Chrome isn't responding to about:buildconfig... and calling file on the executable:
$ file Google\ Chrome
Google Chrome: Mach-O executable i386

So when are they _finally_ going to have a 64-bit OS X version?

Uh, yes they do. Don't rely on summaries to list all of the features of the language. From N3797: An integer literal is a sequence of digits that has no period or exponent part, with optional separating single quotes that are ignored when determining its value. Example: The number twelve can be written 12, 014, 0XC, or 0b1100. The literals 1048576, 1’048’576, 0X100000, 0x10’0000, and 0’004’000’000 all have the same value. — end example

Uh, have you seen the stuff that Andrei Alexandrescu does with templates?

You forgot the clause "for free" in there. Of course that doesn't happen because there's an expectation that if you bring the car in, the mechanic is going to get _paid_ to first figure out what's wrong with your car starting with the description of "Car no go". So the mechanic gets paid for the time that he takes just figuring out what's wrong first, and paid to then fix the problem (plus parts). (and eventually you find out that the person is trying to use the car to go driving up and down sand dunes in Oregon.... but they are trying to do it in an F1 race car with racing slicks)

How about starting with perjury and treason charges?

Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. Why will the telcos push/carry this phone, and/or why will end-users demand this phone? Good answers to these questions will help determine whether it should be published. (And note end-users are the generic people, not the techy people. "It's more open source" isn't a good answer...)

So why is Amazon being specifically mentioned here? What makes this specific to Amazon? Is Google Compute Engine somehow immune to this? Or Azure, or any other hosting provider? Or self-hosted? Better headline: "Servers compromised through known vulnerability, admins failed to update software to close vulnerability."

Because the people paying for ads to show on WABC7 in NY are expecting viewership in NY to be the ones consuming the ads. If the audience is now nationwide, then the value per eyeball goes way down since now a smaller percentage of the eyeballs matter. So actually both sides of the equation don't like it. The advertisers aren't advertising to the demographic they want, and since the demographic is now much wider, WABC7 can't charge as much per eyeball since many of them are useless to the advertiser.

Unfortunately your analogy is also flawed... the mail _was_ addressed to the recipient. GS "wrote" the wrong address on the envelope.

That one's quite useful. You've declared a variable and now whomever is reading the code now has the additional cognitive load to try to figure out why that variable exists.

Yep. Compile with -Wall -Werror. All warnings are now errors. If the compiler is warning you about something, it is likely that you're not telling the compiler a consistent message. "Do not try to outsmart the compiler, it will get its revenge." Rework the code so that it doesn't warn. Also, gcc has a compiler flag to tell the compiler that certain directories are "system" includes, and not to warn about stuff in them.

Why? The cable modem will be able to figure out what traffic is coming from the home vs. coming via the public wifi, and can count those separately. (And can do different speed shaping and prioritization).

Same question. If the cable modem is plugged in, they just need to block the ethernet and "personal" SSID, leaving the "public" SSID operational.

Yet again, another person who can't distinguish between the technology and a particular application of that technology. What you're complaining about has nothing to do with the implementation of OpenSSL (which is what this article is about), but has to do with the application of OpenSSL. OpenSSL is doing it's job by verifying the presented certificates against the list of trusted certificate authorities that you have configured. The fact that you're trusting too many people isn't a problem with OpenSSL. (It is also not OpenSSL's concern as to how you obtained your list of trusted CAs, only that you have one.)

If only they weren't lying. I don't want _any_ of the ads.