TLDR; some people are somehow better at some things than some other people. In other words:

Shenanigans.

I read the GP as "Facebook usage may correlate, but doesn't necessarily cause [increased STD rates]." In which case it would be perfectly correct.

Regardless, any discussion of causation based on the information provided in TFA is completely worthless. It simply says that there is geographical correlation between Facebook use and STD rates, that some people with Syphilis have had sex with people they met online, and that people who meet over the internet are more likely to engage in "risky" behavior.

The titles "Facebook Leads to Increase in STDs in Britain" (/.) and "Facebook blamed for rising STD rates in Britain" (TFA) both imply causation when in fact none has been shown. I think this is what the GP was pointing out. I'm sure you'll find plenty more alternate theories of causation in other threads.

Fixed that for you. "Security" is the type of advice being given, so it is effectively an adjective in this sentence. It's just subject-verb-adjective with a complex subject.

A headline with the same structure could have been: "Students Taking Music Lessons Considered Intelligent", which I don't think anyone would have a problem with.

The real issue with this headline is that it's unclear if 1) advice is rational, 2) the rejection is rational, or 3) the users themselves are rational, which could be made clear by these alternatives:
1) "Users Reject Rational Security Advice, Researcher Argues"
2) "Rejecting Security Advice Is Rational For Users, Researcher Argues"
3) "Rational Users Reject Security Advice, Researcher Argues"

The "considered" construction can be elegant in some cases but I don't think it should be used when it can introduce this sort of ambiguity.

The translator can't seem to figure out how many times the road has diverged...

two roads diverged in a yellow wood"

If the operating system (or any software) were in charge of regulating the battery charge cycle, how would the battery charge safely while the system was powered off? There should be hardware in the charge circuit to prevent this kind of damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_controller

Your mom?

AFAIK, "both" still means two. (and if you repeat it over and over again, it becomes a really funny word)

Modded informative? This equation is backwards.

h is a lower bound on certainty, not an upper bound.

So Apple is holding Google's app in limbo until they have time to reverse engineer the functionality and release it as native functionality of the iPhone?