For Stacey’s 32nd birthday we went roller skating at Moonlight Rollerway in Glendale. For the next five months, she’ll be two years older than me, but we both felt like teenagers doing 200 loops on a Saturday night to the tune of terrible pop music.
Anonymous asked:
What made you choose the 27" iMac over the Mac Pro?
Convenience, cost and environment. The iMac is an extremely convenient computer—one cable, one piece of hardware, a relatively small footprint. It fits well on my desk and looks very nice.
It’s also very affordable for what it offers. I got the top of the line 27-inch model with the 2TB HDD + SSD option, bumped it to 16GB of RAM (not through Apple) and I still paid less than $3,000 USD before shipping. That price includes a lightning-fast computer with tons of storage space and an insane amount of memory, plus a beautiful 27-inch LED display. Mac Pros start at $2,499 USD without a display. Now, you can build an insane Mac Pro, but I don’t need that kind of raw computing power. My iMac is the fastest computer I’ve ever owned by leaps and bounds. Cost-wise, it just doesn’t make much sense to buy a Mac Pro any more (for me).
One complaint I’ve heard in the past is about the iMac’s lack of user-replaceable drives or that the limit of two is a problem, but I mostly disagree. If you have a very extreme need for storage I could see you having to buy many external hard drives. But I have 2.5TB built in, and with Thunderbolt (which the Mac Pro doesn’t have) I added two 1TB Thunderbolt drives that are lightning fast, and I have hundreds of GB to spare right now. I shoot lots of video and photos, have thousands of Photoshop files, et cetera, and I’m not at all worried about space. With Thunderbolt and the larger built-in disk options, this isn’t an issue so much these days.
The iMac also uses only 25% of the power the Mac Pro uses. Even at peak activity, the iMac with a built-in display uses 40% less power a Mac Pro uses. This might not be an important aspect for everyone, but it’s something I think about.
Our first “winter” in LA has been pretty great.
bdotdub asked:
Given your experience with the Jawbone up (of which I had similar), what are your thoughts about the Nike Fuelband? Bullish or Bearish?
I’d say bullish in general—Nike makes excellent products around its Nike+ line. I’ve been using Nike+ to track running since 2006, starting with an iPod Nano, then moving to the SportBand, and eventually switching recently to the SportWatch GPS (which I love). The service is great and without it I would probably never run.
That said, the FuelBand isn’t exactly what I’m looking for in this kind of product. It looks very nice (and significantly better than the UP), but it looks like Nike is targeting this more at “active” folks in action. You can set goals and try to achieve them, which is nice, but I want to track things like sleep habits as well, which the FuelBand doesn’t do. While it seems entirely possible they could add that feature later with software, I doubt they will given the branding of the device is highly skewed toward activity.
There are some huge pluses, though. Perhaps the biggest is that it uses Bluetooth to communicate with the app. Also, it has a built-in display and really nice design elements. I’ll definitely keep my eye on the FuelBand when it’s released and see what people think.
Anonymous asked:
Why don't you ever credit yourself with authoring Uncrate? It seems like a pretty popular site.
This is one of the best questions I’ve received because it’s so thoroughly incorrect and bizarre. I don’t author Uncrate at all, though I’d love to take credit for it anyway. I think the confusion probably stems from the fact that I did a few videos for Uncrate years back, and the fact that Karbon designed and developed their popular iPhone app. But I don’t have anything to do with the site itself, that’s all Larry Angell and his crew. And they do a great job. But again, I’ll gladly take credit for it.
Page 1 of 186
