Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Death Clock

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Russell Jaslow
    replied
    Originally posted by joecct View Post
    If you live to July 20, 2069 you'll be alive for the 100th anniversary of the 1st moon landing.

    I wonder if we'll be back there by then?
    I wonder if anybody in 2069 will believe we were ever there...

    I'll need to be 109 to convince them.

    Leave a comment:


  • jericho
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    Originally posted by joecct View Post
    If you live to July 20, 2069 you'll be alive for the 100th anniversary of the 1st moon landing.

    I wonder if we'll be back there by then?
    I'll just miss it. Scheduled for April 16, 2069 which puts me at 88 years young.
    Last edited by jericho; 08-06-2016, 04:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • joecct
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    If you live to July 20, 2069 you'll be alive for the 100th anniversary of the 1st moon landing.

    I wonder if we'll be back there by then?

    Leave a comment:


  • bigmrg74
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    Friday, 6th May 2061. 81 isn't that bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell Jaslow
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Stem cells. I think they hold the secret to years, maybe decades.
    That's true.

    Give me some!

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    Stem cells. I think they hold the secret to years, maybe decades.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell Jaslow
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Oh, and I remember listening to a biochemical engineering professor back in college state that the theoretical maximum lifetime of a human is around 120-130. Cells start to self-destruct around then and can no longer split. Something like that. It's been a long time since that lecture.
    I read a few years ago an interesting article which said that despite the average age of humans going up, especially in the last century, the ultimate maximum age has not changed over time. And that is about 120. So, I'll be interested to know why scientists think that can be pushed to 150.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rube
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    Originally posted by Biddco View Post
    2071!

    I'll live to 83 years old...considering how some on my mom's side lived into their 90's I'm disappointed.
    My age was 65, and not surprised, given my lifestyle, but also disappointing because I have at least 3 centenarians within great-relative status that I know of. My family has had 4 generations alive all my life until about 2 years ago, and a chance to renew that status given that my dad is only 72 and my oldest niece is 11.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Jesus, you're young.

    Scientific American is running a "has the first 150-year old person been born yet?" analysis. The consensus is that yes, he or she (probably she) already has been. Assuming you're about 30, that would push you out to 2136.

    Of course all you really need is for the velocity of the increase in lifespan in years relative to real time to permanently exceed 1.0 at any point during your lifetime. Then congrats, you're immortal without having to suck the blood of virgins.
    Oh, and I remember listening to a biochemical engineering professor back in college state that the theoretical maximum lifetime of a human is around 120-130. Cells start to self-destruct around then and can no longer split. Something like that. It's been a long time since that lecture.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Jesus, you're young.

    Scientific American is running a "has the first 150-year old person been born yet?" analysis. The consensus is that yes, he or she (probably she) already has been. Assuming you're about 30, that would push you out to 2136.

    Of course all you really need is for the velocity of the increase in lifespan in years relative to real time to permanently exceed 1.0 at any point during your lifetime. Then congrats, you're immortal without having to suck the blood of virgins.
    I'll be a billion seconds old in a week or two.

    Leave a comment:


  • Biddco
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    2069 b-tches!!!

    And Kirby Pucket was one obese man.
    2071!

    I'll live to 83 years old...considering how some on my mom's side lived into their 90's I'm disappointed.

    Leave a comment:


  • FadeToBlack&Gold
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    2045...but if they keep me staffed on this project any longer than next Wednesday, it might be 2016, with the cause being heat stroke when management confirms that I'll be spending the next month in Florida.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    2069 b-tches!!!
    Jesus, you're young.

    Scientific American is running a "has the first 150-year old person been born yet?" analysis. The consensus is that yes, he or she (probably she) already has been. Assuming you're about 30, that would push you out to 2136.

    Of course all you really need is for the velocity of the increase in lifespan in years relative to real time to permanently exceed 1.0 at any point during your lifetime. Then congrats, you're immortal without having to suck the blood of virgins.
    Last edited by Kepler; 08-04-2016, 09:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rube
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    2069 b-tches!!!

    And Kirby Pucket was one obese man.
    I've oft referred to a woman that has the "Kirby Puckett Arse." Bubble-butt is the slang for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Re: Death Clock

    2069 b-tches!!!

    And Kirby Pucket was one obese man.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X