I think corn would be doable, but the advantages would be less efficient compared to short plants.

At some level of efficiency, there is a break even point (which can also take into consideration shipping costs and fossil fuel usage to major metro areas). I'm pretty convinced that vertical farming could be a significantly good / efficient idea for those plants that it is best suited for, but I do think there would be some early-adoption issues that would make it less practical for tall stuff like corn. At least until it has been done enough to work out the kinks and economy of scale kicks in.

So at least for the time being, I think we'll see it first be applied to leafy plants and tuber / root plants. But I could definitely be a biased opinion since my family revolves around conventional corn farming on irrigated fields...

Man, CDC always seems to take it up the ass. Don't they also have some crazy restrictions on research into marijuana usage as well that prevents any meaningful research from getting done?

4.5 billion dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#7553bc81790b

I wrote that he has a lot of parliamentary power. And he does. Parliament and congress are synonyms. I clearly wrote the president has to deal with congress.

I know of the Bush junior situation, but that's not what the conversation is about (i.e. it's not about a vote miscount).

Trump has many character flaws (as all people do), but it is unlikely those flaws will lead to a fanciful dictatorship as you have suggested they will.

I didn't write that. Syntaxed, whom you were originally replying to wrote "You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has..."

You're not following the conversation.

You're welcome to prove yourself correct in regards to court outcomes. I'm just not that interested in it. I'm trying to save you the bother. What am I enjoying by myself? You making a statement and not providing proof? Sure, super fun. You can enjoy that I defended both Clinton and Trump as innocent until proven guilty. How it should be.

I'm "still incredibly naïve"! Lol, once again, you were replying to Syntaxed and called him naive. You're not following the conversation.

I'm glad you asked how it is different. I pointed out that the word naive (especially in your usage) does not encompass a lack of knowledge (as in he did not know the facts of the case). You were using naive as a pejorative, as in he was simple, unsophisticated, guileless. I showed you a definition of the common usage of the word naive. You found a definition that included the word "information". I pointed out that this is not the common usage (and as above it was not your intention to suggest he didn't know the facts). You could probably use the word naive, which is still a synonym for simple, unsophisticated and guileless, in the context of being those things, because one lacked "information", but it would of course need to be contextually evident in the statement.

As a kindness I'm going to chalk you being confused down to tiredness. Go have a lie down.

You cut a definition from somewhere that doesn't fit common usage of the word. The common usage of the word defines the definition. Dictionaries record the common usage.

The statement the interview quoted, in the clip in question, was not bigoted.

The clip in question does not reflect your assertion. In it he says he only wants to disallow radicalised Muslims, allowing the rest to enter the country.

I'm right, but you're entitled to disagree.

I'm glad you're exiting the conversation. You show a deep disregard for facts and can't perform a nuanced analysis of a simple video clip. You have an evident loathing of Trump (whom I don't care for one way or another) and do not demonstrate objective thinking.

Well, there we differ.

I don't engage anymore with people who are so passionate about their beliefs, they insult others. There is nothing I can say that will change them.

What was posted was just fine, just as it was.

Did you know that there are a disproportionate number of vegetarians in Britian? And there are a lot of them? So they have an interesting population to study.

I read somewhere that vegetarians, on average, have a higher IQ than the general population. Makes sense to me -- they read, they empathize, they question. That all takes intelligence.

It really doesn't matter to me if they "go too far." That is just passion. That is how change happens -- folks on the fringe pulling us sluggards in the middle out of our complacency.

I have more trouble the Sanders contingent than I do with vegans. Same dynamic -- they are passionate about their topic, and they don't differentiate between compromise and selling out, and if they keep this shit up, if Hillary gets the nomination, Trump might actually win.

Now THAT is over the top behavior that has real consequences.

Being passionate on the Sift is fine. If you don't like it, I honestly think it is better not to engage. Keeps your blood pressure down. Since trying to change their minds (on any passionately held topic) is fruitless, you are actually ahead.

You get low blood pressure!

(And I agree that we "should" have a mostly plant based diet. For a multitude of reasons -- health, the environment, limited resources, water usage, the list is pretty long before you even get to the abuse that animals in factory farms suffer. Do I have a plant based diet? No. Do I feel shame for not doing what is right? Yes. Am I going to change? No. "Should" I change? Yes. Do I enjoy the passionate and scolding posts made by friends on Facebook? No. Do I stop following them to "save" myself? No.

Instead of the Art of War, I am trying to practice the Art of Disengagement. Better for my health!)

I find sentences that have two 'that's in them annoying. It's annoying that that works that way.

My proposition is to create a new single word, thithat, which has the same meaning as two that's next to eachother. I pronounce it that way when I'm speaking. Two that's in a row doesn't seem odd when spoken, only when written down. Therefore: thithtat. It won't be annoying anymore thithat works that way.

ed: And yes I know, you can just use one 'that' but that's not often done when speaking.

ed2: Dammit. The first usage in history of the word thitthat, and I spelled it wrong.

I consider a cell phone a hand held computer. I started computing on an Apple2, so the power of a cell phone certainly meets the definition in my eyes.
Also, my PC has a decent camera built in. One could just as easily scan it into their PC, no? If not, why not?
I've never have a cell phone (FREAK!...What?! Who said that?!), so I don't really know how those QR codes work.

I just assumed that phones are nearly as vulnerable as computers, and I know that just opening a web page CAN infect your system, even with anti-virus software and without clicking/intentionally installing anything. Some viruses auto-download once you're on the site with no notice, or a fake notice pretending to be a 'I've read the terms of service' or 'I agree' boxes and downloading to hidden files in the background in ways only IT specialists would notice.
I know that I've seen many reports claiming that many 'fremium' games include Trojan horse programs that track your phone usage, location, and in some cases steal your information. I'm just guessing that the same thing is possible without the game attached. It wouldn't be difficult on a PC to use a link/web page to auto-infect visitors, I'm just guessing the same goes for 'hand held computers'.

I think "literally zero risk" is a bit much. Possibly extremely unlikely, but certainly not really zero risk.

That's just plain wrong. Black people can ABSOLUTELY be racist, they can even be racist against black people.
http://videosift.com/video/Chappelle-Black-white-supremacist
Black people can even perpetrate institutional racism...just see 'blackpeoplemeet.com' who's policy is to exclude non-black people as proof they can do it.

Please note the actual definition of the word below, and that your limited definition is the secondary one, not primary. The primary definition describes the most common usage, the secondary one describes institutional racism, which is a side effect of the those in power holding to the primary.

Racism: noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

@Drachen_Jager , my man, I can get why you dislike whiny, insecure Kylo Ren (and I hugely prefer him over whiny, insecure teenage Anakin) but have you ever considered that somebody can be very powerful in one area (the Force) and terribly rubbish in another (swordfighting)? Sure, a lightsaber can't become dull from wrong usage but this guys starts hacking at shit when he's throwing his hissy fits. Would a good swordsman do that?
He's wounded, survived quite the explosion, is rubbish at swords and just killed his dad. And you give him crap for merely getting away alive after taking on two people tag-teaming him?

@ChaosEngine

So yeah, there's a lot of common ground. Of course there is: values can overlap ideologies; something that, let's say, 'the kind of feminism I dislike' refuses to allow. Everything that says women should be treated reasonably is feminism, which gives us the credibility to declare that anyone who opposes any aspect of feminist doctrine hates women.

I think the concept you're talking about is a part of the makeup of any rational person's mind, and indeed advocacy on its behalf is still necessary. I don't think the particular movement that grew around that advocacy in the latter half of the 20th century is still useful, and I say that it was flawed from the first, even as those flaws were mitigated in the short term by what it accomplished.

It's important to maintain that distinction, and I would strongly prefer that this basic concept wasn't referred to as 'feminism'. Dictionaries describe usage rather than determining reality, and in this case as in so many others I think the majority have got it horribly wrong.

edit: Something of an academic and unnecessary addendum, but I've heard Hitchens say that a few times and I always winced when he did. It's a little trite. The kind of cure he's talking about, birth control, could just as easily be effected by forcibly sterilising women after their first or second child. What he might have said, somewhat less snappily, was, "The empowerment of women, an excellent goal in itself, also handily has the effect of countering explosive population growth and adding more skilled workers to the economy."

Kind of glossed over some things. Yes, in many cases vitamin supplements are only needed if you have a poor diet or other condition interfering with your required levels. Yes, Vitamin C is not going to cure a cold.

But, there are still studies being done that show it 'might' have a long term effect on cancer if you get your minimum daily requirement. There are also studies being done on other vitamin usage for long term disease factors.

So, while you really don't want or need to overdose yourself with vitamin supplements, it doesn't hurt to make sure you are getting the proper amount daily either by eating healthy or taking a supplement to fill in what you do need.

Then again, it is the tagline that he ruins stuff, so I can see why he would leave it a bit vague for comedy.

@Barbar

your comment is a non sequitur.
the video was not addressing those points but solely revealing the:employee/employer dynamic.

there is plenty of documentation that backs this videos claim that when people are given the illusion of being "free" they become far more productive.

there is nothing in your examples that the state gave out of benevolence.every example you posted were hard fought battles that were executed by the people.many died to earn those concessions,and they ARE concessions.

as for your final example of "quality of life".this just equates to more comfortable slaves.

the dynamic of employer/master/owner vs slave/peon/worker remains intact.

maybe it is the usage of the term slave that you find offensive?
ok..fair enough.the word is used for dramatic effect i agree.
how about we change the terminology to:power vs powerlessness.

in that context would you find this video more palatable?

Um, yes they were. It's just that rather than address the point of the video, you addressed a red herring tangent....from the video.

Harlequinn said:Condoms are 98% effective - lol. That's with perfect use. Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up).

That's an 'answer' to the part of the video saying they're 98% effective, which they are, when used properly (not with perfection). You continue to fight the fact that YOU were misleading, not just about your assertion, but also about the point of the video...or you simply missed the point completely....one or the other.
This is much is very obvious. Why are YOU bothering to fight something where I'm sure you know you are wrong in numerous ways?
but you continue with 'but you didn't quote me, so you didn't say anything'? If you can't follow along, I'll just stop....as what's the point?

Harlequinn said: Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings.
And that's all I need to say about that. You were wrong about that, and now you want to distance yourself from your statement. I understand why you wouldn't want to stand behind it. As proof, condoms have been 100% effective in all settings I've used them.

Yes, it's an important statistic, and you have it wrong, or at best are poorly making the point by not clearly explaining that the 'failures' are all from misuse, not product failure.
When used properly, condoms are >98% effective in real life...not only in labs. Because so many people use them wrong doesn't make them less effective, it makes their USE of them less effective. The answer isn't to just tell people that 2/10 times they fail (scaring many people out of using them at all, while knowing full well that 99.9% of failures are due to improper usage, not defect)...it's to teach them how to properly use them so they work almost every time. Simple.
EDIT: People who use them wrong probably have <50% success rate, but that's like looking at first time drivers with no training and saying 'drivers have been shown to crash 75% of the time in real world situations'.
I'm bored with all conversations where one party can't grasp how what they actually said sounds to readers, even when it's explained clearly.

That said, my boredom with you won't stop me from correcting dangerously misleading information....like "Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings." and " Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness." while leaving out 'but only among people with absolutely zero training in their use, because they use them wrong CAUSING the failures'.
Have a nice day.

You only answered half my question. The answer that proves this?

Nice anecdote. I assume by your smiley face that you know anecdotes are not proof of anything except an individuals experience.

In normal usage of the terms, denier and sceptic are synonymous. Although I do agree that there should be a distinction along the ways you've said.

It is lazy stone age thinking. You're not going to get anywhere if they're a roadblock and you don't spend the time convincing them otherwise. Do you really want to leave your fellow man behind? I think you should strive to put him on a better path. (I mean sceptics/deniers as a group - not on an individual level).

*promote charging a heavy water usage fee for non-drought resistant crops, assuming we can get the vote for pay legislators to understand science. most of these legislators bitch and moan about global warming effects and they vote for shit like this.