View Topic

Wait no SS card?    Is that even possible!?

I don't have the card, I have my number.

Edit: To clarify I've lost the card.

That should be easier.  I think you just have to go to the Feds and explain that predicament

Their website says you need a proof of citizenship (such as a birth certificate), proof of age (such as a birth certificate), and proof of identity (such as a student ID).

I also can't log back into the minecraft account of my friend to continue work on the server. Shucks.

Wait, so what happened? Did your friend change the password and refuse to continue sharing it or what?

I'm not quite sure, I haven't gotten a hold of him yet so for now production is stalled. For now. I'll update y'all once I get it all sorted out.

If you do want to continue testing in the meantime, you could use a cracked/offline client. I have one if you're interested.

I also can't log back into the minecraft account of my friend to continue work on the server. Shucks.

Wait, so what happened? Did your friend change the password and refuse to continue sharing it or what?

I'm not quite sure, I haven't gotten a hold of him yet so for now production is stalled. For now. I'll update y'all once I get it all sorted out.

If you do want to continue testing in the meantime, you could use a cracked/offline client. I have one if you're interested.

Oh? Do tell me more...

So I saw that Akaadian from Echo Fox was streaming a scrim with their challenger team, Delta Fox today and I go and check it out, and omg! I have the desktop wallpaper he's using! I downloaded it in 2010, when Akaadian was 13...for some reason it pleases me that I got the wallpaper he's using years before he did. xD

https://www.facebook.com/EchoFoxgg/videos/1310263612362440/

So this is a thing

I'll admit I'm that person who's always searching for love and falling hard and fast. It's in my nature to 100% right from the get go with everything I do. That and I don't deal with loneliness well. I have a lot of self esteem issues that I really struggle with and when I'm alone it gets in my head that I'll always be that way because theres so much wrong with me. And in trying to keep my past bfs happy I was willing to try it. But it just didn't work. I always felt the lesser. And it wasn't their fault. I just have issues. Long story short, I fall in love too easily and get used willingly if it means I don't have to be alone.

But is it really worth it to be used just to not be alone? Don't you think you deserve better than that?

I actually used to be like that, until I went through this long period of not having a SO that lasted years...cause you know, forever alone. It was tough at first, because I'd grown addicted to being the focus of someone's romantic attentions, and in a way I depended on it for self-validation, but over time I just had to get out of that. I had no other choice, really. =/

Of course it's not worth it. I look back now and shudder to think that I could ever do that. But that's the difference between me now and then, I didn't have any self worth. Nowadays I do, though it does still waiver from time to time. I still have a tendency to give a lot of myself too easily nut I have the ability to stop now. Thankfully with Chris I don't have to do that as he's not a user.

Today I went to the funeral for my step-grandmother, who lived with my dad and stepmom just before she died. I wasn't close to her (she was a bit of a bitch), so I wasn't sad or anything, but for some reason I was asked during the middle of the ceremony to be a pallbearer -- it was if nobody wanted to do it, so I had to. And nobody even gave a eulogy. It was basically just your typical Baptist sermon asking whether or not you'll go to heaven if you die. Why did people even come? I personally would have never heard the end of it from my stepmom, but what was everyone else's excuse? She's dead. It's not like she'd know who came.

Anyway, it was my first open-casket funeral, and, damn, seeing her dead body made me feel uneasy. It didn't look like she was just sleeping like it was supposed to. There was something about her that made her look almost like a wax figure or doll or something -- it was very off-putting. And it felt wrong to have a corpse just lying up there and everyone going to touch her and stuff. Such a strange practice.

She ended up being buried in the "wrong" hole. It had all been agreed on beforehand, but apparently she accidentally bought a plot not right next to her husband's. It was an ironic and almost mocking end to it all.

Needless to say, I'd rather be cremated and just not have a funeral. Alright, rant over.

Needless to say, I'd rather be cremated and just not have a funeral.

Not sure how cremation is relevant, since that also involves a funeral... Chinese Buddhist tradition, for example, involves quite a lot of ceremony (symbolic offerings such as food, bowing certain numbers of times while holding incense, chants while circling the body, burning symbolic representations of the person's life, the cremation, etc.). And still, the ashes need a final resting place regardless.

Personally, I might go the cryonics route, not sure.

Needless to say, I'd rather be cremated and just not have a funeral.

Not sure how cremation is relevant, since that also involves a funeral... Chinese Buddhist tradition, for example, involves quite a lot of ceremony (symbolic offerings such as food, bowing certain numbers of times while holding incense, chants while circling the body, burning symbolic representations of the person's life, the cremation, etc.). And still, the ashes need a final resting place regardless.

Personally, I might go the cryonics route, not sure.

Not necessarily. Cremation is just the process of burning a body to ash. That's it. And it's relevant in that it's not embalming and burial, which I find creepy and illogical.

And the resting place  of my ashes would just be wherever they end up. Whether that's in an urn, in the wind, or in a toilet makes no difference. And that requires no ceremony.

And I don't really put any faith in cryonics.

Needless to say, I'd rather be cremated and just not have a funeral.

Not sure how cremation is relevant, since that also involves a funeral... Chinese Buddhist tradition, for example, involves quite a lot of ceremony (symbolic offerings such as food, bowing certain numbers of times while holding incense, chants while circling the body, burning symbolic representations of the person's life, the cremation, etc.). And still, the ashes need a final resting place regardless.

Personally, I might go the cryonics route, not sure.

Not necessarily. Cremation is just the process of burning a body to ash. That's it. And it's relevant in that it's not embalming and burial, which I find creepy and illogical.

And the resting place  of my ashes would just be wherever they end up. Whether that's in an urn, in the wind, or in a toilet makes no difference. And that requires no ceremony.

And I don't really put any faith in cryonics.

Ah. I just didn't see why burial would be any different from cremation (both really can involve as much or as little ceremony), though I think I understand where you're coming from now.

As for cryonics, I do agree that the actual possibility of success is extremely low, but since (IMO) it still has better chances than anything else of continuing to live in the future, I'm considering it as an option.

I actually think cryonics has a high chance for success, assuming that the body can be preserved in a way that doesn't damage the cell structures themselves...an area that has seen dramatic improvements in the last twenty years. It's true that the cryoprotectant itself is toxic, but the assumption is that future technology will be able to clear that up before the body is revived.

For me, it's not so much a question of whether we could as it is whether we should. Let's say that someone was preserved a century ago and revived today...could you imagine the culture shock? I suppose they could eventually learn the technology and come up to speed on the knowledge we've gained since then, but how would they adapt to our society? The customs, mindsets, and biases of a century ago would be seen as anywhere from outdated to outright bigoted today.

I think for cryonics to be successful from a standpoint of adapting to the future world they awake in, the people preserved would need to be exceptionally open-minded and preferably preserved as a group so that they have familiar friends and family as support when they're revived.

I mean, would you want to wake up in a world that's completely foreign to you with everyone you knew and loved long-dead and gone?

I don't think cryonics can really work... I also think it's kind of a terrible idea :p

You have serious brain damage and cell death when you're deprived of oxygen for less than 5 minutes. In order to cryogenically freeze a person, they have to effectively be embalmed in a cryoprotectant, which takes 45 minutes to an hour, then they have to actually be frozen. During that time, most of the cells within the brain will die. And that's assuming they start the process of embalming at the moment of death, which might be hard to arrange.

You can cool them down to somewhat above freezing to massively slow the process of cell death down, but the subject would experience massive brain damage before the heat from the core of the brain could be dissipated. Warm a pitcher of water up to 98.6 degrees and put it in the freezer and you'll get some concept of the problem, it just takes too much time for the heat to be removed..

Assuming you have figured all those problems out (they haven't, I promise) then you have a corpse waiting around to be revived in the future or something.. You have to keep it cool, using tremendous amounts of energy.. Then it has to be revived.. Personally, I think the future will have enough of its own problems to worry about without reviving dead people.

I think it's just a way to make a quick buck from the estates of the very rich. They know it won't work, they just don't mind accepting the money to give it the best shot they can.. :p

I highly recommend this Wait But Why article about cryonics. I don't completely agree with the author's views (I'd say that Tim Urban tends to get overenthusiastic about basically everything he writes about), but overall I think it's a rather solid argument for cryonics (and contains quite a few counterarguments against the points made by Evelynx and Wintermoot).

I actually think cryonics has a high chance for success, assuming that the body can be preserved in a way that doesn't damage the cell structures themselves...an area that has seen dramatic improvements in the last twenty years. It's true that the cryoprotectant itself is toxic, but the assumption is that future technology will be able to clear that up before the body is revived.

For me, it's not so much a question of whether we could as it is whether we should. Let's say that someone was preserved a century ago and revived today...could you imagine the culture shock? I suppose they could eventually learn the technology and come up to speed on the knowledge we've gained since then, but how would they adapt to our society? The customs, mindsets, and biases of a century ago would be seen as anywhere from outdated to outright bigoted today.

I think for cryonics to be successful from a standpoint of adapting to the future world they awake in, the people preserved would need to be exceptionally open-minded and preferably preserved as a group so that they have familiar friends and family as support when they're revived.

I mean, would you want to wake up in a world that's completely foreign to you with everyone you knew and loved long-dead and gone?

Assuming that cryoperserved people could be revived, I'm not sure whether we should be in the position to decide whether these people should be revived. After all, we don't go off killing people because of undesirable views; I don't see why we should refuse people the right to live should we have the opportunity and if they've made that choice.

I mean, legally it wouldn't be killing anyone since they're already dead. But I was really just discussing the circumstances that might make it a more successful transitions, not proposing a law or anything...it doesn't do much good to go through cryonics if you're so disoriented by the future you wake up in that you're suicidal.

But I do think you would see more government oversight into cryonics if it became more widely used...right now between how niche it is and how bizarre it sounds to most people, most people don't really take it seriously. But if there were tens of thousands of people being frozen a year, then it might get more serious government attention.

I highly recommend this Wait But Why article about cryonics. I don't completely agree with the author's views (I'd say that Tim Urban tends to get overenthusiastic about basically everything he writes about), but overall I think it's a rather solid argument for cryonics (and contains quite a few counterarguments against the points made by Evelynx and Wintermoot).

I actually think cryonics has a high chance for success, assuming that the body can be preserved in a way that doesn't damage the cell structures themselves...an area that has seen dramatic improvements in the last twenty years. It's true that the cryoprotectant itself is toxic, but the assumption is that future technology will be able to clear that up before the body is revived.

For me, it's not so much a question of whether we could as it is whether we should. Let's say that someone was preserved a century ago and revived today...could you imagine the culture shock? I suppose they could eventually learn the technology and come up to speed on the knowledge we've gained since then, but how would they adapt to our society? The customs, mindsets, and biases of a century ago would be seen as anywhere from outdated to outright bigoted today.

I think for cryonics to be successful from a standpoint of adapting to the future world they awake in, the people preserved would need to be exceptionally open-minded and preferably preserved as a group so that they have familiar friends and family as support when they're revived.

I mean, would you want to wake up in a world that's completely foreign to you with everyone you knew and loved long-dead and gone?

Assuming that cryoperserved people could be revived, I'm not sure whether we should be in the position to decide whether these people should be revived. After all, we don't go off killing people because of undesirable views; I don't see why we should refuse people the right to live should we have the opportunity and if they've made that choice.

I'm not saying we shouldn't bring them back, I'm saying we wouldn't. People don't act perfectly morally now, far from it, so I don't see why we should expect people in the future to be any more well behaved. I don't think anyone frozen now has any chance of ever being revived, the damage their brains have undergone is just far too severe for that. Too much information irrevocably lost.

Maybe someday it'll be feasible, but I think maybe by then we'll live so long that it becomes a much smaller issue..