Test time!

Recommended Videos

Avatar Roku

New member
Jul 9, 2008
6,169
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
orannis62 said:
Khell_Sennet said:
orannis62 said:
Ah, that sounds a good deal like a Chris Rock rant I'm fond of. I think he said they haven't cured anything since Polio.
I assure you good sir, that my words are my own, and that I would not in a hundred years watch anything with Chris Rock in it, unless it started with the word "Madagascar" and ended as either " ", "2", or "3".
I wasn't implying that you stole your rant from him, I was just pointing out a similarity. And by the way, you should check out his standup, he's pretty good.
I was not seriously suggesting you were suggesting such a thing, I was making jest. But no, I cannot stand Chris Rock. His humor offends me most of the time, and his voice is equally irritating. Not quite Chris Tucker irritating, but at least Tucker is funny, so long as he's with Jackie Chan.
I'm not so sure about that. Have you seen Rush Hour 3? God...
 

justnotcricket

Echappe, retire, sous sus PANIC!
Apr 24, 2008
1,205
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
Because scientists refuse to work on real problems until all trivialities are first covered. They're lazy. That's why they research shit like "Does water put out fires" or "does pornography cause erections" instead of researching cold fusion or the cure to, well, anything. Have they actually cured anything in the last ten years? Treatments, expensive treatments they get kickbacks for, and cost patients their life savings... But I can't think of any disease that's been cured since, well, since pharmaceutical companies were allowed to sell stock on the exchange.
Have you ever actually tried to cure anything, Mr High-and-Mighty? Do you have *any*, I mean *any* idea how much work goes into getting just one drug onto the market? Just for the record, it's the pharmaceutical companies who get the money, not the scientists. I don't know what kind of 'science' you've been attempting to read, but the science I spend my days around carcinogenic and toxic reagents for is very real. Real science is generally trying to make your life safer and better, so in future, please try to dial back the snark factor until you actually have a clue.

Oh, and apologies to the OP for the rant =)
 

EnzoHonda

New member
Mar 5, 2008
722
0
0
JMeganSnow said:
Diurnal. Criminy, who doesn't know that?
My first impression of the topic too. Although, admittedly, there's a ton of stuff out there that I have no idea about that would be second nature to a lot of people here.
 

Pumpkin_Eater

New member
Mar 17, 2009
992
0
0
Rather than being lame and looking it up I'm going to guess sonnal? Basing that off of word fragments from nocturnal, nocturne and sonata.
 

MartinPeiM16

New member
Feb 21, 2009
125
0
0
orannis62 said:
Khell_Sennet said:
orannis62 said:
Khell_Sennet said:
orannis62 said:
Ah, that sounds a good deal like a Chris Rock rant I'm fond of. I think he said they haven't cured anything since Polio.
I assure you good sir, that my words are my own, and that I would not in a hundred years watch anything with Chris Rock in it, unless it started with the word "Madagascar" and ended as either " ", "2", or "3".
I wasn't implying that you stole your rant from him, I was just pointing out a similarity. And by the way, you should check out his standup, he's pretty good.
I was not seriously suggesting you were suggesting such a thing, I was making jest. But no, I cannot stand Chris Rock. His humor offends me most of the time, and his voice is equally irritating. Not quite Chris Tucker irritating, but at least Tucker is funny, so long as he's with Jackie Chan.
I'm not so sure about that. Have you seen Rush Hour 3? God...
Tucker rocksssssssssss
 

Avatar Roku

New member
Jul 9, 2008
6,169
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
orannis62 said:
I'm not so sure about that. Have you seen Rush Hour 3? God...
Seen it? I own it.

justnotcricket said:
Have you ever actually tried to cure anything, Mr High-and-Mighty? Do you have *any*, I mean *any* idea how much work goes into getting just one drug onto the market? Just for the record, it's the pharmaceutical companies who get the money, not the scientists. I don't know what kind of 'science' you've been attempting to read, but the science I spend my days around carcinogenic and toxic reagents for is very real. Real science is generally trying to make your life safer and better, so in future, please try to dial back the snark factor until you actually have a clue.
Tell me something Cricket... Why is it that they could discover the cure for scurvey in 1614, and Penicillin in 1928 (argued as actually discovered in 1875), all without huge research grants and nationwide charities. And yet, here we are in the year 2009, and after hundreds of billions of research dollars they still can't come up with a cure for just ONE of the myriad of different ailments we suffer from? Treatment is constant cashflow, cures are a one-time-deal. The health care industry is a for-profit industry, and their source of revenue is sick people, not healthy people. But feel free, prove me wrong. Show me a major ailment that they have discovered a cure for in the last twenty years, one which doesn't require a lifetime of treatments or a battery of medication costing enough to purchase a large house.
In regards to the first part. I loved the first 2 Rush Hours, hated the Third.

In regards to the second, I know it wasn't aimed at me, and it's a bit more than 20 years (not much more) but Smallpox.
 

justnotcricket

Echappe, retire, sous sus PANIC!
Apr 24, 2008
1,205
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
Tell me something Cricket... Why is it that they could discover the cure for scurvey in 1614, and Penicillin in 1928 (argued as actually discovered in 1875), all without huge research grants and nationwide charities. And yet, here we are in the year 2009, and after hundreds of billions of research dollars they still can't come up with a cure for just ONE of the myriad of different ailments we suffer from? Treatment is constant cashflow, cures are a one-time-deal. The health care industry is a for-profit industry, and their source of revenue is sick people, not healthy people. But feel free, prove me wrong. Show me a major ailment that they have discovered a cure for in the last twenty years, one which doesn't require a lifetime of treatments or a battery of medication costing enough to purchase a large house.
Oh dear, Khell... Scurvy (there's no 'e') is a vitamin deficiency, easily treatable with (for example) citrus or any other source of vitamin C. Like many conditions if its kind (say, rickets?) people noticed that certain foods etc. alleviated symptoms or cured the condition entirely - the human race (generally...) are a very perceptive lot, and serendipity has played a huge role in our technological and medical evolution. Which brings me neatly around to penicillin - go check how that was discovered, and you'll see that serendipity strikes again! These days, the kinds of conditions we're trying to treat are extremely heterogeneous, and many effective treatments are (unavoidably at this stage) double edged swords. I guess all I am really trying to say is that since your problem seems to be with the cost, go complain to the governments and the drug companies - funding for scientific research is actually REALLY hard to come by in many instances, the process of developing new drugs is incredibly expensive, time consuming and ethically complex, and the drug companies are all out to tweak their patents and take their cut. In short - lay off the scientists; we're trying our best and *we* certainly don't get the cash.
 

CapnGod

New member
Sep 6, 2008
463
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
orannis62 said:
Why the hell do we have names for this stuff?!
Because scientists refuse to work on real problems until all trivialities are first covered. They're lazy. That's why they research shit like "Does water put out fires" or "does pornography cause erections" instead of researching cold fusion or the cure to, well, anything. Have they actually cured anything in the last ten years? Treatments, expensive treatments they get kickbacks for, and cost patients their life savings... But I can't think of any disease that's been cured since, well, since pharmaceutical companies were allowed to sell stock on the exchange.
I remember the last big cold fusion announcement. Pons and Fleischmann, anyone? I wrote a paper on cold fusion in 8th grade. Probably my most thoroughly researched paper ever.
 

CapnGod

New member
Sep 6, 2008
463
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
orannis62 said:
In regards to the second, I know it wasn't aimed at me, and it's a bit more than 20 years (not much more) but Smallpox.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but failure by technicality.

Smallpox isn't curable. They don't have anything they can give you to make it go away once you have it, just a vaccine. And I don't hold most vaccines as noteworthy creations because it's basically "lets give them the infection in a small quantity and hope his immune system can fight it off". Not so much a discovery, as playing a crap-shoot with someone's health.
Read The Demon in the Freezer by Richard Preston. Once exposed to smallpox, they have a short window in which to immunize, and it can be stopped. It's a fascinatingly horrifying book. Another one that'll fuck with your every day reality if you stop and think about it.