Considering that this article seems to be a precursor to "The Internet of Things" acceptability campaign, I think I agree with your sentiment the most.
Can you demonstrate that being unconscious is a more pleasant death than being conscious.
Just because people have convinced themselves that something is better doesn't make it so. Experience belongs to those that have it. Studying blood and brainwaves and chemicals may make the observer feel better about the experience. But it doesn't tell you anything about how the actual act was experienced.
Our government does not have higher moral in this regard. They want the same thing. They are fortunately just a tiny bit less capable of pulling off what Putin can pull off.
I can't seems to stop a suspicion from forming in the back of my mind that somewhere someone is trying to shift blame on the recent news of anti-trust behavior onto the one guy who is no longer here. Doesn't it take 2 to tango?
In this very news story, I read that Google was complicate in the scheme of preventing a competitive job market. So let's report on the story that should be reported, please -- Who in Google is going to jail over this?
I wish I had a mod point to spare you, my friend. Except someone taking offense at your language, you make a great point. (Ironically, Bennet is very much pro-f-word.)
Every couple of weeks, Bennet Haselton has an idea, and much like Hugo Chavez, he feels that he and we have a duty to get into a lengthy discussion about his ideas on the matter. And who is he? He's a guy that started some once controversial websites and promotes internet freedom. So do I, by the way, though I don't make it my full time job. Are his ideas brighter and more wise than mine or yours? I can't say they are when he calls T-Mobile profitable.
But, apparently, timothy thinks his ideas are so important that normal Slashdot story excerpt length needs to be set aside any time he has something to say. So why should it be "Troll" behavior to question why his ideas are heralded while the ideas of most others can only earn a dominance of Score:5 at most? I think that's very relevant discussion on this thread. I M H O.
Look out bottle industry. People have been wanting to eat those plastic things that slide down your dirty aluminum rollers and get touched by every customer.
"what compels people to open up their homes and cars to complete strangers is money, not trust."
That's interesting. Could the exact same thing be said about the banking industry? And the insurance industry? And stock brokerages?... and...
The fact that New York magazine smears the sharing economy with the word "desperation" just speaks of editoralizing that tries to use controversial words to grab attention. Without the prestige of slick magazine paper, we would just call that activity "trolling".
My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"
I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick. I was beginning to fear that the medical community was going to try to force any level of existence to continue without regard to quality. Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
Try working in the healthcare field. You'll see that that is the norm. Older patients often would be fine with letting go. But the family falls apart emotionally and pushes for ANY MEANS POSSIBLE to save them. It's pathetic. And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.
And doesn't the fact that no data exists where we do know there were fairly fast variations historically naturally mean that we don't have enough data to make a positive conclusion and must with humility admit that there's just some things we just don't know? Because we do know that past ice ages and climate changes happened very fast.
But, oh no, if you're a climate scientist, you damn well better conclude something...
That's great. You've found a range that you think matters. Now let's do this over 10,000 years. Is there something you want to call normal in that set? Or even something that is consistant over a long range of time? Oh, things change constantly in that time frame, don't they? So is change unacceptable in this one?
The world is less polluted today than it was 30 years ago. And far far less than it was 100 years ago. So isn't that a shrinking pollution problem, not a growing one?
Getting back to the actual topic, Timothy and you both implied that the budget of topic here originated with the House. It didn't. It originated with Barack Obama. That's all I'm saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Find yourself a good Seedbox out of the country.
Considering that this article seems to be a precursor to "The Internet of Things" acceptability campaign, I think I agree with your sentiment the most.
Can you demonstrate that being unconscious is a more pleasant death than being conscious.
Just because people have convinced themselves that something is better doesn't make it so. Experience belongs to those that have it. Studying blood and brainwaves and chemicals may make the observer feel better about the experience. But it doesn't tell you anything about how the actual act was experienced.
Guillotine. The most humane method humanity ever invented.
My car sits in the sun for 8 hours per day. While I'm at work.
Our government does not have higher moral in this regard. They want the same thing. They are fortunately just a tiny bit less capable of pulling off what Putin can pull off.
I can't seems to stop a suspicion from forming in the back of my mind that somewhere someone is trying to shift blame on the recent news of anti-trust behavior onto the one guy who is no longer here. Doesn't it take 2 to tango? In this very news story, I read that Google was complicate in the scheme of preventing a competitive job market. So let's report on the story that should be reported, please -- Who in Google is going to jail over this?
Fortunately, there is little or no loss to the modern day internet user experience by ignoring Yahoo completely, either.
-1 Troll?
I wish I had a mod point to spare you, my friend. Except someone taking offense at your language, you make a great point. (Ironically, Bennet is very much pro-f-word.)
Every couple of weeks, Bennet Haselton has an idea, and much like Hugo Chavez, he feels that he and we have a duty to get into a lengthy discussion about his ideas on the matter. And who is he? He's a guy that started some once controversial websites and promotes internet freedom. So do I, by the way, though I don't make it my full time job. Are his ideas brighter and more wise than mine or yours? I can't say they are when he calls T-Mobile profitable.
But, apparently, timothy thinks his ideas are so important that normal Slashdot story excerpt length needs to be set aside any time he has something to say. So why should it be "Troll" behavior to question why his ideas are heralded while the ideas of most others can only earn a dominance of Score:5 at most? I think that's very relevant discussion on this thread. I M H O.
Look out bottle industry. People have been wanting to eat those plastic things that slide down your dirty aluminum rollers and get touched by every customer.
"what compels people to open up their homes and cars to complete strangers is money, not trust."
... and ...
That's interesting. Could the exact same thing be said about the banking industry? And the insurance industry? And stock brokerages?
The fact that New York magazine smears the sharing economy with the word "desperation" just speaks of editoralizing that tries to use controversial words to grab attention. Without the prestige of slick magazine paper, we would just call that activity "trolling".
Really? You're trying to solve this "problem"?
My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"
I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick. I was beginning to fear that the medical community was going to try to force any level of existence to continue without regard to quality. Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
Try working in the healthcare field. You'll see that that is the norm. Older patients often would be fine with letting go. But the family falls apart emotionally and pushes for ANY MEANS POSSIBLE to save them. It's pathetic. And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.
I think that's because of the over-use of tongue-in-cheek references to "holes".
That's what Newton said to Leibniz.
3.14159265358... or something like that. That could be wrong. But my memory is usually worth "Good Enough" engineering.
... What the hell do I do with this shotgun again?
And I think it's a lot harder to remember
Look the other way here, please. California is a key source for organ donations.
As the Chinese like to say, "Don't break your brother's rice bowl."
And doesn't the fact that no data exists where we do know there were fairly fast variations historically naturally mean that we don't have enough data to make a positive conclusion and must with humility admit that there's just some things we just don't know? Because we do know that past ice ages and climate changes happened very fast.
But, oh no, if you're a climate scientist, you damn well better conclude something...
And so they do.
That's great. You've found a range that you think matters. Now let's do this over 10,000 years. Is there something you want to call normal in that set? Or even something that is consistant over a long range of time? Oh, things change constantly in that time frame, don't they? So is change unacceptable in this one?
Anyone who lived through all of the 70's and into today knows this intrinsically. Read up: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/e...
And therefor, a well armed populace is the best final defense of freedom.
Out of 26 years only 1 is "normal"? At what point should we just conclude that your definition of normal is the issue?
The world is less polluted today than it was 30 years ago. And far far less than it was 100 years ago. So isn't that a shrinking pollution problem, not a growing one?
We can always fund more research. But I'm sure that fact hasn't influenced the previous findings of those researchers.
Getting back to the actual topic, Timothy and you both implied that the budget of topic here originated with the House. It didn't. It originated with Barack Obama. That's all I'm saying.
Hey, now! Corporations are people too.