Don't deny or try to explain in excruciating technical detail why the browser slowly saps all your memory if left on a page that refreshes itself regularly. It's a bug. Deal with it. Fix it. Even refuse to fix it. But stop denying there are memory management issues.
If you're seeing that problem, it should be fixed. Could you give the URL of a page that refreshes itself and causes Firefox to use more and more memory? What OS (including version) and version of Firefox are you using? Did you try creating a new profile?
Mozilla developers did try to fix it, but the patch failed a regression test and didn't make it for Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3). I'm sure that for every release of Firefox, you can find some serious bug fix that didn't make the release. Likewise, I'm sure you can do the same for any major software project.
That's from the Weekly World News. It was a parody of tabloids. The sad thing is that tabloids are already so outrageous that many didn't realize that the WWN was a spoof.
I can access the Acid3 test without problem. I also wonder if this will cause Safari to pass the performance aspect of Acid3. If it doesn't now, it looks like it soon will.
I think you're missing the point of the singularity. Mankind has progressed at a rate limited by his brain, which is determined by genetics. Our brains have a bounded capacity and rate of operation, and our brain can evolve at only a very slow rate. Therefore, our rate of advancement has been bounded.
On the other hand, if we develop beings with an artificial intelligence equal to the smartest scientists, they could potentially develop a second generation that would be improved. That generation could operate more quickly and be smarter, and develop a third generation even more quickly. Essentially, the limit to our rate of advancement would be removed, and that would cause technological advances to happen very quickly. In a short period of time, we could find ourselves surrounded by beings that seem like gods to us. I think it's less a matter of whether it will happen, and more a matter of when and how it will happen.
I guess they're also too busy developing Silverlight, yet another proprietary, incompatible web format. MS, this is not what web developers are asking for!
I just can't understand why a company with the resources Microsoft has can't just have IE catch up to and even easily surpass all the other browsers. Why can't they just bite the bullet and release IE 8 next year with better standards compliance than any other browser? They could simply decide to fully implement every web standard, such as XHTML, CSS 2.1, DOM 2, SVG, JPEG 2000. Then nobody could complain to them about lagging behind every other browser. Nobody could complain to them about releasing a new browser every couple of years that fixes some bugs but not others. They could simply release a fixed browser and do only security updates for five years while the other browser companies take their turn playing catch up. They would be nearly completely absolved of all past wrongdoing.
Calling it "display-like-other-decent-browsers-do" mode would also give IE more credit than it's due. It's just regular old standards mode, which does not mean the page will be rendered according to standards. It just means it will not be intentionally rendered incorrectly, in quirks mode. IE 8 will still not be anywhere near as standards compliant as the other browsers that come out at around the same time. Yes, IE 8 does fix many bugs and adds support for many standards compared to IE 7. But in the past three years, all the other browsers have had bugs fixed and have added support for more standards, too. When will IE catch up instead of continuing to lag behind? I guess we should just be happy that they're not just standing still. Moving forward is better than nothing, after all.
And what would portable C look like if we didn't even have a standard that compilers tried to follow? At least having standards makes it possible to write portable code. Standards are not a fool's errand as Joel tries to make them out to be. They are not a panacea, but following standards is much easier than simply testing in all browsers and hoping for the best.
Other browsers weren't doing as well in the past, either. Yet somehow they've managed to keep up to the new standards. Why can Microsoft simply support the new standards? Why not stop making excuses and finally just support the standards as well as the other browsers already? If they screwed up in the past, they should admit so and make up for their screwup. They shouldn't force us to live year after year with the mistakes of the past. Why can't MS fix them once and for all and be done with it? My point is that's why we're bashing Microsoft, not because we take perverse pleasure in saying rotten things about them.
Joel does have a point, but programming portable C is certainly much harder than writing portable web applications. Yet programmers manage to write C code that can work when compiled by many different compilers on many different operating systems. If standards did not assist in writing portable code, we would instead have found another solution to the problem such as having a reference implementation. Yet standards for complicated computer languages continue to be developed. The only problem is when vendors do not adhere to the standard, such as with SQL. This is also a problem when one vendor has a majority of the market and holds back on supporting standards well, as Microsoft has done with IE.
Why doesn't half the web break with all the other browsers when they are updated? I don't remember Firefox users complaining that Firefox 2 broke half the web. I don't remember Safari users complaining that Safari 3 broke half the web. I don't remember Opera users complaining that Opera 9 broke half the web. Why would IE users complain that IE 8 breaks half the web? You don't mean Microsoft has been doing something wrong for the past several years to bring this about, do you?
IE 8 is still not going to support standards well. It will simply do as well as it can by default. Previously, IE 8 would render pages as badly as IE 7 by default. Now it will render them as well as IE 8 can by default. IE 8 is still going to be far behind Firefox 3.0, Safari 3.1, and Opera 9.5 in standards support.
The Atom is geared towards cell phones, smartphones, and PDAs. The Nano is geared towards low-powered desktops, laptops, and tablet PCs. I think the Nano draws too much power to be used on devices that will use the Atom, and the Atom doesn't have enough processing power to be used on the devices that will use the Nano. Is there some overlap where the two will directly compete?
If you or anyone else has a better way to discover new drugs, you have the right to start your own company and wipe out the competition. What are you waiting for?
If you know anything about investment, you know that the higher risk, the higher the expected profit. Developing drugs is a risky business, because companies get only seventeen years at most of exclusivity in selling each drug, then they need to develop more "blockbusters" to continue their revenue stream. I suppose they seem "consistently profitable" to you because there are so many mergers and buyouts in the industry. The ones that aren't profitable disappear.
a monopoly on your invention in perpetuity is NOT the intent of the patent system
Correct. But a monopoly on your invention for seventeen years is the intent of the patent system, and it allows the people or companies that spend money on R&D on the invention to recoup their costs.
10K means 10 Kelvins, that is, 10 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. It's not degrees Kelvin. 10k would be 10000 of something that is either unitless or of units that are not given.
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla developers did try to fix it, but the patch failed a regression test and didn't make it for Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3). I'm sure that for every release of Firefox, you can find some serious bug fix that didn't make the release. Likewise, I'm sure you can do the same for any major software project.
Yes
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080317-firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.html
http://www.thebrowserworld.com/2008/03/29/firefox-30-beta-4-vs-opera-950-beta-vs-safari-31-beta-multiple-sites-opening-test/
http://cybernetnews.com/2008/03/26/cybernotes-browser-performance-comparisons/
This link may help: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_crashes
That's from the Weekly World News. It was a parody of tabloids. The sad thing is that tabloids are already so outrageous that many didn't realize that the WWN was a spoof.
I can access the Acid3 test without problem. I also wonder if this will cause Safari to pass the performance aspect of Acid3. If it doesn't now, it looks like it soon will.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I think you're missing the point of the singularity. Mankind has progressed at a rate limited by his brain, which is determined by genetics. Our brains have a bounded capacity and rate of operation, and our brain can evolve at only a very slow rate. Therefore, our rate of advancement has been bounded.
On the other hand, if we develop beings with an artificial intelligence equal to the smartest scientists, they could potentially develop a second generation that would be improved. That generation could operate more quickly and be smarter, and develop a third generation even more quickly. Essentially, the limit to our rate of advancement would be removed, and that would cause technological advances to happen very quickly. In a short period of time, we could find ourselves surrounded by beings that seem like gods to us. I think it's less a matter of whether it will happen, and more a matter of when and how it will happen.
I guess they're also too busy developing Silverlight, yet another proprietary, incompatible web format. MS, this is not what web developers are asking for!
I just can't understand why a company with the resources Microsoft has can't just have IE catch up to and even easily surpass all the other browsers. Why can't they just bite the bullet and release IE 8 next year with better standards compliance than any other browser? They could simply decide to fully implement every web standard, such as XHTML, CSS 2.1, DOM 2, SVG, JPEG 2000. Then nobody could complain to them about lagging behind every other browser. Nobody could complain to them about releasing a new browser every couple of years that fixes some bugs but not others. They could simply release a fixed browser and do only security updates for five years while the other browser companies take their turn playing catch up. They would be nearly completely absolved of all past wrongdoing.
Calling it "display-like-other-decent-browsers-do" mode would also give IE more credit than it's due. It's just regular old standards mode, which does not mean the page will be rendered according to standards. It just means it will not be intentionally rendered incorrectly, in quirks mode. IE 8 will still not be anywhere near as standards compliant as the other browsers that come out at around the same time. Yes, IE 8 does fix many bugs and adds support for many standards compared to IE 7. But in the past three years, all the other browsers have had bugs fixed and have added support for more standards, too. When will IE catch up instead of continuing to lag behind? I guess we should just be happy that they're not just standing still. Moving forward is better than nothing, after all.
And what would portable C look like if we didn't even have a standard that compilers tried to follow? At least having standards makes it possible to write portable code. Standards are not a fool's errand as Joel tries to make them out to be. They are not a panacea, but following standards is much easier than simply testing in all browsers and hoping for the best.
Other browsers weren't doing as well in the past, either. Yet somehow they've managed to keep up to the new standards. Why can Microsoft simply support the new standards? Why not stop making excuses and finally just support the standards as well as the other browsers already? If they screwed up in the past, they should admit so and make up for their screwup. They shouldn't force us to live year after year with the mistakes of the past. Why can't MS fix them once and for all and be done with it? My point is that's why we're bashing Microsoft, not because we take perverse pleasure in saying rotten things about them.
Joel does have a point, but programming portable C is certainly much harder than writing portable web applications. Yet programmers manage to write C code that can work when compiled by many different compilers on many different operating systems. If standards did not assist in writing portable code, we would instead have found another solution to the problem such as having a reference implementation. Yet standards for complicated computer languages continue to be developed. The only problem is when vendors do not adhere to the standard, such as with SQL. This is also a problem when one vendor has a majority of the market and holds back on supporting standards well, as Microsoft has done with IE.
Why doesn't half the web break with all the other browsers when they are updated? I don't remember Firefox users complaining that Firefox 2 broke half the web. I don't remember Safari users complaining that Safari 3 broke half the web. I don't remember Opera users complaining that Opera 9 broke half the web. Why would IE users complain that IE 8 breaks half the web? You don't mean Microsoft has been doing something wrong for the past several years to bring this about, do you?
IE 8 is still not going to support standards well. It will simply do as well as it can by default. Previously, IE 8 would render pages as badly as IE 7 by default. Now it will render them as well as IE 8 can by default. IE 8 is still going to be far behind Firefox 3.0, Safari 3.1, and Opera 9.5 in standards support.
No, I'm not kidding. The Wikipedia article on Intel Atom also says that Intel Atom is for smartphones. So the Atom is only for ultra-mobile PCs? I now see that it may not be underpowered for that application after all.
The Atom is geared towards cell phones, smartphones, and PDAs. The Nano is geared towards low-powered desktops, laptops, and tablet PCs. I think the Nano draws too much power to be used on devices that will use the Atom, and the Atom doesn't have enough processing power to be used on the devices that will use the Nano. Is there some overlap where the two will directly compete?
First you said AdBlock Plus is unsupported. Now you say you've always been using it but it doesn't work. Of course, now I understand perfectly.
Ah, quit yer trollin. AdBlock Plus is listed as compatible with Firefox 3. Download Firefox 3 RC 1 and AdBlock Plus already.
If you or anyone else has a better way to discover new drugs, you have the right to start your own company and wipe out the competition. What are you waiting for?
If you know anything about investment, you know that the higher risk, the higher the expected profit. Developing drugs is a risky business, because companies get only seventeen years at most of exclusivity in selling each drug, then they need to develop more "blockbusters" to continue their revenue stream. I suppose they seem "consistently profitable" to you because there are so many mergers and buyouts in the industry. The ones that aren't profitable disappear.
10K means 10 Kelvins, that is, 10 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. It's not degrees Kelvin. 10k would be 10000 of something that is either unitless or of units that are not given.
How do you propose making a bomb made up of material with stable nuclei?