There could be room for a 2nd package.

But I didn't know about the E5 V2. Maybe you're right and Apple is using that. E5-V2 has 4 DDR3 memory channels, Apple would only have to put two DIMMs on a memory channel to have 8 DIMM slots. They have two DIMMs on a memory channel in the current MacPro.

But I suppose it's more likely Apple is going to just stick with 4 DIMM slots, given that memory per DIMM availability probably has at least doubled since Apple selected 8 DIMM slots for the last Mac Pro (2010? 2008?).

In the one CPU config. That is, one CPU socket package, 6 or 8 cores. If you got the two CPU socket version with 12 cores, you got 8 RAM slots.

The model pictured is one with a single CPU socket and has 4 DIMM slots. It's quite possible that the two CPU socket version of this Mac Pro will have 8 RAM slots also.

I checked, there is no 12 core version of Xeon E5, so presumably to get the 12 cores on this one will use two packages as the last one did.

I don't have any problems putting stuff next to cylinders. I have a coffee cup on my desk, it isn't causing any untoward issues.

This thing has no HDDs. No amount of flash would be enough for video editors, and not even 4 internal HDDs would either. So you will use a Thunderbolt external HDD or RAID array. I just hope those get somewhat cheaper soon.

You cannot add it later. You have to configure to order.

The Air had 2 or 4GB CTO (configure to order) 2 years ago, 4 or 8GB CTO this year and I think last year was 4GB or 8GB CTO also.

Back when credit cards were still charge cards too. When revolving credit cards (where you don't have to pay each money) changed their names to credit cards (credit is a positive, charge is a negative), AMEX kept the charge card description.

AMEX reminded me of this twice when I didn't pay in full at the end of the month. They said they didn't work that way and I wouldn't be able to charge anything until I paid it off. I replied that I didn't mind because I only used it on corporate trips and I didn't have another one for months, by which point the company would have reimbursed me and I would pay AMEX.

I was very much against them, in fact swearing I would smash my passport's smart chip when I got a new passport that had one.

But having read it with my phone, I'm impressed. You need key data from the printed page to make the NFC work and as you mention, the passports are unreadable when closed.

I think it's really well done. I'm a bit unsure quite what it's good for since it is slower than swiping it, I can only figure it was done just because putting that much info in a barcode was infeasible.

Now let me submit my pic as a link to a PNG or whatever instead of printing out a picture, having them scan it back in and turn it into a JPEG2000.

I have a VISA card with NFC and multiple tag readers for my phone and none of the tag readers can get any info like that out of the card. I've got apps that can read fare cards, passports, etc. but I can't find anything on my credit card.

What am I missing?

That's how long it takes to consume the metal spark plug electrodes.

Also, I have to stop and put in liquid every 300 miles or so, but that is immaterial to my range calculations.

And besides that, if you look at the charts, this doesn't cause a loss of capacity, even an apparent loss of capacity. Instead the voltage just reads high during charging. It appears it can foul up capacity remaining estimates, but not actually change the capacity remaining.

And yet here is the other side of the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_inventions

Wi-Fi being on that list.

CSIRO talks out of two sides of its mouth. It wants to take credit for Wi-Fi. They promote themselves this way, and you even see the Science Minister of Australia (Evans) stating "It's hard to imagine an Australian-invented technology that has had a greater impact on the way we live and work".

But then in technical circles where they face informed response, they play things down.

And no, CSIRO did not discuss with IEEE the use of the patent prior to its inclusion in the standard. The standard was published in 1997 and CSIRO didn't pipe up until later. They were not even on the 802.11 committee. This is standard submarine trolling.

And their FRAND terms? They wanted $4 per device. This would amount to more than the entire cost of a WiFi chip.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/how-the-aussie-government-invented-wifi-and-sued-its-way-to-430-million/

Brazil confiscated huge amounts of money 23 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21876149

'In her first act, Zelia, as she was known, went on national television to tell the country that all bank accounts were being frozen and that no-one could access more than 50,000 new cruzados in the currency of the time (a sum then worth about $1,250).'

This isn't a new thing, you just didn't know about it before. It's not necessarily going to shake all confidence in the system just because you suddenly found out about confiscation.

What is it they think SV CEOs and VCs really know how to do well actually?

It isn't solve the world's problems, it's monetize them.

It's more along the lines of turning what used to be a one-time $35 dollar product you purchase into a $8/month for-the-rest-of-your-life monthly service fee.

It's presumably for the type of machine that buys back cell phones.

http://www.ecoatm.com/

No, Slot 1 was to allow them to put the cache on the same board as the processor soldered down so they could sell you the cache RAM instead of empty sockets you could fill with cheaper SRAM from another company.

And yeah, once they moved the L2 cache RAM on-die, there was no advantage to slot 1 anymore and a ton of downside in the cost of it. So they dumped it.

Intel has frequently leveraged their CPU dominance to try to become the #1 seller for other items on the motherboard too. They did it with their special gigabit ethernet chips that attached to the FSB instead of PCI for example.

Also couldn't afford the RAM, IIRC.

The RAM speed was tied to the CPU speed (FSB speed), and since the fast CPUs were expensive to buy, the RAM which was only needed for them was overpriced too even though it was only barely faster than the RAM for the 60MHz models.

The rest of us made do with 60MHz versions.

It really had to hurt Intel to have to back down on clock speeds for once. They didn't do that again until NetBurst burst.