I'm not so sure that the Javascript (well, EMCA Script) LANGUAGE is the problem. The challenges with respect to rendering speed have more to do with the DOM and the interaction with the browser itself. The DOM is a bulky beast. When javascript listeners are assigned to page elements the code can in turn alter the DOM creating or destroying elements, all of which can trigger javascript functions, any of which can create or destroy more DOM elements. It's a properly tangled mess. Memory management in this environment is no small task.

I imagine that in the modern World, an individual draws not just from their own intelligence, but from collective intelligence through advanced communications. In a way, we've become thin peer-to-peer clients in a much more powerful supercomputer.

If he's ambitious and hungry for innovation, could he not use the money from Facebook to bootstrap something bigger? If it's just dumb luck, perhaps if his product is of any real value, and he doesn't sell, the big players might just jump in and roll their own faster, cheaper solution. Competing with them will be a different sort of job. Moving forward on his own may involve more work with Lawyers than with Technology and Innovation. So, the answer depends what kind of person he is. Some people are driven by the business end of things. Others want to innovate. Rarely is someone good at both.

I've got a bad feeling about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drkh0YLF8rI

I can easily get to the center of the Grand Canyon by pulling out my iPad, opening the Maps App and requesting directions to Galway, Ireland.

Other people's bad code keeps me in business. If half of this crap were written well, no one would need me. Don't avoid bad code, dive in, clean it up where sensible, and move stuff forward.

What if the Terms of Service forbids someone allow third party access to their account? What if the Terms of Service forbid the company from accessing an account they do not own? Can Facebook hold the employer accountable?

What if the site did not allow for account deletion? Facebook arguably doesn't allow this. Maybe you can deactivate, but never delete. Even if it did allow deletion, what if it were some other site that did not allow it. How could the judge order something that isn't (easily) possible?

Now, suppose the judge orders you to give your password, but the site TOS forbids you from giving out the password? Can a judge order you to violate a TOS?

No. "technically" you are correct. Philosophically you are way off target. Philosophy requires that you think more deeply about imlications, causes and effects. You do know that child porn is created because there is a demand for it, right? Your argument about the flesh and blood predators is just wrong. Maybe not all, but children I deed ARE exploited because of that demand. One might not be paying for it, but by swapping, downloading, and arguably by mere possession, they are enabling contributing to the ecosystem that helps the underground economy thrive.

This. I mean, you could argue that even passwords are, in a way, security through obscurity.

Oh. And also.. I just fed a troll. I feel dirty.

Any word on how this library is funded? I didn't see anything saying that the University is paying for it. And if so, I don't see anything about what percentage of the funding comes from public tax-paid funds. That's but one revenue source for public universities.

Mr. AC never denied the existence of God. Accepting God is different from accepting Evolution. Your point still stands. We can still successfully make high-tech crap while still believing things that are not necessarily true (or even logical).

Lying back and taking it is certainly an option. Please Enjoy!

In the meantime, I'll argue that it's those demands that keep the thieves on their toes. They pit the thieves against other thieves that will happily swoop in and steal their sweet gig.

The demands you make on the despicably thieving government are precisely what prevents it from being a despicably thieving, rampantly fascist government.

If that meant "we" owned the infrastructure, not the media companies. One requirement would HAVE to be net neutrality.