I did a PDC last year with pretty much no idea what it actually was. It was very much theory based- in fact I was sort of hanging out to be a paying WWOOFer after 8 hours a day of 'school'! I think it varies hugely depending on the tutor- Geoff Lawton, a big cheese in the permy world, taught ours. He does lots of work in deserts and is based in the sub-tropics, so a lot of his info had to go through a 'how does this relate to New Zealand' filter. If you're interested in learning about and using permaculture ideas, I'd read the books and just do it; if you're already really involved and want to get a diploma, get paid as a designer or teach, a PDC is pretty much a requirement. I also was a bit worried about the potential for hand-holding and Gaia-praising, but the PDC was actually very grounded and scientifically presented. If woo-woo freaks you out, stay away from biodynamics! It really works, but it and its adherents can be a bit...intense, shall we say. Just make sure a PDC is offering what you need for your money, and remember intangibles like contacts/friends made and so on. A major part of our experience was learning about (and eating a lot of!) fantastic food, but again take into account the particular interests of the people running the PDC.

saftgeek - I hate to admit it but you are all too correct about far too many attorneys! I was a high school teacher for 20 years before deciding to go to law school and I have been deeply appalled by the how truly unethical and dishonest some lawyers are. In the six years I've been practicing law, I've run into more dishonest, downright sleezy lawyers than I met incompetant teachers in twenty years of teaching school... and people are always knocking teachers for being incompetant! Shyster lawyers make me ashamed of this profession just as incompetant teachers sometimes made me ashamed of the teaching profession. I would urge you or anyone else who has evidence of a lawyer behaving dishonestly or unethically to report them to their state bar association. It might not do any good but then again, it just might. At least in Texas, I think our state bar tries to disbar the unethical lawyers whenever they can find them. It certainly sounds like your ex-boss was exactly that type. I also truly am not trying to paint GCs as dishonest. I believe the vast majority are honest folks who do their best to do a good job when building a home and, if they make mistakes, try their best to fix them. BUT, as in all professions, there are some people building homes that are either lazy, dishonest, or so downright disorganized that the homeowner who ends up hiring one of them needs to be able to go to court and get help. And, unfortunately, the contract promulgated by the Texas Association of Builders is specifically designed to protect these bottom-feeding GCs from facing the music for their bad behaviour. The funny thing is, I KNOW that it was the TAB's lawyers who drafted the d--n contract that protects the bad builders, so when I'm knocking the contract, I'm also slamming some of the members of my own profession! I actually suspect that most builders who use the TAB form contract do so because it is available to them cheaply and they don't know any more about what it really says than the homeowner does. And, so long as there are no major problems with the build - nobody is any the worse off. But, I defy any honest person who has ever READ the TAB contract to argue with a straight face that it is a fair and balanced contract. Among other things, it requires the homeowner to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Basically an implied warranty of habitablity means that courts have said when two parties enter into a contract for one to build a home for the other, there is an implied understanding between them that the finished home will be inhabitable. The owner doesn't have to make sure to insist that language be put into the contract SAYING that the house must be able to be lived in when comleted...the courts will assume that since the contract was for the building of a home, the finished product must be something one can inhabit or it is simply not a "home." But, just in case someone WANTS just a shell - or something like that - to be built, courts will allow the parties to agree to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Asking the homeowner to waive the implied warranty of habitablity might be fair if the homeowner wanted to build something totally new and different and the builder said, "you know, I can build that for you but I don't think it'll be something you can live in when I get done, are you SURE that's what you want?" But, I think you would have to agree that, except in those rare instances, a house should be inhabitable, just like a car should be driveable, a suit should be wearable, and a wedding cake should be edible. Would you agree to buy a new car from a manufacturer who insisted that you agree to waive the "implied warranty of driveability"? Would you purchase a suit from a tailor who refused to warrant that it would be wearable? Would you order a wedding cake from a baker who refused to guarantee that it would be edible? Why would you buy a home from someone who refused to warrant that it would be habitable????? Nevertheless, the Texas Association of Builders - with the help of its attorneys no doubt! - realized that implied warranties can be waived and that most homeowners don't ever really read or understand the contract they sign. So they put language into the form contract that waives the warranty of habitablility on every single home built under it. That means the homeowner may think he is contracting for a turn-key home but, even if the house he gets is so defective that he cannot possibly live in it - say the sewage pipe has broken in the wall so that there that raw sewage has contaminated all the insulation - the homeowner cannot argue that the builder breached the contract by building an UNIHABITABLE house. Fair????? The TAB contract also requires that the owner agree upfront to "binding arbitration" in the event of a dispute. This doesn't sound too bad...unless you happen to know a couple of facts about binding arbitration. First, arbitration is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than small claims court even though most building disputes are going to be over amounts small enough have brought the claim in small claims court. Second, arbitrators are selected and PAID by the parties to the dispute which means that arbitrators make more money if they are selected for more cases. If an arbitrator wants future work, they have to make sure that the party that is more likely to bring them future business is happy. Care to guess which party is more likely to NEED to hire an arbitrator for a second or third or fourth construction dispute? Some studies have shown that homeowners win less than 5% of claims that go to arbitration but win about half of claims that are tried in a court of law. Even those few homeowners who are nominal winners in arbitration almost never win enough money to actually repair their homes! The TAB contract also requires that the builder receive his final payment, in full, (i.e. NO RETAINAGE) at the time of the final walk-through even though it also specifies that a punch list of items to be corrected/completed/repaired will be made at this same time. In theory the builder is supposed to return and finish the punch list. But, WHY should the unscrupulous builder bother? After all, he has already been paid in full AND the homeowner can't even sue him in small claims court due to the binding arbitration clause I already mentioned? Do you think that is fair? I could go on and on about other clauses that are in the TAB contract but I suspect I've made my point. A builder who insists on using the TAB contract after having some of its many unfair clauses pointed out to him may not actually BE dishonest but, IMHO, neither is he the kind of straight shooter I really want to deal with. Straight shooters are willing to play on a level playing field.

Mine is 48 x 60". I didn't think you had room for anything more than 36" or 42" as shown in the first plan. I can't really tell for sure, but is your fridge on the end of the run on the right? Sorry, but that's terrible, especially with that island that is more of a challenge to get around. And if you think you'll fit seating on that side of the island, I'm afraid you'll be aggravated and disappointed. 39" for the aisle is 21" short of what's recommended to have seating backing up to cabinets that you'll want to access while people might be in the seats. I'm not a huge fan of upper corner cabinets hanging up there on their own, so would rather have it just be flat into the corner facing one way or the other...But I can see it balances the one on the other side, so I'm not sure what I'd do in that case...Probably not do diagonal faced cabinet in that corner either, but that may just be my personal preference. The sink and stove runs both look closer to what you'd wanted...But the fridge location and island shape seem to be big problems. I'd go back to the original island orientation and still would move that fridge toward the back wall, with it first in that line of tall cabs instead of last, so it lines up better with the work aisle.

@anne_ct "That maybe what the book says...but I found the errant G: drive nicely tucked at the bottom of the "My Pictures" folder under "Libraries"." I don't want to get too sidetracked here, but the Libraries are essentially folders full of shortcuts. They are not the actual files, folders, or drives, but references to their real locations only. You could put another computer on the network inside say, Libraries/Pictures, but that computer is not actually in Pictures. As well, if you delete it there, it does not delete the actual file, folder, drive, or computer that's being referenced. To test, see if you can drag a D: drive, or your CD drive into your actual Pictures directory. You can't - indeed it's impossible. But you can drop it as a shortcut into anything that's in Libraries, although it doesn't explicitly say that it's just a shortcut. See : Windows 7 Libraries: Frequently Asked Questions