Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Stack)   Why your robot surgeon needs a way better Netflix connection than you   (thestack.com) divider line
    More: Scary, haptic information, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Sensory system, standard haptic codecs, network haptic procedures, reliable haptic network, haptic information protocols, Electrical engineering  
•       •       •

1734 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 04 Jan 2016 at 1:37 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



28 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2016-01-04 12:55:21 PM  
I'd worry about my surgeon functioning correctly, whether robot or human.  I'd worry more about my surgeon being Ben Carson.
 
2016-01-04 2:03:06 PM  
What concerns me is:

thestack.comView Full Size


HOW THE HELL IS HE PERFORMING THAT SURGERY WHILE DESIGNING A 3D  BIRD?!?!?!
 
2016-01-04 2:05:34 PM  

jakrabit: What concerns me is:

[thestack.com image 832x333]

HOW THE HELL IS HE PERFORMING THAT SURGERY WHILE DESIGNING A 3D  BIRD?!?!?!


People jam some really weird things up there...
 
2016-01-04 2:10:23 PM  
Dedicated infrastructure, with the public right-of-way surrendered in emergent circumstances?

shtfplan.comView Full Size


truckclipart.comView Full Size


// and fire lanes, and police-only parking (which is a thing, at least around police stations)
 
2016-01-04 2:11:14 PM  

jakrabit: What concerns me is:

[thestack.com image 832x333]

HOW THE HELL IS HE PERFORMING THAT SURGERY WHILE DESIGNING A 3D  BIRD?!?!?!


Wow, he's getting artistic with the closing sutures.
 
2016-01-04 2:14:02 PM  
Damn, Ok let's go back to the last save point and try this again.
 
2016-01-04 2:14:36 PM  
caps.picturesView Full Size


Thanks, Obama!
 
2016-01-04 2:35:06 PM  

Psylent1: Damn, Ok let's go back to the last save point and try this again.


our reports showed a massive anomaly in the timespace continuum. timelines jumping left and right, stopping and starting...until suddenly, everything ends.
heh heh heh... that's your fault isn't it?
 
2016-01-04 2:38:42 PM  
Compression! Now!!! Wait! Not That!!!
 
2016-01-04 2:41:21 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Dedicated infrastructure, with the public right-of-way surrendered in emergent circumstances?

[shtfplan.com image 500x282]

[www.truckclipart.com image 300x225]

// and fire lanes, and police-only parking (which is a thing, at least around police stations)


Sounds like this is more of a network architecture issue rather than a network contention issue, but yeah, I'd have no problem prioritizing certain emergency service traffic so long as it's net neutrality compliant, so to speak.
 
2016-01-04 2:49:20 PM  
*buffering* *buffering* *buffering*
*bleeding* *bleeding* *BLEEDING*
 
2016-01-04 3:01:48 PM  

Flt209er: Dr Dreidel: Dedicated infrastructure, with the public right-of-way surrendered in emergent circumstances?

[shtfplan.com image 500x282]

[www.truckclipart.com image 300x225]

// and fire lanes, and police-only parking (which is a thing, at least around police stations)

Sounds like this is more of a network architecture issue rather than a network contention issue, but yeah, I'd have no problem prioritizing certain emergency service traffic so long as it's net neutrality compliant, so to speak.


That would be a great idea anywhere but in America. In America, the insurance industry would ensure that the prioritized channel would be reserved for insured patients, current on all premiums, at an in-network provider, on non-blackout dates (example: February 29), with an increase in the patient's co-payment of 86% for "specialized services". Because freedom, and choice, and Obamacare bad, and so forth.
 
2016-01-04 3:32:33 PM  

jakrabit: What concerns me is:
[thestack.com image 832x333]
HOW THE HELL IS HE PERFORMING THAT SURGERY WHILE DESIGNING A 3D  BIRD?!?!?!


My organs are a bird.  Your argument is invalid.
 
2016-01-04 3:36:27 PM  

jakrabit: What concerns me is:

[thestack.com image 832x333]

HOW THE HELL IS HE PERFORMING THAT SURGERY WHILE DESIGNING A 3D  BIRD?!?!?!


Everybody knows...
 
2016-01-04 3:40:08 PM  
unreliability of a system based on User Datagram Protocol (UDP).

GODDAMMIT. There's nothing inherently unreliable about UDP. Delivery of TCP packets is just as unreliable.
 
2016-01-04 3:48:28 PM  

Fano: jakrabit: What concerns me is:

[thestack.com image 832x333]

HOW THE HELL IS HE PERFORMING THAT SURGERY WHILE DESIGNING A 3D  BIRD?!?!?!

Everybody knows...


have you heard?

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2016-01-04 3:55:32 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: unreliability of a system based on User Datagram Protocol (UDP).

GODDAMMIT. There's nothing inherently unreliable about UDP. Delivery of TCP packets is just as unreliable.


Yah. It's much more scalable, too.
 
2016-01-04 4:02:48 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: Eddie Adams from Torrance: unreliability of a system based on User Datagram Protocol (UDP).

GODDAMMIT. There's nothing inherently unreliable about UDP. Delivery of TCP packets is just as unreliable.

Yah. It's much more scalable, too.


Well, TCP has error correcting built into the protocol, and UDP does not. But I'd argue that this is actually preferable in this instance as latency reduction is paramount and error checking can still be implemented client-side.
 
2016-01-04 4:06:07 PM  

capn' fun: Flt209er: Dr Dreidel: Dedicated infrastructure, with the public right-of-way surrendered in emergent circumstances?

[shtfplan.com image 500x282]

[www.truckclipart.com image 300x225]

// and fire lanes, and police-only parking (which is a thing, at least around police stations)

Sounds like this is more of a network architecture issue rather than a network contention issue, but yeah, I'd have no problem prioritizing certain emergency service traffic so long as it's net neutrality compliant, so to speak.

That would be a great idea anywhere but in America. In America, the insurance industry would ensure that the prioritized channel would be reserved for insured patients, current on all premiums, at an in-network provider, on non-blackout dates (example: February 29), with an increase in the patient's co-payment of 86% for "specialized services". Because freedom, and choice, and Obamacare bad, and so forth.


Make it a dedicated data channel, available for all healthcare providers who contribute to developing (or who pay the licensing fee to use) the EHR - two birds with one stone.

It also might be another unfunded mandate on doctors' offices (surgical centers, really) and hospitals, but I think that ISPs could also be cajoled into giving this channel a cheaper rate.

// hell, make THAT the internet utility
// would a dedicated EMS net-space, to encourage a move to VoIP-based comms, even be a good idea?
 
2016-01-04 4:24:08 PM  

Dr Dreidel: but I think that ISPs could also be cajoled into giving this channel a cheaper rate.


No, this would have to be federally mandated. If the ISP has any modicum of choice in the matter, it becomes trivial to make other "best interest" choices; and net neutrality is destroyed. Better to implement an official, dedicated port range for this type of traffic, and then monitor the use of that traffic heavily. Legitimate traffic is instantly prioritized; illegitimate traffic is immediately severed at the offending end node (like some ISPs already do if they catch you seeding torrents too often). I can see surgical centers needing to pay to keep some kind of 'allowed user' license up to date, but that shouldn't be too huge. For us normal users, we'd probably see a small increase in whatever service fee we already pay to cover the additional costs of said monitoring, but again, I'd be okay with that if it makes the internet that much closer to being classified as a utility.
 
2016-01-04 4:57:15 PM  
e.lvme.meView Full Size


This isn't how robotic surgery works.

Even in Telemedicine for the military there is someone on the other end actually performing the skill over a Satellite link.

In cybersurgery, the surgeon is actually in close proximity and using the robot for minute control and manipulation.

Just up the infrastructure to what is present in Europe and work on improving WiFi. EMS/Fire/PD tend to be behind in the tech game anyways.
 
2016-01-04 5:10:19 PM  
I wasn't aware that I used a DEDICATED LINE for my Netflix Streams! That's absolutely mind-blowing man! Should doctors have access to a better dedicated line for their Netflix because they remotely perform surgeries for which they charge EXTRA over an in-person surgery? Sure man! Whatever, that's cool!

(Actually I would be cool with them PAYING for a better service, whether it worked like so or by some other means. Reserved bandwidth on wireless frequencies is nothing new for the medical world and others either and the reasons for its necessity are obvious. Relating this to Net Neutrality? Not on your life!)

Serious aside: I once repaired some equipment in several operating theaters that played host to Da Vinci surgery robots. In one room, the lights flickered constantly and even the equipment that was supposed to have a battery backup was showing obvious signs of being affected by the brown-outs. On inquiry, I learned that the room, JUST that one room, had always had these issues, yes it affected the robot, oh, and that room was used more for that type of surgery than all of the other operating theaters in that hospital put together, by a factor larger than 2 to 1. I thought I knew what "due diligence" meant, I have been assured that I was mistaken.
 
2016-01-04 6:17:53 PM  
I do not want any latency while getting a tele-handjob.
 
2016-01-04 7:50:05 PM  

Fano: jakrabit: What concerns me is:

[thestack.com image 832x333]

HOW THE HELL IS HE PERFORMING THAT SURGERY WHILE DESIGNING A 3D  BIRD?!?!?!

Everybody knows...


...a turkey and some mistletoe, Help to make the season bright?

not sure how that is relevant.
 
2016-01-04 10:30:41 PM  

Flt209er: Dr Dreidel: Dedicated infrastructure, with the public right-of-way surrendered in emergent circumstances?

[shtfplan.com image 500x282]

[www.truckclipart.com image 300x225]

// and fire lanes, and police-only parking (which is a thing, at least around police stations)

Sounds like this is more of a network architecture issue rather than a network contention issue, but yeah, I'd have no problem prioritizing certain emergency service traffic so long as it's net neutrality compliant, so to speak.


But that goes completely against the very idea of net neutrality.
 
2016-01-04 11:31:18 PM  

jigger: Flt209er: Dr Dreidel: Dedicated infrastructure, with the public right-of-way surrendered in emergent circumstances?

[shtfplan.com image 500x282]

[www.truckclipart.com image 300x225]

// and fire lanes, and police-only parking (which is a thing, at least around police stations)

Sounds like this is more of a network architecture issue rather than a network contention issue, but yeah, I'd have no problem prioritizing certain emergency service traffic so long as it's net neutrality compliant, so to speak.

But that goes completely against the very idea of net neutrality.


Not at all. A poor implementation might, but a good implementation wouldn't, and the idea of prioritizing emergency traffic has been around for decades; most notably the 911 and enhanced 911 systems. For a more direct analog, consider the VoIP 911 issues. This issue, though relatively benign, far better represents the danger of allowing prioritization rules to be decided on a provider-by-provider basis, and net neutrality is intended to combat intentionally sinister behavior resulting from such. Standardizing the definition, requirements, and behavior of emergency internet traffic is, in my opinion, a very good idea. If this could be done in a way that provides tangible healthcare benefits, I'm all for it.
 
2016-01-05 10:01:51 AM  

jigger: Flt209er: Dr Dreidel: Dedicated infrastructure, with the public right-of-way surrendered in emergent circumstances?

[shtfplan.com image 500x282]

[www.truckclipart.com image 300x225]

// and fire lanes, and police-only parking (which is a thing, at least around police stations)

Sounds like this is more of a network architecture issue rather than a network contention issue, but yeah, I'd have no problem prioritizing certain emergency service traffic so long as it's net neutrality compliant, so to speak.

But that goes completely against the very idea of net neutrality.


10 hours late to the party here, but I'd argue that it's within the overall goal of 'fairness' that NN attempts to preserve. Similar to the way that fire and ambulance have priority access to road 'bandwidth' in the real world.
 
2016-01-05 5:53:06 PM  

Flt209er: jigger: Flt209er: Dr Dreidel: Dedicated infrastructure, with the public right-of-way surrendered in emergent circumstances?

[shtfplan.com image 500x282]

[www.truckclipart.com image 300x225]

// and fire lanes, and police-only parking (which is a thing, at least around police stations)

Sounds like this is more of a network architecture issue rather than a network contention issue, but yeah, I'd have no problem prioritizing certain emergency service traffic so long as it's net neutrality compliant, so to speak.

But that goes completely against the very idea of net neutrality.

Not at all. A poor implementation might, but a good implementation wouldn't, and the idea of prioritizing emergency traffic has been around for decades; most notably the 911 and enhanced 911 systems. For a more direct analog, consider the VoIP 911 issues. This issue, though relatively benign, far better represents the danger of allowing prioritization rules to be decided on a provider-by-provider basis, and net neutrality is intended to combat intentionally sinister behavior resulting from such. Standardizing the definition, requirements, and behavior of emergency internet traffic is, in my opinion, a very good idea. If this could be done in a way that provides tangible healthcare benefits, I'm all for it.


... Sure you've sold me on the idea of allowing prioritized emergency data. Lets just make sure these emergency channels are 100% separated from the normal internet/wifi that the hospital uses and bar any ISP from charging additional cost for the service over what a normal service would cost. 100% dedicated and prioritized bandwidth for that service and only allow it to send/receive packets to/from other computers on that same emergency network (IE no netflix, or other services).

Honestly if we're really talking about needing this prioritized traffic for doing remote surgeries, then I'd honestly recommend developing a completely separate network. That way you wouldn't have to worry about hackers or DDoS attacks causing issues with the surgeries... Yes that's a extremely expensive solution to the problem but lets be honest, we need to expand and update our internet infrastructure anyways to handle the higher volumes of traffic and data. Laying some additional lines for prioritized emergency traffic and setting up a couple dozen additional internet hubs to handle dedicated traffic for an isolated emergency network would become a lot more reasonable if you were doing it as you upgraded and expanded the existing connections.

Also give me a compelling reason Fire/EMS/Police/Military require or need to be on such a highly prioritized network and I will agree consider extending such arrangements to them as well. However I currently do not envision any scenario where any of them would require a 1ms connection with prioritized traffic. If they can get the information they require in 30 seconds or less with a standard connection then I'd say good enough and good day sir. Welcome to the rest of the internet.

IMO if you are going to prioritize any data or connection you have to take every precaution to make sure that the Data is necessary to be prioritized and that its not being abused nor is the ISP gaining any extra incentive to prioritize the data over normal internet connections. Otherwise you just create a reason for the ISP's to justify additional expansion and scope creep later. I don't often use the slippery slope argument but we're not just talking about a situation that large corporations have already sued for, lobbied for, attempted to buy with campaign donations and if not for an intensive public awareness campaign, likely would have gotten. Call me crazy but I barely even find the above reasonable or justifiable, and in all likelihood when I read tomorrow that the writer of this article was paid by Comcast to write it then I'll probably withdraw my support for even this narrow expansion of prioritized internet service. Why? because I'm ok with a doctor being forced to be in the same room/hospital to do robo surgery if it means Comcast and the rest of the greedy ISP's can't make any argument for expanding the service for corporate greed reasons.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.