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
  • 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?

  • Cheap "Touch PC" control panel? Or - How to Hack a GPS?

    About 6 - 7 years ago, my brother bought me one of those handheld golf course GPS devices. It was essentially a Windows Pocket PC with the golf GPS software pre-installed. There was no "locking" of the device at all. In fact, I even purchased GPS navigation software for it separately, and used it for navigation instead of using it for golf. I actually used it more as a music player using the built-in Windows Media player. Admittedly, it was a little dangerous to using while driving since the UI was designed for stylus and not fat fingers. Smiley

  • Are we our own worst enemy?

    , Maddus Mattus wrote


    No, you live in some cocoon where you think everybody else should pay for your ideals and you will use the law to make them see.

    Strawman argument. Don't bring this garbage into this thread. That's not what this thread is about.


    A company is just a collection of individuals working together. If it operates within the law and brings down an entire market, so be it. The internet brought down newspapers and is bringing down the entertainment industry. Do you want government to bail them out? Because their business model is oudated? We would still be in the stoneage if everything lasted forever, change is the norm.

    The government is a collection of individuals. Who cares? Have a point.

    When did I say the government should bail out companies because some other industry is taking over its industry?

    I said that governments should bail out companies that have their fingers in so many pies that they'll cause a global economic depression if they go under. That is an OBLIGATION of the government. But the point of this thread is to discuss HOW companies become like this in the first place and perhaps talk about how to prevent it from happening.

    All you're doing is using every post as a way to spew your anti-tax/anti-regulation diarrhea no matter the relevance to the discussion.

    Do you really think that too many regulations and too high a tax rate is the reason for companies to grow through M&A and become too big, fat, and lazy to fail? Really?


    Two wrongs does not make a right. You constantly name problems that are the result of regulations that are in place (i.e. software patents), your solution to these problems are MORE regulations. Kudos for being original. Your solution to the problem is more of the problem.

    They're not two wrongs. One's a wrong and the other is a "this sucks but we have no choice".

    Patents are very business-friendly and foster entrepreneurship. The problem is that there aren't enough restrictions on what patents should protect. The difference is that I believe that there is an optimum amount of law and regulation to protect the free market from destroying itself. And we have witnessed the free market practically doing so several times, so don't even bother arguing this point. This optimum amount maybe to decrease or increase or simply replace old ones with new ones. It's really not an issue of the number of regulations. It's an issue of having the CORRECT regulations.

    You won't even acknowledge even the remote possibility that just having the CORRECT regulations is the solution. Your solution ALWAYS is to eliminate regulations and laws wholesale as if the free market has the self-control to police itself from self-destruction.

    Your indomitable trust in the free market to rise from any failure is why you're not living in reality. Do I think that the few humans that survive a nuclear holocaust would one day be able to repopulate the Earth? Yes, I do, because I believe in the human spirit (the metaphorical kind, that is). But I think we should do whatever we can to never have to find out how strong the human spirit is. The same goes for the free market. If we fall into a global economic depression, will the world eventually climb out of it? Probably, but why allow that to happen?


    We've not had a free market in at least a 50 years in the west. That's why we are doing so poorly. The less regulated countries are doing just fine.

    Who's doing poorly? The ultra-wealthy (both companies and individuals) couldn't ask for a better situation. That's the problem. Not everybody can be ultra-wealthy. Explain how fewer regulations would prevent this type of corporate or individual wealth imbalance.

    Please explain how fewer regulations would limit the economies of scale that large corporations enjoy and stifle smaller competition.


    yes, scary isnt it, trusting people who do CONSENTUAL business with each other? Taking responsibility for your own actions?

    What do you propose? More red tape?

    Not more red tape. The correct regulations is what I'm proposing. Eliminate stupid regulations and adopt more effective ones. Different (correct) regulations != more regulations.


    I am for free choice, so monopoly is bad and government should step in and protect the consumer.

    Oligopolies are even worse than monopolies. With a monopoly there's chance that the monopoly will grow complacent leading to other companies to rise and become successful. With oligopolies, the big, fat companies can't be complacent, but they won't necessarily do things to benefit the consumer. If one company decides to send jobs overseas, the other companies, in order to compete, will follow. The problem is that having a choice of two or three companies isn't much of a choice either.

    Crisis are bound to happen, you cannot stop them.

    Bullshit. They can be avoided. Economic crises aren't like tsunamis that hit too quickly to react to it. You're only making an excuse for the short-sightedness that the free market has. The free market is only concerned about the next quarterly report, and that's the truth.

    Just let them hit, pick up the pieces and rebuild. Look at Iceland, it's doing fine.

    Says who? Is everybody doing fine?

    Look at the crisis that hit the EU, did they let it hit? Nope and now nobody has a solution as we are all-in, only way out is a bankrupt EU.

    That's your own fault for trying to compete with the US economy and currency through one huge M&A deal. You turned yourselves into too big to fail. Besides I didn't see the European free market joining the EU kicking and screaming.

    It's people like you that I can't stand.

    The feeling is mutual. Believe me.

    You want government to take you by the hand and protect you from the big bad world.

    Toughen up!

    Why don't you toughen up? I'm all for paying my taxes and investing in infrastructure and providing a safety net for the less fortunate.

    You want everything to be as easy as possible for you. That's not tough. You tell the less fortunate to be tough, but you yourself are a WUSSY. Truth hurts doesn't it?

    There is no better system then the free market, I challenge you to find any that has worked as well in the past,... There is none,..

    I believe in the free market too. But a regulated free market that ensures its own survival is much better than an unfettered one that CAUSES its own destruction.


  • US Treasury Secretary < TARP

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae: You should take a long hard look in the mirror and see if that post is actually more about yourself then about whomever it is adressed to.

    The less regulated economies are doing better then ours, if that isnt proof, I don't know of anything that will convince you of your views.

    Socialism has never ever worked, the free market is what your ancestors used to create a world power.

    "You must unlearn what you have learned." - Yoda

    And now I'm going to give these threads a rest, as we end up performing the same moves.

    Do you have hotkey assigned for posting this garbage? You repeat this * over and over gain, and you've never explained how you go from point A to point B when you reduce regulations.

    Please explain what particular regulations caused banks to commit fraud, caused companies to become too big to fail forcing the government to have to bail them out, caused 3 companies to accumulate $200 billion to the detriment of competition, caused the top 1% to see their wealth increase 300% while the middle class has seen theirs go up by single digits. Seriously. Quit talking out of your nether regions and provide any shred of proof to back up your nonsensical talking points.

    And just to make clear, I have not advocated socialism. Don't confuse taxing and regulating free market companies as socialism. You are thoroughly confused, my friend.

  • US Treasury Secretary < TARP

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @DeathByVisualStudio: that's a myth!

    Companies cannot rape society, they are a part of it!

    So, if they rape society, they rape themselves.

    Government regulation does far more damage then companies ever can. Because government gets its power from force, where a company gets its power from mutual consent.

    If they piss the consumers off, they seize to exist. How different is that from government?

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but government is part of society too. You can't just make up your own definition of what society is. Nobody gave you the position of "definer" no matter how important you think your opinions are.

  • "Optimizer as an AppStore Service" = Cloud JIT ?


  • US Treasury Secretary < TARP

    , JohnAskew wrote


    I don't think I have a closed mind and nothing in the conservative perspective you offer is sensible.

    They don't know the definition of sensibility. It's about sticking to principles even in the face of evidence that those principles are flat-out wrong, stupid, or pointless. It's about being principled for the sake of being principled.

    They don't care if a policy sends every man, woman, and child to a life of destitution as long as not even one person gets a hand-out. The mentality is just so childish, and I don't even know how they function.

  • US Treasury Secretary < TARP

    , Maddus Mattus wrote


    So Wikipedia is wrong?

    Actually, no. What's wrong is your interpretation of cause and effect.

    What does it have to do with anything what political views Smoot-Hawley had?

    It has everything to do with whose policies we should be considering. These two morons that exacerbated the Great Depression are from the same party of morons that called for deregulation of banks before the most recent financial crisis and are not calling for even more deregulation.

    Doesnt matter wich came first, the effect was still devastating.

    Nobody said that it did or didn't. Bad economic policies can most certainly have bad economic effects. That doesn't mean that there should be no economic policies. It just means we should never adopt economic policies of morons. Trickle down economics is an economic policy of a moron.

    Stock markets don't fail, they correct. I don't see that as failure. .com bubble just the same, a correction on the overhyped worth of companies.

    Stock markets react to the actions of the free market. When the free market fails, and it's happened several times, the stock markets react to those failures.

    Markets do fail, we agreed on this point allready. What I fail to agree on is government investing into failed markets. Government is investing through cash or regulations at the expense of others.[quote]

    The government doesn't invest in failed markets. It bails them out. The government also gives tax breaks to highly successful companies that don't need it, unfortunately. Yet you seem to have no problem with that.

    [quote]All markets does not mean, just the financial sector. And we have government and only government to blame for the crisis we are seeing today. It started spending like crazy giving off the signal that living on borrowed money was OK. It blew up the financial sector into the epic beast it is today. It paved the way for people to live above their means, putting off paying the bills to tommorow.

    All that has happened is people started asking all the people to pay up and all these skeletons are coming out of the closet.

    To see this as a reason for more regulation in all the markets, is signing off more jobs abroad, more government spending, higher taxes, higher defecit. Heed the lessons of the old continent!

    And like clockwork, this is where you sound like a tinfoil hat-wearing looney. "Only the government" is to blame? LOL

    How dull it must be to live your black and white world. It's all about extremes with you. Yeah, it's all and only the government's fault. FOR EVERYTHING.

    "Damn, the economy's going into the shitter. It's the government's fault!"

    "Damn, GM is laying off 20,000 employees. It's the government's fault!"

    "Damn, Japan was hit with a tsunami. It's the government's fault!"

    "Damn, my * hurts. It's the government's fault!"

  • Unreasonable expectations

    , spivonious wrote

    @Dr Herbie: Agreed. Apple just made $8,800,000,000 in PROFIT in THREE MONTHS and their share price drops. They made $97,777,777.78 PER DAY.

    I will never understand the stock market.

    Stock prices are predicated on growth rate. If the rate of growth goes down, then the stock price should follow. IOW, stock prices are based on acceleration--not the velocity.