So, don't misrepresent yourself then. Just misrepresent what you own.

"I am wierd_w and I am the legal owner of all the posts on this slashdot comments page."

I don't mis-state who I am, just what I actually own. (You would have to be an idiot to believe I owned all the posts on this page!)

Thus, "not perjury". ;)

The model is based on observed tissue degeneration, as per the abstract, as well as wide statistical samplings of observable age related mental decline in the human population.

To quote the abstract directly:

"This development-to-degeneration model is testable through imaging and post mortem methods and highlights the vital role of myelin in impulse transmission and synchronous brain function. The model offers a framework that explains the anatomical distribution and progressive course of AD pathology, some of the failures of promising therapeutic interventions, and suggests further testable hypotheses as well as novel approaches for intervention efforts."

In not so many words, it's predictions are congruent with the results of several recent studies in the invervention of age related mental decline, as well with the post mortem and fMRI imaging data collected to date.

While I also doubt that the researcher would go so far as to say it is 100% "God's own truth", it is a theory that appears to correctly predict the observed behavior. You are making the mistake that just because it says the word "Theory", it is equally good to crackpottery.

You are welcome to such a belief, but I hold a different one.

The second law of thermodynamics is just that-- a law. Current observations predict that the universe will die from entropy stemming from unrestrained expansion, and that eventually all protons in the universe will decay.

This means that immortality is fundementally inachievable. The best you can do is fight to stave it off. Much like the carnot equasion showing the maximum possible efficiency for a heat engine, the laws of thermodynamics state the maximum theoretically possible degree of resistance against entropy in the universe you hace put up. If you are truely serious about the effort, you will consume 100% of the non-entropic portion of the energy of the universe to satisfy the attempt. Eternity is a VERY long time.,

Long before then, you will have set about on a genocidal campaign to secure energy sources to sustain your existence at the deficit of other intelligent life. The universe is a big place. We statistically are not alone. Even if we are, another immortal being's existence will radically reduce your own ability to resist the entropic decay of the universe. Eventually, you will fight each other to have the resources and energy the other represents.

The ultimate conclusion of attempting to attain immortality is complete sociopathy.

If you instead say that you only want to extend your life some degree, you still ultimately must accept the inevitability of death. If you are going to do that, why not accept the lifespan you are allready afforded?

Voila-- We have reached my position.

Actually, I avoid getting care for most of my health issues, to avoid this very form of hypocrasy. The soft tissue tumors are benign, and simply cause cosmetic issues, other than being in irritating places that can restrict movement. There is no real reason to remove them.

The blood sugar regulation issue is still in the pre-diabetic stages, and is treatable with diet and exercise.

The heart condition is likewise manageable. I have health issues, but am not miserable. They restrict me, but they dont define me.

I dont seek medical interventions to extend my lifespan, and should one of my lipomas suddenly turn into crazy wild deep tissue cancer, and I go undiagnosed and die from metastatic illness, I wont be upset about it.

I have no interest in ending my life, but I dont actively seek to artificially prolong it either. I will die when I die, and I like not knowing when that will be. It causes me to live each day to its fullest, and not take life for granted. Being promised perfect, unfaultering health and purpetual youth would spoil that. I would turn it down.

More, I have reached acceptance of my condition. I am not angry or resentful about it.

If anything, it makes me more appreciative of the life I currently enjoy. I dont fixate on the bad. The bad just helps you to better savor the good.

You are making an equally dangerous one.

Age related mental decline has been directly associated with increased stresses on ogliodendrocites, which comes about as the number of axonal connections needing care increase.

Using the existing data from these kinds of studies, you can derive a maximum theoretical upper bound on the complexity to longevity coefficient.

The prognosis is not good. You can probably boost the numbers somewhat by introducing genetic modifications to improve cellular health of these vital support cells, and to improve the number of divisions from progenitor cells they can be reasonably derived from, but that intoduces yet more complex problems.

The human brain is simply not constructed in a fashion that is infinitely durable. Even if you solve the hygiene issues with the ogliodendrocytes, you will still run into issues with axonal branching reaching critical capacity, and the individual neurons being unable to cope with new information.

So, either you fix this by making people suffer dementia, and forget things in order to avoid this "post death" era overload, or you end up with vegetables who have siezures. Again, if you go through the trouble of solving the dendrocyte problem.

This is a problem that cannot be solved, while retaining physical humanity.

Sure, you could possibly find a way to liberate a brain from its bony prison, and gently loosen the neural fibers in a nutrient bath, to allow nueronal and axonal migration to continue, but then the patient isn't really human anymore, are they? Congratulations, your immortal person is a giant, energy hungry brain in a tank.

Even then, there are mechanical stress limits from the raw weight related mass of the liberated organ to contend with. Eventually, being displaced in a fluid won't be enough, and the young modulous of the axons inside the bloated mass of tissue will be exceeded, just from the collections own rest weight, resulting in systemic brain damage. You'll have to go into orbit.

And then, you run out of resources, because neural tissue is absurdly energy hungry, (your existing brain consumes a full third of all calories consumed!) And space doesn't exactly have raw material in infinite abundance.

Immortality simply can't work.

This argument (^) is a strawman created by an idiot.

I have many genetically heritable issues, and I strongly advicate normal, natural death. I am not a 20 something, and I do have health issues.

Death is required. Making death clean and without suffering would be humane and beneficial, but killing death itself is foolish in its most extreme.

Creating strawmen to shove in other people's mouths because you don't like what they are actually saying is delusional and stupid.

(For the record, since I am sure you will ask, despite having no business asking, I have a congenital heart defect, genetically linked soft tissue tumors, blood sugar regulation trouble associated with early type 1 diabetes risk factors, and several other noteworthy things. I consider death essential, and I am glad it exists. Take your strawman and shove it up your ass.)

Why am I suddenly reminded of the book chute?

(Hint: this is basically a BeagleBone, with some SRAM wired to the 40(!) GPIO pins it offers.)

Given it is a one trick pony (give or take), something like a broadcom SoC with 500mb of on-die RAM, 2 processor cores, an SDCard slot able to have mount points with the root filesystem (for update capabilities), and 1 to 2gb of SRAM on a busmastered connection serviced with GPIO lines for compressed swap space would do it nicely.

You could probably make a consumer product out of it for a retail target of around 100 to 130$.

Because it is a SoC, the hardware is fixed. This makes configuration a non-issue, if the core image is properly configured.

that's still supporting the abusive people, through the ad revinue, without supporting any alternative distributors.

I was, however, referring to services like Hulu Plus, Blockbuster streaming service, and pals. EG, the streaming services operated by the content creators, explicitly to kill netflix, and other non-vested and disruptive distributors.

Once all the contenders are gone, the rates will go back up. There is no reason for them not to.

That's what YouTube is for. :)

On the contrary. I fully expect to happen.

What else will happen, is that this behavior can't be sustained by the government, without being highly suspicious.

This is ensured, because not all "terrorists" (ahem) will be conveniently sitting alone in their houses, waiting to have their brains blown out by the keystone cops. Some of them will be in very public places at all times, and videos and other recordings of the police misconduct will escape the media blockade. The fiction simply won't be able to endure, if the rate of "actions" taken is high. Eventually, they will have to arrest someone properly, and peacefully, and the extremeness in the two events will only condemn the government for its immorality.

The same exact thing happened in india.

*sigh*

Once again, from the top:

1) Syntax, grammar, and spelling are intended to assist communication. Nothing more. "Readability" is a metric of the effectiveness of the communication.

2) Misuse of those rules to provide a service they are not, and have never been intended for (conveying how "smart", or how "valuable" the communication itself is) is not rational.

3) Drawing attention to incorrect use, as an excuse to ignore communication you find disfavorable, is pure hypocrisy. The reason it is hypocrisy, is because the premise itself relies on misuse of those rules; specifically, the attempt to use them as a metric of worthiness to communicate. Those rules are not and have never been intended for that function. Calling out misuse for the purpose of misuse is nonsensical.

4) As stated in the addendum post, I use a smartphone with a crappy IME. When coupled with the notoriously bad "slashdot mobile" experience, entire words are simply omitted during text entry, *despite being keyed*, and further, any attempts at proofreading and correction are rendered extraordinarily difficult to accomplish. Under these circumstances, "perfect communication" is not possible, without hurculean effort.

Taken all together, your insistence and arrogance on the demand clearly demonstrates several outstanding features.

1) You are unwilling to finish reading something that does not meet your onerous preconceptions of value.

2) You hypocritically misuse language rules while condemning others for a related infraction.

3) You have clearly demonstrated your own lack of tolerance in intellectual matters, giving a REAL metric of your own intellectual capacities.

4) You have clearly demonstrated that you are unable to approach the situation without subjective biases, and that you will cling to strawmen rather than actually "degrade yourself" to actually finish reading what was written.

5) You resort to adhominems and other illogical tactics when called on the above.

From this, I can only conclude that you are not nearly as intelligent and well educated as you believe yourself to be, and live in a carefully constructed fantasy setting in which you and you alone are worthy of communication, and that *any* deviation from the currently established norms for the language used, is clear evidence to support this self-narrative.

In light of that:

Which is correct: Jail, or Gaol.

After you experience that sudden burst of anger and incredulity, I challenge you to look it up.

You will find that the latter is archaic, but correct. How then did it become "jail" instead?

The simple answer, is that your preconception about "propriety" of language, and of its syntax, and use all having an ultimately and unquestionably "correct" form, simply is not conserved. It is a fantasy. One you cling desperately to, and that desperation with which you cling to it, speaks volumes about how uneducated and unintelligent you actually are.

Previously, Netflix had a much wider streaming selection, but they had a falling out with several content creators. (Who promptly created/bought their own, rival, streaming services.)

This caused netflix to lose their ability to stream that content to customers.

Complaining that "netflix is shit", and then running to the same abusive people who are responsible for cable being over priced to begin with, because they have all the content you want, really doesn't accomplish much.

Rather, you should complain that the content producers refuse to license to netflix, and other streaming services in a nondescriminiatory fashion.