It doesn't matter if it's proprietary or open source, the danger is in any system that is compromised.
Homeland security needs to protect infrastructure and other interests that can impact that state of the nation. Something as benign as somebody hacking the AP twitter feed and posting that a bomb injured the president cost the market over $100B. A series of hacking attacks can result in economic or social destabilization.
Software is also built in layers, so some parts are proprietary, others are open, but a vulnerability in either one can cause issues with all parts of the system.

Given the current political climate I'd prefer to try out "Theaterwide Biotoxic and Chemical Warfare"

I would say the Atom line is being beaten by tablets, the mainstream Core series CPUs are not (yet). There's a lot of growth in ARM, but they are still playing catch-up in the desktop market. Tablets and phones tend to be compliments to traditional desktops. There are major input(mouse&keyboard), storage (1TB+) and output (24"+ screens) that ARM hasn't penetrated. Most people who use a tablet, have a desktop.
Growth is in portable computing, but standalone home computers aren't going away anytime soon.

Any change is very complex. When creating a design agreement, there are inputs from many different groups (not just engineers). You have to take into account legacy systems which interact with the system. One of the biggest eye-openers, was because the old software we used was great at data acquisition, other groups started to usurp that data for their own business groups. Suddenly any change as much as it makes sense breaks those kludged systems and management started pushing a roll back because the headcount and training no longer made it commercially viable

Intel has done will in the iOS department. The problem is they are still playing catch up with ARM in terms of cell, tablets, and other low power designs.
Intel's business is heavily focused on gross margins. Just look at how the stock tanks when it dips below 60%.
At Intel many of the foundry type applications are done when certain technology processes are being warmed down (machines have been fully amortized, processes have been stable and capable for years, and there aren't any breakthroughs needed to get the product built. They aren't getting the absolute best technical solutions, they are getting the lines, engineers, and equipment that are on their way out. That is unless Intel dealing with really expensive high margin product. Things along the lines of ultra-expensive corporate mega servers with huge die, innovative design requirements, or entirely new form factors (since Intel can provide both processor and motherboard solutions..

In fact some business units within Intel (think low cost consumer applications) have outside fabs manufacture their designs because it's more cost effective than tying up internal resources working on the more profitably next gen Core processors. Remember Xscale, Intel based designs based on ARM projects which were often externally manufactured.
Fact is most outside companies looking for a foundry, are willing to use TSMC or other lower cost (not necessarily low quality) fabs because their designs don't need the manufacturing complexity. Plus with the heavy commitments to internal customers (who represent billions of dollars in revenue), many external customers don't want to see their designs placed at the back of the queue.

Not necessarily, some of the big wins Intel pulled off were marketing driven, for example Intel Inside and Centrino. End users didn't understand what they were getting, they just knew they wanted it.
While there is a major technical side to processors, a lot of it is not to make them better in benchmarks. Architecture drives benchmarks, manufacturing improvements can contribute, but usually they are more about the bottom line. Die shrinks more die per wafer and better yields = profit.
That said my post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Krzanich's background I think is excellent. Not just from the hands-on engineering side which many on Slashdot focus on, but his background in supply chain management when he was a VP in ATTD. The constant turn over of processes puts a stress not only on the company but its suppliers. One chemical vital to photolithography may need a sharp ramp up in one year, with a ramp down 2 years later.

I'd prefer Adamsian creationism - "The universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure"

Even on school campus they shouldn't prosecute. The Florida law concerning zero tolerance states: "The Legislature finds that zero-tolerance policies are not intended to be rigorously applied to petty acts of misconduct and misdemeanors, including, but not limited to, minor fights or disturbances."

Something like this happened in my Chem class. Students wanted to see if they could launch a 5-gallon water bottle across the room using IPA as a propellant. Instead of going across the room, it exploded. We all had a laugh, life went on.

You left out that one was on a school campus where there are zero tolerance laws. Law > common sense.

That's insanity. A manufacturing company hiring somebody with hands on engineering experience at all levels. Everybody knows that to succeed you need an MBA who is great at marketing.

I always wonder if he got his quarter back

"Got rogue ions, hire a professional ion trapper"

That "just because" provides the foundation on which to develop actual products. The light bulb started out as an interesting experiment long before Edison developed one that was commercially viable.
People put research and development in the same category, when they are not. Research is the "just because," development is the "actually making something." If you look at Bell Labs, which has been one of the most fruitful corporate R&D endeavors, only 10% of its workforce was focused on research. Xerox PARC was a failure (for Xerox) because it did a lot of research, but the company was not able to effectively develop what it created into products. Research has a high rate of "misses," in that a particular project cannot be effectively capitalized, so it is dominated by government or industry consortiums. Often corporate research is done by sponsoring university projects, because it does not require a dedicated workforce, labs, or other capital. There are also tax breaks, so the capital risk vs reward is more appealing.

I like the project, but I'm skeptical of the whole regulatory problem, which as they mention is more difficult than the science.