Forgot your password?

Comment: Umm, it's CBS... (Score 1) 391

by atom1c (#47657581) Attached to: Is "Scorpion" Really a Genius?

Did all of the /.ers somehow forget that this is another media-hyped fictional storytelling program on CBS? Heck, they even fabricate sources in their everyday news reporting! Why would they somehow base their television programs on any actual facts?

CBS' motto is simple: If Mikey's Little Website has it typed up in color-blinding BLINK tags, then it must be true.

+ - Samsung, Intel, Dell team up on standards for connected gadgets

Submitted by stephendavion
stephendavion (2872091) writes "Samsung Electronics, Intel Corp and Dell have joined to establish standard ways for household gadgets like thermostats and light bulbs to talk to each other, at odds with a framework backed by Qualcomm, LG Electronics and other companies.

The new Open Interconnect Consortium, like the Qualcomm-supported AllSeen Alliance, aims to establish how smart devices work together in a trend increasingly called the Internet of Things.

Manufacturers are rolling out growing numbers of Internet-connected burglar alarms, televisions and light switches. But like the early days of video cassette recorders, current smart home products are often incompatible with each other. The new consortium, which also includes chipmakers Broadcom and Atmel, was announced in a news release late on Monday."

Comment: Re:Uh huh (Score 1) 312

by atom1c (#46242863) Attached to: Good Engineering Managers Just "Don't Exist"

So you spent money and went to school. Some business (not-for-profit or otherwise) returned the favor by printing out 2 sheets of paper with "Master" on them.

Truth be told, your on-paper qualifications mean absolutely nothing to most -- especially HR departments. For the longest time, and this personal opinion seems to have lasted the test of time, persons with more degrees are actually *less* competent to do real-world work. Why? Because instead of sweating it out on the lower floors of an engineering factory to think independently and innovatively, they were cuddled with their frappucinos and $500 hardcover textbook on a couch with 5 different highlighters hoping to absorb the same 'experience.'

However, I do not agree with the OP at all. From my own multiple decades of experience, the good engineering managers exist and don't tend to quit; rather, they are kept and eventually promoted to more vital positions within their firms as the realities of the engineering challenges change. In other words, they adapt to the needs of the organization and eventually move out of the 'engineering manager' role... instead, they become things like Director of this and Vice President of that.

Comment: Re:Cisco's Meraki Systems Manager (Score 1) 408

by atom1c (#46036775) Attached to: Short Notice: LogMeIn To Discontinue Free Access

The problem is that it is utterly UNRELATED to the topic of LogMeIn Free being discontinued. The two solutions (LogMeIn v. Cisco Meraki) have literally nothing in common; they don't even compete with each other.

The Meraki solution IS NOT geared towards an end-user logging into a RDP session of their grandmother's computer to troubleshoot why iTunes is not updating properly or to clear her browser's cache. Rather, Meraki's solution IS aimed at corporate IT departments trying to assess the inventory of remote devices (including tablets) that have authenticated into the corporate network for systems access. (This being a simple use-case clearly described on their page.)

If you are remotely familiar with Meraki's portfolio of products, then you would not even consider trying to defend your nonsensical non-suggestion. So, please, do us all a favor and stop trolling unrelated products.

Comment: Re:Excessive Peer Review is Anti-Capitalist (Score 1) 352

by atom1c (#45423720) Attached to: The Second Operating System Hiding In Every Mobile Phone

the device should be tested for its ability to be trusted.

In my original comment, I obliquely asked whether technology companies' security consultants and government-sanctioned auditors (technical review committees which authorize such devices) were sufficient to address the concern.

Let's remember that this isn't some "nobody knows who built the firmware" scenario. This is in reference to commercial goods and services which have obtained countless industry and government certifications before being made available to the general public. Whether the public comprehends the magnitude of regulations at play is an entirely different story.

If consumers cannot trust the governments and their constellation of countless certification professionals, then what makes anyone think that consumers can trust a handful of ad-hoc peer-reviewers who operate under the freedoms established by the same said governments?! Let's not forget the bottom line: commercial products are different than journal articles specializing in theoretical concepts for academic credentialing.

Comment: Re:Excessive Peer Review is Anti-Capitalist (Score 1) 352

by atom1c (#45416403) Attached to: The Second Operating System Hiding In Every Mobile Phone

He's advocating peer-review for technologies to be widely used and trusted by people. He's advocating privacy and anonymity for people.

Yes, that's contradictory and/or hypocrisy. It's ostensibly encouraging a double standard of privacy. Instead, the same level of peer-review should be applied to all entities -- be it a person, a corporation, or an artifact/technology.

(Yes, it's also a double-edge sword to want cake and have to eat it all, too.)

Comment: Excessive Peer Review is Anti-Capitalist (Score 2, Interesting) 352

by atom1c (#45411749) Attached to: The Second Operating System Hiding In Every Mobile Phone

From the original article, the author (Thom, whom I recognize for his efforts) introduces the topic of peer-reviewing every minutia of the devices we use; he laments about the absence of peer-review in proprietary and closed-source. As an open-source advocate, such a viewpoint is naturally expected and his flashing a light on the subject is always appreciated. [But how does he know? Wouldn't technology companies use security consultants to conduct security audits?]

However, applying the same lines of argument to every closed-source scenario is really preaching anti-capitalism. That means they're arguing against trust of the technology creator, against their desire for trust-based compensation, against the notion of making a dollar in order to spend a dollar (due to constant disclosure of all things 'private'), and against the underlying notion of privacy. Actually, scratch that... they're simply hypocrites.

Why? Because they advocate disclosure (anti-privacy) by others, thus not trusting others. However, they want personal privacy in the hopes of establishing a reputation for being trustworthy -- or are they advocating an ultra-liberal utopia where commerce is not based on property but instead based on a crafted perception of trust? Either way, that's hypocritical behavior! If everything becomes subject to peer-review, then the notion of trust vaporizes... and in the process, privacy is gradually lost... and both factors lead to an erosion of aspects of capitalism.

TL;DR -- Peer-review everything means trusting nothing, disclosure of everything, and loss of privacy... yet it's hypocritical since the advocates seek to maintain anonymity when applying the same frustrations against capitalism as they do against trust-based commerce.

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman