Dehbop

@Battle: You must be at the top of your batch of a dozen people at your local Police Academy to write like that. No need for sarcasms, as compared to you, any college students is an "intellectual".

I forgot that C(4, 2) == 6, so with a 6 day working days we would have a distinct pairing each.

You also have the choice of making the state 6 working day society, if it makes the days even. Pairing evens out the competency of the cops. Say if you have a statistic of half of the cops in the force being a corrupt Deetditty, then you have the other half of a pair be at least not fcking stupid.

Established as a rule of thumb, from decades of experience, that most of the people that enter the force are Deetdittys & have always proven to be even more corrupt than the worst cops we see on the news. You think it's hard to correct that problem in the police force? Then you should see how it is in a fascist state. So as a precaution, the 4 police team is divided into 2 on 2 different pairs. pair 1 are officers A & B, pair 2 are C & D on "even days" & pair 1 are officers A & C & pair 2 are B & D on "odd days". Yes, I know that we haven't done all possible pairing.

Lesson of the story is, when in Vancouver, & you will REALLY notice this if you're from somewhere else in the West (normal immigrants just try their best to get along), don't let it get to the point where they are already gossiping about you. It's extremely difficult to socially recover from that.

It's not a boo-hooo,I can't compete with people, It's boo-hoo, everybody's talking & gossiping sh!t about me. Those few people I got along with, the other students made sure they got into, until they've turned tem against me as well, not that it was a hard thing to do. You see the difference, right? Between Competition & just sociopathically trying to destroy me.

Though I did once directly accuse a student of being very competitive against me. You see, he was the only First Nation guy & I was the only Filipino in our CS Program, at least for at least a few good academic years, I successfully distanced myself around 2007-2008, while being in my Mental Health program. I basically fell behind. Most classes I attended those years didn't have any memorable faces. Yet, still, I caved in to the pressure of studies as I tried to limped back to how I was when I was a Freshman.

Btw, Simon Fraser University may have had a good Engineering & Computing Science Programs a decade ago (even attested by my High School Physics teacher who was an SFU Alumni), or I may just want to think so. It's not a top University itself.

Graduate Programs are competitive by nature & you can't blame the students for that. Well, I suppose there are limits. But, the professors (of classes or those supervising) shouldn't be fostering an unhealthy environment by principle of putting down or impeding the progress of his students. Reasonable enough, right?

Forcing the interpretation that I feel shame all the time, and furthermore (am I interpreting too far here?) I am ashamed of how I am (you people don't know why I'm still the hard-headed person I was when I was a kid), is something that a middle-aged DEEETDITTYYY AYE-rish woman would condescend me with.

Hint: With semiconductors in series with anything, find the current from the semiconductor that limits the current most -- the minimum. There's no CHOICE, like it can choose. I already regret using that word. That's your current in series. Any other components will have a voltage drop that is the inverse of the function for current when given the voltage. For resistors, it's Ohm's Law. They all add up to the voltage of the series -- KVL. When semiconductors current converge to or diverge from a node, it may be limited by the semiconductor in series at which they converge or diverge -- KCL.

Kirchoff's Circuit Law and Ohm's Law is never broken, not even if you include non-linear components like active components (semiconductors). At least not in circuits without with very unusual physics, like say when quantum mechanics are dominant or you're using plasmas as conductors or those sort of things. You guys just don't know how to model them properly.

Of course I have a VERY DIFFERENT opinion if an "editor" were to just steal my work, while I am choosing to withhold it. Then again, my circumstances are very unique. I would actually even object for them to "build up" on my unpublished work, as they cannot possibly "build up" on it, without establishing claims in my paper... Which, like I just said, I chose to withhold. How about this? After I publish my paper, the "reviewers" may publish their build up. That is, if I can't publish my own build up before they do.

Why would you ask rejection just because you have a better idea than what their paper puts forward? Let them publish it. I would think it very unfair in academia if an editor may block a paper, because the editor has a better opinion. Unless there are rules that the editors may not publish papers related or blatantly build up on papers that they've reviewed, then keep your idea to yourself. Then feel free to publish it later. It'd be like reading it independently upon publishing and then writing an independent paper.

"If we were a smarter species, then as a whole, we could just go from Assembly to Natural Language. Imagine the complexity of that jump." -- that's ignoring portability, of course. Coz we'd still have different architectures for each application.

The amount of Abstraction and Encapsulation that we have to layer everything really is reflective of human intelligence. Each level is just about difficult enough so that enough people can work on it, so we can build on one atop another to get to the most general level. If we were a smarter species, then as a whole, we could just go from Assembly to Natural Language. Imagine the complexity of that jump.

Once we get to an abstraction high enough such that programming is akin to Natural Language, then that really is all the non-technical people has to know. But on the intermediate level, it still is useful to have people that can program and know the technicality of the lower abstractions.

Oh crap, by "Second" Generation Programming Languages, I meant "Third".

But we can also opt for a something easier on the mind of top-to-bottom approach.

So for a strong grasp of everything, MORE OR LESS what we have above, but more or less de-linearized.

Then go to the different Specialization on Computer Science. If you're into Computer Graphics then start learning Linear Algebra first. If going to AI, Statistics then start with Statistics first. With Data Mining, learn Statistics and Linear Algebra. Etc, etc... It' MORE OR LESS how it went when I was back in the University. But you have to imagine that if you stuck with this structure, the students are less likely to stick to the Program and humans in general don't like sticking with the bottom up approach when it comes to learning. It's just the way we are.

Assuming we're dealing with Classical Computers and not Quantum ones, I suppose we could all be taught everything "bottom-up". That is start with the basic Discrete or Combinatorial Math (at this point Calculus or Linear Algebra is still not needed). Then go to Digital Systems then go to Computer Architecture; then Assembly, then Second Generation Languages (C, for example); then to Fourth Generation Languages; Then go to Calculus; then Data Structure and Algorithm Analysis; Then go to Software Engineering with strong emphasis on Abstraction and Encapsulation.