I'm a programming in my early 40's, and I'm still happily coding. So this doesn't apply directly to myself; however, I still keep in touch with many of my ex-coworkers and for the most part, they seem to burn out on coding somewhere in their 30's. Those who did, pivoted towards other areas of technology around software, rather than authoring it.

Some became a combination of software trainers and customer support experts. Enterprise software doesn't have an intuitively usable UI, and thus requires regular training or specialized expertise to effectively use.

Some did complete career changes. A couple went to law school, and became lawyers who actually could understand the technology they litigated. One guy I know went back to school and now works on national energy policy, and he uses his software skills to create simulations to support research

And of course some did successfully move into management of one sort or another: software team management, program management, client relations.

Hi pubwvj, I'm a programmer in my early 40's, and I'm curious to know what, if any, of your programming industry skills transferred into farming? Did you have any prior background to farming, and if not, how did you acquire farming skills?

Third Study (to come out next year): Drinking coffee will cure your cancer.
Fourth Study (to come out in 2 years): Drinking coffee will give you cancer.
Fifth Study (to come out in 3 years): Trying to determine health benefits and risks of coffee will cause mental insanity.
Sixth Study (to come out in 4 years): Revelations that the Mega-Coffee Lobbying Firm sponsored the third study and the Anti-Caffination League sponsored the fourth study

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic’ http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

The answer to your question is probably, "yes."

I don't want this technology on any gun I own, certainly not in its current state, and maybe never. But neither do I object to to furthering R&D on something that may reach beyond the capabilities we foresee now. The reason I, and may other gun owners, don't want them in stores explicitly derives from the regulatory history of Washington, DC: today's "good idea" becomes tomorrow's requirement, and like many of the solar projects, far prematurely to the technology's maturation.

The reason, however, politicians like Bloomberg and Obama want this technology likely stems from something other than a motivation other than making a gun safer: a motivation to price common people out of the market. Smart gun technology has a high price tag, and the mentality that common people shouldn't have certain things runs through Washington consistently. And this way of thinking has pervaded us for a long time. Consider Prohibition. Most of the politicians who voted for Prohibition consumed alcohol during its time. Their reasoning: the upper crust of society can suavely dodge the law and harmlessly so while the common man won't make a mess of society with drunkenness. The wealthy and influential can have their armed escorts because they can afford expensive guns, while by raising the cost quite substantially they have not technically infringed upon your rights, but have effectively priced you out of exercising them.

New Jersey probably did it for that reason, and so would Obama.

I don't think anyone could write this any better than cayenne8, so I won't try. But I will add a few of my own points that I think support it.

* Not only has a mass murder happened in CA which has amongst the strictest of gun laws within the US, gun massacres have happened in France, which has restrictions far greater. * These massacres have happened in places that by and large prohibit the carry of guns.
* I read roughly 1-3 stories per week of people using guns to prevent bad things from happening, many times without even the pulling of a trigger.
* My parents' generation as students commonly carried a firearm to school without incident so they could use it recreationally afterwards while today, many children's first exposure to the concept of firearms happens via repeated role playing in violent video games and other entertainment.
* While the USA ranks #1 in _gun_ murders, the USA ranks #111 in murder. Excluding the most restrictive US locales w.r.t. gun ownership would make that number significantly higher.
* By a per-capita comparison of 2009-13, Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland exceed the US in mass murder by guns and have much more restrictive laws.
* Gun control laws have enabled harm brought to innocent people, e.g. Carol Browne, Amanda Collins, and Shaheen Allen.
* An evil person wishing to inflict mass casualties can do so without a gun: e.g. Oklahoma City, Waco, 9/11, Boston Marathon.
* The same politicians who call for new gun restrictions vehemently oppose expanding effots to control who and what crosses US the border. (Narco terrorists have their own submarine fleet for smuggling to the US. Think about that for a few minutes.)
* Prosecution of gun law violations has dropped by 25% in the current US presidential administration.
* In comming years 3D printing will become more accessible and thereby make the fabrication of gun parts possible without the thought of legal restrictions. (Related note: the San Bernadino terrorists modified guns that complied with the laws at the time of their purchase to function in ways the laws prohibit.)

I have no illusions about the touchiness of this subject. You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to mine. Mine is that these facts signal that more gun restrictions will not decrease violence, but rather pose risk to increase it due to responsible people having reduced access to firearms for protection. I don't own a gun because of paranoia or a desire to fulfill any fantasy of heroism. I simply would rather have it and not need rather than need it and not have it. I didn't join the NRA because another member encouraged me or because a purchase bundled a membership. I joined after listing to my local representatives talk about gun control.

If we taught gun safety in every school, that would stem gun violence far more than any background check or ban ever could.

C'mon Slashdot. This deserves better than a 3.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html shows an overall growing Antarctic ice cap. (Make sure you click on the Antarctic tab.) Looking at illustrated and graphed data, one can identify some western areas where the ice cap has receded, albeit only ~15% of the western coast by a rough eyeball guess; however, the eastern side has not remained largely stagnant as the article of this post states. It has grown slightly, as it has also done in the south. Areas of the north have grown yet more significantly. Also, the running mean between 1980 and 2015 reveals a steady increase in overall extent.

Holi, spot on. While we are arguing over whether a gay couple should have the right to a pizza joint to catering their wedding, our president just green-lit a nuclear program for a nation that practices female genital mutilation and considers the testimony of two women less than or equal to that of a man.

NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Space exploration embodies its charter, per the 1958 Space Act: "To develop the arts and sciences of flight in the atmosphere and in space and to go where those technologies will allow us to go". Climate change research just doesn't fit. Ted Cruz in his chairmanship wants to re-align the agency with the purpose assigned to it upon its creation. These actions do not politicize NASA, but rather center it on non-political matters. Similarly, the Center of Disease Control now studies gun homicides, which does nothing to further our knowledge of disease. And only to reveal a bias in such research, those studies do not include lives saved by defensive gun use. The community most insistent that manmade CO2 causes climate change hasn't convinced much of the American population. In fact, they have lost ground in the space of public opinion due to a lack of transparency in their research as well as outright hostility towards other credible research that may challenge theirs. If you look at the re-tasking of NASA or other administrations seemingly out-of-scope re-tasking, it should raise your suspicions. Politicians haven't gotten the traction they've wanted promoting a narrative, and they seek to hijack the good name of something unrelated to lend credit to what hasn't earned credit on its own merit.

Spot on, BlueStrat. But of course there is consensus, and the science is settled. If by consensus you mean a small exclusive group of UN funded researchers who block any ideas challenging their from publication. And if by settled you mean simulation models that have never undergone a transparent Independent Validation & Verification (IV&V) process and predictions based upon such models having spotty accuracy. The creators of some of these models (including Mann) refused to share raw input data because they just didn't want to keep it when they moved their operation from one facility to another. What could warrant such an inquiry? Perhaps skyrocketing energy prices across the globe at the mercy of a little exclusive club who will dish carbon credits through a good ole boy network might. But other scientific opinions get in the way of all that, such as the Indian Science Congress (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/fears-of-man-made-global-warming-exaggerated/articleshow/45786412.cms) or an engineer of the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs (http://therightclimatestuff.com). I mean, what could they know? There does exist a reason why the notion of human induced climate change appeals to the American Left and socialists. It provides a perfect reasoning for centralizing governance (not that governance is not a synonym for government) and a perfect albeit moral validation (false sense thereof) for channeling hate and vitriol at anyone who dares to challenge the premise of the belief.

I think this might be the most uplifting story I have yet to read on Slashdot. Way to go JHU-APL!

US military R&D spending has brought you the technology that is the Internet. It has also introduced the world to numerous capabilities that companies have productized into things you use every day. The smartphone persists as a perfect example: DRAM, touch screens, GPS, microprocessors, and liquid crystal displays name only several of many. Beyond R&D, some really sick and twisted evil exists in the world, and I sleep better at night knowing a kickass US military can confront it. Those things may not mean anything to you, but they mean a lot to many of us. This election will not decide who serves as president, so the Electoral College versus popular vote issue does not surface here. Each district and roughly 2/3 of the states will each send a representative to Congress.

Gad zooks! The rings are growing even faster than the polar ice caps!