Larry Ellison Buys His Own Hawaiian Island

Never thought.... by Bloody+Bastard · 2012-06-21 00:12 · Score: 5, Funny

....tsunamis could be a good thing.

Re:Never thought.... by dintech · 2012-06-21 00:26 · Score: 5, Funny

98 percent share
It's a shame the Google Trial didn't pay out. He could have bought the last 2%...
Re:Never thought.... by SJHillman · 2012-06-21 00:48 · Score: 2

The 3100+ people living on the island might disagree.
Re:Never thought.... by Rogerborg · 2012-06-21 01:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Not "people",subjects. Probably experimental subjects; fetch the frikkin' lasers.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Never thought.... by Sponge+Bath · 2012-06-21 01:07 · Score: 2

You mean the Larrytonians? They will be protected by His Grace's divine powers.
Re:Never thought.... by sizzzzlerz · 2012-06-21 01:07 · Score: 2

The Island of Dr. Ellison : Pig men for all!
Re:Never thought.... by happy_place · 2012-06-21 01:25 · Score: 2

Great... so an evil mastermind billionaire buys his own island... as if we can't see through that! Could Mr. Ellison be anymore cliche? Hopefully Mr. Bond is ready.

--
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Re:Never thought.... by crazyjj · 2012-06-21 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nonsense, this guy is a job creator. Let's all vote Romney and give him a big tax cut!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Never thought.... by Andy+Dodd · 2012-06-21 01:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

No, about 2% of the island is owned by (if I recall correctly) descendents of Hawaiian natives.
The rest was owned by Dole for a long time, I was unaware it was no longer a pineapple plantation.
Interesting story: While the island was a pineapple plantation, it was nearly impossible to find fresh pineapple on the island in any restaurant or store. This was apparently because the natives were all sick of eating pineapple, and when they did want pineapple they would just sneak onto the plantation and steal one...
(My family went to Lanai when I was in middle school or high school, back when Dole owned most of it.)

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Re:Never thought.... by Mabhatter · 2012-06-21 01:45 · Score: 1

They probably just lease it right back minus a few dozen acres for a mansion complex. Guy wants to own an island.. Shut up and take his money!
It's not like Larry is going to live there all year. Gives him someplace to fly his planes to!
Re:Never thought.... by Mabhatter · 2012-06-21 01:49 · Score: 1

Does this one have a VOLCANO? That would seal the deal!
He could be the next Iron Man villain!!
Re:Never thought.... by nrozema · 2012-06-21 02:06 · Score: 1

The remaining 2% is owned by the state... maybe he can convince them to put it up for a year's worth of maintenance on their DB servers.
Re:Never thought.... by shaitand · 2012-06-21 02:25 · Score: 2

Probably not. I imagine that like most states the state owns all natural bodies of water and x feet around them and such by law. It's supposed to justify fishing and pollution control policies or some such.
Re:Never thought.... by tnk1 · 2012-06-21 03:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Bond: Do you expect me to talk, Ellison?
Ellison: Hahahaha! No Mr. Bond, I expect you to *buy*.
Re:Never thought.... by arkane1234 · 2012-06-21 04:04 · Score: 2

By that logic, everyone how works, buys food from a grocery store, buys fuel for their vehicle, uses electricity to charge their phone, is a a slave to the grocery store corps/oil companies/energy companies.
Slaves are held to do things against their will.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Never thought.... by AmbushBug · 2012-06-21 06:52 · Score: 1

According to the article the remaining 2% is owned by the state.
Re:Never thought.... by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-06-21 09:33 · Score: 2

no he thinks he is iron man hell he and oracle sponsored the movies. in avengers in the first couple minutes of the film you can see the oracle logo on the servers in the secret sheild base and there is a iron man and avengers section on the oracle site
http://www.oracle.com/us/ironman2/index.html
https://blogs.oracle.com/stevewilson/entry/what_does_iron_man_use
http://www.oracle.com/us/theavengers/index.html

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:Never thought.... by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-21 12:28 · Score: 1

In Canada the law is that anything below the high-water mark is public land. I *believe* the US uses the same rule, but don't quote me on that.
Re:Never thought.... by ogdenk · 2012-06-21 15:43 · Score: 1

No we're only slaves to corporate shareholders and the politicians who do their bidding. Especially banks and/or the companies and misers who have THEM by the balls.....like the guy who runs that old DB company every large organization uses but no one really "loves". That weirdo freaktard who held fight clubs for stock options.... one who actually followed through with the weirdo hermit fantasy of owning one's own island. A guy who despite being pretty bright isn't much more than a spoiled rich kid propped up by tax dollars, teams of lawyers and some slaves he bought that happen to be good with computers. Whiny little bastards, someday the computers will write their own software and he won't need them anymore.
Re:Never thought.... by shaitand · 2012-06-22 06:01 · Score: 1

In the US I believe the law is at state level and not federal and so it varies by state.

Uh-oh. by RevWaldo · 2012-06-21 00:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Larry Ellison also owns a MIG fighter jet. This cannot be good.

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

Re:Uh-oh. by stevencbrown · 2012-06-21 00:21 · Score: 5, Funny

And he looks like Hank Scorpio!
All we need is oracle to open up a germ warfare division, though think he'll have to settle for the western seaboard rather than the eastern, if he's based in Hawaii?
Re:Uh-oh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 00:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Does he own a fluffy white cat and a Nehru jacket?
Re:Uh-oh. by alen · 2012-06-21 00:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
Re:Uh-oh. by aslanuk · 2012-06-21 00:40 · Score: 1

In my ever evolving theory that Simpsons episodes can predict the future I am seeing a strange resemblance between Larry and Hank Scorpio http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Hank_Scorpio. The island, the MIG, the beard; its tenuous but I’m calling it.
Re:Uh-oh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 00:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not one of those idiots who whines and bitches about how someone makes more money than other people and how they should somehow give it all back to them or something. However, it's strange thinking that I've worked here for fifteen years and the biggest purchase of my life is my $200k house that I'll be paying off until I die . . . while my boss/CEO is buying fighter jets, billion dollar yachts, appearing in Iron Man 2, buying massively expensive houses all over the place, and buying a 141sq mile Hawaiian island. It's kind of demoralizing to realize that Larry probably spent more in this one purchase than every single person *combined* in my entire division will earn (after taxes) in three or four life-times. Or as much as I would earn in take-home if I continued working from today until the year 17,000.
Re:Uh-oh. by CastrTroy · 2012-06-21 00:44 · Score: 1

+1 trillion if I had mod points.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Uh-oh. by tgd · 2012-06-21 00:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
Right, and beyond that, this implies that the kids our food and money saved in the 80's turned around and had another generation of even more kids... that still couldn't be fed.
Not sure what the end game of that process is.
Re:Uh-oh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 00:51 · Score: 1

people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
It's not always the government, in fact it's more usually militia groups and bandits that steal aid goods. The problem is that people in Africa are helped by air organizations rather than being taught to help them selves. But even with 'help yourself' aid programs the development aid packages that are supposed to build up infrastructure and industry in the developing world are so completely crippled by corruption, often in the (western) donor country as well as the developing country, that they are pretty much a waste of money (roads to nowhere, salt factories that can't produce human edible salt because the raw material is too caustic, computerized factories the locals don't have the capacity to operate, irrigation projects that create arable land in one place by drying up a lake or unsustainably pumping up ground water..... the list goes on).
Re:Uh-oh. by Charliemopps · 2012-06-21 00:51 · Score: 1

I don't want to defend the guy, but don't diss him over the way he spends his money. He gives well over $100 million/year to charity and is also one of the "Giving Pledge" signatories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

We have no idea what he plans to do with this island but it may not be as we all expect. It might be part of some charity scheme. We'll just have to wait and see.
Re:Uh-oh. by Thanshin · 2012-06-21 01:00 · Score: 2

go fuck yourself, ya greedy infidel!
Learn to read.
I never said I agreed with capitalism. I'm just tired of people crying about its obvious and direct consequences, and then say it's the bestest system of them all because it promotes competition and excellence.
Re:Uh-oh. by wed128 · 2012-06-21 01:06 · Score: 2

it's the bestest system of them all because it promotes competition and excellence
Most compititions generally have a loser... Capitilism may not be perfect, but it's the best socioeconomic system we've got. Anyone complaining about it can go ahead and invent a new one. Socialism (under any name) isn't it.
Re:Uh-oh. by wed128 · 2012-06-21 01:08 · Score: 1

And he looks like Hank Scorpio!
Agreed! I never noticed it before, thanks for pointing it out!
Re:Uh-oh. by Rei · 2012-06-21 01:11 · Score: 1

The free market treats people the same way it treats commodities. Gold isn't just little bit more expensive than iron, it's *hugely* more expensive. Supply and demand apply just the same to people's salaries as they do to precious metals.
People can choose to accept that as a fundamental truth which we must accept (aka, libertarianism) or as something which it's fair to remedy (or must be remedied) by government action (aka, varying degrees of socialism blended with a market economy). It depends on whether your definition of "Fair" comes from "If the market wants to pay it, it's fair" or whether it's from something more like, for example, "Reward should be proportional to factors such as hard work, intelligence, risk, etc on well-less-than-exponential basis"

--
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Re:Uh-oh. by citizenr · 2012-06-21 01:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
No. When you send them food they eat it, turn around and fuck to have some more children, after all food will just appear out of thin air.

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Re:Uh-oh. by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 01:14 · Score: 2

people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
We don't send food to Africa. We send them credits to buy food from America. The government there, sells the credits and uses the proceeds to fund their military and line their own pockets. If we actually gave them food, it would do more good as most of the underworld people who buy the credits are quite well fed.
Re:Uh-oh. by SlippyToad · 2012-06-21 01:16 · Score: 1

The problem is that people in Africa are helped by air organizations rather than being taught to help them selves.

No, the problem is that the west is still digging diamonds and other valuables out of Africa's soil, and as long as there's money to be made filching the continent of its riches, we can't afford for any of the nations there to have like an independent or responsible government.
So it is in fact the government. The MANY governments of the world.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Re:Uh-oh. by Thanshin · 2012-06-21 01:17 · Score: 1

That was more or less my point. People have a bad reaction to the consequence of a consequence, which is irrational.
A - Capitalism generates very rich people and very poor people.
B - We don't know of a system better than capitalism.
Taking both into account, it makes to sense to cry "OMG! Poor people!". At the most one could be sad about the lack of an intellectual lighthouse that shows the rest of us the path to a better system.
I'm not ashamed to admit I don't know how to correct the basic flaws of capitalism. However, I don't feel offended by the people who played the system to get to the top better than me.
Re:Uh-oh. by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 01:19 · Score: 1

go fuck yourself, ya greedy infidel!
Learn to read.
I never said I agreed with capitalism. I'm just tired of people crying about its obvious and direct consequences, and then say it's the bestest system of them all because it promotes competition and excellence.
Capitalism is the best system if your goal is to concentrate wealth into the fewest hands. On the other hand, if your goal is an equitable distribution of resources capitalism fails miserably.
Re:Uh-oh. by datavirtue · 2012-06-21 01:22 · Score: 1

I study economics, so I would love to get your newsletter.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Uh-oh. by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Educate their women, which can only happen when they have enough to eat. Educated women on average have less children. They also wait until they have achieved other life goals to have children.
The food by itself only makes the situation worse. It bankrupts farmers and only serves to make more poor people. If the food was sourced as locally as possible and education was available and useful then the problem could be addressed.
Of course this is all based on the naive notion that the main purpose of food aid is to benefit those receiving the aid. That is merely a side effect, its real purpose is to consume market surpluses and enrich the producers of these commodities at the expense of future competition, the farmers that the aid puts out of work.
Humans unlike other animals stop breeding like rabbits once they have a comfortable living. For evidence look at the birth rates in first world nations.
Re:Uh-oh. by khallow · 2012-06-21 01:23 · Score: 1

No, the problem is that the west is still digging diamonds and other valuables out of Africa's soil
Yea, right. And things will be worse, if those ever stop producing.
Re:Uh-oh. by datavirtue · 2012-06-21 01:23 · Score: 1

I'm picturing sharks with laser beams.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Uh-oh. by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-06-21 01:24 · Score: 2

Exactly. This is how Bond villains get their secret lairs started. Although they're usually less evil than Ellison, at least at the beginning.
Re:Uh-oh. by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

I disagree. What exactly is wrong with the German form of capitalism and socialism blended? What about the Nordic nations?
Pure anything is garbage, no single system is without flaws.
Re:Uh-oh. by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:31 · Score: 1

The real solutions of course has to be they have a functional government that taxes their mineral wealth like all first world nations do.
Re:Uh-oh. by Evtim · 2012-06-21 01:32 · Score: 1

Best in what respect? Like giving temporarily an advantage by promoting uncontrolled growth in a finite system (by rewarding the most destructive personal traits), borrowing from the future and the most humongous waste of resources known to History. Why don't people just THINK for 5 f...ing minutes before parroting the official propaganda?
Wonderful system, yes - look, we got iPads! Must be good!
And don't come to me with "What are you proposing, smart-ass?" cause I have, indeed, a proposition. But first, it would require tens of pages of text to describe, second, most people would disagree because it is nearly impossible to out-jump one's delusions and biases and third, if any country in the world tries it they would be conquered in 5 minutes....likely by the US (being the biggest bully in an arshole system it falls to them to destroy any attempt of change, if they miss it China and Russia will oblige).
Someone quoted it here some time ago but let's say it again:
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Re:Uh-oh. by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:33 · Score: 5, Informative

We send rice directly to Haiti. All that did was destroy their rice farms. Meaning more poor people to go on food aid. We destroyed one of the larger parts of their economy with this aid.
Re:Uh-oh. by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:41 · Score: 1

I have sex several times a week, with a woman even and we have 0 children. Clearly the two are not so tightly linked. She is not starving nor is she pumping out kids like a starving woman would.
Having enough food and being comfortable reduces humans breeding. Educating women does so even more. Increasing starvation would lead to more children being born rather than less.
Re:Uh-oh. by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 01:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

We send rice directly to Haiti. All that did was destroy their rice farms. Meaning more poor people to go on food aid. We destroyed one of the larger parts of their economy with this aid.
Was that before or after all the natural disasters that hit Haiti? If it was post disasters, then it would be hard to claim that it was our aid and not the disasters that destroyed their agricultural economy. I'm seriously asking, not trying to be a smart*ss.
Re:Uh-oh. by asylumx · 2012-06-21 02:38 · Score: 1, Informative

not trying to be a smart*ss
Why the fuck did you censor your shit there? Slashdot's a free fucking speech zone, you can fucking say all the shit you fucking want to.
Re:Uh-oh. by fearofcarpet · 2012-06-21 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not one of those idiots who whines and bitches about how someone makes more money than other people and how they should somehow give it all back to them or something. However, it's strange thinking that I've worked here for fifteen years and the biggest purchase of my life is my $200k house that I'll be paying off until I die . . . while my boss/CEO is buying fighter jets, billion dollar yachts, appearing in Iron Man 2, buying massively expensive houses all over the place, and buying a 141sq mile Hawaiian island. It's kind of demoralizing to realize that Larry probably spent more in this one purchase than every single person *combined* in my entire division will earn (after taxes) in three or four life-times. Or as much as I would earn in take-home if I continued working from today until the year 17,000.
I am one of those idiots. Not because we shouldn't award innovation and hard work, but because your boss/CEO is getting richer at your expense. I know that the libertarians around here like to say that free markets lead to meritocracy, but it just isn't the case. Your wages, my wages, and 99% of people on Slashdot have stagnated over the past 30 years. Instead, we are supposed to "earn" money by investing in a house. How has that worked out? Gen X, the generation to which I happen to belong, has lost around 40% of its wealth since the housing bubble burst. But Larry Ellison is buying a Hawaiian island. Where did that money come from? Thin air? Where did our lost wealth go? Thin air? No, of course not. It never existed except as debt on a bank balance sheet. And now that the debt has gone bad, we get to pay to de-leverage banks. The economy is zero sum. We can collectively only increase our wealth by the amount that the economy grows each year. Likewise, when the economy shrinks, we must collectively shed wealth. But somehow Larry gets rich when the economy grows and gets richer when it shrinks. That is the policies of the government actively transferring wealth from you and I to Larry Ellison so that he can buy a f***ing Hawaiian island during a prolonged, global economic contraction that has turned home ownership into Russian roulette for the rest of us. And it will continue like this until perception and reality converge.
Also, WTF does one person need with an entire Hawaiian island? Or a fighter jet? Why do we allow one person to accumulate so much wealth that they have to find new, unnecessary extravagances to blow it on while the rest of us can barely afford to educate our kids? Shouldn't there be some level of comfort that we allow the middle class to achieve before letting people like Larry Ellison skip ludicrous and go straight to plaid? Right now it seems that we have to wait for the benevolent "job creators" to toss some coin our way, but not until there is "more certainty" in the markets. Fortunately for us there are still enough billionaires to buy the White House for someone that understands their plight.

--
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Re:Uh-oh. by fantastron · 2012-06-21 02:45 · Score: 1

Way before: "... former U.S. President Bill Clinton – now U.N. special envoy to Haiti – who publicly apologized this month for championing policies that destroyed Haiti's rice production. Clinton in the mid-1990s encouraged the impoverished country to dramatically cut tariffs on imported U.S. rice. 'It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake,' Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. 'I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else.'" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/with-cheap-food-imports-h_n_507228.html
Re:Uh-oh. by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 03:07 · Score: 5, Informative

not trying to be a smart*ss
Why the fuck did you censor your shit there? Slashdot's a free fucking speech zone, you can fucking say all the shit you fucking want to.
But doesn't a free speech zone imply that I can censor myself, if I choose to?
Re:Uh-oh. by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 03:08 · Score: 1

And he has a MIG fighter jet. No, seriously, he really does. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/09/10/larry-ellisons-endgame-buy-hp-to-fight-ibm/
Maybe he's going to take out Koni in 2012.
Re:Uh-oh. by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 03:10 · Score: 1

Way before:
"... former U.S. President Bill Clinton – now U.N. special envoy to Haiti – who publicly apologized this month for championing policies that destroyed Haiti's rice production. Clinton in the mid-1990s encouraged the impoverished country to dramatically cut tariffs on imported U.S. rice.
'It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake,' Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. 'I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else.'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/with-cheap-food-imports-h_n_507228.html

Ok, thanks. Just got to US policy that punishes the many for the needs of the few.
Re:Uh-oh. by nitehawk214 · 2012-06-21 03:16 · Score: 1

We send rice directly to Haiti. All that did was destroy their rice farms. Meaning more poor people to go on food aid. We destroyed one of the larger parts of their economy with this aid.
Was that before or after all the natural disasters that hit Haiti? If it was post disasters, then it would be hard to claim that it was our aid and not the disasters that destroyed their agricultural economy. I'm seriously asking, not trying to be a smart*ss.
Either way, it brings into question why we are sending them something they apparently have plenty of. Why find out what they really need, and send that instead?
I suppose the answer is because America has lots of cheap wheat and rice and its inexpensive to ship it in bulk. So it makes it look like we are doing a lot of good when we send X tons of an item a country doesn't need.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:Uh-oh. by Pope · 2012-06-21 03:18 · Score: 1

And just think: instead of that house, you could have bought Apple stock at the post-split equivalent price of $5, and sold it off when it hit $600.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Uh-oh. by AngryDeuce · 2012-06-21 03:25 · Score: 2

This is why I think the true answer is a blended system, where the basic necessities are available to everyone, but there is still incentive to go out and work for more than "the bare minimum". Pure capitalism has no mechanism within it to combat wealth inequality, whereas pure socialism has no mechanism to combat laziness and a lack of motivation, but mix the two, and you can eliminate the squalor that fosters crime and recidivism while still allowing people to move forward.
Although it's a common meme these days among conservatives, most people are not content with the bare minimum of sustenance, and will work to improve their station in life, but they're not going to improve jack shit if the only jobs available to them are minimum-wage McJobs.
Re:Uh-oh. by tnk1 · 2012-06-21 03:28 · Score: 2

He's already more powerful than the Mexican Air Force!
Re:Uh-oh. by blackraven14250 · 2012-06-21 03:53 · Score: 2

Except it is a fixed size pie. The CEOs have a level of influence over how much the pie grows per year, but you can't seriously say that having an exceptional 10,000 person company with an average CEO is going to grow a company slower than an average 10,000 man company with an exceptional CEO. That leaves out that the CEO should continue to take a bigger portion of the growth of the pie every year until all of the growth is their share, which is exactly what's happening here.
Re:Uh-oh. by slew · 2012-06-21 04:00 · Score: 2

Educate their women, which can only happen when they have enough to eat..
If it were only so simple. This has less to do with food and more to do with culture. For example, in Afganistan today, people have enough to eat, yet girls are being poisoned in the schools to prevent them from being educated.
In several places in africa today (darfur, kifu, central africa, niger, chad, sudan, yemen, etc) political power struggles are basically forcing massive numbers of people to migrate like refugees. In this situation, there's no farming, no education, no stability at all. Sometimes it's just about survival.

Of course this is all based on the naive notion that the main purpose of food aid is to benefit those receiving the aid. That is merely a side effect, its real purpose is to consume market surpluses and enrich the producers of these commodities ...
Emergency food aid is not about being cynical about consuming market surpluses. Local farmers aren't in competition to produce this. If you want to slam someone about who benefits from emergency food aid, slam nutriset (the french company that holds the patent on Plumpy, one of the leading emergency food items). You can also note that there is a big problem with some african nations accepting non emergency food aid from the US (european countries threatening to boycott agriculural exports if they accept any potentially GM seeds from the US on the chance that they won't eat the grain, but plant it and cross contaminate).
Disposal of market surplus is really a minor issue with food aid these days. In a era where we have countries importing large quantities of maize, wheat, rice and soya, and the increasing price of oil to create fertilizer and move the grain, giving such a small amount away to africa isn't on anyone's minds these days.
Re:Uh-oh. by blackraven14250 · 2012-06-21 04:02 · Score: 2

Just think of it this way to feel worse - Ellison's worth, divided by the number of employees at Oracle, is over 300k per person.
Re:Uh-oh. by tompaulco · 2012-06-21 04:25 · Score: 1

And people in Africa starve to death, ridiculous.
Yes, let's take all of Larry Ellison's money and give it to Africa, that way people in Africa won't starve to death until next week.
Just because people have money doesn't mean that they should have to use that money to support people who choose to have more children in an area that cannot support its existing population.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:Uh-oh. by Khashishi · 2012-06-21 04:46 · Score: 2

Excellent. I can't wait for all those new Hawaiian islands to be spread around, thanks to the hard work of risk-taking CEOs.
Re:Uh-oh. by istartedi · 2012-06-21 04:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

I see the Libertarian and Republican view of money as being analagous to Newtonian physics and relativity.
From the right PoV, money is a measure of hard work, perhaps talent; but no more. In every day life that makes sense. Money looks like a fair measure. Now, how much talent and hard work can you have? How much money can you have? By definition, nobody can have more than 100% of the money. That's like the speed of light. Just as in physics, non-Newtonian things start happening as you approach the speed of light.
The first sign that you have "relativistic money" is that you have un-earned income. For most of us this is a very small thing (interest, maybe some dividends). Faster, faster... you are going fast enough to live on your un-earned income. Faster still... you seek to protect your sources of income by currying favor with local politicians. Faster, FASTER. You seek national laws that work in your favor. FASTER, FASTER, RUN--for high office, or else enter the space-time continuum of those who hold high office. Attend $30k/plate dinners as a matter of routine. Effectively make policy, which feeds back into the hyperdrive of your ever accelerating fortunes.
Close to the monetary speed of light, the Newtonian world of talent and hard work are of minimal impact, whereas for most of us the relativistic impact of unearned income and influence are negligible, or just a dream.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Uh-oh. by khipu · 2012-06-21 05:44 · Score: 1

It is doubtful that either food or foreign aid helps these people. What they need is a functioning economy and a functioning society, and handouts create neither of them.
The way we could help them is remove subsidies from our agricultural products and remove trade barriers. But hell will freeze over before US and European farmers let that happen. It is politically much easier to first waste many billions on farm subsidies, then waste many more billions on "foreign aid".
Re:Uh-oh. by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 05:50 · Score: 2

It is doubtful that either food or foreign aid helps these people. What they need is a functioning economy and a functioning society, and handouts create neither of them.
The way we could help them is remove subsidies from our agricultural products and remove trade barriers. But hell will freeze over before US and European farmers let that happen. It is politically much easier to first waste many billions on farm subsidies, then waste many more billions on "foreign aid".
I would agree with that. It's also important to keep in mind that the "family farm" is no more. Most of the billions in farm subsidies goes to large corporations. Today's farm subsidy program is just one more form of corporate welfare.
Re:Uh-oh. by wed128 · 2012-06-21 06:11 · Score: 1

So you're argument is "I know about a better system. Except any country implementing it would be destroyed. Here are No links to literature or any clue about what that system is". Sounds good to me. You'll be elected world leader for sure.
In other news...we have iPads. Also, it seems even the utopian Germany is not invulnerable to economic downturn:
http://www.france24.com/en/20090106-germany-agrees-new-50-billion-euro-stimulus-plan
This was possibly a result of being associated with the EU, and all of the cultures involved that are not as...hard working as the Germans.
Re:Uh-oh. by ArsonSmith · 2012-06-21 07:52 · Score: 1

me either. Oh i don't have to wait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Uh-oh. by tompaulco · 2012-06-21 07:55 · Score: 1

Capitalism generates very rich people and very poor people.
Seems to me that the disparity of wealth in most capitalist nations is on the order of 100 times or 1000 times, while disparity in the non-capitalist African countries that we are discussing is a million to 100 million times.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:Uh-oh. by tompaulco · 2012-06-21 07:59 · Score: 1

Capitalism is the best system if your goal is to concentrate wealth into the fewest hands.
So African monarchies are capitalist, then? Because the royalty owns 99% of the wealth in the country, millions of times more than the common man?

On the other hand, if your goal is an equitable distribution of resources capitalism fails miserably.
I am quite sure I don't want an equitable distribution of resources. I want to do a better job than the next guy and I want to be more richly rewarded for doing it.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:Uh-oh. by GameboyRMH · 2012-06-21 08:05 · Score: 1

And he looks like Hank Scorpio!
Congratulations, you just got the joke!
http://simpsonswiki.net/wiki/Cypress_Creek#Behind_the_Laughter

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Uh-oh. by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 09:03 · Score: 1

So go back to being broke alone?
The PIIGS have been broke a lot longer than the EU. I remember getting a thousand lira to the mark.
Re:Uh-oh. by dkf · 2012-06-21 09:41 · Score: 1

The economy is zero sum.
No. Improved technology can allow individuals and society overall to increase productivity, as can increasing urbanization (because that stimulates creativity and innovation). This grows the economy for real. To see why, realize that mechanization can allow one person to do a job that 200 years ago would have required hundreds or thousands of people. That means that those people can do something else instead, either working or leisure, and that in turn means that the economy must be larger.
This is Slashdot. When arguing here, at least try to avoid obvious logic errors or factual mistakes...

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Uh-oh. by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 09:45 · Score: 1

Capitalism is the best system if your goal is to concentrate wealth into the fewest hands.
So African monarchies are capitalist, then? Because the royalty owns 99% of the wealth in the country, millions of times more than the common man?
On the other hand, if your goal is an equitable distribution of resources capitalism fails miserably.
I am quite sure I don't want an equitable distribution of resources. I want to do a better job than the next guy and I want to be more richly rewarded for doing it.
Most monarchies operate as a capitalist system of some sort as operating as a socialist state would tend to cost some of their wealth. That said, by definition, monarchies are above the law and can take whatever they choose, so whether the king or queen own the most has nothing to do with economic system.
With regards to your desire, to be more richly rewarded for your work, capitalism does not promote that unless you are the capitalist/owner and not the worker. Capitalism promotes keeping the worker in their place. On the other hand, socialism, while it doesn't promote it either, it also does not discourage it, so you might fair much better in a economy based on socialism. Fascism tends to reward the corporate state, so the few at the expense of the many. It is similar to capitalism in that regard. Like capitalism, it encourages the worker to stay in their place. The US is actually much closer to being a fascist state than adopting socialism, but you don't hear people rallying against that too much.
As can be found in the recent recession in the US, doing a better job is not any protection. Wall Street bankers lost millions, but hey didn't lose their jobs. On the other hand, people in those firms who were not part of the decision making process did lose theirs. Capitalism protects those at the top at the expense of everybody else. I just picked Wall Street, but it applies to just about every business. The two adages: "It takes money to make money", and "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" are only truly applicable in capitalism. Remember, this is about economic systems, not governmental ones like communism.
Re:Uh-oh. by ShakaUVM · 2012-06-21 12:40 · Score: 1

The economy is not a fixed size pie.
Since the industrial revolution, the quality of life for everyone (rich and poor alike) has risen tremendously here in this country.
All companies make money by profiting from the labor of their employees. If they lost money on their employees, they'd go out of business. And being in a corporation with other people of similar skills and talents allows the corporation to make more money than the sum of the parts working individually.
As outrageous as it might seem for Ellison to buy an island, given how often I see /.-ers talk about buying their own island, it seems like he's just doing what we'd all do in his shoes anyway.
Re:Uh-oh. by fearofcarpet · 2012-06-21 17:08 · Score: 1

without his getting richer, GP wouldn't have a job. At least not where he's at. Remember the economy is not a fixed size pie with CEOs taking a larger piece. Just the act of them taking a piece makes more pies to spread around.
It isn't fixed in the sense that the economy grows and shrinks, but it is a pie and the more one person gets, the less another does. If the total volume of the economy is 100 units and there are 50 people, there are 2 units per person. So let's say the CEO takes 51 and the other 49 take 1. Now let's say the economy grows by 3%. Does that mean that everyone get's to split that 3% growth? No, not in the current economy because CEOs take most of their compensation as sweat-heart stock deals with no downside and the rest of us get wages and, lucky us, can gamble our retirement funds in the stock market because ordinary interest won't outpace inflation over time. So 90% of that growth goes to the CEO; and that is not a made-up number, that is actually how much of the post-recession growth has gone to the top 1%. So, after 3% economic growth, 49 people make 1.006 units and 1 person makes 52.7. The next year, the CEO will have 55.3 and the rest of us 1.012. I'm not trying to be condescending, I just find it instructive to look at the actual numbers, which really are demoralizing. It gets worse when you dig into tax policy which lets the CEO pay a flat 15% capital gains tax (on the increase in value, not the total value) when he exercises the stock options that comprise the bulk of his compensation. Except that he won't even pay that, because what he actually does is borrow against the value of those options for a tax break on the interest payments which are soaked up by the part of the loan that he reinvested into a so-called hedge fund, which in practice just turns out to be a de facto government-guaranteed bank for rich people because commercial and investment banks were allowed to merge.
The CEO, whose wealth grew by 8%, goes off to buy a second house in La Jolla. The wealth of the other 49 only grew by 1%, but because it was 1% of a much smaller number, almost all of it is eaten by rising costs (i.e., inflation). So they are told, don't worry, the bank will lend you money to buy a house, which will increase in value over time. So, don't worry so much about wages--just use those to buy food and build equity in a house. The house will act as your savings account and, when your kids are old enough for college, you can borrow against the increased value of the house to pay their tuition. Your house, well, it's like a magic money-making machine--it's a sure-fire investment for the non-investor class! And it was, for twenty years. But speculators got a bit too optimistic and it turns out that most of that growth was imaginary. Oops! Sorry, your sole source of economic growth--and class mobility--actually lost money. (Don't worry about the CEO, you can cram down a mortgage on a second home, unlike with a primary residence.)
Ok, but you say that, if the CEO doesn't make tons of money, we wouldn't have jobs. I acknowledge the fact that the 3% growth translates into more jobs, but of that means that what actually happens in the above model is that instead of 49 people making 1.012 after two years of growth, 50 people are actually making 0.98 units each. Wait, what? We're actually losing money? Yes, absolutely. As I said, it is perfectly natural for some people to make more than others, but current government policy divides the pie so unevenly that we actually make less money in inflation-adjusted dollars every year on average since the 80's. Add to that the fact that most of the wealth that was destroyed during the recession came in the form of collapsing housing prices, and not only do we make less money each year, but we've also lost what little wealth we managed to accumulate from the rapidly-growing pie in the early

--
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Re:Uh-oh. by fearofcarpet · 2012-06-21 17:21 · Score: 1

The economy is zero sum.
No. Improved technology can allow individuals and society overall to increase productivity, as can increasing urbanization (because that stimulates creativity and innovation). This grows the economy for real. To see why, realize that mechanization can allow one person to do a job that 200 years ago would have required hundreds or thousands of people. That means that those people can do something else instead, either working or leisure, and that in turn means that the economy must be larger.
This is Slashdot. When arguing here, at least try to avoid obvious logic errors or factual mistakes...
You don't understand what zero sum means. That does not mean that it doesn't grow or shrink--of course the economy grows. And for a long time it grew faster than the demands of population growth and with moderate inflation. Zero sum means that the economy, at any given time, is of finite volume (roughly $17 trillion for the US, a bit more for the EU as a whole). If the economy grows by 3% and 1% of the population takes 90% of that growth, the other 99% split the remaining 10%, which is exactly what has happened since the end of the recession. Zero sum means that every dollar I spend is the income of another person. If the economy were not zero-sum, then the balance sheets of banks, which book debt as assets, wouldn't make any sense.

--
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Re:Uh-oh. by Rei · 2012-06-21 21:19 · Score: 1

Not true. For example, a high ranking executive at a major company can up and quit their job and then get a job at a completely different company, hired by people that they don't know, but still raking in the uber-bucks. Because the people at said company want to snatch up someone as "rare" as him. It's still supply and demand; it's just more brutal when applied to people instead of commodities.
But I support your tax argument.

--
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Re:Uh-oh. by blackraven14250 · 2012-06-22 06:49 · Score: 1

Since the industrial revolution, we've gone through a civil war, the end of slavery, two world wars, a great depression (where living standards dropped sharply), the space race, desegregation, the oil crisis and mini-depression of the late 70's - early 80's (again where they dropped), 9-11, and the first African-American president, among a huge number of other events, so using that as a starting reference point is really out of the bounds of this conversation.
Re:Uh-oh. by ShakaUVM · 2012-06-24 18:25 · Score: 1

Yeah, the crazy thing is that despite all that, our standard of living has been steadily increasing throughout all that time.

That's REALLY a considerable ... by yvesdandoy · 2012-06-21 00:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

NON-EVENT ... at all !!!

Thank you, whoever posted this thing.
Really.
It was so important to rellay this non-information ... that I wonder what my day could have been if I hadn't received it.

Re:That's REALLY a considerable ... by Joce640k · 2012-06-21 00:44 · Score: 2

You're free to leave at any time.

--
No sig today...
Re:That's REALLY a considerable ... by nrozema · 2012-06-21 03:37 · Score: 1

You're welcome.

so what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 00:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

When the law and the market is such that corporate owners can buy whole islands for themselves, it's time to recognise that land ownership is just a piece of paper filed in some cabinet/database, not a natural right. Ellison has no moral right to own an island - indeed, no-one really has any more right to own land than they do to own a genetic patent. It's nature's thing, it was there before you, and it'll be there after you were gone. We must recognise that the only way that this land "belongs" to Ellison is that people in uniform will stop others from using it.

Now it seems right to allow people to lease a limited amount of land under limited terms according to the privileges decided by a democratically elected government. As it stands now for the average person, you pay your land tax and you get control of some land, for as long as your control doesn't act to the detriment of the general public. This has a philosophical basis in geolibertarianism, and receives a nod from communism (though communism's implementation is different). It is also, of course, the system partly implemented by almost every Western government: e.g. in the UK, pay your Council Tax or Business Rates or have your property taken from you. The difference is that the latter have weak recognition of the nature of land, allowing monopolisation of this naturally monopolisable resource. We need to recognise that no land really belongs to anyone - the only thing a man is entitled to is what he has physically made with his own hands, or that someone else has so made and freely traded with him. Even then, there are questions of ownership of raw materials, so it's all just a compromise.

Re:so what? by alen · 2012-06-21 00:26 · Score: 1

animals "own" land as well. predators have their own personal hunting territories they will fight for. vegetarians will fight for the best spots. the biggest deer, moose, elk or whatever will push/beat a weaker member of the tribe from any spot he wants to eat at
people just use paper and computer databases
Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 00:37 · Score: 1

Only the most simplistic interpretation of society concludes that an animal's territory is like human land ownership.
Land ownership involves society as a whole protecting a right on your behalf. The human "owns" the land in the sense that an enormous government system exists to react to anyone else's attempt to use it for almost anything.
Animal territory involves an animal - and, in the few cases of social species, its peers - protecting its own territory. The animal "owns" the land only in the sense that it tries to stop others from using it for purposes which the animal wishes to prevent.
Any conception of Ellison's island "ownership" is silly. There is absolutely no reason for society to recognise that Ellison owns an island. We certainly shouldn't be wasting our resources on protecting such an ownership right. Even if, through dishonesty or simple misunderstanding about the workings of the market, one tries to argue that Ellison has "earned" an island, this still doesn't mean that we need to expend resources on protecting the right.
(As a first step, US trespass laws should be much more limited - Scotland and some of the Scandinavian countries have the right idea. For example, my partner's family "own" a lot of land in Scotland, but strangers are allowed to use it for various things all the time. I found it absurd that so much land was "private" in the US in the sense that one actually couldn't even walk over it, even though it was uncultivated and open to the elements.)
Re:so what? by alen · 2012-06-21 00:54 · Score: 1

and that's why we sent your ancestors packing back to the UK in the 1700's. to protect private ownership of land
Re:so what? by mjr167 · 2012-06-21 00:59 · Score: 1

I have to disagree. A lion eating you because you infringed on his territory is remarkably similar to me shooting you for trespassing. We both mark our territorial boundaries and we both defend them. We can also both lose our territory if we fail to defend it.
Re:so what? by alen · 2012-06-21 01:16 · Score: 1

lets not get into UK colonialism and genocide of native peoples around the world over the centuries
yes it's kind of like the Serengeti where a wandering lion goes into your territory you have to fight/kill it or risk losing your hunting grounds
Re:so what? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 01:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have to disagree. A lion eating you because you infringed on his territory is remarkably similar to me shooting you for trespassing. We both mark our territorial boundaries and we both defend them. We can also both lose our territory if we fail to defend it.
Not true. A lion will eat what it kills, so the purpose is to provide food. The territory protection is secondary. So, unless you are going to eat the trespasser you shot they are not the same at all. Besides, human beings supposedly have the ability to use reason, where as animals rely on instinct. In other words, we have a choice for what we do or how we act. The lion can only act like a lion.
Re:so what? by mjr167 · 2012-06-21 01:36 · Score: 5, Funny

So... shooting trespassers is ok if we eat them afterwards?
Re:so what? by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:38 · Score: 2

A new lion can come and kill the old owner. If I shoot you while you sleep in your bed can I have your land?
Clearly not, property ownership is very different for humans than territory for animals.
Re:so what? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 01:59 · Score: 1

So... shooting trespassers is ok if we eat them afterwards?
If you want to equate shooting trespassers with lions killing for food. Of course, in the US, even if you aren't guilty for shooting the trespasser, cannibalism is illegal, so that wouldn't be a good strategy to use at all.
Re:so what? by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 03:31 · Score: 1

Sounds reasonable to me.
Re:so what? by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 03:34 · Score: 2

Not true. A lion will eat what it kills.
I'm not sure about lions, but wolves will kill coyotes that infringe on their territory, but they will not eat them. Coyotes will kill foxes that also compete for the same food source, and generally the coyotes will not eat the foxes. Killing your prey and killing your non-prey competitors are both common in the animal world. Animals, even predators, do not always eat everything they kill.
Re:so what? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 03:47 · Score: 1

Not true. A lion will eat what it kills.
I'm not sure about lions, but wolves will kill coyotes that infringe on their territory, but they will not eat them. Coyotes will kill foxes that also compete for the same food source, and generally the coyotes will not eat the foxes. Killing your prey and killing your non-prey competitors are both common in the animal world. Animals, even predators, do not always eat everything they kill.
Lions eat what they kill. In the process of defending their territory, if the other animal is killed, the lion will drag it off and it will be consumed by the pride, later. Also, for lions, it is usually the female that does most of the hunting, although the males get to eat first. Lions tend to mark their territory with urine or scratching trees. Most other animals, in the wild, particularly other lions, not part of the pride, avoid these areas. If other lions do stray in, they usually fight, but not to the death. So wolves and coyotes are nothing like lions. But then again, dogs and cats are quite different, too.
Re:so what? by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 05:04 · Score: 1

We should vote for a Libertarian government. Then it would be legal to do both.
Re:so what? by powerlinekid · 2012-06-21 05:40 · Score: 1

You are very incorrect. Lions, cats in general, are one of the few species that do in fact kill for reasons other than eating.
You didn't bother to explain why you feel Lions and Wolves are all that different in terms the previous poster made. The interaction between Lion and Hyena is very similar to those between Wolves and Coyotes. Additionally pack/pride interaction with non-members is similar. I have no idea where you get your information from but it is certainly not modern.

--

can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Re:so what? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 05:48 · Score: 1

I have no idea where you get your information from but it is certainly not modern.
From my research grants to study the behaviour of lions and the impact on pride life when the dominant male is replaced.
Re:so what? by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 06:18 · Score: 1

I think Ted Nugent would disagree. He would shoot you, the old lion, the new lion, and mount all your heads in his trophy room.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ted-nugent-obama-vile-and-evil-voters-should-chop-democrats-heads-off-in-november/
Re:so what? by powerlinekid · 2012-06-22 05:34 · Score: 1

Which apparently leaves out the fact that lions certainly kill for non-eating purposes.

--

can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Re:so what? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-22 07:47 · Score: 1

I never said that lions don't kill for non-eating purposes. However when they do kill for non-eating purposes, lions will still provide the kill for the pride and if a male, will eat first. Being killed by a lion because he is hunger versus being killed because you threatened him results in the same outcome -- you are dead and will be eaten (either now or saved for later).

Same island Bill Gates chose for wedding by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 00:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Old story here

Re:Same island Bill Gates chose for wedding by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-06-21 04:20 · Score: 1

I remember that BG was married there and given how he has bought up all of the property around his Lake Washington home for a greater buffer zone, along with other rumors that he was looking for greater privacy, That BillG was going to buy Lana'i. I mean, it's big enough to hold your largest house, add a landing field, and you get an 8000 foot deep moat around the whole thing. What's not to like?
If I was rich enough to own Lana'i, I'd go back to pineapple farming on it. I flew over it in those days it it looked lovely and peaceful.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Units by Thanshin · 2012-06-21 00:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

the 141-square-mile island

I can't comprehend that size. Could we have the area in asteroid passing distances? Earth radiuses works too.

Re:Units by ph0rk · 2012-06-21 00:26 · Score: 1

How about 2.06 Districts of Columbia?

--
semantics are everything!
Re:Units by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 00:34 · Score: 2, Funny

the 141-square-mile island
I can't comprehend that size. Could we have the area in asteroid passing distances? Earth radiuses works too.
I beleive that the scientific unit for area is football field.
Re:Units by goodmanj · 2012-06-21 00:41 · Score: 2

This is not a small island. It's roughly the size of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens put together, or the Isle of Wight.
Re:Units by rtaylor · 2012-06-21 00:46 · Score: 1

A little bigger than a single Canadian corporate farm (larger ones hit 100 square miles).

--
Rod Taylor
Re:Units by sloomis · 2012-06-21 00:47 · Score: 1

I beleive that the scientific unit for area is football field.
American or European?
Re:Units by Thanshin · 2012-06-21 00:58 · Score: 1

I beleive that the scientific unit for area is football field.
American or European?
American. ...
NO! EUROPEAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Re:Units by goodmanj · 2012-06-21 01:01 · Score: 1

Lanai *was* a corporate farm for most of the 20th century.
Re:Units by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 01:03 · Score: 1

Two "your mom's."
Re:Units by JoeMerchant · 2012-06-21 01:20 · Score: 1

141 sqmi:
90,000 acres
36,500 hectacres
39,308,544 squares
28% of the surface area of Demios
Re:Units by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-06-21 02:31 · Score: 2

A handful of Bugatti Veyron EB 16.4s.
Re:Units by damonlab · 2012-06-21 02:46 · Score: 1

Detroit has an area of 141 square miles. It is more area than Manhattan, San Francisco, and Boston combined.
Re:Units by hendridm · 2012-06-21 03:21 · Score: 1

A handful of Bugatti Veyron EB 16.4s.
You must have big hands!
Re:Units by Dynedain · 2012-06-21 03:58 · Score: 1

About the size of the Hawaiian island Lanai

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:Units by gman003 · 2012-06-21 04:56 · Score: 1

I thought our standard unit was Libraries of Congress?
Re:Units by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-06-21 06:42 · Score: 1

And you know what big hands mean...
Re:Units by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-21 07:40 · Score: 1

I can't comprehend that size
Don't complain, calculate, and then post for the similarly challenged.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Units by n6kuy · 2012-06-21 10:15 · Score: 1

Think of a square that's a little bit less than 12 miles on a side.

--
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Re:Units by tompaulco · 2012-06-21 10:33 · Score: 1

How about if you tromp the accelerator of a Bugatti Veyron EB 16.4 on one side of the island, you'll run out of gas just about at the point where you run out of land?

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

he's like Dr. No by circletimessquare · 2012-06-21 00:25 · Score: 5, Funny

With these billionaires also starting their own private space programs too, all we need is a suave british agent and a hot local chick going to raid the compound threatening megalomaniacal schemes

"do you expect me to talk?"

"no mr. bond, I expect no SQL to this movie, I expect you to join that table with this collate, and then drop"

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Misleading title? by garatheus · 2012-06-21 00:31 · Score: 2

The title reads like it is a little misleading to me... The way I read it was in the context that he bought an island he already owned (which would not surprise me). I don't know why the /. editor who posted this thought it wouldn't be interpreted this way though... (or why I'm the first to comment on it?)

Surely: "Larry Ellison buys Hawaiian Island" would have sufficed?

While I might not have studied journalism, I did have a job as a journalist for about a year (as well as being made editor of some smaller sections to the online news site), and well, I think my article-editor would have kicked me in the head (or at least shat on me from a dizzy height, as was the norm I guess). Oh well.

Although I very much doubt this will be the last time this happens...

Re:Misleading title? by SJHillman · 2012-06-21 01:10 · Score: 1

It's bad grammar to be sure, but is a common speech construct (in the US). Some people might say "I bought my own car" or "I bought my own house". The meaning is that they bought it for themselves, as opposed to "I bought my mom a house". So the title is basically saying he bought the island for his own use, as opposed to buying it for someone else, for the company, etc.
Re:Misleading title? by phantomfive · 2012-06-21 03:13 · Score: 1

While I might not have studied journalism, I did have a job as a journalist for about a year (as well as being made editor of some smaller sections to the online news site), and well, I think my article-editor would have kicked me in the head (or at least shat on me from a dizzy height, as was the norm I guess). Oh well. You should be kicked in the head for that as well. Did you read it before clicking submit?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Misleading title? by garatheus · 2012-06-21 04:36 · Score: 1

Aaaah, us non-US people aren't as used to such constructs, since it's implied if you bought something that you own it...
Re:Misleading title? by khipu · 2012-06-21 06:00 · Score: 1

The title reads like it is a little misleading to me...
It's a standard idiom:
"Do you want a ride to the prom?" "No, I have my own car."
"Does John still have problems have time on the family PC?" "No, he bought his own PC."
"Is Larry Ellison the incarnation of Dr. Evil?" "Sure is! He bought his own volcanic island."

What's the point of your post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 00:39 · Score: 1

people in africa have been starving since i was a kid.

Is that supposed to make it better somehow?

too bad when you send them food the government takes it

I'm having difficulties interpreting that in any way that would make sense... but I guess you could mean that when delivering resources to locations torn by war and ruled by dictators, it's pretty difficult to ensure that the resources go to the people who need them the most. Even though that's true, a blanket statement of "when you send them food the government takes it" sounds pretty ridiculous. And even if such a blanket statement was true, it still wouldn't be all that appropriate response to the criticism of utterly ridiculous wealth disparity in the world.

Re:What's the point of your post by Thanshin · 2012-06-21 00:47 · Score: 1

it still wouldn't be all that appropriate response to the criticism of utterly ridiculous wealth disparity in the world.
No criticism about the ridiculous wealth disparity in the world is appropriate if it comes from someone who spends significantly more than his share.
Re:What's the point of your post by alen · 2012-06-21 00:53 · Score: 1

do it like the USA did with China. give them MFN status along with tax breaks for US companies to set up manufacturing and other low level operations there. its already happening in parts of africa
China was like africa not to long ago. except that i think a lot more people starved in china than in africa. tens of millions in the last century. you can thank clinton, foxconn and apple for giving them jobs outside a farm
Re:What's the point of your post by SlippyToad · 2012-06-21 01:11 · Score: 1

Describe how you would provide long term help with a budget equal to Larry Ellison's island fund which we can say is $1 billion USD.

I'm trying to decide if you are being funny here, or a stupid asshole. One billion dollars is the kind of money that a whole city or nation-state could be founded on. So, what we do have here is Larry Ellison being a self-centered asshole, when he could like many wealthy people actually be of some use to the world.
Hey, it's his money, and if he wants to act like the world's biggest spoiled child, then that's who he obviously wants to be. Just don't pretend it's anything else.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Re:What's the point of your post by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:16 · Score: 1

Why not?
In what rational way is it wrong for someone to point out the ridiculousness of a situation even if he benefits from it?
Re:What's the point of your post by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 01:17 · Score: 1

do it like the USA did with China. give them MFN status along with tax breaks for US companies to set up manufacturing and other low level operations there. its already happening in parts of africa
China was like africa not to long ago. except that i think a lot more people starved in china than in africa. tens of millions in the last century. you can thank clinton, foxconn and apple for giving them jobs outside a farm
Of course when all of those US businesses pulled out of Mexico, who had MFN status and tax breaks for US companies, the Mexican economy collapsed. Maybe we should stop subsidizing big business to carry out political policy and let market forces dictate their decisions. After all, the US says we believe in capitalism.
Re:What's the point of your post by datavirtue · 2012-06-21 01:19 · Score: 2

Yeah, he's a butt-hair from getting his own southpark episode.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:What's the point of your post by khallow · 2012-06-21 01:20 · Score: 1

I'm having difficulties interpreting that in any way that would make sense... but I guess you could mean that when delivering resources to locations torn by war and ruled by dictators, it's pretty difficult to ensure that the resources go to the people who need them the most. Even though that's true, a blanket statement of "when you send them food the government takes it" sounds pretty ridiculous. And even if such a blanket statement was true, it still wouldn't be all that appropriate response to the criticism of utterly ridiculous wealth disparity in the world.
It means that unless you knock over that government there is no point to just sending food. It's also worth noting that a large portion of the Slashdot readership (and I think humanity as a whole) thinks there will be a die-off of humanity in the not so distant future. Killing starving people now by not feeding them puts that future off.

If you want people to just send food, then you're going to need a more compelling reason than to keep a person alive a day longer so they can beg for food tomorrow (as well as reinforcing the political and criminal structures that make such starvation possible). It's not a mercy to just keep people barely alive and dependent. That's merely a form of slavery.
Re:What's the point of your post by silas_moeckel · 2012-06-21 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Starving Africans are the first worlds responsibility how? They have nobody to blame but there own people. Local warlord take the food they grow "make" them grow other crops etc. They have a choice to stand up and possibly die. Nobody else can be responsible for them they are not children the sooner we stop treating them as such the better. As to starvation in particular that's a population control, there fertility rates are insane with most of Africa at 4 children per family and some nations close to 8.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:What's the point of your post by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:27 · Score: 1

Malthus, I thought you died long ago, how are you?
Not feeding them will not stop them from breeding. In fact quite the opposite.
Re:What's the point of your post by SilverJets · 2012-06-21 01:42 · Score: 1

people in africa have been starving since i was a kid.
Is that supposed to make it better somehow?
Nope. But it makes it pretty damn hard to sympathize with their plight when they've been living in a dustbowl and starving for 40 years and no amount of aid from the outside is even making a dent in the problem. There is a point where you stop flushing money down the toilet. The west reached that point 35 years ago as far as I'm concerned.
Re:What's the point of your post by Mabhatter · 2012-06-21 01:57 · Score: 1

The people are starving is about POWER not somebody with expensive toys. The people in charge of those African places would rather use the food as BAIT and shoot the starving subjects that need it than share.
There are income disparities, but that has nothing to do with the African situation of each regime pulling "slash n burn" and "scorched earth" tactics on their own countrymen.
You can't RULE people that have plenty of food and water but few other resources... So you take what they have away. Power for the sake of POWER.
Re:What's the point of your post by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 01:57 · Score: 1

Let's give Larry the benefit of a doubt. He has a MIG fighter jet and now a secure base to operate from. Maybe he's going to take out Koni with a GP-9 and disperse GMO seeds that will overcome the jungle with food people can actually eat.
Re:What's the point of your post by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 02:02 · Score: 1

It was also part of a Republican strategy to over-turn communism from the inside. China today is communist in name only. It is now a fascist state, given that the current regime has a capitalist agenda while retaining communist-style totalitarianism.
Re:What's the point of your post by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 02:19 · Score: 1

A shame too. Someone with Mr. Ellison's entrepreneurial capability might have a chance of making a difference in some 3rd world hell hole. He could give away his $1 billion to some NGO and let it be squandered on overhead, or he could tackle the problem head-on. That's what RG LeTourneau did after he made his millions. He founded two cities, one in Peru and one in Liberia, and supplied both cities with capital resources, such as his earth moving equipment. Unfortunately the Liberian project failed, but the Peruvian project still lives on today.
Re:What's the point of your post by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 02:55 · Score: 1

True. In fact in countries where there is no support structure or social safety net, people tend to have as many children as possible so someone will be there to take care of them if they get old or sick. Billions of future taxes dollars can be saved by investing now in free and easily obtainable birth control and something similar to Social Security like we get in the US. Since the cost of living in these 3rd world countries is already so low, the cost of such social security could be a fraction of what it costs for Americans. There was a time back in the 1950's and early 1960's when the whole world loved America (except Communists, off course). The Marshall Plan rebuilt our enemies economies rather than subject them to reparations, and today Germany and Japan both have a great relationship with the USA and the rest of the global community. The Peace Corps was making a difference in 3rd world countries, and the US was not meddling so much in other countries affairs (except Iran, and we are still paying that price today). Even with the Vietnam War, the US played more of an advisory role and only in rare cases did Green Berets engage in battle with their indigenous forces. Things changed when the US thought it could just send in bombers and troops to tackle problems directly.
Today the US is still making the same mistakes. At the outset of the war with the Taliban the US came to the aid of the Northern Alliance and it was Afghans defeating the Taliban backed with US training, weapons, air support, and a small number highly skilled special forces. As more US troops entered Afghanistan the situation just got worse. The war in Iraq was a disaster from the beginning.
Obama and the EU with NATO did things right in Libya. No country, no matter how fierce their internal enemies might be, is ever going to be truly welcoming of foreign troops occupying their country to "fight for them". Special forces that leave as fast as they came might be tolerable, and the same maybe with drones and air strikes.
Helping people in a war torn 3rd world country is no easy task, as was plainly the case in Somalia. Most 3rd world countries today have at least some region where a minority group is resisting the current regime and the regime does not want this region to get resources, so that is one reason for mass starvation (a recent example could be Southern Sudan). It might take a strong-arm policy to go these types of regimes and say "we are going to fly into xxxx region and deliver food and medical supplies. We are going to help them build or re-build their infrastructure. We are going to bring in consultants to teach them how to be self reliant. We will try to act as a mediator to settle disputes between your regime and this population. If you block our efforts we will add guns and ammo to our shipments and leave behind Green Berets to train the population to resist your regime."
The challenge to the US and the world community is to take on this approach without allowing such altruistic efforts to be compromised by our own industrial-military complex who would be more than happy to go into these regions, fuel civil war, and plunder resources while nobody is looking. To suggest that US and European exploitation of 3rd world resources doesn't fuel some of these internal conflicts is very naive.
Re:What's the point of your post by hendridm · 2012-06-21 02:58 · Score: 1

Maybe he's going to take out Koni with a GP-9 and disperse GMO seeds that will overcome the jungle with food people can actually eat.
Then he truly is evil. All that money and he's colluding with Monsanto for lawsuits?! What happens when they don't pay? Does Larry put a lien on their huts? 0.o
Re:What's the point of your post by Sir_Sri · 2012-06-21 03:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Apple Foxconn and Clinton are actually late to the party on this one. They didn't move in until more boring infrastructure companies (power, water) set up shop.
Even before Nixon went to china the US was selling the chinese power generators through US companies that had non US subsidiaries. There was I think, a reasonable belief that the wedge between Russia/Soviet Union and China could be taken advantage of by friendly sales of non military things even before full on recognition of (Communist) Peoples Republic of China as the government rather than the Republic of China.
But yes, you're right. The solution to poverty in africa comes from trade. What's happened is that pure aid, in the form of food or money, has devastated economies, since someone from france will give away food why would you pay a local guy to grow any? Since the government gets half of its revenue from aid why would you pay taxes etc. Those two have combined to wreck chaos on economies (they aren't complete 100% effects). Trade isn't really possible until those countries can have credible education and legal systems (so investors won't lose all their money), and there will probably need to be some infrastructure investment.
There's still a need for aid for the moment, locusts, droughts that sort of thing, aren't going to be solved overnight. But in the long run Africa needs development from trade.
Re:What's the point of your post by rhekman · 2012-06-21 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

No criticism about the ridiculous wealth disparity in the world is appropriate if it comes from someone who spends significantly more than his share.
I wish I could mod this whole thread about share of wealth irrelevant. Whether Larry Ellison buys a huge chunk of real estate in Hawaii has nothing to do with whether a starving kid in Africa gets a meal today. And if Larry never got to the point where he could afford such a thing doesn't matter one iota to solve the plight of impoverished people around the world.
There are many fair criticisms about his management tactics and business decisions, but I fail to see how someone who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charity can be criticized for what appears to be yet another business deal.
The laws of the U.S. and Hawaii should ensure that he doesn't do anything harmful to the people or environment of this island. And if his involvement means the people that live there have a better life and he comes out ahead financially, then that's a net win we should all agree on.

--
I like teamwork. It's easier to assign blame that way.
Re:What's the point of your post by Applekid · 2012-06-21 03:52 · Score: 1

too bad when you send them food the government takes it
I'm having difficulties interpreting that in any way that would make sense... but I guess you could mean that when delivering resources to locations torn by war and ruled by dictators, it's pretty difficult to ensure that the resources go to the people who need them the most.
So, what's the answer? Should the industrialized world take their armies and guns and occupy these countries and install a government? Has that ever gone well?

--
More Twoson than Cupertino
Re:What's the point of your post by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 05:01 · Score: 1

It's OK...it's "social entrepreneurism"...much better than that socialist crap they call "charity".
Re:What's the point of your post by dcw3 · 2012-06-21 05:22 · Score: 1

One billion dollars is the kind of money that a whole city or nation-state could be founded on
There are plenty of buildings that cost more than that. You're not going to start a city, much less "nation-state" on a billion.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:What's the point of your post by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 06:14 · Score: 1

You're not considering the cost of living differential in the 3rd world. One billion dollars would go a long way. Such a city could be a great success if it was built primarily with local labor and resources. Using techniques from Sustainable Architecture en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture such a city could be built without the expensive and extravagant features common in American building. Most such structures would have to be similar to earth ships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ship in material, construction, and function.
Sustainability has to be a cornerstone of any development in the 3rd world. The local population must do the work and labor, learn the trades, teach each other, and make use of local resources with appropriate technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology. Some projects are already in the works that make use of remote solar energy and wireless communication to take a quantum leap past the decades it has taken for the developed world to build its power and communication infrastructure. Solving 3rd world problems definitely takes some out-of-the-box thinking. If you go into a remote part of the Congo with plans to build a Walmart you have already failed.
Re:What's the point of your post by khallow · 2012-06-21 13:51 · Score: 1

Not feeding them will not stop them from breeding.

I think you're wrong here. The population that is breeding is poor not starving. Sending food doesn't help poor people become something other than poor people.
Re:What's the point of your post by khallow · 2012-06-21 13:57 · Score: 1

In fact in countries where there is no support structure or social safety net, people tend to have as many children as possible so someone will be there to take care of them if they get old or sick. Billions of future taxes dollars can be saved by investing now in free and easily obtainable birth control and something similar to Social Security like we get in the US.

I prefer a different glib solution: continue to buy their products and get rid of agricultural subsidies.

To suggest that US and European exploitation of 3rd world resources doesn't fuel some of these internal conflicts is very naive.
It's not cost effective for one thing. Most countries, including the oil rich ones have enough resources to pay for a US occupation. I think the pretext doesn't have much to do with Third World resources. Rather it's more rent seeking opportunities, such as providing basic services to military troops for several times their cost under military operation.
Re:What's the point of your post by Seraphim_72 · 2012-06-21 14:25 · Score: 1

You have never actually opened a book about the history of the African continent have you? I will TL:DR for you. You broke it, you bought it.

--
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Re:What's the point of your post by Obfiscator · 2012-06-21 15:39 · Score: 1

I prefer a different glib solution: continue to buy their products and get rid of agricultural subsidies.
Sadly, while I like the spirit behind this, it doesn't always have the effect you hope for. Tiko, Cameroon, is surrounded by plantations (think they are Del Monte owned). Instead of employing locals they give the jobs to immigrants from Equatorial Guinea and pay them less, so that even by southern Cameroonian stands Tiko is poor. It was always a bit depressing to pass through. Most of the money seems to go right into the bosses' pockets. I would focus on purchasing "Fair Trade" products from those countries instead of the standard grocery store fruit by the big companies.

--
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
Re:What's the point of your post by khallow · 2012-06-21 16:13 · Score: 1

Tiko, Cameroon, is surrounded by plantations (think they are Del Monte owned). Instead of employing locals they give the jobs to immigrants from Equatorial Guinea and pay them less, so that even by southern Cameroonian stands Tiko is poor.
If true, which seems unlikely, it sounds like unintended consequences to me. If dirt cheap locals aren't cheaper than importing expensive labor from a country with several times the GDP per capita, then look at the labor regulations not the employers. According to the CIA World Factbook, Equatorial Guinea has more than $19k per capita GDP while Cameroon has $2.3k. That's more than eight times the GDP per capita. Further, there's only a labor pool of around 200k people in EG while Cameroon has over 8 million. I simply don't buy that there's a large enough pool of workers to hire from EG to work in Cameroon nor that these workers work for lower wages than the locals.
Re:What's the point of your post by silas_moeckel · 2012-06-22 01:14 · Score: 1

Yes yes the great white guilt. By my reading we only ever had marginal control over the continent, we did encourage plenty of bad locals though. I do not subscribe to white guilt, nor do I see hand outs are ever anything but a band aid and a bad one at that.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:What's the point of your post by Reziac · 2012-06-22 05:01 · Score: 1

In fact to this day you can pretty much map the education level in Africa as an overlay of the British colonies, which had a policy of setting up schools for the locals everywhere they went. I'd also hazard that you can map the fading of this influence with another overlay of how much "self-determination" (read: corruption) each country has had since the end of the British Empire.
And if you want to see how it was where there was never really strong colonial control, I'd suggest observing the current warlords of the central Sahara.
Agreed re the handouts -- there's a big difference between loaning a guy a shovel so he can dig a ditch, and putting all the local ditchdiggers out of work.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:What's the point of your post by Sentrion · 2012-06-22 18:32 · Score: 1

My home in Texas is worth $100,000.00, is quite comfortable and has many modern amenities (and no, it's not a trailer). Real estate in the 3rd world is magnitudes cheaper, and so is labor. The rugged, eco-friendly pioneers in the US who are building and living in their own earthships and other types of sustainable homesteads spend more on permits, professional fees, and fighting local building codes than what they spend on construction materials, so the $100k+ cost for a home is a myth perpetuated by Wall Street and the over-regulation of private home building.
If you visit the capital cities of many African countries they can seem very "Western" on the surface. Wealth in most 3rd world countries is typically concentrated in the cities, as many 3rd world countries are also the source of much of the world precious resources, such as diamonds, gold, oil, gas, Uranium, exotic hardwoods, and rare earth elements. Once you leave city limits the beautiful and modern paved roads give way to dirt roads and poverty. There are many alternative types of structures, such as straw-bale, cob, rammed earth, sand-bag, etc. Not all are appropriate for every location or situation, but there is usually a very simple type of structure that can be built using local resources and labor. Proper design, such as South-facing windows in northern climates, reduce the need for expensive and high-tech HVAC systems that require the infrastructure you speak of. Many people in some of the worst 3rd world conditions aren't even worries about housing - they're happy with their mud and sheet-metal huts - but they desperately need a way to produce their own food without relying on UN aid convoys of bagged rice and wheat.
We can demand that the 3rd world first mimic our development by building roads, gas stations, auto dealerships, McDonald's and Walmart, or we can work with them to develop and alternative path that can allow them to develop without committing decades to building fragile infrastructure that can so easily be sabotaged or destroyed during the frequent and devastating wars that plague many parts of the 3rd world. Whatever is done, never give the money to government to let them "help" their people. Such efforts have only lead to extravagant mansions, private jets, and a stronger military for those in power.
Decentralized power generation, wireless networks, biointensive agriculture - these are just some of the tools that are working and making a difference in many parts of the 3rd world. Forget the $100k home, the family car, bottled Evian water, and fitness clubs - even the US is having a hard time sustaining this type of existence. One of the major initiatives in the 3rd world is getting a goat to impoverished families http://www.planusa.org/content1565803?tp=VE1HUj0xLHRpZD0xNjIzNzA2LA%3D%3D. Do this first. A billion dollars would go far. Save the $100k homes for the next generation that grow up with the $99 laptop initiative - they'll probably take your kid's software engineering gig for a wage your kids wouldn't be able to live on.
Re:What's the point of your post by Sentrion · 2012-06-22 18:56 · Score: 1

If they import labor it might be because the locals are belligerent to the corporate interests and culture of Del Monte. You can't hire locals if they accuse you of stealing their land and have a strong motivation to sabotage your operation if given the chance. Hiring scabs that are not members of the local union, or an unfriendly local population, is a long time-honored tradition among the world's wealthiest companies.
http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8689:cameroon-the-bakweri-lands-and-the-abuse-of-a-people&catid=25&Itemid=58
Re:What's the point of your post by khallow · 2012-06-23 01:05 · Score: 1

If they import labor it might be because the locals are belligerent to the corporate interests and culture of Del Monte. You can't hire locals if they accuse you of stealing their land and have a strong motivation to sabotage your operation if given the chance. Hiring scabs that are not members of the local union, or an unfriendly local population, is a long time-honored tradition among the world's wealthiest companies.
So going back to the beginning of this thread, the Cameroon government stole land and sold it to Del Monte? The locals, rather than fix their government, blame the company and work to sabotage it? And the company imports "scabs" rather than not run a business? I'd do it too. Well, at least the workers from Equatorial Guinea made out on the deal.

Going back to the original post, how does social security or birth control fix this societal problem? Seems to me the problem is that there isn't rule of law. Given that, it isn't a company's job to provide rule of law. Cameroon needs to get its act together.

Re:At a bargain price by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-06-21 00:41 · Score: 1

Even 40 miles out from D.C., it is hard to find land for less than 25-30,000/acre.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);

Re:Austin Powers by Lord+Lode · 2012-06-21 00:42 · Score: 1

I don't really know Austin Powers, but isn't the white cat from James Bond?

What a flake Ellison is by arcite · 2012-06-21 00:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Buying a bare, windswept, island that has long ago been converted into a Pineapple plantation? The place is probably invested with rats. ...or soaked in pesticides. Seems like a waste of money to me. There isn't even a sandy beach.

Re:What a flake Ellison is by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 00:45 · Score: 4, Funny

I think Ellison is used to investing with rats, just his kind of folks.
That was mean, rats are actually no where near as bad as this asshole.
Re:What a flake Ellison is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 01:05 · Score: 1

Rats, so long as they aren't starving or frightened, are kind and wonderful creatures. That was mean, very mean.
Re:What a flake Ellison is by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

I know, I kept them as pets for years. I had to stop since they don't live long enough for as attached as I got. I trained some to fetch, they liked to be petted, very much like little dogs.
Far smarter and kinder than Mr.Ellison.
Re:What a flake Ellison is by datavirtue · 2012-06-21 01:16 · Score: 1, Funny

I know, I kept them as pets for years. I had to stop since I needed to get laid.
There, fixed that for ya.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:What a flake Ellison is by h4rr4r · 2012-06-21 01:24 · Score: 1

Oh how wrong you are. I only ever got them, because the woman I was sleeping with wanted them as pets.
Re:What a flake Ellison is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-21 01:49 · Score: 1

"Yeah, look, Mr. Abercrombie, I sort of need this island. Really badly. I've got quite a few people who are quite a bit angry at me, and I need to make sure I'm as difficult to access as possible while still getting all the news I need to buy them all out, kill the ones I bought, and sue everyone else, you got me? So, what've you got? Yeah, yeah, I've got the money. Those shareholders'll never know what hit 'em, and besides, there's this surefire suit against Google I'm SURE we'll get on appeals..."
Re:What a flake Ellison is by jandrese · 2012-06-21 02:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

No sandy beach?

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:What a flake Ellison is by budgenator · 2012-06-21 04:48 · Score: 1

They are volcanic Islands, those sandy beaches are maintained by imported crushed coral and don't worry about rat's either, the Wild Pigs think they are mighty taste.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:What a flake Ellison is by budgenator · 2012-06-21 04:55 · Score: 1

Rats will eat mice, and mice know it, so having a pet rat will pretty much keep your house free of wild mice. Mice can hide from a cat or dog no problem, but a rat can go almost anywhere a mouse can.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:What a flake Ellison is by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-21 12:30 · Score: 1

Right, and then some idiots will get tired of their "super rats" and release them into the wild.

Hawaiian Land Ownership by stevegee58 · 2012-06-21 00:44 · Score: 1

I thought the Hawaiian royal family owned all the land and you only rented the land from them and paid a yearly land rent.

Re:Hawaiian Land Ownership by SJHillman · 2012-06-21 01:15 · Score: 2

At least one other major island, Ni'ihua, is privately owned after being purchased from the Kingdom of Hawai'i in 1864.
Re:Hawaiian Land Ownership by wed128 · 2012-06-21 01:17 · Score: 1

Yup. Also, i've got a bridge in brooklyn that i'll rent ya
Re:Hawaiian Land Ownership by JoeMerchant · 2012-06-21 01:21 · Score: 1

Not on Lanai. The royals got that deal for a small percentage of lands.

I pity him by goombah99 · 2012-06-21 00:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

My own Lanai is in the back of my house, and it has a built in pool and fire pit. I don't have to travel all the way to Hawaii when I want to use. Just pop out there after work. Ellison got suckered.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

Re:I pity him by cvtan · 2012-06-21 02:47 · Score: 1

Yes it's Lana'i. One little apostrophe and you get all Spanish Inquisition on the poor guy!

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Re:I pity him by A10Mechanic · 2012-06-21 04:39 · Score: 2

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Interesting.... by erp_consultant · 2012-06-21 00:48 · Score: 1

Maybe now he's found something large enough to hold his massive ego. Somehow I doubt it though, given his past transgressions. He's hoping that a volcano erupts and takes his sorry ass down.

Re:At a bargain price by Overzeetop · 2012-06-21 00:52 · Score: 1

Yeah, but can you imagine having to commute in from Hawaii? I mean, if you think Fredrick is too far away...

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Next year: Oracle secedes by AbominousSalad · 2012-06-21 00:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Next year's follow-up story - Oracle secedes, and couches itself as fully as possible in its total reality distortion field.

Then it sues Greece for having had oracles 2000 years ago.

--
Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"

My fellow Hawaiians! by bitt3n · 2012-06-21 00:59 · Score: 3, Funny

"Good news! I have just sold one of our islands for half the proceeds from Oracle's upcoming multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against Google! Even if they get only half what they're asking, we will make a killing. I promise a hula hoop around every midriff!"

--
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?

He's not the first one to do it...but still by erp_consultant · 2012-06-21 00:59 · Score: 2

Why is it that I feel a lot better about Richard Branson buying an island or David Copperfield buying an island than I do this jackass? When PeopleSoft was still an independent company I used to work there. Best job I ever had. Then Ellison decides to buy it and the whole culture changes. People, including me, are leaving in droves. Couldn't work there. Wouldn't work there. Ellison is the biggest douchbag on the face of the earth.

Re:is it jealousy or justice that leads me to reac by Sponge+Bath · 2012-06-21 01:02 · Score: 1

You gotta call 'em like you see 'em.

Larry and the Volcano by scharkalvin · 2012-06-21 01:05 · Score: 1

I hope there is a fucking Volcano on the island and it erupts.
Then I hope someone throws Larry into it.

Re:Larry and the Volcano by RobertLTux · 2012-06-21 01:56 · Score: 1

err you do know that the Hawaiian islands are ALL VOLCANIC so the question is wether the volcano on the island is even partly active.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:Larry and the Volcano by tompaulco · 2012-06-21 10:40 · Score: 1

err you do know that the Hawaiian islands are ALL VOLCANIC so the question is wether the volcano on the island is even partly active.
No, but I do know that only one of them is currently active and that none of the other inactive ones will ever be active again. All of the Hawaiian islands were generated by the same lava source at different periods of history as the Earth's crust moved and occasionally offered a thin spot. As time marched on, the older islands have moved further from the vent and were worn down by the elements. None of them will be active again from that vent, but probably in the next 50 million years, there will be a new Hawaiian island popping up east of the big island.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Re:Austin Powers by SJHillman · 2012-06-21 01:06 · Score: 1

So is the volcano... which is why the James Bond parody, Austin Powers, also used it.

Consequence? by ChunderDownunder · 2012-06-21 01:06 · Score: 1

What does 'owning' an Island actual mean? Is it part of the state of Hawaii and thus the USA?

Can Larry declare independence, make the island an international tax haven, issue its own currency and move Oracle's head office outside US jurisdiction?

Or is it more just he's now the owner of a pineapple plantation with 3000 worker slaves?

Re:Consequence? by JoeMerchant · 2012-06-21 01:23 · Score: 1

The pineapple plantation is slated to be converted to a new "Highest Best Use" as a luxury resort. The state property taxes should be impressive.
Re:Consequence? by Asic+Eng · 2012-06-21 01:25 · Score: 1

What does 'owning' an Island actual mean? Is it part of the state of Hawaii and thus the USA? Can Larry declare independence [...]?
It's real estate, nothing else. He owns it in the same way you might own your house, surely that's a familiar use of the term?
Re:Consequence? by ChunderDownunder · 2012-06-21 01:47 · Score: 1

Sure, I understand home ownership but real estate generally doesn't include infrastructure.
Roads, public spaces, power, sewage, water are generally either provided by a democratically elected municipality, or corporation in terms of privatisation. Such regional governments have the ability to impose taxation on residents, whereas the supreme owner of an island might rely on rental only.
Such infrastructure could be quite expensive for Mr Ellison and the residents would be at the mercy of him improving the facilities while keeping rents low. Offset by the various businesses that operate on the island.
Re:Consequence? by jandrese · 2012-06-21 02:07 · Score: 1

It should be noted that the ruinous maintenance costs are what drove the previous owner to sell. He was losing something like $18-$25 million per year just keeping the place running and the population had dropped from 3,500 residents to just 1,900 over the past few years as well.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Consequence? by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 04:04 · Score: 1

He could always operate the Island the same way that Disney Inc. operates Disney World. The Government of Florida created the Reedy Creek Improvement District, a special government district that essentially gave the Disney Company the standard powers and autonomy of an incorporated city. Disney later founded the Drainage District as a public corporation with the power to condemn and acquire property outside its boundaries "for the public use". It used this power at least once to obtain land for Canal C-1 (Bonnet Creek) through land that is now being developed as the Bonnet Creek Resort, a non-Disney resort. Disney later incorporated two cities, Lake Buena Vista and Reedy Creek, to serve "the needs of those residing there".
Through the Reedy Creek Improvement District, Disney could construct almost anything within its borders, including a nuclear power plant (which it never built, opting instead for a more traditional plant that supplements power from outside of the District). The District, as with any municipal corporation, can issue tax-free bonds for internal improvements. The District also has been given exemptions to state zoning and land use laws.
The Disney-controlled town of Celebration, Florida, which was built with many of Walt Disney's original ideas, which have evolved into a form of New Urbanism, was deannexed from Bay Lake and the District to keep its residents from having power over Disney by providing for separate administration of the areas.
A five-member Board of Supervisors governs the District, elected by the landowners of the District. These members, senior employees of The Walt Disney Company, each own undeveloped five-acre (20,235 m) lots of land within the District, the only land in the District not technically controlled by Disney or used for public road purposes. The only residents of the District, also Disney employees or their immediate family members, live in two small communities, one in each city. In the 2000 census, Bay Lake had 23 residents, all in the community on the north shore of Bay Lake, and Lake Buena Vista had 16 residents, all in the community about a mile north of Downtown Disney. These residents elect the officials of the cities, but since they don't actually own any land, they don't have any power in electing the District Board of Supervisors.
Everything publicly run is run by the District; the cities are a formality. The District runs the following services, primarily serving Disney:
Fire protection and emergency medical services: through four fire station: Reedy Creek Emergency Services
Environmental protection. The District collects data and ensures that large portions remain in their natural wetland state.
Building codes and land-use planning
Utilities: wastewater treatment and collection, water reclamation, electric generation and distribution, solid waste disposal, potable water, natural gas distribution, and hot and chilled water distribution, through Reedy Creek Energy Services, which has been merged with the Walt Disney World Company
Roads: Many of the main roads in the District are public roads maintained by the District, while minor roads and roads dead-ending at attractions are private roads maintained by Disney; in addition, state-maintained Interstate 4 and U.S. Highway 192 pass through the District, as does part of the right-of-way of County Road 535 (formerly State Road 535).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District
Re:Consequence? by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 05:07 · Score: 1

Another example of 1% owning 98% of the wealth. Next you'll hear him bitch and moan that he pays most of the taxes on the island and the 1,900 other residents aren't paying their fair share.

better he would invest into JavaFX by Emil_and_the_Detecti · 2012-06-21 01:08 · Score: 1

Looking at JavaFX it would be better he would invest into the future of his company then into some tropical island

--
Software Developer@OpenMeetings project

Re:better he would invest into JavaFX by citizenr · 2012-06-21 01:16 · Score: 1

Looking at JavaFX it would be better he would invest into the future of his company then into some tropical island
Why would he do that? Prosperity of the company has ZERO correlation with his own. If anything he will get another fat bonus and platinum parachute.

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.

Re:Reaction by SJHillman · 2012-06-21 01:14 · Score: 1

Ni'ihua is another of the eight primary islands that are privately owned. It was originally purchased from the Kingdom of Hawai'i in 1864.

Real plan by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 01:23 · Score: 1

And he looks like Hank Scorpio!

All we need is oracle to open up a germ warfare division, though think he'll have to settle for the western seaboard rather than the eastern, if he's based in Hawaii?

The real plan is for him to take over his island, declare independence from Hawaii, copyright his New Hawaii and then sue the real Hawaii for infringement.

Re:Real plan by GIL_Dude · 2012-06-21 01:35 · Score: 4, Informative

With something like this, he owns the land, not the island. That may sound stupid, but the island itself is part of Hawaii. For example - if the governor or legislature decides to build a highway across the island, they simply declare eminent domain and seize the land they need (paying for it at some "going rate"). However if he really owned the island, the government couldn't legally do that. So he is like any other landowner. The only difference is that he owns 98% of the land. All of the normal laws about land use still apply. If they have zoning there, it still applies. If they have laws like California does about maintaining free access to certain parts of beaches and waterways, those still apply. That's a far cry from what most people think of when they say someone owns an island. They generally think of it as the person being basically the sovereign there. And that is not true in this case. Larry isn't the king.
Re:Real plan by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 01:58 · Score: 1

With something like this, he owns the land, not the island. That may sound stupid, but the island itself is part of Hawaii. For example - if the governor or legislature decides to build a highway across the island, they simply declare eminent domain and seize the land they need (paying for it at some "going rate"). However if he really owned the island, the government couldn't legally do that. So he is like any other landowner. The only difference is that he owns 98% of the land. All of the normal laws about land use still apply. If they have zoning there, it still applies. If they have laws like California does about maintaining free access to certain parts of beaches and waterways, those still apply. That's a far cry from what most people think of when they say someone owns an island. They generally think of it as the person being basically the sovereign there. And that is not true in this case. Larry isn't the king.
If all of the landowners in an area vote to secede, they can secede. When you are the only landowner, it is easy to get a majority vote.
Re:Real plan by Jeremi · 2012-06-21 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

If all of the landowners in an area vote to secede, they can secede.
Then again there was that whole Civil War thing, which suggests that not everyone agrees about that principle.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Real plan by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-06-21 03:12 · Score: 4, Funny

If all of the landowners in an area vote to secede, they can secede.
Then again there was that whole Civil War thing, which suggests that not everyone agrees about that principle.
Now wait. Everybody knows the US Civil War had to do with vampires. There's even a new documentary coming out in theaters about it.
Re:Real plan by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 03:25 · Score: 1

No, but if your end goal was to declare independence and create your own little fiefdom, owning and controlling all of the land on an island would be a first start. Owning a MIG-29 to defend your new sovereign territory would be a major part of your plan. Now if you peacefully told the world community "up yours" and stopped paying taxes and did your own thing on your own island, any government who would send in military force to overthrow you could face political backlash.
Re:Real plan by daremonai · 2012-06-21 06:22 · Score: 2

Now wait. Everybody knows the US Civil War had to do with vampires.
Right, and we were talking about Larry Ellison, so ...
Re:Real plan by Algae_94 · 2012-06-21 08:46 · Score: 1

What military force would be needed? Shoot down one MIG-29 (I haven't heard any talk of any weapons on that MIG) and he's defenseless.

I'm pretty sure there would be no political backlash if the state of Hawai'i or the US decided to seize this land back due to nonpayment of taxes.
Re:Real plan by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-06-21 09:39 · Score: 1

With something like this, he owns the land, not the island. That may sound stupid, but the island itself is part of Hawaii. For example - if the governor or legislature decides to build a highway across the island, they simply declare eminent domain and seize the land they need (paying for it at some "going rate"). However if he really owned the island, the government couldn't legally do that. So he is like any other landowner. The only difference is that he owns 98% of the land. All of the normal laws about land use still apply. If they have zoning there, it still applies. If they have laws like California does about maintaining free access to certain parts of beaches and waterways, those still apply. That's a far cry from what most people think of when they say someone owns an island. They generally think of it as the person being basically the sovereign there. And that is not true in this case. Larry isn't the king Yet.
fixed that for yeah

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:Real plan by phantomfive · 2012-06-21 15:10 · Score: 2

You may not be aware of it, but there is a strong secession movement in Hawaii. Check it out. It has had no real effect.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified to.. by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

...prevent stuff like this.

It should be decided by Hawaiians what happens to Hawaii - and I assure you they wouldn't want some megalomaniacal (sp?) asshat with all that power over their lives.

--
Loading...

'All the Trouble in the World' by P. J. O'Rourke by drainbramage · 2012-06-21 01:35 · Score: 1

You are Soooo right, (next to) nothing has changed.
Published in 1995 this book is subtitled 'The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty'.
Way back then he was lamenting that after years of "effort" and tons of money little advancement was being made.
Famine exists in the most fertile areas of the planet, why?
I read it just a couple of years ago and noted that it was a sadly accurate description of today's world.

--
No brain, no pain.

Need I say it ? by JTW · 2012-06-21 01:48 · Score: 1

.. that's no moon.

He's going to plant coffee by rs79 · 2012-06-21 01:51 · Score: 5, Funny

So he can finally make money off Java.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?

He did not choose to follow by Shivetya · 2012-06-21 02:08 · Score: 2

the majority of us do.

The real difference between us and "them" is many of them are never satisfied with where they are in life and forever seek to improve upon it. Let alone except in very amazing cases the majority of these people spend the end of their life with the wealth. The internet revolution did spawn a lot of people with enough youth to enjoy their wealth longer.

See my tag, compare your achievements to your goals, never compare yourself to another. You can set a goal to have/do what they are doing but only compare the results to your personal goal.

Are you unhappy in your life? I think its awesome that there are people who can buy an island. Would I want to? Sure but I know I don't have that "not sure what it is" to try and follow through.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by niado · 2012-06-21 02:19 · Score: 2

...prevent stuff like this.

It should be decided by Hawaiians what happens to Hawaii - and I assure you they wouldn't want some megalomaniacal (sp?) asshat with all that power over their lives.

The island just passed from one megalomaniac billionaire to another. It was previously owned by David Murdock (via his real estate holdings company, Castle & Cooke).

The particular island in question seems to have been almost-wholly owned by super-rich landholders for ~150 years.

Anyone want to share? by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-06-21 02:23 · Score: 1

Any billionaire Slashdot readers, that is. Do guys like this do things like this just to get erections or something. Is it sex? I know a guy who does slightly sub millionaire business with a small string of gas stations, and he gets all the hot lasses he could ever want, so it can't be that. Maybe he's like the Plutonian, and just wants somewhere quiet.

On the other hand, if he's planning a tropical island supervillain base, where do I send my resume?

I'd be a hard working, go getting, self starting project lead of your Advanced Superweapons Division, Mr. Ellison!

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 02:24 · Score: 1

Terrible isn't it? I'm not against wealth, hell I'd love to have some appreciable wealth myself, but the idea of a single person owning the island of Lana'i is crass in the extreme.

Then, the cherry on the cake is that the guy is "super asshole of the century" Larry Ellison...

--
Loading...

6th richest man buys 6th largest island by peter303 · 2012-06-21 02:28 · Score: 1

Maybe when he reaches the top he'll buy the largest.

Re:6th richest man buys 6th largest island by goodmanj · 2012-06-21 06:51 · Score: 1

Maybe when he reaches the top he'll buy the largest.
Greenland is not a good investment. There are some serious liability issues. "Mr. Ellison, over the past 50 years, meltwater runoff from your property has caused flooding in coastal cities worldwide. This makes you financially liable for the reconstruction of New York, Bangkok, Shanghai, ...."

Dormant Volcano by geoffrobinson · 2012-06-21 02:34 · Score: 1

He just wants a lair in a dormant volcano. It's OK. Nothing to see here. Move along.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by PPH · 2012-06-21 02:51 · Score: 2

the idea of a single person owning the island of Lana'i is crass in the extreme.

Why? Its just an extreme instance of private property rights. So at what point do you say that this much property is enough but any more is not right? 141 square miles is big, but its not the largest private land parcel by a long shot.

Now, if you want to raise the issue of how the original land owner, Castle and Cooke, came to possess this island, that's another (interesting) issue.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:At a bargain price by PPH · 2012-06-21 03:00 · Score: 1

Ellison can just telecommute.

And in a weird and ironic twist of fate, he'll have to use Oracle products to do so.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Damn you Ellison... by Lashat · 2012-06-21 03:07 · Score: 1

outbid me again!

--
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by dfenstrate · 2012-06-21 03:08 · Score: 1

It should be decided by Hawaiians what happens to Hawaii - and I assure you they wouldn't want some megalomaniacal (sp?) asshat with all that power over their lives.

These Hawaiins, are they Americans, too? Because in the rest of the United States, we can buy and sell property- even the Native Americans do this!

I don't really see what purpose subdividing Hawaiians out of the rest of America serves, except to stir up animosity and discontent- or perpetuate the same.

--
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.

Personally ... by PPH · 2012-06-21 03:09 · Score: 2

... I welcome our Dharma Initiative overlords.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 03:15 · Score: 1

They're Americans just like Californians, Georgians, New Yorkers (well, maybe not New Yorkers...)

The point of the homestead act is that Hawaiians got f***ed and this helps a tiny tiny bit to make up for that, and it helps keep rich white asshats like Ellison from displacing them all because everyone wants to buy a house there.

If it wasn't for the homestead act everyone in Hawaii would either speak Japanese or be a rich white guy (mass generalization of course, but if you've lived there you'll also know how true this is, lol.)

--
Loading...

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 03:15 · Score: 1

Love your sig by the way, made me laugh :).

--
Loading...

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by phantomfive · 2012-06-21 03:17 · Score: 1

Maybe, but some of the people in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement are just as megalomaniacal as Larry Ellison. Not sure having them decide would be any better.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

What his next island acquisition might look like by demonbug · 2012-06-21 03:20 · Score: 1

Island in question.

After all, I'm pretty sure those Indonesians are violating his copyright.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 03:24 · Score: 1

Why would they be deciding?

Wanting the Hawaiian people and citizens of the state to be able to decide what happens to a large island in the Hawaiian archipelago doesn't mean the decision would be up to people in the sovereignty movement...

--
Loading...

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by the_humeister · 2012-06-21 03:30 · Score: 1

The island is private. 99.9% of the Hawaiians live on the other islands.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 03:39 · Score: 1

So what, an even smaller percentage of Americans live in the state of Alaska, if it happened to be owned by some billionaire asshat through some mistake of history it seems reasonable that it shouldn't be able to be sold to another billionaire asshat - especially when neither of them lived in Alaska?

--
Loading...

So in the end, by HermDog · 2012-06-21 03:44 · Score: 1

Clooney does decide to sell his family's inheritance after all.

--
JADBP

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by phantomfive · 2012-06-21 03:47 · Score: 1

When you say "Hawaiians" that generally means people who are actually Hawaiian, not the immigrants who came later. Besides, why should people on Oahu decide what happens on Lanai?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 04:08 · Score: 1

Actually, when 'I say Hawaiians' that generally means people who live in the state of Hawaii full-time. If you mean true-blood Hawaiians, I lived there for 3 years and never met one. There are tons of people who have ethnic Hawaiian ancestry, but the vast majority of those are hapa haole.

Why should the people on Oahu decide what happens on Lanai? For the same reason that the people in Northern California have a say in what happens to their state on issues that may just be located in Southern California.

I'm sure most Hawaiians (ethnic or otherwise - who aren't billionaires) feel that the island of Lana'i shouldn't be privately controlled.

--
Loading...

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 04:09 · Score: 1

Why not allow the Lana'ians the right to self determination? Of course, they may get evicted by their new landlord before the next election. And then, would that make Ellison the sole resident of Lana'i? I could see it now...sole resident and only registered voter of Lana'i elects himself as mayor, sheriff, and county judge. In his new role he will assess tax against his property, receive tax from his offshore bank account, and use those funds to pay for improvements to Lana'i. Talk about a win-win situation.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by phantomfive · 2012-06-21 04:12 · Score: 1

....feel that the island of Lana'i shouldn't be privately controlled.

Yeah it's kind of weird

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by the_humeister · 2012-06-21 04:16 · Score: 1

So you're saying we should return all the land back to the Native Americans too then?

Island paradise. by westlake · 2012-06-21 04:21 · Score: 1

The native population of Lanai was all but erased by King Kamehameha I in his conquest of the islands. (ca. 1790)

By the 1870s, Walter M. Gibson had acquired most of the land on the island for ranching. In 1922, James Dole, the president of Hawaiian Pineapple Company (later renamed Dole Food Company), bought the entire island of Lanai and developed a large portion of it into the world's largest pineapple plantation.

Lanai

The pineapples are gone. What remains is a tourist trade focused on two luxury resorts and a resident population of about 3200.

Lanai

Out Of Whack by assertation · 2012-06-21 04:21 · Score: 1

It is Larry Ellision's money, he is 100% entitled to do with it what he wants, I am not jealous of him. Having said that there is something out of whack in the world when so many people live in huts, don't have shoes, struggle to eat and in the US are scared to death for the future while this one person gets to own his own island.

I heard on CNN the other day that millionaires make up 0.001 % of the global population.

Like I wrote, it is Ellison's money, he is entitled to do with it whatever he wants. Maybe instead of buying an island he should think about directing that money to help the world.

Re:Out Of Whack by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 06:02 · Score: 2

I think you hit the nail on the head. Most of us who have posted negatively is because of what seems to be a very self-focused decision. I think there are many of us who want to help feed the hungry, house the homeless, and cure the ill, but we also have challenges of our own, children to raise, and even have fears for providing for our own retirement. You cannot help others if you cannot even help yourself. That said, many of us give to charities, tip waitstaff generously, lend tools to neighbors we barely know, etc. If I had billions I know I would have a few more luxuries that I do now, but I would like to think that I would give myself up entirely to hedonism. That said, I don't know Ellison's motives. Carnegie was highly criticized most of his life and only near the end did he become the renowned philanthropist he is remembered as today. Maybe Ellison will build an orphanage and a charity hospital on the island and set up a foundation to fly the world's poor and needy to Hawaii for treatment. But seriously, who am I kidding. Most people once they reach a particular stage of wealth develop a very hardened shell. They know so many around them, even their own friends and family, resent their wealth. Those who act most kindly to them they suspect of being superficial, only wanted to be included in their wills. The more wealth you have the more people ask you for money, and there are plenty who try to put you into a guilt trip or flat out insult you for not giving enough. One of the worse things you can do is give to charity and leave your contact info. The National Do Not Call list makes exceptions for charities to hound you at your personal phone number and by mail. It can be almost as bad as owing a debt collector. And the charities sell your info to other calling lists. So I can see how coming into wealth could lead you to be cold and calloused, but that is a challenge that must be overcome to be a decent human being.
There's also nothing wrong with publicly exposing extravagant spending by the wealthy, especially when behavior is unethical, like buying ivory, hiring child labor, or abusing domestic staff. I don't see anything unethical yet about Ellison's purchase, but it is easy to presume a self-driven motivation given his history of purchasing extravagant play things. There's also nothing wrong with citizens and governments applying social pressure on the wealthy to do more good with their wealth. If most of the rich managed their assets like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates there would probably be much less resentment and animosity like you see in the OWS movements. At some point there can be concern that too small of a minority could gain too much of the wealth, which is a genuine threat to the success and security of a democracy. Corporations should not be allowed to be "too big to fail". Once in such a position it is too easy for them to make their demands and get what they ask for. The American Revolution was fought more against the over-reaching influence of the East India Trading Company than it was a rebellion against UK parliamentary government. Though King George III, the UK monarch, had very little in the way of government authority in the UK, he was a major shareholder of the East India Trading Company, and it was the actions of his company and it's lobbyists that led the US to rebel. Most literature of the time directed anger squarely to King George. The British Prime Minister during the American Revolution was Lord Frederick North, yet most Americans wouldn't recognize the name if they heard it.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 04:33 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but how does my suggestion that the Hawaiian Homestead Act be revised to prevent selling an entire island in the Hawaiian archipelago to a private owner mean that all land should be returned back to "Native Americans"?

--
Loading...

Horny? by nospam007 · 2012-06-21 04:35 · Score: 1

He's just horny.
People from the 99% get a room.
People from the 1% buy a hotel.
People from the 1% of the 1% buy an island with hotels.

Why all the Ellison hate? by darth_borehd · 2012-06-21 04:40 · Score: 1

Really, I'm not trying to provoke a fight. I really don't know why all there so much venom directed towards him. Why do you not like Larry Ellison?

Re:Why all the Ellison hate? by whitroth · 2012-06-21 04:59 · Score: 1

Because they bought Sun, and I've had to deal with Sun/Oracle support on some servers.
Or, as I refer to calling support, self-abuse. ONE BLOODY MONTH to get someone to come on-site to repair a server. That includes two weeks emailing with an engineer in Chile (the country) who kept being put on other projects, so some days I wouldn't get a response to an email for several *days*. Then I got assigned an in-US engineer... WHO ONLY WORKED NIGHTS.
*THREE* managers, three days in a row, "took ownership" when I escalated the mess.
The moral: don't buy Sun. Ever again.
mark
Re:Why all the Ellison hate? by darth_borehd · 2012-07-03 04:16 · Score: 1

Ah, Ok. Thank you for the info.

You missed the hotels by whitroth · 2012-06-21 04:45 · Score: 1

Hey, slashdot kiddies: you missed the story I just saw today, that noted that Bill the Gates rented ->all the hotel space- on the island for his wedding... which implies Larry got the hotels, too.

How 'bout I fly you to my Hawaian island, babe, since you want me to hire you? - Lex Ellison....

mark "he really needs to go bald, and change his last name to Luthor"

Re:Taxes by phriedom · 2012-06-21 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can't give him a tax cut, he already doesn't pay taxes. He doesn't exercise his options, because that would be a taxable event, he just borrows money against them, which isn't taxable income. But if you claim that the rich aren't on a level playing field, then you're engaging class warfare.

--
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by the_humeister · 2012-06-21 04:55 · Score: 1

Because you still haven't given a good reason why the act should be revised or why that island can't remain private. I could easily own large tracts of land in the mid west. Should laws be changed so that I can't do that?

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 05:13 · Score: 1

Maybe the Hawaiians will vote to use eminent domain to make Lana'i the official land fill and sewage treatment facility for the rest of the state.

Close relative lived there by mattr · 2012-06-21 05:14 · Score: 1

Never been myself but from what I remember it is beautiful and dull, with both sea, rain forest and arid mountain climes, and a hotel where Bill Gates got married with a pretty good restaurant in it. That and a lot of pineapples. My very leaky memory says there were 600 people on the island but I could be wrong. IANAHI

Re:Close relative lived there by goodmanj · 2012-06-21 06:46 · Score: 1

IANAHI
I am a Hawaiian (well, a haole who was born and raised there). It's definitely not the prettiest island in the chain: it's fairly low in elevation and sits in the rain shadow of Maui, so it's a bit dry and has fewer cool mountains and valleys and jungles than the other islands. But apparently the price was right...

Re:Ellison is EVIL!! by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 05:16 · Score: 1

... whole world hostage for a ransom.

For 1 millions dollars!!! ....ha ha ha ha!

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 05:20 · Score: 1

Wait - You think that my suggestion that a private individual shouldn't be allowed to own the 6th biggest island in Hawaii is the equivalent of giving all land back to Native Americans because "you still haven't given a good reason why the act should be revised or why that island can't remain private"?

LOL.

--
Loading...

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by the_humeister · 2012-06-21 05:22 · Score: 1

Still waiting...

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 05:26 · Score: 1

Last word...

--
Loading...

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by the_humeister · 2012-06-21 05:29 · Score: 1

Just as I thought: you have no good reason other than "it's an island". Should we also take Ni'ihau away from the Robinsons?

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 05:31 · Score: 1

Why don't you just answer the question I asked you instead of moving goal posts.

Are you this bad at all your "arguments"?

--
Loading...

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by the_humeister · 2012-06-21 05:35 · Score: 1

I already answered your question. You have not answered mine. You're basically asserting that property rights don't matter.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by the_humeister · 2012-06-21 05:38 · Score: 1

They are equivalent in principle, not in the amount of land involved. I take it you are not in favor of property rights. I'll ask again: should we also take Ni'ihau away from the Robinsons?

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 05:50 · Score: 1

Perhaps you're confused and think I'm saying Lana'i should have been taken away from Murdoch - I don't.

I don't think Ni-ihau should be taken away from the Robinsons.
I DO think that the Robinsons should only be able to sell it back to the state of Hawaii at fair market value.

Equivalency in principle is one of the basic logical fallacies, although your suggestion barely makes it that far.

Differences in degree are very important.

Your comparison to the possibility of Ellison not being allowed to buy Lana'i to the returning of all land to Native Americans is a reduction to absurdity.

--
Loading...

Re:Taxes by doggo · 2012-06-21 05:52 · Score: 1

Class warfare? Cool! Let's go. The rich'll have better weapons, but there are more of us, and we can turn a percentage of their army.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by the_humeister · 2012-06-21 06:06 · Score: 1

Perhaps you're confused and think I'm saying Lana'i should have been taken away from Murdoch - I don't.

I don't think Ni-ihau should be taken away from the Robinsons.

I DO think that the Robinsons should only be able to sell it back to the state of Hawaii at fair market value.

You still have not given a good reason why this should be done. Explain why this is okay but buying and selling private islands such as Lana'i or Ni'ihau shouldn't be done.

no it shouldn't by khipu · 2012-06-21 06:13 · Score: 1

Lanai is just an island; there are lots of them for sale in the world, in all price ranges. If you really wanted to, you could probably buy one yourself somewhere, in your price range. If want to deprive Ellison of his island, compete with him. Given how shitty and copycat his company's software is, it shouldn't be too hard.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by goodmanj · 2012-06-21 06:35 · Score: 1

There's a lot of missing the point here. It's not like the residents of Lana'i are now the chattel of some billionaire emperor-king. They still hold title to the land they own, they're still residents of the State of Hawaii. They just have a new neighbor who's got a *lot* more waterfront than they do.

Turning the land over to Hawaiian Homelands would be an option if it were owned by the State of Hawaii, but it isn't. It's owned by Castle and Cooke, a former agribusiness turned real estate corporation: Castle and Cooke is owned by billionaire David Murdock.

If you want to hand over Lana'i to the Hawaiians, you have three options:
* Seize a billion-dollar asset from its legal owner (If you think you can do that without a decade-long legal battle, you don't know billionaire landowners.)
* Spend a billion dollars of state money to buy it from its owner (As if Hawaii could afford that)
* Ask the Hawaiians to pay the billion dollars to buy the property (As if they had the cash).

This is a perfect illustration of why indigenous repatriation is a political and economic nightmare. The people who now hold the land did nothing illegal to acquire it: any crime was committed by people long dead, so it's difficult to justify seizure. The situation's even worse in Hawaii: while many Native Americans had their land seized by force, in the case of Hawaii most of the land was sold to wealthy caucasians by the legitimate Hawaiian monarch at the time, all totally legal (if not very smart). No question the overthrow of the monarchy was illegal, but does that justify forcibly seizing land that was legally purchased prior to the overthrow?

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by goodmanj · 2012-06-21 06:52 · Score: 1

Ellison is not their landlord. Each homeowner on Lana'i owns his little quarter-acre plot of land with his house on it, and has all the property rights any other resident of Hawaii has. They just have a neighbor with a very very big yard.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 06:53 · Score: 1

No you didn't.

I'm also not asserting that property rights don't matter.

If I wanted to be as ridiculously hyperbolic as you're trying to be I'd simply state that "Well, you're basically asserting that anyone should be able to own anything."

--
Loading...

This is great news! by conspirator23 · 2012-06-21 06:57 · Score: 1

The land in this transaction has been privately owned by colonial graybeard corporations that have had a long history in the islands. It's not something residents dwell on much because that relationship is entrenched in the culture and hsitory of the islands.

Now that this property is being transferred to a nouveau carpetbagging haole, there's a great opportunity for all kinds of stupid local political drama. Do not expect this to sail through the PUC approval easily.

Hawai'i state govt. + soveriegnty agitators + IT's most notorious arrogant bully = first class entertainment.

Re:The Hawaiian Homestead act should be modified t by Assmasher · 2012-06-21 06:59 · Score: 1

I already explained it, because it should be incorporated under the Hawaiian Homestead Act. The reasons why it should be are the same reasons why the Act exists in the first place.

It's like your asking me "give me a good reason why Ellison shouldn't be allowed to buy Alaska." Technically he could, there's no legal reason why he couldn't. What could possibly go wrong? LOL.

--
Loading...

Strange concept by ElusiveJoe · 2012-06-21 08:21 · Score: 1

One man "owning" land just because he has more paper and virtual numbers seems very bizarre. Imagine if aliens visited us, how would we explain this money concept to them?

Bond should do a subtle parody of Austin Powers by Marrow · 2012-06-21 09:23 · Score: 1

That would be fun.

The salesman was selling the Brooklyn Bridge too by Marrow · 2012-06-21 09:27 · Score: 1

But Larry was to smart to fall for that! :)

Re:Taxes by Paul+Carver · 2012-06-21 10:21 · Score: 2

Frank Partnoy gives a pretty good explanation in F.I.A.S.C.O Blood in the Water on Wall Street of how the wealthy can use a Total Return Swap to avoid taxes.

Re:Taxes by NewYork · 2012-06-22 17:13 · Score: 1

"Business owners and investors use systems, rather than their time, to generate income." --Robert Kiyosaki

--
Casteism

Re:Austin Powers by Lord+Lode · 2012-06-23 05:47 · Score: 1

Alright, saw its trailer on YouTube, looks silly but good :D

Slashdot Mirror

Larry Ellison Buys His Own Hawaiian Island

280 of 398 comments (clear)