Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:remember playing this (Score 4, Interesting) 64

There was a very similar one for the BBC micro we had at school, the yellow river kingdom.

Being the clever guy in the class, i modified the basic it was written in to be quite "boyish". Instead of wheat and stuff, it was sperm for the prostitutes. I forget the exact changes. Anyhow the girls in the class loved it (why i did it in the first place) and they played it with the teacher in the room and where in hysterics. So the teacher watched....

Well so much for being the smart kid. I was the only one that could code, so despite the girls pleading the 5th or whatever you do when your 12 in NZ, i was busted. Fortunately i had also just got into a lot of trouble with current crush of the month (she was tall and had amazing boobs in catholic uniform! ) by trying to hit on her with fancy things. Stolen things. Her dad was the local police constable. It did not end well. My parents didn't know what to do. So they did nothing!

Comment Re:Survey bias (Score 1) 140

Close enough. We expect slightly less than half a person to have a true positive. So it is closer to 1:800 chance that they have cancer. Wondering if anyone was going to answer. Btw that is the statistics of these 136 or whatever children that have not passed these tests. Mostly likely none of them have thyroid cancer.

Comment Re:Survey bias (Score 1) 140

No they don't have 137 confirmed cases. They have 137 *potential* cases from a test that has a *false positive* rate. The quote are media BS "Dude on a phone said...". Show me the data. Real data, not "OMG Radiation!" Incidentally they don't even have that data. How many of the 137 were not exposed to *any* radiation?

Comment Re:Survey bias (Score 4, Informative) 140

It not a higher rate of cancer. It is a higher rate of *potentially* cancerous cells. But that is how screening works. Rather high false positive rates but generally much less invasive or cheaper than the more expensive test that has a low false positive rate.

Here is the test. I test 400,000 children for a cancer that has a prevalence rate of 1 in a million. The test has a .1% false positive rate. If my child tests positive what is the probability my child really has the cancer. Note most doctors get this wrong.

Comment Re:The Economist on TPP and patents (Score 3, Interesting) 388

Having worked for big pharma, that is more than enough proof that patents should be abolished. Oh but it cost so much to get a drug to market you say. They don't pay for that, government grants and university "collaborations" do. But who will make our drugs? Well for a start we may actually get drugs that are useful and help, and will even be given only to patients that need them. Secondly we will get rid of the "Shut up and take our fucking pills" pharma medicine. It is like homeopathy. Only with real side effects.

Burning all the big pharma to the ground would increase the health of the general public.

Real computer scientists like having a computer on their desk, else how could they read their mail?