The base stations that your mobile phone uses to make calls and access the Internet.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/windows-8-sales-are-good-if-not-great-at-40-million-copies-in-the-first-month/

Second, Reller noted that the number of upgrades to Windows 8 was outpacing the volume of upgrades to Windows 7 in the equivalent timeframe. What she didn't note was that Windows 8 upgrades are substantially cheaper than Windows 7 upgrades were

StarCraft 2: Legacy of the Void

Seems a bit early to try this one...

Not true. My dog's food bowl is almost always full, and he only eats once in a while. Not fat at all, actually he's on the thin side if you look at his belly (adult Golden Retriever, 33 kg).

It makes it somewhat more impressive when the vulnerabilities of SHA-2 are not known yet.

It's a new design, so without further knowledge all we can say is that it replaces "unknown vulnerabilities" with "unknown vulnerabities". Great :P

I did not extrapolate that, I just said that this sentence in the summary does not sound impressive. In fact it should be a given that SHA-X does not suffer from the same vulnerabilities as SHA-X-1.

Oh and thanks for the spell check.

'Keccak has the added advantage of not being vulnerable in the same ways SHA-2 might be,'

Out of all the ways a hash function could be vulnerable, not being vulnerable to a few of them hardly looks impressive without more context... But what do I know, I'm not a crytographer.

Simply because there has already been a lot of precedences

Doesn't seem to stop tons of companies that register obvious and done-to-death stuff in patents...

Looks like Airbus and Boeing will be getting some more customers. ...too soon?

No, just wrong. They took care of that problem by making sure the potential customers were in the plane, as the summary says.

It is called Reductio ad absurdum

That's bullshit. Reductio ad absurdum means taking a statement to its extreme implications (as your link says), but it does not mean taking a statement and distorting it to say something that it didn't imply.

Indeed. And it's definitely not true that compilers always do a better job of optimizing than humans. Compilers are much better than they used to be, but for certain specific routines they still can't beat an expert Assembly programmer who can try out several strategies in a flexible optimize-benchmark-optimize feedback loop that compilers aren't able to do.

Perhaps they ported from disassembled binaries and not the original, cleaner and commented source.

but they don't get to feel the pain, instead its the intellectuals who use wikipedia.

If you think wikipedia is only visited by a bunch of intellectuals you must be from another planet...