Firstly, there are many different methods for human composting, including just burial in a biodegradable box without preservatives. At cemeteries, plots might be slightly more expensive because they’re more spread out, but beyond that it’s the same cost as any burial.
But yes, I would absolutely pay the minor difference in cost to not waste resources (both my nutrients and the gas burnt). I have no heirs.
I would much rather be a tree than a toxic plot of grass. I think anyone visiting me would be happier with that too….but it’s much more about the environment than people for me.

Again, because this one method is costlier doesn’t mean it has to be. This method is really partial cremation. I would consider something more like this….

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a34054806/living-coffin-helps-bodies-decompose-faster/

Or less. Those cost less than most coffins.

People used to just go in a pine box and they composted quickly…none of these preservatives in the body and steel coffins designed to last centuries, that’s insanity to me and I want none of it.

Unfortunately the land fill would be a rotting cesspool of decaying bodies if people could toss bodies into dumpsters. Maybe consider donating to science, then they pay for your disposal.

Edit: this reminds me of the above ground cemeteries in New Orleans that (according to our tour guide) use the natural heat to naturally cremate bodies then they just push the last remains to the back of the tomb and reuse it.

I would totally choose this over the alternatives….although I prefer the composting “coffins” that are impregnated with microbes and fungi to decompose the body faster, and no bone grinding.

With all the ways humans take from their environment, I like the idea of giving back just a little. My body feeding a tree is a much better disposal than pumping it full of toxic preservatives so it can take decades to rot and be toxic for the soil or wasting tons of natural gas to cremate it, again wasting any nutrients it may hold.

The only drawback is I can’t do that AND have a Viking funeral.

When your grasp on reality is broken, you can be convinced of any nonsense.

I wonder how this man profits from spreading this misinformation.

So you know, bob. Oil isn’t made out of dinosaurs, it’s made up mostly of decomposed diatoms, algae, zooplankton, and other microorganisms, transformed under heat and pressure.
It is a finite resource.
If we burn it all, it’s CO2 emissions alone would cause an estimated approximately 200 ft of sea level rise (and likely near total planetary extinction).

PS- shouldn’t it be “The oranges of oil falsely defined in 1892”?

I love the scent of a decomposing body in the morning.

I dance with the maggots and the flies.

Decomposing bodies are all organic too but, I wouldn't eat a spoonful of ole Bob over there. I only breathe it in.

Wonder what the unique conditions are inside that building that allowed that to happen?

Quick search says they eat decomposing organic matter. Maybe grain or other food stuff was stored in there, and then it got closed up with enough humidity to make an explosion of decomposing scrap for them?

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

I tried this, but the skin started to decompose during the water soak. I advise salting the water (1kg of salt per 8L water... natural organic salt of course, duh!) if you want to avoid the waste.

After all, good vegan friends are hard to find.

A) Not here in Ozland. Certainly remember seeing it on nutritional information but here's from their site:

https://mcdonalds.com.au/maccas-food/whats-in-it

"85% less trans fat than our previous blend." Certainly not none though

B) Interesting how in the link it talks about mold growth being dependant on it breaking out before loss of moisture in the first few days. The rate it decomposes is still hardly normal though. Especially the fries (mostly because of the sodium content):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfSTjLavkA8

Dag,
She asked for their personal opinion regarding the matter, and apparently, they can't even compose one. These guys proceeded to grammatically decompose her question and avoid the simple predicate of "Yes" or "No" with regards to whether banks should be unlicensed if the laundered amount is large enough. Her question was very clear, and all she wanted to hear was their opinion, not their active policy.

It's must be very frustrating for her to be sitting there and listening to these pedantic answers when she and they know exactly what she was asking.

@KnivesOut . Yes. Just as today.. living people would be a problem. Some defense against pirates would be helpful, ala Swiss Family Robinson. The island would also have to be far enough from shore that any infected half dead would turn to full zombies before arriving.. the boat ride acts as a period of quarantine.
About zombies walking along the sea floor, or floating their bloated corpses across: Don't worry, the sharks, crabs, and hagfish would get them - microorganisms are not the only decomposers out there.

@Sarzy - As has been explained in recent films, when the lower brain function proceeds (due to the virus running rampant there), the basic mammalian instincts continue. The need to feed is not driven by a need to survive hunger (depending on the movie; 28 Day Later is one exception) because if a zombie didn't eat for a hundred years, it'd still be walking around aimlessly with it's never-decomposing body intact. It's just the primitive drive to feed that urges them onward.

This makes me wonder why then that's the only basic instinctual behavior zombies carry out. It seems they should be doing other things like trying to make sex with one another.

My take is that once you're zombified, you become a living organism again (to a certain extent) and stop decomposing -- or at least decompose much more slowly. I mean, if zombies aren't alive in some sense of the term, why do they need to eat?

And I completely agree that it's super annoying that characters in 99% of zombie movies have no idea what a zombie is or what they do. I'm pretty sure everyone in the western world has at least a basic understanding of what zombies are. It always takes me out of the movie a bit when the characters are learning about zombies for the first time, and never actually use the word "zombie."

Dialects gets created and die out all the time. It's just a matter of time and geographic location of a population. And if the isolation is long and severe enough you get new language. While it's interesting to document the different dialects and languages being spoken all throughout the world, trying to save them would be a tad too much in my opinion.

It's like trying to save leaves from decomposing. They get regenerated every summer. The old ones need to die out to give room for the new ones.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^juliovega914:
Alright, this is unbelievably fucking cool.
You guys might (not) remember the Meissner effect I posted earlier (http://videosift.com/video/The-Meissner-Effect-Awsome-physics) This is exactly the same effect.
The fundamental difference is that the superconductor in my vid is thicker than in this case. In this case, a 1 micron YBCO layer is deposited onto a sapphire wafer (probably through physical vapor deposition [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a9Slv1T1UM, go to 3:15 if you want to skip to PVD])
When you deposit a thin film with PVD you will inevitably form small imperfections at the grain boundaries in the film, usually only nanometers wide. When brought down below the superconductive transition temperature (IE, liquid nitrogen temp), the magnetic field lines are able to penetrate these grain boundaries in discrete quantities (unlike the thicker superconductor) forming what they seem to be calling "quantum tubes". The superconductor pins the field lines into these quantum sized tubes, and the force required to distort the field lines is greater than the weight of the superconductor.
Read this for a bit more: http://www.quantumlevitation.com/levitation/The_physics.html, but it doesn't seem terribly well translated, and it cant seem to decide how layman's terms it wants to be.

I didn't think that PVD would form YBCO.
I could easily be wrong though--my knowledge is out of date.
Great video about the Meissner Effect.


Physical vapor deposition (evaporation) pretty much works with any material that can be evaporated in a vaccuum without decomposing. Metals, semi-metals, and many ceramics and metal-oxides are candidates.