Here is the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016
Whether Chrome temporarily uses more RAM is not the point. I have never seen Chrome get into a runaway 2-3GB memory leak like so frequently happens to FF https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016

Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0. I have been fully co-operative and helpful for months as they work to resolve it. I uploaded memory dumps of before and after. In the after state it was taking 2GB of RAM after TWO minutes. And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true! Chrome with its process-per-tab manages memory much better than FF does. As I said, this bug has been validated by DEVs at Mozilla and they have admitted my use case exposes a valid problem that they themselves have been able to replicate. Next troll?

Thank you for some solace and good ideas, friend. Yes, Chrome is creepy too. I will explore your suggestions. Thank you and wishing you up mods!

I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0. Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.

Not the same. You ignored my explanations of why above--coward.

Not a valid example. I can and do have several technical books open at the same time, side by side, with the ability to refer to one right after the other. For example, right at this moment I have "Definitive Guide to CentOS" open and right next to that "Spring Security" and next to that "MySQL" (5th Ed). Each of them is open to a specific page. And you know that having to go find the other bookmark really follows the "out of sight, out of mind" principle. Your example fails. Any one of those books I could take to the bathtub to read--something you would never do with a Kindle--but something books handle easily. (If they get wet along the bottom edge, no biggie.) I don't play any games so I can't speak to that issue. I do have two iMacs with three screens for the exact reason I specified. One will have Eclipse open, the second may have a stackoverflow page and a third email or a movie. Three screens.

It's not the same. You only have one physical screen and you can only have one book open at one time on that one screen.

I have 4,000 books, most of them hardbacks. I stopped watching television in 8th grade and have never owned a TV. I have two 27" iMacs. If I were to buy a kindle, I could have one book open at a time. I like to read 4 or 5 books at a time, reading a few chapters of one and then switching to another one. Sometimes I will encounter a particularly brilliant passage in a book and so I will leave the book on my desk open to that page for quick reference. It is, in effect, as if I have 4,000 screens. Many dozens of them can be open at the same time. My favorite place to read long-form works is in the bathtub. I just finished "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnson about how the rich are ripping all of us off by getting the US government to underwrite them. Then I switched to "The Definitive Guide to CentOS". I have "War & Peace" open on my desk to a brilliant passage that never fails to inspire me as I work on my 12th novel. All of these activities would be impossible if I had one measly Kindle. The printed book is a technology that has never been bettered.

Oh? So what possible benefit can we derive from going to the moon AGAIN? If you read the article, it's clear the only reason they want to go to the moon is for a jobs program. Having followed politics for years, I can clearly state that the Republicans care about nothing but getting their money. They are all about cashing in and this is yet another example. So, douche bag, I stand by my comments.

If President Obama announced a desire to cure cancer, the Republicans would take the side of cancer. Jag offs.

No, I understand that this particular story was about the reverse effects of antimatter.
I was taking the excuse of this news to point out the idea of negative mass being the ideal way to circumvent E=MC2. If your net mass is zero, then the massive energy that would be converted into mass does not need to happen. I agree with your assessment of what kind of mass antimatter has--positive mass--but if there were negative mass, that's the way to Warp 5.

I have been thinking this for twenty years.

Think of E=MC2.

Faster than light travel is only impossible when you have a net positive mass. If your mass is net zero, (meaning in your magnetic grip you hold matter and antimatter in the same functional unit but not touching each other (two magnetic bottles), then you could travel faster than the speed of light.

For all of the morons out there who are so uncreative as to still be using a damned Windows OS, I pity you and wish that you could set up a curtain so the rest of us don't have to see the ugly machinations going on in your Windows ecosystem.
As I write this from my 27-inch iMac, I know that nobody's perfect. Macs are 99% awesome but even they have a tiny blemish or two.
But that's nothing like the ongoing decade-long bloodbath going on in the Microsoft camp. So, Microsoft itself cannot get it right? Them asking you to clean up a mess they pushed on you? Are you freaking kidding?

In the Apple world, we have had the occasional inconvenience as Apple reacted, proactively, to protect from some zero-day Java exploits. (Thank you, you Apple bastards.)
But that is NOTHING like living in Microsoft's jungle with all those rabid wild animals sniffing around, looking for fresh meat.

Please, God, cannot somebody please take that stupid abomination of a language Python out in back and shoot it in the head until dead. I have never used a less friendly piece of Monkey Pus than the "language" Python.

This was my first computer! I spent $1,000 on it. It was awesome and I still have it. I'm sure if I popped some fresh batteries in it it would still work. The funny thing is I'm betting Bill Gates also wrote the manual which was famously a mess with references to non-existent sections. Still, this got me into software development. I remember I had a tape-backup drive that I used to store off programs and after I had been storing them on tape for a long while I noticed that I had a variable-speed tape player and I was never able to recover a dang thing from tape. Still, I loved this and eventually got a floppy disk drive for it that would store 250K. Still have all that in a bin.