Prometheus

Nurses and radiographers work together to move patients. Even porters get involved sometimes (though technically they're not supposed to). Some patients require no people to help move them, other patients need at least four, but six would be handy. There is also the fine movements radiographers do to get a patient in just the right place based on exactly what image needs to be taken and why. If it's that easy please explain exactly how this would be done. I suspect there are many things you have taken into account but without details i just don't know. Have you seen many patient transfers in radiology? I'd recommend auditory feedback too for when a patient yelps when something unexpectedly hurts them. While i remember the machine will also need either to be able to safely log roll an immobilised patient so they can safely vomit (or maybe a suctioning system). Happens only sometimes but can be fatal when it does.

But you'd still need someone to place the lifting sheet under the patient - they can't be left there for numerous reasons. That's the hardest bit. You'd still need to employ someone to this. But maybe i misunderstand as we basically have machines that can do this now so did you mean something else?

I don't think so. I'm sure robots could be built to perform this function, but the question is whether it will be more cost effective than hiring humans. Let's take a simple example. Bed bound patients at risk of pressure sores are turned every so often - every 2 hours is typical (in addition to having pressure relieving matresses). We need to design a machine that can recognise the position a patient is currently in then somehow physically move the patient onto the other side without hurting or scaring them (people requiring turning are often confused) all the while avoiding pulling out various catheters which may be insitu - a high precision machine would be required with many fail safes. Would it be one machine per bed or per ward? How often would it break down and require humans do to the job anyway? Can the machine perform any other tasks other than turning or would we require another machine to put patients on bed pans? How would you ensure infection control procedures are followed after each episode, would it self-clean (if so, how?) or would you have to employ a human to clean it? Can it leave the ward should the patient have to go elsewhere for a period? Can anyone come up with an estimate of capital and maintenance costs for such a machine? Compare this to paying someone near minimum wage who can perform all these asks, requires only limited training and can be extremely flexible in terms of performing multiple manual handling tasks and can move off the ward if need be (including chasing that surprisingly spritely old man down into the car park who keeps trying to escape because he is confused and thinks he's in prison, but AI doctor thinks it too risky to give any sedatives). I think it will be a long time until such manual work can be provided by robots cheaper than can be provided by humans (though this also depends on union action level of minimum wage etc). Far easier to replace a doctor than a nursing assistant.

CharonY makes a good point: are the different preferences between sexes due to immutable neuro-biological differences or are they imposed upon the plastic brain by culture? And how do we tell the difference? It is a niche hobby, though growing fast now that geek culture has become popular, but i'm not sure it is a college hobby. Maybe it used to be but now those people have gone out into the world with the hobby. Also i have noticed east Asians into the hobby, but i have never once played with a black person. But i'm just going on personal experience, there's very little demographic data on the subject. Also i'm not sure how representative the hobby is of other domains such as sports and e-sports. I suspect they play a large role. I am the only nurse my niece knows and i'm male. She has still somehow grown up thinking nurses are female. Something has influenced her to a greater degree than the actual reality she has been exposed to.

Let's think about what a radiographer actually does. There's arranging for patients to be picked up from wherever and delivered to radiology: if that could be integrated with the tech nurses use to track patients then this would make things much more efficient. Then there's positioning the patient appropriately for the scan. Easy for mobile patients, but remember if you're having a scan there is likely something wrong with you so mobility may well be limited. In the worst case you will have an ITU patient - unconscious, critically unwell, supported ventilation and various infusions (and all the equipment that comes with this). Most patients would be somewhere between these two extremes, but i suspect this manual handling is probably the hardest part for automation. It is also vital for achieving optimal imaging. Then they push some buttons to take a picture. I'm sure this could also be automated quite easily - although many parts have not yet been, though i'm sure the tech exists. There are also those times someone wants to take an image in some new and weird way. Explaining it to a radiographer is quite easy. Getting a computer to do something outside its code would require bringing in a programmer, getting the programmer to understand the problem and execute a solution. How troublesome this all is depends on the availability of the programmer. At the moment i suspect it is a lot cheaper to employ radiographers than to automate the process. Not sure how long that will last for though. There will also be (already is) resistance from healthcare professionals, who will use unions, lobby government and stoke the populations' fear of robots to maintain the status quo for as long as possible. They just need get enough legislation in place, or people refusing robot services, to make automation not cost effective. I could well imagine some people paying extra for healthcare with humans after automation in the healthcare industry really sets in, maybe even becoming a status symbol (I can afford human healthcare don't you know). Appreciate the enthusiasm, but you sound like a computer scientist who has never spent a day on a hospital ward.

That many? With that many variables its easy to imagine that different experiences will manifest. But i have anecdotal evidence that the same cannabis delivered by different means has a very different effect from a few people, but no actual evidence. Any evidence or theories why this might be the case? I never experienced it myself, but then i never did like wine. All i could tell was getting more drunk from the harder stuff. Do they get a different kind of drunk? Any volunteers for the experiment? This will be a blinded study.

But is it the case that the strain is important because of the difference in ratios of the active substances? So eating it could mimic the differences in strains.

It is said different types of alcoholic drink can have different effects on people. Some making for happy drunks while others making for aggressive drunks. But all the alcohol we drink is the same ethanol isn't it? So how is it possible that the same drug has different qualitative effects? Or is it just an urban myth? Similarly the effects of cannabis are said to be different when it is smoked or eaten. I'm aware that there are at least two active and competitive substances in cannabis that produce the psychoactive effect. I can imagine that the mode of delivery could change the ratios of these substances in the blood stream thus influencing the qualitative experience. But does anyone know if that is actually the case? There is plenty online about these topics, but it looks very subjective.

It's possible that on average men are more drawn to this hobby than women, but it's definitely not the case that there are no women interested in tabletop RPGs. I've gamed with a few women, but only those i have introduced to the hobby, and they have continued. I've not seen it myself but apparently the hobby suffers terribly from misogyny, to the point where convention organisers have to remind people not to grope women. There's also the emphasis of the games. Lots of people just want to kill things and steal treasure. Maybe that just doesn't appeal to many women. I personally hate these sorts of games, and prefer to emphasise character development and social interactions (not to say killing and treasure don't feature at all). Perhaps that will appeal more to women. This debate about women not enjoying these sorts of things for physiological reasons is likely to continue. Is there an existing body of evidence or attempts to validate such claims? In terms of ethnicity, the hobby is very white dominated. No idea why. I've introduced plenty non white people to the hobby and they've enjoyed it as much as white people. Often Game Masters will put on accents for different characters. Maybe this offends some people? Is doing an accent offensive? It's done to add realism.

In normal physiology they fire in sequence as you say. But when things go wrong they can fire independently. Normally things start in the SA node and travel around the atrium, causing it to contract, before arriving at the AV node. But sometimes the signal does not reach the AV node. If this happens the AV node will fire independently of the SA node, causing the ventricles to contract. The AV node can do this because all cardiac cells have the ability to become pacemakers (which causes a lot of the different arrhythmias - but is better than having ventricles not contracting at all).

Fair enough, shouldn't expect to but going abroad but is an option. We suffer from that in the UK - not realising we are in global job market and failing to seize the opportunities that come with it. In terms of this particular film since the actor took it upon himself to resign the role, with no undue pressure, i can have no complaints. Is it really as bad in the US as some of you guys are saying: that a subset of audiences won't watch films without white leads? In the tabletop RPG community there has long been a problem with encouraging women into the hobby. I imagine it's partly the portrayal of women in those games rather than a lack of women: bar wenches, bikini armour clad warriors and femme fatal rogues (oh, and the old hag witch - but she barely counts as a human because she isn't sexual). That's about it. Which is why i'm surprised Wonder woman is held aloft as a positive step forward - unless she is more than just hot kick-arse woman in bikini armour? I don't mind a few of these stereotypes, but when every women you meet in a game is one of these it gets very tiresome very quickly. Must be doubly so for potential female gamers. It's this sort of lack of diversity that i lament. I have noticed more men choosing to play female characters now though, usually moving away from the stereotype characters. Good to see a female Dr. Who too, should be interesting.

I don't know the exact electrophysiology behind this but essentially every myocyte has the potential to act as a pacemaker. Generally the pace set by one of these cells is lower the further down the heart it is (so a cell in the atrium would pace faster than a cell in the ventricle). My understanding is that if the AV node is not receiving an input for any reason it will begin to pace itself, potentially leaving you with two independently (mal)functioning pacemakers. But this is a pathological condition, even if people can survive with milder forms such as atrial fibrillation. Complete heart block would be the worst case before cardiac arrest.

But it's not like the Indian, Japanese or Korean movie industries are struggling and the Chinese film industry is fast catching up. Plenty of work there i would imagine. Maybe it's more of a problem for monolingual American born Asians. The biggest problem for me, among many, was having so many lead characters with big egos having to squeeze their character development into about 2 lines each between action sequences. The kids cartoon did a much better job.

I'd highly recommend the adaptation, but as a BBC product i'm not sure of availability in the US. 55 years? I'm more up to date than i thought. Neither will i, nor have i watched any of those other movies. The only US film i've watched this year is Get Out, which is fantastic, a film that definitely needed racial casting to work. Interestingly many black US actors complained that the lead was taken by a British actor. He responded by saying British actors were better at acting. But if people are tired of watching a bunch of white actors in US movies they could try watching some of the very many excellent films from around the world instead. Hollywood is all about box office sales so audiences turning away would probably be more effective way making them listen. They may even have to make better movies then. Actually i lied, i did watch half of the Avengers recently: so bad, so very bad, i can't understand how anyone can watch it.

Is it your contention then that Margaret of Anjou from the play Richard III should not be played by an actor such as Sophie Okonedo? She is a white historical character after all. I actually don't mind this for the reasons i gave in the OP, as long as no one is trying to pass it off as historical fact. Unless the race of a character is important to the story. If a film version of To kill a mockingbird ever comes out, the ethnicity of the actors should be pertinent. But i agree, race in films such as Spiderman or Hellboy shouldn't matter, so it should be OK for a white actor to play an originally asian character shouldn't it? Unless the character's race does come into it in Hellboy - i don't know the comics so i can't say. Does anyone know? Do people actually watch those shitty remakes? Weird. I agree, in all those cases the original films are far superior. The Japanese version of Monkey is better than the Chinese version though. It also happens with European films and series being made into inferior American products, so i suspect some of it is just an unwillingness to listen to a foreign language and read subtitles.

I recently watched the BBCs recent version of Richard III. The Earl of Warwick and Lady Margaret were played by actors from ethnic minority communities. I briefly considered this a bit strange since they are playing historical figures who were white. However, i believe history belongs to everyone, and hopefully the inclusion of ethnic minority groups in such plays will help everyone feel like it is their history (for instance i love Chinese history and i consider it my history as much as any European history). I also vaguely remember J.K. Rowling blasting someone for complaining when one of her characters, portrayed as white in the Harry Potter books, was played by some one not white. She said something along the lines of ethnicity having nothing whatsoever to do with the story so the play should cast whoever they like. Then a came across this article in which a white actor resigned his role because the character was originally written as being of asian decent. Now, i've never watched or read Hellboy, but i suspect ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with the story. And even if it does, isn't it hypocritical to allow people of any ethnicity to play traditionally white roles, but not vice versa? Am i missing something?

By that dictionary. They are usually considered religions, but fair enough. Just out of interest, what do you consider them if not religions? Interestingly in Human Rights law religion is not explicitly defined at all. Doesn't help us here much. But earlier you concluded that all religious people are either not actually religious or hypocrites. So which is it? Are religious people all hypocrites or just some of them? If you're going to be rigid in your definitions at least be consistent. And yet you keep lampooning people for allegedly believing that accepting religious people is the same as letting them stone adulterers and massacre infidels. If you're going to ask for leeway, you should be willing to give it.

I've only studied this stuff to a superficial degree but here's my understanding, hope it makes sense. Before you measure a wavefunction it exists as a linear superposition of a number of composite wavefunctions. That means the wavefunction is made out of lots of other wavefunctions all added together. The contribution of some of those other wavefunctions is greater than others. When we make an observation the wavefunction collapses to just one of those composite wavefunctions, with a probability proportional to its contribution to the overall wavefunction. I believe the collapse of the wavefunction refers to just this: what was once described by a sum a wavefunctions is now observed to be just one of those wavefunctions.

Only a few Taoists believe in reincarnation. It is not mentioned at all in the Tao Te Ching. Certainly not a required belief to be Taoist. Rebirth (slight modification on reincarnation) is generally taught in Buddhism. Belief in it is considered compulsory in only a few of the more conservative traditions. That is some schools consider it fundamental, others do not, and since there is no consistent canon in Buddhism there is no way to 'prove' by scripture who is right. What, all of them? You keep on insisting you're not trying to characterise all religious but then make sweeping statements like this. You could try saying some of them, since that is what you profess you mean, and people wouldn't think you mean all of them. Is it that much effort? So Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions by your definition? Even Hinduism is a grey area by this definition, given the Atman isn't necessarily a controlling power. I'm fine if that definition if you want, it's just those 4 'social clubs' are generally considered religions.

You labour under the misunderstanding that religion has to be based on faith. Certainly this seems true of the Abrahamic religions, but far from all. Take out faith from many forms of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism and you haven't removed anything important, certainly nothing defining of the religions. Many religions have no creation story so evidence one way or another has no impact whatsoever on it. So evidence is not opposed to the religion. And even if the Abrahimic faiths were left with virtually nothing, so what? If people are happy with what is left why are so keen to belittle them?

I'm not talking about believing, i'm talking about experiencing. Most people experience life as if they exist somewhere behind their eyes, like a homunculus regardless of whether they actually believe in this ghost in the machine. If you don't, that's a rare thing. That's a perfectly reasonable exception. Is anyone here arguing otherwise?

Many rational people believe that there is no permanent and unchanging self: no soul separate from the body. It's one thing to know this intellectually, quite another to experience life like this. This is what the practice of meditation in Buddhism trains someone to do. There are no secular methods to this end. There is a secular mindfulness meditation movement, but that is designed for stress relief rather than fundamentally changing how you engage with reality. This is the only example i can give because this is the only religion i practice. Why have you got such a big problem with how i live my life?

Or religious people can simply discard the irrational part of their religion. As much as some people insist, irrationality isn't a defining quality of being religious, even if it a very common feature.