"Deniers" is part of this religionification in the name of science - rhetoric like that has no place in scientific debate. It's explicitly done to shut down and prevent debate.
There's more than one form of research. Most of the skeptical papers I have seen revolve around criticism of the cultists papers, which you may not consider research, but if the criticisms are valid then they are valid. In terms of working with large datasets, there is this little issue of the cultists groups hiding and even destroying the raw data to prevent non-members from being able to do this, and it is extremely difficult to impossible to reproduce much of that data independently.
Again, this sort of behavior simply has no place in science. All the stress placed on claiming this is "science" is a classic case of protesting too much.
You're not too far off the truth, but it's only a half truth. The global warming/climate change cultists are getting their money from big-govenment sources that have at least as vested an interest in producing results that can be used to argue for increasing government authorities and funding as the oil companies have in the dissenting research. This is a common fact of life in academic research - funding sources are never perfect.
Ethical researchers will not compromise their results, and take what funding they can get as a result. They may go from one source to another frequently in order to keep working, and typically run on a shoe-string.
Unethical researchers find a good titty and make sure their results always line up with that prominences interests without needing to be told. Whatever their other problems, they tend to do very well at keeping the funds flowing and that counts for more than any of us really want to admit.
The people that are best at funding in climate research decided years ago that anyone who denied their faith in 'global warming' were not to be reasoned with but rather to be excommunicated, shunned. They have turned their departments into churches, and away from science. You cant even get a passing grade, let alone a degree, without mouthing the creed obediently. If you manage to get a degree before you start doubting them, you still wont get funding from anyone except the fossil energy companies, so it wouldnt be any surprise at all that they are funding virtually all of the real science that's going on in the field today.
And sad as it is (they are figuratively fossils themselves, and need to die) it's still better this way than if they were not doing this and NO ONE would fund climate science anymore, period.
I really think there is a lot of devil in the details that you gloss right over with that. Get a good glue-man to use good libraries and give him a job that is suited to those tools and you should expect a good product. But give him a job those tools are not suited for and you should expect crud. The language of implementation is only one variable among many. It's possible to write junk in any language.
Using a well reviewed library might allow you to avoid all kinds of easy and common mistakes. But relying on code you dont understand makes it harder to debug the result, and that just might be an understatement. It's always going to be possible to accomplish tasks with fewer cycles using hand tuned code. The counterargument is that you can usually hand tune only 10% or less of the code, after it's running, and get 90% of the benefit that way.
So ideally it seems large projects would have a life cycle starting with RAD in ObjC or Python or whatever you want, leading to a stable form which would then be relentlessly optimised into a mature and reliable product. I can remember seeing that happen occasionally in the past, but last few years programs seem to be considered obsolete before they really clear beta.
On top of that I see a disturbing trend towards low level stuff like device drivers being done in RAD languages, but that's another subject.
And yes, all too often the choices wind up being made for financial reasons by people that havent the slightest clue what the ramifications of their decisions will be.
I really think what gets classified as "language elitism" tends to average out about 50-50. As you say, the languages are tools to get things done and choosing the right tool for the job is important, and there is a legitimate place for most if not all languages. It's a sad fact that a lot of humans derive some enjoyment to badmouthing anything they personally do not like or use, and I see some of that.
Still, I think there is also a significant difference between programming something from the ground up using appropriate language(s) and simply stringing together a bunch of library calls using some sort of ultra-high level script as glue, and if you tell me which language you prefer I can probably make a reasonably good guess as to which side of that divide you lean towards.
"These things go well beyond python -- that python client could have been in the clear/open-source from the beginning but you shouldn't be able to bypass 2FA and get in un-authenticated."
That's right. And remember kids, when you see people pushing closed binaries and wont provide source - this is exactly the kind of basic fsck up they are almost certainly trying to hide.
If you write a secure system, you dont need to worry about people seeing the source. You want them to see the source. You want them to appreciate just how elegantly you solved the problem. You hide the source when you know you screwed it up and are just stuck hoping no one catches on.
It actually does the same thing every time, it's pretty well defined. The problem is that you are viewing it through the lense of the windows paradigm, which doesnt apply on mac. This is not a windows "maximize" button that effectively makes the window full screen (minus window decorations) - it never was and is not supposed to be. It is a fit-window button that expands the window in order to show content. It will only expand the window to cover the full screen if the data it has to display for you actually needs that much space - otherwise it will become just wide and tall enough for that data to be displayed, but no more.
The older cellphones often have no better antenna, this is true, but certain models did and people in this area learned quickly to favor them. I dont see any newer smart phones coming out with this feature.
It makes no sense to add an extended battery to keep driving hardware that I dont want turned on in the first place. I am waiting for a device that isnt so poorly designed in the first place - I wasted enough money on this crap already so if they want my money at this point the onus is on them. I doubt they will, but I can live without it, so I will.
Airplane mode is indeed the only solution, but it's a procrustean solution at best because it turns off wifi and bluetooth as well. It's quite annoying to be sitting here with a fairly decent fibre connection and a perfectly good wireless router but unable to use them without also enabling the pointless waste of battery power called a CDMA transceiver.
The cellphone towers here provide reasonable coverage for old dumb phones with large antennas, with a smartphone you tend to find areas where you have 3 or 4 signals the phone can 'see' just well enough that it will keep maxing up transmit power and trying to reach them in turn until it dies.
Very good questions. In my experience, smartphones cope very poorly in areas that lack dense cellular coverage (ie rural areas - most of the US and most of the world.) It seems the people designing them simply cannot get their heads around the fact that people exist outside of built up urban areas.
So you get a device designed with just adequate battery life, but also designed around assumptions that do not actually hold true in the environment as well - so the thing wastes power constantly seeking and losing signals, beeping frantically (on some phones it is even impossible to disable that beep!) while draining that battery faster and faster until you just turn it off.
It's a shame, because all the capabilities are there for something I would find useful, but just enough stuff is always baked into hardware or closed drivers where I cannot even conceivably change them to screw it all up.
"On the contrary, I know loft insulation was available for many years with many properties still not using it. "
But you cannot imagine that might be because it is not always worth using?
"The payback times were too long for most people to care."
Which indicates quite simply that it is not efficient in their case. You have to keep a sense of perspective or you will go off the rails thinking that anything that has a benefit must be used everywhere - when in fact many things are beneficial, yet not beneficial enough to justify their use. This is because of something called 'opportunity cost' - which just means that when you decide to spend money on one thing (insulation, for instance) you give up anything else you might have spent the money on (a more efficient car, perhaps.) Insulation is clearly beneficial, but is it worth the cost? To figure that out you need to know how long it would take to recoup the initial investment, and compare that with any other uses you might have for the money.
"In theUK, it was government intervention (subsidy) that got it universally adopted."
I have a bit of experience with a similar program, installing subsidized ceiling insulation in another commonwealth country. And I know it for the rip-off it is. The people for whom ceiling insulation made sense had already installed it, for the most part. The insulation business was down, so they lobbied the legislature and got that fixed. Then there was a feeding frenzy installing all this subsidized insulation just as quick and dirty as could possibly be done. People that had little or no need for insulation and knew they had no need for it would still get it put in just because they had already paid for it. I had "customers" on many occasions suggesting that we shouldnt bother to even install anything, just sign the forms and split up the money. I wouldnt do that but I am sure there were plenty of people who would. The thing was a fiasco, it transferred a lot of money around the country but any real benefit was certainly minimal.
"Money isn't the universal scale of worth that you think it is."
Money is the scale for material worth. I do not suggest or believe that everything worthwhile is material. But this is not a spiritual matter, it's entirely an economic one. There are material benefits, and material costs for each course of action and it's entirely appropriate to make them on the basis of sound economic calculation.
You seem not to realize that 'green technology' which actually works in a cost effective manner is adopted naturally in the marketplace without any coercion.
The only technology that requires intervention to promote is technology which does not actually offer value - technology whose total cost exceeds its total benefit.
They actually have significant portions of the population behind them in certain parts of the world now - something they could not claim in 2001. This is the result of AQ tactics yes, but they couldnt work without US cooperation. The way it works is that one provocateur out in the country somewhere can draw one or more salvos of hellfire missiles, which destroy property, livestock, and human lives, at least some of which were innocents. Then the relatives of those killed, who may have been neutral or even pro-US before this, become allies of AQ in order to seek revenge for the deaths.
This is such an avoidable tragedy, and so predictable. The lesson that should be learned is to quit trying to solve law enforcement problems with military force. Instead of learning that lesson, though, we seem to be rapidly militarizing what remains of our law enforcement.
Meteoric iron has been used by 'stone age' peoples all around the world. Identifying these Egyptian beads is neat but hardly a surprise.
Stone age-bronze age-iron age was never intended to imply exclusivity, only what the dominant method of getting the work done was in a given time and place. The iron age is taken to arrive when the technology for extracting telluric iron is well understood and used, the former may have happened long before the latter in areas where a high bronze age culture had developed, and of course meteoric iron doesnt rely on that technology at all so it's completely independent of it. It wouldnt really be a surprise to see meteoric iron objects MUCH earlier than this, except that it's unlikely to be preserved for so long outside of quite rare contexts.
Neither of your "alternative theories" are actually plausible in context. Of course either is plausible long term. But that is not what is required here. We arent talking about cutting energy use at some unspecified point in the future, after technology improves, we're talking about increasing the cost of energy straight up and hoping that, eventually, the technological advances will come.
The answer is no. When we talk about how much rain y' all have, we will use measurements that mean something to us. You are welcome to do the same when y' all talk about our rain, of course.
The problem here is that they have already claimed absolute certainty for their conclusions long ago, and spent decades defending those conclusions using every dirty trick in the book. With that strong commitment to a particular conclusion verified, demonstrated, and really made into an article of faith (with anyone who expresses the slightest doubt vilified and ostracised as a 'denier') it would be naive to expect further work to amount to anything but confirming biases.
The British Isles have been well known for mental weather throughout history.
People want weather to be more regular than it is, and tend to smooth it out in their memory, but just about anywhere you go, and any year you try, you will find people complaining about the mental weather this year. That's been true for the decades I have been alive and I have no reason to think that was ever not true.
It doesnt look like a straw man at all. They seek punitive taxes on energy, which will naturally result in less energy being used, which will predictably have exactly the effect the OP posits.
The difference between terrorism versus accidents is of course intention. We all know or should know that we will die at some point, that we can die at any time. But terrorism implies something more than just dying. It implies being hated. And being social creatures that we are, being hated can be more difficult to deal with than being mortal. It starts an uncomfortable thought process that threatens the placid complacency of the population in a way that no amount of accidental violence can ever do.
"Your post intrigues me. What specific information is being conveyed to the end user by the numbers 3.5 or 4.0?"
Version 3.5 represents the 5th significant release within the major release family 3. It may be expected to include the same set of interfaces and features that were included in the initial version 3, but with many minor changes in the form of bugfixes and polish.
By contrast 3.5.11 would represent the 11th quick bugfix patch on top of that release, while 4.0 would represent a significantly re-written successor program, with the possibility of significant changes in the interface and feature category to be excited about, but likely to be more buggy and less polished.
"Browsers don't really get to emphasize their "major.minor" version numbers like in the past because anything not absolutely current is unacceptable from a security point of view."
This is at best half true. The reason browser security is so hard is because the browser industry has absolutely refused to do it right at nearly every opportunity. They are staying busy following UI fads and attempting to add new features for the adware industry, which naturally means they are also constantly adding new vulnerabilities. I used to think this was incompetence but it's now clearly by design - the insecure product helps drive adoption of whatever the heck they decide to put in the next upgrade, which becomes a marketable asset.
But beyond that, sane version numbering can still keep up with a constant release schedule just fine. They were already using micro-releases and pushing them out constantly before the started messing with the numbering, the change was only to obfuscate the significance of new releases.
"Additionally major versions are dead because people want features faster."
Who? Who, specifically, wants features faster? Because I deal with computer users and computer problems 10 hours a day, with users from the most illiterate beginner up to absolutely brilliant specialists that work at the computer all day, and I dont think I have heard a user of any level talking about how they couldnt wait for some new features in their browser since somewhere back about the Netscape 2.xx days.
The constant addition of features is driven by paid developers, particularly by the ad industry. Not by user desire. It is the constant addition of features, along with the accompanying lack of priority given to security issues, that results in the chronic insecurity of the browser. And a fast release schedule will never, ever cure that chronic insecurity. It will only help turn the people into eyeballs to be bought and sold.
Slashdot Mirror
There has been no debate, the very tactics you resort to so clearly here have been used to shut it down at every stage.
And there is no scientific consensus without a free (and on-going) debate. Period.
"Deniers" is part of this religionification in the name of science - rhetoric like that has no place in scientific debate. It's explicitly done to shut down and prevent debate.
There's more than one form of research. Most of the skeptical papers I have seen revolve around criticism of the cultists papers, which you may not consider research, but if the criticisms are valid then they are valid. In terms of working with large datasets, there is this little issue of the cultists groups hiding and even destroying the raw data to prevent non-members from being able to do this, and it is extremely difficult to impossible to reproduce much of that data independently.
Again, this sort of behavior simply has no place in science. All the stress placed on claiming this is "science" is a classic case of protesting too much.
You're not too far off the truth, but it's only a half truth. The global warming/climate change cultists are getting their money from big-govenment sources that have at least as vested an interest in producing results that can be used to argue for increasing government authorities and funding as the oil companies have in the dissenting research. This is a common fact of life in academic research - funding sources are never perfect.
Ethical researchers will not compromise their results, and take what funding they can get as a result. They may go from one source to another frequently in order to keep working, and typically run on a shoe-string.
Unethical researchers find a good titty and make sure their results always line up with that prominences interests without needing to be told. Whatever their other problems, they tend to do very well at keeping the funds flowing and that counts for more than any of us really want to admit.
The people that are best at funding in climate research decided years ago that anyone who denied their faith in 'global warming' were not to be reasoned with but rather to be excommunicated, shunned. They have turned their departments into churches, and away from science. You cant even get a passing grade, let alone a degree, without mouthing the creed obediently. If you manage to get a degree before you start doubting them, you still wont get funding from anyone except the fossil energy companies, so it wouldnt be any surprise at all that they are funding virtually all of the real science that's going on in the field today.
And sad as it is (they are figuratively fossils themselves, and need to die) it's still better this way than if they were not doing this and NO ONE would fund climate science anymore, period.
"So he wrote a paper on the ethics of Lunar Mining that actually considered possible ethical objections to the proposed activity. Is that so odd?"
Not in abstract, but the specific objections seem odd, to say the least.
"After all, do we really want whalers on the moon?"
Whalers are people too.
I really think there is a lot of devil in the details that you gloss right over with that. Get a good glue-man to use good libraries and give him a job that is suited to those tools and you should expect a good product. But give him a job those tools are not suited for and you should expect crud. The language of implementation is only one variable among many. It's possible to write junk in any language.
Using a well reviewed library might allow you to avoid all kinds of easy and common mistakes. But relying on code you dont understand makes it harder to debug the result, and that just might be an understatement. It's always going to be possible to accomplish tasks with fewer cycles using hand tuned code. The counterargument is that you can usually hand tune only 10% or less of the code, after it's running, and get 90% of the benefit that way.
So ideally it seems large projects would have a life cycle starting with RAD in ObjC or Python or whatever you want, leading to a stable form which would then be relentlessly optimised into a mature and reliable product. I can remember seeing that happen occasionally in the past, but last few years programs seem to be considered obsolete before they really clear beta.
On top of that I see a disturbing trend towards low level stuff like device drivers being done in RAD languages, but that's another subject.
And yes, all too often the choices wind up being made for financial reasons by people that havent the slightest clue what the ramifications of their decisions will be.
I really think what gets classified as "language elitism" tends to average out about 50-50. As you say, the languages are tools to get things done and choosing the right tool for the job is important, and there is a legitimate place for most if not all languages. It's a sad fact that a lot of humans derive some enjoyment to badmouthing anything they personally do not like or use, and I see some of that.
Still, I think there is also a significant difference between programming something from the ground up using appropriate language(s) and simply stringing together a bunch of library calls using some sort of ultra-high level script as glue, and if you tell me which language you prefer I can probably make a reasonably good guess as to which side of that divide you lean towards.
"These things go well beyond python -- that python client could have been in the clear/open-source from the beginning but you shouldn't be able to bypass 2FA and get in un-authenticated."
That's right. And remember kids, when you see people pushing closed binaries and wont provide source - this is exactly the kind of basic fsck up they are almost certainly trying to hide.
If you write a secure system, you dont need to worry about people seeing the source. You want them to see the source. You want them to appreciate just how elegantly you solved the problem. You hide the source when you know you screwed it up and are just stuck hoping no one catches on.
It actually does the same thing every time, it's pretty well defined. The problem is that you are viewing it through the lense of the windows paradigm, which doesnt apply on mac. This is not a windows "maximize" button that effectively makes the window full screen (minus window decorations) - it never was and is not supposed to be. It is a fit-window button that expands the window in order to show content. It will only expand the window to cover the full screen if the data it has to display for you actually needs that much space - otherwise it will become just wide and tall enough for that data to be displayed, but no more.
The older cellphones often have no better antenna, this is true, but certain models did and people in this area learned quickly to favor them. I dont see any newer smart phones coming out with this feature.
It makes no sense to add an extended battery to keep driving hardware that I dont want turned on in the first place. I am waiting for a device that isnt so poorly designed in the first place - I wasted enough money on this crap already so if they want my money at this point the onus is on them. I doubt they will, but I can live without it, so I will.
Airplane mode is indeed the only solution, but it's a procrustean solution at best because it turns off wifi and bluetooth as well. It's quite annoying to be sitting here with a fairly decent fibre connection and a perfectly good wireless router but unable to use them without also enabling the pointless waste of battery power called a CDMA transceiver.
The cellphone towers here provide reasonable coverage for old dumb phones with large antennas, with a smartphone you tend to find areas where you have 3 or 4 signals the phone can 'see' just well enough that it will keep maxing up transmit power and trying to reach them in turn until it dies.
Is there an easy way to completely remove the radio circuits, or physically disconnect them from any power leads?
Very good questions. In my experience, smartphones cope very poorly in areas that lack dense cellular coverage (ie rural areas - most of the US and most of the world.) It seems the people designing them simply cannot get their heads around the fact that people exist outside of built up urban areas.
So you get a device designed with just adequate battery life, but also designed around assumptions that do not actually hold true in the environment as well - so the thing wastes power constantly seeking and losing signals, beeping frantically (on some phones it is even impossible to disable that beep!) while draining that battery faster and faster until you just turn it off.
It's a shame, because all the capabilities are there for something I would find useful, but just enough stuff is always baked into hardware or closed drivers where I cannot even conceivably change them to screw it all up.
"On the contrary, I know loft insulation was available for many years with many properties still not using it. "
But you cannot imagine that might be because it is not always worth using?
"The payback times were too long for most people to care."
Which indicates quite simply that it is not efficient in their case. You have to keep a sense of perspective or you will go off the rails thinking that anything that has a benefit must be used everywhere - when in fact many things are beneficial, yet not beneficial enough to justify their use. This is because of something called 'opportunity cost' - which just means that when you decide to spend money on one thing (insulation, for instance) you give up anything else you might have spent the money on (a more efficient car, perhaps.) Insulation is clearly beneficial, but is it worth the cost? To figure that out you need to know how long it would take to recoup the initial investment, and compare that with any other uses you might have for the money.
"In theUK, it was government intervention (subsidy) that got it universally adopted."
I have a bit of experience with a similar program, installing subsidized ceiling insulation in another commonwealth country. And I know it for the rip-off it is. The people for whom ceiling insulation made sense had already installed it, for the most part. The insulation business was down, so they lobbied the legislature and got that fixed. Then there was a feeding frenzy installing all this subsidized insulation just as quick and dirty as could possibly be done. People that had little or no need for insulation and knew they had no need for it would still get it put in just because they had already paid for it. I had "customers" on many occasions suggesting that we shouldnt bother to even install anything, just sign the forms and split up the money. I wouldnt do that but I am sure there were plenty of people who would. The thing was a fiasco, it transferred a lot of money around the country but any real benefit was certainly minimal.
"Money isn't the universal scale of worth that you think it is."
Money is the scale for material worth. I do not suggest or believe that everything worthwhile is material. But this is not a spiritual matter, it's entirely an economic one. There are material benefits, and material costs for each course of action and it's entirely appropriate to make them on the basis of sound economic calculation.
You seem not to realize that 'green technology' which actually works in a cost effective manner is adopted naturally in the marketplace without any coercion.
The only technology that requires intervention to promote is technology which does not actually offer value - technology whose total cost exceeds its total benefit.
They actually have significant portions of the population behind them in certain parts of the world now - something they could not claim in 2001. This is the result of AQ tactics yes, but they couldnt work without US cooperation. The way it works is that one provocateur out in the country somewhere can draw one or more salvos of hellfire missiles, which destroy property, livestock, and human lives, at least some of which were innocents. Then the relatives of those killed, who may have been neutral or even pro-US before this, become allies of AQ in order to seek revenge for the deaths.
This is such an avoidable tragedy, and so predictable. The lesson that should be learned is to quit trying to solve law enforcement problems with military force. Instead of learning that lesson, though, we seem to be rapidly militarizing what remains of our law enforcement.
"They're not even smart enough to be racist properly."
Sadly that describes the majority of the population perfectly.
Meteoric iron has been used by 'stone age' peoples all around the world. Identifying these Egyptian beads is neat but hardly a surprise.
Stone age-bronze age-iron age was never intended to imply exclusivity, only what the dominant method of getting the work done was in a given time and place. The iron age is taken to arrive when the technology for extracting telluric iron is well understood and used, the former may have happened long before the latter in areas where a high bronze age culture had developed, and of course meteoric iron doesnt rely on that technology at all so it's completely independent of it. It wouldnt really be a surprise to see meteoric iron objects MUCH earlier than this, except that it's unlikely to be preserved for so long outside of quite rare contexts.
Neither of your "alternative theories" are actually plausible in context. Of course either is plausible long term. But that is not what is required here. We arent talking about cutting energy use at some unspecified point in the future, after technology improves, we're talking about increasing the cost of energy straight up and hoping that, eventually, the technological advances will come.
Among many other crimes they exposed H. Clinton's involvement in a scheme to bug UN diplomats, a violation of both US and international law.
When will the court pronounce sentence on her?
The answer is no. When we talk about how much rain y' all have, we will use measurements that mean something to us. You are welcome to do the same when y' all talk about our rain, of course.
The problem here is that they have already claimed absolute certainty for their conclusions long ago, and spent decades defending those conclusions using every dirty trick in the book. With that strong commitment to a particular conclusion verified, demonstrated, and really made into an article of faith (with anyone who expresses the slightest doubt vilified and ostracised as a 'denier') it would be naive to expect further work to amount to anything but confirming biases.
The British Isles have been well known for mental weather throughout history. People want weather to be more regular than it is, and tend to smooth it out in their memory, but just about anywhere you go, and any year you try, you will find people complaining about the mental weather this year. That's been true for the decades I have been alive and I have no reason to think that was ever not true.
It doesnt look like a straw man at all. They seek punitive taxes on energy, which will naturally result in less energy being used, which will predictably have exactly the effect the OP posits.
The difference between terrorism versus accidents is of course intention. We all know or should know that we will die at some point, that we can die at any time. But terrorism implies something more than just dying. It implies being hated. And being social creatures that we are, being hated can be more difficult to deal with than being mortal. It starts an uncomfortable thought process that threatens the placid complacency of the population in a way that no amount of accidental violence can ever do.
"Your post intrigues me. What specific information is being conveyed to the end user by the numbers 3.5 or 4.0?"
Version 3.5 represents the 5th significant release within the major release family 3. It may be expected to include the same set of interfaces and features that were included in the initial version 3, but with many minor changes in the form of bugfixes and polish.
By contrast 3.5.11 would represent the 11th quick bugfix patch on top of that release, while 4.0 would represent a significantly re-written successor program, with the possibility of significant changes in the interface and feature category to be excited about, but likely to be more buggy and less polished.
"Browsers don't really get to emphasize their "major.minor" version numbers like in the past because anything not absolutely current is unacceptable from a security point of view."
This is at best half true. The reason browser security is so hard is because the browser industry has absolutely refused to do it right at nearly every opportunity. They are staying busy following UI fads and attempting to add new features for the adware industry, which naturally means they are also constantly adding new vulnerabilities. I used to think this was incompetence but it's now clearly by design - the insecure product helps drive adoption of whatever the heck they decide to put in the next upgrade, which becomes a marketable asset.
But beyond that, sane version numbering can still keep up with a constant release schedule just fine. They were already using micro-releases and pushing them out constantly before the started messing with the numbering, the change was only to obfuscate the significance of new releases.
"Additionally major versions are dead because people want features faster."
Who? Who, specifically, wants features faster? Because I deal with computer users and computer problems 10 hours a day, with users from the most illiterate beginner up to absolutely brilliant specialists that work at the computer all day, and I dont think I have heard a user of any level talking about how they couldnt wait for some new features in their browser since somewhere back about the Netscape 2.xx days.
The constant addition of features is driven by paid developers, particularly by the ad industry. Not by user desire. It is the constant addition of features, along with the accompanying lack of priority given to security issues, that results in the chronic insecurity of the browser. And a fast release schedule will never, ever cure that chronic insecurity. It will only help turn the people into eyeballs to be bought and sold.
Think about it.