1 - It is natural for a government agency to watch where criminal activity may happen. And anonymized networks are more likely to contain criminal information.
2 - They are only watching, they can't arrest you or issue search warrents for just using TOR.
3 - If you don't expect to be watched, why are you using anonymizers ? The whole point of anonymizers is to preserve your anonymity even if you are watched. So if the NSA manages to identify you, blame yourself and whatever service you are using, not the NSA.

The mechanism is basically :
- Allows cookies from sites you have already visited.
- Blocks cookies from sites you have not visited yet.

Because you are very likely to have visited Google. It will probably affect them less than their competitors.

Piro knocked out Largo, and it happened : http://megatokyo.com/strip/51

AFAIK VP9, like h.264, is just a video compression algorithm.
Unless you want to encrypt only part of the picture or some other special features, encryption is out of scope of a video codec.

Unfortunately, the really effective treatment is usually something that no self respecting doctor would do (think lobotomy). In many cases, people are kept in mental hospitals for the rest of their lives and given powerful sedatives while the doctors fail to find an effective and ethical therapy.
It is not so much different than prison : it works by separating dangerous elements from society rather than changing them.

Steve Jobs is well known for his saint-like patience and composure with his underlings.
His attitude changed less than two years ago.

All nuclear power plants use massive amounts of DHMO, and when DHMO systems fail, it is a disaster. This is the cause of Fukushima nuclear accident.

We managed to compute the one-time-pad you used to encrypt it.

A sports car driven responsibly is safer than an ordinary car. The features that makes up a race car such as acceleration can be used to better escape danger.

The PC is not dead.
Sales are low simply because people already have a PC that is good enough for them. A PC bought 5 years ago, when iOS and Android didn't even exist, is still usable.

How much does it cost in bitcoin ?

We are talking about crackers here.
Piss them off and you may end up with an army of script kiddies DDoSing your system and exploits being sold on the black market instead of being notified to PayPal.

I think your problem is not that you made a dangerous feature too easy to use, nothing is too easy. The questions should be :
- Why is this feature dangerous in the first place ?
- Why do users feel the need to use this feature ? Aren't there safer alternatives ? If they are, why aren't they more accessible / easier to use ?

It's no problem giving flying cars to everybody, if the roads are good enough so that people rarely need to fly. Or that flight mode ships with a reliable auto-pilot.

Most people don't care about the console, they care about the games they can play on it.
That's why the PS4 and Xbox One are not really competitors to the WiiU. If you want to play Super Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart or Smash Bros, you need to get a Nintendo console.
Right now we only have a 2D "New Super Mario". As for the other big "exclusives" : Monster Hunter 3U is also available on 3DS, which seems to be the preferred platform and Dragon Quest X is also available on Wii. It's no wonder the WiiU doesn't sell that well but it says nothing about the future.

Photoshop is still the best image editing software, and MS-Office is still the best office suite. That's why they tend to stick around.

Many prople tell about the tons of useless features these software have. But what is useless for you may be essential for someone else, and because not everyone needs are the same, it explains the apparent bloat. You simply cannot make light versions for a wide audiance.
It takes only one small feature in a list of 100 to justify upgrading if is important to you.