I read the article... it cites a single example of how someone *COULD* modify the ECU and make the car no longer legally compliant, but again... that's already against the law. The first part of the article itself talkes about using the DMCA to stop people from doing such things, but as I said... there's already a law against making your car unsafe anyways, so if people aren't going to pay attention to that law, why would they pay attention to the DMCA? Particularly when they are just as liable to be caught doing either?

Does tinkering with anything in the car always affect the ECU? And even then, does absolutely any possible change to the ECU always cause the vehicle to violate safety or environmental regulations?

One can drink alcohol while holding a driver's license and still not drive

And in general, one can also tinker with their own car without making the vehicle noncompliant to required safety standards.

Sure... but my point is that at least that's actually possible. I used to know a guy who built his own car... I'm not in contact with him any more so I can't go and ask him how much he paid for certification, but as far as I know the car was entirely road-legal.

And if such changes would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with regional safety standards for vehicles, then the person would be held responsible if or when that modification was discovered. While that may be too late to actually prevent an accident, making it illegal to modify your car under the allegation that you may make it unsafe to drive is like making it illegal for you to drink alcohol if you happen to have a driver's license (ignoring the fact that a driver's license is often used for verifying that one is of legal drinking age in the first place) because you might try drive while drunk. Most of the people who are suspected of drunk driving are unfortunately only found so after they have already caused an accident as well.

My point is that like drunk driving, and laws that prohibit that activity, there are already laws that prohibit making any unsafe modifications to your vehicle... and not realizing that a change would cause a vehicle to not meet the necessary safety requirements is no more of a justification than not realizing that one was over the legal limit for blood alcohol content when getting behind the wheel of a car.

... that prohibit enthusiasts from making modifications to any vehicle that is to be driven on public roads which make it no longer comply with regional safety regulations.

If manufacturers don't want people tinkering with their systems because they are genuinely concerned about public safety, then it seems to me like they are already covered... there's no need to bring the DMCA into it at all.

What if *YOU* build it?

Because MOST white people don't want to live around non-whites

Citation. I'm betting you can't come up with one that's authoritative.

Oh... and while its almost certainly possible to suggest something even more racist than what you've said here, I expect most educated people would probably have to make a conscious effort to do so.

Wannabe central planners think they have all the answers.

Here's a crazy idea - stop artificial price fixing of water and let the stupid uses become unprofitable through millions of decisions by people who know about their own business.

"Oh, no," they say, "we know better. Even though they created this mess with that attitude.

Remember, Slate's entire business model is to find fault where there is none and assign blame. Keep this in mind when you read their next inflammatory article and you'll see the pattern.

That's actually the point. Warm temperatures and near constant sunlight = high productivity - if you import water. Ag in California takes up 80% of the water, but ag + mining together is only 2% of the economy. It's fine when water is abundant, but when it's in short supply, ag has to give.

Of course it's not free, that's why Lucas is *paying* for it... again, if he's footing the bill for this, why should the district object?

I expect a sizeable portion of that bill probably includes building all of the infrastructure to support that kind of multiple family residential complex in the first place... in urban environments, this infrastructure is usually paid for and developed by the city, but the article highlights that he's footing the entire bill himself rather than being funded even partially by the government, which suggests to me that's what most of the money that's going into this is going to get used for.

If he's going to foot the bill to get enough electricity and clean water to provide for over 200 families into the area, why should California's 6th district object?

In other words, the important stuff isn't worth thinking about, since we might come to a conclusion different from what God wanted, and then we would (for unknown but perfectly logical and loving reasons) we'd suffer horribly for eternity

God is right... if our reasoning finds that God is wrong, then it is our reasoning that is flawed, even if we do not necessarily understand how. As for the suffering for all eternity, this is only because we were created to *BE* eternal in the first place... and even I would have to to agree with the reasoning that it may not have been particularly fair to give finite beings such as ourselves the responsibility of making decisions whose impact goes far beyond anything in human experience... certainly if human beings were designing artificial creatures for some particular grander purpose than they could understand, it doesn't seem to make any sense... at least to myself, and probably to almost anyone else, to make them last forever if there is any possibility that they will fail to fulfill that purpose.

But i'm not God, and I certainly won't claim to speak for him... I can only say what my experiences have compelled me to believe. And while I am intellectually obligated to acknowledge what seems to me like the remote possibility that I could be mistaken in these views, I find that almost the same argument which could reasonably cause me to doubt them could equally be made for being unsure that anyone else other than oneself even exists. In the end, I think that one's sensibilities and perceptions of reality will eventually draw them inexorably towards a conclusion about it... and one can ultimately only hope that it is the right one.

People are imperfect... and I don't deny that certainly some heinous atrocities have been committed, and some still are being committed, in the name of religion. Everyone will still ultimately be held accountable, however... and it is certainly more than enough to worry about living one's own life to the best of their ability rather than pointing out how other people might behave.