I've noticed that when using Chrome and I switch between tabs, it sometimes takes a long time for Chrome to draw the tab I'm switching to. I think it has to do with each tab being in a process, so that perhaps the process for the tab got swapped out to disk. I find Firefox faster at everyday browsing.
You can't simply count the number of security vulnerabilities reported in each browser. You need to consider the severity of the vulnerability, whether it was exploited by black hats, how long the vulnerability was known by black hats before it was patched, and whether the browser vendor is admitting to vulnerabilities that were no publicly known when they were fixed. The problem with IE is that they take the longest to fix vulnerabilities, and they are the browser most often targeted by black hats.
Besides, these days plugins are attacked more often than the browsers themselves, so keeping plugins up to date and turning on features such as DEP may be more important than which browser you use.
There have been rumors for years. At first, there was some truth to the rumors. There were quite a few memory leaks, but the rumors blew the descriptions of the memory leaks out of all proportion. Particularly egregious was the claim that closing tabs does not release memory. Mozilla long ago fixed the worst leaks. For the past few years, I haven't even known how to demonstrate a memory problem in Firefox, despite having access to the bug database. If you're still suffering from some sort of memory problem, you should explain it to the rest of us who see no memory problems.
You just gave (what you claim to be) steps to reproduce the problem. The thing is, whenever I do something with Firefox and the same thing with another browser, Firefox uses less memory than the other browser. I can't see the problem. Perhaps there is a problem on your computer you could fix by reinstalling Firefox and creating a new profile.
Whenever I've tested, Firefox uses less memory than other browsers. I haven't noticed it being slow for years -- back when I was running it on a 266 MHz computer and there was little or minimal caching of the chrome it was so slow I first thought the UI was written in Java. Can you provide specifics about what particular sites make it take more memory than other browsers, or what activities feel sluggish?
Most of Acid3 is mainstream web standards. Yes, some of it is esoteric, but mostly it's basic features that have been standards for many years. This includes CSS2, JavaScript, DOM, and SVG.
Web standards say what the browser should do when it is handed broken code. If the browser does something other than what the standard says, the result can be a page that doesn't work correctly. You can say that it's up to the web developers to fix their broken code, but the web is full of "tag soup". Go to just about any web page and run it through the W3C validator to see what I mean.
More importantly, people who have some grudge against Wikipedia point out an insignificant problem in some obscure article and claim that it's why Wikipedia won't work or that it has some fundamental flaw. It's called confirmation bias.
That's not a good reason for a change to be removed. The way Wikipedia works, any information you add should be verifiable by citing a reliable source. If you do that, no one should simply remove the information, and whether information is removed should have nothing to do with the person who added it.
If you find a citation to a source that is unreliable, remove it. I'm sure Wikipedia has typos, too. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Fix it, don't just complain about it.
No, forum posts are not reliable sources. Neither are blogs or self-published websites. In general, what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source is a publication that has some sort of editorial control, such as a traditional newspaper or periodical, book published by a traditional publishing company, or a company's official website. That means that you can't just publish your own newsletter or book or website and then cite it in Wikipedia.
Does Chrome 6 have print preview? Can you open files with helper applications without having to delete them manually later? Do Flash videos play the audio correctly?
It isn't really sarcasm. If you complain that some things (emails, IP packets) get priority over others, the solution is to drop all priorities and treat all entities as equal. When you don't see important email messages in the spam or your VoIP calls cut out because of someone downloading porn, you'll see why it's important to give some pieces of information more priority over others.
How about snail mail neutrality? Demand an end to overnight packages!
No one has disallowed publication of papers inconsistent with AGW. O'm not stick my fingers in my ears. I have asked several times in this very thread for evidence that AGW is not happening or why we should not reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and no one can seem to come up with anything. Where on Earth do you get this nonsense about the sun having no effect on Earth's climate? It's bunk!
There's a mountain of evidence that increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses are causing the warming. The warming was predicted nearly 100 years before it happened. Now you're saying that because there's no other explanation for the warming it means we've all just been guessing all along, and there really isn't any evidence at all?
The research is open for all to see. It has been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny, and yet no one can find that the scientific conclusions are unwarranted. Quite the opposite -- no matter how much the IPCC report and the CLU climate researchers are studied, no one can find fault with the science. As far as I can tell, not one scientific paper has been published that concludes that AGW is not happening. Saying that a judge denying a subpoena on the basis that no fraud was involved means there's a "liberal agenda" is grasping at straws.
So why are so many people saying that the boat is not taking on any water, or saying that until it's proven that it's taking on water we should take no action about it, or even if the boat is taking on water there's nothing we can do about it anyway? Why not take the safe cource of action and turn on a pump, any one? If it's later determined that it wasn't sufficient or that it was more than necessary, at least we took action.
Can you come up with a rational argument for not reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
If we're running out of fossil fuels, doesn't it make sense to start reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by improving energy efficiency and developing alternative energy sources?
Slashdot Mirror
I've noticed that when using Chrome and I switch between tabs, it sometimes takes a long time for Chrome to draw the tab I'm switching to. I think it has to do with each tab being in a process, so that perhaps the process for the tab got swapped out to disk. I find Firefox faster at everyday browsing.
You can't simply count the number of security vulnerabilities reported in each browser. You need to consider the severity of the vulnerability, whether it was exploited by black hats, how long the vulnerability was known by black hats before it was patched, and whether the browser vendor is admitting to vulnerabilities that were no publicly known when they were fixed. The problem with IE is that they take the longest to fix vulnerabilities, and they are the browser most often targeted by black hats.
Besides, these days plugins are attacked more often than the browsers themselves, so keeping plugins up to date and turning on features such as DEP may be more important than which browser you use.
There have been rumors for years. At first, there was some truth to the rumors. There were quite a few memory leaks, but the rumors blew the descriptions of the memory leaks out of all proportion. Particularly egregious was the claim that closing tabs does not release memory. Mozilla long ago fixed the worst leaks. For the past few years, I haven't even known how to demonstrate a memory problem in Firefox, despite having access to the bug database. If you're still suffering from some sort of memory problem, you should explain it to the rest of us who see no memory problems.
I've been using AdBlock Plus for over a year, and I have no problems with memory usage.
You just gave (what you claim to be) steps to reproduce the problem. The thing is, whenever I do something with Firefox and the same thing with another browser, Firefox uses less memory than the other browser. I can't see the problem. Perhaps there is a problem on your computer you could fix by reinstalling Firefox and creating a new profile.
I'm sure every browser has memory leaks. Is there a particular thing you do that leaks lots of memory? If so, what is it?
It would help if you would post some steps to reproduce the problem. If nearly no one else can see the problem, you can't expect them to fix it.
Whenever I've tested, Firefox uses less memory than other browsers. I haven't noticed it being slow for years -- back when I was running it on a 266 MHz computer and there was little or minimal caching of the chrome it was so slow I first thought the UI was written in Java. Can you provide specifics about what particular sites make it take more memory than other browsers, or what activities feel sluggish?
Most of Acid3 is mainstream web standards. Yes, some of it is esoteric, but mostly it's basic features that have been standards for many years. This includes CSS2, JavaScript, DOM, and SVG.
Web standards say what the browser should do when it is handed broken code. If the browser does something other than what the standard says, the result can be a page that doesn't work correctly. You can say that it's up to the web developers to fix their broken code, but the web is full of "tag soup". Go to just about any web page and run it through the W3C validator to see what I mean.
And Sol of course.
More importantly, people who have some grudge against Wikipedia point out an insignificant problem in some obscure article and claim that it's why Wikipedia won't work or that it has some fundamental flaw. It's called confirmation bias.
That's not a good reason for a change to be removed. The way Wikipedia works, any information you add should be verifiable by citing a reliable source. If you do that, no one should simply remove the information, and whether information is removed should have nothing to do with the person who added it.
If you find a citation to a source that is unreliable, remove it. I'm sure Wikipedia has typos, too. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Fix it, don't just complain about it.
No, forum posts are not reliable sources. Neither are blogs or self-published websites. In general, what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source is a publication that has some sort of editorial control, such as a traditional newspaper or periodical, book published by a traditional publishing company, or a company's official website. That means that you can't just publish your own newsletter or book or website and then cite it in Wikipedia.
Does Chrome 6 have print preview? Can you open files with helper applications without having to delete them manually later? Do Flash videos play the audio correctly?
It isn't really sarcasm. If you complain that some things (emails, IP packets) get priority over others, the solution is to drop all priorities and treat all entities as equal. When you don't see important email messages in the spam or your VoIP calls cut out because of someone downloading porn, you'll see why it's important to give some pieces of information more priority over others.
How about snail mail neutrality? Demand an end to overnight packages!
What does it say when we can't tell a sarcastic comment about net neutrality from a legitimate one?
The solution is obvious... Demand email neutrality now!
Slashdot got Slashdotted by you and all the other nervous clickers.
No one has disallowed publication of papers inconsistent with AGW. O'm not stick my fingers in my ears. I have asked several times in this very thread for evidence that AGW is not happening or why we should not reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and no one can seem to come up with anything. Where on Earth do you get this nonsense about the sun having no effect on Earth's climate? It's bunk!
There's a mountain of evidence that increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses are causing the warming. The warming was predicted nearly 100 years before it happened. Now you're saying that because there's no other explanation for the warming it means we've all just been guessing all along, and there really isn't any evidence at all?
The research is open for all to see. It has been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny, and yet no one can find that the scientific conclusions are unwarranted. Quite the opposite -- no matter how much the IPCC report and the CLU climate researchers are studied, no one can find fault with the science. As far as I can tell, not one scientific paper has been published that concludes that AGW is not happening. Saying that a judge denying a subpoena on the basis that no fraud was involved means there's a "liberal agenda" is grasping at straws.
Ah, I see. Characterize the people who are asking for reduced carbon dioxide emissions as hysterical alarmists. Good counter argument!
To get back to reality, Governor Schwarzenegger, President Obama and the U.S. Senate all have taken steps toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Even more has been done in Europe.
So why are so many people saying that the boat is not taking on any water, or saying that until it's proven that it's taking on water we should take no action about it, or even if the boat is taking on water there's nothing we can do about it anyway? Why not take the safe cource of action and turn on a pump, any one? If it's later determined that it wasn't sufficient or that it was more than necessary, at least we took action.
Can you come up with a rational argument for not reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
If we're running out of fossil fuels, doesn't it make sense to start reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by improving energy efficiency and developing alternative energy sources?