Google is OWNED by the "people" who OWN the Government.

Who creates money?

Government is only a corporate tool. Corporations are the shadow actors created by the super-rich to give themselves vehicles for action that are both superior to the state, and state-sanctioned legitimacy in this superiority.

Hating the "Government" is like pig-iron hating the hammer and the forge - not the Blacksmith.

PsyOntology. ScientTautology. As American as apple pie!

You still think that the team owners are more important than the Conference management.

Money is speech?

You are seriously fucked.

Fed vs State. Simple.

Easy for white man to get all emotional about the politics, without caring for the people.

"By holding up modern China as an example of Communism, Smith expressly shows us that he is fucking propagandist scum inhabiting the more clever of propagandist echelons as the peon is then seemingly left with NO OPTIONS as to how they could potentially reorder or rethink their society."

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/04/open-thread-2014-10.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01a73dae40f4970d

Using current traditional soil methods, one acre of fodder grass will require 100,000 gallons of water. Most of this water is lost via transpiration of the plant and evaporation from the soil.
I can build you a 1/8 acre building, load it up with recirculating vertical-stacked NFT channels, and you could produce that same acre of grass using 1,000 gallons of water.

That would be say 10,000lbs, 4.5 tons of grass. Not a great yield for an acre, but not a disastrously bad one either.

So the 1000 gallons of water cycles through the hydroponic system around 100 times as it is gradually absorbed by the plants. Each time it is picked up by the plants and transpired (moving nutrients around in the plant in the process), it then gets re-captured from the atmosphere, re-condensed and pumped back into the hydroponics system.

We bought a lemon tree, then we were told we had to destroy it because it wasn't licensed.

This implies that you brought a ready-grown tree. Maybe only a few kilos, but that still takes a year or so to achieve, so they're relatively expensive. (This reminds me to water the 2m tall lemon tree sitting in the living room window, which we started from a seed in 2006. With pot and soil, it's over 30kilos.)

It just wanted to self-replicate and make us free food.

This, on the other hand, implies that you grew the tree from seed, or from a cutting of an original tree. The seed is one case, and is one of the reasons that plant breeders try to develop seedless versions of fruit, or ones with a very low germination rate. The propagation from cuttings though is much easier to contain, because you need access to the tree, not the fruit.

I was at the garden centre with the wife this afternoon. Many of the plant cultivars which the wife wanted to buy carried notices barring the buyer from propagating them without getting the prior written permission of the rights holding company. Buying those would have constituted accepting the terms of the contract, so I steered the wife to other cultivars from other suppliers which didn't carry such warnings.

I suspect that you brought a lemon tree from somewhere, and in the process agreed to a similar "no propagation" contract (did you actually read the terms of the contract that you entered into?) ; then you propagated the lemon tree to produce a clone (yes, a "clone", in the sense of "clone"). In doing so, you violated the terms of the contract you'd entered into with the selling company. And they complained to appropriate authorities ,who forced you to comply with the terms of the contract into which you'd entered.

(Your local laws and contract law may differ. But I suspect there's something along those lines happening. It's possible you did it from a seed, and the laws you have are even more restrictive than we have to deal with here. If your contract law allows you to be held to the terms of a contract that you're not shown ... it'll be almost like software sales.)

This is the theory of abiogenesis

It is one of several theories of abiogenesis, which are all under consideration by researchers.

Sounds like NASA finally discovered Maxwell's Demon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Nope, just an exciting 1980s proposal for one way in which significant parts of life's metabolism could plausibly have developed from an inorganic system into an organic one. There's nothing new about this article - OOL people have been discussing this since the detection of sub-surface water on Europa, and the basic research (Mike Russell's) was done in the 1980s based on theoretical work in the 1970s by Gunter Wachtershauser. None of which violates Maxwell's laws of thermodynamics, because they don't take place in closed systems.

Dr. Nick Lane has a more extended discussion on the possibility of life originating due to naturally-occurring proton imbalances in his book "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life".

... which was published a number of years ago. My copy has been on my bookshelf for at least 3 years, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't news when it came out.

The basic ideas that are presented here are not new (this isn't to diss Nick Lane - he's done some very interesting work, and written some good popular science books and articles). As the actual article (but not TFS) says, the basic idea of life developing from flow of alkaline hydrothermal fluids through pyrite deposits comes from Mike Russell in the early 1980s (and that develops work from Gunter Wachtershauser in the 1970s).

One of the more attractive features of this theory is that it allows incremental conversion of an inorganic chemical system into an organic one which fixes carbon dioxide into organic molecules. It would also explain the presence of iron-sulphur molecular groups in the cores of many important enzymes. It is one of the lead contenders in OOL discussions. But it's probably not the final answer.