Slashdot Mirror

Leatherman's Handbook II - Larry Townsend
ISBN-13: 978-1881684206
http://amzn.to/2i8uVZP

Next up is:

The Complete leatherboy Handbook - Vincent L. Andrews
ISBN-13: 978-0985900410
http://amzn.to/2i0qbY1

I found this book about it:

http://amzn.to/2ewSOY4

Is that relevant?

Is it relevant? I don't know, I didn't click the link. Just provide me with a synopsis I can ignore.

I found this book about it:

http://amzn.to/2ewSOY4

Is that relevant?

Sure. I use one of these, with this firmware, making it a cute little self-contained Linux box with both a HTML GUI and a command-line interface that is as complete as you want to make it. (I've got a build environment on mine, just because I can.)

802.11ac, dual-core 800MHz ARM, 256MB of RAM and 128MB of flash (all of which are complete overkill for this application), along with multiple USB ports for plugging in random goodies.

No, but there are fabulous dell monitors with this ability. Check out this one for example: http://amzn.to/2cQkbAW

From what I can see, there's a correlation between being religious and being conservative, and also a correlation between being progressive and donating.

If by that second point you meant an inverse relationship, then yes. Amazon's description:

We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? In his controversial study of America’s giving habits, Arthur C. Brooks shatters stereotypes about charity in America-including the myth that the political Left is more compassionate than the Right. Brooks, a preeminent public policy expert, spent years researching giving trends in America, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he identifies the forces behind American charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one’s own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals-not government-offer the best solution to social ills. But beyond just showing us who the givers and non-givers in America really are today, Brooks shows that giving is crucial to our economic prosperity, as well as to our happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. [Emphasis added.]

WTF? $500 isn't cheap enough???

No, it isn't, and what you get for $500 is a shitty computer to boot...

Acer Aspire - Intel i3 - 3.6GHz - $300 http://amzn.to/1UxLhFh

For $200 less, you get a computer that is more than double the performance of the $500 Mac Mini, AND you can actually expand it. Add more RAM if you want, put a SSD in if you want, etc.

Plus, it comes with an actual keyboard and mouse to boot, something the Mac Mini lacks.

Really? Better performance? With a i3?

PC Mag doesn't think so...

Oh, and by the time you "expand" it, it's hardly $300 now, is it?

And the Piece of Resistance? Windows 10. And don't say "Linux", because we're talking about a VIABLE solution for a REAL front office desktop, not Linux, sorry.

And another thing: That Mac mini will still be sitting there, quietly chugging along, long after that shitbox Acer has a Power Supply failure, and the cheap-ass no-crowbar PS takes out the mobo, AND every connected USB and video device along with it. Don't EVEN think it can't happen...

Now how good of a value is that $300 machine?

Fact is, even the low-end Mac mini has more than enough shit in the tank for a very wide range of "front office", Laboratory, Software and Web Development, and Document and "Media" Creation Applications. IOW, the things that businesses of many types need to do.

WTF? $500 isn't cheap enough???

No, it isn't, and what you get for $500 is a shitty computer to boot...

Acer Aspire - Intel i3 - 3.6GHz - $300
http://amzn.to/1UxLhFh

For $200 less, you get a computer that is more than double the performance of the $500 Mac Mini, AND you can actually expand it. Add more RAM if you want, put a SSD in if you want, etc.

Plus, it comes with an actual keyboard and mouse to boot, something the Mac Mini lacks.

Let me put this another way, if you have an older car, but want to spend $650 on a new iPhone, are you not willing to spend $15 on a BT adapter?

http://amzn.to/1P22AN8 - $15

I'd like it to be integrated a little better in my car than the equivalent of a mere audio plug. BTW, what's the sound quality over BT? I haven't tried, but voice calls often are considerably degraded compared to direct phone use. A streaming solution would also require buffering that I doubt a $15 device will provide. This is why I started my post with the unmentioned but implied Carplay/Android Auto which does exactly what I'm looking for regarding audio. That didn't happen really until the last year or 2.

iPhones are pretty ubiquitous amongst my friends, and I am one of 2 people I know with a car that does bluetooth.

Fair enough...

Then let me rephrase my question:

How many of your friends are willing to spend $650 on a new iPhone, but NOT willing to spend $15 on a BT to 3.5mm adapter?

http://amzn.to/1P233z0 - $15

Not the 2014. It was an option.

Fair enough, the new ones being built now have it standard...

In 5 years, will anyone care?

---

Let me put this another way, if you have an older car, but want to spend $650 on a new iPhone, are you not willing to spend $15 on a BT adapter?

http://amzn.to/1P22AN8 - $15

Your wife was lucky, since the 2008 was the first model year to introduce bluetooth, but then only on the Touring model.

We bought that one because of the refresh that was done that year, a number of nice changes were made.

And yes, of course it was a Touring, why buy anything else? :)

Side note: We owned Blackberry Curves at the time, so the only thing she would have used it for would be phone calls.

---

Let me put this another way...

How many people are willing to buy a $650 iPhone, but aren't willing to buy a $15 BT adapter?

http://amzn.to/1P22AN8

Plug that into your car, boom, BT!

SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Why can't we have intelligent discourse on this site, instead of this polarizing nonsense?

Because SJWs are fuckwits and are incapable of intelligent discourse...remember, they always project.

I got a couple of these last year. The data lines aren't connected (YMMV on the other claims). Use adapters as needed.

Practice safe charging, /..

Strongly recommend Ashton Applewhite's new "This Chair Rocks" for a well written and vigorous refutation of arguments against full rights for older people: http://amzn.to/1TuHAjq

Pretty much every year, Chase Freedom has 5% cash back on amazon (for up to $1500 spending)

That is a good deal, people should of course do that if Chase likes them. :)

This year Discover also had the 5% back on $1500, except that new cardholders get double cash back for a year.

My wife has one of those, we use it for sure. The thing is, all those spending limits are annoying. If you buy a lot of stuff, like we do, the 5% unlimited is rather nice.

Also, even without jumping through the hoops I do, nobody should be getting 0% cash back from their credit card. 1% cash back cards are a-dime-a-dozen, and everybody should have access to one of those. Even 2 percent isn't hard...citi double cash, fidelity amex, now fidelity visa. And that 2% is good everywhere...so everyone should get one of those cards. So really your premium for the amazon 5% card is just 3%. So you really need to spend $3333 at amazon for the prime to break even.

That is all true...

Of course, the $3,333 to "break even" assumes that you place no value on Prime itself. Between the movies and music, the free shipping, etc. we paid for it before the 5%. :)

We seriously buy EVERYTHING from them, including the kitchen sink:

Moen Double Sink - Stainless Steel - $100:
http://amzn.to/1VBjsS4

15 foot Trampoline - $330
http://amzn.to/23IfR9C

Bounty Paper Towels - $25
http://amzn.to/1VBkgq1

Women's Sunny Riding Boots - $35
http://amzn.to/1pemQUT

We hardly have to buy anything, anywhere else. Only fresh and frozen groceries, otherwise it all comes from Amazon.

Pretty much every year, Chase Freedom has 5% cash back on amazon (for up to $1500 spending)

That is a good deal, people should of course do that if Chase likes them. :)

This year Discover also had the 5% back on $1500, except that new cardholders get double cash back for a year.

My wife has one of those, we use it for sure. The thing is, all those spending limits are annoying. If you buy a lot of stuff, like we do, the 5% unlimited is rather nice.

Also, even without jumping through the hoops I do, nobody should be getting 0% cash back from their credit card. 1% cash back cards are a-dime-a-dozen, and everybody should have access to one of those. Even 2 percent isn't hard...citi double cash, fidelity amex, now fidelity visa. And that 2% is good everywhere...so everyone should get one of those cards. So really your premium for the amazon 5% card is just 3%. So you really need to spend $3333 at amazon for the prime to break even.

That is all true...

Of course, the $3,333 to "break even" assumes that you place no value on Prime itself. Between the movies and music, the free shipping, etc. we paid for it before the 5%. :)

We seriously buy EVERYTHING from them, including the kitchen sink:

Moen Double Sink - Stainless Steel - $100:
http://amzn.to/1VBjsS4

15 foot Trampoline - $330
http://amzn.to/23IfR9C

Bounty Paper Towels - $25
http://amzn.to/1VBkgq1

Women's Sunny Riding Boots - $35
http://amzn.to/1pemQUT

We hardly have to buy anything, anywhere else. Only fresh and frozen groceries, otherwise it all comes from Amazon.

Pretty much every year, Chase Freedom has 5% cash back on amazon (for up to $1500 spending)

That is a good deal, people should of course do that if Chase likes them. :)

This year Discover also had the 5% back on $1500, except that new cardholders get double cash back for a year.

My wife has one of those, we use it for sure. The thing is, all those spending limits are annoying. If you buy a lot of stuff, like we do, the 5% unlimited is rather nice.

Also, even without jumping through the hoops I do, nobody should be getting 0% cash back from their credit card. 1% cash back cards are a-dime-a-dozen, and everybody should have access to one of those. Even 2 percent isn't hard...citi double cash, fidelity amex, now fidelity visa. And that 2% is good everywhere...so everyone should get one of those cards. So really your premium for the amazon 5% card is just 3%. So you really need to spend $3333 at amazon for the prime to break even.

That is all true...

Of course, the $3,333 to "break even" assumes that you place no value on Prime itself. Between the movies and music, the free shipping, etc. we paid for it before the 5%. :)

We seriously buy EVERYTHING from them, including the kitchen sink:

Moen Double Sink - Stainless Steel - $100:
http://amzn.to/1VBjsS4

15 foot Trampoline - $330
http://amzn.to/23IfR9C

Bounty Paper Towels - $25
http://amzn.to/1VBkgq1

Women's Sunny Riding Boots - $35
http://amzn.to/1pemQUT

We hardly have to buy anything, anywhere else. Only fresh and frozen groceries, otherwise it all comes from Amazon.

Pretty much every year, Chase Freedom has 5% cash back on amazon (for up to $1500 spending)

That is a good deal, people should of course do that if Chase likes them. :)

This year Discover also had the 5% back on $1500, except that new cardholders get double cash back for a year.

My wife has one of those, we use it for sure. The thing is, all those spending limits are annoying. If you buy a lot of stuff, like we do, the 5% unlimited is rather nice.

Also, even without jumping through the hoops I do, nobody should be getting 0% cash back from their credit card. 1% cash back cards are a-dime-a-dozen, and everybody should have access to one of those. Even 2 percent isn't hard...citi double cash, fidelity amex, now fidelity visa. And that 2% is good everywhere...so everyone should get one of those cards. So really your premium for the amazon 5% card is just 3%. So you really need to spend $3333 at amazon for the prime to break even.

That is all true...

Of course, the $3,333 to "break even" assumes that you place no value on Prime itself. Between the movies and music, the free shipping, etc. we paid for it before the 5%. :)

We seriously buy EVERYTHING from them, including the kitchen sink:

Moen Double Sink - Stainless Steel - $100:
http://amzn.to/1VBjsS4

15 foot Trampoline - $330
http://amzn.to/23IfR9C

Bounty Paper Towels - $25
http://amzn.to/1VBkgq1

Women's Sunny Riding Boots - $35
http://amzn.to/1pemQUT

We hardly have to buy anything, anywhere else. Only fresh and frozen groceries, otherwise it all comes from Amazon.

Many people miss this in the cluttered Amazon web site, however if you're a Prime member and you sign up for an Amazon Store Credit Card, you get 5% back on almost everything you buy.

Spend $2,000 in a year and Prime becomes free then...

It really isn't hard to spend $2,000 a year on Amazon. Between Amazon PrimePantry, Subscribe and Save, computer stuff, games, etc. it adds up really fast.

We also have an Amazon Echo, and Alexa plays free streaming music, almost anything you can imagine asking for is there. My Dad visited two weeks ago and when I introduced him to Alexa, he thought she was kinda stupid, until I said, "Dad, she'll play you music for free", and he said "yea right, lets hear some Willie Nelson", so I said, "Alexa, play Willie Nelson", and she promptly started playing songs. I pointed out to him that I do not and have never owned anything by him. He was impressed...

30 days of free Prime
http://amzn.to/1U3RCwJ

Amazon Store Card - 5% back
http://amzn.to/1rcXZ5W

Many people miss this in the cluttered Amazon web site, however if you're a Prime member and you sign up for an Amazon Store Credit Card, you get 5% back on almost everything you buy.

Spend $2,000 in a year and Prime becomes free then...

It really isn't hard to spend $2,000 a year on Amazon. Between Amazon PrimePantry, Subscribe and Save, computer stuff, games, etc. it adds up really fast.

We also have an Amazon Echo, and Alexa plays free streaming music, almost anything you can imagine asking for is there. My Dad visited two weeks ago and when I introduced him to Alexa, he thought she was kinda stupid, until I said, "Dad, she'll play you music for free", and he said "yea right, lets hear some Willie Nelson", so I said, "Alexa, play Willie Nelson", and she promptly started playing songs. I pointed out to him that I do not and have never owned anything by him. He was impressed...

30 days of free Prime
http://amzn.to/1U3RCwJ

Amazon Store Card - 5% back
http://amzn.to/1rcXZ5W

Butter gives flavor. Shortening gives flakes. Butter is a shortening as long as it doesn't melt.
You can get light and flaky with butter if you work the dough properly. You want to keep it cold. The easiest way to do that is with a dough blender, such as this one: http://amzn.to/1YzJl2P

To be fair, they tried with Mac product line for over 30 years.

Yea, but that was then... The world has changed...

A large number of people using their computers are using them in ways that matter less what OS is being run. There are exceptions, and those exceptions keep Windows going to some extent. The low price of PCs is the other.

Keep in mind that with OS X running on x86-64, that is miles different from most of those 30 years.

The Mac small market penetration is not from a lack of trying by Apple. Apple tried.

Meh, not really... there have been moments, but few and far between and nothing since the early 2000s.

The first iMac made waves and did get some interest, but the modern ones cost WAY too much for what they are.

It has been since the 90s since you could buy a reasonable desktop Mac that came in an actual desktop case. Everything has changed since then.

Allow me to provide examples:

Apple iMac 5K Desktop - $1,649
http://amzn.to/1RxxAEV

3.2GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.6GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
AMD R9 M380 2GB GPU
27" 5K Retina display

Now I'll grant you, that display is really nice. But meh, so what? Do you need it? Not really, it is way, way overkill for 27" of screen space. I wouldn't turn it down for free, but it is an example of what is wrong with Apple, providing things that people don't need.

The AMD RR9 M380 is nice, but lets be honest, that is a notebook GPU, it has 768 streaming cores, which is nice, but nothing flashy.

Lets see what the other options are:

ASUS M32CD Desktop - $449
http://amzn.to/21GnKGj

2.7GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.3GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
24x DVD Burner
Intel HD 530 GPU
802.11AC WiFi
Windows 10 64-bit

Now add to that computer a nice 27" monitor such as this one:

Samsung UE590 Ultra HD 4k 28" - $495
http://amzn.to/1Rxy1in

Since someone will complain that the iMac has a "better" GPU, we'll fix that with this:

AMD R7 360 2GB - $105
http://amzn.to/21Go08n

That has almost exactly the same performance as the iMac's GPU.

So our total is:

$449 + $495 + $105 = $1,349

So we're $300 less than the iMac, and I'm putting an overkill monitor on there. Frankly, a 1080p or 1440p monitor would be "fine" for most people.

KEY POINT - You can keep that 4k monitor for multiple computers, the iMac you cannot. You also don't HAVE to buy the video card, the Skylake HD 530 GPU is actually pretty good these days, it'll game at 1080p on medium detail in many games.

Remove the video card and give it a nice 1080p display:

Acer 27" 1080p - $179
http://amzn.to/1UjFqca

$449 + $179 = $628

So for $628, you get a perfectly good computer with a very good quad core Intel chip and a very nice usable 27" screen. The iMac isn't even remotely in that league.

---

Now some people might point to the Mac Mini, but meh, it isn't remotely close in performance to the above ASUS computer, it costs more, does less, isn't expandable, etc.

However, Apple pay is a success and so is Apple TV, iTunes and Apple Market. Apple is doing okay in terms of product diversification.

Apple Pay? Success? Give it 5 or 10 years and we'll see.

Apple TV? I know exactly no one who has one. I know a half a dozen people with a Roku or Fire TV. Apple has said that iTunes doesn't actually make them a lot of profit.

Apple makes almost all their money from exactly one product, the iPhone. More than 50% of their total sales and profit are that one thing. The iPad is number two and everything else is scraps.

To be fair, they tried with Mac product line for over 30 years.

Yea, but that was then... The world has changed...

A large number of people using their computers are using them in ways that matter less what OS is being run. There are exceptions, and those exceptions keep Windows going to some extent. The low price of PCs is the other.

Keep in mind that with OS X running on x86-64, that is miles different from most of those 30 years.

The Mac small market penetration is not from a lack of trying by Apple. Apple tried.

Meh, not really... there have been moments, but few and far between and nothing since the early 2000s.

The first iMac made waves and did get some interest, but the modern ones cost WAY too much for what they are.

It has been since the 90s since you could buy a reasonable desktop Mac that came in an actual desktop case. Everything has changed since then.

Allow me to provide examples:

Apple iMac 5K Desktop - $1,649
http://amzn.to/1RxxAEV

3.2GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.6GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
AMD R9 M380 2GB GPU
27" 5K Retina display

Now I'll grant you, that display is really nice. But meh, so what? Do you need it? Not really, it is way, way overkill for 27" of screen space. I wouldn't turn it down for free, but it is an example of what is wrong with Apple, providing things that people don't need.

The AMD RR9 M380 is nice, but lets be honest, that is a notebook GPU, it has 768 streaming cores, which is nice, but nothing flashy.

Lets see what the other options are:

ASUS M32CD Desktop - $449
http://amzn.to/21GnKGj

2.7GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.3GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
24x DVD Burner
Intel HD 530 GPU
802.11AC WiFi
Windows 10 64-bit

Now add to that computer a nice 27" monitor such as this one:

Samsung UE590 Ultra HD 4k 28" - $495
http://amzn.to/1Rxy1in

Since someone will complain that the iMac has a "better" GPU, we'll fix that with this:

AMD R7 360 2GB - $105
http://amzn.to/21Go08n

That has almost exactly the same performance as the iMac's GPU.

So our total is:

$449 + $495 + $105 = $1,349

So we're $300 less than the iMac, and I'm putting an overkill monitor on there. Frankly, a 1080p or 1440p monitor would be "fine" for most people.

KEY POINT - You can keep that 4k monitor for multiple computers, the iMac you cannot. You also don't HAVE to buy the video card, the Skylake HD 530 GPU is actually pretty good these days, it'll game at 1080p on medium detail in many games.

Remove the video card and give it a nice 1080p display:

Acer 27" 1080p - $179
http://amzn.to/1UjFqca

$449 + $179 = $628

So for $628, you get a perfectly good computer with a very good quad core Intel chip and a very nice usable 27" screen. The iMac isn't even remotely in that league.

---

Now some people might point to the Mac Mini, but meh, it isn't remotely close in performance to the above ASUS computer, it costs more, does less, isn't expandable, etc.

However, Apple pay is a success and so is Apple TV, iTunes and Apple Market. Apple is doing okay in terms of product diversification.

Apple Pay? Success? Give it 5 or 10 years and we'll see.

Apple TV? I know exactly no one who has one. I know a half a dozen people with a Roku or Fire TV. Apple has said that iTunes doesn't actually make them a lot of profit.

Apple makes almost all their money from exactly one product, the iPhone. More than 50% of their total sales and profit are that one thing. The iPad is number two and everything else is scraps.

To be fair, they tried with Mac product line for over 30 years.

Yea, but that was then... The world has changed...

A large number of people using their computers are using them in ways that matter less what OS is being run. There are exceptions, and those exceptions keep Windows going to some extent. The low price of PCs is the other.

Keep in mind that with OS X running on x86-64, that is miles different from most of those 30 years.

The Mac small market penetration is not from a lack of trying by Apple. Apple tried.

Meh, not really... there have been moments, but few and far between and nothing since the early 2000s.

The first iMac made waves and did get some interest, but the modern ones cost WAY too much for what they are.

It has been since the 90s since you could buy a reasonable desktop Mac that came in an actual desktop case. Everything has changed since then.

Allow me to provide examples:

Apple iMac 5K Desktop - $1,649
http://amzn.to/1RxxAEV

3.2GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.6GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
AMD R9 M380 2GB GPU
27" 5K Retina display

Now I'll grant you, that display is really nice. But meh, so what? Do you need it? Not really, it is way, way overkill for 27" of screen space. I wouldn't turn it down for free, but it is an example of what is wrong with Apple, providing things that people don't need.

The AMD RR9 M380 is nice, but lets be honest, that is a notebook GPU, it has 768 streaming cores, which is nice, but nothing flashy.

Lets see what the other options are:

ASUS M32CD Desktop - $449
http://amzn.to/21GnKGj

2.7GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.3GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
24x DVD Burner
Intel HD 530 GPU
802.11AC WiFi
Windows 10 64-bit

Now add to that computer a nice 27" monitor such as this one:

Samsung UE590 Ultra HD 4k 28" - $495
http://amzn.to/1Rxy1in

Since someone will complain that the iMac has a "better" GPU, we'll fix that with this:

AMD R7 360 2GB - $105
http://amzn.to/21Go08n

That has almost exactly the same performance as the iMac's GPU.

So our total is:

$449 + $495 + $105 = $1,349

So we're $300 less than the iMac, and I'm putting an overkill monitor on there. Frankly, a 1080p or 1440p monitor would be "fine" for most people.

KEY POINT - You can keep that 4k monitor for multiple computers, the iMac you cannot. You also don't HAVE to buy the video card, the Skylake HD 530 GPU is actually pretty good these days, it'll game at 1080p on medium detail in many games.

Remove the video card and give it a nice 1080p display:

Acer 27" 1080p - $179
http://amzn.to/1UjFqca

$449 + $179 = $628

So for $628, you get a perfectly good computer with a very good quad core Intel chip and a very nice usable 27" screen. The iMac isn't even remotely in that league.

---

Now some people might point to the Mac Mini, but meh, it isn't remotely close in performance to the above ASUS computer, it costs more, does less, isn't expandable, etc.

However, Apple pay is a success and so is Apple TV, iTunes and Apple Market. Apple is doing okay in terms of product diversification.

Apple Pay? Success? Give it 5 or 10 years and we'll see.

Apple TV? I know exactly no one who has one. I know a half a dozen people with a Roku or Fire TV. Apple has said that iTunes doesn't actually make them a lot of profit.

Apple makes almost all their money from exactly one product, the iPhone. More than 50% of their total sales and profit are that one thing. The iPad is number two and everything else is scraps.

To be fair, they tried with Mac product line for over 30 years.

Yea, but that was then... The world has changed...

A large number of people using their computers are using them in ways that matter less what OS is being run. There are exceptions, and those exceptions keep Windows going to some extent. The low price of PCs is the other.

Keep in mind that with OS X running on x86-64, that is miles different from most of those 30 years.

The Mac small market penetration is not from a lack of trying by Apple. Apple tried.

Meh, not really... there have been moments, but few and far between and nothing since the early 2000s.

The first iMac made waves and did get some interest, but the modern ones cost WAY too much for what they are.

It has been since the 90s since you could buy a reasonable desktop Mac that came in an actual desktop case. Everything has changed since then.

Allow me to provide examples:

Apple iMac 5K Desktop - $1,649
http://amzn.to/1RxxAEV

3.2GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.6GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
AMD R9 M380 2GB GPU
27" 5K Retina display

Now I'll grant you, that display is really nice. But meh, so what? Do you need it? Not really, it is way, way overkill for 27" of screen space. I wouldn't turn it down for free, but it is an example of what is wrong with Apple, providing things that people don't need.

The AMD RR9 M380 is nice, but lets be honest, that is a notebook GPU, it has 768 streaming cores, which is nice, but nothing flashy.

Lets see what the other options are:

ASUS M32CD Desktop - $449
http://amzn.to/21GnKGj

2.7GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.3GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
24x DVD Burner
Intel HD 530 GPU
802.11AC WiFi
Windows 10 64-bit

Now add to that computer a nice 27" monitor such as this one:

Samsung UE590 Ultra HD 4k 28" - $495
http://amzn.to/1Rxy1in

Since someone will complain that the iMac has a "better" GPU, we'll fix that with this:

AMD R7 360 2GB - $105
http://amzn.to/21Go08n

That has almost exactly the same performance as the iMac's GPU.

So our total is:

$449 + $495 + $105 = $1,349

So we're $300 less than the iMac, and I'm putting an overkill monitor on there. Frankly, a 1080p or 1440p monitor would be "fine" for most people.

KEY POINT - You can keep that 4k monitor for multiple computers, the iMac you cannot. You also don't HAVE to buy the video card, the Skylake HD 530 GPU is actually pretty good these days, it'll game at 1080p on medium detail in many games.

Remove the video card and give it a nice 1080p display:

Acer 27" 1080p - $179
http://amzn.to/1UjFqca

$449 + $179 = $628

So for $628, you get a perfectly good computer with a very good quad core Intel chip and a very nice usable 27" screen. The iMac isn't even remotely in that league.

---

Now some people might point to the Mac Mini, but meh, it isn't remotely close in performance to the above ASUS computer, it costs more, does less, isn't expandable, etc.

However, Apple pay is a success and so is Apple TV, iTunes and Apple Market. Apple is doing okay in terms of product diversification.

Apple Pay? Success? Give it 5 or 10 years and we'll see.

Apple TV? I know exactly no one who has one. I know a half a dozen people with a Roku or Fire TV. Apple has said that iTunes doesn't actually make them a lot of profit.

Apple makes almost all their money from exactly one product, the iPhone. More than 50% of their total sales and profit are that one thing. The iPad is number two and everything else is scraps.

To be fair, they tried with Mac product line for over 30 years.

Yea, but that was then... The world has changed...

A large number of people using their computers are using them in ways that matter less what OS is being run. There are exceptions, and those exceptions keep Windows going to some extent. The low price of PCs is the other.

Keep in mind that with OS X running on x86-64, that is miles different from most of those 30 years.

The Mac small market penetration is not from a lack of trying by Apple. Apple tried.

Meh, not really... there have been moments, but few and far between and nothing since the early 2000s.

The first iMac made waves and did get some interest, but the modern ones cost WAY too much for what they are.

It has been since the 90s since you could buy a reasonable desktop Mac that came in an actual desktop case. Everything has changed since then.

Allow me to provide examples:

Apple iMac 5K Desktop - $1,649
http://amzn.to/1RxxAEV

3.2GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.6GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
AMD R9 M380 2GB GPU
27" 5K Retina display

Now I'll grant you, that display is really nice. But meh, so what? Do you need it? Not really, it is way, way overkill for 27" of screen space. I wouldn't turn it down for free, but it is an example of what is wrong with Apple, providing things that people don't need.

The AMD RR9 M380 is nice, but lets be honest, that is a notebook GPU, it has 768 streaming cores, which is nice, but nothing flashy.

Lets see what the other options are:

ASUS M32CD Desktop - $449
http://amzn.to/21GnKGj

2.7GHz Intel i5 Quad Core - Turbo 3.3GHz
8GB RAM
1TB HDD - 7,200 RPM
24x DVD Burner
Intel HD 530 GPU
802.11AC WiFi
Windows 10 64-bit

Now add to that computer a nice 27" monitor such as this one:

Samsung UE590 Ultra HD 4k 28" - $495
http://amzn.to/1Rxy1in

Since someone will complain that the iMac has a "better" GPU, we'll fix that with this:

AMD R7 360 2GB - $105
http://amzn.to/21Go08n

That has almost exactly the same performance as the iMac's GPU.

So our total is:

$449 + $495 + $105 = $1,349

So we're $300 less than the iMac, and I'm putting an overkill monitor on there. Frankly, a 1080p or 1440p monitor would be "fine" for most people.

KEY POINT - You can keep that 4k monitor for multiple computers, the iMac you cannot. You also don't HAVE to buy the video card, the Skylake HD 530 GPU is actually pretty good these days, it'll game at 1080p on medium detail in many games.

Remove the video card and give it a nice 1080p display:

Acer 27" 1080p - $179
http://amzn.to/1UjFqca

$449 + $179 = $628

So for $628, you get a perfectly good computer with a very good quad core Intel chip and a very nice usable 27" screen. The iMac isn't even remotely in that league.

---

Now some people might point to the Mac Mini, but meh, it isn't remotely close in performance to the above ASUS computer, it costs more, does less, isn't expandable, etc.

However, Apple pay is a success and so is Apple TV, iTunes and Apple Market. Apple is doing okay in terms of product diversification.

Apple Pay? Success? Give it 5 or 10 years and we'll see.

Apple TV? I know exactly no one who has one. I know a half a dozen people with a Roku or Fire TV. Apple has said that iTunes doesn't actually make them a lot of profit.

Apple makes almost all their money from exactly one product, the iPhone. More than 50% of their total sales and profit are that one thing. The iPad is number two and everything else is scraps.

Thanks for the info, I was not aware that any 4k TVs were 60hz. Shame they don't put Display Port on them, that would make it easier.

You bought a 7500 mode, what do you think of the 6500 models? Do they have 60hz HDMI 2.0 inputs?

http://amzn.to/1QtpZaV

That is a 55" unit for $900, far less than the cost of the unit you bought. It appears to be a slightly lower quality and 120 refresh rate instead of 240, but that would be fine for me.

At $900, it costs the same as a 32" Acer 4k computer monitor, making it an interesting option.

Are you guessing or do you know?

I have multiple 32" 4k monitors, the Acer version, and they all work perfectly...

32" Acer 4k B326HK
http://amzn.to/1pouMDM

What monitor are you using that you're having trouble with?

I have to say that I'm more excited about 4k at 120hz than 8k at 60hz, but it is all an improvement.

As it stands now, 4k displays are wonderful for work, I am typing this on my office computer which has a pair of Acer 32" 4k displays on it.

Acer 32" 4K IPS display
http://amzn.to/1poiivZ

They are beautiful monitors. Not perfect color and I wouldn't suggest them if 100% color accuracy is your goal, but for general business use, they are just about the perfect combination of size and resolution. My home machine runs a trio of Dell 30" 1600p monitors, and while they are nice for gaming, I can tell the difference between a 30" 1600p monitor and a 32" 4k monitor when it comes to text in Windows. Almost all "jaggies" are gone at 4k, the text is the closest I've ever seen a monitor to get to "paper" look. The 30" 1600p monitors still show "jaggies" in Windows text.

Now for gaming, they aren't quite there yet. Between the slower response time of IPS and the inability to get decent GPU performance, 4k is a rough experience. I tried several games and I found that while they are beautiful, the limit is the GPU power.

I did try only a single GPU (GTX 980 TI), I imagine a dual SLI GPU configuration would be better, but I didn't have a second 980 TI to try that out with. 8k will be awhile in terms of gaming, if due to lack of GPU power if anything else.

---

TL;DR - 120hz should be the new standard, it will reduce eyestrain and open up options for gaming and movies that don't exist at 60hz, while the HDR improvements will also be wonderful. I'm not convinced that 8k will show up any time soon or even be needed, but time will tell on that one.

For Christmas I bought my 10 year old son a drone, and I have to say it is a crazy amount of fun!

For $48, it has a HD camera and is 6-axis gyro stabilized, very easy to fly around the house or outside in the back yard or down at the lake.

http://amzn.to/21aQ7S7

The flight time is really short, less than 10 min, but you can buy a pack of 4 more batteries for less than $20 and fly around for about 30 min using 5 of them, which is frankly long enough to have fun with.

It comes with spare blades, blade protectors for while you're learning, and even a 2GB SD memory card.

What do you want for $48?

Yes, I am aware that is the "suggested list price", and that actual selling prices will likely be lower...

However, you can already buy the very good, very reliable 240GB Crucial BX200 drive for $65 at Amazon, and there are other choices for $60 and lower if price is everything.

http://amzn.to/20ZdOwy

I have several of the BX200 drives in basic machines around the office, they work just fine, no hassles or issues.

I wouldn't quite go that far. Amazon had a 960 GB SSD on sale at christmas for $199. It currently has that same SSD listed right now for $259. neither of those prices are out of reach of the general consumer (if it were, the drives would not be listed for sale). Do SSDs carry a premium? Of course. They also offer a number of benefits to justify that premium. Will they drop in cost? Definitely. I remember many years ago people claiming that NAND would never get cheaper, yet here we are watching capacities double every 1-2 years at a given price point. Oh and that SSD I mentioned earlier? it's launch price was $500. FYI the SSD mentioned is at http://amzn.to/1PidPD8

$79 for a PoE converter? Are you kidding? Even teh OP said that he found one for $30.

Here is a USB power that extracts form PoE and has ethernet pass-through. This one is marketed towards powering a Raspberry Pi via PoE but there are lots of similar and similarly cheap options that can charge your iPad, if you have a PoE source, for way less than $79 or even the OP's $30.

By your own definition, half of American households CAN afford an $1,800 TV.

But, if you're not there yet, and you only wish to spend $500 on a TV, then perhaps you should look at the Sceptre U508CV-UMK 50-Inch Glass 4K Ultra HD 120Hz LED TV or you could get a VIZIO M43-C1 43-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV for $550.

Although not 70 inchers, they are still large TVs at 50 or 43 inches. You can also console yourself with the fact that your income level probably doesn't get you a house large enough to properly fit a TV as large as 70 inches, so the 50 is probably a better fit for you all round.

By your own definition, half of American households CAN afford an $1,800 TV.

But, if you're not there yet, and you only wish to spend $500 on a TV, then perhaps you should look at the Sceptre U508CV-UMK 50-Inch Glass 4K Ultra HD 120Hz LED TV or you could get a VIZIO M43-C1 43-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV for $550.

Although not 70 inchers, they are still large TVs at 50 or 43 inches. You can also console yourself with the fact that your income level probably doesn't get you a house large enough to properly fit a TV as large as 70 inches, so the 50 is probably a better fit for you all round.

Vizio M70-C3 70-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV is VERY affordable.

You mean something like a USB Condom [syncstop.com]?

Good idea, but yikes, $20 + shipping for one? Just grabbed this this 2-pack for $15.

The utter and contemptible lack of security for IP security cameras is criminal. No camera or DVR should be accessible form teh internet and no video feed should traverse the internet without encryption. Yet, they all seem to do just that.

My Vera Edge Home Automation System - definitely not a security system - transfers video and all other data between it and the company's central servers within an SSH tunnel. This should be the industry standard.

I'm really hoping that we'll see some options in this thread.

How much CPU do you need? You can spend about $16 total on an older PogoPlug and little USB flash drive, put Arch on it, and run a tiny server. Works fine for a DNS backup or low-bandwidth Tor relay and will hardly dent your power bill.

http://amzn.to/1NdkLhF

Amazon Fire 7" Tablet $34.99

I got a VIZIO 70-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV back in the spring. I've been very pleased with its exceptional picture quality and size. Even 1080p Blueray is stunning on this display.

I've been surprised to find that its "smartness" is also quite good. It uses Yahoo!'s app store and has lots of good apps including Amazon, Netflix, Ultraflix, YouTube, Plex, and more. The only app that it lacks, that I miss, is HBOGo, but my game console has that. The YouTube app usues YouTube's Direct To TV feature allows the app to interact with YouTube apps on smartphones and tablets. This makes for a very nice screen transfer experience, where videos van be sent form a phone or tablet onto the big screen without the clunky misery of Miracast and other proprietary screen sharing attempts.

4K content is relatively hard to find. Amazon has some and Ultraflix is all UHD/4K. But the libraries of 4K is limited.

I've also been pleasantly surprised that Vizio has been providing updates for it. I think it has had three firmware updates since I got it, my previous years old Vizio with VIA still has never had an update but needs it desperately, in terms of smartness and apps. That older TV smartness is utterly useless, but it's still a great display.

On Amazon, I see GTX 970s for $290 - http://amzn.to/1PPGikI - That's a full $50 - $60 more than the 380X or a 20% premium or so, for about 10 - 15% more performance. This card is 25 - 30% faster than a 4GB GTX 960, for about a 10% premium. So, not sure how fine a line it is but it's definitely an incremental step up from a 960 for a good chunk less than a 970, with the caveat I would toss in that's "if" AMD AIB partners actually hit that $229 MSRP AMD is claiming.

Sounds like it might be time for an Ultrasonic Jammer in my house. They have them to supposedly keep pests away. I'm sure it would blanket the area and disrupt any ultrasonic tracking. Hopefully they won't bother the family pets too much. http://amzn.to/20SJgu6

--

Offtopic, but WTF is the point of shit like http://amzn.to/1NQpuYW ?
D&D board games? Isn't D&D supposed to be roll-your-own type shit?

I've never played, but I think if I did I'd be seriously offended at the idea of a board game version.

Legitimately the goodest and nerdest news I've heard on Slashdot in a long time.

And for those of us with desktops without PCIe, M-keyed, M.2 slots, there are adapters.
Bootability depends om your mobo/bios/uefi/hairdo.

BenFranske is correct. You're looking for a matrix switch for the video. They are sized by the number of video inputs and outputs. You're probably looking for a 6x2 ( inputs( pc1 screen 1, pc1 screen2, pc2 screen1, pc2 screen1, laptop screen1, laptop screen2) x outputs (screen 1, screen2). Remember these devices will not use a keyboard shortcut to direct sources to outputs. You'll either need to use the remote or rig something up with an arduino as most of these devices accept RS-232 commands that are fairly simple.
Something like this would work http://amzn.to/1L2pWmU

As for inputs such as keyboard and mouse that would be something different. I used a USB switch and a hub to create this solution, but now this type of gear exists.
http://amzn.to/1FB3dyd

I believe this would solve your issue. Your other choice would be to get two 4 port HDMI KVMs each hooked up to a monitor. You only need to hook a keyboard and mouse up to one (say screen 1's kvm). The issue here is you'll have to use the remote or buttons to trigger Screen2's KVM as you won't be able to use a keyboard shortcut where as you can on Screen1.

Hope this helps!

BenFranske is correct. You're looking for a matrix switch for the video. They are sized by the number of video inputs and outputs. You're probably looking for a 6x2 ( inputs( pc1 screen 1, pc1 screen2, pc2 screen1, pc2 screen1, laptop screen1, laptop screen2) x outputs (screen 1, screen2). Remember these devices will not use a keyboard shortcut to direct sources to outputs. You'll either need to use the remote or rig something up with an arduino as most of these devices accept RS-232 commands that are fairly simple.
Something like this would work http://amzn.to/1L2pWmU

As for inputs such as keyboard and mouse that would be something different. I used a USB switch and a hub to create this solution, but now this type of gear exists.
http://amzn.to/1FB3dyd

I believe this would solve your issue. Your other choice would be to get two 4 port HDMI KVMs each hooked up to a monitor. You only need to hook a keyboard and mouse up to one (say screen 1's kvm). The issue here is you'll have to use the remote or buttons to trigger Screen2's KVM as you won't be able to use a keyboard shortcut where as you can on Screen1.

Hope this helps!

10 years ago, I assembled a crude Linux DVR using ZoneMinder. I kludged together Chinese video cards and various cameras. It was a neat and inexpensive system, and I enjoyed the project. But, it was crude, finicky and not very reliable which meant it required constant monitoring and care. But, for years, anything better or off the shelf would have cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.

Today, you can buy an off the shelf 1080p DVR system with 8 night vision cameras(!) for under $1,000. These systems are fire and forget. They work flawlessly, have tons of features, and are very reliable.

Meanwhile, Zoneminder hasn't changed much since 10 years ago. It's still a bodged together mess.

Home security systems is a "problem" that has been completely solved in hardware. No DIY system, Linux or otherwise will compare in regards to available sensors, reliability, speed, battery backup, cellular backup, and more of a hardware panel. Many/most people want remote monitoring and thus pay for it. People ignore alarm sirens. What's the point of annoying your neighbors with noise while the crook takes his time packing your stuff into his van? You being on Slashdot means you'll want free, so I'll skip the subscription monitoring services.

DSC makes rock solid and inexpensive hardware systems. If you want to roll you own monitoring/alerting DSC systems can be integrated with other stuff including your own crappy and broken Linux implementable. You can also integrate a DCS panel with a home automation system like Vera or openHAB.

Home made security systems are not cost effective, reliable, effective, or worth the effort.