It would be cheaper to just put the notices up and not bother replacing the cables, so sooner or later the notices will become inaccurate and worthless anyway.
Well, the Telcos should really be replacing communication cable with fibre anyway... But telco cables aren't a great target for copper thieves because they are so thin.
It's power cables that are the problem, you can't replace them with fibre and they need to be much thicker.
Adding extra beuracracy to the sale process won't help... Thieves will still find unscrupulous outlets to sell their wares, and this will create an opportunity for greater profits operating such an outlet. It will also push the price of copper even higher, further encouraging theft.
And porn sites are blocked by many filters, therefore reducing the potential targets for a malware spreader...
Web distributed malware these days tends to come from legit sites, or legit banner hosts etc that have been hacked... When you have thousands of infected workstations running keyloggers it's not hard to capture a webmaster logging in to his site and then you can follow him in and add your malicious code to his genuine site.
Perhaps if the banks had better opening hours, people could actually go to the branch when they were out and about instead of having to use the cybercafe next door.
Even if you boot from trusted media to run the malware scan, there is no guarantee that the system won't be infected with a piece of malware for which your scanner has no signature.
A better approach, although obviously not foolproof...
Boot from the thumbdrive, and then use that OS to access the internet... Make sure the OS has an on screen keyboard or a non standard key mapping so as to confuse any potential hardware keylogger.
The worst thing is, assuming you trust the staff, a college computer lab is managed by paid staff who you would assume have some level of competence... The average home computer on the other hand is not.
The difference from a hacker's perspective is that the average home computer, while horrendously insecure and usually not managed by someone with an IT background, only has one user to steal bank details from... A lab computer may have several.
A lab computer is also more likely to have a shared authentication system linking them together, making it much easier to compromise all the machines at once.
An install of 40GB is pretty ridiculous, i have a VM cluster running 60+ virtual machines.. The average linux os install on my cluster is just under 2gb and i haven't made much effort to optimise them, thats still over 120gb consumed just by the os not counting the data...
Your 2TB array wouldn't be able to fit 60 of your 40gb windows images at all, even without any data. If 10% of your 40GB is gui components, then your wasting twice as much space on gui components as my systems are for their entire os.
Mass storage may well be cheap, but the price soon goes up once you want reliable redundant storage, high performance storage, somewhere to store backups etc... I can't just buy a cheap 2TB HDD and throw it in, i need multiple drives for redundancy, i need to make sure i have sufficient chassis to put them in, i need to pay for the rackspace and power that these chassis will use...
And don't mention deduplication, that's basically a way of over committing... Making your machines think they have more space than they really do, if something happens which forces it try and use all the space there could be catastrophic results.
Also, just because something is cheap, no reason to use it inefficiently.
It might not be much space on its own, but it adds up when you have large numbers of virtual images...
And any software you have installed needs to be patched, creating overhead... Plus the risk of security holes being found in it... The less you have installed, the less risk and less admin attention required.
I read recently that Samsung account for more than 50% of android devices sold (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/243861/samsung_becomes_biggest_smartphone_vendor_as_androids_market_share_grows.html), that would qualify as "most" on its own... I also read that Samsung don't lock their bootloaders. Then you have HTC, who provide either unlocked phones or the ability to unlock them... Sony/Ericsson also provide unlocked phones... Motorola only lock some of their devices...
Most android devices either ship unlocked, or with an easy and supported (ie not via an exploit) way of unlocking.
Most of the locked arm based devices out there are specific purpose embedded devices.
I'm not so sure, the majority of Linux geeks have windows installed aswell.
Not usually by choice, it's usually because some proprietary applications or niche hardware are locked in...
If MS provided a version of linux then that would require admitting that linux exists, something they try very hard not to do in front of end users... They would also have to provide a crippled version, especially on ARM... If they provided a full blown install of debian or ubuntu and encouraged users to try it out then many of those users would never touch the arm version of windows again. As it stands on the arm platform linux has a far better selection of applications than windows does, and it will take a long time to change if ever.
Also if every arm user had a dual boot of linux it would destroy any incentive people had to produce windows/arm software, since all the users could also run the linux version (look what happened to os/2 which had windows compatibility).
What MS should really do is abandon lock-in, embrace open standards and open source... Ditch windows and become an enterprise software vendor / support house, ala oracle... Most businesses don't have sufficiently competent technical staff on hand and will gladly pay for vendor support.
There is a big difference between having a secure platform and a locked down platform...
You can make the process of unlocking complex so that only technically oriented people will do it, and ensure that it includes enough warnings to discourage casual users...
An automated piece of malware couldn't unlock such a system unless it had a bug, and any system can have bugs... You can easily make the unlocking process require physical access and/or a physical connection to another device. A social engineering attack is highly unlikely to guide users through a complex procedure either...
The Google Nexus phones, and phones from vendors such as HTC have the right idea... They are locked by default, but can be unlocked by users who are capable of following the procedure.
Most users never will, but for those of us who want to an option is available for us. Also when these devices become old and unsupported, they can be reinstalled with new open source software and continue to be useful devices.
Hardware which is completely locked is destined to become landfill as soon as the software vendor drops support, and how soon that happens depends on all kinds of factors... If windows/arm isn't very successful, MS could drop support for it entirely in a year or two (just like they did for windows/mips and windows/ppc, anyone remember those?) and then you'd be left with a useless lump with hardly any apps and an os that will never be updated or have any security fixes.
No, only server software needs to be written this way and most of it already is.
And you don't necessarily need client-server management service, you can always manually edit the configuration files or produce a gui which parses and generates configuration files.
NAT, and firewalls in general encourage laziness. If you put a machine on a fully open internet connection then you need to make sure it's appropriately configured or someone will get onto it. On the other hand, if its hidden then the chances of it being found are greatly diminished, but not eliminated.
All it takes is for one pinhole through, and all your hidden machines are easy pickings... Someone bringing malware onto the internal network, a vulnerable service you've explicitly allowed through, a configuration error (all too easy with things like upnp about), exploitation of a client application such as a web browser.
If your machines are built properly then the fact someone has compromised one of them shouldn't necessarily put other machines at any greater risk.
Far too many people consider a firewall to be the only line of defense... When properly used, a firewall should be an extra line of defense alongside properly hardened boxes.
That "easier to use than the competitors" aspect of their marketing has also been a serious downside too...
They convince the customers that competent (read: expensive) admin staff are not necessary and that anyone can do it, so people believe the marketing and hire the cheapest people they can. The end result is that such people may be able to keep a windows network limping along, but they won't do a very good job of it and you will end up with major security and stability problems which then gives the product a bad name...
And windows has an absolutely terrible reputation for security and stability, due in part to this method of marketing.
Windows is _NOT_ easy to use, it's actually far more complex than any unix based system although most basic tasks can be accomplished without being exposed to the underlying complexity...
The same is also true of unix, where there are many appliance-type interfaces that expose some functionality in a simple way and there are millions of linux based appliances out there where the user has no idea that linux is running underneath... But, you wouldn't hire someone who "knows how to make calls on an android phone" to admin a network of linux servers.
Potentially a massive saving in the datacenter, a saving you could have been realising for many years now if you'd used non windows servers. Infact, unix (and vms) servers without videocards have been available since before windows even existed at all.
It's not just the extra memory and cpu used, but the diskspace wasted by having the gui software present on disk... Then you also have to consider the fact that extra software means extra locations where security holes could reside, and therefore extra files that have to have security patches applied etc...
300mb and however much disk space may not be a lot on a single dedicated server, but it soon adds up... Consider a VM environment where you have a large number of virtual servers running on a single physical box, that wasted memory is now multiplied by the number of virtual instances you have. Also a VM doesn't have real video ram, it has to emulate it using system memory... So you have a virtual framebuffer sitting there displaying a graphical login prompt...
Also if you have an OS that cannot boot without a videocard fitted, then you have to include one in all of your servers... It will consume power, waste an expansion slot, and cost money... Not a big deal for one server, but soon adds up over a large number.
As somebody who did this for 10 years, let me tell you it's not a good idea as a permanent solution for most people. I only do it now if my early morning meetings leave me in my PJs at lunchtime. Some flexibility is good, but it does disrupt communications.
I currently work from home most of the time, and combined with generally flexible hours it works out much better for me. I save a lot of money that it would cost me to commute and buy lunch... I save approximately 3 hours/day that would be spent doing unproductive travelling.. I can actually concentrate at home, the office is noisy and full of distractions. I have a comfortable seat at home, not so much in the office. I avoid unpleasant travel, which not only wastes time but is tiring and results in me generally arriving at work sweaty and disgusting. I take less time off sick, there have been some instances where i felt too ill to travel (risk of imminent vomit) but had no trouble sitting at home infront of a laptop.
As somebody who works with colleagues in Shanghai and California, as much overlap of working hours as possible is a good idea.
If all 3 locations weren't obsessively sticking to the 9-5 regime, then it would be much easier to arrange overlapping hours.
When our office in the Soho was closed recently, I would have quit if forced to travel to the other office outside London. Even SE1 is a bit disappointing.
Depends where you live, travelling across london is especially painful because all the transport is geared up for getting you to the centre...
I would refuse too if I had a stupid commute or had to drive. This is why I live in cycling distance and 25km/day is good for my health. Bonus!
As someone else pointed out, heavy breathing while cycling along roads and inhaling lots of diesel particulates is not good... Cycling in london is very dangerous. It's often difficult even to find somewhere to park a bike, and it might get vandalised or stolen. Housing within 12.5km of central london or other business districts like canary wharf is generally either very small, very expensive or in a nasty area... I have looked and couldn't find anything nice.
If i could live within a short enough distance of the office, and with suitable cycle lanes in between i would happily cycle or walk to work...
Yes, transport in general in the UK is a mess... As was reported recently, trains cost massively more in the UK than in other european countries, and if you live outside of a large city public transport is even worse or may be entirely lacking.
Concorde cut the journey time to new york in half, and yet it's no longer flying... Faster transport isn't whats needed, we need to decrease distances, decrease congestion and most importantly decrease the need to travel.
Encourage home working... Most office jobs can be done from anywhere with an internet connection and phoneline... Stagger working hours - don't have everyone travel in for 9am, that just causes mass congestion at specific times and creates a horrendously inefficient transport system where the extra capacity to handle peak traffic is simply wasted at other times. Many staff never need to interact directly with third parties and so have no reason to be at work 9-5. Convince businesses to get over this stupid obsession of having offices in central london (or other large cities), it doesn't make your company look prestigious it just increases costs and hinders your recruitment process because people are put off by the horrendous commute and will usually demand more money for working there. Instead, build your offices in small business parks located outside the centre of cities, not only are these considerably cheaper but there is generally affordable housing within a short distance. I personally have turned down several job offers that required commuting to central london.
Cookery is different... Sure, most people will never be michelin starred chefs no matter how many cookery lessons you expose them to, but people should be capable of preparing themselves a basic meal from fresh ingredients.
People with absolutely no idea how to even prepare the most basic of meals are part of the reason obesity is such a problem, these people simply buy ready prepared fast food as they get bigger and bigger.
With cookery it's not about teaching vocation skills they will use to make a living, its about teaching basic skills that they will use throughout their lives... After all, everyone has to eat.
And for cookery, the school should supply the necessary equipment and ingredients. I had to sit out cookery classes in school because i never had the requested ingredients. Being a kid i couldn't go out and buy them myself, i had to rely on my parents to provide them and they never bothered to do so.
In the same way that algebra is basically a vocational class... Only basic levels of mathematics can be considered a fundamental skill... Most of what they teach will be of absolutely no use whatsoever to most people during their adult lives.
Same in the UK, they don't start until secondary school (equivalent of high school i guess), and are pretty basic (Teaching you how to order a cup of coffee in french or german)... And you will almost never encounter the language you learn anywhere but school.
In other countries where the primary language is not english, then english is generally taught in schools at quite an early age and is likely to be encountered regularly through the internet and on television...
People from Holland tend to speak very good english because most of the shows on tv are in english with dutch subtitles, teaching them both the meaning and (usually american) pronunciation of the words in an environment that's actually interesting for them...
A classroom is a terrible place to learn anything, you have a dull rigid environment which causes you to mentally switch off, combined with other kids who are there by force not choice and who can easily disrupt anyone who is actually trying to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be cheaper to just put the notices up and not bother replacing the cables, so sooner or later the notices will become inaccurate and worthless anyway.
Well, the Telcos should really be replacing communication cable with fibre anyway...
But telco cables aren't a great target for copper thieves because they are so thin.
It's power cables that are the problem, you can't replace them with fibre and they need to be much thicker.
Adding extra beuracracy to the sale process won't help...
Thieves will still find unscrupulous outlets to sell their wares, and this will create an opportunity for greater profits operating such an outlet.
It will also push the price of copper even higher, further encouraging theft.
And porn sites are blocked by many filters, therefore reducing the potential targets for a malware spreader...
Web distributed malware these days tends to come from legit sites, or legit banner hosts etc that have been hacked... When you have thousands of infected workstations running keyloggers it's not hard to capture a webmaster logging in to his site and then you can follow him in and add your malicious code to his genuine site.
Perhaps if the banks had better opening hours, people could actually go to the branch when they were out and about instead of having to use the cybercafe next door.
The library here has a 50/50 mix of imacs and xp boxes, the imacs tend to be in use while the xp boxes sit idle...
Even if you boot from trusted media to run the malware scan, there is no guarantee that the system won't be infected with a piece of malware for which your scanner has no signature.
A better approach, although obviously not foolproof...
Boot from the thumbdrive, and then use that OS to access the internet...
Make sure the OS has an on screen keyboard or a non standard key mapping so as to confuse any potential hardware keylogger.
The worst thing is, assuming you trust the staff, a college computer lab is managed by paid staff who you would assume have some level of competence...
The average home computer on the other hand is not.
The difference from a hacker's perspective is that the average home computer, while horrendously insecure and usually not managed by someone with an IT background, only has one user to steal bank details from... A lab computer may have several.
A lab computer is also more likely to have a shared authentication system linking them together, making it much easier to compromise all the machines at once.
An install of 40GB is pretty ridiculous, i have a VM cluster running 60+ virtual machines.. The average linux os install on my cluster is just under 2gb and i haven't made much effort to optimise them, thats still over 120gb consumed just by the os not counting the data...
Your 2TB array wouldn't be able to fit 60 of your 40gb windows images at all, even without any data.
If 10% of your 40GB is gui components, then your wasting twice as much space on gui components as my systems are for their entire os.
Mass storage may well be cheap, but the price soon goes up once you want reliable redundant storage, high performance storage, somewhere to store backups etc... I can't just buy a cheap 2TB HDD and throw it in, i need multiple drives for redundancy, i need to make sure i have sufficient chassis to put them in, i need to pay for the rackspace and power that these chassis will use...
And don't mention deduplication, that's basically a way of over committing... Making your machines think they have more space than they really do, if something happens which forces it try and use all the space there could be catastrophic results.
Also, just because something is cheap, no reason to use it inefficiently.
It might not be much space on its own, but it adds up when you have large numbers of virtual images...
And any software you have installed needs to be patched, creating overhead... Plus the risk of security holes being found in it...
The less you have installed, the less risk and less admin attention required.
You say *MOST* android devices?
I read recently that Samsung account for more than 50% of android devices sold (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/243861/samsung_becomes_biggest_smartphone_vendor_as_androids_market_share_grows.html), that would qualify as "most" on its own... I also read that Samsung don't lock their bootloaders.
Then you have HTC, who provide either unlocked phones or the ability to unlock them...
Sony/Ericsson also provide unlocked phones...
Motorola only lock some of their devices...
Most android devices either ship unlocked, or with an easy and supported (ie not via an exploit) way of unlocking.
Most of the locked arm based devices out there are specific purpose embedded devices.
I'm not so sure, the majority of Linux geeks have windows installed aswell.
Not usually by choice, it's usually because some proprietary applications or niche hardware are locked in...
If MS provided a version of linux then that would require admitting that linux exists, something they try very hard not to do in front of end users...
They would also have to provide a crippled version, especially on ARM... If they provided a full blown install of debian or ubuntu and encouraged users to try it out then many of those users would never touch the arm version of windows again. As it stands on the arm platform linux has a far better selection of applications than windows does, and it will take a long time to change if ever.
Also if every arm user had a dual boot of linux it would destroy any incentive people had to produce windows/arm software, since all the users could also run the linux version (look what happened to os/2 which had windows compatibility).
What MS should really do is abandon lock-in, embrace open standards and open source... Ditch windows and become an enterprise software vendor / support house, ala oracle... Most businesses don't have sufficiently competent technical staff on hand and will gladly pay for vendor support.
Linux is already taking hold in pretty much every market except desktops...
Servers
Phones (Android, also WebOS/Meego)
HPC (see the top500 list)
Embedded devices like routers, set top boxes, televisions, voip phones etc...
Many people these days have more linux devices in their house than they do windows, and don't even realise it.
There is a big difference between having a secure platform and a locked down platform...
You can make the process of unlocking complex so that only technically oriented people will do it, and ensure that it includes enough warnings to discourage casual users...
An automated piece of malware couldn't unlock such a system unless it had a bug, and any system can have bugs...
You can easily make the unlocking process require physical access and/or a physical connection to another device.
A social engineering attack is highly unlikely to guide users through a complex procedure either...
The Google Nexus phones, and phones from vendors such as HTC have the right idea... They are locked by default, but can be unlocked by users who are capable of following the procedure.
Most users never will, but for those of us who want to an option is available for us. Also when these devices become old and unsupported, they can be reinstalled with new open source software and continue to be useful devices.
Hardware which is completely locked is destined to become landfill as soon as the software vendor drops support, and how soon that happens depends on all kinds of factors... If windows/arm isn't very successful, MS could drop support for it entirely in a year or two (just like they did for windows/mips and windows/ppc, anyone remember those?) and then you'd be left with a useless lump with hardly any apps and an os that will never be updated or have any security fixes.
No, only server software needs to be written this way and most of it already is.
And you don't necessarily need client-server management service, you can always manually edit the configuration files or produce a gui which parses and generates configuration files.
Not secured behind NAT, hidden behind NAT...
NAT, and firewalls in general encourage laziness. If you put a machine on a fully open internet connection then you need to make sure it's appropriately configured or someone will get onto it. On the other hand, if its hidden then the chances of it being found are greatly diminished, but not eliminated.
All it takes is for one pinhole through, and all your hidden machines are easy pickings... Someone bringing malware onto the internal network, a vulnerable service you've explicitly allowed through, a configuration error (all too easy with things like upnp about), exploitation of a client application such as a web browser.
If your machines are built properly then the fact someone has compromised one of them shouldn't necessarily put other machines at any greater risk.
Far too many people consider a firewall to be the only line of defense... When properly used, a firewall should be an extra line of defense alongside properly hardened boxes.
That "easier to use than the competitors" aspect of their marketing has also been a serious downside too...
They convince the customers that competent (read: expensive) admin staff are not necessary and that anyone can do it, so people believe the marketing and hire the cheapest people they can. The end result is that such people may be able to keep a windows network limping along, but they won't do a very good job of it and you will end up with major security and stability problems which then gives the product a bad name...
And windows has an absolutely terrible reputation for security and stability, due in part to this method of marketing.
Windows is _NOT_ easy to use, it's actually far more complex than any unix based system although most basic tasks can be accomplished without being exposed to the underlying complexity...
The same is also true of unix, where there are many appliance-type interfaces that expose some functionality in a simple way and there are millions of linux based appliances out there where the user has no idea that linux is running underneath... But, you wouldn't hire someone who "knows how to make calls on an android phone" to admin a network of linux servers.
Potentially a massive saving in the datacenter, a saving you could have been realising for many years now if you'd used non windows servers.
Infact, unix (and vms) servers without videocards have been available since before windows even existed at all.
It's not just the extra memory and cpu used, but the diskspace wasted by having the gui software present on disk... Then you also have to consider the fact that extra software means extra locations where security holes could reside, and therefore extra files that have to have security patches applied etc...
300mb and however much disk space may not be a lot on a single dedicated server, but it soon adds up...
Consider a VM environment where you have a large number of virtual servers running on a single physical box, that wasted memory is now multiplied by the number of virtual instances you have.
Also a VM doesn't have real video ram, it has to emulate it using system memory... So you have a virtual framebuffer sitting there displaying a graphical login prompt...
Also if you have an OS that cannot boot without a videocard fitted, then you have to include one in all of your servers... It will consume power, waste an expansion slot, and cost money... Not a big deal for one server, but soon adds up over a large number.
It does install the UI layer, it just doesn't install many of the actual gui programs, the actual UI itself is still there.
As somebody who did this for 10 years, let me tell you it's not a good idea as a permanent solution for most people. I only do it now if my early morning meetings leave me in my PJs at lunchtime. Some flexibility is good, but it does disrupt communications.
I currently work from home most of the time, and combined with generally flexible hours it works out much better for me.
I save a lot of money that it would cost me to commute and buy lunch...
I save approximately 3 hours/day that would be spent doing unproductive travelling..
I can actually concentrate at home, the office is noisy and full of distractions.
I have a comfortable seat at home, not so much in the office.
I avoid unpleasant travel, which not only wastes time but is tiring and results in me generally arriving at work sweaty and disgusting.
I take less time off sick, there have been some instances where i felt too ill to travel (risk of imminent vomit) but had no trouble sitting at home infront of a laptop.
As somebody who works with colleagues in Shanghai and California, as much overlap of working hours as possible is a good idea.
If all 3 locations weren't obsessively sticking to the 9-5 regime, then it would be much easier to arrange overlapping hours.
When our office in the Soho was closed recently, I would have quit if forced to travel to the other office outside London. Even SE1 is a bit disappointing.
Depends where you live, travelling across london is especially painful because all the transport is geared up for getting you to the centre...
I would refuse too if I had a stupid commute or had to drive. This is why I live in cycling distance and 25km/day is good for my health. Bonus!
As someone else pointed out, heavy breathing while cycling along roads and inhaling lots of diesel particulates is not good...
Cycling in london is very dangerous.
It's often difficult even to find somewhere to park a bike, and it might get vandalised or stolen.
Housing within 12.5km of central london or other business districts like canary wharf is generally either very small, very expensive or in a nasty area... I have looked and couldn't find anything nice.
If i could live within a short enough distance of the office, and with suitable cycle lanes in between i would happily cycle or walk to work...
Yes, transport in general in the UK is a mess...
As was reported recently, trains cost massively more in the UK than in other european countries, and if you live outside of a large city public transport is even worse or may be entirely lacking.
Concorde cut the journey time to new york in half, and yet it's no longer flying... Faster transport isn't whats needed, we need to decrease distances, decrease congestion and most importantly decrease the need to travel.
Encourage home working... Most office jobs can be done from anywhere with an internet connection and phoneline...
Stagger working hours - don't have everyone travel in for 9am, that just causes mass congestion at specific times and creates a horrendously inefficient transport system where the extra capacity to handle peak traffic is simply wasted at other times. Many staff never need to interact directly with third parties and so have no reason to be at work 9-5.
Convince businesses to get over this stupid obsession of having offices in central london (or other large cities), it doesn't make your company look prestigious it just increases costs and hinders your recruitment process because people are put off by the horrendous commute and will usually demand more money for working there. Instead, build your offices in small business parks located outside the centre of cities, not only are these considerably cheaper but there is generally affordable housing within a short distance. I personally have turned down several job offers that required commuting to central london.
Cookery is different...
Sure, most people will never be michelin starred chefs no matter how many cookery lessons you expose them to, but people should be capable of preparing themselves a basic meal from fresh ingredients.
People with absolutely no idea how to even prepare the most basic of meals are part of the reason obesity is such a problem, these people simply buy ready prepared fast food as they get bigger and bigger.
With cookery it's not about teaching vocation skills they will use to make a living, its about teaching basic skills that they will use throughout their lives... After all, everyone has to eat.
And for cookery, the school should supply the necessary equipment and ingredients. I had to sit out cookery classes in school because i never had the requested ingredients. Being a kid i couldn't go out and buy them myself, i had to rely on my parents to provide them and they never bothered to do so.
In the same way that algebra is basically a vocational class...
Only basic levels of mathematics can be considered a fundamental skill... Most of what they teach will be of absolutely no use whatsoever to most people during their adult lives.
Same in the UK, they don't start until secondary school (equivalent of high school i guess), and are pretty basic (Teaching you how to order a cup of coffee in french or german)... And you will almost never encounter the language you learn anywhere but school.
In other countries where the primary language is not english, then english is generally taught in schools at quite an early age and is likely to be encountered regularly through the internet and on television...
People from Holland tend to speak very good english because most of the shows on tv are in english with dutch subtitles, teaching them both the meaning and (usually american) pronunciation of the words in an environment that's actually interesting for them...
A classroom is a terrible place to learn anything, you have a dull rigid environment which causes you to mentally switch off, combined with other kids who are there by force not choice and who can easily disrupt anyone who is actually trying to learn.