Yeah. I too opted for the mid-80s Land Rover approach. OK it's more than half the price, but it's what I want. Then again it, it doesn't have a warranty.
Hmm, interesting point of view. I'd be thinking of an H3, "for that price I could have bought a tricked-out Rubicon". Well OK I drive an old Land Rover but I'd buy a Jeep over an H3, any day, all day. To each their own.
Where do you think all those people work? I live in a town of about 9000 people. Some commute, but in my town there are a lot of small industries. Metalworking companies, factories, dentist offices, investment offices, etc. etc. all have computer networks and need someone to look after them. I don't really service this market, but there's definitely a market there.
There's a guy around here who just sets up Asterisk VOIP systems. At least, that's what he did a couple years ago. I bet he's making a killing, helping all these small businesses save money every month.
You've been a good person to bounce things off on this thread (thanks!) so I figured I'd respond.
Everything you're saying is right of course. I'm managing just fine with Apache, MySQL, and everything else I need with my Mac Pro. If I was going to get a Mac Mini though, I'd get the server variant. Partially this is just to get some experience with OS X server, and partially because I would set it up as the server for my home office since I have it anyway.
My Mac Pro would continue to do all the heavy lifting though.
I currently have two 4 drive external arrays (one USB, one Firewire) that I'd move to the Mac Mini. I'm not terribly concerned in this situation that the internal drives aren't hot-swappable. It's not a mission-critical server.
I'm aware of the differences. The real question I'm asking is, am I going to use a Mac Mini server? I've been kinda wanting one ever since they came out, but on the other hand I've been making do without it.
It's stuff like the ability to take 8 hard drives out of my office and put them elsewhere that would make me happy. If I could hook them up to the Mac Mini (which of course I could), that would make my office quieter and cooler.
Similarly, setting up a VPN at home would be fine but I've already got that with SSH. Centralized management of the users would be nice but aren't an essential. Etc., etc.
Either box will work just fine for TV; I'm just working through whether I'll get $900 extra use out of a Mac Mini.
That was my point. Google TV "needs" cable like Apple TV "needs" extra money spent on content. Either one can be used without spending any further money on content.
For those of us outside the US, Google TV doesn't do anything for our cable/satellite TV. It would be great if it did, though. Maybe some day.
I think the issue is that getting your content INTO iTunes is the difficult proposition. If your content needs to be re-encoded, it's a pain in the butt.
I just unplugged and am in the process of getting rid of my HTPC. I spent a lot of money on a fancy home theatre case, Hauppauge HD PVR, SageTV, etc. etc. I think I spent almost as much time over the years trying to get/keep it working as I actually spent watching TV. OK maybe I'm exaggerating but still it was a lot of effort.
I'm going to replace it with either an Apple TV or a mac mini server, depending on how rich I feel and what I decide I want to do with it. I'm looking forward to the easier maintenance, quieter living room, and lower power bills.
I'm also dumping satellite TV and I seriously doubt I'll be spending $65/month on rentals & purchases, given how little I actually watch.
My understanding is that it can't. I believe you need to have your content in an iTunes library on your computer. Furthermore, I have read that an Apple TV won't stream content on a NAS that can otherwise host an iTunes library; the library actually needs to be on a computer.
I mostly agree with this, but I do need a laptop capable of programming anytime or anywhere. On the other hand, I don't find the 1440x900 display on my Macbook Pro too much of a constraint, especially as I have a dual-monitor (1920x1200, 1600x1200) Mac Pro at home where I do most of my real work.
Because we're not all exactly like you, we all have different work habits and needs.
For example, last week I had to travel a couple hours to visit a client. I could have driven, but I chose to take the train. Part of the logic behind this decision was so that I could use the time more productively. As this was "work time", shouldn't I have been working, according to your logic?
Additionally, I'm self employed and work from my home office most days. Sometimes though, I like to get a change of scenery and go work from a coffee shop. Again, apparently you see a problem with this? I should stay at "home", doing my "work", instead of going out and working somewhere that gives my brain a different point of view?
This summer, my family and I went to Europe for 5 weeks. I worked for two weeks and took three weeks of vacation. I guess then too I should have stayed at home and worked for those two weeks, and taken less time in Europe. Maybe I should have sent my wife and kids there two weeks early and then just stayed home that time, because I was working and goodness knows the only place I'm allowed to do that is in my own home (office).
This has its downsides, but as a potential solution, may I present to you an Apple iPad plus Air Display.
This of course only gives you a marginally greater 1024 vertical pixels in portrait mode, and as it runs over VLC can be a bit slow, but it's a very workable solution in some cases.
Back around 2000 I had a Sony VAIO (never again). I had to call tech support for another reason, and while I was on the phone, complained that my new laptop got so hot that it burned my legs when I was wearing shorts.
The person's response was, "They're not laptops, sir. They are notebook computers." Evidently the manufacturers' response too their "laptops" getting to hot was to conveniently rename them.
I hear people on/. saying this all the time and I simply don't think it's true. I've been coding post-university for > 14 years so I consider myself a "senior developer". I used to know c way back in the day, and have done some Java coding and a bit of C#, but Objective C still to me isn't "a few late nights" simple.
Sure, a few late nights will let you pick up the syntax, but the real value of a platform, whether it's JEE,.NET or iOS development, are the libraries and everything that goes beyond the bare syntax. Understanding what method to use where takes a LOT more than just a few late nights. Additionally, every language brings with it its own pitfalls, security issues, etc., that a newbie developer is just not going to pick up right away.
Sure, after a couple weeks of hard studying you can start to program in a new language. I'm not debating that. Additionally, some languages and environments are going to be easier than others. But the vast majority of developers are not going to be even nearly up to speed on a new language without having a severe impact on the timeline of a project.
I mean this in a good way, but the reason you probably don't see professional liability in engineering is because you are not a professional engineer. If, for example, you work as a mechanical engineer at a nuclear power plant, you will need to sign your drawings. This is because you are accepting professional liability as the engineer and are stating that the design is adequate. This is the same through any branch of engineering where your decisions carry consequences.
What you're saying is similar to saying that doctors don't have liability because they make you sign a piece of paper before they accept you as a patient. Piece of paper or no, they are professionally liable, which is why in many countries they have to pay for expensive liability insurance.
You are welcome to consider yourself an Engineer, a nuclear physicist, astronaut, cross-dresser, lawyer, or whatever you want. It doesn't mean that you ARE any of those things. You may be "doing engineering" at work, and in fact you may be doing a lot more of it than some professional engineers. That doesn't make you a professional engineer any more than sitting out in a field and eating grass makes you a sheep. Having the title of "Software Engineer" doesn't make you a Professional Engineer either. There is a distinction.
If someone goes to university and gets a degree in computer science, eastern European history, or something like that, and works in software for 20 years, it maybe nice for that person (you) to consider himself an Engineer (vs. engineer). However, that is not the case. Criteria have to be met for that person to be considered an engineer. You can say that accreditation is not settled yet, however that is untrue. You can easily look up in your state/country/province what is necessary to become a professional engineer. I would imagine that one of the criteria will include a degree in Engineering from a university. If you don't have that, and if you want to call yourself an Engineer (with a capital E), go back to school, get your credentials, gain your professional designation, and move on with your life.
If you don't want to go through the trouble to do all that, then maybe you should consider that the reason Professional Engineers get annoyed at people who like to call themselves Engineers when they're not, is because they DID go through all that to gain their professional designation, and it was Hard Work. If you don't want the hard work, maybe you recognize that you don't deserve the credit for it.
Just to point out again that I'm not trying to be harsh, I don't want to go through the hard work either and I don't take credit for what I haven't done. As mentioned in my previous post, I have a degree in Engineering from a very well-respected university. I worked very hard to pass in that programme as it was a very difficult and challenging degree to obtain. I didn't do my apprenticeship under a professional engineer following graduation, and I didn't write my professional exams. Therefore, although I have a degree in Engineering, and I do a lot of software engineering for my job, I am not a Professional Engineer as I couldn't be bothered to fulfil all the requirements in order to be professionally considered one.
Enginering is a profession, in a sense like being a doctor or a lawyer. As others have stated, "Professional Engineering" is a profession. Depending on your juristiction, it may or may not be legal for you to call yourself an engineer if you are not a professional engineer.
I live in Ontario, Canada, for example. I have a degree in Civil Engineering, but I am not an engineer. This is analogous to saying I have a PhD in medicine but I am not a medical doctor, or that I have a degree in law but never took the bar exams. Anyway, I have a degree in engineering, 14 years of post-university experience, but I don't call myself an Engineer, because I'm not one (professionally).
You can call yourself whatever you want, as long as it's legal to do so where you live. You may be an engineer, but are you an Engineer? Being a Professional Engineer carries with it a liability as you are responsible for your actions in a way that a software programmer is not.
I have an 8-core Mac Pro. It's currently running a 4 core Windows 2008 server VM with 6GB of RAM, a dual core Windows 7 VM with 1.2GB of RAM, a couple app servers natively in Mac OS X, an a host of other applications. This machine has replaced my need for separate development and test servers, and gives me power to spare for the rest of my tasks. Yes it cost probably $4-5k once you count in the 13.5TB of drives, etc., but I use it to get work done. I rarely see my CPUs pegged at 100% for a long time, but it does happen.
I had a very nicely specced quad core that I built before I bought my Mac Pro, and the Mac Pro absolutely blows that computer out of the water. When you have real work to do, of the type that the Mac Pro is built for, it's an awesome machine and worth every penny. If you don't need the power, then of course it's more than you need.
Reading through your comments, the apparent answer to your specific question is "yes". Some people really prefer them. I'm shocked too.
My 15" matte screen MacBook Pro is in for AppleCare work right now, so I'm borrowing my wife's glossy-screened 13" MBP. I also happen to be at a client's office today, and mostly what I see on the screen is the outline of my head, surrounded by a giant flourescent array in the celiing behind me. There is no way I can move around at the place they've seated me without the screen being at least 30% covered in glare. My neck is already sore from sitting in weird positions, trying to eliminate the glare.
So yeah, I hate the glossy screen. Hate hate hate.
It sounds great. However, there's no mention yet about whether it will be US-only, or if/when there will be an international rollout. I can't watch Hulu in Canada, I can't use Netflix, I can't use a cablecard, and I have to presume that, at least at first, I won't be able to use Google TV.
OK, I CAN use Hulu in Canada if I trick them into thinking I'm in the US, but that's not quite the same.
The fatal flaw in your assumption is that the untapped market will make up for the loss of the current market. How do you continue getting $9 from the same amount of people while adding $0.25 people? Why would most pay the higher amount?
This already happens. People pay more to go to the movie, or to own the DVD/Blu-ray. People pay less to rent the movie, or to watch it on PPV. Cable companies pay less per viewer to show a movie on TV later on. What studios are not currently doing a good job of is monetizing the viewers who want the convenience of watching TV online without the high cost. I'm not saying I have the perfect answer, but I'm pointing out a problem.
Please check into your nearest reality at your earliest convenience. Why exactly would those who have the power (and as a result make the money) give it up willingly? If you haven't noticed, those at the top consider the other 500 people expendable....
I didn't say it WOULD happen, I was saying it COULD happen.
I'm with you on this. I was (and am again) paying ~$55/month for satellite TV. A couple years ago I finally went HD. I found that the SageTV/PCI recording card PVR I had running on a computer was inadequate for recording TV and viewing it back on a widescreen TV.
I also ran headlong into the fact that content producers are doing everything in their power to make recording of HD both impossibly difficult, as well as illegal. Therefore I started downloading shows off Bittorrent in HD. Mind that these are the same shows I was paying $55/month to recieve via satellite in HD.
After several months of this, I started increasingly asking myself what value I was gaining from paying for satellite TV. I eventually decided the answer was "none", so I cancelled it. Now we have a second baby in the house so there's more TV watching going on, so I've resubscribed and bought an Hauppauge HD PVR.
The point to all this rambling is to agree that many of us don't mind paying for content. We just don't want to be treated like criminals, especially since this is ironically the very act that drives us to break the law! It's idiocy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. I too opted for the mid-80s Land Rover approach. OK it's more than half the price, but it's what I want. Then again it, it doesn't have a warranty.
Hmm, interesting point of view. I'd be thinking of an H3, "for that price I could have bought a tricked-out Rubicon". Well OK I drive an old Land Rover but I'd buy a Jeep over an H3, any day, all day. To each their own.
And I will use my Land Rover to drive my Land Rover home after a day/weekend/week of fun.
Don't laugh, it's actually made it there AND back again before.
Where do you think all those people work? I live in a town of about 9000 people. Some commute, but in my town there are a lot of small industries. Metalworking companies, factories, dentist offices, investment offices, etc. etc. all have computer networks and need someone to look after them. I don't really service this market, but there's definitely a market there.
There's a guy around here who just sets up Asterisk VOIP systems. At least, that's what he did a couple years ago. I bet he's making a killing, helping all these small businesses save money every month.
You've been a good person to bounce things off on this thread (thanks!) so I figured I'd respond.
Everything you're saying is right of course. I'm managing just fine with Apache, MySQL, and everything else I need with my Mac Pro. If I was going to get a Mac Mini though, I'd get the server variant. Partially this is just to get some experience with OS X server, and partially because I would set it up as the server for my home office since I have it anyway.
My Mac Pro would continue to do all the heavy lifting though.
I currently have two 4 drive external arrays (one USB, one Firewire) that I'd move to the Mac Mini. I'm not terribly concerned in this situation that the internal drives aren't hot-swappable. It's not a mission-critical server.
I'm aware of the differences. The real question I'm asking is, am I going to use a Mac Mini server? I've been kinda wanting one ever since they came out, but on the other hand I've been making do without it.
It's stuff like the ability to take 8 hard drives out of my office and put them elsewhere that would make me happy. If I could hook them up to the Mac Mini (which of course I could), that would make my office quieter and cooler.
Similarly, setting up a VPN at home would be fine but I've already got that with SSH. Centralized management of the users would be nice but aren't an essential. Etc., etc.
Either box will work just fine for TV; I'm just working through whether I'll get $900 extra use out of a Mac Mini.
That was my point. Google TV "needs" cable like Apple TV "needs" extra money spent on content. Either one can be used without spending any further money on content.
For those of us outside the US, Google TV doesn't do anything for our cable/satellite TV. It would be great if it did, though. Maybe some day.
I think the issue is that getting your content INTO iTunes is the difficult proposition. If your content needs to be re-encoded, it's a pain in the butt.
I just unplugged and am in the process of getting rid of my HTPC. I spent a lot of money on a fancy home theatre case, Hauppauge HD PVR, SageTV, etc. etc. I think I spent almost as much time over the years trying to get/keep it working as I actually spent watching TV. OK maybe I'm exaggerating but still it was a lot of effort.
I'm going to replace it with either an Apple TV or a mac mini server, depending on how rich I feel and what I decide I want to do with it. I'm looking forward to the easier maintenance, quieter living room, and lower power bills.
I'm also dumping satellite TV and I seriously doubt I'll be spending $65/month on rentals & purchases, given how little I actually watch.
And for Google TV you "need" a $50/month cable TV subscription. What's your point?'
OTOH either system will play your own media if you're willing to jump through a few hoops.
My understanding is that it can't. I believe you need to have your content in an iTunes library on your computer. Furthermore, I have read that an Apple TV won't stream content on a NAS that can otherwise host an iTunes library; the library actually needs to be on a computer.
I said it was work time. I didn't say it was billable time.
I mostly agree with this, but I do need a laptop capable of programming anytime or anywhere. On the other hand, I don't find the 1440x900 display on my Macbook Pro too much of a constraint, especially as I have a dual-monitor (1920x1200, 1600x1200) Mac Pro at home where I do most of my real work.
Because we're not all exactly like you, we all have different work habits and needs.
For example, last week I had to travel a couple hours to visit a client. I could have driven, but I chose to take the train. Part of the logic behind this decision was so that I could use the time more productively. As this was "work time", shouldn't I have been working, according to your logic?
Additionally, I'm self employed and work from my home office most days. Sometimes though, I like to get a change of scenery and go work from a coffee shop. Again, apparently you see a problem with this? I should stay at "home", doing my "work", instead of going out and working somewhere that gives my brain a different point of view?
This summer, my family and I went to Europe for 5 weeks. I worked for two weeks and took three weeks of vacation. I guess then too I should have stayed at home and worked for those two weeks, and taken less time in Europe. Maybe I should have sent my wife and kids there two weeks early and then just stayed home that time, because I was working and goodness knows the only place I'm allowed to do that is in my own home (office).
Hopefully I've made my point.
This has its downsides, but as a potential solution, may I present to you an Apple iPad plus Air Display.
This of course only gives you a marginally greater 1024 vertical pixels in portrait mode, and as it runs over VLC can be a bit slow, but it's a very workable solution in some cases.
Back around 2000 I had a Sony VAIO (never again). I had to call tech support for another reason, and while I was on the phone, complained that my new laptop got so hot that it burned my legs when I was wearing shorts.
The person's response was, "They're not laptops, sir. They are notebook computers." Evidently the manufacturers' response too their "laptops" getting to hot was to conveniently rename them.
I hear people on /. saying this all the time and I simply don't think it's true. I've been coding post-university for > 14 years so I consider myself a "senior developer". I used to know c way back in the day, and have done some Java coding and a bit of C#, but Objective C still to me isn't "a few late nights" simple.
.NET or iOS development, are the libraries and everything that goes beyond the bare syntax. Understanding what method to use where takes a LOT more than just a few late nights. Additionally, every language brings with it its own pitfalls, security issues, etc., that a newbie developer is just not going to pick up right away.
Sure, a few late nights will let you pick up the syntax, but the real value of a platform, whether it's JEE,
Sure, after a couple weeks of hard studying you can start to program in a new language. I'm not debating that. Additionally, some languages and environments are going to be easier than others. But the vast majority of developers are not going to be even nearly up to speed on a new language without having a severe impact on the timeline of a project.
GP was probably not referring to unlocked iPhones, but here are 2 links where you can spend significantly more than US$500 on an iPhone:
http://store.apple.com/ca/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?cid=WWW-NACA-IPHONE-NAV
http://store.apple.com/ch-fr/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone
I mean this in a good way, but the reason you probably don't see professional liability in engineering is because you are not a professional engineer. If, for example, you work as a mechanical engineer at a nuclear power plant, you will need to sign your drawings. This is because you are accepting professional liability as the engineer and are stating that the design is adequate. This is the same through any branch of engineering where your decisions carry consequences.
What you're saying is similar to saying that doctors don't have liability because they make you sign a piece of paper before they accept you as a patient. Piece of paper or no, they are professionally liable, which is why in many countries they have to pay for expensive liability insurance.
You are welcome to consider yourself an Engineer, a nuclear physicist, astronaut, cross-dresser, lawyer, or whatever you want. It doesn't mean that you ARE any of those things. You may be "doing engineering" at work, and in fact you may be doing a lot more of it than some professional engineers. That doesn't make you a professional engineer any more than sitting out in a field and eating grass makes you a sheep. Having the title of "Software Engineer" doesn't make you a Professional Engineer either. There is a distinction.
If someone goes to university and gets a degree in computer science, eastern European history, or something like that, and works in software for 20 years, it maybe nice for that person (you) to consider himself an Engineer (vs. engineer). However, that is not the case. Criteria have to be met for that person to be considered an engineer. You can say that accreditation is not settled yet, however that is untrue. You can easily look up in your state/country/province what is necessary to become a professional engineer. I would imagine that one of the criteria will include a degree in Engineering from a university. If you don't have that, and if you want to call yourself an Engineer (with a capital E), go back to school, get your credentials, gain your professional designation, and move on with your life.
If you don't want to go through the trouble to do all that, then maybe you should consider that the reason Professional Engineers get annoyed at people who like to call themselves Engineers when they're not, is because they DID go through all that to gain their professional designation, and it was Hard Work. If you don't want the hard work, maybe you recognize that you don't deserve the credit for it.
Just to point out again that I'm not trying to be harsh, I don't want to go through the hard work either and I don't take credit for what I haven't done. As mentioned in my previous post, I have a degree in Engineering from a very well-respected university. I worked very hard to pass in that programme as it was a very difficult and challenging degree to obtain. I didn't do my apprenticeship under a professional engineer following graduation, and I didn't write my professional exams. Therefore, although I have a degree in Engineering, and I do a lot of software engineering for my job, I am not a Professional Engineer as I couldn't be bothered to fulfil all the requirements in order to be professionally considered one.
Enginering is a profession, in a sense like being a doctor or a lawyer. As others have stated, "Professional Engineering" is a profession. Depending on your juristiction, it may or may not be legal for you to call yourself an engineer if you are not a professional engineer.
I live in Ontario, Canada, for example. I have a degree in Civil Engineering, but I am not an engineer. This is analogous to saying I have a PhD in medicine but I am not a medical doctor, or that I have a degree in law but never took the bar exams. Anyway, I have a degree in engineering, 14 years of post-university experience, but I don't call myself an Engineer, because I'm not one (professionally).
You can call yourself whatever you want, as long as it's legal to do so where you live. You may be an engineer, but are you an Engineer? Being a Professional Engineer carries with it a liability as you are responsible for your actions in a way that a software programmer is not.
Clearly it should be:
if (foo) a = x;
I have an 8-core Mac Pro. It's currently running a 4 core Windows 2008 server VM with 6GB of RAM, a dual core Windows 7 VM with 1.2GB of RAM, a couple app servers natively in Mac OS X, an a host of other applications. This machine has replaced my need for separate development and test servers, and gives me power to spare for the rest of my tasks. Yes it cost probably $4-5k once you count in the 13.5TB of drives, etc., but I use it to get work done. I rarely see my CPUs pegged at 100% for a long time, but it does happen.
I had a very nicely specced quad core that I built before I bought my Mac Pro, and the Mac Pro absolutely blows that computer out of the water. When you have real work to do, of the type that the Mac Pro is built for, it's an awesome machine and worth every penny. If you don't need the power, then of course it's more than you need.
Reading through your comments, the apparent answer to your specific question is "yes". Some people really prefer them. I'm shocked too.
My 15" matte screen MacBook Pro is in for AppleCare work right now, so I'm borrowing my wife's glossy-screened 13" MBP. I also happen to be at a client's office today, and mostly what I see on the screen is the outline of my head, surrounded by a giant flourescent array in the celiing behind me. There is no way I can move around at the place they've seated me without the screen being at least 30% covered in glare. My neck is already sore from sitting in weird positions, trying to eliminate the glare.
So yeah, I hate the glossy screen. Hate hate hate.
It sounds great. However, there's no mention yet about whether it will be US-only, or if/when there will be an international rollout. I can't watch Hulu in Canada, I can't use Netflix, I can't use a cablecard, and I have to presume that, at least at first, I won't be able to use Google TV.
OK, I CAN use Hulu in Canada if I trick them into thinking I'm in the US, but that's not quite the same.
The fatal flaw in your assumption is that the untapped market will make up for the loss of the current market. How do you continue getting $9 from the same amount of people while adding $0.25 people? Why would most pay the higher amount?
This already happens. People pay more to go to the movie, or to own the DVD/Blu-ray. People pay less to rent the movie, or to watch it on PPV. Cable companies pay less per viewer to show a movie on TV later on. What studios are not currently doing a good job of is monetizing the viewers who want the convenience of watching TV online without the high cost. I'm not saying I have the perfect answer, but I'm pointing out a problem.
Please check into your nearest reality at your earliest convenience. Why exactly would those who have the power (and as a result make the money) give it up willingly? If you haven't noticed, those at the top consider the other 500 people expendable....
I didn't say it WOULD happen, I was saying it COULD happen.
I'm with you on this. I was (and am again) paying ~$55/month for satellite TV. A couple years ago I finally went HD. I found that the SageTV/PCI recording card PVR I had running on a computer was inadequate for recording TV and viewing it back on a widescreen TV.
I also ran headlong into the fact that content producers are doing everything in their power to make recording of HD both impossibly difficult, as well as illegal. Therefore I started downloading shows off Bittorrent in HD. Mind that these are the same shows I was paying $55/month to recieve via satellite in HD.
After several months of this, I started increasingly asking myself what value I was gaining from paying for satellite TV. I eventually decided the answer was "none", so I cancelled it. Now we have a second baby in the house so there's more TV watching going on, so I've resubscribed and bought an Hauppauge HD PVR.
The point to all this rambling is to agree that many of us don't mind paying for content. We just don't want to be treated like criminals, especially since this is ironically the very act that drives us to break the law! It's idiocy.