No one is forcing anyone to use this water. The villagers can either use the cleaner water, something which they had no way to get before, or continue to get water their old way. How is it a bad thing to provide a better product to someone for a price?
Sure, everyone needs water. But, "there's no such thing as a free lunch", and this seems to be a reasonable way to get water to people who need it right now.
update, when I had a chance to look at some data:
As for affordability, it seems 5% of monthly income is typically used as the threshold [1]. This would mean that someone would have to earn $2 dollars per day to have affordable water through this solution. You're right: for many below the poverty line in India, this does not meet the affordability standard [2].
However, I would argue that any way of increasing access is an improvement, simply judging by how available water currently is [3]. As was said earlier, you're not making people any poorer by giving them another option to attain water.
But when you make the most profitable way the preferred way, you shift the power from the people to a controlling party, at which point, the price goes up to suit the "investors".
I've got into a habit of defining pre and post-call checks on just about everything. It's knocked down my regression and defect rate quite considerably. Assumptions are dangerous - so always check them.
Microsoft are actually leading this if you ask me with PEX:
The worst thing I find is when you get a part in it which is designed to work with several different products and it has extra holes drilled in it. Rather than specialising the CAM / drilling process, they throw some little stickers in to cover up the holes.
The only reason they needed QA is the software was a giant toilet-clogging turd. There were no formal unit or integration test cases so it was used to catch regressions against massive test plans knocked up in Excel, Word and god-knows what else.
I think they should bring back the "old" Nano. A lot of people haven't bought the new one as they still like tactile controls and want a screen large enough to watch a video. They also don't want an iPhone or to pay for the touch. They shot themselves there.
There has been a lot of innovation with the iPod but some of it hasn't always been that great. Consider the "stick" shaped shuffle which reverted back to the old design in the latest revision. I consider the touch-based iPod Nano to be the same sort of unnecessary crock.
I did exactly the same, except to get a contract outfit off the ground. I paid off about $60k in total (in GBP) over 10 years. I worked out that in total I made about 20% more than salaried people over the time. It definitely wasn't worth it.
The irony of this is that I have just cancelled my Spotify account because tracks I have on my playlists have disappeared due to I assume various problems with record labels.
It's utterly annoying when you sit down in the office and the first track you go to is gone.
I'm genuinely surprised that the EU haven't stepped on Facebook yet. It's the creepiest, most invasive thing ever developed.