Portable Foxit Reader 2.3 Pro M.Lang

Portable Foxit Reader 2.3 Pro M.Lang
Foxit Reader 2.3 Pro M.Lang Portable | 3.48 MB The following is a list of compelling advantages of Foxit Reader: Incredibly small: The download size of Foxit Reader is only 3.48 MB which is a fraction of Acrobat Reader 22 MB size. Breezing-fast: When you run Foxit Reader, it launches instantly without any delay. You are not forced to view an annoying splash window displaying company logo, author

Game Consoles Buying Guides
If you are now looking for some ideas to give present for your nephews or even your boyfriend, you might consider buying game console for their hobby. For some references, visit shopwiki.co.uk, a website that will provide you game console buying guides to get the best deals on the game console among the online stores provided the products. You can start by checking out the Xbox330 featured.

Administrators define the field

Administrators define the field
A panel of deans and directors from Kansas City educational institutions met at the School of Education Monday evening, affording students interested in college administration careers a chance to discuss the field’s challenges and opportunities.

The conversation was sponsored by UMKC’s Career Services Center and featured four panelists with extensive credentials in higher education administration including: UMKC’s Vice Provost for Academic Programs, Mary Lou Hines-Fritts, William Jewell College’s Assistant Dean of Students and Director of Residence Life, Ernie Stufflebean, Rockhurst University’s Assistant Dean of Students, Sean Grube, and Metropolitan Community College-Penn Valley’s Dean of Administrative Services, Thomas Walker.

LiveScience: Era of Scientific Secrecy Near End
Era of Scientific Secrecy Near End / By Robin Lloyd, LiveScience Senior Editor / posted: 02 September 2008 11:30 am ET

Secrecy and competition to achieve breakthroughs have been part of scientific culture for centuries, but the latest Internet advances are forcing a tortured openness throughout the halls of science and raising questions about how research will be done in the future.

The openness at the technological and cultural heart of the Internet is fast becoming an irreplaceable tool for many scientists, especially biologists, chemists and physicists — allowing them to forgo the long wait to publish in a print journal and instead to blog about early findings and even post their data and lab notes online. The result: Science is moving way faster and more people are part of the dialogue.

[snip]

Open Science

The open science approach forces researchers to grapple with the question of whether they can still get sufficient credit for their ideas, said physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, co-organizer of a conference on the topic set to begin Sept. 8 at the Perimeter Institute in Ontario, Canada.

[BTW: I Will Be Attending This Unique Conference Science in the 21st Century: Science, Society, and Information Technology [http://tinyurl.com/6ll8fb] / Look For Conference-Related Postings on the _Scholarship 2.0_ Blog [http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/] within the next two weeks]

[snip]

Open science is a shorthand for technological tools, many of which are Web-based, that help scientists communicate about their findings. At its most radical, the ethos could be described as “no insider information.” Information available to researchers, as far as possible, is made available to absolutely everyone.

Beyond email, teleconferencing and search engines, there are many examples: blogs where scientists can correspond casually about their work long before it is published in a journal; social networks that are scientist friendly such as Laboratree and Ologeez; GoogleDocs and wikis which make it easy for people to collaborate via the Web on single documents; a site called Connotea that allows scientists to share bookmarks for research papers; sites like Arxiv, where physicists post their “pre-print” research papers before they are published in a print journal; OpenWetWare which allows scientists to post and share new innovations in lab techniques; the Journal of Visualized Experiments, an open-access site where you can see videos of how research teams do their work; GenBank, an online searchable database for DNA sequences; Science Commons, a non-profit project at MIT to make research more efficient via the Web, such as enabling easy online ordering of lab materials referenced in journal articles; virtual conferences; online open-access (and free) journals like Public Library of Science (PLoS); and open-source software that can often be downloaded free off Web sites.

[BTW: Several Of These Innovations Have Been Profiled In My SciTechNet(sm) Blog [http://scitechnet.blogspot.com/] and/or The Scholarship 2.0 Blog [http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/]

The upshot: Science is no longer under lock and key, trickling out as it used to at the discretion of laconic professors and tense PR offices. For some scientists, secrets no longer serve them. But not everyone agrees.

Networked Cyborgs

Just a few decades ago, as a scientist, here is how you did your work: You toiled in obscurity and relative solitude.

[snip]

However, today, more and more scientists, as well as researchers in the humanities, operate like transparent, networked cyborgs. Background research is mostly done online, not in the library. Some data and preliminary research might be posted online via a blog or open notebook. Early write-ups of the work might be announced to the public, or at least discussed online with peers. And these early write-ups might also be posted to an online publication that is not peer-reviewed in the strict sense.

[snip]

“In areas like my own subfields of theoretical physics,” said MIT physicist David Kaiser, “the only constraint [on how rapidly one generates research papers] is, ‘Did you have more coffee that day?’ We aren’t usually held up trying to get an instrument to work, or slogging through complicated data analysis.”Most people think faster is better, but there are other issues.

Is It A Good Thing?

There is “no question” that all efforts to make science more open are positive for the progress of science, says open science proponent and chemist Jean-Claude Bradley at Drexel University in Philadelphia, who posts his lab notebook online and started a blog in 2005 called UsefulChemistry where he and his colleagues regularly discuss chemistry problems as well as Web 2.0 tools and the technical and philosophical issues they raise.His online notebook and blog definitely make it easier to communicate with colleagues, he said. Such sharing also makes it easier for others to “replicate” scientists’ work — try it themselves and convince themselves that you are right. And this replication issue is one of the principles behind scientific research. Anyone who has written down a recipe for a friend knows that we all tend to spell things out more clearly when sharing them than we would if we were just taking notes for ourselves in our own shorthand.

Open science also has the potential to prevent discrimination in access to information. Arxiv, the site for posting pre-print physics papers, was started in 1991 by Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg, then at Los Alamos National Laboratory, to help provide equal access to prepublication information to graduate students, postdocs and researchers in developing countries.

[BTW: Paul Ginsparg will be one of several Major Players attending/presenting at The Conference [http://science21stcentury.org/abstracts.html]]

[snip]

And open science benefits the public, Bradley said. He tries to keep his posts fairly accessible (although this is not the case for all open notebooks and open science blogs).

[snip]

“It’s not clear to me that professional scientists or people in academic institutions have a monopoly on good ideas,” he said. “There are very smart people outside of academia, for example hobbyists or people in industry who could contribute, and having more contributors can only help. The same applies to interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary approaches.”

[snip]

Drawbacks of Open Science

One of the biggest fears of nearly all researchers is that someone else hears what you’re doing and beats you to publication. That means you wasted a lot of time (and most researchers work extremely long hours, so loss of productivity is especially painful and can also harm one’s chances for getting a job or promotion or funding for the next research project). Once you publicly reveal your thoughts, data or experimental results, some say, you lose control over ownership of that information. This topic is covered by an area of law called intellectual property, as well as patent law, and there can be significant money to be fought over when it comes to patents.

Hossenfelder, the conference organizer, says she knows of several examples in which scientists have had an idea for something, talked about it openly and then somebody else has published the fleshed-out idea first without giving any credit beyond an acknowledgment to the original idea-holder. Acknowledgments don’t advance careers.

However there are solutions to this, she said. For instance, the prominent scientific journal Nature encourages authors to include brief summaries of which author contributed what to a project. Some say that online posts provide a time-stamped record of when an experiment was documented. Those stamps can easily be arbitrarily altered after the fact, but it might also be possible to “lock” posts at a certain date after which they could not be changed without some sign-off permission to break the lock, Hossenfelder said. [snip]

Fear of Losing Peer Review

Another drawback of open science can be that results go public before they should. In science, experimental results are frequently proven wrong by subsequent work. Yet even peer review cannot ensure against this, nor can it prevent outright fraud, as proven by a 2005 case involving a South Korean scientist who claimed to have achieved the first cloning of a human embryo. A later examination of his work showed he had fabricated his results.

[snip]

“The social system of science has become so complicated, unregulated and dispersed in terms of geography and disciplines, so peer review has been elevated to a principle that unifies a fragmented field,” Biagioli said.

[snip]

And today, Arxiv, one of the most frequently cited examples of open science, has no peer review for individual papers, but it has begun to add in some constraints on allowable authors. The site used to allow anyone with email addresses associated with academic institutions to post their papers. Now, authors of research papers who post in Arxiv are vetted before they can post for the first time. In some ways, things are tightening up when it comes to openness in physics, Kaiser said. In any case, the function of print journals, in physics at least, is changing.

“Ease of sharing everything prior to peer review is flourishing, and in my opinion very few physicists are reading journals for information these days,” Kaiser said. “Journals have largely lost their information function.”

[snip]

For The Good Of Truth, Humanity, Economies?

Another argument in favor of open science is sort of a big picture issue for humanity, scientific truth and economies, Neylon said.

“Making things more open leads to more innovation and more economic activity, and so the technology that underlies the Web makes it possible to share in a way that was never really possible before, while at same time it also means that kinds of models and results generated are much more rich,” he said.

This is the open source approach to software development, as opposed to commercial closed source approaches, Neylon said. The internals are protected by developers and lawyers, but the platform is available for the public to build on in very creative ways.

“Science was always about mashing up, taking one result and applying it to your [work] in a different way,” Neylon said. “The question is ‘Can we make that as effective as samples data and analysis as it does for a map and set of addresses for a coffee shop?’ That is the vision.”

[http://www.livescience.com/culture/080902-open-science.html]

Thanks to Sabine Hossenfelder For The HeadsUp !

[http://friendfeed.com/rooms/science21]

Portable Winamp Pro 5.35 build 1305

Portable Winamp Pro 5.35 build 1305
Winamp is a multimedia player that is skinnable, multi-format freeware / shareware. It also plays streamed video content, both live and recorded, authored worldwide. New features in Winamp 5.21 include headlining the numerous feature enhancements is the new portable media player plug-in, which lets you synchronize your local media with iPod, Creative, and Microsoft Plays [...]

Winamp is a multimedia player that is skinnable, multi-format freeware / shareware. It also plays streamed video content, both live and recorded, authored worldwide. New features in Winamp 5.21 include headlining the numerous feature enhancements is the new portable media player plug-in, which lets you synchronize your local media with iPod, Creative, and Microsoft Plays For Sure devices. Take one step into the Media Library and you will find a number of enhancements–new menu item icons and a dynamic online services section which offers a new, engaging way to experience Winamp’s free on-demand media. Version 5.35 also allows syncing to iPod and other mobile devices, adds aacPlus High Bitrate encoder, and enhanced Media Library.

• Download
• Mediafire
• Rapidshare

Microsoft’s decision grid of death

Microsoft’s decision grid of death
Coincidentally, after writing my post on Monday about developers’ risks of being locked in or abandoned by their development platform — something that we’ve seen time and again — I came across this post on one of Microsoft’s Visual Basic blogs.

It seems Microsoft believes this decision grid, rewrite vs. migrate vs. reuse vs. replace, is a normal part of application development. Well, guess what? It’s not. Rather, it’s a statement of their failure to support their developers and their customers. At Alpha, our developers never have to consider a grid like that.

As I’ve said so many times before, developers often choose platforms such as Microsoft’s because they feel it’s the safest bet. But over the past few years, Microsoft’s Visual Basic and Visual FoxPro developers (among others) had to throw out 100 percent of their code, and rewrite their apps from scratch, in order to take advantage of a newer platform.

For those who didn’t see our white paper on application development risks on Monday, I’m putting it out here again today, because I think it’s such an important topic. Unless, of course, writing the same code you already wrote again from scratch is something you like to do. We’re not judging.

Complete Source For Mp3 Download
Get the most complete source of mp3 music download online in the website at WestSounds.com. There are plenty of songs coming from many international musicians, singers, and bands that you can find there; get the songs in easy steps of download. Check out the list of US top 100 albums along with the latest songs added to the website. Download mp3 music also from the UK top 100 albums. You can also

Portable dBpoweramp 12.3

Portable dBpoweramp 12.3
dBpoweramp 12.3 Portable | 10.5 MB dBpoweramp Music Converter nicknamed the Swiss knife of audio: Digitally rip audio CDs, Convert effortlessly between audio formats, extend Windows shell, Edit ID Tags. CD Ripper: secure, fast and supports AccurateRip, making it the only choice when ripping cds. CD details and extended information such as label, rating, composer and album artwork are retrieved

IconCool Editor 5.76 Build 81015
IconCool Editor is an easy-to-use and powerful icon editor to edit icons, cursors and web graphics. It comes with all the functions for creating and editing ICO, CUR, ANI, ICL, GIF, JPG and WBMP image files. In addition, it offers more than 50 image filters as well as 20 image effects.You can convert images in [...]

IconCool Editor is an easy-to-use and powerful icon editor to edit icons, cursors and web graphics. It comes with all the functions for creating and editing ICO, CUR, ANI, ICL, GIF, JPG and WBMP image files. In addition, it offers more than 50 image filters as well as 20 image effects.You can convert images in 25 formats to icons easily. You can extract icons from EXE, DLL, ICL or OCX and then edit or re-save them.

Support Windows XP & Vista icons
IconCool Editor can create and edit icons for Windows XP or Vista in 32-bit color depth with an alpha channel. You can easily create wonderful, semi-transparent XP icons. IconCool Editor has begun to support the next generation OS Window Vista from now on. You can create and edit Vista icons which includes the compressed 256×256 images easily.

• Download
• Mediafire
• Rapidshare

DreamRender 2.20 - Wallpaper Animation

DreamRender 2.20 - Wallpaper Animation
DreamRender is a Windows desktop wallpaper animation utility that can replace your desktop wallpaper with stunning animations, and visual effects. You can choose from 1000’s of different effects ranging from slow and peaceful through to chaotic, and manic. Some effects can also react to your currently playing music. Unlike Windows DreamScene (aka Motion Desktop), Dreamrender not [...]

DreamRender is a Windows desktop wallpaper animation utility that can replace your desktop wallpaper with stunning animations, and visual effects. You can choose from 1000’s of different effects ranging from slow and peaceful through to chaotic, and manic. Some effects can also react to your currently playing music.

Unlike Windows DreamScene (aka Motion Desktop), Dreamrender not only uses video as a animated desktop backgrounds, but also uses high end particle sequencing, 3D Object Animation, Custom Bubbles, Desktop Image Animations, Music Interaction, Liquid Animations, Tunnels, and MORE.

Has much more dreamscene possibilities then any program and even Vista ultimate extra itself.

• Download
• Mediafire
• Rapidshare

LieStoppers Message Board

LieStoppers Message Board
Last weekend, the LieStoppers message board was hacked and taken down. Thanks to an incredible amount of work and resourcefulness by the LieStoppers team, their message board is back in business in a new and (hopefully) more secure format and it is now open to the general public again.

Science Dissemination Using Open Access

Portable WinRAR 3.80 Beta 3

Portable WinRAR 3.80 Beta 3
WinRAR 3.80 Beta 3 Portable | 2.29 MB WinRAR is a powerful archive manager. It can backup your data and reduce size of email attachments, decompress RAR, ZIP and other files downloaded from Internet and create new archives in RAR and ZIP file format. Features of WinRAR: - Using WinRAR puts you ahead of the crowd when it comes to compression by consistently making smaller archives than the

Follow up on Duke’s Motion and Two Other Items

Follow up on Duke’s Motion and Two Other Items
The Administration’s Motion Denied

As predicted, the judge in the civil suits denied the Duke administration’s motion to sanction opposing counsel for an alleged violation of Rule 3.6. (See previous post.) Here are details from the News and Observer and the Chronicle.

I wrote a letter to the Chronicle in which I call the actions by Duke’s counsel unprofessional. Understand that this motion was not a request for relief from any alleged harm. The administration’s lawyer denied in court that the motion was a request for a gag order. The motion was solely an attack on the integrity of Charles Cooper and his colleagues and, as I suggested in the previous post, one that had no basis in law. A bar complaint is a very serious matter touching on both the character and professional qualifications of an attorney. It should not be made lightly and certainly not to try and score a rhetorical point.

The administration’s motion is also a mean spirited cheap shot against the players who were also specifically targeted. Although Rule 3.6 only applies to attorneys, the motion requested that the court make a finding that “Plaintiffs and their counsel” violated Rule 3.6 and the local rule incorporating it. It accuses them of violating one of the same rules that their tormentor and the administration’s erstwhile codefendant, Mike Nifong did.

While the administration’s attorneys were rummaging through the Rules of Professional Conduct, perhaps they missed Rule 3.1:

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) has a similar requirement.

It is hard to see the administration’s motion as a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. Interpreting a statute or rule is a matter of reading the text, which is entirely controlling, and there was no suggestion that the language used is vague or ambiguous. Duke’s argument that the spirit of the rule was violated, even if it were true, is utterly beside the point. Moreover, Rule 3.6(b)(2), the public documents exception, appears specifically intended to operate as a safe harbor rule for lawyers trying to comply with the general rule stated in Rule 3.6(a). Finally, even if the court did announce a new rule, it could not give it retroactive effect.

What we are left with the administration is attempting to try the case in the media under the guise of upholding the exact opposite principle. For the administration, appearances have always been the only thing that mattered. Still, this is a new low.

Elmo a Citizen

Congratulations to Moezeldin Elmostafa, or “Elmo” as he affectionately came to be known to supporters of the accused players, who recently became a US citizen. He was also recently named “Hero of the Year” by Reader’s Digest magazine. Durham needs more citizens like him.

Elmo was the taxi driver who picked up Reade Seligmann from the party and was able to help document Reade’s alibi. After Reade’s alibi came to light, Mike Nifong sent two detectives working on the lacrosse case to arrest Elmo on a stale warrant. When they arrested him, they asked him if he “had anything new to say about the lacrosse case.” When he said no, they then took him to a magistrate. He was eventually found innocent at trial.

I hope that the recent renewed publicity will focus attention on one loose end that remains in making Nifong fully accountable for his conduct. Attempting to alter the testimony of a witness is obstruction of justice. While Nifong’s ethical misconduct was addressed by the North Carolina Bar, he has never been made to account for his criminal conduct. Also suspicious was Nifong’s conduct in relation to another witness, the second dancer Kim Roberts. The same day that Nifong personally intervened to have her bail reduced on an unrelated criminal charge, she started giving an account that contradicted her earlier statement to police that no rape had occurred.

Elmo’s case also should be instructive to those who saw Nifong as some sort of champion for social justice because he was targeting affluent or supposedly affluent people. As an immigrant looking to become a citizen, Elmo was one of the most vulnerable people in our society. A criminal conviction of any kind could have resulted in his deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States. Yet, Nifong was as willing to maliciously prosecute him for his own purposes as he was Reade, Collin and David. Indeed, given the fact that Elmo refused to change his story when pressured by police, Nifong’s decision to prosecute him anyway was purely vindictive.

Amended Complaint

Bob Ekstrand who is representing three of the players in the civil suits recently filed an amended complaint which contains additional allegations and information. It also contains embedded audio and video exhibits. Warning! It is a huge file (121 MB). Such is the extent of the misdeeds of Duke and Durham’s leaders.

Duke’s Motion
It has been a while since I updated the front page. Between the holidays and my other commitments, I have had to take some time to get caught up with my other affairs. However, FODU is still very much in business. I hope you have noticed that our Moderator has been continuing to keep the media links page updated everyday. I also hope you have been reading the excellent DSED blog, which has done more than fill any gap left by my absence. I will try to update more frequently and I want to do a larger post to get caught up. In the meantime, I just wanted to share my thoughts about Duke’s motion to shut down the informational site http://www.dukelawsuit.com/, which is maintained by a publicist for the players and their lawyers. Duke’s caim is that it violates North Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, the same rule that was among those Mike Nifong was disbarred for violating.

Well, I must say that I am glad that, after two years, Duke has finally discovered Rule 3.6. When Mike Nifong was out in front of the cameras violating it hourly, they did not want to know one thing about it. As late as September 2006, Bob Steel tried to argue with me about whether Nifong was actually doing anything wrong. Now, if they could only understand it . . .

First, Rule 3.6 only applies to lawyers. It does not apply to parties such as the players and their families. Although not unqualified, parties have a First Amendment right to say whatever they want about a case that is much broader than what is allowed to lawyers. Rule 3.6 certainly does not apply to the heartfelt statement lacrosse parent Steven Henkelman gave at the press conference.

Second, Rule 3.6 allows lawyers to comment on matters in the public record, which includes court filings.

Here are the relevant portions of Rule 3.6:

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or
litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer
knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public
communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing
an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:

(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and,
except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

(2) the information contained in a public record;

* * *

At the press conference linked on the site, attorney Charles Cooper did nothing more than summarize the contents of the complaint, which was being filed as he spoke. He appeared careful to so limit his remarks. The memorandum of law in support of Duke’s motion conceded this point. It tried to make a “spirit of the law” argument that the complaint itself was inflammatory and thus no public reference should be allowed to be made to it. Here is the crux of Duke’s argument from the memorandum of law accompanying the motion:

Plaintiffs will almost certainly argue that these statements are fully permitted by Rule 3.6(b)(2), which allows an attorney to comment about “information contained in a public record.” Many of these statements are direct quotes from the Complaint, while others are slight paraphrasings of the Complaint. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 3, 11(a), 11(b), 11(c).) When a complaint contains such incendiary language, an attorney should not be permitted to hide behind the language of the complaint and make a statement to the press that strings together paragraphs that are highly prejudicial. Such an action is contrary to the very intent of Rule 3.6, “materially prejudices an adjudicative proceeding,” and should not be allowed.

This is not a legal argument. Indeed, the fact that it is not a legal argument is also why they cannot offer one shred of legal authority to support it.

Mike Nifong violated Rule 3.6 by commenting on the evidence, lying about the evidence and inviting antipathy toward the accused. This was conduct squarely prohibited by the rule and manifestly prejudicial. Comments 5 and 6 accompanying the rules give a fuller explanation.

Others have noticed the hypocrisy of Duke criticizing dukelawsuit.com while at the same time maintaining its own informational site about the case which contains dishonest and self serving accounts of the administration’s handling of the Lacrosse Hoax. It is worse than that. Duke was anticipating lawsuits from the very beginning. Remember Mark Simeon, Nifong’s political ally, was lining up the Mangum family for a suit and brought Willie Gary to town in furtherance of that goal. If you will recall, Duke’s site initially linked media accounts that were mostly negative toward the players and ignored accounts critical of the investigation. As the tide started to turn, and Duke’s own misconduct became apparent, Duke began to anticipate suits from the players, instead.

In fall of 2006, Bob Steel made an offer to at least one of the families to pay their legal expenses in exchange for singing an agreement not to sue. Despite the desperation of their situation, they refused. Bob Steel and Richard Brodhead also had a meeting with the families to try and sort out their differences that went nowhere. Duke has known that the present suits were coming for a long time and the twisted apologetics contained on its own informational site were created with that prospect in mind. This strategy reminds me of the famous advice a rugby manager gave to his players before a game: “Be sure and get your retaliation in first!”

What is particularly telling to me is that, while Duke’s motion complains about prejudice caused by dukelawsuit .com, it does not ask for a specific remedy other than asking that the website and its contents be declared violations of Rule 3.6. It does not ask for a gag order. Motions for gag orders to avoid pretrial publicity are not uncommon and Duke could have made a much stronger argument for one by simply pointing to the harm pretrial publicity might cause. It would not be an availing argument, mind you, given its own attempt to take its case to the public, but a better one. By misframing the issue as a legal ethics and Rule 3.6 issue, it decided to forgo a stronger argument in order to try and score a rhetorical point. Duke is falsely attempting to create the appearance of similarity between the conduct of the plaintiffs and their nemesis Mike Nifong. In other words, Duke is attempting to try the case in the media while at the same time purporting to uphold the opposite principle. But then again, Duke signaled how it intended to fight this suit when it hired a lawyer, Jamie Gorelick, whose principal skill set is not federal civil rights litigation, but political infighting.

Neo IP Tracer 3.25 Pro

Neo IP Tracer 3.25 Pro
NeoTrace features Super fast TraceRoute along with easy drag and drop operation. It has an informative display which shows trace history and many other things such as ping. NeoTrace also has local DNS and Whois cacheing and international WhoIs support. It creates reports in text, HTML or printed form and has configurable node labels with [...]

NeoTrace features Super fast TraceRoute along with easy drag and drop operation. It has an informative display which shows trace history and many other things such as ping. NeoTrace also has local DNS and Whois cacheing and international WhoIs support. It creates reports in text, HTML or printed form and has configurable node labels with instant browser access to the nodes. Available continuous ping update is also available with this program as well as nearly 200 displayable country flags and meaningful sound effects for events. With NeoTrace you can pinpoint causes of network problems, test your net connection, identify who’s network is causing trouble, explore Internet geography, and hunt down spammers. This program can also investigate domains and ISPs, who owns them, and where they are connected.

• Download
• Mediafire
• Rapidshare

Next Page »