Urgh, I hate these links to useless tech news websites, rather than the original sources. To see what the Mozilla executives in question actually had to say, with their words in context, read Mitchell Baker: Browser Soup and Chrome Frame and Mike Shaver: thoughts on chrome frame.

And as a bonus, from a Mozilla-technology using developer (I don't think he's affiliated with Mozilla in any official capacity anymore) Daniel Glazman: Google Chrome Frame.

Also, all problems are designed with a specific algorithm in mind, leading to a required time complexity.

The secret program inputs are then be designed to be large enough to be solved much much faster than the time limit with the correct complexity, but much much slower than the time limit with the wrong complexity.

You can typically look at the problem specification to see what the maximum input size is - and you should expect that you _will_ get inputs of that size, and do a rough estimate of how many operations that will require with your solution.

I've been in a competition where I used a O(n^2) algorithm where I didn't see the O(n*log n) solution (No it wasn't sorting, it was a Dynamic Programming-problem). I was convinced for a fairly long time that my algorithm was fast enough, so I spent time suboptimizing instead of solving the root problem - the wrong algorithm.
With the right algorithm, it passed right away.

That said, some problems are indeed expected to be solved by brute force, or by a combination of brute force and tricks to shrink the search space. These problems can mostly be identified by guarantees of small inputs in the description.

I've already seen a ton of posts thinking that this browser is somehow distinct from Firefox. It isn't. Minefield is the application name for any version of Firefox currently under development (just like Shredder is for Thunderbird). These names have been specifically chosen to sound scary, as these builds have gotten virtually no testing, and using them is not recommended for the general public. They are not in any way considered stable, and might (as the old joke goes) set your computer on fire or eat babies. It was a really bad idea of the submitter to promote using just any old nightly build - at least without explaining what nightly builds are. (They're basically automated builds created daily; testing them is highly welcome (which is why they're made available), but expect to find bugs (and please report those bugs!) - they are most definitely not vetted for general use.)

If you do want to experience the recent developments and see what Firefox 3.1 will be like when it's released, Beta 1 was recently released, and has at least gotten a nominal amount of testing to ensure that the risk of fires and devoured babies is small.

You forgot one search/replace!