Sure the Soundblaster wasn't state-of-the-art, but it definitely did set the standard for PC audio. For years afterward, every game had a "Soundblaster-compatible" option. Any other card was hit or miss.
Oooh, sorry about the massive block of text above. I should have used HTML. Here's what I meant to type...
Generally, that's a good idea. I mean, that's exactly what I've done. I went to Iowa State for undergrad in Computer Engineering because I got a full ride to go there, as opposed to going to one of the higher-ranked schools to which I was accepted (such as UIUC). Class wasn't much of a challenge most of the time, so I worked hard to challenge myself by taking a lot of it (at least 20 credits most semesters) and staying highly involved outside of class in research, internships, student government, various clubs, service work, music, and sports. It paid off, and now I'm a grad student on fellowship at Princeton.
That being said, having had the experience at a good, but not spectacular, state school and now at a top-tier school, there are definitely some differences to take note of. At Iowa State, I had to seek my own challenges, but at Princeton, all my classes are challenging. The classes I take are taken by grad students and undergrads alike, I can say without a doubt that the average undergrad here is on another level compared to the average undergrad at ISU. I've definitely had to personally step up my level of effort to succeed here, although I've found that it's certainly not outside my abilities. I would definitely say that I would have come out of undergrad probably knowing more book knowledge. And although we had a couple rock star professors at ISU, they are most definitely more commonplace at Princeton.
If you really want to work with and compete with the best of the best, go to the best school you can get in to. But that's not to say that state schools don't have a lot to offer. I had the time of my life at ISU, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I guess you just have to know what you're looking for in your college experience. It makes all the difference to pick a place you know you'll enjoy and thrive in. But whatever you decide, make the most of it.
But to answer the original question, the way to get into the best schools is to set yourself apart, and if you haven't done it already, it probably is too late for undergrad. You've got good grades and club leadership, which is great, but so does every other serious candidate for the best schools. These schools are looking for someone who did something constructive with their spare time, besides playing PlayStation after school--the kind of things most of us consider doing, but never actually work up the motivation to go through with. They love people who are go-getters and self-starters, and who try to find ways to do more than just what's required of them, because those are the type of people who are going to do big things after college. I'm talking the kind of kids who start businesses, organize volunteer trips, write and distribute their own software, shoot their own movies, and so on. Schools compete with each other like NBA teams do; show them you can bring something they don't already have and they'll jump to get you in the door, if only to prevent you from being someone else's superstar. That's the only surefire way to get in, unless your daddy's got a million bucks to donate. That works, too.
If you don't make it in this time around, don't be discouraged. Go pick a school that suits you, set yourself apart, and then go to the school of your choice for grad school.
Generally, that's a good idea. I mean, that's exactly what I've done. I went to Iowa State for undergrad in Computer Engineering because I got a full ride to go there, as opposed to going to one of the higher-ranked schools to which I was accepted (such as UIUC). Class wasn't much of a challenge most of the time, so I worked hard to challenge myself by taking a lot of it (at least 20 credits most semesters) and staying highly involved outside of class in research, internships, student government, various clubs, service work, music, and sports. It paid off, and now I'm a grad student on fellowship at Princeton.
That being said, having had the experience at a good, but not spectacular, state school and now at a top-tier school, there are definitely some differences to take note of. At Iowa State, I had to seek my own challenges, but at Princeton, all my classes are challenging. The classes I take are taken by grad students and undergrads alike, I can say without a doubt that the average undergrad here is on another level compared to the average undergrad at ISU. I've definitely had to personally step up my level of effort to succeed here, although I've found that it's certainly not outside my abilities. I would definitely say that I would have come out of undergrad probably knowing more book knowledge. And although we had a couple rock star professors at ISU, they are most definitely more commonplace at Princeton.
If you really want to work with and compete with the best of the best, go to the best school you can get in to. But that's not to say that state schools don't have a lot to offer. I had the time of my life at ISU, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I guess you just have to know what you're looking for in your college experience. It makes all the difference to pick a place you know you'll enjoy and thrive in. But whatever you decide, make the most of it.
But to answer your original question, the way to get into the best schools is to set yourself apart, and if you haven't done it already, it probably is too late for undergrad. You've got good grades and club leadership, which is great, but so does every other serious candidate for the best schools. These schools are looking for someone who did something constructive with their spare time, besides playing PlayStation after school--the kind of things most of us consider doing, but never actually work up the motivation to go through with. They love people who are go-getters and self-starters, and who try to find ways to do more than just what's required of them, because those are the type of people who are going to do big things after college. I'm talking the kind of kids who start businesses, organize volunteer trips, write and distribute their own software, shoot their own movies, and so on. Schools compete with each other like NBA teams do; show them you can bring something they don't already have and they'll jump to get you in the door, if only to prevent you from being someone else's superstar. That's the only surefire way to get in, unless your daddy's got a million bucks to donate. That works, too.
If you don't make it in this time around, don't be discouraged. Go pick a school that suits you, set yourself apart, and then go to the school of your choice for grad school.
Wow, you're sick, as is anyone who modded you funny. I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the general public is aware of the dangers of water intoxication--as was the radio station who put on the contest, obviously. And now a mother of three is dead.
Well, at least you're amused
As an ISU CprE alum and former employee of Prof. Jacaobson, I'm also pretty surprised to hear this him. I'd long known that he has been an expert witness for Congress for matters of information assurance, but I never heard until now that he's also a mouthpiece for the RIAA. I'm pretty disappointed about that.
I was just about to submit this story myself. Here's UCLA's official website devoted to the whole incident:
Link
I wonder, will there be a point in time when we hold accountable either the credit agencies for their broken system or organizations we are forced to trust with our data for not keeping it safe?
I think everyone's missing the point. Everyone's talking about how this isn't going to be the next big thing for gamers. Well that's obvious. However, I see this is as being huge for anything not built for gaming. The lowest end machines won't even need a slot for a graphics card. Laptops can do away with all of the bus hardware that would have been necessary to support to a graphics chip. I imagine the Fusion will probably have the power to let people run Vista without the necessity of an external graphics card, and that will be enough for probably 95% of PC's sold. Everyone else (i.e. everyone here on Slashdot) will stick with off-chip graphics. I think it's a brilliant move, since it's pretty clear the chip maker's are running out of ideas for what to do with those extra transistors as CMOS gets smaller and smaller.
I wonder what the net effect on power consumption will be. If this move reduces overall power consumption, then that's yet another plus.
Did you not read the article? The system does not radiate. It's a near field coupling device, like a transformer. It won't interfere with anything that isn't extremely close to it, and that isn't designed to resonate at 6.4MHz
A great idea, in theory. But the record industry is a oligopoly, and they're bent on making sure they'll always be necessary for an artist to make it big.
In fact, there's plenty of artists out there who actually have decided to go it alone. I could name some that I'm familiar with, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know who I'm talking about--and the RIAA would like to keep it that way
Well, if it were a story about Britain, I'd like to know what part of the UK it took place in. Sure it's just a detail, but isn't that what reporting is about?
Agreed. In light of this and the Galileo story, I'm having trouble seeing how spending government money to reinvent everything America has is a good idea.
Sure there's the theoretical possibility of the US turning off GPS to Europe, but in any real world scenario, that's bloody frickin unlikely, considering that despite philosohpical differences, Europe are some of the US's closest allies. I certainly don't see the scenario as $4bn-likely.
Risk management is all about spending money to manage risks that have the higheset product of likelihood and impact, and I doubt that having GPS turned off is really one of the biggest risks facing Europe today.
That being said, it is possible that the engineering experience of the Galileo project might be worthwhile to the ESA. Although, some might say there are better ways of gaining engineering experience than a $4bn redundant project
What competetion???
The monopoly argument would only really apply if the US goverment were charging monopoly prices to use their GPS. But news flash--GPS is free
I go to Iowa State, and I was wondering if you all from Spencer are aware of how badly Mediacom slandered your municipal telecom system throughout the rest of the state. Everyone who has Mediacom cable had the pleasure of watching commercials EVERY single commercial break about what a disaster Spencer's telecom initiative was. Interesting to hear that you're enjoying it...
But wait--the first three are completely hypothetical theoretical inventions, and the fourth hasn't yet been observed again, and could have just been a fluke.
Tested and verified scientific finding, my ass. Until someone devises a way to travel into the past, I don't think we'll be verifying anything. What pisses off people who believe in intelligent design is not people who don't believe in intelligent design, but people who are trying to completely erase their beliefs from the curriculum.
I'll be the first to admit, intelligent design is more of a philisophical belief than a scientific theory, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be allowed to be spoken of in a science class. Most of our sciences involve a certain amount of philosphy. For example, if you know anything about psychology, then it's obvious that philosophy is a huge part of that field.
What it comes down to is a that a lot of people don't even want to consider the possibility that their own beliefs are incorrect, whether that be their belief in a creator, or their belief in the non-existance of such a creator, and people trying to erase intelligent design from the curriculum are just as close-minded and just as guilty of forcing their beliefs on others as those who try to erase evolutionary theory from the curiculum
I don't know if your post was meant to be funny or not.
The reason is called short-sightedness, and it's prevalent in pretty much everything our government does, i.e. energy policy, foreign policy, economic policy. Need any more examples?
Give me a break. The "religious right" doesn't do anything to stop people from researching. And the issues in which morality/beliefs come into play are tiny microcosms of science as a whole. Sure you hear all about the intelligent design and embryonic stem cell research debates in the news, but tell me, how does that affect the bulk of scientific research? It doesn't, so quit whining.
What it comes down to is there just isn't much societal or monetary reward for people to enter research fields. It's the same reason the quality of teaching is declining.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it necessary to throw "American" in there? You know, you don't have to turn everything into an opportunity to bash America
One difference is that no one actually uses GNOME
I'm pretty sure he was referring to MySpace,
Sure the Soundblaster wasn't state-of-the-art, but it definitely did set the standard for PC audio. For years afterward, every game had a "Soundblaster-compatible" option. Any other card was hit or miss.
Oooh, sorry about the massive block of text above. I should have used HTML. Here's what I meant to type...
Generally, that's a good idea. I mean, that's exactly what I've done. I went to Iowa State for undergrad in Computer Engineering because I got a full ride to go there, as opposed to going to one of the higher-ranked schools to which I was accepted (such as UIUC). Class wasn't much of a challenge most of the time, so I worked hard to challenge myself by taking a lot of it (at least 20 credits most semesters) and staying highly involved outside of class in research, internships, student government, various clubs, service work, music, and sports. It paid off, and now I'm a grad student on fellowship at Princeton.
That being said, having had the experience at a good, but not spectacular, state school and now at a top-tier school, there are definitely some differences to take note of. At Iowa State, I had to seek my own challenges, but at Princeton, all my classes are challenging. The classes I take are taken by grad students and undergrads alike, I can say without a doubt that the average undergrad here is on another level compared to the average undergrad at ISU. I've definitely had to personally step up my level of effort to succeed here, although I've found that it's certainly not outside my abilities. I would definitely say that I would have come out of undergrad probably knowing more book knowledge. And although we had a couple rock star professors at ISU, they are most definitely more commonplace at Princeton.
If you really want to work with and compete with the best of the best, go to the best school you can get in to. But that's not to say that state schools don't have a lot to offer. I had the time of my life at ISU, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I guess you just have to know what you're looking for in your college experience. It makes all the difference to pick a place you know you'll enjoy and thrive in. But whatever you decide, make the most of it.
But to answer the original question, the way to get into the best schools is to set yourself apart, and if you haven't done it already, it probably is too late for undergrad. You've got good grades and club leadership, which is great, but so does every other serious candidate for the best schools. These schools are looking for someone who did something constructive with their spare time, besides playing PlayStation after school--the kind of things most of us consider doing, but never actually work up the motivation to go through with. They love people who are go-getters and self-starters, and who try to find ways to do more than just what's required of them, because those are the type of people who are going to do big things after college. I'm talking the kind of kids who start businesses, organize volunteer trips, write and distribute their own software, shoot their own movies, and so on. Schools compete with each other like NBA teams do; show them you can bring something they don't already have and they'll jump to get you in the door, if only to prevent you from being someone else's superstar. That's the only surefire way to get in, unless your daddy's got a million bucks to donate. That works, too.
If you don't make it in this time around, don't be discouraged. Go pick a school that suits you, set yourself apart, and then go to the school of your choice for grad school.
Generally, that's a good idea. I mean, that's exactly what I've done. I went to Iowa State for undergrad in Computer Engineering because I got a full ride to go there, as opposed to going to one of the higher-ranked schools to which I was accepted (such as UIUC). Class wasn't much of a challenge most of the time, so I worked hard to challenge myself by taking a lot of it (at least 20 credits most semesters) and staying highly involved outside of class in research, internships, student government, various clubs, service work, music, and sports. It paid off, and now I'm a grad student on fellowship at Princeton. That being said, having had the experience at a good, but not spectacular, state school and now at a top-tier school, there are definitely some differences to take note of. At Iowa State, I had to seek my own challenges, but at Princeton, all my classes are challenging. The classes I take are taken by grad students and undergrads alike, I can say without a doubt that the average undergrad here is on another level compared to the average undergrad at ISU. I've definitely had to personally step up my level of effort to succeed here, although I've found that it's certainly not outside my abilities. I would definitely say that I would have come out of undergrad probably knowing more book knowledge. And although we had a couple rock star professors at ISU, they are most definitely more commonplace at Princeton. If you really want to work with and compete with the best of the best, go to the best school you can get in to. But that's not to say that state schools don't have a lot to offer. I had the time of my life at ISU, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I guess you just have to know what you're looking for in your college experience. It makes all the difference to pick a place you know you'll enjoy and thrive in. But whatever you decide, make the most of it. But to answer your original question, the way to get into the best schools is to set yourself apart, and if you haven't done it already, it probably is too late for undergrad. You've got good grades and club leadership, which is great, but so does every other serious candidate for the best schools. These schools are looking for someone who did something constructive with their spare time, besides playing PlayStation after school--the kind of things most of us consider doing, but never actually work up the motivation to go through with. They love people who are go-getters and self-starters, and who try to find ways to do more than just what's required of them, because those are the type of people who are going to do big things after college. I'm talking the kind of kids who start businesses, organize volunteer trips, write and distribute their own software, shoot their own movies, and so on. Schools compete with each other like NBA teams do; show them you can bring something they don't already have and they'll jump to get you in the door, if only to prevent you from being someone else's superstar. That's the only surefire way to get in, unless your daddy's got a million bucks to donate. That works, too. If you don't make it in this time around, don't be discouraged. Go pick a school that suits you, set yourself apart, and then go to the school of your choice for grad school.
Wow, you're sick, as is anyone who modded you funny. I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the general public is aware of the dangers of water intoxication--as was the radio station who put on the contest, obviously. And now a mother of three is dead. Well, at least you're amused
As an ISU CprE alum and former employee of Prof. Jacaobson, I'm also pretty surprised to hear this him. I'd long known that he has been an expert witness for Congress for matters of information assurance, but I never heard until now that he's also a mouthpiece for the RIAA. I'm pretty disappointed about that.
My name was on the list. Hooray!
I was just about to submit this story myself. Here's UCLA's official website devoted to the whole incident: Link
I wonder, will there be a point in time when we hold accountable either the credit agencies for their broken system or organizations we are forced to trust with our data for not keeping it safe?
You mean the same rest of the world who went with the appeasement strategy when Hitler started becoming beligerent?
I think everyone's missing the point. Everyone's talking about how this isn't going to be the next big thing for gamers. Well that's obvious. However, I see this is as being huge for anything not built for gaming. The lowest end machines won't even need a slot for a graphics card. Laptops can do away with all of the bus hardware that would have been necessary to support to a graphics chip. I imagine the Fusion will probably have the power to let people run Vista without the necessity of an external graphics card, and that will be enough for probably 95% of PC's sold. Everyone else (i.e. everyone here on Slashdot) will stick with off-chip graphics. I think it's a brilliant move, since it's pretty clear the chip maker's are running out of ideas for what to do with those extra transistors as CMOS gets smaller and smaller. I wonder what the net effect on power consumption will be. If this move reduces overall power consumption, then that's yet another plus.
Did you not read the article? The system does not radiate. It's a near field coupling device, like a transformer. It won't interfere with anything that isn't extremely close to it, and that isn't designed to resonate at 6.4MHz
Let's also make broken glass available to children, anti-freeze available to dogs and cats, and plutonium availabe to everyboday!
Wow. Amazing that Sony's absurd behavior actually makes Microsoft look reasonable
A great idea, in theory. But the record industry is a oligopoly, and they're bent on making sure they'll always be necessary for an artist to make it big. In fact, there's plenty of artists out there who actually have decided to go it alone. I could name some that I'm familiar with, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know who I'm talking about--and the RIAA would like to keep it that way
Well, if it were a story about Britain, I'd like to know what part of the UK it took place in. Sure it's just a detail, but isn't that what reporting is about?
Agreed. In light of this and the Galileo story, I'm having trouble seeing how spending government money to reinvent everything America has is a good idea.
Of course, Martel was Frankish, not French. Some might say that most of his military aptitude passed to his German decendants :)
Sure there's the theoretical possibility of the US turning off GPS to Europe, but in any real world scenario, that's bloody frickin unlikely, considering that despite philosohpical differences, Europe are some of the US's closest allies. I certainly don't see the scenario as $4bn-likely. Risk management is all about spending money to manage risks that have the higheset product of likelihood and impact, and I doubt that having GPS turned off is really one of the biggest risks facing Europe today. That being said, it is possible that the engineering experience of the Galileo project might be worthwhile to the ESA. Although, some might say there are better ways of gaining engineering experience than a $4bn redundant project
What competetion??? The monopoly argument would only really apply if the US goverment were charging monopoly prices to use their GPS. But news flash--GPS is free
I go to Iowa State, and I was wondering if you all from Spencer are aware of how badly Mediacom slandered your municipal telecom system throughout the rest of the state. Everyone who has Mediacom cable had the pleasure of watching commercials EVERY single commercial break about what a disaster Spencer's telecom initiative was. Interesting to hear that you're enjoying it...
But wait--the first three are completely hypothetical theoretical inventions, and the fourth hasn't yet been observed again, and could have just been a fluke.
Tested and verified scientific finding, my ass. Until someone devises a way to travel into the past, I don't think we'll be verifying anything. What pisses off people who believe in intelligent design is not people who don't believe in intelligent design, but people who are trying to completely erase their beliefs from the curriculum. I'll be the first to admit, intelligent design is more of a philisophical belief than a scientific theory, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be allowed to be spoken of in a science class. Most of our sciences involve a certain amount of philosphy. For example, if you know anything about psychology, then it's obvious that philosophy is a huge part of that field. What it comes down to is a that a lot of people don't even want to consider the possibility that their own beliefs are incorrect, whether that be their belief in a creator, or their belief in the non-existance of such a creator, and people trying to erase intelligent design from the curriculum are just as close-minded and just as guilty of forcing their beliefs on others as those who try to erase evolutionary theory from the curiculum
I don't know if your post was meant to be funny or not. The reason is called short-sightedness, and it's prevalent in pretty much everything our government does, i.e. energy policy, foreign policy, economic policy. Need any more examples?
Give me a break. The "religious right" doesn't do anything to stop people from researching. And the issues in which morality/beliefs come into play are tiny microcosms of science as a whole. Sure you hear all about the intelligent design and embryonic stem cell research debates in the news, but tell me, how does that affect the bulk of scientific research? It doesn't, so quit whining. What it comes down to is there just isn't much societal or monetary reward for people to enter research fields. It's the same reason the quality of teaching is declining.