I run my Wifi as a Closed network. It doesn't even show up in people's lists, you have to know the name. Why even advertise a door to begin with?

Oh cmon, at least credit Yogi Berra with the quote. Now you simply look like an idiot.

Actually, with the 27" iMac you can actually use that as an external monitor. So, you could get yourself an iMac and use it until it's obsolete, then use it merely as a display. Not quite sure if/how you would switch between internal/external source (maybe a KVM switch could work), but you could then turn the iMac into a server when you upgrade to whatever next.

Dual NIC would have resulted in a fair amount of changes. As it is (as someone mentioned earlier), they just stack in a second drive where the optical drive was. The only other difference is the case doesn't have a slot, and frankly they probably could have left that there too. Otherwise, everything is identical. Now dual NIC, you've changed the back of the case as well. More importantly, you've now changed the motherboard and are now designing 2 computers instead of just 1.

You probably won't get a massive market for this, but this is a simple and cost effective way for Apple to provide a basic server. Now if they'd only go the media center route, give me HDMI out and BluRay, and it would be sitting under my TV the second I could buy one. And really, DVI out is probably ok for that, so they could do the exact same thing and just offer me BluRay.

Said it once, and I'll say it again. CDMA is a dead end, the world is moving to LTE. Why would anyone waste their resources on a technology with such a limited lifespan. Globally there are significantly more GSM networks than CDMA, and GSM is a natural transition to LTE. Until Verizon supports LTE (which won't be all that long), you won't see the iPhone there. Period.

Sure, they could have opened up to more carriers in the US, like T-Mobile. But look, I'm sure AT&T offered them gobs of money to be exclusive. And yeah, AT&T's network has been, well, terrible, but did that stop everyone from upgrading to the iPhone 3G when it came out?

I've been thinking about this article since I read it yesterday, and I think AT&T just screwed up their pricing model. Maybe their estimates were completely off on what they thought people would use for data. Maybe it is partially Apple's fault because they dictated some pricing terms (I do not have any idea). But if you look at simple economics, AT&T vastly misjudged the demand for data on their network versus the supply. It is understandable, previous smartphones couldn't do as much as easily or eloquently. AT&T should have charged more for an unlimited plan, and tiered pricing for capped services. As it is, they're leaving money on the table that could have been used to truly upgrade their networks. Is AT&T's cell plan cheap, not really, but would that have stopped people? Sure, there's an upper bound, but I believe AT&T's pricing is well below that.

You buy the Apple products because you LIKE the Apple products, and you LIKE the way they work together.

Now PalmPre starts syncing with iTunes, but doesn't sync right. That will look bad on Apple. Let's say the PalmPre somehow effs up your library. That will look bad on Apple. Sure, Apple can say 'we don't support the Pre' but if you're music library is hosed you're going to be mad at Apple.

Look at the Motorola Rokr, they licensed the technology from Apple to allow it to Sync. And Apple guaranteed it would work right and not screw anything up. I'm actually surprised (for better or worse) that Apple hasn't invoked the DCMA.

What Apple does NOT want to do is become Windows and have to support 80 billion solutions under the sun. Their strength is and always has been tight integration. Having to lose focus on that and suddenly deal with problems with every Tom, Dick, and Harry syncing with iTunes will delay new features and products.

I agree. I learned vi because it is pretty much assured to be on any system. And, in case it isn't, you'll at least have a slight leg up on using ed.

No one remembers "Redmond, fire up your copiers" ???

Yes, since Apple has had a resurgence they have been cocky. But hey, they make some pretty decent hardware, that works extremely well with their software and other accessory products. Microsoft's done the same.

Is it 'appropriate'? Tough call, I think a lot of old school Apple die hards still feel like the underdog and so they enjoy bragging a bit. And Wall Street loves its brash, obnoxious characters in general.

You're suggesting 4 years of schooling to be in a job for 4 years...to then go back to school for 2 more years to do something completely different. Ummm, why not just get the MBA to begin with.

Yes, a lot of engineers go MBA, or the consulting route. But if you're going to get an MBA after 4-5 years, why waste the time getting an engineering degree and working in the industry. Sure, technical knowledge will make you a better manager, but the timelines you lay out sound like a waste to me.

Contrary to others, an MS in Computer Engineering directly translated to both a higher job rank and salary over people hired at the exact same time at the same company. Regardless, I got my MS because it was a 5 year BS/MS program, and I felt it would be something additional to help set myself apart from everyone else. Used to be a college degree set you apart, but I didn't feel that was quite the case anymore.

On a more practical note, consider the job market and economy at the moment. If you believe things will improve, then why not hide out in academics and learn more, especially if you think you'll want a MS. You don't want to come back in 5-10 years, have to take the GRE, and change your lifestyle from that nice cushy salaried life to going back to ramen. Plus you could have a family by then further limiting your options.

As for job experience, co-op education and interning are great for that (but you may be a bit late). What you don't want is to graduate and waste a year looking for a job. Or getting a job an getting laid off a year or two later. I, for one, would not want to be entering the job market today.

Just swap out the modem, change some code, EASY! How's that go?
1. Swap out modem
2. ???
3. Profit!

No, actually it's not. Sure, if Apple did things right it would be relatively easy, but it's going to take time and effort. For a dead technology with a limited market.

When VZW goes LTE, then the iPhone will technically work on their network. Of course, the carriers and/or Apple will likely try to keep the phone on whatever network it's supposed to be on.

From my understanding, there's two issues at stake:
1. Google's library of books
2. Google's registry of orphaned books.

So Google's scanning in all works, and in cases where it's not an orphaned book (but allowed in their databases by the author), the author will get a cut.

Google's registry of orphaned books, however, is solely owned by Google. They've done the effort of tracking down the owner in this case, and having found none they're maintaining their reasoning for considering the book orphaned. They've presumably performed the legwork to make this determination. As it's their resource, they have no responsibility to provide this to the world.

So, some other company can come through and scan all the books they like and make them available online as well. In cases where those books are not orphans, they'll need deals with the author/publisher. In other cases, they'll have to do their own legwork to track down the history of the book, why should Google have to give up this IP?

Of course, I can license info from the registry, I just can't get info on orphaned books. However, if the registry doesn't turn up information, it may be a safe assumption that it is an orphaned book. You'd still want to verify, but that would take significantly less effort than tracking down every single book.

Everything's a monopoly until someone else does it. And Google isn't blocking anyone, however they are protecting some IP (their proof that books are orphans).