7 definitions by Armand Banana
A sudden uncontrollable explosion of pornographic material originating from a single click in a web browser.
I saw a girl have a very traumatic pornburst the other day while browsing in a public cafe at a window seat. She clicked frantically, trying anything to stop the massive and replicating graphic images, but to no avail. She slammed her laptop shut and ran away.
by Armand Banana September 1, 2008
by Armand Banana January 9, 2006
Semi-portable macroscopic devices into which information and stories were typically inscribed by means of inks printed into "paper". Primarily made from trees and various plants and fibers, and commonly found glossed and polished on the outside or wrapped in cowhides.
P-books were considerably weighty depending on the amount of information stored inside them, and despite their size USUALLY CONTAINED ONLY ONE TITLE!!
Full sets of Encyclopaedia inscribed in p-book format often WEIGHED MORE THAN A HUMAN BEING!!
"Libraries" of the time were ENTIRE BUILDINGS DEVOTED TO LESS THAN ONE EXABYTE of information!!!
P-books were considerably weighty depending on the amount of information stored inside them, and despite their size USUALLY CONTAINED ONLY ONE TITLE!!
Full sets of Encyclopaedia inscribed in p-book format often WEIGHED MORE THAN A HUMAN BEING!!
"Libraries" of the time were ENTIRE BUILDINGS DEVOTED TO LESS THAN ONE EXABYTE of information!!!
You will never know the joys of owning over a thousand p-books until you move them down six flights of stairs and back up three more. Makes you wonder how people lived through their University days back then without constant chiropractic care..
by Armand Banana January 18, 2006
My computer bag becomes incrementally heavier and less efficient depending on how many logblogs, p-books, or how much sheet-printed static media I choose to include. If it is my intention to inscribe (manually input data) upon any of these items, I must also decide which or how many (should I require RGBCMYK capabilities) delectronic styluses to carry as well.
Interesting fact: In order to include graphics in anablogs, images had to be located WITHOUT SEARCH ENGINES and glues or sticky tapes were required to physically adhere them to the "pages". Sometimes artistic talent was even used to MANUALLY HAND-BUILD images directly onto the media.
Inclusion of active or interactive video or audio content in an anablog was COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE!
Interesting fact: In order to include graphics in anablogs, images had to be located WITHOUT SEARCH ENGINES and glues or sticky tapes were required to physically adhere them to the "pages". Sometimes artistic talent was even used to MANUALLY HAND-BUILD images directly onto the media.
Inclusion of active or interactive video or audio content in an anablog was COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE!
by Armand Banana January 18, 2006
A vendor is frequently depicted as a force that may be conjured by management to hamper or destroy forward mobility within a company or an organization, and can never be controlled under any circumstances. Vendors provide proprietary services utilizing backward ideas, dysfunctional system components, and non-functional or non-existent technical support. Vendors gain and maintain strength by means of information repression and intense use of circular logic and evasion. “Training” is typically something of a goldbrick.
Institutions suffering from Vendor lock-in can often be compared to the poverty stricken communist state which existed under the East German occupation of 1949 – 1990 by the former Soviet Union.
Institutions suffering from Vendor lock-in can often be compared to the poverty stricken communist state which existed under the East German occupation of 1949 – 1990 by the former Soviet Union.
We were thinking about outsourcing the website to an outside vendor. It seems to be working well enough and we decided we'd like to try fucking it completely. Anyway Bob's friend runs ShitStream Content Management Sytems Inc. and we're old frat buds, so tell the company to suck it. We've already implemented a system to blame the IT guys. Send out a memo.
by Armand Banana November 11, 2005
1. Intel-based PC manufacturer (IE Compaq, ACER, Packard Bell.. Macintosh)
2. Personal computers that run Mac OS -OR- the Windows OS natively (which is a good thing)
3. Former "flagship" of a company which now sells moooosic and ba-a-a-a-ad hip hop videos to their faithful cattle and sheep.
4. STEVE JOBS SOLD YOU OUT
2. Personal computers that run Mac OS -OR- the Windows OS natively (which is a good thing)
3. Former "flagship" of a company which now sells moooosic and ba-a-a-a-ad hip hop videos to their faithful cattle and sheep.
4. STEVE JOBS SOLD YOU OUT
Once upon a time the Macintosh was special. Then they sold out. Then they went bankrupt. Then Bill Gates bought Steve Jobs out of NeXT, they recovered, and they sold out again. Adobe abandoned them. Then OSX came out on a Linux platform (Come on and you DIDN'T think they were prepping for migration??) ..
I know. I had one. You live, they lie, you learn.
I know. I had one. You live, they lie, you learn.
by Armand Banana January 12, 2006
An unresolvable and ultimately useless comparison.
A comparison which is just as easy to support as it is to contest.
Something which is both the same and different simultaneously depending on your point of view.
alt. *Apples to Apples*--Though not the initial meaning, occasionally the phrase "apples to oranges" is used to dismiss a "distinct difference" noted between two things which are not distinctly different. IE the neverending opinion wars often attributed to brand-loyalty. These are based on imaginary chasms of vast differences which cannot be proven or conclusively settled. IN other words these things are not really very different, but people desperately want to believe they are.
A comparison which is just as easy to support as it is to contest.
Something which is both the same and different simultaneously depending on your point of view.
alt. *Apples to Apples*--Though not the initial meaning, occasionally the phrase "apples to oranges" is used to dismiss a "distinct difference" noted between two things which are not distinctly different. IE the neverending opinion wars often attributed to brand-loyalty. These are based on imaginary chasms of vast differences which cannot be proven or conclusively settled. IN other words these things are not really very different, but people desperately want to believe they are.
When someone says "you're comparing apples to oranges" they're really saying "Why are you trying to compare those things? You can't compare apples to oranges, they're just not the same thing."
They're both sweet. They're both fruit. They're both the same. But they're not. One's an apple, and one's an orange. Is that all there is to it? One tastes better. No it doesn't. Yes it does. How do you decide which one everyone likes more? How *can* you decide?
A great example of silly apples to oranges is vanilla and chocolate.
Invalid apples to oranges comparisons would be like comparing Bush or Clinton to Lincoln, Jefferson, or Washington. You can't, so don't.
Examples of useless "nonexistant-vast-differences" apples to oranges comparisons are Macs and PC's, Fords and Chevys, Nikons and Canons.. In reality this is mostly "apples to apples" comparison.
Apples to oranges usually ends with each person believing or feeling whatever they do and leaving it at that. That's all there is to it. Neither can really ever be better or worse, and nobody can win the argument.
In the end, the whole point of making the comparison is to illustrate: there is really no point in making the comparison.
They're both sweet. They're both fruit. They're both the same. But they're not. One's an apple, and one's an orange. Is that all there is to it? One tastes better. No it doesn't. Yes it does. How do you decide which one everyone likes more? How *can* you decide?
A great example of silly apples to oranges is vanilla and chocolate.
Invalid apples to oranges comparisons would be like comparing Bush or Clinton to Lincoln, Jefferson, or Washington. You can't, so don't.
Examples of useless "nonexistant-vast-differences" apples to oranges comparisons are Macs and PC's, Fords and Chevys, Nikons and Canons.. In reality this is mostly "apples to apples" comparison.
Apples to oranges usually ends with each person believing or feeling whatever they do and leaving it at that. That's all there is to it. Neither can really ever be better or worse, and nobody can win the argument.
In the end, the whole point of making the comparison is to illustrate: there is really no point in making the comparison.
by Armand Banana January 9, 2006