I disagree. Well, you are likely correct that there are ways to improve the teaching of math. But even people who aren't drones need to train themselves in the basics, it is only when the lower level stuff comes without thought that the higher level stuff becomes more accessible. And the only way to make the foundation second nature is practice. Someone who enjoys it has an advantage since they are more likely to get enough practice. It is the same in most endeavors, for instance sports. I've been mountain biking for years, I love it, but it was only after building the body memory for the basics like balance, braking, cornering, etc. that the higher level stuff like jumping became possible.
The fabled terrorist has had decades to exploit these weaknesses. And judging from the suppression of this research, he will have decades more after this. Where is he? So-called 'terrorist' attacks are very rare despite the huge number of airports, malls, sporting events, weddings, schools, subway trains, busy shipping ports, train stations, popular landmarks, etc etc etc. Yes there is a threat, just like any other sort of crime. But you are right, let's not imagine there are 'terrorists' sitting out there thinking 'gee I wish someone would give me a good idea on what to attack'
My experience is that math gets easier the more you do it. In other words, practice makes perfect. I've also noticed that people who are inclined to accept "I am just not good at math" are less likely to put in the work and train their brains to think in math, and thus never learn it. I would not be surprised to find that the stuff the article talks about leads to more females taking that excuse and opting out of math rather than putting in the work.
Yes I admit that sentence is overly broad when you take it completely out of context. As an aside, being snide isn't very useful, if I might I would suggest trying to be civil instead of coloring everything with sarcastic little interjections.
Belittling in general is a bad thing. I do think I understand the parent's point, though, at least to a degree. I was bullied quite a bit in my early years, until I learned how to deal with it. Bullies pick their victims like lions do, they single out the weak and vulnerable. Once I stopped being those things, the bullying went away. Or at least, I stopped acting weak and vulnerable, which deprived them of their entertainment. Yes bullying and malicious harassment are foul things and should not happen. But if you are a soft target, SOMETHING will always happen to flatten you. Even if you survive to adulthood, work colleagues or salesmen or whoever will just walk all over you. I'm sorry the world is that way, feel free to blame the Creator.
I don't know why you single out the last 15 years, that is what I remember of my early school years forty years ago. Except the reactions were more restrained. When I accidentally jabbed a bully in the eye when defending myself, I merely got a suspension instead of a visit to the local police station. Then the admins backed down when my dad went to the school and read them the riot act. Frankly the admins backing down only increased my contempt for them.
Your analysis is flawed. Murder is an action, not a tool. The subject article is about playing "whack a mole" and banning a tool instead of punishing the action. There are an infinite number of other tools. Much like the doctors in Britain who were proposing that sharp knives be banned since a small minority of knife owners used them to stab others. And for part two, kids who care about school will do well with or without this specific app being available. And those who don't care will not care regardless of which tools are available.
Good luck eliminating every piece of bad behavior the kids can come up with. And good luck to the hothouse flowers when they are pushed out into the real world. This belief that it is a good idea to punish everyone because there are a few bad apples is one of the many things I hated about school, and continue to hate about people who want to apply it everywhere else.
The FAA was originally created as part of the Department of Commerce to provide regulation for commercial aviation. As in, common traffic lanes, signaling standards, and so on. Which is probably why this rule about commercial use of a drone is part of the story. The creation of the FAA had nothing to do with annoying hobbyists, nor was there any mandate to "regulate anything that flies".
Laws regarding reckless endangerment, negligence, public nuisance, and so on had nothing to do with the FAA since they pre-exist that agency by several centuries.
The FAA doesn't need to be involved, there are plenty of reckless endangerment and negligence laws to cover someone buzzing a crowd and almost hitting people.
Indeed. Of course, you should make the same assumption regardless of what "attack" might be present. Any second party who uses the information could be providing it to any number of third parties. At a certain point, you have to take a chance or else not provide the information.
What is sabotage in this case? Since we can't cram omniscience into a kid's head, who decides what gets in the curriculum and what doesn't? Your opinion? Some dictator's opinion? No matter what you do, some things will get left out that others think should be left in and vice versa. My opinion is that the curriculum is almost all garbage and 99% of a child's time in school is babysitting and indoctrination not the three Rs. If I don't' want my kids to do the "invent a leprechaun trap" lesson or some other pabulum, am I now guilty of "sabotage"?
it is not "extremely common" for employers to log employee's banking passwords or other credentials. By all means produce some evidence if you think I am wrong.
My assumption is that the client logs all HTTPS traffic this way, capturing banking records, passwords, and similar data on their employees
A completely baseless assumption. I have worked with several organizations who do this "attack" to protect themselves from malicious traffic. I have not yet seen any that logged content. The legal and regulatory risks in doing this are too high to do this sort of data collection.
Interesting. Which cities would be the ones that are better at having people living close to their workplaces? Any interesting reading you would recommend on that topic?
You could just as easily argue the city is taking advantage of the suburbs without paying for it. The city doesn't have an inherent right to anyone's money any more than the suburb does.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Well, you are likely correct that there are ways to improve the teaching of math. But even people who aren't drones need to train themselves in the basics, it is only when the lower level stuff comes without thought that the higher level stuff becomes more accessible. And the only way to make the foundation second nature is practice. Someone who enjoys it has an advantage since they are more likely to get enough practice. It is the same in most endeavors, for instance sports. I've been mountain biking for years, I love it, but it was only after building the body memory for the basics like balance, braking, cornering, etc. that the higher level stuff like jumping became possible.
The fabled terrorist has had decades to exploit these weaknesses. And judging from the suppression of this research, he will have decades more after this. Where is he? So-called 'terrorist' attacks are very rare despite the huge number of airports, malls, sporting events, weddings, schools, subway trains, busy shipping ports, train stations, popular landmarks, etc etc etc. Yes there is a threat, just like any other sort of crime. But you are right, let's not imagine there are 'terrorists' sitting out there thinking 'gee I wish someone would give me a good idea on what to attack'
My experience is that math gets easier the more you do it. In other words, practice makes perfect. I've also noticed that people who are inclined to accept "I am just not good at math" are less likely to put in the work and train their brains to think in math, and thus never learn it. I would not be surprised to find that the stuff the article talks about leads to more females taking that excuse and opting out of math rather than putting in the work.
Yes I admit that sentence is overly broad when you take it completely out of context. As an aside, being snide isn't very useful, if I might I would suggest trying to be civil instead of coloring everything with sarcastic little interjections.
Belittling in general is a bad thing. I do think I understand the parent's point, though, at least to a degree. I was bullied quite a bit in my early years, until I learned how to deal with it. Bullies pick their victims like lions do, they single out the weak and vulnerable. Once I stopped being those things, the bullying went away. Or at least, I stopped acting weak and vulnerable, which deprived them of their entertainment. Yes bullying and malicious harassment are foul things and should not happen. But if you are a soft target, SOMETHING will always happen to flatten you. Even if you survive to adulthood, work colleagues or salesmen or whoever will just walk all over you. I'm sorry the world is that way, feel free to blame the Creator.
I don't know why you single out the last 15 years, that is what I remember of my early school years forty years ago. Except the reactions were more restrained. When I accidentally jabbed a bully in the eye when defending myself, I merely got a suspension instead of a visit to the local police station. Then the admins backed down when my dad went to the school and read them the riot act. Frankly the admins backing down only increased my contempt for them.
Your analysis is flawed. Murder is an action, not a tool. The subject article is about playing "whack a mole" and banning a tool instead of punishing the action. There are an infinite number of other tools. Much like the doctors in Britain who were proposing that sharp knives be banned since a small minority of knife owners used them to stab others. And for part two, kids who care about school will do well with or without this specific app being available. And those who don't care will not care regardless of which tools are available.
Good luck eliminating every piece of bad behavior the kids can come up with. And good luck to the hothouse flowers when they are pushed out into the real world. This belief that it is a good idea to punish everyone because there are a few bad apples is one of the many things I hated about school, and continue to hate about people who want to apply it everywhere else.
Being.
Snide.
Isn't
Useful.
The FAA was originally created as part of the Department of Commerce to provide regulation for commercial aviation. As in, common traffic lanes, signaling standards, and so on. Which is probably why this rule about commercial use of a drone is part of the story. The creation of the FAA had nothing to do with annoying hobbyists, nor was there any mandate to "regulate anything that flies".
Laws regarding reckless endangerment, negligence, public nuisance, and so on had nothing to do with the FAA since they pre-exist that agency by several centuries.
The FAA doesn't need to be involved, there are plenty of reckless endangerment and negligence laws to cover someone buzzing a crowd and almost hitting people.
So Google isn't smart?
Indeed. Of course, you should make the same assumption regardless of what "attack" might be present. Any second party who uses the information could be providing it to any number of third parties. At a certain point, you have to take a chance or else not provide the information.
What is sabotage in this case? Since we can't cram omniscience into a kid's head, who decides what gets in the curriculum and what doesn't? Your opinion? Some dictator's opinion? No matter what you do, some things will get left out that others think should be left in and vice versa. My opinion is that the curriculum is almost all garbage and 99% of a child's time in school is babysitting and indoctrination not the three Rs. If I don't' want my kids to do the "invent a leprechaun trap" lesson or some other pabulum, am I now guilty of "sabotage"?
it is not "extremely common" for employers to log employee's banking passwords or other credentials. By all means produce some evidence if you think I am wrong.
My assumption is that the client logs all HTTPS traffic this way, capturing banking records, passwords, and similar data on their employees
A completely baseless assumption. I have worked with several organizations who do this "attack" to protect themselves from malicious traffic. I have not yet seen any that logged content. The legal and regulatory risks in doing this are too high to do this sort of data collection.
We need something to displace all the nitrogen. That stuff is dangerous!
It makes perfect sense if you postulate that the purpose is not to protect or inform the public, but to generate fear.
Why would you trust one of these clowns? This is kind of like trusting a 'reformed' black hat.
My lawyer says no.
I have as much to hide as any police who arrest someone for taking video footage.
Jesus, pushing-robot, are you filming nerd fights again?
wants someone to take their system into the modern age, which means re-design/new architecture, implementation, maintenance, team lead, etc
Do you mean you got a chance to work on /. Beta?
Interesting. Which cities would be the ones that are better at having people living close to their workplaces? Any interesting reading you would recommend on that topic?
I have a solid state drive so my fscking is silent. You're welcome, neighbor!
You could just as easily argue the city is taking advantage of the suburbs without paying for it. The city doesn't have an inherent right to anyone's money any more than the suburb does.