You really think that Leo Traynor will not be watching his friends kid who tortured him for a year? He still has all the data and proof, so if he does devolve, the record is still there.
How would he be watching the boy? The boy already knew how to disguise his identity on the Internet even though he made a mistake using his own house IP address. Next time, he would be more cautious on this mistake. Now what? The author is not an IT expert. The author is not with the boy 24/7. Also, what would be benefiting the author for watching the boy all the time?
Also even though he has the history proof of the boy, how would an authority trace back to the boy and then him (the author)? It is not likely to be processed (get to) that quick when there is no official record of his misbehave. Technically, yes he has the proof but just that would really be helpful in practice? Maybe, maybe not...
Hmm... I think it starts to get further and further off topic. You may not assume that good media laws in your definition could be applied or would be as good when they are applied to other countries. Even though laws seem to be universal, laws actually are depended on local culture. It may look unhealthy to one's perspective, but is perfectly fine to others.
Even though the article is not about finding a solution for censorship, I will respond to your methods to handle this sort of matter.
The problem becomes how could one prove a claim to be false if the claim, as I already mentioned, is partially true but omit other truths?
For example, A and B have a disagreement. Then A slaps B in the face first. Because of that, B punches A back and causing A to lose a few teeth. From that incident, A broadcasts that B punched him in the face and he lost a few teeth, but he did not mention that he actually initiates the incident. Does the broadcast contain bias? Is it a truth? Is it a false claim?
You may argue that some people would ask A for a reason for B punching him. However, that's not the point of doing these kind of broadcasting. The point is to deliver the bias message to those who don't think much and are gullible enough to accept whatever information that are showing in public at the current time.
Then back to the article, the point is to censor for 24 hours. If the person has already been elected because of the bias broadcast, there is no reversal of the election. Yes, the person may or may not be elected the next time, but the fact has not changed -- the person is elected and unlikely to be taken out of the office from his/her broadcasting.
The example may not be fit to every situation, but it should give you something to think about why your solution may not really work. There are always some people who look for a loophole and exploit it. Even a handful of these people are already enough to cause global turmoil.
And how much marshmallow do you need to be 120 pounds? Besides, it still doesn't guarantee that the 120-pound marshmallow would not kill a person in collision when it moves at 60mph...
Censorship is the enforced blocking of information, it's the preventing of it even being broadcast which is exactly what's being asked for here.
That would depend on the content of the broadcast. In politic, the content being broadcast is to convey audience toward the broadcaster or it is called bias. Also, most if not all of these broadcasts disclose some truth and omit some others. As a result, most of the time it is a lie by omission. Therefore, the comparison to shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not practically wrong.
How about "using a machine which has computation power much much higher than a human"? That's something a patent attorneys usually do in order to avoid the "key word" part...
- Replace DV lottery program with STEM visa
- Only those who obtained a doctorate or master degree from a U.S. university (or those who obtained a doctorate from a foreign university) are eligible, including courses/programs taking from online
- Allow those who graduated from for-profit schools to participate with some level of criteria set.
- The candidate must be physically present in the U.S.
- The process to obtain the visa is similar to the process to obtain a green card
- The candidate must work with the employer at least 5 years
- Doctorate holders has higher priority when apply.
- Employers and occupation of the job must be listed on Department of Homeland Security website.
- Instead of replacing the DV lottery program, create a new green card program called EB-6.
- Let the new program run for 2 years, and then let lawmakers reassess whether to continue it.
- Not allow for-profit schools into the program.
- The pay must be considered from experience level, not from prevailing wage.
Seaweed itself does not taste that good and some are even bland. What most people eat are products that have been added flavour (seasoning). However, it has been known for a long time (at least in Asia) that seaweed is good and could be treated as a vegetable...
It seems that you are looking for only one group of people to blame because of your choice of political view. I would go even further than just politic in your case. Because everyone is making money or benefits -- banks, realtors, brokers, and home buyers -- no one attempts to do anything but keep trying to take the advantage of the situation. People who want to buy a house are talked into (by realtors & brokers) buying a house because they believe they can own a house and turn it over in a couple of months or years to make even more money even though they cannot really afford one. Brokers & realtors are making commissions even though they fabricate buyer's qualifications (but no one is in jail!). Banks are getting profit from loan interests (but found out later that they aren't going to so they attempt to push the debt to investors). They are all blinded by money they are making (or taking advantage of).
So I would say that a lot of people involved in the cause of the crisis. Pointing your finger to only one just because you don't like the one is a bias. If you want to point your finger, try to point to every single one of them.
Still it sounds like a fallacy. A program (A) is pushed to happen using a certain budget, but a group of people want the money to be spent on another program (B). However, the program (A) continues and its result (C) is a success. Now, a program (D) is being pushed to happen, it does not guarantee a similar result (success) because 1)program D is not the same as program A, 2)the group of people involved in these events are different, and 3)the periods when both events occur are different.
Not that I against the idea, but I would prefer to see a different way of spending money seeing how India poverty is. However, if they think that pride can make their stomach full, then be it.
Yes, you have a good point. However, that's the art of patent attorney to come up with new words in patent claims/descriptions, so the patent is different from prior art -- shake vs. whack. Also, they may argue later on that this is an "app" but not a built-in phone functionality. Sadly, this is one of well known broken patent system but nothing is done to fix it...
Huh? I can't agree that software is algorithms. Software is an implementation of algorithms, not algorithms. You cannot patent algorithms, but you can patent their implementation...
"I think I can help you with Beauty if you are interested." he said.
Unfortunately, the prosthesis is not anchored securely enough to return Beauty to the wild, but she now can feed herself and preen her feathers.
The new beak is not good enough for the eagle to be in the wild but beauty... At least it shows potential that there may be an improvement to match the original (nature) in the future. Either way, I hope that it will always be kept in good intention of use of 3D printer (such as this example in the article).
The article writer makes a lot of assumptions, and then apply his assumptions to his point of view.
I started programming in BASIC when I was 8 years old and learned how to create database-driven software in dBase III+ when I was 9 or 10. I even grabbed big books on compiler theory and all kinds of nonsense so that I'd know everything I needed.
The first assumption is using his own experience as a standard. He, as an individual, could be intelligent and diligent, but he is not that average Joe. Many people come into this field just for money. Some of them are diligent but has no talent in the field. Some of them are lazy but could pretend that they are hard working until they get hired.
If I had picked up a degree, I would have missed the entire dot-com boom and graduated during the ensuing recession with no experience carrying a load of debt.
The second assumption is being at the right place at the right time. Not everybody would be as lucky as he is. He said what if he had gone to school when the dot com was booming, he would have had no job because he would miss out the experience. That is not a qualify example because it is just all about opportunity. Some people may not have a chance to earn experience, but they could have much higher potential to learn if they ever have a chance.
I explained that of the people who earned a Computer Science degree, most don't know any theory and can't code. Instead, they succeed at putting things on their resume that match keywords.
The third assumption is coding and theories are for CS degree. I agree only half of this assumption -- theory. CS degree is about algorithm and theory. The coding part of CS is to demonstrate their understanding of theories, not to code a commercial software or program. He did not elaborate the definition of "coding" he talks about, so I cannot comment further. One note, however, is that some people such as myself do not remember certain theory name/keyword. I have a problem with that because I usually forget the name but understand the algorithm detail. The name sounds familiar to me but would not ring the bell about how it works. When someone talks to me about the theory I cannot remember the name and uses only the name, he or she would think I am an idiot because I have no idea what it is with just the name. So I may be one of the group he talks about.
There's nothing wrong with education, just with most conventional educational institutions -- which today are getting a run for their money from nimbler organizations.
The fourth assumption is generalizing all universities provide the same program quality. Some universities, especially for-profit, do not provide good enough qualification of education. I agree that certain schools should not offer CS program at all because their education is not qualified for. However, this is America where one should have freedom to offer such a program if the one can prove that the program passes certain requirements.
Instead, they succeed at putting things on their resume that match keywords.
The last assumption is thinking that writing a resume is one of CS degree qualification. To write a good resume, it does not require a degree at all; besides, there are a lot of places on the Internet that teach you how to write a resume. One more thing that a lot of people do not know about IT resume -- it can be fake. I was once trying to get a job via an Indian recruiting company. The company fabricated a resume for me and tried to train me to be who I was not. I went along with and tried that on one interview. I intentionally threw the interview because I felt so wrong. I quited that Indian company right after that interview and went through a normal way of looking for a job. As you all can see that it is not difficult to fake a resume with all bell & whistle experience (projects). The hiring company would not k
Actually the middle class is weakening because the insiders have rigged the game so that only they can accumulate wealth and the middle class loses theirs through inflation, market manipulation and, yes, taxes.
And rig the game is directly from taxes? Who is getting richer from taxes? Is government has pile of money laying around because of taxes? No, because the way they spend the money that I am concerned, not the amount of money I pay into. So you still haven't clarified about why hiding away from taxes is better than concerning about how the money (taxes) is spent.
And part of the problem is people like you that think these insiders and bureaucrats can (or will) do a better job at top-down manipulation of the economy
Huh? What's wrong with give money when I voluntarily to do so and I feel obligate to? Did I say I believe that bureaucrats can (and/or will) to do a better job to manipulate economy? Didn't you understand about my concern of how the money is spent? Does it say anything about manipulating economy? there are 2 different things -- manipulate private economy and spend money to develop the country. Because people like you always assume what I will be from your own thought, you will always be blinded by your own assumption. Because I feel that I am giving out my fair share to the government, I am now a bureaucrat slave? Assume whatever you want, my concern is still what it is and I believe it should be for everyone -- where and how money should be spent to make the whole better, not why I should not pay taxes because I will give away too much money.
millions of people acting in their own self-interest with their own money - which is, in fact, the only proven path to prosperity after thousands of years of evidence.
Be more specific about the evidence. If it is really the prosperity way, why certain parts of the world that use the similar practice (acting in their own self-interest with their own money) are not that prosperity at all? To me, it is rather be selfish than prosperity.
Some people learn better hands on then book learning.
And how would you know that before you hire them? University education is being used as credential more or less. Though, some employers are using it wrong and think that it is the only qualification they need.
Well then how about you just pay everything you earn in taxes, and then you'll get back the minimum the bureaucrats decide you need.
That's what I am doing. You you think that paying taxes is to weaken middle class is really stupid. If the tax money is being used correctly, the effect is not to weaken anyone but strengthen the whole country. That's why the middle class is weakening (or none existing already) because people like you who only think about how much money I can hide away instead of how do I make the country better.
Maybe we can be better off with a cut down maths plan for most people and the people who really need the high level stuff can take it in a smaller class where they can get help when they need it better then a big class with little help from the staff.
The problem will be how much you need to cut and that is still enough for education. Would you want to take a risk to cut too much maths education for kids and later on they won't be able to perform well in their life (not job)? What is too much? What is too little? Could you draw a line? Easy talk than do...
In fifteen years, if he chooses to go to college (and I'm definitely not going to make him go, by the time he's going to college tuition will probably be so expensive as to make the investment have a negative return) he's going to take the gen ed classes at a local community college at a fraction of the cost of a big-deal four year university. Then, if he chooses to continue on to a 'four-year' university, he'll only have to pay for the four or five semesters it'll take him to complete courses in his major.
That's what I did when I went to school here. It is the cheapest way to go through and is very economical. However, not all kids can do. The trade off is going to be when they go through the second 2-year in a university. First reason is that they may not make new friends at the new school because those who have been there since freshman seem to stick together. As a result, no one really tries to reach out to them unless they have good social skills. Second reason is that all classes will be majors; as a result, the difficulty level is jumped and they may not be able to handle. Last reason is the different environment between community college and university. Professors in a university have much less care toward students compared to instructors (not professors) in a community college. If they cannot adapt themselves to the new environment, their learning ability may be lower and could even flunk classes. So before you let your kid do that, you should also confirm that your kid can handle it.
Slashdot Mirror
You really think that Leo Traynor will not be watching his friends kid who tortured him for a year? He still has all the data and proof, so if he does devolve, the record is still there.
How would he be watching the boy? The boy already knew how to disguise his identity on the Internet even though he made a mistake using his own house IP address. Next time, he would be more cautious on this mistake. Now what? The author is not an IT expert. The author is not with the boy 24/7. Also, what would be benefiting the author for watching the boy all the time?
Also even though he has the history proof of the boy, how would an authority trace back to the boy and then him (the author)? It is not likely to be processed (get to) that quick when there is no official record of his misbehave. Technically, yes he has the proof but just that would really be helpful in practice? Maybe, maybe not...
Hmm... I think it starts to get further and further off topic. You may not assume that good media laws in your definition could be applied or would be as good when they are applied to other countries. Even though laws seem to be universal, laws actually are depended on local culture. It may look unhealthy to one's perspective, but is perfectly fine to others.
Even though the article is not about finding a solution for censorship, I will respond to your methods to handle this sort of matter.
The problem becomes how could one prove a claim to be false if the claim, as I already mentioned, is partially true but omit other truths?
For example, A and B have a disagreement. Then A slaps B in the face first. Because of that, B punches A back and causing A to lose a few teeth. From that incident, A broadcasts that B punched him in the face and he lost a few teeth, but he did not mention that he actually initiates the incident. Does the broadcast contain bias? Is it a truth? Is it a false claim?
You may argue that some people would ask A for a reason for B punching him. However, that's not the point of doing these kind of broadcasting. The point is to deliver the bias message to those who don't think much and are gullible enough to accept whatever information that are showing in public at the current time.
Then back to the article, the point is to censor for 24 hours. If the person has already been elected because of the bias broadcast, there is no reversal of the election. Yes, the person may or may not be elected the next time, but the fact has not changed -- the person is elected and unlikely to be taken out of the office from his/her broadcasting.
The example may not be fit to every situation, but it should give you something to think about why your solution may not really work. There are always some people who look for a loophole and exploit it. Even a handful of these people are already enough to cause global turmoil.
Even good old CVS allows you to specify an external diff.
Which branch are you talking about? I would want to use their service for diff records. ;)
And how much marshmallow do you need to be 120 pounds? Besides, it still doesn't guarantee that the 120-pound marshmallow would not kill a person in collision when it moves at 60mph...
Censorship is the enforced blocking of information, it's the preventing of it even being broadcast which is exactly what's being asked for here.
That would depend on the content of the broadcast. In politic, the content being broadcast is to convey audience toward the broadcaster or it is called bias. Also, most if not all of these broadcasts disclose some truth and omit some others. As a result, most of the time it is a lie by omission. Therefore, the comparison to shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not practically wrong.
How about "using a machine which has computation power much much higher than a human"? That's something a patent attorneys usually do in order to avoid the "key word" part...
The Lisp in the parent post is still cleaner ;)
Here are the list of 3 bills proposed by different politicians. Each of them have advantages and disadvantages in their own reasons.
Bill from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) -- http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9231276/Republicans_ready_STEM_Jobs_Act_
- Replace DV lottery program with STEM visa
- Only those who obtained a doctorate or master degree from a U.S. university (or those who obtained a doctorate from a foreign university) are eligible, including courses/programs taking from online
- Allow those who graduated from for-profit schools to participate with some level of criteria set. - The candidate must be physically present in the U.S.
- The process to obtain the visa is similar to the process to obtain a green card
- The candidate must work with the employer at least 5 years
- Doctorate holders has higher priority when apply.
- Employers and occupation of the job must be listed on Department of Homeland Security website.
Bill from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) -- http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9231295/Democrats_produce_rival_STEM_visa_bill
- Instead of replacing the DV lottery program, create a new green card program called EB-6.
- Let the new program run for 2 years, and then let lawmakers reassess whether to continue it.
- Not allow for-profit schools into the program.
- The pay must be considered from experience level, not from prevailing wage.
Bill from U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) -- http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9231377/Schumer_to_introduce_own_STEM_visa_bill?taxonomyId=70
- Similar to Lofgren but allow for-profit schools.
Oops wrong link, it should be http://espn.go.com/nba/conversations/_/id/8373804/lebron-x-souped-lebron-x-sneaker-retail-270 which is the newest one and has 2,900+ comments.
Well, if you want... Here http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8288491/nike-claims-reports-300-lebron-x-shoe-price-inaccurate is the link to the post with now 5,000+ comments and if they haven't removed his post though...
Seaweed itself does not taste that good and some are even bland. What most people eat are products that have been added flavour (seasoning). However, it has been known for a long time (at least in Asia) that seaweed is good and could be treated as a vegetable...
It seems that you are looking for only one group of people to blame because of your choice of political view. I would go even further than just politic in your case. Because everyone is making money or benefits -- banks, realtors, brokers, and home buyers -- no one attempts to do anything but keep trying to take the advantage of the situation. People who want to buy a house are talked into (by realtors & brokers) buying a house because they believe they can own a house and turn it over in a couple of months or years to make even more money even though they cannot really afford one. Brokers & realtors are making commissions even though they fabricate buyer's qualifications (but no one is in jail!). Banks are getting profit from loan interests (but found out later that they aren't going to so they attempt to push the debt to investors). They are all blinded by money they are making (or taking advantage of).
So I would say that a lot of people involved in the cause of the crisis. Pointing your finger to only one just because you don't like the one is a bias. If you want to point your finger, try to point to every single one of them.
FF 10^100 = google chrome
FF 10^100 == google chrome
Fixed...
Still it sounds like a fallacy. A program (A) is pushed to happen using a certain budget, but a group of people want the money to be spent on another program (B). However, the program (A) continues and its result (C) is a success. Now, a program (D) is being pushed to happen, it does not guarantee a similar result (success) because 1)program D is not the same as program A, 2)the group of people involved in these events are different, and 3)the periods when both events occur are different.
Not that I against the idea, but I would prefer to see a different way of spending money seeing how India poverty is. However, if they think that pride can make their stomach full, then be it.
Please don't gauge yourself as the standard. Not everyone is at your financial level. If one can afford it, that's fine; otherwise, it is a fortune.
Yes, you have a good point. However, that's the art of patent attorney to come up with new words in patent claims/descriptions, so the patent is different from prior art -- shake vs. whack. Also, they may argue later on that this is an "app" but not a built-in phone functionality. Sadly, this is one of well known broken patent system but nothing is done to fix it...
Software is Algorithms.
Huh? I can't agree that software is algorithms. Software is an implementation of algorithms, not algorithms. You cannot patent algorithms, but you can patent their implementation...
"I think I can help you with Beauty if you are interested." he said.
Unfortunately, the prosthesis is not anchored securely enough to return Beauty to the wild, but she now can feed herself and preen her feathers.
The new beak is not good enough for the eagle to be in the wild but beauty... At least it shows potential that there may be an improvement to match the original (nature) in the future. Either way, I hope that it will always be kept in good intention of use of 3D printer (such as this example in the article).
The article writer makes a lot of assumptions, and then apply his assumptions to his point of view.
I started programming in BASIC when I was 8 years old and learned how to create database-driven software in dBase III+ when I was 9 or 10. I even grabbed big books on compiler theory and all kinds of nonsense so that I'd know everything I needed.
The first assumption is using his own experience as a standard. He, as an individual, could be intelligent and diligent, but he is not that average Joe. Many people come into this field just for money. Some of them are diligent but has no talent in the field. Some of them are lazy but could pretend that they are hard working until they get hired.
If I had picked up a degree, I would have missed the entire dot-com boom and graduated during the ensuing recession with no experience carrying a load of debt.
The second assumption is being at the right place at the right time. Not everybody would be as lucky as he is. He said what if he had gone to school when the dot com was booming, he would have had no job because he would miss out the experience. That is not a qualify example because it is just all about opportunity. Some people may not have a chance to earn experience, but they could have much higher potential to learn if they ever have a chance.
I explained that of the people who earned a Computer Science degree, most don't know any theory and can't code. Instead, they succeed at putting things on their resume that match keywords.
The third assumption is coding and theories are for CS degree. I agree only half of this assumption -- theory. CS degree is about algorithm and theory. The coding part of CS is to demonstrate their understanding of theories, not to code a commercial software or program. He did not elaborate the definition of "coding" he talks about, so I cannot comment further. One note, however, is that some people such as myself do not remember certain theory name/keyword. I have a problem with that because I usually forget the name but understand the algorithm detail. The name sounds familiar to me but would not ring the bell about how it works. When someone talks to me about the theory I cannot remember the name and uses only the name, he or she would think I am an idiot because I have no idea what it is with just the name. So I may be one of the group he talks about.
There's nothing wrong with education, just with most conventional educational institutions -- which today are getting a run for their money from nimbler organizations.
The fourth assumption is generalizing all universities provide the same program quality. Some universities, especially for-profit, do not provide good enough qualification of education. I agree that certain schools should not offer CS program at all because their education is not qualified for. However, this is America where one should have freedom to offer such a program if the one can prove that the program passes certain requirements.
Instead, they succeed at putting things on their resume that match keywords.
The last assumption is thinking that writing a resume is one of CS degree qualification. To write a good resume, it does not require a degree at all; besides, there are a lot of places on the Internet that teach you how to write a resume. One more thing that a lot of people do not know about IT resume -- it can be fake. I was once trying to get a job via an Indian recruiting company. The company fabricated a resume for me and tried to train me to be who I was not. I went along with and tried that on one interview. I intentionally threw the interview because I felt so wrong. I quited that Indian company right after that interview and went through a normal way of looking for a job. As you all can see that it is not difficult to fake a resume with all bell & whistle experience (projects). The hiring company would not k
Actually the middle class is weakening because the insiders have rigged the game so that only they can accumulate wealth and the middle class loses theirs through inflation, market manipulation and, yes, taxes.
And rig the game is directly from taxes? Who is getting richer from taxes? Is government has pile of money laying around because of taxes? No, because the way they spend the money that I am concerned, not the amount of money I pay into. So you still haven't clarified about why hiding away from taxes is better than concerning about how the money (taxes) is spent.
And part of the problem is people like you that think these insiders and bureaucrats can (or will) do a better job at top-down manipulation of the economy
Huh? What's wrong with give money when I voluntarily to do so and I feel obligate to? Did I say I believe that bureaucrats can (and/or will) to do a better job to manipulate economy? Didn't you understand about my concern of how the money is spent? Does it say anything about manipulating economy? there are 2 different things -- manipulate private economy and spend money to develop the country. Because people like you always assume what I will be from your own thought, you will always be blinded by your own assumption. Because I feel that I am giving out my fair share to the government, I am now a bureaucrat slave? Assume whatever you want, my concern is still what it is and I believe it should be for everyone -- where and how money should be spent to make the whole better, not why I should not pay taxes because I will give away too much money.
millions of people acting in their own self-interest with their own money - which is, in fact, the only proven path to prosperity after thousands of years of evidence.
Be more specific about the evidence. If it is really the prosperity way, why certain parts of the world that use the similar practice (acting in their own self-interest with their own money) are not that prosperity at all? To me, it is rather be selfish than prosperity.
Yeah, and at least you need to have spent sometimes in your life growing up in the poverty of your country to see how poor people are thinking.
Some people learn better hands on then book learning.
And how would you know that before you hire them? University education is being used as credential more or less. Though, some employers are using it wrong and think that it is the only qualification they need.
My argument is that taxes are too high,
Ok, fair enough.
Well then how about you just pay everything you earn in taxes, and then you'll get back the minimum the bureaucrats decide you need.
That's what I am doing. You you think that paying taxes is to weaken middle class is really stupid. If the tax money is being used correctly, the effect is not to weaken anyone but strengthen the whole country. That's why the middle class is weakening (or none existing already) because people like you who only think about how much money I can hide away instead of how do I make the country better.
Maybe we can be better off with a cut down maths plan for most people and the people who really need the high level stuff can take it in a smaller class where they can get help when they need it better then a big class with little help from the staff.
The problem will be how much you need to cut and that is still enough for education. Would you want to take a risk to cut too much maths education for kids and later on they won't be able to perform well in their life (not job)? What is too much? What is too little? Could you draw a line? Easy talk than do...
In fifteen years, if he chooses to go to college (and I'm definitely not going to make him go, by the time he's going to college tuition will probably be so expensive as to make the investment have a negative return) he's going to take the gen ed classes at a local community college at a fraction of the cost of a big-deal four year university. Then, if he chooses to continue on to a 'four-year' university, he'll only have to pay for the four or five semesters it'll take him to complete courses in his major.
That's what I did when I went to school here. It is the cheapest way to go through and is very economical. However, not all kids can do. The trade off is going to be when they go through the second 2-year in a university. First reason is that they may not make new friends at the new school because those who have been there since freshman seem to stick together. As a result, no one really tries to reach out to them unless they have good social skills. Second reason is that all classes will be majors; as a result, the difficulty level is jumped and they may not be able to handle. Last reason is the different environment between community college and university. Professors in a university have much less care toward students compared to instructors (not professors) in a community college. If they cannot adapt themselves to the new environment, their learning ability may be lower and could even flunk classes. So before you let your kid do that, you should also confirm that your kid can handle it.