Microsoft's own Dreamspark site (which is relatively simple) didn't work for me in IE11 the other day either. It was just things that should be straightforward in any browser, like clicking a button and having something download, or submit a form when I tried to update my user details, but no, in IE11, clicking said buttons just did nothing.
I had to use Firefox to download Microsoft's server OS and development tools.
That strikes me as a rather glaring problem.
I'm not sure I blame IE11 though, I can't fathom the kind of idiocy that results in creation of buttons on a webpage that do something so fancy in the background that it can actually not perform a simple action like submit a form or trigger a download. I'd expect any software company nowadays especially Microsoft to have at least some basic competence in web development including an understanding of making things like browser buttons work in a simple cross-browser compatible manner, but it seems not.
Greece's problem is that there was effectively no enforcement of tax evasion. Filling in a tax return was therefore effectively just optional. The UK is much better at enforcement than that as both chance of getting caught not only exist but are actually quite high and punishments are harsh.
Right, and those that call it "fair and non-discriminatory" are the air-heads to fail to realise there isn't a finite pool of cash and would rather give money to those who don't need it and condemn those to death for whom we can't afford the treatments they require.
You are claiming to be an advocate of fairness but ultimately condemning suffering on the poor whilst giving handouts to those who simply don't require them, some of whom have even said they'd gladly forego them. Given that the discussion is about the hypothetical scenario where the NHS becomes pay for then you are advocating discrimination yourself in suggesting the poor shouldn't have access to healthcare, but the wealthy should as long as all keep their winter fuel payments.
Besides, fuel credit is inherently discriminatory in that it discriminates based on age and there is already discrimination throughout the system - child tax credits discriminate against those without children, unemployment benefits discriminate against the employed, and the state pension discriminates against the young.
There's no fairness in giving even more money to the wealthy whilst others suffer unnecessarily.
The welfare state wasn't created to make the wealthy wealthier, it was made to look after people's welfare by ensuring a continued minimum standard of living. I'm sorry that you don't understand that.
Or to cut a long story short, your argument is a load of nonsense.
"Some mornings I can scarcely get on the bus for all the millionaires on there going to "the club" for breakfast."
That sarcasm may actually highlight even more so why it's stupid - it costs the tax payer even if it's not actually used. The idiocy of this was highlighted with winter fuel payments where they were being paid for years to pensioner ex-pats who lived in the south of Spain and didn't need winter fuel payments because it was warm enough there anyway such that rather than being something designed to save pensioners lives by preventing them freezing to death it was actually just free money for nothing once again.
"I agree we have some horrible waste in some really bizarre places, but sometimes means testing everything really doesn't gain you all that much. That's why we charge council tax based on the value of your house, not the size of your income - it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable yard-stick."
I don't really understand why means testing of financial circumstances is that difficult and I'm frankly pretty sure it's a myth. It became evident when politicians said they couldn't take a household income into account for determining child tax credits hence why they went with the single earner 60k a year fudge which means that if 1 person in a household earns 61k and the other earns nothing or peanuts they lose tax credits, but if two people living together earn 59k each then they don't lose tax credits. HMRC have income details, they have addresses, it's not hard to link the two - in fact, the private sector does this, credit reference agencies don't struggle to deal with the problem and they have less to go on than HMRC.
Means testing is something that shouldn't really cost anything much at all, the real issue is that it's not done either for political reasons (because it would disadvantage the politicians making the laws) or simply due to incompetence.
"For me, we could save a whole lot by relaxing the rules on what "must be treated"."
Actually I agree. Again my point is really that there's so many different things that could be done before the NHS would ever have become something you're charged for when you use it.
What ones should actually be done are of course open for debate, but I suspect if people were given the choice between losing the free NHS and letting wealthy pensioners have free money and free bus passes then even the pensioners themselves would choose the NHS given that they're the ones who need greatest use of it.
"You cannot possibly tax enough to pay for offering something for free to everyone where a significant percentage of people will abuse the privilege."
It's not free, it's paid as tax.
If it can't work then neither can insurance (health, or any kind) because it's exactly the same - you just have to make sure you charge enough such that your average payment is higher than the average cost of treatment.
I don't really see how people can "abuse" the NHS, you're either ill or your not, and you're going to be ill or not even if you're on a privately paid insurance system.
All the NHS is is a nationwide insurance scheme but one that's more efficient because it doesn't require costs for things like marketing, and needs less administration (because you don't have to have staff and accountants about to deal with charging people or chasing up medical insurance companies).
The problem, if anything, is inefficiency. The easy way to achieve efficiency is to introduce competition but this creates many other problems. The sensible way to deal with the problem is to just get someone competent at dealing with inefficiency to do so and this is where governments fail, because they'd rather give the job to their incompetent best friend from school rather than an outsider who actually knows what the fuck they are doing.
Problem is neither of those links are credible. The Telegraph is generally known as the Torygraph here because it's pro-Conservative so bound to attack Labour no matter how true, and The Daily Mail is just Fox News with even more lies.
I do really mean lies by the way, The Daily Mail does actually outright lie. I'm all for getting information from multiple sources, but The Daily Mail has so little credibility it's just not worth even using as a competing source because it's not that it simply has a different opinion on things, but that often it's just outright wrong and a wrong source has no merit in providing a balanced opinion because it doesn't provide a different perspective, it just provides wrongness.
Note that I'm not absolving Labour of blame here, but using sources that are known to be untrustworthy decreases the credibility of your argument. I'm pretty sure news outlets that have at least some capability to be objective have also reported on real actual issues without the additional lies the Torygraph and Daily Fail throw in.
"In the UK, obviously they have fewer levers to pull so they may, again, have to have that difficult 'social contract' conversation."
I don't think we do. There are plenty of places we could cut first and save a fortune. For example, in the UK if you have a kid and earn less than £50k a year you get a few grand a year for free.
I imagine we'll stop giving free money to people for no other reason than the fact they chose to have kids long before we start denying people healthcare.
Our government wants to spend £50bn (assuming it's even on budget) on a new train line too which seems to have no financial case judging from impartial and non-partisan scrutiny.
Then there's our nuclear submarines we want to replace.
We can even stop giving free TV licenses, free bus passes, free money for fuel bills and a state pension to wealthy retired baby boomers also if necessary - yes, that's right, even if you're a millionaire you get money to help pay your fuel bill and a free bus pass past a certain age all paid for by the state.
Really, there's an awful lot that can go before we need to start considering restricting access to healthcare with literally no negative impact on society. As much as they'll still bitch and moan anyway because that's what they do does anyone really think that denying the thousands with even only half a million in assets and a pension access to a free bus pass would have any negative effect on society whatsoever given that they could trivially afford to just pay for the bus with their existing money like anyone else?
Couple that with getting competent people rather than the typical lifelong public sector jobsworths they normally get to pretend to improve the situation (and who inevitable fail) of efficiency in the NHS and I'd wager not only can we deal with that £30bn gap, but we can still have change left over for another carrier group or nuclear submarine or whatever else we fancy.
Free care in the NHS isn't going anywhere at all in at least the next few decades, if ever.
Or if Labour are in at the time (not that I'm a fan of the Tories FWIW) we'll probably just stick it on the national credit card and grow the deficit to pay for it instead, because that's far easier than dealing with the actual problems like free handouts to those who neither need nor deserve them, and major problems of inefficiency largely due to lack of accountability.
Given that most C++ projects I've received since forever from academic code on EdX through to proprietary game engine code contain a Visual Studio project I'd wager there's an awful lot of developers that prefer Visual Studio, and yes, I suspect a number of those are on Slashdot.
Though I find it a lot odd you say you haven't coded in C++ in 15 years.
Right, well aren't you just Mr Overqualified when it comes to judging then?
I haven't used a BSD distribution in about 15 years so it'd seem a little odd if I said "BSD is shit" given that I have no idea what the fuck it's even like nowadays.
"It's somewhat disappointing that Slashdot is used to advertise software like this. Fuck that, I'll stick with free (as in freedom) compilers like GCC, MinGW, LLVM etc. and free IDEs."
Yeah and free browsers like Firefox.
Oh wait, guess what Mozilla does when Firefox crashes? It does the following:
In rare cases, such as problems that are especially difficult to solve, Mozilla may request additional data, including sections of memory (which may include memory shared by any or all applications running at the time the problem occurred), some registry settings, and one or more files from your computer. Your current documents may also be included. When additional data is requested, you can review the data and choose whether or not to send it.
What? one minute you're complaining about having to have an account to download, the next you're complaining that they might delete your account that you don't want in the first place.
Then you're jumping to some nonsense conclusion that by terminating your account they'll somehow hack into your computer and delete your software too?
This isn't Google apps. It's not a web based tool.
The C++ frameworks have always had the cutting edge features first. MFC received ribbon support before the managed frameworks for example. This is because the managed frameworks usually just wrap around that anyway - i.e. WinForms wasn't much more than a wrapper around Win32 API.
But that doesn't mean they're the preferred, main, or recommended development framework. The Windows development team use C++ because they're doing OS development and it's the best tool for the job, coupled with the fact it's all built with that legacy-wise anyway.
Far and away the majority of Windows development is still done with.NET and that ain't going to change any time soon. It really doesn't matter how renewed the interest in C++, it's still not making any headway to become the primary development option on Windows - getting features first is irrelevant, it's always been that way, even before the false rumours of Microsoft killing.NET came about.
If anything, the failure to focus primarily on.NET by the OS team in Win8 is the reason why WinRT has been such a massive flop in the first place.
I'd worry about a developer that doesn't even know what packages he is using.
It's not like NuGet provides a list of installed packages or anything. Oh wait.
You still know what's going on now. Scrap that. Competent developers still know what's going on now. The configs are still open and human readable, most people are aware of what dependencies they've added to their projects by simply not shutting down their brain whilst installing dependencies but I don't see how if you can't keep track of what you installed using say NuGet that you can magically keep track when manually adding dependencies to build files. Either you have some kind of issue of forgetfulness that makes you forget what dependencies you added to your project, or you don't. NuGet doesn't suddenly make it harder to remember what you added.
There's nothing magic, it's just that rather than type the config files yourself, there are tools to automate that now. They're still there, they're still accessible, you're still free to play with them as you wish.
It was the UI that made me hate 2012. The largely black and white themed icons slowed me down in finding the file I wanted in solution explorer in larger projects which was fucking annoying. It took some used to having the menu bars shouting at you all the time too.
I also hate the fact that it's a step backwards feature wise in some ways also, no more automated generation of unit tests for a class when using MSTest for example. I've also found NuGet can be quite annoying with it breaking once or twice and me manually having to fix my project.
I've gotten used to it now, but all in all I preferred 2010. I never had any performance issues with it in the first place, so I've not noticed any kind of speed up in 2012 because there was seemingly no human perceivable speed up to be had on my hardware.
Still, I'll download 2013 tonight and have a look. It sounds like it's addressed some of the problems I had with 2012 at least and the OP's post was stupid.
VS2010 bloated? Where exactly. Braindead? What does that even mean? It's stupid? So why does it have the best Intellisense and automated refactoring tools on the market then? TFS sucks? Justification please? Git integration is poor? Go fix it then. That's the open source mantra isn't it?
To be fair part the reason I posted the way I did was because I've also actually fired both, coincidentally 2 of only about 6 types of guns I've ever fired, the others being the L86, British GPMG (I think it was an L7), some.22 rifle and some form of shotgun when I went clay pidgeon shooting when I was young though I couldn't remember what exactly.
I can't say I recall there being any real observable difference that would suggest one was more powerful than the other to the eye, which is why I dismissed his post the way I did because really, even if he has also fired both I can't really see how that would've demonstrated anything much to him unless he was doing so in a very scientific manner as you point out, something which certainly didn't come across from his post if he did.
Keep in mind that Liam Fox is a far right atlanticist who has more in common with Sarah Palin than he does anyone this side of the Atlantic and you'll rapidly begin to understand why he's unable to reach logical conclusions.
This is the guy that wants us to leave Europe and move closer to the US even though if we leave Europe the US will have no use for us.
He also lost his job as defence secretary because he kept taking his boyfriend who worked in the defence industry abroad with him on state visits relating to military matters - i.e. he's corrupt as they come too and got caught red handed.
Let's just say he's possibly the dumbest politician in the UK since Jacqui Smith, he's really just not capable of thinking very hard.
Yes, the problem is that Cameron refuses to accept that what GCHQ has been doing is also criminal in that the UK is bound by the European Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also just illegal under UK law in general.
This is why successive home secretaries have been trying to get the Interception Modernisation Program through parliament for at least 5 years now despite the fact GCHQ has built it and done it anyway - because home secretaries know full well that without that bill it's illegal and they desperately hope that by making it legal in future that'll somehow make the past law breaking okay.
Cameron is still bitter that his best mate Jeremy Hunt got caught telling bare faced lies to the public, though I'm not sure why, because it's not like he didn't promote him afterwards despite the fact he'd failed on so many levels in his previous role as culture secretary.
I suspect what it means is tapping into information from 911 calls to try and link it up with other information.
If a gunshot sensor detects a shot and the police go to investigate and a guy just says he accidentally discharged it or was shooting in his yard the police may think nothing of it and go away.
If the police get a report that they've not seen an employee for a few days they may turn up and say there's no reason to think they should worry.
If the police get a report of a neighbour digging in their yard or stuffing something into the boot of their car in the middle of the night it by itself may just be dismissed if a separate set of officers visit without prior knowledge.
If however the system links the fact that the missing employee lived at the address of the gunshot and alerts officers visiting the address for the report of digging/stuffing something in the boot in the middle of the night then the police are much better equipped to say "Are you sure you haven't just killed your wife? May we please see what you were digging or get forensics to check your boot for blood?".
The problem is if you have different sources of information and different officers on different nights attending events at the same address then it's easy for the bigger picture to be lost. If the same officers attend they'll probably figure it out, but that's not guaranteed through different shifts, sickness and many other factors.
It'd be hard for 911 operators to keep track of everything they've recorded over maybe a few weeks and put two and two together, especially if different operators take the calls. If reports can be automatically linked based on geographic location and similar then it makes things easier for them to see what may have happened.
"Also, it's not that difficult to get a gun in the UK... you've just got to know the right people."
You mean like the local police chief? Because that's who signs off on firearms permits in the UK, in fact, apparently about 8% of the population of the UK own hunting rifles or shotguns. It's not hard to get one legally, unless you're mentally ill and have killed people in the pass you'll likely be granted a permit.
But that's not what you meant is it? You were talking about obtaining illegal firearms such as handguns, in which case you're talking crap.
Even in gangs in places like London and Birmingham where shootings actually happen and guns actually are it's often the same gun getting passed around because there's so few in circulation such that even most the people who do know the right people can't get one.
Getting an illegal gun in the UK is extremely difficult, even if you know the right people. Getting a legal gun is extremely easy.
Not really, there's intelligence, then there's "intelligence". What the NSA is gathering is "intelligence", and by "intelligence" I mean so much data that you can't find what you're looking for, which is why things like the Boston Marathon bombings happen regardless of them knowing who speaks to who and who has what connections and where everyone has been.
In contrast, MI5 (unlike GCHQ it seems) still seem to focus largely on actual intelligence - infiltrating people into mosques that are hotspots for Islamic terrorist sympathies and actually trailing people on foot or with CCTV. They find and focus on people who are likely to be a real actual threat rather than just spying on everyone ever.
I don't think anyone has a problem with the NSA/GCHQ spying for what it's worth. What people have a problem with is their blanket surveillance of everyone, that's the real problem.
No one would begrudge them the ability to spy on someone whom they've been tipped off as having claimed they want to commit a terrorist attack, or whom a foreign intelligence agency such as the ISI has told them has been to terrorist training camps in Pakistan, that's not the problem - the problem is they're not spying on people for which there's reasonable cause or suspicion, for whom they could easily get a judge to issue a warrant, they're spying on everyone.
Yep, I'll be honest I agree with much of what cold fjord has said in this topic, particularly with regards to the conspiracy theorist nutjobs claiming every attack is a conspiracy.
But you're right, we've definitely not had 2 major terrorist incidents every year in the UK since 2000 unless you either use a very liberal definition of the term "major" that includes what every normal person would class as "not major", or unless you use a liberal definition of terrorism such as including "cyber-terrorism" such as major DDOS attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's own Dreamspark site (which is relatively simple) didn't work for me in IE11 the other day either. It was just things that should be straightforward in any browser, like clicking a button and having something download, or submit a form when I tried to update my user details, but no, in IE11, clicking said buttons just did nothing.
I had to use Firefox to download Microsoft's server OS and development tools.
That strikes me as a rather glaring problem.
I'm not sure I blame IE11 though, I can't fathom the kind of idiocy that results in creation of buttons on a webpage that do something so fancy in the background that it can actually not perform a simple action like submit a form or trigger a download. I'd expect any software company nowadays especially Microsoft to have at least some basic competence in web development including an understanding of making things like browser buttons work in a simple cross-browser compatible manner, but it seems not.
Greece's problem is that there was effectively no enforcement of tax evasion. Filling in a tax return was therefore effectively just optional. The UK is much better at enforcement than that as both chance of getting caught not only exist but are actually quite high and punishments are harsh.
The power of Steven Harper AKA George Bush North I suspect.
Right, and those that call it "fair and non-discriminatory" are the air-heads to fail to realise there isn't a finite pool of cash and would rather give money to those who don't need it and condemn those to death for whom we can't afford the treatments they require.
You are claiming to be an advocate of fairness but ultimately condemning suffering on the poor whilst giving handouts to those who simply don't require them, some of whom have even said they'd gladly forego them. Given that the discussion is about the hypothetical scenario where the NHS becomes pay for then you are advocating discrimination yourself in suggesting the poor shouldn't have access to healthcare, but the wealthy should as long as all keep their winter fuel payments.
Besides, fuel credit is inherently discriminatory in that it discriminates based on age and there is already discrimination throughout the system - child tax credits discriminate against those without children, unemployment benefits discriminate against the employed, and the state pension discriminates against the young.
There's no fairness in giving even more money to the wealthy whilst others suffer unnecessarily.
The welfare state wasn't created to make the wealthy wealthier, it was made to look after people's welfare by ensuring a continued minimum standard of living. I'm sorry that you don't understand that.
Or to cut a long story short, your argument is a load of nonsense.
"Some mornings I can scarcely get on the bus for all the millionaires on there going to "the club" for breakfast."
That sarcasm may actually highlight even more so why it's stupid - it costs the tax payer even if it's not actually used. The idiocy of this was highlighted with winter fuel payments where they were being paid for years to pensioner ex-pats who lived in the south of Spain and didn't need winter fuel payments because it was warm enough there anyway such that rather than being something designed to save pensioners lives by preventing them freezing to death it was actually just free money for nothing once again.
"I agree we have some horrible waste in some really bizarre places, but sometimes means testing everything really doesn't gain you all that much. That's why we charge council tax based on the value of your house, not the size of your income - it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable yard-stick."
I don't really understand why means testing of financial circumstances is that difficult and I'm frankly pretty sure it's a myth. It became evident when politicians said they couldn't take a household income into account for determining child tax credits hence why they went with the single earner 60k a year fudge which means that if 1 person in a household earns 61k and the other earns nothing or peanuts they lose tax credits, but if two people living together earn 59k each then they don't lose tax credits. HMRC have income details, they have addresses, it's not hard to link the two - in fact, the private sector does this, credit reference agencies don't struggle to deal with the problem and they have less to go on than HMRC.
Means testing is something that shouldn't really cost anything much at all, the real issue is that it's not done either for political reasons (because it would disadvantage the politicians making the laws) or simply due to incompetence.
"For me, we could save a whole lot by relaxing the rules on what "must be treated"."
Actually I agree. Again my point is really that there's so many different things that could be done before the NHS would ever have become something you're charged for when you use it.
What ones should actually be done are of course open for debate, but I suspect if people were given the choice between losing the free NHS and letting wealthy pensioners have free money and free bus passes then even the pensioners themselves would choose the NHS given that they're the ones who need greatest use of it.
"You cannot possibly tax enough to pay for offering something for free to everyone where a significant percentage of people will abuse the privilege."
It's not free, it's paid as tax.
If it can't work then neither can insurance (health, or any kind) because it's exactly the same - you just have to make sure you charge enough such that your average payment is higher than the average cost of treatment.
I don't really see how people can "abuse" the NHS, you're either ill or your not, and you're going to be ill or not even if you're on a privately paid insurance system.
All the NHS is is a nationwide insurance scheme but one that's more efficient because it doesn't require costs for things like marketing, and needs less administration (because you don't have to have staff and accountants about to deal with charging people or chasing up medical insurance companies).
The problem, if anything, is inefficiency. The easy way to achieve efficiency is to introduce competition but this creates many other problems. The sensible way to deal with the problem is to just get someone competent at dealing with inefficiency to do so and this is where governments fail, because they'd rather give the job to their incompetent best friend from school rather than an outsider who actually knows what the fuck they are doing.
Problem is neither of those links are credible. The Telegraph is generally known as the Torygraph here because it's pro-Conservative so bound to attack Labour no matter how true, and The Daily Mail is just Fox News with even more lies.
I do really mean lies by the way, The Daily Mail does actually outright lie. I'm all for getting information from multiple sources, but The Daily Mail has so little credibility it's just not worth even using as a competing source because it's not that it simply has a different opinion on things, but that often it's just outright wrong and a wrong source has no merit in providing a balanced opinion because it doesn't provide a different perspective, it just provides wrongness.
Note that I'm not absolving Labour of blame here, but using sources that are known to be untrustworthy decreases the credibility of your argument. I'm pretty sure news outlets that have at least some capability to be objective have also reported on real actual issues without the additional lies the Torygraph and Daily Fail throw in.
"In the UK, obviously they have fewer levers to pull so they may, again, have to have that difficult 'social contract' conversation."
I don't think we do. There are plenty of places we could cut first and save a fortune. For example, in the UK if you have a kid and earn less than £50k a year you get a few grand a year for free.
I imagine we'll stop giving free money to people for no other reason than the fact they chose to have kids long before we start denying people healthcare.
Our government wants to spend £50bn (assuming it's even on budget) on a new train line too which seems to have no financial case judging from impartial and non-partisan scrutiny.
Then there's our nuclear submarines we want to replace.
That's before you consider other benefits:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending
We can even stop giving free TV licenses, free bus passes, free money for fuel bills and a state pension to wealthy retired baby boomers also if necessary - yes, that's right, even if you're a millionaire you get money to help pay your fuel bill and a free bus pass past a certain age all paid for by the state.
Really, there's an awful lot that can go before we need to start considering restricting access to healthcare with literally no negative impact on society. As much as they'll still bitch and moan anyway because that's what they do does anyone really think that denying the thousands with even only half a million in assets and a pension access to a free bus pass would have any negative effect on society whatsoever given that they could trivially afford to just pay for the bus with their existing money like anyone else?
Couple that with getting competent people rather than the typical lifelong public sector jobsworths they normally get to pretend to improve the situation (and who inevitable fail) of efficiency in the NHS and I'd wager not only can we deal with that £30bn gap, but we can still have change left over for another carrier group or nuclear submarine or whatever else we fancy.
Free care in the NHS isn't going anywhere at all in at least the next few decades, if ever.
Or if Labour are in at the time (not that I'm a fan of the Tories FWIW) we'll probably just stick it on the national credit card and grow the deficit to pay for it instead, because that's far easier than dealing with the actual problems like free handouts to those who neither need nor deserve them, and major problems of inefficiency largely due to lack of accountability.
Given that most C++ projects I've received since forever from academic code on EdX through to proprietary game engine code contain a Visual Studio project I'd wager there's an awful lot of developers that prefer Visual Studio, and yes, I suspect a number of those are on Slashdot.
Though I find it a lot odd you say you haven't coded in C++ in 15 years.
Right, well aren't you just Mr Overqualified when it comes to judging then?
I haven't used a BSD distribution in about 15 years so it'd seem a little odd if I said "BSD is shit" given that I have no idea what the fuck it's even like nowadays.
"It's somewhat disappointing that Slashdot is used to advertise software like this. Fuck that, I'll stick with free (as in freedom) compilers like GCC, MinGW, LLVM etc. and free IDEs."
Yeah and free browsers like Firefox.
Oh wait, guess what Mozilla does when Firefox crashes? It does the following:
In rare cases, such as problems that are especially difficult to solve, Mozilla may request additional data, including sections of memory (which may include memory shared by any or all applications running at the time the problem occurred), some registry settings, and one or more files from your computer. Your current documents may also be included. When additional data is requested, you can review the data and choose whether or not to send it.
Sound familiar?
What? one minute you're complaining about having to have an account to download, the next you're complaining that they might delete your account that you don't want in the first place.
Then you're jumping to some nonsense conclusion that by terminating your account they'll somehow hack into your computer and delete your software too?
This isn't Google apps. It's not a web based tool.
The C++ frameworks have always had the cutting edge features first. MFC received ribbon support before the managed frameworks for example. This is because the managed frameworks usually just wrap around that anyway - i.e. WinForms wasn't much more than a wrapper around Win32 API.
But that doesn't mean they're the preferred, main, or recommended development framework. The Windows development team use C++ because they're doing OS development and it's the best tool for the job, coupled with the fact it's all built with that legacy-wise anyway.
Far and away the majority of Windows development is still done with .NET and that ain't going to change any time soon. It really doesn't matter how renewed the interest in C++, it's still not making any headway to become the primary development option on Windows - getting features first is irrelevant, it's always been that way, even before the false rumours of Microsoft killing .NET came about.
If anything, the failure to focus primarily on .NET by the OS team in Win8 is the reason why WinRT has been such a massive flop in the first place.
I'd worry about a developer that doesn't even know what packages he is using.
It's not like NuGet provides a list of installed packages or anything. Oh wait.
You still know what's going on now. Scrap that. Competent developers still know what's going on now. The configs are still open and human readable, most people are aware of what dependencies they've added to their projects by simply not shutting down their brain whilst installing dependencies but I don't see how if you can't keep track of what you installed using say NuGet that you can magically keep track when manually adding dependencies to build files. Either you have some kind of issue of forgetfulness that makes you forget what dependencies you added to your project, or you don't. NuGet doesn't suddenly make it harder to remember what you added.
There's nothing magic, it's just that rather than type the config files yourself, there are tools to automate that now. They're still there, they're still accessible, you're still free to play with them as you wish.
It was the UI that made me hate 2012. The largely black and white themed icons slowed me down in finding the file I wanted in solution explorer in larger projects which was fucking annoying. It took some used to having the menu bars shouting at you all the time too.
I also hate the fact that it's a step backwards feature wise in some ways also, no more automated generation of unit tests for a class when using MSTest for example. I've also found NuGet can be quite annoying with it breaking once or twice and me manually having to fix my project.
I've gotten used to it now, but all in all I preferred 2010. I never had any performance issues with it in the first place, so I've not noticed any kind of speed up in 2012 because there was seemingly no human perceivable speed up to be had on my hardware.
Still, I'll download 2013 tonight and have a look. It sounds like it's addressed some of the problems I had with 2012 at least and the OP's post was stupid.
VS2010 bloated? Where exactly. Braindead? What does that even mean? It's stupid? So why does it have the best Intellisense and automated refactoring tools on the market then? TFS sucks? Justification please? Git integration is poor? Go fix it then. That's the open source mantra isn't it?
To be fair part the reason I posted the way I did was because I've also actually fired both, coincidentally 2 of only about 6 types of guns I've ever fired, the others being the L86, British GPMG (I think it was an L7), some .22 rifle and some form of shotgun when I went clay pidgeon shooting when I was young though I couldn't remember what exactly.
I can't say I recall there being any real observable difference that would suggest one was more powerful than the other to the eye, which is why I dismissed his post the way I did because really, even if he has also fired both I can't really see how that would've demonstrated anything much to him unless he was doing so in a very scientific manner as you point out, something which certainly didn't come across from his post if he did.
Keep in mind that Liam Fox is a far right atlanticist who has more in common with Sarah Palin than he does anyone this side of the Atlantic and you'll rapidly begin to understand why he's unable to reach logical conclusions.
This is the guy that wants us to leave Europe and move closer to the US even though if we leave Europe the US will have no use for us.
He also lost his job as defence secretary because he kept taking his boyfriend who worked in the defence industry abroad with him on state visits relating to military matters - i.e. he's corrupt as they come too and got caught red handed.
Let's just say he's possibly the dumbest politician in the UK since Jacqui Smith, he's really just not capable of thinking very hard.
Yes, that's what they keep telling you to make you think "Oh it could be worse". It lets you sit dwelling in your pit of blind ignorance.
But if only you knew how bad it actually was.
Yes, the problem is that Cameron refuses to accept that what GCHQ has been doing is also criminal in that the UK is bound by the European Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also just illegal under UK law in general.
This is why successive home secretaries have been trying to get the Interception Modernisation Program through parliament for at least 5 years now despite the fact GCHQ has built it and done it anyway - because home secretaries know full well that without that bill it's illegal and they desperately hope that by making it legal in future that'll somehow make the past law breaking okay.
Cameron is still bitter that his best mate Jeremy Hunt got caught telling bare faced lies to the public, though I'm not sure why, because it's not like he didn't promote him afterwards despite the fact he'd failed on so many levels in his previous role as culture secretary.
Unfortunately it never gets right either.
Linux may be less prone to viruses for whatever reason people may wish to dispute, but it's certainly not immune to viruses, not by any measure.
Why? you'll like this version. It has a lot in common with Windows 95.
For example, it adds a start button to the operating system.
I suspect what it means is tapping into information from 911 calls to try and link it up with other information.
If a gunshot sensor detects a shot and the police go to investigate and a guy just says he accidentally discharged it or was shooting in his yard the police may think nothing of it and go away.
If the police get a report that they've not seen an employee for a few days they may turn up and say there's no reason to think they should worry.
If the police get a report of a neighbour digging in their yard or stuffing something into the boot of their car in the middle of the night it by itself may just be dismissed if a separate set of officers visit without prior knowledge.
If however the system links the fact that the missing employee lived at the address of the gunshot and alerts officers visiting the address for the report of digging/stuffing something in the boot in the middle of the night then the police are much better equipped to say "Are you sure you haven't just killed your wife? May we please see what you were digging or get forensics to check your boot for blood?".
The problem is if you have different sources of information and different officers on different nights attending events at the same address then it's easy for the bigger picture to be lost. If the same officers attend they'll probably figure it out, but that's not guaranteed through different shifts, sickness and many other factors.
It'd be hard for 911 operators to keep track of everything they've recorded over maybe a few weeks and put two and two together, especially if different operators take the calls. If reports can be automatically linked based on geographic location and similar then it makes things easier for them to see what may have happened.
"Also, it's not that difficult to get a gun in the UK... you've just got to know the right people."
You mean like the local police chief? Because that's who signs off on firearms permits in the UK, in fact, apparently about 8% of the population of the UK own hunting rifles or shotguns. It's not hard to get one legally, unless you're mentally ill and have killed people in the pass you'll likely be granted a permit.
But that's not what you meant is it? You were talking about obtaining illegal firearms such as handguns, in which case you're talking crap.
Even in gangs in places like London and Birmingham where shootings actually happen and guns actually are it's often the same gun getting passed around because there's so few in circulation such that even most the people who do know the right people can't get one.
Getting an illegal gun in the UK is extremely difficult, even if you know the right people. Getting a legal gun is extremely easy.
Not really, there's intelligence, then there's "intelligence". What the NSA is gathering is "intelligence", and by "intelligence" I mean so much data that you can't find what you're looking for, which is why things like the Boston Marathon bombings happen regardless of them knowing who speaks to who and who has what connections and where everyone has been.
In contrast, MI5 (unlike GCHQ it seems) still seem to focus largely on actual intelligence - infiltrating people into mosques that are hotspots for Islamic terrorist sympathies and actually trailing people on foot or with CCTV. They find and focus on people who are likely to be a real actual threat rather than just spying on everyone ever.
I don't think anyone has a problem with the NSA/GCHQ spying for what it's worth. What people have a problem with is their blanket surveillance of everyone, that's the real problem.
No one would begrudge them the ability to spy on someone whom they've been tipped off as having claimed they want to commit a terrorist attack, or whom a foreign intelligence agency such as the ISI has told them has been to terrorist training camps in Pakistan, that's not the problem - the problem is they're not spying on people for which there's reasonable cause or suspicion, for whom they could easily get a judge to issue a warrant, they're spying on everyone.
That's the problem.
Physics vs. "I've fired both".
Hmm. Which do I pay more credence to?
Yep, I'll be honest I agree with much of what cold fjord has said in this topic, particularly with regards to the conspiracy theorist nutjobs claiming every attack is a conspiracy.
But you're right, we've definitely not had 2 major terrorist incidents every year in the UK since 2000 unless you either use a very liberal definition of the term "major" that includes what every normal person would class as "not major", or unless you use a liberal definition of terrorism such as including "cyber-terrorism" such as major DDOS attacks.