Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Already obsolete? (Score 1) 118

by intermelt (#48016165) Attached to: World's Smallest 3G Module Will Connect Everything To the Internet

There are already networks dropping support for 2G and I assume 3G will follow. These type of devices need to last at least 10 years if not more. The mobile networks don't work on that type of time frame. A lot of the modules out there already won't work on most networks because they don't support 2G. GPRS doesn't help either as that is being dropped too.

I envision devices that these would be put in to actually use well established low power wireless protocols. These devices would then talk to a router that could be directly connected to the internet or have a module like this. But this type of setup doesn't require an extremely small module. Especially when you take the power requirements in consideration. If I have a huge battery, do I really care about the size of the wireless module? Or... if it is plugged into mains and mounted somewhere on the side of my house do I really care about size?

I also don't think the cost of the connection would be an issue. These devices would have different terms to connect to the wireless networks and most likely be under a blanket contract that is resold by the supplier of the product. Think OnStar.

But to expand on the router concept... Predictions say we will have several connected devices in our homes. Everything from our blenders to our stoves, dishwashers, laundry, etc. There is no reason for these all to have a device that directly connects to a national wireless network. It makes more sense to have a household or neighborhood router that relays these signals. It will be cheaper to upgrade and will cause less congestion on the cell phone network. Comcast is already installing public hotspots in everyone's home. I'm sure similar plans are in place for other providers globally. These routers could have other wireless routing technologies installed to allow lower power devices to connect to them. At a minimum if you own a IoT device you can just get a router that plugs into your internet connection.

This doesn't necessarily cover the idea of the electric company wanting wireless connectivity to your meter. You may not have a router for them to connect to. Then they can just install something on the electric pole. In quantity I don't see a device costing more the $10 - $20. They could be on every pole and probably already are.

Small devices don't need to connect to cell phone networks. Add a relay and be done with it.

Comment: Re:A different tack (Score 2) 326

by intermelt (#47899995) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

I find that "taxis and such" are actually more prone to this issue. A few months ago (Chicago suburb) a taxi (town car) driver pick me and a few others up, was texting and talking on his phone the whole way, almost killed us several times on the highway. He was not just texting, he was talking with a headset while reserving things with his phone. This is worse than texting and should be controlled. I know for a fact that most of these drivers in at least NY and Chicago are constantly on their phones while driving. Some of them are cold calling for another business, some are making reservations for their own business. Either way they are putting themselves, their passengers and whoever else is on the road at danger.

But I do agree with some sort of visual warning if it had to come down to that. Just don't exclude taxis or similar services.

Comment: The problem seems to be with qualified people. (Score 0) 250

by intermelt (#47841861) Attached to: IT Job Hiring Slumps

I receive several job solicitations via phone, email or other means on a weekly basis. A lot of them are offering more than I am making at my current job. I usually ignore them. I ignore them either because I am not qualified for the particular job or because I a happy where I am at. The lack of hiring is either because people are happy where they are or are under qualified.

For those of you that say people are telling you that you are over qualified, they are BSing you. You are under qualified for the position they are hiring for. Any company will make an offer to a truly over qualified candidate. It is a bargain for them. You tell them you are over qualified when you deny the offer.

I've had to go through the process of hiring people several times. It is not in my best interest to not make an offer to an over qualified person. I have seen plenty of under qualified candidates. They either believe that if they have experience somewhere in the field that they should be qualified for any job in that field or they have come directly from college or some certification and were brainwashed into thinking they would make 100K+ with no experience. By no experience that also includes no passion. Just because you can pass a test does not mean you know how something works. There are a lot of people out there that pass the test but do not continue learning on their own. These are the worst and probably the ones that tend to think they are denied a job because they are over qualified. You are not over qualified! You have no experience, no self knowledge and can not progress with the company.

So to sum it up. The lack of hiring is because of the lack of truly qualified candidates.

Comment: Banks shouldn't even have that much money (Score 1) 712

by intermelt (#46301171) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

Banks should't even have that money. They are fucking us all over. If an institution that has no products or costly services how do they end up with so much money to give to their upper management? Nowadays a national bank could be ran by a few people in a garage. The problem is they are ripping people off. They prey on the lower middle class just like payday loans and high interest credit cards. How does a bank explain that it costs $36 each time I overdraft a bank account. A $1 overdraft can occur and then maybe a few more in the same day. Before you know it you are charged $100's to cover only a few dollars. In the digital world the bank probably never even covered these expenses they are charging you for. Just updating numbers in a database. This should be regulated and eliminated. Not to mention that it should just not happen, the technology is readily available to keep someone from over-drafting, but it seems the banks don't want that. The banks re-order your transactions and make you pay. Again this is all targeting the middle class. The lower class can't even get bank accounts and the upper class just gives the bank monies that can be invested. This isn't beneficial to the upper class as they could just invest the money themselves and make a much greater percentage on their money.

So the bigger question is why do we keep giving the banks our money? They are plenty of alternatives that work and do not cause inconveniences. The lower class tends to use those more than anyone else. We should all be using them! Especially the middle class people. The upperclass should also just skip banks all together. Most investment companies provide checks or debit cards that work with their accounts. Why are we still using the middleman we call banks? Why are we letting them take our money and give it to their incompetent leaders? They provide us with nothing!

Comment: If you want quiet, allow cell phones! (Score 1) 366

by intermelt (#46224629) Attached to: House Committee Approves Bill Banning In-Flight Phone Calls

These are two different arguments. The FCC specifically regulates the airwaves and interferences they may cause with other airwaves. Their decision to approve or deny approval of cell phone usage should only be based on this. We all know that cell phones or pretty much any FCC regulated device does not harm the communications or navigations of an airplane. That is the only thing the FCC should be basing their opinion on. Why would they even ask the public for their opinion?

The government regulating usage is a whole different thing. Airlines are private, they should have the right to form their own rules. If a particular airline bans cell phone usage, so be it. Maybe I will pick that airline because I don't want to be bothered. Maybe I will pick the one that allows phones because I want to chat my whole trip.

All of the above considered... people DO NOT TALK on their phones anymore. They txt and scroll through Facebook/Twitter/Pinterest etc. The people that are fighting to ban phones because they think they may be bothered by people talking are really just shooting themselves in the the foot. Let people have their phones and they will site contently staring at them without making a noise.

Comment: The problem is "Mobile Version" (Score 5, Insightful) 382

by intermelt (#45771833) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why Do Mobile Versions of Websites Suck?

Modern phones don't really need a mobile version of a site. As a user I usually find myself forcing the "desktop" version of the site when I can. As a web developer I usually tell people not to waste their money on a mobile version. Most mobile sites suck because someone decided they needed a mobile version either for cool factor or to please a boss. They didn't have a good budget and cut corners on every aspect. There are use cases where a website should be done in a mobile format and can be useful when the budget is available.

Lets start with good mobile sites. Those that should be mobile. These are sites that someone might access while actually on the go or need to do something quick. Think directions or ordering food. Most people don't want to shop Target from their phone. However a lot of people want to get directions to the closest Target. A good mobile site would prioritize the directions/location aspect. That works for retail and your standard service businesses. The other type is restaurants that deliver. When you are sitting in front of your TV and want to order a pizza, you obviously are in lazy mode. A restaurant mobile website can make the ordering process simple and quick. These are examples of use cases where mobile sites work and and should be used.

I think most mobile sites fall in the category of "we need a mobile site" This is where there is no budget and the client is offered a shitty mobile site so a developer can make a quick buck with buzz words. These sites tend to be created with generators or a general theme on a Wordpress site. Nothing special and usually makes the experience worse.

The last category is what you asked about. A good mobile friendly website. These are sites that don't fall into the restaurant/location (however I consider those ones that don't suck) category because they need more than just directions or ordering pizza. These types of sites cost a lot to develop. Developing a true user friendly mobile site is not easy. Think about developing a site for IE7, IE8, IE9, Safari, FF, and Chrome. Fairly standard a year or so ago. It took time. Now multiply that by 10. Ok so now you know the time involved to develop and test a good mobile site. However you only have a Galaxy S4 to test on. So now you need to go purchase multiple iPhones, multiple Android phones, a few iPads and maybe a few Android tablets. You can now start debugging on all these devices. Good luck! Oh and then ask your customers if they care. The ROI is not there.

This is why mobile sites suck. No one wants to invest the money to do it right. Even those that do invest the money either focus on a single platform or can't keep up with the ever changing community of mobile devices.

Taking some of the points from above you realize that you should just have a normal site and let people deal with zooming (pinching) in and out to click on links. Or maybe go for an app if you have something specialized.

 

Comment: Re:Why all the hate? (Score 1) 145

by intermelt (#45275943) Attached to: Adobe Breach Compromised Over 38 Million Users, Photoshop Source Code

By "lapse" I meant "failure to have funds to pay on time" And "still work with it" I meant, you don't instantly loose access to the product. You don't need to be connected to them 24/7 for access to the product. A common misconception because they call it a "Cloud".

It really isn't a "Cloud" based product. It is just a monthly licensed product. They do offer "Cloud" based storage, but you do not have to use it. It is merely a convenience for those that want it.

Yes you are "renting" but I believe in their case this is better for everyone. The product is updated more frequently. This is cutting edge software. They need cashflow to keep ahead of the game (Gimp, etc)

Why do people lease (rent) cars? Because they want the newest most advanced. This is what Adobe is offering. I think it is cheaper in the long run for most. If you are a Professional user that always upgrades, it is cheaper than the past. Some may say otherwise, but they try to compare educational prices or not the full suite. For the occasional user it is cheaper. If I only need Photoshop for a single job, I just pay for one month. I can pick the single app option and it is cheap. I don't have to purchase $1000's worth of software for just one month. Even if I need it for a full year, it is cheaper than purchasing the full version previously offered.

The only people that re really concerned are those that have pirated it in the past and never want to pay anything. Adobe products (especially Photoshop) are probably one of the most pirated pieces of software next to Windows. If it wasn't worth anything it wouldn't be pirated. They are just trying to pay their programmers a decent wage. Something we all should be proud of.

Comment: Re:Creative Cloud Crap (Score 1) 145

by intermelt (#45275557) Attached to: Adobe Breach Compromised Over 38 Million Users, Photoshop Source Code

Gimp will never catch up (you will be dead). This isn't about humoring yourself. This isn't even about Adobe Creative Cloud. This is about a breach. They don't have that many Creative Cloud subscribers yet. They have approximately 30 full time programmers. If this were a Creative Cloud breach then 38,000,000 * 50 = $1.9 billion a month. Really? That comes to $6.3 million per developer. Take 90% out for expenses and you are still at $633,000 per developer. Not the case.

That being said. The only information Adobe has on me is my name, email and possibly credit card number. All useless information. I don't have to put any of my files in "the cloud" it is just a convenience if I decide to. Just like... dropbox, gdrive, etc.

If someone really wanted your personal information they would break into your house during the day while you were at work (you do work?) and just take you hard drive. Probably under 3 minutes. No tail. No explanation. Done. Then come here and complain about your info being in the cloud.

If you use Adobe products professionally your CS2 won't last long. The people are moving to CC. Adobe is a real product that is unfortunately not open-source, yet it costs less than your internet or phone on a monthly basis. Or even less than a tank gas. Tell me how that is wrong. You don't make money off your gas. You make money off their professional products.

BTW... I run several open-source businesses. I believe in it. But certain products can't be open sourced if you want quality.

Comment: Why all the hate? (Score 2) 145

by intermelt (#45275371) Attached to: Adobe Breach Compromised Over 38 Million Users, Photoshop Source Code

I understand this is /. but I don't understand why every "insightful" post is against Adobe. Adobe has marketed to to their users. Their market is not an opensource market. Their market is people who want something that works. Their IP is priceless and I believe their "Cloud" platform has been correctly. Up until they offered Creative Cloud I never had a licensed version of an Adobe product. I now have a licensed adobe product on my home and work computers. They are not evil by any means. My subscription can lapse and things still work. Programs are installed locally. The only connect now and then to confirm the license. I now get updates on a regular basis. Their code is considered top notch by professionals. I have rarely had an Adobe application crash on me. It just works. You can't say that about any of the competitors, open-source or not. I've tried using Gimp or Paint Shop Pro. They don't even compete with Photoshop.

As far as we know this breach has nothing to do with the "security" or "programming ability" at Adobe. It could have easily been an insider. Or maybe just someone who knows what they are doing and has been at it for years. Any system can be easily breached internally and any system can be breached given time.

Stop making assumptions and look at the facts. The facts about the situation are non-existent. The facts about their programming ability is public knowledge and they have proven themselves. Anyone that thinks otherwise... show me what you have done that has the capabilities of their software. You won't. Their software (Adobe Acrobat) is used everywhere. More than Flash was (Flash was Macromedia, not Adobe) If it sucked it won't be used. Don't give me any analogies about how Windows sucks and it still is used! Windows doesn't suck. Any professional Linux user will agree that it satisfies its market, which happens to be a very large market. I love Linux but all my computers have Windows. Why? because it works as it should. Oh it's not free? You get what you pay for. That goes for Adobe products too. Talk to one of their programmers. Find out what a real development environment is like. Ask them how much time is devoted to their product. Ask them how much time is devoted to testing. Ask them how much time is devoted to refactoring their code. This is not Microsoft. They can't get away with just adding on. They invent and make new. They are worth it.

A small hiccup like this is nothing. It has happened to companies magnitudes greater and no one blinks an eye. Adobe as been completely transparent about what happened.

They should be applauded for their efforts to inform people.

I can't wait until slashdot is compromised. It will happen. My encrypted password will be stolen. Oh no! 100's of sites have my encrypted password. Just like they all have yours. Oh... you use a different password for every site. First.. I call BS! You don't. You want to project a fake reality. Fine. You are then just stupid. You really only need 3 - 4 different passwords.

1. Banking/PayPal
2. Email
3. Other Sites
4. Optional/ Social Sites (could fall under "other sites"

This keeps you safe. A max of 4 passwords. If you can't figure out the logic, then just move on.

So how does all this roll back into Adobe?
1. If you use only 1 password you are stupid.
2. If you use 2 - 4 passwords, you don't care.
3. This isn't Adobe's fault, it just happens.
4. If it bothers you then why do you have an Adobe account in the first place?
5. We all use Adobe products and could not live without them. (btw... this is not a monopoly! think before you respond with those ideas)

I think this is enough to get my point across.

Comment: Re:E-ink tablets? (Score 1) 108

by intermelt (#44569223) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Printing Options For Low-Resource Environments?

I was thinking the same thing. Go with a tablet or 2 for the backup of the records. It can constantly sync to the main system so if there is a power outage it should be up-to-date. They can be charged in multiple ways and probably can run off a car battery for weeks.

Obviously you still need a printer for transferring records to paper clinics. I would go with a thermal printer that also handles the labels you need. Since the paper records are only for conveying information to another clinic they shouldn't have to last very long and thermal paper would be perfect for that. Thermal printers will reduce your consumables and take a very minimal amount of power. There can be a battery backup on the thermal printer for printing from the tablet when there is a situation of complete power loss.

Maybe even get a tablet for the paper clinics and allow people to bring their records over on a memory card.

Comment: Inflate your circulation numbers (Score 2) 298

You mention that the publication can't be supported without the subscription fees due to not making enough on advertising. Maybe you should increase your advertising rates. If people are pirating the electronic version, than your circulation is higher and your advertising rates should be higher.

If that doesn't fly just watermark them like other people mentioned and go after the pirates.

Comment: Re:Power failures? (Score 4, Insightful) 155

by intermelt (#43628603) Attached to: In Sandy-Struck NJ Town, Verizon Goes All Wireless, No Copper

Of course, one benefit of POTS was that, in a power failure, your landline phone would frequently still work because of the giant piles of batteries at the CO. So, you could still dial 911 if, say, your aged relative's breathing assist machine needed power, or if there was some other medical emergency in the midst of what ever caused the power failure. Kind of ironic that, as a result of a disaster, they'll be somewhat more vulnerable to disasters.

This would probably be more reliable than POTS. Every household would have a backup battery. Even the POTS interfaces from the cable company come with a battery installed. Remember when cell phones were just phones and the battery lasted for days? Now imagine a bigger battery.

Also in a disaster they could easily setup mobile towers to replace towers that have been damaged or to add additional capacity. You can't just run new POTS lines in an emergency. The old system could have been down for weeks if your lines went down. Now maybe only hours or days if it even goes down. There is a lot more redundancy now too since you are not relying on a single copper connection to your house. In theory you would have the ability to connect to multiple towers, so it one fails the other will be a backup.

So it is not at all more vulnerable to disasters.

Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.

Working...