The internet is finite space. Every student is going to draw from the same pool of bits, usually finding the same examples (usually on other universitys' web sites). As far as I'm concerned, this act is counter productive because it teaches the student how best to use some one else's work, not to build on it. Maybe this would be acceptable for engineering students that don't need to think out of the box for every problem, but for sciences, a course like this wouldn't teach much. When we as a society start drawing on our own pool of information for every problem, it leaves the idea of advancement on the shoulders of those who either don't or can't use the pool.
As far as emailing the answers around the room, that isn't too far from using the internet, since everyone is basically going to find the same things. At my university, we have two names for this act: cheating and plagerism. Open notes on exams may be the only way to go, for in the real world, scientists and engineers will always be looking up constants, and maybe a formulae or laws every now again to apply it correctly. This is a building process, unlike using a laptop on the internet, which is a plageristic process. sig(quote+"\n"+sign());
Eventhough the normal health issues should be undertaken, there are still people out there that just have bad eyesight. About a half of a year ago, I was able to witness the lasik laser procedure. It was quite interesting, but I was looking for the standard blood and scalpal and was quite let down. They simply cut a small piece of the outer covering of the eye into a flap, then blast away with a laser. This laser has been preprogrammed to the peaks and troughs of your eye which were obtained in pre-op with a different machine. The laser simply fires away until the peaks are not so tall and stops automatically. That flap of eye covering is then folded back into its original place. After this and a few hours of recovery, you go home feeling like you have a grain or two of sand in your eye. The next morning, you throw out the glasses. A week later, you're back to 'normal.' Excellent procedure, but uncreibally expensive, and it is usually done in a doctor's office in a few hours. If you have the money, it looks like a good idea.
It takes time for things like this to be resolved. Part of the problem is that people are looking for the quick fixes. If we as a society of people could communicate better after just 10 years, I would be more than happy.
Is this some form of a psychological study? If so, it would have had to pass through national ethics boards (if I so correctly remember from my psyc classes). I would not get too scared if it has, since the ethical standards of national psychology boards are usually good. Perhapse the study includes sufficiently formed questions to allow for creative and non standard people while still finding those that are, say, depressed and reactant. Isn't it sad that we as a society can't just TALK TO EACH OTHER to find out if anyone is in any problems?! No, we must hand out pieces of paper so everything is faster and more efficient, and so we have documented proof that subject 'q' is violent. However, if this is not a structured psychological survey, then look out. That means NO ethics are assured. In fact, from history (I can't recall examples this moment, sorry) most things like this have external motives involved (be that marketing, ethical, religious, whatever). Would I take this test? No. Would I allow my children to take this test? NO. If I ever saw this test in my child's school, there would be lawsuits within 45 minutes and several injunctions. Let's hope someone out there ran through the ethics of this monster first.
jazz: miles, trane, tain, tony williams, wynton..etc Rock: Dave Matthews, Jamiroquai, Steely Dan..etc Other: Tori Amos, Ani Difranco, Sarah McLachlan..etc
In my oh so honest opinion, I think what you're looking for would not serve you well a few years down the road. What you want is the logic and ability in the broad range of computer science. After this, the languages come much quicker. A computer science degree from a leading college would give you the depth as an individual to apply yourself to not only existing languages and technologies, but new ones as well. Trust me, in 5 years, some of the languages you mentioned will be looked upon by new programmers with blank faces.
Good luck with your education, and remember, the only bad education is the one that doesn't interest you.
What we have here is what MS loves to do; marketing. It's all about money. When MS says "your product is inferior," they are simply generating much needed competition. And when most people run around like chickens with their heads cut off over these meaningless numbers and pseudo-facts, MS sits back and watches the interest in their company grow, and their chances of being recognized as an anti-trust enforcement candidate decrease.
People, just let them say what they shall. Their remarks are not going to make any Linux/UNiX/Other users switch (the corporate world is different..). If someone says something rude about your favorite OS, just smile and walk away; it is their loss. I've never been so productive or happy with a workstation in my entire life until I found the OS of my choice.
For the corporate world (I'm no specialist here), if an exec wants to make a major move to MS products, there was obviously something missing from her current setup, so perhaps a company should market a corporate tech revitalization service so that some one else won't feel tempted to make a drastic (and usually costly, troublesome, less powerful) switch.
A perfect example would be a company I did some administration service for. They have 3 SUN servers that handled http, pop, smtp, and some file sharing. The hardware and software were extremely old; I almost wanted to take a picture and frame it. They also got rid of most of their admins due to cutbacks. Hanceforth, due to the lack of real admins and new equipment (or the knowledge of what to buy), this company was (may still be) on the verge of being coerced into a new OS layout.
Just some thoughts here, but enjoy your OS for what it does for you, not what someone tells you it can do for you.
Hello, I am an arrogant individual. This is not because I am a scholar of Americanism or Technology and Science, but because I am different than you. Now, I could give some worthwhile feedback to people to make them see the problems in their actions, or I could just be an arrogant snot-head because I can loosely form something that resembles a point.
Listen, whoever wrote that post, grow up. If you want to better the world, then try to be helpful. What you posted was mass of dung that has no point and will not further anything except your own ethnocentric ego.
I don't know if just asking for those in private industry to take part in a public program is privatization. Perhaps it is a way of opening the space frontier. If as a people we're going to get anywhere outside of our small planet and solar system, it will take every individual effort from thousands of unique industries and the best minds on earth. So why should NASA not solicit the help of private industry? Calling this privatization casts such an evil glow on it. I think I read one comment that said something about facism!
People, one person or even one group of people cannot conquer the depths of space. If you sit on your couch and watch tv, you're not helping technology progress (unless you have a neat little webTV thingy and can do research while you each chips). So when NASA makes an effort to actually open the space program to private industry, welcome it.
Would anyone really want humans to be the last beings into space simply because someone that read a book on facism makes a parallel from the comfort of their workstation? Think for yourself. Be human. Go where you want. Remember, the astral bodies await those interested.
"I am amazed that a country where people drive to the corner postbox has chosen a digital TV system that does not allow mobile reception," says Helmut Stein, Nokia's vice-president. -From New Scientist, 11 September 1999
About the '...drive to the corner postbox...' bit; technology is nothing without common sense of which America/Americans lack.
I've known many a great engineer, and the pride that goes into securing a patent for your work. Much time, money, and effort goes into what used to be considered a system of giving credit to great minds and ideas.
Enter Microsoft. The only work they put into their patents was the idea of patenting something that no one else has. Again, we can see that the Microsoft corporation is based soley on marketing, not on furthering technology, helping others, or even producing helpful software. How dare Microsoft make a mockery of the patent process. How dare the individual(s) responcible for allowing them to patent such rubbish make these actions, eventhough I'm sure they were under much -persuasion-.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet is finite space. Every student is going to draw from the same pool of bits, usually finding the same examples (usually on other universitys' web sites). As far as I'm concerned, this act is counter productive because it teaches the student how best to use some one else's work, not to build on it. Maybe this would be acceptable for engineering students that don't need to think out of the box for every problem, but for sciences, a course like this wouldn't teach much. When we as a society start drawing on our own pool of information for every problem, it leaves the idea of advancement on the shoulders of those who either don't or can't use the pool.
As far as emailing the answers around the room, that isn't too far from using the internet, since everyone is basically going to find the same things. At my university, we have two names for this act: cheating and plagerism. Open notes on exams may be the only way to go, for in the real world, scientists and engineers will always be looking up constants, and maybe a formulae or laws every now again to apply it correctly. This is a building process, unlike using a laptop on the internet, which is a plageristic process. sig(quote+"\n"+sign());
Eventhough the normal health issues should be undertaken, there are still people out there that just have bad eyesight. About a half of a year ago, I was able to witness the lasik laser procedure. It was quite interesting, but I was looking for the standard blood and scalpal and was quite let down. They simply cut a small piece of the outer covering of the eye into a flap, then blast away with a laser. This laser has been preprogrammed to the peaks and troughs of your eye which were obtained in pre-op with a different machine. The laser simply fires away until the peaks are not so tall and stops automatically. That flap of eye covering is then folded back into its original place. After this and a few hours of recovery, you go home feeling like you have a grain or two of sand in your eye. The next morning, you throw out the glasses. A week later, you're back to 'normal.' Excellent procedure, but uncreibally expensive, and it is usually done in a doctor's office in a few hours. If you have the money, it looks like a good idea.
It takes time for things like this to be resolved. Part of the problem is that people are looking for the quick fixes. If we as a society of people could communicate better after just 10 years, I would be more than happy.
Is this some form of a psychological study? If so, it would have had to pass through national ethics boards (if I so correctly remember from my psyc classes). I would not get too scared if it has, since the ethical standards of national psychology boards are usually good. Perhapse the study includes sufficiently formed questions to allow for creative and non standard people while still finding those that are, say, depressed and reactant. Isn't it sad that we as a society can't just TALK TO EACH OTHER to find out if anyone is in any problems?! No, we must hand out pieces of paper so everything is faster and more efficient, and so we have documented proof that subject 'q' is violent. However, if this is not a structured psychological survey, then look out. That means NO ethics are assured. In fact, from history (I can't recall examples this moment, sorry) most things like this have external motives involved (be that marketing, ethical, religious, whatever). Would I take this test? No. Would I allow my children to take this test? NO. If I ever saw this test in my child's school, there would be lawsuits within 45 minutes and several injunctions. Let's hope someone out there ran through the ethics of this monster first.
jazz: miles, trane, tain, tony williams, wynton..etc
Rock: Dave Matthews, Jamiroquai, Steely Dan..etc
Other: Tori Amos, Ani Difranco, Sarah McLachlan..etc
In my oh so honest opinion, I think what you're looking for would not serve you well a few years down the road. What you want is the logic and ability in the broad range of computer science. After this, the languages come much quicker. A computer science degree from a leading college would give you the depth as an individual to apply yourself to not only existing languages and technologies, but new ones as well. Trust me, in 5 years, some of the languages you mentioned will be looked upon by new programmers with blank faces.
Good luck with your education, and remember, the only bad education is the one that doesn't interest you.
People,
What we have here is what MS loves to do; marketing. It's all about money. When MS says "your product is inferior," they are simply generating much needed competition. And when most people run around like chickens with their heads cut off over these meaningless numbers and pseudo-facts, MS sits back and watches the interest in their company grow, and their chances of being recognized as an anti-trust enforcement candidate decrease.
People, just let them say what they shall. Their remarks are not going to make any Linux/UNiX/Other users switch (the corporate world is different..). If someone says something rude about your favorite OS, just smile and walk away; it is their loss. I've never been so productive or happy with a workstation in my entire life until I found the OS of my choice.
For the corporate world (I'm no specialist here), if an exec wants to make a major move to MS products, there was obviously something missing from her current setup, so perhaps a company should market a corporate tech revitalization service so that some one else won't feel tempted to make a drastic (and usually costly, troublesome, less powerful) switch.
A perfect example would be a company I did some administration service for. They have 3 SUN servers that handled http, pop, smtp, and some file sharing. The hardware and software were extremely old; I almost wanted to take a picture and frame it. They also got rid of most of their admins due to cutbacks. Hanceforth, due to the lack of real admins and new equipment (or the knowledge of what to buy), this company was (may still be) on the verge of being coerced into a new OS layout.
Just some thoughts here, but enjoy your OS for what it does for you, not what someone tells you it can do for you.
Hello, I am an arrogant individual. This is not because I am a scholar of Americanism or Technology and Science, but because I am different than you. Now, I could give some worthwhile feedback to people to make them see the problems in their actions, or I could just be an arrogant snot-head because I can loosely form something that resembles a point.
Listen, whoever wrote that post, grow up. If you want to better the world, then try to be helpful. What you posted was mass of dung that has no point and will not further anything except your own ethnocentric ego.
Very funny.. very funny.. I'd moderate that a 5.
I don't know if just asking for those in private industry to take part in a public program is privatization. Perhaps it is a way of opening the space frontier. If as a people we're going to get anywhere outside of our small planet and solar system, it will take every individual effort from thousands of unique industries and the best minds on earth. So why should NASA not solicit the help of private industry? Calling this privatization casts such an evil glow on it. I think I read one comment that said something about facism!
People, one person or even one group of people cannot conquer the depths of space. If you sit on your couch and watch tv, you're not helping technology progress (unless you have a neat little webTV thingy and can do research while you each chips). So when NASA makes an effort to actually open the space program to private industry, welcome it.
Would anyone really want humans to be the last beings into space simply because someone that read a book on facism makes a parallel from the comfort of their workstation? Think for yourself. Be human. Go where you want. Remember, the astral bodies await those interested.
"I am amazed that a country where people drive to the corner postbox has chosen a digital TV system that does not allow mobile reception," says Helmut Stein, Nokia's vice-president.
-From New Scientist, 11 September 1999
About the '...drive to the corner postbox...' bit; technology is nothing without common sense of which America/Americans lack.
This article was funny until someone walked into the office today with a PC matching most of the symptoms featured in the article.
Humans...
I've known many a great engineer, and the pride that goes into securing a patent for your work. Much time, money, and effort goes into what used to be considered a system of giving credit to great minds and ideas.
Enter Microsoft. The only work they put into their patents was the idea of patenting something that no one else has. Again, we can see that the Microsoft corporation is based soley on marketing, not on furthering technology, helping others, or even producing helpful software. How dare Microsoft make a mockery of the patent process. How dare the individual(s) responcible for allowing them to patent such rubbish make these actions, eventhough I'm sure they were under much -persuasion-.