Feeds it to the goats and puppies, obviously.
Plus, of course, it's still not that rare for people elsewhere in "IT" to switch over to software development at some point. They may actually be willing to take a salary cut and work for entry-level pay if that's what it takes to make the switch.
There are many reasons why pay alone doesn't "keep the old guys away", and some companies really do only want young workers. They tend to be very exploitative companies, however, banking on someone in their first job not recognizing how badly they're being used. Age discrimination may well be low on the list of sins for some of these companies.
And of course, Tolkien was a linguistics geek himself, and the world of Middle Earth with all it's history was in fact created as a "teaching tool", or at least a learning tool. All the migrations of the Elves to and from the West, and the interactions between the Elves who returned and the Dark Elves (who never saw the light of the Two Trees) - all of that business - was a sandbox to think about how languages evolved.
By making his own languages, and his own history, he could think about how specific words would evolve, how they'd diverge as the populations lost contact, and then came back into contact, and so on. Plus, he liked to write poetry, and you can write some damn fine poetry if you make up the sounds of the words as you go (if you haven't heard the poems in LOTR read out loud by someone skilled, pick up a good audiobook - they are marvelous to hear).
The better answer, from the full lore, is: union rules. The Ents and the Eagles were created to watch over flora and fauna, respectively, mostly to protect them from man. The Wizards were created to watch over man. These duties were handed down directly from the god of Tolkien's world (who's name escapes me). It simply wouldn't be right for Gandalf to ask the Eagles to do his own damn job for him.
Rescuing Gandalf personally, that's a favor to a coworker "sure, I'll give you a ride to work - pick you up where? A tower? OK, that's convenient, thanks."
But of course all of that is based on stuff from the Silmarillion - none of it is in the actual LOTR story, so it's no more canon than Mordor having emplaced 88s protecting Mt Doom.
I think one of the reasons people accept this is the tradition of racism in this country, for example in Texas with its death penalty cases.
What a bunch of SJW horseshit. Makes me ignore the rest of your posts.
I was recently on a jury for a young black man with a volunteer defender. He was acquitted on the most serious charge - the lawyer was quite good, and just bored of defending DWI cases for a living. That's how the system is supposed to work. It's a pity that it doesn't usually, but that's human systems for you. The fact that he's black never mattered to the case (it might have to the cops choosing him to speak with in the first place, but it was definitely his choices that got him arrested).
If you want to claim that the system is biased against blacks over whites after people are arrested, you'll need some evidence for that. Every system gives at least a little advantage to rich people, of course, that's what rich means after all.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? No one has the right to compel these gentlemen to do anything, or take their land, just as they have no right to set the use of anyone else's land. If, however, this is public land (as seems likely), then the government gets to decide what to do with it.
I don't know what their beef is anyhow - build the damned thing on top of the volcano, and if the freaking volcano god doesn't like it, well, I'm sure He'll think of something.
Whoever has the bigger military owns the land (or gets to say who owns the land if they don't want it). That's the entirety of "international law". Land ownership is similar.
When a nation turns its back against God, the church, and its citizens (abortion), it is all down hill from there.
I'm sure you're right. Which god again? I know I don't believe in 9999 of them, but I sometimes forget what the one is that I don't disbelieve. If these religious whackjobs are elected leaders, and represent the will of the majority, then that's that - doesn't matter why they believe. But if they're some vocal minority trying to use the state as a weapon of their religion, that's clearly not religious freedom, is it?
So what part of "land owners or majority in a democracy" was unclear to you? People are free to believe in whatever invisible sky grandfather makes them happy, and do with their own land according to those beliefs. But trying to block construction on someone else's land, or on public land if you're not the majority, is the opposite of religious freedom - it's using the state as an instrument of religion.
More religious whackjobs blocking progress. If they own the land, or represent the majority in a democracy, so be it; otherwise a does of "separation of church and state" would be welcome here. No one should get a free pass on being a religious whackjob simply because they aren't a Christian whackjob.
Equally? Probably not, but it's damn common for both men and women. Everyone has different tastes in what arouses, of course, but Fifty Shades of Grey is no more targeted towards men than Twilight or a Harlequin romance or Sex in the City was.
But teenage girls are not the biggest fans of pornography sites
This Victorian attitude that centers on the idea that women don't like sex just needs to die. Teenage humans are fans of pornography sites. Different strokes for different folks, of course. When a man and a woman both get drunk enough to lower their standards enough to actually get laid, this is not "rape culture", dammit, because men and women both are interested in sex. It's not "lie back and think of Britain" for fuck's sake.
Only from TFS did I learn where this image came from: having first seen it in an age where 16-bit (and even 8-bit) color palettes were the norm, I just assumed it was chosen for the purple feather, the details of feather and hatband and hair (which emphasize compression artifacts) and the human face, which we're very good at seeing distortions in. It just seemed like a challenging photo to compress in the days when jpg was too heavyweight for most PCs.
Still seems like a perfectly reasonable test image.