There isn't really that much blood in the interperitoneal space (The area of your gut where the organs are.) The majority of the blood there is inside the organs, and if you take care while working on the actual organs, you really don't have to cut through many vessels and can properly suture them. Would make sense to me that they didn't expect to need blood.
Re:JW article on Bloodless Surgery
on
Bloodless Surgery
·
· Score: 4, Informative
While the "chop you up and sew you back together" paradigm may seem like it is out of greed on the part of the surgeons, decreasing surgery time does prevent many benefits to the patient as well. Simply having the surgery site open for less time would, in theory, lead to less complications due to blood loss, tissue oxidation and contamination. Surgical anaesthetics are not "good for you" and the less time spent on the table, the lower the risk from complications with these chemicals.
While a new refinery has not been made in the united states in the last 30 years, the production capacity of the existing ones has been puhed up and up. I have no idea what timeline we will run out of oil in (or rather experience a decline in total production in) but it will eventually happen. With China and India pushing their standards of living way up, that's a lot of oil that we're going to have to start competing for.
And no, we're not at the peak of oil production YET. I mean, considering inflation the US price per gallon of gasoline isn't significantly more than it was in the early 80's, once you count for inflation. But it will happen.
It's not so much that the oil fields will simply dry out in the near future. It's theorized that we will soon reach the point where the peak oil production economically allowed begins to diminish. Once that starts happening, there will be drastic economic consequences, such as the cheap energy that is currently the fundamental enabling source of our entire world economy will no longer be cheap. Peak oil is a real potential problem, although the author is a bit, ahem, overenthusiastic about exactly how much of a problem it will be.
Those Romans with their sempers and there ubis and there sububis. You want a proper language? Give me classical greek. Or better yet ancient sumerian. You know what? I'll be happy if I can just find a stick to point with while grunting enthusiastically.
MTBE? Not likely any more. Almost every municipality that I know of has switched to ethanol, about 10%. Just about every car built after about 1990 is designed with this in mind, so efficiency and engine life are not much of a concern. Yes, there is a retooling issue. I recall statistics saying this could add up to about 2-3 cents a gallon. Any additional price a gallon is either a)pure greed on the part of the petrocorps, b)lack of planning or c)the result of natural fluctuations in the price of petroleum due to people driving more in the summer.
Solar - Not cheap, PV panels are doped with heavy metals and quite toxic. Solar reflector arrays very difficult to maintain.
Hydro - large environmental impact, we are curently using a very high percentage of good hydro sources
Wind - Not nearly as green as proponents claim, expensive, very NIMBY prone.
Todal - Only appropriate in certain areas.
Bio-Fuels - I have high hopes for this, but low expectations that it will actually be able to power us large scale. Will probably prove well under very specific sets of circumstances and with particular feedstocks, especially using waste materials: Used frier grease, disposal of diseased plant material, slaughterhouse offal, sewage and manure.
Nuclear - Not cheap once waste disposal and accident mitigation is included. Will probably end up being the energy replacement for petroleum... it's either that or go back to coal.
Under certain circumstances all of the above can be implemented quite effectively and cleanely. I think only nuclear has the ability to really replace oil in terms of the raw number of joules needed to power modern society. Maybe some wild new method to capture energy will be discovered which will solve all of our problems, but I'm not holding my breath. I feel that we will run out of petroleum, and that in a shorter time than most people think petroleum will simply no longer be considered a cost effective energy source. I like to put the date a little before 2013. (Note, I don't actually put any stock in that theory, but find it fun in the same way as the Easter Bunny or a tale told around a campfire.)
In addition, a chip can be trivially duplicated using information gathered from a distance, assuming there is sufficient knowlege of the inner workings of the scanning unit. Ironically, a duplicated chip could also be LESS invasive than the original, assuming the implanted spot is under clothing. Just tape the RFID chip to your skin or shirt sleeve. Even if the area is exposed it would probably be quite trivial to conceal something as tiny as an RFID chip with costume putty or something similar: when people refer to the chip being the size of a grain of rice, that is fairly misleading. The chip itself is much smaller, the grain of rice is primarilly the packaging around the chip which protects it and allows for attachment to muscle tissue.
The only way around the duplication loophole that I can forsee is something along the lines of including entangled state quantum mechanics, but AFAIK we are a long way from having the technology to make a device such as this in implantable size.
But you can take that pile of crap and use it to make good roses grow even better. It just takes a sunny spot, some patience and a little knowledge of how to work the soil.
Amen. Tetris or Lumines would probably never make a great video game. FPS? Not much chance. Survival horror? There is a possibility of making one into a decent game. I've heard things for and against the Resident Evil movies, etc. But to get a good movie, it would probably have to be based on a plot/character based movie with some sense of internal conflict. In the right hands, Prince of Persia: Two Thrones could translate into a decent movie. Myst under the direction of someone like David Lynch would be intense. If you take very liberal license with the franchise, Oregon Trail could be made into a powerful drama.
The problem with most franchise movies is that they are an attempt to cash in, not viewed as an opportunity to make a great film. Going from that, the producers/writers will not necesarilly choose an appropriate title to extend into film format, just a popular one.
A string of decent movies with Angelina Jolie came out in 1999... Girl Interrupted ("that chick flick,") Bone collector (Never saw it, but heard that it was decent enough) and Pushing Tin. And then there's Hackers... while not a good movie, definately entertaining.
Basically, she can act and has had good parts in movies, but any movie whose main draw is that Angelina Jolie's tits are in it... well, you can pretty much guaranty to fail. Pretty much the same for any movie where the main draw is that (acress X)'s tits are in it, unless the movie is full on pornography. But even that really doesn't draw as many people as a blockbuster would require, it's just that the people that are drawn to it are willing to pay a much higher price.
By so many people, you mean the part that aren't in the approximately ninety percent that almost exclusively use Microsoft products? People really don't care. Look how the DMCA and P
Patriot Act passed in The States without a bloody revolution or two.
Hell, you've got a mountain of pennies to pay them with. Just tell them they can take as many as they carry, but only if they tell you how many they took.
By the way... sorry about the comment. I guess I was in a particularilly bitter mood for a brief few moments. That bitterness turned into sarcasm. Yadda yadda. And apparantly, if you read my article and post you'll see that... my post was a karma whore based on the definitions I provided. Yes, I read the article. But missed a couple key points, so, well... might as well have not read it. So I fly off the handle with a sarcastic post... and what happens? Get moderated insightful!
So that post may have been uncalled for, but at least it is self fullfilling. Reminds me of the time that a kid in class called the teacher a "crazy old F***er." So the teacher gave him a detention with the reason "telling the truth." Don't know why that reminds me of it, but it's a good story anyways.
I actually don't think the ozone layer is as necessary for life on earth as many people think. Ozone is made when UV radiation or electricity (lightning strikes?) reacts with atmospheric oxygen. The levels of atmospheric oxygen were practically nill in the primordial soup days, and would not have come about untill the advent of photosynthesis. In order to undergo photosynthesis primitive photosynthetic cyanobacteria would have had to put themselves in direct line with solar radiation. If the particular frequencies blocked by ozone were all that deleterious to the algae, there would never have been enough oxygen built up in the atmosphere to convert into an ozone layer strong enough to do any significant good. More likely, most organisms are harmed by the particular frequencies blocked by the ozone layer because... the ozone layer has blocked those frequencies and so the organisms evolved in the absence of high levels or EM radiation at those frequencies. Formation of a blocking pigment or two to protect DNA from these particular frequencies would probably be trivial in the evolutionary long run.
I'll give you the magnetic protection, though. After all, my dad took a physics class from this guy at the University of Iowa. Any man who can fix a rocket with cans of orange juice knows what is going on.
1)The 22.5 degree off sun normal could trivially be minimized by launching at the right time of the year... The angle of the normal at the "launch the object to the sun" point should vary sinusly with the seasons. I imagine an annual launch window wouldn't be that difficult to work with.
2)Propulsion is potentially solvable by the very nature of the waste we are attempting to jettison. The radioactive waste could in theory be incorporated into a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator. This could be potentially be used to power the delivery vehicle, albeit slowly. It is not completely unreasonable to assume that we will have a device efficient enough to convert electricity into thrust by the time we have a space elevator constructed and tested enough to ensure safe lifting of the radioactive materials.
Then again, I guess that my part 2 would be easilly counterable by asking why would we shoot these materials at the sun to dispose of them if we can extract enough energy from them to do this? This could be a fairly inefficient process, and would probably show minimal gains as opposed to just using the materials for terrestrial and orbital power needs.
There's that, and the fact that the geniuses at chernobyl decided to test the limits of the reactor by running it at full power with little resistance, then pull out the control rods. Freaking brilliant if you ask me.
Not only that, but before there was life (specifically photosynthesis) there was no ozone layer, so more UV radiation would get through. I have heard conservationists go on about how fortunate it is that ozone blocks out portions of the UV spectrum which just happen to be dangerous to most life on earth. I doubt it's really luck that had anything to do with it, we just evolved with a lack of that spectrum so didn't have any pressure to evolve defenses against it. From my understanding it is pretty trivial to change the "tuning" of many organic pigments, simply add or remove a couple carbons along a side chain to alter the resonant frequency.
This tells me that if there is an all out nuclear war, life will find a way. It's just that people probably won't. By the way, when the statistic that "we have enough nuclear warheads to destroy the earth X times over" is pulled out, what that means is our nuclear arsenal is X times the capacity needed to render every major city in the world unihabitable to humans. it doesn't mean that we will sterilize the surface of the earth or crack it in half or whatever, even if they are all detonated at once. As with just about everything conservationists support, it's not so much that the dangers will kill all life on earth, it's just that there is a very high risk that for a while the earth will not be able to support any significant human population. So conservation is kindof a win-win scenario: If they are wrong, life will keep on going no matter what (or at least untill the sun burns out.) If they are right, then there are two possibilities: 1)conservationists manage to teach humanity to live in harmony (or at least balance) with nature, and we keep on going. 2)Humanity causes such large environmental stresses than most of the more complicated and higher food chain organisms can no longer survive. That means humans die out, and eventually nature will re-assert itself in a completely different manner. And to think that one type of organism doesn't have such power over the environment is fairly assinine: primitive photosynthesis was primarilly carried out by one type of blue-green algae (very similar to a chloroplast in modern plants.) The oxygen this organism created killed off most of the anaerobic life of the time. It also paved the way for new organisms to develop and thrive, in that collagen, the substance that binds cells together in any multicellular structure, requires atmospheric or water dissolved oxygen to be produced. Not that it is possible for some other substance to be produced that does the same thing, but collagen is extremely effective, and energetically cheap to produce.
I take movie reviews as restaraunt reviews. A greasy spoon will never break 2 stars, but you can still get a decent meal and a real cup of coffee there.
I don't know... the bit at the end of Doom that looked like a videogame was kinda neat. The rest of the movie was just something on the TV while I talked to my roomates and a couple of friends that happened to be over. Didn't expect great art from it, but sometimes some background stimulus like Doom is a good way to keep an eventing of hanging out a little more interesting. At least you can make fun of The Rock.
So... it's not okay to make a movie that is only really enjoyable if you have learned the basic story and world from playing the videogame, but it is okay to make a movie that is only enjoyable if you have learned the basic story and world from reading a comic book, watching other movies or seeing some old play?
While I can't think of any video games that I would classify as "high art" they are art nonetheless. And they have been a cultural phenomenon for a good while now, so it makes sense that people try to expand on the culture (or subculture... whatever) by taking the stories presented into a new medium. It's just that Uwe Boll has made a few stinkers which make people shy away from making a movie adaptation of a video game.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't really that much blood in the interperitoneal space (The area of your gut where the organs are.) The majority of the blood there is inside the organs, and if you take care while working on the actual organs, you really don't have to cut through many vessels and can properly suture them. Would make sense to me that they didn't expect to need blood.
While the "chop you up and sew you back together" paradigm may seem like it is out of greed on the part of the surgeons, decreasing surgery time does prevent many benefits to the patient as well. Simply having the surgery site open for less time would, in theory, lead to less complications due to blood loss, tissue oxidation and contamination. Surgical anaesthetics are not "good for you" and the less time spent on the table, the lower the risk from complications with these chemicals.
This just in: Playing Simpson's Road Rage causes lying among undergrads! VIDEO GAMES ARE EVIL!
While a new refinery has not been made in the united states in the last 30 years, the production capacity of the existing ones has been puhed up and up. I have no idea what timeline we will run out of oil in (or rather experience a decline in total production in) but it will eventually happen. With China and India pushing their standards of living way up, that's a lot of oil that we're going to have to start competing for.
And no, we're not at the peak of oil production YET. I mean, considering inflation the US price per gallon of gasoline isn't significantly more than it was in the early 80's, once you count for inflation. But it will happen.
It's not so much that the oil fields will simply dry out in the near future. It's theorized that we will soon reach the point where the peak oil production economically allowed begins to diminish. Once that starts happening, there will be drastic economic consequences, such as the cheap energy that is currently the fundamental enabling source of our entire world economy will no longer be cheap. Peak oil is a real potential problem, although the author is a bit, ahem, overenthusiastic about exactly how much of a problem it will be.
Those Romans with their sempers and there ubis and there sububis. You want a proper language? Give me classical greek. Or better yet ancient sumerian. You know what? I'll be happy if I can just find a stick to point with while grunting enthusiastically.
MTBE? Not likely any more. Almost every municipality that I know of has switched to ethanol, about 10%. Just about every car built after about 1990 is designed with this in mind, so efficiency and engine life are not much of a concern. Yes, there is a retooling issue. I recall statistics saying this could add up to about 2-3 cents a gallon. Any additional price a gallon is either a)pure greed on the part of the petrocorps, b)lack of planning or c)the result of natural fluctuations in the price of petroleum due to people driving more in the summer.
Solar - Not cheap, PV panels are doped with heavy metals and quite toxic. Solar reflector arrays very difficult to maintain.
Hydro - large environmental impact, we are curently using a very high percentage of good hydro sources
Wind - Not nearly as green as proponents claim, expensive, very NIMBY prone.
Todal - Only appropriate in certain areas.
Bio-Fuels - I have high hopes for this, but low expectations that it will actually be able to power us large scale. Will probably prove well under very specific sets of circumstances and with particular feedstocks, especially using waste materials: Used frier grease, disposal of diseased plant material, slaughterhouse offal, sewage and manure.
Nuclear - Not cheap once waste disposal and accident mitigation is included. Will probably end up being the energy replacement for petroleum... it's either that or go back to coal.
Under certain circumstances all of the above can be implemented quite effectively and cleanely. I think only nuclear has the ability to really replace oil in terms of the raw number of joules needed to power modern society. Maybe some wild new method to capture energy will be discovered which will solve all of our problems, but I'm not holding my breath. I feel that we will run out of petroleum, and that in a shorter time than most people think petroleum will simply no longer be considered a cost effective energy source. I like to put the date a little before 2013. (Note, I don't actually put any stock in that theory, but find it fun in the same way as the Easter Bunny or a tale told around a campfire.)
In addition, a chip can be trivially duplicated using information gathered from a distance, assuming there is sufficient knowlege of the inner workings of the scanning unit. Ironically, a duplicated chip could also be LESS invasive than the original, assuming the implanted spot is under clothing. Just tape the RFID chip to your skin or shirt sleeve. Even if the area is exposed it would probably be quite trivial to conceal something as tiny as an RFID chip with costume putty or something similar: when people refer to the chip being the size of a grain of rice, that is fairly misleading. The chip itself is much smaller, the grain of rice is primarilly the packaging around the chip which protects it and allows for attachment to muscle tissue.
The only way around the duplication loophole that I can forsee is something along the lines of including entangled state quantum mechanics, but AFAIK we are a long way from having the technology to make a device such as this in implantable size.
But you can take that pile of crap and use it to make good roses grow even better. It just takes a sunny spot, some patience and a little knowledge of how to work the soil.
Amen. Tetris or Lumines would probably never make a great video game. FPS? Not much chance. Survival horror? There is a possibility of making one into a decent game. I've heard things for and against the Resident Evil movies, etc. But to get a good movie, it would probably have to be based on a plot/character based movie with some sense of internal conflict. In the right hands, Prince of Persia: Two Thrones could translate into a decent movie. Myst under the direction of someone like David Lynch would be intense. If you take very liberal license with the franchise, Oregon Trail could be made into a powerful drama.
The problem with most franchise movies is that they are an attempt to cash in, not viewed as an opportunity to make a great film. Going from that, the producers/writers will not necesarilly choose an appropriate title to extend into film format, just a popular one.
A string of decent movies with Angelina Jolie came out in 1999... Girl Interrupted ("that chick flick,") Bone collector (Never saw it, but heard that it was decent enough) and Pushing Tin. And then there's Hackers... while not a good movie, definately entertaining.
Basically, she can act and has had good parts in movies, but any movie whose main draw is that Angelina Jolie's tits are in it... well, you can pretty much guaranty to fail. Pretty much the same for any movie where the main draw is that (acress X)'s tits are in it, unless the movie is full on pornography. But even that really doesn't draw as many people as a blockbuster would require, it's just that the people that are drawn to it are willing to pay a much higher price.
By so many people, you mean the part that aren't in the approximately ninety percent that almost exclusively use Microsoft products? People really don't care. Look how the DMCA and P Patriot Act passed in The States without a bloody revolution or two.
Alot of people eventually do the second thing... but it usually requires two weeks of notice.
Hell, you've got a mountain of pennies to pay them with. Just tell them they can take as many as they carry, but only if they tell you how many they took.
By the way... sorry about the comment. I guess I was in a particularilly bitter mood for a brief few moments. That bitterness turned into sarcasm. Yadda yadda. And apparantly, if you read my article and post you'll see that... my post was a karma whore based on the definitions I provided. Yes, I read the article. But missed a couple key points, so, well... might as well have not read it. So I fly off the handle with a sarcastic post... and what happens? Get moderated insightful!
So that post may have been uncalled for, but at least it is self fullfilling. Reminds me of the time that a kid in class called the teacher a "crazy old F***er." So the teacher gave him a detention with the reason "telling the truth." Don't know why that reminds me of it, but it's a good story anyways.
I actually don't think the ozone layer is as necessary for life on earth as many people think. Ozone is made when UV radiation or electricity (lightning strikes?) reacts with atmospheric oxygen. The levels of atmospheric oxygen were practically nill in the primordial soup days, and would not have come about untill the advent of photosynthesis. In order to undergo photosynthesis primitive photosynthetic cyanobacteria would have had to put themselves in direct line with solar radiation. If the particular frequencies blocked by ozone were all that deleterious to the algae, there would never have been enough oxygen built up in the atmosphere to convert into an ozone layer strong enough to do any significant good. More likely, most organisms are harmed by the particular frequencies blocked by the ozone layer because... the ozone layer has blocked those frequencies and so the organisms evolved in the absence of high levels or EM radiation at those frequencies. Formation of a blocking pigment or two to protect DNA from these particular frequencies would probably be trivial in the evolutionary long run.
I'll give you the magnetic protection, though. After all, my dad took a physics class from this guy at the University of Iowa. Any man who can fix a rocket with cans of orange juice knows what is going on.
1)The 22.5 degree off sun normal could trivially be minimized by launching at the right time of the year... The angle of the normal at the "launch the object to the sun" point should vary sinusly with the seasons. I imagine an annual launch window wouldn't be that difficult to work with.
2)Propulsion is potentially solvable by the very nature of the waste we are attempting to jettison. The radioactive waste could in theory be incorporated into a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator. This could be potentially be used to power the delivery vehicle, albeit slowly. It is not completely unreasonable to assume that we will have a device efficient enough to convert electricity into thrust by the time we have a space elevator constructed and tested enough to ensure safe lifting of the radioactive materials.
Then again, I guess that my part 2 would be easilly counterable by asking why would we shoot these materials at the sun to dispose of them if we can extract enough energy from them to do this? This could be a fairly inefficient process, and would probably show minimal gains as opposed to just using the materials for terrestrial and orbital power needs.
And anybody who works at a tanning salon in the month or two before spring break owe their jobs to one example of this effect.
There's that, and the fact that the geniuses at chernobyl decided to test the limits of the reactor by running it at full power with little resistance, then pull out the control rods. Freaking brilliant if you ask me.
But then they wouldn't get to make a post whining about all the low quality, offtopic comments. Sheez, that was obvious.
Not only that, but before there was life (specifically photosynthesis) there was no ozone layer, so more UV radiation would get through. I have heard conservationists go on about how fortunate it is that ozone blocks out portions of the UV spectrum which just happen to be dangerous to most life on earth. I doubt it's really luck that had anything to do with it, we just evolved with a lack of that spectrum so didn't have any pressure to evolve defenses against it. From my understanding it is pretty trivial to change the "tuning" of many organic pigments, simply add or remove a couple carbons along a side chain to alter the resonant frequency.
This tells me that if there is an all out nuclear war, life will find a way. It's just that people probably won't. By the way, when the statistic that "we have enough nuclear warheads to destroy the earth X times over" is pulled out, what that means is our nuclear arsenal is X times the capacity needed to render every major city in the world unihabitable to humans. it doesn't mean that we will sterilize the surface of the earth or crack it in half or whatever, even if they are all detonated at once. As with just about everything conservationists support, it's not so much that the dangers will kill all life on earth, it's just that there is a very high risk that for a while the earth will not be able to support any significant human population. So conservation is kindof a win-win scenario: If they are wrong, life will keep on going no matter what (or at least untill the sun burns out.) If they are right, then there are two possibilities: 1)conservationists manage to teach humanity to live in harmony (or at least balance) with nature, and we keep on going. 2)Humanity causes such large environmental stresses than most of the more complicated and higher food chain organisms can no longer survive. That means humans die out, and eventually nature will re-assert itself in a completely different manner. And to think that one type of organism doesn't have such power over the environment is fairly assinine: primitive photosynthesis was primarilly carried out by one type of blue-green algae (very similar to a chloroplast in modern plants.) The oxygen this organism created killed off most of the anaerobic life of the time. It also paved the way for new organisms to develop and thrive, in that collagen, the substance that binds cells together in any multicellular structure, requires atmospheric or water dissolved oxygen to be produced. Not that it is possible for some other substance to be produced that does the same thing, but collagen is extremely effective, and energetically cheap to produce.
I take movie reviews as restaraunt reviews. A greasy spoon will never break 2 stars, but you can still get a decent meal and a real cup of coffee there.
I don't know... the bit at the end of Doom that looked like a videogame was kinda neat. The rest of the movie was just something on the TV while I talked to my roomates and a couple of friends that happened to be over. Didn't expect great art from it, but sometimes some background stimulus like Doom is a good way to keep an eventing of hanging out a little more interesting. At least you can make fun of The Rock.
So... it's not okay to make a movie that is only really enjoyable if you have learned the basic story and world from playing the videogame, but it is okay to make a movie that is only enjoyable if you have learned the basic story and world from reading a comic book, watching other movies or seeing some old play?
While I can't think of any video games that I would classify as "high art" they are art nonetheless. And they have been a cultural phenomenon for a good while now, so it makes sense that people try to expand on the culture (or subculture... whatever) by taking the stories presented into a new medium. It's just that Uwe Boll has made a few stinkers which make people shy away from making a movie adaptation of a video game.