Please no. That's a load of crap and you know it. It's very easy to distinguish between something which has half the chromosomes needed to be considered human and something that has all of them (or close in the case of some mutations :D)

Of course, on a technicality the statement is correct. Masturbation does kill sperm which amounts to cells. The intended meaning of that propaganda phrase is that it's killing a human life (closer to the legal definition of murder) which is just plain dumb.

That sort of completely useless, overly dramatic, and completely fallacious statement shouldn't be welcome here. If only we had "downvotes" ... I know you were probably trying to be funny or just spewing something you've heard dozens of times before, but please, no.

  Note: My links all got parenthesis appended to them. "[test](test) test" becomes "[test](test))test" after saving and will not change back. Inserting an extra space lets the space show up, but the extra parenthesis also persists. 

Yes and no. You'll almost certainly need some sort of database backend (non-relational databases are getting pretty popular nowadays). The thing is, you won't actually need to know the query language anymore in many cases.

In the case of relational databases (typically mysql/postgres) many languages provide some sort of database abstraction which greatly reduces the amount of database-specific knowledge you need to know. Let's take an example from ruby on rails: The query

  SELECT * FROM clients WHERE locked=true

  Client.where(:locked => true)

As for the new "hip" relational-database replacements, they almost invariably have similarly abstracted libraries. The many key-value stores, such as redis, basically just have set/get methods. Document-stores are more complicated to try and classify, but the libraries do simplify things significantly.

The point I'm trying to get across here, if a little slowly, is that higher level languages have abstracted databases to the point that a fine grasp of the underlying query language is unneeded; rudimentary knowledge will be enough for the OP's purposes.

Okay, final bit. You mention python, but you don't mention what you're doing other than "online". Online stuff doesn't have to have a database necessarily. Sites that can be static (information, no users. Blogs can also be static) shouldn't have a database for performance reasons. Typically, for anything where you have users or dynamic data, it's a good (not 100% required still) idea to use some sort of database. However, for anything that doesn't require complicated relations it might be a good idea to just use redis (which has a good library for python) and not have to deal with the complexities SQL brings with it. If you absolutely need the power relational databases have to offer, elixer can do some of the abstraction I spoke of, though you'll still want to be familiar with the underlying database.

I personally find knowing my way around databases useful, but I also think that things are moving away from needing to really have a strong grasp of them and if you don't want to hassle with it you'll be able to "get by" at least. Hopefully that all made sense!

You're probably already aware of the algorithm in question (reddit's), but if not this'll save you a little time looking.

The lower bound of a Wilson Score CI. It might not be as applicable with only "upvotes", but it still might be relevant.

I don't have much personal experience with Codeacademy, but I've heard good things in general and I liked the little I saw.

I don't think it offers a replacement to good books or formal training (university classes or similar), but it certainly helps and could complement them.

It's up to you how you do it and I can't really offer too deep insight - I can't simply forget what I know and then relearn it to objectively judge some method of learning vs my own (and things look different from the other side if I try to judge now).

Oh, a final aside. It's good to have coding buddies beyond a point (beyond syntax, around basic algorithms and data structures I think) to talk to as you go. If you don't know any such people in actual life, finding an IRC channel that interests you and has some coders might be a good idea. Small ones (20ish users) are often more helpful and pleasant to be part of. Creating a hubski irc might be a good idea come to think of it.

Best of luck.

Regardless of if my interpretation of freedom, my interpretation for "absolute security" must also be rejected for my logic to fail. I see absolute security as practically being in a coma, something I feel almost anyone would say is less desirable than nearly any state of affairs, especially any which contains any sort of reasonable freedom (absolute or not). As such, if you doubt my definition of freedom or my definition of security, but not both, the entire argument still stands strongly I think.

I apologize for the delayed response.

For a website you'll need to have a good grasp of the frontend languages - HTML, javascript, and css - in addition to the chosen backend language. Modern and responsive sites are moving towards more and more client-side code; you might find yourself writing more javascript than backend code even. I would recommend, once you get to writing the frontend, that you try to start out using existing frameworks such as backbone.js, ember.js, or another which catches your fancy because they'll somewhat encourage good structrue/style.

I also don't recommend jumping into that mess to begin with because there's so many different pieces that you have to at least have a decent grasp on. Learning programming before beginning will make it a lot more manageable.

For the backend you'll find the "easiest" options are php, nodejs, python (with flask/django), or ruby (on rails). Nodejs will have the benefit that you can write javascript frontend and backend.

I'd recommend learning one of the above languages (ignoring the framework in parenthesis if applicable until after you have a grasp on the core language) first. Pick up a book for it. I won't recommend one for php because it's going out of style and, though still widely used, is probably the worst choice of those listed above. Nodejs is still relatively new and I don't have any particular recommendations because I haven't read any of sparse selection of books for it. For ruby, the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide is fairly good. Learn python the hard way is quite good, especially considering that it's free.

If you'd like to be in programming for the long term or have a better understanding of how things really work (which will, if not in obvious ways, translate to better code in subtle ways) then I'd recommend learning C before anything else with K&R. Even though C's an old language, spending time with it gives you a grasp of how things, including other languages, actually work. It introduces the basic syntax and core concepts of all the other languages I mentioned as well (excluding css/html which barely count as languages).

Sorry, that was rather long winded. The tl;dr is "Learn the backend language first, or C if you want to be a 'real programmer'. Learn the frontend stuff later on and, ideally, sort of as you go". All my own opinion etc etc of course.

It could be. The reasons for my handle on this site, as any, are my own. No harm in asking of course, though since it is unrelated to the overall discussion a pm might be more appropriate. Sorry for the delayed response.

There definitely needs to be more information here. As gordonz88 commented, we need to know if we can infringe other's freedoms or not. I will, based on "absolute", assume that I can infringe other's freedoms at will. Unfortunately, that means that none of them can have absolute freedom. only one superhuman can possibly be completely free (including the power to infringe others). Of course, that's okay; the question only specifies "you" (singular we must assume).

The option of absolute security, however, needs far more clarification. Secure from physical harm? Mental harm? Both? I'll assume it's all forms of harm, physical and mental (going on 'absolute' here). Being completely secure from physical and emotional harm pretty much requires that I live in a bubble. I could scrape my wrist walking down the hall so I must be entirely immobile. I also cannot interact with anyone else as anyone might unexpectedly say something which causes mental anguish. As it stands, we're left with being tied down and drugged for the rest of our life to avoid all physical and mental damage. In other words, not really living. Dealing with problems is just a fact of life that we cannot do without.

There's one final trick that I think this question brings though. It seems to me that absolute freedom also contains all the desirable aspects of security. Since others cannot infringe on our freedom (else it wouldn't be absolute), we are immune to being physically harmed in any meaningful way as we would lose freedom of action as soon as another person physically restrains or alters us without our consent. It doesn't follow as easily, but it could be argued that the absolutely free human might be immune to theft, either because theft deprives the freedom of owning or because an absolutely free person would not own anything.

The obvious choice appears to be absolute freedom without question. It appears to be completely one sided based on my above analysis.