And app revenue is 1/4 to 1/5 on Android compared to iOS. Its actually still more profitable on the iOS side due to its users spending more per app.

And C/C++ is probably what the core of your app should be written in so its portable to iOS, Android, Linux, Mac OS X and MS Windows. Only the user interface code needs to use java, swift, or objective-c. And its often best to just rewrite the UI in the language of the API for each platform.

Well its now available for Linux and it has been open sourced.

But more importantly its compatibility is largely irrelevant. Keep the UI and core code separate. The core of an app/game should usually be written in C/C++ for compatibility. Its not all that difficult to keep core code in C/C++ compatible for iOS, Android, Mac OS X, Linux, and MS Windows. Been there done that plenty of times. And its often best to just go with the language that is native for the platform with respect to the UI code.

Apparently you missed the fact that California produces over half the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. We're not talking about almonds, cotton and some of the other troublesome crops.

Actually those "staple" crops you refer to from the central regions of the US are going to need to import water too. Much of the central US has the *exact* same problem as California. Extremely fertile land but a shortage of surface water. The central US has been able to mine water from ancient aquifers that are not being refilled, they too will have to import water as mining becomes more and more difficult.

You don't seem to understand what the most critical resource for farming is. It is the land, fertile soil. Framers have been settling on fertile soil and moving water to that soil for over 5,000 years. California has an extra benefit due to a climate that allows production year round.

The problem in CA is not really price. That is something very annoying but water is fairly cheap for everyone, its just that some farmers get it ridiculously cheap. The real problem is that some farmers have very old federal and state licenses to get large amounts of water and many of the irrigation techniques are still quite wasteful. Its more of a shortage problem than a price problem.

I realize you are all caught up with your econ 101 price and demand curves but recall that all important caveat that your professor qualified everything with: all other things being equal. In reality today all other things are *not* equal which is why your econ 101 will not work.

Residential use accounts for only 10% of CA water usage, industry another 10%. Agriculture is the remaining 80%. The CA central valley is *not* a desert and it contains some of the most fertile land around and it has a climate that permits production all year. The CA central valley currently produces over half the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US.

Like much of the farm land in the central regions of the US the CA central valley lacks sufficient surface water. In CA the water gets imported. In the central regions of the US it tends to get mined from ancient aquifers that are not being refilled, these other farming areas will have to import water too someday.

Its not simple but it is something that was figured out thousands of years ago. Google Roman aqueducts.

Absolutely wrong. Farms should be where the fertile land is. Water is easily moved. For 5,000 years farmers have relocated to good land and then figured out how to get additional water there if necessary.

The California central valley is *not* a desert. It is incredibly fertile land, farming should take place there. Plus the climate allows many foods to be grown year round. California produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. That is *not* including some particular troublesome crops like almonds, cotton, etc which perhaps should be farmed elsewhere.

By the way, much of the farmland in the central portions of the US lack enough surface water for farming too. They have to mine ancient aquifers that are not being replenished. Each year they must mine deeper and deeper, they will have to import water like California one day.

Stop farming? That is an absolutely clueless position for two reasons:

(1) CA produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US.

(2) The CA central valley has the exact same problem as the areas where you thinking water should be moved into. The central valley is *not* a desert. Like those rural areas you mention it is incredibly fertile land with insufficient surface water. Plus the CA central valley has a climate that allows for year round production. Other parts of the US mine aquifers that are not being replenished and they will have to import water too at some point.

That said, note that the over 50% of fruits and vegetables does not include almonds, cotton and other troublesome crops. Moving those out of CA is probably a good idea. And modernizing irrigation and other techniques would also be a good idea.

Nearly all are well suited to the climate, that's is why they have extra growing seasons for many of these crops in CA.

The habitat in CA is like much of the habitat in the rest of US agriculture in the central regions of the country, these traditional farming lands have potential productivity far in excess of available surface water. It is only by tapping additional water resources that the US can feed so many at home and around the globe. In the central US many regions are currently tapping aquifers that are not being replenished, aquifers that will run dry, and like California they will have to import water.

Importing water is not necessarily bad. Nature distributes it somewhat randomly, not wisely nor efficiently nor beneficially. What is bad is when we also fail to distribute it wisely or efficiently or beneficially, which is really the problem in CA.

It is a good day when billions are fed well. And to do so we must produce beyond what the habitat allows. Else we fall into a Malthusian catastrophe and few will have a good day.

The California central valley is not naturally a desert. The problem in California is one that many other parts of the US shares. The potential of the land far surpasses the available surface water. In California the solution was to transport water many hundreds of miles. In other parts of the country the solution was to drill down and access ancient aquifers that are not be refilled, to drill deeper and deeper into the aquifer each year.

Transporting water to fertile farmlands will become a national issue, its not specific to California. Its just being seen in California first.

Many places east of the Rockies have a similar problem as California, the available surface water does not match the potential of the land. Many of these areas are mining water from aquifers that are not being refilled. Each year having to drill deeper and deeper. Like CA water will need to be shipped to these regions too at some point. Things are much more complicated than you suggest.

That said, totally agree with you regarding the artificial corn for fuel nonsense.

The California central valley is very much fertile farmland. Its just that natural water resources don't support the massive potential of the land.

East of the Rockies water is getting more and more difficult to find too. Many of those traditional farm lands you are referring to have been essentially mining local aquifers that are not being refilled. Having to mine deeper and deeper each year. Like CA the situation is that natural surface water is quite limited compared to the potential of the land.

Moving water around the country on a large scale is likely to be a necessity in CA and elsewhere.

You failed to understand my point. There is sometimes no need to bribe a majority of congress because occasionally we get a president that happens to agree with some policy for ideological reasons. The point being that a single decision maker is a more vulnerable point than many hundreds of a decision makers that have to work in concert.

And then we have the case where a President has not ideological bent one way or the other so donations or other means of influence can have an effect and garner presidential support or opposition for some issue. Consider all the occasions were it seemed mainland Chinese money was being funneled to Clinton. Again, a President is a single point of vulnerability.

Wrong, for example Nixon was paid over half a million dollars in 1977 for the David Frost interviews. His memoirs was a best selling book. He had many speaking engagements in the 1980s. He met with many foreign leaders, China actually forced Carter to invite Nixon to a state dinner at the White House.

And any President caught accepting money could likewise resign and avoid impeachment.

Your claim of post-presidential income being at risk just does not hold up.

OK. Then CA can stop selling water below market value to agriculture. Agriculture that consumes 80% of CA's water. Agriculture that supplies over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. In short, your groceries are subsidized by CA.

With 80% of water going to the agriculture that feeds you supplying some of the water is not exactly unjust.

That said, CA agriculture could use a lot of reform and modernization.

Actually the situation is that water is being sold below market value and wasted in inefficient agriculture practices to provide YOU with inexpensive food. So CA residents are subsidizing your food prices.

Residential use of water in CA accounts for 10%, industry another 10%, agriculture the remaining 80%.

Over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US come from CA.