I think that at least the big advertising networks like Google will comply, and coincidentally those are the ones that do most of the tracking.

The proposed FTC regulation

At this level of abstraction, the only difference between "arrays of light globes" and OLED display is the size of the pixels.

Postulates have only a value in science if used to prove a thesis under certain assumptions. (e.g. "If P=NP, than breaking RSA is easy"). Unfortunately, the existance of a God does not prove ID in the slightest. I don't see any reason why a God should take the stupid task do design all species one by one. (The non-existance of a God, however, would disprove ID.)

Evolution does not per se deny the existance of a Creator. If you want to couple evolution with the belief of a creator, just imagine a Creator that made the rules, and said rules resulted in all the life forms we see today. Even the Pope acknowledges evolution, and I'm pretty sure he firmly believes in a Creator...

It can not only "not be tested at this time", it can't ever be tested. It is also not a theory. (Wikipedia: "The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. It can be changed if new information is found.") It's not even a hypothesis, because it is not testable. Suggesting otherwise is a grave misunderstanding of the scientific approach.

So, according to your numbers, 72% of US biology highschool teachers teach ID as potentially valid "theory". If that's "not so bleak", I don't know what is.

Or move to europe. I'ts kind of unthinkable that there could be schools not teaching evolution. Every time someone even slightly hinted at the possibility at teaching something else, the resulting public outcry removed him from his office.

It will certainly meet european crash test requirements. However, those impose pretty different requirements than the US test*, so it might be hard to meet both standards with such little weight.

*European crash tests basically mimic collisions between cars by ramming a deformable barrier with 60% offset at 64km/h, US crash test is full front against a concrete wall at 58 km/h. European tests basically force you to have a strong, non deforming passenger cell, US tests focus much more on the restraint systems and ways to dampen the deceleration.

Well, basically by disabling cookies Incognito mode loggs off your Facebook session, so the test (correctly) determines you are not logged in. Thus, you do not break the test itself.

If that's the same thing is debateable, I admit. But as the technique's potential might go beyond checking Cookie-based logons, I think the difference is worth pointing out.

I doubt that halps against the technique presented in TFA, because it does not depend on Cookies or anything that is blocked in Incognito mode. Basically, they only rely to a HTTP request to the site to be checked, using JavaScript to determine the HTTP status. Thus, disabling JavaScript helps. The Firefox Addon "Request Policy" should, according to the autor of TFA, help, too.

Link to Google cache

Surprisingly, this was fixed pretty fast (the cheap way, by removing the user name from the sidebar, but at least fixed)

That's part of the problem in the US ISP market. Here, broadband is actually cheaper then dialup. Dialup was approximately about EUR 25/month plus 0.05 EUR/minute, now I'm paying about 25 EUR for 16 MBit/s DSL with unlimited traffic (both including a landline).

no no no, it's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the EVIL-bit. The Do-Not-Track header is set by the client, so it would be more like a PLEASE-DO-NOT-ATTACK-bit in every message to a possible attacker.

I don't believe you are correct. I've (luckily) never been in a situation where any order was even close to be illegal, but from what I've heard by soldiers who have been to deploymed to war-like zones, it sometimes does happen that soldiers disobey. The legal situation (here in Germany) is a little bit complex, and my english is not quite good enough to write a adequate description, but the possibilities of soldiers to disobey due to "freedom of conscience" are quite generous.

As the higher levels of command are quite aware of the law and the repercussions from braking that law, they usualy play by the rules about these issues. And as any disciplinary action will be escalated to these tiers of command pretty quickly, you are not very likely to face "serious military prison time" or anything similar.

There has been a case where a major disobeyed an order to develop a software, that he believed would be used to support the war in iraq, and he believed this war to be against international law. The case went to court, and it was decided that it was the right of major to disobey in that case (AZ: BVerwG 2 WD 12.04)

Disclaimer: This describes the situation in Germany, and may not translate to other armies.

I can't give you a general answer, only descibe the situation here in germany. If you shoot somebody, there will be a proceedings by the federal prosecutor. If it's reasonable to assume you aimed at an enemy combattant, case closed. If it's reasonable to assume you knowingly shot at a civilian, there will be a regular murder/manslaughter case.

In a war-like zone, the soldier will probably have the benefit of doubt, i.e. if the situation is unclear, or the soldier could resonably believe to be in imminent danger, he will not be prosecuted.