What in the world could possibly cause "unusually large score gains from a previous test"? Studying!
  I know that after having failed a test, I've often buckled down, reviewed all the material from the beginning and aced the subsequent test.
Yet according to Caveon Test Security, I'd be a cheater.

I also take issue with "searching for data anomalies where the chances of random agreement are astronomical". On one recent test, a fellow student and I missed nearly exactly the same questions, because we were taught by the same TA.
We were both excellent students, with the same gaps in our knowledge, and the same mis-information on a few topics. We approached problems the same way, which led us to the same errors, exactly as we were taught.

The point is: Caveon's analysis is worthless. It apparently provides NO means to differentiate cheating from completely reasonable non-cheating explanations. All it can do is point out anomalies.

But if these tests are "used to determine graduation, graduate school admission and, the latest, merit pay and tenure for teachers", it is completely improper (and perhaps illegal?) to deny someone graduation, admission, pay, or tenure without PROOF, on the basis of an anomaly.
Really, these guys are peddling Snake Oil. Perhaps the TSA is buying?

While it is true you can stare up in the sky and spot certain satellites with the naked eye, and even more with telescopes and equipment, thats not the whole story.

To know the full path of a satellite takes multiple, precise observations over time along with some detailed calculations, and that is ONLY if the satellite is stable.

Many of the most secretive satellites regularly adjust their orbits with thrusters. So if you get lucky enough to spot it and calculate an orbit, it may move to a new orbit soon.

Hence, the number, position, and trajectory of many government satellites is "secret" even if they are in plain view.

I believe this is the EXACT photo:

-=-=[NSFW]=-=-
http://content.moneyshotblog.com/2009-09/bikini-pleasure-1.jpg
-=-=[NSFW]=-=-

I really enjoy the fingerprint readers from UPEK (http://www.upek.com/).

The device knows my passwords, and I can log into sites with just a finger swipe.
It is both faster and more accurate than typing a password (no typos... re-try is just another finger-swipe if it didn't read properly).

You can unplug the USB fingerprint reader and keep it separate from your computer if you want to be extra paranoid.

I remember in Jet Fighter III you could land your plane upside-down.

It was important that airspeed be appropriate, flaps down, gear down, angle of attack correct, etc, etc. But if you met all the criteria upside-down, it would still be counted as a successful landing.

It was good fun to pan the camera around this jet, on its top, with the gear sticking straight up, with a message about a perfect landing!

Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get.
Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.

Fingerprints don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".

On the otherhand, DNA says *everything* about you.

Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.

Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.

Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.

We don't even know how DNA may be used in the future.

Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get.
Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.

Fingerprints are remarkable in that they are unique identifiers, that still don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".

Law enforcement only sees DNA as identification. But the truth is so much more.

Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.

Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.

Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.

Unless government can somehow insure that DNA is not used for purposes beyond identification, and can establish severe penalties if it is, then the only promise we have that it won't be abused is their word, and that means very little to me.

There's a gigantic unanswered question here: How does this scale?

Under the large-lecture system in place when I was at MIT ('92), 300+ students filled the lecture hall two times a day, 3 days a week. That is 600+ students taking class 8.01 (Intro Physics). This required one professor to deliver the lecture, and a handful of TA's to handle recitations and study groups.

Under the system described in the article, only 80 students are taught at a time. But *each* class requires a professor and a team of TA's. To handle 600+ students taking the class, it would require 8 classroom sessions, 3 times a week, each involving a prof and TA's. That's 24 hours a week the prof is spending in class teaching. (not even counting prep-time, grading papers, or office-hours).

This system, for whatever successes it might have, just doesn't seem to scale. It seems to put a huge load on the prof and TAs.