I definitely agree... I have a very nice 12" powerbook right now, and I like to have a decent GPU in it (not really for pro apps though; occasional gaming/3D).
The Macbook's GPU really doesn't cut it. I'm betting (read=hoping) that at least one model in the next Macbook family will have a nice GPU in it (in the black/expensive model for instance) or that they go for a "real" 12" or 13" Macbook pro. Anything bigger / heavier is a no-go for me, and anything without a half-decent GPU doesn't cut it either.
Look, they can't even get Open GL to run at reasonable speeds on OS X. Actually, it's so bad that 1-year old laptops such as mine (12" powerbook) don't even reach minimum specs to play friggin' Civilization IV, for chrissake.
Actually, their latest move of not including a decent GPU on the Macbook is a pretty strong indicator that they don't give a fuck about games, gamers, the gaming market, or game publishers. What, do they really expect even casual gamers to shell out 2000 bucks for a system (iMac Core Duo or Macbook pro) with decent (not even top-of-the-line) graphics?
But oh, wait, of COURSE: the article is about shipping games to the goddamn iPod. What a bunch of total friggin' idiots. They should get out of their happy iPod bubble and take care of their computer division sometimes. Now that they have a decent processor, they'll still manage to ruin the show by using crappy integrated graphics like they're some cheapass Walmart assembler.
(note to Apple: this is not just my rant, everybody remotely interested in playing games on mac just went berserk on the Macbook graphics fiasco. Just put an X1300 or better on the black-expensive Macbook and all the complaints will go away).
Asia is soooo flooded with fake products it's almost hilarious. I bought a kickass "Sony" VCD player there some time ago. And I have some pictures of cheap iPod nanos labelled "Sony" as well...
In Thailand you used to find Nike Air Max shoes with "Reebok" printed on the sole and the FILA logo on the side (or maybe it was the other way round). Quite cool!
Anyway, best knock-off I ever was a pair of (thai) Levi Strauss jeans, perfectly imitated but called "Live's Stress". Ha ha:)
As a side note, in some asian countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, probably Laos), you just CANNOT buy original CD's, DVD's, or books, simply because the market is so small & poor that no-one actually bothers to distribute the legit stuff. So it's pirated goods or bust. Of course, since it's cheap (2 bucks per DVD), regular folk actually can buy some music and movies from time to time, something they wouldn't be able to do if they had to buy them at "normal" prices.
Oh, and in Cambodia the TV CABLE COMPANY (that distributes, among others, HBO, CNN etc...) runs its OWN PIRATE CHANNEL that broadcasts cheap VCDs of hong-kong kung-fu movies (dubbed in thai and subtitled in malaysian...). Since the movies usually hold on 2 VCDs, sometimes the movie stops for a couple of seconds before an operator at the company switches disks (yes I've seen it with my own eyes!!). Absolutely amazing.
Look, I'm not familiar with Aperture (iPhoto is enough for me), but your criticism actually looks constructive (for once on Slashdot). It's a shame Apple doesn't get to read it. So may I suggest that you copy your entire post (as is) on their Aperture Feedback page.
I used to submit a lot of feedback in the Mac OS X Beta days... I still can't believe of how much of the interface oddities I pointed at had been repaired in the release version (I was probably not the only one to point the problems out, but if enough people do it, they DO fix it).
Yeah, it was the "enterprise customers" all right: I imagine the phone calls from Symantec, Kaspersky, FSecure et al: hey Microsoft, leave them damn ports open or we'll outta business pretty soon!
(relax. It's just a lame joke)
No way. This tech is intended to destroy incoming long-range projectiles such as missiles and, maybe, shells.
In theory, it works against RPG fire, assuming the radar catches it fast enough, which is subject to discussion, since RPG 7 is typically fired from 100-200 m away. Regarding IEDs, it would probably be totally inefficient. IEDs cause damage pretty much like landmines do: blast, heat/fire (where their device is not effective), and shrapnel (too dispersed to be intercepted). Plus, the IEDs fire off at very close range, while this device is supposed to trigger when the incoming projectile is 20/30 metres away.
Plus, they're only planning to implement it on expensive, big-ass armoured vehicles such as M1s and Strykers: in other words, the ones that aren't really put at threat by RPG7's and IEDs in the first place. I don't see the Army deploying this multi-million-dollar tech on their Hummers anytime soon...
This is "just" some new kind of anti-missile technology, only miniaturized and applied to tanks. Calling this a "protective force field" reeks of astroturf and, worse, political propaganda. This is high-tech for high-tech wars between high-tech armies, not protection gear.
Assuming this kind of high-tech weapons systems helps the conduct of non-conventionnal warfare, low-intensity warfare and ground occupation in anyway it misleading, counter-productive, and ultimately, dangerous (not to mention tax-dollar-wasting):
1. It makes political leaders and citizens think they can send troops to war without putting them in harm's way (assuming they care about the soldiers' lives at all), while ignoring all warnings from experts (both in and out the Army) that no amount of tech will ever make asymetric warfare completely safe.
2. It facilitates entry into war by ensuring complete, total, casualty-less, blitz-style victory against the military opponent (such as during the first weeks of the Iraq war). This both allows to "sell the war" (politically speaking) more easily, and it makes political leaders and military planners believe they don't even need a post-war scenario (since, by their standards, they'll have won the war and will be able to retire in the following weeks).
3. And during actual occupation, all these gadgets are of absolutely no use whatsoever to protect the troops against guerillas/militias/terrorist cells and/or an angry populace.
Sure, tech can help, even in non-conventionnal warfare. But it will never replace diplomacy, non-conventionnal military skills, solid ground intelligence, negociations with the adversary (don't get me wrong, negociating doesn't mean you can't stab them in the back the next minute), and not pissing off all of the locals at once. All things which the US Army is arguably not very good at, but this is another debate entirely.
We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue... We want to share in those revenue streams.
--> He's not just confusing iPod and iTunes. What he's saying is, "hey, we should also get a profit out of the iPod in addition to the iTunes profit". This is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality in order to blame Apple for not sharing their iPod revenue stream.
But the statement is incorrect. No one, not even Apple, sells songs through the iPod. What they are doing, Mr. Bronfman, is that they are selling "your" songs through iTunes, and as a result, you have a share of iTunes' revenues. The biggest share go to the music companies, actually.
So stop whining, Mr. Bronfman. someone provided you free of charge with a way to sell music online, and they even hand you back the profits! If you're not happy, then OK, raise your fucking prices on "your" fucking music and see all the iTunes shoppers go back to Kazaa and 1-dollar-per-gigabyte russian stores.
Jobs was right in calling you greedy, and you just proved it.
Check Out "Brainfreeze", a long mix from DJ Shadow & Cut Chemist. About 52 minutes long. Among many other bits, it features samples from Slurpees radio (or TV?) commercials. Very good stuff (if you like DJ-ing and scratching that is, but it features many styles at once, so listen to it).
You are a moron, for all the reasons contained in the attached responses.
What you should rather be doing is reinstalling windows (so they still can run their present and future software), force them to ditch IE for Firefox and Outlook for Thunderbird, and force them to buy a damned antivirus.
If you install Linux you should at least be warning them!! Installing 50 (or 200, or 2000 for that matter) linux boxes won't change the world in itself, and it certainly won't help it to spread : your customers don't have a clue anyways of what they're running, and certainly won't start a word-of-mouth in favor of it (since their software doesn't work anymore). Duh.
No, we'd be able to produce fertile ground using the crew's excrements, mixed with martian soil, and probably some sort of very concentrated chemical fertilizers.
Water is still an issue. I probably can be extracted from urine (and I think they still do that)
The plant themselves will probably be some funky, genetically modified versions designed to require as little water, nutrients and heat as possible.
There is one file called "Mac OS X 10.3 (Intel Version) at 631.15 megs.iso file, on both networks, but someone put a disclaimer on it on limewire, adding "bogus_file_empty" in the name. It goes without saying, I'm downloading it anyways, just to be sure (hey it might even be pron! Who knows!)
Another file called "Mac OSX 10.4.1 - How to get.txt" which reads, I quote:
a) wait upto 2006 b) Become an developer http://developer.apple.com/ (500eur/year) Buy the Development PC 1000eur, this package includes OSX for Intel (Preinstalled on HD)
Greets:)
Someone somewhere has some sense of humour (and / or works for Apple...).
Short answer : not as long as Apple keeps Mac OS X on its own machines, be they PPC-based or intel-based. For the moment, the plan is to replace IBM chips with intel chips on Apple-produced Macs (likely to remain as expensive as now), not to unleash Mac OS X on an unsuspecting Wintel world.
--
Longer answer: if Apple decides to make OS X for every PC out there, they will be in competition with Windows, not Linux. Apple will tout OS X's ease of use - prettiness - multimedia capabilities, and this will speak to frustrated windows users, not linux users. (There aren't many people using linux as "general-use" machines)
Linux is here to stay : most linux users don't use it because it's prettier or easier to use than Windows : it's not. They use it because of access to the sources, shell, easy scripting, performance, stability, etc.. These are perfectly valid reasons to use linux on production machines (servers - development - science). Mac OS X Server might compete here, but it's costly compared to linux.
Environment awareness has nothing to do with political regimes.
Capitalist countries (Germany and France) fucked up the Rhine river so badly it didn't have fish in it for more than 30 years. Fish had to be reintroduced by man some years ago. This is no better or worse than what happened in Russia or other communist regimes.
France's industrialized, capitalistic, intensive agriculture is so dependent on nitrates and fertilizers they messed up phreatic reserves of whole regions, making tap water non-drinkable. There are countless examples of land, resource and energy overutilization in capitalist economies.
I would go further and say that the overconsumption model capitalism promotes (and depends on for steady growth) helps making resource-overutilization and pollution even worse, but this is just my uninformed opinion.
Capitalism doesn't even prevent huge accidents from happening: Does Three Mile Island ring a bell? Okay, this one wasn't too bad. What about Bhopal, India (linkie). (short version : 5000 died on the spot, 15000 more from mid-long term consequences, and 120 000 still suffer from diseases and disorders related to the accident.)
Look, man, the country that produces 25% of all CO2 on the planet and is most dependent on oil and other non-renewable, polluting energy sources is NOT a communist regime : it's the US. Closely followed by China (BTW do you count China as communist or capitalist?)
In short: environmental awareness has to do with political will, not political regimes. You could argue that communism does not let the people express their political will, and evidence tends to fit that theory. but you could also argue that capitalism sees environmental protection as a cost that has to be reduced, and evidence also tends to fit that theory. Capitalist industries constantly tend to cut corners when it comes to environment protection. Example: Texas refineries prefer to illegally release sulfur (sp?) in the atmosphere and pay huge fines, instead of retrofitting their factories with proper filters, because it costs more. But no-one will put higher fines on them because it would be "anticapitalist" to do so.
I have to ask : are you one of those guys who stick Greenpeace bumper stickers on your SUV to feel better about it?
Chernobyl was the nuclear meltdown. Another incident involved a bio-warfare lab leaking anthrax in the city of Sverdlosk located next to it, killing 68 people, in 1979:
7 replies and photo essay is already slow as hell...
Ex-Soviet Russia is famous for *not* managing its nuclear waste (hundreds of nuclear submarines slowly rotting away in Barents Sea, pissing off Finns and Swedes) ; nuclear weapons out of hand or simply "missing" ; some famous fuckups (Tchernobyl; that bio-warfare incident about 20 years ago, when a lab leaked a killer virus over a village) ; etc...
So nobody should be surprised that they let booster rockets fall on populated areas...
This makes sense, after all, Apple wants you to be able to listen to your iPod wherever you are, including subways, trains, planes, moms' basements, etc, where I don't think Sirius goes. They also want people to keep going on the music store homepage, where podcasts will probably be.
Is Sirius available out of the US right now? (genuine question)
If not, then this would give them the opportunity to go worldwide...
In France you can't get anything but a 3-course meal (salad - main dish - cheese OR dessert) + a slice of bread at the school restaurant. Most school meals taste like crap, depending on which private company is responsible for the restaurant (my school was lucky;) but they are healthy at least. During meal, you can only have water, no Coke, diet Coke, Dr. Peppers, or any of all that crap.
Snacks & sodas are available in the school through vending machines, but they are rather expensive, which limits the consumption. Also, the legislators are thinking about forbidding the vending machines, and they probably will succeed. We saw some fruit vending machines appear, which I think is rather nice.
There is no such thing as a "cafeteria" in schools.
Also, no school is sponsored by Coke, Pepsi, or anyone at all for that matter (forbidden).
The obesity rate is extremely low, albeit rapidly growing among the youngest (due to unhealthy meals at home & junk food everywhere, which is much more difficult to control).
1 CD (650 MB) could hold 451 floppies (1.44 MB) 1 DVD (9 GB) could hold 14 CDs 1 Blu-Ray DVD (100 GB) will hold "only" 11 DVDs. If the other standard wins, it will hold only 5 or 6 DVDs.
So, it seems that the "memory expansion rate" of external media is slowing down little by little (I'm not counting medias that really never caught on: iomega, ZIPs, JAZs and all that funky stuff from the 90es, neither superspecialized medias like DAT tape recorders). When we will hit the barrier? (is there one? Are holographic hard drives on their way?)
Interestingly enough, the adoption rate of new mediums as "the standard" (meaning the time during which it is installed by default in most PCs sold) has been inversely proportionnal : floppies sticked around forever, CDs for about 12 years, and we've had DVD for 7 years, and it looks like everybody is about to switch to either BluRay or HDDVD very soon, "killing" the DVD as the aforementioned standard.
How long will it take to burn 100 GBs of data in a single disk though, assuming recordable blurays ever show up?
(Don't believe me? I'm not the one saying it: "There are two major products that come from Berkeley : LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson)
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, the second I read the story headline I just knew someone would post that. :-D
I say, EXCELLENT!!!
Cheers,
ElGanzoLoco
I definitely agree... I have a very nice 12" powerbook right now, and I like to have a decent GPU in it (not really for pro apps though; occasional gaming/3D).
The Macbook's GPU really doesn't cut it. I'm betting (read=hoping) that at least one model in the next Macbook family will have a nice GPU in it (in the black/expensive model for instance) or that they go for a "real" 12" or 13" Macbook pro. Anything bigger / heavier is a no-go for me, and anything without a half-decent GPU doesn't cut it either.
This has to be a total friggin' joke.
Look, they can't even get Open GL to run at reasonable speeds on OS X. Actually, it's so bad that 1-year old laptops such as mine (12" powerbook) don't even reach minimum specs to play friggin' Civilization IV , for chrissake.
Actually, their latest move of not including a decent GPU on the Macbook is a pretty strong indicator that they don't give a fuck about games, gamers, the gaming market, or game publishers. What, do they really expect even casual gamers to shell out 2000 bucks for a system (iMac Core Duo or Macbook pro) with decent (not even top-of-the-line) graphics?
But oh, wait, of COURSE: the article is about shipping games to the goddamn iPod. What a bunch of total friggin' idiots. They should get out of their happy iPod bubble and take care of their computer division sometimes. Now that they have a decent processor, they'll still manage to ruin the show by using crappy integrated graphics like they're some cheapass Walmart assembler.
(note to Apple: this is not just my rant, everybody remotely interested in playing games on mac just went berserk on the Macbook graphics fiasco. Just put an X1300 or better on the black-expensive Macbook and all the complaints will go away).
The NEC brand is still quite popular in Asia.
:)
Asia is soooo flooded with fake products it's almost hilarious. I bought a kickass "Sony" VCD player there some time ago. And I have some pictures of cheap iPod nanos labelled "Sony" as well...
In Thailand you used to find Nike Air Max shoes with "Reebok" printed on the sole and the FILA logo on the side (or maybe it was the other way round). Quite cool!
Anyway, best knock-off I ever was a pair of (thai) Levi Strauss jeans, perfectly imitated but called "Live's Stress". Ha ha
As a side note, in some asian countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, probably Laos), you just CANNOT buy original CD's, DVD's, or books, simply because the market is so small & poor that no-one actually bothers to distribute the legit stuff. So it's pirated goods or bust. Of course, since it's cheap (2 bucks per DVD), regular folk actually can buy some music and movies from time to time, something they wouldn't be able to do if they had to buy them at "normal" prices.
Oh, and in Cambodia the TV CABLE COMPANY (that distributes, among others, HBO, CNN etc...) runs its OWN PIRATE CHANNEL that broadcasts cheap VCDs of hong-kong kung-fu movies (dubbed in thai and subtitled in malaysian...). Since the movies usually hold on 2 VCDs, sometimes the movie stops for a couple of seconds before an operator at the company switches disks (yes I've seen it with my own eyes!!). Absolutely amazing.
Look, I'm not familiar with Aperture (iPhoto is enough for me), but your criticism actually looks constructive (for once on Slashdot). It's a shame Apple doesn't get to read it. So may I suggest that you copy your entire post (as is) on their Aperture Feedback page.
I used to submit a lot of feedback in the Mac OS X Beta days... I still can't believe of how much of the interface oddities I pointed at had been repaired in the release version (I was probably not the only one to point the problems out, but if enough people do it, they DO fix it).
Cheers,
El Ganzo Loco
Yeah, it was the "enterprise customers" all right: I imagine the phone calls from Symantec, Kaspersky, FSecure et al: hey Microsoft, leave them damn ports open or we'll outta business pretty soon! (relax. It's just a lame joke)
No way. This tech is intended to destroy incoming long-range projectiles such as missiles and, maybe, shells.
In theory, it works against RPG fire, assuming the radar catches it fast enough, which is subject to discussion, since RPG 7 is typically fired from 100-200 m away. Regarding IEDs, it would probably be totally inefficient. IEDs cause damage pretty much like landmines do: blast, heat/fire (where their device is not effective), and shrapnel (too dispersed to be intercepted). Plus, the IEDs fire off at very close range, while this device is supposed to trigger when the incoming projectile is 20/30 metres away.
Plus, they're only planning to implement it on expensive, big-ass armoured vehicles such as M1s and Strykers: in other words, the ones that aren't really put at threat by RPG7's and IEDs in the first place. I don't see the Army deploying this multi-million-dollar tech on their Hummers anytime soon...
This is "just" some new kind of anti-missile technology, only miniaturized and applied to tanks. Calling this a "protective force field" reeks of astroturf and, worse, political propaganda. This is high-tech for high-tech wars between high-tech armies, not protection gear.
Assuming this kind of high-tech weapons systems helps the conduct of non-conventionnal warfare, low-intensity warfare and ground occupation in anyway it misleading, counter-productive, and ultimately, dangerous (not to mention tax-dollar-wasting):
1. It makes political leaders and citizens think they can send troops to war without putting them in harm's way (assuming they care about the soldiers' lives at all), while ignoring all warnings from experts (both in and out the Army) that no amount of tech will ever make asymetric warfare completely safe.
2. It facilitates entry into war by ensuring complete, total, casualty-less, blitz-style victory against the military opponent (such as during the first weeks of the Iraq war). This both allows to "sell the war" (politically speaking) more easily, and it makes political leaders and military planners believe they don't even need a post-war scenario (since, by their standards, they'll have won the war and will be able to retire in the following weeks).
3. And during actual occupation, all these gadgets are of absolutely no use whatsoever to protect the troops against guerillas/militias/terrorist cells and/or an angry populace.
Sure, tech can help, even in non-conventionnal warfare. But it will never replace diplomacy, non-conventionnal military skills, solid ground intelligence, negociations with the adversary (don't get me wrong, negociating doesn't mean you can't stab them in the back the next minute), and not pissing off all of the locals at once. All things which the US Army is arguably not very good at, but this is another debate entirely.
We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue ... We want to share in those revenue streams.
--> He's not just confusing iPod and iTunes. What he's saying is, "hey, we should also get a profit out of the iPod in addition to the iTunes profit". This is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality in order to blame Apple for not sharing their iPod revenue stream.
But the statement is incorrect. No one, not even Apple, sells songs through the iPod. What they are doing, Mr. Bronfman, is that they are selling "your" songs through iTunes, and as a result, you have a share of iTunes' revenues. The biggest share go to the music companies, actually.
So stop whining, Mr. Bronfman. someone provided you free of charge with a way to sell music online, and they even hand you back the profits! If you're not happy, then OK, raise your fucking prices on "your" fucking music and see all the iTunes shoppers go back to Kazaa and 1-dollar-per-gigabyte russian stores.
Jobs was right in calling you greedy, and you just proved it.
Check Out "Brainfreeze", a long mix from DJ Shadow & Cut Chemist. About 52 minutes long. Among many other bits, it features samples from Slurpees radio (or TV?) commercials. Very good stuff (if you like DJ-ing and scratching that is, but it features many styles at once, so listen to it).
The vinyl even has "SLURP" written on it
You are a moron, for all the reasons contained in the attached responses. What you should rather be doing is reinstalling windows (so they still can run their present and future software), force them to ditch IE for Firefox and Outlook for Thunderbird, and force them to buy a damned antivirus. If you install Linux you should at least be warning them!! Installing 50 (or 200, or 2000 for that matter) linux boxes won't change the world in itself, and it certainly won't help it to spread : your customers don't have a clue anyways of what they're running, and certainly won't start a word-of-mouth in favor of it (since their software doesn't work anymore). Duh.
oh... and the latest start wars was pretty damn good.
:)
Yeah pal, you did just start a war alright
No, really... Why the hell are they called cookies? It doesn't even describe their function or anything.
Then again, random names for random things is so 1990es...
1)Take a lot of soil/hydroponic nutrients with us
No, we'd be able to produce fertile ground using the crew's excrements, mixed with martian soil, and probably some sort of very concentrated chemical fertilizers.
Water is still an issue. I probably can be extracted from urine (and I think they still do that)
The plant themselves will probably be some funky, genetically modified versions designed to require as little water, nutrients and heat as possible.
There is one file called "Mac OS X 10.3 (Intel Version) at 631.15 megs
It goes without saying, I'm downloading it anyways, just to be sure (hey it might even be pron! Who knows!)
Another file called "Mac OSX 10.4.1 - How to get.txt" which reads, I quote:
a) wait upto 2006
b)
Become an developer http://developer.apple.com/ (500eur/year)
Buy the Development PC 1000eur, this package includes OSX for Intel (Preinstalled on HD)
Greets
Someone somewhere has some sense of humour (and / or works for Apple...).
Short answer : not as long as Apple keeps Mac OS X on its own machines, be they PPC-based or intel-based. For the moment, the plan is to replace IBM chips with intel chips on Apple-produced Macs (likely to remain as expensive as now), not to unleash Mac OS X on an unsuspecting Wintel world.
--
Longer answer: if Apple decides to make OS X for every PC out there, they will be in competition with Windows, not Linux. Apple will tout OS X's ease of use - prettiness - multimedia capabilities, and this will speak to frustrated windows users, not linux users. (There aren't many people using linux as "general-use" machines)
Linux is here to stay : most linux users don't use it because it's prettier or easier to use than Windows : it's not. They use it because of access to the sources, shell, easy scripting, performance, stability, etc.. These are perfectly valid reasons to use linux on production machines (servers - development - science). Mac OS X Server might compete here, but it's costly compared to linux.
>> Intel + Mac = IMac
>I prefer Mac + Intel = Mattel.
And I prefer:
Mac(intosh) + Intel = Macintel!
Duh!
What a load of crap.
Environment awareness has nothing to do with political regimes.
Capitalist countries (Germany and France) fucked up the Rhine river so badly it didn't have fish in it for more than 30 years. Fish had to be reintroduced by man some years ago. This is no better or worse than what happened in Russia or other communist regimes.
France's industrialized, capitalistic, intensive agriculture is so dependent on nitrates and fertilizers they messed up phreatic reserves of whole regions, making tap water non-drinkable. There are countless examples of land, resource and energy overutilization in capitalist economies.
I would go further and say that the overconsumption model capitalism promotes (and depends on for steady growth) helps making resource-overutilization and pollution even worse, but this is just my uninformed opinion.
Capitalism doesn't even prevent huge accidents from happening:
Does Three Mile Island ring a bell? Okay, this one wasn't too bad. What about Bhopal, India (linkie).
(short version : 5000 died on the spot, 15000 more from mid-long term consequences, and 120 000 still suffer from diseases and disorders related to the accident.)
Look, man, the country that produces 25% of all CO2 on the planet and is most dependent on oil and other non-renewable, polluting energy sources is NOT a communist regime : it's the US. Closely followed by China (BTW do you count China as communist or capitalist?)
In short: environmental awareness has to do with political will, not political regimes.
You could argue that communism does not let the people express their political will, and evidence tends to fit that theory.
but you could also argue that capitalism sees environmental protection as a cost that has to be reduced, and evidence also tends to fit that theory. Capitalist industries constantly tend to cut corners when it comes to environment protection. Example: Texas refineries prefer to illegally release sulfur (sp?) in the atmosphere and pay huge fines, instead of retrofitting their factories with proper filters, because it costs more. But no-one will put higher fines on them because it would be "anticapitalist" to do so.
I have to ask : are you one of those guys who stick Greenpeace bumper stickers on your SUV to feel better about it?
No, I'm talking about two separate incidents.
Chernobyl was the nuclear meltdown. Another incident involved a bio-warfare lab leaking anthrax in the city of Sverdlosk located next to it, killing 68 people, in 1979:
Linkie...
Woops, you're right. I meant the Baltic sea, not Barents (although there also are, supposedly, nuclear warships rotting in the Barents sea).
Woops, my bad : I meant the Baltic sea.
7 replies and photo essay is already slow as hell...
Ex-Soviet Russia is famous for *not* managing its nuclear waste (hundreds of nuclear submarines slowly rotting away in Barents Sea, pissing off Finns and Swedes) ; nuclear weapons out of hand or simply "missing" ; some famous fuckups (Tchernobyl; that bio-warfare incident about 20 years ago, when a lab leaked a killer virus over a village) ; etc...
So nobody should be surprised that they let booster rockets fall on populated areas...
This makes sense, after all, Apple wants you to be able to listen to your iPod wherever you are, including subways, trains, planes, moms' basements, etc, where I don't think Sirius goes.
They also want people to keep going on the music store homepage, where podcasts will probably be.
Is Sirius available out of the US right now? (genuine question)
If not, then this would give them the opportunity to go worldwide...
In France you can't get anything but a 3-course meal (salad - main dish - cheese OR dessert) + a slice of bread at the school restaurant. Most school meals taste like crap, depending on which private company is responsible for the restaurant (my school was lucky
During meal, you can only have water, no Coke, diet Coke, Dr. Peppers, or any of all that crap.
Snacks & sodas are available in the school through vending machines, but they are rather expensive, which limits the consumption. Also, the legislators are thinking about forbidding the vending machines, and they probably will succeed. We saw some fruit vending machines appear, which I think is rather nice.
There is no such thing as a "cafeteria" in schools.
Also, no school is sponsored by Coke, Pepsi, or anyone at all for that matter (forbidden).
The obesity rate is extremely low, albeit rapidly growing among the youngest (due to unhealthy meals at home & junk food everywhere, which is much more difficult to control).
1 CD (650 MB) could hold 451 floppies (1.44 MB)
1 DVD (9 GB) could hold 14 CDs
1 Blu-Ray DVD (100 GB) will hold "only" 11 DVDs. If the other standard wins, it will hold only 5 or 6 DVDs.
So, it seems that the "memory expansion rate" of external media is slowing down little by little (I'm not counting medias that really never caught on: iomega, ZIPs, JAZs and all that funky stuff from the 90es, neither superspecialized medias like DAT tape recorders). When we will hit the barrier? (is there one? Are holographic hard drives on their way?)
Interestingly enough, the adoption rate of new mediums as "the standard" (meaning the time during which it is installed by default in most PCs sold) has been inversely proportionnal : floppies sticked around forever, CDs for about 12 years, and we've had DVD for 7 years, and it looks like everybody is about to switch to either BluRay or HDDVD very soon, "killing" the DVD as the aforementioned standard.
How long will it take to burn 100 GBs of data in a single disk though, assuming recordable blurays ever show up?
UNIX : LSD-certified since forever.
(Don't believe me? I'm not the one saying it: "There are two major products that come from Berkeley : LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson)