Geek-Chic Power Houses

nakhla writes "Wired.com is running a lengthy article on wired houses of celebrities. The article describes some of the tech that has gone into the houses of actors, businessmen, and professional athletes, outlining the steps they've gone to in order to obtain techno-nirvana. Included in the article is a profile of JAG's Catherine Bell (my vote for sexiest geek), and her use of a wireless network to connect her to her TiBook, Gateway Laptop, and...get this...Sharp Zaurus Linux PDA. For those of you who are just dying to string fiber around your entire house, this article will have you making a run to your favorite networking hardware store."

Comments

Having a wireless network makes you wired?

[joeflies]

I bet every person on this board has the stuff in Catherine Bell's house. Except she makes news because she's famous and a woman :>)

Seriously, I think the doorbell webcam/image pusher is the most interersting aspect, not that she has a Zaurus (more than likely she gets these gadgets as promo items so they are seem by the 'cool crowd')

hmm must be nice to be rich...

[fungus]

But keep both feets on the ground, because you're not and (probably) will never be rich enough to spend millions on toys.

This is nice and all... but it remains toys. I dont think anyone really need a plasma screen instead of a regular mirror for shaving, but hey, its cool.

We're like mechanics looking at a movie star's custom ferrari.

Determining the right infrastructure...

[bovilexics]

... on a budget is a frustrating problem.

Oh what a dream. Reading this article makes it all seem so joyous and wonderful. Especially when you don't have budget limitations and have the monetary freedom to completely scrap something that becomes obsolete in a couple of years and replace it with the latest and greatest thing out there. *Drool*

Speaking from the experience of going through the ups and downs of building a new house this year - trying to determine what technologies to use now and how to leave room for future upgrades/changes with such obstacles as:

1. A realistic budget
2. An uninformed contractor
3. Conflicting opinions from all directions

It is tough to know where to jump in and what is cost effective and useful technology that can be expanded and upgraded without costing an arm and a leg.

Typically a contractor is very informed about housing issues (plumbing, electrical, etc.) and can be a great source of information and recommendations but when it came to the tech infrastructure it was hard to find someone knowledgeable in the small town that I live in.

I pretty much had to do all the research myself and inform him on what I thought would be best. It was all a little odd considering I'm not a builder by any stretch of the imagination.

Ugh, makes my head hurt. We ended up going cat-5 with pre-wiring and space for wireless access points in the attic and conduit in the walls to pull fiber (or something else) later when it becomes feasible. It seemed best for us at the current time, hopefully it will continue to be a good decision a few years down the line.

Meh! Uninteresting article.

[phillymjs]

I read this article over the weekend. The bottom line is, any ultra-rich idiot can have an automated house full of cool gadgets, if they throw enough money at someone else to set it up for them. There's nothing particularly impressive about being able to write a check.

I'd rather read about systems people put together themselves, consisting of parts attainable by someone who makes a modest salary.

And yeah, Catherine Bell is a hottie, but she loses points for being married and a Scientologist.

~Philly

even /. eh?

[Ender Ryan]

Is it just me, or am I the only one who thinks that most "normal" people really don't give a flying fuck what "celebrities" do in their spare time? I may just be imagining it, but it seems to me that "celebrities" have been recently flaunting their "celebrity" status more so of late.

Seriously, "celebrity" in America has really been pissing me off of late, with all the goddam "reality tv" shows trying to make "normal" people into "celebrities", American Idol(gag!), "star" after "star" on Good Morning America, tabloids having nothing but celebrity rumors(what the fuck ever happened to good ol' Pres. Bush meets Aliens stuff?), etc.?

I refuse to believe that Americans really care so much about goddam celebrities; IMO, this is all just Hollywood pressure to keep themselves feeling like they're better than the average "joe", considering iMacs, free video editing tools, etc., becoming accessible to your average computer user must be making them piss their pants about their impending irrelevancy.

Anyone else in the states notice this trend, or am I imaging things; I realize "celebrities" have always been pretentious fucks, but it seems even more so lately.

Sorry, way OT I guess...

But you might not want to tell anyone that...

[Wee]

So what????
does that not allow me to be a slashdot geek?
Excuse me but the fact that some slashdot readers disagree with scientology or it`s policies and that i happen to BE a scientologist does NOT make me a non "slashdot kind geek"

I think that you'll find that there is very very little love lost for scientology (I refuse to capitalize it; churches and religions don't have "trade secrets", IMO) on Slashdot. The people involved with the running of the "church" of scientology have been heavy handed in the extreme when it comes to things near and dear to the Slashdot readership. It is a hot-button topic, to be sure. Your "church" is not seen in a very positive light by those that come here. One could therefore argue that, by extension, this means that a healthy percentage of the online "geek" community harbors negative feelings towards your "church". So it's likely that you might get a little heat if you bring up scientology on Slashdot.

The reason you might not be terribly welcome here in most people's minds is because, for good or ill, they cannot separate what your "church" does with what you say -- when you mention scientology. If you don't bother mentioning it, it's probable that nobody will like or dislike you anymore than they would any other person here. It's not a First Amendment issue so much as a "cultural" thing. I certainly wouldn't start yelling about my PETA membership at the annual Meat Packers Association convention meeting unless I wanted to start a shouting match. Perhaps you feel differently. I don't know. It's a free country.

Whatever my personal feelings are about scientology, I really don't care one way or the other about your religious beliefs (especially if they have no bearing on the conversation at hand). To each his own, I say; I certainly don't bother mentioning that I'm an agnostic Libertarian every time I post here. I'm just trying to give out a little friendly, free advice: you'd do well to not bring up your religion in this forum unless you're participating in a discussion about religion. Assuming you don't want your conversation degenerating into a flamefest, that is.

-B

As the saying goes....

[djupedal]

"Technology is like money....you know you have enough when you don't have to think about it..."

Did it appear than anyone profiled in the article no longer thought about either? :)

Amazing! Not really...

[quantax]

Why are we impressed with any of this? If any of us had a virtual unlimited budget like these people, we could do a HELL of a lot more and not to mention do it ourselves. Quite frankly, people who throw a shitload of money at a problem/issue to solve it do not impress me. Someone who solves the problem in a both effecient AND practical manner are much more impressive. If Joe Millionare has the sickest network on the east coast, it is not because he is especially clever, intelligent, or anything else, it is because he hired a buncha techs to do it for him. Lets stick with admiring 'real' people doing 'real' stuff. Anyone with a crapload of money can do this sorta stuff. Slashdot should know this better than anyone.

missing from the article

[alizard]

The only time I saw security mentioned in the article was in the context of security cams.

What's wrong with this picture?

Does anybody here think that a static IP owned by Catherine Bell or Tony Hawk is any less likely to wind up designating a network 0wn3d by any number of people than one connected to an AOL broadband user with the usual level of home security?

While I'd be very surprised to find that Larry Ellison's home network wasn't designed for security first by the smartest bunch of paranoids he can hire, from what I saw in the article, I'd be equally surprised to find that the opposite isn't true for most of these systems.

The results of this article's posting to /. should be very, very interesting. I wonder how many of these networks have already been r00ted and how many people are heading for Beverly Hills with wireless laptops checking things out since the article was posted?

Any hardcore security types who know the high-end installers in this business probably should give them an e-mail very, very soon... there's some serious money to be made here.

And anyone who's got the kind of money who's reading this should think of how to secure their networks before ordering their home T-3.

Overpriced....

[Junta]

Bleh, all this waste, even in the 'do-it-yourself' section.

Without spending nearly so much, especially in a smaller home, you can get a lot. The key thing here is they suggest buying lots of small, dedicated pieces of equipment, and only two computers, and not even fully utilizing them!

Take that 'dedicated server' and make it a bit beefier. I built a fairly cheap (~1100 USD) server with 4 120 GB drives in RAID-5 config about a year ago. Up that a bit and your server can hold oggs and video like crazy, are even go FLAC if you are extreme audiophile. Put it next to your Entertainment system, and it can do PVR/Video/Progressive Scan functions. Eliminate the need for a lot of things. Run your internet connection through it, no more need for a separate router. Buy a cheaper USB wireless adapter and make it an Access Point with more control (why settle for mere WEP, when you can enforce IPSEC?). With all this functionality, a decent soundcard can dump anything you want to any receiver, so a lot of the digital-to-stereo equipment goes bye-bye. If concerned about control, buy a cheap-o lirc-compatible device.

The display is pretty decent, though I would think an entry-level projector might offer a better deal. The home automation stuff I have no experience with, though I would opt for an IP based camera and have my computer doing motion sensing when I leave the house (sending shots via VPN to a friends house in case the system is stolen).

The network solutions they suggest seem to hover around 11 mbps, same rate as wireless, why bother? If you want better than that, wire your house with some cat5 or better cable. 100 mbps is much more livable for streaming video than 11, and if you are really big on it, gigabit is *doable* at great expense.

Why would any house need a *rack* of servers? My household has a laptop per person, a desktop per person, and a single server handling routing/nfs/samba/apache/icecast/etc.... I plan to add one system to do multimedia stuff in the entertainment system, but that's it. The laptops+desktops are extravagant, but nice...