Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why would they accepts fantasy money? (Score 1) 94

by sfcat (#47134517) Attached to: As Crypto Mining Grows, Data Centers Begin Accepting Bitcoin

The blockchain is nothing more than a transaction record. It doesn't "enable" anything.

Bitcoin (and all blockchain tech) solves the Byzantine Generals Problem which is a classic problem of computer science. It means you can create distributed exchanges of virtual or real property in the face of people trying to lie, cheat, or steal. Its actually a pretty big achievement. There are distributed market places, distributed exchanges and other interesting developments in the works all based on the fact that we can now build software on top of blockchains. But please continue to tell us how Bitcoin doesn't enable anything and whatever DB table you (or your bank) use to store transactions is more secure than that.

Comment: Re:Easy to solve (Score 3, Insightful) 143

by sfcat (#47090955) Attached to: Sifting Mt. Gox's Logs Reveals Suspicious Trading Patterns

It wasn't foresight; same as for the EPA, labor laws, OSHA, ...

Wow. For you Tea Baggists - oh, I'm sorry, "Libertarians" - it always comes back to the EPA and OSHA...

He isn't saying there shouldn't be an EPA or OSHA, he's saying that people had problems then came up with the regulatory solution (ie creating the EPA). WTF are you responding to? I don't even think the GP is a tea partier.

PS I'm a Democrat, not trusting the FED (which is a rational position if you know its history) isn't the same as being a Tea Party member. Its just one issue out of many and one that quiet a few Occupiers would agree with (well the ones that know what the FED is anyway). Now go troll elsewhere.

Comment: Re:dream on (Score 1) 155

Jealous much?

I had *no* fiscal support from my family for MIT: I was an emancipated minor at 16. Most of my peers worked their *asses* off to make ends meet. MIT is *filled* with people whose parents didn't or couldn't fund their full costs: they have a "needs blind" admission program that is very helpful to kids, and families, who struggle with the costs.

So you can take your jealousy and put it somewhere else.

CMU is much the same way. No legacy admissions and grants and scholarships are entirely need based and not an honor (like say the Rhodes Scholarship is). Keep in mind that this for the CS departments, other schools in the universities are a bit different.

Comment: Re:dream on (Score 2) 155

It's just sad that we rely on pieces of paper to 'prove' our worth, even when most of the people with pieces of paper don't know what they're doing (Most of the people without don't either.). It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships. It's just a huge waste of time and effort.

You know what you are? Bitter.

I would be bitter too if I got rejected just because I didn't have a certain piece of paper. That's illogical garbage.

But being "bitter" doesn't debunk his little rant. But yeah, I don't see why he would decline to hire someone just because they're rich; it seems like the same sort of petty nonsense that leads to employers not hiring people because they're lacking pieces of paper.

Clearly written by someone who never was at one of these top CS schools. I assure you that rote memorization won't get you a degree at any of them. Most of my tests at CMU were open book and open note and I can count on 1 hand how many times I used my textbook or notes during a test. Why? Because the tests weren't rote memorization tests but instead tested for your ability to synthesize what you learned and apply it to a domain you might not have ever considered. One question on my OS final was to write a device driver for an optical disk, with a pencil and paper (no compiler or debugger) in valid C. Rote memorization won't help you there. Quit being bitter and ignorant about educational experiences you haven't had. Perhaps there is a reason all the CS profs come from MIT, Berkeley and CMU...

PS Berkeley graduates about 4X the CS major as MIT and CMU combined. Not sure the author considered this in their analysis...good engineers are supposed to see this type of omission. Guess CIOs aren't...

Comment: Re:dream on (Score 2) 155

When I went to job interviews (though it has been years), I made it a point to dress up in the 'worst' clothes I had. I'd go into job interviews with casual clothes that would have stains and rips in them. The idea is that I don't want to work with shallow people. I'm simply choosing my own company, and I don't want to hang around people that are irrational and shallow if I can help it, you see.

Again, this is a free world (for a little while longer anyways). That is your choice. I know people who did that same thing except they did it in order to flunk the interview so they could meet their job search requirements and keep drawing their unemployment checks while working under the table on the side.

This right there is why you didn't get a job with a software firm and ended up in IT instead. It might be a symptom of you not getting into one of these top CS schools in that when you are at such an university, you are surrounded by people who are as smart or smarter than you (perhaps for the first time in your life) and you realize really quickly that first impressions and looks are very likely to fool you when dealing with such people. You learn to look a bit deeper and you learn that a term like "smart" can take on many forms. Some people are better communicators, some are better engineers, some are better at abstract logic and some are more pragmatic folks that always make sound decisions. And how they dress rarely will tell you which someone is. So you learn to filter those factors and look deeper. Something you clearly never learned to do. And putting someone like you in a quality engineering team can be like throwing a wrench into a clock's gears. That's why you ended up where you did and no other reason. I've worked with people in the software field without CS degrees and with degrees from "lesser" schools. Your authoritarian attitude toward others is why you are barred from software firms, thank his noodley goodness.

Comment: Re:Now we'll see who's really the master. (Score 3, Interesting) 96

Nice federal income tax revenue from California you have there, United States. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

This is a game that can be played both ways.

Its actually worse than that. If you remove CA from the US economy, what do you think the jobs/GDP/other national growth metrics for the rest of the US look like over the last 30 years? Can you say perpetual depression? Removing CA from the US would be disastrous, for the other 49 states. Don't kid yourself about the size of the CA economy, its large and growing, unlike the most of the rest of the US. Oh, and we actually pay off our debts. You really think politicians from other states would want to have to explain those numbers to the voters?

Comment: Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (Score 1) 319

by sfcat (#47051939) Attached to: FBI Need Potheads To Fight Cybercrime

potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

Considering I've never heard directly of anyone in this industry using it, I think the stereotype is correct. Personally I didn't see it in college (BS in Comp Sci in 1989) nor have I seen it in the twenty-five years since. Pot use just doesn't happen in this industry.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, I hope that was sarcasm...

Comment: Re:Work the way down to no license (Score 1) 301

Early elevators weren't exactly safe. That didn't stop people from using them.

Yes it did. The thing that made elevators a success was a safety demonstration at the 1854 worlds fair. The guy who invented the safety break for the elevator Elisha Otis became the biggest maker of elevators (which is why you see the name Otis in many elevators even today). The maker who won was not the guy who first made a elevator, it was the first guy who could prove an elevator was safe.

Comment: The cloud is slow and expensive (Score 1) 409

by sfcat (#47015327) Attached to: Don't Be a Server Hugger! (Video)
I work for a startup that makes high-throughput SQL systems which handles millions of events/tuples per second. We tell our clients that they can run our software in the cloud but it only runs about 1/4 as efficiently as hosting your own servers. We are able to pipeline buffers effectively on local hardware, but the virtual abstraction layer destroys our performance. I doubt we are alone in this. So when you pay for a "server" in the cloud, you are really only getting 1/4 the I/O capacity as a local server and since we are talking about servers, their I/O capacity is really what you are buying. In my experience, virtualization is really about lazy sys admins who don't know/want to learn things like PXE and it does mean less time in loud and cold server rooms.

You know every time someone pushes something as hard as the cloud gets pushed, there is something worth knowing that they aren't telling you. In this case, its that the cloud will probably cost you more as you need 4x the number of "cloud servers" to handle the I/O load of your production servers. But hey, at least 'the cloud' sounds really cool.

Comment: Re:Caps Are Definitely Coming (Score 0) 475

by sfcat (#47009405) Attached to: Comcast Predicts Usage Cap Within 5 Years

There is the issue of certain services being 'natural monopolies'. How many power companies do you want running power lines to your home in order to offer you power service? Network companies running fiber, cable, or coax to offer you the Internet? Water? Sewer?

See, when something requires the customer to receive not just the service but also build infrastructure through other people's property to deliver it to them, most people realize that allowing many companies to build that infrastructure is a disruptive pain. Since we don't have the core infrastructure built so that such cables can be laid without disrupting someone else's property, the trade-off has been a limited number of contenders in an area. You can argue whether that's right or not, or if there are better ways, but that is what the compromise was in order to allow for the service and yet not be a disruption.

Personally, I see local infrastructure like power lines, fiber, coax, cable, etc as just like roads. Who maintains your roads? Anyone that provides a service using those roads can do so without disruption, and the entity that owns them maintains them and permits access. They generally have no vested interest in extorting excess money out of the users of those roads, but do charge them for use. Other aspects of our infrastructure could be similarly maintained and we would solve the 'local monopoly' issue while minimizing disruption.

So make all ISPs utilities then (most of them built their lines on the gov't dime). Oh wait, you don't want that as then you wouldn't be paided to shill for them anymore. Tough shit, get a real job parasite.

Comment: Re:Average price of new car = $31,252 (Score 1) 659

by sfcat (#47006727) Attached to: Future of Cars: Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Or Electric?

The average American doesn't even spent $30,000 on a car, so the price range of these new vehicles is still in the realm of the rich for toys and games.

The average price of a new car in America is $31,252. A $40,000 vehicle is not remotely out of reach for a large percent of the population.

A Volt is $35K - tax credit ($7.5K to $9K depending on the state). So the actual cost of buying a Volt is less than the average cost of a new car.

Comment: Re:Electric. (Score 1) 659

by sfcat (#47004975) Attached to: Future of Cars: Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Or Electric?

^ This...

I only need 50 miles a day of range almost the entire year. But about 5% of the time, I need 300+ miles of range with the ability to "recharge" in 15 minutes.

Owning a single vehicle that does both tasks costs less than buying two vehicles. It also costs less than buying the EV and renting a truck for the road trips, we don't really have in place a system to do that well, and frankly I don't want to take someone else's beater rental vehicle on a family road trip, I want to take MY vehicle on a family road trip.

A Volt does this now. Quit making excuses...

Comment: Re:Electric. (Score 1) 659

by sfcat (#47004917) Attached to: Future of Cars: Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Or Electric?

While you are correct in the sense that if you drive enough, the savings of not buying fuel do add up...

The use case where that is true is narrow...

There are plenty of very efficient small cars that can be purchased for $10K+ fewer dollars than the Volt. Over 5 years of ownership, you'll be hard pressed to burn $10K in gas in a small 4 person car over the cost of recharging a Volt.

Add to that the resale of a Volt in 5 years is likely to be terrible as they keep dropping the price, it makes for an even worse investment.

It may well get there, but the people pushing for it today like to ignore a few details that explain why EVs are hardly a rounding error in vehicle sales.

It isn't because people want to waste money, it is because people have done the math and it makes no sense, unless you're "a true believer".

Riiiiiiiiight, so that bargin $15K ICE car is never going to need maintenance? I have a Volt and my maintenance cost is 0 so far for 2 years. I doubt I will reach the first scheduled maintenance (which can be at 75,000 miles depending on usage patterns) and is just an oil change for the generator which can easily be done myself for $10 in oil. The parent said its about COST, not price. Costs like maintenance that EVs don't really have in practice are not free for ICEs. EVs are cheaper for 90% of drivers daily usage patterns at this point. Not some minor slice of the market, but most of the market. You would have to drive less than 1000 miles a year for an EVs to not to pay off at this point. You are just considering gas costs, but maintenance costs can easily exceed gas costs, especially for cheaper or older ICE cars. Plus the time I don't spend waiting at tollbothes (yea HOV lanes). Just make sure not to lease the Volt as you don't get the $7500 federal tax credit that way.

This is now. Later is later.