Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

littlebrown.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 363 posts

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#191

Post by roc »

khafra wrote: post #100
roc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the concept only works when we're relying on full-brain scans and future nano-bots with the capability to reconstruct brain tissue, the freeze/thaw would be completely superfluous. Why not cut out the middle-man? Just do a full brain scan and store the digital data until the nano-bots arrive? Then just recreate brains within stock bodies or some virtual/machine environment? Clinging to the freezing and thawing, wh…

> Just do a full brain scan and store the digital data until the nano-bots arrive? Because we don't currently have the technology to either scan or store a 3-d scan of your brain in the same resolution you can get by physically perfusing it with antifreeze and dropping it into a bucket of liquid nitrogen.

But by the time you've physically perfused the brain and frozen it, substantial cell death would have begun. So if we have to freeze until the scanning/storage tech arrives, we'll have a compromised source, at best.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#192

Post by IvyMike »

My introduction to Banks was Robert Keogh's Culture Shock website, originally hosted at my university. There's still stuff there I haven't seen anywhere else.

http://www.enthea.org/phlebas/

Note that this site seems to have last been updated in the mid 90's, so later novels are not included.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#193

Post by khafra »

roc wrote: post #191
khafra wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just do a full brain scan and store the digital data until the nano-bots arrive? Because we don't currently have the technology to either scan or store a 3-d scan of your brain in the same resolution you can get by physically perfusing it with antifreeze and dropping it into a bucket of liquid nitrogen.

But by the time you've physically perfused the brain and frozen it, substantial cell death would have begun. So if we have to freeze until the scanning/storage tech arrives, we'll have a compromised source, at best.

Yes. Whether or not the most substantial damage occurs with apoptosis when oxygen is re-introduced, there will uncontroversially be a lot of damage even in the best case cryonic vitrification. Also uncontroversially, there will be substantially less damage than would occur with cremation or burial.

Even the lesser amount of damage may be too much. Cryonics is a bet that it is not.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#194

Post by brazzy »

Gatsky wrote: post #76
geuis wrote: post #29

He shouldn't just accept this. There has to be something to be tried. With his notoriety, the option to try some experimental new treatment should at least be considered.

Sorry, but there is a lot of assumption and ignorance in reply to your comment. 1. Modern supportive care means that chemotherapy does not involve constant vomiting, pain and torment. Some patients work and look after their family in between having chemotherapy. For example, in a large study on the efficacy of chemotherapy in biliary tract cancers including gallbladder cancer the rates of severe vomiting were only 5%…

It depends completely on which chemotherapy you get, which cancer you have, and sheer dumb luck. Both "chemotherapy" and "cancer" are blanket terms covering a multitude of radically different things.

Best case: your cancer is contained to a single organ and susceptible to antibody therapy. Practically no side effects, and you'll most likely be healed.

Worst case: your cancer has spread to multiple organs, requires the use of cytotoxics and your body reacts badly to those. You're better off setting yourself on fire - at least then you'll have to endure at most a few days of excrutiating pain before you die. No, that is not an exaggeration.

Source: my girlfriend who works as a nurse in a cancer ward specializing in chemotherapy.

Most importantly: make that decision yourself while you can! Don't leave it to the doctors (who only learn ways to keep patients alive at all costs, not ways to decide whether it's better to let them die) or your relatives (who'll tell the doctors to do everything humanly possible to assuage their feelings of helplessness and guilt).

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#195

Post by altertoad »

michaelochurch wrote: post #178
hyperbovine wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More money is not what is needed here--we already pour tons of money into cancer research. What's needed are new ideas. If you really want to fight cancer, skip the startup and go to graduate school. Computational and mathematical approaches to understanding and fighting cancer are still in their infancy. There is a lot of scope for smart, motivated people to do good.

More money is not what is needed here--we already pour tons of money into cancer research. What's needed are new ideas. If you really want to fight cancer, skip the startup and go to graduate school. Computational and mathematical approaches to understanding and fighting cancer are still in their infancy. There is a lot of scope for smart, motivated people to do good. There are a zillion[0] talented young programmers…

what do ya mean rigged

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#196

Post by defen »

venus wrote: post #44

This is horrible news. We are all poorer today, all of us. Banks is an inspiration to all who read him - of what could be, what can be, what is to be. Cancer has claimed a terrible toll in my life. Three in my immediate family and counting, the countdown very fast for one of them. And now it seems to have turned its unwelcome gaze to my intellectual treasures. I hate this disease, I despise it so much it's hard to ex…

What is "the 300"? The only thing I can think of is the movie/comic book but I don't see how that ties in to cancer research.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#197

Post by thebooktocome »

Jach wrote: post #170
dornab wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the probability of dying and a super-natural being transferring you to heaven? It's non-zero. I've heard the same exact argument from ultra religious people. I am all for keeping a bit of hope alive, but a non-zero chance argument on its own is not enough. What is the probability exactly, can it be proven.

Robin Hanson puts the probability around 5%: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/break-cryonics-down.ht... The "non-zero" argument can be fixed simply by comparing relative likelihoods, or noting that while one can't ever rationally believe with 0% probability, you can use epsilon as a substitute for "it's more than 0 but I can't measure how much because it's so small". Personally I think there's enough evidence to…

Hanson's estimate is no better than the Drake equation. Everyone assigns different numbers to the various probabilities, multiplies them together, and gets a different result.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#198

Post by jostmey »

Death from Cancer is a tragedy. If you are a computer hacker you have only two options to help. (1) Donate money to help cover medical expenses, which would surely bankrupt all but the very wealthiest in society. (2) Work within the framework of proven scientific results to help push science forward. As a computer guru, perhaps the best way to do this is to help develop programming packages such as R, Octave, and Julia. Otherwise, pick up biology books/manuscripts and just start reading for the next several years.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#199

Post by jwoah12 »

bluetshirt wrote: post #190
engtech wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, more money is needed. 41% of deaths are due to cancer. It really is one of the biggest problems we have as a species and we should spend more effort on it rather than the things we do spend effort on. But I wholeheartedly agree that rather than trying to be a billg and earn money to fund philanthropy, the world needs more researchers.

People are going to die. If it's not cancer, it'll be heart failure. I'm not convinced that what this world needs is research into keeping sick people alive longer. We have lots of people as it is.

Would you stand by that statement if you were diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow? Your spouse? Child? The point isn't to keep sick people alive longer, it's to make them not sick.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#200

Post by droithomme »

michaelochurch wrote: post #178
hyperbovine wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More money is not what is needed here--we already pour tons of money into cancer research. What's needed are new ideas. If you really want to fight cancer, skip the startup and go to graduate school. Computational and mathematical approaches to understanding and fighting cancer are still in their infancy. There is a lot of scope for smart, motivated people to do good.

More money is not what is needed here--we already pour tons of money into cancer research. What's needed are new ideas. If you really want to fight cancer, skip the startup and go to graduate school. Computational and mathematical approaches to understanding and fighting cancer are still in their infancy. There is a lot of scope for smart, motivated people to do good. There are a zillion[0] talented young programmers…

Salaries in the life sciences are no where near where you think they are. Lots of people with biology degrees are making less than theatre majors.

Even if you have the more elaborate title of "biochemist", salaries are around $45k, not the $125k you are expecting to earn.

http://www1.salary.com/Biochemist-I-Salary.html

Starting salaries are around $35k. If you are working for a non-profit foundation (ie: cancer research), expect to earn $25k.

http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=166364

Post reply on HN