Not in the slightest. The blame is given to the application that is consuming the memory. That would be the browser in this case or the application running on an OS in your second example.
This bug has manifested itself in both Windows and OS X, in my case. (And the code base is shared mostly for both so that rules out it being an OS problem.
To answer your essential question--yes--without question an application should be written to be bulletproof. There should be no use case possible that causes your application to eat up unlimited memory. That is a defect, pure and simple.

I defy you to make your argument in any boardroom across the United States. I can see you making a presentation to a board of executives, explaining how your application did this or that horrid thing because--it was the web page's fault. Do you know what they call engineers who make that argument? Unemployed.

As you can see from the bug report that I personally participated in creating, including providing before and after memory dumps, it's clear I am invested in getting this Firefox memory leak fixed. It is plaguing users across the globe. Read the complaints on Mozilla's forum.

As for your comment that I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill--Firefox has been documented to consume 3GB of RAM in about 10 minutes. Other users who had left it open and idle over night have seen the same result.

Finally, I am expressing my point of view forcefully because you are trying to poo-poo my concern. This is a serious show-stopping defect in the application Firefox and it needs to get fixed unless Firefox wants to die a slow painful death.

How is it that any site is able to make an application manifest a memory leak?

If you have any experience as a software developer, you know applications should be bullet proof. They should not have a vulnerability sitting around, waiting for some site to hit the correct use case to manifest it. A bug is a bug and the particular site that causes that pre-existing bug to manifest itself is not relevant. There should be no use case that causes Firefox--a browser used by billions of people world wide--to throw a memory leak this bad.

Furthermore, if you went to Mozilla's site, you will see that I have only the best documented example of this bug. There are many other co-reporters of the same problem.

But in my long experience as a developer, whenever the author of some code starts to blame the victim, I know they have a bug that they do not want to acknowledge or fix. This is a memory leak and nothing at all can change that other than finding and fixing the bug. Do you think they would have accepted this as a bug--and taken the memory-usage maps of before and after memory consumption--unless it was a legitimate bug? No. This is real and the memory maps prove it.

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.