|
Better Business Bureau? Other complaints and/or fears would be listed their I believe. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
The BBB handles actual complaints, such as "I paid for a service they didn't provide." What seem to be violations of security regulations are properly reported to the Securities Exchange Commission, which has jurisdiction over most financial instruments such as mutual funds, bonds and stocks. In the US, banks must answer to the Federal Reserve as well, but in this case the SEC seems like the appropriate agency.
|
|
|
|
|
Correct. I know. I was trying to say that you can see if this "business" has any complaints against it through the BBB. You would of course "report" the issue to the SEC. 
|
|
|
|
|
Good ole Marc
- Anders
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Anders!
What have you been up to?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
The usual stuff, bored with C# code... (Except theese days, I'm making a COM object in C++. I can almost remember why coding was so much fun)
Started a small sound studio 
What about you?
Long time no see...
- Anders
|
|
|
|
|
I checked the website, read your morning post and I am more than convinced that it indeed looks like Ponzi scheme. I mean, for one, why would the community involve a third party for it's development. They would just appoint a comitte of people from themselves; and most of the places it is working fine, instead of giving a part of their money to some strangers.
Good job Marc. ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
I will admit that I did not know what a Ponzi scheme was. Because of your post I read up on Ponzi schemes and I'm pretty sure both wellfare and Social Security are Ponzi schemes. Can you file SEC complaints against them?
Don't blame me. I voted for Chuck Norris.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you think the Govt goes after other people who run them, they hate competition.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
I filed a complaint with the FCC regarding ATT cell phone practices regarding International billing and received a call from ATT. It seems the way the system works is big companies are required to have a department devoted fielding complaints to the FCC. They are not mandated to address them, only to call the complainer back.
|
|
|
|
|
But what about these communities that were depending on these responsible banks?? 
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"
— Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
Well, hopefully that got your attention. Disgustingly nice and clever guy and his extremely talented wife (and Code Project regulars), Dan and Katka Vaughan have launched my favourite WP7 app in the marketplace. It's called Surfy and it brings tabbed browsing to windows phones. If you have a WP7 phone, download it - it's streets ahead of the inbuilt IE serving.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! Thank you Pete, that is really really kind.
D&K
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome. I can't begin to describe how fantastic I find it. The inbuilt browser was so 2002, that this makes it redundant as far as I'm concerned. One feature request though (or maybe I just haven't found it yet), I have multiple homepages - could you incoporate that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent. Good job.
|
|
|
|
|
Installed! :P
Hurrah to CP app! :P
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
_________________________________________________________
My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using WCF for a web service. Sigh. Anyways, I've spent the last four hours trying to understand why only the password was coming across, not the username or the context.
In the server code, I have this:
[OperationContract]
Guid Login(string username, string password, string context);
In the client code, I have this:
[blahblahblah]
Guid Login(string userName, string password, string extraInfo);
And gee, guess what? The reason the server wasn't seeing the username and password was because the PARAMETER NAMES ARE DIFFERENT!!!!
F****ing insane. I can barely wrap my head around the idea that this stuff must have the same parameters names, even though I think that that's pretty much bullshit, but the real problem is, I wasn't getting an exception or anything else. Just nulls for the first and third parameters.
And you wonder why I roll my own. If for no other reason, than to be able to debug into the code and then realize, oh geez WTF was I thinking?
Microsoft sets the standard for the WTF experience.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I agree it is ridiculous, but it wouldn't have happened to me because I couldn't stand the lack of symmetricality in my code 
|
|
|
|
|
Kyudos wrote: but it wouldn't have happened to me because I couldn't stand the lack of symmetricality in my code
Yeah, I wondered about how I managed to do that actually. Nor would it have happened if I'd used the wsdl utility to generate the damn code. However, I don't want to do that because I'm running the webservice as part of a plugin assembly that's part of a server tier. Which brings me to another rant, that without some annoying recoding, all the web service definition stuff that WCF wants has to live in an app.config file, which has to be part of the executable project. Sort of defeats the purpose of the modular, plugin architecture that I have, and I'm not willing right now to hand-code the initialization sequence.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
That's just so COM Mark, contract by signature. COM made you soft. 
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: all the web service definition stuff that WCF wants has to live in an app.config file
Not really. It's convenient for it to be in the app.config on the server, but it's not necessary. You can write a custom service host that's configured at run time. The .NET service framework basically just reads the app.config and calls the run-time APIs, but you probably knew that.
On the client, I never use an app.config and instead have a custom proxy class that abstracts out all the WCF crap and simply allows the consumer (which could be a UI or a server side app) to point the client at any host and call its methods, a la:
1 MyWcfClient foo = new MyWcfClient();
2 foo.ServerUri = "http://myserver:1234";
3 Guid result = foo.Bar (username, password, etc);
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
It’s a web service, it’s meant to be created from two different parties. And in this case we are talking about the credentials so you probably won’t get the correct names from the XML description of the service or some API document. A pure recipe for disaster.
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
I can see a few reasons it might behave that way...
It's all XML-serialized, I believe, so it's probably sending the parameters as XML tags containing the values, then doing string matching on the other side. It might be trying some clever optimization by just omitting null parameters, or it might be going for backward compatibility.
But yeah, I've run into similar problems (My client-server app uses extensive WCF)... My solution was to keep all of the remoting stuff in a separate assembly, referenced by both the client and server, so they're always using the same interface.
I would suggest keeping the interfaces either in their own assembly, or at least separated from the rest of your code (In a sub-folder or something)... Just always copy-paste them back and forth, so they always match.
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: I would suggest keeping the interfaces either in their own assembly, or at least separated from the rest of your code (In a sub-folder or something)... Just always copy-paste them back and forth, so they always match.
That's the plan, this was just proof of concept code. 
Ian Shlasko wrote: It's all XML-serialized, I believe, so it's probably sending the parameters as XML tags containing the values, then doing string matching on the other side. It might be trying some clever optimization by just omitting null parameters, or it might be going for backward compatibility.
Still, I would expect, given this constraint, that an exception would then be thrown that the XML doesn't match the published schema, or give me an option for "relaxed constraints" or some such idea. But I understand your point.
Marc
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
