Well, gee, then surely you would never, ever, ever write code that was susceptible to a buffer overflow, would you? Care to post up all the code you've ever written, so we can test it all and make sure that you can't get a buffer overflow out of any of it?
I was in a talk not that long ago about security, and there was plenty of discussion about buffer overflows, and various ways they can happen. I saw a lot of examples, some of them very obscure. Not a single one had anything to do with simply allocating a buffer of fixed length.
BTW, your bash on MS programmers was also completely uncalled for. Check around and see how many buffer overflow issues have been found in various UNIX and Linux software packages. I'll give you a hint - the number found in non-MS programs is not zero, and is far from it.
Don't bash if you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh gee, thanks for suggesting that I am somehow working for those idiotic bastards at SCO. Of course, five minutes looking at my posting history and journal articles should demonstrate clearly that is not the case. SCO sucks and I hope the company collapses.
Yes, I do work at MS, but I did not submit this to 'astroturf' or whatever - I saw this due to an internal link, thought it was pretty interesting and cool, and thought perhaps some others might find that to also be the case. I've been a Slashdotter for a lot longer than working for my current employer.
>Since women are socialized to not be competitive and avoid conflict,
I don't know where they found this Planet of Meek Women, but in any area of business I've been in the females are just as deadly as the males. This sounds like what someone _wants_ to believe.
Women ARE socalized to not be competitive and avoid conflict. That doesn't mean women do not act in such ways - it just means that we've learned other ways express such things.
Those people who have worked in an office environment with a lot of women are quite aware of the cattiness and back-stabbing and rumor spreading that goes on. Those are the ways that girls have learned to deal with feelings of anger and agression. The out-and-out ways that guys express such things are so strongly discouraged in girls that they've led to these other methods.
The issue is that while straight conflict is discouraged, the roundabout ways of getting back at someone is not treated as aggression, not treated as wrong - or at least not thought of as something to worry about.
For anyone who cares, there is a book talking about the whole hidden culture of aggression. This is a good read for parents of young girls - and should be required for teachers and others who work a lot with youth.
I do want to give you credit for realizing that such attitudes are still present in women even after they've been attempted to be socialized out.
I think it's due, in large part, to the fact that, despite what anyone says to the contrary, men really don't care what you are saying. The two sexes operate on different wavelengths. The truth is, women rarely discuss anything that your average man is even remotely interested in.
What's really sad is that this is all too common in the workplace and about work-related topics. The general male computer-industry type doesn't care what the general female computer-industry type says, no matter how much she knows what she's talking about. I've seen it, others have seen it. I've watched ideas I've presented in a meeting be completely ignored, yet similar ideas proposed by others later on are acknowledged and discussed.
I have a friend who is rather high up in a large software company, and she was having trouble getting ahead. That only changed after she spent some time getting some 'lessons' on how to interact with the men in the industry.
One of the biggest points that was made to her? Never propose a solution to a problem. They don't want to hear it from you. Instead, lead the guys to the solution. Their egos aren't smashed by a woman coming up with the answer, so they'll actually listen to what you have to say, feel great about coming up with the solution themselves, and still give you credit for helping.
This friend has actually done better in her career path since following this. It really emphasizes how women are looked at in the industry.
So all this should be done to people that haven't been convicted of a crime yet? People that may not be guilty of one?
I'm not enthused about poor treatment of convicted criminals. But the idea of doing that to people that may be innocent is really revolting. Especially because I don't ever want to be treated like that, and with people like him around, I can't just make sure that never happens by not committing a crime - because I'm treated like that before the point of being found guilty.
Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on...
on
Judges Junk Jailcam
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Joe Arpaio has made a career of mistreating people that are being held for crimes they are not yet even found guilty of. He's been in trouble before for various activities of his before, including feeding those under his charge food that has been known to be bad - such as moldy bologna sandwiches.
That's right, all you have to do to enter Arpaio's 'House of Cruelty and Being Treated as an Animal' is be arrested for a crime. The police could be wrong, which is not uncommon, but you've already been treated as if you were guilty by that bastard.
Not only have I wished Arpaio would lose the office, but I've wished that he would be arrested and found guilty of thousands of counts of cruelty.
Oh my god, the selection of pinball machines alone! *drool*
It has been entirely too long since I've played pinball. This would be incredible.
I still plan on buying some pinball machines sometime in the future, and learning how to repair them to keep them working. Hopefully I'll have a place with the room to start doing so soon.
>Or if you have the right chemicals present on a planet, the formation of life may actually be likely. Who knows?
We know, because we know what the right chemicals are, and we know the laws governing their reactions, and we can calculate the probabilities of formation. Granted, it's senior-level college chemistry, but not impossibly difficult to figure out.
And I'm sure you can point me to the studies that show that the way life is on this planet is the only possibile way life could ever exist, right? That they've tried all other possible combinations of elements possible, or at least proven that all those other permutations cannot possibly ever in any combination lead to life? After all, claiming that life as it is here is the only possibility is an extremely huge claim, so you must have evidence supporting that claim, right?
Or are you just saying that because it throws your assumptions that life is impossible to form on it's own into chaos? That's what I have to guess, because I don't believe they've ever proven that life as it is here is the only possible way for it to be.
If it is so incredibly improbable that life came into existence on it's own, and therefore must be created, this brings up another question.
If we're too complex to have occured on our own, thus requiring a creator, must not that creator be much more complex, and thus even more unlikely to exist? To follow the same logic, you end up with an infinite regress of creators, with one at the end that is both infinitely complex and infinitely unlikely to exist on it's own (which can also be called impossible).
Why do you give that more complex being a pass to exist no matter how unlikely it is, but yet not do the same for the more likely to occur life that obviously exists on this planet?
Fraction of those planets where life evolves: 10^-80 (taken from the odds of RNA forming abiogenetically).
And this isn't a SWAG?
Though you did misquote the probability that's commonly used as disproof of abiogenesis, something more like 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390 is much more common.
Regardless, assuming that things had to go from non-living ooze directly to RNA is ridiculous - it would be like assuming you had to go from a pile of iron ore to a complete Model T for the automobile to exist. There are a number of possible pathways for going between an amino acid soup and life. One pathway that's commonly mentioned goes like "chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria".
And most listed probabilities are misapplied anyways. It's not like we're talking a one-time event. If the chemicals are present together, there are constant possibilities for interaction - with enough tries, no matter how unlikely something is, it will happen. Rolling ten dice and coming up with all of them sixes is unlikely - if all Slashdot readers were doing it constantly, the amount of time for it to happen wouldn't be that long because of the number of tries.
And besides, don't forget that your statement assumes that life can form only in the way it has here, which is an unfounded claim.
Life may be extremely unlikely, and we just happened to beat the odds to be here. Or it may be just uncommon. Or if you have the right chemicals present on a planet, the formation of life may actually be likely. Who knows?
Wow, you mean that somehow the moon bends light such that there isn't a single place on the moon's surface where the Earth appears partially above and partially below the horizon? Please, then, tell the astronomers about this fact, so they can determine what is special about the structure of the moon to cause this effect!
You know, just as a stopped clock is right twice a day (once if you use 24 hour time), a moon with the same side always facing the earth is still going to have regions where the Earth is partially below the horizon, thus creating an image of Earthrise, even if it's not rising/setting.
Besides, the pictures were taken before landing, while perspective was changing and giving the appearance of Earthrise.
For example the ability to [...] rename a class and all references to it throughout a file.
Taken care of in VS2005 - and it'll actually rename throughout an entire project. There are a lot of features along these lines that have been added in, which I've been grateful for these past couple months when I've been using it.
I just have to say that I think they've missed the boat on at least one important thing.
The lack of being able to play 4 player games.
The best game on the set is Warlords, at least in 4 player mode. I still have seen few games that are as fun with 4 players as the original Warlords, and this set does not allow 4 player play.
It would be like a Street Fighter compilation that was exact in every detail - but only allowed single player play.
Leaving people in their jobs for hundreds of years destroys all opportunities for the young. They won't be able to get experience, because there are already people with decades of experience in their jobs.
I don't necessarily buy that. First, as I mention in another comment of mine, if people are living a thousand years, then it would make sense that a person's education would last significantly longer than the 12-20 years done today. I could see people having 40 years of schooling, coming out fresh from school with the level of experience and knowledge that today's most-experienced folks have.
And there would surely still be ways for the young to get opportunities. It's not like people would cease leaving their jobs - there will still be retirements, people switching careers, and the like. Things will change, sure, but I don't see how such things can happen.
Elizabeth Moon has a fairly good example of what happens to a society when the old stop aging in her books.
No she doesn't. She may have a entertaining theory, but not an example. An example would be a real-life society without aging, and there isn't such a thing. The number of factors that would influence a society due to aging being defeated are so great and so varied that I think it's silly to assume that a sci-fi writer can possibly deduce the effect it would have.
1) not enough is known about memory to be able to predict how it would function with people living such large lifespans
2) it's not too far-fetched to assume that if we could extend lifespans into hundreds of years that there's a good chance that methods to 'assist' people with memories could be created, such as implants to hold memories
Memory could well be a limiting factor in such a scenario - or it could not be. Speculation about it seems a bit too premature in this case.
It's true that we all would like to live longer but where is the money going to come from to support the elder after they retire?
Well, if life-extension simply means people don't die but they continue to age, few people will partake of it for that long.
More likely, true life-extension into the hundreds of years will bring with it a cancellation/reversal/extreme slowdown of aging. People will be able to be active and productive for hundreds of years. Thus, there's no need to expect permanent retirement at age 65/80/100, and living off social security or whatever for hundreds of years. As it's not practical, it won't be allowed even if some people want to do so.
I'd expect, more likely, that people will work in a career for 30-100 years, then retire for a while depending on what they've built up in savings/retirement, use some of those years to learn a new set of skills for a new career, while also able to do things like take a year to backpack around Europe or sail around the world or something.
Heck, if you work at something for 100 years, you could easily have 50 years off to spend time in your own areas of interest. Imagine all the new ideas, the works of art/writing, the software products people could come up with if they had that much time to just do what they wanted!
And surely there will always be entry-level jobs in a field - though what is entry-level may change. After all, if you lived for 1000 years, 12/16/20 years of schooling seems like an incredibly small amount. Perhaps 50 years of school may be common - "entry level" in a career may be on the same par as highly experienced people today.
One of my thoughts on dealing with potential overpopulation issues, especially those that could be brought on by people living hundreds/thousands of years, is a mechanism to prevent people from having large amounts of time able to reproduce.
You could have the life-extension treatments that people undergo to allow them to live more than 70-100 years bring with it a penalty of making you sterile. Now, maybe not necessarily permanently - perhaps each life-extension treatment lasts, say, 10 years, after which you begin aging again. Have the sterility wear off around that same time. If someone wants to have children, then they need deal with their body aging.
I know it's far from a solution as is - after all, if you can extend life for such long periods of time, surely you've learned how to undo aging, such 10 years of aging is easily removed. But I still like the concept.
I also think that if people can live hundreds of years, having children at the time people are having them now is ridiculous - if your lifespan is around 1000 years, children should come at 100 or later, after you have a lot more life experience, instead of at 20.
Yes, those sci-fi stories are such a great example, having been written by people with experience with such a culture.
Wait, what experience?
Using sci-fi stories as evidence that something as far from anything people have ever experiences such as non-bounded lifespans will result in any specific effects is like claiming people can walk on thin air because cartoon characters do so. I don't see any real justification that such a thing will happen - why does stagnation follow from non-bounded lifespans?
Yes, such a think would bring up new problems that we wouldn't have experience dealing with. But it would also offer many new opportunities - and it's quite possible that those opportunities would dwarf the problems that come with such a change.
Amusing, but think about the effects of people not just working for 30-40 years, but hundreds. A person could become experienced and knowledgable in a subject to levels which we can't imagine, and who knows what they could come up with.
Or a person could spend 50 years in a career, then take 5-10 off and learn something entirely new, then start a career there. Think about all the benefits that could come from that sort of inter-disciplinary work? What might someone who's been a chef, a writer, a materials engineer, and a chemist bring to a new job?
I've seen the flashing crosswalk lights already, and I can say that they're not that bright - not really any brighter than a road reflector, but without having to depend on reflecting light to be seen.
When there's fog, or heavy rain, or snow, and the painted lines on the road can't be seen, these could REALLY help in driving. Back when I lived in Michigan, I always hated driving at night when it was raining - there were no reflectors on the roads, and it was literally impossible to see where the lanes were. You just had to guess, and it could be unpleasant at times.
Even if it's raining so hard even your wipers can't keep up, I'd think these things would help let you know where the lanes were so you could have a much easier time getting somewhere safe to stop.
As Ebola only shows up in small African villages (as far as I know) where there isn't exactly a large population or people travelling to other population centers frequently, the short incubation time prevents it from spreading like an epidemic.
However, the theoretical virus on 24 is to be released in highly-populated areas. It would kill a lot of people, and with the high population density and the way people travel in a place such as LA, it would do a lot of damage.
Perhaps they would have intentionally shortened the incubation period to increase the fear caused by the virus, but still minimize the chance of it becoming a global epidemic - after all, the bad guys would want to be able to get away from it and contain the damage to their targetted locations, correct?
Cause, of course, we haven't seen every single technical article that describes the space elevator in any sort of techincal detail mention that it would be a wide but extremely thin ribbon that, were it ever to break or be cut, would float down with not even enough kinetic energy to hurt a person. That coupled with the fact that any sections not far enough into the atmosphere to be slowed that way would, upon reentering the atmosphere and building up a bit of heat, disintegrate.
In other words, if their engineering ideas are even close, the only place we'll see a big disaster caused by a space elevator cable coming down is fiction.
Because it was an Activision game, and not made by Atari as the other games on the set are. It's a completely different company, and as Activision is busy continuing to make collections containing their Atari 2600 games available now and then, it's not likely they'd have been able to get it without at least significant royalties.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, gee, then surely you would never, ever, ever write code that was susceptible to a buffer overflow, would you? Care to post up all the code you've ever written, so we can test it all and make sure that you can't get a buffer overflow out of any of it?
I was in a talk not that long ago about security, and there was plenty of discussion about buffer overflows, and various ways they can happen. I saw a lot of examples, some of them very obscure. Not a single one had anything to do with simply allocating a buffer of fixed length.
BTW, your bash on MS programmers was also completely uncalled for. Check around and see how many buffer overflow issues have been found in various UNIX and Linux software packages. I'll give you a hint - the number found in non-MS programs is not zero, and is far from it.
Don't bash if you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh gee, thanks for suggesting that I am somehow working for those idiotic bastards at SCO. Of course, five minutes looking at my posting history and journal articles should demonstrate clearly that is not the case. SCO sucks and I hope the company collapses.
Yes, I do work at MS, but I did not submit this to 'astroturf' or whatever - I saw this due to an internal link, thought it was pretty interesting and cool, and thought perhaps some others might find that to also be the case. I've been a Slashdotter for a lot longer than working for my current employer.
>Since women are socialized to not be competitive and avoid conflict,
I don't know where they found this Planet of Meek Women, but in any area of business I've been in the females are just as deadly as the males. This sounds like what someone _wants_ to believe.
Women ARE socalized to not be competitive and avoid conflict. That doesn't mean women do not act in such ways - it just means that we've learned other ways express such things.
Those people who have worked in an office environment with a lot of women are quite aware of the cattiness and back-stabbing and rumor spreading that goes on. Those are the ways that girls have learned to deal with feelings of anger and agression. The out-and-out ways that guys express such things are so strongly discouraged in girls that they've led to these other methods.
The issue is that while straight conflict is discouraged, the roundabout ways of getting back at someone is not treated as aggression, not treated as wrong - or at least not thought of as something to worry about.
For anyone who cares, there is a book talking about the whole hidden culture of aggression. This is a good read for parents of young girls - and should be required for teachers and others who work a lot with youth.
I do want to give you credit for realizing that such attitudes are still present in women even after they've been attempted to be socialized out.
I think it's due, in large part, to the fact that, despite what anyone says to the contrary, men really don't care what you are saying. The two sexes operate on different wavelengths. The truth is, women rarely discuss anything that your average man is even remotely interested in.
What's really sad is that this is all too common in the workplace and about work-related topics. The general male computer-industry type doesn't care what the general female computer-industry type says, no matter how much she knows what she's talking about. I've seen it, others have seen it. I've watched ideas I've presented in a meeting be completely ignored, yet similar ideas proposed by others later on are acknowledged and discussed.
I have a friend who is rather high up in a large software company, and she was having trouble getting ahead. That only changed after she spent some time getting some 'lessons' on how to interact with the men in the industry.
One of the biggest points that was made to her? Never propose a solution to a problem. They don't want to hear it from you. Instead, lead the guys to the solution. Their egos aren't smashed by a woman coming up with the answer, so they'll actually listen to what you have to say, feel great about coming up with the solution themselves, and still give you credit for helping.
This friend has actually done better in her career path since following this. It really emphasizes how women are looked at in the industry.
So all this should be done to people that haven't been convicted of a crime yet? People that may not be guilty of one?
I'm not enthused about poor treatment of convicted criminals. But the idea of doing that to people that may be innocent is really revolting. Especially because I don't ever want to be treated like that, and with people like him around, I can't just make sure that never happens by not committing a crime - because I'm treated like that before the point of being found guilty.
Joe Arpaio has made a career of mistreating people that are being held for crimes they are not yet even found guilty of. He's been in trouble before for various activities of his before, including feeding those under his charge food that has been known to be bad - such as moldy bologna sandwiches.
That's right, all you have to do to enter Arpaio's 'House of Cruelty and Being Treated as an Animal' is be arrested for a crime. The police could be wrong, which is not uncommon, but you've already been treated as if you were guilty by that bastard.
Not only have I wished Arpaio would lose the office, but I've wished that he would be arrested and found guilty of thousands of counts of cruelty.
Oh my god, the selection of pinball machines alone! *drool*
It has been entirely too long since I've played pinball. This would be incredible.
I still plan on buying some pinball machines sometime in the future, and learning how to repair them to keep them working. Hopefully I'll have a place with the room to start doing so soon.
I agree so many of those have become meaningless - or even obnoxious?
But how about ch1x0r?
>Or if you have the right chemicals present on a planet, the formation of life may actually be likely. Who knows?
We know, because we know what the right chemicals are, and we know the laws governing their reactions, and we can calculate the probabilities of formation. Granted, it's senior-level college chemistry, but not impossibly difficult to figure out.
And I'm sure you can point me to the studies that show that the way life is on this planet is the only possibile way life could ever exist, right? That they've tried all other possible combinations of elements possible, or at least proven that all those other permutations cannot possibly ever in any combination lead to life? After all, claiming that life as it is here is the only possibility is an extremely huge claim, so you must have evidence supporting that claim, right?
Or are you just saying that because it throws your assumptions that life is impossible to form on it's own into chaos? That's what I have to guess, because I don't believe they've ever proven that life as it is here is the only possible way for it to be.
If it is so incredibly improbable that life came into existence on it's own, and therefore must be created, this brings up another question.
If we're too complex to have occured on our own, thus requiring a creator, must not that creator be much more complex, and thus even more unlikely to exist? To follow the same logic, you end up with an infinite regress of creators, with one at the end that is both infinitely complex and infinitely unlikely to exist on it's own (which can also be called impossible).
Why do you give that more complex being a pass to exist no matter how unlikely it is, but yet not do the same for the more likely to occur life that obviously exists on this planet?
Fraction of those planets where life evolves: 10^-80 (taken from the odds of RNA forming abiogenetically).
And this isn't a SWAG?
Though you did misquote the probability that's commonly used as disproof of abiogenesis, something more like 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390 is much more common.
Regardless, assuming that things had to go from non-living ooze directly to RNA is ridiculous - it would be like assuming you had to go from a pile of iron ore to a complete Model T for the automobile to exist. There are a number of possible pathways for going between an amino acid soup and life. One pathway that's commonly mentioned goes like
"chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria".
And most listed probabilities are misapplied anyways. It's not like we're talking a one-time event. If the chemicals are present together, there are constant possibilities for interaction - with enough tries, no matter how unlikely something is, it will happen. Rolling ten dice and coming up with all of them sixes is unlikely - if all Slashdot readers were doing it constantly, the amount of time for it to happen wouldn't be that long because of the number of tries.
And besides, don't forget that your statement assumes that life can form only in the way it has here, which is an unfounded claim.
Life may be extremely unlikely, and we just happened to beat the odds to be here. Or it may be just uncommon. Or if you have the right chemicals present on a planet, the formation of life may actually be likely. Who knows?
Wow, you mean that somehow the moon bends light such that there isn't a single place on the moon's surface where the Earth appears partially above and partially below the horizon? Please, then, tell the astronomers about this fact, so they can determine what is special about the structure of the moon to cause this effect!
You know, just as a stopped clock is right twice a day (once if you use 24 hour time), a moon with the same side always facing the earth is still going to have regions where the Earth is partially below the horizon, thus creating an image of Earthrise, even if it's not rising/setting.
Besides, the pictures were taken before landing, while perspective was changing and giving the appearance of Earthrise.
For example the ability to [...] rename a class and all references to it throughout a file.
Taken care of in VS2005 - and it'll actually rename throughout an entire project. There are a lot of features along these lines that have been added in, which I've been grateful for these past couple months when I've been using it.
I just have to say that I think they've missed the boat on at least one important thing.
The lack of being able to play 4 player games.
The best game on the set is Warlords, at least in 4 player mode. I still have seen few games that are as fun with 4 players as the original Warlords, and this set does not allow 4 player play.
It would be like a Street Fighter compilation that was exact in every detail - but only allowed single player play.
Leaving people in their jobs for hundreds of years destroys all opportunities for the young. They won't be able to get experience, because there are already people with decades of experience in their jobs.
I don't necessarily buy that. First, as I mention in another comment of mine, if people are living a thousand years, then it would make sense that a person's education would last significantly longer than the 12-20 years done today. I could see people having 40 years of schooling, coming out fresh from school with the level of experience and knowledge that today's most-experienced folks have.
And there would surely still be ways for the young to get opportunities. It's not like people would cease leaving their jobs - there will still be retirements, people switching careers, and the like. Things will change, sure, but I don't see how such things can happen.
Elizabeth Moon has a fairly good example of what happens to a society when the old stop aging in her books.
No she doesn't. She may have a entertaining theory, but not an example. An example would be a real-life society without aging, and there isn't such a thing. The number of factors that would influence a society due to aging being defeated are so great and so varied that I think it's silly to assume that a sci-fi writer can possibly deduce the effect it would have.
I don't take it into account because:
1) not enough is known about memory to be able to predict how it would function with people living such large lifespans
2) it's not too far-fetched to assume that if we could extend lifespans into hundreds of years that there's a good chance that methods to 'assist' people with memories could be created, such as implants to hold memories
Memory could well be a limiting factor in such a scenario - or it could not be. Speculation about it seems a bit too premature in this case.
It's true that we all would like to live longer but where is the money going to come from to support the elder after they retire?
Well, if life-extension simply means people don't die but they continue to age, few people will partake of it for that long.
More likely, true life-extension into the hundreds of years will bring with it a cancellation/reversal/extreme slowdown of aging. People will be able to be active and productive for hundreds of years. Thus, there's no need to expect permanent retirement at age 65/80/100, and living off social security or whatever for hundreds of years. As it's not practical, it won't be allowed even if some people want to do so.
I'd expect, more likely, that people will work in a career for 30-100 years, then retire for a while depending on what they've built up in savings/retirement, use some of those years to learn a new set of skills for a new career, while also able to do things like take a year to backpack around Europe or sail around the world or something.
Heck, if you work at something for 100 years, you could easily have 50 years off to spend time in your own areas of interest. Imagine all the new ideas, the works of art/writing, the software products people could come up with if they had that much time to just do what they wanted!
And surely there will always be entry-level jobs in a field - though what is entry-level may change. After all, if you lived for 1000 years, 12/16/20 years of schooling seems like an incredibly small amount. Perhaps 50 years of school may be common - "entry level" in a career may be on the same par as highly experienced people today.
One of my thoughts on dealing with potential overpopulation issues, especially those that could be brought on by people living hundreds/thousands of years, is a mechanism to prevent people from having large amounts of time able to reproduce.
You could have the life-extension treatments that people undergo to allow them to live more than 70-100 years bring with it a penalty of making you sterile. Now, maybe not necessarily permanently - perhaps each life-extension treatment lasts, say, 10 years, after which you begin aging again. Have the sterility wear off around that same time. If someone wants to have children, then they need deal with their body aging.
I know it's far from a solution as is - after all, if you can extend life for such long periods of time, surely you've learned how to undo aging, such 10 years of aging is easily removed. But I still like the concept.
I also think that if people can live hundreds of years, having children at the time people are having them now is ridiculous - if your lifespan is around 1000 years, children should come at 100 or later, after you have a lot more life experience, instead of at 20.
Yes, those sci-fi stories are such a great example, having been written by people with experience with such a culture.
Wait, what experience?
Using sci-fi stories as evidence that something as far from anything people have ever experiences such as non-bounded lifespans will result in any specific effects is like claiming people can walk on thin air because cartoon characters do so. I don't see any real justification that such a thing will happen - why does stagnation follow from non-bounded lifespans?
Yes, such a think would bring up new problems that we wouldn't have experience dealing with. But it would also offer many new opportunities - and it's quite possible that those opportunities would dwarf the problems that come with such a change.
Who said anything about murdering young children? You're the only one who has brought this up.
Amusing, but think about the effects of people not just working for 30-40 years, but hundreds. A person could become experienced and knowledgable in a subject to levels which we can't imagine, and who knows what they could come up with.
Or a person could spend 50 years in a career, then take 5-10 off and learn something entirely new, then start a career there. Think about all the benefits that could come from that sort of inter-disciplinary work? What might someone who's been a chef, a writer, a materials engineer, and a chemist bring to a new job?
I've seen the flashing crosswalk lights already, and I can say that they're not that bright - not really any brighter than a road reflector, but without having to depend on reflecting light to be seen.
When there's fog, or heavy rain, or snow, and the painted lines on the road can't be seen, these could REALLY help in driving. Back when I lived in Michigan, I always hated driving at night when it was raining - there were no reflectors on the roads, and it was literally impossible to see where the lanes were. You just had to guess, and it could be unpleasant at times.
Even if it's raining so hard even your wipers can't keep up, I'd think these things would help let you know where the lanes were so you could have a much easier time getting somewhere safe to stop.
It's a different environment.
As Ebola only shows up in small African villages (as far as I know) where there isn't exactly a large population or people travelling to other population centers frequently, the short incubation time prevents it from spreading like an epidemic.
However, the theoretical virus on 24 is to be released in highly-populated areas. It would kill a lot of people, and with the high population density and the way people travel in a place such as LA, it would do a lot of damage.
Perhaps they would have intentionally shortened the incubation period to increase the fear caused by the virus, but still minimize the chance of it becoming a global epidemic - after all, the bad guys would want to be able to get away from it and contain the damage to their targetted locations, correct?
Cause, of course, we haven't seen every single technical article that describes the space elevator in any sort of techincal detail mention that it would be a wide but extremely thin ribbon that, were it ever to break or be cut, would float down with not even enough kinetic energy to hurt a person. That coupled with the fact that any sections not far enough into the atmosphere to be slowed that way would, upon reentering the atmosphere and building up a bit of heat, disintegrate.
In other words, if their engineering ideas are even close, the only place we'll see a big disaster caused by a space elevator cable coming down is fiction.
Because it was an Activision game, and not made by Atari as the other games on the set are. It's a completely different company, and as Activision is busy continuing to make collections containing their Atari 2600 games available now and then, it's not likely they'd have been able to get it without at least significant royalties.