DreamWorks and Netflix in Deal for New TV Programs

In a multiyear deal announced early Monday, DreamWorks Animation will supply a flood of new episodic TV programs to the Internet streaming service. The partnership calls for 300 hours of original programming, perhaps the biggest commitment yet to bring Hollywood-caliber content to the Web first.

The new programs will be “inspired” by characters from past DreamWorks Animation franchises, which include “Shrek” and “The Croods,” and its coming feature films. Series will also come from Classic Media, which the studio bought last year. Classic Media’s holdings include characters like Casper the Friendly Ghost, Lassie, She-Ra and Mr. Magoo.

The agreement is the latest in the hotly competitive market for streaming content, with major services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon vying to capture viewers who are gravitating to the Web, especially younger ones.

Until now, DreamWorks Animation’s primary focus has been the release of about two costly movies a year. Its success record is strong, but one miss can send its stock price plummeting, as was the case late last year, when “Rise of the Guardians” severely underperformed expectations; the company eventually took an $87 million write-down tied to the film.

Investors on Monday responded favorably to the announcement, driving Netflix shares up more than 7 percent, to $229.23, and DreamWorks Animation shares up about 4 percent, to $23.74.

The studio’s characters currently appear on four TV shows. Three are made by Nickelodeon under a licensing agreement, while DreamWorks Animation supplies a fourth, based on “How to Train Your Dragon,” to Time Warner’s Cartoon Network.

The first of the new DreamWorks Animation programs will appear on Netflix sometime next year. Netflix has exclusive rights to the series in all of the countries in which it operates; it has about 27 million streaming subscribers in the United States.

A DreamWorks Animation spokeswoman declined to provide more details, including financial terms. Jeffrey Katzenberg, the studio’s chief executive, plans to outline his TV strategy in a conference call on Tuesday with analysts and reporters.

DreamWorks Animation had three primary TV options: starting a cable channel of its own, perhaps in partnership with 21st Century Fox, which distributes its movies; teaming with an upstart children’s network like the Hub (or taking it over); or bypassing cable completely and going with Netflix.

Mr. Katzenberg and his company parted ways with HBO in 2011, opting instead to distribute their films and television specials through Netflix. Mr. Katzenberg and Netflix announced this year that a new episodic series called “Turbo: F.A.S.T.” would come to the streaming service in December. (It is based on “Turbo,” a film that arrives in theaters on July 17 and features a speedy snail.)

For Netflix, the DreamWorks Animation programming will help fill a hole left by Nickelodeon. Because of a dispute over terms, Netflix declined this year to renew its contract with Viacom, Nickelodeon’s corporate parent. (Viacom in turn made a deal with Amazon this month for Nickelodeon shows like “Dora the Explorer.”) New films from Disney and Pixar will move to Netflix from Starz in late 2016.

Children are avid streaming consumers, particularly overseas, and cartoons allow the company to pitch itself to parents as a commercial-free alternative to television. Animated shows for younger viewers are also less likely to appear on the pirated-content sites that compete with Netflix for viewers.

Software Programs Help Doctors Diagnose, but Can’t Replace Them

At last he spoke. “Lymphoma with secondary hemophagocytic syndrome,” he said. The crowd erupted in applause.

Professionals in every field revere their superstars, and in medicine the best diagnosticians are held in particularly high esteem. Dr. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, 39, a self-effacing associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, is considered one of the most skillful clinical diagnosticians in practice today.

The case Dr. Dhaliwal was presented, at a medical  conference last year, began with information that could have described hundreds of diseases: the patient had intermittent fevers, joint pain, and weight and appetite loss.

To observe him at work is like watching Steven Spielberg tackle a script or Rory McIlroy a golf course. He was given new information bit by bit — lab, imaging and biopsy results. Over the course of the session, he drew on an encyclopedic familiarity with thousands of syndromes. He deftly dismissed red herrings while picking up on clues that others might ignore, gradually homing in on the accurate diagnosis.

Just how special is Dr. Dhaliwal’s talent? More to the point, what can he do that a computer cannot? Will a computer ever successfully stand in for a skill that is based not simply on a vast fund of knowledge but also on more intangible factors like intuition?

The history of computer-assisted diagnostics is long and rich. In the 1970s, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh developed software to diagnose complex problems in general internal medicine; the project eventually resulted in a commercial program called Quick Medical Reference. Since the 1980s, Massachusetts General Hospital has been developing and refining DXplain, a program that provides a ranked list of clinical diagnoses from a set of symptoms and laboratory data.

And I.B.M., on the heels of its triumph last year with Watson, the Jeopardy-playing computer, is working on Watson for Healthcare.

In some ways, Dr. Dhaliwal’s diagnostic method is similar to that of another I.B.M. project: the Deep Blue chess program, which in 1996 trounced Garry Kasparov, the world’s best player at the time, to claim an unambiguous victory in the computer’s relentless march into the human domain.

Although lacking consciousness and a human’s intuition, Deep Blue had millions of moves memorized and could analyze as many each second. Dr. Dhaliwal does the diagnostic equivalent, though at human speed.

Since medical school, he has been an insatiable reader of case reports in medical journals, and case conferences from other hospitals. At work he occasionally uses a diagnostic checklist program called Isabel, just to make certain he hasn’t forgotten something. But the program has yet to offer a diagnosis that Dr. Dhaliwal missed.

Dr. Dhaliwal regularly receives cases from physicians who are stumped by a set of symptoms. At medical conferences, he is presented with one vexingly difficult case and is given 45 minutes to solve it. It is a medical high-wire act; doctors in the audience squirm as the set of facts gets more obscure and all the diagnoses they were considering are ruled out. After absorbing and processing scores of details, Dr. Dhaliwal must commit to a diagnosis. More often than not, he is right.

When working on a difficult case in front of an audience, Dr. Dhaliwal puts his entire thought process on display, with the goal of “elevating the stature of thinking,” he said. He believes this is becoming more important because physicians are being assessed on whether they gave the right medicine to a patient, or remembered to order a certain test.

Without such emphasis, physicians and training programs might forget the importance of having smart, thoughtful doctors. “Because in medicine,” Dr. Dhaliwal said, “thinking is our most important procedure.”

He added: “Getting better at diagnosis isn’t about figuring out if someone has one rare disease versus another. Getting better at diagnosis is as important to patient quality and safety as reducing medication errors, or eliminating wrong site surgery.”

Clinical Precision

Dr. Dhaliwal does half his clinical work on the wards of the San Francisco V. A. Medical Center, and the other half in its emergency department, where he often puzzles through multiple mysteries at a time.

One recent afternoon in the E.R., he was treating a 66-year-old man who was mentally unstable and uncooperative. He complained of hip pain, but routine lab work revealed that his kidneys weren’t working and his potassium was rising to a dangerous level, putting him in danger of an arrhythmia that could kill him — perhaps within hours. An ultrasound showed that his bladder was blocked.

There was work to be done: drain the bladder, correct the potassium level. It would have been easy to dismiss the hip pain as a distraction; it didn’t easily fit the picture. But Dr. Dhaliwal’s instinct is to hew to the ancient rule that physicians should try to come to a unifying diagnosis. In the end, everything — including the hip pain — was traced to metastatic prostate cancer.

“Things can shift very quickly in the emergency room,” Dr. Dhaliwal said. “One challenge of this, whether you use a computer or your brain, is deciding what’s signal and what’s noise.” Much of the time, it is his intuition that helps figure out which is which.

Gadgetwise Blog: Q&A: Removing Programs on a Mac

Windows computers have the Add/Remove Program option and many programs include uninstaller software, but how do you uninstall a Mac program?

Some Mac programs do come with their own uninstaller programs to remove the software from the computer. If the program you want to delete does not offer that utility, you can get rid of it in other ways.

Just dragging the program’s icon out of the Applications folder to the Mac’s desktop Trash can — and then going to the Finder’s File menu and choosing Empty Trash — gets rid of the program and many of its associated files. Some Mac application icons contain many more files than just the program itself; just right-click on an icon in the Applications folder and choose Show Package Contents from the menu to see what lies beneath.

Some programs leave other files around the Mac’s system, though, and just deleting the application’s icon from the computer may leave some digital detritus on your drive. If you are comfortable with poking around in OS X, tutorials like those from Cult of Mac or Raw Computing show where to look in your clean-up mission. For a more automatic approach, free or inexpensive utility apps like AppDelete, AppZapper and CleanApp can take care of the job for you.

Museums Engage Children With Digital Programs

Every year, the program, “Virtual World Institute: Cretaceous Seas,” for children ages 11 to 14, fills up quickly.

One attendee in last summer’s program, Tammuz Frankel, a 12-year-old student at Hunter College High School, said, “From a very young age, I have been interested in paleontology, but I don’t know much about prehistoric seas. I wanted to learn more about this little-known part of the Mesozoic Era.”

The program has been so successful that the museum has since added two more August seminars on different topics.

The natural history museum is not alone in seeking innovative ways to engage children and families in the museum-going experience. The J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, the Philadelphia Museum of Art and others have also been active.

Because digital platforms are relevant and accessible, they are familiar to “digital natives,” young people who have grown up with technology, said Rebecca Edwards, education specialist for family audiences at the Getty. One advantage of digital games is that many visitors already have smartphones. And the games let museums offer a broader menu for youngsters without requiring more staff members, like tour leaders, or printed materials, although creating the games is not an inexpensive challenge.

Not all museums are enamored with technology, however. Some are hesitant to encourage families to bring on the iPhones. For example, next summer the Philadelphia Museum of Art is planning five simultaneous exhibits oriented to families, including an interactive watercolor project inspired by the award-winning artist and author Jerry Pinkney as well as an environment using fancy dress costumes from the early 20th century for children in a setting designed by the artist Candy Depew. “There is a small amount of technology, but that is not the focus of what we do with kids,” said Emily Schreiner, associate curator of education for family and community learning at the museum.

“Technology is kind of a contentious issue,” she said. “Adults are not always comfortable with their kids being on iPhones. What we want them to take away from the museum is an opportunity to slow down, look closely and spend time as a family.”

Already the museum has a monthly series of “Stroller Tours” for parents and caregivers that lets them spend time together looking at art. “We have found them to be extremely successful,” Ms. Schreiner said. “We find that our visitors come back, become members and feel welcomed into the museum.”

Nevertheless, technology is a component of many programs.

For example, the Getty has a new youth-oriented application for smartphones through a game it calls Switch, in which an evil genie has wreaked havoc at the museum. The paintings in an app are not the exact duplicates of the paintings on the wall, so players must find the differences. The challenge is to correct details in a copy of the museum painting on the iPhone so that it matches the actual image.

In the first test, there were a series of details including the absence of a brooch in an oil painting of Leonilla, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn, by Franz Xaver Winterhalter. The player has to figure out and correct what is inaccurate.

The game consists of four paintings, a deliberately small number to keep the game from feeling repetitive and to encourage youngsters to go on to other things at the museum.

The Getty has also created an audio tour in which animals in various works of art talk about themselves.

Since admission to the museum is free, the games are not intended to increase revenue, although more visitors are certainly a benefit. “What these do is provide parents a way for their children to focus on art that perhaps they could not have done themselves,” said Ms. Edwards of the Getty.

In another game strategy, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has introduced “Murder at the Met,” a game for any smartphone that children can download and then use to search for the person who murdered “Madame X,” the woman in John Singer Sargent’s portrait. They must check out statues, paintings and objects throughout the American wing, following clues to the murderer and the witnesses. Though the museum does not aggressively publicize the game, children can find it on the museum’s Web site.