First, universities, unlike the taxpayers, suffer no financial consequences when the underqualified students they have lured into their academic programs ultimately default on their loans.
"lured"? Kind of showing their bias, aren't they?
Second, students who study six years but ultimately drop out receive more financial aid than the diligent "A" student graduating in three years: We reward mediocrity and punish excellence.
How is getting something done in half the time a punishment?
Again, there's quite a bit of bias showing in that article.
Third, there is no adjustment of student-loan interest-rate terms to meet market conditions or differing risk factors relating to individual repayment prospects.
So they're pushing for different interest rates depending upon your major?
Fuck that! How about some GRANTS for people in the hard sciences?
Fourth, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form, associated with these programs, aside from being unbearably complex, gives colleges private information about family finances that allows them to gouge students more.
Stick to a single point in each point, okay? Either they're "unbearably complex" or they give too much information about family finances.
Fifth, colleges' tuition and fee policies drive the amount of loan volume, rather than the other way around, thus contributing to the college-cost explosion and the subsequent academic arms race.
What "academic arms race"?
TFA needs an editor who is not looking to grind the same ax as the author.
Until we apply a modicum of science to determining what vectors cause drug abuse in society, all we're doing is inventing new ways to fill prisons.
There are a lot of "for profit" prisons being run by corporations. So generating more inmates may be a goal. More inmates mean more revenues for those corporations.
And this is an easy way for politicians to appear "tough on crime" when they need election points.
Might as well bring down that server - if there happened to be patients died as a result, it's not your fault either, it's the fault of the hospital IT staff that let their server to be compromised
Good luck with that in court. I'm sure the judge and jury will completely understand your need to risk the lives of patients because you wanted to.
After all, if you were competent then you'd be able to block the attacks or at the very least mitigate/ameliorate any possible damage from them.
You mean, the attacker using a server in the hospital to attack you is okay, but it's not okay when you retaliate ?
I mean that if a patient dies because of the cracker then it isn't your concern.
But if a patient dies because YOU decided to take out that server... enjoy your stay at the Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison.
If your system is compromised you do not have the right to have it keep running and attacking people. That is the responsibility any node on the network holds inherently.
That's a great idea right up until it is a server in a hospital that is being used for the attack.
More like, if someone is assaulting you you should be able to punch back just as hard, or hard enough to make them stop.
No. I'm going to have to go with the other post:
Equal to "If someone breaks into your home, you should be able to break into their home."
And not just that but also a house you THINK belongs to the attacker when it is just one that the attacker is using.
Make sure you have off site backups of everything needed to reconstruct your network.
After that it really doesn't matter. Either you can move everything out in time or you cannot. If you cannot then you move the people and forget the gear.
Just like in the fire drills for almost every other company out there.
1. How are the criminals getting the guns? They probably are not buying the guns through a licensed gun dealer themselves.
2. If someone else is selling guns to criminals, is there a way to find out who that is? Maybe this laser micro etching will help in certain instances. Probably not many, though.
3. If the guns were stolen from a legitimate owner, is there a way to check the plausibility of that? Probably. Most legitimate owners do not have their guns stolen repeatedly.
4. Is there a way to track the gun that was fired in a crime? Not really. This might help in certain instances. But probably not with career criminals.
So, it looks like this might (emphasis on "might") help in a sub-set of instances and be totally useless in "career criminal" cases.
If it does not cause any damage to the gun and does not increase the price then I'd have no problem with this.
But I understand people who DO have a problem with it. They're worried that the government will mandate that ALL guns be marked this way. Without any "grandfathering".
When person X find out person Y makes 10K more / year then them, for "the same job", they will want that 10K more as well - even if they do not deserve it, either because they do not have the same level of experience or because they simply are not a good performer in their job.
No. The problem happens when the less experienced person managed to sell himself as worth MORE than the more experienced person.
Companies need to focus more on what skills are needed at what levels and how to test those skills.
Why would you have a problem with someone at a higher grade making more than you if you know what skills you'll need to work on to get to that grade?
Right now we have testing centers for vendor-specific certifications.
Run the classes on-line for whatever price. Those who just want to learn can stop there. Those who want a degree can pay to take the tests at the testing centers.
For more complex tests either offer them in central locations or have traveling test sites. These would be more expensive than the other tests, but probably a LOT cheaper than the current model.
But "science" also deals with the realm of things that cannot be immediately verified and confirmed or refuted by (easy) experimentation.
That does not matter. As long as the theories explain the available observations and are falsifiable.
Ideally the theories should suggest experiments that can be used to falsify them. Whether or not these experiments are possible to perform is another issue.
No one has in their lifetime, seen an organism give birth to a distinctly different organism (when 2 of the same organisms have mated), for example, no one has seen 2 cats mate and then give birth to a dog.
Of course not. That would be evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong.
Spammers and phishers and people trying to make a quick dollar off of renting room on the gTLD used by spammers and phishers.
Do you think whomever owns.bank will be able to tell a "real" bank from a phisher?
Or that they will even care after the real banks start informing their customers that they do NOT have a YourBankName.bank domain and not to trust anything claiming to be from them from that gTLD.
That is too much non-specific not enough cash being paid to me.
Now you'll be going to domain.tickets for your ticketing needs.
In your example the user would need to know which domain to go to while in the new paradigm the user will only need to know what domain to go to. Much more efficient. Particularly since I did not have the funding/foresight to buy tickets.com when it was available.
On a less ridiculous note, I can see the ".web" gTLD but the others are just STUPID..vodka ?.restaurant ?.doctor ?
"Students shouldn't go to school and wonder if they turn on the light, is it going to dim the light in another room?" she said.
Trust me. They won't even consider that possibility. It's only a problem when it affects them.
Students also need to have access to broadband outside school, Fox said. "Students need to be able to leave school without wondering, 'Can I watch my teacher's algebra video when I get home?'" she said.
And that is the core problem.
The report, called " The Broadband Imperative," further suggests that schools should upgrade their networks to support speeds of 1Gbps per 1,000 users in five years.
Do they have any idea what the price is for that kind of Internet connection?
Most of the people who want Internet service probably already have it.
If you're looking at consolidating that then you'd want to talk to a network engineer. That person would be able to tell you what your options were (wireless between floors probably won't work well) and how much to expect to pay for them and what kind of throughput to you will likely see.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
"lured"? Kind of showing their bias, aren't they?
How is getting something done in half the time a punishment?
Again, there's quite a bit of bias showing in that article.
So they're pushing for different interest rates depending upon your major?
Fuck that! How about some GRANTS for people in the hard sciences?
Stick to a single point in each point, okay? Either they're "unbearably complex" or they give too much information about family finances.
What "academic arms race"?
TFA needs an editor who is not looking to grind the same ax as the author.
There are a lot of "for profit" prisons being run by corporations. So generating more inmates may be a goal. More inmates mean more revenues for those corporations.
And this is an easy way for politicians to appear "tough on crime" when they need election points.
Non-fiction.
Written by the self-proclaimed "Anti-Christ of Silicon Valley".
Focusing on "Web 3.0".
Why would I care what the anti-christ of Silicon Valley has to say about Web 3.0?
At what point is parody indistinguishable from self-aggrandizement?
Good luck with that in court. I'm sure the judge and jury will completely understand your need to risk the lives of patients because you wanted to.
After all, if you were competent then you'd be able to block the attacks or at the very least mitigate/ameliorate any possible damage from them.
I mean that if a patient dies because of the cracker then it isn't your concern.
But if a patient dies because YOU decided to take out that server ... enjoy your stay at the Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison.
That's a great idea right up until it is a server in a hospital that is being used for the attack.
No. I'm going to have to go with the other post:
And not just that but also a house you THINK belongs to the attacker when it is just one that the attacker is using.
If the script-kiddie knows anything at all he'll be attacking from a zombie he's already "owned".
I think this is more sensationalism than fact.
Make sure you have off site backups of everything needed to reconstruct your network.
After that it really doesn't matter. Either you can move everything out in time or you cannot. If you cannot then you move the people and forget the gear.
Just like in the fire drills for almost every other company out there.
That is awesome!
Instead of losing a copy of your data when you fire an employee, you lose complete access to your data when you "fire" the cloud provider.
Or when they fire you by jacking up the rates so much that your company profits go to their company.
I love it!
Really there are multiple issues.
1. How are the criminals getting the guns?
They probably are not buying the guns through a licensed gun dealer themselves.
2. If someone else is selling guns to criminals, is there a way to find out who that is?
Maybe this laser micro etching will help in certain instances. Probably not many, though.
3. If the guns were stolen from a legitimate owner, is there a way to check the plausibility of that?
Probably. Most legitimate owners do not have their guns stolen repeatedly.
4. Is there a way to track the gun that was fired in a crime?
Not really. This might help in certain instances. But probably not with career criminals.
So, it looks like this might (emphasis on "might") help in a sub-set of instances and be totally useless in "career criminal" cases.
If it does not cause any damage to the gun and does not increase the price then I'd have no problem with this.
But I understand people who DO have a problem with it. They're worried that the government will mandate that ALL guns be marked this way. Without any "grandfathering".
Except that once you go down that route EVERYTHING becomes a "weapon" and the term "weapon" becomes meaningless (since it means everything).
And while "weapon" CAN mean something else, the term that more correctly describes that action is "vandalism".
Where's the profit for the cracker in a dead machine?
But if that machine can be turned into a zombie ... lots of money making opportunities.
The problem I have with the "cyber weapons" terminology is that they are weapons which do not kill anyone. Not that that is a bad thing.
But it places them more in the "vandalism" category rather than than the "weapon" category.
Now it may be technologically advanced vandalism delivered by double agents ... but it's still just vandalism.
The same as pouring sugar into gasoline tanks would be.
It's broken even without needing someone to write malware that abuses it.
Have you interacted with some of the people on the Internet? They're fucking insane already.
Giving them an opportunity to flag anything they disagree with for "governmental review" would result in them flagging just about everything.
I spent 7 years in the Army.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp
I knew how much each of my co-workers was making.
There wasn't a problem with that.
No. The problem happens when the less experienced person managed to sell himself as worth MORE than the more experienced person.
Companies need to focus more on what skills are needed at what levels and how to test those skills.
Why would you have a problem with someone at a higher grade making more than you if you know what skills you'll need to work on to get to that grade?
Right now we have testing centers for vendor-specific certifications.
Run the classes on-line for whatever price.
Those who just want to learn can stop there.
Those who want a degree can pay to take the tests at the testing centers.
For more complex tests either offer them in central locations or have traveling test sites. These would be more expensive than the other tests, but probably a LOT cheaper than the current model.
If you are ever in a position to negotiate a raise for yourself then it will be useful.
Such as if you are interviewing for a new job.
Or during performance evaluations.
That does not matter. As long as the theories explain the available observations and are falsifiable.
Ideally the theories should suggest experiments that can be used to falsify them. Whether or not these experiments are possible to perform is another issue.
Of course not. That would be evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong.
Actually, with politics there are as many sides as there are people involved in the discussion.
The same with religion.
They may agree on very broad concepts, but each one of them knows that s/he is right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong.
That is because those are OPINIONS.
Science is not based upon opinions.
Science is based upon theories that have to be falsifiable.
Spammers and phishers and people trying to make a quick dollar off of renting room on the gTLD used by spammers and phishers.
Do you think whomever owns .bank will be able to tell a "real" bank from a phisher?
Or that they will even care after the real banks start informing their customers that they do NOT have a YourBankName.bank domain and not to trust anything claiming to be from them from that gTLD.
That is too much non-specific not enough cash being paid to me.
Now you'll be going to domain.tickets for your ticketing needs.
In your example the user would need to know which domain to go to while in the new paradigm the user will only need to know what domain to go to. Much more efficient. Particularly since I did not have the funding/foresight to buy tickets.com when it was available.
On a less ridiculous note, I can see the ".web" gTLD but the others are just STUPID. .vodka ? .restaurant ? .doctor ?
I think the fact that someone mod'ed that "Insightful" is all the evidence needed to contradict the USA Today story.
From TFA:
Trust me. They won't even consider that possibility. It's only a problem when it affects them.
And that is the core problem.
Do they have any idea what the price is for that kind of Internet connection?
I'd be looking at huge caching servers first.
Most of the people who want Internet service probably already have it.
If you're looking at consolidating that then you'd want to talk to a network engineer. That person would be able to tell you what your options were (wireless between floors probably won't work well) and how much to expect to pay for them and what kind of throughput to you will likely see.
Will only people who repeat government propaganda have the high scores?
If your score is above 75, you're probably a government propagandist.
Four servers is a nerd's basement.
Wouldn't you need something like 4 racks full of servers? Running something like seti@home or distributed.net?
In its own building.