The reason they won't look at desalination is because it counts as a new source of water, one that farmers can't demand be provided to them at a subsidy. Deep aquifers are old water, and therefore covered under existing water rights.
I'm all for restoring wetlands but we should prioritize water for human Drinking during droughts. The problem is that farmers don't pay fair market value for water. If they had to pay for their water like everyone else they wouldn't be growing rice in the desert. If California is so broke, how can they afford such massive subsidies to farmers at the expense of the city folk?
If they don't come out with something new, then the old stuff becomes a cheap commodity. Their business plan requires them to be selling a premium product so we must have a new standard. Also I doubt they will upgrade their network to handle the extra capacity of the towers, they'll just kick off the highest 10% data hogs like they do now.
If you use directional "point to point" radio communications then bandwidth isn't shared, so everyone can use as much as they want. It's only because of our wasteful omnidirectional radio usage that we've got spectrum shortages. You can have a hundred road side billboards operating at the same time in the same area on the same frequency (visible) without issues.
Sure it will happen. The nice Democrat candidate will come down to skid row with a truck of booze and a computer and "help" the poor downtrodden cast their vote. Or the Republican business manager will invite everyone to come into his office and cast their votes, and don't worry about that Christmas bonus- those that don't get laid off will do well.
The third party doesn't matter theory. Not true. When lots of people vote for a third party the big two look for ways to change their policies to snatch those votes. So votes for a third party are not wasted after all, even if they have no hope of winning the election.
They don't have the manpower to listen to everything. It can't be done. Even with computer filtering most of this stuff is just stored away and never touched. There are two very good questions you need to ask about this massive spying database: 1-Who has access to it? 2-Is that access logged? If Obama spends each election going through the phone calls of the Republican party then you know it's not terrorists he's looking for. Mandating a log and having a publicly accessible list of who -HAS- access (but without knowing to what) would eliminate most peoples issues with this spying.
Any time the government publicly declares that you can't talk about something or they will arrest you, that idea becomes widespread. This happens because those who support the idea can lie, and those who know the truth can't object or debate the matter. Since mccarthy the USA has adopted a great many Communist ideas like massive government bailouts of key industries, government subsidies of profitable industries, special rules for their friends, free speech zones, warrant-less spying, abducting people and holding them without trial- and much more.
Sensitive material should never be discussed on the phone or via email. The internet is an unclassified communications medium. If you want/need to handle classified materials you offline encrypt and send that.
We know the NSA feeds intel to other agencies. They are the Google of the intelligence world. They don't actually DO anything with it all except hand it out to those who want it. I suppose that's not a bad thing, it makes a single point where we can apply government checks and balances at some future point in time.
Too many cooks in the kitchen here. You want 1 agency for domestic police/spying, and 1 for foreign stuff. When you have many of them it becomes impossible to hold them accountable.
Corporations want to take your money. that is a measurable harm, in the short term. The government wants to (catch terrorists, catch file sharing, reduce crime, influence elections, manipulate public opinion/behavior) a whole lot of hard to measure stuff, that mostly has no short term harm to you. Corporations are therefore demonstrably a greater short term threat than government.
It's not the LEGAL consequences that Obama is afraid of, it's the loss of influence. If the people of the world decide the USA can't be trusted, then they will stop buying American stuff, they will stop buying into American stuff. What happens when America declares a war on someone and ALL the allies decide to stay home? What happens when allied intelligence refuses to hand over phone intercepts? What happens if foreign (allied) countries start enforcing their laws against American spying and rendition? It is vital to the National Defense of the USA that the president of the USA deal with this issue, before it has long term consequences. (and the safest way to do this is drag the whole thing out in public and let the people decide how to deal with it. Pick some respected public figures to run hearings, and have a national referendum leading to a constitutional amendment. Maybe even have some show trials for the worst stuff. And then let the NSA continue on in secret as before.)
His current NSA team has shown themselves to be incompetent. They didn't stop 9/11, they didn't stop Snowden, they didn't recover the stuff Snowden stole and the press reported on, they didn't stop the pressure cooker pair at the marathon, they have no terrorists in jail for Obama to use in a press conference. If you don't punish failure, you are rewarding it.
Obamacare is a sellout to the right wing. By forcing people to buy healthcare but not implementing cost controls on the system they jack up the profit margins for the corporations that provide healthcare for profit. He has no intention of implementing Universal Healthcare, as that would involve cost controls- and that would limit profit margins. His employers would never allow that.