Slashdot Mirror


Surgeon Says Face Transplants a Reality

Aspherical Cow writes "A New York Times Magazine article about how a London surgeon is planning on performing an experimental full-face transplant. The face would be harvested like any other donor organ and used on a disfigured person. Lots of issues of identity come up with something like this, but they say that this won't turn Nicholas Cage into John Travolta."

248 comments

  1. FP w/useful info by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    FP! oh, and the link is broken. nytimes is suposed to be followed by '.com'.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    1. Re:FP w/useful info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More proof they don't even read the posts before making them live.

    2. Re:FP w/useful info by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Just think, if you were a subscriber you could have seen it early and brought it to their attention. Now the fact that this wasn't caught indicates that either no one's actually reading stories in the future, or that the editors don't listen to those of us who are pathetic (but subscribing) peons. Take your pick.

    3. Re:FP w/useful info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than likely, the nytimes site is broken anyway, as it keeps asking for some sort of login. I think their site is redirecting to some sort of admin tool login, because after all, it would be stupid to try to force people who wanted to look at the news to login.

    4. Re:FP w/useful info by damiam · · Score: 1

      It's probably going unchanged because Mozilla autocorrects it to nytimes.com, while IE gives an error message.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  2. Why not? by superangrybrit · · Score: 1, Insightful

    those who had their faces burned would be better off. Am I right?

    1. Re:Why not? by zackbar · · Score: 1

      Not much better off.

      Assuming the transplant goes well, and no rejection occurs, it will take them years of painful healing and training.

      I believe stem cell regeneration is a far better method, once it is ready. (Of course, that's the rub.)

      In an earlier /. story, one patient had stem cells (from his own blood) rebuild part of his heart instead of a transplant. I believe that it won't be another 10 years before the process is improved enough that all transplants can be replaced with cell regeneration.

    2. Re:Why not? by Peterus7 · · Score: 0

      Meh, I miss the day where a plastic mask or a paper bag was your choice. Simple as that.

  3. GREAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This really is good news! I want one!

    This face has a few holes in :(

  4. This is great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe now people like Jacqueline Saburido can have their lives restored to them.

    Oh, FP?

    1. Re:This is great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one of the most powerful pictures I've ever seen.

    2. Re:This is great. by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1, Funny

      My god that is truely disturbing, That image is going to be with me a very long time.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    3. Re:This is great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf mdos...?

      funny?

      you are some sick bastards.

    4. Re:This is great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot's biggest feature: MOC!

      Mods On Crack.

      Are YOUR mods legally insane?

    5. Re:This is great. by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      OMG, Was she driving a Ford Pinto?

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    6. Re:This is great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sick fucks that moderated that funny or underrated, I hope you burn in hell when your numbers up.

    7. Re:This is great. by odyrithm · · Score: 1

      That image

      Dont forget theres a human being behind that image.

      --
      moo
  5. Yup by SEWilco · · Score: 2

    Face it, it's just another body part.

  6. Hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe $$$exyGal can get a face transplant to make him look like a girl!

  7. Correct Link by Captain+Chad · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Check out Chad's News
    1. Re:Correct Link by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      We ran this story (with the correct link and lots of great secondary ones!) yesterday over on Sci-Fi Today. Check us out and get our headlines on your Slashdot home page here.

  8. Whole new meaning ... by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

    Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Your face, your ass - what's the difference?"

    1. Re:Whole new meaning ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break this to you, but that is not a common phrase. Maybe you hear it a lot, but most of us don't. By us, I mean everyone who doesn't visit Slashdot.

    2. Re:Whole new meaning ... by Compact+Dick · · Score: 2, Funny


      You must mean "my face, your ass."

      Oh, wait...!

    3. Re:Whole new meaning ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally you hear it in bad movies, which could be considered common if you watch lots of them frequently. Or if you have a dorky sister that says it to you daily.

    4. Re:Whole new meaning ... by damiam · · Score: 1

      You mean they do ass transplants now?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    5. Re:Whole new meaning ... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Duke Nukem.

      Suck it down.

    6. Re:Whole new meaning ... by godpaully · · Score: 1

      they do perform sphincter transplants!

  9. Identity theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, I can't see how there would be any identity issues...I haven't read the article, but I can't imagine that anything would be transplanted besides the skin (and maybe some cartilage). The recipiants original bone structure would remain the same...

    1. Re:Identity theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't read the article

      Hey, it's slashdot! Does anyone read the article??!?!

    2. Re:Identity theft? by geesus · · Score: 0

      How right you are. If you look at a person you know, before you even look directly at thier face you can tell if its the person your after. there are just so many other pieces of the body that our brains take in, its nearly subcoincious

      --
      Gnome wasnt built in a day.
    3. Re:Identity theft? by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, if you had read the article, you'd learn that you're only partially right. They'd take more than just the skin -- they'd also take some of the underlying muscles and bone mass, to try to meet halfway, so to speak, in the reconstruction job. The end result would be a person who doesn't look like they used to, but doesn't look like the donor either.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  10. Dilemma time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Imagine this...

    You owe people a great deal of money and they send the "heavies" round, but you've already died in an acident.

    Someone else has got your face now & the heavies recognise you. Not likely to happen to anyone here, but it could happen in the real world.

    And another thing, how would you pass facial biometrics at US airports if the previous face was from a criminal?

    1. Re:Dilemma time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Critical Thought Time, with Anonymouse Coward:

      What do you suppose their transplanting in this "face transplant"? Presumably, they're just moving skin and maybe cartilage. What gives your face the shape it currently holds? Your skull.

      Conclusion: until head transplants, this is not a problem. Welcome to the wonderful world of -1, Redundant.

    2. Re:Dilemma time. by RealBeanDip · · Score: 1

      >>You owe people a great deal of money and they send the "heavies" round,

      He ain't heavy, he's my SysAdmin

      (yes, seen here on Slashdot before, but it is funny, you know it is!)

      --

      You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Dibs! by este · · Score: 1

    I wonder if I can get someone else's really nice face....I wouldn't mind being a Brad Pitt. Or for that matter, Jennifer Anison (heheh). But seriously, I wonder what the availability of donor faces will be like, should this become a more mainstream reconstructive surgery practice. I'm sure there will be some kind-hearted, altruistic donors out there, but enough to meet the likely demand? I want to look nice for my funeral.....with a face.

    --
    [este]
    1. Re: Dibs! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I wonder if I can get someone else's really nice face....I wouldn't mind being a Brad Pitt.

      Yeah, or you could go in for an appendectomy and wake up on the streets of Bhagdad looking like Saddam Hussein.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  13. it's not the face .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... transplants that are going to make a lot of money.

    It's the scalp transplants that will make bazillions. Just think, you can get a whole new type of hair or just have your scalp cloned and slice out the male pattern baldness.

    I would pay for that.

    1. Re:it's not the face .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you would chromedome.

    2. Re:it's not the face .... by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if the Simpson's have taught us anything, its that Evil can live on through the scalp!

      Homer: <Snake>Time for you to die little dude. </Snake>

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  14. consequences by awing0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A lot of study has been put into what beauty really is. If you look at it from an evolutionary point of view, it's to show us which mates would best carry our genes.

    When you change someone's face, you can't help but wonder if you're throwing a wrench into a system thats evolved over so many thousands of years. This argument would apply not only to this, but plastic surgery and what not.

    It seams every day, medical technology is weakening the race more and more by causing people to depend on a large infrastructure to survive. At what point do you draw the line between leaving people out in the cold for the greater good or helping them?

    --
    Cthulhu Saves.
    1. Re:consequences by anakuran · · Score: 1

      I believe George Carlin calls it "passive eugenics" :p

    2. Re:consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "It seams every day, medical technology is weakening the race more and more by causing people to depend on a large infrastructure to survive. At what point do you draw the line between leaving people out in the cold for the greater good or helping them?"

      This is an incredibly specious argument. Seriously, put a little thought into it. ...

      OK, now that we've determined that you aren't willing to put thought into it, I'll do it for you. Why do we have such a long lifespan and low infant mortality rate nowadays? Modern medicine. Are you saying that we should drop this entirely, just so in one million years we might be slightly more likely to mate (in a 20 year life span, with no way of caring for the infants) than we are now (assuming same conditions)?

      The greater good would be far, far worse if it weren't for this "large infrastructure". You're using the same argument anarchists use, that we shouldn't rely on a large infrastructure to live. Of course, if we get rid of the large infrastructure, we die, but at least we're independant!

    3. Re:consequences by awing0 · · Score: 1

      Good point, someone should mod this up. But when does the infrastructure become so complex and huge that it cannot support itself? It might not happen, and if it's going to happen, it'll be a long ways away. But a little planning never hurt anything. That's all I was saying, we should realize what we're doing before we do it. I wouldn't want to live independent of society anymore than the rest of us.

      --
      Cthulhu Saves.
    4. Re:consequences by jeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, that water went over the bridge with the invention of the bandage. We are by nature the animal that defies Nature through the use of technology.

      By definition, our medical tools are part and parcel of the evolutionary process. Would you say that the birds are "cheating" because they used wings? Or that the lungfish were cheating by getting their oxygen straight from the atmosphere?

      Second, we're not thwarting evolution. We're giving the victims their life back after accidents that Nature never intended. At what point did the Discover channel do a special on "the Drunk Driver's Place in the Ecosystem?" And what natural defense do you propose we evolve to counter this risk? Adamantium skeletons?

      Third, if you've personally ever received any sort of serious medical intervention, then you're a raging hypocrite. An injection of any kind qualifies as "serious intervention." If you haven't received any serious medical attention, then you're either very young or rather sheltered. My guess would be both.

      Last, and this is the point I really want to make, WHAT KIND OF FREAKISHLY UNFEELING JACKASS ARE YOU THAT THIS THOUGHT WOULD EVEN ENTER YOUR HEAD? Most of the candidates for this surgery are burn victims who survived a perfect glimpse of Hell, only to discover that young children run screaming from them in terror now, that even their families flinch before touching them.

      Your job here is to sit down, shut up, applaud the surgeons who are dedicating their lives to alleviating suffering, and pray that nothing ever happens to you that would make you too terrified to look in the mirror.

      Although, after a post like that, I would hope you'd avoid mirrors for a while anyway out of decent sense of shame.

      --
      He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    5. Re:consequences by awing0 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I hit a touchy spot with you. My own brother would not be alive without modern medicine. We are intelligent enough to side step most evolution. We have to be smart enough to know exactly what we're doing. You know, I didn't say treating burn victims was a bad thing. If it was a complete accident that never should have happened, then it is a wonderfully good thing.

      --
      Cthulhu Saves.
    6. Re:consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does evolution explain the presence of morons like you?

    7. Re:consequences by firewrought · · Score: 1
      Second, we're not thwarting evolution. We're giving the victims their life back after accidents that Nature never intended. At what point did the Discover channel do a special on "the Drunk Driver's Place in the Ecosystem?" And what natural defense do you propose we evolve to counter this risk? Adamantium skeletons?

      This argument is particuraly weak: suppose Bob dies (or gets disfigured) in a wreck because some dumb drunk got behind the wheel. It's not Bob's fault, legally or socially. But that doesn't matter to evolution. Without medical interferrance, people with genes like Bob's would have lower survival rates than people who had (1) quicker reaction times, (2) a greater fear of driving at night (especially on the weekends), and/or (3) adamantium skeletons.

      That's not to say we shouldn't interfere medically. We all personally want medical attention (as you identified), so we have to be willing to give it to everybody else. Arguments that we should "let evolution take its course" have historically failed (with the result that their promulagators have been portrayed as villians). And maybe there's nothing wrong with basic human compassion: prehaps the way it holds us together as a society does more for survivability than fretting over how many children welfare mothers give birth to.

      What will happen to the human race? Don't know, but intelligence isn't all its drummed up to be. Bring on the face transplants: this is just the beginning of what we will do to our biology...

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    8. Re:consequences by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      Gotta bite. Being drunk is not a habit held only by humans, even without human intervention. Remember the drunk cedar waxwings?
      http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998 /closlook/c dwxwg/cdwxwg.htm
      http://www.watershedradio.org/au gust2001/080201ced ar.htm
      http://www.lonepinepublishing.com/birdsite /brdpgs/ 619.htm

      I thought it was interesting, but not really related to your (very good) argument. Carry on please.

    9. Re:consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure adamantium skeletons are a genetic trait.

    10. Re:consequences by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Good post. It's interesting to point out that the argument is biologically suspect, too: I think you'd find that verbal display behaviors are far more important guides for humans for choosing mates.

    11. Re:consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's not Bob's fault, legally or socially. But that doesn't matter to evolution. Without medical
      > interferrance, people with genes like Bob's would have lower survival rates than people who had

      (4) the genes necessary to function effectively in a complex society capable of astonishing medical feats.

      As you said, evolution doesn't care.

    12. Re:consequences by airdrummer · · Score: 1

      >burn victims who survived a perfect glimpse of Hell

      not a glimpse, a life of:-( a friend of my brother survived a jeep roll-over, thanx 2 the advances in burn medicine brought about bby the viet nam war...he only had stumps left for fingers, and the skin around his eyes was so tight his eyes dried out & he had 2 use eyedrops constantly...

      he said he wished he had died...there are fates worse than death:-(

  15. WTF? by Pettifogger · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always thought Michael Jackson pioneered this technique years ago.

    --

    IAAL

    1. Re:WTF? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's only managed the face removal part.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a different technology all toghether, Michael just dunked his head in a bucket of chlorox. But he was the trailblazer, and nobody can every take that away from him.

    3. Re:WTF? by heretic108 · · Score: 1

      But he's still waiting for a donor to replace his plastic prosthetic nose.

      --
      -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
    4. Re:WTF? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But who did he swap faces with? Liz Taylor?

  16. Some people.. by Malicious · · Score: 1

    Apparently everyone who has ever posted a story on this topic, hasn't seen John Woo's: Faceoff..
    In the movie, they not only switched skin, they also put "bone structure mimicking" masks on to the characters, so that they would look like each other. That's the miracle, not the switching of the skin. Skin, is skin, is skin.
    If you get a skin transplant from your ass, to replace burn or scar tissue, it doesn't look like an ass...

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    1. Re: Some people.. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Apparently everyone who has ever posted a story on this topic, hasn't seen John Woo's: Faceoff.

      There was an old Outer Limits or Twilight Zone (forgot which) where a guy had a way to give an injection to soften the facial tissues and then reform the face by pressing it into a mold. The end of the show was somewhat unforgettable; perhaps I've already said too much.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: Some people.. by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      twilight zone i think
      was it the one with the masks?

  17. So how long... by shepd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Until the New U becomes possible?

    Do have to commit carousel for reminding everyone of that movie?

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    1. Re:So how long... by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      depends: what colour is your lifeclock, runner?

  18. Volunteer by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny
    We need a GNU/Linux volunteer for a dangerous mission behind Redmond lines. Should you decide to accept this mission you will

    Quietly assinate Bill Gates

    Pop over to the nearest face transplanting clinic

    Shock the world when Bill Gates announces MS are giving up software development and releasing the source to the public

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re: Volunteer by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > Shock the world when Bill Gates announces MS are giving up software development and releasing the source to the public

      Bah, shock the world when Bill Gates sees how much he can spend on a weekend in Vegas!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Volunteer by yanestra · · Score: 1
      Shock the world when Bill Gates announces MS are giving up software development and releasing the source to the public
      I think the worst shock will through techie society when all the bugs and design flaws are fixed ... because admins are no longer needed then...
    3. Re:Volunteer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how returning monkeys to the zoo/wild is a shocking thing

    4. Re:Volunteer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quietly assinate Bill Gates

      So you propose someone sits on his face until he dies?

    5. Re:Volunteer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "Linux" not "GNU/Linux" you stallman whore.

    6. Re:Volunteer by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      We'll still need the admins, to recompile everything when version 2.0 of the resulting Lin-NT-XP with the NT kernel as the core, Subsystems for Dos, Win16, Win32, Linux and Java, GTK and QT libs integrated mozilla browser to replace IE and god knows what the hell else were going to stick in it just cause we can. I personally would just stick to FreeBSD if the NT source were released. There would be to much infighting in the NT camp about directions to go and how to revamp the build system. The Linux camps would take segments of the code and port it all over to linux. However, the FreeBSD camp would refine there NTFS driver with the new source code, perhaps improve ACLs, and port over the good that comes from the NT and Linux People. Besides, do you know how long its going to take for a properly disorganized group to get together and be considered the "official" project leads. If Microsoft did a Mozilla or Watcom thing and provided engineers and project management until a community formed around the code then we would see a truely beautiful OS a year from said happening. There would be a compile without IE option, a side project to make gecko the rendering engine for IE, Built in SSH, X11 and more. You can't just release a tarball of source code into the wild and expect it to evolve, you need some organization.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    7. Re:Volunteer by Danse · · Score: 1

      No, he's correct. Nobody but a Stallman fanatic would be crazy enough to try this :)

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    8. Re:Volunteer by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I think the worst shock will through techie society when all the bugs and design flaws are fixed ... because admins are no longer needed then...

      I don't know, this might be more like trying to knock down a mountain with a small shovel. Opening that code up may make hackers just throw their hands in the air and give up. It would be eaiser to teach French soldiers to be brave than fix code that is not designed to be secure from the ground up.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:Volunteer by obnoximoron · · Score: 1

      > We need a GNU/Linux volunteer for a dangerous mission behind Redmond lines. Should you decide to accept this mission you will * Quietly assinate Bill Gates

      Not needed. Said target is already assinine.

  19. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Giving a burn victim a face isn't throwing a wrench into evolution.

    Too lazy to login. Damn making new profiles for nightly builds of Phoenix.

    1. Re:RTFA by awing0 · · Score: 1

      Then why don't we find burn victims attractive? It's because of primitive instincts that tell us to shy away from those who are ugly or different. Just because someone who was burned does not mean that they are necessarily unhealthy, but our primitive "yes or no" can't look at the details like that. The burn victim might be burned out of his own stupidity, a candidate for natural selection. It could have been a terrible accident that noone could have prevented. The brain does not care that far though. When you see if this way, my post is still relevant.

      --
      Cthulhu Saves.
    2. Re:RTFA by juhaz · · Score: 1

      So it's better to cheat that primitivity by, for example, giving the burn victim a new face.

      And if it happened to be the "terrible accident that no one could have prevented", instead of stupidity, and the victim happened to be not only beautiful but also very intelligent etc, then in that case it would be _advancing_ evolution by allowing those good genes to stay in pool despite the accident, by circumventing those stupid natural instincts.

      So your post (disrupting evolution by artificially altering looks), may be relevant in some cases but on others its quite the opposite, generalization that large just doesn't work.

  20. Bias? On *Slashdot*? by Shturmovik · · Score: 1

    Never! How can you possibly suggest a lack of objectivity? Why, those seven stories in a row about Taco's brother's cool new car stereo were fascinating!

    Seriously dude, it's nice for some of us non-Americans to see news from someplace other than Hometown USA for a change.

    That crack about "Parramattadingdong" was kinda funny though. Heh.

  21. like mike by kraksmoka · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    if i could be like mike (i wannabe i wannabe like miiike) like mike, if i could be like mike.

    up above the clouds so high, like i'm sitting in a tree with a child. twinkle twinkle little knife, how i wonder who i are.

    see what happens when you post when you're drunk and struck out at a club!

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  22. This will finally help people with TPS by accident · · Score: 2, Funny

    Its a condition called "torsonic polarity symdrome." It's a birth defect that I think we all know atleast one person who has it.

    You can read more about TPS here.

  23. What a shame. by Compact+Dick · · Score: 2, Insightful


    True, death is not the worst that could happen to you. But I feel she needs more than just a face transplant.

    At least it's a start.

    *sigh*

  24. not a good idea by Unominous+Coward · · Score: 1

    If this were done on Ms Rosen, what would we call her? Faceless minus one?

    --
    "Smoking helps you lose weight - one lung at a time" -- A. E. Neumann
  25. So does this mean, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when someone tells you "you've got a face like a chimpanzee", you may really have a chimpanzee's face?

  26. Wait for the protests... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure some joker will claim that a face has a soul or some crap... :P

  27. Oh so that's what happened. by dolo666 · · Score: 1

    That musta been where Bin Laden hid for so long. On the WhiteHouse security staff as a stiff looking blonde guy. You know, the one who kept complaining about his pay.

  28. Reflections in the mirror by lateralus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how the human brain and psyche deals with seeing a different face in the mirror after years of strengthening a connection between the natural face and the "I".

    --
    If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
    1. Re:Reflections in the mirror by FTL · · Score: 4, Interesting
      > I wonder how the human brain and psyche deals with seeing a different face in the mirror after years of strengthening a connection between the natural face and the "I".

      Been there. Twice.

      All I did was cut and comb my hair a different way, a style which my friend happened to have. When I looked in the mirror my brain did an automatic pattern match and confidently returned my friend's name instead of my name. A very disturbing experience.

      Recently I've grown a beard. It's been three months, and I still don't recognize myself in the mirror. At least the match comes up as 'unknown' as opposed to someone I know.

      So to answer your question: if your new face belonged to someone you knew, it will be far weirder than if it is a random face that you hadn't seen before. In the end, of course, the human brain will adapt.

      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    2. Re:Reflections in the mirror by nounderscores · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wish I could get my facial recognition software to display names on to my head up display. Then I'd actually know how to spell them.

      You T-800 infiltrators have all the cool tech. I bet you have that real human skin'n'hair upgrade too, while I have to walk around in rubber.

      Bloody Skynet's favourites.

    3. Re:Reflections in the mirror by lateralus · · Score: 1

      A good followup might be to pick up "An Anthropologist on Mars" and "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat" by Oliver Sacks.

      The books do not mention face transplants but deal with a good many of the issues concerning how our mind defines itself.

      --
      If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
    4. Re:Reflections in the mirror by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      For most people, they don't cope well at all. Nearly everyone has a subconscious self-image, what they look like in their mind. If that's dramatically changed, most people will slip into some form of depression or another. Because of this, one of the most important persons to help someone after a truly disfiguring accident is a psychologist, who can help the person cope with what happened.

      Though reading this article has brought forth a question at least in my mind. Do people who have a tendancy to role play and the like have an easier time recovering from a serious accident than someone who's more "down to earth"?

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    5. Re:Reflections in the mirror by phelddagrif · · Score: 1

      Well it really depends on how much you look in the mirror, or see your reflection. Because if you never see your own face what association can your brain make between visual image and identity? However, if you constantly scrutinize your appearances the most subtle changes become very evident to you.

      Since the transplant is mostly only skin, then I don't think that there would be that much difficulty in recognition. Mainly due to having new skin draped over an existing structure. Kind of like putting new covers on your bed, it doens't make your bed recognizable, only different. I think the same thing would happen with ones face. obviously it would be a more difficult transistion, but most likely a very happy one.

    6. Re:Reflections in the mirror by MagFox · · Score: 1

      You deal with the same sort of thing every time you shave a beard, or get a radically different haircut. It's just a little more extreme. And I imagine the disfigured person dealt with the _exact_ same thing after receiving the disfigurement.

    7. Re:Reflections in the mirror by jpatters · · Score: 1

      I wonder how the human brain and psyche deals with seeing a different face in the mirror after years of strengthening a connection between the natural face and the "I".

      It probably will deal with it better than it dealt with seeing the horribly-disfigured-by-facial-cancer face that the transplant is replacing.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    8. Re:Reflections in the mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you've been messing with computers too long when rather than saying "I didn't recognise myself", you say "when I looked in the mirror, I did an automatic pattern match and it returned my friend's name instead of mine". No wonder geeks have such problems getting dates ;)

  29. More info. by Compact+Dick · · Score: 3, Informative


    about Jacqueline.

    1. Re:More info. by leviramsey · · Score: 0

      Reggie Stephey deserves the fucking chair. The asshole killed two people. It's Texas... isn't it dirtbags like that who the gas chamber (or whatever Texas uses) was designed for?

      Hell, I say we googlebomb Reggis Stephey into oblivion for this. Put Slashdot's PageRank mojo to good use. This retard has no right to live.

    2. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy who did that is still alive? I would have shot myself in the head by now, seriously.

    3. Re:More info. by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      He paid a $20,000 fine and is currently serving a 7 year jail term. His family also paid out an undisclosed amount in a lawsuit. That's the easy way out. I say burn him at the stake with Jeff Derderian (who almost rise to that level of scumbaggery).

    4. Re:More info. by z01d · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This retard has no right to live.

      Every human being has the right to live. and every human being made mistakes.

      To kill a person just because he killed someone, or destroied someone's life, is revenge, not justice.

    5. Re:More info. by Blackneto · · Score: 1

      No he needs to be in 'Pound me in the Ass Prison'
      With any hope the Mexican Mafia knows what he did to a latina and will make his life a living hell like Jaqui's.

      --
      Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
    6. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Deserves death? I dare say he does. Many live that deserve death; and many die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so quick to judge. Even the Wise do not know all outcomes."

      Gandalf the Grey

    7. Re:More info. by jamesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a tricky one... if the other car wasn't there at that exact time, he might have made it home without incident.

      Has this ever happened to you? (you = whoever is reading this)

      If so, you're _exactly_ the same as Reggie, you were just lucky enough not to hit anyone.

      If you're going to put this guy in the gas chamber, make sure you throw in every other asshole who has ever jumped in a car with their blood full of alcohol.

    8. Re:More info. by tbarrett · · Score: 1

      I agree. This was not a premeditated act to destroy someone's life. It was a mistake caused by an incompetent action, and while he does deserve to face punishment for it that doesn't mean that another life should be ruined simply for the sake of spiteful retribution.

      My sister was killed in a similar accident and although it was a horrible thing, I do not resent the driver for being a fallible human.

      Punishment for the sake of vengeance in cases such as these is a feeling I hope many of us can look past.

    9. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Incorrect.


      If you kill someone (in what here is a a pretty much deliberate act), your life is forefeit.

    10. Re:More info. by PastorOfMuppets · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "To kill a person just because he killed someone, or destroied someone's life, is revenge, not justice."

      And how is locking someone in a cage for the rest of their life not revenge?

      --
      If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up you stupid prick.
    11. Re:More info. by z01d · · Score: 1

      And how is locking someone in a cage for the rest of their life not revenge?

      It is, if you insist. and it's definitely not justice. it's more like some sort of moderation, to prevent potential damage to the others: a little bit more innocent people.

      what he lost if lock him in a cage, is the freedom (physically speaking, not mentally), not his life. that's the difference. and that's the achievement of humanity evolution: nobody, even God if you believe, has the right to terminate another human being's life: the most precious matter (mentally speaking, not physically) in this universe.

    12. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has the *right* to live, but everybody has the right to defend themselves ;-).

      There's loads of problems with "having the right to live"; is old people dying from old age some injustice e.g.? I hardly think so.

      But if everybody has the right to defend themselves, how harsh it perhaps sounds, escaping from deathrow is ethical. Which I think it is, no matter what you did, it is your right to *try* to stay alive. (by running or by getting legal rep. for instance)

    13. Re:More info. by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Actually by several legal doctrines, if, while committing a felony (which drunk driving is, in most states), that all by itself can constitute premeditation (eg if you burst into convenience store carrying an Uzi and wearing a ski mask and some old guy has a heart attack and dies, that fact alone can justify a murder charge and conviction).

    14. Re:More info. by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      make sure you throw in every other asshole who has ever jumped in a car with their blood full of alcohol.

      I'm not in favor of making drunk driving per se a capital offense, only cases in which someone dies (this includes a passenger of the vehicle being driven by the accused). Being intoxicated should be considered prima facie evidence of fault (regardless of any other fact); in cases where both vehicles are being driven by intoxicated individuals and a fatality results, then both shall be charged with murder. To my mind, the act of being intoxicated (on anything, be it cannabis, coke, alcohol, etc.) and getting behind the wheel is premeditation.

      Yeah, sometimes (most times?) you'll make it home without killing someone. In those cases, hell, go ahead (you can still be arrested for DUI, with much increased penalties, such as loss of license for life on first offense). But realize that you are gambling with your life.

    15. Re:More info. by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Okay, I would accept a guaranteed contingent of 10 ass-rapes a day for 7 years as a decent substitute. If he survives that, then I figure he's done his penance. If he doesn't come out alive, no real loss.

    16. Re:More info. by RadioTV · · Score: 1

      In the state of Indiana - causing a death while in commission of another crime is involuntary manslaughter. A charge of murder requires premeditation of the act of murder. So by your example - if I walk into a convince store with a gun and some old guy dies of a heart attack there is no premeditation for murder. Premeditation could be anything from I planned for three weeks that I was going to kill someone to I decided 5 seconds before I pulled the trigger.

      --
      I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
    17. Re:More info. by Fesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "nobody, even God if you believe, has the right to terminate another human being's life

      A little off-topic, maybe... But I've come to to the same conclusion regarding a nation's "soverign right" to wage war...

      In other words, if it's right to pre-emptively strike another country on the basis of what it might do, then it's perfectly right for me to shoot someone in the parking lot for looking at me funny. Any reasonable being can agree that's not the case, so why the double-standard? Nations are just organisms that have people for cells, after all.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    18. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Every human being has the right to live? Heh. No living thing has any inherent rights. Such things are imagined by man, and bestowed by man.

      Because of this, justice and vengeance are synonyms. So, it isn't right to kill a murderer, according to you? Hmm. How can it be right to imprison one, then? Or force them into psychiatric counseling? Such actions would take away their freedom, and since I, too, can speak out of my ass, "Every human being has the right to freedom!"

    19. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's punishment for the sake of deterrance. If you fuck up and drive drunk, here's what happens - you fucking fry.

      I say give the death penalty to anyone who drives drunk AT ALL, even without incident. Torture if they actually harm another person because of their idiocy.

      Let's start cleansing the gene pool of the morons.

    20. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I'm comfortable with that. Fry em.

    21. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pre-emptive war is totally justified if you agree that self-defense is justified. Pre-emption is just a way to gain a tactical advantage in a war that has for all intents and purposes already started.

      How does this relate to Iraq? Simple: if Iraq attacked us now, that would be pre-emptive, because we're going to attack them very soon anyway and there's no way they can stop us. If we attack Iraq, that's not pre-emptive because Iraq has no plans to attack the U.S. or any other country.

      The pundits have framed the debate over Iraq invasion as "self-defense" vs. "pre-emption", when in fact it's neither. It's a simple outright unprovoked invasion. The debate should be whether of not simple outright unprovoked invasions are justified if the country you're invading is very very naughty.

      In other words: would World War II have even happened if Saddam Hussein was president of Poland in 1939?

    22. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were me, I would want euthenasia.

    23. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All types of punishment for crime can serve one or more of the following purposes - the protection of other members of society, deterrence, changes in the future behavior of the convict and revenge.

      The only purpose of these that I don't accept as valid is revenge, and it is the only purpose that the death penalty could arguably serve better compared to life imprisonment.

      Remember, the death penalty has not been shown to be a better deterrent - in fact, I'd argue that it may make violent criminals more dangerous, since once they have committed a crime that is likely to get them the death penalty, they have little to lose by committing additional crimes in order to avoid being captured.

      BTW: Best username I've noticed in a long time!

    24. Re:More info. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >No living thing has any inherent rights. Such
      >things are imagined by man, and bestowed by man.

      The whole basis of the American government is that there are some things that come from a source higher than government, or man.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    25. Re:More info. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ok, and how is being locked in a cage for the rest of your life with Bubba ass-raping you better than being painlessly executed with a lethal injection?

      Unless I planned on escaping, I'd rather be dead than to spend the rest of my life in prison. The founders of this country thought this way, too. They only used gaols for keeping people until their trial date. Their sentence was always quick, whether it be a brand or execution. People were never kept in prison as a punishment.

    26. Re:More info. by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      If you mean the constitution itself as a set of principles being more important than the gov't, you got it right. I don't see much of God in there otherwise.

      Anyway, the other day one man at work was extolling the virtues of drunk driving, I wish I had this page and these pictures for him then. If it only killed the drinker, then it'd be fine, IMO, but it more often than not kills "innocents." It makes me feel better for driving a friend home a couple days ago . . . but even he gave me his keys (I don't drink at all.)

      Death penalty questions are hard, of course, but I think what the fmr. Illinois governer did was right, commuting all the sentances from death to life w/o parole. Maybe a little too far, a stay until the DNA testing could be done and so on, I could see that move.

      But until the death penalty is prompt, fairly given, and never has the potential to be inflicted on an innocent person, no-one should be executed. Don't give me any shit about those who confess, those who confess are extremely rarely given death as a punishment anyway.

      --
      Dan
    27. Re:More info. by firewrought · · Score: 1
      Of course it's revenge... that's what the justice system is all about (from the victims' perspective).

      You see folks, in the olden days, if you killed my wife/child/father/etc., I would hunt you down and furnish you with a grisly, drawn-out, most unpleasant death.

      The motives for revenge lie deep within us (some more than others). Jesus had it wrong: the meek evolved off and became chipmunks and bunny rabbits a long time ago.

      The potiential for revenge encouraged some forms of cooperation, which resulted in everybody's economic benefit. Unfortunately, it also led to a lot of violence. In one case, for instance, Ogg slighted Fred on a business deal. So Fred used his contacts in Europe to arrange a little "mishap" for Ogg. That didn't fool Ogg's relatives, though: they knew Ogg adamently refused to wear loose loin clothes while operating heavy machinery. So Ogg's son swore revenge... blah, blah, blah, and twenty years later the entire village was immersed in feud. For some reason, Ogg felt he could slight Fred. For some reason, Fred thought he could extract more vengence than he was due. For some reason, Ogg's family didn't see Fred's side of the story and did not approve of Fred's actions.

      It was a big problem for awhile, this violence. Warlords, anarchy... the human race was all Afghaned in on itself. Then came a great invention called "the rule of law".

      In "the rule of law", individuals were told ahead of time what society expected of them in business dealings, etc. One of the great ideas that came along with "law" was the concept of "justice", which is an ancient Babylonian word for "extracting revenge from those who broken the law after confirming their violation with a group of members drawn from the community who were uninvolved in the percipatating incident". (Contrary to popular belief, "justice" does not mean "the divine judgment of God delivered by the church to lovingly correct his errant children and to defend the righteous from the onslaught of the wicked".) The purpose of justice is to pool the revenge-seeking power of the community (thus allowing even the week to get revenge) while proxying the revenge-seekers through a system of checks and balances that keep things from getting out of hand. All of this furnishes revenge without letting it become a destructive chain-reaction.

      In other words, the justice system has three customers: the suspect, the victim, and the community. The goal of a justice system is to provide the suspect with fairness (and a clean name, should he be innoccent), the victim with vengence (should the suspect be guilty), and the community with stability (in the form of violence-prevention).

      And it works pretty well:

      Something like the death penalty just doesn't bother me: I respect both societies that choose it and those that reject it. Under dire, scarce cirmcustances, you may be better off with it. Under plentiful circumstances, you're probably better off without it.

      As a side note, I'm worried to see "the rule of law" compromised by economic intrests, by phalynxes of lawyers that aggressively seek opportunties for legal violence, by vague and ill-constructed "feel good" laws, by corrupted officials in all branches of government, by busybodies who want to micromanage other people's lives, and by any number of other things. When people loose faith in the justice system, everything will cave in on itself.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    28. Re:More info. by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Your logic is faulty. If you had knowledge that someone in the parking lot had a gun, had it loaded and aimed at you, then yes you would be right to shoot first. The whole Iraq thing is supposedly based on lots of intelligence gathering. It's easy to see after you shoot the fictitious person that they had a gun and was armed, ready to shoot you, just as if you attack a country that says it doesn't have chemical weapons, after you defeat them you can show them to everyone.

    29. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a MS VS.NET ad in the "M2 Result" mail from slashdot@slashdot.org... you're right, slashdot@slashdot.org has no right to live!!!!!

    30. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's start cleansing the gene pool of the morons.

      Hear hear. The accident was just that: an accident... but nobody, and I mean NOBODY, drives drunk by accident.

      "Well, you know, I'd been drinking pretty heavily, and the more I tried to stay away from the car, the closer I got, and before I knew it, I was on the freeway!"

      It just doesn't happen. Driving drunk might as well be the equivalent of 'pre-meditated manslaughter'.

    31. Re:More info. by anethema · · Score: 1

      That is such a load of crap.

      Not that 'justic' isnt 'revenge'. Some guy made a post down that further down the thread and it's an excellent one. I suggest your read it.

      its..
      even God if you believe, has the right to terminate another human being's life: the most precious matter (mentally speaking, not physically) in this universe.

      Human life has got to be the least precious thing in the universe. Well, not least, but its down there. The earth is teeming with almost more human life than it can support, and soon there will be WAY more than it can support. We dont need to polute the gene pool by keeping murderers and child molesters in it. A human gives himself the right to live by beeing smart and good at what he needs to do to survive. He is helped with it by society. But if you plan to kill another human, then do it, your life is forfeit. No ifs ands or buts about it.

      I can guarantee you that if someone killed my mother or father, or sister, etc, i would hunt them down and deliver my own justice.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    32. Re:More info. by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Actually, by law I don't believe you're allowed to blaze away simply because you know there's a gun out there and that it may (or may not be) pointed in your direction. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're legally obligated to take every action possible to extricate yourself from the situation before using lethal force as a last resort, and that a jury will look disfavorably on anything less. That I'm ok with. However, the President that I didn't vote for is writing checks that my ass can't cover and I'm not terribly pleased about it. I don't see myself or my country as backed up against a wall in an alleyway here.

      But again, entirely off the subject and likely to get me downmodded.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    33. Re:More info. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      And how is locking someone in a cage for the rest of their life not revenge?

      Prevention of more/other crimes to society?

    34. Re:More info. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      I read a funny open letter by Terry Gilliam somewhere recently. It basicly says (heavily paraphrased):

      Thanks GWBush, I've suspected a guy that I think is up to no good. And now that you're proven that pre-emptive strikes are OK, I can shoot this guy.

      If anyone can find it, post it.

    35. Re:More info. by Catnapster · · Score: 1

      Ok, and how is being locked in a cage for the rest of your life with Bubba ass-raping you better than being painlessly executed with a lethal injection?

      In some cases, that's the point.

      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    36. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world can easily support this much human life. We produce much more food than we need; starvation is caused by politics not by physical limitations.

    37. Re:More info. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      People have a right to live - until they deny such a right from another person. You forfit any rights you have by denying another those rights.

      What was done to this girl denied her of her life.

      Murder denies people of their life.

      Death is the consequence by any reasonable social rule, not revenge or punishment. It's something that murders inflict upon themselves, and necessarily required for society to carry out.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    38. Re:More info. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      A correct comparision would be shooting someone in the parking lot for waving a firearm at you. There's no threat in -looking- at someone funny.

      Your whole 'nation just an organism' is flawed, too. If that were the case, suceeding from a nation shouldn't be a problem.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    39. Re:More info. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      For those that don't know: this is a quote (it's not direct, unless it's taken from a loose translation) from the Bible's New Testament, where Jesus is talking to the Pharasees that want to stone the woman caught in adultury.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    40. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Every human being has the right to live."

      Wrong! No one has the right to live! No one has the right to anything.
      To live is a privlage granted to you and everyone by the society that they live in. If society decides someone is no longer
      fit to exist in that society they will remove that person.
      No one has a right unless society grants it to them (directly or through inaction) or is unable to stop them. You might not
      like it, but you don't get to decide.

    41. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this.... Every being(human animal or otherwise) has the right to do what it can do.

      Killing someone is fine and dandy.. The only way to prove your right to live is by not dying.

      You might call it survival of the most able.. ;)

      Survial of the fittest isn't just an evolutionary theory.. It is the only right anyone has.

    42. Re:More info. by quintessent · · Score: 1

      Human life has got to be the least precious thing in the universe. Well, not least, but its down there. The earth is teeming with almost more human life than it can support, and soon there will be WAY more than it can support.

      Every human being is precious. Nothing should be more important to us as human beings than to preserve the basic right to live. If we really need to control population, then we can always have fewer children.

    43. Re:More info. by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Or even seceding, as it were. Succeeding from a nation...hmm. I'll have to think about that one.

    44. Re:More info. by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      Anyway, the other day one man at work was extolling the virtues of drunk driving,

      If you wouldn't mind, could you share the "virtues" he was extolling?

      I find myself extremely curious.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    45. Re:More info. by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      A charge of murder requires premeditation of the act of murder.

      I think you, and several other posters, are confused about the charge (and degrees) of "Murder".

      The dictionary definition of murder indicates "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." (emphasis added). Note that premeditation is not a mutually inclusive condition.

      Some definitions, according to state statutes that I could find handily, but are essentially portable to most states in America, and quite similar to Canada's laws (if I can find them, I'll follow-up with them)

      1. Murder in the First Degree
      2. Murder in the Second Degree
      3. Murder in the Third Degree

      Additionally, there are manslaughter charges, which tend to be lesser. I believe you'll find that the minimum charge applicable to this case is Murder in the Third Degree, with Second Degree a definite possibility depending on the prosecutor and judge/jury.

      You are correct, however, that drunk driving does not equate to premeditation, in that the driver does not, by virtue of consuming alcohol in and of itself, predetermine the taking of a specific human life. I'm sure there have been first degree murders committed while intoxicated, likely some comitted with a motor vehicle, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

      Premeditation could be anything from I planned for three weeks that I was going to kill someone to I decided 5 seconds before I pulled the trigger.

      Not quite. Premeditation, by nature, requires that you commit an act with the specific intention of carrying out a particular objective. If you've already got the gun in the store and kill someone as a side-effect of the armed robbery, the murder was not premeditated. You'd have to plan to kill a patron or the clerk and carry out the robbery with that intention in mind to be considered for premeditation. Of course, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you did, in fact, premeditate the murder, otherwise the charge would be lesser.

      Of course, you can take all of this with a suitable quantity of NaCL, due to the IANAL factor.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    46. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually its not that his logic is wrong its that
      your understanding of one side of the analogy is flawed. You say that the gun would have to be loaded and aimed at the person - Iraq does not have the capability to reach the US with its missiles (unless Ive got this wrong and youre actually in Israel but I think this is unlikely as your misconception is typical of a good number of the US population)

    47. Re:More info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since when (and I mean recently) has Iraq 'waved' any weopens at the US or even its neigbours

    48. Re:More info. by RadioTV · · Score: 1
      There is a reason that I said "In the state of Indiana". In Indiana there is only one definition of murder. If it doesn't fit there it is covered by something else. These laws change from state to state. Although it turns out that I was wrong about the example. The Indiana code has a specific provision for someone dieing during a burglary. Here is the state code from Indiana.

      IC 35-42-1-1
      Murder
      Sec. 1. A person who:
      (1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being;
      (2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, or carjacking;
      (3) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit:
      (A) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine, a narcotic drug, or methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1);
      (B) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2);
      (C) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); or
      (D) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance; or
      (4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365);
      commits murder, a felony.
      As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.25; P.L.326-1987, SEC.2; P.L.296-1989, SEC.1; P.L.230-1993, SEC.2; P.L.261-1997, SEC.3; P.L.17-2001, SEC.15.


      Here is the code for involuntary manslaugher.

      IC 35-42-1-4
      Involuntary manslaughter
      Sec. 4. (a) As used in this section, "child care provider" means a person who provides child care in or on behalf of:
      (1) a child care center (as defined in IC 12-7-2-28.4); or
      (2) a child care home (as defined in IC 12-7-2-28.6);
      regardless of whether the child care center or child care home is licensed.
      (b) As used in this section, "fetus" means a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365).
      (c) A person who kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit:
      (1) a Class C or Class D felony that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury;
      (2) a Class A misdemeanor that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury; or
      (3) battery;
      commits involuntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. However, if the killing results from the operation of a vehicle, the offense is a Class D felony.
      (d) A person who kills a fetus while committing or attempting to commit:
      (1) a Class C or Class D felony that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury;
      (2) a Class A misdemeanor that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury; or
      (3) battery;
      commits involuntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. However, if the killing results from the operation of a vehicle, the offense is a Class D felony.
      (e) If:
      (1) a child care provider recklessly supervises a child; and
      (2) the child dies as a result of the child care provider's reckless supervision;
      the child care provider commits involuntary manslaughter, a Class D felony.
      As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.28; P.L.261-1997, SEC.5; P.L.133-2002, SEC.65.


      I guess I should add that like most other people around here - IANAL.
      --
      I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
    49. Re:More info. by anethema · · Score: 1

      i agree we shouldnt ever start killing people to contol population. But somethign we dont need are murderers. or child molesters (even worse in my book haha)

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    50. Re:More info. by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      I think it would be interesting to see if you said the same thing if the governor had freed the killer who raped and murdered your wife or sister or daughter...

      Somehow, I think your tone would change right quick.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    51. Re:More info. by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      I don't think so, and besides, he didn't free them, just reduced the sentence. There is a difference, but I'll continue to bite.

      My step-dad made the same argument, except he just kept yelling "Yeah you would!" louder and louder. Argument Ad volumous, I guess. I hope you have something better.

      The only way to actually have faith in the judicial system as any sort of justice is to admit it's probably right. So, if someone gets released for a crime, then their rights have been violated or they didn't do it and so on. The person they may or may not have killed, I hope, would realize that there are more important things than their own life, like rights we all enjoy, even if a couple people fuck them up.

      Do murder victims whose "murderers" are released deserve justice, a fancy name for revenge? No, they deserve our respect for what they have gave us in life, and the rights they died, unwillingly, to protect, even of the person that ended their life. Like a soldier everyone's willing to support.

      Yeah, they're dead, but so are millions more for those rights. If they're not there for the worst of us, when are they going to be there for the best of us?

      Kind of backwards, I admit, but I'm thinking on the fly and tend to do that badly, especially when I'm up before I want to be.

      --
      Dan
    52. Re:More info. by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      Yeah, freed was a slip, I meant commuted. Sorry about that one.

      Please don't "continue to bite", this is not a troll. You are welcome to converse, however. :-)

      I've seen it firsthand, with my own eyes, where a very anti-capital punishment family pulled a 180 when it was their daughter who was murdered. You can say whatever you like about your philosophy in that event. Me, I'm going to skip it and admit up front that I'd want to see the murderer killed in the same exact fashion, no matter how gruesome. Revenge won't bring the dead back to life, but I'm going to guess that it would certainly help me to move on, that it would bring closure. Maybe I'm petty, maybe I'm an animal. I'm pretty sure I'm just human.

      As far as the whole notion of "justice", I'm too much a student of Heinlen to buy into such an artificial concept. There is no such thing, and our legal system fails miserably when it attempts to be "just" instead of worrying about tangibles like damage and harm.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    53. Re:More info. by Danse · · Score: 1

      nobody, even God if you believe, has the right to terminate another human being's life

      Didn't God wipe out pretty much the entire population of the earth at one time, if you believe, that is? You saying that he had no right? Isn't he the one that decides what is right, again, if you believe?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  30. at least, most geeks have nothing to worry about by collapser · · Score: 4, Funny

    organ thieves wouldn't even bother

    --
    <B>note to self:</B> <I>post as html</I>
  31. I just read that article a few minutes ago. by kmellis · · Score: 4, Informative
    I was utterly astonished at the then-current results of the accompanying little web survey: Do face transplants change a person's identity? Yes and No have each received 46% of the vote.

    Why in the world does anyone think that identity depends upon someone's face? Are people really that simple-minded?

    Also, from the article:

    "Butler told me of a psychological survey that he conducted of 120 people at his own hospital, one-third of them doctors, one-third nurses and one-third laypeople. The majority answered that they would accept someone else's face if they required one. No one, however, not even his closest colleagues, said they would donate their own."
    I'm no more reluctant to donate my face for organ harvesting as I am my liver or kidneys. That is to say, I'm not reluctant at all.

    To the people who've asked about how much the recipient would look like the donor:

    "''Certainly, identity is a central issue -- 'will I look like the donor?''' he explained in a rapid-fire, silken Irish brogue. ''But what we're proposing is taking the skin envelope with or without some muscle. So if I were to transplant my face onto you, it would look much more like you than me, because the skin envelope is elastic. It would redrape around your bone and cartilage structure. The things you would have of mine are skin tone, texture, eyebrow color, beard, things of that nature. That's why what I'm doing now is establishing a database for what is essentially a matching process. You and I, for example, are reasonably well matched, but obviously. . . .'' He gestured to a dark-skinned gentleman who had just stepped up to a nearby side counter to stir cream into his coffee. ''I wouldn't transplant your face onto his.''"
    However, later in the article it's mentioned that more complicated procedured could harvest some of the cartilage and bone as well as the skin and muscle. I imagine that eventually they could probably come very close to recreating someone's face on someone else, so the idea isn't completely far-fetched. Still, though, our ability to recognize a face is still somewhat of a mystery, although it's understood that our brains put together a great many different subtle clues. My point is that even though we see faces as near monolithic and emminently identifiable structures, the truth is that even a small differences in muscle or bone structure might make a large difference in the overall recognizability of the face. So, I suspect that a surgeon would probably have to be intending to duplicate someone's face via a transplant in order to achieve such an effect.
    1. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by tlotoxl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why in the world does anyone think that identity depends upon someone's face? Are people really that simple-minded?

      Well, it's a question that alot of people intelligent people have pondered. Notably, think of the late Japanese avant-garde author Kobo Abe and his novel Face of Another in which the Abe explores the role of masks in determining self and one's interactions with society through the fictional diary of a scientist who loses his face in a horrible laboratory accident and has it replaced with a synthetic mask made based on the specifications of a stranger. The same novel was made into a movie in 1966 by the late and great director Hiroshi Teshigahara.

      Then as well of how people often feel uninhibited when they wear masks or paint their faces -- be it at a masquerade or before going to war. Having one's face replace following in accident may not be as deliberate an act, but if the new face offers anonymity and, through people's different responses to one's presence, a different view on the world, is it really so hard to believe that it might to some extent change the identity of the wearer?

    2. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by kmellis · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's a very interesting and valid observation and I am completely willing to admit that identity is closely associated, psychologically, with the face. It was unfair and arrogant of me to dismiss all such concerns as being entirely simple-minded.

      However, it was the phrasing of the question that was so provocative to me. It was very absolute: whether someone's identity is changed if their face changes. It's not a very nuanced question, and mine was not a nuanced response.

      I think I'm more astonished by this than most people would be. I certainly don't equate my own face with my identity. Not coincidentally, probably, I also am very uninterested in hiding or changing my identity in any way. My identity is my self as I see my self--all the various public versions of my self that exist in other people's minds are secondary and not of great importance to me. My conception of "self" is a self that's solidly behind my facade--the outward facing part that other people associate with me is merely contingent. It occurs to me that many or most other people probably don't think this way.

    3. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by bushboy · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps many do.

      My sense of self is outward. I have no political motives for being - I just am.

      Transplanting a face, as already discussed, is not what people think it is.

      It could result in horrific disfigurement as another persons face either sags on an alien skull, or streches in a hideous grin !

      It won't work in that manner - the bone structure is all important.

      --
      A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    4. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      That's a very interesting and valid observation and I am completely willing to admit that identity is closely associated, psychologically, with the face.

      The human brain has quite an interesting ability to process and remember faces. Several psychological studies have shown that a person will have a different physiological reaction to someone they have seen before, in comparison to a completely new face, which stimulates are more anxious reaction. One hypothesis for this is that it is an anachronism from a more dangerous time: "I've seen this guy before, and he didn't kill me then...so he must be ok."

      Indeed, I remember one particularly interesting password system that showed the user a series of faces, and you chose the sequence in which they came. There were millions of possible sequences, but humans have the amazing ability to learn that sequence very very easily.

      This is all of interest to me since my passion is driver's license law, and how photo ID cards play into all of that. One of the big failures of the photo ID card is that humans seem to glean more information from it psychologically than what actually is being represented by the card. These days I say that if I were to commit some sorta heinous crime, I would do it with a laminated photo ID badge around my neck...because it puts people at ease, like, somehow in having a cheap plastic card around my neck, not only do I have legitimacy, but I also am "revealing" myself to you.

      Frankly, the way humans process photo based ID cards is a science within itself. But I've become convinced that people are bedazzled by the photograph. Of course, prior to photo licenses, states printed the description information, though more for the purpose of making the sure the document belonged to the person, as opposed to truly identifying the person (some states still do issue non-photo licenses like this. Almost all states still have the description information on the document, but this is an anachronism if there is a photo, sorta.) The description information is a pretty good way of making sure the document belongs to the person, with the added benefit that people are psychologically leery of accepting it in non-driving instances for identification.

    5. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Why in the world does anyone think that identity depends upon someone's face? Are people really that simple-minded?"

      You have to remember that these are people who think cloning is some sort of personality photocopier.

    6. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 1
      Ow... personality photocopier... I love it! Took me a while to reply to you becuase i was laughing so damn hard.

      Stupid people...

    7. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Are people really that simple-minded?

      Yes

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    8. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Are people really that simple-minded?

      No

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    9. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by _outcat_ · · Score: 1

      OOOOH! Identity.

      Let's talk about George Herbert Cooley and "the looking-glass self" for a moment. (This stuff always makes me happy.) Look him up on Google. He's a pretty big name in social psychology/communications.

      We see ourselves as we see others seeing us. For example, let's say I'm...on a stuffed-plush-toy-animal fencing team. You see me walking down the street in my "2003 Stuffed Animal Plush Toy Fencing Team" T-shirt and I look at you. I like to think you see it. "He sees me as a stuffed-plush-toy-animal fencer," I think. And that reinforces who I think I am, as a stuffed-plush-animal-toy-fencer.

      Stupid example, I know, but it's more or less true. We can't really bandy about the term "identity" because we are thoroughly socially constructed beings. Everything around us shapes who and what we are. Even a haircut, for me, does something to my identity, my "who I am." I cut it short and put it in pigtails with a purple streak (i'm a female,) and I feel like a punk. I keep it midlength and run around with a Nike sweatband, and I feel like an athlete. (Again, really stupid examples, but bear with me.)

      I am a punk. I am an athlete. I am a geek. I am a woman. I am an academica nut. I am a musician. I am a comic strip artist. I am a girlfriend. I am a daughter. I am a technician. I am a student. I am a slob. Every one of these "attributes" about me has been reinforced not only by me, but by someone else.

      Are we really that simple-minded? Yes. Yes, we are. Every single thing about us contributes to our whole social self.

      Just a ramble.

      --
      Angry IT woman in big clompy boots. And talking lint!.
    10. Re:I just read that article a few minutes ago. by quintessent · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. I also wouldn't mind donating my face, as long as I wasn't using it.

  32. What about penis transplants? by Compact+Dick · · Score: 2, Funny


    I'm serious. Is John Holmes' still available?

    1. Re:What about penis transplants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine's available.. TO TRANSPLANT IN YOUR ASS LOLOLOL.

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

  33. Finally! by este · · Score: 1

    I can get my :-| turned into a ;-)!

    --
    [este]
  34. Re:he is too busy dredging up stories about austra by Shturmovik · · Score: 1

    '(Score:-1 Troll)' huh? Funny how these posts never get modded up to like '(Score:5 Insightful)'! Maybe Michael has given away /. subs to his entire family and every one he went to school with? ;)

  35. faces are fascinating by presroi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Last year, I attented some autopsies at my university (neighter as the one lying on the board nor as an active medic). This has been a great opportunity to see how things are inside your body. The routine of an autopsy includes the opening of the skull and the inspection of the brain. The face remains intact (it is turned over - this can be imagined literally). When the procedure is over, you won't see from the front that the face has been moved.

    Anyway, this cannot be copied over 1:1 but it gives you a hint that transplanting faces it not voodo science or (ony) hollywood. I guess the 'commercial' market for transplanting faces exceedes many other types of organs.

    1. Re:faces are fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The face remains intact (it is turned over - this can be imagined literally)"

      Yes, it is quite disturbing IMO... A more desciptive term for me seeing this done was that the face is "peeled" off the head - the scalp is cut, and the guy grabs the forhead skin and peels your off/back

      also you can sometimes catch a facelift or other facial plastic surgery on the learning channel or something.. I was mortified watching these doctors make cuts on the face so they could slide their sharp metal scraping tools under the face - and proceed to literally scrape the facial skin off the muscle inch by inch, seperating the two, so they can yank it up a bit and sew it back down

  36. Heh. Watch my Karma burn...! by Shturmovik · · Score: 1

    More stories about *New Zealand* sheep farmers, that's what I reckon! [Insert obligatory Kiwi+Sheep joke here] Ahhh, sweet, sweet alcohol...

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. yellow is lemony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've wasted all the steam.

  39. Re:he is too busy dredging up stories about austra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Do a Google search for Michael and the censorware project. You will be shocked. Michael was an asshole long before Slashdot. It is hard to imagine Malda being able to find anyone more smarmy.

  40. Living with the consequences by Compact+Dick · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Perhaps the worst that could happen to him is what's happening now - that he is alive and facing the fact that he was responsible for destroying her life [mind you, she seems to me a very spirited woman. Makes me proud of humanity.]

    Do you really think he'd commit the same mistake, assuming he's well-adjusted and has a functional conscience? I didn't think so either. Every moment of the rest of his life will be weighed down by chains of misery.

    Also check out her official website.

    1. Re:Living with the consequences by leviramsey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What sickens me is if he had been black or hispanic, he'd have been charged with two counts of murder and would be on death row right now. But because he's the star (white) football player, he gets seven years and $20 grand. If I were a Texan, I'd be pushing to have that scumbag judge impeached.

    2. Re:Living with the consequences by Compact+Dick · · Score: 4, Insightful


      You may well be right on that, but is imposing the penalty on a white justice when the penalty isn't really justifiable?

      Remember, equality means treating everyone equally, and as a non-white this is exactly what I want. Discrimination that favours non-whites will breed resentment among whites, and I wouldn't blame them one bit for that.

      Oh by the way, fuck political correctness :-)

      Cheers,
      CD

    3. Re:Living with the consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if he were black he'd have some great lawyer who would find a way to make this a racial injustice dropping all charges.

    4. Re:Living with the consequences by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "But because he's the star (white) football player" Oh you mean like the countless rape, murder, DUI, running down police officer, drug charges some black athelets get away with? Yeah maybe you're right.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    5. Re:Living with the consequences by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Driving drunk is not a mistake, but a crime.

      A lifelong prohibition from drinking, with random blood tests, would a good start.

      Not for 7 years, but for life. That's what the victims get, after all.

    6. Re:Living with the consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scumbags like Washington State supreme court justice Bobbe Bridge or our President and Vice President?

    7. Re:Living with the consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so full of shit. If anything, the justice system leans in favor towards minorities. Since you seem to be a university student, could it be that your little ego is hurt because if it wasn't for the color of your skin you wouldn't be in that school right now? So much for fair treatment.

    8. Re:Living with the consequences by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      I've seen a picture of the ass that did it on one of the presentations of this that is going around. Apparently he is feeling the guilt. That certainly doesn't excuse what happened, but is a first step in finding redemption and forgiveness.

    9. Re:Living with the consequences by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      His intent was not to kill anyone. Without intent to kill, there should be no murder charge. Period. He made a decision, a bad one and it resulted in two deaths and one severe disfigurement. Yes, he should be punished, but his intent was not to kill. I feel it was just. Think about it- For 7 years, all he will be able to think about is this. With Jaqui having survived, he will always have that vision of a beatiful girl hiding behind the horror of what she looks like now.

      By all accounts, this asshole feels remorse. I expect him to get out of jail and start a crusade against drunk driving.

    10. Re:Living with the consequences by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      I think they ought to crash him in a test car with no seatbelt, then ignite the wreckage.

      Let him experience what he caused. That's old-school punishment, eye for an eye type of deal. If he didn't get the death penalty, he should get something much worse: living out the rest of his life looking just like his victim.

    11. Re:Living with the consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving drunk is not a mistake, but a crime.
      A lifelong prohibition from drinking, with random blood tests, would a good start.
      Not for 7 years, but for life. That's what the victims get, after all.


      What victims? Drunk driving is a victimless crime! If you are driving drunk and you run some one over then the crime would be manslaughter and there would be a victim. But basic DUI/DWI is victimless.

      I live in a state with the highest conviction rate for drunk driving. It is not because this state has more drunk drivers, it is just because every weekend there are roadblocks (DUI checkpoints) and police randomly pulling over people at 1:00AM -3:00AM. I had a DUI, my room mate had a DUI, my girlfriend had a DUI, about half of my cow-orkers have had DUI's.

      Yes, DUI is a crime that should be punished. But A lifelong prohibition from drinking, with random blood tests because after drinking two beers at a restaraunt you get stopped at a DUI checkpoint on the way home and get busted? If we are going to do that, then why not start chopping hands off for theft convictions and having public stonings for women convicted of prostitution?

    12. Re:Living with the consequences by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      What sickens me is if he had been black or hispanic, he'd have been charged with two counts of murder and would be on death row right now. But because he's the star (white) football player, he gets seven years and $20 grand.

      Having lived near where Randy Moss played, I can assure you that ignoring justice has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with whether you're a star football player.

    13. Re:Living with the consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither of those crimes have the potential of killing people. Every time you drive tipsy, you're basically saying that you're too lazy to give a shit about other people, whom you could easily hurt or kill.

      An analogy: if someone is firing a gun at you, but misses, should they get "reckless use of firearms" or "attempted murder"? Same situation.

    14. Re:Living with the consequences by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Thank you, sir, for your firm grasp on reality.

      Political correctness (and thus Affirmative Action) is a bane to American rights more than any type of racism or discrimination is directly and on its own.

      I'm a 21 y/o white male with blue eyes and brown hair, and I've undergone more direct racial and sexual discrimination than several black people that I know. (as long as you ignore the fact that women get 'harassed' almost daily by guys oogling them, if they're even remotely attractive)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    15. Re:Living with the consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What sickens me is if he had been black or hispanic, he'd have been charged with two counts of murder and would be on death row right now. But because he's the star (white) football player, he gets seven years and $20 grand. If I were a Texan, I'd be pushing to have that scumbag judge impeached.

      After OJ Simpson trial, Benson Hurst, Juwana Brawly, ... and many other cases (how did Marion Barry ever get re-elected mayor of Washington DC when he was a proven crack user?) I would not be so sure of that.

      If you have money, or the liberal news on your side, being a minority can actually be a plus. And yes I am posting anonymously because claiming minorities sometimes get off is bound to get me labeled as a biggot (another bonus minorities get- they can criticize people of European decent but the reverse is taboo).

    16. Re:Living with the consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh that's bullshit and you know it cracker

    17. Re:Living with the consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      By all accounts, this asshole feels remorse.

      The traditional test for that is to leave a revolver and a thinly veiled suggestion to "do the right thing"....

    18. Re:Living with the consequences by Chuq · · Score: 1

      Having TWO BEERS? Do you have a blood alcohol limit of 0 or something? In Australia it is 0.05 where I am, I think other parts of the country may be 0.02 or 0.08 depending on a few factors (state, age, years driving, etc). 0.05 equates to about three beers in one hour, for a male, or so the ads would have you believe, of course it varies depending on your weight/metabolism etc.

      --
      - Chuq
  41. Extra Links And Info On This Story by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 1

    We ran this story yesterday over on Sci-Fi Today with lots of extra info links. You can get SciFi Today headlines added to your Slashdot homepage here.

  42. Oh No! Now wolf will look like Grandma! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


    Now all of the
    <A HREF="http://www-dept.usm.edu/~engdept/lrrh/invent t.htm">
    versions of the tale</A> will end up bad ...

  43. The face is also what's behind it by tinrobot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The underlying skeleton and musculature of a face is just as important as the skin. Someone with a square jaw will still have it, even if the translpanted face didn't... Someone who is perpetually angry will still look angry even if the donor was not...

    From the article: 'But what we're proposing is taking the skin envelope with or without some muscle. So if I were to transplant my face onto you, it would look much more like you than me, because the skin envelope is elastic. It would redrape around your bone and cartilage structure.

    The only way to truly get someone else's face on your body would be to transplant the entire head.

    1. Re:The face is also what's behind it by tunabomber · · Score: 1

      The only way to truly get someone else's face on your body would be to transplant the entire head.

      In other news, they're some guy is trying to do this. The problem is, it is less a head transplant than it is a body transplant because the transplanted head comes with a brain in it- can you say BONUS!

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
  44. I'm sure that Michael Jackson will be 1st in Line! by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that Michael Jackson has already bought his plane ticket to London for this one! Now, I wonder what (who'll?) he'll look like NEXT week?

  45. Immune system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What about the immune system? Won't the face get rejected?

  46. Wacko should have waited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wacko should have waited, now he's all messed up.

  47. other goals by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    Bearing in mind that a tissue match can sometimes go across ethnicities would people consider mixing and matching skin envelopes of different shades for cosmetic purposes?
    On the other hand, the scarring would probably land the recipient ostracised from the conservitave community.

  48. sort of a dupe... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...Slashdot discussed this already here, and that was a dupe of an even earlier discussion. Of course, these are from three or four months ago, and they were based on a different article. So it's not really a dupe, just sorta.

    1. Re:sort of a dupe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're not really a fag, just sorta. Wait, wait, my bad, you really are a fag.

  49. skin grafting by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Informative

    To a certain degree, you're right, but differences in skin do exist, depending on body location.

    Some skin is hair-bearing, some has different sweat glands, some is thicker, and some has more or fewer nerve endings. For instance, the skin on your elbows has far fewer nerve endings than the skin of the lip.

    It sounds like the surgeon is simply doing a large, complex skin graft... that's something burn surgeons have been doing for years. Burn surgeons use a device called a dermatome... in essence a large electric shaver that you can set to shave off very precise depths of skin (to thousandths of an inch) to achieve a split-thickness graft. It's worth noting that skin grafts for burn victims are often meshed to cover a larger area (if you are burned >95% of your body, there isn't much to work with, so you have to make every bit count). The cosmetic results are nowhere near normal skin, but the primary purpose of a graft in a burn patient is to reestablish the protection that intact skin gives you. Absence of skin not only makes you extremlely vulnerable to death from infection, it also causes you to evaporate off enormous amounts of fluid, resulting in rapid dehydration. Cosmesis is often secondary to simply saving a person's life... it's not pretty, but it works. If you were burned, and your ass was spared, you can be damned sure the burn surgeon would harvest the bejeesus out of your ass to cover the rest of you...

    I'd be interested to know how he's selecting his patients, and whether he'll do these transplants on smokers. There are some plastic surgeons that won't do skin grafts on a smoker, since the act of smoking can actually lower your capillary oxygen transport enough to endanger the survival of a skin graft.

    I'd also be interested in knowing the surgical technique he's planning on using to harvest the skin. Clearly he'll have to do it by hand, use a bit of microsurgery to reconnect the vessels... I can see this being a looong procedure.

    I'd probably donate my face, if someone else needed it and I didn't (I'd donate it, just like any other "organ"... and their different bone structure should destroy any resemblance).

    Now whether someone would actually *want* my face... wow, I don't know... they'd have to be pretty desperate...

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:skin grafting by Isldeur · · Score: 4, Informative

      It sounds like the surgeon is simply doing a large, complex skin graft... that's something burn surgeons have been doing for years.

      Um, no. But thanks for your discussion on skin types. This operation (and I believe the surgeon is Irish actually, just working in London) is much much more complex. It involves a lot more careful work, both with the placement of the folding lines as well as reattachment of the loads of muscles and nerves, including both the facial (CN VII) and trigeminal (CN V) cranial nerves.

      Burn surgeons use a device called a dermatome... in essence a large electric shaver that you can set to shave off very precise depths of skin (to thousandths of an inch)

      While I don't know the surgeon's exact approach, I am certain they are not using those razors. It's the entire facial skin they're transplanting, not shavings of it.

    2. Re:skin grafting by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      He might be transplanting the entire face "enbloc" including nerves, muscles, etc, but this is fraught with potential problems. Where reattaching blood vessels is relatively straightforward with standard microsurgical techniques, reattaching nerves is a much less certain proposition. I would expect the surgeon to pay close attention to skin tension lines... any plastic surgeon that didn't has no business calling himself a plastic surgeon.

      Injured nerves, whether they be contused, or cleanly cut, regenerate very slowly if at all. You may not get full function back, and often will have parasthesias and neuropathy, even with a successful reattachment. I am not a neurosurgeon, but as I recall, realigning and reattaching the epineureum is the most important part of the procedure... simply aligning the nerve fibers and putting a stitch through them is not enough.

      The blood vessels (facial artery, etc) would be the easy part; free flap grafts are done all the time. Reattaching nerves from another person and getting full function back... that's a much more difficult trick.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  50. Fun times by Kanasta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mr Doctor might get a visit by the US gov't on account of the millions they just spent on facial recognition software in airports...

  51. It'll never fly by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, to even get a donor face, you'd have to take it from a dead donor (Doh, but it's not like with kidneys.. where you can give one and still live a normal.. or at least semi-normal life) And think of how reluctant the loved ones of said donor might be to transplant a face.. even though it wouldn't really be transforming him into the other guy... you can still see how a family might react..

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
    1. Re:It'll never fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. The person will not look like the other guy. Read the article .. they only take parts of the donor's face and for the most part the transplantee's facial structure is retained.

      This aint Face Off.

    2. Re:It'll never fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like that article said, it'd be so freaky to see your dead son walking down the street....

    3. Re:It'll never fly by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 1

      I know that, I read the article.. That's why I said, even though the person wouldn't be looking like him, think of how the family would feel

      --
      Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
  52. Old News... by Mike1024 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey,

    A New York Times Magazine article about how a London surgeon is planning on performing an experimental full-face transplant.

    You know, that this is possible was announced months ago.

    I read it here first.

    Michael

    --
    "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
  53. Wibble by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

    Does this take some of the sting out of the old insult "So, what ya gonna do for a face when the monkey wants his bum back?"

  54. does anyone else find this disgusting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    excuse me while i vomit all over my keyboard. this is just too revolting.

  55. If you're young it might happen to you... :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I wonder how the human brain and psyche deals with seeing a different face in the mirror after years of strengthening a connection between the natural face and the "I".
    You might find out, but a change will take a few years. Without counting the beard, my face changed quite a lot between my early 20's and 30. No, I don't do drugs -- except a few beer a month and lots of coffee. Maybe I had a late puberty.

    The good thing was that I looked better -- not like a kid.

    The bad thing is that my personality don't fit with my face. I look quite tough now... you might not want to start a fight with me -- but I'm quite laid back and caring. I have problems like everyone else, but I'm a generic nice guy. (Except for religion, I'm a hard line atheist and feel physically sick after I tear som poor religious guy's arguments to bloody pieces.)

    And this was personal enought that it will be posted as AC.

  56. FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has vitiligo.

    1. Re:FYI by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      He has vitiligo [google.com].


      No, he is just ashamed of his race. Yea, then he blames the corporate heads at Sony for being racist. What Michael Jackson has is serious emotional problems, which has nothing to do with this article (and discussion) is about.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... That link you posted goes on to say how it probably is vitiligo, and then has a mass of comments from "so-called" doctors and such agreeing that it is vitiligo. Bad link to use to back-upo your claims. He definitely has some serious emotional issues, but I think you overstepped your logic on your call.

  57. Face saving by toolz · · Score: 1

    This gives a whole new meaning to the term "saving face".

    There may be hope for Bush (father & son) yet.

    --
    You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
  58. Total body transplant by tsa · · Score: 1

    For me a face transplant isn' enough. I want a total body transplant! I would like a body that is 10 years younger than the one I have now, and fully functional! It would also be interesting to try what it is like to be a woman for a change.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Total body transplant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It would also be interesting to try what it is like to be a woman for a change.

      i have it on good authority that involves having some dudes schlong stuffed into you. be forwarned.

    2. Re:Total body transplant by tsa · · Score: 1

      I thought about that. I think I will be a lesbian then.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  59. Face Transplants a Reality by kurosawdust · · Score: 1

    and to prove it, the picture accompanying the post is of Taco.

  60. I Volunteer ! by bushboy · · Score: 1

    Jolly Hockey Sticks !

    I Volunteer, What ?

    I'll bring the strong rope, or at least some elasitated smalls and you can provide the plan, wot ?

    eh, ok, I'll be Bill - Rather ! - Wot ! heehaaw...

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
  61. Agreed, but... by bushboy · · Score: 1

    I think you ranted a bit too hard there - there was no reason to get so damn frantic about this.

    People go through hell on a daily basis and live to tell the tale.

    Stop being so f'in melodramatic.

    Sure - theres' injustive in the world every-which-where you look, but moping about it solves f-all !

    Just learn to help yourself and those around and you'll be ok.

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    1. Re:Agreed, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you get third degree burns over most of your body then we'll see how 'melodramatic' you are.

  62. When can I get my Porno Dick transplant! by tjstork · · Score: 1


    Holy beejeezus, they can transplant hearts, lungs, livers, reattach limbs and now transplant faces. When are they going to get the transplant that really matters - I want my 18" porno dick. I mean really, wouldn't it be a happier world if we just cloned a porn star a few million times and instead of having to be trying to right shareware so I can buy a status car, and a status house, I could just buy myself a porno dick transplant and be happy living in a shack!

    --
    This is my sig.
  63. Thank You, Drive Thru by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is this just a little bit creepy to anyone else? I mean, come on. A whole new face? That's just fucked up.

    I suppose it would have it's uses though. Michael Jackson can finally stop having his nose done, ugly girls around the world will finally have hope of getting a date to the prom, President Bush can get himself a face that doesn't look like that of a simpleton, and good ol' Osama can use this as the ultimate way to hide from us.

    Wait. Check that last statement. Honestly, how hard is it to find a 6' Arab attatched to a kidney dialysis (?sp) machine?

    I can see it now. "Yes doctor, I was thinking of the Clarke Gable look, but then I broke down and decided that I'd like to have the face of Harvey Korman. Can I get his voice, too? I've always wanted to pull off a good Great Gazoo inpression at parties..."

    --
    Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
  64. I call dibs on.... by SoVi3t · · Score: 2

    I call dibs on Joe Millionaire's face....that way I can definitely get some women!!

    --
    Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
    1. Re:I call dibs on.... by duckpoopy · · Score: 1

      Just don't take the hair. That crap was awful. I thought the twist ending was going to be that he was bald. Maybe now he can afford some shampoo.

      --
      word.
  65. What makes us human by aswang · · Score: 1
    "Weakening the race"? While we will never be able to conclusively prove the assertions of anthropologists and evolutionists, some would say that the very thing that allowed us to speciate is precisely our dependence on a large infrastructure. Even when we were proto-monkeys swinging in trees, we were already significantly dependent on a social structure and hierarchy. Homo sapiens has never done very well on their own. There are too many species (even now, despite our attempts to eradicate them) that are physically stronger and faster and naturally better adapted to their environment than we are, and without the "large infrastructure," we would've been extinct long ago.

    And as to the role of beauty in evolution, what it really illustrates is the evolutionary arms race between the cheaters and cheater-detectors (to steal the paradigm from Richard Dawkins, and from game theory in general.) There is a certain threshold where it would be more energetically economic to simply pretend your genes are good. So early in evolution, maybe there really was a 1:1 correspondence between a pretty face and good genes. Thereby, a mechanism would evolve for potential mates to use a pretty face as criteria. But when that energy threshold is reached where it costs less to just code for a pretty face than to actually ensure that one's genes are good (thereby destroying the connection between a pretty face and good genes) a new mechanism would likely evolve for potential mates to detect this mismatch. The cheaters would continue to find ways not only to pretend they have good genes but also to pretend that they are not faking it, and the cheater-detectors would continue to find ways to tell otherwise. The face might actually really evolved this way (in the same way that peacocks evolved ridiculously flamboyant plumage and humans evolved a purely hydrostatic, non-bony penis) and I think this is all discussed in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins but I could be wrong.

  66. Temporary face transplantation 7,000 years old by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's called beer. Drink enough of it, the ugliest face will be transplanted with that of a supermodel.

    Warning: may induce vomiting and only lasts 3 hours.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    1. Re:Temporary face transplantation 7,000 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called beer. Drink enough of it, the ugliest face will be transplanted with that of a supermodel.

      But the love-children are still butt ugly

  67. Joke by prnd_ndrd · · Score: 1

    Lots of issues of identity come up with something like this...

    No, lots of tissues of identity come up.

    --
    Want to talk? ashaver AT pdx DOT edu
  68. Re:i've had it w/slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa. Are you done now?

    Rob

  69. Reported Earlier by Townshend · · Score: 1

    This was reported earlier in This Is London: http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/3609267? source=Evening%20Standard. No reg required ;-).

  70. Funny?? by Lispy · · Score: 1

    This place is sicker than i thought. Yes, this is very very sad, and I won't forget this picture anytime soon either...

  71. Spoken like a true JEW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen kike, the fact is WHITE MEN are disproportionately represented on death row, NOT blacks or mestizos. The system is strongly biased against White males, just look at the selective enforcement of hate crime laws against White men. The reason why there are so many blacks and mestizos in jail is because they are violent and prone to criminality, it's not due to institutional racism or any other bullshit jew theories.

  72. The Biggest Problem by Kenneth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would think that a huge problem regarding face transplants would be getting the family to go along with it.

    There is a lot of importance attached to having an open casket funeral, and for a lot of people there is a significant need to see and identify the body in order to accept that that particular person is gone. An anonymous body, or an urn full of ashes just doesn't cut it for most people. Particularly when there has been a serious accident.

    Removal of the face will make such things impossible. Mourners will not be able to come and see the face of the decased, this makes it more difficult to accept.

    I had a friend of mine die in an airplane crash. I refused to believe that he was dead until I saw the body. Even then, I had trouble accepting it because although they rebuilt most of his face, it was pretty badly messed up, and they had to put sheer veils over the casket so you couldn't look too close.

    A mortitian once told me a story about someone who had died when their head was crushed. Normally this would make an open casket funeral impossible, however since this person was into motorcycles, they placed his helment where his head should go, put some black paper behind the visor, and had the casket open.

    If people are willing to go to these lengths, a facial transplant isn't going to go over too well with the next of kin all that often.

    With other organs, there is little or no distinguishable difference. Even the eyes can be donated, and the difference fixed up so that you generally can't tell. The entire face however is going to cause problems for a lot of people, and psyhological need to see the deceased one last time.

    --
    There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
    1. Re:The Biggest Problem by Suidae · · Score: 1

      An anonymous body, or an urn full of ashes just doesn't cut it for most people.

      I just don't understand that. I mean, if its a situation where no body was found, its reasonable to consider that someone might not be dead (ie, uncle george may not have gotten on that plane that went down), but if the body was identified at the morgue by next of kin or whatever, why do people need to see the body for it to fully register?

    2. Re:The Biggest Problem by Kenneth · · Score: 1

      That's a good question, I wish I knew the answer. I suspect it's something to do with the need to identify someone yourself. How do you know that a faceless body really is who they say it is? How do you know they didn't make a mistake, or are trying to decieve for some reason?

      These tendencies are fairly deeply ingrained, and not easily overcome by logic in most poeple. It's a NEED. It's no more rational than most phobias, that doesn't change the emotional response.

      It is true that things are easier when there is a body, even if you can't identify it. That's why they have an open casket funereal even if they have to hide the face.

      The deception isn't even unprecidented. It is common practice to give families of fallen soldiers a sealed casket. One of the secrets is that there is often no body in that casket. In war bodies are more often than not unrecoverable, and it's a serious hardship to deal with a large number of dead (eg the Normandy invasion) so mass graves are made.

      When bodies are returned, often the 'body' is just a box of dirt. It's not totally unheard of to have someone buried show up later, usually when prisoners are exchanged at the end of a war.

      The cases of someone showing up after the funeral are rare, but death holds such a place in the human psyche that the idea bothers a large number of people.

      --
      There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
  73. Damn... by Bob+Vila's+Hammer · · Score: 1

    So there won't be any more really crappy movies coming out because of this? What are we going to do?

    --


    --"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
  74. Re:I'm sure that Michael Jackson will be 1st in Li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone seen Jermaine recently? (Didn't think so.)

  75. Another analogy... by Danse · · Score: 1

    I think of it more like this... Do I have the right to go shoot the guy that runs the local gun store because I'm not well liked in the neighborhood and I think that he might sell a gun to someone that hates me?

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Another analogy... by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Bang on. Very nice summation.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.