Online deliver is but one method that nearly every University offers for some number of its classes, and that number and ratio varies by program. Some classes are full classroom delivery, some are full lecture delivery, some are hybrid. I believe that's OK. The future is in whatever combination proves most effective and economical as demonstrated by some metrics that include testing and quality of subsequent work. It is best to avoid extreme positions of all or nothing.

Thing is, the NSA and the DEA both do a lot of legitimately essential work across a number of important areas. Notwithstanding any argument whether in DEA's case there might be redundancy as one of many special focus law enforcement agencies, NSA performs some unique missions nobody else does, like crypto production, for example, or performs to the same level, like coordinating foreign focused Signals Intelligence among and serving the Military branches. Also, NSA itself is so stove-piped that even if one area really was "out of control" as alleged, other parts are regular, boring, but arguably essential grunt-work for no-kidding recognizable National Security functions. The key is that regulation and oversight, which is what legitimate bureaucracy is all about, has to be consistently enforced. Bureaucratic baboonery, though ordinary and pervasive, should be astutely and vigilantly guarded against. Like entropy, systems of people will always trend towards out-of-control conditions unless well managed.

Key questions include: a. what budget line item did the $900K come from?; b. what did the funding justification documentation look like?; and, c. at what level was this approved, and by whom? If DEA has so much money laying about that they can toss it around without adult supervision, then I suggest that there may be some oversight committees who might want to have some hearings.

...and hey, I thought that with "settled science" one is never allowed to question, or even more egregious, test, a theory, right?

You are beneath contempt, and it would be otherwise intuitive that you should be ignored as an aberration. However, it is extremely important that decent people of good will realize that their opposites, people like you, are not an aberration, that you exist in the environment as a pervasive and pernicious evil, and therefore appropriate countermeasures must be put in place and vigilance maintained.

I'll bet most people today are interpreting this as simply connecting computer peripherals. The last time I assembled a computer was when I bought a chassis, mother board, RAM, Power Supply, drives, etc., separately, in parts, and assembled then configured it. I don't think this is very common anymore. Used to be.

..here's a bunny... Your message is weak and garbled unless it's really only to express gratuitous rage against the U. S. intelligence community, in which case, OK, at least that part is loud and clear. If, however, your point is to discourage participation of an informed and interested party in a useful forum that, independently, addresses a valid global concern, cyber security, then your message is both muddy and unsupported.

The confusing part of the conversation, I think, is the straw man idea of "releasing" the source code in order for it to be determined secure. What does "release" in that context even mean? If security is in question (which I assume to mean the constituent attributes of Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability), which security should always be for such a system, then one could use a trusted broker to examine and report on inspection and test of the architecture and code without "releasing" the code so that anyone could examine it, presumably to facilitate vulnerability discovery.

...are all about controlling OTHER peoples' behavior (and redistributing THEIR property).

I was making an observation, not an apology. Notice that I never added, "...and this is always good thing." That said, neither is it always a bad thing.

...and that's good. Loss of trust and confidence is the price one pays for getting caught breaching same.

All countries conduct espionage to the extent that they prioritize their capabilities, and against targets where they perceive threats and/or opportunities.

The bargain lies in the relatively low cost of relatively skilled labor. Other considerations, where there might be awareness, are secondary, or less.

“Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect any who seek it.” Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune

A wise Buckaroo once observed that wherever you go, well, there you are. This describes exactly how I feel about a new Windows version: "okey-dokey." I'll politely wield it sans pause or undue drama when some employer supplies it and/or circumstances requires it. In the mean time, I'll continue to happily and productively employ OS X and Gnu/Linux on machines that I purchase and use. Ain't diversity grand?