme. Even good ol microphones are royal pains when they won't stop buzzing, and the professor is forced to turn it off and lecture 400+ students unaided...
As others have mentioned, stuff like this usually ends up taking a considerable chunk of class time just for everyone to figure the thing out and for it to be set up properly.
Seriously. This is yet another device that has the sole purpose of creating *more* antisocials among the youth. If you're too 'afraid' or 'shy' to RAISE YOUR HAND or *gasp* talk to the professor after class, is further isolating you really going to help?
*raises hand*
I think not.
At this time I'd like to thank my Anteater (UCI) overlords for NOT buying into this gimmicky crap.
If you can't leave home without a remote, see a psychologist. You've got a problem.
Some minor background noise is normal in sound proof rooms. It's because your hearing can actually adjust its threshold when needed -- it's similar to the reduction in a noisy classroom, which tunes out the lawnmower outside and the noisy A.C. unit rattling away. You're trying to detect any minor sound, and the lack of any forces acuteness of hearing. This same increase in threshold -- unfortunately -- makes me more susceptible to the static I hear 24/7. Typically it's on par with my computer system (I never bother to attach side panels, so the five fans are quite noticeable:) ).
Ditto. I can second the suggestion. I'm in my 20's and I already have permanent -- and uncorrectable -- hearing damage. You can't imagine how frustrating it is walking around 24/7 with a constant background static buzzing away...until you have it yourself. And when I'm surrounded by complete silence (soundproof rooms/studios) the sound is emphasized, and becomes deafening. And since it's sensory damage, white noise doesn't do squat.
They may look lame or uncool, but the alternative to wearing earplugs is much much worse.
we need edit options, slashdot!
experimental weight = lift weight (doesn't include gas weight)
The main issue with helium airships is that the lift is HORRIBLE. You need so much gas to lift the even the smallest items, leading to the massive constructs. It's why we can't just have mini automated blimps ferrying supplies around (or atleast it limits the size of such supply runs). The Walrus is an old design, and it's *huge*. What we really need are more economical hoverships:)
blah forgot the dimensions, the most important part: 392 m long 79 m dia (btw if you're wondering about the odd weight, I used the volume of gas to get the experimental weight, not the other way around:))
Nothing. Most of the modern conceptual designs utilize extreme compartmentalization, such as having thousands of spherical bladders contained within the greater structure. At most a single bladder would be ruptured, having negligible effect. Even a Stinger (or any 'terrorist' missile that could be fired at it) probably wouldn't destroy it -- although, that's mainly dependent on how large it is. Could be a few football fields long or the size of a volkswagon bug. The best they could probably hope for is to *bring it down*, and in airships that could mean a wait of hours for it to hit ground (ample time for crew to parachute, unlike a fixedwing aircraft).
I was bored years ago and crunched the numbers for such a craft:
For a lightly armed/armoured airship (I threw on the actual chassis weight + gas weight + sufficient armor plating to protect against small arms fire, and several sam launchers / small calibre gun platforms...GEEK, I know):
Experimental weight: 1,501,247.50464 lbs (some destroyers weight ~2.5mil, for comparison)
Necessary lift: 1,445,600 cubic meters of helium)
Now that's a HECK of a lot of space being taken up by just the gas itself, but then again it's carrying some serious weight.
I for one welcome our new helium based overlords (sorry, someone had to say it)
Then you "know" incorrectly. Common misuse of a term isn't an excuse, it only compounds the error. Now if you'd said that in australia everyone *refers* to beer or sometimes alcohol in general as grog, that would've been informative and an interesting note. As it stands, you're just being an Honorary American:) (this coming from an American).
I've got a few cases of Appleton's in the garage from my summer vacation in jamaica that say grog is rum and water. As do I.
You recall correctly, but your logic is flawed. Biplanes sometimes carried bombs, and WWII fighters most certainly did. Not all the time, but often enough to be designed around that capacity.
I, for one, bow down before our wiki overlords. (as should you...)
Hey, don't laugh it off so quickly. Conspiracy theorists might want to consult Stephen Baxter's Titan, in which the accidental destruction of the spaceshuttle Columbia on re-entry prompts a daring mission to Titan, to prep it for human colonization / mining (and it doesn't hurt that it comes at a time when NASA's funding is being reconsidered, and the program itself re-evaluated -- yup, still talking about the book).
Published November 1, 1998.
I remember hearing about the "Columbia Disaster" and thinking damn...Baxter's gotta be shitting his pants today...
Have you *looked* at the thing? There's a reason why a couple dozen people have mentioned the EFC similarity throughout this article's topics (and on other boards as well, I'm seeing). If you are referring to the continuing trend to Make-Real many of scifi's most beloved inventions, and that this is just yet another one of these (and I'm making a big deal out of a small piece of the whole), then I apologize. Try posting inname, next time. As for getting out of the holograph room, I do not have one nor do I collect holographs. Antiquated means of surrounding yourself with memorobilia.
But I COULD use a vulcan love slave or two on the holo*deck*...
The "evidence" provided is a single publication in an i triple e journal, that goes nowhere in 'proving' their theory
FTFA:
The crucial evidence for the electrical nature of supernovae must come from experiment and observation.
Anthony L. Peratt, Fellow, IEEE, published a seminal paper in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2003. It was titled Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity. In it he explained the unusual characteristics of a high-energy plasma discharge. He discussed mega-ampere particle beams and showed their characteristic 56- and 28-fold symmetry. He wrote: "A solid beam of charged particles tends to form hollow cylinders that may then filament into individual currents. When observed from below, the pattern consists of circles, circular rings of bright spots, and intense electrical discharge streamers connecting the inner structure to the outer structure."
*sigh* I seriously doubt that 'supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star', and think that this is instead more unsubstantiated guesswork on the part of the Electronic Universe Theorists.
Yet another case of companies ripping off scifi inventions. The only difference is the EFC ones were badged MCI. And of course, the Philips ones are functional.:)
That having been said, I can't wait to pick one up!
"Archaeologists tend to side with hard evidence, which dates to early Homo sapiens"
blah meant to say that it dates to purely Homo sapien times (somewhere around 20 thousand years ago evidence starts showing up of man and dog living/dying together)
Dogs have been around for a long time, but exact dates are iffy. Archaeologists tend to side with hard evidence, which dates to early Homo sapiens. Whereas biologists are saying well into the Middle Paleolithic (200k-35k BP). Which would really be fascinating, imho (and would put them well into the neanderthal time period as well as Homo sapiens).
As for hunting, I don't believe dogs would've made that significant of a difference. Just the fact that one group is limited to a kill range of a few feet and favors caves, while the other has early projectiles and favors high points with panoramic views of their surrounds.... it's a pretty major advantage.
What I'd really like to see is a better estimate of *when* exactly humans and dogs started relying on oneanother, and *where* that first occurred.
Slashdot has once again made a big deal out of nothing. In one of my archaeology classes a few years ago we discussed these very caves, and covered the EVIDENCE (that's right, evidence) that damn near proves the existence of Homo sapiens and neanderthals in fairly close quarters.
The fact of the matter is that Homo sapiens have been around for 200 THOUSAND YEARS!! Neanderthals were the dominant species for most of that time, until they died off approximated 30-35k ago... it's not such a big leap to suggest that coexistence goes back to far earlier times, but the big deal about these caves is that the neanderthals were competing for the same resources as Homo sapiens, and were outhunted (the BIG mystery the article claims is unknown...you gotta love media) to extinction. Neanderthals used flake technology, while Homo sapiens used blade tech. Without going too heavily into it, Homo sapiens were killing up a storm with thrown spears and using prismatic cores and all that high tech jazz. Neanderthals still had to close in for the kill, and as such could not compete at all.
The important thing to understand is that there were two variants of hominids during the middle and upper paleolithic periods (assuming we disregard the Homo erectus groups off in Asia that were still hanging in there), rather than one being descended from the other. Neanderthals were adapted for the Ice Age, and were limited to Europe because of this. The highly adaptable (yet peabrained) little Homo sapiens spread like wildfire across the continents, killing as we went. Neanderthals are believed to have been very gentle and possibly even possessors of culture (although this is in constant debate), even taking care of the sick and wounded around them. One skull was even found with a hole beveled into it, suggesting some attempt at early surgical treatment (it was done premortem, and the individual lived for several years after the hole was made).
Whereas we were honed to kill.
Disclaimer: It's highly improbable that Homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens mingled, or that the Homo sapiens killed off the neanderthals. But until we can send a time machine back to record all this shit, nobody can be 100% certain.
Oh and A.C., I'm not making any corrections to what you've said, just trying to expand on it a bit. Seemed like as good a place as any.:) I agree about the communication, and how large Neanderthal brains were.
One amusing tidbit is that Darwin had no fscking clue how organisms evolved (he was mistakenly leaning towards Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Use/Disuse Theory, in which Lamarck theorized that if an organism needed and desired a bodily change, over time this change would occur), it was Alfred Wallace who came up with what we commonly attribute to Darwin but specific to animals (proliferation and continuation of best suited characteristics). Darwin turned around and published Origin of Species and Descent of Man, in which he combined all the theories of those who came before him and wrote em off as his own.
You're comparing electricity to water... *shudders*
The problem with water is that we consume MASSIVE quantities of the stuff. To be able to redirect a sufficient amount to do what you're suggestion on a national scale requires a large $$ investment in pumping facilities, as well as the ongoing costs of having them running 24/7 (or you need VERY flat terrain + smaller and less frequent pumps; see: california aqueduct).
Southern California has a water system close to that which you're describing, but it relies on the flat open desert regions between populated regions. There's very little redundancy AFAIK, but it is connected (most of the state is one gigantic city, allowing for this).
*cough* I wasn't kidding about the water district.:P
Oh and on a sidenote I agree with you on the power grids that are currently in place. Horrendous system, much of which needs to be R&Red rather than the current practice of 'upgrading' every few years. Alaska of all places has some of the best telephone and power setups of the entire U.S., because of the If It Works Don't Fix It attitude that's been taken in the lower 48.
Look, do the research or ask someone else. A friend of mine was just put in charge of Flood Control for the city of Riverside (we went to Henry Samueli at uci together). I consulted him after your response to my first post on the subject. He laughed.
I'm a liberal, so don't give me that shit about misspent funds. The problem is that such a system would be a money sink, and would not improve upon anything. You're thinking backwards, technologically. It's fun to think up 5 mile long warships or uber-space stations that handle all kinds of scientific research in one giant package, but that isn't the way technology/innovation goes.
"You can't be a very advanced engineer if you decide a project is impossible just because it's big. Just find a workable solution for connecting those systems together and you're set. Nobody said to just throw away the existing infrastructure."
I'm saying it's impossibly large for the relative gain. WHY create Uber Water Works? What possible purpose could this serve that is not handled by present systems? Most of these systems ARE connected RIGHT NOW (to some degree).
In conclusion: I don't object to new ideas, just stupid ones. I'm sorry, but you're simply ignoring the facts that I've tried to present as patiently/clearly as I can, while berating *me*. And now what you're claiming is needed is something almost identical to what is currently in place..... I give up on you.:) If you're serious about this and still don't understand why your idea cannot be implemented (or that it has already been implemented, in your most recent case) then contact your local water district and ask to sit down with someone. That's the only thing that'll get this out of your system, it seems. My own district headquarters is quite friendly (so long as you pay your bills on time:P), and has done similar things in the past for local concerned citizens.
You could put thousands of people to work creating such a system so most of the money would be recycled right back into our economy. That combined with not having to pay billions of dollars in flood and drought recovery all the time would quickly make the system pay for itself.
LOL, so we should spent 1000x the initial cost (plus millions -- billions? -- each year maintaining it) to save billions of dollars in flood and drought recovery "all the time." I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were Republican.
As for droughts, they're hardly an issue these days (atleast not enough to justify such an expenditure).
Take my word -- as an engineer -- that such a system is completely ludicrous and even impossible (to the degree that you're demanding). I make no expectations for rivers to "control flooding and pump water over massive distances (uphill)", and would appreciate a quote to back up your assertion that *I* made such a claim. As for the flooding aspects, you seem to have completely ignored the final words of my previous post, so I will say them again.
"Oh, and if your apparent humor / sarcasm is directed at the other end of the pipelines, it doesn't seem to be feasible to pump flood waters out West and would be a downright bargain (compared to the System) to have pumping/irrigation systems set up on a smaller scale: to handle -- on a city by city basis -- emergency crises and nothing more. Which is pretty much where New Orleans is at right now."
Micro *is* better in this case, and a nation-wide extension (or replacement?) of what is currently in place is not only pointless, but a horribly gargantuan expenditure (you did catch the *TRILLIONS* of dollars part, didn't you? And that was lowballing it, if anything). To supply just Southern California the California Aqueduct is MASSIVE, and to have a water transportation system in place that could support the ENTIRE United States (for both its flood AND drought needs) is downright insanity. For perspective (from TFAs):
California Aqueduct:
"A typical section has a concrete-lined channel 40 feet wide at the base and an average water depth of about 30 feet. The widest section of the aqueduct is 110 feet and the deepest is 32.8 feet. The size of the channel varies according to how much capacity that section of the aqueduct was projected to need. The pumping and channel capacities at the start of the aqueduct are 10,670 and 10,300 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The largest channel capacity is 13,100 cfs and the largest pumping plant capacity is 15,450 cfs. For perspective, an Olympic-sized swimming pool with dimensions of 2 X 25 X 50 meters holds about 88,000 cubic feet."
Trans-Alaska Pipeline:
"The single 48 inch (1.22 m) diameter pipeline was built between March 27, 1975 and May 31, 1977 at a cost of around US$8 billion. The pipe was constructed in six sections by five different contractors employing 21,000 people at the peak of work; 31 were killed in accidents during construction."
Slashdot Mirror
As for the microphone issues, there's usually a TA in an adjoining room studying for another class while 'at the ready', and only one microphone (attached to professor's shirt, with transmitter on belt). I recall one occasion where an elderly professor (Gajski) started continuously screaming for the TA's assistance when his laser pointer stopped working. After 3-4 minutes of this (in which around half the lecture hall emptied out) the TA finally heard.
I don't oppose new technology and/or new implementations of old tech, just the reliance on these new items to 'properly' teach.
And how is a show of hands unable to provide you the same exact results? When you raise your hand in response to a polling, you don't want to feel like a dumbass, so you actually *try* to solve the problem. Most of my lecture halls contain 300-500 people, and this was the first I'd heard of The Clicker...
nah, it's the cool and efficient that are contradictory. A rock is far cooler to kill someone with than a gun.
As others have mentioned, stuff like this usually ends up taking a considerable chunk of class time just for everyone to figure the thing out and for it to be set up properly.
I'd like a double double w/ grilled onions, an order of fries, and a large dr. pepper. Thanks.
*raises hand*
I think not.
At this time I'd like to thank my Anteater (UCI) overlords for NOT buying into this gimmicky crap.
If you can't leave home without a remote, see a psychologist. You've got a problem.
Some minor background noise is normal in sound proof rooms. It's because your hearing can actually adjust its threshold when needed -- it's similar to the reduction in a noisy classroom, which tunes out the lawnmower outside and the noisy A.C. unit rattling away. You're trying to detect any minor sound, and the lack of any forces acuteness of hearing. This same increase in threshold -- unfortunately -- makes me more susceptible to the static I hear 24/7. Typically it's on par with my computer system (I never bother to attach side panels, so the five fans are quite noticeable :) ).
They may look lame or uncool, but the alternative to wearing earplugs is much much worse.
experimental weight = lift weight (doesn't include gas weight)
The main issue with helium airships is that the lift is HORRIBLE. You need so much gas to lift the even the smallest items, leading to the massive constructs. It's why we can't just have mini automated blimps ferrying supplies around (or atleast it limits the size of such supply runs). The Walrus is an old design, and it's *huge*. What we really need are more economical hoverships :)
blah forgot the dimensions, the most important part: :))
392 m long
79 m dia (btw if you're wondering about the odd weight, I used the volume of gas to get the experimental weight, not the other way around
I was bored years ago and crunched the numbers for such a craft:
For a lightly armed/armoured airship (I threw on the actual chassis weight + gas weight + sufficient armor plating to protect against small arms fire, and several sam launchers / small calibre gun platforms...GEEK, I know):
Experimental weight: 1,501,247.50464 lbs (some destroyers weight ~2.5mil, for comparison)
Necessary lift: 1,445,600 cubic meters of helium)
Now that's a HECK of a lot of space being taken up by just the gas itself, but then again it's carrying some serious weight.
I for one welcome our new helium based overlords (sorry, someone had to say it)
I've got a few cases of Appleton's in the garage from my summer vacation in jamaica that say grog is rum and water. As do I.
Real Grog (a good recipe)
I, for one, bow down before our wiki overlords. (as should you...)
frack you
Published November 1, 1998.
I remember hearing about the "Columbia Disaster" and thinking damn...Baxter's gotta be shitting his pants today...
But I COULD use a vulcan love slave or two on the holo*deck*...
FTFA:
The crucial evidence for the electrical nature of supernovae must come from experiment and observation. Anthony L. Peratt, Fellow, IEEE, published a seminal paper in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2003. It was titled Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity. In it he explained the unusual characteristics of a high-energy plasma discharge. He discussed mega-ampere particle beams and showed their characteristic 56- and 28-fold symmetry. He wrote: "A solid beam of charged particles tends to form hollow cylinders that may then filament into individual currents. When observed from below, the pattern consists of circles, circular rings of bright spots, and intense electrical discharge streamers connecting the inner structure to the outer structure."
*sigh* I seriously doubt that 'supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star', and think that this is instead more unsubstantiated guesswork on the part of the Electronic Universe Theorists.
E:FC MCI "Global"
Yet another case of companies ripping off scifi inventions. The only difference is the EFC ones were badged MCI. And of course, the Philips ones are functional. :)
That having been said, I can't wait to pick one up!
blah meant to say that it dates to purely Homo sapien times (somewhere around 20 thousand years ago evidence starts showing up of man and dog living/dying together)
As for hunting, I don't believe dogs would've made that significant of a difference. Just the fact that one group is limited to a kill range of a few feet and favors caves, while the other has early projectiles and favors high points with panoramic views of their surrounds.... it's a pretty major advantage.
What I'd really like to see is a better estimate of *when* exactly humans and dogs started relying on oneanother, and *where* that first occurred.
The fact of the matter is that Homo sapiens have been around for 200 THOUSAND YEARS!! Neanderthals were the dominant species for most of that time, until they died off approximated 30-35k ago ... it's not such a big leap to suggest that coexistence goes back to far earlier times, but the big deal about these caves is that the neanderthals were competing for the same resources as Homo sapiens, and were outhunted (the BIG mystery the article claims is unknown...you gotta love media) to extinction. Neanderthals used flake technology, while Homo sapiens used blade tech. Without going too heavily into it, Homo sapiens were killing up a storm with thrown spears and using prismatic cores and all that high tech jazz. Neanderthals still had to close in for the kill, and as such could not compete at all.
The important thing to understand is that there were two variants of hominids during the middle and upper paleolithic periods (assuming we disregard the Homo erectus groups off in Asia that were still hanging in there), rather than one being descended from the other. Neanderthals were adapted for the Ice Age, and were limited to Europe because of this. The highly adaptable (yet peabrained) little Homo sapiens spread like wildfire across the continents, killing as we went. Neanderthals are believed to have been very gentle and possibly even possessors of culture (although this is in constant debate), even taking care of the sick and wounded around them. One skull was even found with a hole beveled into it, suggesting some attempt at early surgical treatment (it was done premortem, and the individual lived for several years after the hole was made).
Whereas we were honed to kill.
Disclaimer: It's highly improbable that Homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens mingled, or that the Homo sapiens killed off the neanderthals. But until we can send a time machine back to record all this shit, nobody can be 100% certain.
Oh and A.C., I'm not making any corrections to what you've said, just trying to expand on it a bit. Seemed like as good a place as any. :) I agree about the communication, and how large Neanderthal brains were.
One amusing tidbit is that Darwin had no fscking clue how organisms evolved (he was mistakenly leaning towards Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Use/Disuse Theory, in which Lamarck theorized that if an organism needed and desired a bodily change, over time this change would occur), it was Alfred Wallace who came up with what we commonly attribute to Darwin but specific to animals (proliferation and continuation of best suited characteristics). Darwin turned around and published Origin of Species and Descent of Man, in which he combined all the theories of those who came before him and wrote em off as his own.
The problem with water is that we consume MASSIVE quantities of the stuff. To be able to redirect a sufficient amount to do what you're suggestion on a national scale requires a large $$ investment in pumping facilities, as well as the ongoing costs of having them running 24/7 (or you need VERY flat terrain + smaller and less frequent pumps; see: california aqueduct).
Southern California has a water system close to that which you're describing, but it relies on the flat open desert regions between populated regions. There's very little redundancy AFAIK, but it is connected (most of the state is one gigantic city, allowing for this).
*cough* I wasn't kidding about the water district. :P
Oh and on a sidenote I agree with you on the power grids that are currently in place. Horrendous system, much of which needs to be R&Red rather than the current practice of 'upgrading' every few years. Alaska of all places has some of the best telephone and power setups of the entire U.S., because of the If It Works Don't Fix It attitude that's been taken in the lower 48.
I'm a liberal, so don't give me that shit about misspent funds. The problem is that such a system would be a money sink, and would not improve upon anything. You're thinking backwards, technologically. It's fun to think up 5 mile long warships or uber-space stations that handle all kinds of scientific research in one giant package, but that isn't the way technology/innovation goes.
"You can't be a very advanced engineer if you decide a project is impossible just because it's big. Just find a workable solution for connecting those systems together and you're set. Nobody said to just throw away the existing infrastructure."
I'm saying it's impossibly large for the relative gain. WHY create Uber Water Works? What possible purpose could this serve that is not handled by present systems? Most of these systems ARE connected RIGHT NOW (to some degree).
In conclusion: I don't object to new ideas, just stupid ones. I'm sorry, but you're simply ignoring the facts that I've tried to present as patiently/clearly as I can, while berating *me*. And now what you're claiming is needed is something almost identical to what is currently in place. .... I give up on you. :) If you're serious about this and still don't understand why your idea cannot be implemented (or that it has already been implemented, in your most recent case) then contact your local water district and ask to sit down with someone. That's the only thing that'll get this out of your system, it seems. My own district headquarters is quite friendly (so long as you pay your bills on time :P), and has done similar things in the past for local concerned citizens.
Good luck
LOL, so we should spent 1000x the initial cost (plus millions -- billions? -- each year maintaining it) to save billions of dollars in flood and drought recovery "all the time." I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were Republican.
As for droughts, they're hardly an issue these days (atleast not enough to justify such an expenditure).
Take my word -- as an engineer -- that such a system is completely ludicrous and even impossible (to the degree that you're demanding). I make no expectations for rivers to "control flooding and pump water over massive distances (uphill)", and would appreciate a quote to back up your assertion that *I* made such a claim. As for the flooding aspects, you seem to have completely ignored the final words of my previous post, so I will say them again.
"Oh, and if your apparent humor / sarcasm is directed at the other end of the pipelines, it doesn't seem to be feasible to pump flood waters out West and would be a downright bargain (compared to the System) to have pumping/irrigation systems set up on a smaller scale: to handle -- on a city by city basis -- emergency crises and nothing more. Which is pretty much where New Orleans is at right now."
Micro *is* better in this case, and a nation-wide extension (or replacement?) of what is currently in place is not only pointless, but a horribly gargantuan expenditure (you did catch the *TRILLIONS* of dollars part, didn't you? And that was lowballing it, if anything). To supply just Southern California the California Aqueduct is MASSIVE, and to have a water transportation system in place that could support the ENTIRE United States (for both its flood AND drought needs) is downright insanity. For perspective (from TFAs):
California Aqueduct:
"A typical section has a concrete-lined channel 40 feet wide at the base and an average water depth of about 30 feet. The widest section of the aqueduct is 110 feet and the deepest is 32.8 feet. The size of the channel varies according to how much capacity that section of the aqueduct was projected to need. The pumping and channel capacities at the start of the aqueduct are 10,670 and 10,300 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The largest channel capacity is 13,100 cfs and the largest pumping plant capacity is 15,450 cfs. For perspective, an Olympic-sized swimming pool with dimensions of 2 X 25 X 50 meters holds about 88,000 cubic feet."
Trans-Alaska Pipeline:
"The single 48 inch (1.22 m) diameter pipeline was built between March 27, 1975 and May 31, 1977 at a cost of around US$8 billion. The pipe was constructed in six sections by five different contractors employing 21,000 people at the peak of work; 31 were killed in accidents during construction."