Compare and contrast:

1) Israelis bring high-tech food to Angola

An Israeli company is using the latest water-saving technology to grow fruit and vegetables in Angola, which imports much of its food after 27 years of civil war. […] The farm was set up at the end of the war in 2002 and has been harvesting tomatoes, peppers, cucumber, mangoes, melons and grapes for three years. In fact, the farm produces 35 tonnes of vegetables every week of the year, selling most of this food to supermarkets and restaurants in Luanda.

2) Farms ‘big threat’ to fresh water

Farming poses the biggest threat to fresh water supplies, according to a major United Nations report. Agriculture is consuming more water as the world population increases and as people turn to a Western diet, one of the scientists on the report said. Farms use two-thirds of fresh water taken from aquifers and other sources. The UN concludes that ending subsidies on pesticides and fertilisers, and realistic pricing on water, would reduce demand and pollution.

So, artificially low prices on water are creating demand that far outstrips supply, leading the earth towards a security disaster. Only when water becomes a highly valuable commodity does innovation occur, leading to more appropriate controls designed to for long-term availability and scalability.

Let’s say the public is polled, and they say they oppose something; perhaps something like drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge:

Question: Should oil drilling be allowed in America’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

— 53 percent — Do Not Allow Oil Drilling

— 38 percent — Allow Oil Drilling

The poll found a remarkable gap in intensity of feeling about drilling: 44 percent of respondents strongly oppose drilling, while just 25 percent strongly support it. Only about 10 percent were undecided on this issue.

What then could be driving some representatives in government to press ahead with plans to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Hard to say what motives are, but that is exactly what a website is trying to figure out. Granted they have a rather heavy-handed approach, and their data is not exactly transparent, but it does show some pretty nice capabilities for collecting and presenting data.

I guess the real question is can this site demonstrate a that contributions have led to pro-drilling votes. It is odd to me that they do not have that figured out, yet they suggest you tell everyone to stop taking money. And even if they did show a trend of payments and pro-drilling votes they would still have to account for the usual correllation/causation issues…

Someone mentioned new software licensing regulations that are tied to the “Secure America’s Homes and Businesses Act of 2005 (HR 3632)”. So I went online to read the text of the act and discovered that homeowners are elligible for $5,000, and businesses for $50,000, when they install surveillance systems.

Check out the exact text on THOMAS:

(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of a taxpayer who elects the application of this section, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the cost of any expenses relating to the purchase and professional installation of a qualifying electronic premise security system in a residential or commercial premise owned or occupied by the taxpayer during such taxable year.

`(b) Maximum Deduction- The deduction allowed by subsection (a) for the taxable year shall not exceed–

`(1) in the case of a qualifying electronic premise security system installed in a residential premise, $5,000, and

`(2) in the case of a qualifying electronic premise security system installed in a commercial premise, $50,000.

`(c) Definitions- For purposes of this section–

`(1) QUALIFYING ELECTRONIC PREMISE SECURITY SYSTEM- The term `qualifying electronic premise security system’ means any of the following:

`(A) Electronic fire or life safety devices, intrusion detection alarms, and any other burglar alarms or devices.

`(B) Video surveillance or other security cameras and equipment.

`(C) Access controls, including biometric controls, automated fingerprint identification systems, and other electronic access control devices.

`(D) Components, wiring, system displays, terminals, auxiliary power supplies, and other equipment necessary or incidental to the installation and operation of any item described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

Nice that they specifically call out the fingerprint identification systems. Any old fire or life safety device will do, but you’d better consider fingerprints if you’re thinking about access controls. Come to think of it, it is about time I installed that solar-cell array and battery backup sytem with a diesel generator for my house. After all, what good is any kind of physical security system if it can be switched off or if the main power goes out? $5,000 worth of security per home sounds about right, no?

And what do you think constitutes a legal residential premise?

`residential premise’ means any house, condominium, cooperative unit, boat, or trailer used as a dwelling by the taxpayer

Sorry, you can’t live out of your urban assault vehicle and still get the tax break for security. And that takes me back to my earlier point on a strange loophole in the laws that I see people trying to worm their way into. If someone works/lives in a large vehicle on private property it appears that laws covering a residence do not apply, nor do the rules set forth by the department of transportation.

Now, where is that new law about software licenses?