Jump to content

buoy

Moderator
  • Content count

    2,806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by buoy

  1. Oops - won a boat.

    Drill holes through the boat? Won't that .......................................... yeah ok cool idea!
  2. Australia has 40% of the world's U. Aus + Canada are the U-Kings. http://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200512/uranium.jsp
  3. This company looks like it's going into the stratosphere as the biggest company........ in the world it actually became the largest company (by market cap) but exxon mobil stock rallied to pip them by around 2bn (something like $416bn vs $418bn). But, you see, Apple has just launched the iPhone 4S in China and have said the "staggering" demand for the iPhone 4S was causing issues. Read that again: China. Staggering demand. I mean, it's not a sure bet, but my uneducated opinion on the situation leads me to believe if you can get your hands on some AAPL stock at the moment, you may be riding a swift bullish stock for some Q1 gains and, who knows, pip Exxon mobil for the #1 ranked company world-wide. I must say I keep on underestimating apple and I keep having to eat humble pie.
  4. I'm not sure if that's the link Bennybear!
  5. Battlefield 3

    good scussion on aiming dynamics in BF3: Might be good for me to tweak how I handle the LMG as a support player. http://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield3/comments/nogt6/understanding_weapon_accuracy_after_sprinting/
  6. We've all seen the video from 2009 about the year 2019 (ok ok ok, if you haven't, here it is - but don't tell anyone. shhhh). Well, the good boffins of MS have decided to out another vision of the future. What I'm trying to figure out.................. is how they plan to do the 3d holograms. O_o
  7. There has been a very recent (last few years) change in the perception of ageing that has recently been shot to the forefront of the general public in a TED talk by Cynthia Kenyon from the University of California - a Biochem professor doing research on age-related genes. There was, up until very recently, no real "definitive" life-extension technology known to man-kind. Sure, take care of yourself, eat well, don't smoke, don't drink too much alchy, exercise regularly balh blah blah-di-blah blah............ but that still didn't rock the house with longevity figures. Now we have research that shows this statement to hold true: Ageing is controled by hormones. Read it? Unless you're "in" that field that may not have struck you as mind-blowing, but trust me - it apparently is (cos it's not my field either lol). Life extension: I'm not talking about the vague assumption that you'll peak in your 30s and 40s, before starting a slow decline into your 50s, picking up speed in your 60s and if you make it to your 70s and 80s have to deal with an array of age-relaed ailments that will make the last years long and hard. I'm talking about "life-extension" - the type you take a pill each day for the rest of your life, f**ks with your internal bodily functions and, voila, you're pushing 60 and don't look a day over 30. Yep. It's like that. Not here right now, but close... and so if such a thing were to become available, what will that mean for your plans of the future? What if, through some clever gene therapy, our biology could be pushed routinely past 100yrs or 120yrs old? and, for the "majority" of that time period, remain in the "youthful" stage of physical ability? Now Cynthia (the professor in the TED video) is obviously a scientist with a reputation - so she's not going to go any further than saying something like she does in the talk - experiments that "hint" at possible life extension.... but it doesn't take a genius to follow the basic principles of this rather simple yet amazing situation: The summary: In biology and in the anatomy of living things, there are ancient "pathways" in the body are shared among species... such as growth hormone and IGF-1 insulin..... we have it, mice, ants, worms... these ancient pathways regulate the simple principles of growth and repair. .... and also, it seems, the "speed" setting of ageing to a great degree. It's the main reason why worms live for 20 days and turtles live for 150 years... different ways these hormones are secreted, managed and distributed throughout the body. Apparently, our biology is internally "capable" of living a lot longer than are programmed to live in nature. If you follow the video it will explain this in more elaborate detail - the other side (summary only) is that considerable life-extension is possible by regulating these genes through oral medication and finding a "balance" and perhaps other pathways also - that allow FOX0 (responsible for cellular repair activity) to do it's work, allow cells to function, enhance garbage collection, repair damage etc. I'm not going to write much more- no point since a wonderful overview is provided in this TED speech. If you're interested in looking in to this some more, check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V48M5j-6zdE It's the nature of my inquisitive mind to wonder this, but quite possibly there are some of you reading this post which will live past 100, perhaps in the decades to come with more research and more life-extension some of you will conceivably even pass 200 yrs old... and by then, which would technically be around the year 2200, biological science maturity could very well be at the stage of "indefinite extension".............................. but it's of course crazy to throw around such numbers now - today - the year 2011 - since we're only right at the cusp. The tip of the iceberg, even before proper real human trials have even begun.... but it's a tantalising proposition. Not cheating death, just taking your merry time getting there
  8. Let's take this post from the fitness section. Where are the purile posts? People are simply questioning the reasoning behind pissing away public and university dollars on something with very little clinical relevance. This research isn't to help people, it's to make the people doing the research, and the companies funding it very very wealthy. I'm sorry but I thought your question was the various forms of the fox0 gene and had further scientific-related questions. This is the first time I'm hearing this issue raised. The first reply under the original post on the first page is a perfect example of a purile post. This is a fair point but you've failed to mention this "point" until this post. Your points were something else prior to this last post. But in response to this, I'm not too surprised - it is the way capitalism works. Ray Kurzweil, for example, owns a dozen companies too, many that manufacture the pills he recommends in his regimen - doesn't detract in any way from my opinion on his theories on the acceleration of technological growth. If anything he's putting his money where his mouth is. I haven't looked up the company you are citing for Cynthia Kenyon but I don't see any problem with her investing in something she's researching. Just to add, sure it's healthy to question people's motives - but this woman has been in the field actively since the 90s and she's had that company since 1999. I've tried to find some negative detractors of her work on the web and they may be there but not with the initial searches I've done... which leads me to believe at least initially that this person isn't exactly ruffling even the most ardent conspiracy theorists feathers. The irony is, perhaps, that nissansilvia will be one of the first websites to actively diss her work as google spiders this page and factors it into search results for people searching for "Cynthia Kenyon" and appear to, at least in one post, label her some sort of money-hungry exploiter of the scientific research community.
  9. I can't help you on that, you may want to try contacting the research laboratory directly with your questions which I'm sure they can answer in great detail - their emails are all available for all post-doctoral fellows: http://kenyonlab.ucsf.edu/html/current.html
  10. The side effects of blocking the daf-2 receptor is the same as if the receptor were slightly defective as in daf-2 mutants... it would enable fox0 into the cell nucleus and allow all the benefits to be expressed by the relevant genes which would be activated by fox0. for side-effects see earlier on in the video which would be explained under the effects of fox0.
  11. New research has given rise to some new concepts and reinforced some old ones: Caloric restriction extends lifespan... which was kind of a "told you so" by many nutritionists and advocates of low-cal diets but here's the science behind it. Fox0 is what you need to activate and there are ways to do it (hint: Caloric restriction) which is the key here. The empty gonad. Not a typo. Very interesting whilst on the same subject even tho it's off the topic of diet. Fast forward to 35:35 to get the topic-relevant materials cheers.
  12. Excellent! I'm glad someone's getting some good stuff from it. I posted the condensed version in off-topic... and even though it's on it's 2nd page, the posts are, for the most part, utterly purile. Half the stuff they spew out gives me no indication they even watched the video. I've had to restrain myself letting loose a volley of profanity in there - I've kept it civil. You can tell some are 16 year old kids with nothing better to do than sound off on a forum and try and wax lyrical about their worldly knowledge but i digress, I was once 16 and I did the peacock dance online so I can't say I blame them. It's just frustrating that they step on good stuff and don't even take the time to understand it even on a basic level (I mean a "basic" level is all I'm capable of anyway, it's biosience after all).
  13. Re-watch 12:15 - 12:30 in that video. She mentioned the side effects and she cautions people to not go and take rapamycin.
  14. Re-watch from 6:35 - 7:00 in the video. Actually it's the reverse. The world needs, if anything, a lower death rate. A lot of resources are required for procreation and making an organism grow - then there's all the energy expended passing on knowledge, education, etc. If this entire process were spread out it would actually mean less overall resource expenditure. It's already happened in our lifetime there is already rapamycin http://news-in-revie...lements/131926/ which is already out in the general public. It's an immunosuppressant drug and anti-ageing is actually a "side-effect". For reference in the video, go to 11:45.
  15. ^ no economic incentive yet. guppies are a water creature that multiplies voraciously and has very short life-spans... and they usually are prey to many predators. when biologists took the predators out of their environment, you'd expect the guppies to just continue to multiply and overrun the pond. but what they observed was that the guppies simply put off procreation and their lifespans increased, simply because there were less predators and, perhaps, less reason to be so voracious in reproduction - since this favours both the predator and the guppy to survive (kind of bent, but if you look at it from a neutral perspective, it is providing a rich environment for "life" to grow). humans are dealing with over-population in developing nations and the "s"-bend shows that as a population matures with resources, food, healthcare etc, our populations also follow the curve of the guppies in the pond. we reproduce less and live longer. voracious reproduction could (speculative) be natures reaction for a stressful and competitive environment. make the environment less stressful and have less of a need for reproduction and things like over-population literally take care of themselves. Australia, as an example, will be in population decline without an immigration policy bringing people into the country. Once China and India raise the standards of living of their population and their populations taper off at the top-end of the S-curve we'll have higher standards of living, low population growth and longer lifespan potential across the majority of humankind. Perhaps by then Africa will be the only place with a population that is actually still increasing - everywhere else - Europe, China, Inda, Australia, United States, will be either holding their population levels or be declining. This is without even doing any gene manipulation. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/S-shaped_growth_curve.aspx
  16. This is a great segue to a few other related topics: We've come full circle and hit upon why it is so advantageous for there to be a certain lifespan in and of itself in nature. I mean, if fruit flies lived longer than they did, we'd be overrun by them. If turtles didn't live for centuries, they'd never find a mate since it takes them decades to even run in to another one of their species in the wild. Lifespan is a natural equilibrium to allow the best progress of DNA and it seems that lifespan, too, can be heavily influenced by tweaking a few simple factors... much like our muscle size is regulated by a few simple factors and that, as we've seen, can be heavily influenced by tweaking a few simple factors also. But more interestingly, as harris pointed out, are we assuming that humanity is going to remain on this tiny blue speck (earth) in the centuries to come? The universe is a big place... it can take us a long time to reach other stars. It would be advantageous for the human lifespan to be preserved for longer periods of time - many centuries - for such exploration to be even possible. And talking about extended lifespan as being unnatural - how much of our lives are unnatural already? What are you looking at when reading this post? How natural is that? What do you carry in your pocket? How many injections and booster shots to immunize you from various diseases have you had in your life as prescribed by your local GP? What do you have on your feet to protect your skin from the bare earth? I'm sure eyeglasses and braces were seen by some as being unnatural - just let the eye deform and be happy with your reduced vision - it's natural, right? Or let your teeth just grow the way they want to grow naturally, right? Or do we say, we have the technology, and since we are a natural byproduct of evolution, which in and of itself is a natural process, then perhaps everything that we do is, by implication, natural - *including* braces and eyeglasses... and including life extension pills. If an alien race were to observe the earth, would they draw a line around our species and say - well - *that* isn't actually natural to that planet. When we look at the national geographic channel and see these amazing species doing mind-blowing things, do we perceive that as "unnatural"? They have this crazy skin under their arms or they've developed a symbiotic relationship with some other species and do this bizarre thing - like silkworms and ants (ants take the silkworm out for walks and basically farm them - amazing docco) ... perhaps it's an ego-centric phenomenon. perhaps if the ants and the silkworm could think and ponder as deeply as we can they may have thought the same thing: We are different - we are unnatural because nothing else in nature does what we do. Is that really so? We evolved into the species we are today naturally. Everything human beings do from the way we live to the spaceships and cars and computer chips we build is the result of natural evolution and interaction. So when did it become unnatural? It isn't a valid proposition when you step outside and obey the parameters you define for other species. We are, by our own definition, natural and everything we do is natural. There simply isn't a way for us to do anything unnatural because by doing it, it makes it part of the natural process. Therefore one could take the position that life extension technology and taking pills and living hundreds of years more than previous is, in and of itself, a natural process for our species. Just like shoes braces and eyeglasses... and pacemakers. And rugby league. If other species could ponder the self as deeply as we can, most likely: - Spiders will think they are unnatural since many of the female species of spiders will eat the male after sex. - Otters will think that the building of their dams is unique to them and "unnatural" since other species don't do that. - Penguins will look at the world, and us, as natural - but they are unique, since they all congregate in the antarctic to mate and since noone else does it, makes it unnatural. - Whales sing to each other in the ocean... which they may believe to be unnatural too. So...... humans.......... we're unnatural cos we build amazing things like cars and planes and iphones and scrabble and meat pies.
  17. Sweet. Just thought I'd throw these tidbits in just in response to a few trends in the replies: 1. Contrary to this popular belief, populations won't explode if the lifespans of people rise. If people start living longer, they start putting stuff off longer. Instead of getting married at 16, they get married at 32 (like we do today) and with a life extension program that is wide-spread in the population, marriage may be something you don't even think of until you are 50 etc, etc. So lifespan extension spreads out people's goals. They have more time now so things get spaced out more. Retirement for such a future, again, would probably be way past today's natural lifespan expectancy. 2. The video does specifically speak of extending the "youthful" range of people - so "being younger longer". So it's not like you start to decline at 40 and have a miserable old-age extended period of suffering. This is more like being a 20-30-40-something year-old - being able to go out and enjoy life for the better part of a century. What would this do to things like investment strategies? Housing prices? Job promotions? You may have people partying like crazy for 40 years before settling down. Other people may dive into research and spend the first few decades of their adult life grabbing 5 or 6 phd's in various related fields before making incredible insights in advanced research. You may have others that work themselves to the ground saving and investing to become late-rich highrollers at 50 or 60 years old - but, since the advent of the life extension practices, still be young enough to now enjoy it for decades upon decades to come.
  18. If you are a late 20s early 30s kinda, erm, person... then you would have had some portion of your childhood garnished well by the 1980s. The "decade" that generally summarises over-the-top makeup, prince, madonna, cyndi lauper, wild tunes on the radio, lots of leather jackets and ho-ho-ho-ho-hopeless special effects that were so bad you had to actually use your imagination to figure out what they were trying to achieve. Yep. The 80s, whilst it was going on, was this time where stuff was just going nuts. It wasn't the 70s. Gone were bell bottom pants, the beatles, all that sort of music. In entered this new type of music, colour became super mainstream, the TV jingle was part and parcel for any large corporation. Wierd hairstyles and wierd fashion were "the rage" (they still are but, hey, there was a distinct 80s look about it). When it all ended and we hit the 90s we all collectively sighed a deep gasp of relief, as if saying to our collective selves "Whoa! Thank goodness that wild turkey ride make-up ridden, hairspray filled experiment in human society ended!" Sure the 90s were great too - I'm sure many agree - but the 80s remained "awful" to me. Ohh yeah. The 80s WERE FORGOTTEN! GOOD RIDDANCE! All throughout the 90s, the 80s were "the past I don't wish to remember". Even the cars sucked. .................................. ok ok ok well they still suck. But I mean c'mon.... forget the cars. Concentrate on the rest. The movies, the music, the fashion, the tv commercials, the lifestyle! My rediscovering of the 80s began quite a few years ago but what really hit it off was Beyonce's song "Love on Top". Everyone was saying "Ohhh it sounds so awesome, so fresh, so different!" :o wait... :o wait ... WAIT. Different? O_o come again? "Yeah. Like the whole sound is fresh and new". I felt like screaming "excuse me miss but HOW OLD ARE YOU?" it's clearly a hark back to the 80s. Look at the music video?! Which was a 90s music video which was, in turn, harking itself back to the 80s. Did you get that? it's an 80s thing........ give or take a few years, I mean from 1993 or prior is really "80s stuff" that just took longer to "get out" into the wild, including movies. So stuff released in the early 90s I still count as 80s. Then recently I just started going down memory lane (with youtube showing full movies of popular 80s movies) I started watching them. Cos, well, I could. For free. Some movies: Predator. Holy mother f**king shit how could I forget this masterpiece? AL|ENS. Crazy good. Marked for Death. Short Circuit Breakfast Club Ferris Bueller's Day Off GHOSTBUSTERS Die Hard Neverending Story Empire Strikes Back Return of the Jedi Indiana Jones - Raiders of the Lost Ark Indiana Jones - The Temple of Doom Romancing the Stone Jewel of the Nile Bladerunner Music? Endless Summer Nights? Who is Johnny? Ghostbusters Theme? Michael Jackson - BAD, Thriller et al. TV Shows? Holy crap... A Team? Miami Vice? Hart to Hart? 21 Jump Street? I mean...... I look at scenes from these films and read the comments underneath. Stuff like "best movie ever" or "they don't make films this good anymore" rah rah rah rah rah... and I did really start, for the first time ever (cos remember, the first time through the 80s - when it actually happened - I wasn't liking it!) to actually appreciate and enjoy the 80s. So for those of you who are reading this - you most likely fall into 1 of 3 camps. CAMP 1: You're too young to understand wtf is going on. Sorry kid... CAMP 2: You're old enough to remember but you've not give the 80s a good look-see. CAMP 3: You're old enough to remember and you know exactly what I'm talking about! Typical 80s action scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkf2kNSUIjU Some 80s music: Anyway, not going to spam the thread with vids. Would like your opinion on what you think of the 80s.
  19. yeah i agree. i didn't bat an eyelid ad this stuff whilst growing up, but now thanks to stuff like youtube i'm thinking OMG how did i miss this, this is gold! EPIC SONG IS EPIC ANOTHER EPIC SONG IS EPIC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtGF2m102Wg EPIC SONG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHKdyjlAJB8 SONG WHICH IS EPIC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQOlwMKpmvQ etc
  20. The North Korean dictator has just bitten the dust peoples. http://news.yahoo.co...-031257363.html so what now? Will his offspring go nutsoid and start some sort of war? Or will nk fold into itself and spark some sort of internal power struggle of sorts? What's your (let's be honest here) uninformed westernised view of the situation?
  21. Some, perhaps... but others, they just get better with age. I mean... I just looked up this again the other day. Man it's better now than it ever was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kw9wpqQmg
  22. Battlefield 3

    I'll go grab one. erm... today maybe lol
  23. In the 80s, my age was in the single digits and my dad would hand me $5 and tell me to go down to the shops and buy him a packet of cigarettes - I still remember the brand: Benson and Hedges Extra Mild. was $4.50 or something. I WAS A CHILD! and nobody saw a problem with it - least of all me. lol. I thought it was fun. Also - perhaps why I found movies and music (back then) so frustrating was everytime I saw a special effect I'd cringe and or do a facepalm... thinking, my gosh, that is a prime example of the limit of human technical ability... i couldn't see past that. But nowadays, since I *know* all those effects are easily achievable with today's toys and PCs, they become simply artefacts and trivialities of a bygone era and I can look at the rest of the movie with less of a snub and go - hey - that actually was pretty good. I'd used to say something like "man, if it wasn't for those crappy special effects i may just have liked that movie". Now when I'm watching an 80s movie and I see a blue glow around a person or something just isn't matching up, I get warm and fuzzy inside. Completely different feeling from before.
×