Now if you want to hear me complain about the inanity of ASP.NET 2.0 and 1.x being incompatible with each other, thus necessitating the need for both engines to run alongside each other in support of legacy modules, just keep it up.
I think you fail to understand.Net, and why this is actually a good thing. Maybe you don't remember DLL hell? Side by side versioning is MS' solution to DLL hell, and many of the things that.Net 2 made incompatible were done because they were causing some serious problems in 1.1. It's foolish though to assume you can just recompile a library which uses version 1.1 of a library against the 2.0 version and expect nothing to break. Not very sound engineering, and you should retest your application after doing a version upgrade of libraries.
I confess, I haven't used ASP.NET 3.5/MVC yet. It would have been handy back when I inherited an ASP.NET project. Unfortunately, after my poor experiences with ASP.NET's scalability (or lack thereof), I'm not really inclined to develop another site in ASP.
You mean since you lacked the knowlege to properly scale and Asp.Net application.
It's pretty simply; its only authorized to do what is spelt out in the constitution. Anything else is forbidden.
If you want to argue over what is MEANT by some phrases... we fortunately have various letters, journal entries, records of debate over what was included and why (or not included and why not).
There really is only a narrow way in which to interperate the Constitution; unfortunately it requires a lot more reading that most anyone does.
Well, just because a majority believe them to be constutitional does not make it so. Also, we're not a direct democracy (which is what you're talking about) for a reason... out founders rightfully thought that would be a really bad idea. And it is.
Hmm... your example shows how stupid your sentiment is. How does knowing how to drive stick mean anything when you're doing minor repairs on cars? I can't drive stick; that means I can't change my oil? Huh?
Oh, and I also thought that schools existed to TEACH.
Said "people" (ceos, executives, etc.) are almost uniformaly sociopaths. So no, they aren't like everyone else; they're more like Ted Bundey than you or I.
Did that policy change? Because I was going to buy a camera recently and they would match and beat the price by 10%, but the price in the computer was already "matched" even though no one updated the shelf price. Still bought the camera though.. better than having the door mongoloid at best buy harrass me.
If drunk driving laws were actually being persued to stop drunk driving, that would be one thing. But the recent push to drive the BAL lower and lower makes me think people are trying to get Prohibition back.
They don't require a particular OS, as evidenced by the fact they are going to get her laptop setup with it. What they didn't do is create a really easy to use setup cd for a fringe OS. I can hardly fault them for that.
As far as her other problem, a quick tutorial on startup may help (you want to do this in Windows, here's how in Linux).
What's illegal about it? If you're using it against your own network to test the strenght of your settings, I see nothing wrong with that. The question isn't why can they sell this legally, but why WOULDN'T they be able to do so? Given that any tool can always be used in bad ways, I don't think that should be enough to outlaw the tool itself.
As an alternative, you can make it more expensive to NOT save the planet. Extra taxes on paper which contains no recycled (or below a certain threshold) paper, extra taxes on coal oil burning power plants, heaters, etc.
Also, I think most people are remarkably short sited, contrary to your belief that 45% will spend more money now to save later. See also the mortgage meltdown.
I have a 'right' to not be attacked by you. Whether by weapon or disease. You don't have the right to be a carrier, when it's so easy to prevent.
You don't have any right not to get germs. If I have germs, and you get them and unless I purposefully infected you, it's not an attack. It's life. Germs and viruses will always exist, I recommend you get used to that fact. Unless you also want to claim I "attack" you every time I start my car, buy some new gadget or clean my house (which kicks up dust and germs). And yes, I can choose to get sick, it's my right. Your rights include being informed and staying away.... they do not include forcing me to undergo a medical procedure.
When she's available, she's generally the one to do it. When she's not somebody else does. Try to keep up.
Which proves my point; she's no better or worse than any other nurse. So it's irrelevent to me or anyone else if she's out sick.
I exaggerated. Still, my aunt's been around for longer than most of the doctors in her ward. And you specified doctor, not surgeon. Besides, I never stated that doctor's don't have skills, I said that they're employed on the basis of their knowledge. Give a doctor and a nurse ten years experience and guess which one will have more experience inserting needles.
Your exaggeration makes your case look weak and silly. Not a great way to prove your point. And a surgeon is a medical doctor. In an case, it's the MD (surgeon or not) that I'd rather have over an RN. As far as inserting needles goes, any idiot can do that, in many cases even Medical Assistants can do it, and they are the lowest level of patient care providers. Your aunt really isn't as important as you think she is, so her being sick is irrelevent to this discussion. She performs greatly appreciated work, I'm not dismissing that... but she's completely replacable too. Plenty of others can do the same things.
Given that I specified 'without a good reason', what risk? Vaccines are extremely safe except for a few segments of society. In order to protect them, we want to vaccinate as many of the rest as we can.
Well, given that you don't know how you'll react to a vaccine until AFTER it's adminstered, I'd say that's good enoug reason. Also, I don't need a good reason. I have a right to refuse that anything be consumed, injected, or what have you. Just like I have a right to refuse a life saving surgery. I don't need any reason, let alone a good one. It's my body, you have no rights to it.
Transfats don't jump from carrier to carrier. They aren't contageous. Makes a big difference.
I already addressed this silliness above. People get sick from germs and viruses. It will happen, you need to accept that there is always risk in life. Your right to reduce risk ends when you're forcing your will on another.
Fine and dandy, enjoy the non-vaccination without a good reason colony.
Hmm.. you claim to respect rights, but imply that those that don't wish to be vaccinated be forced to live somewhere else.
Nope, why I used the word 'apparently'. I say that on the basis of OTHER nurses and doctor's words. That and she's the first one called for when the need crops up.
Wow, you must tell me how your aunt manages to be awake and alert 24/7. I'm inclined to believe that the other nurses are just as capable, or your aunt would never be allowed to leave.
Really? You'd prefer a doctor fresh out of med school over a RN who's done CPR hundreds of times? Doctors are employed based on their knowledge; Nurses are more skill oriented.
You again present false choices, as if the hospital only has doctors fresh out of med school. Please. Also, feel free to tell a cardiac surgeon they only have knowledge, but no skill. I have a feeling they will disagree.
My grandfather had polio. I've studied the issue. We're far better off having people vaccinated than unvaccinated. Without the pressure to become vaccinated, we wouldn't have eliminated smallpox from the wild and come close with polio.
I never debated that vaccinations are good. I dislike the notion that anyone be forced to be vaccinated, especially when there is a risk involved with getting the vaccine in the first place.
And you're comparing a shot, cup, or mist up against a police state.
Yup.. see all too often rights are trampled on by those seeking to do some kind of "good." Banning transfats is another such example. I have a right to eat foods with transfats, and others have the right to make food with transfats. I have no problem with disclosure, so people can make their own decisions, but outright banning is a violation of rights. I much prefer individual freedom and the risks that come with it over government dictating many of the aspects of my life.
Yup. They don't seem to care if someone is innocent or not in their dealings... why should I care if they're really innocent or not? Besides, teh children safety is paramount. If they haven't been abusing their kid, they shouldn't mind someone checking up on their kids.
No, they are not. If two parties can't come to an agreement to which both are amenable, no one "loses." They're only willing to take your money if you're willing to accept the product as is. Does Britnay Spears "miss out" on my money because I don't like her style of music? No, she doesn't. She doesn't have any music I want, so she has not lost any money.
But, due to the wonder that is herd immunity, we can keep that way down for diseases we have vaccines against.
You seem to think people are nothing more than cattle. Fortunately, the rest of us realize that people have rights, and that includes the right to refuse any injection or medical procedure.
Yes, it does in some ways. However, she's also a Registered Nurse, and apparently the best in her ward at CPR. Do you really want somebody like her to be out sick when you or one of your loved ones to have a heart attack?
Really? And you've qualified what it means to be "the best in her ward?" Did her CPR work every single time, but other RNs only save 50% of their patients with CPR? Please, spare me your appeals to emotion. Every RN must be CPR certified. And personally, if I'm having a heart attack, I'd much prefer a doctor over a RN.
What if you or your family/friends happens to be one of the ones the vaccine doesn't work for? Sucks to be them, I guess.
Indeed it does. Yet I'm not about to go out and force every other person to have the vaccine.
I'm sure the world would be much safer if we had police monitoring everyone's move 24/7. I still think constant monitoring is a bad thing. Ya know, a huge violation of rights?
Slashdot Mirror
Driving is a right, regardless of the lies that state governments continually spout.
Now if you want to hear me complain about the inanity of ASP.NET 2.0 and 1.x being incompatible with each other, thus necessitating the need for both engines to run alongside each other in support of legacy modules, just keep it up.
I think you fail to understand .Net, and why this is actually a good thing. Maybe you don't remember DLL hell? Side by side versioning is MS' solution to DLL hell, and many of the things that .Net 2 made incompatible were done because they were causing some serious problems in 1.1. It's foolish though to assume you can just recompile a library which uses version 1.1 of a library against the 2.0 version and expect nothing to break. Not very sound engineering, and you should retest your application after doing a version upgrade of libraries.
I confess, I haven't used ASP.NET 3.5/MVC yet. It would have been handy back when I inherited an ASP.NET project. Unfortunately, after my poor experiences with ASP.NET's scalability (or lack thereof), I'm not really inclined to develop another site in ASP.
You mean since you lacked the knowlege to properly scale and Asp.Net application.
Ya, NT was really lean... but it can't do a 1/3 of what Vista does.
Don't worry, when you grow up you'll have a job that pays more than Burger King.
It's pretty simply; its only authorized to do what is spelt out in the constitution. Anything else is forbidden.
If you want to argue over what is MEANT by some phrases... we fortunately have various letters, journal entries, records of debate over what was included and why (or not included and why not).
There really is only a narrow way in which to interperate the Constitution; unfortunately it requires a lot more reading that most anyone does.
Well, just because a majority believe them to be constutitional does not make it so. Also, we're not a direct democracy (which is what you're talking about) for a reason... out founders rightfully thought that would be a really bad idea. And it is.
Hmm... your example shows how stupid your sentiment is. How does knowing how to drive stick mean anything when you're doing minor repairs on cars? I can't drive stick; that means I can't change my oil? Huh?
Oh, and I also thought that schools existed to TEACH.
Do they? Well, what idiot goes and gives on company all that data to begin with? Apparently that idiot is you.
Said "people" (ceos, executives, etc.) are almost uniformaly sociopaths. So no, they aren't like everyone else; they're more like Ted Bundey than you or I.
Ya, that's why Firefox has remained stagnate these past few years.
Did that policy change? Because I was going to buy a camera recently and they would match and beat the price by 10%, but the price in the computer was already "matched" even though no one updated the shelf price. Still bought the camera though.. better than having the door mongoloid at best buy harrass me.
Hmm... I thought under-age people were considered minors mainly because they don't act in a sane manner at times.
If drunk driving laws were actually being persued to stop drunk driving, that would be one thing. But the recent push to drive the BAL lower and lower makes me think people are trying to get Prohibition back.
I'm sorry, when did Techical school automatically mean "computer related?" Last I heard, they still include things like auto repair.
They don't require a particular OS, as evidenced by the fact they are going to get her laptop setup with it. What they didn't do is create a really easy to use setup cd for a fringe OS. I can hardly fault them for that.
As far as her other problem, a quick tutorial on startup may help (you want to do this in Windows, here's how in Linux).
Great idea! I actually do that. Now, how do I allow my Wii or PSP to use my wireless network?
What's illegal about it? If you're using it against your own network to test the strenght of your settings, I see nothing wrong with that. The question isn't why can they sell this legally, but why WOULDN'T they be able to do so? Given that any tool can always be used in bad ways, I don't think that should be enough to outlaw the tool itself.
As an alternative, you can make it more expensive to NOT save the planet. Extra taxes on paper which contains no recycled (or below a certain threshold) paper, extra taxes on coal oil burning power plants, heaters, etc.
Also, I think most people are remarkably short sited, contrary to your belief that 45% will spend more money now to save later. See also the mortgage meltdown.
No, it's most people. A recent study came out that said after about 7 hours of work, productivity plummits.
I have a 'right' to not be attacked by you. Whether by weapon or disease. You don't have the right to be a carrier, when it's so easy to prevent.
You don't have any right not to get germs. If I have germs, and you get them and unless I purposefully infected you, it's not an attack. It's life. Germs and viruses will always exist, I recommend you get used to that fact. Unless you also want to claim I "attack" you every time I start my car, buy some new gadget or clean my house (which kicks up dust and germs). And yes, I can choose to get sick, it's my right. Your rights include being informed and staying away.... they do not include forcing me to undergo a medical procedure.
When she's available, she's generally the one to do it. When she's not somebody else does. Try to keep up.
Which proves my point; she's no better or worse than any other nurse. So it's irrelevent to me or anyone else if she's out sick.
I exaggerated. Still, my aunt's been around for longer than most of the doctors in her ward. And you specified doctor, not surgeon. Besides, I never stated that doctor's don't have skills, I said that they're employed on the basis of their knowledge. Give a doctor and a nurse ten years experience and guess which one will have more experience inserting needles.
Your exaggeration makes your case look weak and silly. Not a great way to prove your point. And a surgeon is a medical doctor. In an case, it's the MD (surgeon or not) that I'd rather have over an RN. As far as inserting needles goes, any idiot can do that, in many cases even Medical Assistants can do it, and they are the lowest level of patient care providers. Your aunt really isn't as important as you think she is, so her being sick is irrelevent to this discussion. She performs greatly appreciated work, I'm not dismissing that... but she's completely replacable too. Plenty of others can do the same things.
Given that I specified 'without a good reason', what risk? Vaccines are extremely safe except for a few segments of society. In order to protect them, we want to vaccinate as many of the rest as we can.
Well, given that you don't know how you'll react to a vaccine until AFTER it's adminstered, I'd say that's good enoug reason. Also, I don't need a good reason. I have a right to refuse that anything be consumed, injected, or what have you. Just like I have a right to refuse a life saving surgery. I don't need any reason, let alone a good one. It's my body, you have no rights to it.
Transfats don't jump from carrier to carrier. They aren't contageous. Makes a big difference.
I already addressed this silliness above. People get sick from germs and viruses. It will happen, you need to accept that there is always risk in life. Your right to reduce risk ends when you're forcing your will on another.
Fine and dandy, enjoy the non-vaccination without a good reason colony.
Hmm.. you claim to respect rights, but imply that those that don't wish to be vaccinated be forced to live somewhere else.
Nope, why I used the word 'apparently'. I say that on the basis of OTHER nurses and doctor's words. That and she's the first one called for when the need crops up.
Wow, you must tell me how your aunt manages to be awake and alert 24/7. I'm inclined to believe that the other nurses are just as capable, or your aunt would never be allowed to leave.
Really? You'd prefer a doctor fresh out of med school over a RN who's done CPR hundreds of times? Doctors are employed based on their knowledge; Nurses are more skill oriented.
You again present false choices, as if the hospital only has doctors fresh out of med school. Please. Also, feel free to tell a cardiac surgeon they only have knowledge, but no skill. I have a feeling they will disagree.
My grandfather had polio. I've studied the issue. We're far better off having people vaccinated than unvaccinated. Without the pressure to become vaccinated, we wouldn't have eliminated smallpox from the wild and come close with polio.
I never debated that vaccinations are good. I dislike the notion that anyone be forced to be vaccinated, especially when there is a risk involved with getting the vaccine in the first place.
And you're comparing a shot, cup, or mist up against a police state.
Yup.. see all too often rights are trampled on by those seeking to do some kind of "good." Banning transfats is another such example. I have a right to eat foods with transfats, and others have the right to make food with transfats. I have no problem with disclosure, so people can make their own decisions, but outright banning is a violation of rights. I much prefer individual freedom and the risks that come with it over government dictating many of the aspects of my life.
Yup. They don't seem to care if someone is innocent or not in their dealings... why should I care if they're really innocent or not? Besides, teh children safety is paramount. If they haven't been abusing their kid, they shouldn't mind someone checking up on their kids.
No, they are not. If two parties can't come to an agreement to which both are amenable, no one "loses." They're only willing to take your money if you're willing to accept the product as is. Does Britnay Spears "miss out" on my money because I don't like her style of music? No, she doesn't. She doesn't have any music I want, so she has not lost any money.
But, due to the wonder that is herd immunity, we can keep that way down for diseases we have vaccines against.
You seem to think people are nothing more than cattle. Fortunately, the rest of us realize that people have rights, and that includes the right to refuse any injection or medical procedure.
Yes, it does in some ways. However, she's also a Registered Nurse, and apparently the best in her ward at CPR. Do you really want somebody like her to be out sick when you or one of your loved ones to have a heart attack?
Really? And you've qualified what it means to be "the best in her ward?" Did her CPR work every single time, but other RNs only save 50% of their patients with CPR? Please, spare me your appeals to emotion. Every RN must be CPR certified. And personally, if I'm having a heart attack, I'd much prefer a doctor over a RN.
What if you or your family/friends happens to be one of the ones the vaccine doesn't work for? Sucks to be them, I guess.
Indeed it does. Yet I'm not about to go out and force every other person to have the vaccine.
I'm sure the world would be much safer if we had police monitoring everyone's move 24/7. I still think constant monitoring is a bad thing. Ya know, a huge violation of rights?