Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!willisa From: willisa@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mark Willis) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: What happened? Could risk be higher? Message-ID: <4014@samoa.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 12 Dec 89 23:39:03 GMT References: <5082@jane.uh.edu> <1989Nov29.163242.1165@utzoo.uucp> <6791@pdn.paradyne.com> <1989Dec1.040218.26158@utzoo.uucp> <6801@pdn.paradyne.com> <2991@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> Reply-To: willisa@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mark Willis) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 13 In article <2991@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: >I wonder how they define "useful" consciousness... I have >heard that one would stay conscious for thirty seconds or so >in a total vacuum, but I don't know how "useful" it would be. Asking how long can a person stay conscious in a total vacuum is similar to asking how long can a person hold his breath for, which is at least a minute, and probably a lot longer in a vacuum because you can't cheat. Mark ---- -- JANet: willisa@uk.ac.gla.cs ARPA: willisa@cs.glasgow.ac.uk