The Course resource looks like an amateur listing everything they could think of, and they still got it wrong. Look at "minimumAvailableCredit" and "maximumAvailableCredit". First, this is just bad data design: either lookup the min/max on the data tables, or if these are proscriptive then there's no way to deal with changes in regulations over time. Second, academic credits vary by many factors (like classroom hours, enrollment types like auditing, etc...) and it'll be meaningless to say the minimum is zero for every course. Third, "academic" credits are not the only type of credits that schools deal with (think lab credits, on-the-job credits, etc...).

This looks like they're trying to build a Cathedral

DNT was never going to work in any practical way. Advertisers weren't going to change because of a voluntary system. So were the proponents naive idealists or playing politics? DNT has made an issue out of data tracking (people++) but also given industry and politicians years of cover (theman++) while it's debated.

I can't help but see this as a near total victory for industry: they haven't actually changed at all. The core issue hasn't been debated in any technical sense (what counts as tracking? how long can data be kept?...) There's little to no discussion about civil rights and privacy. No discussion about security or the legal status of the data (what happens when lawyers want tracking data for a divorce case?).

DNT is an April Fools joke (evil bit) transformed into a mock-policy discussion.

Imagine they had said: you can help support developers by installing these apps. Oh well, Xubuntu 12.04 is LTS.

Optional today, required tomorrow. But don't worry because it'll work with Android and Windows Phone 8, and you'll get to choose the software you like best!

Swearing about PARANOIA seems more than a little unfair since the government has tried this strategy -- but without the iPhone -- before. It looks like they're currently calling it TSA PreCheck but they'll probably change it to "PhoneCheck".

I'd like to remind them that as a trusted moderator I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKbFb6TPVEA

"It is necessary to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back." -- Sir Humphrey.

If you want to kill DNT, first get behind it, then make sure you get to define what DNT means, how it's implemented and regulated.

Network Working Group
Request for Comments: 3514
Category: Informational

                  The Do Not Track Flag in the IPv4 Header

Status of this Memo
      This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
      not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
      memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice
      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2013). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract
      Advertisers, marketers, data aggregators, and the like
      often have difficulty distinguishing between people that have
      money and those that are merely unusual. We define a
      Do Not Track flag in the IPv4 header as a means of distinguishing
      the two cases.

Read more at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt

My reaction is just the opposite; slashdot is full of idiots. The submitter points out a simple fact, that consuming arbitrary input leads to vulnerabilities, and gave an example, QR codes misleading apps to a website. The vector would be different with currency, but Diebold can make a secure environment, right? Banks are important, the risks should be minimized, and a new technical attack vector should be of interest to geek website.

Almost every comment at 5 is mocking the idea of a QR code on money redirecting to a website, showing a lack of (basic) understanding or imagination. I guess slashdot needs every little thing spelled out for them.
 

HTML5 was compromise of existing implementations and small improvements, adopted because the XHTML standards were being ignored. Your rant is misdirected: HTML5 is a solution to the lack of standards progress, not a cause of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#History

Who wants to take me up on this offer: I get cash and you get "increased liquidity". Any takers?

Summary is both Funny and Insightful: But what's in it for users? ...uhmm they'll tolerate it, because they're young, broke and already trained.

Yes, and we saw the same reaction with the AdBlock Plus detection/counter-measures hoopla. Advertisers can tolerate a small percentage of blocking, but it can't become to popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Advert_filtering_controversy_and_.22acceptable.22_ads

DNT is just an Evil-Bit with better marketing, so I'm not sure what concessions the advertisers can make to continue the pretense that DNT is an effective option.

Then whats the practical significance of this? Is it just the secrecy/security during transmission? The Wikipedia page also says 2 'classical' bits would have to be transmitted through a 'classical' way, which seems to remove any advantage of speed or bandwidth.

I saw a race/xenophobia explanation: US citizens living close to Apple HQ and loving Apple products, want to punish the Korean company that stole from Apple. Seems consistent with the way many people think: issues of race unacknowledged, people self-identifying with a corporation or their products, desire for a simplistic accounting of right vs wrong, acting extremely vengeful and calling it justice, etc...

Defining digital freedom isn't new, so maybe the GOP should look to the four freedoms of the GPL:

* the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
* the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
* the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
* the freedom to share the changes you make.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

Of course that doesn't fit with controlling your neighbors morality or allowing corporations to own the internet.