onoway

Re future water shortages: A good deal of the problem rests in the way water is handled. The Tar sands in Alberta are using a HUGE amount of water, much of which is pretty clearly contaminated when it is returned to the Athabasca (that is, water not sent to the ponds which are admittedly so toxic that any bird landing in them will die.) The drilling rigs always used to use water to drill with and I have spoken to several people who had their water suddenly start to taste or/and sometimes smell awful or even flow some weird color when the drilling rigs hit an underground stream, frequently miles away from their land. Industrial agriculture is wasting water with the emphasis on constant cultivation of monocrops and mostly bare soil except for said crops, and contaminating the runoff through chemicals which are not entirely used by the crops and which ends up dissolved in the water. The toxic stuff industry produces needs to be dealt with on a governmental level as 99% of companies will always get away with as much as they can in the interests of the bottom line. The Tar sands companies insist they are not contaminating the water although every indication is that they are through a plethora of otherwise rare cancers and other medical conditions which now abound downstream when they never did before. Locals who have lived in the area for generations now warn visitors not to eat the fish anymore, and even the moose and other large creatures are showing anomolies in their livers and other organs. So. Agricultural runoff contaminating waterways can be dealt with in two ways, (aside from just not using toxic chemicals in the first place!) 1) change the method of production to a more sustainable one which captures and holds the water that falls instead of having it run off and/or evaporate, and 2)do remediation on the edges of fields to prevent the chemicals in the runoff from reaching creeks,rivers and lakes. Both are proven technologies; the first is very actively being developed in Australia and other places through permaculture methods. Geoff Lawton's Greening the Desert was the flagship video for this, there are any number of people doing this successfully all over the world now, much of it in very arid lands such as Jordan. Agricutural remediation has been proven to work, special strains of mushrooms in a small barrier of mycelium impregnated straw have been proven to sop up the chemicals out of the runoff water. This technique has also been used to clean river water in South America when oil companies simply decamped and left all their toxic stuff beside or in the rivers that the locals depended on for water. That cleanup was done by a (mostly?) volunteer group out of the States and i'm not sure they were able financially to complete it, but they cleaned up a lot. Obviously it is not an overnight fix but we didn't cause the problems overnight either. Results have sometimes actually been astonishingly fast; results such as Sepp Holtzer re-establishing in only one year, using no concrete or other such materials, a lake in Portugal which had been dry for years. It would be a whole lot faster and cheaper than trying to supply everyone with desalinated water, no question. We aren't destined to run out of water IF we change the way we handle it. Wasting and poisoning it is hardly the way to go if we are worried about future supplies. Seems to me it would also be a hell of a lot cheaper to start treating it with respect rather than trying to build desalination plants everywhere and then piping the water all over the place. I have read that up to 90% of the old aquifers in the States..the ones in subterranean crannies which do not easily replenish, are nearing depletion. And there was a dust storm reminiscent of the thirties in Arizona last year. More than time to change our ways.

Interesting talk. Learned a lot

Is there going to be any other option when all is said and done? What I know about economics would fit on the head of a very small pin but it would appear that virtually every country in the world including the US is extended way beyond its capacity to pay and the only other way out is borrowing or printing yet more money. Even printing money costs the government yet more interest so... Somehow this seems as though it is merely delaying the inevitable..certainly would be for an individual. I have doubts that everyone would sit passively while their governments raid their savings accounts to pay the IMF or whomever. Especially when that won't even begin to solve the problem. I also have doubts that the majority of people will sit passively while their standard of living shrinks to that of serfs serving the will of the IMF and world banks. It's certainly possible that I am missing something and have been watching the "wrong " videos from the "wrong" experts but.. Looks from here as though the longer they put it off the worse it will be when it finally and inevitably happens.

A fun reminder of songs not thought about in a long time. May I suggest One Piece At A Time by Johnny Cash. I don't know if there was ever much of a song specifically about it but one of the most famous cars from back then was the '69 Dodge Charger called General Lee from Dukes of Hazzard TV series. Apparently it sold on EBay in January this year for $9.9 million.

Well it wasn't meant to make people giggle but... now I giggle too when I read it lol Honest, this is just about bridge! As far as time zones go, it'll depend on who wants to play, I imagine? I am in Canada but if a bunch of people in compatible times zones want to play then they can get together whether or not it works for me. It would be fun to have a couple of groups going BUT... Not a lot of people have been racing to join so unless more people express interest in the next couple of weeks I'll have to assume that most people are happier with Main than I am and give it up.

I am waiting, without a lot of hope, for some search engine which will not try to filter results on whatever they have decided my interests to be. The internet is much much less interesting now that lovely random things are prevented from popping up as the search engines insist of giving you 15 sites with precisely the same information as the first one you looked at, and usually with some sort of commercial association. Listened to a talk the other day about how a guy asked two of his friends, one a liberal sort and the other a conservative, to google a phrase about Egypt. The results for exactly the same phrase were entirely different,depending on the person's assumed interests and values, with virtually no cross pollination at all. The joy and fascination which used to rest in serendipity have been chopped off at the knees by this "your results have been personalized" business and I hate it.

Apparently it is just that message as I got yours and was able to reply to you. Thanks.

I got a notification that someone had "started a conversation with" me today and I got the message but cannot find any way to reply. The "you cannot reply" button was greyed out but there's nowhere obvious to type anything, or to know exactly where anything I do find a way to type, will go. If anywhere. It would be nice to have a "reply to this message" button so as to clarify things, but I suppose the number of private conversations going on makes this a very very low priority.

well the other thing it would be nice to avoid is the constant coming and going of players. Just had three people in a row sit then leave immediately for tourneys or when their contract looked unlikely to make. so now there are two of us at least :) If people want to leave me a message on BBO or here I'll be happy to set it up once we have enough people to start with anyway.I was thinking that we could set it up that anyone could join and then as the group settled anyone who was clearly a beginner for example, could be filtered by the group...since that would be outside the parameters we had set up..

Who would like to be in a group of advanced who wanted to play regularly so as to bypass the business of random partners at least part of the time? I'd like it to be made up of people who are at least mostly advanced. They should be open to discussion of bidding/play but not dogmatic or critical, the idea being to have fun AND improve. Perhaps we might eventually find an expert mentor to come and nudge us along. I would ask that people be honest about their ability..no fake experts please, and nobody on a god complex about their own bidding or play. A sense of humor essential but wanting to play good bridge is basic. How many people would be ideal is a good question, it would be good eventually to have enough to make sure we don't just get to know each other's weaknesses and habits as happens in rubber bridge. If uneven number people can always rotate in and out of a table. I'd prefer any system ok as long as at least two people were competent in it so that we would learn how to play/defend against stuff we might not otherwise meet. Ideally at least some would play 2/1! Regular partnerships might be ok too, only caveat would be to see if discussion of specific partnership agreements would be holding up the game too much for the other players. Anyone interested? Thoughts?

Thank you Gerardo. An interesting and sad talk, he is right on but what government is going to stop the headlong race to maintain constant economic growth? And, that's apparently fueled by encouraging people to feel/believe as though happiness and success are gained through having "stuff". Doubt that's going to change anytime soon if ever.

A few voices crying in the wilderness.. and then you have people like Patrick Watson who is trying to save the whales (and indeed trying to prevent Japanese fishing boats from ILLEGALLY harvesting them according to Australian law) who has now apparently earned a label as a pirate by the US justice system and placed on Interpol most wanted list for doing so

too hard to follow, :( the english translation is covered by some bright yellow (other translation? Portugese? spanish? and it soon becomes very frustrating to try to figure out what is being said. Is there an english transcript somewhere?

Stompin' Tom Connors country/folk singer/songwriter possibly not well known outside Canada but an icon here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stompin%27_Tom_Connors

seems to me we are doing that already with GMO experiments. I ran across another TED talk which in spite of a perhaps unfortunate beginning, has some very interesting thoughts to put forward. This guy doesn't think people should be designing robots as such, but letting them evolve. He has had some startling results working with this premise. It would be interesting to see the stage he is at now as this talk was posted in 2007.

I seem to be watching far too many TED Talks lately but this one seems pertinent to this discussion..

It is sobering to see just what sort of control a very few chemical companies now exert on all food production world wide. https://www.msu.edu/...eedindustry.pdf Lately many of these have also bought their way into the "organic" label. As a result of their financial clout and connections, a number of ingredients not formerly accepted as organic have now slid into the approved category as big ag trundles across the world. I was startled to find Silk, Cascadian Farm and Horizon Organic all included in the list now associated with Monsanto. Grow your own, or know your farmer, or you are out of luck knowing what in the world you are really eating. Another sobering thought..Nitrogen fertilizer is essential for GM crops. Last year farmers in my area were saying the cost had risen over 100% from three years previously. It is manufactured using natural gas so it is not only nonrenewable resource based but competing directly with such things as home heating use. The price is unlikely to go down and what do you suppose that will mean for food prices? Of course if subsidies of taxpayer money continues, those costs can be hidden for a while longer at least...

It seems sad and scary that they appear to have treated the whole thing as a sort of joke. It appears to have been far from a balanced and reasoned decision if it was not restricted to this case in any way, and it will have unhappy results for the world in the long run. OTOH if it was established that the guy originally HAD signed a contract with Monsanto then he was an idiot to try to get away with this. What a great test case for Monsanto to establish infringement. I have (justifiably, they have been caught being involved with lots of different shenanigans,) such a deep suspicion of Monsanto it would not surprise me if they had an agreement with the guy to forego any fines if the verdict went their way; it might have been much more difficult if the fellow really had been innocent of intention.

According to his own statement he slept with his balcony doors wide open, which seems a bit strange for someone paranoid about home invasion. Also, although he had a permit for one gun, the one he used apparently he didn't have a permit for. The thought that came to my mind

There was a similar case in Alberta, Canada, a few years ago. The shop owner had been robbed several times within a couple of years and each time the bigger and better steel door and other precautions were breached and the owner threatened. Each time he gave in in fear for his life. He was having problems getting insurance in spite of following all the insurance company's demands and said felt he was being abandoned by both the police, who never recovered anything much less found the guys responsible, and the insurance company who are of course not required to provide insurance to anyone if they choose not to. Finally he had had enough and got a gun, and sure enough the thieves showed up again and at least one of them got shot. The police pressed charges against the shop owner but there was such public outrage that they dropped the charges. I believe those thieves had guns, however, so that is a slightly different story, although being potentially attacked by a couple of hefty guys with knives doesn't seem to be much less terrifying and potentially fatal in that situation.

You are assuming he 1) wanted to get RoundUp Ready seeds which doesn't seem to be established as the sack was only partly that sort of seed,and b) he knew what he was getting. The two types are indistinguishable from just looking at them. Because cost seems to have been a key element it would seem probable that he bought a sack of sweepings, so to speak, as that would be the cheapest. It's seed or grain which has been spilled during handling over the day or week and swept up and bagged. Clearly the elevator operator didn't bother to keep the different batches separate. It's difficult to see why the farmer should be accused of trying to steal Monsanto seeds when he had no input/control/knowledge of what was in the sack except that they be soybeans. He had no agreement with Monsanto and if anyone was responsible for Round Up Ready seed being in the sack surely it is the elevator operators. It also seems bizarre to have any law holding a buyer to use whatever he gets, even second hand, only within the normal expectations of the original seller. People are always doing odd and creative things with the stuff they get. When you see what people are doing with recycled stuff for example...I guess those kids who are making musical instruments out of discarded vehicle parts and kitchen whisks and things should be hunted down and punished, or at least be forced to pay the original manufacturer for them. My lord, first you have people with guns wandering around the schools and now you can't do anything with something you buy that the original manufacturer would disapprove of, even if you are buying it second or third hand. This seems pretty far removed from the sort of free society that made the U.S. a world leader.

I like it. Come to think of it, people who didn't make their own guns way back when probably DID make much of their own ammunition. Some people still do. If the gun advocates are so gung ho on having guns, let them have anything they can have now but they have to make all of their own ammo. That would thin the ranks considerably. Why does this remind me of The Merchant Of Venice?

What an odd post. We no longer allow plumbers to use lead pipes for potable water even though lead is much cheaper than copper or plastic because we now know that lead pipes leach lead and the human system doesn't handle lead well. Millions of people lived with them for years before we understood that but we still are now not allowed to use them because they are an unnecessary health risk. We no longer allow parents to feed their babies laudenum to make them sleep because we now know that that is not good for babies, in spite of the fact that millions of babies coped with it. We have some fairly compelling evidence that over the long term GMO foods may not be good for us, and that they may well be directly connected to cancers and other health issues. So many of us think that that should mean at least people should have the option of not eating GMO foods until impartial, independent studies are done to show that these things which are turning up are not related to GMO foods. Monsanto is using half truths and indeed lies to scare people into the totally unjustifiable position that the world will starve unless everyone switches to GMO seeds. Large scale switch to GMO seeds in India has shown GMO seeds to be paving the way to exactly the opposite result. South Africa also had a huge crop failure of thousands of acres of GMO corn, anywhere from a third (monsanto's estimate) to half (independant observer's estimate) of the expected crop. Monsanto said that the only reason was the labs had not specified a sufficient amount of commercial fertilizer to be used. Commercial fertilizer is of course based on non renewable resources as well as having all sorts of other costs such as shipping, extra trips spraying the land etc. It is also leading to lakes and rivers dying through agricultural runoff and massively increased water usage. This is not in any way sustainable agriculture. I wouldn't have thought to label Monsanto as evil, but totally amoral, indifferent to truth and void of social responsibility. A person with the same attributes might be labelled a psychopath. Perhaps that makes them evil, it isn't a term I normally use, since I'm not particularly religious.

Monsanto thinks that nobody should grow anything other than their seed. B-) There is a long history of Monsanto seed turning up where it was not supposed to be, including in Mexico where GMO corn of any kind was expressly forbidden, and in Starlink corn in the US which was not approved for human consumption but turned up in products intended for human consumption anyway. GMO canola seed was the basis of basically bankrupting the farmer in Canada who was sued by Monsanto for growing it without permission when they trespassed on his land and found SOME GMO canola in with his field of normal canola. GMO canola is now on the verge of being labelled a noxious weed in some states because it is threatening native plants by crowding them out, and is crossing with wild plants to produce superweeds. If the farmer KNOWINGLY bought RoundUp ready seed then that is another kettle of fish as I doubt any commercial farmer isn't aware of Monsanto's contracts and business practices. In that event things might get a bit murky for the farmer. However, to my understanding, the sack of seed 1)wasn't entirely either RoundUp seed or normal seed but a mixture of both and 2)was sold as a bag of normal soybeans. RoundUp ready seed is not visibly different from normal seed so how was the farmer to know? Why is Monsanto taking the farmer to court and not the elevator operators who sold a bag of seed which was contaminated no matter what the farmer thought he was buying? If someone is allergic to peanuts and they buy something which has peanuts in it that they have no way of knowing are there, the people who breed peanuts are hardly in a position to sue him for eating their peanuts, even though they could prove that he did so when he should not have. That's why I see this court action by Monsanto as predatory.