Yes, I am sure you think that I and all my friends are below average, or outright lousy programmers. Not surprised - that is the default position of everyone I have ever dealt with in a hiring situation, even those I could code rings around, or those asking questions full of contradictory and incorrect assumptions, poor practices, etc

If you or any of your friends who are having trouble finding work are really as good as you say, I have a job for you. Guaranteed interview regardless of age, provided you meet the technical bar.

The fact that you read condescension and hostility in my earlier post is confusing me, though. I was only trying to give you an honest opinion based on my experience interviewing candidates over the past 4 years. There are a lot of mediocre coders in the field regardless of age, and our company probably turns away a higher percentage of young candidates than old, purely for competency reasons (admittedly an educated guess based on personal experience, not a hard number).

I'm not saying some places don't have a bad culture. I worked at Microsoft for several years, and would never advise anyone to work there exactly for the politics and culture reasons you outline. But that's not the entire industry.

You have a fairly warped view of the industry. Our company has hired several older programmers (as have a number of companies in the area). In fact, older coders generally tend to have a higher hiring rate because if they're still in the industry after a number of years, they probably know what they're doing.

Now, you absolutely do see fewer older coders because a lot of the competent ones get diverted to management after a while. The skill sets of a good programmer and a good manager have a surprising amount of overlap, and the work can be less stressful depending how you handle your workload. But that doesn't mean it's hard to get hired as an older coder simply because you're old.

What I do see a lot is older programmers who are legitimately not good hires. Either they failed to keep up on even the basics of new technology (I'm talking "Java devs who don't know anything about the new features if Java 6 in 2012" level of out-of-touch) or they just weren't that good to begin with, and stuck around the first job they managed to hire into until they became an "older programmer".

Left - Believes the money was never yours to begin with. Ownership of it is limited and its value subjected to change. Not a bug, a feature. It's called inflation (a form of backdoor taxation). The government is allowed to spend because - again - it was never your money in the first place.

That is absolutely not correct. Please spend some time learning before you make more retarded claims.

That, or you don't understand how experimental treatments work. This has been "proved" in 10 mice. That's all. There are a host of potential problems that could easily be discovered with this treatment in the process of bringing it to wide-spread human use. Many of those problems could involve unacceptable side effects, or even simply failing to have the same benefit in humans.

This is how science works, man. You don't jump to "hooray, we cured cancer" on the basis of one promising test.

Note I said that this is why I like festivals. The crowd is usually polite, engaged, and actually wants to be there. I agree that the experience you describe could be done without.

I'm really saddened by how low "in the theater" is polling. The communal experience of watching a movie where the entire audience is laughing uncontrollably at the same scene, or where the entire room is crying at some emotional buildup... it's irreplaceable. It really does add to the experience

Seeing good movies with a packed house is unfortunately rare, but when it works out it's absolutely the way to go. That's why I love festivals. Only place you'll find a sold out crowd at an indie or foreign film like this or this.

the actual 'first' movie supposed to cover the machine war

They already made that. It's called Terminator.

Well said. Too many people in our society today have not only forgotten this, but drifted the other way into boastful ignorance.

Ogg Theora was to music

One, it's Ogg Vorbis. Theora was for video. And two, Ogg is still alive and kicking thanks to the fact that Android's built-in music player handles it just fine.

Having spent several go-rounds with the woefully incomprehensible CS reps at Amazon, I have to say this makes a hell of a lot more sense than any other possibility.

Since we are talking about Christianity here, it should be noted that Christianity is based on the New Testament. That's where Christ, the root word of Christianity, taught that such behavior was wrong. I even hinted at that when I pointed out the "...cast the first stone" quote. You are confusing Islam and Judaism with Christianity.

Which branch of Christianity, specifically? Several of them take the Old Testament as part of their teachings, and many of the self-described Christians who preach against homosexuality most heavily are quoting Leviticus when they do so. Even aside from that, the New Testament has plenty of hate for homosexuals itself.

Citation needed. In other words, show me where Santorum has said that homosexuals should be thrown in jail for nothing more than being homosexuals.

Santorum argued against repealing anti-sodomy laws on the radio show "Sons Of Liberty". He said he thought the law should remain in effect. These laws made sodomy a criminal offense, which would often end in jail time if successfully prosecuted. Ergo, Santorum thinks homosexuals should be jailed.

But, again, the point is that original poster said that Santorum was against civil rights based on his views that homosexuality is wrong. I've shows a quote where MLK said that homosexuality was a "problem" and it needed to be fixed. So, if Santorum is against civil rights, then so is MLK. Do you still stand by that point?

I'm not affiliated with the original poster. I am saying that Santorum is against civil rights because he wants to make homosexuality illegal. I've already clearly explained that simply holding anti-homosexual views does not make you anti-civil rights. Only trying to enforce those views through law qualifies for that. As far as I can tell, MLK does not meet that bar, while Santorum does.

If you can find me where in Christian doctrine where it says that gays should be stoned or executed in some other horrific fashion, or that a prominent politician, like Santorum, is suggesting this, we can talk. Until then, you are either lying or extremely ignorant.

I assume you're not playing dumb to the point that you think the bible doesn't call for homosexuals to be put to death. I agree that it doesn't specify any particularly gruesome method, but I'm curious what method of execution you think existed 2000 years ago that wasn't fairly gruesome.

And yes, Santorum doesn't advocate killing homosexuals. He just advocates locking them away. It's a difference of degrees, but not of intent. His religion says that even though what they did has no effect on him or anyone other than the two people involved, they should be harshly disciplined by the legal system. That's Sharia in a nutshell, my friend. Segregation wasn't ended by putting a new coat of paint on the black schools.

It is obvious that MLK viewed homosexuality as a choice, not a genetic trait. It is also obvious that he viewed it as "problem". So again, I ask you, was Martin Luther King Jr against Civil Rights?

It depends... did he advocate laws penalizing homosexuality? Your quote just indicates a personal belief. Holding personal views that a lifestyle is wrong might make you a bigot in one area, but unless you're actively discriminating against those people or worse, advocating for laws that discriminate against them, you're not really a factor in the progress or decline of civil liberties.

Being against what some would perceive as a "right" does not makes someone against all rights.

This is obtuse to the extreme. Prior to the "civil rights movement", plenty of people were in favor of freedom of speech, the right to vote, own property, etc. for white males, but simultaneously wanted to treat black people and women like property. By your logic, those people were "pro civil rights".

The government is basically already in the state you described. You can get married in a church, but you enter a marriage contract in the eyes of a state only once you've signed a marriage license and some other forms at the courthouse. The state function is limited to the contractual side of things, but also performs brief ceremonies if you want one (2-3 minutes of a judge talking to you before you enter the contract). All the recent state battles over gay marriage have been over whether they're allowed to participate in this contract. None of them have been about forcing churches to hold gay ceremonies. The government IS already in the contract business, nothing more.

And comparing Christianity to the Taliban is just stupid.

It's pretty apt in this case, actually. Sure, not all Christians are like the Taliban, but in Santorum's case, when he's actively promoting the idea that federal law needs to be subservient to Christian religious code, and when he is advocating instituting harsh legal penalties for people who have done nothing wrong except offend his religiously-based sensibilities, I don't see much of a difference.

If you made a product, and 1 million people used it, but only 500,000 paid you for it, I think you'd be angry, too.

Possibly, but the question is whether you would have any right to be. First Sale is a long-standing precedent, and plenty of people have made a profit on video games, books, music, and movies even though a healthy market for used goods exists.

Because that's how investments and taxes are structured in US law. That fact doesn't magically transport company profits directly to the shareholders.