I already have a very nice upconverting DVD player with HDMI and digital-optical 7.1 audio out. Why do I need another one? (And a relatively crappy one at that.)
1) My Comcast box already has a DVR. Do I need another?
2) One could buy a mini, for about $400-500 more. If all one really wants is a "Front Row" to their tunes and shows, might a mini be a little overkill?
3) A mini counts as one of your allotted five systems. An ATV doesn't.
4) Now, IF one didn't have a DVR, then you might consider a mini plus a EyeTV dongle (another $150). But what about the rest of the house? Seems like $300 a pop per "station" is a lot more reasonable than $700-900 each.
I think too many people are focusing on what it can't do (yet) and not paying enough attention to those situations and environments where it might actually be useful.
"It is designed to stream content, not long term storage of content."
Uh, no. Think of the Apple TV as wireless iPod and you'll almost have it. Information is sync'ed between your Mac/PC and the AppleTV, and the sync'ed content is stored on the ATV.
Think of how you manage syncing content to a iPod nano and you'll have the concept nailed. As an example, the setting for movies is to sync the five most recent movies. They don't have to be completely sync'ed for you to start watching them, but they do have to be in your sync list.
The plus side is that your music, TV shows, and movies are there, on the ATV, for you to listen to and watch at any time, computer or not. The minus side is that, like the nano, there's some management involved.
And the later, IMHO, is why it's REALLY going to want a bigger hard drive.
One could also start including a few like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, which handled the "what if" of climate change and asteriod impacts semi-seriously.
Why in the world would I want to bet my company on software that thinks it's probably "good enough"? Good enough for what? Good enough for government work? Good enough for my ten year old?
Get back to me when you can say, "It's cheaper in TOC and it's best-in-class."
Because Windows is the most commonly used OS, and all of the Linux types start bawling when some company ignores them and doesn't port their drivers or program or game or whatever.
"What I'd like to see is a bit more diversity [in the] O/S world."
I'm kind of in the other camp, actually, as I'm all for the world standarding on a single, solid, open, extensible architecture for most desktops and servers. Since pretty much every device and appliance in my house uses the same plug and runs on the same type of power (60hz A/C), I don't have to check the side of the box when I go out and buy a new toaster to see if it's going to "run" on my "system".
While there could be a need for a different OS for specialized devices, even in the Mac world Apple seems about ready to prove that their OS can power both computers and phones. Doesn't Linux already power some phones as well?
If a program is really popular, why do I need to rewire (rewrite) three times to port it to different platforms? How much duplication of effort do we have when OS 1 adds a new feature or program, and every other platform sets to work duplicating those efforts?
I know some of you are going to tell me tha Linux is what I'm looking for, but it's not. Not yet anyway, Not until I can download the latest hot program and know it's going to run on my system/distro/whatever.
Until then, we're spending half our time reinventing the wheel, all so we can spin it...
"OS X will not teach you how to use UNIX, because its "UNIXness" is an incidental feature. OS X might be a UNIX, but the typical user doesn't use it like one."
Which makes it perfect, since you don't need to be an uber-geek to get a system running and configured. But you can login as root and pop up a Terminal window and command-line to your heart's content.
And strictly speaking, Linux isn't going to teach you "UNIX" either.;)
It must be nice to be able to redefine the language however you like just so you can win an argument.
OS X is running on a phone too, does that count? Or are you going to cry because it's limited to that phone and you can't run it on your RAZR?
BTW, have you seen the article where, at $4,000-plus a square foot, Apple's retail stores are pretty much the most profitable on the planet? Or would you like to redefine "profitable" too?
"But certainly, that "well understood" robots.txt file that gets you oozing in your shorts, could be used for opt-in as easily as the advertising parasites, I mean the search engines, want it to be used for opt-out."
Now there's a thought. If no robots.txt, no opt-in. I like it, if only for the fact that millions of personal and junk pages will be thrown out of the search engine's results, making useful content easier to find.
An "intelligent environmentalist" eh? What's so intelligent about not reprocessing spent fuel? Even "waste" contains energy that could eventually be reused by more advanced processes, and you just want to throw it away? Ever heard of recycling?
"I suggest investing your money in video hardware from a company that supports linux instead of a company that provides buggy, incomplete closed source drivers."
Nothing like engaging in a bout of finger-pointing to absolve oneself of all responsibility. Unfortunately, saying "Hey, it's not MY fault" does little to solve the problem.
"Let newer, better business rise from the ashes of the current entertainment industry!"
If they're businesses, they're still going to need to make money. Make a movie for $20 million dollars, and you still need to make at least that just to break even.
Much if your rant is aimed at those "greedy" businesses, but from my perspective all of those people on the other side who assume they're entitled to something for nothing are equally greedy, and no more than the flip side of the same coin.
The basic version of RHEL is $349. I assume that's for as many servers as you want to put it on, so how is that priced "out of reach for the non-corporate user"?
Ethical porn sites (some may find that a contradiction in terms) probably already support PICS and the like anyway. Those that don't probably wouldn't support this system either, especially when you consider that, once again, the US isn't the only country on the internet.
Further, I know that if I was a site operator, I'd resist being shuffled off to some odd port where some state or ISP or anyone with half a brain (literally) could block my business. Or is the idea to pass more laws that prevent US companies from competing in a global market? (grin)
Again we're faced with a law that has no chance of succeeding, all in the interests of appearing to be "doing something".
That part says it all. If the road is your primary focus, then there are times when your attention is focused on your secondary activities, however briefly. Remember the driver's ed film where the ball bounces onto the road, following by the kid? If you'd choose that split second to focus your attention on your phone's address book so you can send your text message, then I'm afraid the kid is toast, and your life is probably ruined as well.
Like it or not, you can only "focus" on one thing at a time. You can "slice" it so you think you're multitasking, but modern biology and psychology says you're not. Or to put it another way, you (and everyone else) are a Core 2, and not a Core 2 Duo.
"Even the Mythbusters tackled this one and found that using a cell phone while driving has about the same affect on your driving skills as being slightly drunk."
Acutally, they needed to do a few more controls. One where the person asking the complex questions was in the car, say in the back seat, rather than on the phone.
But more importantly, they tested people on the phone, answering questions, AND DRIVING WITH ONE HAND. As such, they really needed another test to see just how badly people drive with just one hand, especially on a test course with a lot of curves and obstacles. I'll bet that one-handed driving accounted for half the mistakes.
Which leads us to talking on the phone with a hands-free system, letting keep both hands on the wheel.
So that Mythbusters episode, while interesting, didn't prove much in my book.
"Why hike out to the wilderness only to chain yourself down with all the digital leashes that are on you 24/7 back in the Real World?"
True, but all to often to GET to that wilderness you need to wait in innumerable security lines, spend hours on airplanes while some idiot snores in your ear, and basically endure endless hurry-up-and-wait situations. While some of the time you could be chatting with someone, the odds are that most of the time you can't.
Slashdot Mirror
American Revolution, Iraq, funny how it all depends upon which side you're on, doesn't it?
Yeah, what chance would a few guys with guns and improvised munitions stand against a modern, well-trained, professional army...
"I was sort of unimpressed because he didn't discuss anything that was new or that I didn't already know about."
Wow. Maybe you should have been the one doing the presentation...
I already have a very nice upconverting DVD player with HDMI and digital-optical 7.1 audio out. Why do I need another one? (And a relatively crappy one at that.)
1) My Comcast box already has a DVR. Do I need another?
2) One could buy a mini, for about $400-500 more. If all one really wants is a "Front Row" to their tunes and shows, might a mini be a little overkill?
3) A mini counts as one of your allotted five systems. An ATV doesn't.
4) Now, IF one didn't have a DVR, then you might consider a mini plus a EyeTV dongle (another $150). But what about the rest of the house? Seems like $300 a pop per "station" is a lot more reasonable than $700-900 each.
I think too many people are focusing on what it can't do (yet) and not paying enough attention to those situations and environments where it might actually be useful.
" Serious science fiction?"
Read again. I said "semi-seriously". (grin)
"It is designed to stream content, not long term storage of content."
Uh, no. Think of the Apple TV as wireless iPod and you'll almost have it. Information is sync'ed between your Mac/PC and the AppleTV, and the sync'ed content is stored on the ATV.
Think of how you manage syncing content to a iPod nano and you'll have the concept nailed. As an example, the setting for movies is to sync the five most recent movies. They don't have to be completely sync'ed for you to start watching them, but they do have to be in your sync list.
The plus side is that your music, TV shows, and movies are there, on the ATV, for you to listen to and watch at any time, computer or not. The minus side is that, like the nano, there's some management involved.
And the later, IMHO, is why it's REALLY going to want a bigger hard drive.
2006 - Children of Men
One could also start including a few like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, which handled the "what if" of climate change and asteriod impacts semi-seriously.
"It's cheap and it's good enough."
Why in the world would I want to bet my company on software that thinks it's probably "good enough"? Good enough for what? Good enough for government work? Good enough for my ten year old?
Get back to me when you can say, "It's cheaper in TOC and it's best-in-class."
"What's wrong with targeting a single OS?"
Because Windows is the most commonly used OS, and all of the Linux types start bawling when some company ignores them and doesn't port their drivers or program or game or whatever.
"I don't see your point at all."
No shit.
I can go into Windows and start zapping DLLs too. Any fool with access can take down a system. Your point?
"What I'd like to see is a bit more diversity [in the] O/S world."
I'm kind of in the other camp, actually, as I'm all for the world standarding on a single, solid, open, extensible architecture for most desktops and servers. Since pretty much every device and appliance in my house uses the same plug and runs on the same type of power (60hz A/C), I don't have to check the side of the box when I go out and buy a new toaster to see if it's going to "run" on my "system".
While there could be a need for a different OS for specialized devices, even in the Mac world Apple seems about ready to prove that their OS can power both computers and phones. Doesn't Linux already power some phones as well?
If a program is really popular, why do I need to rewire (rewrite) three times to port it to different platforms? How much duplication of effort do we have when OS 1 adds a new feature or program, and every other platform sets to work duplicating those efforts?
I know some of you are going to tell me tha Linux is what I'm looking for, but it's not. Not yet anyway, Not until I can download the latest hot program and know it's going to run on my system/distro/whatever.
Until then, we're spending half our time reinventing the wheel, all so we can spin it...
"OS X will not teach you how to use UNIX, because its "UNIXness" is an incidental feature. OS X might be a UNIX, but the typical user doesn't use it like one."
;)
Which makes it perfect, since you don't need to be an uber-geek to get a system running and configured. But you can login as root and pop up a Terminal window and command-line to your heart's content.
And strictly speaking, Linux isn't going to teach you "UNIX" either.
It must be nice to be able to redefine the language however you like just so you can win an argument.
OS X is running on a phone too, does that count? Or are you going to cry because it's limited to that phone and you can't run it on your RAZR?
BTW, have you seen the article where, at $4,000-plus a square foot, Apple's retail stores are pretty much the most profitable on the planet? Or would you like to redefine "profitable" too?
"But certainly, that "well understood" robots.txt file that gets you oozing in your shorts, could be used for opt-in as easily as the advertising parasites, I mean the search engines, want it to be used for opt-out."
Now there's a thought. If no robots.txt, no opt-in. I like it, if only for the fact that millions of personal and junk pages will be thrown out of the search engine's results, making useful content easier to find.
An "intelligent environmentalist" eh? What's so intelligent about not reprocessing spent fuel? Even "waste" contains energy that could eventually be reused by more advanced processes, and you just want to throw it away? Ever heard of recycling?
"I suggest investing your money in video hardware from a company that supports linux instead of a company that provides buggy, incomplete closed source drivers."
Nothing like engaging in a bout of finger-pointing to absolve oneself of all responsibility. Unfortunately, saying "Hey, it's not MY fault" does little to solve the problem.
"Let newer, better business rise from the ashes of the current entertainment industry!"
If they're businesses, they're still going to need to make money. Make a movie for $20 million dollars, and you still need to make at least that just to break even.
Much if your rant is aimed at those "greedy" businesses, but from my perspective all of those people on the other side who assume they're entitled to something for nothing are equally greedy, and no more than the flip side of the same coin.
Isn't that the problem? If people didn't want it, they wouldn't pirate it...
The basic version of RHEL is $349. I assume that's for as many servers as you want to put it on, so how is that priced "out of reach for the non-corporate user"?
Ethical porn sites (some may find that a contradiction in terms) probably already support PICS and the like anyway. Those that don't probably wouldn't support this system either, especially when you consider that, once again, the US isn't the only country on the internet.
Further, I know that if I was a site operator, I'd resist being shuffled off to some odd port where some state or ISP or anyone with half a brain (literally) could block my business. Or is the idea to pass more laws that prevent US companies from competing in a global market? (grin)
Again we're faced with a law that has no chance of succeeding, all in the interests of appearing to be "doing something".
"... you make the primary focus the road..."
That part says it all. If the road is your primary focus, then there are times when your attention is focused on your secondary activities, however briefly. Remember the driver's ed film where the ball bounces onto the road, following by the kid? If you'd choose that split second to focus your attention on your phone's address book so you can send your text message, then I'm afraid the kid is toast, and your life is probably ruined as well.
Like it or not, you can only "focus" on one thing at a time. You can "slice" it so you think you're multitasking, but modern biology and psychology says you're not. Or to put it another way, you (and everyone else) are a Core 2, and not a Core 2 Duo.
Assuming, of course, that the other person is still alive to do so...
"Even the Mythbusters tackled this one and found that using a cell phone while driving has about the same affect on your driving skills as being slightly drunk."
Acutally, they needed to do a few more controls. One where the person asking the complex questions was in the car, say in the back seat, rather than on the phone.
But more importantly, they tested people on the phone, answering questions, AND DRIVING WITH ONE HAND. As such, they really needed another test to see just how badly people drive with just one hand, especially on a test course with a lot of curves and obstacles. I'll bet that one-handed driving accounted for half the mistakes.
Which leads us to talking on the phone with a hands-free system, letting keep both hands on the wheel.
So that Mythbusters episode, while interesting, didn't prove much in my book.
"Why hike out to the wilderness only to chain yourself down with all the digital leashes that are on you 24/7 back in the Real World?"
True, but all to often to GET to that wilderness you need to wait in innumerable security lines, spend hours on airplanes while some idiot snores in your ear, and basically endure endless hurry-up-and-wait situations. While some of the time you could be chatting with someone, the odds are that most of the time you can't.
Without my 'pod I'd go nuts.