I'd like to see Apple fix security problems as quickly as possible, but this guy threatening to release exploit information a few days after the first patch to go out after the notification? That seems like they are expecting an awful lot from Apple - certainly they want to take a few weeks to analyze their patch and make sure it doesn't break a bunch of things. Apple should not be forced to make an ill-prepared and possibly buggy patch release due to the threats of this "analyst". If he had given several months of warning I could see the justification, but it looks like he is doing this to get some publicity because he knows Apple won't rush something like this, not to the degree this fellow is demanding.
blood (white blood cells) have DNA (red do not) saliva (dissolved lining of the mouth) has DNA in the form of dissolved skin cells semen (duh, that's the point) hair (FOLLICLE only, there is no DNA in the hair strand itself, that is chitin)
Sure why not, I'll reply to a FOURTH one... (what is it with slashdot today?)
He attempted to provide nail and hair clippings, but the authorities refused.
Go read a book on DNA. I will bet MONEY that on at least one page in that book it will specifically say fingernail clippings and hair do not contain any DNA. duh?
The particular people he was dealing with do not have the equipment to extract DNA from those samples.
Yep, those imbiciles along with everyone else on the planet
Sorry to vent but this is getting silly. The slashdot IQ is particularly low today for some reason. I think I'll stop reading this thread, I'm sure I'll just run into more of these silly posts if I continue.
Why are there SO MANY posts here saying how he provided DNA with his hair and fingernail/toenail clippings? GET A CLUE, read a book. I learned this in what, 6th grade science? keratin/chitin does NOT contain DNA. Never has, never will. Give me a hair with a follicle attached to the end and we'll talk. (this is why he provided the samples in advance, to make sure there was no follicles in the hair, and I would be the nail clippings were washed in alcohol)
Do you really believe that hair and fingenail clippings contain DNA? Those are the ONLY two things he could possibly offer that do NOT contain his DNA. He knows what he's doing, and it has nothing to do with religion.
He is probably well-aware that hair (minus a follicle) and fingernail clippings are both just keratin (chitin?) and contain no biological material or DNA of any sort. (those are the only main two substances he could give a sample of without giving away his DNA, and he knows it) A hair with a follicle however, contains DNA. That's why he brought them in instead of offering them on the spot, to make sure he didn't lose a hair with a follicle etc. He knows what he is doing, and it's highly unlikely that religion is his main concern. (unless it's against his religious beliefs to get caught a second time...)
Puting that aside for the moment, I am very much against the manditory collection of DNA except in the event you are the suspect of a crime and DNA would prove your innocence/guilt. Pre-emptive DNA harvesting for the purpose of establishing a database should not be legal.
You can't use the red blood cell component of blood for DNA, because red blood cells do not have a nucleus. When they undergo their final divisions they cast off their DNA to make more room for oxygen and nutrients. Just before this they "bulk up" by making a lot of the proteins they will need when serving as a red blood cell. Later in their life, when the protein supply is exhaused, there is no DNA available to template to make more, and the cell is useless and dies.
There's a lot more in blood than just red blood cells though. The white blood cells have DNA for example, so you can get DNA from blood very easily.
Sounded like a good idea from the first sentence or so. And then in typical congressional style, the more you read of the bill the less you like it. Makes you wonder if that's how the bills are written... starting out with a good noble cause, and being slowly, thoroughly perverted by the special interest groups until it's a seething pile of trash to be voted upon.
One of the things I get to do at work (computer sales shop) is answer tech questions on the phone. I actually very rarely get a hostile customer, and in those cases they usually either don't stay hostile for long or they realize I don't own a Magic Wand and go away. Most of the customers I deal with are the clueless, they call with basic computer questions that carry their own special brand of frustration. There are also the variety that are cluess AND think that your entire day has been reserved for providing phone support for them. "hi I just bought my first computer and a printer, can you show me how to make christmas cards?" Those questions really do happen. We try to draw the line at 5 minutes of phone support. Any more than that, and they have four choices: bring it in, have us come out, send out a professional instructor we reference (much cheaper than sending out a tech) or keep trying to figure it out yourself.
All in all most of the tech support calls I take are short and productive, and quickly resolve the customer's questions. The part that takes the longest time is just figuring out exactly what new and creative thing the customer has found he can do with/to the computer. After long enough you can guess pretty quickly what the issue is. My favorite: "Every time I click my mouse a little window opens up". "Take the book off your keyboard". "What?" "Take the BOOK off your KEYBOARD." "The what?.... oh, that works! How did you know I had a book sitting on the corner key on my keyboard?" "You're not the first." Now consider that call took 20 seconds. Now guess how long the FIRST one of those calls took? (hint: I broke my 5 minute rule more than once)
main mode of transportation: a british police box favorite food: jelly babies primary villian: can't manage stairs has been known to hold a genuine argument/discussion with himself on several occasions noted for knowing how to "think sideways" only tool in his toolkit: sonic screwdriver
Maybe "jigo" is not a typeo or spelling mistake, but instead a really large unit? Or a fictitional one. Like in Farscape, their speed is "hedge 3" or something like that, which gives them a degree of flexibility if the show is watched years from now. Or in STTNG, their computing power is measured in "kilo-quads", whatever that is....
In case anyone still cares, (it's an old thread) I have official word from Apple on the matter.
What it boils down to is that opening your mini to add memory in and of itself does not void the warranty, HOWEVER, any damaged caused by the user attempting the upgrade, or any problems that result from the upgrade, voids the warranty. So for example, if you try to upgrade your memory and now it won't boot, and you have to spend half an hour on the phone with Apple to figure out you didn't have the new memory stick properly seated, you will be billled for that time and your warranty is kerpoof.
I prefer direct answers from Apple over "I think" or "in my experience" because those are two highly variable things from person to person.
Seeing as there is no public information to support either of our views as to warranty, I'll have a chat with them tomorrow and see what their official position is. I would tend to believe that this could void your warranty, but that in most cases Apple would turn a blind eye, but hold onto their options in the event a customer say.. snapped a dimm clip off or something while trying to upgrade it. Just because they chose to honor a warranty in one or two cases doesn't mean they have to. Companies like to keep their options open.
OK I stand corrected, I found one reference to upgrading a mini's memory:
This talks about 'if the user installs their own memory' to try to install in matched pairs for improved video performance. This seems to support your argument. So we're 1 and 1.;) I've sent an email out to get the final word on the matter.
I work at a computer sales/repair shop, and I am all too familiar with your problem. There are three customers I can think of off-hand that match that description. They are customers that will call you at the drop of a hat, to ask you basic computer use questions. Thhey are people that call you 2 minutes after they encounter a problem, having spent basically no time trying to solve the problem on their own. They will call you and ask you to walk them through what you realize is a 20 minute procedure. And they'll call sometimes 5-10 times per day when they are having particular problems. It's common for them to call back less than 5 minutes after the end of their previous call.
This almost always gets started because someone at the store initially gives the person an absurd amount of phone support. The customer lacks basic consideration and common sense, and now considers you to be his personal technical support and will now call you at the drop of a hat because you are "so helpful". The customer is certainly part of the problem, but you've done it to yourself.
These customers are particularly difficult to deal with when they are good, frequent, paying customers. It's hard to say no to someone that buys several thousand dollars of your product every year. It's been my experience that most customers are easy to "show the light" that they are being unreasonable, and will hapily scale back their calls if requested. We also have a professional teacher that specializes in computer training that we refer to such customers. Many times the customer is quite happy to pay ~$25/hr to have a professional come to their house and answer every question they have and show them how to do something. Very often one or two visits by this man solves the entire problem with a customer. We encourage the customers to get a paper and pencil and leave it by their computer, and write down questions as they encounter them, and arrange for an appointment from our tech support person at most once a week, say on Mondays, to answer the week's long list of questions. This helps them to get all their questions answered and minimizes the number of visits required. It also encourages them to think on their questions, most of which they end up answering themselves before Monday rolls around.
We have problems with new employees because the "leech" customers will quickly realize they have a new ear to talk with and will usually ask for the new guy by name, because they have subconsiously figured out that the new guy will spend absurd amounts of time on the phone to help them, so it's important to train the new people on how to handle the tech support leeches. We try to enforce a "5 minute rule". This means if at any point in the conversation it occurs to us that it will take more than 5 minutes on the phone to help the customer, we ask them instead to bring in their equipment or schedule an on-site. MOST customers will either bring it in, schedule an on-site, or get offended at the idea of spending their money for assistance and hang up. A few will simjply continue to insist that you help them for "just a few more minutes". Those are the inconsiderate ones, the true leeches, and often times you simply have to put your foot down, despite customer relations. We use peer pressure to help with this, and if we spot an employee on the phone for a long time with a customer, we will hold up an open hand and mouth "five minutes" to them to remind them.
We try to use analogies with some customers, to show them why we cannot talk with them on the phone all day. One of my favorites is the car analogy. "When you buy a new car, the salesman will help you with how to operate the new power seats, show you where the spare tire is at, and tell you about what regular maintenance the car needs. They will not teach you how to drive. That's not their job. You have to learn that for yourself, or hire someone to teach you how to do it". It's amazing how this pulls things into focus for most users, hits them like a bat, and knoc
Again, that is incorrect. The Mini is user upgradable. Whoever told you otherwise was wrong.
Guess you can go run to Steve and tell him he doesn't know anything about macs...
Quoteth the Apple Service Manual for the mac mini:
Additional memory should be installed by an Apple Retail Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider.
(there's a reason "Apple certified Macintosh repair tech" is in my user profile)
Though I still find it odd that there are no public documents that state this. Guessing Apple doesn't want y'all to realize that installing memory in a Mini isn't for the newbies.
Turns out apple is very tight-lipped about this. Find me ONE PAGE at apple.com that tells you how to upgrade memory in a mac mini. There are several dozen pages that tell you how to upgrade your memory on every other model of mac.
Memory 256MB Upgrade installed into your Mac mini. Upgrade is a 512MB RAM module, but due to the necessary removal of original 256MB RAM module, net gain will be 256MB. Price of upgrade includes $39.99 install fee. Memory is not user-installable.
It's not word from Apple, but since there IS no word from Apple, a memory retailer (someone that WANTS to sell you memory) would be a good authority when telling you what their product cannot do.
Please remember there is a big difference between "I can do this" and "the manufacturer says I can do this without voiding my warranty". Too many trolls replying to my post that apparently want to brag that they can do the upgrade. That wasn't my point.
True, any amateur can try, but apple will void your warranty if they found out you opened your mini. I count that as "contains no user-serviceable parts".
If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician
There is only one mac being sold right now that does not have user-installable memory, and that's the mac mini. It's very arguable that a novice should not try to open a mini. All other macintosh computers have user-installable memory. (three, out of production, are also in this group - upper slot in iMac G4, lower slot in PowerBook G3, and both slots in iMac G3 tray-loader)
Maybe if you were an Apple tech you'd know that any clown can install memory.;)
If you have something confidential and I want to know it, and that's OK with you, BUT you don't want the whole world to know it, then you make me sign a contract (or agree to terms) that says I will not share this private information with the public. If I go share it anyway, I have broken the contract and am subject to your litigation. This is contract law. Assisting someone to break contract is also illegal.
Or taken another way, lets say you go to the doctor to see if he can solve your impotence. Now of course you don't want the world to know about your problem, and that's ok because the doctor has signed an oath of confidentiality. Next week you read his weekly medical column in the local newspaper, and this week he's discussing impotence, and he cites you for an example, by name even. Are we pissed yet? Are you sure it's OK to release confidentical information despite a prior legal agreement? Do you have to justify why your information is confidential for it to be wrong to release it?
Dell assembles commonly available parts to make its product. Apple makes their own parts. Dell has no reason to protect the privacy of its innards because any schmuck can go buy all the parts to make a new dell in their nearest PC magazine. Most of the parts in a mac are made by apple, or specifically for apple and apple only. They don't want some pc tech (spybot running drone) opening a mac and trying to fix it without proper training. Even if no "confidential" information was in the manuals, it still makes good sense for apple to not publish the service manuals. (ever seen the sign "contains no user-serviceable parts"?)
Look at the bolt holes all around there. The logic board gets cranked WAY down onto those three pads. Any extra heat sink compound will get squeezed out of there like play-doh. The only problem that can arise by too much thermal compound is if you apply a thick coat and don't compress the parts together to squeeze out the excess, and therefore leave a larger than expected layer of compound between the component and the heat spreader/sink.
With the amount of screws being used to secure down the logic board, and the closeness of the bolts to the chips, there is zero chance of the layer of thermal compound being too thick and causing overheating. (btw, it's nonconductive so it really doesn' t matter if it oozes around a little)
Minor detail, we don't sign anything, but we definitely have to agree to their terms and check th' box, and anyone that is stupid enough to violate those terms deserves at a bare minimum to forever lose access to said materials.
This is not a "company's private information" but the service manual.
Note it is not the owner's manual. Service manuals are often not public information. Companies sometimes sell them too. So reproduction in that context would violate copyright.
Some of Apple's service manuals contain information that would clearly be classified "confidential". Usually related to an issue where a customer may demand a certain service if specifically requested, but that should not otherwise be volunteered, or where a certain flaw has strict guidelines for what is and is not considered defective and the guidelines are not meant to be public knowledge. (so that Apple still has the power of choice on whether or not to repair something that may be considered defective, publishing this information would eliminate their "wiggle room" on their level of generosity)
No sane business would allow this kind of information to be released to the public.
This has absolutely nothing to do with fair use. What it has to do with is the bit at the bottom of the page that they seem to have "accidentally" overlooked reproducing. The part that says reproduction is prohibited. Only people that Apple has granted access to that information have access to it, and to do so they have agreed to certain limits, one of which is not to share content that is restricted.
Whoever leaked that document to somethingawful broke the law. That is what apple is in a tizzy over, and rightfully so.
I'll quote it for you. This part I don't think Apple will mind my citing, for your benefit:
Important: Apple considers the information contained on this site confidential ("Confidential Information"). Unless Apple has given prior written authorization, do not forward, copy, or otherwise replicate or disseminate verbally, electronically, or in hardcopy any Confidential Information, except to those individuals within your organization who have a legitimate business need to know, and who have agreed in writing, to keep it confidential.
(emphasis added)
Additionally, it is not unreasonable to assume that SomethingAwful were aware that such a disclaimer applied to the information that they had received. That being the case, they knew their "source" was breaking the law, and chose to aggrivate the offense by redistributing the restricted materials. They should be very grateful that Apple is not suing them, which is in their right and most likely would decide in their favor.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see Apple fix security problems as quickly as possible, but this guy threatening to release exploit information a few days after the first patch to go out after the notification? That seems like they are expecting an awful lot from Apple - certainly they want to take a few weeks to analyze their patch and make sure it doesn't break a bunch of things. Apple should not be forced to make an ill-prepared and possibly buggy patch release due to the threats of this "analyst". If he had given several months of warning I could see the justification, but it looks like he is doing this to get some publicity because he knows Apple won't rush something like this, not to the degree this fellow is demanding.
blood (white blood cells) have DNA (red do not)
saliva (dissolved lining of the mouth) has DNA in the form of dissolved skin cells
semen (duh, that's the point)
hair (FOLLICLE only, there is no DNA in the hair strand itself, that is chitin)
Sure why not, I'll reply to a FOURTH one... (what is it with slashdot today?)
He attempted to provide nail and hair clippings, but the authorities refused.
Go read a book on DNA. I will bet MONEY that on at least one page in that book it will specifically say fingernail clippings and hair do not contain any DNA. duh?
The particular people he was dealing with do not have the equipment to extract DNA from those samples.
Yep, those imbiciles along with everyone else on the planet
Sorry to vent but this is getting silly. The slashdot IQ is particularly low today for some reason. I think I'll stop reading this thread, I'm sure I'll just run into more of these silly posts if I continue.
Why are there SO MANY posts here saying how he provided DNA with his hair and fingernail/toenail clippings? GET A CLUE, read a book. I learned this in what, 6th grade science? keratin/chitin does NOT contain DNA. Never has, never will. Give me a hair with a follicle attached to the end and we'll talk. (this is why he provided the samples in advance, to make sure there was no follicles in the hair, and I would be the nail clippings were washed in alcohol)
Do you really believe that hair and fingenail clippings contain DNA? Those are the ONLY two things he could possibly offer that do NOT contain his DNA. He knows what he's doing, and it has nothing to do with religion.
He is probably well-aware that hair (minus a follicle) and fingernail clippings are both just keratin (chitin?) and contain no biological material or DNA of any sort. (those are the only main two substances he could give a sample of without giving away his DNA, and he knows it) A hair with a follicle however, contains DNA. That's why he brought them in instead of offering them on the spot, to make sure he didn't lose a hair with a follicle etc. He knows what he is doing, and it's highly unlikely that religion is his main concern. (unless it's against his religious beliefs to get caught a second time...)
Puting that aside for the moment, I am very much against the manditory collection of DNA except in the event you are the suspect of a crime and DNA would prove your innocence/guilt. Pre-emptive DNA harvesting for the purpose of establishing a database should not be legal.
You can't use the red blood cell component of blood for DNA, because red blood cells do not have a nucleus. When they undergo their final divisions they cast off their DNA to make more room for oxygen and nutrients. Just before this they "bulk up" by making a lot of the proteins they will need when serving as a red blood cell. Later in their life, when the protein supply is exhaused, there is no DNA available to template to make more, and the cell is useless and dies.
There's a lot more in blood than just red blood cells though. The white blood cells have DNA for example, so you can get DNA from blood very easily.
Sounded like a good idea from the first sentence or so. And then in typical congressional style, the more you read of the bill the less you like it. Makes you wonder if that's how the bills are written... starting out with a good noble cause, and being slowly, thoroughly perverted by the special interest groups until it's a seething pile of trash to be voted upon.
One of the things I get to do at work (computer sales shop) is answer tech questions on the phone. I actually very rarely get a hostile customer, and in those cases they usually either don't stay hostile for long or they realize I don't own a Magic Wand and go away. Most of the customers I deal with are the clueless, they call with basic computer questions that carry their own special brand of frustration. There are also the variety that are cluess AND think that your entire day has been reserved for providing phone support for them. "hi I just bought my first computer and a printer, can you show me how to make christmas cards?" Those questions really do happen. We try to draw the line at 5 minutes of phone support. Any more than that, and they have four choices: bring it in, have us come out, send out a professional instructor we reference (much cheaper than sending out a tech) or keep trying to figure it out yourself.
.... oh, that works! How did you know I had a book sitting on the corner key on my keyboard?" "You're not the first." Now consider that call took 20 seconds. Now guess how long the FIRST one of those calls took? (hint: I broke my 5 minute rule more than once)
All in all most of the tech support calls I take are short and productive, and quickly resolve the customer's questions. The part that takes the longest time is just figuring out exactly what new and creative thing the customer has found he can do with/to the computer. After long enough you can guess pretty quickly what the issue is. My favorite: "Every time I click my mouse a little window opens up". "Take the book off your keyboard". "What?" "Take the BOOK off your KEYBOARD." "The what?
Dr. Who?
main mode of transportation: a british police box
favorite food: jelly babies
primary villian: can't manage stairs
has been known to hold a genuine argument/discussion with himself on several occasions
noted for knowing how to "think sideways"
only tool in his toolkit: sonic screwdriver
Doesn't that perfectly fit the bill?
Maybe "jigo" is not a typeo or spelling mistake, but instead a really large unit? Or a fictitional one. Like in Farscape, their speed is "hedge 3" or something like that, which gives them a degree of flexibility if the show is watched years from now. Or in STTNG, their computing power is measured in "kilo-quads", whatever that is....
In case anyone still cares, (it's an old thread) I have official word from Apple on the matter.
What it boils down to is that opening your mini to add memory in and of itself does not void the warranty, HOWEVER, any damaged caused by the user attempting the upgrade, or any problems that result from the upgrade, voids the warranty. So for example, if you try to upgrade your memory and now it won't boot, and you have to spend half an hour on the phone with Apple to figure out you didn't have the new memory stick properly seated, you will be billled for that time and your warranty is kerpoof.
I prefer direct answers from Apple over "I think" or "in my experience" because those are two highly variable things from person to person.
Seeing as there is no public information to support either of our views as to warranty, I'll have a chat with them tomorrow and see what their official position is. I would tend to believe that this could void your warranty, but that in most cases Apple would turn a blind eye, but hold onto their options in the event a customer say.. snapped a dimm clip off or something while trying to upgrade it. Just because they chose to honor a warranty in one or two cases doesn't mean they have to. Companies like to keep their options open.
3 407
;) I've sent an email out to get the final word on the matter.
OK I stand corrected, I found one reference to upgrading a mini's memory:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
This talks about 'if the user installs their own memory' to try to install in matched pairs for improved video performance. This seems to support your argument. So we're 1 and 1.
I work at a computer sales/repair shop, and I am all too familiar with your problem. There are three customers I can think of off-hand that match that description. They are customers that will call you at the drop of a hat, to ask you basic computer use questions. Thhey are people that call you 2 minutes after they encounter a problem, having spent basically no time trying to solve the problem on their own. They will call you and ask you to walk them through what you realize is a 20 minute procedure. And they'll call sometimes 5-10 times per day when they are having particular problems. It's common for them to call back less than 5 minutes after the end of their previous call.
This almost always gets started because someone at the store initially gives the person an absurd amount of phone support. The customer lacks basic consideration and common sense, and now considers you to be his personal technical support and will now call you at the drop of a hat because you are "so helpful". The customer is certainly part of the problem, but you've done it to yourself.
These customers are particularly difficult to deal with when they are good, frequent, paying customers. It's hard to say no to someone that buys several thousand dollars of your product every year. It's been my experience that most customers are easy to "show the light" that they are being unreasonable, and will hapily scale back their calls if requested. We also have a professional teacher that specializes in computer training that we refer to such customers. Many times the customer is quite happy to pay ~$25/hr to have a professional come to their house and answer every question they have and show them how to do something. Very often one or two visits by this man solves the entire problem with a customer. We encourage the customers to get a paper and pencil and leave it by their computer, and write down questions as they encounter them, and arrange for an appointment from our tech support person at most once a week, say on Mondays, to answer the week's long list of questions. This helps them to get all their questions answered and minimizes the number of visits required. It also encourages them to think on their questions, most of which they end up answering themselves before Monday rolls around.
We have problems with new employees because the "leech" customers will quickly realize they have a new ear to talk with and will usually ask for the new guy by name, because they have subconsiously figured out that the new guy will spend absurd amounts of time on the phone to help them, so it's important to train the new people on how to handle the tech support leeches. We try to enforce a "5 minute rule". This means if at any point in the conversation it occurs to us that it will take more than 5 minutes on the phone to help the customer, we ask them instead to bring in their equipment or schedule an on-site. MOST customers will either bring it in, schedule an on-site, or get offended at the idea of spending their money for assistance and hang up. A few will simjply continue to insist that you help them for "just a few more minutes". Those are the inconsiderate ones, the true leeches, and often times you simply have to put your foot down, despite customer relations. We use peer pressure to help with this, and if we spot an employee on the phone for a long time with a customer, we will hold up an open hand and mouth "five minutes" to them to remind them.
We try to use analogies with some customers, to show them why we cannot talk with them on the phone all day. One of my favorites is the car analogy. "When you buy a new car, the salesman will help you with how to operate the new power seats, show you where the spare tire is at, and tell you about what regular maintenance the car needs. They will not teach you how to drive. That's not their job. You have to learn that for yourself, or hire someone to teach you how to do it". It's amazing how this pulls things into focus for most users, hits them like a bat, and knoc
Again, that is incorrect. The Mini is user upgradable. Whoever told you otherwise was wrong.
Guess you can go run to Steve and tell him he doesn't know anything about macs...
Quoteth the Apple Service Manual for the mac mini:
Additional memory should be installed by an Apple Retail Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider.
(there's a reason "Apple certified Macintosh repair tech" is in my user profile)
Though I still find it odd that there are no public documents that state this. Guessing Apple doesn't want y'all to realize that installing memory in a Mini isn't for the newbies.
Turns out apple is very tight-lipped about this. Find me ONE PAGE at apple.com that tells you how to upgrade memory in a mac mini. There are several dozen pages that tell you how to upgrade your memory on every other model of mac.
4 0646~family~macmini_intel.asp
Here's best I could do.
http://www.clubmac.com/clubmac/families/new~dp~70
Memory 256MB Upgrade installed into your Mac mini. Upgrade is a 512MB RAM module, but due to the necessary removal of original 256MB RAM module, net gain will be 256MB. Price of upgrade includes $39.99 install fee. Memory is not user-installable.
It's not word from Apple, but since there IS no word from Apple, a memory retailer (someone that WANTS to sell you memory) would be a good authority when telling you what their product cannot do.
Please remember there is a big difference between "I can do this" and "the manufacturer says I can do this without voiding my warranty". Too many trolls replying to my post that apparently want to brag that they can do the upgrade. That wasn't my point.
True, any amateur can try, but apple will void your warranty if they found out you opened your mini. I count that as "contains no user-serviceable parts".
If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician
;)
There is only one mac being sold right now that does not have user-installable memory, and that's the mac mini. It's very arguable that a novice should not try to open a mini. All other macintosh computers have user-installable memory. (three, out of production, are also in this group - upper slot in iMac G4, lower slot in PowerBook G3, and both slots in iMac G3 tray-loader)
Maybe if you were an Apple tech you'd know that any clown can install memory.
The local public is invited to view the Mars spacesuit in action on Sat. May 6, weather permitting, at its North Dakota test site.
Hopefully they are not concerned about the suits getting rained on...
If you have something confidential and I want to know it, and that's OK with you, BUT you don't want the whole world to know it, then you make me sign a contract (or agree to terms) that says I will not share this private information with the public. If I go share it anyway, I have broken the contract and am subject to your litigation. This is contract law. Assisting someone to break contract is also illegal.
Or taken another way, lets say you go to the doctor to see if he can solve your impotence. Now of course you don't want the world to know about your problem, and that's ok because the doctor has signed an oath of confidentiality. Next week you read his weekly medical column in the local newspaper, and this week he's discussing impotence, and he cites you for an example, by name even. Are we pissed yet? Are you sure it's OK to release confidentical information despite a prior legal agreement? Do you have to justify why your information is confidential for it to be wrong to release it?
Dell assembles commonly available parts to make its product. Apple makes their own parts. Dell has no reason to protect the privacy of its innards because any schmuck can go buy all the parts to make a new dell in their nearest PC magazine. Most of the parts in a mac are made by apple, or specifically for apple and apple only. They don't want some pc tech (spybot running drone) opening a mac and trying to fix it without proper training. Even if no "confidential" information was in the manuals, it still makes good sense for apple to not publish the service manuals. (ever seen the sign "contains no user-serviceable parts"?)
Look at the bolt holes all around there. The logic board gets cranked WAY down onto those three pads. Any extra heat sink compound will get squeezed out of there like play-doh. The only problem that can arise by too much thermal compound is if you apply a thick coat and don't compress the parts together to squeeze out the excess, and therefore leave a larger than expected layer of compound between the component and the heat spreader/sink.
With the amount of screws being used to secure down the logic board, and the closeness of the bolts to the chips, there is zero chance of the layer of thermal compound being too thick and causing overheating. (btw, it's nonconductive so it really doesn' t matter if it oozes around a little)
Minor detail, we don't sign anything, but we definitely have to agree to their terms and check th' box, and anyone that is stupid enough to violate those terms deserves at a bare minimum to forever lose access to said materials.
This is not a "company's private information" but the service manual.
Note it is not the owner's manual. Service manuals are often not public information. Companies sometimes sell them too. So reproduction in that context would violate copyright.
Some of Apple's service manuals contain information that would clearly be classified "confidential". Usually related to an issue where a customer may demand a certain service if specifically requested, but that should not otherwise be volunteered, or where a certain flaw has strict guidelines for what is and is not considered defective and the guidelines are not meant to be public knowledge. (so that Apple still has the power of choice on whether or not to repair something that may be considered defective, publishing this information would eliminate their "wiggle room" on their level of generosity)
No sane business would allow this kind of information to be released to the public.
This has absolutely nothing to do with fair use. What it has to do with is the bit at the bottom of the page that they seem to have "accidentally" overlooked reproducing. The part that says reproduction is prohibited. Only people that Apple has granted access to that information have access to it, and to do so they have agreed to certain limits, one of which is not to share content that is restricted.
Whoever leaked that document to somethingawful broke the law. That is what apple is in a tizzy over, and rightfully so.
I'll quote it for you. This part I don't think Apple will mind my citing, for your benefit:
Important: Apple considers the information contained on this site confidential ("Confidential Information"). Unless Apple has given prior written authorization, do not forward, copy, or otherwise replicate or disseminate verbally, electronically, or in hardcopy any Confidential Information, except to those individuals within your organization who have a legitimate business need to know, and who have agreed in writing, to keep it confidential.
(emphasis added)
Additionally, it is not unreasonable to assume that SomethingAwful were aware that such a disclaimer applied to the information that they had received. That being the case, they knew their "source" was breaking the law, and chose to aggrivate the offense by redistributing the restricted materials. They should be very grateful that Apple is not suing them, which is in their right and most likely would decide in their favor.