A Geek Funeral

We've recently talked about a geek wedding, and now reader Sam_In_The_Hills writes in with news of his brother's geek funeral. "I've not seen this topic covered here before even though it's one that will concern us all at some time: what to do with our corporeal remains after we've left for that great data bank in the sky. For my recently departed brother (long illness, don't smoke!), I thought this nice SPARCstation would be a cool place to spend eternity. Yes, he's really in there (after cremation). I kept the floppy drive cover but for space reasons removed the floppy drive, hard drive, and most of the power supply. I left behind the motherboard and power switch and plugs to keep all openings covered. The case worked quite well at his memorial party. His friends and family were able to leave their final good-byes on post-notes. Anyone who wanted to keep their words private could just slip their note into the case through the floppy slot. All notes will be sealed in plastic and placed within the case. There has been one complication. His daughters like the look of it so much they aren't now sure if they want to bury him. One more thing: the words on the plaque really do capture one of the last things he ever said. Of course as kids we watched the show in its first run."

Comments

Sparc Station?

[LoRdTAW]

If he was a Sun admin, I would wager it wasn't the cigarettes.

Re:Sparc Station?

[XPeter]

Are we a few months in the past? Bury the poor bastard with an oracle box.

Re:Sparc Station?

[palmerj3]

Truly epic misinterpretation of, "I'd like to be incinerated in the Sun".

Re:Sparc Station?

[martas]

cheaper, though...

Re:Sparc Station?

[alexandre_ganso]

Not the burn itself, but taking the body to there, certainly...

Good way to go

[plover]

Remembered as in life, not as the struggle through the end.

I'm sure your brother appreciates the sentiment.

Re:Good way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

If the smokes don't get you, that bus will.

1960 to 2009. Still in his 40s. Smkoing I hear adds 10 years to your age for every 20 smoked, more if your a woman.

Re:Good way to go

[BobMcD]

Amen.

I hope my own brothers care as much for me when my time comes.

Good on you.

Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[JackieBrown]

I need my smokes to get through workI get enough shit from that everwhere else.

My smokes pay for the roads, education, utilities...

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[phantomfive]

I need my smokes to get through work

Not really, you don't. It's a choice. There are other ways.

My smokes pay for the roads, education, utilities...

If I had my way, they wouldn't. Every cent earned on cigarette taxes would go towards a public anti-smoking campaign. If drugs were legalized and taxed, all the money made from the taxes would also go towards a public anti-drug campaign.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Anti-smoking jab"?

Surely a recommendation to not do what recently (and slowly, and no doubt unpleasantly) killed your brother in a post about his funeral arrangements isn't on the same level as cheap moralistic point-scoring.

It's like comparing a Jack Thompson op-ed hit piece to a a eulogy for some kid who was shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For the record, I think that anti-smoking campaigning took on a distasteful moralistic tone some time ago; but the notion that you can't mention the subject after watching your brother die slowly of it seems a bit much.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Look, the guy probably died from lung cancer or some other complication that resulted from smoking. The dangers of smoking are well known, even and especially to smokers. Give the grieving family member a break for putting in an anti-smoking message into the write-up. You might think smoking is great and gets you through the day, but if you leave this world due to some smoking complication, I doubt the grieving members of your family that you leave behind are going to give a crap about the roads you helped build with a couple bucks in tobacco taxes seeing as how you're no longer with them.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[wizardforce]

TFS didn't put anyone down for smoking and it didn't suggest we tax smokers, all it said was *don't smoke*. Which is actually pretty good advice.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[sitarlo]

I think this poster was trying to point out that in some cases smoking kills people. Where's the logic in paying high taxes on a product that has no lasting benefit to your health, family, etc.? A cigarette gives a few moments of weak pleasure. Is it really worth your money and health? (BTW, I just started again, so I'm not some high-and-mighty jerk who's above taking a drag off a smoke now and then. I just think this poster was trying to help people understand that death from smoking is real and it does suck)

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[pegasustonans]

Do we need the anti-smoking jab

I don't know. If your sister died due to liver-failure as a result of alcoholism, wouldn't it be understandable if you disliked alcohol?

If one of my siblings died as a result of an addiction to cigarettes, I believe I too would warn people about the risks of smoking.

I don't believe it's a jab, either, just harsh reality.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently started smoking. Smoking helps me with my anxiety, both chemically and as a means of bonding with people.

If smoking cuts my life short, so be it, I'd rather have 50-60 good years that smoking improved than 80+ bad years

The real problem in this story is that he died slowly and painfully. If you fail to find a better way to die before something slowly kills you, euthanasia should be legal.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Architect_sasyr]

Not really, you don't. It's a choice. There are other ways.

Homicide is illegal in most countries.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Korbeau]

Who modded that pissed-off smoker flamebait? Oh! I see what you did there ...

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[radish]

Please don't ever have a family. My wife had a father who smoked like a chimney, and now she's saddled with serious asthma and allergies which cause her real medical problems, simply because of his selfishness. If you dislike life so much you want to cut your own short, be my guest, but don't condemn anyone else to the same fate.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[raving griff]

While I do agree that smoking is a dangerous activity and that a significant portion of the tax should go to anti-smoking campaigns, it is worthy to point out the fact that as cigarettes are relatively inelastic, taxes placed on them will gain more revenue for the government than taxes placed on more elastic goods like ice cream. This means that some of the most stable income for public goods and services come through taxes on goods like cigarettes.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Vellmont]

The dangers of cheeseburgers are also well known, but I don't hear families whose loved ones die of heart disease feel the need to get on soapboxes when people die of heart disease. Why is Mickey-D's acceptable, and Marlboro's worth offering advice on?

I realize people get a lot of slack when a family member dies, and should. But I can certainly understand why smokers get a bit tired when complete strangers feel the need to offer off-the-cuff advice against smoking (as if smokers didn't realize it's unhealthy).

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

If I could go back in time and choose smokes over alcohol, I would... you obviously haven't had the crap help desk jobs I have!

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Afforess]

That's not really a fair argument. After all, who ever died from not smoking?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Ethanol-fueled]

There's something tragically funny about dying from smoking and then ending up as a pile of ashes.

Smoking is actually a pretty cool way to die. At least it wasn't from something lame like WoW addiction or an 8U rack falling on his head.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the nicotine, it's the smo-o-o-o-oke

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[pegasustonans]

That's not really a fair argument. After all, who ever died from not smoking?

It's a perfectly fair argument. If you die from a smoking-related illness, then you have smoking to blame for your death. If you die from an obesity-related illness, then you have too many cheeseburgers to blame for your death.

Are you going to suggest that, if someone dies from a smoking-related illness, it doesn't matter because they would have died someday anyway? Well, sure, if that's the attitude, then just shoot heroin while you're driving the wrong direction on the freeway. When you die, however, be prepared for your family to resent your callous disregard for the consequences of drug abuse and reckless driving.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't eat at McDonald's. It's disgusting and bad for you.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[jlarocco]

If I had my way, they wouldn't. Every cent earned on cigarette taxes would go towards a public anti-smoking campaign. If drugs were legalized and taxed, all the money made from the taxes would also go towards a public anti-drug campaign.

Next up, we legalize gay marriage, tax it, and spend the revenue on a public anti-homosexuality campaign.

Seriously, why can't people just mind their own business?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize if you were to take that lettuce, dry it and roll it and smoke it, you're going to end up with similar problems?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[JustOK]

"simply because of his selfishness" shows what a complete lack of understanding of nicotine addiction you have.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[pipoca]

Who ever died from not drinking? Or, more appropriately, who ever died from not drinking in excess?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Tumbleweed]

Seriously, why can't people just mind their own business?

It's not surprising that someone arguing in favor of smoking is having a hard time understanding that smoking doesn't impact ONLY the smoker. Sure is disappointing, though.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Tumbleweed]

That's not really a fair argument. After all, who ever died from not smoking?

I know I didn't! See, that's 100% of respondents right there.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad tried for the longest to quit, but he could never make it stick. My mother on the other hand, never tried, she just kept putting off till later. I there's no selfishness in trying and failing to quit, but there is in never even trying

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[JackieBrown]

If I had my way, they wouldn't. Every cent earned on cigarette taxes would go towards a public anti-smoking campaign. If drugs were legalized and taxed, all the money made from the taxes would also go towards a public anti-drug campaign.

I'd be more impressed if it went to healthcare.

And honestly, is walking past a smoker more "leathal" than walking past a car or a bus?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[drinkypoo]

It is possible to quit. If you won't work on the problems in your life that make you smoke, and you're subjecting someone else to your secondhand smoke, then fuck you. I don't care how addicted you think you are; it might be true, but it's no excuse for making anyone else breathe your nasty smoke. I say this as a repeat quitter (over a year this time so far though) and when I smoked, I did my best to get downwind. Your right to clean air supersedes my right to feed my monkey.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[triffid_98]

I would imagine rather a lot of people actually. Smoke helps keep mosquitoes and other insects away. It may not be a particularly relevant argument in industrialized areas, but in some places that bite can carry malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and a host of other potentially fatal ailments.

That's not really a fair argument. After all, who ever died from not smoking?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[drinkypoo]

It's not the nicotine, it's the smo-o-o-o-oke

fa-a-a-a-a-il

P.S. Where do you think you get the nicotine? Though you can pick up many of the nasty compounds in cigarettes by touching surfaces in a smoker's home, usually, it's in the smoke. Did you mean the tar? Or perhaps one of the dozens of other compounds often added to cigarettes, and found in some form in the smoke?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[ctennenh]

When a loved one dies from something related to lifestyle, then one is allowed a little preaching. I believe it with regard to smoking, drinking, and even bad diet. With that, I'll proudly say that you should put down that crap you're eating and take the stairs every now and then. It might be rude, but if my soapbox keeps someone else from dying like my father did then I don't care. Give the OP a break and try not to light up in front of him.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Firehed]

Are you crazy? I'd much rather be killed by a falling rack than by smoking. Much quicker (although not necessarily painless, depends how it falls), leaves an interesting story for future generations, and chances are it'll have a much better payout for those that you leave behind from some sort of workers comp or wrongful death case.

And the company would probably rename the server to Black Widow.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[raddan]

Well, by that logic, homosexuality doesn't impact (heh) ONLY homosexuals, either. It definitely affects other people, particularly people who don't like homosexuals. Whether you think that's something we should care about is a different matter.

What I think you meant was: smoking doesn't kill only the smoker.

Next conservative rallying cry: "homosexuality kills!"

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, when some 500lb dude has a heart attack from drinking three galons of soda a day nobody feels compelled to tell everyone in the fucking world to go on a diet. Everyone already knows, they might say his condition was atributable to obesity, but they don't sit there telling his obese wife and kids that they're doomed to the same shit at the guy's funeral.

Yea, I know smoking isn't good for me, neither is drinking too much, or eating fast food, or not getting enough exercize, or not getting enough sleep, or speeding, watching too much crappy ass movies, staying in doors all the time, spending too much time on the internet arguing with morons, getting pissed off, saying what I think whenever I think it, being too honest, not making my bed, being late, forgettiing my pleases and thank yous, etcetera and so on.

Why do I have to listen to this anti-smoking shit 80 times a fucking day? You mother fuckers aint even my goddamned family, you ain't my fucking friends, if I got hit by a semi truck and spent the next fifteen years staring at the ceiling of a hospital room you would not give one fleck of a frog's shit. But smoking, not smoking, about 200,000,000 americans have an opinion about my smoking they'd like to fucking lecture me with for fifteen fucking minutes a fucking day. Not 1% will give a shit when I die.

~cyphercell

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[pegasustonans]

Smoke helps keep mosquitoes and other insects away.

Heaven forbid we should make use of such a thing as a net for the purpose of warding off such insects as may carry tropical diseases.

We might call such a net a "Mosquito Net." Alas, if only there were such a thing...

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sir_Lewk]

Second hand sodomy! Oh won't someone think of the children!

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[chubs730]

Homicide is illegal in most countries.

We should legalize it, tax it, and spend all the money earned towards an anti-homicide campaign.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[phantomfive]

Hey man, drugs are a serious matter. If you're not careful they WILL ruin your life. You have to be strong to handle drugs and if you're not, then you end up either on the street, or braindead, or dead. And all of those are a matter of society.

If you can't handle advertising that discourages you from doing drugs, you can't handle drugs either.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

just you see one day someone will die from too many anti smoking ads/jabs/arguments/debates... the whole dying from smoking is not news so can we leave this to the discussion of the case.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[martas]

pardon my french, but catching a whiff of cigarette smoke from someone up or downwind from you is probably much less detrimental to your health than, say, taking a 20 minute walk on a sunny day (due to solar radiation, bla, bla). my point being, unless it's a crowded area where people are sitting and not walking (like outdoor chairs at a restaurant), IMO smoking outdoors is pretty much all a smoker should be expected/required to do, as far as not endangering other peoples' health goes.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[shirotakaaki]

"simply because of his selfishness" shows what a complete lack of understanding of nicotine addiction you have.

Shows what a complete lack of compassion for anyone else other than you that you have. I was a smoker for 20 years and I tried my damned hardest to not smoke near anyone. It was my addiction and I dealt with it alone. I was so happy when I finally quit a few years ago but now I think I might start back up just to blow it in your face.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure is disappointing you couldn't figure this out: the simplest way to avoid second hand smoke is to not hang around people who are smoking. Problem solved.

That's incredibly hard to do, considering the average smoker is either an inconsiderate prick who would light up anywhere they feel like, or they are so de-sensitised to cigarette smoke and the incredible stench it creates that they don't realise how far the impact of their smoke reaches (in distance I mean).

The other impact on everyone else is on the medical system - public money is spent to support someone, even if they have smoked - why should my tax dollars be wasted on helping people who are so incredibly stupid? I'm not saying that the money shouldn't be spent, that would be inhumane, I am saying that the problem should be avoided in the first place - taxes on cigarettes should be massively increased to make it difficult to start smoking in the first place, and any money that comes from that should be spent erradicating this filthy, ridiculous habit from society.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Arthur Grumbine]

Second hand sodomy! Oh won't someone think of the children!

Unless I missed something in biology, I'm pretty sure children will never be the end result of sodomy no matter how many hands you choose to sodomize with.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

the simplest way to avoid second hand smoke is to not hang around people who are smoking

So, my new neighbours are heavy smokers. The prevailing winds blow their smoke straight into my house. Given your maxim that nobody should be able to tell anyone else how to live their life - so I can't dicate they give up smoking and they can't dictate I install air filters or a giant windbreak or move elsewhere - what solution does the wise prince propose that still lets my family have clean air?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Pikoro]

besides, nobody likes a quitter...

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[nitehawk214]

Replying because I mis-moderated this in this topic.

I think people should both be free to smoke and free to decry smoking. As long as neither are doing it in my face.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, what planet do you live on, that nobody has ever uttered a bad word against eating at McDonald's?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[smaddox]

That's probably because their family members are in the same boat. Obesity is viral.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[geekprime]

I'd suggest adding addiction treatment programs to your plan, then I could back it 100%

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and your kind polluting the place and pretending the whole world is your ashtray.

Get cancer and *love* every last dying gasp of it. Enjoy while it slowly eats your internal organs, you selfish asshat.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

If only everyone was so thoughtful- I'm 6 months pregnant now and it's amazing the smokers I know who rant and rave about how terrible women are who smoke while pregnant (I have never smoked in my life, personally)... But then insist on smoking while standing right next to me, or in the same house as me. I walk away, every time, but they act so clueless. Like it's suddenly so much better because it's second hand smoke instead? Thank you for being considerate.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Jerry Smith]

I was so happy when I finally quit a few years ago

You didn't quit, you probably paused. (smoker since my 14 th, umptieth time pauser, this hopefully pausing till endoflife)

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[vekrander]

Your tax dollars already go to bridges you'll never use, abortions that religious/moral people want nobody to have, jailing people for being in possession of a marijuana joint, fighting wars that some people agree with but others don't, keeping alive corporations who have become inefficient and uncompetitive, supporting litigation against file sharing, and giving money that you'll never see again to the elderly. You'll never seem a dime of what you pay towards any of these things, so the best thing you can actually do is light up and dip into some of that money when you develop your own health problems.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[triffid_98]

Heaven forbid we should make use of such a thing as a net for the purpose of warding off such insects as may carry tropical diseases.

Heaven forbid people in infested regions should ever go outside without their beekeeper suits on....

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm arguing against you (or anybody else) being able to tell somebody how they live their life. It's none of your business.

Agreed.

Now I'm gonna play Dragonforce at max volume while dancing naked in my yard and shooting fireworks in the air at midnight. Not your business to tell my how to live my life!

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[10Ghz]

Sure is disappointing you couldn't figure this out: the simplest way to avoid second hand smoke is to not hang around people who are smoking. Problem solved.

And the solution of in making sure you don't get robbed in the street is to make sure that you are not near any robbers?

Instead of that, how about making sure that smokers don't smoke when there are non-smokers nearby? Why do the smokers have the greater right to pollute their immediate surroundings, instead of non-smokers rights of enjoying air that is not filled with carcinogens?

Smokers right to smoke should end where non-smokers lungs begin. Yes, that would mean banning smoking in public places.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Alpha830RulZ]

Do you drive a car? Take a bus to work? Mow your lawn with a gas lawn mower? Grill with charcoal? All of those things put vastly more stuff into the air than my cigarettes do. What solution do you propose that still lets my family have clean air?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[jipn4]

How is this different from any of the other horrible things parents do to their kids? Bad diet, bad dietary habits, fundamentalist religion, abusive marriages, etc.

Sadly, the government simply can't intervene in families to make everything alright for kids; if we gave it that power, we'd have an Orwellian state on our hands. The best the government can try to do is keep parents from seriously hurting their kids physically and try to provide options for education. Everything else is parental responsibility.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[jlarocco]

So, my new neighbours are heavy smokers. The prevailing winds blow their smoke straight into my house. Given your maxim that nobody should be able to tell anyone else how to live their life - so I can't dicate they give up smoking and they can't dictate I install air filters or a giant windbreak or move elsewhere - what solution does the wise prince propose that still lets my family have clean air?

So, you can think of a bunch of solutions, you just don't want to do any of them. And although you should be able to do whatever you want, your neighbor should obey your every command? That's what your saying, right?

Tolerating people who do things you don't like is part of living in society. If that's really so terrible you can always move out to the middle of nowhere where you won't have to deal with it

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[AnotherUsername]

Second hand sodomy! Oh won't someone think of the children!

Unless I missed something in biology, I'm pretty sure children will never be the end result of sodomy no matter how many hands you choose to sodomize with.

Well, as far as the military is concerned, sodomy is any type of sexual activity that isn't the missionary position. So, basically, if you have sex with a girl 'doggy style' or 'reverse cowgirl' or something else of the sort, you are committing sodomy. Not only can this result in children, some old wives claim that you will get a boy! Congrats!

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[jlarocco]

Instead of that, how about making sure that smokers don't smoke when there are non-smokers nearby?

WTF do you people do? "Hey, look! A smoker! Let's go stand next to him!" Do you really encounter enough people smoking on a daily basis that you feel it's negatively impacting your health?

The majority of smokers I've known are always careful to ask before they light up. If you haven't found that to be the case, maybe your real problem is hanging around with assholes?

Smokers right to smoke should end where non-smokers lungs begin. Yes, that would mean banning smoking in public places.

Yes, and your right to talk should end where my ears begin. Maybe we can ban cell phones and conversation in public while we're at it.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

So, you can think of a bunch of solutions, you just don't want to do any of them. And although you should be able to do whatever you want, your neighbor should obey your every command? That's what your saying, right?

No, it's not. The solutions I mentioned all involve my family suffering or paying so my neighbours can continue to foul the air for their pleasure. So I asked you, oh wise prince, to offer me the solution where neither of us has to dictate what the other should do. Now put up - what's the solution that allows my neighbours to foul the air and my family to breathe fresh air, with neither of us having to tell the other what to do?

Tolerating people who do things you don't like is part of living in society.

Yes. So is taking responsibility for one's actions that affect the society you live in. It cuts both ways.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[clarkkent09]

The other impact on everyone else is on the medical system - public money is spent to support someone, even if they have smoked - why should my tax dollars be wasted on helping people who are so incredibly stupid?

A great argument against nationalized health care. Once you have other people pay for your health what is to stop any random asshole from dictating what I should eat, whether I exercise enough etc etc. because after all I am wasting his money. How about you spend your money on your health and let me worry about mine.

Second hand smoke on the other hand is a good argument in favor of banning smoking in public areas, as far as it can be scientifically shown to cause real harm to others (i.e. in enclosed or crowded areas) but not in privately owned establishments.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Nazlfrag]

It's so true. Homosexuality also affects:

- Drama students
- Dancers
- Rollerbladers
- Razor scooter riders
- People with lisps
- Gymnasts
- Wrestlers
- Catholic priests
- Apple fans

The list goes on. I theorise that in twenty years, thanks mostly to teenagers and the internet everybody and everything that isn't in the Westbro church will be gay. The Westbro bunch already is, just they'll still be going through the denial phase in twenty years.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

The dangers of cheeseburgers are also well known, but I don't hear families whose loved ones die of heart disease feel the need to get on soapboxes when people die of heart disease. Why is Mickey-D's acceptable, and Marlboro's worth offering advice on?

Because no one at Mickey-Ds ever shoved their cheeseburger down my throat. Just sayin.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

Electric car. Hydrogen bus. Push mower (or goat). Solar oven. People not smoking the mass-manufactured tubes of carcinogens, heavy metals and other crap most folks think of as cigarettes these days.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[pegasustonans]

Heaven forbid people in infested regions should ever go outside without their beekeeper suits on....

Heaven forbid it indeed! Going outside without a beekeeper suit is a terrible faux pas. Though I was never one to adhere to the canon of fashion, even I know that...

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[hairyfeet]

I think it is because there are many of us that are REALLY getting sick of this nanny government bullshit. Currently smokers are paying anywhere from 400-800% more for their product of choice thanks to taxes that are usually spent on anything and everything BUT what they were originally sold to the public for, which BTW wasn't to get folks to quit but to offset health care costs related to smoking.

Of course now that they have just about taxed smokers right out of existence, what do we start hearing about? If you said "fatty taxes" you win the soon to be nonexistent cigar. And what total lie are they looking to use to sell this "fatty tax"? Why to offset the health care costs of all you fat bastards that dare to eat a cheeseburger of course!

You see, some of us believe in this almost completely forgotten about expression called "personal responsibility" and would actually like to have the right and dare I say freedom to decide what can/can't enter our bodies without having final say going to some rich spoiled asshole in Washington. I'd be more than happy to sign any sheet of paper that says nanny government leaves me alone and removes any "sin taxes" and in return I'll be happy to only have good old cheap pain killers if/when I'm found to have any disease caused by my own choices.

But of course you and I know they would NEVER EVER allow that to happen. Why? Because it is about control. It is about someone in Washington deciding for YOU what YOU can or can't do with your body, and lining the local/state/federal pockets with as much of YOUR money as physically possible, that's why. Does anybody here honestly believe that these multi-generation power brokers really give a good God damn if you smoke or have a cheeseburger? nope, but they sure as hell don't want a serf like you deciding where your money goes, not if they can help themselves to it first. That is why most of us are fed up with the antismoking bullshit, because we can see the writing on the wall.

Today it is "smoking is bad for you, so we must take your money away" tomorrow it is "you are too fat, so we must take your money away". The only constant is the "so we must take your money away" part. So whether you like smokers or not you damned well better stand up for them, because by the time they come for your money it will be too damned late. And I apologize about the length, but like many here I am sick of "mama government" deciding what is best for me. Orwell got it wrong, it won't be as heavy handed as big brother, it will come with a gentle scolding about how you should take better care of yourself, so mama government is here to help you live better!

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to keep smoking, why not at least accept the reality of what it's doing?

If you didn't buy smokes, you would be able to donate even more money, and to things that you think are important. And do you have any idea how much money is spent on smoking related illnesses? So please don't try and make it out as if we should be grateful that you smoke, that's delusional justification.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I'm arguing against you (or anybody else) being able to tell somebody how they live their life.

Surely that applies just as much to people telling others that they shouldn't tell others how to live their lives?

Second, the "smoking doesn't impact only the smoker" argument is bullshit.

I hope you didn't get that from Penn & Teller's Bullshit. Sadly, much of their stuff is as full of bullshit as the subject they're ranting against.

Sure is disappointing you couldn't figure this out: the simplest way to avoid second hand smoke is to not hang around people who are smoking. Problem solved.

Most babies aren't capable of that.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[syousef]

Seriously, why can't people just mind their own business?

Because like it or not you live in a shared society and use shared resources such as our medical system. I'm not saying it's right that people don't mind their own business but I do not pretend I don't understand why it is how it is.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Gordonjcp]

All of those things put vastly more stuff into the air than my cigarettes do.

Have you ever blown into an automotive gas analyser? One lungful of cigarette smoke contains as much unburnt hydrocarbon as a 1988 Volvo 340 produces in three minutes of running at 2500rpm.

Not to mention, you can actually *see* as well as smell cigarette smoke. You can't see (or shouldn't be able to see) car exhaust gases, and they don't really have much of a smell unless your engine is broken.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Draek]

The majority of smokers I've known are always careful to ask before they light up. If you haven't found that to be the case, maybe your real problem is hanging around with assholes?

I'm sure your mother's basement is quite comfortable for you and your friends, but some of us like to go outside, to places called "streets" where people, *GASP*, may end up near you without you "hanging around" with them. Yes, the horrors.

But I do appreciate the sentiment of letting everyone mind their own business. Just as I'll respect your right to smoke wherever you damn please, I hope you'll understand my right to break some of your ribs when/if I feel like it. Which coincidentally may be a few seconds after you and your cigar come within 5 meters of me, but hey, that's life for you.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[syousef]

The dangers of cheeseburgers are also well known, but I don't hear families whose loved ones die of heart disease feel the need to get on soapboxes when people die of heart disease.

You either are not a fat guy or you don't have a family that gives a damn. Fat guys do get hassled. Now you can quit smoking altogether. You can quit drinking alcohol altogether. You can quit drugs altogether. You can't quit eating altogether without death following in short order. Unlike cravings for drugs/alcohol/cigarettes hunger for food is normal and natural and not something you want to curve. Also people have very different hunger drives and metabolise their food very differently. Makes food one of the hardest addictions.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[alexandre_ganso]

I ride my bicycle to work, every single day. Used a simple mower activated by its own movement when I last had a lawn, and don't use charcoal, as it's forbidden here. Still there are some pricks making the smell of shit in the bathrooms look good, compared to the smell of old cigarettes left around.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[gakguk]

(I'm a heavy smoker and serial quitter, on my 5th attempt. 7 months so far.)

Have you ever watch someone you love die by lung cancer? Anticipated his approaching death even when he / she is somewhat healthy?

I'm sure there are worse, but this is not a peaceful process. You don't get a sudden call saying, "Lost the dad. Yes dear, heart attack", bury him the next day and deal with the memories. This is pure "He's skinny, in pain, dying. And we're powerless to even ease his pain" stuff. Give the family a break.

And no one needs your money for roads, education, utilities coming from tobacco tax. You'll cost much more when you're dying.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Xest]

Because when you eat a hamburger it has no effect on anyone else.

When you smoke you're forcing other people to breathe in your smoke, and forcing them to deal with that awful smell that you're soaked in.

People usually don't complain about smokers because they're worried about them killing themselves early, they complain because they themselves don't want to be killed early and made uncomfortable due to not being able to breathe fresh air in the meantime by a smoker.

If smokers want to fuck themselves over fine, but don't expect people to be happy about being fucked over with them against their will. Hamburgers don't have any relevance in this argument, it's really a straw man.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not surprising that someone arguing in favor of smoking is having a hard time understanding that smoking doesn't impact ONLY the smoker. Sure is disappointing, though.

You don't have to breathe near me, or for that matter, breathe at all. Nobody is forcing you to do so.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[whyloginwhysubscribe]

... Smoking helps me with my anxiety...

The most stressed people I know are smokers! It is such a fallacy that smoking helps with stress. Look at the people on a plane after a long-haul flight. The smokers can't wait to get off and light up.

Giving up smoking may be difficult - but really the withdrawal symptoms are what smokers go through between every cigarette. For me, the only benefit of smoking is the hit you get - and this sensation goes after the first few weeks of smoking... All other benefits are figments of smokers and ex-smokers imaginations.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[dintech]

As an ex-smoker I can confirm that it's almost impossible to quit for long if your partner is constantly lighting up. Temptation is always right under your nose, so to speak.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it particularly hilarious that a society so focussed on the health aspect of smoking is capable of ignoring so many other carcinogens and serious health issues. Diesel fumes can have high concentrations of small dust particles, which can lead to various medical conditions (asthma being one of them), yet most governments around the world levy less taxes on diesel than on gasoline. It's a very nice parallel with smoking really, because your (hypothetical) car probably pollutes our air more than my cigarettes.

I find it enormously amusing that down here, after 20 years of government regulations, industrial companies still find ways to pollute soil, air and water and get away with it. Some patches of soil here are so polluted that local governments have advised people not to grow vegetables in their gardens, and in some rivers fishing is prohibited (as if there's anything to fish for in them anymore).

I find it particularly entertaining, that a very significant part of a countries food chain can be poisoned with the use of the incorrect type recycled oil in chicken feed, only to have it happen again on a smaller scale several years later.

I can appreciate the subtle humor in life when a guy who just finished gorging on his 3rd big mac lectures me on the dangers of smoking as I'm standing outside while he's on his way to his SUV. I can appreciate that the politician who supported the construction of a coal plant goes on to lecture that smoking near children is child abuse. I can apreciate the irony when the politicians who claimed "dioxins in the food chain aren't that big of a deal" vehemently oppose smoking because it causes cancer.

I'll have my smoke outside where I don't bother others, and I'll quit smoking once the people who feel the need to lecture me on smoking actually care about their health.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Jedi Alec]

The other impact on everyone else is on the medical system - public money is spent to support someone, even if they have smoked - why should my tax dollars be wasted on helping people who are so incredibly stupid?

A great argument against nationalized health care. Once you have other people pay for your health what is to stop any random asshole from dictating what I should eat, whether I exercise enough etc etc. because after all I am wasting his money. How about you spend your money on your health and let me worry about mine.

Second hand smoke on the other hand is a good argument in favor of banning smoking in public areas, as far as it can be scientifically shown to cause real harm to others (i.e. in enclosed or crowded areas) but not in privately owned establishments.

Guess what the countries that don't have their heads stuck up their asses use those massive taxes on cigarettes for?

Heck, if everyone in my country stopped smoking at the same time the healthcare system would collapse overnight :P

*lights up*

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Jedi Alec]

The dangers of cheeseburgers are also well known, but I don't hear families whose loved ones die of heart disease feel the need to get on soapboxes when people die of heart disease.

If you lead an otherwise healthy life with reasonable amounts of exercise and good food, a couple cheeseburgers every now and then won't hurt you. Smoking will, even in small amounts.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[10Ghz]

WTF do you people do? "Hey, look! A smoker! Let's go stand next to him!" Do you really encounter enough people smoking on a daily basis that you feel it's negatively impacting your health?

Um, yes? Bus-stops, train-stations (even when there are big fat "NO SMOKING"-signs everywhere!), streets. Hell, even at home! My neighbour smokes constantly, and quite often the smoke carries over to our place. But hey, I could always move, right?

Worst example I saw was a couple smoking in their car with windows closed. On the backseat they had a baby strapped in to a safety-seat. Needless to say the car was filled with smoke... WTF people?!?!?!

Yes, and your right to talk should end where my ears begin. Maybe we can ban cell phones and conversation in public while we're at it.

Someone talking on the phone might be annoying, but it does not actively harm the people around him. Unlike smoking. Please try to come up with valid comparisons, OK?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Over my dead body!

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[drinkypoo]

IMO smoking outdoors is pretty much all a smoker should be expected/required to do, as far as not endangering other peoples' health goes.

Some of the shit in cigarettes is bioaccumulative. In any case, they fucking stink. Keep them to yourself in my presence, or we will have words.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[skiman1979]

First, I'm not arguing for or against smoking. I'm arguing against you (or anybody else) being able to tell somebody how they live their life. It's none of your business.

Second, the "smoking doesn't impact only the smoker" argument is bullshit. Especially when you're not arguing to outlaw smoking, but only to tax them.

Sure is disappointing you couldn't figure this out: the simplest way to avoid second hand smoke is to not hang around people who are smoking. Problem solved.

It's none of my business how you live your life, unless the way you live your life affects me. If I'm at my kid's soccer game watching him run the ball down toward the goal and you light up a cigarette, should I be expected to move my seat to avoid your second-hand smoke, and possibly miss my kid scoring the winning goal? Maybe you should just not light up at all. I like my clean air thank you.

I simply don't hang around people who smoke. If someone I'm hanging around does decide to light up, I will go do something else, if I'm able to. If I'm walking down a crowded street, and smokers walk by, I guess I can hold my breath for a bit, but it might not be long enough to get through the smoke cloud. Why should I be expected to do that just so you can enjoy your cancer stick?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[skiman1979]

The dangers of cheeseburgers are also well known, but I don't hear families whose loved ones die of heart disease feel the need to get on soapboxes when people die of heart disease. Why is Mickey-D's acceptable, and Marlboro's worth offering advice on?

I realize people get a lot of slack when a family member dies, and should. But I can certainly understand why smokers get a bit tired when complete strangers feel the need to offer off-the-cuff advice against smoking (as if smokers didn't realize it's unhealthy).

Hamburgers only affect your own physical health, not the rest of us. When you smoke, we breathe it in. There's a difference. I don't want your second hand smoke.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[NotBornYesterday]

Yes, and your right to talk should end where my ears begin.

My talking doesn't inflict cancer or heart disease on others, or aggravate conditions like asthma, like secondhand smoke does. Talking doesn't cause others to smell like shit, like secondhand smoke does. Generally speaking, smokers should keep their habit to themselves, unless in the company of people who don't mind it. Covering others with the waste product of your habit is rude. That's the reason beer drinkers don't usually pee all over you.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[dpiven]

And right after gay marriage, we legalize and tax being a snoopy meddler and spend the revenue on a public STFU campaign.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[NotBornYesterday]

Unless I missed something in biology, I'm pretty sure children will never be the end result of sodomy no matter how many hands you choose to sodomize with.

Manual stimulation is non-reproductive, but I've heard that the more, ahem, "traditional" form of sodomy can actually lead to pregnancy.

After all, where do you think lawyers come from? (rimshot ...) ;)

(With apologies to NewYorkCountryLawyer)

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[NotBornYesterday]

Some exposure to sunlight is beneficial, for example so our bodies can use it to generate vitamin D, or to help elevate our mood. I suppose you could go on vitamin supplements and avoid it altogether, but that's not the point. Sun is something we can and should be exposed to in moderate amounts. Cigarette smoke, not so much.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[YourExperiment]

So did I, for many years. Then one day I got pissed off at being addicted and kicked it, with no assistance (chemical or otherwise).

The most important thing is wanting to give up. If you don't want to, then don't bother. It's your choice, after all.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[NotBornYesterday]

Currently smokers are paying anywhere from 400-800% more for their product of choice thanks to taxes that are usually spent on anything and everything BUT what they were originally sold to the public for ...

Consider it payback for close to a century of subsidies the government fed the tobacco industry, the healthcare costs that for smokers that come out of non-smokers' pockets, and the basic disparity that comes from smoke breaks for smokers, compared to a steaming pile of "get back to work" for those who don't.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it already exists (only minus the anti-homicide campaign support) and it's called war.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[NotBornYesterday]

Well said and good luck.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[shipbrick]

I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth. -Bill Hicks

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Your only excuse is if you're old enough that you started smoking before anyone knew a) the dangers of cigarettes and b) that nicotine was addictive. If you knew that going in, you addicted YOURSELF and you're still selfish.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sam_In_The_Hills]

I figured that most of the people reading this haven't had the chance to watch someone die of smoking related cancer. While it's painful enough to watch someone slowly die over 9 months nothing compares to the final few weeks. By then it's into the bones and they can't give you enough pain killers. Then it's just days and days of non-stop pain and discomfort while you wait for death. It's worse than you can ever imagine.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS, I smoke outside everywhere now that you've all gone militant instead of plain old annoying.

Jeez, If I smoked inside; you guys would probably burn me at the stake and inhale me.

So quit with the "I've got to breathe it too" whinge. You're boring the hell out of me.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

This was obvious from the get-go. All this propaganda about second-hand smoke was intended for the idiots who wouldn't consider it. Shame that the idiot non-smokers are still pushing that line as if we still need to be informed. Every time I hear someone repeat that tired rhetoric, I feel the need to smoke.

The one I love from the non-smokers is when you're in a bar with them. They'll endlessly opine about how it's nice to be able to go out without stinking of smoke. However, you can now perfectly smell every nuance of the contents of the toilets. This is another barrier to quitting for me, I don't want my sense of smell back; there is nothing to enjoy from regaining it. Quitting involves spending my time fighting the gag reflex.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Hatta]

Why do the smokers have the greater right to pollute their immediate surroundings, instead of non-smokers rights of enjoying air that is not filled with carcinogens?

They don't. However, air that smells like smoke is not the same as air that is filled with carcinogens. Unless you're trapped in a closet with them, you're getting very, very, very dilute doses of carcinogens. No study has ever found a statistically significant risk of cancer due to 2nd hand smoke exposure.

I'm not a tobacco smoker, so I have no personal stake in this argument. But before we go restricting the rights of others based on perceived harm, let's prove that that harm is actually a real threat.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Hatta]

That's incredibly hard to do, considering the average smoker is either an inconsiderate prick who would light up anywhere they feel like,

That's funny, I don't smoke tobacco, but it doesn't bother me. When I have people over, I let them know that I don't mind if they light up. They almost always still take it outdoors.

or they are so de-sensitised to cigarette smoke and the incredible stench it creates that they don't realise how far the impact of their smoke reaches (in distance I mean)

Boo hoo, if that's the worst thing that happens to you all day consider yourself lucky. What are you going to do next, legislate against BO?

The other impact on everyone else is on the medical system - public money is spent to support someone, even if they have smoked - why should my tax dollars be wasted on helping people who are so incredibly stupid?

Smokers die sooner SAVING you money spent on long term care.

I'm not saying that the money shouldn't be spent, that would be inhumane, I am saying that the problem should be avoided in the first place - taxes on cigarettes should be massively increased to make it difficult to start smoking in the first place, and any money that comes from that should be spent erradicating this filthy, ridiculous habit from society.

Yeah, because artificially increasing the price has totally stopped people from using other addictive drugs.

Jesus christ people THINK!

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[R2.0]

"So, my new neighbours are heavy smokers. The prevailing winds blow their smoke straight into my house. Given your maxim that nobody should be able to tell anyone else how to live their life - so I can't dicate they give up smoking and they can't dictate I install air filters or a giant windbreak or move elsewhere - what solution does the wise prince propose that still lets my family have clean air?"

How about, oh, asking? Negotiation? Has it really gotten so bad that the only choices you can think of involve using the law (and, by extension, force) to mediate disagreements between people? If it doesn't work what have you lost? Pride? Face? How insecure must a person be to need laws in place to protect them from the trauma of being told "No" in person? You can always appeal to the court system later.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[10Ghz]

No study has ever found a statistically significant risk of cancer due to 2nd hand smoke exposure.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

"The current Surgeon Generalâ(TM)s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack."

"Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)."

"Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide."

"Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades."

And so forth. This isn't rocket-science people!

And even if we assume that there is no risk when exposed to second hand smoke, what rights do smokers have to expose others to smoke that smells like shit, makes clothes smell like shit, makes other cough and generally feel bad etc. etc.? By that logic I should have the right to carry exposed septic-tanks in subway. Sure, it might smell bad, but there's no harm, right? Therefore others have no right to tell me what to do.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[R2.0]

"Have you ever blown into an automotive gas analyser? One lungful of cigarette smoke contains as much unburnt hydrocarbon as a 1988 Volvo 340 produces in three minutes of running at 2500rpm."

Well, since the average cigarette lasts longer than 3 minutes, that would mean the cigarette pollutes less than the Volvo on a time basis.

Or it means that you took an invalid comparison and ran with it, looking just as silly as the guy you were arguing against.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Alanbly]

Did you miss the "One lungful" bit?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sam_In_The_Hills]

Hang in there. It's worth it. Especially since it seems you have a true idea of the alternative.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Alanbly]

Mod parent up

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Hatta]

Care to explain it then? It's much easier to shoot down fear mongering bullshit when you make specific claims, instead of just hand waving. But I suspect that's intentional.

And if you do, try to be honest and cut out disingenuous implications like saying someone who is arguing for the right to smoke is arguing in favor of smoking. No one should smoke tobacco. Everyone should have the right to smoke tobacco.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[R2.0]

"If I'm at my kid's soccer game watching him run the ball down toward the goal and you light up a cigarette, should I be expected to move my seat to avoid your second-hand smoke, and possibly miss my kid scoring the winning goal?"

No, you are expected to say "excuse me, could you smoke elsewhere? The smoke really bothers me." Or is actually interacting with someone such a burden? Will his saying "No, I don't think so" traumatize you?

Treating others as individuals worthy of interaction is a sign of maturity and strength; weakness is expecting others to get you what you want.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Hatta]

Do you really want to go down that road? Do you want to have your vegetarian neighbors prohibit you from grilling burgers in your back yard because they don't like the smell?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Alanbly]

Dude he commenting on your grammar not your comment

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

It is my life. Period.

I go outside to smoke (pot or the occasional cig). I don't drive when drinking. I like to climb very high cliffs. I like to sleep on the side of those cliffs hundreds of feet up. I like to skydive. I like to scuba dive. Ever gone noodling?

All this, you better watch what you do or you could die and your family would be sad, nonsense you expouse is Bullshit. My family knows what I like and many of them enjoy these or other dangerous activies (flying single engine aircraft for example).

Your only real argument is when what I do directly endangers others.
Drinking and Driving. I don't.
Second hand smoke. I smoke outside (even did before second hand smoke was known about as I hate the way it makes the house smell and car).
Take a novice climbing a 13. Never.
Let a novice set up a bed on the side of a cliff. Never.
Pack anyone else's chute. Hah.
Let a novice use my scuba gear. Right.
Can't even get my hunting/fishing friends to go noodling.

Just like I would never fly my uncles plane without training. Or speed around a race track at 200mph without training.

And don't think to join the military. Bullets kill you and those you shoot at.

I will never understand these soapboxes you stand upon. And thankfully, neither do most in my family. Save an aunt or uncle here or there.

Your life of watch out or else seems so boring as to border on worthless to me.

As for shooting heroin, I'll pass. To addictive and dangerous for me.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[mcgrew]

I need my smokes to get through work

Not really, you don't. It's a choice.

No it isn't; it's only a choice before you become addicted. After you're addicted, if you have the money for a pack of smokes and you're hungry, you'll buy the smokes and do without the food. If cigarettes were as expensive as crack, buttheads would be as skinny as crackheads.

I know from personal experience.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

How much are they smoking that you can notice from 30ft away?! Just cause you can smell it doesn't mean you're breathing in anywhere near enough to cause any amount of harm.

Out of interest - if you were to wear a cologne or deodorant that was damn offensive to me that it actually made my eyes water - would I be able to have it banned? Or to stop you from wearing it in public? Or would I be told to put up with it and make the change myself?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Doctor Faustus]

All right, fine, he can't quit. He can still do it outside, or at least out a window.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[mcgrew]

It's not surprising that someone arguing in favor of smoking is having a hard time understanding that smoking doesn't impact ONLY the smoker.

Depends on where you live. Here in Illinois there are really only three places you can smoke: in your car (or someone else's car with their permission), in your home (or someone else's home with their permission), and outside. I fail to see how, considering the restrictions, your smoking impacts me at all.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Hatta]

"The current Surgeon Generalâ(TM)s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack."

None of which has anything to do with cancer.

"Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)."

Which is largely a political action, not a scientific one. The study which the EPA cited to support this ruling has been roundly debunked.

1998 Federal Judge William Osteen, who had a history of siding with the government on tobacco issues - vacated the study. He declared it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long. Here is an excerpt:

"In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen."

Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke

Where's the study that shows it increases cancer risk? I'm not denying that it's harmful. It's clear that it does cause disease. It's just not clear that it causes cancer.

Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide."

Everything contains carcinogens. Including that burger you grilled. Showing that something contains carcinogens is not the same as showing that it causes cancer.

And so forth. This isn't rocket-science people!

No, it's health science which is significantly more complicated than rocket science. That's why it's important to make accurate claims. Argue that 2nd hand smoke is harmful, but do so with real data.

By that logic I should have the right to carry exposed septic-tanks in subway.

I wouldn't argue that anyone should be trapped in an enclosed space with a smoker. But if you choose to go someplace where the owner has allowed smoking, you really shouldn't complain. Smoking bans in public places are a good idea. Smoking bans in private establishments are not.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[skiman1979]

No, you are expected to say "excuse me, could you smoke elsewhere? The smoke really bothers me." Or is actually interacting with someone such a burden? Will his saying "No, I don't think so" traumatize you?

Treating others as individuals worthy of interaction is a sign of maturity and strength; weakness is expecting others to get you what you want.

Of course I can ask the person to smoke elsewhere. I just think that if smokers know the health issues of smoking, they should be courteous enough to not smoke around other people in the first place, unless they know that the other people won't mind.

I shouldn't have to ask you to stop breathing smoke onto me any more than I should have to ask you to stop punching me or to stop cutting my arm with that box cutter. Sure, the punching and cutting present a more immediate danger, but all 3 have a negative effect on my health.

If you smoke, you should do it away from others who may not want the effects of it.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[martas]

i wasn't comparing the benefits, but the health risks. while we couldn't (or shouldn't) survive without some periodic dose of solar radiation, the link between skin cancer and UV is well known and proven. in that sense, that really hot well-tanned chick who lives in your building and spends as much time as she can on the beach has probably endangered her health much more than i ever could by smoking near the entrance to said building.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[NotBornYesterday]

True, but toxicity is in the dosage. Moderate exposure to sunlight, which our bodies are essentially built for, is healthy. Overexposure is obviously (by definition) bad for you. I recently went through a couple scares recently myself (no actual skin cancer, but a couple strange spots, one of which was apparently pre-cancerous). I never was into tanning, but I got a lot of minor sunburns when I was younger. Man, do they add up ...

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[liquidsin]

while you may not be able to quit eating altogether, you can certainly change your diet and activity level. and while i realize that everybody has different metabolism, appetite, etc. the majority of obesity that we see in north america is the people eating fast food (i've got coworkers who do it two or three times a day) and spending their "leisure time" in front of the television. i managed to drop 50 lbs by limiting my fast food to once or twice a week and going for walks on my work breaks (yay, anecdote!) and another 30 lbs past that by tweaking my diet and actually exercising. small changes are not difficult to make and can reap huge rewards, but you need the will power to know when you're full and stop eating (even if the food tastes really good). simply walking away from processed foods and cooking your own healthy meals will help shed pounds, and the extra energy from getting actual nourishment will make you *want* to get up from the couch and move around.

and as an added bonus, the new-found healthiness motivated me to quit smoking.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[1729]

... Smoking helps me with my anxiety...

The most stressed people I know are smokers! It is such a fallacy that smoking helps with stress.

I think it depends on why one smokes. I enjoy smoking cigars when I have the time to savor one (2-3 times a month, if I'm lucky), and it absolutely helps ease away my stress. I'm not addicted to nicotine, so I smoke only for the pleasure of it.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[1729]

If you lead an otherwise healthy life with reasonable amounts of exercise and good food, a couple cheeseburgers every now and then won't hurt you. Smoking will, even in small amounts.

Where's the evidence for that? I don't know about cigarettes, but although the studies I've seen about moderate cigar smokers (<5 per day) show some increased health risks, I've yet to see any evidence that more infrequent smokers (such as myself, <3 cigars per month) face significant health risks. I'm not claiming that infrequent tobacco usage is safe, but I haven't seen any solid science that indicates otherwise.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation is required for this claim...

My money is on the 1987 model.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[mcgrew]

Unlike cravings for drugs/alcohol/cigarettes hunger for food is normal and natural and not something you want to cur[b].

The cravings for any substance you're addicted to is also natural and normal; like hunger, craving for an addictive substance stems from chemicals in the brain. Withdrawal from alcohol or heroin can kill a hard core addict.

You can't quit eating altogether, but you CAN eat less fattening foods, and eat less food, period, and work off any extra calories you consume. You don't have to drink soda or tea, which add calories without curbing appetite. Don't try to excuse your gluttony. If you're fat and don't want to be fat, it's up to you to do something about it.

Makes food one of the hardest addictions.

Food isn't an addiction any more than sex is -- it's a bodily function. And in most cases overeating is a sign of mental illness. Many people eat to overcome depression when they're not even hungry, for example (some stop eating when they're depressed, becoming too thin, which can also be dangerous).

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[geekoid]

Nice false dichotomy.
Smoking kills people who don't wish to participate, homosexual marriage doesn't.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[geekoid]

Yes. Walking down a street ther is smokers, ther air I breath has more carcinogen in it beasue of smokers.

All the people standing near bus stops and on tthe sidewalk asked tyou to light up? the guy in the car in front of you while sitting in traffic asked you?
I think not.

"Yes, and your right to talk should end where my ears begin. Maybe we can ban cell phones and conversation in public while we're at it. "
Since that doesn't harm you, it's a false dichotomy.

My right to blast noise at a level that harms you certainly ends at your ears.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[geekoid]

I can has all the cheezeburgers* I want while standing next to you, and it won't casue you to die from heart disease.

And people do get on soapboxes regarding fat in fast food.

"But I can certainly understand why smokers get a bit tired when complete strangers feel the need to offer off-the-cuff advice against smoking (as if smokers didn't realize it's unhealthy)."

Maybe they should also realize it's unhealthy for everyone else, not just them.

*I'm terribly sorry, I don't know what made me do that.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[geekoid]

Yes, but you sound like fat people ahve no choice in their diet.
They do and what they eat should be curved.

Know one has a metabolize that makes then obese. There are some medical problems, but they are very, very rare. If you are one of thiose unlucky people, that just means you need to watch your fat closer then others.

No one should have a gut the slops across their lap.

Counting calories can be hard, instead count fat, and never exceeded 50 grams a day. That will help.

Also keep a food diary.

Those are the only things shown to continual help people changing their eating habits.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[geekoid]

"personal responsibility"

it's not personal when your smoking kills others.

"So whether you like smokers or not you damned well better stand up for them, "
it's smoking I don't like, not smokers, and NO I will not stand up for smoking.

"because by the time they come for your money it will be too damned late. "
No it won't becasue some of the more intelligent of us know a logical fallacy when we see it.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[mcgrew]

"Anyone seen smoking will be assumed to be a fire and will be put out."

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[ewenix]

First, smoking provides ZERO nutritional value. Mickey D's does provide some nutritional value, and you do need to eat.
You don't need to smoke to live. You may want to smoke or even be addicted, but you're not going to die if you stop.
Second, while those people aren't eating a very healthy diet anyhow, they don't eat at Mickey D's 10 times a day (or however many times a day you smoke, which is very like more than twice.)

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[phantomfive]

Yeah, sounds rough, but eventually you managed to get off it. It was a triumph of will over bodily urges. Good job.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Monsuco]

That's not really a fair argument. After all, who ever died from not smoking?

Probably a few have died from trying to quit due to the stress it causes.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

Did ask. Got an apology. Smoke didn't stop. Nicotine is, after all, highly addictive.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

You gloss over the difference between an unpleasant smell and toxic fumes.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

Just cause you can smell it doesn't mean you're breathing in anywhere near enough to cause any amount of harm.

Citation needed. I'll go first: "Surgeon General reports there is no safe level of secondhand smoke", Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2006.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Hatta]

Combustion is combustion. There's just as many carcinogens in your charcoal grill smoke than in tobacco smoke. In both cases, they're far too dilute to cause any real problems.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[vivian]

Solutions:
Instead of driving your car or catching a bus:
Ride a bike - a decent hybrid makes a 20 km trip a snap - I literally just started riding again last week and covered 20 km easily in under an hour.

Instead of using a petrol mower:
Use a push mower or
Replace your lawn with a small leaf ground cover and paved pathways or "stepping stones" for high traffic areas. A small leaf ground cover works great as a replacement for lawn unless you really do a lot of running etc on it - but if its only for around under the washing line and the open bits of your backyard where you dont want plants, it is fine. I only have to mow the council owned bit outside my fence now, never inside. Groundcover needs a bit of a trim a couple of times a year, which in my case I just do with a pair of edgr trimmers since it's only about 5 square meters to trim - the rest of my garden is all ferns, bushes & trees, where it isn't groundcover, brick paving or leaf litter/mulch under dense trees.

Onh and you can use an electric barbecue or even a solar cooker if you really want to go green.

Yes, electricity is mostly generated by burning stuff - but its burnt in one place with big scrubbers to catch most of the particulate matter.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

One. You didn't mention a "charcoal grill" and I don't use one anyway. By the way, real charcoal or artificial (googling, "popular brands may also contain coal dust, starch, sodium nitrate, limestone and borax")?

Two. Citation needed. Here's mine: "there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke", The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2006. I know I'm something of a miner's canary, but if I'm breathing enough of the stuff to make me cough, it's not very dilute, is it?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[1729]

Just cause you can smell it doesn't mean you're breathing in anywhere near enough to cause any amount of harm.

Citation needed. I'll go first: "Surgeon General reports there is no safe level of secondhand smoke", Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2006.

Where's the science to back up that claim?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[1729]

Nice false dichotomy.
Smoking kills people who don't wish to participate,

Citation needed.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Hatta]

Sorry, I assumed charcoal. If you're not going to use charcoal, you might as well use a george foreman.

The Surgeon General's statement is meaningless. There is no risk free level of exposure to anything. One stray UV ray from the sun could hit the right base in one of your DNA strands and give you cancer. Risk is proportional to exposure. Any non-zero exposure will carry non-zero risk. The important question is how much risk, and how it compares to other risks we gladly tolerate.

As for your cough, I suspect it's quite a bit like the symptoms of folks with multiple chemical sensitivity, or who claim to be allergic to cell phones or whatever. Which is to say, psychosomatic.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[syousef]

Yes, but you sound like fat people ahve no choice in their diet.
They do and what they eat should be curved.

You've missed the point. You wouldn't ask an alcoholic ot just quit cold turkey. Alcoholics have a choice of what they put in their mouth too. It's just not that easy, and i'm saying it's even harder when the thing you're addicted to is REQUIRED to survive.

By the way I"ve lost weight twice in my life. BOth times required 2 hrs a day excercise minimum AND eating like a rabbit. Counting calories isn't really the answer. Minimising them is. Stressing about how many calories have gone in is stupid. Eat lean meat and chicken and salad and cut out both fat and carbs and you don't have to count squat. The trouble is neither calorie counting nor eating like a vampire rabbit work long term.

Have you ever noticed that some people don't NEED to count calories and their weight is just fine?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[syousef]

People don't overeat because there's some biological imperative to do so; they do it because eating food, especially modern, unreasonably tasty food, is so damn fun. Just like smoking, alcohol, and drugs are fun.

Frankly you're an idiot.

I've never been tempted by smoke or alcohol or drugs. They are about as much fun to me as plucking my own eyes out. Not everyone has the same drives when it comes to addictive substances and pretending that is the case so you can blame people for their inate tendencies is asinine and unproductive.

If smoking was so much fun to you that you walked around thinking about it 24/7 you'd have issues quitting smoking too. If you walked around hungry even after a big meal you'd be fat too.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[syousef]

Food isn't an addiction any more than sex is -- it's a bodily function. And in most cases overeating is a sign of mental illness

Another fucking moron. Having a hunger drive that means you're still hungry after a big meal is not a metal illness you twit. It's a biological problem. Calling fat people mental deficients does nothing to help them or resolve the issues their weight causes for society. It just adds another layer of stupid medi-eval stigma that associates fat with stupid.

Mental illness indeed. Yours that is.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

A large building I used to work in used to constantly have large congregations of smokers out the front. Even though they were "outside", it was impossible to enter the building without breathing in lungfuls of second-hand smoke (which actually makes me feel ill). It became a contest to see how long I could hold my breath for so that I could get into the building! So explain to me why I should have to suffer for this? I'm not the one who is clogging up the health system with smoking-related illnesses. I'm not the one who is leaving cigarette butts all over the ground everywhere.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

Where's the science to back up the poster's claim I'm responding to? What were we arguing about anyway?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

Oh, what the heck. "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewersâ(TM) comments." http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

As much as I take anything government-issued with a grain of salt, I've had enough personal experience with cigarettes and the deaths therefrom to give smokers a wide berth even if the surgeon general had instead said smoking gives you immortality.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Sabriel]

Well, having had relatives and friends die from smoking, even if I didn't know what the manufactuers put in them I'd still be not keen on much risk at all as far as cigarettes are concerned. As for my cough, I should've clearly separated that reaction to close-up cig, more concentrated smoke, from my comments re my neighbours; I apologise.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[10Ghz]

None of which has anything to do with cancer.

So it's OK for second hand smoke to cause all kinds of health-problems, as long as it doesn't cause cancer? Gotcha.

Everything contains carcinogens. Including that burger you grilled.

And by that logic we should just agree to be exposed to even more carcinogens?

Could you explain me why the smoke from the cigarette is dangerous when the smoker inhales it, but it's NOT dangerous when that very smoke smoke is spread in the smokers immediate surroundings?

I wouldn't argue that anyone should be trapped in an enclosed space with a smoker.

Why not? After all, second hand smoke causes no danger, right?

Smoking bans in public places are a good idea. Smoking bans in private establishments are not.

FInland banned smoking in restaurants and nightclubs, and it has worked out well. Non-smoking clients (which was about 80% of all clients) are overjoyed, and the remaining 20% complained but adapted. And many smokers were happy as well, when they discovered that their clothes didn't smell like shit anymore after a night out clubbing.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[barath_s]

, Showing that something contains carcinogens is not the same as showing that it causes cancer ,/i> By definition, carcinogens cause cancer.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

I truly hope you die early. Dying right now will be excellent!

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[syousef]

And it's a common mistake to confuse responsibility with blame, so I don't blame you for that. If something negatively affects you, it's often your responsibility to fix it, regardless of whether or not it's your fault.

I'm sure walking up to an alcoholic and feeding him that line will magically cure his addiciton. In other words easier said than done. You can place the responsibility on whoever you choose, it doesn't make a difference to the reality of the situation.

For the record, I've been fat twice. I've had to lose ~160 lbs in my life, and that's just what I was counting. I still struggle every day to keep my weight where it is and not go back. I don't hold this anecdote against others, as I'm sure it was easier for me than it is for some.

You're right. It is harder for others. For the record, I've been THIN twice. It took everything I had. The first time I was at school so I could spend 2-3 hours a day on excercise. The second time I had to take a day off work every week. Each time going back to a sane normal diet that didn't involve eating nothing but salad and lean meat/chicken (or fish) in tiny quantities caused me to gain the weight back twice as quickly and add more to boot. I don't enjoy walking around hungry all the time. I don't enjoy having sleep apnea. I don't look forward to diabetes. However frankly I've given up. It was just way too hard and took too much of my life even when I didn't have a family to support.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'm glad people like you don't usually get your way, you fucking Nazi.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[atamido]

Perhaps you simply need to find better places to spend your free time?

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is another thing we need, but also get addicted to.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[mcgrew]

Dude, your rage is a sign of mental illness. It's a sign of depression. Most overweight people don't have to be hungry to eat. You seem to have been too insulted and angry to parse the comment. Illness isn't deficiency, and mental illness isn't mental deficiency. My ex-wife was one of those who ate when she got depressed, that IS a mental illness.

There are some medical conditions that cause obesity, (e.g. some thyroid problems, chrone's disease, etc) but most fat people simply consume more calories than they burn off. If you have four eggs, three pieces of sausage and three pieces of toast with sugared coffee for breakfast, sit at a desk all day and have a BK whopper with large fries and a large coke for lunch, and a whole large pizza with another 40 ounce coke dor dinner, you're going to be overweight and it has nothing to do with a medical condition, and everything to do with overeating and underexersizing.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Gordonjcp]

I knew someone would cry "[citation needed]" so I went looking for the printout. It's long gone I suspect, but I could try doing it again.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[HazMathew]

Cool way to die? Watch someone you love suffer with cancer caused by tobacco then come back and say its cool. It's not cool. It fucking sucks, not just for the person dying but for everyone around them.

Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab

[Uzuri]

I read that first sentence as "a large conflagration of smokers out front" and was thoroughly amused by it.

Beautiful way to honor your brother

[BadAnalogyGuy]

But I'm worried that cremation has destroyed his chance to be resurrected in body at the Rapture.

He looks like a great family man. Two kids, a wife, a family who obviously loved him. We should all hope to have as much.

Re:Beautiful way to honor your brother

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'm worried that cremation has destroyed his chance to be resurrected in body at the Rapture.

I hope you're joking. If you are maybe the joke would have been a bit better if you had drawn on Egyptian theology instead of Christian.

Re:Beautiful way to honor your brother

[icebike]

But I'm worried that cremation has destroyed his chance to be resurrected in body at the Rapture.

Don't worry, an all powerful god would have foreseen this development and made backup provisions. Like many old programmers, he just burned out, and went into hibernation mode.

He's one with the Father and the Sun. Who could ask for more?

Re:Beautiful way to honor your brother

[Tubal-Cain]

Don't worry, an all powerful god would have foreseen this development and made backup provisions.

Indeed. Not everyone gets to die one piece.

Re:Beautiful way to honor your brother

[PrimaryConsult]

Not sure what you're driving at, but if you're a Catholic, cremation is A-OK (not directly stated but a conclusion you can obviously draw from this article, I was too lazy to find a better source). As for other Christian religions, I can't begin to understand why they still claim otherwise...

Re:Beautiful way to honor your brother

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Of course he's joking, because god can put that shit TOGETHER even if it's burned in a fire TWICE. Shit, those huge 1500 piece puzzles are NOTHING to him.

Seriously?

[excelblue]

Don't you think that a SPARCstation is a bit too material and stuck within the times?

Being a geek isn't necessarily about having one particular thing or another, but rather about having fun and pushing the limits with the intracracies of the latest and greatest.

If it was me, I'd hate to spend eternity in that thing. It may be cool for now, but even as little as five years later, the hardware will be outdated and boring. It's simply not timeless enough. Would personally perfer something like a high-tech crementation at an unusually high temperature so that there's basically no remains or something.

Re:Seriously?

[c_sd_m]

I can see the appeal in spending eternity in something that occupied so many of your hours in this life.

Re:Seriously?

[mihalis]

You have to know SPARC hardware a little bit to know that that box is already infinitely outdated. I have many outdated sparc machines much newer and more powerful than that. I can't decide if that makes them better or worse as a place to store my ashes one day. Probably worse.

Re:Seriously?

[DarthLogic]

eh, if you were dead I think you'd have a limited capacity to hate the place where your ashes are.

Re:Seriously?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Beyond the starkly limited availability of "timeless" options, humans are a bit to material and stuck within the times. That's how it goes. In a sense, "timeless" isn't even the right thing for a coffin.

Here was a person, who existed in a quite definite span of time and space, who was (no doubt) strongly formed by that time and place, and who now exists only as a period artifact and in the memory of others who shared some of that time.

If we were timeless, we wouldn't need funerals.

Re:Seriously?

[h4rr4r]

The hardware is outdated now. It is a Sparcstation IPC with a 25Mhz CPU. They started making those in about 1990.

It is geek history and a far better thing to be buried in then an fiberglass and steel coffin.

If I have to be placed in anything but the raw dirt it is not a bad choice.

Re:Seriously?

[Hoi Polloi]

Don't forget to put his red stapler in the coffin.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would personally perfer something like a high-tech crementation at an unusually high temperature so that there's basically no remains or something.

I, for one, heartily agree - it appears to be the only way to stop you from making up words and performing other obscene acts upon the English language.

Re:Seriously?

[lookingooddeucy]

I myself would like to be buried in just the dirt. My body isn't going to do anyone any good when I'm dead. I want to donate my organs, and then be buried. Let the maggots infest my skull, and maybe a bush grow around my loins.

Re:Seriously?

[hairyfeet]

I don't know about that. I may have spent the last 15 years of my life as a Windows repairman, but if somebody stuck me a busted Win98 box with Vxd errors or an XP Home machine infected with coolwebsearch i would seriously be pissed off.

Re:Seriously?

[polle404]

well, as an elitist bastard, i've made plans to be cryogenically frozen inside a series of Cray-2 mainframes in a beowulf cluster. (they may have to disect me a bit...) ;-)

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

and maybe a bush grow around my loins.

Thanks. I needed the mental image of your bushy loins.

Re:Seriously?

[miro f]

I know nothing about SPARCstations and even I realised it was infinitely outdated.

Mentioning a floppy drive in the description tipped me off and if that wasn't enough seeing the beige boxy case and design confirmed it.

Re:Seriously?

[sumdumass]

I do nit know why a floppy drive would mean something is outdated. I recently had to use one to install windows server on brand new hardware. In fact, I'm going to have to remove the one from the server I just built to place it in a new server for a fresh install. After their up and running, I can get buy on drive images though. But unless your buying everything from dell or something, floppies are still in use.

Re:Seriously?

[miro f]

I haven't built a computer with a floppy drive for at least 6 years and have never felt the loss.

The last time I tried to use a floppy drive I discovered the only floppy drive I had in the house (attached to a PC approximately 8 years old) was never actually plugged in to the motherboard. It didn't even work when I plugged it in. I had never used it.

The fact that Windows required a floppy to install on new hardware is a design fault of the Windows installer, as floppy drives are ridiculously outdated hardware.

However, I did specifically say the mention of the floppy drive "tipped me off", as I realise that a floppy drive does not strictly imply an outdated computer, however it does increase the probability and give the impression.

Geek funeral?

[Hojima]

Everybody knows that geeks want to be frozen until the day that they can be made into cyborgs

Re:Geek funeral?

[GoochOwnsYou]

Glad that was modded Informative because I do want that for me, I am dead serious!

Re:Geek funeral?

[RiotingPacifist]

Speak for yourself, I want all my corporal remains* to be donated to medical science, anything that is left should be used as fertiliser. I really don't get the point of this cremation bullshit waste of good nutrients I say!

*my brain patterns should be backed up to for future reference, I'll take a fully cybernetic body over your crappy hybrid any day!

Re:Geek funeral?

[Cybrex]

http://www.alcor.org/ . My wife and I are both signed up for cryonic suspension. Even if the chances of success are low, they beat the pants off of the alternative!

Also, if I may tout my own unofficial FAQ: http://datan0de.livejournal.com/144534.html

Re:Geek funeral?

[Scrameustache]

signed up for cryonic suspension

What about the ice crystals destroying all your cell walls?

Re:Geek funeral?

[pherthyl]

Sorry, your FAQ isn't very convincing. Firstly, you're screwing over any possible dependents by making Alcor your insurance beneficiary. Unless you want to pay for two life insurance policies, you're screwing over your kids/family/whomever on some hare-brained scheme for some infinitely small chance that you might "live" again in the future. Selfish at best, unless you are wealthy.

Then there's your certainty that the company will survive for the hundreds or thousands of years it will take for technology to be at the point where they can revive you. That's incredibly unlikely, since no company in history has survived for that long (your arguments about financial stability are laughable, since there will almost certainly be several currency devaluations and government, society, and world upheavals in that period). I put the chances of you actually staying frozen for 1000 years at basically zero.

And then you think that they would bother to revive you. That too is staggeringly unlikely. Sure, they would revive a few people just to prove that it can be done. But after that, why would they bother? There'll be tens or hundreds of billions of humans around, do you really think they'll need more? They got a couple hundred thousand dollars 1000 years ago to keep you frozen, do you really think they would go to the significant expense and effort to revive you, and then reverse your aging as well? Why would they bother? There's no more incentive for them to do that at all (altruism, don't make me laugh). Even if they've conquered aging by then, that's not at all the same as reversing the aging process, and will most likely not be trivial.

Finally, what I don't understand is this certainty that being frozen and revived beats the pants off being dead. How could you possibly know that? No one knows. Maybe if you were properly dead you'd be in heaven (not that I believe in that). Instead you get to spend the next thousand years being really freaking cold. Or maybe death would be oblivion (more likely) and you couldn't form any opinion of it since you can't think, so it's not bad, or good, or anything really.

Re:Geek funeral?

[i_ate_god]

The Hudson Bay Company lasted that long. 339 years and still going actually.

But there are many other companies that have existed for much longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi

That one survived for more than 1000 years. So yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that a company can survive, or at the very least, can ensure the safety of uhm... yourself. Just ensure that a legally binding contract ensures that you'll be kept for X amount of time. It's happened before. Guinness has a lease on its brewery for several thousand years. A contract like this can ensure that buyers of the company you originally signed up with will keep you going.

However, I agree with most everything else you said. I'm just saying... your second point is invalid.

Re:Geek funeral?

[i_ate_god]

Watch Tron and realize you're asking for trouble

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved that response. I am impressed.

Re:Geek funeral?

[iJusten]

Then there's your certainty that the company will survive for the hundreds or thousands of years it will take for technology to be at the point where they can revive you. That's incredibly unlikely, since no company in history has survived for that long (your arguments about financial stability are laughable, since there will almost certainly be several currency devaluations and government, society, and world upheavals in that period). I put the chances of you actually staying frozen for 1000 years at basically zero.

The oldest company in the world reached well over 1400 years before it fell to hard times. Link. Other old companies can be found here.

And even if we were to accept your argument of losing money over long-term (which history has shown to be false, even during turbulent times such as these), the value of gold has stayed fairly same for most of the human existence.

However, I'm not sure about the chances of getting resurrected, but that's a whole other subject right there.

Re:Geek funeral?

[babyrat]

you realize that rotting meat makes for a poor fertilizer, right?

Re:Geek funeral?

[pherthyl]

Damn, as I was writing that part I was thinking I should probably check that :) Neat to read about.

I retract my original statement then and modify it to "That's incredibly unlikely, since only a handful of companies of the millions/billions that have ever existed have survived that long"

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course! That's why I dispose of all my 'clients' corporeal remains through the wood chipper. Perfect consistency for fertilizing the lawn. Why in fact that old lady across the street asked if I could help her do the same with her impertinent grandson in order to help her win that germanium contest....

Re:Geek funeral?

[pherthyl]

And even if we were to accept your argument of losing money over long-term (which history has shown to be false, even during turbulent times such as these), the value of gold has stayed fairly same for most of the human existence.

Not everyone loses money during turbulent times, but lots of people certainly do. There's no indication that the cryogenics companies will be one of the lucky few to survive major upheaval.

Same goes for the investment in gold. While you are right, Alcor themselves don't seem to have built up any gold reserve to ensure their survival (maybe I'm wrong, I didn't spend too much time checking). On the topic of their finances, their FAQ states: "The rest of the Trust investments are held at the investment firm of Morgan Stanley."
Sounds like plain jane investments, not a storehouse of gold bars.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Screwing over dependents? I don't see how giving some money to Alcor is worse than giving money to your church.

If you don't understand why having a chance to see how humanity has evolved in 1000 years is better than oblivion then cryonics is not for you. Fair enough.

Finally, sure the odds of success are low. But if I do nothing I know I'm 100% screwed. So even a 0.0001% chance of being revived one day is enough.

Re:Geek funeral?

[iJusten]

While you are right, Alcor themselves don't seem to have built up any gold reserve to ensure their survival (maybe I'm wrong, I didn't spend too much time checking). On the topic of their finances, their FAQ states: "The rest of the Trust investments are held at the investment firm of Morgan Stanley."

In other words, they have the money invested, probably in low-risk form as we are talking of hundreds of years. It isn't bound to be melting away in a few moments :)

Banks often move money to gold in times such as this, and I'm sure banks (being smart players as they are!) are doing just this. This is why the market price of gold has gone up lately, even though historically it always averages on the same price.

But as mentioned, that money is held by Trust, probably just so that the company can not use the money for operating costs. The company itself can still collapse, while the Trust would be bursting in money. I wonder what would happen to the funds then?

Re:Geek funeral?

[Genda]

Hmmmm, kinda presumptious, but I'll bite

1. Let my decendants fend for themselves... my ancestors other than birthing me, did precious little to help me succeed in life. In fact I see that as a personal responsibility thank you.

2. Though restoring deep frozen heads is going to require a lot more technology than we currently possess, the current rate of accelerating technology suggests that we are decades not centuries away from being able to repair such damage and restore those corpsicles to their prior vital state (making most of your other observations moot.)

3. A far more promising technology, suspended animation, using Hydrogen Sulfide induced hibernation and near freezing temperatures, provides ultra-slow biological function while avoiding the damage due to ice crystals altogether. Rodents and larger mammals have already undergone tests, and the technology holds real hope of allowing a significant number of the terminally ill to hang out until a cure is found for what ails them including the processes of aging.

4. Finally, in a future where human beings don't die of old age (misadventure will ultimately claim everyone, if for no other reason, than you'll be in the wrong part of the universe when something truly huge and unavoidable screws up your whole day) there will be plenty of interesting places to be other than on this little rock, and with any luck the majority of the possible billions of human beings will be living in those other places and make earth a galactic park for evolving organisms. The relatively few remaining people being park rangers, will make certain careless litterbug tourists don't leave their fusion by-products laying around.

Have a little vision... Jules Vern's contemporaries alluded to the possibility that he was smoking hemp or perhaps something stronger... and he got more right than wrong. You can't judge the trajectory of the future by today. If I'd told you in 1968, that in 40 years we'd have computers the size of pack of cigarettes, more powerful than a dozen mainframes of the day, but that we'd still be fiddle-farting around about manned space exploration, or that we'd elect a lower primate for president, you'd have told me I was smoking crack (forgive me taking license, crack wouldn't be a smokable commodity for at least another 10 years.)

Re:Geek funeral?

[Beardo the Bearded]

I want nothing left of my corpse.

Give any useful organs away. Let a child see a sunset through my corneas; let my heart break again in the ribcage of a teenager; let my lungs have their breath taken away when holding a new infant.

My skeleton can inspire and educate biology students. My brain can shed new light on diseases, either ones I don't know I have yet or as a control group.

When I'm dead, I'm done with the meatsack. Anyone who wants it can have it.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Cybrex]

You're making quite a few presumptions here. I'll try to take your main points one at a time, and will ignore the ad hominems and obvious trolling:
* I'm not screwing anybody over. I have no children and no plans to have any. My wife and I both established *plenty* of life insurance long before making any cryonics arrangements. If I go down tomorrow my wife is well taken care of, and vice versa. The separate policies that cover our cryosuspension are just that- separate. And no, we're not wealthy by any means- at least compared with the average non-student slashdotter. I suspect you're grossly overestimating the cost of cryonic suspension and the cost of an insurance policy for a healthy non-smoker in his early 30's.

* You may find my assessment of the Patient Care Trust's financial stability "laughable", but I find the idea that it'll take 1000 years for us to obtain control over matter at the molecular level patently absurd. Eric Drexler estimates that it'll happen within our lifetimes (or at least my lifetime), and the trends in nanotech development point to him being not too far off. Even if he's wildly optimistic, I suspect that nothing short of a global cataclysm will keep us from reaching that goal in this century, and I'm willing to bet my life on that. (And as I mention in the FAQ, if a global cataclysm does happen then we're all SOL anyway.)

* Why would they bother to revive us? Again, I covered this in the FAQ. The PCT is under contractual obligation, and one of the requirements to be on the board of directors is that you have to have a family member already in the tank, so they have a vested interest in their well-being. Why does anyone help anyone in a critical medical situation? You can call the question naive if you like, but the fact is that people do help each other. If nothing else, it's likely that anyone who does get revived will be highly motivated to rescue their fellow cryonauts. (I base this statement on my personal interactions with over 2 dozen Alcor members, every one of whom would take that position.)

If you prefer to disregard basic human empathy entirely, and are looking for a completely economic/rational reason, as technology continues to improve and spread eventually the cost of reviving patients will be less than the cost of maintaining their stasis.

* I'll disregard your conjecture about the future population levels in "1000 years", as well as your incorrect assessment of the cost of cryosuspension, but I will point out that defeating aging is far less of a challenge than reviving a vitrified person. Assuming that the revived person is instantiated in a "meat body" (which is not a given), undoing age-related damage will likely be a side effect of undoing suspension-related damage. In fact, I can scarcely imagine a scenario where that wouldn't be the case.

* I don't know that being revived will be better than being dead, but a society that's a living hell is a society that won't be in a position to revive cryonics patients. And if nothing else, being revived gives me the ability to make that decision for myself. If I'm revived and for some reason prefer oblivion then I can simply find something large and fast moving to step in front of. If I rot in the ground then I rob myself of any control over my fate. (And for the record, I don't believe in Heaven either, so that argument is a waste of time.)

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the ice crystals destroying all your cell walls?

Unless you are a plant, bacterium, fungus, etc., you shouldn't have to worry about this issue, bub.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Cybrex]

I don't mean to seem curt (it's late and I'm off to bed), but please check out one of the links I posted. Both cover your question pretty thoroughly. Thanks.

Re:Geek funeral?

[jameskojiro]

Maybe they could scan your neural synapses and re-create your brain in software then upload to a virtual world in which you have to mine gold in it and pay the gold farmers untill you can earn a physical body with a decent cyberbrain.

Re:Geek funeral?

[RiotingPacifist]

Not at all I've been in training for years!

Re:Geek funeral?

[Nazlfrag]

Even their name, "Alcor Life Extension Foundation" is completley dishonest. They sell death suspension perhaps, but saying they provide life extension is a flat out lie.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Nazlfrag]

Unless of course in the future revived cryonauts will have no legal status as humans and will be revived to create a slave population to work in the Overlords sugar mines for all eternity. Or you do get revived, but as a zombie. and you become the bringer of complete destruction to all of humankind. Actually that last one sounds rather cool...

Either way, it's your body, your money, your life to lead, don't let the naysayers get to you. Good luck to ya and hope you wake up in a blissful utopia someday. At least you can live every day as if it were your last, and then some!

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Selfish at best, unless you are wealthy.

First of all, fuck you. Secondly, fuck you.

Re:Geek funeral?

[pwizard2]

What about the ice crystals destroying all your cell walls?

Plants have cell walls. (it's what allows them to stand up) Animals, including homo sapiens, have cell membranes only.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows that geeks want to be frozen until the day that they can be made into cyborgs

Meanwhile, they're cryoborgs.

Re:Geek funeral?

[AniVisual]

It says here that there is no longer any freezing damage.

Re:Geek funeral?

[AniVisual]

But after that, why would they bother? There'll be tens or hundreds of billions of humans around, do you really think they'll need more?

Because he knew COBOL.

Re:Geek funeral?

[FireFury03]

In other words, they have the money invested, probably in low-risk form as we are talking of hundreds of years. It isn't bound to be melting away in a few moments :)

If you're investing over a long term, a wide portfolio of high risk investments tends to work better. Despite the chance of your investment losing a large amount of it's value in a market crash, there is also plenty of time for it to recover that value again. This is how pensions usually work - as you get closer to your retirement, your investment is moved into low risk investments since you can no longer afford the time for it to recover.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, keeping you frozen will be the most reliable way for them to keep you from suing them (for screwing up the revival, not reviving you at the right time etc).

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that EVE Online?

Re:Geek funeral?

[biovoid]

Preferably in carbonite!

Re:Geek funeral?

[ciderVisor]

help her win that germanium contest....

An old lady manufactures semiconductors at home to win contests ? Impressive ! She should be on /.

Re:Geek funeral?

[robably]

I could be wrong, but it seems obvious that he meant George "monkey boy" Bush, not Obama, and was referencing stupidity with the "lower primate" comment, not race.

Re:Geek funeral?

[ArsenneLupin]

I could be wrong, but it seems obvious that he meant George "monkey boy" Bush, not Obama, and was referencing stupidity with the "lower primate" comment, not race.

Would be fitting, but unfortunately the math doesn't add up: 1968 + 40 = 2008, not 2000... :-(

Re:Geek funeral?

[robably]

Obama became President in January 2009, though - in 2008 the pres was still Bush.

Re:Geek funeral?

[robably]

Though it does say "we'd elect", and he was elected in 2008. You could be right, unfortunately.

Re:Geek funeral?

[2.7182]

Yeah, but they did manage to defrost Walt Disney to create Steve Jobs.

Re:Geek funeral?

[vegiVamp]

I can't help but wonder on your third point. If you're not dead yet, but just very very slow, wouldn't you still be aware of both your surroundings and possible pain ? Sure, they'll drug you to oblivion before 'freezing' you, but given that your vital processes are still going (slow, but still), the drugs will also eventually wear out, and because you're so slow, you'll have no way of notifying anyone that you're there and in excruciating pain.

Doesn't look like the best prospect, to me.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the chances of success are low, they beat the pants off of the alternative!

So in a few hundred/thousand years, you will be defrosted and put on public display in a zoo so all the current members of civilsation can study the freak from the past. One other thing, if they can bring you back, then can keep you there in that state, forever.

Or the company that is supposed to be keeping you chilled goes bust and you are sold off to organ recovery companies, etc, etc.

Keep the rosy tinted spectacles, you will need them.

Re:Geek funeral?

[thms]

No, more like Greg Egan the Australian SF Author. Minus the interesting but dystopian goldmining aspect though. Thinking along these lines, scanned and uploaded brains could become a stopgap until "real" AI is invented. With all kinds of (non-)human rights issues.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anti_Climax]

They determined that Hydrogen Sulfide did not work in Pigs despite working in Mice. It seems doubtful that it will work in humans as pigs are a much closer analog to us.

Re:Geek funeral?

[lewko]

Yeah, but they did manage to defrost Walt Disney to create Steve Jobs.

And blame the Jews...

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

The possibility of non-existence is a major issue since the beginning of mankind. For thousands of years the way of escaping that possibility was trough religion.
Cryogenic seems a modern way to resolve that issue, since so many today see science as a modern religion.

But... Although you deserve respect for your beliefs, you should have stuck with old fashion religion. It's cheaper.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Genda]

I was speaking about curious George, and forgive me for not making myself clearer...

Re:Geek funeral?

[JohhnyTHM]

But after that, why would they bother? There'll be tens or hundreds of billions of humans around, do you really think they'll need more?

Because the Immortal Emperor will need the defrosted ones to drive his Dreadnaughts!

Re:Geek funeral?

[Genda]

Pain is a function of neurotransmission. It is arguably probable that some brain function might be present, but it would almost certainly be like a deep sleep or coma.

The chances of any significant consciousness in a hibernating state is vanishingly small. There simply isn't enough chemistry going on at these temperatures to move a significant thought or experience across the frontal cortex.

Re:Geek funeral?

[blancolioni]

Technically you're correct, but of course, these companies are actually doing something useful

Re:Geek funeral?

[SolitaryMan]

Yeah, I think more people should leave their bodies to necrophiliacs! I mean, let those poor souls have their piece of fun!

Re:Geek funeral?

[Genda]

That right, however research into human hibernation is still being advanced at places like NCSU.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Add up the value of the time spent in church or praying on one's own or at church sponsored functions, the cost of "church clothes" and the near obligatory "offerings" at your average mass, and I'm not so sure religion comes out that much cheaper in the end.

Re:Geek funeral?

[TimSSG]

Think of the demand for COBOL programs to solve the Y10K problem; there might be some revived because of demand.

Tim S.

PS: The above was stolen from an COBOL joke.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Ogive17]

You think they'll be able to reverse aging? If I were going to get myself frozen with hopes the future would be utopic, I'd want to do it before I hit 40 so that my body would still be in good enough shape from that point forward.

The future may be able to extend life and cure disease, I'm a bit skeptical on reversing the aging process.

And just curious, that place started up in 72 I believe, have they brought anyone out sucessfully?

Re:Geek funeral?

[Cybrex]

Unless of course in the future revived cryonauts will have no legal status as humans and will be revived to create a slave population to work in the Overlords sugar mines for all eternity.

A society with the technological capability of repairing damage on a cellular level and constructing a replacement body will have no need of slaves. At the very least, they'd have no need to go through the hassle of recovering my brain to operate the slave body when they could presumably build one from scratch that's optimized for that role.

As for zombies, well, I hope that I have the mental clarity upon waking up to have my first word be "Braaaaaains..." With my luck, there'd be a guy with a shotgun standing by, and the last thing I'd hear would be "We've got another one that turned! Shoot it!"

Either way it'd still be funny. :-)

Re:Geek funeral?

[Cybrex]

But... Although you deserve respect for your beliefs, you should have stuck with old fashion religion. It's cheaper.

Actually, compared with what a lot of people tithe it isn't. It's not even close. And I'll take the arguably low probability of success of cryonics over the zero likelihood of religion providing an out. Besides, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Re:Geek funeral?

[rho]

For fertilizer, cremation is actually the better option.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Cybrex]

Even if your absurdly dark scenario were correct, I'll take living in a zoo over death. As long as I'm alive I have the possibility of improving my situation and the situation of those around me.

I cover the long-term viability of the Alcor Patient Care Trust in my FAQ. There are no guarantees of course, but they're well situated for the long haul. And any society with the ability to repair organs on a cellular level can likely grow/build new ones, so there'd be little incentive to scrap us for parts.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Scrameustache]

What about the ice crystals destroying all your cell walls?

Plants have cell walls. (it's what allows them to stand up) Animals, including homo sapiens, have cell membranes only.

Huh, I'd managed to forget that... thanks for the info :)

Re:Geek funeral?

[Scrameustache]

I don't mean to seem curt (it's late and I'm off to bed), but please check out one of the links I posted. Both cover your question pretty thoroughly. Thanks.

I see, well I should have looked at those earlier then, thanks for sharing. Though I gotta say, now I wonder about the toxicity of the products... but in the future where they thaw a head, they can probably detoxify those as well. Carry on then, your money, your funeral, your informed choice (and it does seem informed).

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Christian Church is the oldest for-profit company in existence, they also managed to keep their believers' brains frozen for a couple thousands of years.

Re:Geek funeral?

[SQLGuru]

True curiosity, not trolling or goading (disclosure: haven't read any of the links, just a lot of the comments).

So, you've set up a life insurance policy that pays out upon your death to the company that maintains your body until possible revival or 1,000 years, whichever comes first. I get that. That's how you pay them for long term maintenance. But at what point are you frozen? I assume it has to be while you are still in a living/pseudo-living state of some sort, otherwise, revival would be impossible. So, wouldn't the insurance company have an argument against paying out (as insurance companies are wont to have)?

Re:Geek funeral?

[Cybrex]

You are trying to impose moral obligations on people who don't exist yet - that they should spend resources on reviving you and giving you medical care.

Okay, I'll feed the troll. I'm imposing no greater moral obligation on others than anyone who makes a financial loan with the expectation of being paid back, or anyone who goes into an emergency room. In the later case I'm actually making less of a demand, since I'm pre-paying for my own long-term care and eventual restoration. I cover this in the FAQ I linked to above. Regardless, cryonics is simply a medical procedure, albeit a fringe one. I have just as much right to live as anyone else, thank you. I shudder to think what your attitude must be toward elderly care facilities.

I would argue that people in cryonic suspension (at least the ones whose circumstances permitted a good suspension) are not dead. They're in stasis. If you can be recovered then you were never dead in the first place. Please google "information theoretic death" if this is unclear.

Your comment also assumes that I'll contribute nothing to society in the future. Bullocks. I've learned skills and adapted to radically different environments in the past and am perfectly willing to do so again.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Cybrex]

I challenge you to back up that accusation. Please google "information theoretic death" before attempting to do so.

Re:Geek funeral?

[know1]

It says here there is no longer any freezing damage

Wow, if they're wrong how will they deal with all those disgruntled customers?

Re:Geek funeral?

[mcgrew]

You don't have to be frozen to become a cyborg. From the link: "A cyborg is a cybernetic organism (i.e., an organism that has both artificial and natural systems)."

I'm a cyborg, as is anyone with a pacemaker or an artificial joint.

You will be asimilated! Resistance is futile!

Re:Geek funeral?

[secretcurse]

I agree, and I want to request that my body be given to a practical joker in the anatomy class. It'd be great if my hand ended up in his roomate's fridge or something. :)

Re:Geek funeral?

[GordonBX]

* Why would they bother to revive us? Again, I covered this in the FAQ. The PCT is under contractual obligation, ...

I'm struggling to contain a snigger here. How many contractual obligations have been broken during the recent financial crisis? quite a few I'd wager.

If you prefer to disregard basic human empathy entirely, and are looking for a completely economic/rational reason, as technology continues to improve and spread eventually the cost of reviving patients will be less than the cost of maintaining their stasis.

Why should the technology of reviving you improve faster than (or ever become cheaper than) the cryo-sustain technology? And in any case, neither will ever be cheaper than simply turning you off.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Critical Facilities]

It should be noted that there are far more religions than christianity/catholicism, so the "cost" is a very subjective factor.

Re:Geek funeral?

[GargamelSpaceman]

I'm thinking that in the event of apocalypse other than Zombie Apocalypse, the frozen remains stored in a place like that would still be fresh enough and nutritious enough to live off for quite some time..

Re:Geek funeral?

[R2.0]

"Just ensure that a legally binding contract ensures that you'll be kept for X amount of time. "

Contracts survive the death of one of the parties if there is an obligation OTHER than a personal one. So if a company contracts with you to preserve your body after death, it could be considered a personal service, which they would be released from upon your death.

I'm sure that the contracts with these companies are full of legal jiggery-pokery to "ensure" the continuing obligation, but there's a practical matter as well - if the company decides to dump your mortal remains in the trash

a) who has standing to sue for breach of contract?
b) what would they sue for? The body is already rotting somewhere, so suing for specific performance is precluded. Pain and suffering? Is your great-great-great-granddaughter really going to be all that fussed about the fact that her ancestors corpse is, well, acting like a corpse? Actual damages? If anything, the company saved your descendants money by not reviving you. Return of the money originally paid? To whom? Your estate hasn't existed for a century.

Read some Larry Niven. Dead is dead, and whatever people thought would be waiting for them after their "revival" certainly won't be what they expected.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Hatta]

You may find my assessment of the Patient Care Trust's financial stability "laughable", but I find the idea that it'll take 1000 years for us to obtain control over matter at the molecular level patently absurd. Eric Drexler estimates that it'll happen within our lifetimes (or at least my lifetime), and the trends in nanotech development point to him being not too far off. Even if he's wildly optimistic, I suspect that nothing short of a global cataclysm will keep us from reaching that goal in this century, and I'm willing to bet my life on that. (And as I mention in the FAQ, if a global cataclysm does happen then we're all SOL anyway.)

Yeah, and we'll all have flying cars by the year 2000 too. You can't seriously believe this, right?

Re:Geek funeral?

[Isao]

That's incredibly unlikely, since no company in history has survived for that long...

I'll take that bet: List of oldest companies

Eight over 1000 years old, hundreds all over the world over 200 years old, tens of thousands over 100 years old.

The rest of your points are equally specious and collapse with any kind of scrutiny. Now if you don't like it, that's your own look out.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

And any society with the ability to repair organs on a cellular level can likely grow/build new ones, so there'd be little incentive to scrap us for parts.

The problem is that the Great Organ Shortage of 2314 may occur five centuries before the ability to repair organs on a cellular level is developed. By then, you are already scrapped for parts. A society like ours, with the ability to fabricate steel I-beams and concrete, would have little incentive to remove stone blocks from Athenian temples or the tombs of Egyptian pharoahs. None the less, the world is full of ruins.

Don't get me wrong, I say go for it. No matter how low the likelihood of success, you have nothing to lose by taking the chance on it, and aren't hurting anyone else. If it doesn't work out, you are no worse off than you would otherwise have been.

Personally, I think our best bet would be to concentrate first on developing the technology for an exact molecular scan of one's brain. Even if the ability to load that brain into a computer and run it takes eons to emerge, the digitally stored snapshot is far more likely to survive than the actual meat, no matter how diligently frozen and maintained. It's just way easier and cheaper to guard a data file against catastrophe than it is a frozen head. (I hope you have a clause in your contract saying that if such a scanning technique becomes viable, they make backups of your head immediately).

Re:Geek funeral?

[John Betonschaar]

Even if the chances of success are low, they beat the pants off of the alternative!

Only if you don't care about throwing your money at something that has a pretty big chance of failure. Money that could also be spent having a good time while still alive.

Who wants to live forever anyway...

Re:Geek funeral?

[kalirion]

Even if the chances of success are low, they beat the pants off of the alternative!

The chances are probably about equal to there being an afterlife, so I guess you can pick your poison ;)

Re:Geek funeral?

[R2.0]

"Yeah, I think more people should leave their bodies to necrophiliacs! I mean, let those poor souls have their piece of fun!"

Necrophilia: When "piece of ass" isn't a euphemism.

Re:Geek funeral?

[orsty3001]

My life insurance is going to cover this. I'm looking forward to waking up in a world that is so different I can barely function. Oh wait, that's just like now.

Re:Geek funeral?

[liquidsin]

i've got a couple friends who've promised to...erm..."procure" my corpse by whatever means and leave me at the edge of the forest for the coyotes.

besides, if you're in stasis on the brink of death, how are you supposed to respawn?

Re:Geek funeral?

[lysergic.acid]

Heh. I'm guessing he's referring to cell membranes. But the issue of preservation injuries does seem to be a major hurdle. I wonder how far these cryonic suspension companies have advanced in regards to the development of cryoprotectants (e.g. combating their toxicity) and avoiding ischemic injury.

There are frogs that can survive being frozen for several months during winter. So perhaps one day the dream of cryonic suspension can be achieved by humans as well (probably through a combination of genetic enhancement and medical technology). Right now that seems to be the only way we could ever colonize other solar systems aside from the use of generation ships.

Personally, I would rather my mind (personality & memory engrams) be uploaded into a supercomputer to live on in a digital world populated by the minds of other similarly deceased individuals.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that when you're dead you're pretty much done with everything. At least until our universe is recreated again through random chance and you live the exact same life.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Khashishi]

I think the main problem is nobody caring enough about you to bother reviving you. You'll be in some ice box in the corner until someone decides to shut off the power to those relics because, they've got enough museum pieces already.

Re:Geek funeral?

[lysergic.acid]

I disagree. Their goal is life extension. They just haven't achieved that goal yet. But they seem to have progressed far enough that they at least offer the possibility of life extension by preserving clients in a state that could potentially allow them to be revived in the distant future. Even if the technology for revival from cryonic suspension hasn't been invented yet, there's no reason why we can't start preserving deceased individuals right now for the day when that technology exists. As long as the company stays in business and their facilities remain operational, there's a chance that those people can still be revived. The same cannot be said about someone who is given a conventional burial or is cremated.

I mean, if a person suddenly dies of a heart-attack but are put into cryonic suspension and revived back to life a century later, then wouldn't their life have been extended? So how is calling themselves a "life extension foundation" dishonest?

Of course, there's no guarantee at this point that they will be able to develop the technology to revive their patients, but I think most of their clients know that. And they at least seem to be making an honest attempt at working towards that goal.

Re:Geek funeral?

[type40]

I told my family and friends something similar. "Strip me for parts like I'm an 82' Chevy truck and burn the rest."

Re:Geek funeral?

[SoupGuru]

If I rot in the ground then I rob myself of any control over my fate.

You're a control freak. Seriously, loosen your grip and live a little.

Re:Geek funeral?

[pherthyl]

I suspect you're grossly overestimating the cost of cryonic suspension and the cost of an insurance policy for a healthy non-smoker in his early 30's.

Alcor state the minimum payout for complete suspension is $150,000. The insurance companies are not stupid, and they're making money, so you're paying at least that much over the life of the policy (and likely more) to cover their risk and eventual expenditure. Up to you what you use your money for of course, but don't pretend it's not a lot.

Eric Drexler estimates that it'll happen within our lifetimes (or at least my lifetime), and the trends in nanotech development point to him being not too far off.

Sure, and we're all in flying cars too. Huge difference between some nanotech procedures being possible to bringing someone back and then reversing their aging fast enough so that they don't immediately die again. You're vastly oversimplifying the problem.

I suspect that nothing short of a global cataclysm will keep us from reaching that goal in this century, and I'm willing to bet my life on that.

You're basing your predictions on technological advancement on recent (50 year) trends that have been safe and prosperous for the world. The challenges of overpopulation, climate change and environmental degradation will pretty much guarantee increased volatility in the future. History shows that good times don't go on forever.

Why would they bother to revive us? Again, I covered this in the FAQ.

Not convincingly.

The PCT is under contractual obligation,

A contract where one of the parties has been dead for generations. I'm sure that will be hard to break.

and one of the requirements to be on the board of directors is that you have to have a family member already in the tank, so they have a vested interest in their well-being.

As if those board members will still be alive. In the best case a board member might have some very distant ancestor in there.

Why does anyone help anyone in a critical medical situation?

Because they are paid to do so (doctors, medical professionals).
This is not like dragging some stranger one out of a burning car at all.

You can call the question naive if you like, but the fact is that people do help each other.

Sure, that's why there's no suffering in the world that could be prevented. It's because everyone is so nice and wants to help.
In the future there will certainly still be suffering. Why would a moral person in the future help you (who experiences nothing, and thus is not suffering) over helping a real living suffering person? That makes no sense. Altruistic people will always have more worthy causes than bringing back icicles.

If nothing else, it's likely that anyone who does get revived will be highly motivated to rescue their fellow cryonauts. (I base this statement on my personal interactions with over 2 dozen Alcor members, every one of whom would take that position.)

Motivated yes, but they certainly won't have the knowledge, resources, or training to do so, so that motivation is pretty much pointless.

If you prefer to disregard basic human empathy entirely, and are looking for a completely economic/rational reason, as technology continues to improve and spread eventually the cost of reviving patients will be less than the cost of maintaining their stasis.

And that wild conjecture is based on what? The cost of reviving them (if ever possible) will come down, but there's nothing to say that preservation techniques won't improve as well to the point where they are essentially free. Now they keep you in liquid nitrogen. In the future they will blast you with the freezie laser and forget about you.

In any ca

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a recent recipient of a liver donation (less than a month ago), I thank you and wish more people had your attitude. Just make sure that your family is aware of your wishes (so when you are lying on an OR table and the doctor comes out with the worst possible news, your family doesn't have to think twice about your wishes).

Re:Geek funeral?

[scribblej]

Thanks for sharing the link to your FAQ -- I've wanted to sign up for this service myself for a very long time, and I think after having read your FAQ that it's probably time for me to go ahead and do it. Very informative.

Re:Geek funeral?

[R2.0]

I admire your sentiments and feel the same way, which makes the irony in your statement even more pointed. The reality is that it's far more likely for an adult to receive a teenager's heart than vice versa.

Re:Geek funeral?

[PalmKiller]

I got a freezer I can stick you in for $75,000...that is half what alcor charges, it will keep you fresh sveral years before you get freezer burn if I get all the air out of the body bag.

Re:Geek funeral?

[anagama]

Other old companies: scanning the list it seems that the vast majority, more than 95% at least, are companies which either make something (wine, beer), extract resources (minerals, salt), refine materials (metallurgy), or provide a service related to essential human functions (shelter/food/baths). There is a smattering of banking early on, but it isn't till the 1700s that more abstract businesses join the list (notary (1816), legal services (1743), real estate(1743)).

The cryo business seems fairly abstract -- one could argue that it is like shelter or food, but there is no evidence that it works. It would be more like a cafe which serves "nourishing vapor" but we never get to see if the customers actually don't starve, so I'd have trouble putting it into an essential service type business.

Re:Geek funeral?

[MsGeek]

I want half of my ashes incorporated into a WORKING computer. Maybe in a box in an empty 5.25" bay, that would work. The other half can be scattered at the same coordinates my deceased husband was scattered at: basically 3 miles off the coast of San Pedro, CA, US.

What good is a computer buried six feet underground, with all the guts taken out of it? I want to be part of something USEFUL.

Re:Geek funeral?

[geekoid]

low? there is no chance. We can not freeze a bod sufficiently to stop damage. And your brain will be mush.

It's your money, so whatever but don't kid yourself.

Re:Geek funeral?

[geekoid]

YOu might want to do some serious research in Cryogenic failure and maintenance issue.

repairing technolog will be useless becasue they won't ahve your blueprint to work from. At best they could get your body working, but all that makes you more then a shell will be done. If th can dot his, they could do it from your decayed baody as well.(You body still will be decaying along with the destruction of you cell membranes.

Of course, it still doesn't address the fact that you can't be cooled fast enough.

You are purchasing an illusion.

"If you prefer to disregard basic human empathy entirely, and are looking for a completely economic/rational reason, as technology continues to improve and spread eventually the cost of reviving patients will be less than the cost of maintaining their stasis.
based on... what? Don't confuse the inancty growth os silcone on a chip for a reasonalbe growth formula for all technology; especially medical.

Eric Drexler has yet to be right about anything involving nanotechnolgy. You might want to read up. Nanotechnoly will be here in or life times is somehting he ahs been saying for years.

For the uninitiated we are talking about nanotechlogy like in the Sci-fi book "Snow Crash". A good book with a lousy ending.

Re:Geek funeral?

[ewenix]

And then you think that they would bother to revive you. That too is staggeringly unlikely.

They'll need me to fight Dr. Evil, you clod!

Re:Geek funeral?

[Mr. Slippery]

Eight over 1000 years old...

Kong Gumi: liquidated in 2006. I doubt that Takamatsu, which purchased its assets, is bound by any of its obligations. I wonder how many others on this list have been through similar restructuring at one time or another. The fact that a brand survives, or that a hotel or restaurant has been operating for a long time, doesn't mean that it's the same legal business entity over all that time.

And of course this ignores the thousands, if not millions,of companies that have come and gone in that time. I suspect the odds of Alcor still being one of the few companies still around in, say, 500 years, are around the same as hitting a big slots machine jackpot.

Of course, it is your money to gamble. But you'd almost certainly get a better years-per-dollar expected return if you spent the money (and the time it represents) on better food, regular medical care, exercise, stress reduction, and home safety upgrades.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Ash Vince]

Even their name, "Alcor Life Extension Foundation" is completley dishonest. They sell death suspension perhaps, but saying they provide life extension is a flat out lie.

Actually their website seems reasonably honest. It even contains a section detailing the problems they (you) face.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Respectfully, putting your ashes into container that fits into a 5.25" bay doesn't make you part of anything useful. Or at least, not a useful part of anything useful. Even a 5.25" floppy would have more practical benefit.

Unless your ashes are a vessel for your spirit, and your spirit has the power to ward off malware. . . .

Wait, can I get some of your ashes to install in my mom's PC?

Re:Geek funeral?

[VJ42]

Technically you're correct, but of course, these companies are actually doing something useful

It can be argued that the City of London Corporation goes back to 1141, and it's hasn't been useful for at least a hundred years... ;-)

Re:Geek funeral?

[Beardo the Bearded]

You're welcome.

I have made it clear to my family that the meatsack is an organ farm once I'm done with it. My wife feels the same way, and as tragic as it would be, I would do the same for my kids.

Re:Geek funeral?

[VJ42]

Damn, as I was writing that part I was thinking I should probably check that :) Neat to read about.

I retract my original statement then and modify it to "That's incredibly unlikely, since only a handful of companies of the millions/billions that have ever existed have survived that long"

Whilst I agree with the point you made, there's more than you might think (21,666 over a hundred years old): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies .Remember, the USA is a relatively young country, we have a lot more history this side of the Atlantic. The old joke about Americans thinking a hundred years is a long time whilst Brits think that a hundred miles is a long way has quite a bit of truth to it.

Re:Geek funeral?

[Ocker3]

but a society that's a living hell is a society that won't be in a position to revive cryonics patients.

Obviously you've never seen Futurama

Re:Geek funeral?

[barath_s]

And if nothing else, being revived gives me the ability to make that decision for myself.

Given that all technologies go through a learning curve, and given that revival is a particularly hard set of problems with multiple failure modes, I'd be interested in your opinions and information on this.

I would assume some of the failure modes may be gruesome or at least open up unintended consequences. For example, revival as an imbecile, without the ability to take that decision (to kill yourself). Revival as a completely different person, perhaps with access to some memories. Multiple partially successful tries at revival.

What's your attitude towards being on this learning curve ? Would you prefer to be one of the early ones (revived when chance of less than complete success is high) ? Would you want to ensure that you are only revived when the technology is mature (if everyone had that attitude, then you could write of that technology) ? Do you actually take contractual steps to ensure that you are only revived when the technology is mature and not in its infancy ? What options does your patient care trust provide in this regard ? What are their contractual obligations and positions towards getting it *fully right* *once*. Since you have taken steps, no doubt you must have dealt with these issues. Really interested in hearing back.

Re:Geek funeral?

[barath_s]

why would they bother ....[reviving you and optionally curing ...anti-aging etc]

The best option would be to found a cult which would revive you. Religions and cults do go back thousands of years. Heck, do you doubt that someone wouldn't try and bring back Jesus (if there was any sample tissue) ? and since this is slashdot, obligatory tip to 'cult of the cobol programmer'

Re:Geek funeral?

[schreiend]

I wonder how far these cryonic suspension companies have advanced in regards to the development of cryoprotectants

Why not use Brawndo? It's got electrolytes!

Re:Geek funeral?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could not agree more. I have always said that when I am gone give the corpse to a teaching hospital. But still that is a great remembrance.

Re:Geek funeral?

[pherthyl]

Yes I should have checked that, no it doesn't really make a difference to my point, which is that the likelyhood of alcor surviving for several hundred years is vanishingly small.

Also, a company like Kong Gumi, where the only requirement for survival is to have some dude with a toolbelt willing to own the business isn't exactly the same as being organized enough to run a big facility that needs constant maintenance, security, taxes paid, etc.

>> The rest of your points are equally specious and collapse with any kind of scrutiny.

Awesome argument. "Your points suck therefore they're wrong." Let me guess, debate team champion?

Re:Geek funeral?

[skipdallas]

Someone needs a hug !

Re:Geek funeral?

[Artifex]

The Christian Church is the oldest for-profit company in existence, they also managed to keep their believers' brains frozen for a couple thousands of years.

They did do a couple awesome proof of concept demos of their resurrection process, I've heard... though I've yet to see it scale.

Re:Geek funeral?

[HazMathew]

You sir are a complete idiot. Alcor is a huge scam with some pretty nasty practices.

Re:Geek funeral?

[HazMathew]

I'm with you on that. I'd rather not be revived hundreds of years into the future. That would be like a prison inmate being released into the world after a lifetime of incarceration. I wouldn't know how to handle the society, my family would most likely be dead. I wouldn't have a marketable skill set. For all you know you'll be revived into a living nightmare.

Re:Geek funeral?

[whimsical.dog]

This is the typical fact free "it'll never work" cryonics dismissal. An irrational tribal reflex. Humans, being tribal creatures cling to and defend their beliefs. Which beliefs being crucial aspects of their identity. It's an old survival necessity, without identity markers -- in this case similar beliefs -- one's tribal group would not recognize, include, and protect you. Pherthyl uncritically accepts that cryonics is bunk, and defends this prejudice with the usual bogus suite of empty factoids. This is not a personal charge directed at pherthyl. All humans do this all the time. Regarding his factoids: A person's wealth belongs to them -- not their dependents -- and is theirs to do with as they please. Dependents need to get a job, pull their own weight, and become independent. (If pherthyl is living high off of his parents gravy train, and is filled with hope, as he waits for them to die so he can have it all,... well, THAT'S selfish.) If someone were suffering from a serious illness that was very expensive to treat, would you consider withholding treatrment on the grounds that it was robbing their "dependents"? Utter nonsense. "Hair-brained scheme". Says who? And when did you become god? This is just naysayer boilerplate. The incandescent light bulb, heavier than air flight, space flight, organ transplants, cloning, etc, etc: all hair-brained schemes and impossible until they became established facts, whereupon the naysayers changed their tune, and declared that "it was always obvious." Naysayer blather always emerges from a logic- and fact-free zone. "Infinitely small chance" of successful revival." Where's anything resembling evidence to support this probability estimate? You got a crystal ball maybe? What we do know is that medical research is ongoing and shows no signs of closing up shop. Nano tech, while new, is moving ahead and looks very much like a central player in future tech capabilities. And there are no immutable laws of nature -- as we currently understand those laws -- that says revival can't be done. Simply put: if all your bio-molecules are in their proper place and you're defrosted, then -- baring magic contrarian physics -- you WILL live and breathe. Suggest otherwise if you choose, but bring along a fact or two. So, barring a fact-based rebuttal, successful revival from cryonic suspension, being a technological numbers game, with technology moving steadily in an enabling direction, ... IS A NEAR CERTAINTY. On the point of company survival, clearly, if there is a social cataclism -- hardly an impossibility in light of human destructiveness -- then cryonics probably goes down with the rest of humanity. But saying "We're doomed!", or "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" is not an argument, it's just desperation resorted to when there are no supporting facts. It's worth noting -- for those preferring reality to hysteria -- that even during the worst plagues and wars, life actually went on quite routinely for the vast majority of humanity not actually involved in those calamities. By the way, regarding storage time (ie time to revival). there are lots of guesses out there. Personally, I put it at less than two hundred years, but hey, don't hold me to it, THAT'S JUST A GUESS. "And then you think that they would bother to revive you. That too is staggeringly unlikely." Puleeeeese. Why does a surgeon not arbitrarily walk away from the operating table in the middle of an operation? The question is too stupid even to consider. Humans help other humans for fundamental moral, legal, financial, professional, and social reasons. Those reasons are reality-based and all but immutable so long as the species exists. Clearly, pherthyl has no real knowledge of cryonics tech, people, or infrastructure. In this regard -- fact-free certainty --he is the same as most cryonics critics.

Re:Geek funeral?

[bertfromburke]

Thank you. Luckily my daughter has said that my body (after the usable parts have been harvested) would be taken to a "body farm" where forensic scientists will be able to experiment with it. Science to the last! Then, when they return the 'ashes', I would like them taken to a creative potter, and made into something artistic that may be handed down the generations. If not artistic, something usefull. If nothing else, a comode. That way I know that I will be visited in the future! A former ceramics engineer

Re:Geek funeral?

[KraftDinner]

I've got my donor card in my wallet. I've also given one to my wife. I never understood why people want to have their bodies shoved into a wooden box where your body swells and explodes. What a waste...

Looks awesome!!

[phantomfive]

Is it wrong that I am now hoping someone around me dies so I can do something similar?

The ultimate case mod: is that the magic smoke I see coming out of your computer?

Re:Looks awesome!!

[geekoid]

No the ultimate case mod would be to make a case out of their bones.

I forgot a step!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're supposed to CREMATE first?? That's why nobody enjoyed my dad's funeral.

I don't know about you guys...

[nebaz]

but I want a bunch of screaming Klingons at mine.

Re:I don't know about you guys...

[MichaelSmith]

but I want a bunch of screaming Klingons at mine.

Yeah best not to leave any remains at all.

Re:I don't know about you guys...

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Unless you gloriously die in battle, they will be to disgusted to show up. I suggest taking your bat'leth and entering an airport, that should be nice and quick.

Sun box not a bad choice

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You could have splurged for a magnesium NeXt box. But on the bright side, good on you for not putting him in an eMachine. Or maybe Packard Bell would have been Packard Hell, a little too literally.

Re:Sun box not a bad choice

[RatPh!nk]

You could have splurged for a magnesium NeXt box. But on the bright side

Any time I see the words magnesium and bright I get the urge to burn something....but you took it a different direction!

I'm a geek

[Anonymous Coward]

but I'm not only a geek. I want to be remembered as more than an obscure, old computer, or a computer lover.

Re:I'm a geek

[Cillian]

Good on you, but not everybody thinks that. (Originally I put "Unfortunately not everybody thinks that", but I guess it's their/your choice).

Re:I'm a geek

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I want to be buried in a vagina. Not when I'm dead, I mean right now.

Re:I'm a geek

[NotBornYesterday]

"I'd like to die like my father died... My father died fucking. My father was 57 when he died. The woman was 18. My father came and went at the same time. "

- Richard Pryor

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW.... this got me teary-eyed at work (not good). I'm normally a hard-ass... but this touched a nerve for some reason. I haven't read/seen a funeral that actually meant something in a LONG time.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I question your definition of facts, and the fact that you're calling someone a pussy for being emotional in the same statement.

fitting

[Tim4444]

He went like so many of the electronic devices we cherish. At the end of the device's life, when the smoke clears, all that's left is a non-functioning box to collect the dust and some damn good memories.

Well done. My sentiments to those left in the away team. Live long and prosper :)

Re:fitting

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone let the magic smoke out?... Maybe "don't smoke" has nothing to do with tobacco.

Re:fitting

[Tim4444]

I've heard of this magic smoke. It's the stuff in the wires that makes electronics work. We know this is true because a device will stop working if the smoke leaks out.

I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorage..

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... which IMHO is about the geekiest funeral there is. (Think "the intent of the pyramids" but with stainless steel dewars and liquid nitrogen condensation fog.)

They can do what they want with the rest of my body once I'm done with it.

And who knows - there's some slight chance they WILL figure out how to download the person from a frozen-head-saved-game into a new model body (or fix the cracks in the brain, implant it in a cloned corpus, and restart it) - and somebody will think it's worthwhile to try it with me. Then it's time travel to the far future.

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[Razed By TV]

Not everyone can afford to have a proper geek burial

What to do with our corporeal remains

[1 a bee]

When we die our remains will be nothing more than a snapshot of the atoms we occupied right before we died. Had we lived a year longer, a good proportion of those atoms would have been replaced with new material we drank, ate and breathed in through the year. It is as if living is a type of standing wave through which matter flows.

My point? I wouldn't care what happened to my remains. I was a wave, and all that remains of me are ripples left behind in a shared pool of memories.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[TheRealMindChild]

Far out man.

**Tooooooooooooooooooooke**

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[pegasustonans]

I wouldn't care what happened to my remains. I was a wave, and all that remains of me are ripples left behind in a shared pool of memories.

Well, in most cases, my opinion is that treating remains in a certain way helps families say goodbye.

So, of course you don't care what happens to your remains, but it's not *for* you. Whatever ceremony greets your departure from this earth is primarily for your family. So, you should at least care about your funeral for your family's sake. This is the main chance for them to say goodbye.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[redneckHippe]

You guys can just stick a ham bone up my ass and let the dogs drag me off.
R.H.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[Anonymous Coward]

Which just goes to show, that the information carried in the wave is as real at the atoms. We are made of information, not matter.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[Hoi Polloi]

Bull. There is only one appropriate way to go, Viking ship funeral pyre.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[MichaelSmith]

I wouldn't care what happened to my remains. I was a wave, and all that remains of me are ripples left behind in a shared pool of memories.

Well, in most cases, my opinion is that treating remains in a certain way helps families say goodbye.

When I go I would prefer not to be used to promote somebodies stupid religion, which is what happened to my wife's father.

Having endured that funeral I reckon dying in the wild and having your body eaten by animals would be more dignified.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you know what? Your MOM was a wave, and all that remains of her are ripples in my shared pool of memories!

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[sayfawa]

Or to make it more of a /. thing, a pyre with holograms of you and two of your already deceased mentors floating above it.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[Rik Rohl]

After only recently discovering it, I would seriously like to have a Tebetian Sky Burial and be immediately recycled into the pool of life.
Pity there's no chance of it happening in any "civilised" western country.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[Tynin]

I suppose that makes me selfish. I've given so much to and for my family, and will continue to do so, I hope they respect my wishes when my time comes. I know I'll be dead, and it won't really matter. However as my last request I would hope that someone would love me enough to send me off the way I want.

Now as for how I'd like to be sent along... well, I figure I've ate so many animals and destroyed so many tree's and generally caused a hefty footprint on this world. My present thought on burial... (which is likely illegal in the USA, I still need to research more) is to stick me in the ground and plant a tree on what was once me. No casket, no embalming, just a fresh corpse fertilizing some tree's. I know ultimately in the long run, nothing matters once you die. Anything could happen to the plot I'm at, or the tree I'd become could be cut down and turned into creationist school books, or worse (I shudder to think), but regardless... it feels like I've taken so much that I should give myself back. Although, truly, in my dreams I think and hope that one day the rich, the poor, and all in between, will get to share a seat in that singularity that is the black hole we've been circling at the middle of our galaxy. But until then, I'd like a nice natural dirt nap.

On topic, but a side note. I know everyone has their own idea's/beliefs about death, but the idea of being cremated, put into some container, and then promptly forgotten about, with my old atoms, nutrients, etc, just going to waste, not going back into the system that supported me, just seems SOO selfish. A co-worker told me about how he still has his father in a coffee can on top of his fridge. It made me think that if hell is a real place, that sounds like it.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[Tynin]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that. I too wouldn't mind going that route.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[indiechild]

Splendidly said. A hat tip to you, good sir/madam.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[lobiusmoop]

Dude, I read that as:

and all that remains of me are nipples left behind

I was left wondering what kind of weird donor card you must be carrying.

Got to get some sleep...

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[jipn4]

When we die our remains will be nothing more than a snapshot of the atoms we occupied right before we died

And the arrangement of those atoms is what represents you.

Had we lived a year longer, a good proportion of those atoms would have been replaced

Atoms of the same isotope are indistinguishable from one another, so they aren't "replaced".

I was a wave, and all that remains of me are ripples left behind in a shared pool of memories.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[mapkinase]

Be ready for couple of surprises.

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[Lostlander]

Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother and my sisters and my brothers.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me, they bid me to take my place among them, in the hallowed halls of Valhalla where the brave shall live forever!

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[R2.0]

My instructions to my wife are:

1) Donate every organ they'll take

2) If you bury me, use a pine box. Spend the money you save on the coffin for a party. Or food. Or a car. Whatever. Just spend as little money as possible while meeting our obligations to the rest of my relatives. (I'm Italian - you can't NOT have a funeral and wake, or else my previously deceased relatives will hunt me down in the afterlife.)

Re:What to do with our corporeal remains

[barath_s]

the idea of being cremated, put into some container, and then .... just going to waste ObBookQuote: "Grandpa's ashes go into that hourglasses on the mantelpiece over there.... Grandpa must work.. all we germans must work.. Always thought that was cool.

RIP

[cjzlducls]

RIP....

I'm sorry for your loss

[cypherdtraitor]

I am truly sorry for your loss, and I'm glad that you found such a creative way to honor him. I am sure he would be truly pleased.

As to the assholes who posted below me, SHAME ON YOU! You should be respectful to people in such an important time. Seriously, do you feel that a few good laughs is worth this embarrassment? Grow up.

Re:I'm sorry for your loss

[MrMista_B]

If we can't laugh at death, then we are truly dead.

Re:I'm sorry for your loss

[Sam_In_The_Hills]

My thoughts exactly. That's why we had his memorial gathering at an amusement park.

Re:I'm sorry for your loss

[geekoid]

"You should be respectful ..."

Why?
That aside, humor is a great aid in helping people cope.

You are the one that needs to grow up.

Just imagine a beowulf cluster of these!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that count as a zombie botnet?

*ducks*

RIP

Other Geek options

[RKThoadan]

There are several more traditional geek options. You can donate your brain to the Harvard Brain Tissue Resource Center and get their cool "I'm going to Harvard!" card. Plastination is a pretty interesting option as well. There's also the more generic "donate to science" option, which usually means you get to help train the next doctors going through Gross Anatomy. I have to recommend the book "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers" for more information. It's really a hilarious read and very educational.

Re:Other Geek options

[BoppreH]

Harvard Brain Tissue Resource Center -> "Make a gift" option.

Now you can kill your enemies and help science at the same time!

Re:Other Geek options

[Anonymous Coward]

For myself I'm strongly considering donating to a criminal forensics laboratory where my body would be used in decomposition studies. You know, left outside exposed directly to the elements, or stuck in a shallow grave, or maybe wrapped up in a rug and tossed into a ravine somewhere.

Re:Other Geek options

[PPH]

I'm donating my organs. They can give my brain to some motorcycle rider.

Re:Other Geek options

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother-in-law donated her brain there. Other parts went to transplants, others to other scientific organizations. The only parts of her that were not donated were her eyes; because she thought that was too creepy.

Re:Other Geek options

[kasper37]

They can give my brain to some motorcycle rider.

Are you a really good motorcycle rider or something?

Re:Other Geek options

[syousef]

There's also the more generic "donate to science" option, which usually means you get to help train the next doctors going through Gross Anatomy

Yup "Gross" Anatomy sounds about right when you're a tubby dude like I am. Poor doctors.

But that is exactly what I've asked for. Couldn't care less what happens to my remains so either donation or medical research is probably the best chance that SOMEONE will get use of my fat hide!

Re:Other Geek options

[houghi]

My great aunt, who was at a certain point the oldest women in the world, was the ueber geek. She decided when she was 85 that her body would go to science. She became 85. Her motivation? The young kids could learn from it and there would be no hassle with funerals for anybody.

The doctor who examined her made his findings public. Some morons wanted to sue that doctor for privacy invasion or something like that. Those idiots where no family, relatives or whatsoever. Thus they had no idea that my great aunt wanted EVERYBODY to learn from whatever they found.

So in a sense, she open sourced her remains.

Re:Other Geek options

[iron-kurton]

I guess another thing she taught people, outside of open-sourcing her remains, is that there will always be a-holes who try to capitalize on other people's misfortunes and/or good deeds (like the people who sued). I truly believe things happen to teach us important life lessons, it's just the matter of interpretation. Anyway, good on your great aunt, sounds like a good human being.

(Also, RIP SPARCy)

Re:Other Geek options

[geekoid]

I am hoping to donate my brain to Hef.

Marvelous...

[sitarlo]

What a great use for a good ol' SparcStation! Hmmm.... as long as I don't end up in an HP 9000, I'll be eternally happy.

MOD PARENT FUNNY

[Vellmont]

The first sentence is way too stupid if it's not funny.

Re:MOD PARENT FUNNY

[drinkypoo]

The second sentence ("He looks like a great family man[...]") is even funnier if the only picture of him you've seen is what he looks like now. Let's see, his parents are VME SPARCs while his grandfolks are 68k VME (I hear his uncle was a 3/370) and his kids are SS10s and 20s... in another generation they'll have Hypersparcs, and his great-great grandkids will basically be mediocre PCs with UltraSPARC processors and PCI buses. From the look of that plaque, though, there's a NeXT in the... oh, somebody stop me.

Not far off...

[rantingkitten]

My father actually has it written that he wants bagpipe music and Admiral Kirk's speech about Spock from Wrath Of Khan at his funeral. If we can find a casket that looks like a photon torpedo, so much the better.

I think I should clarify with him whether he wants someone to recite Kirk's speech, or have that video played.

Re:Not far off...

[Cheerio Boy]

My father actually has it written that he wants bagpipe music and Admiral Kirk's speech about Spock from Wrath Of Khan at his funeral. If we can find a casket that looks like a photon torpedo, so much the better. I think I should clarify with him whether he wants someone to recite Kirk's speech, or have that video played.

What you want is this company's cocoon model coffin: http://www.uono.de/english/home.html

Re:Not far off...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.eternalimage.net/star_trek.php

Re:Not far off...

[Anonymous Coward]

You could always use one of those aerodynamically shaped car roof-top storage boxes for a casket. I always think to myself "there goes Spock" when I pass one of those jerks.

Re:Not far off...

[clickety6]

I think I'd rather have a Genesis device at my funeral...

Re:Not far off...

[religious freak]

Wow, I can't believe people actually pay for that kind of crap... put me on a raft made of reeds, float me into the middle of a lake, and shoot flaming arrows at me. Awesome way to go and it's dirt cheap too...

Re:Not far off...

[Anonymous Coward]

I must say seeing comments about having some fun and having it be a personalized experience like that make me really happy.

I'm only 26 and four or so years ago my best friend from high school passed away. There's nothing like seeing 40+ guys in kilts, drinking in the parish hall, telling stories, and trying to break his sword. When failing (okay the blacksmith offered to really break it, but we declined) the bent sword was placed in the coffin with the comment that it was a stubborn as Sam.

I grew up in that parish, so the priests comment that all the pagons who came to honor Sam's death by having a party and left the parish hall cleaner then they found it obviously had something to teach us really made me proud.

I miss him to death, but that was one of the most positive experiences I've ever had. I hope everyone's death can be so meaningful.

Re:Not far off...

[TrekkieTechie]

If we can find a casket that looks like a photon torpedo, so much the better.

I believe you're looking for Eternal Image's Star Trek Casket, inspired by the scene you describe.

Re:Not far off...

[fuzznutz]

You can keep the bagpipes. I want a good Viking funeral ala Thirteenth Warrior. Put me on a wooden boat a send out a flaming arrow.

Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother.
Lo there do I see my brothers and my sisters.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me
They bid me take my place among them in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever.

Re:Not far off...

[Anti_Climax]

I would think this would be better:
http://www.eternalimage.net/star_trek.php

Thanks for the memories

[mb12036]

In 1998/99 this was done for a good friend of mine who died way before his time. Good to see there are some thoughtful people out there still doing it. I think the box they used was a 486 DX or something like that, but the same idea. Brought back some great memories of a friend. Thanks Slashdot.

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[jamstar7]

Personally, I wanna be cremated and stored in a coffee can or something til the first day of spring. Then dig a hole, dump my ashes in it, and plant a tree on top of them in the yard of the house I spent my last days in.

It's already in my will that way, changed from 'cremate me, mix my ashes with 6 oz of the best weed my estate can score, and smoke me in my fave bar' that I had in it in my 20's. Guess I'm getting old...

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[onco_p53]

You really need to read "Rammer" by Larry Niven.

My minty Sinistar arcade game = open casket for me

[wernst]

I have a small-but-nice vintage arcade game collection in my living room, and it occurred to me a few years back that these old upright cabinets would make for a pretty good coffin, especially my beloved Sinistar.

Then genius struck: remove the monitor (and I guess the boards too - let another collector use 'em), slap my lifeless remains in there so my face is right behind the glass, and BOOM, we have the makings of a great open-casket for what will surely be a somber wake.

Extra points for the nerdy friend who manages to get the game's synthesized voice to occasionally cry out BEWARE! I live!.

No Subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you're getting a Dell!

Re:No Subject

[Bohiti]

Oh come on, it's:

Dell, you're getting a dude!

Re:My minty Sinistar arcade game = open casket for

[MichaelSmith]

I had to carry 1/6th of my father in law + casket a couple of weeks ago. I suggest you make sure your proposed coffin is either light in weight, or equipped with wheels and power. My back still hurts.

My plan?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Cremation. Then mix me with concrete and make a large cinder block out of me. While it's wet, scrawl my name and dates on it.

Last words? Hmmmmmmm....

Lay low and look nifty.

or...

Don't be cruel.

Yeah. An Elvis quote. Just cuz I roll like that.

RS

Re:My plan?

[martas]

how about "don't be evil?"

Re:My plan?

[shirotakaaki]

Mine is just to be dumped somewhere to be food for something. The ocean unless that is too messy. I am done with the meat so some other creature might as well benefit from it. (organs were already to be donated.)

I only worry this will catch on and we will have more bodies than the algae/brine/etc can handle. o.O

Re:My plan?

[Sparx139]

I want to go out with a bang.

Re:My plan?

[kyz]

Like this guy?

Re:My plan?

[iron-kurton]

I'm personally putting IDDQD on my tombstone.

Re:My minty Sinistar arcade game = open casket for

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the funniest posts ever. Nice job.

Options

[hipp5]

Apparently, they have a method where they freeze you with liquid nitrogen and then shatter your body into tiny bits using ultrasound. Then they compost you in about two weeks. That's how I want to be disposed of.

On a more geeky note: I seem to remember a story on here earlier about the $8,000 satellite. You get a frame to attach what you want and they shoot it into a decaying orbit (lasts about two weeks). Why not but your ashes on that? It's cheaper than a coffin.

Re:Mickey-D's and the Soapbox

[maxume]

They are concerned that they will crush it.

Lol. +2 Flamebait

[msimm]

But seriously, have the mods gotten more stupid lately?

Re:Lol. +2 Flamebait

[robbak]

Will you people stop complaining about moderation! Moderators are just people who make comments. They are then given mod points randomly. So You can moderate: Just make a few logical comments and you'll get a good Karma, and you'll then get mod points every few months. If you really want them, then go an meta-moderate a few times, and you'll get them more often.
Then you can start complaining about YOURSELF!

Cute...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Reminds me of a similar geek funeral.

Albeit for a dog but...

http://www.videogameobsession.com/personal/bo_neogeo/index.htm

I guess a NeoGeo home cartridge is better than a silly urn. More useful than the fatal fury guts that was in there in the first place.

(IF it was RB FF, FF2, FF3, RB FF2 or RB Special, sure, blasphemy. But it's FF*1*)

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Not everyone can afford to have a proper geek burial

It's not all that expensive - especially if you sign up young.

For instance: ALCOR: You buy an insurance policy to cover the costs of the actual suspension and storage ($800ish/year for me - will depend on how old you are when you sign up) and pay your dues ($400/yr) and standby fee (your share of keeping the ambulance and such ready) ($120/year). $1400ish a year is not chump change. But it doesn't take a millionaire to do it either.

Silicon heaven

[Samah]

Of course there's a Silicon Heaven! Where would all the calculators go?

Re:Silicon heaven

[jameskojiro]

Yeah, you got to have a place for all of those dead calculators and toasters to go to.

have to ask

[corbettw]

Does he run Linux?

Re:have to ask

[Alanbly]

Since when can SPARC coexist with any half-decent form of Linux (Mod me -1 offtopic, so sue me)

Boy...

[Comatose51]

Boy, I hope no one brought along a can of air dusters...

j/k

Sorry if offensive, seems like the poster and possibly his brother had a sense of humor.

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[Ungrounded Lightning]

You really need to read "Rammer" by Larry Niven.

Already did, thanks.

AIDS, Hep-C, CJD, etc. put the spikes in Niven's organ-banks dystopia.

Meanwhile, technologies like 3-D rapid prototyping with collagen, growth-factors, tissue-type markers, and pluripotent stem cells make it look like "writing" replacement organs with the donor's own tissue cloned from a small dab of biopsied fat (at a month or two from start to implant-ready) will be ready for prime time within a few years (plus the interminable FDA approval process). It already "just works" starting from a cleaned-out donor collagen scaffold with its ready-made tissue-type-marker distribution and seeded with said adult stem cells.

And the _Children of the State_ memory-RNA transplant was based on the flatworm research which turned out to be flawed. Transplanting the mind looks to be a matter of using nanobots to "read" the cortical-columns and tune up the replacements to match.

So I'm not too worried about waking up in one of Niven's water-monopoly empires. (But even if I do, for somebody who isn't convinced of an afterlife that hasn't been manufactured in a lab it sure beats the alternative. B-) )

Speaking of Geek Funerals

[Agent of Nowhere]

The company I previously worked for had a contract with Cemeteries Board to do all the AV stuff in the chapels as well as upgrading their webcasting system. I was sent out to backup all the settings before we did the rollout and at one particular Chapel I noticed there was a printout taped to the rack in the AV booth and on that it specified what accoutrements to put out depending on the deceased's faith. So it had stuff like "Christian: Music, Candles" Russian Orthodox "No Music, Candles" and then I noticed that handwritten at the bottom of the list was "Jedi: No Music, No Candles".

I think I found that on the same visit where I nearly ruined a funeral by accidently starting the powerpoint presentation early, but luckily I managed to reset the presentation a few seconds before they brought in the coffin.

Powerpoint presentation? WTF

[HornWumpus]

Is that some kind of funeral for a pinhead marketer?

I hate power point and all it's users.

Re:Powerpoint presentation? WTF

[Agent of Nowhere]

Well it was really just a photo montage, it wasn't like there were any pie charts or graphs. No animations either.

Re:Powerpoint presentation? WTF

[geekoid]

I think I will ahve a funeral and invite all my old managers to it..and then have it presente in a 200 slide power point presentation given by a man with a lisp and a stutter.

I will have the doors closed and some hired goons standing politely in front of them.

Meanwhile all me geek friends will ba at a party playing games and occasionally look at the big screen of a secret live feed of the other funeral.

I'll let them know they will be allowed at the reading of the will only if they attend the entire funeral.

Re:Powerpoint presentation? WTF

[HornWumpus]

I can just see the uncomfortable moment when they get to the pie chart that shows what percentage of your life you spent on /., masturbating, fucking, eating, working, pretending to work, shitting, throwing tantrums etc.

Then the 15 or so pie charts that breaks that out by age...before the age of 3 geekoid spent 25% of his time shitting, 25% throwing tantrums and 50% of his time sleeping

All broken out to no more then 4 bullets per slide and repeating, 200 slides is low once you start thinking about it as torture.

Re:My minty Sinistar arcade game = open casket for

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking about arcade games TFA is as close as you get to Tron.

As an alternative...

[Genda]

Powder his ashes into an ultrafine dust, mix with iron pigment, and print ASCII art with him on acid free paper. Once he's done being printed, anyone who loved or respected him could take a piece of him with them, mount, frame, and proudly display in their respective data centers... could a bit basher ask for any possible better fate?

Re:As an alternative...

[jameskojiro]

Do you know how much toner a person could make???? From a person.....

Anyways even that kind of toner would be cheaper than the stuff HP sells for their printers.

TO THE BLOKE THAT BURIED HIS BRO IN A COMPUTER

[Anonymous Coward]

I found a segment on reincarnation and computers. Consider trying it even if it is a bit tacky.

it's not quite that bleak

[jipn4]

And then you think that they would bother to revive you.

Archaeologists may well want to revive any human they can find. It probably won't be very expensive.

reverse your aging as well?

Probably not. In fact, I doubt they'd bother resurrecting the bodies at all; more likely, they'd just upload the minds.

Maybe if you were properly dead you'd be in heaven (not that I believe in that). Instead you get to spend the next thousand years being really freaking cold.

Resurrection in Christianity takes place after the end of the universe. It shouldn't make a difference whether you're a popsicle or dust until then.

Photon Torpedo

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a company called "Eternal Image" that makes a casket where the top mimics the Mark IV Photon Torpedo. You could save a bundle of cash and use a black Thule car top carrier instead.

The Red Balloon

[kencf0618]

Outliers at an Episcopalian memorial service. Usable tissues, if any, are organ donated. As for the cremains, send them up in a big red balloon.

http://www.eternalascent.com/

Re:The Red Balloon

[ArsenneLupin]

Careful, there is patent on this...

very original

[peas_n_carrots]

well done! and my condolences

Very sorry to hear about your loss, Sam ..

[cje]

.. but what you did here was really awesome.

Funerals and memorials should be about celebrating a person's life, not mourning a person's death. It appears that you and your brother both had a whimsical sense of humor, and that you were able to harness that and put together a very unique tribute that captured the essence of what he loved in life. I don't know how or when I'm going to go (nor do I want to) but when that time comes, I'd love to think that my family will be as creative and thoughtful as you were here.

Re:Very sorry to hear about your loss, Sam ..

[Sam_In_The_Hills]

Thanks.

if you've gotta go...

[praxis22]

My first Sparc was an IPC, with a huge 20" monitor, fantastic. Good way to go I figure. Sorry for your loss, but thanks for sharing.

Pour out a little...

[Capmaster]

Pour out a little Bawls in his honor.

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[jaaron]

And who knows - there's some slight chance they WILL figure out how to download the person from a frozen-head-saved-game into a new model body (or fix the cracks in the brain, implant it in a cloned corpus, and restart it) - and somebody will think it's worthwhile to try it with me. Then it's time travel to the far future.

Yeah, but seriously. Under what sort of conditions would someone in the future decide to revive some reasonably rich dude from the past (hey, if you can afford cryostorage in this day and age, you're richer than 95% of the world).

I seriously doubt someone will someday say, "Hey, we don't have enough old rich dudes. Let's go resurrect some." Nope. Instead, you are going to be turned into an experiment. If you ever resurrect, it's not gonna be pretty.

Why all that antismoking bullshit?

[TheLink]

> I'd be more impressed if it went to healthcare.

In the UK, apparently smokers cost the NHS (the UK healthcare system) an extra 5 billion pounds a year. However, the tobacco taxes come up to about 10 billion pounds a year. Simple math there. I believe the math is similar in many other "developed" countries. And if there are countries without much of a subsidized healthcare system but with tobacco taxes - smokers there would be even better "contributors" (and they already pay higher insurance premiums anyway).

I'm a nonsmoker, and if I was in the UK, I'd say let the smokers smoke if they want to. Sure discourage people from smoking tell them of the risks (starting from a young age) etc, but if they want to smoke, let them smoke. Don't ban restaurants/pubs/clubs that allow smoking, just tax them more than those that don't. Maybe even tax apartments and office buildings that allow smoking more than those that don't (get decent economists, statisticians/actuaries to work out reasonable numbers).

I find it rather stupid that Governments keep making worrying noises about aging populations when smokers (and the obese) are helping to solve the problem.

After all, in my country if someone on a pension dies, the spouse just gets half (no payout if no spouse). So if those people die earlier after they stop working they save a lot of money. In contrast if they live till 80+ then get dementia/some other cancer and need to be kept in a nursing home/hospital till they finally keel over at 90, they're costing quite a lot more.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should smoke or everyone should die earlier. But if people insist on sacrificing their lives for their country why make such a big fuss about some second hand smoke?

Sure if you're a nonsmoker and sat next to a puffing smoker all day your odds of dying go up. But with my tax suggestion there are more likely to be places - pubs, restaurants, malls, apartments, companies where smoking isn't allowed, and so you can go there if you want.

Heck, with some of the savings, the gov could present the families of the top contributing smokers a "Black Lung" award just like the "Purple Heart"... Of course that'll be rather politically incorrect. ;)

Re:Why all that antismoking bullshit?

[st0nes]

In the UK, apparently smokers cost the NHS (the UK healthcare system) an extra 5 billion pounds a year. However, the tobacco taxes come up to about 10 billion pounds a year.

Same pattern most places, I should think. The reason smoking and alcohol are not illegal like other drugs is that it benefits the state for you to ruin your health. Best outcome for the exchequer is you pegging out at your retirement party from a smoking induced coronary or a booze liver explosion. They don't want you hanging in there 'til you're 105 drooling away in an expensive clinic wasting taxpayer cash. This realization made me become an ex-smoker..

Re:Why all that antismoking bullshit?

[TheLink]

Heh I told someone (a smoker) why smoking was actually a good thing for the country, and when he realized I was correct he tried to quit. He tried for a few days, but I don't think he succeeded though.

Drug money :).

Eternity

[jandersen]

Where do I want to spend eternity? Well, here on Earth, of course, but failing that, I want my children to cremate me, share the ashes and stuff them under a tree or similar of their choice in their garden. That way they don't stupidly waste money on a block of granite in a cemetery, and hopefully I will be some benefit, albeit in a rather small way.

Appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot just outdid itself.
The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there is no humor in Heaven. -- Mark Twain

So respect = posting the story on Slashdot?

[Viol8]

"As to the assholes who posted below me, SHAME ON YOU! You should be respectful to people in such an important time"

Get over yourself. Anyone who really wants to respect a dead family member wouldn't splat the story over a website known for its rather ribald viewpoints.

Re:So respect = posting the story on Slashdot?

[Sam_In_The_Hills]

Having read Slashdot for years I knew what I was getting in for in the way of comments and harbour no ill feelings. After all it is Slashdot. But I also don't think it shows my brother any disrespect by posting the story. As a fellow geek I'm sure he would have been thrilled to be mentioned. And he was as much a wise-a** as anyone else posting here.

I still use a Sun SPARCstation IPC as a web server

[Anonymous Coward]

you insensitive clods!
I also have an IPX and a Classic. I love those lunchbox cases.

Damnit

[Sparx139]

"...and the antelope eat the grass. So we all connected in the great circle of life..."
Now I have to get Disney songs out of my head...

Share your ashes?

[OrangeTide]

Why would they need to share your ashes? That's just bizarre. Dump your body into a soylent green vat and be done with it.

Oblig. Blade Runner reference

[Amiralul]

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

Oblig. Vanilla Sky reference

[Amiralul]

Just like Benny. Benny... Benny the dog.
Ellie! Ellie! LE!

But....

[Anonymous Coward]

Has netcraft confirmed he's dead?

The Body Farm

[pyster]

I want my body dumped at the body farm, where it's rotting will be observed. It would be even cooler if pictures were taken at various stages and then posted n Rotten.com. If they then need to 'put my remains to rest' they should be cremated and pulverized and then dumped into Lake Erie (the broken piers at Edge Water in cleveland).

I've not been able to find any information on how to donate one's body to the body farm tho. :(

Geek funeral? No, Viking funeral

[aeroelastic]

Float my body on a wooden raft into a lake. Then have archers shoot flaming arrows at me. As my body burns into the night, everyone on shore drinks and parties until sunrise. LAN parties are included. My will pays for the open bar, hotel rooms. Everyone is required to get laid.

Re:Geek funeral? No, Viking funeral

[Sam_In_The_Hills]

As kids we loved watching viking movies , here's our favorite The Vikings, an talked about how that was the way to go. Unfortunately I couldn't find enough flaming arrow archers, so to Plan B.

Exactly!

[LanMan04]

I completely agree with your sentiment. Funerals and burials are for those left behind, not the deceased.

I specifically told my wife that she can do whatever she wants with my remains, assuming I kick the bucket first. Cremated, buried, stuffed on the mantel, whatever makes her happy (or less sad).

This is a wonderful thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry for your loss. That's an awesome way to be remembered.

I'll hoist one to your brother this weekend.

"A feast for fire and a feast for water; a feast for life, and a greater feast for death!"

--AL II:41

Re:My minty Sinistar arcade game = open casket for

[rho]

"Run, coward!" would be good too. Like a zombie early warning detection system.

And the less useful

[BigSlowTarget]

parts should be burned and sent to your creditors.

Its what I want to do. I'll have a checkbook burned too so if they call to collect a debt just tell them I'm in their lobby and ready to write a check.

Mod parent up

[OneAhead]

Funny and insightful at the same time

Yes, it's extremely unlikely that there will be no frost damage. Modern science only now starts to venture timidly into the realm of freezing small organs that are much simpler than the brain, thawing and transplanting them.
http://www.landesbioscience.com/curie/chapter/4347/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1038859/How-deep-frozen-organs-spell-end-transplant-waiting-lists.html

There's much more money at stake in the field of preserving organs for transplantation than in the field of freezing a few nut jobs with way too much money on their hands and an over-inflated ego. I were a scientists in the year 2300, I would think twice before spending the effort to revive someone foolish enough to have themselves frozen with early 21st-century technology, and to believe that the company that did so would be *that* far ahead of mainstream science.

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[SpooForBrains]

This is about in line with what I want, but have always felt a bit silly asking for. Put me in the soil and grow a tree there. I'd much rather that than a gravestone.

a gram of ash in outerspace for $5000

[peter303]

A private company buys a couple of kilos on commercial launches every couple of years. They send up private citizen ashes. Some celebrities have gone too.

A beowulf cluster of these...

[RoverDaddy]

would be very sad indeed.

Hope you don't die from cancer then.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want nothing left of my corpse.

My father died from cancer just this past weekend. He was once a strong, robust and healthy man, over 6 feet tall, 175 lbs and all of it was muscle. I held his right arm as he took his last breath. There wasn't much left of his body, only a skin covered skeleton, and even his bone marrow was filled with tumors at the end.
Cancer is a horrible way to go, and now after watching my father die I think it's probably even worse than burning to death. When you die like my father did, none of your body parts are useful. Not even the bones, because opportunistic infections are all over the body and the bones might present an infection hazard to your biology or medical classroom students.

While spending the final two weeks with him in the Hospice, I learned something that I did not know about Hospice... after the patient dies, they strip his room to the bare floor and drywalls and completely refurbish it for the next patient. I asked them if they were just simply remodeling and they said no, they have to do it this way now as a means of standard infection control protocol after each patient dies. It must be incredibly expensive. If you ever think about donating to your local Hospice, stop thinking and just do it. Ours operates mostly from donations and volunteers.

Re:Hope you don't die from cancer then.

[Anonymous Coward]

While spending the final two weeks with him in the Hospice, I learned something that I did not know about Hospice... after the patient dies, they strip his room to the bare floor and drywalls and completely refurbish it for the next patient. I asked them if they were just simply remodeling and they said no, they have to do it this way now as a means of standard infection control protocol after each patient dies.

I'm afraid to have to tell you this, but I'm an administrator at a hospice and they're pulling your leg. They were probably just remodeling and decided to have a bit of fun with you. There's no need to strip a room down like that... the cancer isn't going to "infect" the drywall. ;-)

That's really quite beuatiful.

[eagee]

I was going to ask my wife to push me off to sea in a flaming viking boat for my funeral, but this seems both more practical, and surprisingly touching.

Thank you for sharing this with us. I'm sorry for your loss, I bet he was a great guy.

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[R2.0]

There's a company that will load your ashes into shotgun shells, ostensibly so your buddies can "spread" your ashes over your favorite hunting ground. I was thinking of using my ashes as shot buffer in #000 buckshot and kept in the home defense shotgun. Just doing my last little part to help defend the family.

Alternate epitath

[redbaritone]

Here lie my remaining bits -- all nicely reformatted. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Options by price

[virtualXTC]

My options by price:

- Donate body to science

- Cremation and mixed with Iron to make a steel structure (preferably something linked to my life mission)

- Cremation and remains sent to space (or the Moon or Mars)

I'm cheap and idealistic, so I'll leaning most toward the first, but the other 2 do appeal to my inner geek, in all cases I'd still remain an organ donor.

OT - your sig

[mcgrew]

If money doesn't buy happiness why do we care so much?

Money won't buy happiness, but lack of it will certainly buy misery.

From a mcgrew journal:

Born in a well off family, he has an MBA and with the help of his intelligence and his family's influence, made a fortune in real estate. Alan was a multimillionaire with a huge house and a greedy wife.

He finally realized that no amount of money can buy happiness and stopped chasing it. He divorced his wife and dropped out, and stopped racing rats. He's no longer rich; in fact, he's decidedly poverty stricken. All he owns of value is a bank account with a few thousand bucks in it, and a run down, squalid one bedroom house that probably isn't worth much more than his bank account. He's supposed to be doing construction, but says "I don't do much work. I spend most of the day riding around with my boss in his truck."

Teaching his boss how to make money. His boss is now Chatham's largest home builder. His competetitors can't get loans and are having a hard time selling houses.

I asked him if dropping out was worth it. "So, you're happy?"

"No," he admitted. "But I'm a hell of a lot less miserable than I was when I had all that money. You wouldn't believe the headaches that money gave me."

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I seriously doubt someone will someday say, "Hey, we don't have enough old rich dudes. Let's go resurrect some." Nope. Instead, you are going to be turned into an experiment. If you ever resurrect, it's not gonna be pretty.

Given WHO some of the "old (not usually very) rich dude"s are - many being historical figures in the technological revolution or participants in other activities that ended up looking historically significant - there's a good chance some would be reanimated just to ask them questions. Then they are their own support group and, should any be sufficiently successful, they might well chip in for the reanimation of others. (I hear some are making little teaser biography plaques.)

(And no I won't admit online who I am mundanely, or why someone might possibly be that interested in talking to me. Whats the point of a pseudonym if you broadcast your identity all the time? B-) )

However the hope is that the community that has formed around cryonics will have living members still interested in reanimating the suspended if/when it becomes practical. And that others still living will want to do it - in the hope that if THEY should need such service in the future others would similarly be interested.

Remember that, absent a crash of civilization (which would also likely disable the refrigeration and make it moot), the future in question is likely to arrive within the (unsuspended) lifetimes of many of those now living and participating on Slashdot. Say 30 years at the outside.

Great way to go

[Zerbey]

I'm sorry for your loss. I'm sure he's looking down from somewhere and giving you the thumbs up for following his wishes.

Well, this one's easy...

[Abcd1234]

Donate my organs. Leave my brain to science. But I want skeleton properly preserved and mounted ala a proper medical skeleton model. That way I can be rolled out for christmas, halloween, birthdays, and so forth (with appropriate dress, of course... you know, santa hat, werewolf mask, etc). And, as an added bonus, I can be used as an educational tool!

Besides, I worked hard to ruin this skeleton with sugary, caffeinated beverages and a lack of proper exercise... why not keep it around for posterity?

Save Yourself

[HTH NE1]

Maybe they could scan your neural synapses and re-create your brain in software then upload to a virtual world in which you have to mine gold in it and pay the gold farmers until you can earn a physical body with a decent cyberbrain.

Carter: "Cortically scanned and stored." Which means there's a version of your personality, as of the day you were scanned, on tape at the temple. And the day you die, when your mortal remains go into recycling, that cortically scanned file is opened and displayed... am I right?

Carter: Your relatives can come and have conversations with you... eeyuh.
Bryce: Now that's where we start to run into some problems, Edison. You need billions of bits [sic] of memory, the kind we have here at Network 23, in order to duplicate just one personality.
Carter: So... talking to your dead relative is like talking to... Teddy Ruxpin.
Bryce: Yes.

Carter: The Vu-Age Church will transfer that cortical scan onto a new and perfect body, thus making you... rise from the dead. What about that?
Bryce: Well, I never use the word "impossible", Edison.
Carter: Yeah, I've noticed that.

Bryce: It might be possible to transfer a very complex cortical scan... something on the order of Max Headroom?...
Max: [background] Max!
Bryce: ...to a body...
Carter: Don't... even... think it.
Bryce: ...but, uh, given the little crummy, little scans that the Vu-Age Church makes, you'd end up with an idiot version of yourself that doesn't even possess all your memories.
Carter: People are paying their life savings for it.
Bryce: Well, some people'll give their life savings to anyone on TV who asks for it... won't they?
Carter: [laughs] Yeah.

Humphrey Marks: Yes... it's wonderful, isn't it?

Re:My minty Sinistar arcade game = open casket for

[iron-kurton]

I read that as "...slap my wireless remains in there..." and I thought to myself: "self, wouldn't it be cool if you could put a wireless router transmitter antenna in an urn full of ashes, so you can truly become the man in the middle?"

Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ghost in the machine?

Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag

[Ungrounded Lightning]

There's a company that will load your ashes into shotgun shells,

Or if one of your sympathetic buddies reloads his own shotgun shells he can do that by mixing in your ashes from an ordinary cremation.

Infecting the drywalls

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no need to strip a room down like that... the cancer isn't going to "infect" the drywall. ;-)

It's not the cancer they're worried about. It's the opportunistic infectious diseases many dying cancer patients bring with them into the Hospice facility, such as MRSA, TB, Hep B & C and even the common diarrhea-causing viruses like Norovirus and Rotavirus.

If you're really a hospice admin like you said, you'd already know these things and have an accelerated CID program in place at your facility, unless you've been living the past 2 years with your head buried in the sand.

Re:My minty Sinistar arcade game = open casket for

[geekoid]

Hahahaha.. great one.

However I pictured someone dropiing a quarter into it, the light coming on and they see your dead face pressed up against the glass like some child looking into a candy store.

India

[jawahar]

You may consider http://www.mohanfoundation.org/ if you are from India.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

People don't have different metabolisms.

[jotaeleemeese]

That is a vulgar lie spread to make lazy people feel better.

100 years ago obesity was not a problem, because people were doing jobs that required to use the calories they were eating (or they needed to eat so much because they needed it for the hard work they were doing, whatever way you prefer).

Lack of exercise is the one of the greatest scourges of our modern lifestyle, not our different metabolisms....

You have no seen the science?

[jotaeleemeese]

Can you use Google?

Re:You have no seen the science?

[skiman1979]

I don't need Google to tell me that I don't want second-hand smoke pouring into my lungs.

For Sale: NextStation slabs.

[ResidentSourcerer]

For those of you who want tasteful black for your geek funeral urn, I have several NextStation slabs that I got some years ago from the CIA. (No disk, sorry.)