Optimized for Firefox, 1024x768 or better...

Final Season of Lost: 50 Things I Wasted My Time Thinking About


It's a fun game for the whole family!

As we enter the final act, here's my list of things I wasted my time thinking about which I now believe will never be explained. I hope I'm wrong about at least some of these, but I suspect we will never get answers to the following things that we wasted our time and energy discussing here on the boards...

1. Why did a live human have to push the button?

2. Why every 108 minutes?

3. Why do the number keep recurring everywhere?

4. What did the button do?

5. What did the failsafe do?

6. If the failsafe worked, why did they keep pushing the button?

7. Why did Jin disappear with the Island when he was behind the helicopter?

8. Why did some of the Ajira people go to 1977 and some to the present?

9. Why did Smokey kill the pilot?

10. Why did Jacob invite some people to the Island but manipulate others against their will?

11. Why did they have to recreate the plane crash?

12. How did a polar bear wander into the wheelroom to go to Tunisia?

13. Is Walt actually special?

14. Why did Walt appear to Shannon and Locke?

15. Why did the Smoke Monster need Locke's body specifically to execute his plan?

16. How did the Smoke Monster recreate Locke when Locke's body didn't crash on the main Island?

17. What happened to Yemi's body? (Smokey didn't need Locke's body to impersonate Locke.)

18. Why is the Smoke Monster now *stuck* in Locke's body?

19. Did Ben actually talk to someone in the cabin or not?

20. What's the deal with the cabin? Who was in it the first time Locke went?

21. If the Others and Jacob are the "good guys," why did they kill people so ruthlessly?

22. Why was Ben able to call the Smoke Monster from a drain in his basement when the Others are supposed to be aligned with Jacob against the Smoke Monster?

23. Why did the Others pose as wild people and walk barefoot through the jungle (then suddenly stop doing so once they were exposed)?

24. Why did the Others let Danielle's broadcast continue for 16 years?

25. Why was the blast door map in invisible ink?

26. Why does Miles have to power to hear the dead?

27. Does the circle of ash keep Smokey out or not? If yes, how could Smokey get into the Temple to kill everyone?

28. Why are men super-fertile on the Island but women die during pregnancy?

29. How could Charlotte and Ethan be born on the Island given the above?

30. Why did Eko's brother's plane end up on the Island?

31. Why did Desmond foresee Claire leaving the Island on the helicopter when that did not, in fact, happen?

32. How did Mrs. Hawking know to go to the jewelry story to meet Desmond when Desmond never told that story to Daniel so he could write it in his journal?

33. How did Mrs. Hawking know the Red Shoes guy was going to be killed when Daniel had no way of knowing this so he could write it in his journal?

34. Where did the flaming arrows that killed all the remaining redshirts come from?

35. If the Temple waters corrupt anyone who is healed by them, why do the Others ever put anyone into the water?

36. How did Sun manage to take over her father's company with no business experience and a settlement that couldn't have been more than a couple million dollars?

37. What deal did Sun strike with Widmore?

38. Why did Christian/Jacob/The Island go to so much trouble to keep Michael alive when he accomplished nothing on his return to the Island that couldn't have been done by any random person?

39. HOW did the Christian/Jacob/The Island keep Michael (and anyone else alive)?

40. Why was Christian/Jacob/The Island keeping Ben alive when he wasn't special, wasn't allowed to talk to Jacob and just ended up killing Jacob anyway?

41. What's the deal with the guys in the Antarctic who called Penny?

42. Why did Jack change his mind about going back to the Island? His conversation with Locke was not convincing. Also when we finally saw that conversation why did Locke not say any of the things to Jack that Jack told Ben Locke had said?

43. Why could the supply plane reach the Island to do Dharma airdrops without any problem but everyone else trying to get to the Island had to jump through hoops?

44. What exactly are the whispers?

45. Why did the whispers know to say "It'll come back around" to Sawyer?

46. Why did Ben think that he needed to kill Locke?

47. Why did Ben want to be judged by the Monster? (Or rather, what made Ben think that the Monster judges people and why would he court the Monster at all if the Monster is Jacob's enemy?)

48. Why did Widmore order his people to capture Ben and kill everyone on the Island?

Just to make an even 50, here's two things I didn't actually waste time on but that bug me in the same vein:

49. If Ben was the one who took Danielle's baby, why did Danielle just hand him over to Sayyid without trying to find out about Alex?

50. Why would Keamey think blowing up the freighter was a good threat to use against Ben when the freighter was full of people who had come to the Island solely to kill Ben?


Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

Post a Comment


0 Comments:



Wednesday, March 03, 2010



EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

Four complaints about 'Heroes'


1) Fetish for tiny, barely legal blondes. When three of your core cast members are short blonde girls who look like children, it's clear that someone has serious issues. Hell, in Season One, they even made Clea Duvall into a blonde, which was an unadulterated travesty. Work out your issues in therapy, freaks.

2) Character interaction is like a child playing with dolls. "Hi, I'm Matt!" "Hi, I'm Daphne!" "Do you want to get married?" "Sure!" *mash dolls together making kissy noises*

3) Serial killer with a heart of gold. This is an old soap opera trick, although in soaps, it's usually rapist with a heart of gold. Add nuance to Sylar? Yes, please! Make him into a misunderstood good guy complete with barely legal blonde love interest? Ehhhhh...

4) If season is called "villains," there should be some villains. As of this week, even Petrelli Senior is showing signs of secret goodness. Sylar has gone soft, along with Elle. The escaped convicts from Level Five have thus far been mostly misunderstood. Frankly, the most evil guy in town at this point is Mohinder, the show's actual protagonist. Calling the season "Villains" implies there will be some really detestable baddies. Yes, please!


Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

Post a Comment


0 Comments:



Tuesday, November 18, 2008



EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

An outbreak of Plagaria

Hey guys, while you're falling all over yourselves to pick on Obama for failing to give credit to Tom Toles for writing his lines, allow me to point out that I was the one who broke this story.


Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

Post a Comment


0 Comments:



Wednesday, September 10, 2008



EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

Is It Plagiarism If You're Still Going To Vote For Him?

Here's the kind of thing you hate to see.

This is Barack Obama speaking in Terre Haute yesterday:

"Maybe what they're saying is, 'Watch out George Bush!' Except for economic policies, and tax policies, and energy policies, and health care policies, and education policies, and Karl Rove style politics. Except for all that, we're really going to bring change to Washington! We're really going to shake things up!"

And this is "John McCain" speaking in a Tom Toles cartoon Friday:

"Watch out, Mr. Bush! With the exception of economic policy, and energy policy and social issues and tax policy and foreign policy and Supreme Court appointments and Rove-style politics, we're coming in to shake things up!"

Dude...

Of course, there's a small chance Obama might have used the line in a previous speech, which would make Toles the plagiarist, but I think that would be even more depressing...

P.S. Don't y'all go plagiarizing this post, now. Credit where it's due...


Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

Post a Comment


0 Comments:



Sunday, September 07, 2008



EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

Review of Google Chrome! First! I win! Plus 'Resolving Proxy' Fix

1) Too slow.

2) Why is it "resolving proxy" every page I click?

Update: I have solved this. Ironically, the thing that was making Chrome slow was Google Web Accelerator. Come ON, guys! YOUR browser should be compatible with YOUR software!

You don't have to uninstall the accelerator. Just turn it off then do the fix linked above.

Update 3
: Now that the Web Accelerator is off, I am finding this browser to be rather speedy.

And now the review, which is being updated on an ongoing basis:

A browser is just a browser, to a certain extent. Most features are basically the same from one platform to another, and that is certainly the case here.

* No classic menus. As someone who writes about usability for part of my living, I've seen a lot of cutting-edge applications ditching the classic "File/Edit/View/Tools" menu.

I am not sure I am wild about this development, because familiarity=usability. However, several new applications I have evaluated professionally are adopting the Office 2007 toolbar ribbon as a menu alternative. These applications tend to work because they adhere to good usability standards -- big buttons, with labels, in predictable and familiar locations.

Google Chrome does not feature a ribbon, and that hurts its usability. The buttons are not labeled. For instance, the "Add Favorites" button is a star next to the address bar, which is only labeled in a mouseover tooltip. I had to go searching for it.

By losing the traditional menus, you also lose a key learning tool -- the alt key. When there's no visible menu in an app, such as Windows Media Player, I like the "insurance policy" that I can hit "alt" and the menu comes back to me.

The Options and Control menus are similarly counterintuitive, positioned on the left, without labeling (but also with tooltips). It's OK, it's not a deal breaker, but it's not great either.

Similarly, there's no quick and easy cue to open a new window (although, happily, CTRL-N will do the trick). In most cases where you expect a browser to open a new window, however, you'll get a tab. Tab labeling could be a little more differentiated and visible.

* On the plus side of usability, this browser ruthlessly eliminates a host of controls from IE and Firefox which most users won't miss -- even power users.

* Resource consumption easily outstrips all of the other major browser platforms. This application runs light -- really light -- and given that most users have their Web browser running on a constant basis, that's no small advantage.

* Task Manager. One word -- awesome. A tremendous flaw in IE and Firefox is that you can't identify which window is consuming your system resources. However, I'd like to see the command to open Task Manager more prominently placed, from a usability standpoint (it's under "developer" but it's useful for most daily browser users).

* The dashboard feature, familiar to Safari users, is nice, although not extremely original or distinguished.

* Typing search into the address bar takes a little getting used to, but it's easy enough and frees up real estate once consumed by Google Toolbar.

However, I could use the toolbar for search in IE, and I miss my Google Toolbar buttons for custom search, autofill, etc. I don't see an option to add these features, at least not thus far.

Also, ironically, I now need to add a bookmark (or bookmarks) to get to Google, if I want to do a Books or News search. Previously, I could just click on the toolbar.

Overall, you would expect a Google-created browser to better leverage Google's primary product -- search. From a pure search perspective, all other issues aside, I feel I was better off with Google Toolbar and IE or (even better) Googlebar and Firefox.

* HTML rendering: Page display is remarkably clean and consistent with IE and Firefox, unlike in some of the more outre browsers like Safari and Opera, where various quirks will cause variations in table display, type size and such.

* You can drag some common filetypes into a browser window and read them therein. This is kind of cool, but it's not a universal viewer and I am not sure why I'd want to read text or PDF files in a browser as opposed to their native apps. Doc types that don't load (like MS-Word files) pop up as "downloads" in a bar at the bottom of the page from which they can be invoked. The jury is out on this feature. I mean, sure, why not have it, but on the other hand, why?

* Focus: This is a small gripe, but if you open a dialog on a window (such as blogger's "add link" control) that window commands focus and you can't switch windows until resolving the dialog. This is good usability in principle (dialogs=complete stop), but bad in practice, since I have a habit of opening the dialog then tabbing to another window to grab the link. I can unlearn this habit, but why? The dialog-full-stop principle is adequately honored if you come to a full stop in the window which opened it.

* Tab control: This is pretty standard, but it adds a useful function -- an ability to close all tabs to the right or left of a selected tab, using the context menu. If you surf like I do -- portal pages opening multiple stories of interest -- this is a really fantastic feature. That said, if you're capable of programming this brilliance, why not add a control for "move tab to new window"? UPDATE: Turns out you can drag a tab loose and it becomes a new window. Nice feature, but it still belongs on the context menu.

* Overall, it's damn good for a beta release. I question some of the usability choices, but most of them are either relatively minor or easily overcome with learning. I can see this becoming my primary browser.


Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

Post a Comment


4 Comments:


Re: Resolving Proxy...

It is not the Google accelerator that is the problem. It is the windows service 'WinHTTP Web Proxy Auto-Discovery'

Disable that, and you can re-enable the Google accelerator.

What is WinHTTP Auto proxy service

This service implements the Web Proxy Auto-Discovery (WPAD) protocol for Windows HTTP Services (WinHTTP). WPAD is a protocol to enable an HTTP client to automatically discover a proxy configuration. If this service is stopped or disabled, the WPAD protocol will be executed within the HTTP client's process instead of an external service process; there would be no loss of functionality as a result.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/05/2008 10:54 PM  


Thanks. But Web Accelerator was automatically changing the Auto-Detect setting back, and since Chrome does the prefetching already as part of its design, there's no need to keep the Accelerator turned on any more. I'd rather disable a useless app than monkey with settings unecessarily...

By Blogger J.M. Berger, at 9/05/2008 11:01 PM  


No problem, I am just trying to get this bug known so it will be fixed and help people with it.

Its pretty bad with the WinHTTP service running it requests your 'proxy.pac' once per request (doubling the requests to render a webpage) regardless of caching on it. With the service disabled and move to the in-process handler it only requests it once per session so it is extremely fast again.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/06/2008 2:49 PM  


Resolving proxy fix tutorial is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7sx6NvvlP4

By Blogger Shadowremedy, at 1/29/2010 11:57 PM  



Tuesday, September 02, 2008



EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

Why I Love The Internet

Five hours after the official announcement of Sarah Palin as McCain's vice presidential nominee, there are already 1,100 plus sites listed on Google as containing the new word "VPILF."

What's scary is that some of them were created more than a week ago.


Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

Post a Comment


0 Comments:



Friday, August 29, 2008



EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

Dharma Wants You

I have to admit it's hard to get worked up about the new Lost ARG (Dharma Wants You) based on the artistic bankruptcy of the last one, but here's hoping.

By the way, any of you fine folks ever read Pattern Recognition? You'll find it spookily relevant.

Anyway, check this out (from the Dharma Wants You site):



As noted by astute Egoplex readers and Lost aficionados a couple posts back, the Orchid Dharma logo is the regular logo inverted (or rather, turned inside out). The logo above is the Orchid logo rotated a couple of notches counterclockwise.

Readers asked me to comment on the i-Ching/yin-yang dynamics in that earlier post. I made a stab at it, but this latest variation suggests to me that they are just screwing around without any particular rhyme or reason (from a Taoist standpoint).

There might be some tricky business going on vis a vis a combination lock-type puzzle, but I can't say with any degree of certainty that there is a metaphysical hook here.


Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

Post a Comment


2 Comments:


Thanks so much for your thoughts on the new Dharma logo. I always look forward to your interpretation of new info from Lost. Like you, I am finding it hard to get excited about the new ARG. So far, it is not off to a very good start.

By Blogger KansasGal, at 8/09/2008 10:35 PM  


The ARG is great. You can make your own "Evaluation Test" on the site. Here is the one I made.

http://www.dharmawantsyou.com/site/?utid=108417148899036837298078587911#/qp

Post yours and I will do it so you get the points too.

By Blogger pencorco, at 9/11/2008 2:25 PM  



Friday, August 01, 2008



EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

D.C. Madam Files

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service has released about 40 pages of material under the Freedom of Information Act related to its investigation of Deborah Jean Palfrey, the so-called "D.C. Madam" who died in an apparent suicide earlier this year.

The USPS refused to release information on the D.C. part of the case, citing a FOIA exemption that allows case files to be withheld if there is a "reasonable chance they will interfere with ongoing law enforcement proceedings." According to ABC News and other sources, several well-known and senior government officials were among Palfrey's clients.

However, Palfrey was arrested and convicted as the result of an earlier investigation in California, during the 1990s. Information on that case was released, including copies of checks and correspondence related to Palfrey's California prostitution ring and a fairly graphic affidavit in support of a search warrant, describing informant accounts of what life was like as a prostitute working under Palfrey's direction. Informants who worked as prostitutes for Palfrey said they charged $200 an hour for a regular call, half of which went to Palfrey.

"Palfrey told (the informant) she didn't have to do 'kinky stuff ' like being 'tied up or beaten up', if she didn't want to, but if she did, it would cost the client extra," the affidavit states.

Another informant showed up for a job interview after responding to an ad for an escort service.

The informant "was told by Palfrey that hers was a full service escort service, and then was asked by PALFREY, 'How open minded are you?' Palfrey told (the informant) she would be sent to male clients and her job was to make the men happy and not let the men be disappointed." The second informant became involved in violent encounters while working for Palfrey, many details of which are redacted.

Click here for the files



Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

Post a Comment


0 Comments:



Tuesday, July 08, 2008



EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

Supposed to

At this point, it's pretty clear that much of Lost is concerned with things happening the way they are "supposed to" -- possibly the most repeated phrase on the show.

We know some things were supposed to happen and did happen (I will be short for now):

  • Desmond was supposed to go to the Island and push the button.
  • Locke was supposed to find the Pearl hatch.
  • Some of our heroes were supposed to be on the plane.
  • Charlie was supposed to die.

    We also suspect that some things were supposed to happen, but didn't:

  • Locke was supposed to come to the Island sooner.
  • Charlie was supposed to die before reaching the Looking Glass.
  • Locke was supposed to find the Pearl rather than the Swan.
  • Eko was supposed to stop John from destroying the Swan.

    And we have been told (by sources of varying credibility) that some things are NOT supposed to happen.

  • The Oceanic Six were not supposed to leave the Island.
  • Jack is not supposed to raise Aaron.
  • Aaron is not supposed to be "raised by another."

    So what else was supposed to happen? And what wasn't? And if something wasn't supposed to happen, are we seeing the universe "course-correcting" as the show goes on? Methinks if you figure out these questions, you figure out Lost. Here are a few of the more pressing ones:

  • Was Flight 815 supposed to crash?
  • Was Christian Shepherd supposed to die?
  • Who is Aaron supposed to be raised by?
  • Was Sarah supposed to be cured by Jack?

    Finally, who defines "supposed to"? In the case of Aaron, for instance, we've heard a few different things about where he's supposed to be and in whose custody. The Locke hatch saga is quite unclear as well -- Was he supposed to find the Pearl and never the Swan? Was he supposed to save the Swan or damn it? Was he supposed to go to the Island as a boy?

  • Are we getting conflicting messages about what is supposed to happen?
  • Are there two sides (or more) issuing these "supposetahs"?
  • Can we discern a pattern in the supposetahs?
  • Can we discern a pattern of course-correction in relation to failed supposetahs in what happens on the Island?

    Some memorable "supposetahs"...

    S1E19

    Locke: We didn't find this by accident. We're supposed to...

    Boone: Oh, we're supposed to. We're supposed to find this, right? We're supposed to open it, right? Then tell me something, John, if we're supposed to open it, then why the hell haven't we opened it yet?

    Locke: I don't know, Boone, but we're supposed to go to this place. We're supposed to find that plane. Will you come with me?

    S2E3

    Locke: This isn't... this isn't what was supposed to happen!

    Jack: What was supposed to happen?

    S2E22

    Charlie: Well, what about the church? You said we were supposed to be building it together, man.

    Mr. Eko: I am supposed to do something different now.

    S3E3

    Locke: I'm going in there because I'm supposed to go in there.

    S3E8

    Ms. Hawking: Because it wouldn't matter. Had I warned him about the scaffolding, tomorrow he'd be hit by a taxi. If I warned him about the taxi, he'd fall in the shower and break his neck. The universe, unfortunately, has a way of...course correcting. That man was supposed to die. That was his path. Just as it's your path to go to the island. You don't do it because you choose to, Desmond. You do it because you are supposed to.

    S3E17

    Desmond: The flashes don't happen exactly how I saw them. The picture changes. I was supposed to let you die, Charlie.

    S3E21

    Desmond: Maybe I keep seeing you die because...I'm supposed to take your place.

    Charlie: You and I both know. You're not supposed to take my place, brother.

    S4E5

    Desmond: No, this is wrong! I'm not supposed to be...
    Desmond: I'm not supposed to be here.
    Desmond: I'm not supposed to be here!
    Desmond: I'm not supposed to be here! Open this door! Open this door!

    Daniel Faraday: No, no, no. Not right now, Desmond. Where are you supposed to be? Where are you in 1996?

    The final quotes, I think, bear elaboration. The reason we know Island weirdness is at work is when someone is NOT where they are SUPPOSED TO be, whether it's Walt, Christian, Yemi or a black horse. So supposetahs aren't just action-commands -- and you can see this in the above quotes -- they are also about being where you ought.


    Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

    Post a Comment


    5 Comments:


    Hey JM! Sorry to post an off-topic comment but I'm curious to get your insights about the changing trigrams on the Orchid logo. Do you attach any significance to this? Is there any relevant change in meaning? Or do you suppose it's simply a prop error? I figured that, if anyone would be able to answer this question, it's you. Looking forward to your reply!

    By Blogger bigmouth, at 7/17/2008 11:10 AM  


    Hi, BM -- I am out of town on business for a couple weeks, but I hadn't noticed the change. Will look at a screencap when I have time and get back...

    By Blogger J.M. Berger, at 7/17/2008 4:09 PM  


    I am a huge fan of yours JMB. Also a fan of BM. I believe we now have proof the trigram arrangement has changed.

    Original Logo
    http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:TheOrchid.png

    Ben's Parka Logo
    http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:Bensparkalogo_Final3.jpg

    Logo at Dharma booth at ComicCon SD
    http://www.lostpedia.com/images/6/6f/Comic-con_OGR2.jpg

    I wait in anticipation of your interpretation.

    Thanks!!!!

    By Blogger KansasGal, at 7/24/2008 1:55 PM  


    Thanks, KG!

    The Orchid logo is an inverted version of the regular Dharma logo. The trigrams are upside down relative to the normal King Wen arrangement.

    From the perspective of the i-Ching that means processes are running in reverse -- i.e., time is flowing backward or more accurately, it's "out of joint." It's not perfectly backward because several of the trigrams don't change when you reverse them, so only four are "flipped."

    There's no traditional meaning for this arrangment which doesn't appear "in nature," so to speak. It is more a case of suggesting that the normal functioning of process, change, time or the universe in general is not running under normal parameters.

    Good catch!

    By Blogger J.M. Berger, at 7/25/2008 1:29 AM  


    The Kudo's for the catch is all BigMouth's. I cannot wait to see both of your interpretations of this new information. Plus all the great info coming in from ComicCon.

    By Blogger KansasGal, at 7/25/2008 6:56 PM  



    Wednesday, May 14, 2008



  • EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

    What Can I Possibly Say?




    Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

    Post a Comment


    0 Comments:



    Tuesday, April 01, 2008



    EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

    Firefox Resource-Hog: A Solution For Your CPU Usage?

    If you're like me -- and I know you are, because you're almost certainly coming here from Google -- you have a problem with Firefox. Or rather Firefox is creating a problem for you by consuming all your Windows XP system resources, eventually hanging up and completely freezing.

    The problem was bad in 1.5 and worse in 2.0, in my experience. And Mozilla clearly couldn't give a crap. When you go to their "support" page for this problem, you get the standard help desk line -- it's not our program, YOU are doing something wrong. Denial, denial, denial...

    They offer several suggestions. I tried them all, and no luck. Then I went surfing and tried everyone else's solutions. No luck. Finally, I took one of those random stabs in the dark. The fact I am typing this in a Firefox browser is testament to the fact that it works (so far). It's far from perfect, but it's temporarily stopped me from switching to Opera. (For how long, I cannot say.)

    The Mozilla help page mentions running programs in compatibility mode. Specifically, it claims that running Firefox in compatibility mode can create excessive CPU consumption. So I checked, but I wasn't running in compatibility mode, so that wasn't the problem.

    After exhausting all other possibilities (disabling extensions, browser cache, etc.), I decided to defy the support tips and to run Firefox in compatibility mode for Windows 98. I've occasionally found this tactic useful with other balky apps.

    It appears to have worked. So here's how to proceed.

    1) Start Firefox in safe mode. Disable all add-ons and reset all user preferences. I have been re-enabling add-ons successfully since the fix, but it's prudent enough to take them out first.

    2) Go to the Firefox exe file (or just your start menu short-cut). Right-click on the icon and select properties.

    3) You'll see a few tabs. The one you want is "Compatibility." Check the box labeled "Run this program in compatibility mode for:" and select "Windows 98/Windows Me" from the dropdown box. It will look like this:



    4) Restart Firefox.

    5) Note: You can try this part first if you want. Type about:config into the address bar of Firefox.

    6) Type "browser" in the filter field.

    7) Make the following changes (basically you are disabling all disk cache functions):

    browser.cache.disk.enable -- set to false

    browser.cache.memory.enable -- set to false

    browser.sessionstore.enabled -- set to false

    browser.sessionstore.resume_from_crash -- set to false

    8) Close all Firefox windows and wait for the process to finish of its own accord. You may be tempted to terminate the process from the Task Manager. Don't.

    When I followed these steps, I found myself with a reasonably functional Firefox 2.0.0.11. Your results may vary. I've seen plenty of suggested solutions which the author claimed were a sure fix, but which did not work for me.

    But for all of you who have been struggling with this, I suspect any hope of a solution is better than what you've been finding so far.

    Full disclosure: The cache change will cause page loading to be a bit slower (even on DSL). CPU consumption is still a bit on the high side while actively loading pages (70-80 percent), but nothing like it was before (i.e., Firefox 2.0.0.x was completely unusable before).

    After a few hours browsing, I have noted that the CPU usage is creeping upward. Rebooting the browser fixes that, but again, not ideal.

    Leave a comment here to let me know whether this worked for you. If nothing else, let us add to the massive amount of Internet rumination on this topic.

    Good luck!

    (Given the vast pervasiveness of this problem, I will gladly accept tips from any who are moved to do so. God knows, I would have paid one to fix this problem. You can find a donate button on the top right column of my i-Ching page.)


    Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

    Post a Comment


    2 Comments:


    Ugh, I had this same problem. Have you upgraded yet to Firefox 3? They seem to have resolved the memory issue, and I haven't had any other problems, though I hear some people are encountering bugs.

    By Blogger bigmouth, at 7/17/2008 11:22 AM  


    I have indeed upgraded and it works a lot better.

    By Blogger J.M. Berger, at 8/01/2008 11:16 PM  



    Saturday, December 15, 2007



    EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

    Superman/Doomsday Dead On Arrival

    I found myself grateful for the 99-cent weekend rental sale on Amazon Unbox today, after I decided to check out the first in DC Comics' new line of animated movies, Superman/Doomsday.

    It's sure not worth more than 99 cents. In fact, it may be 98 cents overpriced.

    The animation was just all right, unimaginative, barely dressier than the current TV show and considerably less inspired than Paul Dini's first run on Batman. But it's the writing that really kills this product dead.

    It's billed as an adaptation of the Death and Return of Superman, but that is a flat-out lie. There are two similarities to the comic story -- 1) big ugly monster and 2) Superman dies. Comics readers will recognize nothing else from this movie.

    The story is a disaster from start to finish, ineptly adopting Silver Age nonsense like Superman robots (in this case, looking like a refugee from the Nutcracker) and the Man of Steel trying to develop a cure for cancer from his Fortress of Solitude.

    All of this is presented in a ham-handed, charmless manner (see Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman if you want to see it done right).

    These too-childish bits of ridiculousness are out of place in a movie that's generally unsafe for kids. While the gore level is low, the movie features an astounding number of violent deaths, including children. While not explicit, the relationship between Lois Lane and Superman is unambiguously sexual -- despite the fact that she enters the movie unaware of his real name. (Lois, you ignorant slut!)

    James Marsters shows glimmers of promise in his voice performance as Lex Luthor, but never really delivers. The unctuous and menacing Adam Baldwin (whom I loved in Day Break) is woefully miscast as Superman, although he has some nice moments as Superman's evil clone.

    What, you don't remember that from the comic? Well, that brings us full circle. The story is a clumsy mashup of half a dozen superhero cliches and a few random elements lifted from Knightfall. I should mention the pacing, although it seems like overkill. It sucks -- enough so to bear mentioning amid all these other complaints.

    Too scary and violent for children, too silly and shallow for adults. Maybe an OK fit for extremely undiscriminating teenagers, but I wouldn't bank on it. Let's hope the upcoming adaption of The Judas Contract fares better.

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

    Post a Comment


    2 Comments:


    Thanks for the heads up! And I came by here to check out more ominous stuff you've covered. Glad to see I'm not the only educated, passionate and writerly (not as accomplished as JM) 40-year-old unashamed to still enjoy a GOOD super hero story! And OK with trashing a poorly done version. Kudos!

    By Blogger "Jon Osterholm", at 10/07/2007 6:53 PM  


    Hey, we all gotta kick back and have some fun once in a while. I was bummed about this one, since I'd been looking forward to the long-promised DVD series. Anyone out there checked out the Marvel animated movies?

    By Blogger J.M. Berger, at 10/07/2007 7:00 PM  



    Saturday, September 22, 2007



    EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

    To Catch To Catch A Predator

    Yes, TV news is out of control...


    Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

    Post a Comment


    0 Comments:



    Wednesday, September 12, 2007



    EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

    Benoit Killings Rattle Boston Wrestling Scene

    My story for the Boston Globe on the local impact of the Benoit killings is posted on Boston.com. There are also two sidebars, which I have posted separately. You can get to all three stories -- "A Distant Tragedy Could Affect Boston Wrestling Community," "Chris Benoit--Before the Killings, An Icon to Insiders" and "Drug Deaths Haunt Boston Pro Wrestling Scene" -- through the link below.

    Story and sidebars


    Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

    Post a Comment


    0 Comments:



    Friday, July 13, 2007



    EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

    Director's Cut on Obscenity

    I've posted some material on NowPublic that was cut from my story in the Globe earlier this week on a new linguistic study of obscenity. This is the unexpurgated version -- with all the real swear words! Whoohoo!

    On a separate note, what do you all think of NowPublic? I've been posting over there for a while. I like the idea in principle -- in practice I get the same or more readers working with one of my established sites like this or Intelwire.

    Do you like seeing some of my longer pieces over there? Should I just be working off the Egoplex site in some manner? Or should I re-imagine this site to make it generally easier to sift through the content, including with some kind of interface for a more seriously constructed article vs. a blog post?

    I like the individual pieces of Egoplex, but they aren't particularly consistent (which may be more appropriate given the concept of 'egoplex'). I'm not sure I am branding myself in the most effective way (in the marketing sense, not the hot iron sense).

    Feel free to post your feedback below.


    Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

    Post a Comment


    0 Comments:



    Thursday, July 12, 2007



    EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.

    The Swearing Study...

    My latest science story for the Boston Globe...
    The National Science Foundation is paying more than $200,000 for a study whose results may be unprintable.

    The grant's title, "Expressive Content and the Semantics of Contexts," doesn't sound exciting, until you figure out what "expressive content" means.

    Christopher Potts , a linguist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, will catalog and analyze the use of obscenities, vulgarities, and racial epithets as well as titles and honorifics. All are words or phrases that express emotion, or whose absence can convey an emotion, such as disrespect.


    Click here for full story


    Posted by J.M. Berger || Permalink

    Post a Comment


    0 Comments:



    Tuesday, July 10, 2007



    EGOPLEX is now part of the Multifaceted Media Group. Read more.