On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:10:37 -0600, Dennis Descoteau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David,
Thanks for the quick reply. And I agree with the rules of the road. And I agree with the adhering to any signed agreement. I also have signed many and keep a lid on them. What I can't see is how this would be of any major consequence to Apple. ie. why would it even be necessary to make it private. Thanks again, Dennis
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:58:56 -0600, David Ensteness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dennis,
I didn't say it was detrimental, I said that it was improper. If you agree to a non-disclosure agreement the content really doesn't matter, if you disclose something then you are breaking agreement, no matter if it causes harm or not.
Your argument is akin to saying since there is no one on the road I don't have obey all the traffic laws because some of them only apply to my interactions with others and there are no others if I am the only one on the road. An example of such would be running a stop sign on a deserted country road in broad daylight - who is hurt? No one, because no one is there. Explain that to the police and the judge, they will reply that it doesn't matter the law is the law, it always applies.
Apple doesn't claim that giving out info form their private databases is detrimental, they claim that its against their agreement with those privy to the databases, why? Because they have chosen to keep the information contained private. That is their right.
I am unclear on your misunderstanding of this.
If you want a practical explanation of why I said anything, its because the posting of, linking to, selling of, and offering of private information is generally banned on the LEM lists, whether it be off list correspondence with other list members, or private corporate documentation really doesn't matter. As I understand list policy we are not spose to be sharing such things. And as I happen to have access to some of Apple's internal documentation and have read and agreed to their stipulations I also happen to know that its against those to publicly post it.
Does that clear things up?
David
On Dec 2, 2003, at 2:38 PM, Dennis Descoteau wrote:
Wow, I'm sure that this disclosure is really going to eat at Apple's huge market share. Please clarify the enormous consequences of some executive decision that this will be detimental to anyone, including Apple. Dennis
9600/G4/800 etc.
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:40:21 -0600, David Ensteness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hate to say this when I know someone is just trying to help another Mac user out, but try leaving out that you got that from non-publicly available service parts database for which we have to agree to an NDA to use ...
David
From the Service Parts Database:
The last six digits of the FCC ID label (located on the underside of the
processor cards) identify the processor type and speed. The FCC label on
this card reads FCCxxx604120, indicating a 604 processor operating at 120
MHz.
I couldn't see an FCC ID label in the photos. Maybe hidden?
Ken
--
-- PCI-PowerMacs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and...
Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- Sonnet & PowerLogix Upgrades - start at $169 | & CDRWs on Sale! |
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
PCI-PowerMacs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/pci-powermacs.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive:<http://www.mail-archive.com/pci-powermacs%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
