End of the line for ever more powerful digital computing is coming fast. Better be prepared.
There is plenty of room for improvement just very few niche applications to pay for it. The demand is currently not there. A 5 year old laptop was faster than most current laptops/desktops/tablets/phones. Most people have stopped demanding high performance CPUs. Even gamers have shifted their focus to the video cards not the CPUs and a majority of games are now written for tablets/phones that have little more processing power than a 486. Because of the low processing power and low energy requirements of phones/tablets, the stuff that might have created demand like voice recognition has shifted to the cloud instead.
But I fail to see how Intel will fare better with 7nm or 5nm if the problem was purely of physics. If it's the later, we might have effectively hit the wall in terms of being financially feasible.
I don't think it's physics as much as financial. The demand is currently not there. A 5 year old laptop was faster than most current laptops/desktops/tablets/phones. Most people have stopped demanding high performance CPUs. Even gamers have shifted their focus to the video cards not the CPUs and a majority of games are now written for tablets/phones that have little more processing power than a 486. Because of the low processing power and low energy requirements of phones/tablets, the stuff that might have created demand like voice recognition has shifted to the cloud instead.
So why should it be taxes? Facebook is costing German users literally nothing. It's providing them with a service they want at no cost, and paying for that service by selling advertisements to non-german companies. And Germany thinks its entitled to a piece of that? Why?
There's no rational way to justify it.
Your assumption is that ad supported platforms cost nothing. Google and Facebook are selling *something* for billions of dollars. That *something* originates in Germany. So just because no money crosses the border into Germany, it's still obvious that Google and Facebook are selling a German resource. This assumption that ad supported platforms are *free* needs to end. Your attention and your privacy are obviously very valuable as companies are willing to spend billions of dollars for it.
They sell add space to advertisers. They sell data to third parties. Can't we tax these sales? preferably out of existence?
If course you can but Germany can tax it at 100% and it doesn't really matter if the transaction is taking place elsewhere. Apple can buy ads from Facebook in the USA, Cayman Islands, or some random 3rd world country. Facebook is selling a German product (eyeballs) but the transaction doesn't exist in Germany to tax.
So mandate that the credit card companies/paypal report all transactions to the govt(oh wait they do that) and have the govt go after the people in the country for not paying VAT et al.
What transaction? If Apple pays Facebook to display ads in Germany, there isn't a transaction in Germany to tax even though Facebook just sold something of value to Apple which originated in Germany (German eyeballs).
At least for goods, there is no escaping the VAT on imports into the EU. I'm unsure about services but I doubt they'd leave that piggy bank unbled.
Google and Facebook give their "services" away for free as do many digital giants. I'm assuming they do charge a VAT on stuff like Netflix and it's possible that they charge a VAT for a European company buying ads on Facebook/Google but if Coke is buying ads on Facebook in the USA (or some obscure country) and displaying them in Europe then there is no transaction in Europe to even tax. The money is going from a USA company to another USA company even though they are buying something in Europe (eyeballs). The revenue might originate and terminate in the USA but they are still conducting business with and profiting off the people of Europe even though no money actually flows thru Europe.
Income tax, inheritance tax, even VAT, all that crap is subject to waaaay to many loopholes. But it doesn't matter if Joe is a billionaire or a pauper, he buys something at the register or gets it delivered, tax that sale and it's much simpler to audit and enforce than all the other tax methods combined.
This does nothing for the digital giants. There is no point of sale for Google or Facebook. There is no physical good or even digital good to tax this way as they are even giving their "digital goods" away for free. Google and Facebook need to be taxed in Germany on the amount of revenue they receive from German citizens.
Nations, provinces, counties, and cities all have to compete with each other to get people to live, work, visit, or operate a business there. If you are incapable of offering an attractive proposition of benefits vs. costs, then they won't come to you.
The solution is to make yourself more attractive, not to require all your competitors to place the same onerous burden on the people or businesses you aren't attracting.
This is a race to the bottom at best but it's really worse than that. Global companies aren't creating shell companies in obscure countries because these countries are out competing other countries with quality but rather because they managed to find a country that is willing to look the other way because they are getting 1% of a bunch of cash that they wouldn't get otherwise.
The correct solution isn't a global tax but rather to charge taxes based on sales in that country. We already do this with physical goods in the form of either sales tax or import taxes. If Germany wants to tax the iphone or facebook it should tax the company based on the amount of revenue that company is receiving from its citizens.
For cars, self driving is objectively better in safety.
Even if you could show that a fully self driving car is safer than a human driven car, itâ(TM)s not a binary choice. Many of the features currently being used to make self driving cars safe could also be used in augmented systems and as in most modern systems, there likely exists a sweet spot where the combination of human and machine is better than either one by themself by using the strengths of computers and the strengths of humans together.
If private individuals were allowed to own state-of-the-art warships and artillery - like they were in 1776 - you'd see a lot more parity in firepower.
This stopped being feasible the minute we started having weapons that contained multiple man-years in them. A gun can be made by a single individual in less than a year. i.e. less than one manhour-year. On cost alone, a million dollar weapon takes 10-20 manhour-years of middle class salary. We now have weapons that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and tens of millions to produce and thousands of dollars per hour to even operate. These type of weapons are only possible when you pool the labor from thousands of people which is only possible for governments and large corporations.
And we all know tomorrow's consumer tools will never get as good as yesterday's industrial tools...at half the price. Never.
That's kindof the point. It's easier to fight and win this battle now while 3D printers still suck at printing guns. It would be much harder to win this battle after 3D printers advanced to the point of being able to print high quality guns.
Actually, believe it or not, no. The best strategy to use when "taking out a convoy" is to wait until about 1/3 has passed the red-line, then blow the explosives, thus dividing your enemy and pinning the first 3rd for further attack. Better yet is to hit the rear of the convoy and the 1/3 to 1/2 way point simultaneously for maximum destruction of your enemy.
I still donâ(TM)t see how this solves a problem. Sure, the guy in the middle car isnâ(TM)t there to die but now you have an ant trail that is blocked by debris and noone in the remaining cars to drive around the debris. Even if they heavily fortify the first vehicle, it seems like you can now randomly disable one of the latter vehicles and disconnect the remaining vehicles from the convoy.
That being said, online games are always going to be subject to haxxoring as long as the client has any smarts to it at all. If they really want to end it, they'd just allow the client to send certain keystrokes and do all the actual calculations on the server.
It doesn't matter if the client has any smarts or not. Back in the original NES stage, there were third party controllers that had different settings to autorepeat when you held down the buttons. Invincibility might be difficult with hardware but autoaiming should be within the realm of something that hardware can do as is anything that requires repetitive actions. Cheats that go around and collect resources while you sleep are quite common in many games and actually become simpler the dumber the client is as it's easier to reverse engineer the network traffic.
Patching the program running on the user's computer is not a good option, because the user is in full control, and can overwrite or bypass any cheat prevention.
In online mode, they should be able to patch the server to block cheating. But that may be difficult, or even impossible, to do without breaking the installed base.
Online mode is the only one that matters when it comes to cheating and pretty much all games now come with automatic update features. For the virtual currency portion, it seems like it would be pretty straightforward to move the ledger to the server where it belongs and send an update to the clients to start using the server ledger. If the clients don't get the update then they would basically have zero currency as the server would stop recognizing the client side ledger.
you do understand that infamous was used almost exclusively by people playing GTA online, and the people that used it would do so to ruin the experience of other players. If you want to use cheats while playing single players games, or multiplayer games with you friends, that's one thing, but when you use them grief others and cause others to no longer enjoy the experience that they paid for, that is not ok. As a long time player of GTA Online, I can personally attest to just how bad these people are, I have seen it first hand, and people who know what they are doing with infamous can even use it to prevent you from leaving the session you are playing on to escape.
Even so, this shouldn't require legal action. GTA needs to detect these cheats and disable them. Possibly even force an update to older clients and/or block older unpatched clients from accessing the online servers. I agree that cheats are unfair to the other players and cheaters should be kicked off the servers but cheating or creating cheats shouldn't be a criminal activity.
While some people, like you, continue to state that per KWH, nuclear power is "dirt cheap", others talk about how many billions to spend to get rid of the radioactive crap that's left sitting all over, wherever there is a nuke plant...and how to keep it safe for 10,000 years. What is the cost of just one night watchman for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at every location where nuclear materials, including spent fuel, for all those years. I'd assume salary will go up in time, as well as cost of benefits. Add those, and the cost of how to protect that stuff for all that time to the "dirt cheap" cost, and it goes up just a tad. Don't get me wrong, I grew up next to the first commercial nuke plant in the US, and am not totally against it...but I do believe we ought to be truthful about the total cost, not just the short term cost to the ratepayer, but the long term cost to the taxpayer, too.
I agree that the longterm cost should be included but it's not as bad as you think when you take into account the time value of money. Nuclear plants just need to be funded in a way that there is money set aside to watch over the waste for an indefinite amount of time. For example, using your night watchman example, setting aside 2 million per night watchman should be more than enough. The interest on 2 million should be 80k per year at 4% interest without touching the principle. This could fund that night watchman for 100 years, 10k years or even a million years if needed. This does expose the weakness though as this assumes economic and political stability over a very long time period which might not be realistic so it would probably be better to have a plan in place to permanently dispose of it quickly instead.
My math might be wrong, but I'm coming up with ~700 million to just shoot it into space. 68,000 pounds at 10k per pound. Now maybe I'm off, say due to handling and there being a difference between putting something in orbit and shooting it at the Oort cloud. But even if I'm off by an order of magnitude it's still far cheaper. Maybe?
This would never be approved. It would be very dangerous to put nuclear material on a rocket. Our rockets are not near reliable enough and it would be very hard to prevent something like this from crashing back to earth if the rocket exploded. Even if you could put it in a explosive proof container, the politics of it would likely never let it happen not to mention that an explosive proof container would greatly increase both the weight and the expense.
apple needs apple TV with atsc 3.0 + usb/esata storage add on ports also needs gig-e. They all ready have Dolby Atmos
local storage is need for DVR + buffering / local downloading of shows from Amazon and Netflix etc. As lots of people don't really have the bandwidth to live stream 4K or higher.
Who cares about 4K? Most people don't yet have the equipment needed to fully do 4k anyways. I pay for the Netflix SD plan because I don't even see an advantage of paying the $2/month extra for the HD plan. 4k is way overrated. The only reason to buy a 4k TV is as a cheap way to get a large desktop for your pc. People can barely tell the difference and even if you can tell the difference, does it really affect the enjoyment of the show?
So it's the over-the-air network TV model all over again. The content was free then if I had the hardware ( TV and Rabbit ears)
No, the content was ad supported not free and you could get the hardware from anyone or even build it yourself with enough know how.
This on the other hand is an attempt at vendor lock-in. Basically, like Amazon and Netflix, if they can have some Apple exclusive hits then they are hoping that it will encourage people to own an Apple device. What Apple doesn't seem to realize is that even at $8/month there is a limit to the number of services a person is going to subscribe to and the more fragmented it becomes, the more likely people are just going to start pirating the shows they don't have access to especially if you have to have a multi hundred dollar device in order to access the show you want to watch.
I would say the death rate of a 40 year old would be a better number to use. You have mostly stopped doing stupid crap, you're mostly done with children, but you also are starting to see health related stuff like smoking, heart disease, diabetes, etc... Stopping aging likely wouldn't make all the wear/tear on the body stuff magically disappear. It would take additional breakthrus to be able to reverse all the wear/tear issues. Heart disease is already the number one killer and would likely remain so even if we stopped the primary causes of aging.
Accidental death, suicide, and homicide kill 36,726 annually. In that age group, roughly 43M are alive. That 1:1171 or so chance of dying from those causes by my calculation.
But that doesn't mean that you live to 1171, it means that on average everyone is dead by approximately age 1171. Based on those numbers, 50% should still be dead by about age 500 and chances are that the first life extensions will likely not be perfect and there will be other gotchas that would still get you long before that (like heart attacks)
Yes, imagine a person who grew up in the early 1700's, with values of that era (slavery would be OK, no women's rights, etc.).
So quick to adapt to new technology as well.
Society can change faster than a generation. Look at gay marriage. Less than 10 years ago, California voted to not allow gay marriage and both Obama and Clinton are on record being against gay marriage. As far as adapting to new technology, some of that is likely because of the aging process too. Older people take longer to learn and just slow down both physically and mentally. Stopping aging would likely help this as well.
Except Rockefeller's foundation spent the money far more wisely than the government would have.
Same for Bill Gates. His foundation's spending on nutrition and anti-malaria programs have saved millions of lives for less than the government spends on one aircraft carrier.
My point is that the Rockefeller foundation and likely even the Bill Gates foundation wouldn't even exist if they didn't expect to die.
I'm seeing a LOOOOT more peopel voting for an estate tax, a higher income tax, and a stronger desire for a moderate amount of inflation.
An estate tax doesn't work if you never die and income taxes hurt working people more than the already rich. Inflation helps a little but what we would really need would be an asset tax instead of an income tax. It's really what we need now. The closest we have to an asset tax is property tax and capital gain tax but both of those are lower than an income tax. Basically, the current system is designed to allow the rich to keep their money once they get it and for it to be harder for others to become rich.
Slashdot Mirror
End of the line for ever more powerful digital computing is coming fast. Better be prepared.
There is plenty of room for improvement just very few niche applications to pay for it. The demand is currently not there. A 5 year old laptop was faster than most current laptops/desktops/tablets/phones. Most people have stopped demanding high performance CPUs. Even gamers have shifted their focus to the video cards not the CPUs and a majority of games are now written for tablets/phones that have little more processing power than a 486. Because of the low processing power and low energy requirements of phones/tablets, the stuff that might have created demand like voice recognition has shifted to the cloud instead.
But I fail to see how Intel will fare better with 7nm or 5nm if the problem was purely of physics. If it's the later, we might have effectively hit the wall in terms of being financially feasible.
I don't think it's physics as much as financial. The demand is currently not there. A 5 year old laptop was faster than most current laptops/desktops/tablets/phones. Most people have stopped demanding high performance CPUs. Even gamers have shifted their focus to the video cards not the CPUs and a majority of games are now written for tablets/phones that have little more processing power than a 486. Because of the low processing power and low energy requirements of phones/tablets, the stuff that might have created demand like voice recognition has shifted to the cloud instead.
So why should it be taxes? Facebook is costing German users literally nothing. It's providing them with a service they want at no cost, and paying for that service by selling advertisements to non-german companies. And Germany thinks its entitled to a piece of that? Why?
There's no rational way to justify it.
Your assumption is that ad supported platforms cost nothing. Google and Facebook are selling *something* for billions of dollars. That *something* originates in Germany. So just because no money crosses the border into Germany, it's still obvious that Google and Facebook are selling a German resource. This assumption that ad supported platforms are *free* needs to end. Your attention and your privacy are obviously very valuable as companies are willing to spend billions of dollars for it.
They sell add space to advertisers. They sell data to third parties. Can't we tax these sales? preferably out of existence?
If course you can but Germany can tax it at 100% and it doesn't really matter if the transaction is taking place elsewhere. Apple can buy ads from Facebook in the USA, Cayman Islands, or some random 3rd world country. Facebook is selling a German product (eyeballs) but the transaction doesn't exist in Germany to tax.
So mandate that the credit card companies/paypal report all transactions to the govt(oh wait they do that) and have the govt go after the people in the country for not paying VAT et al.
What transaction? If Apple pays Facebook to display ads in Germany, there isn't a transaction in Germany to tax even though Facebook just sold something of value to Apple which originated in Germany (German eyeballs).
At least for goods, there is no escaping the VAT on imports into the EU. I'm unsure about services but I doubt they'd leave that piggy bank unbled.
Google and Facebook give their "services" away for free as do many digital giants. I'm assuming they do charge a VAT on stuff like Netflix and it's possible that they charge a VAT for a European company buying ads on Facebook/Google but if Coke is buying ads on Facebook in the USA (or some obscure country) and displaying them in Europe then there is no transaction in Europe to even tax. The money is going from a USA company to another USA company even though they are buying something in Europe (eyeballs). The revenue might originate and terminate in the USA but they are still conducting business with and profiting off the people of Europe even though no money actually flows thru Europe.
Income tax, inheritance tax, even VAT, all that crap is subject to waaaay to many loopholes. But it doesn't matter if Joe is a billionaire or a pauper, he buys something at the register or gets it delivered, tax that sale and it's much simpler to audit and enforce than all the other tax methods combined.
This does nothing for the digital giants. There is no point of sale for Google or Facebook. There is no physical good or even digital good to tax this way as they are even giving their "digital goods" away for free. Google and Facebook need to be taxed in Germany on the amount of revenue they receive from German citizens.
Nations, provinces, counties, and cities all have to compete with each other to get people to live, work, visit, or operate a business there. If you are incapable of offering an attractive proposition of benefits vs. costs, then they won't come to you.
The solution is to make yourself more attractive, not to require all your competitors to place the same onerous burden on the people or businesses you aren't attracting.
This is a race to the bottom at best but it's really worse than that. Global companies aren't creating shell companies in obscure countries because these countries are out competing other countries with quality but rather because they managed to find a country that is willing to look the other way because they are getting 1% of a bunch of cash that they wouldn't get otherwise.
The correct solution isn't a global tax but rather to charge taxes based on sales in that country. We already do this with physical goods in the form of either sales tax or import taxes. If Germany wants to tax the iphone or facebook it should tax the company based on the amount of revenue that company is receiving from its citizens.
For cars, self driving is objectively better in safety.
Even if you could show that a fully self driving car is safer than a human driven car, itâ(TM)s not a binary choice. Many of the features currently being used to make self driving cars safe could also be used in augmented systems and as in most modern systems, there likely exists a sweet spot where the combination of human and machine is better than either one by themself by using the strengths of computers and the strengths of humans together.
If private individuals were allowed to own state-of-the-art warships and artillery - like they were in 1776 - you'd see a lot more parity in firepower.
This stopped being feasible the minute we started having weapons that contained multiple man-years in them. A gun can be made by a single individual in less than a year. i.e. less than one manhour-year. On cost alone, a million dollar weapon takes 10-20 manhour-years of middle class salary. We now have weapons that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and tens of millions to produce and thousands of dollars per hour to even operate. These type of weapons are only possible when you pool the labor from thousands of people which is only possible for governments and large corporations.
And we all know tomorrow's consumer tools will never get as good as yesterday's industrial tools...at half the price. Never.
That's kindof the point. It's easier to fight and win this battle now while 3D printers still suck at printing guns. It would be much harder to win this battle after 3D printers advanced to the point of being able to print high quality guns.
Actually, believe it or not, no. The best strategy to use when "taking out a convoy" is to wait until about 1/3 has passed the red-line, then blow the explosives, thus dividing your enemy and pinning the first 3rd for further attack. Better yet is to hit the rear of the convoy and the 1/3 to 1/2 way point simultaneously for maximum destruction of your enemy.
I still donâ(TM)t see how this solves a problem. Sure, the guy in the middle car isnâ(TM)t there to die but now you have an ant trail that is blocked by debris and noone in the remaining cars to drive around the debris. Even if they heavily fortify the first vehicle, it seems like you can now randomly disable one of the latter vehicles and disconnect the remaining vehicles from the convoy.
That being said, online games are always going to be subject to haxxoring as long as the client has any smarts to it at all. If they really want to end it, they'd just allow the client to send certain keystrokes and do all the actual calculations on the server.
It doesn't matter if the client has any smarts or not. Back in the original NES stage, there were third party controllers that had different settings to autorepeat when you held down the buttons. Invincibility might be difficult with hardware but autoaiming should be within the realm of something that hardware can do as is anything that requires repetitive actions. Cheats that go around and collect resources while you sleep are quite common in many games and actually become simpler the dumber the client is as it's easier to reverse engineer the network traffic.
Was patching the game not an option?
Patching the program running on the user's computer is not a good option, because the user is in full control, and can overwrite or bypass any cheat prevention.
In online mode, they should be able to patch the server to block cheating. But that may be difficult, or even impossible, to do without breaking the installed base.
Online mode is the only one that matters when it comes to cheating and pretty much all games now come with automatic update features.
For the virtual currency portion, it seems like it would be pretty straightforward to move the ledger to the server where it belongs and send
an update to the clients to start using the server ledger. If the clients don't get the update then they would basically have zero currency as
the server would stop recognizing the client side ledger.
you do understand that infamous was used almost exclusively by people playing GTA online, and the people that used it would do so to ruin the experience of other players. If you want to use cheats while playing single players games, or multiplayer games with you friends, that's one thing, but when you use them grief others and cause others to no longer enjoy the experience that they paid for, that is not ok. As a long time player of GTA Online, I can personally attest to just how bad these people are, I have seen it first hand, and people who know what they are doing with infamous can even use it to prevent you from leaving the session you are playing on to escape.
Even so, this shouldn't require legal action. GTA needs to detect these cheats and disable them. Possibly even force an update to older clients and/or block older unpatched clients from accessing the online servers. I agree that cheats are unfair to the other players and cheaters should be kicked off the servers but cheating or creating cheats shouldn't be a criminal activity.
Dirt cheap?
While some people, like you, continue to state that per KWH, nuclear power is "dirt cheap", others talk about how many billions to spend to get rid of the radioactive crap that's left sitting all over, wherever there is a nuke plant...and how to keep it safe for 10,000 years. What is the cost of just one night watchman for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at every location where nuclear materials, including spent fuel, for all those years. I'd assume salary will go up in time, as well as cost of benefits. Add those, and the cost of how to protect that stuff for all that time to the "dirt cheap" cost, and it goes up just a tad. Don't get me wrong, I grew up next to the first commercial nuke plant in the US, and am not totally against it...but I do believe we ought to be truthful about the total cost, not just the short term cost to the ratepayer, but the long term cost to the taxpayer, too.
I agree that the longterm cost should be included but it's not as bad as you think when you take into account the time value of money. Nuclear plants just need to be funded in a way that there is money set aside to watch over the waste for an indefinite amount of time. For example, using your night watchman example, setting aside 2 million per night watchman should be more than enough. The interest on 2 million should be 80k per year at 4% interest without touching the principle. This could fund that night watchman for 100 years, 10k years or even a million years if needed. This does expose the weakness though as this assumes economic and political stability over a very long time period which might not be realistic so it would probably be better to have a plan in place to permanently dispose of it quickly instead.
My math might be wrong, but I'm coming up with ~700 million to just shoot it into space. 68,000 pounds at 10k per pound. Now maybe I'm off, say due to handling and there being a difference between putting something in orbit and shooting it at the Oort cloud. But even if I'm off by an order of magnitude it's still far cheaper. Maybe?
This would never be approved. It would be very dangerous to put nuclear material on a rocket. Our rockets are not near reliable enough and it would be very hard to prevent something like this from crashing back to earth if the rocket exploded. Even if you could put it in a explosive proof container, the politics of it would likely never let it happen not to mention that an explosive proof container would greatly increase both the weight and the expense.
This would be interesting to use to record the double slit experiment and find out what is really going on.
apple needs apple TV with atsc 3.0 + usb/esata storage add on ports also needs gig-e. They all ready have Dolby Atmos
local storage is need for DVR + buffering / local downloading of shows from Amazon and Netflix etc. As lots of people don't really have the bandwidth to live stream 4K or higher.
Who cares about 4K? Most people don't yet have the equipment needed to fully do 4k anyways. I pay for the Netflix SD plan because I don't even see an advantage of paying the $2/month extra for the HD plan. 4k is way overrated. The only reason to buy a 4k TV is as a cheap way to get a large desktop for your pc. People can barely tell the difference and even if you can tell the difference, does it really affect the enjoyment of the show?
So it's the over-the-air network TV model all over again.
The content was free then if I had the hardware ( TV and Rabbit ears)
No, the content was ad supported not free and you could get the hardware from anyone or even build it yourself with enough know how.
This on the other hand is an attempt at vendor lock-in. Basically, like Amazon and Netflix, if they can have some Apple exclusive hits then they are hoping that it will encourage people to own an Apple device. What Apple doesn't seem to realize is that even at $8/month there is a limit to the number of services a person is going to subscribe to and the more fragmented it becomes, the more likely people are just going to start pirating the shows they don't have access to especially if you have to have a multi hundred dollar device in order to access the show you want to watch.
I would say the death rate of a 40 year old would be a better number to use. You have mostly stopped doing stupid crap, you're mostly done with children, but you also are starting to see health related stuff like smoking, heart disease, diabetes, etc... Stopping aging likely wouldn't make all the wear/tear on the body stuff magically disappear. It would take additional breakthrus to be able to reverse all the wear/tear issues. Heart disease is already the number one killer and would likely remain so even if we stopped the primary causes of aging.
Accidental death, suicide, and homicide kill 36,726 annually. In that age group, roughly 43M are alive. That 1:1171 or so chance of dying from those causes by my calculation.
But that doesn't mean that you live to 1171, it means that on average everyone is dead by approximately age 1171. Based on those numbers, 50% should still be dead by about age 500 and chances are that the first life extensions will likely not be perfect and there will be other gotchas that would still get you long before that (like heart attacks)
Yes, imagine a person who grew up in the early 1700's, with values of that era (slavery would be OK, no women's rights, etc.).
So quick to adapt to new technology as well.
Society can change faster than a generation. Look at gay marriage. Less than 10 years ago, California voted to not allow gay marriage and both Obama and Clinton are on record being against gay marriage. As far as adapting to new technology, some of that is likely because of the aging process too. Older people take longer to learn and just slow down both physically and mentally. Stopping aging would likely help this as well.
Except Rockefeller's foundation spent the money far more wisely than the government would have.
Same for Bill Gates. His foundation's spending on nutrition and anti-malaria programs have saved millions of lives for less than the government spends on one aircraft carrier.
My point is that the Rockefeller foundation and likely even the Bill Gates foundation wouldn't even exist if they didn't expect to die.
but imagine if Rockafeller never died.
I'm seeing a LOOOOT more peopel voting for an estate tax, a higher income tax, and a stronger desire for a moderate amount of inflation.
An estate tax doesn't work if you never die and income taxes hurt working people more than the already rich. Inflation helps a little but what we would really need would be an asset tax instead of an income tax. It's really what we need now. The closest we have to an asset tax is property tax and capital gain tax but both of those are lower than an income tax. Basically, the current system is designed to allow the rich to keep their money once they get it and for it to be harder for others to become rich.