Assuming Gabe is being truthful when he states that this is a secondary check triggered by some other evidence for cheating, then just visiting these sites wouldn't be enough.

Its suspicious activity (reported by players? detected through other methods? not sure) that triggers the additional check(s).

the point is to take students who's parents care from bad schools and put them in an environment where they can get a decent education.

Its not always about level of care the parents are providing but what they can provide. How much care towards education can a low-income single parent working two full time jobs provide?

What is the parent doesn't have a great education themselves and aren't able to help their child academically (and only motivationally)?

Should that child suffer, not only because of that, but because of dwindling resources in the public school system that are being drained by the charter schools?

The students who are struggling are the ones who need the best resources/teaching/etc. If charter schools are as great as they are made out to be - they should be VOLUNTEERING to take students who are struggling academically, not shunning them like lepers.

If charter schools are allowed to operate, then they shouldn't benefit from special privileges that public schools don't have. They should have to accept any students in the area (regardless of academic level, just like the public schools). They also should be required to have all students take the standardized tests (instead of finding reasons to exclude children who they know won't do as well, so the school looks better ranked in comparison).

If charter schools aren't cheating and they are showing an improvement that is one thing. But too often they are cheating to make themselves look better compared to public schools.

That is an absurd argument. Yes some companies can and should offer bug bounties but if the only method you can rely on is out bidding the black market, then you've already lost.

Not to mention, there are a lot of small companies, small foundations, and open source projects which could never afford such prices.

All three branches are immune from politics, when it comes to national security issues. There's a reason why blatantly illegal practices have near unanimous support amongst our representatives, and it's not because our government is a functioning democracy.

I wouldn't say near unanimous by any means. There are lots on the edges of the right and left who were against this. The Amash amendment, which would have drastically reined in the data the NSA collected (not as much as necessary, but a good start). It failed in the US House by only 217-205. Of those voting for the amendment, it was 111 Democrats, 95 Republicans.

That it failed was disappointing but it shows that we're not that far from having a majority for bills like this. We just need to get more of the establishment folks on both sides out of office.

I always had sympathy for her after her jail sentence. She went to jail for a MINOR insider trading case (where they couldn't even prove that, just obstruction of justice), while those who collapsed the economy got off scot free.

Hope her company drives the patent trolls into the ground. And then she decorates the grave with some potpourri warning signs to other trolls or some such.

No, of course not; there should definitely be a censhorship apparatus put in place.. right? That's what you're implying/suggesting, I assume?

Yes - self-censorship. The internal voice that says, or should say, "This is something that should not be said to another person, since I (ideally) don't want to be a jack ass".

Gaming industry deserves all the abuse it gets. Extreme cases of abuse aside, all criticism is they get is deserved.

But who should be getting the abuse you advocate? The executives of the big publishers or the regular folks working for the industry to actually make games? I've disliked games before but that doesn't mean that I should be justified to spew vitriol at the coders, artists and others working in the industry.

for the same price that they currently pay for a guaranteed download speed of 100 megabits per second

The 100 megabit figure is what they currently have, not the new network.

The summary is right, but the subject (gigabyte vs gigabit) is wrong.

This was revealed many places a while back. Dragorn of Kismet covered it back in 2010:

http://blog.kismetwireless.net/2010/08/google-wifi-android-and-too-much-data.html

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint-help/copy-and-paste-your-slides-HA001230242.aspx

But they're creating that now anyway. Channels like History, Discovery and TLC have moved from their original focus to reality TV garbage.

If people really paid per channel then a channel would be much less likely to drastically change their content type in favor of another (since the former customers would likely drop the channel much quicker then they could get new customers).

Its rarely about just opening an email. Its about opening attachments in that email, or opening links that lead to sites with malware. There have been enough vulnerabilities (OS, Adobe, Java, etc.) that have been around which don't require any special privileges. Just a user to click through warning prompts.

It cannot be solely IT's responsibility - especially in this day of BYOD (Bring your own device). IT isn't always able to remove admin privileges from corporate/organization owned computers - much less the Sales guy's personal laptop.