MS just can't garner the trust for large-scale mission-critical deployments yet, at least in the financial sector. That outage was a painful lesson. They have plenty of other clients though.
I gather from the article that their only other client is the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.
I bought a HP Laserjet 8150. It works with postscript, and I print about 3,000 pages a month. I also bought the high-capacity tray that stores 2,000 pages, which is convenient. I may have to replace the rollers at some point. It will print close to 40,000 pages on one toner cartridge.
The printer cost me $100 from a recycling depot, who gave me the high-capacity tray for an extra $50. New rollers will cost about $150 (every 200,000 sheets or so). Toner costs just under $100 to refill.
The capital cost was about $150, and the ongoing cost to print is just over $0.003 per page (not including cost of paper).
It's a big beast, so probably not the best thing for at home, but it's saved me thousands of dollars every few months compared to going to a print shop for my large print jobs or the smaller, newer printers that require new cartridges every 10-20,000 pages.
Your argument fails utterly to explain the continued rule of the Chinese Communist party in the the largest trading partner country of most western nations. Where are the Chinese middle-class masses, yearning for their freedom?
Sir - China's middle class is still very small, and quite novel. We will see an answer to your question in about 25 years, when they have a middle class. However, the relationship between economic prosperity and individual freedoms is quite established: They are symbiotic. The loss of one is a great detriment to the other. But they grow, necessarily, together.
We'd have to literally bomb the countryside with food packages.
That is, essentially, what the U.S. (via M-USA et al) did in Indonesia. With little surprise, America is now quite popular there. Not so much in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The article says there's a 128MB prototype now, and Samsung is coming out with a 512MB version. They acknowledge that this is small compared to present-day flash, but think that because of the problems inherent to making flash smaller that PCM will be the storage technology of the future.
Ironically, the best way to destabilize a ponderous, oppressive government such as Iran's is to ensure the growth of a strong middle class in the target country with an educated and politically active youth. Sanctions tend to do the opposite by denying (or reducing) a country's access to trade, economic growth, pharmaceuticals and health benefits, knowledge and innovation. It stigmatizes countries' populations against the world, which often entrenches hard-line governments with staunch supporters. Sanctions also reduce positive effect of the global community's political feedback: if a country is already a pariah, their leaders have little incentive to conform to accepted norms (e.g. human rights).
That's not to say that sanctions are never appropriate. It's just an observation on their effect.
Congress makes laws. The FCC, within the area of regulatory authority granted by Congress, makes regulations.
Sir - As a matter of clarification, Congress makes U.S. federal legislation; While Congress can create laws, it is not the only way to create laws, and it is not able to make certain laws (e.g. unconstitutional or extraterritorial laws).
Legislation and regulation are both sources of primary law, which primary law both lawyers and laymen professionally and colloquially refer to as "the law".
Thus, insofar as the FCC has regulatory authority granted by Congress, it is able to create laws.
(It is noteworthy that not all laws are created equal; where legislative statues irreconcilably contradict regulations, for example, the law of the statute will generally govern.)
If you look at the.COM bubble, the Housing Bubble, the Credit Bubble, and all the other bubbles, the whole thing was based on the next reporting cycle, and not core values and needs.
Speculation bubbles go back as far as tulip mania (1637). I believe they are a different (but perhaps related) problem from the low quality of many things now produced in the United States by monopolies and oligopolies.
You happen to be one of the 5%. So is everyone on Slashdot, because nobody in the 95% is spending time talking. Me, well, although I'm in the top 5% as well (or I wouldn't be here), I have medical conditions which make getting insurance a real pain and which mean I spend $250+ a month to stay alive because insurance won't touch me.
Interesting fact: The richest people in the United States still have a lower life expectancy than even the poorest people of Japan, Canada, and Britain.
I'm wondering why you (the developer teams) think so many Blizzard games stand out from the crowd, from World of Warcraft to Diablo I & II, and Warcraft. Why do you think the Blizzard games have been better (or at least more popular) than so many alternatives?
I respectfully disagree. I think the end-game content and social aspect is most aspired after by the majority of players of World of Warcraft. In my opinion, I think Blizzard made the right decision in reducing the barrier to this end-game content and social aspect by making leveling faster and easier. Lower level content is still available for those who wish to pursue it (and comes with fulfilling achievements like Loremaster), but it is no longer an ominous, artificial, and arbitrary barrier to entry to the more desired content.
Mind you, I don't know the habits of most WoW players, but I'm confident that Blizzard isn't selling themselves short here. I'd say they're catering to the desires of their paying customers, but not necessarily overindulging them.
If you convey information to a third party in circumstances which are inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege, then whether you intend to waive privilege or not it may well be that a Court will find that you have lost it in any event.
Thanks for weighing in.
In common law countries, it is not as clear cut as your description makes it sound in the USA.
Incidentally, the USA and Canada are common law countries. That's not really relevant, except for the shared genealogy of privilege in the common law.
If you convey information to a third party in circumstances which are inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege, then whether you intend to waive privilege or not it may well be that a Court will find that you have lost it in any event.
This would be an implicit waiver of privilege. Even implicit waivers of privilege generally require some sort intention by the client to waive confidentiality. However, at least in Canada, I understand that so long as there is and has always been an intention by the client to maintain confidentiality, the information disclosed to a third party is inadmissible in Court.
It must be the client who implicitly waives privilege, and only they or a duly authorized agent (i.e. their lawyer acting within the scope of their instructions) could do that. It's not the lawyer who waives or loses privilege of course, but their client. If the lawyer acts in a way inconsistent with their client's instructions and privilege is deemed to be waived as a result of the lawyer's actions (i.e. outside the scope of the client's instructions) the lawyer may be liable for negligence.
On a related anecdote, I regularly retain third parties and disclose privileged information to them, including accountants, forensic analysts, engineers, specialist physicians, vocational experts, etc. Because they are agents retained by me (on behalf of my client) they veil of privilege extends to them. One must retain third parties for the purpose of expert reports, and often extend to them privileged information. That disclosure to the third party only waives privilege where the third party becomes an expert witness or submits an expert report - in which case they must disclose the basis for their beliefs (notably information given to them by the person who commissioned the report, including, it turns out, draft reports). If they are never called as expert witnesses or submit and expert report, the information disclosed to them remains privileged and is inadmissible - or so I understand.
Common law courts have a view which might be described as "you can't have your cake and eat it too" - i.e. if this stuff is too special and secret to be shared with your opponent, then you had better make damn sure your conduct with respect to the same is consistent when you are dealing with third parties too.
The roots of privilege stem back hundreds of years to the Norman Courts, and are grounded in the premise that in cases of adversarial disputes the system works better for everyone if there is an advocate who cannot be compelled to disclose the information and admissions of their clients. This principle is as ancient as it is simple and well founded, and one would hope not swayed in the digital era.
Giving Google access to your data for the purposes of marketing etc (which is presumably why Google really wants access) may well be inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege, at least in the UK, Australia and other common law jurisdictions.
It would be hard to imagine a Court ruling that the ancient doctrine of privilege be overturned because the information was stored with a third party that had a machine analyze it for the purpose of marketing to the lawyer. Would storing backup tape drives off-site at a storage site constitute waiver? What if those backup tapes had to be examined before they were stored? How is that different from the content-agnostic analysis that Google does of online documents for marketing purposes? It'd be interesting to know where the line starts and ends on that one.
IANAL. My only legal credential is that I come from a family of lawyers and judges who are absolutely adamant about their moral obligation to preserve privilege.
As they have explained it to me, once you voluntarily hand information off to an uninvolved third party, the veil of privilege is breached and it can be discovered.
As they have explained it to me, anything you give to Google can be subpoenaed. Google is currently one of the most-frequently-served companies in the world, and Google gives full and enthusiastic cooperation with lawfully issued subpoenas.
If you really see nothing wrong with risking the privilege of your work product by putting it into the hands of a third party, and if you really see nothing wrong with making it discoverable via subpoena, then by all means use Google Docs. However, for my own sake, I refuse to deal with lawyers who use outsourced IT services.
IAAL, and I think the law of privilege is somewhat misunderstood, and easily confused with confidentiality. Here's how I describe it when asked to explain it in the legal context:
Privilege is the right of a person to not have their communications with their lawyer disclosed.
Confidentiality is the obligation of a lawyer to not disclose information.
In the case of privilege and outsourcing to a third party, where the client has not intentionally waived privilege and there is no expectation that privilege be waived (i.e. if a person tells their lawyer to publish information, the person explicitly waives privilege over that information), then the information being held by that third party is probably still under privilege and not admissible as evidence in Court. As a general rule, the client must either explicitly or implicitly waive privilege in order for the information to be admissible in Court, and using a third party document creation and storage system would not of its own accord give rise to such a waiver.
In the case of a third party being subpoenaed, there is generally a duty of that third party to notify the owner of the information (as the person whose rights are being affected), and indeed the person requesting the subpoena generally has an obligation to tell the owner of the information that they are seeking it. It would likely be an abuse of process and violation of constitutional rights to have information held by a lawyer about a client disclosed without due process (which involves at the least notice and the opportunity to respond in a meaningful way, notwithstanding those cases where the information is ephemeral - in which case disclosure should be made to an independent escrow lawyer pending resolution of any dispute over whether the information is privileged).
Confidentiality is a different kettle of fish. If a lawyer endangers the confidentiality of information, they may be liable for negligence or at the very least of losing their client. The duty of confidentiality could be breached where the lawyer stores documents online and negligently fails to diligently research the security of that online service provider, where the contract with that online document provider provides no warranty or guarantee, and the documents become public due to some technical default. However, as a general rule I am suspicious of conclusions that lawyers would be negligent (subject to the quirks of each jurisdiction's law relating to the professional negligence of lawyers) on the basis that they stored documents with Google, a massive multi-national company whose security team is vastly superior to that of virtually every law office.
In conclusion, storing documents on Google Docs does not waive privilege and any information obtained that way is likely not admissible as evidence in Court, and a lawyer is likely not exposing themselves to negligence simply by virtue of using Google Docs as one would expect Google's security to be quite good (particularly when compared to the complete lack of computer knowledge about security in most law offices).
IAAL too, and I use Google Apps. Indeed, one of the law societies with whom I'm admitted to practice (the Law Society of Upper Canada) encourages use of Google Docs for collaboration with clients and because it is better backed up than local documents.
... if you transmit it into space encoded in waves of light. Of course, you have to travel faster than light to get ahead of the signal and read it again...
Threading for Javascript? Not possible! Stop asking for something that can't be done! The Firefox devs cried!
Opposition to threading by Firefox devs came from, among others, Brendan Eich, the inventor of Javascript. You can read his well supported arguments on Bugzilla.
That doesn't excuse Firefox devs from not supporting a parallel architecture earlier, from which users would significantly benefit. But the conversation on that link is an oculus into the reasoning behind not having a parallel architecture earlier.
The concept of willful blindness may apply as a substitute for intention.
I'd be concerned - if the 7th circuit wasn't a US court. TPB is not in the US, in case you didn't know.
Sir:
As I said, willful blindness is a concept. The concept is unconstrained by jurisdiction. The Wikipedia page just happened to have a convenient reference to a U.S. case.
Willful blindness has arisen in practically every jurisdiction in the world, mutatis mutandis, including Sweden, as a legal fiction that applies in lieu of actual intention because of the need and/or desire to reach fair and just conclusions in cases where actual intention is wanting but necessary for criminal prosecution. In case you didn't know.;)
2 layers (applet sandbox, JPC sandbox) of independently validated security make it the world's most secure means of isolating x86 software
I contest this notion (if I understand their setup correctly; the website is broken so I've some uncertainty about what they're doing). I agree that it's likely a very secure setup, but I disagree that the two lawyers of Java VM security makes it the most secure setup for running x86.
The common Java VM is a single point of failure. Both layers of "independently validated security" are running in Java VM, so if there is an exploit in the runtime interpreter (or compiled executable, if they're compiling things now), it may be used to circumvent both sandboxes. Using two different Java VMs would be an improvement, but better still would be orthogonal interpreters (on the plane of security vectors) such as a Java VM and a Python interpreter. Both are nevertheless still probably calling some version of glibc on x86 machine code.
If I were to speculate (and I will), I'd say that Xen et al virtualization has fewer vectors, and better still would be x86 virtualization running on top of a mainframe ala. z/VM. That would, in theory, be more secure than this Java VM on Java VM setup. Of course, it all comes down to the implementations in the end (and, as a practical matter, how big a target they are - Java is a big target for security, z/VM less so).
Again, though, I think this Java VM is likely very secure. Claiming it's the world's most secure is puffery, though, in my humble opinion.
Now, the BIG change is that the tracker is going to be outsourced to a new formed company that wont know what they track, just that they connect peers, and the torrent listings will be handed by an other new company that will have torrents but they will not know either content or who is using the torrents. This setup will be practically impossible to take down or find anyone liable to sue.
The concept of willful blindness may apply as a substitute for intention.
Quoth the article:
A famous example of such a defense being denied occurred in In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003), in which the defendants argued that their file-swapping technology was designed in such a way that they had no way of monitoring the content of swapped files, and suggested that their inability to monitor the activities of users meant that they could not be contributing to copyright infringement by the users. The court held that this was willful blindness on the defendant's part, and would not constitute a defense to a claim of contributory infringement.
The U.S. has been technically insolvent (i.e. unable to pay its debts as they come due) since around 1997. The U.S. has balanced its budget by printing more money and issuing more bonds (i.e. inflating). The U.S. is able to do this because they have the reserve currency, the Greenback, the value of which is not derived from import-export ratios (as most currencies are), but by the inherent demand for a stable, liquid predictable currency for trade and backing other currency (i.e. foreign currency reserves).
Slashdot Mirror
MS just can't garner the trust for large-scale mission-critical deployments yet, at least in the financial sector. That outage was a painful lesson. They have plenty of other clients though.
I gather from the article that their only other client is the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.
I bought a HP Laserjet 8150. It works with postscript, and I print about 3,000 pages a month. I also bought the high-capacity tray that stores 2,000 pages, which is convenient. I may have to replace the rollers at some point. It will print close to 40,000 pages on one toner cartridge.
The printer cost me $100 from a recycling depot, who gave me the high-capacity tray for an extra $50. New rollers will cost about $150 (every 200,000 sheets or so). Toner costs just under $100 to refill.
The capital cost was about $150, and the ongoing cost to print is just over $0.003 per page (not including cost of paper).
It's a big beast, so probably not the best thing for at home, but it's saved me thousands of dollars every few months compared to going to a print shop for my large print jobs or the smaller, newer printers that require new cartridges every 10-20,000 pages.
... It'll be seeded for decades.
Your argument fails utterly to explain the continued rule of the Chinese Communist party in the the largest trading partner country of most western nations. Where are the Chinese middle-class masses, yearning for their freedom?
Sir - China's middle class is still very small, and quite novel. We will see an answer to your question in about 25 years, when they have a middle class. However, the relationship between economic prosperity and individual freedoms is quite established: They are symbiotic. The loss of one is a great detriment to the other. But they grow, necessarily, together.
See for example Wealth and the Poverty of Nations.
We'd have to literally bomb the countryside with food packages.
That is, essentially, what the U.S. (via M-USA et al) did in Indonesia. With little surprise, America is now quite popular there. Not so much in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The article says there's a 128MB prototype now, and Samsung is coming out with a 512MB version. They acknowledge that this is small compared to present-day flash, but think that because of the problems inherent to making flash smaller that PCM will be the storage technology of the future.
Ironically, the best way to destabilize a ponderous, oppressive government such as Iran's is to ensure the growth of a strong middle class in the target country with an educated and politically active youth. Sanctions tend to do the opposite by denying (or reducing) a country's access to trade, economic growth, pharmaceuticals and health benefits, knowledge and innovation. It stigmatizes countries' populations against the world, which often entrenches hard-line governments with staunch supporters. Sanctions also reduce positive effect of the global community's political feedback: if a country is already a pariah, their leaders have little incentive to conform to accepted norms (e.g. human rights).
That's not to say that sanctions are never appropriate. It's just an observation on their effect.
Congress makes laws. The FCC, within the area of regulatory authority granted by Congress, makes regulations.
Sir - As a matter of clarification, Congress makes U.S. federal legislation; While Congress can create laws, it is not the only way to create laws, and it is not able to make certain laws (e.g. unconstitutional or extraterritorial laws).
Legislation and regulation are both sources of primary law, which primary law both lawyers and laymen professionally and colloquially refer to as "the law".
Thus, insofar as the FCC has regulatory authority granted by Congress, it is able to create laws.
(It is noteworthy that not all laws are created equal; where legislative statues irreconcilably contradict regulations, for example, the law of the statute will generally govern.)
If you look at the .COM bubble, the Housing Bubble, the Credit Bubble, and all the other bubbles, the whole thing was based on the next reporting cycle, and not core values and needs.
Speculation bubbles go back as far as tulip mania (1637). I believe they are a different (but perhaps related) problem from the low quality of many things now produced in the United States by monopolies and oligopolies.
The station itself is the most massive spacecraft ever assembled
... by hoomans.
Good post.
You happen to be one of the 5%. So is everyone on Slashdot, because nobody in the 95% is spending time talking. Me, well, although I'm in the top 5% as well (or I wouldn't be here), I have medical conditions which make getting insurance a real pain and which mean I spend $250+ a month to stay alive because insurance won't touch me.
Interesting fact: The richest people in the United States still have a lower life expectancy than even the poorest people of Japan, Canada, and Britain.
I'm wondering why you (the developer teams) think so many Blizzard games stand out from the crowd, from World of Warcraft to Diablo I & II, and Warcraft. Why do you think the Blizzard games have been better (or at least more popular) than so many alternatives?
Thanks.
Sir:
I respectfully disagree. I think the end-game content and social aspect is most aspired after by the majority of players of World of Warcraft. In my opinion, I think Blizzard made the right decision in reducing the barrier to this end-game content and social aspect by making leveling faster and easier. Lower level content is still available for those who wish to pursue it (and comes with fulfilling achievements like Loremaster), but it is no longer an ominous, artificial, and arbitrary barrier to entry to the more desired content.
Mind you, I don't know the habits of most WoW players, but I'm confident that Blizzard isn't selling themselves short here. I'd say they're catering to the desires of their paying customers, but not necessarily overindulging them.
If you convey information to a third party in circumstances which are inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege, then whether you intend to waive privilege or not it may well be that a Court will find that you have lost it in any event.
Thanks for weighing in.
In common law countries, it is not as clear cut as your description makes it sound in the USA.
Incidentally, the USA and Canada are common law countries. That's not really relevant, except for the shared genealogy of privilege in the common law.
If you convey information to a third party in circumstances which are inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege, then whether you intend to waive privilege or not it may well be that a Court will find that you have lost it in any event.
This would be an implicit waiver of privilege. Even implicit waivers of privilege generally require some sort intention by the client to waive confidentiality. However, at least in Canada, I understand that so long as there is and has always been an intention by the client to maintain confidentiality, the information disclosed to a third party is inadmissible in Court.
It must be the client who implicitly waives privilege, and only they or a duly authorized agent (i.e. their lawyer acting within the scope of their instructions) could do that. It's not the lawyer who waives or loses privilege of course, but their client. If the lawyer acts in a way inconsistent with their client's instructions and privilege is deemed to be waived as a result of the lawyer's actions (i.e. outside the scope of the client's instructions) the lawyer may be liable for negligence.
On a related anecdote, I regularly retain third parties and disclose privileged information to them, including accountants, forensic analysts, engineers, specialist physicians, vocational experts, etc. Because they are agents retained by me (on behalf of my client) they veil of privilege extends to them. One must retain third parties for the purpose of expert reports, and often extend to them privileged information. That disclosure to the third party only waives privilege where the third party becomes an expert witness or submits an expert report - in which case they must disclose the basis for their beliefs (notably information given to them by the person who commissioned the report, including, it turns out, draft reports). If they are never called as expert witnesses or submit and expert report, the information disclosed to them remains privileged and is inadmissible - or so I understand.
Common law courts have a view which might be described as "you can't have your cake and eat it too" - i.e. if this stuff is too special and secret to be shared with your opponent, then you had better make damn sure your conduct with respect to the same is consistent when you are dealing with third parties too.
The roots of privilege stem back hundreds of years to the Norman Courts, and are grounded in the premise that in cases of adversarial disputes the system works better for everyone if there is an advocate who cannot be compelled to disclose the information and admissions of their clients. This principle is as ancient as it is simple and well founded, and one would hope not swayed in the digital era.
Giving Google access to your data for the purposes of marketing etc (which is presumably why Google really wants access) may well be inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege, at least in the UK, Australia and other common law jurisdictions.
It would be hard to imagine a Court ruling that the ancient doctrine of privilege be overturned because the information was stored with a third party that had a machine analyze it for the purpose of marketing to the lawyer. Would storing backup tape drives off-site at a storage site constitute waiver? What if those backup tapes had to be examined before they were stored? How is that different from the content-agnostic analysis that Google does of online documents for marketing purposes? It'd be interesting to know where the line starts and ends on that one.
Until a Court decides, one never knows!
IANAL. My only legal credential is that I come from a family of lawyers and judges who are absolutely adamant about their moral obligation to preserve privilege.
As they have explained it to me, once you voluntarily hand information off to an uninvolved third party, the veil of privilege is breached and it can be discovered.
As they have explained it to me, anything you give to Google can be subpoenaed. Google is currently one of the most-frequently-served companies in the world, and Google gives full and enthusiastic cooperation with lawfully issued subpoenas.
If you really see nothing wrong with risking the privilege of your work product by putting it into the hands of a third party, and if you really see nothing wrong with making it discoverable via subpoena, then by all means use Google Docs. However, for my own sake, I refuse to deal with lawyers who use outsourced IT services.
IAAL, and I think the law of privilege is somewhat misunderstood, and easily confused with confidentiality. Here's how I describe it when asked to explain it in the legal context:
Privilege is the right of a person to not have their communications with their lawyer disclosed.
Confidentiality is the obligation of a lawyer to not disclose information.
In the case of privilege and outsourcing to a third party, where the client has not intentionally waived privilege and there is no expectation that privilege be waived (i.e. if a person tells their lawyer to publish information, the person explicitly waives privilege over that information), then the information being held by that third party is probably still under privilege and not admissible as evidence in Court. As a general rule, the client must either explicitly or implicitly waive privilege in order for the information to be admissible in Court, and using a third party document creation and storage system would not of its own accord give rise to such a waiver.
In the case of a third party being subpoenaed, there is generally a duty of that third party to notify the owner of the information (as the person whose rights are being affected), and indeed the person requesting the subpoena generally has an obligation to tell the owner of the information that they are seeking it. It would likely be an abuse of process and violation of constitutional rights to have information held by a lawyer about a client disclosed without due process (which involves at the least notice and the opportunity to respond in a meaningful way, notwithstanding those cases where the information is ephemeral - in which case disclosure should be made to an independent escrow lawyer pending resolution of any dispute over whether the information is privileged).
Confidentiality is a different kettle of fish. If a lawyer endangers the confidentiality of information, they may be liable for negligence or at the very least of losing their client. The duty of confidentiality could be breached where the lawyer stores documents online and negligently fails to diligently research the security of that online service provider, where the contract with that online document provider provides no warranty or guarantee, and the documents become public due to some technical default. However, as a general rule I am suspicious of conclusions that lawyers would be negligent (subject to the quirks of each jurisdiction's law relating to the professional negligence of lawyers) on the basis that they stored documents with Google, a massive multi-national company whose security team is vastly superior to that of virtually every law office.
In conclusion, storing documents on Google Docs does not waive privilege and any information obtained that way is likely not admissible as evidence in Court, and a lawyer is likely not exposing themselves to negligence simply by virtue of using Google Docs as one would expect Google's security to be quite good (particularly when compared to the complete lack of computer knowledge about security in most law offices).
Tha
IAAL too, and I use Google Apps. Indeed, one of the law societies with whom I'm admitted to practice (the Law Society of Upper Canada) encourages use of Google Docs for collaboration with clients and because it is better backed up than local documents.
... because these companies have our attention for whatever period of time we stare at the content they put onto their website.
They seem to be under the misapprehension that our attention is free.
If you're Canadian and wish to have a positive impact on Copyright, the Pirate Party of Canada may be your cup of tea.
Not really sure what the hell you're talking about but I have a couple Firefox extensions that depend on the fact that they can use multiple threads.
Threading of XULRunner and DocShells.
... if you transmit it into space encoded in waves of light. Of course, you have to travel faster than light to get ahead of the signal and read it again ...
Threading for Javascript? Not possible! Stop asking for something that can't be done! The Firefox devs cried!
Opposition to threading by Firefox devs came from, among others, Brendan Eich, the inventor of Javascript. You can read his well supported arguments on Bugzilla.
That doesn't excuse Firefox devs from not supporting a parallel architecture earlier, from which users would significantly benefit. But the conversation on that link is an oculus into the reasoning behind not having a parallel architecture earlier.
The concept of willful blindness may apply as a substitute for intention.
I'd be concerned - if the 7th circuit wasn't a US court. TPB is not in the US, in case you didn't know.
Sir:
As I said, willful blindness is a concept. The concept is unconstrained by jurisdiction. The Wikipedia page just happened to have a convenient reference to a U.S. case.
Willful blindness has arisen in practically every jurisdiction in the world, mutatis mutandis, including Sweden, as a legal fiction that applies in lieu of actual intention because of the need and/or desire to reach fair and just conclusions in cases where actual intention is wanting but necessary for criminal prosecution. In case you didn't know. ;)
2 layers (applet sandbox, JPC sandbox) of independently validated security make it the world's most secure means of isolating x86 software
I contest this notion (if I understand their setup correctly; the website is broken so I've some uncertainty about what they're doing). I agree that it's likely a very secure setup, but I disagree that the two lawyers of Java VM security makes it the most secure setup for running x86.
The common Java VM is a single point of failure. Both layers of "independently validated security" are running in Java VM, so if there is an exploit in the runtime interpreter (or compiled executable, if they're compiling things now), it may be used to circumvent both sandboxes. Using two different Java VMs would be an improvement, but better still would be orthogonal interpreters (on the plane of security vectors) such as a Java VM and a Python interpreter. Both are nevertheless still probably calling some version of glibc on x86 machine code.
If I were to speculate (and I will), I'd say that Xen et al virtualization has fewer vectors, and better still would be x86 virtualization running on top of a mainframe ala. z/VM. That would, in theory, be more secure than this Java VM on Java VM setup. Of course, it all comes down to the implementations in the end (and, as a practical matter, how big a target they are - Java is a big target for security, z/VM less so).
Again, though, I think this Java VM is likely very secure. Claiming it's the world's most secure is puffery, though, in my humble opinion.
Now, the BIG change is that the tracker is going to be outsourced to a new formed company that wont know what they track, just that they connect peers, and the torrent listings will be handed by an other new company that will have torrents but they will not know either content or who is using the torrents. This setup will be practically impossible to take down or find anyone liable to sue.
The concept of willful blindness may apply as a substitute for intention.
Quoth the article:
That's one step closer to insolvency.
The U.S. has been technically insolvent (i.e. unable to pay its debts as they come due) since around 1997. The U.S. has balanced its budget by printing more money and issuing more bonds (i.e. inflating). The U.S. is able to do this because they have the reserve currency, the Greenback, the value of which is not derived from import-export ratios (as most currencies are), but by the inherent demand for a stable, liquid predictable currency for trade and backing other currency (i.e. foreign currency reserves).