I see more than a few F-250s that don't have a spec of dirt on them, no equipment near them, wheels and shocks in a configuration completely unsuitable for doing any work. As a matter of fact, most of the trucks that I see that aren't directly used to carry landscaping or construction equipment have never been near any work or towing.

And you're still conflating two things that are not the same: piracy (modern version) and theft. Merely putting an emphasis on your statement does not make it so. Piracy might now mean copyright infringement, but it is still not theft. You sound like a child if you can't differentiate between depriving someone of property and illicitly copying content.

That's your final argument? It's bad because it's against the law? Somehow I suspect that this is only your position because you think it doesn't affect you.

All that's missing is some mention of hosts files.

Centralizing control over analysis of student performance data --- taking the capability away from teachers to evaluate how a program is really working, and placing it in the hands of

You seem to view this as a zero sum game.

Additional central analytics doesn't necessarily take capabilities away from teachers. It could inform and help them.

Anything can be used badly, it seems to me the fight should be to use analytics well, not stop it being used.

For improving quality of the educational materials, all Code.org needs is aggregate summary data

I don't think that's necessarily true, or at least it's not true that more specific detail than aggregate data won't lend itself to additional useful insights.

For instance it's reasonable to imagine that different people learn better in different ways and that by accumulating data on individuals one might be able to determine different groups among them which might in turn lead to more tailored materials for different types of learners.

If you aggregate the data early around one factor (eg a class or school) that will vastly reduce your ability to come up with other ways to view the data or to have things emerge from the data that you didn't already anticipate.

It would be absurd to suggest that more fine-grained data wouldn't allow for more detailed analysis. The only question is where the line needs to be drawn for privacy or other reasons.

I just wanted to notify you, informally, that you've infringed upon my patent that details a process for complaining about patents. I'll make sure that my lawyers send you the appropriate notice paperwork by the end of next week.

Lord of the Rings? Didn't we already hear about these?

You can almost walk from Papua to Australia at low tide (if you have very long legs).

Or a kangaroo to ride, of course.

What a tasty and oh so flammable straw man. Care to link to those hordes of slashdotters who professed their love of Chavez? Or is this just the result of one of your fevered political nightmares?

"I want a Sony plasma television for the house," said Amanda Lisboa, 34, a business administrator who waited seven hours outside a Caracas store ... "It's going to be so cheap!"

Didn't Sony stop making plasma TVs some time ago?

If the system is designed right, forged cards, replay attacks (e.g. add $50 to the card, read its contents, spend the $50, write the old contents to get a free top-up) and other such things can be prevented.

What is the practical gain from that?

The reality is that 99.9% of people are honest and will pay what they should regardless of whether the cards are insecure and could be 'hacked'. As such there isn't much to be gained from designing a system that protects against things almost no one is going to do anyway.

Which doesn't explain why these systems always seem to cost so much and get delivered late. I can only assume the companies that make these things do that so the problem seems harder than it is.