U.S. Soldiers Recipients of Newest Prosthetic Technologies

plaastik writes "The next generation of naturalistic and touch-sensitive artificial limbs are being worn by U.S. Soldiers. Instead of the old velcro strap and cup these new models are fused directly to the bone and are controlled by controlled by the wearer's brain. From the article: 'Future prosthetic arms will fuse to existing bone, eliminating the need for awkward attachment systems. These more naturalistic limbs will use bionic nerves attached to natural nerves to send and receive signals from the brain. Chips embedded in the user's brain will help command artificial-muscle-activated, touch-sensitive, fully articulating hands.'"

Comments

Fully articulating hands?

[Mgns]

I'm thinking these soldiers won't be playing the piano anytime soon.

Re:Fully articulating hands?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctor, will I be able to play the violin after this operation?

Yes. I expect so.

That's amazing. I couldn't play at all, before.

Re:Fully articulating hands?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking these soldiers won't be playing the piano anytime soon.

But in time, they will once again be able to wield a light saber in combat.

Re:Fully articulating hands?

[HeX314]

But they may be folding paper cranes. /GitS anyone?

Re:Fully articulating hands?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before the Military declares a preemptive strike and starts lopping of hands and legs first to make super soldiers.

Still on the plus isde it might reserrection John claude Van Damms career.

Re:Fully articulating hands?

[CrashPoint]

In what alternate universe could that be considered a "plus" side?

Re:Fully articulating hands?

[Foobar of Borg]

In what alternate universe could that be considered a "plus" side?

It's the one in which the Bad Guys(TM) are never able to shoot someone who can kick unnaturally high.

Re:Fully articulating hands?

[sharkey]

Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius!
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius!
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius!
Whoa-oh, Dr. Zaius!

Re:Fully articulating hands?

[georgegad]

But can they punch a hole in a tank?

This raises the question

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

When does someone stop being human, once we can replace their body with a machine? Is it just the brain? What of AI then? What of the soul?

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

When does someone stop being human [...] What of the soul?

Perhaps you can first provide a concrete, evidence-based definition of what a soul is, then we can have an intelligent discussion about whatever it is.

Re:This raises the question

[CRCulver]

Futurist Ray Kurzweil talks in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines about these exact notions. He seems to think that consciousness itself is a sort of soul, and once humans are entirely machine--which he thinks is coming fairly soon--we will still be "human".

Re:This raises the question

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

OK. It's the part of you that goes to heaven or hell after your corporeal body breaks down.

Re:This raises the question

[Raptoer]

Ghost in the Shell takes a good look at the issued involved with cyberizaion of people.

Re:This raises the question

[LionKimbro]

Sure. It's the thing having a subjective experience that is completely unnecessary to the execution of the universe simulation, that we nonetheless are and talk about.

Re:This raises the question

[CRCulver]

Perhaps you can first provide a concrete, evidence-based definition of what a soul is, then we can have an intelligent discussion about whatever it is.

See Plato's Phaedo, a text anyone with a university education should already be familiar with. All metaphysical investigations are not "evidence-based" in the sense that they are subjectable to the scientific method, but they are still "reasonable", perhaps even "logical".

Re:This raises the question

[tftp]

Well, if your augmented (cyborg) body never wears down then the question is moot, isn't it?

But if you still insist, it is obvious that the soul, if present to begin with, can be only in the head, and only in the brain then. We do not have prosthetic brains yet, so there is nothing to discuss yet. When we get some decent processing capacity, then ask me again :-)

Re:This raises the question

[jiggerdot]

"WE BELONG DEAD!!!!!"

Seriously, dude, the bold "soul" really was much, wasn't it?

Re:This raises the question

[mi]

When does someone stop being human, once we can replace their body with a machine?

There is a very funny, insightful, and interesting (and informative too) short SciFi story by Stanislaw Lem on this subject. In it the protagonist (?) — a racing car driver, or something like this — is being sued by the protheses-makers to return the parts, because he defaulted on the payments...

Lem wrote it in Polish, and I read it in Russian, but there is, no doubt a translation available for your preferred language. Look for it. Lem is one of the greatest SciFi authors... Whatever you find (almost) will be worth reading.

Now, in the story even half of the guy's brain is artificial (and has a slight defect, causing him to count everything he sees), which really does make the question asked by the parent meaningful. But we are not there yet, and can not replace the brains, so the answer is rather obvious...

Re:This raises the question

[Planesdragon]

What of AI then? What of the soul?

Souls are provided by God's angels to all sentient creatures. If we manage to create an AI, we can be assured that God has given it as much a soul as an animal granted sentience, an alien species, a test-tube baby, or a child of pagans.

Being human is irrelevant to the question. Being sentient and temporal are far more important, spiritually speaking.

Re:This raises the question

[Planesdragon]

No, not really. Because even a theoretically unaging body would, in time, stop working. Maybe the sentience would collapse. Maybe the body would be physically destroyed. Maybe it'd just run out of harvestable energy and go out with teh rest of the temporal universe in cold-death. It would, eventually, die.

Oh, and as the best scientific evidence shows no room for a physical soul of any weight, the soul cannot be said to exist anywhere physically. It is a spiritual object, and as a spiritual object it exists in all parts of the body and no part of the body, so long as the body can be controled by or in turn influence the will of the soul.

Re:This raises the question

[Shrithe]

Exactly. We're human because of our physical bodies, but when we talk about being "human", we really mean being conscious entities. I'm not sure about whether I believe in the singularity like Kurzweil et. al. promote, but I have no problem with the possibility of becoming an intelligence within a artificial context at some point in my future. As for now, I don't have a terrible interest in prosthetics, but I am very interested in human-machine interfacing of increasing sophistication, which is something this works towards a lot.

Re:This raises the question

[Lazarian]

"When does someone stop being human, once we can replace their body with a machine?"

When you die, I suppose. I don't think we're anywheres near the level of technology now that if it was possible to replace a persons entire physical being with a synthetic body that the essence of being a "person" would be able to carry on, but (IMHO) I think it should be possible. I've read some speculative works that suggests that consciousness may be the effect of quantum resonances within a being's nervous system, and perhaps there may be no reason that there couldn't be a possibility of having an equivalent within a synthetic entity. It's all speculative, but googling "consciousness" along with "quantum" yields a lot of stuff that's interesting and worth some serious thought.

Re:This raises the question

[RsG]

That's for [insert deity here] to worry about, assuming that said deity exists (untestable). The question is moot from a human perspective. Since we cannot detect or objectively prove the existance of a soul, we can't really debate wheter cyborgs and AIs have them. If there is a god who worries about such details, he/she/it/they can work it out on their own time. The outcome of human debates will be meaningless regardless, even if we somehow guessed correctly.

All we can ever look at are consciousness, sentience, thought and maybe free will. Most of those we can't measure objectively, but it should be blatantly obvious that a cyborg with a fully human brain is no different from a human in those aspects. Augmented brains, aftificially grown nervous tissue, and fully inorganic AI are where the questions arise, and even then we could probably make a common sense judgement some of the time. And it's not like the question of non human intelligence is new - we've been debating what status animals have for years now.

Whether a cyborg with a 50% inorganic brain has a soul is an irrelevant question, as it can never be answered to anyone's satisfaction. If there are souls, and a deity to quantify them, then that's the business of said deity, not human theologians or philosophers. Whether that same cyborg has the same rights as a human under the law is what will matter, and hopefully we'll be able to make an intelligent decision there.

Re:This raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you can first provide a concrete, evidence-based definition of what a soul is, then we can have an intelligent discussion about whatever it is.

Please get back to me when you realize that science and logic are not the sum total of human intellect and experience. Then you will be capable of having an intelligent discussion.

Re:This raises the question

[Asic Eng]

Well, it wasn't actually evidence the GP was asking for, but a definition. As a Plato-fan you are no doubt aware how much Socrates liked to ask "what do you really mean by that?". In fact, that was his prime method in searching for the truth and in getting people to think about their own opinions.

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

Oh, and as the best scientific evidence shows no room for a physical soul of any weight, the soul cannot be said to exist anywhere physically. It is a spiritual object, and as a spiritual object it exists in all parts of the body and no part of the body, so long as the body can be controled by or in turn influence the will of the soul.

You're ignoring the much simpler explanation that it simply doesn't exist... which more than adequately explains the "no room for a physical soul of any weight [mass]".

Re:This raises the question

[CRCulver]

Why should I spend time typing here to provide a definition when I may simply cite an external source that anyone has access to?

Re:This raises the question

[pcgabe]

Gah! Dilemma!

On one hand, you're bringing religion into a discussion about technology. My initial urge is to stare at you blankly until you go away, or yell "keep your religion off of my science", or tell you that if you object you don't have to take part but you shouldn't tell other people how to live, blah blah etc etc. Most likely, I just wouldn't respond at all.

On the other hand, you correctly used "raises the question" instead of incorrectly using "begs the question", for which I want to applaud.

What to do, what to do....

Anyway, your statements were:

When does someone stop being human, once we can replace their body with a machine?

There is an old thought experiment that goes something like this:

"If you could replace a single neuron with a device that responds exactly the same way, would you be less than human? All input to that device is the same, all output is the same, for all the neurons around it, absolutely nothing has changed. Now, imagine that you start replacing every neuron, one by one. After each replacement, for the natural neurons around it, still nothing has changed. When you are finished, you have a functioning brain that continues to process all input exactly the same as before, only now it is mechanical instead of biological. Now is it less than human? If not, at which point did it change into something else?"

It's an interesting problem, and if you are as intelligent as you seem, you can ponder it out without me contaminating your process with my opinions.

Is it just the brain?

Yup. I hope that wasn't a surprise.

What of AI then?

It depends on what you mean when you think of the term "AI". Like so many other terms, it has partially lost its original meaning due to overuse. By the very definition, though, it is artificial. A computer program designed to fool humans is not true intelligence. A computer program that emulates probable human responses is not true intelligence. Ah, but what if, similar to the above thought experiment, we could somehow copy a person's neurological responses... and put that data into a program that would simulate a complete working brain, down to the last neuron. Would =that= be true intelligence? Hmm...

What of the soul?

What of it? If you believe in such things, good for you. However, there has never been any scientific evidence* that such a thing exists or exerts any force over my choices or actions. So, I'm comfortable living my day to day life without such worries. YMMV.

*For those that would respond "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (which is a true statement), I would say "No, but it sure is an =indication= of absence." But as Carl Sagan said, "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe"

Re:This raises the question

[Drantin]

As does The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect

Re:This raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

And Star Ship Troopers, the movie (it's not in the book), predicts soldiers will be fixed up with high-tech prostetics so they can return right to the battlefield.

Re:This raises the question

[NotQuiteInsane]

Sounds interesting.. Does anyone know which book this story is in, and if it's been translated into English?

Re:This raises the question

[DougWebb]

There's no need to get all spirtual about a soul not having any weight... How much does wind weigh? Not air, wind. How much does electric current weigh? No, not the electrons, the current? What is the volume of an electric current? It doesn't have one, does it? Yet it certainly exists.

The brain is full of electrical fields, electrical potentials, chemical distributions, chemical flows, neural tendencies and activation triggers, and lots of other physical aspects. The soul could be the overall pattern of these physical things, just like an electric current is an overall pattern in the movement of electrons. And it may not matter that everything about the brain is constantly changing... afterall, a river is a river even though the water that composes it is always passing by.

Re:This raises the question

[TFGeditor]

Here, now, is an amazing thing. The parent posed relevant thought.question, which got modded "Offtopic." Yet, the majority conversation thread from that point on was entirely based on the parent post's question. Ergo, is not the entire thread "Offtopic"?

Lest I be chastised, I will refrain from using the term "irony."

Re:This raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us are genuinely interested in philosophy instead of scoring "I'm soooo well read" points off each other.

Anyone with a university education is aware that not everyone keeps a shelf of Plato.

Re:This raises the question

[CRCulver]

Plato's Phaedo, being 2400 years old, is in the public domain. There are numerous free translations into English and other modern languages on the Web.

Re:This raises the question

[republican gourd]

The primary concern of course, in any bio-replacement scheme, is to make the naked robot chicks *totally* hot.

Re:This raises the question

[The_Wilschon]

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html - The text online for anyone too bum lazy to type "Phaedo" into google and click on the first link.

Re:This raises the question

[The_Wilschon]

And the response was that an "evidence-based" definition could reasonably be thought not to exist, without preventing rational discussion of the matter.

Re:This raises the question

[wideBlueSkies]

>>When does someone stop being human, once we can replace their body with a machine? Is it just the brain? What of AI then? What of the soul?

What a fucking shallow question.

I suggest that you seek out your own answer though. Please enlist in the armed forces, and ask to be deployed to Iraq, specifically to be put on patrol in the Sunni Triange. Then, with any luck you will be targeted and forced to experience the traumatic loss of an arm or a leg.

While you are bleeding and screaming, you can then contemplate the true nature of the soul, and life without _part of your body_. Until then, be thankful that you're not forced to live and server in that barren place; where everyone wants to kill you.

Re:This raises the question

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

You're a twat.

Re:This raises the question

[Ceriel Nosforit]

*For those that would respond "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (which is a true statement), I would say "No, but it sure is an =indication= of absence." But as Carl Sagan said, "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe"

Is evidence proof? Mwaha, chew on that one. Well, no, no chewing needed, but simply answering "no, it isn't" is not a satisfying answer, is it? It would be better to adopt proper scientific lingo for cases like this, as well as proper agnostic thought.
In lingo we replace "is" with much more vague terms such as "could be", "maybe", et cetera, as not only to cover our hides from being proven wrong but also as a mental exercise not to claim stuff we dunno shit about. Proper thought then also involves a certain humility towards nature which is difficult for most to accept. While your statement here above would be proven unassailable in analysis, you're still subtly suggesting that the soul does not exist. "The facts are with you, BUT." The "but", regardless if what follows it is in sequitur or non, operates to turn the tide of the verbal war. And since the facts from the analysis are on your side it makes the whole thing quite... sinister, frankly, since you in spite of it all ended up presenting opinion as if it were fact. - Bundling a lie with a bunch of truth, in much stronger words.

It requires immense force of character, will, intelligence, intellect and wisdom to be absolutely truthful. One inaccuracy, even an eupheism, spoils the whole thing. It's not even enough to argue both sides of the issue at the same time; one needs to really accept that one does not know and that one's opinion on the matter is altogether irrelevant. Maybe then one has the frame of mind required to truly be a scientist.

Re:This raises the question

[contrapunctus]

As soon as they get filling in their teeth.

Re:This raises the question

[Zaatxe]

Well, take Robocop as an example: they kept just his brain and part of his spinal cord (if memory serves), but he was still Murphy. Ah, and he runned DOS!

Re:This raises the question

[bar-agent]

Phaedo says things about the properties of the soul, but it does not attempt to determine whether there is such a thing to begin with.

Re:This raises the question

[simon_orne]

But if you still insist, it is obvious that the soul, if present to begin with, can be only in the head, and only in the brain then. We do not have prosthetic brains yet, so there is nothing to discuss yet.

It is my opinion that your statement that the "soul" can only be in the head/brain is unjustified. It is, to me, like claiming that the essence of a computer lies in a single central processor, ignoring chips on the periphery.

That said, I would also like to point out that current neural interface research does not focus exclusively on limb prostheses. For a number of years, brain prostheses have been studied. While these are not entirely artificial brains, they certainly may be considered replacement parts for the brain. Perhaps there is something to discuss after all.

Re:This raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

check out the movie millenium man

Re:This raises the question

[Lord_Dweomer]

Way to use a referral link jackass.

Everybody please note the following (emphasis mine) link which he gives:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140282025/ christorculve-20/104-2002403-8111902?_encoding=UTF 8&camp=1789&link_code=xm2

Please note the similarity between that bolded name, the name of the parent (jackass) poster and the URL of the parent's website.

Re:This raises the question

[Planesdragon]

The soul could be the overall pattern of these physical things

No, that'd be the mind. Kindly look up what "the soul" actually referrs to before trying to find a temporal base to it.

Re:This raises the question

[Planesdragon]

You're ignoring the much simpler explanation that it simply doesn't exist

I'm also ignoring the much simpler explanation that YOU don't exist, you know. Please take it as a point of coutresy that, if someone is discussing spiritual and metaphysical parts of human thought, they're not going to spend a great deal of time on the question of whether or not such thing actually exist. If they do, they can't be proven. If they don't, then they don't.

And trust me -- those who believe in the soul in this day and age have spent more than a little ammount of time reconciling their belief with science. You're not going ot get any of them to change their mind with a half-witted claim to parsimony.

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

And trust me -- those who believe in the soul in this day and age have spent more than a little ammount of time reconciling their belief with science. You're not going ot get any of them to change their mind with a half-witted claim to parsimony.

Clearly not, as your reply amply shows. As to the half-witted part, I don't think you know me well enough to make such a rude determination.

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

See Plato's Phaedo...

Okay, I scanned through the Phaedo text, searching for instances of the word "soul". I was unable to find a definition of the word soul, only a very long discussion about death and the body and soul. The very first instance of the word is in this section:

"Then is it not the release of the soul from the body?
And this is death,
the body being released apart from the soul by itself,
and the soul apart is released from the body by itself?
Then is death anything else but this?"

It appears that the existence of a soul is an assumption, upon which this great volume of text has been stacked. Did I miss the definition in this text?

All metaphysical investigations are not "evidence-based" in the sense that they are subjectable to the scientific method, but they are still "reasonable", perhaps even "logical".

When talking about a "soul", it must first be agreed upon what this word actually means. It's like Scientology and their entire religion which is based upon thetans and the like. You can have a wonderful metaphysical investigation of these thetans which one might consider reasonable and logical, but what's the point? We may as well be discussing the finer points of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Re:This raises the question

[CRCulver]

If I have to cite an external reference, and doing so is good form in any intelligent discussion, then there's no reason not to add a link. It's not as if it steals money out of the pockets of the unwilling. Furthermore, if you've been around Slashdot for a while, you'll notice that this is condoned.

Re:This raises the question

[MLease]

When does someone stop being human, once we can replace their body with a machine? Is it just the brain? What of AI then? What of the soul?

Coincidentally, I just finished Ray Kurzweil's book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, which considers the possibility of people's brains being enhanced, and eventually replaced, by cyber-prosthetics. One might argue that once the organic brain is gone, the soul (if it exists) is gone, or has moved on, as well. OTOH, we lose a lot of individual cells over the course of our lifetimes, and perhaps the brain we end up with isn't physically the one we started with anyway, so what's the difference if it's gradually replaced by artificial components? Interesting food for thought. Beats me if I have any answers, though. :)

-Mike

P.S. -- I used to work for Kurzweil Computer Products (eventually sold to Xerox), something like 25 years ago (I was the night-shift operator for the Kurzweil Data Entry Machine, which I believe was the first OCR data entry system that could scan ordinary printed text). I've always thought that Ray's an interesting and thought-provoking guy.

Re:This raises the question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You're ignoring the much simpler explanation that it simply doesn't exist... which more than adequately explains the "no room for a physical soul of any weight [mass]".

It does exist - it's what makes you you. The fact that it has no physical form is immaterial.

Re:This raises the question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Way to use a referral link jackass.

Why are you so hacked off about referral links? It doesn't cost you anything, so why would you care that someone else makes money?

Re:This raises the question

[kurzweilfreak]

In other words, you can't do it and won't admit to it. How do you expect to have an intelligent discussion over something you can't even properly define?

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

It [soul] does exist - it's what makes you you. The fact that it has no physical form is immaterial.

Is it also what makes a dog a dog? Or what makes a venus fly trap a venus fly trap? Or a pencil a pencil? If it has no physical form, then how do you know it exists? What led to its discovery?

Re:This raises the question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Is it also what makes a dog a dog? Or what makes a venus fly trap a venus fly trap? Or a pencil a pencil? If it has no physical form, then how do you know it exists? What led to its discovery?

Because it's an abstract concept, duh. Pencils have no soul - what's your problem?

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

Because it's an abstract concept, duh. Pencils have no soul - what's your problem?

Pencils are made from trees, and trees are living things. I'm a living thing and you say that I have a soul. Why not a pencil then? How do you know pencils don't have souls?

What I'm doing here is trying to get a definition of what a soul is out of you, but you keep evading the issue. If it's simply an imaginary abstract concept used as a mental exercise, then that's great. However, you are stating that a soul is something that actually exists. If that's the case, you should be able to define exactly what it is and how you have determined its existence.

Re:This raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

And students at techincal and engineering universities should be familiar with this particular text on metaphysical investigations why?

Re:This raises the question

[tftp]

Main Entry: 1soul
Pronunciation: 'sOl
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soule, from Old English sAwol; akin to Old High German sEula soul
1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

Based on this Webster's definition, the soul could be outlined as the software that runs on your biological hardware (and firmware, if you count the spinal cord.) Software is an idea, it has no weight, and it has no size, but it definitely exists, even though you can hardly point at it on the PC's motherboard and say "Here!"

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

Based on this Webster's definition, the soul could be outlined as the software that runs on your biological hardware (and firmware, if you count the spinal cord.)

But in the case of humans (not computers) the hardware *is* the software.

Re:This raises the question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Pencils are made from trees, and trees are living things. I'm a living thing and you say that I have a soul. Why not a pencil then? How do you know pencils don't have souls?

Because they're objects. Only things that think really ahve souls, and we generally only discuss the souls of those capable of planning.

What I'm doing here is trying to get a definition of what a soul is out of you, but you keep evading the issue.

I do not. You must be thinking of someone else.

However, you are stating that a soul is something that actually exists.

Yep. It's a concept. You think the number 2 exists as a physical entity?

Re:This raises the question

[tftp]

Apes have pretty much the same hardware... why are they not humans?

• Hardware: a material structure that can produce output based on an input and on a set of instructions.
• Software: a set of instructions that tell the hardware how to make an output from a set of inputs.

I work with hardware and software, and it's not easy to convince me that a blank microcontroller from Atmel is a fully functioning end-user device.

In case of biological entities, pretty much all animals on Earth have the same type of cells, and their biology is not that different from humans. Human brains are larger, but brains of dolphins and elephants are larger still. Proves nothing. Even a human child, with a brain smaller than one of a grown dog, is smarter than a dog. Where is the difference? Maybe in a way the brain operates? But if so, then it's a software.

And if you wanted to suggest that humans' programs are hardcoded in the brain as part of its development, that might be so, but it's no different than me burning my software into microcontrollers. The microcontrollers can't change their software, and they have no way of knowing anything about where their software came from. For all they know (if only they could think) they were manufactured with my firmware in them, and they are free to speculate that they were always like that, complex and doing fancy things with their inputs and outputs. And they can point at their lesser cousins, with simpler programs, and wonder how come these lesser cousins are different from them? Maybe there was some aberration in the manufacturing tapes that caused the smarter microcontrollers to appear?

Re:This raises the question

[Eternauta3k]

They said, at school (and probably in the bible, mass and crede (don't know whether it's the right word) that you resurrect in body and soul.

Re:This raises the question

[tftp]

My theory is based on fact that heavily paralyzed people remain themselves even if they lose all functions of most of the body. Another obvious fact is that brain-damaged people cease to remain themselves even if the rest of their bodies is intact. From those facts I can conclude that the brain is necessary and sufficient for a person to exist, think, be self-aware, and exhibit all other aspects of a human being. From that I can conclude that if the soul exists (depends on your definition of the soul) it must be there, or at least it must effect its presence there.

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

Only things that think really have souls...

Why is that?

Yep. It's a concept. You think the number 2 exists as a physical entity?

So, to you, it's just a symbolic idea? You previously said that "it's what makes you you" -- I must have misread the word "makes" as being a simile for "creates". So even if the concept of a soul weren't around, I'd be no different. Just as if the concept of the number 2 weren't around... I might not have 2 hands, but I'd still have a hand at the end of each arm.

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

In case of biological entities, pretty much all animals on Earth have the same type of cells, and their biology is not that different from humans. Human brains are larger, but brains of dolphins and elephants are larger still. Proves nothing. Even a human child, with a brain smaller than one of a grown dog, is smarter than a dog. Where is the difference?

The neocortex? Neuron density? A number of other differences other than the mass of the brain?

Re:This raises the question

[tftp]

None of that is unique to humans. And while we can point out that human's neocortex can be more developed than in other mammals, it's a matter of performance, and even that is debatable because dolphins' neocortex is "archaic" but that does not stop them from hearing and seeing better than humans.

"Humans have unique neural capacities, but much of their brain structure is similar to that of other mammals" (here). This article points out that humans have better design of the brain, but nothing that is revolutionary, distinctly different from other mammals. If these differences in the structure of the brain would be the only difference between an ape and a human, one would expect an ape to be as intelligent as a Neanderthal man, but that's not the case; a dog may be more intelligent than an ape (and often they are!) It may be that the quantity changes into quality here, but there is no proof yet.

Re:This raises the question

[Planesdragon]

Clearly not, as your reply amply shows. As to the half-witted part, I don't think you know me well enough to make such a rude determination.

No, I do.

Anyone who concludes that someone who disagrees with them has not thought long enough on the issue. In my experience, those who attempt to dismiss Spirituality with parsimony apply a standard of proof to God that would leave George Washington mythical.

Here's a hint as to how most of us who believe both in Science and God reconcile the two: God is actively seeking to hide Himself from us. He is, to borrow a phrase from Carl Sagan, "sufficiently advanced" enough so as to be beyond the reach of our science. Those of us who believe do so in spite of the lack of scientific evidence, because we conclude that the lack exists because of God's will.

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

Brain differences and intelligence are interesting, but it seems we've diverged from the topic of a "soul" a fair bit. Unless you'd like to bring it full-circle and connect up the two.

Re:This raises the question

[nacturation]

Here's a hint as to how most of us who believe both in Science and God reconcile the two: God is actively seeking to hide Himself from us. He is, to borrow a phrase from Carl Sagan, "sufficiently advanced" enough so as to be beyond the reach of our science. Those of us who believe do so in spite of the lack of scientific evidence, because we conclude that the lack exists because of God's will.

Replace "God" with "the Invisible Pink Unicorn" and you'll find that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is also actively hiding itself from you. Given that I find your hand-waving arguments to be the product of mentally deficient thinking, I don't think there's any further discussion possible here.

Re:This raises the question

[Nataku564]

It implies that the poster is taking part in slashdot discussions for profit, instead of altruistic mutual enlightenment. While this is not strictly true, the complaint does have merit. Had he announced his link as a referral, then I could see it as acceptable, as he would not be attempting to pick up a buck all sly-like. But since that isn't the case, I, too, call jackass.

Re:This raises the question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why is that?

No thinkee, no identity, no soul. These are really very basic concepts.

You previously said that "it's what makes you you" -- I must have misread the word "makes" as being a simile for "creates". So even if the concept of a soul weren't around, I'd be no different. Just as if the concept of the number 2 weren't around... I might not have 2 hands, but I'd still have a hand at the end of each arm.

What's your point? You seem to be picking a fight over your poor english comprehension skills, but yes, it's just a concept. If you didn't know about 2, you'd still have two hands, you just wouldn't know about it. Of course, counting is pretty basic - most cultures that exist anywhere on this planet understand 'two'. They may not get 'green', but two is easy.

Re:This raises the question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It implies that the poster is taking part in slashdot discussions for profit, instead of altruistic mutual enlightenment.

That's not part of the bargain - we're all out for ourselves first.

as he would not be attempting to pick up a buck all sly-like.

Who cares? It's not like it's a conflict of interest - he recommends some book and, if you like it, he gets a bit of cash. It doesn't matter what book he's advocating either, so there's no bias there. Yeah, there's a motivation to shill, but it's not like amazon is known for being deceptive in their detail pages.

Re:This raises the question

[tehcyder]

You're a twat

Fucking philosphers, drunk bastards the lot of them.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whisky every day.

Re:This raises the question

[Nataku564]

That's not part of the bargain - we're all out for ourselves first.

There is no bargain. I am simply pointing out what myself, and the original objector, would like to see, as opposed to what actually happened. No more, no less.

While you may be content with a society of "cheaters", I am not. Therefore it is in my best interest to call attention to such behavior, so it can be better collectively shunned.

Re:This raises the question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

While you may be content with a society of "cheaters", I am not.

I don't see where the OP cheated - they just make some money if you buy the book. It's not like they misrepresented what the book was about. I guess this is some result of the puritan ethic that afflicts this country, where making money without effort is somehow sinful.

Re:This raises the question

[Lord_Dweomer]

"I don't see where the OP cheated - they just make some money if you buy the book. It's not like they misrepresented what the book was about."

They did not misrepresent the book at all. That is not what I took issue with. What I took issue with is that they misrepresented their motive for posting the link to the book. And while yes, they probably did it with good intentions, we have no way of knowing that since they did not disclose their financial incentive.

Its all about trust, and transparency = trust. The reason I don't like people posting referral links is because it encourages comment spam on Slashdot.

I am most certainly not puritan (in fact I'm Jewish, can you believe I'm against this guy making money?!) but I am interested in keeping Slashdot as spam free as possible.

Re:This raises the question

[Lord_Dweomer]

I'm not so much taking issue with the referral itself as your lack of disclosure. Apologies if that did not come across as clearly as I intended in my original post.

But I do have a general issue with referral links in discussions on Slashdot because they tarnish any "good faith" addition to a discussion due to the posters motive of a financial incentive.

If you merely wanted to contribute to the discussion, you could have posted it without the referral. As it is you used your link and did not even say something to the extent of "shameless referral link" to indicate your financial incentive.

control

[schlichte]

"...and are controlled by controlled by the wearer's brain."

Re:control

[metroplex]

I noticed that too. I suppose they are really insisting on the fact that they are controlled, and that they don't just move at random. That would be very annoying for the soldier wearing it.

It would probably grant the bearer big bucks from the Ministry Of Silly Walks, though.

Innovation

[Eightyford]

Sadly, nothing sparks innovation and technology like war and disasters.

Re:Innovation

[_Sharp'r_]

So how much will $6 million get me in terms of these new bionic prosthetic limbs?

Re:Innovation

[nephridium]

It's true that the (uneducated) populace will be more willing to pay for something they fear, like an imminent threat. Survival is a good motivator to get off your butt and use your brain. Yet many inventions and innovation were made for peaceful purposes in times of peace. During the Pax Romana there was a lively exchange of culture and technologies within the borders. Same thing happened for some time in the Mongolian empire - a person could travel from Europe to China by horse with no worries of being mugged.

What ultimately brings down systems like these is not their lack of military strength or technology, but their failure to control corruption and ignorant leadership.

Re:Innovation

[mh101]

Don't forget lazyness.

As I frequently reword a well known saying, "Lazyness is the mother of invention." :)

Re:Innovation

[vandan]

Sadly, nothing sparks innovation and technology like war and disasters.

Under the current capitalist regime, I agree. I certainly wouldn't expect Dubya to be forking out money for, say, ordinary Americans who have lost limbs and need replacements. Any suggestion of creating some sort of ( I'd better say this quietly ) public health system is met with absolute horror by the Republicans and the ruling class ... and the Democrats too. But of course soldiers are somewhat more useful than ordinary citizens, as they are carrying out the agenda of big business, in particilar big oil and the weapons manufacturers. But don't hold you breath waiting for a worker getting one of these paid for by the state because they lost an arm in an accident at work.

Axe public health? Check.
Axe social security? Check.
Axe public education? They're most certainly working on it.
Ignore urgent need to invest in renewable resources? Check.

There's seriously not much more they can axe to funnel more money into the military, is there?

Exactly how much of this bullshit can Americans handle before they stop bleeting the line that they're 'rulers of the free world'?

Re:Innovation

[nacturation]

As I frequently reword a well known saying, "Lazyness is the mother of invention." :)

And you're so lazy you had to invent a new spelling for laziness?

Re:Innovation

[WCD_Thor]

The US soldiers wouldn't need to be getting new, hi-tech prosthetics if they hadn't been sent into a country illegally by an idiotic President controlled by fascist advisers.

Re:Innovation

[thouth]

Necessity if the mother of all invention, and what greater necessity is there than life and death in war or disasters.

Re:Innovation

[Martin Blank]

Axe public health? Check.

Except, of course, for creating the largest public health care segment in decades -- the Medicare prescription plan.

Axe social security? Check.

Except, of course, that this went down to defeat with even the Republicans in Congress showing moderately strong opposition to it.

Axe public education? They're most certainly working on it.

Except, of course, that more money goes into the public education system from the federal government than ever before. Federal spending on pre-university education in terms of percent GDP rose by more than 40% from 2000 to 2006, and up by about two-thirds in 2000 dollars.

Ignore urgent need to invest in renewable resources? Check.

The US has nearly 17,000 generators combining for a total nameplate output of more than a million megawatts, of which almost 11,000 are fossil fueled plants with nameplate capacities of about 825,000 megawatts. Converting that takes time, and at the moment, there isn't enough renewable capacity to even dent that, though there are certainly attempts going on, including the Dept of Energy assisting with a non-PV solar plant in Southern California that will have a rated capacity of about 500MW. There has also been significant work done to smooth the process for getting nuclear plants approved, however, so with some luck, we'll be able to take a nice chunk out with that. It's not renewable (not in the conventional sense), but it's a lot more stable than wind and solar.

Re:Innovation

[vandan]

Except, of course, for creating the largest public health care segment in decades -- the Medicare prescription plan.

It depends on which way you measure it. It might be the case that the system has the largest absolute budget, but this is spread across a very large number of people. If you look at the expenditure per capita, a very different picture emerges. The US is practically the worst in the Western world for health care. That's why the most common reason why people are put in gaol ( jail for Yanks ) is for non-payment of medical bills. I wouldn't go around scoffing at your health-care system if I were you. The US system is what everyone else in the western world points at, and say "at least we're not that fucked up yet".

Except, of course, that this went down to defeat with even the Republicans in Congress showing moderately strong opposition to it.

Um. I'm not following you here. Are you saying that Republicans actually argued for spending MORE money on social security? I think you're mistaken.

Except, of course, that more money goes into the public education system from the federal government than ever before. Federal spending on pre-university education in terms of percent GDP rose by more than 40% from 2000 to 2006, and up by about two-thirds in 2000 dollars.

That's not what I hear. Admittedly, I'm not 100% up to date on the minor details, but I have read numerous articles over the past 10 years about public school closures, and funds being redirected to private education. I think that even in absolute terms the amount of money in the public education system has been reducing significantly, and I can say with absolute certainty that the amount per-capita has been decreasing at an alarming rate.

I find it hard to fathom that there are people who are actually arguing that the Republicans are supposedly adding to public spending. Even Americans know that is bullshit.

The US has nearly 17,000 generators combining for a total nameplate output of more than a million megawatts, of which almost 11,000 are fossil fueled plants with nameplate capacities of about 825,000 megawatts. Converting that takes time, and at the moment, there isn't enough renewable capacity to even dent that

No kidding. You can't argue that there is little research because there are few solutions. The research is intended to produce solutions. Bush has scaled back research into renewables, just as Howard has done here in Australia, while rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and asserting the rights of the big energy companies to keep on polluting ... in the name of jobs of course.

including the Dept of Energy assisting with a non-PV solar plant in Southern California that will have a rated capacity of about 500MW

That's a token effort - a drop in the ocean at best. It really means nothing in the long run. We need to be doing this everywhere.

There has also been significant work done to smooth the process for getting nuclear plants approved, however, so with some luck, we'll be able to take a nice chunk out with that. It's not renewable (not in the conventional sense), but it's a lot more stable than wind and solar.

No it's not. There is enough uranium in the world for about 10 years of total energy consumption, and then you have millions of tons of radioactive waste that will be around for millions of years to come. Which company - or civilisation for that matter - is going to be around in millions of years to safeguard the world from this waste? Who will pay to maintain the containment? Not the companies that profited from it, you can be sure of that. And then there's the issue of the US breaking the non-proliferation treaty. I say that if Iraq and Iran deserve to be invaded to for

Re:Innovation

[RsG]

No it's not. There is enough uranium in the world for about 10 years of total energy consumption, and then you have millions of tons of radioactive waste that will be around for millions of years to come. Which company - or civilisation for that matter - is going to be around in millions of years to safeguard the world from this waste? Who will pay to maintain the containment? Not the companies that profited from it, you can be sure of that.

If you were American, I'd assume that you wrote this unaware of reprocessing technology, however you've indicated you're from a different country. Do you not know we can use nuclear waste as fuel, or are you opposed to the technology? I've heard a couple of valid objections to it, though I don't agree on them.

First up, we don't need to use only Uranium (Thorium reactors have been proposed). Second, most of the nuclear waste a plant produces is... Uranium and Plutonium. Yep, that's right - the only difference between waste and fuel is purity. It is possible to either make a reactor that runs on the waste, or extract the still usable fuel from the unusable nuclear leftovers.

The final leavings when all the Uranium is gone do not last "millions of years" - there is an inverse relationship between halflife and radioactivity. Essentially, the really nasty stuff is short lived, and the long lived stuff is relatively harmless. The radioactive materials that have a lot of energy potential and long half lives are also the ones you want to use as fuel. Once they're gone, what's left isn't anywhere near as bad as you're making them out to be.

Additionally, there are means of final disposal available to us. Bury the waste at a geological subduction zone, far beneath the water table, and wait for it to be sucked back into the mantle. This will take time, but won't require constant monitoring or indefinate safe storage. We can seperate out the waste that lasts decades and store it in a safe vault, and then take the stuff that lasts thousands of years and use the method described above.

There are valid objections to nuclear power, but you are misinformed about them.

Re:Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to have invented a new spelling for "humorously".

Re:Innovation

[DerGeist]

That's why the most common reason why people are put in gaol ( jail for Yanks ) is for non-payment of medical bills.

Don't make stuff up, it tanks the credibility of the rest of what you're saying. Violent offenses make up over 50% of those sentenced to prison as of 2004. I've never heard of *anyone* going to jail because of non-payment of medical bills; it's incredibly rare as the system has a bunch of "safety nets" built in. There's plenty you can do before jail becomes relevant.

The US system is what everyone else in the western world points at, and say "at least we're not that fucked up yet".

Now, this part has more truth to it. The WHO lists the US as 37th in Healthcare, well below most other developed nations and 72nd in overall health (that's right down there with Iraq at 75th, althogh in the US's case obesity is probably largely the issue). Of course, this data is from 1997 and healthcare has changed since then, but you get the picture. Many people in the US are starting to go to India to have medical procedures done (yes this is true) because it's cheaper to fly to India and have an Indian doctor perform the surgery or whatever procedure than have a US doctor do it. See here if you're interested.

Re:Innovation

[Dun Malg]

So how much will $6 million get me in terms of these new bionic prosthetic limbs?

You ever get that weird feeling that you've suddenly become old because the kids you're talking to totally miss your 1970's pop culture reference?

For the love of god, somebody mod parent "funny"! I feel like I've turned into my grandmother talking about Benny Goodman!

Re:Innovation

[Dun Malg]

It depends on which way you measure it. It might be the case that the system has the largest absolute budget, but this is spread across a very large number of people. If you look at the expenditure per capita, a very different picture emerges.

So when you said "axe public health" what you meant was "did not expand public health in the direction or on the scale I would consider ideal"? Such excellent communication skills.

That's why the most common reason why people are put in gaol ( jail for Yanks ) is for non-payment of medical bills.

What, are you kidding me? Now you're just making shit up. Cite me a single case of this. It does not happen, and for very obvious reasons. "Debtors prison" went out of fashion centuries ago when people realized that a person languishing in prison cannot earn money to pay his debts.

Um. I'm not following you here. Are you saying that Republicans actually argued for spending MORE money on social security?

So when you said "axe social security", what you meant was "did not expand Social Security in the direction or on the scale I would consider ideal"? Again, excellent communication skills.

That's not what I hear. Admittedly, I'm not 100% up to date on the minor details, but I have read numerous articles over the past 10 years about public school closures, and funds being redirected to private education. I think that even in absolute terms the amount of money in the public education system has been reducing significantly, and I can say with absolute certainty that the amount per-capita has been decreasing at an alarming rate.

Surely you realize that measuring public school education expenditures "per capita" is ridiculous, as it's patently obvious that not every "capita" is in public school! Per student expenditures have risen consistently for over thiry years. This, of course, doesn't even address the folly that is federal education spending, where 40% of the money gets eaten by bureaucrats before it reaches the classroom.

I find it hard to fathom that there are people who are actually arguing that the Republicans are supposedly adding to public spending. Even Americans know that is bullshit.

I find it hard to fathom how people can blindly believe what they want to believe in the face of easily verifiable evidence to the contrary. Bush has expanded non-defense expenditures 28% since 2000. Even the abominable "war on poverty" president LBJ only expanded non-defense by 21%! I know you want to paint Bush as another Reagan (who cut the non-defense budget by 11%), but it just isn't so.

Bush has scaled back research into renewables

Utter nonsense. Federal R&D incentives for renewable energy declined from 1981 up into the mid 90's, but have steadily increased since. They essentially wax and wane with the price of fossil fuels. I challenge you to cite this supposed budget cut. Again, just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true.

There is enough uranium in the world for about 10 years of total energy consumption, and then you have millions of tons of radioactive waste that will be around for millions of years to come.

Again, complete and utter nonsense. Current known reserves of uranium are enough to supply us at the current rate of growth for 150-200 years. Allowing fuel reprocessing via breeder reactors would extend the utilty of these reserves a hundred-fold, and at the same time eliminates the waste problem.

I dislike Bush as vigorously as anyone, but I'm not so stupid as to try and paint him with the same old tired "heartless budget-cutting Republican" cliches in the face of evidence to the contrary. His spending habits put his Democrat predecessors to shame.

Re:Innovation

[Roarkk]

Argghh, matey. We be feeding this post to the trolls, eh?

Axe public health? Check.
What exactly is this president "axing"? Legislation to give universal healthcare? That's all Congress. Oh, and you're assuming that universal healthcare is a good thing.

Axe social security? Check.
YEAHH! GO TEAM! Social Security is going bankrupt, due to Republican and Democratic politicians spending all of the money in any "reserve" it may have once had. I'm 30, and neither I nor any contemporary I've discussed SS with believes we'll see a dime of it. Graduate it out, now. At least save me the last bit of money I'd have to pay into a dying system.

Axe public education? They're most certainly working on it.
Nice. The state of Georgia is consistently bottom of the barrel in education in the US, despite being the 8th highest spending state on primary and secondary education. For once, conservatives are advocating a program (vouchers) that allow people to choose whether or not they like public schools. But you don't want that, do you? Public schools are what you want, and public schools are what those whining bastards will get. Let them eat cake.

Ignore urgent need to invest in renewable resources? Check.
Good plan. Let bureaucracy do our research. It worked before, right?

There's seriously not much more they can axe to funnel more money into the military, is there?
Sure there is. If you weren't just another troll, you'd put your time in helping reduce pork. But no, you just want to bitch, not do anything productive.

Re:Innovation

[_Sharp'r_]

... And to think I thought my comment was almost too obvious to make a good joke ...

Don't these kids even have TVland or something like that? Maybe after Mark Cuban get's tired of Hogan's Heros and Charlie's Angels, HDNET can add some more shows ....

Re:Innovation

[Darian Knight]

Unfortunately I'm American. I don't believe in what my country is doing in the rest of the world and at home. It is shameful. I am not unpatriotic. I believe in what this country is supposed to stand for, and not what it has become. I will make no bones about it - America has become a country of ignorant, hypocritical, blood thirsty, morons. The rest of the world sees us this way as well, and because we are ignorant, we don't know this. We honestly think we are saving the world from itself and instilling democracy in countries that "needed" our help. Our government is simply lining it's own pockets at the expense of it's people, as well as now the rest of the world. I am not entirely sure which is worse - the fact that most americans are both ignorant and apathetic, or that the government is taking advantage of this sorry state at every chance they get. To tell you the truth, I'm with the Aussie on this issue. Unlike most Americans, I get a chance every day to see our country through the eyes of the rest of the world. It's called international news outlets. Not Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC... real news. BBS World News, etc. American news is dumbed down for the ignorant americans who only want to know what kinds of clothes are in fashion this year... What Americans need to know, and they are too ignorant to care, is that their country has broken International Law, as well as Their Own National Laws in the process of this war on terror. Let alone the Non Proliferation treaty. Christ... 15,000 + nukes, and we bitch about other countries with the same weapons or developing such weapons? That's why we aren't doing anything to North Korea... because we're cowards. We went into and took over an entire country under the premise that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction, knowing full well they didn't. But when a country actually comes out and says they have long range nukes and are willing to use them against us... we're suddenly willing to "negotiate". We went into Afghanistan looking for terrorists, insisting that it had nothing to do with oil... and yet *every* base we set up in afghanistan just *happens* to be along the oil pipeline, with only one new base on the *shipping port*. My god... we waged pre-emptive war on another country under false premises! This is in *direct* violation of the very same international law used to try and convict the NAZIS. And renewable energy sources? Not if the american government has anything to do with it. A guy in the states recently invented a new electrolysis device that uses milliamps to create a high output of hydrogen and oxygen from water to use as a fuel in a combustion engine. Too bad the guy was poisoned. This is a sad world we live in... and I am no longer proud to be an american. We have lost most of the things that made us who we are. And we are more than happy, it seems, to hand over the rest in the name of "freedom". We are holding "suspects" in a cuban concentration camp indefinitely, and without charges, and without any chance of a fair trial. How in the bloody hell is this humanly right? America has turned into the Nazis... plain and simple. Launched a crusade against an invisible enemy, started a war without end. I am not un-patriotic. If anything, I still believe in what this country is supposed to be and what it was supposed to represent. I believe in the original America, the one the world may or not have believed in at one time as well. I'm only sorry that what I write here will have absolutely no effect on the average American citizen. That those who will read this will not be in any position to make a difference. Or that the average american will see this and cry foul. We're ignorant. And this is our downfall.

Re:Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid you made one major mistake in your facts at the end there, which is that there is enough Uranium for only 10 years for the entire world. This is totally not the case, that pretty much only describes the most easily reached and cheapest Uranium ore, total amount of Uranium that is worthwhile to extract is vastly greater and is expected to atleast cover a few centuries of world energy needs. And this also doesn't include an alternative radioactive material, namely Thorium, which is also more abundant then Uranium by about three times I believe.

Re:Innovation

[vandan]

Do you not know we can use nuclear waste as fuel, or are you opposed to the technology?

Well, firstly I'd say that the technology doesn't really exist as most people claim that it does. You can't magically 'reprocess' radioactive waste and expect to get a net gain. It's not a perpetual motion device. Sure you can take waste that isn't quite up to the standard of nuclear fuel, and 'reprocess' it to your heart's content, irradiating more and more matter as you go, pumping more and more energy into it, but this isn't going to achieve your goal of squeezing more energy out of it. Far from it. It's a net energy sink. The main motivating factor for these 'reprocessing' plants is not to turn waste into fuel and water into wine, but to turn low-grade uranium into eith 99% pure uranium or plutonium, for use in nuclear weapons. But that use isn't something that politicians like to talk about so much, so instead we're fed the BS that they're 'reprocessing' fuel for reuse. Why doesn't the oil industry 'reprocess' exhaust from cars? It's a joke.

the long lived stuff is relatively harmless

That's a pretty arbitrary statement, and not one that's going to convince me. The fact is that all radioactivity is dangerous - it's just a matter of how dangerous. We have evolved to live in an environment with a certain amount of background radiation. If you add to that level, you're rolling the dice for all of us. You don't have the right to do that. No-one does. One of the basic, inalienable rights of life is to enjoy our planet in it's natural state, not polluted by smog, acid rain, and so-called 'safe' radioactivity.

Bury the waste at a geological subduction zone, far beneath the water table, and wait for it to be sucked back into the mantle.

There are always people who say "Oh but we could do this with it, and that with it. In your example, who is to say that the stuff will be sucked back into the mantle. What if, instead of being sucked into the mantle, it gets blasted up into the atmosphere? And who is burying it like this anyway? Over 50% of radioactive waste that comes from reactors gets shoved in 44 gallon drums and chucked into the ocean. On SBS later this week there is a documentary on illegal nuclear waste dumping in a quarry in Germany. I don't trust corporations OR governments to do the right thing. They invariably prove that they cannot. Why keep giving them the befenit of the doubt? That's naive, and exposing thousands of generations to come to radioactive waste that they simply need not be exposed to ( whether you claim it is 'safe' or not ). It's unnecessary. There are also millions of tons of radioactive waste produced in mining uranium that simply gets left to it's own devices. Over half of the radioactivity in uranium gets left in this waste - which isn't categorised as waste. It then gets into the foodstream and water supply, and eventually ends up in the ocean.

We can seperate out the waste that lasts decades and store it in a safe vault, and then take the stuff that lasts thousands of years and use the method described above.

That's just pie-in-the-sky bullshit from the pro-nuclear lobby. Western civilisation has only been around for a couple of hundred years. How the hell are we supposed to guarantee that this so-called magical vault will last thousands of years? That's ridiculous!

Nuclear power is the most dangerous and costly way ever devised to boil water. The only uses for nuclear technology are:

- creating profits for mining and energy companies, who receive massive government subsidies that should be going towards CLEAN renewable technology

- supporting the nuclear weapons industry

Re:Innovation

[vandan]

You are in a state of denial about the axing of public services and public health in particular. Have a read of:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/dec2004/medi-d31 .shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/medi-f09 .shtml

Re:Innovation

[RsG]

Either you didn't read, or you didn't understand.

You can't magically 'reprocess' radioactive waste and expect to get a net gain. It's not a perpetual motion device.

No, it isn't perpetual motion, nor does anyone claim otherwise.

When a nuclear plant uses fuel, it transmutes some of that fuel into material that is truely "waste". These nuclear leftovers are useless and dangerous. However, most spent fuel rods are still 90% Uranium or more - only some of the mass is turned into waste.

You start with a 1Kg rod. When you take it out of the reactor, you've got (for example) .9Kg Uranium and .1Kg "waste". You seperate the waste, which is actually several different materials mixed in together, and you're left with a slightly smaller amount of fuel than went into the reactor in the first place. Alternatively, you use a different type of reactor that uses fuel more effeciently and doesn't leave so much Uranium unspent.

The true waste needs to be disposed of, and an equivalent amount of Uranium mined to replace it, but you've still come out ahead of where you'd be if you just threw that impure fuel rod away as waste, which is what the United States currently does. The figure you quoted for "10 years of Uranium left" assumes that none of it will be reproccessed at all - in other words, you're assuming the least effecient methods possible.

And for the record, the usual figure given for American style nuclear reactors running out of fuel is 50 years, not 10 - and this doesn't account for reproccessing, intergral fast reactors or Thorium fueled reactors, nor does it take into account possible future mining or reactor technology.

That's a pretty arbitrary statement, and not one that's going to convince me.

Nevertheless, it happens to be true. There is a fixed amount of potential energy in any radioactive material. If it's highly radioactive, then that means it's emitting that energy faster, which means that it will have a shorter halflife. If it's long lived, that means it can't be radiating as much energy per second, and therefor isn't as dangerous.

Radiation isn't perpetual motion; eventually it "runs out", same as anything else - and how fast it runs out is inversely proportional to how dangerous it is. This is high school physics, and you should already know this if you'd done your research.

There are always people who say "Oh but we could do this with it, and that with it. In your example, who is to say that the stuff will be sucked back into the mantle. What if, instead of being sucked into the mantle, it gets blasted up into the atmosphere?

Tectonic plate movement is what prevents this. Don't you know your geology?

Subduction zones are places where one tectonic plate slides under another. Over time, material buried in the bottom plate liquifies in the mantle, only to reform back into rock at a fissure someplace else thousands of kilometers away where the plates are moving apart. This reformation happens on a geological time scale - hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of years. So, we bury radioactives at a subduction zone, they get sucked away, and by the time they reemerge millenia later, they are no longer radioactive.

The plates themselves become our storage facility - given that they've lasted a few billenia thus far, I think we can count on them holding out for as long as needed. And given that the mantle already contains plentiful radioactives (we can even detect fallout from volcanic eruptions), we don't need to worry about contaminating it.

Again, this isn't difficult or advanced science. Proposing doomsday scenarios like the waste getting blasted into the atmposphere when said scenario contradics basic geology is just silly.

Western civilisation has only been around for a couple of hundred years. How the hell are we supposed to guarantee that

Re:Innovation

[iq in binary]

As much as you've made a compelling (yet completely inaccurate) argument. It is all rendered pointless and completely disaffecting by the simple fact that you're not an American. Every "fact" you have stated is completely false and that's not just the ones regarding the state of affairs in the US.

Until you grow some fucking balls and cross the pond into the states, you have no right, idea or proper education to make the arguments you just made.

And where in the hell did you get that figure on Uranium? We don't even know how much Uranium there is out there, let alone how much of the world's power consumption it could meet. But to best current guesses, it could cover us for close to a century, rising power demands taken into account. We have close to 125,000 nukes (maybe more, although they're in the process of decomission), and from personal experience having worked for the Renewable Energy lab in Golden, CO; spending on research has doubled.

The parent was right, spending on education has increased. And for god's fucking sake, don't even bother yourself trying to dictate events in American government until you have an American Passport, you arrogant prick.

Re:Innovation

[painlord2k]

"Need" is mother of "Invention".

Re:Innovation

[oneils]

uh...he spelled "post-humously" correctly. You just don't get his joke. Here is a definition: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=posthumou sly

Well, thank god.

[Fullhazard]

This will be taken as -1 troll, or flamebait, but I'm glad that this war (the one in iraq) is having some benefit to humanity.
I mean, if it's not going to actually stop tyranny, help people, or prevent violence, it might as well develop more technology for prosthetics.

Re:Well, thank god.

[Firehed]

And to think, if you hadn't said something about being modded down, you'd probably be +5, Interesting. Oh well, too late.

Re:Well, thank god.

[rolfwind]

Every other post that talks about being modded down gets modded up on /. I see it as a cheap tactic to get points regardless of the merit of what is being said.

But then, I'd probably get modded down:P

Re:Well, thank god.

[pedantic bore]

It might be gross benefit, but it's not net benefit.

Pun intended.

Killing thousands of civilians, spending billions (or is it trillions now?) of dollars, etc, etc, can't possibly be worth better prosthetics. The amount of money spent on this research is a fraction of a percent of the cash cost of the war. Think of how that money could have been used... it's sickening.

Mod Chip Time.

[twitter]

What everyone wants, Uncle Sam's software implanted directly into your brain. Does anyone know my safe word?

Re:Mod Chip Time.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've tried humour before. Please stop now.

Re:Mod Chip Time.

[David's Boy Toy]

Oh boy, wait until Microsoft gets into the business. Viruses! Only problem is condoms won't prevent infection, just hearing some nonsense babbled by an infected person stumbling down the street and soon you have it too. Like an old zombie horror movie. My safeword is "Red" of course :)

Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some more disturbing questions?

1. Why does the same American government that sends soldiers to be permanently mutilated in Iraq refuse to allow the full range of stem cell research that could, one day, re-grow the limbs torn apart by pointless, wasteful war? Why should we condemn the mutilated soldiers to a life of crappy prosthetics?

2. More fundamentally, why does the American government send soldiers off to sacrifice their lives in Iraq when most Americans, including American politicians, refuse to make any sacrifice for the sake of that war? No one is sacrificing. Only the soldiers are sacrificing -- their lives.

Question #2 is particularly damning. When the average American refuses to support a surcharge on gasoline (to bring its cost to $4.00 per gallon) to pay for the bloody war in Iraq, why the hell should Washington insist that soldiers sacrifice their lives? In World War II, the entire nation sacrificed for the just cause of the war effort. Clearly, we have no just cause in Iraq. Nearly no one supports the Iraq War.

We should count most Republicans in the "no one" category. Most Republicans also refuse to support a surcharge to pay for the war. Their mouth says, "I support the war." However, their wallet says, "I oppose the war." Their wallet tells the truth.

Simplier solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Impressive technology but wouldn't it be more preferrable to avoid the issue whenever possible? 1st avoid pointless wars, the obvious best solution. 2nd better armor, most of the lose of limps was caused by little or no armor on the vechicles. 3rd push for more drone technology and keep men off the ground whenever possible. 4th ban landmines! Why are we one of the biggest opponents to the banning of something as inhuman as landmines? Eliminate the causes and you'll reduce the need dramatically and end a lot of pain and suffering.

Re:Simplier solution

[megaditto]

1st avoid pointless wars, the obvious best solution.

How dare you imply that our Iraqi Liberation was a pointless effort?

Remember, that in Iraq we fought for Freedom (trying to liberate our oil trapped under terrorists' sand).

Report to the nearest Democracy Camp for reeducation.

Re:Simplier solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If all America wanted was all the oil in the middle-east, with no concern about the means, this would have been a lot easier.

You can drill through glass to get to oil, right?

Re:I for one..

[The Evil Couch]

Where will all this lead to?

Cyberlimbs, wired reflexes, datajacks and cyberdecks.

We can rebuild him

[Skidge]

According to The Inflation Calculator:

What cost $6,000,000 in 1974 would cost $24,945,762.42 in 2005.

It's not cheap being a .

Re:We can rebuild him

[Skidge]

I really did preview that one. Twice. ;)

That should read "It's not cheap being a bionic man."

Re:We can rebuild him

[misanthrope101]

I wonder if proper body and vehicle armor is cheaper than prosthetics, multiple surgeries, psychological counseling, and a lifetime of subsequent health problems. I also wonder what these soldiers lost their limbs for. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly basions of freedom, are they? Yes, they'll be peaceful one day in the future, as will the entire earth when the sun runs out of hydrogen. I do realize that every time a flower blooms in Iraq it's because of American resolve and committment, while none of the death and destruction is our fault, but still, one wonders what the hell it's all for.

Re:We can rebuild him

[timeOday]

I wonder if proper body and vehicle armor is cheaper than prosthetics, multiple surgeries, psychological counseling, and a lifetime of subsequent health problems.

If only it were so easy. Up-armoring the Humvees is no miracle cure, in fact it may hurt more than it helps.

Besides, with the quality of explosives the other side is using, they can kill an M1! Charges that cut through a main battle tank are not going to be slowed down by any amount of Humvee up-armoring.

Speaking of which, I've wondered why we still call them IED's, or "immprovised" explosive devices? They've grown all too sophisticated to be called "improvised."

As for not starting the war in the first place, good idea. But now it's too late, what should we do? (Besides not repeating the same mistake in the future.)

Re:We can rebuild him

[Anonymous Coward]

what should we do?

Sit down and start thinking with brains instead of guns? Soldiers are already setting up improvised mine sweeping gear from some long boards and chains. Need to go to the next step and equip the humvees with the same short-range cellphone jammers offered to any number of movie theaters and such. Next, door to door sweep of every house, starting in Baghdad and working out to the edges of Iraq. We're supposedly occupying the country, let's start acting like it.

On the home front, need to quit spending tax money to figure out if the most popular pizza delivery is Pizza Hut or Dominos. A little more thought going into who to target for counterterrorism would be nice, someone sending $3000 to mastercard doesn't mean Mastercard must be a terrorist operation.

Finally, if the Republicans want to save themselves from Bush's gutter, they need to start showing some results, and that means prying them out of Bush's ass where he's been hiding everything else. It shouldn't have taken the Supreme Court to tell the government to try the terrorists they've got, find them guilty, then fry them. Until the public sees something come of this entire dog and pony show, the whole thing was a waste of billions, and worse, gas prices are still high.

Re:We can rebuild him

[grumpygrodyguy]

I wonder if proper body and vehicle armor is cheaper than prosthetics, multiple surgeries, psychological counseling, and a lifetime of subsequent health problems. I also wonder what these soldiers lost their limbs for.

While I agree with your antiwar tone, it's because of proper body and vehicle armor that the number of soldiers losing their limbs (instead of their lives) is increasing steadily. There is no body armor technology capable of keeping a soldier's foot from being destroyed by an IED mine, his hand being blown off by an IED boobie trap, or whole limbs being blown off by the larger anti-vehicle IEDs.

Re:We can rebuild him

[misanthrope101]

The trouble with bringing these people to trial is that there's no assurance that they'll be convicted. They'll look a little stupid if they hold people in jail for years, subject them to what would be known as torture if it were happening in Atlanta or NY, and then there are no charges to file. We're assuming that there is evidence, but I think that's an optimistic assumption. Some of these people were traded for bounty money--some guy brought in someone he assured us was a "big terrorist. big big" and we have him a wad of cash in return. That make an efficient way of filling a jail, but it doesn't constitute evidence that would meet any known standard.

Look at Joseph Padilla - who really thinks he will be convicted when, if ever, he is brought to trial? If there was real evidence, they would've tried him already. What they want is to suspend habeus corpus without it looking like they're suspending habeus corpus, and just lock whoever they want up forever without any oversight or evidentiary standards to meet. But it's hard to crow about freedom when you run a police state, so a bunch of knickers are tied in knots over what to do. And yes, Virginia, detention without trial, without charges, constitutes a police state, even if the cops don't get cool double lightning-bolts on their lapels.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in charge. Now that you've had people in custody for years, subjecting them to torture and humiliation, even if they were originally pure as the driven snow they certainly hate us NOW, so what do you do? Anyone you let go could be a terrorist, even if they weren't originally. It was a lot easier for Stalin. But then again, he was what we call a "bad guy." But as has been pointed out, there was no crime in the Soviet Union. They just shot you. Of course, they shot everyone else, too, but as they say, freedom isn't free.

Re:We can rebuild him

[Ours]

I'd go for the cheaper one: http://robotchicken.org/index.php/The_Six_Million_ Peso_Man_(Part_2).

Re:We can rebuild him

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between having your M1 immobilized by a mine, but coming out alive, and getting your limbs blown off by the same mine in an unarmored vehicle. Also, the article doesn't provide any examples of "killed" tanks, certainly not the M1. If armor helps to lessen the potential injuries, even if the vehicle is too damaged to continue to fight, it's worth it.

Re:We can rebuild him

[r00t]

Often you can fight but not move. You still have a working air supply and working guns.

Re:We can rebuild him

[r00t]

I think the problem is that we have:

1. extremely strong circumstantial evidence
2. evidence derived from classified sources

We're damn sure we have some terrorists, but we can't get a conviction in a Western-style court without exposing our classified sources.

You might argue that this means we should set the bastards free, but... NO FUCKING WAY.

Re:We can rebuild him

[Greyfox]

Mmm, and I think that it's more than a little hypocritical for the Supreme Court to allow it. Our country was founded on the idea that the ideals later embodied in the constitution were basic human rights. They didn't say "All Americans Are Created Equal". They said "All Men." Our founding fathers hated the idea of midnight abductions and secret courts and torturing confessions out people. I'm pretty sure that their vision did not stop at our border and I know that later we've fought to bring those ideals to the rest of the world -- hell Bush's justification for the Iraq war once everyone realized there were no WMDs is that "We're bringing democracy to the middle east." Well we're a shining example of that, aren't we?

They did a thing on torture this week on NPR and at one point they had a guy talking about his role in interrogating prisoners in Iraq. I wanted to ask him if he wasn't the least bit ashamed of himself. It didn't sound like it.

I think that all our efforts in the middle east will probably fail and I think that our nation is in danger of collapse because we have lost sight of the ideals that made it so great in the first place. If our military were conducting itself with honor, I think the civilian population of Iraq would be responding to that. And I know that the vast majority of the people over there do in fact care about the people of Iraq and want to help them, but as long as we have stories like the one last week about some soldiers who raped an Iraqui woman and then killed her and several memebers of her family, our efforts in the middle east will fail. Not only will they fail in the Iraq, but the rest of the Arab world will have that much more proof that we're nothing but hypocrites and liars. Those people had to put up with the crusades for a very long time and they have no reason to trust us now. We certainly haven't given them one.

And the fact that there hasn't been a lot more outrage than there has and there hasn't been a political bloodbath over all of this makes me doubt that America will be able to survive in the long term. History is littered with failed nations and there's no reason to believe that there's any reason why ours should be different.

Re:We can rebuild him

[Fulcrum of Evil]

We're damn sure we have some terrorists, but we can't get a conviction in a Western-style court without exposing our classified sources.

That's the problem with using classified sources on civilians (they aren't soldiers, right?).

You might argue that this means we should set the bastards free, but... NO FUCKING WAY.

I'd rather do that than give W a way to legally throw someone in a hole forever.

Re:We can rebuild him

[frank_adrian314159]

I wonder if proper body and vehicle armor is cheaper than prosthetics, multiple surgeries, psychological counseling, and a lifetime of subsequent health problems.

That's interesting. I wonder instead whether not invading countries that pose absolutely no threat to us is cheaper than proper body and vehicle armor. But that's just me... Oh wait, it's not. It's a majority of the American people.

Re:We can rebuild him

[orasio]

That's interesting. I wonder instead whether not invading countries that pose absolutely no threat to us is cheaper than proper body and vehicle armor. But that's just me... Oh wait, it's not. It's a majority of the American people.


Sadly, it's probably not cheaper.
The US need to defend their foreign interests, if they want to keep the stability of their economy.
I had read about that here in Latin America, and now I saw a reference to this guy, Ron Paul, that makes the point of why the US needs to sped all that money overseas http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr02 1506.htm

Where it will lead to:

[Rob Simpson]

A handsome young Cyborg named Ace,
Wooed women at every base,
But once ladies glanced at
His special enhancement
They vanished with nary a trace.

-Barracks Graffiti
Sparta Command

Summary is a little optimisticly misleading

[onlysolution]

The summary makes it sound like prosthetics fused to the bone and controlled by the nervous impulses are here, but they certainly are not yet. Likewise haven't given superadvanced prosthetics to any wounded soliders yet either. As pointed out by the article, victims of the current war are not getting more advanced than advanced predictive prosthetics like the C-leg, which pretty much represent the latest in production prosthetic technology.
Don't get to excited yet people, prosthetics like the summary imagines are still a long ways off.

Re:Summary is a little optimisticly misleading

[PrayingWolf]

Its always like that: opium for the masses - keep us dreaming and from causing trouble - and not feeling *so* bad about the war...
I mean we've all seen this: household robots, efficient energy production, flying cars, routine space-travel... where is all this?
- In our dreams only, put there by the ruling elite so that we could go on hoping and taking all this crap from their part for another day... and believing that *they* are really conserned with the well-being of the small individual.

Let's be real now, ok? There aren't going to be any "fully articulate prosthetic hands" - not in a hundred years.

Re:Summary is a little optimisticly misleading

[simon_orne]

The summary makes it sound like prosthetics fused to the bone and controlled by the nervous impulses are here, but they certainly are not yet.

Neither are they necessarily as distant as you might make it sound.

Don't get to excited yet people, prosthetics like the summary imagines are still a long ways off.

In terms of technological development, I do not perceive a few years as being a "long way off". There is a great deal of work, and funding dollars, being put into neural prostheses and direct brain interfaces, and significant advances are being made. It is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that devices like those described in the article might be realized within this decade. The DARPA program certainly is optimistic. Admittedly, I have not the experience to judge when this technology might become available to those in need (following clinical trials, product development, etc.), but it is my opinion that it is assured within the lifetime of most disabled veterans of the current war(s).

Re:Summary is a little optimisticly misleading

[smart_ass]

Re: The summary makes it sound like prosthetics fused to the bone and controlled by the nervous impulses are here, but they certainly are not yet.

That part is already available (at least experimentally). I work in the P&O (Prosthetics & Orthotics) field and have met a person with an ABOVE KNEE amputation who has had a prosthetic limb attached to teh bone for at least a couple years. Here however, the bigger issue is that the there are concerns about long term effects of fusing to the bone.

When using the traditional socket, if there is a problem you get early notice. If you fuse to the bone, and there is a problem, you run the risk of damaging the bone and having to amputate a little higher. It is available, but I would put it up there with breast implants ... seems like a good idea, but perhaps all the risks are not yet known.

Chips in the user's brain

[monkeySauce]

"Chips embedded in the user's brain will help command artificial-muscle-activated, touch-sensitive, fully articulating hands."

Hope they get the programming right on those chips!

Hey doc, sometimes when I'm typing with these artificial hands, I seem to get stuck in a loop! Is it true these are controlled by controlled by controlled by...

Maybe they should also embed a usb socket into the back of the user's head to allow firmware upgrades.

Re:Chips in the user's brain

[Shrithe]

The Braingate chips consist of a chip with fine filimants running to relevant portions of brain. They're implanted into a brain in a passive mode to begin with, in order to learn how to operate for that person before they're actually made useful. The user is instructed to think about doing something, and the pattern of brain activity associated with that is recorded by the chip so that when the chip is fully activated, it translates that brain pattern, whenever observed, into that action.

If you really need to fix something about the programming on the chip, it seems a lot more likely you'd want to reteach it how to operate rather than upgrade the firmware.

Re:Chips in the user's brain

[Gruthar]

Just don't upgrade to the 2.7 firmware, or you won't be able to run homebrew prosthetics.

NOOOOOooooo...!!!

[Xaroth]

It can't be! It's impossible!!!

    [Obligitory Star Wars]

Cost?

[leipzig3]

This sounds like great technology but what is this going to cost? An arm and a leg?

Thank you, I'll be here until Wednesday. Please tip your waitress.

How long until....

[Anonymous Coward]

No Luke, *I* am your father!

Nooooooooo!

The Mobile Infantry made me the man I am today.

[Cordath]

Obligatory Starship Troopers Quote.

Same old crappy editing

[jpetts]

and are controlled by controlled by the wearer's brain

Well, looks like the editors need prosthetic brains...

Good luck

[jhylkema]

getting your HMO to pay for one.

economies of scale

[nounderscores]

It can become cheap, once enough people go for it. I'm surprised at how many naysayers are on this forum, possibly conditioned to believe that spiderman villains are villainous because they didn't get their superpowers "naturally".

There may be benefits to complete prosthetic bodies which have capabilities superior to flesh and blood which would make limb regeneration a less preferred alternative.

In the article Jeffrey Morgan notes that students at Brown have pierced noses. Limbs and skins impervious to flame, cold, bullets and infection might be the next big thing in body modification. Also, if you break your leg, you can take it down to the shop and get it fixed while the mechanic loans you a courtesy leg to get around in.

As for concerns to losing your humanity, it's not who you are inside, but what you do that counts.

Finally, is it just me, or does everyone want to strap on a combination of the Hugh Herr Catapult and the german built Powerskip mechanical jumping boot and go street racing?

Re:economies of scale

[NickFortune]

I'm surprised at how many naysayers are on this forum, possibly conditioned to believe that spiderman villains are villainous because they didn't get their superpowers "naturally".

It's that Otto Octavius I blame. If he'd stop knocking over banks, and work to raise awareness of the potential benefits of his research, the cybernetics field would be a lot further forward, I feel.

There may be benefits to complete prosthetic bodies which have capabilities superior to flesh and blood

Are you sure you're not just a Cybus Industries shill? John Lumic's full body prosthesis process may look impressive, but there are a few bugs in the system I'd want to see addressed before I got myself upgraded. Although his airships are pretty cool.

As for concerns to losing your humanity, it's not who you are inside, but what you do that counts.

Never mind the loss of individuality, I'm waiting for a design that can withstand a little man stepping out of a blue box with a flashing light on top. Until he gets that problem licked, I really can't see any future for the design.

Re:economies of scale

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There may be benefits to complete prosthetic bodies...

JLike when that 45 year-old, overweight and balding guy who pretends to be a hot teenage chick with a tight ass and smokin' body on yahoo chat shows up to meet you in person, he actually will have the tight ass and smokin' body of a hot teenage chick.

Re:economies of scale

[hitmark]

hmm, that popsci article was interesting...

but i worry that comparing a prostetic attachment point to a piercing is a bit oversimplistic.

piercings and similar are just loops of outer skin, the body dont have to worry about exposing its insides if it fails to properly closing the "wound". therefor its simpler just to let the skin heal around the metal object.

still, im no doctor so this is just guesswork.

Re:economies of scale

[wideBlueSkies]

>>It can become cheap, once enough people go for it.

Um, yeah. Once enough people have their hands blown off, the price of the hardware will drop.

Wonderful......

Re:economies of scale

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry to burst the bubbles of you and other people here, but it really doesn't work well. Neural prostheses simply will not work for anything sophisticated and useful until it's possible to get enough electrodes connecting to few enough nerves, each, to actually parallel transmit a reasonable amount of information. The only exception in the sensory world is the auditory prostheses, where the depth of the implanted electrodes translates directly to the frequency stimulated, and where they're far enough apart to avoid cross-talk.

For other senses, or for controlling prosthetic limbs, the amount of noise filtering and poor resolution of the sensors prevents any but the grossest control of the system by the wearer: the classic Boston Arm experiment never worked well because there was no way to avoid the half-second delay of the necessary filtering to avoid false signals.

Re:economies of scale

[tehcyder]

students at Brown have pierced noses. Limbs and skins impervious to flame, cold, bullets and infection might be the next big thing in body modification

That is one hell of an impressive leap you just made. Don't worry about it being currently impossible.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[ozmanjusri]

1. Why does the same American government that sends soldiers to be permanently mutilated in Iraq refuse to allow the full range of stem cell research that could, one day, re-grow the limbs torn apart by pointless, wasteful war? Why should we condemn the mutilated soldiers to a life of crappy prosthetics?

Stem cell treatment would result in a one-off billable event which, while good for the soldier concerned, is not good for anyone else.
By contrast, prosthetics require continual maintenance and parts replacement. It's all very nice that the government supplies these latest and greatest prosthetics to their crippled soldiers, but without a commitment to lifetime support, they'll end up being an economic burden to their owners and an income stream for the manufacturer and maintainer.

2. More fundamentally, why does the American government send soldiers off to sacrifice their lives in Iraq when most Americans, including American politicians, refuse to make any sacrifice for the sake of that war? No one is sacrificing. Only the soldiers are sacrificing -- their lives.

The rest of the US _is_ making sacrifices, but you're defraying most of those sacrifices to the future. Since the war is being paid for by debt, it's more like a mortgage than a purchase agreement. The bright side of all this is that the money being spent is not vanishing. The bulk of that trillion dollars will go to to the contractors pbs opensecrets who are running the war for you.

It's probably best to visualise the Iraq war as a large siphon sucking wealth from you and your children's futures into the vaults of Bechtel, Fluor, Halliburton etc. The owners of those companies will then obviously ensure the money is spent wisely and fairly, to the benefit of all.

This just seems like a win for everyone!

[TomRitchford]

The soldiers get exciting new limbs instead of the boring old ones they had before.

The Iraqis get killed and get to get their country destroyed.

And we the taxpayers get to piss away a trillion dollars. Did you need that money? You would have just wasted it selfishly on yourself!

I guess the only people who lose are Halliburton because they actually have to do some work. No wonder they mark up all their services 100%, who can blame them? What patriots!

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the days that I wish I ruled the world, so I could have all liberals ejected into space. Oh well.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[TomRitchford]

Wow, such utterly driving wit! I am floored by your astonishing brilliance!

Please, please, tell me where you learned to write like that. And that astonishing, creative name: "itsdave". Wow. Just.... wow.

You know, I'll bet your name really is Dave! What a twist! How subtle!

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[Rayonic]

Are you saying that we should have cheaply carpet bombed the place, as opposed to using all these costly high-tech weapons?

And it seems a bit insensitive to lump all "Iraqis" together. Most Iraqis do support the new government, for example. And most terrorist organizations operating in Iraq are not run by Iraqis.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[TomRitchford]

What is this fixation that the approximately one-third of Americans who still support Bush have about killing the other two thirds?

You're already killing people all over the world. If you want to kill Americans, why not start with yourselves?

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[TomRitchford]

No, no -- let me explain.

In fact, I don't really think that soldiers are happier with their limbs blown off and replaced with prosthetics, no matter how good these prosthetics are. Nor do I really think that Iraqis or anyone else enjoys being killed and their country destroyed. Nor do I think that spending a trillion dollars -- that's one million million dollars -- to do all this was anything other than a bad idea.

This was intended as satire. I figured that it was so broad that no one could possibly take it seriously but....

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[Das Modell]

There's no real reason to think that most Iraqis support anything related to Western values.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[killjoe]

"Most Iraqis do support the new government, for example."

Interesting. How can we have fun with this simple statement. Let's see...

1) How do you know? Do you believe this because the US media told you?
2) Most Iraqis are shia. Most Iraqis belive in a shia controlled government. Is that good?
3) What does the approval rate of the current government have to do with US troops that are still in Iraq? Are you saying there is no difference between the govt of Iraq and the US troops?
4) Most Iraqis want the US troops out should we accept that majority rule?
5) Does the current Iraqi govt have any power to undo any of the orders bremmer wrote?
6) Does the current Iraqi govt have the power to arrest any american who walks up to any iraqi and shoots them in the head? Does it have to power any american who rape a young girl, kill her, and then burn her body to hide the evidence?
7) Can the current govt gain control over the oil wells?
8) If the answer to 5. 6 and 7 is no then what good is the current govt? What exactly are the iraqi people supporting anyway?

"And most terrorist organizations operating in Iraq are not run by Iraqis."

Well that's flat out false. Two seconds of googling ought to dig up at least one statement from the US military that says so. The only people who believe that are fox news and the people who watch it.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[oneiron]

Are you saying that we should have cheaply carpet bombed the place, as opposed to using all these costly high-tech weapons?

YES. That's exactly what I'm saying. "Precision" guided weapons and "Smart" Bombs have given our military a false sense of security in regards to attacking targets with a high risk of civilian casualties. In reality, the weapons are still highly unpredictable. Weapons, now, are required to strike within a circular area (CEP) of 13 meters to be considered accurate (as opposed to 3 meters in 1998). Even considering the fact that these weapons can miss their targets by up to 40 feet, only approximately 70% of the precision guided weapons used in the Iraq War can be considered "accurate." It is likely a large portion of that 70% still inflicted collateral damage.

In the Iraq War, up to 15,000 military combaants were killed in the face of up to 4,300 civilian noncombatant deaths. During the Desert Storm conflict, 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,500 civilians were killed. 68% of the munitions used in this war were precision-guided, compared with 6.5 % in 1991. I think these statistics speak for themselves.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[CodeBuster]

I think these statistics speak for themselves.

Unfortunately they fail to take into account that the fighting during the Desert Storm conflict took place mostly outside of the urban cities. It is not at all surprising that there were fewer civilians hanging around the iraqi tank battalions in the middle of the desert and thus fewer civilian casualities despite the fact that fewer precsision guided weapons were used in the first Gulf War. If you don't believe me then perhaps you would enjoy reading the first hand accounts of Gen. Fred Franks, with extensive battle maps, who commanded the armored spearhead of 7th corps into western Iraq across the desert from Saud Arabia as told in Into the Storm: A Study in Command.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[TomRitchford]

"In the Iraq War, up to 15,000 military combaants were killed in the face of up to 4,300 civilian noncombatant deaths. During the Desert Storm conflict, 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,500 civilians were killed. 68% of the munitions used in this war were precision-guided, compared with 6.5 % in 1991. I think these statistics speak for themselves."

4300 non-combatant deaths in the Iraq war? Where in world did you get that number?! President Bush himself said (in a speech on December 12, 2005) that there were 30,000 non-combatant casualties; other, less medacious sources estimate the true number is between two and four times as much as *that* but even that ultra-lowball number from Bush himself is *7* times your 4,300 figure.

Before correcting your numbers, you might also note that these two wars were utterly, utterly different. The Gulf War took weeks; the Iraq was is taking years. The Gulf War was a conventional war where two armies squared off against each other; the Iraq War has nearly entirely been a form of urban guerilla warfare.

Finally, perhaps you have forgotten, but the Iraqi people aren't supposed to be the enemy in this "war", at least so claims Bush. Carpet bombing innocent civilians who have done nothing to you is no way to win their hearts and minds.

Face it, everyone in the world warned the crazy murderous Republicans that invading Iraq would end up being a terrible mistake -- and it turned out to be a worse bloodbath than even our darkest fears. To claim we should have *started* by committing mass murder of innocents makes it clear that you are not entirely a sane human being. I pity your family and intimates.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[oneiron]

You do know that deaths and casualties are not the same thing, right?

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[TomRitchford]

President Bush admits there are 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq.

More on civilian deaths in Iraq here. Yes, I know the title says "Casualties" but it talks about deaths too.

Even the lowest number, 30,000, is more than all the people you've ever talked to in your life. The real number is probably around 100,000. That's like 30 9/11's, except that the population of Iraq is about one-tenth that of the US so proportionally it's really like 300 9/11's -- and also that there were very few casualties that weren't killed in 9/11 whereas there are at least two Iraqis seriously injured for each one killed.

There's this really good service called Google that lets you search for this sort of information on the internet so next time you can just look it up the information for yourself.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, the alternative to war is not "Iraq is Happy Fun Land". It's "Iraq is a fascist dictatorship".

Yes, there has been a lot of suffering and death on the part of Iraqis as well as US troops. But this has been the price of freedom.

Those who would trade a little safety and money for freedom deserve neither.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, check this out. 300,000 non-combatant civilian deaths in the Rape of Nanjing. That's a hundred 9/11's, or several Iraq wars. And it happened in less than six weeks.

If you think the Japanese were unusally brutal, then check out the Battle of Okinawa. Over 150,000 civilians dead -- more than the number of combatants killed on both sides. And there's plenty more where that came from.

The original point -- that precision bombing is much better than earlier methods of warfare -- still stands.

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[Mistah Blue]

You aren't funny. Whomever modded this funny needs to gain a little empathy!

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[WilliamSChips]

"The Pilgrims of Grannus may be greatly reduced in numbers, but they are more fanatical than ever. You'd have to be to be worshipping a dead god."

Re:This just seems like a win for everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about supporting Bush. Its about the fact that you energize the enemy with your anti-american shit. I agree with the first poster, but instead of ejecting the american liberals, I'd simply force them to have their medical issues taken care of with some really cruddy national healthcare system (That way they suffer). After reading Slashdot (and Salon.com, NYT, etc) I'm thoroughly convinced that 95% of liberals are direct evidence of the Darwinian missing link. Its ok, you idiots will extinct your sub-species through abortions over the years anyways. Until then, we'll simply have to put up with it.

Mixed Tense Confusion

[fbg111]

Note to editors, keep your tenses consistent. The headline and abstract use both present and future tense, and without reading the article I can't tell whether these technologies are actually in use now, or will be in the future. It seems like just a few months ago that monkeys were controlling robotic arms with just their brainwaves, has technology advanced so quickly that we can now physically and neurologically integrate electronic machines with people? The article confuses that crucial point.

"U.S. Soldiers Recipients of Newest Prosthetic Technologies
The next generation of naturalistic and touch-sensitive artificial limbs are being worn by U.S. Soldiers. Instead of the old velcro strap and cup these new models are fused directly to the bone and are controlled by the wearer's brain. From the article: 'Future prosthetic arms will fuse to existing bone, eliminating the need for awkward attachment systems. These more naturalistic limbs will use bionic nerves attached to natural nerves to send and receive signals from the brain. Chips embedded in the user's brain will help command artificial-muscle-activated, touch-sensitive, fully articulating hands.'"

Re:Mixed Tense Confusion

[brarrr]

You must be new here.

Re:Mixed Tense Confusion

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

This is /. There is no such thing as a crucial point in any article. The articles are an excuse to write semi-humouristic mutterings. In essence this is the same principle behind the Playboy articles.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Khaed]

Why does the same American government that sends soldiers to be permanently mutilated in Iraq refuse to allow the full range of stem cell research that could, one day, re-grow the limbs torn apart by pointless, wasteful war?

There is no ban. There simply is no federal funding.

More fundamentally, why does the American government send soldiers off to sacrifice their lives in Iraq when most Americans, including American politicians, refuse to make any sacrifice for the sake of that war?

What, are all 300 million of us supposed to pack up and go to Iraq? Because that would seriously drain their already limited resources. This is World War II, there aren't tons of shortages. Was FDR supposed to get machine gun mounts on his wheelchair? Lincoln didn't fight in the Civil War, his sons didn't fight. I'm not trying to compare the Iraq war to these, but rather point out: Politicians rarely sacrifice. War or not. We're in debt but they still vote themselves a raise. Like they need it.

When the average American refuses to support a surcharge on gasoline (to bring its cost to $4.00 per gallon) to pay for the bloody war in Iraq, why the hell should Washington insist that soldiers sacrifice their lives?

What the hell are you on about? I've never heard anything of this. I certainly don't recall that being put forth to a nation wide vote. And Soldiers signed up knowing they could get sent to war. You can't just sign up for the college money.

In World War II, the entire nation sacrificed for the just cause of the war effort. Clearly, we have no just cause in Iraq. Nearly no one supports the Iraq War.

That is just stupid. I can't even begin to explain why comparing sacrifice that was needed for the effort to sacrifice that isn't is a dumbass argument. How about this comparison: More soldiers died in one day of fighting for an island in the Pacific Ocean in World War 2 than have died in Iraq in three years. More soldiers died at Normandy than have died in about ten years. Almost half a million American soldiers died in World War II. In Iraq, it's around 2500.

Most of those are killed by sneaky bastards with IEDs, not Germans and Japanese who are in uniform and readily identify themselves.

Tell that about "no just cause" to the Iraqis who are allowed to vote without being afraid of their families sent to Saddam's rape rooms if they don't vote for Saddam.

We should count most Republicans in the "no one" category. Most Republicans also refuse to support a surcharge to pay for the war. Their mouth says, "I support the war." However, their wallet says, "I oppose the war." Their wallet tells the truth.

This, again, is a load of shit. You're using a very broad stroke. Imagine if I said "Most liberals hate our troops because they villify them for the actions of a few."

Or all those celebrities who said they didn't need the tax break -- hell, why don't they give all that money to charity?

Well, hell. I guess broad strokes are what the extreme left paint with, because that's what happens. Five or ten marines in Haditha, five or ten soldiers in Abu Ghraib, and suddenly 100,000+ soldiers are all evil child killing rapist monsters.

As opposed to the wonderful "Minute Men" who fight said soldiers (Michael Moore's words). The "evolutionaries" (Moore again) who will blow up children just to kill one soldier.

For all your talk, you don't even have the balls to post with an actual account. I guess you don't REALLY want to oppose the war, because you won't use your slashdot account and risk karma. I wonder -- the military votes strongly Republican and so do military families. I guess Republicans ARE sacrificing, and more than just money.

I'm not saying there aren't mistakes in Iraq, and I'm not saying it's going hunky dory. There have been fuck ups. But it's going a damn sight better than a lot of people realize. Talk to someone who has actually been there -- Michael Yon, perhaps.

The army has be

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Rayonic]

refuse to allow the full range of stem cell research

No kind of stem cell research is blocked. Just a certain type doesn't recieve federal (as opposed to state) funding. This is due to some controversy over a philosophical question.

More fundamentally, why does the American government send soldiers off to sacrifice their lives in Iraq when most Americans, including American politicians, refuse to make any sacrifice for the sake of that war? No one is sacrificing. Only the soldiers are sacrificing -- their lives.

Huh? The war is being paid for, either directly or through loans. There are also many organizations through which citizens send care packages (and other such stuff) to soldiers. This isn't World War II where most of the nation's industrial output was redirected to the war effort.

Or are you saying that we should send people other than soldiers to fight in wars?

the average American refuses to support a surcharge on gasoline (to bring its cost to $4.00 per gallon) to pay for the bloody war in Iraq

Perhaps taxes should be raised to pay down the national debt, but why put a surcharge on gasoline? The price of gas pretty directly affects the economy. Cheaper gas fuels a better economy, and thus more tax revenue from existing taxes.

And referring to the Gulf War as "bloody" is a bit historically myopic. It is quite possibly the most bloodless and humane large-scale war ever waged.

Mod parent up

[funpet]

It's been a while since I saw a good joke on slashdot. It must be controlled by controlled by humorless people.

Re:Mod parent up

[tehcyder]

Good luck, I think that's a bit subtle.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, should've previewed. Above it should say "this ISN'T World War II" not "this is." And "re-enlistment goals." It's late, I've had a long week, still should've previewed.

Phantom Limbs?

[gareth.fletcher]

It will be interesting to see a study on the brain plasticity of amputees fitted with these new prosthetics, similar to those done on the adult auditory map of hearing impaired patients (e.g. after sudden unilateral hearing loss).

Do the phantom sensations, usually experienced by amputees, disappear after these C-legs have been fitted?

Do some of you /.'ers listen to yourselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet many inventions and innovation were made for peaceful purposes in times of peace.

Care to list any sources or examples of technologies? Or are you just seeing the world through rose-coloured leftist spectacles? I see you've been modded up pandering to /. left-leaning thought without any facts.

During the Pax Romana there was a lively exchange of culture and technologies within the borders.

Again, which technologies? You realise the Roman peace only lasted two hundred years right? And that most of the time that peace was done forcibly i.e. there really wasn't any peace - just a form of police state within the borders of Rome.

Same thing happened for some time in the Mongolian empire - a person could travel from Europe to China by horse with no worries of being mugged.

What the hell are you talking about? This comment completely lacks historical context. Whom could travel from Europe to China? Depending upon who you were could mean instant death. The Mongols weren't exactly friendly and neither were some of the Arabic civilizations.

Re:Do some of you /.'ers listen to yourselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to list any sources or examples of technologies?

Since there is always war or the promise of war, that is a pretty nonsensical request. You can view war itself as arising because of social units large enough to go to war, and those social units themselves are possible because of technology.

Greed, intellectual curiosity, and ego have been at least as important to the development of technology as war has been. Math is the fundamental technology, and arose to solve problems of land ownership. The need for comerce and exploration has been the driver of materials science, optics, genetics, and so on. War has been the essential driver of communication technology in the last century, but the foundations were plainly visible and driven by business.

I really think the importance of war to the development of technology is strongly overstated.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[itsdave]

right on. if I had mod points I would be modding parent up.

I just want to point two things out. in abu ghraib, there were charges filed, and also there were convictions, two things we have yet to see for anything that may have happened in haditha.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. The highly ethical chinese government is funding lots of research on embryonic stem cells. They'll get stem cell therapy figured out, and will be able to treat our patriotic servicemen.

nanotech soldier protection

[TimothyTimothyTimoth]

This is interesting: http://web.mit.edu/isn/aboutisn/index.html

Especially the ISN video.

Yes why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why not just let those imperialistic fuckers rot in some hospital bed?"

Here's a serious question for idiot leftist /.'ers whose hatred of America and it's current government matches that of idiot right wingers hatred of Islam and yourself:

What are you leftist /.'ers actually doing, apart from complaining and bitching, to make things better?

Seriously, left-leaning ideological /.'ers have turned this place into an anti-american soapbox that mirrors the intense hatred of sites like LGF and FreeRepublic, but I have yet to see any of you do anything about it. Where is the organisation for making things better? Where is the supposed open source community (you know, works in the open) spirit applied to political community?

All I see is bullshit statements like your own with little action.

This place is really beginning to stink.

Re:Yes why not?

[XchristX]

I wish there were more Americans like you. I'd mod you up if I had any points left.

Re:Yes why not?

[RealCow]

It's called the Free State Project I've already joined and gotten many other people to do the same. I've also joined the ACLU, NORML, and a couple of other organizations that I know better than to talk about in public. Sheesh, what more do you want?

Re:Yes why not?

[BGraves]

There is a far more serious problem with the comment, and that is blaming Soldiers for the war. If Soldiers were responsible for the war, then that would imply that they had control over the Army, instead of civilians. I am not talking about individual actions within the war, but the war itself. As soon as Soldiers begin questioning civilian oversight, then we are on the way to a military dictatorship. Also, remember that this president was elected by the widest margin in 12 years after he started the war, so everyone in in America bears some responsibility for Iraq, regardless of how you feel about it now.

Re:Yes why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't ironic that you are doing the exact same thing you are condeming? Yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black?

What have you done to improve your country? What are you doing besides trying to provoke and divide others with your post? What else is the use of all these mean-spirited political idioms, ment nothing more than to dehumanize the people you speak of?

I have yet to see any of you do anything about it

How are you any better? What are you doing about it? You're rather self-centered, thinking that becase YOU haven't seen something, don't know something, that that something doesn't exist. The world doesn't revolve around you.

If you think nothing is happening, then you are obvious not searching for or involved with what is going on. Rather like an armchair-general, aren't you.

This place is really beginning to stink.

And your deffication is somehow improving on it? How closed-minded are you? Isn't it typical that the things you don't understand or agree with, 'stink'?

Re:Yes why not?

[Geminii]

Well, some of us voted the Democrats into office in 2000.

Re:Yes why not?

[vertinox]

What are you leftist /.'ers actually doing, apart from complaining and bitching, to make things better?

I'm not a leftist or a righty (maybe you could call me a moral leftist and a righty economist... oh I guess that is a Libertarian), but I donate regularly to The Singularity Institute because if friendly StrongAI can't solve all the worlds problems, I don't know what will.

Here is a good quote on the matter.

"Because if you want to end poverty around the world, and you send $10,000 to the Singularity Institute, this will have an enormously greater impact on the quest to end poverty than sending the same money to CARE. Not that CARE is a bad organization, just that the current distribution of efforts is not the rational one. CARE is day-to-day operations, SIAI is R&D. Spending 0.0001% of your resources on R&D is called "eating your seed corn". Achieving the Singularity is the most efficient means to achieving all the ends stated in your question. It is not a competing end; it is a more efficient, more highly leveraged method, one which also achieves other important goals such as removing the current upper bound on intelligence. Besides, I know of no realistic way to end involuntary pain and death, which was among the goals you listed, except a Singularity, You can either tackle these goals one at a time, in a way which is already being tried by thousands or millions of people, and multi-billion-dollar foundations, or you can try something which is new, more effective, more leveraged, and currently underfunded."

-Eliezer

Re:Yes why not?

[WilliamSChips]

friendly StrongAI can't solve all the worlds problems, I don't know what will.

Replacing humans with AI. Just make sure it isn't M$-run.

militar cyborgs?

[Anonymous Coward]

uhm... quite interesting those militar cyborgs, will they be the future soldiers?

Thy Name is Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Khaed (544779) wrote, " What, are all 300 million of us supposed to pack up and go to Iraq? Because that would seriously drain their already limited resources. This is World War II, there aren't tons of shortages. Was FDR supposed to get machine gun mounts on his wheelchair? Lincoln didn't fight in the Civil War, his sons didn't fight. I'm not trying to compare the Iraq war to these, but rather point out: Politicians rarely sacrifice. War or not. We're in debt but they still vote themselves a raise. Like they need it. "

Khaed evades the point: if we order our soldiers to sacrifice their lives in a war, then we should be willing to make sacrifices like paying a surchage on gasoline to finance the war effort. Khaed then takes this point and creates a strawman, suggesting that all of us should go to Iraq to fight.

Allow me to repeat myself. No one is sacrificing anything for this war. Borrowing money from China is not making a sacrifice.

The point is particularly true with the Republicans. They say, "I support a war in Iraq." However, the Republicans oppose making any sacrifices for this war. They want the soldiers to make all the sacrifices: 2500 dead soldiers and tens of thousands of seriously wounded soldiers.

If the majority of Americans are unwilling to make any sacrifice to wage a war, then the majority should not order a minority of Americans to risk their life to conduct that war. The concept is fairly. Anyone who says, "I support the war in Iraq", but who refuses to make any sacrifice to support that war is an arrogant hypocrite.

Re:Thy Name is Hypocrisy

[Khaed]

Khaed evades the point: if we order our soldiers to sacrifice their lives in a war, then we should be willing to make sacrifices like paying a surchage on gasoline to finance the war effort. Khaed then takes this point and creates a strawman, suggesting that all of us should go to Iraq to fight.

Um. Dude, you just pulled the gas surcharge thing out of your ass. And you chose gas specifically because of the hysteria around gas prices. I don't guess that qualifies as a "straw man" but it does qualify, to me, as "making shit up." If you can do it, I can make fun of it by suggesting we all go to Iraq.

Anyone who says, "I support the war in Iraq", but who refuses to make any sacrifice to support that war is an arrogant hypocrite.

There are no sacrifices needed. That's the point. There's no shortage of anything (except bullets, sort of). The only thing that's really still killing soldiers in Iraq: Assholes planting IEDs along patrol routes, and then coming out with AKs.

Re:Thy Name is Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no sacrifices needed. That's the point. There's no shortage of anything (except bullets, sort of). The only thing that's really still killing soldiers in Iraq: Assholes planting IEDs along patrol routes, and then coming out with AKs.

You give every indication of being somewhat slow mentally, so I'll spell this out clearly for you. The war is very, very costly. Trillions of dollars in war expenditures do not come free. Somebody is going to have to sacrifice to pay for this war. So far, "borrow and spend" Republicans have chosen to defer that sacrifice rather than deal with it now. If these so called Republicans were true fiscal conservates, they would demand that we take steps to pay for the war NOW. Whether that means cutting services (gee, a sacrifice) and/or raising taxes (gee, another sacrifice), they would do it. I fear that I waste my time explaining this to you, though, because you are such a closed minded fool.

Feedback more important than control

[DavidV]

I lost my left hand, severed below the elbow. I have been keeping an eye on advances prosthetics but thought it would be very difficult for me to control as my hand feels like it's in a fixed position so it would be hard to coordinate the output of my nerves without any feedback. The big advance talked about here is the signal coming back to the brain to make the limb feel like part of the person rather than something just hanging off, which is what prosthetics feel like to me. I have one but I never use it for this reason. Bring on the feedback!

Re:Feedback more important than control

[ForestGrump]

Forgive me if I seem blunt, but how do you type then? Do you have a special keyboard and such? What about driving a car or tying a shoe lace?

Re:Feedback more important than control

[Anonymous Coward]

>
> how do you type then?
>

You can type with one hand (note you can still type faster than most people), when there is no keyboard shortcut with keys too far away from each other. For these, if you have a prosthesis or anything with at least one narrow end, you are ok.

>
> What about driving a car
>

If you have a prosthesis (even very basical, you just have to be able to push and pull things), you might be able to drive a normal car (I don't know anything about the law, though).

Otherwise, an adapted command system for the car might be developped... commands which don't have you let go the steering wheel, otherwise you surely won't be authorized to drive on public roads... you might command things with your mouth or what is left of your arm (head and eyes won't do, as this will disturb your field of vision; legs and feets are already used)... brain signals are possible, if the system always works. I don't know if all this exist for cars, but it shouldn't be too hard to build (again, I don't know anything about the law regarding this problem).

>
> tying a shoe lace?
>

Well, try it yourself. With just a bit of training, it is as easy with one hand, than with two. Otherwise, you have velcro and other systems (like some sport shoes have a wheel to tighten the laces).

If you are a bit curious, try things yourself. Taking a shower in a pitch black bathroom (or just moving around in your house at night, without the lights on -preparing some food and eating in a complete darkness is quite interesting). Doing things with only one hand (keeping your other hand in your back, or just letting your arm hang), or even without hands... Doing things with one eye closed (over a few hours, otherwise you won't feel much -after this, change which eye is open, to test is this is different).

Try doing things while making yourself smaller (fold your legs a bit) or taller (for this, just don't allow yourself to easily bend forward).

There is a lot of things to test. You will see accessibility and usability in a brand new way.

(Caution: Be careful when you try things you are not used to... like walking in a complete darkness... do it slowly and calmly)

Re:Feedback more important than control

[ocelotbob]

If you've ever been without the use of your hand for a period of time due to an injury, you pretty quickly learn how to do without that limb. Yeah, it's not as easy as having two hands, but you adapt. One handed typing is more than possible, pretty much half the slashdotters do it nightly ;3.

If you thought Quake 4 was unreal....

[KodePhreak]

The future of all things Strogg? Will they be implanting cybernetic brains and chain guns next??? :O

Slashdot community --- Check yourself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this can't be what Slashdot has become.

I click on "read more" and hope to find some +insightful and/or +interesting articles on the prosthetics being developed and distributed. I expect to hear discussions about what these limbs can and cannot do, and what the technology holds for the future.

And what are the majority of +insightful and +interesting responses about?

Politics and armchair-POTUS talk. Responses that range from war intertwining with scientific progress (no, really?) to blatant attacks based on U.S. policy and actions with no mention of what the article is about!

THIS is what you as a community find insightful and interesting? The same old Iraq is a mistake talk? What's wrong, are the non-technology, politically focused forums too busy? Are your comments for or against the war getting lost in the fast moving shuffle, where your newly reworded, same old content spiel goes to the 4th page in 3 minutes?

Damnit people, talk about the ARTICLE. Don't use "U.S. Soldier", "military", and/or "government" to go off on tangents that, if we were being objective, should be marked Off-Topic at best, or more appropriately for some, outright Trolling.

Now let's get back to being nerds instead of Capitol Hill interns!

(Cue the Capitol Hill intern jokes...but only if you include talk about prosthetic limbs, and no, not those kinds of prosthetics!)

Re:Slashdot community --- Check yourself!

[chphilli]

Damn - I can't believe I spent all my mod points yesterday. This is one I really wish I could mod up!

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[layingMantis]

a couple of points: true there's no federal funding for further stem cell lines, and that's because Bush and his cronies are bible-thumping jackasses - or at least pretending to be bible-thumping jackasses because someone is paying them off. This is the same President who selects his science advisors based on political leanings instead of science.

Tell that about "no just cause" to the Iraqis who are allowed to vote without being afraid of their families sent to Saddam's rape rooms if they don't vote for Saddam.

>the END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. you should've learned this when you but a boy. There's a lot of injustice in the world out there. Clearly LYING about invading a sovereign country is not justified by the fact that that country does bad stuff. It's a matter of principle, not to mention our (former) credibility to the rest of the world.

Well, hell. I guess broad strokes are what the extreme left paint with

>Irony called. It says it's sorry you missed it.

For all your talk, you don't even have the balls to post with an actual account. I guess you don't REALLY want to oppose the war, because you won't use your slashdot account and risk karma.

>really just quite stupid. did you notice that his post is +5?

the military votes strongly Republican and so do military families. I guess Republicans ARE sacrificing, and more than just money.

>a complete non-sequitur.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[BrainInAJar]

Five or ten marines in Haditha, five or ten soldiers in Abu Ghraib, and suddenly 100,000+ soldiers are all evil child killing rapist monsters.

I, for one, don't villify them for the 20 or 30 bad apples. I villify them because their job is to kill people. They kill people for money.

If their victims weren't brown, we'd gas them, but since they wear a flag on their shoulder, we give them a medal.

Let me repeat: THEY KILL PEOPLE FOR MONEY

I don't know how that's such an easy thing to accept for some people, but as far as I'm concerned, 2500 deaths aren't enough, those murderers deserve everything they get...

And DIe...U Shall.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those fighting unjust wars while standing on the Geneva convention will, and deserve to die!

Evolution

[Sky Cry]

Sadly, nothing drives evolution like death.

When we go off to war...

[rune-bare-rune]

... why do we always send the poor?

Re:When we go off to war...

[Wdomburg]

Funny, I thought we sent people who voluntarily signed up for military service these days. Must have just missed the press gangs.

Re:When we go off to war...

[Anonymous Coward]

They sign up because they're poor and not often exceptional. If they want any help with college, they sign up. If they want a way out of working in a factory, they sign up. If they want a way to afford children, they sign up. If you want to know why more poor people end up in the military than wealthy people (though they make appearances as NCOs) it mirrors the rest of society. There aren't that many overly rich people to even be in the military, so that most of their children opt to live lives of luxury rather than dodge mortars should come as little surprise.

It's funny though that you want to make it more voluntary than it is. It's voluntary in the sense that a life making $12k/y at McDonald's seems worse than possibly dying in a foreign land by the hands of people you know nothing about, or even worse, by your own troops. That's some real choice there, bub.

Re:When we go off to war...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a) it's a volunteer army. b) People do not willingly sign up to be killed, hence there are incentives, and such incentives appeal to the less well-off.

iow, if you were mildly wealthy, say a 100 grand at age 22 or making 30 grand a year, and you volunteered to go to war, people like you would turn around and say that person was a dimwit.

So the middle-class and rich don't. Making you seem like a dimwit for asking your question.

The alternative is forced enlistment. A draft. Impressment. iow, force people to go. Your choice.

To be truthful and clear too, we *always* send the rich too. And the middle-class. It ends to be disproportionately the less off that are in a volunteer army. But that is, after all, why it's a volunteer army--it's the incentives that draw
them in, and a college grant or tuition pay off is more likely to attract a poor person than a middle-class or rich individual who has the immediate option of paying their education off.

Even so, a poor person how equal, if not more, opportunity to get student loans (given their parents income would not come into the equation). So what it really boils down to is that it's not the poor really, but those with fewer options, which include the poor and those with less of a future at their then state in our society.

Re:When we go off to war...

[Dun Malg]

If you want to know why more poor people end up in the military than wealthy people (though they make appearances as NCOs)

I somehow find it hard to believe the words of someoneone speaking about the composition of the military when they don't understand the difference between a Non-Commissioned Officer, a po' person who starts as a private and works his way up through the ranks to Sergeant, and a commissioned officer, usually a "wealthy" (prnounce that "middle class") college graduate.
Very, very few people join the military without actually realizing that they may end up getting shot at or shooting at people. Hell, avoiding direct combat is generally as easy as joining the Navy or Air Force! They all get the same bennies. People who join the marines or army know what they're signing up for. I know. I was one of them. Six years in the Army and I never once met anyone who thought it was just a shortcut to college tuition. Those people join the Air Force.
Look, I know you have a big hard-on to paint the modern volunteer military with the old conscription brush that was relevant 30+ years ago, but it just ain't that way anymore. No one is being forced to join. Poor people join the military because it pays? So what. Poor people work in mines or in construction for the same reasons. Poor people have always done the dangerous jobs for the payoff, for the simple reason that rich folks don't need the money.

Techies must see whole picture including organic

[Abrax]

All you people think it's so cool to do all this but we still are grappling with how the cell phone might disturb the brain and cause cancer. We are going to hook up all this electronic gear to our bodies? We need to go fully mechanical or forget it. Once we can do that no more death and destruction and crime, and we can live like were all inside of a Sony megastore. ILife

Incompatible!

[payndz]

Delete! Delete! Delete!

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Ihlosi]

We couldn't care less about what you think.

So why do you waste two more paragraphs on lashing out at him, huh ?

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it was fun.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[ehkz]

Did Iraq ever have the capability of launching weapons from there land to hit US soil? Iran may soon have nukes, but do they have the capabilities of launching them to US soil? North Korea may already have nukes and is trying to demonstrate there capabilities of launching missiles that can hit US soil.

see??? They really do care

[MrSoundAndVision]

Man...at the cutting edge so to speak.

Anyone want to place bets...

[mizukami]

Anyone want to place bets on what year the first voluntary replacement of a limb with a prosthetic (as an upgrade) will take place?

Re:Anyone want to place bets...

[vertinox]

I'd guess 2020-30ish. Depends if they find a really clean way of doing this.

No is going to get a prosthetic body from a local "chop shop" if they are going to get really bad infections at the spots its tied to their flesh and bone.

Re:Anyone want to place bets...

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be wrong ... several people in the 'body modification' crowd have already had amputations amongst other things.

The world of art...

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[BlindFate]

Surcharge = bad. With gas prices already rising its hard for alot of people to get back and forth to work daily. I know in the city we have bus lines, taxis, trains, ect, but out in rural areas people have to be able to drive in to work. Their pay isnt rising and the rising gas prices are making them poorer than they already are. I have an idea, how about we dont give out massive tax cuts during a war. That seems like it'll help

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

...

You're a moron.

Do you think soldiers enjoy killing? I don't know anyone who enlisted specifically to kill people, everyone I know in the military joined to serve and protect their country.

Do you despise vietnam vetrans? How about WWII vetrans? They killed people for money too.

It sickens me that our Soldiers are prepared to die to protect the freedoms of people like you.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[wideBlueSkies]

>>I, for one, don't villify them for the 20 or 30 bad apples. I villify them because their job is to kill people. They kill people for money.

No, a soldier's job is to protect the interests of your government. By force if needed.

If you don't like what they are doing, then complain to the government. Don't blame the soldiers themselves..they're brave people who signed up to protect our way of life, including your freedom to write stupid shit.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[zuluechopapa]

They're more machine then man (men) now. Twisted and e-vil.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[dlZ]

Surcharge = bad. With gas prices already rising its hard for alot of people to get back and forth to work daily. I know in the city we have bus lines, taxis, trains, ect, but out in rural areas people have to be able to drive in to work. Their pay isnt rising and the rising gas prices are making them poorer than they already are. I have an idea, how about we dont give out massive tax cuts during a war. That seems like it'll help

It's not just small rural communities that don't have access to decent public transportation. I live in Syracuse, NY, which may not be NYC, but we aren't a small rural community. And without a car I wouldn't be able to get to work on many days, or would have a 4 hour commute, most of it spent waiting for a transfer. Yes, we have buses, but the cost of gas has made them cut back on routes. This in turn generates less money, because now about the only place to get easily on the bus is from our main shopping mail to our downtown area and back (and now even that has a few hour wait during much of the day.) So they cut back more, less routes, you get the picture.

I've done my best to get a car that is affordable for me that gets decent gas mileage. You won't see me driving some gas guzzling SUV, I'd rather stick with my 95 Accord and it's 4 banger engine. And before some raises the hybrid / bio-diesel argument, I can't currently afford one. I'm a small business owner and we're still pretty new (3 years in October) and I just bought my first house. 27 MPG on average with a car that I can maintain myself isn't too shabby (now if it didn't decide to start rusting, but that's Central NY for you.)

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Khaed]

I'm not going to respond to the Bush/science thing because I don't support Bush's stance on stem cells. I was simply pointing something out.

Clearly LYING about invading a sovereign country is not justified by the fact that that country does bad stuff.

False. If you go back and read the things said about invading Iraq, Bush never solely said it was WMD -- only the media did. I'm not saying it was bias, but rather that was their "omg teh drama" story (see: Scott Peterson, the occasional Pretty Kidnapped Girl stories). He mentioned a few other reasons -- including helping Iraqis.

Irony called. It says it's sorry you missed it.

I think you're missing something. I'm very specifically talking about those who paint all of our soldiers, or all Republicans, based on a few. I did not say "All Democrats." I said extreme left, meaning the people like the AC.

really just quite stupid. did you notice that his post is +5?

So why does he have to post anon?

a complete non-sequitur.

And "because we're not paying $4 for gas, people don't support the war" isn't?

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Khaed]

This is going to cost me karma, but I have to post this, and I'm not doing it anon. I just don't care:

You're a douche bag.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[BlindFate]

I was just using rural areas as an example because thats where im spending my vacation, but you're right, alot of people have long commutes too. Could you afford 4 dollars a gallon?

read the f*** history book

[nephridium]

Care to list any sources or examples of technologies? Or are you just seeing the world through rose-coloured leftist spectacles? I see you've been modded up pandering to /. left-leaning thought without any facts.

I was under the impression anyone with a bit of education could think about one or another example and my statement could stand by itself. I'll throw you a rope here. Let's go through some significant inventions of human kind.

Script was created to convey thoughts and stories to other people. Sure it was used for military purposes as well (as almost any invention), but the main goal was communication, which by itself is rather 'peaceful'. Lets see, the wheel - used in war to enable armies to use chariots before they could employ horseback riding. But a long time before that it helped humans with agriculture. What else.. paper in the form of papyrus was invented at least 5000 years ago in Egypt, the paper we know today was invented by the Chinese around 100 AD. As for the motivations for inventing it: in both cases just have a look at its earliest uses; there is not much evidence suggesting people killed each other with paper... Not even black powder was used for military purposes until 100-200 years after its invention and even then it was primarily used for firecrackers etc. It was only later when Arabs managed to refine it that it was used more broadly for warfare. Archimedes invented a screw to pump water, the Romans invented extensive aqueducts for peaceful means. How about nuclear power? It was Einstein ("I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan."), that made it possible at all to harness its power in order to create a destructive weapon such as the A-bomb. Fortunately, after seeing the horrors these bombs could do, we nowadays use nuclear energy mainly in the constructive way Einstein would have liked to see. What about the research and inventions in the fields of Medicine or Gene technology today? Afaik it is funded by companies that want to have more resilient tomatoes or faster growing crops. I can see people throwing huge tomatoes at each other, but I would hardly call it effective warfare.

We could also take all sorts of everyday (maybe less significant) items to illustrate that war is not the only motivation for innovation and inventions, such as musical instruments, the microscope, solar panels, vacuum cleaners, soap, cigars, DVDs, the jump-to-conclusions mat and Soylent Green. (Ok ok, I know what you're thinking - DVDs aren't technically a real innovation..)

Whom could travel from Europe to China?

Well maybe a guy like Marco Polo, or how about all the merchants that traveled on the silk street to Karakorum evidenced by the technologies that were exchanged between Europe and Asia at that time.

Btw, 200 years seem pretty long to me, that's several generations of humans who lived in peace. Which is more than most nations nowadays could claim. As for the Romans - the way they achieved peace doesn't interfere with the fact that they did achieve peace.

When the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life. (Einstein, before the bombs were dropped)

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

I think some soldiers do just sign up for the money/thrill. And in that way they do kill for money, when they get that kind of assignment.
While money/thrill (sh)could be a consideration in joining the army, the morality of what you are going to be ordered to do should be too. So, morally you should only join the army if you trust the army not to order anything immoral from your point of view. Ofcourse in todays world we do need soldiers, but that isn't really a point since the USA got plenty.

I Seriously doubt wether its moral to join the USA's army/navy/airforce, simply because it uses 50% of the budget! This is a ridiculous amount. Not to even speak about the intrusive recruitment methods i've heard about the army uses, its relations with corporations.
government ->army -> contracts with corperations -> lobyists, money for political campaigns->politics ->government
How i wonder how the militairy budget got to 50% ?? (bleh this is old news)

I am from the Netherlands and i wish the dutch army was "joinable" (not that i would), but they just send a division for some bunker-sitting in Afghanistan, which is totally useless. I am not sure, maybe we should go there despite the fact that its hard to change things there. (try anyway)

the health-care system isn't the problem

[r00t]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you probably believe the government should take care of you. Where care is mandated or the patient can't shop for a good price, I might agree with that. You're not in a position to discuss alternatives if you have a cracked skull and bleeding brain. Other than that though...

Our problems do not come from a "failure" to socialize medicine. When I was up in Canada, the news was that brain scanners were mostly going to places with powerful politicians. Quebec got an unfair share. Money was disappearing for political reasons. The well-off Canadians commonly go to the US for care, despite having already paid for Canadian care. Over in the UK, people are being sent to France for surgery because they'd die on the waiting lists if they didn't go. Here in the USA we install brain scanners (lots of them too) where there will be patients and we don't die on waiting lists for anything other than an organ transplant -- and that only because we made it illegal to pay the dead person's estate.

Our real problems are:

• We invent new technology, expect to use it, and expect that costs won't rise. Huh? We're expecting to get more for less. That only works for computer hardware. (in a socialist medicine system, quotas and delaying tactics are used to fight this problem)
• The attitude is "I'll pay anything to save my dying children!". We then act all offended that the hospital bill heads toward infinity. Since death is common (100% of your children will die!) you can expect to pay until you can pay no more or until we run out of technology to sell you. (as above, socialist systems deny you this choice)
• Simple economics is causing all service industries to be relatively more expensive. The factory worker is now more productive because he has huge machines. The high-tech worker is absurdly productive because he only produces digital data which is trivial to replicate. The hospital worker, like the college professor, is not getting such huge productivity increases. Widgets and software can be sold cheaply while still paying the workers well, but hospital services can not be made cheap while paying the workers well. Because everything is relative, hospital costs skyrocket.
• Over in India, patients have a very limited ability to sue for malpractice and pain and suffering and... Medicine is cheap there. Over here, some doctors must pay millions of dollars per year for malpractice insurance. That means you pay. You also pay for unnessesary tests and other procedures caused by a cover-your-ass mentality that has taken hold. This is particulary true of caesarean births, which are dangerous and were once rare. Before a jury, it looks good to have done more intervention.
• Our health insurance is too good at insulating us from the costs of various procedures. We don't shop around for a good deal. We then pay high rates because the money ultimately comes from us. When I lacked insurance, I was very careful to demand prices over the phone from multiple providers. Now I just have my $20 co-pay, so why should I care? The price is the same for me no matter where I go. I pick the fancy place on an expensive downtown lot!

Some of these problems are not really solvable. Economics is what it is, people like new technology, and nobody wants to see their little children die. The lawyers have some mighty lobbiests, but a change would at least be theoretically possible. The same goes for the co-pay insurance system, which could be replaced by a sliding scale or percentage system. (example insurance fix: the patient's payment must increase by at least 10 cents for every dollar of the treatment cost up to "$200 for $2000", then by 1 cent per dollar thereafter)

Re:the health-care system isn't the problem

[vandan]

We invent new technology, expect to use it, and expect that costs won't rise. Huh? We're expecting to get more for less.

That's because the research is private research towards private property ( patents ). Make all research public - ie open-source medical research, and this problem will disappear. This arguement also smacks of the 'user-pays' notion. User-pays is great for luxury goods, but for necessities such as health and education, access should be universal, which means free ( as there are always some people who are unable to pay ). So this means we need a combination of open-source medical knowledge, with large subsidies from the government to keep the system going. The altervative is the sitation where only the rich can afford medical care, which is patently absurd, and outright evil.

The attitude is "I'll pay anything to save my dying children!". We then act all offended that the hospital bill heads toward infinity.

Well people are saying the wrong thing. Sure - parents would pay anything to save their dying children if they had to. But they shouldn't have to. This is what society is about - people working together to smooth out the irregularities of life, so that everyone achieves a better life. Some people will suffer bad luck and will be subsided. Some people will enjoy good luck. But society flattens this out - that's what it's about. The common misconception is that to make this work, everyone has to suffer a decreased standard of living. The reality is that we ALL suffer a decreased standard of living, as we are ALL paying dearly for the excessive standard of living of the ruling class ( the top 1% who own 99% of the wealth ). Tax the Christ out of them, and there will be plenty of health care to go around.

Over in India, patients have a very limited ability to sue for malpractice and pain and suffering and... Medicine is cheap there. Over here, some doctors must pay millions of dollars per year for malpractice insurance.

That's the fault of your legal system and 'me first' society. Stop suing everyone, who don't you?

With health care ( as with everything ) society must decide:

- how much of the product is produced
- how it is to be distributed

So. Decide to produce enough health care for population, and then decide to distribute it fairly. In my books, 'fairly' means that whoever needs health care gets it, no matter how much money they or their parents have. As for who's going to pay for it, similary, those who can afford to pay, should pay. Clearly those who can't afford to pay, can't. If you want to investigate these issues further, you must start asking the question: why is it that some people have so much, while others have so little?

Re:the health-care system isn't the problem

[r00t]

Private research towards private property isn't bad. It gets things done. The reality is that many things would never get funded by the US government. Look at anything involving embryos. We do have the problem of public research toward private property: the government pays, but the patent is not opened to all taxpayers.

The "We invent new technology, expect to use it, and expect that costs won't rise." comment was not intended to refer to patents. Your idea collapses outside of intellectual property. We expect to have physical devices and advanced procedures. Patent or no patent, getting an artificial heart isn't going to be cheap.

It's no misconception that "free" healthcare is rationed health care. Our economy is simply unable to provide all the health care that we would like to consume. We can not possibly produce enough doctors. You also act as if you've never heard of terms like "government work", "designed by the lowest bidder", and "government corruption".

As for "Stop suing everyone", well, at least we didn't elect the politician who was supported by the trial lawyer's association. We could have made things even worse!

Some people must have so much because our economy is driven by the incentive to have so much. Others have so little because they are wasteful and foolish, and because our economy is driven by the incentive to avoid having so little. Nobody would scrub toilets if they didn't have to do so; the icky jobs would all go undone if people got the bare essentials for free.

why we go to India

[r00t]

It's cheap to have your surgery there because you're opting out of the opportunity to win MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by suing your doctor over some trivial imperfection caused by non-malicious human error.

It's not the US health care system that is our real mess. It's our legal system.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[eheldreth]

I think you are missing a fundamental part of the puzle. Even if some one does support the war it is unlikely they would sacrafise anything to help. Modern america is full of people who don't understand the concept of self sacrafice. That is not to say those people do not exist, they most certanly do. It is just to say they are becoming more and more rare.

the schools

[r00t]

We spend lots more money than many nations who are doing better than us. Clearly, lack of money is not the problem.

We have a teacher's union that makes it impossible to reward the good teachers with better pay or job security. We do salary and layoffs according to seniority.

When we get money, we buy better athletic equipment. We also buy computers that get broken, go unused, or are used to play "educational" games. Really, what do you expect more money to buy us?

For older students: We are generally unable to kick an unruly student out of school. The parents will raise a stink at the school board meeting or concoct some sort of bogus lawsuit.

For younger students: We can basically never kick out a young student. Many states no longer allow spanking, yet still expect the teacher to keep the student in the classroom while teaching.

Kids are coming from families that are falling apart. Of course these students will misbehave.

Liability has made science labs go extinct. You'd have to wear a haz-mat suit to dissolve sodium chloride in dihydrogen monoxide. Probably it goes against God's intent anyway.

Money isn't going to fix any of this.

energy

[r00t]

Seeing as the Kyoto protocol excludes China and India, signing it would just make us export more pollution-causing industry over there. (Not In My Backyard) I'm sure those countries will care deeply about the environment... yeah right.

We can go longer than 10 years on nuclear even if we keep being stupid. Alternately, we could... get this one... look for more fuel! That's right. We haven't even been looking for fuel.

Then there is the matter of using waste. Buring our "waste" in Yucca Mountain is terrible. Our "waste" is full of fuel. We don't reprocess it because President Carter issued an order to prevent it. If we reprocess, then we look like hypocrites when we demand other countries to not reprocess. Reprocessing is one path to making bomb-grade materials, particularly plutonium. We just need to get over this inhibition; it's not as if Iran and North Korea care anyway. With reprocessing, we have lots of good fuel.

Even the crummy waste is useful. As long as it gives off heat, we can use it to generate energy.

Re:energy

[jrumney]

Seeing as the Kyoto protocol excludes China and India, signing it would just make us export more pollution-causing industry over there. (Not In My Backyard) I'm sure those countries will care deeply about the environment... yeah right.

China and India have both demonstrated that they do care deeply about the environment, by reducing their carbon emissions despite not yet being bound by the Kyoto Protocol. What has the US done?

Re:energy

[vandan]

Seeing as the Kyoto protocol excludes China and India, signing it would just make us export more pollution-causing industry over there. (Not In My Backyard) I'm sure those countries will care deeply about the environment... yeah right.

Both these countries have taken concrete steps to reduce their emmisions. Even if they hadn't the old "nah, but everyone else is doing it" arguement is immature and will get us nowhere.

With reprocessing, we have lots of good fuel.

I just responded to another comment along the same lines. People seem to think that uranium is some kind of perpetual motion device, that they can put into a 'reprocessing' plant, and extract ever more energy. You can't. You have to inject huge amounts of energy each time you reprocess the fuel. It's a net energy sink. Reprocessing is only useful for making weapons, where you need 99% pure uranium. Apart from being a net energy sink, and it's only use being in making nuclear weapons, it also irradiates yet more matter. People who argue for alternatives to fossil fuel on the basis of protecting the environment, and in the same breath argue for nuclear technology, are either deluded or extremely dishonest.

Re:energy

[r00t]

Wow. Perhaps you need some learning, but I've been suspecting a troll.

Plutonium makes great reactor fuel.
Reactors like 100% pure uranium, as do weapons.
Reactors can use weapons-grade fuel.

You don't even need a reactor to use the "waste".
As long as it gives off heat, you can boil water
(or some other liquid) to drive a turbine.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[zippthorne]

END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. you should've learned this when you but a boy. There's a lot of injustice in the world out there. Clearly LYING about invading a sovereign country is not justified by the fact that that country does bad stuff. It's a matter of principle, not to mention our (former) credibility to the rest of the world.

Now think about that compared to your first statement regarding stem cell lines. Many people, probably a majority of Americans in fact, believe that the act of harvesting embryonic stem cells involves the deliberate killing of a human being. For them, the (currently dubious) end of maybe solving certain disabilities and other things does not justify the act needed to get there. They would prefer that the act didn't take place at all, and it goes without saying that they definately don't want to pay to support it. So should we force the issue and force them to pay for it? especially considering the more tangeable and immediatly realizeable results from adult stem cells?

If you say yes, we should force them to, should we also provide, at taxpayer expense, a leather jacket or fur coat to everyone who doesn't have at least one of those? It would certainly improve their lives at the small cost of thousands of animals. But wait! There is a small but vocal minority shouting that "Fur is murder." should we ignore them just to improve the lives of the uncool?

When they kill for money/country?

[Anonymous Coward]

You stop being human when you become proud to drop bombs on someone who is just "the enemy". When you stop caring or thinking about the lives you are ending.

landmines

[r00t]

Treaties are ignored by the evil, and unneeded for the good. Look, it's not as if we bury landmines all over the place. Our policy:

a. all mine fields are marked
b. all mine fields are guarded (we shoot people who try to cross)
c. we are switching to mines that can defuse themselves

This is pretty much all about the Korean DMZ. People aren't dying over there because they damn well know that there are mines and people with guns. You might even get shot before you step on a mine. In some ways, this is a rather humane border: unlike the US-Mexican border where people get lost and die out in a desert, almost nobody is dumb enough to try crossing the Korean border. You can't die from a border crossing which you never attempt.

Re:landmines

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't die from a border crossing which you never attempt.

Sure you can. You can easily die due to poverty while staying on your side of the border.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Millenniumman]

They do not kill people for money. They protect this country from people who would seek to harm us. Sometimes that involves lethal force. And your little hint at them being racist is incorrect. We do pay them for protecting our country, as #1 they can't have a day job while they are fighting to protect our country #2 They deserve compensation for what they are doing. Without the military, we would have none of the rights and freedoms which we cherish. You would probably be enslaved or killed if your military was not protecting you. It seems hypocritical to me that you talk of how bad the military is while relying on them for your protection.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Millenniumman]

1. Some stem cell research has moral issues. Is it okay to kill an undeveloped human being to help another one? Many people think not, and as such federal grants are not given to all forms of stem cell research.

2. What sacrifices? The military has a lot of money. The soldiers are not dying because they are underfunded. It is hard to occupy an area with murderous insurgents willing to die.

I may not fully support the war, but it is not pointless. We liberated people from a dictator who had murdered many of them. We stopped weapons programs. We broke up major terrorist cells.

When the facts aren't there, make 'em up!

[HardCase]

That's why the most common reason why people are put in gaol ( jail for Yanks ) is for non-payment of medical bills.

Nobody goes to jail in the US for non-payment of bills. I'd ask you for a citation to back your statistic up, but there's no need since it's completely made up.

-h-

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Millenniumman]

It is NOT immoral to join the military. Without it, we would not be free.

The military does not use 50% of the budget. Did you just make that up, or is their some kind of mathematics where 500/2800 = 1/2 ?

And in the US, the military is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government. With our "free stuff if you vote for me" politicians, I can understand how that would be unapparent.

There probably is some corruption in defense contracting, but it is nowhere near as wasteful as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Re:This wouldn't be necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Print this out.
      Write "But not in yhe U.S.A. !" in large red capitals on ther letterhead.
      Keep it with you.
      Take it out and read it once again every 3-5 years.
      Look around.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Millenniumman (924859) wrote, "2. What sacrifices? The military has a lot of money."

This writer must be a total moron in failing to understand the point: If the majority of Americans support sending a minority (i.e., the soldiers) of Americans to die in the Iraq War, then the majority should be expected to make sacrifices for this war as well.

Borrowing money from Beijing to fund the war effort in Iraq does not count as a sacrifice. The sacrifice that should be expected is taxing (e.g., a surcharge on gasoline) the American public in order to pay for this war. However, most Americans oppose making any economic sacrifice to support the war effort: hence, Washington is using deficit spending to finance the war effort, which is supported by Beijing buying American government bonds.

Most Republicans also refuse to make any sacrifice in support of this war. These Republicans want "the other guy" to make the sacifice by risking his life on the battlefield.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[cuantar]

Free from, err... what, again? Most loss of freedom comes about from government intrusion into private affairs. Thanks to our military, that could never happen in this country, right?

Sorry, no offense intended. I just can't stand the way people insist that the military is upholding "freedom" and "liberty" for those of us at home by fighting a war overseas in a country that has nothing to do with my freedom, while at the same time we keep hearing about government data mining and domestic spying on citizens.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[dlZ]

I was just using rural areas as an example because thats where im spending my vacation, but you're right, alot of people have long commutes too. Could you afford 4 dollars a gallon?

$4.00 a gallon would be a little hard, but I'm already paying close to $3.00, and it was even higher at one point. I'd be able to afford it, I would just drive less on weekends. The house we just bought is also in an area that has things to do and actually has community events. I'd get a bike for weekends (I planned on buying a new one, anyways. Last one was stolen when I let a buddy borrow it that didn't have a car at the time.) While $4.00 a gallon is quite a bit, it's not not impossible to afford (at least for my family.) But then, there are just two of us and no children yet, so we don't have the fun of soccer practice or whatever the kids get involved in.

I think the largest problem where I live with public transportation is that my farthest client is a bit under a 30 minutes drive. My shop is about 15 minutes away (this is my current location. My new place will be about 10 minutes closer to both.) By bus my shop is a 2 hour bus ride (counting waiting for a transfer) and the client only has 2 buses that go out there all day (and they're at odd times, like 10:12a and 3:12p.) With buses around here you have to go to the downtown area and transfer normally, even if you're just going back in the same direction to a slightly different part of the same side of town. The wait can be bad, too, especially if you need to bus out to the "suburbs." A two hour wait for a bus isn't really realistic when you have someplace to be.

Sorry if the reply seems a little disjointed, I was in the middle of it and had to run out for some errands and just sort of picked up where I left off.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[AvitarX]

We stopped weapons programs in the early 90's and kept them stopped with tactical bombing and missiles (then occupation). The only major terror cells broken up in Iraq were the ones we created when we invaded.

The military may have the money, but not the logistics. People were without enough vehicle armor for months and months, perhaps the money was there to buy/install it, but it doesn't make things any better.

How many 9/11's will we inflict on our country to eliminate someone who was not even involved?

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get you facts straight before you mouth off.
The government didn't ban or block stem cell research. The only thing it did was block federal funding for stem cell research where the stem cells are harvested from a particular source. That source being aborted fetuses. All other sources of stem cells are still valid for possible government research.
The ban on federal funding for fetal stem cells is based on the desire to not create a market for what a significant percentage of Americans consider to be murder. This is a philosophical and ethical concern rather than a legal one, since abortion in the US is legal. As much as many of us would like for it to be different, ethical and philosophical concerns affect our government policies and laws. This is true no matter which side of the fence (conservative or liberal) you fall on.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Millenniumman]

The military protects our country from being invaded or attacked. Hitler/Stalin/etc. would take away our rights far faster than our government.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

When the average American refuses to support a surcharge on gasoline (to bring its cost to $4.00 per gallon) to pay for the bloody war in Iraq, why the hell should Washington insist that soldiers sacrifice their lives?

• They're soldiers - that's what they do.
• I don't support a surcharge in gas (wtf?) because I want the war to just end. GWB fucked up bigtime, so let's stop the bleeding.

Re:I for one..

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Cyberlimbs, wired reflexes, datajacks and cyberdecks.

Screw that - I'll be a physical adept.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[aled]

False. If you go back and read the things said about invading Iraq, Bush never solely said it was WMD -- only the media did.

Wrong. Read the 2003 State of the Union speech by GWB himself. One reference to freedom, many to threats, weapons and disarm. Truly an enlightment read, after a few years perspective. I wonder why nobody seem to recall what Bush government has to say in the past about Iraq and how it changed over time. The war was with Eastasia or Eurasia? I don't seem to remember...

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[dbcad7]

First off, I support having a military, I was in the military once myself. I also have no quarrels with the troops unlucky enough to be serving in Iraq right now. I feel for them.
However you need to get with reality.. Iraqis are not and were not a threat to America. Basicly what country is ?? really ? none. Terrorist groups existed before 9/11 and will exist after we leave Iraq. If I got together a group of people and attacked Poland, it would be a bit extreme of Poland to invade the US, but even stranger if they invaded Canada since that is not where my hypothetical group is from.

What this is doing to us, here in the US, is not making it safer.. get real. We are making more enemies. Sure we have created a battle ground in Iraq, where the crazies can come and fight their jihad, but is that eliminating their cause or giving it more growth ? For every non-American that dies over in Iraq there are family and freinds behind the scenes that will to remember it. Revenge begats revenge.. It's an extremely difficult cycle to stop once you've started.. think about that.

P.S. .. My apologies to Poland

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stem cell research could have also bennifited the hearing impaired instead we have hearing aids and Cocolear implants that destroy the hearing more.

We do not allow the stem cell research becuase Congress is controlled by bible belt biddies.
Get rid of them then you have the fear mongers of how this tech could be misused. Clones controled by the government not being given the same rights as you and I etc. Metahumans, super soldiers and more.

Imagine the world where congressmen are cloned. You would never get rid of them then.
Imagine the horror there.

What's proper?

[raehl]

I wonder if proper body and vehicle armor is cheaper than prosthetics, multiple surgeries, psychological counseling, and a lifetime of subsequent health problems.

You seem to be blaming the military for not providing proper equipment. While this may have been true early in the war when some people had no armor at all, presently, it's more a case of an age-old military problem: The more armor you put on something, the slower it gets, and the more likely it is to break down.

You can load up a humvee with tons more armor, but then it gets slower, and it's also more likely to break down and not be able to move at all. You can give a soldier more armor, but he won't be able to move as fast, and will tire out much more rapidly.

There is a point where more armor is worse than less armor, and our soldiers are probably operating at about that point.

(But I agree that everyone would be better off, and by everyone I mean Iraqi's, american soldiers who wouldn't be dead/maimed, and other americans who wouldn't be shouldered with a half trillion dollars in debt for future generations to pay off. Even in a cold economic sense, Iraq was a very bad investment.)

Re:I for one..

[nephridium]

Oh come on - how was this a troll? I'm just friggin worried.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[TheDugong]

"It is NOT immoral to join the military. Without it, we would not be free."

1) Are you really free?

2) If there were no soldiers*, who would take away your freedom?

*this includes anyone who uses force, for themselves or as a proxy, to assert their will over anyone else.

please leave soon

[misanthrope101]

You might argue that this means we should set the bastards free, but... NO FUCKING WAY

If you want a police state, please move to Saudi Arabia. Please do not turn my country into a police state where government can keep anyone in jail forever without charging them. I LIKE freedom. The number of people killed in 9/11, though tragic, does not warrant making my nation into a totalitarian regime. I mean, hell, that many people die every MONTH in vehicle collisions. 20,000+ people a year die of THE FLU! So no, I don't consider terrorism a sufficiently worrisome problem that I'm willing to empower the government to jail anyone, for any length of time, without having to meet any evidentiary or due process standards. That's a basic safeguard of freedom. Without it, there's precious little to protect anymore. So if you're a totalitarian, fine, I respect that, but please move to a nation that isn't free, so you can feel totally secure, rather than enthusiastically trying to erode what freedom we have left here. Thanks.

To get one of those...

[Anonymous Coward]

you're gonna have to sell an arm and a leg.

one page version of TFA

[mojine]

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/printerfriendly/medic ine/34f7cd8e5620c010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[sjames]

If we wanted efficiency, we could have offered a one billion dollar bounty for the confirmed capture or kill of any high level Iraqi official. The whole lot would have been less expensive than the war has been so far, and the only people in danger would have been truly willing to face the risk. Consider how many people in the world WOULD be willing to face the danger to life and limb involved in capturing Saddam for a cool billion dollars.

Spending

[sjames]

Of course, if we just spent a small fraction of what the Iraq war has cost us so far on prostetics development and basic research, we would already HAVE the future tech they're talking about in the article. Of course, if we had a reasonable healthcare system here, I wouldn't still be seeing amputees getting around on crutches or in a second hand wheelchair because they can't afford prostetics.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[Millenniumman]

I said nothing about the war in Iraq. Re-read my post and the post I replied to.

My take on it

[Just Some Guy]

He seems to think that consciousness itself is a sort of soul, and once humans are entirely machine--which he thinks is coming fairly soon--we will still be "human".

I recently read The Singularity Is Near and gave a lot of thought to exactly that subject. Kurzweil makes a very strong case for the idea that there will be a robot me filling my role 100 years from now, and I'm pretty interested in whether that entity will actually be me, or a simulacra that kisses my wife (or her simulacra) goodnight each evening.

His thoughts mixed randomly with mine:

Our neurons die and reshape themselves constantly - such is life. The only truly enduring part of our brains are the patterns that exist in them. Science is making rapid progress in nanotechnology. Suppose that a perfect "robotic" neuron replacement is created, and that they are slowly infused into us over time. A neuron dies; it gets replaced with silicon (or whatever). Now, this process would be exceedingly gradual, but at some point you'd reach the stage at which your mental patterns were running on silicon more than on grey matter. The only difference would be in the physical process supporting those patterns, not the patterns themselves. You would never have experienced a discontinuity in your "self".

Would you still be you? I'm personally satisfied that yes, you would be. More specifically, I'm satisfied that I would still be me.

Re:Better Question: Washington's Hypcrisy?

[dbcad7]

No, you said the milittary was protecting us. I was pointing out that the war in Iraq (a military action) was not doing this. If I implied that you had any opinion about the war Iraq either pro or con, it was not my intention. Those are MY opinions in relation to Iraq, and our being "protected". And again, I say that I am all for having the military which should be used a little more wisely than it currently is.

My rantings are nothing against you, ok ?

peace