If you ride with a navigator who always tell you to turn right or left, you don't learn the route.
Currently, I always use a SatNav system to get anywhere new. Yet after a few trips, I find that I can make the trip without the SatNav. But in my younger years I did have to rely on a paper map, so maybe that is why I eventually learn it, and someone who has never been without SatNav would never learn the route.
But in my view, free space can be explained as not inherently incriminating in the same way that free space on a regular hard drive is not incriminating
Can, but I suspect that someone who is willing to resort to "rubber-hose cryptanalysis" probably doesn't care about things like that.
I helped my Uncle, Jack, off a horse
Still ambiguous. Did you help him down from a horse, or did you help him kill a horse?
What if the sign takes up a few pixels in a box, does that count?
That is one of my problems with such recaptchas. The other problem, does a stop sign, yield sign, railroad crossing sign, etc, count as a street sign, or do they only mean signs with street names on them? I assume the former, and answer accordingly, but it always gives me a new set of images, with no indication on whether I passed or failed the previous test, so I have no fucking clue.
I find it ironic, that some have faith in cryogenics given the evidence for any possible success is certainly no better and in many ways much less then the evidence for a omnipotent creator who will resurrect your body at a future date.
I forget who said it, but there is an argument for believing in God which says "if you don't believe, and He does exist, you lose everything. If you do believe, but He does not exist, then you've lost nothing. So you might as well believe."
The problem with that, is which God should you choose to believe in? Zeus? Odin? Amun-Ra? Someone else?
The reason I bring this up, is that cryogenics is a bit like that. If you choose to be frozen, and in the future they are able to revive you, you get a second lease on life. If it turns out that they cannot revive you, it's no different than if you hadn't gotten frozen. So if you can afford it, you might as well freeze yourself. The difference here, is there is no "but which God should I believe in?" problem. At least not as far as I can tell.
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.
Take an astronaut to launch.