Hahahaha! That's cute. Do you know if it's a Mozilla-only JS engine bug? I see the reverse on embedded browsers. V8 will segfault (not just leak memory!) with valid JS code that works fine in FF or WebKit (ios, Safari, or Chrome)

There are other reasons I don't personally like jQuery, but this anecdote adds to that body of mistrust.

I completely agree that FF4 uses CPU like never before. That said, in spite of using that much CPU, it feels responsive as hell. Way more responsive than previous versions. It's unfortunate that it does that at the expense of other processes. That said, the GP was bitching about memory leaks, as in runaway memory usage that doesn't shrink back down. I'm running over 60 tabs in 6 windows, my system uptime is 13 days, and I last relaunched FF4 when I last rebooted. I'm running Flashblock, Adblock Plus, Firebug, Greasemonkey, Better GMail2, Personas, and Personas rotator as my extensions. With all that, I see memory usage of 1.34gb which is down as of Tuesday. (I purged a window/project's worth of tabs after then)

To me, in spite of it appearing to idle at 40%cpu the snappiness is very impressive. I'm seeing no instance of memory leak. The process memory footprint appears to be directly correlated to the number of tabs I have open. Does your experience differ?

That's a good point. As we've been sandboxing things into separate processes (re: flash), it would be great if the allocator for XUL were patched so it could know which plugin is producing/using what memory. [I'm imagining "allocateWithZone" from objective-c] Then, you could have a clear panel which would indicate which subsystems are consuming more and more memory. This would allow us to point at various builds of greasemonkey (from your example) or firebug or other "fluffybunny" plugin. Further, we'd have extra data for FF crashlogs that would tell us which plugin was truly at fault in a crash, not just what thread did the crashing, but if a plugin-zone had consumed a gig of ram by itself.

Look dude, Get your complaints right. You're bitching about Memory Footprint. Perfectly acceptable problem to bitch about.

You're not bitching about memory leaks. Memory leaks would be indicated by progressive increase in the amount of memory used over time, without functional changes is your usage of the app. That's not what's indicated by my tests on both Windows and Mac. I run with many tabs open, and FF's memory usage is directly related to the number of tabs I have open. When I shed a window or a set of tabs, FF shrinks in memory footprint.

If you were bitching about memory leaks, that would be a perfectly reproducible problem, and a standard memory profiler would catch these things, and any contributor to FF could easily submit patches to clean up the leaked memory. Memory bloat is a more systematic problem that is much harder to keep a handle on. No matter what, new features need memory to work, so as an application ages it would be prone to increase it's footprint. That's the hard problem, and that's what I think the FF team should take some time to focus on, now that they are reaching acceptable responsiveness in general.

Hey! Hold up. I don't care what the school of Literature Science and the Arts does. He took Computer Science in LS&A. The University of Michigan also has a College of Engineering, and has a Computer Science Engineering degree. The Engineering school limits it's bullshit requirements to requiring 4 consecutive semesters of calculus for all Engineers where C is a failing grade. His problem was that LS&A has all these breadth courses they make you take to try to justify your cost of Tuition. Race and Ethnicity is *not* required for CSE majors (or other Engineers).

The Engineering school by itself does not make that mistake, they charge you the cost of your classes, and there's a forfeit (expensive things discounted + cheaper things sold at higher rates) so that you don't have to weigh and balance the materials cost for every class and every professor. That forfeit is calculated ahead of time based on the individual cost of the average distribution of courses they expect you will take, and Engineering degrees (among others) requires more expensive lab equipment and more expensive professors and infrastructure than something like Art History or Philosophy.

I applaud the GP for picking the economically viable course of action in delaying his major-declaration. That's optimizing his benefit from the forfeits, and that's a game between him and the beancounters that set the tuition rates. That said, the fact that CS is available in LS&A as well as in Engineering is the primary-local cause of this loophole.

Nah, if they were devious, they would block or adjust only POST requests. That way it would look like users were going to the FTC to tell them how awesome Mediacom is...

Those most opposed are often complaining that the mortality/blindness/permanent disfiguration rate for makeup tests is fairly high. I can't imagine that we have enough human *volunteers* to test more than a few batches of early products before we run out of non-horribly disfigured mutants that would even count as slightly valid comparisons to non-damaged humans.

Doh! One has to also recognize data urls. *sigh*

http://tinyurl.com/preview.php -- you can turn on previewing for tinyurl, so at least you know where the first hop leads to...

Maybe the owners are on vacation for example. They can always get more when they come home, it's just that the copper was sitting there spoiling...

Is it always like that though? I imagine that morphing doesn't happen overnight. Scenario 1: If they had just a minor imbalance. Too much intake by 10% for example. That wouldn't immediately affect them. Maybe it would take years. It starts out and they're perfectly average. They have dips and falls in their weight and they have dips and falls in normal exercise. The trend of overall weight gain could be hidden for years by these fluctuations. As they are aging, their metabolism takes a dive, while their exercise suffers. They see that they're gaining weight, but there's nothing obvious that they can point at. They're still happy enough with their weight/looks/health, they dismiss it. Time goes by, but then one day they wake up and they've passed the threshold for obesity. -- Very encouraging thing to realize no? Would one expect them to have an easy way to dig themselves back out of the hole?

I know Scenario 1 is not necessarily a majority of the cases. I'm just putting out there that there are probably plenty of people that are willing and interested in staying healthier. I can't imagine many people love looking like a whale. Wouldn't it be important for society to do what it could to help provide incentives so that citizens have the crutches they need so that they can get back on their feet? ESPECIALLY when we have shared costs when these people enter our healthcare system?

I think that proactive healthy-living incentives should be a requirement for all of the subsidized health plans. Prevention is almost always better and cheaper than attempting correction. The GDP of a country is based on it's resources, and the output of it's industries. The industries will be more productive with healthier people. Unhealthy people are a drag on the GDP both by decreased output, and by increased maintenance costs. I can only see upsides to encouraging people to live more healthily. Some percentage just need information. Some percentage need more regimented help. Some people are totally worthless, and you can't get around that, but for all the rest... I think government subsidies should be focused on improving health, not on *repairing* health.

"Low Fat" often means "High Sugar" which is often junk from a nutritional point of view. Neither of those are what you want.

If you're just pointing out that people have subjective opinions of this sort of thing. Well then great, but that doesn't add too much to the conversation. One person's junk is another person's gizzard salad.

There are many quacks and quack diets out there, so I don't know quite how to establish an objective standard for diets that are tailor-made for people to avoid junk food. We have rough measures of the amount of nutrients we need to eat per day. So maybe we can point at a rough consensus from world-wide experts?

I propose that foods that overwhelm those nutrient levels in the wrong way; Say adding too much fat, sugar, sodium/salt, etc, be labeled as "Junk Food" and taxed lightly so as to adjust the perceived price difference between fast-food and healthy food.

It's a bad cost to society to have to support people in self-destructive patterns, it's a literal monetary cost, and we effectively incentivize the behavior that gets them free healthcare. A counterweight has to be applied to keep people at the same effective equilibrium point in health. Societal communal healthcare has it's problems, but if we don't want to just be throwing money down the drain, we have to use strong motivators to help people regain or maintain their health.

If a person can demonstrate that they won't be a burden on the shared societal health plan, then it should be a right to opt out of the plan. But opting out should be a waiver-worthy process. If you opt out, and then at a later date get sick, you can't just opt back in. -- Avoid the free-loader tragedy of the commons.

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of that.

GameHub is the early prototype release of ngCore. https://developer.mobage.com/

Counter-point for you: Samsung's GameHub app.

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Android/Galaxy+S+II/news.asp?c=27573

:D Good points.

Also, I'm not drunk yet. [today]

To the kegerator!