Just do all your homework and you'll get an A+. It's a non-linear relationship, do 50% of your homework (every second assigned problem) and you'll get a B+. Do 25% of your homework and you'll get a C+.
When I started Calculus 1, my professor told the class that everyone has a level of 'lazy competence' - a certain point in their mathematical education to up to which they can get by without really doing the homework or hitting the books. When they hit that level, suddenly they have to stay on top of the material or risk failure. She told us that for most people, that level was the beginning of college-level math.
...In that entire year of Calculus, I did maybe 5% of the recommended homework (liberal estimate), and I got straight A's.:-)
In Soviet Russia, ad clicks YOU!...Sorry, couldn't resist. Actually, I could, but if you say something like "I couldn't resist", it automatically absolves you of all blame for following a hackneyed/. cliche.
Sincerest apologies for the interruption. Please continue with the stunningly fruitful discussion that I'm sure was going on somewhere in these comments.
Your 'joke' holds a grain of truth - it's a simple fact that a sterile environment leads to weak humans; lack of exposure impairs immunity. Diseases such as asthma and hay fever owe their rise in prominence to the dramatic increases in hygene during the last century or so. Still a good trade for the black plague, though.
Did anyone else notice that in that screenshot, the window title reads simply "Computer"? Whatever happened to "My Computer"? Trusted Computing's first semantic manifestation, perhaps? I think I'm scared now.
When the fraternity Lambda Chi Alpha measured the Harvard Bridge in Boston with the body of MIT freshman Oliver Smoot, the length was determined to be 'exactly 364.4 Smoots plus or minus an ear'. Obviously they know what's going on.
I personally find it interesting how such vast wodges of resources are being allocated to the cause of increased security for commercial airliners, when there is another venue of attack of equally devastating potential. Any terrorist who is not an idiot would be wary of attempting to hijack a passenger-carrying airliner, for two very compelling reasons: 1) vastly increased security, and 2) drastically altered passenger psychology. Setting aside for a moment the multifarious (and often legitimate) debates concerning the effectiveness of many of these new security measures, it cannot be denied that scrutiny, at least, has increased dramatically. The other, equally important factor is the passengers; as mentioned previously herein by other esteemed/.ers, nobody is going to allow a plane to be hijacked without resistance. Indeed, we've seen already that it works; the fourth jet hijacked on 9/11 never found its target because the passengers decided to resist; it was a heroic move that cost them their lives but saved probably hundreds (and maybe thousands) more. I think the only reason any terrorist would ever try this method again is for the not-insignificant fear factor; as mentioned before in this discussion, it would be most embarrassing and frightening to have another incident of similar nature occur despite all efforts to the contrary.
The other method, to which I alluded previously, is, I think, oft overlooked. It is a simple fact that airplanes used for the transit solely of cargo are almost entirely unprotected. Nothing more than a chain-link fence stands between any ill-intentioned person and a very large, fully-fueled airplane. These planes have small crews, and to my knowledge, no effort has been made in the last two years to increase their security; no reinforced cabin doors, no additional security personnel, not even a taller fence! I have surveyed the condition of cargo planes at a major international airport, and have verified this personally. A capable and careful person would have little trouble compromising the security of one of these installations. Granted, there are difficulties involved with this approach not associated with a commercial airliner: for one, there is not a large flux of people to and from these planes, so any such activity would be immediately suspect if detected. However, I believe this is a serious threat, and should be addressed. I'm all for well-placed, well-intended, and above all, well-executed programs for increasing security; but the best screen door in the world won't keep the flies out if you leave the back window open.
Perhaps we won't see any improvements in this area until something happens to impel serious change. It seems to underscore the reactionary nature of what I will collectively refer to as our "security policy". Until something happens, nobody seems to care (that is to say, not enough people pay attention). Once something does occur, it is quickly met with panic, fear, and disorganization; blind fear is a terrible impetus for anything, and I do not think our current administration is above using such fear for their own political gain...
Thats the exact same choice our founding fathers had to make, and quite frankly if you're quest for liberty is so easily traded in on the mere threat to your life you don't deserve to be free.
Benjamin Franklin sums up this sentiment pretty well:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Slashdot Mirror
When I started Calculus 1, my professor told the class that everyone has a level of 'lazy competence' - a certain point in their mathematical education to up to which they can get by without really doing the homework or hitting the books. When they hit that level, suddenly they have to stay on top of the material or risk failure. She told us that for most people, that level was the beginning of college-level math.
In Soviet Russia, ad clicks YOU! ...Sorry, couldn't resist. Actually, I could, but if you say something like "I couldn't resist", it automatically absolves you of all blame for following a hackneyed /. cliche.
Sincerest apologies for the interruption. Please continue with the stunningly fruitful discussion that I'm sure was going on somewhere in these comments.
Your 'joke' holds a grain of truth - it's a simple fact that a sterile environment leads to weak humans; lack of exposure impairs immunity. Diseases such as asthma and hay fever owe their rise in prominence to the dramatic increases in hygene during the last century or so. Still a good trade for the black plague, though.
Did anyone else notice that in that screenshot, the window title reads simply "Computer"? Whatever happened to "My Computer"? Trusted Computing's first semantic manifestation, perhaps? I think I'm scared now.
When the fraternity Lambda Chi Alpha measured the Harvard Bridge in Boston with the body of MIT freshman Oliver Smoot, the length was determined to be 'exactly 364.4 Smoots plus or minus an ear'. Obviously they know what's going on.
Hey, don't forget that this is slashdot. If trimbach hadn't called that, I was about to. ;)
That comes out to 1.25x10^11 inches, 1.0416x10^10 feet, 1.7361x10^9 fathoms, 3.75x10^11 barleycorns, or about four gallons.
I personally find it interesting how such vast wodges of resources are being allocated to the cause of increased security for commercial airliners, when there is another venue of attack of equally devastating potential. Any terrorist who is not an idiot would be wary of attempting to hijack a passenger-carrying airliner, for two very compelling reasons: 1) vastly increased security, and 2) drastically altered passenger psychology. Setting aside for a moment the multifarious (and often legitimate) debates concerning the effectiveness of many of these new security measures, it cannot be denied that scrutiny, at least, has increased dramatically. The other, equally important factor is the passengers; as mentioned previously herein by other esteemed /.ers, nobody is going to allow a plane to be hijacked without resistance. Indeed, we've seen already that it works; the fourth jet hijacked on 9/11 never found its target because the passengers decided to resist; it was a heroic move that cost them their lives but saved probably hundreds (and maybe thousands) more. I think the only reason any terrorist would ever try this method again is for the not-insignificant fear factor; as mentioned before in this discussion, it would be most embarrassing and frightening to have another incident of similar nature occur despite all efforts to the contrary.
The other method, to which I alluded previously, is, I think, oft overlooked. It is a simple fact that airplanes used for the transit solely of cargo are almost entirely unprotected. Nothing more than a chain-link fence stands between any ill-intentioned person and a very large, fully-fueled airplane. These planes have small crews, and to my knowledge, no effort has been made in the last two years to increase their security; no reinforced cabin doors, no additional security personnel, not even a taller fence! I have surveyed the condition of cargo planes at a major international airport, and have verified this personally. A capable and careful person would have little trouble compromising the security of one of these installations. Granted, there are difficulties involved with this approach not associated with a commercial airliner: for one, there is not a large flux of people to and from these planes, so any such activity would be immediately suspect if detected. However, I believe this is a serious threat, and should be addressed. I'm all for well-placed, well-intended, and above all, well-executed programs for increasing security; but the best screen door in the world won't keep the flies out if you leave the back window open.
Perhaps we won't see any improvements in this area until something happens to impel serious change. It seems to underscore the reactionary nature of what I will collectively refer to as our "security policy". Until something happens, nobody seems to care (that is to say, not enough people pay attention). Once something does occur, it is quickly met with panic, fear, and disorganization; blind fear is a terrible impetus for anything, and I do not think our current administration is above using such fear for their own political gain...
Benjamin Franklin sums up this sentiment pretty well:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.