Not true at all. I've been programming since I was 6 (now 37), have a degree in CS, and spent the first 13 years of my post-college career doing C++ programming. I transitioned to web development because I find it interesting. I work with other highly intelligent, skilled web developers. Web development has moved beyond putting together a blog. Some people, such as myself, think the challenges involved in putting together a scalable, responsive, functional, secure web app are interesting, and after reaching a bit of burnout in my C++, I feel a bit renewed. Not to mention the fact that learning how best to utilize a new set of languages and technologies has made me a better programmer all around, even benefitting the times I need to switch back to C++ mode.

I don't think it is irrelevant. If someone found a unique splicing from three different areas of a gene, a splicing that is not produced by the body, it's not "natural". The body doesn't produce that particular variant, even though it's composed completely of coding regions from a gene. The researches constructed that sequence from bits of an existing gene. They created that particular sequence. To go to the extreme end, one could say that any sequence is going to be an alternative splicing of individual bases. I think there has to be room for people to create particular molecules that are based on sequences found in nature -- the kicker is that the specific molecule in question isn't found in that organism. Not in that particular form as a single entity.

If the researchers do isolate a particular strand of cDNA that does not occur in that particular form, by which I mean you're not going to find that piece of cDNA existing as a standalone entity within a cell and that particular sequence as a stand-alone provides functional, therapeutic effects, I think that's a gray area.

Which is why I said a form of copyright. I don't think this type of innovation falls cleanly under either patent or copyright law, but I think a case can be made for some time-limited protection for the work.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Blindly creating cDNA is one thing. Identifying particular cDNA that can be used for therapeutic purposes is a whole other thing and requires a lot of research. I can understand protections for the first researcher/group to identify a particular sequence that can be used for gene therapies. It's fair to address exactly what those protections should be. We need protections from people who want to patent sequences willy-nilly. There needs to be a strong reason for why the particular sequence in question has been identified for protection. Perhaps a form of copyright may be more appropriate there than patent.

"Appeal to authority" isn't always a problem. It can be a problem when the "authorities" aren't actually subject matter experts, and it's a fallacy when applied in deductive reasoning (not inductive, however).

There are thankfully many places that still respect maturity and experience. I think the "no old programmers" meme is a result of the start-up mentality. Luckily, start-ups don't make up the entirety of the market. More established companies (like a Fortune 50 company) value the stability and continuity a more established, mature workforce can provide. Older workers aren't just looking for the next shiny thing to come along, an advantage the youngsters don't always recognize (I'm in my late 30s, pretty much transitioned out of the whippersnapper phase). A good work environment should have a mix of ages. The older workers provide perspective and can train the younger ones. The younger ones bring energy and fresh perspectives. I'd be wary of a company that's wary of older programmers.

They care about three thinks: cost, results, and risk. Don't waste time talking proprietary vs open source. They don't care about software ideologies. They need to know what infrastructure upgrades may be required (in both networking and hardware). They need time estimates. Get their requirements first. Then do your homework and put together a proposal. Then go into pitch mode, not instruction mode. Be ready to defend your decisions, but don't spend alot of time upfront explaining your decisions. Focus on what the software is going to accomplish, not on the details of how it works. Focus on asking what they want. Perhaps you can already tell that a major network upgrade is going to be required. Fine. Be ready to speak to that, but have ONE high-level slide ready to describe what they need. If you make it into a seminar, then you've already lost your audience and your project is off to a horribly rough start.

The abstract indicates that the researchers injected the induced oligodendrocytes into mouse brains and they bound to unmyelinated neurons. I don't have access to the article, and I'm not going to pay for it, but perhaps someone else can provide the technical details. Still, it's a question that the authors address.

Those who do will of course say that it does and will provide anecdotal evidence (although I'm sure most of them have not actually performed any controlled tests to verify that claim). Most studies would indicate that drugs would not aid in many of the mental processes involved in programming, but that won't change anyone's mind, and I definitive statement can't be made until studies are done to specifically test this assertion.

While there are challenges, i think that Valve's doing it at least partly right. For starters, they're initially supporting Steam on a specific distribution and release. While some people may disagree with that stance, I'd say that it's smart to focus on the most popular distro first and get that working well, as it'll provide a much more solid base for the product. Additionally, if they could recommend/support specific drivers for optimal performance, that would also reduce initial variability. I think part of the problem with launching an application on Linux (especially a game or gaming system, which tends to really utilize all of the different components of a system) is the thought that it needs to run on all Linux distros out of the box. That may be a great goal, but it's a support nightmare. It's probably better in the long-run to target a certain platform, get it working great on that platform, and then expand from there. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out for them.

The problem is that the graduate academic system doesn't necessarily choose for the best astronomers. The most dedicated? Sure. Those willing to sacrifice family lives, the ability to start saving for retirement, and a peace of mind that they have a future in that profession? Yeah. But that doesn't mean the smartest or most talented. It means the smartest and most talented of the subset of people willing to lead such an existence. The idea that the system has to be as masochistic as it is, with people now doing post-docs well into their 30's, having no real financial stability through all of that, and being expected to make huge sacrifices in personal relationships, all for a magical goal of tenure that well over half of those people will never achieve, is flawed. The rigid system of academic levels is flawed. Advancement and reward should be based on research done, quality of publications, and recommendations, period. The stress put on students for quals and dissertations is a huge waste. It's an out-dated hazing ritual. It's a source of cheap labor. And it kills the love that many people, some of them brilliant people, have for science. I agree that there are always going to be a limited number of positions for astronomers, or for scientists in general. But I damn well don't agree that the current system is the best, most efficient system. I think it loses a lot of great talent, I think that the establishment is not recognizing that it's becoming more and more stressful, and I think it's a real shame that we're stuck in a system that was developed a long time ago for a very different world, just because it's always been that way.

The creator was a PM on Visual Studio. He's had quite a bit of experience as both an IDE user and developer, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's spent quite a bit of time thinking about usability.

I prefer to shop locally when possible (and I mean locally owned and operated) because more money stays in the local economy, which in turn means more variety in locally available goods and services. It may cost me a little bit more, but I do benefit by having more options in my own backyard. It may not be worth it to you, but it is to me and a large number of other people.

Then I'd love to trade lives with you. That's exactly the religious mindset I was inundated with growing up, and it's what my sister's teaching her kids.