Sodner
Mar 18, 08:05 AM
Glad I got the AT&T 3G iPad 2. :D:D:D
I was really considering jailbreaking for theathering but unlike some have a problem with stealing.
And YES I do believe that if I buy 2 GIG of data I should be able to use it as I wish. But just becuase I want it that way does not give me the right to do it.
I was really considering jailbreaking for theathering but unlike some have a problem with stealing.
And YES I do believe that if I buy 2 GIG of data I should be able to use it as I wish. But just becuase I want it that way does not give me the right to do it.
more...
gospel9
Apr 9, 12:31 AM
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Oh you have absolutely no idea how to play Infinity Blade. Sure you can win like that in the beginning... It is like saying a racing game is turn turn turn brake turn long brake turn turn next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Oh you have absolutely no idea how to play Infinity Blade. Sure you can win like that in the beginning... It is like saying a racing game is turn turn turn brake turn long brake turn turn next.
bassfingers
Apr 27, 12:27 AM
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
chabig
Sep 25, 08:44 AM
Considering all the posts to this point, I'm inclined to believe that the "hard drive" might just be some flash memory.Interesting idea, but I have to disagree. Given the amount of storage video takes, there is no way Apple could sell a device with enough flash memory for $299. A hard drive is much more likely.
shawnce
Jul 12, 11:44 AM
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
more...
puma1552
Mar 14, 08:09 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
The problem with this is that the general public will not see any difference between this and the nuclear they are terrified of, so it's probably campaign suicide for any advocates of it.
EDIT: Here's a FANTASTIC read on Fukushima: http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
The problem with this is that the general public will not see any difference between this and the nuclear they are terrified of, so it's probably campaign suicide for any advocates of it.
EDIT: Here's a FANTASTIC read on Fukushima: http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
more...
davelanger
Apr 10, 11:45 AM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
Yeah that is why they have the top selling game on console in COD and the top selling game on PC in WOW :rolleyes:
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Yeah that is why they have the top selling game on console in COD and the top selling game on PC in WOW :rolleyes:
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
ehoui
Apr 27, 06:47 PM
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:00 AM
I like this term, very good!!! Subgames. (This is not to be taken as sarcasm.) With your permission, I'm going to use this from now on.;)
Um... it's not my term... I was publishing games with sub-games in back on the Amiga.
BUT feel free to use it!
Um... it's not my term... I was publishing games with sub-games in back on the Amiga.
BUT feel free to use it!
emotion
Sep 20, 06:02 PM
In other words, Macs won't be recording a digital TV stream for a couple of years at least.
Unless you're in Europe and you can get Digital Terrestrial TV (DTT). In the UK this is known as Freeview.
The fact that regions differ will mean it's unlikely Apple will go that route.
Unless you're in Europe and you can get Digital Terrestrial TV (DTT). In the UK this is known as Freeview.
The fact that regions differ will mean it's unlikely Apple will go that route.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:50 AM
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
I was going to get an iPhone when another carrier picked it up. I hoped it would be Sprint, since that is where I am right now. But since it was Verizon, I did not get it. Yes Verizon sucks, but AT&T sucks... differently.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
I was going to get an iPhone when another carrier picked it up. I hoped it would be Sprint, since that is where I am right now. But since it was Verizon, I did not get it. Yes Verizon sucks, but AT&T sucks... differently.
more...
Eraserhead
Mar 16, 01:37 PM
That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
more...
cdembek
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong.
X2 - I think they are going to require "real" proof that the user is tethering. What is to say the user is not just using a lot of data via the phone? I am sorry, but this really appears of a way to transfer people away from the unlimited plan.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
X2 - I think they are going to require "real" proof that the user is tethering. What is to say the user is not just using a lot of data via the phone? I am sorry, but this really appears of a way to transfer people away from the unlimited plan.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
more...
RedTomato
Mar 15, 06:28 PM
Sorry doublepost but different topic now:
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
WikiLeaks cables show Japan was warned more than two years ago by the international nuclear watchdog that its nuclear power plants were not capable of withstanding powerful earthquakes, leaked diplomatic cables reveal.
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
WikiLeaks cables show Japan was warned more than two years ago by the international nuclear watchdog that its nuclear power plants were not capable of withstanding powerful earthquakes, leaked diplomatic cables reveal.
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
more...
Huntn
Mar 12, 09:25 AM
And this is why we have passive cooling and shutdown systems, so you don't have to rely on mechanical means for core safety.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Guys,
Please stop speculating about the situation of the Japanese nuclear reactors, protocols, and regulations, or how they--those specific ones--work.
I agree speculation may not be helpful but there is the government on one hand reassuring everyone, possibly minimizing the situation and the press which tends to maximize the situation. Speculation is very human and concern is understandable. BTW, my sympathy goes out to Japan. I've spent a lot of time there and it is my favorite Asian country. I hope you recover quickly from this disaster.
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
"Making news" that is what they do. I don't condone it.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Nuclear power would be wonderful if not for thousands of radioactive barrels that will be dangerous for the next 10k years, tsunamis, earthquakes, and acts of terrorism. Now, if they can actually start find a way to reuse or safely dispose of this waste that might moderate my view somewhat. And there is the "not in my backyard" problem.
Before everyone jumps to conclusions and spreads fear mongering ... as I said this will not be like Chernobyl.
I'd say you are speculating. I'm in the wait and see mode.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Guys,
Please stop speculating about the situation of the Japanese nuclear reactors, protocols, and regulations, or how they--those specific ones--work.
I agree speculation may not be helpful but there is the government on one hand reassuring everyone, possibly minimizing the situation and the press which tends to maximize the situation. Speculation is very human and concern is understandable. BTW, my sympathy goes out to Japan. I've spent a lot of time there and it is my favorite Asian country. I hope you recover quickly from this disaster.
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
"Making news" that is what they do. I don't condone it.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Nuclear power would be wonderful if not for thousands of radioactive barrels that will be dangerous for the next 10k years, tsunamis, earthquakes, and acts of terrorism. Now, if they can actually start find a way to reuse or safely dispose of this waste that might moderate my view somewhat. And there is the "not in my backyard" problem.
Before everyone jumps to conclusions and spreads fear mongering ... as I said this will not be like Chernobyl.
I'd say you are speculating. I'm in the wait and see mode.
more...
Benjy91
Mar 25, 11:08 AM
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
more...
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
more...
dukebound85
Mar 13, 12:31 PM
NIMBY. I'm okay with nuclear power as long as it's far far away from where I live. Of course, it's not like my town is prone to natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_earthquake) disasters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hugo) or anything.
Sorry to burst your buble but Charleston SC has operating reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program
Note for ships marked with refit: Sam Rayburn (SSBN-635) was converted into a training platform — Moored Training Ship (MTS-635). Sam Rayburn arrived for conversion on 1 February 1986, and on 29 July 1989 the first Moored Training Ship achieved initial criticality. Modifications included special mooring arrangements including a mechanism to absorb power generated by the main propulsion shaft. Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) was converted to the second Moored Training Ship (MTS-2 / MTS-626) in 1993. The Moored Training Ship Site is located at Naval Weapons Station Charleston in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Sam Rayburn is scheduled to operate as an MTS until 2014 while undergoing shipyard availabilities at four year intervals.
Sorry to burst your buble but Charleston SC has operating reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program
Note for ships marked with refit: Sam Rayburn (SSBN-635) was converted into a training platform — Moored Training Ship (MTS-635). Sam Rayburn arrived for conversion on 1 February 1986, and on 29 July 1989 the first Moored Training Ship achieved initial criticality. Modifications included special mooring arrangements including a mechanism to absorb power generated by the main propulsion shaft. Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) was converted to the second Moored Training Ship (MTS-2 / MTS-626) in 1993. The Moored Training Ship Site is located at Naval Weapons Station Charleston in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Sam Rayburn is scheduled to operate as an MTS until 2014 while undergoing shipyard availabilities at four year intervals.
more...
bradl
Mar 12, 02:20 AM
Keep the tasteless joke posts out of here.
As someone knowing people in Fukushima and Sendai who lost everything but their lives yesterday (though one guy's cat was killed), these posts are crap, and I have already reported two, and will continue to do so.
Keep it clean, this isn't the time to be joking, and it's pretty tasteless, about as bad as CNN's Godzilla jokes; sometimes I wonder if it just doesn't register with people just because it didn't happen to them.
This is the worst devastation Japan has seen in a few hundred years.
Considering how terrible this is, having (so far) a mere thousand or two dead/missing (almost all so far being a result of the tsunami and not the quake itself) is a miracle, and a testament to the warning systems, the building codes and construction, and the seriousness with which these issues are taken by the Japanese and the preparedness they show.
Times like this I truly admire the Japanese. And, like Kobe after the Great Hanshin Earthquake in 1995, Japan will rebuild better, more beautifully, more gracefully, and be stronger than ever, in just a few years' time. Kobe is absolutely stunning today, and in time so too will Sendai be. Japan will not treat this like Katrina.
+1
Very well said.
BL.
As someone knowing people in Fukushima and Sendai who lost everything but their lives yesterday (though one guy's cat was killed), these posts are crap, and I have already reported two, and will continue to do so.
Keep it clean, this isn't the time to be joking, and it's pretty tasteless, about as bad as CNN's Godzilla jokes; sometimes I wonder if it just doesn't register with people just because it didn't happen to them.
This is the worst devastation Japan has seen in a few hundred years.
Considering how terrible this is, having (so far) a mere thousand or two dead/missing (almost all so far being a result of the tsunami and not the quake itself) is a miracle, and a testament to the warning systems, the building codes and construction, and the seriousness with which these issues are taken by the Japanese and the preparedness they show.
Times like this I truly admire the Japanese. And, like Kobe after the Great Hanshin Earthquake in 1995, Japan will rebuild better, more beautifully, more gracefully, and be stronger than ever, in just a few years' time. Kobe is absolutely stunning today, and in time so too will Sendai be. Japan will not treat this like Katrina.
+1
Very well said.
BL.
more...
eric_n_dfw
Mar 21, 07:05 AM
I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.Good for you, I am too. But as someone else here said, "I want a pony!"
Present your opinion at the next shareholder's meeting. Presuming you own enough shares to bend their ear, they might listen. If not, then vote down Jobs and/or the board (again, owning a bunch of shares is helpful here.)
Remember though, what Apple owes us is return on investment. The only logical reason to buy shares in a company is that you either want to earn profits from it or you intend to buy it out (and earn profits from that). Ask yourself this: does Apple removing DRM from iTMS tracks make financial sense? Before answering, consider that Jobs said (the day the iTMS openned) that the FairPlay DRM was the best balance they could strike with all of the record labels. I'm sure any change in DRM would require ratification of the contracts with those record companies. Fat chance. (The only way I could see this happenning would be if un-DRM'ed tracks cost $5 or something - but even then, I doubt it)
The other reason to buy stock is because you like the company and want to support it. This is less of a logical reason, though, and falls under emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's probably part of my decision to own AAPL).
Present your opinion at the next shareholder's meeting. Presuming you own enough shares to bend their ear, they might listen. If not, then vote down Jobs and/or the board (again, owning a bunch of shares is helpful here.)
Remember though, what Apple owes us is return on investment. The only logical reason to buy shares in a company is that you either want to earn profits from it or you intend to buy it out (and earn profits from that). Ask yourself this: does Apple removing DRM from iTMS tracks make financial sense? Before answering, consider that Jobs said (the day the iTMS openned) that the FairPlay DRM was the best balance they could strike with all of the record labels. I'm sure any change in DRM would require ratification of the contracts with those record companies. Fat chance. (The only way I could see this happenning would be if un-DRM'ed tracks cost $5 or something - but even then, I doubt it)
The other reason to buy stock is because you like the company and want to support it. This is less of a logical reason, though, and falls under emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's probably part of my decision to own AAPL).
more...
iMikeT
Sep 20, 07:18 AM
I'm looking forward to iTV. [Wishful thinking] Too bad it doesn't run Mac OS X...
pbh444
Apr 10, 09:04 AM
"MCV reports that Apple has poached two major public relations executives from Nintendo (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43885/Rob-Saunders-heading-to-Apple) and Activision (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43894/Now-Activisions-Nick-Grange-joins-Apple), respectively."
Hoo hah...
This would be a much more important development if Apple had poached head game developers from Nintendo and Activision and not just PR people.
PR people deal with spin and without the quality developers create, spin doesn't mean a thing.
Hoo hah...
This would be a much more important development if Apple had poached head game developers from Nintendo and Activision and not just PR people.
PR people deal with spin and without the quality developers create, spin doesn't mean a thing.
nagromme
Mar 18, 12:54 PM
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
more...
OneMike
May 2, 09:09 AM
significant, but you have to install
No comments:
Post a Comment