quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: Actually, I can arrange for a hardcopy version to be delivered to your hands.. just buy the magazine. I realize we skirt copyright laws just a little here, but reproducing an entire magazine that is still on the stands and disseminating it freely is getting a little extreme. I'm sorry if i started it by printing my breakdown (i thought the tech was the most important thing), but it really seems to me like you guys are taking this to extremes....
It shoudn't really be as much of a problem as you make it sound. Nobody's trying to sell it, or pass it off as their own work, or as anything besides what it is. We're not making money off it in any way...
Besides, from what I'm hearing, a lot of folks here don't even have the opportunity to buy it where they live at all.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Mim.. If you spent time and money publishing a magazine, you'd be pretty steamed if, instead of a dozen people buying it, only one bought it and scanned it for all his friends. I realize that it will be off the stands soon, and scans from it will be circulated ad nauseum on Trek-related webspace, but reproducing the ENTIRE article just for people to avoid having to slap their money down on the counter IS THE EXACT REASON we have copyright laws. I could understand scanning one or two of the photos and passing them around, and excerpting the text, as these dont give the same experience as actually buying the magazine, so its not removing sales from the market. But then again, I dont understand the exact reason we need to sit here and jerk off because Sternbach said 'SV-65' and, like, wow, we're all so excited that we need to spend seven pages analyzing his choice of letters and numbers in his technobabble...
So dont give me the stupid-ass fucking eye rolling smiley.
[ April 18, 2002, 22:09: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Now calm down everyone! I would personally love to buy the magazine, unfortunately I don't know where to get it here in Germany - Bernd (who else around here is from "this deck of the woods"?), do you?
(Oh and by the way, I am one of those few idiots that still buy each and every issue of the Fact Files - they're up to issue 219 here. )
Oh and another thought about the SV-65, perhaps it's an inside joke: anyone care to check the name of the US aircraft carrier with the rego CVN-65...?
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Austin...that's what I've been thinking Wasn't the Enterprise CV-65 before it became nuclear powered?
No; it was built as a nuclear powered vessel; the first aircraft carrier to have a nuclear reactor and the second ship ever, after the USS Long Beach.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Wouldn't Enterprise be the second nuclear-powered surface ship as the Nautilus was the first and the Long Beach the second (with the Long Beach as the first nuclear-powered surface ship followed by Enterprise)?
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
That is also wrong. The first nuclear powered surface ship is a Russian Ice Breaker. I don't know the name but she was the first and then the Long Beach and then the Enterprise. The first warships would be the Long Beach and the Enterprise.
The first Nuclear powered ship to be scrapped completely is the Long Beach as well. Her parts are sitting around as spares for the Enterprise sinc their tech is nearly the same.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: Now calm down everyone! I would personally love to buy the magazine, unfortunately I don't know where to get it here in Germany - Bernd (who else around here is from "this deck of the woods"?), do you?
There was a time when it was published here in Germany, too. But someone decided to stop printing the german version and the magazine disappeared after a few issues.
quote: (Oh and by the way, I am one of those few idiots that still buy each and every issue of the Fact Files - they're up to issue 219 here. )
Me, too. (Does anyone know if they'll include Enterprise as well? Or is it just 'post-22nd-century literature'?)
posted
And this page: http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/submar/ssn571.htm says that Nautilus was launched and commissioned in 1954 (on different days). So I would still be right if Masao's info is correct.
BTW: Long Beach and Enterprise were both commissioned in 1961 (on different days).
Oh, screw it. I just reread Matrix's post. Disregard what I just wrote.
[ April 19, 2002, 21:34: Message edited by: Dat ]
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Wasn't the Enterprise CV-65 before it became nuclear powered?![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
