TFA uses http://jsbenchmark.celtickane.com/Run.aspx which is a joke.
A useful benchmark is Futuremark's Peacekeeper, really, since it tests a wide variety of common tasks. On my machine, Chrome's the fastest at raw JS, but (by far) slowest at rendering...besides Firefox, which is actually slowest at -every- benchmark -every- time (by a typical margin of 5-10x or more; 4 RC is even slower than everything else on its own benchmarks like Kraken).
Even Opera (with no hardware acceleration at all) beats Chrome at complex graphics and rendering on canvas. Chrome is also the only accelerated browser to get incorrect rendering/redraw on many of the various Canvas acceleration tests/demos.
IE9 is the fastest at rendering complex stuff, while still keeping up with the pack on regular JS, which I dare say is a useful area to be #1 in.
If the browser compiles all of your JS really fast, but then takes a lot of extra time to actually display it, you're still bottlenecking as if you had an incredibly slow JS engine, just at a different part in the average case.

If you do HPC in your web browser via JS, Chrome is definitely the way to go, though.

Yes.

They let you select the classic Slashdot style before, instead of the awful and slow abomination that replaced it...if they're getting rid of both for this pile of crap,with no way to select the classic classic, personally, I'll be finding some other way to get vaguely sane/interesting news. .-. That's rather depressing, since the first thing I've done for the last decade (at least) on installing/reinstalling any browser is switch the homepage to slashdot.org.

It's depressing to know that most 'web designers', at least those of the '2.0' variety, have absolutely zero sense for aesthetics or usability.

It's an area where Firefox was never meant to be optimized. Mozilla Suite 1.7 and 1.8 at least worked fine (as did Seamonkey 1.x). The difference is that Firefox has XUL for its entire UI, and a purely single threaded javascript engine. There've been bug reports about it since before Firefox 1.0, and they've all been closed with "it's by design". Other modern browsers don't have much issue with this because A( they don't put the UI in the javascript engine, B( Chrome and Opera work by one process/VM per tab respectively, they work independently of each other.

10.62 is 'old'? It's less than a week old. Probably your 'not the most recent' build of 10.70 is older than that.

And comparing to the results up top are meaningless. Different hardware, different OS, different software config.

On my config(3ghz C2Q, 4gb ram, XP x64), I'm seeing:
FF nightly: 12630.2ms +/- 2.8%
Opera 10.62: 11888.4ms +/- 0.6%
Chrome dev: 14925.4ms +/- 0.5%

And like other comments are pointing out, Opera and Chrome remain responsive throughout the testing, FF might as well have locked up.

Firefox has done this since the beginning, which was one of the main differences to Mozilla Suite. Any sufficient load (which in single core processors was quite minimal) would lock up the browser, refuse to let the UI do anything, since it uses the same single-threaded Javascript engine thanks to XUL.

It used to be 'real fun' to have to hunt down which tab was secretly using 100% of the CPU to do nothing because of javascript, especially when the UI was nearly unresponsive as a result.

From TFA: "Philippine Daily Inquirer"
"The Inquirer is withholding the identities of the parties involved so as not to intrude on their privacy."

Where the hell is THEIR original citation? Usually various international case information is picked up by various law services (far as I know). Searching for most of the relevant terms of this article (like the presiding judge) in combination with other relevant terms of the article, only produce this, and things linking to it (mostly in the Philippines, of course).

Given the lack of reference here, there also appears to be no actual evidence that the OSG was citing wikipedia, aside from the ex-wife's brief.

But, given that I'm not a lawyer...I just prefer Associated Press, or failing that, a meaningful chain to follow in national/international news reports.

Here, we have absolutely nothing to go on, but a single foreign newspaper publishing something on their website. I'm sure anyone who COULD figure out where the hell this came from would get free mod points, but...it looks half-baked to me.

Nevermind elsewhere on the site, stories written by "DJ Yap" (I'm sorry, but even if someone's name was changed, newspapers would hire them and publish it why?): http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/metro/view/20100830-289493/House-painter-gets-14-years-for-drug-possession

They're called statutory damages for a reason. It's precalculated by a statute (hence the name) or a law. Given that the lawyer's fees were so low...likely Blizzard wasn't considering asking for so much (especially given likely inability to repay such an amount), but was given little to no say in it, given that it was a DEFAULT judgement (defendant never responded despite being served/summoned), and hence not argued "in trial".

It was a lengthy, boring series of motions that was never once contested.

The difference here seems to be that they were explicitly soliciting money for in-game stuff, rather than accepting donations purely to offset hosting costs. (Eg, most private servers aren't going to be needing 3 million dollars just to host it.)

Some of the language that Activision/Blizzard uses in the briefs are unnerving (such as 'unauthorized client' and 'you must be connected to blizz servers onlien to patch, not use blizz-provided offline patcher files').

If you also RTFA, it was a default judgment, meaning scapegaming was served, and chose not to respond at any point during the whole proceedings.

This isn't the kind of thing you expect from Slashdot, or Slashdot submitters/readers.

It's a PR stunt, but it's filed under 'science'.
It's also linking to a third party blog, 11 days after it was news.

Press release containing contact info: http://media.gm.com/content/media/gb/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.html/content/Pages/news/gb/en/2010/CHEVROLET/07_15_perfect_hand_shake

Original (as far as I know) blog entry mentioning it: http://jalopnik.com/5588201/this-is-the-formula-for-the-perfect-handshake

Contact email on the press release is chevrolet@mischiefpr.com.

If a Slashdot contributor gets taken for a line with that one, and editorial staff allows it through as a Science (not Idle) story, while nobody bothers to do even the slightest amount of digging, it might be high time to revise standards and practices, since Slashdot is starting to descend to a less-timely, less-informed, more gullible version of reddit.

I remember when Slashdot was THE place for techie/geeky news, and the comments were considerably more often than not insightful. Nowadays, people seem happier to quibble over minor semantics in an article while missing the big picture. I'm not trying to put Slashdot, one of my favorite sites, down but I'd rather it retain or improve level of quality, not slip toward the same plateau as Slashdot Parody Sites[tm].

If you're going to accept PR advertisements, at least put them in the ad box in the corner and accept payment, so people can opt out.

That sounds an awful lot like the space combat system in Star Wars Galaxies. In fact...it sounds identical. You can take shuttles around, but it's considerably cheaper to use your own starship, fly it around via hyperspace, and land at a planet.

And you can have 'epic space battles', and 'space combat levels' are independant compared to your 'ground combat levels'. *sniff* I was on the edge of qualifying for experimental light cruiser, too.

It seems like this was already done in 1989 to ~25 millisecond accuracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Algorithm

So all they're doing here is attempting to refine it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_synchronization before tryinig to come up with something better.

After further inspection, it isn't an Opera bug, but that case does appear different, here's why.

Inspecting the elements in Opera vs. Chrome (FF and IE don't have 'built in' stuff), suggests that Opera defaults to a 10px margin-right, while Chrome defaults to a 40px margin-right, on the CSS regarding the blockquote, at least on 7chan/hi/.
Live-editing the CSS to 40px (lovely Opera feature), makes it render identical.

The 'user agent style sheet' is explicitly left up to the browser, and most things say if you -don't- want the margins and padding left up to the browser, you're supposed to reset with margin:0, padding: 0.

For sites where small layout elements are emphasized in such a way...did nobody notice (or report this to the site owners) in the last 6+ years or so?

The specification doesn't mandate that a browser do anything other than accept the tag. It doesn't specify how, when, or why it does or doesn't render it. The site(s) in question should be relying on browser-independent behavior, including -probably- not using blockquotes in such a way, when it's deprecated.

Tested on FF, Opera, Chrome, and IE8. The only difference in rendering the blockquote appears to be based on font and relative sizing, determining at which point the text wraps and how far over it is when it does so.

Opera 10.60 is still roughly twice as fast as Firefox 4.0b1, and less aggressive gobbling memory than either Firefox or Chrome (the hog) on average.

You generally only need extensions if something's already broken; on Opera, you can load up an ad blocking filter+CSS element hider, enable/disable both per-site, enable cookies/JS/etc on a per-site basis, and run many but-not-all user javascript. All of which require 'extensions' on Firefox.

It's also widely accepted to be the most standards compliant browser on virtually any comparative time frame, and also typically gives equal treatment to all supported OSes, so there are lots of reasons to use it and enjoy it.

People seem to like to complain about Opera, like they like to complain about XP x64. They heard about it once and so it just must absolutely be horrible, because giving it a real chance is too much work.

The last time I had any rendering/formatting problems was with old buggy javascript layout in 2006. Those were with Opera 9 beta(ish) I think? By 9.5 the problems (on minor, entirely non-public code) were gone again. And now (as in, for all of recent memory), like most browsers, you can report websites that don't work directly (and can post code snippets on the forums, IIRC).

BitTorrent sites do not have the movie files on them. Users share them at their own expense and risk. They use blockable advertising to offset hosting costs.

Streaming sites obviously do have the files on them, and by using ads embedded into the stream, they were presumably attempting to directly make a notable profit off of the movies and TV shows.

So why were BT sites traditionally the main target instead of profiteering streaming sites? Nevermind how numerous and over-the-top most of the streaming sites seem.