GPUs Now a Tool for Accelerating Cancer Research

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]...then we get hospitalize and eat drugs they sell to us. it is a double profit for them.[/citation]
I think the solution is to outlaw and imprison "they" and "them". They and them are always the ones sticking it to us!

 

[davidgx]

[citation][nom]zankuto[/nom]those of you that bought triple GTX 680s on launch day... how bout giving a little back into the world?[/citation]

People with gaming computers don't owe anything else anything.

 

[nforce4max]

We can blame the bio weapons and research labs that work for the government and big pharma cartels for creating many of the new cancers that have surfaced in the last fifty years.

Search for: Cancer Virus

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

medicine companies patent or whatever it is, their brand of medicine, so no one else can make it, they than proceed to mark medicine up in the range of 30-60 times higher than cost of production.

than you have insurance companies who are more willing to let you have a cheaper treatment than a permanent (but more costly up front) cure. and in a great number of cases, with holding payments (and as a byproduct treatment) until its too late to treat ( you see this in older people and foreigners most often)

these companies are around to make a buck, not for the good of everyone... there is a reason why certain illness are known as a poor person thing.

Lasik eye treatment is in the category as nanotech, its a procedure that was going to come along at some time with next to no direct research necessary... let me put it this way. we didn't develop lasers just for eye treatment, it was a biprduct of another area of research. and you know something, lasik isnt covered under my insurance, because they will NOT PAY for a permanent fix, they will only pay for treatment because its cheaper up front.

the world can currently only feed 2/3 the people on the planet, genetically engineering food could be another solution, but the stupid people protest it every step of the way. and while im on that 2/3 people can eat thing, you also have to think many people know this in science, and any advancement they make to save peoples lives burdens people more and more with less food.

wow did you ever go off topic after the first few sentences... lets look at it another way... with robotics advancing fast and able to take out most of the manual labor jobs, that means that even the old people who cant do manual labor could still work. lower population would be able to sustain itself (we will have a really rough patch when the baby boomers get to old to work) with the aid of robots, and a longer working life span because you dont need manual labor.

point you are makeing is the world doesnt have black and white options, and that everything is a shade of grey, problem is status quo is not working, and hasnt been working for a long time, and a change needs to be made.

bringing the point back, there is a good chance that without tech aid, cancer and aids may never truly be cured because of the nature of both illnesses, so even researching it will only provide in treatments rather than cures.

There are a huge number of elements and they can be combined in a massively astronomical number of ways to form molecules. Then there are a huge number of possible mixtures and also a large number of possible dosages and delivery methods. Each one of those has to be tested maybe even for years to determine effectiveness and safety. It can therefore cost a lot of time, effort, and money (billions of dollars) to discover what can be used as a useful medicine. The price the companies charge is not just the cost of materials and labour but there is the massive overhead cost of the research & development that they need to recoup. Another company could then just buy a pill and put it in a cheap machine and quickly determine what chemicals it is and then they could just copy that pill and sell it for much cheaper because they have almost nil research & development money to recoup. That would be hugely beneficial to many people because it would mean cheap medicine for everybody. However that would only be for the short term; In the long term it would be a complete disaster because no new medicine would ever be invented from that point forward because all the inventors that did that would be put in absolutely crushing debt that they could never get out of. This is a problem that patents were created to prevent. Patents were in principle supposed to increase discovery, invention and generally encourage scientific and technological advancement, and when used correctly they do that, but when used incorrectly they can have the complete opposite effect.

Insurance companies are not scientists and don't necessarily trust cures probably because many cures don't really work well and could make things worse simply because biotechnology is not advanced enough yet.

Certain illnesses are a poor person thing because that's what Darwinian Evolution does, but as I've said in another thread, Charles Darwin, or any other human, did not invent Darwinian Evolution; nature did; Charles Darwin just discovered it. If our biotechnology increases far enough one day then maybe we can eliminate Darwinian Evolution via genetic re-engineering.

About your Lasik statement, all science is highly interrelated.

Here is another misconception that is spread around which is basically that if scientists cure old age so that people rarely ever die then it will increase population too much leading to even more scarcity of food and therefore more starvation and suffering. First of all, overpopulation can still happen even without curing old age. Curing old age would actually be a solution to overpopulation rather than a contributer to the problem. The reason for this is that if old age is cured then we can finally stop having children. We cannot stop having children now or even reduce childbirth because then we will eventually end up with another problem which is we will have too many old people compared to young people which I explained above in this thread. Curing old age would prevent old people from being a burden on young people because then old people would not be disabled and would look young and be as healthy as young people. Read about Dr. Aubrey de Grey or Dr. Ray Kurzweil.

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

We can blame the bio weapons and research labs that work for the government and big pharma cartels for creating many of the new cancers that have surfaced in the last fifty years.

Search for: Cancer Virus

I believe this is another misconception. I believe humans didn't invent cancer. They may have invented the word "cancer" but that doesn't exactly make them evil does it. Just because it took a long time for humanity to discover and name cancer does not mean it didn't exist before humans. Just because people rarely got it in the past because they usually died from war, famine, bacteria, at a young age doesn't mean they couldn't get cancer if they were one of the lucky few in those days to survive until old age.

 

[djscribbles]

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]no I am saying thats what happen in the real world now. almost more than half our food contains preservative chemical contains like MSG, artificial food favouring/colouring etc. as far as I know I dont recall our ancestors eat all these nor I dont recall human being are born to eat all these. Well "they" (food industry said) "small trace of these stuff are harmless blah blah blah.what the industry is doing now is finding cure, instead of putting more fund on research focus on what we eat. isnt prevention is better than cure? u have hearr that overdose of drugs and pill can kill u, have u hear eat excessive of apple kill? I havent. that alone prove that these drug are not completely safe.I am saying that this is how the industry work, we eat unhealthy food which is cheap to produce, so we get sick, then we get hospitalize and eat drugs they sell to us. it is a double profit for them.[/citation]

As I recall, our ancestors routinely died in their 40s and 50s. I'm pretty sure we aren't exactly rolling backwards on the longevity front with the advent of modern medicine and foods. The more likely cause of all of the modern medical problems is likely longevity and knowledge. 100 years ago people died of 'natural causes' in their 50s; today people die of cancer when they are in their 70s.

Nothing against natural foods, because personally I try to eat as much of it as I can without turning into a nut; it's simply silly to think that modern medical treatments would become unnecessary if people had healthier diets...

 

[Shin-san]

I was about to criticize the price of the nVidia Tesla. It used to be $2000-5000. I just saw it for $500-1500, which isn't unreasonable for a shop or office.

Also, MSG does occur in nature

 

[-Jackson]

He is not telling us what to do; he is telling us what we are doing.

My apologies, I misread what he said

 

[Guest]

But does crisis cause cancer!

 

[-Jackson]

no I am saying thats what happen in the real world now. almost more than half our food contains preservative chemical contains like MSG, artificial food favouring/colouring etc. as far as I know I dont recall our ancestors eat all these nor I dont recall human being are born to eat all these. Well "they" (food industry said) "small trace of these stuff are harmless blah blah blah.

what the industry is doing now is finding cure, instead of putting more fund on research focus on what we eat. isnt prevention is better than cure?

u have hearr that overdose of drugs and pill can kill u, have u hear eat excessive of apple kill? I havent. that alone prove that these drug are not completely safe.

I am saying that this is how the industry work, we eat unhealthy food which is cheap to produce, so we get sick, then we get hospitalize and eat drugs they sell to us. it is a double profit for them.

Sorry, didn't read what you said properly.. =/

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]u have hearr that overdose of drugs and pill can kill u, have u hear eat excessive of apple kill?[/citation]
ODing on apple pit cyanide aside, obviously there is a difference between a medication (of course concentrated) and a piece of fruit. You can OD on water and die from that if you want to take it to the other extreme. The response to a statement like this is as follows: Please don't make blatantly obvious idiotic assertions. It takes up space that could contain useful information.

 

[Guest]

Yeah we could do that... or, we could use it for games!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmaYH1F6kho

 

[deksman]

[citation][nom]IndignantSkeptic[/nom]This is another concept that I hear huge numbers of people keep spreading and I personally believe it is probably evil propaganda also. It's basically the notion that natural is good and man-made is bad. I want you to think about this for a while. Think of all the things that are natural. Unfortunately I am not a scientist so I will need some of you to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll give it a try. Here are a few things that are natural which I would say disprove the idea that natural is good: piranhas, sharks, and other carnivores, parasites, venom, radiation, volcanoes, meteors, fire and other natural disasters, genetic and infectious diseases including cancer, AIDS, ebola, flesh-eating bacteria, and general old-age decrepitude, regeneration being highly disabled in many species including our own, darwinian evolution (because it is essentially eugenics).All these things would exist even if no sapient species such as humans existed. So do you still think natural is good?[/citation]

First off... there is no conspiracy theory. You don't need one in a system where common interests converge (in capitalism, they converge on a daily basis - hence, if there is no profit in making a cure, then it won't reach the market anytime soon... and why? Because Capitalism isn't a system in which betterment of mankind is a priority. Acuumulation of money and profit are the priorities, with everything else being secondary, and in some cases even a side-effect - this isn't something that people like to 'make up' btw, it's something called real life).
'Evil' and similar ludicrous concepts like 'belief', 'faith' and 'truth' (in any shape or form) are in my personal opinion aspects that limit the human mind and ones expression, hence I try to steer clear of them. I prefer to deal in theories and hypothesis (aspects that are subject to change at any given time - the very guidelines on which science was supposed to have been founded - very much like the ones: 'evidence is not proof and correlation is not proof of causation).
I see many people in this day and age who effectively use science as a substitute for religion. Plus the media do little if anything to dispel that.
Also, when scientists start making claims that they say something with 'absolute certainty', I seriously hope they are joking because the concept of 'absolute certainty' is an absurdity in science which shouldn't exist.
Any scientist worth their 'calling' would effectively leave an open mind to the possibility that their findings could be mistaken and should be subject to change later in the future.
Not doing so effectively gives people credence to see it as something that is 'absolute' and 'unquestionable'... and of course, when people DO start to question in, they are labeled as 'idiots' or 'hacks'.
In my opinion, a diploma or 'accreditation' in a certain field is not an automatic extension of credibility (and I pity any society that doesn't value critical thinking).

As for your notion that not all 'natural' things are 'good'... you have posted extreme examples that have little to do with what I stated.
Of course that there are substances in nature that are not good for humans. Big whoop.
My point was that current methods of food production result in food low in nutrition which in turn can reflect on a persons body in a negative capacity.

Taking everything at face value is called 'belief'.
I try to avoid that silly notion because I prefer to examine the evidence for myself, not to mention other sources and question pre-established notions (incidentally, scientists are supposed to do the very same thing - and yet...).

 

[tomfreak]

[citation][nom]deksman[/nom]My point was that current methods of food production result in food low in nutrition which in turn can reflect on a persons body in a negative capacity..[/citation]thats is my point too, these are research fund should have gone more towards making cheaper healthier food than treatment.

scientist should have put more focus on research on medication that prevent cancer cells being develop, instead it goes toward curing it.

 

[deksman]

Numerous people would be surprised at what we could have done decades ago, let alone today.
As I said, 'capitalism' is not oriented to betterment of mankind... hence, its no wonder that consumer grade technology is decades behind of where it should be (numerous highly advanced technologies exist that could have been implemented a long time ago).

People keep complaining that resources are dwindling and that there's an energy crisis.
What a load of garbage.
All of those issues are mostly political.
From a technological/resource/manpower point of view, we had the capacity to deal with most if not all of our worldly problems decades ago.

As for scientists having to focus more on research that prevents formation of cancer cells, I agree, but they already have had more than enough leads to go on.
For one thing, a properly equipped immune system can fight off cancer, and stem cells can also aid in this endeavor.

When we look at numerous people who experience health issues, a lot of them have a very poor diet to begin with.
Even the things they think are good for them actually don't do as much as they think they do.
Stress is another factor to take into account.

A lot of our issues are psychosomatic in origin (over 95% actually) - and its almost downright laughable to see people jump on the bandwagon on medication, whereas others who don't resort to drugs recover much faster (if they are afflicted with something) and are far less likely to 'suffer' from repeat episodes - and people STILL mock them.

Now, medicine certainly has its place, but any 'credible' doctor will tell you that drugs were never meant to be taken long term exactly because they can be highly toxic for the body in the long run.
Drugs were meant to be used during emergency situations (if no other options are available) and only on a short term basis.

Plus, pharmaceutical drugs only focus on treating the symptoms and not the cause of a problem.

I would strongly advise for people to also use their Internet bandwidth in researching these things.
Any piece of information whether it comes from an accredited body or not should be carefully examined, and one should not jump to conclusions because science isn't about that.
Also, just because currently something seems to be working, doesn't mean it will be the case later down the line.
So, do your research, try not to assume, and stop taking things from people who are supposed 'experts' for granted.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom]Apparently compute performance with those cards is less than the last two generations..Nvidia also cut back on compute performance with the 6-Series so there was a bigger difference between Gamer GPU's and workstation GPU's.[/citation]Yeah, the previous-gen Fermi architecture and AMD's GCN both slaughter Kepler (680) in compute. GCN does particularly well with double precision. I imagine that Nvidia's high end Tesla cards will remain Fermi-based for some time.

Kepler is pretty awesome for games, however. It was a borderline paper launch, but now that supply is starting to loosen up, it has forced AMD's 79xx prices down a bit, which is a good start. Even with the reduced prices, I think Kepler holds the advantage for gaming right now. We really need 670 to show up though to spur some serious competition in the sub-$400 range.

I will say that I'm not really sold on the whole GPU Boost thing. GPU Boost seems like its designed to win benchmarks, when you really look at how it functions. I'd like to see a shootout that revolves around minimum framerate with modern games. I could be way off base here, but I have a strong feeling that GPU boost doesn't help minimum framerates quite as much as it does average framerates. After all, GPU boost kicks in the hardest when the GPU is not being pushed near its thermal limit. I have a funny feeling AMD will follow suit though. 🙁

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]Shin-san[/nom]Also, MSG does occur in nature[/citation]I'm not trying to single out MSG here, but keep in mind that there is a lot more factors to consider other than "does it also occur in nature" to determine if something is good to eat. Various poisons and chemicals with less-than-strictly-positive properties occur in nature, for example. Also things like concentration, and dosage can be important. That doesn't even take into account allergies, since that's quite a subject on its own.