#CPSC 430

[princesswincess]

UBC Course Review Winter 2016

Winter 2016 was my first semester at UBC (University of British Columbia). 4 courses + a part-time job made this semester overwhelming. Looking forward to the end of “Snowmageddon” in VanCity!  I took CPSC 110, MATH 100, BIOL 436 and CPSC 430 and here are my thoughts!

CPSC 110 – Computation, Programs and Programming

Textbook: None

Verdict: Be prepared for a lot of work. (Challenge this course if you can!)

Computer Science 110 focuses on functional programming and design in Dr. Racket (a programming language you’ll never use again!) I had Dr. Kiczales as a prof, who I would recommend if you’ve got to take this course. Others I knew in Dr’s Estey and Berg’s classes also recommended them. While the actual teaching is great,  the design of this course is awful, which makes it extremely time consuming. All the coursework is provided online and instead of normal lectures, you’re required to watch video lectures. In your in-class lecture you do practise problems based on the material you learnt in the videos. The video lectures are lengthy (think 4-7hours extra a week) + you’ve got labs, assignments etc. While the course itself is fair, be prepared for a boatload of work.

Small aside: the justification for the insane amount of out-of-class work was that making students come to lecture having already learnt the material helps them learn better. While I’m sure that this finding is all solid science, I found that because lectures were useless if you hadn’t watched the videos, I would often skip if I didn’t have time to watch 7 hours of video that weekend. Also, why am I paying $600 for what is essentially an online course with extra questions? I believe that video lectures devalue the course as a whole since Coursera, MIT Open Courseware, etc. all exist to provide online learning. The entire reason why I’m paying to go to lecture is to…go to an actual lecture.

MATH 100 – Differential Calculus with Applications to Physical Sciences and Engineering

Textbook: Free

Verdict: You’ll get out of this course, exactly what you put in.

Math 100 was likely the most straight-forward course I took this semester. I had Dr. Walls, who was great at lecturing. A couple good things about Math 100 are the free textbook and the fortnightly quizzes instead of midterms. Personally, I prefer having my marks distributed over quizzes rather than having a midterm worth 20% or so. Besides the final exam, your other marks will come from weekly Webwork assignments online, which aren’t too difficult. My only complaint for this course were the other students, who were so often so loud during lecture you couldn’t hear the prof.

BIOL 436 – Functional Genomics

Textbook: None

Verdict: Wouldn’t recommend.

This biology course is a bit of a mess. The prof does genuinely seem to care about the students, and the class average was high, however I found the disorganization, lack of concrete expectations and returned marks to be stressful.  A large portion of the marks are “completion marks” towards a large term project where you design a functional genomics experiment. The term project requires you to submit small portions during the course and do both a presentation and a term project. The midterm had a group portion and  there is a take-home final  based upon class/tutorial material we had done previously. While the material itself wasn’t too hard, I found that the class was confused most of the time since we were unsure of the prof’s expectations. When I did ask questions I found that the answers I got only made me more confused. I do know others who liked this course, and while I did get a “good” mark, this was my least enjoyable course at UBC, mainly because I had no idea what grade I would get.

CPSC 430 – Computers and Society

Textbook: easily “found” online (or available at the bookstore for ~$150)

Verdict: Great! And not overly difficult if you put in the work.

This course is taught by one of the most engaged and excited profs I’ve encountered at UBC, Dr. Dawson. This is an ethics course with a focus on computer  science related topics. At first I found the course a little daunting because I found it odd to understand and apply the ethical theories we had learned in class; however, once I had gotten the theories under my belt, the course was quite interesting. We talked about things like The Patriot Act, hacking, moral dilemmas etc. I got to learn about a lot of topics that I usually would have avoided because they seemed dry or overly complex. In terms of course-work, there are short essays due about every two weeks and some (easy) online quizzes. The class average was pretty high. The only thing I did not like about this course were that you have to speak in class (of 100+ people) to get participation marks. I found it very daunting to give an argument about topics that I had only a shallow knowledge of. Having said that, if you don’t speak at all during class, it’s only a small percentage of your total mark that is lost. The only pre-req is one CPSC course, so take this one if you have the chance!

[ayyellesrambles]

Graduated (finally) from UBC BCS & final course review

I’m finally done with UBC, and have no immediate plans to go back to do more school, 7 years was enough haha! 

Why is this relevant to you? My knowledge of what goes on at UBC is going to start dwindling as I become more removed from campus and the university experience. You guys have probably seen that I’ve started diverting the questions I’ve received over to the fine folks of r/UBC, as I’ve been wrapped up in BCS for the past couple of years and things have changed a lot over on the BSc side, especially for first and second year courses. 

I’ll keep trying to answer the questions I get, but I’ve started working full time as a Software Developer at a local tech company so my time has become limited. 

Anyway, I’ll give you a short overview of the courses I took for my last term at UBC. 

BIOL 430

This course was a nice break from my CPSC courses and brought me back to the BIOL days with all the papers we had to read and learning about different biological systems. I forgot how much I found genomics fascinating. This course was relatively chill too for a 400-level BIOL courses. There were papers we had to read before each class, as well as discussion questions we had to answer. The answers to the discussion questions were discussed in small groups, with further clarification available from the instructors (Professor and TA), should you need it. There weren’t marks given for these questions, but participation is necessary as the instructors observed us during this discussion period. We had one midterm, a final exam and a small research project as well, which focused on using Bioinformatic techniques and tools. This course actually tied in really nicely to my interest in biology and computer science and there was quite a bit of focus on how to use different computational techniques to analyze genomic sequences. My friend who took this course and is working in bioinformatics right now thought it was very, very relevant to the things she does at work. 

CPSC 319

This course was a lot of work, even as a group of 6. It felt like a part-time job, when I wasn’t busy studying for other courses, I was busy working on the web app for this course. We were given a list of projects to choose from on the first day of the class and then were chose to rank our top 3, the instructor then randomly assigned us to those choices. Most people got either their first or second choice. My group worked on building a web application for a local non-profit using Java, Spring, and ReactJS. We were basically given a list of requirements long with some general technical requirements and had to do the implementation and deployment all on our own. Java and React don’t really go together, but my group and I were super stoked at the beginning of the term and wanted to give it a try. The learning curve for making those work together was relatively hard, as nobody had any experience using the two together, so we spent a good chunk of our time just getting basic things to work, as opposed to actually implementing complex features. I learned a lot though since we were forced to troubleshoot everything on our own and were the only ones who were familiar with our codebase. 

CPSC 404

I liked this course, and I had Ed Knorr was a professor, he was great. The material can get a little dry sometimes, but he was hilarious and made the topics more interesting and engaging. We learned all about database optimizations and surprisingly learned a lot about different calculations and how databases decide what sort of queries to run and what sort of look up to do. The calculations weren’t too complex though, mostly algebra. The workload was very manageable as well, we had pre-reading assignments due every class, but they were for participation marks. We also had 3 midterms, a small database assignment and a final exam. This course is super useful for anyone interested in being a Database Administrator as you learn all about optimization. 

CPSC 444

I enjoyed 344 enough to take 444, and again, this course was a lot of work. It was less theoretical though, and more hands-on. Again, we had assignments due nearly every week, including a big, independently written report near the end of the term. There was more focus on research methods in HCI in this course and you’ll be doing a field studies and experiments on your own prototype. My team used vanilla JavaScript and the Bootstrap library to create a prototype. Because there were so many assignments due, we didn’t have a midterm, but we did have a final exam. I felt a little overwhelmed by the end of the term though, with 319 requiring a lot of work as well. 

[lindamcsherry]

Despite Tip-Over Injury Risks, Furniture Anchors Not Widely Used: Report

While thousands of children are treated at emergency rooms every year due to injuries resulting from furniture tip-over accidents, a new report suggests that many parents and caregivers fail to properly anchor dressers, television stands and other heavy pieces of furniture that may be prone to tip over. 

Consumer Reports issued a new report this month, finding that only about 27 percent of consumers anchor furniture down in the home.

The study involved a survey of more than 1,500 adults, in which researchers sought to understand why consumers fail to utilize furniture anchors. Researchers found many consumers are confused by all of the different types of anchoring hardware, and indicate that it takes a level of skill to properly drill the devices into the walls.

Responses to survey questions from Consumer Reports found the most common answers for not anchoring furniture to the floor were that “without children under six years old in the home it was not relevant”, “children under 6 years old in the house were not left alone”, and “the furniture seemed stable”.

Furniture tip-over risks are one of the most common dangers in every home across the nation, and pose a variety of fatal and severe injury hazards to children, such as suffocation and blunt force trauma. On average, a child is sent to the emergency room for a tip-over injury every 24 minutes in America.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) estimates there are approximately 38,000 Americans seen at emergency rooms each year for furniture tip-over hazards. The severity of injuries that come from tip-over accidents vary from minor scratches and bruising to fatal accidents. The CPSC data indicates that the majority of the accidents result in some sort of injury to the head or neck due to children reaching up on dressers and TV stands.

Two-thirds of these injury reports involve children younger than five years old and more than 80% involve children under 10. Children are most susceptible to tip-over accidents due to their height and that they may try to climb on a TV stand or dresser to reach remotes, gaming equipment, or toys. The CPSC recommends parents never leave remotes on dressers or anything that would entice a child to reach upward and pose a tip-over hazard.

With more than 430 deaths recorded by the CPSC over the last 13 years, the CPSC first launched its “Anchor It” campaign in 2015, which warns parents of the top hidden tip-over hazards in the home and how to take steps to prevent tip-over accidents from occurring.

The campaign was launched amid a recall of more than 35 million IKEA MALM dressers that were found to be in violation of industry standards that require furniture over specified heights to be anchored to walls to prevent tip-over hazards to consumers. Several deaths and dozens of injuries have been related directly to the MALM series dressers.

Currently, only dressers taller than 30 inches are covered under the voluntary furniture standards to be sold with anchoring hardware. Dressers are not required to meet the standard of taller dressers which require 50 pounds of weight be able to hang from an open drawer without tipping.

The post Despite Tip-Over Injury Risks, Furniture Anchors Not Widely Used: Report appeared first on AboutLawsuits.com.

[lindamcsherry]

Target Dresser Recall Issued After Tip-Overs Onto Children

More than 175,000 four-drawer dressers sold exclusively by Target have been recalled, after the manufacturer received at least a dozen reports of the heavy furniture pieces tipping over on young children, posing a risk of serious and potentially life-threatening injury.  

The Target dresser recall was announced by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on September 13, due to the potential tip-over hazard, which has already resulted in injuries for at least two three-year old children.

According to the CPSC, the dressers are unstable if they are not anchored to a wall, posing a serious risk in homes throughout the U.S. To date, the agenccy has received reports of the pieces both tipping over and collapsing.

Included in the recall are Target Room Essentials 4-drawer dressers, which measure 41 7/8 inches tall by 31 ½ inches wide by 15 11/16 inches deep. The dressers were sold in the color black with model number 249-05-0103, espresso with model number 249-05-0106, and maple with model number 249-05-0109. The model numbers of the recalled furniture pieces can be found on the product’s packaging.

The recalled dressers were manufactured in Denmark and distributed for sale at Target stores nationwide, and online at Target.com, from January 2013 through April 2016, for about $118.

The CPSC estimates about 175,000 units were distributed for sale throughout the United States, and an additional 3,000 units were sold in Canada.

Customers are being asked to stop using the dressers drawers immediately if they are not properly anchored to the wall, and to place the dresser in an area that children cannot access.

The recalled Target dressers can be returned to any Target store for a full refund. For further questions or concerns regarding the recall, consumers may contact Target at 800-440-0680 or visit them online at www.Target.com and navigate to the “Recalls” tab at the bottom of the page.

Earlier this month, Walmart was also subject to a dresser recall that included an estimated 1.6 million Ameriwood Mainstays 4-drawer dressers recalled after at least one report was received where one of the four-drawer chests tipped over onto a four-year-old, entrapping and injuring the child.

According to CPSC data, furniture and TV tip-over accidents have caused 430 deaths over the last 13 years and account for roughly 38,000 emergency rooms visits annually. The commission warns that at least one child dies every two weeks and another child is injured every 24 minutes in the U.S. from heavy furniture or televisions tipping over.

The post Target Dresser Recall Issued After Tip-Overs Onto Children appeared first on AboutLawsuits.com.

[lindamcsherry]

Walmart Dresser Recall Issued Over Tip-Over Risk

More than 1.6 million chests of drawers sold primarily at Walmart have been recalled, due since the dressers do not comply with furniture tip-over requirements, and may pose a risk of serious injury for small children.

The Walmart Ameriwood Home dresser recall was announced by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on September 6, after at least one report was received where one of the four-drawer chests tipped over onto a four-year-old, entrapping and injuring the child.

The four-drawer chests are being recalled due to their failure to comply with the performance requirements of industry standards, which are intended to reduce injuries and deaths of children from hazards associated with the tip over of free-standing clothing storage units, such as chests, door chests and dressers, over 30 inches in height.

These standards were developed due to the growing concerns of furniture tip-over injuries recorded across the U.S. in recent years.

According to CPSC data, furniture and TV tip-over accidents have caused 430 deaths over the last 13 years and account for roughly 38,000 emergency rooms visits annually. The commission warns that at least one child dies every two weeks and another child is injured every 24 minutes in the U.S. from heavy furniture or televisions tipping over.

Several dresser and chest recalls have been issued in recent years with the largest being the IKEA recall in June 2016, which pulled more than 35 million child and adult chests and dressers from the market. The recall came after at least 17 injuries and three deaths were linked to its MALM dressers.

Children are inherently more susceptible to tip-over accidents from climbing and reaching for items at the top of dressers, or television stands, whether it is for a remote, gaming equipment or toys. The CPSC recommends that parents never leave items desirable to children on dressers and other top heavy furniture that would entice the child to try and climb or reach for them.

1.6 Million Mainstays Chests of Drawers Recalled

The CPSC initiated the latest recall after receiving a report from the manufacturer that a four-year-old child was injured after a four-drawer chest of drawers tipped over on the child, posing a suffocation, trauma, and serious injury hazard.

Included in the recall are Mainstays four-drawer chests of drawers that are equipped with plaster drawer slides and a single decorative pull on each of the four drawers. The chests are made of a composite wood and were sold in the colors alder, black forest, white, weathered oak, walnut and ruby red. The chests measure 40 5/16 inches high by 27 11/16 inches wide by 14 11/16 inches deep and are marked with model numbers 5412012WP, 5412301WP, 5412328WP, 5412015WY, 5412301WY, 5412012PCOM, 5412015PCOM, 5412026PCOM, 5412213PCOM, 5412214PCOM, 5412301PCOM, 5412317PCOM, and 5412328PCOM, which are printed on the instruction manual.

The Walmart Mainstays dressers were manufactured in the U.S. and Canada by Ameriwood Home of Tiffin, Ohio. They were distributed for sale throughout the U.S. to Walmart stores and other retail stores as well as online through various retailers from April 2009 through May 2016 for about $60.

The CPSC announced an estimated 1.6 million units were sold throughout the United States and an additional 1,000 units were distributed for sale in Canada.

Customers with recalled chests of drawers are being asked to stop using them immediately if they are not properly anchored to the wall, and to move them into an area where children cannot access them. Customers should contact Ameriwood at 877-222-7460 or visit them online at www.Ameriwood.com and navigate to the “Support” tab for information on how to receive a free repair kit that includes a wall anchoring device and wider feet for the base of the unit.

The post Walmart Dresser Recall Issued Over Tip-Over Risk appeared first on AboutLawsuits.com.

[lindamcsherry]

Television Tip-Over Accidents Injure 11,800 Each Year: CPSC

Federal safety officials have released new information for parents and caregivers about simple, proactive steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of serious injury or death from furniture and television tip-over accidents. 

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released an updated analysis (PDF) that highlights the risk of injuries from televisions falling off of furniture, which often occurs when young children climb on television cabinets that are not properly anchored to the wall.

The agency suggests that tip-over prevention may help avoid an average of 11,800 injuries that occur each year as a result of falling televisions. The CPSC indicates that a child is injured by a furniture tip-over event every 30 minutes, and on average, a child is killed as a result of a piece of furniture or television tipping over on them every 2 weeks.

Data indicates that from 2000 through 2015, 315 fatalities have been recorded from children being crushed or suffocated by tipped over furniture.

As part of this revised analysis, the agency examined data on 296 reports of nonfatal furniture tip-over accidents that involved televisions sets. Researchers found the majority of tip-over injuries were the result of televisions which fell due to children climbing on them to retrieve something placed above the set. This accounted for 83.5% of furniture tip-over injuries.

Researchers also found that more than 90% of those television tip-over injuries involved older and bulky tube televisions that are more prone to fall over due to the weight differential in the front. Tube television are typically heavier in the front, creating a tip-over hazard if not properly placed on a stand, and especially if children attempt to climb up the front of them.

Caregivers and parents have a tendency to place things high on an entertainment center, or on the top of a television to hide them from children. However, researchers found from the tip-over data that when children are left unsupervised, many will attempt to pull out the drawers of the stand and climb on them, thus creating a tip-over hazard. These events almost always end in serious injury due to the height and force of the furniture falling.

Injuries that are likely to arise from these tip-over incidents are primarily to the head, neck and shoulder regions, according to the research. Data indicated that of the 296 injuries evaluated, 149 injuries were sustained to the face, another 50 to the face, and 9 to the shoulder and neck region.

According to the research, when televisions fall, the force of the falling device can reach up to 12,000 pounds depending on the size of the televisions. These types of tip-over events can result in serious injuries including facial fractures and lacerations to the head and body.

The CPSC has launched several awareness efforts to warn caregivers and parents of the dangers unanchored furniture and televisions may pose to children. In June 2015, the agency launched a new “Anchor It!” campaign warning that unsecured furniture tip-over hazards are among the top hidden hazards in the home and are calling for parents to take action that could stop these preventable injuries and deaths. The campaign included public service announcements (PSAs), print PSAs, and other marketing designed to encourage people to visit their informational website www.anchorit.gov, which outlines dangers of tip-over accidents and steps to prevent them from happening.

Previous CPSC data has indicated that furniture and TV tip-over accidents have caused 430 deaths over the last 13 years and account for roughly 38,000 emergency rooms visits annually.

In June 2016, an IKEA recall pulled more than 35 million child and adult chests and dressers from the market. The recall came after at least 17 injuries and three deaths were linked to its MALM dressers

The post Television Tip-Over Accidents Injure 11,800 Each Year: CPSC appeared first on AboutLawsuits.com.