We have a bright future in our imaginations instead of an afterlife.
And now you have me wondering about something.
How does one balance the belief in an afterlife with the belief that, one day, a frozen body will possibly be revivable? If someone believes in an afterlife, then they believe in the existence of the soul. So what happens to your soul while you are frozen, and is this true for with all frozen bodies, or just ones that were frozen in a lab?
I'm not here to debate the existence of souls and afterlives (I believe in neither). I am simply curious how the people who do believe in such things view cryogenics.
Old as I am, I still haven't figured out why death is such a big deal to so many people. It's not something anyone will suffer.
Isn't that a bit like saying "I don't know why jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is such a big deal. It's not something anyone will suffer", just flipped a bit? Yes, the instant of death / falling may not hurt, but it's the dying / sudden stop at the end that I think most people are worried about how much suffering they will endure from that.
Hell, don't even tell them that 9 of your 10 fingers will delete data. And don't offer a finger. Let them grab your hand, single out a finger, and swipe it over the reader on your phone.
Personally, I'd configure it such that none of my fingers unlocks the phone, they should all delete data. But only after.. I don't know, lets say 3... successful reads of my fingerprint. That way I don't accidentally erase my data myself.
There were probably some Domino's locations that did nothing but give out free pizza's all day. How anyone thought that was sustainable I don't know...
Free to the T-Mobile subscriber does not necessarily mean Domino's does not get paid for the pizza. It isn't clear whether or not T-Mobile was paying Domino's for each and every pizza.
The problem is that the people foisting this irrational argument (Pascal's wager) is that they never fully consider the reward/punish matrix and make another box for reward for being an atheists.
I thought the problem was the people foisting this irrational argument assume that you won't pick Zeus, or Odin, or Ra, or any of the many many many other gods that are not the particular god they think you should pick.
Saying a debate should never have happened is censorship, of the worst kind.
It can be, but in this case, no it isn't.
the truth is that you just find it frustrating to deal with those you perceive to be so grossly in error. You would rather shut them up, or shut them out.
If Karmashock wanted to shut them up, why would they say "Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment."? It seems clear to me that Karmashock isn't trying to shut anyone up. What they want, is to have a discussion where actual legal change can occur. Trying to ban guns without changing the constitution is unconstitutional.
And no, I abhor guns. But backdoors are wrong, whether they are for encryption, or law.
and this shouting down of what other people have to say because you don't like it means you would shit all over free speech for your own ends.
Incorrect. You have the right to say something offensive, but they absolutely have the right to say "I'm offended by that". And of course, you have the right to respond back "tough shit". Because Freedom of Speech goes all ways.
I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.
And those church-ladies have every right to do that, because Freedom of Speech goes all ways. Allowing those people to say those things is not "tyranny of a very vocal minority", it is the very essence of Freedom of Speech.
My current electricity cost is about 14 cents per kWh.
My router draws 1.6 amps at 10 volts, for 16 watts of power.
Plugging those numbers into this calculator gives me a max monthly operating cost of about $1.64, or a yearly operating cost of less than $20. And that assumes that it is drawing the max amount of power 24/7.
10 cents per month is probably still under-estimating the actual average cost, and you certainly have the right to bitch about having to pay any amount, but I'm really curious as to why you made the accusation that you did.
Would they? Or could they have swapped out? Say, at 00:00:00 Person 1 is in the screening room. At 01:00:00, Person 2 comes in. At 02:00:00, Person 1 leaves and Person 3 enters. At 03:00:00, Person 2 leaves and Person 4 enters.
I honestly do not know if their ratings regulations allow for such, which is why I am asking.
Which is why you proof read it after the final pass, and make adjustments then. Yes, it might be possible that your adjustments can still be enough to identify you, but it seems much less likely to me.
I would not vote any at all. If I am asked to choose to eat one of different kind of poo, why should I pick one to eat if I am also allowed to pick none of them? It is stupid to "must pick" one if you can simply "not do it" instead.
You seem to be confused, thinking that you must choose one of the poos in front of you. You can always write in filet mignon. Sure, you prolly won't get it, but you can still write it in.
Unless you're in a non-swing state. Then it might be possible, but only if voters of the less popular poo color realize that their poo cannot win that state, so all they are doing is voting for who the runner up will be.
Or to get rid of the analogy... voting Democrat in a solidly red state, or Republican in a solidly blue state, is pointless. The person you are voting for can not and will not win your state. So might as well vote for some third option. If the polls read 60% D, 39% R, and 1% Other, that's just business as usual. But if they read 60% D, 1% R, and 39% Other, then people start to go "WTF??".
"Mental illness" is a bullshit term. It just means someone different from what I think people should be like. The less we talk about mental illness and the more we talk about specific conditions the better. There's a post below mine claiming introverts are mentally ill. As an introvert, I'd like to claim all extroverts are mentally ill. Lets go lock up anyone who can't stop talking. The world will be much more peaceful after that.
This is basically my problem in a nutshell, one persons mental illness is another persons normal. I have no problem with people who wish to medicate to change certain aspects of themselves. But I want to be able to make that choice for myself, I don't want someone else making that choice for me. Labeling something a "mental illness", to me, feels like it's just one step away from someone saying "we're going to force medication on you to 'fix' you. For your own good of course".
At first I did not understand either. I'm already in your system, I'm already costing you money for that, how would changing one number in a spreadsheet cause me to cost you more money? But after reading your post, I think I understand it now.
Basically, if I am a credit card company, and I give you credit, to you it is just credit, but to me, it is my money. If I give you a credit limit of $500, and you are maxing it out each month, it doesn't matter that you pay it all off at the end of the month, I am basically out $500 each month. If that limit is raised to $1000, and you max that out, and still manage to pay it off in full each month, now I'm out an additional $500 each month.
Slashdot Mirror
We have a bright future in our imaginations instead of an afterlife.
And now you have me wondering about something.
How does one balance the belief in an afterlife with the belief that, one day, a frozen body will possibly be revivable? If someone believes in an afterlife, then they believe in the existence of the soul. So what happens to your soul while you are frozen, and is this true for with all frozen bodies, or just ones that were frozen in a lab?
I'm not here to debate the existence of souls and afterlives (I believe in neither). I am simply curious how the people who do believe in such things view cryogenics.
Old as I am, I still haven't figured out why death is such a big deal to so many people. It's not something anyone will suffer.
Isn't that a bit like saying "I don't know why jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is such a big deal. It's not something anyone will suffer", just flipped a bit? Yes, the instant of death / falling may not hurt, but it's the dying / sudden stop at the end that I think most people are worried about how much suffering they will endure from that.
Hell, don't even tell them that 9 of your 10 fingers will delete data. And don't offer a finger. Let them grab your hand, single out a finger, and swipe it over the reader on your phone.
Personally, I'd configure it such that none of my fingers unlocks the phone, they should all delete data. But only after.. I don't know, lets say 3... successful reads of my fingerprint. That way I don't accidentally erase my data myself.
Two words: Plausible Deniability.
Now admittedly, I cannot think how that might benefit Amazon. But it could be a reason.
There were probably some Domino's locations that did nothing but give out free pizza's all day. How anyone thought that was sustainable I don't know...
Free to the T-Mobile subscriber does not necessarily mean Domino's does not get paid for the pizza. It isn't clear whether or not T-Mobile was paying Domino's for each and every pizza.
US coins do not contain tin.
The problem is that the people foisting this irrational argument (Pascal's wager) is that they never fully consider the reward/punish matrix and make another box for reward for being an atheists.
I thought the problem was the people foisting this irrational argument assume that you won't pick Zeus, or Odin, or Ra, or any of the many many many other gods that are not the particular god they think you should pick.
Usually, one wants to be the biggest in such tests. Here, presumably everyone wants to be the same.
Verizon charges me $5 per card.
Saying a debate should never have happened is censorship, of the worst kind.
It can be, but in this case, no it isn't.
the truth is that you just find it frustrating to deal with those you perceive to be so grossly in error. You would rather shut them up, or shut them out.
If Karmashock wanted to shut them up, why would they say "Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment."? It seems clear to me that Karmashock isn't trying to shut anyone up. What they want, is to have a discussion where actual legal change can occur. Trying to ban guns without changing the constitution is unconstitutional.
And no, I abhor guns. But backdoors are wrong, whether they are for encryption, or law.
There is no right to not be offended,
Correct.
and this shouting down of what other people have to say because you don't like it means you would shit all over free speech for your own ends.
Incorrect. You have the right to say something offensive, but they absolutely have the right to say "I'm offended by that". And of course, you have the right to respond back "tough shit". Because Freedom of Speech goes all ways.
I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.
And those church-ladies have every right to do that, because Freedom of Speech goes all ways. Allowing those people to say those things is not "tyranny of a very vocal minority", it is the very essence of Freedom of Speech.
My current electricity cost is about 14 cents per kWh.
My router draws 1.6 amps at 10 volts, for 16 watts of power.
Plugging those numbers into this calculator gives me a max monthly operating cost of about $1.64, or a yearly operating cost of less than $20. And that assumes that it is drawing the max amount of power 24/7.
10 cents per month is probably still under-estimating the actual average cost, and you certainly have the right to bitch about having to pay any amount, but I'm really curious as to why you made the accusation that you did.
Would they? Or could they have swapped out? Say, at 00:00:00 Person 1 is in the screening room. At 01:00:00, Person 2 comes in. At 02:00:00, Person 1 leaves and Person 3 enters. At 03:00:00, Person 2 leaves and Person 4 enters.
I honestly do not know if their ratings regulations allow for such, which is why I am asking.
Except there are cons and pros to stick shifts. I cannot think of any pros for slow internet.
I don't understand. Since you've heard the term Republican In Name Only, why'd you choose "LINO" instead of "DINO" for the opposing side?
You capture opponents pieces and remove them from the board.
And that would explain my confusion. I was unaware that squares could ever revert to blank.
Which is why you proof read it after the final pass, and make adjustments then. Yes, it might be possible that your adjustments can still be enough to identify you, but it seems much less likely to me.
I would not vote any at all. If I am asked to choose to eat one of different kind of poo, why should I pick one to eat if I am also allowed to pick none of them? It is stupid to "must pick" one if you can simply "not do it" instead.
You seem to be confused, thinking that you must choose one of the poos in front of you. You can always write in filet mignon. Sure, you prolly won't get it, but you can still write it in.
Unless you're in a non-swing state. Then it might be possible, but only if voters of the less popular poo color realize that their poo cannot win that state, so all they are doing is voting for who the runner up will be.
Or to get rid of the analogy... voting Democrat in a solidly red state, or Republican in a solidly blue state, is pointless. The person you are voting for can not and will not win your state. So might as well vote for some third option. If the polls read 60% D, 39% R, and 1% Other, that's just business as usual. But if they read 60% D, 1% R, and 39% Other, then people start to go "WTF??".
It doesn't matter if the wall you build is thirty feet high and six men can walk abreast if you can kick in a door.
Or, y'know, just walk around it.
"Mental illness" is a bullshit term. It just means someone different from what I think people should be like. The less we talk about mental illness and the more we talk about specific conditions the better. There's a post below mine claiming introverts are mentally ill. As an introvert, I'd like to claim all extroverts are mentally ill. Lets go lock up anyone who can't stop talking. The world will be much more peaceful after that.
This is basically my problem in a nutshell, one persons mental illness is another persons normal. I have no problem with people who wish to medicate to change certain aspects of themselves. But I want to be able to make that choice for myself, I don't want someone else making that choice for me. Labeling something a "mental illness", to me, feels like it's just one step away from someone saying "we're going to force medication on you to 'fix' you. For your own good of course".
You mean so you don't get inundated with such notices?
All it takes is a comma:
Yup. "Lets eat, Grandma" vs "lets eat Grandma".
Yes they are crooks, but they want people to go to them to purchase these things. Too many false positives, and people stop going to their "business".
Not ROT312! That's 12 times as encrypted as ROT26!
At first I did not understand either. I'm already in your system, I'm already costing you money for that, how would changing one number in a spreadsheet cause me to cost you more money? But after reading your post, I think I understand it now.
Basically, if I am a credit card company, and I give you credit, to you it is just credit, but to me, it is my money. If I give you a credit limit of $500, and you are maxing it out each month, it doesn't matter that you pay it all off at the end of the month, I am basically out $500 each month. If that limit is raised to $1000, and you max that out, and still manage to pay it off in full each month, now I'm out an additional $500 each month.
Does that sound about right?