Actually, males DO get breast cancer. Just with a rather small percentage compared to women.
The breast anantomy of men and women is not that different, it's only a matter of hormonal activity and, well, size and volume. But there are milks cells in every male breast, they have milk ducts and everything. They're just not functional for 99.99 percent of all humans with chromosomes XY.
But as well as some XY humans develop gynecomastia, i.e. female breasts, some others develop real, deadly, breast cancer. It's a tiny percentage, but still real. And it's usually fatal for the male patient, because they usually have no routine breast screening and their condition is mostly detected only in the terminal stages.
If you cannot compete in job A, you surely have an ability to compete in job B, which in the current marketplace is job A's supervisor more often than not.
If you cannot compete in jobs A-Z, all else fails and you have no idea how to reasonably work from home or self-employed, well, THEN I've bad news for you.
But don't tell me you cannot flip burgers for minimum wage or buy-sell crap wholesale on ebay. I'd refuse to pay your health care just because you're too vain or too lazy to do that.
But then again I live in Europe. Our dear Fatherland takes exactly ONE HALF my entire yearly salary to pay for lazy bums, old geezers and immigrants that can't speak two words of our native language after being here for three generations and who are still actively aggravating people in public transportation.
I like working in Europe, because the public healthcare is sooooo worth half my salary, really. Worth *thousands* of Euros every year, absolutely, because I only have to wait for three months for an appointment with the dentist and any other medical specialist.
Get a job where you can put your skills to use or build skills if you got none. But stop complaining because others are too mean to subsidize your lazy behind. Cost-for-cost, I personally subsidize two lazy bums and one retiree - because everyone with more than minimum wage income does here in Germany.
I'm so fed up with this socialist crap. Some more years and some more increases in health care costs and I will apply for a Green Card to work in Sometown, USA, I tell you. If you or your newly-elected Messiah haven't transformed the rags-to-riches wonderland into mini-me Europe where only the stupid ones still work while the rest has steaks and beer on the dole.
It would be very necessary to mandate a "duress PIN" or password for every authentication point. A silent alarm whenever someone is forced to enter credentials against their will.
This should be mandatory for all authentication systems anyway, it would certainly hinder these ridiculous one-day kidnappings and ATM muggings.
Encryption without trust is bunk. Remember that when you're sending your encrypted credit card number to someone you don't trust .
Generating self-signed certificates that match the site is a trivial process for any reasonably-well equipped man-in-the-middle. Which is the kind of men-in-the-middle we're talking about: an almighty terrorist government or ISPs that are forced to work for them.
Only signed certificates provide any recourse against snooping on ISP level and with ISP large-busineess financial resources.
If HTTPS is broken or not, I can't tell. But self-signed certs are even worse.
We had this discussion about a hundred times here on/. - I don't think we'll be coming to an agreement anytime soon, but I'm glad Firefox does what it does right now.
I recommend and install Firefox for dozens of clueless users among friends and family. I don't want anyone of them fall prey to a phishing site that presents a self-signed cert. I don't have time and energy to explain non-technical users the subtle differences between signed and unsigned certs, let alone the process of checking cert FINGERPRINTS. It's hard enough to explain to them how to sign up for and send an email through a public webmailer.
I will not expend my energy telling them not only to check for the padlock-icon and HTTPS but also the fingerprint. I gladly help other users, but I'm not desperate.
If any of the ten candidates doesn't suit your preferences to be the least like Kodos, nominate yourself. Don't blame others for failing, when did nothing as well.
This society is dependent on a huge number of people doing nothing political, but that's not the point.
Being against this society could easily mean anything between being against a certain unpopular Republican President, being for a totalitarian terror state, anarchy, feudalism, tribalism, you name it.
No human can be against society without being suicidal, otherwise they could live in the woods somewhere OR commit real suicide. If you want ANOTHER kind of society, then you better vote or it will never change OR even in a way you'd want the least.
Doing nothing will never get you closer to your goals unless procrastrination is your only goal and even that is made much nicer with a hammock and a whiskey.
FYI: I will continue to vote FOR this system, if you don't, my idea will prevail.
Boycotting election never helped, never will, nobody, nowhere. Vote whatever you like, make your ballot invalid - but not voting is definetly a silent YES to current politics.
No election boycott EVER reached its intented goals, only idiot politicians in the Third World encourage this.
"Driving up the cost of paper increases the cost of education. More expensive education hits people of low income the hardest. People of low income are disproportionally not of white european descent.
Therefore, biodiesel from cellulose is a racist abomination and should be taxed to hell or abolished immediately. And dare to write any racist drivel telling me that I'm wrong."/sarcasm.
Turkey is a very secular state and will not interfere with any religion unless it is not Islam.
Sounds like a flamebait? It's real: everyone is allowed to build places of worhips as long as it's a mosque. Building Christian churches is explicitly forbidden by law and will be met with heavy resistance. Renovating old Christian churches is also forbidden by law, as is public Christian worship. I believe Christian mission is also forbidden as well as giving away Bibles.
The few remaining Christians are routinely being killed and tortured with secular state authorities publicly announcing that they would not even try to solve the crimes or follow rumors that police themselves is behind it.
But yes, Turkey is a secular state, as long as you're an Atheist or Muslim.
I'm not saying 640kbps should be enough for anyone, but speeds above that quickly approach diminishing returns, at least for now.
It's going to take a while for Linux distributions, large scientific datasets and the usual suspect p2p material.
But for most tasks, like reading scientific papers, surfing the Web (including Youtube and net radio) or sending emails, 500kbps go a long way in terms of user experience. Sure, it will take hours to download Gentoo Linux, but that's a batch process that can run in the background so it's affecting me as a user much less than a slowly responding Google search.
Delays during interactive sessions is what makes using the Internet painful. Anything under 200kpbs is unbearable by today's standard and for today's websites. Above 300kpbs, ping times and the machine you're sitting at are the main reasons for delay in page rendering, which is what most people care about most because that's what they're waiting for after clicking a link. Email works way below this bandwidth and above a certain limit, ping times matter most for VoIP and instant messaging.
Tip: focus on "accessibility for handicapped" as the main theme. Papers on these topics get higher grades and a higher chance of anyone actually caring.
Time to start lobbying your uni for more bandwidth. Alternative maybe Wimax or a G3-USB-stick for your notebook.
Chances are, if an entire campus is starved for bandwidth, you have at least a small selection of internet hotspots or internet cafes around. If not: start one IMMEDIATELY and cash in on this blunder.
If all else fails and your connection is as expensive as the author's, limit your network usage to only scan for papers and factor in the costs into your education fund.
And you remember that being wrongly accused of something involving images of underage children is enough to ruin lives and even drive sane people into suicide?
Very well, then. What if the blackmailer sends one email per day for two months before tipping off the police?
Maybe he sends a USB stick with the fake encrypted file and then calls the cops?
And haven't you noticed the startling tendency of any and all surveillance methods to fail completely every single time the police was accused of doing something illegal that should've been recorded by some camera?
This is the precise argument that They will be using for lenghtening the prison terms for NOT divulging the key once we've swallowed the fact that not-remembering something can get you in prison.
And then They just need to send a collection of/dev/random with a filename suggesting underage pornography to your email address and keep you imprisoned for decades. Your ex-girlfriend could do and call the police. Your enemies from the cubicle farm could do, too. Your competing business and even blackmailing spammers could.
I smell serious blackmailing business: pay up and we'll send you the key you need to prove yourself innocent.
An encryption key is separate from a physical key, because no one can reliably prove if I still have it or not. Physical keys I may have hidden or swallowed can be found or the locks picked open. But for strong encryption, this is not feasible and the defendant might very well have forgotten the passphrase and never remember it.
What will They do when the defendant claims to have forgotten their key? (capital "They" intentional for Them being Orwellian monsters) - No one can ever prove or disprove that the passphrase still exists in the defendants brain cells, not the accuser and not the accused.
And then? Sleep deprivation? Torture? Guilty unless proven innocent? In dubio contra reo?
Releasing the defendant is under this view obviously unfeasible, because otherwise EVERY defendant would claim to have forgotten the passphrase, which would render this judicial scheme moot. But NOT releasing a possibly innocent defendant because they really have forgotten their passphrase - and no one knows whats inside the encrypted files - is a serious crime in itself.
I doubt there's a possible solution to this problem. Keeping people in prison for even one day because of abstract words that *possibly* exist in their minds (and only there) is pretty laughable - and pretty dangerous.
Something that no human and no machine can reliably prove or disprove cannot be the basis of a prison sentence. In the Western civilized society after the Renaissance era anyway.
Also, this is stuff from the darkest dystopian novels and can be misused in thousands of ways. We've all heard rumors about cops who place contraband in a defendants pocket or house. But that takes at least physical access to a contraband item.
But encryption keys that may not even exist anywhere? It is ridiculously easy to incriminate people that way, say for example to create a file containing several megabytes from/dev/random. Name it "pre-teen_volume_320.7z" and send it via mail to the defendant with a fake note "here's the 320th delivery of your stuff, you pervert and the password is the same as last time. the photos of your kids were nice, too".
And then? No one can distinguish between random data and well-encrypted data. No one can prove the defendant does NOT know the "password" to this "encrypted" file. Will They let them go or will they be imprisoned and tortured forever until they "remember" the nonexisting password or simply confess to having had intercourse with the devil?
Sudden loss of altitude is not uncommon and would've not made the news if it wasn't Quantas or 10 or more people. A downward air current or a sudden change of air pressure (=density) can be met at any moment even in fair weather.
Wearing your seatbelt can mean the difference between being woken up from sleep during a two-second fall or having your nose broken on the overhead bin. If you're on the way to the lavatory or are hit by loose items, well, bad luck. And people who trade a possibly broken nose for not wearing a seatbelt that most other people don't even notice after 30 seconds, well, they might not be the most intelligent and rational people around. Oh and there are seatbelt extenders for larger sized people, you can even buy them discreetly if you're too shy to order one from the flight attendants every time...
You need all three within certain limits to recover from a stall, in any case: airspeed, density and angle of attack. If any of these is missing or too low resp. too high, the airfoil will not produce lift and is stalled.
A stalled aircraft will also decelerate due to aerodynamic drag. Decreasing angle of attack will not increase airspeed meaning the airfoil could very well still be under the required air current per second for a laminar flow and still be stalled. Given enough altitude, a controlled nosedive is much better and quicker than applying engine power. Engine spin-up can take up to 30 seconds for large airliners and would not much in extremely high altitudes. A nosedive increases airspeed, air density(= absolute mass and speed of air passing the wing) and decreases angle of attack, therefore bringing back, after laminar air flow is re-established, lift.
Stall is, according to a well-known online encyclopedia, "an event that causes the wing to lose lift suddenly", so to speak. Which is what I described. The airplane does not fall down like a dead duck, because aerodynamic drag will reduce downfall and initiate a momentum to turn the aircraft like a weather vane towards the air current.
Stall is, and I'm pretty confident in that, the point BEYOND the angle of attack that creates the maximum lift. In normal flight conditions you can trade off aerodynamic drag vs. airfoil lift. If you'd plot this as angle-vs.lift, a stall is the sharp downturn of lift at the end of the scale.
It would not even matter, if the airplane would actually fall down or not - because if the stall point is crossed, the G-forces change rapidly under any circumstance. A steep climb would be halted suddenly causing all non-seatbelted passengers to continue climbing for a second until they decelerate with their heads on the overhead bins with quite some force.
Look at the plot again, you were right when you said that crossing the stall point does not mean immediate and absolute loss of lifting force. But a sudden and strong decrease in many cases.
And as a stall induces high aerodynamic drag while further decreasing lift, you have a positive feedback loop on your hands that forces the pilot or the flight computer to rapidly start a nosedive because otherwise the remaining lift would be lost very quickly. Combined with a high drag the aircraft could start to tumble and become unrecoverable, therefore some headbutts on the overhead bins are the option with the least injuries in this case.
If you need an autopilot to keep the airplane from stalling, then yes, you probably have a stall within seconds after disconnecting the autopilot. And in a stall situation you have no lift from the wings, therefore the plane will immediately and rapidly lose altitude. Modern Airbus and Boeing are engineered to dive forward in these cases, so the stall is self-limiting in the sense that the aircraft will fall until the air is denser or airspeed is higher to let the wings generate lift again thus recovering from the stall.
The resulting forces are well within design limits of current airframes but may seriously injure passengers that had not used their seatbelts or were walking around at this moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, males DO get breast cancer. Just with a rather small percentage compared to women.
The breast anantomy of men and women is not that different, it's only a matter of hormonal activity and, well, size and volume. But there are milks cells in every male breast, they have milk ducts and everything. They're just not functional for 99.99 percent of all humans with chromosomes XY.
But as well as some XY humans develop gynecomastia, i.e. female breasts, some others develop real, deadly, breast cancer. It's a tiny percentage, but still real. And it's usually fatal for the male patient, because they usually have no routine breast screening and their condition is mostly detected only in the terminal stages.
If you cannot compete in job A, you surely have an ability to compete in job B, which in the current marketplace is job A's supervisor more often than not.
If you cannot compete in jobs A-Z, all else fails and you have no idea how to reasonably work from home or self-employed, well, THEN I've bad news for you.
But don't tell me you cannot flip burgers for minimum wage or buy-sell crap wholesale on ebay. I'd refuse to pay your health care just because you're too vain or too lazy to do that.
But then again I live in Europe. Our dear Fatherland takes exactly ONE HALF my entire yearly salary to pay for lazy bums, old geezers and immigrants that can't speak two words of our native language after being here for three generations and who are still actively aggravating people in public transportation.
I like working in Europe, because the public healthcare is sooooo worth half my salary, really. Worth *thousands* of Euros every year, absolutely, because I only have to wait for three months for an appointment with the dentist and any other medical specialist.
Get a job where you can put your skills to use or build skills if you got none. But stop complaining because others are too mean to subsidize your lazy behind. Cost-for-cost, I personally subsidize two lazy bums and one retiree - because everyone with more than minimum wage income does here in Germany.
I'm so fed up with this socialist crap. Some more years and some more increases in health care costs and I will apply for a Green Card to work in Sometown, USA, I tell you. If you or your newly-elected Messiah haven't transformed the rags-to-riches wonderland into mini-me Europe where only the stupid ones still work while the rest has steaks and beer on the dole.
It would be very necessary to mandate a "duress PIN" or password for every authentication point. A silent alarm whenever someone is forced to enter credentials against their will.
This should be mandatory for all authentication systems anyway, it would certainly hinder these ridiculous one-day kidnappings and ATM muggings.
Encryption without trust is bunk. Remember that when you're sending your encrypted credit card number to someone you don't trust .
Generating self-signed certificates that match the site is a trivial process for any reasonably-well equipped man-in-the-middle. Which is the kind of men-in-the-middle we're talking about: an almighty terrorist government or ISPs that are forced to work for them.
Only signed certificates provide any recourse against snooping on ISP level and with ISP large-busineess financial resources.
If HTTPS is broken or not, I can't tell. But self-signed certs are even worse.
We had this discussion about a hundred times here on /. - I don't think we'll be coming to an agreement anytime soon, but I'm glad Firefox does what it does right now.
I recommend and install Firefox for dozens of clueless users among friends and family. I don't want anyone of them fall prey to a phishing site that presents a self-signed cert. I don't have time and energy to explain non-technical users the subtle differences between signed and unsigned certs, let alone the process of checking cert FINGERPRINTS. It's hard enough to explain to them how to sign up for and send an email through a public webmailer.
I will not expend my energy telling them not only to check for the padlock-icon and HTTPS but also the fingerprint. I gladly help other users, but I'm not desperate.
If any of the ten candidates doesn't suit your preferences to be the least like Kodos, nominate yourself. Don't blame others for failing, when did nothing as well.
He could vote for Kodos, exactly...
This society is dependent on a huge number of people doing nothing political, but that's not the point.
Being against this society could easily mean anything between being against a certain unpopular Republican President, being for a totalitarian terror state, anarchy, feudalism, tribalism, you name it.
No human can be against society without being suicidal, otherwise they could live in the woods somewhere OR commit real suicide. If you want ANOTHER kind of society, then you better vote or it will never change OR even in a way you'd want the least.
Doing nothing will never get you closer to your goals unless procrastrination is your only goal and even that is made much nicer with a hammock and a whiskey.
FYI: I will continue to vote FOR this system, if you don't, my idea will prevail.
Boycotting election never helped, never will, nobody, nowhere. Vote whatever you like, make your ballot invalid - but not voting is definetly a silent YES to current politics.
No election boycott EVER reached its intented goals, only idiot politicians in the Third World encourage this.
"Driving up the cost of paper increases the cost of education. More expensive education hits people of low income the hardest. People of low income are disproportionally not of white european descent.
Therefore, biodiesel from cellulose is a racist abomination and should be taxed to hell or abolished immediately. And dare to write any racist drivel telling me that I'm wrong." /sarcasm.
Now excuse while I wash my keyboard with bleach.
And the Dinosaurs were not amused, I tell you.
Methane is CH4, but other than that, you're correct, I think.
Turkey is a very secular state and will not interfere with any religion unless it is not Islam.
Sounds like a flamebait? It's real: everyone is allowed to build places of worhips as long as it's a mosque. Building Christian churches is explicitly forbidden by law and will be met with heavy resistance. Renovating old Christian churches is also forbidden by law, as is public Christian worship. I believe Christian mission is also forbidden as well as giving away Bibles.
The few remaining Christians are routinely being killed and tortured with secular state authorities publicly announcing that they would not even try to solve the crimes or follow rumors that police themselves is behind it.
But yes, Turkey is a secular state, as long as you're an Atheist or Muslim.
I'm not saying 640kbps should be enough for anyone, but speeds above that quickly approach diminishing returns, at least for now.
It's going to take a while for Linux distributions, large scientific datasets and the usual suspect p2p material.
But for most tasks, like reading scientific papers, surfing the Web (including Youtube and net radio) or sending emails, 500kbps go a long way in terms of user experience. Sure, it will take hours to download Gentoo Linux, but that's a batch process that can run in the background so it's affecting me as a user much less than a slowly responding Google search.
Delays during interactive sessions is what makes using the Internet painful. Anything under 200kpbs is unbearable by today's standard and for today's websites. Above 300kpbs, ping times and the machine you're sitting at are the main reasons for delay in page rendering, which is what most people care about most because that's what they're waiting for after clicking a link. Email works way below this bandwidth and above a certain limit, ping times matter most for VoIP and instant messaging.
Tip: focus on "accessibility for handicapped" as the main theme. Papers on these topics get higher grades and a higher chance of anyone actually caring.
Time to start lobbying your uni for more bandwidth. Alternative maybe Wimax or a G3-USB-stick for your notebook.
Chances are, if an entire campus is starved for bandwidth, you have at least a small selection of internet hotspots or internet cafes around. If not: start one IMMEDIATELY and cash in on this blunder.
If all else fails and your connection is as expensive as the author's, limit your network usage to only scan for papers and factor in the costs into your education fund.
And you remember that being wrongly accused of something involving images of underage children is enough to ruin lives and even drive sane people into suicide?
Very well, then. What if the blackmailer sends one email per day for two months before tipping off the police?
Maybe he sends a USB stick with the fake encrypted file and then calls the cops?
And haven't you noticed the startling tendency of any and all surveillance methods to fail completely every single time the police was accused of doing something illegal that should've been recorded by some camera?
This is the precise argument that They will be using for lenghtening the prison terms for NOT divulging the key once we've swallowed the fact that not-remembering something can get you in prison.
And then They just need to send a collection of /dev/random with a filename suggesting underage pornography to your email address and keep you imprisoned for decades. Your ex-girlfriend could do and call the police. Your enemies from the cubicle farm could do, too. Your competing business and even blackmailing spammers could.
I smell serious blackmailing business: pay up and we'll send you the key you need to prove yourself innocent.
An encryption key is separate from a physical key, because no one can reliably prove if I still have it or not. Physical keys I may have hidden or swallowed can be found or the locks picked open. But for strong encryption, this is not feasible and the defendant might very well have forgotten the passphrase and never remember it.
What will They do when the defendant claims to have forgotten their key? (capital "They" intentional for Them being Orwellian monsters) - No one can ever prove or disprove that the passphrase still exists in the defendants brain cells, not the accuser and not the accused.
And then? Sleep deprivation? Torture? Guilty unless proven innocent? In dubio contra reo?
Releasing the defendant is under this view obviously unfeasible, because otherwise EVERY defendant would claim to have forgotten the passphrase, which would render this judicial scheme moot. But NOT releasing a possibly innocent defendant because they really have forgotten their passphrase - and no one knows whats inside the encrypted files - is a serious crime in itself.
I doubt there's a possible solution to this problem. Keeping people in prison for even one day because of abstract words that *possibly* exist in their minds (and only there) is pretty laughable - and pretty dangerous.
Something that no human and no machine can reliably prove or disprove cannot be the basis of a prison sentence. In the Western civilized society after the Renaissance era anyway.
Also, this is stuff from the darkest dystopian novels and can be misused in thousands of ways. We've all heard rumors about cops who place contraband in a defendants pocket or house. But that takes at least physical access to a contraband item.
But encryption keys that may not even exist anywhere? It is ridiculously easy to incriminate people that way, say for example to create a file containing several megabytes from /dev/random. Name it "pre-teen_volume_320.7z" and send it via mail to the defendant with a fake note "here's the 320th delivery of your stuff, you pervert and the password is the same as last time. the photos of your kids were nice, too".
And then? No one can distinguish between random data and well-encrypted data. No one can prove the defendant does NOT know the "password" to this "encrypted" file. Will They let them go or will they be imprisoned and tortured forever until they "remember" the nonexisting password or simply confess to having had intercourse with the devil?
Sudden loss of altitude is not uncommon and would've not made the news if it wasn't Quantas or 10 or more people. A downward air current or a sudden change of air pressure (=density) can be met at any moment even in fair weather.
Wearing your seatbelt can mean the difference between being woken up from sleep during a two-second fall or having your nose broken on the overhead bin. If you're on the way to the lavatory or are hit by loose items, well, bad luck. And people who trade a possibly broken nose for not wearing a seatbelt that most other people don't even notice after 30 seconds, well, they might not be the most intelligent and rational people around. Oh and there are seatbelt extenders for larger sized people, you can even buy them discreetly if you're too shy to order one from the flight attendants every time...
You need all three within certain limits to recover from a stall, in any case: airspeed, density and angle of attack. If any of these is missing or too low resp. too high, the airfoil will not produce lift and is stalled.
A stalled aircraft will also decelerate due to aerodynamic drag. Decreasing angle of attack will not increase airspeed meaning the airfoil could very well still be under the required air current per second for a laminar flow and still be stalled. Given enough altitude, a controlled nosedive is much better and quicker than applying engine power. Engine spin-up can take up to 30 seconds for large airliners and would not much in extremely high altitudes. A nosedive increases airspeed, air density(= absolute mass and speed of air passing the wing) and decreases angle of attack, therefore bringing back, after laminar air flow is re-established, lift.
Stall is, according to a well-known online encyclopedia, "an event that causes the wing to lose lift suddenly", so to speak. Which is what I described. The airplane does not fall down like a dead duck, because aerodynamic drag will reduce downfall and initiate a momentum to turn the aircraft like a weather vane towards the air current.
Stall is, and I'm pretty confident in that, the point BEYOND the angle of attack that creates the maximum lift. In normal flight conditions you can trade off aerodynamic drag vs. airfoil lift. If you'd plot this as angle-vs.lift, a stall is the sharp downturn of lift at the end of the scale.
See this plot for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LiftCurve.svg
It would not even matter, if the airplane would actually fall down or not - because if the stall point is crossed, the G-forces change rapidly under any circumstance. A steep climb would be halted suddenly causing all non-seatbelted passengers to continue climbing for a second until they decelerate with their heads on the overhead bins with quite some force.
Look at the plot again, you were right when you said that crossing the stall point does not mean immediate and absolute loss of lifting force. But a sudden and strong decrease in many cases.
And as a stall induces high aerodynamic drag while further decreasing lift, you have a positive feedback loop on your hands that forces the pilot or the flight computer to rapidly start a nosedive because otherwise the remaining lift would be lost very quickly. Combined with a high drag the aircraft could start to tumble and become unrecoverable, therefore some headbutts on the overhead bins are the option with the least injuries in this case.
If you need an autopilot to keep the airplane from stalling, then yes, you probably have a stall within seconds after disconnecting the autopilot. And in a stall situation you have no lift from the wings, therefore the plane will immediately and rapidly lose altitude. Modern Airbus and Boeing are engineered to dive forward in these cases, so the stall is self-limiting in the sense that the aircraft will fall until the air is denser or airspeed is higher to let the wings generate lift again thus recovering from the stall.
The resulting forces are well within design limits of current airframes but may seriously injure passengers that had not used their seatbelts or were walking around at this moment.
Did you fit that magnetron inside the mouse or did you just bluetooth-enable your microwave?
Aber kann er auch einen Stein erschaffen, der so schwer ist, dass er ihn nicht mehr heben kann?