Male THC pictures

billcollector99 said:

Or improperly referencing it, which is plagiarism, but they probably dont teach about that in school anymore.

Click to expand...

ismokealotofpot said:

This is all I'm giving you rite now. Biotechnology-based gene switching is the use of genetic engineering to control specific genetic material (genes) in plants to achieve certain desired results. The targeted genes are controlled through so-called “switch mechanisms.” These mechanisms activate (turn on), deactivate (turn off), or adjust upward or downward specific plant functions.This can also be described as controlling the “expression” of plant genes. Gene switching mechanisms may be established, among other things, in response to an external trigger (e.g., rainfall, light patterns, chemistry), to activate the expression of genes at critical times, or in particular locations within the plant. One must say “biotechnology-based gene switching” because gene switching occurs naturally and without human intervention in nature all the time (e.g., the presence of water activates plant genes responsible for germination; light patterns turn on reproduction stages; pests activate defense mechanisms).
Much of the current research focuses on gene switching applications to control one or more genes related to specific traits of the plant. In these cases, all the other genes in the plant are untouched and continue to function normally. Seed from these plants could be saved by farmers (if applicable national laws permit seed saving) and planted the next year resulting in a normal crop, but in almost all cases, without the special trait expression that was present the first year (e.g., herbicide or insect tolerance).
Some applications of biotechnology-based gene switching are not limited to controlling specific traits, but instead control genes responsible for reproduction or seed germination. Plant gene switching can be used to control plant reproduction in a number of different ways, for example, by limiting production of pollen or by producing non-viable seed. In other words, biotechnological controls in the plant allow for normal planting and harvesting of the product, but the plant variety will not be able to reproduce in subsequent years. Commercially available examples of this are seedless grapes and watermelons.

Click to expand...

billcollector99 said:

Or improperly referencing it, which is plagiarism, but they probably dont teach about that in school anymore.

Click to expand...

Brick Top said:

Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and trying to pass it off as their own, not just C&Ping something, even without a link added. If someone took some else's work and then changed a word here or there and then claimed they came up with it, or used it without making any changes, that's plagiarism.

I laugh at people who bitch or complain about C&Ps. They want a McDonalds answer, they want all the info in 7 lines or less. But if the answer comes in 2,000 or 5,000 words or something regardless of how well someone knows it you simply cannot condense that to a size most Beavis and Buttheads want to read, or translate it into Beavis and Buttheadese so they can understand it without losing much that is important, and enough that most times it is going to be misunderstood, and from that misunderstanding they will incorrectly tell others and that's how some myths and misconceptions are born.

If there is a full and complete piece that explains something, then there is an accurate reference to use, to rely on and to learn from, so what difference does it make if someone sits at their keyboard for an hour typing it all out in their own words or if they just copy a piece that covers what is needed to be known? Either way the information is there, and if they C&Pd it, unless they claim that it is their own work or infer that it is, it's not plagiarism. It is only being efficient with one's time and supplying credible information.

Click to expand...

Brick Top said:

Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and trying to pass it off as their own, not just C&Ping something, even without a link added. If someone took some else's work and then changed a word here or there and then claimed they came up with it, or used it without making any changes, that's plagiarism.

I laugh at people who bitch or complain about C&Ps. They want a McDonalds answer, they want all the info in 7 lines or less. But if the answer comes in 2,000 or 5,000 words or something regardless of how well someone knows it you simply cannot condense that to a size most Beavis and Buttheads want to read, or translate it into Beavis and Buttheadese so they can understand it without losing much that is important, and enough that most times it is going to be misunderstood, and from that misunderstanding they will incorrectly tell others and that's how some myths and misconceptions are born.

If there is a full and complete piece that explains something, then there is an accurate reference to use, to rely on and to learn from, so what difference does it make if someone sits at their keyboard for an hour typing it all out in their own words or if they just copy a piece that covers what is needed to be known? Either way the information is there, and if they C&Pd it, unless they claim that it is their own work or infer that it is, it's not plagiarism. It is only being efficient with one's time and supplying credible information.

Click to expand...

Sunbiz1 said:

You ruined my surprise, lol..mine are NL.

MJ marked them right, wait until you see the herijuana beans from Sannie. They are half the size and much lighter in color.

Hold on, I'll take some pics. It's a pain though b/c I have to re-size everything here. I have some wild variations on sannies beans to show you.

Click to expand...