There is one thing Thunderbolt does have going for it, however.
Since it's essentially a PCI bus extension --- this means, you can add an external PCI chassis attached via Thunderbolt without
needing special drivers, and in theory....
you can do things like add additional GPUs and arbitrary PCI devices to your desktop way beyond the expandability of your physical motherboard's
or primary chassis' form factor.
There's really no way to accomplish something like that using USB, at least.... not with complicated specialized drivers being developed
Your point is valid but I've got one better. The only people that will use this will do so for what I consider nefarious purposes. Criminals, politicians you name it, if it makes the public aware of exactly what they've done they will demand to be erased.
How about this.... If "removal of search results" is exercised, when searching for the name a Red Banner
will show up saying "The person by this name has blocked some of these search results."
Then a little link on the righthand side that says "More Information";
if you click there, it will show the original copy of the request for removal,
and a list of the individual URLS that are currently being blocked from appearing in the search index due to their request.
Mind you, I'm explaining what happened, not defending it, and the reason I'm explaining it is to point out that it's entirely possible a vitamin-D test may be perfectly acceptable. Or it may not be. It could likely go either way.
If the test claims to be able to identify if you have a Vitamin-D deficiency problem, then the FDA will say that it is a diagnostic test requiring certification of the device and test methodology.
any searches made on the basis of a person's name that returns links/descriptions for web pages containing information on the person in question can, upon request by the related individual, be removed.
SEO.
Companies are persons. This gives them more control of their name.
They certainly won't want any competitors' links to be listed in search results, or ads, when their name is searched.
Now they just need to exercise their "right" of removal.
If there are benign uses, it is the lawmaker's responsibility to clearly except them, from the law.
There are benign uses of fully automatic machine guns, such as enjoying turning a target poster into swiss cheese, or for duck hunting, but lawmakers have found no cause yet to legalize them.
The onus is ultimately on the would-be benign user to demonstrate substantial benefits to society of allowing their use, given the hazards.
The disadvantage you face is that these things have existed for a long time
Not really. Modern long range drones that can be flown remotely using cameras are very new.
You may be forgetting, that there is no regulation to address modern drones --- according to the FAA, for the time being, by default they are already banned for commercial profitmaking or other non-recreational purposes, without an extensive permitting process.
There is... therefore.... plenty of opportunity for rulemaking proceedings; businesses such as Amazon will want to fly their drones.
In order to do that safely, they are going to need the FAA to lay down a regulatory framework, that says who can operate drones, under what conditions, licensing requirements, etc.
And any recreational/'toy' users are either going to have to follow the same rules, or else, the onus will be on them to show extraordinary benefits to society for each exemption they try to have carved out.
Wasn't it nice when at least space programs still worked together and were kind of outside the scope of international quarrels.
Maybe they are. They only said their rockets couldn't be used to launch military satellites.
That leaves unhindered space program / non-military civillian satellites.
Against a kid operating a toy? Get some perspective! And never run for office. I have no desire to live in a society that has a stick that far up it's ass!
It's not a toy. Most drones are not being used as toys. I am not referring to RC toy planes which can only really be flown with line of sight from the ground. You are attempting to raise the argument to a different level/change the subject by bringing out a fanciful, overly benign supposed example, and suggesting most drones are the same. And I reject that. We are specifically concerned about devices that are quite expensive and can fly at high altitudes or over long distances remotely, and pose numerous potential dangers.
These are not toys any more than a hunting rifle in the hands of a 13 year old is a toy.
By the way, the 13 year old will indeed be subject to prison or fines, if they are found unsupervised or in violation of other hunting laws or firearms regulations, including the licensing requirements.
You need a permit to go off and shoot at deer, so why not, to operate a drone?
How many years in the slam do you propose for unlawful possession of a common child's toy?
I propose a $10,000 forfeiture for first offense if caught operating outside the bounds of the law,
plus forfeiture of any revenue or gains achieved, an amount to increase tenfold for each successive offense, and jail time if not paid timely.
Operating a lawnmower safely doesn't require special skills.
Meanwhile, A license isn't terribly heavy, I'm sure it won't do much to slow someone down if they choose to run away if something bad happens.
There will be a limited number of people who have filed flight plans to take their drone up in the sky that day, so there is a much better chance of identifying you, if you do run. It will be easy to verify the other people in the area can account for the whereabouts of their registered and tagged drone.
And before you whine about the/4 that someone you know manages, realize that to be the god of the internet, you only need to remember 32.
What the hell are you talking about? There are only 8 unique octet patterns; there is no need to memorize more than those 8, and have a basic grasp of multiplication tables from 1 times 1 up to 16 times 16... the bit pattern in the netmask boundary octet of a/4 is no different from a/24.
I don't understand why you are fixated on the CIDR example, but it is basic knowledge that IPv4 network admins MUST have, period, and instead we have schools out there teaching "Classful Addressing" which has been irrelevent for 15 years.
This is just one example, and not the essence of the argument.
The other example is "IT trade school" graduates who cannot figure out how to even open the network adapter settings on a Windows XP workstation.
Theoretical CS people are not even expected to know about that.
I don't fault them for it. I am only asserting the fact, that additional training is needed, and their schools mislead them if they thought they were getting all the right things they need to succeed in IT -from the school classes-; --without mucho extra outside work on their own--
yeah, horrible phone companies, allowing a company to put their corporate number for the caller ID for all calls.
Fine if they put whatever they want in the 'caller id' that is transmitted inband at the start of the call;
they should NOT be allowed to use a custom ANI; the ANI number which is used for long distance billing should be unique to the line and should be the number that calls into that line.
The police ought to be provided access to and use the more reliable ANI Billing number (Automatic Number Identification), instead of the relying upon the possibly user-spoofable Caller ID.
The thing is, it IS fact. Netflix doesn't control the end-user's computer. It doesn't bring up a browser and click it's own links. Netflix doesn't generate the traffic requests for their content.
Netflix chooses what links to offer. It's whatever links Netflix chooses to offer that are being requested. If Netflix were offering less content, there would be a lower volume of requests.
Users are clicking links in response to Netflix's offer; which is driven by Netflix.
The end-user does. And the end user is ALREADY paying Comcast to fullfill their requests for internet traffic.
And Cogent/Comcast is fulfilling their requests for internet traffic, just not in a manner that is satisfactory to Netflix, due to the existence of some latency and packet loss --- which is incompatible with video streaming, but just fine for website browsing.
The Comcast subscribers are paying for internet data, with no guarantee that every site in the world will have sufficiently uncongested links to deliver crystal clean HD rate streaming video and audio.
If I paid someone to walk to the store and buy me a DVD, he does not get to charge the store for the service, does he?
Not only/can/ he, but he'd be dumb if he didn't. He's going to avail himself of any negotiation or coupon to attempt to get a discount he can, in order to reduce the amount out of his pocket that he pays for a DVD, in order that the amount you paid him minus his cost for the DVD, will be maximal.
It's a superficial example, and not at all like your relationship with your ISP.
Trying to intimidate people with technical jargon garbage does a disservice to real IT work. Knowing subnetting notation is not nearly as important as say, knowing how routing works.
If you don't know CIDR notation or how subnetting works, and you cannot do the conversions in your head, then you may as well not know how routing works, because you're not going to be able to configure the router that requires this notation, in a reasonable or acceptable amount of time for a professional, you need training. Knowing how it works is important, but insufficient. You need to have the skill to enter that configuration with few or no errors, and do it within about 15 minutes max.
No time to go Google search or look for a subnet calculator as a crutch to help you limp through setting up servers or equipment.
Hence the reason that the pure theory CS person is not cut out for an IT job, without extra experience.
This is not to deride on the CS person. But CS is not IT, and IT is not CS. They have overlapping but distinct skill and knowledge requirements.
A pure IT person makes a lousy coder or software architect, by the way.
Might as well licence the use of a can opener (which, unlike this, has actually resulted in injuries requiring medical treatment).
The difference is this: if you misuse a can opener, you can cut your finger.
If you fly your drone recklessly, you can crash into a window causing thousands of dollars in damage. You can crash a person on the ground, and it can kill them.
Your drone can crash into a vehicle on the roadway, causing an accident, resulting in multiple deaths.
Your drone could crash into an airplane, resulting in possible loss of flight control -- serious damage to a multi-million dollar aircraft, or potential crash-landing of multi-million dollar aircraft, resulting in thousands of deaths.
AND if you didn't have to be licensed -- you can duck out, you will probably never be identified, and as a result you will have no real consequences for the dick move in wrecklessly piloting your drone.
The Internet in general doesn't work that way, sorry to break it to you. It is, by and in large, a pull model
As far as the Tier1 NSPs are concerned... Layers 4 through 7 don't exist, so they just ignore them. Their job (as far as management is concerned) is not to make a higher level "internet application" such as HTTP work, the network providers are only concerned about transporting Layer 3 IP payloads, and maximizing the number of dollars they get per bit of Layer 3 IP payload they transfer; the providers are not going to attach any "higher level logic" structure to their negotiation about the transportation of such and such packet, unless it is to their economic benefit to do so.
If the up/down traffic ratio to any peer is unbalanced, they are going to use that as an argument to reject free peering, and require their peer pay monthly data fees for additional ports to be installed.
Stop spreading the lie that content producer generate lots of traffic.
You are taking sides in a very old debate, and presenting your current opinion as fact, which it is not.
This matter is a dispute to be settled by the parties coming to an agreement; it is not a lie that the content producer generates traffic. The receivers would not be 'receiving' such traffic, if the content provider was not choosing to serve that traffic.
The top eyeball network providers agree, that content producers push lots of traffic and don't push nearly as many bits, therefore the content producers should pay for the peering (Bear the cost of moving that data across the eyeball network).
The top content provider networks agree, that eyeball networks pull lots of traffic, therefore, the eyeball networks should pay for the peering (Bear the cost of pulling that traffic through the content provider network for delivery to the eyeball provider).
In any event.... these kinds of disputes have been going on for 20 years; this is old hat stuff.
Netflix has exacerbated the situation with the extreme magnitude of their bandwidth demands.
You can be sure.... these disputes WILL be resolved, AND the end users will ultimately be paying the costs of building the additional infrastructure, no matter WHICH of the service providers they are using wins.
The pure theory CS people may be up for coding, but without other experience, they don't have the skills or knowledge necessary for system or network technician, admin, or engineering roles in IT, for sure; entry level helpdesk, perhaps, not unlike the IT skill level I would expect of an ITT/Devry graduate.
There's no pure theory CS curriculum I know of that includes specialized things that IT people have to know just to get started, such as: What a/27 is, and what Netmask/IP to configure the Windows machine with when I tell you I have assigned the VLAN a/28, and you need to give that computer the last IP address in 10.0.0.48/28, with.49 as default gw. What RAID10 is -- more importantly, how to set one up, how DNS works.... what file to edit and what changes to make to create a reverse DNS entry for X.Y.Z.W; the list goes on as much as you like.
Judging by the apparent skill level of their average graduates that I have seen/known of, they either don't have nearly enough lab hours, OR what they are doing during those lab hours is not very effective at imparting significant levels of skill.
Hell, when I did digital logic, half the class was fucking horrible at boolean arithmetic of any form and they WERE engineering students. I quickly discovered most of them were cheating off of the handful of us that actually understood how to do it.
Wow.. and those were engineering students. I specifically suspect that it is freshman level College Algebra (non-calculus), that the non-STEM majors mostly cheat at -- or get through without actually properly learning the material to a reasonable level of competence that their college's accredited curriculum requires them to have taken.
It's just one course. It's a lot easier for a student to get through one low-level course without learning the material, than to take a series of classes with a variety of professors, including some one-on-one interactions. These freshman Math classes are usually very large classes, often graded by computer via scantron as multiple choice tests, with most likely no quizzes.... Proctoring a test in an auditorium-sized room can be quite a challenge. Will they detect obvious copying? probably not.
There are also more subtle 'cheats' though, which may not even be a violation of academic dishonest ---
just, any mechanism for exploiting a test without really having learned the material.
The bar is usually a "C or higher," and that happens to not be a very high bar, yet there are plenty of students who
take and withdraw from the course multiple attempts; eventually a good number of "D" students are bound to brute force their way to a C without having understood the material or developed the problem solving abilities, probably, despite visiting TAs during office hours to pelt them with questions about the upcoming test -- just by good luck, memorization of certain problems, and good test taking skills.
Slashdot Mirror
There is one thing Thunderbolt does have going for it, however.
Since it's essentially a PCI bus extension --- this means, you can add an external PCI chassis attached via Thunderbolt without needing special drivers, and in theory.... you can do things like add additional GPUs and arbitrary PCI devices to your desktop way beyond the expandability of your physical motherboard's or primary chassis' form factor.
There's really no way to accomplish something like that using USB, at least.... not with complicated specialized drivers being developed
Your point is valid but I've got one better. The only people that will use this will do so for what I consider nefarious purposes. Criminals, politicians you name it, if it makes the public aware of exactly what they've done they will demand to be erased.
How about this.... If "removal of search results" is exercised, when searching for the name a Red Banner will show up saying "The person by this name has blocked some of these search results."
Then a little link on the righthand side that says "More Information"; if you click there, it will show the original copy of the request for removal, and a list of the individual URLS that are currently being blocked from appearing in the search index due to their request.
Mind you, I'm explaining what happened, not defending it, and the reason I'm explaining it is to point out that it's entirely possible a vitamin-D test may be perfectly acceptable. Or it may not be. It could likely go either way.
If the test claims to be able to identify if you have a Vitamin-D deficiency problem, then the FDA will say that it is a diagnostic test requiring certification of the device and test methodology.
any searches made on the basis of a person's name that returns links/descriptions for web pages containing information on the person in question can, upon request by the related individual, be removed.
SEO.
Companies are persons. This gives them more control of their name.
They certainly won't want any competitors' links to be listed in search results, or ads, when their name is searched.
Now they just need to exercise their "right" of removal.
If there are benign uses, it is the lawmaker's responsibility to clearly except them, from the law.
There are benign uses of fully automatic machine guns, such as enjoying turning a target poster into swiss cheese, or for duck hunting, but lawmakers have found no cause yet to legalize them. The onus is ultimately on the would-be benign user to demonstrate substantial benefits to society of allowing their use, given the hazards.
The disadvantage you face is that these things have existed for a long time
Not really. Modern long range drones that can be flown remotely using cameras are very new.
You may be forgetting, that there is no regulation to address modern drones --- according to the FAA, for the time being, by default they are already banned for commercial profitmaking or other non-recreational purposes, without an extensive permitting process.
There is... therefore.... plenty of opportunity for rulemaking proceedings; businesses such as Amazon will want to fly their drones.
In order to do that safely, they are going to need the FAA to lay down a regulatory framework, that says who can operate drones, under what conditions, licensing requirements, etc.
And any recreational/'toy' users are either going to have to follow the same rules, or else, the onus will be on them to show extraordinary benefits to society for each exemption they try to have carved out.
Wasn't it nice when at least space programs still worked together and were kind of outside the scope of international quarrels.
Maybe they are. They only said their rockets couldn't be used to launch military satellites. That leaves unhindered space program / non-military civillian satellites.
Against a kid operating a toy? Get some perspective! And never run for office. I have no desire to live in a society that has a stick that far up it's ass!
Your logical fallacy is straw man.
It's not a toy. Most drones are not being used as toys. I am not referring to RC toy planes which can only really be flown with line of sight from the ground. You are attempting to raise the argument to a different level/change the subject by bringing out a fanciful, overly benign supposed example, and suggesting most drones are the same. And I reject that. We are specifically concerned about devices that are quite expensive and can fly at high altitudes or over long distances remotely, and pose numerous potential dangers.
These are not toys any more than a hunting rifle in the hands of a 13 year old is a toy.
By the way, the 13 year old will indeed be subject to prison or fines, if they are found unsupervised or in violation of other hunting laws or firearms regulations, including the licensing requirements.
You need a permit to go off and shoot at deer, so why not, to operate a drone?
How many years in the slam do you propose for unlawful possession of a common child's toy?
I propose a $10,000 forfeiture for first offense if caught operating outside the bounds of the law, plus forfeiture of any revenue or gains achieved, an amount to increase tenfold for each successive offense, and jail time if not paid timely.
But a high school math teacher has to take about 9 credits less of math than a BS math major.
Perhaps if they know they intend to be teaching HS math.
My understanding, however, is the teaching certificate does not name or limit the teacher to a particular subject once they get it.
It is possible they will wind up teaching any subject that they and their school agree to have them teaching.
I'd imagine that nobody has come up with an assassination robot because of the need for stealth.
Sounds like a job for a mosquito-sized drone carrying a microsyringe holding a severe biotoxin.
Shall we licence lawnmowers?
Operating a lawnmower safely doesn't require special skills.
Meanwhile, A license isn't terribly heavy, I'm sure it won't do much to slow someone down if they choose to run away if something bad happens.
There will be a limited number of people who have filed flight plans to take their drone up in the sky that day, so there is a much better chance of identifying you, if you do run. It will be easy to verify the other people in the area can account for the whereabouts of their registered and tagged drone.
And before you whine about the /4 that someone you know manages, realize that to be the god of the internet, you only need to remember 32.
What the hell are you talking about? There are only 8 unique octet patterns; there is no need to memorize more than those 8, and have a basic grasp of multiplication tables from 1 times 1 up to 16 times 16... the bit pattern in the netmask boundary octet of a /4 is no different from a /24.
I don't understand why you are fixated on the CIDR example, but it is basic knowledge that IPv4 network admins MUST have, period, and instead we have schools out there teaching "Classful Addressing" which has been irrelevent for 15 years.
This is just one example, and not the essence of the argument.
The other example is "IT trade school" graduates who cannot figure out how to even open the network adapter settings on a Windows XP workstation.
Theoretical CS people are not even expected to know about that. I don't fault them for it. I am only asserting the fact, that additional training is needed, and their schools mislead them if they thought they were getting all the right things they need to succeed in IT -from the school classes-; --without mucho extra outside work on their own--
yeah, horrible phone companies, allowing a company to put their corporate number for the caller ID for all calls.
Fine if they put whatever they want in the 'caller id' that is transmitted inband at the start of the call; they should NOT be allowed to use a custom ANI; the ANI number which is used for long distance billing should be unique to the line and should be the number that calls into that line.
The police ought to be provided access to and use the more reliable ANI Billing number (Automatic Number Identification), instead of the relying upon the possibly user-spoofable Caller ID.
The thing is, it IS fact. Netflix doesn't control the end-user's computer. It doesn't bring up a browser and click it's own links. Netflix doesn't generate the traffic requests for their content.
Netflix chooses what links to offer. It's whatever links Netflix chooses to offer that are being requested. If Netflix were offering less content, there would be a lower volume of requests.
Users are clicking links in response to Netflix's offer; which is driven by Netflix.
The end-user does. And the end user is ALREADY paying Comcast to fullfill their requests for internet traffic.
And Cogent/Comcast is fulfilling their requests for internet traffic, just not in a manner that is satisfactory to Netflix, due to the existence of some latency and packet loss --- which is incompatible with video streaming, but just fine for website browsing.
The Comcast subscribers are paying for internet data, with no guarantee that every site in the world will have sufficiently uncongested links to deliver crystal clean HD rate streaming video and audio.
If I paid someone to walk to the store and buy me a DVD, he does not get to charge the store for the service, does he?
Not only /can/ he, but he'd be dumb if he didn't. He's going to avail himself of any negotiation or coupon to attempt to get a discount he can, in order to reduce the amount out of his pocket that he pays for a DVD, in order that the amount you paid him minus his cost for the DVD, will be maximal.
It's a superficial example, and not at all like your relationship with your ISP.
Trying to intimidate people with technical jargon garbage does a disservice to real IT work. Knowing subnetting notation is not nearly as important as say, knowing how routing works.
If you don't know CIDR notation or how subnetting works, and you cannot do the conversions in your head, then you may as well not know how routing works, because you're not going to be able to configure the router that requires this notation, in a reasonable or acceptable amount of time for a professional, you need training. Knowing how it works is important, but insufficient. You need to have the skill to enter that configuration with few or no errors, and do it within about 15 minutes max.
No time to go Google search or look for a subnet calculator as a crutch to help you limp through setting up servers or equipment.
Hence the reason that the pure theory CS person is not cut out for an IT job, without extra experience.
This is not to deride on the CS person. But CS is not IT, and IT is not CS. They have overlapping but distinct skill and knowledge requirements.
A pure IT person makes a lousy coder or software architect, by the way.
Might as well licence the use of a can opener (which, unlike this, has actually resulted in injuries requiring medical treatment).
The difference is this: if you misuse a can opener, you can cut your finger.
If you fly your drone recklessly, you can crash into a window causing thousands of dollars in damage. You can crash a person on the ground, and it can kill them.
Your drone can crash into a vehicle on the roadway, causing an accident, resulting in multiple deaths.
Your drone could crash into an airplane, resulting in possible loss of flight control -- serious damage to a multi-million dollar aircraft, or potential crash-landing of multi-million dollar aircraft, resulting in thousands of deaths.
AND if you didn't have to be licensed -- you can duck out, you will probably never be identified, and as a result you will have no real consequences for the dick move in wrecklessly piloting your drone.
The Internet in general doesn't work that way, sorry to break it to you. It is, by and in large, a pull model
As far as the Tier1 NSPs are concerned... Layers 4 through 7 don't exist, so they just ignore them. Their job (as far as management is concerned) is not to make a higher level "internet application" such as HTTP work, the network providers are only concerned about transporting Layer 3 IP payloads, and maximizing the number of dollars they get per bit of Layer 3 IP payload they transfer; the providers are not going to attach any "higher level logic" structure to their negotiation about the transportation of such and such packet, unless it is to their economic benefit to do so.
If the up/down traffic ratio to any peer is unbalanced, they are going to use that as an argument to reject free peering, and require their peer pay monthly data fees for additional ports to be installed.
In theory, that's how things seem to be going.
Stop spreading the lie that content producer generate lots of traffic.
You are taking sides in a very old debate, and presenting your current opinion as fact, which it is not. This matter is a dispute to be settled by the parties coming to an agreement; it is not a lie that the content producer generates traffic. The receivers would not be 'receiving' such traffic, if the content provider was not choosing to serve that traffic.
The top eyeball network providers agree, that content producers push lots of traffic and don't push nearly as many bits, therefore the content producers should pay for the peering (Bear the cost of moving that data across the eyeball network).
The top content provider networks agree, that eyeball networks pull lots of traffic, therefore, the eyeball networks should pay for the peering (Bear the cost of pulling that traffic through the content provider network for delivery to the eyeball provider).
In any event.... these kinds of disputes have been going on for 20 years; this is old hat stuff. Netflix has exacerbated the situation with the extreme magnitude of their bandwidth demands.
You can be sure.... these disputes WILL be resolved, AND the end users will ultimately be paying the costs of building the additional infrastructure, no matter WHICH of the service providers they are using wins.
I'm stuck with what I have. How the fuck am I supposed to vote with my wallet this way?
It's called /move house/, unfortunately.
No problem... the research was done after they already had banned it, so the lawyers will argue they can't use it as evidence :)
what about the pure theory CS people?
The pure theory CS people may be up for coding, but without other experience, they don't have the skills or knowledge necessary for system or network technician, admin, or engineering roles in IT, for sure; entry level helpdesk, perhaps, not unlike the IT skill level I would expect of an ITT/Devry graduate.
There's no pure theory CS curriculum I know of that includes specialized things that IT people have to know just to get started, such as: What a /27 is, and what Netmask/IP to configure the Windows machine with when I tell you I have assigned the VLAN a /28, and you need to give that computer the last IP address in 10.0.0.48/28, with .49 as default gw. What RAID10 is -- more importantly, how to set one up, how DNS works.... what file to edit and what changes to make to create a reverse DNS entry for X.Y.Z.W; the list goes on as much as you like.
The ones at ITT, devry and others do.
Judging by the apparent skill level of their average graduates that I have seen/known of, they either don't have nearly enough lab hours, OR what they are doing during those lab hours is not very effective at imparting significant levels of skill.
Hell, when I did digital logic, half the class was fucking horrible at boolean arithmetic of any form and they WERE engineering students. I quickly discovered most of them were cheating off of the handful of us that actually understood how to do it.
Wow.. and those were engineering students. I specifically suspect that it is freshman level College Algebra (non-calculus), that the non-STEM majors mostly cheat at -- or get through without actually properly learning the material to a reasonable level of competence that their college's accredited curriculum requires them to have taken.
It's just one course. It's a lot easier for a student to get through one low-level course without learning the material, than to take a series of classes with a variety of professors, including some one-on-one interactions. These freshman Math classes are usually very large classes, often graded by computer via scantron as multiple choice tests, with most likely no quizzes.... Proctoring a test in an auditorium-sized room can be quite a challenge. Will they detect obvious copying? probably not.
There are also more subtle 'cheats' though, which may not even be a violation of academic dishonest --- just, any mechanism for exploiting a test without really having learned the material.
The bar is usually a "C or higher," and that happens to not be a very high bar, yet there are plenty of students who take and withdraw from the course multiple attempts; eventually a good number of "D" students are bound to brute force their way to a C without having understood the material or developed the problem solving abilities, probably, despite visiting TAs during office hours to pelt them with questions about the upcoming test -- just by good luck, memorization of certain problems, and good test taking skills.
This is because they have education degrees, not Engineering or Mathematics degrees.
You don't really need to know math to get your Education degree. You just need to B*S* and/or cheat your way through one or two math courses.