Lab operations is where you are the manager of operations at hand. It can be seen in many setting, in a factory or in a office watching over a program. The operations at hand are there to make everything more efficient and you want it to run smooth. They are there to make projects smaller and flow easier, develop faster, and just improve overall.

This is basically the person of the computer fixing up their system. If a piece of hardware breaks, you have to install a new piece or fix the current one. Then if everything is running well, you want to do a routine of cleaning and check ups to make sure all hardware is running tip top shape.

Computer data logging is the process of recording events, with an automated computer program, in order to provide an audit trail that can be used to understand the activity of the system and to diagnose problems. These are very helpful in the aid of certain systems that rarely get touched by a user, like a server program.

This picture kind of shows how it works. Its taking the data from each point to see if everything is running the way it should:

This refers to the accessibility of a computer system to all people, regardless of disability or severity of impairment. It is largely a software concern; when software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software, is used to enable use of a computer by a person with a disability or impairment, this is known as Assistive Technology.

When upgrading its quite obvious you are going from one state, to a state that is clearly a more improved state. A computer is built so it can upgrade to a certain point and improved its performance. Like RAM, we all start off at a set amount but it can always be upgraded to get the max amount the computer itself can hold.

The intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science that aims to create it. An intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success. In a nutshell it is basically a humanoid, half robot, half person. It should be able to “think” and do what we do, but that is still kind of far out of reach for us.

There are many types of different hackers. You have the ones who simply who like to make the most out of what they have, customize and innovate their current product. Or someone who is really into free software and knows how to get it. However most come to know that it is a person who can break through security.It means finding out weaknesses in a computer or computer network and exploiting them, though the term can also refer to someone with an advanced understanding of computers and computer networks. They are in a way technically a cracker, they dont break through anything, just simply find a way to jump over security. Hacking is not really a correct term however it is generally used to describe people who even just know how to program.

Just like internal security, it is ways to protect your system but this time its from the outside. Here you dont need to worry so much about viruses but more of people on the outside. You have to watch for your “hackers” that may know your password and get in. Or maybe they would use a keylogger and break into your account through that. Either way, you must keep strong passwords and change it often to prevent people. Another to be done is to not give out any info at all. Not even your best friend, keep your info to yourself. Just keep things a secret and never let someone get the upper hand. And if you want to get crazy, start setting up cameras, motion sensors, automatic lights. Maybe not for your computer but for an external security sense, maybe you will use it for your room or house in general. Either way, security is both important outside and in.

State the course objective

In your own words, define what that objective entails.

State the method you will use for measuring successful academic/intellectual achievement of this objective.

Follow your method and obtain a measurement. Document the results here.

Reflect upon your results of the measurement to ascertain your achievement of the particular course objective.

• How did you do?
• Is there room for improvement?
• Could the measurement process be enhanced to be more effective?
• Do you think this enhancement would be efficient to employ?
• Could the course objective be altered to be more applicable? How would you alter it?

Perform the following steps:

Whose existing experiment are you going to retest? Provide the URL, note the author, and restate their question.

Evaluate their resources and commentary. Answer the following questions:

• Do you feel the given resources are adequate in providing sufficient background information?
• Are there additional resources you've found that you can add to the resources list?
• Does the original experimenter appear to have obtained a necessary fundamental understanding of the concepts leading up to their stated experiment?
• If you find a deviation in opinion, state why you think this might exist.

State their experiment's hypothesis. Answer the following questions:

• Do you feel their hypothesis is adequate in capturing the essence of what they're trying to discover?
• What improvements could you make to their hypothesis, if any?

Follow the steps given to recreate the original experiment. Answer the following questions:

• Are the instructions correct in successfully achieving the results?
• Is there room for improvement in the experiment instructions/description? What suggestions would you make?
• Would you make any alterations to the structure of the experiment to yield better results? What, and why?

Publish the data you have gained from your performing of the experiment here.

Answer the following:

• Does the data seem in-line with the published data from the original author?
• Can you explain any deviations?
• How about any sources of error?
• Is the stated hypothesis adequate?

Answer the following:

• What conclusions can you make based on performing the experiment?
• Do you feel the experiment was adequate in obtaining a further understanding of a concept?
• Does the original author appear to have gotten some value out of performing the experiment?
• Any suggestions or observations that could improve this particular process (in general, or specifically you, or specifically for the original author).

Perform the following steps:

Whose existing experiment are you going to retest? Provide the URL, note the author, and restate their question.

Evaluate their resources and commentary. Answer the following questions:

• Do you feel the given resources are adequate in providing sufficient background information?
• Are there additional resources you've found that you can add to the resources list?
• Does the original experimenter appear to have obtained a necessary fundamental understanding of the concepts leading up to their stated experiment?
• If you find a deviation in opinion, state why you think this might exist.

State their experiment's hypothesis. Answer the following questions:

• Do you feel their hypothesis is adequate in capturing the essence of what they're trying to discover?
• What improvements could you make to their hypothesis, if any?

Follow the steps given to recreate the original experiment. Answer the following questions:

• Are the instructions correct in successfully achieving the results?
• Is there room for improvement in the experiment instructions/description? What suggestions would you make?
• Would you make any alterations to the structure of the experiment to yield better results? What, and why?

Publish the data you have gained from your performing of the experiment here.

Answer the following:

• Does the data seem in-line with the published data from the original author?
• Can you explain any deviations?
• How about any sources of error?
• Is the stated hypothesis adequate?

Answer the following:

• What conclusions can you make based on performing the experiment?
• Do you feel the experiment was adequate in obtaining a further understanding of a concept?
• Does the original author appear to have gotten some value out of performing the experiment?
• Any suggestions or observations that could improve this particular process (in general, or specifically you, or specifically for the original author).

Perform the following steps:

Whose existing experiment are you going to retest? Provide the URL, note the author, and restate their question.

Evaluate their resources and commentary. Answer the following questions:

• Do you feel the given resources are adequate in providing sufficient background information?
• Are there additional resources you've found that you can add to the resources list?
• Does the original experimenter appear to have obtained a necessary fundamental understanding of the concepts leading up to their stated experiment?
• If you find a deviation in opinion, state why you think this might exist.

State their experiment's hypothesis. Answer the following questions:

• Do you feel their hypothesis is adequate in capturing the essence of what they're trying to discover?
• What improvements could you make to their hypothesis, if any?

Follow the steps given to recreate the original experiment. Answer the following questions:

• Are the instructions correct in successfully achieving the results?
• Is there room for improvement in the experiment instructions/description? What suggestions would you make?
• Would you make any alterations to the structure of the experiment to yield better results? What, and why?

Publish the data you have gained from your performing of the experiment here.

Answer the following:

• Does the data seem in-line with the published data from the original author?
• Can you explain any deviations?
• How about any sources of error?
• Is the stated hypothesis adequate?

Answer the following:

• What conclusions can you make based on performing the experiment?
• Do you feel the experiment was adequate in obtaining a further understanding of a concept?
• Does the original author appear to have gotten some value out of performing the experiment?
• Any suggestions or observations that could improve this particular process (in general, or specifically you, or specifically for the original author).