The requirement in Switzerland is that the action that triggers the death must be made by the person wishing to die. It does not require the person to drink: it's merely the most pragmatic method for those able to do so, but there are alternatives for those who cannot.

Not sure how old the BBC story is but I'm pretty sure nowadays a machine can be set up to inject the lethal cocktail with the patient being able to "trigger" the injection with a specific sequence of eye blinks.

I don't think there are solutions today for people that cannot even control their blinks, but there is research technology which is able to decode brain activity, so I guess that would be the future solution.

And so what? If that's her reason for wanting to end her life, who do you think you are to tell her that it's not a good enough reason? The whole point of self-determination is to give a person the ability to decide for themselves, without having to defer to other people's opinion on the matter.

What you are arguing is that society should decide whether someone's reasons are good enough, but in the matter of one's own life we are dealing with quintessential subjectivity. No other opinion should matter.

The only reason you wanted that woman to be prevented from ending her own life is because you personally disagree with her decision, but you have to accept that as long as she was her will, your disagreement should not be her problem.

Those cases would be more euthanasia than assisted suicide as the persons in question would lack the ability to decide for themselves.

IMHO the only line that needs to be drawn is the person's will. As long as it's voluntary, I don't see a reason to put additional limitations to the access to assisted suicide. I don't think it's anyone's business to decide what some other person has to "endure" or find "tolerable".

And so what? It's what the person that wants to access assisted suicide wants that matters, not what the state or even the medics want.

Assisted suicide is technically not even categorized as medical procedure in Switzerland. The procedure is not provided by the state: private non-profit organizations do that with the state only providing the legal framework.

Note that in case there is some confusion, we are discussing assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a whole different topic and it's not legal in Switzerland.

Why reinvent the wheel with additional rules and complexities then? Assisted suicide has been legal in Switzerland since the '40s and doesn't have any requirement for terminal illness nor chronic pain, nor even for any kind of "illness" actually.

The only requirements are basically that the suicide is voluntary and whoever assists it doesn't have "selfish motives" (read. financial gain or such). You cannot get it much simpler than that.

If the medication is intended for personal use the patents are typically not an issue. Crossing the border with the medication itself still is though.

It is already the case that you have to follow regulations if you want to bring personal medication across borders. As example, you are very likely required to declare prescription medication and depending on the border and the medication even some over-the-counter medication.

As stated above, the US can allow foreigners temporally traveling to the US to bring their medication with them for personal use, but generally prohibit US citizens from importing to the US medication they purchased while abroad, even for personal use.

Not entirely for free, but most governments reserve the right to use patented technology without a licensing agreement, usually limited to cases where it's in the interest of the country and subject to some sort of "fair compensation" to the patent holder.

A few reasons come to mind:

• They might want some sort of vendor support.
• They might be using other products that specify Oracle Java as required version. Using other Java versions might mean forfeiting support.
• They might have violated Oracle Java's licensing requirements and negotiated a deal to avoid a lawsuit.

I don't see how: Apple is not being required to force users to sideload, Apple is being required to give users the option to sideload if the user wishes so.

Users which want to remain in the "walled garden" would still have that option, whereas users which want to try third-party software sources would have the choice to do so without having to completely switch to a different platform.

Anti-personal freedom maybe, but IMHO personal freedom is not the only form of freedom. Living in society always comes with compromises of personal freedom, but provides for that different form of freedom.

As example, who is more free, a man completely off the grid that has complete personal freedom but is burdened with having to deal with everything by himself, or the man living in the city who has to abide to the rules of society but can rely on society to unburden him of many of his needs?

If you ask many people I bet for them having to forage their own food, fend off predators, build their own shelter, secure their own drinking water... is not freedom. Having a home with utilities and a Walmart nearby is, even if it means they have to deal with society's rules.

Different people have different answers and so value different kind of freedoms. Some people though want both unfettered personal freedom and reliance on society to unburden them and this typically doesn't work so well...

You are not. It was estimated that AC: Shadows had to sell at least 7M copies to break-even and it's a safe bet that it didn't even sell half of that. Latest estimates were around 2.5M units sold IIRC.

Ubisoft of course doesn't want to admit that kind of failure so they mud the water with irrelevant "achievements", but the financial failure is undeniable.

No, that's not what theistic evolution says. There is no such thing as "pixie magic" disguised as natural phenomenon in theistic evolution. Under theistic evolution electricity is 100% a natural phenomenon.

Theistic evolution basically says that God at the very beginning created the laws of nature and He created them in such a way that they would eventually lead to where we are now without further need for supernatural intervention.

One of the early popes had the original name "Mercurius" and he decided to change it to avoid associations with paganism. A later Pope had the original name "Peter" and decided to change it to respect St. Peter, the first Pope.

Then it became tradition.

Highly depends on the religion. Catholic schools teach evolution. The Catholic Church supports "Theistic Evolution", which is the concept of God operating through the laws of nature. From their point of view God and nature are perfectly compatible.

Rust would prevent a bad developer from writing unsafe code (assuming no unsafe), but said developer would still have to understand how to write functioning Rust code. Rust is not easy to learn in that respect.

IMHO if you don't have good developers you are screwed anyway, but if you can choose probably giving them something with garbage collection is the best option in terms of balancing safety and productivity.