It's a sad day indeed when any OS needs an entire gigabyte of RAM to run "adequately". Seriously, I ran OS/2 2.0 in 8 megabytes off of a 120 MB hard disk, and looking back, I *still* don't know what real, revolutionary, non-irrelevant features modern OSes have that it didn't have.
"Googlisation" might come up or not (we'll see), but the rest is rubbish.
"Xboxisation" is likely already covered by Tivoisation. "BLOBisation" is either no problem at all (legally *OR* philosophically) or already illegal by the GPLv2 (even though companies like Nvidia and ATI ignore this). Preventing "GPL-less compiling" and "artisation" would be wholly incompatible with the GPL's philosophy: the GPL explicitely does not have to be accepted and explicitely does not apply when all you do is *use* a piece of software. "re-implementing" is obvious rubbish, and "in-houseation" is a weaker version of "Googlisation" that does not pose philosophical problems.
You know something's seriously wrong with you....when you start talking about "appropriately masculine" ways of peeing (as opposed to, one assumes, inappropriately feminine ways of doing the smae thing).
But then, what can you expect from people who talk about "the man in the house" and "the bitch"?
Maybe I shouldn't reply to this comments, since it does come across as rather flamebait-y, but... actually, the GP has a point. She (I'm assuming she's female because of the "lena" part of her name) is quite correct insofar as that many heterosexual relationships do seem to work this way; likewise, you are correct when you say that they *shouldn't* (and that people who think they should are deluded and/or pathetic - I personally think they're both, no matter what their gender is), but keep in mind that "ought" does not imply "is".
The main reason that I don't anymore is because I have a dick, and I don't mean that in a machismo way. I'm 196cm tall (6'4") and the one-size-fits-all toilet seat is small to begin with -- even if I had a tiny little dick shoving it between my legs and pointing it downward while sitting on a seat that's too small for me would be uncomfortable and restrictive. And that completely ignores the very real problem of morning wood, which a sibling poster hinted at. It's hard enough (no pun intended) to piss sitting down when you're flaccid, but doing it when you have an erection is just impossible without great discomfort.
I'm 198cm *and* quite heavy (with a BMI well into the 30s), and I don't usually have a problem with peeing while sitting down while flaccid. It's more difficult when you've got an erection, but then, I don't usually have a problem with that simply because if I've got an erection, I can't really pee at all. And while my penis isn't big, it's not terribly small, either (in fact, it's about average), so that's not a factor, either.
Then there's the question of orientation. Unless you're a virgin who failed anatomy, you'll no that the vagina is situated between the legs, whereas the penis juts out from the front of of a man's body. As such, when a woman sits, her urethra is conveniently oriented downwards, making urination convenient and dare-I-say-it pleasurable, but when a man sits, he finds his penis uncomfortably wedged between his legs.
Maybe you do, but unless your toilet seats are considerably smaller than the one I'm used to, I don't think the generalisation is valid.
Many modern toilet seats are not closed at the front, presumably because some neanderthals can't remember to put the toilet seat up before they piss. I cannot stand these seats -- when it's time to "take the browns to the superbowl" as it were, I find myself sitting, squeezing my penis as best I can against my body so as to prevent it from touching the exposed toilet rim.
Ah, yes, those are annoying; myself, I haven't encountered them in... I don't know, 20 years or so, fortunately.
"Why don't you just sit?" is one of the most ridiculous questions I've ever heard.
Not in the slightest. Maybe it doesn't work for you, but I'm still not convinced whether you're actually being objective or whether you're trying to justify an existing dislike for sitting down while peeing; and in any case, even if it genuinely doesn't work for you (for whatever reason), the question is far from ridiculous. Don't get all pissy about it.;)
Actually, men can have multiple orgasms, too. Not necessarily multiple ejaculations, but I know from experience that it's possible to climax more than once in rapid succession. (It's difficult, of course, and I've only managed a few times, but it does work.)
Google runs on hundreds of thousands of servers--by one estimate, in excess of 450,000--racked up in thousands of clusters in dozens of data centers around the world.
If this figure is accurate, a million boxen nowadays doesn't seem out of reach.
And yet again, it's proven that you can't be an association without being an ass.:P (Not you, that is - the NMPAATMPAA or whatever the relevant abbreviation is.)
But really, is it any of our business? I don't remember hearing anyone ask for our opinion of their political processes.
Your post was quite insightful until this point, but you just lost me here. Yes, it is our business (and I'm saying that as someone who's neither from the USA nor from Russia). It's not necessarily something we - as non-Russians - can do much about, but declaring it as internal Russian affairs that "we" are not allowed to have an opinion on and to say that - in essence - there's not even anything wrong with it (I mean, come on - "political processes" has to be one of the worst euphemisms I've heard today) shows an attitude that's not just naive but also worrying.
Right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state because it can help protect them from oppression by their own government.
So what you're saying is that the USA are, basically, the only free country in the world (not counting others that might have similarly lax gun laws) and that most of - e.g. - Europe is actually not free?
That's astoundingly ridiculous. Revenge and retribution have no place in a civilised society; punishment for crimes should have (or actually has, depending on where you're from) the SOLE purpose of preventing future crime by enabling people to become productive members of society again. I'm not sure that's recognised in the USA, but other nations do - Germany would be an example I know about.
And how can you argue that this guy isn't ill? Come on, he's the PERFECT TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of a sociopath.
High rotation... you mean like play 33 rpm records at 78 rpm? I don't even want to *think* about what that'd sound with the aforementioned, um, artists. x.x
Actually, extradition of German nationals is specifically prohibited by the German constitution; exceptions are allowed for extradition to EU member states and international courts under certain circumstances.
So, no - they don't have extradition treaties with the USA or Canada, for example, and none with European nations that aren't EU members (like Iceland, Norway or Switzerland), either. And BTW, as far as the USA are concerned, do the USA ever extradite people, anyway, or are the extradition treaties you have one-way? I've never heard about a US-American being taken to, say, the UK or Australia or so to be tried there, anyway...
The problem with the statement is that it falsely implies that *all* criminals will have guns. In reality, that's not true; if guns really were restricted, most wouldn't have any. Sure, Johnny-Tightlips-the-mafia-hitman would still have quite an arsenal, but he's not in any way representative of criminals in general.
Just go and look what the most common reason is why people are actually in jail in the USA. Hint: it's not murder.
And also because she wants to get reelected, and for that, she needs to show the Joe Sixpacks who're infuriated now that OMGhackers stole their hard-earned tax dollars that she's doing something.
Think of it as political security theatre and/or CYA security - it doesn't actually do anything, but it mollifies the mob, and it allows her to point at the newly-passed laws and say "but I did something, you can't blame me!" when the same thing happens again later on.
Slashdot Mirror
Bias, you say? Balance, eh? Here, have a comic.
It's a sad day indeed when any OS needs an entire gigabyte of RAM to run "adequately". Seriously, I ran OS/2 2.0 in 8 megabytes off of a 120 MB hard disk, and looking back, I *still* don't know what real, revolutionary, non-irrelevant features modern OSes have that it didn't have.
"Googlisation" might come up or not (we'll see), but the rest is rubbish.
"Xboxisation" is likely already covered by Tivoisation. "BLOBisation" is either no problem at all (legally *OR* philosophically) or already illegal by the GPLv2 (even though companies like Nvidia and ATI ignore this). Preventing "GPL-less compiling" and "artisation" would be wholly incompatible with the GPL's philosophy: the GPL explicitely does not have to be accepted and explicitely does not apply when all you do is *use* a piece of software. "re-implementing" is obvious rubbish, and "in-houseation" is a weaker version of "Googlisation" that does not pose philosophical problems.
That's rubbish. Have you ever been in a (literal) pissing contest with a woman? They've got much more control over these things than you might think.
You know something's seriously wrong with you.. ..when you start talking about "appropriately masculine" ways of peeing (as opposed to, one assumes, inappropriately feminine ways of doing the smae thing).
But then, what can you expect from people who talk about "the man in the house" and "the bitch"?
Maybe I shouldn't reply to this comments, since it does come across as rather flamebait-y, but... actually, the GP has a point. She (I'm assuming she's female because of the "lena" part of her name) is quite correct insofar as that many heterosexual relationships do seem to work this way; likewise, you are correct when you say that they *shouldn't* (and that people who think they should are deluded and/or pathetic - I personally think they're both, no matter what their gender is), but keep in mind that "ought" does not imply "is".
I'm 198cm *and* quite heavy (with a BMI well into the 30s), and I don't usually have a problem with peeing while sitting down while flaccid. It's more difficult when you've got an erection, but then, I don't usually have a problem with that simply because if I've got an erection, I can't really pee at all. And while my penis isn't big, it's not terribly small, either (in fact, it's about average), so that's not a factor, either.
Maybe you do, but unless your toilet seats are considerably smaller than the one I'm used to, I don't think the generalisation is valid.
Ah, yes, those are annoying; myself, I haven't encountered them in... I don't know, 20 years or so, fortunately.
Not in the slightest. Maybe it doesn't work for you, but I'm still not convinced whether you're actually being objective or whether you're trying to justify an existing dislike for sitting down while peeing; and in any case, even if it genuinely doesn't work for you (for whatever reason), the question is far from ridiculous. Don't get all pissy about it. ;)
Actually, men can have multiple orgasms, too. Not necessarily multiple ejaculations, but I know from experience that it's possible to climax more than once in rapid succession. (It's difficult, of course, and I've only managed a few times, but it does work.)
This is from a year ago (July 2006):
If this figure is accurate, a million boxen nowadays doesn't seem out of reach.
And yet again, it's proven that you can't be an association without being an ass. :P (Not you, that is - the NMPAATMPAA or whatever the relevant abbreviation is.)
Your post was quite insightful until this point, but you just lost me here. Yes, it is our business (and I'm saying that as someone who's neither from the USA nor from Russia). It's not necessarily something we - as non-Russians - can do much about, but declaring it as internal Russian affairs that "we" are not allowed to have an opinion on and to say that - in essence - there's not even anything wrong with it (I mean, come on - "political processes" has to be one of the worst euphemisms I've heard today) shows an attitude that's not just naive but also worrying.
So what you're saying is that the USA are, basically, the only free country in the world (not counting others that might have similarly lax gun laws) and that most of - e.g. - Europe is actually not free?
Actually, Napster wasn't giving away music, it was helping others give away music.
Um, because our justice systems aren't based on "an eye for an eye" anymore?
Hear, hear!
You're a sick, disgusting piece of shit. And flamebait mods be damned, I'm not gonna post this anonymously.
This isn't about an eye for an eye, you know...
That's astoundingly ridiculous. Revenge and retribution have no place in a civilised society; punishment for crimes should have (or actually has, depending on where you're from) the SOLE purpose of preventing future crime by enabling people to become productive members of society again. I'm not sure that's recognised in the USA, but other nations do - Germany would be an example I know about.
And how can you argue that this guy isn't ill? Come on, he's the PERFECT TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of a sociopath.
High rotation... you mean like play 33 rpm records at 78 rpm? I don't even want to *think* about what that'd sound with the aforementioned, um, artists. x.x
Actually, extradition of German nationals is specifically prohibited by the German constitution; exceptions are allowed for extradition to EU member states and international courts under certain circumstances.
So, no - they don't have extradition treaties with the USA or Canada, for example, and none with European nations that aren't EU members (like Iceland, Norway or Switzerland), either. And BTW, as far as the USA are concerned, do the USA ever extradite people, anyway, or are the extradition treaties you have one-way? I've never heard about a US-American being taken to, say, the UK or Australia or so to be tried there, anyway...
The problem with the statement is that it falsely implies that *all* criminals will have guns. In reality, that's not true; if guns really were restricted, most wouldn't have any. Sure, Johnny-Tightlips-the-mafia-hitman would still have quite an arsenal, but he's not in any way representative of criminals in general.
Just go and look what the most common reason is why people are actually in jail in the USA. Hint: it's not murder.
Hey, that's not fair - baseball is much more interesting than watching paint dry. In fact, it's almost as good as watching grass grow.
Who knows. Compared to the income of the for-profit Mozilla organisation they've got now, it's really just a drop in the barrel.
...vampireware? Wow, that's one I haven't heard before. :)
That being said, moderators, please mod parent up - it's one of the most insightful comments I've seen in this debate so far.
And also because she wants to get reelected, and for that, she needs to show the Joe Sixpacks who're infuriated now that OMGhackers stole their hard-earned tax dollars that she's doing something.
Think of it as political security theatre and/or CYA security - it doesn't actually do anything, but it mollifies the mob, and it allows her to point at the newly-passed laws and say "but I did something, you can't blame me!" when the same thing happens again later on.