When their glaciers start growing. Duh!

Yup. From the start of the ruling:

"We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. [FN3] We now conclude that the answer to the reported question is, "Yes, where the defendant's compelled decryption would not communicate facts of a testimonial nature to the Commonwealth beyond what the defendant already had admitted to investigators.""

So: don't admit the disks are yours, don't admit you know they're encrypted, don't admit you can decrypt them. (Of course, "don't say anything at all", the old standby, covers all of those, thus once more proving its value.)

That's what you might call a market incentive. Capitalism sees national security and arms export controls as damage and routes around it.

Your attempt to confuse here isn't really helpful.

Google does *sell* Google Glass and Nexus phones and tablets and Chromecast and Nest and soon Dropcams and probably more. They are "Google products" branded and sold by Google as theirs.

Mozilla only has one device that it works on directly, the Firefox OS Flame reference phone. The rest of the hardware you see out there is being made and sold by someone else.

And that's not just true of the hardware. Much of the work going on to extend Firefox OS software into areas outside of phones is being done by third parties for their products.

Mozilla doesn't build hardware. We make software, including Firefox OS. Firefox OS is a completely open platform freely available for any company to build on top of without restriction. There are dozens of companies building Firefox OS-based products today and there will be more tomorrow, covering mobile phones, tablets, TVs, set top boxes, game consoles, streaming dongles, wearables, and more. Some of those companies are working directly with Mozilla and others are taking the code and running with it on their own.

Don't worry about that! They had their own classes of blunders instead. (Every programming language has a characteristic set of problems that come up, and a set of recommended programming practices that avoid those blunders.)

If your compiler is doing that, you should choose a different compiler. Summoning elder gods just because signed arithmetic might wrap around is not a good cost/benefit tradeoff!

Better than a Lunar one I suppose.

Yeah, and don't forget that "loud pipes save lives" around typical inattentive drivers. This thing is silent but deadly.

Another option is that it is just a manufacturing hack (because of component shortage) without properly thinking about the consequences.

I always preferred the phrasing "up to 1000 times faster, or more!" Totally devoid of meaning.

If a lot of browsers are getting it wrong in what they send, the incentive to support it is not strong. Guess what? A quick test with Chrome, Safari and Firefox indicate that they all get it wrong by default. Safari doesn't provide an option to change it that I can find; the other two pick the wrong default for me, instead of using the system language settings (which are correct and available for software to read) even if those are imperfect for the task. (I'm on the wrong platform for testing IE and I don't have Opera.)

Why would you make your website use a feature that no browser gets close to right by default?

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.