Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Will 'Solve' Cancer Within The Next 10 Years By Treating It Like A Computer Virus, Says Company (independent.co.uk)

Microsoft is serious about finding a cure for cancer. In June, Microsoft researchers published a paper that shows how analyzing online activities can provide clues as to a person's chances of having cancer. They were able to identify internet users who had pancreatic cancer even before they'd been diagnosed, all from analyzing web query logs. Several months later, researchers on behalf of the company now say they will "solve" cancer within the next 10 years by treating it like a computer virus that invades and corrupts the body's cells. The goal is to monitor the bad cells and potentially reprogram them to be healthy again. The Independent reports: The company has built a "biological computation" unit that says its ultimate aim is to make cells into living computers. As such, they could be programmed and reprogrammed to treat any diseases, such as cancer. In the nearer term, the unit is using advanced computing research to try and set computers to work learning about drugs and diseases and suggesting new treatments to help cancer patients. The team hopes to be able to use machine learning technologies -- computers that can think and learn like humans -- to read through the huge amounts of cancer research and come to understand the disease and the drugs that treat it. At the moment, so much cancer research is published that it is impossible for any doctor to read it all. But since computers can read and understand so much more quickly, the systems will be able to read through all of the research and then put that to work on specific people's situations. It does that by bringing together biology, math and computing. Microsoft says the solution could be with us within the next five or ten years.

259 comments

  1. We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ........

    1. Re:We're doomed by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      2026: Microsoft is widely blamed for unleashing the vampiric zombie cancer plague that has wiped out most of humanity.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:We're doomed by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Funny


      2026: Microsoft is widely blamed for unleashing the vampiric zombie cancer plague that has wiped out most of humanity.

      microsoft gets defeated in 2030 by an army led by general protection fault.

      we have no records dated after that.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:We're doomed by davester666 · · Score: 2

      And you definitely do not want anyone to use the backdoor Microsoft will leave in "just in case".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      2026: Microsoft is widely blamed for unleashing the vampiric zombie cancer plague that has wiped out most of humanity.

      Microsoft - giving "The Blue Screen Of Death" a whole new meaning.

    5. Re:We're doomed by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Am I the only one who is scared about the fact that these clueless fuckwits have enough data on us to diagnose which of us has prostate cancer?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    6. Re:We're doomed by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Am I the only one who is scared about the fact that these clueless fuckwits have enough data on us to diagnose which of us has prostate cancer?

      Diagnosing that someone has prostate cancer because they've googled "symptoms of prostate cancer" isn't rocket surgery.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:We're doomed by BundesSheep · · Score: 1

      It's not basket weaving, either. I have googled for symptoms of common ailments that people can get as they age. Doesn't mean I have those diseases, but I do want to know what to look for, just in case. Or perhaps I know someone who has a particular disease and want to read up about it.

      It's a good reason to use an anonymous search portal like startpage.com as part of your normal routine, though.

    8. Re:We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A> Micro-what?

      B> Microsoft, that company that once produced the Windows OS. Before bankrupting on paying the damages for
                this medicine against cancer that automatically upgraded people to zombies, when people clicked cancel.

      A > Ah, that one. I didn't take any history topics at school.

    9. Re:We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can be looking at that for a term paper, or a friend, or to satisfy learning about new stuff. Even if repeatedly.

      Look, data is easily gleamed & turned into metrics. Easily. But one thing metrics should not be relied upon as truth is peoples' digital footprints. Maybe it's helpful in 'personalized internet' experiences such as ads. But honestly, does looking at old cars make one a collector? Does viewing baseball cleats make one a candidate for season tickets? Etc.

      Why not let the internet be a passive & open book for people to just swim in? Without guided & tailored experiences? People (and data-collectors) will discover much more that relate to the human condition.

    10. Re:We're doomed by erapert · · Score: 1

      Look, data is easily gleamed & turned into metrics.

      Read this, please.

    11. Re:We're doomed by ElectricPrism · · Score: 1

      Microsoft recording Google Data? I guess this Windows 10 thing has gotten out of hand and they have their hand in everyone's trail mix. What's a matter? No one uses Bing?

    12. Re:We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that really accurate though? I would think lots of people google symptoms of diseases they don't have...how often do people notice mild symptoms, panic, and start checking if they have the worst case scenario?

  2. BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by ewhac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If there's one thing Microsoft has comprehensively and irrefutably established over the last 35 years of their existence, it's that they haven't the faintest clue how to identify or eradicate viruses.

    1. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by ewhac · · Score: 0

      "It looks like you're trying to cure cancer. Bing Search(TM) can direct you to the most relevant medical research most quickly..."

    2. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1, Troll

      LOL.

      That reminds me of that an old joke.

      "Windows (TM) is _not_ a virus, virus do something useful."

      Or the long version:

      1.They replicate quickly - okay, Windows does that.

      2.Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as
      they do so - okay, Windows does that.

      3.Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk - okay,
      Windows does that too.

      4.Viruses are usually carried, unknown to the user, along with
      valuable programs and systems. - Sigh.. Windows does that, too.

      5.Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too
      slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware. - Yup, Windows does
      that, too.

      Until now it seems Windows is a virus but there are fundamental
      differences: Viruses are well supported by their authors, are running
      on most systems, their program code is fast, compact and efficient and
      they tend to become more sophisticated as they mature.

      So Windows is not a virus.

      It's a bug.

      Ba-dum-tsh

    3. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked the short version better.

    4. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      6. Windows will monitor you hard disk drive remporting it's content and changing or deleting files.

      7. Windows will monitor all your internet access and report it to other parties.

      8. Windows will add new more invasive software against your will and show you mocking messages of your inferiority and the need for you to part with money.

      9. Windows will monitor all your communications and report of them as well as informing on all your contacts.

      Windows is not a virus or a bug but a trojan and that's without any protection http://www.trojanbrands.com/co..., no protection what so ever. It demands, full bent over bare back access, not even a free meal, in fact they demand that you pay for that privacy pounding, again and again and again. This is what your computer feels like after windows 10 installs https://www.youtube.com/watch?....

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Gussington · · Score: 2

      Actually it's quite the opposite. Once identified, Windows is effectively immune to the same virus once patched. Sure you will still likely get other viruses, but that is not analogous to "solving" cancer (ie one type of virus like thing - whatever that actually means).

    6. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sorry, your operating system is no longer supported."

    7. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      MS may have chance then, cancer is not caused by a virus.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      should have said *usually* not caused by a virus (80%)

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by dargaud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I read that title first thing in the morning and I very nearly spit orange juice all over the laptop.

      Seriously though, cancer is a very ancient disease. It comes from when the very first lonely cells decided to band together to increase survival, over 3 billion years ago. They figured out pretty quickly that group rules were necessary, like some cells go some places, others need to suicide at the right time, etc... And when a cell doesn't obey those ground rules and starts reproducing on its own, there you go: cancer.

      So something so grounded in our origins is going to be VERY hard to eradicate. Improve it, yes, we already have. Improve it a lot, probably. But get rid of it I somehow doubt it because any kind of transcription error in a single cell can possibly lead to it.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    10. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Hey I'm no oncologist but you make it sound like magic. Eradicate is the wrong word, as in , "destroy completely". What we have is an epidemic of cancer, and if we can figure out why that is, in the complex biochemistry, we'll go a long way to stopping that epidemic. As for why Microsoft would be any better at this than anyone else is beyond me. The answer may already be known, just unrecognised. Anyone read, "Tripping Over the Truth" by Christofferson ?

    11. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Well, they are probably just using the wrong words that everyone else uses ever since the 1970s when the "war on cancer" was started.

      Curing cancer is probably impossible, because as you say, you would need to monitor the activity of billions of cells to make sure each one is doing what it's supposed to.

      Making cancer a chronic condition that can be stabilized without the massive side effects of current treatments (chemo, radiation, surgery) would be a massive gain. Instead of feeling like shit for months while having an IV drip of poison followed by a dangerous expensive surgery, maybe we get something new that can be administered on an outpatient basis, or through nurse practitioners. That would be a massive win.

      Is Microsoft going to get there before any of the other biotech companies that have been working the problem for decades? I doubt it. But I welcome their efforts.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    12. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 1

      Microsoft as a company has gotten quite good at defending an imperfect host from a relentless barrage of clever bad stuff. If any tech company is well suited to finding a cure for Cancer, its Microsoft. The human body is the human body. You can't redesign it to make it cancer proof, much like Microsoft couldn't start over with Windows. Cancer is myriad and ever changing, much like the viruses, trojans, etc that are created to exploit Microsoft's products.

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    13. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by saider · · Score: 1

      We'll probably see medical jargon appearing in our software now.

      "Windows has detected a malignant usb program. The prognosis is that you have a 85% chance that your personal data will be on a Russian server in 10 minutes. Immediate curative treatment in the form of Knowledge Base #A345-BB321 is required. Press Yes to accept the DNR and proceed with the treatment."

      Note that there will be no "Cancel" option.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    14. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by v1 · · Score: 1

      Well I don't think it's fair to say they haven't been trying at all, but they didn't put nearly enough effort into it from the start. (their OS was originally marketed to businesses, and they operated for a long time under the assumption that somehow this made the network totally trustworthy) Unix came from an academic setting, and there you are full of geeky, talented, bored students looking for a challenge or a vent, and that makes your network more hostile than the internet of today.

      So they evolved in a totally different environmnet, even though they both ended up in the same pot at the end. Microsoft's malware approach is the same as irresponsible antibiotic use - slow to respond, with broad application of low strength with only verty gradual increasing effectiveness. It only breeds in resiliance, and fosters superbugs, which is basically the state of the internet now. Windows is living in a "post antivirus world" of sorts, where all the malware has had decades to evolve all the cunning required to help it survive some of the best AV efforts available today, now that they've (belatedly) decided it's time to get serious about it.

      Microsoft doesn't have the track record to stop a runny nose, let alone cancer.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    15. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Quite a few cancers are caused by virusses. See HPV for an example.

      It's possible the number is much larger -we're only just getting the ability to really study this stuff.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    16. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Not to mention there is a reason why evolution has not given us any defenses against it. It's part of the very structures evolution use in the first place, and furthermore it very rarely affects reproduction. Even things like testicular cancer usually happens late enough in life that you could have had kids already. Since so few cancers actually prevent you from first having kids - not only do genes with a propensity for cancer not get eradicated but there is also no evolutionary pressure be better at surviving it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > What we have is an epidemic of cancer

      Nope. We really don't. The increase in cancer cases over time tracks *exactly* the increases in human lifespan. We've always been equally prone to it (barring isolated and regionally limited edge-cases) - but until quite recently almost everybody got killed by something else first.
      Now that we survive most virusses, bacteria and parasites and have basically eradicated just about all our natural predators (with the exception of the mosquito) - we actually live long enough for cancer to happen, and the more people live long - the more get it.

      That said - cancer is not a disease and does not have a cause. Cancer is a collective noun for a whole host of diseases all with different causes, which just happen to have one, single tiny thing in common. The reason we haven't cured cancer is because nothing could possibly do that - no single treatment can deal with so many different diseases, all with different causes (many of which are unknown). Even the shotgun treatments of radiation and chemo are not useful on all of them.
      On the other hand we are making massive progress in curing and preventing specific cancers. In the last few years, for the first time in history, we actually developed a vaccine that can completely prevent several cancers (HPV vaccines grant effective immunity against cervical cancer and several types of throat and lip cancers). The reason is that we discovered that a specific virus causes these cancers - and could create a vaccine against that virus.

      Gene-targetted treatments are already greatly increasing life expectancy, survival rates and quality of life of many cancer patients - with far less negative side effects than the shotgun treatments. More experimental treatments using things like magnetofluids are being investigated which may offer new and uniquely safe types of surgical treatments which are viable on a much larger set of cancers.
      We are making progress - but this is a war against a massive army with a huge variety of different batallayons and there is no one attack to defeat it, not single battle will win this war. Lots of small victories that add up - that's the way to do it, and it won't happen quickly, but it is already happening much quicker than we could have hoped even a decade ago.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re: BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are however brilliant at creating environments in which viruses can thrive

    19. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Cancer can be caused by anything that can cause a cell's DNA to be corrupted. Some types of virus do corrupt DNA in this way, and while normally it's not a problem (viruses need to ensure their corrupted cells survive so they can spread), typical minor random transcription mistakes can occur, and those can cause cancer, just as radiation or asbestos fibers can.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    20. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Microsoft going to get there before any of the other biotech companies that have been working the problem for decades? I doubt it. But I welcome their efforts.

      Right up until they decide to use "embrace, extend, and extinguish" on the other biotech companies?

    21. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell us more Doctor. I love Slashdot idiots who think they know more than the experts in a particular field.

    22. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...no single treatment can deal with so many different diseases...

      Mr. Burns would beg to differ.
      Consider his Three Stooges syndrome: a condition so enviable that we should all strive to be so plagued with competing diseases that they all work against each other to a nullifying effect. Behold the key to invincibility!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI0euMFAWF8

      _

    23. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Microsoft can barely build a working operating system that remains stable and compatible with its own applications across releases.

      Recent history from Microsoft makes it seem like they're well into their irrelevance phase of life. Changes in CEOs will do that to a company. They're losing market share and rather than using quality to retain customers they're focusing on lock-in features, threats, exclusivity deals, FUD, etc. Features that are actively hostile to customers are being added. Broken updates are becoming common, suggesting a decline in QA. And now this absurdly bizarre claim about something not even remotely in their fields of competence or relevance. Either the management team is insane, or it's a desparate cry of "please notice me!"

    24. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Bongo · · Score: 1

      You might be thinking of average lifespan, which is misleading. Ancient people often died in childhood, dragging the average down. If they made it though childhood, they'd live to old age.

      The reason we haven't cured cancer, if you lookup the book I mentioned, could simply be we've been pursuing it as a bunch of issues caused by genes, when actually the gene side of things is a side effect, and it is actually caused by problems in metabolism, and damage to mitochondria. If you read the book, you might see why some think that's the case.

      If they are right, then the talk about lots of small victories is moot -- it'll remain small victories and in general it won't be preventable or curable because the real causes aren't being addressed.

    25. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >You might be thinking of average lifespan, which is misleading. Ancient people often died in childhood, dragging the average down. If they made it though childhood, they'd live to old age.

      Doesn't actually affect what I'm talking about. When most people died in childhood - the population that reached adulthood was obviously reduced. And besides which - your numbers are still just plain untrue. The vast majority of people did not reach old age until the mid-20th century even if you discount childhood deaths. Diseases like polio and mumps killed millions of adults every year before we had vaccines (as Malaria still does today), heart attacks at 60 were common (my grandfather died at 62 from a heart attack - and this was extremely typical at the time, mid-1970s), factory and worker safety laws and standards weren't what they are now so industrial accidents killed a lot more people a lot more often - those were all working-age adults. Polution levels were much higher until the late 1970's to early 1980s which causes huge amount of deaths at young ages (we actually don't know exactly how many but suffice to say that it's probably one of the single largest killers of otherwise healthy adults even TODAY when it's much lower). Cars were A LOT less safe - and most car accidents were fatal, we see a few million dead in car accidents a year, in the 1960s it was tens of millions. Food security is at an all-time high and malnutrition and hunger rates are at an all time low - which means straight up less people starving (famines were still common events until the green revolution which didn't start until the end of the 1960s), but it also means that people in general are healthier simply from not frequently dealing with the health consequences of malnutrion or terrible diets when little food is available.

      All these things have had a massive impact. Even if you discount child mortality entirely the average lifespan has gone up by a huge chunk iin the past hundred years (which is only since 1966 remember). Somewhere between 15 and 30 years depending on how rich your country is.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Correction: the last 50 years.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    27. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by Bongo · · Score: 1

      OK, you're thinking of recent generations. Like also my grandfather who dropped dead of a heart attack, after working at the shipping docks in Glasgow.
      I was thinking older, hunter gatherers. For example, albeit a random google: hunder gatherers living to their 70s:
      https://condensedscience.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/life-expectancy-in-hunter-gatherers-and-other-groups/

      But just going back the the book I mentioned, what you were saying about cancer being a whole bunch of different things, and so successes being slow and gradual, and it being somewhat just part of the ageing process, well see that's exactly the conclusion which that book questions. It asks, have we come to that conclusion scientifically just because the science went down the wrong path early on, albeit the best path at the time?

      If I recall, the book talks about "shocking" new experiments. They take the nucleus from a cancer cell, put it into healthy cells (replacing their nucleus) and find that none of the mice developed a tumour. Then they took the mitochondria from cancer cells, put them into healthy cells, and 97% of them develop tumours. So it looks like cancer is about damaged mitochondria and metabolism, not about genetic damage. And the reason we see so much genetic damage anyway is because the mitochondria, which is in constant communication with the nucleus, is causing that damage, ie. it is a side effect. And so that side effect damage to the nucleus is pretty random and so cancer looks like a whole bunch of different conditions, if you assume cancer is genetic. It is like firing a shotgun at a wall, seeing lots of damage all over the place, and concluding it must have been caused by lots of different pistols.

      Anyway, I'm sure researchers just have to keep doing what they are doing, following the paths they have funding for, and so on. So one book won't change anything, and being just one book, hey should be discounted off the bat. But that doesn't preclude that "shocking" experiments have been done, as this book describes. I think that's just that scientists have a day job which requires them to focus on their specific research goals, and highly unusual findings are not going to change those goals in the near term.

      My interest is just as a member of the public, and where the oncogenes stuff suggests hey, old age will screw me one way or the other, if it turns out that the science did take a wrong turn and ended up pursuing a side effect, whilst some of the science suggests that diet and energy and mitochondria are the real culprits, at least that's something I can work into my lifestyle anyway. And part of that is revisiting this question, do humans really just drop dead at 35 if they are on the Savannah hunting and gathering? Too often we accept what we hear because "it makes sense", not because we're tried to ask how that conclusion was actually arrived at, and what other conclusions could also have been arrived at but were overlooked.

      Tripping Over the Truth: The Return of the Metabolic Theory of Cancer Illuminates a New and Hopeful Path to a Cure
      https://www.amazon.com/Tripping-Over-Truth-Metabolic-Illuminates/dp/1500600318

    28. Re:BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Cancer is a collective noun for a whole host of diseases all with different causes, which just happen to have one, single tiny thing in common.

      So true. "Cancer" just refers to any condition where cytogenesis (cell reproduction) outpaces apoptosis (cell destruction) in any mode other than what we consider normal growth.

      There's some reason to believe that even healthy people are always, to some extent, cancerous - that we develop little cancers (inappropriate surges of cytogenesis) which our bodies are then able to suppress, through interventions of the immune and endocrine systems, and possibly other mechanisms (cellular signalling, epigenetic, etc.).

      The reason we haven't cured cancer is because nothing could possibly do that - no single treatment can deal with so many different diseases, all with different causes (many of which are unknown).

      "nothing could possibly do that" doesn't necessarily follow - that is, we can imagine some hypothetical technology that is able to selectively suppress or correct unwanted cytogenesis. That there are many different types and causes of cancer doesn't by itself prove a generic "cure" is impossible. It does make it seem extremely unlikely, though. Certainly it couldn't be anything straightforward like a class of drugs.

      According to the linked article (which is a PR piece, not a journal paper, so should be taken with a whole bunch of salt), the 10-year cure prediction came from Jasmin Fisher; and her claim appears to be that in a decade we'll have technology that monitors the body closely and continuously and can detect cancerous modes very early on, and so be able to intervene at the first stage. That's more "rolling maintenance" than "cure", but, hey, it's worked to some extent for things like diabetes and HIV. And it's a rather more limited claim than an unqualified "cancer will be cured".

      Now, how much Microsoft's effort will actually contribute to getting us to that point remains to be seen.

  3. Think and learn like humans by ptaff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The team hopes to be able to use machine learning technologies -- computers that can think and learn like humans

    If your definition of a human is a retarded 4-year-old that can be trained to name colors with 75% accuracy, yes.

    We're not there, we're not even close; "machine learning" is just the new buzzword in town, rising from the ashes of "big data".

    1. Re:Think and learn like humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most data is garbage so when you hear hype about big data, think of a gigantic steaming pile of rotting waste

    2. Re:Think and learn like humans by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      The team hopes to be able to use machine learning technologies -- computers that can think and learn like humans

      If your definition of a human is a retarded 4-year-old that can be trained to name colors with 75% accuracy, yes.

      We're not there, we're not even close; "machine learning" is just the new buzzword in town, rising from the ashes of "big data".

      Big data itself was a phoenix from the ashes of AI.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    3. Re:Think and learn like humans by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Machine learning has been a thing much longer than big data. Don't believe me? Look at the age of the major ML journals. You'll see they predate big data by a while.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Think and learn like humans by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      AI was a phoenix from the ashes of expert systems.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re: Think and learn like humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One of the issues with human learning (or rather pattern recognition) is that we are predisposed to see patterns where the are none and miss patterns that are there. What we want is efficient and appropriate pattern recognition with reproducible behaviour given the same set of inputs and parameters, at an appropriate cost for the use case. If biomimicry can assist with this it is great, but it's not a requirement.

      One of the concerns with some techniques is that whilst classification is possible and the quality of this testable given appropriate data sets rule extraction is not necessarily possible, so determing why and how the classification occurs, which might provide additional insight, cannot be done. Whether that matters depends on the problem at hand, and you can probe the response with synthetic data, potentially.

      Often techniques are sensitive to the data used, and so can't build responses from data not gathered, so ideally you should clarify the results on the basis of the data gathered, as more types of data point might lead to different classification behaviour. There is a great deal of longitudinal study data that might be useful, but you aren't going to have many MRI scans from 40 years ago, for example, so that including those going forward may require model rebuilds to improve the predictive quality, so it's a moving target (not that this is a bad thing, just a thing)

    6. Re:Think and learn like humans by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      The phoenix was a phoenix from the ashes of the bennu

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:Think and learn like humans by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Whz is parent's post tagged troll? It is either informative or insightful.

    8. Re:Think and learn like humans by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      Because "a retarded 4 year old that can be trained to name colors with 75% accuracy" is a pretty trollish description of where machine learning is right now. I didn't mod it, but I'd agree with it.

      Sys admins and web developers don't know shit about machine learning, and that's clear from reading slashdot every day.

    9. Re:Think and learn like humans by lroylw · · Score: 0
  4. Oh, sweet Christmas by esampson · · Score: 1, Troll

    Microsoft will 'solve' cancer within 10 years by 'reprogramming' diseased cells

    I think I've seen this movie before.

    It doesn't end well.

    1. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Unless that reprogramming is to forcibly initiate apoptosis of the cell, via protein assisted activation through binding will a known cancerous mRNA in the cytoplasm, i agree completely.

    2. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait, they made a movie of "Blood Music"? wow!

    3. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Troll

      Microsoft will 'solve' cancer within 10 years by 'reprogramming' diseased cells

      I think I've seen this movie before.

      It doesn't end well.

      Everyone will die when Microsoft does an update, and bitches up our heart and brain drivers.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft will 'solve' cancer within 10 years by 'reprogramming' diseased cells

      I think I've seen this movie before.

      It doesn't end well.

      Everyone will die when Microsoft does an update, and bitches up our heart and brain drivers.

      BSOD as apocalypse?

    5. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Microsoft will 'solve' cancer within 10 years by 'reprogramming' diseased cells

      I think I've seen this movie before.

      It doesn't end well.

      Everyone will die when Microsoft does an update, and bitches up our heart and brain drivers.

      BSOD as apocalypse?

      It certainly fits!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've already tried it - ethyl methane sulfonate as an alkylating agent. A potent mutagen, it created virus so lethal, the subject was dead before he even left the table. :-P

    7. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Have you tried dying and being reincarnated?"

      -- Tech Support

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by d'baba · · Score: 1

      Being born twice is not any more extraordinary than being born once.

    9. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "Have you tried dying and being reincarnated?"

      -- Tech Support

      Well played!!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Oh, sweet Christmas by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Tough crowd tonight!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. Steve Ballmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Linux is worse than caner"

        -- Steve Ballmer

    1. Re:Steve Ballmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is a "caner"?? Is that some weird Brit dominance sexual fantasy reference?

    2. Re:Steve Ballmer by Curtman · · Score: 2

      "WTF is a "caner"?? Is that some weird Brit dominance sexual fantasy reference?"

      Nobody even knew. Chairs were thrown, we did the monkey-boy dance, and everyone had a good laugh about how ridiculous it all was.

  6. Microsoft IS a cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guys, I mean seriously, you do great video games, but this is somewhat out of your league.

    1. Re:Microsoft IS a cancer by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Former Microsoft CEO Steve "developers" Ballmer says Linux is a cancer.

      Former #4 guy at Microsoft, Allchin, who also headed up Vista, said Open Source is un-American, and Legislators need to be educated to the danger.

      Can Microsoft get rid of cancer as effectively as it got rid of Linux and Open Source?

      Try to Embrace, Extend and Extinguish cancer.

      But these days Microsoft Loves Linux. Just like Sharks love Fish, and Foxes love Chickens. Maybe next: Microsoft Loves Cancer!

      Maybe Microsoft can find some obscure nobody company, like SCO, and dump a bunch of money into them to start a big lawsuit against Cancer in order to destroy it.

      Microsoft, just keep fighting cancer the way you fight open source. If at first you don't succeed, use a shorter bungee.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  7. Stoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First virus I encounter was Stoned, in 1987. Today, I am alerted that a colleague's machine is infected with Reconyc.eeiq. Microsoft have been fighting viruses for 30 years and still around. At least not as bad as 15 years ago. With that, I am skeptical that Microsoft can cure cancer in 10 years.

    DNA may be code but as yet, no one understands most of it. Certainly not Microsoft.

    1. Re:Stoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my computers is still infested with the "Windows 10" virus. My family won't let me put Linux on it only because some Steam games would go missing. I don't use the stupid thing, I go to the real workstation with Linux.

    2. Re:Stoned by donaldm · · Score: 1

      One of my computers is still infested with the "Windows 10" virus. My family won't let me put Linux on it only because some Steam games would go missing. I don't use the stupid thing, I go to the real workstation with Linux.

      Windows 10 is not a virus, since the definition of a computer virus is "a piece of code which is capable of copying itself and typically has a detrimental effect, such as corrupting the system or destroying data." Windows 10 does not destroy or corrupt data unless Microsoft deems that it is for the user's own good.

      If we look at the definition of malware which is " Malware , short for malicious software, is any software used to disrupt computer operations, gather sensitive information, gain access to private computer systems, or display unwanted advertising". Now that sounds familiar.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    3. Re:Stoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since the definition of a computer virus is "a piece of code which is capable of copying itself and typically has a detrimental effect, such as corrupting the system or destroying data." Windows 10 does not destroy or corrupt data unless Microsoft deems that it is for the user's own good.

      Not all viruses corrupt the system or destroy data.

  8. No matter how clueless we are ... by pesho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... machine learning is the solution. And cancer is not "like a computer virus that invades and corrupts the body's cells". That is how an actual virus works, hence the analogy by which the "computer virus" term came to be. Cancer is more like when a bit randomly flips in RAM and then by pure coincidence this causes a memory leak within an infinite loop that spreads shit all over the place until everything comes crashing down.

    1. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by ewhac · · Score: 1

      Cancer is more like when a bit randomly flips in RAM and then by pure coincidence this causes a memory leak within an infinite loop that spreads shit all over the place until everything comes crashing down.

      So, Windows, then...

    2. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      personally, i would say cancer is much more like wallstreet fatcats.

      a mutation in the rules governing proper behavior causes them to consume all available resources, send ssignals to the regulatory system that they are essential and need protection, while earnestly believing they are the most important part of the system while destroying it from the inside, due to the removal of a system to terminate that behavior early.

    3. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NoNoNoNo. The underlying assumption that computers and humans are fundamentally similar is completely incorrect. The term 'computer virus' is a reasonable analogy but you can't push it so far that you impute that the mechanisms are the same. Cancer is way more complex that 'reprogramming a cell'. It involves cell homeostasis mechanisms that have no analogous function in hardware or software.

      "It’s not just an analogy, it’s a deep mathematical insight. Biology and computing are disciplines which seem like chalk and cheese but which have very deep connections on the most fundamental level.”

      (FTFA) Oh yeah. Prove it. Or even give us something other than executive level bullshit.

      Perhaps when you have computers that can handle errors more gracefully than "PC LOAD LETTER" I might think about taking him seriously. But we've barely moved past that level at present.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by pesho · · Score: 1

      You mean to say that Microsoft has had cancer solved for years? Why didn't hey tell us? That's cruel.

    5. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      NoNoNoNo. The underlying assumption that computers and humans are fundamentally similar is completely incorrect. The term 'computer virus' is a reasonable analogy but you can't push it so far that you impute that the mechanisms are the same. Cancer is way more complex that 'reprogramming a cell'. It involves cell homeostasis mechanisms that have no analogous function in hardware or software.

      I agree with your statement here wholeheartedly, which is why I'm struggling to understand how the fuck Microsoft could even make this statement with a straight face, much less offer any evidence to back it up:

      "They were able to identify internet users who had pancreatic cancer even before they'd been diagnosed, all from analyzing web query logs."

      I mean seriously, they can't even protect or prevent a computer running Windows from getting infected, so I fail to see how we should give them any credibility with this little project.

    6. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by j-beda · · Score: 1

      personally, i would say cancer is much more like wallstreet fatcats.

      a mutation in the rules governing proper behavior causes them to consume all available resources, send ssignals to the regulatory system that they are essential and need protection, while earnestly believing they are the most important part of the system while destroying it from the inside, due to the removal of a system to terminate that behavior early.

      Hey, that's pretty good. I'll have to remember that.

    7. Re: No matter how clueless we are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you can't install an alternative operating system in a person.

    8. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      In the same deeply unhelpful sense that you can argue that all areas of science are in principle reducible to physics there might be such deep connections. It's just that they will probably end up being about as useful. There's a whole genre of nerd-mysticism to be found in areas where claims of fundamental unity can be plausibly advanced; but cannot be made to yield anything of interest or utility. Mystics love transcendent unity that dissolves all mundane apparent complexity; and going a little overboard about the descriptive utility of mathematical models is one way to do that.

    9. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What more do you want than "Load US Letter sized paper into the Paper Cartridge"?

    10. Re: No matter how clueless we are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Because you can't install an alternative operating system in a person.

      Nope. MS has an exclusive deal with the manufacturer-- install an alternative, and lose all your MS licenses!

    11. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      Sshh! You'll wake the Kurzweil kids!

    12. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is PC LOAD LETTER not graceful? It's a hardware device notifying the user of a problem the device is physically incapable of solving on its own. How much more graceful do you want?

    13. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a really good analogy. Especially since the only historical way to remove these cancerous individuals has been to blast the whole economy with radiation (war, revolutions, natural disasters) until they are dislodged from the host, allowing the good cells to rebuild society out of the ashes.

      Also, it does strike me that an AI is probably the only way to beat the fatcats without another such radiation blast. Through their tie-ups with the political process, they set the rules which they then find loop holes in to exploit. An AI would allow us mere mortals to search for and close up such loop holes outside of this crony capitalist class.

    14. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the best thing I've read this week. Now why on earth can't I mod you up ?!

    15. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by Script+Cat · · Score: 0
    16. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      Perhaps when you have computers that can handle errors more gracefully than "PC LOAD LETTER" I might think about taking him seriously. But we've barely moved past that level at present.

      No way! We're way beyond that! We now have advanced error handling. The error message is super friendly AND it has a cool frowny face!

      :( Your computer ran into a problem, but I won't bother giving you any reason why. Just search for "SOME_ERROR" online and hope you don't get sucked into a spammy malware site.

    17. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by JustBoo · · Score: 1

      I agree with your statement here wholeheartedly, which is why I'm struggling to understand how the fuck Microsoft could even make this statement with a straight face, much less offer any evidence to back it up:

      Answer: Hubris.

      Planet sized Hubris beyond an average persons comprehension. It's that same hubris (and open contempt) that makes a payment systems programmer think he can build better cars than an industry that has been doing it for over 100 years. The same for rockets. It's the same hubris that makes a bunch of MS programmers think they are instant medical professionals because they've "discovered" a metaphorical link from computer viruses to biological viruses. Wait till they discover that is all they've discovered.

      Let's not forget what Bill and Microsoft have done to American education. A Rejected Disaster barely describes it. With MS (Bills) collective gigantic egos coupled with that hubris at the helm, what could go wrong, eh?

    18. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FAILURE!
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lNttxYdGHs4&feature=youtu.be

    19. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, not so much. Cancer is much more insidious than many people think. Yes, it starts out as a simple genetic mistake, but most cells thus affected are quickly expunged by the immune system. The tumors that wind up growing are very advanced lifeforms with integrated, complex defenses. Until computer viruses start evolving, there really is no parallel to cancer in computer science. (source - wife is a cancer researcher)

    20. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Solved" doesn't belong in that phrase.

      Microsoft has had cancer for years.

    21. Re:No matter how clueless we are ... by bozzy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps when you have computers that can handle errors more gracefully than "PC LOAD LETTER" I might think about taking him seriously.

      PC LOAD LETTER? WTF does that mean?

  9. Who let the CS kids into the Hubris Reserve? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Informative

    What could possibly go wrong? After all, it's proven totally trivial to eradicate bugs in software(that's why nobody uses systems that haven't been formally verified; it's such an easy step that you'd be crazy to skip it!); so it should be easy enough to extend our victories in that field to vastly more complex biological systems that lack many of the convenient mathematical properties built into the abstractions we use for computing.

    Seriously guys; I'm glad you care about curing cancer and all; but what flavor of insanity drives this level of optimism about your chances?

    1. Re:Who let the CS kids into the Hubris Reserve? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for some asshole to compile a real biological virus that -oops- wipes out all of humanity and not just the dude that banged his fantasy girlfriend.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Who let the CS kids into the Hubris Reserve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scared?

      See, I looked at this and thought "Cool. I hope they do it. They want to try... go for it. It's their risk." In the end, it's a science. You cure people or you don't.

      Those with skin in the game look at it and go "shit! if that works my research grant is gone."

    3. Re:Who let the CS kids into the Hubris Reserve? by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Microsoft cannot even successfully bring a phone to market. Don't we think curing cancer is just a wee bit harder?

      On the other hand, some researchers think that cancer can be targeted and destroyed by viruses, so Microsoft might have a leg up.

  10. "The next 5-10 years" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the new buzz phrase for companies? Everything is always 5-10 years away, just you see!

    1. Re:"The next 5-10 years" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Is this the new buzz phrase for companies? Everything is always 5-10 years away, just you see!

      Not yet. "5-10 years away" will be the buzzwords 5-10 years away.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:"The next 5-10 years" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Is this the new buzz phrase for companies? Everything is always 5-10 years away, just you see!

      That's it! Of course! Just as soon as we have fusion powered holographic storage this will be a trivial problem to solve.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:"The next 5-10 years" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

      https://xkcd.com/678/

  11. it's real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not surprised, considering the amount of spyware you shipped windows 10 with.

  12. This might just work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They solved operating systems (by making a crappy one that inspired hackers to create Linux). Maybe they're so much more effective than we even realize that we don't even comprehend their mysterious ways.

  13. Reprogrammed cells... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zombies begins? :-|

  14. How about just keeping them off Windows? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    K?

  15. Oblig xkcd. by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Researcher Translation.
    https://xkcd.com/678/

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Oblig xkcd. by Bratch · · Score: 1

      Today xkcd is appropriate - https://xkcd.com/1736/

      --
      Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
  16. Old News? by DoomedPhil · · Score: 1

    I thought cancer was already "solved" the same way Microsoft "solved" computer viruses. Which is why we still have cancer. And computer viruses.

  17. Oh Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The statement itself shows an incredible ignorance of what cancer is and how it works. Microsoft is a innovation graveyard anyway. They haven't "invented" a piece of shit since Windows and Office. They're forced to buying other people's innovation (Minecraft) and pushing it as if it's theirs.

    Stick to infecting Windows 10 with your spyware, Microsoft. Only thing you're good at.

  18. Bill Gates and SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In 2004 Bill claimed SPAM would be eradicated in 2 years. http://www.informationweek.com/spam-will-be-solved-in-2-years--gates/d/d-id/1022817?

    That went very well....

    1. Re:Bill Gates and SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He was right. It was effectively eradicated, at least as far as users were concerned, by 2006. Though the credit for that goes to Google, not Microsoft.

    2. Re:Bill Gates and SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how it's gone for you, but I used to get 300 pieces of spam in a 30-day period. For the past five years, I've only gotten 20-30.

    3. Re:Bill Gates and SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was right. It was effectively eradicated, at least as far as users were concerned, by 2006. Though the credit for that goes to Google, not Microsoft.

      Umm... My Inbox has labelled you a Troll. Your entry goes next to all the piles of SPAM I receive every day.

    4. Re:Bill Gates and SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Microsoft can do it too!*

      *As long as you don't mind having dozens of legit emails junked.

  19. By subscription by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only 10,000 a monthly as long as you live. Unless you can't connect to the internet or stop paying, then you die.

  20. OMG x 666k by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Onion.com, April 1st, and Satan had a 3-way to create this story-line

  21. Oh shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are doomed! With their update it might fix cancer but invent 100 more problems.

  22. Microsoft + Virus = lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a joke right? Well it's not April so that's not it. Microsoft IS the virus. Stop asking the wolves to guard the hen house.

  23. Solved like computer viruses? by DeVilla · · Score: 1

    Solved like they solved computer viruses? So then, we'll have a few incidents where almost every possible target in the world is infected within a 10 minute window such that they'll need to be scratched. Then shortly after all newborns will have to be outfitted with 3rd party counter measures within 10 minutes of birth?

  24. Why not work on gravity and faster-than-light? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we can solve the problem of cancer within 10 years by treating it as a computer virus, why not treat gravity as a computer virus and come up with practical, cheap antigravity? Or that pesky light-speed limit, we need to beat that, and 10 years sounds about right

    1. Re:Why not work on gravity and faster-than-light? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      If we can solve the problem of cancer within 10 years by treating it as a computer virus, why not treat gravity as a computer virus and come up with practical, cheap antigravity? Or that pesky light-speed limit, we need to beat that, and 10 years sounds about right

      Choice!

    2. Re:Why not work on gravity and faster-than-light? by Burz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a pitch to bolster the image of invasive data-mining, promising a blue-sky reward in return for watching peoples' browser activity.

      That is the only viral thing about this story--their greed.

  25. The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... is to force any cell divisions that occur in the organism in question to *always* perform a 100% identical copy, with no error.... ever.

    I imagine that this might be theoretically possible, but I don't expect that our sun will still be burning if or when it is achieved.

    1. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      I don't see how you can "force" cells in an organism to perform 100% identical copies, unless you genetically alter its DNA and put in place a new and better cell division mechanism. Which seems pretty far-fetched, in the same ballpark as creating Dyson spheres and Ringworlds.

      You could probably treat cancer with a 100% success rate when they occur (which isn't quite the same as eliminating it, but close enough) with millions of advanced nanobots that swim around in your body and kill (or render impotent) cancer cells. This is also pretty far-fetched, but I'd say it's slightly more realistic than the previous method.

    2. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I imagine that this might be theoretically possible, but I don't expect that our sun will still be burning if or when it is achieved.

      What if we replaced every single cell in your body one by one with a synthetic one controlled by nanomachines designed to execute every cellular process the same way that a biological cell would, however, the nanomachines controlling the cell would have a software program, instead of being controlled by the DNA, and during cell division, the clone would be a Digital copy with an error correcting code (ECC) to guarantee that not a single bit of software code and not a single DNA molecule were copied incorrectly.

      Also, in order to dissuade viruses: the software component and the DNA components would be digital signed, and the "Anticancer mechanism" would be a foreign nanomachine frequently visiting different cells to verify the components against the digital signature.

    3. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Just specially tailor some cytoplasmic parasites to need cancer cells as hosts. Do to cancer what wolbachia does to insect cells.

    4. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by Gussington · · Score: 1

      No-one said "eliminate", they said "solve. I'm not even sure what that means in this context, but if if means new methods for easier early diagnosis that saves lots of lives or extends quality of life then maybe we should not be so cynical.
      eg AIDS could be called "solved" since you can now live a long and relatively normal life while infected.

    5. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Just specially tailor some cytoplasmic parasites to need cancer cells as hosts. Do to cancer what wolbachia does to insect cells.

      Riiiiight. What could possibly go wrong?

    6. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      you just described a cellular drm scheme you need to be distoried before the MPAA get ahold of you.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    7. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... is to force any cell divisions that occur in the organism in question to *always* perform a 100% identical copy, with no error.... ever.

      Not at all. Cancerous and pre-cancerous cells arise in the body all the time. It's the body's ability to eliminate such cells that protects you from cancer, but sometimes those mechanisms fail.

    8. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a genius !!!! I've got it !!!!

      Back up the DNA to the Cloud, and then after a cell divides, check the cloud based copy of the DNA to make sure it is correct. If not, delete the cell and try again.

    9. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      There probably isn't enough uniqueness about cancer lines for that... if cancer were easy to differentiate from regular cells your own T cells would be sufficient to self-cure cancer already.

    10. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by iampiti · · Score: 1

      Nah, not necessary. You just hash the original and copy cells and if the hashes don't match just destroy the copy

    11. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your body self cures cancers every day of the week. Cancerous mutations happen inside you all the time. The cancerous mutations that are the problem are the ones that trick T-cells and the fact is there are only so many ways to do the tricking. It is not infinite and the most common cancers use only about 300 something known tricks to do it. The problem is until recently we had no way of training T-cells to get around most of these proteins. There are now some immune therapies that work -- notably with melanomas but we've dealt with like 3 or 300 problematic proteins right now. We are like 1% of the way there. The immune system is our best bet to handling cancers.

    12. Re:The *only* way to eliminate cancer.... by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Interesting! I'd have thought that immunotherapy like that for cancer would cause auto-immune issues. Do you have any links?

  26. Solve This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, by allowing it to thrive everywhere covertly?

  27. When this plan goes awry... by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 1

    ...the "blue screen of death" will have a whole new meaning.

    1. Re:When this plan goes awry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Blue Screen of Death'
      First you are 'Screened', then you turn 'Blue', 'Death' quickly follows - unless you have Software/wetware assurance.

  28. What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First human BSOD!

  29. Doctor's Report: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "The good news is your cancer is cured!"

    "The bad news is you'll be down 3 hours every Friday night for updates, Mr. Nadella knows everything you do, and you have a Bing dick."

    1. Re:Doctor's Report: by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      and you have a Bing dick."

      So close, and yet so far.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Doctor's Report: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      just like my wish granted to me by the hard-of-hearing genie.

  30. Re:Hubris by HiThere · · Score: 1

    To solve cancer in the way you propose would require going to triple or quadruple stranded DNA.

    OTOH, it probably is possible to solve it be signing each chromosome with a hash-tag and using error correcting code to kill and that don't match properly. But that would tend to get rid of epigenetic codes, and thus there wouldn't be any differentiation between a liver cell and a kidney cell...we'd need to be giant sponges.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  31. False positives by mysidia · · Score: 1

    False positives are a major problem with computer antivirus

    At least when the computer AV goes haywire, though, and renders the machine unbootable, you can always restore from backup and start over again.

    You can't exactly do that with a human, if the antivirus accidentally kills off important parts of a vital system such as the brain.

    Also..... it sounds like snakeoil. The human immune system is a highly-advanced highly-intelligent defense system with memory that learns much like the human mind does, and the human mind that which is what they're TRYING to mimick with their puny machine-learning system.

    Seeing as the human immune system is highly effective, highly advanced, learning self-improving system, and an inspiration for computer antivirus ideas in the first place, AND the human immune system can't solve this problem...... what makes them possibly think they can have a working solution with a much more primitive thing?

    One specific cancer.... sure..... but you need research and analytical thinking, to figure out what is going wrong and devise an attack/defense reliably, most likely.

    If simple machine learning algorithms would work, then the human bodies would already be deriving the solution to the problem, instead of dying......

  32. Detecting some cancer by data mining is one thing. by hey! · · Score: 2

    There's a longstanding history of that kind of thing. Marketers having been data mining to detect when women are pregnant for years now and their methods are creepily accurate.

    The thing is, though, that pregnancy is one thing. Pancreatic cancer is one thing. Cancer *in general* is more like a mixed bag of similar phenomena. We've pretty much converted many individual types of cancers that were a death sentence twenty years ago into curable illnesses. But others remain intractable. So saying "curing cancer" is a bit like saying "curing infection". Curing *the whole category* will require a truly fundamental progress in biology.

    In fact it may require multidisciplinary breakthroughs. There's lots of things that kill tumor cells, but don't work on tumors.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  33. Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a good one, and just when I thought their hubris and stupidity had largely left them with Ballmer's retirement. Clearly they are not done falling on their faces.

  34. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When do you want to die? Today?

  35. Good job, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linking to a paywalled paper without even a DOI that can be used to look it up on sci-hub.

  36. Did the writer even read his quote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The quote isn't that they will cure cancer. That is a long term goal. The 5-10 year time frame is having molecular detection systems to diagnose cancer and other disease.

    That's quite a fuckup on the title. They must have asked Cortana to suggest a title.

  37. I wish them well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's a lot of cynicism here. Humorous, funny, and mostly self serving. Bravo to Microsoft for thinking big and differently. I hope they are serious in trying this and find some success. The US health system and big pharma are not going to ever find a "cure" (assuming one is possible and we can agree on a common-sense definition of it). There is no real incentive to even try. If Microsoft is serious about taking a different look and novel approach, I certainly applaud them,

    There are very few big capital companies that can invest in big ideas and take big risks while also creatively operating outside their norm. Even fewer that are really willing to do so. We (the collective "we") should support rather than ridicule such efforts. I hope they make a serious investment here and this is not a PR or CR thing.

      It may be hubris to think that tech can solve a biology problem, but if we survive the next the next century or two there will be less of a delineation.

    1. Re:I wish them well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of cynicism here. Humorous, funny, and

      redundant.

    2. Re:I wish them well by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      The last time Microsoft had anyone qualified in the fields organic chemistry/biology working with on a M$/IBM project was around thirty years ago. He though them how to implement a superior testing regime for their Operating systems using laboratory/statistical/analysis techniques.

      I really doubt Microsoft is wise enough to employ those type of cross trained experts anymore.

      As for curing cancer in ten years, they have a better chance of initiating some form of Apocalypse, ( PC OS mono culture, with Billions of PC's being taken over), triggering WWIII, release of a bio-weapon, nano-replicators, etc., rather than curing cancer. With everybody dead, cancer in humans is definitely cured, ergo Microsoft get's the credit posthumously.

      ..

    3. Re:I wish them well by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      The second sentence should be, "He taught them how to "...

      30 years ago, was a different age of computing where the computer industry was full of very talented people trained in other fields.. We don't have that anymore, Microsoft, Intel, HP, etc, laid them all off, (older employees), and would never hire someone that hasn't been through their indoctrination regime.

  38. Well... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    I never doubted the power of HACKERMAN

  39. Awesome if Microsoft does it by asalazar · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to see how people get reformatted and reinstalled.

    --
    Slashdot: Where the sig outsmarts the comment
  40. Tricking Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cancer will be tricked into upgrading Windows, bricking Cancer's computer and greatly slowing down it's ability to spread.

  41. Cure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have been curing cancer for years in Mexico.
    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/cancer-forbidden-cures/

  42. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you understand what you are trying to talk about in the least.

  43. Great: Windows Body Edition by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... its ultimate aim is to make cells into living computers.

    Adding a new edition to the Windows line up: Enterprise, Professional, Home, Body

    (Notice: Do not engage in activities, like driving, while the mandatory updates are being applied as there have been reports of CPU utilization rates of 100% for extended periods of time. We expect this issue to be resolved in a future update.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  44. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weird, this is the same website were people think that we're colonizing the universe next week because computers got better... Now here we have a story basically about understanding an information system, and suddenly we're Luddites again...

    Very, very odd, this anti-life, pro-death, pro-limits view from the shrieking pro-space crowd.

  45. Will they perform a chemistry by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    that sends a signal if there's cancer?

  46. Microsoft IS a cancer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    upon all humanity.

  47. Careful what you wish for by solarmon · · Score: 1

    I laughed when I saw "...so much cancer research is published that it is impossible for any doctor to read it all. But since computers can read and understand so much more quickly, the systems will be able to read through all of the research and then put that to work on specific people's situations."
    We will need algorithms that can detect and "mod down" questionable research first. Not all papers, even peer-reviewed papers, are equal quality.

  48. Microsoft possesses no such technology by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    "Machine learning" is apparently the new nanotech.

  49. Apple is pleased to announce by tacarat · · Score: 1

    iMmune, new, for your iBod.

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
  50. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You haven't been paying attention.

    The claim is made by Microsoft - The ONLY company that produces an operating system that permits viruses to exist and cannot seem to fix it. Yet, that SAME company is claiming to fix cancer in 10 years "by treating it like a computer virus".

    The contradiction is quite obvious.

    They can't fix their own virus infections, yet they are going to fix cancer by treating it like a virus.

    NOT A CHANCE.

  51. Re:Hubris by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    You can "solve" cancer by DNA checking every cell, and destroying those that aren't a 100% match to the reference cell. Though, we don't know if that would also kill the host, but it will 100% stop the cancer. What I've not seen studied is whether the mutations that commonly happen are in such numbers that cleansing them all would have any effect in a healthy person.

    Or would that depend on age? Cleaning cells at age 12 would have little effect, as mutations are fewer, but in 80+, it would result in death, regardless of the presence of cancer. Genome mapping is not practical. Certainly not enough to map the genome of 95% of the cells of a person and comparing them all.

    More likely is solving the problem by mapping the human genome, then re-designing DNA to replicate more relaibly. Solve the replication issue, to eliminate replication errors, and you'll eliminate cancer. As "aging" is linked to telomeres, solve the replication issue, and you might solve aging as well.

  52. Unlikely by eyepeepackets · · Score: 2

    Such hubris from a corporation that can't even get its flagship OS to keep time properly: Windows 10 will have a time-related brainfart if not connected to the internet when it tries to update system time and change the system time to some arbitrary time in the immediate past, usually several hours at a minimum. Such crap.

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
    1. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a feature. How else would you know that it failed to update the time?

  53. Re:Hubris by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Exactly. We have a better chance of curing cancer than going to Mars, because humans sure as hell ain't going to Mars.

  54. Error free copies wouldn't work. by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    The DNA damage that leads to cancer doesn't exclusively happen during copying. Sometimes free radicals just damage your DNA, or radiation does, or just heat, or other chemical action. You not only have to copy 100% correct but correctly repair errors 100% of the time.

    In order to fix both issues to extremely high probability, we'd need to have SIX strands of DNA. In case of damage to one, the repair happens according to the majority opinion of the correct sequence. If there's no majority opinion, (all three strands differ) then the cell self-destructs. When copies are done, the copy has to check correctly vs. the previous strands. Periodic comparisons of the three strands would eliminate random bit flips.

    Given the already low error rate of DNA copying and data storage, such a six stranded system with elimination of cells that fail the test would come so close to 100% that it almost wouldn't matter. Existing error repair mechanisms have the error rate at 10^-10. This sort of system would push it to 10^-30 or lower--since we're discarding cells that can't agree.

    --PeterM

  55. Elephants have a defense against cancer by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And it's surprisingly simple. And they need it, because they have so many more cells than people do they would have a high risk of cancer without some sort of defense.

    http://www.nature.com/news/how...

    To summarize the contents of the link, elephants just have 20 copies of the p53 gene. To incite cancer, all the copies would have to be disabled, via the most common cancer generating mutation mechanism.

    If you want to engineer people to be cancer resistant, it might be as simple as introducing more copies of the p53 gene into our genome.

    1. Re:Elephants have a defense against cancer by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      And it's surprisingly simple. And they need it, because they have so many more cells than people do they would have a high risk of cancer without some sort of defense.

      http://www.nature.com/news/how...

      To summarize the contents of the link, elephants just have 20 copies of the p53 gene. To incite cancer, all the copies would have to be disabled, via the most common cancer generating mutation mechanism.

      If you want to engineer people to be cancer resistant, it might be as simple as introducing more copies of the p53 gene into our genome.

      the p16 and p27 genes of the naked mole rat perform a similar function and we human have just the p16 and a crappier version too.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Elephants have a defense against cancer by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Maybe SP2 will fix that, along with the stupid respiration control bodge.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Elephants have a defense against cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked on p53 back in the 90's. Even back then, we knew there were cancers that didn't respond to p53. While some cancers do, it's not as simple as getting a dose of the protein and watching the disease halt.

      On the plus side, all those "benign tumors" are evidence that p53 did manage to halt a cancer before it became life threatening.

  56. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The claim that we're going to colonize Mars is made by SpaceX - The ONLY company that blows up rockets before they even have fuel in them!

    Checkmate.

  57. Finding out your son has cancer in 2037 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Damnit, Bobby, the test result have come through. Have you been clicking on those free iPad pop-ups on your holocranium again?"
    "I'm sorry dad, but there were 15 singles in my area!"
    "Ok, which antivirus should I use? I'm thinking AVG."
    "Nah, dad, I have lung cancer. I will want Walter White-Out. It's specialty is lung cancer and it'll be faster than AVG."
    "Well, let's get started."

  58. Eliminate Ambient Authority in the Human Body? by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

    Ambient Authority is the root cause of most of the woes of modern computing. Your OS of choice doesn't know how to even ask "which files should this program have access to, for this instance", and just gives programs free run to do as they please... until this is fixed, we're going to have virii.

    Cancer on the other hand is a situation where a cell already has resources it's supposed to have, but doesn't get rate limited in the use of them, allow it to grow, divide, and multiply.

    Two fundamentally different problems.

    1. Re:Eliminate Ambient Authority in the Human Body? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      First fundamental problem: It's viruses. In English at least. In Latin, it would not be viri either because virus is neuter and only masculine nouns on -us become -i in the second declination. Virus is of the third declination (neuter). Another example is opus. It becomes opera. Not opi. Opi may put you to sleep similar to many Opera, but it is still something different.

      The Latin plural of virus is vira, by the way. Viri would be the genitive singular. Virii is ... probably a problem with your keyboard, I don't know.

      This cerebral masturbation aside, you cannot solve stupid. People executing arbitrary programs is the problem. You can tell them a million times "the dancing pig application might cause harm to your computer, it sure looks suspicious!" and they'll still click ok. The user is going to choose dancing pigs over security every time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Eliminate Ambient Authority in the Human Body? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The Latin plural of virus is vira, by the way.

      Actually there is no plural form in Latin, because it's not countable in Latin.

      The problem with "virii" is that it started tongue-in-cheek as a hypercorrection joke, and some pedantic geeks took it seriously!

  59. Let's say they do cure cancer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's say they do cure cancer.

    I doubt that even that tremendous good thing would be enough to convince me to use Windows 10 after the $h|t they pulled.

    They have broken my trust. They went from mostly buggy but somewhat trying to 'Eat this OS we are shoving down your throat, and poop out your private information directly to our servers'. Oh, and don't forget to like it.

    Not just no, but hell no. Not ever.

    1. Re:Let's say they do cure cancer... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, probably you can get that cure for free... if you agree to get some electrodes planted into your brain. What they do? Why would you want to know, the cure (and the electrodes!) are FREE!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  60. Re:Detecting some cancer by data mining is one thi by Nemyst · · Score: 1

    Curing *the whole category* will require a truly fundamental progress in biology.

    Why, though? At this point it seems just as likely that we'll find a miracle cure to cure all cancers as it is that we'll just figure out treatments for every kind one by one.

  61. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > You cannot "solve" cancer without re-engineering the human genome. The knowledge we require for that is millennia away at best.

    Millennia? I think you mean "at worst."

    I'd guesstimate that knowledge is 50 years away at best.

  62. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > ... humans sure as hell ain't going to Mars.

    Oh, they're going. They just ain't coming back.

  63. Its not what is already there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The great thing about human thinkers: they don't just read what has already been, they can formulate what isn't. Imagination. Computers don't have it. Artificial intelligence doesn't have it. No Prolog, Lisp or any other AI language has the ability to ponder: what Einstein describes as the "thought experiment". You can (and I have) got AI to come up with alternate solutions to closed, well defined, deterministic problems. They are not good at creating new ideas, or trying things that aren't pre-programmed and part of the state-space search. Usually novel ideas are not part of what is 'expected' or 'known'. It even baffles medical researchers: No doctor thought bacteria could live in the human gut because of the very strong hydrochloric acid and pepsin, and antacids were a common remedy to stomach cancer and ulcers. Two Australian doctors found helicobacter pylori. And they found how to kill it, cure stomach ulcers, and many types of stomach cancer (all in one shot). AI won't "find" that by reading.

  64. All is well until someone drops, suffering from by tgibson · · Score: 1

    the blue gene of death.

  65. Hi, I'm Clippy! I see you have cancer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you like me to help you get an EpiPen or toxoplasmosis pill?

  66. Takes vapoware ... by quax · · Score: 1

    ... to an entirely new level.

  67. Try Again by HannethCom · · Score: 1

    Windows is immune from the virus once it is patched, then the patch is patched. They fix the problems caused by the patch to the patch. Then finally actually fix the real original problem.

    It amazes me how many times the patch to fix the problem, doesn't fix the problem.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
    1. Re:Try Again by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      It amazes me how many times the patch to fix the problem, doesn't fix the problem.

      I fixed it, easy I removed all Microsoft products now if only cancer was that easy

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    2. Re:Try Again by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      It's like Star Trek movies. The even-numbered service packs range between okay to good. The odd-numbered ones, on the other hand... stay the hell away and treat them like day-old roadkill.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re:Try Again by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Windows is immune from the virus once it is patched, then the patch is patched. They fix the problems caused by the patch to the patch. Then finally actually fix the real original problem.

      This is the same with all complex systems. That's why complex things are hard and simple things are easy.

      It amazes me how many times the patch to fix the problem, doesn't fix the problem.

      Can you give some examples? Patches do actually fix the original problem, but as it is usual with complex things, it can introduces new unforeseen consequences. Every complex thing suffers the same way . Software, Medicine, Politics etc It isn't that these things are easy and run by idiots, it's that they are complex and you probably don't grasp full nature of how difficult a complex system is to manage.

  68. Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fail. What we want is to direct the cancer cells to behave like normal cells, but never die or stop replacing themselves.

  69. Re:Hubris by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    Or would that depend on age? Cleaning cells at age 12 would have little effect, as mutations are fewer, but in 80+, it would result in death,

    That's because cancer is a side-effect of living. When you can figure out how to prevent mutations in cell division, you would have cured cancer, but that same tech also gives immortality.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  70. Windows 10 is a virus according to your definition by HannethCom · · Score: 2

    Up until the Windows 10 free cut-off date, Windows forcefully installed itself onto some people's computers without asking. Sometimes with Windows Update turned off. Not all of the code was copied form a central server, actually any computer already with Windows 10 can be requested to send parts of the main install, or updates. Some people complained that it didn't give any preference to computers already on the internal network, I think this has been fixed in the Anniversary Update. Copying itself confirmed!

    Has a detrimental effect. Windows 10 removes some features automatically like Media Center, Windows DVD Maker, DVD playing, Desktop Gadgets, Start Menu, Solitaire, Minesweeper, and Hearts. It also removes some third party software as well, or requires you to uninstall and re-install it. Some games and programs just no longer work at all. Now you can get some of these things back with third party programs, or hackers getting Solitaire, Minesweeper, and Hearts to work again, but it is the same thing with a virus, or malware. Windows 10 is both a malware and virus confirmed!

    Oh, but I'm not done. "Windows 10 does not destroy or corrupt data unless Microsoft deems that it is for the user's own good." Microsoft now supports FLAC files natively, well kind of, it will read and play them until for some reason it decides to corrupt the files so that it, nor any third party software can play them anymore. Microsoft is aware of the problem, but I have not seen a fix for it, even though it has been a problem since the first release of the OS.

    As for corrupting data, a common problem with Windows 10 is that it will sometimes corrupt core OS files such as the taskbar, start menu and windows update. Common problem! I have even experienced this myself. It is so common, they actually have a specific easy fix baked into the OS to solve this. The only problem being that the easy fix uses windows update, so if that is hosed, you can still fix the problem, but it is really complicated. I ended up doing a refresh instead. Aka, Windows 10 corrupts the OS making it a virus.

    I'm sure some people with ASUS motherboards can tell you about their hosed systems from a Windows 10 update

    How about the Anniversary Update that breaks all USB2 web cams making some completely inoperable?

    As you point out, it gathers sensitive information and displays unwanted advertising in their replacement for the old games, in the start menu and in notifications. Making Windows 10 definitely malware.

    As you can see, not only is Windows 10 malware, but it also meets every definition of a virus as well.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
  71. Cancer is so insidious and malleable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's slowly incapacitating a Fortune 500 company, making it look stupid.

    Dear MS: there are far and away more variables associated with cancer than anyone has training sets to determine. Then there's the little matter of reigning in cancer.

  72. They could start with Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could make a good start by removing the cancerous spyware from Windows 10.

  73. Just like SPAM. by xlsior · · Score: 1

    "Two years from now, spam will be solved," -- Bill Gates, 2004 http://www.informationweek.com...?

    1. Re:Just like SPAM. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      A few other people made this joke... do you guys seriously still get spam? My gmail is essentially sacrosanct, my outlook.com which is given to businesses that ask for an email has a pretty full junk mail folder but none makes it into the inbox, my work email is the worst but still only gets a few a quarter. And I imagine the latter is that for a business they don't want to block legit emails so they have a lower false positive rate set up in the filters.

  74. Microsoft Av by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will treat it like a computer virus.
    That means their target is to detect and remove 80% of cancer in 80% of individuals, not really caring about false positives.

  75. Like they solved computer viruses? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    In other words, ignore it long enough 'til some other companies come along to do it for them, then buy one randomly?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  76. Sooo by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    There's going to be a lot more cancer, then? I guess if everyone dies of cancer, that could technically be considered a "solution"...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  77. Like a virus you say? by hlavac · · Score: 1

    What, they will set up a profitable business model around it making sure it is never extinguished so that they can sell subscriptions forever, and ocassionally coming up with a new strain of cancer when business gets slow? I can totally see Microsoft doing just that...

  78. They can start with Windows10 by Laxator2 · · Score: 2

    Most users agree that Windows10 should be treated like a virus, so if M$ could rid the world of that one it would be a great service to humanity.

  79. As usual by kbg · · Score: 1

    All my lifetime there have been news every few years about how this company or that is just about to find a cure for cancer and then nothing ever happens. I can assure you that the cure for cancer will not be found in the next 100 years. Of course there will be advances in how cancer is treated but a full blown cure is not going to happen.

  80. Do you think we have as much as 10 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2026: Microsoft is widely blamed for unleashing the vampiric zombie cancer plague that has wiped out most of humanity.

    In a 2026 press conference, Satan, the CEO of Hell, said that Microsoft would get little credit for the evil because it was mostly due to stupidity.

  81. Re:Windows 10 is a virus according to your definit by donaldm · · Score: 1

    After what you said and I have confirmed this on the web as well. I stand corrected, Windows 10 is not just Malware it also meets the criteria for a virus as well.

    I have Windows 10 in a virtual machine (installed from ISO that I downloaded rom Microsoft) using a legitimate Windows 7 license. When I did the customize installation I was appalled at all the features which were by default turned on and you would get this if you did the so-called Quick Install. Another annoyance was the fact that you also have to fiddle with the Registry to further lock the OS down and even then it is almost impossible to stop the OS from talking to IP addresses that when you check are owned by Microsoft. I have not run Windows 10 since and that was over three months ago.

    To be honest, I don't miss Windows anything since I have been running Linux (now Fedora 24 KDE spin) for well over seven years and although I do play computer games I am quite happy with my backwards compatible PS3 (it still works) and my PS4. Also, I have yet to find an MS Windows application that I can't find a Linux equivalent for.

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  82. Not optimistic, but... by jandersen · · Score: 2

    The language is deliberately vague, because of course this is mostly a marketing stunt for Microsoft; after all, what does 'solve cancer' mean? But to be fair, we are in fact beginning to understand many of the factors that make up several cancer diseases, and sometimes it is beneficial to focus on a far away goal, even if it isn't entirely realistic in the timeframe.

    Cancer, I think, will always be with us - in a snes it always IS; some would say that all of us have cancer, all the time, because there is always a certain proportion of new cells that have genetic faults, and some of them have the potential to become cancerous - what saves us is a good immune system. It makes intuitive sense, I think, because as we get older, our immune system becomes less efficient, and then we are less likely to stop all cancer cells, which explains why cancer is much more common in older people.

    There is, however, reasons to hope that we can at some point find a single or a few common traits that unite all types of cancer and make them curable; I have certainly seen articles that hint at something that could give us that. But in 10 years? I don't know.

    1. Re:Not optimistic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For part of the it's immune system. More often those are DNA repairing mechanisms (in a nutshell, parity checks) and other safeguard mechanisms, such as P53 genes which verify that the cell divides properly (otherwise triggers apoptosis), necessity to activate thelomerasis (or alternative mechanism of "eternal" cell division) and angiongenesis to get enough food for tumor to grow.

  83. Good luck to them by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

    I see tonnes of scepticism above (which is healthy and fine) and tonnes of sarcasm (which is fine, too). But you know what? I hope they succeed. Good luck to them. We need a cure for cancer, other than cutting it out if it's found early enough.

    The difference between Microsoft and many other places trying to cure cancer is Microsoft actually have money. I doubt this will work but why not hope it does?

  84. MS and updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given MS's recent ideas for fixing problems, this does not bode well.
    MS Doctor: Hi, we've identified a cancerous mole on your arm, and we'll be taking you to operate on it now.
    Patient: Um what will happen? I'm a bit scared!
    Doc: Don't worry, it's a simple procedure, you'll be under anaesthetic the whole time, when you wake up you'll have a new arm, and we think it's better than your old one.
    Patient: Wait, what? I don't want you to cut off my arm.
    Doc: Don't worry, off we go now, it's a mandatory operation, so no backing out now!

    -- Some time later, the patient wakes up with no arms, or legs
    Patient: What happened? Where am I, what's going on?
    Doc: There was a slight problem with your operation, we accidentally removed all your limbs, and left you in a coma for 2 weeks while we sorted things out. Don't worry, the functionality will be returned in a later update hopefully some time next year.

  85. Future history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already read about this! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Music_(novel)

  86. Better if they turn things arround by houghi · · Score: 1

    I would like if a computer company would treat viruses as if they were a cancer. Solve that problem first and then go to the next one.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Better if they turn things arround by houghi · · Score: 1

      *computer virusses

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  87. 10 years? I've set my alarm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can cure cancer with bleach. The trick is curing it without killing the patient.
    I wish them the best of luck but I have heard this song before.

  88. 10 years to kill solve a solved problem? by codr4life · · Score: 1

    It's fungus; nothing more, nothing less. You kill it by cutting the fuel supply (Sugar) and changing the environment to become less hospitable (Acidic). As has been proven over, over and over again. But then; there's no profit in fungus, is there? Now you can go back to writing shitty software that no one wants...

    1. Re:10 years to kill solve a solved problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that nutty neighbor that lived across the street that your parents told you not to go around? Let me introduce you to his slashdot account... codr4life.

  89. sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people in the near future will live on mars free of cancer and in peace, even if all martians are of different religions

    and somehow that amazing sentence will make them go up in that wallstreet thingy

    i get what microsheckels is doing, after all, why would they be less than that tesla dude or the fruity courage guys from cupertino?

  90. Just when you thought M$ weren't Borg after all by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    ...turns out they are ;-} (reminiscent of the Gates icon /. used to have): 'The company has built a "biological computation" unit that says its ultimate aim is to make cells into living computers. As such, they could be programmed and reprogrammed to treat any diseases'

  91. Re:Windows 10 is a virus according to your definit by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Windows forcefully installed itself onto some people's computers without asking.

    I didn't think anyone actually believed those people.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  92. Re:Hubris by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Solve the replication issue, to eliminate replication errors, and you'll eliminate cancer. As "aging" is linked to telomeres, solve the replication issue, and you might solve aging as well.

    That's because cancer is a side-effect of living. When you can figure out how to prevent mutations in cell division, you would have cured cancer, but that same tech also gives immortality.

    Is there an echo?

  93. Blue Screen of Death. Oh Crap! by eatvegetables · · Score: 2

    Death certificate reads: STOP: 0xDEADBEEF00000000 (ATGCCGCGAATrojan-IM.....)

  94. You mean wipe the machine and start over? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure it's the same method nature came up with, not particularly effective from the standpoint of the individual though.

  95. Re:Hubris by umghhh · · Score: 1

    big enough bomb can solve that problem too. Unless of course humanity will spawn independent colonies that is, in which case you would need more bombs.

  96. Re:Hubris by Maritz · · Score: 1

    To solve cancer in the way you propose would require going to triple or quadruple stranded DNA.

    Did you read the post you're replying to? It really looks like you didn't.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  97. Re:Hubris by Maritz · · Score: 1

    You're the only one talking about space here. Obsessed much?

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  98. Re:Hubris by Maritz · · Score: 2

    You're fucking obsessed with what humans aren't doing in space. This article is about microsoft curing cancer. lol. Why the fuck are you banging on about Mars yet again?

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  99. Two completely different things by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Why is the summary conflating two completely different things? 1. Data mining to determine people who may have symptoms 2. Curing cancer. I imagine 1 is easier than 2. And more importantly, the two have nothing to do with each other! Thinking about it.... number 1 is completely bonkers! If people are googling symptoms sufficiently to be flagged by data-mining, surely it would be trivial for a doctor to actually 'ask' them? Or if you live in one of those weird countries where appointments are not free, you could always use an online flowchart - in all likelihood this would give you the same answer as querying web logs.

  100. Treat cancer like a computer virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computer viruses are kept out by ensuring that processes doing network io (browser, email client etc.) does not have the right to mess with system files. which is why windows is the only platform that support viruses - as they are the only who don't do this. (Apparently, it is "user friendly" to let the user save a new system program he got in the mail directly into the system sw...)

    This approach does not work with cells - as all cells both exchange molecules with the world AND maintain/copy their own genes. You can't set up this privilege separation in cells.

    The secondary approach to computer viruses - the approach only microsoft need to take, is to scan the system for viruses that already infected the system. (Which may fail, if the virus fools the scanner through its control of system calls.) This approach could work with cells - you could scan them for virus DNA or cancer DNA. Unfortunately, nobody know a way to do that without ripping the cell apart and remove its DNA - it is currently a most destructive process that kills the cell in all cases.

    The next problem is what to do when bad DNA is found. "kill the cell" may work for killing a tumor. On a computer, you then reinstall to re-gain lost functionality. People sort of do that already on the whole-body level - they make sure they get some babies before they get old and die from cancer. "Reinstalling" a pancreas after removing the cancerous one is an extremely tricky procedure, with many downsides. Unlike computers, there is a very limited supply, and bad side effects.

  101. They could start by 'solving' spyware OSs... by iampiti · · Score: 1

    They make one themselves

  102. Why so negative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A non-standard approach to cancer research could yield some solutions. MS has deep pockets and even a broken clock can be correct twice a day.
    Was that enough general platitudes to make this whole thing seem plausible? MS would be better off donating the money to existing cancer research. I bet there is some sort of tax incentive for this.

    1. Re:Why so negative? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Go home Potsy. Let's be very clear there is no silver bullet to cancer research. It takes time and money. If Microsoft was serious they would FUND cancer research instead of pretending that building a better search would magically cure cancer, let alone proclaim it will be done in 10 years.

    2. Re:Why so negative? by tiggertaebo · · Score: 1

      Aside from the Telegraph's rather over-simplified and clickbait-ey headline I really can't see anything wrong with what Microsoft are doing here to be honest, they've done some pretty shitty things over the years but this isn't one of them. As for the argument that they should just fund cancer research instead I think the posters saying that don't really understand what this research team is - it isn't them taking a bunch of spare coders and getting them to have a crack at it FFS. A quick glance at the info on some of the team members mentioned in TFA will show that this what they "do".

      All the massive tech companies have their fringe R&D depts that are looking at something completely outside their "normal" niche. Google and (maybe, sorta, won't-say-one-way-or-the-other) Apple are building driverless cars, and here Microsoft are aiming for improvements in cancer detection and treatment. I know which I think is better. Now I'm sure that as a commercial business MS will be looking to monetize any of the detection/treatment solutions they may produce and I don't have a problem with that in the same way that I don't begrudge Siemens for monetizing their MRI scanners.

      Will this work "solve" cancer in 10 years? Will it fuck.Looks like it stands a decent chance of improving quality of life and possibly survival rates for people being treated for it though and what's not to like about that?

  103. Great, just great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I'll need a Doctors prescription to use my computer? From a MSCP (Microsoft Certified Physician).

  104. Cancer is not one disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I believe the Nixon administration found out in the 60's cancer is NOT one disease, nor is it caused by one thing. The statement manifestly is stupid. Now if they had listed a certain type or types or cancer. Or cancers caused a certain way that might make sense. But cancer in general? Doesn't make sense.

    And yes given that after how many years the Windows 10 I am currently typing on is any indication of Microsoft's skill. I am very dubious because installing my HP printer driver not only blue screened by system system but wiped the whole operating system. I had to reinstall.

  105. Re:Detecting some cancer by data mining is one thi by hey! · · Score: 1

    Why, though? At this point it seems just as likely that we'll find a miracle cure to cure all cancers as it is that we'll just figure out treatments for every kind one by one.

    Which isn't saying much; it'll take a us a long, long time to take them all on one by one. I guess the reason is that cancer is a kind of process that occurs in many different kinds of cells. Tumors are tough to beat too because they're abnormal tissues that are tough to get medicine into, which is why so many promising in vitro treatments fail in vivo.

    I think both the incremental and breakthrough approaches are about equally likely to work, and someday we'll get there. But if I were a betting man I wouldn't put money on any particular upcoming breakthrough paying out. Those have gone bust many, many times before, broken by the complexity of cancer.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  106. microsoft got rock.. by OWCareers · · Score: 1

    yes its very amazing thing by microsoft

  107. Sooooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now our bodies can suffer something like a BSOD?

  108. F*cking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These MS people are f*cking idiots. This has to be the most severe case of Musk envy that has been found in the wild so far.

  109. So, what guarantees me.. by Z80a · · Score: 1

    That microsoft will not use that to control my body and use it to install Windows 10 on my machines?

  110. Possible after effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "Cancer Fix" may cause red/green blindness, spontaneous mental paralisys, muting, motor failure, instant pass out, etc.

    Features may include ads displaying at any time and uploading body information to enhance user experience.

    Requirements: Internet connection and anal probe to RJ45 or WiFi antenna to keep "Cancer Fix" license active and apply updates when available.

  111. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we cure cancer (on the moon)?

  112. No longer BSOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I appreciate Microsoft's efforts to replace the Blue Screen of Death with a Blue Face of Death!

  113. Don't get excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If M$ markets a "cure" for cancer It will be expensive, will fail miserably and unexpectedly 40% of the time after appearing to work (the result being that it kills you), will come with ads (even if you buy it), will allow MS to track you everywhere you go, and will prevent use of other medicines for no good reason.

  114. Another War On Drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember reading the article in some scientific journal, and it was arguing that "cancer" means lots of different things which we tend to lump together, and majority of cases are due to random mutations of cells, and except for taking some reasonable precautions (like avoiding excessive doze of radiation and chemical known to increase chances of mutation) there is *nothing* we can do to prevent it. Period. The emphasis therefore must be put on early detection. Yes, there are forms of cancer due to genes, but they comprise just a few percents of total cases.

  115. Bullshit by nickberry · · Score: 1

    They can't even prevent windows from getting a virus, but they're going to solve cancer?

  116. Microsoft will "solve" cancer?? by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is cancer.

  117. Re:Hubris by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I don't think studying crocodiles is a good answer, and I suspect that the knowledge to "re-engineer the human genome" is a century or two away at most. Possibly less.

    And I suspect that cancer can be "solved" only at the cost of inhibiting all non-artificial future evolution. (Which was why I mentioned multiply-error-correcting code.) The exception would be preventing epigenetic modifications, but that's what we use to differentiate cell types. I mentioned sponges because that's a animal where the cell type differentiation appears to be controlled only by local environment. Some plants do this in a less extreme way, i.e. they have specialized cells that can "readily" lose their specializations when the environment changes, to one extent or another.

    But my real feeling is that while we can definitely learn to treat, and hopefully even reverse, cancer in situ, we can only prohibit it's coming into existence through methods that are ultimately suicidal.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  118. Great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now that Microsoft has decided that they are better at being Doctors than Doctors are and will solve disease by treating them like a computer virus, when will Doctors decide they are better OS companies than Microsoft and solve Windows by treating it like a disease?

  119. Uh-huh. by rutabagaman · · Score: 1

    I'll believe Microsoft can do this once they've "solved" email spam. That solution was promised 10 years ago, yes?

    --
    (insert witty/esoteric/dumb quote here)
  120. Final solution by Mats+Svensson · · Score: 1

    1.) People get cancer
    2,) ?
    3,) No more cancer. ....aaaaaaand SOLVE!
    *throws switch*

  121. Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they won't solve anything. Stupid Microsoft.

  122. Nonsense. It's vectors they're clueless about. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is great at eradicating viruses... well after it would mean anything.

    A Microsoft solution to a human disease will leave you vulnerable to another.

    Yeah, that cold is gone, but hear comes a kidney stone!

  123. parity with smoke from other SV companies by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Facebook is going to cure all disease in a matter of X years, so now Microsoft has to at least claim it will solve something comparable in comparable time.

    Just like the Enlightenment promised to perfect society, and Obama promised the sea levels would begin to decline.

    Poof!

    *Cough* *Cough*

  124. And by "cancer", they meant by vandamme · · Score: 1

    Linux.