I'm really much more interested in what the two browsers do when you have 25+ tabs open at one time. That's the case that's likely to have consequences for system-wide memory usage. Even more than that, I'm interested in the case where you've had the browser open for 8 days and have opened and closed hundreds of tabs and thousands of pages.

Having separate processes buys the ability to eventually close a process (when all the tabs/pages associated with it are closed) and reclaim all the resources. This is handy if there are memory leaks (with proper programming, there shouldn't be, but there *certainly* have been in Firefox -- a browser is a pretty complex piece of software). It also seems like it would be helpful for memory fragmentation: if you keep the entire browser state separated into N buckets (processes' memory spaces), then when you free one bucket, you can free every single page in it. You never find yourself in a situation where you can't free a page because some unrelated thing (that happened to call the same allocator you did) has 100 bytes of data still occupying that page.

You're right that it could lower the consequences for sloppy programming, but I don't care that much. Anti-lock brakes on my car lower the consequences for sloppy driving, but I still want them.

at which point in the story were drugs legalized?

Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win.
- Robert Heinlein

Some athletes compete in both summer and winter games, so biennial would be ok. (not that the parent used biEnnial.)

http://ask.yahoo.com/20060222.html for examples

The oldest version of this story that I know of is in a book called the "New Testament." The tale is STILL being twisted by its adherents, 2000 years after its 1st edition. FWIW, I still prefer the Dune stories, though I can't say I am much of a follower there either.

disagree/agree. If successful, more Americans start using electric to power their cars -- Today, it probably WOULD come from COAL.

I'm guessing that is what the parent meant.

There really is not much GENETIC difference between all of those tribes of people.

From what I understand (citation needed,) homo-sapiens grew out of a very small breeding population - only several hundred individuals - while still on the plains of Africa. The exodus ~70k years ago did cause certain physical traits to come into dominance or fade for the various tribes, but the genetics didn't really change that much over those 70k years. It seems that today's chimpanzees are *much* more genetically diverse than today's humans are. (Chimps all look the same to me, but I am a known specie-ist.)

Point being - "us" is Berber, Inuit, Norwegian, Ainu, Zulu, /.-er, etc. We are VERY CLOSE to being identical to each other - individually AND collectively.

I hate to say the following for two reasons. 1) it is a stereotype of my own design, and 2) I am an engineer.

Engineers are ALWAYS right. ALWAYS. Even when (especially when?) something is clearly opinion based.

Ask a non-eng what their favorite color is, you get a simple answer.
Ask an eng the same, you get an answer PLUS reasons why it is superior to other colors.


As I said, I am an engineer. It was only after I noticed behavior like this in other engs that I noticed it in myself as well.
I don't like having that trait (flaw?) and have had to make a conscious effort to be less judgmental. (Yet remaining critical.)

So, yeah, as RobotRunAmok pointed out - engs tend to think/say "Right is right - AND I'M RIGHT" even when it isn't a correct/incorrect discussion, sometimes when they are clearly incorrect (they defend what they've said, clearly wrong.)

Also, and again this is something that I've caught myself doing, is that these personality types can and do play the Devil's Advocate rather well - up to a point. There is a difference between seeing the other side of a discussion and being contrarian for the sake of "being right."

The above may not be worded all that well, but I need my morning coffee. Besides, it hardly matters if you disagree with me, since I KNOW that I am correct.

... or squint

Faith is belief in something for which there is no proof or even strong evidence. Faith is generally applied only to spirituality, and it should be so according to the definition. For example, I don't need faith to believe that the Yankees won the World Series this year - there IS evidence for that. I do believe that they won BECAUSE of the evidence.

You do NOT need faith to believe that the universe is anything. Ordered, structured, causal, etc. A good scientist believes these things because there is evidence of order, causality, etc.

To not have faith is to not believe in something for which there is no evidence.

One does not need faith to look forward to the future doing something chaotic because of the belief (through prior observation) that those kind of things (earth turning into a carnivore butterfly) just does not happen.

Science and faith are NOT intrinsically linked. Science and belief ARE. Science and faith are two completely separate things.

The point behind installing all of those OSes is to see if it can. Seriously.

If a system can run those, well then running linux is a non-issue.
(since it runs on just about any hardware.)

I can. True, no one would have a clue as to what it meant at the time, but if the bible stated (as YouTube user FA quipped:)
"Verily, I say unto thee, that thine energy is as thine mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself."
... well, I'd find THAT pretty impressive.

I'd much rather that Moses (or Aaron, whatever,) gave us the "Book of Circles" which contained 3.14159....... out to one million places. Or e. Or Newtonian physics. ANYTHING of that sort, that had nothing prior like it yet could be later shown to be (close enough to) correct and pragmatically useful would instill some faith in me.

Generally, yes it does - see the previous issues with Gaileo, Darwin, etc. Literal interpretation is THE biggest issue for religious thought. When you start to question "holy" scripture (7 days, four corners, Adam/Eve in god's image, flood, etc.,) you open the possibility that the OTHER stuff might also not be literal.

Well, what stuff is that and who gets to decide? Perhaps "son of god" and "saviour of all mankind" isn't literal anymore. Nor is "god's kindom" or "hell" or ...

(which I'm fine with. I think it all to be spiritual snake-oil.)

Sometimes serious scientific ventures are ALSO cock swinging contests.