"The mass of a star defines its lifespan. The least massive stars will live the longest, while the most massive stars in the Universe will use their fuel up in a few million years and end in a spectacular supernova explosion. So, how long do stars last?"... "How long do stars last? The biggest stars last only millions, the medium-sized stars last billions, and the smallest stars can last trillions of years."
Yes they can. There is no ruling that the police can't follow you everywhere you go 24 hours 7 days a week other than the laws of economics.
or the law of Canada.
"264. (1) Criminal harassment - No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonable, in all circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
(2) Prohibited conduct - The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(a) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on a business or happens to be; or (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
(3) Punishment - Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. "
without a specific law allowing a cop to follow you around, they lack lawful authority and thus no : they may not simply follow you everywhere you go 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Depends on jurisdiction. There is no real definitive answer.
In Canada it ultimately boils down to whether or not the Administration of Justice would be brought into disrepute if the evidence were admitted or rejected. And generally almost anything a cop finds while acting in good faith will be admitted. And if the crime was serious enough and the evidence good enough, a cop could very well have been violating your civil liberties but the evidence would still be admitted.
so.. hypothetically.. if a cop is trying shake you down for a bribe (this is bad faith), and discovers a dead body in your car... the dead body would still probably be allowed as this is very clear evidence of a homicide, even though the cop might very well end up in jail for extortion. On the other hand if he discovers a few marijuana joints, that evidence would probably get thrown out, as they are easily planted, not a serious crime, etc. the court needs to be seen to be forcing the police to obey the law, but also not heartlessly allowing murderers to walk free on technicalities.
With that said, there is a right to reasonable privacy, and generally whenever it is possible, police are supposed to try to get warrants for virtually any kind of intrusion here, and you are not obligated to answer their questions and they have no rights to bring you in for questioning without actually arresting you. And they can't arrest you unless they have probable cause to believe you are guilty or a material witness that is a flight risk.
generally.. no.. they are not allowed to simply follow you around town merely because they dont like your face, or heard a tip. but if they did.. could you prove it?
if they have legitimate reasons to put you under surveillance, and fail to seek a warrant, this is construed as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. if they didn't have enough to get a warrant, they could go up and ask you a few questions to see if you want to volunteer anything. but once you make it clear that you aren't going to help them, they aren't allowed to harass you or intimidate you... (then again.. can you prove it?)
I want to see every friggin able bodied criminal have to work 8 hours a day, just like the rest of us. And if you don't, you don't eat. Plain and simple.
So unemployable prisoners should be left to starve or freeze to death, just like on America's streets.. sounds fair.
If you think the US is freakishly gentle on Criminals you should come visit Canada. We even let prisoners vote and participate in our democracy like actual humans.
There is some reasonably plausible corroborating evidence for superluminal muon neutrinos from both SN1987a and MINOS which predates the OPERA experiments. There appears that there could be energy relation also - i.e. the more energetic the neutrino, the faster it goes, which explains why the MINOS results showed a potential deviation of 1.4 whereas OPERA is 6. There was a noticeable increase in neutrino activity roughly ten hours before the SN1987a light arrived.
Of course it all remains supposition until the work can be replicated. It's highly likely that any model will address this effect as being linked strongly with neutrinos alone, and possibly only muon neutrinos.
if you were in orbit around a star going supernova, you would expect to detect a supernova reaction in the star's core via neutrinos hours before the the surface of the star exploded. It is the CORE of the star that is going supernova, not the surface.
A supernova emits no photons into outerspace until the surface of the star is blown out. Neutrinos on the other hand have no problem flying straight out of the core of the star at the speed of light even while the surface of the star is still fully intact.
So no, SN1987a does not corroborate that neutrino's travel faster than light. If they did, we would not expect then to arrive merely hours before the core of the supernova finally blew away the surface of the star. SN1987a suggests that neutrinos travel pretty much exactly at the speed of light.
If that were the case, we should be able to accelerate particles to faster than light speeds. There's nothing that prevents a particle from traveling above c in a material with an index of refraction > 1; see Cherenkov radiation.
You don't understand the article you are reading.
"While electrodynamics holds that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant (c), the speed at which light propagates in a material may be significantly less than c. For example, the speed of the propagation of light in water is only 0.75c. Matter can be accelerated beyond this speed (although still to less than c) during nuclear reactions and in particle accelerators. Cherenkov radiation results when a charged particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a dielectric (electrically polarizable) medium with a speed greater than that at which light would otherwise propagate in the same medium." emphasis added.
So not only would neutrinos travel faster than light in a fiber (as they go pretty close to c for sure), but they could also just so straight there through the Earth
I was thinking about this but if I understand correctly, neutrinos are "filtered out" as they pass through greater amounts of solid material, so to ensure a signal would go through a great deal of solid material (like the whole planet) it would take a great deal of energy on the emitter side.
I have little more than high-school physics knowledge so I don't know if the amount of energy required alone would make it impractical. But I do know that instruments used to detect neutrinos from the sun are placed underground to reduce the number of neutrinos hitting them.
Instruments used to detect neutrinos from the sun are placed underground to reduce the number of every other type of particle/radiation hitting them. i.e. cosmic rays, gama rays, neutrons, x-rays, etc etc. Putting the detector deep underground helps to ensure we detect only neutrinos because only neutrinos can penetrate so deep into the earth.
The number of neutrinos that hit them is virtually unchanged regardless of depth because neutrinos easily pass through matter almost like it is empty space. a few thousand km of earth may as well be a sheet of paper.
From a historical point of view the IBM PC was also a device, that happened to use mostly off the shelf parts. It because "general purpose" only when Compaq and others reverse engineered the one thing held proprietary by IBM, the BIOS, and was successful in their clean room implementation claim.
This argument would be more convincing if market competition in America actually worked the way free-market fundamentalists swear it works.
That would be difficult in a country where the government feels it has the right to interfere with the market at any time in any way for any reason. You can hardly blame the free market for screwups in a country where the government feels it has the right to control carbon dioxide.
What about slavery, child labour, false and misleading advertising, dangerous products, nuclear bombs, stolen property, child pornography, buying votes, emergency services, military, submarines, gambling, prostitution, extortion, blackmail, drugs, land rights and immigration!
The government is out of control!!! Someone save the free market please!
Blame the helicopter parents and their ravenous lawyers. Grab a kid to break up a fight? Law suit. Yell at a kid to break up a fight? Law suit. Make a kid feel sad for any reason (little johnny just wanted to stab someone, is that so bad?)? Law suit.
of course you could sue the police just as easily as you can sue the school, so this explanation doesn't make much sense.
The day that a revolution tries, convicts and punishes the violent people who caused the victory is the day that humanity has finally taken a step out of the animal kingdom that we like to celebrate as if we did it millennia ago.
It seems to me that violence is the only way to carry out revolution. If you could use reason, or rational discourse then you would not be living under a tyranny and no revolution would be justified in the first place.
Why would you punish people for defending themselves from a tyrant? Would you punish a woman who used violence rather than rhetoric to defend herself from a rape?
I don't see a problem with him competing as long as the legs he uses aren't providing him with extra power. As long as he's only using his own power to propel him I think that he's doing it great.
It is today a disadvantage enough in society to have a handicap. And it's hardly likely that extreme runners will chop off their legs just to be able to compete better.
Roller blades and bicycles provide no extra power either.
and the fact that its hardly likely that "extreme runners" will chop off their legs to be able to compete better is an argument AGAINST allowing any kind of mechanical assistance.
Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.
That sounds like a rather spot on analogy. Sounds like precedent is against her. The argument that the passphrase, itself, is the incriminating self-testimony seems really weak, both because the passphrase is not being required, and because the passphrase is not, in the end, what will incriminate her.
IANAL, of course.
Can they order the defendant to disclose the location of the murder weapon before they are convicted of murder too? Afterall the location is not, in the end, what will incriminate them.
At the same time as this is going on, the CRTC is holding a "fact finding mission" to discuss whether or not online video like Netlfix and YouTube should be required to meet CANCON regulations. This means a minimum amount of Canadian content, and paying taxes into a fund to drive the creation of more Canadian content.
Of course this idea is retarded to anyone reading this.
If you think it's retarded to get facts before making decisions then maybe you're the one who is retarded.
Would you shell out the $3500 to get Mac OS X? The way I see it, that is the choice you will have in the near future: iOS for a "consumer" level computer, and Mac OS X for high end "professional" level computers.
And what if Apple gave you the following choice:
iOS laptop or tablet starting at $600 Mac OSX laptop or desktop for free, with every Itunes purchase of $9.99 or more.
Wouldn't that be amazing! The way I see it, your prices are just as crazy as mine and just as improbable.
Thus, one would expect that some day, perhaps next century or thousands of years from now, we will develop more sophisticated life that can use ALL of the matter in our solar system (rather than just a narrow range in the biosphere) and will use solar energy to rapidly convert all matter into parts of this life.
why would one expect that?
If the lifeform you vagely described evolved after N generations, you can't even begin to imagine what N-1 looks like. So even if we have 1,2,3,4,5,6 up to some finite generation which describes life on earth today, and even if we observe some trend towards efficiency (in fact we didn't.. but let that slide), without knowing how N-1 converts into N, or knowing for a fact that N-1 will automatically lead to N, then we have no rational expectation that N is inevitable, or even that N is probable.
You should not expect to see something for which you have no rational basis to conclude should happen.
I care. Because 100 billion years of life is better than 4 billion years of life.
You aren't going to have either, though.
It's not about what I have. It's about what they would have. I am not the only being in the universe who has concerns.
Those billions of years of life are nothing more than a phantasm in the here and now.
Assuming you are right, then the present is also nothing more than a phantasm of billions of years ago. And I fail to see your point.
You will never, ever know whether we as a species will make it a hundred billion years, four billion years, or four thousand years.
No. And I'll never know lots of things.
But as a thinking person I can accept that I am happy to exist, then if our descendants exist they will be happy to exist. And I know people who are dead now. But they were happy to be alive when they were alive. And that has value to me. Likewise for people who I never met. I am not a control freak. I don't need to know the personal details of everybody in order to respect their as living things and innately precious.
And nothing, nothing you do in your lifetime will make a difference to the longevity of the species as a whole,
Firstly, I did not say "species" I said life. Whatever is alive in a billion years, if anything, will not be the same species as me. Secondly your implications that our actions have no affects, or that survival has no cause, would require some demonstration. If you can jump off a tall bridge, die, and still successfully reproduce I'd possibly be persuaded. I hope you try to provide such a demonstration for us all and put this question to rest, because not only will you disprove yourself, you'll provide food for fish who can then go on and perhaps become somebody's next meal.
and how we face problems four billion years in the future.
Who is "we"? You just said I'm not going to be around in 4 billion years, now you are claiming that YOU are?
Nice that you are thinking ahead, though. Fantasizing about the impossibly distant future is no different than fantasizing about becoming a superhero or the King of Westeros. It's a great way to ignore real-world, present day problems while puffing up your own ego by imagining that you are pondering the really weighty, long term problems.
An attacking straw men is a great way of puffing up your ego and pretending that you've proven a point when you haven't.
Slashdot Mirror
The average star age is 1-10 billion years
Very massive stars don't last nearly as long.
From source http://www.universetoday.com/25160/how-long-do-stars-last/
"The mass of a star defines its lifespan. The least massive stars will live the longest, while the most massive stars in the Universe will use their fuel up in a few million years and end in a spectacular supernova explosion. So, how long do stars last?" ...
"How long do stars last? The biggest stars last only millions, the medium-sized stars last billions, and the smallest stars can last trillions of years."
Yes they can. There is no ruling that the police can't follow you everywhere you go 24 hours 7 days a week other than the laws of economics.
or the law of Canada.
"264. (1) Criminal harassment - No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing
that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other is harassed,
engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person
reasonable, in all circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to
them.
(2) Prohibited conduct - The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(a) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or
anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or
anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or
anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on a business or happens to be;
or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of
their family.
(3) Punishment - Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. "
without a specific law allowing a cop to follow you around, they lack lawful authority and thus no : they may not simply follow you everywhere you go 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Depends on jurisdiction. There is no real definitive answer.
In Canada it ultimately boils down to whether or not the Administration of Justice would be brought into disrepute if the evidence were admitted or rejected. And generally almost anything a cop finds while acting in good faith will be admitted. And if the crime was serious enough and the evidence good enough, a cop could very well have been violating your civil liberties but the evidence would still be admitted.
so.. hypothetically.. if a cop is trying shake you down for a bribe (this is bad faith), and discovers a dead body in your car... the dead body would still probably be allowed as this is very clear evidence of a homicide, even though the cop might very well end up in jail for extortion. On the other hand if he discovers a few marijuana joints, that evidence would probably get thrown out, as they are easily planted, not a serious crime, etc. the court needs to be seen to be forcing the police to obey the law, but also not heartlessly allowing murderers to walk free on technicalities.
With that said, there is a right to reasonable privacy, and generally whenever it is possible, police are supposed to try to get warrants for virtually any kind of intrusion here, and you are not obligated to answer their questions and they have no rights to bring you in for questioning without actually arresting you. And they can't arrest you unless they have probable cause to believe you are guilty or a material witness that is a flight risk.
generally.. no.. they are not allowed to simply follow you around town merely because they dont like your face, or heard a tip. but if they did.. could you prove it?
if they have legitimate reasons to put you under surveillance, and fail to seek a warrant, this is construed as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
if they didn't have enough to get a warrant, they could go up and ask you a few questions to see if you want to volunteer anything. but once you make it clear that you aren't going to help them, they aren't allowed to harass you or intimidate you... (then again.. can you prove it?)
Mod Parent Up.
They should just hit the Enhance button.
At least prisoners are otherwise able to get game consoles. Otherwise prison would be downright inhumane....almost like PUNISHMENT.
yeah.. because being inhumane is what punishment is supposed to be.
I hope you never have children.
I want to see every friggin able bodied criminal have to work 8 hours a day, just like the rest of us. And if you don't, you don't eat. Plain and simple.
So unemployable prisoners should be left to starve or freeze to death, just like on America's streets.. sounds fair.
If you think the US is freakishly gentle on Criminals you should come visit Canada. We even let prisoners vote and participate in our democracy like actual humans.
There is some reasonably plausible corroborating evidence for superluminal muon neutrinos from both SN1987a and MINOS which predates the OPERA experiments. There appears that there could be energy relation also - i.e. the more energetic the neutrino, the faster it goes, which explains why the MINOS results showed a potential deviation of 1.4 whereas OPERA is 6. There was a noticeable increase in neutrino activity roughly ten hours before the SN1987a light arrived.
Of course it all remains supposition until the work can be replicated. It's highly likely that any model will address this effect as being linked strongly with neutrinos alone, and possibly only muon neutrinos.
if you were in orbit around a star going supernova, you would expect to detect a supernova reaction in the star's core via neutrinos hours before the the surface of the star exploded. It is the CORE of the star that is going supernova, not the surface.
A supernova emits no photons into outerspace until the surface of the star is blown out. Neutrinos on the other hand have no problem flying straight out of the core of the star at the speed of light even while the surface of the star is still fully intact.
So no, SN1987a does not corroborate that neutrino's travel faster than light. If they did, we would not expect then to arrive merely hours before the core of the supernova finally blew away the surface of the star. SN1987a suggests that neutrinos travel pretty much exactly at the speed of light.
If that were the case, we should be able to accelerate particles to faster than light speeds. There's nothing that prevents a particle from traveling above c in a material with an index of refraction > 1; see Cherenkov radiation.
You don't understand the article you are reading.
"While electrodynamics holds that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant (c), the speed at which light propagates in a material may be significantly less than c. For example, the speed of the propagation of light in water is only 0.75c. Matter can be accelerated beyond this speed (although still to less than c) during nuclear reactions and in particle accelerators. Cherenkov radiation results when a charged particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a dielectric (electrically polarizable) medium with a speed greater than that at which light would otherwise propagate in the same medium."
emphasis added.
So not only would neutrinos travel faster than light in a fiber (as they go pretty close to c for sure), but they could also just so straight there through the Earth
I was thinking about this but if I understand correctly, neutrinos are "filtered out" as they pass through greater amounts of solid material, so to ensure a signal would go through a great deal of solid material (like the whole planet) it would take a great deal of energy on the emitter side.
I have little more than high-school physics knowledge so I don't know if the amount of energy required alone would make it impractical. But I do know that instruments used to detect neutrinos from the sun are placed underground to reduce the number of neutrinos hitting them.
Instruments used to detect neutrinos from the sun are placed underground to reduce the number of every other type of particle/radiation hitting them. i.e. cosmic rays, gama rays, neutrons, x-rays, etc etc. Putting the detector deep underground helps to ensure we detect only neutrinos because only neutrinos can penetrate so deep into the earth.
The number of neutrinos that hit them is virtually unchanged regardless of depth because neutrinos easily pass through matter almost like it is empty space. a few thousand km of earth may as well be a sheet of paper.
I was aware that was a quote. I just disagree with it because it promotes on a false dichotomy.
'when you take away the impossible what you are left with, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.'
This is a false dichotomy. When you take away the impossible, what is left is merely possible; It is NOT a certainty.
From a historical point of view the IBM PC was also a device, that happened to use mostly off the shelf parts. It because "general purpose" only when Compaq and others reverse engineered the one thing held proprietary by IBM, the BIOS, and was successful in their clean room implementation claim.
IBM published the source code for the BIOS.
This argument would be more convincing if market competition in America actually worked the way free-market fundamentalists swear it works.
That would be difficult in a country where the government feels it has the right to interfere with the market at any time in any way for any reason. You can hardly blame the free market for screwups in a country where the government feels it has the right to control carbon dioxide.
What about slavery, child labour, false and misleading advertising, dangerous products, nuclear bombs, stolen property, child pornography, buying votes, emergency services, military, submarines, gambling, prostitution, extortion, blackmail, drugs, land rights and immigration!
The government is out of control!!! Someone save the free market please!
Cops have as much authority to do a unjustified (hence unlawful) body cavity search, imprisonment, kidnapping or torture as teachers do.
Blame the helicopter parents and their ravenous lawyers. Grab a kid to break up a fight? Law suit. Yell at a kid to break up a fight? Law suit. Make a kid feel sad for any reason (little johnny just wanted to stab someone, is that so bad?)? Law suit.
of course you could sue the police just as easily as you can sue the school, so this explanation doesn't make much sense.
The day that a revolution tries, convicts and punishes the violent people who caused the victory is the day that humanity has finally taken a step out of the animal kingdom that we like to celebrate as if we did it millennia ago.
It seems to me that violence is the only way to carry out revolution. If you could use reason, or rational discourse then you would not be living under a tyranny and no revolution would be justified in the first place.
Why would you punish people for defending themselves from a tyrant? Would you punish a woman who used violence rather than rhetoric to defend herself from a rape?
How does this differ from collecting fingerprints at arrest?
well DNA not only identifies you, it identifies your siblings and your entire family?
I don't see a problem with him competing as long as the legs he uses aren't providing him with extra power. As long as he's only using his own power to propel him I think that he's doing it great.
It is today a disadvantage enough in society to have a handicap. And it's hardly likely that extreme runners will chop off their legs just to be able to compete better.
Roller blades and bicycles provide no extra power either.
and the fact that its hardly likely that "extreme runners" will chop off their legs to be able to compete better is an argument AGAINST allowing any kind of mechanical assistance.
From TFA:
Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.
That sounds like a rather spot on analogy. Sounds like precedent is against her. The argument that the passphrase, itself, is the incriminating self-testimony seems really weak, both because the passphrase is not being required, and because the passphrase is not, in the end, what will incriminate her.
IANAL, of course.
Can they order the defendant to disclose the location of the murder weapon before they are convicted of murder too? Afterall the location is not, in the end, what will incriminate them.
At the same time as this is going on, the CRTC is holding a "fact finding mission" to discuss whether or not online video like Netlfix and YouTube should be required to meet CANCON regulations. This means a minimum amount of Canadian content, and paying taxes into a fund to drive the creation of more Canadian content.
Of course this idea is retarded to anyone reading this.
If you think it's retarded to get facts before making decisions then maybe you're the one who is retarded.
What if Apple gave you the following choice:
Would you shell out the $3500 to get Mac OS X? The way I see it, that is the choice you will have in the near future: iOS for a "consumer" level computer, and Mac OS X for high end "professional" level computers.
And what if Apple gave you the following choice:
iOS laptop or tablet starting at $600
Mac OSX laptop or desktop for free, with every Itunes purchase of $9.99 or more.
Wouldn't that be amazing! The way I see it, your prices are just as crazy as mine and just as improbable.
Thus, one would expect that some day, perhaps next century or thousands of years from now, we will develop more sophisticated life that can use ALL of the matter in our solar system (rather than just a narrow range in the biosphere) and will use solar energy to rapidly convert all matter into parts of this life.
why would one expect that?
If the lifeform you vagely described evolved after N generations, you can't even begin to imagine what N-1 looks like. So even if we have 1,2,3,4,5,6 up to some finite generation which describes life on earth today, and even if we observe some trend towards efficiency (in fact we didn't.. but let that slide), without knowing how N-1 converts into N, or knowing for a fact that N-1 will automatically lead to N, then we have no rational expectation that N is inevitable, or even that N is probable.
You should not expect to see something for which you have no rational basis to conclude should happen.
I care. Because 100 billion years of life is better than 4 billion years of life.
You aren't going to have either, though.
It's not about what I have. It's about what they would have. I am not the only being in the universe who has concerns.
Those billions of years of life are nothing more than a phantasm in the here and now.
Assuming you are right, then the present is also nothing more than a phantasm of billions of years ago. And I fail to see your point.
You will never, ever know whether we as a species will make it a hundred billion years, four billion years, or four thousand years.
No. And I'll never know lots of things.
But as a thinking person I can accept that I am happy to exist, then if our descendants exist they will be happy to exist. And I know people who are dead now. But they were happy to be alive when they were alive. And that has value to me. Likewise for people who I never met. I am not a control freak. I don't need to know the personal details of everybody in order to respect their as living things and innately precious.
And nothing, nothing you do in your lifetime will make a difference to the longevity of the species as a whole,
Firstly, I did not say "species" I said life. Whatever is alive in a billion years, if anything, will not be the same species as me. Secondly your implications that our actions have no affects, or that survival has no cause, would require some demonstration. If you can jump off a tall bridge, die, and still successfully reproduce I'd possibly be persuaded. I hope you try to provide such a demonstration for us all and put this question to rest, because not only will you disprove yourself, you'll provide food for fish who can then go on and perhaps become somebody's next meal.
and how we face problems four billion years in the future.
Who is "we"? You just said I'm not going to be around in 4 billion years, now you are claiming that YOU are?
Nice that you are thinking ahead, though. Fantasizing about the impossibly distant future is no different than fantasizing about becoming a superhero or the King of Westeros. It's a great way to ignore real-world, present day problems while puffing up your own ego by imagining that you are pondering the really weighty, long term problems.
An attacking straw men is a great way of puffing up your ego and pretending that you've proven a point when you haven't.
How old are you?
Old enough to value the lives of other sentient beings, and not only myself.