One biggie (as described in the white paper) is that the power cell would provide 60 days' worth of use before you need to "reload".
Little side benefit of this: unless you have the infrastructure for reloading/developing Polonium power cells, your stolen/black market rifle becomes a Very Expensive Paperweight.
I recently switched to one of these puppies, and their review is pretty much spot-on. It's one sweet machine. I take some issue with their characterization of the memory expansion limit, yes, it's only one slot, but as they note, it'll hold up to 4GB of RAM once the chips come out. That ain't bad for a laptop, and it makes it hard for me to hold the solitary expansion slot against Apple. It is, after all, a hella-small laptop we're talking about, here.
Second,while the machine does get "hot", I've gotta say, from a switcher's perspective, it isn't really -hot- hot. It's a pleasant wrist-warming feature compared to some of the scalders I've worked with on the PC side. On the downside, I can no longer locate my laptop by following the drone of the cooling fans.
Proper try before you buy shareware is fairly dead...Anyone know of a shareware site that lists crippleware as such, and not calling "X Lite" (where Lite means crippled) proper shareware when it's only a thinly veiled marketing release?
(shameless self-promotion mode)
There's always Jardinains!. Shareware in the old-school, send-me-a-donation-if-you-like-but-above-all-share-it-with-your-friends style. It's only a few months old, and even though it's a Breakout clone at heart, it's got a few new twists to keep things interesting. (Besides, isn't just about everything these days a clone of something else?)
I figured I wouldn't make any money off it (which has not been entirely true; about 1 out of every 10,000 downloads yields a donation.) The sheer good karma of making a program like this makes it worth the effort.
As far as sites, check out gamehippo.com. They maintain an excellent listing of truly freeware games, and have some nice features like user comments and ratings. Each game has an editor's review.
Re:Large companies are already adopting LCDs
on
LCD Overtaking CRT
·
· Score: 1
One other thing:
I worked in a large room near the top of a skyscraper for a few months, and virtually every screen in there was LCD.
The reason? Back when they had CRTs, the HVAC system couldn't keep the room cool. You put 50-100 CRTs in the same room, things get very warm, fast.
Maybe the real problem is that the elitists in America have forgotten that they owe their freedom to a war against another tyrant, George III.
Good sir,
Though he is indeed the third George to lead our fine and great nation since winning our independence from King What's-his-name the Umpteenth-or-whatever, most Americans still refer to him as "Dubya".
Alas, our war against George III [II] has yet to be won.
I'm not trolling, but isn't a spam filter enough? I, too, was burdened by spam. I'd get 100 per day, and was growing very frustrated. Last week I installed Spamassassin and the problem is gone. I still get a couple per day, but it's no longer a big deal. Am I a "best case scenario" for spam filters? Why wouldn't Taco just run spamassassin and be done with it?
What am I missing?
Bandwidth.
If you're filtering 100 messages per day, those messages are still making it all the way from the spammer's system to your mail server (or even your computer itself, depending on the type of filtering you use.) If each of the 1000 people who use your (relatively small) ISP get 100 messages a day, that's 100,000 pieces of spam a day. Seeing as a lot of spam now comes in easy-to-digest 48k and 123k attachment crapbombs, you're talking massive amounts--gigabytes and gigabytes--of spam that gets sent over your ISP's lines every day.
Filtering is, in many ways, a catalyst in the "spam eats up bandwidth" equation. Since you never need to deal with the mail, you're not nearly as likely to get up in arms about the mass of crap flowing over your network. You'll still pay for it though, in the form of higher access charges, slower server response, and less money at your ISP to go towards support or more useful tasks.
The Internet Powers That Be don't care one whit about the time people lose sifting through their junk mail--that's Somebody Else's Problem. By that point, the damage is done.
It's 1700. You've got a primitive firearm (muzzle loader, flintlock,) and your opponent has a sword. There are fifty feet between the two of you.
Argh--your flint is wet! No shooting for you!
Argh--your gunpowder is wet! Still no shooting for you!
Gah--The powder was poorly packed! The ball barely cuts your target's skin!
Oofh--the powder was overpacked! Your weapon has exploded in your face!
Damn! the shot fell out of the barrel! Quick, flush the old powder out, reload...*grrk*
Ach--your lead shot was deformed, and it veers way off target!
Yipe--everything went -just right- -- and the guy is -still- charging at you! It seems a single shot wasn't enough to stop him--you'd better reload, quickly! Okay, powder horn, ramrod, shot; pour some powder into the gun, load your shot, take the ramrod and -carefully--*grrk*
Now, some things a military might -like- about weapons such as these:
1. There's nothing that says that you can't make a gun that remembers multiple user signatures, and there's nothing that says that access needs to be a silly smart card or primitive thumb reader. Modern weapons can be operated by anybody, and a key element of many fighting forces is the salvage of the enemy's equipment. Developing a gun that requires even one hour to remove the ID mechanism would be a huge step forward in safeguarding your firearms. It's also plausible that one could store the profile of many, many soldiers in a single weapon, not entirely unlike storing logins for many, many users on a single computer. Instead of a thumb reader (which is impractical for battle situations, anyhow), consider something like an RFID embedded below the skin of the soldier--in the shoulder, perhaps, or the hand. It's certainly not foolproof, but it provides a major step forward from anybody being able to use anybody else's gun on a battlefield.
2. With the spread of GPS-in-everything, one could imagine some tactical value in a weapon that could communicate things such as status, position, and heck, even a video feed back to a command post.
3. On the assumption that target identification software and technology might improve over the next fifty years, a system that integrates target identification, rangefinding, ammunition selection, and threat assessment into a nice little scope display could prove useful.
4. Dirt? Damage? Befoulment? All these things happen to normal rifles. What happens if, in your little scenario, your buddy's rifle went muzzle-first into soft mud and clogged? Would you be taking the time to do a weapon check before whirling around to take a shot? Imagine that an Intelligent Rifle may just have the ability to self-diagnose things like "My clip is empty", "My safety is on", or "My barrel is damaged enough that any attempt to use me would result in a catastrophic failure (read: go boom)", or even "There's gunk in my barrel".
We've loaded warplanes, ships, tanks, missiles, bombs, command posts, and even your typical grunt with high-tech electronics. Making a high-tech gun isn't really that much of a stretch of the imagination.
I look at independent efforts and I see, generally, one of two things:
1. A desire to compete with the big boys--to make the next Quake killer, to build a wicked-cool 3D game of epic proportions, etc.
2. A desire to make a fun little game.
Much of the beef with the current state of indy gamemaking seems to revolve around group one. Everybody wants to be David to the industry's Goliath; everybody wants to be that breakthrough, rags-to-riches, beat-the-odds underdog. To that end, there are -maybe- half a dozen indy groups/folks who have the vision, dedication, and know-how to actually pull this off; they crop up every now and then, release an acclaimed title, and often end up entering (gasp!) the industry.
Sad fact is, you're not gonna be able to go toe to toe with a company that can throw three dozen full-time people and several million dollars at any given title. It's not gonna happen. No matter how cool, revolutionary, or fresh your idea is, odds are, you -don't- have -all- the skills necessary to pull it off on an indy budget. You're a crack coder, but can't design a UI to save your life. You can create beautiful game art but physics makes your head swim. You've got this really, really cool special effect that puts the big houses' work to shame; all you need now is a game to wrap around it...the list goes on.
If, as an indy game developer, you make a few changes to your outlook, you can have a -really incredible time- making a game. Here are a few suggestions:
1. Don't quit your day job. Treat gamemaking as a hobby, something you do for a few hours a night instead of watching TV or playing other games.
2. Bite off less than you can chew. For your first few projects, just keep it insanely simple. No special modes, no added effects--pick one simple aspect of your game, build it, polish it. After you've done this, start tagging all the 'cool' stuff on.
3. Focus on your strengths, but pick something to improve. Maybe take an art class once a week. Maybe buy a book on algorithm optimization. Maybe study user interface design. Maybe take a marketing class. Remember, you're indy, you're small, you need to be able to tackle as many facets of making a game as you can. The more you broaden your skills, the better your games will be.
4. Get a little help from your friends. Once you absolutely -love- what you've created, have your friends try it out. -Listen- to their feedback, swallow your pride, and consider ways to make more people say "Wow!" and fewer people say "Umm..."
5. Don't use the big titles as a meterstick. Do that, and you'll soon find yourself violating suggestion two. Your mantra should be something along the lines of, "I -cannot- compete with Rockstar Games. I -can- make a really fun game that lost of people will like."
6. Do it to have fun. Do it because you -love- making games. Do it because you want to entertain people. If you make your game a labor of love, it -will- be a great game, even if you're the only person who ever sees it as such. Look at it this way: if you make a game that you enjoy so much that you play it more than any other game you own for years, haven't you made the best game you could ever wish for?
There are success stories out there. Other posters to this article have articulated this point quite well. All I'm trying to say is, don't get into indy games for the wrong reason. Do it for yourself, do it to have fun, and you won't regret it. Measure success by self-satisfaction, not by shelf space and bottom lines.
There's a great exhibit on the history of communication (early telegraph to modern times) at the Smithsonian American History museum here in DC. Highlights include two (two!) Enigma machines, several sections of UNIVAC, and a bunch of neat early telegraph/telephone stuff.
It's a really well-designed exhibit, too--they put a lot of effort into tying the technology of the time to the culture of the time. The science exhibit right next door to it is also worth seeing, as is Julia Child's kitchen, just across the hall. Heck, the whole museum is worth seeing.
Sure, there are ecological concerns--I lived in Spokane for a while, I'm familiar with them. The original poster was focusing on pollution and pollution localization, though, which are pretty much non-issues with the Grand Coulee Dam.
TANSTAAFL? Give me a break. Barring breeder reactors (which, sadly, won't see the light of day in the US for quite a while,) I challenge you to find a source of energy that even remotely compares to the cleanliness, eco-friendliness and generation capacity of traditional hydroelectric power. Shit, man, it's the 99 cent all-you-can-eat filet mignon and lobster tail lunch buffet of electric power, and all you can say is "it ain't free"?
Hate to be the bearer of bad-news, but they aren't "pollution-free transit." They need electricity from somewhere to power the electric motors, whether it be oil/coal/nuclear. The only solution might be geo-thermal/solar/wind/wave... but they don't provide a signifigant portion of the world's power yet. There is a threshold of ridership, beyond which they become more environmentally friendly than a car, but we are a long way from "pollution-free" forms of transportation.
I know this comes as a great suprise to all of you driving those stupid little Neighborhood Electric Vehichle... you are just moving the pollution to some other poor-bastards neighborhood, while you get all the really good parking spots at the mall.
There's this big ol' thing in Washington State called the Grand Coulee Dam.
Rumor has it that it's the world's third largest producer of power.
Rumor also has it that it's about as pollution-free as power comes.
But hey, what am I saying? Stupid little Neighborhood Electric Vehicles! If you really cared, you'd be driving a Fnord Behemoth 150 or a Chevee Soverign Nation to and from the Quickie Mart--at least then you're not dumping all that hydroelectric pollution on the poor saps who live near the dam, you insensitive clod!
What do you consider "undue media attention?" Should fatalities be kept secret? Or just "not reported" in most venues? Would you like to discuss the difference? And remember, we're not talking about a quick spot; this is during extensive coverage of the device and the technique... not even then?
Remember saccharine?
It was found that, in near-fatal quantities over an extended period of time, saccharine could cause cancer in lab rats.
The media picked up the results of the study, read "saccharine causes cancer!", and the rest is history. For years, saccharine was considered a horrible, dangerous substance by many people, despite repeated responses from scientific authorities to the contrary. Why? They'd seen it on the news! They'd read it in the paper! Saccharine causes cancer!
Was it responsible, ethical, or right of the media to so thoroughly slander the safety of saccharine? Is this how the media is meant to keep the public informed?
I'm surprised to find myself getting this basic, but the foundation of both capitalism and democracy is one of full disclosure, where voters and buyers are trusted to make their own decisions given all the facts. It does not admit "fear of scaring people off" as a reason not to discuss fatalities resulting from a new product or service.
And I'm saying, again, that the fact that the Da Vinci machine was used in this operation has been disclosed, that an investigation by regulatory agencies is underway, and that media speculation on this matter would be premature and irresponsible at this point.
The media is not a panacea for society's ills, no more than the government or industry. I continue to believe that the media is acting in a careful, responsible fashion.
You repeatedly attack me for advocating silence; I do not advocate silence. I advocate discretion. I advocate responsibility. I have full faith in the media's ability to root out foul play and bring it to light--journalists live for such a major break, and there are undoubtedly several digging into the matter. I also know fully well that an unscrupulous or agenda-driven journalist could do immense harm to the progress of this surgical device by playing off people's fears of robots and machines performing heart surgery.
Full disclosure is but part of the foundation of both capitalism and democracy. Trust, diligent review, and due process are all essential bricks in that same foundation.
Why is it that you do not clamor for the details of the surgeon's history? Why do you not ask about whether or not he's been under undue stress, or if he has a history of errors in other surgical procedures--after all, it is a hospital official who claims that the surgeon is experienced and highly skilled, and don't hospital officials have a vested interest in protecting their own? I mean, this guy is still practicing at that very hospital! Why have you chosen to target an entirely surgeon-guided tool instead of the surgeon himself?
Point out where the article draws that conclusion.
Well, to quote the article,
The hospital and Intuitive Surgical Inc., which manufactures the da Vinci Surgical Systems robot, evaluated the machine and found no mechanical problems. [Hospital president Isaac] Mallah said the robot did not cause the problem. It does not act without prompting and is always controlled by a trained surgeon.
There really isn't room for ambiguity in that statement; the hospital president says flat out that the robot was not the cause of the problem.
As I just said elsewhere, it's unclear how the accident happened, obviously, but with something like this I consider both the underlying technique as well as the user interface potential risk factors. Of course, it could just have been human error, but that's the whole point of risk factor analysis; the line between "human error" and a false expectation or a design problem does not actually exist.
Yes, it is unclear how this happened, but I stand by my statement that the machine should not receive undue media attention at this time, especially in light of the fact that 1) the investigation is young, ongoing, and under the auspices of regulatory agencies; and 2) the machine was found to have no mechanical problems.
A media scare could easily set this medical development back several years. Doing so prematurely on and little evidence would be a terrible disservice to those who could benefit from this type of surgery.
Isn't this the same robot that was just involved in a patient death?...No mention of the fatality in the CNN article, either. And for that matter, no mention of it here. I find this very strange. Slashdot editors missing it, I can understand. But wouldn't even the most brain-dead journalist make this connection? Let alone the big-leaguers?
In reading the article, it would seem that the culpable party was the surgeon, not the machine. To trumpet the fact that the Da Vinci robot was involved in the operation would be a disservice to science and medicine--this was human error, not equipment malfunction.
It would be wrong to spotlight the tool in this case, just as it would be wrong to spotlight the surgeon had Da Vinci malfunctioned.
The whole reason we even have PCs in schools in the US is just the fact that it is outright corporate welfare to computer companies such as Gateway, IBM, Dell, and sometimes Apple, due to shady deals with politicians.
Uh-huh.
Because you just know that Apple had Congress in their pocket when my school had Turtle Logo and Number Munchers on a bunch of Apple IIe systems back in the early '80s.
Show those fscking politicians "Oregon Trail", and all they saw was dollar signs.
Hell inna handbasket. Liberals! Liberals, I tells ya! And fluoride in the water!
Slashdot Mirror
Little side benefit of this: unless you have the infrastructure for reloading/developing Polonium power cells, your stolen/black market rifle becomes a Very Expensive Paperweight.
More importantly, will it will support the new IPv4 "Evil Bit" ?
I find it sad that nobody has posted a "*BSD is alive!" troll...
Second,while the machine does get "hot", I've gotta say, from a switcher's perspective, it isn't really -hot- hot. It's a pleasant wrist-warming feature compared to some of the scalders I've worked with on the PC side. On the downside, I can no longer locate my laptop by following the drone of the cooling fans.
Hey, don't knock those courses! They're great!
I've already registrated for his Interemediary English next term!
(shameless self-promotion mode)
There's always Jardinains!. Shareware in the old-school, send-me-a-donation-if-you-like-but-above-all-share -it-with-your-friends style. It's only a few months old, and even though it's a Breakout clone at heart, it's got a few new twists to keep things interesting. (Besides, isn't just about everything these days a clone of something else?)
I figured I wouldn't make any money off it (which has not been entirely true; about 1 out of every 10,000 downloads yields a donation.) The sheer good karma of making a program like this makes it worth the effort.
As far as sites, check out gamehippo.com. They maintain an excellent listing of truly freeware games, and have some nice features like user comments and ratings. Each game has an editor's review.
I worked in a large room near the top of a skyscraper for a few months, and virtually every screen in there was LCD.
The reason? Back when they had CRTs, the HVAC system couldn't keep the room cool. You put 50-100 CRTs in the same room, things get very warm, fast.
Good sir,
Though he is indeed the third George to lead our fine and great nation since winning our independence from King What's-his-name the Umpteenth-or-whatever, most Americans still refer to him as "Dubya".
Alas, our war against George III [II] has yet to be won.
Warmest Regards,
Vice Rear Admiral Charleton "Sparky" Flatus, USN, Ret.
XOXO
What am I missing?
Bandwidth.
If you're filtering 100 messages per day, those messages are still making it all the way from the spammer's system to your mail server (or even your computer itself, depending on the type of filtering you use.) If each of the 1000 people who use your (relatively small) ISP get 100 messages a day, that's 100,000 pieces of spam a day. Seeing as a lot of spam now comes in easy-to-digest 48k and 123k attachment crapbombs, you're talking massive amounts--gigabytes and gigabytes--of spam that gets sent over your ISP's lines every day.
Filtering is, in many ways, a catalyst in the "spam eats up bandwidth" equation. Since you never need to deal with the mail, you're not nearly as likely to get up in arms about the mass of crap flowing over your network. You'll still pay for it though, in the form of higher access charges, slower server response, and less money at your ISP to go towards support or more useful tasks.
The Internet Powers That Be don't care one whit about the time people lose sifting through their junk mail--that's Somebody Else's Problem. By that point, the damage is done.
Picture this:
It's 1700. You've got a primitive firearm (muzzle loader, flintlock,) and your opponent has a sword. There are fifty feet between the two of you.
Argh--your flint is wet! No shooting for you!
Argh--your gunpowder is wet! Still no shooting for you!
Gah--The powder was poorly packed! The ball barely cuts your target's skin!
Oofh--the powder was overpacked! Your weapon has exploded in your face!
Damn! the shot fell out of the barrel! Quick, flush the old powder out, reload...*grrk*
Ach--your lead shot was deformed, and it veers way off target!
Yipe--everything went -just right- -- and the guy is -still- charging at you! It seems a single shot wasn't enough to stop him--you'd better reload, quickly! Okay, powder horn, ramrod, shot; pour some powder into the gun, load your shot, take the ramrod and -carefully--*grrk*
Now, some things a military might -like- about weapons such as these:
1. There's nothing that says that you can't make a gun that remembers multiple user signatures, and there's nothing that says that access needs to be a silly smart card or primitive thumb reader. Modern weapons can be operated by anybody, and a key element of many fighting forces is the salvage of the enemy's equipment. Developing a gun that requires even one hour to remove the ID mechanism would be a huge step forward in safeguarding your firearms. It's also plausible that one could store the profile of many, many soldiers in a single weapon, not entirely unlike storing logins for many, many users on a single computer. Instead of a thumb reader (which is impractical for battle situations, anyhow), consider something like an RFID embedded below the skin of the soldier--in the shoulder, perhaps, or the hand. It's certainly not foolproof, but it provides a major step forward from anybody being able to use anybody else's gun on a battlefield.
2. With the spread of GPS-in-everything, one could imagine some tactical value in a weapon that could communicate things such as status, position, and heck, even a video feed back to a command post.
3. On the assumption that target identification software and technology might improve over the next fifty years, a system that integrates target identification, rangefinding, ammunition selection, and threat assessment into a nice little scope display could prove useful.
4. Dirt? Damage? Befoulment? All these things happen to normal rifles. What happens if, in your little scenario, your buddy's rifle went muzzle-first into soft mud and clogged? Would you be taking the time to do a weapon check before whirling around to take a shot? Imagine that an Intelligent Rifle may just have the ability to self-diagnose things like "My clip is empty", "My safety is on", or "My barrel is damaged enough that any attempt to use me would result in a catastrophic failure (read: go boom)", or even "There's gunk in my barrel".
We've loaded warplanes, ships, tanks, missiles, bombs, command posts, and even your typical grunt with high-tech electronics. Making a high-tech gun isn't really that much of a stretch of the imagination.
1. A desire to compete with the big boys--to make the next Quake killer, to build a wicked-cool 3D game of epic proportions, etc.
2. A desire to make a fun little game.
Much of the beef with the current state of indy gamemaking seems to revolve around group one. Everybody wants to be David to the industry's Goliath; everybody wants to be that breakthrough, rags-to-riches, beat-the-odds underdog. To that end, there are -maybe- half a dozen indy groups/folks who have the vision, dedication, and know-how to actually pull this off; they crop up every now and then, release an acclaimed title, and often end up entering (gasp!) the industry.
Sad fact is, you're not gonna be able to go toe to toe with a company that can throw three dozen full-time people and several million dollars at any given title. It's not gonna happen. No matter how cool, revolutionary, or fresh your idea is, odds are, you -don't- have -all- the skills necessary to pull it off on an indy budget. You're a crack coder, but can't design a UI to save your life. You can create beautiful game art but physics makes your head swim. You've got this really, really cool special effect that puts the big houses' work to shame; all you need now is a game to wrap around it...the list goes on.
If, as an indy game developer, you make a few changes to your outlook, you can have a -really incredible time- making a game. Here are a few suggestions:
1. Don't quit your day job. Treat gamemaking as a hobby, something you do for a few hours a night instead of watching TV or playing other games.
2. Bite off less than you can chew. For your first few projects, just keep it insanely simple. No special modes, no added effects--pick one simple aspect of your game, build it, polish it. After you've done this, start tagging all the 'cool' stuff on.
3. Focus on your strengths, but pick something to improve. Maybe take an art class once a week. Maybe buy a book on algorithm optimization. Maybe study user interface design. Maybe take a marketing class. Remember, you're indy, you're small, you need to be able to tackle as many facets of making a game as you can. The more you broaden your skills, the better your games will be.
4. Get a little help from your friends. Once you absolutely -love- what you've created, have your friends try it out. -Listen- to their feedback, swallow your pride, and consider ways to make more people say "Wow!" and fewer people say "Umm..."
5. Don't use the big titles as a meterstick. Do that, and you'll soon find yourself violating suggestion two. Your mantra should be something along the lines of, "I -cannot- compete with Rockstar Games. I -can- make a really fun game that lost of people will like."
6. Do it to have fun. Do it because you -love- making games. Do it because you want to entertain people. If you make your game a labor of love, it -will- be a great game, even if you're the only person who ever sees it as such. Look at it this way: if you make a game that you enjoy so much that you play it more than any other game you own for years, haven't you made the best game you could ever wish for?
There are success stories out there. Other posters to this article have articulated this point quite well. All I'm trying to say is, don't get into indy games for the wrong reason. Do it for yourself, do it to have fun, and you won't regret it. Measure success by self-satisfaction, not by shelf space and bottom lines.
It's a really well-designed exhibit, too--they put a lot of effort into tying the technology of the time to the culture of the time. The science exhibit right next door to it is also worth seeing, as is Julia Child's kitchen, just across the hall. Heck, the whole museum is worth seeing.
(wait for it)
TANSTAAFL? Give me a break. Barring breeder reactors (which, sadly, won't see the light of day in the US for quite a while,) I challenge you to find a source of energy that even remotely compares to the cleanliness, eco-friendliness and generation capacity of traditional hydroelectric power. Shit, man, it's the 99 cent all-you-can-eat filet mignon and lobster tail lunch buffet of electric power, and all you can say is "it ain't free"?
Damn.
I know this comes as a great suprise to all of you driving those stupid little Neighborhood Electric Vehichle ... you are just moving the pollution to some other poor-bastards neighborhood, while you get all the really good parking spots at the mall.
There's this big ol' thing in Washington State called the Grand Coulee Dam.
Rumor has it that it's the world's third largest producer of power.
Rumor also has it that it's about as pollution-free as power comes.
But hey, what am I saying? Stupid little Neighborhood Electric Vehicles! If you really cared, you'd be driving a Fnord Behemoth 150 or a Chevee Soverign Nation to and from the Quickie Mart--at least then you're not dumping all that hydroelectric pollution on the poor saps who live near the dam, you insensitive clod!
Remember saccharine?
It was found that, in near-fatal quantities over an extended period of time, saccharine could cause cancer in lab rats.
The media picked up the results of the study, read "saccharine causes cancer!", and the rest is history. For years, saccharine was considered a horrible, dangerous substance by many people, despite repeated responses from scientific authorities to the contrary. Why? They'd seen it on the news! They'd read it in the paper! Saccharine causes cancer!
Was it responsible, ethical, or right of the media to so thoroughly slander the safety of saccharine? Is this how the media is meant to keep the public informed?
I'm surprised to find myself getting this basic, but the foundation of both capitalism and democracy is one of full disclosure, where voters and buyers are trusted to make their own decisions given all the facts. It does not admit "fear of scaring people off" as a reason not to discuss fatalities resulting from a new product or service.
And I'm saying, again, that the fact that the Da Vinci machine was used in this operation has been disclosed, that an investigation by regulatory agencies is underway, and that media speculation on this matter would be premature and irresponsible at this point.
The media is not a panacea for society's ills, no more than the government or industry. I continue to believe that the media is acting in a careful, responsible fashion.
You repeatedly attack me for advocating silence; I do not advocate silence. I advocate discretion. I advocate responsibility. I have full faith in the media's ability to root out foul play and bring it to light--journalists live for such a major break, and there are undoubtedly several digging into the matter. I also know fully well that an unscrupulous or agenda-driven journalist could do immense harm to the progress of this surgical device by playing off people's fears of robots and machines performing heart surgery.
Full disclosure is but part of the foundation of both capitalism and democracy. Trust, diligent review, and due process are all essential bricks in that same foundation.
Why is it that you do not clamor for the details of the surgeon's history? Why do you not ask about whether or not he's been under undue stress, or if he has a history of errors in other surgical procedures--after all, it is a hospital official who claims that the surgeon is experienced and highly skilled, and don't hospital officials have a vested interest in protecting their own? I mean, this guy is still practicing at that very hospital! Why have you chosen to target an entirely surgeon-guided tool instead of the surgeon himself?
Well, to quote the article,
The hospital and Intuitive Surgical Inc., which manufactures the da Vinci Surgical Systems robot, evaluated the machine and found no mechanical problems. [Hospital president Isaac] Mallah said the robot did not cause the problem. It does not act without prompting and is always controlled by a trained surgeon.
There really isn't room for ambiguity in that statement; the hospital president says flat out that the robot was not the cause of the problem.
As I just said elsewhere, it's unclear how the accident happened, obviously, but with something like this I consider both the underlying technique as well as the user interface potential risk factors. Of course, it could just have been human error, but that's the whole point of risk factor analysis; the line between "human error" and a false expectation or a design problem does not actually exist.
Yes, it is unclear how this happened, but I stand by my statement that the machine should not receive undue media attention at this time, especially in light of the fact that 1) the investigation is young, ongoing, and under the auspices of regulatory agencies; and 2) the machine was found to have no mechanical problems.
A media scare could easily set this medical development back several years. Doing so prematurely on and little evidence would be a terrible disservice to those who could benefit from this type of surgery.
In reading the article, it would seem that the culpable party was the surgeon, not the machine. To trumpet the fact that the Da Vinci robot was involved in the operation would be a disservice to science and medicine--this was human error, not equipment malfunction.
It would be wrong to spotlight the tool in this case, just as it would be wrong to spotlight the surgeon had Da Vinci malfunctioned.
Uh-huh.
Because you just know that Apple had Congress in their pocket when my school had Turtle Logo and Number Munchers on a bunch of Apple IIe systems back in the early '80s.
Show those fscking politicians "Oregon Trail", and all they saw was dollar signs.
Hell inna handbasket. Liberals! Liberals, I tells ya! And fluoride in the water!
fnord
Heck, no. I simply wouldn't feel safe knowing that there were hazardous materials inside my computer...
(runs and hides from the Radioactive Boogeyman)
This product can also be used to record full length motion pictures, which is piracy as far as certain industry groups are concerned.
Thus, shouldn't this product be called "iEyeTV"?
Click "I agree" below to accept the terms of this Final Decree.
[I Agree] [I Do Not Agree]
The power of Iridigm displays derives from the replication of some of Mother Nature's most beautiful creations: Butterflies.