The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What's the integration of cos2x?
Page:
Maths was guffballs.
I'm doing a degree in Games Computing, I think we have a complex maths unit in the course at the end of the year.
If you want to work as a games programmer you might need that "crap" at some point.
Think about having to do volume integrals when building an Inertia Tensor for use in 3-d rigid body dynamics for complex objects.
I would class myself as an average sort of guy but I have a University degree which needed me to know this sort of thing as a basis for getting an "ENTRY" level job in the games industry.
It's also useful when doing CG movies too. Cloth and fluid dynamics are major research topics at companies such as Pixar.
Think about having to do volume integrals when building an Inertia Tensor for use in 3-d rigid body dynamics for complex objects.
I would class myself as an average sort of guy but I have a University degree which needed me to know this sort of thing as a basis for getting an "ENTRY" level job in the games industry.
It's also useful when doing CG movies too. Cloth and fluid dynamics are major research topics at companies such as Pixar.
Xzibit wrote:
> All that calculation crap has no use, it just makes those who can do
> it feel like they got one up on the average man in the street.
Yeah. They can do "calculation crap" while the average man on the street cant.
> All that calculation crap has no use, it just makes those who can do
> it feel like they got one up on the average man in the street.
Yeah. They can do "calculation crap" while the average man on the street cant.
øne-eye wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> Ok, just so we know, what are the practical uses for a calculation
> like this in real life outside of school/education?
>
> All that calculation crap has no use, it just makes those who can do
> it feel like they got one up on the average man in the street. One
> day the average man will give everyone who isn't average the
> finger...oh yes! ;)
Is this average man a bender by any chance?
> Hedfix wrote:
> Ok, just so we know, what are the practical uses for a calculation
> like this in real life outside of school/education?
>
> All that calculation crap has no use, it just makes those who can do
> it feel like they got one up on the average man in the street. One
> day the average man will give everyone who isn't average the
> finger...oh yes! ;)
Is this average man a bender by any chance?
Hedfix wrote:
> Ok, just so we know, what are the practical uses for a calculation
> like this in real life outside of school/education?
Electrics, but it's alot more difficult.
> Ok, just so we know, what are the practical uses for a calculation
> like this in real life outside of school/education?
Electrics, but it's alot more difficult.
J-42 wrote:
> You could hire a professor to put rubberbands in boxes but somehow I
> think the professor would be somewhat over-qualified for the job
> although obviously they would be capable of doing it. :D
>
> Point taken, but a little OTT.
[edit]Nope, too much info.
> You could hire a professor to put rubberbands in boxes but somehow I
> think the professor would be somewhat over-qualified for the job
> although obviously they would be capable of doing it. :D
>
> Point taken, but a little OTT.
[edit]Nope, too much info.
J-42 wrote:
>
> If someone has the ideal qualifications needed for the job they're
> applying for, hire them. If they have more qualifications than the
> person higher up than them, they should be applying for that job.
Ah but the vacancy is already filled so they have to start somewhere. Are you still suggesting the person above them shouldn't see them as a threat?
>
> If you have heaps of qualification, you're not likely to apply for a
> job fairly low down.
People do. Life-long students, that guy out of american beauty.... :D
If it's an executive position, the owner will
> probably employ the applicant.
Why? Some places have to advertise jobs even though they intend to promote someone from within the company to the position. Then there's the possibility they'll give a friend (or a friend of a friend) the job and many other factors.
>
> Point taken, but a little OTT.
Yeah, couldn't be bothered with an plausible situation so I settled for a blatant example. :D
>
> If someone has the ideal qualifications needed for the job they're
> applying for, hire them. If they have more qualifications than the
> person higher up than them, they should be applying for that job.
Ah but the vacancy is already filled so they have to start somewhere. Are you still suggesting the person above them shouldn't see them as a threat?
>
> If you have heaps of qualification, you're not likely to apply for a
> job fairly low down.
People do. Life-long students, that guy out of american beauty.... :D
If it's an executive position, the owner will
> probably employ the applicant.
Why? Some places have to advertise jobs even though they intend to promote someone from within the company to the position. Then there's the possibility they'll give a friend (or a friend of a friend) the job and many other factors.
>
> Point taken, but a little OTT.
Yeah, couldn't be bothered with an plausible situation so I settled for a blatant example. :D
Hedfix wrote:
> J-42 wrote:
>
> It seemed like a general statement. "Banks" Which banks?
>
> HSBC for one.
>
>
> WHo's to say a university won't offer the same if not better results
> than a "technical college" why does the word
> "university" mean you can't gain similar skills to those
> of
> a technical college or apprenticship?
>
> I'd hazard a guess that most universities don't focus as much on
> everyday skills compared to technical colleges.
>
>
> You didn't mention "over qualified at all". You just said
> that banks want people fresh from their GCSEs.
>
> Actually I DID mention 'over-qualified' it was a seperate point.
>
> >
> They're apllying for the wrong job. If the qualified person is
> apllyig for a different job altogether, why be threatened? Also, as
> you said before, experience is important too.
>
> I don't see the logic in not hiring someone because they're fully
> qualified. The person who is employing the apllicant has a job to
> emply the best person, so i'm sure they would fulfill this.
>
> Here you're contradicting yourself. Are they 'applying for the wrong
> job' or should they be hired 'because they are fully qualified'?
If someone has the ideal qualifications needed for the job they're applying for, hire them. If they have more qualifications than the person higher up than them, they should be applying for that job.
>
> As for 'why be threatened'? Because the person they're hiring is more
> qualified than they are and applying for a lower position that's why:
If you have heaps of qualification, you're not likely to apply for a job fairly low down. If it's an executive position, the owner will probably employ the applicant.
> that certainly could be viewed as putting the person hiring's job at
> risk. Infact you've answered the question yourself with 'to employ
> the best person', but what if they person your employing can do your
> job better than you? Bit of a threat I'd say.
>
> AS for 'I don't see the logic in not hiring someone because they're
> fully qualified'.
>
> You could hire a professor to put rubberbands in boxes but somehow I
> think the professor would be somewhat over-qualified for the job
> although obviously they would be capable of doing it. :D
Point taken, but a little OTT.
> J-42 wrote:
>
> It seemed like a general statement. "Banks" Which banks?
>
> HSBC for one.
>
>
> WHo's to say a university won't offer the same if not better results
> than a "technical college" why does the word
> "university" mean you can't gain similar skills to those
> of
> a technical college or apprenticship?
>
> I'd hazard a guess that most universities don't focus as much on
> everyday skills compared to technical colleges.
>
>
> You didn't mention "over qualified at all". You just said
> that banks want people fresh from their GCSEs.
>
> Actually I DID mention 'over-qualified' it was a seperate point.
>
> >
> They're apllying for the wrong job. If the qualified person is
> apllyig for a different job altogether, why be threatened? Also, as
> you said before, experience is important too.
>
> I don't see the logic in not hiring someone because they're fully
> qualified. The person who is employing the apllicant has a job to
> emply the best person, so i'm sure they would fulfill this.
>
> Here you're contradicting yourself. Are they 'applying for the wrong
> job' or should they be hired 'because they are fully qualified'?
If someone has the ideal qualifications needed for the job they're applying for, hire them. If they have more qualifications than the person higher up than them, they should be applying for that job.
>
> As for 'why be threatened'? Because the person they're hiring is more
> qualified than they are and applying for a lower position that's why:
If you have heaps of qualification, you're not likely to apply for a job fairly low down. If it's an executive position, the owner will probably employ the applicant.
> that certainly could be viewed as putting the person hiring's job at
> risk. Infact you've answered the question yourself with 'to employ
> the best person', but what if they person your employing can do your
> job better than you? Bit of a threat I'd say.
>
> AS for 'I don't see the logic in not hiring someone because they're
> fully qualified'.
>
> You could hire a professor to put rubberbands in boxes but somehow I
> think the professor would be somewhat over-qualified for the job
> although obviously they would be capable of doing it. :D
Point taken, but a little OTT.
J-42 wrote:
>
> It seemed like a general statement. "Banks" Which banks?
HSBC for one.
> WHo's to say a university won't offer the same if not better results
> than a "technical college" why does the word
> "university" mean you can't gain similar skills to those of
> a technical college or apprenticship?
I'd hazard a guess that most universities don't focus as much on everyday skills compared to technical colleges.
> You didn't mention "over qualified at all". You just said
> that banks want people fresh from their GCSEs.
Actually I DID mention 'over-qualified' it was a seperate point.
>
>
> They're apllying for the wrong job. If the qualified person is
> apllyig for a different job altogether, why be threatened? Also, as
> you said before, experience is important too.
> I don't see the logic in not hiring someone because they're fully
> qualified. The person who is employing the apllicant has a job to
> emply the best person, so i'm sure they would fulfill this.
Here you're contradicting yourself. Are they 'applying for the wrong job' or should they be hired 'because they are fully qualified'?
As for 'why be threatened'? Because the person they're hiring is more qualified than they are and applying for a lower position that's why: that certainly could be viewed as putting the person hiring's job at risk. Infact you've answered the question yourself with 'to employ the best person', but what if they person your employing can do your job better than you? Bit of a threat I'd say.
AS for 'I don't see the logic in not hiring someone because they're fully qualified'.
You could hire a professor to put rubberbands in boxes but somehow I think the professor would be somewhat over-qualified for the job although obviously they would be capable of doing it. :D
>
> It seemed like a general statement. "Banks" Which banks?
HSBC for one.
> WHo's to say a university won't offer the same if not better results
> than a "technical college" why does the word
> "university" mean you can't gain similar skills to those of
> a technical college or apprenticship?
I'd hazard a guess that most universities don't focus as much on everyday skills compared to technical colleges.
> You didn't mention "over qualified at all". You just said
> that banks want people fresh from their GCSEs.
Actually I DID mention 'over-qualified' it was a seperate point.
>
>
> They're apllying for the wrong job. If the qualified person is
> apllyig for a different job altogether, why be threatened? Also, as
> you said before, experience is important too.
> I don't see the logic in not hiring someone because they're fully
> qualified. The person who is employing the apllicant has a job to
> emply the best person, so i'm sure they would fulfill this.
Here you're contradicting yourself. Are they 'applying for the wrong job' or should they be hired 'because they are fully qualified'?
As for 'why be threatened'? Because the person they're hiring is more qualified than they are and applying for a lower position that's why: that certainly could be viewed as putting the person hiring's job at risk. Infact you've answered the question yourself with 'to employ the best person', but what if they person your employing can do your job better than you? Bit of a threat I'd say.
AS for 'I don't see the logic in not hiring someone because they're fully qualified'.
You could hire a professor to put rubberbands in boxes but somehow I think the professor would be somewhat over-qualified for the job although obviously they would be capable of doing it. :D
Page: