Our society seems to act like parents own their children. They put parents' rights over childrens' rights. Kids are at a critical stage in which beliefs are formed that they will (in most cases) retain for the rest of their lives. Don't children have a right to not be brainwashed? Consider that it can have a lifetime impact on them (or worse).
If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this news story (ABC News) about a Christian Science teen who died from a simple medical problem. I was disgusted by how people thought they actually had a right to indoctrinate their son with such insane and (as it proved) fatal beliefs. "Police Do Not Expect Criminal Charges to Be Filed in the Death". This is outrageous!
IMO, given that children are in a critical stage when it comes to forming beliefs, and given the impact that those beliefs can have on their entire life, it should be required by law that children be exposed to science, be taught critical thinking, and be taught about other belief systems besides their own. This should be considered a basic human right.
When you further consider the impact that religious extremism is having on the world (particularly with both Christian and Muslim extremism), this becomes an even greater imperative.
Is this why the flash plugin is able to crash the entire browser? (Which happens especially on linux, mainly when you close a tab with flash in it). I haven't used IE for ages, but it doesn't have this problem, I take it? This is an awful bug IMO. The flash plugin is certainly to blame, but then again firefox shouldn't crash because of a plugin. (Also, I think I've seen firefox crash when closing a tab with mplayer-plugin as well a few times).
I'm sure "Chrome" is trademarked, and Google would certainly enforce its trademark if it chose to. This would be one way to sort of enforce the EULA: Don't allow the recompiled versions to be called Chrome.
Linux distros are undoubtedly going to want to compile their own version, in addition to wanting to be free of the EULA (which is non-free).
I wonder what Google will do about this? They either have to ditch the EULA (at least for linux), or be content with a re-branded version of their browser being bundled with linux distributions.
I wonder how important the EULA is to Google, anyway? I personally don't understand why they feel they need one in the first place.
Re:Why can plugins crash the browser anyway?
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, when I am playing a flash video I don't see any npviewer.bin. The CPU usage goes up for firefox, however, which seems to indicate a thread running within firefox. (This is on both linux and windows, looking with top and windows task manager, respectively). I don't know why we're getting different results here.
Re:Why can plugins crash the browser anyway?
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Though the java plugin does run as a separate process. Sure, the browser could force plugins to run as separate processes, but one could instead blame the plugin developers. In the case of flash, they could also be blamed for making a really crashy plugin (especially the linux version of the plugin, for whatever reason).
I second that. Firefox would be extremely stable for me if it weren't for the damned flash plugin. As I asked in a different post, why is flash able to crash the browser in the first place? Something about plugin-browser interaction must be poorly designed. Is there a reason why flash can't be a separate process?
Why can plugins crash the browser anyway?
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
FTA:
So now, when that buggy Flash applet on your favorite humor site goes belly up, it won't necessarily take down the entire browser - the processes running in other tabs will keep chugging along.
Could someone explain to me why the flash plugin (as well as any other plugin) can crash the entire browser? Don't they run as separate processes? If not, why not? Wouldn't fixing this (however you would do that) solve the problem without creating the inefficiencies of having a process for each tab? (Granted, the process-per-tab thing does solve other problems).
Re:chrome runs great on old machines
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
How many tabs were you using on those machines? It's probably more that it uses less RAM than firefox with a smaller number of tabs. I would expect that it would be worse than firefox on a low RAM system with larger numbers of tabs.
Perhaps the best way to compare the two browsers would be to make a graph of memory consumption by number of tabs (assuming each tab contains comparable web pages).
I noticed that Opera was much better memory-wise than firefox with low numbers of tabs, but with higher numbers it ceased to have much advantage.
Tab-per-process not so good for memory?
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, so the process-per-tab model of Chrome results in more rather than less memory consumption. Google's cartoon claimed that memory consumption would be less overall. So is google wrong? Or did this test fail to show the advantage of this model over long browsing sessions, as google claimed there was? Or perhaps the beta is more bloated, as others suggested for IE8?
No one had mentioned it in this discussion and I hadn't seen the previous article when I posted.
OK, so they can put restrictions on the binary they put out. But they can't put an EULA (per se) on the source. Or it wouldn't be open source. Someone else could put out binaries without the EULA. So it seems silly and pointless in itself to have an EULA on open source code.
To state the obvious, but if there is such code, someone can put out a version without it. That simple. Besides, I think it just maybe, maybe, might be bad publicity.
Let's not forget that there has long been no more reason to do embryonic stem cell research. Stem cells can be created from skin cells, from liver cells, pancreatic cells, they can be extracted from brain tissue samples,...
You may be correct on this (I will have to check). However, Bush's cutting of funding for stem cell research was an unethical action that delayed the development of therapies that could have saved or improved the lives of many.
Creating the implantation embryo's has to be legal, because it helps people have a child.
Wait, so it's OK to create and destroy a bunch of embryos to produce one child, but it isn't OK to use the extra, unused embryos to potentially save an adult person's life? Please explain the logic here.
Since the embryo's that for some reason don't get in are human beings that WILL die before they're anywhere near breathing, the humane thing is to kill them as soon as possible.
What difference does it make? These are not sentient beings we're talking about here. That's right, just because something has its own unique DNA and that DNA is human does not make it a person. It's not like you're preventing any suffering, or protecting anyone's rights by destroying the embryos as soon as possible. (Granted, at some point, if allowed to develop, they would become sentient, at which point it would be unethical).
You were once one of these kinds of embryo's, are scientists allowed to experiment on you once you can't say "NO!" anymore ?
I don't get these progressives. You have abortion and euthanasia these days. It seems progressives want to close the gap, bit by bit. I don't like it.
This is a classic slippery slope fallacy here. You simply need to apply the criterion that sentient persons have rights. If I got brain-damaged like Terry Schiavo, there would be no more me. As for euthanasia I think people have the right to end their lives if their lives have become nothing but pain.
Not only am I arguing against the ethical premises of pro-lifers, I am also pointing out that those premises are applied very inconsistently.
Most people want simpler, easier games. That's why recent games tend to be easier than older games. The audience has broadened. It's also why Looking Glass put out a number of excellent games (e.g. Thief, System Shock 2, many others), but nevertheless did not have enough commercial success to avoid going under. OTOH Looking Glass's games often have cult status among gamers who like that challenge.
Excuse me, but how many times has the federal government had to rebuild New Orleans? Katrina and Gustav, for all we know, are a string of bad luck. (I don't recall any hurricanes devastating New Orleans prior to Katrina, in recent years). You're making a very weak induction here.
Of course, the other possibility is that global warming has made hurricanes much worse, in which case you might have an argument. Nevertheless, we don't know enough yet to say that there will be another devastating hurricane in another few years, as your argument assumes.
Slashdot Mirror
It's related, but not exactly what I want. Just charge per bit/byte/GBit/...
Are you sure you want that? Because I kind of doubt it will actually be cheaper. Considering how these things usually work.
It's practically straight out of Plato. Now isn't that scary in itself?
Oh right, I actually meant hanging or freezing. I've rarely seen firefox actually crash.
Our society seems to act like parents own their children. They put parents' rights over childrens' rights. Kids are at a critical stage in which beliefs are formed that they will (in most cases) retain for the rest of their lives. Don't children have a right to not be brainwashed? Consider that it can have a lifetime impact on them (or worse).
If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this news story (ABC News) about a Christian Science teen who died from a simple medical problem. I was disgusted by how people thought they actually had a right to indoctrinate their son with such insane and (as it proved) fatal beliefs. "Police Do Not Expect Criminal Charges to Be Filed in the Death". This is outrageous!
IMO, given that children are in a critical stage when it comes to forming beliefs, and given the impact that those beliefs can have on their entire life, it should be required by law that children be exposed to science, be taught critical thinking, and be taught about other belief systems besides their own. This should be considered a basic human right.
When you further consider the impact that religious extremism is having on the world (particularly with both Christian and Muslim extremism), this becomes an even greater imperative.
Is this why the flash plugin is able to crash the entire browser? (Which happens especially on linux, mainly when you close a tab with flash in it). I haven't used IE for ages, but it doesn't have this problem, I take it? This is an awful bug IMO. The flash plugin is certainly to blame, but then again firefox shouldn't crash because of a plugin. (Also, I think I've seen firefox crash when closing a tab with mplayer-plugin as well a few times).
Doesn't KDE have a trademark on the letter "K", though? ;)
I'm sure "Chrome" is trademarked, and Google would certainly enforce its trademark if it chose to. This would be one way to sort of enforce the EULA: Don't allow the recompiled versions to be called Chrome.
Linux distros are undoubtedly going to want to compile their own version, in addition to wanting to be free of the EULA (which is non-free).
I wonder what Google will do about this? They either have to ditch the EULA (at least for linux), or be content with a re-branded version of their browser being bundled with linux distributions.
I wonder how important the EULA is to Google, anyway? I personally don't understand why they feel they need one in the first place.
Hmm, when I am playing a flash video I don't see any npviewer.bin. The CPU usage goes up for firefox, however, which seems to indicate a thread running within firefox. (This is on both linux and windows, looking with top and windows task manager, respectively). I don't know why we're getting different results here.
Though the java plugin does run as a separate process. Sure, the browser could force plugins to run as separate processes, but one could instead blame the plugin developers. In the case of flash, they could also be blamed for making a really crashy plugin (especially the linux version of the plugin, for whatever reason).
I second that. Firefox would be extremely stable for me if it weren't for the damned flash plugin. As I asked in a different post, why is flash able to crash the browser in the first place? Something about plugin-browser interaction must be poorly designed. Is there a reason why flash can't be a separate process?
So now, when that buggy Flash applet on your favorite humor site goes belly up, it won't necessarily take down the entire browser - the processes running in other tabs will keep chugging along.
Could someone explain to me why the flash plugin (as well as any other plugin) can crash the entire browser? Don't they run as separate processes? If not, why not? Wouldn't fixing this (however you would do that) solve the problem without creating the inefficiencies of having a process for each tab? (Granted, the process-per-tab thing does solve other problems).
How many tabs were you using on those machines? It's probably more that it uses less RAM than firefox with a smaller number of tabs. I would expect that it would be worse than firefox on a low RAM system with larger numbers of tabs.
Perhaps the best way to compare the two browsers would be to make a graph of memory consumption by number of tabs (assuming each tab contains comparable web pages).
I noticed that Opera was much better memory-wise than firefox with low numbers of tabs, but with higher numbers it ceased to have much advantage.
Hmm, so the process-per-tab model of Chrome results in more rather than less memory consumption. Google's cartoon claimed that memory consumption would be less overall. So is google wrong? Or did this test fail to show the advantage of this model over long browsing sessions, as google claimed there was? Or perhaps the beta is more bloated, as others suggested for IE8?
My own guess is that google was wrong.
No one had mentioned it in this discussion and I hadn't seen the previous article when I posted.
OK, so they can put restrictions on the binary they put out. But they can't put an EULA (per se) on the source. Or it wouldn't be open source. Someone else could put out binaries without the EULA. So it seems silly and pointless in itself to have an EULA on open source code.
...Considering that it is open source?
Or am I missing something?
Two important differences to keep in mind:
- IE was bundled with Windows. Windows already had a near-monopoly.
- Chrome is open source.
Given that it will be open source, won't that be rather difficult to enforce?
Besides, they can make an even more google-centric browser than Firefox, which will only be to their benefit.
To state the obvious, but if there is such code, someone can put out a version without it. That simple. Besides, I think it just maybe, maybe, might be bad publicity.
Let's not forget that there has long been no more reason to do embryonic stem cell research. Stem cells can be created from skin cells, from liver cells, pancreatic cells, they can be extracted from brain tissue samples, ...
You may be correct on this (I will have to check). However, Bush's cutting of funding for stem cell research was an unethical action that delayed the development of therapies that could have saved or improved the lives of many.
Creating the implantation embryo's has to be legal, because it helps people have a child.
Wait, so it's OK to create and destroy a bunch of embryos to produce one child, but it isn't OK to use the extra, unused embryos to potentially save an adult person's life? Please explain the logic here.
Since the embryo's that for some reason don't get in are human beings that WILL die before they're anywhere near breathing, the humane thing is to kill them as soon as possible.
What difference does it make? These are not sentient beings we're talking about here. That's right, just because something has its own unique DNA and that DNA is human does not make it a person. It's not like you're preventing any suffering, or protecting anyone's rights by destroying the embryos as soon as possible. (Granted, at some point, if allowed to develop, they would become sentient, at which point it would be unethical).
You were once one of these kinds of embryo's, are scientists allowed to experiment on you once you can't say "NO!" anymore ?
I don't get these progressives. You have abortion and euthanasia these days. It seems progressives want to close the gap, bit by bit. I don't like it.
This is a classic slippery slope fallacy here. You simply need to apply the criterion that sentient persons have rights. If I got brain-damaged like Terry Schiavo, there would be no more me. As for euthanasia I think people have the right to end their lives if their lives have become nothing but pain.
Not only am I arguing against the ethical premises of pro-lifers, I am also pointing out that those premises are applied very inconsistently.
A private lab using discarded implantation embryos would be illegal if McCain and the Congressional GOP pass a law implementing that plank.
Yet creating the implantation embryos in the first place would still be legal? I will never quite understand the Republican mind.
Add to that his new hard-core anti-abortion VP candidate, and it shouldn't be hard to predict his stance on stem cell research.
Right, but you're forgetting that McCain is old.
Most people want simpler, easier games. That's why recent games tend to be easier than older games. The audience has broadened. It's also why Looking Glass put out a number of excellent games (e.g. Thief, System Shock 2, many others), but nevertheless did not have enough commercial success to avoid going under. OTOH Looking Glass's games often have cult status among gamers who like that challenge.
But that isn't what undermines her argument, what undermines her argument is that it is false.
An argument can't be false. It can only be invalid (i.e. fallacious) or based on false premises.
Excuse me, but how many times has the federal government had to rebuild New Orleans? Katrina and Gustav, for all we know, are a string of bad luck. (I don't recall any hurricanes devastating New Orleans prior to Katrina, in recent years). You're making a very weak induction here. Of course, the other possibility is that global warming has made hurricanes much worse, in which case you might have an argument. Nevertheless, we don't know enough yet to say that there will be another devastating hurricane in another few years, as your argument assumes.