Slashdot Mirror

We've made a little progress over the decades, but nowhere near what you'd expect from all the articles about revolutionary new treatments.

Breast cancer survival rates have tripled. Rates for some other cancers have improved even more.

There is much work to be done, but many "revolutionary new treatments" are indeed revolutionary. Other cancers are succumbing to steady incremental progress.

sure, ok, however, look at how many companies and researches are living the good life .... do you really think all those research dollars are well spent??

We've made a little progress over the decades, but nowhere near what you'd expect from all the articles about revolutionary new treatments.

Breast cancer survival rates have tripled. Rates for some other cancers have improved even more.

There is much work to be done, but many "revolutionary new treatments" are indeed revolutionary. Other cancers are succumbing to steady incremental progress.

No - but it is in an *insurance companies* interest to know that. There is always some party who gains benefit from knowing the truth.

A great example. Cancer is untreatable. Oh, right, no it's not. Why? Could it be because the insurance companies, seeing that most cancer are tobacco related have funded research into cancer treatment? Nope, that's not it. Clinical trials paid for by, in large part, government agencies? With breast cancer, of all things? Why shouldn't only women (and the 0.01% or whatever of men) pay for it?

Of course, once you have cancer, you'll obviously have the billions to fund the cancer research either personally or at that moment have the time to organize around getting the funding to do the research. Which of course will be pointless because you'll be dead before the research reaches any sort of conclusion because reality isn't a 30 minute TV episode. Oh, and even then breast cancer research, one of the "sexier" cancer researches, still doesn't get enough funding through private means.

Seriously, your assertion of "truth will prevail" leads into...

As always, the certainly of graft, corruption, and the pushing to the side of REAL science in the rush to prove some assertion is true regardless of facts.

And that's why we don't have computers. You do realize that [modern] computers only work because of quantum mechanics and that following the science instead of a rush to prove some assertion is why we follow it no matter how nonsensical quantum mechanics is to us, right? So, truth will prevail. But getting from truth (which is not fact, btw) to practical application took over 30 years with a lot of government spending--because Intel's IC couldn't shrink down an existing computer without there being an existing computer and the many trials and failures on designs funded heavily through government through university/military.

It's almost as if there were a problem, like cancer or rapid computation, and the government saw some benefit in a solution and was willing to shoulder decades of failure because it was the only way to kickstart the few avenues of success that even private industry might take a decade to succeed at. Which, of course, does lead to a lot of graft, corruption, and wasted spending. So does capitalism. Really, so does just about any system*.

Put simply, you're a narrow minded, ungrateful moron who can't see the nuance of history nor do you have any consideration for even yourself for the unexpected events that will personally effect you. Thankfully, there are people who don't have their head so far up their ass to recognize that public (ie government) spending is necessary to fund big ideas (or subsidize less common ones), public (ie charity) is needed when government refuses to cover certain avenues, and private (ie commercial) is needed to handle the more routine stuff and better optimize actual delivery of goods/services. They're all necessary in the big picture.

* Planned markets are the ideal in principle but as you've obviously realized fail because they're a single point of failure for dogma or corruption or whatever.

PS - Amazing how I can agree with you on some of your principle ideas but disagree entirely on your short-sighted thoughts on implementation, huh?

This brings up an idea that my wife pointed out. In recent history, there has been an increase in the rate of transgendered individuals. This has resulted in political polarization, where some people are demonizing them and others are saying that body dismorphic disorder is somehow a good thing. Both are wrong. People with body dismorphic disorder have every right to their dignity and to manage and adjust their bodies as they see fit. However, that doesnâ(TM)t mean there isnâ(TM)t an external cause, and we think a major factor is all of these hormines being pumped into the water supply.

It's a better theory than most people think. Physicists and biologists have been pointing out how similar plastics are to hormones since forever. There has been a rise in gynecomastia which cannot be explained solely by obesity, strongly supporting this theory.

Perhaps you can live with yourself for murdering 12% of the population every year due to your purchased federal justice, but that doesn't make you right, only a selfish asshole that no one likes.

Discoveries are already instantly in the public domain since there is nothing to build and nothing has been invented.
Why should anyone get a 20 year monopoly for doing literally jack shit all but kill people?

I think computers have the ability to automate huge areas people think require 'judgment'. Will they be perfect or catch odd cases? Probably not. Yet, that must be weighed against the ability to provide the service on mass.

For example, radiographers are currently some of the highest paid medical professionals. Today, automated detection is already quite high in terms of accuracy (80%+). About the same as human radiographers. For example.
http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/testing/new_research/20081001b.jsp

Is it possible a human radiographer could detect weird anomalies or something. Of course. But as a mass provided service, the computer would be way cheaper and provide affordable healthcare. Obviously before surgery, a human should probably double check :P

While I doubt the technology is there yet, I certainly don't think it impossible to have robo-grading for the evaluation of mass essays. Again, we have to compare it to the real world with people. Sure, a human grader going through every essay in detail might be better. But on average how thorough are graders? How thorough are patent examiners in examining patents on a mass scale?

Could we not imagine a system where the professor lists points they 'expect' to see in the essay. Somehow natural language processing can check for these points.
I could certainly imagine that working for essays you might write in high school for Shakespeare or an analysis of a book.
If I remember my high school, there was always a limited set of themes and points discussed.

Of course professors can always recheck for really creative work that the program mucks up.

But I think people overestimate the creativity of people in the school environment when applied to a large user set.

If you loo

You're right, and it's worth noting that Brca 1 and 2 mutations do increase the risk for that too. I suppose the offhand comment wasn't worth making.

You might feel differently if you had cancer.

Then, perhaps, you might notice how much of the most promising research is wrapped up in patents related to genes.

Used to be, you could not patent genes found in nature.

So this patent trolling effect is what keeps genetic tests for BRCA-2 over 10 thousand dollars per test while it costs less than $200 dollars elsewhere.

An the fighting over patents just pushes a real cure farther into the distance.

Truly a sad thing.

If we're heading for an idiocracy, it's not because idiots breed more. Their children have the same genetic gifts as anyone else, on the whole

The debate of nature vs. nurture on intelligence is far from settled, but it seems quite logical to assume that genetics *must* have some influence on intelligence, otherwise dogs and apes and all other animals would be as smart as we are.

You seem to have fallen in a similar logical trap which creationists use when they claim that genetic evolution cannot cause species differentiation. You claim that genetics cannot explain differences among animals of one species, they claim genetics cannot explain differences between species.

Let's face it, genetics does cause a difference. For instance women of Jewish European ancestry are more likely to have breast cancer, the gene that causes this has been isolated. By knowing of this susceptibility, people can take the needed precautions to detect the disease sooner and improve the chances of treatment.

I think this taboo about acknowledging possible genetic causes for differences in intelligence is doing much more harm than good. If we had a better knowledge of what causes better or worse intelligence, we could create a treatment for disorders that afflict the disadvantaged. It helps no one to blame it solely on the educational system.

Anyhow, it's ironical that you make this argument here, where the archetypal slashdotter is a virgin geek that hacks computers in his mom's basement while the football players get all the girls...

Sorry to hear about your wife's aunt's diagnosis. If she hasn't found it yet, the website http://www.breastcancer.org/ has a lot of information. It really helped me during my diagnosis and treatment last year.

Background and study design: The rumor that using underarm deodorant or antiperspirant can cause breast cancer has circulated for years on the Internet. Yet there has never been any scientific basis for such a claim. Yahoo can help you.