Its hardly been tested in court, but it'd seem that my Dell Mini 9 with an apple sticker on the back qualifies as an "Apple Labeled Computer", especially since the apple sticker came from apple and shipped with my macbook pro.

This would satisfy the EULA agreement for OS X versions 10.5 and lower. They changed the wording in the 10.6 agreement to be "Apple Branded," which makes it a bit more difficult for a non-apple machine to qualify. That said, it all comes down to how you define "labeled" and "branded" ;-)

[citation needed]

Last I checked sim cards just had embedded "smart cards" which are just fancy contacts to a relatively "dumb" small thin embedded security chip and some flash memory.

Admittedly, I have no idea if it works, nor do I have any idea how it decides to load balance between the connections.. But I ran across the feature the other day and it looked pretty cool.

In Mac OS X you can create a new "Aggregate" network device from any other devices and, in theory, do exactly what your describing. Again, I just ran across this the other day in Network Preferences and have no idea if/how it works, but it might be worth a shot (especially since it seems a lot easier to configure than a roll your own router with dd-wrt or tomato, though those likely offer more fine-tuned configuration).

Correct... which is not the way it should be. Apple is now signing the APN settings for tethering in the carrier bundles; without the signing key you can't modify the tethering settings. If they *must* pull some BS like this to appease the carriers, they should do it on a "whitelist" basis; IE *if* your carrier is AT&T (Just about the only carrier that gives a shit how their customers use the data they rightfully paid for... Ugh...), *then* you enforce the signed APN policy. Otherwise, the user can set whatever carrier settings they desire, based on what their carrier *actually supports*. Gee, what a novel idea! This whole "blacklisting" way of enforcing carrier tethering settings is moronic and the byproduct of AT&T being a bunch of greedy asshats at the detriment of... everyone else.

That said, the dev team will hopefully eventually release a workaround... IE, modify the software to ignore the signatures and work as it did before.

Precomputed hashes are useless unless they are *sorted* then they become useful. If you have a sorted precomputed hash table for, say, all 10 character passwords and you have a hash then you can *instantly* locate the matching hash from your table and retrieve the password provided it is 10 or fewer characters. Brute forcing would take *much* longer, even on modern CPUS. With hard drive space as cheap as it is these days, huge presorted precomputed hash tables are very feasible.. this is largely the reason why salts are used, as they effectively increase the password length to the point where using a table is infeasible.

You are indeed correct.. A good modern beta deck that supports all the new beta formats will run you ~$20,000... Move into the HD world and Betacam HD, and you'll be pushing $40k for a deck. "Pro" tax indeed.