My experience during undergrad was that at least half of the people with laptops were just using them to watch youtube or do something unrelated to class. Another ~10% or so were doing their homework/projects (possibly from other classes) during lectures. The rest were actively taking notes.
The students who were watching youtube/facebook, etc were indeed distracting. I usually tried to avoid sitting behind laptops to avoid this problem, but banning laptops just isn't fair to the students who want to use them legitimately. There have been times where laptops have really added to classes (looking up facts mainly).
Therefore I propose a solution: All laptop users should sit in the back rows of the class, unless there is a legitimate reason for someone to not sit back there (eyesight or hearing difficulties). This makes it less likely for the people who are just screwing around to distract other students.
That, my friends, is security.
That is also why only Jews (who are not subject to the same harassment after their religious credentials are established), those who have no other choice whatsoever and non-Jewish masochists fly to Israel.
There is also that wee problem that this procedure reeks of the worst days of the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany, but then again those of us who remember this quaint concept of individual liberties and how wars were fought over what is now being given away on a mere remote possibility of harm, seem to be going extinct.
You just had to go and bring Godwin into this, didn't you..
In fact, establishing your religious credentials does NOT give you a free pass! I'm Jewish, and have flown to Israel. They do ask you some religion related questions, but those would be easy for anyone with an internet connection to fake. They always go further in depth.
But thanks for spreading the rumor that Jews get special treatment. I'm not going to accuse you of antisemitism, but do try to take your head out of your ass.
Which is exactly why you will never see anything more than an expert system in space. There is no way any space agency is going to punt hundreds of millions or euros/dollars/pounds into space without a full understanding of the decision tree in the spacecraft control loop. It is hard enough at the moment without introducing outliers into the system.
Insightful? This is flat out wrong, by over 10 years now! See: Planning in interplanetary space: Theory and practice (A Jonsson, P Morris, N Muscettola, K Rajan, B Smith). This group of scientists from NASA Ames and the JPL used AI planning as part of the Deep Space One mission.
From the very first line of the paper's abstract:
On May 17th 1999, NASA activated for the first time an AI-based planner/scheduler running on the flight processor of a spacecraft.
And note that since 1999, much more work has been done in using AI planning (and perhaps other techniques) in space.
We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption -- proven throughout all our activity in the Land -- that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.
Go fuck yourself.
The entire idea of rising up violently against a democratically elected government because you disagree with it has a major problem: What do you replace that government with? If you replace it with a democracy, the electorate is just going to elect someone you don't like again with good probability. Your only option is to replace it with a dictatorship, in which case you've definitely not made things better.
No, violence against the government simply isn't justified unless it is no longer a democracy. And at the moment, the US remains very much a democracy, and a rather vibrant one. Sure, there are problems -- incumbent Congressmen seem to last way longer than they should in Congress, and it would be nice to have more choices than just 2 parties. But ultimately the elections are fair, and you have the freedom to try to convince people that there is another way. In fact, a call to violence is an obvious refusal to take part in a democratic process, one that I will not join in regardless of how many people take part.
No, violence isn't the answer. The answer is education and eliminating voter apathy. Too many voters are simply too ignorant of the facts. And I realize the right-wing partisans will accuse the liberals of being stupid, and the left wing partisans will accuse the same of the conservatives. The problem is that for the most part they are right. Ignorance has nothing constructive to offer in the political discourse of our nation -- all it provides is screaming, hyperbole, ad-hominem attacks, but worst of all: loyalty. Loyalty to the party leaders who perpetuate this madness.
So go forth and fight for change, but not with guns; show people how to think rationally, how to question society and the world. And even more important, how to debate an issue without demonizing the opponent as a terrorist/socialist/.
This is just grandstanding by a politician running for office.
You can claim grandstanding all you want, but those of us from CT know that Richard Blumenthal goes up against corporations from all around the US all the time. Sometimes they get picked up by the media more than others, but this really ins't anything out of the ordinary for him.
And you can like him or hate him for that, I'll keep this post apolitical, but this is just not unusual for him.
FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.