What is described in that article does not match what you suggested.
The article has eligible people signing up for classes, getting the grant and then flunking out. 1 student at 1 school for 1 semester. They get a cut, but the person making the money is not the student, but the organizer. It looks like each student can only do this at 1 school per semester.
Correct. One person can only do this at one school per semester. But this isn't just one person. Quoting:
ABRAMSON: In a growing number of cases, the student drops out of school and splits the money with the ringleader. Kathy Tighe's team has already recovered over $7 million from 42 different fraud rings. But Tighe is convinced this kind of fraud is much bigger than that.
TIGHE: We received a recent referral from one school that potentially has 600 fraud rings with as many as 10,000 participants. That's huge.
What a great talking point. Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? Because there are actual laws, regulations, and all sorts of other fun things (like the fact that this money has to be paid back and can't be wiped out by bankruptcy) that make what you're suggesting completely implausible.
It's a bit like the old "Don't help the homeless, they're really all rich and slumming it" meme that was going around when I was in high school. A fun way to distract ourselves from real problems.
Sorry, I really should have provided my source. NPR ran a story less than 2 months ago about people doing this exact thing.
1: grant money takes time, you don't get it until half way through the semester. Long after nearly every school closes its late registration.
2: You can't get the same grant at multiple schools at the same time.
3: It is illegal to be enrolled in more than one school at a time (at least where I went).
Sorry, I really should have provided my source.
NPR ran a story less than 2 months ago about people doing this exact thing.
2: That's why they dropped out of the first school.
3: These people aren't enrolled at multiple schools at once, they drop out of one and enroll in another. And the fact that stealing is illegal isn't bothering them.
I'd say educating people is generally a good idea. Even if the money was a direct give-away..
There are actually people out there that sign up for college, get their grant money, drop out of college, and then repeat the same thing at another college a few miles away. I hope that's not what you mean by "direct give-away", but that's what's happening.
The powers of congress to mint coin still exists.. however you seem to be unaware that we now trade on Federal Reserve Notes, aka The U.S. Dollar, which the federal government does not have the power to print.
And you seem unaware of the fact that the Federal government created the Federal Reserve and appoints (pres) and confirms (senate) the governors of the Federal Reserve. Its independence lasts only as long as congress wants it to last.
They don't actually guarantee that your money will be available. And neither does the FDIC. The FDIC sort of promises you can get some of your money back, eventually, but how long eventually is, and whether or not your money has any worth if they have to go on a printing spree...
The FDIC can't go on a printing spree. I'm not sure if you're not familiar with the FDIC, or if you simply didn't provide the subject for your "they". It should read:
"The FDIC guarantees your bank deposits, but does not guarantee that the Federal Government that the FDIC is not a part of won't print money"
When they ask, what was the moment that the US gave up. This will be the moment we remember. NASA having to charter flights to space, from a Private Company. When was it that, We the People, finally Deep Throated Corporations. It was then.
Our priorities as a nation are completely screwed up.
You're saying it would be better if we put out bids to private companies to build us an identical space ship?
As a tax payer, I would prefer to pay for the use of a space vehicle, rather than the ownership of the space vehicle. NASA' should concentrate research, not shuttle maintenance.
When they ask, what was the moment that the US gave up. This will be the moment we remember. NASA having to charter flights to space, from a Private Company. When was it that, We the People, finally Deep Throated Corporations. It was then.
Our priorities as a nation are completely screwed up.
You're saying it would be better if we put out bids to private companies to build us an identical space ship?
As a tax payer, I would prefer to pay for the use of a space vehicle, rather than the ownership of the space vehicle. NASA' should concentrate research, not shuttle maintenance.
does it have a backdoor for big brother?
why should only business data get protection from thieves and the government?
ActiveSync policies don't connect to your phone, they just impose policies on the phone. The remote wipe doesn't work if the thief can shut off the active sync before you enable the remote wipe. You could get remote wipe too if you sign up for Office365's E1 plan and use ActiveSync with the service. I know, you probably don't want to give MS any money. But, the option is there, and it's a lot cheaper than buying your own Exchange server. My company just moved away from BPOS (previous version of Office365) due to availability issues, but if you're just a home user, the occasional outage probably isn't a deal-breaker.
Are you sure there are no remote wipe apps out there? I used to have a Firefox plugin that would do something similar, on my desktop.
VeriSign has shown sufficient avarice, maliciousness and incompetence on a sufficient number of occasions that it just baffles my mind that they didn't have it yanked years ago.
Do you have any assurance that someone else could do a better job? Better the devil you know...
MS is still the only one of these big three to have a committed interest in long-term research
MS does research? For real? I thought all they did was buy startups and competitors, some of which had done research in the past, or are winding down R+D after the purchase.
Please don't confuse research grants from the bill gates charitable foundation with "MS does long term research".
"Oh, Woops! How did that happen?! So sorry about that Google. Totally a mistake. Totally. Our bad, really."
Meanwhile some clueless user just switched back to IE.
So a couple of years ago when they accidentally flagged IE as a virus, you think the user switched to Chrome? And that was Microsoft's plan too?
I'm providing evidence that Java is slow, with a specific, real-world example. Apparently, that doesn't fit into your world-view, but you're entitled to your own delusions. Er, I mean, opinions.
Not any more. Really that is one of those myths that will never die. On a modern system Java will load up pretty dang fast. The browsers could also have an option to preload in the background using a thread if enough people where using Java to make it worth while.
I have a perfectly modern computer. I use HP Sitescope, which has a web interface. Version 9.5 is HTML based--and it's fast, even on a 5 year old 32 bit system. Click a link and the page loads in a quarter-second. I just installed Version 11.11, on a newer, 64 bit system. Version 11 has a java interface, and is takes 3 seconds to load each page--and it's must slower if I'm working remotely, instead of sitting in the same building. And I'm not counting the start-up time.
BIND was written by Douglas Terry, Mark Painter, David Riggle and Songnian Zhou in the early 1980s at the University of California, Berkeley as a result of a DARPA grant. Versions of BIND through 4.8.3 were maintained by the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at UC Berkeley.
Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief of lack. In that regards it is not a faith at all.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Agnostic's lack belief--or perhaps that they believe that there is not convincing evidence one way or another. Atheists believe in the absence of deity. Hence the term-- "A"-"theist"
The Civil Rights act of 1964 was put in place by a Democratic administration. Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats, not Republicans. Or else your accent prevents me from understanding what the crap you are talking about.
Why not read it yourself?
Votes:
The Senate version:[12]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
You'll notice that in both the house and the senate, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the bill, than did Democrats.
But if you have to renegotiate down to 1.0 because the server does not support it, you are still vulnerable.
Both browsers and servers should both be updated to support TLS 1.1 and 1.2, and both browsers and servers should negotiate the most secure, mutually supported protocols and cyphers.
Adding that support will take some time, and it will take years to lose the old clients that aren't updated (Win XP with IE 6 still has another 2+ years of support, for example). But if we don't start adding support now with backwards compatibility so that nothing breaks then we're never going to get the newer protocols.
Is backwards compatibility less secure? Sure. But if you don't have it, users will either switch to an insecure browser ("if chrome won't let me buy on amazon then I will switch to Internet Explorer"), or they will switch from one ecommerce site to another ("amazon.com doesn't work so I'm going to newegg.com").
Businesses aren't going to let that second scenario happen, and I don't blame them. And surely you agree that the first scenario is even worse?
Slashdot Mirror
What is described in that article does not match what you suggested.
The article has eligible people signing up for classes, getting the grant and then flunking out. 1 student at 1 school for 1 semester. They get a cut, but the person making the money is not the student, but the organizer. It looks like each student can only do this at 1 school per semester.
Correct. One person can only do this at one school per semester. But this isn't just one person. Quoting:
ABRAMSON: In a growing number of cases, the student drops out of school and splits the money with the ringleader. Kathy Tighe's team has already recovered over $7 million from 42 different fraud rings. But Tighe is convinced this kind of fraud is much bigger than that.
TIGHE: We received a recent referral from one school that potentially has 600 fraud rings with as many as 10,000 participants. That's huge.
What a great talking point. Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? Because there are actual laws, regulations, and all sorts of other fun things (like the fact that this money has to be paid back and can't be wiped out by bankruptcy) that make what you're suggesting completely implausible.
It's a bit like the old "Don't help the homeless, they're really all rich and slumming it" meme that was going around when I was in high school. A fun way to distract ourselves from real problems.
Sorry, I really should have provided my source. NPR ran a story less than 2 months ago about people doing this exact thing.
No there are not.
1: grant money takes time, you don't get it until half way through the semester. Long after nearly every school closes its late registration. 2: You can't get the same grant at multiple schools at the same time. 3: It is illegal to be enrolled in more than one school at a time (at least where I went).
Sorry, I really should have provided my source. NPR ran a story less than 2 months ago about people doing this exact thing.
2: That's why they dropped out of the first school.
3: These people aren't enrolled at multiple schools at once, they drop out of one and enroll in another. And the fact that stealing is illegal isn't bothering them.
I'd say educating people is generally a good idea. Even if the money was a direct give-away..
There are actually people out there that sign up for college, get their grant money, drop out of college, and then repeat the same thing at another college a few miles away. I hope that's not what you mean by "direct give-away", but that's what's happening.
The powers of congress to mint coin still exists.. however you seem to be unaware that we now trade on Federal Reserve Notes, aka The U.S. Dollar, which the federal government does not have the power to print.
And you seem unaware of the fact that the Federal government created the Federal Reserve and appoints (pres) and confirms (senate) the governors of the Federal Reserve. Its independence lasts only as long as congress wants it to last.
The federal government, in the case of America, cannot print money.
Oh really? Let's take a look at the good ole Constitution.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Sure looks like they can print money to me...
They don't actually guarantee that your money will be available. And neither does the FDIC. The FDIC sort of promises you can get some of your money back, eventually, but how long eventually is, and whether or not your money has any worth if they have to go on a printing spree ...
The FDIC can't go on a printing spree. I'm not sure if you're not familiar with the FDIC, or if you simply didn't provide the subject for your "they". It should read:
"The FDIC guarantees your bank deposits, but does not guarantee that the Federal Government that the FDIC is not a part of won't print money"
When they ask, what was the moment that the US gave up. This will be the moment we remember. NASA having to charter flights to space, from a Private Company. When was it that, We the People, finally Deep Throated Corporations. It was then.
Our priorities as a nation are completely screwed up.
You're saying it would be better if we put out bids to private companies to build us an identical space ship?
As a tax payer, I would prefer to pay for the use of a space vehicle, rather than the ownership of the space vehicle. NASA' should concentrate research, not shuttle maintenance.
d'oh-- "NASA should concentrate ON research".
When they ask, what was the moment that the US gave up. This will be the moment we remember. NASA having to charter flights to space, from a Private Company. When was it that, We the People, finally Deep Throated Corporations. It was then.
Our priorities as a nation are completely screwed up.
You're saying it would be better if we put out bids to private companies to build us an identical space ship?
As a tax payer, I would prefer to pay for the use of a space vehicle, rather than the ownership of the space vehicle. NASA' should concentrate research, not shuttle maintenance.
does it have a backdoor for big brother? why should only business data get protection from thieves and the government?
ActiveSync policies don't connect to your phone, they just impose policies on the phone. The remote wipe doesn't work if the thief can shut off the active sync before you enable the remote wipe. You could get remote wipe too if you sign up for Office365's E1 plan and use ActiveSync with the service. I know, you probably don't want to give MS any money. But, the option is there, and it's a lot cheaper than buying your own Exchange server. My company just moved away from BPOS (previous version of Office365) due to availability issues, but if you're just a home user, the occasional outage probably isn't a deal-breaker.
Are you sure there are no remote wipe apps out there? I used to have a Firefox plugin that would do something similar, on my desktop.
VeriSign has shown sufficient avarice, maliciousness and incompetence on a sufficient number of occasions that it just baffles my mind that they didn't have it yanked years ago.
Do you have any assurance that someone else could do a better job? Better the devil you know...
are you asking why people might find it difficult to put big oil/coal companies out of business?
You mean the big oil companies that are using solar themselves?
I saw it, and I don't see how that affects the big crunch theory. But then I'm not an astrophysicist.
Long answer: Here's a nice explanation
Short answer: the crunch will never happen because the universe is going to keep expanding forever.
Technically there will always be a future (until the big crunch, at least).
I guess you missed the Nobel Prize for Physics topic?
MS is still the only one of these big three to have a committed interest in long-term research
MS does research? For real? I thought all they did was buy startups and competitors, some of which had done research in the past, or are winding down R+D after the purchase.
Please don't confuse research grants from the bill gates charitable foundation with "MS does long term research".
Why not visit Microsoft Research and see for yourself?
Also check out the Microsoft Garage
You may not like Microsoft but it's hard to deny that they do more research than, say, Symantec or Dell.
"Oh, Woops! How did that happen?! So sorry about that Google. Totally a mistake. Totally. Our bad, really." Meanwhile some clueless user just switched back to IE.
So a couple of years ago when they accidentally flagged IE as a virus, you think the user switched to Chrome? And that was Microsoft's plan too?
1999 called and wants their anti-Java rant back.
I'm providing evidence that Java is slow, with a specific, real-world example. Apparently, that doesn't fit into your world-view, but you're entitled to your own delusions. Er, I mean, opinions.
Not any more. Really that is one of those myths that will never die. On a modern system Java will load up pretty dang fast. The browsers could also have an option to preload in the background using a thread if enough people where using Java to make it worth while.
I have a perfectly modern computer. I use HP Sitescope, which has a web interface. Version 9.5 is HTML based--and it's fast, even on a 5 year old 32 bit system. Click a link and the page loads in a quarter-second. I just installed Version 11.11, on a newer, 64 bit system. Version 11 has a java interface, and is takes 3 seconds to load each page--and it's must slower if I'm working remotely, instead of sitting in the same building. And I'm not counting the start-up time.
My explanation? Java is slower than HTML.
No one should have to wait for java just for buttons.
People don't like to wait, period. Java is slow, at least on Windows, and I suspect any platform other than Solaris.
BIND
BIND was written by Douglas Terry, Mark Painter, David Riggle and Songnian Zhou in the early 1980s at the University of California, Berkeley as a result of a DARPA grant. Versions of BIND through 4.8.3 were maintained by the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at UC Berkeley.
Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief of lack. In that regards it is not a faith at all.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Agnostic's lack belief--or perhaps that they believe that there is not convincing evidence one way or another. Atheists believe in the absence of deity. Hence the term-- "A"-"theist"
The Civil Rights act of 1964 was put in place by a Democratic administration. Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats, not Republicans. Or else your accent prevents me from understanding what the crap you are talking about.
Why not read it yourself? Votes:
The Senate version:[12]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
You'll notice that in both the house and the senate, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the bill, than did Democrats.
Republicans, you mean the same ones that want to roll back various civil rights legislation and voting protections?
You mean the ones that voted for the Civil Rights act of 1964?
But if you have to renegotiate down to 1.0 because the server does not support it, you are still vulnerable.
Both browsers and servers should both be updated to support TLS 1.1 and 1.2, and both browsers and servers should negotiate the most secure, mutually supported protocols and cyphers.
Adding that support will take some time, and it will take years to lose the old clients that aren't updated (Win XP with IE 6 still has another 2+ years of support, for example). But if we don't start adding support now with backwards compatibility so that nothing breaks then we're never going to get the newer protocols.
Is backwards compatibility less secure? Sure. But if you don't have it, users will either switch to an insecure browser ("if chrome won't let me buy on amazon then I will switch to Internet Explorer"), or they will switch from one ecommerce site to another ("amazon.com doesn't work so I'm going to newegg.com").
Businesses aren't going to let that second scenario happen, and I don't blame them. And surely you agree that the first scenario is even worse?
Or does your .NET code run as is on Linux?
I'm not a programmer, nor a shill, but isn't that what Mono does?