Slashdot Mirror


A Startup is Pitching a Mind-Uploading Service That is '100 Percent Fatal' (technologyreview.com)

The startup accelerator Y Combinator is known for supporting audacious companies in its popular three-month boot camp. There's never been anything quite like Nectome, though. From a report: Next week, at YC's "demo days," Nectome's cofounder, Robert McIntyre, is going to describe his technology for exquisitely preserving brains in microscopic detail using a high-tech embalming process. Then the MIT graduate will make his business pitch. As it says on his website: "What if we told you we could back up your mind?" So yeah. Nectome is a preserve-your-brain-and-upload-it company. Its chemical solution can keep a body intact for hundreds of years, maybe thousands, as a statue of frozen glass. The idea is that someday in the future scientists will scan your bricked brain and turn it into a computer simulation. That way, someone a lot like you, though not exactly you, will smell the flowers again in a data server somewhere.

This story has a grisly twist, though. For Nectome's procedure to work, it's essential that the brain be fresh. The company says its plan is to connect people with terminal illnesses to a heart-lung machine in order to pump its mix of scientific embalming chemicals into the big carotid arteries in their necks while they are still alive (though anesthetized). The company has consulted with lawyers familiar with California's two-year-old End of Life Option Act, which permits doctor-assisted suicide for terminal patients, and believes its service will be legal. The product is "100 percent fatal," says McIntyre. "That is why we are uniquely situated among the Y Combinator companies."

246 comments

  1. And why would anybody in the future care? by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These preserved brains will at some point just be recognized as what they are (medical trash) and be disposed off. It is far to easy to make more humans, nobody will care to revive some fossils that have fallen out of time. That is if the possibility is even there in the first place.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by TWX · · Score: 2

      You might find some historians or anthropologists that would have interest, but I could see them opting to 'resurrect' either brains from people that they can establish documentation-on for being interesting, or else they would only perform the procedure on a few subjects that their budget allows-for in order to see if it's worthwhile.

      Results will either be messed up due to records corruption so they'll get the importance of a given subject wrong and mistakenly resurrect Jonathan Goldsmith, or else the end-result will be something like those failed Robocop II examples where the subjects immediately kill themselves in-horror at what they've become.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by RatBastard · · Score: 2

      Now, some future civilization may need interstellar ramship pilots to seed distant planets with teraforming algae.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    3. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by clovis · · Score: 4, Funny

      These preserved brains will at some point just be recognized as what they are (medical trash) and be disposed off. It is far to easy to make more humans, nobody will care to revive some fossils that have fallen out of time. That is if the possibility is even there in the first place.

      I don't doubt that our descendants will want to revive some of us for an annual punishment ceremony.

    4. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Pretty much exactly what I was thinking when I read TFS. Checker Peersa, eh?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      You are far too optimistic to think they would want to flog us only once a year.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      This is redundant anyway. We're already living in a simulation and death already reboots us into a new infant form. This is would be a simulation within a simulation and in that simulation a copy of us would exist while in the lower level simulation we're carrying on as before.. and what happens when that simulation within the simulation decides to found a company to preserve the consciousnesses of those in the simulation of the simulation?

    7. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...our descendants will want to revive some of us for an annual punishment ceremony.

      Gandalf Raping Day comes to mind. Make sure everyone's on the same page.

    8. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is far to easy to make more humans,

      A human like you, maybe. One like me? Impossible. Speak only and always for yourself.

    9. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Cryonics, which is a closely connected idea has this same issue. The fundamental method is to use a first-in, last-out ordering for eventual revival. This has two benefits: First, the bodies preserved the latest will be preserved the best (as the technology matures, it is easier to know what will work well and what won't). Second, and this is the important one for your purpose, the very first people to be revived will be people who still have friends and loved ones who want to see them. Those will be people who will then either no others who are preserved and to get those out, or they will be people who are ideologically pre-committed to reviving more people.

    10. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      how does population growth happen?

    11. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this not just another Cryonics company?

      Not like they actually have said machine or anything different.

    12. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Cryonics preserves using anti-freeze and keeping the body at a very low temperature. I haven't read all the details here but it looks like this works off of plasticization. This means the it a) doesn't require low temperatures and b) has no chance for revival of the original body. Cryonics might have you wake up in your own body, this will require uploads.

    13. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Results will either be messed up due to records corruption...

      If this was a "mind-uploading service" that wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, this seems to be a service where they pickle your brain in hopes that some futurite will, under whatever motivation, magic you back to life.

      OTOH, Gene Wilder may prefer my preserved brain to Abby's.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    14. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm special
      "lol." --human race

      I checked the history books in Universe B where you weren't born.

      They were the same.

    15. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by swell · · Score: 1

      "far to easy to make more humans"

      We've been doing that for a while now. How's it working out? These new humans eat, make noise and shit. It goes on for years. One can only hope they might become productive after two or more decades. Until then, they are far more a burden than a blessing to the commonweal.

      OTOH, a fine brain like that of gweihir is a known quantity, ready to be of value almost immediately upon awakening.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    16. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 3, Funny

      Via the fuck() system call of course.

    17. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by BLToday · · Score: 1

      And why would anybody in the future care?

      Aliens.

      Like the end of A.I. Once we go extinct this will be huge for alien historians.

    18. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      other species go extinct

    19. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Well sure it's a mind-uploading service. It's just that they've postponed the uploading part until they figure out how to actually do that (or whether it's even possible).

    20. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gnick · · Score: 2

      One question I ask when picking ANY service provider is, "Will they be able to provide this service?" If the answer is, "No," I cease to consider them a service provider. I don't think these guys even have a road map on going from "brain pickling" to "mind uploading."

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    21. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Neither would I, but they're hardly the first to promise something that they may never deliver on. The bigger question than whether they can even do it is what happens when their funding runs out and they shut down all their storage facilities.

    22. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gnick · · Score: 1

      If you run out of funding in 30 years, you've already been paid so toss the brains out. Just like you should have 30 years ago. I'm not only worried about them making the transition to uploading minds, I'm wondering if they can even do what they're promising now. Embalming a body so that there's NO decay after hundreds of years is a pretty big claim. Didn't RTFA to learn about "high-tech embalming," but it must be something special.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    23. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      They do not have such a road-map, because it is not known whether it is feasible. At the moment, nobody really knows what constitutes a human being and how a mind works. The closer scientists look the more mysterious it becomes.

      But obviously, like freezing of head and corpses, it is a scam that uses the fear of dying and the lack of scientific understanding people have. (For the second, look at the flat-earthers for an example how low scientific understanding can get in people.)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. Nice one. So getting frozen/stored or otherwise revivable is decidedly not a good idea.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Funny

      It will work perfectly and in 30 years time the brains will be revived for sale as childrens' toys. Maybe placed inside some kind of earthenware container so the kids can grow chia on top, or set up with an audio output and made to tell stories like a kind of damp version of alexa.

      Maybe it will come with a range of colored hermit-crab like shells or as the controller for a special lego kit with motors and lights.

      It can wonder how long it will be before it winds up where the goldfish went.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    26. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> look at the flat-earthers for an example

      Do I have to explain this again? Look it's very simple. Disc Earth and anti-Earth are in constant, repulsive acceleration. Gravity is a NASA hoax. Questions?

    27. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, A World Out of Time, pretty much nailed it. Although I would like to see the kitten-snakes

    28. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I see you have met them. Pretty hard to keep one's from melting, listening to them.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    29. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Look at mummies today. Most go into the trash, quite a lot go into second rate museums, and a few go into quality museums. An extremely small number are examined in details.

      Which means that three thousand years ago, some guy was preserved after his death with the fervent belief that he was extremely import and and worthy of the most advanced preservations techniques. Then he ends up in the trash eventually. Go forward even one hundred years and most people will not care one bit about that mummy, their guys are ever so much important than last century's guys.

      Or if you wait until the year three thousand, some decrepit old professor will use you as jerky.

    30. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No different than cryogenics. Whereas today we realize that cryogenics is stupid and does massive damage to the body that's not fixable, but the new idea has yet to be debunked.

      On the other hand, maybe someday in the distant fugure, technology will be good enough to resurrect someone that's decomposed into dust, so why worry about it?

    31. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I keep thinking of the preserved head stuck in the basement for two hundred years staring at a blank wall (Fallout 4's Nuka World).

    32. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It will work perfectly and in 30 years time the brains will be revived for sale as childrens' toys.

      Somewhat reminiscent of Black Mirror's "Black Museum" episode.

    33. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they're tremendous fun.

    34. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      When they were digging up the Egyptian tombs about a hundred years ago, they found the massive number of mummified cats. They were excavated and turned into fertilizer.

    35. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      Just like HP Lovecraft's Mi-Go race. Stuck the brains of their most fervent worshippers in a brain jar and then traipsed off around the Solar System with them.

      Yeah, not so good for the cultist; if they are not completely bonkers to start with being stuck in a sensory deprived jar sped you towards insanity.
      I see the Mi-Go as being more reality based than that these wallet suckers.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    36. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by clovis · · Score: 1

      You are far too optimistic to think they would want to flog us only once a year.

      Yes, this. A 24-hour channel streaming ancestor torment.

      "Daddy, why are they torturing Elon Musk's brain all year?"
      "Son, it's because he built the rockets that brought us to this forsaken planet with no way to return to home, to sweet Earth."

    37. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gnick · · Score: 1

      I could see in the distant future cloning somebody from dust, but I think resurrecting them is fantasy. No matter how advanced we get technologically, decay is a one-way hash. You'll have better success with a medium.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    38. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Especially since I doubt they can capture even 1% of the mind.
      They may be able to copy the entire neural connections, but that's like copying the physical structure of an SDRAM and expecting it to have the same files stored on it. Heck, there's even been brain research that seems to indicate that each of our neurons (or one of those types of brain cells) is not just effectively a qbit, but possible a dozen or more!
      Older research has even indicated that memory by be holographic in structure. They used an experiment where a rat was heavily trained to run a particular maze, and then they put a tiny portion of that rats brain into a new rat that has no idea about that maze. Unlike new rats that didn't have the brain fragment, this one could run it expertly, almost as if it could remember the training the brain donor rat had done.
      That's something that their scanning technique can't capture either.

      Essentially future paleontologists will enjoy the preserved ancient human specimens, but will probable be annoyed that the idiots destroyed the brain but left a crude digitization of the basic structure instead of the actual brain to study. There is not resurrection or even pseudo-resurrection from this technique.

    39. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by meerling · · Score: 1

      It's about as much of a "mind uploading service" as making a clay model of your computers is "backing up your files".

    40. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      nobody will care to revive some fossils that have fallen out of time.

      Lawyers and contracts and monetary incentives.

      It's not like they'll revive you because of your winning personality.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    41. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, they are certainly educational. And they illustrate that strong convictions are not an indicator for accuracy.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    42. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Or templates to reproduce via Printing Pods.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    43. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by BranMan · · Score: 1

      See? Even the Pharaohs feline overlords bought into the mummify scam. The furry fools!

    44. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. We know far too little of how a brain works and we know even less on how a brain holds or connects to a person. In fact, the second aspect seems to be getting more and more mysterious the closer researchers look.

      From historical references, my guess would be no uploading or preservation of the information required for > 100 years and possibly much longer. People these days forget that what we see in computers is the result of > 70 years of targeted and intensive research. And still today a supercomputer cannot do more than ENIAC or the Zuse Z3 could do. It can do much more of it and much faster, but the nature of the computations is unchanged.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    45. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has Google's Retpoline had any adverse affect on the fuck() performance recently?

    46. Re:And why would anybody in the future care? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      We're already living in a simulation and death already reboots us into a new infant form

      No. The death of a human is like a (fairly unique) executable file being deleted.
      Your consciousness isn't even continuous over multiple days. You just think it is.

  2. Ted Williams by TWX · · Score: 1

    Will they manage to get their hands on the preserved head of Ted Williams to make him Patient Zero?

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. Sorry, mom by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    For Nectome's procedure to work, it's essential that the brain be fresh.

    Darn.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Sorry, mom by Jamu · · Score: 1

      How sure are we that Robert McIntyre isn't a zombie. What if this is just some scheme for obtaining fresh, tasty, succulent, brains. Mmmmm, braaaaaaaains. BRAAAAAAAAAINS.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    2. Re: Sorry, mom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If their "preservation fluid" is a bottle of ranch dressing, you might have been duped.

  4. There may not be a heaven. But we engineered hell. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So we are to capture and freeze the state of mind right before death. Often from a slow painful process. We keep this state constant for extended period of time.

    This doesn't sound appealing.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. Yeah right by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right because we know exactly how the mind works so we are a great authority to decide whether it "survived" this crude process. Like the cryonics fad, but at least this time they should charge you less because they are not promising to run a fridge for you for hundreds of years...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. They should charge you MORE, because the more they charge, the more legit it must be.

  6. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    If the state doesn't change, it can't experience anything.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  7. That’s... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    That’s wonderful!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:That’s... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is it something wonderful?

      The product is "100 percent fatal," says McIntyre.

      Proudly. Better make that pitch to the US sentencing systems for an improved death penalty technology.

  8. What's the point? by RatBastard · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's the point? You (the person being "backed up") is still dead. There might someday be a copy of you, but you, the you alive right now, the one reading this, is dead. You won't wake up in the future. You won't come back. You will be dead.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:What's the point? by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If that were true, everytime someone on Star Trek stepped through a transporter they would be dead too.

    2. Re:What's the point? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Unless you take a non-materialistic view of the universe and assume consciousness exists outside the body with the brain acting like something of an antenna... they are. They commit suicide each time they use a transporter.

    3. Re:What's the point? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Funny

      That may very well be true... Who is to say the person who stepped out is not a brand new person?

      The person who was beamed away suffered a death though instant and painless from the dematerialization.

      Then an imposter was materialized who has all the same bodily molecules, but NOT the same immortal soul.....

    4. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cells are replaced every 7-10 years. So "you" are just a copy of the RatBastard that lived in 2008.
       
      .So....

    5. Re:What's the point? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well, I actually value my memories, apart from any issue of qualia. I'd certainly give up a few minutes of conscious life, particularly painful conscious life, in return for my memories being preserved.

      That said, consider the Star Trek transporter. It converts your body to energy, transmits that energy to a different place, and reassembles it. Would you use a machine that did that? Before you answer, note that it's just as reasonable to describe the operation of the device this way: it destroys you and then creates an exact duplicate of you in a different place. There is in fact no material, observable way to choose between these characterizations; it's just quibbling over terminology.

      Given that, if you'd be willing to use a transporter at all, you should be willing to use a perfect copying mechanism, even if it kills one of your copies.

      In Clifford Simak's Hugo-winning 1963 novel, Way Station, he posits a method if interstellar travel that works precisely that way. An exact duplicate of the traveler is created at the destination, after which the copy at the origin is unceremoniously killed and dumped.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:What's the point? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Mind...blown. Cap'n Spock says "May the Force be with you!" before he enters the transporter.

    7. Re:What's the point? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You would think that people in the future would be smart enough to not do that, but they also wear one-piece form fitting jumpsuits so I wonder how smart they really are. The future does not look good.

    8. Re:What's the point? by shayd2 · · Score: 1
      McCoy thought that was true

      Also there were several transporter accidents (with interesting plot twists)

    9. Re:What's the point? by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      The movie The Prestige ruined the idea of the Star Trek transporter for me.

    10. Re:What's the point? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the same is true every time someone on Star Trek used a teleporter. Their current body got disintegrated, and an exact copy of them got created elsewhere. And to be honest, Star Trek doesn't really sound much more fictional than what this company is promising.

      Star Trek aside, the target demographic for this is someone obscenely rich, obscenely narcissistic, and terminally ill. It also helps if they are not devoutly religious, and if they are a complete sucker.

    11. Re:What's the point? by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      Your troll is showing

    12. Re:What's the point? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I said my mind was blown. Get a grip.

    13. Re:What's the point? by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative

      The star trek transporter works by measuring a target's impression on spacetime at a subatomic level, and then creating a 4-dimensional hologram of that impression at the destination point. The inverse of that hologram is then applied to the source point, cancelling out the probability of the target being at the source location, while the probability of it being at the destination rises to certainty.

      No disintegration required.

    14. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the choice between oblivion, and oblivion with a copy left behind, I don't see a compelling reason not to leave behind a copy. That's assuming the technology works and doesn't require me to commit suicide long before I would otherwise want to die, which clearly isn't the case on either count right now.

    15. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star trek is fiction, so who cares.

      We're talking about real life here.

    16. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overdrawn at the memory bank.

      captcha: reliving (seriously)

    17. Re:What's the point? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      What's the point? You (the person being "backed up") is still dead. There might someday be a copy of you, but you, the you alive right now, the one reading this, is dead. You won't wake up in the future. You won't come back. You will be dead.

      But what exactly is the difference between you waking up in the future or an exact copy of you waking up in the future? The copy would have your memories and so the copy would believe itself to be you. How is that any different from the "real" you waking up?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    18. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think that people in the future would be smart enough to not do that,

      One of the doctors was, until she was dying from other causes and effectively said "screw it, let my copy live."

      Don't remember much else about the character, she was a fill-in for a while that Crusher wasn't in TNG, and she properly recognized the transporters as barbaric murder-machines. I think her chain of copies was more apathetic.

    19. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always already thought that would be the actual likely outcome.

    20. Re:What's the point? by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      I am not sure about the physical/philosophical side of it but if a copy of me wakes up the the future *thinking* it is me, then that is good enough.

      After all, that is pretty much what happens when I wake up in the morning, no?

    21. Re:What's the point? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      What's the point? You (the person being "backed up") is still dead. There might someday be a copy of you, but you, the you alive right now, the one reading this, is dead. You won't wake up in the future. You won't come back. You will be dead.

      We still don't know a lot about consciousness, and your critique assumes a very specific definition of "alive" that we can't validate.

      It may be that this copy is you in exactly the same sense as you're the same person as you were when you went to sleep last night.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    22. Re:What's the point? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      What's the point? You (the person being "backed up") is still dead. There might someday be a copy of you, but you, the you alive right now, the one reading this, is dead. You won't wake up in the future. You won't come back. You will be dead.

      Yes, but which is preferable? A complete death where you don't come back or a mini-death where your backed up consciousness comes back?

      It sounds like this is not going to be done by people who say, "I want to go skip into the future" but by people who are dying of a terminal illness, and find the idea of coming back as a simulation preferable to ultimate death.

      Death is a big black box where people have all sorts of ideas, but no one can prove one way or the other. I imagine it's comforting to stack your odds in a particular outcome.

    23. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, same thing happens every time you go to sleep.

    24. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The star trek transporter works by measuring a target's impression on spacetime at a subatomic level, and then creating a 4-dimensional hologram of that impression at the destination point. The inverse of that hologram is then applied to the source point, cancelling out the probability of the target being at the source location, while the probability of it being at the destination rises to certainty.

      No disintegration required.

      NERD!!!!!!!

    25. Re:What's the point? by jargonburn · · Score: 1
    26. Re:What's the point? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that were true, everytime someone on Star Trek stepped through a transporter they would be dead too.

      The problem is that this may happen when you fall asleep. We don't know. I've always called it the "transporter problem" because I came to it from thinking about the transporter in Star Trek. Like you have.

      The issue is that if I made an absolutely perfect replica of me at the molecular level, and assuming consciousness fully resides in the physical flesh (which I believe), then the replica would think he's me. He would not think he's a replica. Therefore, I can be a replica and not know it. I know I'm not because what I just described isn't possible.

      But the issue is that when I go to sleep at night, I lose consciousness. When I awake, it's me again.

      Or is it?

      "I" don't have to survive that. Whoever I am tomorrow will think they're the same person that I am now because they will remember all my experiences (including this one), so there's no reason for the consciousness residing in my brain tomorrow to be the same as today. We literally have no way of knowing how that works.

      This was also very well explored by the movie "Multiplicity", although they added some great comic elements that took it in a different direction.

    27. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true, everytime someone on Star Trek stepped through a transporter they would be dead too.

      Speaking of dead concepts, let's remember that Star Trek is fiction. Also known as complete and utter bullshit.

      Any process of preserving tissue doesn't stink that bad.

    28. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's research saying that people are often changed after general anesthesia. The changes from sleep alone are probably so small as to be insignificant.

      posting anon because I just modded.

    29. Re:What's the point? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      +4 interesting for pretending Star Trek isn't fiction? Thus confirming that this is, in fact, still a nerd site.

    30. Re:What's the point? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      What's the point? You (the person being "backed up") is still dead. There might someday be a copy of you, but you, the you alive right now, the one reading this, is dead. You won't wake up in the future. You won't come back. You will be dead.

      You are using a very particular definition of you which everyone might not agree with. If* this company can actually copy your mind, this is the ship of Theseus paradox. I would argue that what's more important is the pattern formed by all the particles that make up your body, not the particles themselves. After all, your cells are constantly exchanging particles with the environment, and you aren't the same particles as you were a second ago.

      Moreover, if** a technology can recreate you at the quantum state level, it is you. Quantum mechanics has a phenomenon known as indistinguishable particles which says that particles of the same type (say, two electrons or two protons) do not have independent identities. Loosely speaking, they are vibrations of the same field. To claim that this bump in the field used to belong to me, and that bump in the field belongs to my clone is silly since all the bumps are the same. Note that it is not possible to clone the state of something at quantum level without destroying the state of the original, so in this case, the clone would be more true to the original than the "original", if this kind of thing were possible.

      *very unlikely if
      **astronomically unlikely if

    31. Re:What's the point? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Hmm, "Think Like a Dinosaur" (1995) by James Patrick Kelly borrowed this concept.

    32. Re:What's the point? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      What's the point? You (the person being "backed up") is still dead. There might someday be a copy of you, but you, the you alive right now, the one reading this, is dead. You won't wake up in the future. You won't come back. You will be dead.

      To paraphrase some AI from a Rudy Rucker book, "What's the problem. It's the same information. It's the information that's important isn't it. That information is you."

    33. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt the me that get's "resurrected" will care about the finer points of the demise of the old me they remember bing but by some arbitrary definition are not.

    34. Re:What's the point? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      "The inverse of that hologram is then applied to the source point, cancelling out the probability of the target being at the source location"

      This part is the desintegration. I understand that the writers of Star Trek didn't want it to mean death, but in reality this would be death.

    35. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhmm, so how is an inverse hologram needed to "cancel out" the original if there is no destruction required? If that inverse hologram was not applied then you would have two people... so under normal operation one is destroyed.

    36. Re:What's the point? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Not at all.... it essentially amounts to quantum tunnelling on a macroscopic level.

    37. Re:What's the point? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If you did not apply the inverse hologram to the target, nothing would happen at all. The hologram created at the destination only provides a recepticle for the probability functions that describe the subatomic makeup of the target, it does not actually create any coherent matter that resembles the target.

      If you only applied the inverse hologram without giving the target a specific place to go, the result would be similarly uneventful. About on par with pulling a toilet flush handle when there is no water in the tank.

    38. Re:What's the point? by vix86 · · Score: 1

      And when you go to sleep tonight, the you today will be dead. And tomorrow when you sleep, the you tomorrow will be dead.

      This is the crux of copied/digital immortality, it seems like death in the "now" because you have to lose consciousness to acquire it, but if that's the main issue then sleep must be 'death' as well. I've realized that within this context immortality is less for your benefit and more for the benefit of others, like your loved ones, friends, and maybe the world. If we can ever engineer humans so they never have to sleep, then we can start talking about whether this still counts as death or not.

    39. Re:What's the point? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That may very well be true... Who is to say the person who stepped out is not a brand new person?

      It's "not" "true". (This is a fictional universe we're talking about here, right?) In the Trek universe, by the time we catch up with them (even on the prequel, Enterprise) they have already gone through the phase of having "transporters" which make a copy and destroy the original. Instead, some fantasy process actually converts the person (or whatever) into a pattern which is transferred from one transporter to the other and then rematerialized. They actually make mention of this in one episode of Enterprise, and there are multiple episodes which use the transporter as a gimmick which make it clear that the person is transferred whole.

      In short, beings in Trek have an animating consciousness which could be termed a "soul" which is indeed sent by the transporter.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:What's the point? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      There's research saying that people are often changed after general anesthesia. The changes from sleep alone are probably so small as to be insignificant.

      posting anon because I just modded.

      I'm not talking about being "changed". What I mean is that right now I exist as a consciousness. I am not talking about my physical self, but the conscious me. That conscious me thinks it's the same one as yesterday, but doesn't have to be.

    41. Re:What's the point? by mea2214 · · Score: 2

      Is any of this going to be on the test?

    42. Re:What's the point? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Therefore, I can be a replica and not know it. I know I'm not because what I just described isn't possible.

      None of us even know if we're in reality or hooked up to the Matrix. Everything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is converted to electrical impulses, in theory a super advanced civilization could crack the skull open, rewire and we'd be none the wiser. For that matter even the integrity of the brain can't be guaranteed, when I try to remember something how do I know these memories are genuine? Are these feelings and decisions my own? We know hypnosis, drugs, brain damage etc. can cause vast changes, imagine what you could do if you could rewrite even a tiny fraction of it.

      I don't think an individuality could hide in quantum mechanics, sure a clone would instantly begin to diverge once it has experiences of its own but if you could copy everything chemically stable of memories and thought patterns and such I think the difference between me and my replica would be like waking up with a 1 ms difference. Like, maybe it's not the exact same me but the difference is so marginal that nobody could tell who's the original and who's the replica in testing.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    43. Re:What's the point? by hey! · · Score: 1

      "Essentially amounts to" is just another way of saying "if you want to call it that," which is the point. The distinction is an empty terminological distinction but it changes how we feel about things.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    44. Re:What's the point? by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      The star trek transporter works by measuring a target's impression on spacetime at a subatomic level, and then creating a 4-dimensional hologram of that impression at the destination point. The inverse of that hologram is then applied to the source point, cancelling out the probability of the target being at the source location, while the probability of it being at the destination rises to certainty.

      The tone of Slashdot seems to have changed a lot lately. It's disheartening, but posts like these remind me that everything is still right in the tech world.

    45. Re:What's the point? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      What's the point? You (the person being "backed up") is still dead. There might someday be a copy of you, but you, the you alive right now, the one reading this, is dead. You won't wake up in the future. You won't come back. You will be dead.

      Are you so sure? Say I measured/scanned your composition at the atomic level, then killed you and subsequently 3D printed an exact replica. To all intents and purposes you are still alive and nothing has changed for you. It'll be like waking up. Of course it would get very weird when I print the second copy.

    46. Re:What's the point? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'm suggesting that it doesn't result in disintegration at all. If you just applied the inverse hologram without a copy of the original spacetime impression, there would be no particular place for the particles to want to go. The probability of particles spontaneously ceasing to exist entirely is still staggeringly low, so in absence of a particular other place to be, the particles that comprise the target would tend to stay exactly where they are. The only way to use a transporter as a means of disintegration is to project the destination spacetime impression 4d hologram across a much larger region of space than the original, forcing the particles comprising the target to be dispersed.

      Conversely, simply producing the necessary spacetime impression at the destination does not, by itself, create any matter at the destination, it simply creates a receptacle for all of the particles within the target to prefer to be once you try to flatten their current spacetime probability functions.

    47. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is any of this going to be on the test?

      The toilet analogy!

    48. Re:What's the point? by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      I'm dead. That's the difference. A copy, no matter how perfect, isn't me and I don't give two farts about him. I care about me.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    49. Re:What's the point? by oldbox · · Score: 1

      Yes. They are. Makes the whole series a bit darker, no?

      This is a minor plot point in the incredable "new wierd" novel Kraken by China Miéville.

    50. Re:What's the point? by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      Yes, but which is preferable? A complete death where you don't come back or a mini-death where your backed up consciousness comes back?

      They are the same. I'm still dead, no matter what happens. How do people not understand this?

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    51. Re:What's the point? by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      And when you go to sleep tonight, the you today will be dead.

      Horseshit. I don't die because I fall asleep.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    52. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the transporter technology. Is it destroying the atoms to scan their contents and sending that data (you die) or is it using some undiscovered quantum effects to convert your matter into energy and back again so you are still the original atoms in a new location (you didn't although something very weird happened to you in the process).

    53. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your particles are undergoing the same process constantly so as you move between each instant in time what's the difference?

    54. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nerd! :)

    55. Re:What's the point? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      A) Philosophically some people will agree with you. And some will disagree. As some people will throw the whole concept of afterlife in the mix
      B) Some people want big statues in their honor upon their death and will search for any sort of immortality.
      C) How do you know you aren't already a simulation? Maybe your "program" is getting turned on and off all the time. What is death? Your stack gets put into disk to be queried up later?

    56. Re:What's the point? by vix86 · · Score: 1

      You lose consciousness when you sleep. Beyond the unlikelihood of it being possible [right now], you have no way of knowing if the you that wakes up in the morning is the same you that went to bed. Someone could have sneaked in, gassed your room to keep you knocked out, copied your current brain, removed your knocked out self and put a copy of yourself in the bed. Hell, the copy could even have altered past memories and without the support others and external things (videos, photos, diaries, etc.) you'd have no way of knowing if there is validity in those memories. Gassed "you" could be put in cryo or dropped in a vat of acid, and copy you would continue on thinking everything is business as usual.

      I feel too many people view this whole thing from a 3rd person/god perspective, which has complete knowledge, without considering the 1st person perspective experience of being in the "now" with limited knowledge. Its only in the experience of the "now" that you know you are alive, hence why I think loss of consciousness should be viewed as death instead of your heart stopping or your brain being destroyed (which both lead to the state of loss of consciousness).

    57. Re: What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has literally never happened once in billions upon billions upon billions of sleeps. No one thinks that waking up means you've become an entirely new and different person. By any measure.

    58. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20141117.png

    59. Re: What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just want to point out, in The Motion Picture, Cmdr Decker is seen screwing with the transporter right before it kills two people.

      He murdered those people, and no one talks about that.

    60. Re:What's the point? by rukiddingme · · Score: 1

      If that were true, everytime someone on Star Trek stepped through a transporter they would be dead too.

      Wow, for a minute there I was going to never use a transporter again, but your scientific reasoning cleared it up, I'm good to go!

    61. Re:What's the point? by rukiddingme · · Score: 1

      You lose consciousness when you sleep. Beyond the unlikelihood of it being possible [right now], you have no way of knowing if the you that wakes up in the morning is the same you that went to bed. Someone could have sneaked in, gassed your room to keep you knocked out, copied your current brain, removed your knocked out self and put a copy of yourself in the bed. Hell, the copy could even have altered past memories and without the support others and external things (videos, photos, diaries, etc.) you'd have no way of knowing if there is validity in those memories. Gassed "you" could be put in cryo or dropped in a vat of acid, and copy you would continue on thinking everything is business as usual.

      I feel too many people view this whole thing from a 3rd person/god perspective, which has complete knowledge, without considering the 1st person perspective experience of being in the "now" with limited knowledge. Its only in the experience of the "now" that you know you are alive, hence why I think loss of consciousness should be viewed as death instead of your heart stopping or your brain being destroyed (which both lead to the state of loss of consciousness).

      I find Occam's Razor a good way to dispel ideas that are a complete waste of time.

    62. Re: What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In real life, everyone is waiting for Boomers to die and Boomer fiction to cross the Overton window into oblivion. This story contains thr expectation that someone in the future will want to recover a Boomer for some reason. Maybe as a biological weapon against an enemy nation.

    63. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The star trek transporter works by measuring a target's impression on spacetime at a subatomic level, and then creating a 4-dimensional hologram of that impression at the destination point. The inverse of that hologram is then applied to the source point, cancelling out the probability of the target being at the source location, while the probability of it being at the destination rises to certainty.

      No disintegration required.

      If this is the case then how did Scotty trap him and that other officer in the buffer under a diagnostic loop? wouldn't he still be standing there on the pad till he appeared at the target?

    64. Re:What's the point? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Instead, some fantasy process actually converts the person (or whatever) into a pattern which is transferred from one transporter to the other and then rematerialized.

      In other words: all the matter is dematerialized, and a new representation is created, AND new matter is materialized into a form given by the representation.

      That doesn't resolve the issue ---- that DOESN'T show the being being transported didn't cease to exist, and the new being is not completely new.

      If the PERSON is the same one, then how do you explain the Star Trek TNG episode where a Second much younger Will Riker materializes, and is every bit as much as conscious?

      The fictitious handwaving in Enterprise didn't even rise to the level of believability. I mean you can't just use "hand waving" or say "because it is so" to overcome the dilemma.... nice try though.

    65. Re:What's the point? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      But the issue is that when I go to sleep at night, I lose consciousness. When I awake, it's me again.

      Or is it?

      "I" don't have to survive that. Whoever I am tomorrow will think they're the same person that I am now because they will remember all my experiences (including this one), so there's no reason for the consciousness residing in my brain tomorrow to be the same as today. We literally have no way of knowing how that works.

      That's why I've installed a large neodymium magnet inside my toilet.
      It catches the serially numbered ball bearings I drink with my vitamins every night before going to sleep.
      All the balls are accounted for. Though some were collected out of sequence.

      Planing a trip anywhere is a bit of a bother though. Packing the magnet and all...

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    66. Re:What's the point? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      That it doesn't happen to all of them at once.

    67. Re:What's the point? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Does using new matter matter? Get down to a low enough level and it's all fungible. One quark or lepton is the same as any other of the same type.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    68. Re:What's the point? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Could you necessarily tell the difference? Perhaps our hypothetical transporter is invented accidentally by someone who doesn't quite understand what happens. Would you be able to tell the difference through the results of the process?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    69. Re:What's the point? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Ordinarily, yes. To be frank, I don't have a full explanation right now for exactly how Scotty managed to pull that stunt off... It's clear to me that he went well outside of the transporter's normal operation parameters to accomplish it. While I can see that it almost certainly involved simultaneous holograms of his impression upon spacetime, both the inverse and copy, overlapping eachother *exactly* to keep his body stable for a prolonged period, effectively putting him into a state of suspended animation (regrettably, there was too much drift over time with Scotty's co-officer's pattern to be able to retrieve him), I couldn't guess what kind of engineering trick Scotty used to cause their masses to disappear from normal space in the first place.

    70. Re:What's the point? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The fictitious handwaving in Enterprise didn't even rise to the level of believability. I mean you can't just use "hand waving" or say "because it is so" to overcome the dilemma.... nice try though.

      Yes, yes you can, because Star Trek is not a historical record. It is a work of fiction, so you absolutely can say "because it is so". Everything in Trek is handwaving. If that bothers you, just move on, and consume some other media. Life is too short to whine about fiction being fictional.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    71. Re:What's the point? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It is a work of fiction, so you absolutely can say "because it is so".

      Works of fiction describe imaginary people, things, situations, and events, but fiction can only make up what
      is inside the story. Fiction CANNOT decide matters of the philosophical interpretation which are done outside
      of the story by the reader, after the reader looks at the description of the happenings or what the technology is
      described or shown as doing. For example, the "fictional" star trek could say that "2 + 2 = 5", but the reader is unlikely to
      accept that interpretation as truth --- even as a matter within the story, they would say the people in the story err'd
      even within their own understanding, even in a fictional world that doesn't hold water: at least not in a Sci-Fi fictional world.

      So your mention that someone inside the story said "the person is moved (not destroyed and re-created)",
      does not stand as an acceptable argument one way or another in terms of the answer to the reader's philosophical
      question: "Is the person transported the SAME as the person that materialized at the destination?".

    72. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the issue is that when I go to sleep at night, I lose consciousness. When I awake, it's me again.

      Or is it?

      Your brain have been changed as they have processed the experiences you collected awake and stored them into the long term memory. Can it be said you're are the same person as before going to sleep if your brain have changed during the sleep?

  9. Bobiverse! by s_p_oneil · · Score: 2

    I for one welcome our new clones of Bob overlords...

    http://bobiverse.wikia.com/wik...

  10. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does death sound appealing?

    A person frozen in this state is clearly not conscious. So, you won't be experiencing anything at all. There is no way to see the future, so there is no way to know whether or not the technology to resurrect you from this meat Popsicle will ever exist, let alone will actually be used on you. And assuming that all happens, there is no way to know what your existence will be like.

    But.......the alternative is to just die.

    As I understand, death by natural causes is usually pretty slow and horrible.
     

  11. Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will not benefit YOU. You...will still be dead.

  12. I wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...we could bring back a bunch of random unknown jerks from the 1600s and integrate them into our society while making whatever concessions necessary to make their hopelessly outdated value set feel welcome...said nobody ever. A few dozen to live their 2nd life as a science experiment maybe.

    1. Re:I wish... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      We call those people "Republicans". Zing!

    2. Re:I wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're so clever, why did you lose?

    3. Re:I wish... by butchersong · · Score: 1

      -- insert immigration joke here

    4. Re:I wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't you win the popular vote?

    5. Re: I wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we knew that you must win the Electoral College.

    6. Re:I wish... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Because too many other people are stupid.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. I will be first in line by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fortunately for them, my brain can be contained in just 640k of memory.

    1. Re:I will be first in line by sinij · · Score: 1

      Fortunately for them, my brain can be contained in just 640k of memory.

      Most of that is taken up by your pr0n collection index?

    2. Re:I will be first in line by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Being a guy, pretty much.

    3. Re:I will be first in line by sinij · · Score: 1

      0xA0000 to 0xBFFFF reserved exclusively for redheads?

    4. Re:I will be first in line by Falos · · Score: 2

      I tried to make this double as a hex color joke. It was a while before I admitted it can't.

    5. Re:I will be first in line by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

      hey, you never know till you try.

    6. Re:I will be first in line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad your ass cannot be contained in a barrel.

  14. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

    As I understand, death by natural causes is usually pretty slow and horrible.

    It's apparently a popular past-time though, since we're all lined up to it once.

    --
    DaveyJJ
  15. Can't even keep embryos frozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with paying customers!

  16. Re:100% fatal, otherwise known as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Appy is back!

  17. Criminal Guilt and Prosecution after death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let us presume this works as advertised.

    What happens if a person has this procedure performed and a forensic analysis of the brain reveals that they have memories of committing a crime? Will they be punished? Should they be punished?

    What if the memories are false? Is there a way to know?

    Let us presume that the living have control over the systems in which the dead will live. Will the living find what the dead used to do morally repugnant if not illegal? Will they engineer a punishment for those people? What fate would you design for an Alt-Right shitposter who never commits violence while alive? For a communist sympathizer who longs for the blood of the capitalist elites to flow through the streets?

    What happens if the dead find a way to subvert the system from inside? Could a sufficiently knowledgeable hacker be perfectly positioned inside the system after death to impose their will, or to burn it all to the ground?

    1. Re:Criminal Guilt and Prosecution after death by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Let us presume this works as advertised.

      What happens if a person has this procedure performed and a forensic analysis of the brain reveals that they have memories of committing a crime? Will they be punished? Should they be punished?

      ...and what if they have memories of having committed acts that, in the future are decided to have been crimes?

      ...today, we mostly have the belief that if it wasn't a crime when you did it, you're not guilty if it becomes a crime after, but that may not be universal. (And, even so, there's the Nuremberg trials.)

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:Criminal Guilt and Prosecution after death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if a person has this procedure performed and a forensic analysis of the brain reveals that they have memories of committing a crime? Will they be punished? Should they be punished?

      Statute of limitations would apply to all crimes except murder.

  18. Gift certificates by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do you offer gift certificates? I have a few "special" people on my Christmas list this year.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  19. brains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I for one am going to have my brain encrypted prior to uploading!

    I will store the key...wait...where will I store the key... hmmmm

  20. Jurassic Park Is People!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's made out of people....

  21. I already signed up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already signed up and now worrying what if "I change my mind"?

  22. i am a meat popsicle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm certain future aliens visiting this planet will appreciate the varied flavors of frozen humans.

  23. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Is it Appealing? No, but it is inevitable. Our time on this planet is limited. Artificially extending our lives is really just our own egos getting in the way.
    Lets say this is the future were we can restore such minds. Do we really want to take the minds of people a hundred years ago, who are old and stuck in their ways, have outdated morality and limited world view.

    Please don't translate this as ageism, as the wisdom of older people is valuable. However you taking the years of wisdom learned from a world that doesn't exist.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  24. Heads by Greg Bear... by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

    ...That is all.

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    1. Re:Heads by Greg Bear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my thought too. Also, it's worth reading just for the ending, which I jokingly predicted for every other book or movie, but never expected to see.

  25. Finally, the sweet embrace of lady death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They had me at 100% fatal

  26. See through scheme by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nice try, zombies. We're on to your business model.

    1. Re:See through scheme by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yeah. That whole 'soak in a chemical solution' just sounded like marination to me.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  27. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by Adambomb · · Score: 1

    We are served by organic ghosts, he thought, who, speaking and writing, pass through this our new environment. Watching, wise, physical ghosts from the full-life world, elements of which have become for us invading but agreeable splinters of a substance that pulsates like a former heart.

    - Philip K. Dick, Ubik

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  28. Here is your argument against assisted suicide by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    The assisted suicide law is very predictably being used to exploit the gullible.

    I'll pump my magic chemicals into you and freeze your brain, so you can revived in the future!

    This is nothing but a scam to deprive the families of dying loved ones their inheritance. This dude is going to cheat these people out of their last days and make off with their cash. Way to go libs.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Here is your argument against assisted suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) You're deprived of something when it's yours. But it's obvious how you see it.
      2) Even conceding it's "your" money, your issue is with grangran for spending it, not the merchants.

    2. Re:Here is your argument against assisted suicide by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Just because it's unlikely to work doesn't automatically make it a scam. If they make an honest effort, and inform people of the real prospects, then it is no scam.

    3. Re:Here is your argument against assisted suicide by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but a scam to deprive the families of dying loved ones their inheritance. This dude is going to cheat these people out of their last days and make off with their cash. Way to go libs.

      Jesus Christ, even on their death beds you have to treat adults like children and infantilize them by replacing their judgment with your own? News flash: people can do whatever they want with their money and they have the right to self-determination. They can choose to leave their money to their children or spend it all on hookers and blow - it's their choice.

      This kind of interference in free choice is the very definition of a "liberal" in today's society.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  29. Death penalty 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the process is truly 100% fatal, that's better than electrocution or lethal injection which have both had survivors.

  30. incompetent government? Outsource executions! by hydrodog · · Score: 1

    These guys claim to anesthetize the victim (er, patient) and then execute them by filling their brains with glass. So let's use that for death row inmates. It's humane, and if we screw up, we can boot up the copy and apologize to it in a few hundred years. And since it's a copy we won't even owe it money. Win-win!

  31. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I understand, death by natural causes is usually pretty slow and horrible.

    It's apparently a popular past-time though, since we're all lined up to it once.

    I dunno. DAU is pretty constant, but engagement ratings for death are pretty low. Bounce rates are 100%.

  32. What is old is new by dyfet · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ancient Egypt also had high priests that made a somewhat similar sales pitch...

    1. Re:What is old is new by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Ancient Egypt also had high priests that made a somewhat similar sales pitch...

      Act now! This is your chance to be in a museum a thousand years from now. Immortality could be yours!"

    2. Re:What is old is new by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Interesting, if we had the technology to reanimate mummies I suspect we would do it.

      And fix their medical problems too! Maybe there is a chance these people will be revived.

    3. Re:What is old is new by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Or being burned in a locomotive. Or ground up and mixed with water and drunk. Not all mummies wound up in museums.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  33. Learn crucial skills for the future.. by modi123 · · Score: 1

    Before you go under the knife and chem drip make sure to bone up on future skills so as to better help you integrate into future society. I have it on good authority the three sea shells will be super important.

    1. Re:Learn crucial skills for the future.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convincing those at the intersection of rich and gullible to make their money become my money is a talent that will never go out of style.

  34. 100 percent fatl by s0lar · · Score: 1

    The product is "100 percent fatal," says McIntyre. "That is why we are uniquely situated among the Y Combinator companies."

    OK. So, can I order that for an enemy of mine?

  35. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we are to capture and freeze the state of mind right before death.

    According to this study, neurons shut off upon sensing a diminishing amount of oxygen after heart failure, stopping to generate signals. So, there's no state to be preserved.

  36. Not investing by chaotixx · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to invest in a business with no repeat customers.

  37. Here's my idea of a startup: by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Offer to post-pile people into the sediment so they become part of the fossil record.

  38. Nazism coming home to roost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the fascist the human being is nothing but a number, a value, a sum, a net worth, a figure to be exploited.

    Amerikkka's brave new visionaries.. sucking the very souls out of people like Skeksis.

  39. Book of the New Sun by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

    There's a scene in Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun where the protagonist stumbles into a jumble of perfectly preserved corpses like this in the woods in a far-future declined Earth. There's little reason to believe freezing your head or being plasticized would result in anything more than being a curio in some far flung future, at best.

  40. Black Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many Black Mirror episodes deal with the results of uploading your brain into a computer. The results are horrifying and also kind of believable. The reason is because the "simulated consciousness" is not respected as a person, but instead is treated as a computer program. Not.good.

  41. What happens if you drop a brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say your moving some brains around in storage, but accidentally drop one on the floor destroying it as it hits the ground. Technically, the person who the brain belongs to is already dead, but clumsy you has destroyed any possibility that the consciousness of the deceased mind will ever be digitized an uploaded to a machine. Was there a crime committed? Are the brains merely property? If they are property and not considered a person, could the digitizing process of the consciousness be altered by owner of the brain to change memories, or personality? What guarantees will there be that the your consciousness will be fully and unalterably intact once its in the machine?

  42. Gift cards available? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they offer gift packages.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  43. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    As I understand, death by natural causes is usually pretty slow and horrible.

    It's apparently a popular past-time though, since we're all lined up to it once.

    Always makes me think of the Futurama pilot:

    Suicide Booth: Please select mode of death. Quick and painless or slow and horrible.
    Fry: Yeah, I'd like to place a collect call?
    Suicide Booth: You have selected slow and horrible.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  44. That's were the hook comes in by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want to be entombed in my glass block, holding a note that says "I know where 100lbs of gold is buried".

    Of course, this means you have to guess what kind of thing will be valuable enough 100 or 1000 years from now for someone to extract your consciousness. You could also try some reverse psychology along the lines of a sign that read "I was frozen believing that God is real. Change my mind".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That's were the hook comes in by quenda · · Score: 1

      Of course, this means you have to guess what kind of thing will be valuable enough 100 or 1000 years from now for someone to extract your consciousness.

      One bitcoin should be worth a few trillion dollars by then.
        Sadly, due to the hyperinflation initiated by Donald “First of all, you never have to default because you print the money” Trump, that won't get you a cup of coffee.

    2. Re:That's were the hook comes in by pots · · Score: 1

      One bitcoin should be worth a few trillion dollars by then.

      This is a certainty. Hodl.

  45. Here's a brain for Abby... by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    Abby Normal I believe it was.

  46. People Care Sometimes by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

    These preserved brains will at some point just be recognized as what they are (medical trash) and be disposed off. It is far to easy to make more humans, nobody will care to revive some fossils that have fallen out of time. That is if the possibility is even there in the first place.

    It really depends on the social dynamics of the future and on how you are remembered. Do you really think nobody would want to talk to an accurate simulation of Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, or John D. Rockefeller? Or Shakespeare? Or their own great-great-great grandparents? One day this could be the equivalent of a grade-school family tree project: talk to the simulation of your ancestor.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:People Care Sometimes by trg83 · · Score: 1

      Henry Ford wouldn't be allowed to say many of the things he believed. He would keep getting shushed (rightly so) every time he advocated Nazi positions. The people history remembers fondly had great accomplishments, but weren't always great people when looked at on the whole with the biases and perspective changes of a new generation.

  47. Great VC Pitch? by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

    We're a unique company, we KILL people!

    1. Re:Great VC Pitch? by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      That's not really all that unique (cf. Blackwater or xe or whatever they call themselves nowadays).

  48. 100% money back, satisfaction guarantee. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    They are offering a 100% money back, satisfaction guarantee. All the person whose brain was uploaded and is unsatisfied with the upload has to do is to walk into the office and sign the refund request form.

  49. Fuck That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine that this technology works, and someone can create a perfect computer simulation of my mind ... yay! Success! I'm immortal right? Woohoo!

    Who "owns" that simulation data?

    What simulation do they decide to put my brain in?

    It is an empty black box with no sensory input, but perfect cognitive functions?
    So, I'm floating forever in a timeless void...

    Or maybe it's just a simulation of my body in a tank of boiling water?
    So great, so I'm boiling alive, except my nerve endings never degrade and I get to experience 100% of the pain until somebody decides to turn it off.

    And we haven't even gotten into deep psychological torments.
    Recall every horror movie you've ever seen, and now imagine living through each of them as each character.
    And that's doesn't even scratch the surface of AI remixing and discovering ways to maximize torment.

    Think anybody in the future will care about you being in a torture simulation?
    Do they care about the characters in the horror movie?
    They sure do. They'll line up to pay money to sit down and watch it for hours.

    Simulate me in an undying body? FUCK THAT.

  50. Forget that, TNG had its own episode... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where Riker was discovered to have been cloned by the transporter as the result of atmospheric interference (which they compensated for by essentially adding extra energy/material to the transporter buffer to compensate.)

    The question that never got developed or answered was: If it could happen accidentally, why couldn't it also happen intentionally? And if it could be done intentially, how did anyone know that it hadn't and that right now there was a stellar criminal, or a biologically duplicated but reconditioned version of someone high ranking running around impersonating the original? DS9 in fact covered the latter when Lt Cmdr Riker impersonated Commander Riker to help out the Maquis. Another detail that was somewhat ignored: Why didn't Clone Riker also get promoted to Commander, since his Commander promotion had happened as a direct result of that mission?

    For that matter, TNG Relics covered this 'mind uploading service' in that Scotty preserved himself as data in a buffer loop inside the transporter (along with the poor sod who didn't make it) awaiting a short term or long term recovery mission (Also a major canonical error: Generations depicted Scotty being at Kirk's first death. Potentially, since I don't think he was dead yet, they could have filmed him at the funeral for his second future death.)

    Also: There was an Outer Limits episode covering the 'failed transporter' outcome back in the 90s(ended with the 'originals' death once they were sure the 'clone' made it to the destination planet), as well as Sclock Mercenary with the billion plus Gavs cloned through the Gate Network as a major plotpoint.

    1. Re:Forget that, TNG had its own episode... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ever read Schlock Mercenary? One of the plots, interstellar travel uses a gate system. The people running the gates could secretly make copies of anyone going through, which they then tortured for information and murdered.

  51. Amber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might as well just encase someone in Amber.

  52. Wisdom, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Who is to say the person who stepped out is not a brand new person? The person who was beamed away suffered a death though instant and painless from the dematerialization.

    Summa Technologiae, a massive futurology book written by the polish SF author Stanislaw Lem around 1964, has an entire chapter dedicated to the discussion of such technical and moral problems involving teleportation.

    I don't know if the book is available in english translation, but I found it an extremely difficult read, being philosophy themed, heavy in use of latin and dealing with topics that likely won't emerge in practice for many millenia, like ethics of stellar engineering or auto-evolution of super advanced species.

    Lem later adapted many of its topics for light-hearted fables in a collection of short stories titled The Cyberiad.

  53. There goes my fresh brain supply by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    I need brains for my science project. Lots of brains. And they need to be fresh. Very fresh. And then this happens. Curses!

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  54. Altered Carbon by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone's been doing a little fantasizing, particularly around the "people will pay a lot for this" part.

  55. Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't a mind-uploading service. It is a body-preserving service.

  56. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Congratulations. Come this way and we'll begin the procedure.

  57. for science by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    Hey, if you were going to donate your body to science anyways, why not? It could be a treasure trove for the future anthropologists if they have perfectly fossilized brains from the early 21st century to look at. Depending on how far along neuroscience has come along, they might even be able to read some of your thoughts. It's unlikely that anyone would bother to try to revive you though.

  58. Con-scious by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    A perfectly scanned brain will not work until physics can understand, and thus simulate, the subjective perceptual experience of consciousness.

    Until then it would be a brain without something doing experience-feedback or whatever consciousness does, and would not run anymore than a car without pistons. All physics does not describe how this arises.

    While exactly what conscious does for the brain is debated, almost cretainly it is vital.

    That isn't to say a functioning mind without it couldn't be made, just that it won't magically happen from neural simulation.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Con-scious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that is necessary. We didn't need an understanding of quantum mechanics to build a working semiconductor (diodes/transistors). But yes, I don't believe anyone has a complete enough explanation of how consciousness operates. They are simply preserving the structure of the brain right now: http://aurellem.org/ASC/html/ASC-introduction.html Getting the organization right is a good first step. But it seems likely that are other mechanisms involved beyond simply organization. What about all the membrane potentials?

      I think anosmia is an example of why simply preserving structure isn't sufficient.

  59. Merge with machines by uploading your mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Merge with machines by uploading your mind... maybe. By killing yourself. "Technology" created/funded by the technocratic left. That's the kind of whacked out conspiracy theory Alex Jones has been fearmongering for decades. And oh look, here it is, funded by the tech left.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. That's some mark of the beast shit right there. Almost like he wasn't making it up and was truly trying to warn us all.

    Hope the technocrats are the first to arrogantly try to immortalize themselves with this method.

    captcha: shouted

  60. a sucker born every minute by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Fuck everything about this and double fuck the asshole who came up with it.

  61. You've still got to get the drivers by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    loaded into expanded mem.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  62. Fiction... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

    This sounds like it's more based on scifi than science. They do know that Transcendence, with Pirates of the Caribbean star, Johnny Depp, wasn't a documentary, don't they?

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  63. Suicide machine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already been astablished that someone going through a transporter dies every time.

  64. Heres how you get yourself uploaded by PeterGM · · Score: 1

    Given that future scientists will lack motivation to bother uploading your brain I think I know the only potential way to get them to bother. Here's what I'd get engraved on my glassed forehead: "I have buried a large volume of gold and I have memorised the seed for a bitcoin wallet that contains whole integer volumes of bitcoins - wake me up and I'll tell you" Might work. Of course you're powerless if they just turn the server off afterwards.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
  65. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    If you have the magic tech to raise the dead, you can also have separate real or virtual planets for them to inhabit which will suit their particular outdated desires. And there's certainly no need to give the undead the right to vote on Earth.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  66. Mummification Redux by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    This is mummification from ancient Egypt all over again, just at a slightly more detailed level.

    All this can do is preserve the connections between neurons. But that's not all there is to consciousness. Beyond the connectome, there may be 'software' differences within neurons that contribute to consciousness and learning. This technology does not preserve this -- instead, brain DNA degrades and any complexity present there is lost.

    Last year, scientists found a surprising amount of genetic diversity in each individual brain neuron. This year, scientists observed neurons passing genetic material, packaged in a virus-like shell, to neighbouring neurons.

  67. People in the future will have better uses of thei by Blackeneth · · Score: 1

    The frozen corpses are already dead â" what worse thing could possibly happen to them?

    --
    -- Knowledge is power. -- Francis Bacon
  68. Freezing a flame by markjhood2003 · · Score: 1

    The fundamental unexamined assumption these people are making is that the state of a person can be frozen statically. There is just as much evidence that the state of consciousness is dynamic, encoded in the flows of waves of currents in the brain.

    Trying to capture the state of consciousness of a person with a static material representation would be like trying to freeze a candle flame. The flame doesn't exist without the dynamic combustion process and the flow of hot gases that feed it.

  69. Idiots 1 Science 0 by fuzzythebear · · Score: 1

    Says it all .. they should simply be sent for life to a dangerous criminal mental hospital and join the ranks of Mengele and other monsters of our times.

  70. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by dryeo · · Score: 1

    No need to give them any rights at all and they could be useful as a replacement for artificial intelligence if it doesn't work out. Everyone could have their own resurrected brain running their household.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  71. Where is 110010001000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we have found a product for you!

    This will make you immortal and an online entitie rather than living in your mom's basement trolling on /.

    All you gotta do is go to summer camp! You are always saying this and that are not AI, well think about it you can be an AI !

    Do it, the hot chicks at camp are waiting for you!

  72. Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea is that someday in the future scientists will scan your bricked brain and turn it into a computer simulation.

    So, TFS calls this a mind-uploading service.

    There is no upload. There is an offer to kill you with the hope that in the future someone solves the problem of un-killing you by then uploading your mind.

    Basically they're offering the easy part, and failing to do the hard part. Assuming of course that they've miraculously solved all of the problems of destroying your cells by freezing you. Which I'm going to confidently say they haven't.

    This is 100% bullshit snakeoil, like every other cryogenics scam that came before hand.

    Then again, if you're stupid enough to pay these clowns to kill you via some untested process for which they've not solved the other side of the equation ... then, please, get the fuck in line for this shit.

    This is either an incredibly ingenious scam, or ... no, wait ... there is no or.

    As I tell vendors, it isn't a backup until you can prove you can restore the data.

    1. Re:Bullshit ... by careysub · · Score: 1

      As I tell vendors, it isn't a backup until you can prove you can restore the data.

      Bingo!

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  73. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    I don't need anybody or anything to 'run my household.' I just need somebody to change the cat litter box(es!) more often.

  74. Re:There may not be a heaven. But we engineered he by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    So we are to capture and freeze the state of mind right before death. Often from a slow painful process.

    We're at the point on /. where comments get +3 that get the summary completely wrong.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  75. No, Trek Transporters are Analog by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    If that were true, everytime someone on Star Trek stepped through a transporter they would be dead too.

    Jesus Christ, Trek people go to agonizing lengths to drive home the point that transporters are analog to avoid this issue precisely, but most people still get it wrong.

    I'd think that /. would be the kind of place where those using Star Trek as evidence would have at least read one of the tech manuals.

    Anyway, the whole point of the annular confinement beam and the phrase "Energize" is that Trek uses a matter-to-energy conversion system that actually moves atoms from point A to point B - it does not copy-and-delete and Geordi even says that even their computers do not have the capacity to duplicate all of the quantum states in the replicators. Roddenberry was very concerned about his plot device implying the absence of a soul.

    By contrast, check out the episode of Outer Limits with the gal who goes to the sentient dinosaur planet from the Earth Moon station, to get a sense of the implications of a digital process. Spoiler alert: grim.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  76. Battle Angel Alita by pope1 · · Score: 1

    If anyone has read the Manga all the way through, the parallels there are pretty obvious. Iron Jim gets the task of bringing it to the big screen it seems: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437086/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

    I read it all 20 years ago, so theres a lot I don't remember, but preserving and resurrecting consciousness (in the form of peoples brains-- or brains turned into FPGAs quite honestly) was a huge part of the series. At the time it really made me question what it meant to be human. It was the series that introduced me to the prospect of having multiple brains, something I had never even considered. Great Sci-Fi if you don't mind more than a touch of gore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Angel_Alita

    --
    /* * pope1 */
  77. what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How was Scotty stuck in a transporter buffer for centuries? How did riker get cloned by his transporter beam getting reflected by a planets atmosphere?

    1. Re:what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I don't know at the moment. I would need some more time, far more than I currently have to spend on something which is not to me any more of a hobby and recreational pasttime, to analyse each specific situation to determine a coherent explanation.

    2. Re:what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      But to follow up, I don't mean to be dismissive about your questions. I honestly can't say right now because I really haven't analysed the situations where transporter incidents occur that are well outside of the normal operation parameters

  78. Re:100% fatal, otherwise known as... by careysub · · Score: 1

    Appy is back!

    I miss the cows mooing.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  79. C. Elegans by careysub · · Score: 1

    When someone announces a specific, feasible plan for "uploading" the 302 neuron brain of a Caenorhabditis elegans marine worm I'll start paying attention. They won't even have to actually do it. I'll be happy with just the plan.

    Until then all this talk of "uploading" a human consciousness is simply a faux-scientific religion -- a way to try to deny the finality of death.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  80. New Business Model by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Billionaire Freezes Brain.
    Step 2: Donate all assets to a Trust that uses the managed growing interest to fund technologies to revive frozen brains.
    Step 3: Repeat.

    Bonus Step: Be the guy that manages said fund.

  81. Oh ye of little imagination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello Mr. Brown, welcome to 2089
    It worked I can't believe it worked
    Mr. Brown you were revived to for punishment for crimes against humanity.
    Crimes? What crimes? I never got a conviction
    Do you remember something called global warming...

  82. Re: First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twat

  83. All Hail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robot Nixon.

  84. Ah, but... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    You can't keep a cryogenic frozen brain on your desk as a paperweight.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  85. Copyright is forever. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Of course, this means you have to guess what kind of thing will be valuable enough 100 or 1000 years from now for someone to extract your consciousness.

    Just make sure you have enough lawyers for them to keep arguing that you're technically not dead.
    They'll also have to chase down all those profits from your art floating around for all those centuries.
    I suggest making something simple, like a children's book.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  86. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silicon Valley isn't even trying to hide it's sociopathology anymore.

    What won't you people do for a buck? You are truly disgusting.

  87. Barclay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In regards to the Star Trek disintegration discussion, remember that Barclay is conscious in the transporter stream when he sees those worms.

  88. Re: First! by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    the answer would be 42 $die to live again , IF you got the money fi ; ... \n is a colon too i dont get that discussion , rated O for off-topic

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?