transit (air and subway) is one of the few places you could get some peace and quiet.
What kind of screwed up neighborhood do you live in that you go to public places jammed with people to find a quite place? It's like your not even speaking English.
Milk is actually a product that is easy to see the economic reasons for it. RFID tags are cheap. In the same cheap ballpark as the plastic poor spouts they put on the cartons now. Thus cost is a non issue. The real problem is why bother? All it would take is for Safeway, or Costco to decide that THEY wanted to make sure that they had the right amount of milk, and that the mild has not spoiled. Sure they could do that at the register, but counting inventory at the register is just not as reliable as counting it at the display. Plus the register only counts the bar codes. It doesn't look at the expiration date. A Safeway with 50 cartons of expired milk is not better stocked than a Safeway with 0 cartons of milk. Once it is put in place for the store, the consumer can use it also.
Only a moron thinks people buy Android because they can't afford an Apple. I know it is the newest rationalization that Apple fanboys make these days, but it is still stupid.
So, you say that you are incompetent AND you want the lower power draw of a Roku. No code. Just English. You tried to declare your technical expertise with the statement that "and I work on embedded linux for a living!". You even used an exclamation point to really stress how much of an expert you are. There are two parts to your statement. One where you want lower power draw and one where you declare that you are incompetent.
Perhaps your technical incompetence stems from the fact that you can't seem to even understand your own words.
You don't think that "I looked at the time and energy involved(and I work on embedded linux for a living!), including the power-draw of the devices I'd end up building, and decided it just wasn't worth it." is not consistant with "YOU said that putting together an HTPC was energy and time consuming."?
You have some English problems. Apparently in whatever language you are speaking "Not energy and time consuming means that things are too energy and time consuming."
An HTPC isn't as simple as a Roku, but it isn't difficult for someone of reasonable intelligence either. Once you go with a media box, there are better choices than Apple. Apple isn't bringing anything special to the market.
YOU said that putting together an HTPC was energy and time consuming. You declared HTPCs to be inadequate do to YOUR incompetence. That doesn't make me an asocial prick.
Most people are fine with the power draw of a cable box, and a PC is less. If the cable box is too much power draw for you, OK. I'll give you the power draw from a Roku is going to be noticeably better. But, that doesn't change the fact that you are claiming to be technically proficient, and yet find installing one program on a Windows PC to be to difficult for you. Why would you want to run Windows on your network? Because it works. Trying to play the "I'm to good for Windows" card is just sad.
Apple only wins if you are defining best as "whatever Apple does".
AppleTV isn't the smallest. It isn't the simplest. It isn't the most feature filled. It isn't the most flexable. It isn't the best in any category at all. It might have the right trade offs for some people, but it is far from the 'best' for most. If size is the biggest factor, then using the functions built into the TV is by far the best option. Once you have accepted that you are going to have a box connected to your TV nitpicking between the size of an AppleTV vs. a MiniITX is silly Apple worship. Once you have a box, the PC beats out AppleTV in pretty much every category other than price, and Apple can't compete with Roku in that arena.
You are either in denial, or a pretty poor engineer. I can have an HTPC up and running in 15 minutes. The basic process is:
1) Plug in off the shelf PC. (Gateway, HP, whatever)
2) Plug HDMI cable from PC into TV.
3) Plug MPC Remote into USB port.
4) Download XBMC. (http://xbmc.org/download/)
5) Run XBMC installer.
6) Drag XBMC shortcut to Startup folder.
Done. It takes less time than waiting for the Cable installer. If you want to get fancy, you download PlayOn and have XBMC attach as a UPnP source.
When I switched from DishNetwork to HTPCs, my power usage plummeted. Cable/Satellite boxes are massive power hogs. While you COULD buy a PC that uses just as much or more power, you would have to go out of your way to do it. Buy a $300 to $400 laptop and you can be pretty sure that it will draw less power than cable.
If we can have a 'crash' like the one in the 80's, I am all for it. By that I mean a 'crash' where there continues to be large numbers of awesome landmark games. The 'crash' in the 80's was only for the crap shovel-ware games being produced for the Atari 2600. A system that was well past it's prime, and in desperate need of being replaced. And it was being replaced. In fact, Commodore alone sold a billion dollars worth of systems in the first year of the so called 'crash'. That is a third of the estimated 3 billion the industry was supposed to be worth pre-crash. That isn't counting all of the third party peripherals, games and the other companies that were also selling popular system at the time.
In 1983 I, like many other gamers, was playing the new cutting edge game Ultima 3 on our vastly superior gaming rigs known as C64's instead of playing Cool-Aid Man on the long in the tooth Atari 2600. Just look at any of the titles produced in 1983 for both the C64 and the Atari 2600, and it will be no surprise why people were BUYING new systems in droves. The so called crash wasn't a crash. It was just that people were buying from different manufacturers and retailers, so the old companies lost money and/or went out of business. Of course, they complained and told their shareholders that it wasn't their fault. They told them that people just were no longer buying video games.
It is pretty clear that there is Hollywood style accounting going on in the game industry. When we ask for better graphics, we are told that the graphics are the majority of the development cost, so you'll have to pay a lot to get them. We are told that all of our advancements in computer hardware and software doesn't bring the price down. When we say that we want the games on more platforms, we are told that the cost of porting is way too high because most of the cost of a game is in the coding/testing/tech support. These two stories don't match up.
If and when that happens, it will be it's own distinct accomplishment. It will hold it's own distinct scientific discovery. If we could transplant life to Mars and it could take hold, Mars will have life. It would be a huge indicator that Panspermia is a good hypothesis. We only have one Mars, so we have to think about what scientific questions we want answered from it. If we contaminate it, then we can do experiments that revolve around putting Earth life on non Earth planets.
My employer wouldn't fire me for taking public transportation. They would just hire someone who was willing to live in the crap hole of an environment that their industrial plant happens to be located in.
Why would it be cheaper? Because monopolies reduce cost? The bus lines that are jam packed around here are noticably more expensive than buying, owning, and driving a car. Lack of ridership isn't the only reason public transportation is expensive.
No, they don't call it "climate change". They keep changing the name back and forth to match whatever argument they want to make at the moment. When the term "climate change" is shown to be ridiculous, it is called "global warming" or "AGW". When "global warming" doesn't fit, they jump back to "climate change" until "climate change" is shown to be ridiculous. Round and round we go.....
Your post points out one of the problems with progress in a lot of controversial areas. The language is half the problem. You say "going green". The going "green" that saves money is not the same "green" that is being recommended to stop AGW. If you suggest that buying a more fuel efficient car is a way to "go green", that MAY save me money. If you suggest that I get rid of my car and switch to public transportation/bicycles to "go green", it would cost me dramatically more money if it didn't crack my ability to keep my job completely and drive me into poverty.
Sure, there are lots of things that are both better for our environment, and saves money. Those are not the things that the parent is talking about. The parent is talking about the bad ideas that get wrapped up with the good ones. A large part of the problem for the "green' folks is that they don't recognize this, and keep proposing bad ideas. So, yes. Going "green" IS more expensive if you are going to use the "environmentalist's" definition.
We see the same bad language being used with "Climate Change". Of course the climate is changing. It always has, and always will. What we see is that the AGW alarmists like to use that definition to get everyone to admit that "Climate Change" is happening, and then change the definition of "Climate Change" to "The world is burning up because someone drove to the store instead of riding a bike".
Plants are only more efficient if you discuss efficiency of digestion. The longer digestion time of meat is more efficient for every other activity in a humans life, which includes the act of getting more food.
Besides, many people use 'license' as a synonym for 'copy' or 'implementation of'. Sure it isn't technically correct in legal speak, but the email was not written for a court of law.
Because we don't see any other species that is concerned with saving the family, order or even their own species. We are the only species that will even consider trying to save any species. It is also that we try to save the animals that we consider "family". At one time that was a very small group. Now, most people see all humans as being related. We are also seeing this attitude move to other species as more people start seeing their dog or cat as a "person" or even a "family member". The save "family" idea is likely why some people consider it evil to eat meat, but feel no remorse in raising plants in a captive unnatural environment with forced breeding where their lives end with being ripped from their homes and eaten alive.
Slashdot Mirror
transit (air and subway) is one of the few places you could get some peace and quiet.
What kind of screwed up neighborhood do you live in that you go to public places jammed with people to find a quite place? It's like your not even speaking English.
Milk is actually a product that is easy to see the economic reasons for it. RFID tags are cheap. In the same cheap ballpark as the plastic poor spouts they put on the cartons now. Thus cost is a non issue. The real problem is why bother? All it would take is for Safeway, or Costco to decide that THEY wanted to make sure that they had the right amount of milk, and that the mild has not spoiled. Sure they could do that at the register, but counting inventory at the register is just not as reliable as counting it at the display. Plus the register only counts the bar codes. It doesn't look at the expiration date. A Safeway with 50 cartons of expired milk is not better stocked than a Safeway with 0 cartons of milk. Once it is put in place for the store, the consumer can use it also.
Only a moron thinks people buy Android because they can't afford an Apple. I know it is the newest rationalization that Apple fanboys make these days, but it is still stupid.
So, you say that you are incompetent AND you want the lower power draw of a Roku. No code. Just English. You tried to declare your technical expertise with the statement that "and I work on embedded linux for a living!". You even used an exclamation point to really stress how much of an expert you are. There are two parts to your statement. One where you want lower power draw and one where you declare that you are incompetent.
Perhaps your technical incompetence stems from the fact that you can't seem to even understand your own words.
You don't think that "I looked at the time and energy involved(and I work on embedded linux for a living!), including the power-draw of the devices I'd end up building, and decided it just wasn't worth it." is not consistant with "YOU said that putting together an HTPC was energy and time consuming."?
You have some English problems. Apparently in whatever language you are speaking "Not energy and time consuming means that things are too energy and time consuming."
An HTPC isn't as simple as a Roku, but it isn't difficult for someone of reasonable intelligence either. Once you go with a media box, there are better choices than Apple. Apple isn't bringing anything special to the market.
YOU said that putting together an HTPC was energy and time consuming. You declared HTPCs to be inadequate do to YOUR incompetence. That doesn't make me an asocial prick.
Most people are fine with the power draw of a cable box, and a PC is less. If the cable box is too much power draw for you, OK. I'll give you the power draw from a Roku is going to be noticeably better. But, that doesn't change the fact that you are claiming to be technically proficient, and yet find installing one program on a Windows PC to be to difficult for you. Why would you want to run Windows on your network? Because it works. Trying to play the "I'm to good for Windows" card is just sad.
Do you really not know the answer to your question?
Apple only wins if you are defining best as "whatever Apple does".
AppleTV isn't the smallest. It isn't the simplest. It isn't the most feature filled. It isn't the most flexable. It isn't the best in any category at all. It might have the right trade offs for some people, but it is far from the 'best' for most. If size is the biggest factor, then using the functions built into the TV is by far the best option. Once you have accepted that you are going to have a box connected to your TV nitpicking between the size of an AppleTV vs. a MiniITX is silly Apple worship. Once you have a box, the PC beats out AppleTV in pretty much every category other than price, and Apple can't compete with Roku in that arena.
You are either in denial, or a pretty poor engineer. I can have an HTPC up and running in 15 minutes. The basic process is:
1) Plug in off the shelf PC. (Gateway, HP, whatever)
2) Plug HDMI cable from PC into TV.
3) Plug MPC Remote into USB port.
4) Download XBMC. (http://xbmc.org/download/)
5) Run XBMC installer.
6) Drag XBMC shortcut to Startup folder.
Done. It takes less time than waiting for the Cable installer. If you want to get fancy, you download PlayOn and have XBMC attach as a UPnP source.
When I switched from DishNetwork to HTPCs, my power usage plummeted. Cable/Satellite boxes are massive power hogs. While you COULD buy a PC that uses just as much or more power, you would have to go out of your way to do it. Buy a $300 to $400 laptop and you can be pretty sure that it will draw less power than cable.
If we can have a 'crash' like the one in the 80's, I am all for it. By that I mean a 'crash' where there continues to be large numbers of awesome landmark games. The 'crash' in the 80's was only for the crap shovel-ware games being produced for the Atari 2600. A system that was well past it's prime, and in desperate need of being replaced. And it was being replaced. In fact, Commodore alone sold a billion dollars worth of systems in the first year of the so called 'crash'. That is a third of the estimated 3 billion the industry was supposed to be worth pre-crash. That isn't counting all of the third party peripherals, games and the other companies that were also selling popular system at the time.
In 1983 I, like many other gamers, was playing the new cutting edge game Ultima 3 on our vastly superior gaming rigs known as C64's instead of playing Cool-Aid Man on the long in the tooth Atari 2600. Just look at any of the titles produced in 1983 for both the C64 and the Atari 2600, and it will be no surprise why people were BUYING new systems in droves. The so called crash wasn't a crash. It was just that people were buying from different manufacturers and retailers, so the old companies lost money and/or went out of business. Of course, they complained and told their shareholders that it wasn't their fault. They told them that people just were no longer buying video games.
It is pretty clear that there is Hollywood style accounting going on in the game industry. When we ask for better graphics, we are told that the graphics are the majority of the development cost, so you'll have to pay a lot to get them. We are told that all of our advancements in computer hardware and software doesn't bring the price down. When we say that we want the games on more platforms, we are told that the cost of porting is way too high because most of the cost of a game is in the coding/testing/tech support. These two stories don't match up.
That might be a very good thing. A Harriet Tubman of the digital age.
If and when that happens, it will be it's own distinct accomplishment. It will hold it's own distinct scientific discovery. If we could transplant life to Mars and it could take hold, Mars will have life. It would be a huge indicator that Panspermia is a good hypothesis. We only have one Mars, so we have to think about what scientific questions we want answered from it. If we contaminate it, then we can do experiments that revolve around putting Earth life on non Earth planets.
Another "Just watch this YouTube video and you will understand" post. The guy in that video is full of BS.
My employer wouldn't fire me for taking public transportation. They would just hire someone who was willing to live in the crap hole of an environment that their industrial plant happens to be located in.
Why would it be cheaper? Because monopolies reduce cost? The bus lines that are jam packed around here are noticably more expensive than buying, owning, and driving a car. Lack of ridership isn't the only reason public transportation is expensive.
Are you really paying $0.08/kwh in SoCal? Up here in N. California we start at $0.12 and rise quickly to $0.28.
The same people who worry about it are the same people who love evolution
Nope. These two groups are almost completely separate.
No, they don't call it "climate change". They keep changing the name back and forth to match whatever argument they want to make at the moment. When the term "climate change" is shown to be ridiculous, it is called "global warming" or "AGW". When "global warming" doesn't fit, they jump back to "climate change" until "climate change" is shown to be ridiculous. Round and round we go.....
Your post points out one of the problems with progress in a lot of controversial areas. The language is half the problem. You say "going green". The going "green" that saves money is not the same "green" that is being recommended to stop AGW. If you suggest that buying a more fuel efficient car is a way to "go green", that MAY save me money. If you suggest that I get rid of my car and switch to public transportation/bicycles to "go green", it would cost me dramatically more money if it didn't crack my ability to keep my job completely and drive me into poverty.
Sure, there are lots of things that are both better for our environment, and saves money. Those are not the things that the parent is talking about. The parent is talking about the bad ideas that get wrapped up with the good ones. A large part of the problem for the "green' folks is that they don't recognize this, and keep proposing bad ideas. So, yes. Going "green" IS more expensive if you are going to use the "environmentalist's" definition.
We see the same bad language being used with "Climate Change". Of course the climate is changing. It always has, and always will. What we see is that the AGW alarmists like to use that definition to get everyone to admit that "Climate Change" is happening, and then change the definition of "Climate Change" to "The world is burning up because someone drove to the store instead of riding a bike".
Perhaps you could explain what TFS and TFA mean every time you use them so that the editors understand what your asking for....
Plants are only more efficient if you discuss efficiency of digestion. The longer digestion time of meat is more efficient for every other activity in a humans life, which includes the act of getting more food.
I have yet to meet a vegan that doesn't "kill lives". In fact, they are well known for eating their prey alive.
Besides, many people use 'license' as a synonym for 'copy' or 'implementation of'. Sure it isn't technically correct in legal speak, but the email was not written for a court of law.
Because we don't see any other species that is concerned with saving the family, order or even their own species. We are the only species that will even consider trying to save any species. It is also that we try to save the animals that we consider "family". At one time that was a very small group. Now, most people see all humans as being related. We are also seeing this attitude move to other species as more people start seeing their dog or cat as a "person" or even a "family member". The save "family" idea is likely why some people consider it evil to eat meat, but feel no remorse in raising plants in a captive unnatural environment with forced breeding where their lives end with being ripped from their homes and eaten alive.