*promote RIP Gene Wilder

OOps sorry. Killed that one and moved it over here. http://videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-THE-PILOT-Gene-Roddenberry-Biopic-1

Gene Roddenberry was kind of a bad ass.

Dunno but if you leave Marmite out long enough it'll develop its own genes.

Nothing about marmite? Or is that directly in the genes?

That comment would ring a lot truer if you hadn't just called a bunch of people you don't know "fat slobs" in a "gene pool of wimpiness and sarcasm".

Yeah just sit in your house and get fatter slobs.

Gene pool of wimpiness and sarcasm.

Face it some people like to challenge themselves and are equipped to do so.

Also known as the "Gene Pool of Stupid".

OK, yes. That's correct. I have no personal experience in grain farming (except corn, but grown to eat on the cob, so that's also different).
I still say the same applies to OVER use of chemical fertilizers and the environment, but perhaps that's much less of an issue with grain crops.

As I said above, I admit that new crop genes paired with new chemicals could produce greater yields on more damaged land. Roundup/roundup ready crops are a prime example of this, as they artificially eliminate competition for the remaining nutrients and root space, leaving it all for the crop. That doesn't eliminate the damage though, it only hides it from the farmer. When they stop working (and they will eventually), we'll have serious trouble.

There are hundreds/thousands of farms in my area. I don't think a single one is >1000 acres. Hundreds of families support themselves relatively well on the income they make from the smaller farms. True, you probably can't send 3 children to college on that money, but hardly anyone could these days...that's around $150k a year for 4+ years JUST for their base education. Be real, mom and pop store owners can't afford that either.

EDIT: Oh, I see, the AVERAGE is about 1000 acres....but that includes the 1000000 acre industrial farms. What is the average acreage for a "family farm" (by which I mean it's owned by the single family that lives and works on the land and supports itself on the product of that work)?

EDIT: Actually, there are thousands of 'family farms' in my area that produce more than enough product to send 3 kids to college on >5 acres with no industrialization at all (and many many more that do over use chemicals and have destroyed many of our watersheds with their toxic runoff)....I live in Humboldt county, it's easy to make a ton of money on a tiny 'farm' here...for now.

My idea of what's sustainable or good practice is based on long term personal (>33 years personally growing vegetables using both chemical and natural fertilizers) and multiple multi generational familial experiences (both mine and neighbors) AND all literature on the subject which is unequivocal that over use of chemical fertilizers damages the land and watersheds and requires more and more chemicals and excess water every year to mitigate that compounding soil damage, or leaving the field fallow long enough to wash it clean of excess salts (which then end up in the watershed).
Fertilizers carry salts. With excessive use, salts build up. Salt buildup harms crops and beneficial bacteria. Bacteria are necessary for healthy plant growth. If you and yours don't know that and act accordingly, it's astonishing your family can still farm the same land at all, you've been incredibly lucky. You either don't over use the normal salt laden chemical fertilizers on that land, or you're lying. There's simply no other option.

EDIT: It is possible that you are getting better yields for numerous reasons...."better" crop genes (both larger crops and more resistant to insects, drought, disease, etc.), better/more fertilizers, better/more pesticides, and seeing as you're in Canada, climate change. Warmer weather would absolutely give YOU better yields of almost any crop, that's not true farther South. Better yields does not mean you aren't destroying the land, BTW. It is possible to use chemicals and insane amounts of water to grow on land that's "dead", but it takes more and more chemicals and water to do, and those chemicals don't evaporate into nothing, they run off.
If you are getting better yields every year using the same methods and amounts of additives and growing the exact same crops, I'm incredibly interested in how you pull that off.

Twice what my family eats...but yes, a small subsistence farm could also be called a garden, just as my orchard of 30+ apple trees could be called a back yard. That doesn't make it produce any less.

Not true. Some, (very few) still grow grain using old school methods, some even using old school grains (thank goodness, we will have them to thank for still having grains when/if the Monsanto grains fail). It's not even 99%, but it is 'most'.

Industrial farming describes a methodology, not a size, not an incorporation. The fact that a single person or two might farm thousands of acres means they are using the same industrial methods, because non industrial farming takes more people.

Clearly, natural farming takes more effort, and costs the consumer more, but does not require major ecological mitigation, so if you count ALL costs involved, it's not that much more expensive. You act like it's impossible, but it's how ALL farms operated prior to the mid century. If it wouldn't scale, please explain how it worked for thousands of years before industrial agriculture started, or how it continues to work in other countries.

It may not work for WEAK shallow root grain crops that can't compete for water and nutrients, like the one's Monsanto sells. It worked fine for thousands of years with more natural, long root crops that also held the soil together.

I didn't hear that in the video, but fine. Don't just repeat known BS and lies then. Roundup is only a pesticide in that it allows GMO crops that have modified genes to be pesticides themselves to grow without competition....and that doesn't count, and I think you know it.

No, I'm not trying to say the video is perfectly honest, it's clearly highly biased...I didn't say that. They do HINT that Monsanto's actions are "evil", but extrapolating and exaggerating from their already somewhat overboard, clearly biased but careful statements to make them insanely more overboard and biased is not helpful to anyone.

You mean this characterization..."You know, on account of them being evil and wanting to see millions of people dead because it gives their corporate heads joy. Just like it wanted to invent pesticides as a means of convincing the public to poison each other for giggles, and getting the state department to experiment on people."
Um...yeah....that's completely insane. I already explained why it's wrong in so many ways, and defy you to show where they said anything resembling that. You have to listen with quite a biased ear to hear that in between the lines of what they actually said, and one must be incredibly, clinically paranoid to believe any public company does things just to be evil rather than purely for profit. The evil they do is an accepted result of their business methods, not the intent of their business, and I think the video was fairly clear about that.

You may stand by that, as I stand by my summation of your comment...that it's insane and exaggerated hyperbole that ridicules an extreme paranoid stance no one actually took.

I saw the live action one sometime back ...Gene Wilder played the Fox.

I read the book but never got it.
Perhaps I should give the book a try again.

I am glad Netflix decided to run it.

Your video, Bob's Burgers: Gene dresses up as Bob., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think I've figured it out - they're trying to power the world with green energy by putting copper coil onto Gene Roddenberry's casket and each time it slows down they make another one of these Star Trek movies?

This is Star Trek via name only. I'm disgusted.

I'm thinking you probably don't understand Star Trek. The TNG movies were no work of art, but they were still decent Star Trek movies. Now none of the Star Trek movies, not even the first 6 (with the exception of the Motion Picture, and arguably The Voyage Home) truly represent what Star Trek is with relation to their respective TV shows, as they choose to focus more on space action and conflict, but all of them stuck with the core premise that Gene Roddenberry laid out: To explore the human condition and show how mankind can better itself.
The TNG movies certainly could have done better, and while First Contact was pretty darn good (especially if you consider how it relates to the Borg "trilogy") I've come to see Generations and even Insurrection in a more forgiving light. Heck, as painful as it is to admit, even Nemesis had a lot of potential, judging by the scenes that were cut. (But that's being REALLY generous.)
However, none of the new movies come anywhere near what the old movies were. Yes, Star Trek 2009 was actually a better movie than several of the previous movies, but otherwise, all of them, even what I'm seeing in this new trailer, lack the vision laid down by Roddenberry. And also, it's very hard to appreciate a Star Trek movie that doesn't have its core points laid down in a TV show, as it really is best suited for the TV medium. Without that character and setting development, you can really only get by with nostalgia and action.

Now some of the fan works, on the other hand, seem to do their source material better justice. I avoided them for quite some time, but after hearing about some of the good ones, I've started to look into them and have been pleasantly surprised. They are certainly rough around the edges, but they do seem to stick to Roddenberry's vision a lot better. Heck, that Axanar thing looks pretty compelling, if they ever get to complete it.