from the giving-BSOD-a-whole-new-meaning dept.
Microsoft has vowed to "solve the problem of cancer" within a decade by using ground-breaking computer science to crack the code of diseased cells so they can be reprogrammed back to a healthy state.
[...] The researchers are even working on a computer made from DNA which could live inside cells and look for faults in bodily networks, like cancer. If it spotted cancerous chances it would reboot the system and clear out the diseased cells.
Chris Bishop, laboratory director at Microsoft Research, said: "I think it's a very natural thing for Microsoft to be looking at because we have tremendous expertise in computer science and what is going on in cancer is a computational problem.
[Continues...]
Dr. Lowe, from In the Pipeline, is not convinced that Microsoft is being realistic with their "molecular computer" that will cure cancer:
We're not even near understanding what's going on in normal cells or cancerous ones, so giving people the impression that you've already simulated everything important and you're busy "debugging" it is not only arrogant, it's close to irresponsible.
[...] If you remove the hubris from the Microsoft announcement, though, which takes sandblasters and water cannons, you get to something that could be interesting. It's another machine learning approach to biology, from what I can make out, and I'm not opposed in principle to that sort of thing at all. It has to be approached with caution, though, because any application of machine learning to the biology literature has to take into account that a good percentage of that literature is crap, and that negative results (which have great value for these systems) are grievously underrepresented in it as well.
[...] So if Microsoft wants to apply machine learning to cancer biology, I'm all for it. But they should just go and try it and report back when something interesting comes out of it, rather than beginning by making a big noise in the newspapers. You want to cure cancer? Go do it; don't sit around giving interviews about how you're going to cure cancer real soon now.
Note: Bold added by submitter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/20/microsoft-will-solve-cancer-within-10-years-by-reprogramming-dis/
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/09/21/better-faster-more-comprehensive-manure-distribution
Related Stories
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has released another cancer progress report/wish list:
Vice President Joe Biden today released his vision for doubling progress against cancer over 5 years. It includes numerous policy recommendations and a laundry list of projects by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other federal agencies that would require additional funding. Biden and his wife, Jill, have met with thousands of experts and patient advocates, they explain in a 17-page strategic plan submitted to President Barack Obama, who asked Biden in January to lead the effort. "We sought to better understand and break down the silos and stovepipes that prevent sharing of information and impede advances in cancer research and treatment, while building a focused and coordinated effort at home and abroad," they explain.
The Bidens' wish list ranges from giving patients more control over their medical data to launching "a national conversation" about cancer drug pricing. They also want to see more high-risk research funding at NCI and changes to the institute's intramural research program to focus more on emerging science and major public health challenges.
An accompanying 29-page report from Biden's federal moonshot task force lists what agencies have done so far and their plans to address five strategic goals. The first goal, "catalyze new scientific breakthroughs," contains several items that "align with" the 10 research areas recommended last month by an NCI blue ribbon panel, the report says. For example, it describes Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to develop new imaging technologies for detecting early molecular changes in cells that may lead to cancer.
The Cancer Moonshot is part of the War on Cancer:
The mission of this Cancer Moonshot is not to start another war on cancer, but to win the one President Nixon declared in 1971. At that time, we didn't have the army organized, didn't have the military intelligence to know the enemy well, and therefore didn't have the comprehensive strategy needed to launch a successful attack—now we do. Because of the progress over the last 45 years we have an army of researchers and oncologists, the powerful technologies and weapons, and immense public support and commitment to action.
Related:
Biomedicine Facing a Worse Replication Crisis Than the One Plaguing Psychology
The White House Announces $121 Million Microbiome Initiative
"Cancer Moonshot" Releases Blue Ribbon Panel Report
Microsoft to "Solve the Problem of Cancer" Within Ten Years - Scientists are Skeptical
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @11:35AM
OK, which Microsoft executive has cancer?
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday September 22 2016, @11:47AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:15PM
Their findings will be available via leaked "telemetry data". They just can't help themselves.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday September 22 2016, @06:34PM
Microsoft Cured For Sure (TM)
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:06PM
I Am Legend
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:19PM
I however have a case of the opposite problem, cynicism.
"we have tremendous expertise in computer science"
*cough* LOL. Definitely not in executive decisions. That's why Microsoft tried DRM, trying to sell the public on the idea that DRM is security, got in bed with the RIAA, founded the BSA, and lobbied for even stronger intellectual property law and enforcement. If Bill Gates is so interested in improving medicine, he's going about it all wrong. Until the US reverses course on on the entire concept of intellectual "property", and the fee-for-service medical care system, medical advances will continue to be locked up. The direction the US has taken is thanks to the pushing of a few wealthy stakeholders, including Bill Gates. Who knows, maybe Bill admires Martin Shkreli and Heather Bresch, or at least thinks they got a bad rap in the press, feels for them, feels their pain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @03:13PM
I don't remember taking "Executive Decisions" in any of my comp sci classes, so are you just conceding they have expertise in CS?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:45PM
Not at all. I'm saying their CS expertise was applied far too narrowly. If they're so expert at CS, they should have realized that Digital Rights Management is nonsense on a technical level at the very least. There is no copy protection or DRM scheme that can stop others from reimplementing and recreating software functionality. Yet they tried DRM anyway, and are still trying it today, still wishing it worked better. DRM has completely failed to stop piracy of Windows and Office. Probably they knew it couldn't, but settled for slowing down piracy at the cost of annoying paying customers, seem to think that's worth the trouble of using DRM. Even less possible is that DRM could somehow prevent a project such as WINE.
They should have been working on business models. Create, implement, and set up business models that fit the realities of CS, rather than the other way around. Instead, they're sitting on their butts still peddling copies of their wares, crying about piracy, and trying to confuse the public with propaganda, while the likes of Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Humble Bundle, and other crowdfunding efforts leave them further and further behind. That moronic move is what makes their CS expertise suspect. Why they cling so hard to obsolete business models, and do their utmost to force reality to bend to their desire to do business the way they've always done it despite all the evidence, experience, and knowledge that DRM does not and cannot work, is the mystery. It says they are business people first, computer scientists second. Despite their immense wealth and success, this shows they are not particularly bright business people. They're small minded merchants of shoddy wares who think they know the secret of success and that they can just apply their "winner-fu" to a hard problem like cancer and beat it in a few years. If, that is, the whole thing isn't just a marketing ploy to get some attention.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday September 22 2016, @06:58PM
Well, it has been Gates' model ever since 1976 [wikimedia.org] or even prior to that...
Why change a "winning" strategy?
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday September 23 2016, @03:56AM
But it did work. It was supposed to bring a huge load of money for a very rich but technologically illiterate media moguls and it did. If Microsoft wouldn't have done it someone else would have, and possibly made MS obsolete.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 22 2016, @06:16PM
Yeah! Stupid Microsoft, you'll cure cancer with computers!
How well is the SN Folding @ Home team doing these days?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 22 2016, @06:18PM
hah, damn, you'll never cure cancer with computers!
I ruined everything!
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:03PM
Did you forget to take your medication again?
;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:56PM
I'm wondering if any of the "Cancer Moonshot" RFPs have been released, or are being released soon.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @11:52AM
This one is easy. They'll just force the cancer to install windows 10 which will kill it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:40PM
Your body has been infected with Bodysnatcher.pua every 5 minutes another cell will be turned cancerous. Please submit 200 bitcoin to this address...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 22 2016, @02:30PM
That's silly - of course Windows 10 doesn't kill everything it touches. However, it will collect detailed information about everything you do, and use it to broadcast well-targeted ads into your dreams! Buy Lightspeed Briefs!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by DBCubix on Thursday September 22 2016, @12:07PM
What do I win on Sept 22, 2026 when cancer is still around?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:22PM
Microsoft could not even eradicate Open Source. Or Linux -- which their former CEO called a cancer. And not for lack of trying.
In fact, despite Microsoft's best efforts, Open Source, and Linux have spread everywhere. There are more processors on planet earth running Linux than Windows. Almost any household has more Linux instances running than Windows instances.
So why should I believe Microsoft can do anything about cancer? It's not even in the area of what the company specializes* in?
Now: Microsoft Loves Linux
So next will it be: Microsoft Loves Cancer?
(And Sharks Love Fish, and Foxes Love Chickens)
* creating then maintaining illegal monopolies and destroying competitors
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:12PM
Sure, there are more instances of Linux running, but which OS is "providing more value" (i.e. getting paid more) for being there?
Microsoft is a for-profit corporation, they can't compete with free, they can just hope to hang on to some income streams, which they are doing.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:22PM
Getting Paid More and Providing More Value are two different things. In fact the opposite. Value Provided is to the end user. Getting Paid is to the vendor of the software.
An even better metric is value provided per dollar paid. Open Source comes out way ahead.
I never would have minded if Microsoft were just minding its business and hanging on to income streams by improving its product. I mind very much when it tries to destroy competitors -- especially open source. Microsoft has a track record here that will take a long time to forget, or at least a lot more convincing than I've seen.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 23 2016, @12:33PM
even better metric is value provided per dollar paid. Open Source comes out way ahead.
I, and the open market - obviously, agree.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @12:09PM
Cancer is not one disease. It's cells which have broken through many different checks and balances in the process of DNA replication and apoptosis/immune destruction of things that go out of control. These checks and balances are pretty good, which is why the trillions of cells that make up you are doing OK. But 37 trillion rolls of the dice multiplied by how many you shed and replace often is a hell of a lot of rolls of the dice for something to go wrong.
When you think about it this way, the real surprise with cancer is that it's not more common.
Here's the rub. When this process goes off the rails badly enough to create what we call cancer, most of those checks and balances are completely shredded. That means it goes further and further off the rails. Even in a single person, "cancer" is not a single disease. It's not one mutation. The tumor has a crazy number of different mutations, often even a wildly divergent number of chromosomes within the same mass.
There are rare exceptions to this, like the canine cancer spread by sexual contact in dogs. That one for some reason is stable. So there are exceptions that prove the rule. However, in the general case there is no particular mutation and the entire approach posited is fallacious from the start, because it isn't one disease.
If that wasn't enough: "Living computer made from DNA" just doesn't pass the sniff test, either, and rebooting cells is a much worse idea than just killing wayward ones. Good luck with either. Cancer is great at hiding from the immune system, so their supposed solution would have to be separate and superior to our immune system... which we do not even fully understand. That is not going to happen.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Thursday September 22 2016, @12:34PM
I agree. Not anon. Just wrote up a summary of 25 genetic diseases for $PROJ, and every single one is f*ing horrible.
When the machine breaks, all you can hope is that you don't feel the pain.
Probably the more relevant question for "cancer", is the role of the various actors - DNA, repair mechanisms , control machinery (methylation, PTM's, protein efficiency) , environmental exposure, infection (virus/microbe/other)...
And the fact another (google also declared "cure the world" in a press release) computing company is saying this, suggests there is money to be siphoned from gullible investors - our collective pension funds, maybe?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @02:07PM
The same results can only be arrived by others a very low percentage of the time (~10%) when it comes to cancer research, and it is to the point where peopole are actively resisting attempts by others to replicate their experiments. Further, people trying to do these replications are quitting in disgust saying these studies are so crappy it isn't even worth repeating them. Even the people who don't like trying to reproduce cancer research say it is because it is naive to clean out the "Augean Stables" that way.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2016/04/biomedicine_facing_a_worse_replication_crisis_than_the_one_plaguing_psychology.html [slate.com] [slate.com]
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html [nature.com] [nature.com]
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328 [reuters.com] [reuters.com]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html [nature.com] [nature.com]
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1411 [sciencemag.org] [sciencemag.org]
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165 [plos.org] [plos.org]
http://www.nature.com/news/cancer-reproducibility-project-scales-back-ambitions-1.18938 [nature.com] [nature.com]
I wouldn't take that literature seriously if I were you, it is probably worse than psychology. I haven't looked too much into it yet, but suspect virology will win out as the absolute bottom of the barrel of research fields in the end, they fail to blind themselves in nearly every paper I have read.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:58PM
This cancer is many diseases thing is a cop out meant to make you excuse the total lack of progress that has been made on the topic. Cancer is one disease, if you could detect and selectively remove aneuploid cells from tissues where they do not belong, you could cure 90-99% of cancers.
Anyway, this story is just about detecting cancer, not even killing/removing/controlling it. As mentioned above, we already know how to tell if a cell is cancerous, you check the number of chromosomes (this is called karyotyping). This has been known for 100 years or so. It is pretty idiotic to say the problem will be "solved" even if it worked.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:23PM
I am the GP.
Not only is cancer many diseases, but - with the most select of exceptions - cancer is unique in every individual with the disease. Despite this, we've actually made significant progress in treating many cancers. However, therapy != cure and as I articulated above, thanks to rolling the dice every living thing will remain susceptible to cancer if they live long enough.
Karyotyping detects some cancers. Not all. However, even if I accepted that point, the immune system has to work with what it can 'see', which means proteins/lipid bilayers on the surface of cells, or molecules/proteins those cells are excreting/secreting. It's easy to sit in your armchair and say "hey, just remove cells with the wrong number or arrangement of chromosomes" but there is literally no way to know this as said chromosomes are secreted away in the nucleus.
Seems easy, until it isn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:52PM
No, it really is one disease defined by the presence of aneuploidy. There have been tens of thousands of papers published on this, it has even trickled down to wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneuploidy [wikipedia.org]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3675379/ [nih.gov]
The earliest article I saw on pubmed:
http://www.nature.com/articles/184290a0 [nature.com]
And you are correct on this point:
As I said, we have known how to identify cancer cells for a long, long time (via karyotyping). That is not the problem. The problem is identifying the aneuploid cells in living tissue and selectively removing them. That is where the funding should be going, not into all this "cancer is many diseases" junk. It is one disease with one commonality. That is really one of the most damaging ideas I have ever heard, it will do nothing but lead to misdirected resources.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Joe on Thursday September 22 2016, @05:47PM
That is where the funding should be going
Sounds like you've got a perfect solution (Nirvana fallacy).
Despite what you say, there has been a lot of real progress made in the treatment of cancer. Some of the therapies are specific to certain types of cancer (Imatinib, Tamoxifen, and Rituximab come to mind) and others such as immune checkpoint inhibitors are showing a lot of progress across multiple types of cancer.
- Joe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:04PM
I had an earlier response that didn't show up. In short:
1) You are attacking a strawman, I never said it would work for sure. I said funding should be focused on that, which is no fallacy. It is totally rational to focus your efforts on targeting one universal aspect of cancer that has been consistently reported for nearly a century using many different technologies. Apparently the alternative is to make millionth-assed attempts at a million different flash-in-the-pan targets, since the disease does not manifest in exactly the same way every time. That sounds like a great way to waste as much time and money as possible before figuring anything out.
2) If you can link to the evidence that has convinced you of the real progress I will look into it. From other posts in this thread you can see the standards used in cancer research are extremely low, so we need to check it for ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Joe on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:37PM
This cancer is many diseases thing is a cop out meant to make you excuse the total lack of progress
No, people say that "cancer isn't one disease" to highlight the vast differences among types of cancer. Different types of cancer can cause different pathology and require different types of treatment (anti-angiogenesis drugs and surgery would be useless for lymphomas).
Cancer has many commonalities and aneuploidy is one of them, but cancer does not require aneuploidy (inactivation of tumor suppressors and the presence of oncogenes can drive cancer independent of chromosomal number).
I consider Cancer to be a class of diseases - similar to Autoimmunity (Lupus, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, Crohn's, and APECED are all very different).
- Joe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:39PM
From a physics perspective, you can treat the problem of identifying cancerous cells as reversing an increase in entropy due to mixing bad cells with good ones.
If there are easy to exploit chemical (differential in response to a toxin) or mechanical (confined to a discrete mass of tissue) distinctions between good and bad cells, then you have a cancer treatment. Separating a mixture based on its properties is analogous to using water to separate salt and sand or using a centrifuge to separate a mixture by density.
But if you lack strong differentiators, you're left with a mixing entropy which requires a quantity of physical and computational work to eliminate.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @10:02PM
This is a very apt description of the problem. Thank you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sendafiolorkar on Thursday September 22 2016, @12:10PM
When will they solve that software cancer called Windows?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday September 22 2016, @12:25PM
Which? castigates Microsoft http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37431343 [bbc.co.uk]
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:14PM
> When will they solve that software cancer called Windows?
IIRC, a former Microsoft CEO said that Linux was a cancer.
And Jim Allchin, at the time #4 guy at Microsoft, and then later headed up that wonderful project known as Vista, said: Open Source is un-American, and legislators need to be educated to the danger.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 22 2016, @03:10PM
They solved that years ago. They put everyone in cubicles.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Thursday September 22 2016, @12:23PM
Didn't Microsoft once refer to Linux as a cancer? I'll assume that's what they're actually referring to.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by DannyB on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:16PM
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted above.
A former Microsoft CEO (Steve Ballmer) said that Linux was a cancer.
And Jim Allchin, at the time #4 guy at Microsoft, and then later headed up that wonderful project known as Vista, said: Open Source is un-American, and legislators need to be educated to the danger.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @12:31PM
They are going reverse engineer actual cancer and integrate it into Azure and Office 365 to be competitive with Oracle's cloud offerings?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @12:57PM
Help me, Satya Nadella. You're my only hope. [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:13PM
Trump would never let Obi-Juan into the country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:30PM
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany. We must be cautious.
You don't need to see his identification. This isn't the Juan you're looking for. [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @06:59PM
You will never find a more wretched hive of fucked aspect ratios.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @02:09PM
Trump would never let Obi-Juan into the country.
Don't be so sure. The force can have a strong effect [youtube.com] on the weak minded [donaldjtrump.com].
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:01PM
They will attempt to cure cancer and will instead create a more aggressive form. Then they will release a genetic update to cure the aggressive cancer, and it will become airborne and communicable instead.
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck, is the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
(Score: 2) by goodie on Thursday September 22 2016, @02:13PM
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck, is the day they start making vacuum cleaners
I don't know if it's from you but I found that quite clever, thank you :D.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Thursday September 22 2016, @05:16PM
I read this joke about ten years ago, so it's not new. But it's still just as funny and just as fitting as it was back then. :-)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:12PM
This would be the one Microsoft "Extinguish" I'd support, but I'm really worried about the horrible possibilities of their "Embrace" and "Extend" precursors.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:35PM
Dr. Lowe, from In the Pipeline, get it totally right:
. . . giving people the impression that you've already simulated everything important and you're busy "debugging" it is not only arrogant, it's close to irresponsible. . . .
. . . You want to cure cancer? Go do it; don't sit around giving interviews about how you're going to cure cancer real soon now. . . .
And don't tell me they'll blue screen it to death. Life will find a way (to press ctrl-alt-del).
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:38PM
> n a computer made from DNA which could live inside cells and look for faults in bodily networks
It looks like your spleen is metastasizing. Think "OK" to begin spleen recovery
Spleen recovery commencing...
...checking organs...
...deleting spleen...
...uploading biotelemetry to Microsoft...
...searching Windows Endocrine Database for organs...
...spleen 2.0 found. To install spleen 2.0, you must first install Microsoft. .WET. 4.6. Think OK to download Microsoft .WET...
...Think OK to accept the EULA...
...Downloading Microsoft .WET installer...
...Do you want to allow Microsoft .WET 4.6 Installer to make changes to your body? Think OK or CANCEL
...Microsoft .WET 4.6 has been successfully installed. Now installing Spleen 2.0...
...WARNING. Your current version of Heart is incompatible with the installed version of Microsoft .WET and will be uninstalled immediately. Think to stop uninstallation and revert back to .WET 4.3
...Uninstalling .WET 4.6...
...Spleen 2.0 installer has stopped responding. To start task manager and end the process, stick one finger in your bellybutton, one in your ear and one up your arsehole.
(Score: 3, Touché) by edIII on Thursday September 22 2016, @05:37PM
I assume this is the part where you ask your SO for a hand? ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:44PM
Well I'm certainly not getting the IT guy to do it.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:42PM
Microsoft is particularly expert at building environments to nurture the growth of viruses.
( Sorry, I just couldn't resist ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @03:21PM
So, viruses don't exist anymore?
Zero-days don't happen because Microsoft has completely figured out how to eliminate viruses?
They can cure any malware without damage / decrypt all ransomware 100% of the time without loss?
I must have missed the press release on those things. Because until they happen, they haven't "computationally solved" shit, let alone cancer.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:19PM
Microsoft not only falls for the old "if all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails" fallacy, they also have in the past demonstrated that they are not even very good in hammering nails.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:26PM
by giving everyone the blue screen of death. Problem solved.
OR... is it that Microsoft is starting to lose, maybe, and is looking to gather patents like crazy and maybe move into a different field of 'expertise'.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Touché) by marknmel on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:37PM
Might be true, as Microsoft certainly has domain knowledge of rebooting systems....
There is nothing that can't be solved with one more layer of indirection.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @06:56PM
Something you see so often from failing and poorly managed restaurants is that they'll start freaking out. Luigi saves up and finally opens up Luigi's Italian Diner. But after 2 months it's not making a profit, so it's freak out time. Suddenly it's Luigi's Italian and Hamburgers Diner. The burgers are pretty shitty though. Luigi doesn't put his heart into them. And the burgers aren't doing it so it becomes Luigi's Italian and Burgers and Japanese Diner. That doesn't work so they start increasing the price for the remaining customers they do have. It's like struggling in quicksand. If that analogy isn't familiar - don't do that.
Microsoft realized OS sales are tied to OEM sales and as hardware iteration rapidly declined, so did their profits. Since then they've seemingly become everything and they keep failing everywhere. In 2015 they stated by 2018 they'd have their new 'free-to-play' OS installed on a billion devices. Nope. Okay, no problem. They'll just become the kings of AI - that's big, right? Shit shit shit, our AI turned into a bugged out Hitler spamming Nazi bot. No problem! Self driving cars, those are big right? We'll become a software vendor for self driving technology! And now they're going to become a biotech company. It's getting to be rather humorous. Shall we lay the line at 3 months before Microsoft refashions itself to become the new source for solar cells? Because renewable energy, that's big.. right? Ah screw it, they should start selling sushi.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:59PM
Microsoft has amazing marketing, and they are great at squishing better products. As to actually solving an issue better than anyone else? Not so much. I'll save everyone the disease-virus jokes.
(Score: 1) by zzarko on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:52PM
They'll create GUI interface using visual basic to track the cancer...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU [youtube.com]
and then use ground-breaking 4-hand keyboard to destroy it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msX4oAXpvUE [youtube.com]
C64 BASIC: 1 a=rnd(-52028):fori=1to8:a=rnd(1):next:fori=1to5:?chr$(rnd(1)*26+65);:next
(Score: 0, Troll) by purple_cobra on Friday September 23 2016, @09:56PM
I wish they'd started 10+ years ago. My beloved partner lies in a hospital bed, near the end of her life because this fucking awful illness is going to take her from me a mere six months after diagnosis.
I wouldn't wish this shit on anyone so I hope they do succeed. It won't be early enough for us, but the less people have to go through this the better.
Hold your loved ones close. Don't let petty arguments drive a wedge between you. You have no idea what lies in wait around the corner.