text:
Recycling Irrigation Water on Ornamental Nursery Operations: Could Consumer Premiums Compensate for Grower Adoption Costs?
Authors: Xiang Cao1, Darrell Bosch1, and James Pease1
1 Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Hutcheson Hall, 250 Drillfield Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24060
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI12125-17
The U.S. nursery and greenhouse industry is facing twin challenges of reduced water availability and increased pressure to mitigate pollution from horticultural production. Water-recycling technology (WRT) has been adopted by some nursery producers to improve crop water productivity and to enhance water supply security. This study estimated the economic feasibility of WRT adoption if producers received some portion of retail price premiums for eco-labeled products. Three annual bedding plants, Geraniums (Pelargonium spp.), Petunias (Petunia spp.), and Chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum spp.) and three broadleaf evergreen plants, Azaleas (Rhododendron spp.), Holly (Ilex spp.), and Boxwood (Buxus spp.) were analyzed based on their sales in the study region of Virginia (VA), Maryland (MD), and Pennsylvania (PA). Of the eight case study nurseries and two synthesized nurseries examined, five showed increased net costs with recycling. However, in almost all cases for which at least a portion of a retail consumer premium was returned to growers, the premium was adequate to compensate for recycling investment costs.
Keywords: irrigation; water recycling; nursery production; eco-labeling
Productivity of irrigation water use and contaminant runoff control are becoming increasingly important to nursery and greenhouse growers as well as to policymakers and the public. Increased attention to minimizing total applications of water to obtain a healthy plant (water use productivity) is prompted by water scarcity in U.S. regions such as the West as well as by environmental concerns about agricultural runoff. Concern for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2010) to issue a Total Maximum Daily Load plan for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment runoff in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Under increasing pressure to adopt solutions to address regulatory and drought concerns, some nurseries have adopted WRT, which involves capturing and recycling irrigation water to improve crop water productivity and to enhance water supply security while reducing contaminants lost from nursery and greenhouse production sites. It is estimated that a 0.4 ha (1-acre) greenhouse producing ornamental crops requires ≈83,270 L (22,000 gallons) daily for irrigation, and container nursery operations may require up to 102,195 L (27,000 gallons) daily (Bailey et al., 1999; Robbins, 2010). With WRT, it is estimated that 40% to 50% of water applied could be conserved through recapture and reuse of both irrigation water and any storm water runoff (Wilson and von Broembsen, n.d.), thus increasing security of water supplies and reducing pollutant loads to nearby surface waters. Ferraro et al. (2017) provided detailed analysis of recycling requirements and costs for VA, MD, and PA nurseries.
Long-term access to secure irrigation water supply is of critical importance to nursery growers. WRT also can potentially provide social benefits by reducing discharge to streams and rivers of polluted water from horticultural operations. In some cases, the increased risk of water-borne plant pathogens spreading through recycled water has impeded WRT adoption and associated social benefits from reduced water pollution (Hong and Moorman, 2005; von Broembsen, 1998). In addition, the concern about production cost increases associated with WRT, and the uncertainty of revenue enhancement discourage many growers from implementing the new technology (Cultice et al., 2016).
Many retail customers of horticultural products are concerned about environmental degradation and are now more aware of environmental aspects of production. Previous research has indicated that consumers are willing to pay premiums for plants produced and labeled as "environmentally friendly" or "eco-friendly" (Behe et al., 2014; Gardner et al., 2002; Michaud et al., 2012; Yue et al., 2010). Plants grown with WRT qualify for such a designation because WRT reduces discharge of polluted water. For example, consumers are willing to pay more for "eco-labelled" roses certifying eco-friendly cultivation practices (Michaud et al., 2012). Eco-labeling of environmentally friendly or "green" products has gained interest because environmental practices are highlighted (e.g., using recycled water). Consumers receive more information about the product, and new market opportunities and potential higher profits may be generated. In addition, contract farming has become more common in the U.S. horticulture industry (MacDonald, 2015). Contracting producers and wholesale purchasers such as landscapers or retailers such as "big-box" stores should share price premiums obtained from consumers with contracting producers as financial incentives to promote adoption of conservation practices such as WRT. Little research has been conducted as to how such price premiums might be transmitted through stages of the distribution system from consumers back to growers, or how such premiums relate to costs incurred by growers to produce such eco-labeled attributes. In this case, nursery growers find it hard to obtain useful economic information about the profit potential of WRT and its anticipated effect on their business' long-term bottom line.
Will consumer premiums for plants grown with recycled water be sufficient to make WRT economically practical? This analysis evaluates the economic effects of labeling plants grown with WRT in selected nursery operations in the mid-Atlantic region of VA, MD, and PA. The goal is to estimate the economic feasibility of WRT production practices, which include capturing and recycling rainfall and irrigation runoff, combined with plant eco-labeling, and to determine how such a program would affect greenhouse/nursery production costs, gross revenues, and net revenues. Research results can help nursery growers and policymakers assess WRT adoption to improve crop water productivity and to reduce pollution of off-site surface waters.
Driven by increased awareness of the need for environmental protection, green products have become more popular among consumers in both food and non-food marketing systems. A so-called "green" product usually refers to a product produced with methods that improve environmental quality or reduce environmental pollution compared with an equivalent product produced with conventional practices (Durif et al., 2010). For example, plants grown with WRT could be considered "green" because recycling water may reduce discharge of polluted water to rivers and streams. Schlegelmilch et al. (1996) illustrated that consumer environmental consciousness has positive effects on their purchasing decisions for green products. Laroche et al. (2001) investigated the profile of consumers willing to pay more for green products generally including their demographics, attitudes toward environmentally friendly programs, daily behavior, and personal values. They found this segment of consumers was more likely to be female, married, and with at least one child living at home.
Horticultural products provide both private and public benefits for consumers. Private product benefits are limited to the buyer, whereas public benefits are available to the buyer as well as others. For example, if a horticultural product is produced in a manner that reduces or eliminates pollutants, the product presents a public benefit. Consumers cannot readily evaluate some public benefits such as reduced pollution unless these attributes are communicated via product labeling. Research has found that consumers prefer and are willing to pay a price premium for horticultural products that promise environmental benefits (Behe et al., 2013, 2014; Gardner et al., 2002; Hartter, 2012; Khachatryan et al., 2014; Michaud et al., 2012; Yue et al., 2010, 2016). Gardner et al. (2002) used the contingent valuation method to estimate that consumers were willing to pay a retail premium of as much as $13.35 for a flowering dogwood tree labeled as "resistant to powdery mildew." Using hypothetical conjoint analysis and non-hypothetical experimental auctions, Yue et al. (2010) found that consumers were willing to pay premiums for plants grown in biodegradable vs. plastic containers. Michaud et al. (2012) found that consumers were willing to pay an average premium of €1.91 ($2.56) per stem for roses with an eco-label and an average premium of €2.51 ($3.36) per stem for roses claiming a carbon footprint reduction. Hartter (2012) conducted a choice experiment to estimate the premiums that consumers would be willing to pay for ornamental plants produced with WRT and labeled as "water conservation." The author found that, on average, retail consumers were willing to pay 9% to 36% more than the average retail price for Geranium, Petunia, Chrysanthemum, Azalea, Holly, and Boxwood. Behe et al. (2013) profiled nine consumer segments in terms of their preferences for local and sustainably grown plant products.
More recently, a subsequent article by Behe et al. (2014) used eye-tracking technology to categorize three plant consumer groups as plant-oriented, production method-oriented, and price-oriented. The authors found that regardless of their groups, all consumers preferred ornamental plants labeled "grown using water-saving practices" over other production labels such as "grown using energy-saving practices," "grown using sustainable practices," and "grown using conventional practices." The results also indicated that 11% of the respondents were production method–oriented among which water-saving label increased their Likert willingness to pay (WTP) scale by ≈6.5%. Khachatryan et al. (2014) performed a mixed-logit model to estimate consumers' premiums for environmental attributes of horticulture plants, finding that individuals were willing to pay a premium for energy-saving production practices ($0.13), nonplastic containers such as compostable ($0.23), plantable ($0.12), and recyclable ($0.16), and locally grown plants ($0.22). Yue et al. (2016) investigated the U.S. consumers' WTP for sustainable attributes in plants via experimental auctions. The results showed that consumers were willing to pay a price premium for energy and water savings in plant production of $0.15 and $0.12 per unit, respectively, and the WTP for products labeled "sustainable" was estimated at $0.08 per unit. These previous studies indicate that consumers are willing to pay premiums for the underlying environmental attributes of a product that promises societal benefits.
However, product labels do not completely define a product, especially in terms of environmental attributes. Usually, certifications conveyed to consumers by product labeling confirm environmental attributes. Previous research has found that consumers prefer to pay more for certified vs. uncertified products and that they generally prefer third party certification to first party or "self-certification" (Aguilar and Vlosky, 2007; Curtis and Cowee, 2010; Hartter, 2012; Michaud et al., 2012). Hartter (2012) assumed three categories of third-party certification authorities for water conservation including governmental organizations, industry organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO). Specifically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture represented the governmental organization; the American Nursery Association (a fictitious certifying authority) represented an industry-backed agency; and Water for Tomorrow and Plant Society of America represented a fictitious NGO for water conservation certification. The estimation results indicate that consumers have varying preferences and WTPs for plants certified by different authorities.
On the producer side of markets, studies of WRT adoption by horticultural growers are limited. Cultice (2013) conducted a mail survey of mid-Atlantic irrigated nursery producers to determine irrigation practices and used a conditional logit model to estimate the impacts of disease probability, drought probability, and water-recycling cost on producers' WTP to adopt water-recycling techniques and practices. Of 260 irrigated nurseries, 55% reported that they did not capture any irrigation runoff, and only 14% captured all irrigation runoff (Cultice et al., 2016). Only six irrigated nurseries (2.3%) sourced all their irrigation water from captured runoff. Recycling cost was the most important deterrent factor to grower adoption of water recycling (Cultice et al., 2016). Dennis et al. (2010) surveyed greenhouse and nursery crop growers nationally regarding their sustainable practices including water recycling and other water conservation measures. The authors found that 26% of their respondents had already adopted water-recycling practices, with only 4% considering future implementation of WRT. DeVincentis et al. (2015) conducted cost and benefit partial budgeting analysis of various disinfection techniques for recycled irrigation water in southern New Jersey. Disinfection methods included ultraviolet-lights, chlorinators, flooders, and drippers. The study calculated the net present value (NPV) of each disinfection technique based on site visits to five nurseries. The results indicated there was a positive correlation between system costs and the complexity of the water disinfection method. All the case nurseries had positive NPVs, indicating profitable investments. Most recently, Ferraro et al. (2017) used partial budgets to estimate and compare the annual costs of recapturing and recycling irrigation water vs. extraction costs from wells or municipal water supply sources. They found that six of eight case nurseries (all of whom had already adopted some WRT practices) had lower production costs from capturing and recycling on 75% of their production areas compared with using well or municipal water.
In this study, budgets from Ferraro et al. (2017) provide the basis for assessing producer costs of capturing and recycling. Calibrated consumer premium results are taken from Hartter (2012) as the prices that consumers would be willing to pay for plants grown with WRT. These premiums allow us to compare non-water-recycling practices (e.g., grower net returns sourcing irrigation water from municipal or private well sources) vs. returns from WRT. With adoption of WRT, changes in production costs including water-supply cost, labeling cost, and certification cost are compared with benefits from price premiums for plants labeled as "irrigation water recycled," and varying proportions are assumed to be returned to growers as compensation for the WRT investment. Hinson et al. (2012) studied market channels of ornamental plant industry and concluded that mass merchandisers have sufficient market power to affect grower prices and profitability. Retailers (e.g., "big-box" stores) could use their market power to mandate grower WRT practices while retaining some of or the entire premium for themselves. We reflect this uncertainty by varying the proportion of the premium returned to the grower ( ) as was done by White et al. (2014) in a study of consumer premiums for sustainable beef-production practices.
We conducted the study with eight case nurseries varying in terms of size, location, and water supply method. The eight case nurseries include three in VA (VA-1, VA-2, and VA-3), three in MD (MD-1, MD-2, and MD-3) and two in PA (PA-1 and PA-2). All eight operations are adopters of WRT as they capture rainfall and irrigation runoff in collection basins and then recycle the water to supplement water supply in addition to using municipal city water or well water. Nurseries VA-2, VA-3, MD-2, MD-3, and PA-2 obtain 100% of their irrigation water from recycling, and VA-1, MD-1, and PA-1 obtain 34%, 50%, and 20%, respectively, from recycling. In addition, two simulated nurseries (SynSmall and SynLarge) representing mean characteristics and practices in terms of water source, grower size, and water usage are constructed based on survey responses of irrigated mid-Atlantic ornamental nurseries by Cultice et al. (2016). SynSmall represents small nurseries with gross revenues of $500,000 or less, whereas SynLarge represents large nurseries with gross revenues greater than $500,000. Most surveyed nurseries did not capture irrigation runoff or rainfall from any portion of their production area (Cultice, 2013), therefore, the most common alternative to WRT (well water) is assumed as the main irrigation water source for the simulated nurseries. Furthermore, we assumed the two simulated nurseries to be located in MD, where regulations for well drilling are the most restrictive and expensive. This provides the most favorable case for adoption of WRT (Maryland Department of the Environment, 2015). Table 1 indicates the general characteristics of case study nurseries with regard to size, location, and current water supply method.
Size and water source of the eight case study nursery operations and two simulated nurseries.
According to the 2014 Census of Horticultural Specialties (Table 2), Geraniums (Pelargonium spp.), Petunias (Petunia spp.), and Chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum spp.) rank among the top 5 annual plants sold in VA, MD, and PA. Azaleas (Rhododendron spp.), Holly (Ilex spp.), and Boxwood (Buxus spp.) are among the top 5 broadleaf evergreen plants sold in the three states. Because of their popularity and to be consistent with premiums estimated by Hartter (2012), this analysis uses these six plants for investigating impacts of WRT adoption and consumer premiums on sales.
Sales and percent of total U.S. sales of six horticultural plants by state in 2014.
This study estimates enterprise-level costs and returns from WRT for each of the six plants assuming that the 10 case nurseries produce only these plants. Similar to Hartter (2012), we assume that Geraniums are sold in 10.2 cm (4-inch) or 0.47 L (0.125 gallon) pots, that Petunias are sold in 6-packs, and that Chrysanthemums are sold in 3.8 L (1-gallon) pots. Azaleas and Boxwoods are sold in 3.8 L pots with plant heights ranging from 30.5 to 38.1 cm (12–15 inches), and Hollies are sold in 7.6 L (2 gallon) pots with plant heights ranging from 38.1 to 45.7 cm (15–18 inches).
Because of varying container sizes, the normal production per hectare (without disease losses) differs by plant species. About 49,421–54,363 containers 3.8 L (1-gallon) in size will cover 1 ha of production area (Halcomb and Fare, 2009). For Geraniums planted in 10.2 cm (4-inch) pots, potential production is about 415,136 pots per hectare. For Petunias planted in a 6-pack, potential production per hectare is 69,189 six-packs. For Chrysanthemum, Azalea, and Boxwood planted in 3.8 L pots, 1 ha can produce ≈51,892 pots. For Holly planted in 7.6 L pots, 1 ha can produce nearly 25,946 pots. In the mid-Atlantic region, commercial nurseries generally produce only one cycle of these plants per year.
The possibility of increased plant death rates with WRT must be considered. Hong and Moorman (2005) found that risk is increased as water-borne pathogens such as Pythium and Phytophthora will re-inoculate with recycled irrigation water and runoff collected from nursery production areas. To mitigate such risks, growers typically treat recycled irrigation water with sterilizers such as liquid or gas chlorination systems. In the survey conducted by Cultice (2013), the average proportion of nursery revenue loss in sales from all types of plant disease (i.e., plant death rate) for both non-water recyclers and water recyclers was reported. On average, plant death rates for non-adopters and adopters of WRT were estimated at 2% and 3%, respectively. Based on the mean survey responses, this analysis assumes that plant death rate will increase to 3% because of diseases caused by water-borne pathogens after adoption of WRT compared with 2% for non-adoption of WRT. Thus, for the case nurseries and the two hypothetical nurseries, the reduced production per hectare resulting from converting to recycling for each of the six plants is assumed the same, which can be expressed as
where is normal production cost per hectare of the six plants without disease losses as stated previously and −1% indicates the reduction in yield resulting from a switch to WRT. Because the yield losses lead to growers' sales losses, the opportunity cost of yield loss resulting from adoption of WRT for plant type can be expressed as
where is the wholesale price accepted by growers of plant .
The change in production cost resulting from water recycling for plant , , is
where is water supply cost change, is labeling cost change, and is certification cost change. Water supply cost change results from the change in cost of delivering irrigation water to the crop as a result of switching to WRT. Labeling cost change accounts for a change in cost of labeling individual pots resulting from yield changes. Certification cost change accounts for the cost of hiring a third-party contractor to certify that advertised plants receive water from WRT practices. These costs are described in the following paragraphs.
Ferraro et al. (2017) used partial budgets to evaluate water supply cost changes from adoption of recycling for the case nurseries. They analyzed differences in practices and associated costs for recycling in comparison with the next best option (well water or municipal water). Capital costs for both conventional water supply (well or municipal source) and WRT were amortized on an annual basis; thus refers to annual water-supply cost change. Partial budget results in 2014 dollars from Ferraro et al. (2017) are presented in Table 3. is the difference between WRT cost and the cost of the next best alternative; thus, a negative refers to a cost advantage with WRT and vice versa. WRT costs vary among nurseries depending on physical layout, distance to water source, and other factors. Nurseries VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, MD-1, MD-2, and PA-1 have cost advantages with WRT of −$1624/ha, −$29,910/ha, −$6339/ha, −$813/ha, −$2851/ha, and −$343/ha, respectively. As discussed in Ferraro et al. (2017), the major factors determining cost advantage per hectare from WRT are the availability and cost of the alternative well or municipal water source and the costs of WRT investment. For example, VA-2 saves more costs with WRT than VA-1 because of much higher costs of obtaining municipal water. WRT costs are also highly variable among nurseries because of differences in the cost of digging recapture ponds, opportunity cost (forgone income) of land used for ponds, and regrading cost.
Net water supply cost changes for eight nursery operations (VA-1 to PA-2) and two simulated nurseries (SynSmall and SynLarge) with alternative water sources.
Nurseries MD-3 and PA-2 incur increased costs with WRT, estimated at $7516/ha and $2199/ha, respectively (Table 3). For the two simulated nurseries SynSmall and SynLarge, that are assumed to use well water as the main irrigation water supply, WRT increased water supply costs by an estimated $3810/ha and $7651/ha, respectively.
Certification is necessary to assure consumers of the attribute associated with paying a premium. However, there are no industry-wide certification systems to define production with recycled irrigation water. It is assumed that producers who wish to increase net returns with recycling would contract a qualified and respected third party to certify that their operation practices and nursery products accord with specific standards of WRT. Such standards would specify minimum requirements as to how water is recycled to ensure that the environmental benefits of recycling are achieved. After certification, producers are authorized to label plants as "produced with recycled water," whereby consumers can acquire environmental information that may influence their preferences and WTP for horticultural products.
Labeling cost and certification costs also relate to the documentation of cost changes in water-supply practices resulting from recycling. Based on the information provided by the owners and managers of the case nurseries during on-site interviews, the unit labeling cost is about $0.10/pot. Thus, a labeling cost change is
where is the labeling cost change, and is the net negative change of normal production per hectare for recyclers specified in Eq. [1]. The labeling cost associated with WRT in Eq. [4] is negative because of the yield loss from increased plant death rate.
The example cost data for certification is developed from the "Sustainability Standard for Nursery and Greenhouse Operations" operated by Food Alliance, a nonprofit organization that has certified over 330 farms, ranches, and food processors in Canada, Mexico, and 23 U.S. states for good environmental stewardship. Although the organization does not have an independent certification program focusing on water recycling for the nursery industry, the sustainability standard does contain specific criteria for water conservation and recycled water quality in nursery operations. The Food Alliance publishes detailed certification costs on its website that are used in this analysis. The certification costs consist of an inspection fee and a license fee. The inspection fee includes a nonrefundable $350 document processing charge and a $400 deposit toward the actual cost of inspection. According to Food Alliance, in most cases, the average inspection fee is between $900 and $1500. Because Food Alliance certification is valid for 3 years, the average annual inspection fee ranges from $300 to $500 per year. In addition, nursery operations pay a variable annual license fee based on a percentage of gross annual sales ($100 flat fee less than $100,000, 0.10% from $100,000 to $1,000,000, and 0.05% greater than $1,000,000), with a licensing fee cap of $5000. For example, gross revenue for nursery MD-2 reported in the survey is $7,000,000; thus, the annual license fee would be $3500. After adding the maximum average annual inspection fee of $500, the average annual certification cost would be ≈$94/ha ( ). Errors in estimating certification costs are unlikely to affect final results because in three-fourths of the cases (Tables 4–7), the certification cost is 3% or less of the total production cost change.
Labeling cost change ( ), certification cost change ( ), and production cost change ( ) with water recycling technology for Geranium.
Labeling cost changes ( ), certification cost changes ( ), and production cost changes ( ) with water recycling technology for Petunia.
Labeling cost changes ( ), certification cost changes ( ), and production cost changes ( ) with water recycling technology for Chrysanthemum, Azalea, and Boxwood.
Labeling cost change ( ), certification cost change ( ), and production cost change ( ) with water recycling technology for Holly.
For this analysis, it is assumed that in a typical wholesale nursery production contract, retailers offer price premiums to encourage contract growers to produce plants with WRT. Following Cultice (2013), ≈52% of growers are wholesalers. Thus, a conservative assumption in this analysis is that the case nurseries are wholesalers who sell all plants directly to retailers, who in turn sell to consumers and return a portion of the premium to growers. If growers were retailers, they would retain all of the premium. Equation [5] clarifies how price premiums tied to WRT plants could be returned proportionally to growers and increase gross revenue.
where is the new wholesale price after adding a proportional premium (denoted as ), in which is a conveyance rate indicating the fraction of the consumer premium being returned to the water-recycling nursery. After readjusting, refers to the gross revenue loss from WRT because of yield loss, whereas is the increased gross revenue resulting from consumer premiums for plants grown with WRT.
Premium estimates obtained from growers by Hartter (2012) are based on survey responses to a hypothetical choice experiment. However, hypothetical responses may suffer from "hypothetical bias," i.e., overstating consumer WTP compared with revealed choices of consumers with actual purchases in non-hypothetical situations (Blumenschein et al., 2008; Cummings et al., 1995; Harrison, 2006; Harrison and Rutström, 2008; List and Gallet, 2001; Silva et al., 2007; Yue et al., 2010). For example, List and Gallet (2001) summarized 29 experimental studies and concluded that respondents on average overestimated their preferences by a factor of 3 in hypothetical settings compared with actual purchases. Silva et al. (2007) found that on average, the non-hypothetical estimates of WTP estimates for different groups of novel products were from 8% to 29% lower than the hypothetical WTP estimates in two elicitation mechanisms including experimental auction and conjoint analysis. Blumenschein et al. (2008) concluded that the average WTP for a pharmacist-provided diabetes program in a real purchasing group was 50% lower than that obtained in hypothetical surveys. Yue et al. (2010) found that the mean WTP for plant containers made from rice hulls (straw) obtained from an experimental auction was 29% (39%) lower than that obtained from a hypothetical conjoint analysis. Although Hartter (2012) applied a "cheap talk" method as suggested by Cummings and Taylor (1999) to reduce hypothetical bias and the potential for artificially high WTP estimates, premium estimates are calibrated (divided by 3) as suggested by List and Gallet (2001).
The horticultural plant price data (wholesale) and (retail) is obtained from the Census of Horticultural Specialties (USDA/NASS, 2014). The calibrated (divided by 3) mean values of estimated premiums by Hartter (2012) are shown with 2014 census prices in Tables 8 and 9 after adjustment to 2014 dollars using the consumer price index of indoor plants and flowers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015).
Calibrated premiums and wholesale and retail prices of three annual bedding plants by states, adjusted to 2014 dollars.
Calibrated premiums and wholesale and retail prices of broadleaf evergreen plants by states, adjusted to 2014 dollars.
Finally, the net revenue change from recycling is the difference between gross revenue change and production cost change:
where is the gross revenue change calculated with Eq. [5] and is the production cost change calculated with Eq. [3].
The sensitivity of gross and net revenue changes to the conveyance rate ( ) is evaluated with the premium estimate fixed at its mean value. Three possible values are selected: 0%, , and 100%. Zero percent is a pessimistic value at which the grower receives nothing from the consumer premiums; is the census price ratio of wholesale price and retail price of each plant in Tables 8 and 9; and 100% is an optimistic value at which the grower receives the complete premium. Where price ratios exceed 100%, such as Azalea in PA, Holly in MD, and Boxwood in VA and MD, 100% is used. In addition, break-even analyses to balance production cost and gross revenue change associated with WRT (i.e., ) are conducted in terms of conveyance rate , premium estimate and plant death rate.
Production cost changes.
Labeling cost changes, certification cost changes and production cost changes resulting from WRT are presented in Tables 4–7. For each of the six plants, nurseries VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, MD-1, and MD-2 have lower production costs with WRT compared with well water or municipal water as the reduced labeling cost and water supply cost more than offset the certification cost in each case. For nurseries MD-3, PA-1, and PA-2 and for the two simulated nurseries SynSmall and SynLarge, the production costs of WRT are higher than using well water or municipal water. Production costs increase for MD-3, PA-2, SynSmall, and SynLarge because of large water supply cost increases ranging from $2199 to $7651 per hectare. WRT reduces water supply costs for PA-1; however, production costs increase modestly because of the certification cost ($988/ha/year). The high certification cost for PA-1 is mainly because of its reported high per hectare gross revenue (≈$241,915/ha), much higher than other nurseries.
Gross revenue changes with WRT.
Table 10 shows the estimated changes in gross revenues by plant species with alternative conveyance rates. and are held constant for all nurseries, therefore, changes of gross revenues resulting from different wholesale prices garnered by each nursery operation are based on its geographic location. SynSmall and SynLarge are assumed located in MD, so their gross revenue changes match those of MD case nurseries. When no premiums go back to growers (conveyance rate ), all nurseries have negative gross revenue changes for each of the six plants because of the assumed increased plant death rate with WRT. When the conveyance rate is 100% (growers obtain all the premium) and when , all 10 nurseries have positive changes in gross revenue for five plants with Holly as an exception. For Holly, the nurseries in VA have decreased gross revenues at −$1098/ha when ; the nurseries in MD as well as the synthetic nurseries have negative gross revenue changes estimated at −$219/ha when or .
Table 10.
Gross revenue sensitivity ( ) to conveyance rates ( ).
Net revenue changes with WRT.
After deducting production cost changes from the gross revenue changes, the net revenue changes for alternative conveyance rates are shown in Tables 11 and 12. In the cases of Azalea in PA, Holly in MD, and Boxwood in VA and MD, the wholesale price ( ) is greater than the retail price ( ) reported in the Census as shown in Tables 8 and 9. In those cases, is assumed equal to resulting in the same gross revenue change as obtained for .
Net revenue sensitivity ( ) to conveyance rates ( ) for three annual bedding plants.
Net revenue sensitivity ( ) to conveyance rates ( ) for three broadleaf evergreen plants.
When the conveyance rate is 0%, only nursery VA-2 has increased net revenue for all plants because of its large production cost saving from WRT that fully offsets the opportunity cost of yield loss. For nursery VA-1, only Petunia generates a positive net revenue change of $291/ha. Nursery VA-3 has increased net revenues for all plants except Geranium (−$1034/ha) and Boxwood (−$6561/ha) as its production cost savings for these two plants fail to cover the opportunity cost of yield loss. MD-2 has relatively small positive net revenue changes for Petunia ($1899/ha) and Chrysanthemum ($157/ha). The remaining nurseries (MD-1, MD-3, PA-1, PA-2, SynSmall, and SynLarge) have negative net revenue changes for all six plants when is 0%.
When , MD-3 and SynLarge have decreased net revenue for Azalea, estimated at −$1315/ha and −$1436/ha, respectively. VA-1, MD-3, PA-1, PA-2, SynSmall, and SynLarge have negative changes for Holly, estimated at −$41/ha, −$7765/ha, −$406/ha, −$2021/ha, −$4112/ha, and −$7886/ha, respectively.
Except for three cases (Holly on MD-3, SynSmall, and SynLarge), all 10 nurseries gain more net revenues for all plants from WRT when the conveyance rate than well water or municipal water. Net revenues increase because the returned premiums generate larger gross revenues to offset the opportunity costs of yield losses as well as the increased production costs with WRT.
Break-even conveyance rate R.
For those nurseries that suffer from decreased net revenues associated with WRT for different plants as shown in Tables 11 and 12, the corresponding break-even conveyance rates to balance gross revenue and production cost changes ( ) are shown in Table 13. For example, for nursery VA-1, a small break-even conveyance rate will balance the −$6275/ha net revenue change associated with WRT for Geranium; whereas for nursery PA-2, a large break-even offsets the −$8327/ha net revenue change related to WRT for Holly. With only three exceptions (Holly on nursery MD-3, SynSmall, and SynLarge), break-even conveyance rates are less than 100% as shown in Table 13, indicating that growers could cover WRT costs with a sufficient share of consumer premiums.
Break-even conveyance rate required to balance gross revenue and production cost changes ( ).
Break-even premium results.
Table 14 shows the break-even premiums corresponding to the break-even R shown in Table 13 that should be returned to growers to balance net revenue. Overall, with only two exceptions (Holly in nursery MD-3 and SynLarge), the break-even premiums are $0.50/pot or less for all plants and all nurseries. Specifically, the break-even premiums for the three annual bedding plants are well below $0.20/pot on average, and are more consistent with previous finding such as Yue et al. (2016), whereas the break-even premiums for the three broad leaf evergreen are slightly higher than previous findings.
Break-even premiums corresponding to the break-even R required to balance gross revenue and production cost changes ( ).
Break-even death rate results.
The death rate after adoption of WRT is assumed to be nondecreasing based on survey responses reported in Cultice (2013). However, pathogen mitigation practices (Hong and Moorman, 2005) might reduce plant disease incidence below the level obtained without WRT. Reducing plant disease incidence might provide another way to offset additional costs associated with WRT even without returned premiums. Table 15 shows the break-even death rates required to offset the added WRT production costs of nurseries MD-3, PA-1, PA-2, SynSmall, and SynLarge if no premiums are assumed to be returned to producers ( ). These five nurseries are highlighted because they show an increase in production cost with recycling (Tables 4–7). The results illustrate that for most cases, reducing death rates below 2%, the assumed average rate for non-recycling nurseries, can offset the additional cost incurred from conversion to WRT even without returned premiums. However, there are six exceptions (e.g., Petunia for MD-3) where the death rate would need to be reduced by more than 2% to offset increased production cost with recycling. A greater than 2% reduction leads to a physically impossible negative death rate. For these exceptions, reducing plant disease incidence fails to completely offset the added WRT production costs.
Break-even death rate to offset added water recycling technology production costs of nurseries MD-3, PA-1, PA-2, SynSmall, and SynLarge when conveyance rate .
Public desire to improve water quality poses environmental challenges for the horticulture industry as demonstrated by policies that require conservation measures. The nursery industry continues to face challenges of reduced product sales resulting from the downturn in the housing market in 2009, although it has partly recovered in recent years. At the same time, the industry faces increasing competition for scarce water supplies in some regions. This study concludes that consumer premiums for plants grown with recycled water could offer nursery growers a method to improve their net returns while addressing environmental challenges and improving irrigation crop water productivity.
Adoption of WRT offers some nurseries the opportunity to reduce water supply costs relative to well water or municipal water. In addition, consumer premiums that could be obtained from plants grown with WRT could outweigh increased production costs of WRT as well as possible economic losses associated with increased plant disease risk. Additional production costs of WRT could also be lowered by reducing plant death rate below levels that occur without WRT (Table 15). Therefore, treatment of recycled water with effective pathogen mitigation procedures should always be considered as suggested by Hong and Moorman (2005).
Nursery growers have diverse production operations and management practices, which depend on location, state and federal policies, market channel, and other considerations. For some nurseries, physical layout restricts the adoption of WRT. For example, limited land or shallow water tables will deter some nurseries from regrading or digging ponds for recycled water, making it impossible to implement WRT regardless of public or private incentives.
Although consumer premiums have potential to make WRT economically feasible for many growers, the logistical resources needed to establish a labeling program for WRT may be beyond the capability of a single horticultural firm. A centralized government or industry organization may be best suited to lead the implementation of certification and labeling of plants grown with WRT. In this case, the "green washing" for WRT practices imposed by sellers, i.e., the act of misleading consumers via promising more environmental benefits of the product than they actually deliver can be effectively mitigated through well-established industry standards and certification programs.
The results of this analysis are specific to only eight case nurseries and two simulated nurseries in mid-Atlantic states. These results should be replicated with a larger set of nurseries and in alternate climate zones. Further analysis could also focus on the upfront costs facing growers who wish to transition to WRT and the length of time required to pay back these costs with alternative recycling premiums. Investments in water-saving technology (e.g., precision watering) provide an alternate way of reducing water use and should be evaluated as well. Researchers should consider the potential for scale economies when evaluating such investments. The premiums estimated by Hartter (2012) were based on hypothetical questions instead of actual marketing experiments. Better estimation of consumer premiums should be possible through experiments involving actual consumer purchases (Chang et al., 2009; Hudson et al., 2012). Additional research should focus on how consumer premiums would be allocated at each distribution stage under different market channels, locations, and plant types. Such research could shed additional light on how consumer premiums for horticultural plants produced with WRT can assist the industry to address environmental challenges.
Aguilar, F.X. & Vlosky, R.P. 2007 Consumer willingness to pay price premiums for environmentally certified wood products in the US For. Policy Econ. 9 8 1100 1112
Aguilar,F.X.Vlosky,R.P.2007Consumer willingness to pay price premiums for environmentally certified wood products in the USFor. Policy Econ.9811001112)| false
Bailey, D., Silverback, T. & Bir, D. 1999 Water considerations for container production of plants. Hort. Info. Lflt. North Carolina State Univ., NC Coop. Ext. Serv. 557
Behe, B.K., Campbell, B.L., Hall, C.R., Khachatryan, H., Dennis, J. & Yue, C. 2013 Consumer preferences for local and sustainable plant production characteristics HortScience 48 200 208
Behe,B.K.Campbell,B.L.Hall,C.R.Khachatryan,H.Dennis,J.Yue,C.2013Consumer preferences for local and sustainable plant production characteristicsHortScience48200208)| false
Behe, B.K., Campbell, B.L., Khachatryan, H., Hall, C.R., Dennis, J.H., Huddleston, P.T. & Fernandez, R.T. 2014 Incorporating eye tracking technology and conjoint analysis to better understand the green industry consumer HortScience 49 1550 1557
Behe,B.K.Campbell,B.L.Khachatryan,H.Hall,C.R.Dennis,J.H.Huddleston,P.T.Fernandez,R.T.2014Incorporating eye tracking technology and conjoint analysis to better understand the green industry consumerHortScience4915501557)| false
Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G.C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N. & Freeman, P. 2008 Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment Econ. J. (Lond.) 118 525 114 137
Blumenschein,K.Blomquist,G.C.Johannesson,M.Horn,N.Freeman,P.2008Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experimentEcon. J. (Lond.)118525114137)| false
Chang, J.B., Lusk, J.L. & Norwood, F.B. 2009 How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior? Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 91 2 518 534
Chang,J.B.Lusk,J.L.Norwood,F.B.2009How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior?Amer. J. Agr. Econ.912518534)| false
Cultice, A.K. 2013 Horticultural producers' willingness to adopt water recycling technology in the mid-Atlantic region. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. State Univ., Blacksburg, Master's Diss
Cultice, A.K., Bosch, D.J., Pease, J., Boyle, K.J. & Xu, W. 2016 Horticultural growers' willingness to adopt recycling of irrigation water J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 48 1 99 118
Cultice,A.K.Bosch,D.J.Pease,J.Boyle,K.J.Xu,W.2016Horticultural growers' willingness to adopt recycling of irrigation waterJ. Agr. Appl. Econ.48199118)| false
Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W. & Rutstrom, E.E. 1995 Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? Amer. Econ. Rev. 85 1 260 266
Cummings,R.G.Harrison,G.W.Rutstrom,E.E.1995Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?Amer. Econ. Rev.851260266)| false
Cummings, R. & Taylor, L. 1999 Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method Amer. Econ. Rev. 89 3 649 665
Cummings,R.Taylor,L.1999Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation methodAmer. Econ. Rev.893649665)| false
Curtis, K.R. & Cowee, M.W. 2010 Are homeowners willing to pay for "origin-certified" plants in water-conserving residential landscaping? J. Agr. Res. Econ. 35 1 118 132
Curtis,K.R.Cowee,M.W.2010Are homeowners willing to pay for "origin-certified" plants in water-conserving residential landscaping?J. Agr. Res. Econ.351118132)| false
Dennis, J.H., Lopez, R.G., Behe, B.K., Hall, C.R., Yue, C. & Campbell, B.L. 2010 Sustainable production practices adopted by greenhouse and nursery plant growers HortScience 45 1232 1237
Dennis,J.H.Lopez,R.G.Behe,B.K.Hall,C.R.Yue,C.Campbell,B.L.2010Sustainable production practices adopted by greenhouse and nursery plant growersHortScience4512321237)| false
DeVincentis, A.J., Brumfield, R.G., Gottlieb, P. & Johnson, J. 2015 Cost analysis of recycling water in greenhouses in southern New Jersey HortScience 50 1 6
DeVincentis,A.J.Brumfield,R.G.Gottlieb,P.Johnson,J.2015Cost analysis of recycling water in greenhouses in southern New JerseyHortScience5016)| false
Durif, F., Boivin, C. & Julien, C. 2010 In search of a green product definition Innovative Mktg. 6 1 25 33
Durif,F.Boivin,C.Julien,C.2010In search of a green product definitionInnovative Mktg.612533)| false
Ferraro, N.K., Bosch, D.J., Pease, J.W. & Owen, J.S. 2017 Costs of capturing and recycling irrigation water in container nurseries HortScience 52 258 263
Ferraro,N.K.Bosch,D.J.Pease,J.W.Owen,J.S.2017Costs of capturing and recycling irrigation water in container nurseriesHortScience52258263)| false
Gardner, J.G., Eastwood, D.B., Brooker, J.R., Riley, J.B. & Klingeman, W.E. 2002 Consumers' willingness-to-pay for powdery mildew resistant flowering Dogwoods. Univ. Tenn. Res. Ser. Accessed 11 July 2015. <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e7b9/b0f69739ad0cb531fda2a560122e691007c6.pdf>
Halcomb, M. & Fare, D. 2009 Conventional container production. Univ. Tenn. Ext. Accessed 25 June 2015. <http://www.tnstate.edu/faculty/ablalock/documents/Container_Production_Handout_rev_%208-10.pdf>
Harrison, G.W. 2006 Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods Environ. Resour. Econ. 34 1 125 162
Harrison,G.W.2006Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methodsEnviron. Resour. Econ.341125162)| false
Harrison, G.W. & Rutström, E.E. 2008 Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods Hdbk. Expt. Econ. Results 1 752 767
Harrison,G.W.Rutström,E.E.2008Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methodsHdbk. Expt. Econ. Results1752767)| false
Hartter, D.L. 2012 Understanding consumers' ornamental plant preferences for disease-free and water conservation labels. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, Master Diss
Hinson, R.A., Paudel, K.P. & Velástegui, M. 2012 Understanding ornamental plant market shares to re-wholesaler, retailer, and landscaper channels J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 44 2 173 189
Hinson,R.A.Paudel,K.P.Velástegui,M.2012Understanding ornamental plant market shares to re-wholesaler, retailer, and landscaper channelsJ. Agr. Appl. Econ.442173189)| false
Hong, C.X. & Moorman, G.W. 2005 Plant pathogens in irrigation water: Challenges and opportunities Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 24 3 189 208
Hong,C.X.Moorman,G.W.2005Plant pathogens in irrigation water: Challenges and opportunitiesCrit. Rev. Plant Sci.243189208)| false
Hudson, D., Gallardo, R.K. & Hanson, T.R. 2012 A comparison of choice experiments and actual grocery store behavior: An empirical application to seafood products J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 44 1 49 62
Hudson,D.Gallardo,R.K.Hanson,T.R.2012A comparison of choice experiments and actual grocery store behavior: An empirical application to seafood productsJ. Agr. Appl. Econ.4414962)| false
Khachatryan, H., Campbell, B., Hall, C., Behe, B., Yue, C. & Dennis, J. 2014 The effects of individual environmental concerns on willingness to pay for sustainable plant attributes HortScience 49 69 75
Khachatryan,H.Campbell,B.Hall,C.Behe,B.Yue,C.Dennis,J.2014The effects of individual environmental concerns on willingness to pay for sustainable plant attributesHortScience496975)| false
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. & Barbaro-Forleo, G. 2001 Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products J. Consumer Mktg. 18 6 503 520
Laroche,M.Bergeron,J.Barbaro-Forleo,G.2001Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly productsJ. Consumer Mktg.186503520)| false
List, J.A. & Gallet, C.A. 2001 What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ. Resource Econ. 20 3 241 254
List,J.A.Gallet,C.A.2001What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?Environ. Resource Econ.203241254)| false
MacDonald, J.M. 2015 Trends in agricultural contracts Choices 30 3 20 May 2016. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/207886/2/cmsarticle_451.pdf
MacDonald,J.M.2015Trends in agricultural contractsChoices30320 May 2016. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/207886/2/cmsarticle_451.pdf)| false
Maryland Department of the Environment 2015 Water management permits. Water Management Administration. 22 Mar. 2015. <http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Permits/WaterManagementPermits/Pages/Permits/WaterManagementPermits/>
Michaud, C., Llerena, D. & Joly, I. 2012 Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: A real choice experiment Eur. Rev. Agr. Econ. 40 2 313 329
Michaud,C.Llerena,D.Joly,I.2012Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: A real choice experimentEur. Rev. Agr. Econ.402313329)| false
Robbins, J.A. 2010 Irrigation water for greenhouses and nurseries. Arkansas Coop. Ext. Serv. FSA6061. 22 June 2015. <http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSA-6061.pdf>
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Bohlen, G.M. & Diamantopoulos, A. 1996 The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness European J. Mktg 30 5 35 55
Schlegelmilch,B.B.Bohlen,G.M.Diamantopoulos,A.1996The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousnessEuropean J. Mktg3053555)| false
Silva, A., Nayga, R.M. Jr, Campbell, B.L. & Park, J. 2007 On the use of valuation mechanisms to measure consumers' willingness to pay for novel products: A comparison of hypothetical and non-hypothetical values Intl. Food Agribus. Mgt. Rev. 10 2 165 180
Silva,A.Nayga,R.M.JrCampbell,B.L.Park,J.2007On the use of valuation mechanisms to measure consumers' willingness to pay for novel products: A comparison of hypothetical and non-hypothetical valuesIntl. Food Agribus. Mgt. Rev.102165180)| false
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015 Consumer price index. U.S. Bur. Stat., Washington, D.C. 20 June 2015. <http://www.bls.gov/cpi/>
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS) 2014 Census of horticultural specialties, 2012 census of agriculture, volume 3 special studies part 3 AC-12-SS-3. U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. 15 June 2015. <https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Census_of_Horticulture_Specialties/>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2010 Implementing clean water act section 303(d). U.S. Environ. Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 15 June 2015. <https://www.epa.gov/tmdl>
von Broembsen, S.L. 1998 Capturing and recycling irrigation water to protect water supplies. Water Quality Hdbk. Nurseries. Oklahoma Coop. Ext. Serv. Circular E-951, pp. 27–29. 15 July 2015. <http://www.agwaterquality.org/mgmttools/BMP%20document%20for%20nurserys.pdf>
White, R.R., Brady, M., Capper, J.L. & Johnson, K.A. 2014 Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of US beef production Agr. Syst. 130 1 12
White,R.R.Brady,M.Capper,J.L.Johnson,K.A.2014Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of US beef productionAgr. Syst.130112)| false
Wilson, S.K. & von Broembsen, S. n.d Water quality series: Capturing and recycling irrigation runoff as a pollution prevention measure. Oklahoma Coop. Ext. Serv. BAE-1518. 15 Aug. 2015. <http://osufacts.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-7408/BAE-1518web.pdf>
Yue, C., Campbell, B., Hall, C., Behe, B., Dennis, J. & Khachatryan, H. 2016 Consumer preference for sustainable attributes in plants: Evidence from experimental auctions Agribusiness 32 2 222 235
Yue,C.Campbell,B.Hall,C.Behe,B.Dennis,J.Khachatryan,H.2016Consumer preference for sustainable attributes in plants: Evidence from experimental auctionsAgribusiness322222235)| false
Yue, C., Hall, C.R., Behe, B.K., Campbell, B.L., Dennis, J.H. & Lopez, R.G. 2010 Are consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? Evidence from hypothetical conjoint analysis and non-hypothetical experimental auctions J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 42 4 757 772
Yue,C.Hall,C.R.Behe,B.K.Campbell,B.L.Dennis,J.H.Lopez,R.G.2010Are consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? Evidence from hypothetical conjoint analysis and non-hypothetical experimental auctionsJ. Agr. Appl. Econ.424757772)| false
Funding for this work was provided, in part, by the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) of USDA – National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Award #2010-51181-21140, Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station and the Hatch Program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The authors express appreciation to Nate Ferraro, David Hartter, Alyssa Cultice, and Kevin Boyle for providing data used in this study. Kurt Stephenson and James Owen provided helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
1 Corresponding author. E-mail: bosch@vt.edu.
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/52/12/article-p1780.xml
Volume 52 (2017): Issue 12 (Dec 2017)
irrigation; water recycling; nursery production; eco-labeling
Article by Xiang Cao
Article by Darrell Bosch
Article by James Pease


text:
By theterrymurray on November 28, 2015
This isn't a specifically medical usage problem, but it appears in medical writing as well. Use of the phrase "one <fill in relevant item/person> at a time" is rampant. I have never understood it. Sometimes it's the only way a given activity or objective could be accomplished but in other cases, it's absurd. Notably, in this advertising campaign by the Canadian division of the Salvation Army.
If there is one problem that should not be addressed "one at a time," it's poverty.
The campaign seems to have been underway for at least a year, but I just became aware of it when I saw a movie last night — at a movie theatre — where this visual was one of the seemingly never-ending commercials shown before the feature finally appears.
If there is one problem that should not be addressed "one at a time," it's poverty. According to Make Poverty History, an umbrella group of Canadian anti-poverty organizations that is a member of the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP), 1.2 billion people globally live in "extreme poverty," more than 925 million people go to bed hungry and 50,000 people die every day from poverty-related causes. The group also says that more than 3.5 million Canadians live in poverty.
And the Salvation Army wants to end poverty among 3.5 million households "one family at a time"?~TM

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
// Copyright 2017 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
// found in the LICENSE file.

/**
 * @implements {Protocol.OverlayDispatcher}
 */
SDK.OverlayModel = class extends SDK.SDKModel {
  /**
   * @param {!SDK.Target} target
   */
  constructor(target) {
    super(target);
    this._domModel = /** @type {!SDK.DOMModel} */ (target.model(SDK.DOMModel));

    target.registerOverlayDispatcher(this);
    this._overlayAgent = target.overlayAgent();
    this._overlayAgent.enable();
    this._overlayAgent.setShowViewportSizeOnResize(true);

    this._debuggerModel = target.model(SDK.DebuggerModel);
    if (this._debuggerModel) {
      Common.moduleSetting('disablePausedStateOverlay').addChangeListener(this._updatePausedInDebuggerMessage, this);
      this._debuggerModel.addEventListener(
          SDK.DebuggerModel.Events.DebuggerPaused, this._updatePausedInDebuggerMessage, this);
      this._debuggerModel.addEventListener(
          SDK.DebuggerModel.Events.DebuggerResumed, this._updatePausedInDebuggerMessage, this);
      // TODO(dgozman): we should get DebuggerResumed on navigations instead of listening to GlobalObjectCleared.
      this._debuggerModel.addEventListener(
          SDK.DebuggerModel.Events.GlobalObjectCleared, this._updatePausedInDebuggerMessage, this);
    }

    this._inspectModeEnabled = false;
    this._hideHighlightTimeout = null;
    this._defaultHighlighter = new SDK.OverlayModel.DefaultHighlighter(this);
    this._highlighter = this._defaultHighlighter;

    this._showPaintRectsSetting = Common.moduleSetting('showPaintRects');
    this._showPaintRectsSetting.addChangeListener(
        () => this._overlayAgent.setShowPaintRects(this._showPaintRectsSetting.get()));
    if (this._showPaintRectsSetting.get())
      this._overlayAgent.setShowPaintRects(true);

    this._showDebugBordersSetting = Common.moduleSetting('showDebugBorders');
    this._showDebugBordersSetting.addChangeListener(
        () => this._overlayAgent.setShowDebugBorders(this._showDebugBordersSetting.get()));
    if (this._showDebugBordersSetting.get())
      this._overlayAgent.setShowDebugBorders(true);

    this._showFPSCounterSetting = Common.moduleSetting('showFPSCounter');
    this._showFPSCounterSetting.addChangeListener(
        () => this._overlayAgent.setShowFPSCounter(this._showFPSCounterSetting.get()));
    if (this._showFPSCounterSetting.get())
      this._overlayAgent.setShowFPSCounter(true);

    this._showScrollBottleneckRectsSetting = Common.moduleSetting('showScrollBottleneckRects');
    this._showScrollBottleneckRectsSetting.addChangeListener(
        () => this._overlayAgent.setShowScrollBottleneckRects(this._showScrollBottleneckRectsSetting.get()));
    if (this._showScrollBottleneckRectsSetting.get())
      this._overlayAgent.setShowScrollBottleneckRects(true);

    this._showHitTestBordersSetting = Common.moduleSetting('showHitTestBorders');
    this._showHitTestBordersSetting.addChangeListener(
        () => this._overlayAgent.setShowHitTestBorders(this._showHitTestBordersSetting.get()));
    if (this._showHitTestBordersSetting.get())
      this._overlayAgent.setShowHitTestBorders(true);

    if (target.suspended())
      this._overlayAgent.setSuspended(true);
  }

  /**
   * @param {!SDK.RemoteObject} object
   */
  static highlightObjectAsDOMNode(object) {
    const domModel = object.runtimeModel().target().model(SDK.DOMModel);
    if (domModel)
      domModel.overlayModel().highlightDOMNode(undefined, undefined, undefined, object.objectId);
  }

  static hideDOMNodeHighlight() {
    for (const overlayModel of SDK.targetManager.models(SDK.OverlayModel))
      overlayModel._delayedHideHighlight(0);
  }

  static muteHighlight() {
    SDK.OverlayModel.hideDOMNodeHighlight();
    SDK.OverlayModel._highlightDisabled = true;
  }

  static unmuteHighlight() {
    SDK.OverlayModel._highlightDisabled = false;
  }

  /**
   * @override
   * @return {!Promise}
   */
  suspendModel() {
    return this._overlayAgent.setSuspended(true);
  }

  /**
   * @override
   * @return {!Promise}
   */
  resumeModel() {
    return this._overlayAgent.setSuspended(false);
  }

  setShowViewportSizeOnResize(show) {
    this._overlayAgent.setShowViewportSizeOnResize(show);
  }

  _updatePausedInDebuggerMessage() {
    const message = this._debuggerModel.isPaused() && !Common.moduleSetting('disablePausedStateOverlay').get() ?
        Common.UIString('Paused in debugger') :
        undefined;
    this._overlayAgent.setPausedInDebuggerMessage(message);
  }

  /**
   * @param {?SDK.OverlayModel.Highlighter} highlighter
   */
  setHighlighter(highlighter) {
    this._highlighter = highlighter || this._defaultHighlighter;
  }

  /**
   * @param {!Protocol.Overlay.InspectMode} mode
   * @return {!Promise}
   */
  async setInspectMode(mode) {
    await this._domModel.requestDocument();
    this._inspectModeEnabled = mode !== Protocol.Overlay.InspectMode.None;
    this.dispatchEventToListeners(SDK.OverlayModel.Events.InspectModeWillBeToggled, this);
    this._highlighter.setInspectMode(mode, this._buildHighlightConfig());
  }

  /**
   * @return {boolean}
   */
  inspectModeEnabled() {
    return this._inspectModeEnabled;
  }

  /**
   * @param {!Protocol.DOM.NodeId=} nodeId
   * @param {string=} mode
   * @param {!Protocol.DOM.BackendNodeId=} backendNodeId
   * @param {!Protocol.Runtime.RemoteObjectId=} objectId
   */
  highlightDOMNode(nodeId, mode, backendNodeId, objectId) {
    this.highlightDOMNodeWithConfig(nodeId, {mode: mode}, backendNodeId, objectId);
  }

  /**
   * @param {!Protocol.DOM.NodeId=} nodeId
   * @param {!{mode: (string|undefined), showInfo: (boolean|undefined), selectors: (string|undefined)}=} config
   * @param {!Protocol.DOM.BackendNodeId=} backendNodeId
   * @param {!Protocol.Runtime.RemoteObjectId=} objectId
   */
  highlightDOMNodeWithConfig(nodeId, config, backendNodeId, objectId) {
    if (SDK.OverlayModel._highlightDisabled)
      return;
    config = config || {mode: 'all', showInfo: undefined, selectors: undefined};
    if (this._hideHighlightTimeout) {
      clearTimeout(this._hideHighlightTimeout);
      this._hideHighlightTimeout = null;
    }
    const highlightConfig = this._buildHighlightConfig(config.mode);
    if (typeof config.showInfo !== 'undefined')
      highlightConfig.showInfo = config.showInfo;
    if (typeof config.selectors !== 'undefined')
      highlightConfig.selectorList = config.selectors;
    this._highlighter.highlightDOMNode(this._domModel.nodeForId(nodeId || 0), highlightConfig, backendNodeId, objectId);
  }

  /**
   * @param {!Protocol.DOM.NodeId} nodeId
   */
  highlightDOMNodeForTwoSeconds(nodeId) {
    this.highlightDOMNode(nodeId);
    this._delayedHideHighlight(2000);
  }

  /**
   * @param {number} delay
   */
  _delayedHideHighlight(delay) {
    if (this._hideHighlightTimeout === null)
      this._hideHighlightTimeout = setTimeout(() => this.highlightDOMNode(0), delay);
  }

  /**
   * @param {!Protocol.Page.FrameId} frameId
   */
  highlightFrame(frameId) {
    if (SDK.OverlayModel._highlightDisabled)
      return;
    this._highlighter.highlightFrame(frameId);
  }

  /**
   * @param {string=} mode
   * @return {!Protocol.Overlay.HighlightConfig}
   */
  _buildHighlightConfig(mode) {
    mode = mode || 'all';
    const showRulers = Common.moduleSetting('showMetricsRulers').get();
    const highlightConfig = {showInfo: mode === 'all', showRulers: showRulers, showExtensionLines: showRulers};
    if (mode === 'all' || mode === 'content')
      highlightConfig.contentColor = Common.Color.PageHighlight.Content.toProtocolRGBA();

    if (mode === 'all' || mode === 'padding')
      highlightConfig.paddingColor = Common.Color.PageHighlight.Padding.toProtocolRGBA();

    if (mode === 'all' || mode === 'border')
      highlightConfig.borderColor = Common.Color.PageHighlight.Border.toProtocolRGBA();

    if (mode === 'all' || mode === 'margin')
      highlightConfig.marginColor = Common.Color.PageHighlight.Margin.toProtocolRGBA();

    if (mode === 'all') {
      highlightConfig.eventTargetColor = Common.Color.PageHighlight.EventTarget.toProtocolRGBA();
      highlightConfig.shapeColor = Common.Color.PageHighlight.Shape.toProtocolRGBA();
      highlightConfig.shapeMarginColor = Common.Color.PageHighlight.ShapeMargin.toProtocolRGBA();
      highlightConfig.displayAsMaterial = true;
    }

    if (mode === 'all')
      highlightConfig.cssGridColor = Common.Color.PageHighlight.CssGrid.toProtocolRGBA();

    return highlightConfig;
  }

  /**
   * @override
   * @param {!Protocol.DOM.NodeId} nodeId
   */
  nodeHighlightRequested(nodeId) {
    const node = this._domModel.nodeForId(nodeId);
    if (node)
      this.dispatchEventToListeners(SDK.OverlayModel.Events.HighlightNodeRequested, node);
  }

  /**
   * @override
   * @param {!Protocol.DOM.BackendNodeId} backendNodeId
   */
  inspectNodeRequested(backendNodeId) {
    const deferredNode = new SDK.DeferredDOMNode(this.target(), backendNodeId);
    this.dispatchEventToListeners(SDK.OverlayModel.Events.InspectNodeRequested, deferredNode);
  }

  /**
   * @override
   * @param {!Protocol.Page.Viewport} viewport
   */
  screenshotRequested(viewport) {
    this.dispatchEventToListeners(SDK.OverlayModel.Events.ScreenshotRequested, viewport);
  }
};

SDK.SDKModel.register(SDK.OverlayModel, SDK.Target.Capability.DOM, true);

/** @enum {symbol} */
SDK.OverlayModel.Events = {
  InspectModeWillBeToggled: Symbol('InspectModeWillBeToggled'),
  HighlightNodeRequested: Symbol('HighlightNodeRequested'),
  InspectNodeRequested: Symbol('InspectNodeRequested'),
  ScreenshotRequested: Symbol('ScreenshotRequested'),
};

/**
 * @interface
 */
SDK.OverlayModel.Highlighter = function() {};

SDK.OverlayModel.Highlighter.prototype = {
  /**
   * @param {?SDK.DOMNode} node
   * @param {!Protocol.Overlay.HighlightConfig} config
   * @param {!Protocol.DOM.BackendNodeId=} backendNodeId
   * @param {!Protocol.Runtime.RemoteObjectId=} objectId
   */
  highlightDOMNode(node, config, backendNodeId, objectId) {},

  /**
   * @param {!Protocol.Overlay.InspectMode} mode
   * @param {!Protocol.Overlay.HighlightConfig} config
   * @return {!Promise}
   */
  setInspectMode(mode, config) {},

  /**
   * @param {!Protocol.Page.FrameId} frameId
   */
  highlightFrame(frameId) {}
};

/**
 * @implements {SDK.OverlayModel.Highlighter}
 */
SDK.OverlayModel.DefaultHighlighter = class {
  /**
   * @param {!SDK.OverlayModel} model
   */
  constructor(model) {
    this._model = model;
  }

  /**
   * @override
   * @param {?SDK.DOMNode} node
   * @param {!Protocol.Overlay.HighlightConfig} config
   * @param {!Protocol.DOM.BackendNodeId=} backendNodeId
   * @param {!Protocol.Runtime.RemoteObjectId=} objectId
   */
  highlightDOMNode(node, config, backendNodeId, objectId) {
    if (objectId || node || backendNodeId) {
      this._model._overlayAgent.highlightNode(
          config, (objectId || backendNodeId) ? undefined : node.id, backendNodeId, objectId);
    } else {
      this._model._overlayAgent.hideHighlight();
    }
  }

  /**
   * @override
   * @param {!Protocol.Overlay.InspectMode} mode
   * @param {!Protocol.Overlay.HighlightConfig} config
   * @return {!Promise}
   */
  setInspectMode(mode, config) {
    return this._model._overlayAgent.setInspectMode(mode, config);
  }

  /**
   * @override
   * @param {!Protocol.Page.FrameId} frameId
   */
  highlightFrame(frameId) {
    this._model._overlayAgent.highlightFrame(
        frameId, Common.Color.PageHighlight.Content.toProtocolRGBA(),
        Common.Color.PageHighlight.ContentOutline.toProtocolRGBA());
  }
};

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Magna Carta and Anglo-American Constitutionalism
Magna Carta has often been hailed as a statement of fundamental law, the basis of the English constitution, a defense of individual liberty, the establishment of the rule of law, and even the foundation of English democracy. Actually, it was none of these.
Religion and the Decline of Magic, by Keith Thomas (1971)
Political and religious discord, disease, famine, fire, and death afflicted the lives of the English population between 1500 and 1700. While alcohol and tobacco provided an escape, Keith Thomas argues that astrology, magic, and religion offered all levels of society a way to make sense of human misfortune.
The Poetics of Piracy: Emulating Spain in English Literature, by Barbara Fuchs (2013)
For Shakespeare and contemporaries on page and stage like Ben Jonson, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and Thomas Middleton, "the Spanish vein" ran rich and deep, "even as the political situation between the two nations deteriorated in the wake of the Reformation and imperial rivalries."
"Oh this learning, what a thing it is!": The New Archive (No. 16)
Has any single author had as massive an impact on history as William Shakespeare? For over four centuries, the works of the Bard have been read, analyzed, and performed all around the world. Keeping track of that massive history, let alone the history of Elizabethan/Jacobian England, is a monumental ambition. Luckily, the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., has taken up the task. And even better: they've digitized their collection for the world to see.


One of our founders used to speak about how voice is the first thing we use to communicate our needs. A cry, a whimper, a squeal… all of them expressed to our parents what we needed.
Current voice first products completely ignore the most basic of vocal commands that we use and share with many mammals. There's probably some good opportunities to use non verbal vocal commands for informing AI decision making engines.


text:
Чемпіонат України з футболу 2008 року серед жінок — 17-й чемпіонат України з футболу, який проводився серед жіночих колективів. Змагання відбувалися лише в одному дивізіоні. Турнір стартував 6 травня, а завершився 29 листопада 2008 року. Звання чемпіона України повернув собі харківський «Житлобуд-1», який завоював четвертий титул за останні шість сезонів.

Учасники
У чемпіонаті 2008 року брали участь 10 команд. Після річної перерви до турніру повернулася одеська «Чорноморочка». Окрім неї склад учасників поповнила маріупольська «Іллічівка» та команда «Ятрань-Базис», яка представляла Уманський район. З учасників минулого сезону турнір залишив київський «Атекс».

Перший етап
Перший етап турніру пройшов з 6 травня по 19 вересня 2008 року. За його результатами найкращі 5 команд продовжили виступи у фінальному етапі. Команда «Зоря-Спартак» (Луганськ) знялася з чемпіонату після 2-о туру, результати матчів за її участю були анульовані (1. Южанка-Майстер - Зоря-Спартак 9:0, матч до кінця не дограли, 2. Зоря-Спартак - Донеччанка 0:8).

|}</onlyinclude>

Примітка: * Команди продовжили участь у фінальному етапі
 ** Знялася з чемпіонату по завершенні 2-о туру

Результати матчів

Фінальний етап
Фінальний етап турніру проходив з 4 жовтня по 29 листопада 2008 року.

|}</onlyinclude>

Результати матчів

Підсумкова таблиця
При визначенні підсумкового розташування команд враховувалися матчі між собою в обох етапах чемпіонату.

|}</onlyinclude>

'Примітка: * Кваліфікаційний раунд Ліги чемпіонів УЄФА

 Посилання
 Чемпіонат України з футболу серед жіночих команд 2008 р. Офіційний сайт УАФ Чемпіонат України з футболу серед жіночих команд 2008 р. Фінал. Офіційний сайт УАФ''

2008 у футболі
Сезони чемпіонату України з футболу серед жінок
2008 в українському спорті

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
<?php
/**
 * Created by PhpStorm.
 * User: pjbro
 * Date: 19/04/18
 * Time: 10:40
 */

namespace Chamilo\Libraries\Format\Form;

use Chamilo\Libraries\Storage\DataClass\DataClass;
use Symfony\Component\Form\FormInterface;
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;

/**
 * Class FormHandler
 * @package Chamilo\Libraries\Format\Form
 */
abstract class FormHandler
{

    /**
     * @var DataClass
     */
    protected $originalModel;

    /**
     * @param FormInterface $form
     * @param Request $request
     * @return bool
     */
    public function handle(FormInterface $form, Request $request) : bool
    {
        if (!$request->isMethod('POST')) {
            return false;
        }

        $formData = $form->getData();
        $this->originalModel = is_object($formData) ? clone $formData : $formData;

        $form->handleRequest($request);

        if (!$form->isValid()) {
            $this->rollBackModel($form);
            return false;
        }

        return true;
    }

    abstract protected function rollBackModel(FormInterface $form);
}


In 2017, Nautor's Swan launched the pivotal The Nations Trophy as a focal biennial event in the world of Swan One Design activity.
Following the success of the inaugural event in 2017, Nautor's Swan extended the concept by introducing a season long league in the Mediterranean to maintain the spirit of gentlemanly competition between countries engendered by the original event.
The Nations Trophy is the culmination of the Swan One Design Leagues season; it will be hosted at Real Club Nautico de Palma from October 8th to 12th and Nautor's Swan expect the participation of 40 yachts coming from all over the world and representing ClubSwan 50 class (17 boats), Swan 45 Class (9 boats), ClubSwan 42 Class (nine boats) and ClubSwan 36 Class (five boats).


Sarah Sanders posted a photo to her Twitter account boasting that she learned more "back home" than how to merely bake pecan pies. Using the hashtags #trapshooting and #pull, Sanders displayed herself holding a shotgun in a manner that has brought out the wrath of Twitter users who claim that Sarah does not know the correct way to hold the weapon.
As seen in the reply section of Sarah's viral tweet, which has been liked more than 35,000 times and retweeted more than 7,000 times in the hour after Sanders published the photo on Thursday, December 28, the White House press secretary is getting plenty of blowback for the gun photo. One Twitter user wrote that Sarah holds a shotgun in a funny manner, suggesting she does not know how to actually shoot a shotgun.
Other Twitter users accused Sanders of holding the shotgun in a way that would hurt her shoulder if she attempted to shoot the gun. Sarah was accused of merely holding the gun simply to pose for the photo, not for real trap shooting. Another Twitter user posted a photo of the proper way to hold a shotgun, even as other Twitter users came to Sarah's defense.
As reported by the Daily Caller, Sanders published the photo from her home state of Arkansas and referenced the previous photos of pies that she has posted during the "pie gate" controversy.
Meanwhile, at least one person wrote on Twitter that Sarah knows what she is doing when she shoots, even though video of Sanders shooting a shotgun could not be readily found. Detractors argue that if Sarah would have fired the gun at that moment that the photo was taken, the force of the shotgun recoiling would have struck Sarah in the face.
Opponents also surmise that a blast of gunpowder would have landed directly in Sarah's right eye at the above angle that she is holding the shotgun. Sanders also received criticism for not wearing protection for her eyes and ears in the photo, while others blasted Sarah for posting the photo from her government Twitter account.


text:
Spielberg's latest film, 'Ready Player One,' A Review
Posted by Justin Petrisek | Dec 21, 2018 | Featured, Movies | 2 |
When virtual reality becomes easier and more interesting than real life, the world turns upside down. In the dystopic world of Ready Player One, this is precisely the problem. Rising seas, poverty, food rations, massive unemployment, starvation, manipulation, unmanageable debt, and slavery (or at least indentured servitude) have swamped people around the world.
It's 2045 and with the world being in shambles the near-penniless and global magnates alike are seeking an escape from daily life via a virtual reality entertainment universe known as the OASIS, co-created by James Halliday (Mark Rylance) and Ogden Morrow (Simon Pegg) of Gregarious Games. Halliday has become a trillionaire man-child by creating this virtual reality universe, filling it with every piece of nostalgia and pop culture he loved as a child, and then sharing it with the world.
But we learn of events like The Corn Syrup Droughts and The Bandwidth Riots (events that totally seem plausible or even likely to happen in the near future). But all of society — economics, entertainment, politics, art, personal relationships — is suddenly at the hands of a single global company and, more often than not, its events take place within the OASIS.
Upon his death, Halliday reveals in true Willy-Wonka-fashion that he is leaving total ownership of the OASIS in the hands of the first person to find the Easter Egg hidden within it. A final game, unlocked by three keys awarded at the end of three challenges, for what essentially amounts to the most economically powerful and socially influential enterprise ever conceived by man.
Wade (Tye Sheridan), in the form of his windswept avatar Parzival, is hot in pursuit of clues to help him complete Halliday's challenges. As an orphaned teenager living in the slums of Columbus, Ohio, known as the "stacks" (a series of trailers piled precariously atop one another in a tower of Jenga-like craftsmanship), Halliday's competition is the only thing that provides Wade a reprieve from the struggles in his day-to-day life.
The contest attracts a number of egg hunters, or "gunters", but no is able to conquer Halliday's first challenge: a harrowing, demolition-derby-style race across the Manhattan skyline as drivers try to avoid King Kong, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, and destructive obstacle after destructive obstacle. No one has finished the race. No one has gotten past Kong. Parzival is one of the few gunters still trying to finish the race. He is joined by fellow gunters Art3mis, Aech, Daito, and Sho, whose real-life identities, like everyone else in the OASIS, are anonymous.
But the Halliday contest has also attracted the interest of Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), the CEO of Innovative Online Industries (IOI) and the stereotypical Spineless Corporate Villain. Sorrento seeks total control of the OASIS. And in his eager effort to manipulate players for a massive financial profit, Sorrento has constructed "Loyalty Centers" full of indentured servants and hurled wave after wave of employees into the OASIS to find the keys and Egg for the company.
After Parzival completes the first challenge, he befriends Art3mis, a well-known gunter who shares a common interest in Halliday's history. They swap insights into Halliday's life with the help of the Halliday Journals and its Curator. Eventually, they conclude that Halliday's biggest regret in life was his failure to profess his love for Kira, a woman who eventually marries Halliday's best friend and business partner, Ogden Morrow.
Believing Kira is the clue needed to locate the second key, Parzival and Art3mis team up with Aech, Daito, and Sho — they call themselves the High Five — and proceed to complete the final two challenges which include a virtual world modeled after the Overlook Hotel from The Shining, Planet Doom, a series of Atari 2600 games, and a cornucopia of '80s and '90s pop culture references.
Constantly ambushing the High Five as they attempt to win the game, Sorrento pulls out all the stops in order to gain control of the OASIS, even enlisting a mercenary to track down and erase Parzival from the leaderboard, deploying an unbreakable force field, and setting off a Cataclyst bomb to kill every avatar on Planet Doom. The story takes a dark turn, however, when Sorrento discovers Parzival's true identity, attempts to bride? him, and then when Wade refuses sets a bomb off at Wade's home, killing his Aunt Alice and dozens of others.
In a last-ditch effort to stop Sorrento and IOI, Parzival broadcasts a plea message throughout the OASIS, calling on all other players to help the High Five attack the IOI forces around the castle and take down Sorrento in the name of James Halliday. Parzival breaks through the defenses and reaches the last stage, while IOI employees in the real world attempt to derail the van carrying Parzival and the real-life players of the High Five.
Parzival gains the last key and is transported to a treasure room where Halliday's avatar, Anorak the All-Knowing, gives him a contract to sign. [SPOILER] Parzival hesitates and recognizes that this is the same contract Halliday forced Morrow to sign and turn over his share of Gregarious Games. Parzival refuses and watches as Anorak changes into a projection of Halliday himself, revealing that the contract was the final test to ensure Parzival would not make the same mistakes Halliday did. Parzival is given the Easter Egg and control of the OASIS.
Back in the real world, Sorrento fails to stop the van carrying Wade and the High Five. Holding Wade at gunpoint while he is still linked into the OASIS, Sorrento is surrounded by police forces and arrested for his role in the Stacks bombing. The High Five emerge from the van as heroes and are greeted by Ogden Morrow, revealed to have been the Curator all along. Wade, even though he found the Easter Egg, decides to run OASIS in tandem with the High Five and Ogden Morrow. They agree to ban IOI from entering the OASIS, close all loyalty centers, and to shut down the OASIS twice a week so everyone can spend more time in the real world.
In Ready Player One, as in many virtual and alternate reality storylines, there is a problem wrapped in another problem. Not only is human life devalued and seen merely as a source of money and way to turn a profit, but there is a question as to what degree virtual reality (i.e., video games) itself devalues life. The moral, it seems, is not that entertainment consoles/video games/virtual reality helmets (insert any other form of electronic entertainment here) are inherently bad but that they can never replace the person standing right in front of you.
Ready Player One's MPAA rating is PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action violence, bloody images, some suggestive material, partial nudity, and language. Stephen Spielberg directs. Based on the novel of the same name by Ernest Cline. Running time: 140 min.
The editor thanks Chuck Donovan at the Charlotte Lozier Institute for sharing this review.
PreviousMcCarrick & His Silence at Advent
NextAvoiding the Widening Gyre of Our Times — A Nativity Reflection
Justin Petrisek
Justin Petrisek is a writer based out of Virginia. He received his M.F.A. in creative writing and M.A. in literature from George Mason University as well as an M.A. in theology from the Augustine Institute.
A Parable That Addressed My Sense of Failure
Before & After: 13 Beautiful Sanctuary Renovations Worth Celebrating
Aftermath of the First Debate: Are They Pointless?
Her Body Herself: Lady Macbeth in a Feminist Age
Mark WIZOREK	on December 21, 2018 at 11:32 pm
With all due respect, this is a spoiler filled synopsis, not a review. And you should have proofread it before posting. Some of the editing marks are still in the text.
Deal Hudson	on December 24, 2018 at 9:17 am
[SPOILER] was left deliberately. What other marks remain there? Best, Deal


text:
Watches Down Arrow Icon
The Olmsted Matte
The Olmsted 38
The Humboldt 12-hr
Watch Wallets
About Down Arrow Icon
The Dial
Videos Down Arrow Icon
The Watch Table
Watches Plus Icon Minus Icon
Videos Plus Icon Minus Icon
FRIDAY, JUNE 26th, 2020, 1PM CDT
We're proud to call many in the watch industry friends. Recent global events remind us of the importance of community and sharing our love of horology. Join us for, Independent Together—a virtual brand summit of our favorite leading independent watch brands in the US and abroad. Go online for a virtual panel discussion with friends from some of our favorite watch brands to discuss our unique takes to timekeeping.
Astor+Banks is an Independent watch company based in Chicago that was established in 2012. Our goal is to make high quality timepieces that you will appreciate for many years to come.
Fears is one of Britain's oldest family-run watch companies, having been established in Bristol in 1846 by Edwin Fear. Recently, Fears joined Roger Smith as a partner of the UK Government's GREAT Britain Campaign recognising the brand's unique heritage and British prowess.
LORIER (pronounced lor-yé) is based in New York City, owned and operated by husband and wife Lorenzo & Lauren Ortega. The brand aims to democratize well-built mechanical watches, reviving the classic designs and the intrepid spirit of vintage timepieces.
Swiss-made, luxury tool watches that will exceed any expectation with attention to every single detail.
Founded in 2017, Nodus is a boutique watch company that specializes in utility-driven watches. Designed and assembled in Los Angeles, Nodus watches are built for the important things in life.
Founded in 2015, Oak & Oscar is a Chicago-based independent watch company. Three guiding principles drive everything we do: to make no little plans, the belief that good people make great products, and that the details always make the design.
Built for the adventure, Raven watches designs and manufactures tool watches for the avid outdoorsman.
Blending classic timepiece inspiration with a modern, sport-inspired aesthetic, and doing it with transparency and openness into the experience of our process. In house case and dial manufacturing, combined with Swiss movements, all assembled, tested, and warrantied in Portland, OR,
Vortic Watch Company salvages and restores antique American pocket watches and turns them into one of a kind wristwatches. Completely American made and built in Colorado, each one is a Conversation Piece.
Stay ahead of the horological game and sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
COPYRIGHT © 2015–2020 | OAK & OSCAR, LLC | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


* Log and transcribe live as well as archived shows; able to transcribe/type quickly and proficiently.
* Update and maintain files in computer database.
* Log live show as well as answer questions in real time.
* Handle log organizing for management.
* Research for various production needs.
* Assist with scheduling meetings in calendar.
* Attend production meetings to take notes quickly and efficiently.
* Screen calls for the main phone line.
* Research and run errands for production needs.
* Help and assist with various department needs as requested.
* 1+ years of related experience.
* Needs to have a professional demeanor.
* Strong knowledge of various programming genres.
* Familiarity with working in an environment with celebrities professionally.
* Excellent computer skills including Microsoft office suite.
* Proficient in Audio Editing (Adobe Audition).


text:
#10 Major Media Outlets Lobby Against Regulation of "Surveillance Advertising"
by Project Censored November 26, 2022
The world's most popular social media apps and platforms—Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok—collect users' data and employ it to target them with tailored advertising. This sort of "surveillance advertising" has become a ubiquitous and extremely profitable practice. As Lee Fang reported for the Intercept in February 2022, the Biden administration's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is now seeking to regulate the collection of user data. But lobbyists for online advertisers and their big media clients are pushing back.
The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), a trade group that represents media outlets utilizing digital advertising, has strenuously opposed FTC efforts to restrict the collection and monetization of user data. As Fang wrote, the IAB represents CNN, the New York Times, NBC, the Washington Post, Fox News, and "dozens of other media companies."
The IAB argues that targeted advertising—and, by extension, the siphoning of user data—has become necessary due to declining revenues from print sales and subscriptions. Surveillance advertising sales have soared for most media conglomerates over the past decade as traditional ad sales have shrunk. Non-digital advertising revenue decreased from $124.8 billion in 2011 to $89.8 billion in 2020, while digital advertising revenue rose from $31.9 billion to $152.2 billion in the same period, according to Pew Research.
A 2019 study by privacy researchers Timothy Libert and Reuben Binns found that "the democratic role of the press is being undermined by reliance on the 'surveillance capitalism' funding model." They concluded that "news sites are more reliant on third-parties than non-news sites, user privacy is compromised to a greater degree on news sites, and privacy policies lack transparency in regards to observed tracking behaviors."
The personal information collected by online media is typically sold to aggregators, such as BlueKai (owned by Oracle) and OpenX, that exploit user data—including data describing minors—to create predictive models of users' behavior, which are then sold to advertising agencies. The covert nature of surveillance advertising makes it difficult for users to opt out. For example, the New York Times Company's privacy policy openly states, "We don't currently respond to [browser-based 'Do Not Track'] signals."
The user information collected by media sites also enables direct manipulation of public perceptions of political issues, as famously happened when the British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica tapped into personal data from millions of Facebook users to craft campaign propaganda during the 2016 US presidential election. The mass transfer of user data to third-party aggregators also makes it virtually impossible to ensure that such data collection does not violate existing regulations protecting child privacy online. Indeed, the FTC fined OpenX $2 million in December 2021 for illegal collection of minors' location in violation of the commission's Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule. Major news outlets chose not to cover the story, Fang wrote, because "they would have had to acknowledge an awkward reality," that they also use (or have used) OpenX to place targeted ads of their own.
In July 2021, President Biden issued an executive order on competition that included a directive for the FTC to develop rules regarding the "surveillance of users." In December 2021, the activist group Accountable Tech petitioned the FTC to prohibit surveillance advertising altogether. In response, the commission has begun crafting and taking public comments on regulations designed to rein in online data collection by digital advertisers. As Fang reported, the IAB responded by demanding that the FTC oppose any ban on surveillance ads, claiming that thousands of media outlets would be hurt by such a ban. According to OpenSecrets, the IAB spent $160,000 on lobbying efforts in 2021, much of it related to proposed legislation restricting the collection and exploitation of online personal data.
The corporate media have reported the FTC's openness to new rules limiting the collection and exploitation of user data, but have generally not drawn attention to IAB lobbying against the proposed regulations. For example, in September 2021, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post ran articles on Accountable Tech's petition and the FTC's consideration of new regulations governing surveillance advertising. However, neither outlet discussed IAB, its lobbying on this issue, or the big media clients the organization represents.
Lee Fang, "Major Media Outlets That Use Invasive User Tracking Are Lobbying Against Regulation," The Intercept, February 1, 2022.
Student Researcher: Christian Vogt (Saint Michael's College)
Faculty Evaluator: Robert Williams (Saint Michael's College)


Over 2,200 secondary school children across the country were treated to a science and maths festive extravaganza when the annual LabLive Lectures visited venues in Gloucestershire, Somerset, Kent and Lancashire this December.
LabLive brought all the fun of Cheltenham Science Festival to host venues The Bacon Theatre, Taunton School, Millfield School, The Marsh Academy and The Dukes Theatre, using Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) to inspire and engage inquisitive young minds. As well as enjoying science at its most spectacular, pupils learnt more about the benefits of studying these subjects at GCSE.
This year's alternative festive celebration produced a feast of explosions, experiments and hands-on fun, courtesy of five stellar scientists – pyro technician Matthew Tosh, magical mathematician Matt Pritchard, alchemy expert Andrew Szydlo, energy explorer Jamie Gallagher and neurologist Ginny Smith.
The free LabLive shows have amazed over 4,000 Key Stage 3 pupils with two hours of entertaining, inspiring and mind-expanding science since they started in 2011. They are produced by The Times Cheltenham Science Festival in partnership with EDF Energy and The Honourable Company of Gloucestershire.


At Nulandis, we look into the science and management of weeds, crop diseases and pests that damage and inhibit plant growth. Our crop protection range assists in the production of higher quality crops that produce greater yields.
Contact a Crop Protection specialist in your country/region?


text:
Q: Unable to open Locknote on Windows 7 using Ruby 2.0 I ran this code, and all it did was take me to the folder of the executable.  I had to click on the application exectable to open it.  Isn't this supposed to open automatically?
  require 'Win32API'
    def user32(name, param_types, return_value)
      Win32API.new 'user32', name,param_types, return_value
    end
    find_window = user32 'FindWindow', ['P', 'P'], 'L'
    system 'start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\locknote\LockNote 1.0.5"'
    sleep 0.2 while (main_window = find_window.call \
    nil, 'Steganos LockNote' ) <= 0
    puts "The main window's handle is #{main_window}."

A: PerhapsLockNote 1.0.5.exe is the filename?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


If the US Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling and sends the country into default, it risks losing its top credit rating.
One credit agency has already assured it may downgrade America's score if there's any sort of delay in coming up with a budget plan.
If the US fails to increase its debt limit by March 1, it may not be able to pay its bills and could fall into default. Fitch Ratings, a top credit agency, said Tuesday that it would downgrade the nation's AAA credit rating if Congress fails to agree on a plan "in a timely manner".
A credit rating influences a nation's borrowing costs, which would be higher if a country proves unable to repay its debts. Lower credit ratings could potentially harm the US economy by increasing its borrowing costs. Even if the US were not sent into default, Fitch would consider downgrading America's credit rating if it witnesses another heated bipartisan debate that stalls time-sensitive progress.
Fitch said on its website that a repeat of the 2011 congressional battle, which almost sent the US into default, would instigate a formal review of the country's credit rating and increase skepticism in Congress' ability to come to agreements.
Standard & Poor's downgraded America's AAA rating after Congress' debt limit battle in 2011. Moody's Investor Services did not downgrade the country's rating, but gave it a negative outlook. The US is still burdened with this negative outlook, with Moody's having expressed doubtfulness over its ability to come up with a deficit-reduction plan in a timely manner.
And even if the US once again averts the financial crisis, Fitch said it would consider downgrading the country's rating anyway.
"In the absence of an agreed and credible medium-term deficit-reduction plan that would be consistent with sustaining the economic recovery and restoring confidence in the long-run sustainability of US public finances, the current negative outlook on the AAA rating is likely to be resolved with a downgrade later this year even if another debt-ceiling crisis is averted," Fitch said.
And a downgraded credit rating is not the only consequence the country faces if it fails to raise the debt ceiling. The US may run out of cash to pay its bills, which would abandon those dependent on government assistance. The US would not be able to afford paying for Social Security, veterans benefits, US troops, aid for low-income families or government salaries.
In order to force the Obama administration to cut spending, some Republican leaders have pledged to allow the US to fall into default and shut down the government, thereby hurting the nation's credit rating.
The top three credit rating agencies – Fitch Ratings, Standard & Poor's, and Moody's – have all at one point expressed doubt in Congress' ability to raise the debt ceiling, and Fitch's announcement makes the country's economic outlook even more dire than before.