Technology can be useful before it becomes obsolete. A new thruster would still help before the development of impulse engines. Plus, ST technology makes everything too easy. Without transports, maybe they'll have an actual decent set of shuttlecraft instead of those little suicide boxes. Plus, read some hard sci-fi, not pulp. Most good sci-fi is based on feasible science, not godlike hocus-pocus. B5 gave a hint of this, with inertial ships, no shields, and rotational gravity. I wanna see some zero-g space combat in space suits.
Umm, personally I think most people look back on TNG through rose-coloured glasses. I think DS-9, second last season, was easily as good as the last season of TNG. TNG kinda ran out of ideas towards the end - I mean, people seemed kinda disappointed if they didn't fight the borg every episode. Main thing I liked about DS9 - plot continuity - yesterday is not the same as today is not the same as tomorrow. Things change more often then once per season. DS9 had, though worse actors, more believable characters.
I think DS9 and TNG have about the same maturity, most of the time. But yes, Voyager is for small kids who are easily distracted by shiny objects and large breasts.
I assume you mean species 8472, as named by the borg (they need a real freaking name). Y'see, they didn't seem to have the budget for that or something, as the next time they were featured, they'd somehow all been metamorphosed into humans to impersonate starfleet acadamy. Instead of cool aliens, we get the academy groundskeeper, Boothby.
Not to mention the simply obscene number of inconsistencies you have to consider if you think of Ep 1 as the prequel its supposed to be - for example "to train your father as Yoda trained me" (Jedi) vs that in Ep1, Obi-Wan is trained by Qui-Gon. And how about the fact that Threepio and Artoo knew and met Annikin as a boy? Why didn't they mention this to Luke? Is there an abundance of Skywalkers out there, and they never considered that this new master might be related to that kid and that mess on Naboo a ways back? Or "Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru" - Annikin's an only child - this is excusable, Uncle and Aunt could just be an affectation.
Although Star Trek has a horrible record for inconsistencies, this sort of playing with time opens up a whole new can of worms for the sort of bumbling they could do.
At my university, you connect through the university phone system which makes dial-up impossible, and they don't let you use cable-modems. This neighborhood lacks any DSL or anything like that, so in other words, if you're on res, its Resnet or do without. As a result the university can impose whatever net policies they like, at any time, and we can't do a thing about it. How can this problem be handled?
Umm, pardon me, but my university has us pony up $115 for 8 months on the residence internet system. The e-mail is free, but you don't get a choice about using it or not, as a lot of course info comes through that account so you have to use it for at least some things. Its not to high speed, is specially tweaked to have FTP, Napster, and other "low priority" communications run especially slowly (avg 1k/sec) and has a 500 meg/week dl cap. I think that's a reasonable deal, actually, that part makes sense, they're trying to allocate their limited bandwidth properly. I would have no problem with this if it weren't for the usual evil privacy policy.
I think you'll find many less technically obsessed universities will have similar plans.
This is why your country is so screwed. By handing over healthcare finance to a corrupt insurance system, you ignore the human side of the process, the fact that your clients are people.
Yes, the Canadian system of "just treat anybody who's a citizen and needs it" is disorganized, inefficient, and occasionally ineffective, but at least we're willing to accept who/what you are and treat you anyways, regargless of your features.
In Canada, such gene-mapping would be voluntary and be protected under the hippocratic oath. A person has the right to know about their own genetic mappings. Its certainly not anyone elses business though.
Your right to raise your child as you see fit is neither god-given nor absolute. The government has laws against child abuse and negligence that exist for good reasons and I support. The child is not your property, he/she is your responsibility.
Yes, there is a great deal of merit in films aimed at an older audience, and I believe that a child could learn a great deal about life from, some of these movies. But do you want this child to be making this decision without you? All this means that, if a child is going to buy Q3 is that you have to be there to buy it.
My attitude is to place the same restrictions on in-store video games as we have on our movies. If a child really wants to play/see something violent, then the parent must be there to consent for it.
However, I do not agree that violent games should not be advertised. As long as the advertisements are tame enough for the given media (eg not actually showing anyone being gibbed to bits on afternoon TV commercials) then they should be allowed to do so. After all, R-Rated movies seem to remain successfull, and they have that same limitation.
Okay, I'm sorry, there are plenty of other good action games out there if you care to look - the problem is that most people don't really look around at games, they just play what's popular. The signal-to-noise ratio is pretty bad, so most people are too lazy to look for good games. Playstation in particular has a huge line of abnormal, non-genre based multiplayer games... Most of them could be tentatively be labled behind-view shooters, but they tend to be quite a bit stranger then that label suggests (Armored Core series, Twisted Metal, Critical Depth, Ballblazer Champions).
Bacause of the nature of the mouse-keyboard interface, an in-cockpit of 1st person view is very efficient for the PC... but if you look around, there are many games that get away from the guy-with-gun mentality of the predominant FPS games. I suggest the new Battlezone games, or ports of console games.
Well, regardless of how fast the eye goes (and I don't think it really has much concept of frames, humans are temporally analogue) the human brain generally doesn't make use of more then 60 fps, except for motion-blurring, which can be simulated onboard.
Okay, I seem to have given the mistaken impression that I'm an idiot. Modelling is not that simple, just because the tools are more powerful. Yes, I actually do have experience in 3d modelling - and it is very easy to use tons of polys poorly. The problem is actually making non-crap with them. I mean, with better rendering tools you get higher standards to live up to. People don't expect to see eyelashes and animated blushing on a PS1. With that sort of hardware, such expectations would be quite reasonable.
You know, like they say in spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility? If you took modern modeling and just made more rounded versions of old cheap looking game sprites (like, say, the tank from battlezone) then all you'd get is a lot of laughs. Better technology means that more detail is needed (and detail is not easier regardless of how many polys you have) as well as making sure that the polys deform properly.
Having more polys does not make modelling easier - while it does give you more freedom, it also massively raises the bar. Look at Jurassic Park - look how long they took to make it, and look how shitty every other 3d rendered dinosaur looks in comparison. That's the problem with such powerful technology. Eventually, video cards will be good enough to produce things like Jurassic Park in realtime. Dealing with realistic skin, hair, and things like that is only as easy as you describe if you're working with heavy helpers, which, on one hand are the only way to go, but on the other have the disadvantage that it limits your control on the environment. Imagine if all documents were made in the lobotomized windoze wizards.
Yes, modellers tend to make with too many polys then strip down - but as a 2d artist as well, I always work in at least 4x the res the final work will be in, then scale down. So, modellers will probably have to work in even higher detail, then tear out the excess polys from that.
Look at your face - look at Lara Croft's face. Lara's not that hard to put together, I can pretty well see how it works. Yours is much more complicated. When playing a realistic 3d game, they will expect to see something more like your face then Lara's, if the hardware exists that can do it. That sounds a lot harder to me.
Oh, and I played a bunch of the 1st gen PS2 games and found them to be about on par with the Dreamcast, really. A little better, but not the kind of performance they were boasting of. Amored Core, Tekken, and that snowboarding game, they all look about on par with their Dreamcast counterparts. I haven't seen Madden though.
PS2, for all its l33t hardware, doesn't seem too impressive. For all that neat stuff, its designed for benchmarks, can't really use it all that well and its too hard to develop for.... when they make use of this thing, will they have the same probles, eg "Hooray, can render up to 65536x65536 res texture maps on over 4 billion polys... but its only got 4 megs of video ram". Or something to that effect. For that matter, when you get to that level how well can a human develop for a platform? Modelling gets tougher and tougher as the renderers get better.... Making more polys, better texture maps, multiple maps (bump, alpha, luminosity, reflection, etc) for layers, blenders, better frame rates for animations.
I'm all for this hardware, but ya gotta wonder: can we even properly use it.... then again, that's been said many times before.
Heh, it'd look about the same. Face it, for all we love Q3's eyecandy, it doesn't really go up to the obscene levels that you would make use of something half this good. Hell, get an Athlon and a good Geforce and you're pretty close to the top anyways.
Godiva was a lady who through Coventry did ride
To show to all the villagers her lovely bare white hide.
The most observant villager an engineer of course
Was the only one to notice that Godiva rode a horse!
Oh, we are we are we are we are are the engineers.
we can we can we can we can demolish forty beers.
drink rum drink rum drink rum drink rum and come along with us.
Oh we don't give a damn for any old man who don't give a damn for us.
Thankyou.... UBC, you've done an honor to engineers everywhere. You've challenged us all to one-up you!
Well, my problem is this - why should God take your side and not theirs? I mean, if both teams pray for deliverance before the match, how should He pick sides? Personally, I think you're being unfair to god by getting Him involved in competitive engagements. Thanking Him for your prowesses is fine, but not for the outcomes of the game, for the performance of the ball. This is between you and them. Not to say that God has no business on the field, just that believing in His involvement for your personal benefit is unfair to the other team..... I mean really, there are a finite number of players on the pitch, if God wants to get involved then He can throw on a cup and a jersey and play some fscking football.
Otherwise, He should sit on the sidelines like the rest of us.
Heheh... I'm sure a consulting firm could be arranged that would perform this service for you. And I'm sure they could be trusted completely, after all, they're consultants.
So, we need another firm to keep an eye on the consulting firm that recommends consulting firms..... and that consulting company might not be trusted implicitly, so some consultatnts must be hired to check their background.... beginning to sound like the cat in the hat, isn't it? Alternately, the company could arrange an internal consulting research division.... which consumes resources needlessly for something that should be small and simple..... and is 100% redundant with the constulting research divisions of every other company..... ow, my head hurts.
(Note to libertarians - imagine that sort of economy applied to medicine, then understand why so many people shake their heads in confusion at you).
Umm, actually, I'm all for nuclear power... its you economic shmucks that want to build gas and coal 'cause they're so much cheaper. Stupid economists.
Transformers were released much earlier in Japan.... In fact, all the original transformer toy lines weren't even made for that purpose, they were 2 separate failed toy lines that were merged together - the reason that so many TF's have actual opening cabins for pilots is 'cause they're supposed to have real pilots (Optimus prime, the decepticon jets, may more).. originally, it was some Robotech-ish alien-invasion war thing with heroic guys piloting vehicles that turn into giant robots.... The hand-held objects like reflector, soundwave, and megatron were from a different toy line. Both of these toy lines were released in Japan long before. Yes, Gobots were first in US, but TF's were first around. And most of the orignal transformers are at least partially metal - eg Optimus Prime's canopy is metal, ditto with parts of the Jets, many of them.
Its interesting to notice how many TF's are bought as knock-offs and sold to be knocked off - The whole first line was knock-offs, someone's already mentioned Jetfire/Skyfire is from Robotech with a different head. The Jumpstarters, Twintwist and the other guy whoze name I don't remember, are from some little novelty company. Its the same now.... I've seen Chinese copies of the new Optimus Primal gorilla thing with a new head and a new box, but otherwise the same damn toy.
Okayyy... I had to go back and check to make sure Katz, for all his lunacy, was bizarre enough to say such a thing. I mean, I try to respect Katz, even though I can't stand his writing style, just cause the trolls give him so much crap, but that's just too much...
I mean, come on, is he seriously comparing giving our brats Q3A to saving people from sweatshops? Have we gotten that egocentric? Wake up, man, there's more to life then the little grey box. I'm a comp-eng student, so I'm supposed to be obsessed with these things, but that's just too much. Yes, it is important to give children a proper, well rounded education, but have you lost you're fscking mind?! I mean, this is comparing a lifetime feudalism, abuse, and death to missing out on a neat toy for a few years.
How bout getting those kids some decent teachers, and schools safe to be in, and a reasonable literacy level. Stop being so.... cybercentric, I guess, and recognize that there's a real world out there.
They don't have to be M.I.T.... I'm in the University of Guelph taking a Systems and Computing Engineering program, and Guelph is not considered a highly technical school - mainly focussed on biology here.... and its 70% female;) - Anyways, I'm in my second semester, and I'm taking a heavy course load of 5 maths (4 courses is total normal course load for most programs). Integral Calculus II, Engineering Analyses (applying matrix algebra to engineering problems), Engineering Mechanics (Statics and Dynamics in 3d with engineering problems), Physics (flow modelling, sound, the usual) and Discrete Structures in computing (binary and set finite mathematics).... These are not some special selections, this is the standard course load for my program. This university gives us a heavy background of mathematics right from the get-go. My 6th and last course, 2 courses above normal load, is Spanish. Have to do something to get the bad taste of all that math out of my mouth. It is kinda annoying, in a computer program and I haven't even got a programming course this semester (though I had a nice intro Java 2 last semester).
Oh, and in case you're wondering, Guelph's in Ontario.
Okay, why are the tags so fscked up lately? There were line breaks in that message, I clicked Plain Old Text, and it still vomits out one big paragraph.
Slashdot Mirror
Technology can be useful before it becomes obsolete. A new thruster would still help before the development of impulse engines. Plus, ST technology makes everything too easy. Without transports, maybe they'll have an actual decent set of shuttlecraft instead of those little suicide boxes. Plus, read some hard sci-fi, not pulp. Most good sci-fi is based on feasible science, not godlike hocus-pocus. B5 gave a hint of this, with inertial ships, no shields, and rotational gravity. I wanna see some zero-g space combat in space suits.
Umm, personally I think most people look back on TNG through rose-coloured glasses. I think DS-9, second last season, was easily as good as the last season of TNG. TNG kinda ran out of ideas towards the end - I mean, people seemed kinda disappointed if they didn't fight the borg every episode. Main thing I liked about DS9 - plot continuity - yesterday is not the same as today is not the same as tomorrow. Things change more often then once per season. DS9 had, though worse actors, more believable characters.
I think DS9 and TNG have about the same maturity, most of the time. But yes, Voyager is for small kids who are easily distracted by shiny objects and large breasts.
I assume you mean species 8472, as named by the borg (they need a real freaking name). Y'see, they didn't seem to have the budget for that or something, as the next time they were featured, they'd somehow all been metamorphosed into humans to impersonate starfleet acadamy. Instead of cool aliens, we get the academy groundskeeper, Boothby.
Not to mention the simply obscene number of inconsistencies you have to consider if you think of Ep 1 as the prequel its supposed to be - for example "to train your father as Yoda trained me" (Jedi) vs that in Ep1, Obi-Wan is trained by Qui-Gon. And how about the fact that Threepio and Artoo knew and met Annikin as a boy? Why didn't they mention this to Luke? Is there an abundance of Skywalkers out there, and they never considered that this new master might be related to that kid and that mess on Naboo a ways back? Or "Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru" - Annikin's an only child - this is excusable, Uncle and Aunt could just be an affectation.
Although Star Trek has a horrible record for inconsistencies, this sort of playing with time opens up a whole new can of worms for the sort of bumbling they could do.
At my university, you connect through the university phone system which makes dial-up impossible, and they don't let you use cable-modems. This neighborhood lacks any DSL or anything like that, so in other words, if you're on res, its Resnet or do without. As a result the university can impose whatever net policies they like, at any time, and we can't do a thing about it. How can this problem be handled?
Umm, yes, but your paying to be at university.... you're the customer, and they're treating you like an employee.
Umm, pardon me, but my university has us pony up $115 for 8 months on the residence internet system. The e-mail is free, but you don't get a choice about using it or not, as a lot of course info comes through that account so you have to use it for at least some things. Its not to high speed, is specially tweaked to have FTP, Napster, and other "low priority" communications run especially slowly (avg 1k/sec) and has a 500 meg/week dl cap. I think that's a reasonable deal, actually, that part makes sense, they're trying to allocate their limited bandwidth properly. I would have no problem with this if it weren't for the usual evil privacy policy.
I think you'll find many less technically obsessed universities will have similar plans.
This is why your country is so screwed. By handing over healthcare finance to a corrupt insurance system, you ignore the human side of the process, the fact that your clients are people.
Yes, the Canadian system of "just treat anybody who's a citizen and needs it" is disorganized, inefficient, and occasionally ineffective, but at least we're willing to accept who/what you are and treat you anyways, regargless of your features.
In Canada, such gene-mapping would be voluntary and be protected under the hippocratic oath. A person has the right to know about their own genetic mappings. Its certainly not anyone elses business though.
Your right to raise your child as you see fit is neither god-given nor absolute. The government has laws against child abuse and negligence that exist for good reasons and I support. The child is not your property, he/she is your responsibility.
Yes, there is a great deal of merit in films aimed at an older audience, and I believe that a child could learn a great deal about life from, some of these movies. But do you want this child to be making this decision without you? All this means that, if a child is going to buy Q3 is that you have to be there to buy it.
My attitude is to place the same restrictions on in-store video games as we have on our movies. If a child really wants to play/see something violent, then the parent must be there to consent for it.
However, I do not agree that violent games should not be advertised. As long as the advertisements are tame enough for the given media (eg not actually showing anyone being gibbed to bits on afternoon TV commercials) then they should be allowed to do so. After all, R-Rated movies seem to remain successfull, and they have that same limitation.
Okay, I'm sorry, there are plenty of other good action games out there if you care to look - the problem is that most people don't really look around at games, they just play what's popular. The signal-to-noise ratio is pretty bad, so most people are too lazy to look for good games. Playstation in particular has a huge line of abnormal, non-genre based multiplayer games... Most of them could be tentatively be labled behind-view shooters, but they tend to be quite a bit stranger then that label suggests (Armored Core series, Twisted Metal, Critical Depth, Ballblazer Champions).
Bacause of the nature of the mouse-keyboard interface, an in-cockpit of 1st person view is very efficient for the PC... but if you look around, there are many games that get away from the guy-with-gun mentality of the predominant FPS games. I suggest the new Battlezone games, or ports of console games.
TV resolution is 512x384, I think.
Well, regardless of how fast the eye goes (and I don't think it really has much concept of frames, humans are temporally analogue) the human brain generally doesn't make use of more then 60 fps, except for motion-blurring, which can be simulated onboard.
Okay, I seem to have given the mistaken impression that I'm an idiot. Modelling is not that simple, just because the tools are more powerful. Yes, I actually do have experience in 3d modelling - and it is very easy to use tons of polys poorly. The problem is actually making non-crap with them. I mean, with better rendering tools you get higher standards to live up to. People don't expect to see eyelashes and animated blushing on a PS1. With that sort of hardware, such expectations would be quite reasonable.
You know, like they say in spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility? If you took modern modeling and just made more rounded versions of old cheap looking game sprites (like, say, the tank from battlezone) then all you'd get is a lot of laughs. Better technology means that more detail is needed (and detail is not easier regardless of how many polys you have) as well as making sure that the polys deform properly.
Having more polys does not make modelling easier - while it does give you more freedom, it also massively raises the bar. Look at Jurassic Park - look how long they took to make it, and look how shitty every other 3d rendered dinosaur looks in comparison. That's the problem with such powerful technology. Eventually, video cards will be good enough to produce things like Jurassic Park in realtime. Dealing with realistic skin, hair, and things like that is only as easy as you describe if you're working with heavy helpers, which, on one hand are the only way to go, but on the other have the disadvantage that it limits your control on the environment. Imagine if all documents were made in the lobotomized windoze wizards.
Yes, modellers tend to make with too many polys then strip down - but as a 2d artist as well, I always work in at least 4x the res the final work will be in, then scale down. So, modellers will probably have to work in even higher detail, then tear out the excess polys from that.
Look at your face - look at Lara Croft's face. Lara's not that hard to put together, I can pretty well see how it works. Yours is much more complicated. When playing a realistic 3d game, they will expect to see something more like your face then Lara's, if the hardware exists that can do it. That sounds a lot harder to me.
Oh, and I played a bunch of the 1st gen PS2 games and found them to be about on par with the Dreamcast, really. A little better, but not the kind of performance they were boasting of. Amored Core, Tekken, and that snowboarding game, they all look about on par with their Dreamcast counterparts. I haven't seen Madden though.
PS2, for all its l33t hardware, doesn't seem too impressive. For all that neat stuff, its designed for benchmarks, can't really use it all that well and its too hard to develop for.... when they make use of this thing, will they have the same probles, eg "Hooray, can render up to 65536x65536 res texture maps on over 4 billion polys... but its only got 4 megs of video ram". Or something to that effect. For that matter, when you get to that level how well can a human develop for a platform? Modelling gets tougher and tougher as the renderers get better.... Making more polys, better texture maps, multiple maps (bump, alpha, luminosity, reflection, etc) for layers, blenders, better frame rates for animations.
I'm all for this hardware, but ya gotta wonder: can we even properly use it.... then again, that's been said many times before.
Heh, it'd look about the same. Face it, for all we love Q3's eyecandy, it doesn't really go up to the obscene levels that you would make use of something half this good. Hell, get an Athlon and a good Geforce and you're pretty close to the top anyways.
Godiva was a lady who through Coventry did ride
To show to all the villagers her lovely bare white hide.
The most observant villager an engineer of course
Was the only one to notice that Godiva rode a horse!
Oh, we are we are we are we are are the engineers.
we can we can we can we can demolish forty beers.
drink rum drink rum drink rum drink rum and come along with us.
Oh we don't give a damn for any old man who don't give a damn for us.
Thankyou.... UBC, you've done an honor to engineers everywhere. You've challenged us all to one-up you!
-a Guelph Engineer student.
Well, my problem is this - why should God take your side and not theirs? I mean, if both teams pray for deliverance before the match, how should He pick sides? Personally, I think you're being unfair to god by getting Him involved in competitive engagements. Thanking Him for your prowesses is fine, but not for the outcomes of the game, for the performance of the ball. This is between you and them. Not to say that God has no business on the field, just that believing in His involvement for your personal benefit is unfair to the other team..... I mean really, there are a finite number of players on the pitch, if God wants to get involved then He can throw on a cup and a jersey and play some fscking football.
Otherwise, He should sit on the sidelines like the rest of us.
No, the puppeteers will do that. We humans, on the other hand, will sit on our asses till the light of the core shines through the stellar clouds.
Heheh... I'm sure a consulting firm could be arranged that would perform this service for you. And I'm sure they could be trusted completely, after all, they're consultants.
So, we need another firm to keep an eye on the consulting firm that recommends consulting firms..... and that consulting company might not be trusted implicitly, so some consultatnts must be hired to check their background.... beginning to sound like the cat in the hat, isn't it? Alternately, the company could arrange an internal consulting research division.... which consumes resources needlessly for something that should be small and simple..... and is 100% redundant with the constulting research divisions of every other company..... ow, my head hurts.
(Note to libertarians - imagine that sort of economy applied to medicine, then understand why so many people shake their heads in confusion at you).
Umm, actually, I'm all for nuclear power... its you economic shmucks that want to build gas and coal 'cause they're so much cheaper. Stupid economists.
Transformers were released much earlier in Japan.... In fact, all the original transformer toy lines weren't even made for that purpose, they were 2 separate failed toy lines that were merged together - the reason that so many TF's have actual opening cabins for pilots is 'cause they're supposed to have real pilots (Optimus prime, the decepticon jets, may more).. originally, it was some Robotech-ish alien-invasion war thing with heroic guys piloting vehicles that turn into giant robots.... The hand-held objects like reflector, soundwave, and megatron were from a different toy line. Both of these toy lines were released in Japan long before. Yes, Gobots were first in US, but TF's were first around. And most of the orignal transformers are at least partially metal - eg Optimus Prime's canopy is metal, ditto with parts of the Jets, many of them.
Its interesting to notice how many TF's are bought as knock-offs and sold to be knocked off - The whole first line was knock-offs, someone's already mentioned Jetfire/Skyfire is from Robotech with a different head. The Jumpstarters, Twintwist and the other guy whoze name I don't remember, are from some little novelty company. Its the same now.... I've seen Chinese copies of the new Optimus Primal gorilla thing with a new head and a new box, but otherwise the same damn toy.
die-cast construction, its a lost art :)
Sorry, I'm a big fan of Mainframe, hadda get it right.
Okayyy... I had to go back and check to make sure Katz, for all his lunacy, was bizarre enough to say such a thing. I mean, I try to respect Katz, even though I can't stand his writing style, just cause the trolls give him so much crap, but that's just too much... I mean, come on, is he seriously comparing giving our brats Q3A to saving people from sweatshops? Have we gotten that egocentric? Wake up, man, there's more to life then the little grey box. I'm a comp-eng student, so I'm supposed to be obsessed with these things, but that's just too much. Yes, it is important to give children a proper, well rounded education, but have you lost you're fscking mind?! I mean, this is comparing a lifetime feudalism, abuse, and death to missing out on a neat toy for a few years. How bout getting those kids some decent teachers, and schools safe to be in, and a reasonable literacy level. Stop being so.... cybercentric, I guess, and recognize that there's a real world out there.
They don't have to be M.I.T.... I'm in the University of Guelph taking a Systems and Computing Engineering program, and Guelph is not considered a highly technical school - mainly focussed on biology here.... and its 70% female ;) - Anyways, I'm in my second semester, and I'm taking a heavy course load of 5 maths (4 courses is total normal course load for most programs). Integral Calculus II, Engineering Analyses (applying matrix algebra to engineering problems), Engineering Mechanics (Statics and Dynamics in 3d with engineering problems), Physics (flow modelling, sound, the usual) and Discrete Structures in computing (binary and set finite mathematics).... These are not some special selections, this is the standard course load for my program. This university gives us a heavy background of mathematics right from the get-go. My 6th and last course, 2 courses above normal load, is Spanish. Have to do something to get the bad taste of all that math out of my mouth. It is kinda annoying, in a computer program and I haven't even got a programming course this semester (though I had a nice intro Java 2 last semester).
Oh, and in case you're wondering, Guelph's in Ontario.
Okay, why are the tags so fscked up lately? There were line breaks in that message, I clicked Plain Old Text, and it still vomits out one big paragraph.