> They concluded that a rise in temperature to 37C and an increase in humidity above 80% in the previous few days had stimulated the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream where it caused haemorrhagic septicaemia, or blood poisoning.
> "State of the Art was traced by hand with a Genlock overlay and tool I developed. In 9 fingers the process was automatic, my program controlled the videoplayer, digitized one picture, traced it, and skipped to the next frame. For me the equipment at that time was expensive, about 150 Euros for the videoplayer (used the prize money from State of the Art), since it had to show de-interlaced pictures."
YES! Thank you so much. Gosh, it seems obvious?? But nothing related to any of the title keywords or danny cohen or ISI or packet voice came up. Whatever you did, THANK YOU!!!
Either way, that video is amazing, even if it makes Danny the “heel” of the call. Take 5 minutes and watch it—it’s an incredible window into how far things have changed in 40 years (especially because at the time, what’s in that video is Deep Magic). Thanks for finding that!
When I first started meditating I found the book The Relaxation Response helpful. It has a one page guide to activating the parasympathetic nervous system and is non-spiritual in its application.
Five mortally ill patients are in care at a hospital, all of whom will soon die. At the same time, a sixth man is undergoing a routine checkup at the same hospital. A transplant surgeon in residence finds that the only medical means of saving the five ailing patients would be to slay the sixth and transplant into them his healthy organs. Legal ramifications and other peripheral matters disregarded, it morally right to do so?
Ah, I was hoping someone would bring this one up. My answer there is no, because it's not a zero-sum issue like the points on the train track. Let's analyze the differences. For consistency, I'll assume the version of the train track problem where 5 people are going to die if I do nothing and let the train continue on its present course, vs 1 if I reach out and actively switch the train onto a different track. (There are other versions of the problem but this has the most similarity to the transplant problem.)
Now it's true that if I divert the train I'm actively choosing to end the life of the single person on track B in order to save a greater number of people on track A. But the key difference is the external force of the train; it's going to hit someone, so we might as well ensure it hits as few as possible. In the transplant situation, you have 5 patients who are dying from 5 different illnesses of their own; they're not going to die because they're in hospital, they're in hospital because they're going to die. Likewise, they won't be saved by the death of the healthy patient, but by the harvest of his healthy organs. And this harvesting would have to be conducted by the transplant surgeon - and getting killed by an overzealous surgeon is qualitatively very different from getting killed by liver failure or whatever.
Oddly, nobody ever seems to consider the possibilities in letting one of the mortally ill patients die and then sharing out that person's organs among the 4 remaining patients, which is obviously a less good result than saving all 5 of them but also much less troubling than murdering patients who aren't planning on donating their own organs.Assuming they needed 5 different organs and were all equally close to death (such that we couldn't wait around for one of them to die at random and save the other four), then you run into the question of whether it's morally acceptable to kill one of the terminally ill patients in order to save the other four (again assuming imminence of death and perfect knowledge of outcomes and so on, which is rarely the case in the real world). Most people would still say no, but I'd be inclined to say yes.
That's often used as an obvious parallel situation that makes it clear. But its not quite true: the healthy patient is not really involved with the situation of the other 5. Unlike the child, who is inevitably linked to the outcome of the others on the tracks. This new feature means the doctor is forcing the healthy person to play the game, which is certainly not right, and is the forcing issue that makes it clearly wrong.
![https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westminster_Abbey_-_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westminster_Abbey_-_Thomas_Hosmer_Shepherd.png"){kind=link}
> They concluded that a rise in temperature to 37C and an increase in humidity above 80% in the previous few days had stimulated the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream where it caused haemorrhagic septicaemia, or blood poisoning.