Exactly. Doing the math another way, if you want the equivalent of a 25% reduction in home and industrial water use (what the State government is calling for), you need to reduce agricultural use by only about 6% to get that same savings in water.

I don't think you understand how little water is used in CA for household and industrial vs. Agriculture.

I have a solution for your CA home water issues.

Ready? Stop voting for Democrat environmentalists.

The science is in. If you divert millions of acre-feet of water to fulfill environmental regulations, you can't use that water for other stuff. If you stop building reservoirs and dams to store water while increasing water usage, you won't have enough water. If agriculture water prices went up enough that the agribusinesses used 12.5% less water, then every residential and industrial user in CA could use 50% more water.

Yeah, well, Obama's smoking habit is statistically more likely to have impacted his daughter's asthma (his example) than global warming ever will.

I guess there's no good having a boogeyman if you can't blame everything you've ever seen as a problem on it...

Let's see, Presidential election results after 1964, your chosen "they've been dying" since landmark:
R
R
D
R
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
So 7 R to 5 D... yeah, looks like an ongoing landslide for the D's over that time.

Current Congress? House = R, Senate = R
Current States? R's control 70% of the state legislative bodies.

Basically the ONLY level of elected office the Republicans don't currently control is the White House, and if you think Hilary is going to win that in 2016... well, you can keep going with your wishful thinking there...

No. Happily, the Hugo's have multiple categories and multiple works/people nominated per category.

Ideally, SF awards will be for the best SF works as voted on by SF fans, not taken over by literary elitists (the same type of folks who used to look down over their noses to say SF wasn't real literature, if they deigned to notice it at all) who want to use it to push their latest social cause.

The Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies slates weren't about not having women and minorities win. Both slates included several women and minorities and even some left-wing writers who had to be publicly "horrified" the wrong people liked their work.

They're about wanting Hugo nominees/winners that reflect science fiction and what they consider the best story, rather than the last decade or so style of being nominated because the author is a leftist non-white male who includes the properly politically correct representatives in their story, even though the story itself isn't remotely the best SF story of the year. They're about wanting the winners to reflect SF fans, rather than just a small insular group of NY elites in the publishing business. Looking at you, Tor.

If you wonder why there seems to be a big gap of 12-15 years where not a lot of new good SF authors came out in book form, except from Baen, it's because the literary elite decided SF should be about identity politics instead of about science and speculation. SP/RP are about taking the field back for real SF that the fans of SF like, not the kind where it's "important" because it shows a woman musing about how the evil corporations are ruining the environment but if only her homosexual boyfriend would wake up from his coma they could live happily ever after mutually respecting each other in hipster anguish. -Gasp-

We also discussed the challenge of recruiting more women to open source projects and women in the KDE community.

Why?

How about asking about the challenges of recruiting more GUI designers, or more programmers, or more QA testers, or more of some group KDE specifically needs more of. Why ask about women?

It's almost like there's some sort of additional agenda beyond just interviewing the KDE folks....

Have they considered asking economists about the effects of price controls on water for agricultural uses?

Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one... if you hold down the price of water, people (especially larger users) will use more of it, not less of it...

ok, I'll bite. I understand how the internet works as well as most people who don't spend most of their time writing RFCs (I owned an ISP back in the dial-up days and I've configured BGP as a network admin).

However, I also understand public choice economics and the fact that once the FCC begins to regulate the Internet (in the name of Net Neutrality), their incentives are driven by the politics of the commissioners (hence why this decision was 3 Dems vs. 2 Reps) and by the companies they regulate. It's nice when that sometimes coincides with the interests of the "regular guy", but it typically doesn't over time. Examples from history abound. See Baptists and Bootleggers.

I also understand that Comcast vs. Netflix was about contractual rights and was solved by the various parties making private agreements for bandwidth and transit usage, not by government regulation.

The supposed "reason" for the FCC regulations (prioritizing content providers by ISPs) isn't something that is actually happening in a widespread manner nor negatively affecting consumers, so why give a small government body control over the Internet so that they can over time regulate it pretty much however they want to.... and by want to, I mean how their political and embedded corporate interests want them to.

Except of course... that photograph is of a highly regulated environment in India with strict government granted monopoly.

So in other words, the photo shows the exact opposite of your argument to be bad...

I'm happy to agree with you that Mozilla had every right to do what they did. Allowing people/companies, etc... make bad choices about what to do with their own resources is a valuable part of freedom. They just suffer the consequences if it was a bad choice.

Nothing you wrote disputes my point that when a company's values become more focused on A rather than B, when they used to be known for B, they will tend to drift off of success at B.

It applies to companies, people, countries, etc... they become successful because of a positive trait/action (like hard work, innovation, whatever) and then they become prideful and change their focus to something else and lose track of the values that got them there, then wonder why they start becoming less successful over time.

Someone's freedom doesn't extend to me being required to agree with them, just that I don't use force to stop them. Of course, many folks have lost sight of that, seeming to want to punish people for disagreeing with them on the latest controversial issue.

At least they didn't talk about how Mozilla are leaders in the diversity movement and have pride in having a different standard.

I guess once you put politically correct groupthink over people with a proven track record of innovation, innovation starts to suffer and go away.

This process is also known a "Bad Luck". Sounds like Mozilla is suffering from bad luck...

Well, what do you expect with all the science deniers in Congress and the White House? If the Democratic Party members took global warming as seriously as the Republicans do, they'd quickly cut out the red tape and solve this nuclear waste storage issue in order to economically reduce reliance on fossil fuels, as places like Arizona do. Instead, they chase after non-scientific stuff like biofuels, where the science is settled.