It's not like there is some universally defined deadline calculation system for IT projects. Now, if this were an airline, it'd be obvious if it's late or early. A given plane can only fly so fast and the time to board and prep a plane are fairly well known. Late is late.
With IT projects, every one is new. They include elements from previous projects, but each are fairly unique. So, if most of the projects are late, it is as just as likely to be from a too-short estimate as from a too-long completion time. I see these stats about IT projects all the time and it always says the same things to me....
One or more of the below must be true:
1. IT workers are generally slackers. Somehow it is known exactly how long their jobs should take, but they almost always take longer
2. Project managers are idiots. They keep underestimating IT projects and have never learned from their mistakes.
(Why does the world always assume #1? If you purchased a new moped that you estimated would go 195mph, and it didn't meet your expectations, whose fault is it?)
3. Since it is hard to estimate an IT project, supervisors give a little slack. Project managers take advantage of this by under-estimating in order to get the job approved and they simply beg for forgiveness at the end of the project. It seems to be working. Most of the projects are not completed to spec, yet there haven't been a million PM firings.
You can probably tell which I think is true. As long as late IT projects are tolerated, they will exist. As soon as it is demanded that projects come in under estimate OR ELSE, estimates will start to get padded and projects will mysteriously be under budget and on time. Without changing the staff, training anyone, writing better specs, anyone getting "a clue", suddenly the industry will be in tip-top shape. So stop complaining about why projects are late -- you're missing the point. Deadlines are set by managers, not by the laws of physics. If there was any attemp to actually figure out how long a project was REALLY going to take, then exactly 50% of the projects would beat that estimate.
Another example -- if your pet turtle couldn't run the 10 foot dash in your expected 30 seconds, maybe you'd get angry. Maybe you'd get another turtle. But by the 1000th turtle running right around the 45 second mark, you simply have to stop blaming the turtle and start adjusting your expectations!!!
IMHO, the term "Visionary" should be restricted to those that were the first to risk their neck to make it happen. If you simply say it, but don't follow through, you are a "Day Dreamer".
My old 1986 IBM PC Convertible was listed as one of the worst laptops of all time. I guess they were right though. But I liked the commercials with Charlie Chaplin (OK, so those were bad too).
In many cases, I'd be happy to buy something that is of interest to me but at the same time something that I don't really intend on adding it to my "collection", at reduced functionality and at a reduced price.
That's actually one of my bargain hunting strategies. I look for things that are somehow inferior in the minds of others, but just happen to fit my need well. Usually such things can be had for a bargain.
However, paying full price (or sometimes even more) for limited use content is something I'll never do unless I'm forced kicking and screaming. I've actually stopped buying music since all this DRM stuff started becoming popular (my last straw was when SONY started selling SDMI enabled MP3 player for more than non-SDMI player, then they phased out the open ones, leaving just the more expensive ones.) I don't steal music, I've just decided not to be a customer any more. I borrow CDs, record from the radio for personal use and acquire music from other legal sources.
Are you sure there isn't a law creating concentration camps right now? According to this article, if there were, the first you would know of it is when you got on the train.
You want to see real havoc, what do you think would happen if Microsoft put a really good fix into a Service Pack? For example, what if they didn't let an administrative user log in interactively, and you actually had to run Windows as a normal user. Then, of course, use "Runas" to run admin apps. I'll bet that tens of thousands of third party apps would break. Damned if they fix it, damned if they don't.
Although it isn't our decision to make, letting Oracle and others know where we stand will help them find a manageable licensing strategy.
With today's heavy per-processor trends in the database world, those at the middle of the market sometimes have to decide between one over priced bleeding-edge single processor system, or a more mature and stable dual processor system. Given no licensing pressure, they would buy the dual system.
Possibly in the next few years, dual core systems will see the same pressure. However, the current trends tend to make people buy an expnsive Intel system to avoid paying Oracle money. Dual cores are a problem for Intel because it will cause consumers to buy older technology instead of jumping on dual core systems. So, of course, Intel is complaining.
PS - this will neither help or hinder Oracle taking more of anybody's money. They will still be subject to market pressure on the overall cost of any given system. If they make you buy more licenses, then they'll each have to be cheaper.
You forgot one factor..... it's not just risk, but the risk/reward relationship. A bank robbery is a high risk activity like shoplifting, but also much higher reward. That's why it has a higher penalty even though you are more likely to get caught.
Shoplifting and bank robbery have been around long enough so that the penalties have settled at an optimum level to provide sufficient deterrence without seeming overly harsh. Time will tell whether downloading laws are tough enough or not.
I live in a four year old subdivision and only one out of three streets show up in the map. MapuQest has all three, they actually had them before they were built.
-1 for old data, but overall a good experience.
I'll still use others for driving directions because Google doesn't seem to have opions like shortest/fastest yet.
Let's take a look at how each technology can become a security hole: By remote execution of content presumed to be in a "sandbox".
.NET: Since unmanaged code is turned off by default for remotely loaded code, it will not be run by an unexpected trip to a web page.
Java: Since JNI won't work by default under the same circumstances, the newest virus won't be injected into your system by an evil web page.
Anything else is simply an architectural choice. MS likes to preserve compatibility while allowing you to move forward as quickly as posible. Sun wants you to rewite stuff in Java (for the most part), so the new stuff is more secure, but there will be more old stuff floating around that is still unsecure because we won't yet have found time to port it.
BTW, Code Access Security in.NET is sophisticated enough to allow some apps to use unmange code, but not others, or some users, or software from a certain publisher, and a bunch of other options as well. You don't have to simply "turn on unmanaged code". They even have a simply way to allow software publishers to communicate these settings to customers instead of letting Joe Blow admin decide to simply turn off security to make it work.
In summary, both technologies allow you to blow your own foot off if you aim the gun properly and squeeze the trigger. So what -- we were allowed to do that before these technologies came along and preventing you from being able to blow your own foot off will only slow adoption and cause more feet to be blown off.
Why would the responsibility for this be on Microsoft? It was the MySQL distribution that didn't use good defaults or the dumb users who opened themselves up. Sure MS typically does this kind of stuff (but much less nowadays), but this one wasn't their fault.
PS - for those of you thinking MS isn't doing anything to address these problems, take a look at new stuff from Redmond -- look at the defaults for Windows 2003 (yes, two years ago), nothing is turned on by default. IE doesn't even work. Also take at new MS training course. They force you to do everything as a normal user if possible, using RunAs (like sudo for windows) to run selected admin apps when necessary. They also enforce complex passwords in the OS by default.
Sure XP isn't locked down by default, but XP is designed to be sold to morons. However, if you are a non-moron, you can lock it down yourself.
Believe me, the day Linux is designed to be sold to morons, it will have the same challenges. And since 50% of the people in the world are morons (at least in the computer realm), Linux cannot be the dominant OS until they deal with the issue.
Sure, the Social Security system has a good track record of using the money for it's stated purpose. So. It's the purpose that's screwed up. I don't think the government makes a poor manager because they have high costs or run a poor operation. I think they are horrible managers because they have allowed political influence to change the system over time from an effective model for providing a social safety net to an irresponsible one designed primarily for lining the pockets of middle-class aging, but healthy, AARP members. I would much rather spend 2% of my money supporting the poor and disabled than spend 12% of my money supporting a meager retirement for me and a few extra bucks for 10,000,000 people who really don't need it. With the 10% difference, I could have a wonderful retirement WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE GOVERNMENT. I don't want to privatize my Social Security account, I want Social Security to be used for, well, social security, not for a general retirement fund with a side helping of social service.
Social Security has changed over the last 50 years by not changing enough. It's like if your weekly wage went from $10 in 1930 to $50 in 2005. That's a raise, but in reality it's a huge pay cut. For SS, the retirement age hasn't kept pace with the life span of the average American.
Let me clarify one thing... It doesn't matter whether the system is solvent or not. I don't like what it has become -- A poor system for saving for retirement. The model of using today's contributions for paying today's bills is wonderful for an insurance system. It sucks for a retirement system and completely ignores the time value of money.
Exactly when was it that Social Security changed from a system to make sure that those who fell into unfortunate times were taken care of, to a retirement system? Why does everyone want to treat it like a 401(k)?
My solution would be to massively scale it back. Go to 2% deductions... pay all the disabled and the poor elderly... and be done with it. Why should professional athletes collect? Why should the wealthy collect? Why should I collect (assuming I live to 67 and don't end up broke)? Why does everyone want to use a retirement system run by the worst management firm on earth (the US Government)? Give me my damn money (in my paycheck) and let me make my own decisions!!!!
The problem is that for user-experience design, you have to consider exactly how the app looks and works (obviously), but for developer experience design, you have to consider how to give control of how the app looks and works to someone else. It is impossible to do both completely.
In most wealthy countries, computer ownership is higher than poorer ones. In most poor countries, lower performing children are taken out of the school system and put into trade schools or institutions at a very young age, raising their overall average. Hence, places like the US seems to have dumber kids than much of the rest of the world. Result: correlation between more computers and poor grades.
to all these trivial patent suits. Since it seems that common business methods can be patented, let's patent the business model of patenting something common and suing someone to get money we didn't earn.
Then anyone who brings a stupid patent suit up owes us money!!!
The issue here is that there is only a small number of businesses that really want trouble-free basic computing. Most of them want to go down to BestBuy with and buy the printer that's on sale for $65 and print marketing material. Or they want plug in their iPod for doing medical dictations. Or something else that we won't be able to predict.
The main reason the world hasn't switched to stable software is that they value new technology above stable software. The US had increased productivity at a rate of 3% per year for nearly 10 years now. Much of that came from IT innovations. Giving a company a fixed system and expecting them to live with it for 5 years is stagnating them and will be a competetive disadvantage. The support costs for today's buggy system don't outweigh the benefits.
Make a Linux distro that you can easily plug as much crap into it as a Windows box and you'll finally get over 10% market share. Of course then the system will be a buggy and unstable as Windows.
It's not the algorithms. The scariest patents are business methods patents. People patent stupid obvious stuff like e-commerce(http://www.chillingeffects.org/ecom/) and then say you stole the idea from them.
SQL is the language (of the ones that I know) that is closest to English. It is also the hardest (in my experience -- I teach programming) for people to learn. The farther you get from natural language, the less slang and incorrect English sneaks into the code.
--Before you give the baby the water, boil it.
Please don't let a computer figure out that sentence -- in strict terms, it says to boil the baby.
Ah.....
I said easier to manage, not "problem free". The management issues caused by having a one day password expiration will outweight any security gained. But, the management of a well designed system (biometrics was just an example of the foundation of one) will cost far less than what you gain through enhanced security.
Fingerprints are one example, smart cards are another, even a good LDAP or Kerberos system, if maintained well and well integrated into all or most applications will both increase security and reduce administration, while not reducing useability or availability.
Unfortunately, A2 seems to be the norm for many software companies.
Well implemented security will be easier to manage than a less secure system. Take biometrics for example. You can't forget your fingerprint. In my mind, a security system is by definition poorly designed if is greatly reduces useability or accessibility. The only way to maintain a difficult (to use) security system is to hire a bunch of people to handle the issue that arise or scare the heck out of the users into better behavior (which costs both money and morale).
A typical 802.11b wireless access point, mounted in a public area, will only give about a 100 to 300 foot range. Remember that these things will always have to go through walls (unless everyone is expected to go outside to get internet access). That means it will take from 350 to 2500 Access Points per square mile. For 49 square miles, that's 20,000 to 125,000 Access Points to cover the city. So, truely covering the city with WiFi could easily run 12 million dollars for just the access points. Most hardware like this costs more to install than to purchase (imagine putting up an access point on a street pole using a bucket truck and a city employee -- that has to be at least $300 to wire it, screw it down, and configure it). Add another $5 million to provide a wired infrastructure for the APs, another $1M per year for management, and 1/5th of the initial cost per year for replacing dead units.
Grand total -- $50 Million plus $10 Million per year.
If you draw a 100% coverage Access Point grid on a map, you'll see an Access Point in front of nearly every building in the whole city. It would be cheaper in the short run and FAR cheaper in the long run to simply run fiber to everyone's house.
Philadelphia is planning something similar. They estimate $10 Million to put it up and they plan to put up 16 Access Points per squre mile. Draw it on a map and you'll see that puts each Access Point 1320 feet from the nearest one. By my estimation, that will provide WiFi for a whopping 3 to 10% of the residents of Philadelphia. If you live on a street corner, you'll get a signal. The rest of the houses won't get anything without a pringles can.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like there is some universally defined deadline calculation system for IT projects. Now, if this were an airline, it'd be obvious if it's late or early. A given plane can only fly so fast and the time to board and prep a plane are fairly well known. Late is late.
With IT projects, every one is new. They include elements from previous projects, but each are fairly unique. So, if most of the projects are late, it is as just as likely to be from a too-short estimate as from a too-long completion time. I see these stats about IT projects all the time and it always says the same things to me....
One or more of the below must be true:
1. IT workers are generally slackers. Somehow it is known exactly how long their jobs should take, but they almost always take longer
2. Project managers are idiots. They keep underestimating IT projects and have never learned from their mistakes.
(Why does the world always assume #1? If you purchased a new moped that you estimated would go 195mph, and it didn't meet your expectations, whose fault is it?)
3. Since it is hard to estimate an IT project, supervisors give a little slack. Project managers take advantage of this by under-estimating in order to get the job approved and they simply beg for forgiveness at the end of the project. It seems to be working. Most of the projects are not completed to spec, yet there haven't been a million PM firings.
You can probably tell which I think is true. As long as late IT projects are tolerated, they will exist. As soon as it is demanded that projects come in under estimate OR ELSE, estimates will start to get padded and projects will mysteriously be under budget and on time. Without changing the staff, training anyone, writing better specs, anyone getting "a clue", suddenly the industry will be in tip-top shape. So stop complaining about why projects are late -- you're missing the point. Deadlines are set by managers, not by the laws of physics. If there was any attemp to actually figure out how long a project was REALLY going to take, then exactly 50% of the projects would beat that estimate.
Another example -- if your pet turtle couldn't run the 10 foot dash in your expected 30 seconds, maybe you'd get angry. Maybe you'd get another turtle. But by the 1000th turtle running right around the 45 second mark, you simply have to stop blaming the turtle and start adjusting your expectations!!!
See the past /. story about Mobil SpeedPass hacking if you want to see why hiding an encryption protocol is really stupid. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/30/161724 0&tid=172&tid=1/
IMHO, the term "Visionary" should be restricted to those that were the first to risk their neck to make it happen. If you simply say it, but don't follow through, you are a "Day Dreamer".
My old 1986 IBM PC Convertible was listed as one of the worst laptops of all time. I guess they were right though. But I liked the commercials with Charlie Chaplin (OK, so those were bad too).
In many cases, I'd be happy to buy something that is of interest to me but at the same time something that I don't really intend on adding it to my "collection", at reduced functionality and at a reduced price.
That's actually one of my bargain hunting strategies. I look for things that are somehow inferior in the minds of others, but just happen to fit my need well. Usually such things can be had for a bargain.
However, paying full price (or sometimes even more) for limited use content is something I'll never do unless I'm forced kicking and screaming. I've actually stopped buying music since all this DRM stuff started becoming popular (my last straw was when SONY started selling SDMI enabled MP3 player for more than non-SDMI player, then they phased out the open ones, leaving just the more expensive ones.) I don't steal music, I've just decided not to be a customer any more. I borrow CDs, record from the radio for personal use and acquire music from other legal sources.
Are you sure there isn't a law creating concentration camps right now? According to this article, if there were, the first you would know of it is when you got on the train.
... it's also interesting that Microsoft released a Service Pack for the affected product that fixes the issue...
a ds/sp1.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downlo
You want to see real havoc, what do you think would happen if Microsoft put a really good fix into a Service Pack? For example, what if they didn't let an administrative user log in interactively, and you actually had to run Windows as a normal user. Then, of course, use "Runas" to run admin apps. I'll bet that tens of thousands of third party apps would break. Damned if they fix it, damned if they don't.
Although it isn't our decision to make, letting Oracle and others know where we stand will help them find a manageable licensing strategy.
With today's heavy per-processor trends in the database world, those at the middle of the market sometimes have to decide between one over priced bleeding-edge single processor system, or a more mature and stable dual processor system. Given no licensing pressure, they would buy the dual system.
Possibly in the next few years, dual core systems will see the same pressure. However, the current trends tend to make people buy an expnsive Intel system to avoid paying Oracle money. Dual cores are a problem for Intel because it will cause consumers to buy older technology instead of jumping on dual core systems. So, of course, Intel is complaining.
PS - this will neither help or hinder Oracle taking more of anybody's money. They will still be subject to market pressure on the overall cost of any given system. If they make you buy more licenses, then they'll each have to be cheaper.
You forgot one factor..... it's not just risk, but the risk/reward relationship. A bank robbery is a high risk activity like shoplifting, but also much higher reward. That's why it has a higher penalty even though you are more likely to get caught.
Shoplifting and bank robbery have been around long enough so that the penalties have settled at an optimum level to provide sufficient deterrence without seeming overly harsh. Time will tell whether downloading laws are tough enough or not.
I live in a four year old subdivision and only one out of three streets show up in the map. MapuQest has all three, they actually had them before they were built.
-1 for old data, but overall a good experience.
I'll still use others for driving directions because Google doesn't seem to have opions like shortest/fastest yet.
Let's take a look at how each technology can become a security hole: By remote execution of content presumed to be in a "sandbox".
.NET: Since unmanaged code is turned off by default for remotely loaded code, it will not be run by an unexpected trip to a web page.
.NET is sophisticated enough to allow some apps to use unmange code, but not others, or some users, or software from a certain publisher, and a bunch of other options as well. You don't have to simply "turn on unmanaged code". They even have a simply way to allow software publishers to communicate these settings to customers instead of letting Joe Blow admin decide to simply turn off security to make it work.
Java: Since JNI won't work by default under the same circumstances, the newest virus won't be injected into your system by an evil web page.
Anything else is simply an architectural choice. MS likes to preserve compatibility while allowing you to move forward as quickly as posible. Sun wants you to rewite stuff in Java (for the most part), so the new stuff is more secure, but there will be more old stuff floating around that is still unsecure because we won't yet have found time to port it.
BTW, Code Access Security in
In summary, both technologies allow you to blow your own foot off if you aim the gun properly and squeeze the trigger. So what -- we were allowed to do that before these technologies came along and preventing you from being able to blow your own foot off will only slow adoption and cause more feet to be blown off.
Why would the responsibility for this be on Microsoft? It was the MySQL distribution that didn't use good defaults or the dumb users who opened themselves up. Sure MS typically does this kind of stuff (but much less nowadays), but this one wasn't their fault.
PS - for those of you thinking MS isn't doing anything to address these problems, take a look at new stuff from Redmond -- look at the defaults for Windows 2003 (yes, two years ago), nothing is turned on by default. IE doesn't even work. Also take at new MS training course. They force you to do everything as a normal user if possible, using RunAs (like sudo for windows) to run selected admin apps when necessary. They also enforce complex passwords in the OS by default. Sure XP isn't locked down by default, but XP is designed to be sold to morons. However, if you are a non-moron, you can lock it down yourself.
Believe me, the day Linux is designed to be sold to morons, it will have the same challenges. And since 50% of the people in the world are morons (at least in the computer realm), Linux cannot be the dominant OS until they deal with the issue.
Sure, the Social Security system has a good track record of using the money for it's stated purpose. So. It's the purpose that's screwed up. I don't think the government makes a poor manager because they have high costs or run a poor operation. I think they are horrible managers because they have allowed political influence to change the system over time from an effective model for providing a social safety net to an irresponsible one designed primarily for lining the pockets of middle-class aging, but healthy, AARP members. I would much rather spend 2% of my money supporting the poor and disabled than spend 12% of my money supporting a meager retirement for me and a few extra bucks for 10,000,000 people who really don't need it. With the 10% difference, I could have a wonderful retirement WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE GOVERNMENT. I don't want to privatize my Social Security account, I want Social Security to be used for, well, social security, not for a general retirement fund with a side helping of social service.
Social Security has changed over the last 50 years by not changing enough. It's like if your weekly wage went from $10 in 1930 to $50 in 2005. That's a raise, but in reality it's a huge pay cut. For SS, the retirement age hasn't kept pace with the life span of the average American.
Let me clarify one thing... It doesn't matter whether the system is solvent or not. I don't like what it has become -- A poor system for saving for retirement. The model of using today's contributions for paying today's bills is wonderful for an insurance system. It sucks for a retirement system and completely ignores the time value of money.
Exactly when was it that Social Security changed from a system to make sure that those who fell into unfortunate times were taken care of, to a retirement system? Why does everyone want to treat it like a 401(k)?
My solution would be to massively scale it back. Go to 2% deductions... pay all the disabled and the poor elderly... and be done with it. Why should professional athletes collect? Why should the wealthy collect? Why should I collect (assuming I live to 67 and don't end up broke)? Why does everyone want to use a retirement system run by the worst management firm on earth (the US Government)? Give me my damn money (in my paycheck) and let me make my own decisions!!!!
The problem is that for user-experience design, you have to consider exactly how the app looks and works (obviously), but for developer experience design, you have to consider how to give control of how the app looks and works to someone else. It is impossible to do both completely.
In most wealthy countries, computer ownership is higher than poorer ones. In most poor countries, lower performing children are taken out of the school system and put into trade schools or institutions at a very young age, raising their overall average. Hence, places like the US seems to have dumber kids than much of the rest of the world. Result: correlation between more computers and poor grades.
to all these trivial patent suits. Since it seems that common business methods can be patented, let's patent the business model of patenting something common and suing someone to get money we didn't earn.
Then anyone who brings a stupid patent suit up owes us money!!!
The issue here is that there is only a small number of businesses that really want trouble-free basic computing. Most of them want to go down to BestBuy with and buy the printer that's on sale for $65 and print marketing material. Or they want plug in their iPod for doing medical dictations. Or something else that we won't be able to predict.
The main reason the world hasn't switched to stable software is that they value new technology above stable software. The US had increased productivity at a rate of 3% per year for nearly 10 years now. Much of that came from IT innovations. Giving a company a fixed system and expecting them to live with it for 5 years is stagnating them and will be a competetive disadvantage. The support costs for today's buggy system don't outweigh the benefits.
Make a Linux distro that you can easily plug as much crap into it as a Windows box and you'll finally get over 10% market share. Of course then the system will be a buggy and unstable as Windows.
It's not the algorithms. The scariest patents are business methods patents. People patent stupid obvious stuff like e-commerce(http://www.chillingeffects.org/ecom/) and then say you stole the idea from them.
SQL is the language (of the ones that I know) that is closest to English. It is also the hardest (in my experience -- I teach programming) for people to learn. The farther you get from natural language, the less slang and incorrect English sneaks into the code.
--Before you give the baby the water, boil it.
Please don't let a computer figure out that sentence -- in strict terms, it says to boil the baby.
Ah.....
I said easier to manage, not "problem free". The management issues caused by having a one day password expiration will outweight any security gained. But, the management of a well designed system (biometrics was just an example of the foundation of one) will cost far less than what you gain through enhanced security.
Fingerprints are one example, smart cards are another, even a good LDAP or Kerberos system, if maintained well and well integrated into all or most applications will both increase security and reduce administration, while not reducing useability or availability.
Unfortunately, A2 seems to be the norm for many software companies.
Well implemented security will be easier to manage than a less secure system. Take biometrics for example. You can't forget your fingerprint. In my mind, a security system is by definition poorly designed if is greatly reduces useability or accessibility. The only way to maintain a difficult (to use) security system is to hire a bunch of people to handle the issue that arise or scare the heck out of the users into better behavior (which costs both money and morale).
Sorry for the format
First time post and I didn't realize the carriage returns would disappear.
A typical 802.11b wireless access point, mounted in a public area, will only give about a 100 to 300 foot range. Remember that these things will always have to go through walls (unless everyone is expected to go outside to get internet access). That means it will take from 350 to 2500 Access Points per square mile. For 49 square miles, that's 20,000 to 125,000 Access Points to cover the city. So, truely covering the city with WiFi could easily run 12 million dollars for just the access points. Most hardware like this costs more to install than to purchase (imagine putting up an access point on a street pole using a bucket truck and a city employee -- that has to be at least $300 to wire it, screw it down, and configure it). Add another $5 million to provide a wired infrastructure for the APs, another $1M per year for management, and 1/5th of the initial cost per year for replacing dead units. Grand total -- $50 Million plus $10 Million per year. If you draw a 100% coverage Access Point grid on a map, you'll see an Access Point in front of nearly every building in the whole city. It would be cheaper in the short run and FAR cheaper in the long run to simply run fiber to everyone's house. Philadelphia is planning something similar. They estimate $10 Million to put it up and they plan to put up 16 Access Points per squre mile. Draw it on a map and you'll see that puts each Access Point 1320 feet from the nearest one. By my estimation, that will provide WiFi for a whopping 3 to 10% of the residents of Philadelphia. If you live on a street corner, you'll get a signal. The rest of the houses won't get anything without a pringles can.