That's how a lot of Wall St firms run their front office CS groups, typically not their middle/back office teams though.
Why? Because the FO jobs are limited in number and high value-add, so they can afford to pay-up/promote the good ones quickly, and the competition is tough enough that the pool of junior people is prescreened (most Ivy or MIT/CalTech, etc.)
So, if someone owns a building and has no mortgage, they can do whatever they want in regards to creating a fire hazard?
That works in rural areas, perhaps, but in a city (a society where people actually interact with one another) that is a disaster waiting to happen.
Unless you have a magic, free, way to price and enforce payment for all externalities, you probably want a government of some sort to handle these issues.
Still, we know how to fake an email header, right? What's going to prove these are genuine?
Producing the messages with full headers would go to great lengths to prove them genuine, if Ceglia would do that; especially if the e-mail providers have subpoena-able records from their mail server (log entries), including the size of the message.
Then the message with full headers could be analyzed, first to check if the size matched, and if all the relevant portions of the headers matched the system logs from 7 years ago. In some cases there might be checksums or other entries that could validate the e-mail message.
An early step is to get MZ deposed: make him admit the messages are in essence true, or false, or the classic "don't recall."
Geeks think hard evidence, lawyers think stories. And if you opponent gets caught in a serious lie under oath, or suddenly can't remember important facts, that makes for a great story in a civil trial.
Who's going to drop US$50,000 on a car that they don't get to drive?
The same people who drop $50K to keep a horse to ride.
Hey, horses are fun, we just don't need random horse riders creating a hazard for the rest of us. You want to drive your car for fun? Go to a track and go wild.
I think the reasoning in this story is stupid. Drivers could get killed many times more when they're driving themself, but at least it's their own fault (or some drunk driver). But I sure as hell don't want to be the one guy in the statistics whos dieing is okay just because the system usually works. At least let me cause my own death, or be in control of avoiding getting hit by a drunk driver so it's at least my own fault!
Can someone name me some actual real world, large software projects based on functional programming? (Projects led by university professors don't count.)
Dismissing OO completely because it is "anti-modular and anti-parallel by its very nature" seems kinda strange to me. I write parallel and modular OO software all the time... Maybe it's just me misunderstanding something.
If you consider 10-50MLOC large, then SecDb (Goldman Sachs) and Athena (JPMorgan) fit the bill.
Neither are anti-OO, they are more functional programming with stateless OO. Oh, and they both measure "parallel" in megawatts.
The fact that almost my entire CS degree in the early 1990s was taught via C and Scheme provided me with a good theoretical foundation, which has indeed made me adaptable and served me well over the course of time. But such a focus can made finding that first job quite painful; I was somewhat lucky. When you don't have $LANGUAGE_OF_THE_DAY on your resume, it gets circular-filed before interview...
Weird. I circular file J2EE, XML frameworks, etc. For a fresh-out-of-school candidate, C + Scheme goes to the top of the good pile: one language that proves you known how a computer works, and one that deals in elegant abstractions.
Then again, the interviewee had better actually have something to say about those languages. "Oh, I just used it in a course" does not count.
I want to shut the market down for all but actual producers, consumers, and distributors actually transporting product.
But how can you do that, and why would you want to? Oil prices, for example, are affected by nat gas prices, so it is not a closed system. Additionally, speculation injects capital, so the market doesn't freeze in response to short term shocks.
The problematic speculators are not prepared to take physical delivery and then sell and deliver to someone with an actual use of the oil. If they can and regularly do, they are then distributors, not commodities speculators. They get to deal with realities like oil takes up space and food spoils if it sits in a warehouse, and that makes them behave more reasonably.
But, if you try to punish speculators with random rules, firms will arb out the problem by providing one stop shopping that deals with your edge cases (for a fee, of course.) This is largely why exchanges exist in the first place: make it easy for people to transact without the messiness of physical delivery, etc.
Note that this includes futures. If you buy a future, you take delivery (at least if your number comes up) If, as you claim, they're all already set up for physical delivery, then what are you complaining about? Yes, I know storage tanks can be rented. I also know that speculators have no intention of doing so when they grab cash out of a transaction while contributing nothing of value.
My complaint is that what you are proposing (forced physical delivery) is exactly the risk that exchanges already mitigate (e.g. the London metals exchange has warehouses to handle and manage physical delivery.) There is no reasonable way to make the threat of physical delivery a barrier to trading commodities - that's a major reason why exchanges exist in the first place.
There have been numerous attempts to ban exchange trading (futures) of physical products (e.g. Japanese rice, USA commods.) These measures have never achieved anything other than to make the big market players become de facto exchanges with cartel power.
Well, that seems rather a stupid idea, unless your plan is to shut down the market for all but the big players. Or maybe you think stuff like storage tanks cannot be rented.
Here's a hint: all the big speculators in oil also have contracts out on oil tanker leases, barges, storage facilities, etc. If you ever see a Wall St commod desk, your mind will be blown. Realtime tracking and modeling of all energy in the world: tanker locations and speeds, electrical generating facilities realtime status (yes, a firm installs magnetometers near all generators and sells the data,) and in-house meteorologists to cover short term forecasting.
Steam engines, AC catapults, some nuclear reactors, all use non-boiling water under pressure. Obviously, they all also extract useful energy at some point by reducing the pressure and letting it boil.
Further, you can't use WATER to store the energy--you can barely store heat in water..
Hmm, water has great specific heat capacity. Many you can explain your theory to the navy - they use stored heat in water to launch planes off aircraft carriers.
Taxes on road fuel not only pay for the road but for a large part of public transit.
But don't let facts bother you. Hell, greens claim road costs that come from taxes on gasoline subsidies on gasoline. They don't understand what subsidy means.
Taxes on road fuel do not pay for the roads: federal and state gas taxes raise around $25b/year, road upkeep requires $30b/year.
1. Basically nothing. They can petition again, appeal, do whatever else they want. 2. Protected against what? They have incurred no liability for anything, and citizen input cannot be dismissed with prejudice.
1. Notice and comment periods limit the times during which you can raise these issues. Appeals do not provide for de novo review of the determinations of agencies, they only allow for showings that the decision was unreasonable based on clear error, lack of substantial evidence, decisions against the manifest weight of the evidence before them, etc.
2. That, and yes, they can.
1. What does that have to do with a person talking engineering? NRCHA should have consulted a lawyer if they had questions about notice and comment periods. Or are you claiming amateur engineering work so blinded the NRCHA that it became a de facto legal strategy and so Cox was also practicing law?
2. Your sentence makes little sense, and what little it does make is wrong.
I hope engineering is working out better for you than law.
First question: what is the consequence to NRCHA if he's screwed it up? Second question: should they be unprotected simply because they didn't pay for his help?
1. Basically nothing. They can petition again, appeal, do whatever else they want. 2. Protected against what? They have incurred no liability for anything, and citizen input cannot be dismissed with prejudice.
The one that doesn't require me to work 80 hours a week under insane stress levels.
That's a good metric to use. I've watched thousands of technologists on Wall St come and go. If you don't like stress and insane hours, avoid it like the plague: the money will never be there for you. Seriously, you will only get paid $250K/year if people believe that you will one day pull in $500K/yr - you are expected to be doing seriously good stuff while learning the business enough to move on to driving bigger and more important projects.
Senior people can often negotiate for benefits. I started with 3 weeks-- 5 years earlier than I would get them normally.
If it's really a senior position, your contract will have something like "No fixed day count. We don't care. Just get your job done. Please talk to your manager before vanishing."
>But, as a freelance software dev, this disregard for proportion, is more than bread and butter.
It covers coke + hookers too. Thanks BS! I hope you keep at it for a while yet....
Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I looked around the walls moved in a little tighter.
Staying on the cutting edge makes C&H a petty cash expense, not a line item.
You entire career will consist of seeing problems and stupidities. You'll be lucky if you manage to fix one in five. There's inertia and history, and unless the stars align with management buy-in, changing external circumstances, or a worker revolt, things are really hard to change. But each time you try, you get better at it.
Hell, when you're 50, a tech-boss-god, you'll be seeing the same things. Just bigger, more expensive, disasters that are a nightmare to fix.
E.g. My boss meets with a group building XYZ system. It's two years late. Should be a 10 person project. Finds 300+ people working on it. He explains how to do it right. The nightmare continues. Sure, he could fix it, but he can probably be more useful doing something else with the next year of his life. He complains in the elevator "I just wasted four hours of my life in a useless meeting!" I say "Welcome to the exciting world of executive management." A young woman, an junior hire, pipes up "That sounds just like my job!" Some things just don't change.
Personally I think bids and offers should be matched up only once every hour... I don't see any need for this stuff to happen at wire speeds.
Numerous markets had, and do have, this "feature." For example, trade-at-close aggregates all the orders at the day's close, and everyone gets the same price if the close price is within their limit.
The effect of this feature was to benefit the technologically sophisticated traders (I was one back in the nineties.) You waited until a few seconds before the close, then slammed limit orders onto everything that moved: the poor retail guy who had put in an order 1 minute ago was your counterparty, and he had just given you a free option for 58 seconds.
99% of the fuel market is not about day traders scalping a dollar or two on a few thousand barrels of oil. It's more like:
1. Geeks building code to track every tanker, tender, barge, pipe, and hub in the world to estimate oil availability. 2. Traders yelling "lease me a tanker" and having people on call to figure the time and cost to get it moving oil from A to B. 3. Full time meteorologists predicting short-term weather. 4. Geeks building models based on the above. 5. Geeks pricing out the cost of refineries, catalytic crackers, etc, to figure how to optimize profits.
This is a multi-billion dollar industry, not a few day-traders making bets in their pajamas.
It's not surprising that the experts in the field make a lot of money.
So you would be happy if Google could only adjust its search algorithm once a day? It would be a more level playing field, and then search companies couldn't make a fortune based solely on their ping times.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how a lot of Wall St firms run their front office CS groups, typically not their middle/back office teams though.
Why? Because the FO jobs are limited in number and high value-add, so they can afford to pay-up/promote the good ones quickly, and the competition is tough enough that the pool of junior people is prescreened (most Ivy or MIT/CalTech, etc.)
So, if someone owns a building and has no mortgage, they can do whatever they want in regards to creating a fire hazard?
That works in rural areas, perhaps, but in a city (a society where people actually interact with one another) that is a disaster waiting to happen.
Unless you have a magic, free, way to price and enforce payment for all externalities, you probably want a government of some sort to handle these issues.
Still, we know how to fake an email header, right? What's going to prove these are genuine?
Producing the messages with full headers would go to great lengths to prove them genuine, if Ceglia would do that;
especially if the e-mail providers have subpoena-able records from their mail server (log entries), including the size of the message.
Then the message with full headers could be analyzed, first to check if the size matched, and if all the relevant portions of the headers matched the system logs from 7 years ago.
In some cases there might be checksums or other entries that could validate the e-mail message.
An early step is to get MZ deposed: make him admit the messages are in essence true, or false, or the classic "don't recall."
Geeks think hard evidence, lawyers think stories. And if you opponent gets caught in a serious lie under oath, or suddenly can't remember important facts, that makes for a great story in a civil trial.
Who's going to drop US$50,000 on a car that they don't get to drive?
The same people who drop $50K to keep a horse to ride.
Hey, horses are fun, we just don't need random horse riders creating a hazard for the rest of us. You want to drive your car for fun? Go to a track and go wild.
I think the reasoning in this story is stupid. Drivers could get killed many times more when they're driving themself, but at least it's their own fault (or some drunk driver). But I sure as hell don't want to be the one guy in the statistics whos dieing is okay just because the system usually works. At least let me cause my own death, or be in control of avoiding getting hit by a drunk driver so it's at least my own fault!
So, you fly your own airplane too?
Can someone name me some actual real world, large software projects based on functional programming? (Projects led by university professors don't count.)
Dismissing OO completely because it is "anti-modular and anti-parallel by its very nature" seems kinda strange to me. I write parallel and modular OO software all the time... Maybe it's just me misunderstanding something.
If you consider 10-50MLOC large, then SecDb (Goldman Sachs) and Athena (JPMorgan) fit the bill.
Neither are anti-OO, they are more functional programming with stateless OO. Oh, and they both measure "parallel" in megawatts.
The fact that almost my entire CS degree in the early 1990s was taught via C and Scheme provided me with a good theoretical foundation, which has indeed made me adaptable and served me well over the course of time. But such a focus can made finding that first job quite painful; I was somewhat lucky. When you don't have $LANGUAGE_OF_THE_DAY on your resume, it gets circular-filed before interview...
Weird. I circular file J2EE, XML frameworks, etc. For a fresh-out-of-school candidate, C + Scheme goes to the top of the good pile: one language that proves you known how a computer works, and one that deals in elegant abstractions.
Then again, the interviewee had better actually have something to say about those languages. "Oh, I just used it in a course" does not count.
I want to shut the market down for all but actual producers, consumers, and distributors actually transporting product.
But how can you do that, and why would you want to? Oil prices, for example, are affected by nat gas prices, so it is not a closed system. Additionally, speculation injects capital, so the market doesn't freeze in response to short term shocks.
The problematic speculators are not prepared to take physical delivery and then sell and deliver to someone with an actual use of the oil. If they can and regularly do, they are then distributors, not commodities speculators. They get to deal with realities like oil takes up space and food spoils if it sits in a warehouse, and that makes them behave more reasonably.
But, if you try to punish speculators with random rules, firms will arb out the problem by providing one stop shopping that deals with your edge cases (for a fee, of course.) This is largely why exchanges exist in the first place: make it easy for people to transact without the messiness of physical delivery, etc.
Note that this includes futures. If you buy a future, you take delivery (at least if your number comes up) If, as you claim, they're all already set up for physical delivery, then what are you complaining about? Yes, I know storage tanks can be rented. I also know that speculators have no intention of doing so when they grab cash out of a transaction while contributing nothing of value.
My complaint is that what you are proposing (forced physical delivery) is exactly the risk that exchanges already mitigate (e.g. the London metals exchange has warehouses to handle and manage physical delivery.) There is no reasonable way to make the threat of physical delivery a barrier to trading commodities - that's a major reason why exchanges exist in the first place.
There have been numerous attempts to ban exchange trading (futures) of physical products (e.g. Japanese rice, USA commods.) These measures have never achieved anything other than to make the big market players become de facto exchanges with cartel power.
Well, that seems rather a stupid idea, unless your plan is to shut down the market for all but the big players. Or maybe you think stuff like storage tanks cannot be rented.
Here's a hint: all the big speculators in oil also have contracts out on oil tanker leases, barges, storage facilities, etc. If you ever see a Wall St commod desk, your mind will be blown. Realtime tracking and modeling of all energy in the world: tanker locations and speeds, electrical generating facilities realtime status (yes, a firm installs magnetometers near all generators and sells the data,) and in-house meteorologists to cover short term forecasting.
A manager says,"Men we have to go and take out the machine gun nest. Jones, you go first."
A leader says, "Men, we have to take out that machine gun nest. Follow me!"
That's all there is too it. Anyone tells you there's more, well, they're selling you a "leadership program" for mega-bucks.
A real leader says "This is how we take out a machine gun nest." Then he does it, training this guys.
By machine nest 4, his guys just say "oh, we took out the machine gun nest on the left flank that was annoying us."
Um, the prof was saying calculus and continuous math have little to do with CS. Discrete math, etc, is always going to be a big part of CS/algorithms.
Now you're just being silly.
Steam engines, AC catapults, some nuclear reactors, all use non-boiling water under pressure. Obviously, they all also extract useful energy at some point by reducing the pressure and letting it boil.
Nice cherry-picking of numbers that do not address your claim.
Further, you can't use WATER to store the energy--you can barely store heat in water. .
Hmm, water has great specific heat capacity. Many you can explain your theory to the navy - they use stored heat in water to launch planes off aircraft carriers.
Taxes on road fuel not only pay for the road but for a large part of public transit.
But don't let facts bother you. Hell, greens claim road costs that come from taxes on gasoline subsidies on gasoline. They don't understand what subsidy means.
Taxes on road fuel do not pay for the roads: federal and state gas taxes raise around $25b/year, road upkeep requires $30b/year.
1. Notice and comment periods limit the times during which you can raise these issues. Appeals do not provide for de novo review of the determinations of agencies, they only allow for showings that the decision was unreasonable based on clear error, lack of substantial evidence, decisions against the manifest weight of the evidence before them, etc.
2. That, and yes, they can.
1. What does that have to do with a person talking engineering? NRCHA should have consulted a lawyer if they had questions about notice and comment periods. Or are you claiming amateur engineering work so blinded the NRCHA that it became a de facto legal strategy and so Cox was also practicing law?
2. Your sentence makes little sense, and what little it does make is wrong.
I hope engineering is working out better for you than law.
1. Basically nothing. They can petition again, appeal, do whatever else they want.
2. Protected against what? They have incurred no liability for anything, and citizen input cannot be dismissed with prejudice.
The one that doesn't require me to work 80 hours a week under insane stress levels.
That's a good metric to use. I've watched thousands of technologists on Wall St come and go. If you don't like stress and insane hours, avoid it like the plague: the money will never be there for you. Seriously, you will only get paid $250K/year if people believe that you will one day pull in $500K/yr - you are expected to be doing seriously good stuff while learning the business enough to move on to driving bigger and more important projects.
Senior people can often negotiate for benefits. I started with 3 weeks-- 5 years earlier than I would get them normally.
If it's really a senior position, your contract will have something like "No fixed day count. We don't care. Just get your job done. Please talk to your manager before vanishing."
>But, as a freelance software dev, this disregard for proportion, is more than bread and butter.
It covers coke + hookers too. Thanks BS! I hope you keep at it for a while yet....
Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I looked around the walls moved in a little tighter.
Staying on the cutting edge makes C&H a petty cash expense, not a line item.
Exactly. We let junior people pick their title: computer scientist, software engineer, programmer. Who cares?
On checking our HR website, I'm apparently a "senior architect" or something. I still introduce myself to people as a "programmer."
I write code. Kill me the second I start dictating how to write code when I don't do it myself.
Hey, don't sweat it too much.
You entire career will consist of seeing problems and stupidities. You'll be lucky if you manage to fix one in five. There's inertia and history, and unless the stars align with management buy-in, changing external circumstances, or a worker revolt, things are really hard to change. But each time you try, you get better at it.
Hell, when you're 50, a tech-boss-god, you'll be seeing the same things. Just bigger, more expensive, disasters that are a nightmare to fix.
E.g. My boss meets with a group building XYZ system. It's two years late. Should be a 10 person project. Finds 300+ people working on it. He explains how to do it right. The nightmare continues. Sure, he could fix it, but he can probably be more useful doing something else with the next year of his life. He complains in the elevator "I just wasted four hours of my life in a useless meeting!" I say "Welcome to the exciting world of executive management." A young woman, an junior hire, pipes up "That sounds just like my job!" Some things just don't change.
Personally I think bids and offers should be matched up only once every hour ... I don't see any need for this stuff to happen at wire speeds.
Numerous markets had, and do have, this "feature." For example, trade-at-close aggregates all the orders at the day's close, and everyone gets the same price if the close price is within their limit.
The effect of this feature was to benefit the technologically sophisticated traders (I was one back in the nineties.) You waited until a few seconds before the close, then slammed limit orders onto everything that moved: the poor retail guy who had put in an order 1 minute ago was your counterparty, and he had just given you a free option for 58 seconds.
99% of the fuel market is not about day traders scalping a dollar or two on a few thousand barrels of oil. It's more like:
1. Geeks building code to track every tanker, tender, barge, pipe, and hub in the world to estimate oil availability.
2. Traders yelling "lease me a tanker" and having people on call to figure the time and cost to get it moving oil from A to B.
3. Full time meteorologists predicting short-term weather.
4. Geeks building models based on the above.
5. Geeks pricing out the cost of refineries, catalytic crackers, etc, to figure how to optimize profits.
This is a multi-billion dollar industry, not a few day-traders making bets in their pajamas.
It's not surprising that the experts in the field make a lot of money.
So you would be happy if Google could only adjust its search algorithm once a day? It would be a more level playing field, and then search companies couldn't make a fortune based solely on their ping times.