They use the Amazon S3 storage system to provide you with a secure way to store files over the Internet, using Amazon for the storage and their software as the interface between your machine and Amazon. Primarily this is practical for use in a backup situation, and there are a number of benefits to this approach; for one, your backup is kept securely off site, and the data is encrypted too.
The cost is low too - 15 cents/Gigabyte, which compares favourably to similar services, like GoDaddy and Apple's iTools/Mac.com service. Ironically for the latter, because Jungle Disk appears as a local disk, you can use the Mac Backup application to store your files on the remote Amazon system.
So Amazon jump the Apple gun and get movie downloads out before Apple, supposedly, make their announcement next week. Apple have been pretty shrewd, actually, they could have announced the iMac and Mac Mini updates next week as part of the bigger announcement, but didn't, released it early, just to build the tension further.
Amazon, I suspect, wanted to steal at least some of Apple's thunder and announced their Unbox service.
So Amazon jump the Apple gun and get movie downloads out before Apple, supposedly, make their announcement next week. Apple have been pretty shrewd, actually, they could have announced the iMac and Mac Mini updates next week as part of the bigger announcement, but didn't, released it early, just to build the tension further.
Amazon, I suspect, wanted to steal at least some of Apple's thunder and announced their Unbox service.
Despite our best intentions to be proactive, rather than reactive, in IT departments, the problem is that by the nature of technology you cannot help but have to react to issues as they arise. Some of these can be expected, if not entirely planned for.
In my experience, the best way to handle the issue of unexpected work and events was to put aside time in the weekly/daily schedule (a 'reserve') that would be used to catch those elements that didn't fit into the planned schedule. It wasn't perfect, for the simple reason that unplanned work could take up none or all of that time (and more) in a given period, but you could usually even it out over time to a reasonable level.
Despite our best intentions to be proactive, rather than reactive, in IT departments, the problem is that by the nature of technology you cannot help but have to react to issues as they arise. Some of these can be expected, if not entirely planned for.
In my experience, the best way to handle the issue of unexpected work and events was to put aside time in the weekly/daily schedule (a 'reserve') that would be used to catch those elements that didn't fit into the planned schedule. It wasn't perfect, for the simple reason that unplanned work could take up none or all of that time (and more) in a given period, but you could usually even it out over time to a reasonable level.
Check out the latest desktops and notebooks and you'll find a large number of them are widescreen devices. From a consumer angle, widescreen makes the machines compatible with movie watching.
From a business perspective, it's kind of a two way street; the lack of height means that you can generally see less of your document on screen (although it can be useful with spreadsheets), but with a wider aspect you can have two documents side by side and refer between them.
Years ago, the A4 monitor (including those that pivoted between portrait and landscape) were all the rage, and I used on both at home and at work. Better still was the A3 monitor (basically a 21inch); at the time I worked in an ad agency were the graphic people had an A3 monitor, the copywriters had either an A4 or an A3 monitor, and some of us were lucky enough to get a combination of the two (the owner being the only one for some to have two color A3 monitors, an expensive and extravagant option at the time).
Check out the latest desktops and notebooks and you'll find a large number of them are widescreen devices. From a consumer angle, widescreen makes the machines compatible with movie watching.
From a business perspective, it's kind of a two way street; the lack of height means that you can generally see less of your document on screen (although it can be useful with spreadsheets), but with a wider aspect you can have two documents side by side and refer between them.
Years ago, the A4 monitor (including those that pivoted between portrait and landscape) were all the rage, and I used on both at home and at work. Better still was the A3 monitor (basically a 21inch); at the time I worked in an ad agency were the graphic people had an A3 monitor, the copywriters had either an A4 or an A3 monitor, and some of us were lucky enough to get a combination of the two (the owner being the only one for some to have two color A3 monitors, an expensive and extravagant option at the time).
I've been testing a T1000 now for about the last three months. This was after I said goodbye to my T2000, with much sadness, back in May.
At first glance, the T1000 and T2000 look like the same basic construction, but with the T1000 supporting fewer internal drives. That's not completely true - the T1000 is only 1U high and to keep with the necessary cooling and the reduced height, some of the internal elements have been trimmed too. The less complicated internals should in theory be a bonus, because with less complicated components, and fewer numbers of them, there should be fewer things to go wrong, which in turn should have a real impact on the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures). It's difficult over three months to say that categorically, but the theory is sound.
I've been testing a Sun T1000 now for about the last three months. This was after I said goodbye to my T2000, with much sadness, back in May.
At first glance, the T1000 and T2000 look like the same basic construction, but with the T1000 supporting fewer internal drives. That's not completely true - the T1000 is only 1U high and to keep with the necessary cooling and the reduced height, some of the internal elements have been trimmed too. The less complicated internals should in theory be a bonus, because with less complicated components, and fewer numbers of them, there should be fewer things to go wrong, which in turn should have a real impact on the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures). It's difficult over three months to say that categorically, but the theory is sound.
The phone does, of course, blow my arguments against convergence out of the water. It provides a wide combination of features that I used to use separate components for, but which, now, I can just get by with one unit that I'm always going to take with me.