Virginia May Help People Pay For Space Burials

This is a terrible idea by For+a+Free+Internet · 2011-12-11 05:36 · Score: 5, Funny

If they are in space then they will become space ghosts because GOD can't get to them there, like it says in the BIBLE GOD does not exist outside of the Ionosphere that is the line of the Italians who will drink all our water from space with dead people. Besides, they smell and PASTA need I SAY MORE!!!!

--
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!

Re:This is a terrible idea by Samantha+Wright · 2011-12-11 06:29 · Score: 1

My god, man! The answer was staring us in the face this entire time!

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:This is a terrible idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 06:31 · Score: 0

need I SAY MORE!!!!
Please don't. Please don't say more ever again.
Thanks!
-The world
Re:This is a terrible idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 14:42 · Score: 0

I misread the title i thought it said "Virginia Tech offers students with free burial plan"
Re:This is a terrible idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 01:04 · Score: 0

-5 Troll

We lost our pork by Osgeld · 2011-12-11 05:37 · Score: 1

now we need to survive on bullshit! what a waste of government time instead of finding a real solution

Idiotic plan by LighterShadeOfBlack · 2011-12-11 05:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

They want to encourage development of the space port. That's a reasonable goal I guess.

Doing so by subsidising what is surely the most pointless reason to launch something into space and also the most wasteful way to dispose of a human body is just stupid.

--
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.

Re:Idiotic plan by pushing-robot · 2011-12-11 05:55 · Score: 4, Funny

the most wasteful way to dispose of a human body.

Pfft. Hardly. When it's time for me to kick the bucket I plan on piloting the Burj Khalifa directly into the Louvre.
I'm still working out the details.

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Re:Idiotic plan by Archtech · 2011-12-11 06:45 · Score: 1

When it's time for me to kick the bucket I plan on piloting the Burj Khalifa directly into the Louvre.
You are Randall Munroe and I claim my $64,000.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:Idiotic plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 06:54 · Score: 0

Doing so by subsidising what is surely the most pointless reason to launch something into space and also the most wasteful way to dispose of a human body is just stupid.
Interesting and unsurprising that Virginia is a very Conservative Republican Red state.
Like all Conservatives, they will complain about OTHER people getting entitlements, especially if it is poor people who are out of work and can't afford health care.
In the midst of MASSIVE deficits, a health care crisis and a looming depression; the absurdist tradition of spending money on frivolous economic plans (like sending dead people into space) while keeping health care and other "socialist" spending away from the people that actually NEED it is, of course, the ideal of the post-modern Conservative movement.
Re:Idiotic plan by khallow · 2011-12-11 08:09 · Score: 0

If you had read the article, you'd see that it's not even a bill yet much less law. Admittedly, it would be introduced (if it is) by Terry Kilgore, a Republican.

"Need" is inherently subjective. I see no real distinction between arguing that people who "NEED" the plethora of government services currently provided, and arguing that dead people "NEED" to be launched into orbit. For example, doling out cheap health insurance doesn't make me safer or healthier. To the contrary, it takes money away from things I consider "NEED", such as my freedom, my income, police protection, national defense, disaster preparedness, etc.
Re:Idiotic plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 08:37 · Score: 1

"Need" is inherently subjective.
Not to somebody who can't afford health insurance and who is dying of cancer or some preventable illness.
But my argument was really more about hypocrisy than about health care or the concept of "NEED".
Re:Idiotic plan by khallow · 2011-12-11 08:43 · Score: 1

But my argument was really more about hypocrisy than about health care or the concept of "NEED".
Of course, it was. I should have known the thread wouldn't stay on topic. I personally am deeply offended by hypocrisy... in others. Ba DUM tish!

I can't help but notice the claimed "pushback" in the article against Ron Paul didn't really happen.
Re:Idiotic plan by Stormthirst · 2011-12-11 13:05 · Score: 2

I find it sad that you don't consider healthcare to be a need. Personally I find it liberating to know that if I get sick or have an accident (neither of which by definition I have anyway of predicting) I won't have to sell my house in order to pay my medical bills. You want freedom? It's right there.
Re:Idiotic plan by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-11 13:18 · Score: 1

In the midst of MASSIVE deficits, a health care crisis and a looming depression; the absurdist tradition of spending money on frivolous economic plans (like sending dead people into space) while keeping health care and other "socialist" spending away from the people that actually NEED it is, of course, the ideal of the post-modern Conservative movement.
By all means, let's enslave all the people with jobs and property, take all their money, and distribute all public and private resources based on solely on need, while working the most able and productive as much as they can stand. I'm sure that will last a few years before there's nothing left for anyone. Why wouldn't everybody want to spend 80 hours a week working their ass off for other people's "need"? I'm sure no one would make any sort of need-based claim that's not legit, would they? Makes perfect sense to me. Shit, if the talented and hard-working people don't like it, we can send them off to re-education, and if that doesn't straighten them out, might as well just dispose of them.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Idiotic plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 13:19 · Score: 1

With a special tax break. 'Cause that's what the tax code needs: more special exceptions carved out for pointless bullshit only wealthy campaign donors can afford.
Re:Idiotic plan by vikisonline · 2011-12-11 15:12 · Score: 1

You are exactly whats wrong with this world. Makes me sick. Maybe if you loose your job and get sick, your tone of voice will change. Im from Europe and I had enough of people like you. OOOooh Im not paying for you, sir, you BUM. (btw Im not a bum)
Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass sometimes. Im actually thinking of moving back to some European countries where taxes are way more than double here. Why? Free education, free healthcare etc.etc. Well free is not really free, I should call it paid by the population for the population. Yes I will be paying for someone elses kid to go to school, go to hospitals, etc. But then when I have kids then it's my kids turn. One for all and all for one. A True nation. I dont think I can call the USA that anymore. Its one for one owns egoistic needs. In a real country EVERYBODY benefits from it.
And guess what. We dont need people like you who think they are entitled to everything because they worked for it. You have no compassion, I could barely call you a human being. Go crawl into a hole and stay there, really. It's ok. I have seen how this world works. When its your turn to beggar, I hope you keep your attitude and pride and don't take from other beggars.
You are the kind of person who would deny a sick childs hospital stay so they you can spend some extra bucks on eating out or wathever it is that you do. Pathetic.
Lol this is the first time I wrote such a negative comment on /. but you sir deserve it...
Re:Idiotic plan by khallow · 2011-12-11 15:57 · Score: 0

I find it sad that you don't consider healthcare to be a need.
I don't find it a need that needs to be provided by government.

Personally I find it liberating to know that if I get sick or have an accident (neither of which by definition I have anyway of predicting) I won't have to sell my house in order to pay my medical bills.
Just buy health insurance. That's its purpose.
Re:Idiotic plan by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-11 16:06 · Score: 2

It must be interesting to live in your world. Here you have encountered a person that respects the power of the individual human, and all you see is pure evil. Am I on your list of persons that must die, as the New World Order is created?
You do not know me, but you already hate me. I do fear "loosing" [SIC] my job, getting sick, or anything of the kind. I live paycheck to paycheck these days, already lost my house and renting a much smaller space. I work as many hours as I can when I can get the work. One kid in college I'm trying to help - the only option he has for paying for it is government loans - at much higher terms than the big banks (even the foreign ones) can get. He will be enslaved by that burden for many years. It saddens me.
Other people even worse off than myself sadden me, too. There are several busy areas in town these days with people panhandling on every corner. I'm kind of a sucker for a hard luck story and can't help but pass on some cash when I have it. Some are fine doing this and would rather stand on the street than anything else (it pays about the same as minimum wage), but many are truly in a bad place and making efforts to improve things for themselves and/or their families. I've had them do some yard work for me at my rental, and it means I'm not making any money that day, but at least there's 2 of us working, so that seems better to me.
What saddens me worse are people like you so indoctrinated in the world of collectivist, big government ideology, you can't see how the elites are taking control of every aspect of life, and plan to put us all into poverty, working for their enrichment. You actually trust the globalist oligarchy to create the utopian vision of the world you dream about. It's not going to happen, because they don't care about me, and they don't care about you. You're going to have to learn to do some critical thinking - something that they steered you away from in the government schools.
Yes, "free is not really free" - but the important distinction that has gone over your head is that money is not really money. That is, money of every major type in the world today has no value whatsoever. It's a ruse. And what's running out is resources. It doesn't matter how much money is printed by the EU and the Federal Reserve, it can't create essential resources that actual humans need to live and thrive. But so many people have missed that connection that they think the government can just run an economy and make the resources appear.

We dont need people like you who think they are entitled to everything because they worked for it.
You don't need people that work? I think you're sadly mistaken, there. I do happen to think I'm entitled to what I work for. Why wouldn't I? Who has a better claim to what I work for than me? I certainly don't go around telling other people that I'm entitled to what they work for. I'd have to be some kind of a looter or thief to do that.

When its your turn to beggar, I hope you keep your attitude and pride and don't take from other beggars.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here - "don't take from other beggars." - you're not making sense. Beggars generally don't have anything to give (although I've met many who are willing to share what little they have). But, frankly, I always just hope people will treat me like I treat them. And they usually do. And I think I'll be fine in that case. Because I do whatever needs to be done, and don't expect anyone else to hand me a living.
I've quoted this somewhere else in this thread, but I think it's appropriate here:

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting o

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Idiotic plan by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-11 16:21 · Score: 1

Come to think of it, maybe I would be better off in Europe, too, where at least the only drug available to treat my wife's rare terminal pulmonary disease has been approved for distribution. Why the FDA would reject approval is beyond me - it's only going to cost lives. But then that's probably good for them, less people demanding medicare and medicaid to pay for that drug, and less alive to collect SS in the future.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Idiotic plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 17:17 · Score: 0

This is a reply to both of your posts. Since you explained to us about what socialism is, I will explain to you what Conservatives are, do, and what they believe in. Below:
The Conservative movement is about spreading ignorance, lies and propaganda. It is the Conservatives who are the ones who take from the poor and give to themselves. Let's face it, they are the ones that either manage or invest in or want to work for companies like Coca Cola or the oil companies and pay the local government to drive the people off their lands. Much like you people did to your own native population. YOU are the people who arrest people who sell cocaine and yet give corporate drug companies a monopoly on price fixing (you can watch the Michael Moore film called Sicko for more info on that).
The ignorance, lies and propaganda are also seen in the pro-pollution campaigns:

Due to the nature of the threat I felt obliged to 'rush to print' this dire warning about taxation. The planned post based on my upcoming paper 'A Brief History Of Climate Modelling' will follow shortly.
AND

I've canceled my subscription to New Scientist. Since they haven't covered this incredible research they must have a some sort of secret "agenda". Obviously to use my cash for alarmist purposes and gain control of the government so they can tax me into oblivion.
AND

You couple a dying sun with that Maunder super thing with a magnetic reversal or two, some serious carbon emission cuts (thanks Al and associated commies!) and WHAM-O, it's freeze-out city padre.
AND

A brilliant analysis as always. I think it is a well established fact that all the Warmist propaganda promoted by Algore and his socialist minions is just a scheme to tax us all into oblivion thereby laying the groundwork for a new Stalinist world order. Nevertheless one rarely sees scientific articles that address the taxation ramifications of all these predictions about the climate. You truly nailed the horse to the camel's back with this article!
etc...
It's too bad that Conservatives think that anything that isn't stupid or harmful must be "socialist" in some way. It doesn't matter if it's about health care, education, pollution, policing, or the War on Drugs. Sad really. Conservatism never worked in Italy under Mussolini, in never worked in Chile under Augusto Pinochet, and it isn't working in America under Obama, and it never worked under the extremist Right Wing policies of the Republicans in America.
Conservatives should learn that you don't need to put people down in order to boost your own egos.
References:
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/dying-sun.html
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2011/06/co2-volcanoes-or-man-its-your-choice.html#comment-form
Re:Idiotic plan by Stormthirst · 2011-12-11 22:29 · Score: 2

Except that Health Insurance is out of the price range of so many Americans - around 16%. That's 45 million people who have no coverage.
As for who provides it - government, or a private company they both have their faults. I'd rather it *were* provided by government, not some money grabbing corporation whose *only* concern is making money from my misfortune. They are a company after all and there to make a profit, not serve the needs of their clients. Sure they serve the needs of some of their clients, or they'd soon go out of business. But when they employ teams of lawyers and doctors to ensure they don't give the coverage I've bought and paid for, it just demonstrates how morally bankrupt such organisations are, and pushing up the price of healthcare in America beyond the reach of many of it's citizens. Please explain to me why healthcare costs twice what it does elsewhere in the first world, when the quality is arguable no better. Even the World Health Organisation said as much.
Despite asking this question several times on Slashdot, no one has come up with an answer.
Re:Idiotic plan by Required+Snark · 2011-12-11 23:23 · Score: 1

You realize that no one is really suggesting anything like this at all, and you are just throwing a hissy fit. So you are not only arrogant, stupid and self absorbed, you are pathetically childish. It's really to bad that the rest of the adults in the room (see the other responders) have to waste their time explaining to you how wrong you are, and why you are such an idiot.
The next time you want to have a tantrum because you are afraid that someone will take away you favorite toy, do the rest of us a big favor and go in the corner and hold your breath until you turn blue and die. That will make us all really sorry, and then we would know that you are right.
Now go to your room and take a nap, because you are too cranky to play with the other kids.

--
Why is Snark Required?
Re:Idiotic plan by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-12 01:58 · Score: 1

You realize that no one is really suggesting anything like this at all
You are a fool if you really think that's true.
And, as I pointed out, the idea that government should be able to confiscate more wealth because there are people in need is how they get people to go along with the plans for the NWO.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Idiotic plan by operagost · 2011-12-12 04:26 · Score: 1

I'd rather it *were* provided by government, not some money grabbing corporation whose *only* concern is making money from my misfortune.

Doesn't this assume that government is altruistic? We know that many of our elected representatives thrive on the money and power afforded to their positions, to which we stupidly reelect them out of our own self-interest (whether real or imagined).

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Idiotic plan by Stormthirst · 2011-12-12 06:02 · Score: 1

It's the main reason why America's healthcare system is more expensive than elsewhere and in such a shocking state.
Re:Idiotic plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 06:08 · Score: 0

Fuck off, troll
Re:Idiotic plan by cyberchondriac · 2011-12-12 06:40 · Score: 1

There is a difference between the government *providing* health insurance, and *paying* for health insurance. The first is not accurate. The health insurance companies will still exist in some capacity or another, and will still charge out the ass for their insurance - partly because hospitals, doctors, and malpractice lawyers also charge out the ass. This won't change - not in the real world, anyway. The only real difference is, instead of paying directly to your ins company, it'll come out of your taxes now, and be middle managed by an entity well known for it's mismanagement of funds and wasteful spending - the big bureaucratic government. But I guess proponents are counting on the taxes of the rich to cover most of of the costs. Won't happen, no matter which party is in power, and I'd be very surprised if the costs didn't actually increase.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:Idiotic plan by khallow · 2011-12-12 14:16 · Score: 1

Except that Health Insurance is out of the price range of so many Americans - around 16%. That's 45 million people who have no coverage.
As I suspected, that number includes people who merely choose not to have health insurance. That's not the same thing as being unable to afford health insurance. Also, that number includes people with serious and often chronic medical problems. Those people should get health care not health insurance.

Please explain to me why healthcare costs twice what it does elsewhere in the first world
Because there's a vast often artificially created demand for artificially constrained health care services. That's not going away until we constrain demand (including by making people pay a significant part of their own health care and insurance and eliminating the mandates and tax writeoffs for employer health insurance) and expand supply.
Re:Idiotic plan by vikisonline · 2011-12-12 15:34 · Score: 1

Well this I didn't expect. So you are not who I thought you were and I apologize. I thought you were on a high horse like many people seem like, meanwhile I think its more that you lost faith.

Im glad you replied. I was wrong and I was probably wrong about many other people too. In this country yes giving government more control would absolutely not help. (Actually I live in Canada but, its just a monkey see monkey do what USA does country, we do have medicare but for how long.... So everything that happens there affects us pretty much the same)

But there are countries that do very well for the people with tight government control. I don't know how long they will last in that good state, time will tell. I have always believed in a hybrid system. Capitalism works, but it needs heavy (non-corrupt) government control. The government control is supposed to be there to prevent the elites from taking over too much. Thats why a government monopoly is needed where monopolies easily can develop or there is a significant public interest (telecom, healthcare, food,education). Free education maximizes the productivity in a country. Free education filters who gets to further education based on performance, not whos daddy can pay the most money. This in turn churns out more productive educated people, instead of selecting people for education from a much smaller set (those can afford it) we choose from everyone. Kinda like why China can come up with good athletes. Not hard when you can choose from 3 billion, but if they only took those that can pony up $100k, chances of finding someone exceptional would be much less. In a lot of european countries cities lay telco cables and corporations all have equal access, competition! In Canada we have total oligopolies. Government says hey, you can get cable from these companies, but in reality you can get only from one, where your geographic location decides who owns you.

I still believe in big government. It is FAR form what I see here. Tons of control, but its not for the benefit of the people. An uncorrupt socialist government in a capitalist world could make a good difference, but people are too afraid of it. And maybe they are right. There is a lot to loose still, it could still be a lot worse than it is.

Really sorry about your wife too. I heard of people with similar problems (but other illnesses) getting the medication from mexico/canada/cuba. Might not be legal, but some laws are really just meant to be broken. Had similar issues in canada (and insanely certain provinces in canada where others would provide)

The resource problem is also a real issue. Buying all this throw-away chinese crap is not helping (china can also make good quality stuff, it just seems like we dont want to buy it). I do miss the times when things were "fixed". Now car-mechanics became parts swappers, and its easier to buy a fridge/washingmachine/AC etc. than to get one fixed. Im still in university so I'm not that old, but even for me it's very noticable how disposable everything is. Not a good thing at all.

So yea, the world is very messed up. Part of why I am also thinking of moving. I mean those black friday shoppers. Look at them. Now imagine them wanting a candy bar when resource scarcity kicks in and we live on food tickets. Yea... Not pretty.

And I didn't mean that we dont need people that work. I am just fed up with the people who are like, if I did it they could too, and if they didn't its because they are lazy mentality.

That quote kinda makes sense too. But government does not have to be corrupt. That is what type of government control I meant. One for the people by the people. Capitalism is fine as long as such a government exists to watch out for the people and step in. Whats happening here in the north A. is that government no longer functions for the people, its paid off. Maybe this is the reason why people fear more control. One thing for sure is eventually we will have a major reform with some new type of gov. Wat
Re:Idiotic plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 14:08 · Score: 0

And, as I pointed out, the idea that government should be able to confiscate more wealth because there are people in need is how they get people to go along with the plans for the NWO
I am glad that you are against paying police officers (who often make 80 to 90 K a year in big cities), whose soul purpose is to use tax payer money to finance their lifestyles, while they get paid primarily to put poor people in jail; including black people, drug users, people who protest against corruption and immorality, etc. Pretty much the same with the military; the true crime here and the REAL socialism is that billions of dollars are spent each year to fund the military and their adventures in oil producing countries. I bet you are too ignorant to know that the conservatives in the United States originally backed the Tali-ban in Afghanistan because they thought their religious repression would make for a stable oil producing country for American oil companies. I'm glad to see you are against the Conservative values of greed and corruption, and against forcing peace loving people to pay taxes to the military and the police.
I am also glad to hear that you are against corporations enslaving poor people with low wages while the managers and their owners use their financial influence to ensure that worker protections, banking protections, etc are not enacted to help protect the vulnerable from the corrupt people who enclosed public land for their own personal business enterprises, and who enthusiastically pollute the public air and land and force innocent children to breathe in filthy smog that enriches the (leadership) of the Right Wing. When you say you are against slavery, I am glad to here this. Because a person who is against being enslaved is naturally against corporatism, greed, and religion.
But I suspect (based on your comment history) that you are just another typical loud-mouthed, Right Wing, conservative Troll.
Re:Idiotic plan by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-13 15:51 · Score: 1

I am glad that you are against paying police officers (who often make 80 to 90 K a year in big cities), whose soul purpose is to use tax payer money to finance their lifestyles, while they get paid primarily to put poor people in jail; including black people, drug users, people who protest against corruption and immorality, etc. Pretty much the same with the military; the true crime here and the REAL socialism is that billions of dollars are spent each year to fund the military and their adventures in oil producing countries. I bet you are too ignorant to know that the conservatives in the United States originally backed the Tali-ban in Afghanistan because they thought their religious repression would make for a stable oil producing country for American oil companies. I'm glad to see you are against the Conservative values of greed and corruption, and against forcing peace loving people to pay taxes to the military and the police.
I can't really disagree with your sentiments, there. I thought you were being facetious about the police there at first, but I understand where you're coming from. I do see a need for police, though, and the need to make sure they're compensated for their risky legitimate protection of the citizens. Of course, police are funded and supported locally, as they should be, not militarized and controlled by the remote and unresponsive Federal regime in Washington - the sources of the issues you raised.

I am also glad to hear that you are against corporations enslaving poor people with low wages while the managers and their owners use their financial influence to ensure that worker protections, banking protections, etc are not enacted to help protect the vulnerable from the corrupt people who enclosed public land for their own personal business enterprises, and who enthusiastically pollute the public air and land and force innocent children to breathe in filthy smog that enriches the (leadership) of the Right Wing. When you say you are against slavery, I am glad to here this. Because a person who is against being enslaved is naturally against corporatism, greed, and religion.
Whoa, wait, what? You lost me there. What are you talking about, here? Are you claiming the government doesn't enforce any protection for workers? And what are "banking protections"? I think there is way too much banking protection going on - or is this something not enough protection of people FROM the bad actions of banks (certainly true), or that the banks were protected too much and should have failed instead of being bailed out and running off with so much money stolen from the middle class?

protect the vulnerable from the corrupt people who enclosed public land for their own personal business enterprises
Not sure what this one is about, either. You're talking about corrupt politicians that steal land for their corporate buddies, like the SCOTUS allows to happen in the New London case? That was disgusting. I'm working on helping get a Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia to prevent that kind of government abuse of property from ever happening again here.

who enthusiastically pollute the public air and land and force innocent children to breathe in filthy smog that enriches the (leadership) of the Right Wing.
You really gotta be more specific, here. There have been lots of unconscionable pollution by various actors, most of it happening overseas now, but I'm not sure what enrichment by what leader of what "Right Wing" you're talking about.

When you say you are against slavery, I am glad to here this. Because a person who is against being enslaved is naturally against corporatism, greed, and religion.
I think you mean "hear". Yes, I'm against corporatism, and of course like everyone I'm against greed, but I'm not against any religion that anyone wants to peacefully practice. Freedom o

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re:No please. by anlag · 2011-12-11 05:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Perhaps if you'd taken the time to RTFA before rushing to get first post, you'd have realized they're cremated first.

Re:No please. by Mashiki · 2011-12-11 05:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Screw that. I want my meat-sack like body launched whole into space when I'm dead!

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:No please. by kvvbassboy · 2011-12-11 05:44 · Score: 1

Who "buries" cremated remains anyway? And more curious than that, who even reads TFA on /.?

Corporate Welfare by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 05:47 · Score: 0

It's yet another sham in a long list of shameful activities where the people's money is squandered to prop up the corporations that seek to oppress us.

Re:Corporate Welfare by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-11 13:07 · Score: 1

It's yet another sham in a long list of shameful activities where the people's money is squandered to prop up the corporations that seek to oppress us.
They aren't spending any of "the people's" money - they're letting people keep some of their OWN money IF they spend it on a space funeral instead of an impermeable crypt buried in the ground. No different than deductions for "green" energy, hybrid cars, having children, etc. Not sure how a company that launches ashes into space is "oppressing" anyone.
Anything that keeps more money in private hands and out of bureaucrats' control is a good thing, IMHO. Less money for those that not only seek to oppress us, but also have heavily-armed police, national guard troops, and armed bureaucrats to do it with.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Corporate Welfare by Required+Snark · 2011-12-11 23:11 · Score: 1

You are defending social parasites. When people or corporations use publicly funded resources and don't pay a fair share, they are freeloaders. It is a form of stealing. It is no different then putting enough money in a newspaper vending machine to open it and then taking multiple copies, or going into a field and stealing produce. Your are getting something for nothing and the burden falls on those who do pay what they owe.

--
Why is Snark Required?
Re:Corporate Welfare by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-12 02:10 · Score: 1

You are defending social parasites. When people or corporations use publicly funded resources and don't pay a fair share, they are freeloaders. It is a form of stealing. It is no different then putting enough money in a newspaper vending machine to open it and then taking multiple copies, or going into a field and stealing produce. Your are getting something for nothing and the burden falls on those who do pay what they owe.
Note that I didn't "defend" anything, other than reducing taxes in general. And what you have said you can also say about food stamp recipients, people who qualify for AFDC, and home owners that take a mortgage interest deduction. In fact there are thousands and thousands of state and federal tax deductions for all kinds of activities. I'm assuming you put Michael Moore in the same category, for taking a refundable tax credit from Michigan for filming there?
I agree with you though that people like Al Gore and GE are major freeloaders. It's a major problem with the tax code - lots of complicated code and credits and deductions going to wealthy people and businesses. Guess who is promoting major tax reform to simplify the tax code? No one. Financial tyranny is simply too useful a tool for the corporate/government elitist oligarchy.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Corporate Welfare by operagost · 2011-12-12 04:22 · Score: 1

That sounds nice and conservative, but while we all personally hate taxes, this it just government picking winners and losers and thereby encouraging certain behavior. Deductions for "green energy" and "space burial" are both overreaches of government.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Corporate Welfare by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-12 04:35 · Score: 1

That sounds nice and conservative, but while we all personally hate taxes, this it just government picking winners and losers and thereby encouraging certain behavior. Deductions for "green energy" and "space burial" are both overreaches of government.
Yea, I have to agree with that. I had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the claim that somehow this was supporting an "oppressive corporation". But you're right that this just amounts to more government intervention in what should be a free market.
If they're going to be coming up with new deductions and credits, I'd much prefer they get behind something like the Universal tuition tax credit than this "space burial" idea.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re:No please. by cvtan · 2011-12-11 05:47 · Score: 2

My father was cremated and was buried next to my mother who was not. Can't be that unusual. Maybe.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.

Interesting and all, but by Adult+film+producer · 2011-12-11 05:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

I haven't found a state or province that will allow my family to burn my body on a traditional pyre. I have written the specifications for how the funeral pyre is to be constructed and the protocols to be observed.... yet, all of it, should it be played out can only be done in secret... possibly in the deserts of california (we're working this out as I type.)

Re:Interesting and all, but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 05:53 · Score: 0

It could be they're objecting to the plan because you're evidently not dead. In that case I think you'll find any form of burial or cremation will be frowned upon.
Re:Interesting and all, but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 05:58 · Score: 3, Informative

The solution is to label yourself a magician, then have the stunt go "horribly wrong."
Re:Interesting and all, but by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-11 06:17 · Score: 1

Interesting idea and I wonder why burning one's own body isn't allowed on a pyre. I could understand them be cautionary due to fears of the fire spreading, but that's only a matter of proper precautions. Then again, I have just been pondering about people just dumping my body on the sidewalk or something: it's not like I'll care anymore at that point about what happens to my body so why not use it for some macabre humor?
Re:Interesting and all, but by Trepidity · 2011-12-11 06:29 · Score: 3, Informative

There's apparently an organization in Colorado that's gotten permits to perform open-air cremations on a funeral pyre.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Interesting and all, but by m50d · 2011-12-11 06:29 · Score: 1

I would imagine they're concerned about air pollution, that's the usual reason why just burning something full of random chemicals is illegal.

--
I am trolling
Re:Interesting and all, but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 07:21 · Score: 0

http://stalkedbyseth.com/
Re:Interesting and all, but by qxcv · 2011-12-11 12:11 · Score: 1

Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.

--
"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
Re:Interesting and all, but by operagost · 2011-12-12 04:38 · Score: 1

It's California. I would expect that they just require some sort of warning tag with the relevant proposition number on it to be attached to the funeral pyre before it is lit. Oh and all the requisite bribes^W permits would have be to paid for.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

A more accurate title might be... by Bartles · 2011-12-11 05:52 · Score: 2

The people of Virginia may be forced to waste their money on a stupid pork project.

Re:A more accurate title might be... by JBMcB · 2011-12-11 06:00 · Score: 1

It's been proven by mid-level bureaucrats that spending money on expensive vanity projects generates wealth and jobs!
Heck, at the end of my block the city used federal stimulus money to build a dog park. It created a fourth of a dozen part-time jobs (running the toll-booth thing) paid for by money the city doesn't have. A win all around!

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Re:A more accurate title might be... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 06:02 · Score: 0

You mean money the government spends comes from the people paying taxes!?! WTF!
Seriously, I wish more people understood that.
Re:A more accurate title might be... by FooAtWFU · 2011-12-11 06:05 · Score: 1

I didn't get that. The state isn't paying for the stupid project, are they? They're just letting people pay for the stupid project and not be taxed for it. Your language suggests that they're taking the money from the government - as if it were the government's money to begin with, and what right has this jerk to waste it how he sees fit? That worries me. And I don't think one needs to be a libertarian nutcase extremist to find fault with that reasoning, either.

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:A more accurate title might be... by gl4ss · 2011-12-11 06:12 · Score: 1

I didn't get that. The state isn't paying for the stupid project, are they? They're just letting people pay for the stupid project and not be taxed for it.
Your language suggests that they're taking the money from the government - as if it were the government's money to begin with, and what right has this jerk to waste it how he sees fit? That worries me. And I don't think one needs to be a libertarian nutcase extremist to find fault with that reasoning, either.
2500$ deduction in taxes if you spend it on the space port?
how is that not a 2500$ deduction in taxes?
if it wasn't governments money to begin with, how could you deduct from it. eh.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:A more accurate title might be... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 06:13 · Score: 1

No, the rich space-nerds of Virginia will get a $2500 one-time (per corpse) tax break to finally, if post-mortem, achieve a lifelong dream of flying in space. The rest of Virginia doesn't even notice $2500*spaceNerds.count() missing from the general revenues, since spaceNerds.count() is low and $2500 is a small amount of money compared to a state budget. The total per year probably won't even be equal to a single kindergarten special ed teacher assistant's yearly salary. Goddard/Wallops Island Spaceport (which is owned by NASA) can tack a few lightweight, low-density "passengers" onto sounding rockets to cheapen up research projects. If those research projects are state funded in the first place (Virginia Tech, among others, launches atmospheric studies from Wallops), the net effect on taxpayers is either zero or, if the space-burial price exceeds $2500 and the tax break only partially subsidizes it, actually beneficial to taxpayers: instead of paying $researchCosts / taxpayers.count() , they're paying ( $researchCosts - ( $deadBurnedSpacedScatteredNerdPayments - $nerdSpacingSubsidies ) ) / taxpayers.count() .
Re:A more accurate title might be... by yotto · 2011-12-11 06:26 · Score: 2

It's been proven by mid-level bureaucrats that spending money on expensive vanity projects generates wealth and jobs!
Heck, at the end of my block the city used federal stimulus money to build a dog park. It created a fourth of a dozen part-time jobs (running the toll-booth thing) paid for by money the city doesn't have. A win all around!
Could be worse, they could have only hired a sixth of a dozen, or even a twelfth of a dozen.

--
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Re:A more accurate title might be... by flaming+error · 2011-12-11 06:54 · Score: 1

If it was government's money "to begin with", why do they have to take it from my paycheck?
Re:A more accurate title might be... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 08:11 · Score: 0

Now learn how to express yourself without using a programming language.
Re:A more accurate title might be... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 08:24 · Score: 0

I'll translate.

No, the rich space-nerds of Virginia will get a $2500 one-time (per corpse) tax break to finally, if post-mortem, achieve a lifelong dream of flying in space. The rest of Virginia doesn't even notice $2500*spaceNerds.count() missing from the general revenues, since spaceNerds.count() is low and $2500 is a small amount of money compared to a state budget. The total per year probably won't even be equal to a single kindergarten special ed teacher assistant's yearly salary. Goddard/Wallops Island Spaceport (which is owned by NASA) can tack a few lightweight, low-density "passengers" onto sounding rockets to cheapen up research projects. If those research projects are state funded in the first place (Virginia Tech, among others, launches atmospheric studies from Wallops), the net effect on taxpayers is either zero or, if the space-burial price exceeds $2500 and the tax break only partially subsidizes it, actually beneficial to taxpayers: instead of paying $researchCosts / taxpayers.count() , they're paying ( $researchCosts - ( $deadBurnedSpacedScatteredNerdPayments - $nerdSpacingSubsidies ) ) / taxpayers.count() .
No, the rich spce nerds of Virginia will get a $2,500 per-corpse tax break to finally, if post-mortem, achieve a lifelong dream of flying in space. The rest of Virginia doesn't even notice this because there are so few space nerds that $2,500 each doesn't even count as a rounding error in the state budget. The total per year probably won't even be equal to a single kindergarten special ed teacher assistant's yearly salary. Goddard/Wallops Island Spaceport (which is owned by NASA) can tack a few lightweight, low-density "passengers" onto sounding rockets to cheapen up research projects. If those research projects are state funded in the first place (Virginia Tech, among others, launches atmospheric studies from Wallops), the net effect on taxpayers is either zero or, if the space-burial price exceeds $2500 and the tax break only partially subsidizes it, actually beneficial to taxpayers. The cost of having their cremated bodies sent into space less any subsidies goes to offset any research costs the state would have spent anyway.
Re:A more accurate title might be... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 08:36 · Score: 0

Welcome to ./
Re:A more accurate title might be... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 08:43 · Score: 0

Sounds a lot better without the crippling autism, doesn't it?
Re:A more accurate title might be... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 10:06 · Score: 0

Because otherwise you would refuse to pay for society.
It does cost money you know.
Re:A more accurate title might be... by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-11 13:26 · Score: 2

The people of Virginia may be forced to waste their money on a stupid pork project.
You're using it wrong. A tax deduction is not "pork" - that's actual revenue earmarked for supporting only a small constituency. All states provide tax deductions for spending on some business or another that brings jobs and revenues to their state. This one is no different than the Michigan tax deduction that Michael Moore took advantage of for filming one of his movies in the state. Well, actually, it is different, because this is a $2,500 deduction from gross income, whereas what Moore got was a refundable credit of up to 42 percent which could amount to millions of dollars, and it's payable even if he ends up with NO tax liability at all.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:A more accurate title might be... by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-11 13:30 · Score: 1

Because otherwise you would refuse to pay for society.
It does cost money you know.
Society is NOT government.

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. ... Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." - Thomas Paine

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re:No please. by TarMil · 2011-12-11 05:54 · Score: 2

And how exactly does this make them not space junk?

Re:No please. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 05:59 · Score: 1

Because the overall volume of ashes is much smaller than the volume of a human body. I am okay with this as long as they the remains are let loose into empty space, instead of being sealed in a voluminous container.

2500 per year? by ThreeGigs · 2011-12-11 06:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Who gets to make the tax deduction? And if it's on the dead guy's estate, why per year? I mean, how many times to they expect a person to die in Virginia, anyhow?

Re:2500 per year? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 11:03 · Score: 0

I've lived here for a while and I feel like I've died a thousand deaths.
Re:2500 per year? by caramuru · 2011-12-11 12:02 · Score: 1

Drop dead.
Re:2500 per year? by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-11 17:09 · Score: 1

Oh, that's like kicking a dead horse.

Per year? by PetiePooo · 2011-12-11 06:04 · Score: 5, Funny

"$2500 a year" it says. Just how many times will they allow a dead person to be shot into space?

"Today, we say farewell to Uncle Bob's left arm. We're all thankful knowing it will be joining his torso and the rest of his limbs in heaven. Amen"

"Psst! Aunt Sally, no more tax breaks, please. We're all sick of driving out here to see yet another funeral/blast off."

Re:Per year? by Talence · 2011-12-11 06:25 · Score: 1

I'd suppose that the taxes would apply to remaining family, not the deceased person.

--
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
Re:Per year? by eyenot · 2011-12-11 06:47 · Score: 1

The parent is saying that the deceased can be re-used several times if you cut them into small pieces and send them off a piece a year, translating into multiple instances of tax relief for the family.

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Re:Per year? by Talence · 2011-12-11 07:11 · Score: 1

Oops, meant to reply to the parent of this post.
That being said, tax relief does not result in net profit, just in lowering the effective costs of something you'd do anyway. So unless there's an added benefit, I would prefer not to cut up family members this way just for tax relief :-)

--
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
Re:Per year? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 07:54 · Score: 0

Since (so far at least) only a small, and presumably relatively randomly selected, portion of a deceased cremains are sent into space, they are already sort of being "cut up" but more at the molecular level (different molecules of course due to the cremation process but these molecules are largely constructed of atoms from the deceased's body).

Re:No please. by Tsingi · 2011-12-11 06:11 · Score: 1

I'm with you there puddin pop.

Planetes by bidule · 2011-12-11 06:12 · Score: 1

Planetes, anyone?

Lets give them more garbage to work on!

--
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)

Re:Planetes by vadim_t · 2011-12-11 08:17 · Score: 1

It even had an episode on space burial, though I didn't like much their take on it.
Re:Planetes by bidule · 2011-12-11 17:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, the differences in culture are sometimes very surprising. And she's so pushy, too!

--
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)

Re:No please. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 06:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Great, lets release hundreds of thousands of bits of dust and small particles into space.
At nearly 30,000kph its still more than enough to ruin space craft.

So let me get this straight... by Maarx · 2011-12-11 06:19 · Score: 1

NASA is shuttering their space program, and the Virginia government wants to repurpose the spaceport to make some money by shooting dead people into space?

Re:So let me get this straight... by shibashaba · 2011-12-11 15:40 · Score: 1

Believe me, this all makes perfect sense in Virginia. I live here, I should know.
Hopefully they find a use for the spaceport before they decide to use it for deporting illegal immigrants.

--
---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
Re:So let me get this straight... by shibashaba · 2011-12-11 16:11 · Score: 2

Correction, they're gonna use it for deporting illegal aliens.

--
---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.

Set the controls ... by fsckmnky · 2011-12-11 06:20 · Score: 1

for the heart of the sun.

Texas lets you do that by pem · 2011-12-11 06:26 · Score: 2

A friend of mine helped with just such a pyre.

Re:No please. by InterGuru · 2011-12-11 06:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Even fine cremation ashes at orbital velocity can damage satellites.

Also, if you don't want to DIY by pem · 2011-12-11 06:27 · Score: 3, Informative

The Crestone End of Life Project

Are you sure you've researched this? You seem to have missed a lot.

It's not a space launch of eternal rest by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2011-12-11 06:31 · Score: 1

it's a delayed cremation on re-entry...

--
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.

Per year is actually per person by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 06:32 · Score: 1

The deduction is not continuous. It applies to the year the person dies and/or the "space burial" is paid.

Contradiction in terms by Archtech · 2011-12-11 06:42 · Score: 0

To bury someone means to place their dead body underground, in the earth or a tomb. Being launched into space is pretty close to the opposite of burial.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.

Re:Contradiction in terms by Nidi62 · 2011-12-11 07:04 · Score: 1

To bury someone means to place their dead body underground, in the earth or a tomb. Being launched into space is pretty close to the opposite of burial.
So then I guess we should rename "burial at sea" to just plain simple "body dumping". Burial now has the common connotation of any type of interring of a body in any location: sea, land, or space. Could you have been any more pedantic?

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:Contradiction in terms by Archtech · 2011-12-11 09:45 · Score: 1

Burial now has the common connotation of any type of interring of a body in any location: sea, land, or space.
Unfortunately for your argument, "interring" means "covering with earth".

Could you have been any more pedantic?
I certainly hope not. What you deride as "pedantic", I consider "accurate".

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:Contradiction in terms by TapeCutter · 2011-12-11 15:05 · Score: 1

To bury someone means to place their dead body underground
...or place their live body under a large volume of paperwork.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Contradiction in terms by cyberchondriac · 2011-12-12 05:59 · Score: 1

That struck me as funny too. After all, if they cremate someone, on a pyre or in a furnace, they cremate them, they don't "bury" them unless they specifically bury the ashes. If someone's ashes are on the mantle in a vase, or scattered to the winds, they aren't referred to as "buried".
We should come up with a new term maybe. (I like latin: Corpus dispositum)

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.

bad precedent by eyenot · 2011-12-11 06:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's like saying it's okay to junk-up our orbit with space debris. "It's just for a little while", yes, then, people will pay more and expect justice from their government when they demand to be put into a stable orbit. "You condoned it for them, so me, too!" Burial in space should necessitate being put on a tracjectory that would actual take you into OUTER space, not in orbit around the Earth.

Okay, I would accept one stipulation: your container has to be highly magnetized. Whilst in orbit with the rest of the junk, you will have to do some sweeping up and junk collection on behalf of a grateful Earth. Then, when you re-enter, you can bring the junk in with you and you can all incinerate together.

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee

Re:bad precedent by gman003 · 2011-12-11 08:59 · Score: 2

IIRC, most space burials are sub-orbital - they re-enter and burn up after 90 days or so, becoming a pollution non-hazard.
Re:bad precedent by timeOday · 2011-12-11 18:35 · Score: 1

It should be destined for re-entry, not escape velocity. Your body is made of earth that is on loan, nothing more.
Re:bad precedent by imsabbel · 2011-12-11 22:16 · Score: 1

Which makes it even more pointless... cou could just drop the ashes out of a plane. Same result.

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?

buried by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 06:46 · Score: 0

Sounds a bit rubbish. If you're going to bury something, you put it in something.

Space is less buried than leaving something free to atmosphere!

Re:No please. by justforgetme · 2011-12-11 06:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

I want to be cremated by the very atmosphere that sustained me!

--
-- no sig today

Hey! by webanish · 2011-12-11 06:49 · Score: 1

Don't just dump me in some random orbit around earth. I wanna rise from the ashes on Ganymede.

Subsiding what? by DaveGod · 2011-12-11 07:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Support for a budding enterprise might be worthwhile, but what socio-economic benefit is there from disbursing cremated ash in space? If I was a VA taxpayer I'd be wondering what I'm paying for.

Presumably the spaceport is primarily for putting up satellites, which can be useful infrastructure.

Why subsidise a frivolous use of rocket fuel instead of satellites?

Re:Subsiding what? by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-11 13:42 · Score: 1

Support for a budding enterprise might be worthwhile, but what socio-economic benefit is there from disbursing cremated ash in space? If I was a VA taxpayer I'd be wondering what I'm paying for.
Presumably the spaceport is primarily for putting up satellites, which can be useful infrastructure.
Why subsidise a frivolous use of rocket fuel instead of satellites?
The private space industry (that is, private rockets and launches) is in a very early seed stage. To make it grow, you have to be able to support whatever market exists for the technology now, so that the industry can grow into supporting really interesting and much more important functions.
Think of it like the very early Internet. When the government funding was virtually gone, and it was handed over to private investment, where did most of the funding for new technologies come from? That's right: Porn. There was still a lot of tax credits and government funding for supporting and promoting Internet technologies, even though the discretionary private funding was mostly coming from people wanting to see naked chicks and 10-inch penises.
So don't worry too much if people spending money on space projects are doing it for stupid reasons right now - if it works out there will be lots of great stuff using those technologies in the future.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Subsiding what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 14:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, but wouldn't it be more effective to directly subsidize space porn instead of subsidizing space burials hoping that it'll make shooting porn in space cheaper?
Re:Subsiding what? by englishknnigits · 2011-12-11 18:21 · Score: 1

How about if someone wants something, they pay for it? I know it is a crazy, radical, outlandish, insane idea but we may want to give it a go. If you want to donate your money to the infant staged private space industry then more power to you. Why do you have to put a gun to my head and force me to give to it?
Re:Subsiding what? by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-12 02:21 · Score: 1

How about if someone wants something, they pay for it? I know it is a crazy, radical, outlandish, insane idea but we may want to give it a go. If you want to donate your money to the infant staged private space industry then more power to you. Why do you have to put a gun to my head and force me to give to it?
Agreed, it's the way it should be. But then someone comes along and wants to build a public library and thinks it's okay to put a gun to my head for that. And it's not just a tax deduction for the people building it - they want to do it all with confiscated money.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Heaven's Gate Cult by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2011-12-11 07:08 · Score: 1

Isn't that roughly where these guys were headed?

--
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden

Keep these C molecules on Earth please by Lord+Lode · 2011-12-11 07:10 · Score: 1

We need them for new life...

Re:Keep these C molecules on Earth please by webanish · 2011-12-11 07:20 · Score: 1

Huh! I want earth to have a Saturn-like ring as well :-)

Just don't take my title! by sporkboy · 2011-12-11 07:17 · Score: 1

I hope to be the first American to die in space. That would be enough to be notable for Wikipedia I think.

I have been and always shall be.. by nightcats · 2011-12-11 07:29 · Score: 1

oh WTF, never mind:die short and prosper

--
Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)

Perhaps they shoud subsidise retarded summaries? by Hognoxious · 2011-12-11 07:43 · Score: 2

would provide a Virginia income tax deduction up to $2,500 a year for such burials.

I can just about comprehend dead people paying taxes. But the thought of them coming back to life and, umm, redying on an annual basis has got me confused and a little disturbed.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:No please. by khallow · 2011-12-11 07:50 · Score: 3, Informative

The article doesn't talk about it, but such cremated remains are encased in a small capsule.

I don't know ... by PPH · 2011-12-11 07:51 · Score: 1

... if I'd trust Virginia to dispose of my remains according to my instructions.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

The Good, The Bad, The Awesome by KowboyKrash · 2011-12-11 07:52 · Score: 1

While a must admit as a SciFi fanboy and an Uber Geek I love the idea of being buried in space, I don't think that a tax break for doing so in in the best interest of Virginia or anybody really. In a honesty I believe that all tax breaks are unfair. I think that on of the biggest problem with the American economy is the convoluted tax system but, I have a SOLUTION. Here goes let me know what you think! Flush the entire tax code down the toilette, then implement on tax rate for everyone. 10% income tax on all income earned over $45,000. So, if you earn $60,000 your tax liability is $1500. this applies to every one married, single and corporation. so a 10 billion dollar business will pay $999,995,500 in taxes. no exception. period. This would replace FICA, medicare/medicaid all other federal taxes period. How did I come up with 10% you ask. Well if you have ever attended a church you will know that in most christian sects you are expected to tithe 10% to the church. I figure that if "god" can get by on 10% so should uncle Sam!! why set the cutoff for paying taxes at $45000? Well again it is kinda arbitrary. for a family (two wage earners and any number of children) that would allow for up to $90000 tax free. and save for a few places like NYC, and LA you should be able to live on that a year just fine. if you do live some place with outrageous cost of living Move! OK flame on and tell me how stupid you think I am but please give a good wel thought out reason.

Re:The Good, The Bad, The Awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 08:29 · Score: 0

At church u give 10% of what? Weekly income? What's in ur wallet at the time?
Re:The Good, The Bad, The Awesome by vadim_t · 2011-12-11 10:58 · Score: 1

Excellent idea, pull a random percentage out of your ass, without even stopping to consider the most fundamental issues, like:
How much tax is being collected right now
How much tax would be collected under your scheme
How much tax is needed to cover what the government spends
Looking at Wikipedia, the lowest tax bracket in the US is 10%. Highest is 35%. So if you put that in practice you've just cut tax revenue by a huge amount.
I've not done the calculations, but I'd be surprised if you could pay for the military with what remains, so your plan better include drastic military cuts for a start.
Re:The Good, The Bad, The Awesome by KowboyKrash · 2011-12-11 12:13 · Score: 1

I never said that cuts wouldn't need to be made but the elimination of ALL corporate tax incentives/breaks should limit this to a point but. we can start cutting with congressional salary's then the federal dept of education we can also eliminate most of the IRS under this plan. as for the military... As a Marine (2000-2004) one of the first things we can due is stop acting as the worlds police. oh we can also end all non humanitarian foreign aid. oh and get rid of Obama care, hmmm oh and we need to put tariffs on all imports from china until the start treating US company fairly in China and respecting us IP rights. how about eliminating federal grants too.
Re:The Good, The Bad, The Awesome by c6gunner · 2011-12-13 05:57 · Score: 1

Looking at Wikipedia, the lowest tax bracket in the US is 10%. Highest is 35%. So if you put that in practice you've just cut tax revenue by a huge amount.
While this is true in a technical sense, it doesn't account for all the tax-breaks, kickbacks, etc., which the government currently doles out. Still, I think if you run the figures, you'd find the money collected would be about half to two thirds of what's currently being collected, so his proposed solution would require some drastic cuts (which is needed now, anyway). A better figure might be 15%; it would still require cuts, but would be more sustainable.

Red state shenanigans by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-12-11 08:15 · Score: 2

So, this is how a former blue state, now red, looks at fiscal responsibility?

Re:Red state shenanigans by OhHellWithIt · 2011-12-12 03:40 · Score: 1

So, this is how a former blue state, now red, looks at fiscal responsibility?
I will argue that Virginia has never been a blue state. Yes, it was under the control of the Democrats for many years, but Virginia has always been conservative on things like taxation and social issues. By the time the networks began referring to red and blue states, Virginia had already several very conservative Republican governors, including one who had needed remove a Confederate flag from his den to try to avoid losing votes from people who find the thing offensive.
FWIW, since it's a tax deduction and Virginia's maximum income tax is 5.75%, the deduction would be about $144, but the family of the deceased would have put at least $2,500 into the economy of the Eastern Shore. My gut says that most of the people paying for this extravagance would not be Virginians, and so they would have no Virginia income tax liability. When it comes to funeral expenses, $2,500 is at the low end of what a lot of people spend. Moreover, I expect that there would be many families who would travel to the area to watch the launch, helping boost tourism in an area without much other prospect for business.
When I read the summary, I was a little ticked off (being a Virginia taxpayer), but even though I loathe the delegate who introduced the bill, I can't fault him on this one.

--
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell

Bio-mass by astropirate · 2011-12-11 08:22 · Score: 1

Am I the only one that's worried about losing all of this bio-mass from the earth?

Two questions arise... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 08:37 · Score: 0

1: Will it have enough fuel to get out of orbit?
2: Won't the aliens just take the vases and dump the ashes? Shouldn't we should just send out the body in tact as a way of telling them that we're crazy and shouldn't be messed with?

Ghoulish by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 09:14 · Score: 0

Space Nutters will stoop to any low to subsidize their fantasy/religion.

Helping? by Cyphase · 2011-12-11 09:38 · Score: 1

A tax deduction does not mean the government is helping you pay for something. It means they're going to take less money from you if you buy a certain product or service.

--
by Cyphase ( 907627 )

Re:Helping? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 12:02 · Score: 0

If the Commonwealth of Virginia reduces your tax burden when you buy a certain product or service, they are certainly helping you pay for it.
Re:Helping? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 12:24 · Score: 0

Uh.. yes it does. "we're going to nail you for less taxes when you purchase ..." is the same as "you owe us the full amount of taxes, but we'll pay off part of your purchase ..."
Because it is a tax deduction and not a tax credit means that the assistance of government is not $2500. But it is government assistance for a specific transaction.

Re:Perhaps they shoud subsidise retarded summaries by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2011-12-11 10:41 · Score: 1

But the thought of them coming back to life and, umm, redying on an annual basis has got me confused and a little disturbed.

Dead folks vote in elections in every state of the Union. In each election, they tend to vote early, and vote often. Dead folks also cash their social security checks.

They are a very influential part of the electorate, so I'd be mindful of talking kindly about them . . . them being dead, and all.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Really? by InspectorGadget1964 · 2011-12-11 11:28 · Score: 1

I guess that now the subject of space junk will be an awkward thing to talk about?

Anyone else? by Sleepy · 2011-12-11 12:48 · Score: 1

I misread the headline as:
Viagra May Help People Pay For Space Burials

Re:Anyone else? by ekesis · 2011-12-11 22:24 · Score: 1

Not at first, but you are on to something, you can see how it fits ... as the US recedes from Space - a final spasm. Pelletized Ancestors by the ton are ejaculated into high orbit, from where they descend to ablate the spacecraft of the competition, for Eternity. It employs the dead as it gets them out of the way, and does this by sending them off to war! Makes a lot of sense.

Re:No please. by TapeCutter · 2011-12-11 14:42 · Score: 2

Realeasing the ashes is worse than having them in a container, a tiny fleck of paint once punched a hole 3 inches deep into the space shuttles 4 inch thick windscreen.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Re:Perhaps they shoud subsidise retarded summaries by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 15:45 · Score: 0

I can just about comprehend dead people paying taxes

It's part of the same legislation, sub-section c, paragraph 26 of Appendix QF page 1429 and I quote:

"The state retains the right to redeem all worldly possessions of any stellar ash-clouds"

Resurrection! Now! by ekesis · 2011-12-11 21:31 · Score: 1

The State of Viagra obviously knows a good plot when they see it, but that one's taken ... Terry Southern, Johnathan Winters "The Loved One" 1965 ... so funny you could break a rib. Go on, you deserve it ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Loved_One_(film) ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Cmu-_bA48

Re:No please. by tbird81 · 2011-12-11 21:35 · Score: 1

Two of my grandparents are buried like that. Cremated first, then buried.

Not sure why. I guess it's not as creepy as keeping the ash in an urn over the fireplace, and not as trite as scattering them somewhere.

Personally, I'll take whatever option is cheapest.

Pork by Legion303 · 2011-12-12 00:50 · Score: 1

Pork pork porketty pork pork.

Re:No please. by necro81 · 2011-12-12 01:37 · Score: 1

Is there a Ralph's around where you live? I hear coffee cans are great for transporting ashes.

space != burial by j2.718ff · 2011-12-12 05:42 · Score: 1

When you bury something, you place it beneath the surface of the earth. Sending a thing into space would seem to be the exact opposite (plus several orders of magnitude).

WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 05:53 · Score: 0

Yeah. Way to go Verginia! Families don't have enough to eat ant you go fundin shit like that? Wtf?

Slashdot Mirror

Virginia May Help People Pay For Space Burials

145 comments