Guilty as charged on all counts.

When will Firefox support killing CPU-hogging tabs individually?

That's the only killer feature from Chrome I'm waiting for to switch back to Firefox.

In Chrome, if I've got 50 tabs open (not uncommon) and one of them starts spiking my CPU, I can pull open Activity Monitor (on OS X) and kill the "Google Chrome Helper" that's eating all the CPU.

That kills the one tab that was the problem, not the whole browser. And lets me reload it when I actually care about that tab again.

I haven't found a similar way to imitate this workflow in Firefox.

The whole noscript / flashblock / adblock / etc approach hasn't worked. Tried it with Firefox, still had constant CPU issues after whitelisting sites I need JS or Flash turned on for, still had no way to kill runaway processes individually.

Both issues punish customers, as anyone who's ever wanted to save a Netflix movie for offline viewing on a flight can attest to.

Not that I disagree, but right now I'm just finding it funny how Hastings can complain about ISPs doing bad things while he remains conspicuously silent about Hollywood forcing draconian DRM into Netflix and, indirectly, into the HTML5 spec itself. Maybe the major ISPs should look into buying Hastings' silence too. It would help with their PR.

Apple seems to have removed the ability to customize the chat bubble colors in Messages.app in Yosemite. If you liked that feature (as I did) and want it back, I've got your back! https://github.com/kethinov/Bu...

This is why I don't understand why after all these years companies are still so reluctant to embrace telecommuting.

"We are hurrying back and forth across town at morning and night to situations which we could quite easily encompass by closed-circuit. Documents, contracts, data. All of these materials actually could be just as available on closed-circuit, at home." - Marshall McLuhan, 1965.

Try out Brackets http://brackets.io/

Very similar to Atom's architecture, also open source, more mature community, better visual design (IMO).

Can't believe some idiots are marking you "informative." Cuba ranks near the bottom of the Democracy Index. Try that socialism sucks argument again when a social democracy is failing so miserably.

This has been going on for years already. RunUO.

And yet utterly devoid of entertainment value.

There's an extremely high barrier to entry for new players. Which client do you install? Which of the 3 or 4 third party assist tools do you need? Where do you download all that?

Even once you get the game client up and running, you end up with choice paralysis trying to find out what server to play.

Picking a server involves shitloads of googling and visiting each of their random websites while they explain mostly in game jargon terms which settings they have, or what "era" of the game they adhere to, without really explaining what that means.

And then there's the PVP, which is a joke on every server I've ever played. No diversity. No balance. One or two templates is all anyone ever plays.

And don't forget the ganks, because PVP is dominated solely by large, organized guilds everywhere. Want to duel? Good luck. Some servers have dueling systems, but they're ghost towns.

The most popular servers all seem to have declining player populations, which isn't surprising. Any community this hostile to newcomers deserves to wither.

So yeah, I welcome the UO devs one-upping existing player run UO shards with something new. Someone needs to do it right.

Or as Simpsons' Lenny would put it: "All we want is brand new, big-budget entertainment in our homes for nothing. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?"

Just because you invested an extraordinary amount of money in something doesn't mean you deserve extraordinary government intervention to guarantee you a return. If new technology undermines your business model, find another business model.

The same way as, for instance, iOS. Using some proprietary developer toolkit that requires registering a developer account (which may cost money) in order to grant sideloading capability.

That's what I'm hoping will not be the case with the steam machines and I'm trying to find some empirical evidence of that. All I'm seeing so far is just a bunch of optimistic speculation.

People aren't outraged because all the rhetoric criticizing the surveillance programs was overblown. There are certainly plenty of things to be concerned about, sure. But just go read some news coverage from the time of the leaks and have a look at all the hyperbole and fear mongering. It was ridiculous.

If we want people to have a serious discussion about surveillance, then we need less fear mongering and more actionable activism. We need to get more organized and make specific proposals detailing what laws we would change and why it's so important to do so.

Instead of doing that, we just went on rants about how right we were the whole time and how evil it all is. We vomited vague, nonspecific emotion over the issue instead of proposing tangible solutions people could actually act on.

So yeah, no wonder everyone's suffering from "surveillance fatigue." I am too. And I actually care about the issue.

That's not proof. It's marketing. To my knowledge they haven't explicitly stated that sideloading will be permitted. You could make a (very good) argument that it's implied, but I'm seeking hard evidence.

We didn't get lucky. The vast majority of the surface of the Earth is either not populated or extremely sparsely populated. The odds are strongly against such a large airburst happening to burst over any reasonably densely populated area.