Loading user information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading user information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


cbae cbae
  • Windows 8 RTM available on MSDN

    , Ian2 wrote

    That kind of makes sense.


    I have to say that I haven't been impressed with the way that Windows 8 App store submissions have been handled. 

    Talk about 'dance monkey boy'

    You're a monkey, Ian! You're a monkey! Dance, monkey, in your little spangly shoes! Mash your cymbals, chimpy! Dance, Ian, dance! 


  • Windows 8 RTM available on MSDN

    , JohnAskew wrote


    Doh! I had my download folder all warmed up... fool me once... Wink


    Don't let the folder cool too much though. It's still only two weeks away. I was expecting some time in September, but that Windows Store thing works in our favor.

  • Windows 8 RTM available on MSDN

    ...on August 15. Smiley

    Just so you know, to upload apps to the Store, you'll need an RTM build of Windows 8. On August 15, we'll be making the build available to MSDN subscribers and we'll have a trial version available via TechNet. (Keep your eyes here and on the Windows 8 app developer blog for more info.)


  • Outlook.com

    The more important question is: Who's Amy Strande? Smiley

  • US Treasury Secretary < TARP

    , Maddus Mattus wrote


    On the Enron situation and free markets;

    Free markets are not perfect,.. They are based on trust,..

    Free markets are based on greed, and you have to trust that something beneficial can come from that greed. When that greed is reigned it, some (or even most) of us can stand to benefit. When it's not reigned in, only a few stand a benefit, and most of us are hurt by it. You just don't understand the concept of moderation, do you?

    We're clearly at a point in which we cannot trust good things to come out of greed because the greed is way too excessive.

    Violate that trust and the free market will reject you. As it rejected Enron. It's now no longer there.

    Enron was exposed as a fraud, and they had no business being in business in the first place. They were losing billions of dollars and using offshore entities to hide the losses, enabling their books to look great, their stock price to stay high, and their execs to engage in illegal insider trading.

    They had to file for bankruptcy not because the free market rejected them. They had to file for bankruptcy because their company was exposed as a complete sham.

    Sure, it has cost a lot of people a lot of money. But the positive thing is that, it's no longer costing a lot of people a lot of money.

    Riiight. Entire retirement savings wiped out for tens of thousands of people, and you think it's no longer costing people a lot of money. LOL.

    And what happens when the next Enron pop-ups up? Or how about the next WorldCom? Or the next Madoff Investment Securities?

    The thing is, for most companies, even if they violate a trust with the public, they continue without skipping a beat.

    How many of these companies involved in accounting scandals do you suppose are still in business?


    I would say a majority of them are.

    So much for rejecting these companies, huh?

    Let's look at bad government policy.

    It rarely gets revoked. Even if the evidence is staring them in the eye, it takes eons for politicians to admit and correct their mistakes.


    Policies get overturned all the time, and when they are, bad things usually happen. Glass-Steagall for instance. That's why the government takes its time to repeal regulations.

    On the other hand, when government adopts new policies, especially those affecting businesses, the policies are phased in over time. Not because the government wants to be slow, but because the companies being affected * and moan like crazy.

    This thread is about TARP. TARP is a mistake. A huge collosal mistake, HUGE.

    You really have no clue about TARP. You can Monday morning quarterback all you want, but was it a colossal mistake to even attempt to avert a global economic meltdown? Really? Besides, what's done is done, and we did avert a global economic meltdown--for now.

    But as I said already, the biggest mistake is not adopting new measures to avoid having to bailout these companies ever again. Re-enacting Glass-Steagall, breaking up the banks, and enacting a Sherman Antitrust Act-type statute to prevent banks from getting "too big to fail" is what we need to do.

    No measure to prevent companies from becoming too big to fail is going to happen magically by itself in the free market. I can tell you that. You really think having to go through a period global depression is going to "learn these companies" not to become too big to fail ever again completely ON THEIR OWN? LOL. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.

  • Are we our own worst enemy?

    , Maddus Mattus wrote


    That's not the point.

    The point is, they can use patents to become big and powerfull coorperations.

    Patents? That's seriously the first and only thing you're going to mention after I challenged you to connect the dots between excessive regulations and corporations hoarding obscene amounts of cash? LOL!

    If any companies are abusing the patent system, it's the ones that have ALREADY become big and power. They didn't get that way because they abused the patent system.

    It's astounding how you confuse cause and effect so often.

    Who benefits from a patent system?

    The consumer? Don't think so, he has less choice.

    The employees? To a certain degree, they benefit because their jobs are protected.

    The stockholder? Hell yeah, they are guaranteed an income, by law!

    Stockholders guaranteed an income BY LAW? If you believe that, I have about a thousand penny stock shares for the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. LOL

    So you can see, patents benefit the employees and the stockholder at the expense of the consumer.

    When companies cut corners by ignoring environmental regulations, they benefit the employees and stockholders at the expense of consumers' and everybody else's health.

    When companies are allowed to merge at-will without any regulatory oversight, it benefits only select employees (i.e. executives) and shareholders at the expense of mid and lower-tier workers in addition to the consumer.

    See how that works?

    Cbae is advocating against big coorperations and for the small business owner. Kudos to him, but if you look where small business is thriving, it's China. Because of it's lack of regulations, everybody can compete.

    China has a unique combination of vast amounts of natural resources, vast amounts of cheap labor, technological/engineering know how, flexibility to take on new markets, willingness to drastically reduce profit margins to win new customers and/or larger orders, and, yes, a willingness to ignore safety, environmental provisions, and IP laws many countries of the West observe.

    But, they're also very forward-thinking unlike the US and other countries of the West. Despite its vast coal reserves and what seemingly is a disregard for air pollution, China is now the leading producer (and investor in) clean, renewable energy.


    Sorry, but your country has absolutely ZERO chance of deregulating itself into another economic power like China. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

  • Are we our own worst enemy?

    , Maddus Mattus wrote


    Ah, my confrere, but the difference between a company and a government is, the monopoly of force. I can choose not to do business with a certain company, I cannot choose not to do business with a government. Government can dictate what I can and must do, a company cannot. Huge difference.

    You're free to leave the country. Please don't come into mine though. Smiley


    You did when you cry out for regulations to prevent so called market failures.


    First, I didn't cry out for anything. Second, I was defending the government's response to prevent a total economic collapse. That's a little bit broader in scope than any one particular "market".

    No it's not. It's their duty to see that it does not come to that point, and if it does, we should ride it out, not pour tax dollars from current and future citizens into it.

    The government's primary job is to preserve the nation's existence and well-being. Their duty to make sure it didn't get to that point was because of deregulation. Just letting everyone ride it out is about the most idiotic thing you can do. Thankfully, we didn't do that. However, the second most idiotic thing is to NOT readopt regulations that would have prevented this from happening in the first place, and unfortunately, we ARE doing just that. The reason that we aren't able to prevent this from happening by breaking up the banks is because we have too many morons who are beholden to the very banks that caused the mess without having any reason to be.


    I believe it's at the hart of the problem, as you believe it is at the heart of the solution.


    Jup,. Regulations prevents competition, lack of competition creates big fat lazy big companies.

    How do regulations prevent competition? Are anti-trust laws anti-competitive? Really? Are you really that out of touch with reality?

    What about environmental or labor laws? Most small companies get exemptions. How did these regulations foster big companies getting bigger and make smaller successful companies disappear like endangered species?

    This is not to say no small companies exist. Lots of people start small companies with an exit strategy of being bought out by a larger company. It's absolutely sad what's become of entrepreneurship.  Small companies have ZERO hope of ever becoming a large company, and it has NOTHING to do with regulations. They get all the regulatory exemptions and actual benefits (e.g. SBA 8(a) advantages afforded to small, minority-own companies that want to contract with the government, for instance). Yet, they still have little chance of competing because the game is absolutely rigged.


    So, they are holding the patents wrong? Where have I heard that before?

    The idea behind the system is valid, the effects it has are the opposite. That's what I've been trying to tell you for ten threads now. The intention is there to do good, no doubt, but in the process they do harm. There is a difference between the fiction of paper and stone cold reality.


    The patent laws are specific enough and allow for no consideration for current market implications. Prior art and first to file rules are really the only determining factors in the validity of a patent. Just as the SEC can use a little common sense in what mergers can or can't happen because of monopolistic implications, the patent laws can allow for common sense to be applied to whether or not a patent should be considered valid based on current market implications rather than the first to file and prior art rules.

    No it's not. My solution is where two people do business voluntairly, to let them do it without regulation. Only when dealings between these two affect a third in a negative way, is there a role for government.


    Who died and let you decide what the role of the government should be? 

    I trust that people spend their own money the wisest. I do not trust some other guy to spend my money wise on yet another guy. I've explained this to you before.

    Why allow it to happen? Do you think you are God? You cannot stop these processes by regulations. If government is the key to success, why isnt everybody succesfull?


    Fewer regulations would allow for more competition. More competition leads to more efficient businesses. More efficient businesses leads to less overhead. Less overhead means no CEO can offord a $300M paycheck.


    Each regulation recuires more red tap. You need a guy to enforce the regulation.

    So, if you want better regulation, you first have to get of a bunch, otherwise you would increase red tape.


    Round and round we go. Same *. Different day. Are you STILL not understanding the point of this thread?

    Lets try to find some common ground.

    We can all agree that oligopolies are bad for the economy, right? IMO, oligopolies are monopolies in sheep's clothing. They have all the anti-competitive effects of monopolies without the regulatory baggage of monopolies.

    Do you dispute that M&A activity was at an all time high in the past 10 to 15 years?

    Do you dispute that companies, especially banks, are now larger than ever with smaller regional banks virtually disappearing as they're being gobbled up by larger banks?

    Do you dispute that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was the single biggest regulatory move the US government made in the past 20 years?

    Do you consider the repeal of Glass-Steagall "enacting more regulations" or "deregulating"?

    My claim is that the advent of information technologies, automation, deregulation, and the increasing desire for making *-tons of money from the equities markets have pushed companies to merge and grow huge instead of improving their products and services to improve earnings organically.

    So if you don't dispute any of things that I mentioned, then you can't dispute my claim.

    All of the market forces that I mentioned all fit. Even if you take away deregulation, what I described still makes sense, and what I described as happening (formation of oligopolies) is actually happening.

    Now, you tell me how the repeal of existing regulations would have prevented Apple, Microsoft, and Google from accumulating $200 billion in cash.

    Give me SPECIFIC regulations this time. Cause and effect. Connect the dots. Point A to point B. Until you do that, you're just talking out of your *.

  • Are we our own worst enemy?

    @Maddus Mattus: When there are only foxes, the only choice you have is to be eaten by one fox over another. That's not really much of a choice, is it?

  • Dislike "Xbox Music".

    , JoshRoss wrote


    Round-robin DNS doesn't work?

    It does, but the client computer is still issued a single IP address by the DNS server. It doesn't issue two and allow the client computer to choose whichever one it wants.

  • Dislike "Xbox Music".

    You know how with DNS it doesn't matter how many domain names you use to point to a server as long as they all point to same unique IP address, and that the converse (a single domain name pointing to multiple IPs) doesn't work?

    It's kind of the same with this. Microsoft has only one service for purchasing music. It doesn't really matter if they rebrand it or use multiple brands, as long as it always refers to the same music purchasing service.

    And, yes, "Xbox" is a brand. Is "Xbox Music" any less appropriate for purchasing music for your Windows computer than "iTunes App Store" is for purchasing a game for your iPad?