.. and just copy/paste the serial from the.nfo-file once.
Not that I care about this game or am planning to buy, download or otherwise even look at it, but it's just another hilarious instance where the pirated version wins hands-down in the convenience department: apart from not needing the DVD to play the game, you don't even have to type the serial, never mind guessing what might be the last character because EA screwed up.
And even after such a major fuckup EA can't even be bothered to release a "no-serial" executable/installer themselves. Who cares, the customer^Wconsumer already paid for it anyway, what are they going to do about it?
Two words will get you far in this situation, Command Line. Low bandwidth, latency tolerant, and generally asynchronous. If you can get any tools with a command line option, embrace them.
GUIs suck, and they suck more over the conditions you describe. Avoid them like the plague.
Came here to post this.
The article has by now been tagged "ssh", which should be the obvious answer indeed. Even in Windows server editions this is a perfectly fine option these days - you should be able to do mostly anything that matters from the command line.
In the time you spent writing this post to Slashdot, you could have written a friendly letter to your IT department stating that you want some machines to not use this encryption, because these machines need maximum performance and anyway do not store any kind of personal information.
I see, and rather expected that the Finnish would be sensible enough to do something like that;)
However, the question remains: why use a complicated system like this, when you can simply make an "allow 1 vote" button outside the voting booth, pressed by an election official whenever someone enters the voting booth. The official can then also make sure that a vote was cast (or rather, remind people if their vote somehow didn't register, most likely because they're doing it wrong), as the thing automatically switches back off after each vote.
This is more or less how the Dutch voting machines used to work, before they got binned altogether recently (it's back to pencil & paper for us, jay!)
It seems that the system required the voter to insert a smart card to identify the voter, type in their selected candidate number, then press "ok", check the candidate details on the screen, and then press "ok" again.
Holy shit. You have to use a smartcard to vote? Can it be tracked to a specific voter? Or rather, are any mechanisms implemented to make sure it can't be? If not, this is an even bigger WTF than losing a couple of votes.
As others have posted, about $50, see source. This was in september 2007, and I can hardly imagine that production costs would have increased since then (to the contrary..) The price of the Wii is however still $/EUR 250 worldwide.
The reason I ask is because it's unusual.
It is. Good job for them, especially as compared to Microsoft where the total losses in the X-box division likely run into the 11-digit range by now; see here and here, and note that this is even before the infamous $2B "red ring of death" recall.
Uhm, for the hardware you get, it's actually rather overpriced (Nintendo makes a nice profit from each console sold). Also, the topic is about running homebrew software, not necessarily about running pirated games. (Yes, I know a lot of people will use it to do just that).
Thirdly Nintendo may not have deliberately broken the previous hacks anyway. All they did was release a new binary and the compiled code moved a bit in memory.
This is decidedly not true; they add code that specifically fixes the symptoms (current exploits against known holes), but not the real cause (horribly broken usage and implementations of crypto/hashing/signing algorithms, among others). This is why new cracks typically appear within a day or two. Putting in such code, however, can hardly be designated "accidental". Please do a little fact-checking next time.
How do you steal an item that doesn't really exist (a.k.a. virtual)?
The guy could have been convicted simply for beating someone up, or even just for threatening to do so unless he would give up those items (blackmail or whatever you call it). But instead, he got convicted for stealing something virtual, which only exists in a game.
This is news because, if the in-game money or item is considered property, should it therefore also be taxed? Can it be used (legally) as a real-life currency? Can game publishers claim that they "own" all your virtual property? Can you trade it on e-bay?
In games like Eve Online, where scamming is considered an art and is part of the game by design even according to its developers (!), could you get in real life trouble for planning a nasty Ponzi/pyramid scheme within the game? (which does not violate the EULA in any way, I might add)? Note that the scam I linked to is about $700B in-game money, which is worth ca. $25/B at the moment (probably it was more back then). So we *are* indirectly talking "nice down payment for a new house" kind of amounts here.
So if you play MMO's and like to play Dr. Evil *inside a game* (which, I should say, is a lot better than doing so IRL), should you still be afraid to get into trouble?
Obviously the guy is rightfully punished btw, I'm just arguing it should have been for a different "crime".
He was turned away because the vendor was in an area where TMobile decided there wasn't strong enough coverage.
Yes, he's able to fire up Gmail in the store, but that doesn't mean coverage is good enough for their metrics, or the G1 might have a worse antenna. Or maybe Google said "we don't want you to sell this phone where people won't be able to get adequate speed."
Yes, clearly this would explain the larger-than-live posters advertising the G1 at that exact store, stating it's "available here" and even, in fact, "only here".
I see other commenters in this thread talking about how "Google may or may not have the same advertising blah blah rah rah that Apple does". Fact is, although obviously Google has the money and the medium to do it, they are still somehow failing on this account. Let's face it: Apple dealt with the same company (in Europe), and this is the exact kind of thing they somehow always seem to be able to prevent from happening.
In fact Apple makes it look easy, but it's exactly this kind of large telco semi-monopolistic behaviour which turns down potential customers: "yeah, we're putting up them posters because HQ told us to, don't wanna get in trouble with them guys, also we don't actually sell this phone, but who cares if this pisses people off, it's not like they can really stop dealing with us anyways (other telco's are just as bad although perhaps in slightly different ways)"
Apple doesn't let shit like this happen. Instead, they manage to make it into a major media-event which gets published about in mainstream news for days on end, by supplying posters *and* a limited amount of phones to stores at the same day.
So whatever you could say about the phone from technical and other perspectives, in this case from a marketing perspective Apple has clearly beaten Google hands-down before the fight even really started.
Check out this story where Neil Gaiman tries to buy one. Indeed it literally doesn't seem to be selling. As in: you cannot obtain one even if you wanted to.
I can't link to it because of Dell's site, but for about $100 more Dell currently has an XPS 1330 which whips the Macbook in virtually every respect:
I bolded the funny part. Assuming you meant '$100 more than the MacBook', this kind of proves the point, doesn't it?
However, it is indeed true that Apple asks ridiculous prices for HD and RAM upgrades. You can without any problem replace them yourself for much less though (e.g. 4 GB RAM ~= $60), without voiding the warranty or anything. It's also not hard at all. I totally agree that it would be better if Apple stopped asking such ridiculous prices for upgrades though.
Indeed, these issues (power management, bootup time) where actually *the* biggest reasons for me to buy a MacBook. I'm glad at least some Linux developers understand this, *and* are actively working to fix it.
I don't even know how fast (or slow) Mac OS boots, because I reboot it at most once a month. The rest of the time, I simply close the screen, it goes into sleep and will be back up in 2-3 seconds tops. Also, it can easily stay in sleep mode for days (I think it uses maybe 10-15% of battery charge per full day of sleep), much unlike my Dell Inspiron 6000, which in sleep mode (both Linux and Windows) still runs out of juice in about 8 hours flat (and on a bigger battery, at that). Which leads to me never using sleep mode on that thing. I know this is something that can't be influenced by the OS, but it matters, a lot.
Also, there are such "tiny details" as Linux not waking up from sleep mode randomly, say, one time out of ten. Or stuff breaking apparently because you removed or plugged in some USB devices while it was in hibernate/sleep, etc. The point is, you can't depend on it, so it might as well not work at all. In fact, losing your work one time out of ten is probably worse than sleep mode not working at all.
Also, I don't know what happened between Ubuntu 7.10 and 8.04, but 8.04 takes literally 3-5 times longer to boot and resume from hibernate (on the same Inspiron 6000). This is what really sealed the deal for me.
See http://www.apple.com/batteries/ , and this is how they measure cycles for the warranty (they guarantee 80% of original capacity after 300 full charge cycles, otherwise you'll get a free replacement iirc) so I'd say that's what matters.
If you have a MacBook, you can see your battery cycle count by typing this:
ioreg -l | grep Cycle | cut -d= -f2
Mine is at 52 cycles (bought it in May '08), but I'm using it 8+ hours a day. So I've owned it for 5 months, at this rate it will reach 300 cycles after 2-2.5 years, which isn't too bad.
I'm trying to think of the ways this could be used to cause harm, so far the biggest threat I see is to the pay-per-click ad model [..]
If you really have trouble thinking of ways in which this can cause harm more serious than pay-per-click fraud, I really hope your job does not involve making many security-related decisions.
OK, to be a bit more constructive about it, have you read Bruce Schneiers' article The Security Mindset? If none if his examples make you think "well, I would have thought of that, given a minute", you are a very trusting person;) Your life will probably be the better for it -- except in those cases where you get screwed by misplaced trust.
Hey Microsoft want a advertising campaign that will make everyone love vista? Give the Vista Home edition away to EVERYONE. make it free as a downloadable ISO without support on your website and overnight everyone will love you.
To be honest I wouldn't voluntarily run Vista even if they paid me to use it. I rather prefer my computer to be in a workable state, and don't care to spend $100 on buying additional RAM when it works just fine right now without Vista, thanks very much.
Uhm, hello? What a ridiculous summary
on
Plane Simple Truth
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The Peeters report flies in the face of reality, in which gains in jet engine efficiency over the last 40 years have been astounding.
Excuse me, but I just actually read that report (...on slashdot!? I must be new here), and it nowhere states that jet engine efficiency *hasn't* improved tremendously over the past 40 years. On the contrary, it shows clear diagrams that shows they *have* improved a lot.
However, it states, probably correctly, that compared to the last-generation *piston* aircraft engines which where built around 1955 or so, first-generation Jet engines used twice as much fuel (per passenger or kg moved per kilometer) compared to those. However, that amount of fuel since halved so they are now about on par with 1955 piston technology. Doesn't look like a lie to me. Of course, modern jet engines can fly a lot faster than those with piston engines.
In addition, it states that the amount of reduction will level off when the technology has matured. This happened for piston engines, and I don't see why it wouldn't for jet engines; most things to improve their efficiency by a lot have already been invented by now. This explains why they use much less fuel than 40 years ago, but doesn't guarantee in any way that they can get a lot more efficient still.
Of course, I like taking a plane to the Hawaiian beaches as much as the next guy, but I don't see why we need to post this kind of bullshit stories just so we can fool ourselves into thinking that planes do not use a lot of fuel.
The same turbo 4 gets 263 hp if it runs on regular gas. That's one reason the US hasn't fallen in love with underpowered, stinky diesels yet. Maybe if gas were heading towards $5 a gallon instead of back to $3 a gallon, diesels might gain some traction.
Hah. Audi diesel engines winning the 24 hours race of Le Mans several years in a row disagree. Also gas is about $9-$10/gallon in most of Europe (diesel is cheaper than gas in many countries, but not all).
The hybrid battery packs are designed to last for the lifetime of the vehicle, somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 miles, probably a whole lot longer. The warranty covers the batteries for between eight and ten years, depending on the carmaker.
Yeah, so this is real great - because it means resell value of cars that no longer have battery warranty will basically drop off a cliff.
Let's see: the lifetime of the vehicle is 200,000 miles, or about 320,000 km. With a 8 year battery warranty I'd need to drive 40,000 km/year (25,000 miles) to reach the end of the economic lifetime of the vehicle before the battery warranty runs out - from that point on, I'd consider the car economically worthless, as the cost of replacing the batteries is likely to prove prohibitive.
Well maybe it's me, but first of all I think it's more environmentally friendly to drive a lot less. Currently, I drive about 12,000 km/year in a 12 year old car - which, by the looks of it, could still last me several years. I bet that continuing to use this old car is more environmentally friendly than having a new car produced.
Also, I wonder where we suddenly got those batteries that will supposedly last 8-10 years, because for laptops it's usually game over after about 2 years.
It does not mention the terms in this article, which clearly seem related to google services and not the browser.
Mind you, the privacy policy does mention unique ID's for each browser, and sending them to google every time you start the browser. Also, Chrome automatically installs a GoogleUpdate executable and adds it to your autoruns; I really hate it when applications do that. So it's still pretty bad, but not in exactly the way this "article" makes it out to be.
As you probably noticed yourself, it's likely a legal trap; if you show that you're interested in taking money for the domain name, they will then use that as an argument during legal proceedings that you're a domain name squatter.
Multi threaded browsing is a plus. One of my pet hates of Firefox is the one-bad-tab-crashes-the-browser problem.
What is interesting, is that people seem to completely miss how multithreading works - because it will not solve that problem, at all. If, in a multithreaded application, one thread violates some memory restriction (e.g. stack overflow or accessing already released memory), the entire application will crash just like any other (single-threaded) application.
What multithreading *can* help solve though, is the random "freezing up" of Firefox whenever another tab decides to reload itself, or when a wayward Flash plugin causes the entire browser to freeze for indefinite amounts of time, etc.
The programmers of Firefox are very obviously aware of these problems, but it's incredibly hard to change the event-handling system once you have a complete application. Especially since these days, Javascript is used to do large-scale manipulations of the document, it becomes really hard to decide what data to share between threads, prevent race conditions and the inadvertent introduction new security risks, etc. etc.
So I'm sure we'll see quite a few problems with these new "multi-threaded" browsers, before the technology matures.
saturating the CPU with nearly six times as many execution threads
Well duhhh, it uses multithreading - a thread per tab/window, or actually I believe it uses a threadpool to limit the total amount somewhat. So obviously it will use more execution threads. This can be perfectly fine and is in itself not an indication of any problem.
The memory usage could be more of a problem I'm sure. Javascript performance is probably even more interesting to look at...
I am surprised that VIA still actually exists. Probably it'll be a case of "too little, too late", but who knows.
Agreed, everyone except for nVidia and maybe Matrox (side note: what a shitty company) is opening their specs.
And NVidia is not completely free of trouble now that ATI/AMD got the performance lead once more, and NVidia allegedly has serious problems (low yields) on several recent GPU chips (9600 GT, among others). As for Matrox, wow, they're still in business?
Slashdot Mirror
.. and just copy/paste the serial from the .nfo-file once.
Not that I care about this game or am planning to buy, download or otherwise even look at it, but it's just another hilarious instance where the pirated version wins hands-down in the convenience department: apart from not needing the DVD to play the game, you don't even have to type the serial, never mind guessing what might be the last character because EA screwed up.
And even after such a major fuckup EA can't even be bothered to release a "no-serial" executable/installer themselves. Who cares, the customer^Wconsumer already paid for it anyway, what are they going to do about it?
Came here to post this.
The article has by now been tagged "ssh", which should be the obvious answer indeed. Even in Windows server editions this is a perfectly fine option these days - you should be able to do mostly anything that matters from the command line.
In the time you spent writing this post to Slashdot, you could have written a friendly letter to your IT department stating that you want some machines to not use this encryption, because these machines need maximum performance and anyway do not store any kind of personal information.
I see, and rather expected that the Finnish would be sensible enough to do something like that ;)
However, the question remains: why use a complicated system like this, when you can simply make an "allow 1 vote" button outside the voting booth, pressed by an election official whenever someone enters the voting booth. The official can then also make sure that a vote was cast (or rather, remind people if their vote somehow didn't register, most likely because they're doing it wrong), as the thing automatically switches back off after each vote.
This is more or less how the Dutch voting machines used to work, before they got binned altogether recently (it's back to pencil & paper for us, jay!)
Holy shit. You have to use a smartcard to vote? Can it be tracked to a specific voter? Or rather, are any mechanisms implemented to make sure it can't be? If not, this is an even bigger WTF than losing a couple of votes.
As others have posted, about $50, see source. This was in september 2007, and I can hardly imagine that production costs would have increased since then (to the contrary..) The price of the Wii is however still $/EUR 250 worldwide.
It is. Good job for them, especially as compared to Microsoft where the total losses in the X-box division likely run into the 11-digit range by now; see here and here, and note that this is even before the infamous $2B "red ring of death" recall.
Uhm, for the hardware you get, it's actually rather overpriced (Nintendo makes a nice profit from each console sold). Also, the topic is about running homebrew software, not necessarily about running pirated games. (Yes, I know a lot of people will use it to do just that).
This is decidedly not true; they add code that specifically fixes the symptoms (current exploits against known holes), but not the real cause (horribly broken usage and implementations of crypto/hashing/signing algorithms, among others). This is why new cracks typically appear within a day or two. Putting in such code, however, can hardly be designated "accidental". Please do a little fact-checking next time.
Check this article to find out why this is not really surprising.
Yup, that is indeed Nintendo featuring on TheDailyWTF.
How do you steal an item that doesn't really exist (a.k.a. virtual)?
The guy could have been convicted simply for beating someone up, or even just for threatening to do so unless he would give up those items (blackmail or whatever you call it). But instead, he got convicted for stealing something virtual, which only exists in a game.
This is news because, if the in-game money or item is considered property, should it therefore also be taxed? Can it be used (legally) as a real-life currency? Can game publishers claim that they "own" all your virtual property? Can you trade it on e-bay?
In games like Eve Online, where scamming is considered an art and is part of the game by design even according to its developers (!), could you get in real life trouble for planning a nasty Ponzi/pyramid scheme within the game? (which does not violate the EULA in any way, I might add)? Note that the scam I linked to is about $700B in-game money, which is worth ca. $25/B at the moment (probably it was more back then). So we *are* indirectly talking "nice down payment for a new house" kind of amounts here.
So if you play MMO's and like to play Dr. Evil *inside a game* (which, I should say, is a lot better than doing so IRL), should you still be afraid to get into trouble?
Obviously the guy is rightfully punished btw, I'm just arguing it should have been for a different "crime".
Yes, clearly this would explain the larger-than-live posters advertising the G1 at that exact store, stating it's "available here" and even, in fact, "only here".
I see other commenters in this thread talking about how "Google may or may not have the same advertising blah blah rah rah that Apple does". Fact is, although obviously Google has the money and the medium to do it, they are still somehow failing on this account. Let's face it: Apple dealt with the same company (in Europe), and this is the exact kind of thing they somehow always seem to be able to prevent from happening.
In fact Apple makes it look easy, but it's exactly this kind of large telco semi-monopolistic behaviour which turns down potential customers: "yeah, we're putting up them posters because HQ told us to, don't wanna get in trouble with them guys, also we don't actually sell this phone, but who cares if this pisses people off, it's not like they can really stop dealing with us anyways (other telco's are just as bad although perhaps in slightly different ways)"
Apple doesn't let shit like this happen. Instead, they manage to make it into a major media-event which gets published about in mainstream news for days on end, by supplying posters *and* a limited amount of phones to stores at the same day.
So whatever you could say about the phone from technical and other perspectives, in this case from a marketing perspective Apple has clearly beaten Google hands-down before the fight even really started.
Check out this story where Neil Gaiman tries to buy one. Indeed it literally doesn't seem to be selling. As in: you cannot obtain one even if you wanted to.
I bolded the funny part. Assuming you meant '$100 more than the MacBook', this kind of proves the point, doesn't it?
However, it is indeed true that Apple asks ridiculous prices for HD and RAM upgrades. You can without any problem replace them yourself for much less though (e.g. 4 GB RAM ~= $60), without voiding the warranty or anything. It's also not hard at all. I totally agree that it would be better if Apple stopped asking such ridiculous prices for upgrades though.
Indeed, these issues (power management, bootup time) where actually *the* biggest reasons for me to buy a MacBook. I'm glad at least some Linux developers understand this, *and* are actively working to fix it.
I don't even know how fast (or slow) Mac OS boots, because I reboot it at most once a month. The rest of the time, I simply close the screen, it goes into sleep and will be back up in 2-3 seconds tops. Also, it can easily stay in sleep mode for days (I think it uses maybe 10-15% of battery charge per full day of sleep), much unlike my Dell Inspiron 6000, which in sleep mode (both Linux and Windows) still runs out of juice in about 8 hours flat (and on a bigger battery, at that). Which leads to me never using sleep mode on that thing. I know this is something that can't be influenced by the OS, but it matters, a lot.
Also, there are such "tiny details" as Linux not waking up from sleep mode randomly, say, one time out of ten. Or stuff breaking apparently because you removed or plugged in some USB devices while it was in hibernate/sleep, etc. The point is, you can't depend on it, so it might as well not work at all. In fact, losing your work one time out of ten is probably worse than sleep mode not working at all.
Also, I don't know what happened between Ubuntu 7.10 and 8.04, but 8.04 takes literally 3-5 times longer to boot and resume from hibernate (on the same Inspiron 6000). This is what really sealed the deal for me.
No, it's not.
See http://www.apple.com/batteries/ , and this is how they measure cycles for the warranty (they guarantee 80% of original capacity after 300 full charge cycles, otherwise you'll get a free replacement iirc) so I'd say that's what matters.
If you have a MacBook, you can see your battery cycle count by typing this:
ioreg -l | grep Cycle | cut -d= -f2
Mine is at 52 cycles (bought it in May '08), but I'm using it 8+ hours a day. So I've owned it for 5 months, at this rate it will reach 300 cycles after 2-2.5 years, which isn't too bad.
If you really have trouble thinking of ways in which this can cause harm more serious than pay-per-click fraud, I really hope your job does not involve making many security-related decisions.
OK, to be a bit more constructive about it, have you read Bruce Schneiers' article The Security Mindset? If none if his examples make you think "well, I would have thought of that, given a minute", you are a very trusting person ;) Your life will probably be the better for it -- except in those cases where you get screwed by misplaced trust.
Please to be explaining how I "sign something by default" by "insert any course of action not involving explicitly signing the NDA"
To be honest I wouldn't voluntarily run Vista even if they paid me to use it. I rather prefer my computer to be in a workable state, and don't care to spend $100 on buying additional RAM when it works just fine right now without Vista, thanks very much.
Excuse me, but I just actually read that report (...on slashdot!? I must be new here), and it nowhere states that jet engine efficiency *hasn't* improved tremendously over the past 40 years. On the contrary, it shows clear diagrams that shows they *have* improved a lot.
However, it states, probably correctly, that compared to the last-generation *piston* aircraft engines which where built around 1955 or so, first-generation Jet engines used twice as much fuel (per passenger or kg moved per kilometer) compared to those. However, that amount of fuel since halved so they are now about on par with 1955 piston technology. Doesn't look like a lie to me. Of course, modern jet engines can fly a lot faster than those with piston engines.
In addition, it states that the amount of reduction will level off when the technology has matured. This happened for piston engines, and I don't see why it wouldn't for jet engines; most things to improve their efficiency by a lot have already been invented by now. This explains why they use much less fuel than 40 years ago, but doesn't guarantee in any way that they can get a lot more efficient still.
Of course, I like taking a plane to the Hawaiian beaches as much as the next guy, but I don't see why we need to post this kind of bullshit stories just so we can fool ourselves into thinking that planes do not use a lot of fuel.
Hah. Audi diesel engines winning the 24 hours race of Le Mans several years in a row disagree. Also gas is about $9-$10/gallon in most of Europe (diesel is cheaper than gas in many countries, but not all).
Yeah, so this is real great - because it means resell value of cars that no longer have battery warranty will basically drop off a cliff.
Let's see: the lifetime of the vehicle is 200,000 miles, or about 320,000 km. With a 8 year battery warranty I'd need to drive 40,000 km/year (25,000 miles) to reach the end of the economic lifetime of the vehicle before the battery warranty runs out - from that point on, I'd consider the car economically worthless, as the cost of replacing the batteries is likely to prove prohibitive.
Well maybe it's me, but first of all I think it's more environmentally friendly to drive a lot less. Currently, I drive about 12,000 km/year in a 12 year old car - which, by the looks of it, could still last me several years. I bet that continuing to use this old car is more environmentally friendly than having a new car produced.
Also, I wonder where we suddenly got those batteries that will supposedly last 8-10 years, because for laptops it's usually game over after about 2 years.
Here is the privacy policy for Chrome: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html
It does not mention the terms in this article, which clearly seem related to google services and not the browser.
Mind you, the privacy policy does mention unique ID's for each browser, and sending them to google every time you start the browser. Also, Chrome automatically installs a GoogleUpdate executable and adds it to your autoruns; I really hate it when applications do that. So it's still pretty bad, but not in exactly the way this "article" makes it out to be.
As you probably noticed yourself, it's likely a legal trap; if you show that you're interested in taking money for the domain name, they will then use that as an argument during legal proceedings that you're a domain name squatter.
So simply don't respond.
What is interesting, is that people seem to completely miss how multithreading works - because it will not solve that problem, at all. If, in a multithreaded application, one thread violates some memory restriction (e.g. stack overflow or accessing already released memory), the entire application will crash just like any other (single-threaded) application.
What multithreading *can* help solve though, is the random "freezing up" of Firefox whenever another tab decides to reload itself, or when a wayward Flash plugin causes the entire browser to freeze for indefinite amounts of time, etc.
The programmers of Firefox are very obviously aware of these problems, but it's incredibly hard to change the event-handling system once you have a complete application. Especially since these days, Javascript is used to do large-scale manipulations of the document, it becomes really hard to decide what data to share between threads, prevent race conditions and the inadvertent introduction new security risks, etc. etc.
So I'm sure we'll see quite a few problems with these new "multi-threaded" browsers, before the technology matures.
From the article:
Well duhhh, it uses multithreading - a thread per tab/window, or actually I believe it uses a threadpool to limit the total amount somewhat. So obviously it will use more execution threads. This can be perfectly fine and is in itself not an indication of any problem.
The memory usage could be more of a problem I'm sure. Javascript performance is probably even more interesting to look at...
I am surprised that VIA still actually exists. Probably it'll be a case of "too little, too late", but who knows.
And NVidia is not completely free of trouble now that ATI/AMD got the performance lead once more, and NVidia allegedly has serious problems (low yields) on several recent GPU chips (9600 GT, among others). As for Matrox, wow, they're still in business?