Even though there is no specific constitutional case against this, it only says that the government cannot commandeer a citizens place unless in time of war, I am sure that if it made it to higher courts there might be a constitutional discussion. Which is to say that the constitution gives us rights, and those rights are sometime reflected in law, sometimes reflected in the absence of law. For instance, unlike the UK we can't be sued for saying bad things about a corporation. That is a right derived from the US Constitution.
Unfortunately many believe as the parent does that we only have very limited rights. This is why corporations feel comfortable about limited the average persons access to the courts. This is why we are afraid to speak our mind online when we get bad service or a bad product, when we have no problem doing the same thing in other public forums.
The private sector does not have special powers to destroy our right as humans and citizens. They cannot make us literal slaves just because we sign a contract. They should not be able to limit my speech or actions into perpetuity just because we make a single transaction. This is the problem with binding long term non compete agreements. As long as I agree to accept payment for my work, then I am subject to the reasonable restrictions of the person paying me. To say that until I die the person who used to pay me have total control over my actions is not reasonable.
This is obviously an exaggeration, but the point is the same. If a student is working on an assignment, she is always observed to make sure for on task behavior, or to make sure the process is correct. The computer is no different. One problem with computer as a educator is that many students don't really know how to use it as tool. They only know how to use it as game. It is the difference between a pencil as a tool to complete a worksheet, or a pencil as toy to throw or use to play sword fighting. Both are legitimate uses of a pencil, in the proper circumstances, and kids need to be taught to use it as the former for typical educational purposes.
So depending on how the data is used the age of the student, it is perfectly reasonable, even beneficial, for software to be monitoring the students behavior. The act of monitoring, just like in the classroom, can positively effect the students behavior. Likewise, constantly monitoring the use and effectiveness of the material is called formative assessment, which is not only beneficial but also required if you are going to give a student the unique educational experience that everyone seems to be clamoring for.
So this is not necessarily like Disney tracking every move of the six year old children. If this is a legitimate educational service, and they violate the privacy of students, even if the students are over 13 years old(and Disney is free to do whatever they want with 13 year old children), they are in violation of federal laws protecting the privacy of students. This does not mean they cannot collect data, it just means they are limited in how they can use it, and who can see it.
What keeps merchants from excessive fraudulent chargebacks is providing a clearly defined product or service, with a clearly defined return policy, and good customer service.
Bitpay is a US company and as such is under US laws. You can bet that at some point someone will spoof a payment through bitpay at a clueless retailer, sue Bitpay, and Bitpay will sue the retailer. It could even be a fraudulent suit, but if the security measures are not there to insure that bitcoins are secure, and accounts are not accidentally wiped out, lawsuits will happen. And we have seen with Mt Gox that even though bitcoins are supposed to be decentralized, it is still subject to a single point of failure.
Remember when Paypal promised the same thing. A secure way to pay an untrusted party for goods and services, better than a credit card? Remember how Paypal prevented access to seller accounts if the buyer complained? Did not seem so good of a deal then, did it?
Also if you are a C++ program, the original K&R C book is a good read of how to keep things simple.
Both of these are short books, with a high ROI.
But black holes have issues and have caused many more questions than answered. Some observations are consistent with the mathematics, but the math leads to some confusing conclusions. Other things come out of the math, and the only reason we dismiss them is that data is not consistent with the predictions. If there is data consistent with predictions, then such things at least deserve the consideration that black holes have received.
What would happen is if the lines were developed separately from the service is that there would be greater incentive to lay more fiber because it could then be sold to firms that were able to develop more flexible packages that would attract more customers. The current incumbents are limited in what they can do. For instance if they have a limited plan, everyone complains that they are throttling. But an independent could push a limited plan as their way of creating a competitive plan.
What the incumbents are afraid of is that third parties, not Google becuase they only go to saturated markets, will start laying fiber and selling access.
There are specific examples the implementation fails. For instance Starbucks has a good implementation, but many Starbucks does not accept the card. Why am I going to have something that is useless. It also by default wants to annoy you every time you go by a Starbucks. We see the same thing with CVS. It is nontrivial to pull up the card, and easier just to type in a phone number.
Most of the digital wallet is just gather information on consumers without providing value in return. Like a grocery store loyalty card. Sure, some are going to use it. Some are going to shop at the store because of perceived value. But many are going to the store that just provides simple service. Walmart does not have a loyalty card.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire