Computer Science Practical Research Gurukul Computer Science Practical Research Gurukul Satya Sai Nilayam 1969, 33-1-31, S.J. ROAD, P.O.WALTAIR (R.S.), VISAKHAPATNAM, INDIA 530 004. Ph:0891-2508169, 9440417710. www.csprgurukul.in E-Mail:spr_c@sancharnet.in My Will & Wish on 2349hrs 13-12-2008 and earlier versions[28-08-2008,... ] stand cancelled. As of now my assets(4) are: 1. Land of Heriditary property share at the above address. 2. LIC INSURANCE AMOUNT. 3. Three out of six URLs' [www.csprgurukul.in, www.oom.in, www.idpl.in], www.ucy.in, ucy.co.in, trs.org.in and latest Internet Based Common Message Board s/w of www.ucy.in/cmb. 4. Bank Balances. Of THE ABOVE ASSETS lic insurance amount and the assets of 3 urls www.ucy.in, ucy.co.in, trs.org.in ARE are to be auctioned and net amount is to be distributed as follows: 1. 10% of the above set is meant for the batch of 2003-'04batch of ICSE STUDENTS OF Kotak Salesian School, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam. www.csprgurukul.in will be under exclusive control of UDAY KIRAN PAPPU, Abhimanyu GHOSH, Leela Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Prem Sai, Soumya Chiluvuri and Kishore Bhargav 2. 25% TO MY SISTER [MARRIED TO MERUGA RAJESWARA RAO] MERUGA/CHINTA SUBHADRA, successively to be inherited by legal heirs( including her 3 children). 3. 5[Five]% TO MY FATHER CHINTA ATCHUTA RAO[i feel this much more than enough for him, [29/03/2010: 20:00hrs, those people who were responsible of this modification, are certainly.....I advice them to meet me because[ they donot have humanity in them, or can't, digest somebody's success, or truth+full ness ], they have less knowledge]. I PRAY TO GOD TO GIVE YOU SOME WISENESS. 4. Rest[55%] of all assets including the following: www.oom.in, www.idpl.in + Land of Heriditary property share of mine at the above address. + 50% TO the net amount to be deposited as permanent deposit of Sri Hanuman Temple (COMPLEX), IDPL Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500037. 5. 5[Five]% TO executor towards executing this will. close of my latest WILL.0004 14/12/2008 [1140hrs 28-08-2008 ]. My Will & Wish on 05-02-2006 Justice to 2003 Batch(report included Annexure ? I). ?Students should have the right to view their corrected answer scripts?, This new rule should be added, so that examiners will correct papers with more responsibility. Board has failed to respond to my letter and it had consumed my mental strength & peace of mind. They are indirectly responsible for mothers death, there by the happiness of 1 grandson about his grandparent (ammamma) is lost and will be directly responsible for my pain and death and may be that of my father too. Computer + Rs.1,20,000/- from my Insurance to Kotak Salesian School, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam. This will ensure of My being a small & real TEACHER. There by my guru dakshana from my Kotak Salesian School Shishyas? will be wish number 2. The balance of my inheritance (cash, deposits, gold and land of my father) to be disposed of properly and if possible in an auction. And the net amount to be deposited as permanent deposit of Sri Hanuman Temple, IDPL Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad. My wishes: 1. MY students should equally respect pray to gods of all religions (photo frames of other religions ). 2. They should work TO make INDIA larger country, BY means of LOVE(Pre-Independent India Map) , AND not WAR/ WAR ON TERROR. You should develop technology capable of identifying the culprit and punish them appropriately(JUDGETREADS). 3. An employment for approx 10 Lakh youth, Every Street (About 50-100 humans) will have a Samaya Satya Sangam(God?s / Indian - Unit). It has following features: 1 It will employ(local or closeby SSS ) old aged / retired elders [ to keep an eye on the students, parents, Guests and passerbys?], youngsters (BCA(3) , BBM (2) , Physically Fit youth(3)+1 Police/Security). These will take care of almost all the daily requirements of all homes in the street. There by employment will increase. 2 Two such Samay & Satya Sangams should have 1 youth extra each [ BCA(1) , BBM (1) & youth(1) ]. 3 Richest home can donate/hire for less: 1/2 room with 2( Western + Indian )toilets. 4 Each Home in the Street will pay Street Welfare Fund/ServiceTax of Rs.200/- SS Sangam Office will have 2 latest God_Linux based 64-bit computers, equipped with web, Street cameras, Scanner and dotmatrix printer. One Server with DataOne broadband connection will act as Indian Identifying Server. 5 This will create additional employment, like local hardware service engineers, existing & some new condemn man made devices proper disposal units 1 for atleast 8 6 To day I saw some youth fighting against each other, in front of our home, hope Government {HOME Ministry )& elders in streets realize their social responsibility, Will wake up and take an active part in legitimizing these employment strategies}. 7 There will be 1 god-elder whose term is 4 months and can continue for 2 terms with unanimous voting from 4 SSSangams. He will have financial funding power to help the poor, duty to assign the 4 wheeler for enjoyment of a selected family per week. 8 There by increase love among citizens. 4. If PC-QUEST, CDAC AND LINUX FOR U come together to form a forum who would be responsible for half yearly release of new linux-God versions[along with anti-virus, Internet security tools]. For a price of Rs 100/- per system/6 months. It would make lot of money. Which can be Well spent for the future research. 5. All humans should dispose of waste properly. 6. Those companies which create physical goods should also have the responsibility of funding research and establishing plants to recycle them, either by re- utilizing or changing its form. 7. In point 6 context I would like to disclose My father Dream Plant Titled ?Coal Carbonisation & Derivatives Plants INDIA Ltd.? In Aid to IDPL. The CCDPIL, will produce 40+ by products, of which many are of medicinal use. 8. Message to Political Grand Sons (Rahul and Varun)of MOHAN DAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI JI, ?Are you listening to the silent screaming of IDPL hyderabad. I heard the voice of GREAT GRAND FATHER SHRI JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU?. Re-Open it up with Russian(USSR) collaboration. This message is also for many IDPL-IANS & NR-IDPL-IANS, REFURBURISH OUR IDPL HYD. 9. The real democracy will Come when the power(Number of Ministries) is shared equally or in proportion to no of seats in the parliament. As computerizations will take place through SS Sangams, the term / period of power should be reduced to 2 years. 10. Four legs of bed should have weight sensors which can calculate & show net weight of the long laying patient. Every 2 hrs the patient should be monitered for indications of bed-sore, and indicated & informed to the doctor and close relatives for taking up effective measures. These are the messages to all hospitals? and Dr.s? and especially to Appolo, St. Joseph & Lazurus hospitals. Enough(Not more than 5 patients per nurse) nursing staff should be present. 11. One Mobile Medical Team(3 shift duty doctors + 3 Sisters ) for 6/7 SS Sangams and a Stand by of 1+1 for 3 MM Teams. 12. Annexure ? I Respected Expert Sirs?, In reference to letter ref.no.:1989/LC/VII-324/2004, my case or line of reasoning goes on as follows: I have emailed immediate the matter but they became daemons(May be mail-server didn?t work properly during that time. I have electronic proof.). ?In today?s competitive India a brilliant Student has time very less time at the juncture when your explanation letter has come. Inspite of this busy and competitive life, to sort out the error my two brilliant students came forward have gone through your explanation letter after a couple of days of its arrival. And they denied sparing any more time till they are successful in getting seats in IIT (Ghosh ?T/1224/001) and M.B.B.S. ( Uday ?T/1224/037) courses, for which they have to prepare and I, don?t want any body to disturb them, at present they are unaware of this letter and I will feel happy face them with the judgement being done?. Then why this letter now? So that board would take enough steps(so that there is still time for intelligent(at computing) students to opt for right branch in engineering or other higher level of graduation and be confident of their programming skill), to rectify the mistake and every body will live happily, including the CICSE because it has become more transparent. With this good thoughts in mind in 2004, I wanted take up the error evaluation case with CISCE, but the Principal said ?to lay the matter to rest and concentrate on the current academic batch?. I had the responsibility of 1st batch of Computer Applications, my second real large project of MSFS-HRIS for the management which I considered as one of the noble selfless services(who have invested Rs.40,000/- approx apart from time and effort of many people), was in maintenance stage and my personal life was at critical juncture(mother was critically ill and sister marriage was on head, I could not dare for press conference which may result in job loss and more responsibility of new batch (and all my students are very dear to me and I don?t know how the new teacher would cope with JAVA ) and I did the sin of laying ?the matter to rest.? Still hang on to the job. I continued to pursue the matter with other computer teachers of other ICSE schools and Assistant professor?s, heads of department in Andhra University in our city. They too found and accepted the deficiencies that persist with the board. HERE I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND AND STRESS THE PHRASE ?PROBLEM OR ERROR RECTIFICATION, IS ALSO A MEANS OF DEVELOPMENT?. I expect C. I. S. C. E., would take it up in correct sense and with pride. Even though I did not receive any official communication about the feedback session, I took up the matter with our school correspondent (re-enrolled school in the group for Rs 500/- dtdc-courier dated 08/09/2004 To, the Principal, St. Joseph Public School and of course I traveled at my expenses) and was successful to the extent of convincing my argument with the resource person [ a lady teacher from Bangalore and she (and all teachers in the session ) felt very sad about the injustice. Please DON?T take any action against her, it was the true person in her that responded to my argument, and infact the whole lot of teachers agreed up on it. And I played an Instrumental role in making of many points or guidelines for the board in the feedback session over JAVA language and read out the conclusions of the feed back session at the end of the session.], in the feedback session, held at (as far as I can remember) NASR School, Behind Institution of Engineers (INDIA), Khairatabad. It rained heavily on that evening, a perception of gods feeling towards me. I dared to meet the chair person from the board I think Shri Pinto ji, put forth the issue then he said, that ?its too late the answer scripts would have been shredded off?. I feared and didn?t wanted to spoil the mood of all and kept quiet. And infact there would be hardly any use of it. But my inner conscience always troubled me continues to do so, which broke up with my first press conference ( conducted at VJF Press Club on 09-03-2005), after finishing the internal assessment for the new syllabus batch, which obviously lead to loss of my job. Now, I proceed with the core Problem. Almost all students who were good at programming, of the class have expressed their anguish over the marks awarded in Computer Science. My reply was ?when brilliant students like ghosh and uday got less marks, I have lost the confidence on boards evaluation procedures?. I verified how to rectify the problem with board through official procedures. I found only two solutions one to re-count the marks and explanation notes. So, I spoke with the good and brilliant students and explained that recounting would be not so useful, instead it is better to know your mistakes, so some of them came forward to pay Rs 350/- per head and I also made it clear that your Rs 350/- would never increase your marks as per the standard procedures described, instead would point to any kind of mis-evaluation?. And after the explanation notes letter, it was found true. And really want to have look at the marks scored out of 80(Part-II), so that error at adding of internal assessment could be ruled out. If so, it is impossible that all of my students have done so badly out of 80(Part-II). If I am not wrong, 70 percent of error took place at adding of internal marks. At the same time bad yard-stick evaluation is also indicated in the explanation letter (letter ref.no.:1989/LC/VII-324/2004). I Expect the Experts to go through (CD-ROM) the applications 1. Car, Dragon ball by Uday 2. IFFCS, by ghosh, 3. MEMORY both leela kumar and slightly assisted by uday developed by the top two brilliant students and go through the source code. There are atleast 14 to 18 students who can reasonably perform well. I am sure that after you have gone though the projects, it is simply impossible to accept most of the claims made by the examiner. And I will try to study and point out the loop holes in the explanation at the end. The Student Abhimanyu Ghosh (?T/1224/001) has denied committing the errors pointed out by the examiner, for the following questions Q5(a) Claim is wrong, . Q6. Process is correct. he has used Double Dimensioned Array N( i, j) and the claim is entirely wrong.. Q9 He said, ?has used swap correctly [ swap NA$(i), NA$(j). ]? Just have a glance at marks scored by him in other subjects, inspite of 76 in computer Sc., he is the school topper and also very close to topper of the city. It is simply murdering of marks as I conceive it. 9/23/2005 10:40:14 AM Taking up the case UDAY KIRAN PAPPU (?T/1224/037), as soon as the result was out and I downloaded from net, I called him up asked him to answer in the same way as he has done in the board exam without making any changes. He did so and brought it to school on 19/05/2004 and after my strict evaluation he scored 63/80, which means in the worst case he should have obtained 83/100. It shows a deviation of 9 marks. Now the mistake indicated in explanation notes are analysed over here: Question 1. c) Definition is incorrect, is partially wrong, as he has put forth a nature of batch processing he could have been awarded atleast half (0.5)mark. Question 1 d) Now I what shall I say about examiner ? The explanation of Question 1 d) as he puts it ?(d) The full form of TCP/IP is wrong.? It seems like has some eye sight problem. The topic of TCP/IP occurs in Question 2 as b) bit This clearly shows or reflects the negligence shown even at the stage of writing explanation, by the examiner. The student has written in anxiety ?of very easy paper?, he has fumbled in just one word of the full acronym, i.e., Transfer instead of Transmission rest was correct. Is there no benefit of doubt for this? Question 3. b) The nature and contents of the question are very tricky. Again the answer chosen by the student is benefit of doubt partly correct( expert systems is an odd one and rest of the alternatives fall under the system or utility software which are closely related). So another half mark could have been added. Is there no benefit of doubt for this? Question 3. e) Is wrong, as he has slightly confused between close rhyming alternatives. Summary: As per the examiner the student could have lost four (4) and as per my judgement based on evaluators remarks and considering benefit of doubt towards the student he has lost only Three (3) marks. Section B Question 4. Again there seems to be some eye sight problem the student has used I as loop variable and which the examiner mistakenly might have considered 1 (one) as I. Flow chart is quite clear of course little crushed to fit in the space left as it takes more time to draw neatly (For your information, brilliant students prefer to frame brief solution, write the program first dry run it and then confirm or check it out on the computer. And then go for neat and scratch less flow chart. Of course during learning phase of every student / child, I always made sure, that they follow brief solution / algorithm, followed by flowchart, variable description and end with program. ). Processing is absolutely correct. My experience and his second answer script no where finds the mistakes pointed out by the examiner. Hence there is no loss of marks in this question. Question 6. Has the society moved from large size phones to small size or the vice-versa is true? The Claims simply put are wrong and I have strong point over here: Page 3 suggestions 2. and 3. indicate the child to develop various strategies or solutions for given problem. I have personally trained this student, in school officially, as an exceptional child and he is! As you must notice in the video games developed by him. There is absolutely no mistake as far as and as deep as I can see. The solution put forth by him simply achieves the expected result. In fact you should have appreciated his knowledge or logic of achieving the output in just single-nested loop instead of the standard or elaborated 3 single-nested loops strategy. Again there seems to an eye-sight overlook of ?just single-nested loop instead of the standard or elaborated 3 single-nested loops?, and examiner has mistakenly over hurried got his attention of single and might have forgone the nested word. The enclosed second answer script is a proof. There are no loss of marks in this question too. Question 7. Referring to the first sentence in the explanation notes, My argument is that question in no way indicates that re-conversion of final total has to be carried out, quoting the phrase in the question ?A message is to be conveyed by adding 10 to the total of the ASCII code of characters in the statement given below?: YOKO HAS SMILED. The solution of the student is absolutely correct as per knowledge. The final total of the ASCII code of characters in the statement ?YOKO HAS SMILED? COMES TO 1062+10è1072 and employing CHR$ (1072) would result in a RUNTIME ERROR as the argument cannot exceed the range 0 to 255. Event if CHR$ () has to be employed a maximum of 1 mark could be deducted. Referring to the second sentence in the explanation notes, My student was conscious enough to connect components of a flow chart. It again reflects the eye-sight problem, of the examiner. Hence as per my assessment there are no loss of marks in this question too. As per explanation notes he should not have lost more than 1 marks even in the worst case for flowchart, as his claim of CHR$ () wrong. Question 8. Referring to the first sentence in the explanation notes, Yes, I agree, only to the extent that formatting was wrong only for the heading line and not for rest of the data lines. And which is not requirement in the question 8 as compared to question 9. I think, examiner was expecting a neatly formatted output, where as question 8 concentrated on the skill of file handling combined with the logic. As per this thought, the student is not expected to be taxed, by cutting marks. Explanation notes does not mention any wrong processing. In fact, it supports the argument that total sales was displayed(printed ) on the screen, in contradiction to second answer script where the student admitted of misplacement total sales variable (under else instead of then part)in hurry. May be he has not even this misplacement. Referring to the second sentence in the explanation notes, ?The loop applied is in correct? I feel very sorry for the examiner as he may be unaware of DO-UNTIL--LOOP Statement. The claims made by are almost have no validity ethically and with respect to benefit of doubt. The following picture clearly demonstrates it. There seem to be no flow char mistakes!!! ======================================================================== Hence to conclude by my assessment, the student is not supposed loose any marks going by the phase ?BENEFIT OF DOUBT?. So, my student as per my assessment is supposed to score 77 out of 80 and he has achieved 20 out of 20 in internal assessment . HIS final mark stands at 97 instead of 74. A clear deviation of 23 marks is simply unacceptable. By now Loop Holes in the explanation notes with respect to just one student (UDAY KIRAN PAPPU (?T/1224/037)), are very clear, summarizing them for your easy reference: 1. Miss representation of Question 2 b) as Question 1 d) 2. No Benefit of doubt to the student in questions 3b, 3e and 8 3. Lack of full knowledge of the examiner in questions 6, 7 and 8. 4. Eye-sight problem in questions 2 b), 6 and 7 Of course I do agree and understand that ?no body is 100% perfect?. One straight forward question, how come board did not care to appoint at least two extra levels of verifiers after preparation of explanation notes? It seems knowledge, future of students and teachers mean nothing to you. I sincerely accept that there around 5 to 6 students who are at very low ebb of programming or the knowledge of basic language. I know few students family environment, but I know by my past experience they don?t vary too much from earlier batches, weak students have always stood just above pass mark. And above all the strong deficiencies pointed out by me stand on their own foot. There are 3 possible solutions : 1. To show answer scripts to the student if evaluation was right 2. To re-evaluate the answer scripts of the 6 students by an experienced programmer who has atleast a MCA and 12 marks to the rest of the students. 3. Take little financial pain, (as I am now a economically weaker section Self or Un-Employed person ) pay all the expenses of my trip to PRAGATI HOUSE as solution is very intricate and after meeting you I will disclose a solution which would be very simple to implement. Though the solutions seem to be difficult, but they are not impossible in delivering the justice. I am putting few points of how to impress the examiner in case of programming, which I always stressed in my teaching carrier: 1. Use both lengthy, medium and short type of solutions to depict your skill of problem solving and coding styles. 2. Employ various key words (& their various forms )of the language under consideration to show your grip on the computer language. 3. Comment before important logic / code. 4. Dry run to check for the output expected in the question. 5. Always recheck your solution with that of the brief solution or algorithm. 6. Give at end of each answer few more other logics if time permits. I very well understand & realized why god has executed this temporary in justice to me and my students. When I meet you, I will reveal it to you in ?PRAGATI HOUSE?. I hope GOD will be deliver justice, at least to my students, if not me. 9/23/2005 4:58:56 PM. It took almost 6hrs.10min. to between time to analyze(UDAY KIRAN PAPPU (?T/1224/037),) just the explanation notes, second answer script, verify 4 four programs on the computer and including the emotional thought process to arrive at this truth. A clear deviation of 23 marks is simply unacceptable. Please deliver justice, Thanking you, Yours Truly, CHINTA SWAMY PRAKASH RAO