BOARD MEMBER 1:

Our profits are flat. We need a way to boost our income, but with this economy we can't raise prices much more. We're already getting heat from the state for last year's tuition rates.

BOARD MEMBER 2:

We could lower admissions requirements: you know, expand our market.

BOARD MEMBER 1:

What? And degrade our reputation as an institution of high academic integrity! Impossible.

BOARD MEMBER 3:

What if everyone lowered their admissions standards?

BOARD MEMBER 2:

Everyone?

BOARD MEMBER 3:

All the colleges.

BOARD MEMBER 1:

Impossible!

BOARD MEMBER 3:

We float the idea that colleges are missing creative and talented people, who just aren't good at testing: old standards were just to rigid and old fashioned. Out with the old, in with the new: that sort of thing.

BOARD MEMBER 1:

And then what?

BOARD MEMBER 2

Profit!

BOARD MEMBER 3

Exactly!

Citation please.

Yeah, but the government would have made zero monies had it prosecuted a hacking charge. This route was way more profitable for them (even if it wasn't technically their purview).

Could they have made more? Probably...

The Marriott was hacking the competing networks, not jamming them.

Hacking is a federal offense in the United States.

However, since there probably wasn't any money to be made by prosecuting some Marriott employees with a felony, they somehow roped the FCC into this so they could collect some sizable fines instead.

What the Marriott was doing was HACKING not JAMMING.

To the end-user it might appear they were effectively jamming: but they were not doing so by drowning out or canceling radio transmissions: instead they created a hostile network that more or less "hacked" the other networks in its range. I can see why the FCC got the call, but technically this is probably more one for the FBI.

I should probably take offense at this a bit, since I did a bit of multicast programming back in the day, but hey, just because I know how to use implementations of UDP and TCP over IP doesn't mean I understand the underlying layers. So I'm sure this must be in your wheelhouse.

And while I can see the advantage of sending more traffic over an already open socket, in the web-world isn't this just another name for a single-threaded browser?

I must concede the NSA doesn't need home-sourced traffic capture when they already control all the gateways.

Now we can report your activities to the NSA at the same time as the request: all right from your own computer! (pay no attention to those extra binary headers, they're there for your safety!)

Exactly. But this is from the company who though zip-ing Excel files was a good idea (XLSX). You spend more time waiting for the file to decompress than actual loading into memory.

Obfuscation of headers into binary is going to put a lot of AJAX code out of business.

Makes one think none of these programmers ever encountered the adapter pattern.

I think the difference here is we aren't just talking about Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, or The Big Purple Elephant in the Sky®, we are talking about an entity responsible for reality vs. some sort of accidental or self-establishing reality.

Personally, I find the latter preposterous, to others the former is unnecessary: therefore that entity need not (or more often) must not exist.

To me, the single largest philosophical proof of intentional design is the fact these ideas can and are considered at all; in a purely consumptive evolution such discourse need never occur.

May I work for you, Sabri?

There: fixed it for you!

(If by universal, you mean everyone in the EPA and those who plan to profit from hedges on carbon credits: then I might agree.)

But I digress, you said pretty universal, i.e. partially universal, which is pretty much a contradiction.