I love the miss-characterization... Goldman Sachs is one of the worst entities in the financial industry. Taking out CDSes from AIG for their CDOs then knowing it would bankrupt AIG they bought insurance from another insurance provider against the event AIG would go bankrupt. They screwed AIG, they screwed Wall Street and they screwed Main Street. Big GOV stepped in and screwed Main Street even more so they could salve the violated cavities of Wall Street and AIG. Then Big GOV steps in and fines Goldman just over $400m which is a parking ticket compared to what they made. Average Joe has no idea that $400m is not a lot of money compared to what was gained and so is pacified that GS PAID.
The list goes on and on, but there are many good banks, investment banks, hedge funds, HFT funds... You don't kill off an entire tranche of an industry because a few are bad, otherwise there would be no industries.
As to your comment about an economist and having one interview, you should know that a sampling of one is bad. Did you have a personal interview or was it a phone screen? For something like that there are typically 3-4 phone screens before you get a face to face. You may have had an interview with a bad company, I've had a few myself its not fun. Also was an offer made? If not why was the offer not made? If no offer was made or you did not make it to the face to face then you did not have what they wanted. Rejection is bitter and I sense some bitterness from you. I am only going off what you say in your comments and am probably miss-characterizing them. It's a slippery slope and I hope you see my comments for what they are worth, an attempt to expose your possibly innocent miss-characterization of my comments. Though perception is formed from the perspective of the observer...
You imply a lot in which it would seem that you hope others infer that you have something of substance to your comments. So far your arguments are as structurally sound as a wet paper bag. Provide a little more backing and I'd be happy to adjust my thinking and publicly state as such.
First off I don't work in HFT... Secondly you are entitled to your opinion and feelings. Thirdly is your derision aimed solely at HFT or is it all algorithmic trading? Many of which, HFT is only a small portion, hold positions for days, weeks, months, years...
So what evidence do you have, other than the Kool-Aid from the SEC, that HFTs are any worse than other conventional financial players? All government entities look for scapegoats when they come under fire. Since Bernie Madoff the SEC has been on the hunt and FIRNA is just a patsy of the SEC. On top of the economic collapse all government entities try to create scapegoats. The black box that is HFT gives them the perfect target, 99.99999% don't understand it so its easy to makeup whatever you want!
This was a trader, not HFT. He was manually calling in trades, either through a computerized system or through UBS's trading desk. The money was lost over a period of time in which he was probably exploiting loopholes in the controls of UBS. It's really disturbing seeing the trend against HFT when there is no evidence to show how it's being perceived. The flash crash last year was not caused to to HFT but due to a fund selling $4.1bn in E-Mini S&P futures.
The joint report "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could send stocks into a sudden spiral,"[10] and detailed how a large mutual fund firm selling an unusually large number of E-Mini S&P 500 contracts first exhausted available buyers, and then how high-frequency traders (HFT) started aggressively selling, accelerating the effect of the mutual fund's selling and contributing to the sharp price declines that day.
Still lacking sufficient demand from fundamental buyers or cross-market arbitrageurs, HFTs began to quickly buy and then resell contracts to each other – generating a “hot-potato” volume effect as the same positions were rapidly passed back and forth. Between 2:45:13 and 2:45:27, HFTs traded over 27,000 contracts, which accounted for about 49 percent of the total trading volume, while buying only about 200 additional contracts net.
"a large fundamental trader (a mutual fund complex) initiated a sell program to sell a total of 75,000 E-Mini contracts (valued at approximately $4.1 billion) as a hedge to an existing equity position."
--- end quoting
I just roll my eyes... "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could..." It was a sell order for $4.1bn let me type that out... $4,100,000,000. Anybody have any idea what that does to available liquidity? No time in the history of the US markets could they have withstood this type of hit. HFTs provided liquidity during that time, higher spreads but without the HFTs the bottom would have fallen out. The drop would have been MUCH MUCH worse.
Right now HFTs are the target of a smear campaign by the SEC, it's a scapegoat. HFTs almost uniformly lost their butts that day. Read between the lines and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Two more things I'll hold your hands on... a large FUNDAMENTAL trader, this means somebody who trades on fundamentals not technical analysis, which is critical to HFT, initiated a trade for 75K contracts. HFTs passed that around for a volume of 27K almost 1/3 of that... So if you try to take the worst slant on that they provided liquidity to 1/3 of the order that started this. hmmm... what if HFTs weren't trading that day... others would have had to absorb over 33% of that hit. The result, Armageddon!
Sometimes I don't know why I try... I guess the Kool-Aid is too tempting.
The questions were not meant to be difficult, they were the questions I was asked in the phone screenings. I'd have to write a book to go through the in person interviews. They were not so much about the language but about actual development. In person interview they pushed a lot of the physical in memory layout of a class with a vptr and one without.
You are right in your counterpoint, contextually you are wrong, I said space (I should have been more specific and said RAM starved) because it was very specific to the question asked by the interviewer. Not speed as you are pointing out. Compiler/hardware combination plays a huge part in deciding what to do. The question was part of a 30 minute discussion in design. The point I was making was the answer to the mid level questions are unknown by most "C++ developers."
I also poorly chose my phrasing. "Real answer..." was a bit to final for all the many variables involved. It was the answer they were looking for in the context of memory starved environments.
The interviews I had were for HPC and embedded, one was both with FPGA and utilization of GPU optimization. I'm counting microseconds in most cases. Fortunately or unfortunately as you may look at it, BLAS libraries for exploiting GPU parallelism are beginning to mature and the sophistication of the GPU cores are beginning to better handle branching. This makes it easier to implement solutions but also "devalues" the skills necessary to effectively use them. This is part of the learn, unlearn, relearn, better solution paradigm that you cannot lose. Technology moves so fast you cannot stop learning and you just can't learn the surface details. You must learn depth as well and be willing to let go of much knowledge you may be vested in.
One of the best comments I've read so far! I'm 34, been working professionally for 18 years now and I've got 3 semesters of college. I'm grilled extra hard in interviews. The company that picked me up in a Sr C++ position grilled me the hardest.
The things that I think motivated them to make an offer were the things that you just described. I'm highly focused in C++ but you see Perl, PHP, Python, Postgres, MySQL, and many other things on my resume. I tweaked the crap out of Linux to eek more performance out of a low budget Postgres server, they were impressed. Not so much that I did what I did but because It was necessary to get the C++ app I was working on to complete in a reasonable amount of time. I just rolled up my sleeves and did it.
Solve your own problems, solve problems that aren't your own and learn to solve the problems you don't know how to solve. Your most valuable asset is your ability to solve problems and learn to use the tools to implement those problems in a quick and efficient manner. In that light not having college is more of an asset for me because I can easily say I didn't get taught, I taught my self so I could solve this problem... It sounds as if you leverage that same asset as well.
When I got my first "real" development position the age of death was about 40. That was late 90s. Now it's 50-55? Seems there is an improvement.
The first thing in a technical interview is the evaluation of whether you know your stuff... I now have 18 years of professional experience strictly in C++. I know it inside and out. I can't tell you how many interviews I've been on which I was asked why you wouldn't want any virtual functions in a class. Most answer, "because you don't need any." The real answer is in the event you are concerned for space you don't want the overhead of the vptr. Now what's the diff of a vptr and vtable? I've been told over and over again by the interviewers nobody gets either of those right.
Why exceptions? if you cannot give more than 5 good reasons then you're not going to make it.
Why not exceptions? If you cannot answer it then you're not going to make it!
Why is inline good? Why is it bad? explain both!
What's the difference between a stl list and an intrusive list implemented by Boost?
C++0x now C++11... What's an rvalue reference and how can it help with the dynamic resizing of a vector?
When should you use a map vs a hash map... Ahhh... now it's science not the language. Can't answer that when you are getting up there in age... they are not interested.
Multi-threading... What are the different types of locking? Explain them! What's an atomic operation? Lockless sync?
The second thing is how flexible you are. Your age is going to make them sensitive towards that. They will find things you don't know and judge your response. I've found "I don't know but this is my guess and this is how I would discover the real answer." The guess tells them how well you can extrapolate which is incredibly important in software development (i.e. gleaning relevant information from poorly written docs, which NEVER happens!) The second tells them that you are used to finding new things and utilizing them.
The third thing is your energy level and excitement. If you're an old goat you're going to cause problems. If they see the sparkle in your eye as you solve the problems they put before you then they won't see your age.
It all comes down to perception of reality. If in reality you are "old" then it is up to you to make them see young. If you are young then you are lucky, they are going to see young.
Yep, $10 is gonna kill me financially if I lose it. I'll lose the house, my wife will leave me; she'll probably get the dog. My daughter will grow up never knowing her deadbeat father. My parents will disown me and I'll have to resort to poaching to feed myself because I won't qualify for govt aid because I have a gambling issue!
Thank you for bringing this up and showing me the way!
Because you may be lazy, which I'm guessing due to making assumptions that 30 seconds of googling can debunk, I'll quote a bit for you...
"f you want a chicken pita from Meze Grill in midtown Manhattan today, you can fork over $8.75 or give them about half a Bitcoin. The restaurant began accepting Bitcoin Tuesday "
The article is dated today. Hmmm... midtown Manhattan... smack in the middle of one of the largest cities in the world... hmmmm... not to mention a major financial hub... hmm....
I can *EXCHANGE* Bitcoin(currency) with other currencies, just as I can CAD - USD or EUR - USD or AUD - EUR. Google it. There is an open market similar to Forex spot. This is NOT a commodity.
It has high value because it directly translates to other currencies in a manner that is identical to other currencies. It may be a pump and dump but it's still currency and this does happen to nations currencies. So please explain how Bitcoin is different from the AUD? USD? EUR? GBP? CHF? JPY?...? Each have had episodes of high volatility, speculation craziness and manipulation. Other countries have seen their currencies devalue to less than toilet paper.
By your implication any future (of commodities) would be considered in the same category.
Bitcoin is not a commodity; it is a medium of exchange. Because it is probably in a speculative bubble is irrelevant. Because it's primarily used for criminal activity is irrelevant. The fact it may go away is irrelevant. What is relevant is, at this time, it is used as a medium of exchange as currency is used. It is intended as a medium of exchange. There is no functional difference from purchasing something with a credit card, debit card, or ACH. A merchant has a list of goods with associated Bitcoin prices, and can easily list USD, AUD, EUR, CAD... as well. Market forces are now imposing themselves on the value of Bitcoin not the perceived value of goods/services between two parties as a barter would. The current volatility presents difficulties but we've seen this in the past with Russia and Zimbabwe to name two examples. I believe Bitcoin has a very high potential of going the way of those currencies as well!
My personal belief is it is HIGHLY inflated and is probably being manipulated. There's irony involved as speculators and criminals are being harmed by criminals. Speculators take the risk and uninformed risk is just asking to get nailed. Criminals harming criminals... that's just poetic justice. I believe a small portion of those that may be harm are legitimately trying to eek out a business and I do feel for them, but it is something very new and by definition speculation. Undertaking a speculative venture without educating yourself and a willingness to deal with the risk is silliness and immature.
Your perception of value is flawed. You are confusing utility with value. Gold is a commodity, having very little utility, but extreme value (borders on the line of medium of exchange, non-commodity). Bitcoin is not a commodity (medium), currently has low utility but high value, I do believe it is currently inflated. WoW gold is not a commodity (medium), has extreme utility but in a vary narrow realm that is punished (confiscated) if it's found to be used outside that realm. Baseball cards are a commodity having no utility but very few have high value.
Using a commodity as a means of exchange is barter. Bitcoin is not a commodity so the analogy of baseball cards is flawed.
You didn't read my post or did not comprehend the fact I strongly suggest that it is used for unscrupulous means. "The criminal/socially unacceptable elements are legitimizing the currency by applying value."
Collectables are only desired by others with the same desire. Bitcoins are desired by anybody that desires something that can be purchased with Bitcoins. Your analogy is anemic.
A Picasso does not serve the same role, it is unique and there is only one. It's transfer is highly public and to keep it private there are extreme measures that must be taken. Also a Picasso would fall under the definition of barter, one item for another, rather than a medium of exchange. Again an anemic analogy.
If somebody provided a public online exchange for WoW gold, Blizzard would take them down. The system of exchange for out of game items is completely underground and Blizzard can confiscate said gold. Where as Bitcoin is encouraged to be traded and there are multiple exchanges and parallels the Forex spot market. The freedom to move the currency is a significant factor in it's value.
Also the value of WoW gold is tied to in game activities. The value of Bitcoin is tied to anything that accepts it. WoW gold would be a lot more valuable if you could legitimately buy anything with it for which a merchant exists.
> The primary value of gold is its unique physical properties which are both visually pleasing to most people and very useful in many different processes and industries.
The primary value of gold comes from people desiring to posses it. What they do with it afterwards is inconsequential. A HUGE majority of the gold supply is in the form of reserves held by governments and banks. Another large portion is at the bottom of the ocean from sunken Spanish ships. My point was, which was probably not well conveyed, is that the utility of gold is incredibly low, compared to most other commodities, yet it has extreme value because humans value it!
>4 is not 'a very large group'. By that same measure however, there is 'a very large group' of idiots who send their bank account info to Nigerian spammers to. Actually, its the same group.
Ref above... It has the attention of the US Senate now, and it is a very active component of black market transactions.
>Really? Again trying to ascribe value to something because someone wants to grief you over it? Do you think a gay man is valuable JUST because some idiot homophobe beats him up? Your logic is just dumb.
Ref above...
>Damnit, I got trolled. I didn't realize you were one of those idiots who think taxes are oppression
Taxation is a form of repression. The value exchanged for that repression is something that is real/vital and needed for the functioning of a government. Citizen X produces wealth and the government taxes that wealth. Citizen X's purchasing power has been repressed, though, his value for taxes may exceed the value lost of purchasing power. Again ignorance, there is a difference of a repressive act, taxation, vs a repressive system. The difference is quite significant. I am assuming that you use oppression interchangeably with repression, there are subtle but quite significant differences.
I've considered putting $10 USD into just because it creates a vested interest. That interest sensitizes on a psychological level that no amount of intellectual interest can duplicate.
As much as the Bitcoin stories are getting a little much we are seeing the birth of something completely new; A medium of exchange that is independent of any government. The criminal/socially unacceptable elements are legitimizing the currency by applying value. Anything that enough humans apply value to will become valuable. The primary value of gold is that many people ascribe value to it and wish to possess it. If you buy gold on the markets you pay a storage fee because there are not enough commercial applications of gold to make storage profitable. Silver, platinum, copper... They all pay a bit if you buy contracts. The only purpose of gold then is to provide a medium of exchange.
Bitcoin is something similar in that a very large group of people are beginning to value the electronic currency, thus it has value. The context of the source of that valuation has no consequence. Humans are now using it as a medium of exchange which is now creating demand. That demand is causing a rise in price and others now wish to posses it as it has potential for increasing value. This is the basic form of speculation.
Now we have a socially illegitimate group applying the initial value and then speculators step in. Speculators are socially acceptable and so a balance is beginning to form. If this continues a stabilized economy will form and it will be unstoppable.
To wish that these stories be stopped is a bit shot sighted. We may be witnessing something that has *NEVER* happened before! It's quite exciting to watch something like this form, not to mention the insight into human behavior and the many benefits that can result for that insight. Not to mention a currency that is independent of any one government.
I do not see Bitcoins ever replacing government currency but I do see it becoming a supplemental tool for securing wealth and providing a medium of exchange detached from economically repressive governments. Any government that taxes represses it's people, the people accept that repression as a necessity to govern the society. Anyway, being able to purchase something without the government being in your business is a true expression of freedom and extends a way for true privacy to be exercised. This scares quite a few people in government and will be incredibly interesting to watch it play out.
As a side note, the VHS and Internet were "legitimized" by unsavory elements of society. And here we are discussing something in a way that 20 years ago was a dream and 80 years ago was unimagined, all because it was first a marginal "thing" exploited by unsavory elements in which a majority of the population expressed the desire to not be bothered. We live in exciting times and Bitcoin is the tip of something extremely interesting.
Thank you for posting this comment. It probably pushed me over the edge to purchase the book. I've been developing C++ for 18 years now, professionally started the week before I turned 16. I have found through those years it is best to listen to others and pick out the mistakes they've made and ask yourself how you would have avoided that mistake. Someone once said... "The wise learn from their mistakes, the truly wise learn from others mistakes!" I've probably mangled the quote and I cannot remember who said it.
In the event it is deemed you are secretly recording police officers then the exact same argument should be made to have every camera removed from the state. Any traffic cams, police cams, store cams... EVERYTHING! Somebody does something criminal and is caught on tape... hmmm... that's illegal wiretapping. Our judicial system goes out of the way to protect the rights of the criminal, but slaps around the bystander? Push back from another angle and expose the stupidity. Though if I thought this would work I might as well smoke a crack pipe!
THANK YOU! You have proven to me you are self centered and cannot view anything outside your own world. Your selective quote only reinforces that!
Please reference the entire quote so you get a bit of the context...
>Your altered consciousness posses an *EXTREME* higher risk to society than almost anything else I can think of. Doesn't mean that any one in particular will realize that risk but a significant portion of this high risk population will.
Where do you get that I was accusing you? Again I quote to emphasize "Doesn't mean that any one in particular will realize that risk but a significant portion of this high risk population will." You may be able to deal with the altered consciousness but many cannot. How many die per year because of alcohol related traffic incidents? Lets take a walk down Detroit and pull the dead bodies out of the gutter. How many are filled with narcotics? How many were killed by somebody altered by narcotics?
Oh, nice use of Troll to character assassinate... Shall we throw in Nazi?
Freedom is more of a responsibility than a right. There is a reason the order is "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness." Liberty cannot infringe on life. Pursuit of happiness cannot infringe on Liberty.
>Except that that's completely impossible in anything like a free society.
No society is completely free. Every society has to determine what is best for the many. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." The constitution embodies this while trying to provide for the maximum individual freedom. If such individuals wish to harm many more than themselves by indirectly supporting an economy based around addictive substances can...
1. elect officials who will change the law, which the constitution provides. 2. leave the country and become a citizen of one that more adequately represents their views.
> People want to alter their consciousness, and as long as they aren't actually harming anyone else, it's none of your business at all and a giant waste of resources to even try.
Your altered consciousness posses an *EXTREME* higher risk to society than almost anything else I can think of. Doesn't mean that any one in particular will realize that risk but a significant portion of this high risk population will. Again your pursuit of happiness will infringe on my Life. Again maybe not you but somebody will! This mentality can be taken to the extreme which is why I'm in favor of the 80/20 rule.
Slashdot Mirror
I love the miss-characterization... Goldman Sachs is one of the worst entities in the financial industry. Taking out CDSes from AIG for their CDOs then knowing it would bankrupt AIG they bought insurance from another insurance provider against the event AIG would go bankrupt. They screwed AIG, they screwed Wall Street and they screwed Main Street. Big GOV stepped in and screwed Main Street even more so they could salve the violated cavities of Wall Street and AIG. Then Big GOV steps in and fines Goldman just over $400m which is a parking ticket compared to what they made. Average Joe has no idea that $400m is not a lot of money compared to what was gained and so is pacified that GS PAID.
The list goes on and on, but there are many good banks, investment banks, hedge funds, HFT funds... You don't kill off an entire tranche of an industry because a few are bad, otherwise there would be no industries.
As to your comment about an economist and having one interview, you should know that a sampling of one is bad. Did you have a personal interview or was it a phone screen? For something like that there are typically 3-4 phone screens before you get a face to face. You may have had an interview with a bad company, I've had a few myself its not fun. Also was an offer made? If not why was the offer not made? If no offer was made or you did not make it to the face to face then you did not have what they wanted. Rejection is bitter and I sense some bitterness from you. I am only going off what you say in your comments and am probably miss-characterizing them. It's a slippery slope and I hope you see my comments for what they are worth, an attempt to expose your possibly innocent miss-characterization of my comments. Though perception is formed from the perspective of the observer...
You imply a lot in which it would seem that you hope others infer that you have something of substance to your comments. So far your arguments are as structurally sound as a wet paper bag. Provide a little more backing and I'd be happy to adjust my thinking and publicly state as such.
First off I don't work in HFT... Secondly you are entitled to your opinion and feelings. Thirdly is your derision aimed solely at HFT or is it all algorithmic trading? Many of which, HFT is only a small portion, hold positions for days, weeks, months, years...
So what evidence do you have, other than the Kool-Aid from the SEC, that HFTs are any worse than other conventional financial players? All government entities look for scapegoats when they come under fire. Since Bernie Madoff the SEC has been on the hunt and FIRNA is just a patsy of the SEC. On top of the economic collapse all government entities try to create scapegoats. The black box that is HFT gives them the perfect target, 99.99999% don't understand it so its easy to makeup whatever you want!
This was a trader, not HFT. He was manually calling in trades, either through a computerized system or through UBS's trading desk. The money was lost over a period of time in which he was probably exploiting loopholes in the controls of UBS. It's really disturbing seeing the trend against HFT when there is no evidence to show how it's being perceived. The flash crash last year was not caused to to HFT but due to a fund selling $4.1bn in E-Mini S&P futures.
From Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash
The joint report "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could send stocks into a sudden spiral,"[10] and detailed how a large mutual fund firm selling an unusually large number of E-Mini S&P 500 contracts first exhausted available buyers, and then how high-frequency traders (HFT) started aggressively selling, accelerating the effect of the mutual fund's selling and contributing to the sharp price declines that day.
Still lacking sufficient demand from fundamental buyers or cross-market arbitrageurs, HFTs began to quickly buy and then resell contracts to each other – generating a “hot-potato” volume effect as the same positions were rapidly passed back and forth. Between 2:45:13 and 2:45:27, HFTs traded over 27,000 contracts, which accounted for about 49 percent of the total trading volume, while buying only about 200 additional contracts net.
"a large fundamental trader (a mutual fund complex) initiated a sell program to sell a total of 75,000 E-Mini contracts (valued at approximately $4.1 billion) as a hedge to an existing equity position."
--- end quoting
I just roll my eyes... "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could..." It was a sell order for $4.1bn let me type that out... $4,100,000,000. Anybody have any idea what that does to available liquidity? No time in the history of the US markets could they have withstood this type of hit. HFTs provided liquidity during that time, higher spreads but without the HFTs the bottom would have fallen out. The drop would have been MUCH MUCH worse.
Right now HFTs are the target of a smear campaign by the SEC, it's a scapegoat. HFTs almost uniformly lost their butts that day. Read between the lines and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Two more things I'll hold your hands on... a large FUNDAMENTAL trader, this means somebody who trades on fundamentals not technical analysis, which is critical to HFT, initiated a trade for 75K contracts. HFTs passed that around for a volume of 27K almost 1/3 of that... So if you try to take the worst slant on that they provided liquidity to 1/3 of the order that started this. hmmm... what if HFTs weren't trading that day... others would have had to absorb over 33% of that hit. The result, Armageddon!
Sometimes I don't know why I try... I guess the Kool-Aid is too tempting.
The questions were not meant to be difficult, they were the questions I was asked in the phone screenings. I'd have to write a book to go through the in person interviews. They were not so much about the language but about actual development. In person interview they pushed a lot of the physical in memory layout of a class with a vptr and one without.
You are right in your counterpoint, contextually you are wrong, I said space (I should have been more specific and said RAM starved) because it was very specific to the question asked by the interviewer. Not speed as you are pointing out. Compiler/hardware combination plays a huge part in deciding what to do. The question was part of a 30 minute discussion in design. The point I was making was the answer to the mid level questions are unknown by most "C++ developers."
I also poorly chose my phrasing. "Real answer..." was a bit to final for all the many variables involved. It was the answer they were looking for in the context of memory starved environments.
The interviews I had were for HPC and embedded, one was both with FPGA and utilization of GPU optimization. I'm counting microseconds in most cases. Fortunately or unfortunately as you may look at it, BLAS libraries for exploiting GPU parallelism are beginning to mature and the sophistication of the GPU cores are beginning to better handle branching. This makes it easier to implement solutions but also "devalues" the skills necessary to effectively use them. This is part of the learn, unlearn, relearn, better solution paradigm that you cannot lose. Technology moves so fast you cannot stop learning and you just can't learn the surface details. You must learn depth as well and be willing to let go of much knowledge you may be vested in.
One of the best comments I've read so far! I'm 34, been working professionally for 18 years now and I've got 3 semesters of college. I'm grilled extra hard in interviews. The company that picked me up in a Sr C++ position grilled me the hardest.
The things that I think motivated them to make an offer were the things that you just described. I'm highly focused in C++ but you see Perl, PHP, Python, Postgres, MySQL, and many other things on my resume. I tweaked the crap out of Linux to eek more performance out of a low budget Postgres server, they were impressed. Not so much that I did what I did but because It was necessary to get the C++ app I was working on to complete in a reasonable amount of time. I just rolled up my sleeves and did it.
Solve your own problems, solve problems that aren't your own and learn to solve the problems you don't know how to solve. Your most valuable asset is your ability to solve problems and learn to use the tools to implement those problems in a quick and efficient manner. In that light not having college is more of an asset for me because I can easily say I didn't get taught, I taught my self so I could solve this problem... It sounds as if you leverage that same asset as well.
When I got my first "real" development position the age of death was about 40. That was late 90s. Now it's 50-55? Seems there is an improvement.
The first thing in a technical interview is the evaluation of whether you know your stuff...
I now have 18 years of professional experience strictly in C++. I know it inside and out. I can't tell you how many interviews I've been on which I was asked why you wouldn't want any virtual functions in a class. Most answer, "because you don't need any." The real answer is in the event you are concerned for space you don't want the overhead of the vptr. Now what's the diff of a vptr and vtable? I've been told over and over again by the interviewers nobody gets either of those right.
Why exceptions? if you cannot give more than 5 good reasons then you're not going to make it.
Why not exceptions? If you cannot answer it then you're not going to make it!
Why is inline good? Why is it bad? explain both!
What's the difference between a stl list and an intrusive list implemented by Boost?
C++0x now C++11... What's an rvalue reference and how can it help with the dynamic resizing of a vector?
When should you use a map vs a hash map... Ahhh... now it's science not the language. Can't answer that when you are getting up there in age... they are not interested.
Multi-threading... What are the different types of locking? Explain them! What's an atomic operation? Lockless sync?
The second thing is how flexible you are. Your age is going to make them sensitive towards that. They will find things you don't know and judge your response. I've found "I don't know but this is my guess and this is how I would discover the real answer." The guess tells them how well you can extrapolate which is incredibly important in software development (i.e. gleaning relevant information from poorly written docs, which NEVER happens!) The second tells them that you are used to finding new things and utilizing them.
The third thing is your energy level and excitement. If you're an old goat you're going to cause problems. If they see the sparkle in your eye as you solve the problems they put before you then they won't see your age.
It all comes down to perception of reality. If in reality you are "old" then it is up to you to make them see young. If you are young then you are lucky, they are going to see young.
CmdrTaco,
Thanks for a wonderful legacy in which the following actually makes some sense!
All your bewulf cluster of hot grits poured down Natalie Portman's pants are belong to us!
Seriously though, I've spent many hours here and I love the site, even some of the Trolls!
o/
It's garbage collection all they way down!
Yep, $10 is gonna kill me financially if I lose it. I'll lose the house, my wife will leave me; she'll probably get the dog. My daughter will grow up never knowing her deadbeat father. My parents will disown me and I'll have to resort to poaching to feed myself because I won't qualify for govt aid because I have a gambling issue!
Thank you for bringing this up and showing me the way!
http://www.mediacollege.com/video/format/compare/betamax-vhs.html
You appear to be right. I appreciate you pointing that out!
Thanks!
Thirty seconds of googling produced this
Because you may be lazy, which I'm guessing due to making assumptions that 30 seconds of googling can debunk, I'll quote a bit for you...
"f you want a chicken pita from Meze Grill in midtown Manhattan today, you can fork over $8.75 or give them about half a Bitcoin. The restaurant began accepting Bitcoin Tuesday "
The article is dated today. Hmmm... midtown Manhattan... smack in the middle of one of the largest cities in the world... hmmmm... not to mention a major financial hub... hmm....
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/17/the-clock-is-ticking-on-bitcoin/
>How does bitcoin have high value?
I can *EXCHANGE* Bitcoin(currency) with other currencies, just as I can CAD - USD or EUR - USD or AUD - EUR. Google it. There is an open market similar to Forex spot. This is NOT a commodity.
It has high value because it directly translates to other currencies in a manner that is identical to other currencies. It may be a pump and dump but it's still currency and this does happen to nations currencies. So please explain how Bitcoin is different from the AUD? USD? EUR? GBP? CHF? JPY? ...? Each have had episodes of high volatility, speculation craziness and manipulation. Other countries have seen their currencies devalue to less than toilet paper.
Another anemic analogy.
By your implication any future (of commodities) would be considered in the same category.
Bitcoin is not a commodity; it is a medium of exchange. Because it is probably in a speculative bubble is irrelevant. Because it's primarily used for criminal activity is irrelevant. The fact it may go away is irrelevant. What is relevant is, at this time, it is used as a medium of exchange as currency is used. It is intended as a medium of exchange. There is no functional difference from purchasing something with a credit card, debit card, or ACH. A merchant has a list of goods with associated Bitcoin prices, and can easily list USD, AUD, EUR, CAD... as well. Market forces are now imposing themselves on the value of Bitcoin not the perceived value of goods/services between two parties as a barter would. The current volatility presents difficulties but we've seen this in the past with Russia and Zimbabwe to name two examples. I believe Bitcoin has a very high potential of going the way of those currencies as well!
My personal belief is it is HIGHLY inflated and is probably being manipulated. There's irony involved as speculators and criminals are being harmed by criminals. Speculators take the risk and uninformed risk is just asking to get nailed. Criminals harming criminals... that's just poetic justice. I believe a small portion of those that may be harm are legitimately trying to eek out a business and I do feel for them, but it is something very new and by definition speculation. Undertaking a speculative venture without educating yourself and a willingness to deal with the risk is silliness and immature.
Your perception of value is flawed. You are confusing utility with value. Gold is a commodity, having very little utility, but extreme value (borders on the line of medium of exchange, non-commodity). Bitcoin is not a commodity (medium), currently has low utility but high value, I do believe it is currently inflated. WoW gold is not a commodity (medium), has extreme utility but in a vary narrow realm that is punished (confiscated) if it's found to be used outside that realm. Baseball cards are a commodity having no utility but very few have high value.
Using a commodity as a means of exchange is barter. Bitcoin is not a commodity so the analogy of baseball cards is flawed.
No and Yes.
You didn't read my post or did not comprehend the fact I strongly suggest that it is used for unscrupulous means. "The criminal/socially unacceptable elements are legitimizing the currency by applying value."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
Bitcoin has a limited supply. A Pyramid Scheme it does not make!
I have the feeling I may be feeding a troll.
Collectables are only desired by others with the same desire. Bitcoins are desired by anybody that desires something that can be purchased with Bitcoins. Your analogy is anemic.
A Picasso does not serve the same role, it is unique and there is only one. It's transfer is highly public and to keep it private there are extreme measures that must be taken. Also a Picasso would fall under the definition of barter, one item for another, rather than a medium of exchange. Again an anemic analogy.
As for nothing new other than peering algorithms, you have chosen to blind yourself to what Bitcoin is. Rather than taking a rational approach you have attempted to use poor analogies in an attempt to rationalize denial. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html
If somebody provided a public online exchange for WoW gold, Blizzard would take them down. The system of exchange for out of game items is completely underground and Blizzard can confiscate said gold. Where as Bitcoin is encouraged to be traded and there are multiple exchanges and parallels the Forex spot market. The freedom to move the currency is a significant factor in it's value.
Also the value of WoW gold is tied to in game activities. The value of Bitcoin is tied to anything that accepts it. WoW gold would be a lot more valuable if you could legitimately buy anything with it for which a merchant exists.
> So some bored kid modifies a standard off the shelf virus to go specifically after a given file on your computer, that is in effect worthless ...
I'm not referring to people stealing, please ref...
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/06/06/1410217/Bitcoin-Used-For-the-Narcotics-Trade
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/164865-senators-tell-doj-to-shut-down-online-drug-market
> The primary value of gold is its unique physical properties which are both visually pleasing to most people and very useful in many different processes and industries.
The primary value of gold comes from people desiring to posses it. What they do with it afterwards is inconsequential. A HUGE majority of the gold supply is in the form of reserves held by governments and banks. Another large portion is at the bottom of the ocean from sunken Spanish ships. My point was, which was probably not well conveyed, is that the utility of gold is incredibly low, compared to most other commodities, yet it has extreme value because humans value it!
>4 is not 'a very large group'. By that same measure however, there is 'a very large group' of idiots who send their bank account info to Nigerian spammers to. Actually, its the same group.
Ref above... It has the attention of the US Senate now, and it is a very active component of black market transactions.
>Really? Again trying to ascribe value to something because someone wants to grief you over it? Do you think a gay man is valuable JUST because some idiot homophobe beats him up? Your logic is just dumb.
Ref above...
>Damnit, I got trolled. I didn't realize you were one of those idiots who think taxes are oppression
Taxation is a form of repression. The value exchanged for that repression is something that is real/vital and needed for the functioning of a government. Citizen X produces wealth and the government taxes that wealth. Citizen X's purchasing power has been repressed, though, his value for taxes may exceed the value lost of purchasing power. Again ignorance, there is a difference of a repressive act, taxation, vs a repressive system. The difference is quite significant. I am assuming that you use oppression interchangeably with repression, there are subtle but quite significant differences.
I've considered putting $10 USD into just because it creates a vested interest. That interest sensitizes on a psychological level that no amount of intellectual interest can duplicate.
As much as the Bitcoin stories are getting a little much we are seeing the birth of something completely new; A medium of exchange that is independent of any government. The criminal/socially unacceptable elements are legitimizing the currency by applying value. Anything that enough humans apply value to will become valuable. The primary value of gold is that many people ascribe value to it and wish to possess it. If you buy gold on the markets you pay a storage fee because there are not enough commercial applications of gold to make storage profitable. Silver, platinum, copper... They all pay a bit if you buy contracts. The only purpose of gold then is to provide a medium of exchange.
Bitcoin is something similar in that a very large group of people are beginning to value the electronic currency, thus it has value. The context of the source of that valuation has no consequence. Humans are now using it as a medium of exchange which is now creating demand. That demand is causing a rise in price and others now wish to posses it as it has potential for increasing value. This is the basic form of speculation.
Now we have a socially illegitimate group applying the initial value and then speculators step in. Speculators are socially acceptable and so a balance is beginning to form. If this continues a stabilized economy will form and it will be unstoppable.
To wish that these stories be stopped is a bit shot sighted. We may be witnessing something that has *NEVER* happened before! It's quite exciting to watch something like this form, not to mention the insight into human behavior and the many benefits that can result for that insight. Not to mention a currency that is independent of any one government.
I do not see Bitcoins ever replacing government currency but I do see it becoming a supplemental tool for securing wealth and providing a medium of exchange detached from economically repressive governments. Any government that taxes represses it's people, the people accept that repression as a necessity to govern the society. Anyway, being able to purchase something without the government being in your business is a true expression of freedom and extends a way for true privacy to be exercised. This scares quite a few people in government and will be incredibly interesting to watch it play out.
As a side note, the VHS and Internet were "legitimized" by unsavory elements of society. And here we are discussing something in a way that 20 years ago was a dream and 80 years ago was unimagined, all because it was first a marginal "thing" exploited by unsavory elements in which a majority of the population expressed the desire to not be bothered. We live in exciting times and Bitcoin is the tip of something extremely interesting.
Thank you for posting this comment. It probably pushed me over the edge to purchase the book. I've been developing C++ for 18 years now, professionally started the week before I turned 16. I have found through those years it is best to listen to others and pick out the mistakes they've made and ask yourself how you would have avoided that mistake. Someone once said... "The wise learn from their mistakes, the truly wise learn from others mistakes!" I've probably mangled the quote and I cannot remember who said it.
In the event it is deemed you are secretly recording police officers then the exact same argument should be made to have every camera removed from the state. Any traffic cams, police cams, store cams... EVERYTHING! Somebody does something criminal and is caught on tape... hmmm... that's illegal wiretapping. Our judicial system goes out of the way to protect the rights of the criminal, but slaps around the bystander? Push back from another angle and expose the stupidity. Though if I thought this would work I might as well smoke a crack pipe!
I wonder if the supreme court will have to pay royalties for the exercise of "Godly Powers?" http://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/06/08/1231254/Man-Tries-to-Patent-His-Godly-Powers
THANK YOU! You have proven to me you are self centered and cannot view anything outside your own world. Your selective quote only reinforces that!
Please reference the entire quote so you get a bit of the context...
>Your altered consciousness posses an *EXTREME* higher risk to society than almost anything else I can think of. Doesn't mean that any one in particular will realize that risk but a significant portion of this high risk population will.
Where do you get that I was accusing you? Again I quote to emphasize "Doesn't mean that any one in particular will realize that risk but a significant portion of this high risk population will." You may be able to deal with the altered consciousness but many cannot. How many die per year because of alcohol related traffic incidents? Lets take a walk down Detroit and pull the dead bodies out of the gutter. How many are filled with narcotics? How many were killed by somebody altered by narcotics?
Oh, nice use of Troll to character assassinate... Shall we throw in Nazi?
More of a USA perspective here...
Freedom is more of a responsibility than a right. There is a reason the order is "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness." Liberty cannot infringe on life. Pursuit of happiness cannot infringe on Liberty.
>Except that that's completely impossible in anything like a free society.
No society is completely free. Every society has to determine what is best for the many. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." The constitution embodies this while trying to provide for the maximum individual freedom. If such individuals wish to harm many more than themselves by indirectly supporting an economy based around addictive substances can...
1. elect officials who will change the law, which the constitution provides.
2. leave the country and become a citizen of one that more adequately represents their views.
> People want to alter their consciousness, and as long as they aren't actually harming anyone else, it's none of your business at all and a giant waste of resources to even try.
Your altered consciousness posses an *EXTREME* higher risk to society than almost anything else I can think of. Doesn't mean that any one in particular will realize that risk but a significant portion of this high risk population will. Again your pursuit of happiness will infringe on my Life. Again maybe not you but somebody will! This mentality can be taken to the extreme which is why I'm in favor of the 80/20 rule.