Trains are problematic in the US for numerous reasons, so even having a "fast" train won't solve many issues. Japan has a functional train system with cities designed around them.
That's because the rest of the world has had trains for a long time, and the US is brand new to this.
Wow. In what alternate universe do you reside where this is true?
(I remember seeing an infographic back in the 80s or so that showed a then-and-now "map" of the relative rail density in the US in the 60s and 80s. We've dismantled something like 80% of our rail capacity. There's a difference, IMO, between "being new to this" and having dismantled our infrastructure [in favor of highways and trucking].)
It was a sarcastic remark to the idea that Japan has a functional train system with cities built around them, which implies that we don't. Trains have an integral part in the history of North America,
America has at least one political party that views trains with a jaundiced eyes, probably left over from the heyday of trains here, when that party wanted to be sure to bust the unions that were involved with the train industry. That's an educated guess. At this time we are slowly coming around to the idea of train transportation again, but it will take a while. I would wager that most of the world will have hyperloops in daily service -while here in the US, we'll still have half of us saying that "Hyperloops will never work."
Trains are problematic in the US for numerous reasons, so even having a "fast" train won't solve many issues. Japan has a functional train system with cities designed around them.
That's because the rest of the world has had trains for a long time, and the US is brand new to this.
The Internet is still up and running even while you aren't connected to it...traffic is still flowing between servers and clients. Routers and switches are still humming along.
It's not the Internet that's down, it's your uplink connection that's down.
A difference with no distinction, a distinction with no difference. Way beck before you decided to take me on this pointless wordsmithing exercise, a fellow came in to speak to an emergency communications group I act as a technical advisor with about a mesh network of part 15 devices. He thought that all you had to do was create this network and you had access to the entire internet.
And eventually we got here. The nature of disasters is that they tend to come in and destroy infrastructure. Telephone lines go down, Power goes down. It doesn't go down in a neat pre-planned way either. The fact that there is internet access in the rest of the world means nothing to a person in a place with no more access for any reason. It's down.
Now if you want to argue that the internet isn't down for that person, by all means do, have your say. But at this point, you are in the same boat as the dunce who argued that putting up an ad-hoc network automatically had the world wide web as far as I'm concerned, and I'm going to respond to you as I did to him.
Thank you for your input, I'l take that under advisement. Buh-bye!
Okay, but your question is poorly phrased then. "The Internet is down" implies there's no Internet to connect to, rather than your uplink connection being down.
So essentially you were asking, "how is it going to connect to the Internet without a connection to the Internet?"
Whenever and however that is. The Internet can go down. The power liines can be out, and your trusty server will not be reachable. At that point, or in any other scenario where you have no connection, where no signal gets to you, no packets, No Wifi because it has no connectino - where the cell phone system's emergency batteries have crapped out after a few hours.
The internet is not functioning for you or anyone in your area, you have no connection nor do they, you cannot connect to the internet because it is not up and running, it is no longer sending packets of data
It is not up then, the internet is for any definition of words or combinations of words, well and truly....
The key word isn't "listening device", it is "covert". Hackers can turn an overt listening device into a covert listening device. Kinda like how Android malware can turn your Google/AT&T spying device into a Google/AT&T/other spying device.
The keyword isn't covert. It is that the device listens, and as a part of the security lacking Internet of things someone or many people out there simply are listening to it. I don't give a damn if you call it onomatopoeia, the gaddamned thing is listening in all the time. And the utter naivety to think that the only people who are listening to it is Amazon is charming, but so wrong. Maybe that isn't a big deal for many people.
"Hackers Can Turn Overt Listening Device into a Covert Listening Device."
If you own an Echo, you know Amazon is listening to you = overt.
They've found a way to redirect it someone else other than Amazon is listening to you without your consent = covfefe.
Yeah... pretty much. The TRUE test of the quality of a security plan, is to be able to explain it in reasonable detail, AND not have experts laugh at you and point out slews of holes.
If you're trying to keep it secret, then it is most likely because you either have no credible plan, or you don't have much confidence in it....
We're talking about anti-hacker defenses. This is not a military endeavor, where we should be concerned about adversaries copying our defense tactics to their own security planning.
Right, this is what I'm saying. If they say "We have this awesome plan it's great, so great, it will take care of that problem right away. But we can't tell you anything about it!
It might mean there is an awesome plan that is great. It might also mean "we got nuthin! Either way, the public won't know. Personally, I'm with you. Something that lends some credence to the idea is best - the public doesn't need the deep dark details - most wouldn't understand them anyhow.
But we've been spoon-fed so much pure distilled bullshit about taking one day to fix problems that will be sooo easy, that anyone who isn't skeptical has massively suspended disbelief.
The entire argument is like talking about the world's tallest midget. Apologies to little people.
But anyone that shares idea that the DSLR has been replaced by the smartphone is merely showing how little they actually know about the art and science of photography. There is a lot of physics going on that is related to some things like sensor size, which dictates lens focal length, and has a related effect on f-stop.
This has a marked effect upon the look of the image.Due to the size and especially the thickness of smartphones, you will have to use a small sensor, which will necessitate a very short focal length lens with an extremely short distance focal plane. Which will give the images a particular look, usually referred to as "Lensey". There are some software attempts at things like depth of field, but they aren't terribly good, looking like amateurish Photoshopping, and complete,y missing the circle of confusion effect. And then there is digital zoom.
Now after that dissertation, I have to say that smartphone cameras are nothing short of amazing technology. They are remarkably sharp, with nice color rendition. In short, a wonderful replacement for the 110 film and early phone cameras. A great device for family shots. I use mine in a pinch.
But as an adequate replacement for a DSLR? Not so much.
Already quoted you: "Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret." Where did this fact come from?
Can! It CAN be important.
Make no mistake, if I for a New York minute thought that there was no plan, I would have written:
"The fact that there is no plan is just as important to keep secret."
Not a bit of ambiguity there. That would be me saying exactly that there was no plan. But I didn't write that. Can does not mean is.Thanks for playing, but I'm not in the mood to diagram sentences tonight.
I asked how his system was going to connect to the internet when the internet was down....
"When the internet was down" ?
Pardon me if I ask for some clarification on what that means?
This is for communications when the wheels fall off. Widespread power outages, no cellular comms, and other parts of the infrastructure going down. Doesn't happen often, but every so often, yes, people are without internet access. Hope I didn't upset the kids too much! 8^)
But my overall point which is probably lost on people because it is hard to believe, was that this guy thought that simply setting up an ad-hoc mesh network, that the users were going to have the world wide web. No backbone connection, just a bunch of computers sitting all alone were going to have "the internet" Like they could communicate around the world on the internet at the same time they were disconnected from it.
Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret.
You are claiming a fact when you have none. You assume there is no plan because nobody is willing to tell you what it is.
SRSLY? Tell me exactly where I claimed there is no plan. Having an awesome completely foolproof secret plan that will work every time and make the free internet safe forever and anon might have every bit the same need for secrecy as "We got nuthin'.
You need to read a little better before just deciding to disagree because you want to argue with someone.
We should vote on that using one of the easily hacked vote machines in use in the US today. You know, one of the ones that was hacked (e.g. every single one) at DEFCON.
Yeah, sure.
I recall articles about the ease with which the voting machines and system could be hacked around 2004-5. That includes actual hacking and a recipe for changing votes in order to make certain one candidate would beat another.
Even with the ancient adages about "security via obscurity", one does not wisely broadcast details about the security systems one is using. It's called "infosec", or more broadly, "opsec".
Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret.
We have had many plans that were bragged about by the party of the moral high ground turn out to be no plan at all. OBlamacare repeal, the Freedom Jesuscare health act, and everything Don for Life has ever promised. If the model is followed, it involves shutting the computer off and not much more.
If you give enough people a headache, they will give other people a headache for it happening. Eventually, the people responsible will either change their ways or it's going to be a painful decade for them.
My boss told me years ago, that the best way to get action from someone with a problem I was having was to make it their problem.
And damned if that wasn't some of the best advive I ever got. Yes, it pissed off some folks, but yes, they remembered that I expected a quick response in the future.
I don't care if these people using this insecure hardware are blacklisted until they remove it. Watch how quickly that particular problem goes away.
I've been doing networking for 29 years, and it is not unusual to experience people without a clue talking about how to do this or that in a manner that exposed their cluelessness to knowledgeable individuals, but sounded insightful to others. I've noticed that this behavior is more general; people seem to assume that what they only know from the outside must be easy, while what they know in more detail (especially if it's their vocation) is hard. As a consultant, I learned to listen to their ideas, pull out the nuggets of their needs, and (if necessary) educate them on aspects that were not as easy as they thought. I did not act in as disciplined a manner all the time.
Imagine if you would, mountainous terrain - think the Ridge and valley geology in Pennsylvania. Now imagine an emergency system consisting of a mesh network of consumer part 15 devices in an ad-hoc network to provide communications between widely separated stations. I serve as a technical advisor because I have experience in digital, networking, and RF matters. The latest tool that came in to speak to us got more and more frustrated by my questions, and eventually started yelling and calling me an idiot and that I wasn't paying attention.
I think he was dumbfounded when I asked how his system was going to connect to the internet when the internet was down...... "It's a network, stupid - that's the internet." And he seemed a little shocked when I asked about how any appreciable distance would be covered.
I let him rant for a few minutes, thanked him for his time, and afterward circulated the word to those attending....... "No".
This system he was proposing wouldn't work for so many reasons that it was difficult not to laugh.
I agree it's a shame to lose access to old Flash content, but really, some mythical "security" unicorn?
He's not wrong, you know. Flash is but one security flaw in an ecosystem of security flaws. Eliminating it will make very little difference, as the problem just moves to a new neighborhood.
Does this moron not understand true backbone internet connectivity? Or will wifi somehow handle the problem?
Mod the AC's insight up, folks.
I've been dealing with a bit of this lately, with people who have discovered just enough about networking to make fools out of themselves. Had a self appointed expert pull one of these mesh network idiocies at a meeting, and pronounce it as the replacement for everything on the intertoobz. Got pretty belligerent about it as well, when presented with the truth.
Nailed it in one. If I was in my 70s, I'd go for it for sure. I'll extend my life as long as I can.
Well good for you. Tell me, would you still say that if you were paralyzed and incontinent, demented and fed through a tube?.
The article is about a technology to prevent precisely that. I doubt, as the baby boomers age ahead of me, it will be the last of the type.
We have increased the average age at death. However, this involves a lot of drugs, and there is a reason that nursing homes are a booming industry.
Some folks might think this is an adequate quality of life, certainly the drug companies and the geriaric car industry are all gaga about the situation.
I don't trust them personally, and don't see much reason to trust this very similar thing. Certainly we live in a country where if people's personal wealth could be extracted by havine them spend more time in personal care, and more time on maintenance drugs before dying, it would be considered a positive thing by both industries. Having an in-depth exposure to the death industry in recent years, I'll take my chances dying a natural ( or assisted) death rather than being managed by people I do not trust and who have an incentive of me handing over all of my money to them.
First, thank you for your well reasoned response - there are too few people on/. who even try.
The scary part is they might be trying! But you're welcome
I but from what I read, there is a lot of research into things like organ replacement (by growing new organs from a person's own stemcells)
The business of reducing an organ to it's connective tissue "scaffolding" and regrowing healthy organ tissue on it is pretty compelling. http://www.popsci.com/scientis... This is nothing short of amazing. Imagine if they could take a heart attack victim and using their own cells, grow a new heart. The same with other organs.
The interesting thing is that if it becomes easy and or quick, the process might be expanded to very early stage heart or other organ issues.
My fear of a very healthy person becoming demented still makes me cautious. I'll note that Alzheimer's will eventually deteriorate the brain enough to cause organ failure. But even then the heart of a ten year old in the body of an Alzheimer's patient will probably last a lot longer than their old worn out heart.
Nailed it in one. If I was in my 70s, I'd go for it for sure. I'll extend my life as long as I can.
Well good for you. Tell me, would you still say that if you were paralyzed and incontinent, demented and fed through a tube? And on a practical level, blowing through your entire estate in a short time, leaving your family broke?
Fuck that, and the obsession to eke out every last second of a no longer valid life.
If I knew I was going to end up that way, I would without hesitation or regret, happily die at this very moment.
Slashdot Mirror
What is it was you guys and Gore? You need somebody new to obsess about since Princess Di is dead?
Most deniers know very little about science or physics. But they do know politics, and they do know how to castigate.
So obsessive demeaning over Mr. Gore is to them, a valid means of debunking AGW.
I'm waiting until the US congress has a vote to repeal Ohm's Law.
Trains are problematic in the US for numerous reasons, so even having a "fast" train won't solve many issues. Japan has a functional train system with cities designed around them.
That's because the rest of the world has had trains for a long time, and the US is brand new to this.
Wow. In what alternate universe do you reside where this is true?
(I remember seeing an infographic back in the 80s or so that showed a then-and-now "map" of the relative rail density in the US in the 60s and 80s. We've dismantled something like 80% of our rail capacity. There's a difference, IMO, between "being new to this" and having dismantled our infrastructure [in favor of highways and trucking].)
It was a sarcastic remark to the idea that Japan has a functional train system with cities built around them, which implies that we don't. Trains have an integral part in the history of North America,
America has at least one political party that views trains with a jaundiced eyes, probably left over from the heyday of trains here, when that party wanted to be sure to bust the unions that were involved with the train industry. That's an educated guess. At this time we are slowly coming around to the idea of train transportation again, but it will take a while. I would wager that most of the world will have hyperloops in daily service -while here in the US, we'll still have half of us saying that "Hyperloops will never work."
Trains are problematic in the US for numerous reasons, so even having a "fast" train won't solve many issues. Japan has a functional train system with cities designed around them.
That's because the rest of the world has had trains for a long time, and the US is brand new to this.
No, you seem a bit confused.
The Internet is still up and running even while you aren't connected to it...traffic is still flowing between servers and clients. Routers and switches are still humming along.
It's not the Internet that's down, it's your uplink connection that's down.
A difference with no distinction, a distinction with no difference. Way beck before you decided to take me on this pointless wordsmithing exercise, a fellow came in to speak to an emergency communications group I act as a technical advisor with about a mesh network of part 15 devices. He thought that all you had to do was create this network and you had access to the entire internet.
And eventually we got here. The nature of disasters is that they tend to come in and destroy infrastructure. Telephone lines go down, Power goes down. It doesn't go down in a neat pre-planned way either. The fact that there is internet access in the rest of the world means nothing to a person in a place with no more access for any reason. It's down.
Now if you want to argue that the internet isn't down for that person, by all means do, have your say. But at this point, you are in the same boat as the dunce who argued that putting up an ad-hoc network automatically had the world wide web as far as I'm concerned, and I'm going to respond to you as I did to him.
Thank you for your input, I'l take that under advisement. Buh-bye!
Okay, but your question is poorly phrased then. "The Internet is down" implies there's no Internet to connect to, rather than your uplink connection being down.
So essentially you were asking, "how is it going to connect to the Internet without a connection to the Internet?"
Whenever and however that is. The Internet can go down. The power liines can be out, and your trusty server will not be reachable. At that point, or in any other scenario where you have no connection, where no signal gets to you, no packets, No Wifi because it has no connectino - where the cell phone system's emergency batteries have crapped out after a few hours.
The internet is not functioning for you or anyone in your area, you have no connection nor do they, you cannot connect to the internet because it is not up and running, it is no longer sending packets of data
It is not up then, the internet is for any definition of words or combinations of words, well and truly....
Down.
This is not that difficult of a concept.
and they did it by stealing your keys.
We must give the government your keys to protect you.
The key word isn't "listening device", it is "covert". Hackers can turn an overt listening device into a covert listening device. Kinda like how Android malware can turn your Google/AT&T spying device into a Google/AT&T/other spying device.
The keyword isn't covert. It is that the device listens, and as a part of the security lacking Internet of things someone or many people out there simply are listening to it. I don't give a damn if you call it onomatopoeia, the gaddamned thing is listening in all the time. And the utter naivety to think that the only people who are listening to it is Amazon is charming, but so wrong. Maybe that isn't a big deal for many people.
"Hackers Can Turn Overt Listening Device into a Covert Listening Device."
If you own an Echo, you know Amazon is listening to you = overt. They've found a way to redirect it someone else other than Amazon is listening to you without your consent = covfefe.
FTFY
This is like saying that hackers can turn a car into a transportation device.
Yeah... pretty much. The TRUE test of the quality of a security plan, is to be able to explain it in reasonable detail, AND not have experts laugh at you and point out slews of holes.
If you're trying to keep it secret, then it is most likely because you either have no credible plan, or you don't have much confidence in it....
We're talking about anti-hacker defenses. This is not a military endeavor, where we should be concerned about adversaries copying our defense tactics to their own security planning.
Right, this is what I'm saying. If they say "We have this awesome plan it's great, so great, it will take care of that problem right away. But we can't tell you anything about it!
It might mean there is an awesome plan that is great. It might also mean "we got nuthin! Either way, the public won't know. Personally, I'm with you. Something that lends some credence to the idea is best - the public doesn't need the deep dark details - most wouldn't understand them anyhow.
But we've been spoon-fed so much pure distilled bullshit about taking one day to fix problems that will be sooo easy, that anyone who isn't skeptical has massively suspended disbelief.
On the outer bag it says it's guaranteed to stay fresh for 15 days longer than traditionally pasteurized milk.
Hit it with some Gamma rays - ~70 kGy and it can be fresh for a long, long time, since that seems to be the most important thing to some folks.
But anyone that shares idea that the DSLR has been replaced by the smartphone is merely showing how little they actually know about the art and science of photography. There is a lot of physics going on that is related to some things like sensor size, which dictates lens focal length, and has a related effect on f-stop.
This has a marked effect upon the look of the image.Due to the size and especially the thickness of smartphones, you will have to use a small sensor, which will necessitate a very short focal length lens with an extremely short distance focal plane. Which will give the images a particular look, usually referred to as "Lensey". There are some software attempts at things like depth of field, but they aren't terribly good, looking like amateurish Photoshopping, and complete,y missing the circle of confusion effect. And then there is digital zoom.
Now after that dissertation, I have to say that smartphone cameras are nothing short of amazing technology. They are remarkably sharp, with nice color rendition. In short, a wonderful replacement for the 110 film and early phone cameras. A great device for family shots. I use mine in a pinch.
But as an adequate replacement for a DSLR? Not so much.
Tell me exactly where I claimed there is no plan.
Already quoted you: "Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret." Where did this fact come from?
Can! It CAN be important.
Make no mistake, if I for a New York minute thought that there was no plan, I would have written: "The fact that there is no plan is just as important to keep secret."
Not a bit of ambiguity there. That would be me saying exactly that there was no plan. But I didn't write that. Can does not mean is.Thanks for playing, but I'm not in the mood to diagram sentences tonight.
"When the internet was down" ?
Pardon me if I ask for some clarification on what that means?
This is for communications when the wheels fall off. Widespread power outages, no cellular comms, and other parts of the infrastructure going down. Doesn't happen often, but every so often, yes, people are without internet access. Hope I didn't upset the kids too much! 8^)
But my overall point which is probably lost on people because it is hard to believe, was that this guy thought that simply setting up an ad-hoc mesh network, that the users were going to have the world wide web. No backbone connection, just a bunch of computers sitting all alone were going to have "the internet" Like they could communicate around the world on the internet at the same time they were disconnected from it.
Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret.
You are claiming a fact when you have none. You assume there is no plan because nobody is willing to tell you what it is.
SRSLY? Tell me exactly where I claimed there is no plan. Having an awesome completely foolproof secret plan that will work every time and make the free internet safe forever and anon might have every bit the same need for secrecy as "We got nuthin'.
You need to read a little better before just deciding to disagree because you want to argue with someone.
We should vote on that using one of the easily hacked vote machines in use in the US today. You know, one of the ones that was hacked (e.g. every single one) at DEFCON.
Yeah, sure.
I recall articles about the ease with which the voting machines and system could be hacked around 2004-5. That includes actual hacking and a recipe for changing votes in order to make certain one candidate would beat another.
Even with the ancient adages about "security via obscurity", one does not wisely broadcast details about the security systems one is using. It's called "infosec", or more broadly, "opsec".
Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret.
We have had many plans that were bragged about by the party of the moral high ground turn out to be no plan at all. OBlamacare repeal, the Freedom Jesuscare health act, and everything Don for Life has ever promised. If the model is followed, it involves shutting the computer off and not much more.
And the crowd goes mild.
If you give enough people a headache, they will give other people a headache for it happening. Eventually, the people responsible will either change their ways or it's going to be a painful decade for them.
My boss told me years ago, that the best way to get action from someone with a problem I was having was to make it their problem.
And damned if that wasn't some of the best advive I ever got. Yes, it pissed off some folks, but yes, they remembered that I expected a quick response in the future.
I don't care if these people using this insecure hardware are blacklisted until they remove it. Watch how quickly that particular problem goes away.
I've been doing networking for 29 years, and it is not unusual to experience people without a clue talking about how to do this or that in a manner that exposed their cluelessness to knowledgeable individuals, but sounded insightful to others. I've noticed that this behavior is more general; people seem to assume that what they only know from the outside must be easy, while what they know in more detail (especially if it's their vocation) is hard. As a consultant, I learned to listen to their ideas, pull out the nuggets of their needs, and (if necessary) educate them on aspects that were not as easy as they thought. I did not act in as disciplined a manner all the time.
Imagine if you would, mountainous terrain - think the Ridge and valley geology in Pennsylvania. Now imagine an emergency system consisting of a mesh network of consumer part 15 devices in an ad-hoc network to provide communications between widely separated stations. I serve as a technical advisor because I have experience in digital, networking, and RF matters. The latest tool that came in to speak to us got more and more frustrated by my questions, and eventually started yelling and calling me an idiot and that I wasn't paying attention.
I think he was dumbfounded when I asked how his system was going to connect to the internet when the internet was down...... "It's a network, stupid - that's the internet." And he seemed a little shocked when I asked about how any appreciable distance would be covered.
I let him rant for a few minutes, thanked him for his time, and afterward circulated the word to those attending....... "No".
This system he was proposing wouldn't work for so many reasons that it was difficult not to laugh.
I agree it's a shame to lose access to old Flash content, but really, some mythical "security" unicorn?
He's not wrong, you know. Flash is but one security flaw in an ecosystem of security flaws. Eliminating it will make very little difference, as the problem just moves to a new neighborhood.
Does this moron not understand true backbone internet connectivity? Or will wifi somehow handle the problem?
Mod the AC's insight up, folks.
I've been dealing with a bit of this lately, with people who have discovered just enough about networking to make fools out of themselves. Had a self appointed expert pull one of these mesh network idiocies at a meeting, and pronounce it as the replacement for everything on the intertoobz. Got pretty belligerent about it as well, when presented with the truth.
Nailed it in one. If I was in my 70s, I'd go for it for sure. I'll extend my life as long as I can.
Well good for you. Tell me, would you still say that if you were paralyzed and incontinent, demented and fed through a tube?.
The article is about a technology to prevent precisely that. I doubt, as the baby boomers age ahead of me, it will be the last of the type.
We have increased the average age at death. However, this involves a lot of drugs, and there is a reason that nursing homes are a booming industry.
Some folks might think this is an adequate quality of life, certainly the drug companies and the geriaric car industry are all gaga about the situation.
I don't trust them personally, and don't see much reason to trust this very similar thing. Certainly we live in a country where if people's personal wealth could be extracted by havine them spend more time in personal care, and more time on maintenance drugs before dying, it would be considered a positive thing by both industries. Having an in-depth exposure to the death industry in recent years, I'll take my chances dying a natural ( or assisted) death rather than being managed by people I do not trust and who have an incentive of me handing over all of my money to them.
First, thank you for your well reasoned response - there are too few people on /. who even try.
The scary part is they might be trying! But you're welcome
I but from what I read, there is a lot of research into things like organ replacement (by growing new organs from a person's own stemcells)
The business of reducing an organ to it's connective tissue "scaffolding" and regrowing healthy organ tissue on it is pretty compelling. http://www.popsci.com/scientis... This is nothing short of amazing. Imagine if they could take a heart attack victim and using their own cells, grow a new heart. The same with other organs.
The interesting thing is that if it becomes easy and or quick, the process might be expanded to very early stage heart or other organ issues.
My fear of a very healthy person becoming demented still makes me cautious. I'll note that Alzheimer's will eventually deteriorate the brain enough to cause organ failure. But even then the heart of a ten year old in the body of an Alzheimer's patient will probably last a lot longer than their old worn out heart.
Nailed it in one. If I was in my 70s, I'd go for it for sure. I'll extend my life as long as I can.
Well good for you. Tell me, would you still say that if you were paralyzed and incontinent, demented and fed through a tube? And on a practical level, blowing through your entire estate in a short time, leaving your family broke?
Fuck that, and the obsession to eke out every last second of a no longer valid life.
If I knew I was going to end up that way, I would without hesitation or regret, happily die at this very moment.