You are wrong because you conflate the meaning og "point" (why we have authority figures, and/or where they derive their, well, authority from) with your beliefs about how (all? most?) authority figures and structures actually act. It seems, solely to provoke a reaction.

Now I agree that you should be highly suspect of any authority figures and systems (having read Frank Herbert at an impressionable age), but that hardly means we should attack everyone who says that the point of having such figures is actually something better than what we have or what we should naively expect...

Socialism is about the distribution of wealth and the laws under which you get to create and accumulate it. It is not about (for or against) individual rights, except that it does not value any "right to own" higher than the right to life, happiness, etc. etc.
You may be confusing socialism with Stalinism or Leninism, or some other kind of totalitarian system that called itself communism...

I am so sorry. I thought this was the discussion about a private company owning (and as such companies are wont to do) selling detailed data on all teachers and students, while providing a lock-in platform for serving and tracking all teaching. If they are only recommending a book or other teacher aid, then I must have completely misunderstood the article. Sorry, won't happen again!

Not magically and not because of the tablet. But when one actor becomes the keeper, gatekeeper and salesperson through yet another "nice-data-you-have-there-maybe-we-should-hold-that-for.you"-based (ie. cloud) solution, then yes, we are moving closer to an Orwellian concept (with a few corporate, not one state, big brothers).
It is not because the teacher is marking it on a tablet, it is because one big corp is going to be analysing, using and reselling the data from everything both student and teacher does to advertisers, government and related industries that this becomes a problem.

Do you care who holds its leash, controls its mouth and directs its every move and to what end?

Who on earth gave you the idea feminism is about special rights for women?

Seriously? That is nowhere near the agenda.

Equal pay is a feminist cause. The right to vote is a feminist cause.

Please point to these feminist organisations saying women should be paid more than men, or be allowed to vote twice!

You should read a dictionary, because that has nothing at all to do with feminism. Nothing. Not one bit.

Feminism is the idea that women are people. Often tied to a sensibility towards the fact that they have not traditionally, and in some ways, in some cultures, still are not treated as such.

Hardwired?

Like we are hardwired to eat sugary foods, and hence all attempts to eat anything but glucose is silly?

The problem is that it signals to all the girls that this is what they are supposed to be, and if they do not like it - this is not the place for them. This is a problem, even if you do not suffer from it, or if it is not (and maybe should not) be illegal.

And if women outnumbered men, we would have the exact same problem as we have now (women parts being used as bling) - because this is a male dominated society and a slow one to change culturally. Look at you arguing like structural,cultural and linguistic oppression is not an issue...

America suppressed the information regarding its own wrongdoing. Hence, the delivery of information to a non-American entity.

A non-retarded response to this new paradigm would be not suppressing information about your own wrongdoing - and thus gaining some control over its dissemination. An added bonus to doing the right thing, I might add.

Actually, the independence and paradigmatic shift of new media was made public in 1996, and no government has of yet responded sanely to the new reality. That the US government is not able to understand the new facts on the ground does not make said facts bullshit. Just because your logic cannot encompass something, does not mean it cannot affect you. It just makes your responses utterly dumb...

In the end, socalled IP can only be enforced in this manner: Control over the machines used by the buyers, ie. the potential buyers, ie. the rabble. Only when we no longer control our machines, can you "sell" access - you need a gateway to extract money! Since the "you need the LP/CD/DVD"-model has died, the only possible gate is access and control over the machine.

So, the Free Software movement asks again: Who should own and control the machines we all use for work, entertainment, living?

So, a FEMA-approved site which coordinate help on the ground (so far, housing and personal transportation) is not helpful to relief efforts?

Capitalism

That is interesting... Funny if our laws are not cut out for a barter economy... Though I would still hold that "you are paying..." is true whether the law recognises the possibility of two mutual customers or not. We also "pay" in other senses than the legal definition.

But with the case at hand, we are already talking about a mutual contract - which has, by definition, two mutual, consenting partners, who both take up obligations and both gain something from the other.