Regarding the Arctic ice, I'm not pointing out anything special happening this particular year. I'm pointing out that over the past several decades, the Arctic ice is melting, because the Earth is warming.
Regarding the Antarctic ice, the sea ice extent refers to the surface area of ice, not the mass or volume. The volume and mass of ice in the Antarctic is decreasing because it is melting. This is because the ice is thinning.
Yes, of course ice melts in the summer. It also freezes in the winter. Thank you, Captain Obvious!
What I was referring to by the Arctic and Antarctic ice melting was that they are melting away over the period of years and decades because the Earth is warming over the period of years and decades. If you would have read the links I posted, you would see that's what I was referring to.
Think of insulation. Insulation can keep heat in, and it can also keep heat out. Insulation will keep your house warm in the winter, and also cool in the summer. It's not that hard to understand, is it?
Although CO2 may be causing cooling high in the troposphere, it's keeping the surface of the Earth warm. So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record, with Arctic and Antarctic ice continuing to melt, despite low solar activity.
I don't see how that applies in this situation, either. Mozilla is not paying people to specifically look for security problems in Firefox. The security researchers do whatever they want -- they're autonomous, doing the research they want to do for their own motivation. If during their work they happen to find a bug in Mozilla, this makes it easy for them to do the right thing and report the problem to Mozilla first, before someone else finds the problem.
According to the video, if they employed security researchers to specifically look for security bugs in Firefox, it would not work to give them a large bonus for each security bug found. That's not what they're doing, though.
I think it does further the mission. Giving $3000 per security bug is not counterproductive because security researchers do not have a social contract with Mozilla. Mozilla will not give us a ride to work if our car breaks down. Mozilla giving $3000 for a security bug is not like giving your mother-in-law money for Thanksgiving dinner for this reason.
This is the exact reason for the disqualification criterion for the bug bounty
In concert with those changes, we are also updating the eligibility language to make it clear that Mozilla reserves the right to disqualify bugs from the bounty payment if the reporter has been deemed to have acted against the best interests of our users.
We don't have a social contract with Mozilla. It's a corporation. Do you build a social relationship with Mozilla so it can help you in times of distress? It sounds like you missed the point.
That video explains why giving a low amount such as $500 is counterproductive. Paying a fair amount of money for security research is compensating people for the time and effort for finding and reporting the bug. As an example from the video, it's like giving someone $50, a fair amount, to change your tire instead of $1, which is an insulting amount.
I have a light-sound machine (or mind machine) that has some sleep programs. They all progress from 10 Hz down to 1-2 Hz. They've always been able to put me to sleep within about 30 minutes.
I wonder how many people will now experiment with mind machines and dreamachines now that they're in the news. Can anyone say Streisand Effect?
Everyone knows dihydrogen monoxide is the real gateway drug. It's a proven fact that all drug addicts consumed significant quantities of the substance before turning to the harder stuff!
Having unreviewed add-ons exposed to the public, even with low visibility, has been previously identified as an attack vector for hackers. For this reason, we’re already working on implementing a new security model for addons.mozilla.org that will require all add-ons to be code-reviewed before they are discoverable in the site.
The Jetpack SDK lets you write add-ons that run in Firefox, Firefox Mobile, and as stand-alone applications using only the familiar technologies of the Web (HTML, Javascript, and CSS). Your add-ons will be faster to code and debug, easier to maintain, and more stable due to the extensible code library and the instant save-refresh development cycle. Your add-ons will also enjoy a stronger, more understandable security model that will keep your users safe.
Oh, that's why you talked about the worldwide usage of Firefox declining. Because you personally were having a problem. You must be very important for so many millions of people to respect your personal opinion. Now you've got delusions of grandeur.
If there's a memory problem with Firefox, it should be trivial to trigger it with a synthetic benchmark, right?
I have no doubt that you saw resource utilization on your computer. That doesn't mean that's what others and seeing on their computers. I mean you must think when you have a problem starting your car in the morning that everyone else with the same make and model has exactly the same problem. Sigh.
I'm not "defending" Firefox. I'm just saying that you're making up lies. Well, maybe not completely fabricating stories, but wildly extrapolating your experience to the experience of all 350 million other users. Of course, you finally admit this in your last sentence. Welcome back to reality!
I made no comment about supporting or not supporting a browser. I said that if we're waiting on anyone to do something, we're waiting on Microsoft to add HTML5 support to Internet Explorer before we can use HTML5 features. We're not waiting on the W3C to do something.
Slashdot Mirror
In Europe, IE usage is just over 40%. In Russia, IE usage is below 30%. IE usage varies widely from site to site, country to country.
It depends on the site. Some sites have 95% of users using IE. Others have 30% of users using IE.
Regarding the Arctic ice, I'm not pointing out anything special happening this particular year. I'm pointing out that over the past several decades, the Arctic ice is melting, because the Earth is warming.
Regarding the Antarctic ice, the sea ice extent refers to the surface area of ice, not the mass or volume. The volume and mass of ice in the Antarctic is decreasing because it is melting. This is because the ice is thinning.
Yes, of course ice melts in the summer. It also freezes in the winter. Thank you, Captain Obvious!
What I was referring to by the Arctic and Antarctic ice melting was that they are melting away over the period of years and decades because the Earth is warming over the period of years and decades. If you would have read the links I posted, you would see that's what I was referring to.
Think of insulation. Insulation can keep heat in, and it can also keep heat out. Insulation will keep your house warm in the winter, and also cool in the summer. It's not that hard to understand, is it?
Although CO2 may be causing cooling high in the troposphere, it's keeping the surface of the Earth warm. So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record, with Arctic and Antarctic ice continuing to melt, despite low solar activity.
I don't see how that applies in this situation, either. Mozilla is not paying people to specifically look for security problems in Firefox. The security researchers do whatever they want -- they're autonomous, doing the research they want to do for their own motivation. If during their work they happen to find a bug in Mozilla, this makes it easy for them to do the right thing and report the problem to Mozilla first, before someone else finds the problem.
According to the video, if they employed security researchers to specifically look for security bugs in Firefox, it would not work to give them a large bonus for each security bug found. That's not what they're doing, though.
I think it does further the mission. Giving $3000 per security bug is not counterproductive because security researchers do not have a social contract with Mozilla. Mozilla will not give us a ride to work if our car breaks down. Mozilla giving $3000 for a security bug is not like giving your mother-in-law money for Thanksgiving dinner for this reason.
We don't have a social contract with Mozilla. It's a corporation. Do you build a social relationship with Mozilla so it can help you in times of distress? It sounds like you missed the point.
That video explains why giving a low amount such as $500 is counterproductive. Paying a fair amount of money for security research is compensating people for the time and effort for finding and reporting the bug. As an example from the video, it's like giving someone $50, a fair amount, to change your tire instead of $1, which is an insulting amount.
I have a light-sound machine (or mind machine) that has some sleep programs. They all progress from 10 Hz down to 1-2 Hz. They've always been able to put me to sleep within about 30 minutes.
I wonder how many people will now experiment with mind machines and dreamachines now that they're in the news. Can anyone say Streisand Effect?
Everyone knows dihydrogen monoxide is the real gateway drug. It's a proven fact that all drug addicts consumed significant quantities of the substance before turning to the harder stuff!
This is part of the reason to switch to the new Jetpack extension API from the old JavaScript code soup extension model.
From the Jetpack FAQ:
They will appear when the engines are integrated.
The pages you use for that test would be a benchmark.
Oh, that's why you talked about the worldwide usage of Firefox declining. Because you personally were having a problem. You must be very important for so many millions of people to respect your personal opinion. Now you've got delusions of grandeur.
If there's a memory problem with Firefox, it should be trivial to trigger it with a synthetic benchmark, right?
I have no doubt that you saw resource utilization on your computer. That doesn't mean that's what others and seeing on their computers. I mean you must think when you have a problem starting your car in the morning that everyone else with the same make and model has exactly the same problem. Sigh.
I'm not "defending" Firefox. I'm just saying that you're making up lies. Well, maybe not completely fabricating stories, but wildly extrapolating your experience to the experience of all 350 million other users. Of course, you finally admit this in your last sentence. Welcome back to reality!
Could you provide any specifics on the bugs or bloat? Where exactly could we find this test that cases Firefox to crash?
Exactly! Given Truth, the Misinformed Believe Lies More. Thank you for demonstrating the effect so clearly. And remember to play next time on What's Your FUD!
Sorry, it's clear you're making it all up. Many tests show Firefox uses less memory than other browsers, and Firefox's usage has never significantly declined. Your post is purely fabrications.
It's interesting that no one seems to be able to provide specific information on these supposed stability and resource issues. It's classic FUD.
The tracer JIT is able to compile most methods into very tight assembly code because it is able to determine the types of each variable at compile time. For the methods that can't be compiled with the tracer JIT, they have been run by the interpreter, which is very slow compared to JIT compilers. With the new method JIT, methods that can't be compiled with the tracer JIT will be run by the method JIT instead of the interpreter. This is the meaning of the statement the tracer JIT (orange) and method JIT (black) are not yet integrated. once integrated, the merged branch will be faster than either branch individually. they are complementary.
How are you supposed to compare the performance of different browsers without using benchmarks? Anecdotes? Impressions? Guesses?
I made no comment about supporting or not supporting a browser. I said that if we're waiting on anyone to do something, we're waiting on Microsoft to add HTML5 support to Internet Explorer before we can use HTML5 features. We're not waiting on the W3C to do something.