"Yes, they are ILLEGAL, not just "undocumented""

How can be a person Illegal? Acts can be illegal, not people.

""can thaw and somehow repair cellular damage" is secondary to "...also entire body missing"."

It makes sense. The premise of being able to recover the personality out of a frozen rotten brain is so ludicrous that if by a miracle that happened, producing a full new body out of DNA looks like child's game in comparation.

It also makes sense from the scammer's point of view: after all freezing a whole body in a convincing -even though unworking, way takes money so by lowering their running costs they open the scam to a larger target.

"Some larger animals can do this as well, IIRC, but they have specially developed systems for it that basically replace most of the water in their bodies with an anti-freeze solution. In theory it's possible to do something similar with humans,"

Larger beings, say, frogs, survive being frozen... by *not* being frozen.

As you say, they are able to get into a suspended animation state and their fluids work like an anti-freeze solution. This allows them not to freeze under below-zero Celsius conditions. But if the temperature goes low enough, they will indeed freeze -and forever die.

"You can't seriously argue that this approach makes it less likely that she could be repaired and restarted at some point in the future than typical corpse disposal methods."

No need to. It's enough to say that it is as much likely. Which it is.

"I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the limits of future tech."

Yet sensible assumptions.

"If you assume that it's possibly reasonable to freeze a whole brain based on the possibility of a vastly advanced future tech"

There's no relationship between being able to properly freeze a whole brain *tomorrow* and doing it today. As per our current knowledge we know that it might possible to freeze and recover a brain *in the future*. We know for sure we can't freeze a brain in a recoverable manner *today*.

"then within THAT space the odds that enough is preserved in that "half a brain" to reconstruct a person is pretty good."

And here comes the non sequitur. Nothing is said about the vastly more difficult -to the point to deem it impossible, of recovering an unproperly frozen brain. Even with a properly frozen brain, is still to be seen what is to be recovered after that. Much less about recovering parts that were lost. Much, much less about recovering parts that were never there to start with, as it is the case here.

Mix all and it's obvious all you have is a scam based on the false hopes of those suffering parents mourning their forever-lost child.

"If "enlightenment" means believing that the world cannot be anything other than it, in its present state, currently is, then I do not want to be enlightened"

Good you used the conditional.

Since enlightenment is not what you pose it to be, all your discourse is moot.

"Another Dicevertisement."

In fact.

What was his name, again?

Was it Troy?

"a company is property of an individual"

No, it isn'. It is the commonal property of its shareholders (whose count may sometimes get down to one), whose interests are represented by the Board of Directors.

But then, (democratic) countries are the commonal property of their citizens, whose interests are represented by the Government.

This means that whatever rationalization you want to come with in order to preserve companies can and should, ipso facto, be applied just the same to countries.

"Dear Google, we realise you have decided to pull out of business with the EU member states so we write to you to regretfully inform you that all your companies in Ireland and the Netherlands..."

Will get their assets and bank accounts frozen till the end of this antitrust trial. Once the trial reaches a firm dictum, assets will be seized if/as needed in order to fulfill the penalties. Remaining funds and assets' ownership, if any, will be moved to Google's USA main headquarters with notification to USA treasure office in case any due taxation is in order from their side.

Yours Faithfully,
The EU antitrust comission.

"They [humans] should have a password for their computer, and that's it. All other passwords are superfluous."

I don't think you have properly thought about the implications of what you are saying.

On the other hand, even with that single password, it's still either memorable, therefore easy to hack, or it isn't, in which case you turn again to the sticker on the monitor.

"read the damn contract"

Of course yes, but it is not as if it would make any difference in cases like this. You should understand that (business) contracts only mean something when both parties are of similar weight. When that's not the case, it is not the letter of the contract what will save you but your ability not to paint yourself in the corner before signing (not always possible) and your negotiating abilities before that.

As someone else already cited, when making business with a big fish you are always exposed to the "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

"Contract problem was my first thought when I read the summary."

No, I don't think so. It may look like a contract problem but it usually isn't.

At first it looks like "hey, let's see if I can squeeze out a bit more from my dollars" (which is why it looks like a contract problem) but in the end it results on a broken provider and a customer without a product and quite less notes in their wallet.

You may end with "contract problems" if both parties have conflicting interests, but you don't have "contract problems" on situations were both parties need necessarily to agree in the general output: the problem must be somewhere else.

"Just being good at "management" is not enough."

In this case clearly yes. It doesn't take any technical knowledge to know that in order to deliver anything you need to stop feature creeping somewhere. The only thing that needed to be in plain English was "I have a new requirement..."; everything from that point on could perfectly be in Klingon from all management would care.

Management, specifically product management in this case, is all about setting in stone what the minimally viable product will be and then make it happen and it specifically is not bending to a partner's gut feeling about adding another bolt to it.

"We love to make fun of the useless "suits". But that's a situation where you need good executive management"

Me too.

Well, since just a "me too" seems a bit lame, I was going to say that I don't see this as a scope creeping problem but a bad management one. "But, but... poor me, Microsoft added new features with no more money, buhu, buhu!"

Even with the extra money, proper management would have said "no: we will deliver with our current feature list and done with it; come back for version two, if you want it"

"Humans create passwords that are easy to remember, which almost invariably makes them terrible passwords."

Of course, hard to remember passwords which will get sticked in yellow over the monitor are so much better.