20ms was just to say "not a whole lot" - all the small differences amount to nearly as much as when you have dedicated benchmarks showing how Firefox is particularly slow in certain aspects. I tried Chrome for a few weeks recently and the only two things it did noticably better was UI smoothness and web apps like Google Maps. Other than that I was mostly annoyed at many little things that I couldn't adjust, like forcing "new window" links to open in the current tab. And the extensions barely deserve to be called that.

It's nice if Chrome suits you, but get off that high horse.

Then it should have been funny. The thing about speed is something I never understood... it's a browser. I mostly care about it working the way I want it to, not if it can render some JavaScript gizmo at 35 FPS instead of 20. The smoother interface is nice, but what does loading a webpage 20ms faster buy me? Not much at all.

I like that a lot of what makes Firefox different from Chrome is due to the "we'll let users decide how they want it" approach instead of just telling them how it's going to be done.

I don't understand the problem here. Why not keep using IE6 for the one application that requires it, but have a modern browser on the same computer for everything else?

The movie's been out for weeks. I'm sure there's a copy or two on the web...

I'm sure fourteen years must be close to an Internet Millennium.

I saw this in an interview with Lars Ulrich long ago: Metallica was the name a friend of Ulrich had in mind for a metal-themed music magazine. He convinced him to call it something else and used the name for his band.

The hypocrisy is hilarious.

There would not have been an outcome had the product not been harmfully hot. It's not about spilling coffee, it's about coffee that can cause third degree burns.

If I buy a glass, then drop it and cut myself, can I sue?
If the edges were sharp enough to cut you in the first place it would be a decent analogy.

Why does it being a third degree burn shift the blame?
Because the courts decided selling food that requires skin grafts in case of an accident was too much.

Eh, that's just 90C to 95C. Not even boiling temperature...
 
Seriously, what the fuck? Maybe there is such an organization and maybe there is such a recommendation, but it sounds crazy to me. Nuernberg defense, anyone? "The NCA says it's supposed to be almost boiling when consumed, so we did that!"
 
Does not compute.