This is true, and at the same time there's a bothersome contradiction in this whole salary and location thing.

On the one hand, yes, absolutely we should be making a salary adjusted to the places we work. We make embarrassing salaries in Silicon Valley and transplanting that into another geography is in some significant ways unfair to the people in that geography. (imagine some Saudi family moving into your town just was you are graduating from high school/college and helping to raise the cost of living out of the range that you can afford... never mind the issues implicit in things like Wilkinson's The Spirit Level).

On the other hand, the implication of that is that I should be able to go to my employer and say "Hey, I choose to live in Atherton where the average house price is $10million, so adjust my salary to match where I am living". Put another way, if someone is "choosing" (by whatever value of "choosing" is involved in that decision) to live somewhere expensive (or not expensive), why does my personal choice have any impact on why my employer "should" pay me?

(of course, I'm aware that the reality of the situation is neither logical nor fair, but instead just an approximation of both influenced by negotiation abilities on both sides and precedence. That doesn't stop this from being an intriguing situation)

Seems to me that while this

that plaintiffs could have taken steps to keep their browsing histories private

speaks of incognito etc mode, it seems really an encouragement (if not a directive) to use ad blockers. If the official legal opinion (in a silicon valley court, no less) is a variation of caveat emptor (browser beware), that can't be particularly good for legitimate folks.

Yeah, I know many folks here are already big advocates of ad blockers, and I'm aware every sizable nation state on the planet is already watching what I do. But, to have the court pretty much say: "you are on your own here" starts the conversation about personal privacy at a pretty low bar.

fwiw, the reports I read of folks that watched showscan movies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan ) 20+ years ago overwhelmingly said that the higher framerate gave the films an level of realism that they'd never seen in films before.

This sounds reasonable. How do I go about making sure my ISP/hosting provider is not harboring spammers/botnets? Is there a reputable site somewhere where this kinda info is tracked?

For folks interested, another interesting view on mathematics teaching is in the book "Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States" by Liping Ma. It's very thought provoking. It doesn't persuade me to any particular solution, but definitely gives me more data to think about how we teach people things like mathematics.

That I don't disagree with. It depends on what one considers "free will". I think that without an agreed upon definition of what these words (free will, determined) mean, it's not very useful to say one or the other is or is not involved. I think the original article is suggesting that "free will" is the same as conscious awareness of some decision. By that self-declared definition, then of course they are right that there is no free will involved, because they've defined "free will" as conscious awareness of the decision. Since unconsciousness is not consciousness, then by their definition it can't be free will. I don't have the same definition, so I don't agree with the way they phrase their conclusion.