Steve Jobs Resigns as CEO of Apple, Replaced By Tim Cook

[Owen Densmore]

I really wonder if Apple can flourish w/o His Steveness:

http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=16636

As much as I disliked Apple's hegemony, I hate to see him leave.

        -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Jochen Fromm-5]

This means it does not look good for his health :-(. Despite all efforts, scientists have not found a cure for cancer yet, and he seems to have the worst form. Cancer research needs more funding, don't you think?!

-J.

Sent from Android

Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> hat geschrieben:

I really wonder if Apple can flourish w/o His Steveness:

http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=16636

As much as I disliked Apple's hegemony, I hate to see him leave.

        -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 8/25/2011 12:11 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

  Cancer research needs more funding, don't you think?!

Assume it takes about $300k to support one cancer researcher (salary plus overhead for one year).  An automatic  7.9% cut, should the deficit super committee fail to act, would stop research for about 1,300 researchers funded by the National Cancer Institute.   

http://obf.cancer.gov/financial/attachments/2012cj.pdf
http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/debtceilingfaq.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-30.pdf

Even from a pure profitability perspective, the return on investment justifies the spending -- from $3 to $141 of economic activity for every $1 spent by the NIH. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/us/21iht-letter21.html
http://www.genome.gov/27544383  

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcos]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8/25/2011 12:11 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
>   Cancer research needs more funding, don't you think?!
>
> Even from a pure profitability perspective, the return on investment
> justifies the spending -- from $3 to $141 of economic activity for every $1
> spent by the NIH.

I have to disagree.  The idea that science can find the cure to every
ailment is premised on the idea of the body as a machine.  It's absurd
to think that we can continue the present, artificial, consumptive
lifestyle and not have some *problems* in the body somewhere.  Even if
science were to find a "solution", it would be like adapting to the
intake of gasoline -- severe maladaption.

mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Jochen Fromm-5]

We can try to avoid diseases in the cardiovascular
system by changing our lifestyle, eating less
industrial fast food, exercising regularly, etc.
It is not possible to protect yourself completely
against cancer. You can get it even if you eat a
healthy diet, for instance if your DNA is damaged by
radiation.

Cancer is a genetic disease. There is a huge amount
of research in this area, and many approaches - like
the cancer stem cell theory or new anti-cancer drugs
like Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors - seem to be promising.
I believe science can find a cure for most forms of
cancer, but maybe not for all. It is one of the biggest
unsolved problem in medicine and molecular biology.
The incentive to solve it seems to be high enough. If
we can solve it, we will solve it. As Goethe says:
in all things it is better to hope than to despair.

-J.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcos" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Steve Jobs Resigns as CEO of Apple, Replaced By Tim
Cook


I have to disagree.  The idea that science can find the cure to every
ailment is premised on the idea of the body as a machine.  It's absurd
to think that we can continue the present, artificial, consumptive
lifestyle and not have some *problems* in the body somewhere.  Even if
science were to find a "solution", it would be like adapting to the
intake of gasoline -- severe maladaption.

mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcos]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Cancer is a genetic disease.

However, to say that "cancer is a genetic disease" is again to imply
that the body a machine.  While the body, without question, has
machine-like components, it far from the same as saying it should be
treated mechanically.  To try to solve such problems with such *crude*
mechanisms as radiation and extreme chemicals are bound to make worse
problems occur down the line.  Genes go back into one's ancestral
history, it would be prudent to look there.  But then, there's a
vicious relationship between using GDP (and the like) as a metric of
economic health and the self-organization of expensive medical
procedures in the economic system.

marcos

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 05:55:38PM -0600, Marcos wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Cancer is a genetic disease.
>
> However, to say that "cancer is a genetic disease" is again to imply
> that the body a machine.  While the body, without question, has
> machine-like components, it far from the same as saying it should be
> treated mechanically.  To try to solve such problems with such *crude*
> mechanisms as radiation and extreme chemicals are bound to make worse
> problems occur down the line.

That's not an objection to saying the body is a machine, or shouldn't
be treated mechanically. The latter treatments are the equivalent of
fixing a wristwatch with a 10 lb sledgehammer.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      [hidden email]
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Leigh Fanning]

> Cancer is a genetic disease. There is a huge amount

Not always, some cancers develop after infection by viruses.

Leigh

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Jochen Fromm-5]

Yes, but only because a virus is made of pure genetic
material, it is made either from DNA or RNA. Certain
retroviruses (RNA viruses) can cause cancer because
they change the DNA of the host cell. They have the
same effect as random mutations or radiation: they
change the DNA and the genetic material of the cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus

This insight was rewarded with the Nobel Prize in 1989.
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1989 was
awarded jointly to J. Michael Bishop and Harold E. Varmus
"for their discovery of the cellular origin of retroviral oncogenes"
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1989/

This was 20 years ago, more research is under way
There is hope that we can find better treatments and more
efficient cures, although it is certainly difficult to find
out new therapies.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162

Marcos is right, the crude current therapies such as radiation
or extremely toxic chemicals are not the best way to cure
the disease. One of the problems is that the industry (especially
car-, oil- and chemical industry) produces stuff like benzene,
dioxin or hexavalent chromium (VI) compounds which pollute
the environment and cause cancer. But instead of producing
less toxic substances or cars without emissions, the chemical
and pharmaceutical industries produce even more toxic drugs
which treat the symptoms in form of very toxic and very
expensive cancer drugs (many cancer drugs used for
chemotherapy are cytotoxins), see
http://blog.cas-group.net/2010/10/where-markets-fail/

And yet these cancer drugs are the best thing we have
today. But there is hope, more research is going on, for
example in Stanford's new, $200-million stem cell building.
I think we can and we will find a real cure. As said before,
in all things it is better to hope than to despair, isn't it?

-J.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leigh Fanning" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Cancer Research, was Steve Jobs Resigns as CEO

>> Cancer is a genetic disease. There is a huge amount
>
> Not always, some cancers develop after infection by viruses.
>
> Leigh
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Leigh Fanning]

But that's a slightly different thrust, or perhaps I didn't parse your
original statement with your intended meaning.  Many people are genetically
predisposed to developing cancers based on the content of their genome.
This is distinct from being infected by a virus and later developing
a cancer.  Then there are cancers you can give yourself by abusing your
body with tobacco, or other substances.  Hence, there are multiple
routes of activation, and with all routes it's a DNA damage numbers game since
predisposition, infection and substance abuse are not automatic cancers and
there are many examples of people never developing a cancer yet having
one to many risk factors.  

A family friend died recently of cancer that was quite similar to Steve Jobs.
His brother has the same cancer and is still in the fight.  It's one thing to see the online
photos, trying to hug a dying man wasted into a stick of his former self from suffering
the effects of the cancer and the "treatment" poisons leads me to feel current therapies
are not worth the effort unless the cancer is correctly detected early, and there is
a decent chance of survival.   And therein lies the other main challenge
in work:  correctly identifying a cancer and not needlessly subjecting
people to chemotherapy, radiation, and in the case of breast cancer, lopping
off body parts.  Imaging and other detection technologies are getting
better, but it's a slow process, and until diagnostics are significantly
better it is certainly a worry in the US with a for profit healthcare system
that makes a lot of money in these poison therapies.

Leigh

to suggest that all cancers come from inherited defects.  
On 28 Aug 2011 at 08:44 AM, Jochen Fromm related

> Yes, but only because a virus is made of pure genetic
> material, it is made either from DNA or RNA. Certain
> retroviruses (RNA viruses) can cause cancer because
> they change the DNA of the host cell. They have the
> same effect as random mutations or radiation: they
> change the DNA and the genetic material of the cell
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus
>
> This insight was rewarded with the Nobel Prize in 1989.
> The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1989 was
> awarded jointly to J. Michael Bishop and Harold E. Varmus
> "for their discovery of the cellular origin of retroviral oncogenes"
> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1989/
>
> This was 20 years ago, more research is under way
> There is hope that we can find better treatments and more
> efficient cures, although it is certainly difficult to find
> out new therapies.
> http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162
>
> Marcos is right, the crude current therapies such as radiation
> or extremely toxic chemicals are not the best way to cure
> the disease. One of the problems is that the industry (especially
> car-, oil- and chemical industry) produces stuff like benzene,
> dioxin or hexavalent chromium (VI) compounds which pollute
> the environment and cause cancer. But instead of producing
> less toxic substances or cars without emissions, the chemical
> and pharmaceutical industries produce even more toxic drugs
> which treat the symptoms in form of very toxic and very
> expensive cancer drugs (many cancer drugs used for
> chemotherapy are cytotoxins), see
> http://blog.cas-group.net/2010/10/where-markets-fail/
>
> And yet these cancer drugs are the best thing we have
> today. But there is hope, more research is going on, for
> example in Stanford's new, $200-million stem cell building.
> I think we can and we will find a real cure. As said before,
> in all things it is better to hope than to despair, isn't it?
>
> -J.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leigh Fanning" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 5:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Cancer Research, was Steve Jobs Resigns as CEO
>
>
>>> Cancer is a genetic disease. There is a huge amount
>>
>> Not always, some cancers develop after infection by viruses.
>>
>> Leigh
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org