Kyuu Nye

I did, but Joe Satriani and John Petrucci was only briefly while they were on their way out from a concert. They were tired so I didn't want to bother them too much. Both were still amazingly nice and forthcoming considering... The rest I met before AND after. And I have learned it is much easier meeting with jazz musicians than any other. They are real nice to their fans and the smaller intimate venues allow for meeting and some casual conversation if they have time. Steve Vai on the other hand I talked to good and long before the concert. He even let me hold one of his Jems... I was too terrified to touch a string though... He is also really down to earth. He was the first musician I ever met in person, and I have to say I was dumbstruck at how nice, humble and an all around great guy he was (and he has a pretty good sense of humor too).

No, I'm pretty sure he was a jerk before he became famous too. And I have met a few famous musicians... Hiromi Uehara, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Kieth Carlock, John Petrucci and Wayne Krantz to name a few. None of them, and I mean NONE of them act like Bieber. Hell, Steve Vai and Kieth Carlock especially were so down to earth it was amazing. It isn't just age, its personality. Steve Vai was scouted by Frank Zappa when he was 17, and was famous by 21. He is one of the nicest musicians I have ever met, and he is also INCREDIBLY humble. In fact, of those musicians all of them were pretty humble, except Petrucci, but even he wasn't nearly as cocky or egotistical as Bieber is. Petrucci acted like a Berklee grad, which he is and I didn't hold against him. Then again, my friend's band opened for Yngwie Malmsteen... and he apparently acts like he's God's gift to the world... But hey... I never met him and don't expect to. Of the musicians I have met though... I was happy to see that all of them acted like normal people that were really good at what they do.

"interesting" doesn't even begin to describe this community. Welcome

NASA discovers new planetary system Found it. I hope everyone enjoys

Yes it is possible... It is called genetic recombination. They isolate the T-cells, use genetic recombination methods to give it the binding site for the cancer cells, and inject them back into the patient. The cells then proliferate with the new binding site, and thus the immune system is now reprogrammed to attack the cancer cells. Naturally there are dangers while doing this, like significantly lowering the immune system while the process is being done, but it is no worse than the effects of Chemotherapy. Also, read the articles, both of them are in clinical trials already. So not only are both possible but in the process of being refined and put into practice.

Not joining.... But... wouldn't this fit better in "General"? And isn't there already a MitsuAi thread...?

You want different cancer treatment? Well how about reprogramming the immune system? Know what? That isn't enough! What about a drug that allows the cancer to die? (Basically inducing apoptosis, and if you don't know what that is... you are on the wrong forum) Hm yes... I like that... The reason why I go after HIV and AIDs is because there is absolutely no cure, and it is far more unknown than cancer. Even if it was radiation or chemotherapy, we have had ways to fight cancer. The cancer research is FAR FAR more advanced than HIV and AIDs research.

Btw, I remember hearing that someone found a system similar to ours... I'll try to find the article and link it here.

Indeed it is, and apparently it has gone further than from what I last read last year. Look up CCR5 gene therapy. Interesting stuff.

No, but they are getting closer... They managed to cure only ONE person using this treatment. However progress like that is incredible. (technically it was HIV, but HIV leads to AIDS). Research like that will continue, and I'd we can see a definitive cure within 10 years.

Death is never an easy thing... I've dealt with too many untimely deaths in my life. I suicide is the worst though because it was their conscious decision (I've only known one person, but that is one person too many), whether they were in the right mind or not they committed to doing it. I feel for her and her family, and whoever knew her. I hope you feel better Akako. And remember, they are never truly dead until they are forgotten

I feel like posting more... But lets just say interesting things always happen... Did you know that they are fighting AIDs with genetic engineering? They cured one person, but his case was very specific. However, this break through may lead to further advancements that might lead to a permanent cure.

I think most would prefer to be called "Science enthusiasts," or the more lighthearted of the lot might like to be called "science nerds." Personally I prefer to simply be called a "scientist" (after all I will be graduating this year with a degree in Molecular Biology). I also personally think that "freak" is a mite bit harsh.

Sure you are... You just can't give away anything. Just like every other english based DC forum, it is understood that people who watch raws (or horrible subs on a cam) before the official release of DCTP (or other major DC subbing group, which as far as I know DCTP is the only one left who is actively doing new eps and movies), it is considered a spoiler. If it is legitimately your favorite movie that you saw, then that is it. But keep your reasons as vague as possible (IE I liked the plot, had some good comedy ect ect)

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py106/PeriodicTable.html explains the connection between the three well. Bohr, orbital and uncertainty.

Electrons follow certain patterns, that isn't completely random, but if you are looking at a space filling of electron activity it will seem that way. They aren't round like the Bohr model but they are still there. If you want to see how electrons move and their range of motion you need to look at the various orbital models. They still move in certain patterns and are far from random. I remember reading about a theory that involved a completely random electron movement model, but it doesn't account for energy transference, so it will never be adopted unless someone figures out how that would work.

Not true... there are plenty of movies about the Vietnam war, Korean War and even a few about the Gulf War... The longer it has been since the war in questions the amount of movies is made... Everyone loves a good war movie so they will keep getting made... I even think there are more than a few noneducational movies about the Revolutionary War and the Civil War... The Patriot is a good example of a Revolutionary War flick, even though it wasn't all too great...

Awesome! I'm an exception! Btw... most people don't know .0000000001% of science (some even less), so don't sell yourself short. And for someone who is only a freshman, you are pretty knowledgeable. It is called Quantum physics, not atomic btw. That is the name for physics at the atomic and subatomic level. That said, I'm not even entirely sure that Quantum physicists know what the hell they are talking about at times. Quantum mechanics is an insane subject and it is deep and expansive, mainly because it can be applied to the entire universe, and not just larger objects like physics. In fact, quantum physics effects regular physics, because when something is discovered or theorized that proves to be true (ie Einstein's theory of relativity) it can effect everything, which is why Einstein's theory is more generally accepted than say Newton's laws. Newton's laws are more generally taught in non-science fields because chances are, if you aren't going into science, you aren't going to need quantum physics to quantify gravitational pull or the velocity of a subatomic particle. Hell, I had to learn it too, and I doubt I'm going to use much of it going into Molecular Biology... As for the models thing... I think the Bohr model has persisted as long as it has is because it is easier to conceptualize and understand without an in depth level of understanding. HOWEVER! You gave misinformation... I assume when he said "2,8,8,8" he was referring to the numbers on the periodic table. If that is so, then that has NOTHING to do with the shell model, but everything to do with the orbital model, because those are the number of electrons in a given orbital. And that is important to know because knowing those dictates how electrons move and how electrons transfer energy between excited and ground states. I do not like that analogy...Mainly because the energy dissipates in your room and never moves back to a ground state. To explain it best, you have to understand that electrons don't move completely random, nor in a set path. This is important because electrons tend to like to travel in pairs in their orbitals, but prefer to have at least one electron in each space in that set orbital. The orbitals are s, p, d, f. (there are more, but those 4 cover most of the possibilities) Before the p orbital can be used, there need to be 2 electrons in the s1 orbital, and 2 in the s2 orbital... before d can be used there need to be 2 electrons in the s1 orbital, 2 electrons in the s2 orbital, and 6 electrons in the p1 orbital... And so on. As you continue on it gets a bit more complicated. Now why the room scenario doesn't work... The room scenario doesn't account for excited state... The natural orbital of an electron is considered the ground state. When energy is applied it moves up to a higher orbital position. THAT is the particular reason why the Bohr model has remained relevant, and is continued to be taught is because it easily and effectively shows the transition between ground and excited states. I won't get into it much further because then it starts delving into Quantum Chemistry, which I don't want to do...

I'll tell you right now that every Law is just a well proven theory. Anyone tells you that science produces hard irrefutable facts has lied to you. Science is about total understanding, but because of that we are always questioning and revising. Sometimes in an effort to prove something, it is disproven, or an exception is found. Here is a good comic about the state of the understanding of gravity in theoretical physics: Regardless of what you may think, or what impressions you may have about science. Science is merely the testing of hypothesis. Whether the result is positive or negative doesn't matter because everything is a result. Also... I could very easily put down the equations for each theory and expand upon what they mean... but that may be too much for a forum where most users have never even seen the likes of calculus or actual physics or science. If you go into science you'll learn really quickly that people lied to you when you were in grade school... (actually that goes for a lot of subjects, but it is especially horrid in science)