So your saying that there are better programs than xx to reach a goal, but it a good tool?
What are these more efficient programs?
What are these more efficient programs?
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Everybody a breeder ?
- Thread starter silverhazefiend
- Start date
- Status
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=5702823&postcount=237 here is one example I offerred earlier. This is 3 times more efficient than any form of male/female breeding, and a fold or two even moreso than the half-sib example also offered earlier. Your xx program, I am not sure of what you even mean.
Interesting to me that the only good bananas are organic. Why is that? I can't even eat a regular banana anymore; no sugar. I was told that they gas regular bananas in order to ripen them; they must be picking those things way to early.
The Cavendish is in trouble; of course we all know what happens to mono crops.
I'm also interested in Synsepalum dulcificum; I really want her to try this one; it makes the sour sweet... Girls love this 'cause it makes the head taste sweet!
R.Fortune
R.Fortune
R.Fortune
The Cavendish is in trouble; of course we all know what happens to mono crops.
I'm also interested in Synsepalum dulcificum; I really want her to try this one; it makes the sour sweet... Girls love this 'cause it makes the head taste sweet!
R.Fortune
R.Fortune
R.Fortune
Banana shmanana, https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=5681818&postcount=65
Here, it's a page from Allard's book. I asked Matt Dave to post it to no avail, he could not see past his yellow stick-ums, he saw nothing, Charlie Brown's teacher was ringing in his ear, he's got better books and will select his plants based on male phyllotaxy blah blah because breeding with fems is like playing with half a deck blah blah.. What I saw was in a single paragraph, Allard outlining what professional breeders of outcrossing species do, and why. None of this has barely jack-squat to do with female plants, and everything to do with taking advantage of maths, as they pertain to the science at hand.
Ps, the good bananas are the small ones, both red and yellow, the crap you're all used to was brought forth by way of breeding by the the United Fruit Company, much like the beefsteak tomato and every other ill conceived (imo) breeding venture where the primary objective was to increase yield/shelf-life/ease of shipping. The sugar content, texture, and all that other, is much more correlated with genetics than cultivation techniques, genetics ultimately rule over environment with all plants including the one currently under discussion, but by all means, if you have an intelligent argument to the contrary, fill me in.
Here, it's a page from Allard's book. I asked Matt Dave to post it to no avail, he could not see past his yellow stick-ums, he saw nothing, Charlie Brown's teacher was ringing in his ear, he's got better books and will select his plants based on male phyllotaxy blah blah because breeding with fems is like playing with half a deck blah blah.. What I saw was in a single paragraph, Allard outlining what professional breeders of outcrossing species do, and why. None of this has barely jack-squat to do with female plants, and everything to do with taking advantage of maths, as they pertain to the science at hand.
Ps, the good bananas are the small ones, both red and yellow, the crap you're all used to was brought forth by way of breeding by the the United Fruit Company, much like the beefsteak tomato and every other ill conceived (imo) breeding venture where the primary objective was to increase yield/shelf-life/ease of shipping. The sugar content, texture, and all that other, is much more correlated with genetics than cultivation techniques, genetics ultimately rule over environment with all plants including the one currently under discussion, but by all means, if you have an intelligent argument to the contrary, fill me in.
Last edited:
Y
YosemiteSam
My definition of art is that it is a one off. Yes, it can be amazing. Yes I fucking love it.
But if everyone loves it then apply science and duplicate it time after time after time.
The Mona Lisa is art. But it will never be repeated.
I want more from my cannabis seeds Or not...maybe I am looking for that one off...that I can clone.
But I know the difference. If a breeder says I got some f2s I am willing to give it a shot on a hope and prayer basically. But if a breeder says I got f2s of poly hybrids that are stable...I say no use looking at what he offers anymore...he don't actually know shit
That is the responsibility of the customer. If you love what you are growing at least learn that.
But if everyone loves it then apply science and duplicate it time after time after time.
The Mona Lisa is art. But it will never be repeated.
I want more from my cannabis seeds Or not...maybe I am looking for that one off...that I can clone.
But I know the difference. If a breeder says I got some f2s I am willing to give it a shot on a hope and prayer basically. But if a breeder says I got f2s of poly hybrids that are stable...I say no use looking at what he offers anymore...he don't actually know shit
That is the responsibility of the customer. If you love what you are growing at least learn that.
From: What Science Isn't, Part II: Science Isn't Art
To say science isn't art may seem trivial, but comparing the two helps illustrate what science is. We'll start with art, and then move to science.
Art is the attempt to express an individual's feelings or ideas about something in a way that others find beautiful, graceful, or at least aesthetically satisfying. Thus art is very individualistic. Outside the performing arts, art is almost always produced by individuals, because it has to have purity of expression that can only come from one person. In the performing arts, art is generally the concept of one person (a composer or choreographer), although it is executed by many. Art is also individualistic in that a painting or sculpture left in the studio is nonetheless art, even if no one else sees it, and even if anyone who saw it thought it ugly, graceless, or tasteless. Undisplayed or unloved art is still art in that it expresses the concept of the artist.
The second part of our definition suggests that art ought to be beautiful or aesthetically satisfying. Until the twentieth century, beauty was a requirement of art. In the twentieth century expression became so important, or the expressed concepts were often so distressing, that pure beauty may have suffered at times. Aesthetics nonetheless remain critical to art. Certainly in the art most popular today (Impressionist paintings; the music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, and even much rock music; ballet and modern dance; poetry from Shakespeare to haikus), beauty remains a critical component.
Science, in contrast, is the attempt to reach demonstrable, replicable, conclusions about the natural world (and social science is the corresponding attempt to reach demonstrable conclusions about the social or human world). Individualism exists, in that what each scientist studies and how they study it are somewhat open to their choice. However, the conclusions reached have to be demonstrable to others with physical evidence. If an artist says, "This work expresses something deep in my heart", everyone nods approvingly. If a scientist says, "I don't have any evidence to show you, but deep in my heart I know . . .", everyone rolls their eyes and leaves the room as quickly as possible. The non-individualistic nature of science is also reflected by how much scientific research is done by groups: a single-authored paper in particle physics is about as common as a multi-authored novel.
Secondly, in working from our definition of art but now comparing science to it, science doesn't have to be beautiful or aesthetically satisfying, or even emotionally satisfying. Electron orbitals can be shown to be distorted, crystal structures can be shown to have defects, ocean basins and their currents can be shown to be asymmetric, planets can be shown to be non-spherical, and that's OK - even though a geometrically perfect world might be more beautiful. Atoms can be shown to decay, species can be shown to change, continents can be shown to move, merge, and split in random ways, the universe can be shown to be changing explosively, and that's OK - even though an invariant timeless world might be more aesthetically satisfying. Humans can be shown to be ill-designed animals genealogically descended from scruffy or slimy ancestors, and that's OK - even though it's not emotionally satisfying to humans.
To summarize (and generalize): art is largely an individual's effort to communicate his or her ideas or feelings in a beautiful way. Science is a group effort to characterize reality. Aesthetics, the sine qua non of art, don't count for much in science. It's of course true that many scientists and people who understand science find aesthetic satisfaction in scientific concepts and the patterns of nature, and physicists will even claim to find beauty in their equations. It's also true that many scientists get some aesthetic satisfaction, or at least are able to exercise their artist-wanna-be ambitions, in illustrating scientific concepts. However, beauty never is, or never should be, a criterion for evaluating the validity of a hypothesis or theory.
To say science isn't art may seem trivial, but comparing the two helps illustrate what science is. We'll start with art, and then move to science.
Art is the attempt to express an individual's feelings or ideas about something in a way that others find beautiful, graceful, or at least aesthetically satisfying. Thus art is very individualistic. Outside the performing arts, art is almost always produced by individuals, because it has to have purity of expression that can only come from one person. In the performing arts, art is generally the concept of one person (a composer or choreographer), although it is executed by many. Art is also individualistic in that a painting or sculpture left in the studio is nonetheless art, even if no one else sees it, and even if anyone who saw it thought it ugly, graceless, or tasteless. Undisplayed or unloved art is still art in that it expresses the concept of the artist.
The second part of our definition suggests that art ought to be beautiful or aesthetically satisfying. Until the twentieth century, beauty was a requirement of art. In the twentieth century expression became so important, or the expressed concepts were often so distressing, that pure beauty may have suffered at times. Aesthetics nonetheless remain critical to art. Certainly in the art most popular today (Impressionist paintings; the music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, and even much rock music; ballet and modern dance; poetry from Shakespeare to haikus), beauty remains a critical component.
Science, in contrast, is the attempt to reach demonstrable, replicable, conclusions about the natural world (and social science is the corresponding attempt to reach demonstrable conclusions about the social or human world). Individualism exists, in that what each scientist studies and how they study it are somewhat open to their choice. However, the conclusions reached have to be demonstrable to others with physical evidence. If an artist says, "This work expresses something deep in my heart", everyone nods approvingly. If a scientist says, "I don't have any evidence to show you, but deep in my heart I know . . .", everyone rolls their eyes and leaves the room as quickly as possible. The non-individualistic nature of science is also reflected by how much scientific research is done by groups: a single-authored paper in particle physics is about as common as a multi-authored novel.
Secondly, in working from our definition of art but now comparing science to it, science doesn't have to be beautiful or aesthetically satisfying, or even emotionally satisfying. Electron orbitals can be shown to be distorted, crystal structures can be shown to have defects, ocean basins and their currents can be shown to be asymmetric, planets can be shown to be non-spherical, and that's OK - even though a geometrically perfect world might be more beautiful. Atoms can be shown to decay, species can be shown to change, continents can be shown to move, merge, and split in random ways, the universe can be shown to be changing explosively, and that's OK - even though an invariant timeless world might be more aesthetically satisfying. Humans can be shown to be ill-designed animals genealogically descended from scruffy or slimy ancestors, and that's OK - even though it's not emotionally satisfying to humans.
To summarize (and generalize): art is largely an individual's effort to communicate his or her ideas or feelings in a beautiful way. Science is a group effort to characterize reality. Aesthetics, the sine qua non of art, don't count for much in science. It's of course true that many scientists and people who understand science find aesthetic satisfaction in scientific concepts and the patterns of nature, and physicists will even claim to find beauty in their equations. It's also true that many scientists get some aesthetic satisfaction, or at least are able to exercise their artist-wanna-be ambitions, in illustrating scientific concepts. However, beauty never is, or never should be, a criterion for evaluating the validity of a hypothesis or theory.
yeah YS, it's an unexplainable unrepeatable (until the science is understood) accident for lack of a better word. And ridiculi (ridiculous on many levels haha) it is for some to actually be attempting to hold it up as some valuable asset in comparison with science. Come on man, art as it was used here in this thread, is a big fucking joke of a failure attempted to be utilized by folk who have less than a modicum understanding of the science.
science is very much an art.
the same skill a painter uses to control a brush stroke is what a scientist uses in a laboratory procedure. a surgeon practices science but also needs the physical skill and mastery over his body and mind as a person drawing a finely detailed sketch.
lotsa ideology being postulated but how many have tried to make controlled specific organic chemical reactions? exploratory science has relied heavily on science fiction to reach beyond what we know as possible to bring about the precieved impossible similar to a sculptor learning his art for the first time yet these jaded opinionated potheads here would boost their positions by discounting what art or science is defined as.
elitest mentality fosters contempt prior to investigation.
peace,
pwf
the same skill a painter uses to control a brush stroke is what a scientist uses in a laboratory procedure. a surgeon practices science but also needs the physical skill and mastery over his body and mind as a person drawing a finely detailed sketch.
lotsa ideology being postulated but how many have tried to make controlled specific organic chemical reactions? exploratory science has relied heavily on science fiction to reach beyond what we know as possible to bring about the precieved impossible similar to a sculptor learning his art for the first time yet these jaded opinionated potheads here would boost their positions by discounting what art or science is defined as.
elitest mentality fosters contempt prior to investigation.
peace,
pwf
I'd pick em both up, prolly give em some seeds for free 
You're tight Tom
You're tight Tom
Y
YosemiteSam
Horse shit...surgery will be done by robots once the science is perfected. They are way more fucking reliable.
edit...and that is what made Steve Jobs hisownself. He understood what people wanted and applied science to deliver it. You do not need art for that at all.
edit...and that is what made Steve Jobs hisownself. He understood what people wanted and applied science to deliver it. You do not need art for that at all.
what you don't want some artistic flare with your procedure
... then you can say how unique your scar is... it's a work of art.wabi-sabi
Right, better fasten your seat belt, cuzz we are not there yet.^^
I do feel ya tho Tom, loud & clear.
I do feel ya tho Tom, loud & clear.
- Status
