neelu.blogr.com - Blog (RSS 2.0)

Microsoft MCPD Certification Exam 70...

neelu — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:10:16 +0200

The supercouple has been described as "perhaps the most famous entity in entertainment".Supercouples are defined as "high-profile, culturally significant and nearly perfect romances that influence our expectations of what a great love story should be".Their existence takes form in television, celebrity, comic books, literature, musicals, as well as in various other incarnations.70-528 Braindump In fiction, supercouples are generally thought of as soulmates. They are extraordinarily popular couples who have overcome numerous obstacles or significant strife in order to be together. Sometimes the popularity of a fictional pairing takes precedent over the amount of upheaval they have faced. Celebrity couples that fascinate and intrigue to the point of obsession are typically thought of as supercouples.70-640 Braindump They can be couples that incite mania or couples whose combined finances and prominent allure contribute to the supercouple title, often earning them the alternate name of "power couple". Supercouples are not limited to positive influence. The dangerous love of Depression-era gangsters Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker (popularly known as Bonnie and Clyde) has maintained an enduring international popularity in film, television, music and poetry. In 1967, a film based on their relationship was released,VCP-310 Braindump and cemented the duo's impact on popular culture. Their romance was tragic, with a graphic death, but this "paired with their ceaseless appeal, cements this couple as an American legend". The appeal of the supercouple has become a societal phenomenon. From chemistry, to good looks, to their seemingly meant-to-be union, they give onlookers the sense of grand romance, a love story to root for and live vicariously through as they provide hope that such a love exists. They are, quite simply, couples who unbelievably inspire.

Cisco CCIE Certification Exam 350-03...

neelu — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:08:11 +0200

Bill Hayes and Susan Seaforth began to develop a romance of their own. It was "at first publicized by the soapmill as 'just friends,' but slowly it developed into a full-scale love affair." On a weekend, the two secretly married. Only a few friends of the couple knew about the event. When the press got knowledge of this, it "set off a commotion among fans, who wrote endless 70-270 Braindump letters to the show asking that the couple also be allowed to get married in the story. If they could get married in real life, so the argument went, they certainly should be able to get together on screen." The writers of Days of our Lives refused popular demand, prolonging the anticipation of the two marrying onscreen. "Nothing was ever such a guarantee of good ratings as star-crossed lovers everyone knew belonged together. But finally the producers set the date for the marriage and Days put on one of the most extravagant weddings imaginable on the screen. It was such a soap opera media event that the local L.A. press (Days, along with General Hospital and The Young and the Restless, which is produced in Los Angeles) was invited to the studio to watch."In the episode featuring Doug 350-018 Braindump and Julie's honeymoon, Susan Seaforth managed to get by the censors one of the most suggestive lines imaginable for daytime television in the 1970s. When Doug (Bill Hayes) asked her what she'd like for breakfast, she listed a few of the usual choices like juice and coffee, topped off with a leering request for "big pink sausage." It may have been an ad lib, but it worked as provocative just the same.Doug and Julie were the first soap opera characters to grace the cover of TIME magazine.Entertainment Weekly calls them one of the great soap opera supercouples.A supercouple (also known as a power couple or dynamic duo) is a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion. The term was coined in the early 1980s when intense public interest in the fictional soap opera couple Luke Spencer and Laura Webber from General Hospital made the pair a popular culture phenomenon. Outside of the soap opera medium, the supercouple title has proliferated as a way of referring to certain fictional 350-030 Braindump couples from primetime television dramas and film, such as Gone With the Wind, whose Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara characters popularized the catch phrase "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". The supercouple created by the ill-fated ex-lovers Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca has been called one of cinemas most beloved couples. With real-life celebrity couples, the tabloid and even the mainstream media have become fascinated with some wealthy or famous power couples, such as the former pairing of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, which became known by the portmanteau Bennifer (for Ben and Jennifer) and the marriage of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes (nicknamed "TomKat"). In addition, the term has entered psychology, as a type of mental stress called "Supercouple Syndrome" which occurs when two overachieving individuals within a romantic pairing are both striving for success

Microsoft MCITP Certification Exam 7...

neelu — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:04:16 +0200

Julie is one of the passengers in the infamous Cruise of Deception where a mad-man named Ernesto Toscano wants revenge against Victor Kiriakis and key Salem residents because he was angered that his wife, Loretta, had years ago had an affair with Victor and given birth to his child, Isabella. Hope (now Hope Brady) is supposedly killed during this adventure, and Julie is heartbroken. Julie and Victor become close during this time.In late 1990, Julie's partner, Nick, is murdered (by Jo Johnson in retaliation for Nick's role in killing her son, Steve). In Nick's will, he leaves the club to 310-055 Julie and his money to Eve Donovan. However, Eve is not allowed to have the money until she is married. Eve eventually marries Jack Deveraux to acquire her fortune. Julie is confused by Jack and Eve's marriage, knowing Jack to be deeply in love with her cousin, Jennifer Horton. She soon finds out that Jennifer has been raped by Lawrence Alamain and confides to Jennifer the story of her own rape. Julie allows Jack and Eve to inherit Nick's money, even knowing that theirs is a loveless marriage, and is instrumental in pushing Jennifer to get therapy. When Jack stands by Jennifer through her rape trial against Lawrence, Julie warmly Pass4sure congratulates him for his steadfastness, given that he himself had once raped a woman.n 1991, Julie befriends a woman by the name of Molly Brinker and allows her to stay at her penthouse. Julie also gives Molly a job working at Wings. In 1992, Julie is nearly killed after a bomb planted at a museum party by Raffi Torres explodes. Julie is caught in the blast, but lives after a life-saving procedure is performed by Dr. Chip Lakin, who she later dates.Julie leaves Salem in 1993 and later returns for special events. Doug rarely returns to Salem. 70-647 Braindump During a time that both Doug and Julie were out of Salem, they remarried.Julie and Doug come back to town for a visit in 2004 and are soon enmeshed in a serial killer storyline.Julie is devastated when Doug is "killed," and begins focusing herself on helping Mickey get over Maggie while keeping him from his avaricious housekeeper, Bonnie. Unfortunately, she cannot keep the two from running off to get married. Doug turns up alive and well, and the supercouple has been together ever since.They would later return on June 5, 2007 to be a part of the DiMera/Bradys Feud.

PMI Project Management Professional Cer...

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:47:24 +0200

* Nachum Dershowitz and Yuri Gurevich 2007, “A Natural axiomization of Church’s Thesis”. It appears on Gurevich’s website at http://research.microsoft.com/~gurevich. Observe not only the title, but the very first lines of the paper – a quote from Shoenfield: ”We can write down some axioms about computable functions which most people would agree are evidently true. It might be possible to prove Church’s Thesis from such axioms – Joseph Shoenfield (1993)” (Dershowitz and Gurevich, 2007:1) Dershowitz and Gurevich deliver their thesis in a nutshell: ”Hence, it 1z0-042 Exam remains of real importance to provide a small number of convincing postulates in support of Church’s Thesis. Indeed, Gödel has been reported (by Church in a letter to Kleene cited by Davis in [18] [18: Martin Davis, “Why Gödel didn’t have Church’s thesis”, ‘’Information and Control’’, vol. 54, pp. 3–24, July/August 1982] ) to have believed “that it might be possible . . . to state a set of axioms which would embody the generally accepted properties of [effective calculability], and do something on that basis.” ”[Georg] Kriesel described the discovery of “evident axioms about constructive functions” as “one of the really important open problems [40] [40: Georg Kreisel, “Mathematical logic,” in T. L. Sasty, ed., Lectures in Modern Mathematics III, Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 95–195, 1965 ] and “one of the more 1z0-007 Exam feasible problems at the present time” [41] [41: Georg Kreisel, “Mathematical logic: what has it done for the philosophy of mathematics”, in Ralph Schoenman, ed., Bertrand Russell: Philosopher of the Century, Allen & Unwin, London, pp. 201–272, 1967.] ”We propose just such an axiomatization in the sections that follow. We demonstrate that, under certain very natural hypotheses regarding algorithmic activity . . . Church’s Thesis is in fact provable.” (Dershowitz and Gurevich 2007:4) * Samual R. Buss, Alexander S. Kechris, Anand Pillay, and Richard A. Shore, June 2000, “The Prospects for Mathematical Logic in the Twenty-first Century”. This paper came from a panel discussion of the Association for Symbolic Logic held in Urbana-Champain. Shore stated the following three problems under PMI-001 Exam the heading “Computer Science”: ”1. “Prove the Church-Turing thesis by finding intuitively obvious or at least clearly acceptable properties of computation that suffice to guarantee that any function so computed is recursive . . .. Perhaps the question is whether we can be sufficiently precise about what we mean by computation without reference to the method of carrying out the computation so as to give a more general or more convincing argument independent of the physical or logical implementation.

Citrix CCEA 40 Certifications Exam 1...

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:44:51 +0200

During the 1940s, as newer and more powerful computing machines were developed, the term computer came to refer to the machines rather than their human predecessors. As it became clear that computers could be used for more than just mathematical calculations, the field of computer science broadened to study in general. Computer science began to be established as a distinct academic discipline in the EX0-101 Exam 1960s, with the creation of the first computer science departments and degree programs. Since practical computers became available, many applications of computing have become distinct areas of study in their own right. Although many initially believed it impossible that computers themselves could actually be a scientific field of study, in the late fifties it gradually became accepted among the greater academic population. It is the now well-known IBM brand that formed part of the computer science revolution during this time. 'IBM' (short for International Business Machines) released the IBM 704 and later the IBM EX0-100 Exam 709 computers, which were widely used during the exploration period of such devices. "Still, working with the IBM [computer] was frustrating...if you had misplaced as much as one letter in one instruction, the program would crash, and you would have to start the whole process over again". During the late 1950s, the computer science discipline was very much in its developmental stages, and such issues were commonplace. Time has seen significant improvements in the usability and effectiveness of computer science technology. Modern society has seen a significant shift from computers being used solely by experts or professionals 1Y0-259 Exam to a more widespread user base. By the 1990s, computers became accepted as being the norm within everyday life. During this time data entry was a primary component of the use of computers, many preferring to streamline their business practices through the use of a computer. This also gave the additional benefit of removing the need of large amounts of documentation and file records which consumed much-needed physical space within offices.

ISC SSCP Certifications Exam SSCP

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:41:54 +0200

There are four cases in German: Nominative (subject); Accusative(direct object); Dative(indirect object); Genitive(possession). The Nominative case is probably the most basic and easy to understand. It is the subject of the sentence which means it is the 'doer' of the action. I make (ich mache). 'I' is the subject. The dog is running, (Der Hund läuft), The Dog is the subject because it is the one running; very simple. The Direct and Indirect Objects normally cause people the most trouble. The Direct Object is the 'receiver' of the SY0-101 Exam action. I love you (ich liebe dich) 'you' is the direct object because it is the thing being loved. I'm baking cake (ich backe kuchen) 'cake' is the direct object because it is the thing being backed. However, I'm giving you the papier/I'm giving the paper to you (ich gebe dir das Papier) 'you' is now the indirect object, the paper is the thing being given, and it is being given TO you. This is normally how we describe the indirect object, 'to whom or for whom', but remember that in German you will never use 'to' or 'for' to indicate the indirect object. This case shows CISSP Exam possession, and it too is simple, but you must make sure you understand exactly which part of the sentence is Genitive. I have your pen (ich habe deinen Kuli) 'deinen' is in the Genitive case because it is the word that shows possession. Some might think that 'Kuli' is in the Genitive case, but it is the direct object. The girl's father is smart (Der Vater der Mädchens ist klug). 'Girl' is in the Genitive case. Notice that in both the Accusative in Nominative cases, the ending of the third person personal pronouns corresponds to the declension of the definite articles, this is true for the Genitive and Dative cases, and can help very much when the correct declension of an article or a personal pronoun slips your mind. Now let's try SSCP Exam constructing some simple sentences with both the Nominative and Accusative Cases with two more verbs: Kennen, to be familiar with; Wissen, to know (a fact). Kennen and Wissen both translate to the same thing in English, but have a different meaning in German, make sure you are familiar with this difference. Kennen is regular, but Wissen is not, so below is a conjugation chart of both:

CompTIA APLUS Certification Exam 220-...

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:39:44 +0200

At Sandia National Laboratories, we are currently engaged in research involving massively-parallel processing. There is considerable skepticism regarding the viability of massive parallelism; the skepticism centers around Amdahl's law, an argument put forth by Gene Amdahl in 1967 [1] that even when the fraction of serial work in a given problem is small, say s, the maximum speedup obtainable from even an infinite 220-601 Exam number of parallel processors is only 1/s. We now have timing results for a 1024-processor system that demonstrate that the assumptions underlying Amdahl's 1967 argument are inappropriate for the current approach to massive ensemble parallelism. If N is the number of processors, s is the amount of time spent (by a serial processor) on serial parts of a program and p is the amount of time spent (by a serial processor) on parts of the program that can be done in parallel, then Amdahl's law says that speedup is given by The steepness of the 220-602 Exam graph near s = 0 (approximately - N2 ) implies that very few problems will experience even a 100-fold speedup. Yet for three very practical applications (s = 0.4 - 0.8 percent) used at Sandia, we have achieved the speedup factors on a 1024-processor hypercube which we believe are unprecedented [2]: 1021 for beam stress analysis using conjugate gradients, 1020 for baffled surface wave simulation using explicit finite differences, and 1016 for unstable fluid flow using flux-corrected transport. How can this be, when Amdahl's argument would predict otherwise? The expression and graph both contain the implicit assumption that p is independent of N, which is virtually never the N10-003 Exam case. One does not take a fixed-size problem and run it on various numbers of processors except when doing academic research; in practice, the problem size scales with the number of processors. When given a more powerful processor, the problem generally expands to make use of the increased facilities. Users have control over such things as grid resolution, number of timesteps, difference operator complexity, and other parameters that are usually adjusted to allow the program to be run in some desired amount of time. Hence, it may be most realistic to assume that run time, not problem size, is constant.

VMware Certifications Exam VCP-101V

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:37:38 +0200

Amdahl's law is often conflated with the whereas only a special case of applying Amdahl's law demonstrates 'law of diminishing returns'. If one picks optimally (in terms of the achieved speed-up) what to improve you will see monotonically decreasing improvements as you improve. If, however, one picks non-optimally, after improving a sub-optimal component and moving on to improve a more optimal 70-649 Exam improvement one can see an increase in return. Consider, for instance, the illustration. If one picks to work on B then A you find an increase in return. If, instead, one works on improving A then B you will find a diminishing return. Thus, strictly speaking, only one (optimal case) can appropriately be said to demonstrate 'law of diminishing returns'. Note that it is often rational to improve a system in an order that is "non-optimal" in this sense, given that some improvements are more difficult or consuming of development time than others. Amdahl's law does represent the law of diminishing returns if you are considering what sort of return you get by VCP-310 Exam adding more processors to a machine, if you are running a fixed-size computation that will use all available processors to their capacity. Each new processor you add to the system will add less usable power than the previous one. Each time you double the number of processors the speedup ratio will diminish, as the total throughput heads toward the limit of According to Amdahl's law, the theoretical maximum of using N processors would be N, namely linear speedup. However, it is not uncommon to observe more than N speedup on a machine with N processors in practice, namely super linear speedup. One possible reason is the effect of cache aggregation. In parallel computers, not only does the number of processors change, but so does the size of accumulated caches from different processors. With the larger accumulated cache size, more or even the entire data set VCP-101V Exam can fit into caches, dramatically reducing memory access time and producing an additional speedup beyond that arising from pure computation. Amdahl's law also doesn't take into account that problem sizes may be scaled with increased number of processors, which typically reduces the relative amount of non-parallelizable tasks.

Microsoft MCITP Certifications Exam 70...

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:35:59 +0200

Amdahl's law is a model for the relationship between the expected speedup of parallelized implementations of an algorithm relative to the serial algorithm, under the assumption that the problem size remains the same when parallelized. For example, if for a given problem size a parallelized implementation of an algorithm can run 12% of the algorithm's operations arbitrarily fast 70-620 Exam (while the remaining 88% of the operations are not parallelizable), Amdahl's law states that the maximum speedup of the parallelized version is 1/(1 - 0.12) = 1.136 times faster than the non-parallelized implementation. More technically, the law is concerned with the speedup achievable from an improvement to a computation that affects a proportion P of that computation where the improvement has a speedup of S. (For example, if an improvement can speed up 30% of the computation, P will be 0.3; if the improvement makes the portion affected twice as fast, S will be 2.) Amdahl's law states that the overall speedup 70-640 Exam of applying the improvement will be To see how this formula was derived, assume that the running time of the old computation was 1, for some unit of time. The running time of the new computation will be the length of time the unimproved fraction takes, (which is 1 − P), plus the length of time the improved fraction takes. The length of time for the improved part of the computation is the length of the improved part's former running time divided by the speedup, making the length of time of the improved part P/S. The final speedup is computed by 70-647 Exam dividing the old running time by the new running time, which is what the above formula does. Here's another example. We are given a task which is split up into four parts: P1 = 11%, P2 = 18%, P3 = 23%, P4 = 48%, which add up to 100%. Then we say P1 is not sped up, so S1 = 1 or 100%, P2 is sped up 5x, so S2 = 500%, P3 is sped up 20x, so S3 = 2000%, and P4 is sped up 1.6x, so S4 = 160%. By using the formula P1/S1 + P2/S2 + P3/S3 + P4/S4, we find the running time is

Microsoft MCSE Certification Exam...

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:33:35 +0200

In my opinion, Thekohser's difficulties at Wikipedia are more a function of his personality than of the paid nature of his formerly proposed activities there. He often notes that there does exist paid activity at Wikipedia and tries to portray that as inconsistent, when actually what it shows is that it is not simply being paid activity that was (and is) the difficulty with his behavior at Wikipedia. Kind of like how Moulton condemns Wikipedia for being rules based and also for not following its 70-293 Exam own rules. People who condemn something for both being X and not being X are being emotional and not logical. In my opinion, WAS 4.250's theory of my difficulties at Wikipedia are about as tangible as his real-name identity. In other words, worthless. My "difficulty" became unworkable on the night of October 4, 2006, when Jimmy Wales reversed himself on an agreement he had proposed to me. Set aside all of the grumblings from JzG, Calton, you, and others, WAS 4.250, you weren't able AT ANY POINT between about August 20 and October 3, 2006 to stop my business from authoring GFDL content and getting paid for it. There were no "difficulties" until Jimmy Wales had an unflattering breakdown and deleted 70-297 Exam a perfectly viable and acceptable unpaid article about Arch Coal, which he mistakenly thought was paid for. In the big scheme of things, the joke was on Wales, and by you perpetuating this myth that I was having "difficulties" conducting business prior to October 4th, you're making yourself a part of the joke. I'm a bit surprised, frankly, WAS 4.250 -- you're normally more sage than this. The hypocrisy and double standards at Wikipedia are an observation that the rules exist not for the purpose of crafting an orderly process, but for the purpose clobbering one's opponents in the daily dramas of deciding what content to include in the online encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with rules if one is 70-528 Exam seeking to define a game which is played on a level playing field. But I am not aware of any theory to suggest that an authentic encyclopedia can be crafted by means of such a game (even if it were a fair game). Hypocrisy and double standards exist everywhere. There is no place they do not exist. Your ignorance of "any theory to suggest that an authentic encyclopedia can be crafted by means of such a game" does not indicate that it can not occur. You do not know everything. Wikipedia is indeed crafted in a game-like way and millions of people find it useful and many studies have shown it to be more accurate than some widely used sources and only a little less accurate than Britannica.

Microsoft MCSE Certification Exam...

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:31:51 +0200

My head is spinning a little bit. Have any of you ever heard of this guy who launched a business called "MyWikiBiz", where the GFDL content was paid for, but only published to a commercial site. Then, when other Wikipedians in good standing copied it into Wikipedia (with due attribution), Jimmy Wales went ape shit? You can read about MyWikiBiz on Wikipedia. And, you might want to invite JzG and Calton here to comment, because in my experience, it's their way or the highway. Full disclosure. I saw 70-270 Exam this thread on and raised it to Greg's attention. Greg has battled Jimbo on this very issue for a very long time. It's one of the recurring unsettled issues that has long been highlighted on Wikipedia Review. Because it's an unsettled policy in which Jimbo personally interfered (just as he personally interfered with the Ethics Project here), I thought it best that those who are naive on the subject be made aware that this issue has deep and disturbing legs. Thanks for clarifying that. Wikiversity is more akin to Wikibooks on these sorts of issues (many fully-written books have been donated to Wikibooks over the years)... as long as it's quality materials with a compatible license and fit within our scope, the problems 70-284 Exam Thekohser experienced on WP would probably not come up here (assuming of course I understand the problems). In all seriousness, I suppose it is a credible argument to state that something would be acceptable in the Wikiversity environment that might be engaged with hostility on Wikipedia. Another notch in the "win" column for Wikiversity, and one of the reasons I still participate here. It seems to me, the less involvement Jimmy has with a project or enterprise, the more peaceful and successful it has a chance to be. Sponsorship of materials could be regulated. All kinds of abuse is possible, when contents are sponsored. At the moment our community is too small, so we can see the sponsorship of material with money by a university as part of a gentlemen's agreement for the moment. In my opinion, Thekohser's difficulties at Wikipedia are more a function of his personality than of the paid nature of 70-291 Exam his formerly proposed activities there. He often notes that there does exist paid activity at Wikipedia and tries to portray that as inconsistent, when actually what it shows is that it is not simply being paid activity that was (and is) the difficulty with his behavior at Wikipedia. Kind of like how Moulton condemns Wikipedia for being rules based and also for not following its own rules. People who condemn something for both being X and not being X are being emotional and not logical

Microsoft -TS Certification Exam 70-648

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:29:41 +0200

Hi, I like to pose a question of whether this is acceptable or ethical. I been creating content here and a personal contact from a local university asked that i write materials for their degree programmes. Can i continue developing those materials online in wikiversity and still collect payments when they are used for such purposes? They accepted my OSS spirit of sharing knowledge and do not mind the materials been copyleft as well. They agree that their business is in making money out of direct 70-621 Exam classroom in-house education, conducting exams and teacher coachings and not monopolizing the materials i create. So is that ok? I don't mind writing offline, but online sharing is where my passion is. And now getting paid for real work is how i believe OS culture of Free as in air but not lunch is.I cannot speak for the Foundation or the rest of the community here at Wikiversity, but especially considering that this is for a degree program, it seems it very might fall within the scope of Wikiversity . At first glance, it 70-642 Exam seems to seem OK and acceptable. And as far as being ethical, that too at first glance, seems to seem OK. What comes to my mind (although we could make this as complicated, which I personally don't care to), is if everyone benefits and if no one is harmed? It seems like we (all the stakeholders) might benefit, and I have not thus far seen any harm. There's certainly nothing wrong with getting paid to write free content :-). The license we use (GFDL) does allow commercial use of content developed here,meaning that anyone can print it out or burn it to a disk and sell it. The only issues are that since it's a wiki, sooner or later someone will take an interest in it and you'll have collaborators (generally a good thing, but sometimes you'll spend nearly as much time figuring out the collaborating part as in the creating part), and that the printed versions need to include a copy of the GFDL 70-648 Exam (not exactly a huge hurdle, but it's 7 pages or so in print). I know some Wikipedians have created cd-r versions of the encyclopedia, and I believe has been doing some research into finding grants to support the creation of Wikibooks materiel.But since this content is being developed for a certain program and probably used for a variety of courses, could it not be "protected", but certainly forked, if other users desired to adapt it to their own specific needs?

Microsoft MCPD Certifications Exam 70-5...

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:26:46 +0200

There can be many pages on a topic with different difficulty levels. Personally I don't like organization by school levels because of the overlap and dependency on geographical location which I think can make pages appropriate for any of those categories, making the categorization potentially useless for people trying to find pages on topics for their ability level. I think difficulty level should instead refer 70-294 Exam to beginner/novice/rookie/easy, intermediate/average, and master/expert/profession/hard. I also believe namespaces should have general uses, which I don't think difficulty levels satisfies, because more than one namespace would be needed to satisfy it. * Kozuch, The school: and topic: namespaces came from the days when wikiversity was sitting in wikibooks. Such pages differ from "main namespace" pages, which host actualy contents, in that they are to be "community spaces": they are where you can organise study groups and learning activities (which are integral parts of wikiversity's ). The traditional seperation of "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary" eductions are sometimes artificial, and may due to historical or psychological inertia 70-431 Exam (there are people who are comfortable with university mathematics and find secondary school history difficult; and then we often see motivated "secondary" students learning "advanced" topics, by themselves, or sometimes in summer schools). It would be great to see if Wikiversity (as we have see in wikipedia also, with a more specific scope) can ignore such articial barriers. * It is useful for everyone to classify topics with levels of difficulties, but a system with "lists of prerequisites" would be more informative than the rough labelling of "primary", "secondary", "tertiary" and "professional". I gotta see all the pages linked above, I just wanted to be sure there is a discussion going on about the whole content organisation. It is a damn complex thing. I just had an idea 70-536 Exam which is that we can make a page or something where all the people here would share their photoshop projects and info about how they could do that and so on. There r also many things we can share, such as powerpoint presentations, photos of models and such things..But I am not really sure if we can upload such things on wikipedia, especially that some of these have large sizes and so on...I hope that I hear from many people soon!

Microsoft MCSE certification Exam...

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:24:54 +0200

As per recent events, I hereby give permission to any Bureaucrat to request a revoke of my Custodian privileges. This authority was reserved for JWSchmidt during my . Because of JWS being blocked, I feel that my Custodianship could come under question. I was first brought over by Moulton and JWSchmidt to provide advice on a situation that later brought about the above user's censure by this community. I feel that my 70-271 Exam origins here and my process to becoming a custodian may be tainted by this, and I would seek to remedy this immediately. If the community feels that they can trust me and wish for me to take on the mantel that was originally asked of me sometime in the future, then I will be willing to enter into the process once again. There are many who many look at some of the recent events as a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and I do not wish to add any problems in the remedying of this. I hope that the matter will be solved quickly, and that the community's decision will be the best for all involved. I would like to apologize to the staff here, to the Wikimedia Foundation, to Jimbo Wales, and to other 70-290 Exam users who may have had to deal with this recent situation, and I apologize if I have contributed any to the furtherance of this situation, as has been alleged by at least one participant in this community. I will still be willing to help out and contribute in any way that I can, and I am willing to take all steps necessary to further the ends of this community. 1. How is it with referencing here on Wikiversity? In my opinion, all content here should be refed the same way as it is for instance on Wikipedia. How can one learn from original research? 2. Does WV accomodate how-tos? If so, where? Couple of thoughts on this; referencing is somewhat looser here on WV than on WP (like many things) and although that struck me as a little bit odd at first, I've come to realise that it is far better to accept a half-decent reference in whatever format, then go about tidying later. So, Kozuch, don't be put off - feel free to wikify referencing you see here and we can do with some of the consistency 70-292 Exam lessons and guidelines from WP. But there will need to be some freedom and flexibility. For example, I myself use and encourage use of APA style with my students. Indeed—and one can learn from original research quite easily; all research was once original. Wikiversity provides many different ways of exploring things. Now, if you see material which appears to be inaccurate, you may wish to bring it up respectfully. If it's something in the I'd be happy to look into it personally. As for your other question: It does accomodate how-to's, though you'll find more of those on Wikibooks

Microsoft MCITP Certifications Exam 70...

neelu — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:22:35 +0200

Moulton's "chummy" nature with JWSchmidt intimidated some users, as JWSchmidt seems to fully support what Moulton is doing, and JWSchmidt is a custodian" <-- I'd like someone to explain in plain English what is being insinuated here. If anyone cares about facts or come to my talk page and ask me a question or two. I'll also repeat here what I said above on this page, "Everyone at Wikiversity has been firm in telling Moulton that Wikiversity does not welcome his interest in private/personal information that 646-204 Exam wiki users want to keep private. In response to Moulton, the Wikiversity community crafted new parts for the privacy policy and I asked Moulton to take the intent of the privacy policy to heart, even while the community stalled out short of making this official policy. Moultan was recently given a short block for using a name at Wikiversity, apparently the real name of a Wiki user who did not want the name mentioned. I believe that Moulton was able to "take the hint" from that "warning block" and was ready to participate in "Moulton's three day trial research project" which was being set up by Ottava Rima. Moulton 650-393 Exam knew that something like this would happen if he continued to show an interest in private/personal information that wiki users want to keep private. I believe that Moulton felt compelled to try to martyr himself, frequently comparing himself to people like Galileo. I hope that we can continue with our studies and that Moulton will make a promise to stop showing an interest in private/personal information about wiki users. Despite Moulton being blocked, he continues to make use of his talk page, why? If it isn't considered appropriate to allow him to edit here then I don't see why it is appropriate for Wikiversity to serve as a means of communication for him. Can't this page be protected? It can, of course, 70-236 Exam be protected. We haven't figured out yet what's to become of the "ethics project" yet, or whether Moulton can be accomodated without causing unwanted damage to the project as a whole. There are a number of issues we're trying to address (including this one), and your input would be warmly welcomed. Moulton's talk page was protected earlier today. This was done to prevent posting of personal information such as email addresses.