Quick Guide to Being a Corpse

By -

When you first become a corpse, it will be new to you, and you might get a lot of things wrong. And that could produce high levels of customer dis-satisfaction. So here are some tips that have generally been found to work... although it is important to remember that everyone is a corpse in their own way! There is no "one-casket-fits-all" approach!

  1. When you're a corpse, your main job is to just lay there. So don't up and walk around... please!
  2. When you're a corpse, you can't see. So don't look at things: you won't see them anyway.
  3. When you're a corpse, you won't have feelings. So no laughing or crying!
  4. When you're a corpse, you won't have mental health problems. Cause you won't have a mind. So don't start acting all crazy and shit.
  5. When you're a corpse, don't try doing drugs. It won't turn out well.
  6. If you're unhappy with how you're being embalmed, don't get all "up in the embalmers face." Blame is not the way to go! We need to cultivate a blameless culture, especially in death.
  7. When you're a corpse, you'll have lots of time on your hands. So put away your laundry one item at a time! (But no walking around!)
  8. Don't worry about a Halloween costume. You already have one: you're a corpse!
  9. Remember the upsides of being a corpse: if your wife asks you, "Did you fix the toilet yet?" you can tell her, "No, because I'm a corpse!"
  10. When you're a corpse, don't be scared of giraffes! They won't hurt you!
  11. When you're a corpse, you might be tempted to buy a gigantic jar of coriander powder. Go for it! You're only dead once!


All of these tips should help. But to re-focus on the basics, the main corpse methodology is: just lay there. That's your "value-added"!

PS: Reader and neophyte corpse Tom writes in to ask, "Is it acceptable if my gigantic jar of coriander is whole seeds and not ground?"

Absolutely, Tom!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Machine Learning"

By -
 The name is a misnomer. And a harmful one, because it interferes with understanding the process that is really occuring. What is really occurring is a search of a constrained program space. Let's say you want to be able to identify images of hot dogs . You begin with a plausible program for doing so, that is able to also search the space of nearby programs that might get better results on the problem. You then (in "supervised learning") provide scores that indicate how well one of these possible programs has done on solving the problem. After doing this for some time you settle upon a program that solves the problem "well enough." This is a great technique that can produce truly impressive results on a wide class of problems, such as identifying images of hot dogs. But notice that, except for the phrase in scare quotes, there is no "learning" in the description. Calling this "learning" is importing ideological baggage that just obscures what
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more