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.

Or, set an acceptable price to you. $1 per play (or whatever). No negotiation. Look at all of the time you just saved.

Read Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward. (and the sequel, Starquake) Part of the story involves humans interacting with an alien species that is a lot faster. The alien's lifespan is about 15 minutes...

Because your "reasoned" decision apparently doesn't take into account the threat you now represent to everybody else.

Not really... the cabs are being artificially hamstrung by regulation that was put into place precisely because private people were doing bad things and thus government was lobbied/decided upon that regulation was required in order to protect public safety. So now there are a bunch of cabs which are following said regulations (likely at a pretty significant cost), and now this other organization is setting up a de facto cab company, but doesn't have to follow the regulation. Now... if the cab companies no longer had to follow the regulations and _still_ couldn't compete with Uber, then so be it. But as it is now you're comparing the performance of two race horses, but one of them has its legs tied together.

I made no comment on the validity of the case itself (and had also mentioned the 5 minute thing). What I'm pointing out is that this article is inaccurate in it's headline ("Stop and _Search_ Based On Anonymous 911 Tips"), and many of the comments are making the same leap. The facts of the case didn't link the anonymous tip to the search. The facts of the case linked the anonymous tip to the _stop_. It was evidence gathered during the stop that lead to the search. The dissenting opinions were around whether the police had sufficient cause to stop the person in the first place since without the stop, the police wouldn't have had the additional evidence to provide cause for a search. So, much of the outrage here is misdirected. It should all be directed at whether or not the police had sufficient cause to stop the car. What we should be seeing is arguments along the lines of: "The police received an anonymous tip. Based on that they located the car and observed its behaviour over 5 minutes." Followed by either "Having seeing no signs of impaired driving we stopped observing the car and went on our way", or "We then pulled the vehicle over in order to have a discussion with the driver that a concerned citizen had observed the car behaving erratically, was there something wrong?" (Which then leads to the discovery of the other evidence)