Re: The State of the CCIE Training Industry

its easy to get replies. just make stuff up and someone will have to defend
themselves...... easy as that... ;)

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, ALL From_NJ <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> lol ... life is short ..., and it is Friday ;-)
>
> I think Darby is ok in my book ... I mean, who else can get his reply count
> up past 50? I mean, sorry, ... 51 now. Is this legendary yet? Any idea
> on
> the most replies ever? Maybe Darby beat his last record?
>
> Hummm ...
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Gary Duncanson <
> gary.duncanson_at_googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Darby,
> >
> > You give me a headache man. It's a qualification not the raison detre.
> > Study
> > hard and you will pass. That's it.
> >
> > I hope you are having a nice weekend.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Darby Weaver
> > To: Luan Nguyen
> > Cc: Gary Duncanson ; Persio Pucci ; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: The State of the CCIE Training Industry
> >
> >
> > Well said Luan!
> >
> > Sorry my main point was missed.
> >
> > Here's what I think and why I think now is the time for the training
> > vendors
> > and Cisco to take back the CCIE Certification:
> >
> > 1. The content has changed - about 45-55% of the layout of the exam is
> > either new or different.
> >
> > 2. The training materials need to reflect the changes and we know they
> > will.
> > This is going to be a huge development effort.
> >
> > 3. The new materials need to be supported only by a given training
> > company's
> > forum or other mechanism and no other.
> >
> > 4. We might as well get used to the idea that if something is
> electronic,
> > it
> > was meant to be shared - cause it will be shared. LockLizard or other
> > protection mechanisms not withstanding - and easily so.
> >
> > - Hint: If you need a key to open or enable a key - a modest amount of
> > reverse engineering turns an or to a zor or whatever and voila....
> > everything
> > but the key opens pandora's box. You lose.
> >
> > - Hint: If a program needs to call home to be validated. Did the
> program
> > have to do anythign on the box of the user? Probably... Um... Ooopps...
> > You
> > lose again. It is a trivial matter to sniff the transaction and either
> > recreate the transaction or better yet map the call to the loop and
> create
> > a
> > test file with the value needed to be returned from the query... eveni if
> > it
> > is a registry call. Sucks huh? In many cases it is just that easy.
> And
> > to
> > think some very smart people paid for this level of protection.
> >
> > Remember that these program protect against the weakest among us and the
> > weakest among us is probably not who bought the product. and if it was
> > they
> > might have a few hundred thousand very capable friends. One of them
> will
> > not
> > be so weak.
> >
> > Now I suppose some will argue that this is not an issue - they have
> their
> > own books and would know for sure. If it is not an issue than forgive
> me
> > for
> > bringing it up. If it is an issue consider what I'm telling you
> carefully.
> >
> > And there are those who will throw stones since they may think I just
> made
> > their efforts a little tougher by sort of spelling it all out.
> >
> > I'm just saying...
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew Lee Lissitz
> all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sat Jul 18 2009 - 15:02:10 ART