The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
It does work on construction sites though I'll give you in some areas it might not be the easiest thing ever. Never the less it is doable in most cases.
Construction sites have much larger budgets than most farms, much less acreage than most farms, and are not going to ruin a crop requiring dry harvest conditions by spraying water on them to reduce dust.
A twenty acre construction site is huge. A twenty acre farm is tiny.
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
Construction sites have much larger budgets than most farms, much less acreage than most farms, and are not going to ruin a crop requiring dry harvest conditions by spraying water on them to reduce dust.
A twenty acre construction site is huge. A twenty acre farm is tiny.
Who do you think would pay for the water? The farmer would absorb the cost? Doubtful.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Kansas is building a low dam across the Kansas River to ensure that its level dosen't fall below local municipal water intakes, which it has threatened to do every summer for a number of years, now.
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
Who do you think would pay for the water? The farmer would absorb the cost? Doubtful.
Since tax payers pay most of that cost now, probably us.
Actually, despite conservative whinging, this is a good idea, if not because of air pollution concerns. Top soil loss is a huge problem, largely brought about by the use of tractor tilling.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Does dust kicked up from farming do others damage? Duh. Would it cost farmers something to prevent this dust from being kicked up? Also, duh.
I doubt anybody here knows which of those costs is higher and therefore what the efficient solution is. I do know that a blanket ban (or even a universal cap) on dust pollution from farming is likely not the efficient solution, and neither is a blanket permit. The cost to others will vary by region (i.e. how many inhabitants live near the source of the dust) and the cost to reduce dust will vary by region and by crop (as well as by season and year).
Arguing about this matter in absolutes is retarded. Structures should be put in place to allow nearby residents and farmers to negotiate over the right to emit dust. Perhaps demand-revealing referenda could place the price of dust emission by region and farmers could choose to pay this price or to reduce their emissions. Or, equivalently, residents could choose how much to offer local farmers to reduce their emissions, depending on who is granted initial ownership rights. Either way, we are much more likely to find the efficient solution than we are by political arguments over the powers of a regulatory body.
Of course, my solution will never actually be put in place. It doesn't allow people to expound their ideologies in a nice, neat way. Both libs and cons will hate it.
Of course, my solution will never actually be put in place. It doesn't allow people to expound their ideologies in a nice, neat way. Both libs and cons will hate it.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
A couple of points and touching on those already made:
a) No till low till alternatives do exist. They typically are employed to reduce erosion in low tops soil environs. The downside to these practices are reduced productivity. Crops generally do not thrive as well with these practices as fully cutivated mullboard, disk and rake cultivation techniques. Root structures have a much harder time penetrating compacted soils as opposed to those from more aggresive cultivation techniques. Further no-till/low-till techniques rely more heavily on herbicide for greater weed control as a consequence of the lesser amount of cultivation. Likewise in order to make up for losses in productivity typically farmers use greater amounts of fertilizer (nitrate run off issues) in the no till low till situations.
b)Scale of operation. As Mad Monk suggests contruction sites (even those of massive scale) are dwarfed by the scale of acreage from agriculature. The sheer amount of water required to be applied to the millions and millions of acreas would be an environmental nightmare to an already taxed midwestern water table.
c) Populational Impact - The inept/inapt comparison to construction sites is likewise innapropriate as construction istes typically have populational densities that need to be considered. In large agriculaturaly areas I would venture to say that the populational impact is diminishingly small considering the relatively rapid settling of air born dust from agriculaturaly activites. In other words the dust so generated out on a farm has a very small liklihood of impacting population centers by the winds blow it to the nearest town locale.
d) The outright nonsense of harvesting after rainy seasons is laughable. Folks may not understand, but farmers get paid for crops based upon meeting certain moisture requirements. If moisture content in grains are too high they get paid a lower amount for their goods. The reason this is so is twofold. 1. High moisture crops tend to be more susceptible to spoilage from molds and other biological entities. 2. Buyers prefer to purchase actual nutritionally valuable crops as opposed to water.
d) Tilling in extremely wet seasons is as Mad Monk suggests a not good idea. (Causes excess diesel usage as a function of acreage tilled as well as causes massive ruts possibility of equipment lost time due to getting stuck etc. in fields.) However, this is typically not an issue for dust generation as spring seasons generally are moist enough to allow tillage in moist soils without dust generation. Most dust generation is a function of the harvest times (dry summer and fall conditions) where as I described above employment of water works at exact odds of the intent.
"Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Of course, my solution will never actually be put in place. It doesn't allow people to expound their ideologies in a nice, neat way. Both libs and cons will hate it.
I think people out here would be agreeable to that if they thought they could trust the government. Most don't now.
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
I was just typing up a post comparing to construction sites making the same major points you did. The harm is higher (more residents nearby) and the cost to reduce harm is lower (concentrated source of dust). The issue there is fairly one-sided. Regulation is likely not that bad an idea in that case, as it is also not in similar situations where the harm is great and the cost to reduce it is low (e.g. mercury emissions, leaded gasoline).
Should dust emissions on farmland be priced at 0? Probably not. Should they be priced at 0 up to some maximum and then heavily priced (fines!) after that? Also, probably no...
I think people out here would be agreeable to that if they thought they could trust the government. Most don't now.
What government? I'm talking about referenda of local populations that allow for a negotiation between those who wish to emit (farmers) and those who wish there to be no emissions (residents).
This is a case of a need for clearly defined property rights and flexible ownership structures. Not for the EPA to issue a blanket cap on emissions which may be too high in some places and too low in others. And which consults neither of the two parties actually involved in the dispute.
First, the EPA has to allow it. Then, the EPA has to agree to abide with what the local populations come up with.
Nobody is going to put the money and effort into that unless they trust that the Feds aren't going to interfere, especially given the likely results when communities made up of farmers and their dependents decide on proper limits for emissions.
After decades of dealing with the EPA on other matters, nobody is going to believe that.
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
Ah, now I see what you mean. Yeah, like I said, this is blue sky. The EPA as currently constituted won't go for this. Which is why it sucks. And politicians won't reconstitute the EPA so that this is the sort of thing it facilitates. Which is why politicians suck. And voters won't vote for politicians who will actually do the right thing. Which is why voters suck.
Basically, everybody sucks except for me and those who agree with me.
I would post responses to the upcoming regulations from some of the agricultural forums I've been looking at, but they sound like a bunch of angry rednecks.
Of course, that's pretty much what we are.
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
Tweet
Comment