From: droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com   
      
   For your reference, records indicate that   
   Christian Weisgerber  wrote:   
      
   > It's pretty pointless to talk about "long-lasting" without agreeing   
   > what order of magnitude timeframe we are talking about.  A century?   
   > A billion years?   
      
   It’s not even a question of that, but what *purpose* is to be served   
   by something lasting for a long time.  Yes, a tree can last for   
   thousands of years, but the “tech” of a rock can last even longer.   
   Which is to say, if neither a rock or a tree *do* what you want, it   
   doesn’t make sense to think of them as solutions to the problem,   
   regardless of the timespan involved.   
      
   Or, looking at it another way, the longest lasting technology is the   
   one we can accelerate the closest to the speed of light.  With enough   
   time dilatation, anything could be made to last for a billion years.   
   :-)   
      
   --   
   "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."   
   River Tam, Trash, Firefly   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)