If he's hosting a VPN with his home internet being the endpoint, then all they have to do is see what's happening on his home connection. The only privacy that would provide is against MitM or people sniffing public wifi.

I'm more curious about how they enforce the "two free one-hour sessions". Sounds like it would be possible (although maybe inconvenient) to get unlimited free wifi from this.

Isn't that essentially what they already do by giving OEMs cheap windows licensing?

A lot of top-tier colleges actually offer so much financial aid that the tuition is almost nonexistent as long as you/your parents don't make too much money.

A small device like a cell phone or wifi card might transmit around 1W and receive at orders of magnitude lower than that. Now think about how much power a fridge uses. Hint: It's a lot more than 1W. It's obviously not all going to go into RFI, but a faulty motor with a spark gap could still produce a (relatively) significant amount of radio waves.

It's not the same at all. Wal-Mart is free to set their prices as they wish. However, if I wish to sell a Wal-Mart product that I purchased, I can sell it at whatever price I want. Wal-Mart already got my money. This is nothing but greed.

I think the real problem with warning messages is that they're so overused that people ignore them. If UI designers had saved warning messages for things that were actually important ("You're about to delete a file") rather than stupid things ("You are loading a web page with unsecured elements") then people might actually pay attention to them.

Hell, back when Vista first came out I had to go through FOUR, yes four UAC dialogs to create a folder in program files and rename it.

In TFS, it makes it seem like Verizon complained to him because he was running servers which are generally against the ToS of residential plans, rather than the excessive bandwidth usage. The excessive usage may have been what triggered the phone call (so they could figure out what was actually going on), but it was ToS violations that were the issue at hand.

The LPers put work into their videos. Nintendo made the game and sold it for profit (not to mention free publicity from videos). So previously, Nintendo and the video producer both put some effort into it, and were both rewarded. Now the LPers not only had to pay for the game, but had to produce the video and are now getting zero revenue out of it. Nintendo just wants to have their cake and eat it too.

It's not a sign of them running out of money. It's business as usual. Just because a company has X amount of money doesn't mean they don't want to make more. Companies would ALWAYS like to make more money.
Besides, I'm 99% certain Nintendo isn't the first company to do this. I recall hearing about some of the scummier game companies doing this.

That's extremely faulty logic. How does someone selling/giving away a used game cost you more than that same person continuing to play the game themselves?

That's not how the DMCA works. Under the safe harbor provision, if they comply with the takedown notice, you can't sue them for it. The only time he would be able to sue people is if they refuse to take the video down.
For that matter, why would the DMCA even apply here? This is an issue of libel, not copyright.

By all means, it's a useful feature and should be an option, but it was just implemented poorly. Even if it was just "hold alt to activate switch-to-tab", it would be better than having to hold alt to disable the feature.

But if I'm just trying to read slashdot, I'm perfectly fine with it opening another slashdot tab. Hell, it saves me the trouble of having to scroll back up and/or refresh the page (if I'm browsing a site that doesn't have JS to autoupdate it).

It shouldn't. If I want to open another tab of the same webpage, then I should be able to easily do so. If I wanted to switch back to that tab, I would switch back to that tab. It doesn't need to remind me of anything because my IQ is greater than 50.