Now those were general figures. I was speaking with emphasis about asia where big-ag is even worse than in the americas.
Yes: you put up a red herring,...
Yeah, pointing out your "facts" are wrong based on evidence from your own citation, that's a read herring.
... avoiding any support for your ludicrous core thesis, namely that reducing or stopping agricultural subsidies in California will substantially increase rain forest destruction.
I've provided ample evidence that big-ag in the developing world is currently engaged in massive rainforest destruction to convert the land to large scale agricultural production. Repeat, already happening. And you think moving 25% of US food production overseas won't increase this.
why massive agricultural subsidies and environmental destruction in California are the best solution to preventing it.
I offer no evidence for such a position since it is not mine. It is merely your delusional misrepresentation of my position.
Your own citation proves you wrong. Your citation has a chart stating that logging is responsible for 10-15% of deforestation and large scale agriculture is responsible for 15-20%.
Now those were general figures. I was speaking with emphasis about asia where big-ag is even worse than in the americas.
Rainforest destruction in Asia follows the same patterns.
No and no. On the usage front large scale agriculture is as big or bigger a threat than lumber/pulp. On the environmental consequences front the peat bases make the carbon release many times larger.
But what relevance do rainforests in Asia have to this discussion anyway? You made the ludicrous assertion that if California stopped subsidizing its farmer, "the rainforests" would get destroyed.
Perhaps if you faced the reality that large scale commercial agriculture in the developing world is destroying rainforests even with California producing you might understand the point that it is not as simple of replacing domestic California suppliers with offshore suppliers of food.
So far, you have provided nothing to support your fear mongering.
You mean other than the evidence of the damage that a single crop, palm oil, can make? Links that include things like:
"Many Indonesian and Malaysian rainforests lie atop peat bogs that store great quantities of carbon. Forest removal and bog drainage to make way for plantations releases this carbon."
"According to a 2007 report published by UNEP, at the rate of deforestation at that time, an estimated 98 percent of Indonesian forest would be destroyed by 2022 due to legal and illegal logging, forest fires and the development of palm oil plantations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Again note, one single crop.
And again, the VICE documentary was well done. it could get you up to speed rather quickly.
I'm old enough to have lived through several decades of dire predictions from environmentalist groups and "various scientists". They all turned out to be utter and complete bullshit.
Really, your choosing to go down a denier-like path? Well that provides some insight into your desire to keep your eyes closed.
Eh, I think by giving up all rights to the Star Wars movies so someone else could continue the story pretty much disproves that theory. I'll give you once doing that he has said he doesn't want to be actively involved in it any more.
I think the refusal to sell the original incarnations of episodes 4-6 are a better indicator. As for giving up the rights, he was paid an enormous sum of money. And when someone pays such an enormous sum of money they no longer want your editorial control. So isn't he actually doing as I indicate again? He can't have any control so he wants nothing to do with it.
Until they break ground I wouldn't be surprised if the locals rezone to land to permit his original studio plan
He's already said he has retired, so he doesn't NEED a new studio any more. To quote: "I'm completely confident that Disney will take good care of the franchise I've built. At the same time, for me, I look at it as I'm investing in Disney, because that's my retirement fund."
Except that he is a storyteller and may have other stories that he wishes to tell outside of the star wars universe. And with modern digital distribution channels he has much more freedom, less need of a major studio to partner with. Unless he is physically ill its hard to image him not wanting a studio to tinker in.
There is a history of philanthropists working hard to amass their fortune and then working hard to distribute it - and once they reach the next phase they really focus on it alone.
The storytelling business is quite different than say the "Standard Oil" business or the "Microsoft Windows" business. Like authors I think filmmakers would continue to work until they no longer can. If the filmmaker has sufficient money, as we have in this case, I would expect indie projects if nothing else. He would have absolute freedom as in student filmmaker days but actually have a distribution channels to the public, no need for studios to distribute and theaters to show.
I am informed on what has happened in recent decades; you obviously are not. The primary causes of deforestation in the South American rain forest...
Please continue to make my point for me and display your ignorance. Do you really think that rain forests are only found in South America. Did multiple references to Asia not provide you with a clue?
Furthermore, your claims that "there are massive environmental consequences for destroying rainforests" are unfounded
Various rain forest centric environmentalist groups think otherwise. As do various scientists. Seriously, google is your friend. Get educated, stop embracing your ignorance. For example you might read up on rain forests that are peat based.
Your idea that California needs to suck dry the aquifers of the US...
Straw man, I said no such thing. California needs to massively reform agriculture and redo its farming infrastructure and equipment related to watering. There is no reason for California to stop being a massive supplier of food to the rest of the US. They just need to be smarter about it.
When one has more money than they can spend on themselves and gives away half that is commendable but lets not pretend its evidence of sainthood. He's a my way or nothing sort of guy. Its highly plausible revenge and a lesson to others are considerations. That the new plan benefits society does not contradict this.
Until they break ground I wouldn't be surprised if the locals rezone to land to permit his original studio plan and the housing development gets relocated elsewhere. This is how the 0.01%'ers operate.
Look at history, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. They spent huge sums on charitable and philanthropic projects too. Its says nothing as to how they conduct their business and private affairs.
That $900K wouldn't be just for the construction of the home itself. That would also represent the home's share of all the other costs of the development. Parks, roads, utilities infrastructure, etc.
Believe me, sub-million houses in the bay area are low income houses.
That $200M (approx $900K per home) is the cost for the entire development (homes, parks, infrastructure, etc). We don't know what the sale price of the homes will be.
I didn't see any detail in TFA, but I assume he'll be paying for the roads, utilities and other infrastructure that goes along with a new development. This stuff doesn't build itself and since it's private land, the local council won't be building it.
I would assume all such infrastructure costs are included in that $200M. That the approximately $900K expense per home would include such things, that its not what is being spent on the home itself.
It's his money, if he wants to offer "standard-quality" housing ( $1M is debatable upper middle class in the Bay Area) to families for affordable rates, what's wrong with that?
Nothing. But lets not pretend he is Jimmy Carter building Habitat for Humanity homes. These are not homes for the poor. The poor could not afford the annual tax payments for these homes. Neither could the working poor, nor lower middle income. Even if sold at a discount to the market, qualifying for loans and affording annual expenses will most likely restrict buyers to the upper regions of "middle income".
Lets also not ignore that he wishes to make an example of those who opposed his earlier development plans.
Silly little boy, I'm saying that the environmental havoc in rainforest regions of the developing world is far far beyond the havoc that takes place in the US
Based on a Vice episode on palm oil, something that isn't even grown in California in significant amounts. Yeah, sure, makes sense. Moving right along...
Try moving along to the link I provided to one of many relevant wiki articles. Try a little googling on your own. That is if you actually want to be informed on what has happened in recent decades.
Its not the long distance transmission lines that are the problem. Its the complication of all the gear to connect that long snaking line of panels to such infrastructure. It just seems so unlikely to be cost effective be construct and maintain such remote/repetitive gear compared to a more centralized industrial solar facility. Hell, not just keep it working but guarding it as well. There will be a lot of panels stolen from such a project.
Yes, and those places would need to burn down their rain forest to convert the land to commercial agriculture.
Commercial agriculture doesn't need to burn down rain forest;
True. Yet, that is what is in fact happening. Again, watch the Vice episode on Palm Oil production to get up to speed. It gives wonderful insight into those around the world desperate to export produce to the US.
Rain forest destruction is mostly due to logging and small farmers.
You seem decades out of date. For example in Indonesia Palm Oil production rivals paper pulp production. The deforestation is done on an industrial scale by large corporates. Small farmers, among many others, are being displaced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
But your reasoning is precious: you're saying that you favor massive crony capitalism and massive environmental destruction in the US because there is a possibility that some other nation may engage in unwise environmental policies. Wonderful. Thanks for clearing that up.
Silly little boy, I'm saying that the environmental havoc in rainforest regions of the developing world is far far beyond the havoc that takes place in the US. When corporations can roll into Yosemite bulldoze the trees, burn the remains and turn the land in large scale industrial production get back to me. That is exactly what is happening in Indonesian national forests for example.
One would need a massive inland industrial solar facility to power a desalinator. Assuming such a facility could be built it might be better put to other uses. A far more practical plan would involve massive updating of water policy and watering techniques in California agriculture. That is where 80% of the water goes.
Or you could just put solar panels on top of your water canals, which would cut their evaporation to 1/10th, and provide power for desalination.
But that would work.
Actually, no, well with respect to solar that is. Power transmission, maintenance and repairs, etc are incredibly complicated by decentralization and distance. Practical solar needs to be concentrated. Talk to engineers rather than activists.
At $200M for 224 homes it sounds like he is building an upper middle class housing development. This does not sound like habitat for humanity-like helping the poor.
One would need a massive inland industrial solar facility to power a desalinator. Assuming such a facility could be built it might be better put to other uses. A far more practical plan would involve massive updating of water policy and watering techniques in California agriculture. That is where 80% of the water goes.
Some (most ?) of that rainwater landing on roofs drains into the soil not the urban drainage system, which for the record is separate from sewage. So leave the roofs alone. Collect water at the urban drainage system.
There are plenty of places that do have the climate and the rain and that would desperately like to export produce to the US, but the US agricultural lobby is keeping that from happening.
Yes, and those places would need to burn down their rain forest to convert the land to commercial agriculture. There are massive environmental consequences for doing so, a unoffset massive carbon release, an ongoing loss of carbon sequestration and oxygen generation, the loss of possible medicinal botanics that have not been evaluated yet (ex. a new family of antibiotics that would be effective against the current resistant strains circulating in our hospitals). Plus these regions tend to be high on corruption and low on regulatory compliance. See the recent Vice episode on Palm Oil production.
The shy wolf we can discount to a degree, as they didn't come near human settlements all that much. Any inquisitive & aggressive wolf that came close would find itself that night's wolfburger. That leaves inquisitive & friendly as the wolf roaming around human settlements.
Its not that simple. There is the possibility of acquiring wolves as a pup, so any personality type could grow up around a group of humans and look at these humans as their pack. It actually seems more likely pups were domesticated, they would be more likely to view the humans as their pack than a wild adult wolf.
Substituting "less dominant" for "shy" and "more dominant" for "aggressive" may be more accurate with respect to personality types. These less dominant wolves were probably the ones who were the easiest to live and interact with, being more inclined to be submissive to a human rather than only being submissive to those humans who physically dominate them. That said, both dominance extremes are entire trainable, will guard the pack, protect children from outsiders, etc.
Personally I suggest 2 usb external hard drives. One in the home media-rated fire/water safe and one in the bank safe deposit box. Swapping out the drives periodically.
Do a backup to the current home drive. Take it to the bank and swap drives. Do a second backup to the drive you brought home from the bank and put it in the home safe. Both drives in both locations are now current.
I end up doing this about 3 or 4 times a year. Had one drive go bad in the last 5 years, just bought a replacement and continued on.
And of course I have an external RAID box for my daily backups and non-fire related disasters.
Agreed, a safe deposit box. But just about any medium will do: cd, dvd, tape, memory stick, hard disk,.....
A copy in the fire safe in addtion to the safe deposit box is even better. (I've see backup media eaten.)
CD/DVDs don't fit in the normal smaller safe deposit box. I use usb external drives, the capacity is a better match for my needs too. I have two such drives. Backup one drive, go to bank and swap drives, back up the other one. So I have one at home for convenience and one in the bank for disaster.
A former coworker who worked in a Soviet client state during that period told me that the distribution of printers was controlled because it was a "printing press" and could be used to create anti-government propaganda for distribution. That there were government offices where you could take your data to be printed if you were unable to justify why you needed a printer yourself.
You are confusing two different things. Shooting a fleeing felon and shooting a fleeing violent felon. A supreme court ruling said no more shooting of a mere fleeing felon, that it was necessary for them to be considered violent. If considered violent it was not required that they be armed at that moment. Only that they represent a reasonable and likely and immediate threat. That depends entirely on the history and/or recent actions of the specific felon.
There is another thing that comes into play, department policy. Department policy may impose further restrictions not required by law. Often policies designed to avoid lawsuits. As it was explained to me, violating department policy is not illegal, you won't be prosecuted if your actions were legal, but it will still get you fired and sued.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes: you put up a red herring, ...
Yeah, pointing out your "facts" are wrong based on evidence from your own citation, that's a read herring.
... avoiding any support for your ludicrous core thesis, namely that reducing or stopping agricultural subsidies in California will substantially increase rain forest destruction.
I've provided ample evidence that big-ag in the developing world is currently engaged in massive rainforest destruction to convert the land to large scale agricultural production. Repeat, already happening. And you think moving 25% of US food production overseas won't increase this.
why massive agricultural subsidies and environmental destruction in California are the best solution to preventing it.
I offer no evidence for such a position since it is not mine. It is merely your delusional misrepresentation of my position.
There are tons of sources you can find that show that your statement is bullshit, for example: http://rainforests.mongabay.co...
Your own citation proves you wrong. Your citation has a chart stating that logging is responsible for 10-15% of deforestation and large scale agriculture is responsible for 15-20%.
Now those were general figures. I was speaking with emphasis about asia where big-ag is even worse than in the americas.
Rainforest destruction in Asia follows the same patterns.
No and no. On the usage front large scale agriculture is as big or bigger a threat than lumber/pulp. On the environmental consequences front the peat bases make the carbon release many times larger.
But what relevance do rainforests in Asia have to this discussion anyway? You made the ludicrous assertion that if California stopped subsidizing its farmer, "the rainforests" would get destroyed.
Perhaps if you faced the reality that large scale commercial agriculture in the developing world is destroying rainforests even with California producing you might understand the point that it is not as simple of replacing domestic California suppliers with offshore suppliers of food.
So far, you have provided nothing to support your fear mongering.
You mean other than the evidence of the damage that a single crop, palm oil, can make? Links that include things like:
"Many Indonesian and Malaysian rainforests lie atop peat bogs that store great quantities of carbon. Forest removal and bog drainage to make way for plantations releases this carbon."
"According to a 2007 report published by UNEP, at the rate of deforestation at that time, an estimated 98 percent of Indonesian forest would be destroyed by 2022 due to legal and illegal logging, forest fires and the development of palm oil plantations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Again note, one single crop.
And again, the VICE documentary was well done. it could get you up to speed rather quickly.
I'm old enough to have lived through several decades of dire predictions from environmentalist groups and "various scientists". They all turned out to be utter and complete bullshit.
Really, your choosing to go down a denier-like path? Well that provides some insight into your desire to keep your eyes closed.
He's a my way or nothing sort of guy.
Eh, I think by giving up all rights to the Star Wars movies so someone else could continue the story pretty much disproves that theory. I'll give you once doing that he has said he doesn't want to be actively involved in it any more.
I think the refusal to sell the original incarnations of episodes 4-6 are a better indicator. As for giving up the rights, he was paid an enormous sum of money. And when someone pays such an enormous sum of money they no longer want your editorial control. So isn't he actually doing as I indicate again? He can't have any control so he wants nothing to do with it.
Until they break ground I wouldn't be surprised if the locals rezone to land to permit his original studio plan
He's already said he has retired, so he doesn't NEED a new studio any more. To quote: "I'm completely confident that Disney will take good care of the franchise I've built. At the same time, for me, I look at it as I'm investing in Disney, because that's my retirement fund."
Except that he is a storyteller and may have other stories that he wishes to tell outside of the star wars universe. And with modern digital distribution channels he has much more freedom, less need of a major studio to partner with. Unless he is physically ill its hard to image him not wanting a studio to tinker in.
There is a history of philanthropists working hard to amass their fortune and then working hard to distribute it - and once they reach the next phase they really focus on it alone.
The storytelling business is quite different than say the "Standard Oil" business or the "Microsoft Windows" business. Like authors I think filmmakers would continue to work until they no longer can. If the filmmaker has sufficient money, as we have in this case, I would expect indie projects if nothing else. He would have absolute freedom as in student filmmaker days but actually have a distribution channels to the public, no need for studios to distribute and theaters to show.
I am informed on what has happened in recent decades; you obviously are not. The primary causes of deforestation in the South American rain forest ...
Please continue to make my point for me and display your ignorance. Do you really think that rain forests are only found in South America. Did multiple references to Asia not provide you with a clue?
Furthermore, your claims that "there are massive environmental consequences for destroying rainforests" are unfounded
Various rain forest centric environmentalist groups think otherwise. As do various scientists. Seriously, google is your friend. Get educated, stop embracing your ignorance. For example you might read up on rain forests that are peat based.
Your idea that California needs to suck dry the aquifers of the US ...
Straw man, I said no such thing. California needs to massively reform agriculture and redo its farming infrastructure and equipment related to watering. There is no reason for California to stop being a massive supplier of food to the rest of the US. They just need to be smarter about it.
When one has more money than they can spend on themselves and gives away half that is commendable but lets not pretend its evidence of sainthood. He's a my way or nothing sort of guy. Its highly plausible revenge and a lesson to others are considerations. That the new plan benefits society does not contradict this.
Until they break ground I wouldn't be surprised if the locals rezone to land to permit his original studio plan and the housing development gets relocated elsewhere. This is how the 0.01%'ers operate.
Look at history, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. They spent huge sums on charitable and philanthropic projects too. Its says nothing as to how they conduct their business and private affairs.
That $900K wouldn't be just for the construction of the home itself. That would also represent the home's share of all the other costs of the development. Parks, roads, utilities infrastructure, etc.
Believe me, sub-million houses in the bay area are low income houses.
That $200M (approx $900K per home) is the cost for the entire development (homes, parks, infrastructure, etc). We don't know what the sale price of the homes will be.
I didn't see any detail in TFA, but I assume he'll be paying for the roads, utilities and other infrastructure that goes along with a new development. This stuff doesn't build itself and since it's private land, the local council won't be building it.
I would assume all such infrastructure costs are included in that $200M. That the approximately $900K expense per home would include such things, that its not what is being spent on the home itself.
It's his money, if he wants to offer "standard-quality" housing ( $1M is debatable upper middle class in the Bay Area) to families for affordable rates, what's wrong with that?
Nothing. But lets not pretend he is Jimmy Carter building Habitat for Humanity homes. These are not homes for the poor. The poor could not afford the annual tax payments for these homes. Neither could the working poor, nor lower middle income. Even if sold at a discount to the market, qualifying for loans and affording annual expenses will most likely restrict buyers to the upper regions of "middle income".
Lets also not ignore that he wishes to make an example of those who opposed his earlier development plans.
Based on a Vice episode on palm oil, something that isn't even grown in California in significant amounts. Yeah, sure, makes sense. Moving right along...
Try moving along to the link I provided to one of many relevant wiki articles. Try a little googling on your own. That is if you actually want to be informed on what has happened in recent decades.
Its not the long distance transmission lines that are the problem. Its the complication of all the gear to connect that long snaking line of panels to such infrastructure. It just seems so unlikely to be cost effective be construct and maintain such remote/repetitive gear compared to a more centralized industrial solar facility. Hell, not just keep it working but guarding it as well. There will be a lot of panels stolen from such a project.
Commercial agriculture doesn't need to burn down rain forest;
True. Yet, that is what is in fact happening. Again, watch the Vice episode on Palm Oil production to get up to speed. It gives wonderful insight into those around the world desperate to export produce to the US.
Rain forest destruction is mostly due to logging and small farmers.
You seem decades out of date. For example in Indonesia Palm Oil production rivals paper pulp production. The deforestation is done on an industrial scale by large corporates. Small farmers, among many others, are being displaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
But your reasoning is precious: you're saying that you favor massive crony capitalism and massive environmental destruction in the US because there is a possibility that some other nation may engage in unwise environmental policies. Wonderful. Thanks for clearing that up.
Silly little boy, I'm saying that the environmental havoc in rainforest regions of the developing world is far far beyond the havoc that takes place in the US. When corporations can roll into Yosemite bulldoze the trees, burn the remains and turn the land in large scale industrial production get back to me. That is exactly what is happening in Indonesian national forests for example.
One would need a massive inland industrial solar facility to power a desalinator. Assuming such a facility could be built it might be better put to other uses. A far more practical plan would involve massive updating of water policy and watering techniques in California agriculture. That is where 80% of the water goes.
Or you could just put solar panels on top of your water canals, which would cut their evaporation to 1/10th, and provide power for desalination.
But that would work.
Actually, no, well with respect to solar that is. Power transmission, maintenance and repairs, etc are incredibly complicated by decentralization and distance. Practical solar needs to be concentrated. Talk to engineers rather than activists.
At $200M for 224 homes it sounds like he is building an upper middle class housing development. This does not sound like habitat for humanity-like helping the poor.
For that neighborhood it is low income, its relative. Upper middle class in the neighborhood of the elite 0.1%'ers.
One would need a massive inland industrial solar facility to power a desalinator. Assuming such a facility could be built it might be better put to other uses. A far more practical plan would involve massive updating of water policy and watering techniques in California agriculture. That is where 80% of the water goes.
Some (most ?) of that rainwater landing on roofs drains into the soil not the urban drainage system, which for the record is separate from sewage. So leave the roofs alone. Collect water at the urban drainage system.
There are plenty of places that do have the climate and the rain and that would desperately like to export produce to the US, but the US agricultural lobby is keeping that from happening.
Yes, and those places would need to burn down their rain forest to convert the land to commercial agriculture. There are massive environmental consequences for doing so, a unoffset massive carbon release, an ongoing loss of carbon sequestration and oxygen generation, the loss of possible medicinal botanics that have not been evaluated yet (ex. a new family of antibiotics that would be effective against the current resistant strains circulating in our hospitals). Plus these regions tend to be high on corruption and low on regulatory compliance. See the recent Vice episode on Palm Oil production.
The shy wolf we can discount to a degree, as they didn't come near human settlements all that much. Any inquisitive & aggressive wolf that came close would find itself that night's wolfburger. That leaves inquisitive & friendly as the wolf roaming around human settlements.
Its not that simple. There is the possibility of acquiring wolves as a pup, so any personality type could grow up around a group of humans and look at these humans as their pack. It actually seems more likely pups were domesticated, they would be more likely to view the humans as their pack than a wild adult wolf.
Substituting "less dominant" for "shy" and "more dominant" for "aggressive" may be more accurate with respect to personality types. These less dominant wolves were probably the ones who were the easiest to live and interact with, being more inclined to be submissive to a human rather than only being submissive to those humans who physically dominate them. That said, both dominance extremes are entire trainable, will guard the pack, protect children from outsiders, etc.
Personally I suggest 2 usb external hard drives. One in the home media-rated fire/water safe and one in the bank safe deposit box. Swapping out the drives periodically.
Do a backup to the current home drive. Take it to the bank and swap drives. Do a second backup to the drive you brought home from the bank and put it in the home safe. Both drives in both locations are now current.
I end up doing this about 3 or 4 times a year. Had one drive go bad in the last 5 years, just bought a replacement and continued on.
And of course I have an external RAID box for my daily backups and non-fire related disasters.
Agreed, a safe deposit box. But just about any medium will do: cd, dvd, tape, memory stick, hard disk, .....
A copy in the fire safe in addtion to the safe deposit box is even better. (I've see backup media eaten.)
CD/DVDs don't fit in the normal smaller safe deposit box. I use usb external drives, the capacity is a better match for my needs too. I have two such drives. Backup one drive, go to bank and swap drives, back up the other one. So I have one at home for convenience and one in the bank for disaster.
A former coworker who worked in a Soviet client state during that period told me that the distribution of printers was controlled because it was a "printing press" and could be used to create anti-government propaganda for distribution. That there were government offices where you could take your data to be printed if you were unable to justify why you needed a printer yourself.
You are confusing two different things. Shooting a fleeing felon and shooting a fleeing violent felon. A supreme court ruling said no more shooting of a mere fleeing felon, that it was necessary for them to be considered violent. If considered violent it was not required that they be armed at that moment. Only that they represent a reasonable and likely and immediate threat. That depends entirely on the history and/or recent actions of the specific felon.
There is another thing that comes into play, department policy. Department policy may impose further restrictions not required by law. Often policies designed to avoid lawsuits. As it was explained to me, violating department policy is not illegal, you won't be prosecuted if your actions were legal, but it will still get you fired and sued.
In short my principal disagreement is with any suggestion of a belief in superiority. I believe that to be a quite erroneous misrepresentation.
I also reject the "on the job training" metaphor, another misrepresentation of things that has erroneous connotations attached.