I actually own chickens and can verify that some are smarter than others. However they are all pretty brutal; pray you never fall to the mercy of chickens.
"Perl is just horrifically bad? Then let's invent Python "
Perl was first released in the late 80's and was stable is its version 5 form mostly by 1993-1994. Python was also started in the late 80s. So the languages are from the same time; Python was not built as a reaction to Perl or an attempt to make a better Perl. People tend to think that because Perl had an unnatural popularity surge in the early days of the internet since some of the basic tools for stuff like CGI programming and database interfacing hit Perl very early and everyone just used that. Python caught on in popularity later. So people just assume it came later.
Ruby you could sorta say that. Its from the mid 1990s and intentionally looked at Perl5 and decided to take a spin on it that was supposed to be more simple. Like they dropped the sigils and make everything an object (probably was looking at a mix of Perl and Smalltalk, which was also popular at the time for a certain group).
So okay, here's what I don't get.
With illegal immigration, the argument is the immigrants are taking jobs no one here wants to do. I can buy that - they're not claiming that illegal immigrants create jobs.
With H1-B visas, Zuckerburg and Ballmer are claiming that more visas will somehow create more jobs. The only way I can see this happening is if companies start paying job applicants to go away so they can apply for more visas.
Can ANYONE make sense of this idea that H1-Bs create jobs?
I don't buy it. For every job there is a price at which someone will do the work. Increasing the worker pool (and doing so with people that have no rights and are afraid of stepping out of line) will always result in lower wages.
AFAIC lets open the border to whoever wants to work, as long as I can hire an Indian lawyer to help me with my tax issues at half the price of what an American lawyer wants.
What's that, per day or by the hour?
Its not the thousands of lives that is the underlying reason here, its the billions and billions of dollars those terror attacks would cause to business interests.
If there was a way to prevent that cost to business but that way didn't solve the 'deaths' problem, the gov't would do that. Look at the gun lobby...
And why are we surprised enough somehow this is new. People STEAL the software... They get no love from MS.
If you can't afford windows there's actually useful open source alternatives. Just use that. Why someone would steal software when you can go open source and be legit make snow sense to me....
It was only 9 years ago that I rad my first Prachett novel. His books came to me at a good time in my life, when things were tough and I needed a smile and to spent time with characters I loved. I am sorry to hear this, although it was announced a number of years ago so I knew it was coming. I hope he knew how much happiness he brought to the world with his stories.
As an 'older' programmer I've personally found that doing lots of open source contribution has helped keep my skills fresh. The trouble with a job is that you tend to get pigeon holed a bit and that tends to make you lose track of what is new and happening in the world outside your company. Contributing to open source will help mix that up and expose you to new ideas.
I would imagine that there's a bunch going on that you could get involved in.
best of luck, LLAP
"Instead we should be focussing on making the world a better place and their lives happier and worth living. "
We should make the world better, but I think even in a perfect world some young people are going to feel overwhelmed for simple biochemical reasons which make the problems they face seem insurmountable. So we should do the bit that we can do to make it less easy for those people to find a fast way to act on impulse.
So it is forbidden to make a decision about your life. WTF?
I am allowed to marry the wrong person and ruin my life at the drop of a hat. I am allowed to have kids where I may not be qualified to provide a decent life. I am allowed to sign a mortgage that I know I can't pay. I am allowed to try to climb the K7 if I am 70 years old, wich is very close to suicide.
But I am not allowed to take my own life.
There is no law (in the USA) that forbids you from making important life choices.
We've chosen as a society to allow people to marry at will and have children without being subject to a means test because we've decided the evil that comes from a state empowered to do that is greater than the evil of people being parents that are not fully ready to do so. Its a rational choice.
We let banks and lenders decide who is capable of paying a mortgage because we've decided again that the free market is a better control for this than what the state may provide. Again, its a choice we've made, and we've tried to balance it out with rules that lenders must follow (and we've recently tweaked those rules when we found them lacking). But ultimately we've chosen to say its less evil to restrict gov't power over this than the evil that comes from people being foreclosed on if they can't pay.
We let people who are rational take risks, like climbing mountains, because we know that there is a part of human existence that needs to test itself, even at the peril of life. This is a strong part of human existence and we don't want to restrict it unduly.
On the other hand we have decided that we want to stop people from killing themselves for reasons that are going to seem silly to them 10 years down the road. Lots of kids or young adults face tremendous stress as they try to fit into the world and shape it to their desire and that stress happens at a time when their hormones are out of control and their brain is expanding in new ways. This is a simple, biochemical fact. And this fact puts some people under a type of stress they can't endure. People who are not rational and who would not be doing this five or ten years later when they've managed to settle into a life with a job and possible a family. We say as a society that its not cool to kill yourself because you are young, your biochemistry is out of whack, your brain is growing it complex ways we don't yet fully understand. We think that is a terrible waste. And there is a difference between that waste, and between choices we've made to restrict the power of gov't, to promote individual choice and to allow humans to test ourselves in sometimes dangerous ways. If you don't see that difference I think you need to get away from the computer more
Because we know that many people that kill themselves do so because they are in the grips of simple biochemical processes related to a certain age, such as a teenager when their growth hormones are at full speed. This is something people don't have control over and its worse for some people than it is for others. These people have no rational reason to want to be dead other than they can't control their emotions. Typically the problems they have are not anything out of the ordinary, and certainly not a problem that one might rationally choose death to avoid.
For example many young people just kill themselves because they don't feel they fit into the world, or because they fall in love with someone that doesn't reciprocate. These problems are common ones. These a solvable problems that no rational person would think are so terrible that death is truly a more desirable choice. They simple need help and support to get through that difficult time of life after which the vast majority go on to be happy and live meaninful lives and are glad that they didn't die at a younger age.
On the other hand some people when faced with the certainty of a lingering, painful and undignified death (such as when someone is diagnosed with a fatal illness) might choose to rationally seek a death that they have control over, and that meets the criteria of suffering (or lack of it) that they desire. Personally I think that I'd rather die when I still have most of my wits about me and when I still have some type of control over what I am doing than to die strapped to some hospital machine, barely aware of what is going on. I don't think that people should feel forced to make that choice, but I do think I can understand the rationality behind it. On the other hand as someone that was very depressed and unhappy as a young adult, I a glad it was not easy for me to kill myself (my parents did not own a gun and I lived in a location with strict gun control laws, NYC) because now as a middle aged person I am very happy with my life and I feel I am making a contribution to society in the open source work that I do and in other ways.
I don't think life is cheap, and I am sorry you feel that way
Its a lot harder to kill yourself (or another person that is actively resisting) with a knife than with a gun. Having been in barroom brawls where knifes came out I can tell you that with certainty.
People that kill themselves by cutting themselves typically have to do a lot to make it work (for example preparing a hot bath to prevent clotting, etc.). And they need to cut deep, and cut correctly (slashing up and down the wrist, not across for example, as typically shown in movies) to achieve the goal, which is rather painful unless again one takes the time to acquire pain medication and consume it. This increased preparation time increases the mental barrier one needs to overcome to order to actually complete the suicide attempt and the increased time required to perform the act makes it more likely that someone might catch you in the act and save you.
People also tend to kill themselves in private, in their home, where they can't be interrupted and have had a lengthy time of isolation to deepen their depression. A handgun in the bedroom drawer "just in case" is a very easy way to attempt suicide and is in the ideal, private and quiet location that most people seek when trying to kill themselves. Other means that people choose in private, such as hanging themselves, typically have large mental barriers to overcome. Its not easy to correctly form the type of noose one needs, for example and also the death itself (by a possible lengthy suffocation) is a scary barrier to overcome. One must be very depressed to overcome that, and often when someone is that depressed they are not capable of the work involved to make it happen (and also there is a bigger chance for another person to notice how depressed they are, and offer help).
Although it is easy to crash a car as you mention, typically this is not what people want to do to kill themselves (typically, but yes there are always going to be outliers). As pointed out most people seek privacy and a period of isolation. Driving on the highway at speeds enough to cause death is not private nor isolated. And bridges can be better secured such as to make it harder (using fencing for example) and we can place emergency help phones on the bridge as well, which have been known to save people by giving them a person to speak with when they need it most.
The study is suggesting that people when deprived of an easy, private death in the convenience of their own home act on suicide impulses a lot less simple because its harder to do in the conditions one typically seeks.
" They are a convenient method when available, but if not available those determined to exit this sphere of existence will find a way to do so."
You didn't read the article. What they are saying is that there is clear evidence that a lot of people that presently kill themselves with a readily available means, would not do it if that means required a lot more effort. Lots of people kill themselves on terrible impulse, particularly young people that are having trouble coping with there emotions due to simple biochemical forces. Those types of suicide would be reduced IF it was harder to act on that impulse. That is 100% clear.
For people that are clinically depressed the story is a different matter. For those people simple reducing the means may not help so much (although I doubt it would hurt and might save some percentage).
I don't know enough about all the facts in Australia to understand the stats you mention (you don't give a source so I can't evaluate it). This article does mention studies which indicate the opposite of what you are saying. We'd need to see all the studies together to review them to see which if any are more meaningful. We'd also need to consider any biases those sources may have...
I'm really going to miss being able to telnet to a server and troubleshoot using plain text. Feels like a lot of simple has disappeared from the internet
I wouldn't watch this video, and I suspect the motives for Fox News here is not pure. But ultimately this is a personal moment for the man who is suddenly faced with a horrific death. These are the last moments of his life, and I believe they should belong to him. Since I didn't watch it, I don't know what it contains, but I would suspect they do not show the man at his best. If we could know his wish in the matter, I'd want to defer to that. But since we can't I'd defer to the less morally ambiguous choice which is to keep the moment as private to him as is possible.