Pheyniex wrote:
<.<
molecules don't balance their own environment so that they remain as they are.
molecules don't reproduce themselves.
molecules don't simply decay. they are simply met with a more table possibility depending on energy avaiability.
otherwise, sorry to annoy you with such arguments, god allmighty.
i'll grab a brick right there and call it home. it will have a bed, a toilet and a kitchen. nothing too fancy.
by all means, Schrodinger was so wrong proposing the cat paradox. Quanta actually have a will of their own...!
Erm.. Excuse me if I'm wrong here, but why are you rude towards him? Your response has a very snide tone to it.
1. The first time around he and others defined it as the biological way of looking at things. This time around he just stated his own definition. The meaning of something varies with definition, so how can you tell him that he's wrong if he defines something differently?
2. His line of reasoning may be wrong; a part is not the same as a sum of several parts, but what is to say that his definition is wrong?
3. What does quantum mechanics have to do with breaking biology down?
"I love the dirty bomb tag because i get either
a) posts about the game
b) current world affairs" - steel-sentry
a) posts about the game
b) current world affairs" - steel-sentry
1. if you'd like to support any idea that any system, group, structure, cluster, etc., for whatever reason, has life, please i think i shall, hereafter, call myself universe, due to the universe having life, then, i am universe.
2. definitions exist to keep order and diferentiation. saying everything is/has life is therefore useless. we can now say "this is a universing (wtf?) creature/structure".
3. not what i wanted to quote. my bad actually.
extra: playing with definitions you will only learn one or two things: definitions exist so you can analytically comprehend what you observe and that language is flawed and you'll be adding insult to injury by mixing/broathening concepts with no real advantage to understand what surrounds you.
2. definitions exist to keep order and diferentiation. saying everything is/has life is therefore useless. we can now say "this is a universing (wtf?) creature/structure".
3. not what i wanted to quote. my bad actually.
extra: playing with definitions you will only learn one or two things: definitions exist so you can analytically comprehend what you observe and that language is flawed and you'll be adding insult to injury by mixing/broathening concepts with no real advantage to understand what surrounds you.
Pheyniex wrote:
1. if you'd like to support any idea that any system, group, structure, cluster, etc., for whatever reason, has life, please i think i shall, hereafter, call myself universe, due to the universe having life, then, i am universe.
I called that line of reasoning wrong in the very comment you're responding to. Stop being silly.
Searz wrote:
a part is not the same as a sum of several parts
Pheyniex wrote:
2. definitions exist to keep order and diferentiation. saying everything is/has life is therefore useless. we can now say "this is a universing (wtf?) creature/structure".
... universing? Who wrote that? O.o
I will have to agree with you that it's kinda useless to use terms too loosely, but that doesn't automatically make them wrong :P
useless != wrong
"We've had a few gloomy years with bad console ports, and what do we get in the light at the end of the console-tunnel? A tablet OS ported to PC." - Atlas Tasume, on Windows 8
embracing...haha yes indeed I am old and you are young though that is always relative...in this game I am old.
the process for R&D differs from company based on size and market. R&D for our products is different than say R&D for pharmaceutical companies that develop drugs.
The new model for most large companies is to buy up 'starter' companies that are working on a R&D project. Many of these startups will target a certain product...if they are successful at advancing that product and publishing a number of papers on it usually a large corporation will notice the advancement and buy the product up. it could be to remove a competing product or it could be to acquire a product for themselves. this is how the majority of large companies perform 'R&D'. they usually have a small group inside that continues to advance the bought product but they themselves don't usually develop their own products from the bottom up. This came about due to poor management of funding within companies delegated to the R&D departments as they weren't managed properly and essentially money was being thrown down the drain...I think you will see a return to more bottom up development at large companies though as the 'buy a company to get a product' model is also turning bad because they are buying startups too early...the product goes no where...and they lose money that way.
at smaller companies like my own we develop products in a different way. our products aren't as innovative because simply put we can not afford to jump through the hoops of the FDA to afford a 3-4 year clinical trial and all the principal required to do the testing needed to complete the approval. instead we take a product that has been developed and make it better...more efficient...and cheaper than it was originally....kind of like a generic drug.
work in R&D is rewarding and also disappointing...I finished my first product in 8 months..started my second product and 6 months later I have hit a brick wall...so much promise than whomp....stopped cold. you get to have lots of creativity in your work and you have a lot of control over what you do, but you need to be self motivated and have good work ethic to succeed. this is different than the other departments like manufacturing where you follow protocol already written and you have set deadlines on when product needs to be out the door....R&D you make your own protocols and you have deadlines but those are not set by customers they are set by your supervisor based on how much money they think is viable for the potential return. to elaborate manufacturing might need to have 10 liters of product done by May 10th. I will be told I need to prove feasibility for a product in 6 months. teamwork at this company probably isn't valued as much as it should be, but it doesn't mean we don't still work as a team. I would say most of my success has been through teamwork...that is why I believe diversity within a R&D group is essential to provide a number of different viewpoints on the same concept. the team works together by brainstorming ideas and sharing trends seen in the data. since my group works on the same platform of technology we can share ideas that SHOULD be helpful to the other products as our products work very similarly.
hope that answers your question.
the process for R&D differs from company based on size and market. R&D for our products is different than say R&D for pharmaceutical companies that develop drugs.
The new model for most large companies is to buy up 'starter' companies that are working on a R&D project. Many of these startups will target a certain product...if they are successful at advancing that product and publishing a number of papers on it usually a large corporation will notice the advancement and buy the product up. it could be to remove a competing product or it could be to acquire a product for themselves. this is how the majority of large companies perform 'R&D'. they usually have a small group inside that continues to advance the bought product but they themselves don't usually develop their own products from the bottom up. This came about due to poor management of funding within companies delegated to the R&D departments as they weren't managed properly and essentially money was being thrown down the drain...I think you will see a return to more bottom up development at large companies though as the 'buy a company to get a product' model is also turning bad because they are buying startups too early...the product goes no where...and they lose money that way.
at smaller companies like my own we develop products in a different way. our products aren't as innovative because simply put we can not afford to jump through the hoops of the FDA to afford a 3-4 year clinical trial and all the principal required to do the testing needed to complete the approval. instead we take a product that has been developed and make it better...more efficient...and cheaper than it was originally....kind of like a generic drug.
work in R&D is rewarding and also disappointing...I finished my first product in 8 months..started my second product and 6 months later I have hit a brick wall...so much promise than whomp....stopped cold. you get to have lots of creativity in your work and you have a lot of control over what you do, but you need to be self motivated and have good work ethic to succeed. this is different than the other departments like manufacturing where you follow protocol already written and you have set deadlines on when product needs to be out the door....R&D you make your own protocols and you have deadlines but those are not set by customers they are set by your supervisor based on how much money they think is viable for the potential return. to elaborate manufacturing might need to have 10 liters of product done by May 10th. I will be told I need to prove feasibility for a product in 6 months. teamwork at this company probably isn't valued as much as it should be, but it doesn't mean we don't still work as a team. I would say most of my success has been through teamwork...that is why I believe diversity within a R&D group is essential to provide a number of different viewpoints on the same concept. the team works together by brainstorming ideas and sharing trends seen in the data. since my group works on the same platform of technology we can share ideas that SHOULD be helpful to the other products as our products work very similarly.
hope that answers your question.
to address the cancer question for Dill, Satella, and MyRepublic.
Dill the ETA on a cure for cancer is indeed as satella says difficult due to the vast amount of types within the cancer umbrella. also it is important to note that many cancers are actually completely natural. we create cancerous cells since the day we are born...the difference when we get older is that our body is not as good at detecting and removing these cells.
the fact that many cancers are actually completely natural as a part of our life cycle makes it difficult to 'cure' as we are trying to fix something that is built into the system.
i can say that we have gotten better at recognizing cancer in a stage before metastasis (or before it spreads and grows in other tissues) and that recognizing it allows us to remove it before it looks around for another spot to go to work. as far as cure the best cure is removal...treatments have advanced but the core treatments of radiation through an instrument or a radioactive drug and chemotherapy through a chemical concoction are still the most effective tools for treatment. in both cases you kill cancer but you also weaken the entire system so you are on a tightrope because a weakened system is more susceptible to cancer growth so if you miss something...you are in trouble.
the advancements in treatment are usually within the scope of the above mentioned techniques. I can't say how well we are advancing but I know that all the scientific articles I read show little progress in treatment..they do show progress in understanding of how cancer works...if we can understand cancers better we are more likely to develop treatments....they also talk about improvements in recognizing cells like I said above which I have already explained to be beneficial. sorry I can't be more detailed but I don't work directly in cancer research I work in diagnostics which I have already explained why clinical diagnostic through serum is difficult to do.
as far as the debate on 'cure' versus 'treatment' I would say that republic has an edge though both are correct. private industry looks for a product that will sell and provide the most profit. if that is a cure than they will target a cure but if the treatment provides more profit they will target that. most flat out cures will come from private startup companies (with private family backing) and academia, but that is not to say that cures won't come out of corporations either. though republic I don't think a corporation as greedy as they are would try to make a cure that doesn't quite cure you so they can keep you as a patient if they had the cure sitting in the back refrigerator...though I might be wrong...again I don't work in a company looking for cures.
Dill the ETA on a cure for cancer is indeed as satella says difficult due to the vast amount of types within the cancer umbrella. also it is important to note that many cancers are actually completely natural. we create cancerous cells since the day we are born...the difference when we get older is that our body is not as good at detecting and removing these cells.
the fact that many cancers are actually completely natural as a part of our life cycle makes it difficult to 'cure' as we are trying to fix something that is built into the system.
i can say that we have gotten better at recognizing cancer in a stage before metastasis (or before it spreads and grows in other tissues) and that recognizing it allows us to remove it before it looks around for another spot to go to work. as far as cure the best cure is removal...treatments have advanced but the core treatments of radiation through an instrument or a radioactive drug and chemotherapy through a chemical concoction are still the most effective tools for treatment. in both cases you kill cancer but you also weaken the entire system so you are on a tightrope because a weakened system is more susceptible to cancer growth so if you miss something...you are in trouble.
the advancements in treatment are usually within the scope of the above mentioned techniques. I can't say how well we are advancing but I know that all the scientific articles I read show little progress in treatment..they do show progress in understanding of how cancer works...if we can understand cancers better we are more likely to develop treatments....they also talk about improvements in recognizing cells like I said above which I have already explained to be beneficial. sorry I can't be more detailed but I don't work directly in cancer research I work in diagnostics which I have already explained why clinical diagnostic through serum is difficult to do.
as far as the debate on 'cure' versus 'treatment' I would say that republic has an edge though both are correct. private industry looks for a product that will sell and provide the most profit. if that is a cure than they will target a cure but if the treatment provides more profit they will target that. most flat out cures will come from private startup companies (with private family backing) and academia, but that is not to say that cures won't come out of corporations either. though republic I don't think a corporation as greedy as they are would try to make a cure that doesn't quite cure you so they can keep you as a patient if they had the cure sitting in the back refrigerator...though I might be wrong...again I don't work in a company looking for cures.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
Searz wrote:
Erm.. Excuse me if I'm wrong here, but why are you rude towards him? Your response has a very snide tone to it.
1. The first time around he and others defined it as the biological way of looking at things. This time around he just stated his own definition. The meaning of something varies with definition, so how can you tell him that he's wrong if he defines something differently?
2. His line of reasoning may be wrong; a part is not the same as a sum of several parts, but what is to say that his definition is wrong?
3. What does quantum mechanics have to do with breaking biology down?
haha thanks searz
Pheyniex wrote:
1. if you'd like to support any idea that any system, group, structure, cluster, etc., for whatever reason, has life, please i think i shall, hereafter, call myself universe, due to the universe having life, then, i am universe.
2. definitions exist to keep order and diferentiation. saying everything is/has life is therefore useless. we can now say "this is a universing (wtf?) creature/structure".
yeah I get it you don't like my sum of parts reasoning. I never said my definition was accepted...I said GMD and my boy cuddowls provided that.
you should be careful with this line of thinking. indeed definition provides order and differentiation but if we just conclude that all definitions are correct and complete their would be no R&D and no lines of adverse thinking. questioning the dimensions of the box is what leads the discovery. just because something can not be proven through data does not necessarily make it untrue either. the best known philosophers did not have numerical data to support their claims...why than were they able to contribute so much to scientific progress? to be honest my own greatest weakness is thinking outside of the box to information you say is useless because I find it difficult not to accept what has been established...but in R&D it is definitely far from useless.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
this thread is going relatively well thanks for the contributions and questions. hopefully this has been informative. glad no one is getting too heated.
any more questions regarding science as an occupation...whether in R&D, manufacturing, QA, QC, or education would be good if there are any.
any more questions regarding science as an occupation...whether in R&D, manufacturing, QA, QC, or education would be good if there are any.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
You need to log in before commenting.
<Member>
Thank you Miss Maw, CasterMaster and Arcana3 for the sweet sigs. I'd definitely recommend you to anyone looking for a nice sig.
"But we are stronger creatures than babies, why cant we hunt them?"- Meiyjhe