The claims of her being sleepy comes from her own SMS history.

Sofia Wiléns testimony was edited by Irmeli Krans by order of Mats Gehlin, as shown by SMS's sent from Mats Gehlin to Irmeli Krans. Irmeli Krans also being a personal friend of Anna Ardin, and politically tied to Marianne Ny, Claes BorgstrÃm and Anna Ardin, as part of BroderskapsrÃrelsen within Socialdemokraterna.

"F*ing a sleeping girl is to work around her refusal to consent to one's preferred form of sex - entry #4 on Assange's EAW - is rape in almost every jurisdiction in the first world."

Except that Sofia Wilén has admitted that she wasn't actually sleeping. In fact, SMS's she sent indicated not only that she was actually awake, and that she didn't protest. Her SMS history afterwards also indicates that she didn't want to accuse him of rape or have him arrested, but was pressured by Anna Ardin and her friend, who just happened to also be the police taking up the reports. Those SMS's were later subjected to attempted deletion, but were recovered.(Same with Anna Ardins tweets from the night after she and Assange had sex, stating "Sitting here with wonderful people", including Assange in that statement. Those tweets were also recovered after the attempted deletion). Yet, despite her legal duty to do so, Marianne Ny refuses to acknowledge them, unlike the initial prosecutor.

And that's without even getting started on the political entanglements that lies behind it all, such as Anna Ardin, Marianne Ny, Claes BorgstrÃm and Irmeli Krans all being associated with each other politically(BroderskapsrÃrelsen within Socialdemokraterna) as well as personal friendships(Claes BorgstrÃm and Marianne Ny are personal friends. Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans are personal friends).

Despite officially being taken off the case due to Conflict of Interest, Irmeli Krans is in practice still involved in the case, as revealed by a SMS sent from Mats Gehlin that orders her to make changes to Sofia Wiléns testimony, the day after Eva Finné has dropped the preliminary investigation.

And, if we're going to link to feminists, why not link to what actual respectable feminists have to say, rather than modern feminism extremists? You could have linked to Helen Bergman, for example.

Or, you could perhaps have paid attention to Juris Doktor Brita Sundberg-WEitman, a former justice of the Svea Court of Appeals that you mentioned, who has herself deemed the case to be without merit, and even reported the entire case to JO.

It's a matter of speed and density too. The vast majority of embedded stuff operates at significantly lower speeds/throughput/memory size requirements, which means there's less vulnerability. Also, embedded stuff tends to be aimed at running very specific applications, which also reduces the vulnerability.

That depends on how you do it though. Through some smart row walking you could probably increase the frequency a lot. And then you have ASLR complicating things from both ends(though I think it could be used to help in an attack actually)

Nowhere did I say that ECC didn't matter. I just said that ECC isn't guaranteed to protect you. It just reduces probability.

In the paper, they actually state that ECC isn't entirely proof either, because you can get multiple bit errors as per their testing. SECDED will be defeated by that. Chipkill might work.

And, if you had read the actual paper, you'd see that ECC isn't proof against it either

Yes, I have. The isos contain everything needed to build all the open source components used for that version of the suite

But you still made factual claims, based merely on the diagram

Wrong.

BusyBox is part of the source code ISO's on their website. Don't even need a login to grab them.

Which is the bogus claim, as anyone who's worked with ESXi and developing drivers for it can testify(which I have done). ESX, otoh, ran sort of parallell with the Linux kernel, but ESX was discontinued years ago.

But with ESXi, the linux kernel runs on top of the hypervisor.

No, the diagram is very simplified, only showing 3 layers, and that the alleged Linux kernel and ESXi hypervisor kernel occupy kernel space. It is very disingenious, since ESXi is bare metal and stand-alone, unlike ESX, which was discontinued years ago. In fact, when reading the link to mailing lists someone in the thread posted, many of the complaints are about ESX, and invalid for ESXi.

In fact, the entire situation smells fishy.... I wonder if they are trying to appropriate VMware code somehow to improve Xen code.

And GPL is very much "what's yours is mine and what's mine also makes yours mine"

But, ESX is not ESXi. ESXi is very different from ESX(and ESX was discontinued years ago). If they are really suing VMWare over ESXi but based on arguments about ESX, then it only looks like an ideology-based extortion-via-lawsuit attempt.