cannabica.netcannabica.netCopyright cannabica.netcannabica.net RSS Generatorhttp://cannabica.net/buytrippystickonline.shtml It is interesting to note that with Zn halides the reaction stopped at the cannabidiol (12) stage with 11 but proceeded to the THC stage with 25 with apparently no isomerization of t:,1_ to t:,6-THC, even during an extended reaction timeSat, 04 Feb 2012 12:00:00 AM GMThttp://cannabica.net/therealtrippystixcom.shtmlI received an order of Shiskeberry from Laughing Moon some time ago. The buds are fat and sticky with a very hashy almost mocha smell. So far no purple, but two of them have a very Blueberry look to them, based upon pictures of Blueberry I have seen, but with a definite Afghani influence. The only problem I have with the Shiskeberry is the smell. It is very strong and although not entirely distinguishable for what it is, it is enough to make me paranoid about someone catching a whiff of it outside." Duke of HerbSun, 05 Feb 2012 12:00:00 AM GMThttp://cannabica.net/marijuana seeds paypal.shtmlOn Shishkeberry: I just finished up the Shiskaberry and I have a few notes on it, if anyone is interested. A friend made my seeds; parents were Breeder Steve?s seeds. The notes below are only from one of the Shiskaberrys that I have tested. With further testing I will find the definitive Shiska mum. Aroma - The smell put a smile on a friends face tonight when I pulled out da' sample. But kaka has yet to smell a thing. Allergies are a killin' and ka ain't a smellin'. A bunch of Shisks are drying and I can?t smell them.Sat, 13 Aug 2011 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://cannabica.net/flyingdutchmen.shtml It is interesting to note that with Zn halides the reaction stopped at the cannabidiol (12) stage with 11 but proceeded to the THC stage with 25 with apparently no isomerization of t:,1_ to t:,6-THC, even during an extended reaction timeSat, 13 Aug 2011 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://cannabica.net/trippysticklosangeles.shtmlwhich there is no change in the gene pool. This means that there can be no evolution. For a test example let us consider a population whose gene pool contains the alleles B and b. Assign the letter c to the frequency of the dominant allele B and the letter d to the frequency of the recessive allele b. [In most cases you will find that c and d are actually notated as p and q by convention in science, but for this example we will use c and d.] The sum of all the alleles must equal 100%. So c + d = 1. All the random possible combinations of the members of a population would equal (c x c) + 2cd + (d x d). Which can also be expressed as: (c+d) X (c+d) We will explain this in detail in moment, but it is best to know it for now. The frequencies of B and b will remain unchanged generation after generation if: 1. The population is large enough. 2. There are no mutations. 295 3. There are no preferences. For example a BB male does not prefer a bb female by its nature. 4. No other outside population exchanges genes with this model. 5. Natural selection must not favor any specific individual. Let us imagine a pool of genes. 12 are B and 18 are b. Now remember The sum of all the alleles must equal 100%. So this means that the total in this case is 12 + 18 = 30. So 30 is 100%. If we want to find the frequencies of B and b and the genotypic frequencies of B, Bb and b then we will have to apply the standard formula that we have just been shown. f (B) = 12/30 = 0.4 = 40% f (b) = 18/30 = 0.6 = 60% Both add to make 100%. Now we know their ratios. So, c + d = 0.4 + 0.6 = 1 We have proven that c + d must equal 1. Very straightforward, yes. 296 Remember that all the random possible combinations of the members of a population would equal (c x c) + 2cd + (d x d), or (c+d) X (c+d) Then, c + d = 0.4 + 0.6 = 1 And (c x c) + 2cd + (d x d) = BB + Bb + bb = .24 + .48 + .30 = 1 This means that the population can increase in size, but the frequencies of B and b will stay the same. Now, suppose we break the 4th law about not introducing another population into this one. Let us say that we add 4 more b. b + b + b + b enter the pool. This brings our total up to 34 instead of 30. What will the gene and genotypic frequencies be? f (B) = 12/34 = .35 = 35 % f (b) = 22/34 = .65 = 65% f (BB) = .12, f (Bb) = .23 and f (bb) = .42 Oppss, .42 does not equal 1. This means that the Equilibrium law fails if the 4th law is not met. When the new genes entered the pool it resulted in a change of the population?s gene frequencies. However if 297 no other populations where introduced then the frequency of .42 would be maintained generation after generation. However we would like to point out that we used a very small pool in the above example. If the pool were much larger then the number of changes, even if one or two new genes jumped in, would be insignificant. You could calculate it, but the change would be on an extremely low leveSat, 04 Feb 2012 12:00:00 AM GMThttp://cannabica.net/trippystickcartridges.shtmlBud appearance- Buds look silver because they are so covered in crystals. Hairs are orange and few leaves that remain are dark. Buds look great, in this reviewer's humble opinion. Bud density is definitely above average. General notes- Shiskaberry is freaking leafy and takes tons of time to manicure, not that I'm complaining. There is so much resin on leaves including fan leaves that screening is a possibility. Lots of sticky fingers. The Shisks were around 80 days old from seed and were done quickly in search of a good mother. As soon as drying has finished I'll offer up some weight numbers. Plants sizes were from 2'(runts) to 3'(fatties)." - kakaSat, 04 Feb 2012 12:00:00 AM GMThttp://cannabica.net/flyingdutchmen.shtmlwhich there is no change in the gene pool. This means that there can be no evolution. For a test example let us consider a population whose gene pool contains the alleles B and b. Assign the letter c to the frequency of the dominant allele B and the letter d to the frequency of the recessive allele b. [In most cases you will find that c and d are actually notated as p and q by convention in science, but for this example we will use c and d.] The sum of all the alleles must equal 100%. So c + d = 1. All the random possible combinations of the members of a population would equal (c x c) + 2cd + (d x d). Which can also be expressed as: (c+d) X (c+d) We will explain this in detail in moment, but it is best to know it for now. The frequencies of B and b will remain unchanged generation after generation if: 1. The population is large enough. 2. There are no mutations. 295 3. There are no preferences. For example a BB male does not prefer a bb female by its nature. 4. No other outside population exchanges genes with this model. 5. Natural selection must not favor any specific individual. Let us imagine a pool of genes. 12 are B and 18 are b. Now remember The sum of all the alleles must equal 100%. So this means that the total in this case is 12 + 18 = 30. So 30 is 100%. If we want to find the frequencies of B and b and the genotypic frequencies of B, Bb and b then we will have to apply the standard formula that we have just been shown. f (B) = 12/30 = 0.4 = 40% f (b) = 18/30 = 0.6 = 60% Both add to make 100%. Now we know their ratios. So, c + d = 0.4 + 0.6 = 1 We have proven that c + d must equal 1. Very straightforward, yes. 296 Remember that all the random possible combinations of the members of a population would equal (c x c) + 2cd + (d x d), or (c+d) X (c+d) Then, c + d = 0.4 + 0.6 = 1 And (c x c) + 2cd + (d x d) = BB + Bb + bb = .24 + .48 + .30 = 1 This means that the population can increase in size, but the frequencies of B and b will stay the same. Now, suppose we break the 4th law about not introducing another population into this one. Let us say that we add 4 more b. b + b + b + b enter the pool. This brings our total up to 34 instead of 30. What will the gene and genotypic frequencies be? f (B) = 12/34 = .35 = 35 % f (b) = 22/34 = .65 = 65% f (BB) = .12, f (Bb) = .23 and f (bb) = .42 Oppss, .42 does not equal 1. This means that the Equilibrium law fails if the 4th law is not met. When the new genes entered the pool it resulted in a change of the population?s gene frequencies. However if 297 no other populations where introduced then the frequency of .42 would be maintained generation after generation. However we would like to point out that we used a very small pool in the above example. If the pool were much larger then the number of changes, even if one or two new genes jumped in, would be insignificant. You could calculate it, but the change would be on an extremely low leveSat, 13 Aug 2011 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://cannabica.net/therealtrippystixcom.shtmltingent event. What society selects as crucial to perceive about drugs, and what it ignores, tells us a great deal about its cultural fabric. The scientist makes a distinction between those questions that can be answered empirically and those wholly in the realm of sentiment. The question of whether marijuana causes crime is answerable, but the question of whether marijuana is evil or not is intrinsically unanswerable, within an empirical and scientific framework. It depends completely on one's perspective. However clear-cut this distinction is in the scientist's mind, as a tool for understanding the disputants' positions in this controversy, it is specious and misleading for a variety of reasons. (3 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3 The strands of value and fact intersect with one another so luxuriantly that in numerous reasoning sequences they are inseparable. What one society or group or individual takes for granted as self-evidently harmful, others view as obviously beneficial, even necessary. In crucial ways, the issue of harm or danger to society as a result of the drug pivots on moot points, totally unanswerable questions, questions that science is unable to answer without the resolution of certain basic issues. And for many crucially debated marijuana questions, this modest requirement cannot be met. In other words, before we raise the question of whether marijuana has a desirable or a noxious effect, we must first establish the desirability or the noxiousness to whom. We must concern ourselves with the differential evaluations of the same objective consequences. Many of the drug's effects?agreed-upon by friend and foe alike?will be regarded as reprehensible by some individuals, desirable or neutral by others. Often antimarijuana forces will argue against the use of the drug, employing reasons which its supporters will also employ?in favor of its use. We have not a disagreement in what the effects are, but whether they are good or bad. This is probably the most transparently ideological of all of the platforms of debate about marijuana. Three illustrations of this orbit of disputation suffice. Were marijuana use more prevalent than it is today, there would come the billowing of a distinct aesthetic. The state of marijuana intoxication seems to be associated with, and even to touch off, a unique and peculiar vision of the world. That the marijuana-induced vision is distinctive seems to be beyond dispute;[5] that it is rewarding or fatuous is a matter for endless disputation. Inexplicably, the drug seems to engender a mental state which is coming into vogue in today's art forms. An extraordinarily high proportion of today's young and avant-garde artists?filmmakers, poets, painters, musicians, novelists, photographers, mixed-media specialists?use the drug and are influenced by the marijuana high. Some of the results seem to be the increasing irrelevance of realism; the loss of iSun, 05 Feb 2012 12:00:00 AM GMThttp://cannabica.net/trippystickbuyonline.shtmltingent event. What society selects as crucial to perceive about drugs, and what it ignores, tells us a great deal about its cultural fabric. The scientist makes a distinction between those questions that can be answered empirically and those wholly in the realm of sentiment. The question of whether marijuana causes crime is answerable, but the question of whether marijuana is evil or not is intrinsically unanswerable, within an empirical and scientific framework. It depends completely on one's perspective. However clear-cut this distinction is in the scientist's mind, as a tool for understanding the disputants' positions in this controversy, it is specious and misleading for a variety of reasons. (3 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3 The strands of value and fact intersect with one another so luxuriantly that in numerous reasoning sequences they are inseparable. What one society or group or individual takes for granted as self-evidently harmful, others view as obviously beneficial, even necessary. In crucial ways, the issue of harm or danger to society as a result of the drug pivots on moot points, totally unanswerable questions, questions that science is unable to answer without the resolution of certain basic issues. And for many crucially debated marijuana questions, this modest requirement cannot be met. In other words, before we raise the question of whether marijuana has a desirable or a noxious effect, we must first establish the desirability or the noxiousness to whom. We must concern ourselves with the differential evaluations of the same objective consequences. Many of the drug's effects?agreed-upon by friend and foe alike?will be regarded as reprehensible by some individuals, desirable or neutral by others. Often antimarijuana forces will argue against the use of the drug, employing reasons which its supporters will also employ?in favor of its use. We have not a disagreement in what the effects are, but whether they are good or bad. This is probably the most transparently ideological of all of the platforms of debate about marijuana. Three illustrations of this orbit of disputation suffice. Were marijuana use more prevalent than it is today, there would come the billowing of a distinct aesthetic. The state of marijuana intoxication seems to be associated with, and even to touch off, a unique and peculiar vision of the world. That the marijuana-induced vision is distinctive seems to be beyond dispute;[5] that it is rewarding or fatuous is a matter for endless disputation. Inexplicably, the drug seems to engender a mental state which is coming into vogue in today's art forms. An extraordinarily high proportion of today's young and avant-garde artists?filmmakers, poets, painters, musicians, novelists, photographers, mixed-media specialists?use the drug and are influenced by the marijuana high. Some of the results seem to be the increasing irrelevance of realism; the loss of iSun, 05 Feb 2012 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://cannabica.net/differenttypesoftrippystick.shtmlStrong compact plant, very high. This homogenous Sativa type weed originates from Nepal and contains a high level of THC. Grow it from fertile soil and add nursery supplements to the water. This excellent quality strain grows up to 1,75 meter and is especially loved by musicians around the world. 100%Sativa,a hard plant to grow but famous for its special qualities.A classic Sativa high,and good results for those who do not mind to wait a little longer. Strong, compact plant, mellow.Original lambsbreath from Jamaica. Pure Sativa with light Skunk crossing. Flowering time 10 or 12 weeks. (1st two weeks 14 hours of light / 8 weeks 12 hours of light / last 2 weeks 10 hours of light). Has Narrow leaves, a Plant with yellow-whitish long buds.Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:00:00 AM GMT