Cloud computing pundits seem to ramble about instant on access and scalability. Nice fantasy. What they actually want to do is make you buy into a single vendor system that's tightly controlled, which may or may not scale as expected when the time comes and that is plagued by the same outages we see from any service vendor.
Better to work on building sustainable space stations with necessary stuff like artificial gravity and radiation shielding, so that people can actually live on them _indefinitely_. Start by building them near the Earth. After that work on space stations that can build space stations out of stuff like asteroids - space factories. Then we can have space colonies and roam about colonizing the solar system....or we could continue to develop technology to the point that getting in and out of gravity wells isn't as difficult. Right now we're using chemical propulsion which in the long term is crazy and will never make navigating gravity wells easy. It's amazing we made it to the moon that way. Trouble is we haven't developed anything better. The chemical propulsion tech was originally developed to hurl bombs at people a few hundred kilometers away for pity sake.
If we hadn't worked out the finer details of gravity assist we wouldn't have had probes that have explored the solar system as well as they have either. Are you aware that the voyager probes had a small launch window because the planets happened to align. We couldn't launch the probes again today even if we had identical copies. The alignment happens once every 176 years.
In fact, the long term inhabitants of space colonies might view living on Mars or the Moon far more unpleasant than living in a space colony.
Nice in theory, but even with artificial gravity we don't yet know enough about long term effects of living in space. We do know enough to know that artificial gravity would be necessary to prevent bones turning to jelly. We don't even know if a rotating structure is going to be enough to cut it. By the way do you have any idea what kind of shielding it would take to protect someone from a full blown solar flare? We don't have good tech there either.
I have this mental image of a bunch of soldiers with sets of remotely controlled optical fibers hanging out of their head. For some reason in this image they're all kind of grey like something out of Edward Scissorhands or perhaps The Matrix, or maybe The Borg from Startrek....and the best bit is that the guy controlling them is doing it with an r/c aircraft radio. "Crush, kill, destroy, my pets!". Wait, I think someone has implanted MY brain with Hollywood crap. They did it the old fashioned way though - tv brainwashing.
Yep. Get over it. Your only other option is to stay angry and forfeit the good things that life can give you.
Someone in the 3rd world, who can't afford to eat every day would look at you whining about potential health issues and think it's unfair that you have the luxury to be angry instead of slaving away 16 hours a day for subsistence wages, or starving for lack of work.
See, that's your problem. There was no comparison.
Are you serious? YOU used the metaphor. A metaphor is a device in English for making comparisons to something more familiar. YOU brought it up. Take some responsibility for your word choice. This is NOT my problem; it is most definitely yours. One or more of the following apply to you:
1) You are incapable of choosing your words so as not to cause offence. Your people skills need a lot of work and you are a poor communicator
2) You are dishonest about your intentions
3) You like to assume you're debating with an idiot who is incapable of understanding English
I was quoting a figure of speech that happens to involved a dog. However, the meaning does in no way compare to the dog in any form and is entirely contained within the metaphor.
Given the topic of discussion, I assume you have one or more partners - a girlfriend, wife, spouse? Go use that metaphor on them and see how much use you have for a condom.
If someone calls you "cool like Elvis", do you complain that they've just wished you were dead?;-)
Are you being obtuse on purpose? "Cool like Elvis" is a compliment. You weren't complimenting me. You were putting me down and comparing me to a dog, not a rock star. Another poorly executed piece of mis-direction on your part.
Your reading of my words does not have to be identical to my intentions when writing those same words.
Go back and re-read your words. You have to work very hard (and perhaps live in an alternate Universe) to twist them so they are not derogatory.
Here's your re-transmit: Many of the alleged disadvantages of condoms are personal preferences, can be reduced by a better choice of condom brand, or can be offset by advantages that are not as obvious on first glance.
They are personal preferences that are shared by a large number, perhaps a majority. None of the brands I've tried have been pleasant to use. You like them. Great. Use them. Please use them! I hate them but I'm still smart enough to use them to keep myself safe.
Which is 100% an acquired preference. Some people like the smell of latex....and many people don't. So are you saying that is somehow their fault? What do you say to a girlfriend who doesn't like the smell? "Stop whining and suck it up"? I don't think so.
Agreed. Nevertheless, depending on the brand, it's better or worse. I didn't say there are condoms that smell so great you'd want them around to perfume the room, but there certainly are brands that smell better than others.
It's still a chemical poison. None of them are pleasant. I guess there might be freaks that like the smell of spermicide too....but come on.
No, but if you absolutely must become defensive then be my guest.:-)
Defensive? You're the one that's implying I'm a selfish lover. What did you expect? That I'd be thrilled and enthusiastic about your unsubtle insults?
I said nothing like that, but here in Germany we have a saying: "Getretene Hunde bellen", translation: "Hit dogs bark", meaning: "If someone complains very loudly, you've probably hit where it hurts".;-)
Putting aside for a moment that you've just compared me to a dog (and are wondering why I might be insulted or "defensive" - try getting some people skills) By that analogy you just "hit" me and are wondering why I'm "barking". You're a fool.
In Australia we have a saying "Fair go, mate". As in don't be so dishonest. Implying I'm a selfish lover is exactly what you were intending to say.
Pick a better brand, there are some that aren't that bad. Plus as with anything non-toxic, preferences are often acquired and can be changed.
Latex smells like latex. Most spermacides, being artificial poisons aren't going to smell like roses.
Not any worse than using a towel to wipe your stuff away, is it? Oh, wait, if you think that's entirely the girls problem, then you could be right.
That pretty much sums up your attitude doesn't it. If someone has a different view to yours they must be a selfish inconsiderate prat. Last I checked the guy had to wipe fluids away too regardless of condom usage, unless of course you're use to walking around with body fluids on you, or going to sleep in them.
If you think about both partners, it just shifts the responsibility of disposal from one person to the other. Plus it allows for some things you'd not otherwise consider (like going down on her to finish her off as well - unless you like doing that after you just came inside of her without a condom...).
For pity sake, now you're painting me as a selfish lover who won't even satisfy his partner. You know nothing about me you arrogant troll.
There was no need for you to be so graphic or so rude!!!
I'm not trying to argue that condoms are something of a side effect; I'm pointing out that condoms don't necessarily spoil the sexual moment unless YOU as a partner allow them to.
No, if you hate steak, it doesn't matter what you tell yourself. Your tastebuds are unlikely to rewire themselves.
I've been tempted many, MANY times to go bareback, but after realizing that they can make the moment just as enjoyable, I haven't really had the desire to.
Well I'm in a committed relationship - married with a child - and we have birth control that is effective. Both my wife and I agree they're awful. We stopped using them for a long time then went back to using them while she was breast feeding as the pill isn't safe when breastfeeding. Being a short term solution, we had no reason to think that we'd have to use them for a long time. Sure you can still have a good sex life, but it's MUCH better when you don't need to use them.
The first condoms that I've used were horribly smelly and uncomfortable, so I sought for better fitting and more pleasurable condoms and found them. I took too long at putting them on, so I just got better at putting it on and found different ways to put it on without disrupting "the moment" too much.
Yes experience does make a difference. No it's not the same as not having to put one one.
In my experience, I've found that when the moment's really, really intense, having sex with even the worst condom feels just as good as the times I've used the optimized ones.
I'm sorry but I think you're fooling yourself. They're a necessary evil as far as I'm concerned. No they don't have to ruin your sex life but a sex life without them is much preferred.
We're converging to the same point, though, in that this research has the potential to spark some really positive change for male birth/STD control.
Research is good but that's a lot of money to spend to find out something that a simple questionaire could give you good answers to.
On a somewhat unrelated note, what's the deal with the polyurethane ones? Are those as safe to use, or is it that it hasn't been proven if they are?
No idea. People and companies don't behave rationally when it comes to sex. I hope there are lots of options out there - the more there are, the more likely there is one to suit everyone - the more that use them, the less people die a horrible death and the less children born to people who can't support them.
You can counter each point until you go blue, but the fact remains that most people find condoms unpleasant. People aren't idiots. If condoms were hassle free people would see the benefits and use them. As it is they see a lot of drawbacks as well, and for some it downright spoils sex, which is why they take risks.
A lot of Durex's higher end stuff doesn't smell at all.
I've yet to come across a condom that doesn't smell. By the way how high end is high end? How much am I expected to pay per orgasm?
If you're partner is willing, you can make it a part of the moment. No loss.
If your partner is trying to hold her nose from the smell, it's part of the moment alright - the moment that puts you off proceeding.
While this is true, the good, thin and reliable latex condoms don't mitigate it by that much. From what I've heard, polyurethane condoms are an excellent alternative with CRAZY sensitivity, but it's a bit risky considering that its effectiveness is not as "guaranteed" as latex condoms.
You still have something in between you and your partner. Anyone who says that the sensitivity does not decrease using a condom is lying (and possibly hasn't ever had sex). It's a question of how much sensitivity is reduced, and whether or not that reduction is a good thing. (It may be that reducing sensitivity can help prolong the act)
Ever trying putting it in your wallet or a cool place? If you're girlfriend's a long-term, have you considered leaving a set at her place?
Didn't they teach you never to put a condom in your wallet in sex ed class? Guaranteed way to damage it.
Having them somewhere convenient helps to some degree but you still have to get out the packet, get out the condom, unwrap it and put it on. Sometimes that extra minute can kill the mood.
Exactly. It's all subjective.
Hate to break it to you but sex is like food. There's no accounting for taste. It's all subjective just about sums up sex in general. However it's clear that many people find condoms off-putting.
They smell bad, they distract from the spontenaity of the moment, they decrease sensitivity, they're never handy at the moment you want them, they're disgusting to take off, they're awkward to dispose of.
Despite that they're a good trade when weighed against the possibility of 18 years of child support, or your penis turning green and falling off.
Like it or not a street thug has nothing to lose. If they end up in jail, or have something added to their criminal record, it's not going to ruin their life. It's another day at the office. Ho hum. Not like they had any job prospects to ruin. Their life sux and they live by the law of the jungle so being injured or killed, while it matters to them is an ongoing possibility. They have some experience in dealing with violence and their instincts are good when it comes to getting out of there.
The law abiding citizen on the other hand doesn't have a criminal record, and it will ruin their job prospects if they get one. Try getting a job at a major bank with a criminal record. As for street smarts and instincts, they have none.
It's not a fair fight. Pretending it's a fair fight or that this is just a question of courage and standing up for your rights is foolish.
You would think they are opposites wouldn't you? For a violent wife beater they may not be. Buying flowers one minute and beating her the next appears to be the norm for some of these idiots. Sometimes they are literally mentally ill - whether its schizophrenia or alcoholism. Other times they are just irrational and somewhat stupid bullies.
He married a woman that did not love him and that had everything to gain from marrying him for a while then divorcing him, treated her badly, was surprised that she cheated on him, then finally killed her.
Conciliatory statements were the least of his worries.
It's not that he didn't care for her, or didn't say "Yes, dear". It's that he beat her. If you're beating someone it doesn't matter if you're saying "Yes, dear". Active violence goes beyond not caring. He's actively become a person that does harm to his spouse. He has become the enemy. I'm guessing neither of them were faultless in the break of the marriage, but only one of them got violent and eventually committed murder. His neglect may have led to her infidelity which may well have led to the jealousy and rage that precipitated the violence. Or it may have been the other way around. Does it even matter. HE chose to become a murderer.
All in all, if you are a strong, independent person who wants to remain such, you will encounter too many fights and your relationships will fail. Hans Reiser is an example; he could not break himself and switch into "Yes, Dear!" mode.
His mistake was not saying "Yes, dear"? It had nothing to do with choosing a promiscuous russian bride, then butchering her. That's one twisted reality you live in.
No relationship where you always admit you're at fault no matter what is going to be any good. You're just giving this guy a recipe to getting by in life as a friendly doormat. The thing is you pick your fights, and you don't expect ANY human being to be entirely rational all the time.
I wonder what he earnt this year? I would say that a rich overpaid CEO complaining that people won't accept a sub-standard wage are the epitome of hypocrisy and greed. I'm surprised he's not whining that good slaves are hard to find.
If you attend church (fat chance of someone who uses slashdot doing that I know) then that would provide a good starting point.
One of the stupidest things you can do is attend church to meet people. If you're not already attending church you're not going to meet like minded people. You're more likely to meet someone much more religious.
It's even stupider if he's trying to meet women. If your core values and beliefs aren't the same, any relationship's going to be much much harder.
But you're never going to get back all the way to where you were by closing tabs, because stuff gets loaded and cached etc
Nice technical definition of a leak. Only problem is most people do not visit the same pages repeatedly in the fashion you describe. So whether or not it's technically a memory leak, not cleaning up what's loaded when it's no longer needed still leads to an unusable browser.
Only these leaks are really important, because they'll mean the browser becomes unusable over time.
So what you're saying is that if my computer is using all it's memory for a web browser that's displaying one page that's okay because it's had other pages opened in the past. That's nonsense.
Astronomy, R/C cars, boats or aircraft, Linux association. Go to the monthly meetings. Be prepared to put up with some who have less social skills than you. Avoid fiercely competitive clubs like chess clubs.
A technical photography class will give you access to artists as well as geeks.
As I write this Firefox mem usage is 271,480 MB and had peaked at 323,864. I have 4 windows open. One has 5 tabs, the other have 1 tab each. I just closed all except the 5 tab window and I'm only back down to 260,892.
That's not as extreme as it once was, but it's not gone. I get a truckload of memory back by killing the browser and starting afresh. Some of that is necessary due to session history etc. but the fact remains FF is a memory hog.
If you're not seeing similar memory usage your browsing habits are probably different. Possibilities include:
- Different extensions - Visiting different web sites with different types of content (eg. flash) - Using tabs and new windows differently
That doesn't make what I'm doing abnormal, unusual or wrong. FF gripes are legitimate.
Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls. Hopefully.
They weren't trolls. I've seen the memory leaks first hand. Plenty of people have posted OS memory usage screenshots. It may have been particular extensions or advanced settings that caused the problems but it was not some work of fiction.
One more thing. I think you're missing the irony of a man who wrote a great work about the dangers of destroying information by book burning would, if he had his way, destroy information by tearing down the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Cloud computing pundits seem to ramble about instant on access and scalability. Nice fantasy. What they actually want to do is make you buy into a single vendor system that's tightly controlled, which may or may not scale as expected when the time comes and that is plagued by the same outages we see from any service vendor.
Better to work on building sustainable space stations with necessary stuff like artificial gravity and radiation shielding, so that people can actually live on them _indefinitely_. Start by building them near the Earth. After that work on space stations that can build space stations out of stuff like asteroids - space factories. Then we can have space colonies and roam about colonizing the solar system.
If we hadn't worked out the finer details of gravity assist we wouldn't have had probes that have explored the solar system as well as they have either. Are you aware that the voyager probes had a small launch window because the planets happened to align. We couldn't launch the probes again today even if we had identical copies. The alignment happens once every 176 years.
In fact, the long term inhabitants of space colonies might view living on Mars or the Moon far more unpleasant than living in a space colony.
Nice in theory, but even with artificial gravity we don't yet know enough about long term effects of living in space. We do know enough to know that artificial gravity would be necessary to prevent bones turning to jelly. We don't even know if a rotating structure is going to be enough to cut it. By the way do you have any idea what kind of shielding it would take to protect someone from a full blown solar flare? We don't have good tech there either.
Clutter. Yeah that's what I want on my desktop. Clutter! Goddamn marketing morons.
I have this mental image of a bunch of soldiers with sets of remotely controlled optical fibers hanging out of their head. For some reason in this image they're all kind of grey like something out of Edward Scissorhands or perhaps The Matrix, or maybe The Borg from Startrek....and the best bit is that the guy controlling them is doing it with an r/c aircraft radio. "Crush, kill, destroy, my pets!". Wait, I think someone has implanted MY brain with Hollywood crap. They did it the old fashioned way though - tv brainwashing.
...and one more
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tieadvancedx1/
Life just is not fair.
Yep. Get over it. Your only other option is to stay angry and forfeit the good things that life can give you.
Someone in the 3rd world, who can't afford to eat every day would look at you whining about potential health issues and think it's unfair that you have the luxury to be angry instead of slaving away 16 hours a day for subsistence wages, or starving for lack of work.
It was picked up from common usage outside of computer science, and was general use well before then.
Phew, for a moment there I thought that before computer science was invented, everything came in random configuration.
This whole story is a waste of space. Slow news day I guess.
See, that's your problem. There was no comparison.
Are you serious? YOU used the metaphor. A metaphor is a device in English for making comparisons to something more familiar. YOU brought it up. Take some responsibility for your word choice. This is NOT my problem; it is most definitely yours. One or more of the following apply to you:
1) You are incapable of choosing your words so as not to cause offence. Your people skills need a lot of work and you are a poor communicator
2) You are dishonest about your intentions
3) You like to assume you're debating with an idiot who is incapable of understanding English
I was quoting a figure of speech that happens to involved a dog. However, the meaning does in no way compare to the dog in any form and is entirely contained within the metaphor.
Given the topic of discussion, I assume you have one or more partners - a girlfriend, wife, spouse? Go use that metaphor on them and see how much use you have for a condom.
If someone calls you "cool like Elvis", do you complain that they've just wished you were dead? ;-)
Are you being obtuse on purpose? "Cool like Elvis" is a compliment. You weren't complimenting me. You were putting me down and comparing me to a dog, not a rock star. Another poorly executed piece of mis-direction on your part.
Your reading of my words does not have to be identical to my intentions when writing those same words.
Go back and re-read your words. You have to work very hard (and perhaps live in an alternate Universe) to twist them so they are not derogatory.
Here's your re-transmit: Many of the alleged disadvantages of condoms are personal preferences, can be reduced by a better choice of condom brand, or can be offset by advantages that are not as obvious on first glance.
They are personal preferences that are shared by a large number, perhaps a majority. None of the brands I've tried have been pleasant to use. You like them. Great. Use them. Please use them! I hate them but I'm still smart enough to use them to keep myself safe.
End of transmission.
Which is 100% an acquired preference. Some people like the smell of latex. ...and many people don't. So are you saying that is somehow their fault? What do you say to a girlfriend who doesn't like the smell? "Stop whining and suck it up"? I don't think so.
Agreed. Nevertheless, depending on the brand, it's better or worse. I didn't say there are condoms that smell so great you'd want them around to perfume the room, but there certainly are brands that smell better than others.
It's still a chemical poison. None of them are pleasant. I guess there might be freaks that like the smell of spermicide too....but come on.
No, but if you absolutely must become defensive then be my guest. :-)
Defensive? You're the one that's implying I'm a selfish lover. What did you expect? That I'd be thrilled and enthusiastic about your unsubtle insults?
I said nothing like that, but here in Germany we have a saying: "Getretene Hunde bellen", translation: "Hit dogs bark", meaning: "If someone complains very loudly, you've probably hit where it hurts". ;-)
Putting aside for a moment that you've just compared me to a dog (and are wondering why I might be insulted or "defensive" - try getting some people skills) By that analogy you just "hit" me and are wondering why I'm "barking". You're a fool.
In Australia we have a saying "Fair go, mate". As in don't be so dishonest. Implying I'm a selfish lover is exactly what you were intending to say.
Pick a better brand, there are some that aren't that bad. Plus as with anything non-toxic, preferences are often acquired and can be changed.
Latex smells like latex. Most spermacides, being artificial poisons aren't going to smell like roses.
Not any worse than using a towel to wipe your stuff away, is it? Oh, wait, if you think that's entirely the girls problem, then you could be right.
That pretty much sums up your attitude doesn't it. If someone has a different view to yours they must be a selfish inconsiderate prat. Last I checked the guy had to wipe fluids away too regardless of condom usage, unless of course you're use to walking around with body fluids on you, or going to sleep in them.
If you think about both partners, it just shifts the responsibility of disposal from one person to the other. Plus it allows for some things you'd not otherwise consider (like going down on her to finish her off as well - unless you like doing that after you just came inside of her without a condom...).
For pity sake, now you're painting me as a selfish lover who won't even satisfy his partner. You know nothing about me you arrogant troll.
There was no need for you to be so graphic or so rude!!!
I'm not trying to argue that condoms are something of a side effect; I'm pointing out that condoms don't necessarily spoil the sexual moment unless YOU as a partner allow them to.
No, if you hate steak, it doesn't matter what you tell yourself. Your tastebuds are unlikely to rewire themselves.
I've been tempted many, MANY times to go bareback, but after realizing that they can make the moment just as enjoyable, I haven't really had the desire to.
Well I'm in a committed relationship - married with a child - and we have birth control that is effective. Both my wife and I agree they're awful. We stopped using them for a long time then went back to using them while she was breast feeding as the pill isn't safe when breastfeeding. Being a short term solution, we had no reason to think that we'd have to use them for a long time. Sure you can still have a good sex life, but it's MUCH better when you don't need to use them.
The first condoms that I've used were horribly smelly and uncomfortable, so I sought for better fitting and more pleasurable condoms and found them. I took too long at putting them on, so I just got better at putting it on and found different ways to put it on without disrupting "the moment" too much.
Yes experience does make a difference. No it's not the same as not having to put one one.
In my experience, I've found that when the moment's really, really intense, having sex with even the worst condom feels just as good as the times I've used the optimized ones.
I'm sorry but I think you're fooling yourself. They're a necessary evil as far as I'm concerned. No they don't have to ruin your sex life but a sex life without them is much preferred.
We're converging to the same point, though, in that this research has the potential to spark some really positive change for male birth/STD control.
Research is good but that's a lot of money to spend to find out something that a simple questionaire could give you good answers to.
On a somewhat unrelated note, what's the deal with the polyurethane ones? Are those as safe to use, or is it that it hasn't been proven if they are?
No idea. People and companies don't behave rationally when it comes to sex. I hope there are lots of options out there - the more there are, the more likely there is one to suit everyone - the more that use them, the less people die a horrible death and the less children born to people who can't support them.
Confucius say, "...it's cheaper to rent."
Confucious knew about bit torrent?
You can counter each point until you go blue, but the fact remains that most people find condoms unpleasant. People aren't idiots. If condoms were hassle free people would see the benefits and use them. As it is they see a lot of drawbacks as well, and for some it downright spoils sex, which is why they take risks.
A lot of Durex's higher end stuff doesn't smell at all.
I've yet to come across a condom that doesn't smell. By the way how high end is high end? How much am I expected to pay per orgasm?
If you're partner is willing, you can make it a part of the moment. No loss.
If your partner is trying to hold her nose from the smell, it's part of the moment alright - the moment that puts you off proceeding.
While this is true, the good, thin and reliable latex condoms don't mitigate it by that much. From what I've heard, polyurethane condoms are an excellent alternative with CRAZY sensitivity, but it's a bit risky considering that its effectiveness is not as "guaranteed" as latex condoms.
You still have something in between you and your partner. Anyone who says that the sensitivity does not decrease using a condom is lying (and possibly hasn't ever had sex). It's a question of how much sensitivity is reduced, and whether or not that reduction is a good thing. (It may be that reducing sensitivity can help prolong the act)
Ever trying putting it in your wallet or a cool place? If you're girlfriend's a long-term, have you considered leaving a set at her place?
Didn't they teach you never to put a condom in your wallet in sex ed class? Guaranteed way to damage it.
Having them somewhere convenient helps to some degree but you still have to get out the packet, get out the condom, unwrap it and put it on. Sometimes that extra minute can kill the mood.
Exactly. It's all subjective.
Hate to break it to you but sex is like food. There's no accounting for taste. It's all subjective just about sums up sex in general. However it's clear that many people find condoms off-putting.
They smell bad, they distract from the spontenaity of the moment, they decrease sensitivity, they're never handy at the moment you want them, they're disgusting to take off, they're awkward to dispose of.
Despite that they're a good trade when weighed against the possibility of 18 years of child support, or your penis turning green and falling off.
Like it or not a street thug has nothing to lose. If they end up in jail, or have something added to their criminal record, it's not going to ruin their life. It's another day at the office. Ho hum. Not like they had any job prospects to ruin. Their life sux and they live by the law of the jungle so being injured or killed, while it matters to them is an ongoing possibility. They have some experience in dealing with violence and their instincts are good when it comes to getting out of there.
The law abiding citizen on the other hand doesn't have a criminal record, and it will ruin their job prospects if they get one. Try getting a job at a major bank with a criminal record. As for street smarts and instincts, they have none.
It's not a fair fight. Pretending it's a fair fight or that this is just a question of courage and standing up for your rights is foolish.
You would think they are opposites wouldn't you? For a violent wife beater they may not be. Buying flowers one minute and beating her the next appears to be the norm for some of these idiots. Sometimes they are literally mentally ill - whether its schizophrenia or alcoholism. Other times they are just irrational and somewhat stupid bullies.
He married a woman that did not love him and that had everything to gain from marrying him for a while then divorcing him, treated her badly, was surprised that she cheated on him, then finally killed her.
Conciliatory statements were the least of his worries.
It's not that he didn't care for her, or didn't say "Yes, dear". It's that he beat her. If you're beating someone it doesn't matter if you're saying "Yes, dear". Active violence goes beyond not caring. He's actively become a person that does harm to his spouse. He has become the enemy. I'm guessing neither of them were faultless in the break of the marriage, but only one of them got violent and eventually committed murder. His neglect may have led to her infidelity which may well have led to the jealousy and rage that precipitated the violence. Or it may have been the other way around. Does it even matter. HE chose to become a murderer.
All in all, if you are a strong, independent person who wants to remain such, you will encounter too many fights and your relationships will fail. Hans Reiser is an example; he could not break himself and switch into "Yes, Dear!" mode.
His mistake was not saying "Yes, dear"? It had nothing to do with choosing a promiscuous russian bride, then butchering her. That's one twisted reality you live in.
No relationship where you always admit you're at fault no matter what is going to be any good. You're just giving this guy a recipe to getting by in life as a friendly doormat. The thing is you pick your fights, and you don't expect ANY human being to be entirely rational all the time.
...get code monkeys.
I wonder what he earnt this year? I would say that a rich overpaid CEO complaining that people won't accept a sub-standard wage are the epitome of hypocrisy and greed. I'm surprised he's not whining that good slaves are hard to find.
If you attend church (fat chance of someone who uses slashdot doing that I know) then that would provide a good starting point.
One of the stupidest things you can do is attend church to meet people. If you're not already attending church you're not going to meet like minded people. You're more likely to meet someone much more religious.
It's even stupider if he's trying to meet women. If your core values and beliefs aren't the same, any relationship's going to be much much harder.
But you're never going to get back all the way to where you were by closing tabs, because stuff gets loaded and cached etc
Nice technical definition of a leak. Only problem is most people do not visit the same pages repeatedly in the fashion you describe. So whether or not it's technically a memory leak, not cleaning up what's loaded when it's no longer needed still leads to an unusable browser.
Only these leaks are really important, because they'll mean the browser becomes unusable over time.
So what you're saying is that if my computer is using all it's memory for a web browser that's displaying one page that's okay because it's had other pages opened in the past. That's nonsense.
Astronomy, R/C cars, boats or aircraft, Linux association. Go to the monthly meetings. Be prepared to put up with some who have less social skills than you. Avoid fiercely competitive clubs like chess clubs.
A technical photography class will give you access to artists as well as geeks.
As I write this Firefox mem usage is 271,480 MB and had peaked at 323,864. I have 4 windows open. One has 5 tabs, the other have 1 tab each. I just closed all except the 5 tab window and I'm only back down to 260,892.
That's not as extreme as it once was, but it's not gone. I get a truckload of memory back by killing the browser and starting afresh. Some of that is necessary due to session history etc. but the fact remains FF is a memory hog.
If you're not seeing similar memory usage your browsing habits are probably different. Possibilities include:
- Different extensions
- Visiting different web sites with different types of content (eg. flash)
- Using tabs and new windows differently
That doesn't make what I'm doing abnormal, unusual or wrong. FF gripes are legitimate.
Finally, this should stop perennial "firefox is a memory hog" trolls. Hopefully.
They weren't trolls. I've seen the memory leaks first hand. Plenty of people have posted OS memory usage screenshots. It may have been particular extensions or advanced settings that caused the problems but it was not some work of fiction.
You're the one trolling.
One more thing. I think you're missing the irony of a man who wrote a great work about the dangers of destroying information by book burning would, if he had his way, destroy information by tearing down the Internet.
Idiot fits.