|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Not for the incurably sick, or those whose life only consists of suffering or pain
I'm sorry if I misused the term "terminal" - I meant to include those. In my head, that all sounds pretty terminal, though.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I'm not encouraging it nor approving of it, but I will also not act as if these people are merely a bit confused and that a single phonecall will solve it all.
A single phone call doesn't solve anything, but it may be good start to get better (for some, at least - Not for everyone, I know that). Apart from that, if someone is seriously thinking about ending their life they are more than " a bit confused " (no judging here) - It's a serious condition, treatable for some for sure, but not for everyone.
Anyways, any form of encouraging or judging suicide without knowing about the specific circumstances an individual is in my opinion plain wrong, an that is what I was aiming at with my previous post.
I only have a signature in order to let @DalekDave follow my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: People will keep doing that, despite your warning; for one who wants to end their life, there is no clean alternative to that mess.
I know, I know... encouragement doesn't help either, though. I guess I just felt like I had to counter the grim, dark point of the OP.
I only have a signature in order to let @DalekDave follow my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Aight, good point 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Takeaway No. 2 is: Don't take seriously what is not said seriously.
Here are two of the main causes of suicide, particularly youth suicide:
1. Being forced by others to behave how one does not want to behave.
2. Being ostracised for using words that others snobbishly decide to treat as offensive.
So, if you want to set yourself up to look like someone who cares about preventing suicide, and who is therefore a Very Good Chap, you should avoid telling people (including Bill) how they Must and Must Not behave, and also telling people (including Bill) how they Must and Must Not speak.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: you should avoid telling people (including Bill) how they Must and Must Not behave, and also telling people (including Bill) how they Must and Must Not speak.
I never said anyone _must_ behave the way I said. Merely voicing an opinion. Sorry, I'm not a native speaker.
I only have a signature in order to let @DalekDave follow my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate the concern, but: what if I enjoy being whipped ?
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: what if I enjoy being whipped ?
Wear a T-shirt emblazoned with "UHT Cream".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
One of those, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me" folks?
Party on. 
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
But only if the wife allows.
|
|
|
|
|
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Here are two of the main causes of suicide, particularly youth suicide:
I firmly disagree, and would like to hear what study you based this statement on.
Depression, substance abuse, family violence, or a lifetime of pain; whereas all the youth enjoys using words that their elders find offensive, and behaviour being modelled since you're raised.
You cannot prevent all suicides; but we can prevent the messy ones and give those who would a dignified end. Still, that's not allowed - that's a choice we as a society make. Apparently, having the mess is preferable than to admit that sometimes the inevitable should not be postponed too long.
My neighbours dog got his final meal two days ago, and he was too spent to even taste it. Heartbroken as my neighbours are, they didn't want another year of suffering for their dog. So why do humans have to? Is my life (and the decision) not our own?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Is my life (and the decision) not our own?
Yes but most often, the suicidal person is in a desperate state of mind, not a sober one. Therefore, one must not encourage rash decisions in that case.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: Yes but most often, the suicidal person is in a desperate state of mind, not a sober one.
Ah, you have statistics?
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: Therefore, one must not encourage rash decisions in that case.
Such is rarely a rash impuls decision, whatever you tell yourself.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Depression, substance abuse, family violence, or a lifetime of pain; whereas all the youth enjoys using words that their elders find offensive, and behaviour being modelled since you're raised.
I "would like to hear what study you based this statement on" (I won't go into detail about how making that demand of everyone one responds to is generally indicative of trollish behaviour).
I'd also like you to define what you believe to be the causes of most instances of "Depression" and many of "substance abuse".
I think you'll find that the two main causes are those given in my posting (I simply expressed them in a way that avoids overly emotional connotations), so "firmly disagreeing" with those statements equally firmly disagrees with your own.
And that's not to mention that "family violence" falls very, very clearly under the heading of "being forced by others to behave how one does not want to behave."Eddy Vluggen wrote: we can prevent the messy ones and give those who would a dignified end. Still, that's not allowed
In whatever (I will resist saying "backward or fanatically religious") place you inhabit, that may be the case, but it is perfectly legal here -- I personally know two people with one parent each who has felt compelled to follow that route.
I was not in a position to discuss their decision with either of them -- but discuss it is all I would have done; I most certainly would not have argued against it.
And I think that it is entirely clear that I was talking of being ostracised by peers, on- and off-line. Parents rarely ostracise their children for a psychologically harmful length of time.
But how about we have a CP New Year's resolution not to discuss such bloody miserable topics in a forum "for those who code"? Discussions of such matters between non-experts (i.e. those of "a little learning") are rarely useful or constructive.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: (I won't go into detail about how making that demand of everyone one responds to is generally indicative of trollish behaviour).
Not making it of everyone, just you specifically; but thanks for your valuation.
Mark_Wallace wrote: "being forced by others to behave how one does not want to behave."
My English may be lacking, but this generic description is too broad for my taste.
Mark_Wallace wrote: In whatever (I will resist saying "backward or fanatically religious") place you inhabit, that may be the case, but it is perfectly legal here
Near Amsterdam, which is hardly a fanatically religious location.
Mark_Wallace wrote: But how about we have a CP New Year's resolution not to discuss such bloody miserable topics in a forum "for those who code"?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Near Amsterdam
It's legal in Amsterdam 
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
No, for the majority it's not.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
"The majority" meaning those who use javascript, I presume.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Whehe 
No, there's a lot of rules around it, to prevent abuse in various ways.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few days ago I asked if anyone would be interested in an article/tip about setting up WSUS. The response was somewhat underwhelming (and focus quickly turned to the fact that I use a 10-year old version of OneNote) so I decided not to bother.
Anyway. I've been struggling with getting clients to connect to it ever since. Until this morning, when I changed the policy that names the WSUS server to include the port at the end of the string (:8530). After making that change, and then refreshing the policy on client endpoints, they started trickling in almost immediately.
This wasn't necessary before. The port hasn't changed. Why it's suddenly needed in this version, I don't know. Or when it became a requirement, I don't know (it could've been introduced in 2012, 2012 R2, 2016 or 2019...and I'm not about to review the documentation for each to try to find out).
The lesson, I guess, is don't take anything for granted...like assuming newer versions work the same as old versions (even though, based purely on the UI, you'd think MS hasn't done any change to WSUS).
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Until this morning, when I changed the policy that names the WSUS server to include the port at the end of the string (:8530).
It's a URL[^] not a 'name'. The port is always at the end of the string[^].
dandy72 wrote: This wasn't necessary before. The port hasn't changed.
The change was made in version 6.2 from the default of 443 to 8530. The reason the URL did not need the :8530 before is because HTTPS defaults to 443.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Of course I know the difference between a URL and a name. I simply wrote that the server was "named" in that string because the URL happens to identify the server...by its name...
Randor wrote: The change was made in version 6.2 from the default of 443 to 8530. The reason the URL did not need the :8530 before is because HTTPS defaults to 443.
I'm not following. The default (non-https) port was always 8530, and that's how I've always had it configured (by omission).
Are you claiming my older server, by not having any port specified, was therefore defaulting to an https connection, and not using port 8530, and now the newer version is enforcing https over port 8530 and effectively no longer using https over 443...? I'd love to see the page documenting that. Even that doesn't make sense, since the policy for my previous server had always been set to:
http://vwsus
...and now I have to use:
http://vwsus2019:8530
Note that in both cases, I'm specifying http, not https.
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
Just RTFM[^]
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that.
From the article:
Quote: •On WSUS 3.2 and earlier, port 80 for HTTP and 443 for HTTPS
•On WSUS 6.2 and later (at least Windows Server 2012 ), port 8530 for HTTP and 8531 for HTTPS are used
So...even though WSUS has been widely known to be using port 8530 since day one, if you don't specify the port, it'll default to 80...
I've always made the assumption that if it "uses port 8530 by default", then if not specified, then that's the port it'll use. Meaning, even though I didn't specify one, the initial handshake might be done over port 80, but then switch over to port 8530. What the docs infer is that even though 8530 is the default, if not specified, then it'll implicitly use 80 and stick with that. That's a confusing definition of "default" if that's the case. And if it is, then I'm not sure how it would be technically wrong to instead say it's using port 80 by default. To me, "by default" has always meant "this is what will be used if omitted".
Anyway...again, the bottom line remains, don't take anything for granted.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
