It wouldn't be such a problem (in the U.S. anyway) if the government would at least restrict its loan guarantees to accredited colleges.
The for-profit schools have been buying up accredited colleges in order to piggyback their programs on the purchased accreditation. Example: Kaplan purchased its accreditation in 2000 when it bought Quest College.
Nope, these are only guidelines. The state reserves the right to punish whomever it wants.
The parent post has it spot on.
Most countries actually have two parallel legal systems. The first: The laws and legal precedents that we can all go to the library and read The second: Unpublished guidelines, policies, and training manuals that shape how the laws are actually applied.
It doesn't actually matter what the law says, if the bureaucrats, police, prosecutors, and judges have already agreed on how to interpret it.
Especially the just-makes-it-past-warranty crap that's sold these days.
Actually, to get 95% of your product past the warranty period, you have to overengineer because, statistically, some of your product will fail earlier than you expect.
So if you have a 3 year warranty, you better be engineering for 4+ years or you're going to spend a lot on replacements for the near end of the bathtub curve.
I've had an unfortunate amount of experience with made in china crap that's ended up being replaced a few times within the warranty period.
Because of all the pollution, China is pushing electric hard. They've failed to meet their sales targets so far, but the Chinese government has shown it will burn money to achieve long term goals.
And since battery technology is the biggest obstacle to lower prices, a Chinese company is buying battery maker A123 Systems.
The stock price has dipped according to Google's report when searching "AAPL" however I don't think it's an amount worthy of panic just yet. However the dip would seem to coincide with the news.
Apple's stock has been in free fall for the last couple of months. They're down to $532 from a September peak of $705.
That's a 25% drop in stock valuation and has nothing to do with the trial.
When we have the last three Presidents widely known for smoking/taking marijuana and way harsher drugs, doesn't that undermine the entire propaganda about drugs being a dead end once someone takes them?
More likely that it just highlights the vast gulf between Joe Average and children of the privileged class.
Obama can say whatever he wants. Until he promulgates policies restraining the DEA and DOJ it's going to be a problem. Not to mention the illegality of marijuana screwing up business's relationships with the IRS.
December 12, 2012, 10:30 p.m. ET U.S. Terrorism Agency to Tap a Vast Database of Citizens By JULIA ANGWIN
Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens--even people suspected of no crime.
Not everyone was on board. "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions.
A week later, the attorney general signed the changes into effect.
Through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews with officials at numerous agencies, The Wall Street Journal has reconstructed the clash over the counterterrorism program within the administration of President Barack Obama. The debate was a confrontation between some who viewed it as a matter of efficiency--how long to keep data, for instance, or where it should be stored--and others who saw it as granting authority for unprecedented government surveillance of U.S. citizens.
The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.
Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases--flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.
The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes.
"It's breathtaking" in its scope, said a former senior administration official familiar with the White House debate.
Counterterrorism officials say they will be circumspect with the data. "The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes," said Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the parent agency for the National Counterterrorism Center.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says that searches of "persons, houses, papers and effects" shouldn't be conducted without "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. But that doesn't cover records the government creates in the normal course of business with citizens.
Congress specifically sought to prevent government agents from rifling through government files indiscriminately when it passed the Federal Privacy Act in 1974. The act prohibits government agencies from sharing data with each other for purposes that aren't "compatible" with the reason the data were originally collected.
But the Federal Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt themselves from many requirements by placing notices in the Federal Register, the government's daily publication of proposed rules. In practice, these privacy-act notices are rarely contested by government watchdogs or membe
He has a company. He has one job to do, precisely one responsibility to his board of directors and shareholders (and himself).
That responsibilty: To make money.
[Citation Needed] This is a pernicious idea that is a parody of what America actually is. What you're really claiming is that the nature of our social compact has changed in a horribly negative way.
When Google went public, they explicitly told everyone that profit was not their goal, that they would be doing weird things that weren't always going to be profitable, and that you shouldn't buy Google's stocks if you didn't like the plan.
Unlike here at Slashdot where user voting on their privacy policies is so important that... hey, wait a minute...
I'm not sure I understand your point. Slashdot has never pretended to have any pretentions of democracy and has been corporate owned since 1999.
If/. was going to allow us to vote on anything, they'd put it in the home page poll, where every/.er sees it. Facebook allowed their democratic initiative to die.
If Facebook cared about users voting, there would have been a notice every time you log on and an interstitial notice every X pages you clicked through.
I would like an ability to send the text back to my cell provider. Every text that comes back to them does not charge my account. They can look to see that I am not sending them back legitimate texts. This way, it will cost them plenty for allowing texts, and they can actually provide a service for their million percent markup, and I wont have t o pay for this crap
For Verizon/T-Mobile/AT&T: Forward the offending text message to the short code 7726 (SPAM) They'll shoot you back a message which you must reply to.
And you should always call your telco and dispute bad billings. They almost always forgive small stuff without a big fight.
As a publicly traded company, you risk being sued by your shareholders if you do NOT use such tax arrangements as soon as you learn about the possibility. So putting the blame on Google/MS isn't exactly rational.
Google has a non-traditional stock structure. The majority shareholders are the founders and directors. You can more or less blame them for anything the company does.
First and foremost, what do you think a free market is?
Second, we haven't had *free markets for over 100 years and we don't want free markets. Competitive markets are where the real growth is found and the only way to get competition is to restrain the worst impulses of the free market.
Beginning around 1980, workersâ(TM) share began to slide and, in the past decade or so, has nose-dived, to about 58 percent. The difference went to shareholders and other investorsâ"who provide capital rather than laborâ"in the form of higher returns on their holdings.
Why would workers be receiving a smaller share of output, and why would the share they do receive be skewed toward the top? No one is sure, but Sonecomâ(TM)s Shapiro tells a plausible story. First, globalization has reduced American companiesâ(TM) ability to raise prices, and thus to increase their workersâ(TM) pay, without losing competitiveness against companies in, say, China and India.
This explanation makes no sense. Increasing wages does not mean you have to raise prices or become uncompetitive with China/India. It just means you have to lower the obviously unfair share of profits being funneled to executives, investors, and shareholders.
Unless "competitive" means "competitive with the yearly dividend of Chinese and Indian companies" In which case, I'd say let American investors take on the risks of investing in China and India's nakedly corrupt marketplace.
I wonder how these "patent examiners" live with their mediocrity? I'm envisioning Amadeus' Salieri...
In the past, like many government bodies, the Patent and Trademark Office was underfunded/understaffed. This meant the Examiners didn't have enough time to do the job expected of them and meet their targets.
When Obama signed the America Invents Act, he changed the USA from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. The law also changed how the Patent Office is funded. Previously, Congress got all the patent filing fees, then gave the PTO whatever they felt like. Now, the PTO sets its own fees and any fees beyond the Congressional allocation are placed into escrow, instead of the general fund. This means that Congress can no longer siphon off the PTO's fees for other projects and the PO can try to get the funds re-allocated later.
TLDR: The Patent Office was wildly underfunded/understaffed and the situation should improve sooner rather than later.
TFA says he's suing for $750k but only claiming damages of $300k So in reality, the maximum he'll get is $300K + lawyers' fees (assuming he can prove the Yelp post resulted in $300k of damages)
If the State of Virginia prosecutes her for libel, the maximum fine is $500.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't be such a problem (in the U.S. anyway) if the government would at least restrict its loan guarantees to accredited colleges.
The for-profit schools have been buying up accredited colleges in order to piggyback their programs on the purchased accreditation.
Example: Kaplan purchased its accreditation in 2000 when it bought Quest College.
Nope, these are only guidelines. The state reserves the right to punish whomever it wants.
The parent post has it spot on.
Most countries actually have two parallel legal systems.
The first: The laws and legal precedents that we can all go to the library and read
The second: Unpublished guidelines, policies, and training manuals that shape how the laws are actually applied.
It doesn't actually matter what the law says, if the bureaucrats, police, prosecutors, and judges have already agreed on how to interpret it.
Please avoid using 'audiophile-like' subjective/emotional terms.
Our expectations & emotional experience colors our subjective experience.
And it's a scientifically measurable effect.
That isn't to say objective measures are irrelevant, only that they are not all that is relevant.
Especially the just-makes-it-past-warranty crap that's sold these days.
Actually, to get 95% of your product past the warranty period, you have to overengineer because, statistically, some of your product will fail earlier than you expect.
So if you have a 3 year warranty, you better be engineering for 4+ years or you're going to spend a lot on replacements for the near end of the bathtub curve.
I've had an unfortunate amount of experience with made in china crap that's ended up being replaced a few times within the warranty period.
Because of all the pollution, China is pushing electric hard.
They've failed to meet their sales targets so far, but the Chinese government has shown it will burn money to achieve long term goals.
And since battery technology is the biggest obstacle to lower prices, a Chinese company is buying battery maker A123 Systems.
I had to explicitly tell NoScript that 33universal.com is untrusted.
That made the stupid auto-play video stop triggering.
auto-playing flash videos are the new ::blink:: tag
The stock price has dipped according to Google's report when searching "AAPL" however I don't think it's an amount worthy of panic just yet. However the dip would seem to coincide with the news.
Apple's stock has been in free fall for the last couple of months.
They're down to $532 from a September peak of $705.
That's a 25% drop in stock valuation and has nothing to do with the trial.
But why not USB 3.0?
Since when is a torrent/magnet link illegal or a copyright infringement?
When we have the last three Presidents widely known for smoking/taking marijuana and way harsher drugs, doesn't that undermine the entire propaganda about drugs being a dead end once someone takes them?
More likely that it just highlights the vast gulf between Joe Average and children of the privileged class.
Same actions, wildly different outcomes.
Obama can say whatever he wants.
Until he promulgates policies restraining the DEA and DOJ it's going to be a problem.
Not to mention the illegality of marijuana screwing up business's relationships with the IRS.
I've never seen an image in a slashdot comment before, I think it's for our own safety.
I remember the good old days before the spam filter when every third post was an ASCII depitction of goatse and we liked it!
If that doesn't work, try the google cache
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html
December 12, 2012, 10:30 p.m. ET
U.S. Terrorism Agency to Tap a Vast Database of Citizens
By JULIA ANGWIN
Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens--even people suspected of no crime.
Not everyone was on board. "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions.
A week later, the attorney general signed the changes into effect.
Through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews with officials at numerous agencies, The Wall Street Journal has reconstructed the clash over the counterterrorism program within the administration of President Barack Obama. The debate was a confrontation between some who viewed it as a matter of efficiency--how long to keep data, for instance, or where it should be stored--and others who saw it as granting authority for unprecedented government surveillance of U.S. citizens.
The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.
Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases--flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.
The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes.
"It's breathtaking" in its scope, said a former senior administration official familiar with the White House debate.
Counterterrorism officials say they will be circumspect with the data. "The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes," said Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the parent agency for the National Counterterrorism Center.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says that searches of "persons, houses, papers and effects" shouldn't be conducted without "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. But that doesn't cover records the government creates in the normal course of business with citizens.
Congress specifically sought to prevent government agents from rifling through government files indiscriminately when it passed the Federal Privacy Act in 1974. The act prohibits government agencies from sharing data with each other for purposes that aren't "compatible" with the reason the data were originally collected.
But the Federal Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt themselves from many requirements by placing notices in the Federal Register, the government's daily publication of proposed rules. In practice, these privacy-act notices are rarely contested by government watchdogs or membe
Actually I wonder: why is there a number for emergency calls from mobiles?
112 is baked into the GSM (Groupe Spécial
Mobile*) standard.
GSM was created by a coalition of European countries and the idea was that you could place an emergency call in any country without knowing the local emergency number.
*renamed the Global System for Mobile Communications.
He has a company. He has one job to do, precisely one responsibility to his board of directors and shareholders (and himself).
That responsibilty: To make money.
[Citation Needed]
This is a pernicious idea that is a parody of what America actually is.
What you're really claiming is that the nature of our social compact has changed in a horribly negative way.
When Google went public, they explicitly told everyone that profit was not their goal, that they would be doing weird things that weren't always going to be profitable, and that you shouldn't buy Google's stocks if you didn't like the plan.
Is there a summary of the summary available?
We call them "titles"
Here's one example: Hotmail & Yahoo Mail Using Secret Domain Blacklist
Unlike here at Slashdot where user voting on their privacy policies is so important that... hey, wait a minute...
I'm not sure I understand your point.
Slashdot has never pretended to have any pretentions of democracy and has been corporate owned since 1999.
If /. was going to allow us to vote on anything, they'd put it in the home page poll, where every /.er sees it.
Facebook allowed their democratic initiative to die.
If Facebook cared about users voting, there would have been a notice every time you log on and an interstitial notice every X pages you clicked through.
Then again, there's no apathy like online apathy.
I would like an ability to send the text back to my cell provider. Every text that comes back to them does not charge my account. They can look to see that I am not sending them back legitimate texts. This way, it will cost them plenty for allowing texts, and they can actually provide a service for their million percent markup, and I wont have t o pay for this crap
For Verizon/T-Mobile/AT&T:
Forward the offending text message to the short code 7726 (SPAM)
They'll shoot you back a message which you must reply to.
And you should always call your telco and dispute bad billings.
They almost always forgive small stuff without a big fight.
As a publicly traded company, you risk being sued by your shareholders if you do NOT use such tax arrangements as soon as you learn about the possibility. So putting the blame on Google/MS isn't exactly rational.
Google has a non-traditional stock structure.
The majority shareholders are the founders and directors.
You can more or less blame them for anything the company does.
This is not the free market.
First and foremost, what do you think a free market is?
Second, we haven't had *free markets for over 100 years and we don't want free markets.
Competitive markets are where the real growth is found and the only way to get competition is to restrain the worst impulses of the free market.
Third, this is what we have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
It's better than a completely free market.
*For all definitions of "free"
Beginning around 1980, workersâ(TM) share began to slide and, in the past decade or so, has nose-dived, to about 58 percent. The difference went to shareholders and other investorsâ"who provide capital rather than laborâ"in the form of higher returns on their holdings.
Why would workers be receiving a smaller share of output, and why would the share they do receive be skewed toward the top? No one is sure, but Sonecomâ(TM)s Shapiro tells a plausible story. First, globalization has reduced American companiesâ(TM) ability to raise prices, and thus to increase their workersâ(TM) pay, without losing competitiveness against companies in, say, China and India.
This explanation makes no sense.
Increasing wages does not mean you have to raise prices or become uncompetitive with China/India.
It just means you have to lower the obviously unfair share of profits being funneled to executives, investors, and shareholders.
Unless "competitive" means "competitive with the yearly dividend of Chinese and Indian companies"
In which case, I'd say let American investors take on the risks of investing in China and India's nakedly corrupt marketplace.
The internet says that if you decompile the winrg SWF, there's no admin password
I wonder how these "patent examiners" live with their mediocrity? I'm envisioning Amadeus' Salieri...
In the past, like many government bodies, the Patent and Trademark Office was underfunded/understaffed.
This meant the Examiners didn't have enough time to do the job expected of them and meet their targets.
When Obama signed the America Invents Act, he changed the USA from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system.
The law also changed how the Patent Office is funded. Previously, Congress got all the patent filing fees, then gave the PTO whatever they felt like.
Now, the PTO sets its own fees and any fees beyond the Congressional allocation are placed into escrow, instead of the general fund.
This means that Congress can no longer siphon off the PTO's fees for other projects and the PO can try to get the funds re-allocated later.
TLDR: The Patent Office was wildly underfunded/understaffed and the situation should improve sooner rather than later.
TFA says he's suing for $750k but only claiming damages of $300k
So in reality, the maximum he'll get is $300K + lawyers' fees (assuming he can prove the Yelp post resulted in $300k of damages)
If the State of Virginia prosecutes her for libel, the maximum fine is $500.