If they're going to pass him off as an expert, then he better be doing analysis that a normal lay-man can't do. If he has the credentials, then why is he basing his claim off of a conversation with low-level customer support?
They have experienced difficulty regarding the rates at which students receiving Federal Financial Aid graduate - i.e. their issues are based on low graduation rates and not based on being a diploma mill.
Disclosure: my spouse teaches for UoP part time.
UoP had about 400,000 students at the time the Frontline piece was produced - that's seven Ohio State Columbus's [http://www.osu.edu/osutoday/stuinfo.php] so number of schools is not perhaps the best measure.
Rightly or wrongly, because UoP has open enrollment they admit more students who are eligible for Federal Financial Aid than most schools because of the population they enroll.
And nothing in the Frontline piece accused UoP of being a diploma mill as was implied by the prior comment to which I responded. A criticism of their business model is a different indictment altogether.
Wait, so just like a real university?
The money quote:
>The findings are false-positive proof since I have used the tool that discovered it for six years now and I am yet to see it misidentify an item throughout the years.
It boggles the mind how a founder of security consulting company can be so clueless. But most of HN and the tech news site like Slashdot fell for this with completely knee-jerk reactions, so I guess I am not surprised and the people behind his fiasco got the publicity they wanted. And remember HB Gary?
I am sure this hoopla would've cost Samsung some real damage in sales and they might be considering legal action. As Churchill said:
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Well, atleast I can say I called it, even after the so called Samsung confirmation. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2389141
I've heard the same kind of reasoning from people who forward on those "Microsoft will send a prize for the most emails sent!"-type emails.
The problem is: there has to be a minimum level of credibility, otherwise we'd be swamped with every man and his dog making claims like these.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Especially when the person making claims is the founder of a security company. His due diligence consisted of things like "The software I used is false-positive proof since I am using it from 6 years". "I have done this on two different laptops with same results, so it must be Samsung's fault". Huh?