As a high school math tutor for one of the large national test prep companies, I can say with complete certainty that even when the "box" is replaced with a variable name, students still do this. I find that it's not so much that they don't grasp that the = symbol means equality as much as that they don't realize what equality means.

If I give a problem like:

f(x) = 2x + 7
g(x) = sqrt( f(x) )*5

Many students can solve this problem; a good portion of them just understand "oh, I do a substitution" - they don't understand fully that the equality of a variable with some expression is WHY their answer is correct. Similarly, something like: 3/15 = x/225 Most students get thsi right; "oh, I just cross-multiply" - but they don't understand WHY cross-multiplication is the correct thing to do. Teachers need to start teaching real math in addition to problem solving methods and heuristics.

They explain that Faraday had a severe memory problem (probably due to stuffing all that science in his skull) - hence the excessive notebook use.

But when will they finally add Saibot?

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords... In soviet Russia, Pirate Bay buys you!... I pay for my music, games and video, you insensitive CLOD!... All your Bay are belong to us... And on a separate note, the "Cowboy Neal" option is missing! Come on guys, you're dropping the ball!

... welcome our new corporate overlords

I hope you're ready to open a Slashdot rehabilitation clinic in Korea...

I would say "I guess I had it coming" if I chose my zip code as my password or made all of my "security questions" have answers that people could glean from a phonebook (or my facebook page).

I'm not trying to say that what he did was right. It was highly amusing, but terribly wrong, unethical and illegal. However, I think there should be a legal distinction between the willful hacking of computer systems (via intentional backdoors, security holes, malware, viruses/worms or password dictionary attacks) and guessing someone's password correctly, as there is a potential for huge differences in intent (which is relevant to most crimes in our legal system).

Even with murder, if you plan your crime in advance and take steps to put your plan into action, the crime is considered more severe than if you were to suddenly decide to kill someone as a "crime of passion." I'd argue that a similar distinction can be made between intentional electronic vandalism/espionage and casual password-guessing.