The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum

Level 1 Cache: General Discussion => freemem() & Garbage Collection => Topic started by: Bompa on August 10, 2011, 07:06:07 PM



Title: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: Bompa on August 10, 2011, 07:06:07 PM
It looks like the long awaited cure for cancer is here.

It has worked on three paitents so far.

Quote
They've only done it in three patients so far, but the results were striking:
Two appear cancer-free up to a year after treatment, and the third patient
is improved but still has some cancer.


Kinda strange how the cure actualizes...

Quote
The researchers described the experience of one 64-year-old patient in detail.
There was no change for two weeks, but then he became ill with chills, nausea
and fever. He and the other two patients were hit with a condition that occurs
when a large number of cancer cells die at the same time — a sign that the
gene therapy is working.

"It was like the worse flu of their life," June said. "But after that, it's over. They're well."


http://news.yahoo.com/amazing-therapy-wipes-leukemia-study-205354211.html


Seriously amazing!


Bompa


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 10, 2011, 08:20:32 PM
Great news. However the problem still is that it doesn't take care of cancer's primary reason which is lack of oxygen in the cells caused by fermentation of sugar. So unless this therapy somehow does permanent modifications to the body, it will only buy you some time. Ignoring the root cause has always been the reason why so many cancer patients get sick again after "successful" therapy of any sort. But look at the bright side; here you are witnessing the next big subscription based business model for big pharma. Soon you'll be paying monthly recurring fees to receive your monthly therapy to get rid of cancer. Before this there's been this annoyance for big pharma that patients die quite often despite therapies which drops retention rate a lot. Now with this those worries might be history. Alternative for these fees would be to quit stuffing carbohydrates/sugar into your face all day long but we all know that's not going to happen.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 10, 2011, 10:28:12 PM
WOW that is something. One hopes, BIG TIME that this is f'reals and not either a tainted study or medical hoax. I've read some similar things about using a patient's own cells against the cancer, hadn't read that study.

Nice one Bomps, thanks for it.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 10, 2011, 10:32:00 PM
@ kurdt and root cause: interestingly, there are often cancers that seem to simply materialize out of nowhere, with no prior conditions, indicators or overt causes. Sometimes it appears to simply be a mutation run amok. This is often why, as was with my wife, that mastectomy with clean margins seemed to "cure" her cancer. In fact it just took enough out that the possibility of it having metastasized into other tissue was low enough that we are just grateful every day.

If there's a way to turn the body against invaders like that, MAN would it be great and makes a bunch of sense. I really do hope that it's what they say.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 10, 2011, 11:35:03 PM
@ kurdt and root cause: interestingly, there are often cancers that seem to simply materialize out of nowhere, with no prior conditions, indicators or overt causes. Sometimes it appears to simply be a mutation run amok.
Sorry but no. "Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." -- Dr. Otto H. Warburg in Lecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg#Cancer_hypothesis). Otto Warburg won TWO Nobel prizes in his career and first one was for cancer research. Now it makes you wonder why Mr. Warburg or his theory hasn't been mentioned even once in Wikipedia's cancer page ::) When you think about cancer and depression you have to understand that these are almost the only two lifelines for big pharma. First time in a long time med industry's profits took a beating few years back. Now you have subsidiesed health care to bring in more business and all the alternative treatments are ridiculed without any evidences like ozone therapies for example. If they would let ozone therapy for cancer and natural depression treatments be fairly tested on the market.. it would undermine all their hard work to brainwash medical professionals to act as pill vending machines and sell pills that cause more harm than good.

Quote
This is often why, as was with my wife, that mastectomy with clean margins seemed to "cure" her cancer. In fact it just took enough out that the possibility of it having metastasized into other tissue was low enough that we are just grateful every day.
If you get so unlucky that it decides to come back, keep your mind open for ozone therapy. I haven't had any personal experience with cancer but there's overwhelming amounts of evidence discovered all around the world about ozone's effect on oxygen deprived cancer cells if you just bother to filter all biased big pharma propaganda. Unfortunately it seems that even in medicine & health care it's still "customer's" responsibility to filter through different options. Believing your own doctor is like going to nearest computer store and ask the sales person what computer I'm going to buy.

Quote
If there's a way to turn the body against invaders like that, MAN would it be great and makes a bunch of sense. I really do hope that it's what they say.
This would be awesome quick fix for everybody who got cancer so I do also hope they are able to deliver.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 11, 2011, 12:05:20 AM
I'm not one to disparage any form of treatment, as some pretty wild things do produce results. But Otto's hypothesis is quite old, and there are a lot of other things happening here. It's also a bit simplistic, and seemingly up for debate as to whether he observed a byproduct of cancerous cell respiration or cause of the disease itself. It seems that the former has a more traction.

But I'm no expert. I just simply hope that they really do have something here.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: daviator on August 11, 2011, 03:47:56 PM
Great article.  My mom actually has CLL (the form of leukemia the subjects in the trial have or had) so it's of particular interest to me.  I will follow it as the research goes forward.



Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 11, 2011, 08:51:10 PM
I'm not one to disparage any form of treatment, as some pretty wild things do produce results. But Otto's hypothesis is quite old, and there are a lot of other things happening here. It's also a bit simplistic, and seemingly up for debate as to whether he observed a byproduct of cancerous cell respiration or cause of the disease itself. It seems that the former has a more traction.
I think there's some telltale signs that Otto might be right. If you look at sugar/carbohydrate consumption in average diet and then switch to cancer rate in societies, there's a quite clear correlation. My prediction is that sugar will be our generations tobacco. I always chuckle when I hear somebody wondering how the hell people didn't realize right away that it might not be healthy to inhale smoke and at the same time take a bite of cake or drink some soda. Of course you are right that some cancers just seem to pop out of nowhere to people who "don't deserve it". Again, when you think about it, it's a kinda telltale sign that something is profoundly wrong in our dietary habits when our bodies are so eager to develop cancer, disease that really wasn't that common "in the old days". Personally I blame E additives and various carbohydrates that cause cancer when consumption is excessive like nowadays. It's alarming that nobody has actually studied how E additives interact which each other. There's some limited studies and we have some information about specific E additives but nobody actually knows how they will interact which each other in the long run.

[offtopic personal note]
Last xmas I decided to cut out all unnecessary shit from my diet. It was pretty simple decision when you realize that eating is mainly habitual and there's no reason what so ever to eat that unnecessary crap if you don't want to. Now about 8 months later I have more energy than ever, I seem to need only 6 hours of sleep and I don't get tired in the afternoon anymore. And all I did was to switch from eating mainly carbohydrates to eating mainly protein. It's really not easy at first because at least in Finland, carbofoods are still the nr. 1 food offered everywhere and you are used to eating those. But if you just stick to your principles that you refuse to eat that crap, I haven't had any problems of finding proper food. Now I seem to automatically choose proper foods from the menu and I really don't have to think about it anymore. And there's a plus side that when you eat protein it's really, really hard to eat too much that you start getting fat. The reason is dead simple: it's really easy for the body to convert carbohydrates to energy and if you don't spend all that energy, your body will start to accumulate protective fat for the rainy days. Too bad that in modern society we just don't have any rainy days like they used to when our body evolved the way it is now.
[/offtopic personal note]


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 11, 2011, 09:17:50 PM
Here I am totally willing to go holistic with you.

I firmly believe that much of the dis-ease that plagues the human race now is created by our eating habits, foods, stress, chemicals in our water, we're continually bathed in all kinds radiation, we breathe horrible chemicals and call it a "new car smell," siphon gas and sip Benzene, stress, and stress. Did I mention stress? On top of that, we've probably always had many of the cancers we see in a big way today, but we're now living long enough to really see it.

If you can do without processed sugars you are way ahead. Totally minimize carbs, you're way ahead. Eat organic fruits and vegetables, you're way ahead. Reduce your blood pressure and cholesterol without eating drugs that help today but may hurt tomorrow, you're way ahead. Focus on enough sleep, clean air and water, apples, prunes and broccoli you're way ahead.

I think we all pretty much know what we need to do, it's the doing it that's so damn rough. PinkHat is pretty convinced that it was our lifestyle and stress from our big travel call center that brought about her cancer. She could be completely wrong. But it doesn't feel like it.

In any case, good on you Kurdt for taking that kind of initiative and sticking with it. The money's in the details and the followthrough. Looks like you've got that part pretty handled. :)


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 11, 2011, 10:35:36 PM
If you can do without processed sugars you are way ahead. Totally minimize carbs, you're way ahead. Eat organic fruits and vegetables, you're way ahead. Reduce your blood pressure and cholesterol without eating drugs that help today but may hurt tomorrow, you're way ahead. Focus on enough sleep, clean air and water, apples, prunes and broccoli you're way ahead.
Actually you might not want to eat fruits or anything with fructose all that much ;) That's also something that modern society deems as "healthy" even when there's actually no reason what so ever to eat fruit. Of course you need vitamins and few fruits here and there are not going to kill you BUT when you think about it, humans in certain geoareas like here in Finland didn't have access to California oranges. We only ate berries in the summer time and here we are many years later. Way too much of "the common health knowledge" is wrong and frankly, harmful. There's also studies that fructose is actually a poison for humans but like in so many things, it's the dosage that makes the poison. So use your brain, do your OWN thinking and you'll be just fine.

Quote
I think we all pretty much know what we need to do, it's the doing it that's so damn rough.
That's just excuses. I'm sorry but I don't feel sorry for people who catch diseases who knew all along what they were suppose to be doing. Of course many times people only find out about these things when it's too late but if you knew before and didn't do anything because it was just more comfortable to live the way you lived, well, I hope it was worth it because now you are paying for that with your life.

Quote
PinkHat is pretty convinced that it was our lifestyle and stress from our big travel call center that brought about her cancer. She could be completely wrong. But it doesn't feel like it.
And she is probably 100% right. Cortisol is a really bad for human body when body doesn't have time to recover. Also cortisol has this fucked up effect that once you "overdose" with stress, your body will never recover to its original state. So when the time goes on and you keep yourself stressed for whatever pathetic reason, the less your body can take it and in the end you'll literally poison yourself to death. But based on your "was your lifestyle", it's a good thing you did the necessary changes.

Quote
In any case, good on you Kurdt for taking that kind of initiative and sticking with it. The money's in the details and the followthrough.
Followthru is easy when there isn't another alternative. I just find it bafflingly stupid to willingly digest chemicals and other "foods" that does harm to you. And I really hate feeling stupid. It just doesn't make any sense to me live in a different way with the knowledge I have now about our bodies and what's happening inside. To put it out there and maybe even insult somebody into action: If you continue eating the food you know will hurt you, maybe it's just better for the human race if your body then expires you a bit sooner from wasting space and other precious resources. It's just as easy as deciding not to do something, really it is. People decide not to do so many things daily that not eating or buying some crap should be dead simple for everybody. If you can't control your impulses to "treat yourself" with that lovely sugary snack or soda, then you probably are not strong enough to accomplish anything else meaningful in your lifetime - so again, maybe it's just better if you expire a bit earlier.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: Bompa on August 11, 2011, 10:46:01 PM
Quote
If you can't control your impulses to "treat yourself" with that
lovely sugary snack or soda, then you probably are not strong enough
to accomplish anything else meaningful in your lifetime

Well, that statement takes the cake!  ;)



Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 11, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
 :roflmao:






:)






















 :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
You're a trip, Kurdt.

('Morning, Bomps. Would you like some coffee, crumb cake and fruit? We've got plenty... :roflmao: )


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 12, 2011, 07:34:24 AM
Quote
If you can't control your impulses to "treat yourself" with that
lovely sugary snack or soda, then you probably are not strong enough
to accomplish anything else meaningful in your lifetime
Well, that statement takes the cake!  ;)
Well it's the truth. If you are so lazy that you actually can't manage NOT to do something, then you probably won't do much anyway :whip: Or if you can't control your body that much that you prevent it from grabbing everything that you can put in your mouth, you won't have enough control to accomplish anything long-term. But hey, good news is that our current society is built for people just like you. Just go to work if you happen to get one, take a lots of debt so you can "own" things, go to job just to pay your debt for the next 30 years and finally the most important thing, pay them taxes in every way possible. Oh and buy a lot of drugs and various beauty & trends related products, you won't be surviving without them. In the end, don't leave anything meaningful to your children (except money that can be taxed) so they can repeat the cycle. Good luck on your journey even if you don't have any use to it because you are now part of the mainstream society.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 12, 2011, 08:20:51 AM
You obviously have no children, no empathy or understanding of anyone else' situation.

That's no "the truth" it's your prejudice. And a cancerous attitude, frankly. Your opinion screams of too much protein and not enough fiber ;)

You want to be careful with all that My Life's Perfect and if you don't see it my way you should just go ahead and die stuff, Kurdt. Karma is a bitch on the backswing.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: Earl Grey on August 12, 2011, 04:13:19 PM
no empathy or understanding of anyone else' situation.


and your point is?


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 12, 2011, 08:57:25 PM
You obviously have no children, no empathy or understanding of anyone else' situation.

That's no "the truth" it's your prejudice. And a cancerous attitude, frankly. Your opinion screams of too much protein and not enough fiber ;)

You want to be careful with all that My Life's Perfect and if you don't see it my way you should just go ahead and die stuff, Kurdt. Karma is a bitch on the backswing.
Now you missed the point completely. There's no my perfect life, there's only what science has proved OUR bodies require. That applies to every human being on the planet. Our body is the ultimate truth. We live inside our brain which is interconnected with our body. Whatever happens to our bodies, happens to us, literally. Popular way of thinking is that if you choose to fight or ignore your body, it's your right. True but at least in Finland guess who is paying for your treatments for various diet related diseases via taxes...

If you read what I wrote WITHOUT attitude you'll realize that I didn't say anything about me being perfect. Only thing I said was that if you don't have self-discipline to eat properly, you probably won't have enough self-discipline to do any long-term project. And as we both know, all the meaningful stuff is a long-term project. What this world needs is people who have a purpose, people who improve things, people who make things happen. Another thing you need to keep in mind is that what I said about expiring early applies only to people who specifically know all this stuff and what they should be eating but still don't. Frankly, that is my definition for incredible dumb and I do not care what's the excuse for it. Most of the people don't know this stuff or the extend the damage happens. Most of the people think that eating all that sugar and other crap will in worst case make you fat but if you avoid those "fattening" foods, then it's ok. Too bad it isn't so and won't be no matter how much you wish for it. Majority of the foods sold today are so full of chemicals that you can't believe it. Getting fat is the least of your problems.

However there is one reason for eating that shit that I accept: being poor. Unfortunately most of the cheapest foods are cheap exactly because they are made artificially with very little real food if any. If you look at the ingredients in many of those ready-made meals, you'll be surprised if there's even 10% real ingredients there. Usually it's just some water and lots of E codes and aromas. Another truly sad thing is that kids nowadays actually prefer those artificial aromas over "real aromas". When tested with blind test, majority prefers the products that are completely flavored with artificial chemicals. This has nothing to do with the kids but everything to do with the adults that run the society that feeds those kids in schools etc.

But if you have any good reason for a person to continue eating poisonous food even when he or she knows the extent of damage additives and sugar do, please do tell me. So far I have found two reason: being poor and being dumb.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: Earl Grey on August 12, 2011, 09:05:03 PM
cliffs notes anyone?



Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 13, 2011, 09:07:19 AM
 :roflmao:


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 13, 2011, 09:15:48 AM
Kurdt: there is a vast difference between living some way, even arduously and religeously living some way, and espousing that it's OK for others to die early if they don't understand that.

I actually happen to agree with you about food and our consumption. In fact my family has a extremely clear example of what simple preservatives do to a body and I've focused on eating well since my early teens.

But this stuff is just like religion. It's for you, and pushing it on others is the wrong thing to do. Your words would probably have more impact if you bring them with less prejudice.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 13, 2011, 02:47:54 PM
Kurdt: there is a vast difference between living some way, even arduously and religeously living some way, and espousing that it's OK for others to die early if they don't understand that.
Again you misunderstood me. I said those others WILL die early (not a question of "if") but it's ok because they obviously didn't care enough anyway to live longer. If they didn't care about themselves, why should I? It's not a question of my beliefs, it's just simple medical facts - eat shit, die fast and painful death.

Quote
But this stuff is just like religion. It's for you, and pushing it on others is the wrong thing to do. Your words would probably have more impact if you bring them with less prejudice.
No it's not. In religion you are talking about abstract thoughts, beliefs about something higher than us. That is completely in your mind and everybody has their own unique way of thinking about that stuff. However when it comes to our body, it doesn't get more real and "down to earth" than that. We all share same physical structure so effects are universal. I don't want to have impact on anyone, convincing people is not worth of my time. I rather just tell the facts and if the person doesn't for whatever reason think for themselves, then so be it. Like I said, I don't care what the reasons are, there simply isn't anything that could counteract the simple fact that you put shit in you = you die early. However when I see people who read about this stuff, change their behavior and fight against what the mainstream tries to serve them, that's when I believe human race might actually survive.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: Bompa on August 13, 2011, 03:40:42 PM
If they didn't care about themselves, why should I? ...

Ummm... because you are at a higher level of knowledge, maturity, and understanding?


Bompa




Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 13, 2011, 06:18:25 PM
For evolution that are 2 paths that can be taken.
1) Breed as fast and as plentiful as you can.
2) Attempt to breed a more "successful" being.
For evolution the only thing that matters is the genes survive.
But people make the wrong assumption that #2 always applies.

So lets look at number 1 strategy.
The female plays the biggest part in breeding, since the female has the biggest investment.
Get pregnant at age 14 or younger if biologically possible.
Pop out as many offspring as quickly as you can.
Even if that being is more prone to cancer,heart disease etc.
If does not matter since these disease only strike at 35+.

Think about it ;)



Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 13, 2011, 09:51:47 PM
Ummm... because you are at a higher level of knowledge, maturity, and understanding?
How does any of that relate to about caring about somebody who has all the facts but still doesn't care enough to act? People are individuals with pretty much the same brain capacity. If person isn't capable of changing his/hers behavior based on new facts then it's pretty much out of my control. I trust people think on their own. It would be disservice to all to try to change that person by will or force.

Quote
For evolution that are 2 paths that can be taken.
1) Breed as fast and as plentiful as you can.
2) Attempt to breed a more "successful" being.
For evolution the only thing that matters is the genes survive.
But people make the wrong assumption that #2 always applies.

So lets look at number 1 strategy.
The female plays the biggest part in breeding, since the female has the biggest investment.
Get pregnant at age 14 or younger if biologically possible.
Pop out as many offspring as quickly as you can.
Even if that being is more prone to cancer,heart disease etc.
If does not matter since these disease only strike at 35+.

Think about it
You do have a point there. However path 1 expects that nobody messes with the process and nature works as intended. Now people are living to 80 instead of 30-40 and many of the before deadly diseases are now just a nuisance. Now what path 1 does is to derail the process because evolution is suppose to weed out the unfitting. Now we are keeping everyone live via society so there isn't any evolutionary tests. Of course most dumbest individuals usually drop out by doing something incredibly stupid. For evolution there needs to be a place where that gene can live. With current rate, we soon won't have a place where our gene can live.

Number 2 is a bit misleading because you don't define what you mean by successful. Successful is cultural concept. In my replies I'm talking about being biologically successful as a person who feeds his/hers body in a way it was intended. I do agree that most people have this notion that there's some sort of glory of being "successful human being" but most people fail on that because very few people actually defines to themselves what is successful human being. Most people only think about money or status, some people think about family they are going to start and so on. All those are valid goals but I'm not sure if I want to think about my family of me being successful like it's just a task to do.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 14, 2011, 02:18:15 AM
Number 2 is a bit misleading because you don't define what you mean by successful. Successful is cultural concept. In my replies I'm talking about being biologically successful as a person who feeds his/hers body in a way it was intended. I do agree that most people have this notion that there's some sort of glory of being "successful human being" but most people fail on that because very few people actually defines to themselves what is successful human being. Most people only think about money or status, some people think about family they are going to start and so on. All those are valid goals but I'm not sure if I want to think about my family of me being successful like it's just a task to do.
I should have used the term "more complex", which by cultural standards is assumed to be "successful".
I was speaking from an evolutionary perspective.
So the T72 tank compared to the M1 Abrams is a POS. (It is less complex).
If faced 1 on 1 to a M1 the T72 will get its ass kicked.
But you can crank out 10-15 T72 to a M1 Abrams, if it was just 10-15 T72 vs 1 M1 Abrams (no air support etc)
The T72 will kicks ass, because they can swarm the M1 Abrams.

So from an evolutionary perspective, which is the "better" tank.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 14, 2011, 08:28:50 AM
Bologically, success is simply reproduction. Happiness, being fulfilled etc. are existential questions that vary literally from person to person - even to the point of being completely contradictory between two people. I'm thinking here about Gene Simmons after reading his book, "Sex, money kiss" in which he pretty much describes personal success as the accumulation of money. His superficial, narcissistic attitude is loathesome and repugnant to me. But that is his success.

But going back to success and how it applies to your argument, Kurdt, it is more likely that smoking, fried lard eating white trash will produce litters of children than upscale, healthy minded couples. So their success as defined by species progress will be larger than your more considered lifestyle. Further, the likelihood that their simpleton, black and white thinking will create a happy outlook is strong enough that they would define their life existentially a success.

Which is why I say that this stuff is utterly personal. You define healthy longevity as success.I think that's reasonable. But squeezing another 5 years from the national average may not be seen as worth it, if it means surrendering deep fried lard for broccoli.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 14, 2011, 11:31:56 AM
Bologically, success is simply reproduction.
Exactly and this will not be so successful anymore when parents are starting to be so full of chemicals that they can't even produce pure enough milk to feed the kid.

Quote
But going back to success and how it applies to your argument, Kurdt, it is more likely that smoking, fried lard eating white trash will produce litters of children than upscale, healthy minded couples. So their success as defined by species progress will be larger than your more considered lifestyle. Further, the likelihood that their simpleton, black and white thinking will create a happy outlook is strong enough that they would define their life existentially a success.
Short-term yes, long-term I don't think so. Like I said, if you just push children out resources on this earth are not going to last very long. And then your multiplying earth man is gone, extinct. And make no mistake, earth isn't going anywhere, we are. Earth will keep rotating and soon whole cycle of evolution will begin again hopefully producing a bit more smarter species this time. The thing I think most people doesn't seem to think about when these topics are discussed is that evolution is no longer valid. We passed that point when we started to teach ideas to each other, the first important step in separation from monkeys and such. At that point we took our destiny into our own hands and one small step at the time we started to overcome challenges nature gave us. Multiplying is what drives life forms that are in harmony with their surroundings. We are not. We have something I call intelligent life form reproduction problem. Because we can work around any problem (might take time but still), we can't no longer keep multiplying as something that drives our species forward. Instead what we need is to unite as one single truly intelligent life form. That is the only step that can truly take us to next level. Every other step just leads to more wars for whatever reason, more inequality, more deaths and most importantly, more wasted brain power. When resources were scarce, going to war made sense. Now we have driven ourselves into a corner with our monetary system that drives individual actors to commit horrid actions that all lead to inequality in the ownership of earth resources. With our current technologies, there's no need for resource fighting anymore but try to tell that to people who are in power right now...

Quote
Which is why I say that this stuff is utterly personal. You define healthy longevity as success.I think that's reasonable. But squeezing another 5 years from the national average may not be seen as worth it, if it means surrendering deep fried lard for broccoli.
Well I think I define success as making yourself the best you can be and helping instead of hurting others. When you live like 99% of the people now do, you end up hurting a fuck load of people indirectly by supporting inequality. Like for example in US if you throw plastic bottle in the recycling (like they tell you to), the bottle will actually end up in Asia where it will be burned and those local people will have to inhale that air. When you throw it in the normal bin, it will end up in your local waste processing plant. Fucked up isn't it.

Actually the goal at least for me is not to live 5 years longer, it's to live better. Remember that most people have never lived without carbohydrates and constantly rising and crashing blood sugar. They think it's normal state of being. I'm pretty sure that if you could make a pill that you could take to experience that feeling for a day, much more people would go thru the trouble of changing their diet permanently.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 14, 2011, 03:17:58 PM
Kurdt makes a very serious mistake believing human being are logical.

Human beings are not logical

People who work with computers, generally speaking fall into this trap.
I never realized why most people find computer programing so difficult.
It is just pure logic, which is very simple.

That is why computer people should sell rubbish online.
They will soon learn that majority of the population is not logical.

On this forum, we might debate which is a better programming language,
Or we might debate which is a better portable device or personal computer.
But the differences between the devices are very "small" compared to the large unseen population.

Go onto facebook, examine the arguments that the "normal" person uses.
"He is anti-american"
"That is a left wing publication"
"That is a right wing publication"
"If we all prayed really hard, we would not need computers, some invisible being will solve all our problems"

If I expand it further, majority of people self delude themselves, and like to be self deluded.
Every human being self deludes himself, because his senses (sight,smell,taste etc) are imperfect.
But if I am shown an optical illusion, on the simplest level, I will take a ruler and measure it.
I will examine it.
Majority of people will argue the self delusion is real.

From an evolutionary perspective there is a reason why humans self delude themselves.
I will leave you with this ;)
(Study was done in USA, obviously in different areas different symbols would have a similar effect)
"Report Suggests That Viewing American Flag Influences Voters To Vote Republican"
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-suggests-that-viewing-american-flag-influences-voters-to-vote-republican/


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: Bompa on August 14, 2011, 04:29:54 PM
Kurdt makes a very serious mistake believing human being are logical.

I think you missed kurdt's point. ;)


Quote
Human beings are not logical

To say the least.

Quote
If I expand it further, majority of people self delude themselves, and like to be self deluded.
Every human being self deludes himself,

Yes, every!



Quote
... because his senses (sight,smell,taste etc) are imperfect.

If the self-delusion is caused by a biological deficiency or inadequacy, then it is not SELF-delusion.

Although our senses are certainly not perfect, I think the major cause of
self-delusion is a person's secret motives.  A classic example might be the
sick person that stays sick because he is getting a lot of attention.




Quote
But if I am shown an optical illusion, on the simplest level, I will
take a ruler and measure it.
I will examine it.
Majority of people will argue the self delusion is real.

Again, an optical illusion is not self-delusion. It is not YOU kidding yourself, it
is someone else kidding you.

In any case,are you saying here that YOU are not self-deluded?


Quote
From an evolutionary perspective there is a reason why humans self delude themselves.

Why is that?


Bompa


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: daviator on August 14, 2011, 06:13:20 PM
Like for example in US if you throw plastic bottle in the recycling (like they tell you to), the bottle will actually end up in Asia where it will be burned and those local people will have to inhale that air. When you throw it in the normal bin, it will end up in your local waste processing plant. Fucked up isn't it.

I have to jump in here.  I'm not going to comment on the overall topic, but you're full of shit with this one.  I suppose it's possible that there is some community somewhere that ships their recyclables to Asia to be burned, but I think that's unlikely (the transportation costs would make that dumb from just an economic standpoint.)  I certainly know that where I am, all of the rigid and semi-rigid plastic is actually recycled, here in the U.S., into things like fence posts and decking and furniture, among others.  One can argue the merits of recycling – that's a different topic – but don't spout phony accusations about what happens to recyclables "in US".  First of all, every city handles its recycling differently.  so blanket statements like "in the US" are meaningless.  But beyond that, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find recyclable plastic being shipped from the U.S. to Asia to be burned.  Perhaps it's happened in the past, but today?  Don't think so.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 14, 2011, 07:21:38 PM
Actually the Phoenix system is much the same, grinding plastics into pellets that are resold, paper melted down to pulp etc. Recycling has come a long, long way since the 70s. Even cooking oil in your neck of the woods DV8R, right? Most impressive.

And further, Kurdt, your argument has moved into a very philosophical one re. our largest questions of why we are here. On this, I absolutely agree with your notions of who and why we are here, how we should live and how we leave the world a better place that we found it. But this is pretty rare air, and IME most people are more likely to be dominated by thoughts of their next paycheck/meal/blow job than the more zen-like notion of suffering and compassion. To say nothing of actually being concerned about the earth and its precious resources.




Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 14, 2011, 08:16:48 PM
Kurdt makes a very serious mistake believing human being are logical.
I think you missed kurdt's point. ;)
Quote
Kurdt argues fairly valid points. I agree with him to some degree.
But it will not work because most humans are not logical.

If the self-delusion is caused by a biological deficiency or inadequacy, then it is not SELF-delusion.
Although our senses are certainly not perfect, I think the major cause of
self-delusion is a person's secret motives.  A classic example might be the
sick person that stays sick because he is getting a lot of attention.
By self delusion, I mean something which is false, that the person believes is true.
There appears to be the need for human beings to "believe".
This is in all humans, but in some more so then others.
Brain scans reveal that people who are members of fundamentalist religions have slightly different brain structures.

"If the self-delusion is caused by a biological deficiency or inadequacy, then it is not SELF-delusion."
From an evolutionary perspective 100% correct :)
A person who has a strong belief, even if the belief is false could benefit from it.
So in a simplistic example the "sick person".

On a deeper level. "Stress" harms someones health.
If I had a belief in some "invisible creature" protecting me, I will suffer less "stress".
So from an evolutionary perspective, it is a balance between.
1) Belief in invisible creature getting me killed (which stops my genes from passing on)
2) Benefits from this belief which might allow me to function better /  live longer, and thus allow me to mate and propagate my genes.

So called "belief" has always fascinated me.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 14, 2011, 09:27:08 PM
Quote
I have to jump in here.  I'm not going to comment on the overall topic, but you're full of shit with this one.  I suppose it's possible that there is some community somewhere that ships their recyclables to Asia to be burned, but I think that's unlikely (the transportation costs would make that dumb from just an economic standpoint.)  I certainly know that where I am, all of the rigid and semi-rigid plastic is actually recycled, here in the U.S., into things like fence posts and decking and furniture, among others.  One can argue the merits of recycling – that's a different topic – but don't spout phony accusations about what happens to recyclables "in US".  First of all, every city handles its recycling differently.  so blanket statements like "in the US" are meaningless.  But beyond that, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find recyclable plastic being shipped from the U.S. to Asia to be burned.  Perhaps it's happened in the past, but today?  Don't think so.
That's actually based on this TEDx talk http://www.ted.com/talks/van_jones_the_economic_injustice_of_plastic.html. You should check it out and take your points to Van Jones.

Quote
Human beings are not logical
Basic assumption yes? I would argue that people are logical but they when it comes to their behavior, they will let emotions decide for them if no control is exercised. Now I want to point out that I do agree with you that humans do not behave logically but they are not illogical. If they were inherently illogical they wouldn't be able to survive the day. They would constantly trip over because they didn't make the connection between walking into a step and falling down.

What you call self-delusion, I call a problem in the feedback loop in the brain. Contradicting signals basically. I think it describes better what's going on in there and how self-delusion is possible in the first place. When you talk about self-delusion, you also want to separate if you talk about conscious-self or unconscious-self. BIG  difference. I'm currently training my unconscious-self to process what I want it to process while I do other things. Normally at least for me it seems to be using it's time thinking something completely irrelevant which then manifests as weird ideas when I'm driving or in the shower.

Quote
On a deeper level. "Stress" harms someones health.
If I had a belief in some "invisible creature" protecting me, I will suffer less "stress".
This is basically what religion is all about. I used to opposite against all religions but in my older years I have realized what an important function religion serves. It has got nothing to do with some specific religion but it has everything to do with brain's feedback loop. People are social creatures that can't think about death. Majority of the people think they can deal with death but very, very rarely they can. If they are not religious, they will come up with some other idea to comfort them. No more earthly suffering, there's no pain when it happens and so on. There always has to be the next idea. I think it might be that our brain is simply incapable of thinking what happens when there's no next thought. My personal thought about death is that everything just ends and you just shut down. However I can notice my brain thinking about everything being black and so on. That won't be the case in reality when it happens but brain just needs to keep going on.

So what religion does is to offer framework of thinking patterns about hard things in life. I still think religion harms free and creative thinking in many ways but it does serve important anchoring purpose to people who just want to contribute to the world easily. Most people don't enjoy questioning everything they see and wondering about why and how.

Quote
But this is pretty rare air, and IME most people are more likely to be dominated by thoughts of their next paycheck/meal/blow job than the more zen-like notion of suffering and compassion. To say nothing of actually being concerned about the earth and its precious resources.
I believe/hope this is not because they don't have anything to say, it because there's no place where they could do something about it. I don't think most of the people are really as shallow as people seem to think. They just lack the place, confidence and way of saying what they think. And of course proper aiming system to think about correct problems. AI argument service would be awesome. It would basically present you with issues and you would give your solution to them. Then it would explain you why it would not work. People usually offer similar solutions to common problems. Like for example why not just shoot nuclear waste into space? Idea sounds good so long until somebody realizes that what if the rocket explodes in the atmosphere? These things have been thought before but answers are not always obvious so many people waste their time thinking about already debunked solutions.

And yes, I know again I assume that people think about how to solve this big problems and most of you guys don't agree with me that they do. Let's just call that a problem with my brain's feedback loop :)


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: daviator on August 15, 2011, 12:35:39 PM
Actually the Phoenix system is much the same, grinding plastics into pellets that are resold, paper melted down to pulp etc. Recycling has come a long, long way since the 70s. Even cooking oil in your neck of the woods DV8R, right? Most impressive.

Yes, San Francisco now diverts nearly 80% of its waste from landfills and is ahead of target to meet its goal of zero waste by 2020.  Sorting of waste into recycling and composting bins is required by law.  Other cities are perhaps not quite so far along as SF, but are making great strides toward reducing their waste stream and impact.  Yes, we even recycle all of the cooking oil used in restaurants and other commercial kitchens (and residents can recycle theirs too) into biodiesel used to power city buses and vehicles (most buses are electric, but some routes require diesel buses.)  SF built a grease-to-biodiesel production facility that generates at least 1.5 million gallons of low-emission biodiesel annually.

But then we ship the smog to Asia for the locals to breath.   :roflmao:


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 15, 2011, 02:40:12 PM
Like for example in US if you throw plastic bottle in the recycling (like they tell you to), the bottle will actually end up in Asia where it will be burned and those local people will have to inhale that air.
??? ??? ??? ???
How did this bottle get into Asia ?
Why is the bottle being burned ?

I am not 100% sure what happens to recycled plastic here.
All I know is the "junk man" will pay 10-15 peso per kilo for "bottle grade" plastic.
For other types of plastic, like plexi-glass, hard plastic he gets much more.
"Junk man" comes to your house, when he found some plexi-glass type plastic, he almost had an orgasim.

After that all the "junk" is sorted out, a big truck comes by and takes it away.
Asking questions is a waste of time, I will get an answer like "Onto the big truck, the big truck goes down the road" etc.

The demand for scrap metal,plastic etc has gone so high, kids are digging up old garbage sites to pull out the metal cans etc.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 15, 2011, 07:59:49 PM
But then we ship the smog to Asia for the locals to breath.   :roflmao:
Yeah and its all cool because san francisco really is the whole united states which means that when they do it right, everybody else must be doing it right too :jackoff:


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 15, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
Yeah and its all cool because san francisco really is the whole united states which means that when they do it right, everybody else must be doing it right too :jackoff:
Yeah, and just because you see some bullshit about a particular practice our whole country is fucked. :jackoff:



Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 16, 2011, 05:50:29 AM
Yeah, and just because you see some bullshit about a particular practice our whole country is fucked. :jackoff:
At least slam USA for irresponsible practices which they "actually do".
Since USA is the "reserve currency" and because of their irresponsible monetary problems they literally are making the entire world unstable.
And as a result China might make their own reserve currency, making the world a less stable place.

As opposed to a fucking plastic bottle.
Which I highly doubt.
Scrap plastic here is going for $0.50 a kilo.
With the rates of scrape metal and plastic, literally people are stealing this stuff.
Probably the American will get jumped for his empty water bottle :)

Yes a lot of recycling happens here.
It is because of cheap labor it makes sense.
It provides jobs etc.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 16, 2011, 06:22:05 AM
Yeah, and just because you see some bullshit about a particular practice our whole country is fucked. :jackoff:
Should we do a some sort of "FAQ about reading" thread here? So many people seem to have problems reading without inserting their own assumptions here and then one page is spent to argue about something nobody actually said. I said it's fucked up that stuff like the crappy bottle recycling happens ANYWHERE. The practice is fucked up, not the country which really hasn't got much to do with it in the first place. Next I'm going to use big red letters so I'll seem to scream the ultimate truth. However I'm pretty sure there will be somebody claiming that at least in their neighborhood everything is recycled properly so it must apply to everywhere and even if s/he doesn't see economic logic in shipping bottles to be burned across the ocean it must mean that nobody else has found a way to save or make money with that practice.

Quote
At least slam USA for irresponsible practices which they "actually do".
Since USA is the "reserve currency" and because of their irresponsible monetary problems they literally are making the entire world unstable.
And as a result China might make their own reserve currency, making the world a less stable place.

As opposed to a fucking plastic bottle.
Unstable how? You mean financially unstable? Why is that a bad thing? The faster they can crash the monetary system the better. The whole made up monetary system is such a faulty system that the final crash can't come soon enough.

When badly recycled, that fucking plastic bottle does actual harm to earth opposed to your precious make-believe currency. Your make-believe funny monnies is what drove us knee-deep into this mess.
 
Quote
Which I highly doubt.
Please do, really doesn't matter.

Quote
Yes a lot of recycling happens here.
It is because of cheap labor it makes sense.
It provides jobs etc.
If that's true, I just hope they do it properly and not with something creates toxic waste in the process. Some plastics are actually a great materials for environment because they can be recycled 99% opposed to many more traditional materials which require lots of chemicals to get recycled and waste produced in the process makes it almost +-0 situation. We just need some world-wide legislation to make it more attractive for companies to make their products with recycled plastic.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 16, 2011, 09:23:27 AM
Should we do a some sort of "FAQ about reading" thread here? So many people seem to have problems reading without inserting their own assumptions here and then one page is spent to argue about something nobody actually said. I said it's fucked up that stuff like the crappy bottle recycling happens ANYWHERE. The practice is fucked up, not the country which really hasn't got much to do with it in the first place.

Like for example in US if you throw plastic bottle in the recycling (like they tell you to), the bottle will actually end up in Asia where it will be burned and those local people will have to inhale that air. When you throw it in the normal bin, it will end up in your local waste processing plant. Fucked up isn't it.
Sounds pretty absolute to me. No you didn't say America is fucked up. But it's fucked that in the US if you throw a bottle in recycling it happens. You were talking out your ass and it was right that it was called out.

Unstable how? You mean financially unstable? Why is that a bad thing? The faster they can crash the monetary system the better. The whole made up monetary system is such a faulty system that the final crash can't come soon enough.

When badly recycled, that fucking plastic bottle does actual harm to earth opposed to your precious make-believe currency. Your make-believe funny monnies is what drove us knee-deep into this mess.
Ah no, it's your investment houses that purchased into our funny money that drove you into your mess. It's the greed of all bankers and their ability to stick heads in the sand that created this mess. And the reason for that? People are profoundly wealthy around the world because of the US as well. We have real troubles here. If people are that worried about us, they should not have invested - ie., tried to make money off us.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: Bompa on August 16, 2011, 07:37:28 PM
How dare you criticize USA?

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R152of5046A/TbW4CmXp_1I/AAAAAAAAMqw/3aYH2F3qmEQ/s1600/were+number+1.jpg)


;)



Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 16, 2011, 08:04:04 PM
Exactly. ;)


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 16, 2011, 08:46:20 PM
Sounds pretty absolute to me. No you didn't say America is fucked up. But it's fucked that in the US if you throw a bottle in recycling it happens. You were talking out your ass and it was right that it was called out.
And that was based on Van Jones TED talk I linked earlier. He does spend his days on this stuff so if he can make the generalization, it's probably not far off. Of course like I said also earlier, take your questions about claim's validity to Van Jones. If he is talking out of his ass, then I am too.

Quote
Unstable how? You mean financially unstable? Why is that a bad thing? The faster they can crash the monetary system the better. The whole made up monetary system is such a faulty system that the final crash can't come soon enough.

When badly recycled, that fucking plastic bottle does actual harm to earth opposed to your precious make-believe currency. Your make-believe funny monnies is what drove us knee-deep into this mess.
Ah no, it's your investment houses that purchased into our funny money that drove you into your mess. It's the greed of all bankers and their ability to stick heads in the sand that created this mess. And the reason for that? People are profoundly wealthy around the world because of the US as well. We have real troubles here. If people are that worried about us, they should not have invested - ie., tried to make money off us.
So how exactly any of this does not make monnies the reason behind it all? Actually the real problem is not trading but charging interest that doesn't exist in "the money pool" on top of debt. That has cumulative effect which in return has potential to fuck up the whole system, like it has now, royally. Inherently there's nothing wrong with common currency and it's way more efficient than barter systems BUT the problem arrises when nations allow banks to loan money without actually having it. This is still all pretty much ok but the main issue is the interest that doesn't exist in the system. That makes money scarce and forces everyone to compete for it. I found it interesting how people are blaming bankers all the time and because they are greedy. If you look at the essence of what you are saying is that you think bankers are evil because they know how to trade inside financial markets so well that their profits soar. They are just really good at their job maximizing their profits. Usually people have this false notion that banks are somehow these special companies that are not allowed to operate for their own benefit. The problem is the system, not the participants. When you participate in the game, you'll always follow certain rules and try to climb at the top. Imagine the whole financial system as RPG that wasn't properly tested and balanced. Now some classes are way too powerful and dominate everything. The only thing you can to mitigate this thing is to change rules but let's say that dominating class in RPG decides the rules, then what happens? Now how do you fix that for good? New rules won't help because dominating class won't be accepting anything they can't circumvent. Only way to fix the issue is to reset and reboot the whole system with new rules which are hopefully more balanced.

Actually if you want to go even further, we can then start to discuss about negative numbers which are the real root cause to scarcity. You can have one gold piece, you can have zero gold pieces but how do you have minus one gold pieces? That little fib of human imagination has made so much possible and in the process destroyed so much.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 17, 2011, 12:45:09 AM
And that was based on Van Jones TED talk I linked earlier. He does spend his days on this stuff so if he can make the generalization, it's probably not far off. Of course like I said also earlier, take your questions about claim's validity to Van Jones. If he is talking out of his ass, then I am too.
If Van Jones comes and quotes on our board then I'll take him up on it. You used him as fact and blanket statement man, That's all.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 17, 2011, 01:59:28 AM
And that was based on Van Jones TED talk I linked earlier. He does spend his days on this stuff so if he can make the generalization, it's probably not far off. Of course like I said also earlier, take your questions about claim's validity to Van Jones. If he is talking out of his ass, then I am too.
If Van Jones comes and quotes on our board then I'll take him up on it. You used him as fact and blanket statement man, That's all.
Ok so in other words it's pointless to quote any source on this forum unless they are prepared to come personally here? Of course I made a generalization and the recycling example might not be true at all in San Francisco for example. It seems my mistake was to assumed that you might be able to get the point without fluff sentences and disclaimers about how there might be some exceptions. I could spend the next hour googling for proof but somehow my gut tells me that you have already decided your opinion so doesn't really seem worth it.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 17, 2011, 09:20:42 AM
 :roflmao: Jeebus Kurdt. If you assert something that is both blanket and wrong in the course of making your point you're going to get pushed back at.

Don't get your nose in a snit FFS.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 04:12:37 PM
I am trying to stay out of these arguments, but .....
Unstable how? You mean financially unstable? Why is that a bad thing? The faster they can crash the monetary system the better. The whole made up monetary system is such a faulty system that the final crash can't come soon enough.
WTF crash the monetary system ??? ??? ??? ???
A good thing ??? ??? ???
Then you start babbling about plastic bottles again.

The British Empire and the American Empire may have done a lot of nasty and bad things.
The British Empire opened up world trade, by offering a universal currency, later this role was taken over by USA.
Peaceful trade is beneficial to all, helps spread new ideas, and is the foundation of civilization.

A simplistic example.
I am good at growing corn. Perks is good at making dildos.
I can grow 4 sacks of corn a day, perks if he grew corn could only grow 1 sack a day.
But if I made dildos I could only make 1 dildo a day, and perks can make 4 dildos a day.
So I trade my extra sacks of corn for perks extra dildos and we both benefit.

To make trade work, you need a "stable universal currency", for the last 300 years (except for a few blips) this has been true.
First the British Pound, then the US dollar.

Perks again is a classic example.
He buys things from China, this provides jobs in China sells the products in USA.
When the contracts are signed, you need a stable currency. Delivery might not take place till 6 months after deal is signed.
If the US dollar is flutuating like crazy, both businessmen can lose their shirts.

As a side topic, the biggest reason USA has a trade imbalance with China is because of their retarded foreign taxation laws.
Also because USA's foreign policy is "fucked".
Germany,Switzerland etc do not have a trade imbalance. China provides cheap labour, Germany and Swiss provide high quality machine parts the Chinese can not make (or they could make, but it cheaper to buy from Germany).

100-200 million people in China have been pulled out of poverty. India similar story.
China used to have a hunger problem, the problem now is Obesity (not as bad as USA but .... :))
Probably having an Obesity problem is better then fucking starving to death.

1/3 of US dollars where in Asia because US dollar used to be stable.
Asians are now dumping US dollars, this a a bad thing.

I guess 500-1000 million people moving out of poverty, and having enough to eat, maybe being able to afford a TV, a cellphone, a computer, a motorcycle is a bad thing. Along with these things is coming a concept of human rights, freedom of speech etc. Yes China etc have a long way to go, but it is fucking improving.

Go take your fucking plastic bottle and shove it in your mouth.
Fucking tree hugger piss me off.
Asia is improving.
Go on the fucking street in Manila where there are 1 million homeless people who are hungry, and tell them about your fucking plastic bottle.
Manila is improving by leaps and bounds, but it has a long way to go.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 17, 2011, 07:39:08 PM
I guess 500-1000 million people moving out of poverty, and having enough to eat, maybe being able to afford a TV, a cellphone, a computer, a motorcycle is a bad thing. Along with these things is coming a concept of human rights, freedom of speech etc. Yes China etc have a long way to go, but it is fucking improving.

Go take your fucking plastic bottle and shove it in your mouth.
Fucking tree hugger piss me off.
Haha, congratulations, if you think this is about tree hugging, you truly are ignorant :applause: You know why those people are starving and don't have technology of any kind? I'll give you a hint: not because their lands don't have resources.

I have an idea: how about you take your head out of your ass, quit making embarrassing assumptions, learn a bit more about the world than history and stop babbling "funny" stories that are somehow suppose to validate your "facts"?


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 07:55:51 PM
Haha, congratulations, if you think this is about tree hugging, you truly are ignorant :applause: You know why those people are starving and don't have technology of any kind? I'll give you a hint: not because their lands don't have resources.
Colonialism and Neo Colonialism in the form of "foreign aide" etc.
The foreign aide does not come without strings attached.
The only countries that managed to pull themselves out of the colonialism/neo colonialism trap are ones that stopped follow the "rules".
Singapore,HK,Malaysia,South Korea,Vietnam is starting to,Thailand come to mind.

Quote
I have an idea: how about you take your head out of your ass, quit making embarrassing assumptions, learn a bit more about the world than history and stop babbling "funny" stories that are somehow suppose to validate your "facts"?
"Funny Stories" ??? ??? ???
Go search on google, find a scrap dealer in Manila, call and find out how much scrap plastic sells for.

The "global warming linked to CO2" is a myth perpetrated by western nations to prevent developing nations to develop their infrastructure.

Ha Joon Chang a Korean describes "Neo Colonialism".
Probably he knows about it first hand, since he worked for
"World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the European Investment Bank various United Nations agencies."
After that he turned "anti US/Angosphere" style capitalism which is actually neo-colonialism in disguise.
If you want read his fucking books, and debate it with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 17, 2011, 08:02:35 PM
Colonialism and Neo Colonialism in the form of "foreign aide" etc....
And why does colonialism happen?


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 08:47:16 PM
Colonialism and Neo Colonialism in the form of "foreign aide" etc....
And why does colonialism happen?
The answer you want is "technology".
That answer is wrong.

India is a classic example, when the British/French arrived, Indian Technology was far more advanced then Western in all areas.
India had a larger army, could cast better cannons, had better firearms etc.
But at the time they where in turmoil and civil war.
China to some degree is a similar example.

Colonization is the objective of warfare, and it is because people want resources.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 17, 2011, 08:53:08 PM
Colonialism and Neo Colonialism in the form of "foreign aide" etc....
And why does colonialism happen?
The answer you want is "technology".
That answer is wrong.
Quote
I have an idea: how about you take your head out of your ass, quit making embarrassing assumptions, learn a bit more about the world than history and stop babbling "funny" stories that are somehow suppose to validate your "facts"?

Quote
Colonization is the objective of warfare, and it is because people want resources.
And why do people want resources?


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 09:02:24 PM
Sum up, get to the point


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 17, 2011, 09:08:34 PM
Sum up, get to the point
Sorry, not the kind of person who spoon-feeds adults.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 17, 2011, 09:14:02 PM
:popcorn:


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 09:14:32 PM
Sum up, get to the point
Sorry, not the kind of person who spoon-feeds adults.

 :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Fucking comical.
That is too bad, I was looking forward to your great words of wisdom.
I just did not feel like wasting time with your stupid games.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 09:19:52 PM
For anyone who is interested.
Here is the scrap plastic prices.
http://scrapmetalsandplastics.com/ChinaPrices.aspx
At $0.70-$0.80 you will not be burning any plastics.

Wait I should not have posted that.
I should not be spoon feeding children, they might get nasty habits ;)


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 17, 2011, 09:20:36 PM
Sum up, get to the point
Sorry, not the kind of person who spoon-feeds adults.

 :roflmao: x too many

Fucking comical.
That is too bad, I was looking forward to your great words of wisdom.
I just did not feel like wasting time with your stupid games.
:violin: Whether you understand anything doesn't have the slightest relevance to anything important.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 09:41:54 PM
:violin: Whether you understand anything doesn't have the slightest relevance to anything important.
Rather presumptuous are we not ?

I guess the 6 people I employ full time would not think that.
Not counting the 10-20 people I employ full time.

Not counting the events I sponsor such as a medical mission to provide children and their parent information and medicines to help them prevent disease.
I think there was 200+ people there.

Not counting the other youth events I sponsor to teach them sportsmanship and team play.

And then there was the congressman who was talking to me, who was saying, yes he should stop sand mining from the beaches, but how can he tell the people to stop sand mining, when they need to eat today, it is hard to explain to them that there will be no beach in 20 years.
He also thanked me for helping the community. For my investment, and hoped that my business was successful so people could be more independent.

Then there was a mayor, in a speech personally commended me, he said that no other individual has helped the community as much as me.
He was talking about the coop my wife started, to allow people to purchase food cheaper, we are expanding into agricultural things, so small time farmers can benefit, we also are bringing in experts to teach them better farming techniques.

Those are just a few things.
So I guess the 1-2K people I help directly or indirectly are of little importance.

Then there is Perks. I am not sure exactly what he is up to.
Probably the things he imports from developing countries to re-sell in USA.
I assume the people that manufacture them are happy for a job etc.

And I am not sure what else the other guys on this forum are up to.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 17, 2011, 10:01:52 PM
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I'm just good at making dildos.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 10:02:31 PM
While I was eating lunch.
I remembered the people who did not have money for the hospital, and had dengue.
One guy I forgot I even gave him money (~$25) when he saw me, he was crying, saying if I would not have given him the money, his daughter would have died.
Honestly I can not even remember giving him the money.
If I remember he even paid me back a few months later.

Probably the corrupt politician who using dummies has made a false claim on one of my properties.
And who has threatened to kill me, or do me bodily harm, unless I pay him off, does not think I am relevant.
I said I refuse to pay off, I will not bow down to extortion.
I am fighting it legally, in my province I am the first one to attempt to fight such illegal activities.
The gov't agency who I am launching a case said they have to research how to file the papers, since they have no experience with such cases.
By setting such an example, I am showing that things should be fought "legally" and vigilante methods should not be used.

Maybe I am not "educated".
But as I always say "I want solutions, not problems or excuses why something can not be done".
And 1 person can make a difference.

So anyway fuck you.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 10:03:52 PM
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I'm just good at making dildos.
More like selling them ;)
Heya it gives people jobs.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 17, 2011, 10:07:29 PM
And they make excellent party favors.

Alas, I'm afraid that the seedier parts of my past are slowing slipping away.
Soon PinkHat and I will be legit, selling dildos and anal intruders as medically significant marital aids.

We've even got a doctor as a spokesperson.

Taken all the fun right out of it  :-\

 :roflmao:


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 17, 2011, 10:15:45 PM
:violin: Whether you understand anything doesn't have the slightest relevance to anything important.
Rather presumptuous are we not ?
Not really, just assessing you based on your output here.

Quote
I guess the 6 people I employ full time would not think that.
Not counting the 10-20 people I employ full time.
So how many full time people you have again? Congrats, you know how to run a business.

Quote
Not counting the events I sponsor such as a medical mission to provide children and their parent information and medicines to help them prevent disease.
I think there was 200+ people there.

Not counting the other youth events I sponsor to teach them sportsmanship and team play.
So you give them money? Let me guess, in exchange you get advertising space and great PR?

Quote
And then there was the congressman who was talking to me, who was saying, yes he should stop sand mining from the beaches, but how can he tell the people to stop sand mining, when they need to eat today, it is hard to explain to them that there will be no beach in 20 years.
He also thanked me for helping the community. For my investment, and hoped that my business was successful so people could be more independent.

Then there was a mayor, in a speech personally commended me, he said that no other individual has helped the community as much as me.
He was talking about the coop my wife started, to allow people to purchase food cheaper, we are expanding into agricultural things, so small time farmers can benefit, we also are bringing in experts to teach them better farming techniques.
You mean politician was worried about issues votes worry without actually proving a solution or doing anything about it? Shocking! Remember to support him in the next election too so you can be thanked again for your investment.

Quote
Those are just a few things.
So I guess the 1-2K people I help directly or indirectly are of little importance.
Now how in earth did you accomplish to link 1-2K people that might or might have got few pennies from you in the form of sponsoring are little of importance? With your logic every donator does exactly what you do and they don't get sponsor advertising space. You know you could get much better stats for yourself if you donated to bigger organizations like Red Cross.. there you'll be "helping" at least few million people.

I know my comments might sound harsh but frankly all I can see you throwing money to the problems. You might be sincerely interested in improving conditions over there and I applaud to that but based on what you just said, all I can see you giving away money. It still doesn't seem your understanding anything has any relevance to anything important when your solution is to throw around money.

Quote
So anyway fuck you.
Need to say more?


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 10:23:07 PM
And they make excellent party favors.

Alas, I'm afraid that the seedier parts of my past are slowing slipping away.
Soon PinkHat and I will be legit, selling dildos and anal intruders as medically significant marital aids.

We've even got a doctor as a spokesperson.

Taken all the fun right out of it  :-\

 :roflmao:
I hear you :)
I did not realize people with money do not know how to "construct" things.
Probably because I grew up in a rural area, and I had experience working construction.
I know a lot of the tricks, like "stealing materials","pulling the steel rods out of concrete after it has been poured" etc.
The steel rod you make sure they pour the concrete while you watch.
Then wait a few hours till it hardens so they can not pull the rod out.
One guy did not do that, his $250K house split in 2 literally :)

The guy who threatened to kill me.
He soon found out I have experience with firearms thanks to the gov't paying for it ;)
And then he found out I can shoot a sparrow at 25+ meters with my pellet gun.
And I have 2 rotties and an assault shotgun in my house.
So after I filed the case, nothing happened.
Also a lot of people are supporting me, since corruption is a big problem.
I will win, it will just take time.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 17, 2011, 10:34:49 PM
I know my comments might sound harsh but frankly all I can see you throwing money to the problems. You might be sincerely interested in improving conditions over there and I applaud to that but based on what you just said, all I can see you giving away money. It still doesn't seem your understanding anything has any relevance to anything important when your solution is to throw around money.
$20-25 here or there I can afford easy.
I have spent 20x that in my ill begotten youth on lose women and drink on a weekend.

"Money" is not really needed.
Mainly time.
For the coop, I "financed" it with like $200.
Then other people "invested" with $10-20 each.
Initial investment was like $1K.
When the people found out I was financing, and most importantly my wife was supervising, so it would be run properly and no theft would occur.
We had little problem getting more investors. Most of them came to us.

Mainly it is a little time, and "simple shit".
My wife had to teach them "simple accounting" first few months it took her maybe 4 hours a day.
Now she just checks the books every week, and appointed other people to run it.
After 4 months we made enough profit to pay back the investors.
So technically I make money from it ;)
I then used the money from that for the medical mission.
Again 90% leg work / organization
Went to a good hospital, asked for volunteer doctors.
Went to a pharmacy, asked the guy to see me the stuff at cost.

Basically filipino solutions for filipino problems. American solutions do not work too well for filipino problems.
I also had an ulterior motive, if they profit from the coop, learn ways to help themselves, then they will stop bothering me for money ;)

"Red Cross" etc is good for "emergencies", but they do not teach people how to be self supporting.
Also IMHO you need to be hands on at grass roots level.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 17, 2011, 11:20:53 PM
$20-25 here or there I can afford easy.
I have spent 20x that in my ill begotten youth on lose women and drink on a weekend.

"Money" is not really needed.
Mainly time.
For the coop, I "financed" it with like $200.
Then other people "invested" with $10-20 each.
Initial investment was like $1K.
When the people found out I was financing, and most importantly my wife was supervising, so it would be run properly and no theft would occur.
We had little problem getting more investors. Most of them came to us.

Mainly it is a little time, and "simple shit".
My wife had to teach them "simple accounting" first few months it took her maybe 4 hours a day.
Now she just checks the books every week, and appointed other people to run it.
After 4 months we made enough profit to pay back the investors.
So technically I make money from it ;)
I then used the money from that for the medical mission.
Again 90% leg work / organization
Went to a good hospital, asked for volunteer doctors.
Went to a pharmacy, asked the guy to see me the stuff at cost.

Basically filipino solutions for filipino problems. American solutions do not work too well for filipino problems.
I also had an ulterior motive, if they profit from the coop, learn ways to help themselves, then they will stop bothering me for money ;)
Leg work :applause: Too many people choose the feel good way of "helping" people and just throw some money around. What they don't understand is that the money is the root cause that creates inequality which creates the desperate scarcity of money where you can't profit by trade or some other way. This is my whole point. Einstein said something like "we can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." and it applies to this too. So throwing more money into a problem created by money is just pointless. It also created more dependency towards monetary aid.

The interesting is that when all this will change, it will be because we have this vast network connecting everybody in the world. Who can't receive knowledge via net, they will receive it via word of mouth.

You should read about idea called resourced based economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_based_economy). The more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

Quote
"Red Cross" etc is good for "emergencies", but they do not teach people how to be self supporting.
Also IMHO you need to be hands on at grass roots level.
True. I don't really trust these big aid organizations. I always feel that 90% of the money they receive are spent on "management fees".


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 18, 2011, 02:12:01 AM
Leg work :applause: Too many people choose the feel good way of "helping" people and just throw some money around. What they don't understand is that the money is the root cause that creates inequality which creates the desperate scarcity of money where you can't profit by trade or some other way. This is my whole point. Einstein said something like "we can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." and it applies to this too. So throwing more money into a problem created by money is just pointless. It also created more dependency towards monetary aid.

The interesting is that when all this will change, it will be because we have this vast network connecting everybody in the world. Who can't receive knowledge via net, they will receive it via word of mouth.
"Money" is a "idea" or a "tool" like a shovel, a hammer, a gun etc.

Europe entered a "feudalistic" age after the so called fall of the roman empire.
Basically it was designed by the Catholic Church to keep the system "static".
If you stop all "ingenuity" and "invention" then there is not chance of a power shift.
Instead of "Religion" large companies like Google,M$,Apple attempt the same thing with "Patent Laws".
Which is ironic because they achieved their dominance by a "power shift" due to technology.

So if you say "The system is not working", it depends on which side of the coin you are looking at
"The 'elites' might say the system is working perfectly fine" ;)

So in the case of the Catholic Church, outlaw weapons like crossbows etc.
Anything that can put the power into the hands of the unwashed masses.
Shooting a man with a crossbow is "wrong","barbaric".
On the other hand, Chasing down a man on the back of a large warhorse, which is being ridden by a nobleman.
And hacking the guy you are chasing with a sword or war ax is very brave.

The battle of Agincourt probably was the most important battle for Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
The actual "details" are lost but they are not important.
Basically 6000+ British longbow men wiped out 36000 French knights.
Basically the British King was desperate, it was at the end of 100 years war.
He was losing, the French had more knights, more arms, more everything ;)
But the British peasant had a unique past time the longbow, and with a 100-200lb pull it could kill a Knight in full armor.
It also had a range of 200-400 meters (depending on the man) and could fire 4-5 shots a minute. (Actual details are unknown).
Probably it was equivalent to a WW1 rifle, considering that a bow man carried 100+ arrows on him.
A modern infantry man carries 200-300 rounds on him.

A knight was a "nobleman" after this battle, the peasant found out that he could kill a knight.
The psychological edge for the knight was lost.
After that the peasant was not tied to the land, he could sell his services to other kings.
The bard's tales of the great battle where soon sung across Europe.

In my personal opinion it is probably no coincidence that the Bohemian (Czech People) rebelled against the "Catholic Church" at this time.
After their lead Jan Huss had been killed by the Catholics.
Under Jan Žižka they used crossbows and Wagenburg tactics against the Catholic Crusades against his followers.
The Peasant Kingdoms eventually where defeated, but they never number more then maybe 100-200K people.
That they could hold out for 20+ years against a more powerful enemy is testimony to them.

And all hell broke loose in Europe from that ;)
Again the accounts of Jan Zizka have been lost. All we have is the broad details.
Ironically very few priests despite being well educated have heard of Jan Huss and Jan Zizka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars

IMHO in USA/Britain etc. they are attempting a modern version of "feudalism".
Basically by making people dependent on the state etc.
By trying to censor all free opinion. In Britain for posting on FB, guys are getting 4 year prison sentences.
According to PM Cameron these "hooligans" threaten British Civilization ;)

I am a pragmatist.
The Buddists see life as a wheel.
Ironically Asia is becoming less feudal, USA,Britain etc are becoming more feudal.
I find it very comical in a perverse way ;)

True. I don't really trust these big aid organizations. I always feel that 90% of the money they receive are spent on "management fees".
You just "feel" that ;)
I know that to be so. I have first hand information on this ;)
ADB (Asian Development Bank) loans are a classic example.
Theoretically all the organizations that admininster them have to be "non profit".
Before a project is allowed to go through it has to follow ADB guidelines.
Then it has to be "studied" for 1-2 years. Basically "experts" that write tons of rubbish.
Then the project might be "implemented" but it has to follow ADB guidelines, which again 99% of them are BS.
So that way the project is guaranteed to fail, the 3rd world country gets saddled with a huge debt.
Sometimes the project has to use material bought from 1st world countries etc.

It works pretty well, to the 3rd world country wakes up and figures out they are getting screwed over.
Usually then 1st world countries then claim this 3rd world country has WMD and bomb the shit out of them.
But again that is not working too hot anymore ;)

So when you say the "organization" is not working.
Wrong it is working very well ;)


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 18, 2011, 02:53:06 AM
IMHO in USA/Britain etc. they are attempting a modern version of "feudalism".
Basically by making people dependent on the state etc.
By trying to censor all free opinion. In Britain for posting on FB, guys are getting 4 year prison sentences.
According to PM Cameron these "hooligans" threaten British Civilization ;)
I think you are right. However like I said earlier it's very interesting because now state is not actually trying to only deceive their citizens but at the same time they have to in some miraculous way convince rest of the world that they are right. Also because cameras are running constantly they can't use military in the extent they could before.

Quote
So when you say the "organization" is not working.
Wrong it is working very well ;)
It works as well as building a campfire on ice :) But stakes are now higher than ever because it is not just some state and their wellbeing but basically survival of human species. I'm pretty sure the money can't protect the elite very long if the planet is not habitable anymore. And I'm not talking about emissions and such but the whole notion of exhausting earth's resources just because todays human economy demands growth to stay alive. I always find it funny when some economic guy explains in TV how the system just needs some fixing. How dumb must you be not to realize that system that demands constant growth can't survive in environment that has finite growth possibilities.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 18, 2011, 02:46:25 PM
It works as well as building a campfire on ice :) But stakes are now higher than ever because it is not just some state and their wellbeing but basically survival of human species. I'm pretty sure the money can't protect the elite very long if the planet is not habitable anymore. And I'm not talking about emissions and such but the whole notion of exhausting earth's resources just because todays human economy demands growth to stay alive. I always find it funny when some economic guy explains in TV how the system just needs some fixing. How dumb must you be not to realize that system that demands constant growth can't survive in environment that has finite growth possibilities.
Except for Oil, the earth's supply of resources is not being exhausted.
Recycling is occurring more then even before, because it makes economic sense.

The economic guy on TV has to dumb things down.
The "constant grow" misunderstanding.
Yes this would hold true, except for this thing called "technology"
The biggest contribution to "growth" in the last 100 years was the decreasing number of people required to "farm".
Also as technology increases, you can recover resources that would not be viable 100 years ago.
Old Tailings from mines are worth their wieght in Gold literally.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 18, 2011, 08:35:15 PM
Except for Oil, the earth's supply of resources is not being exhausted.
Recycling is occurring more then even before, because it makes economic sense.
Yes, I do hope that recycling is enough to reverse the cycle. One of the problems is that in the current economic model people are programmed to own products. Good example that Van Jones used was drill. Many people own a drill but when you start counting how many minutes you'll use it in your lifetime, it soon starts to seem ridiculously wasteful to own one. Of course some people like my wife's father use his drill more than his fair share but I'm talking averages here. I actually had experience with local hardware store in Tampere that I just lately connected to this thought about pointless owning. I was then about 20 and of course didn't have enough spare money to buy a decent drill. So I went to local hardware store and asked for cheapest drill they have that would drill a hole to my apartment's wall. Instead trying to sell me something the guy offered me Panasonic drill that cost 1000 euros for free for 6 hours and asked me to leave my drivers license. Simple thing but truly amazing. If I would still live in Tampere I would gladly do all my hardware business on that store so works as great marketing strategy as well.

So many cases owning products isn't needed anymore but our current economy model requires it. Also with recycling improving all the time we could simply borrow products and when we don't need them anymore, return them for recycling or reuse.

Quote
The economic guy on TV has to dumb things down.
The "constant grow" misunderstanding.
Yes this would hold true, except for this thing called "technology"
The biggest contribution to "growth" in the last 100 years was the decreasing number of people required to "farm".
Also as technology increases, you can recover resources that would not be viable 100 years ago.
Old Tailings from mines are worth their wieght in Gold literally.
There was this great TED talk that illustrated how technology won't be saving us for long. The problem isn't technology itself but the cycle how economy works right now. If you look at history, we have been in a bad situations often but because humans are resourceful, we have been able to invent something to get us out of the problem - technology like you said. However the problem is that once we are able to keep the cycle going, new stopping point comes earlier and earlier every time. It's like building your house on a swamp and then keep building more to get the same living space while the weight of the building constantly increases the speed of sinking. The pace we need to invent new technology to bail out our economy is relentless and constantly getting faster. It's like one of those wheels for rats but every time it goes fully around, they speed it up 150%. So that's the problem with relying technology to bail us out. Sad truth is that if you constantly increase the speed of the wheel for the rat, at some point the rat is going to get an heart-attack.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 19, 2011, 03:46:23 PM
Some people like to preach "doom and gloom".
For populations, take a look at Malaysia,Singapore,South Korea, HK.
In the last 30 years they have gone from 3rd world nations to 1st world nations.
Singapore has a higher standard of living then USA and most western countries.
In all of the above countries, population is starting to decline.

Even in China a similar trend is happening.
Ironic as it may seem, biggest problem China has is a shortage of skilled labor.
They are now importing workers from Indonesia and Philippines.

Basically it all boils down to energy.
If USA/Western Nations where not subsidizing big oil, Alternate energy would be a viable option.
The subsidies are not "direct", but the Iraq,Libya,Afgan BS is a subsidy to the tune of $4.2 trillion.

China is right now the largest user of renewable energy at 8+% and growing.
Yes they are still polluting heavily, mainly because of old coal generation systems which they are phasing out.
Again people are looking for a "magic bullet", 1 energy system that can replace oil.
China's approach is more "sensible", a multi-prong attack

Thin film solar cells, which ironically where invented by NASA in the 1980s but where never made a comerical product, because of lack of gov't funding.
Are now being manufactured by China. Theoretically solar cells could be the price of a roll of plastic wrap.
The price over the last 8+ years has dropped dramatically.
I seriously am looking at putting them on the roof of my house, according to my calculations at present price, I could pay for them in 2-3 years.
But problem with solar, how do you tax it. Western gov't make a lot off oil taxes.

Also solar is not a 100% replacement, but if it does not cost anything, but cuts my electric consumption by 50%, it helps.
Again my motivation is not "environment" but "economics".

Even logging /  deforestastion is not needed.
Bamboo is far cheaper, it grows faster, and since it is "grass" when you cut it, it does not harm the plant.
Fiber in Bamboo is 3x the strength of steel. A 20+ meter length of bamboo grows in 3-4 years. And the plant has 100s of them.
China has figured out a way to make it into plywood.
But again Western nations are not into using bamboo, what would they do with all their old infrastructure ?

Hemp is another classic example. Big reason hemp was banned in USA and the drug scare put in place.
Was to benefit certain industries. It literally grows faster then grass, and can be made into clothes,paper etc.

I can not find the link.
It was like 10+ years ago, I was still in Canada.
Basically the idea was since things in space are wieghtless, make an inflatable advertising reflector that would be able to be seen by earth.
I think with less then a 500kg payload, they would be able to make a surface area of 10km. It was projected to last for 6 months.
Basically the idea was like one of those inflatable play houses.
I think total cost was like $2 million. A company was going to do it, they had the money, it was not allowed.
Another idea would be a solar reflector like Sci Fi books.
No darkness in orbit, beam the energy down to earth.
But then again USA/Europe has trillions to bomb some butt fuck nation, but ironically they are dismantaling their space program.
No worries, again China is expanding their space program, and they are looking into these things.
Ironically China is becoming more American, and America is becoming more communist Chinese.

The whole western system is broken.
There needs to be less laws, but more responsibility.
The kid who got killed by the pitbull in Oz shows the stupidity of modern western thinking.
I was reading the comments.
Ban all pitbulls, enforce more laws (which will waste tax payer money).
No one said, maybe if you cause a death or injury, hold the guy responsible.

Honestly I am waiting for someone to make a slingbow from rolledup newspaper, elastic bands with ball bearings or marbles as a projectile.
With a 200-300lb pull it would be just as deadly as a gun, and it would be silent also.
Then he will go "postal" with his paper slingbow.
Then the stupid unwashed masses in western nations, hyped on by the media, will call for more regulations on newspaper, elastic bands and ballbearings.
I can see it.
If you want to buy more then 10 elastic bands, must have a permit.
No purchasing of ballbearings without a license, when not in use, ballbearing must be kept locked up.
Same story with newspaper.

Then the justification will be, "If only one life will be saved ......"


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: kurdt on August 19, 2011, 09:15:14 PM
Some people like to preach "doom and gloom".
I agree and the most efficient users of this strategy are governments and financial elite. But keep in mind that when backed with actual scientific evidence, it becomes more of a prediction than preaching "doom and gloom". Also it's important to make a distinction between someones opinion based on data and actual hard facts in the data. If you don't want to blindly believe everything you are told and "backed up" with "evidence", it's bloody hard and time consuming work to review all that "evidence" by yourself.

Quote
Basically it all boils down to energy.
If USA/Western Nations where not subsidizing big oil, Alternate energy would be a viable option.
The subsidies are not "direct", but the Iraq,Libya,Afgan BS is a subsidy to the tune of $4.2 trillion.

China is right now the largest user of renewable energy at 8+% and growing.
Yes they are still polluting heavily, mainly because of old coal generation systems which they are phasing out.
Again people are looking for a "magic bullet", 1 energy system that can replace oil.
China's approach is more "sensible", a multi-prong attack
True. I have seen some clever visualizations about our current and projected energy usage with ratios how much energy comes from which source. When you see the amount of energy that comes from oil and then see the tiny amount that comes from alternate sources you'll soon start to realize that it's just impossible to find one alternate source that you can use to replace oil. Personally I do like nuclear power but I do think we need to come up more rigorous and clever ways to make it more safe when something goes wrong. Oil and coal plants actually already kill more people than nuclear so in day-to-day life nuclear is already safer.

Quote
Thin film solar cells, which ironically where invented by NASA in the 1980s but where never made a comerical product, because of lack of gov't funding.
Are now being manufactured by China. Theoretically solar cells could be the price of a roll of plastic wrap.
Didn't know that but I'm not surprised that gov torpedoed it, probably didn't fit in somebodys financial plan :/

Quote
But problem with solar, how do you tax it. Western gov't make a lot off oil taxes.
Same goes to ozone treatments. It's a bit hard to patent or tax air so big pharma does everything in their power to discredit all news and research about ozone treatments. Luckily there's constantly growing number of people who see thru the bullshit, read the research & history and make their own decisions based on facts.

Quote
Also solar is not a 100% replacement, but if it does not cost anything, but cuts my electric consumption by 50%, it helps.
Again my motivation is not "environment" but "economics".
Actually that's a bigger problem than you probably realize. The fact that people measure value of something in currency which itself doesn't have anything concrete behind it is inherently wrong approach. It is very complicated issue but in a nutshell one thing that needs to happen before any change can occur is people's perception of value of something. Now value is always based on currency and if you have secondary values like environment or ethics, they are secondary considerations. It also introduces a paradox because how do you change the base of valuation without changing the thing value is calculated in? Only solution I can think of is to reboot the system with new rules.

Quote
Even logging /  deforestastion is not needed.
Bamboo is far cheaper, it grows faster, and since it is "grass" when you cut it, it does not harm the plant.
Fiber in Bamboo is 3x the strength of steel. A 20+ meter length of bamboo grows in 3-4 years. And the plant has 100s of them.
China has figured out a way to make it into plywood.
But again Western nations are not into using bamboo, what would they do with all their old infrastructure ?
Just to be clear, are you saying that we should be ok with forrest dying because we can grow bamboo?

Quote
Hemp is another classic example. Big reason hemp was banned in USA and the drug scare put in place.
Was to benefit certain industries. It literally grows faster then grass, and can be made into clothes,paper etc.
Yeah, it was lumber industry and if I remember correctly, it was actually one guy who started it all because he didn't like how hemp affected his income from lumber industry.

Quote
The whole western system is broken.
There needs to be less laws, but more responsibility.
The kid who got killed by the pitbull in Oz shows the stupidity of modern western thinking.
I was reading the comments.
Ban all pitbulls, enforce more laws (which will waste tax payer money).
No one said, maybe if you cause a death or injury, hold the guy responsible.
I agree 100%. This is not as bad in Finland than it seems to be in US where solution to school shootings is to give teachers guns but Finland is getting there. The funny thing is that the one thing people are scared shitless in current society is a person who does not obey some invisible rules society has written into some book when this person couldn't care less about those writings. I have trouble understanding how exactly are more rules going to help the problem with people who don't follow the rules in the first place?

Quote
Honestly I am waiting for someone to make a slingbow from rolledup newspaper, elastic bands with ball bearings or marbles as a projectile.
With a 200-300lb pull it would be just as deadly as a gun, and it would be silent also.
Then he will go "postal" with his paper slingbow.
Then the stupid unwashed masses in western nations, hyped on by the media, will call for more regulations on newspaper, elastic bands and ballbearings.
I can see it.
If you want to buy more then 10 elastic bands, must have a permit.
No purchasing of ballbearings without a license, when not in use, ballbearing must be kept locked up.
Same story with newspaper.

Then the justification will be, "If only one life will be saved ......"
Heh, we actually had funny thing few years back here in Finland when there was this huge media hype about people growing pot at home. As every good government looking to get elected again they made some new laws to help the situation. Now what the new law says is that it's illegal to own products that can be used to grow pot. Law doesn't say it like that but the end result was that basically flower pots are now illegal in the eyes of law because they can be used to grow the evil weed. Of course nobody is stupid enough to enforce the law so far but that creates another problem; if the law is not enforced a.k.a made optional or contradictory (like finnish copyright law) or is downright idiotic, how we are suppose to respect the law at all?


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 19, 2011, 10:04:27 PM
Forests dying because you can grow bamboo ?
There are close to 200+ different types of bamboo.
I am only familiar with like 10+.
Basically you have thin bamboo the size of your thumb, good for fishing rods ;)
Bamboo that is about 6 cm across and thin, good for making walls.
2 types of long thick bamboo, one with thinner walls, one with really thick walls, suitable for beams.

A patch 3 meter by 3 meters (1 plant) will grow 100+ sticks of bamboo every 5 years.
This is like a big truck full of bamboo :)
A lot of deforestation is caused because of logging.

India and China are working on inventing machines that will automate processing the bamboo.
I use a lot of bamboo, basically the big problem is buddy has to chop it with a machette and peel it with a machette.
But it is still far cheaper then "lumber".

IMHO there are solutions out there.

1 guy I know has 20-30 pigs. He also has a restro.
He basically made his own biomass digester.
From the pig's waste matter, he does not need to buy any propane for cooking in his restro.
Plus he solves the waste problem.

If is is economical for a small time operator, I am pretty sure it would be feasible for a city etc.



Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: perkiset on August 19, 2011, 10:25:59 PM
Good lord.

Bompa do you see what you've started?


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: Bompa on August 20, 2011, 04:49:07 AM
Good lord.

Bompa do you see what you've started?


Yes, the Good Lord gave sugar cane to man as a natural healthy food.

 :devil:


Bompa


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: nop_90 on August 20, 2011, 06:10:28 AM
Sugar cane is natural and healthy ;)
Man decided to extract the sugar from it ;)

Probably the same thing can be said about coca leaves.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: jamanvai on December 09, 2011, 05:17:16 AM
No I dont think it is cure. In fact we are approaching the solution slowly. I can remember once at a time when my grand father died by suffering cancer there was no chemotherapy. But nowadays we can easily give this therapy and there are a good success rate of this therapy.  However looking for the ultimate solution.


Title: Re: A Cure For Cancer?
Post by: srace on March 24, 2012, 12:22:03 AM
Sugar cane is natural and healthy ;)
Man decided to extract the sugar from it ;)

Probably the same thing can be said about coca leaves.



Now thats great! Can anyone explain what sugarcane and coca leaves doing in cancer forum. Guys some serious matter is going on and you are feeling to have fun.