The important part is use this as part of YOUR plan for YOUR education. Like you did.

Community Colleges are great for taking care of the 100 level pre-requisites prior to University.

Community Colleges are great at expanding your knowledge WITHOUT going for a degree.

Community Colleges are great for bringing up your Grade Point Average (GPA) if you had problems in High School but still want to pursue an advanced education.

Etc.

This program should NOT be the FINAL step in your education.

And people like you will evidently give it to them under the guise of political correctness.

So first you make claims about what Islam teaches because you know more about it than a million Muslims living in the USofA right now.

Then you make claims about what I believe. You don't know me any more than you know any Muslim living here.

After all, you don't want to Offend a Muslim, or he might cut your head off or shoot you while you're in a meeting.

Again, you don't know me any more than you know any Muslim. I spent 7 years in the Army. I've watched people whose job it was to shoot me watching me. As it was mine to shoot them.

And because I understand math, I know that if a million of them have not tried to shoot me yet then they probably won't. Because despite your claims, they do NOT believe what you claim they do.

And you 'd know that if you knew any Muslims.

However, it is blind political correctness that is allowing most liberals to cede their ideals in the name of tolerance.

What ideals have been ceded?

Because the fact remains, Western values are not valued by Muslims.

Except for the million Muslims who live here right now.

I've heard it all before. It's always about "them" and how "they" are "bad" because of "their" culture or religion or whatever.

Whether "they" are Muslims or blacks or Hispanics or "gooks" or "Japs" or ...

Maybe you should read George Takei's writings on his experience in an internment camp.

If you're in the local minority, it is wise to shut up and nod.

So you're saying that the GP was wrong about Islam and it actually teaches a pragmatic approach to democratically elected representative government?

Muhammad Ali is a Sunni. He refused to fight in Vietnam as a conscientious objector. Yet he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush in 2005. So .... bad Muslim? Or maybe your understanding of Muslims could be expanded upon by meeting more of them?

If you remain silent, because of fear, they have already won.

Yes.

1) Islam, is not a peaceful religion. There is no major Muslim outcry over any of the acts committed by Muslims. I didn't say there was none, I said there was no major outcry.

Just because you haven't seen them does not mean that they haven't happened. Have you gone looking for them? The media usually skips them because blood gets more views.

2) Islam, does take offense at things that Western Culture deems acceptable for the purposes of liberty, even tasteless crude humor. Muslims in general haven not expressed any desire to curb their rhetoric.

There are at least a million Muslims living in the USofA. The majority seem to be okay with it.

3) Islam doesn't teach co-existence, it teaches domination.

What you claim Islam teaches and how a million Muslims live, every day, in the USofA ... well there seems to be a disconnect there.

Western cultures do no need Islam. We don't want Islam. We don't like Islam. Muslims need to go back the their asswipe countries in the desert and stay there.

I've heard the same rhetoric about blacks. And Hispanics. It's easy to hate someone you've never met.

But then, I live in Seattle and there are two halal markets within a mile of me.

http://xkcd.com/576/

And the reason is ... because the stuff used to be BUILT by people. If a guy on the assembly line had to be able to get his hands onto a bolt to install it then someone replacing it would also be able to reach it.

Once we switched to robots for manufacturing it became a lot more difficult. A robot can reach where a person cannot.

Which means you save a lot of "wasted" space and materials ... but you have to take apart X, Y and Z to be able to read the headlight.

The threat of punishment sure keeps me paying my taxes...

I'll say that it is not because you worry that you will be executed but that you will lose your possessions / job / freedom. Once you've bought into the system then the system has ways to keep you invested.

Once you leave the system then the punishments don't matter.

Either someone doing something "wrong" is going to change their behavior or they are not.

Yeah. Although I see it as whether they have the option to join the system again. If they're paying a mortgage and putting their kids through school then they have an interest in following the rules.

If not, then kill them, they aren't worth the food and air used to keep them alive.

The problem with that approach is that the system is run by people. And those people are flawed.

Convicts who are on death row are being released because of DNA evidence.
http://codysinvestigations.com/NorCalPrivateInvestigatorBlog/corrupt-justice-texas-state-bar-seeks-to-discipline-prosecutor-for-concealing-evidence-in-wrongful-conviction-of-michael-morton/

And it is even worse if you are a minority.

You can (even in uniform) refuse an "unlawful" order, according to the UCMJ.

Yes. You will have to justify it though.

Anyway, back to the previous comment:

there's a magical difference between sworn and unsworn.

It's not magical. It's "military" and "civilian". If you're military then the UCMJ replaces the civilian laws.

if they ask a hacker to create a virus ....

The military does not create the weapons that it uses. It buys them from civilians. The M-16? Parts made by Mattel. The same company that makes Barbie dolls. So a soldier would probably NOT be writing that virus. It would be a civilian contractor or other government agency (NSA).

I think the concept here has gotten lost.

The problem is that if your INITIAL sorting is based upon who can pass Basic Training and such, you will probably exclude people with more valuable skills.

There is nothing stopping the Army from creating a new field and assigning some lieutenants to it. Those lieutenants are the ones that "pull the trigger".

But the network scans, evaluations, compromises and such can all be done by GS contractors. The lieutenants would be the equivalent of "script kiddies" at worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_(US_civil_service_pay_scale)

But to have a whole group of 'different' Army folks - not such a good idea.

100% agreement.

If they are NOT going to be deployed then hire them as GS whatever.

If they ARE going to be deployed to a situation where they can be shot then they need combat training.

It's not so much the VPN technology as it is the failure to correctly implement and secure it.

TFA leaves the real content until the end of the article:

The data is then replayed from the repositories through a set of attack scripts, which use sets of preshared keys (PSKs) harvested from sources such as exploited routers and stored in a key database ...

So if the NSA wants to "crack" your VPN session they first record it (we know how they do that) then they try to brute force that recording using what is, essentially, a dictionary attack.

TFA seems more entranced by the cutesy names than by the technology.

Douglas Adams said it best:

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

The WSJ's entire premise is based upon the idea that space is small enough that we could search it for other inhabited planets in the time we've been looking.

Space isn't that small.

Space is so big that BILLIONS of years will pass before we even see the light shining from a sun in a different galaxy.

The universe could have 10,000 intelligent species that we will never know about because they are just too far from us.

No, "necessary" entirely misses the point.

No. That is the point.

Users will find a way to do what they desire to do, and they'll find a way to make it easy to do so.

Now think about a bank. Physical access to the money is controlled and verified and audited.

Employees at a bank are NOT allowed to do whatever is easier for them. They do NOT prop open the secure doors.

If they do so, they are fired.

So why would Facebook be any different? Because people can SEE when the doors to the money are propped open. But they cannot SEE the network access.

You are wrong.

[Difficulty of unauthorized access] / [Difficulty of authorized access]

I would change that second part to

"necessary access"

. I'll explain in a moment.

Making authorized access harder reduces security because people. People will always make it easier fo themselves.

In my experience, the first problem is EGO. There is always some executive who bases his/her EGO on what exemptions he/she can get.

I'm too important NOT to have access to X.
From anywhere.
Along with all my people.

And then other executives have to have the same access because, otherwise, they are not as important. And IT can handle it, right?

So you end up with too many people with too much access. And admin/root access to their machines. That they also use for non-work related activities because why shouldn't I have iTunes on my work laptop?

So you end up with 100 people with VPN access to the HR servers and 95 of them don't even know it and 99 of them don't use it. BUT THEY ALL "HAVE" TO HAVE IT AND IT IS AUTHORIZED.

In the world of physical security, the lesson is: "any door along the quickest path between where people work and the smoking area will be propped open - don't even try to fight it, instead make sure that doesn't compromise security".

And with computer security, they bring the open doors with them. Wherever they go. And they are authorized to do so.

But it is not necessary for them to have that authorization.

From the summary:

For driverless cars to work, to decrease congestion, increase safety, reduce lawsuits and lower our insurance premiums everyone would have to be driving one.

Bullshit. Just having the cameras showing that it was the other guy's fault when he hit you should be enough to reduce your premiums. And reduce lawsuits as the insurance companies learn how much video is available.

Congestion will depend upon the specific situation. But since you won't have to focus on it, will it matter as much? And I would expect that the car would call home for the most expeditious route available to it. Accident 1 mile ahead, get off highway at this exit, take these streets, get back on highway after accident ... automatically.

And you should totally lecture them on that point at Thanksgiving or Christmas, so you can be That Guy.

Thanksgiving? The harvest festival? The one that isn't even common to Christians? Is that the Thanksgiving that you're talking about?

Are you going to bring up the 4th of July next?