Of course they won't. People blew their wad on SOPA. They didn't give a fuck about the initial ACTA. They didn't give a fuck about NDAA. Hell, they didn't give a fuck about the PATRIOT Act. The flurry of activity against SOPA was an aberration.
Usually about one to three dozen tabs open. Sometimes a few more. Across two or three tab groups. About four tabs as "pinned apps". Firefox runs beautifully right after launching, but becomes progressively worse. Same usage on Chrome has never been a problem, so far. I have never had to restart Chrome due to performance and it has never (so far) crashed on me.
Firefox, on the other hand, has produced very similar behavior as I have described for years across countless machines and multiple operating systems. On the several versions of Macbook Pros I've had over the last five years, my dual quad core Mac Pro, my windows machines under XP, Vista, and 7. On freshly built machines. On old machines. Even in VMs. The only place I haven't encountered it is on linux or Solaris and that's because I don't use Firefox on those, anyway.
And, in the end, what is relevant is that I browse the same way in Firefox and Chrome. I have identical extensions in Firefox and Chrome. I use them on the same operating systems and the same machines. And one becomes slower, until it hangs repeatedly or crashes or has to be restarted just to be usable again and the other has never had to be restarted due to performance issues.
No, I continued using Firefox up to 9.0.1 as well as using the 10 beta a bit. I've seen no improvement in this long term behavior. If Firefox could resolve this and achieve the stability and performance I'm seeing in Chrome, I would gladly return to it, again. I'm not a fan of the extensions - in general - in Chrome. They are usually more limited, less feature-rich, and a lot of them are just too damn gimmicky. My biggest complaint on Chrome remains the terrible tab extensions. They are all so clumsy and useless. I don't know why there isn't a near duplicate of Panorama (now a Firefox built-in feature) or a Tree Tabs extension. The lack of that is what kept me living with Firefox for so long. It really took a lot for me to finally decide that the improved tab handling of Firefox was no longer enough compensation for the performance.
There are plenty of attempts to justify Firefox. Or, plenty of explanations, at least. But when it comes down to it - why Firefox grinds to a halt is irrelevant. I can have plenty of tabs open on Chrome. I can leave it open for a very long time. I can use plenty of extensions. And it still works smoothly. That makes it a little unreasonable to just scapegoat those things for Firefox's sake.
I have a lot of RAM, too. And Firefox runs like shit. It has for years and I've constantly heard the response of "no, you don't understand! it's just how it handles its back button function! That's why it uses two or three gigabytes!". I have 16gb on my primary system, so it can certainly use a few gigs if it really wants to. The question is - does it need to? More importantly, how does it perform when it's using so much RAM? That is the real problem.
For years, I have put up with the experience of Firefox slowly grinding to a crawl. Within hours (certainly within a day at the most), it reaches 2.5gb or more memory usage and becomes unusable. Almost every action - typing, scrolling, clicking a button, entering a URL, clicking a link - causes it to hang temporarily. Sometimes for almost a minute. Click a tab. Hang. Scroll to the bottom of the page. Hang. Type in the text box. Hang. Submit. Hang. Close tab. Hang. Terrible experience.
And, I stuck with it. Restarting the browser every few hours just became part of the experience (starting around early 3x, I believe). I primarily stuck with it, because I love Firefox and have used it forever. And Mozilla before that. And Netscape before that. Part of that is that I cut my teeth as an engineer at Netscape when I was young. It was my first real job. So I had a particular affinity for it, always. Besides, eventually they'd fix the issues. Even though they went forever claiming there weren't any memory issues . . . until sometime recently (last year, I think?) when there finally seemed to be acknowledgement of it.
Most of all, I like having the access to extensions. Primarily, adblocking extensions. And then the tree tabs extension. And then panorama/tab candy was built into 4x. I tried Chrome several times, but their shitty handling of many tabs was terrible. I couldn't tolerate it. Firefox did it beautifully.
And then, I finally got fed up. After all those years and all the delaying and all the excuses I made for Firefox, I decided a couple months ago that I would go full time Chrome and just see what it was really like. The result? I'm sold on Chrome, now. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I am. I never have to restart due to it behaving slow. I never have to restart due to it using too many resources. I never have it beach-balling for a minute at a time for every action I do. I never have Windows telling me the application has stopped responding. It just works.
And here's the thing. It uses just as many resources, sometimes. Just like Firefox, I sometimes find it using as much as 3gb of memory. But where Firefox would start grinding to a halt around 1.5-2.5gb of usage, Chrome just keeps smoothly chugging along under as much as 3gb (and possibly more, but it never has used more than that, so I don't know).
So, we can make all the excuses we want for Firefox. When it comes down to it, what matters is that my browsing habits cause Firefox to perform fucking terribly, while Chrome doesn't flinch. And when it comes down to my time and sanity, I need performance; not excuses.
Your comment is probably the most willfully ignorant of this entire topic. You don't think that any of them reallyc are about supporting SOPA or not and that it was probably just some random "hey do we support SOPA?" comment that lead to someone saying "sure, whatever" and then posting that on their website?
Then please explain GoDaddy's role in actively adding their names to the list of SOPA supporters.
Please explain GoDaddy's role in actually CRAFTING PART OF SOPA ITSELF.
Please explain GoDaddy's role in additionally crafting part of SOPA itself such that GoDaddy is exempt from it.
Yes. Exactly this. I've been saying for almost an entire year, now, that if Paul were to win the caucuses, the GOP would suddenly claim that these extremely important and relevant events that they spend months and millions on were "not relevant and don't mean anything". Further, they would claim that it was Paul's "army" of supporters that must have "hacked" the voting machines. (Because the media and GOP only refer to Paul's supporters with loaded words like "army").
You can't say "fuck"? Are you kidding? You can say anything you want on XBLA. You're constantly accosted by ten year olds in Call of Duty throwing out every racist, homophobic, repulsive and offensive comment possible and there's no option but to either use it or don't use it. However, yes, it's bullshit. Why should a grown ass middle aged gamer have their experience nerfed to the point that it's appropriate for a six year old child? They have CATEGORIES that you select when you sign up for an account. There is a FAMILY section. If you are a child or you have children, select FAMILY. Then, Microsoft needs to actually pay attention to that fucking option (because they don't seem to use the Family/Pro/Casual/Underground/etc option for fucking ANYTHING).
At least it isn't April 1st. Slashdot turns into a flaming piece of shit for about 48 hours every year at that time. This is not even remotely as stupid as it gets on that day.
That they're essentially giving away samples means that this could be perceived as a way to simply conserve the product they have in the machine. No point giving the product away to four year old kids who keep running to the machine for freebies, when you're trying to sell to their parents who have the buying power. Otherwise, you're just wasting product.
On the other hand, what's to stop an adult from hitting up the machine ten times? I would think a more effective and maybe fair solution would be not to let the same person get a free sample more than a certain number of hours apart. The problem with that is then the storage of everyone's photograph on the system for however long the grace period is. That would make it even worse.
I think the uncomfortable part of it is the idea that it's to "only give the product to their own demographic". Free or not, that seems almost sketchy. Maybe not so bad right now, but what if you really *do* want to market your product to age and/or race or even gender? Something about that feels off, to me.
Worse, I can see a future very soon now when we have an accessible database (probably at a fee) where you just connect your system to some API that has a photo of almost every person in the country. Now, every time you use a vending machine (free samples or a regular paying one), it snaps your photo, identifies you in their database, gets your contact information from that, and starts spamming you by email and snail mail. Maybe even phone calls. Knows where you are and who you are and the products you are buying (not that they don't already have and know this in general).
As the article actually states, the reason they're using this technology isn't because of some pudding shortage or the contents of the pudding. It's just that Jell-O is marketing the pudding to adults and they only want to sell it to their demographic. I'm sure this will go over well in the future, when companies decide that they only want white people to buy their products or that they don't want their vending machines selling anything to gingers.
We've been conditioned that the only time you can expect any privacy is inside your own home. And then, only to the extent that you can't happen to be observed through your windows. Or have GPS attached to your car in your home. Or via your telephones, computers, television usage, or other devices. Basically, in the rooms where you have no windows, doors, internet access, or telephones, you are afforded privacy. For everything else, it's "hey, you have no expectation of privacy in public places!". Of course, there's a difference between "expectation of privacy" and "expectation to not be listened in on, videotaped, indexed, and archived". I may be in a public space with, say, my sweetheart and still expect that my conversation (or that in a cab) stays with us and isn't being recorded or eavesdropped on.
That's great that you hate it and all, but a lot of those people along the line that work with the software that you developed are doing engineering work. They're customizing your software, deploying it, supporting it, writing fixes for it, refining it, and maintaining it. They might be the customer or support person who is reverse engineering your software so that they can figure out why it isn't behaving as designed or to properly document undocumented elements of it. That sounds like engineering work to me. Hopefully you identify in some way with those people, since they're the ones giving your developed software life and purpose once you shove it out the door.
That's great, but the definition of an engineer is a person who builds, designs, or maintains things like engines, machines, (software), etc. If you build, design, or maintain those things, you are by definition an engineer and no union or guild or association that wants to represent you, dictate to you, and fish some dues out of your bank account every month changes that.
That doesn't really solve the underlying problem, though. Either way, it costs a ton of money and time and lawyers get paid incredible sums. All kickstarter does is pool the resources of a community that may or may not care about one individual's situation and try to give them some sort of chance against the corporation that has unlimited resources.
I had a non-profit service and community that I ran online for close to a dozen years and someone came along and replicated the exact same thing (though not as well) and even took the name and domain and everything else and catered to the exact same niche community (well, niche meaning we had about 100k members) . . . only they changed the name of it by one letter. After this, people were constantly getting confused. I'd get complaints about my site and members and service and everything else, that was clearly meant for the other site and I'd often be tagged for their failings, because of the confusion by the name.
Unfortunately, I'm just a dude and this wasn't a for-profit commercial enterprise of any kind. So, while I was clearly in the right to take legal action, there was absolutely no way I could have afforded the extreme costs that would have been involved.
They invoked the "we don't care what you think" and everyone knows that the founding fathers added that clause to the Constitution, so that all of your rights and all of the land's laws could be circumvented with that clever dismissive phrase.
Maybe this means that I will finally be able to remove that one article in my feed that I haven't been able to get to delete for the past three years, no matter what I do.
That's great, but that is not how it behaves. Since 6, FF has gone from using 1-2gb of RAM to 3,9gb of RAM on osx, for me. What I get isn't improved history/backtracking handling, but a browser that becomes slow and choppy and unusable until a restart. We're talking about this happening despite using fewer tabs than I was when FF used to use "only" 2gb.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they won't. People blew their wad on SOPA. They didn't give a fuck about the initial ACTA. They didn't give a fuck about NDAA. Hell, they didn't give a fuck about the PATRIOT Act. The flurry of activity against SOPA was an aberration.
Usually about one to three dozen tabs open. Sometimes a few more. Across two or three tab groups. About four tabs as "pinned apps". Firefox runs beautifully right after launching, but becomes progressively worse. Same usage on Chrome has never been a problem, so far. I have never had to restart Chrome due to performance and it has never (so far) crashed on me.
Firefox, on the other hand, has produced very similar behavior as I have described for years across countless machines and multiple operating systems. On the several versions of Macbook Pros I've had over the last five years, my dual quad core Mac Pro, my windows machines under XP, Vista, and 7. On freshly built machines. On old machines. Even in VMs. The only place I haven't encountered it is on linux or Solaris and that's because I don't use Firefox on those, anyway.
And, in the end, what is relevant is that I browse the same way in Firefox and Chrome. I have identical extensions in Firefox and Chrome. I use them on the same operating systems and the same machines. And one becomes slower, until it hangs repeatedly or crashes or has to be restarted just to be usable again and the other has never had to be restarted due to performance issues.
No, I continued using Firefox up to 9.0.1 as well as using the 10 beta a bit. I've seen no improvement in this long term behavior. If Firefox could resolve this and achieve the stability and performance I'm seeing in Chrome, I would gladly return to it, again. I'm not a fan of the extensions - in general - in Chrome. They are usually more limited, less feature-rich, and a lot of them are just too damn gimmicky. My biggest complaint on Chrome remains the terrible tab extensions. They are all so clumsy and useless. I don't know why there isn't a near duplicate of Panorama (now a Firefox built-in feature) or a Tree Tabs extension. The lack of that is what kept me living with Firefox for so long. It really took a lot for me to finally decide that the improved tab handling of Firefox was no longer enough compensation for the performance.
There are plenty of attempts to justify Firefox. Or, plenty of explanations, at least. But when it comes down to it - why Firefox grinds to a halt is irrelevant. I can have plenty of tabs open on Chrome. I can leave it open for a very long time. I can use plenty of extensions. And it still works smoothly. That makes it a little unreasonable to just scapegoat those things for Firefox's sake.
I have a lot of RAM, too. And Firefox runs like shit. It has for years and I've constantly heard the response of "no, you don't understand! it's just how it handles its back button function! That's why it uses two or three gigabytes!". I have 16gb on my primary system, so it can certainly use a few gigs if it really wants to. The question is - does it need to? More importantly, how does it perform when it's using so much RAM? That is the real problem.
For years, I have put up with the experience of Firefox slowly grinding to a crawl. Within hours (certainly within a day at the most), it reaches 2.5gb or more memory usage and becomes unusable. Almost every action - typing, scrolling, clicking a button, entering a URL, clicking a link - causes it to hang temporarily. Sometimes for almost a minute. Click a tab. Hang. Scroll to the bottom of the page. Hang. Type in the text box. Hang. Submit. Hang. Close tab. Hang. Terrible experience.
And, I stuck with it. Restarting the browser every few hours just became part of the experience (starting around early 3x, I believe). I primarily stuck with it, because I love Firefox and have used it forever. And Mozilla before that. And Netscape before that. Part of that is that I cut my teeth as an engineer at Netscape when I was young. It was my first real job. So I had a particular affinity for it, always. Besides, eventually they'd fix the issues. Even though they went forever claiming there weren't any memory issues . . . until sometime recently (last year, I think?) when there finally seemed to be acknowledgement of it.
Most of all, I like having the access to extensions. Primarily, adblocking extensions. And then the tree tabs extension. And then panorama/tab candy was built into 4x. I tried Chrome several times, but their shitty handling of many tabs was terrible. I couldn't tolerate it. Firefox did it beautifully.
And then, I finally got fed up. After all those years and all the delaying and all the excuses I made for Firefox, I decided a couple months ago that I would go full time Chrome and just see what it was really like. The result? I'm sold on Chrome, now. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I am. I never have to restart due to it behaving slow. I never have to restart due to it using too many resources. I never have it beach-balling for a minute at a time for every action I do. I never have Windows telling me the application has stopped responding. It just works.
And here's the thing. It uses just as many resources, sometimes. Just like Firefox, I sometimes find it using as much as 3gb of memory. But where Firefox would start grinding to a halt around 1.5-2.5gb of usage, Chrome just keeps smoothly chugging along under as much as 3gb (and possibly more, but it never has used more than that, so I don't know).
So, we can make all the excuses we want for Firefox. When it comes down to it, what matters is that my browsing habits cause Firefox to perform fucking terribly, while Chrome doesn't flinch. And when it comes down to my time and sanity, I need performance; not excuses.
Godaddy has always worked toward a better regulated internet with protections.
. . . . . no . . . . .
Godaddy did not craft anything, they made solicited suggestions.
Right. So they helped craft it. Like I said.
Your comment is probably the most willfully ignorant of this entire topic. You don't think that any of them reallyc are about supporting SOPA or not and that it was probably just some random "hey do we support SOPA?" comment that lead to someone saying "sure, whatever" and then posting that on their website?
Then please explain GoDaddy's role in actively adding their names to the list of SOPA supporters.
Please explain GoDaddy's role in actually CRAFTING PART OF SOPA ITSELF.
Please explain GoDaddy's role in additionally crafting part of SOPA itself such that GoDaddy is exempt from it.
Yes. Exactly this. I've been saying for almost an entire year, now, that if Paul were to win the caucuses, the GOP would suddenly claim that these extremely important and relevant events that they spend months and millions on were "not relevant and don't mean anything". Further, they would claim that it was Paul's "army" of supporters that must have "hacked" the voting machines. (Because the media and GOP only refer to Paul's supporters with loaded words like "army").
You can't say "fuck"? Are you kidding? You can say anything you want on XBLA. You're constantly accosted by ten year olds in Call of Duty throwing out every racist, homophobic, repulsive and offensive comment possible and there's no option but to either use it or don't use it. However, yes, it's bullshit. Why should a grown ass middle aged gamer have their experience nerfed to the point that it's appropriate for a six year old child? They have CATEGORIES that you select when you sign up for an account. There is a FAMILY section. If you are a child or you have children, select FAMILY. Then, Microsoft needs to actually pay attention to that fucking option (because they don't seem to use the Family/Pro/Casual/Underground/etc option for fucking ANYTHING).
At least it isn't April 1st. Slashdot turns into a flaming piece of shit for about 48 hours every year at that time. This is not even remotely as stupid as it gets on that day.
I kind of agree with you, but not entirely.
That they're essentially giving away samples means that this could be perceived as a way to simply conserve the product they have in the machine. No point giving the product away to four year old kids who keep running to the machine for freebies, when you're trying to sell to their parents who have the buying power. Otherwise, you're just wasting product.
On the other hand, what's to stop an adult from hitting up the machine ten times? I would think a more effective and maybe fair solution would be not to let the same person get a free sample more than a certain number of hours apart. The problem with that is then the storage of everyone's photograph on the system for however long the grace period is. That would make it even worse.
I think the uncomfortable part of it is the idea that it's to "only give the product to their own demographic". Free or not, that seems almost sketchy. Maybe not so bad right now, but what if you really *do* want to market your product to age and/or race or even gender? Something about that feels off, to me.
Worse, I can see a future very soon now when we have an accessible database (probably at a fee) where you just connect your system to some API that has a photo of almost every person in the country. Now, every time you use a vending machine (free samples or a regular paying one), it snaps your photo, identifies you in their database, gets your contact information from that, and starts spamming you by email and snail mail. Maybe even phone calls. Knows where you are and who you are and the products you are buying (not that they don't already have and know this in general).
Blech.
Correct. I probably should have mentioned that, too. :)
As the article actually states, the reason they're using this technology isn't because of some pudding shortage or the contents of the pudding. It's just that Jell-O is marketing the pudding to adults and they only want to sell it to their demographic. I'm sure this will go over well in the future, when companies decide that they only want white people to buy their products or that they don't want their vending machines selling anything to gingers.
We've been conditioned that the only time you can expect any privacy is inside your own home. And then, only to the extent that you can't happen to be observed through your windows. Or have GPS attached to your car in your home. Or via your telephones, computers, television usage, or other devices. Basically, in the rooms where you have no windows, doors, internet access, or telephones, you are afforded privacy. For everything else, it's "hey, you have no expectation of privacy in public places!". Of course, there's a difference between "expectation of privacy" and "expectation to not be listened in on, videotaped, indexed, and archived". I may be in a public space with, say, my sweetheart and still expect that my conversation (or that in a cab) stays with us and isn't being recorded or eavesdropped on.
That's great that you hate it and all, but a lot of those people along the line that work with the software that you developed are doing engineering work. They're customizing your software, deploying it, supporting it, writing fixes for it, refining it, and maintaining it. They might be the customer or support person who is reverse engineering your software so that they can figure out why it isn't behaving as designed or to properly document undocumented elements of it. That sounds like engineering work to me. Hopefully you identify in some way with those people, since they're the ones giving your developed software life and purpose once you shove it out the door.
That's great, but the definition of an engineer is a person who builds, designs, or maintains things like engines, machines, (software), etc. If you build, design, or maintain those things, you are by definition an engineer and no union or guild or association that wants to represent you, dictate to you, and fish some dues out of your bank account every month changes that.
That doesn't really solve the underlying problem, though. Either way, it costs a ton of money and time and lawyers get paid incredible sums. All kickstarter does is pool the resources of a community that may or may not care about one individual's situation and try to give them some sort of chance against the corporation that has unlimited resources.
Sadly, that's absolutely right.
I had a non-profit service and community that I ran online for close to a dozen years and someone came along and replicated the exact same thing (though not as well) and even took the name and domain and everything else and catered to the exact same niche community (well, niche meaning we had about 100k members) . . . only they changed the name of it by one letter. After this, people were constantly getting confused. I'd get complaints about my site and members and service and everything else, that was clearly meant for the other site and I'd often be tagged for their failings, because of the confusion by the name.
Unfortunately, I'm just a dude and this wasn't a for-profit commercial enterprise of any kind. So, while I was clearly in the right to take legal action, there was absolutely no way I could have afforded the extreme costs that would have been involved.
They invoked the "we don't care what you think" and everyone knows that the founding fathers added that clause to the Constitution, so that all of your rights and all of the land's laws could be circumvented with that clever dismissive phrase.
If you don't like the TSA and having your civil liberties violated, then don't fly^H^H^Hbus^H^H^Hdrive^H^H^H^H^Hwalk^H^H^H^H........?
Maybe this means that I will finally be able to remove that one article in my feed that I haven't been able to get to delete for the past three years, no matter what I do.
Starving artists are starving. Also, sky is blue.
That's great, but that is not how it behaves. Since 6, FF has gone from using 1-2gb of RAM to 3,9gb of RAM on osx, for me. What I get isn't improved history/backtracking handling, but a browser that becomes slow and choppy and unusable until a restart. We're talking about this happening despite using fewer tabs than I was when FF used to use "only" 2gb.
Firefox 6.0 was released in the middle of August (about five weeks ago).
I thought my book on Catalyst seemed like it was made of a strange binding agent!