ballzac
-
Content count
4,109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by ballzac
-
-
The I.violacea are not very vigorous plants, so they are unlikely to choke anything like an established lemon tree. Chances are you will barely see the vine in the tree, so they might make a good combination.If you plant two strains of the same species your seed will be of mixed genetics. It is always more desirable to keep your two MG strains at least 100m apart or grow them in alternating years.
Plant the MG near the drip line of the tree. Tie a piece of twine to a branch just above the MG and tie the other end to a peg in the ground near the MG. Leave a lot of slack in case the wind blows the branch a lot. The MG will then grow up the twine and into the tree (assuming this is small enough). The MG's roots will be where the lemon tree roots are not too dense. Fertilise this spot very well with manure, and keep you peeing to the opposite side of the MG.
Thanks. That's exactly what I'll do. As for mixed genetics, I am growing heavenly blue and pearly gates in the same spot, so this will be a problem. Is there any way to tell if the seeds are of mixed varieties before they are grown?
-
Cheers. -
We obviously have a few people with quite a talent for music here. Maybe we should think about an online collaboration. One person can post a chord progression, and people add their beats to it and we get a vote on the best. Then we add melody to that, and again people vote etc. Finally, we could all try remixing and see what's gets the most votes. Just a thought.
-Zac
-
I listened to the first one. It sounds quite professional to ME, and it a great track. I'll listen to more and give you more of an opinion when I have a bit more time.
-Zac
-
That stuff is EVERYWHERE throughout Melbourne, all along every train line, in parks, and on peoples fences. I have been told by people on this site that this is I. purpurea. It's also similar to I. indica, but I'm no expert.
-Zac
-
Don't ask ME. I have no idea.
-
Knowing very little about horticulture and the way plants interact with each other, I design my garden mainly on how I want it to look. This can be a bit of a trial and error process. Before I kill my lemon tree by doing something that I think will look nice, I thought I'd better ask you guys about it. Can I put a heavenly blue and a pearly gates at the bottom of my lemon tree and let them climb it? Will they strangle it? Will they even manage to survive in the soil around the lemon tree? Can I still piss on my lemon tree? I am happy to spend time almost every day pruning it back to keep it at bay if I have to. Thanks.
-
I noticed that my next door neighbour had this in his front yard. I don't think he'd know much about it, so I thought I'd ask you guys if you know what species it is. The flowers are much yellower in real life than they look in this photo, probably because I took it at night. The ones furthest from the centre where the flash is not so bright are closer, but still not quite as yellow. I don't know what features are most important in distinguishing between different brugs, so let me know what I should be looking for and I can take more detailed photos. Cheers.
-Zac
-
I second that motion
-
I believe that it is animal nature to hunt and eat another animal as prey. I don't believe that the way it is done is good at all, battery farming and the like. I like to think about the issue from a perspective that is humans are animals. Animals eating another animal is just nature, but humans are just much greedier and take more than they need.I almost completely stopped eating meat a few months back, I only eat it once a week, not because of animal rights but because I wanted to see how much healthier I felt. It was damn hard. But it got me thinking... in nature humans were probably meant to eat other animals, but since when were we supposed to suck on the tit of a cow, another species? I think there was research being done in south australia a while back that suggested that there is a chemical in cow's milk (enzyme maybe) that when given to babies, it can cause problems later in life including an assortment of diseases. Not sure if they fully published their work or not.
It may be natural for animals to eat other animals, but it is also natural for animals to rape and kill other animals of the same species. It doesn't mean it's okay. It may be a fact of life, but as animals that have the power of thought and reflection, I think we have a responsibility to use this power for the good of ourselves and other animals.
And Jasemateau, I do not like the idea of all that shit in my food, but it's in most of our food anyway. Yes you can buy 'organic' food (Is that food containing carbon?
:D ), but you would have to be religious about it to avoid all of it. I agree that this would be a problem with what I am proposing, but I think it is actually not the corporations' fault. They just give the consumers what they think they want. If we want cloned 'brainless' meat that is not full of all the hormones and shit that is in most of our meat anyway, we would have to make it clear that that is what we want. I think most of the people who want food without additives of this sort, would also be the type of people (generalising here, sorry) who would feel icky about eating cloned meat. This would mean that it would be a disaster to create a business producing organic, cloned meat.All branches of science have brought us to a place where we have lots of wonderful things, like computers, phones, vehicles, television, lsd etc., and lots of bad things, like guns, nuclear weapons, television etc.
The actual process of cloning brainless meat for human consumption does not have to be dangerous to human health. It is the way we implement this that could be problematic. Also, I don't think people who eat maccas (I DON'T) don't care about what they're puting in their bodies, and that stuff is already so bad that it won't make much difference what else they do to the meat. It doesn't make a difference, as far as I'm concerned, whether the hormones are added to a test-tube, or to a living breathing animal, except that in one case a being with thoughts and feelings dies, and in the other, a bunch of muscular cells die. -
To go off on a bit of a tangent here...I have had trouble reconsiling my love of animals with the fact that I eat meat. I would never kill an animal, but for some reason I can eat an animal that has basically been killed for MY money, without feeling guilty. At this stage in my life, I still eat meat, but only if it is served to me. I don't actively go out searching for meat when I am hungry. This is unfortunately the best I feel I can do at least for the moment.
I am often saddened to see vegatarian protesters wasting their time protesting over the eating of meat. Meat eaters DO know what they are eating, and it is only introspection that will ever get a person to stop eating meat, not someone telling them that it is wrong. I think where effort COULD be useful, is in protesting for the development of "humane meat". By this I don't mean meat from animals that have led a fairly pleasant life and died a quick death. I mean meat that never came from a living animal with a thinking brain in the first place. As far as I know, the technology is there to grow meat in a test tube, just as we have been able to grow skin for burns victims. If the technology isn't QUITE there, it soon will be. I know a lot of people would think this idea is a little macabre, but I also think that many, like I, would realise that it is not as macabre as killing a thinking, feeling, living entity. If this meat was available now, I would instantly switch to it. It might not be popular right away, but as its popularity grew, others would see it as less of a sickening thought. I think that eventually this is the direction we will go, but with substantial protest, which might be joined by meat eaters AND vegetarians, it can happen sooner. I see organic food as a bit of a fad. It might die out all together, or it might remain the less common option, but I don't see it taking over. 'Grown' meat however, I can see being the only source of meat in the future. I believe that it would ultimately be cheaper (Imagine how many cows will be saved when MacDonalds realise this), and would likely spawn laws that outlaw the slaughter of animals.
I don't know why I have never heard this suggested before. Surely this would be in the interest of vegetarians and many meat-eaters alike. Like I said, I DO see it as an inevitability, but I would like to see it happen in my lifetime. Just a thought.
-
Ever since the psychedelic movement of the sixties, use of psychedelics and even the discussion of these drugs has been primarily underground. This is largely due to the laws that have been passed pertaining to most of these drugs, but I think it also has to do with the society we live in. Extacy is also illegal, but seems to be far more popular, not just in terms of how often a specific user will take the drug, but also in terms of how many individuals take the drug as a lifestyle choice, no matter how often they dose. A friend of mine has noticed that clubbing/pilling has started to wane in popularity, and he has also noticed that he is meeting a lot more people of late that are just beginning to take an interest in psychedelics. I know that when I first had psychedelics about ten years ago, I knew a few people that used them, but have met very few in the past six or seven years...until now. I too have noticed that people are seeming to take an interest again, but maybe even more so. I don't know if it's just the circles that we happen to move in, or if it is a more universal thing that is happening. It is my friend's opinion that we are on the verge of a new psychedelic revolution where extacy loses popularity and people begin to use drugs for mind expansion rather than just for fun. I was wondering if anyone here had noticed anything along those lines brewing, or just any thoughts on this subject, for example, is it a good thing, or a bad thing if this happens? I'd be interested to hear what you guys think.
-
By the way, you may have noticed that a lot of the tracks are at different volumes. This is because I haven't mastered them yet. I'm going to get a vinyl cut soon, and whatever track (or two) I put on that I will get professionally mastered. Until then I can't really be bothered doing my own bodgy job at it.
Here's an elektro track: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6RHM4D4D
-
I can find a lot of information about electromagnetic waves being compose of electric and magnetic waves perpendicular to each other, but I can't find anything about how this relates to c. There is obviously SOME relationship, whether it is as you said or not. If you can find anything supporting or contradicting your statement, please post it. In the meantime, I'm gonna keep looking, because I'd be very interested to learn about this. Cheers.
-Zac
-
LOLz.Stupid me... of course @ c between glass molecules. I'm familiar with blue and red shifts, proof of our expanding universe. Also the particle/wave nature of photons. Am I correct in saying though, that EM radiation is a magnetic field oscillating in one plane, and an electric field oscillating in another? And that the EM wave can exist through each mag or electric field in the EM wave regenerating the other? The reason light travels at the speed it does is because that ultimate speed is need so that neither fieldin the EM wave looses energy. There is total conversion.
I did mean to meantion that to push an object with infinite mass, infinite force would be needed.
I found this out just recently but did you know that GPS satellite clocks actually run faster than earth time due to relativity, not slower? I think that most people would think they run slower but they run faster because the satellites are so far out of the earths gravitational field. They run 7,200 ns/day slow because of their speed but 45,900 ns/day fast becuase of the gravity.
Absolutely right about the satelites (general relativity has been a lot easier to study in a practical sense than special relativity because of this difference). The other thing I'm not sure of. It rings a bell, but I think there's something a little wrong with what you're saying about it relating to the speed of light. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying I'm not sure. I'm gonna do a bit of research and get back about this one.
-
Okay, so you guys like afflatus (the video gamey one). A mate of mine who is a bit of an amateur filmmaker wanted to do a film clip for it, but he wanted a break for it, just to add a bit of interest. I wrote this: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0364GFMC , although we never got around to doing the film clip. I'm not sure how it was gonna fit in, maybe a fade-over, or a cut, but it's pretty 'cool'. I grew up with a sega master system, and I think this shows a bit of an "Alex Kid in Miracle World" influence. Anyway, we DID end up doing a film clip. It started off as just a video of me contact juggling, but he got one of his mates to do an edit of it, and they put it to one of my tracks. It ended up awesome, although a bit over-edited for a contact juggling video (it kinda takes away from the magical effect of the cj). Anyway, if I can ever figure out how to get it from vhs to mpg format, I will post that too.
-Zac
-
Light travels through ANY medium at the speed of light. In a transparent medium (glass, water, air, etc.), the photons are absorbed by the atoms of the substance, and re-emitted, then absorbed by the next atoms and so on and so forth. The light appears to travel slower, but it is not the same photons that emerge at the other end. The photons travel between the atoms at the same rate no matter what the substance.
Electomagnetic waves are called this because there is a relationship between said waves and electricy and magnetism. The actual waves are made up of photons (thought of as little packets of waves, although the reality appears to be that they exist in a superposition of the two states of wave form and particle form. i.e. If you measure it in one way they appear to be particles, and in another they appear to be waves. If modern quantum mechanics is correct, they are simultaneously both.)
When we measure the velocity of light coming from the sun, we find that it reaches us at 299 792 458 m / s. The strange thing is that if we were to travel at half this speed (or infact any speed) towards the sun, the light would still reach us at 299 792 458 m / s. Where does the extra energy go? It becomes blueshift. Instead of the velocity of light increasing as we travel towards the souce, it simply increases in frequency. If we were to travel at high velocity towards a red source of light, it would appear blue. At high enough velocity, the harmless blue light would become gamma rays that would kill us. Similary, receding from a light source causes redshift, the opposite of blueshift.
You're comment about the mass increasing as an object approaches the speed of light is correct, although it wouldn't destroy the universe, it just CAN'T happen. It doesn't matter how powerful your engines are, you can never push something that is of infinite mass. In fact, it would require infinite power to push it to the point where the mass is infinite. This is why you can get closer and closer to the speed of light, and keep accelerating, without ever reaching it.
There are other ways of looking at this too. If a craft were traveling close to the speed of light, their time would be dilated. Supposing we could see what was happening on board. The people would be moving slowly from our perspective, but from their perspective it would be normal. Similarly, when they fire their engines again to accelerate, it seems to them to accelerate them as efficiently as it always has, but to us, it would fire a lot slower because of the dilation of time. The faster they go, the more this effect increases. Because the speed of light would theoretically be the point where time stops altogether, it is impossible to ever reach it. When they are traveling at 99% the speed of light, time will be slowed down to a point where it might take a million of OUR years to reach 99.5%, and a million and a bit more to reach 99.75% and a couple of million more to reach 99.9%. You get my drift. This craft can get closer, but it will never actually get to 100% of the speed of light.
Anyway, I wouldn't feel to bad about hijacking, I think this thread has become a lot more interesting since it started making sense
-Zac
-
Here's one that I wrote a while ago. This is one of my later versions, because I lost earlier versions. The production values aren't that good on this one, but one day I'll get around to writing a chorus and more verses and do a better production of it. Here it is: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XC394VNC
-
Another trance one: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KG1KYO1E
This one's (a bit) harder than the first trance one. I put wicked samples from the film "waking life" in it.
-
all very good but i wouldnt really call it trance. I don't remember calling that one trance.Anyway, here's another one. This is just a short thing I did as an idea for some audio for an unknown film. I was kinda trying to get a bit of a Vangelis thing happening. It's kinda cool, but it's not a dance track or anything. Like I said, it's more just a bit of incidental music or something.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TMEEKFMQ
I'm downloading some Paranerd now. I'll check it out in the morning.
-
thanks again for the feedback. I'm using Fruityloops (FL studio4). I'll check out paranerd when I got some time. Cheers.
-
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you in some ways that it could benefit from a more climactic finale. Ending pieces dramatically is really a weakspot of mine. However, I think this piece develops throughout better than any other of my trancey tracks.
This next track is probably my favourite out of anything I have ever done, but is probably not so much to public taste as the last one. I'm not sure what genre it would be called, but I'll let it speak for itself.
When I think about it, it is probably about five years old now
-
I'm gonna use this thread to display some of my music. Most of it is pretty old (I haven't been as creative since I quit smoking weed). I'd love some constructive criticism on some of this stuff. I've got some electro, some videogamey kinda music, some trance, and even a little bit of baroque (but I couldn't find a string quartet to play it for me so it sounds kinda shit). This first one is what I consider to be my best trancey track, and one of the few trance that I have finished. It's not that hard as trance goes, but I reckon it's awesome. I'm on fifty-six k, so it takes me a while to upload them, but I'll upload more when I can. Anyone is welcome to use this music for any non-profit broadcast or project (a short film for example) as long as I am given credit.
If you wish to use it for profit, PM me an we can work something out -
Awesome. I particularly like...well, all of them actually! The first one is very reminiscent of a walk I went on after taking three purple aums about eight years ago. The rest all have that really cool psychedelic mandala effect going on - as everyone else has said, album cover style. Ever seen the cover for "anthem of the sun"? Kinda like a new-age version of that.
Legality of 15 Year olds
in Legal Matters
Posted
I agree with most of what you said in your first paragraph. The thing that trips me out, is when people say, "If a child commits an adult crime, he should do adult time." Does that mean that if an adult commits a childish crime, he should do juvenile time?
I only know the laws in Victoria, but I think it is the same throughout Australia now. These laws have been the same for hetorosexuals for a long time, but only recently have been equalised for homosexuals(including lesbians). The legal age of consent is ten. However, there must be no more than two years age difference until the age of sixteen. That is, it is illegal for nine year olds to have sex with anyone. It is legal for a twelve year old to have sex with a ten year old (assuming consent). A thirteen year old who has sex with a ten year old is breaking the law, as is an eighteen year old with a fifteen year old. A ninety year old can legally have consentual sex with a sixteen year old.