Slashdot Mirror


Mad Scientist Brings Back Dead With "Deanimation"

mattnyc99 writes "Esquire is running a a jaw-dropping profile of MacArthur genius Marc Roth in their annual Best and Brightest roundup, detailing how this gonzo DNA scientist (who also figured out how to diagnose lupus correctly) went from watching his infant daughter die to literally reincarnating animals. Inspired by NOVA and funded by DARPA, Roth has developed a serum for major biotech startup Ikaria that successfully accomplished 'suspended animation' — the closest we've ever come to simulating near-death experiences and then coming back to life. From the article: 'We don't know what life is, anyway. Not really. We just know what life does — it burns oxygen. It's a process of combustion. We're all just slow-burning candles, making our way through our allotment of precious O2 until it becomes our toxin, until we burn out, until we get old and die. But we live on 21 percent oxygen, just as we live at 37 degrees. They're related. Decrease the oxygen to 5 percent, we die. But, look, the concentration of oxygen in the blood that runs through our capillaries is only 2 or 3 percent. We're almost dead already! So what if we turn down the candle's need for oxygen? What if we dim the candle so much that we don't even have the energy to die?' " The writer Tom Junod engages in what Hunter Thompson once called "a failed but essentially noble experiment in pure gonzo journalism." If you can suspend your inner critic for a time, it's a fun ride.

501 comments

  1. First Undead Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Braiiiiins!

    1. Re:First Undead Post! by angryfirelord · · Score: 0, Funny

      pew pew pew

    2. Re:First Undead Post! by metlin · · Score: 5, Funny

      What do veggie zombies say?

      Graaaiiins. Grrraaaaaiiinnss. Gggrraaaaaiiiiinnnnssss.

      I'll be here all night, thank you.

    3. Re:First Undead Post! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Funny

      What do dyslexic zombies say? Briaaannnns!

    4. Re:First Undead Post! by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Braiiiiins!

      Trouuuuuuuuut! Trout!

      What, nobody watched the Middleman?

    5. Re:First Undead Post! by davidphogan74 · · Score: 5, Funny

      What do optometrist zombies say? Fraaaaaames!

    6. Re:First Undead Post! by Excds · · Score: 1

      Retarded zombie: "Cheeeeese!"

    7. Re:First Undead Post! by UUDIBUUDI · · Score: 1

      And for those who happen to be doing power cable documentation: Maaaaaaiiins!

    8. Re:First Undead Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do undead string theorists crave?

      Branes! Braaanes! Braaaaaaaanes!

    9. Re:First Undead Post! by vyruss000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      What do arthritic zombies say? Paaaiiinnns!

    10. Re:First Undead Post! by bornyesterday · · Score: 1

      What does Joe the Plumber zombie say? Redistribution of wealth! Wait, no. Drrrrraaaaaaiiiins!

    11. Re:First Undead Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does commuter zombies say? Traaaaains!

    12. Re:First Undead Post! by Raiden30 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please take zombies SERIOUSLY! Like this guy and his anti-zombie/lancer gun

    13. Re:First Undead Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do zombie comedians characterize this line of humor?

      Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammeee

    14. Re:First Undead Post! by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      What do physicist zombies say?

      Braaaanes!!!

    15. Re:First Undead Post! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "What does Joe the Plumber zombie say? Redistribution of wealth! "

      Nah..I think it is the Obama Zombie that says that.,p. Joe the Plumber zombies were just asking about it...."Waaaaaaaaa?"

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:First Undead Post! by cynical+kane · · Score: 1

      If only we can find a mad scientist who can reanimate dead jokes.

    17. Re:First Undead Post! by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      What do lawyer zombies say?

      Moneeeeey!

    18. Re:First Undead Post! by netglen · · Score: 1

      What do zombies say when they trip on a tombstone?

      Sprraaiinnss!

    19. Re:First Undead Post! by YourExperiment · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not dead, it's just resting.

    20. Re:First Undead Post! by online-shopper · · Score: 1

      So the same as live ones, yes?

    21. Re:First Undead Post! by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      There are live ones?

    22. Re:First Undead Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do ethical zombies say? Shaaaaame?

      ugh sorry

    23. Re:First Undead Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do zombie kids say? I like turtles!

    24. Re:First Undead Post! by OhItsJustSeanV67 · · Score: 1

      What does wheat farmers say? Graaaains!

    25. Re:First Undead Post! by JoCat · · Score: 1

      What do conductor zombies say? Traaaaiiinnns!

    26. Re:First Undead Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do recipients of bad jokes say? Laaaames

    27. Re:First Undead Post! by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      What to gamer zombies say? GAAAAAAAAAAMMMESS!

      At least the gamer zombies are real.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    28. Re:First Undead Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do industrial revolution zombies say?

      Traaaaaaaaaains!

  2. Reanimator! by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

    Klatu Verata Nictu!

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Reanimator! by jebrew · · Score: 5, Funny

      necktie?

    2. Re:Reanimator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer An Corp.

    3. Re:Reanimator! by jbezorg · · Score: 3, Funny

      It definitely was a "N" word

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    4. Re:Reanimator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's Klaatu you insolent clod!

    5. Re:Reanimator! by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ia, Ia! Shub-Niggurath!

    6. Re:Reanimator! by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      That makes me curious what Vas An Corp would do in a graveyard...

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    7. Re:Reanimator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god.. I see some Ultima fans still dwell the earth.

      yours truly, Luuseens.

    8. Re:Reanimator! by Metasquares · · Score: 3, Funny

      heh, I read that as Vas Corp Por. I know exactly what that would do in a graveyard...

    9. Re:Reanimator! by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    10. Re:Reanimator! by morari · · Score: 1

      Herbert West, is that you?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    11. Re:Reanimator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know using a vas deferens in a graveyard can get you a necrophilia charge.

    12. Re:Reanimator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're doing it wrong.

      "klaatu barada nikto" (boycott the remake.)

    13. Re:Reanimator! by Terminus32 · · Score: 0

      Ia, Ia! Shub-Niggurath! The goat of the black woods with a thousand young!

      --
      http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
    14. Re:Reanimator! by Walpurgiss · · Score: 1

      Been so long Ultima :/

    15. Re:Reanimator! by xaositects · · Score: 1

      Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

    16. Re:Reanimator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edin na zu, telal uruku!

    17. Re:Reanimator! by KovaaK · · Score: 1

      /me telefrags you

    18. Re:Reanimator! by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      I take it I'm not the only one that saw the previews for the remake and went "WTF? What does this have to do with the original?". In TDTESS they never attacked Earth, and never destroyed anything that wasn't trying to hurt or kill them. From what I've seen of the previews it looks like in this version they've got an all out invasion going, and they've got clouds of something or other that look to be disintegrating (or maybe eating) metal, stone, and possibly plastic structures (like cars, and buildings). I mean, where does that fit into The Day the Earth Stood Still?

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    19. Re:Reanimator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An Corp

    20. Re:Reanimator! by Genda · · Score: 1

      And a Yog S'thoth to you too!

    21. Re:Reanimator! by Miltazar · · Score: 1

      Klatu Verata N*cough cough*

      --
      "Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?"
  3. Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This reminds me of a This American Life episode I listened to (and you can too by clicking on Full Episode here). Basically it explores a very bad chapter of early cryogenics. Before I listened to that, I thought that this was pretty cut and dried ethically (dead bodies are dead bodies, do what you want) but you see how it negatively affects other people who misplace hope in this process.

    Also, isn't Ikaria the worst name to pick? "Hey, our company hopes to aim too high and fail hard." They should have gone with Promethea in my opinion.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by s.bots · · Score: 4, Informative

      In TFA it mentions that

      It's called Ikaria, after the island with regenerative sulfur springs mentioned by Herodotus.

    2. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      Before I listened to that, I thought that this was pretty cut and dried ethically (dead bodies are dead bodies, do what you want) but you see how it negatively affects other people who misplace hope in this process.

      A corpse is a corpse
      of course, of course
      and you can't gain consent from a corpse, of course
      because a corpse is, of course
      by definition dead!

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    3. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Good point, but it is still named after the island that is named after Icarus :D

    4. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chained to a rock for all eternity while vultures devour your liver doesn't sound so great either...

    5. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would be ok if you had net access.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by davolfman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's interesting is that we're talking metabolic suspended animation. It's actually a pretty old idea. I remember reading about it for the first time in "The Star are Ours!" an old Andre Norton scifi novel.

    7. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Rather that than spending the time with whatever kind of christians :D

    8. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by nsaneinside · · Score: 1

      Religion-bashing aside, wouldn't eternal happiness get rather dull, anyway? I rather like the challenge of trying to stay alive. :)

    9. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by grunaura · · Score: 1

      The Esquire article clearly states the mantra of Marc Roth as being success through failure so no, Ikaria isn't far off.

    10. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by aliquis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dunno, wasn't some philosophical dude saying that we have two "life powers", each competing for trying to have us stay alive or die?

      It's rather easy to see in what way we tries to stay alive, avoiding dangers and such, but the other one makes itself remembered in enjoying the calm when not much happens, sleeping, will to just give up if you're like freezing to near death and such.

      Sometimes life is a pain and in those cases the neutral "nothing" is nicer (though sometime the (emotional) pain is nice to because it makes you feel alive / know you're living.)

    11. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess it would be like having net access via AOL dialup behind a firewall running unpatched Win95 on underpowered USB wireless.

    12. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Dunno, wasn't some philosophical dude saying that ...

      Yes.

      For every possible statement there are at least 5 philosophical dudes saying just that. It's kinda like the rule 34 of philosophy.

    13. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't read the article. Roth is all about failure. He wants the freedom to fail.

    14. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      It's kinda like the rule 34 of philosophy.

      Can someone pass the mindbleach?

    15. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eeeewww! Oh wait, you meant medical consent.

    16. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by aliquis · · Score: 1
    17. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't read the article if you think that aiming to high and failing are bad things to the company's founder.

    18. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only appropriate response as to whether it's possible to gain consent from a will-less entity is "Mu".

    19. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by cheros · · Score: 1

      I thought that this was pretty cut and dried

      No, no, no, you're getting mixed up with freeze-drying. That's for coffee.

      OK, OK, I'm going..

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    20. Re:Early Cryogenics & Ethical Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dude, by definition Eternal Happiness (tm) simply cannot get dull. It can't be anything else but happyness. You wouldn't need or want for anything.

      If your idea of happiness is to fight for survival, you'd do just that forevermore. Whatever floats your boat.

      You'd be Happy.
      For all time.

  4. Herbert West - Reanimator by incripshin · · Score: 1

    This sounds just like a story by H.P. Lovecraft, Herbert West—Reanimator.

    1. Re:Herbert West - Reanimator by incripshin · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_West%E2%80%93Reanimator
      I don't know how I could have messed that up.

    2. Re:Herbert West - Reanimator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know how I could have messed that up.

      That's exactly what this guy'll say when he's locked himself inside his underground laboratory to keep out the hordes of flesh eating undead.

    3. Re:Herbert West - Reanimator by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_West%E2%80%93Reanimator [wikipedia.org]
      I don't know how I could have messed that up.

      They probably waited too long before injecting you with the serum.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:Herbert West - Reanimator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJAoaCHdTJY]To life, to life, he brings them![/url]

  5. DARPA! by staryc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it any coincidence that DARPA is Sanskrit for arrogance in this situation?

    --
    The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
    1. Re:DARPA! by Kopiok · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, yes it is.

    2. Re:DARPA! by maglor_83 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Most likely, yes.

    3. Re:DARPA! by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      No... its not just any coincidence.

    4. Re:DARPA! by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      Yes,quite. We mustn't play God, must we? After all, that's God's prerogative. In case you misinterpret the thrust of this comment - not inconceivable because this *is* Slashdot, you should know that I'm *English*.

    5. Re:DARPA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's it Sanskrit for in other situations?

  6. Whoa boy... by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this article will open up a can of worms on Slashdot. The issue I have here is that bringing someone back from suspended animation where they were alive to begin with is not the same as 'reviving the dead'. I think nature has been doing this in hibernating animals for millions of years. If someone could freeze a medically dead person and then make him alive again with his memories, personality etc. intact, (i.e. not cloning, which is already feasible) then they can claim they have revived the dead. Other than that, it is just playing with semantics.

    1. Re:Whoa boy... by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The issue I have here is that bringing someone back from suspended animation where they were alive to begin with ...

      Here's a better question: When do you think anyone in their right mind will ok that procedure? Think about it, you're taking a perfectly alive human being and ... putting them at risk of death? For the purposes of? I know someone will compare this to the risk of life we took putting someone on the moon but I see little to no merit in this procedure.

      If you think they're going to run into federal problems, that's only the start of it. This is probably going to be a always-20-years-away technology although it does make for entertainment.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Whoa boy... by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well thanks for totally ruining our fun. Next you'll be telling us snacks are bad for us and we can't play slayers and vampires anymore with those colored sticks with string on them from that construction site nearby. They make great stakes you know! What's wrong with having a little fun, serious-face? You're almost as bad as that guy with the bright orange hat outside that's been swearing for the last hour.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Whoa boy... by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meh. It'll be a standard procedure in 5 years. "Ok, so what the anesthetist is going to do is stop your heart. Then we'll cut two small incisions in your chest and I'll insert this tiny camera.. [blah blah blah, rest of the standard keyhole surgery speech] .. and once we're all finished, the anesthetist will start your heart again."

      This stuff isn't that revolutionary.. it's just a neat trick to stop you getting brain damage when you're not getting enough oxygen.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Whoa boy... by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Semantics, agreed.

      Of course, in true Slashdottian hyperbole, were this serum to be completely viable, I could see some kind of auto-release nano-canisters being injected into the bloodstream of soldiers, so that in the event of explosive death, an instant release of the substance could assure that all the pieces quickly 'go to sleep' and await pickup/cleanup by the wandering red cross medical roombas for delivery to the reconstruction/reanimation tent.

      That would be pretty close to dying and being brought back methinks.

      Might make a good extreme sport as well!

    5. Re:Whoa boy... by Matimus · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Seriously? If I was bleeding to death, and there was no equipment around to stop the bleeding enough to keep me alive, I would welcome this procedure.

      You are correct that there is no good reason to do this for fun, but if the choice is death or entering a potentially risky state of suspended animation, I will choose the later.

      Keep in mind that the majority of the research is for exactly that purpose.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    6. Re:Whoa boy... by AngryScotsman · · Score: 1

      I think nature has been doing this in hibernating animals for millions of years.

      You just wait until one of those dinosaurs emerges from it's long sleep under the Antarctic ice!

    7. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Here's a better question: When do you think anyone in their
      > right mind will ok that procedure? Think about it, you're
      > taking a perfectly alive human being and ... putting them at
      > risk of death? For the purposes of? I know someone will
      > compare this to the risk of life we took putting someone on
      > the moon but I see little to no merit in this procedure.

      You are not being very imaginative.
      Imagine a sick patient, in need of a long and complex heart
      operation. Imagine that the risk of complications during the
      procedure is extremely high.
      Imagine that you could put the patient in suspended animation,
      perform the risky procedure, and 'reanimate' the patient only
      when his pieces are correctly put together.

      I think this is something worth pursuing, although it will
      not probably happen tomorrow or next week.

    8. Re:Whoa boy... by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you'd RTFA (shocking, I know), you'd see that DARPA was interested in it as a way of preventing wounded people from bleeding out. It's already being tested on humans.

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
    9. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless some vital bits get blown into a tight corner. roombas aren't very good in corners.

    10. Re:Whoa boy... by blazer1024 · · Score: 1

      Haven't you read Heinlein's The Door Into Summer?

      People will do this because their life sucks and they want to marry an 11 year old girl.

      Yeah.. that was a weird book.

    11. Re:Whoa boy... by robertjw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They will have to invent square roombas.

    12. Re:Whoa boy... by NIckGorton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's a better question: When do you think anyone in their right mind will ok that procedure?

      You'd never ok that procedure any more than you would ok having CPR performed. (Though you might leave an advanced directive to prevent it in certain situations.) Its likely something that would be done should you have cardiac arrest in a medical setting (or with fast enough EMS response if it becomes a field treatment.)

      Its also likely something that would be done in order to facilitate transfer of a patient who will die quickly without specialized care unavailable at a given facility. For example, you get whacked on the head in an assault an sustain an epidural hematoma (big assed bleeding inside your skull outside your brain that can kill you rapidly by compressing your brain and causing your brainstem to be squeezed out the base of your skull). I diagnose that at my small community ER and plan to transfer you to the big tertiary care center 50 miles away. However as we await the helicopter you suddenly begin to show signs of brainstem herniation. At that point you are dead in minutes without a neurosurgeon. So I place you in suspended animation and we ship you to the surgeon who evacuates your hematoma and then you are reanimated.

      Pretty nifty. Though your HMO will probably deny payment because its 'experimental' or only allowed for epidurals on the right side of your head, not the left.

    13. Re:Whoa boy... by trouser · · Score: 5, Funny

      fun is always a good reason to do anything. Except for things that aren't fun. For example I breed weasels. Through selective breeding favouring weakness and mutations which yield no survival benefit in the wild I have created an army of blind, five legged weasels the size of turnips. They will only eat or procreate when encouraged with electric cattle prods. With my mutant weasel army I will rule the world! More importantly it's a blast. I've never felt so alive.

      --
      Now wash your hands.
    14. Re:Whoa boy... by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 1

      They will have to invent square roombas.

      You just blew my mind.

    15. Re:Whoa boy... by sonamchauhan · · Score: 2, Funny

      > I've never felt so alive.

      Take the serum and we can solve that for you.

    16. Re:Whoa boy... by shadwstalkr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty nifty. Though your HMO will probably deny payment because its 'experimental' or only allowed for epidurals on the right side of your head, not the left.

      That's pretty generous. My guess is that the HMO will hem and haw about your claim until it's too late to save you, then approve it. That way, they can say that they can claim the best intentions without spending a dime.

    17. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, this is iRobot Corporation. We will take your idea, patent it, and you will recieve absolutely no royalties whatsoever.

      Thank you, and have a nice day.

    18. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When do you think anyone in their right mind will ok that procedure? Think about it, you're taking a perfectly alive human being and ... putting them at risk of death? For the purposes of?

      This was my first thought, but then I realized the perfect application for this serum...it could replace the chemicals that cause permanent death that are used in the lethal injections given to death row inmates.

      There's been many death row convictions that have been overturned in the past couple of decades. I seem to remember a Northwestern Law School class that managed to show that many soon-to-die prisoners in the state of Illinois were wrongly convicted (enough that the governor suspended executions.) If the death penalty wasn't irrevocable, it could be enforced much sooner into the process (not the many years it currently takes for the appeals process to run its course.) And yet, if new evidence comes to light that proves someone is innocent of the charges against them, the person can be given their life back.

      There will inevitably be technological advances in criminal investigation that can be applied to older cases...DNA testing was just such an advance and prisoners who were wrongly convicted were proven innocent thanks to that technology. If someone is truly guilty, they'll never be reanimated. But if we can work out the technology to allow us to fix the inevitable mistakes made by our justice system, what's the harm in that?

    19. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd never ok that procedure any more than you would ok having CPR performed.

      Depends on WHO would be doing mouth-to-mouth!

    20. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy.

      Terminally ill people who want to wait for a cure.

      Walt Disney springs to mind. He would have gone for this no problems.

    21. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you haven't seen Demolition man :D

    22. Re:Whoa boy... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd opt for a triangle myself. Perhaps 30/60/90.

    23. Re:Whoa boy... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      That's the great thing about DARPA, they can always find a plausible sounding military application for any Mad Science idea as an excuse for throwing money at it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    24. Re:Whoa boy... by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      It's not just the brain at issue. Heart tissue dies extremely rapidly without oxygen. Actually, when heart cells lose oxygen they slow to a halt, only really dieing once they get oxygen again.

    25. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it'll eat that apostrophe you put into a possessive pronoun! Rawr! Chomp!

    26. Re:Whoa boy... by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      You didn't read the article did ya? I understand, it was horrid. The point of this work is that apparently if you give people certain toxins, it stops cells from doing stuff that requires oxygen. Later, when they get oxygen, these processes start back up again. The reason I mentioned the brain is that, without the heart, the brain will be starved of oxygen.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    27. Re:Whoa boy... by TechForensics · · Score: 2, Funny

      When do you think anyone in their right mind will ok that procedure?

      You agreed as part of the Vista EULA.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    28. Re:Whoa boy... by aliquis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is there any memory checksums in the human brain or will the whole system screw up if some parts is accidently lost? :D

      Hum, Redundant Array of Independent Brains ...

      *goes back to planing*

    29. Re:Whoa boy... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      In capitalistic authoritan china ..

      Don't worry, even if they run out of Falun Gong practising people I'm sure they will find a new "resource."

    30. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They already do this by cooling - they take people down into deep hypothermia so they can do brain surgery with the circulation stopped (so there is no blood leakage, which kills brain cells) while the brain's metabolism is almost shut down (so brain cells don't die from lack of oxygen).

      Not standard procedure because it's not got mainstream acceptance yet, but fairly reliable. Reserved for situations that are otherwise inoperable, e.g. deep brain anurisms.

      Sad indictement of Esquire that their journoes have to write in excited-surfer-speak. But hey; it's not read for the articles.

    31. Re:Whoa boy... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I read some sci fi story called The Million Dollar wound where this happened. The problem for the soldiers was that medicine was so good that there was no Million Dollar wound in the Vietnam sense, i.e. some injury that would get you sent home but didn't leave you dead or crippled.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    32. Re:Whoa boy... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      People will do this because their life sucks and they want to marry an 11 year old girl.

      Joining one of those Mormon offshoot groups would be cheaper.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    33. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, put my current life savings (approx 80k, I'm 26) into a super safe super slow trust fund, all they have to do is grow it slightly faster than inflation.

      Put me into hibernation for 10k years.

      Bring me out and I'm a gazillionaire and I've got all this new tech to play around with.

      There's a sci fi book I can't remember the title of, where an entire empire is built with people living one day a year and spanning milenia.

    34. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ok, so what the anesthetist is going to do is stop your heart. Then we'll cut two small incisions in your chest and I'll insert this tiny camera.. [blah blah blah, rest of the standard keyhole surgery speech] .. and once we're all finished, the anesthetist will start your heart again."

      That is already being done today, the patient just needs to be hooked up to a machine that circulates the blood while the heart is stopped.

    35. Re:Whoa boy... by warrior · · Score: 1

      If you did RTFA, you missed the point. The idea is to use this on people for whom death is imminent. For example, a man suffering a heart attack. As the person "dies" you try to put him into suspended animation so the tissue never goes through "death". Once the patient is in suspended animation you have time to perform whatever surgical procedure necessary and then attempt revival. Other cases mentioned in which this will be used is severe bleeding - DARPA hopes it can be used to save soldiers who would otherwise have bled out and died.

      --
      Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
    36. Re:Whoa boy... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Worthing Chronicles by Orson Scott Card

    37. Re:Whoa boy... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Meh. It'll be a standard procedure in 5 years... This stuff isn't that revolutionary.. it's just a neat trick to stop you getting brain damage when you're not getting enough oxygen.

      Are you kidding? This is revolutionary, and that's exactly why it'll be standard procedure in 5 years. A "neat trick" like that could save a lot of lives that were previously lost causes, maybe reduce risk in other cases too. But then again I think endoscopic surgery was revolutionary too.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    38. Re:Whoa boy... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      *goes back to planing*

      Must be good stuff you're smoking ;-)

    39. Re:Whoa boy... by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for a cuboid with dimensions of 1 by 4 by 9.

    40. Re:Whoa boy... by tirerim · · Score: 1

      RTFA. The military is interested in using this on soldiers who are bleeding out, i.e. about to be dead anyway. The obvious theory being that if they're not alive but can be revived later, there's a lot more time to work to repair the trauma. Obviously, this has applications beyond the battlefield, too: car accidents, dangerous surgeries, etc.

    41. Re:Whoa boy... by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Here's a better question: When do you think anyone in their right mind will ok that procedure? Think about it, you're taking a perfectly alive human being and ... putting them at risk of death? For the purposes of? I know someone will compare this to the risk of life we took putting someone on the moon but I see little to no merit in this procedure.

      To my understanding, the biggest thing they want this for is organ banking, a lot of donor organs go bad because the people who need them are too far away. If it ever really works for a whole person, it could also be used in triage situation, instead of picking who gets to die doctors could freeze everyone healthy enough to be revived, and deal with their injuries one at a time.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    42. Re:Whoa boy... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Here's a better question: When do you think anyone in their right mind will ok that procedure?

      I don't know. Someone who needs an organ transplant (or they'll die)? Someone who wants his food freshly killed?

      If you think they're going to run into federal problems, that's only the start of it.

      Sure, they'll start their research here, then they'll go abroad once they get shut down. Why do you think there is so much research being done in Africa for instance? In the 60s, we used military personnel and retarded kids to do research on. Now that we can't do that anymore, we've moved abroad to find cheaper and unprotected human lives.

    43. Re:Whoa boy... by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Did you know that you risk death every time you are anesthetized? Yet people will have it done just to have a tooth pulled. The trick is that they don't read the release form before they sign it.

      My roommate was telling me to get lasic instead of glasses. He was shocked when I told him that I didn't think it was worth the added expense and the risk of blindness. 1/2000 chance. I guess he didn't read the release form before he had it done on himself.

    44. Re:Whoa boy... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      That's pretty generous. My guess is that the HMO will hem and haw about your claim until it's too late to save you, then approve it. That way, they can say that they can claim the best intentions without spending a dime.

      Dead people usually stop paying insurance premiums.

    45. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was too lazy to check it up if it was one or two n, I had no idea that planing meant what it meant though, although it do make perfect sense :D

    46. Re:Whoa boy... by cb95amc · · Score: 1

      We should test it on Jean Claude van Damne and Dolph Lungren

    47. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i suppose jesus couldn't have risen from the dead either by definition, because if he was alive later then ipso facto he had never been dead?

      go sue the pope why dont ya.

    48. Re:Whoa boy... by VShael · · Score: 1

      You take a guy on Death Row, and you give him the option : Take a risky procedure that MIGHT kill him, or certain death.
      So long as the risky procedure is not painful and cruel and unusual, it is a good trade off.

    49. Re:Whoa boy... by enharmonix · · Score: 1

      Put me into hibernation for 10k years.

      You'd be so freaking rich, it's ridiculous. Reminds me of two sci-fi jokes. The first is from Futurama (paraphrased)...

      Bank teller: Ok, you had a balance of 93 cents.

      Fry: All right!

      Teller: At an average of two and a quarter percent interest over a thousand years, that brings your account balance to ... 4.3 billion dollars.

      Fry hyperventilates and passes out.

      ---

      A similar joke from Red Dwarf (also paraphrased)...

      Holly: When you left Earth, you had five pounds in your bank account. Thanks to a million years of interest, you now control 95% of the world's wealth. Now, nobody has any money except for you and NORWEB [the power company].

      Dave: Why NORWEB?

      Holly: You left a light on in the bathroom.

    50. Re:Whoa boy... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Actually although I can see why everyone is banging on about using it for space travel. I can see vast medical uses in place of Anesthetic. Bear in mind most operations to are a rush job in order to minimize the trauma to the patient. This will make some tremendous advances like currently terminal heart disease suddenly becoming operable because the surgeon now has the time to actually do some repair work rather than in and out as quickly as possible.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    51. Re:Whoa boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought we already have this by going near the person and telling them "Get up!" ...At least it works for me in my Gears of War reality

    52. Re:Whoa boy... by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      They will have to invent square roombas.

      I'd opt for a triangle myself. Perhaps 30/60/90.

      iRobot has dispatched terminators to your location.

      Please move to the midpoint of the nearest wall for the duration of this operation. Should you become lodged in a corner, move outwards slowly until you come into contact with either the terminator's plasma rifle or the rotating brush.

      Thank you for your co-operation.

    53. Re:Whoa boy... by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Yeah really. I heard they had some crazy idea for some kind of computer "network" that could one day comprise millions and millions of machines and allow for pervasive communication and information retrieval. What a bunch of nuts.

      We all know that the future of computers is a big municipal mainframe that people can access from their home computer-room over a compact terminal no bigger than a '57 Cadillac.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    54. Re:Whoa boy... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Yeah really. I heard they had some crazy idea for some kind of computer "network" that could one day comprise millions and millions of machines and allow for pervasive communication and information retrieval. What a bunch of nuts.

      We all know that the future of computers is a big municipal mainframe that people can access from their home computer-room over a compact terminal no bigger than a '57 Cadillac.

      Actually I wasn't being sarcastic.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    55. Re:Whoa boy... by interploy · · Score: 1

      It actually probably wouldn't be that hard to find people willing. Pretty much everyone is afraid of death to some extent, but some people are downright terrified. There was a craze over cryogenics not too long ago, with people wanting to be frozen and stored when they died until the day re-animation was invented, even though no one knows if it's even possible, let alone how far away the technology is. And if people are willing to do that, would it be so hard to find someone to try suspended animation, since it seems to be at least plausible?

    56. Re:Whoa boy... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Actually, when part of a brain gets damaged (ie. stroke, head trauma or epilepsy) the brain will shift around functions in order to accommodate or restore all functions. That's why it's difficult to map functions of the brain (eg. using fMRI) in subjects with certain conditions. It is possible to have a loss of memory however it seems it is also possible to recall events that if it was stored in the traditional location should've been lost. The brain (especially the damaged one) is a big unknown even as there is lots of research being done.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    57. Re:Whoa boy... by blhack · · Score: 2, Funny

      Think about it, you're taking a perfectly alive human being and ... putting them at risk of death? For the purposes of?

      The great thing about us going into another dark ages is the abundance of semi-retarded, meth-addicted, only-half-living creatures that would be willing to do a crazy medical experiment in exchange for more smack.

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    58. Re:Whoa boy... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I'm quite thankful for endoscopic surgery. I had a tumor in my sinus cavity that if I had lived even just 20 years earlier they would have had to slice open half my face to remove it which would have required reconstructive surgery just to look somewhat normal again. Since they were able to remove it all endoscopically through my nose, my only permanent effect is some nerve damage which isn't visible to anyone.

      I also had what they call a "hot" gall bladder which had to be removed, and they were able to do that with a small hole in my abdomen and belly button and send me home the next day - rather than the huge scar-creating openings they used to have to cut into you for organ removals like that.

      These "neat tricks" that make surgeries easier to recover from and more efficient can make a big difference to people. :)

      The other neat trick they did before the tumor removal was entering through my thigh and running a probe up my artery through my neck into my head and releasing little pellets to block the blood flow to the tumor which caused it to shrink and make the removal process easier.

    59. Re:Whoa boy... by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Would this be fun with your new pets?!

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    60. Re:Whoa boy... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but medical operations of that magnitude usually cost orders of magnitude more than one single person will pay in insurance premiums over their lifetime – and certainly more than they'll pay in the remaining years they have to live. The insurance company is better off letting you die, but of course their officially stated intent is to prevent that.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    61. Re:Whoa boy... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That's assuming (1) inflation doesn't devalue your wealth, (2) bank/government failures don't destroy your wealth, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something else or two...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    62. Re:Whoa boy... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Oh, someone, somewhere will do it. By someone, somewhere, I mean a country with amoral leaders and money to burn. (I'm thinking of China - after all, look what they'll put in food for the name of profit; think what a man would do for prologued life or a potential medical breakthrough. Or, for that matter, a way to potentially keep troops "fed and clothed" at negligible cost for prolonged periods of time.)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    63. Re:Whoa boy... by sjames · · Score: 1

      While it is semantics, it certainly challenges our usual definition of death since metabolic processes stop at the cellular level and at room temperature. In the very few cases of animal hibernation where metabolism actually stops, the animal is frozen.

      The slowly evolving understanding of death is that it is an active process of metabolic malfunction and apoptosis rather than a simple cessation of life processes.

      It seems the key is to halt and restart the metabolism suddenly enough to bypass death. Other research has suggested that even an unmanaged shutdown MAY be recoverable with a careful resuscitation procedure.

      Call it what you will, but it does constitute putting someone in a state of death as clinically defined today and then bring them back.

    64. Re:Whoa boy... by sjames · · Score: 1

      When do you think anyone in their right mind will ok that procedure?

      It will probably be done on someone who will surely die anyway if the procedure is NOT done. Little to lose, much to gain.

  7. Near death != death by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're either dead or you're not. It's rather binary. There's no continuum.

    1. Re:Near death != death by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Funny

      You forgot about mostly dead.

    2. Re:Near death != death by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're either dead or you're not. It's rather binary. There's no continuum.

      Schrodinger's cat says hi. Or maybe he doesn't.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Near death != death by reginaldo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that you can be MOSTLY dead as well.

      There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.

      Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

      /*obligatory miracle max

    4. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead." --Miracle Max

    5. Re:Near death != death by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Either you're dead or you're not--Tell that to someone who's brain dead. Or someone who's suffered a stroke that effects their brain stem, or people that suffer from being "locked in". Tell that to someone who 'died' on the operating table during heart surgery but 'came back'. What exactly constitutes being "alive" verus dead? Are self-replicating proteins "alive"? Because last I looked, prions are not alive though they can kill you (mad cow disease). And this isn't even discussing non-literal definitions of dead or alive -- such as being emotionally dead (suicidal thoughts anyone?), concepts of heaven and hell, etc.

      There is indeed quite a spectrum between dead and alive; Life has never been easy to classify and put into boxes, because the curious thing about it is you never observe the same thing twice looking at it.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Near death != death by TWX · · Score: 4, Informative

      People have been clinically dead (no pulse, no breathing, would not continue to live without specific processes of intervention) and have been successfully revived. Many have gone on to live perfectly normal lives, while others have been left dead too long and their tissues suffered for it, leaving them with reduced faculties. I wouldn't call it quite as cut and dried as dead or not. We can tell when someone is really, truly alive, and we can identify conditions when someone is really, truly dead, but there are plenty of conditions where one could be potentially alive or dead (with apologies to SchrÃdinger) and that further actions will determine what state a person goes into.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Near death != death by Gat0r30y · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    8. Re:Near death != death by TWX · · Score: 1

      damn misinterpretation of characters...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:Near death != death by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "because the curious thing about it is you never observe the same thing twice looking at it."

      Instead of looking at it from when life ends, perhaps you should look at it as when death begins.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Near death != death by Krneki · · Score: 1

      How about hibernation?

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    11. Re:Near death != death by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, your friend here is only mostly dead. Had he been all dead there would have been only one thing to do -- go through his pockets for spare change.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    12. Re:Near death != death by dingen · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're either dead or you're not. It's rather binary. There's no continuum.

      There's no "rather binary". It's either binary or it's not.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    13. Re:Near death != death by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 1

      In that case, the only thing better than this discovery is a well made BMT.

    14. Re:Near death != death by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 1

      it's only binary if you define 'dead' as the point in which an organism is no longer capable of life sometimes things that "look" dead become alive again... so how do you determine when irrevocable death occurs?

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    15. Re:Near death != death by Carnildo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're either dead or you're not. It's rather binary. There's no continuum.

      The people quoting The Princess Bride above do have a point: you can't draw a line and say "everyone on this side is dead, everyone on the other side is alive". Consider bacterial endospores: no significant chemical reactions are taking place inside the spore, and by most objective measures, they're "dead". But place one in the correct environment, and it will convert to an unambiguously-alive bacterium.

      Humans are far more complicated, with even more ways to blur the boundary between "alive" and "dead".

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    16. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the undead?

      (i'd like to think that would be -1 in binary)

    17. Re:Near death != death by glidermike · · Score: 0

      unfortunately parts of me have been dead for a few years now

    18. Re:Near death != death by ichthyoboy · · Score: 1

      How about an MLT, where the mutton is nice and lean....

    19. Re:Near death != death by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure there is! It's just like regular binary, except it only uses the numbers "one-ish" and "probably nothing".

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
    20. Re:Near death != death by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      Either you're dead or you're not--Tell that to someone who's brain dead.

      The seat of consciousness is in the brain. If that goes, all other aspects that made that person who he is is gone. By that definition brain dead = dead.

      Or someone who's suffered a stroke that effects their brain stem

      He's alive until his breathing machine is turned off (assuming only a minor brain stem infarct).

      or people that suffer from being "locked in".

      Brain's still active, so not dead. Still alive.

      Tell that to someone who 'died' on the operating table during heart surgery but 'came back'.

      Brain is still alive. He's not dead.

      What exactly constitutes being "alive" verus dead? Are self-replicating proteins "alive"? Because last I looked, prions are not alive though they can kill you (mad cow disease). And this isn't even discussing non-literal definitions of dead or alive -- such as being emotionally dead (suicidal thoughts anyone?), concepts of heaven and hell, etc.

      There is indeed quite a spectrum between dead and alive; Life has never been easy to classify and put into boxes, because the curious thing about it is you never observe the same thing twice looking at it.

      The rest of the post doesn't really make much sense.

    21. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      schrodinger's cat talked!? no wonder he put it in a box - that'd freak anyone out!

      (kind of spoils his theory too... "hey! HEY! Let me out of this box you &$%#!". definitely alive)

    22. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as "undead" or "came back from the dead" or "born-again-once-dead" - you are either alive (not dead) or dead.

      Using turns of phrase (such as "brain dead") does not mean your what you think it does - I'd confidently wager that you wouldn't be living if your brain did not work at all.

    23. Re:Near death != death by Bandman · · Score: 2, Funny

      LIAR!!!!!

      /humperdink!

    24. Re:Near death != death by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      The rest of the post doesn't really make much sense.

      That's because you don't understand life.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    25. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this isn't even discussing non-literal definitions of dead or alive

      The only definition I could think of is "boobies".
      Bounce level, yeah!

    26. Re:Near death != death by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      You're either dead or you're not. It's rather binary. There's no continuum.

      By your definition, I'm assuming you mean "death" is an irreversible change to a "living" body. How do you know that a change is absolutely irreversible? That's the basic problem with a binary definition.

    27. Re:Near death != death by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sure many people would agree that ternary is more binary than hex. Heck, you could even create a binariness index, 1/radix + 1/2, to classify the basis.

      Although the steps would be discrete steps, so yeah, there's no continuum.

      --
      entropy happens
    28. Re:Near death != death by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      The seat of consciousness is in the brain. If that goes, all other aspects that made that person who he is is gone. By that definition brain dead = dead.

      What if you just take the brain out and digitize it? Or use some fancy time machine to make an exact copy of someone who was dead for a few thousand years? We're talking about technological advances, not the status quo, after all.

    29. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather.

    30. Re:Near death != death by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      There are different definitions of death, though brain death I will agree is the most important. Though perhaps a more important concept is when does brain death occur. Like everything in medicine its not a binary despite the fact that we'd like it to be. People who I would consider brain dead now may perhaps in 20 years be recoverable (through treatments that decrease the reperfusion injury and oxidative stress after return of spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest.) That speaks to there being a spectrum and a process of death even when you define death as brain death.

    31. Re: Near death != death by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      Absolutely it's a continuum, and whatever you name current state is a matter of definition. Some common ones:

      Alive > coding in your basement > mostly dead > near dead > dead > zombie > SCO

    32. Re:Near death != death by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      I'd confidently wager that you wouldn't be living if your brain did not work at all.

      President Bush is a zombie?!?

    33. Re:Near death != death by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      not to mention viruses, which exhibit certain characteristics of biological life, but aren't considered truly alive by the scientific community.

      and even amongst accepted biological lifeforms there are different levels of sentience/intelligence/consciousness. in this respect plant life is little more than a biological machine. and someone who is brain-dead and in a persistent vegetative state isn't really any more alive than a plant. someone who is brain dead is for all intents and purposes dead, but their body can still be kept alive using life-support systems.

      so there certainly is a spectrum of life/death, rather than simply two discrete categories.

    34. Re:Near death != death by aeoo · · Score: 1

      What a great post you make! I just want to add to it.

      Death is included in life. In other words, death is not an end to life, but rather, death is a process of life, just like birth. If there were no death, there would be no birth and no life at all.

      Death is when something changes beyond recognition. This means when something can no longer be identified, we consider it dead. However, nothing completely disappears and nothing completely new appears, it's all a process of transformation and an imputation of identity onto that process.

      Transformation is like a wave. We impute identities on waves and give them names. When waves "vanish", that is to say, they transform beyond our ability to recognize their shape, we call them dead, but nothing actually vanished with death, it simply became unrecognizable to our limited mindset.

    35. Re:Near death != death by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      There is indeed quite a spectrum between dead and alive; Life has never been easy to classify and put into boxes, because the curious thing about it is you never observe the same thing twice looking at it.

      And that is why the Abortion debate is so heated. It gets lost in an emotional hissy fit about 'murder' and 'choice.' Nobody seems to bring up the amount of sentience in a fetus at different stages of a pregnancy and where to draw the line between a bunch of cells (not worth protecting in law) and a sentient being (possibly worth protecting in law). As for the US media's constant use of loaded terms such as 'pro life' and 'pro choice,' don't get me started on that.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    36. Re:Near death != death by CodyRazor · · Score: 1

      Either you're dead or you're not--Tell that to someone who's brain dead.

      Why?

      --
      So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
    37. Re:Near death != death by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      All you are saying is that "clinically dead" (as you define it) != "dead".

      Isn't this whole discussion rather like saying "I can switch my computer on, then off, then on again, therefore there is no such thing as 'on' or 'off', just a continuum of states of 'on'-ness"?

      Or (perhaps a better example) what about an engine which has just been switched off, but still has enough momentum in it to keep running if fuel supply is restored? Because this scenario exists, does that mean that the engine can never really be "off"?

      I would define death as the point at which there is no further possibility of living (in a physical/empirical sense, not a religious one). Anyone who has "come back to life" was therefore never dead to begin with.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    38. Re:Near death != death by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although your points are valid they are rather narrow in that they implicitly define 'alive' as the potential for consiousness, the GP's point that doesn't make sense to you was that there is no black & white definition of 'alive'.

      For example the wood frog can allow itself to freeze solid for the winter and will thaw out in spring with no ill affects despite the fact it hasn't had a heartbeat or any sign of brain activity for months. By your tests the frog is dead during the winter and alive again in the spring.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    39. Re:Near death != death by weetabeex · · Score: 1

      If there were no death, there would be no birth and no life at all.

      I believe you messed up here. Whithout birth there is no life or death. The opposite may not hold.

    40. Re:Near death != death by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Bacon, Mayonnaise, and Tomato?

    41. Re:Near death != death by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Where does Balanced Ternary fit in to that?

    42. Re:Near death != death by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      Please, stop mentioning SCO...

    43. Re:Near death != death by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      That is actually not true. What is death? When your heart stops? Are you dead when you stop breathing? Rigor Mortis? Properly diagnosed brain death seems like the only way so far, but the laws are far behind the science on that one.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    44. Re:Near death != death by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Its a matter of potential; If I attempt to kill you, but fail, I am prosecuted for attempted murder. I'm locked up because I potentially would have killed you. Why, then is it such a big jump to say that a bunch of cells has the potential for life and when destroyed this, while not as bad as actual murder is at least as bad as attempted murder?

      Please don't carry this argument too far; I am not catholic and have no problem with contraception. For obvious reasons contraception is a different story to abortion.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    45. Re:Near death != death by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Put down the new age books.

      Death is the permanent cessation of brain functions, nothing more nothing less. To imbue it with anything more than this is a waste of time, and rather pointless. After your brain stops working, you will no longer care what the definition of "death" is, since... well... you'll be dead.

      In college I took a class called "The Sociology of Death" since I thought it would be an interesting survey on the cultural meaning, but instead it turned into a group coping class. The general gist of the class was pretty much what you said, that death is somehow a personally enriching experience. My take on that was; who cares it won't matter once your dead.

      All of our death mumbo jumbo is only hear to comfort the living, for the dead don't need it. All that can be said of it is; you no longer exist as a self-identifying consciousness. Everything else is happy thoughts and speculation to comfort us against the steady advance of the inevitable and inconceivable.

      The only "after death" experience we can be assured of is reentering the nitrogen cycle.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    46. Re:Near death != death by mail2345 · · Score: 1

      Of course, it isn't in the middle, it's at both ends at the same time.

    47. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a bimodal distribution with very small sigmas?

    48. Re:Near death != death by Tsujiku · · Score: 1

      Just to play Devil's Advocate, what then would you say about miscarriage? Would that be akin to unintentional manslaughter?

      --
      Paradox
    49. Re:Near death != death by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      That would depend on the circumstances, I suppose. If it was due to negligence or trauma the mother suffered suffered as a result of abuse then it sounds like manslaughter to me - if not actual murder. For all I know, it may legally be that way already. Otherwise I'd say its just like cancer related death. Unfortunate, unavoidable and no one's fault.

      Disclaimer: IANAL.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    50. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two comments with the same joke within 2 comments of each other, I say we give you both toothbrushes and let you fight to the death!!! KEEEAAAYEEE!!!

    51. Re:Near death != death by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      Schrodinger's cat says hi. Or maybe he doesn't.

      Schrodinger's cat sez hai lolz r maibe he duznted.

      Fixed.

    52. Re:Near death != death by laejoh · · Score: 1

      I thinkg the DailyWTF calls it FileNotFound.

    53. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and steal his shoes. . .

    54. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a Republican, aren't you?

    55. Re:Near death != death by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      You're either dead or you're not. It's rather binary. There's no continuum.

      Schroedinger?

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    56. Re:Near death != death by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      You forgot about mostly binary...

    57. Re:Near death != death by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      I actually 100% agree with you, but...

      Death is the permanent cessation of brain functions, nothing more nothing less.

      This is the sticking point and where the question comes in to it. Death is the "permanent" cessation of brain functions. We don't know that functions have ended permanently because they may at some point be restarted. At what point can we be certain that they can NOT be restarted? Obviously, atomising the brain or something like that is a fairly safe bet, or even just when bacteria have eaten away at it until it's just "mush" after rotting for awhile, but what about less obvious cases. Are you dead 5 seconds after your last recorded brain activity? How about 30 minutes? What about a day? What about 10 years if the brain was preserved? Can we bring it back one day? In that case, was the person ever really "dead" since the brain function cessation wasn't permanent?

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    58. Re:Near death != death by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      I would define death as the point at which there is no further possibility of living

      But then you need to define "living" (as something other than "not dead")... and also, the definition of death would change depending on our tech level. Not so long ago, if your heart stopped, you would be dead... there's no way that you would have a further possibility of living. Now, it can be restarted by modern medical practices. Is there a technical limit as to how long someone's brain activity could have ceased before it's absolutely impossible they can be restored? I don't know, but honestly I doubt it - as long as the physical structure and make up is still there (including the structure/make up at microscopic levels), I'd say it's probably ALWAYS revivable, we just don't have the tech yet to do so.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    59. Re:Near death != death by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      You'd get continuums with fractal numbers... but that'd just get rather heavy for a slashdot joke.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    60. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot, aren't you?

    61. Re:Near death != death by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      It's a big jump because it's two completely different things. Attempted murder makes you a danger to society and therefore you should be locked up. Killing a bunch of cells with no sentience is no different from cutting a blade of grass out of the ground.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    62. Re:Near death != death by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      O Hai! I can has life?

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    63. Re:Near death != death by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      I can has his chzbrgr plz?

    64. Re:Near death != death by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Death is the "permanent" cessation of brain functions. We don't know that functions have ended permanently because they may at some point be restarted.

      I cede this point. I suppose we could amend this to the more nebulous; "death is the prolonged cessation of brain functions, and a the effect of a certain amount of irreparable damage to certain key areas of the brain which render renewed activities impossible."

      In that case, was the person ever really "dead" since the brain function cessation wasn't permanent?

      This is another can of worms. People claim to die on the operating table, who are obviously not dead currently. People can be "brain dead" (with only their more rudimentary structures functioning) and come back years later, etc... I think we use the term "dead" in many ways. We consider "lack of consciousness" to be death, which is about as vague as you can get. We die, then, every night, by this definition, and boxing is a sport of trying to temporarily "kill" others. I'd say death has to be permanent, so we must add some time, or permanent clause to it, to avoid absurdity. Thus someone in a coma is not dead, someone who drowned five minutes ago might be, and we can say with certainty that Shakespeare is quite dead.

      Its amazing how unknown our own functions are. We know the inner workings of stars thousands of light years distant, but yet still can't define life and death with any degree of precision (much less more esoteric, yet banal, things such as consciousness).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    65. Re:Near death != death by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      To you, yes. To me its all but the same. I doubt I can change your mind, but may I just ask, how does a blade of grass have the potential for sentience?(Within reason that is)

      Nice try dodging the argument though. :)

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    66. Re:Near death != death by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I personally find it interesting that this guy calls a 100-cell blastocyst his "son" because it was eventually successfully carried to term, but he doesn't seem to be concerned about the fate of the extra fetuses which were created in the IVF procedure.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    67. Re:Near death != death by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      This morning, before I found this, I was actually pondering what base-2/3 would be like. Or maybe it was base-3/4.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    68. Re:Near death != death by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I'm not dodging the argument at all. A blade of grass has no potential for sentience, a human fetus has some. But the question is about sentience, not potential sentience. We're not talking about what a fetus becomes at a hypothetical later stage of the pregnancy, we're talking about what it is at the time of abortion. If the procedure is early enough in the pregnancy, no harm done. If it's later, then it's a sentient human that is being killed.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    69. Re:Near death != death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah you silly atheists. You never have the answers for anything important like 'life' and where it begins. Unless you read your Bible you'll never understand.

    70. Re:Near death != death by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Hummmm no.
      Using rational radixes would just lead to infinite degrees of binariness between 1 and 1/2, not continuous binariness. To get that, you'd have to use reals.

      But as I can't fathom even what base 2/3 would be, base e is just lost to me.

      --
      entropy happens
    71. Re:Near death != death by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      I see what you're saying, but I am pointing out to you that if we can't ignore that someone potentially could have killed, how can any reasonable person ignore the fact that a group of cells, which if left as is(with the mother) will(almost certainly) become sentient? I see no way of making my point clearer. We simply can not ignore the potential. In both cases someone's potential at life is removed. Think about it.

      No offence, but to be honest your whole argument sounds to me like a way to dodge through a loop-hole. Sometimes the spirit of the law is more important than the letter.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    72. Re:Near death != death by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Well, I was imagining a base-2/3 with "numerals" of 0 and 1/3. It'd be an odd system because the place values would grow larger from right to left (which is the opposite of any system where the base is greater than 1)... the first place to the left of the decimal point would be the 1s place, and going to the left you'd have the 2/3rds, the 4/9ths, the 8/27ths, and so on.

      So, for example, you could "count" in this system as follows: 0, 1/3, 1/3 0, 1/3 1/3, 1/3 0 0, 1/3 0 1/3, 1/3 1/3 0, 1/3 1/3 1/3, 1/3 0 0 0, 1/3 0 0 1/3, 1/3 0 1/3 0, 1/3 0 1/3 1/3, 1/3 1/3 0 0, 1/3 1/3 0 1/3, 1/3 1/3 1/3 0, 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3, ... but it would equal, in base-10: 0, 1/3, 2/9, 5/9, 4/27, 13/27, 10/27, 19/27, 8/81, 35/81, 26/81, 53/81, 20/81, 47/81, 38/81, 65/81. Very odd indeed, if you plot them. (To get a linear plot you'd have to count to the right of the decimal point in base-2/3. I.e. .1/3, .0|1/3, .1/3|1/3, and so on... and you'd still have some weirdness.)

      I can't picture a system with an irrational base, either, though... you'd have to subdivide the base into "integers". For integer bases, you use integers, although you don't necessarily have to (heck, I could even create a base-8 system using numerals 0-9, each representing a step of 8/10 ... e.g. 9 in this system would represent 7.2 in base-10) and for fractions I figured I'd just use the smallest fraction with that denominator, but irrational numbers don't divide nicely by anything...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    73. Re:Near death != death by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      And I say again that you are comparing apples and oranges. A potential killer is a danger to society and needs to be locked up. A potential human being is not a human being and is therefore not entitled to the same protection as a sentient human being.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    74. Re:Near death != death by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know its different in some ways, but both are cases of potential. A potential human being is an unknown - may be a benefit or a drain on society. Since you don't have that knowledge, what arrogant illusion gives you the right to judge? Any judgement made without facts is most likely made in error.

      Your reason for locking up the killer is the damage to society. My reason for saving the potential humans is the possible benefit to society. Not apples and oranges - more like two sides of the same coin. If you are justified in locking up a potential murderer, then you are justified in protecting a potential human being. But perhaps you can't see that?

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    75. Re:Near death != death by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the two situations are completely different. The potential benefit or drain on society of the fetus/fertilised egg/sperm/whatever does not come into it. We are talking about what the fetus is at the time of the abortion procedure, not what it might be in the future. A potential murderer has already demonstrated that he is a danger to society and needs to be locked up. A fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not a sentient human being, is incapable of demonstrating anything any more than a blade of grass is, and is not deserving of the protections that sentient human beings deserve.

      I don't know if any of this is sinking in and I'm not going to get drawn into an eternal thread that might get heated, so feel free to have the last word.

      Good talking with you.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    76. Re:Near death != death by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      I can see the point you're trying to mske, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure if you ever saw my point.

      Have fun.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    77. Re:Near death != death by aeoo · · Score: 1

      Whithout birth there is no life or death.

      A birth cannot occur in an environment of unlife. Life must already be the case for something to be born.

    78. Re:Near death != death by weetabeex · · Score: 1

      Of course it can. A baby may born already dead; it still is a birth, and there is no life envolved.

  8. Holy moly! by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Quick, get him CVS commit access to all the BSD projects!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Holy moly! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too late. I think Microsoft already hired him to do a service pack for Vista.

  9. Sign me up! by hamburgler007 · · Score: 2, Funny

    and... "Thaw me out when robot wives are cheap and effective. PS - please alter my pants as fashion dictates."

    1. Re:Sign me up! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Me and Frostilicus go way back.

  10. 37 degrees by Yvan256 · · Score: 0

    just as we live at 37 degrees.

    Only in the USA and UK. Everywhere else, you'd be too hot to call it living.

    1. Re:37 degrees by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only in the USA and UK. Everywhere else, you'd be too hot to call it living.

      37 deg C = 98.6 deg F. IOW, normal human body temperature. Or did I just do a whooosh?

    2. Re:37 degrees by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I think I just wooshed all over myself.

      That should have been:

      "Except in the USA and UK, where you'd be freezing to death."

    3. Re:37 degrees by sexconker · · Score: 1

      GP self-wooshed.
      Wooshturbation?

    4. Re:37 degrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're the only poster so far that clued in the scientist was referring to both Celcius *and* body temperature. You win the thread.

      Geez, haven't you nerds ever had a thermometer stuck in you? I won't ask where.
      But yes, they obviously haven't had children with colds.

    5. Re:37 degrees by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      just as we live at 37 degrees.

      Only in the USA and UK. Everywhere else, you'd be too hot to call it living.

      Huh? When did they start using Celcius in the US and since when was 37 degrees C too hot? It gets up to that kind of temp around here and while it can get a bit uncomfortable, I wouldn't say it's 'too hot to call living.'

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    6. Re:37 degrees by Tsujiku · · Score: 0

      o.o I thought that was fairly obvious.

      --
      Paradox
    7. Re:37 degrees by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I actually read TFS, and I live in the USA, and I made the body temperature/Celsius connection. In fact GGP had me slightly confused until the correction.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  11. Burning the life at both ends. by Ostracus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "We're almost dead already! So what if we turn down the candle's need for oxygen? What if we dim the candle so much that we don't even have the energy to die?'"

    And what kind of "life" would it be?

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what kind of "life" would it be?

      I dunno, but I bet this guy knows.

    2. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by denzacar · · Score: 3, Funny

      One where you could sleep over the economic crisis.

      Or get to live to eventually play Duke Nukem Forever.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      And what kind of "life" would it be?

      Obviously we don't work for the same company.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    4. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Informative

      The kind of life where you could be transported from the battlefield, with its limited facilities, to a large, fully equipped hospital to patch you up, then woken up. There is a reason Darpa is funding him. Many soldiers die of reasons that they would easily survive in a hospital, with access to an unlimited supply of the best doctors. (unlimited because you can simply wait in that state until the doctor has helped other patients before you.)

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by compro01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A useful kind.

      Doing surgery is like trying to fix a car while it's running. If this idea works, you could simply stop the engine for awhile, making many surgical procedures (heart bypass, for example) far, far, far simpler (and thus far less likely to get screwed up) and likely opening up a bunch of currently-impossible things, like spreading a long, complex procedure over multiple days, allowing the doctors to rest, which would help prevent mistakes caused by sleep deprivation.

      And of course, there's the sci-fi stuff like sleeper ships (as even at relativistic speeds, you're talking stupid lengths of time for interstellar travel.) or the old standby "Life is boring. Wake me up when X happens.".

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by SigmaTao · · Score: 1

      Dim

    7. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, real life Quake!

    8. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, how long can this happen? A car can be turned off a LONG time. How long will this suspension actually work without problems arising?

      Turning off the car to work on it isn't a good analogy when it comes to brain surgery. Isn't the patient supposed to be conscious and alert while they are working? I saw a show once on brain surgery. They asked questions while probing around to be sure they weren't disconnecting the wrong thing!

    9. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by eth1 · · Score: 1

      One where you could sleep over the economic crisis.

      Uh huh... economy slows down a little, and then all the productive people (who are the only ones that can afford the procedure) remove themselves from the economy. Yup, that'll work...

    10. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Starship Troopers.

    11. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just imagine how many lives will be saved by this when that crackhead Obama socializes medicine! 6 month wait to see a heart specialist? No problem!

      And when Social Security collapses we can just put all the old folks on ice until we've saved up enough $ to support them in their twilight years!

      Man o man! This is the answer to so many of our problems!

    12. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the old standby "Life is boring. Wake me up when X happens.".

      Unfortunately, online matchmaking services are nowhere near accurate enough yet for that to be practical in my case.

    13. Re:Burning the life at both ends. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I was (jokingly) thinking of it as more of a solution for lower classes.
      Cheap way for government to reduce poverty, unemployment and overpopulation. Put 'em to sleep and stack 'em like bricks.

      Your version would have rich people (ones with money and assets) sleeping during a period when value of companies and goods falls down making them cheap for acquiring.
      Only ones going to sleep would be the passive kind - who would do nothing anyway.
      Others would see such a crisis as an opportunity for getting rich(er).

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  12. hey totally lost me... by ArcSecond · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...when he wrote "It's a weird thing about scientists--you would think that they would love science fiction. But they don't."
    If you'll excuse my French: bullshit!

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

    1. Re:hey totally lost me... by philspear · · Score: 1

      If you'll excuse my French: bullshit!

      I would, but that's not french.

    2. Re:hey totally lost me... by ArcSecond · · Score: 1

      sure it is!... if you say it right. :)

      --

      I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

    3. Re:hey totally lost me... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      It must be French, the OP is much too polite for what that word sounds like in English.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    4. Re:hey totally lost me... by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      If you'll excuse my French: caca de taureau!

      Fixed that for you...

    5. Re:hey totally lost me... by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Merde de taureau, maybe?

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    6. Re:hey totally lost me... by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I agree, he is incorrectly making a generalization, and that bothered me when I read it (along with some other stuff he wrote - but it could have been much worse.)

      In case you didn't read past that sentence, though, he continues (somewhat more ambiguously) with a valid point. We wouldn't normally admit our love of Star Trek, Heinlein, or anything fictional (including tabloids as mentioned in the article), even if it directly inspired our research project, in our grant proposals.

      And by the way, I don't know how it is in your department, but there are also a lot of scientists I know who aren't into science fiction that much. Can't generalize too far in the other direction either!

    7. Re:hey totally lost me... by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      I think the point he's reinforcing is that too many scientists are extremely unimaginative. Imagination minus a scientifically-trained critical faculty makes you an artist, conversely, a critical faculty lacking imagination makes you a technician. Yes, I'm generalising (omgwtf lol).

  13. This needed for long space travel but warp / hype by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    This needed for long space travel but warp / hyper drives are better.

  14. Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Esquire is running a a jaw-dropping profile of MacArthur genius Marc Roth in their annual Best and Brightest roundup, detailing how this gonzo DNA scientist (who also figured out how to diagnose lupus correctly)" I stopped reading right there. It's never Lupus.

  15. 37 degrees? by citylivin · · Score: 1

    "But we live on 21 percent oxygen, just as we live at 37 degrees."

    Im pretty sure the average comfort zone of humans is between 15 and 25 degrees. I find it odd that they picked such a high number. Are they trying to set the upper bound of human tolerance or something?

    --
    As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    1. Re:37 degrees? by xarius76 · · Score: 1

      "But we live on 21 percent oxygen, just as we live at 37 degrees."

      Im pretty sure the average comfort zone of humans is between 15 and 25 degrees. I find it odd that they picked such a high number. Are they trying to set the upper bound of human tolerance or something?

      37 degrees Celsius = 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit

    2. Re:37 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      37 degrees is not random, 37 degrees it the internal body temperature of humans and the temperature at which peak performance is achieved in most life.(Biogas generators are operated at). Yes we prefer to be in surrounding temperaturs of 15 to 25 degrees, but what he meant was internal temperature. The guy clearly hasn't got a strong grasp of the English language, and worryingly chemistry. Oxygen doesnt burn, we use oxygen in respiration, and we 'burn' food.

    3. Re:37 degrees? by sirsnork · · Score: 3, Informative

      Internally we are all 37 Degrees C. When someone takes your temperature, that's what they'll get as a result if you're not sick

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    4. Re:37 degrees? by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

      To be pedantic the normal body temperature varies so that 37 degrees C is more an average core body temperature. The outside environment's temperature, recent physical activity, your circadian rhythm , menstrual cycle or if you are pregnant can influence you body temperature by up to 1 degree C.

    5. Re:37 degrees? by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      "37 degrees Celsius = 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit"
      Sound more familiar now? :)

    6. Re:37 degrees? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Human bodies are constantly producing heat, which is why "comfortable" air temperatures are lower than our body temperature. If the air is hotter than our body, the heat generated by our metabolism can't escape, and we overheat. (Actually, sweating still cools us as long as the water's able to evaporate, so we'll dehydrate before we fry.)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  16. Deanimation? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who had a Tron flashback and read that as 'deresolution'?

    1. Re:Deanimation? by Quarters · · Score: 1

      Yes

    2. Re:Deanimation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and let me add: "What is wrong with you?"

  17. Hatian witch doctors have been doing this for year by Brigadier · · Score: 2, Interesting
  18. Aging is a disease by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that will be cured.

    And no, overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available.
    The rest will starve.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Aging is a disease by josteos · · Score: 5, Funny

      The rest will starve.

      Until the hungry ones realize the others taste good with ketchup.

      --
      Save the Music; Save the World at http://www.TuneTriever.com (Our latest Android game)
    2. Re:Aging is a disease by BountyX · · Score: 1

      I've been trying to tell these mortals that for quite some time now...

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    3. Re:Aging is a disease by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I think overpopulation won't be a problem because reproduction will either a) require permits of some sort, to keep overpopulation from occuring or b) people would rather enjoy their life than having kids. The latter is happening already in most first-world countries, as their birth rates are dropping below replacement rate (the US varies a bit, because immigration is a big part of the replacement rate).

    4. Re:Aging is a disease by servognome · · Score: 1

      And no, overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available. The rest will starve.

      Typically when overpopulation is used in terms of humans, it has more to do with the social issues rather than survival. Overpopulation can cause life to be hell well before the food runs out.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    5. Re:Aging is a disease by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      And no, overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available. The rest will starve.

      *blink*
      *blink*

      Um...

      *blink*
      *blink*

      Starving or dying for lack of sufficient resources is the very criterion by which we determine overpopulation has occurred.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    6. Re:Aging is a disease by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Interesting

      overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available.

      Overpopulation isn't a problem after the ones who starved are dead, you are correct sir. But if nobody is dying anymore than no new people are arriving to take their place. No more evolution.

      For my part, I think one lifetime is enough for me. There's some tricks in life that are only meant to be seen once. I don't believe in a heaven or a hell, but even if they cured aging tomorrow, I wouldn't take it. Let someone take my place when I've had my fill, I'm not greedy. I don't want to live forever, just to live long enough to prove out this childish hope I've had that life could be more than this.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    7. Re:Aging is a disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, in the ruckus of the food riots, someone lets off a nuke.

    8. Re:Aging is a disease by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      Or someone will figure out a way to feed them.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    9. Re:Aging is a disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the number who starve would not exceed the number who would have died otherwise. Especially given that birth rates are declining with death rates.

    10. Re:Aging is a disease by justinlee37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that most people suggesting that there will be an overpopulation problem are starting with the inherent assumption that starvation/overcrowding/war would be the problem. So basically you've just said that the problem won't be a problem. Brilliant.

    11. Re:Aging is a disease by pgn674 · · Score: 1

      The rest will starve.

      Until the hungry ones realize the others taste good with ketchup.

      Mmm, Soylent Green with red ketchup. It's like a Christmas meal with half your family being the meal.

    12. Re:Aging is a disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Let someone take my place when I've had my fill,
      > I'm not greedy. I don't want to live forever,
      > just to live long enough to prove out this
      > childish hope I've had that life could be more than this.
      >
      You may find yourself saying the same thing at age 200...

    13. Re:Aging is a disease by metlin · · Score: 1

      Aging is a disease that will be cured.

      And no, overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available.
      The rest will starve.

      Until the haves go against the wall.

    14. Re:Aging is a disease by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      You may find yourself saying the same thing at age 200...

      No. I'll have my answer regardless of how long I have to live. Besides, I can't live forever since I already know how I die.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    15. Re:Aging is a disease by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Mmm, Soylent Green with red ketchup. It's like a Christmas meal with half your family being the meal.

      But then the crisis passes and agriculture will feed everyone again, though people still enjoy the taste of Soylent Green. At some point, to save costs, they will surreptitiously replace the people in Soylent Green with soy beans. They'll get away with it for a while, until Charlton Heston VIII figures it out and takes to the streets, crying out "Soylent Green isn't people!"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Aging is a disease by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      No. I'll have my answer regardless of how long I have to live. Besides, I can't live forever since I already know how I die.

      Yeah, but you probably didn't account for the trauma team putting you back together again and waking you up afterward.

    17. Re:Aging is a disease by maxume · · Score: 1

      If you are going to live forever, why not take the long view.

      If you turn off emotions and take the long view, the starving and wars are only problems for the people that die from them.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    18. Re:Aging is a disease by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Isn't the condition where people have no choice but to starve due to lack of resources essentially the definition overpopulation? As for the idea of creating immortality: The only way to not create overpopulation is to stop as soon as we hit that resource limit, but if we aren't dying, that means the last generation is denied the ability to have children. I think that is a worse situation than letting people die after a healthy 100 years or whatever we can let life expectancy level out at. (Reaching a resource limit and allowing children would require Ender-esque family size limits, but that should be reasonable enough).

    19. Re:Aging is a disease by Swizec · · Score: 1

      It's not a problem, it's a population control mechanism, much like there are similar processes for rats and such.

      We humans keep thinking of ourselves as something other than animals and suddenly what's there to keep our numbers in check is some huge problem ... we even dare calling it the world's problem.

    20. Re:Aging is a disease by bagsc · · Score: 1

      Nope. Humans broke out of the Malthusian Cycle a long time ago.

      Like most smarter animals, we don't breed until our children starve - we know that when food is too scarce, we don't reproduce. We can sense stress, population density, and resources - if a girl's body weight isn't high enough, she can't conceive. People in high density areas (Tokyo, Manhattan, etc) actually don't reproduce much. Japan and Russia have declining populations.

      Birth control and abortions have also helped family planning - some children are unplanned, but very few children are truly unwanted in rich societies.

      Furthermore, we're not even close to subsistence level in most countries. In the incredibly expensive US, you can survive with a tent, blankets, and a pound of grains a day - retail price of less than $500 per year. The homeless in the US are significantly better off than the limits of human subsistence. Americans consume about 100 times the amount necessary for subsistence.

      Bangladesh is a good example of the world off of humanity. The average per capita income of a Bangladeshi is about $300, but with cheaper prices there, this is equivalent to about $1000 in the US. Even Bangladeshis can survive (as evidenced by the fact that a hundred million of them exist today). Food is only about 50% of their income, which is relatively terrible, but survivable.

      Almost all starvation that occurs in the world, for the last hundred years or so, has been because of breakdowns in distribution. Given a year or two of migration towards food sources, as in the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the starvation stops.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    21. Re:Aging is a disease by Snaller · · Score: 1

      God I hope so - the curing part.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    22. Re:Aging is a disease by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

      Tomato based sauces usually aren't a good match for human flesh.

      Prepare it as you would pork.

      There's a reason they call it Long Pork.

      Although it reminds me of fried mushrooms.

      Yes.

      I've tasted cooked human flesh.
      I imagine a lot of us have, though it rarely comes up in conversation.

      Once when I was in high school, I was screwing around in the electronics lab.
      When I vaulted over a bench and put my hand down on a hot high wattage soldering iron with my full body weight on it, I seared my thumb pretty bad - and reflexively stuck it in my mouth.

      The taste was mild but distinct.

    23. Re:Aging is a disease by Skiron · · Score: 1

      That will be the 'Murricans, I suppose?

    24. Re:Aging is a disease by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      No. I'll have my answer regardless of how long I have to live. Besides, I can't live forever since I already know how I die.

      What, do you and G'Kar strangle each other on Centauri Prime or something?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    25. Re:Aging is a disease by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      Aging and death is a stage that we all go though to reach another place of existence. Not sure I would want to prolong the inevitable. Of course, If you ask me how I know this I couldn't tell you. Reading about meta physics has helped me realize this truth in my own life though.

    26. Re:Aging is a disease by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      that will be cured.

      +5 insightful ? Damn ...

      Disease ? Cured ? How the hell do you know ?
      To know the point of life (which you need to know, else you can't bring up those statements that you do) you need to know for sure, what happens when we die. Period. As far as we, humans, know .. life is maybe just a cycle, or preparation for something else .. or something third. So you can't say aging is a disease.

      And no, overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available.
      The rest will starve.

      Yeah ? That would be true, only if the amount of food that is available is equally divided among all human beings. And is certainly not. You'r just to blinded to see that, apparently. Hunger still exists, in the world... and a lot of people fight to survive.

      And don't compare other biological beings to us. Other biological beings don't fuck other dead biological beings, don't steal, aren't greedy, aren't jealous, don't murder for fun, dont bomb other country's, and 100 other really really bad things, that we humans are capable of, for our own personal benefit.

      Go ahead, mod me down for going offtopic, trolling or whatever, I hope you will.

    27. Re:Aging is a disease by hansg · · Score: 1

      that will be cured.

      And no, overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available.
      The rest will starve.

      I think you and I have a different definition of "a problem".

      /Hans

      --
      I don't have one
    28. Re:Aging is a disease by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but rats aren't faced with the issue of driving each other to starvation, and they don't have the intellect to stop and think "hey, what if we decided to reduce our numbers?"

      Look, I'm with you in that I'm an agnostic, amoral nihilist; you're right, the human race isn't a "big deal." But you must also come to grips with the fact that you are a human, and therefore, as the biological system ("animal") that you are, you must be concerned with your own outcomes.

      The ideas over at VHEMT.org make a lot of sense. Acknowledging that there could be a massive world starvation/war/whatever in the future, and blindly hurtling toward it while saying that it's inevitable ... what if we could do something to stop it? Something simple?

      Wouldn't that be preferable? You're right, humans need to get over the idea that they're special ("God's creation," etc.), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve things for ourselves.

      The realization that you aren't special shouldn't lead to you hanging yourself by a noose in your bedroom. You just get over it and better yourself.

      And I don't know about you, but a massive "population control mechanism" like starvation and war is essentially a life-or-death roulette wheel; I don't know about you, but I don't want to spin that wheel. I'd rather keep everybody happy instead of risk martial combat and strife over limited resources. I'm not a gambler, y'know? Because I'm an animal.

      In short, yes we're animals, and that's exactly why we should be concerned about this.

    29. Re:Aging is a disease by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      GP didn't say overpopulation wouldn't occur, just that it wouldn't be a problem (for the survivors).

    30. Re:Aging is a disease by Swizec · · Score: 1

      I'm all for being concerned and taking care of the whole thing, make it better and all. But fact remains it's already taking care of itself.

      Rats DO drive each other to starvation when their numbers exceed what the ecosystem can support. Then they reach a balance around the ecosystem's capabilities in that one year there's a lot of them, next year not so many, then a lot again and so forth. The same goes for humans.

      After a war you have a baby boom generation, then each subsequent generation is smaller until at some point the generations are so small there is negative population growth. Once the ecosystem can again support population growth, the population grows.

      I know this isn't perfect, but it's only imperfect because we're greedy bastards. Even just a hundred years ago it was normal to have 30% of your children die before they reached puberty ... now, not so much and that's why we have less offspring.

      Stop worrying, nature is taking care of our numbers. We should instead use our time for other things ... but I can't think of what just now.

    31. Re:Aging is a disease by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      That's when we call in the Zombie Squad and pretend the hungry ones are zombies.

    32. Re:Aging is a disease by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      The rest ARE starving.

    33. Re:Aging is a disease by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      The problem with that thought is that starving due to overpopulation is the problem.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    34. Re:Aging is a disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent Green
      CHUD
      DOnt need Ketchup

    35. Re:Aging is a disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point I'd like to defer to the first post...
      "Brrraaaiiiiinnnsss!"

    36. Re:Aging is a disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no, overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available.
      The rest will starve.

      ummm.... mass starvation seems like a bit of a problem to me.

    37. Re:Aging is a disease by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      They're problems for everyone affected. Just because you don't starve to death doesn't mean you're living in luxury... and in a severe food shortage, you'd have to be pretty important to be unaffected.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    38. Re:Aging is a disease by maxume · · Score: 1

      Weighed against forever, a few hundred years of suffering is nothing.

      (For what it is worth, I don't think this is a problem that humanity is going to be facing anytime soon; hopefully figuring out how to manage whatever the peak population reaches this century doesn't end in mass starvation (that there are fewer starving people and billions of new people compared to 50 years ago is an incredible success, may it be repeated)).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    39. Re:Aging is a disease by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Sure, and weighed against a 80-year lifespan, ripping out your fingernails only hurts for a second.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    40. Re:Aging is a disease by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Rats DO drive each other to starvation when their numbers exceed what the ecosystem can support

      Yeah, but they're not on top of the food chain. That's why. We are actually in control of our outcomes ... continuing to breed mindlessly and saying "ah, it'll take care of itself" degrades the quality of life for everyone, and it's tantamount to driving down the highway at 90mph with no hands on the wheel, in a car with no brakes, saying "ah, don't worry, we can't keep going at this rate forever, we'll slow down eventually. There's no problem!"

      We should instead use our time for other things ... but I can't think of what just now.

      Like what, fucking without condoms? Oh wait, that's what got us into this discussion in the first place.

      Seriously, the overpopulation problem is a simple one to solve. People are just stupid.

    41. Re:Aging is a disease by Swizec · · Score: 1

      No, it's simple to solve, people just don't want to. Seriously, a few well placed nukes and voila, problem solved.

      But perhaps due to radiation issues a different kind of explosive should be used. Mind you we're already half-intentionally starving out africa to help keep our global numbers at bay. It's a bit subtler than explosives so people tend to swallow it easier.

    42. Re:Aging is a disease by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      They don't have anything in trade. Why should we give food away? That would just be ENCOURAGING the problem as I've already outlined it: mindless breeding for selfish reasons. We need to curb that. But wouldn't it be nice if everyone could just AGREE to do it, instead of suffering through massive worldwide famine and war? Why does everybody think famine and war is necessary? That's what we're trying to avoid ... the simple solution is to stop breeding. And I can't abide by anyone who doesn't by volunteering to support their nonproductive family with free food.

    43. Re:Aging is a disease by Swizec · · Score: 1

      When you think about it the western world already HAS mostly opted out of breeding ... or at least postponing it quite a lot and then having troubles because of it and thus not breed.

    44. Re:Aging is a disease by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Even if every couple just had 1-2 kids, you'd still see a positive birth rate. You can make a kid with a partner and feel like you're reducing our numbers ... but that kid could easily have 1-3 kids in your lifetime, so now it's like you've made 2-4. And many people live long enough to see their grandchildren, and sometimes even their great-grandchildren.

      While it's true that wealthier, better educated people tend to breed less, there's still way too much breeding going on around here.

    45. Re:Aging is a disease by sjames · · Score: 1

      Until the hungry ones realize the others taste good with ketchup.

      One way or another, population problem solved.

  19. Space travel etc. by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, this could be useful in space travel, barring we develop hyperdrives. Sci fi have been playing around with sleeper ship concepts for decades. It might also be useful for people who have terminal cancer for example, who might want to opt to be frozen in the hope of a cure being developed during the interim (though there will be the problem of reintegrating into society after even just a few years). A more plausible use maybe is to put into suspended animation a critically injured person until he can be transported to a hospital and treated to minimise cell damage (assuming the serum does less damage).

    1. Re:Space travel etc. by robertjw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You will just have to prove you weren't integrated into society to start with.

    2. Re:Space travel etc. by M0b1u5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You overestimate how much society changes.

      Given the ENORMOUS gulf between 1900 and 2000, you could reanimate a person who died in 1908, and it would take them very little effort at all to adjust to 21st century life.

      Do you think if you were frozen now, you'd have trouble being resurrected in 2028? I think not. You'd love it.

      Humans are like that: adaptable.

      In fact, I'd go so far as to say you could resurrect an ancient Sumerian person with little or no difficulties.

      The situation would be no different to bringing a Papuan to New York city. They might not like it much, but they'd adjust pretty quickly.

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    3. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Space travel???? Forget that! Next thing you know, you wake up in 2491 dressed in horribly colored spandex being followed around by some little phallically shaped robot that sounds like Bugs Bunny. NO THANK YOU!!!!

    4. Re:Space travel etc. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Try the enormous gulf just between 1995 and today.

      • the web
      • cell phones
      • death of in-country long distance fees
      • death of CDs
      • ipods and music downloads
      • death of VHS
      • Netflix
      • VoD
      • last and certainly not least: Google

      Go back another 10 years

      • computers
      • email
      • outsourcing of white collar jobs
      • access to 100s of TV channels and the death of "snow"
      • the rise (and fall) of casette tapes (8-track and reel-to-reel sucked, if you ever used either for storing and convenient playback)
      • the rise of CDs and artificially inflated prices leading to the rise of the current RIAA juggernaut
      • VCRs
      • death of rotary phones and the Ma Bell stranglehold on telecom

      There were huge similar sweeping changes for each decade all the way back to roughly the 1870s or so when the effects of the industrial revolution started directly affecting people's lives and livelihoods. And here's a hint: the degree of change is accelerating still, we'll probably see some of the most interesting times we can imagine, old Chinese curses not withstanding.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That just speaks to how slowely "natural" evolution works and how little we've mentaly progressed in thousands upon thousands of years.

      I would go even futher and say we could bring back people before modern language and they could adapt, of course they would need a physciatrist but don't we all!!!

    6. Re:Space travel etc. by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what? Those things are just that: things. There are people living today who lived through all of those advances and didn't go into shock over them, why would you think someone getting caught up to all of it at once couldn't handle it?

      The things that people from 1955 would be most freaked out about now would be things like gay marriage, lowered blood alcohol levels in drunk driving laws, and having a black President-elect. Societal changes would be much more shocking. And even then, they would adjust, because as the GP pointed out, that's what humans do.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:Space travel etc. by phorm · · Score: 1

      You might be adaptable, but - depending on your current age - how employable would you be? How long would it take to once again become a productive member of society?

    8. Re:Space travel etc. by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      His point still stands. Take someone who has grown up in an isolated area far from the modern world, living a life similar to our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors, dump them in a metropolis and they'll adjust fairly quickly.

      Think of all the changes you listed, and note that you've adjusted to them all in your lifetime. Humans are very adaptable to new environments and technologies.

    9. Re:Space travel etc. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Try the enormous gulf just between 1995 and today. the web cell phones death of in-country long distance fees death of CDs ipods and music downloads death of VHS Netflix VoD last and certainly not least: Google

      Yes, but not much really changes. Your list is of pretty trivial things. We've still got the same birth, death, love, and war as we've had for millenia.

      I think you're looking at things on too small a scale.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    10. Re:Space travel etc. by tibman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty sure horses still need to be shod and wooden fences built and gates fixed and bricks laid and mail delivered and snow shoveled and old ladies helped up the stairs (not exactly a job) and trash removed and books sorted and heavy things carried around. Not all jobs are "technical".

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    11. Re:Space travel etc. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was trying to support his point. We've completely changed how we operate within even the span of a couple of decades. Many of those changes would be incomprehensible to someone from 50 or 100 years ago, or someone from a subsistence culture, but most would be able to adapt relatively quickly to enough things to allow them to function or even flourish. Many have, having lived through those changes. My 100 year old grandmother loves receiving pictures via email, for instance.

      Heck, some changes are almost incomprehensible to people currently living through them: witness the the oft repeated joke about the cup holder in the desktop or the continuously flashing 12:00... yet they still manage to function just fine.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    12. Re:Space travel etc. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Only a subset of people from 1955 would be freaked out about some of those things. For others, they would be irrelevant or accepted, some even gladly.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    13. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but then you have to think about it from a social aspect. With no friends or family, it's going to be very lonely for them for a very long while. Besides, who's going to help them get back on their feet and become a functioning member of society again?

    14. Re:Space travel etc. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be honest if I had terminal cancer why would I want to be frozen and then wake up to find out that all my family and friends are dead? Seriously how could someone adjust to that? Having no close family or friends?

      If it were only 10 or 20 years you might still have plenty of family and friends. People do tend to go about their own lives and things would be allot different for your socially.

    15. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall that there is something similar to what you mention -- it involves injecting a highly cooled saline sludge into the bloodstream to slow down cell metabolism as much as possible.

      I'm not sure how widely used it is though.

    16. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might also be useful for people who have terminal cancer for example, who might want to opt to be frozen in the hope of a cure being developed during the interim

      There will not be a "cure" for cancer, ever. There cannot be life without cancer. That is just the way it is.

    17. Re:Space travel etc. by Walpurgiss · · Score: 4, Funny

      But what if you woke up, and Sex was illegal, Salt was illegal, profanity was illegal, and Taco Bell was an up scale restaurant after the Fast Food Wars?

      You might adapt, but some grouchy old person might refuse to.

    18. Re:Space travel etc. by Walpurgiss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not with email fully supplanting snail mail, quantum entanglement used to teleport things, and Roomba(c) brand auto-shovelers. not to mention escalators, and trash -> bio fuel converters in every home/car. Books? In the Vatican maybe.

      Of course, the paperless office hasn't really worked out so far, so I doubt the shitjobless society will work out anytime soon either. Maybe if you cryo until 12947 and by some miracle we havn't killed ourselves off yet.

    19. Re:Space travel etc. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Well, this could be useful in space travel, barring we develop hyperdrives.

      The problem with suspended animation of all kinds is that damage is not being repaired. Normally, when a cell gets damaged, it either fixes itself or self-destructs and gets replaced by another one. Neither is possible with metabolism suspended; consequently, all the damage just gets piling up, and hits you all at once when you are revived. "Death by a thousand cuts", so to say. Couple this with the radiation-intensive environment of outer space, and you get a very nasty combination.

      No, it's either hyperdrives, relativistic drives, immortality or generation ships. Sleeper ship is not going to work, not unless you can reassemble the body from dust in your destination, because that's all you've got left. Of course, given a sufficient level of nanotechnology, that might be quite possible...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re:Space travel etc. by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 2, Funny

      It might also be useful for someone like Donald Trump who could use it to hibernate till the economy gets better and medical science can fix his hair.
      I am just saying. It could be useful to some.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    21. Re:Space travel etc. by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      But what if you woke up, and Sex was illegal, Salt was illegal, profanity was illegal, and Taco Bell was an up scale restaurant after the Fast Food Wars?

      Dorkland,CA?

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    22. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This will be avery long reply, but I found this to be an interesting thought experiment. I think you underestimate the potential trauma of being transplanted in time. It's not the technology that would take adapting to - I'm sure people would love hopping in a car and being across town in a matter of minutes, or across the country or world in a matter of hours. I'm sure people would love talking to their friends miles away on the phone instead of waiting to see them in person. I'm sure curious, technical people would love finding out about the new inventions and discoveries. But to my mind it's the daily grind, the everyday social events that would be confusing and upsetting to a time immigrant. A few off the top of my head (with an admittedly U.S - centric bias on my part)

      1. Money - The economy was a much simpler beast back in the day. It was easier for the common, educated man to grasp the functions of money. There were no 30-year mortgages, so average people didn't own homes or have to bother with the vagaries of real estate, unless they were wealthy. There was nothing like the credit we have today - it was almost impossible for the average person to spend themselves into debt so deep that it would take them years to work it off by buying cheap crap. You might have a tab at local stores, but if you ran up bad credit your score didn't follow you, so you could move to the next town over and start over by building new relationships. I think a 1908 person set loose on today's world would without guidance would either become confused and paranoid by the types of financial decisions people make everyday, or they would throw caution to the wind and spend themselves into horrible debt without really understanding what happened.
      2. Equality. In 1908 America was a very unequal place, segregation was not just a social phenomenon, it was a relatively unquestioned law. Adult women were often treated as children of their fathers and/or husbands. Homosexuality was not just thought to be sinful, but a mental illness for which one could and should be locked up - if they weren't killed first. Even a relatively liberal minded white male from the time would likely feel uneasy living and working side-by-side with minorities, women and un-closeted gays. And any man who tried to get in a relationship with his 1908 expectations of a girlfriend or wife would be in for a rude awakening - if not by her sense of independence, then by the jealousy they feel when she shows bare skin of her legs, shoulders or stomach in public, or the way that she is perfectly free to divorce him without legal cause, or call the police if she felt threatened. All of these are good things, but they would be incredibly shocking to a white male from the time raised with certain expectations.

      2. Social interraction - In 1908 there were rural folks and there were city dwellers, but there was not yet this mass suburbia. Furthermore, whereas people in the past stayed put in their hometown, and even houses could be passed down across generations - people today move constantly. We talk of "starter houses," for even if one stays in the same town, it's simply expected they will change their address every now and then - and frequently they will move to other states and other countries. I think a turn of the century person could quickly start to feel isolated and confused by this mobility - neighbors who aren't really neighbors, but just people passing by - friends and even family that "abandon" you to move 3000 miles away, or perhaps to another continent for a job.

      3. Impersonal - In 1908 people felt loyal to the companies they worked for - for some, your company could be like a 2nd family, and you could very well work there from your first job till the day you died. I think a 1908 person (at least a non-laboring class person) would be shocked and perhaps betrayed by how even valuable people are treated like cogs in corporate machines.

      4. Information overload - 1908 was before the invention of truly mass media. The radio

    23. Re:Space travel etc. by kalel666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm posting on Slashdot. Done.

      --
      I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
    24. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Salt illegal?!

      OH GOD NO.

      I love my salt!

      Plus, i'll just freeze myself, they'll have a cure for that in the future.
      Don't you just love the future(?), so predictable.

    25. Re:Space travel etc. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      To be honest if I had terminal cancer why would I want to be frozen and then wake up to find out that all my family and friends are dead? Seriously how could someone adjust to that? Having no close family or friends?

      A live person can adjust to almost anything, a dead one doesn't have that pleasure.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phillip J. Fry seemed to adjust pretty well.

    27. Re:Space travel etc. by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing your Sci-Fi with reality. Most of what you just said isn't true right now, and the statement was about bringing back someone from 1900 or even earlier to modern times. You can't give a counter argument if you're basing that argument on things that are outside the scope of the question.

    28. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems great to me, i'd love to be the little girl.

    29. Re:Space travel etc. by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Seriously how could someone adjust to that? Having no close family or friends?

      And then your sig....

      Basements are SO overrated. The attic is where its at.

      But seriously... the stereotype of socially reclusive geeks may not be all that common in the real world, but stereotypes often do get their basis from reality somewhere/somewhen, so I think there's more people out there that could handle it than you think... Personally, I'm quite confident that I personally would have no problem adjusting despite that I'm not one of those socially reclusive types (I'm not exactly "life of the party" either though) - I'd just make new friends. As it is, I already do that every time I move to a new city/country (a fairly common occurrence for me).

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    30. Re:Space travel etc. by prezpwns · · Score: 1

      Or if ARR-nold was the President? If the Jolly Green Giant was the top-selling artist in the pop culture? Negative.

    31. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It might also be useful for people who have terminal cancer for example, who might want to opt to be frozen in the hope of a cure being developed during the interim (though there will be the problem of reintegrating into society after even just a few years)."

      Not a problem at all, really. The sort of culture shock you're talking about happens every day.

      For example, I know a person who came here from Ghana. In a very literal sense, it was like jumping forward a couple of centuries; she went from a society where she lived without electricity or plumbing in a house with a dirt floor, without ever seeing things like a television, a radio, a computer, or a cell phone, without ever owning powered transportation that did not depend on animal muscle, to the US and did it without difficulty at all.

      Human beings are quite adept at this sort of thing. Cognitive flexibility is our schtick.

    32. Re:Space travel etc. by phorm · · Score: 1

      I doubt that trash collectors or bricklayers could afford the procedures to be "suspended" though, at least not for awhile. I doubt the class that could afford it would be find such jobs desirable either.

      Of course, if one had enough cash and banked money in a long-term decent-yield savings account, you might not need to work after being reanimated. "freezout kids", anyone?

    33. Re:Space travel etc. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      People adapt yes, but I think if you bring someone form too remote a life style or too far in the past you would have issues. They might adapt to a point were you could control them and they could function in terms of day to day stuff, but could they support themselves?

      Could someone who has been on ICE since 1909 participate much on 2009 society? Would they be able to frame the social issues of day comprehend our entertainment and humor which I think would be required to "enjoy life". Would they be able to have a career above fry-cook or field-hand, even if they had been an "educated" person in their day?

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    34. Re:Space travel etc. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      The sig is a joke!

      And I understand you point. But I suppose I was thinking more about the "everyone I love is dead" scenario. Don't tell me you wouldn't be depressed knowing your siblings, parents and friends are all gone and you have no social ties to the current world. I would adjust but I certainly wouldn't be all that happy for a while.

    35. Re:Space travel etc. by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeh, it'd be sad, and I'd definitely shed a tear or two, but then I'd get over it and move on. As it is, I don't see what's left of my family more than once every few years (I say "what's left" since some have already died) and I don't have any friends so close that being without them would cause me extreme distress. Basically, I'd expect the "sad, moping around, missing people" stage to last up to a month at most, and then I'd be pretty much fine with the new friends I would have made. (actually, I also expect it'd take a week or two to get to the "sad" stage, since the first week would be the "holy crap, what the hell, I've been reanimated!" stage)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    36. Re:Space travel etc. by klenwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      old ladies helped up the stairs (not exactly a job)

      Extend it to administering their medicine and changing their diapers and the like and it's a common job. Not particularly glamorous or well-paying, but with an aging population, ever more in demand.

      --
      Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
    37. Re:Space travel etc. by Chineseyes · · Score: 1

      The difference being that these people experienced change gradually. Someone woken from suspended animation would not have it so easy.

      --
      I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

      --A wise old fart named SC0RN
    38. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was using the web in 1995. My dad had a car phone in 1995. The death of CD's (for music) has been greatly exaggerated. Just look in any 2009 model car. My mom still has a VHS player (she doesn't want to pay for a DVR). And anyone who's used a walkman before should have no trouble "adjusting" to an iPod.

      His point wasn't that the world has changed. His point was that people can adjust to that change relatively quickly and easily.

      Except for the 3 seashells. No one will ever understand that.

    39. Re:Space travel etc. by ConstableBrew · · Score: 1

      I disagree with you completely! I work as a computer tech and I have to say that people do NOT adapt very well. Stick a middle aged craftsman in front of a computer and tell him this is how people do their jobs now and he will fumble around and not really have any idea what is going on, UNTIL HE RETIRES! He'll get by, but never will he be comfortable. Young people that have not yet acquired their preferred place in this world have no problems. That, however, is what young people are meant to do - explore and find their place. Exploring requires an element of adaption. If you resurrected an ancient Sumerian young adult, sure he may adapt well after a few years. Resurrect an ancient Sumerian in his late 40s and you'll never see him fully adapt.

    40. Re:Space travel etc. by evil_aar0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd like to believe you, but all of the intolerance - cf. McCain's 2008 campaign - and religious hostility we _still_ have kind of tells me that, socially, we _can't_ adapt. Not all of us, anyway.

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    41. Re:Space travel etc. by Walpurgiss · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. But I still think that there are extreme situations in any era, in which outsiders would not easily adapt. Like if you dropped an ancient Roman administrator into modern Detroit, or some super religous Templar or Saracen into San Fransisco.

      There's potential for enough things to be jarringly different, that adaptation would be highly unlikely, and they would seek escape rather than to try.

      Roman senator would likely be unable to speak with anyone directly, and have no marketable skills. Sure they could learn to flip burgers, but would probably feel highly degraded to do something so lowly, when they had power/respect previously.

      Templar/Saracen would be very shocked by how irreverent secular society can be, etc.

    42. Re:Space travel etc. by josh61980 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why but this post gave me a story idea. Someone is frozen because of a terminal disease. They are woken up in the future where a cure exists. However they cannot receive the cure do to regulations. Restricting medical treatment to people who were frozen due to limited resources/whatever.

    43. Re:Space travel etc. by diqmay · · Score: 1

      I came in looking for a Demolition Man reference, and was not disappointing.

    44. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that the scenario is you have terminal cancer. You won't see your loved ones ever again regardless of whether you are frozen or just dead. If they can make the freezing procedure work even if you have a few days to live, I think the choice is obvious for an atheist like me. If the procedure only works when you are relatively healthy, it will be a though decision. A few months with loved ones may be worth a lot more than a lonely life in a world you probably wouldn't ever completely adapt. Then again, who knows that your loved ones won't undergo the same procedure themselves when their time comes? Perhaps you will meet them in the future. *That* would be awesome. Don't forget to put some money in the bank though.

    45. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will not be a "cure" for cancer, ever. There cannot be life without cancer. That is just the way it is.

      If by cure you mean something like "nobody gets cancer anymore", then I suppose it's more likely than not that you're right. But sometimes when we say cure we mean healing a specific patient with some ailment. Most stage 4 cancers are a death sentence now, but it seems reasonable that at some point we'll be able to eradicate existing cancers in any given patient. That's not to say the patient won't develop new cancers later, or that such treatment implies being able to reverse damage done by cancer (that might be a separate cure).

      - T

    46. Re:Space travel etc. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      A good surprise to one person might be a bad surprise for another, but they're both surprised.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    47. Re:Space travel etc. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Cooled to absolute zero, no deterioration would take place. Cooled to a more reasonable but still cold temperature, it could still feasibly be held to a manageable level.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    48. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can give you Information Overload, but the rest are just you idealizing the past.

    49. Re:Space travel etc. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      And hey: there's always living on the dole. That's much more possible today than it was at any time in the recorded past, and with much more style than was possible then, too. Artists of old would've killed to get the kind of accommodation welfare recipients receive in the modern western world.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    50. Re:Space travel etc. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Exactly: it's not the tech that would take adapting to, it's the culture. Try this thought experiment:

      Would you rather (race/skin color not withstanding):
      a) live in colonial America
      b) live in Turkey during the height of the Turkish empire

      Your answer might likely be different depending on your gender, religion, or even dietary preferences. Consider: there are people who immigrate in their 20s to a new country with relatively similar cultures and never fully assimilate, or actively resist assimilation.

      Situation 2: would you rather live in a tribal society full of nut eating hippies or one with peaceful gun/weapon nuts?

      Situation 3: would you rather live in a society with a totalitarian government or anarchy?

      Situation 4: atomic family structure of hippie commune/no clear parental/child/etc. roles?

      In one of the above comparisons, if you prefer one over the other strongly, living with the disfavorable one would be, to many, worse than death.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    51. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your last application is already being rolled out. they are now using semi-cryogenics for persons with stroke.

      it is called induced hypothermia.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000901080235.htm

      a cold fluid is pumped through bands placed on the body to reduce the body temperature to 35.5 degrees Celsius (95.9 degrees F). this produces a dramatic reduction in the severity of stroke symptoms including tissue death and (resulting)memory loss. patients receiving this treatment recover much faster.

    52. Re:Space travel etc. by idanity · · Score: 1

      i disagree...............as you may be lucky to get someone like Plato or Socrates, we are more likely to bring back someone more close to an imbred mental patient...

      --
      happy trials
    53. Re:Space travel etc. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Cooled to absolute zero, no deterioration would take place.

      Cooled to absolute zero would mean that we'd know the velocity of each particle exactly (zero), which in turn would make their place entirely undetermined, which would basically disintegrate the matter they formed.

      Furthermore, even ignoring quantum mechanics for a while, cosmic rays would still cause deterioration at any temperature. A cosmic ray hitting a structure will knock the particle it hit loose. Given enough time, the damage accumulates to the point where resumption of metabolism fails.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    54. Re:Space travel etc. by Genda · · Score: 1

      So what? Those things are just that: things. There are people living today who lived through all of those advances and didn't go into shock over them, why would you think someone getting caught up to all of it at once couldn't handle it?

      The things that people from 1955 would be most freaked out about now would be things like gay marriage, lowered blood alcohol levels in drunk driving laws, and having a black President-elect. Societal changes would be much more shocking. And even then, they would adjust, because as the GP pointed out, that's what humans do.

      Because the rate of technological change is not linear, it's asymtotic. The rate at which both information and knowledge is accelerating is itself accelerating. The difference both technologically and sociologically between today and the next ten years will be greater that the last 50. Over the next 20 we may have;

      • Machines with near human intelligence.
      • True artificial intelligence.
      • Lifespans not limited by aging.
      • Self replicating nanotechnology.
      • Cheap, fast, interplanetary travel.
      • Fusion.
      • A world where virtually every object you can see or interact with has built-in intelligence, and communicates with you and every other object in your life.
      • The complete evaporation of any privacy whatsoever, save the privacy we choose as a society to preserve.

      Some poor gent from 2008 waking up in 2028 would almost certainly be suffering from a King Kong sized case of culture shock.

      Of course with the probable broad advances in technology, the ability to bring people up to speed may well also become a moot issue. There're already amazing experiments going on to create new and interesting neural implants to connect brains with electronic systems. The future of such technology might make retraining someone trivial. Move you through years of structural education and experience in a matter of days or hours.

      To paraphrase, "The world is not only getting stranger than you suppose, it's getting stranger than you can suppose..."

    55. Re:Space travel etc. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Cooled to absolute zero would mean that we'd know the velocity of each particle exactly (zero), which in turn would make their place entirely undetermined, which would basically disintegrate the matter they formed.

      Since it's technically impossible to reach absolute zero, that's really not a concern. It's an asymptotic approach, and the deterioration will slow asymptotically also.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    56. Re:Space travel etc. by lord+sibn · · Score: 1

      If sex was illegal? I fail to see how that would affect most of us. You must be new here.

    57. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds disturbingly familiar.

    58. Re:Space travel etc. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      quantum entanglement used to teleport things

      I teleported home one night
      with Ron and Sid and Meg.
      Ron stole Meggie's heart away,
      and I got Sidney's leg.

      -Douglas Adams

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    59. Re:Space travel etc. by Gaffod · · Score: 1

      What kind of nerd do you have to be to be unable to adapt to the switch from VHS tapes to DVDs? Seriously, the only point you're making is that nerds don't adapt, so don't resurrect the nerds.

    60. Re:Space travel etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure horses still need to be shod and wooden fences built and gates fixed and bricks laid and mail delivered and snow shoveled and old ladies helped up the stairs (not exactly a job) and trash removed and books sorted and heavy things carried around.

      Unless these jobs are done by ubiquitous, cheap robots, and the only real jobs left are in designing and marketing the robots.

    61. Re:Space travel etc. by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      You overestimate how much society changes. Given the ENORMOUS gulf between 1900 and 2000, you could reanimate a person who died in 1908, and it would take them very little effort at all to adjust to 21st century life.

      And you know this because?

  20. Practical applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been the holly grail for many reasons. Say you have a heart transplant patient that has less than a day to live and is waiting on a new heart. Even a few days would increase radically their chance of survival. It could potentially be extended to organs themselves. Imagine warehousing organs until needed. It's not just handy for extreme things like space travel there are more practical uses.

  21. Vegetables by kieblerh · · Score: 1

    Zombies that cant move sound like vegetables and they arent very fun at all.

  22. Obligatory Futurama Quote by srobert · · Score: 1

    "Who would have known playing God could have such terrible consequences?"
                                                                                                                              Bender Bending Rodriguez

  23. Re:This needed for long space travel but warp / hy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    This needed for long space travel but warp / hyper drives are better.

    Sorry to rain on your party but we are never going to have a warp or hyper drive. They were designed around the scheduling of TV advertisements, not the laws of physics.

  24. What about plants? by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

    Not all life burns oxygen. Unless there's some chemistry I'm forgetting (certainly possible).

    1. Re:What about plants? by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Plants require oxygen:

      Inside chloroplasts: CO2 + H2O + sunlight => sugar
      Inside the rest of the plant: sugar + O2 => energy

      The reason plants have net oxygen production is that they also use sugar as a structural material, in the form of cellulose.

      There are living things that don't use oxygen, but they tend to be single-celled organisms such as obligate anaerobes (sugar => alcohol + carbon dioxide + energy) or chemosynthetic bacteria (funky sulpher compounds => other funky sulpher compounds + energy).

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:What about plants? by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

      Either way, you've answered the question about not all life burning oxygen, so thanks.

  25. Obligatory Frankenstein Quote by srobert · · Score: 1

    Fire Bad! Aaaaaaagh!!

  26. Re:Hatian witch doctors have been doing this for y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pufferfish is also reported to be one of the main ingredients used in voodoo to turn people into zombies. According to ethnobotanist Wade Davis, the pufferfish is the key ingredient in the first step of creating a zombie, where the tetrodotoxin creates a death-like state. In the second step, hallucinogens are used to hold the person in a will-less zombie state. There was considerable skepticism to Davis's claims; he was widely accused of fraud, and there has been no final statement as to the veracity of his findings.[3]

    If even Wikipedia doubts you, your doing it wrong.

  27. It's better to burn out Than to fade away by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    My my, hey hey
    Rock and roll is here to stay
    It's better to burn out
    Than to fade away
    My my, hey hey.

    Out of the blue and into the black
    They give you this, but you pay for that
    And once you're gone, you can never come back
    When you're out of the blue and into the black.

    The king is gone but he's not forgotten
    This is the story of a Johnny Rotten
    It's better to burn out than it is to rust
    The king is gone but he's not forgotten.

    Hey hey, my my
    Rock and roll can never die
    There's more to the picture
    Than meets the eye.
    Hey hey, my my.

    1. Re:It's better to burn out Than to fade away by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      It's just a song this article made me think of. Draw your own philosophical conclusions.

  28. Reincarnating? by grahamd0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Esquire is running a a jaw-dropping profile of MacArthur genius Marc Roth in their annual Best and Brightest roundup, detailing how this gonzo DNA scientist ... went from watching his infant daughter die to literally reincarnating animals.

    I think they meant literally reanimating animals, but if I'm wrong, this guy's experiments would be interesting indeed.

  29. !Reincarnate. !Resurrect. Suspended Animation. by Khopesh · · Score: 1
    "Reincarnate" means To cause to be reborn in another body; incarnate again (ADHD, Dictionary.com) ... as in you die and the next thing you know, you're alive but in somebody else's body. The process in question here is actually "resurrecting," "raising," or, as TFA actually states, "bringing back" the dead, but only a clinical definition of "death" that doesn't mean dead in the sense that they're not coming back. Only the HTML title of the article (and the slashdot post title) use this horribly flawed term.

    Rather, this appears to be suspended animation, which frankly I find more interesting anyway. While you're suspended, you're clinically "dead," which is a state we can already induce with various toxins (supposedly, with intense meditation, yogis can do this as well).

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  30. Been doing it for years ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... with Alt-Ctrl-Del.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  31. Re:This needed for long space travel but warp / hy by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most every space science fiction has a period where people went out in "sleeper ships" to colonize the galaxy.. and then the warp drives come along and overtake the sleeper ships. It's a common theme.

    I imagine the following for us:

    * All those exoplanet astronomers eventually discover a rocky planet around an nearby star.. say, 20 light years away.
    * They manage to confirm the atmosphere is oxygen/nitrogen, and can guess that the atmospheric pressure is similar to Earth.
    * Some smart cookie figures out how to image the surface of the planet and sees trees and rivers and, ya know, squirrels.
    * A Von Braun figure declares that we *must* go populate this planet and puts together enough international funding to send a ship.

    The ship would be nuclear powered. It would have about 30,000 people on it in suspended animation. 30 engineers would remain awake to monitor the systems and keep the ship on course. After 10 years of service, they'd go into suspended animation and wake their successors (actually, it'd be staggered replacement). If it takes 400 years to get there, so what? That's just 40 shifts. 1,200 engineers out of 30,000 colonists.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  32. Not Dead... by JaneTheIgnorantSlut · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just pining for the fjords.

  33. He's ALIVE! He's ALIVE! by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

    However bring back mice from a cryogenic state is different from a human. Also if anything that hasn't been preserved problem will be difficult to "deanimate" since all living things will start to decompose after you die so "deanimating" those will be near impossible since all the parts will be disintegrating.
    Maybe he can try it on Ted Williams next...

    1. Re:He's ALIVE! He's ALIVE! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      living things will start to decompose after you die

      Assuming you've also successfully deanimated the microorganisms which cause decomposition, then no.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  34. Obligatory House reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this doesn't get tagged "itsnolupus", I'm leaving.

    1. Re:Obligatory House reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops.

      If this doesn't get tagged "itsnotlupus", I'm leaving.

  35. Re:This needed for long space travel but warp / hy by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    1,200 engineers out of 30,000 colonists.

    Not on 'B' Ark

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  36. deja vu by benjamin.haley · · Score: 1

    has anyone seen pet cemetery...

  37. Death is not a state. It's a prognosis. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're either dead or you're not.

    Define death.

    As the cryonicists say, "Death is not a state. It's a prognosis." It's a claim that the organism will not be restored from its current state to a level of function that is considered alive.

    Last time I looked (which was a while ago) trauma centers were regularly reviving victims who drowned in cold water and had been "dead" for half an hour. Surgeons were taking advantage of this by precooling patients who needed surgery that would leave the brain without blood flow for similar times. And research labs had perfused a dog with suitable protective substances, stopped its heart, cooled its body to freezing temperatures, left it that way for some time, then revived it. (And this guy has improved on that using H2S.)

    Were the drowning victims "dead"? Was the dog?

    There are people who are long since frozen - in full body or brain only - in the hope that they can some day be repaired (or built into a fresh body). If that is successful, are those people now "dead"? Or are they just resting at liquid nitrogen temperatures?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  38. Article has bad style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While this story was interesting, I felt like I was reading an 8th grader's essay.

  39. If even special relativity holds, no warp drive. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    ... warp / hyper drives are better.

    If you can send information faster than light as viewed from any slower-than-light reference frame, and relativity holds, you can use multiple hops to send it back into the light-cone of its own past, i.e. send messages back in time.

    ("Sending information" includes writing it down and sending the letter. Never underestimate the bandwidth of an FTL spaceship full of mag tapes.)

    This breaks causality.

    So if relativity and causality both hold, no faster-than-light drive for us.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  40. Who wrote this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only was it long and full of boring digressions, it reads like it was written by Slater from Dazed and Confused.

  41. WTF? by db32 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I know this is slashdot and all, but did anyone actually read the article? It is pretty fascinating what this guy is doing. This is real science, the standard crap is frequently little more than research. If this process works then it could mean a tremendous shift in medical practices. The impact that this could have on surgery, especially for high risk operations is incredible. The effects on battlefield medicine would be profound as well. Military medicine over the centuries has brought some pretty impressive things in terms of trauma care.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  42. Reanimator - The music video! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not nsfw, but it is... poor.

    http://dagobah.biz/flash/reanimator2.swf

  43. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    If you can send information faster than light as viewed from any slower-than-light reference frame, and relativity holds, you can use multiple hops to send it back into the light-cone of its own past, i.e. send messages back in time.

    I must be dumb. How? Can you break it down for us?

    1. Travel to Mars faster than 4 minutes, say X.
    2. Travel back to Earth faster than 4 minutes, so now 2*X.
    3. Ok, so now it's S+2*X at Earth, how did you travel back in time?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  44. Great so now by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 4, Funny

    we can finally unfreeze Walt Disney, and bring Elvis back to life. Maybe we could bring back George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to advise Barrack Obama? :)

    Ah for the good old days when only Jesus could raise the dead.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Great so now by Mumia · · Score: 0

      This going to be a lot better than the pet cemetery.

    2. Re:Great so now by Chris+Kamel · · Score: 1

      No unfreezing for that author though, worst fuckin article I had to read through in my life.

      --
      The following statement is true
      The preceding statement is false
    3. Re:Great so now by VShael · · Score: 1

      Ah for the good old days when only Jesus could raise the dead.

      Heck we can bring him back too! Zombie Jesus tours Palestine.

      It's GOLD Jerry! GOLD!

  45. good solutions come in pairs by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Could we please imagine the overpopulation problem being solved by revolutions in space travel technology instead of mass starvation? Thanks.

    1. Re:good solutions come in pairs by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      It takes way too much energy to move people to other planets. Space travel will never be a solution to overpopulation. Reducing the birth/death ratio is a much more effective method.

  46. This reminds me of a song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whats in your head, in your head....

  47. Re:This needed for long space travel but warp / hy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greetings Earthling - I see you are trying to spread FUD

  48. No Crows here in Fairbanks... by 7Prime · · Score: 1

    We don't have crows here in Fairbanks Alaska, they're called "Ravens". They're bigger, smarter, and more annoying. To the Native Athebascans, one of 'em created the world, and then became a right asshole to everyone around him, that was before the Burreau of Indian Affairs took over and did his job for him.

    Oh, and that was a fucking terrible article. Good content... when I could find it. That could have been about 3 paragraphs, but the writer decided to try and make his mark by writing about 8 pages of self-indulgent bullshit first. I understand that it was supposed to be vaguely in the style of Hunter S Thompson... but that's irrelivant. The author made up all that shit about a connection between Roth and gonzo journalism, it was just a stupid excuse to try and write in gonzo style. I want to drop kick the author in the nutsack.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    1. Re:No Crows here in Fairbanks... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      We don't have crows here in Fairbanks Alaska, they're called "Ravens". They're bigger, smarter, and more annoying. To the Native Athebascans, one of 'em created the world, and then became a right asshole to everyone around him, that was before the Burreau of Indian Affairs took over and did his job for him.

      History would be much more fun if people like you wrote the textbooks.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  49. Fascinating! Pass the Sulphur Dioxide by M0b1u5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What interests me here is his claim that we don't know much about life. And I guess there's a large element of truth here.

    If you take a person who has just died, and look at any one of their billions of cells, you will find that they are ALL still "alive"; consuming oxygen, things moving around in them; proteins being formed... until the oxygen runs out.

    So, you are in the curious state of being dead, while almost all of your cells are still clinically alive. It's quite fascinating really.

    From these facts, we can reliable assert that human life is not dependent on cellular activity. There is a lot more to it than that.

    Additionally, we now know that resuscitating humans who are "dead" (cold water near drowning, heart attack etc.) re-introduces oxygen, and it's the ocygen which actually kills you.

    At what point does oxygen become the thing which kills you during a resus' event?

    Are there ways to "immunize" a "dead" person so that re-animation is possible without brain death or cellular suicide due to rapid infusion of O2?

    If we learn to re-animate people by immunizing them prior to resus', at what point after traditional "death" is a body no longer able to be revived? What does that say about the "time of death" or even how to declare someone "dead"?

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    1. Re:Fascinating! Pass the Sulphur Dioxide by speedingant · · Score: 1

      Are there ways to "immunize" a "dead" person so that re-animation is possible without brain death or cellular suicide due to rapid infusion of O2?

      I'd doubt it. To effectively have something flow through your veins, the heart needs to be working. I'm probably wrong though, considering I'm in IT!

    2. Re:Fascinating! Pass the Sulphur Dioxide by Renraku · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When most nerve cells in the brain die, they release their chemicals into the space surrounding the cells. A lot of them are toxic to other brain cells, which cause the other brain cells to die. And then more, and then more.

      Fairly recently a drug was developed to stop this chemical cascade, and it works well. It could be combined with this treatment to further limit brain damage caused by lack of oxygen.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  50. My inner critic by JPLemme · · Score: 1

    I tried to suspend my inner critic, but that writing style is unreadable. I didn't even get halfway through.

    1. Re:My inner critic by Da+Cheez · · Score: 1

      I tried to suspend my inner critic, but that writing style is unreadable. I didn't even get halfway through.

      Just make sure to revive your inner critic afterward. On the other hand, if you don't, it will never die...

    2. Re:My inner critic by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      I thought it flowed quite well. It was a pure entertainment piece, intended for a particular market, which shouldn't detract from Roth's work.

  51. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The speed of light is not some magical, mystical value that can never be touched. Light is just a waveform of photons. You can slow it down and you can speed it up. Both have already been done, and when it gets sped up it does actually arrive before it leaves. One must try to avoid conflating the confusing and improbable with the impossible.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  52. Suspend or Hibernate? by gsgriffin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are we talking Suspend or Hibernation? Windows got it backwards then?

    --
    jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
    1. Re:Suspend or Hibernate? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      Just like slash / and backslash \ in file paths!

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  53. The Duke's not dead... by kermit1221 · · Score: 1

    He's frozen. And once we find the cure for cancer we're gonna thaw him out and he's gonna be PISSED!

    You know how pissed off he's gonna be? Ever taken a cold shower? Multiply that by fifteen million times, that's how pissed off the Duke's gonna be.

    1. Re:The Duke's not dead... by LtGordon · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna get the Duke, and John Cassavetes, and Lee Marvin, and Sam Peckinpah, and a case of whiskey, and drive down to Texas.

  54. Gonzo Crap by fm6 · · Score: 1

    The writer Tom Junod engages in what Hunter Thompson once called "a failed but essentially noble experiment in pure gonzo journalism."

    In HT's case, that usually meant doing a lot of drugs and then babbling like an idiot. Junod appears to have skipped the drugs part, which may explain his total lack of actual useful insights.

    1. Re:Gonzo Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The writer Tom Junod engages in what Hunter Thompson once called "a failed but essentially noble experiment in pure gonzo journalism."

      In HT's case, that usually meant doing a lot of drugs and then babbling like an idiot.

      What fm6 doesn't know about HST & gonzo journalism is clearly A LOT. "Babbling like an idiot"??? Not exactly. Maybe try READING some HST before commenting on his method.

  55. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

    Relativity and time dilation.

  56. Re:This needed for long space travel but warp / hy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I'm quite glad they adapted SF drive tech to accomodate TV ads, not the other way around. We don't need 50-year long ads while the generational starship is in transit...

  57. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    So I guess that's a no.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  58. Whoa by LtGordon · · Score: 5, Funny

    But, look, the concentration of oxygen in the blood that runs through our capillaries is only 2 or 3 percent. We're almost dead already! So what if we turn down the candle's need for oxygen? What if we dim the candle so much that we don't even have the energy to die?

    "Can I buy some pot from you?"

  59. Re:Death is not a state. It's a prognosis. by caitsith01 · · Score: 0

    As per my comment further up, none of your examples are a problem if we adopt "no further possibility of life" as our definition of death.

    - drowning victims who are revived: were never dead
    - drowning victims who are not revived: dead
    - surgery patients: were never dead
    - dog: never dead
    - cryogenically frozen people: probably dead, but we should probably be careful in case they are not

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  60. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

    Yea, unfortunately it isn't anything as simple as taking the time traveled and just multiplying it by two.
    Basically what relativity tells us is that time is relative, so the time you spend going to Mars and back at the speed of light or faster is actually a different amount of time than is observed on Earth.
    You can read up on it here or here a bit.

  61. gork English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, am I the only one who's, like, put off by the conversational tone of the article? I mean, c'mon! - is it really that important to dumb down the presentation of a really smart guy? I don't know about you, but for me this pidgin-hipster is so yesterday. Can you say patronizing? Can you say gork English? Hemingway would be proud. And so on.

  62. Warm and dead by vik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As an EMT volunteer we're told that a person isn't dead until they're warm and dead. Many people have been declared cold and dead, stored in the morgue, then scared the living crap out of the attendant complaining that it's bloody cold in there!

    Vik :v)

  63. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    Dude, I'm well aware of time dilation. I just don't see how you can turn time dilation into sending messages back in time. Please make your fucking argument already. Or were you just talking out your ass?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  64. Re:Death is not a state. It's a prognosis. by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

    My 6 week old son was frozen for a few months as a part of an IVF cycle. Admitadly, he was only a blastocyst (about 100 cells) at the time, but he's very much alive now.

    --
    Unexpect the expected!
  65. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by tylerni7 · · Score: 1
    Sorry I didn't mean to offend you, I was mainly saying that

    I must be dumb. How? Can you break it down for us?

    1. Travel to Mars faster than 4 minutes, say X.
    2. Travel back to Earth faster than 4 minutes, so now 2*X.
    3. Ok, so now it's S+2*X at Earth, how did you travel back in time?

    was an over simplification, and that time doesn't really act as one would expect it to (or at least not how I would)

    As for why faster than light means back in time, well, my understanding of special relativity is not very deep, but from what I gather, moving faster than light means that an inertial reference frame can exist where time is moving backwards. (This comes from time dilation)
    And then, since special relativity states that physics is the same for all reference frames, then if something can move back in time in one reference frame, it can move back in all reference frames.

  66. What's that, Gort? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    The movie that movie got that from has a remake coming out in December, and it doesn't have any "Plan 9" overtones whatsoever.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:What's that, Gort? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Keanu barada nikto?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:What's that, Gort? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I've never seen Plan 9, and didn't realise it was related to TDTESS. Now that I know, I'll go watch. Thanks :)

    3. Re:What's that, Gort? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Itwilp roba blysuck.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  67. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The whole point of warp drive is that you're not traveling faster than light. You're getting from A to B faster than light would travel to go from A to B but you're not *moving* faster than light, you're warping space. This, of course, is impossible.. but that's not the point.

    Wormholes are easier to understand. You connect two points in space.. now the distance required to travel is very short (it's zero if the wormhole has no "inside"). Did you travel faster than the speed of light? Why, yes, you traveled from A to B faster than light could before the wormhole was opened, but no, you didn't change your velocity to a value higher than c.

    If you have an inside to your wormhole then you could go inside it, then change one of the end points to be somewhere else. Say you can only create a wormhole where the two end points are millimeters apart, but the inside of the wormhole is many meters, enough to fit all the equipment you need to manipulate the wormhole. Now you can move the A end of the wormhole so that it is closer to the B end, then move the B end so it is further away from the A end, then move the A end again. You're inch worming your way through space.. if you can inch fast enough, you can inch faster than light can travel the same distance. Are you moving faster than light? No, you're not moving at all! This is Peter F. Hamilton's "continuous wormhole drive".

    All of these things require new physics.. there's a couple of proposals that require only slightly exotic absurdities, but it's all theoretical and, comical, right now.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  68. Frost Angel by rabidkumquat · · Score: 1

    Sci-fi author Alistair Reynolds explored the concept of emergency euthanasia as a medical procedure in his novel "Pushing Ice". For deep space missions, casualties beyond the facilities of the ship to manage would be suffused with H2S to displace the oxygen before it could start damaging tissues.

    Granted; in the story there was unspecified nano-based medicine to facilitate the revival, but the basic idea is there.

    --
    under construction
    1. Re:Frost Angel by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      In the book, in the preface I think, he states explicitly that the idea was already current and trialled when he wrote the story. I can't remember whether he attributes it to Mark Roth, but I do remember searching for background information and confirming the idea. I totally love his books - I so want to be an Ultra.

  69. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

    Ahhh, I thought from your original post you were talking about more conventional methods (well, if you can ever call FTL travel conventional...) of traveling.
    I retract my previous statements, sorry doubting you :)
    </discussion>

  70. Author's art style is obnoxious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much worthless information in that article resulting from the author trying to be cool. It hurt to wade through TFA looking for relevant information. I hope the author gets AIDS.

  71. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Wormholes are easier to understand. You connect two points in space.. now the distance required to travel is very short (it's zero if the wormhole has no "inside"). Did you travel faster than the speed of light? Why, yes,

    Except that EPR wormholes aren't big enough to fit anything inside. We don't know of anything yet that would allow a big wormhole to exist.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  72. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Cool, I wonder if they're using this effect to build better lasers.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  73. Time "Travel" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think if you were frozen now, you'd have trouble being resurrected in 2028? I think not. You'd love it.

    Humans are like that: adaptable.

    It would be interesting if a cottage industry somehow popped up around this idea. Don't like your friends/family/life? Have the money for something new? Have yourself deanimated now and reanimated at a future point of time of your choosing! Services will be made available to ease the transition to your new life!

    I'm sure some writer has thought of this at some point. The big issue would be if you didn't like where you are and wanted to go back (oops).

    1. Re:Time "Travel" by erayd · · Score: 1

      I'm sure some writer has thought of this at some point.

      Peter F. Hamilton has thought of this, and written about several different ways of implementing the concept.

      --
      Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
  74. zombie by confused+one · · Score: 1

    Let's see...

    1. Reanimated dead... Check
    2. Mad scientist... Check
    3. Funded by Government agency -- DARPA... Check

    Note to self: Prepare for Zombie Apocalypse

  75. Did anybody just open TFA by floydman · · Score: 1

    This guy looks like that austrian guy, Fritz, who rapped his daughter...hmmm, I see a pattern here.

    Fritz: http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/11/fritz.jpg

    Mad scientist (Mark Roth) : http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/1g/mark-roth-mad-scientist-1208-lg.jpg

    Coincidence I THINK NOT!!

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  76. I've heard this somewhere before... by bartkusa · · Score: 1
    While reading the article, Roth's ideas seemed familiar to me. After using Google for a few minutes, I was able to remember where: some articles about heart attack treatment. When someone has a heart attack, the current(?) practice is to give them oxygen through a face mask. The thinking is that with more oxygen, the heart doesn't have to work as hard, and can recover from the attack better.

    However, some people have been looking into cell death from lack of oxygen, and it looks like the rate of cell death is quite low until oxygen re-enters the system, at which point it spikes up.

    http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/apr07/resuscitation-center.html

    When a person has a heart attack, their cells are deprived of oxygen. So Dr. Becker began studying oxygen deprivation in cells. What we found when we studied oxygen deprivation in cells astounded us, explained Becker. When cells are deprived of oxygen for an hour there is only 4% cell death. After four hours, cell death is only around 16%. Both of these numbers are low. The amazing thing was once we re-introduced oxygen to the cells they died off rapidly to almost 60% cell death. This re-oxygenation injury we termed reperfusion injury. We concluded that the re-introduction of oxygen must be handled carefully for the majority of cells to survive. Our studies will be concentrating on ways to prepare cells deprived of oxygen for the re-introduction of oxygen.

    This article also seems salient: Severe heart attack damage limited by hydrogen sulfide

  77. Re:Death is not a state. It's a prognosis. by Tsujiku · · Score: 1

    That last one seems like a problem to me.

    --
    Paradox
  78. Mother Nature .. by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    I work at a high school - we have a really cool science teacher and on one wall of his classroom in large letters is the phrase:

    "What is Nature trying to tell us"

    What a great thing to have kids think about while doing science ..

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
  79. Information Theoretical Death by Esteanil · · Score: 1

    "Thomas Donaldson has argued that "death" based on cardiac arrest or resuscitation failure is a purely social construction used to justify terminating care of dying patients. In this view, legal death and its aftermath are a form of euthanasia in which sick people are abandoned."

    Oh, and read up on Information theoretical death

    --
    I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
  80. Cold is similar effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A doctor in Florida (I think) is using somewhat similar effect by cooling patients with life threatening medical problems (etc. heart attack). Basically he is trying to slow biological functioning to minimum level for a longer period of time, which prevents the dangerous medical condition to progress fast and kill the patient. This state of the edge of death gives the body chance to heal naturally. This doctor learned about this method in Russia, where in Siberia people have been using "icing" sick patients as a traditional medicine for a long time.

  81. NOT GONZO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not exactly... What HST called "a failed but essentially noble experiment in pure gonzo journalism" was his article/book, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. (So imagine my disappointment when I read Junod's piece.)

    Tom Junod's article does not qualify as gonzo journalism in any aspect. For example, he does not write from a subjective viewpoint, nor include himself in the story, nor describe the events as if he were experiencing them, nor include any possible fictional elements. He just uses an irritatingly informal and sophomoric tone.

    If you must (mis)use the word gonzo, at least don't disparage HST's work by comparing it to this garbage.

  82. Tax evasion by mach1980 · · Score: 1

    If you suspend yourself for more than six months a year in, lets say, isle of man, would you be able to evade tax?
    Huge profits to be made!

    --
    Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
  83. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 1

    I'm a programmer, not even a hobbyist in physics, but I'll take a stab at that.

    So, Time Dilation. Let's say that we've got the other end of our shiny new instantaneous teleporter on a space ship, moving away from Earth at a significant fraction of the speed of light, so much so that there's 2:1 time dilation being observed on both ends. (The same thing works with lesser relative motion, and non-instantaneous FTL, but this makes it clearer.)

    The spaceship has been travelling for 10 years already, haveing left Earth at a point we'll call year 0.

    From the spaceship's point of view, it's year 10 for them, and year 5 on Earth.

    From Earth's point of view, it's year 10 for them, and year 5 on the Spaceship.

    You've volunteered to be the guinea pig. So you hop in the instant transporter on Earth, and get teleported, it being 'instant' from Earth's frame of reference. Which means that it was year 10 on Earth when you left, and you arrive in the spaceship in their local year 5.

    You shake hands all around, get congratulated on your bravery, then hop back in for the return trip. You are instantly teleported back, this time in the reference frame of the spaceship. You leave the spaceship still in their local year 5, and arrive on Earth at local year 2.5, 7.5 years before you left.

    There are all sorts of problems with this scenario, of course (like hos to define 'instant' in relative frames)... and the solution to all of them is to realize you can't move faster than the speed of light.

  84. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The speed of light is not some magical, mystical value that can never be touched.

    You are confusing the actual speed of actual light with a fundamental cosmological constant usually colloquially named "the speed of light" (shorthand of "the phase velocity of light in vacuum").

    The link you posted is about experiment which employs group velocity of a wave packet. Group velocity is known to be arbitrarily fast but it bears no information - information must be sent in advance prior to its occurrence, like the tracks to be laid down before the train passes (only this train has no option to go or not to go).

  85. Hmmm by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

    Umbrella Corporation comes to mind

  86. Re:This needed for long space travel but warp / hy by yahwotqa · · Score: 1

    Something would go wrong, and at the end there would only be one survivor making it into the sequel.

  87. Aging is a evolutionary mechanism by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

    Every creature dies as soon as it possibly can, to increase the generation rate and speed of evolution.

    Way I see it, this still applies. Get rid of the old blood and bring in fresh generations. Filling the world with immortals will cause total stagnation.

    --
    I lost my sig.
  88. Juliet's Cocktail? by baudbarf · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of something...

    "And this distilled liquor drink thou off When presently through all thy veins shall run A cold and drowsy humour for no pulse Shall keep his native progress but surcease No warmth no breath shall testify thou livst The roses in thy lips and cheeks shall fade To pale ashes thy eyes windows fall Like death when he shuts up the day of life Each part deprived of supple government Shall stiff and stark and cold appear like death And in this borrow d likeness of shrunk death Thou shalt continue two and forty hours And then awake as from a pleasant sleep" - Friar Lawrence, Romeo & Juliet, By William Shakespeare

    --
    You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
  89. Holy Irritation Batman by rhadamanthus · · Score: 1

    Great story but this "writer" makes me want to punch my computer screen. PAINFUL.

    --
    Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
  90. Ob. Red Dwarf by jaminJay · · Score: 1

    Oh, yes, I expect they cured death the instant we left Earth. I expect doctors' surgeries are packed with the dead. "Hello, Mrs Johnson, take one of these three times a day, you'll soon be living again. Carol, next corpse, please."

    -- Rimmer

    --
    Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
  91. Just because the author writes informally by TimeZone · · Score: 1
    Doesn't make it Gonzo. Gonzo is when the journalist becomes personally invested in, and part of, the story itself. Gonzo would be if Junod let Roth "gork" him. The article was a pretty good read though.

    TZ

  92. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...no, no I don't, actually. Not this time.

  93. Ob. Monty Python by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead.
    [a man puts a body on the cart]
    Large Man with Dead Body: Here's one.
    The Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
    The Dead Collector: What?
    Large Man with Dead Body: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
    The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not.
    The Dead Collector: He isn't.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm getting better.
    Large Man with Dead Body: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
    The Dead Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I don't want to go on the cart.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, don't be such a baby.
    The Dead Collector: I can't take him.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I feel fine.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, do me a favor.
    The Dead Collector: I can't.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
    The Dead Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Well, when's your next round?
    The Dead Collector: Thursday.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I think I'll go for a walk.
    Large Man with Dead Body: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I feel happy. I feel happy.
    [the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Body with his a whack of his club]
    Large Man with Dead Body: Ah, thank you very much.
    The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Right.

  94. Ishi had some problems in that regard. by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    Do you think if you were frozen now, you'd have trouble being resurrected in 2028? I think not. You'd love it.

    Humans are like that: adaptable.

    In fact, I'd go so far as to say you could resurrect an ancient Sumerian person with little or no difficulties.

    You might want to read about Ishi, the last of the Yahi, before you leap to that conclusion.

  95. le sigh by tomzyk · · Score: 1

    You could at least get it right:
    Klaatu barada nikto

    And in case some of you didn't know:
    Klaatu Barada Nikto

    --
    Karma: NaN
  96. Re:Demolition Man by twmcneil · · Score: 1

    I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  97. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

    But when people say, "the speed of light", they're not really meaning what you're saying... they really mean "the speed that light travels in a vacuum with nothing else affecting it", also known as c. So, travelling faster than light is easy, if you slow light down, but that doesn't even begin to approach anything interesting and is just being an annoying pedant. Travelling faster than c is what is almost certainly impossible.

    --
    My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
    Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  98. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by Gotung · · Score: 1

    Warping space is not impossible. In fact you are doing it right now. And so is the earth, and the moon, and the sun, and gosh, just about everything (everything with mass that is).

  99. Reanimation by Logical+Zebra · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who is seeing some serious Resident Evil shit in this article?

    Ikaria = Umbrella Corp.???

    --
    I have a bad feeling about this...
  100. basic quote seems obviously false by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    We DO not what life is. It is a complex, self-replicating pattern, that consumes energy. Short, sweet and to the point. Negates fire (not complex), allows Virus (most basic thing that people think might be life.)

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:basic quote seems obviously false by pbaer · · Score: 1

      A computer virus is alive?

      --
      There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
  101. All predicted in Star Trek by tekrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You could have been frozen in the 70's and been prepared for all of that by watching Star Trek.

    Computers -- Kirk and Spock *spoke* to their computers. 99% of us still have to type. Hell, Spock even holds up 3.5 floppies on the show and refers to them as "tapes"

    Cell Phones -- "Scotty beam me up" Kirk used a cell phone nearly every episode. Many models even flip open the same way and are the same exact size as the original communicator. Spock even had that wacky Bluetooth headset in his ear often.

    In fact, if you were frozen in the 70's you'd be disappointed by the LACK OF PROGRESS. Where the frack are our flying cars, jetpacks, transporters, warp drive, colonies on Mars, and all that other crap we were supposed to have by the year 2000?

    Sheesh!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  102. Overlords by viper34j · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our decayed overlords.

  103. Self funded scientists by BoXman3D · · Score: 1

    I like the throwback to self funded scientists. In the days where you could fail constantly in order to learn. Humans learn best from trial & error and making mistakes.

  104. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    1. Travel to Mars faster than 4 minutes, say X.
    2. Get your telescope and observe Earth, where Y has passed. Make sure you've traveled fast enough that Y > 2X.
    3. Travel back to Earth faster than 4 minutes, so now 2X.
    4. Tell everyone what you saw from (2X - Y) into the future.
    5. Profit!!!!1 (sorry.)

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  105. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Crap, I meant Y - 2X in step 4... I should proofread before I submit :(

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  106. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    From your article:

    If the side of the chamber facing the incoming wave is called the near side, and the other the far side, the sequence of events is something like the following. The incoming wave, its tail extending ahead of it, approaches the chamber. Before the incoming wave's peak gets to the near side of the chamber, a complete pulse is emitted from the far side, along with a backward wave inside the chamber that moves from the far to the near side.

    That's a misrepresentation of what's actually happening. It's based on what visibly takes place, which depends on the speed of the light which transmits the events to your eyes.

    The pulse isn't actually transmitted out the other side "before" it enters the near side; we simply see it being transmitted out the other side before we see it reach the near side.

    The only way this could really be true would be if a two-way relay were set up with a mirror or repeater such that you get your reply before you transmit the signal, and that's impossible.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  107. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it is – but for amplifying, not speeding up, the light. I actually read (most of) that article... you should try it. ;)

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  108. Givemethat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... i want to be around for the Linux-on-the-desktop-year !

  109. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    I think you have a similar misconception of warp drive as the last guy. Warp drive doesn't result in lorenz contraction. Depending on your particular warp technology, your actual velocity is zero. Even so, your scenario doesn't work as observing earth with your telescope is not instantaneous.. your looking at earth as it was 4 minutes ago.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  110. Re:If even special relativity holds, no warp drive by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I realized that too late...

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  111. CVS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pharmacy/convenience store?

  112. Or more realistically... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Waking up around 2500 to a world where all water has been replaced with a sports drink, there are Costcos spanning dozens of square miles, and dust storms rage through city streets...and you better be scannable.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel