Comment Feed for Lazycoder2

Re: Hanselminutes on 9 - Guided Tour inside the Windows Azure Cloud with Patrick Yantz

Lazycoder2 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:24:07 GMT

Amazing tour.

Do you have any idea or quotes about what the ROI is on one of the new containers? How long does it take the savings of one of these containers, over a typical container Microsoft is using, to pay back the cost?

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Using AJAX to Dynamically Update Silverlight Content

Lazycoder2 — Thu, 03 May 2007 16:45:04 GMT

I love that you were concerned about the performance of the sample code.
if(maxid - currentMax > 10) hehehehe

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: HanselMinutes on 9 - #1 -

Lazycoder2 — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:44:17 GMT

This is one blurry video. What happened?

I even cleaned my glasses and monitor twice just to make sure.

As an aside, since you found the "one dev" in that building, are you surprised that she owns a whole lot of features?

"Man, System.Web?! That was YOU?! Awesome. What were you on when you created Viewstate?"

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Screencast - Transactional NTFS

Lazycoder2 — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:43:04 GMT

Actual IM conversation I just had about this screencast.

Scott says:
No more having to write "make backup copy" DTS tasks for your multi-gigabyte Access exports
brian says:
hehehehehe
brian says:
I'd probably do that anyway, just for nostalgia's sake.
Scott says:
Yeah, but make it transactional.
brian says:
Make everything transactional.
brian says:
You get interrupted while taking a whiz? Whoosh, it goes back in.
Scott says:
each keypress or mouse move should have commit and rollback capabilities.
brian says:
indeed
brian says:
We should totally be product managers.

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Scott Swanson - MSN Messenger APIs

Lazycoder2 — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:21:07 GMT

A summary of the interview by a friend of mine who used to work with Scott.

Here's a question!

Here's a sarcastic comment!

Here's a lame non-sequitur...

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Steve Ball - Learning about Audio in Windows Vista

Lazycoder2 — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:24:25 GMT

LarryOsterman wrote:

For example, how do you express that audio from videos rendered through the WMP OCX should go to the headphones, while audio from WMP should be rendered through the desktop speakers without involving the application in the discussion?

Well if both sets of audio are sending input to the OS sound system, can't you create a UI that lets the user determine which physical device the output should be sent to? Is it possible for the sound system to determine which process/application is sending sound, enumerate them for the user, and allow the user to redirect the sound to a different output? Almost like hardware mixing with a "multi-track" system?

You still have to involve the application in the discussion (unless you were able to create application classifiers and assign the output on a per "class" basis) but the choice still ends up being made by the meatware.

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Anders Hejlsberg - LINQ

Lazycoder2 — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:18:15 GMT

bobEnglish wrote:

Wow
Does ths not look like FoxPro? Where you can intermingle SQL with structure code in your source file? And get SQL extracts right into local vars?
Is it just me or are we back some 15 years' time?

No, FoxPro was 15 year ahead of it's time.

A lot of the functions remind me of Ruby blocks and iterators. Don Box did a series on implementing Ruby continuations in C# 2.0 a while back that was fascinating.

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Dr. Neil Roodyn - Fooling around in Scoble's office

Lazycoder2 — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:12:12 GMT

He is a guy that rocks. I met him at a geek dinner once. Spends 1/2 the year in Australia and the other 1/2 in the US if I remember correctly. He wrote a book on using Extrememe Programming with .NET.

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Bill Gates - A short chat with Microsoft's Chief Software Architect

Lazycoder2 — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:27:26 GMT

jamie wrote:

which one? Mick?

See, I was going to make an "old man" joke, but couldn't come up with one that quick. Good job.

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Bill Gates - A short chat with Microsoft's Chief Software Architect

Lazycoder2 — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:26:03 GMT

scobleizer wrote:

>(ooooh, we don't joke about Bob)

Not with Bill we don't. His wife was the program manager on Bob.

and it was a good idea, one that stuff like the OS X Dock, ObjectDock, and the sidebar apps still try to implement. You can still see ideas borrowed from it in apps like OS X Dashboard and Konfabulator.

I liked his answer to "why do you still work?". I've always thought that the whole "kill/smash the competition" came more from Balmer and others on the board and that Bill just believed that his solution was the best. Why bother with the others? I've never thought the "innovate integration" stuff came from a desire to have the computers work better, not to stifle competition (at least from Bills POV). And I've noticed there's no "Balmer foundation".

I think I'd have a more interesting time talking to Bill Gates than I would Steve Jobs.

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Bill Gates - A short chat with Microsoft's Chief Software Architect

Lazycoder2 — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:07:57 GMT

LarryOsterman wrote:

But you didn't ask about VB for the mac. What's with that?

Or MS Bob.NET

(ooooh, we don't joke about Bob)

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Shishir Mehrotra - WinFS beta 1 team meeting

Lazycoder2 — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:00:36 GMT

scobleizer wrote:

Better security.

IMO, better security should never be a reason to PAY for an upgrade. I'm more interested in the other reasons, my security is fine. Hardware firewall, software firewall, A/V, A/S, etc...

When's PDC? Two more weeks? Three weeks? I'm not going, but it'll be interesting to see what you've been "anti-hyping" for months now.

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Shishir Mehrotra - WinFS beta 1 team meeting

Lazycoder2 — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:51:19 GMT

Beer28 wrote:

That's actually not true. BSD and Linux actually keep the config files in folders prefixed with a . in the user's local dir ~/.config

The registry was first used to point to specific dll's, eventually people started storing application specific data in it. Which is when the problems started. IMO. Linux/Unix and OS X (I think, I 'm not sure about OS X) require your shared libs to be in the path. Which is a little easier (e.g. no real DLL hell) but you have to hope that an application you want to use was compiled against the version of the lib you have.

That being said, it's nice to have everything in your /home/~user dir. When I upgraded to OS X 10.4, I just zipped up my home dir and copied over to a network drive.

Beer28 wrote:

As is the case with the .so's not facing dll hell due to the version being in the file name. The low tech solution on unix systems is actually much more elegant.

As someone who spent two days hunting down dependancy issues when trying to install the Ruby on Rails framework under Ubuntu Linux, I'd respectfully disagree with you on this point. A lot of time the archive file containing the source for a lib will contain a version # in it's name, but the binary ends up being called the same name as any other version and there isn't any easy way to determine which version you've got. If there is, tell me about it.

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Bill Crounse - Talking hospital tech with CIO of Overlake Hospital

Lazycoder2 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:11:35 GMT

mswanson wrote:

We worked a bit with Bill Crounse while architecting and building the NxOpinion diagnostic software. We also worked with Microsoft Research on Bayesian inference techniques to perform very fast and memory efficient diagnostics. If you'd like to see some cool technology and an inspirational video, check out the Technology Case study video in the upper-right corner of the PressPass article.

I haven't watched the video yet, but I'm going to. I just wanted to comment on this.

This is the scariest f'ing thing to do when you are developing a medical record/research system. I'm creating a cancer research system for UW/SCCA now and my biggest fear is that a doc will try to use our system to treat patients. We want them to use our system for quality of care research (e.g. how are my patients that are taking drug x doing? How efficient is this diagnostic technique at detecting this type of cancer) and analytical research ( e.g. what type of people are more likely to get this type of cancer, what types of treatments are more effective with this type of cancer). But I'm not sure we want to try and replace the electronic medical record system. We sure as heck don't want to try and suggest diagnoses to the docs. We are planning on using Baysean inferences, with a little bit of genetic programming, to increase the quality of the queries the docs want to run. Classifying the results into "good data", "Ok data", and "you should review this before you use it data.".

I can't believe the docs would go for letting a computer make a diagnosis for them. Is the system just suggesting possible diagnoses or is it making the diagnosis for the docs?

edit: I wanted to add that the reason we hope the docs aren't making a diagnosis from our application is that we don't think we can gather as much data as the patients paper chart has in it. We don't want the docs to make treatment decisions based on incomplete data. Trying to get data out of decades old, proprietary systems is ...hard.

'nother edit: One question. How is the tablet program at Swedish MC doing? I remember reading a case study on their EMR at the MS site a while back. Somebody from MS approached the SCCA about doing a Tablet pilot project. But their proposal was pretty lame, they didn't really want to push the envelope and we needed them too. I'm not sure if we took them up on their offer or not. The last time we talked to someone about Tablet PC data entry for our app was in NYC, and it wasn't an MS presentation. It was a lame partner who showed us a lame ink text box. That was about 2 years ago though.

posted by Lazycoder2

Re: Longhorn (heart) RSS

Lazycoder2 — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:27:30 GMT

Jeremy W. wrote:

Exposed through managed code?

It's exposed through a documented set of API's. It shouldn't matter if it's managed or not.

I think there's a difference, from a security standpoint, between calling code via interop and calling managed API's to the .NET Framework. I *KNOW* there's a big difference between the two methods from the PITA standpoint.

posted by Lazycoder2