I would agree they are not the same degree, but to say I couldn't have gone for my PE exam is just wrong. There are plenty of EE grads that couldn't pass the PE exam that went to a traditional university. I'm saying it's the individual far more than the type of school.
I'm not saying you can't pass it. I'm saying you might not be allowed to take it. It varies from state to state. Some states do not allow those without degrees in engineering to take the test.
You may not intend to insult anyone, but the notion that learning to think can only occur at a formal university is foolish.
Once again, I'm not saying that learning can only occur at a university. Many people go to university and come out dumber than when they go in. It's all about what you make of it. With that said, going to a university affords you the most opportunity to do your learning if you are so inclined. You may think I'm trying to be an elitist, but to be perfectly honest, there are plenty of things wrong with the education system. It's still all a game when it comes down to it. If I didn't want to go to school for engineering, I probably would have become a mechanic. Engineering isn't something you can just "pick up." Alas, I decided to go and I'm glad for it. I didn't appreciate schooling until I actually started being challenged in college.
I can't speak for what they currently offer, but I did engineering. EET or Electrical Engineering Technology. We did all the math classes, worked several labs with PLDs, and even worked with TI's DLP chips. (new at the time)
Electrical Engineering Technology is not the same as Electrical Engineering. They are different ABET accreditations for a reason. It's also much harder, if not impossible, to sit for the PE exam if you don't have an engineering degree (not engineering technology).
Is it that University degree that has left you with such an open mind? You must be a really arrogant SOB. Do you believe carpenters, plumbers, you know all thoes trade guys are idiots incapable of thinking, as you put it? You have a lot to learn.
If you feel the need to twist my words, fine. I know plenty of craftsmen, as I do hands on construction work myself. Most of them are quite adept at solving problems, which is more thinking than anything else. However, that thinking ability takes quite a long time to build up. Going to a university basically compresses that into a few short years. The goal of my post wasn't to insult anyone, but to point out differences between a technical school and a university.
There are several problems with DeVry. One is that it has a bad image. The second is that your options are somewhat limited. You can't do engineering, for instance, at DeVry. But then, I suppose that's not really what DeVry's meant for. A guy I work with is going to DeVry for telecommunications or something. It pains me to see the way he is learning things--the silly exams and homeworks that have zero application to the real world (which is the supposed target of DeVry, from what I understand).
If your goal in life is to learn a trade or a skill then there's nothing wrong with DeVry, just as there's nothing wrong with being a carpenter, a mason, or an electrician. However, if you want to learn how to think, you go to university.
If a random number generator is not behaving perfectly randomly, it isn't a random number generator, now is it?
And what is causing this decided non-randomness? Hmm? That's the question here. They're looking for an answer. It's called science. Just because it sounds strange doesn't mean it's wrong. Don't think I'm saying the inverse of that either, that just because it sounds strange, it's right. I'm not. I'm merely saying give respected and credible researchers credit for trying to explain this behavior in a scientific manner.
They don't have a theory as to this can happen, but let's ignore that.
It's really sad how people can ignore the roots of science. To use a simple example, man KNEW about gravity before he had a theory about how it works. That's how science operates. You draw conclusions based on experimental results.
I'm not sure what causes people to be so immediately defensive. Maybe it's fright that everything people think they know could be turned upside down. I'm reminded of a wonderful quote from Donald Knuth that kind of encapsulates this whole discussion: "The fact is that everything we learn reveals more things that we do not understand."
Um. Watch baseball much? They already do things like this. The advertising behind home plate is not what's in the stadium, it's what the network is broadcasting, and yes, it changes. And yes, when the camera moves it doesn't stay put, it is just as if it were really there.
This is no different than how people react to the information on stock gauge clusters. "Why is that light blinking?" "What does the circle with two arcs around it it mean?" In fact, you have an opportunity to present the data in a better matter, something you know you'll understand. In the world of hand held cell phones, newspapers, cup holders, vanity mirrors, and in dash navigation systems with text displays, I hardly think the situation can be made any worse.
Meh, the legality of it is moot. Things with a lot less testing are very much road legal. There are hundreds of unique kit car designs out there that get registered all over. The monkeys at the DMV probably wouldn't even care when they inspect it.
Life critical information? Gauges are a luxury, at best. If my gauges broke tomorrow, I wouldn't stop driving. I would hope that most people can estimate their speed based on the sound of their engine. This is a lot easier, of course, to do when you have a manual transmission, as you always know what gear you're in. Still, for any driver, you should be able to at least ballpark it, especially when others are on the road.
Open source, free, community projects and gigantic, multinational corporations do not mix.
IBM, anyone? There is a good way and a bad way to mix open source and a big corporation. IBM does it right, Apple does it right. I don't know what you're so worried about.
A lot of people claim that allofmp3 is illegal. A lot of people claim it is legal. The fact is that it's in a grey area, and at the moment, not being targetted.
Erm. Take a look at a sphere sometime, or more properly an ellipsoid. On a positively oriented surface, everything is under you if you're on the surface. At any given point on the surface, the gravitational potential between you and every other particle vectorally sum "down," orthogonal to the surface and it doesn't matter that they also may be to the left or right of you.
Are you still a EE major? If so, your spreading of misinformation is troubling. I'm a MechE major, and your posts are making me really question Clemson's schooling.
Reminds me of a good quote in the movie "My Fellow Americans." FYI, if you haven't seen it, both of the below characters are presidents. Kramer is played by Jack Lemmon and Douglas by James Garner.
Russell Kramer: I was Time Magazine's Man of the Year. Matt Douglas: So was Hitler. Russell Kramer: Not twice.
Wow, you're being quite ignorant. I'm sorry, but it's true. Real is relying on an undocumented, proprietary technology to sell its files. Apple is under no obligation to make sure it keeps working. NONE. As mentioned, Real is free to sell plain vanilla MP3s, and they will work fine on an iPod. 100% Fine. YOU ARE THE ONE who does not understand.
The merits of using computers for this sort of thing reminds me of Dijkstra's famous statement: "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." The statement is very applicable to math as well. I have a book on my shelf called Concrete Mathematics - A Foundation for Computer Science. It's all math, the fact that it's for computer science is irrelevant. You needn't a computer to make sense of it. Until kids have actually learned the math (and in high school, they really haven't), I don't see the need for computers.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree they are not the same degree, but to say I couldn't have gone for my PE exam is just wrong. There are plenty of EE grads that couldn't pass the PE exam that went to a traditional university. I'm saying it's the individual far more than the type of school.
I'm not saying you can't pass it. I'm saying you might not be allowed to take it. It varies from state to state. Some states do not allow those without degrees in engineering to take the test.
You may not intend to insult anyone, but the notion that learning to think can only occur at a formal university is foolish.
Once again, I'm not saying that learning can only occur at a university. Many people go to university and come out dumber than when they go in. It's all about what you make of it. With that said, going to a university affords you the most opportunity to do your learning if you are so inclined. You may think I'm trying to be an elitist, but to be perfectly honest, there are plenty of things wrong with the education system. It's still all a game when it comes down to it. If I didn't want to go to school for engineering, I probably would have become a mechanic. Engineering isn't something you can just "pick up." Alas, I decided to go and I'm glad for it. I didn't appreciate schooling until I actually started being challenged in college.
I can't speak for what they currently offer, but I did engineering. EET or Electrical Engineering Technology. We did all the math classes, worked several labs with PLDs, and even worked with TI's DLP chips. (new at the time)
Electrical Engineering Technology is not the same as Electrical Engineering. They are different ABET accreditations for a reason. It's also much harder, if not impossible, to sit for the PE exam if you don't have an engineering degree (not engineering technology).
Is it that University degree that has left you with such an open mind? You must be a really arrogant SOB. Do you believe carpenters, plumbers, you know all thoes trade guys are idiots incapable of thinking, as you put it? You have a lot to learn.
If you feel the need to twist my words, fine. I know plenty of craftsmen, as I do hands on construction work myself. Most of them are quite adept at solving problems, which is more thinking than anything else. However, that thinking ability takes quite a long time to build up. Going to a university basically compresses that into a few short years. The goal of my post wasn't to insult anyone, but to point out differences between a technical school and a university.
There are several problems with DeVry. One is that it has a bad image. The second is that your options are somewhat limited. You can't do engineering, for instance, at DeVry. But then, I suppose that's not really what DeVry's meant for. A guy I work with is going to DeVry for telecommunications or something. It pains me to see the way he is learning things--the silly exams and homeworks that have zero application to the real world (which is the supposed target of DeVry, from what I understand).
If your goal in life is to learn a trade or a skill then there's nothing wrong with DeVry, just as there's nothing wrong with being a carpenter, a mason, or an electrician. However, if you want to learn how to think, you go to university.
She doesn't KNOW about gravity but she clearly has developed a theory about how it works.
Okay, maybe I should be more clear. She knows it's there; she observes its effects. Yet, I doubt she has a theory has to what causes gravity to exist.
Princeton is a country club. Apologies to their graduate math program... but come ON.
I may not like Princeton, but I respect them.
If a random number generator is not behaving perfectly randomly, it isn't a random number generator, now is it?
And what is causing this decided non-randomness? Hmm? That's the question here. They're looking for an answer. It's called science. Just because it sounds strange doesn't mean it's wrong. Don't think I'm saying the inverse of that either, that just because it sounds strange, it's right. I'm not. I'm merely saying give respected and credible researchers credit for trying to explain this behavior in a scientific manner.
They don't have a theory as to this can happen, but let's ignore that.
It's really sad how people can ignore the roots of science. To use a simple example, man KNEW about gravity before he had a theory about how it works. That's how science operates. You draw conclusions based on experimental results.
I'm not sure what causes people to be so immediately defensive. Maybe it's fright that everything people think they know could be turned upside down. I'm reminded of a wonderful quote from Donald Knuth that kind of encapsulates this whole discussion: "The fact is that everything we learn reveals more things that we do not understand."
Wow. I guess it's time to tell Princeton that "Capt'n Hector" says they're wrong so it must be true!
Um. Watch baseball much? They already do things like this. The advertising behind home plate is not what's in the stadium, it's what the network is broadcasting, and yes, it changes. And yes, when the camera moves it doesn't stay put, it is just as if it were really there.
This is no different than how people react to the information on stock gauge clusters. "Why is that light blinking?" "What does the circle with two arcs around it it mean?" In fact, you have an opportunity to present the data in a better matter, something you know you'll understand. In the world of hand held cell phones, newspapers, cup holders, vanity mirrors, and in dash navigation systems with text displays, I hardly think the situation can be made any worse.
Meh, the legality of it is moot. Things with a lot less testing are very much road legal. There are hundreds of unique kit car designs out there that get registered all over. The monkeys at the DMV probably wouldn't even care when they inspect it.
Life critical information? Gauges are a luxury, at best. If my gauges broke tomorrow, I wouldn't stop driving. I would hope that most people can estimate their speed based on the sound of their engine. This is a lot easier, of course, to do when you have a manual transmission, as you always know what gear you're in. Still, for any driver, you should be able to at least ballpark it, especially when others are on the road.
Open source, free, community projects and gigantic, multinational corporations do not mix.
IBM, anyone? There is a good way and a bad way to mix open source and a big corporation. IBM does it right, Apple does it right. I don't know what you're so worried about.
You do realize that none of the pre-built Xserves include a video card, right? I don't think people are buying them so they can have a GUI 'adduser.'
So you want Windows? GUI for server tasks is very much overrated if it means anything more than multiple terminal windows open at once.
And to further add to the confusion, NVRAM (non-volatile) RAM stays put without power.
http://www.fadmine.com/allofmp3-legal-cheap-mp3s.h tml.
A lot of people claim that allofmp3 is illegal. A lot of people claim it is legal. The fact is that it's in a grey area, and at the moment, not being targetted.
Anyone know of any man-made gravity field generators?.
Yea, it's called mass.
Erm. Take a look at a sphere sometime, or more properly an ellipsoid. On a positively oriented surface, everything is under you if you're on the surface. At any given point on the surface, the gravitational potential between you and every other particle vectorally sum "down," orthogonal to the surface and it doesn't matter that they also may be to the left or right of you.
Are you still a EE major? If so, your spreading of misinformation is troubling. I'm a MechE major, and your posts are making me really question Clemson's schooling.
Reminds me of a good quote in the movie "My Fellow Americans." FYI, if you haven't seen it, both of the below characters are presidents. Kramer is played by Jack Lemmon and Douglas by James Garner.
Russell Kramer: I was Time Magazine's Man of the Year.
Matt Douglas: So was Hitler.
Russell Kramer: Not twice.
You must be new here. Oh, yep, you are.
artists get nothing from your russian site.
Because they get so much from the RIAA.
There are other things besides GPS for navigation. LORAN, for instance. It at least covers the US and its coasts.
Wow, you're being quite ignorant. I'm sorry, but it's true. Real is relying on an undocumented, proprietary technology to sell its files. Apple is under no obligation to make sure it keeps working. NONE. As mentioned, Real is free to sell plain vanilla MP3s, and they will work fine on an iPod. 100% Fine. YOU ARE THE ONE who does not understand.
The merits of using computers for this sort of thing reminds me of Dijkstra's famous statement: "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." The statement is very applicable to math as well. I have a book on my shelf called Concrete Mathematics - A Foundation for Computer Science. It's all math, the fact that it's for computer science is irrelevant. You needn't a computer to make sense of it. Until kids have actually learned the math (and in high school, they really haven't), I don't see the need for computers.