- Mike Wuerthele
- Last Active
tmay said:These are absolutely not zinc screws.
They are either alloy steel, with zinc plating or a black oxide coating, or they are stainless steel. If they are magnetic, then they almost certainly alloy steel.
Personally, I would purchase my own screws; why take a chance?
Get either a Torx grade 8 or a Torx 18-8 stainless steel, and don't use any thread locker, unless you have a speaker, or woofer adjacent to the computer. Even then, I would avoid it. If you aren't going to use a thread locker, put a little oil, grease, or even better, anti-sieze compound, on the screw threads; to prevent metal galling;
Finally, I would hope that the material is at least a 6061-t6 grade of aluminum, rather than a die cast aluminum or zinc alloy.
Regardless of the material detail, the overall point about the screws and the destruction of the iMac Pro by the Apple Store still applies -- and there are other issues, not the least of which is what we talked about in the last six paragraphs.
plovell said:In my experience, even if it's set to "Everyone", you're prompted "Accept" or "Decline" when someone tries to send. Photos and files don't just appear - you have to accept them.
randominternetperson said:Mike Wuerthele said:SpamSandwich said:Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.
Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.Study was published in 2016. There is no new study, but I'm expecting one next year at some point.
saltyzip said:Anothe click bait article. I would say this is total surprise if true. I worked alongside the team developing dual persona on Android for the mod, but not with supplier BT. This just wasn't feasible on iOS at the time due to Apple controlling all the gates and keys. If an mod phone talked to Apple servers it's not secure, so if BT has implemented such a solution without apples involvement it will be dead on arrival.
Sounds like BT doesn't have the skills to create a secure phone.
Perhaps the techrepublic article is fake news, no other press release from BT on this.
Why would BT give this exclusive story to techrepublic? If it was true it would be in the UK publications, anyone found another source?
tmay said:irnchriz said:Pitty its not SiliconE expertise, there wouldn't be rings left on tables. Teehee
Small amounts of Platinum are used as a catalyst for curing silicone. Might Silicone oil on table surface be curing from contact with Platinum in/on the surface of the HomePod base?
I'm an engineer, not a chemist, so I'd appreciate someone's thought's on this with more chemistry knowledge than I.Given Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation is the silicone oil on the base of the HomePod is reacting with some treatment oils without silicone in it that has been applied to the wood surfaces.
philboogie said:Is that even allowed, for iOS? I thought one needs to develop with Xcode/Swift for iOS - no porting. I must be missing something.
deepinsider said:Upgradable graphics for Macs is exciting, but won't we need cards that are Mac compatible? Surely the eGPU doesn't magically make a card work with MacOS. I'm skeptical there will suddenly be MacOS support in graphics cards on account of this new eGPU capability.At present, I am using a stock Vega 56 on a 4K Acer display to type this at you. I have used a RX580 and a Vega 64 as well -- all stock. We'll monkey with the full release, and talk to some people we know about it in the next few days.
volcan said:I wonder what is preventing the current MacBooks from using 32 GB of RAM. My iMac 5K has 32. So does my older cheese grater MacPro.
The iMac 5K is DDR4. The 5,1 is ECC DDR3. Even though the letters "DDR" are in there, LPDDR3 and LPDDR4 have almost nothing in common with DDR3 and DDR4 RAM.
radarthekat said:AND HERE’S WHAT NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT...
This was a trial from 2012, covering only Samsung handset models sold in the United States up to that point. While Samsung may have quickly changed the snap-back behavior and swipe-to-unlock to avoid infringing in future models, it doesn’t appear they changed, or even could have changed, their phones’ overall designs to avoid continuing to infringe the design patents that made up the vast majority of the damages in this case. And so it’s possible Apple could seek to add later models to this verdict, which would then potentially amount to a multiple of the current damages awards given the way the overall smartphone market, and Samsung’s unit volumes, expanded in the years since 2012. Food for thought.