Runs fine on my machines, 500 mhz athlon w/ 256 megs RAM.
Your comment about being able to build something faster in.NET than traditional ASP makes me wonder if you ever built anything in ASP.
Uh, okay.. I shouldn't even grace such a retarded statement with a response, but how/why would you think that? Give me one example of something you can make in ASP that you can't make faster in ASP.net? I'm not talking about Response.Write "hello world" either. I'm talking an honest to god enterprise web application.
You give absolutely no facts and/or reasons why you think it's slow. Yet another mindless MS basher.
Please tell us how ASP.net is the most "horrible, convolute, clunky, slow, crapass" environment to build a web application in. Like I said in another post, I prefer other technologies to MS, but goddamn that's an ignorant statement. It's one thing to totally hate everything that MS does, but it's another to call GOOD techonlogy worthless like that. You're not a web application developer, are you? I can tell you're not.
ASP.net is in no way, shape, or form any of those descriptions you listed above. In fact, quite the opposite. Not only can you create scalable web applications, but you can do it in a hell of a lot LESS time it would take you in traditional ASP. It's great for a web application in a Microsoft environment. What do you have to compare it with.. java? Java is good and definitely beats.net in a few departments, but the two are pretty damn close.
Why was this modded up? Just mindless MS bashing with no facts to back it up.
Look, I dislike Microsoft as much as the next person, but the argument you used with SOAP is just way off. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. SOAP is as insecure as the developer allows it to be. It wasn't DESIGNED to bypass firewalls. It was designed to provide a standard format in remote computing. It's no more insecure as requesting an XML feed or a web page. If you want it secure, then pass along a user & password to validate each function via SSL.
I know it's popular opinion to bash MS, but if you're ASP/PHP designer, then you know the benefits of.net (which is pretty much Microsoft's take on Java/JSP/Servlets). I've been using.net since the beta days and I can guarantee you, while I haven't been using MS stuff as long as you, it DOES provide half of what they claim it can do for Web Applications; it does MORE than enough and then some.
Like it or not,.net is a step in the right direction. While c# isn't as good as traditional c++, it's sure as hell way more powerful than VB, *almost* as powerful as c++, and way easier to program in. The downside.. not cross platform, but when you design applications for MICROSOFT solutions, it's excellent.
Now, if I were to design a Linux-based solution, that's a different story.
I can put up on my website a Gameboy Advance emulator (which is legal) and say, "Want roms? Download them from alt.binaries.emulators.gameboy.advance". I'm not supplying the ROMs, just telling people where to get them.
You might not agree with telling people where to get ROMs, but there's nothing legally wrong with it.
A mistake like that isn't what I'd consider malpractice. It's unfortunate, but not something to warrant malpractice. I wouldn't really consider it a "mistake" either because if it comes down to it and you start choking on your blood and there's NO way to make you stop without moving your neck, then it comes down to the choice of you dying or being paralyzed. On the other hand, if the doctor was clearing the blood and accidentally kicked the operating table causing your spinal cord to break.. then that's a bit of a different situation.
If your example happened to me, I personally wouldn't sue, but the grandparent post made it sound like if the doctor accidentally gave you the wrong prescription or he accidentally operated on the wrong area, then it was okay as mistakes are made.
I'm also not talking about frivolous malpractice suits, just the genuine "my doctor prescribed me something I was allergic to and I almost died" or "my doctor said that I was fine to go home after my heart attack and no monitoring/checkups were required, and I had another one because of neglegence" type of suits.
Ok then. When a doctor makes a mistake on a loved one and permanently alters your life, come back and (with a straight face) tell us that it was okay because "people make mistakes".:)
Hmm.. not sure why the parent was modded up. We're not talking about putting the wrong set of tires on a car. We're talking about mistakes that affect people's LIVES. People trust doctors with their lives.
A person is aware of what malpractice is before they even step foot into med school. It's not unreasonable to expect them to NOT make mistakes. Do people make mistakes as humans? "Oops, didn't see that red light." or "Oops, spilled my drink." sure, they most certainly do, but let's use your analogy of a doc getting called in at 4 AM only to be faced with a dire operation. That the doctor got very little sleep is a poor excuse for accidentally slipping during an operation. They don't operate alone and always have a team there with them.
The rest of the doctors who give prescriptions, diagnose people, and do standard non-emergency operations have absolutely no reason to screw up. When they do, it's not an "oops", and if it is, it's due to a poor system of checks and procedures that they currently practice.
Give me just ONE instance of a screw up that would be "okay" because "people just make mistakes."
Yeah, but they didn't have a contract. Regardless of what he verbally agreed to, there was no legal document stating what is and what should be.
Based on that, he CAN (although it's not professional) at a later date say, "Look, this is eating up my time and I feel I should be compensated for this." He *can* charge whatever he wants, too. If they don't like it, they can let him go and get someone else to host it (suing for the domain and site is different than accusing someone of "extortion" and throwing them in jail). Granted, the domain will belong to them since they are the Macomb Sherrif's department, but... what he did is NOT illegal by any means.
It's just as much their fault as it is HIS for not making a contract. His fault because, look, you don't have a contract, they aren't obligated to pay you a dime. It's their fault because.. well, they didn't have a contract, so any situations or change of minds that later pop up you can't really do much about legall except for firing him.
Second, he told them that he'd discuss pay at a later date since they were to busy to handle it to begin with. If I donated 2 years of my time, I'd sure as hell want compensation.
He did what any normal person would do: shut off their service since they didn't pay. In fact, he did one up on what most would do. They didn't pay for TWO YEARS and he let them go on that long. Try not paying YOUR hosting bill and see what it gets you. A shutdown site, that's what.
How the hell is this extortion? Not even REMOTELY. People are stupid. They don't realize it takes time and money, not to mention VALUE of what he had turned the site into.
Granted he didn't have a contract, but both parties are at fault. You can't NOT have a contract then call "extortion" and throw him in jail. Sorry, that's not how it works.
Unfortunately, I fear it'll end up coming to that.
The more I see the way things progress regarding the government's handling of these corporations (basically slaps on the wrist), the more I come to realize that the levels of corruption are vast and deep, and, unfortunately, I don't feel that there's many government officials left that would ever take care of this.
Sorry, that was meant to read "In that case, no." meaning... it's not unfair if IBM backed RedHat *PROVIDED* they had actual proof instead of story conjuring.
Honestly, if Red Hat says they have proof that MS was using copyright code from one of its properitary dlls, and IBM gave them a boatload of cash to help out, would it be 'unfair'?
In that case, yes. But the SCO/Linux lawsuits aren't valid. They're frivolous lawsuits that they cannot (and will not) win. They're based on delusions of grandeur that "copyrighted" SCO code is in Linux. Therefore, Microsoft is knowingly funding another company to trick and confusticate the legal system.
You should know that trickery and deciet is how Microsoft stays afloat now-a-days. Sadly, that's all they will ever be unless we get a regime change up in the high offices.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but this shit is shady practices and is no different than what Enron pulled. Greedy execs jerking the system for their own gain.
There should be a law or some kind of punishment where a judge just dissolves the company aka the company can no longer legally practice business within this country.
Why don't our government officials realize that nearly everything these corporations do is scandalous and does nothing but was other people's money and tie up the courts just so a few execs can get richer? This is ridiculous.
Is this the way of the future where our system just lets these corporations constantly step over boundaries that shouldn't have been crossed in the first place? If so, let me know so I can get the hell out of this country.
Sorry, I know it's lame to reply to your own post (posted too soon), but forgot to add that they should also have charges brought against them for manipulating the stock market, because, after all, that's all they are doing with these asinine announcements.
What the HELL is going on? Why hasn't any govt. authorities put a stop to SCO yet? What exactly does SCO think they're doing?
They have NO case. We all know it. This would be like me tying up the legal system with a lawsuit against my neighbor because I chewed gum on a Thursday (aka Completely Utterly Frivolous).
It's a waste of our judicial system along with taxpayers' money. The federal govt along with any of these companies being sued by SCO should countersue the shit out of them. This is just stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Runs fine on my machines, 500 mhz athlon w/ 256 megs RAM.
.NET than traditional ASP makes me wonder if you ever built anything in ASP.
Your comment about being able to build something faster in
Uh, okay.. I shouldn't even grace such a retarded statement with a response, but how/why would you think that? Give me one example of something you can make in ASP that you can't make faster in ASP.net? I'm not talking about Response.Write "hello world" either. I'm talking an honest to god enterprise web application.
You give absolutely no facts and/or reasons why you think it's slow. Yet another mindless MS basher.
Wow, you are so wrong it's not even funny.
.net in a few departments, but the two are pretty damn close.
Please tell us how ASP.net is the most "horrible, convolute, clunky, slow, crapass" environment to build a web application in. Like I said in another post, I prefer other technologies to MS, but goddamn that's an ignorant statement. It's one thing to totally hate everything that MS does, but it's another to call GOOD techonlogy worthless like that. You're not a web application developer, are you? I can tell you're not.
ASP.net is in no way, shape, or form any of those descriptions you listed above. In fact, quite the opposite. Not only can you create scalable web applications, but you can do it in a hell of a lot LESS time it would take you in traditional ASP. It's great for a web application in a Microsoft environment. What do you have to compare it with.. java? Java is good and definitely beats
Why was this modded up? Just mindless MS bashing with no facts to back it up.
.net (which is pretty much Microsoft's take on Java/JSP/Servlets). I've been using .net since the beta days and I can guarantee you, while I haven't been using MS stuff as long as you, it DOES provide half of what they claim it can do for Web Applications; it does MORE than enough and then some.
.net is a step in the right direction. While c# isn't as good as traditional c++, it's sure as hell way more powerful than VB, *almost* as powerful as c++, and way easier to program in. The downside.. not cross platform, but when you design applications for MICROSOFT solutions, it's excellent.
Look, I dislike Microsoft as much as the next person, but the argument you used with SOAP is just way off. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. SOAP is as insecure as the developer allows it to be. It wasn't DESIGNED to bypass firewalls. It was designed to provide a standard format in remote computing. It's no more insecure as requesting an XML feed or a web page. If you want it secure, then pass along a user & password to validate each function via SSL.
I know it's popular opinion to bash MS, but if you're ASP/PHP designer, then you know the benefits of
Like it or not,
Now, if I were to design a Linux-based solution, that's a different story.
Uh, there's nothing illegal about that.
I can put up on my website a Gameboy Advance emulator (which is legal) and say, "Want roms? Download them from alt.binaries.emulators.gameboy.advance". I'm not supplying the ROMs, just telling people where to get them.
You might not agree with telling people where to get ROMs, but there's nothing legally wrong with it.
As long as I purchased it, ripping a DVD, whether to handheld or other device, is fair use.
I'll do what *I* want with *MY* property, and that includes making backups.
That's why you don't pay for it download it from usenet instead.
This won't be taken away, will it? A friend of mine wants to know.
A mistake like that isn't what I'd consider malpractice. It's unfortunate, but not something to warrant malpractice. I wouldn't really consider it a "mistake" either because if it comes down to it and you start choking on your blood and there's NO way to make you stop without moving your neck, then it comes down to the choice of you dying or being paralyzed. On the other hand, if the doctor was clearing the blood and accidentally kicked the operating table causing your spinal cord to break.. then that's a bit of a different situation.
If your example happened to me, I personally wouldn't sue, but the grandparent post made it sound like if the doctor accidentally gave you the wrong prescription or he accidentally operated on the wrong area, then it was okay as mistakes are made.
I'm also not talking about frivolous malpractice suits, just the genuine "my doctor prescribed me something I was allergic to and I almost died" or "my doctor said that I was fine to go home after my heart attack and no monitoring/checkups were required, and I had another one because of neglegence" type of suits.
Ok then. When a doctor makes a mistake on a loved one and permanently alters your life, come back and (with a straight face) tell us that it was okay because "people make mistakes". :)
Hmm.. not sure why the parent was modded up. We're not talking about putting the wrong set of tires on a car. We're talking about mistakes that affect people's LIVES. People trust doctors with their lives.
A person is aware of what malpractice is before they even step foot into med school. It's not unreasonable to expect them to NOT make mistakes. Do people make mistakes as humans? "Oops, didn't see that red light." or "Oops, spilled my drink." sure, they most certainly do, but let's use your analogy of a doc getting called in at 4 AM only to be faced with a dire operation. That the doctor got very little sleep is a poor excuse for accidentally slipping during an operation. They don't operate alone and always have a team there with them.
The rest of the doctors who give prescriptions, diagnose people, and do standard non-emergency operations have absolutely no reason to screw up. When they do, it's not an "oops", and if it is, it's due to a poor system of checks and procedures that they currently practice.
Give me just ONE instance of a screw up that would be "okay" because "people just make mistakes."
Didn't you hear?
Clippy is now 3D accellerated, powered by DirectX 9.1, and will require at LEAST 32 megs of video memory.
Yeah, but they didn't have a contract. Regardless of what he verbally agreed to, there was no legal document stating what is and what should be.
.. well, they didn't have a contract, so any situations or change of minds that later pop up you can't really do much about legall except for firing him.
Based on that, he CAN (although it's not professional) at a later date say, "Look, this is eating up my time and I feel I should be compensated for this." He *can* charge whatever he wants, too. If they don't like it, they can let him go and get someone else to host it (suing for the domain and site is different than accusing someone of "extortion" and throwing them in jail). Granted, the domain will belong to them since they are the Macomb Sherrif's department, but... what he did is NOT illegal by any means.
It's just as much their fault as it is HIS for not making a contract. His fault because, look, you don't have a contract, they aren't obligated to pay you a dime. It's their fault because
Ok, sorry. Gave. Either way, same thing.
If you kept doing work for someone when they promised to "pay you later", technically you're donating your time.
First off, there was no contract.
Second, he told them that he'd discuss pay at a later date since they were to busy to handle it to begin with. If I donated 2 years of my time, I'd sure as hell want compensation.
He did what any normal person would do: shut off their service since they didn't pay. In fact, he did one up on what most would do. They didn't pay for TWO YEARS and he let them go on that long. Try not paying YOUR hosting bill and see what it gets you. A shutdown site, that's what.
How the hell is this extortion? Not even REMOTELY. People are stupid. They don't realize it takes time and money, not to mention VALUE of what he had turned the site into.
Granted he didn't have a contract, but both parties are at fault. You can't NOT have a contract then call "extortion" and throw him in jail. Sorry, that's not how it works.
Unfortunately, I fear it'll end up coming to that.
The more I see the way things progress regarding the government's handling of these corporations (basically slaps on the wrist), the more I come to realize that the levels of corruption are vast and deep, and, unfortunately, I don't feel that there's many government officials left that would ever take care of this.
It's quite sad.
Sorry, that was meant to read "In that case, no." meaning... it's not unfair if IBM backed RedHat *PROVIDED* they had actual proof instead of story conjuring.
Honestly, if Red Hat says they have proof that MS was using copyright code from one of its properitary dlls, and IBM gave them a boatload of cash to help out, would it be 'unfair'?
In that case, yes. But the SCO/Linux lawsuits aren't valid. They're frivolous lawsuits that they cannot (and will not) win. They're based on delusions of grandeur that "copyrighted" SCO code is in Linux. Therefore, Microsoft is knowingly funding another company to trick and confusticate the legal system.
You should know that trickery and deciet is how Microsoft stays afloat now-a-days. Sadly, that's all they will ever be unless we get a regime change up in the high offices.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but this shit is shady practices and is no different than what Enron pulled. Greedy execs jerking the system for their own gain.
There should be a law or some kind of punishment where a judge just dissolves the company aka the company can no longer legally practice business within this country.
Why don't our government officials realize that nearly everything these corporations do is scandalous and does nothing but was other people's money and tie up the courts just so a few execs can get richer? This is ridiculous.
Is this the way of the future where our system just lets these corporations constantly step over boundaries that shouldn't have been crossed in the first place? If so, let me know so I can get the hell out of this country.
OCP don't need to take nobody's bull.
Call up the fellas in the 95th floor and have them round up ED-209.
"Drop your lawsuits. You have 20 seconds to comply."
Sorry, I know it's lame to reply to your own post (posted too soon), but forgot to add that they should also have charges brought against them for manipulating the stock market, because, after all, that's all they are doing with these asinine announcements.
What the HELL is going on? Why hasn't any govt. authorities put a stop to SCO yet? What exactly does SCO think they're doing?
They have NO case. We all know it. This would be like me tying up the legal system with a lawsuit against my neighbor because I chewed gum on a Thursday (aka Completely Utterly Frivolous).
It's a waste of our judicial system along with taxpayers' money. The federal govt along with any of these companies being sued by SCO should countersue the shit out of them. This is just stupid.
Or they could respond, "Hey, we downloaded it from [distro's site]. It's not illegal. Take a hike."
Either way, SCO won't win. We know it, and they know it. I don't even know why they bother, honestly. Must have money to burn.
Another thing that people overlook is the fact that the game is just amazing on an HDTV in component video mode.
Seriously, you haven't played this game until you've played in that mode. It's just... wow.
Ah yes, the famous:
"No no, their song goes: doo doo doo do-do-do-doot and mine goes: doo doo doo do-do-do-doot CHICKA CHICKA"
The "technically mine was different" story.
Gotta love the laws that state that satirical works can be used without permission of the original artist.
If I was Weird Al, I'd make an entire album of Eminem satires just as a big "F you".