(Arguing with imaginary self)
Me: No, no, no! That just proves you don't understand how the joke works.
Myself: Which one, the one about women drivers with flying cars or the one about women always making disparaging comments?
Me: The part where the parent poster pretends to be a chick, everybody knows that the angry feminists on slashdot don't post AC! (Ask either of them.)
Myself: I thought that part was serious, I mean who but an angry feminist would ignore any need to back up their arguments with the assumption that whatever they said must be true because it was obviously evil mens' fault?
Me: No, remember, this is a discussion about flying cars, or driving airplanes, how would an angry feminist ever get past the first three posts?
Mysef: You have a point there, or should I say we have a point there. Your insight is nearly as significant as your ego.
Me: Thanks!
Myself: Oh, and Me? Make a note, this conversation can be recycled for practically any angry feminist comment with only one or two subject matter substitutions.
I believe that someone deserves the amount of wealth they achieve through individual or team work. (A family should be a team.)
As to whether a mother caring for her children deserves any wealth, that depends, is she asking for it because she has put herself in a position where she can neither care for herself or those she is responsible for, or are we ascertaining the deserved wealth of one of the wealthier blue bloods? I'll probably generally say that either deserves the amount of wealth they have by virtue of the choices and circumstances they find themselves in and neither is entitled to more, and possibly less. In particular, I'd say that someone having children who is unable to support them and doesn't have any reasonable expectation of being able to support them is guilty of what should be criminal stupidity.
Or did you mean I should consider how you would want to judge what wealth a person deserves? Perhaps you meant to attribute the wealth a person deserves with that person's value? Whatever, make any silly distinction you want, the point was that the word "greedy" was being used correctly according to the definition. If you don't like it, don't feel it is accurate, well then point out how the facts are different than the perception. Taking umbrage with a word without without even bothering to look up it's meaning just makes it obvious how shallow your argument is.
He called himself a security consultant, his bosses and his victims called him a security consultant, and I have little doubt that he did at least a few honest jobs somewhere along the way. He was, by any reasonable definition, a security consultant.
That isn't to say he was a good one, or an honest one. Don't get your panties in a wad over whether people use the title or not. Every criminal with a day job gets referred to that way.
Greed - excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
Not to argue the point that welfare doesn't really supply the most efficient path to luxury, I'd just like to argue that it is in fact sometimes abused by people who are trying to get more than they deserve.
It's not exactly a new issue:
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.' We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.
I try to maintain pristine language, really I do, but on a really bad day I had to talk to Sprint customer service and the automated voice system really started to get on my nerves the second or third time I had to talk to it and I let slip a few choice non-G-rated phrases. I was transferred to a person faster than any other method I'd tried before or come up with since.
Many are overlooking that he hasn't been sentenced yet, and is "cooperating" with authorities. I didn't specifically see that his admission of guilt was a plea-bargain, but it sounds like the same approach. It makes some sense in fact, to give him a lighter sentence, because it then becomes a tested method of getting the information from someone caught in this kind of misdeed to give up information that can be used beneficially. Knowing how it is done with an eye toward prevention, who else to go after and how to attempt to clean up the mess might be better than trying to make an example. Examples are only useful as far as they prevent more crime and give a feeling of justice to the population, but that doesn't happen if the perpetrators think they will never be caught. Typically the mentality of this type of criminal seems to be that they are smarter than anyone who gets caught, so it is arguably better to try to prevent the crime by technical means than to scare other criminals.
Ask yourself if you'll solve more crime by attempting to scare egomaniacs or by attempting to make it more beneficial to those caught to talk rather than stonewall. Thirty months might not be as bad a deal as it sounds on the face of it. Regardless, he will have opportunity to make money from this legitimately as consulting with a criminal for insight doesn't require you to trust the criminal, and security firms know that.
Me: Sorry, we can't both know your password, so I changed it.
User: To what?
Me: If I told you, then we'd both know it wouldn't we? yuk yuk yuk
User: [grumbling] Okay, I'll change it, but I won't tell you this time.
Me: Okay, it's temporary though, and will force you to change it when you log in, ready?
User: *sigh* ready.
Me: [mumble: random, okay] a;@#aslkdfQQQ$@$#%faWerrr@!!a;lskd1.
Nobody, but nobody leaves their password as the one I give them. Few tell me twice.
I tried that, but it did indeed make me a poor-man. In fact, it didn't take long until I couldn't make the payments. Unfortunately they didn't repo the wife, only turned off the service.
You assume that your parents would have restricted your freedom more if they'd been able to?
I think not, I think your parents would have treated you pretty much the way they did and you would have become pretty much the person you are. Ditto for me. Those previous generations, I think *most* but certainly not all of them got the same freedoms our parents tried to give us. But that's not the group of parents and kids this would make much difference for. I can think of a group of kids that were pretty much grounded until they moved out. Those are the kids that needed some help, but the only way to help them would have been to make their mom feel more secure. I expect you can think of those kids in your experience too, and if you think back you'll realize the only way they could have gotten more freedom was by changing what their parents would allow them to do. I really can't seem much way to accomplish that with any technology that doesn't do something like this. Sure, better to make good parents than good technology, just let me know how that works out for you.
You distinguish "stupid wars," but somehow I'm not convinced that everyone will agree with you about which ones are stupid. If I'm going to get shot at, yeah, I want one of these and I don't care who thinks the war is stupid or whether it is technically a war or not. I care about not dying.
Lets assume that the technology is used in exactly the way you suggest, to track the whereabouts of minors and people the government is afraid of.
As far as being watched by Dad, here are the real options:
A. Dad lets Jr go to boy scouts because he knows that Jr tends to go where he said he would as he's proven, and Dad can check up on Jr just to make sure he's not knocking Susie up. Eventually Jr grows up but he's got a long history of being allowed to make his own decisions and mistakes so he enjoys his newfound freedom without regretting his choices too much along the way
B. Dad doesn't let Jr go ANYWHERE unescorted because he has seen the way Jr watched Susie at the basketball game. Jr grows up just hoping for one chance to be his own man and soon finds himself paying child support to Susie and expelled from college because authority can only take so much rebellious attitude
As for being watched by Uncle Sam, here are the real options:
A. Assid gets picked up one night by guys with guns and taken somewhere to be questioned, eventually he gets to see a lawyer but he gets held because there are phone calls to known and suspected terrorists. Assid might be innocent but his life is going to suck for a long time regardless. There are many instances of screamed "Where are they!?"
B. Assid has a tracker put on his car by the guys with guns and he doesn't know it. See, Assid might be a terrorist, or he might not be, but now the gwg can track what he is up to and tell whether he is or not and maybe even get some information on the people that are really dangerous. The gwg know exactly where 'they' are.
<sarcasm>Oh yeah, I'm sure that *this* technology is bad. I'm sure that real knowledge of people's actions will be handled far worse than suspicions, cause people like, you know, ignore their suspicions and let people be free until they have proof. As for the people who are incapable of taking care of themselves and could wear tracking bracelets, screw their freedom.</sarcasm>
There are a lot of posts from people that seem really worried that they might get caught doing something and really don't want a society that can enforce it's rules. For those of you afraid of being caught, here is my suggestion to you: Either get the laws changed or STOP BREAKING THE LAW!
I'd call them morons, but it would be an insult to morons everywhere.
Bunch of idiots - this DOES increase freedom
on
Technology as Tattletale
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Or one of the first independent generations in years?
Seriously, do you think that most kids get to go wherever they want as soon as they're old enough to ask? Do you think that most kids are at home because they want to be or because their parents feel like they aren't safe roaming the neighborhood? I doubt most kids in the last eighty years were allowed to visit neighbors or wander the neighborhood before they were fifteen. Two hundred years ago in colonial America, kids could just take off and play or hang out. Parents didn't need to restrict them because they were mostly safe, and mostly accountable. It was that kind of independence of mind that grew the minds our freedoms are based on. If you want a child to value freedom and have an independent spirit, you must give them a chance to exercise it and it would be called negligence in most cities in America to do so.
I can't get over the shock of how many idiots assume parents are less likely to let their kids experience life because of technology. Get a clue! Parents that keep their kids under lock and key will always be that paranoid, but if they can track their kids, then at least the kids might be able to leave the house before they turn eighteen.
Instead I see all these idiotic posts making the assumption that parents are letting their kids have freedom but just waiting for a gadget to restrict it. Morons! Those parents aren't letting their kids have freedom, those kids are on lock down right now and this might be a chance for them to actually get out from under the thumbs of worried guardians and all you can do is spout knee-jerk *responsibility is bad* crap.
I dunno, but I'd like to. I'm torn on exactly how far to go. My favorite nick got taken before I got a gmail, so I'm the one with the suffix (not jnr) and the one time I tried to open up a conversation with the owner of the address, I got this "Don't hack me bro!" type response.
I'm close to signing him up for every piece of spam and junk I can. The only thing I want to do is make sure I have enough info to hit every account he ever opens.
You couldn't have made a better argument for tracking your children. You absolutely must look after their safety, but if you can't know where they are once out of the house, then you can't let them out of the house. On the other hand, if you sit them down and say you can leave the house, you can do whatever, but I have to be able to find you, then you can give them freedom that you couldn't have before.
You can talk to this one, and it responds. There is room here for great use. Let me *borrow* from some other posts:
Every time I step into my car, it should try to gauge my mood and normally it should tell me a joke. Jokes get categorized by the personality types that find them funny, so most times, when I get into my car, it has something witty to say that I appreciate.
If I'm in a foul mood, it knows the right way to respond. For me, that means no jokes and just a short pithy saying in the tone that one would associate with Batman's butler.
If I'm not in a better mood within a couple minutes, it should offer further mood improvement options, based on my tendencies:
If Sir cares for a stoogie, there is a convenience store that sells cigars just to your right in one mile.
Sir might be interested to know there is an electronics store just two miles south of here.
There is a gentleman's club ahead with free steak buffet and cheap liquor. If your majesty cares to indulge, I should be glad to send your bank a request to hold funds beyond $200 this evening and arrange for a cab to pick you up.
The Duke of Earl might be interested to know that his weed supplier Kevin is still out on bond this week. Perhaps I should ring him for you?
Finally, there should be a little red button beside the hand break. When I press the button the robot should react as if being electrocuted. Short bursts should produce short whimpers then complaint. Longer bursts should produce howls mingled with sobbing and begging. A really long burst should produce incoherent screaming followed by lights out, no movement and no sound (simulated death.) Bonus points if the robot can simulate the voice of people I've talked to on the phone and answer to their name.
Sick? Twisted? Maybe, but I suspect it would do wonders for my mood.
Disclaimer: No, these are not really my tendencies
Screw multiple uses, if it saves me from dying when I get shot, I'm all for it. If it happens to be better than kevlar for that, and lighter, then heck yeah. I'm probably not going to get drafted, but if I were ever put into combat, then I know I'll be hoping they're passing this out.
Multiple uses is great, but really, make it good for one thing only, stopping bullets and you've got a sale.
Thag say why war? Thag think must be people mad, don't make people mad! Let them do whatever they want! Thag gladly give DNS-and-BIND as peace offering to bullies.
Islam isn't bad, just kill all the people who don't convert and you'll see. (Burn karma, burn!)
Of course! I guess I never realized how obvious it is, but now I see that you can't get people to commit atrocities against each other, now I see that the projects designed to utilize technology in new ways are really just evil people, cowards who want to remain anonymous... wait, that does sound familiar.
Probably right after there stop being reasons to go to war. Which will happen after people decide to treat each other decently regardless of politics, government or religion.
Of course, you can refuse to fight, you can refuse to participate. I'm sure if you stand up for your beliefs and take responsibility for yourself, people will respect your opinion. Or you could just stay anonymous, nobody's calling you a coward... oh wait, yeah, we are.
Douglas Adams - "Mostly Harmless"
- The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at and repair.
Lets build in some redundancy shall we? (Just in case.)
I think you covered the list pretty well but corrosion is also a factor that space should mitigate. Well, mostly aside from the wandering bit of space debris.
I haven't RTFA, probably won't, but I'd like to throw in the additional suggestion we look into Von Neumann devices to build most of the components on a lunar base. (Earth first, and strip-mine the moon later.)
Having people agree with you doesn't make you right or wrong. Truth is independent of confirmation, but confirmation does tend to yield practical results more often than trying to use untested ideas. That said, the Bible has yielded beneficial practical results for many people, and yes, unfortunately been used as an excuse for a lot of detrimental results as well. The short of it is that the Bible itself doesn't do anything good or bad, but a lot of good people believe it and some bad people do too.
All that said, the answer to the implied question, does the Bible cover that? The answer is yes, but perhaps little better than dozens of other texts, and not nearly as in depth as dozens of science fiction books. Anytime someone posits an eternity, independent of observable reality, they are suggesting that something exists that is not dependent on the progression of time as we've observed it. The Bible, though not alone, certainly posits this as a certainty. God would have to be outside of time, and so would any soul that is destined for eternity. This would be an interesting twist on how God's plan for the application of physics might cover said eternity.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what she said!
(Arguing with imaginary self)Me: No, no, no! That just proves you don't understand how the joke works.
Myself: Which one, the one about women drivers with flying cars or the one about women always making disparaging comments?
Me: The part where the parent poster pretends to be a chick, everybody knows that the angry feminists on slashdot don't post AC! (Ask either of them.)
Myself: I thought that part was serious, I mean who but an angry feminist would ignore any need to back up their arguments with the assumption that whatever they said must be true because it was obviously evil mens' fault?
Me: No, remember, this is a discussion about flying cars, or driving airplanes, how would an angry feminist ever get past the first three posts?
Mysef: You have a point there, or should I say we have a point there. Your insight is nearly as significant as your ego.
Me: Thanks!
Myself: Oh, and Me? Make a note, this conversation can be recycled for practically any angry feminist comment with only one or two subject matter substitutions.
I believe that someone deserves the amount of wealth they achieve through individual or team work. (A family should be a team.)
As to whether a mother caring for her children deserves any wealth, that depends, is she asking for it because she has put herself in a position where she can neither care for herself or those she is responsible for, or are we ascertaining the deserved wealth of one of the wealthier blue bloods? I'll probably generally say that either deserves the amount of wealth they have by virtue of the choices and circumstances they find themselves in and neither is entitled to more, and possibly less. In particular, I'd say that someone having children who is unable to support them and doesn't have any reasonable expectation of being able to support them is guilty of what should be criminal stupidity.
Or did you mean I should consider how you would want to judge what wealth a person deserves? Perhaps you meant to attribute the wealth a person deserves with that person's value? Whatever, make any silly distinction you want, the point was that the word "greedy" was being used correctly according to the definition. If you don't like it, don't feel it is accurate, well then point out how the facts are different than the perception. Taking umbrage with a word without without even bothering to look up it's meaning just makes it obvious how shallow your argument is.
He called himself a security consultant, his bosses and his victims called him a security consultant, and I have little doubt that he did at least a few honest jobs somewhere along the way. He was, by any reasonable definition, a security consultant.
That isn't to say he was a good one, or an honest one. Don't get your panties in a wad over whether people use the title or not. Every criminal with a day job gets referred to that way.
Greed - excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
Not to argue the point that welfare doesn't really supply the most efficient path to luxury, I'd just like to argue that it is in fact sometimes abused by people who are trying to get more than they deserve.
It's not exactly a new issue:
I try to maintain pristine language, really I do, but on a really bad day I had to talk to Sprint customer service and the automated voice system really started to get on my nerves the second or third time I had to talk to it and I let slip a few choice non-G-rated phrases. I was transferred to a person faster than any other method I'd tried before or come up with since.
Many are overlooking that he hasn't been sentenced yet, and is "cooperating" with authorities. I didn't specifically see that his admission of guilt was a plea-bargain, but it sounds like the same approach. It makes some sense in fact, to give him a lighter sentence, because it then becomes a tested method of getting the information from someone caught in this kind of misdeed to give up information that can be used beneficially. Knowing how it is done with an eye toward prevention, who else to go after and how to attempt to clean up the mess might be better than trying to make an example. Examples are only useful as far as they prevent more crime and give a feeling of justice to the population, but that doesn't happen if the perpetrators think they will never be caught. Typically the mentality of this type of criminal seems to be that they are smarter than anyone who gets caught, so it is arguably better to try to prevent the crime by technical means than to scare other criminals.
Ask yourself if you'll solve more crime by attempting to scare egomaniacs or by attempting to make it more beneficial to those caught to talk rather than stonewall. Thirty months might not be as bad a deal as it sounds on the face of it. Regardless, he will have opportunity to make money from this legitimately as consulting with a criminal for insight doesn't require you to trust the criminal, and security firms know that.
Me: Sorry, we can't both know your password, so I changed it.
User: To what?
Me: If I told you, then we'd both know it wouldn't we? yuk yuk yuk
User: [grumbling] Okay, I'll change it, but I won't tell you this time.
Me: Okay, it's temporary though, and will force you to change it when you log in, ready?
User: *sigh* ready.
Me: [mumble: random, okay] a;@#aslkdfQQQ$@$#%faWerrr@!!a;lskd1.
Nobody, but nobody leaves their password as the one I give them. Few tell me twice.
My stupid spell checker is only checking if what aye type is a word, and not checking to sea if it is the word eye mien.
I tried that, but it did indeed make me a poor-man. In fact, it didn't take long until I couldn't make the payments. Unfortunately they didn't repo the wife, only turned off the service.
You assume that your parents would have restricted your freedom more if they'd been able to?
I think not, I think your parents would have treated you pretty much the way they did and you would have become pretty much the person you are. Ditto for me. Those previous generations, I think *most* but certainly not all of them got the same freedoms our parents tried to give us. But that's not the group of parents and kids this would make much difference for. I can think of a group of kids that were pretty much grounded until they moved out. Those are the kids that needed some help, but the only way to help them would have been to make their mom feel more secure. I expect you can think of those kids in your experience too, and if you think back you'll realize the only way they could have gotten more freedom was by changing what their parents would allow them to do. I really can't seem much way to accomplish that with any technology that doesn't do something like this. Sure, better to make good parents than good technology, just let me know how that works out for you.
You distinguish "stupid wars," but somehow I'm not convinced that everyone will agree with you about which ones are stupid. If I'm going to get shot at, yeah, I want one of these and I don't care who thinks the war is stupid or whether it is technically a war or not. I care about not dying.
Lets assume that the technology is used in exactly the way you suggest, to track the whereabouts of minors and people the government is afraid of.
As far as being watched by Dad, here are the real options:
- A. Dad lets Jr go to boy scouts because he knows that Jr tends to go where he said he would as he's proven, and Dad can check up on Jr just to make sure he's not knocking Susie up. Eventually Jr grows up but he's got a long history of being allowed to make his own decisions and mistakes so he enjoys his newfound freedom without regretting his choices too much along the way
- B. Dad doesn't let Jr go ANYWHERE unescorted because he has seen the way Jr watched Susie at the basketball game. Jr grows up just hoping for one chance to be his own man and soon finds himself paying child support to Susie and expelled from college because authority can only take so much rebellious attitude
As for being watched by Uncle Sam, here are the real options:- A. Assid gets picked up one night by guys with guns and taken somewhere to be questioned, eventually he gets to see a lawyer but he gets held because there are phone calls to known and suspected terrorists. Assid might be innocent but his life is going to suck for a long time regardless. There are many instances of screamed "Where are they!?"
- B. Assid has a tracker put on his car by the guys with guns and he doesn't know it. See, Assid might be a terrorist, or he might not be, but now the gwg can track what he is up to and tell whether he is or not and maybe even get some information on the people that are really dangerous. The gwg know exactly where 'they' are.
<sarcasm>Oh yeah, I'm sure that *this* technology is bad. I'm sure that real knowledge of people's actions will be handled far worse than suspicions, cause people like, you know, ignore their suspicions and let people be free until they have proof. As for the people who are incapable of taking care of themselves and could wear tracking bracelets, screw their freedom.</sarcasm>There are a lot of posts from people that seem really worried that they might get caught doing something and really don't want a society that can enforce it's rules. For those of you afraid of being caught, here is my suggestion to you: Either get the laws changed or STOP BREAKING THE LAW!
I'd call them morons, but it would be an insult to morons everywhere.
Or one of the first independent generations in years?
Seriously, do you think that most kids get to go wherever they want as soon as they're old enough to ask? Do you think that most kids are at home because they want to be or because their parents feel like they aren't safe roaming the neighborhood? I doubt most kids in the last eighty years were allowed to visit neighbors or wander the neighborhood before they were fifteen. Two hundred years ago in colonial America, kids could just take off and play or hang out. Parents didn't need to restrict them because they were mostly safe, and mostly accountable. It was that kind of independence of mind that grew the minds our freedoms are based on. If you want a child to value freedom and have an independent spirit, you must give them a chance to exercise it and it would be called negligence in most cities in America to do so.
I can't get over the shock of how many idiots assume parents are less likely to let their kids experience life because of technology. Get a clue! Parents that keep their kids under lock and key will always be that paranoid, but if they can track their kids, then at least the kids might be able to leave the house before they turn eighteen.
Instead I see all these idiotic posts making the assumption that parents are letting their kids have freedom but just waiting for a gadget to restrict it. Morons! Those parents aren't letting their kids have freedom, those kids are on lock down right now and this might be a chance for them to actually get out from under the thumbs of worried guardians and all you can do is spout knee-jerk *responsibility is bad* crap.
I dunno, but I'd like to. I'm torn on exactly how far to go. My favorite nick got taken before I got a gmail, so I'm the one with the suffix (not jnr) and the one time I tried to open up a conversation with the owner of the address, I got this "Don't hack me bro!" type response.
I'm close to signing him up for every piece of spam and junk I can. The only thing I want to do is make sure I have enough info to hit every account he ever opens.
You couldn't have made a better argument for tracking your children. You absolutely must look after their safety, but if you can't know where they are once out of the house, then you can't let them out of the house. On the other hand, if you sit them down and say you can leave the house, you can do whatever, but I have to be able to find you, then you can give them freedom that you couldn't have before.
You can talk to this one, and it responds. There is room here for great use. Let me *borrow* from some other posts:
Sick? Twisted? Maybe, but I suspect it would do wonders for my mood.
Disclaimer: No, these are not really my tendenciesScrew multiple uses, if it saves me from dying when I get shot, I'm all for it. If it happens to be better than kevlar for that, and lighter, then heck yeah. I'm probably not going to get drafted, but if I were ever put into combat, then I know I'll be hoping they're passing this out.
Multiple uses is great, but really, make it good for one thing only, stopping bullets and you've got a sale.
Thag say war bad!
Thag say why war? Thag think must be people mad, don't make people mad! Let them do whatever they want! Thag gladly give DNS-and-BIND as peace offering to bullies.
Islam isn't bad, just kill all the people who don't convert and you'll see. (Burn karma, burn!)
Of course! I guess I never realized how obvious it is, but now I see that you can't get people to commit atrocities against each other, now I see that the projects designed to utilize technology in new ways are really just evil people, cowards who want to remain anonymous... wait, that does sound familiar.
Probably right after there stop being reasons to go to war. Which will happen after people decide to treat each other decently regardless of politics, government or religion.
Of course, you can refuse to fight, you can refuse to participate. I'm sure if you stand up for your beliefs and take responsibility for yourself, people will respect your opinion. Or you could just stay anonymous, nobody's calling you a coward ... oh wait, yeah, we are.
A glass NOC makes you feel like you have extra eyes to protect against somebody being where they shouldn't, but slides are cool stuff manard.
Here is a list of other stuff a _real_ datacenter should have:
Lets build in some redundancy shall we? (Just in case.)
I think you covered the list pretty well but corrosion is also a factor that space should mitigate. Well, mostly aside from the wandering bit of space debris.
I haven't RTFA, probably won't, but I'd like to throw in the additional suggestion we look into Von Neumann devices to build most of the components on a lunar base. (Earth first, and strip-mine the moon later.)
Well said. Wish I had mod points.
I come from a place where people leave their cars unlocked and the keys in them.
You want to prevent crime and terrorism? It's really simple: make people trustworthy.
I sincerely wish I knew how to do that.
Having people agree with you doesn't make you right or wrong. Truth is independent of confirmation, but confirmation does tend to yield practical results more often than trying to use untested ideas. That said, the Bible has yielded beneficial practical results for many people, and yes, unfortunately been used as an excuse for a lot of detrimental results as well. The short of it is that the Bible itself doesn't do anything good or bad, but a lot of good people believe it and some bad people do too.
All that said, the answer to the implied question, does the Bible cover that? The answer is yes, but perhaps little better than dozens of other texts, and not nearly as in depth as dozens of science fiction books. Anytime someone posits an eternity, independent of observable reality, they are suggesting that something exists that is not dependent on the progression of time as we've observed it. The Bible, though not alone, certainly posits this as a certainty. God would have to be outside of time, and so would any soul that is destined for eternity. This would be an interesting twist on how God's plan for the application of physics might cover said eternity.