Firefox slow, hitching or freezing? Check your add-ons.

Firefox has been driving me crazy for the last year or two. It’s a great browser. It feels right. It’s add-ons are its killer feature. No other browser has the right set of add-ons and so I’ve never switched. But Firefox has been suffering for a long time and I had no idea what it was until now. I was even relegating Firefox to a few main tasks and using Mozilla Seamonkey (sans add-ons) for miscellaneous surfing.

In two previous posts, I thought I had found the fix for firefox slowing down, hitching and freezing. I was wrong but I was on the right track. My first recommendation was to start a new profile. My second recommendation was to manage some advanced settings. The truth is, none of these are required.

I don’t know why it took me so long but I finally disabled every single add-on I had installed. As you can guess, just like starting a new profile, disabling all the add-ons made Firefox spring back to life. It honestly felt like a whole, fresh new browser. Then, I started enabling a few add-ons at a time. Then wait a day. I tried out the add-ons bit by bit to try to narrow down which one was slowing it down…

And the loser is? Firebug! Even though the latest versions of Firebug say it’s disabled unless you open it, something is going on. For me, Firefox would start out somewhat snappy, then slow down as the day progressed and start suffering horribly as the days passed. I’ve been running with all add-ons enabled except Firebug for the past week and I’m happy to report Firefox is still snappy without a single restart.

I hope this helps someone who, like me, was going mad trying to figure out why Firefox performed so poorly.

In case you’re interested to know which add-ons I use: Clear Cache Button, Remove Cookie(s) for Site, Firebug, Flashblock, Flashbug, Googlepedia, Password Exporter, Define, and a few others I can’t recall at this moment.

I can’t express how nice it feels to have a fresh, responsive firefox, and all except one add-on, back for my regular work and surfing!

Defining Science

When people talk about science, they infer and imply many things. They may be referring to scientists, the scientific method, the popularly accepted ideas of the day, or any number of perceptions about what constitutes “science” these days. Many times, I talk about science in the context of the act of scientific inquiry, that is, the act of applying our five natural senses, taste, touch, smell, sight and sound, or technological extensions of those senses, in order to inquire about world around us. These are the only tools acceptable to science and there are inherent limits in their application which prohibit them from tackling some very important questions.

When people talk about science, they infer and imply many things. They may be referring to scientists, the scientific method, the popularly accepted ideas of the day, or any number of perceptions about what constitutes “science” these days. Many times, I talk about science in the context of the act of scientific inquiry, that is, the act of applying our five natural senses, taste, touch, smell, sight and sound, or technological extensions of those senses, in order to inquire about world around us. These are the only tools acceptable to science and there are inherent limits in their application which prohibit them from tackling some very important questions.

The tools, our senses, were granted us and operate according to the laws of the environment in which they exist. That is, your eyes see the visible light of energy. You can touch matter. You can smell the product of chemical reactions. Tying all these things together is the environment in which they exist. For God to have created our reality, he must have existed outside of it. Or, you might think of it as one bubble, the universe, existing inside another, bigger bubble, God’s universe. Either way, it still holds that the tools of science can not be assumed to apply to observing or experimenting on that which is outside of our bubble.

This is what I often allude to in discussions about origins. This is, also, what should cause you to reconsider what you are told by popular science. There is no empirical way to prove the non-existence of God, though, it seems, people like Hawking and Dawkins try hard to do so.

The next step in this argument is to debate whether it is more or less illogical to believe in an omni-present God or an omni-present material reality (universe; multi-verse; big bang repeating cycle; etc). I say “illogical” because, according to the laws of this existence, all effects have a cause, and an ever-existing God and an ever-existing reality have no initial cause hence they appear illogical.

Notice, also, that you are now no longer debating in the realm of logic but in the realm of the illogical: Whose premise is less illogical than whose? This should prompt you to pause and think a little bit. What you will discover is that the former must cease to reason according to the laws of his reality and begin to reason under a new set of conditions. The latter, however, still reasons according to the laws of his reality.

There comes a point in all of this when one needs to reconsider starting assumptions. The one who finds the limit of his own tools and reaches beyond discovers new insights while the one who refuses to acknowledge these limits spins around and around in his own concentric series of smaller and smaller circles of reasoning.