Do they (SAT) discriminate between "prepped" and "unprepped" testees? I'm skeptical because that would require extensive self-reporting.

Not claiming it's available on all (or older devices), but at the very least my Asus MemoPad lets you set up separate accounts with controllable access to apps. And of course separate passwords so Junior never even has a chance to use your account or your credit card.

If you don't want it broken, get another one for you kids -- applies to just about everything.

First, the current SAT rules are that each student can select which test scores to submit to colleges. Many kids take SAT prep courses and then take the SAT multiple times, submitting only the best result.

Second, colleges seem to be reluctant to publish any sort of data on the correlation (or lack thereof) between SAT scores and college GPA or dropout rates. So how do we even know whether the SAT is a useful assessment tool?

Disclaimer: I'm a college-application anarchist who thinks all admissions departments should be taken out and shot, and applicants selected using the time-honored Staircase Method.

One to hug and the other to smoke?

Actually, I kind of like that spelling. Sounds like a command to intercept and apply sinusoidal pressure to a false prophet.

  (Khalid Sheik if you care).

Hey, do the Starks know about this?

(gimme a break here: the new season is just about to start)

No, I think that would mean strange gadgets covered with, or made out of, potatoes.

No, because "chocolate" is a color, not greyscale (you insensitive clod).

I thought the reason the word "meme" was chosen was specifically because of the similarity between organic genetic evolution and evolution of terms on the internet. No?

No, they're more like hard-core. (triple-entendre?)

That could actually be valid if we categorize some folks as "doubleplus un-understanding fractions"

So, how many *shaves* per quart?

The drug lords will wise up and use burner phones, replacing them every X days. Gosh, don't they even watch The Wire down there in Mexico?

When I'm President, the VA rules will be simple: did you serve in the Armed Forces? If "yes," then you get full medical coverage at the doctor and hospital of your choice.
I personally oppose our military buildup and oppose war in general, but given that we have a military, and that every person in uniform is theoretically running the risk of being sent to a live-fire zone, I think lifetime medical coverage is the least we can do for them. I don't give a damn whether the illness is service-related or not.

Personally I view a significant cogitative or social defect that has a one-percent chance of ocurring to be unacceptably high. That's several kids in each class year in any medium-sized elementary school.

So, yes, I would consider an increase from 1% to 1.5% to be important. Granted, reducing the base probability would be far more useful than dealing with the age-related increase, but either way, these are large numbers compared with, say the usual "cancer risk increases by 5x" headlines which ignore the base risk being maybe 1E-6.