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

Good way to go

[plover]

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

I'm sure your brother appreciates the sentiment.

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

[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

[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

[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

[Afforess]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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 :)

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: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: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

[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: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.)

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: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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.