Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 200

by jbo5112 (#47538547) Attached to: Cable Companies: We're Afraid Netflix Will Demand Payment From ISPs

Hope you weren't planning on downloading much of anything with that mobile access to your laptop/desktop/console. With 20-40+ GB game downloads and 1+ GB/hr movies, even the largest 12 GB/month plans go REALLY quickly. Even the 250 GB/month of U-verse is easy for me to blow through with a family and working from home.

Currently, I pay Time Warner $42/month for 15 Mbps Earthlink service. My other "option" is to pay AT&T $95/month (introductory price w/ overage fees) for 18 Mbps U-verse and get slower service where it matter most to me (ping times). Not much of a competition.

Comment: Re:TAG: NOTNEWS (Score 1) 134

by jbo5112 (#47081317) Attached to: New IE 8 Zero Day Discovered

It also boasts a worst in class standards support. When building advanced web services, Chrome's lack of support is a big enough pain. IE 11 is still about 3x as bad, but it is getting better. IE 10, in particular, was a huge improvement, but I often wonder why they still bother trying to build a browser from scratch.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 310

I wrote a more extensive post on this earlier. While some teachers clearly go above and beyond what their peers do, teachers average 3 fewer hours per work week vs other professionals (without counting a teacher's extra vacation), and if they use all of their leave, will only work 171.5 days/yr on average instead of the 220 typical for a professional with 10 years of experience. Incidentally, the median experience for teachers is about 3 years, so a comperable a professional would be working even more days a year. To cap it off, teachers are paid 11% higher than other professionals. What this means is that the average professional is working >1/3 more hours for 10% less pay compared to a teacher, and that the teacher is earning 50% more per hour. If you want more details or sources, see my previous post on the issue.

I'm not sure I understand your point in your analogy to programming. I usually do just "type it once and run the program." Sometimes I'll get fancy, and type it 3 times in 3 different ways to make them race against each other. (It's kind of like battle bots but nerdier.) Then again, I've known brilliant, practiced teachers, who could pick up chalk and go.

Comment: Re:Really? -- Lets look at actual numbers (Score 1) 310

The local high school here only has 4 classes during a day, and I'm pretty sure the teachers get a free class period. They at least got them when I attended. The teachers I know are some of the few great teachers you don't want to miss out on having. Such employees are almost always underpaid.

Lets stop talking about anecdotes, and look at some hard facts. The median compensation package for public teachers is $75k/yr (source) and they have a median of around 3 (maybe 4) years of experience (source). The BLS states that teachers are paid 11% higher than other professionals (source). At 53 hours/wk (source, it sounds like a lot of work, but it is 3 hours fewer than most professionals, even without considering vacation time (source). Considering vacation time, teachers who use all of their days of leave work an average of 171.5 days/yr vs 220 days/yr for private sector professionals with 10 years of experience (source), which isn't quite a fair comparison because professionals with 10 years of experience get more vacation than people with 3-4 years of experience.

If you multiply this out, most professionals are working over 1/3 more hours than teachers for 10% less pay. They generally get off of work early enough to make a dentist appointment, avoiding the need to shift hours around like other professionals, and their extra hours outside of the school day are free for scheduling as they see fit. Really good teachers might be working long hours for their money. However, when they're getting paid 50% more per hr, it's clear that most are not.

If you want to argue the difficulty and stress of a job, then that would be a different matter than I've discussed. It won't be fixed by reducing hours or increasing pay, but fixing polity.

Comment: Re:That's some crazy shenanigians right there. (Score 1) 303

So if Google wants their fork to interface just like Oracles, they should take a clean-room approach and have all the API's function exactly the same way, but without being derived from Oracle's source.

And they have to function EXACTLY like the one they're copying. That's the entire point of using a standard API. If that aspect is copyrightable, the content of the API of how things interface to other things, then this is sheer madness.

Google did use a clean-room implementation. The judge did rule that Oracle now owns exclusive rights to how some 6,000 function calls are defined and organized for the next 80-100+ years (depending how much Congress extends copyright in the next century) because the rights improve progress (the only grounds for granting copyrights or patents).

This means that any implementation of C or C++ probably violates the copyright on the respective language's standard library. Google can be sued again for offering a copy of gcc as part of the Android toolchain, along with any Linux distribution that makes a compiler available. Furthermore, the file and edit menus could be considered as much of an API as any programming language, as you're running the algorithm to tell another piece of code to open a file or whatever. It actually was a substantial work to first write something so elegant, so does the original inventor get to sue everyone who writes a program that has Edit->Copy in the menu in the year 2040?

Where can the madness end? What makes an API fall under copyright, and not a protocol? HTTP is copyrighted. Does Tim Berners-Lee get to sue every web server, every web browser, and every use of a REST API?

Comment: Re:Oh PJ, where art thou? (Score 1) 303

Congress is given the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (US Constitution Article I Section 8) The idea that locking an API into 100+ years of exclusive use promotes progress is asinine, and any judge ruling to do that is ignoring our highest laws.

Comment: Re:It's the right tool for the job (Score 1) 634

by jbo5112 (#46971505) Attached to: Why Scientists Are Still Using FORTRAN in 2014

That was with numpy in python. In C++ I was using the Armadillo library, but I'm not entirely sure what is going on underneath that. Both blas and lapack are dependencies, and it uses different ones for different operations. However, I'm not sure if it was using blas3 or openblas because they're both installed.

I should point out that this was for a machine learning class, so the matrices were fairly small. At a larger scale, the difference may have been more negligible due to other overhead, but I do know that in C++, >98% of the CPU time was typically spent on matrix operations. However, Armadillo supposedly provides some nice runtime optimizations, and I seem to remember sizable compile times, given the small programs I was writing.

I was using C++, but if Fortran was responsible for a good, compiled library then I'm glad they used it. It's a language I may have to look into, when I get a chance. I hate to see good hardware go to waste, simply because of shoddy software.

Comment: Re:Why is anyone still using C++ in 2014? (Score 1) 634

by jbo5112 (#46966623) Attached to: Why Scientists Are Still Using FORTRAN in 2014

I use it because it because I can get it to run a very significant amount faster with 10% of the memory footprint of Java. Java, in addition to going through a slow, buggy, insecure vm, doesn't let me do the same optimizations, and consequently, the resulting Java code would take at least 3x as long to run (python is probably worse).

My C++ source code generally ends up smaller too, especially when I have to interface with a database. JDBC is an awful mess compared to OTL. My code is bug free enough that my problems are are almost entirely limited to C++ tweaks (in my personal libraries) that I can't do in safer languages or using bad algorithms, which tend to come from business requirements (or misunderstanding thereof).

I'm sorry you consider lambda (anonymous) functions and expressions, range based loops, standardized multi-threading, regular expressions, smart pointers, and type inference to be obtuse. Your programming world must be small or you just really hate C++. If you know of something better, where I won't take a meaningful speed hit, then let me know.

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.