@jaredbusch said in Do you think Sony will ever do anything with The Wheel of Time:
Branching off from the announcement about the LoTR series, I dug up the news from earlier this year about the Wheel of Time rights getting bought by Sony.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/04/the-wheel-of-time-series-is-one-step-closer-to-your-television/
oh been years since i read that but it was a classic. i am just wondering why they bought it...
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I wonder whether or not I'm simply kidding myself or if there truly are positions in IT that aren't primarily focused on supporting users' efforts for using Microsoft Outlook.
lol sorry can't help you there because my users all have a hard time with it too
oh never mind sorry, thought that was directed at me
@jaredbusch said in Announcing the release of Fedora 27:
Seriously can you not learn?
I don't understand, learn what?
@jaredbusch said in Password Managers:
Dashlane is no longer insanely more expensive than LastPass, but I will simply never use them after the shitty annoying sales tactics. At least until they are a significantly better and cheaper option. Which at this point they are not.
Dashlane: $0 / $3.33 / $4 (Business)
LastPass: $0 / $2 / $4 (Family)
LastPass has something they call "Teams" that would cost me $2.42 per user per month with 6 users.
https://www.lastpass.com/business
sorry to hear that. i will admit i actually don't pay dashlane. i started with them when they first launched so i get free premium for two devices on that account. until you mentioned the price i had forgotten about that
@black3dynamite said in Tabs everywhere - how do you deal with many open tabs?:
In Firefox, I create my own Read Later folder and add links I want to see later in there.
this is what i do also. when i have extra time i start with the ones that have been there the longest. i add to it as i discover stuff and don't have time to read it then
@storageninja said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
 yum, lassi
What drink is that? It looks like an Indian tea/milk thing I've had before
@sadee said in Configuration for EC2 instance autostartup:
Need script and procedure for Amazon EC2 instance autopower ON
that doesn't make sense to me either. sounds like he wants someone to write a script and tell him how to implement it
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
I've had issues since day one switching between inputs - mostly between the cable box and the Roku. Since I'm ditching cable, there shouldn't be much switching anymore. I have an Amazon TV, but don't use it, and don't see any need to use it.
That said, I'll probably load them both up again and see which one appears to provide a better picture. Also watch my bandwidth usage to see if one is using dramatically more than the other (heard that Amazon video devices might be doing a ton of pre-caching and eating a down of download bandwidth).
Dash here is the entry point in audio components that I would consider buying(there are cheaper but this is my bare minimum). Take a look at this company. https://emotiva.com/ Their prices match amazon's prices.
Specifically these components would get you started: https://emotiva.com/product/mc-700/
and the : https://emotiva.com/product/a-300/.
The mc-700 should take your roku and several more hdmi devices. I am assuming you have the usual 8 ohm speakers. If you have something different let me know.
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
I once put $15 KLH plastic speakers in a well set up room powered by 150W Marantz solid state monoblocks, it was all set up perfect, very high end system, with the cheapest little plastic Walmart special speakers. And the sound was amazing. It really did a great job.
yep, but all salesmen will try to sell speakers first
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
As per the OP, we can drop music from this discussion.
ok got it
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
Unlike what most salesmen tell you(the same in IT), the quality comes from the source devices, not the speakers. At your budget you can hardly go wrong if you buy quality sources. What will be your most used source?
Stream tv?
watch blu-ray movies?
listen to music?Roku or Amazon TV.
The cable box gets disconnected tonight.
how often do you just listen to music without any tv?
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
Separate your music system from your surround sound system.
If you never seriously listen to music, get any cheap 5.1/7.1 receiver you can find, add any speakers you like, get a decent powered subwoofer, and go on about your day. All should be easily attainable at the $1500 level at "need inexpensive" quality.
Speaker placement is key when using cheaper components. Don't let "where furniture already is" keep you from proper surround imaging.
agree. music and movie watching are two different things. so need to plan your components on what you do most.
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
Started in another thread, several people like their componentized setup for audio.
I think most who have even dabbled in audio know that to get great sound you frequently have to separate the components out to different devices, I was going to make a list, but I realize that I'm so uneducated in this field I can't even make a list that won't be laughed at.
So onto my question - for a typical consumer of home TV/Movies what do you guys like? Let's go with a budget of $1500 for all audio gear (pre/amp/processor/speakers, cabling, etc).
Unlike what most salesmen tell you(the same in IT), the quality comes from the source devices, not the speakers. At your budget you can hardly go wrong if you buy quality sources. What will be your most used source?
Stream tv?
watch blu-ray movies?
listen to music?
@scottalanmiller said in Who Is Reading What You Write SAMIT IT:
@jmoore said in Who Is Reading What You Write SAMIT IT:
Good points. Hopefully we all do this to some degree
I'm pretty sure we don't all
I've read so many things where people outright claim that they refuse to do their jobs or are intentionally screwing their company that I'm pretty sure that they are banking 100% that their boss would never read the thread. I often invite people to have their owners or CEOs read threads that people disagree with me on and if their CEO agrees, that I'd digress. In all these years, I've never once been taken up on a management review.
Well I like to be optimistic!
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@jmoore said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@dashrender said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@jmoore said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
But, like all things of this nature, I've presented my side as to "why" keeping firewalls and the things considered "UTM functions" in separate places.
Now, some feel the opposite. For those that want to say that UTMs (putting lots of applications together onto the router/firewall box) is better than the normal industry standard practice of keeping applications isolated, please present your reasons for wanting that. I've presented solid reasons, that you might not agree with, for why I'd follow industry best practice here. I don't remember anyone saying why they'd do the opposite, only questioning why I'd not do it, which isn't the same as presenting a reason.
So I'm asking... what's the reasons for going against the grain in this one case? There are exceptions to most every rule, but I've not seen anyone anywhere ever present an argument for UTMs, only that they'd use them despite the reasons against them.
It is not only the IT industry that does this. The audio/video industry does this also, maybe others do too. In a business or enterprise setup we never use equipment that contains all the functions in a single box, which is analogous to UTM's in the IT space. We separate out all the functions because it is more versatile, more reliable, usually more cost effective, and easier to troubleshoot issues. Do companies make boxes that include a pre-amp, amp, tuner, networking, storage, disc players, switchting, video processors and sound processors? Yes they do. Should you ever use one if your a business? Absolutely not if you can avoid it. If you have no other choice, like if someone else bought it and its your job to support then you just have to make do. If you have the budget then use separates, whether vm's or physical devices if you can't use a vm.
I take it you don't like audio receivers then?
I do not. They will work but the sound is always better if you use separates. If something breaks in the receiver then you fix or replace the whole unit so its usually more expensive. If you want to mix and match components you can't do that either with a receiver or with any other multifunction boxes. Just my opinion.
Especially real receivers that have radio and crap in them. That's just silly. Why listens to the radio from a receiver?
But all that electronics in the box, it just makes the audio worst. I even moved away from pre-amps for that reason.
Yeah all of those components will interfere with each other to varying degrees. That makes transmission of data less reliable. It is like putting an access point behind a concrete wall and expect it to transmit outward to your users reliably.
@dashrender said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@jmoore said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@dashrender said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@jmoore said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
But, like all things of this nature, I've presented my side as to "why" keeping firewalls and the things considered "UTM functions" in separate places.
Now, some feel the opposite. For those that want to say that UTMs (putting lots of applications together onto the router/firewall box) is better than the normal industry standard practice of keeping applications isolated, please present your reasons for wanting that. I've presented solid reasons, that you might not agree with, for why I'd follow industry best practice here. I don't remember anyone saying why they'd do the opposite, only questioning why I'd not do it, which isn't the same as presenting a reason.
So I'm asking... what's the reasons for going against the grain in this one case? There are exceptions to most every rule, but I've not seen anyone anywhere ever present an argument for UTMs, only that they'd use them despite the reasons against them.
It is not only the IT industry that does this. The audio/video industry does this also, maybe others do too. In a business or enterprise setup we never use equipment that contains all the functions in a single box, which is analogous to UTM's in the IT space. We separate out all the functions because it is more versatile, more reliable, usually more cost effective, and easier to troubleshoot issues. Do companies make boxes that include a pre-amp, amp, tuner, networking, storage, disc players, switchting, video processors and sound processors? Yes they do. Should you ever use one if your a business? Absolutely not if you can avoid it. If you have no other choice, like if someone else bought it and its your job to support then you just have to make do. If you have the budget then use separates, whether vm's or physical devices if you can't use a vm.
I take it you don't like audio receivers then?
I do not. They will work but the sound is always better if you use separates. If something breaks in the receiver then you fix or replace the whole unit so its usually more expensive. If you want to mix and match components you can't do that either with a receiver or with any other multifunction boxes. Just my opinion.
LOL - of course - but the expense of splitting out all of the components isn't worth it for me personally, not to mention that I'm not an audiophile in any type of way, so unbelievably great audio quality isn't something I need or care about.
Well I certainly understand that. What is good enough for someone is a totally different discussion. I was only talking about the best thing to do if your putting this in a business or a homeowner that care a lot. As in most things, you just have to determine what your needs are and then go from there. Nothing wrong with that.
Good points. Hopefully we all do this to some degree
@dashrender said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@jmoore said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
But, like all things of this nature, I've presented my side as to "why" keeping firewalls and the things considered "UTM functions" in separate places.
Now, some feel the opposite. For those that want to say that UTMs (putting lots of applications together onto the router/firewall box) is better than the normal industry standard practice of keeping applications isolated, please present your reasons for wanting that. I've presented solid reasons, that you might not agree with, for why I'd follow industry best practice here. I don't remember anyone saying why they'd do the opposite, only questioning why I'd not do it, which isn't the same as presenting a reason.
So I'm asking... what's the reasons for going against the grain in this one case? There are exceptions to most every rule, but I've not seen anyone anywhere ever present an argument for UTMs, only that they'd use them despite the reasons against them.
It is not only the IT industry that does this. The audio/video industry does this also, maybe others do too. In a business or enterprise setup we never use equipment that contains all the functions in a single box, which is analogous to UTM's in the IT space. We separate out all the functions because it is more versatile, more reliable, usually more cost effective, and easier to troubleshoot issues. Do companies make boxes that include a pre-amp, amp, tuner, networking, storage, disc players, switchting, video processors and sound processors? Yes they do. Should you ever use one if your a business? Absolutely not if you can avoid it. If you have no other choice, like if someone else bought it and its your job to support then you just have to make do. If you have the budget then use separates, whether vm's or physical devices if you can't use a vm.
I take it you don't like audio receivers then?
I do not. They will work but the sound is always better if you use separates. If something breaks in the receiver then you fix or replace the whole unit so its usually more expensive. If you want to mix and match components you can't do that either with a receiver or with any other multifunction boxes. Just my opinion.
