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


Dave Williamson davewill here birdie birdie, get in my belly!
  • Azure Cloud Service and SQL connection strings - how to configure ?

    The settings of the webrole in the portal would be better if your service will only be housed in a web role.

    Seems like we tried that route and bailed because the same service needed also be self-hosted.  ...and that led to compile complexities because there was not azure refs in the self-hosted parent.  Although that history is really fuzzy right now.

  • Azure Cloud Service and SQL connection strings - how to configure ?

    @figuerres: ah. that refreshed some memory.  we saw that as well and went to use SlowCheetah for the transforms.  then something was going wonky with the SlowCheetah package in VS.

    That has been a while and it appears to have new bits since.



  • Azure Cloud Service and SQL connection strings - how to configure ?

    @figuerres: In the WebRole we tried using a transform over the web.config to hold the setting.  So we had a Web.Debug.Config, a Web.Release.Config, and of course the Web.Config that gets rolled into.  The transform part wasn't always working or gave problems so we dropped using transforms and just xcopy the proper config.


    If you are using azure websites ... I dunno. Haven't gone there yet.

  • Azure billing for cloud service background jobs and website web jobs

    In the beginning there was only one path and that was the cloud service.  Later came the web site jobs (for a lot of the logic you describe from what I recall).

  • HoloLens

    @Richard.Hein: These recent posts seem odd Richard.  Has someone gained access to Richard's account?  Are you okay Richard?

  • Congratulat​ions! "Gadget of the Year"

    , JohnAskew wrote

    I'm not wanting any magnets near my HDD...

    But I do very much want a Surface Pro 3.

    Last time I opened an HDD (last week), the mechanism still used a magnet on the armature to flip the bits.  I'm pretty sure a speaker magnet stuck to the platters will wipe it.  So I'm with John on this one.

    I wonder if they have a magnetic field map that shows the layout of the magnetic field in relation to the component layout within the case?

    At some point of miniaturization, it seems like a nudge from a magnetic field would cause some sort of interference with an electron moving between points.

  • How to add videos to watchlist

    And my queue shows that it doesn't have access to show them.


  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , TexasToast wrote


    Where do you get this idea?   I want to design a network which sucks, drops packets and breaks connections?   Nobody wanted this so it is not by design.   Its not collisions that cause problems but networks where packets exceed throughput.

    I'll do some more digging on this to find out if the "Internet" definition is inclusive of the TCP/IP protocol running across the network.  If it is then I stand corrected as the TCP/IP protocol is what does the retries.  When I wrote the comment I was under the assumption the "Internet" was an Ethernet network (which doesn't necessarily specify the protocols running on top).

    Addition: Yep.  Internet protocol suite does specify TCP/IP.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

    "The layers of the protocol suite near the top are logically closer to the user application, while those near the bottom are logically closer to the physical transmission of the data. Viewing layers as providing or consuming a service is a method of abstraction to isolate upper layer protocols from the details of transmitting bits over, for example, Ethernet and collision detection, while the lower layers avoid having to know the details of each and every application and its protocol."

    Thanks Toast. I hadn't realized it was restricted in this way.


    Okay. After some more reading it does look like the stack stops as IP.  Thanks Figs. I was thinking I just got old or something.

    "The Internet layer has the task of exchanging datagrams across network boundaries. It provides a uniform networking interface that hides the actual topology (layout) of the underlying network connections. It is therefore also referred to as the layer that establishes internetworking, indeed, it defines and establishes the Internet. This layer defines the addressing and routing structures used for the TCP/IP protocol suite. The primary protocol in this scope is the Internet Protocol, which defines IP addresses. Its function in routing is to transport datagrams to the next IP router that has the connectivity to a network closer to the final data destination."


    "IP is not designed to be reliable and is a best effort delivery protocol. This means that all transport layer implementations must choose whether or how to provide reliability. UDP provides data integrity via a checksum but does not guarantee delivery; TCP provides both data integrity and delivery guarantee by retransmitting until the receiver acknowledges the reception of the packet."


  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    Let's not lose track of the 3 key parts involved here:

    1. Supply side.  These are providers who put packets onto the network.

    2. Network.  This is the collision based network system created many moons ago.

    3. Consumption side.  These are the consumers of the network packets from a provider.


    The Supply side is where the Netflix and Level 3 type of peering issue(s) resides.

    The Network is where the dropping of packets can and by design does occur.

    The Consumption side is where local ISPs a) have been given monopolies as an incentive to spend a huge amount of money to implement last mile network cabling, and b) have a end user subscription model that intentionally over subscribes actual bandwidth.

    Yes Consumers can also be Providers and vice-versa as well as Network providers can also be a Consumer or Provider in addition.  However, I think we need to partition the discussion to the 3 parts individually or we will never come to any type of solution.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    1) The FCC apparently needs to hear from every living soul in the country.  4 million people commented already, but it's not enough?!?!?


    Thanks for the link.  Bless her. I wanted to reach out and give her a hug with life energy (sounded like she was about to keel over).

    As for the 4 million.  They didn't say what the context of those 4 million feedback inputs were, how many were duplicates of the same entity, how many were for or against ... but lets assume all 4 million were unique requests for one side ... that is still a small percentage of the broadband customer base.  Just looking at a quick search turned up some 2011 numbers


    and here is just some numbers for verizon



    When policies that impact entire markets are up for discussion the numbers need to be overwhelming and not 1% or 2%.



    2) Very often during the debate, the panelist who was against NN would make a statement of fact and it would be immediately refuted.  This wasn't of the "well hey, that's like just your opinion, man" kind of refutes, it was more like "What you just said was utterly false and here is proof".


    Yea. I'm not sure who this was but it was weird.


    3) Classification as Title II would not require broadband providers to follow every rule.  The FCC can pick and choose, so I'm sure any change will have limited teeth.


    I'm not sure what their approval process is when they refer to "pick and choose".  If the approval isn't from outside the FCC then "pick and choose" is open for abuse.  Checks and balances are a must.  It wouldn't surprise me if this pick and choose exists today for other matters of their jurisdiction. However, continuing such a pattern is not palatable.