Searching \ for '[OT] Any University of Toronto Graduates Here?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.sxlist.com/techref/index.htm?key=any+university+toronto
Search entire site for: 'Any University of Toronto Graduates Here?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Any University of Toronto Graduates Here?'
2009\04\12@173355 by solarwind

picon face
I remember someone here graduated from the University of Toronto. I
was recently accepted to this university (for undergraduate studies,
right out of high school) as well as a few other universities. I need
to make a decision on which university I want to chose. I'm going into
the Life Sciences program (not engineering).

However, if anyone here graduated from the University of Toronto, I
would really appreciate it if you could please share your experiences.
I know almost all of you guys studied engineering, but I don't care.
Any shared experiences at all would be very valuable for me at this
stage.

For example, how difficult was the university? In terms of getting
marks. Did you like it? Stuff like that...

[ solarwind ]

2009\04\12@200846 by solarwind

picon face
Found him! It was Herbert Graf who graduated from U of T.

2009\04\13@105915 by John Ferrell

face picon face
For some, going off to a University is just life as usual. For the rest of
us who were accustomed to being at the top of our classes, it is a rude
awakening to be surrounded by so many people who are least our equals and
many times a whole lot smarter!

John Ferrell  W8CCW

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Edmund Burke
...."The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."
  MARGARET THATCHER
http://DixieNC.US


{Original Message removed}

2009\04\13@123635 by solarwind

picon face
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, John Ferrell
<spam_OUTjohnferrellTakeThisOuTspamearthlink.net> wrote:
> For some, going off to a University is just life as usual. For the rest of
> us who were accustomed to being at the top of our classes, it is a rude
> awakening to be surrounded by so many people who are least our equals and
> many times a whole lot smarter!

What's that supposed to mean? There is no smart or stupid, it's just
how much you study. Your mark is directly proportional to how many
hour you spend studying and understanding your course.

There are complete noobs in my class getting 95% because they do
nothing else but study. On the other hand, there are some people
getting a 60% but could be getting a 95% only because they have never
opened their textbook. That's how it is...

2009\04\13@130328 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
>
>
> What's that supposed to mean? There is no smart or stupid, it's just
> how much you study. Your mark is directly proportional to how many
> hour you spend studying and understanding your course.
>
> There are complete noobs in my class getting 95% because they do
> nothing else but study. On the other hand, there are some people
> getting a 60% but could be getting a 95% only because they have never
> opened their textbook. That's how it is...
>

There is definitely a point in most programs of advanced study when that
becomes patently untrue. For myself, it was a course in Topology when I was
pursuing my BA in Math a few years ago - I just couldn't wrap my head around
it, no matter how hard I tried (of course I didn't study as hard as I should
have at the beginning of the semester so I fell behind and had to catch up,
which was difficult, but nonetheless).

Especially in Math, Sciences, Engineering... there will be people (not
necessarily yourself, of course) that will not be able to pass certain
classes no matter how hard they study. And that's not even implying that
those people aren't smart enough - some people's brains simply don't work
that way that they can easily understand certain subject matters, while
they're perfectly competent in others.

So when you get to University, I'm sure you will find at least one class
where you struggle, while someone else will pass with a minimal amount of
effort. That's just what happens.

2009\04\13@131910 by solarwind

picon face
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Marcel Birthelmer
<.....marcelb.listsKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is definitely a point in most programs of advanced study when that
> becomes patently untrue. For myself, it was a course in Topology when I was
> pursuing my BA in Math a few years ago - I just couldn't wrap my head around
> it, no matter how hard I tried (of course I didn't study as hard as I should
> have at the beginning of the semester so I fell behind and had to catch up,
> which was difficult, but nonetheless).
>
> Especially in Math, Sciences, Engineering... there will be people (not
> necessarily yourself, of course) that will not be able to pass certain
> classes no matter how hard they study. And that's not even implying that
> those people aren't smart enough - some people's brains simply don't work
> that way that they can easily understand certain subject matters, while
> they're perfectly competent in others.
>
> So when you get to University, I'm sure you will find at least one class
> where you struggle, while someone else will pass with a minimal amount of
> effort. That's just what happens.

Yes, that is true as well. Some people are good at some things and
they can get away with spending a minimal amount of effort on it.
However, all the courses I will be taking (biology, physics,
chemistry, math) are all the one's I'm good at. I've been taking these
courses for years and I've got the hang of it. So at this point, for
me, it'll become how much I study - and I bet it'll be like that for
the rest of the students as well. I'm not scared of competition. I
just want to know your experiences in this university (Herbert Graf).
Besides, I have a full plan for the summer holidays to finish at least
two or three courses ahead of time. (I've done it last year and it
worked out great)

2009\04\13@132126 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
solarwind wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, John Ferrell
> <johnferrellspamKILLspamearthlink.net> wrote:
>  
>> For some, going off to a University is just life as usual. For the rest of
>> us who were accustomed to being at the top of our classes, it is a rude
>> awakening to be surrounded by so many people who are least our equals and
>> many times a whole lot smarter!
>>    
>
> What's that supposed to mean? There is no smart or stupid, it's just
> how much you study. Your mark is directly proportional to how many
> hour you spend studying and understanding your course.
>
> There are complete noobs in my class getting 95% because they do
> nothing else but study. On the other hand, there are some people
> getting a 60% but could be getting a 95% only because they have never
> opened their textbook. That's how it is...
>  
Its supposed to mean that somebody who has been there and done it is
relating his experiences, calling him wrong without basis is pretty
immature.

And I hate to burst your bubble but all people are not equal. I spent 4
times longer studying English over physics when I was in school, I got a
60% in English and 98% in physics, I got 97% in computer science as well
and I did 0 "study" for that. People who do well typically at something
typically have a knack for it to start with.

Brains are like bodies, not everybody can be an Olympic power lifter
just as not everybody can be an academic.

2009\04\13@132846 by Benjamin Grant

flavicon
face
As someone who is at a fairly competitive university, I assure you your
statements only hold a little bit of truth solarwind. There's not enough
time in a rigorous curiculum to study sufficiently to make up for lack of
natural ability in courses. I mean, even if it's not nice, there is smarter
an dumber and it does make a difference.  Especially in an engineering
curriculum, getting by is largely a product of innate intelligence and logic
skills. Not saying hard work doesn't pay off, just there are a ton of other
factors. I don't think you'll fail but lots of people work hard, so to be at
the top other factors come into play. Don't get caught up in it anyway,
enjoy yourself.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:18 PM, solarwind <.....x.solarwind.xKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\04\13@140751 by solarwind

picon face
Nobody is born with knowledge. Nobody can think up complex
mathematical equations or recite all the bones in the human body or
know what a hex inverter does because of "innate abilities". Nobody.
You get this knowledge from studying and reading. Even the subject of
English. You have to read many books and articles before you can write
well. Nobody is born with knowledge.

2009\04\13@145114 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
solarwind wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, John Ferrell
> <johnferrellspamspam_OUTearthlink.net> wrote:
>> For some, going off to a University is just life as usual. For the rest
>> of
>> us who were accustomed to being at the top of our classes, it is a rude
>> awakening to be surrounded by so many people who are least our equals and
>> many times a whole lot smarter!
>
> What's that supposed to mean?

If he has to explain, you wouldn't understand. :)))

I've always been at or near the top of my classes throughout school, and it
was very shocking for me to meet people who were smarter than me. I
continued to encounter them throughout my career, so I'm used to it by now.
I realized that I'm actually quite average, and I accepted it. :-)


> There is no smart or stupid, it's just
> how much you study. Your mark is directly proportional to how many
> hour you spend studying and understanding your course.

Sorry, but what you said above is silly and wrong.

Of course there is "smart" and "stupid". It's called learning aptitude. Some
people are quick learners, some are not. There were studies done that
demonstrated that smart people's brains spend *less* energy solving the same
problem, than average people's. Recently there was a story on NPR where they
reported on a study that showed that the impulses in smart people's brains
actually travel faster. It is a physiological difference.

If someone has an IQ of 95, no amount of studying will make them as smart as
you.

Vitaliy

2009\04\13@153917 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
>
> On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:07 PM, solarwind wrote:
>
> Nobody is born with knowledge. Nobody can think up complex
> mathematical equations or recite all the bones in the human body or
> know what a hex inverter does because of "innate abilities". Nobody.
> You get this knowledge from studying and reading. Even the subject of
> English. You have to read many books and articles before you can write
> well. Nobody is born with knowledge.

People like Newton or Feynman or Franklin may have not been born
with knowledge.  They certainly didn't get the things they came up with
out of a book.
MA
 WF....    ( snip )    ....munication .

2009\04\13@160747 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Michael Algernon wrote:
> >
>> On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:07 PM, solarwind wrote:
>>
>> Nobody is born with knowledge. Nobody can think up complex
>> mathematical equations or recite all the bones in the human body or
>> know what a hex inverter does because of "innate abilities". Nobody.
>> You get this knowledge from studying and reading. Even the subject of
>> English. You have to read many books and articles before you can write
>> well. Nobody is born with knowledge.
>
> People like Newton or Feynman or Franklin may have not been born
> with knowledge.  They certainly didn't get the things they came up with
> out of a book.

They did "stand on the shoulders of giants"... ;-)

That's not what I'm trying to argue, however. It just really surprises me
that SW thinks there are no "smart" or "dumb" people. This concept seems so
utterly self-evident.

Vitaliy

2009\04\13@162311 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face
On Apr 12, 2009, at 2:33 PM, solarwind wrote:

> how difficult was the university? In terms of getting marks.

Note that this can vary from department to department and from class  
to class.  It's not uncommon for a class in the "pre-med" path to be  
difficult in entirely different ways than an engineering class.

And "highly competitive" universities tend to be quite a shock if  
you're one of the people who breezed through highschool with little or  
moderate effort.  Exams designed for a 60% GPA (so you can actually  
SEE the curve, you know), Profs who would rather be doing their  
research, TAs who don't natively speak your language, homework where  
only every 5th problem is corrected, and a lot more other students who  
will be doing better than you...

>
> But it doesn't make any logical sense to tag people as "smart" or
> "dumb" because things can drastically change. You can change them.

Right.  Actually, no one said anything about "dumb."  We're talking  
about "smart" and "smarter", which is what you won't be used to.  
Eventually, the amount of time you need to study to get top grades in  
a particular class or subject will exceed the amount of time that  
exists, and there you are...  High school is designed (in my  
experience) to allow anyone who does the work and understands the  
material to get A's on the exams.  At university that same level of  
effort and understanding will get you C's on the exams, if only  
because there are twice as many questions on the exam as there ought  
to be.  Some people will get A's anyway.  Not everyone.

BillW

2009\04\13@174312 by solarwind

picon face
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:22 PM, William "Chops" Westfield
<@spam@westfwKILLspamspammac.com> wrote:
> Right.  Actually, no one said anything about "dumb."  We're talking
> about "smart" and "smarter", which is what you won't be used to.
> Eventually, the amount of time you need to study to get top grades in
> a particular class or subject will exceed the amount of time that
> exists, and there you are...  High school is designed (in my
> experience) to allow anyone who does the work and understands the
> material to get A's on the exams.  At university that same level of
> effort and understanding will get you C's on the exams, if only
> because there are twice as many questions on the exam as there ought
> to be.  Some people will get A's anyway.  Not everyone.
>
> BillW

I'm sharing my experience coming from a not-your-average high school.
In this school, if you simply put in the effort, you have to be
content with a 60%. So my words hold some value. I'm not from one of
those high schools where you can do your math homework and breeze past
it. Trust me. Seriously, trust me. No, really.

I can see around me the "smart" and "smarter" people. I can see that
they go through pretty much the same thing that the rest of us go
through.

And I'm not talking about the difference between an autistic person or
some with a learning disability and someone who aces physics tests.
I'm talking about someone who gets an 80% on a physics test and
someone who gets a 90%. Things can get switched up around pretty
quickly. How do you evaluate who is smarter? The 90 dude or the 80
dude?

And by the chemicals in fish - again I'm not comparing the people from
countries with poor nutrition. I'm talking about people in places like
Canada.

There was a study done recently. Elderly people were able to
significantly increase their "IQ" (very significantly) by regularly
eating fish. They were tested in various ways including playing chess.
The results showed drastic improvements.

Please, do not compare an autistic person with a 90% or an 80% or a
70% person. It's like comparing oranges and... bananas. Autism and
learning disabilities are on a whole new class. I'm talking Ferrari vs
Lamborghini. Not Lamborghini vs a crappy japanese car. No matter what
you do to the jap crap, it's still fundamentally flawed and slower
than the Lamborghini. Now, if you want to improve a Lambo or a
Ferrari, you could tune the engine, streamline the hubcaps, etc, which
is analogous to eating fish, studying, etc.

In my class, I would say that around 80% of the people are in the
Lambo/Ferrari range and the rest of the 20% are in the
Camaro/Mustang/Corvette range. With a little extra boost, you can bump
that Corvette to a Lambo. Ok, maybe a big boost and some nitrous
oxide. But it's for sure possible. It just does not make sense to tag
people as smart and dumb. Or smart and smarter, in your words.

Note: I'm not trying to be mean or insulting to autistic people or
people with learning disabilities (I work with them every week in my
volunteering job). I'm just stating the facts. It is unfortunate that
they were born with defects and with current technology, there is
nothing we can do about it.

2009\04\13@175840 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:42:56 -0400, "solarwind"
<KILLspamx.solarwind.xKILLspamspamgmail.com> said:

> you do to the jap crap,

Slurs are not OK on the Piclist.

> In my class, I would say that around 80% of the people are in the
> Lambo/Ferrari range and the rest of the 20% are in the
> Camaro/Mustang/Corvette range.

As someone who has a new-ish Mustang, I feel complimented that you
include it in the Corvette class. That shows how much styling and a V8
can make people believe it's actually a high performance car(or even has
the potential to be one). Check out the rear suspension for a real
laugh. You can see it through the spokes of the wheels, the tiny brake
rotors won't get in the way of the view :)

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...

2009\04\13@175919 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 12:36 -0400, solarwind wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, John Ferrell
> <RemoveMEjohnferrellTakeThisOuTspamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > For some, going off to a University is just life as usual. For the rest of
> > us who were accustomed to being at the top of our classes, it is a rude
> > awakening to be surrounded by so many people who are least our equals and
> > many times a whole lot smarter!
>
> What's that supposed to mean? There is no smart or stupid, it's just
> how much you study. Your mark is directly proportional to how many
> hour you spend studying and understanding your course.

Very, very, very, very, very,very wrong. Your mark is influenced by MUCH
more then how much you study. I went to school with some people who
never showed up for lectures, never even really opened the texts, and
yet got astonishing marks in most courses. OTOH some studied WAY more
then me and yet didn't do as well. It even depends on the course, for
some courses I had to "study" FAR FAR less then others (heck, for one
course I didn't even study for the final, the prof was so good that by
the time the final rolled around I found I just "got" the material). For
others no amount of additional studying would have helped.

> There are complete noobs in my class getting 95% because they do
> nothing else but study. On the other hand, there are some people
> getting a 60% but could be getting a 95% only because they have never
> opened their textbook. That's how it is...

Sorry, that is not how it is, and the quicker you get this "that's how
it is" out of your mind the better.

The most difficult element to university is choosing how to divide your
time (time management). You will have to make choices that will result
in very poor marks for some assignments (perhaps even failures of some
assignments) in an effect to actually pass another (sometimes more
critical) course. Sleep is VERY secondary to everything else, be ready
to pull nearly all nighters. The best formula for me ended up being 4-6
hours sleep during the week and then a "recharge" of 12-14 hours on the
weekend, although those recharges were more often then not cut short.

Although I went through engineering, which tends to be a little more
"brutal" in undergrad then many Arts and Sciences streams, there are a
few pointers:

- no matter how good you were in high school it means nothing in
university
- chances are some courses you LOVED in high school you will end up
hating in university
- you will likely fail something (likely much more then just one thing),
be it a quiz or an assignment. Many students have never failed anything,
that first 2/10 on a quiz can really shock some people (I have seen
tears)
- you will "give up" at some point, it's my opinion that part of the
university experience is to get a feel for "how far" you can be pushed,
most students reach this line sometime in their tenure, and get pushed
over it (for me it was the "week of hell" as many of us called it, last
week of October in 3rd year)
- the people you meet in your first class will likely be your friends
throughout your time in University
- don't even bother thinking about "reading ahead", you won't have the
time

Now, some things specific to UofT:
- you will live by the bell curve: again, this is more specific to
engineering, but I believe it's pretty universal across UofT. Don't
worry about the actual mark you get, what matters is how you are doing
vs. your peers. I vividly remember screaming for joy when I received a
mid term and the mark was 53%. Why? Because I knew that almost everybody
got less then that (IIRC that 53% was the second highest mark on that
mid term). You do you receive your final exam mark (unless you contest
the final course mark and pay a fee to get a copy of your exam), all
marks for all classes are "belled" to achieve an average mark of around
70-75%
- no matter HOW much you liked math in high school, you will almost
certainly hate it with a passion in University. The math profs are VERY
"in" to math, and see undergrads as lower beings. This sounds dramatic,
and perhaps things have changed, but I doubt it. To the math department
anybody who uses math but isn't IN math doesn't really deserve their
time. In engineering I took ALOT of math courses, we all held this
opinion by the end of each math course. The best result is if your math
course isn't taught by a math prof
- the best place to study is probably Gerstein. I don't know if you plan
to live on res or not, either way, res or home is never a good place to
study
- the TAs are VERY hit and miss, some are incredible, better then the
profs, others are not worth your time. I find the more ArtSci TAs (i.e.
history, philosophy) are better then the more technical ones (math,
science)
- speaking of tutorials, for most classes none of us went, we quickly
discovered they were a huge was of time, use office hours if you have
questions. Some profs however run the tutorials and those you have to go
to, so don't count on your tutorial times as being free times
- get a locker. You do NOT want to drag your books around campus. Most
buildings have lockers, first choice is usually reserved for students
from that building's discipline, don't worry about it. Have a look at
where all your classes and labs are and choose a central spot, if you
don't have first choice wait until they open it for everyone. For me the
mechanical engineering building was always best
- for engineering ALL classes started at the earliest at 9am, and most
were only one hour. More ArtSci type classes tend to be later in the
day, and are sometimes 2 or 3 hours in length. Labs tend to be either
first thing in the morning, or late in the evening. You will likely have
days that go 9-9. Almost everything ends by 9pm.
- go to frosh week, for engineers it's more of a frosh day since they
start classes earlier. It's fun, it's a great way to meet people you
will likely be spending many hours a day with and it'll temporarily
distract you from the stuff that's coming

That's all I can come up with. If you have something more specific to
ask perhaps a private email is best.

TTYL



2009\04\14@044636 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> And by the chemicals in fish ...
...
> ... There was a study done recently. Elderly people were able to
> significantly increase their "IQ" (very significantly) by regularly
> eating fish. They were tested in various ways including playing chess.
> The results showed drastic improvements.

i. Omega 3 helps some people do some things better. And others less so. It
seems to hav eles effect on me than on some. just as well I'm so smart
already :-) :-).
ii Improvements in a range of mental capabilities may or may npot correlate
with or relate to increases in 'intelligence'.

Not that that falsifies your point.

> ... I'm talking Ferrari vs Lamborghini. Not Lamborghini
> vs a crappy japanese car. No matter what you do to the
> jap crap, it's still fundamentally flawed and slower
> than the Lamborghini.

My fundamentally flawed piece of Japanese engineering, in its day, now long
gone, was THE fastest standard production car on earth off the line.
Ferrari, Lamborghin, Porsche, Astom Martin and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all were
not as fast. Until my car got to 30 mph. At which stage the F L P AM and
UTC&A would come screaming past cryuing 'unfair' it cheated. It was faster
than all the rest because THEY were fundamentally flawed in their basic
concept IF you wantd  acar that was the fastest in the world off the line.
Giving that it is automatic and 1600cc this is something of a miracle :-).
Sometimes the Japanese get it right even in production cars :-).
FWIW.

Also fwiw:   As I noted in recent private email, while Newton may not have
left the womb with inherent knowledge about most things, he would have
learned so fast and so broadly from everyday experiences that he would have
had "knowledge" available to him on subjects he had not studied on the first
occasion when he needed it. Sez I. He reputedly invented calculus in a
weekend to solve a published challenge that was not amenable to solution by
any then known means.  I suspect he had in fact invented it years before and
rolled it out on that occasion when it was finally needed. As he did with
his theory of gravitation which he kept secret for in the 10-20 year range
before publishing it.



 Russell

2009\04\14@080251 by Rolf
flavicon
face
Thanks, Solarwind.

This has really been a *great* lesson for me... one that I keep thinking
I have already learned, but yet get caught in again and again...

...

Rolf

solarwind wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2009\04\14@082040 by Rikard Bosnjakovic

picon face
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 14:01, Rolf <TakeThisOuTrolfEraseMEspamspam_OUTtuis.net> wrote:

> This has really been a *great* lesson for me... one that I keep thinking
> I have already learned, but yet get caught in again and again...

There's another lesson you might find useful: Try to avoid quoting 96
lines of a post when adding only 3 lines of new text to it. Or even
better, try to avoid top posting.


--
- Rikard - http://bos.hack.org/cv/

2009\04\14@084211 by Rolf

flavicon
face
Thanks for your insight.

For the record... if you had read the 96 lines of quoted text you may
realize that they were never seen on this list, which is why I quoted
them... (because the piclist filesystem was full at mit).

As for top and bottom posting... when you can successfully re-write the
Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style in such a way that
it passes community discussion and so that it says that Top-Posting is
wrong, then I will pay more attention to your preferences.  As it stands
right now, posting style is a personal preference, and, it is not for
you to tell me my preference.

Thanks

Rolf

Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2009\04\14@151130 by Benjamin Grant

flavicon
face
"There was a study done recently. Elderly people were able to
significantly increase their "IQ" (very significantly) by regularly
eating fish. They were tested in various ways including playing chess.
The results showed drastic improvements."
Okay sorry to dwell on this but I have a couple of problems with this.
Firstly, I'm a biomedical engineering neuroscience double major. People
misinterpret studies(especially "popular science" papers relating to the
brain) all the time. Specifically -- IQ decreases after a certain
age(because it assumes continual learning for your entire life, which is
stupid).  Thus, especially in your old age your IQ decreases at a relatively
rapid rate because you're actually at this point not acquiring much new
knowledge but you're also not using a lot of your old skills(i.e. math
skills) and your IQ drops. Fish helps preserve some old memories and thus
your IQ is tested higher. That doesn't mean eating fish = you become
smarter. Doing crosswords also reduces the risk of alzheimers and increaes
IQ. Again, this is an efffect of reducing brain atrophy but isn't
particularly useful to this discussion.

I'm not really sure how you truly believe there isn't smart and dumb. That's
just so naiive it's hard to believe. It really makes little difference to me
if you have to work hard at your high school to get a 60%.. everything is
still a gradient. If everyone that works hard gets the same grades at your
school then it's a school filled with archaic busy work. Not saying that you
go to a bad school but if seriously everyone working hard gets a good grade
then you're just being graded on getting things done - because a test of
mastery of the material would definitely lead to a differential.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Rolf <rolfEraseMEspam.....tuis.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\04\14@160217 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: Fish helps preserve some old memories

What happens if they eat Zebra fish, would they get a rapid neural
response only to die with in a few days (the neurons not the fish
eaters)? :)

* attempt at humour - zebra fish are used in many medical experiments
due to their fast life cycle - a study of a drug can be completed in
days rather than months and they fluoresce nicely in DNA experiments.

Colin
--
cdb, RemoveMEcolinEraseMEspamEraseMEbtech-online.co.uk on 15/04/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\04\15@033502 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> > you do to the jap crap,
>
> Slurs are not OK on the Piclist.
>
> > In my class, I would say that around 80% of the people are in the
> > Lambo/Ferrari range and the rest of the 20% are in the
> > Camaro/Mustang/Corvette range.
>
> As someone who has a new-ish Mustang, I feel complimented that you
> include it in the Corvette class. That shows how much styling and a V8
> can make people believe it's actually a high performance car(or even has
> the potential to be one). Check out the rear suspension for a real
> laugh. You can see it through the spokes of the wheels, the tiny brake
> rotors won't get in the way of the view :)


'jap crap' is either an ignorant or silly statement, somewhat ironic given
the thread.

The idea of a $COUNTRY made car is over, and has been over for quite some
time.  The marketing departments try to convince us it isn't typically with
the "built tough for $COUNTRY conditions" blah.

Seriously, how much Japanese is there is a Japanese car these days (or
whatever country you prefer).

Hail a taxi in Bahrain, and odds are it'll be a Toyota.  Japanese, right?

Well, it was probably assembled in Australia with the chassis locally made,
the engine was assembled in Mexico (with the pistons & crankshaft made in
the USA), the air conditioning comes from Thailand, steering from Australia
(I think, left/right drive?), tyres from Malaysia and so on.

Yup, Japanese all right.  

Try it on your favourite brand.  (For extra lolz, try it on Harley Davidson,
the anti-'jap crap', sometime.)

Tony

2009\04\15@040510 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>'jap crap' is either an ignorant or silly statement, somewhat ironic
>given the thread.
>
>The idea of a $COUNTRY made car is over, and has been over for quite
>some time.  The marketing departments try to convince us it isn't
>typically with the "built tough for $COUNTRY conditions" blah.
>
>Seriously, how much Japanese is there is a Japanese car these days
>(or whatever country you prefer).
>
>Hail a taxi in Bahrain, and odds are it'll be a Toyota.  Japanese, right?
>
>Well, it was probably assembled in Australia with the chassis locally
>made, the engine was assembled in Mexico (with the pistons & crankshaft
>made in the USA), the air conditioning comes from Thailand, steering
>from Australia (I think, left/right drive?), tyres from Malaysia and so on.
>
>Yup, Japanese all right.

Or the Hondas and Nissans made in the UK, along with the Peugeots and other
non-UK brands ...

2009\04\15@044443 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> What's that supposed to mean? There is no smart or stupid, it's just
>> how much you study. Your mark is directly proportional to how many
>> hour you spend studying and understanding your course.
>
> Very, very, very, very, very,very wrong. Your mark is influenced by MUCH
> more then how much you study.

I would agree with Herbert on this. My own experience suggests that differnt
peoples brains are 'wired' differnetly, and this affects how well each one
does on various subjects. For some people a certain subject is easy for them
to understand, and they are seen as 'bright' or 'smart', while other people
who are really just as bright or smart do not understand that subject at
all.

>> There are complete noobs in my class getting 95% because they do
>> nothing else but study. On the other hand, there are some people
>> getting a 60% but could be getting a 95% only because they have never
>> opened their textbook. That's how it is...
>
> Sorry, that is not how it is, and the quicker you get this "that's how
> it is" out of your mind the better.
>

Agreed. Once you get to tertiary education things get serious. Until then
what is being studied is the braod brush strokes of subjects, but tertiary
level is what sorts the 'men from the boys', as the saying goes. Amount of
effort put into study is a part of it, but not all of it. If a person is
prepared to put the effort into study, this will probably mean they are
likely to be the ones that will do well in the world irrespective of how
well they do in education, simply because they have the work ethic that
others will see and reward.

> - no matter HOW much you liked math in high school, you will almost
> certainly hate it with a passion in University. The math profs are VERY
> "in" to math, and see undergrads as lower beings. This sounds dramatic,
> and perhaps things have changed, but I doubt it. To the math department
> anybody who uses math but isn't IN math doesn't really deserve their
> time. In engineering I took ALOT of math courses, we all held this
> opinion by the end of each math course. The best result is if your math
> course isn't taught by a math prof

being one currently studying 'a lot of math' (largely because the distance
learning University I am using has NOTHING in electronics), I agree with
bits of this, but it also comes back to my comment at the top, about how
different peoples brains are 'wired' differently. The math lecturers and
tutors I have encountered are definitely well up on their math, and can do
complex calculations in their sleep - well they should be able to, they are
(mainly) Drs and Professors ...

But I don't recall any that looked down on those not doing math for its own
sake, but rather as a necessity of the particular subject line they are
studying. What Herbert observed may be peculiar to that math department,
because it may have 'accumulated' a bunch of people who have that attitude.
The ones I have encountered do seem to be able to relate the 'pure' math to
applications. possibly because they do seem to have been out in the real
world doing modeling and the like.

But I do agree that as a student one gets to the point hating it with a
passion. The step up in difficulty now I have reached the level 3 courses
seems to be a paradigm shift more than just an increase in difficulty.

2009\04\15@044908 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> ... I'm talking Ferrari vs Lamborghini. Not Lamborghini
>> vs a crappy japanese car. No matter what you do to the
>> jap crap, it's still fundamentally flawed and slower
>> than the Lamborghini.

> My fundamentally flawed piece of Japanese engineering, in its day, now
> long
> gone, was THE fastest standard production car on earth off the line.
> Ferrari, Lamborghin, Porsche, Aston Martin and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all
> were
> not as fast. Until my car got to 30 mph.

But sadly, not SW or anyone else called me on that :-).
It's been off the road sitting in the front yard for well over a year now.
Was still running OK but with peripheral issues, and time has seen it
neglected.
Past due time to get it back on the road to terrorise the Evos and WRXs et
al. Not to mention the Lambo's :-).

Truth be known, I've never got to drag race against a Lamboghini - and a
modern one would certainly beat my now very old and tired one. If it ever
gets back on the road I dream of giving it a new Supercharger pulley to up
boost to 14 psi. The Supercharger is, of course, what let a 1600cc Japanese
sporstcar, in its day, beat EVERY standard production car off the line - for
somewhere under 2 seconds. The L's were fatally flawed :-).

When its going it still FEELS like one of the fastest roller skates around
though :-).


   Russell

2009\04\15@114303 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> > People like Newton or Feynman or Franklin may have not been born
> > with knowledge.  They certainly didn't get the things they came up with
> > out of a book.
>
> They did "stand on the shoulders of giants"... ;-)
>
> That's not what I'm trying to argue, however. It just really surprises me
> that SW thinks there are no "smart" or "dumb" people. This concept seems
so
> utterly self-evident.


Apparently "stand on the shoulders of giants" was originally meant as an
insult.

Tony

2009\04\15@134538 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 17:34 +1000, Tony Smith wrote:
> 'jap crap' is either an ignorant or silly statement, somewhat ironic given
> the thread.

Personally I find the statement racist.

{Quote hidden}

You are of course absolutely correct. Pretty much every mainstream car
you buy today consists of components from a wide variety of countries.

I'm especially "annoyed" by people who push domestics and deride my
choice of a "Japanese" car. Why? Because my "Japanese" car (Toyota
Matrix, basically a hatchback version of the Corolla to those outside
North America) was built in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, it's actually
MORE Canadian domestic then most "domestic" cars which are often
assembled in the US. I get lots of "blank stares" from domestic boosters
when I tell them that.

TTYL

2009\04\15@134939 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 09:45 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

{Quote hidden}

FWIW that comment you quoted above WAS from my "specific to University
of Toronto" section, I'm sorry if people assumed I meant math in
general. I'm sure other school's math departments are more "friendly" to
none math undergrads. Also, as I mentioned, it's possible things have
changed at UofT, I doubt it, but acknowledge it's possible.

TTYL

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...