The reverse is true to tho. Some attempt suicide- regret it then-- but then attempt suicide again later.

It depends on the reason. Is life shitty? Just lost your child? Just got fire?

Or is your brain just shitty? Constant suicidal impulses even tho life is going well? On a drug that enhances those impulses? Always in pain? Always depressed regardless of medication? Always feel like life is pointless even when nothing is wrong?

Sometimes the problem is chemical and there is little we can do to help the people. Sometimes, it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem and we can help those people.

And as you say, sometimes attempting and really facing death makes the person realize they don't want to die.

And yea... we were going to end the surveillance program anyway... yea! That's the ticket!

And we were going to stop illegal wire taps and sneaking back doors into our commercial products.

Yea... because our girlfriend... Candice Swanepoel didn't want us too.

(Man, I'm sorry I don't have any mod points today, so you'll have to settle for kudos. Well done.)

Here in the states, LED bulbs are down to $11 to $13.

Still... good to hear 10% less energy usage.

As long as they 3100-3200K light and not that wierd 2900K stuff I might try one.

And they better give an honest 850-900 lumens for the "60 watt" variety!

Also, a lot of suicide decisions are based on impulses. There are many stories of people who took a suicidal action and then regretted doing so. Like the one about people in the emergency room screaming they want to live after they shot themselves or the guy who jumped off a bridge and realized the second after he did so that he wanted to live.

For all we know, that day was like any other. The co-pilot went to work thinking he was handling it. The pilot left the cabin and the co-pilot was unexpectedly overpowered by the urge to kill himself and he locked the door. No planning necessary.

On the parent topic- yes I think they should video and that video should be checked when a plane crashes or has an incident but wiped otherwise when a plane lands without incident.

100 day moving average. Some folks use the 100 day exponential moving average. Results are similar. They tend to get you out of the market for the worst dips - and get you back in before missing too much of the rise. But-- you should never get out 100%. It's more like reducing to 25% invested (maybe 20%). Very hard emotionally to put money back in if you go to 0% in. Scaling up an existing position is much easier.

Just another bitch that got pissed because she couldn't hack it in the boys world....

So much so that they even have a name for it: Maskirovka. The term was originally used just for camouflage, and the uses of it seem entirely in keeping with ordinary warfare. The disinformation campaign around D-Day would have been a brilliant example of maskirovka.

But the Russians do it before a war, and even during active hostilities as a way to demand that they be treated as if they were non-combatants. It's going on right now, pretending that they aren't engaging in war against Ukraine. It's so traditional in the culture that it's not even really something we can blame them for, exactly. But it means that our actions and reactions have to be calibrated around the fact that this is part of the way they view the world.

Living In Ottawa (right on the border of Quebec) has given me a lot of insight into this. A lot of people try to move across the river because houses are cheaper and the have cheap child care. The reality is that most end up moving back a short time later. The high taxes pretty much eliminate any savings you get. The cheap child care options have very limited number of spots. Even if you're on the waiting list from the time you get pregnant, there's a good chance you'll still be on the waiting list after you're ready to go back to work when the kid is 1 year old.

Unless you are in 15% of jobs- you'll be forced to retire.

Good thing is, worst case you'll get about 85% of your social security benefits. This could be fixed if they raised the limit to 500k salary and raised the tax by 1%. Pretty small change so the problem is partially theatrics.

Bad thing is, those will only cover about 70% of your needs so you will need something to fill that gap. Medicare looks in trouble. It could be fixed if the U.S. offered to pay for medical school in return for lower cost service as germany does to doctors. And if we broke the medical school cartel and ramped up the number of doctors like we did during world war 2.

Save hard- as in 50%. I did and was able to retire at 51- not on social security for another 16 to 19 years.

Another stock market decline is coming soon (probably in calendar 2015). Hopefully 20-30%- but it could be another 50% hit. When the 100dma crosses back above the 300dma again after the bottom- that's when you put the money in and let it rise for years without having to do anything. That will multiply your savings.

So thousands of people could lose their jobs and livelihood over not hooking up a broadband line to some guy's house? While I'm sure they would comply before things got this far, I don't think it's in anybody's best interest for it to be possible for things to be escalated to this level. It's easy enough to say just shut the company down, but if we did this to every company who misbehaved in some way, it would be quite difficult on the people who worked for those companies who were low level enough that they couldn't fix the problems if they wanted to.

So California Pacific lays off 500 existing IT workers to replace them with H1B workers who will be paid 2/3 the cost, forces the existing workers to train their H1B Infosys replacements if the u.s. workers want their severance- and forces them to sign NDA's if they want their full severance.

http://www.computerworld.com/a...

And people wonder why millenials are doing poorly in this kind of environment. California Pacific's layoff seems blatantly illegal (how can you say you need H1B's because you can't find american workers with the skill set when you are LAYING OFF EXISTING WORKERS to replace them with H1B's????) but many other companies are doing the same thing by eliminating jobs at site "A" and immediately starting up the jobs at site "B".

Look- if the companies were foreign companies- we might protect workers or at least get lower prices. But as it is we are expected to pay full prices for the product here while the company uses discount labor.

Here is a blatant obvious case-- will someone do something about this? At least the conservative talk radio is finally mad about the issue. In the past it was only the democrats. How many jobs have to go before something is done?

Why enter a field when you are directly competing with people who can go home and live well on $15k a year?

Aye... sort of irritating that the article on California Pacific laying off workers to replace them with H1B's from Infosys doesn't get approved for anyone submitting it and this gets approved twice. Laying off u.s. workers to replace them with H1B's. That sounds directly illegal and could be a tipping point in the struggle against H1B's since conservative talk radio is riled up over it too for a change.

I guess it depends on what the fine is for not complying. For your above scenario to make sense, the fine itself would have to be more than the cost of installing the line. Otherwise, they would just pay the fine and forget about it. Also, there would need to be timelines for how long they can take to get the service working. If you have to live in the house a year without good internet before they get the service up and running then the law isn't very helpful. Also, what happens if you move in in December and they can't install the lines until March when the ground has thawed? Also, there's no law saying how much they are allowed to charge you, and they often don't charge the same fees for everybody. Once they've installed your lines, you're basically a slave to paying that provider's rates. If they want to jack up the rate 6 months down the road to recoup costs, there isn't much you can do about it, other than try to get some other provider to put in lines as well.

Because then everyone dies when the computer fails. Autopilots regularly fail and expect the pilot to take over

I think this depends on your definition of "fail". As far as I know true computer failures where the machine just goes crazy and tries to crash the plane are non-existent. What happens more regularly is the autopilot sees that something weird is happening and chooses to disengage itself - presumably an autopilot program could be written that never disengages and always does the best it can to fly the plane, unless deliberately disengaged.

This is particularly problematic when sensors fail, as they did in AF447, and the computer doesn't know what's going on any more.

No, this is irrelevant. If the planes sensors completely fail then the pilot doesn't know what's going on either, and the plane is probably doomed no matter what. In normal operation these planes are flying in a very small speed corridor between disintegration and stalling. If you don't know how fast your going a stall or overspeed is pretty much inevitable, and if you don't know how high you are even basic visibility problems can cause a crash into the surface. Neither human nor computer can succeed in such a situation.