Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal: hi

Journal by Joey7F

I am appealing the citation issued on May 12th 2005 (301 In Disabled Space/Ramp) for the amount of $275.00.

I will be submitting photographic evidence tomorrow in a separate folder. Please contact me if during review this evidence is not present.

I was not parked in a disabled spot but to the right of it. I spoke with Frank Granda who reviewed the claim along with officer 910CJ. The officer claims that I was not in the spot that I know I was in. After I parked the car at about 9:30AM I noticed that my parking spot had a blue line on the driver's side. This is unusual because only disabled spots have such a line. Upon further inspection it was obvious that a white line had not yet been painted as the disabled spots are new (completed over spring break). The sign, the parking stop and a white banner all indicated I was in the right as did Frank Granda. I took an unusual amount of care to insure that I was not in a handicap parking space. Throughout campus, with few exceptions, handicap spaces exist in 2's or more.

It is possible however, if the officer approached the car from the back, the sign which indicated Magnolia resident parking started at that space and proceeded westward, appeared like a disabled parking space placard. They are of similar size, and as I mentioned earlier, it is rare to have a lone handicap space.

I later approached the Officer who had given me the citation (I apologize that I don't have his name) to ask him how he approached the vehicle in the citation. His response was curt, and he was initially unwilling to cooperate. With persistance, he told me that he gets assigned around campus. I lived in Magnolia so I have seen that spot since the installation during Spring Break. I eventually got him to answer when he thought the space was installed. His response was a confident, "Several Months" which is factually inaccurate. If he is equally sure about its history and my citation that speaks volumes.

It has been less than 2 months since that spot was put in.

I was told that he had the opportunity to photograph the infraction. While I understand that the digital camera is usually used for obscured, broken, or forged parking permits, in a situation where the ticket is 275 dollars, it is obvious that this should be included (not to mention a double and even triple check.) Such a photo not only would have cleared me, but it would probably have stopped him from writing the ticket in the first place.

You can see from the photos included that parking lot was nearly entirely empty. The reasons why someone would park in the disabled spot would be that they are late to class, or they have no where else to park, or there is some over riding emergency. None of these make sense, given the ample legal spaces. It is interesting that it did not strike the officer equally surprising, enough to warrant multiple looks.

Despite the bad taste this incident has left in my mouth, I would like to take a moment to recognize Frank Granda's calm throughout the ordeal. I know I was a little flustered, as anyone who has been falsely accused would be, and his professionalism was very much appreciated.

I would also like to respond to an inevitable concern of the mediator which is that I have 10 citations to my name. At least 4-5 of those are my sister's and one of them (a warning from April 6th 2001, was issued while I was attending the Brain Bowl in High School) when I was not a student at USF . Hopefully your records indicate that all of my fines have been paid for immediately while on appeal. This was done because I recognize that I was at least partially at fault for past infractions, but was hoping that extenuating circumstances (not aware of the 5:30 rule, not sure what areas were assigned to faculty, etc) would explain why I got the citation and may lift the fine. This is the first time that the citation has been completely without merit and therefore I will not pay until the appeals process has been exausted.

One last point: From a purely objective 3rd person's view... if Officer 910CJ, is wrong, he is mistaken, if I am wrong, I have to be lying. I am willing and eager to take a polygraph.

Thank you for your deliberation,

User Journal

Journal: Wami Lab 6

Journal by Joey7F

This lab was to create an impedance matching circuit to a 50ohm load. To do this we calculated the dimensions of the line with line calc. Which is pretty much what corresponded to our mathcad prelab. We used two gigahertz as a reference frequency. Quarter wave matching is the principle behind this lab.

User Journal

Journal: Programming Assignment 1

Journal by Joey7F

Source:

#include
using namespace std;
#include
#define MAX_DIMENSION 10
#define MAX_ENTRY_LENGTH 5 //this is for field width purposes

struct dimensions
{ //matrix dimensions sans the data
        int matrix1r, matrix1c, matrix2r, matrix2c;
};

struct valid
{ //the add, subtract, etc. are either true or false, true meaning they can be performed // and false if they can't
        bool add, subtract, smult, mmult, trans;
};
void returnbig(dimensions dim, int *matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int *matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION]);
void add(dimensions dim, int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION]);
void subtract(dimensions dim, int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION]);
void mmult(dimensions dim,int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION]);

void smult(dimensions dim,int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION]);

void trans(dimensions dim, int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION]);

void getelements(dimensions dim, int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION]);
void output(dimensions dim,int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION]);
dimensions getdata();
int menu(valid validations);
valid validation (dimensions data);
void main()
{
        int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION] = {0};
        int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION] = {0};

        dimensions dim;
        dim = getdata();
        getelements(dim, matrix1, matrix2);
        valid validations = validation(dim); //menu(validations);
        switch(menu(validations))
        {
                case 1: add(dim, matrix1, matrix2); break;
                case 2: subtract(dim, matrix1, matrix2); break;
                case 3: mmult(dim, matrix1, matrix2); break;
                case 4: smult(dim, matrix1, matrix2); break;
                case 5: trans(dim, matrix1, matrix2); break;
                default: cout MAX_DIMENSION || dim.matrix1c > MAX_DIMENSION || dim.matrix2r > MAX_DIMENSION || dim.matrix2c> MAX_DIMENSION)
        {
                cout > dim.matrix1r;
                cin >> dim.matrix1c;
                cin >> dim.matrix2r;
                cin >> dim.matrix2c;
        }

        return dim;
}

void getelements(dimensions dim, int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION])
{
        int x;
        char answer;
        for (int j=0; j > x;
                        matrix1[j][i] = x;
                }
        }

        for (int j=0; j > x;
                        matrix2[j][i] = x;
                }
        }

        output(dim,matrix1, matrix2);
        cout > answer; //If there were errors in the display, we re-call this element function
        if (answer=='Y' || answer=='y')
                getelements(dim, matrix1, matrix2);

        return;
}

void output(dimensions dim, int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION])
{
        cout > i;

        return (i+count);
}

void add(dimensions dim,int matrix1[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION], int matrix2[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION])
{
        cout > scalar;

        for (int j = 0; j dim.matrix1r)
        {
                int swap[MAX_DIMENSION][MAX_DIMENSION]; // when we return to main.
                swap=*matrix1;
                *matrix1=*matrix2;
                *matrix2=swap;
        }
        */
        return;
} /*Input Matrix information in the format( R1 C1 R2 C2 ) 3 2 2 3
Enter the Data for row 1
2 3
Enter the Data for row 2
3 4
Enter the Data for row 3
4 5
Enter the Data for row 1
2 3 4
Enter the Data for row 2
3 4 5
Matrix 1
        2 3
        3 4
        4 5
Matrix 2
        2 3 4
        3 4 5
Are there any errors? (y/n) n
The following operations are valid:

Menu
1. Matrix Multiplication
2. Scalar Multiplication
3. Matrix Transposition

Please select one: 1
Matrix Multiplication...
| 13 18 23|
| 18 25 32|
| 23 32 41|

**********OUTPUT***********************/ /***********OUTPUT 2****************
Input Matrix information in the format( R1 C1 R2 C2 ) 3 3 3 3
Enter the Data for row 1
1 2 3
Enter the Data for row 2
4 5 6
Enter the Data for row 3
7 8 9
Enter the Data for row 1
9 8 7
Enter the Data for row 2
6 5 4
Enter the Data for row 3
3 2 1
Matrix 1
        1 2 3
        4 5 6
        7 8 9
Matrix 2
        9 8 7
        6 5 4
        3 2 1
Are there any errors? (y/n) n
The following operations are valid:

Menu
1. Add
2. Subtract
3. Matrix Multiplication
4. Scalar Multiplication
5. Matrix Transposition

Please select one: 1
Adding Matrix One and Matrix Two...
| 10 10 10|
| 10 10 10|
| 10 10 10|
*/

--Joey

User Journal

Journal: HOT SE2

Journal by Joey7F

My essay for history of technology

The United States Consititution clearly assigns Congress the right to govern protections matters of intellectual property with the sole restraint enumerated being that such protections on creative works must be limited in nature. Since 1790 there has been a struggle to maintain a thriving public domain while at the same time encouraging creativity by granting creators exclusivity over their works. Our founding fathers meant for intellectual property laws to encourage growth of technology and creativity. However, their solution to set an intentionally ambigous restriction on this issue has proven to be rife with problematic proclivities. Moreover, an unfortunate trend is developing. The balance of patents has shifted away from the American ideal of a hardworking inventor toiling in his attic to solve a problem, to a toiling lab worker for a large company solving the problems of their bottom line.

There was a case, Eldred v. Ashcroft, which recently was decided by the Supreme Court, that challenged copyright durations. While upon initial glance this may seem unrelated to the matter at hand, it has profound ramifications for the future of patents and intellectual property in general. The crux of Eldred's argument is that a retroactive extension of copyrights, which could apply equally to patents, are unconstitutional and against the intent of the framers when they penned the Constitution.

A patent is, effectively, a sanctioned monopoly provided for by the federal government. This can both advance and hinder technological development. A prime example of a patent that did both, is the telephone. The protection of the telephone allowed a telecom monopoly to rise and create what is arguably the source our current communications revolution, the transistor. The only reason why this occurred was because Bell Labs had seemingly infinite resources to put in r&d. However, the lack of competition created an artificially high "fair market value" and because they were the only telecommunications company, they saw little reason to upgrade their infrastructure or improve their service.

The problem with assessing the impact of patents is that the effect of stifling technology is what we will be most apparent. We can't see the creative genius that decides not to pursue an innovative venture, because he believes his ideas will be exploited by others. This makes the patent argument seem deceivingly one-sided. Of course, there are sometimes examples where patents could be completely negative.

On the brink of war, President Bush surprised the country with a commitment of 1.2 billion dollars funding research to create a hydrogen-based engine. While this is a highly hypothetical example, what if a company patents a combustion technique that allowed hydrogen cars to flourish then sells the rights to an oil company? We would have to halt innovation for the next 17 years even though the buyer has no interest in furthering development of the technology.

In conclusion, patents should be viewed as a necessary evil. Without a protection in place, the inventor will not have the incentive to invest the time and resources into his creation. On the other hand long patent terms aren't likely to "promote the progress of useful sciences." The terms of intellectual property will likely face many challenges, legal and otherwise, in the coming century. Due to congressional handling of the issue, the laws will likely favor those who donate the most money to our representatives, which may or may not be in the best interest of their constituents.

User Journal

Journal: Bright Futures

Journal by Joey7F

By now many of you have heard that the continuation of Bright Futures as we now know it is jeopardy. There are three causes of the deficit that can be addressed.

1. We can raise the standards (either retroactively or not)
2. We can raise money via taxes, tuition fees, etc.
3. We can lower the cost of attendance.

Of those three, the 2nd is least likely to receive a warm reception. With regards to the first, many would consider it to be unfair to change the standards after you get the scholarship. The third option has multiple solutions to affect the desired change.

1. We can lower instructor salaries
2. We can eliminate some or all of superflous gen. ed requirements
3. We can raise instructor - student ratios

The first would be unfair our professors many of whom are already underpaid. While number two would clearly be ideal, this would face much opposition from the academia elites that believe a "well-rounded education" is crucial before continuing with courses that actually matter. The next choice is also difficult to enact because there are only so many auditoriums and large classrooms. Moreover, many of our classes feel more like sardine cans than meeting places of higher education. However, we could institute a policy that requires a certain percentage of general education requirements to be taken in a "distance learning" environment. Telecourses, for example, can allow many students to finish these classes, which do not require a "standard" professor, at a low variable cost.

If you believe in this as a cause please contact,

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Working...