ECMAScript 4 formed the basis of Actionscript 3, so there'd be no need to base ES4 on AS3!
On the other hand, the W3C Patent Policy makes it impossible for MS to do that --- they must either disclose their patents and notify the group that they are withholding them from the royalty-free grant within 180 days of certain points of the spec's development or they grant all members of the group an irrevocable RF grant (the intention of the policy is you give a list of all patents you have covering the spec and whether you're withholding them; in practice most people don't even look at patent portfolios because they know they'd just give an RF grant for any it covers and hence it's not worth the time looking).
You say it dismissively, but the big thing lately is that Microsoft can play catch-up and is really trying to do it. Did you ever think you'd see the day? Starting around MSIE 9 they made huge strides toward becoming fairly normal, rather remaining forever obsolete, as a weird, special, anachronistic case. You never would have heard anyone say this in 2009 or 2004 but it now looks like a fresh Windows install might be able to surf the web, right out-of-the-box.
I dunno, I heard plenty of people saying it in 2009, especially around specs circles (both around WHATWG/W3C groups and those around implementers doing evangelism work), even if whenever it was voiced it got laughed at by most web devs. In reality, it was very obvious that IE7 was mostly just trying to quickly fix what they thought were the biggest shortcomings of IE6 (which, after all, hadn't really been touched in years, and most of the dev team didn't have any idea about the codebase); IE8 followed on making pretty significant low-level changes that were pretty obviously designed at making many of the modern parts of the web platform easy to implement (from what's been said, it should definitely be the case that many CSS modules nowadays are easier to implement in modern IE than in other browser engines, simply because they rewrote so much for IE8), even though ultimately it shipped more or less at feature parity with IE7 (albeit with fewer bugs). IE9 was when all that work started to come together, starting to add large amounts of the more modern parts of the web platform.
None of the Underground lines are driverless. The ones you list are GoA level 2 (i.e., opening/closing doors, starting the train, and emergencies are handled by the driver). Go look in the cab of any of them, they all have drivers!
Even the DLR is a GoA level 3 system, as the "attendant" handles door closing and emergency driving of the system.
The only GoA level 4 systems (which are truly driverless and can operate without any trained staff onboard) in the UK are the people movers at Heathrow T5, Gatwick, and Stansted.
What motivation do the browser vendors have to implement a spec that they had no say in, and quite probably doesn't align with the desires of their users?
Related is Malone v. The United Kingdom (1984) on wiretapping of phone lines.
I have a PRS-T1. I've never bought anything from Sony's store (it only existed in the UK for a bit over two years, compared with the eight or so in the US!). To my knowledge, the device supports ADEPT only, and once the content is decrypted once it is forever accessible on that device unless you revoke it (there is no online checking). So, uh, at least content already readable will remain as such on devices already authorised.
Also note that ADEPT has long been broken (it's got a good cryptographic basis, but there's almost no obfuscation in the system, so it's pretty useless as DRM), so it's
Quickly Googling makes it sound like customers had their accounts transferred over to Kobo (thereby losing no content), unless they opted out (and I haven't looked closely to see what happened in that case).
It's all in the definition of "processing" and "controller", which are both very vaguely defined. (The web was scarcely in mind in the early 90s when the Directive was written; it's planned to be reviewed to deal with such cases but there's nothing finalised yet.) My memory was that the ruling brought specific attention to Google's cross-referencing of the index to advertising it sells, but that's not correct. So, uh, ignore me.
(Disclaimer: I haven't actually looked at the law in about a couple of years. My memory may not be entirely correct. You can look this up for yourself, the act in question is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.)
One may declare a spent conviction on an application; an employer may ask about any spent convictions but the employee is under no obligation to give the truthful answer (i.e., one can always answer, "I have no spent convictions"), and any knowledge of spent convictions cannot (in general) be held against the person seeking a job.
Note that there are a number of professions where one is always obliged to declare prior offences, regardless of whether spent or not, including your example of a child sex offender applying for a job at a day care centre. I believe that in such cases they are legally obliged to refuse the job application.
The restrictions are far harsher as to when spent convictions are admittable before any judicial authority (which in this case has a very broad definition), where they legally cannot ask, and if asked one is exempt for perjury for failing to truthfully admit. The exemptions here are primarily pertaining to adoption and firearms.
Records of convictions are always on the public record; however, they do not (ordinarily) appear in their criminal record. (A police caution is not a conviction but is on the complete criminal record; a caution is spent immediately upon being given.)
My understanding of the judgement is such that it is pretty clear that the original source would equally be obliged to remove it (but they weren't party to the case).
Also note that not all search engines are necessarily bound by this; the whole thing is dependent on the "processing" of data (which thereby binds you to the Data Retention Directive), and it was held that Google as an advertiser processes the crawled dataset.
Then why do you even have crosswalks, or zebra crossings or whatever you call them? That's stupid. Not only can't you figure out what side of the road to drive on, but you can't figure out that roads are for vehicles?
Because at crossings (of whatever sort) vehicles are *required* to yield to pedestrians. The only requirement on pedestrians at zebra crossings is they look to ensure they don't walk out in front of a car unable to stop in the distance to the crossing (i.e., if you walk out 10m away from a car travelling at 30mph, you're at fault when it hits you; if you walk out 100m away from a car travelling at 30mph, the car is at fault when it hits you).
Aside from crossings, you are permitted to cross where it is safe to do so without impeding the flow of traffic. (A common case where such things end up impeding the flow of traffic is where a vehicle is not indicating that it is turning, and a pedestrian walks over the end of the road where the vehicle intends on turning. In such cases the vehicle is at fault for not indicating.)
From my experience in America, crosswalks are frequently more dangerous than jaywalking is here, with cars speeding round right-on-red, and then having to slam on brakes when they find a pedestrian on the crosswalk at the junction; another case that I remember is a crosswalk just beyond a blind crest cars where were doing 50mph over, where they likely couldn't have stopped in the distance from seeing the pedestrian to the crosswalk. If that were here I'd simply have crossed at the crest where I could see the road is clear before crossing.
After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia didn't send bombers to probe NATO and US defenses until the last few years. When and how that is done can also be a signal.
2007. That's seven years ago now, and long before any dispute over Ukraine, though is around the time of the Russo-Georgian war. (And "NATO and US" defences is a bit redundant, given the US is part of NATO. AFAIK these incurious are typically dealt with by the RNoAF and RAF alone, with the USAF having nothing to do with them, and as such they don't probe US defences.)
Disregarding him as nothing more than a marketer is disingenuous at best --- Chris Beard was one of the early guys working on porting Linux to PA-RISC in the late 90s. He most certainly has experience of software engineering, and not just marketing it.