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.
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.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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".
Microsoft will 'solve' cancer within 10 years by 'reprogramming' diseased cells
I think I've seen this movie before.
It doesn't end well.
... 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.
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?
I'm not surprised, considering the amount of spyware you shipped windows 10 with.
K?
Researcher Translation.
https://xkcd.com/678/
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
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.
I thought cancer was already "solved" the same way Microsoft "solved" computer viruses. Which is why we still have cancer. And computer viruses.
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....
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!
Only 10,000 a monthly as long as you live. Unless you can't connect to the internet or stop paying, then you die.
Onion.com, April 1st, and Satan had a 3-way to create this story-line
Table-ized A.I.
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!
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?
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
Bruce Perens.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
...the "blue screen of death" will have a whole new meaning.
"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."
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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......
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.
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.
I never doubted the power of HACKERMAN
I can't wait to see how people get reformatted and reinstalled.
Slashdot: Where the sig outsmarts the comment
... 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. . . .
that sends a signal if there's cancer?
Nobody even knew. Chairs were thrown, we did the monkey-boy dance, and everyone had a good laugh about how ridiculous it all was.
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.
"Machine learning" is apparently the new nanotech.
iMmune, new, for your iBod.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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!
Exactly. We have a better chance of curing cancer than going to Mars, because humans sure as hell ain't going to Mars.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
the blue gene of death.
... to an entirely new level.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.
https://xkcd.com/678/
"Two years from now, spam will be solved," -- Bill Gates, 2004 http://www.informationweek.com...?
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
...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'
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.
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?
Learn to love Alaska
Death certificate reads: STOP: 0xDEADBEEF00000000 (ATGCCGCGAATrojan-IM.....)
Pretty sure it's the same method nature came up with, not particularly effective from the standpoint of the individual though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They make one themselves
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.
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.
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.
yes its very amazing thing by microsoft
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?
That microsoft will not use that to control my body and use it to install Windows 10 on my machines?
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
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.
They can't even prevent windows from getting a virus, but they're going to solve cancer?
Microsoft is cancer.
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.
Look, data is easily gleamed & turned into metrics.
Read this, please.
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?
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)
1.) People get cancer ....aaaaaaand SOLVE!
2,) ?
3,) No more cancer.
*throws switch*
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*
Linux.