I'd pay that cost yearly for Google to guarantee to not track my registered identities (work, personal). If that's the price they put on it, sure!

"The best teachers will become highly qualified early, and will gravitate toward the best paying jobs."

No kidding? The best education will come from teachers who have a passion to dedicate the cost of a modern 4-year education, master's degree, credentialing, and entry-level experience while they're still young? Wow, that's great to know! Now here's the problem: How do teachers pay for all of that while still safely assuming that there will be a sufficient paycheck on the other side of all the hurdles.

This author of this article may not have noticed, but the economic crash for education has not yet ended. Faculty numbers are still being cut, early retirement is still being suggested, and schools (real schools, not those in Palo Alto and La Jolla) are still looking for the cheapest possible teacher. That teacher likely has very high qualifications because s/he got hired amongst a bunch of under-employed educators, so after 2 or 3 years, that highly qualified teacher will be leaving the scum-hole school that him him/her a job and move on to the higher paying jobs teaching students who aren't in as severe need of dedicated teachers.

Schools refer to this as Overqualified Turnover, Brain Drain, and Talent Sapping... and, believe it or not, it's a disincentive for regular schools to actually put the time and effort into hiring a very good teacher. Many would prefer to have an "OK" teacher that would stick around and have personal investment in their school over a great teacher that is just stopping by for a resume filler.

Your child and everyone's child is better off not flooding to one or a few "best schools" but taking the stand to require adequate public school funding for all schools.

It's OK for Slashdot to do it because Slashdot is not a news media organization. Slashdot re-post the news. It doesn't have reporters or journalists.

I disagree. I think Slashdot is BELIEVABLY biased-- as well it should be. This isn't a media organization. It's a news-reposting blog with a comments section.

I can accept that. What would be best? Creative Rights?

Seriously! What is a "Rogue Site"? Are all websites recruited to exist on the Internet under one flag of universal compliance and then BAM! Rebellion! Do rogue sites, like rogue terrorist cells, pop up and seek to destroy the United States of the Internet?

Because that's what it sounds like. A "rogue" is a "loose cannon"-- something that can destroy a bunch of hard-earned gains if left on its own.

And why are we propagating the term "Rogue Site?" We keep doing it with "IP Theft" and "Piracy"-- why don't we stick to the real, non-marketed vocabulary...

IP-Infringers. They're sites that make available copyrighted materials for copying. That's not rogue... that's "The Internet".

Very well said! It's too bad I can't "favorite" a post in Slashdot, because this would be in there simply for the use as a reference.

I expected a better response. However, I didn't read the terms of participation which clearly states:

"To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition. "

Thus, I don't really fault them for declining to comment. It looks like another avenue will have to be taken.

Note to humanity, if your judgement is a comparison of "what is" and "the worst of all possible situations", you will allow yourself to be harmed up until the time where you ARE in the worst of all known situations... and it will be too late to act.

No, Google is not the worst of all possible situations, but they have acted sufficiently for us all too be concerned about what they do now, what they can do now, and what they are able and willing to do in the future.

From my post: "The issue is likelihood of collision."

From your post: "I am not defending this, and it actually makes me sick, but it is impossible to dismiss the advantage of size in a collision."

I state again: It's not the size of the car of the collision, it's that a collision occurred at all. Collision prevention, NOT INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE VEHICLE, should be the goal.