Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:I'm tellin ya... (Score 2) 189

The "death sentence" pancreatic cancer you are thinking of is pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which arises from the ducts, usually isn't detected until it has metastasized, and yes, has an average life span measured in months.
Jobs had a neuroendocrine cancer, which arises from the islet cells, is generally detected earlier because it causes a variety of symptoms (too much insulin which leads to hypoglycemia, etc), and has a varying but generally fairly good prognosis. In fact in some cases, surgeons can just "shell" the thing out of the pancreas and done. Other options can include an interventional radiologist embolizing the artery that supplies the tumor, killing it.
I don't know his level of metastasis at detection, but a full science approach here would almost certainly have saved him.

Comment Re:He's got a point (Score 5, Interesting) 208

I agree, the title "Worst company in America" is definitely worded badly. It's from the Consumerist, which means it's the company with the "worst customer service" or "worst attitude toward consumers" or something along those lines, basically. The investment banks causing the mortgage crisis may have great customer service, who knows? Most Americans don't deal with them on a daily basis, so they're not ever going to win this poll. And BP is not an American company anyway, but no one was complaining how they treated customers. Regardless if most of them are conscious of it are not, EA systematically treats their customers like resources to be mined rather than partners in a mutually beneficial relationship. No one (or at least no one significant) there understands the golden goose principle.

If you've seen The Wire, it reminds me of when Avon Barksdale is at a party at a club and two guys walk in high (his customers most likely) and he looks at them in utter disgust, then has them thrown out. That's why you have been winning this poll, EA. You're the supplier, and we're the junkies, and since there is a cohort of "addict" customers that will continue to purchase your product regardless of how you treat them, you maintain the status quo.

Comment Re:It's just another tool (Score 1) 198

His point, I believe, is "flagrantly wrong" diagnoses are flagrant/obvious enough (such as diagnosing growth plate fracture in an 80 year old or prescribing amputation for pneumonia for instance) that the doctor can then override/run the program again/change parameters/etc. As another resident, I concur with the sentiment. You're right, if the algorithm was subtly wrong 1% of the time, there would be a high chance of overturning a correct diagnosis. What did you have, if I may ask, that a computer diagnosed you and your medical team rejected that diagnosis?

Comment Re:Not smart Enough? (Score 1) 1276

It would be nice if we could just memorize and recall anything with little effort, but alas, no. The brain is naturally going to gravitate to the most efficient (for itself) solution. The brain's job is twofold: to store information as memories and process it/try to optimize that as well as it can. The thing is, once we know where to find information, we know not to rely on our imperfect memory and just learn the location of that info.

If you had a source of information (say a train timetable) and you knew that you would have access to that timetable via your smartphone at any time, you are going to spend little if any effort on memorizing that timetable (assuming you needed to know more than just 1-2 arrival times). What you will memorize extremely well though, is that reference - the address of the timetable on the internet or the location of the file on your phone.

I really really want to find the study, but I can't at the moment; anyway, it's a fairly logical conclusion. Give two groups a bunch of information they need to regurgitate on an exam. Tell the control group that they will not have access to the information after the time is up, and then store it in a file cabinet. Tell the test group that they will have access to the information (provided they can remember where the information was stored). The control group obviously can give much more information by memory, but they couldn't tell you which drawer of the cabinet it was in. The test group doesn't remember a whole lot, but remembers exactly which drawer and what the folder looked like that the information was stored in. And then the test group obviously does much better on the actual exam at the end; they have all the info.

There is no reason genetically to suggest that we are getting "dumber" in any way. We are the same species we have been for thousands of years. Our information structure is changing rapidly however, and it is interesting to see how we are adapting to it.

Your point was that these kids are all going to be led away from whatever they find on Google. But, as someone else pointed out, that's way more information (more viewpoints, etc) than was available to previous generations.

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.