"They gave me no notice, they can't prove that I received any overpayment"

From here

(a)After trying to collect a claim from a person under section 3711(a) of this title, the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency may collect the claim by administrative offset. The head of the agency may collect by administrative offset only after giving the debtor-

(1)written notice of the type and amount of the claim, the intention of the head of the agency to collect the claim by administrative offset, and an explanation of the rights of the debtor under this section;

(2)an opportunity to inspect and copy the records of the agency related to the claim;

(3)an opportunity for a review within the agency of the decision of the agency related to the claim; and

(4)an opportunity to make a written agreement with the head of the agency to repay the amount of the claim.

I don't know that the name was his fault. Originally it was called LiveScript and was changed to JavaScript for marketing purposes. Myself, I have never cared for the name "ECMAScript".

The last line: "The recent court order suggests that the collection has continued or at least resumed under the Obama administration." How does that make sense? If it is a 'recent' court order then it doesn't 'suggest' anything. It is a clear indication. And the wired article's main source is a guardian article that I can't pull up at the moment. Is it too much to ask for 'journalists' to use their own sources and to reference the original documents instead of writing an article about an article?

I agree. And how much is a college degree worth when everyone has one? There is a student loan bubble on the horizon and I guess a mountain of defaults is what it will take before we seriously reconsider how we educate in the US.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor. And with the enabling act made himself a dictator.

I think you’re comparison between the two statements is a false equivalency. If you know a little about American history, then you should know that black Americans are more likely to share common interests, if for no other reason than the long history of racism in the US. ‘White people’ are less likely to have common interests because that is a much broader group. And it is in a lot of ways a sad reminder of what was lost to African Americans when I can identify as not just a descendant of Europeans, but can say that I have French and Scottish roots, and whereas many other white Americans can say they’re Italian or German or Irish, etc. When an influx of Irish immigrated to the north east in the 19th century, would it have been fair to assume that an Irish alderman would likely represent Irish constituents better? Maybe or maybe not, but I wouldn’t consider such an assumption to be bigoted. Or would it be fair to assume that a Jewish council member would better represent a predominantly Jewish ward better? Maybe or maybe not, but again I wouldn’t consider that bigoted. Black American’s interests are aligned with each other to some degree exactly because they are black, and this is in response to the way they’ve been treated over the years. I feel that in the near future this will no longer be the case and the argument that some of you are trying to make will actually have some merit at that point, but for now it’s still bunk.

Not necessarily. Blacks tend to support Democrats in national elections. There may have been an assumption that because Obama was black and a Democrat he would represent the interests of black Americans better, but I wouldn’t call that racism. Had Obama ran as a Republican would he have got the same support? Did Herman Cain have a strong following among black people? It is amazing for me to recall how black people in Alabama supported George Wallace. The last time he served as Governor he got 90% of the black vote. Black voters in Alabama supported Wallace because of the choices they had, Wallace represented their interests more than other candidates (his support of public schools at the top of the list, which are always under attack by certain political forces in the state).

As the article points out this is a known vulnerability. And there has been a patch available since October 2011.

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/javacpuoct2011-443431.html

The infoworld article mentions that the applet used a "rogue" DLL. Where did that come from? If it didn't install any files on the system, why is there a "rogue" DLL on the system? Did it just "install" that DLL into memory also? And if the malicious applet code managed to get escalated privileges, why didn't it install something on the drive? And isn’t the term “install” being misused in the article? In fact, isn’t it true Mr. Infoworld Article person, that the alleged malware was merely “loaded” into memory? The truth is there was no flight leaving Guantanamo Bay, you doctored the flight logs, you ordered the code red, you framed OJ Simpson

I agree. But I would prefer a puzzle to questions like "where do you see yourself in 5 years" and "what are your goals". I want to answer "My goal is to get hired. Why else would I answer such stupid questions?"

I agree. And I hate to see this happen to Firefox. They seem so eager to appear innovative and edgy, yet haven't really done anything interesting in years.

Yes but in the book, pop culture is all about sex, and sex itself is trivial, and people are brainwashed and have infantile views.....Ok. But where is my helicopter vehicle thingy?