Yep, encouraged a number of my more savvy users to do the same at my company. Every single one has mentioned to me later how much they are impressed by the speed. I've been a diehard FF user since 2004 or 2005ish and now I'm super glad I stuck with it through the rougher, more memory leaky times. Privacy is important and Chrome just creeps me out but now FF is faster and less resource hoggy than chrome? You bet I love it!

I wonder if there is any way to statically guess the number of planets in the Goldilocks zone, the approximate distance from a star for liquid water to be possible. That would be a very interesting number but I'll just throw out a guess there will be more than one. It's remarkable to think of all the possible life that could be out there. We are probably destend to never meet, but it's interesting nonetheless. I think one of the greatest things finding life elsewhere would accomplish if it ever were to happen, is to study evolution on a completely different scale. The diversity on Earth alone is remarkable, to think what an entirely different planet might produce makes my imagination go wild.

FTA: "A smarter goal would be to give most Americans access to reasonably priced 1 Gb symmetric fiber-to-the-home networks."
So when I read the FCC said speeds of 4/1Mbps was a minimum at first this seemed like a big number to me. Like in the line with luxury internet is what I mean to say. I considered it for a bit, and I conceded by 2020 that is fairly reasonable as popular as streaming video is becoming. Then this 1Gbps number gets thrown out there (or at least implied) as a "necessity". Now I'd love to get 1Gbps. That would be one of the happiest moments of my life. However, I'm fairly happy with my 10Mbps/768Kbps. Thinking of that being considered 100 times slower that what should be considered as vital as electricity is, just throws the credibility of the entire article right out the window. I might assume most Americans don't even have gigabit switches or gigabit NICs and I don't think I'd be wrong. In 2020 that will probably no longer the case. My logic here is that if something like a web server or an AD server can operate without saturating a 100Mbps link in a medium sized business, it's fairly up the wall to say everyone NEEDS 1Gbps in 7 years. Just my two cents.

Yeah, I can't say I really notice a huge difference when switching to SSL on the page load front either. Being a self-centered asshole, I was more worried about CPU time. More CPU time means server upgrades which means more time working and less time pretending to work.

Very interesting article. Makes me realize I never personally did benchmarks of secure vs non. Maybe it's just kind of a "word on the street" type phenomenon from more senior admins than myself.

Isn't the point of mixed web sites to lessen server load from https? I was always under the impression a mixed environment only using https when necessary was a better idea. Obvoiusly not mixing SSL and non on any single page like the article mentions, but wouldn't just be as effective to advocate for better SSL implementations?

They say to work for the love of the job, not the money.

That's just a conspiracy started by other countries' governments to keep us anti-mind control neighbors from banding together under the similar color of our ideas.

You mean Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies? http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ I actually am starting to think these will seriously be necessary in the coming years. I'll be ahead of the game then.

Everyone worries about the U.S. government taking control of the Internet but i can tell you, it will never, ever happen. U.S. politics is ruled by getting the vote. All a senator/representative/president are trying to do is get reelected or to keep their party on top, voting for something like control of the worldwide Internet would be political suicide, not to mention the U.N. and just about every other country getting mad. Besides, why fix something that isn't broken? ICANN has tons of power whether it is law or not.