Ditto. Problems are fairly rare these days.

Welll, you could link me to a few of 'em. I might want to nag the devs or file a bug.
Hrm. My e-mail address below is maybe a bit *too* obfuscated based on your response.
Try:
g r o (dot) y 8 m (at) l a r e n e g

I hope that's discernable.
Could probably just post them on /. too - I don't think there's anything particularly problematic in most of 'em, unless I guess you're worried someone would find something possibly exploitable and target you specifically.

Well... Rolling back would require, I guess, using incrementally more and more space. Like, keeping a snapshot copy of each version in your profile. Not only would people object at some point, but it is a security risk, since unless you are on ESR, security fixes are part of new version increment now.

No bugs associated w/ any of the about:crashes links ?

Was stack trace in anything GL related?

Oh, and you can turn off autoupdate in prefs or about:config
Preferences->Advanced->Update
app.update.enabled

So, might be worth checking about:crashes to see if there's a bug associated with your particular crash.
Maybe they enabled, like, graphics acceleration for a flakey card, and you can turn it off.
Or maybe they need attention drawn to it.

WRT installing old versions.
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/
Grab one off of there, install it (or unzip it).

If you're under windows btw, you can also try 64 bit nightlies for any date here:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/

ESR is another option.
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html

I'd say waaaaaay beyond a slight edge thanks to the memshrink project.
https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/category/memshrink/

Old measurements. Situation keeps improving. Latest 2 or 3 firefox versions use smart loading/unloading of large images on image heavy web pages, for example.
http://www.itworld.com/sites/default/files/figure3_browserfootprint.jpg

Personally, on my chromebook, Chrome used 615MiB w/ 2 tabs open (crosh and a blank tab) while Firefox in Crouton used 385MiB with 18 tabs open, and that was after I had cycled through all the tabs to make sure they hadn't been unloaded.

Heh. I was trying to read this from work 'cause, well, it is exactly the sort of work relevant stuff it is worth checking out.
Stupid firewall here was stupid and blocked their site (as instant messaging or some other stupidity). No prob, I switch to ssh + tmux + w3m (where I have like 30 tabs open) and open it. Aaaaand hit their lame redirect. Luckily, hitting back was sufficient to solve that in w3m.

Should have said. The 2 main reasons.

The DVD catalog is much better than the streaming one, from what I could see when checking out friend's accounts.

That and linux support are 2 of the reasons why I opted to stick w/ DVD instead of streaming.
When I want streaming there are plenty of non-netflix options.

I mostly use netflix for planned entertainment w/ something out of our gigantic queue where the mailing delay is not a big deal.
Nice to not worry about any possible issues w/ streaming too.

While I appreciate your passionate focus on this, and given it is your life's work, you clearly are both familiar and invested, I do want to focus on that 10% going from 55 to 65.
Let's accept that. Yes, there's a convenience thing.
When you mention someone I know dying in a traffic accident (the only person who comes to mind was a family member who died long before I was born, and was on a motorbike w/o a helmet when he hit a slick patch - I think 55 vs 65 was moot in that case) - but when you mention that. If the diff between 65 and 55 is 10%, then, the death would very likely have *not* been prevented by a 55 speed limit.

The 50-100% increase in death rate at 70mph... won't dispute that since that wasn't what this was all about. Does seem a bit odd. In this area, 70 is not that uncommon a highway speed, and I don't think the fatality rate is double that of areas where it is 65mph.

And, yes, I agree traffic laws are a game, and meaningless as enforced. People drive what seems to them to be safe, and usually it is around 65 on highways. Or, yes, higher. Going down 95 there are quite a few stretches of 70mph highway.
It would be interesting to see if statistically people are in fact dying at double (or more, people are likely going 75) the rate on those sections.

I'm interested in you bringing up the Gs of deacceleration. After all, typical highway accident is not going to be a head-on collision w/ another vehicle going 65mph. Or even w/ an immovable obstacle. The ones I've seen in my ~300k miles of driving are usually a vehicle losing control, skidding, losing speed...

I just suspect the lab doesn't quite translate to the road, and despite the deeceleration a vehicle in the lab encounters slamming into a concrete wall, or worse, another vehicle going same speed, vast majority of accidents out there aren't along those lines.

I have no idea what scenario you're contemplating. Plugging in 65mph deaccelerating to 0 in half a second into a handy dandy calculator yields 5.91Gs. 55, 5Gs. 70, 6.36Gs... That actually seems pretty linear to me. 18% increase in speed, 18% increase in deacceleration Gs.
Doesn't seem to require magic air bags, just regular safety features. And actually most crashes I saw involved more time than that. Or involved 2 vehicles in motion striking each other. I guess I can imagine a car that for some insane reason didn't notice everyone stopped ahead and kept plowing into vehicles at 70mph. I suppose that deacceleration, even with the cars being shoved forward, would be over a shorter period. Still seems linear, but, eh, that has to be pretty rare out there...

I accept you have a whole lot more experience in this, I'm just wondering if possibly the real world doesn't quite hit the lab scenarios, most of the time, and that's why we aren't actually experiencing total carnage out there.

And, yeah, that a difference between 65 and 55 might not actually prevent that many more lives even *if* cars were watching us and enforcing the speed limit.

And, yes, I totally agree 100MPH was ridiculously dangerous to themselves and others, and would have fallen under reckless driving regardless of the highway laws.

So, that might be true, generically. But. Here's what I'm focusing on.
55 was a speed that was defined when cars were death machines.
They had no power steering, no ABS, no aerodynamics, the suspension was nonexistent, seatbelts were optional, the crash cage did not exist, there were no airbags of any kind.

So the cars were uncontrollable at high speeds *and* incredibly dangerous if they did lose control.
So. Yes, there was a high death rate.

Here's the thing.
Even if the death rate goes up, moving from 55 to 65, that is, all told, not terribly meaningful for two reasons.
1) The death rate when driving in America has gone down a *lot*, probably due to aforementioned measures (and probably crackdowns on drunk driving and greater restrictions on young drivers. The same number of people die today as in 1950, but we drive five times as much, and significantly higher speeds.

Right now, the death rate is 1 person for every 75 million miles driven. That's inconceivably low, and, yes, most of that highway driving is at 65mph or higher.

Which brings us to point
2) Even if you drive 55, everyone else is driving 65. Or 70.
As was pointed out in that article, when they raised the speed limit from 55 to 65, driver speeds barely moved..
If you drive at 55, and others are driving at 65 or 70 *you* are the risk on the highway.
In fact, while I'm not digging up a source for this, I've heard that the safest speed to be going is slightly faster than the other cars on the highway. I guess in part due to avoiding people braking, swerving around you and such, but apparently most importantly, minimising your time on the highway around the other drivers.

So, yeah. Even if going 55 instead of 65 brings that death rate down to, oh, 1 person for every 100 million miles driven (assuming it was actually enforced), it is still not exactly a big concern, and, yeah, ain't happenin'.

M'k... There seems to be some pushback on whether that has an effect in reality.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Higher-Speed-Limits-Lower-Death-Rates-2981119.php

and

http://www.vollynet.org.nz/Speed%20Limit%20Law%20and%20Fatality%20Rates.pdf

and

"A study by researchers from KDOT, Kansas State University and the University of Kansas into the effect of the 1996 change to 70 mph â" the last time the state raised the speed limit â" found no statistically significant increases in crashes and fatality rates on rural or urban interstate highways as of 1998."

All I'm saying is cars are a *lot* safer nowdays than when that study was performed, and handle a lot better.
I'm sure 65 is more dangerous than 55, but is it a lot more dangerous... I doubt that, and it seems others do too..

And then there's the risks when driving at that speed. Back then, power steering was not common, there was no ABS. Tires were not as good. In a few years we'll be adding computer assisted safety features too.

Anyway, this reminds me of a bloom county strip.

http://m8y.org/bloomcounty.txt

Um. A paper from 1967? Really?
A time when cars didn't have a steel cage around the passenger compartment, no airbags of any kind, no crumple zones...

Have you seen the youtube video of a 1959 Chevrolet crashing into a 2009 Chevrolet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

And on Linux 64 bit firefox is available by default, usually packaged by your distro.
And it isn't the only plugin people care about. At least over here, the ones people care about seem to be Adobe PDF, Adobe Flash, Oracle Java.