And the people that choose to work at a location where asbestos was put in 40 years ago are responsible for their own cancer deaths, correct?
No, They are not responsible - as they didn't know about it.
Choices only give you responsibility if the data you based the decision on was accurate. The Tobacco business lied and continues to lie (although their recent lies are more subtle). Even if they didn't intend to outright lie they advertised which is at best a presentation of a one sided argument, if not an actual lie. By doing that they accept more responsibility - which is why we restrict their advertisements.
And that's not the only 'problem' with your logic. It ignores the addictive nature of the product - and the steps taken by the business to increase the addictive properties.
Few people, if any, have made a well informed, decision to smoke. Most were made by children, most were made before the industry admitted the dangers, most were made unaware of the addiction risks. All of this is by explicit design by the manufacturers. They eliminate your knowledge, and they incur blame.
1. is a stretch, but doable if he was careful. He himself would not be violating copyright at all - he sold the unmodified car. Modifying your car to look like the bat mobile is a) not for resale and b) for a legal use if done as part of a charity event, which I suggested.
3. I was not aware that DC ever actively sold Batrmobiles. If that is correct, then they would have a copyright on the Batmobile. But if I am correct and they NEVER SOLD BATMOBILES, then their copyright is on the Batman mythos, not the car itself, and the car is a tiny portion of it. Note, unlike DC/Batmobile, the Beatles did in fact sell the White Album, so your example is worthless.
4. Again, if DC was in the business of selling Batmobiles, your argument would make sense. But again they DO NOT SELL BATMOBILES. As such, the item they do have a valid copyright on - works of fiction, not cars, is NOT negatively affected by the sale of Batmobiles
Your argument requires DC to sell working, full size Batmobiles. If they did that, then my argument MIGHT fall apart (they would have to prove in court that their business was or could be profitable, rather than a mere attempt to stop a fair use) But they do not do so. As such Fair Use was a totally viable defense.
The comic is correct, the only thing stopping us from doing this already is portable power source capable of fueling it for any reasonable amount of time.
Which we DO NOT HAVE.
Without it, all they have is a man in a suit with a long power cord - a cord that can easily also transfer commands, which moves the pilot out of the suit and into a significantly safer nearby workstation. Put in a camera with an optional microphone and you reduces the weight the machine has to move around.
Which means what we can do is create an industrial robot.
Putting the man inside is incredibly stupid - until we have a viable power source. If we get that power source, the mech suit becomes an incredibly GOOD idea.
4. The car's sale will INCREASE the market for comics, movies, books, TV etc. Qualifies as Fair Use.
3. Amount copied: Minimal. The car is a minimal portion of the Batman mythos. Qualifies as Fair Use.
2. Nature of work. It is based on design, so it can not escape the fair use by claiming it is an idea - but this does not disqualify it as Fair Use.
1. Finally the Acceptable Purpose. Here he has to get a bit creative. If he was Smart he could sell the unmodified car, then for a fee perform modifications to as per the customer's requests. If the customer's requests happen to be do x, y, and z so it looks like the BatMobile, and then have the customer sign a statement saying they intend to use the car to give rides from Ronald McDonald House to the hospital for children, he has crafted an "Acceptable Use", and his actions become legal.
Also, sick kids get to ride in the BatMobile. Definitely an upside.
1) You are saying the company OWNS the client.
NO That is called slavery, which is illegal. Clients are people, people that have not signed contracts. The CLIENTS should decided who they go with and that means the broker should have the right to call up the client and ask them to go with them. The employers try to stop this with abusive contracts with the brokers - but that does not make it "ethical", nor does it always make it legal. Just because a company makes an contract does not make it a legal contract. Companies break the law all the time - and sometimes put that criminal act in their contracts.
2) The Company's theory that you are accepting - the company owns the clients is at heart false. No one picks a broker based on the Corporation because the companies are all almost identical. They have minor differences based on fees and some small services. The major differences are due to the broker - how much work they will do for you, how intelligent the broker is, etc. If your belief and the company's belief was true, than people would be quiet willing to talk to ANY financial advisor at the company. But that's not what happens with the wealthy. They develop a relationship and only talk to their advisor, not a random one.
3) A truly successful broker gets almost no clients from the company, they get their clients from networking. The company does not effectively give them the clients, they get the clients using personal relationships. So when an advisor gets a job at say PaineWebber, he calls up his friend from Harvard, gets his business, then 3 months later gets his friend's cousin and father business, etc. etc. Then when they leave PaineWebber and go to work for Merril Lynch, they keep those clients. When they try to quit and go to work for Fidelity, Fidelity tries to keep all the clients - including the ones they took with them from PaineWebber that even YOU admit belong to the person, not the compay
What you are describing is nothing less than an illegal attempt by a company to steal people's networking.
It is illegal and wrong on the part of the COMPANY as much as it is by the broker. Neither side is innocent - but the Company has a lot of power that they abuse while the broker has to try and squeak by. Taking the company side, as you do, is ridiculous. At best, the company is just as in the wrong as the advisor.
In a truly ethical world, it would be simple - the company and the broker would sit in the same room and call the clients up. They would ask the client who they would go with, and they would both ACCEPT the client's decision, neither taking any financial information that the client does not want them to have.
I used to work for PaineWebber, back when there was a PaineWebber. The real question was did he do this for his existing clients or for other broker's clients. If he did it with existing clients, than it is legal, and he did nothing wrong. If he did it with other broker's clients, than it is illegal and he could be in big trouble.
Basically, high end financial advisors and their employers have a large argument about who the clients "belong to".
Both the brokers and the employers claim the clients are THEIRS. Which means that when they quit their job, they each try to 'keep the clients'. The employers claim 'we gave you the leads that lead to that client', while the brokers claim "I spent 3 years building a relationship - even letting that client beat me at golf and I HATE golf."
The Employers do not for example tell the clients were the new broker went to, even if the clients ask. Instead, they often accuse the brokers (as in press legal charges and try for injunctions) and prevent them from talking to the clients after they quit. It's gets so bad that some employers might try to prevent a broker from talking to his own father, because they claim his father is a client of the Employer, not the broker.
The brokers often copy as much information as possible about their clients, not just phone numbers, but financial statements, etc. You need this information to give the clients real service. You can't tell all your clients with trust accounts about the new financial trust services at your new firm if you don't know which clients have trust accounts.
If the broker took someone else's clients, than he clearly broke the law. But if he simply copied records of people he had a relationship with - i.e. his own clients - then Morgan Stanley is simply being a douchebag company accusing him of violating privacy when THEY are the one violating the privacy.
Let's be honest here - the real truth is the CLIENT should be allowed to determine who they want to do business with. If the client wanted to do business with Morgan Stanley, then the broker should not keep their information - but it is reasonable for them to take it with them when they switch jobs as they can't tell the client they are quitting until after they quit and they need that information to attempt to make the sale.
If the Client wants to keep business with the Broker, than Morgan Stanley should delete all their information after the switch is made.
You think the law states the cars must pass the test, rather than must limit emissions?
Perhaps you think the cheating on airlines pilot test is also legal?
The law limits how much the cars are allowed to pollute, rather than state that they must pass a test. The test is merely considered proof that the cars are in compliance.
Just because you personally hate government doesn't mean government is as stupid as you think they are. While their are a few cases where people have been bribed to pass laws with loopholes, such things are rarely as poorly done as you seem to think.
Streisand effect works when YOU are being the shmuck. Attempting to hide your own bad behavior. That is NOT what is going on here, instead you are attempting to stop other people from acting badly.
If you sue, the media will not think "oh, this random stranger is being a shmuck, lets talk about it. Instead they will say "X corp. is being a shmuck, let's talk about THEM.
But frankly, the media is not likely to talk about it at all. Instead, what is most likely to happen is that once the people get court orders, they will suddenly become reasonable and say "we can handle this without the court right?
These people are not taking you seriously, and you need to realize how bad this is.
It isn't a prank, it's not a joke, it's a serious invasion of your privacy that puts you at real risk of physical and financial harm - not just mental.
You need to hire a lawyer and start suing them. Don't send warning letters and requests, send subpoenas and court orders.
That is how the free market is supposed to work.
Anyone that can come up with an effective electrical storage company can make a ton of money with spot negative prices.
Even if negative prices vanish, they can still make money with a large enough spread.
If storage has even an 50% loss rate, then daily price variation should be limited to 50% because otherwise storage batteries would make a profit.
The trick is to create a battery efficient and cheap enough to reliably make money on daily price variations.
Management is not 'thinking of new ways to support themselves." Management is learning how to get other people to obey you after you have been hired as their boss.
You are talking about entrepreneurship skills, something that is very hard to teach. Most studies show that it has to do more with how you are raised. Recently a study came out stating that those that survived disaster with little personal damage basically become pro-risk and are far more likely to start their own business.
It doesn't matter if he bought the clock and broke it, rather than 'made it'.
He's a 13 year old kid, not an engineer.
This story is about a huge over-reaction by fools that can't tell the difference between "Should be questioned/looked into" and "Should be arrested, suspended, and punished".
We have to start holding government employees to a HIGHER standard than they hold non-employees. We should never punish regular citizens, let alone children for appearing to have committed a crime - just for actually doing it. But at the same time we need to start punishing police, principals, and similar people for APPEARING to have committed crimes. That's the only way to stop government over-reach.
Part of the problem is bad actors, which unfortunately are the majority. In my experience, ALL sound and video advertisements that start without you pushing play (as in I start a youtube video and it has an ad first), are by definition BAD ACTORS. - Don't they know some of us are bored at work and don't want to get caught by the boss??:D
One of the new things I am seeing is ads that prevent you from scrolling away from them. Cracked has this kind of crap and it really pisses me off when I attempt to scroll past an ad and the ad prevents me from doing it until I close the ad by clicking on a small, hidden x.
Any attempt to prevent you from not seeing the advertisement is pretty much my definition of a bad actor. If a person is scrolling past your ad, they are not going to suddenly change their mind and watch because you stop them.
Look, my 6 year old niece acts like a queen, that doesn't make her one.
Their are significant differences between corporations and countries.
Corporations care about money above all else - countries care about many things.
Corporations don't publicly arrest, imprison, or kill people, all countries do this, all the time, publicly, etc.
Corporations don't care about location, countries build it into their system
Some corporations agree to subordination, while all countries insist on superiority/equality (Countries always claim that they are in charge, not the corporations - even if in reality is the other way around).
I have seen no corporation coming anywhere close to claiming to have the powers of a country. It simply does not exist.
1) Demand a high price but offer major discounts to most:
Advantages: Get more money from the few truly wealthy people, appear to be more 'elite', fool the poorer people into thinking you are more generous with discounts than other people.
Disadvantages: Appear to be for wealthy people only, attracting students who are easily fooled,
2) Use an 'everyday low prices' strategy:
Advantages: Make it clear to all that they can attend, being seen right off the bat as a 'bargain', reducing paperwork and bureaucracy.
Disadvantages: Not getting a bit extra money from the wealthy, not appearing as 'elite'.
I bet they did a study about why people picked their school and why people choose others. If being 'elite' wasn't working, this strategy becomes an obvious choice.
Crime is down, war is down, pollution per person is down, government taxes are down, and basically 90% of the measureable evils humans have discovered are all going down. But we don't hear about that because things that don't happen or happen less is never news.
Glad to hear some of the good news, where people stand up for privacy rights.
It's like a bunch of savages saying their can't be other people around because we don't hear their drum messages.
Technology advanced enough to produce that much detectable energy would use an energy we don't detect.
When you build out the physical infrastructure, you get ancillary benefits. Roads for example. If you are laying out cable, in an area without roads, you have to build a road. This may be more expensive, but everyone around benefits from that road.
2) The US government uses them to spy on and kill people.
3) Tools used by spy agencies to kill or spy on people need to be regulated.
4) Because they are new, we don't have any real regulations on them.
It seems obvious to me that we need not regulate drones. That does not mean outlaw - it means regulate. Forbid them from flying over private property without the owner's permission, forbid any technology designed without appropriate safety measures.
But there is surely room to allow use of drones on public lands and on private lands with permission from the owner.
These things should, as a matter of law, have an expiration date set when they are declared. Let the US government come in and argue to extend it all they want, but they should all come with an automatic expiration date.
In addition, any and all "statue of limitations" should res-start for any information that that was gagged.
Same thing for non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements - not to exceed 10 years.
Have you heard of the Cargo Cult? There are these pacific island that, during World War II, had pilots come and leave supplies. The islanders received minor gifts from the combatants and felt like they were wealthy. Then World War II ended and the soldiers left.
So the islanders built wooden control towers and wooden headsets, then paraded around like the soldiers did.
They expected their rituals to bring the planes full of supplies again. Surprise, Surprise, it didn't work!
Why? Because the islanders did NOT KNOW HOW PLANES WORK You can't build a real runway without knowing how to build a plane.
Similarly, you can't successfully put people into safe cryonics unless you also know how to get them out of it.
I have no doubt that in a thousand years we will have cryonics. And I absolutely sure that it will ONLY work with people that are properly prepared with technology that we do not have yet.
Hibernation works for large mammals. Yes, it's the poor cousin of full on cryonics. That's exactly my point. You don't try to go from building ladders to building a rocket to the moon. First you learn to build an airplane, and then use some of those skills when you go for the rocket.
Similarly, we should be working on hibernation, not cryonics. Once we can send a person to sleep for 40 years, while they only age 20 years, then we should be able to move to full cryonics. Until then, we are just kids firing off model rockets that go 1,000 ft straight up while we talk about hitting the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
No, They are not responsible - as they didn't know about it.
Choices only give you responsibility if the data you based the decision on was accurate. The Tobacco business lied and continues to lie (although their recent lies are more subtle). Even if they didn't intend to outright lie they advertised which is at best a presentation of a one sided argument, if not an actual lie. By doing that they accept more responsibility - which is why we restrict their advertisements.
And that's not the only 'problem' with your logic. It ignores the addictive nature of the product - and the steps taken by the business to increase the addictive properties.
Few people, if any, have made a well informed, decision to smoke. Most were made by children, most were made before the industry admitted the dangers, most were made unaware of the addiction risks. All of this is by explicit design by the manufacturers. They eliminate your knowledge, and they incur blame.
3. I was not aware that DC ever actively sold Batrmobiles. If that is correct, then they would have a copyright on the Batmobile. But if I am correct and they NEVER SOLD BATMOBILES, then their copyright is on the Batman mythos, not the car itself, and the car is a tiny portion of it. Note, unlike DC/Batmobile, the Beatles did in fact sell the White Album, so your example is worthless.
4. Again, if DC was in the business of selling Batmobiles, your argument would make sense. But again they DO NOT SELL BATMOBILES. As such, the item they do have a valid copyright on - works of fiction, not cars, is NOT negatively affected by the sale of Batmobiles
Your argument requires DC to sell working, full size Batmobiles. If they did that, then my argument MIGHT fall apart (they would have to prove in court that their business was or could be profitable, rather than a mere attempt to stop a fair use) But they do not do so. As such Fair Use was a totally viable defense.
Which we DO NOT HAVE.
Without it, all they have is a man in a suit with a long power cord - a cord that can easily also transfer commands, which moves the pilot out of the suit and into a significantly safer nearby workstation. Put in a camera with an optional microphone and you reduces the weight the machine has to move around.
Which means what we can do is create an industrial robot.
Putting the man inside is incredibly stupid - until we have a viable power source. If we get that power source, the mech suit becomes an incredibly GOOD idea.
By law, the fair use exception applies when:
1. Acceptable purpose.
2. Nature of work (idea are not copyrightable)
3. Amount copied.
4. Affect on market for copyright holder.
In reverse, order.
4. The car's sale will INCREASE the market for comics, movies, books, TV etc. Qualifies as Fair Use.
3. Amount copied: Minimal. The car is a minimal portion of the Batman mythos. Qualifies as Fair Use.
2. Nature of work. It is based on design, so it can not escape the fair use by claiming it is an idea - but this does not disqualify it as Fair Use.
1. Finally the Acceptable Purpose. Here he has to get a bit creative. If he was Smart he could sell the unmodified car, then for a fee perform modifications to as per the customer's requests. If the customer's requests happen to be do x, y, and z so it looks like the BatMobile, and then have the customer sign a statement saying they intend to use the car to give rides from Ronald McDonald House to the hospital for children, he has crafted an "Acceptable Use", and his actions become legal.
Also, sick kids get to ride in the BatMobile. Definitely an upside.
1) You are saying the company OWNS the client. NO That is called slavery, which is illegal. Clients are people, people that have not signed contracts. The CLIENTS should decided who they go with and that means the broker should have the right to call up the client and ask them to go with them. The employers try to stop this with abusive contracts with the brokers - but that does not make it "ethical", nor does it always make it legal. Just because a company makes an contract does not make it a legal contract. Companies break the law all the time - and sometimes put that criminal act in their contracts.
2) The Company's theory that you are accepting - the company owns the clients is at heart false. No one picks a broker based on the Corporation because the companies are all almost identical. They have minor differences based on fees and some small services. The major differences are due to the broker - how much work they will do for you, how intelligent the broker is, etc. If your belief and the company's belief was true, than people would be quiet willing to talk to ANY financial advisor at the company. But that's not what happens with the wealthy. They develop a relationship and only talk to their advisor, not a random one.
3) A truly successful broker gets almost no clients from the company, they get their clients from networking. The company does not effectively give them the clients, they get the clients using personal relationships. So when an advisor gets a job at say PaineWebber, he calls up his friend from Harvard, gets his business, then 3 months later gets his friend's cousin and father business, etc. etc. Then when they leave PaineWebber and go to work for Merril Lynch, they keep those clients. When they try to quit and go to work for Fidelity, Fidelity tries to keep all the clients - including the ones they took with them from PaineWebber that even YOU admit belong to the person, not the compay
What you are describing is nothing less than an illegal attempt by a company to steal people's networking. It is illegal and wrong on the part of the COMPANY as much as it is by the broker. Neither side is innocent - but the Company has a lot of power that they abuse while the broker has to try and squeak by. Taking the company side, as you do, is ridiculous. At best, the company is just as in the wrong as the advisor.
In a truly ethical world, it would be simple - the company and the broker would sit in the same room and call the clients up. They would ask the client who they would go with, and they would both ACCEPT the client's decision, neither taking any financial information that the client does not want them to have.
Basically, high end financial advisors and their employers have a large argument about who the clients "belong to".
Both the brokers and the employers claim the clients are THEIRS. Which means that when they quit their job, they each try to 'keep the clients'. The employers claim 'we gave you the leads that lead to that client', while the brokers claim "I spent 3 years building a relationship - even letting that client beat me at golf and I HATE golf."
The Employers do not for example tell the clients were the new broker went to, even if the clients ask. Instead, they often accuse the brokers (as in press legal charges and try for injunctions) and prevent them from talking to the clients after they quit. It's gets so bad that some employers might try to prevent a broker from talking to his own father, because they claim his father is a client of the Employer, not the broker.
The brokers often copy as much information as possible about their clients, not just phone numbers, but financial statements, etc. You need this information to give the clients real service. You can't tell all your clients with trust accounts about the new financial trust services at your new firm if you don't know which clients have trust accounts.
If the broker took someone else's clients, than he clearly broke the law. But if he simply copied records of people he had a relationship with - i.e. his own clients - then Morgan Stanley is simply being a douchebag company accusing him of violating privacy when THEY are the one violating the privacy.
Let's be honest here - the real truth is the CLIENT should be allowed to determine who they want to do business with. If the client wanted to do business with Morgan Stanley, then the broker should not keep their information - but it is reasonable for them to take it with them when they switch jobs as they can't tell the client they are quitting until after they quit and they need that information to attempt to make the sale.
If the Client wants to keep business with the Broker, than Morgan Stanley should delete all their information after the switch is made.
Perhaps you think the cheating on airlines pilot test is also legal?
The law limits how much the cars are allowed to pollute, rather than state that they must pass a test. The test is merely considered proof that the cars are in compliance.
Just because you personally hate government doesn't mean government is as stupid as you think they are. While their are a few cases where people have been bribed to pass laws with loopholes, such things are rarely as poorly done as you seem to think.
If you sue, the media will not think "oh, this random stranger is being a shmuck, lets talk about it. Instead they will say "X corp. is being a shmuck, let's talk about THEM.
But frankly, the media is not likely to talk about it at all. Instead, what is most likely to happen is that once the people get court orders, they will suddenly become reasonable and say "we can handle this without the court right?
It isn't a prank, it's not a joke, it's a serious invasion of your privacy that puts you at real risk of physical and financial harm - not just mental.
You need to hire a lawyer and start suing them. Don't send warning letters and requests, send subpoenas and court orders.
If storage has even an 50% loss rate, then daily price variation should be limited to 50% because otherwise storage batteries would make a profit.
The trick is to create a battery efficient and cheap enough to reliably make money on daily price variations.
You are talking about entrepreneurship skills, something that is very hard to teach. Most studies show that it has to do more with how you are raised. Recently a study came out stating that those that survived disaster with little personal damage basically become pro-risk and are far more likely to start their own business.
Giving him ANY money at all seems like a stupid thing to do. It's like giving a drowning man a glass of water.
He's a 13 year old kid, not an engineer.
This story is about a huge over-reaction by fools that can't tell the difference between "Should be questioned/looked into" and "Should be arrested, suspended, and punished".
We have to start holding government employees to a HIGHER standard than they hold non-employees. We should never punish regular citizens, let alone children for appearing to have committed a crime - just for actually doing it. But at the same time we need to start punishing police, principals, and similar people for APPEARING to have committed crimes. That's the only way to stop government over-reach.
One of the new things I am seeing is ads that prevent you from scrolling away from them. Cracked has this kind of crap and it really pisses me off when I attempt to scroll past an ad and the ad prevents me from doing it until I close the ad by clicking on a small, hidden x.
Any attempt to prevent you from not seeing the advertisement is pretty much my definition of a bad actor. If a person is scrolling past your ad, they are not going to suddenly change their mind and watch because you stop them.
Their are significant differences between corporations and countries.
Corporations care about money above all else - countries care about many things.
Corporations don't publicly arrest, imprison, or kill people, all countries do this, all the time, publicly, etc.
Corporations don't care about location, countries build it into their system
Some corporations agree to subordination, while all countries insist on superiority/equality (Countries always claim that they are in charge, not the corporations - even if in reality is the other way around).
I have seen no corporation coming anywhere close to claiming to have the powers of a country. It simply does not exist.
Advantages: Get more money from the few truly wealthy people, appear to be more 'elite', fool the poorer people into thinking you are more generous with discounts than other people.
Disadvantages: Appear to be for wealthy people only, attracting students who are easily fooled,
2) Use an 'everyday low prices' strategy: Advantages: Make it clear to all that they can attend, being seen right off the bat as a 'bargain', reducing paperwork and bureaucracy. Disadvantages: Not getting a bit extra money from the wealthy, not appearing as 'elite'.
I bet they did a study about why people picked their school and why people choose others. If being 'elite' wasn't working, this strategy becomes an obvious choice.
And bringing it up again is not 'refusing to let it go', it is an attempt to prevent REPEATING THE SAME MISTAKE.
Glad to hear some of the good news, where people stand up for privacy rights.
It's like a bunch of savages saying their can't be other people around because we don't hear their drum messages. Technology advanced enough to produce that much detectable energy would use an energy we don't detect.
When you build out the physical infrastructure, you get ancillary benefits. Roads for example. If you are laying out cable, in an area without roads, you have to build a road. This may be more expensive, but everyone around benefits from that road.
Putting anything on my computer for your benefit without making absolutely sure I know what is going on, is MALWARE.
Or will you let me put a key logger on your PC in order to 'ensure quality'.
2) The US government uses them to spy on and kill people.
3) Tools used by spy agencies to kill or spy on people need to be regulated.
4) Because they are new, we don't have any real regulations on them.
It seems obvious to me that we need not regulate drones. That does not mean outlaw - it means regulate. Forbid them from flying over private property without the owner's permission, forbid any technology designed without appropriate safety measures.
But there is surely room to allow use of drones on public lands and on private lands with permission from the owner.
In addition, any and all "statue of limitations" should res-start for any information that that was gagged.
Same thing for non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements - not to exceed 10 years.
Have you heard of the Cargo Cult? There are these pacific island that, during World War II, had pilots come and leave supplies. The islanders received minor gifts from the combatants and felt like they were wealthy. Then World War II ended and the soldiers left.
So the islanders built wooden control towers and wooden headsets, then paraded around like the soldiers did.
They expected their rituals to bring the planes full of supplies again. Surprise, Surprise, it didn't work!
Why? Because the islanders did NOT KNOW HOW PLANES WORK You can't build a real runway without knowing how to build a plane.
Similarly, you can't successfully put people into safe cryonics unless you also know how to get them out of it.
I have no doubt that in a thousand years we will have cryonics. And I absolutely sure that it will ONLY work with people that are properly prepared with technology that we do not have yet.
Similarly, we should be working on hibernation, not cryonics. Once we can send a person to sleep for 40 years, while they only age 20 years, then we should be able to move to full cryonics. Until then, we are just kids firing off model rockets that go 1,000 ft straight up while we talk about hitting the moon.