Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Could save more water even cheaper (Score 1) 234

I'm not talking about natural flooding during our 3 month rain season. The AG companies are flooding fields year round! Normally you would drip irrigation for certain crops, direct heads or similar with weather based controls for others. These jokers just crack a valve open and flood the whole field. A huge percentage of the water just evaporates. They are not using efficient irrigation techniques at all. It would cost them money to install efficient systems or to even fix leaks and broken pipes but since their water is nearly free they don't. That is absolutely insane.

Comment Re:Could save more water even cheaper (Score 4, Informative) 234

Rich people watering lawns is not the problem. Residential water use, ALL residential water use in California, accounts for about 4% of our annual use. It is unrestricted use by big agricultural concerns that use OVER 80% of our water. They still flood fields for christ's sake!!! Their is no incentive for them to use modern water wise farming practices since they have "senior rights" going back centuries. We can't even pass a law restricting them so now we grow rice in flooded fields. Just stupid.

Comment Re:Bold ingenuity? (Score 2) 234

We have tried many, many times to build new water storage in SoCal only to be slapped down by the environmental lobby EVERY time. They always find a slightly differently colored bird or worm and declare the area protected. They publicly state that the goal is to prevent any new construction of any kind. Not very reasonable people...

Comment Re:Recycle and bioplastics (Score 1) 98

This seems willfully obtuse. If you live anywhere near a city there is a recycling center near you that will accept these. Even if you live 60 miles from a city you still make several trips a year into that city for other reasons. Not taking those old bulbs with you for the 10 minute detour to drop them off is being purposely stubborn.

Comment Re:That's interesting data but.... (Score 1) 165

I used to think this way too. I would tell all my friends that if a boat were sinking with my wife and small children in it, I would save my wife first as we can always make more children. This is logical and makes sense to me. Then I had kids. It turns out that many of us are "genetically programed" (or however you want to phrase it) to save the kids first. Our minds don't always seem to work the way we want them to. I can still clearly see the logic of saving my wife first and would agree that this is the proper course of action but my brain simply won't allow me to do that. I am 100% sure I would save the kids first and let her & myself die. Wierd huh?

Of course I still believe strongly that if you are going to have a kid then you should also have redundant back-ups (more kids).

Comment Re:Wrong Title (Score 1, Informative) 499

No, the form specifically asks in question 29.7: "Have you EVER associated with anyone involved in activities to further terrorism?"

She did not inform them of her continued relationship with two convicted members of a terrorist organization, including visiting one in prison. I'm not seeing a lot of gray here. She clearly should have answered yes to this question and explained her tenuous connection to these people. That she lied NOW is the problem, not that she was a minor activist in the 80's.

Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?