I expect you were always a looser or just trolling. 1. You could have taken the class over again. (I personally took Calculus I twice, as I got a C- the first time, I didn't like that grade so I took it over again for a B+) 2. If you got a D in that class you probably wasn't doing too hot in it anyways (But we can let that slide as some classes have only the final for your grade). 3. Why would you go to Business school if your interests was in science, you could have gone to different schools in science, they also had Computer Science back in the 80's. 4. Your expectation was quite high to get out of Business School and become a Bond Trader, You need to start in the mail room. 5. Why are you unemployed unless you suck at programming, Programmers is one of those hot jobs in this economy.
You have taken every setback and you seemed to work on making it worse. You have made bad decisions and you shouldn't had tried to pin it on one bad test, but in your life in general.
Well there are a bunch of different question guys. 1. Question to show off. Ask an intelligent question that helps lead the professor into the next chapter. Sometimes it isn't to show off, but because how the material is presented, it get the person to stir about the points brought up in class and starts thinking too much so they get confused and needs to point out the details in the next part.
2. The Stupid Question. These are questions that you ask because you weren't paying attention 5 minutes ago. Or because you failed to learn the course before.
3. The Question that takes too long. If the Teacher/Professor cannot explain it to you after 2 questions you should take it off line, and not disrupt the class any further.
4. The Question everyone has, but is afraid to ask. When one poor brave sole asks the question everyone else was afraid to ask. This often happens when the professor is trying to go to fast and/or uses proofs by intimidation to get to the next spot. "So we find this value, and as anyone can see it brings us to this conclusion...."
5. The honest question. Others in the class may get it, but you are missing a small piece and you just can't quite visualize it. A quick answer and you are on your way.
For the most part it is difficult to judge what type of question you are asking until after you asked it.
Actually if you can get a lot of that boring grading out of the way, you can free up teachers time to focus on the Human Element. While some kids can probably learn better without teachers, others will need them to help guide their education, to spot when they have problems and not learning something to stop and help them get caught up.
Besides it is considered political doom, for anyone to be considered a Moderate. Every decision you make has a trade off. When you give a political answer you either focus on the Positive or Negative of the argument, not allowing for a full discussion of the wider issue.
Beware of Power Words, These are words that give us a strong feelings, however have little meaning to them. This happens all the times, When asked before the Iraq War if there were WMDs they said it was a "Slam Dunk". A Power Word to make us absolutely sure that they were WMD and we knew all about them. Or when the Democrats Blame the "Fat Cats" for all of the world problems, an other power words that brings the images of greedy hundred dollar smoking businessmen, even though the issues were far more complicated, and most people really don't fit that stereotype.
Both sides views are emotional, not rational, you think your view is rational but it isn't it is based of fear and emotional twisting of the other side. That is why the public has lost its trust, every side is installing fear in each other. So no side really trusts the other for anything.
Journalism needs to stop trying to push their view, but give a breakdown of the trade offs to each side. And encourage the other side to explain the trade offs first.
You missed the subtle differences. The Democrats don't want business to interfere with government but they want more government to interfere with business. "We are from the Government and we are Here to help"
The Republicans don't want government to interfere with they business, however they want business to interfere with government. "Don't tax me, and don't tell me what to do, as it effects my bottom line, however if you can change this law that gives me an advantage then all the better"
The issue is that Government the organization (Not the political parties) will try to keep their distance from companies as much as they can. As you pointed out it doesn't happen, however what does happen is more behind the curtains wheeling and dealing, not and R&D isn't the issue, as the Government wants to appear distant from the company, so R&D spending is quite visible, to citizens and share holders.
The problem is the schism between Businesses and Government.
The Democrats go. We want to Keep Businesses out of Government, as businesses with their big money will corrupt government. The Republicans go. We want to Keep Government out of Businesses, as government with their big money will cripple businesses.
For companies to have a True R&D department they need steady funding, During the cold war, the government gave businesses a ton of money to do R&D. The government prospered because they got new technology that can help expand our countries influenced, the business prospered because they got new technology which they have rights too.
Then as the Cold War cooled down and ended. Government started to separate themselves from Business, and Business from government. So those corporate grants have became less reliable. The companies now need to make sure their R&D is profitable, so less spending on just straight R&D and more focus on making sometime that brings profit. Other companies just dropped their R&D all together.
Business key motive is to make money (It isn't a noble motive but simple). The Government has many motives (many of which are noble, some not so, and it is very complicated), Business influence in Government makes sure the government stays efficient. Government influence on business, make sure the businesses do go too far.
I am disenfranchised with both parties. As they are on different sides of the wrong issue.
Most collages have an IT Staff outside of the computer science department... Granted most are hired by CS students who technically graduated but are not smart enough to work in the real world.
The sad truth, is that most of the university money doesn't come threw students. But threw grants, alumni donations, government support, and sports. If schools really wanted to save money, they will stop building new buildings every couple of years, and use the money to renovate existing buildings, for those of you in college, I challenge you to analyse the utilization of the classrooms of all the building at any one moments, I would expect that during peak hours there is a 50% utilization of all the classrooms. However when you try to build a brand new building you get more support from the big payers. The school I recently graduated from is building a brand new Business Building. Why? Who really knows. Business students don't need much. A classroom with a projector for power point, a podium, and the ability to break up in small groups, perhaps some Wi-Fi. We are not talking about Science classes that needs Gas for Bunsen burners, or large equipment to study new and interesting stuff. They can operate well in a normal classroom. Why build new ones, when the old ones work fine?
Yes Engineers or Mathematicians are renowned for their ability to write good software. You explain their faults in terms of Big O you get blank stares at you. And stand up and say because their code takes 10 lines to run vs your 50 their code is faster.
In order to make the collage more suitable, to recruit football players, they will drop all departments where students go who tend to be smarter then the average football players (They are some really smart ones, but normally if they get in to play foot ball, they tend to be handed a golden spoon for years, and have forgotten what it takes to study and learn). U of F College of Football and Home Economics.
Sounds like UHa, They were under the Department of Math, Physics, and Computer Science. While it was 1 department they were actually 3. They were 1 department in terms of administration goes. However your area study were very different. Computer Science Professors didn't normally Teach Math or Physics. And Vice verse... (The only exception was a Physics professor who sometimes taught FORTRAN)
Computer Engineering/Software Engineering isn't the same as Computer Science.
In Computer Science we usually take a course in Computer Engineering and a course in Software Engineering, to get some concepts from those other areas of study into the students. However Computer Science, real Computer Science, is less about the technology, and more about the Mathematics of performing optimal computations. Software Engineering isn't as much about optimal computations, it is more of a way of getting the software to work, and building larger complicated systems, which need to be maintained over time. Computer Engineering is more of a hardware level approach, where the goal is is optimize basic elements but not complex systems. Computer Science is in the middle. We use the optimized basic elements that the Computer Engineers make, and we create more complicated computations using them. Then Software Engineers take what the computer scientists have made and implement them into a practical design.
When it gets to real life jobs, all three areas of studies often give us a similar career path. However depending on your study you have different approaches to the problems we face. So lets say a for a Job of a Software Developer (with 5 years experience) When there is a problem to be solved. A computer Engineer focused person, would use the features in the hardware to leverage more Optimized Lower level commands to their beck and call to help them solve issues, now this will create a fast solution, but may not run on other platforms. A Computer Science focused person, would try to separate themselves from the hardware a bit more, and go into creating logic and routines, these routines will tend to be rather optimal, however they will probably miss something the hardware gives us for free, but will run on other platforms. A Computer Engineer, will create code in a clean well documented manner, it will often be the less optimal, and slowest solution. However it will tend to run well on other platforms, easy to maintain, and usually more stable.
They all approach problems differently and when you get them together to work on a problem, you can get some heated discussions, but if they actually work well together they come up with some very good solutions. Dropping Computer Science is a bad idea, because then you will loose the middle of the road approach in computing.
Back 10 years ago, when they started suing companies who violated the GPL, I figured that this wouldn't turn out good for the GPL, Why because the success of the GPL was based on sharing of ideas, once they brought lawyers into the mix you increased the cost of the use. If people are afraid to get sued for improper distribution of hybrid work, then they will work with less restrictive licenses.
The BSD and MIT licenses encourage sharing, however they don't demand it. One of the side effect of freedom is that with freedom people will do things that you don't want them to do. If you really support freedom, you need suck it up, and not go crying, when someone doesn't want to play at the moment.
Just calling out FUD doesn't mean it is. Sometimes the truth isn't what you want to believe... Sorry...
Small projects tend to work to incorporate into other bigger projects. Large projects stand for themselves, they are not going to used with with other projects, it makes them easier to stay with the GPL, and you are not going to be breaking the GPL easily. The smaller projects are often tools to make bigger projects easier to complete. And a more Open to developers license makes them seem more attractive. GPL license subscribes to the idea that everyone agrees with GPL Ideals, and has an infrastructure designed to work with the GPL. This isn't the case, some companies sell closed source tool, not because of greed and evil, but because if they open source it then competitors will take over their work, before they can make money off of it, that they need to pay off their staff who are working on their products. No for some organizations their projects work with the GPL other they do not. Now as part of the development progress there are byproduct mini-projects that are created that are not core to the business, and they want to release them so others can benefit. GPL means only people who make GPL products can use it, non-GPL such as the MIT license means more people can use them.
Lately I have been replaying the Quest for Glory games... I am not sure if it is just nostalgia. But I like the old Sierra games, they were not the high action games, even the Quest for Glory games which were the more action pact then the others, still had most of your time walking around and looking and trying to solve puzzles. That didn't require Top notch hand eye coordination. Back in the days Sierra Games were Top of the Line in graphics. Your reward for solving a puzzle was to be able to get to a new screen. In the days before internet these games were hard to go threw if you won it you felt like a hero, as you would play the game for months to try to win and solve the problems. Sometimes you are spending your time solving a problem that doesn't exist. I want to break into the Bakers shop, but I get arrested for making too much noise, I find ways to do it quieter and still I never got in... Well There isn't a way in. You don't know that, perhaps if you get in you can get something good.
Normally I would support boycotting. However in this case, it isn't that the Airlines are loving the TSA.It is the government, the government has a much higher tolerance to a boycott then the airline companies. A drop in air travel means less demmand for TSA agents and more money they can put somewhere else. To the airline a boycott means less air travel, and less money made while keeping the same expenses as they have a very expensive fleet that they need to keep working.
Now if you are boycotting for something the airlines are doing (such as charging for your bags) then you can do a more effective boycott by using companies that don't do this charge. And when the offending company figures out why there is a drop off in sales, then they will reverse some of the decisions.
Boycotting isn't the same as a full protest. Boycotting is a way to make a point without you getting on the news. It is about not giving to an organization that you don't like, until they change.
"Distort the Truth" you mean flat out lie. Steve Jobs reality distortion field, didn't wasn't a lie, he showed how things worked and how easy it was to do them, he just left out what you can't do.
Companies like Greenpeace give environmentalism a bad name. They are more about self promotion then about actually saving the environment. Oh Look a big data center that does a lot of extra processing so a low powered mobile device can give the features and performance of a higher powered device. And Apple tries to make much of their energy in a green method anyways so overall it is even better.
Yes, Yes, The Sex Abuse scandal... Bla Bla Bla, Joke Joke Jokes, Just to make you feel better about your life to know that even "Religious People" don't live up to their own rules...
The Crime the Church did was cover it up, and just transferred abusers to an other location, which is wrong. However I am willing to be the number of priests who did performed sex abuse is the same as any other sector of the population.
The British Accent 'as a tenancy to drop the "H" sound in their words. As illustrated in the My Fair Lady. "In 'artford, 'ediford, and 'ampture. 'erricanes 'ardly hever 'appen"
Because the accent drops the H sound most words sound like they start with a vowel. Thus makes language more natural to ad the an to the sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
I expect you were always a looser or just trolling.
1. You could have taken the class over again. (I personally took Calculus I twice, as I got a C- the first time, I didn't like that grade so I took it over again for a B+)
2. If you got a D in that class you probably wasn't doing too hot in it anyways (But we can let that slide as some classes have only the final for your grade).
3. Why would you go to Business school if your interests was in science, you could have gone to different schools in science, they also had Computer Science back in the 80's.
4. Your expectation was quite high to get out of Business School and become a Bond Trader, You need to start in the mail room.
5. Why are you unemployed unless you suck at programming, Programmers is one of those hot jobs in this economy.
You have taken every setback and you seemed to work on making it worse. You have made bad decisions and you shouldn't had tried to pin it on one bad test, but in your life in general.
Well there are a bunch of different question guys.
1. Question to show off. Ask an intelligent question that helps lead the professor into the next chapter. Sometimes it isn't to show off, but because how the material is presented, it get the person to stir about the points brought up in class and starts thinking too much so they get confused and needs to point out the details in the next part.
2. The Stupid Question. These are questions that you ask because you weren't paying attention 5 minutes ago. Or because you failed to learn the course before.
3. The Question that takes too long. If the Teacher/Professor cannot explain it to you after 2 questions you should take it off line, and not disrupt the class any further.
4. The Question everyone has, but is afraid to ask. When one poor brave sole asks the question everyone else was afraid to ask. This often happens when the professor is trying to go to fast and/or uses proofs by intimidation to get to the next spot. "So we find this value, and as anyone can see it brings us to this conclusion...."
5. The honest question. Others in the class may get it, but you are missing a small piece and you just can't quite visualize it. A quick answer and you are on your way.
For the most part it is difficult to judge what type of question you are asking until after you asked it.
Actually if you can get a lot of that boring grading out of the way, you can free up teachers time to focus on the Human Element.
While some kids can probably learn better without teachers, others will need them to help guide their education, to spot when they have problems and not learning something to stop and help them get caught up.
Besides it is considered political doom, for anyone to be considered a Moderate.
Every decision you make has a trade off. When you give a political answer you either focus on the Positive or Negative of the argument, not allowing for a full discussion of the wider issue.
Beware of Power Words, These are words that give us a strong feelings, however have little meaning to them. This happens all the times, When asked before the Iraq War if there were WMDs they said it was a "Slam Dunk". A Power Word to make us absolutely sure that they were WMD and we knew all about them.
Or when the Democrats Blame the "Fat Cats" for all of the world problems, an other power words that brings the images of greedy hundred dollar smoking businessmen, even though the issues were far more complicated, and most people really don't fit that stereotype.
Both sides views are emotional, not rational, you think your view is rational but it isn't it is based of fear and emotional twisting of the other side. That is why the public has lost its trust, every side is installing fear in each other. So no side really trusts the other for anything.
Journalism needs to stop trying to push their view, but give a breakdown of the trade offs to each side. And encourage the other side to explain the trade offs first.
You missed the subtle differences.
The Democrats don't want business to interfere with government but they want more government to interfere with business. "We are from the Government and we are Here to help"
The Republicans don't want government to interfere with they business, however they want business to interfere with government. "Don't tax me, and don't tell me what to do, as it effects my bottom line, however if you can change this law that gives me an advantage then all the better"
The issue is that Government the organization (Not the political parties) will try to keep their distance from companies as much as they can. As you pointed out it doesn't happen, however what does happen is more behind the curtains wheeling and dealing, not and R&D isn't the issue, as the Government wants to appear distant from the company, so R&D spending is quite visible, to citizens and share holders.
The problem is the schism between Businesses and Government.
The Democrats go. We want to Keep Businesses out of Government, as businesses with their big money will corrupt government.
The Republicans go. We want to Keep Government out of Businesses, as government with their big money will cripple businesses.
For companies to have a True R&D department they need steady funding, During the cold war, the government gave businesses a ton of money to do R&D. The government prospered because they got new technology that can help expand our countries influenced, the business prospered because they got new technology which they have rights too.
Then as the Cold War cooled down and ended. Government started to separate themselves from Business, and Business from government. So those corporate grants have became less reliable. The companies now need to make sure their R&D is profitable, so less spending on just straight R&D and more focus on making sometime that brings profit. Other companies just dropped their R&D all together.
Business key motive is to make money (It isn't a noble motive but simple). The Government has many motives (many of which are noble, some not so, and it is very complicated), Business influence in Government makes sure the government stays efficient. Government influence on business, make sure the businesses do go too far.
I am disenfranchised with both parties. As they are on different sides of the wrong issue.
Most collages have an IT Staff outside of the computer science department...
Granted most are hired by CS students who technically graduated but are not smart enough to work in the real world.
The sad truth, is that most of the university money doesn't come threw students. But threw grants, alumni donations, government support, and sports.
If schools really wanted to save money, they will stop building new buildings every couple of years, and use the money to renovate existing buildings, for those of you in college, I challenge you to analyse the utilization of the classrooms of all the building at any one moments, I would expect that during peak hours there is a 50% utilization of all the classrooms. However when you try to build a brand new building you get more support from the big payers.
The school I recently graduated from is building a brand new Business Building. Why? Who really knows. Business students don't need much. A classroom with a projector for power point, a podium, and the ability to break up in small groups, perhaps some Wi-Fi. We are not talking about Science classes that needs Gas for Bunsen burners, or large equipment to study new and interesting stuff. They can operate well in a normal classroom. Why build new ones, when the old ones work fine?
Yes Engineers or Mathematicians are renowned for their ability to write good software. You explain their faults in terms of Big O you get blank stares at you. And stand up and say because their code takes 10 lines to run vs your 50 their code is faster.
In order to make the collage more suitable, to recruit football players, they will drop all departments where students go who tend to be smarter then the average football players (They are some really smart ones, but normally if they get in to play foot ball, they tend to be handed a golden spoon for years, and have forgotten what it takes to study and learn).
U of F College of Football and Home Economics.
Sounds like UHa, They were under the Department of Math, Physics, and Computer Science. While it was 1 department they were actually 3. They were 1 department in terms of administration goes. However your area study were very different. Computer Science Professors didn't normally Teach Math or Physics. And Vice verse... (The only exception was a Physics professor who sometimes taught FORTRAN)
Computer Engineering/Software Engineering isn't the same as Computer Science.
In Computer Science we usually take a course in Computer Engineering and a course in Software Engineering, to get some concepts from those other areas of study into the students. However Computer Science, real Computer Science, is less about the technology, and more about the Mathematics of performing optimal computations.
Software Engineering isn't as much about optimal computations, it is more of a way of getting the software to work, and building larger complicated systems, which need to be maintained over time.
Computer Engineering is more of a hardware level approach, where the goal is is optimize basic elements but not complex systems.
Computer Science is in the middle. We use the optimized basic elements that the Computer Engineers make, and we create more complicated computations using them. Then Software Engineers take what the computer scientists have made and implement them into a practical design.
When it gets to real life jobs, all three areas of studies often give us a similar career path. However depending on your study you have different approaches to the problems we face.
So lets say a for a Job of a Software Developer (with 5 years experience)
When there is a problem to be solved.
A computer Engineer focused person, would use the features in the hardware to leverage more Optimized Lower level commands to their beck and call to help them solve issues, now this will create a fast solution, but may not run on other platforms.
A Computer Science focused person, would try to separate themselves from the hardware a bit more, and go into creating logic and routines, these routines will tend to be rather optimal, however they will probably miss something the hardware gives us for free, but will run on other platforms.
A Computer Engineer, will create code in a clean well documented manner, it will often be the less optimal, and slowest solution. However it will tend to run well on other platforms, easy to maintain, and usually more stable.
They all approach problems differently and when you get them together to work on a problem, you can get some heated discussions, but if they actually work well together they come up with some very good solutions.
Dropping Computer Science is a bad idea, because then you will loose the middle of the road approach in computing.
Back 10 years ago, when they started suing companies who violated the GPL, I figured that this wouldn't turn out good for the GPL, Why because the success of the GPL was based on sharing of ideas, once they brought lawyers into the mix you increased the cost of the use. If people are afraid to get sued for improper distribution of hybrid work, then they will work with less restrictive licenses.
The BSD and MIT licenses encourage sharing, however they don't demand it. One of the side effect of freedom is that with freedom people will do things that you don't want them to do. If you really support freedom, you need suck it up, and not go crying, when someone doesn't want to play at the moment.
Just calling out FUD doesn't mean it is. Sometimes the truth isn't what you want to believe... Sorry...
Small projects tend to work to incorporate into other bigger projects. Large projects stand for themselves, they are not going to used with with other projects, it makes them easier to stay with the GPL, and you are not going to be breaking the GPL easily. The smaller projects are often tools to make bigger projects easier to complete. And a more Open to developers license makes them seem more attractive.
GPL license subscribes to the idea that everyone agrees with GPL Ideals, and has an infrastructure designed to work with the GPL. This isn't the case, some companies sell closed source tool, not because of greed and evil, but because if they open source it then competitors will take over their work, before they can make money off of it, that they need to pay off their staff who are working on their products. No for some organizations their projects work with the GPL other they do not. Now as part of the development progress there are byproduct mini-projects that are created that are not core to the business, and they want to release them so others can benefit. GPL means only people who make GPL products can use it, non-GPL such as the MIT license means more people can use them.
Recharge in less then 5 minutes?
However you get hacked into rather quickly because your password is "God" or "AmGod"
Lately I have been replaying the Quest for Glory games... I am not sure if it is just nostalgia. But I like the old Sierra games, they were not the high action games, even the Quest for Glory games which were the more action pact then the others, still had most of your time walking around and looking and trying to solve puzzles. That didn't require Top notch hand eye coordination. Back in the days Sierra Games were Top of the Line in graphics. Your reward for solving a puzzle was to be able to get to a new screen. In the days before internet these games were hard to go threw if you won it you felt like a hero, as you would play the game for months to try to win and solve the problems. Sometimes you are spending your time solving a problem that doesn't exist. I want to break into the Bakers shop, but I get arrested for making too much noise, I find ways to do it quieter and still I never got in... Well There isn't a way in. You don't know that, perhaps if you get in you can get something good.
Jokes about sex are always funny. they spur up the adolescent boy in each of us.
Don't touch the sides... Butter fingers.
Normally I would support boycotting. However in this case, it isn't that the Airlines are loving the TSA.It is the government, the government has a much higher tolerance to a boycott then the airline companies. A drop in air travel means less demmand for TSA agents and more money they can put somewhere else. To the airline a boycott means less air travel, and less money made while keeping the same expenses as they have a very expensive fleet that they need to keep working.
Now if you are boycotting for something the airlines are doing (such as charging for your bags) then you can do a more effective boycott by using companies that don't do this charge. And when the offending company figures out why there is a drop off in sales, then they will reverse some of the decisions.
Boycotting isn't the same as a full protest. Boycotting is a way to make a point without you getting on the news. It is about not giving to an organization that you don't like, until they change.
"Distort the Truth" you mean flat out lie. Steve Jobs reality distortion field, didn't wasn't a lie, he showed how things worked and how easy it was to do them, he just left out what you can't do.
Companies like Greenpeace give environmentalism a bad name. They are more about self promotion then about actually saving the environment.
Oh Look a big data center that does a lot of extra processing so a low powered mobile device can give the features and performance of a higher powered device. And Apple tries to make much of their energy in a green method anyways so overall it is even better.
A real hacker would break into 256 companies, not 259... What was he thinking?
Unless he actually broke into 512 or 1024 companies.
Yes, Yes, The Sex Abuse scandal... Bla Bla Bla, Joke Joke Jokes, Just to make you feel better about your life to know that even "Religious People" don't live up to their own rules...
The Crime the Church did was cover it up, and just transferred abusers to an other location, which is wrong. However I am willing to be the number of priests who did performed sex abuse is the same as any other sector of the population.
The British Accent 'as a tenancy to drop the "H" sound in their words. As illustrated in the My Fair Lady.
"In 'artford, 'ediford, and 'ampture. 'erricanes 'ardly hever 'appen"
Because the accent drops the H sound most words sound like they start with a vowel. Thus makes language more natural to ad the an to the sentence.