All those centrally planned economies that have historically been so prosperous give the lie to the very idea that free markets are the best way to go.
Like the centrally planned U.S. economy during WWII, which defeated Hitler and put a final end to the Great Depression? Government spending exceeded 50% of GDP during WWII, that's a planned economy. (It's very interesting to look at that table and notice the trend in government spending by GDP in Republican vs. Democratic administrations. So much for the "Republicans favor smaller government!" myth.)
Look, I'm generally a free-marketer. (Not a capitalist, mind you, but a free marketer.) But 1) the presence of economic propaganda - regardless of its correctness - on a test that's purportedly about civic government, stinks; and 2) the question of centrally planned economies versus free markets is hardly black and white. For example, calling the USSR's planned economy a "failure" when it took a nation devastated by the sequence of a civil war, WWI, and WWII, and made it the first spacefaring nation and a major world power, is overly simplistic.
I have to say that I think they may have gotten confused, what with high school teaching one semester of economics and one semester of government these days. Otherwise, why would I need to define "profit"?
Because this "test" is a bit of right-wing propaganda, which seeks to conflate conservative doctrine with actual facts about our government. (Or is there an answer to "Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government's centralized planning because:" or "International trade and specialization most often lead to which of the following?" hidden somewhere in the Constitution that I've missed?)
I think that if the government is allowed to wiretap us, then the same laws should make it legal (Freedom of Information Act or something like that) for us to wiretap them.
Sure - all communication made by government officials in the course of their business should be available to the citizens. Even "classified" information should be embargoed only for a limited time.
Obama, however, won't be a government official for two more months. And calls home to talk about what kind of dog they're getting the kids, or what's for dinner, or what kinky new sex toys Michelle found on-line, are their business, not ours.
Anyone with a smattering of economics education would understand that these are markets with many participants, free exchange of information, and clear price signaling.
But the assertation was not that these are markets with many participants, free exchange of information, and clear price signaling. The claim was that government was not involved in them.
1) if you pitch your tent, you are trespassing. Do you want to do away with private property?
Property is defined by government force - if (and only if) you can get the state to protect your right to it, you own it. And this is an initial use of force; when I lay down on that golf course to take a nap, I'm not the one using force, the cops who drag me away are.
If one calls for "getting the government out of the economy" or for "no initial use of force", one is calling for the abolition of private property. Do you want to do away with private property? Or, are you willing to have the government initiate the use of force in order to enforce property rights?
Properly understood, property rights are not primary; they are a means of securing other rights. With no private property, no private choices are possible. On the other hand, when control of property is concentrated, then those without property cannot make private choices. Some degree of democratic control of certain types of property is needed to maximize the choices, the freedoms, of all.
The swoosh is a copyrighted trademark
You are speaking nonsense. A copyright and a trademark are completely different things. Both are artificial government creations, so the government is definitely involved there.
If you doubt a free and unregulated market in fishing tackle, please visit www.cabelas.com, www.llbean.comand report back on the limited offerings, fixed prices, and government control of the offerings.
I've already given you a citation of one state's regulation of fishing tackle.
The CPSC has issued recalls on fishing poles and worm probes. There is definitely government involvement in the market for fishing gear.
Your claim that the lack of limited offerings and fixed prices implies no regulation, rests on incorrect assumptions about the results of government intervention.
I fish with 8 to 16 ounce lead sinkers here in Washington.
Please stop polluting the environment we all share.
Women's clothing? You can even make this argument with a straight face? You need to increase your meds dosage.
Ad hominem attacks don't change the fact that the government interventions of copyright and trademark play a huge role in the fashion industry.
What, the government's not involved in golf courses? Who drags me away if I want to set my tent up on the green at the 12th hole? All land claims rest on government issued deeds.
What, the government's not involved in sporting goods? So I can put a swoosh logo on my new line of baseball bats and not be dragged into court, right? And that lawn darts ban was just a dream?
What, the government's not involved in fishing tackle? So I can drop all the lead sinkers I want into ponds and rivers and poison wildlife?
Some of the more intelligent people are coming up with cons. People of lower intelligence fall for them. No magic here.
Smart people fall for cons too. I knew a guy back in graduate school, finishing up his PhD in CS, smart fellow. He fell for the Three Card Monte the first time he went to New York City.
Course if you say "men are taller than women" without adding the words "on average" your statement will be incorrect but probably won't get your head bitten off as much as stating any other statistical difference between the genders without including the magic words "on average".
Saying "men are inherently taller then women" without adding "on average" will not impact the career of a WNBA basketball player. It's also a highly objective question.
Saying "men are inherently better suited to software development than women" without adding "on average" spreads a prejudice that will indeed impact the careers of female coders. It's also a somewhat subjective question: what makes a good programmer?
Note that I am not neither asserting nor denying that men are on average better coders than women. I have no data either way. I'm just remarking on the difference between assertations about gender differences that have a strong socioeconomic impact and those that don't.
Humans are different. Some women are the same as some men except for the Y chromosome and the plumbing. Some women are different from some other women.
"Men are X, women are Y" can be true only in a statistical sense. To treat an individual human being as a statistic, to say "You are a man so I'm going to assume X and not Y", is a serious error. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and makes it hard for women to be X and men to be Y, even when it's natural for them as individuals.
feminism seems to think "Equal"="same".
Mainstream feminism thinks that you ought not to assume X or Y based on gender, but should treat people as individuals.
(There is, of course, "gender feminism", which thinks that everything wrong in the world is due to men. You'll find it in some corners of academia, but it's not nearly as widespread as opponents to mainstream feminism would have us believe.)
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
The gay part was tangential to the point. Later on Anton marries, not because being gay is bad, but because he was lonely and their is a strong theme of "Community" throughout the books. By marrying, Anton once again joins the community at large.
So in this fictional universe of Card's, you can't be part of the community if you're homosexual, except if you deny it and live as a breeder?
And you don't see the inherent bigotry in that?
I've gotten the impression that he disapproves of homosexuality for moral reasons, but doesn't hate or even disapprove of those who are homosexual at all. A catholic friend of mine put it best "Hate the Sin, NOT the Sinner"
A sin is an error, a mistake, a failure to hit the mark. One's inborn preferences regarding love and sex are not a mistake.
You can't disapprove of something that that is a part of people's fundamental nature without disapproving of the people who are that thing. "It's not that I hate people with red hair, I just hate red hair. So does my god - in his great love and mercy, he condemns redheads to eternal torment. Here's a bottle of hair dye. Come back when you've hidden your gross deformity. Love you!"
Card is a bigot and a loon who wrote one really good book a long time ago. His bigotry seems to have be absorbed from his church; in most cases I'd have some hope for someone in that situation, that they might grow out of it. But Card's support for George W. Bush demonstrates that he's just too clueless. Anyone who calls W "the most moderate, thoughtful, rational and responsible president since Dwight D. Eisenhower" is not merely ignorant, but is trying really really hard to stay delusional.
I disapprove of bigotry, mental laziness, and delusional thinking because unlike homosexuality, they are choices that can be changed. If Card were merely stupid, mentally retarded, brain damaged, he'd have my pity, but not my disapproval. Instead it appears that he has a reasonably sound mind - he just chooses not to use it.
If I, as a developer, spend several years developing WidgetDesigner, and then I sell a copy of WidgetDesigner to you for $50, is it fair to me if you go and give every other person in the world a copy of my software at no charge?
Is it fair for you to point a gun at me to prevent me from giving a copy of the software to a friend?
I can't sell any other copies, because everyone already has a free copy - I will have then earned $50 for several man-years of work.
You had a bad business model.
Meanwhile, other developers were writing bespoke, custom tailored software. They took advantage of Free Software packages to provide their clients with high-quality products, and contributed the fixes and changes they made to those packages back to the community to see them integrated into future releases.
They were making $50 an hour where you made $50 over several years. They had a good business model.
You noted yourself that physical product are not like software products. So why are you trying to sell software like you sell soap?
There is plenty wrong with copyright. As it exists now, it retards, rather than promotes, progress in the useful arts and sciences.
there's nothing wrong with contracts
That depends entirely on the specifics on the contract. A contract can be ruled unconscionable.
Like it or not, to run a program you must make a copy of it; the EULA gives you a license to copy the program from a hard disk to memory to run.. sorry, that's the precident.
Your guitar analogy is akin to Dell telling you what software you can run on your new computer.
GP's argument was that because something was the "product of [his] effort", he has the right to put any conditions he likes on the sale of it. So, yes, his claim and mine counterexample are both like Dell telling you what software you can run on your new computer - ridiculous.
A better analogy would be you buying a book of guitar tabs and not being allowed to share that book with a friend.
The problem with software is that you can share that one program with more than just a couple of friends; you can share it with the entire world.
I'm sorry that you see sharing as a problem.
And if everyone can get the same software from you for free, there's no need to pay the developer.
You won't have to pay the developer for work he's already done, no. Guess what? Most COTS developers don't get paid via royalties anyway. And most developers aren't working on COTS products, but on individualized, bespoke systems.
If you want new software, you'll have to hire a developer. There'd still be plenty of programming jobs in a Free Software world.
Not one that'd be great in your living room. The only reason to get one has always been the uniqueness of it, not it's specs.
Its specs make it attractive not for the living room, but for the camp site. I took mine to Starwood and Free Spirit Gathering and Playa Del Fuego, and it was great - easy to recharge off of a 12 volt battery, capable of picking up wifi from one campground's office, resistant to the elements. Hooked it up to my cell phone as a modem, and I could handle any work emergencies that popped up.
For some of us who want a simple, rugged, portable box, it fits the bill nicely. Load XFCE on it rather than (shudder) Sugar, though.
And you, as a user, have the freedom to use someone else's software if you don't like my terms. If you chose to buy my software, you chose to accept my terms.. what is wrong with that?
Point is that as a seller, you don't get to put any terms you like on the transaction. You're relying on government force to make those terms meaningful, and the government should only enforce terms that are of benefit to society.
He gets to decide though how many cords said guitar has, and whether or not it's a bass guitar or not.
And the author of a piece of software gets to decide whether it's written in C++ or Java. So? And if I restring the guitar, take strings off or string it with piano wire or fishing line, the luthier can't prosecute me for violating some "Guitar User License Agreement".
(FYI: those wires on a guitar are called "strings" in English. "Chords" - note the spelling - are musical constructions, combinations of notes.)
There's also no threat of you making unlimited exact clones of the guitar you bought and putting the original manufactor out of business.
Irrelevant. The argument offered was that the fact that something is "the product of [your] effort" means that you have unlimited power to determine how it is marketed and sold. You don't. If the luthier tells me "I don't want you playing no blues or jazz, any of that there negro music on that thing, now, ya hear?", no court will smack me down for playing some Leadbelly.
If sharing software will put a programmer out of business, that programmer is operating under a bad business model. Too bad.
It's necessary for there to be an economic incentive to develop software. Nobody is going to donate millions of man-hours to write the software for the F-22 out of the goodness of their heart. Nobody is going to donate the man-hours to write the software for my insurance agency or hospital.
Why are so many people incapable of understanding that YOU CAN BE PAID TO WRITE FREE SOFTWARE?
The federal government had better be getting the source code for the F-22, and if the procurement rules are at all sensible it has the right to copy and modify it, even to distribute it. (Even though it has no intention of doing so for the interesting bits!)
Most code written for government projects could be put under the GPL - meaning also that it could include GPL'd code.
The types of industry specific software you mention are also great opportunities for people to be paid to write free software. Let's say you and I both work for insurance companies.
Insurance companies need accounting software. The companies could:
have each of us write completely bespoke software, thus re-inventing the wheel and getting buggy software;
purchase a COTS product, thus subjecting themselves to all the horrors and risks of vendor lock-in, and pay us to integrate it
join the community around a Free Software project, have us each (for pay) integrate that project into our respective company's systems and have us (for pay) work to improve our company's copy of that Free Software project. Once improvements are made, it's most efficient to contribute fixes back to the project so that they are integrated into future releases, rather than having us re-do our work on every release.
Economic incentives for developers, safer business practices for companies, and freedom for all! Free Software FTW!
He talks about freedom, but wants to dictate how I, as a developer, can market or sell the product of my effort.
You talk about freedom, but want to dictate how I, as a user, can use, share, and modify software.
The fact that something is the product of your effort doesn't grant you sovereignty over that thing's use. The luthier doesn't get to determine what songs I play on the guitar he made.
Given just how much land available that's already perfectly suited to growing vegetables and grains, I find it hard to believe that it is either economically viable or environmentally sensible to convert significant quantities of unsuitable land.
The assertation was made that there's not enough of such land, that not all arable land is well-suited to growing crops. While that seems inherently contradictory to me, the point of this example was to show that was is possible and practical in terms of crop production even from land that's not ideal.
It was, according to the link, economically viable enough to make him among the top 15% by income of organic farms in California.
Where are you going to get fertiliser from? Petrochemicals?...You *need* grazing animals for it to work.
The whole concept is to use composting, mulching, and crop combinations to reduce or eliminate the need for fertilizer.
We certainly have no shortage of humanure, though keeping contaminants out of the sewage stream remains a challenge. (Back in the day, when my grandfather started his garden he was able to get a load of sludge from the sewage treatment plant. He dug up the ground, buried the sludge, and ended up with very fertile soil.)
And one can keep chickens, ducks, goats, or sheep around and not slaughter them (or confine them in small cages, or de-beak them, or otherwise treat them cruelly). After all, you need human workers on a farm, but that doesn't mean they end up in the cookpot!
This far north being Scotland. Further north than most of Alaska
RTFMap:-). Scotland is below 60 degrees N, Alaska almost entirely above it.
I know you guys grow plenty of barley in Scotland - thank goodness!
Sure, the specific area where you are might not be suitable for barely, or for grains in general. But that's not because it's too far north. Permaculture vegetable production in your area might involve kale, potatoes, or fruit.
Yes, I know there was that guy who turned a certain amount of barren clay into good arable land, but at what expense?
At low enough price to be in the top 15% in income in organic farms in California, apparently.
Not to mention that it was probably reasonably flat to begin with - what if it was all hilly moorland?
He says half his area was terraced on a 35% slope. And people grow rice in mountainous regions of Japan. Stuff grows on hills.
With agriculture, as with so many other things, you need to cut your coat to suit your cloth.
Sure. That's the travesty of the World Bank/IMF way of doing things in developing nations - "throw out your native crops and grow rice for export.
But there is, definitely, enough "cloth" to feed the world on a vegetarian diet.
So growing vegetables actually *does* use about as much water as farming livestock then?
It depends on the vegetable. Grains - which form the bulk of most traditional vegetable-based diets - use much less water. Fruits, at least citrus, much less. Leaf vegetables, squashes, etc., I don't know, that source didn't say.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the centrally planned U.S. economy during WWII, which defeated Hitler and put a final end to the Great Depression? Government spending exceeded 50% of GDP during WWII, that's a planned economy. (It's very interesting to look at that table and notice the trend in government spending by GDP in Republican vs. Democratic administrations. So much for the "Republicans favor smaller government!" myth.)
Look, I'm generally a free-marketer. (Not a capitalist, mind you, but a free marketer.) But 1) the presence of economic propaganda - regardless of its correctness - on a test that's purportedly about civic government, stinks; and 2) the question of centrally planned economies versus free markets is hardly black and white. For example, calling the USSR's planned economy a "failure" when it took a nation devastated by the sequence of a civil war, WWI, and WWII, and made it the first spacefaring nation and a major world power, is overly simplistic.
Because this "test" is a bit of right-wing propaganda, which seeks to conflate conservative doctrine with actual facts about our government. (Or is there an answer to "Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government's centralized planning because:" or "International trade and specialization most often lead to which of the following?" hidden somewhere in the Constitution that I've missed?)
The "Intercollegiate Studies Institute" evolved out of William Bennett's Madison Center for Educational Affairs and Irving Kristol's Institute for Educational Affairs.
Sure - all communication made by government officials in the course of their business should be available to the citizens. Even "classified" information should be embargoed only for a limited time.
Obama, however, won't be a government official for two more months. And calls home to talk about what kind of dog they're getting the kids, or what's for dinner, or what kinky new sex toys Michelle found on-line, are their business, not ours.
But the assertation was not that these are markets with many participants, free exchange of information, and clear price signaling. The claim was that government was not involved in them.
Property is defined by government force - if (and only if) you can get the state to protect your right to it, you own it. And this is an initial use of force; when I lay down on that golf course to take a nap, I'm not the one using force, the cops who drag me away are.
If one calls for "getting the government out of the economy" or for "no initial use of force", one is calling for the abolition of private property. Do you want to do away with private property? Or, are you willing to have the government initiate the use of force in order to enforce property rights?
Properly understood, property rights are not primary; they are a means of securing other rights. With no private property, no private choices are possible. On the other hand, when control of property is concentrated, then those without property cannot make private choices. Some degree of democratic control of certain types of property is needed to maximize the choices, the freedoms, of all.
You are speaking nonsense. A copyright and a trademark are completely different things. Both are artificial government creations, so the government is definitely involved there.
I've already given you a citation of one state's regulation of fishing tackle.
The CPSC has issued recalls on fishing poles and worm probes. There is definitely government involvement in the market for fishing gear.
Your claim that the lack of limited offerings and fixed prices implies no regulation, rests on incorrect assumptions about the results of government intervention.
Please stop polluting the environment we all share.
Ad hominem attacks don't change the fact that the government interventions of copyright and trademark play a huge role in the fashion industry.
What, the government's not involved in golf courses? Who drags me away if I want to set my tent up on the green at the 12th hole? All land claims rest on government issued deeds.
What, the government's not involved in sporting goods? So I can put a swoosh logo on my new line of baseball bats and not be dragged into court, right? And that lawn darts ban was just a dream?
What, the government's not involved in fishing tackle? So I can drop all the lead sinkers I want into ponds and rivers and poison wildlife?
What, the government's not involved in women's clothing? So I have no worry of being sued for putting decorations on a purse similar to someone else's?
Sir, I'll need to see your citation that Catholics invented the term "soul", please.
The "new age" texts we've had for centuries. Whoa. Dude. Accidental koan.
As far as consciousness not being "of this world", my consciousness is the world that I experience.
Smart people fall for cons too. I knew a guy back in graduate school, finishing up his PhD in CS, smart fellow. He fell for the Three Card Monte the first time he went to New York City.
Smart != street smart.
Saying "men are inherently taller then women" without adding "on average" will not impact the career of a WNBA basketball player. It's also a highly objective question.
Saying "men are inherently better suited to software development than women" without adding "on average" spreads a prejudice that will indeed impact the careers of female coders. It's also a somewhat subjective question: what makes a good programmer?
Note that I am not neither asserting nor denying that men are on average better coders than women. I have no data either way. I'm just remarking on the difference between assertations about gender differences that have a strong socioeconomic impact and those that don't.
Humans are different. Some women are the same as some men except for the Y chromosome and the plumbing. Some women are different from some other women.
"Men are X, women are Y" can be true only in a statistical sense. To treat an individual human being as a statistic, to say "You are a man so I'm going to assume X and not Y", is a serious error. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and makes it hard for women to be X and men to be Y, even when it's natural for them as individuals.
Mainstream feminism thinks that you ought not to assume X or Y based on gender, but should treat people as individuals.
(There is, of course, "gender feminism", which thinks that everything wrong in the world is due to men. You'll find it in some corners of academia, but it's not nearly as widespread as opponents to mainstream feminism would have us believe.)
So in this fictional universe of Card's, you can't be part of the community if you're homosexual, except if you deny it and live as a breeder?
And you don't see the inherent bigotry in that?
Rubbish. Card makes this same claim that he "condemns the sin but loves the sinner", but it's thin cover for bigotry. Homosexuality is no more a sin than is preferring rum to tequila.
A sin is an error, a mistake, a failure to hit the mark. One's inborn preferences regarding love and sex are not a mistake.
You can't disapprove of something that that is a part of people's fundamental nature without disapproving of the people who are that thing. "It's not that I hate people with red hair, I just hate red hair. So does my god - in his great love and mercy, he condemns redheads to eternal torment. Here's a bottle of hair dye. Come back when you've hidden your gross deformity. Love you!"
Card is a bigot and a loon who wrote one really good book a long time ago. His bigotry seems to have be absorbed from his church; in most cases I'd have some hope for someone in that situation, that they might grow out of it. But Card's support for George W. Bush demonstrates that he's just too clueless. Anyone who calls W "the most moderate, thoughtful, rational and responsible president since Dwight D. Eisenhower" is not merely ignorant, but is trying really really hard to stay delusional.
I disapprove of bigotry, mental laziness, and delusional thinking because unlike homosexuality, they are choices that can be changed. If Card were merely stupid, mentally retarded, brain damaged, he'd have my pity, but not my disapproval. Instead it appears that he has a reasonably sound mind - he just chooses not to use it.
Is it fair for you to point a gun at me to prevent me from giving a copy of the software to a friend?
You had a bad business model.
Meanwhile, other developers were writing bespoke, custom tailored software. They took advantage of Free Software packages to provide their clients with high-quality products, and contributed the fixes and changes they made to those packages back to the community to see them integrated into future releases.
They were making $50 an hour where you made $50 over several years. They had a good business model.
You noted yourself that physical product are not like software products. So why are you trying to sell software like you sell soap?
Sure will. HOAs are an abomination.
There is plenty wrong with copyright. As it exists now, it retards, rather than promotes, progress in the useful arts and sciences.
That depends entirely on the specifics on the contract. A contract can be ruled unconscionable.
Sorry, but you're wrong: "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided...that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine."
Uh, you have heard of Thoeora, right?
GP's argument was that because something was the "product of [his] effort", he has the right to put any conditions he likes on the sale of it. So, yes, his claim and mine counterexample are both like Dell telling you what software you can run on your new computer - ridiculous.
And, as I've been arguing for a decade now, sharing music is an essential part of the development and progression of the art.
I'm sorry that you see sharing as a problem.
You won't have to pay the developer for work he's already done, no. Guess what? Most COTS developers don't get paid via royalties anyway. And most developers aren't working on COTS products, but on individualized, bespoke systems.
If you want new software, you'll have to hire a developer. There'd still be plenty of programming jobs in a Free Software world.
Its specs make it attractive not for the living room, but for the camp site. I took mine to Starwood and Free Spirit Gathering and Playa Del Fuego, and it was great - easy to recharge off of a 12 volt battery, capable of picking up wifi from one campground's office, resistant to the elements. Hooked it up to my cell phone as a modem, and I could handle any work emergencies that popped up.
For some of us who want a simple, rugged, portable box, it fits the bill nicely. Load XFCE on it rather than (shudder) Sugar, though.
Point is that as a seller, you don't get to put any terms you like on the transaction. You're relying on government force to make those terms meaningful, and the government should only enforce terms that are of benefit to society.
And the author of a piece of software gets to decide whether it's written in C++ or Java. So? And if I restring the guitar, take strings off or string it with piano wire or fishing line, the luthier can't prosecute me for violating some "Guitar User License Agreement".
(FYI: those wires on a guitar are called "strings" in English. "Chords" - note the spelling - are musical constructions, combinations of notes.)
Irrelevant. The argument offered was that the fact that something is "the product of [your] effort" means that you have unlimited power to determine how it is marketed and sold. You don't. If the luthier tells me "I don't want you playing no blues or jazz, any of that there negro music on that thing, now, ya hear?", no court will smack me down for playing some Leadbelly.
If sharing software will put a programmer out of business, that programmer is operating under a bad business model. Too bad.
Why are so many people incapable of understanding that YOU CAN BE PAID TO WRITE FREE SOFTWARE?
The federal government had better be getting the source code for the F-22, and if the procurement rules are at all sensible it has the right to copy and modify it, even to distribute it. (Even though it has no intention of doing so for the interesting bits!)
Most code written for government projects could be put under the GPL - meaning also that it could include GPL'd code.
The types of industry specific software you mention are also great opportunities for people to be paid to write free software. Let's say you and I both work for insurance companies.
Insurance companies need accounting software. The companies could:
Economic incentives for developers, safer business practices for companies, and freedom for all! Free Software FTW!
You talk about freedom, but want to dictate how I, as a user, can use, share, and modify software.
The fact that something is the product of your effort doesn't grant you sovereignty over that thing's use. The luthier doesn't get to determine what songs I play on the guitar he made.
The assertation was made that there's not enough of such land, that not all arable land is well-suited to growing crops. While that seems inherently contradictory to me, the point of this example was to show that was is possible and practical in terms of crop production even from land that's not ideal.
It was, according to the link, economically viable enough to make him among the top 15% by income of organic farms in California.
Trademarks protect the use of an identifying mark in commerce. It does not prevent you from taking or selling photographs of objects bearing such a mark, except in some exceptional cases where some sort of endorsement or association is implied.
And you can't use a copyright law - the DCMA - to enforce a trademark. Completely different animals.
The whole concept is to use composting, mulching, and crop combinations to reduce or eliminate the need for fertilizer.
We certainly have no shortage of humanure, though keeping contaminants out of the sewage stream remains a challenge. (Back in the day, when my grandfather started his garden he was able to get a load of sludge from the sewage treatment plant. He dug up the ground, buried the sludge, and ended up with very fertile soil.)
And one can keep chickens, ducks, goats, or sheep around and not slaughter them (or confine them in small cages, or de-beak them, or otherwise treat them cruelly). After all, you need human workers on a farm, but that doesn't mean they end up in the cookpot!
Don't confuse riddles with jokes.
RTFMap :-). Scotland is below 60 degrees N, Alaska almost entirely above it.
I know you guys grow plenty of barley in Scotland - thank goodness!
Sure, the specific area where you are might not be suitable for barely, or for grains in general. But that's not because it's too far north. Permaculture vegetable production in your area might involve kale, potatoes, or fruit.
At low enough price to be in the top 15% in income in organic farms in California, apparently.
He says half his area was terraced on a 35% slope. And people grow rice in mountainous regions of Japan. Stuff grows on hills.
Sure. That's the travesty of the World Bank/IMF way of doing things in developing nations - "throw out your native crops and grow rice for export.
But there is, definitely, enough "cloth" to feed the world on a vegetarian diet.
"This far north" being where? Farmers can get over 2.5 tons of wheat per hectare in the northern half of Alberta - that's about the same as the U.S. average yield. Barley and oats are sown on thousands of acres in Alaska. Seems you have to be pretty far north to not be able to grow grain.
Try his book, The One Straw Revolution, if you can find it. It is available on-line as a PDF.
It depends on the vegetable. Grains - which form the bulk of most traditional vegetable-based diets - use much less water. Fruits, at least citrus, much less. Leaf vegetables, squashes, etc., I don't know, that source didn't say.