I would much rather my children watch a something pronographic(my spelling) than something violent. Taken to the logical extreme, I would rather live in a society heavily influenced by sex than violence. IMO one of those acts is much more natural than the other (don't waste your breath saying some joke about violence being nature)
Violence is natural, it isn't a joke. Both have been facts of life since the era of single-cell organisms. However, sex is more pleasant and less harmful than violence, so I agree with you. In fact I refer to my own post on the subject of sex and society.
What 'other activities' are you going to offer that you expect to woo people away from getting high?
Sex. Establish official bordels which serve all comers for free, but only if they test clean for drugs. Get the workers for these bordels by offering to pay education, living arrangements (so parents aren't an obstacle), and a generous allowance to college kids in exchange of working one night a week in the bordel, as well as attending (and progressing in) the secondary education school of their choice. Drugs vs. regular sex with teenagers; even crack would have a hard sell there. And you'll get an educated population with very little sexual frustrations or hang-ups as a side effect. It would also eliminate street prostitution and the associated problems with pimps and other parasites.
After all, from what I've heard, quite a few teens are already engaged in "compensated dating", so why not make the system official, removing the associated dangers of running into rapists or lunatics and reaping huge social benefits ? The bordels would naturally make certain that neccessary protection - both condoms and guards - is used and that the girls are not pressured into acts they are not comfortable with; altought they would of course get a larger allowance for kinkier practices. You could reserve rooms for things like parties, etc.
Those who'd find they like the job could pursue a career path as a regular employer or even a private enterpreneur. After all, while the state-sponsored facitilites give it away for free, there is always room for a professional making house calls and such.
You know, I began this as sarcasm, but now that I'm starting to think of it seriously... it just might work. So, anyone willing to ask the presidential candidates about their opinion on this - I'm not US citizen so I can't ?
I know it's reaching into science fiction, but others have suggested that Asimov's 3 Laws, or at least the first 2, aren't bad guidelines for humans, either.
I hereby invoke the Second Law and command you to sit on dog poo. See the problem yet ?
Besides, Asimov's laws didn't work properly even in his own fictional universe. Daneel, for example, grounded Bailey for his own protection. Gisgard (?) destroyed the Earth to speed up human expansion in space, after decades of mind-controlling everyone around him. Big Brothers of Steel straight from a nightmare, they were.
The only important question is whether the woman carrying the fetus is pro-life or pro-choice.
No. The only important question is whether the fetus in question should be considered human or not. If it isn't, then abortion simply removes a mass of unwanted cells, and is no more or less immoral (and should be no more or less legal) than removing a tumor. On the other hand, if the fetus is a human being, then killing it is murder, and should be forbidden by law.
Unfortunately, that's one question which is impossible to answer definitely in a way which everyone would agree with, since people disagree about what makes a human human. Consequently, the whole debate degenerates into lots hot air about and splitting hairs about irrelevant side issues and quoting scriptures of various religions's commandments aagainst murder, the applicability of which depends on answering the underlaying question about the humanity or lack of it of the fetus.
The end result of all this is to make cool and logical examination of the issue neraly impossible, since no matter what you say someone will accuse you of being either a "murderer", "oppressor of women" or both.
Personally, I'd lean towards not considering bunch of cells without a functional nervous system (and therefore without consciousness) fully if at all human, but that's just my personal opinion.
There are many more cases where a woman's life or health are threatened by a pregnancy. If it were my wife or daughter that was going to die or be seriously physically damaged by having to carry a pregnancy to term just because some religious yahoos decided that they have the right to force a woman to give birth, I would definitely break the law to protect my wife or daughter.
In all likelyhood most people would break the law in order to protect their mates or offspring. This is dictated by biology - people who protect their offspring will likely have more of them survive, being therefore evolutionary superior to those who don't - and is utterly irrelevant on whether the laws in question should be in effect or not.
C'mon, what part of "born or unborn" do you not understand? To be a person, you have to be born. If you have not been born, you are not a person.
This is a prime example of such bullshit logic which surrounds the issue. Birth does not affect the brain tissue (which gives you personality and thus, presumably, personhood) in any significant way. It both processes sensory input and sends motor commands before that. In fact the only things bearth really affects is breathing and digestion, both of which must start operating at birth.
By the way, do you consider those taken out by a C-section to be persons ? After all, they were never born in the ordinary sense of the word.
Is it legitimate to use source code that's publicly available but doesn't fall under any particular license?
Of course it is. This kind of thing happens all the time.
I think he meant "legal". And no, of course it isn't; the code is copyrighted, so it is illegal to distribute it in the original or compiled version as part of your program without a license to do so from the copyright holder.
Of course the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, but that's how the law goes.
Frankly, I'm glad you don't work for us. The fact that you would consider "rewriting" code that works well just because it was written by someone external to your company doesn't speak well for your sense of business priorities or usage of time.
That's fine and good, just as long as you remember that the same applies to the finished program when it's floating around the P2P networks.
The original author didn't attach any particular license to the code.
I think that says it all.
True. It means that you have no license whatsoever to redistribute the code, in original or compiled form, and are guilty of copyright violation if you do.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Your morality system is screwed up if you need some kind of absolute unshakable reference system. Many philosophers have advocated on simple reprocical grounds that needless pain and suffering should be avoided.
Some of the problems with these systems are that:
They usually assume that hypocrisy is morally wrong; that is, they assume that it is morally wrong to have one set of rules for myself and another for others. I certainly agree, it is; however, this means that such systems depend on an unproven assertion.
They need to give some reason for people to give a shit. Most do this by pointing out that it is nicer to live in a moral than an immoral society. Unfortunately, this leads to the tragedy of the commons: for any particular member of society, the personal gains from breaking the moral standards are likely to be greater than the losses from increased level of general immorality.
Not that any of this matters, since the majority of people behave themselves based on social instincts - feeling desire to feel good about themselves and avoid guilt - rather than complex philosophical systems. Which is propably a very good thing, because no philosophy I know of has ever disproven nihilism.
What's really scary is that most of the readership doesn't really seem to notice, judging by the amount of new comments given on this post.
Slashdot is an international site, so it is likely that some of us were either sleeping or at work when the dupe was posted. Given that new stories get posted at the top of the page, this would be the first one they see, rather than the chronologically first one. It is quite natural to comment on this story, then, rather than go looking for the possible previous incarnation of it.
If by saying "I knew more than my professors" you mean "I knew something they didn't" I would believe you. However, "I learned nothing from them" is quite another thing.
Neither is what he said, thought. He simply asserted that the sum total of his knowledge at the time he was going to school was greater than the sum total of any one of his professor's knowledge; I believe that the implied plural - the sum total of all his professors combined knowledge - was not what he meant. In no way does this imply that he learned nothing from those professors.
Of course he's still likely to be incorrect, blindly arrogant, and full of hubris.
The bests emulators you can find are Playstation and N64, which are very old systems by today's standards.
PSX emulators - ePSXe in particular - are okay, if a bit slow on my machine; but I've never seen an N64 emulator which wouldn't have been alpha quality (meaning very slow and crashes. Is there a useful one fro Linux there; I'd really like to play OoT ?
I don't think anyone reasonable here would defend copyright infringement on any level.
I defend copyright infringement on all levels, on the basis that copyright has been extended in duration and expanded in scope to the point where it is actively hurting the creation of new culture, and is backed up by absurdly cruel punishments, and is perverting the development of technology and communications by things like DRM and DMCA (the circumvention clause). But that's because I'm not a true Scotsman.
Yet oddly I can discuss organic chemistry while dismissing sub atomic particles.
Actually, no you can't, at least not in any detail. In order to understand chemistry, it is neccessary to know about electrons and protons, both of which are sub-atomic particles. Even plain water's behavior becomes a complete mystery if you don't understand the structure of hydrogen and oxygen atoms; specifically, you'll be unable to predict that H2O is a dipole molecule, which is a key to most of its interesting and critical to life properties.
There have been atrocities "in the name of science". That doesn't mean science in general approves such things. Likewise it would be easy to pull a thousand examples out of the hat for atrocities commited "in the name of God", from the crusades to witchhunts.
Since "science" refers to a concept - systematic study of nature - and not an entity, it would be difficult of it to approve or disapprove of anything. Now, the scientists, or some subgroup of them, may or may not approve something, as individuals or as a group, but that largely depends on the general attitude of the society as a whole. The same is true of religion: in a murderous society, the clergy tends to be just as bloodthirsty as every other people, and in a peaceful one, they are unlikely to go on murdering rampages.
That makes these "science/religion is a blight upon humanity" debates somewhat pointless.
Yes, I expect they would -- philosophy is a parent of science, so a one-night stand between the two would be a pretty bad idea.
Hear that sound ? That ominous, eery moaning ? It's Rule #34. You just invoked it. Now I dare not go browsing on moonlit nights, for fear of what I might come accross on a dark page of some bitrotten, long-forgotten website. The naked female anime version of Ctulhu was bad enough...
Thailand suffers from enormous problems with child slavery in the sex industry.
Yes; and this move is not going to do anythign to close it down. Why focus on online predators rather than offline child bordels ? Unless, of course, this is either a feel-good gesture or a prelude to something sinister disguised as such.
That, or my cynicism is finally starting outgrow even politics... nah, that isn't possible.
The scientists made their decisions on objective data but weren't convinced by anecdotal evidence. In other words science worked just as it's supposed to work.
Dismissing observations - any observations - because they don't fit the current model is not scientific. This is especially true when the observed phenomenom is so rare that systematic scientific study is not possible.
Of course I understand your point, but my attempt at sarcasm was meant to indicate that you are making your point too broadly. "Corporations hate innovation" does not explain why so many corporations fund university research. Nor does it explain many corporations' participation in innovative schemes that bring them no immediate benefit, notably IBM's contributions to Linux.
No, you don't seem to. Big corporations hate innovation. They fund university research to stay competitive against other big corporations and up-and-coming small corporations; however, the money put to this research doesn't actually increase profits, it simply prevents them from decreasing.
Big corporations hate innovation precisely because it forces them to spend money to get as much of it as possible for themselves.
As for IBM, it is simply defending its marketshare. Funding an open-sourced OS is more cost-effective than developing one by itself; however, if not for innovation in competing systems, IBM could slash this cost altogether and be more profitable.
Big corporations hate innovation because it forces them to expend resources to keep up with it and threatens the status quo and therefore their position. Small corporations love innovation because it threatens the status quo and therefore opens up possibilities of advancement. When you're at the bottom, disruptions are good because you have little to lose and lots to gain; when you're at the top, disruptions are bad because you have little to gain and lots to lose. That's why it's in the best interests of big corporations to try to stiffle change - and that includes innovation.
Anyway, you don't have to trust my theories on this. After all, the copyright extensions are known as "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" for a reason. The current copyright laws - and, I suspect, other IP laws as well - are the result of heavy lobbying by large corporations. They did not help those corporations to grow; the corporations became big before lobbying for those laws. Innovation preceeded draconian IP laws, so it really doesn't make sense to assume that draconian IP laws would be the cause of innovation.
This is hardly surprising anyway: the whole point of innovation is to combine pre-existing things in new and surprising ways, and copyrights, patents and other forms of "intellectual property" exist precisely to stop anyone from doing this without explicit permission from patent/copyright/whatever holder. Add in submarine patents, eternal copyright term, horrible penalties from any infraction, and general FUD-mongering by the copyright holders, and it would take considerable amount of willing blindness to claim that the end result is beneficial for innovation.
I think you should write to Google and Intel, and explain to them that they should fire all their engineers since innovation is bad for them.
Intel is forced to pay a huge number of engineers and perform expensive research just to defend their marketshare from AMD. Had Intel managed to squash their competitor in the bud, they could simply keep selling a slightly improved version of the same chip year after year. Similarly, Google could cut back on research and development if both competitors and spammers didn't constantly innovate.
When you're in Google's or Intel's position, any change is for the worse. Innovation brings change. It's a fiery meteor from the sky: good for the mammals underfoot, very bad for the dominant dinosaurs. Do you not think the dinosaurs might wish to stop the meteor from upsetting the status quo ?
But, as I've stated before, it will be a little disconcerting how QUIET the damned thing will be. I mean, part of the fun of driving a sports car/muscle car...is that engine roar, and the throaty growl of a well tuned exhaust note.
On the other hand, we're finally going to get rid of the damn brats who remove the silencer from their mopeds and then run them at full throttle (and whopping 40 km/h) at 3 at night. So my eyes stay dry:).
Besides, as the Wikipedia article on Continuously variable transmission, the marketing problems caused by smooth operation can easily be overcome by introducing artificial jerks by software. Given this, I'm sure someone will produce an intentionally noisy vechile for US consumers; I simply hope there's a choice of a silent one for European ones.
So what you have to explain is why, in spite of the correlation, these laws have no effect on innovation. I would argue that there is no explanation simpler than causation.
Which causes which ? Do draconian copyright laws cause more innovation, or does an innovative society tend to enforce draconian copyright laws ?
Don't forget that innovation is bad for large and powerful corporations. They have nothing to gain from market disruptions caused by it, and everything to lose. It could easily be, then, that they buy draconian copyright laws to inhibit innovation when it's rampant on society.
It's not copyright which made Disney great, it's Disney which made copyright great.
Frankly, I'd rather they take a couple more years and improve the battery technology and put safeguards.
Since the whole point of a battery is to store energy in a form it can be released from on demand, I'm not sure it is even in theory possible to build batteries which can't release all that energy at once - in other words, explode - when suitably damaged.
Unfortunately that wouldn't be just a dedicated circuit; it'd probably be a dedicated drop, or you'd at least have to get your standard 200A service bumped to 300A. If everyone on the block gets one the power company probably isn't going to be able to provide that much power for a while.
A possible solution would be to make the battery easily and mechanically replaceable - a module. Drive to a service station, exchange the nearly empty battery into a fully charged one, and leave the old one to charge. That way you wouldn't need high-power electric lines everywhere.
I think that whichever number you take, lynx is the clear winner. Eat your heart out! Though I am a bit at a loss to explain the 21 megabyte virtual image. Maybe it uses that novel hundred-buffering technique...
Well, libc alone is over 6 megabytes in this machine. Add in libraries for encryption, screen handling, locales, etc., and it adds up fast. Of course most of these are shared between multiple processes, so it's not like it's actually consuming 21 megs.
Slashdot Mirror
Violence is natural, it isn't a joke. Both have been facts of life since the era of single-cell organisms. However, sex is more pleasant and less harmful than violence, so I agree with you. In fact I refer to my own post on the subject of sex and society.
Sex. Establish official bordels which serve all comers for free, but only if they test clean for drugs. Get the workers for these bordels by offering to pay education, living arrangements (so parents aren't an obstacle), and a generous allowance to college kids in exchange of working one night a week in the bordel, as well as attending (and progressing in) the secondary education school of their choice. Drugs vs. regular sex with teenagers; even crack would have a hard sell there. And you'll get an educated population with very little sexual frustrations or hang-ups as a side effect. It would also eliminate street prostitution and the associated problems with pimps and other parasites.
After all, from what I've heard, quite a few teens are already engaged in "compensated dating", so why not make the system official, removing the associated dangers of running into rapists or lunatics and reaping huge social benefits ? The bordels would naturally make certain that neccessary protection - both condoms and guards - is used and that the girls are not pressured into acts they are not comfortable with; altought they would of course get a larger allowance for kinkier practices. You could reserve rooms for things like parties, etc.
Those who'd find they like the job could pursue a career path as a regular employer or even a private enterpreneur. After all, while the state-sponsored facitilites give it away for free, there is always room for a professional making house calls and such.
You know, I began this as sarcasm, but now that I'm starting to think of it seriously... it just might work. So, anyone willing to ask the presidential candidates about their opinion on this - I'm not US citizen so I can't ?
I hereby invoke the Second Law and command you to sit on dog poo. See the problem yet ?
Besides, Asimov's laws didn't work properly even in his own fictional universe. Daneel, for example, grounded Bailey for his own protection. Gisgard (?) destroyed the Earth to speed up human expansion in space, after decades of mind-controlling everyone around him. Big Brothers of Steel straight from a nightmare, they were.
No. The only important question is whether the fetus in question should be considered human or not. If it isn't, then abortion simply removes a mass of unwanted cells, and is no more or less immoral (and should be no more or less legal) than removing a tumor. On the other hand, if the fetus is a human being, then killing it is murder, and should be forbidden by law.
Unfortunately, that's one question which is impossible to answer definitely in a way which everyone would agree with, since people disagree about what makes a human human. Consequently, the whole debate degenerates into lots hot air about and splitting hairs about irrelevant side issues and quoting scriptures of various religions's commandments aagainst murder, the applicability of which depends on answering the underlaying question about the humanity or lack of it of the fetus.
The end result of all this is to make cool and logical examination of the issue neraly impossible, since no matter what you say someone will accuse you of being either a "murderer", "oppressor of women" or both.
Personally, I'd lean towards not considering bunch of cells without a functional nervous system (and therefore without consciousness) fully if at all human, but that's just my personal opinion.
In all likelyhood most people would break the law in order to protect their mates or offspring. This is dictated by biology - people who protect their offspring will likely have more of them survive, being therefore evolutionary superior to those who don't - and is utterly irrelevant on whether the laws in question should be in effect or not.
This is a prime example of such bullshit logic which surrounds the issue. Birth does not affect the brain tissue (which gives you personality and thus, presumably, personhood) in any significant way. It both processes sensory input and sends motor commands before that. In fact the only things bearth really affects is breathing and digestion, both of which must start operating at birth.
By the way, do you consider those taken out by a C-section to be persons ? After all, they were never born in the ordinary sense of the word.
I think he meant "legal". And no, of course it isn't; the code is copyrighted, so it is illegal to distribute it in the original or compiled version as part of your program without a license to do so from the copyright holder.
Of course the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, but that's how the law goes.
That's fine and good, just as long as you remember that the same applies to the finished program when it's floating around the P2P networks.
True. It means that you have no license whatsoever to redistribute the code, in original or compiled form, and are guilty of copyright violation if you do.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Some of the problems with these systems are that:
Not that any of this matters, since the majority of people behave themselves based on social instincts - feeling desire to feel good about themselves and avoid guilt - rather than complex philosophical systems. Which is propably a very good thing, because no philosophy I know of has ever disproven nihilism.
In Soviet Russia, radiation doesn't kill you, because the KGB shoots you first. But in Putinist Russia, the KGB irradiates you to death instead.
It may be callous but it is also true. Soviet Russia was not a nice place, and the current one doesn't seem to be interested in self-improvement.
Just turn on the hazard flashers and you don't need to worry about signaling.
Slashdot is an international site, so it is likely that some of us were either sleeping or at work when the dupe was posted. Given that new stories get posted at the top of the page, this would be the first one they see, rather than the chronologically first one. It is quite natural to comment on this story, then, rather than go looking for the possible previous incarnation of it.
Neither is what he said, thought. He simply asserted that the sum total of his knowledge at the time he was going to school was greater than the sum total of any one of his professor's knowledge; I believe that the implied plural - the sum total of all his professors combined knowledge - was not what he meant. In no way does this imply that he learned nothing from those professors.
Of course he's still likely to be incorrect, blindly arrogant, and full of hubris.
PSX emulators - ePSXe in particular - are okay, if a bit slow on my machine; but I've never seen an N64 emulator which wouldn't have been alpha quality (meaning very slow and crashes. Is there a useful one fro Linux there; I'd really like to play OoT ?
I defend copyright infringement on all levels, on the basis that copyright has been extended in duration and expanded in scope to the point where it is actively hurting the creation of new culture, and is backed up by absurdly cruel punishments, and is perverting the development of technology and communications by things like DRM and DMCA (the circumvention clause). But that's because I'm not a true Scotsman.
Actually, no you can't, at least not in any detail. In order to understand chemistry, it is neccessary to know about electrons and protons, both of which are sub-atomic particles. Even plain water's behavior becomes a complete mystery if you don't understand the structure of hydrogen and oxygen atoms; specifically, you'll be unable to predict that H2O is a dipole molecule, which is a key to most of its interesting and critical to life properties.
Since "science" refers to a concept - systematic study of nature - and not an entity, it would be difficult of it to approve or disapprove of anything. Now, the scientists, or some subgroup of them, may or may not approve something, as individuals or as a group, but that largely depends on the general attitude of the society as a whole. The same is true of religion: in a murderous society, the clergy tends to be just as bloodthirsty as every other people, and in a peaceful one, they are unlikely to go on murdering rampages.
That makes these "science/religion is a blight upon humanity" debates somewhat pointless.
Hear that sound ? That ominous, eery moaning ? It's Rule #34. You just invoked it. Now I dare not go browsing on moonlit nights, for fear of what I might come accross on a dark page of some bitrotten, long-forgotten website. The naked female anime version of Ctulhu was bad enough...
Yes; and this move is not going to do anythign to close it down. Why focus on online predators rather than offline child bordels ? Unless, of course, this is either a feel-good gesture or a prelude to something sinister disguised as such.
That, or my cynicism is finally starting outgrow even politics... nah, that isn't possible.
Dismissing observations - any observations - because they don't fit the current model is not scientific. This is especially true when the observed phenomenom is so rare that systematic scientific study is not possible.
No, you don't seem to. Big corporations hate innovation. They fund university research to stay competitive against other big corporations and up-and-coming small corporations; however, the money put to this research doesn't actually increase profits, it simply prevents them from decreasing.
Big corporations hate innovation precisely because it forces them to spend money to get as much of it as possible for themselves.
As for IBM, it is simply defending its marketshare. Funding an open-sourced OS is more cost-effective than developing one by itself; however, if not for innovation in competing systems, IBM could slash this cost altogether and be more profitable.
Big corporations hate innovation because it forces them to expend resources to keep up with it and threatens the status quo and therefore their position. Small corporations love innovation because it threatens the status quo and therefore opens up possibilities of advancement. When you're at the bottom, disruptions are good because you have little to lose and lots to gain; when you're at the top, disruptions are bad because you have little to gain and lots to lose. That's why it's in the best interests of big corporations to try to stiffle change - and that includes innovation.
Anyway, you don't have to trust my theories on this. After all, the copyright extensions are known as "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" for a reason. The current copyright laws - and, I suspect, other IP laws as well - are the result of heavy lobbying by large corporations. They did not help those corporations to grow; the corporations became big before lobbying for those laws. Innovation preceeded draconian IP laws, so it really doesn't make sense to assume that draconian IP laws would be the cause of innovation.
This is hardly surprising anyway: the whole point of innovation is to combine pre-existing things in new and surprising ways, and copyrights, patents and other forms of "intellectual property" exist precisely to stop anyone from doing this without explicit permission from patent/copyright/whatever holder. Add in submarine patents, eternal copyright term, horrible penalties from any infraction, and general FUD-mongering by the copyright holders, and it would take considerable amount of willing blindness to claim that the end result is beneficial for innovation.
Intel is forced to pay a huge number of engineers and perform expensive research just to defend their marketshare from AMD. Had Intel managed to squash their competitor in the bud, they could simply keep selling a slightly improved version of the same chip year after year. Similarly, Google could cut back on research and development if both competitors and spammers didn't constantly innovate.
When you're in Google's or Intel's position, any change is for the worse. Innovation brings change. It's a fiery meteor from the sky: good for the mammals underfoot, very bad for the dominant dinosaurs. Do you not think the dinosaurs might wish to stop the meteor from upsetting the status quo ?
On the other hand, we're finally going to get rid of the damn brats who remove the silencer from their mopeds and then run them at full throttle (and whopping 40 km/h) at 3 at night. So my eyes stay dry :).
Besides, as the Wikipedia article on Continuously variable transmission, the marketing problems caused by smooth operation can easily be overcome by introducing artificial jerks by software. Given this, I'm sure someone will produce an intentionally noisy vechile for US consumers; I simply hope there's a choice of a silent one for European ones.
Which causes which ? Do draconian copyright laws cause more innovation, or does an innovative society tend to enforce draconian copyright laws ?
Don't forget that innovation is bad for large and powerful corporations. They have nothing to gain from market disruptions caused by it, and everything to lose. It could easily be, then, that they buy draconian copyright laws to inhibit innovation when it's rampant on society.
It's not copyright which made Disney great, it's Disney which made copyright great.
Since the whole point of a battery is to store energy in a form it can be released from on demand, I'm not sure it is even in theory possible to build batteries which can't release all that energy at once - in other words, explode - when suitably damaged.
A possible solution would be to make the battery easily and mechanically replaceable - a module. Drive to a service station, exchange the nearly empty battery into a fully charged one, and leave the old one to charge. That way you wouldn't need high-power electric lines everywhere.
Well, libc alone is over 6 megabytes in this machine. Add in libraries for encryption, screen handling, locales, etc., and it adds up fast. Of course most of these are shared between multiple processes, so it's not like it's actually consuming 21 megs.
Well, seeing how Firefox leaks both memory and CPU time, it seems that we have the worst of both worlds.