I think you misunderstood. Craigslist hasn't done anything illegal.

They meant:
"...measures that have been taken to minimize illegal behavior of people who use our service."

I would guess quite a few. :)

That is actually a good idea.

By loading cached pages they test the speed of the renderer and not the speed of the server or internet connection.

Wikipedia provided me a definition of ex parte and I'm somewhat familiar with the RIAA's approach, thanks to you. What I haven't been able to find is a succinct explanation of what particular legal approach the RIAA takes is unconventional.

Is it simply suing a group of unknown defendants before doing discovery with the ISP to find out who they are suing? That seems to be what ex parte means. (For whatever the wikipedia article may be worth.)

Thanks for being Slashdot's resident legal counsel. (In a non obligatory and legally unaccountable way, of course.)

"Adobe has taken its time with the patch"

Of course an independent research company was able to get a patch out quicker- they didn't have test their "fix" and they won't be held responsible if it breaks something else.

It is very naive to say this every time a patch for something is released by a company that "Slashdot" doesn't approve of. If I didn't know better I'd think the editors were just trying to get a rise out of the more childish component of their audience. (I know, I know, I must be new here.)