Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyroo_g)
    Flimsy? Yyyyoooouuuuu wwwwhhhaaaaatttttt?
    Well it tries not to be, but eventually some axiom has to come from somewhere with little or no justification.

    I suppose the sames true with maths and physics though. I don't know. The pedantic nature of the whole thing irritates me as does the language with which it is written.

    I'm digging aren't I?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abstraction98)
    I love it when girls do the labelling.

    Good effort.
    I think anyone can spot a **** a mile off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyroo_g)
    Emma Watson is practically NAKED in the Express tomorrow.
    I've seen her go one better.

    Mel, that's an amazing PS. That start is really clever/novel too, bet the unis lapped that up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleurvert)
    I think anyone can spot a **** a mile off.
    True, but I have never ever spotted a dlif a mile off.

    I'm tempted to post my PS
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyroo_g)
    Emma Watson is practically NAKED in the Express tomorrow.
    source?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abstraction98)
    True, but I have never ever spotted a dlif a mile off.

    I'm tempted to post my PS
    I think that, in general, girls are better at assessing the attractiveness of their own gender. (Obvious exceptions being Andy and The Mensch)

    I'm not, mine is so pompous and boring.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleurvert)
    I think that, in general, girls are better at assessing the attractiveness of their own gender. (Obvious exceptions being Andy and The Mensch)

    I'm not, mine is so pompous and boring.
    Yeh, faw shaw. (Obviously)

    Hmm.. I'm trying to think of any possible repercussions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abstraction98)
    Irrelevant but is the computer science option as good as it looks on the tin?
    Hmm.

    Assuming the course hasn't changed next year:

    ML (foundations of computer science) was pretty interesting, since the pure functional programming style is unlikely to be something even people with a prior interest have had much to do with. It's not that useful for real-world sciencey stuff like something like c++ or fortran would be, but certainly succeeded in switching me on to a programming way of thinking, and was quite interesting in itself, with a good lecturer.

    Discrete maths was fairly good, since it added more of a semi-rigorous pure slant to the mainly applied/applicable stuff in the natsci maths (even if the exam questions on it were ******** impossible* this year - apparently the lecturer we had is known for setting hard exams)

    Floating point is important for the scientific computing side, was pretty much memorisation, and didn't have that much content, so was fairly easy marks in the exam for a reasonably interesting course.

    Software design was complete ******** in my opinion, just a load of meaningless jargon wrapped around a little bit of common sense.

    The java practicals worked really well in teaching the language, and the exercises were pretty straightforward. It was quite interesting as well, definitely a good course, and you'll get a fairly good level of Java out of it. The programming methods lectures added a bit on to this, mainly examples of what we could do with what we've learnt, and a couple of language quirks.

    Algorithms was also good, and overlapped slightly with ML. However, IMO it's odd to put the course that requires a lot of background reading and playing around/reflection in easter, the most pressured term.

    Overall, interesting and worthwhile, but certainly hard (I found it harder than physics and maths), and definitely not a "filler" option, but if you're interested in computer stuff, probably one to definitely consider taking.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ploop)
    I've seen her go one better.

    Mel, that's an amazing PS. That start is really clever/novel too, bet the unis lapped that up.
    Same. The one involving the car?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abstraction98)
    Well it tries not to be, but eventually some axiom has to come from somewhere with little or no justification.
    It's not (mainly) about finding justification. Just (especially in the 20th century) defining what serves as justification. In that way it can go hand in hand with science (or tag behind it, as many claim). It does seem a lot like trying to find the ultimate justification, but I think much of that has been done (ie, falsification/Logical Positivism).

    (Original post by abstraction98)
    I suppose the sames true with maths and physics though. I don't know. The pedantic nature of the whole thing irritates me as does the language with which it is written.
    Yeah, it can often be very dry. Although precision is absolutely necessary (especially since the work is often on language itself) so it's often hard not to lapse into it.

    (Original post by abstraction98)
    I'm digging aren't I?
    Dunno, are you?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abstraction98)
    source?
    Just saw it on Sky News.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleurvert)
    Same. The one involving the car?
    I have also seen this. Much leg etc though. It's sexier.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyroo_g)
    I have also seen this. Much leg etc though. It's sexier.
    Yeah, the car incident isn't too sexy.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleurvert)
    I think that, in general, girls are better at assessing the attractiveness of their own gender. (Obvious exceptions being Andy and The Mensch)
    (Original post by abstraction98)
    Yeh, faw shaw. (Obviously)
    Awww, thanks you guys!


    (I JUST MULTIQUOTED)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyroo_g)
    Awww, thanks you guys!


    (I JUST MULTIQUOTED)
    I like this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scipio90)
    Hmm.

    Assuming the course hasn't changed next year:

    ML (foundations of computer science) was pretty interesting, since the pure functional programming style is unlikely to be something even people with a prior interest have had much to do with. It's not that useful for real-world sciencey stuff like something like c++ or fortran would be, but certainly succeeded in switching me on to a programming way of thinking, and was quite interesting in itself, with a good lecturer.

    Discrete maths was fairly good, since it added more of a semi-rigorous pure slant to the mainly applied/applicable stuff in the natsci maths (even if the exam questions on it were ******** impossible* this year - apparently the lecturer we had is known for setting hard exams)

    Floating point is important for the scientific computing side, was pretty much memorisation, and didn't have that much content, so was fairly easy marks in the exam for a reasonably interesting course.

    Software design was complete ******** in my opinion, just a load of meaningless jargon wrapped around a little bit of common sense.

    The java practicals worked really well in teaching the language, and the exercises were pretty straightforward. It was quite interesting as well, definitely a good course, and you'll get a fairly good level of Java out of it. The programming methods lectures added a bit on to this, mainly examples of what we could do with what we've learnt, and a couple of language quirks.

    Algorithms was also good, and overlapped slightly with ML. However, IMO it's odd to put the course that requires a lot of background reading and playing around/reflection in easter, the most pressured term.

    Overall, interesting and worthwhile, but certainly hard (I found it harder than physics and maths), and definitely not a "filler" option, but if you're interested in computer stuff, probably one to definitely consider taking.
    Thanks for your help. Interesting that it's so hard. Were you doing Maths A or B? I'm not a computer fanatic, but I enjoy programming and it seems like an interesting change.

    I'm considering bailing on chemistry as I found it so irritating this year.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by azhao)
    I like this.
    Don't get used to it.

    Are you trying to imply that my endless double/triple/multi-posting is a problem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleurvert)
    Same. The one involving the car?
    Well that too, but private showings as well.

    Any Englings posting up their PS? Your English students so you're allowed to be pompous; in fact, it's practically a pre-requisite.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyroo_g)
    It's not (mainly) about finding justification. Just (especially in the 20th century) defining what serves as justification. In that way it can go hand in hand with science (or tag behind it, as many claim). It does seem a lot like trying to find the ultimate justification, but I think much of that has been done (ie, falsification/Logical Positivism).

    Yeah, it can often be very dry. Although precision is absolutely necessary (especially since the work is often on language itself) so it's often hard not to lapse into it.

    Dunno, are you?

    I agree with all that, not much to say really.

    I was.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyroo_g)
    Don't get used to it.

    Are you trying to imply that my endless double/triple/multi-posting is a problem?
    Nope, its a FB joke, my friends and I spent a couple of months flooding everyones screens by liking everything then copying the "who likes this" bit as the comment so it would often read You like this. Then You and so and so likes this, could get pretty long. :P
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.