The issue seems to be that while conventional surgery requires help from students robotic surgery does not. It becomes very difficult for a student to do part of the surgery and thereby learn by doing. A possible solution would be better simulations so that a student can learn by doing. I think it is a very different than working on a cadaver or simulated patient using conventional methods. The main one being that there is already a separation from the patient by the machine. Every image and feedback that the doctor gets through the robotic surgery device can be simulated by software. It can be programmed to simulate problems so the doctor has to deal with more realistic issues. In effect a flight simulator for surgery.

no it was update as I was trying to update for heartbleed.

Sorry but we are not talking about open source. We are talking about a company with shareholders who are interested in revenue spending lots of money for no direct return. They most probably have a budget and are limited in what they can do.

How does making drivers so Linux games play better support research?

Yeah, running "apt get update" which breaks the install and requires a full rebuild of a web server is such a good idea for a OS. It happened to me. I have yet to do an install or upgrade on a Linux server that does not refer to packages that I do not have or which may be incomparable with packages I do have.

I use Linux only because I have to (IIS is even worse).

Will investing hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting an OS with 1.6% of market share ever return a profit?

Seems the usual way Linux works.

You might want to get your facts straight. If you are talking about the breach in September 2014 he was stopped by secirity personnel not cleaning staff. If it is a different one, please provide a reference. That is how layered security works.

The president was on the other side of the building boarding a helicopter and in no danger. The fence jumper was in view of at least one agent at all times. He was stopped long before he encountered any non-security personnel. Their other option was to shoot him when he jumped the fence and then the headline would have been "Secret Service Murders Mentally Ill Veteran". Yes, he should not have gotten into the building but he was stopped soon after. The layered security worked.

If you are talking about this you should know a few points.
1. While he had been arrested he was not convicted.
2. We do not know what the arrest was for. It could have been something non-violent.
3. He was a security guard for the CDC where the POTUS was visiting. He had therefore gone through the security screening of at least the CDC.
4. He only came to the attention of the Secret Service because he would not stop photographing the POTUS when asked.
This guy was in no way a threat

BTW, one can not be an ex-felon unless pardoned.

I find it interesting that so many people refer to security getting in the way of productivity. What happens of all your security circumventions cause a breach that results in R&D being stolen, the system being hacked and customer personal information released, systems being taken down, etc. These can cause millions of dollars of loss. All your "producivity improvements" may be negated and much more by a breach caused by your failure to follow the rules. I think that the "my productivity is being harmed" people are too focused on their own job and refuse to see the big picture.

That assumes that the recycling process is completely clean and retrieves 100% of the material. That is an assumption as you do not have the numbers. Many recycling processes use nasty solvents and lots of water. How do you know that the recycling process is not ten times as bad as oil extraction and only retrieves part of the material? You don't and I don't.

My ultimate point is that it is useless arguing based on assumptions. I want real numbers. Do a real cradle to grave analysis of both technologies and then we can have a valid discussion. Until then discussion is useless as whoever wants to make a point will select the numbers to use to "prove" their slanted view.

By the way, calling people names just shows you have a weak argument.

Once one makes an assumption and subsequent comparisons are invalid.

If mining for lithium and other battery components is much dirtier than extracting oil then overall batteries may still be dirtier even after recycling is taken into account.

"Suspect" is not good enough. You are also talking about different things. If you want comparisons with oil drilling sites try lithium mines. For oil spills try tailings pond disasters. You still will not get a complete picture

The whole point is that this study only looks at a small part of the comparison between electric and fossil fuel vehicles. To be accurate, the whole life cycle of the products must be compared and not just the parts that make your favorite look good.

Recycling batteries is not a clean process.

I am ignoring nothing. I just gave an example of something missing in the analysis. My point is that any analysis that is incomplete unless it takes into account all aspects of an object. Did you even read my last statement?

I am advocating analyzing everything. It is too easy to skew a report by if one picks and chooses what to analyze.

It also ignores the impact of of the production and disposal of batteries and their components.

This study only analyzes one part of the equation and is far from comprehensive. A full "cradle to grave" analysis needs to be done.