This is actually not true. Every service pack ever released before XP-SP2 did not have major new features. It has always been the MS policy to use Service Packs as patches-only.
Not true. People have been complaining that MS was adding features in services packs since NT 4.0. Unless you're limiting MS OS' to XP, which only had one SP prior to SP2.
So, technically they may have always had the policy, but they hadn't been following it prior to Xp / 2000.
Microsoft was REALLY not going to release those features as a service pack. There were going to release it as a NEW OS VERSION! (Imgine what people on/. would be saying here if they had done that?)
Which is where many would argue that new features belong; in a new OS./.ers that complain the loudest seem to be the most ignorant; it's hard to justify new features in an SP for enterprise customers, because they admins have to learn them, learn what problems the features may cause, etc. That was just the problem with NT 4 SPs, as the article I linked shows.
Jim Allchin insisted that Microsoft needed to improve it's security image and that the features should be released as a free service pack.
Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that MS WAS putting new features into SPs prior to SP2 for XP.
You are right though, you will likely never see another service pack like SP2.
I dunno; the major security problems in XP, Vista, Server 2003+ seem to be addressed, so there's likely no need. I tend to think that the adding the new features in XPSP2 was a good idea, because security in XP was pretty broken, and something needed to be done.
Well, if someone sent something to me and the PO said I had to pay for part of the postage because the sender underpaid, I'd tell them to return whatever it is to the sender. Why would anyone pay to have anything unsolicited to them?
You should be able to get security patches WITHOUT having to install lots of other unrelated cruft alongside it, and that includes things like stability related patches where the issue they address wasn't affecting you in the first place.
You can. Very few security patches aren't available stand alone. For those that aren't, it's probably because the fix really requires multiple patches to be effective. Hence the SP.
The addition of new features could potentially bring new security holes (more code to exploit)
Which is why MS has stopped providing new features in service packs. When SP2 for XP was released, they caught A LOT of flak for that.. so much that they changed their policies on new features in service packs.
as well as harming performance and wasting space... Try comparing the speed of XP with and without SP2 side by side on the same hardware.
Wasting space? If a security patch makes a file larger, I consider that a small price to pay. That's just a silly argument. The space the OS takes is always less than the space of the applications I install.
As for performance, again, I'd rather something run slower and be secure than run fast and be insecure. Secure code has a cost, usually performance. You may as well say you'd rather Win98; no security there, and it runs faster than XP on the same hardware. I find this to be a rather weak argument. I never noticed any peformance loss in any of the computers on which I've installed SP2.
Well, do you consider an OS with security holes broken or not? Personally I do; I'd rather deal with MS trying to fix my computer after an SP messes something up than with a virus trojan that I may not even notice at first.
I agree. What everyone forgets is that people don't want to be in an accident, or cause themselves harm. The vast majority of people are responsible and reasonable. Of course there's enough people that you'll see one or two idiots, and suddenly the roads are asolutely "filled" with idiots. Nevermind that 100 or os other cars that you didn't notice because they were driving perfectly fine.
it is clear that we as a nation regard death as nothing but an economic tool.
Ugh, please stop with your agenda driven drivel.
By having the death penalty
There's nothing wrong with a criminal dying for henious crimes. The problem is that with the death penalty, innocent people have been put to death. Since we have an imperfect system, we shouldn't have the death penalty.
abortion
I fail to see how a woman's personal decision whether or not to have kids is any of your business. Life doesn't begin at conception, sorry.
no universal health care
Health care begins with personal responsiblity. While over 50% of Americans are significantly overweight, I don't see why we should be pushing for universal healthcare when people can't be bothered to take reponsibility for their own health.
insurance companies that can legally denying life saving procedures
No insurance company can stop you from having a procedure. At worse, they can refuse to pay for it. Again, personal responsiblity comes into play here; do you need a life saving procedure because you took poor care of your body by eating junk food and sitting on a couch? If you choose to live that lifestyle, I fail to see why we as a society should have help pay for your poor choices.
Oh ok. I guess knowing the location and time of each plate number isn't tracking. Sorry. In order for the system to work, the time, location and plate number need to be known. As the vehicle moves, it stands to reason that this system can be used to give updated locations of the vehicle. It also stands to reason that they store this information, and Wikipedia states it does in fact store the data for five years. Here's another article which lists it's sources.
At this point I can only assume you're being a pedantic troll.
There you go. If they can track criminals, they can track anyone.
Oh, and for the record, before you decide I need to be tracked, you need to prove you have a case for doing it. I have rights, you can't ignore them because you feel like it.
No, you didn't prove anything. You linked to someone that said that was the effect. It may not be true, the fact that a camera may have been going up may not have been the reason the problems stopped. Did anyone ask those that were causing problems why they stopped causing problems? Do you have any statistics that suggest the cameras reduce crime? If all you have is someone else's post on slashdot, you're right, there is no reason to discuss this futher. You may not care about someone tracking you, that doesn't mean you have the right to say everyone should be tracked. Let's not forget, cameras like these are also funded by our tax money, so maybe you really need to prove they work before demanding that my taxes are spent installing them.
No, they can't "do that anyway." Before, they'd have to have someone follow me to see that I went to the store, the car dealer, etc. Now that can all be recorded for everyone.
As far as your link goes, anecote isn't evidence. As far as I know, you're making it up. Provide facts, or shut up.
Yes, I have read about those properties. I even use InvokeRequired occasionally. Why you are trying to update a UI that doesn't exist is beyond me though. Your whole arguement is based on a background thread that completes quickly before your UI is even built up. Really, if your background operation returns that quickly, why do you need another thread? You're better off keeping things in the UI thread at that point. Why you would allow controls to be created on a background thread is beyond me. It smacks of stupidity.
No, not at all. You're being obtuse.
If.NET is the way forward, *why are they not adding the ribbon to.NET*? Why have they added one to MFC, and why are they adding one to Win32, but *nothing* for.NET? Do you not see the contradiction here?
Who said they won't be adding the ribbon to.net? Depending on how long they've been working on it, it's likely they started building it with MFC and so that's why it's there. It's speculation though. If you really want to have your question answered, I suggest asking someone at MS and not me. Unless you're just here to bitch.
I don't want them to "port" anything. I want good clean APIs, and a "port" of Win32 won't provide that.
Port, as in build API which provides the same functionality. Not a literal line for line port. Christ, you say I'm obtuse?
Except AFAIK, this EULA discusses an online service for which you pay monthly, so I tend to think it would apply here. You're paying for the service (and the software). So feel free to use Glide as long as you're not onlne..
Perhaps the article was a little unclear on this point. The issue is not that WinForms is single-threaded. It's that WinForms makes you give a damn about which thread runs the message pump.
How exactly does it make you care which thread runs the message pump? The only thing you need to know is that unless you do otherwise, your code is on the UI thread and so you shouldn't block it.
It's a pity it only does so in debug builds.
So you'd rather the application always crash instead of trying to do the call anyway? At any rate, we're talking about MS and developers. Developers would (I hope) try to debug a crashing program, and the exception immediately points out the error. So, it's not really MS dropping the ball, its developers not following proper coding standards. You can say they did drop the ball initially for this particular case, but they did fix it too. But to say one issue is totally upsetting to developers is nonsense.
I think it should be because MS thinks it should be. That's why it's been added to MFC, that's why it's being added to Windows Seven.
So let me understand; they release the ribbon, decide to include it later, but you're going to fault them now because it's not built into the OS right now? Interesting.
My current "toy" application is a media player. Something in the same vein as Sasami2k. DirectShow is unusable from.NET (it's a COM interface, with no primary interop assembly and a bunch of hairy bits that make interop difficult). The brand spanking new-to-Vista Media Foundation (which will eventually replace DirectShow) is also COM (and again with no PIA)..NET is really extremely incomplete as a Win32 replacement.
I see, so because your toy application needs to call into win32, that makes.net "really exteremly imcomplete." Nevermind the huge chunk that is there, that people are using to build compelete applications. Maybe you should complain to MS and tell them to drop everything to port it all to.net now, instead of pieces at a time.
But the article doesn't do that, except when describing how details of Win32 leak into.NET.
But he didn't give any details of how win32 leaks into.Net. The threading model of the GUI is single threaded for a reason outside of Win32; multi-threaded guis are hard, and they don't buy you anything. Even the new UI Wpf has thread affinity. If you know this, its really easy to code against. The only problem was pre-.Net 2.0, which allowed you to make cross thread calls..Net 2 now does the proper thing, and throwns an exception.
But you can't. MS has added new features to Win32 (and VC++/MFC), and MS is going to continue to do so in Windows Seven. For example, Vista has a new transacted (database-style ACID transactions, not just journalled) filesystem..NET doesn't support it; you've got to use Win32 to use it. Even though.NET does have transaction support (for COM+ transactions and database transactions) it doesn't support TxNTFS. So you've gotta use Win32. Or how about an MS-supported ribbon control? You've got to use MFC, and in Windows Seven there should be a native code ribbon control as part of the OS proper. In both cases, no managed code.
There are third party managed ribbon controls; Infragistics offers one. Also, with Wpf it's fairly simple to do your own ribbon style control. With WinForms you're better off using the Infragistics one. Why you think the ribbon should be a standard Windows control I'm not sure.
Having to drop into Win32 to call some legacy thing that no-one should really be doing but which you have to do for backwards compatibility, that I could sort of understand. But having to drop into Win32 to call new features that have only just been added? Anyone saying "stop using Win32, just use.NET" doesn't know what they're talking about.
Well, I can't say I've need to use transactional NTFS yet, but otherwise I can do everything I need with just the framework. I'm curious, what kinds of things are you doing you need to use Win32 so much?
Actually, this varies from state to state; when I lived in Arizona you could just give a $100,000 deposit to ADoT's MVD division instead of carrying liability insurance.
I assume then you could be sued if the other person's medical bills went over that amount. Or the state acts as sort of an insurance company by investing the money and using that to pay out.
Beyond that, you know, some people do break the law... I've known people who have been poor enough that they can't afford their insurance or who didn't have citizenship or who have had their licenses suspended and shouldn't be driving or people who got in so many accidents they were virtually un-insurable... (not that I'm condoning their behavior; I am mentioning them as their, illegal, risks putting *innocent* individuals into severe financial distress if said lawless-individuals cause an accident)
Oh, this old argument. Ya, let's force expensive equipment on EVERYONE because of a minorty of people. Maybe we should just not let anyone drive themselves anymore either.
As for your suggestion that we solve the burden of *not* providing medical care if you can't pay it yourself and the injury is the fault of another; how about we extend that to fire and police services as well? I mean, if you can't pay your fire department bill, and your house is on fire, to bad for you. It will suck even harder when you are responcible for your neighbors' houses' damage too... then gain, maybe they shouldn't have built so close to the property line or on so few acres or with so many trees... or buy a house that someone else built that way...
Stop with your red-herring. Most have liability insurance, and will get care. If your injuries are someone elses fault, they can pay, one way or another. You dying won't cause your whole neighborhood to die, so please stop it with stupid analogies. If you can't make your point without them, you probably don't have a very good point.
Similarly, if you can't pay the cops how much they are asking for (which, of course, would have to go up during a crisis; got to meet supply and demand) when the crook has a gun to your head, oh well: sucks to be you.
Funny you bring up cops. If I was allowed to carry a gun (which foruntately in my state I am), I don't need cops to defend myself. You're also under the delusion that cops really prevent crime. If someone gets the jump on me, and they steal / kill me and cops will not have stopped it. Having police doesn't prevent anything, sorry to burst your bubble.
I'm not saying to pay for stupidity, however, if I'm sitting in the parking lot in my properly parked car and a drunk, uninsured driver smashes into me, rendering me severely incapacitated and unconscious, I 1) don't get the 'option' of declining services if someone else calls the EMT's -- I just get the bill upon waking up and 2) shouldn't have to pay for something that is entirely not my fault but is the fault of an unlawful individual. #1 might seem silly, but I've known people who have been rendered unconscious (through no fault of their own), taken to the hospital, then given a bill for care they didn't agree to -- one (who was without medical insurance) would have rather died.
Again, you can sue the other driver. Have their wages garnished, etc. Being responsible, YOU should have insurance also which will cover your expenses. Oh, and there's a very simple way to express your wishes. It's funny how we have come up with a way to indicate you want to donate your organs or that you have alergies, but you can't do the same for refusing care?
And are you advocating that people let themselves die? or would you advocate EMT's waiting on payment upfront before rendering service to the injured? should we hold good Samaritans liable for medical expense for the unconscious, as the unconscious person obviously didn't chose to call for help?
I already said how this would work. I'm pretty suprised you couldn't figure it out yourself.
Given the laptop's ability to reach other laptops over a kilometer away, and the idea of giving them out to every child in a village, and the ability to charge the laptops any time, by an assortment of devices, the chances of my assumptions being correct are probably pretty good. Good enough for freelance outsourcing anyway.
I really don't think you're assumptions are going to prove correct. So far, are we even sure any laptops of reached the intented target audience? If so, have we heard from them?
You already have to go through multiple computers to communicate with anything, the difference is that those are (usually) managed by companies rather than individuals.
Yes, and they are fixed in place and there's more than one route. A mess is more likely to change day to day. In Africa, there are still a lot of wars going on too. I think keeping a laptop charged would not be something to worry about.
They won't start out as 9 to 5 coders, no. Then again, most contracts I've seen for Indian coders were for the production of a given work, not for a range of hours to be worked. Even many American consultant contracts work this way.
Yes, and the production of work must be completed by a given daet. You act as if there's no due date.
That never stopped outsourcing before.
Actually more and more reports of outsourced projects failing have been coming up over the years. Hell, I even have a friend and the company he bailed on ended up out of business because of outsourcing problems; poor code, huge time differences made communcations almost impossible, and the language barrier ended up creating code that wasn't even close to spec. He works for an internation company now, and they have these problems as well. And that's all in house people, just in different countries.
No, he doesn't have a point. He complains that WinForms is single threaded. Then he explains the perfectly valid reason why. He claims vaguely that sometimes you're told you are on th UI thread when you're not. Really? Can he reproduce it? Is there some say to show that's what happening? Because I do background threads all the time so my UI doesn't block, and I've yet to hit that problem.
Then he complains that depreciated functions are still in Win64. Well gee, I wonder why.. maybe so that older applications can still run? Ya, maybe they should have a file size that's a single 64 bit integer. Except in.Net there is a method that does this, and if you're in the Win32 world I can't image developers haven't wrapped the combination in a helper method.
Then he complains that notepad has Save, Don't Save, and Cancel buttons, but other MS products don't. Again, they probably should.. but the new buttons REQUIRE Vista. So you need to know what OS you're on to get these new buttons. Is there a lot of benefit to doing the check? Probably not. Oh, and he purposefully picks VS2005 instead of VS2008. Is that because he'd have to drop VS 2008 from his list of "bad" applications?
Then he wraps it up and says "well, MS dropped the ball with developers?" Nonsense. Pretty much ALL of the MS developers are very excited about the newest.Net framework release. Most are trying hard just to learn all the new tech that has come down.. Linq, lambda expressions, extension methods, anonymous types, Wpf, Wcf, Wf.
Well if the barrier decided to jump in front of a car which could not possibly avoid it, then yes. Does that sound silly? So does your analogy. Learn to argue the topic at hand better, if analogies are the best you can do.
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually not true. Every service pack ever released before XP-SP2 did not have major new features. It has always been the MS policy to use Service Packs as patches-only.
/. would be saying here if they had done that?)
/.ers that complain the loudest seem to be the most ignorant; it's hard to justify new features in an SP for enterprise customers, because they admins have to learn them, learn what problems the features may cause, etc. That was just the problem with NT 4 SPs, as the article I linked shows.
Not true. People have been complaining that MS was adding features in services packs since NT 4.0. Unless you're limiting MS OS' to XP, which only had one SP prior to SP2.
So, technically they may have always had the policy, but they hadn't been following it prior to Xp / 2000.
Microsoft was REALLY not going to release those features as a service pack. There were going to release it as a NEW OS VERSION! (Imgine what people on
Which is where many would argue that new features belong; in a new OS.
Jim Allchin insisted that Microsoft needed to improve it's security image and that the features should be released as a free service pack.
Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that MS WAS putting new features into SPs prior to SP2 for XP.
You are right though, you will likely never see another service pack like SP2.
I dunno; the major security problems in XP, Vista, Server 2003+ seem to be addressed, so there's likely no need. I tend to think that the adding the new features in XPSP2 was a good idea, because security in XP was pretty broken, and something needed to be done.
Well, if someone sent something to me and the PO said I had to pay for part of the postage because the sender underpaid, I'd tell them to return whatever it is to the sender. Why would anyone pay to have anything unsolicited to them?
You should be able to get security patches WITHOUT having to install lots of other unrelated cruft alongside it, and that includes things like stability related patches where the issue they address wasn't affecting you in the first place.
You can. Very few security patches aren't available stand alone. For those that aren't, it's probably because the fix really requires multiple patches to be effective. Hence the SP.
The addition of new features could potentially bring new security holes (more code to exploit)
Which is why MS has stopped providing new features in service packs. When SP2 for XP was released, they caught A LOT of flak for that.. so much that they changed their policies on new features in service packs.
as well as harming performance and wasting space... Try comparing the speed of XP with and without SP2 side by side on the same hardware.
Wasting space? If a security patch makes a file larger, I consider that a small price to pay. That's just a silly argument. The space the OS takes is always less than the space of the applications I install.
As for performance, again, I'd rather something run slower and be secure than run fast and be insecure. Secure code has a cost, usually performance. You may as well say you'd rather Win98; no security there, and it runs faster than XP on the same hardware. I find this to be a rather weak argument. I never noticed any peformance loss in any of the computers on which I've installed SP2.
Well, do you consider an OS with security holes broken or not? Personally I do; I'd rather deal with MS trying to fix my computer after an SP messes something up than with a virus trojan that I may not even notice at first.
I agree. What everyone forgets is that people don't want to be in an accident, or cause themselves harm. The vast majority of people are responsible and reasonable. Of course there's enough people that you'll see one or two idiots, and suddenly the roads are asolutely "filled" with idiots. Nevermind that 100 or os other cars that you didn't notice because they were driving perfectly fine.
it is clear that we as a nation regard death as nothing but an economic tool.
Ugh, please stop with your agenda driven drivel.
By having the death penalty
There's nothing wrong with a criminal dying for henious crimes. The problem is that with the death penalty, innocent people have been put to death. Since we have an imperfect system, we shouldn't have the death penalty.
abortion
I fail to see how a woman's personal decision whether or not to have kids is any of your business. Life doesn't begin at conception, sorry.
no universal health care
Health care begins with personal responsiblity. While over 50% of Americans are significantly overweight, I don't see why we should be pushing for universal healthcare when people can't be bothered to take reponsibility for their own health.
insurance companies that can legally denying life saving procedures
No insurance company can stop you from having a procedure. At worse, they can refuse to pay for it. Again, personal responsiblity comes into play here; do you need a life saving procedure because you took poor care of your body by eating junk food and sitting on a couch? If you choose to live that lifestyle, I fail to see why we as a society should have help pay for your poor choices.
The number of google search results does not count the number of crashes.
Sorry, here's the first article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition#United_Kingdom
Oh ok. I guess knowing the location and time of each plate number isn't tracking. Sorry. In order for the system to work, the time, location and plate number need to be known. As the vehicle moves, it stands to reason that this system can be used to give updated locations of the vehicle. It also stands to reason that they store this information, and Wikipedia states it does in fact store the data for five years. Here's another article which lists it's sources.
At this point I can only assume you're being a pedantic troll.
Yeah, I guess having the work "tracking" in the headline and the story doesn't count. Moron.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4464954.stm
There you go. If they can track criminals, they can track anyone.
Oh, and for the record, before you decide I need to be tracked, you need to prove you have a case for doing it. I have rights, you can't ignore them because you feel like it.
No, you didn't prove anything. You linked to someone that said that was the effect. It may not be true, the fact that a camera may have been going up may not have been the reason the problems stopped. Did anyone ask those that were causing problems why they stopped causing problems? Do you have any statistics that suggest the cameras reduce crime? If all you have is someone else's post on slashdot, you're right, there is no reason to discuss this futher. You may not care about someone tracking you, that doesn't mean you have the right to say everyone should be tracked. Let's not forget, cameras like these are also funded by our tax money, so maybe you really need to prove they work before demanding that my taxes are spent installing them.
No, they can't "do that anyway." Before, they'd have to have someone follow me to see that I went to the store, the car dealer, etc. Now that can all be recorded for everyone.
As far as your link goes, anecote isn't evidence. As far as I know, you're making it up. Provide facts, or shut up.
Well I guess if you want others to have the job of protecting you, and screw everyone else's liberty, you might want that.
As far as preventative goes, prove the cameras did in fact prevent anything.
Well, remember that consumers flatly rejected DIVX players and discs, largely for this reason.
Some griping from the poster
.NET is the way forward, *why are they not adding the ribbon to .NET*? Why have they added one to MFC, and why are they adding one to Win32, but *nothing* for .NET? Do you not see the contradiction here?
.net? Depending on how long they've been working on it, it's likely they started building it with MFC and so that's why it's there. It's speculation though. If you really want to have your question answered, I suggest asking someone at MS and not me. Unless you're just here to bitch.
Yes, I have read about those properties. I even use InvokeRequired occasionally. Why you are trying to update a UI that doesn't exist is beyond me though. Your whole arguement is based on a background thread that completes quickly before your UI is even built up. Really, if your background operation returns that quickly, why do you need another thread? You're better off keeping things in the UI thread at that point. Why you would allow controls to be created on a background thread is beyond me. It smacks of stupidity.
No, not at all. You're being obtuse.
If
Who said they won't be adding the ribbon to
I don't want them to "port" anything. I want good clean APIs, and a "port" of Win32 won't provide that.
Port, as in build API which provides the same functionality. Not a literal line for line port. Christ, you say I'm obtuse?
Except AFAIK, this EULA discusses an online service for which you pay monthly, so I tend to think it would apply here. You're paying for the service (and the software). So feel free to use Glide as long as you're not onlne..
Perhaps the article was a little unclear on this point. The issue is not that WinForms is single-threaded. It's that WinForms makes you give a damn about which thread runs the message pump.
.NET (it's a COM interface, with no primary interop assembly and a bunch of hairy bits that make interop difficult). The brand spanking new-to-Vista Media Foundation (which will eventually replace DirectShow) is also COM (and again with no PIA). .NET is really extremely incomplete as a Win32 replacement.
.net "really exteremly imcomplete." Nevermind the huge chunk that is there, that people are using to build compelete applications. Maybe you should complain to MS and tell them to drop everything to port it all to .net now, instead of pieces at a time.
How exactly does it make you care which thread runs the message pump? The only thing you need to know is that unless you do otherwise, your code is on the UI thread and so you shouldn't block it.
It's a pity it only does so in debug builds.
So you'd rather the application always crash instead of trying to do the call anyway? At any rate, we're talking about MS and developers. Developers would (I hope) try to debug a crashing program, and the exception immediately points out the error. So, it's not really MS dropping the ball, its developers not following proper coding standards. You can say they did drop the ball initially for this particular case, but they did fix it too. But to say one issue is totally upsetting to developers is nonsense.
I think it should be because MS thinks it should be. That's why it's been added to MFC, that's why it's being added to Windows Seven.
So let me understand; they release the ribbon, decide to include it later, but you're going to fault them now because it's not built into the OS right now? Interesting.
My current "toy" application is a media player. Something in the same vein as Sasami2k. DirectShow is unusable from
I see, so because your toy application needs to call into win32, that makes
There are no examples in the article of .Net not making a clean break from Win32.
But the article doesn't do that, except when describing how details of Win32 leak into .NET.
.Net. The threading model of the GUI is single threaded for a reason outside of Win32; multi-threaded guis are hard, and they don't buy you anything. Even the new UI Wpf has thread affinity. If you know this, its really easy to code against. The only problem was pre-.Net 2.0, which allowed you to make cross thread calls. .Net 2 now does the proper thing, and throwns an exception.
.NET doesn't support it; you've got to use Win32 to use it. Even though .NET does have transaction support (for COM+ transactions and database transactions) it doesn't support TxNTFS. So you've gotta use Win32. Or how about an MS-supported ribbon control? You've got to use MFC, and in Windows Seven there should be a native code ribbon control as part of the OS proper. In both cases, no managed code.
.NET" doesn't know what they're talking about.
But he didn't give any details of how win32 leaks into
But you can't. MS has added new features to Win32 (and VC++/MFC), and MS is going to continue to do so in Windows Seven. For example, Vista has a new transacted (database-style ACID transactions, not just journalled) filesystem.
There are third party managed ribbon controls; Infragistics offers one. Also, with Wpf it's fairly simple to do your own ribbon style control. With WinForms you're better off using the Infragistics one. Why you think the ribbon should be a standard Windows control I'm not sure.
Having to drop into Win32 to call some legacy thing that no-one should really be doing but which you have to do for backwards compatibility, that I could sort of understand. But having to drop into Win32 to call new features that have only just been added? Anyone saying "stop using Win32, just use
Well, I can't say I've need to use transactional NTFS yet, but otherwise I can do everything I need with just the framework. I'm curious, what kinds of things are you doing you need to use Win32 so much?
Actually, this varies from state to state; when I lived in Arizona you could just give a $100,000 deposit to ADoT's MVD division instead of carrying liability insurance.
I assume then you could be sued if the other person's medical bills went over that amount. Or the state acts as sort of an insurance company by investing the money and using that to pay out.
Beyond that, you know, some people do break the law... I've known people who have been poor enough that they can't afford their insurance or who didn't have citizenship or who have had their licenses suspended and shouldn't be driving or people who got in so many accidents they were virtually un-insurable... (not that I'm condoning their behavior; I am mentioning them as their, illegal, risks putting *innocent* individuals into severe financial distress if said lawless-individuals cause an accident)
Oh, this old argument. Ya, let's force expensive equipment on EVERYONE because of a minorty of people. Maybe we should just not let anyone drive themselves anymore either.
As for your suggestion that we solve the burden of *not* providing medical care if you can't pay it yourself and the injury is the fault of another; how about we extend that to fire and police services as well? I mean, if you can't pay your fire department bill, and your house is on fire, to bad for you. It will suck even harder when you are responcible for your neighbors' houses' damage too... then gain, maybe they shouldn't have built so close to the property line or on so few acres or with so many trees... or buy a house that someone else built that way...
Stop with your red-herring. Most have liability insurance, and will get care. If your injuries are someone elses fault, they can pay, one way or another. You dying won't cause your whole neighborhood to die, so please stop it with stupid analogies. If you can't make your point without them, you probably don't have a very good point.
Similarly, if you can't pay the cops how much they are asking for (which, of course, would have to go up during a crisis; got to meet supply and demand) when the crook has a gun to your head, oh well: sucks to be you.
Funny you bring up cops. If I was allowed to carry a gun (which foruntately in my state I am), I don't need cops to defend myself. You're also under the delusion that cops really prevent crime. If someone gets the jump on me, and they steal / kill me and cops will not have stopped it. Having police doesn't prevent anything, sorry to burst your bubble.
I'm not saying to pay for stupidity, however, if I'm sitting in the parking lot in my properly parked car and a drunk, uninsured driver smashes into me, rendering me severely incapacitated and unconscious, I 1) don't get the 'option' of declining services if someone else calls the EMT's -- I just get the bill upon waking up and 2) shouldn't have to pay for something that is entirely not my fault but is the fault of an unlawful individual. #1 might seem silly, but I've known people who have been rendered unconscious (through no fault of their own), taken to the hospital, then given a bill for care they didn't agree to -- one (who was without medical insurance) would have rather died.
Again, you can sue the other driver. Have their wages garnished, etc. Being responsible, YOU should have insurance also which will cover your expenses. Oh, and there's a very simple way to express your wishes. It's funny how we have come up with a way to indicate you want to donate your organs or that you have alergies, but you can't do the same for refusing care?
And are you advocating that people let themselves die? or would you advocate EMT's waiting on payment upfront before rendering service to the injured? should we hold good Samaritans liable for medical expense for the unconscious, as the unconscious person obviously didn't chose to call for help?
I already said how this would work. I'm pretty suprised you couldn't figure it out yourself.
Sorry, I don't buy it. The Acura TL has a 0.29 drag coefficent. From what I've found, Hummer's have a .5, so I'd say that the TL is pretty close.
You seem to like the shape, but it seems the majority doesn't. I'm not the first person to say some of these cars are ugly as sin.
Given the laptop's ability to reach other laptops over a kilometer away, and the idea of giving them out to every child in a village, and the ability to charge the laptops any time, by an assortment of devices, the chances of my assumptions being correct are probably pretty good. Good enough for freelance outsourcing anyway.
I really don't think you're assumptions are going to prove correct. So far, are we even sure any laptops of reached the intented target audience? If so, have we heard from them?
You already have to go through multiple computers to communicate with anything, the difference is that those are (usually) managed by companies rather than individuals.
Yes, and they are fixed in place and there's more than one route. A mess is more likely to change day to day. In Africa, there are still a lot of wars going on too. I think keeping a laptop charged would not be something to worry about.
They won't start out as 9 to 5 coders, no. Then again, most contracts I've seen for Indian coders were for the production of a given work, not for a range of hours to be worked. Even many American consultant contracts work this way.
Yes, and the production of work must be completed by a given daet. You act as if there's no due date.
That never stopped outsourcing before.
Actually more and more reports of outsourced projects failing have been coming up over the years. Hell, I even have a friend and the company he bailed on ended up out of business because of outsourcing problems; poor code, huge time differences made communcations almost impossible, and the language barrier ended up creating code that wasn't even close to spec. He works for an internation company now, and they have these problems as well. And that's all in house people, just in different countries.
No, he doesn't have a point. He complains that WinForms is single threaded. Then he explains the perfectly valid reason why. He claims vaguely that sometimes you're told you are on th UI thread when you're not. Really? Can he reproduce it? Is there some say to show that's what happening? Because I do background threads all the time so my UI doesn't block, and I've yet to hit that problem.
.Net there is a method that does this, and if you're in the Win32 world I can't image developers haven't wrapped the combination in a helper method.
.Net framework release. Most are trying hard just to learn all the new tech that has come down.. Linq, lambda expressions, extension methods, anonymous types, Wpf, Wcf, Wf.
Then he complains that depreciated functions are still in Win64. Well gee, I wonder why.. maybe so that older applications can still run? Ya, maybe they should have a file size that's a single 64 bit integer. Except in
Then he complains that notepad has Save, Don't Save, and Cancel buttons, but other MS products don't. Again, they probably should.. but the new buttons REQUIRE Vista. So you need to know what OS you're on to get these new buttons. Is there a lot of benefit to doing the check? Probably not. Oh, and he purposefully picks VS2005 instead of VS2008. Is that because he'd have to drop VS 2008 from his list of "bad" applications?
Then he wraps it up and says "well, MS dropped the ball with developers?" Nonsense. Pretty much ALL of the MS developers are very excited about the newest
Well if the barrier decided to jump in front of a car which could not possibly avoid it, then yes. Does that sound silly? So does your analogy. Learn to argue the topic at hand better, if analogies are the best you can do.