Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 36785
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2019/12/10 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/10   

2005/3/21-23 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes] UID:36785 Activity:moderate
3/21    SLEEP IS FOR THE WEAK (or, at least for those programming under a
        deadline).  Thank you.  That is all. - jvarga
        \_ ah, the all nighter.  You are bringing back memories.
        \_ I thought it was Spring Break?
           \_ I don't know if it is or not, but I often had to work
              through breaks.
        \_ uh, what year are you and what class did you have to stay up for?
           152? 164? 184? I HATE THOSE CLASSES. They should be 6 unit classes.
           \_ I remember having to work during spring break for Wawrzynek's
              150 project. We're suppose to design a MIDI decoder on a then
              new, untested, limited Xilink FPGA with only 2000 CLB's. I stayed
              and slept in Cory Hall (Soda was still only 1/2 done). I remember
              screaming a lot because the Xilinx license server kept going
              down, and 1/2 of the time the Xilinx "make" failed with
              unreproducible routing problems. My highlight was during the
              end of the break when my trusty partner and his GF visited me
              and asked how I was doing. All that time they were in Vegas or
              something... they seemed pretty happy and carefree.
              \_ And what is he doing today? I bet he is a sales engineer,
                 going to conventions in Vegas and raking in fat commissions,
                 while you probably still slave away in 16 hour days.
                 \_ you're absolutely right about that. He's making big fat
                    $$$ while I'm still in school (grad school). What can I say
                    The moral of the story I guess is that hard work is for
                    suckers. Hmmmm
           \_ I remember working through Thanksgiving for Katz's 150 in Fa90.
              We were building a 4-bit computer out of 74xx parts and some
              EPROMs and about a hundred spaghetti wires on four breadboards
              with a few plastic switches and LEDs as the operator console.  It
              was an eye-opener for me on how a general-purpose computer works.
              I'm glad I didn't end up taking it in later semesters where they
              did cool special-purpose machines like video games without the
              need to cut wires.
           \_ 152 and 164 were 5-unit classes when I took them.  Didn't take
              184.
              \_ 164 is a 5 unit class now?  not fair.
                 \_ The only 5 unit classes in EECS these days are 150 and
                    152. My understanding is that the department can't really
                    make the units realistic because of something about needing
                    to present a "typical" schedule under which students can
                    accumulate 120 units in 8 semesters. I don't know the
                    details. -gm
                    \_ CS50... now that was a tough class.  15x and 16x were
                       cake compared to that.
                       \_ Must be before my time.  What years was it offered?
                          What's it about?
                          What's it about, daddy?
                          \_ CS50 was replaced with CS60ac in 1986 (and went
                             from 1 5-unit class to 2 4-unit classes) because
                             50 was universally considered too difficult (I
                             think only 1 of 4 non-eecs managed to go from 50
                             to 55, and more than a few eecs dropped out of the
                             major because of the class).  60a originally
                             covered both scheme and C, and 60c was for
                             "advanced" C programming (since students had by
                             then a couple semesters of C experience).  I'm
                             under the impression that they've since further
                             reduced the class load by doing just scheme in
                             60a and just C in 60c.  I have no idea what they
                             teach now, but I'm pretty sure I'd be depressed
                             if I found out.  I think they now use the Computer
                             Organization book for 152, and that used to be
                             the text for 60b.  The quantitative approach
                             book was the 152 text, and now they reserve it
                             for 252.
2019/12/10 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/10   

You may also be interested in these entries...
2012/1/24-2/14 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes] UID:54297 Activity:nil
1/24    "What the Top 1% of Earners Majored In"
        http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-1-earners-majored-163026283.html
        No EE/CS/EECS!
        \_ Yeah, you should have majored in Art History instead.
           \_ No you should have gone to Med Skool like every good asian
              parent says.
	...
2009/2/19-25 [Academia/GradSchool, Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:52600 Activity:low
2/19    Student Expectations Seens as Causing Grade Disputes:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/education/18college.html
        \_ "I tell my classes that if they just do what they are supposed to do
            and meet the standard requirements, that they will earn a C."
            All well and good, but the problem is that 2.0 is perceived
            as almost failing. Maybe once employers and grad schools
	...