You can shoot it where ever you want, as long as you can aim the discharge chute that way. If you do an inward clockwise spiral around the yard, you'll end up with a nice size pile of grass. That is if your mower has the umphf to handle masses of clippings. Mulching set ups kind of do the same, especially when you get rather thick areas. They don't discharge per se, so it tends to build up mass in the deck. When you get to a thinner area, or tilt/raise the deck, it clears.
I missed the daydreaming bit before. Maybe you need to put orange road cones around them. Or a proximity sensor that triggers an air horn. Or both, just so the neighbors really love ya! Barring that, just consider it "hardening off."
The idea, I thought was to get rid of it so it was no longer in the local loop. If you're suggesting that compost is the answer, why not just spread it on the lawn as directed on the bag? I suppose that is where the compost would eventually end up anyways. If the chemicals are as inert or decomposable as suggested, then there should be no problem, right?
I always make several concentric rings around trees, with the side discharge facing away. A mulch, living or other, bed helps too. I've started using a mulcher, but I still have the habit of making several rings around trees, with the tree to the left of the mower. The same goes for other obstacles as well. I make several passes with the mower blowing away from the obstacle. Mulching around trees helps alot for other reasons. Competition, water conservancy, etc. I try to keep the mulch bed out to nearly the drip line.
I agree with you there Leah, they don't make too much money. They do still control the markets, because just about everything in our economy is based on oil. I do believe there is much beyond their control now, with OPEC being a major force in the industry. The fact remains that oil is power and the oil industry controls the distribution of oil (power) in the country. They're just able to do so on a slim budget.
To that end, the oil industry still controls the markets. However the antitrust laws are useful for helping level the playing field. No caps are placed on the performance of a company. However, a company can't block other companies from fairly competing. I'm not against amending capitalism to promote fairness and honesty. I am against amending capitalism in such a way that discourages or harms the little guy. Standard Oil was an example of a company unfairly taking advantage of the system. For an executive pay cap to be fair to the little guy, I think it'd have to be so high as to not be effective against the big guy. This would defeat the purpose of imposing it. Again, I say promotion of honesty and fairness is the best defense against corruption.
It sounds to me that your operation is a good example of capitalism done right. Under its current course and leadership, it could become as big as it can and not become corrupt. It is all in the leadership and stewardship of the capital. Any caps would just hinder your company from achieving its potential. Antitrust laws don't hinder you because you're not keeping anyone from the market. Antitrust laws don't hinder the truly successful because the truly successful don't fight unfairly.
Microsoft had antitrust suits brought against it because it was unfairly competing against Apple, Be Inc, and others. Be Inc. was mortally crippled by Microsoft's actions and was forced to resort to a focus shift which ultimately led to its demise. Microsoft enforced contracts with hardware makers to not allow BeOS to be bundled with their hardware. Several makers had announced plans to bundle BeOS on their hardware, but quickly withdrew those announcements at Microsoft's beckoning. The lawsuits against MS didn't amount to much, but it did draw public attention to the fact that there are viable alternatives to the junk that MS peddles. Now the smaller companies and OSS solutions are making sizable inroads into what was once MS only territory.
lanemik wrote: For all I know, I could find a house with the lushest, fullest, most amazingly organic lawn in town and the only advice I'd need is to mow high, mow often.
That would be great! Turnkey is the best route, although hard to come by.
I don't think the person who started this thread would mind if it were jacked though. I haven't heard from him since his temper tantrum. It seems he read Paul's response and left for good, as his last activity was shortly after Paul's post. I do sure hope he's calmed down. All that stress isn't good for the health.
Very realistic, depending on your taste for greeness. However, I'm talking about nearly 100% grass. Which is most likely what you'll start with, because that is the status quo. The grass will turn brown, or at least a slightly brownish-green. The watering only when in dire need or not at all actually helps it stay green through the summer, because that encourages the roots to grow down to natural water sources. I might suggest adding some clover to help with a lush, green summer time lawn. My lawn has several patches of clover and they all stay nice green and soft through the summer heat. Regardless, your summertime green is not going to be nearly as green as spring and fall. It will seem kind of brown in comparison.
Paul's ideal lawn has a bunch of other things besides grass and clover that help it remain green and spongy all summer. I haven't tried any of them yet, but hopefully this spring I'll have a chance to experiment.
My point is that watering isn't all that some make it out to be. Some people believe in watering religiously. I think that is a waste of resources for the most part. Watering done properly involves a very thorough soaking after and before letting the upper soil levels become nearly bone dry. Watering even on a weekly basis I think keeps the upper soil moist enough that the roots become content and won't grow down far. I let nature do her thing and I'm rewarded with a nice green lawn without fussing about watering.
Personally, a sprinkler system is not on my wish list. My lawn keeps up just fine with the other lawns over the growing seasons and I just let the rain do its thing. A couple of neighbors go to the hassle of watering, (no, I don't keep track of how they water or how much.) Their lawns go dormant for the summer just the same as mine. The biggest thing to keep in mind for our cool climate lawns, is they go dormant and turn brown over the summer. No reasonable amount of watering is going to change that.
If you buy a house with a sprinkler system, I'd actually discourage its use for at least one year. I didn't say to not use it. If during the spring and fall growth seasons you notice the lawn needing water, by all means water it! During the two years that I've been a home owner, I haven't seen my lawn actually need water during those times. My grass remained lush, green and growing the entire time. Except, of course, during summer. The one year should give you enough time to decide how often you really need it, instead of wasting water by routinely watering just because you have a sprinkler system.
Minimal watering of the lawn is key for a very good reason. It increases drought tolerance. If you are consistently watering on a regular basis, the root zone stays moist, and the roots have no reason to grow deeper. If you let your lawn go long between waterings, the roots will grow deeper in search of water. Most likely they'll reach the water table. Then your grass should have enough water to last between rainfall.
My final suggestion is this: if you find a house with a sprinkler system, great, it will probably prove itself handy. If the house doesn't have one, I personally don't think it is worth the money to install one. Definitely do not let the sprinkler system be the deciding factor in the house. I think you'll be severely disappointed if you do.
What about 2 dogs? My parents have two chocolate lab/chow mutts who love hunting squirrels. They don't eat them. They just hunt them, kill them, and parade around with them in their mouths until they're tired or the squirrel is taken away. It may not be the fastest way, but it is cheap, lazy, and quite entertaining. One dog might be sufficient. But two is definitely very entertaining.
There are some ideas that have been purposely left out of capitalism. There are many ideas that could prevent corruption. I see including those ideas as an even bigger crime than the corruption they would stop. This is because they would hold back honest folks from achieving what they could otherwise achieve. I feel strongly that the emphasis should be not on stifling corruption, but on helping the honest person achieve their goals. Blanket rules intended at stifling corruption, generally speaking, only limit the honest person. The corrupt will just find other avenues to exploit. Introducing more rules to try and stop the corrupt only leads to more loopholes for the corrupt to hide behind. The more loopholes there are, the harder it becomes for the honest person, and easier for the corrupt. This leans the system towards being corrupt by default because nobody can earn an honest living. This is where we are heading today.
I think that if the focus was shifted to rewarding honest people, then there would be little room for corruption because people would strive to be honest. When you remove the reward for being honest, you only open the door to more corruption.
crtreedude wrote: For capitalism to work, you can't have anyone taking out more than they produce. This means the lazy worker has to work, and the hard worker can't be over compensated. Either one is bleeding the system. It is obvious that the non-productive worker is doing so, but less obvious when a CEO receives a huge bonus, even though the company is not making a profit.
When you say "for capitalism to work" in that instance, you can substitute any other system besides capitalism and still have a true statement. And those problems will exist in any system. It is just human nature. No system will ever be able to overcome that. In my opinion, capitalism does really well at it. In any other system you will still have those in high level positions taking advantage of those in lower positions. Capitalism is one system that allows a person to rise from the lowest class to being a successful millionaire without being corrupt. This is not to say that there is not corruption in the system.
I do not see it as conceivable that corruption can be overcome. It can be dealt with, but it will always be there. Trying to overcome it by making limits such as pay caps limits what the honest person can achieve. This only hurts the honest person. The thief will just find a different way to scam their way through life.
Dealing with it is different than trying to overcome it. Dealing with it involves calling it out whenever and where ever it is found, then punishing those found responsible. This makes unethical behavior less profitable, while leaving honest folks to reap their rewards. Leave the punishment however, up to the shareholders. Shareholders need to be more hands on. Too many shareholders remove themselves from the activities of the company. This is like absentee landlords who purchase properties and let the tenants and the elements run their investment down. Absentee shareholders buy stock in a company and let the company management run rampant with their money. Then they wonder what happened when the CEO votes himself and his cronies a big pay raise and leave town.
I agree that some CEOs are grossly overpaid for what they do. Some however, far out-gross even other high paid CEOs and could be considered underpaid for what they do. How would you fairly enforce a pay cap for CEOs? I'd like to be CEO of my own company someday. I realize that some CEOs take advantage of their companies and lead the company to bankruptcy, while filling their own coffers. I see that as wrong. However, what is my reward for leading my company to great success if my pay is capped. What is my incentive to take my company above and beyond? Why should I aim at anything above mediocrity? Why would you want to harm hardworking individuals, just because of a few bad seeds?
My father was CEO of a successful company until he and the other shareholders sold it to another company offering the right price. He is a hard working man and deserves more than he makes. Before you consider me a privileged brat, let me say this. While I was never hungry growing up, I wasn't spoiled either. I didn't get new toys all the time. I didn't get top of the line anything. I had what I needed, and very few extras. Most of what I was given were hand me downs. Anything extra I paid for out of my own savings funded by a rather conservative allowance. I went to public school. I was taught to earn my own way through life. My dad reinvested what wasn't spent back in the company and in his own retirement. I have very much respect for that.
Those CEOs who are raping their companies are scum of the earth in my book. They are lowlife thieves. I do agree that they need to be held accountable for their actions and their paychecks. But I will stand tooth and nail against national pay caps of any kind at any level. If a company wishes to institute a pay cap within its own system, that would be fine. I apologize if I seem harsh in saying that blanket pay caps for CEOs are a bad idea. After seeing where I come from, I hope you understand.
Or worse yet, move the carrot into the unemployment and welfare lines. In my workplace, I see many people constantly trying to find a way out of work and still get paid. They don't care to improve their station in life. They just want the paycheck. This isn't to be confused with a hammock plan. Their plan is to draw a paycheck while not working. The hammock plan is to draw in as many paychecks as possible by working in order to save enough to get through a period of relaxing.
There will always be good vs. evil. Saying that ideology A should be critically modified or abolished because of the existence of evil is like saying life is bad because living people have the capability to do evil. Should we critically modify or abolish life because of the existence of evil? Of course not. Why then would we need to change our ideology on the basis of the existence of evil? Since it is the evil and not the ideology that is the problem, why is the ideology the part under attack? Evil exists everywhere, not at the fault of any ideology. An ideology's job is not to control good and evil. Ideologies are a way for us to comprehend our environment in order to set up a path into the future. Why then do people see evil and then desire to bring down everything around?
crtreedude wrote: Capitalism seems to have a problem controlling those who never seem to have enough.
So does every other system I've seen implemented. If they can't get enough legally, they'll turn to illegal means. I agree, there is a huge problem in people taking more than they deserve. Unfortunately, that is all many people see of capitalism and they get turned off of it. Most ideas I've seen that intend to control it introduce other far more vile flaws into the system. Or they are not effective at controlling it.
polyparadigm: you cut my statement in half. I used to have a string trimmer that wouldn't blink while mauling down a 3/4" sapling. Yes it was a string trimmer and not a brush cutter. Yes it was noisy and messy. And yes I miss it.
My current string trimmer is electric and balks at thin, twig-like, seedling trees. Its great for trimming grass edges fast. I am working on laying out my landscape to be friendly to scythe work. I plan on shrub, flower and veggie beds around all trees, fences, buildings, etc. I hope to fit a scythe into the budget (time as well as money) soon, but its just not there yet. I have tools to do the job, so I'll live with those for now.
I watched the videos on Scythe Connection, and they seems so peaceful and relaxing.
I might be able to squeeze a page or two into my spare time. Some editing as well.
Foswiki looks to be a fork of Twiki. Its emphasis seems geared to the level we'd use. I know TWiki is one of the original wiki systems. I became familiar with it about 8 years ago. I'm not familar with the developments since then. Getting one set up and usable should be relatively simple. At that point users can start adding content. Fine tuning can come later. What kind of system will it be running on? I'm experienced with unixish systems, linux, bsd, etc. and associated tools. I could assist with setup on anything except windows/mac.
Paul, I recently tried that technique with 1/4" hardware cloth on a frame and hairy vetch seeds. Due to the larger size of the vetch seed, about 3/16", I'd use 1/2" cloth next time. I had some success getting the mixture to press through, but not without a lot of fittin' and fussin'. 1/4" cloth might work for smaller seeds, like grass or tomatoes. I ended up adding more dry clay to stiffen the mix and pinching off small pieces and tossing them where I was planting them.
Dry preserving these crops is essentially the same as saving them for seed. You can use the end product for either feed (human or animal), or seed. This year I saved the seed from my snow peas (pisum sativum), and cowpeas (vigna unguiculata.) In both cases, I simply left the pods on the plant to dry. When they reach maturity, the pods and plants will die back and dry out. Some people believe that the drying plant helps dry the pods. I did it because it was relatively easy to harvest and shell the peas and beans after they were dry. The cowpea pods snapped off easily, while the snow peas took a bit more effort. Picking snow peas, or other p. sativum varieties seems easier when still green. Their pods seem to get really tough when dried. You can harvest any of the crops you mention while still green any time after reaching maturity. You can then provide a dry, well ventilated area for them to dry in. The key is the dry, well ventilated area. Also spread them out on a broad surface, such as a screen or cookie sheet. As long as the seeds have reached full maturity, you should be able to save for seed from this technique. Either way you can get save seed for next year or keep preserved for eating. For storing, you can test whether or not the seeds are sufficiently dry. Dropping them on a hard surface, countertop, table, etc. should yield a sharp "clack" sound. If there is any hint of a dull thud, they are not dry enough for storage. You can either store in paper or plastic. Storing in plastic has a tighter tolerance for dryness. The plastic won't breathe like paper and any excess moisture still in the seeds can lead to rot and mold. The sharp clack test will minimize any problems there. The upside of paper is its breathe-ability, which unfortunately is also its downside. You need to be more careful when selecting a place to store seeds in paper. A good compromise is wrapping the seed in paper then placing in a rigid, airtight, plastic or glass container. The paper and airspace acts as a buffer to help keep the seeds dry. A note about storing in plastic in a refrigerator: let the package return to room temperature before opening if you intend to only use a portion. Otherwise you inadvertently introduce moisture back into the seeds due to condensation. If that happens, you will need to re-dry them as described above. If you are saving for food purposes only and do not intend to save for seed, then you can use heat to speed the drying process. Placing seeds spread on a cookie sheet in a warm oven will do the trick. When they reach the sharp clack point, take them out and let them cool before storage.
crtreedude wrote: I know capitalism is much more complex than this, but to me, capitalism is simply those with capital who know how to use it, win. Most things in the society of the USA function based on capital, and I suspect that if you look at failed ICs, often it comes down to capital. In fact, many marriages fail due to arguments about capital (or money if you prefer, but that is a narrower definition of capital)
Focusing on increasing the capital of an organization would be a good thing, this would be more land, more tools, and even more skilled people. Perhaps I am being a bit shortsighted, but I don't know how in the world you could function without attempting to create more capital.
I would think that permaculture should be focused in increasing the land bank whenever possible and preserving the capital of the fertility, topsoil, etc., etc. All this is capital.
The problem is that people don't often think about a complete system, so a company can go out and strip from the land resources and sell them and call it capitalism. Really it is more like theft from a common source. The tragedy of the commons in action. They are not selling their production or capital, but the societies without paying for it, leaving the whole poorer.
Capitalism is not a bad idea that says those who are more productive get more, but it has to be modified to make sure they truly are being productive, not just stealing from future generations.
I agree with all that except for your final statement. Capitalism has never allowed theft of anything, even in the context you point out. As you alluded to in your fourth paragraph, this is merely a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is something other than capitalism, trying to use capitalism as a cover for its misdeeds. It is not capitalism that needs modified in this scenario. There is a need to recognize when capitalism is being usurped for dubious purposes. Once that recognition is made, then the usurpers are the ones who need to be dealt with, not capitalism.
In my mind, capitalism is a free market, where products are traded for monetary value. Products are anything from widgets, to services, ideas, etc. Someone who is monetarily poor, can come up with a great idea. If there is a market for the idea, then that person no longer has to be poor. They can employ those around them to produce and deliver the product, while improving the status of their employees. The process is not easy and not for everyone. In order for that poor person to strike it rich, they need a certain drive and determination to do so. They have the ability to nurture that idea to fruition, or let it wither on the vine and die. I have friends on both sides of the vine. The ones who made a name for themselves did so with much sweat and tears. The ones who didn't, they encountered sweat and tears, then decided to do nothing.
As far as gift cultures, they can be very exciting. And I beg to differ: gift cultures are very viable on the large scale. Open source software is a great example of a gift culture. It is expanding everyday. I currently use Linux on my desktop. I'm excited to see my favorite OS, BeOS, finally have a viable OSS clone with Haiku-OS. I'm learning to code so I can help return to the community. OSS fits well into my view of capitalism. For example: a developer can produce a program that is useful to others, give it and the source away, then sell technical support for the product. Sure, there are leaches in the system, but what system doesn't have them? I see capitalism as a framework in which other sub-economies can thrive.
From what I've seen, capitalism works. What is failing is actually the crap that has been piled into our economy over the years that go against what capitalism stands for. Capitalism gets the bad rap without just cause. Every argument I've seen against capitalism has been based on a fallacy.
Speedyweedy, I'm interested in hearing your description of a "collectively run market system." As far as I have studied, our country started as a "decentralized federation of communes."
rapidresponse wrote: or do you REALLY concieve of a capitalism without -unfair wages -inadequate cost of living/wages parity -colonialism -massive resource extraction -greed and hoarding -slumlords -etc... ..."
I agree with Paul. I will go so far as to state those are also all problems in communist societies. Unfair wages: What unfair wages in the US do you refer to? I'm an entry level truck mechanic, I feel my wages are fair, even if they are on the low end of the scale. I, and I alone chose to do what I do. I really enjoy doing what I do. I could have done anything I wished to do, including some very high paying jobs. I don't think the stress involved is worth the pay. Inadequate cost of living to wages: I live quite comfortable on a relatively meager wage, including paying my education loans, mortgage, gas, food, etc. I don't try to live beyond my means, and I live life to its fullest, imo. Colonialism: not a capitalist or communist trait, more along the lines of warrior nation trait. Massive resource extraction: I believe this was done in the U.S.S.R. as well. Greed and hoarding: see the U.S.S.R. again, and for slumlords too. If you really want to get particular, these are not a trait of any socio-economic system, but humanity itself. I'm definitely not rich, not quite middle class, so I guess you could say that I'm poor. I'm definitely not defecated on. I'm also 100% U.S. made and proud of it.
see, this is the kind of crap that makes me worry that permaculture will continue to drift towards a liberal hobby/business model while focusing on trendy upperclass ecovillages insted of becoming a tool available to those who really need it.
Real permaculture has a rather strong grassroots movement. Grassroots, being just that, not caring much for what the upper crusties are up to. Permaculture is a great idea, and as such can not be snuffed out or suppressed by the upper class as long as there are living, thinking individuals at the grassroots level. Ideas have the peculiar property of being quite resilient. As long as an Idea is in a form able to be comprehended, it can be spread to whomever is in need of and looking for it.
If anything at all, this conversation should be proof and testament that permaculture is not doomed to the fate which you fear.
Remember this: capitalism is not an end all, cure all for everything which ails this world. Far from it. Like everything conceived by humans, it is imperfect. It is merely a tool for the betterment of individuals who wish to live in a world where they are free to choose their own destiny. No other system is as good at that as capitalism, which allows for all free thinking individuals to turn their ideas into a way of life. A trait in common with all other tools, is that they can be misused and perverted into dark and dangerous things. Any tool can be used to defend freedom, or take it away. Any tool can serve greatly to help its user toward a goal. And finally, any tool can be tossed aside and considered worthless. The result is up to the user.
Leah, right now I'm in the middle of digging post holes for a fence, nearly 40 of them. I planned on renting a power auger, but I decided against it, mainly for the noise. I must say that digging them with a post hole shovel and digging bar is very meditative, almost relaxing. Try that with a power tool.
Since I have a small plot, I may start with a sickle instead. A good scythe costs nearly as much as a good string trimmer, esp. once you factor in all the req'd accessories. I don't know of any local scythe outlets, so I'm limited to online, mailorder.
I beg to differ with polyparadigm on cutting 3/4" saplings with a string trimmer. With your average run of the mill, everyday joe variety, you can barely trim grass with one, much less a sapling. I used to have one with a 31cc engine, 18" swath, and .105" line dia. It considered a 3/4" sapling to be equivalent to a big blade of grass. It'd maul down 1"-1 1/4" down with a few passes.
However, the scythe gets my vote. Much less messy, no gas/oil, no flinging debris everywhere. I plan on buying one this upcoming season.