Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Faster, but smarter? (Score 2) 46

... Lets say there are enough specialized teams to treat 1,000 glioblastoma patients per year and they successfully treat 80% of patients. 800 saved hurray! But, for the same price, Watson could develop treatments for 10,000 patients, saving 4,000 of them.

The idea of "saved" in this case is overly optimistic.

From Glioblastoma Multiforme and Glioblastoma:

The median survival time from the time of diagnosis without any treatment is 3 months, but with treatment survival of 1–2 years is common.

For adults with more aggressive glioblastoma, treated with concurrent temozolamide and radiation therapy, median survival is about 14.6 months and two-year survival is 30%. However, a 2009 study reported that almost 10% of patients with glioblastoma may live five years or longer.

My wife died of this in 2006 just 7 weeks after diagnosis Remember Sue....
Though perhaps with Watson many more people could be, at least, helped.

Comment Re:she's a nutcase (Score 1) 710

Do individual women need encouragement? Of course - our culture favors quiet little mermaids, not bold warrior princesses.

Indeed. I saw a sign over a door in a photo Chelsea Handler tweeted that said, "Well behaved women seldom make history." which is a quote from and name of a book by historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.

Comment Re:i interpret it to mean (Score 5, Funny) 497

A rare scientific law means it is settled. For most of them their are theories ...

The problem most people have is confusing Scientific Theory and pundit "theory" (mind the quotes). The two are not the same -- I even question Commander Data's overuse of the word theory in his many musings. I think he was sometimes a little slack in his application, but that's just a theory.

Comment Re:On The Bright Side (Score 1) 253

You missed some pretty blatant sarcasm there, buddy.

You missed some pretty blatant sarcasm there, buddy.

I considered that but, if it was sarcasm, it actually wasn't well executed and some people really don't know that some NICs support MAC cloning/changing, so I replied.

Conveying sarcasm in writing is hard to do well. Simply stating a contrary fact/opinion in a reply, like 'Because a MAC address cannot be cloned" hoping the reader knows the truth and assumes the writer does too doesn't cut it. There needs to be some clue that the writer actually knows the truth. When speaking, this is usually done through tone and inflection - which is hard to do on the page. In this case, a better attempt would have been, "Ya, well, it's not like a MAC address can be cloned with a few simple commands."

Slashdot Top Deals

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...