Who cares about this? Simply tracking which WiFi station IDs the phone sees is a lot better way of tracking where the person is.

If you can hack into their phone, you can find them. No need for fancy long-term acceleration tracking either.

I use several anti tracking plugins and I've noticed that when I switch to a different browser without them the page load time is much faster. I also have googled safe surf turned on which blocks evil sites. In starting to think these tracking blockers and stuff slow things down. They don't really stop tracking since the blockers or google safe surf are middlemen who can track you.

Thus I would welcome a unified approach to protecting myself that was actually faster

You're taking it as a given that non-competitive cooperation requires a central coordinating force. This is not true. Hive behaviours (ants, bees etc) are emergent phenomena created by thousands of peer-to-peer communications, and in any education system with high freedom in syllabus and methods, you can see the same sort of emergent behaviour in knowledge (and resource) sharing between peers. If you see competition as the only alternative to centralism, you're wide of the mark. Individual entities in a competitive environment start to focus down narrowly -- competition may drive innovation in some senses, but it also puts the blinkers on as you can't afford to be distracted. This leads to a situation where the "consumer" is left with a choice of which centralism to subscribe to -- a "choose your own dictatorship", if you will...

Should I have hashtagged my last post #joke for you...?

The debt grew under Reagan. It was 907B in 1980 and 2600B in 1988. Even as a percent of GDP, that's an increase

Source: https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

This actually plays into my fears about the gamification of education. A lot of game-games use achievements as a "Skinner box" (as Extra Credits terms it) to encourage mindless return business, rather than simply employing good game mechanics. If your achievement or "challenge" is to play 20 times, that doesn't encourage the player to improve their technique -- it's just grinding. Is "grit" not what you get left with after grinding? Rewarding grinding in education or the workplace is little more than institutionalised presenteeism.

"Everyone's a winner" was a lazy philosophy resulting from Chinese whispers in the teaching profession. The educational psychologists asked teachers to be more mindful of what they say, because they noticing that across the board, underperforming students got more negative reinforcement for mistakes than positive feednack when they got something right. Teachers weren't supposed to start giving uncritical praise, but just to smile more when kids get things right. It's not that hard to do, and everyone benefits, but it wasn't simple enough for the crappy resource packs and brain-dead seminars that much in-service training is built around.

Don't be so quick to judge people's intentions so harshly. Many people genuinely believe that what they're doing is for the best, and attacking their intentions rather than criticising their methods won't get us anywhere. The Tories cling to the belief that publuc services are intrinsically inefficient, and when they privatise contracts to their friends, it's because they know that they friends have good intentions too. And when they leave politics and take up directorships, it's because they've proven that they're good guys. The oroblem isn't intentions, but the unwavering belief that market economics are good for everyone, and an ideological inability to recognise that the inevitable result of competition is corner-cutting.

As long as we allow ourselves to misrepresent their intentions and define them as inhuman monsters, we tacitly encourage them to do the same to us.

Take a closer look at nature. Competition occurs when resources are limited. Wolves compete against other predators and their prey, but cooperation is what wins them the race. Humans compete with other animals, but farming is inherently cooperative and increases the availability of food for everyone. The only place where we really need to compete is in the reproductive stakes.

I personally thought No Doubt were overrated.

Non-competes are legally unenforceable when they stop you realistically changing jobs within your field. Things get murkier when your new employer isn't in that field already, and you're the one that brings the into it. It's murkier still when your new employer is YOU. This isn't a question of non-compete, it's a question of trade secrets, because when the employee is working from the ground up, his prior knowledge is based entirely on the previous employer's project, whereas when there's a partly-built product to work on, there's already a seed that will take the development of the product away from the old employers device.

Ironic that you can't cite even one, though...

You clearly have never met a woman. Wedding fever is probably even worse among the non-believers than religious people.

yES!! if the TYPICAL voter does not understand why the vote is secure the method fails. this is virtually the turing rest for any proposed schema.

Someone needs to write one of those form letters we have for why someones proposal to end spam will fail for all these stupid people who think the problem is crytography.

The article doesn't support the statement that the microbeads are toxic.

Is there any information that the microbeads are actually toxic?