I live in a rural part of Alberta and I've been told the phone company really wants to get us all on VoIP over the existing WiMax network that runs here. That way they don't have to run wire out to new farm homes. In fact there are several miles of phone wire laying in the ditches around here that the company refuses to bury. I think they hope that if it gets cut by mowers and farm machines enough times that we'll beg for VoIP over wireless. The wireless WiMax system is pretty reliable, but not totally. It goes down in storms, for example. So if we were ever forced to this system, I think I'll be extremely grateful to have my HAM license and HAM station here for emergencies.

Sounds like rural Kentuckians really need to line up and get licenses and at least basic VHF radios. They're going to need them.

Sorry but a lot of these comments are way off base. Neither first-sale nor licensing really applies here in the same sense as you are used to in debating DRM. Monsanto seed is sold to farmers under strict agreement with the farmer. If I hold back some of my canola and replant it when I've promised Monsanto in a written contract (signed and dated) that I wouldn't, then I'm definitely liable. So-called bin-run seeding is expressly forbidden in the contracts. For this reason, even though roundup-ready soybeans are going to be off patent this year, farmers really won't be able to start growing and multiplying seed outside of a Monsanto contract for another year or so, once the existing contracts run out. Without a patent for something fancy, it's pretty hard to convince farmers to pay a premium and sign a contract for seed, which is why as patents expire, these contracts end up disappearing too. But to get around this income problem, seed companies are getting into hybrid seed production (as opposed to open pollination) which means that traits disappear from the crop after a couple of generations, so buying new seed is ensured. And to be fair the market is driving this because the hybrid traits are traits that farmers and food processors want. Healthy oil content, disease resistance, shorter crops (not as tall), etc.

Anyway, the famous case a few years ago over roundup ready canola was essentially a contract dispute (besides the patent issue). The farmer kept back some of the crop and replanted it the next year, but claimed it was just natural genetic drift, etc. However he violated his contract with Monsanto and the courts sided with Monsanto.

In the industrial world, water use by agriculture is already quite efficient and becoming more so all the time. Even with technologies like drip irrigation, there is still plant respiration which pours water into the air. A lush, green crop can expire an amazing amount of water into the air as a result of normal plant processes. I once heard the figures and they were staggering, but I cannot find them right now for standard crops. Anyway, this isn't necessarily a bad thing (it is normal for plants to do this), but it does mean that this water cannot be recycled easily. Also it does change the local climate.

You mention drip irrigation. I want to address that as I have experience in this area. Drip irrigation is not widely used for large scale agriculture mainly because it is too expensive and does not scale very well. And it's hard to clean up. If you've ever seen Israeli fields where they use it, you'll see chopped up bits of black hose everywhere. It's really sad actually. The things that make it expensive include the need for fairly fine filtration systems, lots of transmission pipes, elbows, and such, and emitters have to be checked regularly and replaced when they are plugged. Israelis typically use it on small plots, and it does work pretty well there. But a kibbutznick has a full time job just keeping it going.

Conventionally, we have room for improvement. Flood irrigation is very inefficient, as are any sprinkler systems that are high pressure (over 40 psi) and that don't drop the water down low to the ground. And even with current, low-pressure systems, there are things we can do yet. Dropping the water right near the soil is very close to the same efficiency as drip irrigation, but a lot cheaper. Unfortunately this also makes it harder to plant and cultivate the crop as you have to make the rolls follow the pivot track around so that the drops won't tear up the crops. Currently most pivot systems today (if they are anywhere close to modern standards) drop the water right inside an average crop's canopy. Even still on a windy day, evaporation losses between the sprinklers and the crop are a big efficiency loss.

One thing about agriculture in North America that really bothers me is that certain water-thirsty crops like potatoes are only grown to serve the fast food industry. It's an industrial machine of planting one variety year after year, soaking it in herbicides and fungicides to hold the diseases at bay. And typically potatoes require 16 or more inches of irrigated rain per growing season compared to 8 to 12 inches of water for high-yield wheat.

All this reminds me of something that I saw a few years ago. There was a dispute over water between Utah and Nevada, and was a typical city vs agriculture conflict. The news interviewed a woman from Reno who was very scornful of the Utah farmers' concerns. She said, "I can't understand why they need the water anyway. Why can't farmers buy food in grocery stores like everyone else?" Boggled the mind.

I have a 24" screen. Why would I ever maximize a window other than, say a game or Google Earth? I have a "windowing" system for a reason. Fixed-width layouts on the web are common as well and on a large, high res screen you're going to have either a very large window with a lot of blank space, or a window with very zoomed-in text. Maybe they are catering to the ADHT-type people, but I run a Window Manager for a reason. I can kind of see where they are going (and apps aren't forced to be maximized), but I have some serious doubts.