Eric Marchewitz asked:


Make no mistake; nothing else mentioned in this book will help you grow like androgens, as they are the basic building block for increasing muscle size and strength. All other things only serve to enhance androgens. So whether you use a natural testosterone booster or a pro-hormone or real juice, you need the basics to build your genetic house. Androgens have been shown to create new muscle growth in multiple ways, both by increasing protein synthesis (filling up your muscle balloons) and increasing the differentiation of satellite cells (making more muscle balloons). That makes them the ultimate starting point for a genetic anabolic cocktail.

What are androgens? Quite simply they are testosterone and its derivatives, both legal and illegal. Guess when your body produces the most testosterone? You got it, puberty! That’s why you can gain mad muscle cells if you simply work out and eat right when you are in high school. Eating right is important because your body isn’t going to make new muscle cells if it doesn’t have the protein to fill up the ones it already has (which is why so many high school students work out without results). Growing muscle during puberty happens in the kitchen, not just the gym, but that is another book.

Androgens are the most potent muscle builders you can take. Luckily with our products you get the best of both worlds, increased androgen production without the negative side effects that SCARE the hell out of most people. You can start small and use something like Formadrol Extreme or you can jump up to our prohormones (Liquid Masterdrol and Methyl 1-D) or you can go the illegal route and hit juice (we don’t recommend this by the way). People doing our Trifecta Stack are routinely hitting 8-12lbs of muscle in a month without losing their gains. If you juice, you can probably increase that to 15-17lbs but when you grow that quickly, you rarely keep your gains. Slow, steady gains might not feel as exciting, but they are the way to build a body, not an ego! The combination of Stanolone (Liquid Masterdrol) plus Testosterone (Methyl 1-D) is a very powerful combination and gives you the ULTIMATE in safety and also gives REAL gains that you would see from a SANE steroid cycle, without the negatives!

So, how do you get a spike in androgens? Many ways… The first way is to use an herbal product that typically will trick your body into increasing output of Luteinizing Hormone. These were made popular with products like Tribulus

and have come a long way with the advent of newer ingredients like Long Jack and others out on the market. Some of them, like ***** Goat Weed only

serve to boost *** drive and have not been shown to enhance testosterone production.

Another way is to use a natural testosterone booster like LG Sciences Formadrol Extreme, which tricks your body into producing more testosterone by blocking estrogen in the body. This can give you levels above even the very highest natural range (a normal man ranges from 250 ng/dl of testosterone to 900 ng/dl). Formadrol Extreme and similar products trick your body into producing more testosterone and can be very useful as a natural anabolic booster, getting your testosterone levels into the 1400ng/dl range. It is also great for Post Cycle Therapy after a steroid or pro-hormone cycle. They are also useful in combating gynecomastia, commonly called “bitch tits”.

The third way to boost your androgen levels is the use of pro-hormones. First made popular by “Andro”, pro-hormones use the basic building blocks of testosterone to force your body into producing more testosterone through the action of enzymes. The first generation of testosterone boosters, like Andro, had tons of side effects and didn’t work very well. Newer pro-hormones like 1-AD were better, but were still not up to the full value of a steroid cycle. The latest crop of pro-hormones, like Methyl-1-D and Liquid Masterdrol by LG Sciences, reduce the side effects, prolong the half-life in the body and reduce conversion to unwanted, side effect producing by-products like Estrogen. The use of pro-hormones can give you testosterone levels that rival even the strongest steroids, raising your testosterone levels to 3000-3500 ng/dl if used properly.

Methyl-1-D from LG Sciences is a pro-hormone that is formulated to reduce side effects, provide maximum safety and give you AMAZING results. It’s the real basis for our genetics-changing stack. For a more advanced stack, use Liquid-Masterdrol along with Methyl-1-D for the best possible combination of prohormones that hit both the more androgenic (Liquid Masterdrol) and more anabolic (Methyl 1-D) aspects of growth.

The fourth way to boost androgen levels is to use artificial illegal steroids to boost your testosterone levels above even the highest legal levels that pro-hormones can give. I am not here to make a value statement about steroids, but I am just pointing out the option to anyone that is in a foreign country that allows steroid use or is using androgens with a doctor’s prescription.

We highly suggest that you do not use illegal anabolic steroids for obvious reasons and we hope that you respect the law and your body by using natural substances that are safer alternatives. If you do use steroids however, we recommend that you do so safely, cycling off them for at least a month at a time, taking supplements like Fish Oil to cleanse your liver and reduce the chance of cardiovascular side effects. Now, that being said, steroids are obviously not that dangerous, since prescription compounds, such as Testosterone Gel, are being pushed as the next great development (never mind that the Testosterone Gels on the market are loaded with side effects including conversion to DHT which

aggravates the prostate and estrogen that can promote ****** cancer, even in men). Once the root of all evil, steroids are suddenly completely safe and side effect free when turned into a prescription drug. Wake up people! Again, we don’t encourage you to use steroids, but if you do, please consider doing them safely (there is a section at the end of good supplements to take with steroids that will offer some nice protection from their side effects).

So, if you are going to do a cycle of steroids, this is the perfect time to add in some serious genetic expression supplements to maximize your growth. One of the funniest things I see is the juice crowd bashing the supplement crowd, when in reality someone on a cycle will probably benefit the most from proper supplementation.

Studies show that androgens do indeed cause genetic changes that can benefit powerlifters and bodybuilders.

Here you see how increasing testosterone through natural boosting, pro-hormones or illegal anabolic steroids can vastly increase satellite muscle cell expression. This is the first real pathway that the body uses to increase muscle size and the number of muscle cells. By increasing the raw number of satellite cells, testosterone is the foundation of our genetic altering arsenal.

Skeletal muscle morphology in power-lifters with and without anabolic steroids.

Eriksson A, Kadi F, Malm C, Thornell LE.

Department of Integrative Medical Biology, Section for Anatomy, Umea

University, 901 87 Umea, Sweden.

The morphological appearance of the vastus lateralis (VL) muscle from high-level power-lifters on long-term anabolic steroid supplementation (PAS) and power-lifters never taking anabolic steroids (P) was compared. The effects of long- and short-term supplementation were compared. Enzyme-immunohistochemical investigations were performed to assess muscle fiber type composition, fiber area, and number of myonuclei per fiber, internal myonuclei, myonuclear domains and proportion of satellite cells. The PAS group had larger type I, IIA, IIAB and IIC fiber areas (p<0.05). The number of myonuclei/fiber and the proportion of central nuclei were significantly higher in the PAS group (p or = 5 myonuclei. The results of AS on VL morphology in this study were similar to previously reported short-term effects of AS on VL. The initial effects from AS appear to be maintained for several years.

Androgen receptor in human skeletal muscle and cultured muscle satellite cells: up-regulation by androgen treatment.

Sinha-Hikim I, Taylor WE, Gonzalez-Cadavid NF, Zheng W, Bhasin S.

Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, California 90059, USA.

Androgens stimulate myogenesis, but we do not know what cell types within human skeletal muscle express the androgen receptor (AR) protein and are the target of androgen action. Because testosterone promotes the commitment of pluripotent, mesenchymal cells into myogenic lineage, we hypothesized that AR would be expressed in mesenchymal precursor cells in the skeletal muscle. AR expression was evaluated by immunohistochemical staining, confocal immunofluorescence, and immunoelectron microscopy in sections of vastus

lateralis from healthy men before and after treatment with a supraphysiological dose of testosterone enanthate. Satellite cell cultures from human skeletal muscle were also tested for AR expression. AR protein was expressed predominantly in satellite cells, identified by their location outside sarcolemma and inside basal lamina, and by CD34 and C-met staining. Many myonuclei in muscle fibers also demonstrated AR immunostaining. Additionally, CD34+ stem cells in the interstitium, fibroblasts, and mast cells expressed AR immunoreactivity. AR expression was also observed in vascular endothelial and smooth muscle cells. Immunoelectron microscopy revealed aggregation of immunogold particles in nucleoli of satellite cells and myonuclei; testosterone treatment increased nucleolar AR density. In enriched cultures of human satellite cells, more than 95% of cells stained for CD34 and C-met, confirming their identity as satellite cells, and expressed AR protein. AR mRNA and protein expression in satellite cell cultures was confirmed by RT-PCR, reverse transcription and real-time PCR, sequencing of RT-PCR product, and Western blot analysis. Incubation of satellite cell cultures with supraphysiological testosterone and dihydrotestosterone concentrations (100 nm testosterone and 30 nm dihydrotestosterone) modestly increased AR protein levels. We conclude that AR is expressed in several cell types in human skeletal muscle, including satellite cells, fibroblasts, CD34+ precursor cells, vascular endothelial, smooth muscle cells, and mast cells. Satellite cells are the predominant site of AR expression. These observations support the hypothesis that androgens increase muscle mass in part by acting on several cell types to regulate the differentiation of mesenchymal precursor cells in the skeletal muscle.

That being said, we can safely increase testosterone using supplements and don’t need illegal anabolic steroids! Pro-hormones boost natural testosterone by giving you the building blocks for testosterone and other steroid hormones. Pro-hormones are the safest, most effective way to boost testosterone without using drugs. The second way is to use natural testosterone boosters. There are many on the market, like tribulus, long jack and others. The best combination is an anti-estrogen that tricks your body into producing more testosterone. There are many of these products on the market, but the latest generations are far more effective and have fewer or no negative effects on the body. Here is what some peer reviewed journal entries say about using testosterone to activate satellite cells:

Testosterone-induced muscle hypertrophy is associated with an increase in satellite cell number in healthy,young men.

Sinha-Hikim I, Roth SM, Lee MI, Bhasin S.

Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, California 90059, USA.

Testosterone (T) supplementation in men induces muscle fiber hypertrophy. We hypothesized that T-induced increase in muscle fiber size is associated with a dose-dependent increase in satellite cell number. We quantitated satellite cell and myonuclear number by using direct counting and spatial orientation methods in biopsies of vastus lateralis obtained at baseline and after 20 wk of treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and a 125-, 300-, or 600-mg weekly dose of T enanthate. T administration was associated with a significant increase in myonuclear number in men receiving 300- and 600-mg doses. The posttreatment percent satellite cell number, obtained by direct counting, differed significantly among the three groups (ANCOVA P < 0.000001); the mean posttreatment values (5.0 and 15.0%) in men treated with 300- and 600-mg doses were greater than baseline (2.5 and 2.5%, respectively, P < 0.05 vs. baseline). The absolute satellite cell number measured by spatial orientation at 20 wk (1.5 and 4.0/mm) was significantly greater than baseline (0.3 and 0.6/mm) in men receiving the 300- and 600-mg doses (P < 0.05). The change in percent satellite cell number correlated with changes in total (r = 0.548) and free T concentrations (r = 0.468). Satellite cell and mitochondrial areas were significantly higher and the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio lower after treatment with 300- and 600-mg doses. We conclude that T-induced muscle fiber hypertrophy is associated with an increase in satellite cell number, a proportionate increase in myonuclear number, and changes in satellite cell ultrastructure.

Androgen regulation of satellite cell function.

Chen Y, Zajac JD, MacLean HE.

Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia.

Androgen treatment can enhance the size and strength of muscle. However, the mechanisms of androgen action in skeletal muscle are poorly understood. This review discusses potential mechanisms by which androgens regulate satellite cell activation and function. Studies have demonstrated that androgen administration increases satellite cell numbers in animals and humans in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, androgens increase androgen receptor levels in satellite cells. In vitro, the results are contradictory as to whether androgens regulate satellite cell proliferation or differentiation. IGF-I is one major target of androgen action in satellite cells. In addition, the possibility of non-genomic actions of androgens on satellite cells is discussed. In summary, this review focuses on exploring potential mechanisms through which androgens regulate satellite cells, by analyzing developments from research in this area.

Androgen receptor in human skeletal muscle and cultured muscle satellite cells: up-regulation by androgen treatment.

Sinha-Hikim I, Taylor WE, Gonzalez-Cadavid NF, Zheng W, Bhasin S.

Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, California 90059, USA.

Androgens stimulate myogenesis, but we do not know what cell types within human skeletal muscle express the androgen receptor (AR) protein and are the target of androgen action. Because testosterone promotes the commitment of pluripotent, mesenchymal cells into myogenic lineage, we hypothesized that AR would be expressed in mesenchymal precursor cells in the skeletal muscle. AR expression was evaluated by immunohistochemical staining, confocal immunofluorescence, and immunoelectron microscopy in sections of vastus lateralis from healthy men before and after treatment with a supraphysiological dose of testosterone enanthate. Satellite cell cultures from human skeletal muscle were also tested for AR expression. AR protein was expressed predominantly in satellite cells, identified by their location outside sarcolemma and inside basal lamina, and by CD34 and C-met staining. Many myonuclei in muscle fibers also demonstrated AR immunostaining. Additionally, CD34+ stem cells in the interstitium, fibroblasts, and mast cells expressed AR immunoreactivity. AR expression was also observed in vascular endothelial and smooth muscle cells. Immunoelectron microscopy revealed aggregation of immunogold particles in nucleoli of satellite cells and myonuclei; testosterone treatment increased nucleolar AR density. In enriched cultures of human satellite cells, more than 95% of cells stained for CD34 and C-met, confirming their identity as satellite cells, and expressed AR protein. AR mRNA and protein expression in satellite cell cultures was confirmed by RT-PCR, reverse transcription and real-time PCR, sequencing of RT-PCR product, and Western blot analysis. Incubation of satellite cell cultures with supraphysiological testosterone and dihydrotestosterone concentrations (100 nm testosterone and 30 nm dihydrotestosterone) modestly increased AR protein levels. We conclude that AR is expressed in several cell types in human skeletal muscle, including satellite cells, fibroblasts, CD34+ precursor cells, vascular endothelial, smooth muscle cells, and mast cells. Satellite cells are the predominant site of AR expression. These observations support the hypothesis that androgens increase muscle mass in part by acting on several cell types to regulate the differentiation of mesenchymal precursor cells in the skeletal muscle.

Testosterone action on skeletal muscle.

Herbst KL, Bhasin S.

UCLA School of Medicine, Charles R. Drew University, Los Angeles, California 90059, USA.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight recent data demonstrating direct anabolic effects of androgens on the mammalian skeletal muscle and review the mechanisms by which testosterone regulates body composition. RECENT FINDINGS: Testosterone increases lean body mass and decreases fat mass in young men; the magnitude of the changes induced by testosterone in lean and fat mass are correlated with testosterone dose and the prevalent testosterone concentrations. Older men are as responsive to the anabolic effects of testosterone on the muscle as young men, but have increased frequency of adverse events with higher testosterone doses. This reciprocal change in lean and fat mass induced by androgens is best explained by the hypothesis that androgens promote the commitment of mesenchymal pluripotent cells into myogenic lineage and inhibit adipogenesis through an androgen receptor mediated pathway. Resident muscle satellite cells increase in number with testosterone administration forming myoblasts leading to greater numbers of myonuclei in larger myofibers. Testosterone administration is associated with increased size of motor neurons. The roles of 5-alpha reduction and aromatization of testosterone into dihydrotestosterone and estradiol, respectively, in mediating testosterone effects on body composition are poorly understood. SUMMARY: Testosterone induces skeletal muscle hypertrophy by multiple mechanisms, including its effects in modulating the commitment of pluripotent mesenchymal cells. These changes in skeletal muscle lead to improved muscle strength and leg power; however, further studies are needed to determine the effects of testosterone on physical function and health-related outcomes in sarcopenia associated with aging and chronic illness.

Here you see how increasing testosterone through natural boosting, pro-hormones or illegal anabolic steroids can vastly increase satellite muscle cell expression. This is the first real pathway that the body uses to increase muscle size and the number of muscle cells. By increasing the raw number of satellite cells, testosterone is the foundation of our genetic altering arsenal.

Phil Morettini asked:


One of the most puzzling things in high technology, especially for executives on the business side of things, is the software development process. It’s the high tech equivalent to the “Black Hole” phenomenon made famous in Astronomy. Endless resources can be poured into a software development project, yet there never seems to be an end in sight.

And why is this so? It seems that in such a typically high tech, yet now familiar activity, we would have long ago figured it out. You would think that the process of software development would, by now, amount to simply turning a crank—yet it seems it hasn’t advanced much since the dawn of the PC age.

I don’t mean to be overly dramatic here. But I have been in the high tech and software industries since 1983, and I have never been involved with—or even personally known of a software project—that came in on time and under budget. Never. Not even ONCE. That’s pretty incredible. Now, I realize that there are almost certainly examples of on-schedule projects out there, but they are in the overwhelming minority of all software that is developed.

THEY ALWAYS SLIP

It’s just accepted in the software business that projects will slip, particularly when the end result is an actual commercial product. The businesses I’ve been involved in have tried everything. We’ve tried an approach of “No upfront planning”-starting coding as soon as possible. We’ve tried “extensive and laborious upfront planning”-with a detailed spec, and a prototype, completed prior to initiating production coding. I’ve seen many projects that tried using intermediate steps, falling between the two extreme approaches above. We’ve tried to start projects by purchasing as many “pre-written” modules as possible, used various languages and platforms, hired dedicated debugging personnel, tried code-generators, assembled both small teams & large teams, you name it—we’ve tried it. Project schedules have been written with the utmost conservatism, at the insistence of senior management. No matter. Across a number of different companies, EVERY project has slipped out beyond the wildest nightmares or everyone involved.

ONE LINE OF CODE, TWO WEEK DELAY

Once I asked our lead programmer to change ONE LINE OF CODE in a well-established product. He estimated it would take just a few seconds to make the change, and a few hours to test it. The change would be final by the end of the day, at the latest. Two weeks later I was still waiting for a solid product.

Now, don’t misunderstand. I’m not writing this to bash software developers. While not every developer I’ve worked with over the years has been a world-beater, I’ve had the fortune to work with quite a number whom I consider to be outstanding. But no matter how much thought, time and effort went into it, our projects always slipped. A lot. We usually ended up with a commercially successful product, but how much better we could have done, had we figured out a way to bring the product to market on time? The only saving grace was the competition had the same problem.

MORE ART THAN SCIENCE

The reason, I believe, is that writing software remains much more of an art than a science. This statement is a bit surprising, until you look a little deeper. There is certainly much methodology available to guide a team to use sound, time-tested practices in developing software. However, a software program is really just a document written in a foreign language. That’s why C++ and Java are called Programming Languages. In writing a novel you are essentially creating a unique work that has never been done quite the same way before. Also true for a software program. If you knew exactly how the writing of a novel or software program would go before you began, there would be no need to write it—it would have already been done. While there are plenty of rules (representing the science) to writing good software, at the end of the day it’s a unique, written creation (the art).

COMPLEXITY OVERWHELMS EXPERIENCE

Another key reason why conquering the software development process has appeared to be impossible, is the vastly increased complexity associated with software projects today. Let’s face it, the average piece of software today does a lot more, and is quite a larger in terms of the number of lines of code, than at the dawn of the PC era. The creation of graphical user interfaces really started the explosion in the size of software code. So much more code is needed, to bring the user-friendly products of today to life. And what enabled this, of course, was the dawn of the modern operating systems, especially the overcoming of the 640K limit that the original DOS operating system required PC programs to run in. Windows and other modern operating systems almost eliminated the need to write software efficiently, at least from a code size perspective. It’s interesting to speculate—if we were still writing in the 640K box, would software development have evolved to a more predictable science today? Maybe, but the world would be a less productive as a result.

WHAT TO DO FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE?

As you can tell from this discussion, I don’t have a great set of answers on how to bring software to market on time. It’s one of the great frustrations of my career. I still strongly believe that getting the best people you can get will make the problem better, even if it can’t be solved completely. I also believe in keeping development teams small, with the minimum of structure necessary to run the project. It’s also wise, in my opinion, to structure your product releases to be more frequent, while adding fewer new features per release. This should at least minimize the pain of each release slipping, since the slip time of each release should be less. And knowing what you’re going to be coding, developing a spec document and sticking to it (no feature creep!) is also sound practice, although I’ve found it to be no panacea. Beyond that, I’m at a loss. Maybe one of you has a strong opinion on how to bring projects out on time? If so, post a comment—this is a discussion worth having.

Monitoring the progress of a software project can be like peering into the darkness of a seemingly bottomless pit.

And why is this so? It seems that in such a typically high tech, yet now familiar activity, we would have long ago figured it out. You would think that the process of software development would, by now, amount to simply turning a crank—yet it seems it hasn’t advanced much since the dawn of the PC age.

I don’t mean to be overly dramatic here. But I have been in the high tech and software industries since 1983, and I have never been involved with—or even personally known of a software project—that came in on time and under budget. Never. Not even ONCE. That’s pretty incredible. Now, I realize that there are almost certainly examples of on-schedule projects out there, but they are in the overwhelming minority of all software that is developed.

Michael asked:


These days there is there is a lot buzz about the world going green and preserving the environment. Well, I think that all of you might be reading something or the other about “environment and ecology” in newspaper, magazines or over the internet. So, let me throw light on this topic.

What is Environmental Science?

Environmental science is an expression encompassing the wide range of scientific disciplines that need to be brought together to understand and manage the natural environment and the many interactions among physical, chemical, and biological components.

Individuals may operate as Environmental scientists or a group of scientists may work together pooling their individual skills. The most common model for the delivery of Environmental science is through the work of an individual scientist or small team drawing on the peer-reviewed, published work of many other scientists throughout the world.

What is the function of Environmental Science?

The role of environmental science is to describe the hazards related to environment, interpret the impact of human actions on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and to develop strategies for restoring ecosystems. In addition, environmental scientists help planners develop and construct buildings, transportation corridors, and utilities that protect water resources and reflect efficient and beneficial land use.

Environmental chemistry is the study of chemical alterations in the environment. Principal areas of study include soil contamination and water pollution. The topics of analysis involve chemical degradation in the environment, multi-phase transport of chemicals (for example, evaporation of a solvent containing lake to yield solvent as an air pollutant), and chemical effects upon biota.

Due to the interdisciplinary nature of environmental science, teams of professionals commonly work together to conduct environmental research or to produce Environmental Impact Statements. Environmental science encompasses issues such as climate change, conservation, biodiversity, water quality, groundwater contamination, soil contamination, and use of natural resources, waste management, sustainable development, disaster reduction, air pollution, and noise pollution.

Environmental science has been studied, evaluated and researched for many years. This has been driven by the need for a large multi-disciplined team to analyze complex environmental problems, the arrival of substantive environmental laws requiring specific environmental protocols of investigation, and growing public awareness of a need for action in addressing environmental problems.

Dmitry Costenco asked:


astronomy or other space sciences? Developing a Web portal or teaching materials for a course? Space Icons http://www.777icons.com/libs/space-icons.htm will make your portal or printed matters look modern and professional right away. Designed to enhance educational portals, student projects and Web sites, as well as software and printed brochures and handouts, Space Icons look strict and formal wherever they are used.

The library consists of sixty images, and contains various symbols of the space thematic. Space Icons include images of Astronaut and Astronomy, Constellations and Comets, Solar Eclipse, Spacecraft, Earth and all planets of the solar system, Sun, Satellite, Nova, Scientist, Galaxy, Radiation, Telescope, Rocket, Shuttle, and many more.

Studying or teaching courses like Astronautics, Space Travel, Non-Earth Planetary Science, or Biology of Other Planets? Earth and the planets of the solar system are easily recognizable, and drawn scaled to their sizes. Involved into Astrophysics, Galactic Science, or Stellar Science? The library has images of Stars, Nova, Galactic, and objects such as Meteorite. Space Icons depict multiple objects and symbols in the areas of space science, technology, and space engineering.

Each image in the Space Icons library is meticulously designed to match every other icon in style and gamma. All images are professionally drawn to be put on educational portals, teacher and student Web sites. The available high-resolution variants of 256×256 pixels are included with the library, and allow printing booklets and other printed matters of perfect quality.

Technical specifications of the Space Icons library are highly impressive. The library contains all resolutions of 256×256, 48×48, 32×32, 24×24, 20×20, and 16×16 pixels for every image. Each image comes in both True Color and 256-color versions, making it possible to use images in software products in addition to Web sites, portals, brochures and handouts. The entire library is supplied in ICO, GIF, PNG, and BMP formats. All images are readily available for download and use, and do not have any royalty fees. The preview of the Space Icons library is available at http://www.777icons.com/libs/space-icons.htm

Chanchal Malviya asked:


nbsp;    Indian Historians: Notorious or Ignorant

 

More than a hundred years ago, when History of India was written under British influence, there was no room for Ramayan and Mahabharat as historical events. They were epics and of no importance for students. It is surprising that India is one country whose history has been written by its enemies and the whole nation yet follows it. No doubt the history was a strategic attack on Indian civilization and culture that paved way for western culture into the nation. With time, truth is evolving back. Science of India that was denied is now accepted through western influence. The myths are suddenly appearing to be history. And one such history is Ram Sethu. Since, it is a history of Hindus, politics and literates are not ready to accept it as truth.

If they are so intelligent, let them go through this article. I challenge them through few questions mentioned in bold in this article.

 

Let us have a background of what politicians and historians (British written history literates) say about Ram Sethu.

 

Historian B.D. Chattopadhyay of Jawaharlal Nehru University says the archaeological record says nothing of the sort. There is no evidence of a human presence in the subcontinent, he says, before roughly 250,000 to 300,000 years ago. It is generally believed man’s hominid ancestors did not leave their African home until about two million years ago.

 

Very important point here is that Mr. Chattopadhyay has forgot to note that what is said of hominid ancestors is also a belief – a belief generated by Western people and followed by Mr. Chattopadhyay – not Truth, not Science. Surely Ramayan, if a belief is a belief of eastern people – Indian People. Mr. Chattopadhyay is trying to introduce a belief clash.

Why Mr. Chattopadhyay wants to defy a true instance with a false belief? Does Mr. Chattopadhyay want to say that Lord Rama is deep in the heart of billions of Indians to this date without any truth? Can false beliefs find so deep root in society and for so long time?

I read a similar comment from N Ramanujam. Head, Post Graduate Department of Geology and Research Centre, V.O. Chidambaram College, Tuticorin.

He said that Adam’s Bridge is only a chain of shoals between the Palk Strait and the Gulf of Mannar, created by sedimentation owing to long shore currents.

Explaining the bridge’s geological history, he said both the Palk Strait and the GoM were once part of the Cauvery basin, which was formed during the separation of India and Antarctica about 70 million years ago during the `Gondwana period.’

They were combined till a ridge was formed in the region owing to thinning of earth’s crust. The development of this ridge augmented the coral growth in the region.

"The coral cover acted as a `sand trapper’ leading to the formation of Rameswaram Island," Dr. Ramanujam said.

The long shore currents on the southern side of island created a discontinuous shoreline eastward from Dhanuskodi to Talaimannar, which’s the Adam’s Bridge.

Let us see what Mr. Ramanujam has said:

How many such Chain of Shoals bridging two nations is known to Dr. Ramanujam? Is there any other Geographical construct anywhere in the world – deposits of shoals along the coast doesn’t say that it bridges two land pieces?

Again Mr. Ramanujam is taking support of another belief to beat the truth. He is talking of Gondwana theory, a theory that has no concrete proof – an imaginary thesis with some scientific logic behind it. Hundreds of such theory can be generated based on Geographical principles, but that do not defy a concrete reason of existence.

Why did Gondwana theory leave a trace of only One Bridge on the Globe?

Very important – Ramanujam is unable to change the names of two places as Dhanuskodi and Talaimannar which are not English names as they already exist, and hence successfully accepts a controversial English name of Adam’s Bridge instead of Ram Setu. Mr. Ramanujam could very easily put his theory with the name of the Bridge still as Ram Setu. But he ends up in saying that is Adam’s Bridge – WHY?

Why did Mr. Ramanujam accept Adam’s theory to be correct? Does Mr. Ramanujam want to support that Adam and Eve existed and Lord Rama didn’t exist?

If yes, then Adam and Eve existed in India alone as the bridge is in India – Again controversy – as Manu Shatrupa would be more known names in this region and analogy to Adam and Eve. Moreover, acceptance of Adam’s Bridge is acceptance that it was build by Adam. Actually, the logic fits opposite to them – how can the first man on earth build a bridge of that volume? He would be immature at first place, he is alone at second place and why will he ever endeavor to bridge the sea? Though the only evidence is with India, no logic fits to the name as ‘Adam’s Bridge’. This clearly reflects the Christian mentality trying to impose and kill Hindu greatness. And poor Historians of India, brought up in the education system of English, unable to break the boundary of false arrogance of being high literary, seems to be helplessly saying that Ram Setu Bandh is not historical. They cannot even hold a petty vision that humans have build wall of length of Great wall of China that is visible from even Satellite; what would stop humans to build Ram Setu Bandh and what is surprising or opposing to the fact that it was built as a part of Ramayan as a history.

Does Mr. Ramanujam want to say that if Adam built it, it is history, but if Lord Rama built it it is a Myth and a natural construct?

Professor Dupey says that as per Archeological survey, remains from Ayodhya controversial site has found temple remains whose age do not go beyond 600 B.C.

Mr. Dubey: Do you want to say that if I build a temple today, you will conclude that Lord Rama existed since today and not before?

Temples are build and rebuild and their age can only say about the age of the temple and the age of the personality whose worship is done in the temple.

We need to understand certain points here, modern Archeology and Science is far different than what used to exist in ancient India. For instance, old temples of India, yet existing, were built on a different technology than what we find in modern civil engineering. This doesn’t mean that ancient archeology was not having mathematics maturity – in fact, if we look at Temples of India, Jagannath Puri temple for instance, we do not find any iron or pillars used to build the temple – yet it stands from hundreds of years to a height of around 200 ft.

Assume that Puri temple would have been razed some 10000 years ago, what technology or archeological proofs would be derived to conclude that the temple was 200 ft high?

Similarly, the Ram Setu bandh has seen ages, and that too not on land, but in sea – a turbulent sea. The major of the mass is already washed off – a question to be pondered is that what remains is just a trace of the actual bridge – not the whole bridge as it was.

Ramayan mentions that the bridge was built over the sea water, with support of Sea – this implies that there was no supporting archeology involved in constructing the bridge – this is easily supported by the failure of Archeology ground to trace such constructs under ground. Yet the presence of shoals below the bridge and their type indicate that they cannot be found in sea in the manner it exists at Ram Sethu.

Now, Mr. Dubey accepts that the age of Shoals found at Ram Sethu goes around 1 million years. He misguides people, as he is a literate of History written by British, that Ramayan was first written around 10000 years ago and not 1 million years ago. Mr. Dubey, here is a simple calculation for you to further investigate:

The age of the bridge as per scientific dating comes to around 1 million years. As per Hindu scriptures, Ramayan took place in ‘Treta Yug’. Calculating by Hindu scriptures (Treta Yug with a tenure of 12,96,000 years, Dwapar Yug with a tenure of 8, 64,000 years, Kali Yug has just seen 5,000 years): We know that Treta Yug was before Dwapar Yug. So, one thing is quite evident. The Bridge was constructed at least 8,64,000 years ago, i.e., 0.86 million years ago, which is pretty close to 1 million years. Treta Yuga itself is 1.3 million years of age.

How is that scientific age of the shoals and the Hindu calendar age of Lord Rama matches exactly? Will Mr. Dubey and other historians dare to come out of the falsehood of our enemy teachings and try to explore some mathematics of Hindus before they say make such stupid comparison of scientific ages?

 





2.      Analysis of Valmiki Ramayan over RAM SETHU

 

Now, let us go into the Valmiki Ramayan and dig out more history out of it. Let us be sure that if we want to dig history, we have to touch Valmiki Ramayan alone and not any other Ramayan, because all other Ramayan are written with purpose of promoting Ramayan and recording the event.

Here are certain points from Valmiki Ramayan to be considered:

1.        There is no other book than Ramayan that has put into scriptures describing such geographical constructs.

2.        Ramayan says that it was build under the supervision of an Architect Nala – son of the greatest Architect of all times ‘Vishwakarma’ (Note: ‘Vishwakarma’ is a designation given to the greatest archeologist and builder of the era in ancient Hindu society, a similar practice as we have in modern world of ‘Nobel Prize’). Thus, the book makes sure that such a bridge can be constructed by only architect of highest skill.

Why do the politicians mislead the nation by saying that Lord Rama was a Superman who build the bridge, when Ramayan clearly says that it is not Lord Rama but the Architect Nala and Neela who build the bridge?

3.        The bridge was (Ramayan mentions the bridge constructed in 5 days: 14 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 = 100 yojans) 100 Yojans long and 10 Yojans wide. Data to be considered here:

4.        The data starts from 14 yojans as first day, which is less than other day’s data, confirming a logic that first day as a beginning had taken time to gear up all Vanars. Second day it took momentum and rest of the days the distance of the bridge constructed is found to be nearly same. A logical conclusion of this sort is made only when the event have occurred in reality.

Why did Valmiki thrust his imagination to get the bridge completed only in 5 days? He could have well increased the number of days to help people of today understand it more logically. Or he could have even reduced the number of days to highlight the power of Lord Rama.

5.        The data that more than a crore (10 million) Vanaras were involved in building it, seems to be logical to fit to support the volume of the bridge constructed. Now, the count may not be exact, but surely Valmiki wants to say that there was a huge task force working for the bridge.

Valmiki could have easily shown Lord Rama winning the battle with few hundred Vanars as his soldiers – why 10 million?

6.        The width vs. length ratio also looks scientific and supportive to help carry such a huge mass across the bridge. The bridge is wide enough so as to withstand the weight of crores of Vanaras and allow passage to all of them.

7.        The bridge is said to be built in 5 days, giving an idea that bridge had to be built in a very short period of time, failing which the Opponent King Ravana would have come to know about it and would have attacked never allowing the bridge to be constructed. Thus, the period fits the war logic.

8.        The bridge is said to be constructed by around a crore Vanaras, the count fits the possibility of getting the bridge constructed in such a small time – a huge task force doing it. Though, the methodology of construction is not elaborated and shortened by mentioning that various ‘Yantras’ or Machinery were used to build the bridge, but it gives an indication that machinery were applied to do the task. It should be a subject to study about our past. Valmiki Ramayan: Yuddha Kanda, 22.60:

‘Hastimatran Mahakayah Pashananshch Mahabalah

Parvatanshch Samutpatya Yantraiyah Parivahanti Cha’

What was the need to mention that certain Machineries were used for constructing the bridge? How did an ancient man imagine of machineries?

9.        Very interestingly, Rama is not said to have built the bridge and the point clarifies that building it was the skill of an architect – Nala and not Rama or Hanuman, the hero of the book. Had Ramayan been a fantasy of Maharishi Valmiki, he would easily fantasized and written something like Rama built a bridge of Arrows as Rama was the hero in fantasy. But it is not so, making one think that it is not fantasy writing.

Why didn’t he tell the world that it was Lord Rama who builds it and give the credit to someone else of this great happening? After all, Lord Rama was the hero of his imagination.

10.    Ramayan also depicts the materials used in making the bridge clarifying that it was a possibility, but not under imagination of human capacity under technology support of today.

11.    Seeing the time constraint, it looks logical to have Vanars who are brisk in their movement collecting materials and fitting it in place as directed.

12.    The places mentioned in Ramayan exactly matches to the current location of the bridge, thus confirming that the book is not a story.

13.    The length of the bridge matches to what is mentioned in Ramayan.

So, looking at Ramayan alone one can conclude that the Bridge is not a natural construct. Having proven on the point of Bridge alone that Ramayan is not a book of myth, but a book of History, it straight away brings the truth that Maharishi Valmiki was the first Historian known to man kind





3.      Current Findings on RAM SETHU and their analysis

 

However, we need to further analyze current findings as well.



The first thing to consider is that under the current scientific evaluation, the bridge is proved to have a chain of shoals is 30 to 35 km long in Palk Street, and its unique curvature confirms that it is man made, and is not a Geographical Construct at all.

Archeological findings have proven that first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to primitive age of about 1,750,000 years of the same era as Ramayan (‘Treta Yug’, which lies exactly mid way to above number).

Sri Lankan Government has done Archeological Survey and found some very interesting data:

A mountain covered completely with herbal plants of same type that is found in Himalayas. There is no other mountain in whole Sri Lanka of that kind. This stands as an evidence that the mountain was brought by Lord Hanuman to Sri Lanka – How was this done is subject to study? To my knowledge, Sri Yantra of Hindu myth (or may be similar constructs) is actually a anti-gravitation theory which was know to our Rishis in those days and these things were possible only by such means. Someday, science will surely understand this.

Ashok Vatika is traced with complete Greenery and while soil. With a gap of hardly 10-20 meters, soil suddenly turns to be black and burnt and it stretches to miles. This highly unnatural and it stands to prove that Lord Hanuman had burnt Lanka.





There are many other proofs that have come up, but I consider these two points as strong as the Bridge itself.

Can our Historians consult the British again and create more theory around these evidences, so that they can be included in History books against Ramayan?



From Ayodhya to Sri Lanka, most of the places still hold the names as it was around a million years ago. Even the devastating Muslim invasion could not eliminate the names. Ayodhya, Chitrakut, Panchvati, Rameswaram, Lanka – all the names are as mentioned in the book. Rameswaram is the place where Lord Rama worshipped Lord Shiva and established the idol ‘Shiv Lingam’, exist to date as a place of worship. Ramayan talks about Mahendragiri Mountain as the highest point and best point to watch across the sea. Geographically, it is proven that Mahendragiri is the highest mountain in that area and gives a visibility of around 60 km range.



Why don’t these politicians and historians say how are these mentioned in Ramayan? Did these places pre-existed and Valmiki traveled a lot to create this story? Or these places were named after people read Valmiki Ramayan?

The more logical answer is, these places pre-existed and the event took place which Valimiki wrote as poetic history.

 



Another important fictitious topic of Ramayan is ‘Pushpak Viman’ – a vehicle that could take aerial route to travel. No doubt the Pusphak Viman no more exists, but it cannot be fantasy as we have similar air planes telling about it. What challenges the concept of Viman is the understanding that technology has developed in current era and people were devoid of such high-tech products in ancient India. But then Ramayan gives a background of Pushpak Viman in terms of how it was acquired, thereby making one think that it was not a mere fantasy. It should not be expected from the book Ramayan to describe the details of Pushpak Viman creation. The question that should be asked is where the actual scientific data of Hindu researches about building the Pushpak Viman got lost – and true history of India and world will evolve.



Do our Historians want to say that if Pushpak Viman existed then Valmiki would have mentioned how it was built? How many history book of today contains the scientific methodology of building machinery – why don’t our historians first do this?



What seems to be mythical to the Historians and Science is the concept of Monkey building the Bridge. But they forget to expand the vision on this, purely because of their biased attitude to defeating Hindu faith. We all know now that there are many species that do not exist now and the largest known to human is Dinosaur. Why can’t different specie exist around 1 million years ago with the capacity of human intelligence and monkey like physical structure – something that was called as Vanars in those days? Science do not forget to mention that man evolved out of monkeys – but defeats Hindus to consider that Vanars were the in between form of the evolution the evidence present in those days. But no view would consider this, simply because then the religion of peace would win then. Yet, there is no doubt that evolution theory is again a controversial theory existing and taught to people, without any scientific evidence around it.

No historian can deny the fact that there is a coincidence and only one coincidence between a reality and its occurrence in a book called Ramayan. Instead, of now having set a direction to find out how such thing took place, these catholic followers are simply applying all forces and theories to falsify a fact.



 

Science is now saying that the age of earth is around 4 billion years – can science produce a history of 4 billion years with concrete proof – no one asks this question and believes science. No one knows how many generation of humanity evolved and got destroyed since the earth was formed. No one knows when the earth was exactly formed. Actual fictions and stories lie on this side as well – but our dear Historians do not have the courage to flatter about it.

I do not understand, if such an amazing construct is not within the reach of modern science, why can’t this bridge be put as one of the Wonders? Why can’t it be listed under World Heritages (yet maintain it as Hindu sacred place)? Instead, the anti-Hindu moves are motivating Congress to destroy the bridge.

If the destruction of a 500 year old Babri Masjid is not tolerable and it created havoc in the world, why is million year old constructs not protected? Thousands of Hindu temples have been destroyed and are being destroyed to date in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and so many other countries. Neither media nor politics talks about it. Why shouldn’t Hindus stand now to protect Ram Sethu, which is a direct proof of One million old history of India?

Mary Jackson asked:


If you enjoy working with computers, learning new programs or testing out the latest computer software products, earning a computer science degree is necessary if you want to find a well paying job in the computer or IT field. Popular hot jobs you can apply for after you graduate include:

Database administrator

Software Support

Software engineer

Computer engineer

Interface designer

Systems analyst

Computer programmer

Network Administrator

Each of these careers is rewarding and necessary as more and more companies are in need of those who can use this technology to further their businesses.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 Edition, over half of all computer programmers have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field. This means that earning a computer science degree online will increase your chances of finding your dream job.

What will you learn through an Online Computer Degree Program?

A computer science online degree will prepare you for a career in IT, Computer Security or any of the above positions in the same way as a traditional classroom degree. But instead of having to go to class, rearrange your work schedule, or disturb other areas of your life, you can take classes online, study at your convenience and not have to worry about the added costs of parking or leaving work early to attend classes.

When you take online courses, you can expect to learn any of the following and more:

Hardware and software design

Software development

Troubleshooting

Networking

Data Security

Database management

Web design

Develop security plans

Because most companies use technology systems to carry out business processes and communicate with employees, customers, vendors and others, more and more companies are creating IT departments that employ those who understand how networks function and how to keep them secure. Computer systems and manufacturing companies are also looking for talented individuals to create new software and hardware for consumers.

While you earn your degree, you will be able to explore different fields to find one that suits your personality and interests.

Choosing an Online Computer Degree Program

When looking for an online degree program, it’s important to determine which direction you want to move toward in terms of your career. While some areas of computer science, such as computer programming, have seen a slow decline in the number of open positions since 2006, other areas such as computer support and information security have seen an increase.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 Edition, over the next few years, computer support positions are expected to increase by 13%. This means that you should choose a program that allows you to easily find employment immediately upon graduation. A computer degree online that focuses on a certain area within computer science is best if you have a particular talent in that area. You can also choose to become a generalist that specializes in a number of areas. Another pointer is to ensure you choose a computer science or IT program from an online college that is accredited.

Summary

Earning a degree in computer science or one of the many disciplines listed above can help you advance your career in one of the hottest fields today. There are many opportunities for employment once you graduate. While some fields as not a plentiful as others, your chances of finding employment are increased if you have a college degree in Computer Science or IT.

Alisha Dhamani asked:


Political leaders, tech executives, and academics often claim that the U.S. is falling behind in math and science education. They cite poor test results, declining international rankings, and decreasing enrollment in the hard sciences. They urge us to improve our education system and to graduate more engineers and scientists to keep pace with countries such as India and China.

Yet a new report by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, tells a different story. The report disproves many confident pronouncements about the alleged weaknesses and failures of the U.S. education system. This data will certainly be examined by both sides in the debate over highly skilled workers and immigration. The argument by Microsoft, Google, Intel, and others is that there are not enough tech workers in the U.S.

The authors of the report, the Urban Institute’s Hal Salzman and Georgetown University professor Lindsay Lowell, show that math, science, and reading test scores at the primary and secondary level have increased over the past two decades, and U.S. students are now close to the top of international rankings. Perhaps just as surprising, the report finds that our education system actually produces more science and engineering graduates than the market demands.

These findings go against what has been the dominant position about our education system and our science and engineering workforce. Consider reports on national competitiveness that policymakers often turn to, such reports as the 2005 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” by the National Academy of Sciences. This report says the U.S. is in dire straits because of poor math and science preparation.

The report points to declining test scores, fewer students taking math and science courses, and low-quality curriculums and teacher preparation in K-12 education compared to other countries.

The call has been taken up by some of the most prominent people in business and politics. Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, said at an education summit in 2005, “In the international competition to have the biggest and best supply of knowledge workers, America is falling behind.” President George W. Bush addressed the issue in his 2006 State of the Union address. “We need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations,” he said.

Salzman and Lowell found the reverse was true. Their report shows U.S. student performance has steadily improved over time in math, science, and reading. It also found enrollment in math and science courses is actually up. For example, in 1982 high school graduates earned 2.6 math credits and 2.2 science credits on average.

By 1998, the average number of credits increased to 3.5 math and 3.2 science credits. The percent of students taking chemistry increased from 45% in 1990 to 55% in 1996 and 60% in 2004. Scores in national tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the SAT, and the ACT have also shown increases in math scores over the past two decades.

And the new report again went against the grain when it compared the U.S. to other countries. It found that over the past decade the U.S. has ranked a consistent second place in science. It also was far ahead of other nations in reading and literacy and other academic areas. In fact, the report found that the U.S. is one of only a few nations that has consistently shown improvement over time.

Why the sharp discrepancy? Salzman says that reports citing low U.S. international rankings often misinterpret the data. Review of the international rankings, which he says are all based on one of two tests, the Trends in International Mathematics & Science Study (TIMMS) or the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), show the U.S. is in a second-ranked group, not trailing the leading economies of the world as is commonly reported.

In fact, the few countries that place higher than the U.S. are generally small nations, and few of these rank consistently high across all grades, subjects, and years tested. Moreover, he says, serious methodological flaws, such as different test populations, and other limitations preclude drawing any meaningful comparison of school systems between countries.

As far as our workforce is concerned, the new report showed that from 1985 to 2000 about 435,000 U.S. citizens and permanent residents a year graduated with bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in science and engineering. Over the same period, there were about 150,000 jobs added annually to the science and engineering workforce.

These numbers don’t include those retiring or leaving a profession but do indicate the size of the available talent pool. It seems that nearly two-thirds of bachelor’s graduates and about a third of master’s graduates take jobs in fields other than science and engineering.

Michael Teitelbaum, vice-president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which, among other things, works to improve science education, says this research highlights the troubling weaknesses in many conventional policy prescriptions.

Proposals to increase the supply of scientists and engineers rapidly, without any objective evidence of comparably rapid growth in attractive career opportunities for such professionals, might actually be doing harm.

In previous columns, I have written about research my team at Duke University completed that shattered common myths about India and China graduating 12 times as many engineers as the U.S. We found that the U.S. graduated comparable numbers and was far ahead in quality. Our research also showed there were no engineer shortages in the U.S., and companies weren’t going offshore because of any deficiencies in U.S. workers.

So, there isn’t a lack of interest in science and engineering in the U.S., or a deficiency in the supply of engineers. However, there may sometimes be short-term shortages of engineers with specific technical skills in certain industry segments or in various parts of the country.

The National Science Foundation data show that of the students who graduated from 1993 to 2001, 20% of the bachelor’s holders went on to complete master’s degrees in fields other than science and engineering and an additional 45% were working in other fields. Of those who completed master’s degrees, 7% continued their education and 31% were working in fields other than science and engineering.

There isn’t a problem with the capability of U.S. children. Even if there were a deficiency in math and science education, there are so many graduates today that there would be enough who are above average and fully qualified for the relatively small number of science and engineering jobs. Science and engineering graduates just don’t see enough opportunity in these professions to continue further study or to take employment.

With U.S. competitiveness at stake, we need to get our priorities straight. Education is really important, and a well-educated workforce is what will help the U.S. keep its global edge. But emphasizing math and science education over humanities and social sciences may not be the best prescription for the U.S. We need our children to receive a balanced and broad education.

Perhaps we should focus on creating demand for the many scientists and engineers we graduate. There are many problems, from global warming to the development of alternative fuels to cures for infectious diseases, that need to be solved. Rather than blaming our schools, let’s create exciting national programs that motivate our children to help solve these problems.

Abhishek Agarwal asked:


When an aspirant is in search for a change in career from Food Science,he prefer the outgoing kind of working style. This shows they are interested to gain more skills which would improve upon their existing skills on their new career. The Skills of Food science will provide a wider scope in food industry. More coaching may be required where qualifications are must but with knowledge in food science, courses and qualifications are not tough to obtain.

From a lower-end staff to a cook a change of career from food science to handling or preparing food may not act as a ladder of promotion, Instead it helps in interaction with clients and grasping other workers who work in more discriminated situation.It makes him more compatible with clients he meets daily.

Facing a change of career from Food to Computers would take time for developing. The former career is nourished with technical skills which can never be useless but the latter one needs to be updated with the change in latest technologies.A change of career from Food science can encourage the aspirant to face new fields in Research and Development in Food Science. With his existing skills the worker could cope to more serious challenges, improvising their knowledge from Food to other suitable fields, or they shall find a total change of environment.

A change of career from food science to a mechanical type of employment will need some time preparation. This is because the work carried out in Food science is not much mechanical.In some cases of Food Science involving strenuous physical activity and heavy lifting, an outgoing duty, in the construction firm, physical education or even horticulture would need good level of fitness compared to the needs of a Food Scientist. A change of career from Food would need an assessment in physical fitness. Assessment in health and potential is mandatory as it tests the real capability of the individual.

Change of career from a Food Science to any other health related science or nursing will need more training and practice.Guidance from experts related to the field is necessary to carry out certain social tasks The same applies when changing to fields involving administrative skills and specialized retail services.

Change of career from Food Science provides the worker a larger scope of options to make use of the skills gained through years of experience and training.

Tim Bryce asked:


This is an important question which is ultimately at the heart of a lot of the problems in systems and software development. There is one camp that believes development to be an art form requiring free-spirited creative types of people, and another camp believing it to be a science requiring people that are more disciplined and organized.

The difference between an art and a science is subtle but significant. An art form is based on the intuitiveness of the person performing the work, something that is difficult, if not impossible, to pass on to another human being. For example, apprentices serving under an artist may try for years to emulate the master, but may never attain his level of skill and creativity. In contrast, a science is based on a governing body of concepts and principles and, as such, can be easily taught to others. From this perspective, programming can certainly be viewed as a science as it has certainly been taught and passed on to others for many years; further, it involves certain governing principles in terms of language syntax, approaches to defining program logic and construction. Some might argue the physical design of a report or screen requires creativity, and there is a certain element of truth to this as some look better than others. But even the design of reports and screens can be governed by certain principles in terms of layout, navigation, color schemes, etc.

On the systems side, there are governing principles as well which can easily be taught to others. It too requires a certain element of creativity for such things as analyzing and solving business problems and designing work flows. I guess what I’m driving at is that science is certainly not devoid of creativity. For example, consider the sciences of architecture and engineering, all of which are based on governing principles, yet offers channels of creativity in design. Music is another excellent example of a science involving creativity. In other words, art does not hold a monopoly on creativity.

In any form of development you can either build things one at a time or in volume. Artists are excellent for building unique works of art, but it is hardly an effective approach for corporations to take who tend to build things with many people. Consequently, they are more inclined to adopt a development approach based on science as opposed to an art form. Further, maintaining a product derived from a science is easier than one based on art as you can more readily reproduce the object according to specifications.

Not long ago I wrote an article on why it is necessary to record your time during the day, specifically as it applies for project management purposes. During the article, I mentioned there is often resistance to reporting time by those people who perceive themselves as free-spirited creative types who do not like to be encumbered by such discipline. Pursuant to the article, I received some interesting responses who felt it wasn’t necessary to impose too many management controls and discipline on such creative spirits, particularly programmers, that it would be viewed as a bureaucracy and nuisance as opposed to helping with their assignments. They also commented on their disdain for micromanagement; that they would prefer more freedom as it pertains to their work. Personally, I do not have a problem with this as I have always advocated worker empowerment (managing from the bottom-up). In other words, they want more decision making authority in the planning process of their assignments. This means they should also be participating in the preparation of estimates for their assignments and should be able to report back to management on the progress of their assignments. To do so, there should be something more substantial than vague generalities as to where they stand on an assignment, e.g.; “I’m 50% complete.” Because of the many people participating in today’s development projects, management can ill-afford to operate with vague generalities and instead needs to know early on if the worker is in trouble or will be delivering his work product early or late. This can be simply performed by recording time spent and estimating the amount of effort remaining on an assignment. This is particularly needed, if their assignment affects the schedules of others. If the worker is going to be given more freedom to layout and estimate his work, it seems perfectly reasonable to apply a little discipline and accountability regardless of the creative spirits involved, especially if other people are involved.

So, is systems and software development a science or an art? I contend that it is a science for the reasons already mentioned. As such, it can be taught and implemented in essentially the same manner as other sciences, such as architecture and engineering, who are basically in the same business as systems and software personnel except designing other types of products. True, we still have issues of creativity and managing complexity, but this is no different than the other disciplines as well. It also means imposing the same types of discipline, organization and accountability as found in the other disciplines. The problem though is this conflicts with today’s relaxed office mores. One has to question if we have become perhaps too lax in our corporate cultures to the point it is having an adverse effect on productivity; that maybe some discipline and accountability might produce positive results.

Younger developers might contend that I am out of touch with how systems and software is developed these days, that they need free reign to do what they want. I contend there will always be a place for management, otherwise we will end up with the “1000 Monkey Phenomenon” whereby people are permitted to do whatever they so desire and maybe, just maybe, something worthwhile will be produced. Companies can certainly not afford to operate in this manner and, because of this, we will always need management to orchestrate development efforts in a concerted manner.

One last note, an area that greatly concerns me is the lack of standards in this industry, particularly in the area of systems. Sure we have plenty of theories of what systems are, but no definitive body of knowledge that can be applied uniformly. This is one obstacle prohibiting us from becoming a legitimate science. As long as there are multiple interpretations of the same thing, we will never realize any consistency and management will continue to perceive developers as free spirited artists as opposed to disciplined professionals.

If you would like to discuss this with me in more depth, please do not hesitate to send me an e-mail.

Roshan Tolani asked:


The pharmaceutical sciences have saved millions of lives and improved quality of life by playing an important role in the discovery and development of new drugs and drug therapies. As science and medicine evolve and discoveries are made at an astonishing rate, the pharmaceutical industry continues to generate billions of dollars and employ top researchers and professionals.

With accelerating advances in science and technology, the pharmaceutical industry has entered its most promising period yet for new drug development. Pharmaceutical companies are using new knowledge and techniques to attack the root causes—rather than just the symptoms—of diseases and thus are revolutionizing the ways in which new drugs are discovered and developed.

The Disciplines of the Pharmaceutical Sciences

The pharmaceutical sciences can be broadly categorized according to the following disciplines:

* Drug discovery: This discipline deals with the design and synthesis of new drug molecules and includes medicinal chemistry, combinatorial chemistry, and biotechnology.

* Drug delivery: This discipline deals with designing the forms of drug dosages and their delivery to patients. Those involved in drug delivery work to determine the best concentrations of and schedules for drugs. Sciences related to this field include pharmaceutics, biomaterials, and pharmacokinetics.

* Drug action: This discipline examines the actions of drugs in living systems. Sciences dealing with drug action include molecular biology, pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, toxicology, and biochemistry.

* Clinical sciences: This discipline deals with the use of drugs to treat diseases. Drugs’ properties, such as efficacy, adverse effects, drug-to-drug interactions, and bioavailability, are tested in clinical trials.

* Drug analysis: This discipline deals with the separation, identification, and quantification of components of drugs.

* Cost effectiveness: This discipline deals with the economics of drug usage.

* Regulatory affairs: This discipline deals with the coordination of academia, industry, and regulatory bodies.

Careers in the Pharmaceutical Industry

The research-based pharmaceutical industry is one of the strongest components of the American economy and leads the world in discovering and developing innovative new life-saving medicines.

Almost half of the most important global drugs developed between 1975 and 1994 originated in the U.S. U.S. companies developed 370 new medicines to fight dreaded diseases during this period. In 2000, the market value of the industry was greater than $379 million. The field offers a myriad of opportunities to pharmaceutical scientists.

Pharmaceutical companies employ several hundred thousand professionals in a variety of jobs in the U.S. In view of the demand for well-trained professionals, the earning potential of pharmacists is very high. According to an American Pharmaceutical Association report, pharmacists’ salaries range from around $40,000 to $70,000.

Is a Career in Pharmaceutical Sciences Right for Me?

The pharmaceutical field is a good choice for those who:

* want to work in laboratories

* desire to contribute to the health and well-being of society

* love science and excel in the subject

* enjoy professional challenges

* enjoy finding solutions to medical problems baffling scientific communities

How Can I Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist?

Get an undergraduate or advanced college degree in pharmacy, chemistry, biology, medicine, or a related field. There are many who became pharmaceutical scientists after obtaining degrees in economics, marketing, business, or other non-scientific subjects. To work as a registered pharmacist, one needs to satisfy both national and state licensing requirements. Some states require fulfillment of a certain number of continuing education credits annually to stay abreast of developments in the field.