One thing that confuses me about tabs on top is that it implies that everything below the tab is associated with that tab. Ok, I get that part. I watched the video by Alex Faaborg and it makes sense.

But I therefore expect that if I rearrange any items below the tab, such as customizing the layout by adding or removing buttons or moving the home button to the right side, or resizing the size of the address bar versus the search bar, that those changes would be limited only to that tab and be sticky for that tab. That doesn't happen and visually it's confusing. All of those elements are grouped underneath the tab and when I switch tabs, the changes are there too. Huh? It's completely counter to what I was expecting and doesn't make sense. The only thing that changes from tab to tab is the text in the address bar.

I would think this would be very important due to the ability to save app tabs. I might want to save an app tab to a specific site and have the navigation toolbar customized a certain way just for that tab.

Note: I'm using beta8 and haven't upgraded yet so maybe this bug has been fixed.

I really thought the final release would be out by now. Remember last year when Mozilla said they were moving away from big releases and adopting a fast release cycle with mixed bug fixes and new features? Whatever happened to that plan?

Stop coddling this company. Don't try to get around it. Code to the standards and let IE9 fail to render if they can't implement the spec properly. Google, Apple, Mozilla, and Opera all have no problem following the spec.

Some people call it "bloat", other people call it features that they asked for and find useful.

Then why not implement these features as add-ons? That way users can uninstall them, do choose the custom install options and not install them at all. The awesomebar would have been better implemented as a core add-on as would have these fancy tab management ideas.

I could care less about WebM or Orbis or other codecs my iGadgets can't play.

Tell us then. How much less could you care?

Look at your comment preferences. You can change the value that is assigned to comment moderation. Funny is at +1. Just change it to -5 and you'll never see another "funny" post.

Expert opinion is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the H.264 pool

It's not an expert option because he's not a lawyer.

Also, Google owns Youtube and is working to make every video available in VP8.

I suspect that YouTube will fully support HTML5 and WebM before Chrome drops H.264. Google isn't going to make two of their big properties incompatible with each other.

I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test.

False positives. For example, here's an article that talks about a guy who was on a low-carb diet and the excessive ketones in his breath caused a breathalyzer to think he was drunk.

Yes, let's ban a useful tool because some people are too meek to ask others to stop doing distracting things with their laptops. [rolls eyes] When did people become so afraid? Is it really that hard to respectfully ask someone to change their behavior so as not to disturb others? Are we to ban a useful technology in the classroom because of a handful of bozos?

If this guy has paid, say, $2000 for health insurance, and his little foray racks up $20,000 in hospital expenditures, then we have paid the other $18,000 as the other insurance pool members.

Yes, that's how all types of insurance work. The point the parent was making was that if this guy does not have insurance, then the hospital has to treat him and, since he's uninsured, the taxpapers foot the bill for 100% of his hospital costs. Under Obamacare he'd be required to purchase his own insurance thereby sparing the taxpayers the burden of paying for his hospital stay.

So lots of web applications and interactivity are moving to HTML 5 and JavaScript and companies like Apple and Google are pushing hard to move things in that direction. Some devices, like the Google ChromeOS laptop, are just a browser with no capability for Flash and Java. We're going to see more of that.

Believe me, I agree with you that Java would be a better solution, but it's not really an option now and probably won't be one at all in the near future.

But then it wouldn't be web pages.

A neat demo, to be sure, but it's not compiling. It's just interpreting Python into JavaScript which is itself interpreted. I would much rather see the ability to write in the language of my choice and have that compiled into bytecode which I would then serve to clients. That bytecode would be what is executed. Then we can use whatever language is best for the job.

Will it finally support languages other than JavaScript for client side programming? Just when we seem to be entering a point in time where people finally realize that they can choose the right language for the job, so much is moving to the web where there's only one language or nothing at all.