Hagakure

when you try to picture it remember to factor in large populations of creatures. can have simultaneous mutations occurring in different groups that are then collected together in future generations.

that would be awesome if it did last a long time. would be good to have some type of collective breeding program.

nice designs but surely would be tricky to screen print wit that many colors etc

keen as mustard

http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/...owing_leds.html wish there was more info on what they did, but still, might spark some ideas. would be cool to poke a whole lot into the lid of a foam box and wire them up on the other side. less space taken up by a light means more room for plants.

heard a lot about this guy and chasing down some of his material. here is a talk by him http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/104 he designed some sustainable cities that china is going to build. was also employed by south australian government for a while though not sure what the results were from that. interesting thinker. another talk by him here but i havent listened to that one yet. http://www.meredith.edu/mcnews/william-mcdonough.htm edit: can a mod move this into the sustainable forum? i am an idiot and made a mistake.

sounds like a bit of a worry oh.

illegalbrain - the last post of the shroomery thread says how to do this.

i suggest fencing too. my pup destroyed a caapi and may have ring barked my p. carth. no suprises that the plants i fenced off are all doing fine. the position isnt as ideal though.

marijuana activist

heaps scattered at the moment so i apologise for the randomness of the topics discussed in the following post ............................................................................................................................................................. torsten, i dont think occupation is a good indication of a good balance of genes. sometimes its smart to have a job that doesnt pay much but to use it to get by, lower your needs and enjoy life. you cant get a feel for who that person truely was. perhaps your street begger relative was something of a mystic, perhaps he developed a mental illness due to some disease. we need some onther way to look at this more effectively. if we take small generations that we know a lot about its quite clear that the influence of genes is pretty large. look at terence tao. really smart parents and a really smart brother aswell. of course the fact that he is now a mathematical genius is because his parents provided the stimulation he needed really well, there is no way he would be where he is today without environmental influences. that said no matter what environbment i was raised in i couldnt have blitzed through university maths by age 17. and surely you would agree that social welfare programs that create a "more babies = more money from the government" mindset are doing no good for our population. i would love to read an in depth analysis of the influence of WW1 on britain, khmer rouge on cambodia and the mass exodus of intelligence from china and india to see how these changes do influence population dynamics. in the next generation will a greater number of above average kids appear around the silicon valley in comparison to places that have not had the influx of intelligence? my guess is yes. could we see the loss in populations that lost a lot of their top talent. well thats probably a really hard question to answer. and yeah you have a point in this case that while a clever brother may have gone overseas, his sister and brother together have most of the genes he has if not all. so will china with the one child policy suffer a lot more than india due to the brain drain? im rambling a lot here but in essence what im saying is by all means we need to reduce the population of this planet. but if its done through those realising we have to decrease just not having babies then the balnce will shift to those who dont care. i remmeber a mate telling me bout a sci fi novel he read. everyone had the right to 3/4 of a baby. you partner up and with your couple you have the right to 1 1/2 babies. you can either have children, or trade your rights on a market or through personal transactions. could then have gov granting higher rights to those who reach some excellence in their field. stuff like that. interesting thought experiment but also pretty scary. i consider myself a bit of a libertarian these days and that policy would be anything but. damn i have been typing a while. topics like this always sucker me in.

too exhausted from work to get stuck into this thread 100% right now but one thing i will mention is robots the japanese are working really hard to get robots up to scratch so they wont have to allow immigration into their country to be able to deal with massive labour shortages. these robots WILL be developed sooner or later. they will clean, construct whatever much more efficiently than humans and will eventually cost a fraction of a wage. hese robots will fill voids in labour shortages but they will also kick a whole lot of people out of work too.

i disagree on the genetic front. its not just how you are raised. sure this matters but it aint all of it by far. raise a 2 dozen clones of jessica simpson in as many different environments as you like and you aint going to produce a leading astrophysicist (not allowing transhumanism) social programs that encourage large families for welfare families should be discouraged. intelligence is linked to genes. last thing we need is the stupidest least successfull of the population producing the most babies. if you have a range of dope plants do you let the ones with the worst taste and the lowest THC do all the pollinating? when you are breeding dogs do you let the aggressive, antisocial, heriditary illness ridden dog have all the bitches? extreme examples and no doubt highly offensive but have a think about it. would you? cause if you wouldnt do that with dog breeding programs or with dope plants what logical reasoning is there to do so with humans? has been some contreversial work in this field by some scientist. forgotten what his name was. been meaning to look into more of his work though so i will hopefully track it down soon. does really politically incorrect science looking into race, gender vs intelligence etc. science aint meant to be PC though. if the data says its so then thats what you work with. i think a bit has been written about how much britain was fucked up by WW1. lost many of their best men with damaging effect to the gene pool. and look at australia. australia was project of the british to enhance their own stock at home. complete removal from teh gene pool by shipping the convicts across the other side of the world. of course plenty of free settlers and migrants allowed in based on intelligence has probably put us in a better situation thyan most countries nowadays though. measures should be in place to encourage breeding by people who are better members of society than others. face it. some dudes are neanderthal thugs who fight, are involved in sexual assuaults, drive dangerously etc etc. same as their father, same as their grandfather. is it too hard to see a link between genes and the amount of various hormones released in the body that are resonsible for agression? they were fantastic when we were all in tribes in africa and needed to fight other tribes. they are great as soldiers. meatheads willing to take a risk that may get them killed but will hopefully provide meat for the tribe or slay a few of the enemy. but lets hope humans can start moving on from all that now. could babble on about this for ages but right now its 1 o'clock and i have to be up at 8. also i know this type of thought is highly offensive to some but find the logical faults within and i will try and address it. if you have a valid argument against an idea i hold i will gladly drop it. i aint dropping an idea, however, because it is politically incorrect or because it is not held by the majority.

crushed the top of a disposable razor and bent the blade out. used it for a graft and it was really good. very thin flexible blade that cut without damaging the cells along side of the cut. the graft was successfull. picked up some wilkinson swords and just tried another graft with those. felt pretty good. nice blades. fingers crossed another graft added to the collection. cheers for the great advice all.

what blades are people using for delicate seedlings? i have been using regular razor blades but remember someone mentioning the blades you buy for use in shavers etc.

start checking out ebay. see what pops up and read reviews and ask around. were some decks that sold last week at about half their RRP mos def, talib qweli etc are awesome. you heard of big l? dead now but put out some amazing stuff.

im keen as. count me in

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5011230863803398434 interesting video

i remember reading about some case where people in a mental care home were cut off from caffeine after previously having several very strong coffees a day. after a while some of the mental health issues in some of the individuals cleared and the people were discharged.

didnt catch that addiction bit. was unsure about some other thing he said though. cant recall what it was now. on the whole though i found the video quite interesting. sure its dry but its an objective, academic look at these types of experiences, something of a rarity compared to a lot of the other info out there on the net. i found the brain chemistry stuff really interesting. its important to look at these chemical experiences from this perspective. as the guy mentioned, a certain type of stimulation will make you think that you are understanding a foreign language which you actually dont understand. you THINK you know. a simple experiment would reveal, however, that that aint so. just like how you can take a drug and think that you are talking to an entity autonomous to you. in a lab they can stimulate certain parts of the brain to make you feel like there is another entity present. its biology. drugs are just chemicals that change they way your brain works. this is the very dry and removed way of looking at it all. something akin to saying sex is a matter of friction and force. there is a whole lot more going on in the experience. but its a perspective that i felt should be added to the forum as it is often bypassed cause it just aint as sexy

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavi...ru_b_58353.html Watching the media cover marijuana is fascinating, offering deep insight into conventional wisdom, bias and failure to properly place science in context. The coverage of a new study claiming that marijuana increases the risk of later psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia by 40% displays many of these flaws. What are the key questions reporters writing about such a study needs to ask? First, can the research prove causality? Most of the reporting here, to its credit, establishes at some point that it cannot, though you have to read pretty far down in some of it to understand this. Second -- and this is where virtually all of the coverage falls flat -- if marijuana produces what seems like such a large jump in risk for schizophrenia, have schizophrenia rates increased in line with marijuana use rates? A quick search of Medline shows that this is not the case -- in fact, as I noted here earlier, some experts think they may actually have fallen. Around the world, roughly 1% of the population has schizophrenia (and another 2% or so have other psychotic disorders), and this proportion doesn't seem to change much. It is not correlated with population use rates of marijuana. Since marijuana use rates have skyrocketed since the 1940's and 50's, going from single digit percentages of the population trying it to a peak of some 60% of high school seniors trying it in 1979 (stabilizing thereafter at roughly 50% of each high school class), we would expect to see this trend have some visible effect on the prevalence of schizophrenia and other psychoses. When cigarette smoking barreled through the population, lung cancer rose in parallel; when smoking rates fell, lung cancer rates fell. This is not the case with marijuana and psychotic disorders; if it were, we'd be seeing an epidemic of psychosis. But readers of the AP, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and Reuters were not presented with this information. While CBS/WebMD mentioned the absence of a surge in schizophrenia, it did so by quoting an advocate of marijuana policy reform, rather than citing a study or quoting a doctor. This slants the story by pitting an advocate with an agenda against a presumably neutral medical authority. Furthermore, very little of the coverage put the risk in context. A 40% increase in risk sounds scary, and this was the risk linked to trying marijuana once, not to heavy use. To epidemiologists, however, a 40% increase is not especially noteworthy-- they usually don't find risk factors worth worrying about until the number hits at least 200% and some major journals won't publish studies unless the risk is 300 or even 400%. The marijuana paper did find that heavy use increased risk by 200-300%, but that's hardly as sexy as try marijuana once, increase your risk of schizophrenia by nearly half! By contrast, one study found that alcohol has been found to increase the risk of psychosis by 800% for men and 300% for women. Although this study was not a meta-analysis (which looks at multiple studies, as the marijuana research did), it certainly is worth citing to help readers get a sense of the magnitude of the risk in comparison with other drugs linked to psychosis. Of course, if journalists wanted to do that, they would also cite researchers who disagree with the notion that marijuana poses a large risk of inducing psychosis at all, such as Oxford's Leslie Iversen, author of one of the key texts on psychopharmacology, who told the Times of London that "Despite a thorough review the authors admit that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness. Their prediction that 14 per cent of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years." Such comments don't help the media stir up reefer madness, which they've been doing, quite successfully, for the last few decades. Perhaps covering the marijuana beat makes you crazy.

2 litre PET bottles cut the very bottom off them and you have a greenhouse to place over your plants. put a small hole in the cap and place it upside down and you have a drip watering system to slowly release water to your plants. widen the hole in the lid and you can put a conepiece in it to make a bucket bong. or if you take an unmodified bottle, cut it in the middle and put some holes in the bottom for drainage and you have a clear pot. these are cool cause you can see the development of the root system. they are also great for containing liquids what are some other good ways to reuse things we probably all have access to?

got a new mini setup for cacti seedlings and grafts. got a foam box and chucked a lamp in there with a fluro bulb (forgotten how many watts but was as high as i could get) the lamp is on a timer and provides light and heat. been freezing in SA recently yet im getting temps around the 30-37 range inside it.

i thought hot days, cold nights were good for seedlings too. anyone have any references for or against?

you may want to avert your eyes from this monstrosity then