He wasn't being convicted of ordering hits on people since there isn't evidence that he was successful in killing anyone; however, I think the justice system operates here on the idea that he could have eventually been successful at ordering a hit, given all the effort he was putting into it.
Just because someone didn't die doesn't mean that ordering a hit is okay. From the chat logs I've read, DPR ordered a hit on one of the SR employees (Green, I believe) who had gotten arrested. When DPR found out, he thought Green would talk, so he asked another SR employee, Force (who was an FBI member and was actually participating in Green's arrest), to kill Green. Force agreed and pretended to kill him and faked photos with Green. DPR thought he had killed someone. Does that make it not a crime because Green didn't actually die?
Anyway, that's not even what this case was really about.
Everyone seems to be looking at this as some sort of travesty of justice. However, there is significant evidence that he tried to order hits on people. While there's no (public) evidence that he successfully murdered anyone, he clearly had lost his regard for human life.
We're in a day and age where people can cause tremendous harm to others using their mind alone, without throwing a punch or pulling a trigger. Just because he didn't personally cause physical harm to people doesn't mean he can't cause it to happen!
I think it's important for society to be protected from people with his mindset.
From other comments, it seems he wasn't tried for that stuff though. I don't think it's a good thing to include considerations in sentencing that he wasn't tried for. If there's evidence he did that, and you want to put him away for a long time because of it, then try him for it!
Punishing him for that without trying him for it seems like punishment without trial, which is bad. The alternative is that this punishment is just for nonviolent stuff, for which it seems excessive.
His convictions were for hacking (and I'd love to know the details on that... who exactly did Ross hack?) criminal enterprise conspiracy, and narcotics trafficking. The closing is in a pdf somewhere up the thread.
No attempted murder charges though.
This man is literally going to jail forever on the charge of proividing people a place to buy opium. Maybe he tried to hire hits, but that didn't make the final conviction list, though some in this thread are trying to say that "narcotics conspiracy" is a broader charge that somehow? includes murder for hire charges.
It will...
- make it easier to use multiple processors
- use a new type of DOM designed for web app GUIs which can be translated as necessary back to our current DOM
- have built in version checking for its interpreter/JIT
- make it easier to manage memory usage
- have a module system
- be highly specialized towards the web and web app development
- eg. built in language components that make communicating with the web server easier
- be messy - people will be trying to fix everything anyone thinks is difficult/wrong about Javascript and modern web development
- be easier to implement in the browser
For the immediate future, I see Mozilla sticking with ECMAScript and Google sticking with Dart and trying to make it like the language defined above. Google will likely eventually build Dart into normal Chromium and Chrome and build a plugin for Firefox, which nobody will use. Others will build a Dart VM using asm.js to make Dart work efficiently within Firefox. Any successful new browser languages will be able to compile back down to Javascript, although after a while they will be buggy as the Javascript stops getting as much maintenance.
I guess that if we want to have something after JS, that will come either with:
* more standardized languages, with native in-browser VMs, as Google is trying to do with Dart.
* get rid of the browser.
The latter is way more contraversive, but I like it nonetheless.
The less contraversive version is: the end of the browser as we know it.
