Slashdot Mirror
Larry Ellison Buys His Own Hawaiian Island
First time accepted submitter nrozema writes "Oracle co-founder and billionaire Larry Ellison is buying the Hawaiian island of Lana'i, the sixth-largest island in the U.S. archipelago. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie confirmed in a written statement that the current landowner filed a transfer application with the state's Public Utilities commission Wednesday to sell its 98 percent share of the 141-square-mile island to Ellison."
....tsunamis could be a good thing.
Larry Ellison also owns a MIG fighter jet. This cannot be good.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Old story here
the 141-square-mile island
I can't comprehend that size. Could we have the area in asteroid passing distances? Earth radiuses works too.
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
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.
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.
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:"
"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?
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.
...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...
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.
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.
So... shooting trespassers is ok if we eat them afterwards?
So he can finally make money off Java.
Need Mercedes parts ?
No sandy beach?
I read the internet for the articles.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.