DOM Inspector 1.8, TalkBack 1.5, Image Zoom 0.2.1, Adblock 0.5.2.039
I don't know what a "clean profile" is, but I'm willing to run one.
Windows XP SP2 with all patches. ZoneAlarm Security Suite.
I've read all the objections. I still think there is room for sensible discussion.
You said, "-How big of a page does it take for a 94% spike, and how long is the spike? (the example page you gave takes around 6 seconds to render on my 1.6 gig P4 on a freshly started copy)"
I really feel bad when I read that. I've spent perhaps 30 hours documenting a serious problem and EVERY person who has responded has shown that they didn't read what I wrote.
It is not a 94% spike, it is 94% all the time, even when there is no browser activity. The fact that Firefox uses all the CPU power causes the computer to slow to an unusable crawl. Many people have complained about this, not just me.
I'd like to talk on the telephone with a Firefox developer who has the authority to make a difference. It's obvious to me that I have a good idea, but I have gotten nothing but obfuscation from those who have responded.
CompUSA had Wireless-G routers and USB, PCMCIA, and PCI wireless receivers for $2.99 each after rebate.
That's pronounced Com-POOZA.
$2.99 is expensive, I thought. These days I expect to get something free after rebate, or actually be paid to take something. *grin*
If ever you don't get a rebate, call them up and use the F word. Fraud. That causes low-paid rebate center employees to quit, and costs the fraudsters money to hire someone else.
I'm posting this from a Firefox 1.5 instance I started using yesterday. It shows 5% CPU use now with no activity. Soon that will go to 30%. Then 94%. As I've said, the problem is much worse in Firefox 1.5.
CmdrTaco said, "I'm unconvinced- I think webmail will soon be replacing client side readers for all but power users."
This kind of thing hampers the ability of Slashdot editors to be good editors. Slashdot editors are very different people than average. In fact, many people who have little computer knowledge spend a half hour a day or more answering email, and those people need backups of all their email. Email is the preferred method of communicating with business people.
I don't think that ignoring this bug will make people stop talking about it.
I can see that you are annoyed, and it is not clear to me why. Also, you have mis-represented the issue. The bug is easily reproduced and the next step is for a developer to look at why it occurs.
Here's my expression of the story to date:
There is a HUGE, well-known bug in Firefox 1.5, the CPU and Memory
Hogging bug. Developers refuse to fix it, even though anyone can demonstrate
the bug easily. Apparently there is some kind of social problem. Maybe no one
has the authority to deal with a major bug.
This bug has been reported to Bugzilla, and is very easy to reproduce
(see below), but Firefox developers have marked it invalid because there is
not enough specific information! The bug has existed in Firefox for more than
2 years, and several people report that it is worse in Firefox 1.5. Firefox's
Bugzilla does not allow direct links from Slashdot, so copy and paste Bugzilla
URLs into a new tab. Remove the space:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131 456
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222 660
The huge memory use, and 94% CPU use or more with no activity, occur after
opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs, as happens when researching
something on the internet over a period of hours or days. The bug symptoms are
worse after putting the computer on standby or after hibernating. My
experience has been that the memory and CPU hogging always occur together, so
they appear to be the same bug. However, the CPU hogging symptom takes longer
to appear.
To see the memory and CPU percentage used in Windows, right-click on
the Taskbar and choose Task Manager. Choose the Processes tab.
The only answer is for a developer who knows the code to reproduce the
problem and see what causes it. It is not clear to me why they are unwilling to do
so. This bug seems especially interesting to me. It is likely that fixing this
bug will fix other issues. It is likely that
I posted the bug numbered 222660 in Bugzilla. It is interesting to note that
apparently no developer has bothered to read the entire bug report and take
the time to understand it. For 2 1/2 years, developers have been saying things
like this: 1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly version. 2) Yes, this bug
exists, but it isn't important. 3) No one has posted a TalkBack report. (If
they read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack
report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too.) 4) If you would just give us
more information, we would fix this bug. 5) This bug report is a composite of
other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. (The other bugs aren't specified.) 6) You are using
Firefox in a way that would crash any software. 7) I don't like the way you worded your report.
8) You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself.
9) Often someone uses the subject to act out anger; that person only pretends to
There's definitely a problem with open source development. My guess is that
more emphasis should be place on raising money. Maybe open source programmers
need more support than they are getting.
There is a HUGE, well-known bug in Firefox 1.5, the CPU and Memory
Hogging bug. Developers refuse to fix it, even though anyone can demonstrate
the bug easily. Apparently there is some kind of social problem. Maybe no one
has the authority to deal with a major bug.
This bug has been reported to Bugzilla, and is very easy to reproduce
(see below), but Firefox developers have marked it invalid because there is
not enough specific information! The bug has existed in Firefox for more than
2 years, and several people report that it is worse in Firefox 1.5. Firefox's
Bugzilla does not allow direct links from Slashdot, so copy and paste Bugzilla
URLs into a new tab. Remove the space:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131 456
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222 660
The huge memory use, and 94% CPU use with no activity, occur after
opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs, as happens when researching
something on the internet over a period of hours or days. The bug symptoms are
worse after putting the computer on standby or after hibernating. My
experience has been that the memory and CPU hogging always occur together, so
they appear to be the same bug. However, the CPU hogging symptom takes longer
to appear.
I posted the bug numbered 222660 in Bugzilla. It is interesting to note that
apparently no developer has bothered to read the entire bug report and take
the time to understand it. For 2 1/2 years, developers have been saying things
like this: 1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly version. 2) Yes, this bug
exists, but it isn't important. 3) No one has posted a TalkBack report. (If
they read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack
report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too.) 4) If you would just give us
more information, we would fix this bug. 5) This bug report is a composite of
other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. The other bugs aren't specified. 6) You are using
Firefox in a way that would crash any software. 7) I don't like the way you worded your report. 8) Often someone uses the subject to act out anger; that person pretends to be
interested in the subject.
I doubt this subject will just go away, not after more than 2 1/2
years of discussion. There has been a Slashdot story about it: Reducing
Firefox's Memory Use. There's a lot of discussion in the comments to the
story that the problem is a bug, rather than just something that needs
improving.
Other people have raised the issue, all somewhat inaccurately, since
the "memory leak"
Do you experience the Firefox 1.5 CPU and memory hogging bug? Firefox
developers say they need more specific information before they can fix this
bug. Please report your details.
This bug has been reported to Bugzilla, and is very easy to replicate,
but has been marked invalid because there is not enough specific information.
The bug has existed in Firefox for more than 2 years, but several people
report that it is worse in Firefox 1.5. Firefox's Bugzilla does not allow
direct links from Slashdot, so copy and paste Bugzilla URLs into a new tab.
Remove the space:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131 456
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222 660
The huge memory use, and 94% CPU use with no activity, occur after
opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs, as happens when researching
something on the internet over a period of hours or days. The bug symptoms are
worse after putting the computer on standby or after hibernating. My
experience has been that the memory and CPU hogging always occur together, so
they appear to be the same bug. However, the CPU hogging symptom takes longer
to appear.
I've found that, generally, those who are disrespectful in debate are merely acting out their anger and are uninformed. That certainly applies to you.
It has been explained over and over to Firefox developers that this is a SHOWSTOPPER BUG and that it is VERY EASY for them to replicate the problem. That's all someone who knows the code needs. I would do fix the problem myself but I have no experience with the code.
"Indeed, that was the first bugzilla bug I've read all the way through for months if not years."
More nonsense. If you had read the bug completely, you would know that there is NEVER a TalkBack snapshot. TalkBack is NEVER invoked. If you had read the bug, you would know why.
I've reported the bugs since about 2 1/2 years ago. There has been no action. Copy and paste this into a new browser tab, since Bugzilla does not accept referrals from Slashdot:
Please reply to this comment if you are experiencing the CPU and memory hogging bug in Firefox 1.5. On my test computers, it is much worse than ever before.
Being disrespectful is not a sensible method of debate.
São Paulo, Brazil, is one of the largest cities in the world. Estação Sé is the largest metro station in São Paulo. It is possible to see thousands of people every hour as they change trains. I've done that. There is not such a high percentage of fat people as in the United States. It is very uncommon to see someone who is grossly obese; that is common in the United States.
In general, the people in Brazil seem healthier than the people in the United States.
There may be a cultural element being expressed. When Brazilians learn that something bad is happening in the rest of the world, there is some percentage of them that claim that Brazil is just as bad. I've known French people to do that, too.
Or maybe it is just Prof Walmir Coutinho, who has a Brazilian name, who is exaggerating, for his own ego.
In any case, it is difficult to find grossly obese Brazilians, and Brazilians go out much more than people in the U.S., I think, because they are far more social.
That sentence is not a very effective debating tactic.
"... for the period of 1974-1989, obesity [defined as a body mass index (BMI; in kg/m2) >30] increased by 92% among men and by 70% among women."
Fine, but did Brazil start with a tiny percentage?
You can go to any shopping mall and make your own assessment. I've done that in the U.S. and several places in Brazil. The fact is, I don't see many obese Brazilians. I see many, many grotesquely obese Americans.
Interesting. Have you ever visited China? The mainland Chinese are so depressed they make Americans look happy-go-lucky. Mainland Chinese don't have enough money to be obese.
"The depression is caused by millions of people working harder and harder each year, yet receiving less and less renumeration for that work. It's caused by people striving to meet their bosses' nearly insane goals, then watching as the bosses get all the bonuses and raises, while the people doing the work are told they're lucky not to get fired (that's aside from those who are fired at the end of projects). It's from people knowing their company is likely to go bankrupt and thus legally drop the pension and health benefits that the workers have been building up for decades."
Agreed. Killing other people is not the only reason for the psychological depression. An culture that is abusive enough to have a government that is so violent will be abusive in other ways, too.
You are correct. A sensible estimate of the number of people who died as a result of the U.S. government action might be 11,000,000. That would include people who died because of political destabilization caused by the U.S. government. The number of people who were killed directly is somewhat close to 4,000,000. About 2,000,000 of those were killed during the Vietnam war.
The U.S. government, largely due to having departments that are allowed to break the law, such as the CIA clandestine action section, is the world's most threatening serial killer. If an oil company can get the government to provide security, the profits are higher. The real cost of gasoline in the U.S. should include most of the $400 billion the taxpayers spend for "defense".
The president and vice-president of the U.S. have family and friends with investments in oil and weapons. Is it any wonder the price of gasoline is high and we are at war?
Problem with the article: Other nations are not so obese. People in the U.S. are much more obese than the citizens of any other nation, with the exception of a few islands where people eat a lot of coconut.
In Brazil, a large percentage of the population has the same genetic background as people in the U.S., because they are immigrants from the same countries. But people in Brazil are not nearly as grotesquely obese.
I'd say the obesity is caused by depression, and the depression is caused by the strong support for violence in the U.S. culture. The U.S. government has killed perhaps 4 million people since the end of the 2nd world war. In the U.S., killing other people is increasingly seen as a way to solve social problems or problems with political disagreement. Killing other people also makes money for families and friends with investments in the weapons and oil business, such as president George W. Bush and vice-president Cheney.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you a Firefox developer?
DOM Inspector 1.8, TalkBack 1.5, Image Zoom 0.2.1, Adblock 0.5.2.039
I don't know what a "clean profile" is, but I'm willing to run one.
Windows XP SP2 with all patches. ZoneAlarm Security Suite.
I've read all the objections. I still think there is room for sensible discussion.
You said, "-How big of a page does it take for a 94% spike, and how long is the spike? (the example page you gave takes around 6 seconds to render on my 1.6 gig P4 on a freshly started copy)"
I really feel bad when I read that. I've spent perhaps 30 hours documenting a serious problem and EVERY person who has responded has shown that they didn't read what I wrote.
It is not a 94% spike, it is 94% all the time, even when there is no browser activity. The fact that Firefox uses all the CPU power causes the computer to slow to an unusable crawl. Many people have complained about this, not just me.
I'd like to talk on the telephone with a Firefox developer who has the authority to make a difference. It's obvious to me that I have a good idea, but I have gotten nothing but obfuscation from those who have responded.
DOM Inspector 1.8, TalkBack 1.5, Image Zoom 0.2.1, Adblock 0.5.2.039
I don't know what a "clean profile" is, but I'm willing to run one.
I've read all the objections. I still think there is room for sensible discussion.
Sorry, that's Com-POO-za
CompUSA had Wireless-G routers and USB, PCMCIA, and PCI wireless receivers for $2.99 each after rebate.
That's pronounced Com-POOZA.
$2.99 is expensive, I thought. These days I expect to get something free after rebate, or actually be paid to take something. *grin*
If ever you don't get a rebate, call them up and use the F word. Fraud. That causes low-paid rebate center employees to quit, and costs the fraudsters money to hire someone else.
I'm posting this from a Firefox 1.5 instance I started using yesterday. It shows 5% CPU use now with no activity. Soon that will go to 30%. Then 94%. As I've said, the problem is much worse in Firefox 1.5.
CmdrTaco said, "I'm unconvinced- I think webmail will soon be replacing client side readers for all but power users."
This kind of thing hampers the ability of Slashdot editors to be good editors. Slashdot editors are very different people than average. In fact, many people who have little computer knowledge spend a half hour a day or more answering email, and those people need backups of all their email. Email is the preferred method of communicating with business people.
See I don't think this story will go away.
I don't think that ignoring this bug will make people stop talking about it. I can see that you are annoyed, and it is not clear to me why. Also, you have mis-represented the issue. The bug is easily reproduced and the next step is for a developer to look at why it occurs.
Here's my expression of the story to date:
There is a HUGE, well-known bug in Firefox 1.5, the CPU and Memory Hogging bug. Developers refuse to fix it, even though anyone can demonstrate the bug easily. Apparently there is some kind of social problem. Maybe no one has the authority to deal with a major bug.
This bug has been reported to Bugzilla, and is very easy to reproduce (see below), but Firefox developers have marked it invalid because there is not enough specific information! The bug has existed in Firefox for more than 2 years, and several people report that it is worse in Firefox 1.5. Firefox's Bugzilla does not allow direct links from Slashdot, so copy and paste Bugzilla URLs into a new tab. Remove the space:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131 456
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222 660
The huge memory use, and 94% CPU use or more with no activity, occur after opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs, as happens when researching something on the internet over a period of hours or days. The bug symptoms are worse after putting the computer on standby or after hibernating. My experience has been that the memory and CPU hogging always occur together, so they appear to be the same bug. However, the CPU hogging symptom takes longer to appear.
You can demonstrate the memory use problem quickly by loading and closing the following large web page into multiple Firefox tabs a few times:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/ libc.html
To see the memory and CPU percentage used in Windows, right-click on the Taskbar and choose Task Manager. Choose the Processes tab.
The only answer is for a developer who knows the code to reproduce the problem and see what causes it. It is not clear to me why they are unwilling to do so. This bug seems especially interesting to me. It is likely that fixing this bug will fix other issues. It is likely that
The bug has often been reported on Slashdot. Here are a few examples:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169676&cid=141 43632
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=140 62501
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=140 62671
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=140 66613
I posted the bug numbered 222660 in Bugzilla. It is interesting to note that apparently no developer has bothered to read the entire bug report and take the time to understand it. For 2 1/2 years, developers have been saying things like this: 1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly version. 2) Yes, this bug exists, but it isn't important. 3) No one has posted a TalkBack report. (If they read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too.) 4) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. 5) This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. (The other bugs aren't specified.) 6) You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. 7) I don't like the way you worded your report. 8) You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself. 9) Often someone uses the subject to act out anger; that person only pretends to
There's definitely a problem with open source development. My guess is that more emphasis should be place on raising money. Maybe open source programmers need more support than they are getting.
There is a HUGE, well-known bug in Firefox 1.5, the CPU and Memory Hogging bug. Developers refuse to fix it, even though anyone can demonstrate the bug easily. Apparently there is some kind of social problem. Maybe no one has the authority to deal with a major bug.
This bug has been reported to Bugzilla, and is very easy to reproduce (see below), but Firefox developers have marked it invalid because there is not enough specific information! The bug has existed in Firefox for more than 2 years, and several people report that it is worse in Firefox 1.5. Firefox's Bugzilla does not allow direct links from Slashdot, so copy and paste Bugzilla URLs into a new tab. Remove the space:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131 456
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222 660
The huge memory use, and 94% CPU use with no activity, occur after opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs, as happens when researching something on the internet over a period of hours or days. The bug symptoms are worse after putting the computer on standby or after hibernating. My experience has been that the memory and CPU hogging always occur together, so they appear to be the same bug. However, the CPU hogging symptom takes longer to appear.
You can demonstrate the memory use problem quickly by loading and closing the following large web page into multiple Firefox tabs a few times:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/ libc.html
To see the memory and CPU percentage used in Windows, right-click on the Taskbar and choose Task Manager. Choose the Processes tab.
The bug has often been reported on Slashdot. Here are a few examples:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169676&cid=141 43632
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=140 62501
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=140 62671
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=140 66613
I posted the bug numbered 222660 in Bugzilla. It is interesting to note that apparently no developer has bothered to read the entire bug report and take the time to understand it. For 2 1/2 years, developers have been saying things like this: 1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly version. 2) Yes, this bug exists, but it isn't important. 3) No one has posted a TalkBack report. (If they read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too.) 4) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. 5) This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. The other bugs aren't specified. 6) You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. 7) I don't like the way you worded your report. 8) Often someone uses the subject to act out anger; that person pretends to be interested in the subject.
I doubt this subject will just go away, not after more than 2 1/2 years of discussion. There has been a Slashdot story about it: Reducing Firefox's Memory Use. There's a lot of discussion in the comments to the story that the problem is a bug, rather than just something that needs improving.
Other people have raised the issue, all somewhat inaccurately, since the "memory leak"
Do you experience the Firefox 1.5 CPU and memory hogging bug? Firefox developers say they need more specific information before they can fix this bug. Please report your details.
1 456
2 660
/ libc.html
1 43632
0 62501
0 62671
0 66613
This bug has been reported to Bugzilla, and is very easy to replicate, but has been marked invalid because there is not enough specific information. The bug has existed in Firefox for more than 2 years, but several people report that it is worse in Firefox 1.5. Firefox's Bugzilla does not allow direct links from Slashdot, so copy and paste Bugzilla URLs into a new tab. Remove the space:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22
The huge memory use, and 94% CPU use with no activity, occur after opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs, as happens when researching something on the internet over a period of hours or days. The bug symptoms are worse after putting the computer on standby or after hibernating. My experience has been that the memory and CPU hogging always occur together, so they appear to be the same bug. However, the CPU hogging symptom takes longer to appear.
You can demonstrate the memory use problem quickly by loading and closing the following large web page into multiple Firefox tabs a few times:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono
To see the memory and CPU percentage used in Windows, right-click on the Taskbar and choose Task Manager. Choose the Processes tab.
The bug has often been reported on Slashdot. Here are a few examples:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169676&cid=14
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=14
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=14
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=14
You said, "... you are an idiot."
I've found that, generally, those who are disrespectful in debate are merely acting out their anger and are uninformed. That certainly applies to you.
It has been explained over and over to Firefox developers that this is a SHOWSTOPPER BUG and that it is VERY EASY for them to replicate the problem. That's all someone who knows the code needs. I would do fix the problem myself but I have no experience with the code.
"Indeed, that was the first bugzilla bug I've read all the way through for months if not years."
More nonsense. If you had read the bug completely, you would know that there is NEVER a TalkBack snapshot. TalkBack is NEVER invoked. If you had read the bug, you would know why.
Robin,
Slashdot is successful because people in the fast-changing field of computers need a huge amount of computer news.
I thought the article you wrote was interesting and well-written, but I feel uncomfortable with someone from such a sloppy organization giving advice.
I've reported the bugs since about 2 1/2 years ago. There has been no action. Copy and paste this into a new browser tab, since Bugzilla does not accept referrals from Slashdot:
2 660
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22
I've done 7 tests which show that the CPU and memory hogging in Firefox 1.5 is far worse than previous releases.
Please reply to this comment if you are experiencing the CPU and memory hogging bug in Firefox 1.5. On my test computers, it is much worse than ever before.
Being disrespectful is not a sensible method of debate.
São Paulo, Brazil, is one of the largest cities in the world. Estação Sé is the largest metro station in São Paulo. It is possible to see thousands of people every hour as they change trains. I've done that. There is not such a high percentage of fat people as in the United States. It is very uncommon to see someone who is grossly obese; that is common in the United States.
In general, the people in Brazil seem healthier than the people in the United States.
There may be a cultural element being expressed. When Brazilians learn that something bad is happening in the rest of the world, there is some percentage of them that claim that Brazil is just as bad. I've known French people to do that, too.
Or maybe it is just Prof Walmir Coutinho, who has a Brazilian name, who is exaggerating, for his own ego.
In any case, it is difficult to find grossly obese Brazilians, and Brazilians go out much more than people in the U.S., I think, because they are far more social.
Gamers! Stop playing games and move up to the real world! Enlist in the U.S. Army and kill real people in Iraq.
"Sony BMG is in a catfight with a well-known computer-security outfit..."
If I were managing editor of Business Week, I would be wondering now whether the author of the article, Steve Hamm, should be fired or re-trained.
"Catfight" reads like a P.R. release from Sony.
"Only problem is: you're wrong."
That sentence is not a very effective debating tactic.
"... for the period of 1974-1989, obesity [defined as a body mass index (BMI; in kg/m2) >30] increased by 92% among men and by 70% among women."
Fine, but did Brazil start with a tiny percentage?
You can go to any shopping mall and make your own assessment. I've done that in the U.S. and several places in Brazil. The fact is, I don't see many obese Brazilians. I see many, many grotesquely obese Americans.
Interesting. Have you ever visited China? The mainland Chinese are so depressed they make Americans look happy-go-lucky. Mainland Chinese don't have enough money to be obese.
The link you provided is not correct. Maybe this one is? Obesity and the Rate of Time Preference: Is there a Connection?
MOD PARENT UP!!!
Quote:
"The depression is caused by millions of people working harder and harder each year, yet receiving less and less renumeration for that work. It's caused by people striving to meet their bosses' nearly insane goals, then watching as the bosses get all the bonuses and raises, while the people doing the work are told they're lucky not to get fired (that's aside from those who are fired at the end of projects). It's from people knowing their company is likely to go bankrupt and thus legally drop the pension and health benefits that the workers have been building up for decades."
Agreed. Killing other people is not the only reason for the psychological depression. An culture that is abusive enough to have a government that is so violent will be abusive in other ways, too.
You are correct. A sensible estimate of the number of people who died as a result of the U.S. government action might be 11,000,000. That would include people who died because of political destabilization caused by the U.S. government. The number of people who were killed directly is somewhat close to 4,000,000. About 2,000,000 of those were killed during the Vietnam war.
The U.S. government, largely due to having departments that are allowed to break the law, such as the CIA clandestine action section, is the world's most threatening serial killer. If an oil company can get the government to provide security, the profits are higher. The real cost of gasoline in the U.S. should include most of the $400 billion the taxpayers spend for "defense".
The president and vice-president of the U.S. have family and friends with investments in oil and weapons. Is it any wonder the price of gasoline is high and we are at war?
There are McDonald's in Brazil, but people are happy, and not fat, and not depressed.
"... much of American violence is contained within inner cities and is perpetuated by criminals on each other."
Much of American violence is killing Iraqi civilians. If you are a citizen of the U.S., you pay for this, and, if you don't protest, share in it.
Problem with the article: Other nations are not so obese. People in the U.S. are much more obese than the citizens of any other nation, with the exception of a few islands where people eat a lot of coconut.
In Brazil, a large percentage of the population has the same genetic background as people in the U.S., because they are immigrants from the same countries. But people in Brazil are not nearly as grotesquely obese.
I'd say the obesity is caused by depression, and the depression is caused by the strong support for violence in the U.S. culture. The U.S. government has killed perhaps 4 million people since the end of the 2nd world war. In the U.S., killing other people is increasingly seen as a way to solve social problems or problems with political disagreement. Killing other people also makes money for families and friends with investments in the weapons and oil business, such as president George W. Bush and vice-president Cheney.