illini319

Most absolutely. Prevention, for any disease really, is key. Second to this is early prevention. It cannot be understated how important patient compliance and 'self' surveillance is. This is especially true for those with a family history of cancer. Perhaps another way is to take a more proactive approach. I've read that there is a growing idea, called chemoprevention, which touts that you can proactively supplement yourself to prevent and perhaps reverse tumors. Look into this if you all are interested; I know I will.

The idea of free speech takes on many forms depending on the country. It is certainly not surprising that such things happen. No matter how sensitive a country is to its own history (bad or not) should not warrant its current administration from enforcing (or enacting) laws designed to squash any type of speech re-examining history (no matter how inaccurate it may actually be). Such police-state tactics, and the inability of a country's citizens to repeal such laws, is how things went awry in the first place... However, free speech (which shouldn't be 'absolutely' free) is easily abused by those who would seek to eliminate it...

While I am absolutely skeptical of the validity of this claim... The brain is actually the least likely organ to experience rejection. This is because there is a blood brain barrier and, as such, the brain is not under similar immune surveillance as other major organs are. However... If one can manage to transplant the brain, per se... What about the severed spinal chord???? Last I heard, such a large scale reparation of major nerve bundles (such as the spinal cord) is still a remote possibility.

In a somewhat similar concept, there is something called remote surgery now... where a doctor, miles away, dons on special gloves and instrumentation and literally performs surgery on a patient remotely. The surgery is done by robotics, but the remote doctor is the one controlling all the mechanics. It's really neat; and is useful for when a doctor is unable to get to a surgical stage in a timely manner (lots of reasons for this).

Surgical glue, in many forms, are being developed tested and used at present. Some of them are a concoction of resynthesized biopolymers; some are seaweed/algal based. Some of them have drugs imbedded in their matrix, i.e. antibiotics. The greatest risks in surgery come from its inherent invasiveness; that is that you actually have to cut to fix. Improving this technology will certainly be useful and life-saving.

Interesting ideas. I'd like to know how one can measure black holes and their properties given all these physical constraints. It would seem like the ultimate Heisenberg example. I'm guessing that you do not measure the black hole, per se, but rather the consequences of its existence? If that's true, is this only a limitation of our current metrics, or is it a mathematical improbability to be able to get reliable information from such a celestial body? I guess what I'm asking is, what is the point of studying these things if: 1. we won't be able to get reliable measurements (therefore how can we ever use this information pragmatically?) 2. even if we got a handle on black holes, how will this help us in space travel, new technologies etc.? I don't mean to sound negative. I really want to understand this line of research, being so far away from this field.

I think a system like this would be cool for the first few months of owning the car. But really, are we really incompetent/lazy/impatient motorists that we require such a technology? If we are so hellbent on not driving a car, when we are actually in a car, then I believe there are more low-tech solutions: cab, bus, subway (mass transit... etc etc.)

Let's not get carried away... a cure for "cancer", while something we all want, is still off in the future. A new and promising treatment for a subset of cancers? well that's a more accurate phrase for what you seem to have read. Certainly, the use of viruses as a vector for introducing some theraphy into specific cells, i.e. cancerous cells, have been in research for quite some time. In fact, there have been clinical studies examining this very therapy. All are still in research... and some have caused deaths... In any case, I just want to be clear that there is NO such thing as a cure for 'cancer,' as every cancer is quite literally a different disease state. The pathologies of any single cancer type (say... lung cancer) is so heterogeneous that it still isn't clear what initiated carcinogenesis (at a genetic level). So the idea of a cure for cancer, suggesting that cancer is a singular disease, is a naive one.

I got 28msec. I guess that's fast, but it's not clear to me what this means in the real world? I've read their little blurb, but really... does this mean I can understand people talking better than someone with a higher (slower) score? I dont think so... I often have to ask people to repeat what they say because I couldn't fully understand what they said. This is not a language issue, nor a deafness issue. So... what does this test really measure then?

I agree with you all concerning Iran. In fact, I wouldn't even put an 'if' on the statement that Iran is planning to have their own nuclear weaponry. Would they be mad enough to actually use it? Having said that... I believe there is only one country that was 'mad' enough to let one loose on a populated area... Certainly, Iran knows that the moment they detonate a nuclear bomb over one of their enemies, their country will cease to exist. Therefore, no matter how mad the Iranian president is, I don't really think that he would be foolish enough to push the proverbial button.

Well if it isn't obvious already, Microsoft should be shaking in their boots. It seems that almost every computing niche is targeted, or is in the process of being targeted, by Google. I guess time will tell how pervasive Google will become; and when the Feds might jump in...Online-WP certainly has its advantages... but what about security?

In the immediate future (defined as 5-10 years) will likely be a continuing trend towards portability. That is more and more wireless, and smaller and smaller integrated peripherals. While the execution of Microsoft's new 'iPod' wasn't that stellar, I think that they were tapping into this growing trend. Given the current state of microprocessor technologies, it's really hard to tell where things will be in the farther future. Dual core processing, while neat and damn fast (relative to their single core cousins) is not a quantum leap in technology... it's just two processors. So... are chip manufacturers going to do the same thing as razor companies? just keeping adding more chips (blades) and calling it cutting edge? We must be fast approaching a diminishing return on the extent of our current technologies. I'm hoping something like non-binary computing takes off (DNA, quantum... etc.). Or perhaps we are not done with miniaturization just yet. Perhaps all technologies will get a big boost from the nano field. In either case, I'm just giddy with excitement to realize that something big must be just over the horizon...

Suing for patent infringement won't necessarily right this supposed wrong. Even if Netflix wins, the simple fact is that Blockbuster online is not going to go away and is intending to leverage their assets towards being the dominant player in online rentals. I'm a Netflix subscriber, and have been so since their first year of business. I fully intend to show my support to the "mom and pop" store by continuing my patronage despite Blockbuster's incessant (and admittedly financially better) offers. I would suggest that Netflix re-distinguish themselves from Blockbuster. And not, try to go after them blow by blow.

Yeah that's an interesting point. If we integrate electronics into our heads (or any part really), how does that impact our vulnerability to computer viruses? Does that mean that we would have to get weekly (if not daily) computer viral updates to make sure that we are 'immune' to electronic attacks? Our biological immune sytem is already taxed with everything else (avian flu, HIV, common cold etc.). How would electronic integration enhance our lives with this kind of threat looming over our heads (quite literally)?

Bah! I'm just looking forward for the industry to get their act together and just pick a standard. I personally would rather have HD-DVD since it is inherently backward compatible with existing technologies. But, speaking from a corporate view, I can definitely see why Sony and others would rather push a 'more' secure format. Of course one can always say that security is relative (with respect to time). As far as I'm concerned, I won't jump on the bandwagons this round. I'll choose 2nd or 3rd generation machines; when the industry has straightened out... and DUH when there are good movies that are filmed in HD format. I'm actually more looking forward to the time when the FCC acts like a real governing body and forces all the networks and such to bite the bullet and start broadcasting 100% HD. I love the fact that every one I know has an HD set, and only 20% of them actually get a few channels (all 10 or so of them), and YET all of them brag to me about how great the picture looks haha. BTW, I do have an HD TV... hehe.

Well let me look at it this way: Would those opposed to mercy killing be similarly opposed to suicide? In this scenario, no one is helping in the killing. Although would you consider a doctor handing a terminal patient the lethal syringe an assisted suicide or euthanasia? Life is certainly a very precious thing. We all have one; we are all unique. We like to consider that we have been given free reign in this world: those who believe in God would say that Man was given free will. Those who do not believe in a God will say that because there is no pre-ordained past/present/future then we live and die by our choices. So why is it, then, that people (religious or not) consider euthanasia an apalling thing? If we all believe that our most precious gift is uniquely our own, then why would killing oneself (by assistance or otherwise) ever be relevant to another person (family or not). There is the consideration of being psychologically capable of making a lucid decision regarding this matter; but notwithstanding this.. If a perfectly lucid patient who is terminally ill and in interminable pain wanted to be relieved of their duress... then why not?

Data storage, for me, isn't the primary reason I'd buy a laptop. If I really wanted something that could store tons of information, I'd buy a desktop with some heavy duty hard drives. I'm wondering if this new HD of Fujitsu's will burn my lap... I'm wondering if this new HD will prevent me from hearing anything other than the computer either because of the hard drive itself or all the cooling the notebook has to do. When will laptops be um... lap tops again? I hate to say it... but Macs (at least for this feature) have it over PCs...

the capacity of the human brain is not mentioned in the gigabytes (heck terabytes is even an understatement). Microchips being implanted in ones brain, while sounding futuristic, is actually being done today. A few Parkinson's patients or severe epilepsy have been reported to be implanted with devices like these. For now, they are just pacemakers; they regulate the electrical impulses in the brain to prevent unwanted/unnecessary neuronal activity. Of course the future applications are endless: for the paralyzed, for the deaf, for the blind, for the memory impaired

Well I think that DNA computing is still very much in its infancy. At a superficial level, it definitely sounds fundamentally better than a standard binary system. Quantum computing also sounds interesting... though I'm not sure if it is quite as ahead (research wise) as DNA computers. The limitations with DNA computing will be how to make it more 'solid state.' As it is, they are doing wet computations. When they figure out how to get this going... then DNA computer will become less novelty and more reality

I'm just glad that most of you here recognize that any personal player has the ability to make you deaf; and that it is your personal responsibility to make sure that this doesn't happen (or at least acknowledge that it is your actions that will ultimately cause you harm). As I'm sure you know, there is a lawsuit going around alledging (deliberate) negligence by the Apple company for making a product that can and will cause deafness. I own an iPOD. I'm not particularly fond of large corporations... but surely we cannot blame a company for our own personal recklesness. Kudos to you all.

A common chemotherapeutic drug being used in many forms of cancer including testicular cancer (yes... Lance Armstrong took this drug), is called Paclitaxel. Its active ingredient is known, to the scientific community as Taxol.It was originally found in 1967 from extracts in the bark and needles of the Pacific Yew tree. Western medicine would do well to remember that some of its greatest discoveries have been found in nature first. Herbalists should do well to realize that western medicine doesn't mind using plants in therapy... provided that there is an actual ingredient(s) that is worth purifying.

The initial reports were not a fake... at least that they are published in peer reviewed journals. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the results were NOT faked... but that is a different discussion for a different topic. Anyway, it's great that they have found what could potentially be a good therapy for HIV. Let's hope that whatever pharma gets their hand on it, doesn't charge too much money. I highly doubt that though. I should also say, not to sound callous, that HIV has quickly become a chronic disease (at least in developed countries). HIV and Cardiovascular diseases are, for the most part, preventable diseases. Yes, I acknowledge the unfortunate cases of blood transfusions and such. But, one could argue that through more rigorous screening procedures those things have been minimized and are fundamentally preventable. So, in essence it is good that HIV may find a match (at least until a mutation renders it resistant...), but I'm still hoping for more effective therapies against cancer. Most cancers are not preventable...

Two points here: First, nothing against Cortes but I think there was a second (and perhaps more important) factor that eliminated the Aztecs. Disease. That is, the disease that the conquistadors brought with them. Second, is it really called brainwashing if you are raised in a society that condones things that other societies (in other times) find repulsing? I believe it is this kidn of intolerance that has brought war upon our world for counless years...

I actually own an iPOD... and yes it was expensive; and yes it's a YAMP. In fact, when i was looking for mp3 players, back in the day, I was more into the Archos jukebox lines. they had color LCD's, could play video, you could share pictures (the screen was larger) and play music. This was 3 years ago. Only now does the iPOD even approach some of the features this thing had. BUT, I actually tried the Archos jukebox out (a friend of mine had one). And honestly, it was too complex. It was too complicated for something I intend to put in my pocket and carry around with and do all the things i'd like to do with it. That's where the iPOD comes in. Its simplistic design was and still is just fine for me. I've never had a battery problem, fortunately. Although I know that the battery life of many iPODs die prematurely.. mine has yet to fail me. I have three chargers for the iPOD. One at home, one in the car and one at work. I never have an excuse to worry about it losing power. Of course it's always a value judgement. Clearly the iPOD has become a status symbol; which tends to polarize people. I should now note that I HATE macs. Never like them, never will. They are like computers for dummies. Too simple, to be adaptable. Ah but that's where a company like Mac, that sucks at making computers, excels. I like simple for my YAMP.

well I think that to predict how humans will evolve is trickier than we may think. Why? because the entire biomedical field is hell-bent on making sure that the sick among us live longer. Not to sound uncompassionate, but before the advent of many medical advances, much of the genetically inferior traits were taken care of by themselves. But now, we can basically give any person the chance to live and the chance to procreate. Hence genes that can be undesirable remain in the gene pool. So... with that in mind... how will we evolve? I really don't know! I am NOT saying that we should let those who we consider 'genetically' weak die off! I am saying that perhaps our next step in evolution will be through a mechanism that isn't the conventional way of eliminating the 'unfit.' That through technological advances, we can tweak our bodies to become more fit, to become more adaptable and so on. Perhaps our fastest trait that is evolving is our scientific knowledge...