For people who think, "Who the heck could ever leave their kid in a hot car... what kind of parent could they possibly be???" You NEED to read this article. This could happen to many more caring parents than we might realize, given the right set of unusual circumstances.
I did it once. My son didn't die because I remembered quickly. I had also locked my keys inside, so there ensued a few frantic minutes while I broke into my car (with the help of a nearby police officer). It's terrifyingly easy to do when something breaks your routine.
And the root cause of people being scared of guns is guns killing so many people.
That is not the cause of people being scared of guns. If it were, it would cause everyone to be afraid of them, not just the people who don't know anything about them. It would also cause everyone to be afraid of cars.
And what is motivating Apple's lawyers to care? You can throw up any number of proximate causes, but the root cause is people freaking out about guns being scary.
Or security when someone runs off with your phone. But it's all good because YOLO.
This is why you need to password-protect your phone.
On a recent Android device, one launched with Marshmallow, password authentication is usually implemented in the Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), including doing brute force mitigation (exponentially-increasing delays after failed authentication attempts) in the TEE. On such a device, even a four-digit PIN is pretty strong, as long as you don't get shoulder-surfed. I say "usually" because this TEE-based password authentication feature was not made mandatory in Marshmallow (which should be rectified for Nougat... though only for devices that initially launch with Nougat). However, the vast majority of devices launched with Marshmallow do have it.
If your phone is well-protected, then YOLO makes a lot of sense.
(Disclosure/Disclaimer: I'm a Google Android engineer. I work on the TEE-based authentication component, but not on YOLO.)
Why ? Maybe I don't want to interrupt my movie to answer every robocall I get.
So don't answer.
Or, if you insist, have the phone app pop up a TV mute (or unmute) button so you can make the decision after you answer. There are lots of ways to solve this.
So, we all like to hate the NSA for all of their spying, but they really have a very high level of technical competence, and they are actually quite good at carrying out their mission (or what they perceive their mission to be). If the president were to issue a directive requiring the NSA to treat the integrity of US elections as a national security issue, and ask them to do a thorough evaluation of the systems and processes and to issue recommendations for how to fix or mitigate any perceived problems, I expect they'd do an excellent job.
Of course, if we're concerned about the integrity of the 2016 election, it's far too late for something like this. It would need to have been started at least a year ago, and the recommendations would have to have been issued a few months ago. We'd need to be in the phase of verifying that the fixes and mitigations were properly deployed.
It's too bad, really, because Trump seems to be positioning himself to claim the election is rigged if he loses. That could get very ugly, especially if some of his more extreme supporters decide to get violent. Even if that doesn't happen, he could manage to create huge legitimacy questions for Clinton. I don't care about her (in fact I strongly dislike her), but I don't think it's good for the country to have a president whose legitimacy is questioned by a large percentage of the voters. We saw some of that with Obama (the birther "controversy") and Dubya's first term (Bush v Gore), but this could be much worse.
Ahh, now we are getting somewhere, that's atleast a CPU right? But you still failed because Broadwell is from 2014. It's 2016 and everyone else is shipping skylake.
So... it's a two year-old computer, not a four year-old computer. An every-other-year update cycle seems pretty reasonable, given the pace at which processor performance is changing these days (slower than it used to). As for GPUs, meh, these aren't gaming rigs.
Well, that would be annoying as all fuck if you just happened to be in the room with someone else watching TV, or a ton of other situations that I can come up with in a couple of seconds thought...
I don't think so. I think it would be ideal, even in that case. Especially if it didn't mute unless you actually took the call.
That won't happen. It's politically impossible to cut SS.
I think we'll eventually gather the political will to cut SS for the "rich", after the boomers are gone. By "rich" I mean those who have the means to live reasonably well without SS. Meaning those who have done the right things to prepare for retirement. Of course, the money printer will still have to run to pay for the rest, so devaluation will move some more people out of the self-sufficient category.
This kind of shit scares me because of what the US might be inclined to get involved in, for no other reason other than to justify this little shopping spree.
Well, the theory is that the shopping spree is justified because it ensures that the US doesn't need to get involved in anything (and no one will "get involved" with the US), because the country has such a powerful hammer that merely waving it does as much good as using it.
That said, I think there *is* a strong tendency of presidents to play with their toys because they have them. Although it's clearly a pipe dream at this point, that's why I'd like to see us move back to the constitution's notion of how us national defense should be done, with no significant federal army, and the bulk of combat power in the hands of the states. Technological warfare makes the "minuteman" approach obsolete, but states could maintain significant military forces, with a small federal organization to coordinate standards, and perhaps a small standing federal force for quick reaction... but anything more significant would require Congressional authorization to call up the state militias. With such a structure we could have the hammer *and* make it difficult for presidents to throw it around the world, just because it's there.
Paying for retirement out of current tax revenues (as we do with Social Security) basically is children caring for their aging parents, just on a societal scale rather than a familial scale.
Fair point, but I think the dynamics are quite different. This becomes especially true when you get a population bulge (like the baby boomers), and that bulge retires. You get a situation where the elderly can vote themselves support beyond what the younger population can afford, enforced by armed police. That's exactly the situation we have coming; the boomers are the reason that the social security expenses are climbing dramatically and going to skyrocket over the next 15 years, but any attempt to scale the costs back to manageable levels is political suicide because the AARP will hammer flat anyone who even approaches it. In fact, promising increases to benefits buys lots of votes.
Of course the same problem would occur on a per-family basis, but the expectations would be different. Parents would be making demands of their own children, not the mighty and wealthy federal government... and the option of just shoving the cost off on the grandchildren and great-grandchildren simply wouldn't exist.
Well, of COURSE there's no reason to stop spending money when the bank account hits zero.
You seem not to have read the post you replied to. There is no bank account, and never has been. Social Security has always been a pay-as-you-go plan, barely pretending to be a savings account.
FWIW, I think Social Security is just a bad idea. Always was. People should save for their own retirements, or else we should re-establish the cultural expectation that children will care for their aging parents, as it has been done since time immemorial. But if we decide as a society that a government retirement program is what we want, we should at least be honest with ourselves about what it is.
It was a trust fund, properly funded pension scheme until Congress figured out how to steal the fund.
This isn't true, in multiple ways.
First, Congress hasn't "stolen" the money. The Social Security trust funds (there are two of them) have always been required by law to be invested only in securities backed by the federal government. Basically, that means Treasury bonds. What happens when you buy a T bill? The money flows into the general fund, available for Congress to spend. Where else would it go? Scrooge McDuck's mattress? The trust funds still hold all of those securities, whose value has been growing at low, fixed rates, and can redeem them when cash is needed to pay out benefits... of course, that presumes that the general fund has the money to redeem them.
Now, you might argue that the law requiring the funds to be invested in government-backed securities was the mechanism by which Congress stole the money, but that really wasn't its intent. The other options were to (a) just pile the money up without investing it in anything or (b) have fund managers invest it in open market securities (stocks, bonds, etc.). Just piling the money up would cause it to erode due to inflation and would have seriously distorted the economy by sucking a huge amount of money out of the money supply. Investing it in the open market would have made the trust fund manager the single largest investor in the world (it would be be managing in excess of $3T today), with all sorts of opportunities for dangerous market manipulation, and exposing the trust fund to the risk of significant losses during market downturns. Those were the reasons that the funds were restricted to government-backed securities.
The social security trust funds, BTW, constitute the single largest piece of the federal debt. They are about $2.8T of the $19T.
Second, even if it weren't an open question whether Congress will be able to raise the money to redeem the securities held by the trust funds, the system is still going to go bankrupt, because it is a Ponzi scheme, no matter how much you wish it weren't. Social Security always was a system where current contributors pay the expenses of current retirees. It was never a system where each generation saved up for its own future retirement.
Since its inception, the Social Security program has always had more cash flowing into it than flowing out, so the trust funds have been growing. But they're growing very slowly these days, and it's projected that 2019 will be the last year the OASDI fund (the retirement fund) sees a net surplus. After that, it'll start drawing down those trust funds (assuming Congress can raise the revenue, but we're ignoring that for the moment), and it's projected that by 2033 the OASDI trust fund will be depleted (see https://www.ssa.gov/policy/doc...).
That is not because Congress has "taken" the money. That 2033 date assumes that all of the money put into the fund, plus interest, is actually available.
Of course, what will happen in 2033 (assuming no changes, and assuming the federal government finds a way to pay the bills until then) is that we'll finally have to just admit that it never was a true trust fund, that we've always just funded current retirees with current tax revenues, and that there's no reason to stop doing it just because some fictitious account balance hit zero.
I expect to pay into Social Security for many decades.
You don't "pay into" Social Security. That phrasing makes it sound like you're putting money into some kind of an account for you to withdraw later. That isn't -- and never has been -- how it works. You're "paying out" to support current retirees, and hoping that a future generation will support you in turn. It's not going to happen, though. Changing demographics are going to mean that there aren't enough people working in the next generation to support you.
I don't expect to live long enough to see hardly any of it penalty-free.
I don't expect to see any of it. I'm 47 and by the time I retire I expect that Social Security will either have been scaled back dramatically or gone bankrupt. The most likely scenario is that it will have been decided that anyone who carefully saved for their own retirement doesn't need it and so won't get a penny, and the retirement age will have been increased for everyone else.
Really, your only hope if you haven't saved for yourself, is that advances in automation will move us into a post-scarcity economy.
Research suggests that aging is actually a species survival strategy from the earliest days of life.
So are lots of other ways of culling the "unfit", most of which we've already abolished. How many of the people you know would have survived to the age they are without medical treatment?
Without this advantage the young would have difficulty competing with their hardened parents
This is a legitimate concern, I think. The ability for older people to continue to concentrate wealth and influence rather than allowing it to be handed down to the young generation would be a problem. I don't know that it'd be an insoluble problem, but it would be a problem.
the species future would be jeopardized as the old continue accumulating genetic damage from environmental factors such as UV rays
That seems like it can be overcome with technology. I can imagine some sort of tailored virus that tests the genetic material in a cell against a known-good template and destroys cells which have genetic damage.
You are aware that blood getting a price tag means that a lot of people will die because they need that blood but will not get it, right?
I think that's unlikely, and inconsistent with pretty much everything else we've learned from economics. Competitive markets and unregulated pricing are, in fact, the best way we've ever found to ensure that a commodity is available in abundance. Artificial restrictions are what produce scarcity. In addition, it's hard to see how, of all the emergency medical procedures a dying person needs to save their life, that the price of blood could ever be what causes someone to die. There are fairly few circumstances in which *all* a dying person needs is blood; usually there's also surgery and other vastly more expensive medical work involved.
My guess is that if blood were bought and sold as a commodity, the price would be pretty low because the potential supply greatly exceeds demand. You might get some reduction in supply from people who don't need the money but donate because they feel it's a good cause, but I think that would be more than offset by the number of young people who do need money who would donate as often as they safely could (there would need to be restrictions on donation frequency; I'm not sure a market would impose those and if not then some artificial regulation would be necessary).
Alternatively, it's entirely possible that if blood were bought and sold there would be sufficient motivation for the development of an artificial alternative that might be so inexpensive to manufacture that blood donation would be a thing of the past.
All in all, I really wonder if we're best served by the current restriction on the selling of blood. Restricting transactions in organs that don't grow back makes sense, but a healthy body will make more blood indefinitely.
Rich and powerful people for millennia have tried to extend their lives.
For millenia they tried to fly, too. And they tried to turn other metals into gold. Both of which we can now do. The fact that some endeavor has a long history of failure doesn't mean it will always be so. In the case of longevity, there's quite a lot of reason to suppose that this time may be different, as our understanding of the deep structure and operation of our bodies leaps forward.
We're making very rapid -- increasingly so -- strides in understanding the fundamental mechanisms of our bodies, including how and why aging occurs. It's not in the slightest bit unreasonable to believe that deeper understanding of these processes may result in therapies that do extend life, perhaps considerably. My suspicion is that if there's a limit at all it's our brains and how long they can continue functioning well, since "functioning well" in the case of the brain means being able to continually adapt to new circumstances while retaining all of the old adaptations. For the rest of the body, all we want is for it to continue working and repairing itself the way it does when we're young. There's no obvious reason that isn't achievable.
The polls and the actions and reaction of Trump supporters.
Polls support my argument. The actions and reactions of Trump supporters don't really say much at all, because the only ones you see are those that get the media's attention because of their extremism. That says a lot about the extremes, but doesn't do anything to give you insight into the rest. Well, other than that they're willing to ignore the extremists... but Trump supporters are willing to ignore all sorts of stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
For people who think, "Who the heck could ever leave their kid in a hot car... what kind of parent could they possibly be???" You NEED to read this article. This could happen to many more caring parents than we might realize, given the right set of unusual circumstances.
I did it once. My son didn't die because I remembered quickly. I had also locked my keys inside, so there ensued a few frantic minutes while I broke into my car (with the help of a nearby police officer). It's terrifyingly easy to do when something breaks your routine.
And the root cause of people being scared of guns is guns killing so many people.
That is not the cause of people being scared of guns. If it were, it would cause everyone to be afraid of them, not just the people who don't know anything about them. It would also cause everyone to be afraid of cars.
Before you guys work on authentication try making a mobile OS that doesn't need GHz+ processing speeds and 4GB+ RAM
That sort of mobile OS is apparently not what people want, because no one is making one of those (ignoring your exaggeration about RAM requirements).
MenuetOS could eat your lunch if they hit the mobile space.
Sounds good to me. Someone should do it.
No, it's just liability as there is established legal precedent for damages from failing to report threats, and Apple is avoiding the backlash. Idiot.
Cite one case. Just one.
Apple's lawyers, you godamn partisan idiot.
And what is motivating Apple's lawyers to care? You can throw up any number of proximate causes, but the root cause is people freaking out about guns being scary.
Or security when someone runs off with your phone. But it's all good because YOLO.
This is why you need to password-protect your phone.
On a recent Android device, one launched with Marshmallow, password authentication is usually implemented in the Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), including doing brute force mitigation (exponentially-increasing delays after failed authentication attempts) in the TEE. On such a device, even a four-digit PIN is pretty strong, as long as you don't get shoulder-surfed. I say "usually" because this TEE-based password authentication feature was not made mandatory in Marshmallow (which should be rectified for Nougat... though only for devices that initially launch with Nougat). However, the vast majority of devices launched with Marshmallow do have it.
If your phone is well-protected, then YOLO makes a lot of sense.
(Disclosure/Disclaimer: I'm a Google Android engineer. I work on the TEE-based authentication component, but not on YOLO.)
Why ? Maybe I don't want to interrupt my movie to answer every robocall I get.
So don't answer.
Or, if you insist, have the phone app pop up a TV mute (or unmute) button so you can make the decision after you answer. There are lots of ways to solve this.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/...
So, we all like to hate the NSA for all of their spying, but they really have a very high level of technical competence, and they are actually quite good at carrying out their mission (or what they perceive their mission to be). If the president were to issue a directive requiring the NSA to treat the integrity of US elections as a national security issue, and ask them to do a thorough evaluation of the systems and processes and to issue recommendations for how to fix or mitigate any perceived problems, I expect they'd do an excellent job.
Of course, if we're concerned about the integrity of the 2016 election, it's far too late for something like this. It would need to have been started at least a year ago, and the recommendations would have to have been issued a few months ago. We'd need to be in the phase of verifying that the fixes and mitigations were properly deployed.
It's too bad, really, because Trump seems to be positioning himself to claim the election is rigged if he loses. That could get very ugly, especially if some of his more extreme supporters decide to get violent. Even if that doesn't happen, he could manage to create huge legitimacy questions for Clinton. I don't care about her (in fact I strongly dislike her), but I don't think it's good for the country to have a president whose legitimacy is questioned by a large percentage of the voters. We saw some of that with Obama (the birther "controversy") and Dubya's first term (Bush v Gore), but this could be much worse.
Ahh, now we are getting somewhere, that's atleast a CPU right? But you still failed because Broadwell is from 2014. It's 2016 and everyone else is shipping skylake.
So... it's a two year-old computer, not a four year-old computer. An every-other-year update cycle seems pretty reasonable, given the pace at which processor performance is changing these days (slower than it used to). As for GPUs, meh, these aren't gaming rigs.
Censorship only applies when it's done by the Government. You made a common mistake.
No, anyone who restricts information is engaged in censorship. It may or may not be wrong, and it may or may not be legal, but it's still censorship.
Well, that would be annoying as all fuck if you just happened to be in the room with someone else watching TV, or a ton of other situations that I can come up with in a couple of seconds thought...
I don't think so. I think it would be ideal, even in that case. Especially if it didn't mute unless you actually took the call.
oops hold on, I have a phone call... damn, where's the mute button?
If your phone is your remote, it should mute the TV automatically when you get a phone call.
That won't happen. It's politically impossible to cut SS.
I think we'll eventually gather the political will to cut SS for the "rich", after the boomers are gone. By "rich" I mean those who have the means to live reasonably well without SS. Meaning those who have done the right things to prepare for retirement. Of course, the money printer will still have to run to pay for the rest, so devaluation will move some more people out of the self-sufficient category.
This kind of shit scares me because of what the US might be inclined to get involved in, for no other reason other than to justify this little shopping spree.
Well, the theory is that the shopping spree is justified because it ensures that the US doesn't need to get involved in anything (and no one will "get involved" with the US), because the country has such a powerful hammer that merely waving it does as much good as using it.
That said, I think there *is* a strong tendency of presidents to play with their toys because they have them. Although it's clearly a pipe dream at this point, that's why I'd like to see us move back to the constitution's notion of how us national defense should be done, with no significant federal army, and the bulk of combat power in the hands of the states. Technological warfare makes the "minuteman" approach obsolete, but states could maintain significant military forces, with a small federal organization to coordinate standards, and perhaps a small standing federal force for quick reaction... but anything more significant would require Congressional authorization to call up the state militias. With such a structure we could have the hammer *and* make it difficult for presidents to throw it around the world, just because it's there.
Paying for retirement out of current tax revenues (as we do with Social Security) basically is children caring for their aging parents, just on a societal scale rather than a familial scale.
Fair point, but I think the dynamics are quite different. This becomes especially true when you get a population bulge (like the baby boomers), and that bulge retires. You get a situation where the elderly can vote themselves support beyond what the younger population can afford, enforced by armed police. That's exactly the situation we have coming; the boomers are the reason that the social security expenses are climbing dramatically and going to skyrocket over the next 15 years, but any attempt to scale the costs back to manageable levels is political suicide because the AARP will hammer flat anyone who even approaches it. In fact, promising increases to benefits buys lots of votes.
Of course the same problem would occur on a per-family basis, but the expectations would be different. Parents would be making demands of their own children, not the mighty and wealthy federal government... and the option of just shoving the cost off on the grandchildren and great-grandchildren simply wouldn't exist.
Well, of COURSE there's no reason to stop spending money when the bank account hits zero.
You seem not to have read the post you replied to. There is no bank account, and never has been. Social Security has always been a pay-as-you-go plan, barely pretending to be a savings account.
FWIW, I think Social Security is just a bad idea. Always was. People should save for their own retirements, or else we should re-establish the cultural expectation that children will care for their aging parents, as it has been done since time immemorial. But if we decide as a society that a government retirement program is what we want, we should at least be honest with ourselves about what it is.
It was a trust fund, properly funded pension scheme until Congress figured out how to steal the fund.
This isn't true, in multiple ways.
First, Congress hasn't "stolen" the money. The Social Security trust funds (there are two of them) have always been required by law to be invested only in securities backed by the federal government. Basically, that means Treasury bonds. What happens when you buy a T bill? The money flows into the general fund, available for Congress to spend. Where else would it go? Scrooge McDuck's mattress? The trust funds still hold all of those securities, whose value has been growing at low, fixed rates, and can redeem them when cash is needed to pay out benefits... of course, that presumes that the general fund has the money to redeem them.
Now, you might argue that the law requiring the funds to be invested in government-backed securities was the mechanism by which Congress stole the money, but that really wasn't its intent. The other options were to (a) just pile the money up without investing it in anything or (b) have fund managers invest it in open market securities (stocks, bonds, etc.). Just piling the money up would cause it to erode due to inflation and would have seriously distorted the economy by sucking a huge amount of money out of the money supply. Investing it in the open market would have made the trust fund manager the single largest investor in the world (it would be be managing in excess of $3T today), with all sorts of opportunities for dangerous market manipulation, and exposing the trust fund to the risk of significant losses during market downturns. Those were the reasons that the funds were restricted to government-backed securities.
The social security trust funds, BTW, constitute the single largest piece of the federal debt. They are about $2.8T of the $19T.
Second, even if it weren't an open question whether Congress will be able to raise the money to redeem the securities held by the trust funds, the system is still going to go bankrupt, because it is a Ponzi scheme, no matter how much you wish it weren't. Social Security always was a system where current contributors pay the expenses of current retirees. It was never a system where each generation saved up for its own future retirement.
Since its inception, the Social Security program has always had more cash flowing into it than flowing out, so the trust funds have been growing. But they're growing very slowly these days, and it's projected that 2019 will be the last year the OASDI fund (the retirement fund) sees a net surplus. After that, it'll start drawing down those trust funds (assuming Congress can raise the revenue, but we're ignoring that for the moment), and it's projected that by 2033 the OASDI trust fund will be depleted (see https://www.ssa.gov/policy/doc...).
That is not because Congress has "taken" the money. That 2033 date assumes that all of the money put into the fund, plus interest, is actually available.
Of course, what will happen in 2033 (assuming no changes, and assuming the federal government finds a way to pay the bills until then) is that we'll finally have to just admit that it never was a true trust fund, that we've always just funded current retirees with current tax revenues, and that there's no reason to stop doing it just because some fictitious account balance hit zero.
I expect to pay into Social Security for many decades.
You don't "pay into" Social Security. That phrasing makes it sound like you're putting money into some kind of an account for you to withdraw later. That isn't -- and never has been -- how it works. You're "paying out" to support current retirees, and hoping that a future generation will support you in turn. It's not going to happen, though. Changing demographics are going to mean that there aren't enough people working in the next generation to support you.
I don't expect to live long enough to see hardly any of it penalty-free.
I don't expect to see any of it. I'm 47 and by the time I retire I expect that Social Security will either have been scaled back dramatically or gone bankrupt. The most likely scenario is that it will have been decided that anyone who carefully saved for their own retirement doesn't need it and so won't get a penny, and the retirement age will have been increased for everyone else.
Really, your only hope if you haven't saved for yourself, is that advances in automation will move us into a post-scarcity economy.
Research suggests that aging is actually a species survival strategy from the earliest days of life.
So are lots of other ways of culling the "unfit", most of which we've already abolished. How many of the people you know would have survived to the age they are without medical treatment?
Without this advantage the young would have difficulty competing with their hardened parents
This is a legitimate concern, I think. The ability for older people to continue to concentrate wealth and influence rather than allowing it to be handed down to the young generation would be a problem. I don't know that it'd be an insoluble problem, but it would be a problem.
the species future would be jeopardized as the old continue accumulating genetic damage from environmental factors such as UV rays
That seems like it can be overcome with technology. I can imagine some sort of tailored virus that tests the genetic material in a cell against a known-good template and destroys cells which have genetic damage.
You are aware that blood getting a price tag means that a lot of people will die because they need that blood but will not get it, right?
I think that's unlikely, and inconsistent with pretty much everything else we've learned from economics. Competitive markets and unregulated pricing are, in fact, the best way we've ever found to ensure that a commodity is available in abundance. Artificial restrictions are what produce scarcity. In addition, it's hard to see how, of all the emergency medical procedures a dying person needs to save their life, that the price of blood could ever be what causes someone to die. There are fairly few circumstances in which *all* a dying person needs is blood; usually there's also surgery and other vastly more expensive medical work involved.
My guess is that if blood were bought and sold as a commodity, the price would be pretty low because the potential supply greatly exceeds demand. You might get some reduction in supply from people who don't need the money but donate because they feel it's a good cause, but I think that would be more than offset by the number of young people who do need money who would donate as often as they safely could (there would need to be restrictions on donation frequency; I'm not sure a market would impose those and if not then some artificial regulation would be necessary).
Alternatively, it's entirely possible that if blood were bought and sold there would be sufficient motivation for the development of an artificial alternative that might be so inexpensive to manufacture that blood donation would be a thing of the past.
All in all, I really wonder if we're best served by the current restriction on the selling of blood. Restricting transactions in organs that don't grow back makes sense, but a healthy body will make more blood indefinitely.
Rich and powerful people for millennia have tried to extend their lives.
For millenia they tried to fly, too. And they tried to turn other metals into gold. Both of which we can now do. The fact that some endeavor has a long history of failure doesn't mean it will always be so. In the case of longevity, there's quite a lot of reason to suppose that this time may be different, as our understanding of the deep structure and operation of our bodies leaps forward.
all their money won't another minute buy.
I'm not so sure about that.
We're making very rapid -- increasingly so -- strides in understanding the fundamental mechanisms of our bodies, including how and why aging occurs. It's not in the slightest bit unreasonable to believe that deeper understanding of these processes may result in therapies that do extend life, perhaps considerably. My suspicion is that if there's a limit at all it's our brains and how long they can continue functioning well, since "functioning well" in the case of the brain means being able to continually adapt to new circumstances while retaining all of the old adaptations. For the rest of the body, all we want is for it to continue working and repairing itself the way it does when we're young. There's no obvious reason that isn't achievable.
Indeed, it would be a tragedy if your funny cat movies were altered in some way.
It would be a tragedy if your funny cat movies were used to steal all of your data and add your computer to a botnet.
You should try reading posts before replying to them. Especially when they're short.
The polls and the actions and reaction of Trump supporters.
Polls support my argument. The actions and reactions of Trump supporters don't really say much at all, because the only ones you see are those that get the media's attention because of their extremism. That says a lot about the extremes, but doesn't do anything to give you insight into the rest. Well, other than that they're willing to ignore the extremists... but Trump supporters are willing to ignore all sorts of stuff.