Life is a Work in Progress

17 August 2010

To McGraw-Hill for such a crappy textbook.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Devin @ 00:11

McGraw-Hill – Technology Education
1333 Burr Ridge Parkway
Burr Ridge, IL 60527

To the authors and editors of Principles of Computer Security: Security+ and Beyond, 1st Ed, ISBN 978-0-07-225643-7.

Since mid-July it has been my misfortune to have been saddled with the above book for my Computer Security and Information Assurance course with Hawaii Pacific University. This shambles of a document is embarrassing to trudge through. It is poorly written, horribly organized, contradictory, and rife with misinformation. It actually seems intent on confusing the reader and student and thus reducing their chances at actually understanding the world of computer and information security.
While I’m certain that there have been numerous improvements between the first and second editions, after all, the writers and editors had nowhere to go but up, this textbook is inexcusable. Did the writers even bother to consult with anyone fleetingly familiar with pedagogy? Did anyone offer to actually read the entire book with the intent of learning something or examining whether the claims were true, or even self-consistent? The work itself seems to be the product of security professionals who tried to write a book from their sweaty crib notes after barely passing the Security+ exam on the nth attempt.

It has been embarrassing as a technical professional familiar with computer, network, and information security to be forced to evaluated for comprehension with this text as source material. It has been frustrating to read and I have remained puzzled from the beginning of this course as to how anyone having picked up this book with the intent of learning from it could manage to successfully take any professional exam certifying them as knowledgeable on security matters. I certainly hope that the work writing the 2nd edition began with a review and then subsequent burning of the 1st edition and that the contributors and writers of that edition, those responsible for that travesty, were firstly sacked, and then made to give penance for inflicting it upon the populace as a trusted resource. You have made my student experience in this class ever more difficult than it needed to be having to puzzle out what you could possibly have against students that you couldn’t first think to be clear, concise, and comprehensive.

Devin
Student, Hawaii Pacific University
P.S. Until now I have kept every textbook I have bought with the idea that it may prove to be useful reference material. This book I intend to keep if only to protect others from having to suffer from reading it. It will be more useful as a paper-mâché project than as a textbook. Shame on you.

15 May 2010

Recent communication and reply to Sen Durbin.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — Devin @ 11:37

Well, when my Senators reply to my commentary, I feel it important to respond in kind. Recently Sen Durbin’s office responded to my concerns regarding the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. Below is the text of my response.

Senator Durbin, I am an Illinois veteran currently making my home in Yuma, AZ but still a legal resident and voter from ***, Illinois.

On 13 May, I received your reply to my alarm at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision over Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. I very much appreciate the reply from your office but feel the content of that reply misses the mark of what I think is the central issue regarding this decision – a corporation is not a citizen of this Republic and therefore has no civil right to free speech and therefore should not be allowed to influence politics by investing in a candidate’s campaign!

I understand your response to say that if left unchallenged, politicians will spend more time chasing money and less time doing legislative work. I think you imply that the S.752 (not S.759 as stated in your email) and S.3295 mounts some sort of bulwark defense against the Court’s decision.

I appreciate that S.752 and S.3295 correctly help remove inappropriate influence from the campaigners and help restore a Senator’s responsibility to his or her constituents. However, neither bill addresses the fundamental discrepancy that a corporation does not have a mouth with which to breathe speech about issues and therefore cannot be have their speech chilled. Thus, if corporations do not have a voice, then they cannot influence politics through their campaign contributions which addresses the some of the fundamental problems these two bills are meant to address.

Similar to Sen. Burris’ response regarding my concerns, your response does not seem to address my concern that the Supreme Court has granted a human right to a legal fiction that does not have those rights! Your solutions, while appreciated, do not seem to attempt to correct this single and reprehensible injustice.

As I mentioned to Sen. Burris and I think I copied to your office: “I implore you to encourage your peers to simply legislate that campaign contributions be limited to individuals that can physically vote and perhaps the political action committees that are formed to give people a collective opportunity to advocate for a cause. To be honest, I am unsure of political action committees, but instinctively support the right of people, living, breathing people, to organize. What I don’t support is the concept that a corporation, a fictional entity created for taxation and legal purposes, has civil rights that might possibly be infringed.”

Very Respectfully,

Devin ***

!–Original Message Follows–
May 13, 2010

Dear Mr. ***:

Thank you for contacting me about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I appreciate hearing from you and share your concern.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission raised the issue of whether certain portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 are constitutional. After twice hearing arguments on the case, the Supreme Court ultimately decided on January 21, 2010, to overturn the ban on corporate campaign activities.

This decision is one of the most egregious cases of judicial activism in our nation’s history. If this decision is left unchallenged, people in politics will be forced to spend more time every year chasing money, leaving them less time for solving problems.

I have been a strong advocate for campaign finance reform. I will continue to push for passage of the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 759), which I introduced in 2009. This measure would make federal funds available to Senate candidates who agree to forgo campaign money from private interests. Participating candidates would be required to demonstrate sufficient public support from a minimum number of residents of their state. Contributions would be limited to $100 per individual contributor. Candidates meeting this requirement would be eligible for Fair Elections funding in both the primary and general elections. Individual contributions would be matched on a 4 to 1 basis and the candidates would be provided broadcast vouchers to reduce the costs of advertising.

I am also an original cosponsor of S. 3295, introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer on April 30, 2010. This measure would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in federal elections, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures in federal elections, and require corporations to disclose public independent expenditures.

Encouraging candidates to leave special interest funding out of their campaigns and discouraging corporations from bankrolling campaigns are important steps that will strengthen our democracy and keep members of Congress accountable to the citizens who elect them.

These bills have been referred to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. I am committed to working for their passage.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

***

23 April 2010

More on the fictional civil rights of corporations.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — Devin @ 10:03

Recently, I received a response from Senator Burris (D, IL) to my email expressing my disapproval of the SCOTUS opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  In it he offered three legislative explorations that I thought of as distractors rather than solutions and wanted to make sure that he knew so.  I recommend everyone actually write their Congressional representatives and express what should be your proper and righteous outrage that Corporations now have at least one civil right that individuals have had to bleed for in order to gain and preserve.

Senator Burris, I am an Illinois veteran currently making my home in Yuma, AZ but still a legal resident and voter from ***, Illinois.

On the 6th of April, your office sent me the message below in response to my concern regarding the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  In this message you alluded to the exploration of “legislative alternatives to mitigate the Supreme Court’s decision…[including]…expanded techniques for raising and spending campaign money, stricter disclosure requirements for campaign donors, and providing candidates with matching funds from a designated pool thereby reducing the role elite donors play in campaign financing.”  I do not agree that the way to remove this injustice done to the American public shall be discovered through these “explorations”, and I will specify why:

1. “expanded techniques for raising and spending money”: I do not see how finding other means to raise money for campaigns solves the fundamental discrepancy that corporations are not voting entities and therefore do not have a right to free speech.  I do not need alternatives to raising money, I want corporations to have a civil right granted to them removed because they are not people who deserve civil rights.  Legal rights and regulations regarding business and commerce, certainly, but if you can’t walk into a booth and actually vote, why do you need civil rights?

2. “stricter disclosure requirements”: Again, this does not answer the fundamental abhorrent nature of the ruling.  In order to keep people honest, perhaps financial information regarding contributions should be transparent and inspected to prevent fraud.  But the Supreme Court’s opinion erroneously decides that corporations have a right to speech and simply ensuring that everyone can discover how much money contributed from a corporate coffer does not curtail the fact that a corporation has no Constitutional right to speech, only the individuals within the corporation that actually can breathe and speak should be allowed to open their wallets in support of their speech.

3. “providing…from matching funds”: Yet again missing the fundamental point as you entertain ideas of simply matching contributors money from some yet unidentified and mysterious “pool” of money when we already have budget shortfalls and a debt that keeps rising.  Does any Democrat truly wonder, sir, why they become saddled with the label of “fiscally irresponsible” when a suggestion like this is used?

Senator, I implore you to encourage your peers to simply legislate that campaign contributions be limited to individuals that can physically vote and perhaps the political action committees that are formed to give people a collective opportunity to advocate for a cause.  To be honest, I am unsure of political action committees, but instinctively support the right of people, living, breathing people, to organize.  What I don’t support is the concept that a corporation, a fictional entity created for taxation and legal purposes, has civil rights that might possibly be infringed.

Very Respectfully,

Devin ***

Here is the original response from Senator Burris to which I am responding.

Dear Devin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I appreciate the benefit of your views.

On January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued a five to four ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowing corporations, nonprofits, and labor unions to use their own general treasuries to fund political advertisements and influence federal elections. The decision overturns previously defined distinctions between corporations, individuals, and the role both play in campaign finance.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruling rolls back laws that have historically served to limit the role corporate money plays in federal elections. Along with President Obama, I worry that this ruling instills special interest groups and lobbyists with even more power in Washington while deflating the voices of average Americans.

I, along with my colleagues in the United States Senate, am exploring legislative alternatives to mitigate the Supreme Court’s decision. These alternatives include expanded techniques for raising and spending campaign money, stricter disclosure requirements for campaign donors, and providing candidates with matching funds from a designated pool thereby reducing the role elite donors play in campaign financing.

I will continue to listen closely to what you and other Illinoisans have to say about matters before Congress, the concerns of our communities, and the issues facing Illinois and the nation. My job is not about merely supporting or opposing legislation; it is also about bridging the divide that has paralyzed our nation’s politics.

Sincerely,

Roland W. Burris
United States Senator

6 April 2010

Mathematical progression

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — Devin @ 12:03

I may or may not have mentioned this before, but the reason why you learn all of those different “maths” when you are in school is because in and of themselves those techniques are simply tools meant to enable you to handle the world and manipulate the differing sorts of expressions that become part of the world with ease. That is, and as an example, I just finished a calculus problem where by using a definite integral I calculate the volume of an object via the “shell method”. Now, the calculus bit is the primary thing being evaluated, obviously. But it is the ability to manipulate expressions that I learned in algebra and before that in grammar school that allows me to actually spend time working through the problem and enter the simplest equation into the calculator in order to produce a result. And, frankly, even that is really unnecessary, since giving an exact answer needed the use of pi.

Now, the most vital piece of enlightenment regarding all of this is finding a way to communicate that bit of information to students when they look at my future blackboards and go “Why am I learning this?” At the moment I can see that I will have to develop two answers. Firstly, that those students that aspire to work in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics will obviously have to master these tools in order to succeed in university and in their future careers. The second group of students, however, will be the toughest answer to provide. Those students not thinking that they’ll use these maths. Obviously to me algebra simply provides the tools with which a model of the a problem can be expressed, and thus appropriately evaluated. Yet, I still don’t see how to motivate a young learner using that argument. It just doesn’t seem to satisfy the “What’s in it for Me” space.

24 March 2010

Because I would not post it there, I posted it here.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Devin @ 12:20

Recently I responded to a post from an associate on Facebook (FB) who was “wondering where to move to” in response to the passage of the health care bill.  The use of the word “comrades” in the post, of course implied overtones of Communist government etc.  It’s not the first time I’ve had an associate on FB use the term comrades as an example of their disappointment in the bill so, I made my contribution basically listing the countries of the world where the individual should not move to because that nation has some sort of nationalized public health care system.  It’s a pretty long list, you see.  The U.S. has this reputation of being the only industrialized country without some sort of nationalized public health care system.

One of the responses to my comment was a respectful disagreement with my opinion and an objection to “living in a Nation [sic] of Socialists in control” with the impetus that the U.S. Constitution will be “shredded”.  This, to me is a very interesting response especially since Venezuela and China were also included as examples of “things gone wrong” presumably because socialists were in control.  Without jumping on the specifics of why I disagreed with the use of Venezuela and China or counter arguments using examples of how “things have gone wrong” with Republicans purportedly to blame, I felt it important to explore why there was disagreement, feeling that it was more related to a fundamental difference in either philosophy, understanding, or semantics.  But the comment was entirely too long to put up on my associate’s FB commentary.  I mean, that’s just wrong to use someone else’s space like that without permission and when I have my own space for that sort of thing.  Therefore, having given an overview of the back story, here’s my response to the person respectfully disagreeing with me in the hopes that a dialog will continue and the nation may be better for it.  Names have been changed because it’s more appropriate.

[Respectful salutation], the U.S. Constitution hasn’t been changed and I don’t see how ensuring people have access to health is a violation of that constitution, though there is certainly no “right to healthcare” in that document.  But then, there’s not a lot of law that has been passed in this 200-year trend in increasing Federalism that can be rested solidly on the U.S. Constitution.  Of course, it depends on whether you read the U.S. Constitution as a legal or economic document, but that’s another discussion.  Presently, I don’t think the passage of the health care bill has damaged the US Constitution nearly as much as some other legislation and executive orders have wounded the specified civil rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

But, perhaps I’m missing something in your argument so I’ll try to better understand it, if you don’t mind me working through it.  I remember that more people favored better access to health care than those that didn’t.  If my memory is accurate, it would support that a majority of citizens wanted a public health care bill, though not that they wanted this particular bill.  Incidentally, polling also showed that most citizens didn’t want the actions included within PATRIOT ACT if it was going to curb their civil rights, yet we got that one anyhow – seemingly a ruling made against democracy.  If a bill is introduced and a majority vote enacts it, how is that socialist?  But I don’t believe this is where your objection lies, but I did think it necessary to address.

Please correct me if I misunderstand, but I think I understand that the real focus of your argument to involve an objection to people who advocate socialist ideas.  I think it would be a correct statement to say that you object to people with socialist ideas being in offices of influence, and if so, then you may also object to people with socialist ideas being in offices of lesser influence or without offices at all, that is to say, you object to people with socialist ideals.  Is there something about socialist ideals that is harmful?  I’m not speaking of the popular concept of communist ideas (which is where, I think the invocation of “eh, comrade?” is from), and technically I’m not arguing for economically socialist ideas – though socialist ideas necessarily impact economics. When I speak of socialist ideas, I speak of the idea that if you have the means to help grow your society and provide for its people, you should.  “An injustice against one is an injustice against all,” for example.   I cannot abide by the idea that I should walk away from someone who needs help.  I cannot think well of a society that treats a fellow human as if they should be forgotten about, discarded, or otherwise marginalized because “they do not rate”.  I joined the military to serve my society, not just to better myself.  And I appreciate that it is people with socialist ideas that fought against child labor and for public education, overtime pay, civil rights, and are still fighting for equal rights and equal pay.  There is definitely trouble, though, with how to legislate, or whether or legislate this sort of social care, and I think that is the crux of your disagreement, you do not want laws to be written that make people pay for another’s care.  Again, please tell me if I have misrepresented your opinion.

Perhaps this bill is not the best way forward and I truly mourn that this nation couldn’t see its way to work it out together.  I doubt it could have been all sunshine and roses, but I am appalled that over the last few decades nothing constructive was done, language was used that should never have been entertained by those that we put into those offices with the idea that they should share the honor of service with such great thinkers as our nation’s founders.  But to reject the idea that I should work towards the betterment of my fellow humans as I am able?  I cannot think of something that would be more damning to my character and against my nature.  I can instead only hope that anyone in authority anywhere would seek to serve the needs of all people and would articulate that need in a way that invites everyone to the table to work toward a common good of the society.

Lastly, I am sincerely glad you are interested in the work that our government is doing, and I hope you communicated these opinions to those that purport to represent you on Capitol Hill and in your State legislation.  But I also hope that I’ve misunderstood you somewhere when you think that a socialist idea also means that we step closer towards being a ruled class anymore than I think we have already allowed.

It’s your government, you should review and comment on the legislation.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , — Devin @ 09:54

I’ve long been a proponent that the people in the country should be the driving force behind legislation.  And it’s not a matter of who should be the most vocal, just a matter of having an honest, open, and thorough discussion without the mud-slinging and other obfuscation techniques.  The trouble with that, of course, is that it is the mud-slinging and name calling that makes the news, well, if you can call it news.  The talking heads, more or less, hop on the tele, jabber about, sensationalize, and engage in various methods of misdirection and misinformation.  The public-at-large, it seems, busies itself elsewhere and pays attention to the quips and sound bytes with which it already agrees.  So, no true debate actually occurs.  Did you know that the Lincoln-Douglas debates for an Senate seat in Illinois took place in seven towns across Illinois where the format included one candidate speaking for an hour, the next candidate speaking for an hour and a half, and the original candidate speaking a rejoinder for the next half hour.  That’s three hours in case you’re having trouble understanding the sheer length which is what I’m practically trying to convey.  You had to be dedicated to the debate to listen.  Can you imagine anyone listening for that amount of time now?

I mention this specifically because I think the primary cause for all the problems within the nation now is this attitude of Us vs. Them.  It is a very classic mental state – one that seems particularly enforced in U.S. society, though the U.S. is not the only society that reinforces this behavior.  I grew up with it too – the most specific case that I can think of is the case of Christianity which is decisively divisive.  Christians vs. Anyone-not-Christian.  In fact, if I recall correctly, the “big three” are all like that, and from what I remember of world religions, I’d suggest with 85% confidence that most scripture is like that.  Only a few religions come to mind that strike me as “This is my way, if it works for you too, cool, but you’re way is valid too.”  But I’ve digressed.  In our families, our neighborhoods, our communities, towns, cities, states, and nation we draw lines meant to define those that are with us and those that are against.  Why do we need so many lines?

Of course, I always move on to the point that Us vs. Them and the apathetic nature of the public is entirely due to the poor education that most Americans receive.  It’s a system thing and frankly, before I digress again, I’ll reign myself back to the point that I wanted to make.  It’s your government.  “Of the People, For the People, By the People.”  Forget that the initial Constitutional document only sanctioned a specific group as “the People”.  We’ve moved on and amended the Constitution to better reflect what should be our reality.  You should be engaged in what your government purports to do because you elect them and the knuckleheads need your support to legitimize their actions.  So, here follow a list of actions I think each of you should take, regardless of your political philosophy.

  • Refresh yourself on the intended American Political Process.  If you haven’t taken an American political science class since you were in high school or in college many moons ago, at least visit the Wikipedia page on Politics of the U.S. (Wikipedia, new window).  From there you can jump to the Federal Government of the U.S. (Wikipedia, new window), and most importantly intelligently review the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Amendments (Archive.gov, new window).  I prefer the latter in a little book with history and commentary that you can pick up at any bookstore, but some of you may like the Internet interface.
  • Review the alternatives.  How can you possibly think that this is the best way for our government to work if you have no informed clue as to the alternatives?  At least be able to speak intelligently on the subject and be able to identify when someone is misusing the terms.  If you want a quick place to get lost, there’s always Wikipedia and Government (Wikipedia, new window).  From there you can busy yourself for days reading and making notes on which system of government means what instead of relying on what may have been misinformation or some other form of weasle-wordedness.
  • Watch the legislation.  Keep on top of the calendar, the bills, the votes.  You know who your elected officials are, right?  Regardless of your opinion of them, do you ever send them a letter explaining why you think this or that policy is right or wrong?  Do you take the time to read synopsis of the bills?  Well, that last bit is actually the hardest, who has time to read an encyclopedic volume?  There’s a problem too.  You can rely on professionals who are paid to review bills, but what happens when a bill is pushed through Congress so fast no one has the opportunity to read it and the public doesn’t have the opportunity to weigh in on it?  Face it, there’s an increase in the concept that you need to have professionals in office to take care of you because you can’t be bothered to spend the time informing yourself to weigh in on the matter.  You and I are in the same collective situation being governed without being allowed to review the matter on our own, in most cases.  In order to stay on top as best I can, I just started using a site called Open Congress to track legislation and legislators.  You can also use the Library of Congress website, or the websites for the House of Representatives and the Senate.  You can use nearly anything as long as you find some way to keep in touch and then, most importantly, register your informed opinion.  Don’t just wait to vote for a person you think might support you, make sure they know your informed opinion, not just your “gut”.  Like them or don’t like them, but if you don’t bring it to the table, you get to be lumped into the category of “quiet, apathetic, can’t be bothered to contribute constituents”.

Some time in the future I’ll hope to talk about actually being able to read the bills that these Congresspersons have filed away in a drawer just waiting for the right crisis or political superiority to appear so that they may best introduce them for ill-consideration and quick vote, damn the consequences.  After all you don’t think this Healthcare bill, nor the PATRIOT ACT were drafted up within the days or even weeks before they were introduced, do you?  They were waiting and lurking.  And now you and I are subject to their laws regardless of your opinion on them and chances are without your ability to read them, much less actually understand them. You know what is great about the U.S. Constitution?  It’s short and to the point.  I don’t understand how it can be misread, frankly, but that’s another matter.  I think we end up with more lawyers as legislators because the language is used to obfuscate a clear intent, mission, objective, responsibilities, and metrics for accomplishment.  And that’s a real shame.

22 March 2010

Reflections on the healthcare vote.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — Devin @ 12:53

I’m amazed when people prefer for others to suffer so that an ideology stays intact. I think it’s because they don’t have to meet them in order to condemn them – they don’t have to deliver the news personally, they don’t have to stay and watch another suffer, or pay any attention to the consequences of their ideologies.

In this measure, I believe health care should be openly available. It should begin with prevention and be based in education and outreach. People should certainly take control of their own lives and their own futures but as a society we should be honored to help those in need if we want to aspire to greatness.

Lastly, in response to the “eleventh-hour” negotiation which permitted a vote in the House directly along party lines: I do not think women should be punished for having sex and that there is some serious ideology prevented an appropriate bill from being written and has caused an incomplete and inappropriate plan to be enacted.

13 March 2010

Best Practices

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Devin @ 10:54

I debate on the usefulness of this next thought, but it seems that in kind to the idea that every person has the book of their life that they could publish, throughout that life is a series of vignettes. While I don’t pretend that this is quite as picturesque, I do think that the Internet can be used to pass along information that others may find actually useful. Even if it’s just a minor little bit of information. So, because I’m thinking of it:
Best running shorts: I’ve tried out quite a few from my local military mart, and Soffe’s were pretty good for their time, but lately, as much as I’m almost loathe to admit it, I have taken a fancy to the UnderArmor variety. The legs are long enough, roomy enough and the liner hasn’t yet unraveled, leaving me with some loose elastics that are providing no support whatsoever.
Best warm weather running shirts: Any of the “wicking” and “breathable” shirts with the sleeves cut “downward” which makes them a particular pain to fold, but keeps them from being distracting during the run and keeps the shirt from flapping about because it was cut in a square with sleeve-tubes attached to it.
Best running footwear: So far, after nearly three months I’m still raving about Vibram FiveFingers shoes. I wear the KSOs which feel comfortable against my feet, snug, and help keep stuff out from the shoe, since I run along dirt paths. I’m considering a pair of the Treks, for more open trail running, but haven’t found the opportunity to place it in practice yet.
I’m still looking for an appropriate backpack for running, especially one that will allow me to carry a change of clothes as necessary, along with water bladder, wallet, phone, music player that I can string the earphones up to my head as long as I’m not worrying about changing the music or anything. Otherwise, I might just go back to a smaller nano for the running and leave the iPod Classic to the biking or vehicular commute.

6 March 2010

Tablets and stuff

Filed under: Uncategorized — Devin @ 17:37

So, I’m back to thinking about Tablet PCs. Elyse is interested in replacing her aging Compaq with a new computer and is ok with that replacement being my Vaio. If so, then I need a new laptop. Which means, I should be looking at the tablets again to see if they’ll meet my needs and add that extra functionality of giving me a handwriting interface. We’ll see, of course, but any new laptop would have to have at least as much computing power as my current Viao. And any Tablet PC would be a smaller screen than my Viao, which immediately makes it a bit harder for programming and the like.

5 March 2010

Next term

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Devin @ 06:32

Time for me to start thinking about what classes I’ll be taking for the next term. It would be wise to note that my dual major, Computer Science and Math Education, is still going to be a tough one to accomplish. As I gaze into the future, I’m sensing a time when I will actually have to step into a classroom and observe someone lecturing about the course I’m supposed to learn. So far, the greater majority of my classes have been online. I haven’t felt like I’ve been robbed of the college experience by this, but I definitely have less of an association with my fellow students. This is probably a good thing. After all, most of my fellow students in this case would have barely gotten out of high school, whereas I’m looking forward to retiring from the Marines in a few years.

Regardless, I think I’ll continue the Programming and Mathematics trend I’ve had for the last two semesters and take the Programming III and Calculus II classes. Both are online, and hopefully I’ll only need to buy one book, since Calculus should be a continuation of the this text.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress