I figured I wouldn’t likely have the opportunity to do so with the exact same phone.  So what were the results? You can see for yourself with the attached spreadsheets. But I’ll give a personal summary.

SUMMARY – basically, along most of the highway route Verizon had better speeds. Being a lot closer to a 10mb/s average.  AT&T seemed to fall into the 3-5mb/s far more regularly.  However, near both my work and home I encountered reception issues. This made me decide to remain with AT&T, even though along most of the highway and most areas I travelled, Verizon had better performance than AT&T. That said, at one spot near the I-83/I-695 junction, AT&T exceeded 56 mb/s. For reference, 18mb/s was the top speed I achieved on Verizon.

So which network is better? Well, as you can see, it depends on personal factors. Overall Verizon was superior, but where I personally most needed cell service, AT&T performed better.  Verizon is more consistently in that 10mb/s range. AT&T in some areas really screams at 28mb/s, 50+mb/s.

But here are the data dumbs. Perhaps I might map them sometime.

DOWNLOAD DATA FILES (ods)

After much searching, found the solution here: http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/810780

Which was in turn found here http://forums.avg.com/ww-en/avg-free-forum?sec=thread&act=show&id=157513 ,

SOLUTION

1) Type in address-bar about:config and press Enter

2) Confirm warning dialog

3) Find keyword.URL (you can use Filter)

4) Change value of keyword.URL to http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=

And there you have it, your URL is back. 

1. He has repeatedly failed to see where the market is.

2. He has failed to leverage Microsoft brands and technologies.

3. He has failed to stop infighting and bring about a conducive team inside Microsoft.

4. He has failed to implement common sense “features” while repeatedly implementing immense change.

***

[Please note, I am actually kind of okay with Windows 8. I am sort of getting used to the interface. So please don't view this as a Windows 8 knock. I think it's adventurous and was worth the effort and simply needs some refinement. In fact I jut think they need to incorporate some easy drag n drop arrangement of the new tile screen. And some outlines in metro apps.]

But let me address each of the above:

1. Microsoft is just now pushing into tablets, 4th generation smartphones, and mobile devices in general. Come lately again? Granted Bill Gates nearly missed the internet itself.

2. Failure to leverage Microsoft brands. And to recognize which ones are tarnished and which ones are marketable. I’m going to be point blunt honest here. “Windows” is a tarnished brand; so is IE. Very few people are using Internet Explorer by choice. Even though it’s vastly improved in many ways.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has it’s Xbox and it’s Kinect platform which has an overall strong brand loyalty. I believe it was a mistake for Microsoft to push the Windows Phone platform. Especially, in such an appless environment. It’s not enough to motivate the market.

Rather, an “X Phone” that was branded with the Xbox platform. That had an emulator to play many of the mini-arcade Xbox Live! games. This could have gone somewhere. Yes, it’d need more work. But imagine if the Microsoft phone came out, and while it may have lacked apps, it had a thousand games available at launch. Imagine if it could sync with your Xbox, carry your Live! profile, store your replays of Halo matches. Suddenly, a few million Xbox owners have got a lot more reason to go with Microsoft’s phone. (Ironically, many of these suggestions were sent to Microsoft by myself long before the 360 came out. And they’re still missing the game. Had Microsoft done this back when the 360 came out with their Zune, they might have given Apple a far greater challenge.)

3. Look, I understand Office team, isn’t as fond of Windows team, and neither is as fond of the Xbox/Entertainment branch. Suck it up. A CEO’s job is to make sure the various major divisions of their company are working in synergy. Steve Ballmer repeatedly fails at this. And that’s because of the “pie problem”. Each has their slice of pie and feels at risk. Eliminate the feeling of potential jeopardy so that there can be synergy.

4. Common sense features. Okay, how many stinkin revisions to MS Office do we need? And why can’t I simply schedule a block of time in the calendar and then select “Out of Office”, and automatically have my out-of-office reply turned on ONLY at those times.

Instead, I have to remember to turn it on right before I leave for vacation, turn it back off when I arrived, turn it on a few days later when I might be out for a day, and then remember to turn it back off. Of course, I do none of this remembering. And the feature becomes one of uselessness and guilt.

Logically, one should NEVER set their auto-reply, they should simply set their schedule and denote the status as “out of office”. When that is done, the message should automatically be set. (With an option use a custom message or append a msg to one’s general OOO reply.)

Sadly, this probably won’t make it into Office 2013 either.

***

Please Steve, pass the torch to someone who “can do”.

***

I’ve been pretty vocal about my dislike for the present CEO. I sold all my Adobe shares (just to make that clear).  And I really think Adobe is doing EVERYTHING it can to kill itself – which is a shame because they have a lot of good products.

So recently on Slashdot there was a discussion of Adobe’s handling of a Photoshop CS5 bug. Where Adobe’s solution is “Pay us to upgrade to CS6″
https://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb12-11.html

Now some might point out the fact that CS5 was released 2 years ago and CS6 is the second version since CS5 (with CS5.5 in between). But let’s consider whether that is legitimate justification.

CS5 was released in April 2010, followed by CS5.5 in April 2011. CS6 was just released this April. Let’s say you bought the top of the line “Master Chief Suite”.  The upgrade cost from CS5.5 is $550, and from CS5 – over a thousand $$$$.

But let’s say you bought Adobe CS5 suite in March 2011. You’re now on the hook for over a $1,000 just to secure your 14 month old software suite.  That’s pretty damn petty IMHO.

I already dislike how tiered Adobe’s upgrade path has become.  Essentially they’ve kept the the high upgrade price while moving to a shorter upgrade cycle. And tiering the upgrade based on the version.  But it used to be that upgrades were available to the last two cycles. And I think it should still be that way.  Instead, Adobe is trying to get $500/year, every year from it’s users.

Why this is bad?  $500/year isn’t bad if you’re an active business with a high production rate.  But it’s very bad if you’re an independent or part time user (ie: many of us with a 40 hour a week day job that DOESN’T use Adobe products) and you just want to stay in the game and stay current with Adobe technology and do the odd job here and there.   It then becomes cost prohibitive; and why is this bad? Because it means people like me will fall behind on Adobe’s technology platform and cease maintaining the skillset,  in other words, shrinking of Adobe’s developer base – and that’s a VERY BAD thing.

Adobe is becoming an extremely greedy company under it’s current leadership; and a foolish one to boot.  I’ve long advocated for the removal of Adobe’s current CEO and a replacement with someone who better understands the present digital world.

SOLUTION: Release a reduced developer edition of CS Master Suite. The developer edition requires that you sign-up as an individual programmer. It gives you a limited license. Full featured, but you can only produce personal or not-for-profit products.   Make it cheap!

This is similar to the licensing that Adobe did with giving away Flex Builder in 2009 to anyone who was unemployed.  That was a REALLY cool thing, and I give Adobe HUGE Kudos for that. 

Adobe’s Flash, although oft criticized has a tremendous amount going for it technology wise. But it’s been mis-marketed, managed, and like Coldfusion is kept from it’s potential.  I truly believe Adobe is going in a direction that will ultimately lead to it’s eventual demise/purchase within a decade’s time. Where as I believe that Adobe if it were to take advantage of certain opportunities in his playing hand could propel itself to a position of near rivalry with Apple and Microsoft.  But so far, I haven’t seen them do ANY of the right decisions they need to do for that.

Seriously, I do not understand why all of you networks “just don’t get it”.

1. Internet programming – I will never buy cable again. I watch a handful of shows and am tired of paying $150 for mostly nothing I want to watch.

2. Discovery Channel is actually one of the content providers that has shows that I want to watch. (ie: Dual Survival & American Chopper)

3. I am a busy computer programmer with 3 children under the age of 5. This is not the 1950′s, I don’t get to come home after a long day at work and just sit in front of the ‘tube.

My TV viewing is sporadic. I might watch 2-3 episodes of a show in a row as I do bills, and other tasks.  I want to watch my shows when I want to watch them.  And just what do you think happens to a viewer who misses a few episodes of a linear show?  We quit watching, that’s what.

3. Networks seem afraid to make all shows available. Often they only have 1-4 of the most current shows of the season. The problem, I might go a whole month and not get the free time to watch one of my favorite shows, and then I’ll watch 5.  But they’re not available…WHY?  What are you losing? Quit with the stupid licensing.

4. TV Everywhere….my preferred method of watching TV is streaming through my Xbox or iPhone (and/or outputting it from my iPhone to a TV).  Please allow for this easily.

And stop with stupid “this show isn’t licensed for playback on devices”. That’s just stupid. What difference does it make if I watch the show on my computer, my phone or streaming through my Xbox/Roku.

5. Commercials – I really don’t mind commercials, as long as they’re not too excessive. In fact, I often like commercials. What I don’t like seeing is the same commercial 5 times.  But I really like it when a company sponsors a particular show, and then has 3-4 unique commercials.

But seriously, don’t think commercials are the big problem. I’d much prefer easy access and availability with a few more commercials.

6. Quit lying in bed with Comcast and other cable networks. They’re not the future – WE ARE!!!

Seriously, my understanding is that Comcast pays the average network between $1-$3.  Well, I’d be willing to pay $2/month for the Discovery or History Channel.  But I’m not going to pay a ton per episode.  iTunes wants to charge $2 an episode. That’s $2 for what I could mostly get free, and for what I am unlikely to ever watch again. And why pay $24 for a season of a show. When if I buy it on DVD I can at least re-sell it and have a hard copy.

No, keep it simple.  Do a flat rate (no more than $5/month) for the entire network. And $2 per show per season. Remember, you can still make money on commercials.

7. Remember, I like your shows, I want to watch your shows. Keep it easy and flexible. Let me watch the way I want, where I want, when I want and how I want. The result is you’ll get a lot more viewership. Oh, and guess what’s great about the internet. No survey and guestimate on rating. You’ll know every view. And if you got reall smart you’d start linking the ads right from the TV show.

***
If your old AARP CEOs don’t get the above, then they need to be fired/retired, and replaced with someone who understands the internet.  I don’t care if they’re 20 or 70, as long as they understand the internet, and modern day American lifestyle – the fact that things have changed.

Why Google is completely and moronically wrong….

NFC tech has it’s uses, buy a coke from a vending machine.  Hoorah! But seriously, the appeal of the QR code is the simplicity in use and creation – it’s ubiquitous. 

ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE can create a QR code. Heck, an artist can even paint one on a wall.  If a deli shop wants to, they can create one for their menu. Put them on flyers, and post them around town. It can even be a coupon.

But NFC, where am I going to get a chip.  How am I going to embed that into my resume when I send it off? How is an add in a magazine going to place that NFC chip in the page? How is it not going to be confused by 50 other NFCs in all the other ads?

Seriously, this is a brain fart on the part of Google.  Not to demean NFCs in any way. More tech the better.  And it’s probably just what we need for more advanced transactions. But I view the two technologies as complimentary, rather than exclusive. Both serve different roles and have their advantages.

 
Google Kills Off Those Little Square Codes You Scan With Your Phone

Anyways, the concept is to get away from all the typical level up bars. I mean it’s almost a guarantee that an RPG is going to use a level up bar or a pie. But why? It is probably the simplest way to convey a level. But it’s definitely not original.

My thought was to use the color spectrum. We know how primary/secondary color circles work. Red, to orange, to yellow, to green, to blue, to purple.  So theoretically you can show a progression via color change.  Furthermore, standard RGB has something like 16,000,000+ colors. So right off the bat you have an XP system that can handle 16 million experience points.

http://easternstorm.net/sassie/colorleveler/ColorLeveler.html

Not sure, whether I would implement a different color shift for a level or if I would have each level go through the entire shift. And use a level multiplier to handle the XP. (ie: Level 1 only needs 1,600 XP.)  Well there you have it, food for thought.

It was fun to code even though I kept finding myself hitting hurdles. That is until I hit the += bug.  Seriously, WHAT THE HECK am I doing wrong. Source code is available. It’s probably some stupid typo or goof. Having been coding ActionScript in a while. Rusty.
More info over here on the code warmup…

http://codewarmup.jessefreeman.com/

Steve Jobs & Wozniak pretty much ushered in the era of the “personal computer” with Apple. Apple brought a lot of innovation to the PC world.

One might also argue that Steve Jobs is personally responsible for bringing the era of the PC to an end. That’s not to say personal computers are going to disappear anytime soon, if ever. Rather it is the acceptance of a fundamental shift in computing.

As the PC was a shift from the era of mainframe terminal computing; a new shift away from the PC has occurred. Computing has become even more personal and intimate.

There is no denying that the iPhone truly ushered in the mobile computing era of tablets & computer phones. We now hold in our hands yesteryear’s super-computers. Even recent technologies like email seem old school in light of face-to-face chatting, gps location of loved ones, instant Internet anywhere. The experience is so much more intimate than the old boxes sitting on our desks.

Sure there were earlier attempts. RIM’s blackberry. Palm made a good effort in the 90′s. But none reached the magnitude needed to become sustainable. In fact the iPhone wasn’t the first time Apple envisioned this future. Over a decade ago Apple introduced the Newton. But it was still the Age of PC.

If the PC was the personal computer than this is the IC era: the Intimate, Individual, Interactive, computing experience.

I do not have the statistics on sales of PCs vs smartphones & tablets. But I’d wager one has seen a down growth while the other is surging toward dominance. How soon until the average Joe & Jane give up their unwieldy boxy PCs and just take their tablets? Combined with the near limitless storage of cloud computing. Suddenly, the PC seems less needful today.

I find it fascinating that Steve Jobs’ life seems to span that of the PC. He was at it’s birth. And strangely Steve’s death seems to coincide with the end of the PC age. But what a legacy you left us Steve. Before you departed us, you kicked off a whole new era.

Thank you for being the visionary you were…

- Jason

[Composed on an iPhone]

I wanted the ability to highlight the row of the active cell. Makes for easier data entry. A number of examples are out on the web. However, most involve simply highlighting the entire row and clearing all highlights upon loss of focus.

Problem is, that system removes any highlights you might actually be using. After a bit of wrangling I came up with the following code which checks on a cell level to see if a highlight exists. And only highlights the cell if one does not.

It’s not a perfect macro. I haven’t tested to confirm loss of “undo” (a common issue with macros affecting worksheets in Excel for some unknown reason). The highlight will also fail to work if there is background coloring on your worksheet. But if those are not a concern to you, this might be a solution.

 Private Sub Worksheet_SelectionChange(ByVal Target As Range)
    Static oldRange As String 'Stores old range
    oldRange = "A1:CW100"
    Dim cN As Object
    'If an old range exists, remove highlight before during active selection
    If (oldRange <> "") Then
        'For each cell in row loop and reset color IF highlight color
        For Each cN In Worksheets("worksheet").Range(oldRange).Cells
            If (cN.Interior.ColorIndex = 24) Then
                cN.Interior.ColorIndex = xlColorIndexNone
                cN.Borders.ColorIndex = xlColorIndexNone
            End If
        Next cN
    End If
    'Create and store range
    oldRange = "A" & ActiveCell.Row & ":CW" & ActiveCell.Row 'Stuff range into old range for future removal
    Dim cNum As Object
    'Loop over all cells in activecell row. Highlight IF not already highlighted
    For Each cNum In Worksheets("worksheet").Range("A" & ActiveCell.Row & ":CW" & ActiveCell.Row).Cells
        If (cNum.Interior.ColorIndex = -4142) Then
            cNum.Interior.ColorIndex = 24
            cNum.Borders.ColorIndex = 2
        End If
    Next cNum
End Sub
Private Sub Worksheet_SelectionChange(ByVal Target As Range)
    Static oldRange As String 'Stores old range
    oldRange = "A1:CW100"
    Dim cN As Object
    'If an old range exists, remove highlight before during active selection
    If (oldRange <> "") Then
        'For each cell in row loop and reset color IF highlight color
        For Each cN In Worksheets("worksheet").Range(oldRange).Cells
            If (cN.Interior.ColorIndex = 24) Then
                cN.Interior.ColorIndex = xlColorIndexNone
                cN.Borders.ColorIndex = xlColorIndexNone
            End If
        Next cN
    End If
    'Create and store range
    oldRange = "A" & ActiveCell.Row & ":CW" & ActiveCell.Row 'Stuff range into old range for future removal
    Dim cNum As Object
    'Loop over all cells in activecell row. Highlight IF not already highlighted
    For Each cNum In Worksheets("worksheet").Range("A" & ActiveCell.Row & ":CW" & ActiveCell.Row).Cells
        If (cNum.Interior.ColorIndex = -4142) Then
            cNum.Interior.ColorIndex = 24
            cNum.Borders.ColorIndex = 2
        End If
    Next cNum
End Sub

That said, there are several aspects to my social network design that have not been implemented in Google+ “Circles”.  So I am sharing them below. Perhaps Google will implement some of them in the near future.

And sure, there is a small part of me that wonders did someone read one of my “suggestions” to Google.  Maybe, if they did, it’d have been nice if they contacted me during development. But I believe it more likely that the Circles concept is just a “common sense” idea that was waiting to happen.  These concepts are what we do day in and day out on a sub-conscious level.  Implementing them into a social networking site isn’t a noteworthy or patentable thing – or at least it shouldn’t be. Rather it’s just an evolutionary process of bringing ourselves into the  digital world. I’ll just be happy to have an alternative to Facebook. An implementation I greatly dislike, I am hopeful that Google implements key components below. If they don’t, they will leave the door open for somebody else to do so. And perhaps it’ll be me.

A significant issue with all current social networks is the “tides”. Flood of information in and out…Circles assist in part with the tide going out, but only in part. It needs to be related to a concentric layer of circles for the individual.  This enables a social network to respond as we do in real life. So far, no social network has realized this elementary concept. That “Ogres are like Onions – they have layers”, and people are like Ogres.

===================================

Congratulations on Google being the first to “get it”. I’ve have the concept of a circle based social network site for approx. 5 years. Even tried registering a variety of names based on “circle”, “sircles”, etc. Had several ideas for commercials as well.

Google’s implementation is a good start, and I figure it’s that…just a start. Well, seeing as I probably won’t be getting my site off the ground I will share some of the concepts I had. I did attempt. Right now, Google’s almost implemented part 1 of my concepts.

I. Circle based grouping, allow for overlap and nesting (ie: sub-groups). Right now I can create “Friends”, but I want to sub-divide friends. “Old College Friends”, “High School Friends”, etc, etc

II. “Ogres are like onions.” – People are like Ogres, we have layers. The biggest failing of most social network sites today is a lack of layers. Right now on Facebook I can read a group, or I can read a whole smackdown of EVERYONE. The end result is that I see a lot of crap from people I don’t care about. And nearly 100% of the time I miss the stuff that’s important to me.

So take the individual and divide them into 10 concentric layers (circles). Now, I take Joe Schmo that I knew from High School and I put him at layer 5. John Doe I just met at a club I put at layer 9, my good friend and drinking buddy Charlie is at level 3. My wife is in circle 1.

- 2A)

Now I define my reading level. If I set it at 4, I will see the posts by my wife and Charlie. But not those of my other associates. However, a few additional options exist in my concept. One is shout-outs, a couple of times a year a person can do a shout-out post (e.g. “I’m getting married!”, “It’s a boy!”, “I just lost my job, got any leads?”). The shout out posts would be readable 2 levels higher. So in this case. Joe Schmo who is in circle 5 shouts out “It’s a boy, 9lbs 4 oz”. I would see this, and be able to congratulate him. Where as most of his posts would pass me by.

If I’ve got one of those friends that is always posting (like 30 times a day, we all have one of them). I can lower the circle level he is in. This provides a stream that is truly relevant to “ME”.

- 2B)

It’s not just individuals which are assigned to a specific circle of ME. Entire groups are set to a level. So I might take everyone at work or church and assign those groups to level 7. Now any individual in that group would be granted level 7 status. But I could still grant an individual a higher status.

- 2C)

Information Access. For each bit of personal info (email, direct msg, phone, address, etc, etc) I would assign it to a circle layer. So someone with layer 7 access could see my email, circle 4 members could see my phone. Where as circle 10 would only see my birthdate mm/dd and only be able to msg.

Furthermore, when I post or upload a photo, I could set a circle layer level. (eg: this post is level 5, so anyone with level 5 access or in a group with level 5 access could view it). This would be on top of making a post or uploading an image to a specific group; which would then only be visible to those group members.

- 2D)

Negative circles. Creation of a circle that overwrites other circles in a given post. For example, I could create a circle “No Mature Content”. In this circle I would add those in my circle who are minors, my mom & dad, and some of my uber-puritan religious friends.

Now when I make a post, and add that negative circle, my post would be viewable by anyone EXCEPT those in any attached negative circle.

III.  Thumbs Up/Down (+/-)

Another way that posts might show up in a stream is if they receive enough thumb’s up. If a post is highly ranked it might be viewed one reading level above it’s normal viewing.  This is nothing new. This concept has existed since BBS days. The only change is the applying the effect to raise or lower a post’s position in an individuals read feed. These aren’t all of the ideas I’ve had. Just thought I’d jot down a number of them.

IV. Break the Box

One of my intentions was to break the “squareness” of the net. The icon/profile pics were going to be circles, not square. We were going to apply a mask over the image so that all a viewer saw was a circle. Furthermore it was going to be modeled after a “coin”; with a heads and tails side. One side would be a profile pic and the other side an avatar. Yes, two profile images. One the actual you and one iconic. Viewer would be able to flip or spin to see the other side. Yes, it is a total gimmick, but it was to help break the square feel.

I also intended to break it further. If you clicked on a circle of a user, it would split into four and then slide away to become the corners of their profile. The result would display their feed, posts, etc.

V. Display of Posts – I envisioned a number of aspects with posts. The ability to post just a subject, which would act as a tweet or microblog. As well as an ability to read differing modes. One could read just the headlines. Essentially having a more twitter feel, but be able to expand those items with full posts. Or one could view in full.

I also felt one should be able to re-share a link. Essentially, it’d be a subject and a link. Twitter does this both well and horribly. Twitter does re-sharing of links amazingly well. But it fails in the actual link implementation. A link should not, IMHO, take up your tweeting space. One should be able to include a msg+link. This little change would do wonders for a microblog service.

VI. Ability to save/archive a post as a memory. Could be your own, or one you are tagged in.

 
NON-CIRCLE CONCEPTS:

When I got my iPhone 3G, I had envisioned an app that I called “Forget-Me-Not”. The idea was to have geo-located tasks that were triggered by proximity or departure. (ie: “pick up milk on way home”, an alert would be triggered when leaving your work office and when passing by the grocery store.)  At the time, Apple’s policy of no background apps put this idea on hold. Along with my lack of an Apple computer to develop on. I was quite glad to see Apple’s announcement of a similar feature for iOS5.

To me, Forget-me-not, circles, etc. Are all no brainers.  Things that should have been implemented 2-5 years ago.
————————–

Sad to think these ideas have been sitting in my head festering. Really wish I was a better coder and could have implemented all of this. But maybe that’s a tad insane, if Google is having a challenge. Maybe it really was more than one mediocre programmer could have implemented.

So how to deal with having ideas and not being able to move forward?

If I could sit down with Google’s Eric and Sergey, I would endeavor to convince them of a new strategy. Patent sharing.

So many out there have patent ideas. I’ve got numerous ideas from magnetic firearm holsters to external vehicle airbags. Problem is, that for many $750 for a mere provisional patent is outside our economic abilities.

So imagine if Google, decided to offer a program to help people pursue provisional patents. Google would cover the fee, in return for being listed as co-inventor.  Google would also have the choice to cover conversion into a full patent if they chose to do so. And maybe even an option to pay the inventor $10,000 and to place the idea into public domain.  Google would implement an easy to access patent licensing system. Then split the licensing proceeds 50/50. It’d be interesting to see how much more stuff would enter public domain or be easily licensable.