The kicker of it all is that there is and has been a government website that shows everyone where taxpayer money is going:

Don't misinterpret me, there should be audits, regularly, to make sure that the monies are being spent correctly and adds value, but I don't believe the slash & burn process that is currently being done is the best method. At this point, only time will tell us how vulnerable they have now made these government systems by allowing such open access - to perhaps a group of individuals who have limited experience.

Ronald said:

Hi everyone,

I'm experiencing an issue while watching some on-demand courses. After about 1 or 2 minutes, the video ends and redirects me to a page stating that the event has already ended. However, when I paste the link again, it continues from where the video stopped.

Has anyone else encountered this problem? Any suggestions on how to resolve it?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Thanks @Ronald , I will see if there is anything I can see as to why you are experiencing this. I have found that ON24 seems to work well in Chrome, so it is odd that you are experiencing difficulty.

I had to use Brave browser then it worked out without any challenges...

Looking forward to this one

shaify said:

VLAN would be the useful option …

Click to expand...

How?

Emmanuel Phakula Mandala said:

i have encountered that multiple times .try to use a different browser thats what i did and it worked out..

Click to expand...

Thanks, Emman! May I ask which browser you have tried working without issue? I used Google by the way where I am encountering this issue.

i have encountered that multiple times .try to use a different browser thats what i did and it worked out..

VLAN would be the useful option …

Useful info

You could just complete the CEU program for the highest certification program. Some certs also have the CERTMASTER CE program.

I also have A+, Network+ and Security+ (except CySA+). I'm also facing the dilemma of renewing my certifications, as I would like to get Cloud+, Linux+ and Server+, but these are not included in the renewal of Security+ or any other certification above it. Having to get 2 (or more) certifications to renew my CompTIA portfolio is not an option, as I also have other certifications from other providers to take care of. Anyway, I'll have to find a way... &;-D

In the latest reformulation of the certification portfolio, Cisco redefined the equipment needed to conduct practical laboratory activities and, as far as I remember, it includes "only" two routers, two switches and an access point, in addition to the cables and workstations. I believe that changing this structure (even with good intentions) will change the original planning that the institution had when conceiving the CCNAv7 certification. Finally, Packet Tracer also includes practically all the resources needed for students to train and for this reason, I also don't think it's a good idea to use alternative software, such as GNS3. In short: follow the standard definitions if you are teaching the CCNA... &;-D

Rick Butler said:

The arguments against DOGE do not answer the fundamental question - do we really want to see how the government has been defrauding its citizens? Because I've seen the same people who were all for Ed Snowden and Julian Assange, but against Elon Musk and DOGE.

/r

Click to expand...

An even bigger question would be "Do we trust the world's richest man, whose businesses have billions in federal contracts, responsible for prying into federal departments that oversee his businesses?

It sounds like allowing the foxes to run the henhouse.

Well, I think I'm going to leave the debate here - as I really don't fancy a more political conversation (the last few years have made me weary of it all, to be honest). I think we all bring up some good points and concerns and I think we can all agree that this particular situation is not a cut and dry one; there's a lot of charged emotion on both sides of the conversation. I, myself, am not enthusiastic in treading into those waters here on CIN. I believe, from our perspective here, we should find ways to engage our students and perhaps show them that, often, politics and other external forces can have a great pull on how technology is employed, which ones win and lose, and how standards are developed and emplaced. There is no shortage of controversies for sure.

It will be fascinating, nonetheless, as to how all of this pans out in time.

Good points from @Rick Butler . I'll speak from an empirical and anecdotal views. I'll preface my remarks that I have done both types of institutions referenced in this thread. For the former, there are numerous examples of for-profits who have gone 'belly-up' for poor practices and questionable standards (ITT Technical Institute, The Art Institutues, the former Ashford Univ., etc). For the latter, these schools will seek students, as I've seen, experienced, told by leadership at a particular well-known technical/trade school group. 'We seek students who can't make it anywhere else'. Please take that comment however you wish.

I will say there a false equivalence being brought up in the discussion. To keep it as an 'apples-to-apples' for sake of discussion. In NJ, the state is incentivizing people to return to college to complete their credentials 'Some College, No Degree)(certifications/diploma/degrees). There is a subsidy with a ROI for the state furnishing part of the cost. There are other workforce development programs (PerScholars) that are drawing from the same pool. Prospective students will vote with their feet and go elsewhere to seek an education.

I do agree that some of those who have doctorates or 'real professors' lack the view of the 'forest for the trees'. They don't know their audience. I would not apply that standard to all areas, regardless of the venue. Are there improvements that are needed? Yes. Are some schools, areas, departments that need improvement? Absolutely. For higher ed standpoint, The one area that provides a level playing field is the median salary after graduation using the College Scorecard.

Simply closing the spigot does not address a leaking pipe. Nor does not having professionals with standards, proper training,and credentialing attempt to fix the leak make it better. The one area I will go back to is this? What are the standards being applied? If the end result is that some schools will have to adjust, then so be it.

The adjustments may be minimal or major. But the adjustments should be made. If some schools cannot adapt to change with the times, then so be it.

To tie this and the earlier DoGE comments. There are standards and practices that are and should be applied. Sometimes the standards applied may not yield the better outcome as we see fit (i.e. 'some dweeb who's name [you] can't pronounce... students still dont know subnetting.').

When the standards are not applied, what is the outcome and what are the means of recourse. The graduate will have a worthless piece of paper that either subsidized or paid full freight . All lot of bluster and bravado that yields less than the cost to place the microscope over the sample. One may look extremely incompetent because of either poor practices (faulty Crowdstrike update) or a lack of due diligence (Windows 8 debacle). If standards and practices were applied, there wouldn't be such tumult in the current environment.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, but what if is shown is due to poor practices, lack of standards, and deleterious acts, the end result may not be to the benefit of the group. Sometimes it's not those who have to take arms aganist a sea of troubles, but those who gain an outrageous fortune.

Again, pretty much the same story here too.

I think I remember the CDP credential - I never took it or anything - a mite bit before my time.

Brandon G said:

Not to knock on @Rick Butler . Some for-profit schools have tainted the pool for others in that field. The same can be applied public and private non-profit institutions. The tuition is usually higher, but doesn't necessarily reflect a higher or better education. One example would be see the average earnings of graduates and the 6 yr completion rates (Refer to the College Scorecard from the Dept. Of Ed.). That will provide a better example of the value of their education. To show their value and employability. That standard is also applied in other areas of higher education. Paying a hire tuition rate doesn't not equate to higher pay in the near term. There are numerous examples to that affect.

Click to expand...

I won't deny that a number of for-profit schools have created a sense of distrust around the prop-education sector, but as I mentioned, the cost to educate a student is no different, whether it's public or private - this is the part we don't hear about. The government subsidizes public education, so the student will pay less - doesn't mean it costs less to educate. Yes, for profit students will pay more in tuition, certainly. But not being on the government doll gives a for-profit school much more latitude to maneuver and adapt curriculum.

In 1965, the US Congress passed the Higher Education Act which allowed for Title IV funding to be used for trade schools, which primarily are for-profit institutions. The public school sector was vehemently against this because of an arrogance that only so-called "real college" professors were qualified to teach higher education.

I've personally experienced this. In one particular instance where I taught Network+, used Tamara Dean's Net+ books, aligned to CompTIA objectives, had a functional lab and virtual environment with GNS3, all of it - ran a class in six weeks where students were about 40-50% ready to challenge the Net+ exam. But because I'm not a "doctor" in a "real college", that somehow, I'm not a real college professor/teacher/instructor/etc. Yet, some dweeb with a name I can't even pronounce is trying to teach 200-level students basic network fundamentals by explaining the calculus of how a router calculates routes (not at all relevant to a Net+ level class) get the distinction and honor of being a "real professor", yet his students still couldn't explain basic subnetting.

And this, and other situations like this, is what the US Department of Education subsidizes with millions of dollars. So I really don't have a problem with DOGE bringing in a very large microscope that we all get to watch.

Again, I'm not interested in having a big political debate about DOGE. But the one thing I keep hearing is how we're supposed to entrust this process to the "real professionals", security auditors, and "standards" - those things are nice. But if the "real professionals" and "standards" have been in play for years and continue to hide obvious fraud, waste, and abuse, well, something needs to change, and not by the same incompetent bureaucrats that have been entrusted already - because they're either unwilling or unable to do their job.

Transparency? Well, that hasn't been the case before DOGE came along - countless millions now being revealed in ridiculous wasteful spending, so arguments about transparency are highly dubious to me. Controls? Put in place by those that benefit from these things not coming to light.

Again, let's look at Ed Snowden - he committed a very illegal, perhaps even treasonous act which revealed many things the government was doing which were highly illegal, raising the argument question, "is it illegal/wrong to tell the truth?" In Security doctrine, open disclosure is a good thing for security. Of course, it means those vulnerabilities that are protected because of obscurity, because it costs too much to fix them or it might make someone look incompetent are exposed.

The arguments against DOGE do not answer the fundamental question - do we really want to see how the government has been defrauding its citizens? Because I've seen the same people who were all for Ed Snowden and Julian Assange, but against Elon Musk and DOGE.

/r

Rick Butler said:

This is pretty much the exact same story I had. I was working for CSC and taking the MCSE NT4 track in 1997-1998 and completed exam six (Exchange 5.5) in an adaptive format which took me 16 minutes to finish. I was so happy. Got back to the office, only to have one shlub tell me, "yah, but you don't have A+!".

"Wow...really?", looking at his very smug disposition. "Fine, Ace. Next Friday, I'll correct that little 'oversight'."

So, I did. Two exams, back to back with zero prep that week. Passed 'em both and boss walked back into the shop, with my six MCSE passes in one hand, my A+ in the other.

"So...yah...you don't have even ONE Microsoft exam, do you? Oh, hey look, the A+, both tests, and all eight of these were passes on the first try, even. Whatchugot...Ace?"

Walked out to with this track in my head: Login to view embedded media
I've gotten a bit more humble since then. I encourage more than dis people now. Microsoft is a different world for sure. And like the techie sado-masochist I am, I took the TCP/IP exam first... I was a savage in those days. I went on to do the additional three to get the MCSE+I extension. The Win2000 upgrade exam, tho, humbled me - it was my first and only loss. Since that time, I never underestimated an exam again - and as such, have never failed another one (knock on wood).

Click to expand...

The 200 upgrade exam was planned extreme hard. You had to do all 4 2000 exams in one sitting for possible like 6 hours. I got parts but not all. It even had rules on bathroom breaks. So I ended up MCSE NT4, MCP+I NT4, MCSA 2000, and then couple in XP and MCITP in 7. Now have something like 50 certs. First cert was CDP (Certified Data Processor) in 1984. It was offered twice a year in locations like SAT was then in high school cafeterias mostly and covered whole field of what was DP then, now IT. Paper test. You turned in and waited weeks for notice in mail how you did. Was the credential then.

I've always leaned in to the info on the partner links....it's no longer password protected, so everyone should be able to view it now.

Gregory Childers said:

CompTIA should've developed a standalone AI course, and integrated it into their Sec+, CySA+, PenTest+, SecX, Data+, DataSys+, and DataX courses.

This series seems unnecessary.

Click to expand...

I think current certs do much maybe it's for the future