Discussions

17 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

And if they can't defend why the accounts they signed off is reasonable, legal, and not tax evasion, those CFOs should really be put in a jumpsuit and put behind bars.

Define reasonable? It's already been decided it's legal and not tax evasion, and doing something illegal is the ONLY reason CFOs should be put in a jumpsuit and put behind bars. You're anger is misplaced, quite frankly. Turn it towards the governments that don't fix the tax laws that are clearly broken.

- "I would hope this turns out to be a great teaching lesson on how dysfunctional the architecture of our tax system is," he ( Gary Hufbauer) continued. "But it's more likely that we'll learn an easier lesson: That Apple is being a bad boy." (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/of-course-apple-avoids-billions-in-taxes-and-it-should/276078/)

I'm not saying I'm happy about the situation, but I can't really formulate any anger over a company (or an individual) that avoids taxes legally. If the system is broke, fix the system, don't complain that someone has exploited it to their advantage. That's human nature, and not necessarily a bad thing. Now, if they find that Apple has illegally avoided taxes, that will be a different game all together, and I'll join you in you're ire and indignation.

5 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

This isn't about ads, or users, or downloads or YouTube. It's a big game of chess being played by lawyers, where sadly users are being treated as pawns on all sides.

This is mostly accurate. The one nuance I'd point out, however, is that users are benefiting from Microsoft's manipulations, while they are being hurt by Google's. Doesn't make Microsoft an angel or savior, but it does make them smarter. Google is jeopardizing their customer base. I was a heavy Google user. I used Google products as much as I used Microsoft products. Recent actions they've taken, however, has drastically reduced how much I use Google. Within a year, I may be Google free. I've got to assume there's plenty of others like me, and if Google continues there's likely to be plenty more in the future.

13 hours ago, fanbaby wrote

This reminds me of the Silverlight saga in the following sense:

SL fans were busy FUDing the entire world including Microsoft instead of just pleading with Microsoft to truly open dotnet/Silverlight.

Its the same here. Instead of pleading with Microsoft to stop suing linux/android, which i have a feeling will solve this issue, WP users are busy tarnishing Google. Good luck with that.

I know you're trolling, but you have to do a better job. Comparing SL to this case is apples and bicycles. Microsoft supported the Moonlight effort, and .NET has always been an open standard. So, where are the similarities?

@elmer: It may be bleeding obvious, but it's also bleeding meaningless. That was my point.

2 minutes ago, wastingtime​withforums wrote

*snip*

And what have you said?

"We know how many people use the previous versions, and their numbers were calculated the same way"

Yes, but that MS calculations were ALSO BACKED UP BY EVERYONE ELSE! The PC retail sector didn't scream bloody murder and the OS stats jived with Microsoft's license calculations. Not this time.

*snip*

So everyone except Microsoft.

"Fanboi"-insult coming from you is rich.

What I said was the numbers were nuanced, and they are. They aren't as high as Microsoft wanted, but they also aren't low enough to prove failure. You keep screaming failure, but the numbers (even the ones you try to use to prove your point) don't bear that out. It's not a clear success, but it's also far (far) from a failure.

If you think I used "fanboi" to insult you, boy are you deluded . In any case, I'm not a fanbois. If I were, I'd be screaming about how great things are, which I've never done. If you think I have, it says more about your own biases than it does about mine.

3 minutes ago, wastingtime​withforums wrote

Doesn't compute! Everyone is lying except MS? Sure buddy.

The explanations in the quoted article make much more sense.

Nah, the only ones lying are the pundits, fanbois and haters, such as yourself.

Please apply some analytical thought and reread what I said, because nothing you just ranted on about is relevant to anything I actually said.

2 hours ago, spivonious wrote

I think rapid updates are to be expected. Isn't MS going to a more agile release cycle? I wouldn't expect VS2013 to be much different than VS2012. More like VS2012 Update 3.

VS is already getting rapid update cycles. That's what the various "update" releases are. These aren't simple service packs. You see a VS2013 product name simply because VS has always delivered with OS releases, and evidently "Blue" is being considered a big enough release to warrant the release of a new VS (more than likely there's new SDKs in Blue). None of this should be surprising to anyone here.

@cbae: Yes, and any D&D player would tell you it's two 10-sided dice.

10 hours ago, elmer wrote

Of course, sales to OEMs doesn't tell you about end-user purchases, or how (if) they are being used or downgraded, but that's a separate issue.

This argument always annoys the crap out of me. It's made every single time, which is why it's pointless. We know how many people use the previous versions, and their numbers were calculated the same way, so it doesn't matter in any way how many are sold to OEMs or end users.

In any case, the numbers may not be as high as some would like, but even though they'll try, the naysayers can't really claim this proves them right. Windows 8 is certainly successful by some measure, and can't in any way be claimed to be a "total failure". That's not to say there isn't still lots of room for improvement and a very steep uphill battle for Microsoft to overcome still. As Paul Thurrott said, this is a very nuanced topic that can (and should be) read in a number of ways, and we won't know the real picture for some time to come (possibly years).

The reflection route won't always work, due to inlining. The CallerMemberNameAttribute is more reliable, but it doesn't give you the current method, but rather the calling method. Should still work for what you're trying to do, obviously, but you specifically asked about getting the current method name. I'd also point out that the CallerMemberName approach can be misused, though that's probably not something you're worried about.