Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Surgeons Are the First To Operate In 3D

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the I-need-glasses-stat dept.

Medicine 64

MrSeb writes "A team at Manchester Royal Infirmary hospital, England, claim to be the first surgeons to perform keyhole surgery using 3D cameras and monitors — and embarrassingly clunky spectacles. Furthermore, if that wasn't high-tech enough, the lead surgeon also used a hand-held robotic claw. 3D vision during surgery makes perfect sense: After all, your anatomy is three-dimensional, and when you're making minute incisions with a foot-long instrument, through an entry hole that's just an inch long, depth perception is obviously a huge boon. According to spokeswoman from the hospital, the 3D approach provides much better accuracy, 'therefore reducing the risks of muscle and nerve damage.' The same spokesperson also said that the 3D projection would reduce surgeon fatigue, presumably because trying to make sense of a 2D image for hours on end is incredibly strenuous."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The first in what sense? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569049)

I don't see how this is any different from what Da Vinci [wikipedia.org] has been doing for a decade. Can somebody enlighten me as to what they did first?

dom

Re:The first in what sense? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569325)

First in the UK, according to the BBC [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:The first in what sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39570577)

In other words, the title should be "The First UK Surgeons To Operate In 3D", not "UK Surgeons Are the First To Operate In 3D".

Re:The first in what sense? (4, Funny)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569377)

Surgeries have always been 3D. A 2D surgery doesn't do much on a three dimensional patient.

Re:The first in what sense? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569753)

3D surgeries are a step forward. When I was at the hospital, they still used four dimensions. Now, without surgeries consuming time...

Re:The first in what sense? (1)

hawk (1151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39581631)

Due to budget cuts, we have reduced from 4d to 3d. as the other party is heartless, we may soon be down to 2D l . .

hawk

Re:The first in what sense? (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39572919)

Actually 2D surgery is perfectly viable... for steamroller accident patients...

Re:The first in what sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39576971)

I thought they were in 4D. How can you change something in 3D... unless the thing you change is in 2D, of cause. :-P

Re:The first in what sense? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578651)

Surgeries have always been 3D. A 2D surgery doesn't do much on a three dimensional patient.

True, although after my back surgery last year I was left feeling a little flat.

But can it play the harmonica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569571)

MEDIBOT!

Re:The first in what sense? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569587)

It's a completely different piece of kit, operated differently, which can perform completely different tasks. So apart from that, they're identical :)

It's Manchester (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569705)

The continuous, driving rain, the dysfunctional inhabitants and the general misery of life in Manchester probably makes the surgeons think it's still 1912. (I know, I know...Manchester has never got over the sense of entitlement it got from having the world's first stored-program practical digital computer, and having had Alan Turing as its star programmer.

Da Vinci vs. This vs. Laparoscopy (5, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569727)

The Da Vinci robot is, as it names implies, a *robot*. It is remotely controlled.
The surgeon isn't operating the patient directly, the surgeon is sitting comfortably at a console, manipulating joysticks and looking into a cinemascope-type of fixed goggle 3d display. Then in the next room, the robot is working (almost) alone (except maybe for a couple of assisting humans) remotely according to the piloting performed by the surgeon. Most of the time the patient isn't opened but the robot instruments are passed through small holes on the patient's skin.
(It's currently in the next room, so if anything goes wrong, the surgeons can sterilize his hands and pick up the work from where the robot failed. But there has been tests performed with longer distance and a different surgeon staying in "stand by" mode)
In this case:
- the surgery is performed by a robot.
- the surgeon is sitting next door, not above the patient.
- only the surgeon gets 3D pics
- the assitants get normal flat 2D pics on monitors in the operating room. (And during the few operation I've seen, the surgeon can use his better 3D perception and higher dexterity robot instruments to assist the assitants passing material, like stiching material).

Laparoscopy:
It's closed surgergy. You don't open the patient, but you manually put instruments through the skin. Also everybody (surgeon + whole crew) is in the operating room. To see what you're doing you put 1 single normal 2D camera into the body (usually using fiber optics to avoid putting the whole thing inside :-) )
So:
- The surgeon is operating with her/his own hands using long rigid instruments passed through the patient's skin.
- Everybody (surgeon included) gets the same 2D picture on the screen inside the operating room.

This case:
2 variations from laparoscopy. They use stereoscopic pictures and robotic claws. So the "new" differences are:
- The surgeon is still operating but her/his hands are holding hand-held robotic claws instead of simply "longer-than-classical" instruments.
- The camera gives a 3D feed on the monitors for everyone, as long as they wear glasses.
That's new in UK apparently (and I haven't heard about the method before)
I don't know if you make 3 holes like classical laparoscopy (1 for the camera's fiber optics, 2 channels for passing instruments) or if you need 4 holes (2 for the camera)

Another type of operation worth mentionning:
Endoscopy. In this case absolutely everything is mounting on a long tentacle-shaped probe. The probe is completely articulated like a tentacle (unlike the long rigid instruments of laparoscopy, or the few joints of robotic instruments), although it doesn't move actively (it's not remotely controlled like robotic stuff, it can only bends to follow the shape of the hollow space you're following) although you *can* control the orientation of the tip (to pick up the correct turn in branching anatomy). It contains absolutely everything for the surgery packed into the tentacle: fiber optics for imaging and lights, a channel to rince and/or spray drugs, another channel to vacuum (aspiration), and a channel to pass ultra long ultra thin flexible instrument (like a small claw).
I think most models lack the possibility to use a big electro cuterisation, but given the small claw you can't cut enough to cause massive bleedings which aren't resolved by simply spraying adrenaline.
- Because of the small channel and small claw, it's mostly used for biopsies (taking a small chunk of something suspect to send it to the lab for analysis).
- The claw is next to the image (at the tip of the tentacle, not a separate instrument separately operated). So you don't look while moving the instrument, instead you move the whole tentacle in position and chomp whatever is directly in front.
- Because everything is contained into a single probe and the probe is articulated, this is mostly used to explore open orifices like the lungs (from the mouth) or the guts (from the mouth or the opposite side)

I've heard some have tried to pack a stereo imaging solution into the probe.
There are roboticist trying to make a remotely piloted, fully articulated version of this last thing. (Thus something like a surgical robotic snake, completely unlike the DaVinci).

Re:Da Vinci vs. This vs. Laparoscopy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39570111)

OK, so according to this other article [bbc.co.uk] , the Da Vinci robot has been used in the UK already, meaning that this isn't the first laparoscopic surgery in the UK in 3D. It may have the novelty of letting the rest of the team view the procedure in 3D, but that's irrelevant because only the guy manipulating the instruments needs it.

The real difference compared to a Da Vinci is that the robotic arms are hand-held rather than held steady by a large robotic mounting. The advantage is simply that just having a couple robotic arms is much cheaper than a whole Da Vinci robot.

Note that this is not even the first use of 3D with this handheld robotic arm system. That was last year [msn.com] . It may have been the first use of this combination in the UK, though.

Also, I've never seen a Da Vinci used in a separate room from the console. In my experience they generally use it with the console and robot in the same room.

dom

Re:Da Vinci vs. This vs. Laparoscopy (1)

ivec (61549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39572017)

Some additional info:

As I commented in the original article, stereoscopic (=3D) laparoscopy has existed for more than 20 years:

Articles such as http://www.giejournal.org/arti [giejournal.org] ... show that the cost/benefit was of "3D" was being evaluated in 1992 (this study is not made "in-patient", as it was easier to measure performance in an artificial setting). The point is that stereoscopic endoscopes and display equipment were available, and I know surgeons who were trying them, but felt that the extra cost and discomfort were not worth overcoming.

3 holes are commonly needed for a laparoscopic procedure: one for a camera, two for two instruments held by the main operator; a 4th hole is sometimes used to insert an additional instrument (allowing an assisting surgeon to lift the liver or hold an organ out of the way).
I've seen many projects for robotized cameras (to avoid needing the additional helping hand), or projects to offer instrument tracking or even enhanced reality (showing visual cues on-screen).

The "robotic claw" is named in the article as "Kymerax": it's basically a "classic" instrument with some added joint/degree of freedom. It's main purpose is to improve ergonomy: facilitate access and improve comfort for the operator by allowing the "tip" of the instrument to be bent or turned. Videos of it can be found online, for instance: http://www.uroweb.org/?id=320&yid=13 [uroweb.org]

The Da Vinci system is indeed much more complex and expensive. The classical instrument is replaced by robotized manipulator with additional degrees of freedom (a bit like the hand-held Kymerax, but on a robotic base). The operator works from a console intended to offer improved ergonomy, with manipulators that allow more flexible motion.

hth -Ivan

Re:The first in what sense? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570665)

From your link:

...The fourth arm is for an endoscopic camera with two lenses that gives the surgeon full stereoscopic vision from the console.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared the da Vinci Surgical System in 2000 for adult and pediatric use in urologic surgical procedures, general laparoscopic surgical procedures, gynecologic laparoscopic surgical procedures, general non-cardiovascular thoracoscopic surgical procedures and thoracoscopically assisted cardiotomy procedures. The da Vinci System may also be employed with adjunctive mediastinotomy to perform coronary anastomosis during cardiac revascularization.[6]

FDA approval means they've been doing stereo surgery in the US for a dozen years. That was three years before the CrystaLens I have in my eye was approved.

It appears that the headline is greatly misleading. It should have read "UK surgeons finally get stereoscopic robotic surgery, 12 years after US surgeons."

Google team up. (4, Funny)

unreadepitaph (1537383) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569051)

Google soon to provide a street view style map of my insides.

Re:Google team up. (0)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569153)

It must have really sucked to get injured in the UK when they could only operate in 2D.

Was it the crappy food that killed their depth perception?

Re:Google team up. (1)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569161)

presumably because trying to make sense of a 2D image for hours on end is incredibly strenuous

They have a point. During marathon sessions of Operation, I'd often suffer from eye strain.

Re:Google team up. (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570779)

It's merely that their cooking has no depth.

Re:Google team up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39572681)

Oh hahahaha. I see what you did there. The 1970s called.. they'd like their joke back. The 1990s just called me, and they'd like this joke back too.

Standard practice for prostate cancer already (2)

JasperKlewer (1600041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569065)

Prostate cancer surgery and hysterectomies is already done with robots and 3D vision. 80% of prostatectomies in the US are done with the "Da Vinci" robot in a procedure called Robot Assisted Laparascopic Prostatectomy. The surgeon operates the robot through a console with 3D vision. http://www.davinciprostatectomy.com/davinci_prostatectomy/index.aspx [davinciprostatectomy.com]

My String Theory 11D surgeon poops on your 3D! (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569073)

Mine is better, because it goes up to 11D. Across the 8th Dimension. Most only go up to 10D.

"You can check your anatomy all you want, and even though there may be normal variation, when it comes right down to it, this far inside the head it all looks the same. No, no, no, don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to. "

Re:My String Theory 11D surgeon poops on your 3D! (1)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570135)

Not enough mod points...

Speaking of sick... (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569079)

Really? I am getting so sick and tired of everything being in 3D nowadays!

-AI

Re:Speaking of sick... (4, Funny)

lxs (131946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569123)

Me too! That's why I have started wearing an eyepatch.

Re:Speaking of sick... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569459)

Well when you go for a surgery demand the 2d surgery because you won't pay the premium for a 3d one.

Re:Speaking of sick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39572399)

:(

I guess can only afford 1-D: Digestive tract

Re:Speaking of sick... (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570649)

Well, according to the headline... Seems news to me the doctors just now operate in 3D. I had my suspicions that doctors may have been operating on another dimension, but they always seemed like real 3D to me. So I'm what dimension where they living all along?

Hate to break it too you guys, but (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569083)

Humans are capable of seeing 3d without technology and in fact every surgery that was done without electronics and optics have always been 3D.

So they've figured out that using a 3d microscope is a good idea? Seriously? Weren't most of us taught this in high school or something?

Funny how people get excited when technology finally catches up to the way we've done it all along.

Re:Hate to break it too you guys, but (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570045)

Your reading comprehension is truly awful. Really, really awful. This is not a 3D microscope. This is not doing something "the way we've done it all along" - this is radically different.

Re:Hate to break it too you guys, but (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571827)

Dave 420 is right. If you had a gall bladder operation years ago you'd have a huge scar, was in the hospital for weeks, and it took a long time to heal. The new robotic keyhole surgeries are often done on an outpatient basis, leave tiny scars, and heal quickly.

It's nothing like traditional surgery.

Were you going for "funny?" If so, you failed miserably.

3D already standard on DaVinci surgical system (4, Interesting)

HizookRobotics (1722346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569115)

Uhm... I'm pretty sure that every single one of the Intuitive Surgical DaVinci robot workstations are 3D for the operator -- and we all know that hundreds of surgeries are performed with these every day.. In this video of researchers playing "Operation" (the board game) with a DaVinci robot [hizook.com] , you can see the operator console with separate eye pieces to give 3D effects. I personally got to play with a DaVinci at IROS (robotics conference) last year, and the operator console was definitely in 3D -- though the observer consoles are just normal 2D TVs. I was told that this had been standard for a _long_ time.

Re:3D already standard on DaVinci surgical system (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570071)

And again, as has been pointed out many times in these comments, this is radically different. I know, I know - Slashdot and not R-ing TFAs, but seriously, this is taking the piss.

Re:3D already standard on DaVinci surgical system (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570255)

OK. I have RTFA, and I still don't see how this "is taking the piss." It's endoscopic surgery, as performed hundreds of times a day in the UK. The difference is that their endoscope has a 3D camera, and the monitors are 3D. I'll admit that giving docs depth perception is an improvement, it is hardly a first. Please, tell me what is so special about this surgery, especially compared to the Da Vinci, that has half the responders to this article riding high on ecstasy.

Re:3D already standard on DaVinci surgical system (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39596083)

If you read the article, and know what DaVinci is, you'd know what the differences are. It's really not hard to understand.

What % of surgeons can use it? (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569187)

From TFA:

3D projection would reduce surgeon fatigue, presumably because trying to make sense of a 2D image for hours on end is incredibly strenuous

I'd love to know what percentage of surgeons can see 3D images and look at them for hours without getting a headache. Personally I find 2D images much less stressful to look at.

Re:What % of surgeons can use it? (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569411)

I'd love to know what percentage of surgeons can see 3D images and look at them for hours without getting a headache. Personally I find 2D images much less stressful to look at.

I have so many questions...

What does your parrot think of this?

Is it tiring to walk with a wooden leg?

Do you have a map with a big red X on the spot where you hid you plunder?

What do you mean by YARRR?

Re:What % of surgeons can use it? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569489)

From TFA:

3D projection would reduce surgeon fatigue, presumably because trying to make sense of a 2D image for hours on end is incredibly strenuous

I'd love to know what percentage of surgeons can see 3D images and look at them for hours without getting a headache. Personally I find 2D images much less stressful to look at.

It's not about that. It is about not having to reconstruct a 3d scene in your mind based on a 2d photo. You need to spend less brainpower on spatial processing trying to figure out how things are.

Re:What % of surgeons can use it? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571469)

My first reaction to the article was along those lines as well, but then I realized that the core problem with movie "3d" is that they are trying to make a 3d image on a large screen look the same to everybody, regardless of their distance from the screen. Using stereoscopic imaging to direct different images at each eye forces people's eyes to converge towards a distance that may not necessarily correspond the distance they are actually looking at (or worse, can sometimes cause actual eye divergence if one is sitting too close to the screen).

However, if this is intended for viewing by people who are all approximately the same distance from what the images that are being sent to them appear to be, then there is no reason that such mass audience stereoscopic imagery techniques need to be employed, and it could be made quite manageable for people to look at for extended periods.

Re:What % of surgeons can use it? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39572163)

The reason "3D" movies give you headaches is because they're not really 3D. Your eye use more than stereoscopy to determine depth. Actually, the eye doesn't determine depth, the brain does. And it uses many cues from the eyes, including where your eye is focusing.

Say you have a "3D" TV ten feet away from you. Your eyes are focused at ten feet but stereoscopy tells your brain that the butterfly is two feet from your face. That's why you get the headaches, your eyes' muscles are working against themselves.

I doubt they'd have that problem with this, as whatever they're looking at will be in sharp focus with plenty of depth of field.

Holograms are truly 3D, but I doubt we have displays today with high enough resolution. Even film holograms look grainy, even when the same scene shot in a normal 2D photographic process using the same film shows no grain at all. You would need some fantastic resolution to have a decent digital hologram.

Innovation in a country with socialized medicine ? (2)

ToddInSF (765534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569229)

How is this possible ?

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (1)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569455)

Probably because socialised medicine is an innovation itself.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (4, Insightful)

CProgrammer98 (240351) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569473)

because socialised medicine actually works?. We;ve been doing it for decades in the UK. OK it's not perfect, sometimes you have to wait a while for non-urgent procedures but we're always guaranteed no matter what our social/economic standing, and the drug companies are not in cahoots with the insurance guys and hospitals to inflate the price of everything, so we don't have to pay $100 for a $0.10 pill.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39570575)

because socialised medicine actually works?

My wife called GP this morning at 8:00, she got through at 8:10 and was told there's no slots for today left. Not the first time this happened, that's why she knows to call 8:00 when they open the lines. You cannot register for next day either, she will have to call again 8:00 tomorrow. That's socialised medicine for you. NHS sucks.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571007)

Then try a different GP practice. Whenever I phone up my doctors it is almost always a week's wait until the first available appointment. TBH I think I'd rather take my chances having to call first thing, it'd probably result in a shorter waiting time for me. No-one said the NHS was perfect, but it does work. And you are still free to go private.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (1)

cluedweasel (832743) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571705)

So what? It took my wife the best part of an hour on the phone to find a doctor that was even accepting new patients. When she did, it was a 3 week wait for an appointment. A few months ago, I was suffering from a kidney stone. Couldn't get in to see my doctor that day so ended up at an urgent care center. That place wasn't in network, so I ended up paying $3,500 for treatment instead of $20. Welcome to the U.S.A. Be proud and thankful for the NHS.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (1)

KrazyDave (2559307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569517)

... as though no innovation occurs in US medical treatments and technologies under our system of private insurers. Sure (rolls eyes). If you're satisfied with your socialized medicine, bully for you. But for us in the US with the looming specter of 'Obamacare", it's odd that if it's so wonderful, why not many (and no media) are questioning why the President and all of Congress (and their dependents) will be exempt from it.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (2)

ToddInSF (765534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39569611)

More expensive, new, relatively untested or poorly tested, and dangerous treatment options rushed through by the drug company dominated and controlled FDA is not necessarily better. Also, not all medical innovations in the US are a product of the insurers - THAT is a ridiculous assertion.

And I LIVE in the USA. We don't have a single system, far from it. Just ignoring the people on Medicare and the system in place for veterans doesn't make those "socialized" systems nonexistent, no matter what your particular political agenda.

Also, congress and the President are not "exempt" from "Obamacare".

I know Canadians that are better informed on American health care than you are. Sad. But oddly typical.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570075)

You really are bad at this whole "arguing your case like an adult" thing. The mixture of hubris and ignorance is eye-wateringly awkward.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39570425)

Wow, good thing we have your law expertise to interpret the healthcare act. Oh, so you are not a lawyer? Well, who told you they would be exempt from a law that doesn't have exemptions for most all of the mandates? Your anti-Obama friends that also aren't lawyers? Well, certainly then it makes much more sense that there is a grand conspiracy against the American people and forcing them to get private insurance and not that your friends are willfully and maliciously ignorant.

I'm going to assume when you talk about exemptiions, you are talking about the insurance mandate, since that is what the conservatives have their panties in a twist over. Yes, Obama and Congress are exempt from buying health insurance under the law, just like most all Americans are, because they ALREADY have health insurance.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39572773)

Obamacare isn't socialized medicine, it's a gift to the insurance companies and doesn't help the problem at all. The problem is, we have the most expensive health care in the world but by any metric you care to measure it, it's far from the best. The insurance companies themselves are the problem. They're middlemen who siphon cash without adding any value whatever. Medical insurance companies (and their brothers, malpractice insurance) are parasites on the system.

Re:Innovation in a country with socialized medicin (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570393)

FTA:

It seems the surgeons were wrong in their claim — the Da Vinci surgical system, which also operates in 3D, has existed for at least 10 years. Maybe the UK surgeons are talking about a different kind of 3D

Apparently "innovation in a country with socialized medicine" means reinventing a wheel that was approved by the FDA in the US ten years ago.

Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569271)

I'm pretty sure the doctors were operating in 3d when I broke my arm

Security 3d (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569279)

Thereâ(TM)s a lot to be said about running The Tor Browser Bundle in an encrypted container (TrueCrypt) on a LiveCD, with the hard drive UNPLUGGED and UNUSED!

(just take the hard drives out and never use them again, USB thumb drives are cheap and can be encrypted with TrueCrypt, too, as an encrypted containter, partition, or the whole drive itself, just never use a proprietary OS like Windows or Mac OS X)

As a primer, read:

#Tor OPSEC â" Operational Security â" Great Resource of Information!

cryptome.org/0005/tor-opsec.htm

And:

#Lest We Remember: Cold Boot Attacks on Encryption Keys

citp.princeton.edu/research/memory

If the keys (TC passwords) are in my head, complex enough, and never written downâ¦

With the amount of RAM present in new computers, I see no logical reason to use a hard drive again when Linux LiveCDs, encryption, and thumb drives are on the cheap or free.

No unsafe hardware sex, either, this means no plugging your Tor/Truecrypt thumb drive into another system, any system, except for your Tor/Truecrypt system.

Run audits on your system, verify LiveCDs, make sure your router isnâ(TM)t backdoored like many or maybe all of the Cisco routers. Keep up to date if you use open source firmware for your routers. Consider replacing proprietary routers with an older PC as a router with an open source OS like OpenBSD or a prerolled firewall distro.

Test your connection with remote nmap, dabble with Snort, Tripwire and other monitoring tools.

Donâ(TM)t use external hard drives.

RAM is your friend, always.

All other surgeons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569465)

are still operating solely on 2D. While the lack of depth has gone unnoticed for a long while now, especially amongst politicians, those folk who have the audacity to have some depth to them will be happy to hear this.

Fucking Shills (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569499)

So the same fucking shills trying to sell us more over-priced TVs give you a press release like this, and you print the fucker like it's news? Fuck 3D, fuck the shills and fuck you.

Are surgeons tested for spatial perception (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39569509)

I wonder if surgeons are tested for spatial perception. At least in Finland for instance architects have weeklong entrance exams, where they are tested, among other things, for their ability to think in 3d. As an architect, I am asking just out of curiosity, if this is the case also with surgeons?

We are also using scalpels for model building...

Re:Are surgeons tested for spatial perception (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39570279)

At least in Germany, there are thinking-in-3D tests as precondition for medical studies (which of course are a precondition of becoming a surgeon).

Re:Are surgeons tested for spatial perception (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39570969)

I wonder if surgeons are tested for spatial perception. At least in Finland for instance architects have weeklong entrance exams, where they are tested, among other things, for their ability to think in 3d. As an architect, I am asking just out of curiosity, if this is the case also with surgeons?

We are also using scalpels for model building...

Out of curiosity, is this for thinking in 3D, or depth perception/seeing in 3D?

If you pass the tests and then, say, lose an eye in an accident, are you forced to get a new job?

up to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39570017)

all patients first had to be flattened

In 3d?!?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39570221)

Good, 'cause I'm 3d.

Feedback (1)

smc170 (2609895) | more than 2 years ago | (#39570227)

Now it would be really awesome to have haptic feedback! Imagine, cutting through virtual bone with a virtual saw!

In 3D? Meh. (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39586085)

The special effects sucked, not enough explosions and no Megan Fox running in slow motion. One thumb up only.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?