Or "back in the day" when Firefox had a URL bar... just sayin'

Are you serious?? Has to go??? Who is in control of these terrible design ideas? Obviously this person isn't listening to the actual user base! Don't do it!

Gotta love our effed up government looking for more ways to tax the ever living crap out of what we barely have left - in an economy that's almost collapsing.

Didn't they already borrow so much money that it's not possible to pay it all back? And now they want more??? How much is enough?

And how much did these traitors spend invading Libya? It's so insane.

There hasn't been a serious liberal OR conservative in our government that actually gives a damn about the people in this country. You think this is a one sided issue? The only thing they care about is power and money for them and their own (i.e. their "party")... oh, and political correctness.

A company that sues it's own customers is a company that does not care about protecting your information.

I just went through addon hell with version 4 (going back to 3.6).

If they are going to go crazy with version numbers, at least fix the issue with version numbers and addons!

Because the government is bending the citizens over and giving them forced vaccinations where the sun doesn't shine.

And while our pants are down, they grab our wallets.

Look, I'm just glad they are trying. Kudos for trying to get flash to work on a phone!

"Someday, son, people will be sent to re-education to brainwash them for things like not having papers, saying certain things, listening to certain music, or even driving to the store."

"Dad, that sounds like a horror movie. I don't think it will EVER come to that. I mean, people just wouldn't accept something so terrible!"

Bad idea if this is supposed to be for food. It's very arrogant and sociopathic to think you can make such a change, and then feed it to innocent people - not certain if there are serious implications. Reality has proven that there are few real shortcuts (there is always a trade-off). Research has been included and you are welcome to investigate this information for yourself.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been linked to thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals. [Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007] Herbicide tolerant soy, corn, cotton, and canola plants are engineered with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of herbicides. Herbicide tolerant crops comprise about 80% of all GM plants. The other 20% are corn and cotton varieties that produce a pesticide in every cell. This is accomplished due to a gene from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt, which produces a natural insect-killing poison called Bt-toxin. We ingest these pesticides.

FDA internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential dangers. They urged superiors to require long-term safety studies. [For copies of FDA memos, see The Alliance for Bio-Integrity, www.biointegrity.org ]

There are several reasons why GM plants present unique dangers. The first is that the process of genetic engineering itself creates unpredicted alterations, irrespective of which gene is transferred. The gene insertion process, for example, is accomplished by either shooting genes from a "gene gun" into a plate of cells, or using bacteria to infect the cell with foreign DNA. Both create mutations in and around the insertion site and elsewhere. [J. R. Latham, et al., "The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation," The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7; see also Allison Wilson, et. al., "Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications," Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews – Vol. 23, December 2006] The "transformed" cell is then cloned into a plant through a process called tissue culture, which results in additional hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the plants' genome. In the end, the GM plant's DNA can be a staggering 2-4% different from its natural parent (which is a LOT).

Although the FDA scientists evaluating GMOs in 1992 were unaware of the extent to which GM DNA is damaged or changed, they too described the potential consequences. They reported, "The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants" might produce "unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants." [Edwin J. Mathews, Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October 28, 1991] GM crops, they said, might have "increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins," and the "appearance of new, not previously identified" toxins. [Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants Chemistry, "Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods: Supplemental Information," November 1, 1991]

The very first crop submitted to the FDA's voluntary consultation process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions. [Department of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. "Flavr Savr Tomato: ... Pathology Branch's Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies ... and an Expert Panel's Report," Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)] The director of FDA's Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a "reasonable certainty of no harm," [Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and others, "Response to Calgene Amended Petition," Alliance for Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993)] which is their normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that "unresolved questions still remain." [Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, "Flavr Savr Tomato: Significance of Pending DHEE Question," Alliance for Bio-Integrity (December 7, 1993)] According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world's leading experts in GM food safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the tomatoes "could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots]." [Arpad Pusztai, "Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?" June 2001 Action Bioscience]

Mice fed potatoes engineered to produce the Bt-toxin developed abnormal and damaged cells, as well as proliferative cell growth in the lower part of their small intestines (ileum). [Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, "Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes," Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219–233] Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce a different type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also showed proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls. [Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine," Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4]

Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partially atrophied livers. [Arpad Pusztai, "Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food," Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84.] Rats fed Monsanto's Mon 863 corn, had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity. [John M. Burns, "13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002," December 17, 2002] Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as well as higher metabolic activity. [R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d'Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, "Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis," Animal Science 82 (2006): 193–199] The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%–16% heavier, possibly due to liver disease or inflammation. [Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, "Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73]

Over a series of three experiments at the Russian National Academy of sciences, 51.6 percent of the offspring from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10 percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls. "High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from mothers fed GM soy flour." [I.V.Ermakova, "Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological Risks," Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th – September 1st, 2006: 168–172] In a preliminary study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive. [Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards," Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007] After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99 of 179). [I.V.Ermakova "GMO: Life itself intervened into the experiments," Letter, EcosInform N2 (2006): 3–4]

Microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes. [M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, "Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173–180] Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings, according to molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, "are not random and must reflect some 'insult' on the liver by the GM soy." Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King's College London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it "could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia." [Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007]

In the FlavrSavr tomato study, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of 40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced. [Arpad Pusztai, "Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?" Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84] In another study, chickens fed the herbicide tolerant "Liberty Link" corn died at twice the rate of those fed natural corn. [S. Leeson, "The Effect of Glufosinate Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens," Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379, July 12, 1996] In various analyses of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production or inflammation. [R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d'Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, "Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis," Animal Science 82 (2006): 193–199][John M. Burns, "13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002," December 17, 2002] Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by GM soy. [R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d'Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, "Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis," Animal Science 82 (2006): 193–199] And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats. [Arpad Pusztai, "Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food," Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84] In mice, young sperm cells were altered. [L. Vecchio et al, "Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454] Embryos of GM soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy. [Oliveri et al., "Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006]

About two dozen farmers reported that their pigs had reproductive problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. Rats fed Monsanto's GM corn, for example, had a significant increase in blood cells related to the immune system. [John M. Burns, "13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002," December 17, 2002] GM potatoes caused the immune system of rats to respond more slowly. And GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that it might cause deadly allergic reactions in people. [V. E. Prescott, et al, "Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity," Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005)]

Sections of the protein produced in GM soy are identical to shrimp and dust mite allergens, [G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, "Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens," BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002): 8–19] but the soybean was introduced before WHO criteria were established and the recommended additional tests were not conducted. If the protein does trigger reactions, the danger is compounded by the finding that the Roundup Ready gene transfers into the DNA of human gut bacteria and may continuously produce the protein from within our intestines. [Netherwood et al, "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004)]

The list just goes on and on and on. This is just a "sample" of the highlights! There are books and books full of scientifically documented research on the subject of GMO foods. [Excellent movie called "The Future of Food" http://www.thefutureoffood.com/ ][ http://www.saynotogmos.org/ ]

Two GM foods whose commercialization was stopped because of negative test results give a chilling example of what may be getting through. Rats fed GM potatoes had potentially precancerous cell growth in the stomach and intestines, less developed brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune systems. [Arpad Pusztai, "Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food," Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84; Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine," Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4; Arpad Pusztai, "Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?" June 2001 Action Bioscience http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html; and A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, "GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks," Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005] GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that the peas mighttrigger a deadly anaphylactic shock in allergic humans. [V. E. Prescott, et al, "Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity," Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005): 53] Both of these dangerous crops, however, could easily have been approved. The problems were only discovered because the researchers used advanced tests that were never applied to GM crops already on the market! Both would have passed the normal tests that companies typically use to get their products approved. Ironically, when Monsanto was asked to comment on the pea study, their spokesperson said it demonstrated that the regulatory system works. He failed to disclose that none of his company's GM crops had been put through such rigorous tests.

Fortunately, not everyone feels that questioning GM foods is disloyal. On the contrary, millions of people around the world are unwilling to participate in this uncontrolled experiment. They refuse to eat GM foods. Manufacturers in Europe and Japan have committed to avoid using GM ingredients. And the US natural foods industry, not waiting for the government to test or label GMOs (since there is legislation that prevents the labeling of GMO food), is now engaged in removing all remaining GM ingredients from their sector using a third party verification system. And even if you never ate a single vegetable in your life, the vast majority meat you eat is raised on GMO corn [King Corn http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/ ].

Seriously, do you want to be the guinea pigs?

I really do hope they fork the code. The developers seem too arrogant to listen to the myriads of cries from the people who actually use their browser.

The new version 4 already was taking almost 400 megs of ram. That's acceptable?? Hello?

I couldn't agree more! I wish they would fix the bloat and listen to their user base instead of adding more features we don't want (what a crazy idea).

Version 3.6 takes 176 meg

Version 4.0 took 360+ megs.

I'm back on 3.6.

I don't want those interface "features"! I want the memory issues fixed. Stop trying to copy Chrome.

I have Adobe AcrobatX. I don't need another "PDF Viewer" taking up even more ram!

I'm surprised to see all the people jumping to the defense of Microsoft. Wow.

Let's see...

1.) they accidentally turned off all the encryption in all the countries that are trying to overthrow their government
2.) the current governments are very very very rich and powerful
3.) it's all because of a "bug" and has nothing to do with these government at all (a couple of extra countries are thrown in to "prove" it's not on purpose)

Ya right. lol

So you think that Microsoft is now gone completely ethical and wouldn't do such a thing to seal up a bunch of software deals for these countries? And would they do something so visible like turn off encryption? Umm... ya! Look at all the people posting who buy into Microsoft "amazing coincidence" hotmail bug. Point made. Never underestimate marketing, propaganda, and "experts". Also, remember Microsoft track record for arrogance (they think that you are all dumbasses) and thinking they are untouchable.

Let me just make this crystal clear. If it was legal for Microsoft (or any other multinational corporation) to act like a dictator and it would make a ton of cash, they would act just like a dictator.