Actually it has a lot to do with the isolation model. Both Chrome and IE have a process per tab. Firefox has one process for the whole set of tabs. This means that Firefox is much more likely to go completely non-responsive when - for example - flash is in the middle of crashing (which it is lief to do). In fact, I see Firefox do this fairly often. Chrome and IE on the other hand, use a process per tab which allows them to have better isolation of one tab from another and also allows other tabs to remain responsive when Flash does it thing or some script doesn't run very quickly. (Note that they can't always be 100% responsive when one tab goes south as they do need a process coordinating all the others - but in general they do better than FF does at remaining responsive). Although the memory cost for loading the same DLL, over and over is negligible (simply another handle object), there are resources that can not be shared between processes (due to either OS design, browser protection / isolation scheme, etc.). So the browsers that start a process per tab gain some small security benefit, responsiveness benefit, etc. But they also lose out on the "small memory footprint" since they have to have a copy per process (tab) of the non-shareable resources. Knowing the design, you should absolutely expect there to be a threshold of number of tabs where FF will have less memory use than IE or Chrome.

With something like this, he owns the land, not the island. That may sound stupid, but the island itself is part of Hawaii. For example - if the governor or legislature decides to build a highway across the island, they simply declare eminent domain and seize the land they need (paying for it at some "going rate"). However if he really owned the island, the government couldn't legally do that. So he is like any other landowner. The only difference is that he owns 98% of the land. All of the normal laws about land use still apply. If they have zoning there, it still applies. If they have laws like California does about maintaining free access to certain parts of beaches and waterways, those still apply. That's a far cry from what most people think of when they say someone owns an island. They generally think of it as the person being basically the sovereign there. And that is not true in this case. Larry isn't the king.

But then again, maybe they will steal it - or license it. Can you just imagine a cable ad sales rep talking to a marketing person who is looking to place advertising? We can give you the standard service for $x. But, customers can skip those - and our studies show that your target market mostly skips them. For $2x, we can give you an unskippable ad that your target market will be forced to show. No skipping on those premium ads.

Besides, a land line is a *household* resource, which all members of the family, young and old, have access to.

It is interesting how the engineers at Google don't seem to understand that. I imagine none of them have home phones. For example, on Android, if you have two contacts that share a home phone (like say my Mom and Dad), if I choose the one that comes second on the contact list and have the phone call them - the picture and name for the one that comes alphabetically first in the contact list shows up on the dialer screen. Inexcusable.

Likewise, for awhile Google Voice wouldn't let two people who were both using GV have the same home phone number. It would tell you it was already in use.

A home phone is a shared resource. Why some folks don't get that I just don't understand.

It is interesting how, with complex software, everyone ends up with a different usage pattern. I use the start menu all the time, but as a search and execute. Press the Windows Key (or if your keyboard is one of those "defective" ones that doesn't have a Windows Key press ctrl-esc), and just type. To start Word, Windows Key, w, o, r, d, enter. We've tried to train literally thousands of our users to do it that way. But we do still see some folks slowly clicking their way through the start menu the old slow way.

Exactly. I did not even answer the question since I don't know what they mean by safe. Is it safe from a hard drive failure? Is it safe from "teh evil people" that apparently want all my data? Which? Because in terms of "is it safer than local storage as far as hard drive failure", it is an "it depends". My important stuff is on my server. That backs up at night to external drives and also to a second internal drive. Pretty damn safe from a hard drive failure. But, not safe at all from theft as a thief would take the whole damn thing. Not safe at all from fire or other disaster either. So, in fact, I have my pictures folder (pictures of the family since 1999) automatically go to SkyDrive as well. That is safe from hard drive failure and now is safe from a thief and from fire / disaster. Did putting it there make it less safe from "teh evil spies"? Sure. But what is safe to you? What's important to you? For me - having those pictures safe from failure, disaster, etc. is a lot more important that the extra risk that some jerk may be able to see them.

Safe - the definition depends on your needs, wants, the type of data.

I believe you have to pick from one of the sub-optimal choices. For example, I'd generally choose:

"Synergize our cloudification efforts with our web 3.0 design goals and monetize the white space while capitalizing on the resources ability to execute our vision with excellence in virtualization and power our CEO's stock options in internet time."

I had to pick "Trash It" because there was no recycle it. In my area there are fairly frequent (maybe four times a year, sometimes more) events where you can take your old electronics to a parking lot (at places like Orchard Supply, etc.) and drop them off for recycling. There is usually no fee. If you go to one sponsored by a local school there is typically a small "donation". Most are just free. Usually twice a year some company will send out flyers that they are coming by on a certain day and if you leave electronics in your driveway with the flyer taped to it they will take it away for free. I've done both. Last month I dropped off two old Dell XPS P4 machines at one.

Well, in the enterprise space you have a huge catch-22. I deal with this at work all the time. Since Oracle / Sun Java doesn't actually do patches (they just do full versions that introduce new features, break existing code, and deprecate other features), you can't deploy it. You have this trade off of known security vulnerabilities vs. enterprise software that won't work with the new versions. You have banks that require you to run Java versions that are a year old in order to move money. You have vendors whose code won't work with the current version of Java - ever (since they take longer to get their code working on new versions that it takes Oracle to release the next new version). We try as hard as we can to get app owners to test - but every last time we ship a new Java versions apps come out of the woodwork with emergency requests to "stop the push". You can't win. Bust people's critical apps and you lose. Allow machines to get owned by insecure versions of Java? Yeah, you lose there too. Oracle needs to figure out how to do security patches that just fix the vulnerabilities and don't introduce (and remove) features. Until they can do that - yes, it is their fault.

I don't have any way of knowing. Apparently the standard is copyrighted and you have to purchase a copy from the site (or have a subscription). Crazy that things that are supposed to be standards can't be viewed (legally) for free.

When they choose to do business with sweatshops to build their products, they are essentially telling us they don't care enough to dirty their hands with that manufacturing business. They don't want to think about the labor relations aspects. They just don't care that much.

Well, to be fair they do care. They care a lot about their PR - the same as any other company. And it is a lot easier to say, "we audit these external contract companies twice a year and have given them x months to make changes" than it is to say, "oh, yeah, we treat our employees in China and Brazil like crap. You caught us.". It is much better PR to work with these contract companies than to have your own sweatshops.

It also seems to import some from Internet Explorer. I use Chrome, Firefox, and IE. At work, we have IE by default (and I need it for SharePoint), but I use Firefox for most stuff and Chrome once in awhile. At home, I use Chrome for most stuff, Firefox once in awhile, and I had to use IE to do my taxes (for some reason some add-in in Chrome blocked Turbo Tax from working so I used IE). Since I have Chrome sync my settings - it has imported search engines in my list that are internal to my work network. They can't be used at all at home - but there are three of them in my list on this Windows 8 beta machine (as I type this in Chrome). So it definitely brings them along from machine to machine. I've never used them in Chrome at work - so it had to grab them from IE.

If I upload my mind, I'm essentially making a copy of myself, no?

Make sure you have permissions from your parents as they own the copyright on you. Unless they sold them to a publisher.

More seriously, I can see "continuity of experience" as being a form of immortality. As long as the "copy" experiences continuity (whether or not it actually is continuity) then the illusion of immortality is preserved, isn't it? It the "copy" was placed in storage and then "booted" back into a body 100 years later, no time has passed for the "copy" so his perception is that he maybe went to sleep and woke up in a new body.