Slashdot Mirror


Hawking Expecting To Make Full Recovery

explosivejared writes "Yesterday we discussed the medical scare that physicist Stephen Hawking was going through. Happily, his website has posted a succinct statement that he is being kept for observation, but he is comfortable and expecting a full recovery."

73 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Full Recovery? by dsginter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are any of us expected to make a full recovery?

    Life is the leading cause of death, ya know.

    --
    More
    1. Re:Full recovery? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Funny


      So he's going to be up and out of that wheelchair in no time, eh?

      The brain transplant went well.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Full Recovery? by chord.wav · · Score: 2

      Are any of us expected to make a full recovery?

      You are a sysadmin, right?

    3. Re:Full Recovery? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Life is the leading cause of death, ya know."

      "Death and the sun are not to be looked at steadily." François de La Rochefoucauld

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    4. Re:Full Recovery? by Ractive · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Life is the leading cause of death, ya know.

      It's not really the cause but it's indeed a requirement.

    5. Re:Full Recovery? by jd · · Score: 1

      By full, I take it they mean of the chest infection, not that they're experimenting with stem cell therapy to replace the motor neurons in his brain and spinal cord. (Though if they got to that point before he was too old to operate on, it might be kinda cool.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Full recovery? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      I hope good ol' Stephen enjoys his renewed life as a 20-something leggy blond. Or should I say 'Stephany'.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    7. Re:Full Recovery? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      He has so many things wrong with him that they may conspire to keep alive indefinitely. Maybe Stephen Hawking is how we will all wind up.

    8. Re:Full Recovery? by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      life is a fatal std

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    9. Re:Full Recovery? by Geminii · · Score: 1

      I was waiting for "...expected to make a full recovery, and is already training for the Boston Marathon."

    10. Re:Full Recovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why don't they just turn him off and back on again. That usually fixes it.

  2. I'm a physicist myself by adpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... but I admire his skill when it comes to explaing the complicated stuff to the masses. Go Stephen!

  3. Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by damburger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The man is a survivor, that is for sure. I saw him lecture a few months ago, and is still on form. He will still answer the dumbest questions from any snide creationist or just plain ignorant member of the public - even though it took him considerable effort to compose a response.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      How long does it take him now? I attended a lecture probably a decade ago at CalTech, and he took questions but was able to answer only one or two in the 45 minutes that followed. I've heard that the technology for his communications has been improved, but not to what degree.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see a sampling of common Q&A from creationists answered by Hawking.

    3. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by damburger · · Score: 1

      About the same - although he might have got an extra question if his helper hadn't been too busy fielding questions himself to notice the cheek mounted sensor wasn't calibrated right.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by damburger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well one of the questions was 'IF the universe is expanding, where is it expanding from' and the other was 'What happened before the big bang' (I paraphrase in both cases).

      Both had a tone in their voice suggesting they had some uber-clever question with which to catch out probably the greatest living British mind, and both asked questions that could've been answered by myself or any of the about 50 people from the physics department who attended the lecture. It angered me, I must say.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    5. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by damburger · · Score: 1

      You didn't hear these people. Their questions were hostile, and pretty fucking dumb.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    6. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by Bemopolis · · Score: 4, Funny

      GP had it right. Snide evolutionists don't bother asking such questions of Hawking. Since he's, you know, not a biologist.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    7. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You do realize that there are snide believers in evolution, also...right? Just being a creationist doesn't make someone "snide".

      The GP was using an adjective to modify the noun in the sentence- 'creationist.' If every creationist were snide, he wouldn't have used the adjective because it would have been redundant. He chose to call the creationists in this scenario 'snide' because they were asking rudimentary questions to a man for whom communication is a great chore.

      I don't know if it was intentional or not, but I'll point out that the GP did not apply other adjectives to the creationists that might have seemed redundant.

    8. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You didn't hear these people. Their questions were hostile, and pretty fucking dumb.

      So maybe that particular talk brought out an especially dumb sample of Creationists.

      Does this really tell us much about the general population of Creationists vs. the general population of non-Creationists? It's a pretty small sample.

    9. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that there are snide believers in evolution, also...right?

      So? If there weren't snide evolutionists asking questions at the event on which the description was based, the fact that they exist elsewhere is irrelevant. The use of a adjective along with a noun usually suggests that the adjective is adding additional information that is not implicit in the noun, and also usually does not mean that there are no instances where the same adjective would apply to other nouns, even ones that are semantically opposed to the one being used in the present sentence.

      Just being a creationist doesn't make someone "snide".

      If it did, the phrase "snide creationist" would be redundant, so the mere use of the phrase suggests, indeed, that the GP realizes that.

      Not looking for an argument, by any means...just pointing that out.

      ...in a context in which it is completely irrelevant. If you aren't trolling, exactly what are you doing?

    10. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by el3mentary · · Score: 1

      Or anyone with a rudimentary science education.

      --
      I reject your reality and substitute my own.
    11. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 2

      Don't get upset with creationists for putting forth poor arguments. Encourage them to continue. It will only make them more irrelevant.

    12. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, most of them really ARE that dumb. There's a few who are fairly well educated but they have to take a lot of effort to make the world around us fit into a 2000 year-old fairy tale and still be plausible.

      Call me small-minded. Call me a bigot. I don't care, as far as I'm concerned they are a plague that's long outlived their usefulness.

    13. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by mangu · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just being a creationist doesn't make someone "snide".

      Since English is not my first language, I had to consult a dictionary on this: snide - sly and malicious, which got me to sly - skillful at trickery or deceit

      Well, yes, "snide" pretty much describes every creationist person I ever knew or heard about.

    14. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by publiclurker · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd say skilled is not a word usually used when referring to creationists. While they always try to use trickery and deceit, they are rarely skilled at it.

    15. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, this individual story might not tell us much but there's a lot of evidence that creationists are in general dumber and less educated than the general populace. (This is assuming that we define creationist to not mean "belief that God created the world" but rather almost any statement that makes more or less concrete claims about the role that God had in the universe). The GSS data is very strong in this regard, showing that there's a strong correlation between having a large vocabulary (which is a useful proxy for intelligence)and acceptance of evolution.http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/02/who-believes-in.html. Similar results occur when you look at SAT scores and IQ tests. In particular, Protestant denominations which are avowedly Young Earth Creationist have lower average SAT scores and IQ scores. See for example http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/05/biblical_literalism_or_low_iq.php which shows an extremely strong inverse correlations between the fraction of a denomination that ascribes to Biblical literalism and the IQ score (seriously, R^2 is around .86. You almost never get social science data that shows that strong a correlation).

      One thing to keep in mind is that this doesn't necessarily mean that this doesn't necessarily imply that evolution is more likely to be correct or that the smart people are paying more attention to the evidence. Razib Khan, who put together the quick little analysis linked to above about IQ and Biblical literalism, has suggested (can't find link right now unfortunately) that smart people are more likely to believe ideas from other smart people and that this accounts for some of the strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of evolution.

    16. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know... I always thought "what happened before the Big Bang" is a good question. I am still expecting a convincing answer.

      I have heard that there was no time "before the Big Bang" because timespace is a single thing, but that only makes me wonder what triggered time or how matter could exist outside space, since there was no time.

      Then, I get an explanation about how particles appear and disapear, coming and going from "somewhere else" (sorry, I don't remember the right term) without an apparent reason and how this happens all the time, but was particulary important when the matter was concentrated in one point.

      This doesn't seem very rudimentary for me, I feel that I'm lacking information. Like: where exactly does the particles come from and if the particle appearing/disappearing happens in such small scale, how did the massively dense universe get formed.

      ...even google failed me.

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    17. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      >>You do realize that there are snide believers in evolution, also...right?

      It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide!

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    18. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by Raenex · · Score: 2, Informative

      The common answer by scientists is quite unconvincing, and what it really amounts to is "sorry, can't explain it, the equations don't go back any further". A year or two ago I saw a Hawking video (covered on Slashdot) where he actually addressed this question as part of the presentation, and he gave the answer as a joke along the lines that God created Hell for people who asked such questions.

    19. Re:Cannot be killed by conventional weapons by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Great post. Wish I could mod it up.

  4. Rushing to Death by pleappleappleap · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But still, there's not reason to help death on its rounds...

    I, for one, am glad Professor Hawking is expected to recover.

  5. Full recovery? by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

    So he's going to be up and out of that wheelchair in no time, eh?

  6. They finally checked on him by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Funny

    Until then, it was 50-50. But as soon as the doctors observed him, the state of his health collapsed to one state: full recovery.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:They finally checked on him by idontgno · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, Hawking's observed photon trace virtualized into a Hawking-antiHawking pair. AntiHawking fell into a black hole, and we're recovering Hawking.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:They finally checked on him by jd · · Score: 1

      Maybe the anti-Hawking is merely employing the newly-discovered form of tunneling, as discussed in a prior article. We need to establish a Casimir Effect such as to exclude the anti-Hawking particle from being a valid state. Do you think if we made him a tinfoil hat, it would work?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:They finally checked on him by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      AntiHawking fell into a black hole, and we're recovering Hawking.

      Wait a minute... Stephen Hawking didn't used to have a goatee... We saved the wrong one!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:They finally checked on him by Haoie · · Score: 1

      Finally, unified field theory in terms I can understand!!

      --
      If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
    5. Re:They finally checked on him by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If he's anything like Spock, we saved the right one. Leonard Nimoy looked fresh with a goatee.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:They finally checked on him by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

      They must have put him in a coffin. Thankfully, when they opened it he was alive.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  7. Something sounds fishy... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    First we hear that he's near death, now he's going to recover... it's almost as if he got trapped in a black hole, and was only able to escape by spawning an anti-Hawking to be left inside... yes, that's the only thing that makes sense.

    1. Re:Something sounds fishy... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yes. First he has a bandage on his forehead, then it is gone. First he's near death, then he's fine. Hmmm. Almost as if there is some Alternative Factor at work here.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  8. Recovery by KingPin27 · · Score: 1

    Comfortable and expecting to make a full recovery --- As comfortable as a dying man can be I'm sure. Makes me wonder why he'd even want to recover. What amazes me most is his strong will to live - going from being a graduate student with a prognoses of months to live to living years and beating major odds. My thoughts are with you Mr. Hawking - here's to a speedy recovery.

    --
    "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
  9. Obviously he will recover by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obviously Dr. Hawking will recover - he has not yet found a full Grand Unified Theory integrating quantum mechanics and gravity. That's the deal he made with Death - he gets to have that theory published before he dies.

    A much better gambit than challenging The Grim Reaper to chess. Or Twister, even.

    -------
    Seriously - get well soon sir, and keep on thinking free.

    1. Re:Obviously he will recover by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Similar to this.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Obviously he will recover by jd · · Score: 1

      The deal requires that Death be listed as co-author and gets 25% on the movie rights. Oh, and the movie is to have a major role for Binky.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Obviously he will recover by Abreu · · Score: 1

      The deal requires that Death be listed as co-author and gets 25% on the movie rights. Oh, and the movie is to have a major role for Binky.

      [SQUEAK]

      Oh, and the Death of Rats too!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    4. Re:Obviously he will recover by daveime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I GET 100% OF EVERYTHING.

  10. Bloody good show by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    'Nuff said.

    rj

  11. sweet zombie jesus by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    Any day in which Professor Farnsworth makes for two front-page tags is a good day.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  12. Funny tags by kushiague · · Score: 1

    You guys crack me up: "natural20"

    I wish I would make those saves when i come down with a flu, but then again i'm not as badass as Stephen Hawking.

    Cheers.

    1. Re:Funny tags by banffbug · · Score: 1

      I laughed pretty hard at "natural20" as well. Very fitting and well chosen, tagger gods.

  13. Ok, two things by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comfortable and expecting to make a full recovery --- As comfortable as a dying man can be I'm sure. Makes me wonder why he'd even want to recover.

    First thing - we're all dying. Right now. Sure, Mr. Hawking has a name for what he's dying from and you don't (yet), but mortality is pretty much a constant. Just because your fate hasn't been given a label yet doesn't mean you don't have one. You do, just like everyone else. Including Mr. Hawking. I hope you're "as comfortable" as you can be too.

    Second thing. Any sick person wants to recover. And that means you too. I guarantee if you were in a similar state you'd want to live just as much as...well, as anyone else. There's more to life than being able to walk around the block. There's art, music, science, math, and a host of other things you don't need a functioning body to enjoy.

    My best friend from college has crippling MS. He's wheelchair bound. And he's one of the craziest and most fun people I've ever known. And at the time had an astonishingly hot girlfriend.

    Life has far bigger parameters than you imply.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Ok, two things by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      You said that much more nicely and with greater sophistication than I would have. Cheers.

    2. Re:Ok, two things by ekhben · · Score: 1

      First thing. The label you're looking for is "senescence." Not everyone has it. It only occurs in older people. It will develop in everyone, but the key processes involved in aging do not happen in the young. So, no. Not everyone is dying of something right now.

      Second thing. You're so remarkably far away from reality that I'm just going to leave you with two words that you can google at your own leisure. Euthanasia. Suicide.

    3. Re:Ok, two things by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      What about sex?

      If sex was a person's only reason for being alive, the highest UID on /. would be in the low 100's. And marriage would be illegal.

      BTW, Mr. Hawking has fathered three children, and all after his diagnosis.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
  14. So much better than... by erlkonig · · Score: 1

    I'm glad he's going to be okay! And this is so much better than putting him in a completely isolated box and thinking, with uncertainty, "well, he's probably...".

  15. So much more to offer by GNUCyberKat · · Score: 1

    I am very glad to hear that he is recovering from the immediate health concerns. Despite his age combined with his Lou Gehrig's disease, he potentially has so much more to offer the scientific world specifically and humanity in general. His mind is clear and simply, utterly amazing.

    It should be said that through his book, A Brief History of Time, that he has encourage many people otherwise ignorant of science to not only better understand our universe but to do so with enjoyment and sometimes passion. It is not too often that a scientist can elicit that level of societal consciousness.

    It would be a shame for him to become fully incapacitated or die and eliminate the greatest modern looking-glass into the world of physics and science.

    1. Re:So much more to offer by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

      I sometimes worry about his quality of life. I have read several of his books. According to the latest one I read, given his longevity, he is not sure he has Lou Gehrig's disease or if it is a similar but not as quickly fatal disorder. He reports he has now lost the ability to judge distances. Hopefully, the disorder will not affect his higher faculties.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  16. Good! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm glad to hear it.

    These things are relative, of course: Professor Hawking's "good health" is a serious illness by most usual standards. He's not a young man, either.

    Nevertheless, I wish him well.

    ...laura

  17. Re:Answering questions by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    THIS is the man who needs the slashdot meme form!

    "Your questions fails for the following reasons:

    Creationism
    Snide
    Hostile
    Answered in Intro Biology page 43.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  18. Re:Amazing by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't. There's nothing miraculous about a low probability occurrence. Given a large enough sample, low probability results are likely and expected; the absence of someone with unusual survival would be much more significant.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  19. MOD PARENT UP by Torodung · · Score: 1

    That is EXACTLY what I thought.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Torodung · · Score: 1

      And even funnier. I have mod points and didn't realize it. DUH.

      Hopefully I will make a full recovery as well. ;^)

      --
      Toro

  20. Re:Amazing by Meshugga · · Score: 1

    No it is, because it is HIM, not one of the other one-in-a-hundredthousand who suffer from ALS at a certain point in time and die within 2-5 years after the first signs.

  21. Living, is a very dangerous activity . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . no one has been able to survive it yet.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Living, is a very dangerous activity . . . by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      So you never heard of that MacLeod guy?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Living, is a very dangerous activity . . . by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 1

      I have.

    3. Re:Living, is a very dangerous activity . . . by kalirion · · Score: 1

      . . . no one has been able to survive it yet.

      Close to 6.8 billion people would beg to differ.

  22. Re:hawking is proof there is no god by redcaboodle · · Score: 1

    Au contraire.

    Professor Hawking is the living proof that there is a god and that he gets thoroughly pissed from time to time.

    I suppose it's time to look into the living brain project.

    --
    -- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
  23. "Fuck You, Death!..." by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

    "...I win again!"

    (Title track on the next MC Hawking album.)

    Back off, Grim Reaper! The Hawkman has business to take care of.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  24. He's back and badder than ever... by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1
    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();