As far as "How so?" - did you read my post? Three points: speed to connect, variability in download speeds, and Firewall issues.
Everquest has had significant availability issues - indicating that the EQ team does not know how to deal with heavy demand. I don't think they are a good comparison.
WoW is the only blizzard product using Bit Torrent - my download for a patch averaged ~ 90 k/sec. Had it been delivered over a properly co-located server farm the download should have yielded at least 150 k/sec on my line if not higher.
We're not talking small files here 20 - 40 MB in size. A 30% decrease in speed is significant on such a download.
If you're referring to something other than WoW updates, feel free to elaborate on your vague statement. It was quite specific actually.
Bit Torrent should not be used as a distribution channel for commercial content that requires high bandwidth for distribution.
Blizzard has proven (unknowingly) that the distribution of content via Bit Torrent is a Bad Idea. The user experience for a bit torrent download is not comparable to a similar file that is delivered via ftp or http.
The first issue is the duration of time elapsed from the request of a file to the start of the download. BitTorrent can take minutes to ramp up to full speed. A similar file delivered via Http or Ftp usually starts within seconds and achieves full download speed in seconds.
Second, there is a major issue with reliability of transfers. Bit torrent downloads are subject to slowing when certain portions of the files they are downloading become scares on the network. The broadband user is effectively limited by the other people who are sharing the file.
Third, firewall issues. To gain maximum speed via bit torrent one must forward a range of ports to their computers. Generally this type of activity is beyond the ability of a normal user.
While this sort of user experience is OK for unpaid content, it is not OK for entities deriving revenue from the distribution of the materials over the network.
The issue is going to get worse too. For most cable companies the D/L U/L ratio is 3.0 to.512 (5.8 times more downstream than upstream) DSL is usually 1.5 /.384 (3.9 times more downstream than upstream). As was just demonstrated disparity between upload and download ratios over broadband connections. Recent trends indicate providers are increasing download speeds without a proportional increase in upstream traffic. As a result there is an inherent supply problem in upstream bandwidth. If this trend continues the gap between upload and download widens and the perceived user experience will worsen. Centrally hosted content will be delivered "faster" thus users will expect faster delivery via bit torrent. This will not be the case as the aggregate upstream bandwidth will not increase as fast as the aggregate downstream bandwidth of the network.
most peeps have missed the point of the articles: Common data structures added in C#/.NET 2.0.
The current framework (1.0 and 1.1) don't come with any standard data structures apart from ArrayList and Collections. 2.0 is the first version of the framework to "feature" these common structures. These articles are a good guide to the new additions. They also show generics in action. Which is also a new addition. Finally, there are some *practical* examples of how to use the structures in day to day scenarios.
Certainly, no ground breaking theory here; then again that wasn't the point.
The technology for deploying broadband is widely and cheaply available given the proper infrastructure. In addition, such technologies such as DSL rely on proximity to service providers to deliver their services. It's easy to see how this has happened and how comparitively it is more difficult for the US to match South Korea's deployment of broadband.
Start with land mass and population density. This is really the crux of the problem, and what truly stands in the way of wide spread deployment of broadband in the US. South Korea is roughly the size of Indiana but with 48 Million people. Quick math indicates that would be 487 people per sq km. There are 22 Million installed phone lines, or roughly one phone line for every two people.
Throw in 4% of the population living below the poverty line, and 3.14% recorded unemployment - the South Korean people can afford services like broadband.
Compartively the US has 9,161,923 sq km of land, with approximately 293 million people. That comes to 31 people per sq km on average. Given that most broadband services are distance sensitive, the cost of deploying broadband to the 31% of people living in low population desity areas, and keeping it relatively affordable becomes problematic. Add in to that number 12% of the US population who are below the poverty line. There are roughly 43% of the US population who either can't afford broadband or may not have service in their area.
It's pretty clear why South Korea can easily out pace the US on deploying broadband services to the people of their country. The US has greater obstacles to face - given time, these will be overcome.
I'm paying $25 for my telephone line and I 3-way calling, caller ID and call forwarding. I also have some sort of regional calling plan. The basic line in my area (Northeast) with out any of that was $18/mo.
Your only other option is a dial up connection. If you want it to be dedicated however, you'll need a dedicated phone line. That will run ~ $16 - $25 Dollars US add in $5 mo. for your dial-up provider. Worst case you are at $30 best case $21.
The trick is to use a dial on demand linux box. You can have a script that will automatically dial into your provider. When you get kicked, it calls back. Couple this with an ethernet card and you'll have a gateway, and even a hardware firewall to protect you from all the evils that would have their way with your box. You can also use this machine for common services such as a caching DNS server which will speed up page load times over dial-up and as a mail gateway which also speed up perceived mail send times.
By default trillian indicates messenger.hotmail.com as the host and port 1863. Depending on your network's policy, only a small port range may be blocked. My point is however, that the msn messenger client can reach MSN over the available ports and Trillian cannot. Clearly Triallian is not allowed to interoperate over some of the more common ports.
The same cannot be said about MS IIS. Worse, the odds are very good that many the IIS exploits were in the wild prior to when they were first publicly reported, while most of the Apache exploits were, in all likelihood, patched prior to the first exploit.
Did you read the article? The server tested is Windows 2003. The web server is IIS 6.0. These "many exploits" that you refer to, which ones are they? Last time I checked there were no reported remote exploits for IIS 6.0. There ARE exploits for 2003 as a platform, but not for 6.0 as a product.
Trillan can still connect, but it cannot use the HTTP protocol to get through firewalls as the M$ version of the client does. In a corporate environment it would force the user to go and download M$ Messenger.
While it can be true since it's posted on the internet
It's not posted on the internet. This article is being published in this week's issue of Psychological Science.
choke when they're required to do things under a strict guideline, which restricts them from thinking outside the square
This is nonsense. In fact, the article states that HWM individuals "do worse on simple exams than when allowed to work with no constraints" That is "no contraints" not "overly constrained".
Maybe you missed the article: The hypothesis tested was "People with HWM perform worse in situations in which there is the perception that there is increased pressure." They found that this was true. The tests have nothing to do with upgrading software, or following rules or "the man" getting smart people down.
I guess that they are so far advanced that they don't need secure passwords anymore.
They also seem to believe in the DCMA act. GFG article author.
PHP info disclosures and sloppy password polices are so five years ago. Sure, they still happen - but it's hardly news-worthy. Releasing papers that contain this level of material no longer causes people to say "wow, you just discovered something intersting, we'll give you +1 Insightful" they will say "wow, you just broke the law and you're going to jail". There is a time for whistle blowing and a time for discretion - I think discretion was needed in this case.
What most have said is that playing games all day isn't labor really, nor could one consider it a sweatshop.
Consider then that this is how these people make a living; a "living" that literaly consists of a few U.S. Cents per hour. They have to work for 14 hours a day to make the change lost in a couch. All of this amounts to being lucky to feed oneself and maybe be lucky to live in a big room with 30 other people.
You realize that buffer overflows in IE - when found - are fixed on a monthly schedule, right? And the fix is often delayed months?
You realize that your condescending tone is obnoxious? Yes Luke, I subscribe to BugTraq too.
Winblows continues to be a festering block of swiss cheese.
However what we are seeing now is how well users truly understand the machine that they are using. That is - they don't. In fact you said "I was under the impression that the users would get fed up with it. Yet users don't get fed up - they don't care. And they don't want to learn about this. Which is valid! They shouldn't care!" You are wrong in saying that they do not have to care. No matter what platform you use - at some point virus writers will target it. At the moment why bother with OS X or Liunx when there are millions of windows boxen left hanging like fruit on unprotected broadband connections?
The bottom line is that owning a machine requires some level of understanding of it's workings. Would you buy a cat and no cat box? No food? How about a car? Drive it until it stops, and then complain that no one told you that it needed gas? Maybe you got the gas part down, but no oil? Are you going to blame the car manufacturer or dealer because you didn't ask about how to take care of your car?
The steps are very basic to protect a PC: You must buy anti-virus software - you must have a firewall. Spyware scanner is nice as well (and it's free!)
Had these two, pssobly three steps been taken, that article would have never been written - and your friend would not have had any trouble when he was visiting his porn sites.
User fault number one: one simply cannot put a pc or any computer on the internet without a firewall anymore. Period. End of story.
User fault number two: Users have a responsibility to patch their machines. Patching is not going away - people are just unused to the notion that they have to "maintain" their PC's. Thus you get articles like the one just written. The response is indignation, because something Bad happened. The reason that something Bad happened was not the computer - it was the user's lack of attention to their computer.
User fault number three: not staying current with versions. This person is clearly not using the most up to date version of Windows as the Firewall provdided in SP2 would have protected the machine from external attack.
Just let a jar or can of oysters rot for a while and place them in a hard to find place. For those with a weak stomach the smell will cause vomiting. >:]
Incorporated into that second skin would be electrically actuated artificial muscle fibers to enhance human strength and stamina.
Right - this technology is WAY far away. Synthetic muscle fibers have been under development for the last decade. One of the first innovations were Contractle Polymers. These have since given way to other technologies - but non yet equal the strength of human muscle. In addition to make them more useful, these fibers are going to have to be multiples of the strength of human muscle. Also, the notion of a "spray on" skin that creates a powered exomuscular infrastructure requires a fusing of so many current and future technologies that this is not a particularly realistic goal at this time.
I think what i'm trying to say - this isn't news it's a dream. Obviously people need to figure it out - but there are not going to be tangible results from such research for sometime.
Let have a quick look at the PC in question that was used for testing.
If you had a "3-year-old PC, a Gateway running Windows XP Home Edition, was basically unusable." And upon starting the machine you were inundadted with "Annoying pop-up windows" and "The modem dialed phone numbers even though the PC was hooked up to a broadband connection". Indeed even "Error messages appeared when I tried to open the Task Manager".
Really, what would you do with a machine like this? I'm pretty sure that a PC that is demon dialing the outside world, and that is no longer loading basic OS files is completely and irrevocably 0wned. Really, is it *reasonable* to expect that an anti-spyware application of any type would be able to fix this level of compromise? Even if "appears" to, how could you know that your PC is completely safe?
I think the real solution to this particular problem is "format c:". Not only will it leave the end user with a safe, clean install - it will save time.
The bottom line is the author of this article doesn't know what he doesn't know. He is not the first to have made the same mistake, as this article was published hot on the heels of another piece by Mossburg in the Wall Street Journal. Mossburg decried ms anti-spyware as "Seriously Flawed" becuase it did not remove tracking cookies, that it did not have incremental IE setting rollback and it did not support other web browsers. In similar fashion his assesment is a bit too zelous, and incorrect. He fails to recognize that his "flaws" have nothing to do with the removal of spyware.
Tracking cookies are easily removed, and easily blocked, and in the grand scheme of things - they do not cause your computer to behave strangely. In addition Mossburg did not do his homework; the ability to remove cookies is in the application under advanced -> tracks eraser. As far as setting restore goes, the MS anti-spyware tool acutally resets all of the browser settings to their factory defaults, by default - however you can easily control each setting with the "Change restore setting to a new URL..." link. Also, one features that is not mentioned are the System Explorers. These give access to some windows settings - such as Start Up items, but not just the applications in your startup folder - ALL of them including your logon shell, tremendously useful in determining if something is starting when it should not be. Finally ubiquitous browser support is absurd. There is no complelling reason for MS to release a free product that supports the competition. Now they could make you pay for that feature...
In short - the product would appear to work as advertised for the task it was designed for, despite what "technology buffs" would have to say about it.
By this logic - this guy has a foot to stand on. Take real as an example - they have used their technology to directly thwart the use of real player and the iPod together.
systems can be very fragile, and very robust at the same time. Take for example the Comair booking system. It is suspected that a 16-bit int caused the entire booking system to fail - all due to a single field. Dates and times are fields too - as such could have likely caused as much or more trouble.
i think though, what was overestimated, were the number of systems that would truly have an impact on the world.
fortunately, we had a number of people and orginizations yelling early enough, and loudly about y2k. some would say we didn't have enough time, but clearly the world was prepared.
ASP.NET doesn't introduce anything new, unless you've only used ASP and have since upgraded to (pre-existing) functionality that "new" in ASP.NET.
Not true at all. Each "page" is a class and is treated as such in it's implementation from a functional perspective.
A UI developer can make changes to the controls, with out wortying about breaking some server script. In addition it is possible to completely remove SQL code from the presentation tier, this is not possible with out a great deal of engineering and com components with traditional ASP.
ASP.NET simplifies state management on three levels, application, session, and page as well. Page state is something that has traditionally needed to be built by the developer, but this is no longer the case in.NET. Each control on a page manages it's state via the view state.
Also validation for all forms is simple and easy to implement, taking a fraction of the time to complete, and it's twice as robust (it runs client side, and server side depending on what your browser will support)
At the moment, I'd be hard pressed to find another technology platform for web development that is as flexible as.NET.
The revolution was really for the developer - not so much from a product perspective. Have a look at how easy it is to incorporate 3rd party components into web applications. Provided the 3rd party provided designed their component well, it usually "just works". That's more than I can say for similar development platforms.
and you still didn't suggest a way to solve the issue of dealing with the late fees:-)
honestly, i drove the car less than 30 miles round trip, that's about 1/14th of the gas in the car. there is no clear distinction for when to fill it up.
i could just as easily rent the car at 1/4 tank and return it and the gas gauge would not look appreciably different, but if it's just about 1/4 of a tank, then i should fill it becuase who knows someone might actually call and report me.
then again, the fee for returning with less than a 1/4 of tank is the same for returing late.
all of this is a moot point becuase i bought a car.
I'm just not convinced that the convienience is there. There needs to be more flexibility around the rental time. e.g. a 15 minute buffer for the renter to take care of "car needs".
although in my case, the routes i was travelling required more than a 15 minute detour to get gas.
if you rent the car for 2 hours, and you have to fill up the car with gas making you 5 or 10 minutes late (getting gas in an urban area is usually much more of a headache than a sub urban area) - you are charged when the car is returned late.
if you use the car on a regular basis for a scheduled errand this can happen frequently. there are really three choices, call customer service to resolve the issue (there is a charge for calling them), eat the $25 late fee, or add another hour block to your reservation because of the chance this situation occurring.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as "How so?" - did you read my post? Three points: speed to connect, variability in download speeds, and Firewall issues.
Everquest has had significant availability issues - indicating that the EQ team does not know how to deal with heavy demand. I don't think they are a good comparison.
WoW is the only blizzard product using Bit Torrent - my download for a patch averaged ~ 90 k/sec. Had it been delivered over a properly co-located server farm the download should have yielded at least 150 k/sec on my line if not higher.
We're not talking small files here 20 - 40 MB in size. A 30% decrease in speed is significant on such a download.
If you're referring to something other than WoW updates, feel free to elaborate on your vague statement.
It was quite specific actually.
Bit Torrent should not be used as a distribution channel for commercial content that requires high bandwidth for distribution.
.512 (5.8 times more downstream than upstream) DSL is usually 1.5 / .384 (3.9 times more downstream than upstream). As was just demonstrated disparity between upload and download ratios over broadband connections. Recent trends indicate providers are increasing download speeds without a proportional increase in upstream traffic. As a result there is an inherent supply problem in upstream bandwidth. If this trend continues the gap between upload and download widens and the perceived user experience will worsen. Centrally hosted content will be delivered "faster" thus users will expect faster delivery via bit torrent. This will not be the case as the aggregate upstream bandwidth will not increase as fast as the aggregate downstream bandwidth of the network.
Blizzard has proven (unknowingly) that the distribution of content via Bit Torrent is a Bad Idea. The user experience for a bit torrent download is not comparable to a similar file that is delivered via ftp or http.
The first issue is the duration of time elapsed from the request of a file to the start of the download. BitTorrent can take minutes to ramp up to full speed. A similar file delivered via Http or Ftp usually starts within seconds and achieves full download speed in seconds.
Second, there is a major issue with reliability of transfers. Bit torrent downloads are subject to slowing when certain portions of the files they are downloading become scares on the network. The broadband user is effectively limited by the other people who are sharing the file.
Third, firewall issues. To gain maximum speed via bit torrent one must forward a range of ports to their computers. Generally this type of activity is beyond the ability of a normal user.
While this sort of user experience is OK for unpaid content, it is not OK for entities deriving revenue from the distribution of the materials over the network.
The issue is going to get worse too. For most cable companies the D/L U/L ratio is 3.0 to
most peeps have missed the point of the articles: Common data structures added in C#/.NET 2.0.
The current framework (1.0 and 1.1) don't come with any standard data structures apart from ArrayList and Collections. 2.0 is the first version of the framework to "feature" these common structures. These articles are a good guide to the new additions. They also show generics in action. Which is also a new addition.
Finally, there are some *practical* examples of how to use the structures in day to day scenarios.
Certainly, no ground breaking theory here; then again that wasn't the point.
The technology for deploying broadband is widely and cheaply available given the proper infrastructure. In addition, such technologies such as DSL rely on proximity to service providers to deliver their services. It's easy to see how this has happened and how comparitively it is more difficult for the US to match South Korea's deployment of broadband.
Start with land mass and population density. This is really the crux of the problem, and what truly stands in the way of wide spread deployment of broadband in the US. South Korea is roughly the size of Indiana but with 48 Million people. Quick math indicates that would be 487 people per sq km. There are 22 Million installed phone lines, or roughly one phone line for every two people.
Throw in 4% of the population living below the poverty line, and 3.14% recorded unemployment - the South Korean people can afford services like broadband.
Compartively the US has 9,161,923 sq km of land, with approximately 293 million people. That comes to 31 people per sq km on average. Given that most broadband services are distance sensitive, the cost of deploying broadband to the 31% of people living in low population desity areas, and keeping it relatively affordable becomes problematic. Add in to that number 12% of the US population who are below the poverty line. There are roughly 43% of the US population who either can't afford broadband or may not have service in their area.
It's pretty clear why South Korea can easily out pace the US on deploying broadband services to the people of their country. The US has greater obstacles to face - given time, these will be overcome.
I'm paying $25 for my telephone line and I 3-way calling, caller ID and call forwarding. I also have some sort of regional calling plan. The basic line in my area (Northeast) with out any of that was $18/mo.
Your only other option is a dial up connection. If you want it to be dedicated however, you'll need a dedicated phone line. That will run ~ $16 - $25 Dollars US add in $5 mo. for your dial-up provider. Worst case you are at $30 best case $21.
The trick is to use a dial on demand linux box. You can have a script that will automatically dial into your provider. When you get kicked, it calls back. Couple this with an ethernet card and you'll have a gateway, and even a hardware firewall to protect you from all the evils that would have their way with your box. You can also use this machine for common services such as a caching DNS server which will speed up page load times over dial-up and as a mail gateway which also speed up perceived mail send times.
DNS is port 53
By default trillian indicates messenger.hotmail.com as the host and port 1863. Depending on your network's policy, only a small port range may be blocked. My point is however, that the msn messenger client can reach MSN over the available ports and Trillian cannot. Clearly Triallian is not allowed to interoperate over some of the more common ports.
The same cannot be said about MS IIS. Worse, the odds are very good that many the IIS exploits were in the wild prior to when they were first publicly reported, while most of the Apache exploits were, in all likelihood, patched prior to the first exploit.
Did you read the article? The server tested is Windows 2003. The web server is IIS 6.0. These "many exploits" that you refer to, which ones are they? Last time I checked there were no reported remote exploits for IIS 6.0. There ARE exploits for 2003 as a platform, but not for 6.0 as a product.
Trillan can still connect, but it cannot use the HTTP protocol to get through firewalls as the M$ version of the client does. In a corporate environment it would force the user to go and download M$ Messenger.
But this is effectively a tax hike. What would be nice is to see a reduction in my state tax, and this as incrememntal amount on top of that.
You've missed the boat my friend.
While it can be true since it's posted on the internet
It's not posted on the internet. This article is being published in this week's issue of Psychological Science.
choke when they're required to do things under a strict guideline, which restricts them from thinking outside the square
This is nonsense. In fact, the article states that HWM individuals "do worse on simple exams than when allowed to work with no constraints" That is "no contraints" not "overly constrained".
Maybe you missed the article: The hypothesis tested was "People with HWM perform worse in situations in which there is the perception that there is increased pressure." They found that this was true. The tests have nothing to do with upgrading software, or following rules or "the man" getting smart people down.
From atlantis's web site:
All contents of this Site are Copyright © 20001, Atlantis Technology Corporation. All rights reserved.
I guess that they are so far advanced that they don't need secure passwords anymore.
They also seem to believe in the DCMA act. GFG article author.
PHP info disclosures and sloppy password polices are so five years ago. Sure, they still happen - but it's hardly news-worthy. Releasing papers that contain this level of material no longer causes people to say "wow, you just discovered something intersting, we'll give you +1 Insightful" they will say "wow, you just broke the law and you're going to jail". There is a time for whistle blowing and a time for discretion - I think discretion was needed in this case.
What most have said is that playing games all day isn't labor really, nor could one consider it a sweatshop.
Consider then that this is how these people make a living; a "living" that literaly consists of a few U.S. Cents per hour. They have to work for 14 hours a day to make the change lost in a couch. All of this amounts to being lucky to feed oneself and maybe be lucky to live in a big room with 30 other people.
You realize that buffer overflows in IE - when found - are fixed on a monthly schedule, right? And the fix is often delayed months?
You realize that your condescending tone is obnoxious? Yes Luke, I subscribe to BugTraq too.
Winblows continues to be a festering block of swiss cheese.
However what we are seeing now is how well users truly understand the machine that they are using. That is - they don't. In fact you said "I was under the impression that the users would get fed up with it. Yet users don't get fed up - they don't care. And they don't want to learn about this. Which is valid! They shouldn't care!" You are wrong in saying that they do not have to care. No matter what platform you use - at some point virus writers will target it. At the moment why bother with OS X or Liunx when there are millions of windows boxen left hanging like fruit on unprotected broadband connections?
The bottom line is that owning a machine requires some level of understanding of it's workings. Would you buy a cat and no cat box? No food? How about a car? Drive it until it stops, and then complain that no one told you that it needed gas? Maybe you got the gas part down, but no oil? Are you going to blame the car manufacturer or dealer because you didn't ask about how to take care of your car?
The steps are very basic to protect a PC: You must buy anti-virus software - you must have a firewall. Spyware scanner is nice as well (and it's free!)
Had these two, pssobly three steps been taken, that article would have never been written - and your friend would not have had any trouble when he was visiting his porn sites.
Is not windows. It's the users.
User fault number one: one simply cannot put a pc or any computer on the internet without a firewall anymore. Period. End of story.
User fault number two: Users have a responsibility to patch their machines. Patching is not going away - people are just unused to the notion that they have to "maintain" their PC's. Thus you get articles like the one just written. The response is indignation, because something Bad happened. The reason that something Bad happened was not the computer - it was the user's lack of attention to their computer.
User fault number three: not staying current with versions. This person is clearly not using the most up to date version of Windows as the Firewall provdided in SP2 would have protected the machine from external attack.
Just let a jar or can of oysters rot for a while and place them in a hard to find place. For those with a weak stomach the smell will cause vomiting. >:]
Good luck.
Incorporated into that second skin would be electrically actuated artificial muscle fibers to enhance human strength and stamina.
Right - this technology is WAY far away. Synthetic muscle fibers have been under development for the last decade. One of the first innovations were Contractle Polymers. These have since given way to other technologies - but non yet equal the strength of human muscle. In addition to make them more useful, these fibers are going to have to be multiples of the strength of human muscle. Also, the notion of a "spray on" skin that creates a powered exomuscular infrastructure requires a fusing of so many current and future technologies that this is not a particularly realistic goal at this time.
I think what i'm trying to say - this isn't news it's a dream. Obviously people need to figure it out - but there are not going to be tangible results from such research for sometime.
Let have a quick look at the PC in question that was used for testing.
If you had a "3-year-old PC, a Gateway running Windows XP Home Edition, was basically unusable." And upon starting the machine you were inundadted with "Annoying pop-up windows" and "The modem dialed phone numbers even though the PC was hooked up to a broadband connection". Indeed even "Error messages appeared when I tried to open the Task Manager".
Really, what would you do with a machine like this? I'm pretty sure that a PC that is demon dialing the outside world, and that is no longer loading basic OS files is completely and irrevocably 0wned. Really, is it *reasonable* to expect that an anti-spyware application of any type would be able to fix this level of compromise? Even if "appears" to, how could you know that your PC is completely safe?
I think the real solution to this particular problem is "format c:". Not only will it leave the end user with a safe, clean install - it will save time.
The bottom line is the author of this article doesn't know what he doesn't know. He is not the first to have made the same mistake, as this article was published hot on the heels of another piece by Mossburg in the Wall Street Journal. Mossburg decried ms anti-spyware as "Seriously Flawed" becuase it did not remove tracking cookies, that it did not have incremental IE setting rollback and it did not support other web browsers. In similar fashion his assesment is a bit too zelous, and incorrect. He fails to recognize that his "flaws" have nothing to do with the removal of spyware.
Tracking cookies are easily removed, and easily blocked, and in the grand scheme of things - they do not cause your computer to behave strangely. In addition Mossburg did not do his homework; the ability to remove cookies is in the application under advanced -> tracks eraser. As far as setting restore goes, the MS anti-spyware tool acutally resets all of the browser settings to their factory defaults, by default - however you can easily control each setting with the "Change restore setting to a new URL..." link. Also, one features that is not mentioned are the System Explorers. These give access to some windows settings - such as Start Up items, but not just the applications in your startup folder - ALL of them including your logon shell, tremendously useful in determining if something is starting when it should not be. Finally ubiquitous browser support is absurd. There is no complelling reason for MS to release a free product that supports the competition. Now they could make you pay for that feature...
In short - the product would appear to work as advertised for the task it was designed for, despite what "technology buffs" would have to say about it.
I'm not sure that it does.
Is IP really the protocol to use under these conditions? Is there something better?
Thoughts, comments welcome
By this logic - this guy has a foot to stand on. Take real as an example - they have used their technology to directly thwart the use of real player and the iPod together.
systems can be very fragile, and very robust at the same time. Take for example the Comair booking system. It is suspected that a 16-bit int caused the entire booking system to fail - all due to a single field. Dates and times are fields too - as such could have likely caused as much or more trouble.
i think though, what was overestimated, were the number of systems that would truly have an impact on the world.
fortunately, we had a number of people and orginizations yelling early enough, and loudly about y2k. some would say we didn't have enough time, but clearly the world was prepared.
ASP.NET doesn't introduce anything new, unless you've only used ASP and have since upgraded to (pre-existing) functionality that "new" in ASP.NET.
.NET. Each control on a page manages it's state via the view state.
.NET.
Not true at all. Each "page" is a class and is treated as such in it's implementation from a functional perspective.
A UI developer can make changes to the controls, with out wortying about breaking some server script. In addition it is possible to completely remove SQL code from the presentation tier, this is not possible with out a great deal of engineering and com components with traditional ASP.
ASP.NET simplifies state management on three levels, application, session, and page as well. Page state is something that has traditionally needed to be built by the developer, but this is no longer the case in
Also validation for all forms is simple and easy to implement, taking a fraction of the time to complete, and it's twice as robust (it runs client side, and server side depending on what your browser will support)
At the moment, I'd be hard pressed to find another technology platform for web development that is as flexible as
The revolution was really for the developer - not so much from a product perspective. Have a look at how easy it is to incorporate 3rd party components into web applications. Provided the 3rd party provided designed their component well, it usually "just works". That's more than I can say for similar development platforms.
it was more like 2 - 3 out of 10 for me.
:-)
and you still didn't suggest a way to solve the issue of dealing with the late fees
honestly, i drove the car less than 30 miles round trip, that's about 1/14th of the gas in the car. there is no clear distinction for when to fill it up.
i could just as easily rent the car at 1/4 tank and return it and the gas gauge would not look appreciably different, but if it's just about 1/4 of a tank, then i should fill it becuase who knows someone might actually call and report me.
then again, the fee for returning with less than a 1/4 of tank is the same for returing late.
all of this is a moot point becuase i bought a car.
I'm just not convinced that the convienience is there. There needs to be more flexibility around the rental time. e.g. a 15 minute buffer for the renter to take care of "car needs".
although in my case, the routes i was travelling required more than a 15 minute detour to get gas.
as they say, mileage may vary
in practice, no
zipcar for example:
if you rent the car for 2 hours, and you have to fill up the car with gas making you 5 or 10 minutes late (getting gas in an urban area is usually much more of a headache than a sub urban area) - you are charged when the car is returned late.
if you use the car on a regular basis for a scheduled errand this can happen frequently. there are really three choices, call customer service to resolve the issue (there is a charge for calling them), eat the $25 late fee, or add another hour block to your reservation because of the chance this situation occurring.
it's really a pain in the ass.
*Place tin foil hat on head*