CβL

Yeah man. Heard this same opinion on Thursday. "Why don't we let police have tasers and guns? If someone gets hurt from them then they shouldn't have been doing anything illegal".

Happy Birthday PH! Have a great time! :D Play this little chord progression for yourself x46454 (C# min7) x35453 (C Maj7) x24235 (B min7 022100 (E)

Interesting Where did you hear of this guy? Has there been any research to its constituents?

To add another option - you could instead of a greenhouse, just make a pergola type structure that will stop rain from falling on a raised bed. As long as cacti are not soaked, they generally do alright with very cold temperatures. I'm unsure if -10F is too cold for such an option though.

I don't post in here too often - so that means you guys have to listen to what I post.

*****This is an evidence-based thread***** Surprise, surprise - natural selection is a faster process (at the moment) than genetic engineering. It is forseeable that in the future this will not be the case, and then we will be screwed, as it will appear that humans are essentially omnipotent. I am worried about the consequences of this whole path however. Even if we can somehow develop genetic engineering to a stage where we can quickly counter any resistances, I don't know if that is sustainable indefinitely. Maybe eventually a winner will emerge - and it won't be us, only it will be FAR too late to switch to more stable food production methods. Then without enough food, and such a dependent populace - mass famines will occur. Anyway, please comment on what potential ramifications you think there are to this, and ways that you are planning on steering clear.

Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life' Indiana farmer must pay agribusiness giant $84,000 for patent infringement- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of biotech giant Monsanto, ordering Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, 75, to pay Monsanto more than $84,000 for patent infringement for using second generation Monsanto seeds purchased second hand—a ruling which will have broad implications for the ownership of 'life' and farmers' rights in the future. Indiana grain farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman walks past the US Supreme Court on February 19, 2013 in Washington (AFP/File, Mandel Ngan) In the case, Bowman had purchased soybean seeds from a grain elevator—where seeds are cheaper than freshly engineered Monsanto GE (genetically engineered) seeds and typically used for animal feed rather than for crops. The sources of the seeds Bowman purchased were mixed and were not labeled. However, some were "Roundup Ready" patented Monsanto seeds. The Supreme Court Justices, who gave Monsanto a warm reception from the start, ruled that Bowman had broken the law because he planted seeds which naturally yielded from the original patented seed products—Monsanto's policies prohibit farmers from saving or reusing seeds from Monsanto born crops. Farmers who use Monsanto's seeds are forced to buy the high priced new seeds every year. Ahead of the expected ruling, Debbie Barker, Program Director for Save Our Seeds (SOS), and George Kimbrell, staff attorney for Center for Food Safety (CFS), asked in an op-ed earlier this year, "Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?": Bowman vs. Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court's interpretation of a complex web of seed and plant patent law, but the case also reflects something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life? [Monsanto's] logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate. Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening. Bowman had argued that he was respecting his contract with Monsanto, purchasing directly from them each year, but couldn't afford Monsanto's high prices for his riskier late season crops. Bowman's defense argued that Monsanto's patent was "exhausted" through the process of natural seed reproduction and no longer applied to Bowman's second generation seeds. “If they don’t want me to go to the elevator and buy that grain," Bowman had stated, "then Congress should pass a law saying you can’t do it." The Center for Food Safety released a report in February which shows three corporations control more than half of the global commercial seed market. As a result, from 1995-2011 the average cost to plant 1 acre of soybeans rose 325%. As AP reports, more than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds, which first came on the market in 1996. Vandana Shiva, an expert on seed patents and their effects on farmers around the world, wrote recently: Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty. Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders. _______________________ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

I think they could be the proto-leaves, as seen in the attached picture. Yours look a bit different though, and sometimes I wonder if some cacti have in-grown spines. Anyway, just a bit of a filler answer until someone can give better info.

I think it's more important to educate rather than to advertise. That which can be won by advertising, can be lost to it. But if we can educate people two things: 1) Monsanto is up to no good, for these reasons: {the reasons} 2) You need to tell people and start discussion, it's already almost too late, there is no time left to waste - act now. Then that's a much better option. Once you understand, you tend not to forget - because you can re-derive anything you did forget.

Basically the WLT is a charity, that collects funds to purchase threatened land all over the world (collecting on behalf of the local management agency). Apparently it's only about $150 dollars to buy an acre of rainforest land. Is this a worthy charity? WLT Buy an Acre World Land Trust (WLT) is saving threatened habitats acre by acre, creating protected nature reserves across the world. You can help us create new or extend existing reserves by buying acres and providing more safe havens for some of Earth's most vulnerable wildlife. Help us save real acres, in real places. Buy an Acre » Buy an Acre as a Gift » What is Buy an Acre?WLT works with partner organisations across the world to help fund land purchase and create nature reserves to protect threatened habitats and wildlife. In some countries, we can save an acre of threatened habitat for an average of £100. Here we offer our supporters the opportunity to buy acres and help us create or extend our reserves. You can donate as little £25 and buy quarter of an acre – helping us save the planet’s threatened wilderness. Where will your Buy an Acre donation go?Donations to Buy an Acre go to our in-country partners who purchase and secure rainforest and other wildlife habitats in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico. Your donation will help create permanently protected nature reserves. £100 saves one acre (4,000 square metres) £50 saves half an acre (2,000 square metres) £25 save 1/4 an acre (1,000 square metres). Why donate to Buy an Acre?Your donation will save real acres, in real places It will turn threatened habitats into protected nature reserves By saving acres, you will protect all the wildlife it contains http://www.worldlandtrust.org/projects/index

That's correct. You don't own anything. This is about protecting land for a meagre sum of money. How else can we save this land? Other than to all unite and rise up against the corporations (lol! like that'll happen with most people still amped about what's on TV tomorrow night). I know in NZ - if you bought land you would still be forced to pay rates (probably the case in Aus too). So they've practically forced you to make the land into a capitalist venture (tourism, farming, or whatever), or forever rely on people's donations to pay rent (unreliable at best - if people will barely donate to buy a piece of land on behalf [with a certificate], then will they donate to pay for a park ranger? Not in the same numbers I should think). A horrible situation. You could rescue the land, and then lose funds and the land gets swept up and cleared again. Other option - give to the conservation department... which are still the long arm of the government, and can easily give the land to roading of housing projects as the government sees fit. I do not see a way in the current system to protect land for a longish period of time. Does anyone else?

To make it clear, I wouldn't be in it to get the land for myself. But to protect these rare environments to keep the planet alive. The planet needs rainforests more than I need a vacation house. I think that an hectare of rainforest is probably way more important than 80% of individual people in the grand scheme of things. We people think we're way too important. Secondly, they do apparently use the local agencies and do have park rangers and such. I was worried about that too. Because it's no point owning a huge tract of the Amazon if it's going to get logged illegally.

So sorry to hear about your loss myco. I hope you're doing alright and that you can feel safer again soon. Those absolute bastards. I think that as well as being careful about what we import - we need to remember that plants are safe when they are spread. Now is not the time to be precious with our rare plants, keeping them to ourselves - propagate and spread them if you want them to live.

"Shut up and take my money!"

Well when it's framed as - we change, or we change the environment - it seems a lot more obvious. Of course there's a neither option (I'm guessing that's what bogfrog would choose ). Humans need to get life to spread off of Earth too - we're possibly the only chance that Earthkind has to survive an eventual cosmic cataclysm (it's practically guaranteed), so we'll need to do something. I'm reading a rather kick-ass book called 'Crescent City Rhapsody' that deals with all of this - it's one of those horizon-expanding books. It gives perspective to a future that appears bleak.

Interesting way of putting it whitewind. I'm slowly coming around to the idea of genetically modifying our own genome. But it's very scary still.

I think that was the tree that got burned down. :/

I think that it's possibly a little bit misguided to heavily spend resources on so ancient a tree. I think nature would prefer 50 planted saplings to keeping alive a tree beyond what its own means can.

Plus the music is awesome

For NZ members only (for now): Things I can trade: ---ready--- •Acorus gramineus plants •Laurelia novae-zelandiae seedlings/saplings ---coming soon--- •Radula marginata fresh specimens •Salvia Divinorum cuttings •Sceletium Tortuosum cuttings •Trichocereus pachanoi (various non-PC clones) cuttings Things I would like (trade or purchase, seeds or plants): •Acacia maidenii, phlebophylla, simplex, among others. •Anadenanthera spp. •Banisteriopsis spp. •Calea zacatechichi •Catha spp. •Diplopterys cabrerana •Lophophora spp. •Mammillaria spp. •Mimosa hostilis/tenuiflora •Mitragyna spp. •Pachycereus spp. •Pausinystalia yohimba •Phyllodium pulchellum •Psychotria spp. •Silene capensis •Tabernanthe spp. •Tabernaemontana spp. •Trichocereus pachanoi, peruvianus, bridgesii, terscheckii and other related species. •Virola spp. •Voacanga spp. Many items were excluded from this list. So it's best to enquire.

This whole thing is very fishy. If I had cloned myself, I would devote one of them the task of unravelling the facts. Alas. I noticed this almost within an instant. Sometimes I just cannot understand statements like that. They're just so utterly stupid that it's hard to believe that they're intentional and honest. I think that one angle that is often unexplored is that much of what the media might report could be intentionally easy to debunk - such as that statement. If I'm not mistaken, it's a propaganda tactic - to release every kind of misinformation - not just your distilled, most potent lies.

Good man - standing up for good decency. I know the feeling. There was a privately owned pond nearby - and it was catch and release for anglers. We used to go, but slowly noticed all the fish being taken... turns out some imported people had been catching the fish and stealing them to cook at home. The owner even put signs up in like 3 Asian languages - but it didn't matter. :|

First one looks mostly Pachanoi (the way it sort of seems to have stopped producing spines it seems is a very common trait on Pachanoi, as well as the colour and shape of the plant and spines). The second one could very well be PC - the spines could be extra gnarly and it extra fat because it was grown in full-sun (explaining the pale color). I rooted a cutting that was a little over a metre long, and it's barely grown at all. I think it's literally spent almost 2 years now just growing roots. The pot is about 50L I think. Perhaps I put in a lot of blood and bone (lots of phosphorus) which sort of forced it to grow roots until it had lowered the phosphorus levels. I planted it about half a foot below the soil, and staked it in with a bamboo rod. I would recommend a fairly small pot, as I can tell my cutting didn't enjoy swimming in a super huge pot for ages (it couldn't control the moisture of the soil until it had much bigger roots). It didn't die, but sitting in moist soil didn't speed things along either. I've seen 1.6m plants that were rooted in 3-5L pots (I have a photo somewhere perhaps).

Last time I was in LAX: Me: "Are you scanning my bag?" Seco: "Yeah." Me: "For things like drugs? Because you won't find any" <Seco gives me a savage look> Me: "I mean there's none to find." <_< >_> <_>

Happy Birthday Big-Ranga-Red!!! You're a top bloke, - keep being tops :D