I've stalked this vid for over a year now. I doubted interest here as all I got were blank looks before.

Yeah, but it's like when Donnie Yen as Yip Man trains all of the factory workers to fight over the course of months; yeah you can take one, two, maybe three or four peasant workers down, but then you get clubbed on the head by like 7 other women with bo staffs. Meanwhile, female Donnie Yen -- Michelle Yeoh is stalking your every move and you don't even see as she breaks every rib in your body with quick successive punches.

Man, so spooky. That place would be a really awesome setting for a video game. Can you imagine stalking through that wilderness, dodging mutants and bandits beneath those clear skies? I can almost hear Pripyat calling me.

(seriously, I think I recognized some scenes from the games in those videos... isn't that bit in the beginning with the cranes identical to the starting map of "Call of Pripyat"?)

Good questions. My family operates farms for wheat and corn, and I've been involved in that process, so I can take a stab at answering the last bit:

Corn stalks get quite tall -- 6 feet / 2 meters or so. Each stalk usually has 1 or 2 ears of corn. On our farm, the experience I had suggests that each plant needs quite a lot of healthy leaves for Photosynthesis as well as quite a lot of available ground water. Irrigated corn often produces 2-3 times as many bushels per acre as compared to "dryland" / non-irrigated corn.

So the issues I can see potentially clashing between corn production and vertical farming are:

1) You'd have a greater space requirement for layers of corn since you'd need probably 8-10 feet per layer, as compared to what looks like 2-3 feet per layer for leafy vegetables in the video. Approximately one story per layer wouldn't allow for the massive footprint savings like in leafy plants without getting extremely tall, which would be expensive for water pumping etc.

2) Corn root systems are pretty deep to support a tall and relatively bulky stalk. Getting that to bite into a thin layer of fabric / recycled plastic to provide structural support for the plant would be difficult. I think you'd need to have a thicker bottom layer *and* to manually place further support lines on the stalks as the plants grow, which would get very labor intensive and therefore expensive.

3) The vertical nature of a corn stalk suggests that the overhead motion of the sun might be pretty important for getting light exposure onto all of the leaves. Fixed overhead lights might mean that the top leaves get plenty of light but the ones lower on the stalk would be shaded by those above and get nothing -- which isn't a problem if the sun progresses through low angles at sunrise/set to overhead at noon throughout a day. So you might have to have lighting that hits from all sides to account for that with corn, which would again add expense.

4) To maximize the output, corn needs a LOT of water. Pumping that up the vertical expanse to get lots of levels could easily get problematic. Corn will grow without optimal / abundant watering, and their misting system would likely be more efficient than irrigating to add ground water, but the main benefit of vertical farming seems to be high output in a small land footprint on the ground. So without LOTS of water, you'd be limiting that benefit.


So basically, my guess is that vertical farms are a fantastic idea for squat, spread out plants like lettuce, but a lot of the advantages disappear when you're talking about something tall like corn. I could easily be wrong about any/all of that though.

Really, we have her because she's just trouble. An elderly couple had her as a small kitten, and she would stalk and viciously attack them, nearly toppling the man repeatedly, and they had to get rid of her for safety.
I didn't help by play fighting with her as a kitten either.
Yeah, there's no stopping the offending behavior at this point. I've tried for years to no avail. She also seems to think I'm nuts and I just go off on her for no reason....clearly attacking me is long standing accepted behavior, so what's my problem?

OK, I checked, and so I edited my comment because I can see you only posted to him AFTER he said you were stalking. Too weird.
I wonder what he means...perhaps he's confusing you with someone else? Or do you know him from other sites? If not, it makes no sense.

That's why I qualified it with "IF she's stalking you". I have no way to tell either way. I'm not accusing anyone of anything.
If he's being truthful, that's why we have moderators...if not, that's also why we have moderators.
Really, if he's being truthful, that's why we have "ignore". That ends any 'stalking' instantly by hiding the ignored's posts and requires nothing more than a button push....and it has no administrative repercussions to the ignored.

Double secret probation was used in the past for members that repeatedly broke the posting/comment guidelines...it ended with a ban in the one instance I know of due to repeated and flagrant rule violations. It would not be a secret to you if that happened, and it would only happen if you ignored the rules and the moderators repeatedly.

I am not stalking anyone. I joined a website I enjoy. Double secret probation for not doing anything? I'm not here to make trouble. I just want to enjoy VideoSift...two sides of every situation.

Don't do that, just hit that little 'ignore' button and she's gone.
If she's really 'stalking' you, and you've kindly asked her to stop, report her and get her hobbled or on double secret probation. Don't just give up and leave. That's how we ended up with Trump as a nominee. ;-)

EDIT: OK, now I'm really confused. I just read every post @WeedandWeirdness has ever posted, and the only one to you was her reply below. What are you talking about with the claim she's 'stalking' you? Do you mean on other sites? How would you know it's the same person? This makes no sense.

REEDIT: Never mind. I've been informed you two do have previous history, so I'm out. I still say if there's an issue, "ignore" should solve it.

Saddest part is my girlfriend was filming the hawk but didn't see the owls stalking it, so when they flew out she panicked and gave the world ZERO wildlife photography. Now all I have is a cool story. Stupid girlfriend. Still screwing me over years later. Ain't that the truth though?

What we have here is a translation issue: a clear example of how cats and dogs simply do not understand each other's body language.

The dog starts by trying to determine where he stands in the pack hierarchy with regards to the cat, albeit with all his aggressiveness tempered by the humans standing around him and showing some favoritism (or at least protection towards) the cat. When the cat refuses to react in a predictable dog-like manner, the dog takes the cat's glowering stare to mean the cat is the alpha and goes into full submissive mode... and when that doesn't work, he whines in confusion.

Meanwhile, the cat sees all this as the stalking of a potentially hostile carnivore who is significantly larger than it, and has ears back, eyes wide and is ready to swat at its opponent if this strange creature becomes to aggressive.

It's not that cats and dogs dislike each other: they just don't speak the same language. Eventually, the housemates will probably work out a sort of patios between them (more on the part of the dog than the cat) and will come to a more comfortable understanding.

It's not that the cat doesn't want to play; he simply doesn't understand that the dog is making an invitation.

So you know, I'm at least one of the people who asked @lucky760 to implement this. I found myself completely incapable of ignoring some people when their comments were still there to see because others would quote them. (many times just insulting rants about me, but just as often something else insane that I couldn't stop myself from replying to...even though I didn't want to). It did end up making it unpleasant to visit the sift at all, unless I completely ignored the comments, and that's kind of missing the point of the sift for me.
There are only a small few that I have ignored, I think 2 of them at their own request. At least for those 2, it's a benefit rather than a negative, no longer having to have discussions with me...and it's OK for me...I'm not here to try to make anyone uncomfortable.
With those I do want to avoid, it's a godsend for me. If that feature had been in effect last year, I would not have felt the need to push (along with others) to get Chingalera removed (he was already on double secret probation for multiple violations, but still steadfastly refused to follow sift rules, and insisted on drunkenly and angrily 'stalking' people all over the sift, even after he was ignored).
Just my 2 cents, I hope it enlightens you to why some people found this necessary.

I know I don't participate much in this community but this is a stupid feature. I ignored a person ONCE in my entire time here. But then as the years went on and I gained some maturity (some) I learned to not be affected by the opinions of others so much. In fact, I prefer to see the opposing view point more than those that agree.

I think it's selfish and entitled to want to ignore and by extension, BLOT someone out of your community. If you don't want to be part of a community of freethinkers, don't bother looking at the comments.

This seems like a soft ban to me -- even if it is only for the person that is ignoring another person, it's banning their input from your screen.

If there's real life harm, death threats, or stalking akin to spam, I can understand -- but that should be something escalated to a community leader, as it should not be something that regularly occurs.

Too late for my input? lol

Are you stalking us? How are you doing that remotely? I'd like to see the same for my own and other people's submitted videos.

Since the case is ongoing, not sure if all of the details about the extent of the harassment has come out, but the article someone else mentioned (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150716/00572731657/canadian-court-ponders-if-disagreement-twitter-constitutes-criminal-harassment.shtml) has a link to a spreadsheet of the undeleted tweets between them. I read through and see a few early mentions of them meeting in person for business reasons, then him asking to drive her places a lot, and (after he aours and becomes more antagonistic) mentioning going to an event she was at.

I think the reason most articles aren't necessarily reporting the physical stalking is that part is its not widely known and seems to be from reports of those that know the woman and the angle of online harassment against women is more of a "hot topic" now.

I've also noticed most of the articles are directly parroting the guys defense without any counterpoint from anyone representating the complainant. Which I'm sure the defense isn't going to bring up the physical stalking accusations.

The "angry lady wants man jailed for disagreeing" narrative just seems like such a blatant oversimplification that only aids the side talking to the media and surely is what the defense wants people to remember.