And I'm sure EQ stole nothing from MUDs....
And by the world you mean... USA?
I'd say breakfast spans from six to eleven, lunch from ten to four, dinner from five to twelve (yes that's a seven hour interval) depending on where I've travelled. And I've hardly ever been west of the Atlantic.
Swapping between 17:00 and 24:00 for dinner isn't particularly easier than any other arbitrary hour, nor does knowing "lunch is at noon" help me very much.
When I wake up in the morning I want to brew a quart of coffee, not 110.12 centi-Liters or some ridiculous shit like that.
So, a liter then. Why do you think we use more significant digits just because we use metric? Let me use the same ridiculous argument you do:
"Let me be the first to say, "Fuck the imperial system". You guys can keep it. When I wake up in the morning I want to brew a liter of coffee, not 1.05669 quarts or some ridiculous shit like that. Your system is unnecessarily complex."
(Of course, I had no idea which of the several types of quarts you were referring to, so my numbers may be incorrect - but then, so were yours).
In med school they dissect humans. Granted, none of those are living material, but I fail see the problem with shoving electrodes into a live human's brain and remote controlling him as a learning tool.
The "granted, none of it was living material" is a quite relevant part.
And no, I'm not comparing humans to cockroaches - I'm just pointing out the absurdity of ignoring the difference between a corpse and a living creature when it comes to how it's acceptable to treat it.
I've never seen one here in Sweden either. According to Wikipedia we apparently have a couple of species as well - but that doesn't change the fact that I've never seen one. Can't ever recall anybody saying they've actually had a problem with cockroaches here either.
Put simply, the fact that something is common, or ordinary, to you does not mean it is so to everyone.
 Interestingly, the major one is called "forest cockroach" - I guess the name sort of gives a hint about how often it's seen in cities.
It looks nice, I'll give you that.
No, no it does not look nice. It looks like complete and utter shit. Seriously, how can anyone look at this and not see garbage?
Well. The same view looks like this to me - so it's probably a bug you have there.
What bothers me with (my version of the same view) is that absolute waste of space that goes on. A couple of percent of my screen is dedicated to showing me useful content.
I'm usually not one for just complaining, but... no.
It looks nice, I'll give you that. But if I want to look at pretty things, I'm not going to tech web sites. I want something simple, readable, and information packed. Hacker News is doing it right. No nonsense, pretty much just text, from the top of the screen to the bottom, from left to right. Layouted in a way I can understand.
Having whitespace eat half my screen doesn't cut it. Huge pictures are only acceptable if they really add information to the story. Having them just because they look cool is not. It wastes my attention, my screen estate and my time.
On my 1366x768 laptop I can have one comment... one, on my screen at a time in beta. On the current site I can three or four, giving me the context needed to follow the discussion.
The main benefit I can see is that if it's coded right in modern technologies, text only browsers (lynx, elinks, etc.) will have an easier job of parsing it and giving me the stuff I want (the stuff that matters).
...or heterosexuals having children by the regular process. The kids don't really have a choice either way.
I've been using Linux exclusively for more than fifteen years, and I can't remember the last time I downloaded anything from Sourceforge. If five of those 35 are the package maintainers of the biggest distributions, the software could easily have a million users and it wouldn't change that number one bit.
 No, I don't think it has a million users. But your metrics is very flawed either way.
Because nobody else is.
Ugh. I got confused. The number "3" would not be a long ton, but a short ton. The point still stands that 2.7 would be the metric number.
2.7. The metric ton is a bit larger than the long ton. Why they decided it was OK to introduce an extra significant in the conversion is beyond me though.
While I agree that it's a stupid unit, ft2 to m2 conversion is really easy. Divide by ten, and you have a good approximate. Lean towards rounding down, if unsure.
1 square meter is 10.7639 square feet.
That's Gothia Cup, not Gotha Cup. TFA has it wrong as well.
Horrible event, btw. The city is filled with thousands of smelly little football playing brats, making transportation all but impossible.
I couldn't help but notice that you mistakenly assume chronological ordering where there is none.