I know about UoP, I almost registered with them (the bastards had the nerve to call me at work!) last year as a way for me to go to college and still work the hours I was working.
As for schools being for-profit, unless your a K-12 school, it doesn't pay to be a public college. Look at the budget problems my state (Tennessee) is having, causing the U's to talk about raising tuition. It just makes good business sense to be for profit in the education sector.
Granted, I also don't expect the government to take care of everything, either. It's just not possible anymore (if it ever was).
...or do I see a "Bubba's School for Making Porn" getting bubba-pr0n-school.edu right around the corner?
Then again, I think all schools of higher learning are for-profit. Some just know how to spend every bit of it so they don't actually have to report earning anything.
Re:One question about this article
on
File-sharing and AOL
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
AOL not/having a stance IS news because it's AOL Time Warner. It's the largest ISP AND media company. It has a lot to lose on either side of the fence. If users knew their info was being given up on possibly trumped up charges of illegal file-sharing based on a non-judge issued subpeona then they lose most if not all of their customers who really care about their privacy. On the other hand they have to protect the interest of copyright holders they represent (e.g. RIAA and MPAA members. So while I can understand how one might think AOL not stating their position on way or another is just filler news, I also can't understand how one can comment without actually reading the 4 page article.
Personally I think, as a former AOhelL subscriber, that AOL's public non-stance speaks as loudly as if they had taken a stance one way or another on the Verizon case, which is the reason AOL has a non-stance in this article.
I'm not sure how it is with other companies (although I'm sure it's similar elsewhere) NDA's are only there to protect company secrets, of which internal policy isn't (at least to my knowledge it isn't). In the NDA I signed for Dell, I agreed for the duration of employment (and for two years after employment ended) that I would not disclose any knowledge I may have in how they manufacture computers. I've not worked for Dell since September of '99 so I can freely talk about everything I saw in there, how they did stuff etc. without breaking my NDA (not that I would, there's no point).
Granted if internal policy is covered in the NDA (e.g. don't discuss it) then the submitter of the article is indeed breaking that NDA. Personally I wouldn't sign a damn thing until I'm told EVERYTHING that I have to sign. With Dell I was told before an offer was made that I'd have to submit to a drug test and sign an NDA, both I was fine with because I don't do drugs and I never intended on selling/discussing Dell's trade secrets anyways (as I said earlier, no point).
When I was attending ITT Tech Institute back in '98 in Nashville, TN, AIM was disallowed because AOL started charging the school for us using their instant messenger program!
In the one I saw, this trucker is sitting in some road side greasy spoon cafe while his truck is terrorizing the roads without a driver (death truck, anyone?).
Yes, but the designers of the world trade center don't release products with potential weaknesses in the foundation or the building itself. MS does (e.g. releases flawed software).
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not a valid form of protest, but it sure as hell ain't legal, then again I don't think a bunch of old women getting nude and spelling out words with their nude bodies isn't legal either (at least it shouldn't be).
You know, since 9/11/2001 it seems that every attack of any kind has been labled an act of terrorism.
Those who start these DDoS attacks are seen less like your standard fare and labled TERRORISTs. I don't see them creating terror. Perhaps we should all take a look at this definition of terrorist from Merriam Webster:
One entry found for terrorism. Main Entry: terrorism Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m Function: noun Date: 1795 : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion - terrorist/-&r-ist/ adjective or noun - terroristic/"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Usama and his bunch are terrorists.
The people responsible for this attack are more akin to electronic warriors. Whether or not they are right in their methodology OR targets makes them no more and no less. Yes, they are criminals, but I really don't think any such attack against any company that experiences so many can be called a "random act of terror". It's more like a concerted effort to destroy said company.
Had they issued some sort of demand with a threat of physical violence, I'd change my opinion, but as it stands the people responsible are criminals/warriors.
Thank you. As a cancer survivor, this is of much interest to me. Now if only I can get some sort of medical insurance, I can start up on my yearly check ups.
"The last strike on Iraq caused the deaths of over half a million innocent civilians."
Please show me your proof.
As for integrating them into our own society, we barely have enough jobs to give our current citizenry, I somehow doubt we can afford to support a whole country.
Iraq has been bombed in one way or another almost every single day in the last few years.
I call them surgical strikes against military targets. Not the whole sale slaughter of civilians (ala WTC 9/11).
What most countries REALLY hate about us is that we do indeed have the power to go around bitch slapping the hell out of 99% of the world but we don't.
To a radical (of any nation) that's as much a hereasy as giving equal rights to the "lesser" skin colors or the "lesser" gender.
From the article: "The owner can instruct the robot to clean the room according to its preprogrammed path or, if the furniture has been moved, create a new map."
This is definitly on my Christmas wish list. I wonder if the software has a Linux port, or is it only Mac/Windows?
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting we /. the telephone switchboards?
Can they phone companies handle that?
This right on the heels of the Washington State ruling.
Very odd indeed.
I know about UoP, I almost registered with them (the bastards had the nerve to call me at work!) last year as a way for me to go to college and still work the hours I was working.
As for schools being for-profit, unless your a K-12 school, it doesn't pay to be a public college. Look at the budget problems my state (Tennessee) is having, causing the U's to talk about raising tuition. It just makes good business sense to be for profit in the education sector.
Granted, I also don't expect the government to take care of everything, either. It's just not possible anymore (if it ever was).
lol
;-)
I will definitly pay to see that.
...or do I see a "Bubba's School for Making Porn" getting bubba-pr0n-school.edu right around the corner?
Then again, I think all schools of higher learning are for-profit. Some just know how to spend every bit of it so they don't actually have to report earning anything.
AOL not/having a stance IS news because it's AOL Time Warner. It's the largest ISP AND media company. It has a lot to lose on either side of the fence. If users knew their info was being given up on possibly trumped up charges of illegal file-sharing based on a non-judge issued subpeona then they lose most if not all of their customers who really care about their privacy. On the other hand they have to protect the interest of copyright holders they represent (e.g. RIAA and MPAA members. So while I can understand how one might think AOL not stating their position on way or another is just filler news, I also can't understand how one can comment without actually reading the 4 page article.
Personally I think, as a former AOhelL subscriber, that AOL's public non-stance speaks as loudly as if they had taken a stance one way or another on the Verizon case, which is the reason AOL has a non-stance in this article.
I'm not sure how it is with other companies (although I'm sure it's similar elsewhere) NDA's are only there to protect company secrets, of which internal policy isn't (at least to my knowledge it isn't). In the NDA I signed for Dell, I agreed for the duration of employment (and for two years after employment ended) that I would not disclose any knowledge I may have in how they manufacture computers. I've not worked for Dell since September of '99 so I can freely talk about everything I saw in there, how they did stuff etc. without breaking my NDA (not that I would, there's no point).
Granted if internal policy is covered in the NDA (e.g. don't discuss it) then the submitter of the article is indeed breaking that NDA. Personally I wouldn't sign a damn thing until I'm told EVERYTHING that I have to sign. With Dell I was told before an offer was made that I'd have to submit to a drug test and sign an NDA, both I was fine with because I don't do drugs and I never intended on selling/discussing Dell's trade secrets anyways (as I said earlier, no point).
When I was attending ITT Tech Institute back in '98 in Nashville, TN, AIM was disallowed because AOL started charging the school for us using their instant messenger program!
And yes, they are really stupid. Hehe. :-)
In the one I saw, this trucker is sitting in some road side greasy spoon cafe while his truck is terrorizing the roads without a driver (death truck, anyone?).
"Of course, some would argue that we already have both."
You mean we don't already have both? OMG! *gets to copying all his CD's into OGG*
lol Now if only the DoD would prosecute MS and it's employee's as terrorists. ;-)
Yes, but the designers of the world trade center don't release products with potential weaknesses in the foundation or the building itself. MS does (e.g. releases flawed software).
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not a valid form of protest, but it sure as hell ain't legal, then again I don't think a bunch of old women getting nude and spelling out words with their nude bodies isn't legal either (at least it shouldn't be).
How the hell can you compare a network DDOS attack with anthrax? The two aren't even in the same LEAGUE. No one will die if the internet crashes!
I'd love to see the source of your definition. Come on, I gave mine, lets see yours.
You know, since 9/11/2001 it seems that every attack of any kind has been labled an act of terrorism.
/-&r-ist/ adjective or noun /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Those who start these DDoS attacks are seen less like your standard fare and labled TERRORISTs. I don't see them creating terror. Perhaps we should all take a look at this definition of terrorist from Merriam Webster:
One entry found for terrorism.
Main Entry: terrorism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- terrorist
- terroristic
Usama and his bunch are terrorists.
The people responsible for this attack are more akin to electronic warriors. Whether or not they are right in their methodology OR targets makes them no more and no less. Yes, they are criminals, but I really don't think any such attack against any company that experiences so many can be called a "random act of terror". It's more like a concerted effort to destroy said company.
Had they issued some sort of demand with a threat of physical violence, I'd change my opinion, but as it stands the people responsible are criminals/warriors.
the medicine insures you! ;-)
Thank you. As a cancer survivor, this is of much interest to me. Now if only I can get some sort of medical insurance, I can start up on my yearly check ups.
Are you insane?
"The last strike on Iraq caused the deaths of over half a million innocent civilians."
Please show me your proof.
As for integrating them into our own society, we barely have enough jobs to give our current citizenry, I somehow doubt we can afford to support a whole country.
Iraq has been bombed in one way or another almost every single day in the last few years.
I call them surgical strikes against military targets. Not the whole sale slaughter of civilians (ala WTC 9/11).
What most countries REALLY hate about us is that we do indeed have the power to go around bitch slapping the hell out of 99% of the world but we don't.
To a radical (of any nation) that's as much a hereasy as giving equal rights to the "lesser" skin colors or the "lesser" gender.
Ah. Thanks for the info. :-)
But how does that apply to this discussion? lol
Thanks. :-)
((Can someone tell my why my post was moderated as redundant?!))
Can these methods be used on traditional wired lans, or is the techniques different for spoofing on a wireless lan?
The robot commands you!
From the article:
"The owner can instruct the robot to clean the room according to its preprogrammed path or, if the furniture has been moved, create a new map."
This is definitly on my Christmas wish list. I wonder if the software has a Linux port, or is it only Mac/Windows?