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


dahat dahat inanity makes my head hurt
  • No MSDN renew with media option

    What about creating a bootable USB drive when needed and copying the contents of the ISO you want to load to a PC?

    I honestly do not recall the last time I burned any optical media... all of my backups are either on hard drives on a shelf at home (just incase of a NAS failure), a shelf at work (offsite) or in the cloud (really offsite)... for PC installs I've been using a thumb drive for... 5+ years now.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , JohnAskew wrote

    It damned simple. Stop monetizing the flow of digital information.


    Any chance you were the kid in this old Lotus ad? Your argument sounds similarly simple:

    Just like highways.

    You mean the roads which have toll roads from time to time and a large number of cross streets that slow you down? I prefer freeways for my distance driving... but even then there are costs involved: larger passenger vehicles cost more to license for road use than smaller ones, semi-trucks and commercial vehicles pay even more... and are inspected multiple times along the way. Never mind the speed limits which keep a driver from saving time when the roads are clean and visibility is good.

    Anyone thinking it's not this simple is prying open the Capitalist Pandora's Box of Profit Modeling and they are already swimming in the wrong lake.

    Or... many over simplify the issue without considering the implications of such a system.

    Why does anyone want to make this complex? Just stop monetizing the pipe. Send your data and be quiet.

    And who do you expect to pay for improvements and expansion to the pipe? With the exception of private roadways (of which there is a surprising number here in Washington state), no vehicle drives on a public roadway for free... the taxes on fuel & registration pay for those roads.

    Who pays for network access? Oh right... the end users... and some pay more depending on their usage... just like cars. Drive a lot? You are going to pay more in fuel taxes. Send/receive a lot of data... maybe you should pay more per month than the 80 year old woman who only sends email and does light Facebooking.

    , phreaks wrote


    I am pretty much in agreement here. 

    Why should any packets cost more than any other packets. It's foolish. The ideal is probably well intended, but the implementation will have various degrees of unintended consequences.

    Absolutely right! Why can't I have the same kind of cheap bandwidth and a cap in the hundreds of gigabytes with my cell phone that I do over my cable modem? Why should anyone have to pay more based on the transport layer to send their packet... it gets there in the end? Right? Just like there is no difference between USPS & FedEx.

    There is no uniform cost of getting from point A to point B... different providers be they postal, person/object transport or telecom have their own variable costs... even over the same route... and most of those pushing hard for net neutrality tend to ignore than fact.

  • Can you do a completely private lob app on WP?

    If you are just dealing with a phone or two, side loading a custom app with a dev unlocked phone would work... but if you have any desire to scale or update the app easily later it's a bit harder.

    You should look into what InTune offers for device management and private app deployment: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn600287.aspx

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    All of this celebration may be a bit premature as it seems the FCC chairman (an Obama appointee no less) doesn't quite agree with this stance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fcc-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet/

    I guess this means that 'new champion' is synonymous with 'influenceless lame duck' in this context.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , ScanIAm wrote

    Ask yourself if you'd feel the same way about water.  You could pay for super-high-speed water that shows up in jiffy or you could pay for regular water that shows up only when the super-high-speed folks aren't busy using it.

    Yet we have a system like that with water & power today... too much consumption by some (who pay for it based on usage) can deprive others of what they'd like to consume.

    Unlike water & power (at least until the 'smart grid' hits), with internet access it's far easier to throttle individual or groups of users who are affecting the larger system.

  • Finally -- my tech prediction has come true ...

    , figuerres wrote

     Hmmm   really in the US they need to make a small box like that and shove the Media center code in it and a cable card slot.

    That sorta already exists... take the HDHomeRun Prime and the infiniTV6 ETH, network attacked cable tuners which support multi-stream cable cards. I've had the prior for years and love it... though they require Windows Media Center on a separate machine to handle DRMed content. Other apps can view the live & record the non-encrypted streams.

    MS should have ported WMC to the XBOX ONE os from the start....  they did the guide but not the dvr and a few other bits....

    I won't speculate publically as to why they didn't... or as to why they still haven't brought a full version of Media Center (or just a Media Center Extender) to the Xbox One... but I'm sure there are some significant reasons.

  • Ebola spreads to USA

    , ScanIAm wrote

    Sorry to crap all over your dystopian dreams, buddy.


    Creative misinterpretation of words isn't the same as context.

    Again, utter hilarity. You accuse me of 'creative misinterpretation' yet keep coming with these baseless claims of my 'dystopian dreams' and 'Fox Powered Rage Cycle'.

    I think we call this projection.

    Like I said, creative misinterpretation.  Go back and read the words that show up when you click those links and you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that they don't match any of what you said.

    Remember how I was talking about context... even linking to articles I read to support my claims? Here you just say "they don't say what you think they said" without offering any supporting information.

    It's almost as if you aren't interested in having a conversation and more interested in simply saying "you're wrong" over and over again... without ever even conceiving of the possibility that you yourself may have been wrong.

    The CDC director said they should be able to contain an epidemic.  That's been done.  That some folks might get ill was suggested in the first link.  No intelligent person doubted that could happen.

    And before he made those comments he didn't think Ebola would reach our shores. Then we have two nurses infected and a few other possible cases. Only time will tell if he is right, but he's been wrong a few times thus far.

    And the CDC director didn't "blame" anyone for breach of protocol.

    No one by name but the implication was quite clear when he said: "at some point a breach of protocol". It probably wasn't you or I breaching protocol... but one of those interacting with Duncan who did... and given it wasn't you or I who was infected...

    None the less, the CDC director eventually apologized for the previous statements. So much for not blaming.

    The fact that the disease got out shows that the protocol wasn't followed correctly

    I don't know if you heard... but there were some issues with the protocols as specified on their website and training materials: 

     ... which by the way have since been removed from the website.

    Maybe just maybe the protocol was being followed... but that it in of itself was wrong... maybe?

    The fact you cannot even acknowledge such a thing and instead continue your partisan attacks says quite a bit about you.

    OR we have a new vector.

    At last! You've said something substantive... yet I don't recall the CDC director saying that.

    These folks aren't morons, and the suggested protocols have done a pretty good job of helping to contain this stuff in the past.

    Pretty good? Again, the director said that it was a breach which caused the infections, ergo follow the protocols and you won't get infected, don't follow the protocols and you will... but is that what has happened?

    Though with regards to being morons... maybe, maybe not... but I would at least like it if they can get their narrative right with regards to the whole you can give, but not get Ebola on a bus thing.

    Sh*t happens, however, and by all accounts, this hospital was not prepared for this.

    True, but what about groups like Doctors Without Borders? Unlike virtually everyone staffing our local hospitals, they are the ones going into the hot zones to treat people at the source... and they have suffered a number of infections of their own... and you'd think that given such day to day interactions, they would be the most meticulous at practicing such protocols.

    The CDC isn't in charge of the management of every hospital in the country, and if they tried to take on that task, you and your ilk would be the first ones to scream government over-regulation.

    Again you arguing against things I haven't said, so to confirm... you are just going to keep screaming "you're wrong" over and over again I take it? ... Or did I miss throngs of conservatives (and I) rallying against the President's proposal for SWAT like teams run by the CDC to quickly move in anytime there was a case

    So, jump back on your Fox Powered Rage Cycle and take another lap. 

    Tell me, what's it like to have Fox Derangement Syndrome? It's quite clear you are obsessed with them and assume I get all of my information from them... yet I do not think once (though I could be wrong) have I cited Fox here... instead citing a multitude of sources.

    Odd how you cannot be bothered to do the same thing... even once.

    But since you expect me to be as blindingly partisan as you are showing yourself to be, I guess I could give you an article which will send you into further fits, consider this: How the Feds Block Ebola Cures

  • Microsoft Watch

    @Ian2: And far better than Microsoft's first attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Datalink

  • Ebola spreads to USA

    , FuncOfT wrote


    I've heard conflicting reports of that now - some say he lied even after having wheeled his cousin with Ebola in a wheelbarrow to a clinic.

    There is pretty good evidence that he lied on his way out of Liberia. Though I've not heard as to if he lied getting into the US... perhaps at the time Customs wasn't asking about travel in infected countries or close contact with infected persons.

    Others say, he reported that he WAS in Africa recently around his sick cousin and the hospital just sent him home with a high fever anyways, and that they are at fault.

    And this is something the hospital is investigating. There is a reason they call it 'practicing' medicine as it is unfortunately an imperfect field where imperfect humans are deeply involved with the diagnostic process... mistakes happen, as we see happened here.

    Anyone with that high of a fever shouldn't be sent home, Ebola or not. Racial issues may be at the root of this botched care.

    Who do you want to pay for that?

    Unfortunately hospital resources are a limited one and their ability to admit everyone who is ill simply isn't possible. At last check, Duncan was without insurance for either of his trips to the US hospital, and the first time around they didn't think Ebola so released him with some antibiotics (not an uncommon thing with a fever when something more significant isn't suspected).

    Ask yourself this... worst case lets say the first doctor was... a Grand Wizard of the KKK and said to himself "Black guy with Ebola... yeah, I'm going to get him on the street as fast as can be so he doesn't get treated and dies a horrible death"... do you think even he would be oblivious to the possibility of the infection spreading beyond just the initial person?

    Someone f-ed up... and to blame racism is a ghastly thing.

  • Ebola spreads to USA

    Thanks ScanIAm for providing a bit of utter hilarity in these dark times of Ebola, ISIS and winter coming.

    , ScanIAm wrote


    Thanks for taking my comment out of context and then running a near marathon with that strawman.  I'll go ahead and put it up there again so you can be sure to re-read it:

    So you accuse me of taking your quote out of context... but actually failed to provide context then or not. Sure you quoted jinx both times, neither of you specified which news reports or who was being reported on... so I did.

    How is that out of context?

    Oh right! Bringing some possible context to a discussion means implicitly taking all other statements out of context... that must be it, right?

    More so, I seem to recall even the CDC director saying that they would be able to prevent a spread from Duncan. Never mind the fact that when the first of two nurses tested positive... he went on to blame her for a breach in protocol.

    I have and continue to cite either specific articles or specific cases... you've done neither.

    Remind me now... who is pulling a strawman?

    Now, please show me where a CDC official ever stated any of that.  Or you could just slither back to FreeRepublic.com and look for more reasons why Obummer beat Liberty to death with a copy of Das Kapital.

    Again, here we see you engaging in strawman tactics as I have not cited any of those sites or arguments you seem to be implying I read. Odd how I'm not telling you to back to the Daily Kos or Pravda... it's almost as if I'm discussing the topic at hand.

    More so, did you note JohnAskew's comment from earlier today? It is one that has been of concern of many in the medical arena, the fact that Ebola transmission isn't fully understood and that it may spread easier than previously believed.

    If you want to limit sources to just the CDC then that is your right to shield yourself from other perhaps contradictory or even more correct information. That's how science tends to work, various studies put forward and examined before some being accepted and others discounted... if you wish to view the CDC as the source of all medical truth in the country that is your right... but I think you'll eventually find it a rather limited one.

    Or would you care to cite specifics facts or articles? Of course not.