John Wolfram

Travis Johnson wrote:I could be wrong, but I think the best thing to do here is incorporate into an LLC which might eliminate the need for insurance. Anyone who sued (which is not likely) would thus not be able to get your home and property, which is what could happen if you weren't.

An LLC can help, but only if the strict formalities of running a business are followed. My guess is that a good number of single member LLCs formed via LegalZoom do not have annual meetings or keep records of those annual meetings. When I sold fruit at a farmers market, the annual insurance was about $250. That may sound like a lot, but keep in mind that LLCs also have fees. For example, in California there is an $800 annual fee to have an LLC.

Jarret Hynd wrote:My science/math teacher had told us that once in awhile some investment groups would buy every combination of tickets when the lottery prize had accumulated after not being won for several weeks. I'd say that's the only way to stack the deck in your favour when it comes to the lotto, and it's not really achievable with individuals. 

I would also add that drawings where an investment group can actually do this are few and far between. It did happen at least once back in the 90s:
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/25/us/group-invests-5-million-to-hedge-bets-in-lottery.html

The main problem is that the jackpot has to be significantly more than the odds of winning in order to make a return. For example, if the odds of winning were one in a million, the jackpot would probably need to be $4+ million in order to be worthwhile since A) taxes have to be paid on the winnings, B) there is usually a penalty if you want the jackpot all at once rather than over 20 years, and C) there is a significant risk associated with having to split the jackpot with another entity.

This coming Sunday, March 25th is the annual Indiana Fruit and Nut Grower's Scionwood swap in Indianapolis. In the few times that I have gone, there tends to be an abundance of Persimmon and Pawpaw scion wood, and the speakers are usually pretty interesting too.

Indiana Farm Bureau
225 S. East St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46202

The doors will open early for us at 9:00 am
Pitch-in Lunch will be at 12:30
Speaker at 1:30
Business meeting 2:30 - 2:45
Auction 2:45 - 3:30

wayne fajkus wrote:Omg. You lost the whole trees?

No, just the fruit buds. The trees themselves don't die until -30 I believe.

Matt Grantham wrote:This is likely illegal if anyone were actually try to sell anything due to patent rights in most case, but if said community maintained this production under the pretense of a time bank or something similar might they be exempt for patent infringement?

35 USC 271 (a) states:

Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Making or using a patented invention (without selling) is still patent infringement.

That being said, the vast majority of fruit trees were never patented (or have had their patents expired). Also, the cost of patent litigation is extremely expensive, so any damages collected would likely dwarf the amount spent in pursuing a claim for patent infringement. So, the chances of a patent holder actually suing such an organization are relatively small...although a nasty letter from an attorney or two would not be unexpected.

Here in northwest Indiana, we won't be protecting the peach buds this year because deep winter kill (temps around -17F) took care of them all. On years that aren't so brutally cold, I've heard that simply spraying the trees with water will help protect them from frost because as the water freezes it releases heat. 

If he's growing Round up ready crops, and there is a bit of drift over to your property, anything living (other than GMO crops) is going to have a hard time at the property line.

For blocking radiation, metal is great. My old house had a metal roof and aluminum siding, and despite being only 1/4 mile to the cell tower I often had to go outside to get decent cell reception. It was kind of a pain in the winter and on rainy days since I didn't have a land line phone.

Todd Parr wrote:I hesitate to even post in threads like this because it seems my point of view is generally unpopular, but nearly every time I hear "redistribute", it means "theft".  If you have 4 people in a room and 1 of them has 20 dollars and the others have none, people that like to "redistribute wealth" believe it is okay to take 15 dollars from the guy with 20, and give 5 to each of the others.  To me, that is morally and legally wrong.  It's also self-defeating, because you remove the incentive from the guy that had 20 dollars to go earn another 20 if you are just going to take it anyway.  Sharing with others is a virtue and I believe strongly in it, but by definition, sharing means someone giving something to someone else, not someone taking something from me against my will and giving it to someone I did not choose to give it to.

When I hear "redistribute" I usually think of this quote from Atlas Shrugged:

There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better’s wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who’d rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss’s, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted – that was the truth of it – but we didn’t like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.

Didn't Paul mention in one of the podcast's that "namaste" seems to have the functional definition of "I'm about to fuck up your shit."