The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
I like the idea of the IE: You get the PC, all basic thingies are installed yet.
But what avoids Microsoft from just saying "Yeah, our user can select which browser he wants to have installed by default during the installation process."?
Why not go some more steps further? Let the customer order the OS from an online store, with all the preferences preconfigured and he can write down which software he wants to have installed at all with all the SW configurations possible?
And he can get the SW for a special low "Ordered with windows"-price.
Trying it now. Unfortunately they still haven't let me customize the top bar by turning off the huge back button and moving my favorites button to be just to the right of the back/forward buttons.
Edit: Oddly, though this may be a preexisting condition, the orange banner on top keeps getting overwritten with a white banner for everything to the right of the code project logo and name. This may be normal, but doesn't happen with Firefox.
I used to make that assumption until a whole group of users began having problems with a print button. Instead of getting a little print preview, they got a new window. When they closed the window, like they were used to doing, they were unwittingly closing the application. The cause, they were all using Chrome without even knowing it. This happened to be about the time that Adobe started whoring with Google, installing Chrome and the Google Add-On Toolbar for IE if the dumb user did not uncheck the box...or maybe it was all just coincidence. Now my web apps are compliant on IE and Chrome. Screw the others.
In my case, it's not an assumption - it's written down in the platform requirements, which are specified by the customer.
I think this makes sense because the customer buys software and other IT services from a wide range of suppliers – and by specifying a runtime environment that you have to comply with, they reduce the work related to maintaining and securing the runtime environment.
The fact of the matter is that no one cares how good IE 10 is, because IE 7, 8, & 9 are still being used. Microsoft needs to upgrade the problem browsers, not make a new one.
IE 7 - ouch! I was on a project recently where we still had to support this browser. At least 50% of our problems stemmed from this alone, because the specs said that it had to look 100% the same in IE 7 as in modern browsers. I think we could have cut at least 25% of our dev effort if it was acceptable to look 90% the same as in modern browsers.
As a side note: If you're ever in the same position, http://css3pie.com/[^] might help you considerably.
So far, I hate it. It might be a perfectly fine browser, but I've only noticed one significant change, and it's a REALLY bad one: it broke all my porn. Seriously, almost all flash-based porn sites are broken for me since I installed IE10. I get sound, but no video. There are a few that still work, but the vast majority (like over 90% of sites) don't, and whatever they changed seems to affect other browsers as well. (And yes, I already tried reinstalling Flash).
I work in a Tech Support Call center for a "major corporation", let's say.
Now, I'm not so sure. IE10 got rid of ActiveX, fully conforms to HTML5, and has fairly decent performance across the board in regards to speed and stability. I've actually recommended that customers calling in use it too.
Too bad it is, for the time being, only available for an operating system that is completely retarded and impossible to recommend by itself.
No problem, I shall swap out the old one for the new one.
Last night I tackled the job and was increasingly frustrated at my failure to make it work.
After several hours I decided to give up and tackle the job today after work.
Two things emerged as I attempted to fix it this evening.
Firstly, although I am a qualified electrician, I am also an idiot.
There are 8 connectors, and they are quite clearly labelled in the manual as to what goes where.
1,2 and 3 are Earth, Live and Neutral. OK, got that and all is well.
4 and 5 are for the hot water tank, five and six are for the hot water pump and 7 and 8 are for the central heating boiler.
How hard is that to understand?
Well, somebody out to understand that the connectors are not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 in that order, but are labelled 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 (as you look at the box)
For some reason nothing worked.
I wonder why.
Eventually solved it, but feel dim for assuming the connectors were in a left to right order.
(I also wired the pump and boiler into the same connector, but that is just me being lazy efficient)
So, after 48 hours of iglooification, we have heat!
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
I was looking to buy this one too, but last year my AC died and when they installed the new one, they also installed a new thermostat. Now I have to read the fine print to figure out if I break the AC warranty by replacing the thermostat.
As for me I'd love to have a control unit like a cribbage board where pegs are used to control the hot water and heating systems. I don't like the UI interface the elephants design into their digital control systems. I suppose a bluetoof system might improve things but give me Annie Log anyday.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
I have been constantly looking for internet connected central heating controllers but haven't found the right one yet. I have been also looking at the Resol combined central heating and solar controller and that may be an option as it can handle excess heat backwash to central heating from hot water, and also give better visibility/control of the hot water cylinder stat temperature.
I had a problem once with the cylinder stat contacts sticking on and the boiler was on constant demand to heat hot water, I only twigged when the hot water was becoming too hot to touch and figured something was wrong.
Knowing my limitations, I always look for certain key words that tell me right off the bat, that a potential job is not a good fit. One of those key words is multitasking.
Today, I just seen the most disturbing use of the term Multitasking. It was listed in a job posting for an Electrical Apprentice.
Don't believe me?
Here's the monster.com listing.
It's bad enough when someone speaks before thinking, we've all done that and have experienced the embarrassment of doing so. But to write, and then post, without thinking about what your words are saying, especially in a professional capacity, is just: unprofessional.
The consequences of multitasking while working on electrical wiring should be obvious. But there are those who will refute the obviousness and criticize me for my angst regarding the improper use of the term; "multitasking" here is a link to an article discussing the health issues that can occur whilst people are multitasking.
I write code, and am at my productive peak when single-tasking.
..it's after ten O'clock, when the last IM-app has been shut down (Steam), when this part of the world sleeps. It's called flow; time and the universe cease to exist, and all that is, is you and the task.
The witching-hour is when I choose it to be; there's no multitasking, the phone might ring without me ever noticing. Or, as has happened, me answering, promising, and not remembering. It's as close to "meditating" as I can get.
Multitasking as a requirement for a human suggests and implies a lot of interruptions. Imagine yourself taking a dump. Now imagine yourself taking a dump and being interrupted by a Timer every 250 ms.
I'd be a lousy apprentice.
Now what the elephant is a "Go-Getter"? Sounds like "playing fetch"
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
I'm creating a new website with pretty much every new technology and best practice I can throw at it (CMS, MVC, unit testing, Azure, DI/IoC, config transforms, compiled views, EF, NuGet, etc.). The thing is, there are no actual pages on the site yet (just infrastructure stuff), and it's already over 100MB and takes about 5 minutes to compile. Might be time to request a new computer with some beefy cores and an SSD.
Actually, I do have a new personal computer, but I don't have it connected to the work network yet (it's a nightmare to do that). Maybe if I copy the solution to my personal computer and compare the build time, that'll make a good case for getting a new work computer. Hmm...
You know the people who claim Microsoft and companies like them are bloating their software on purpose in order to push people to update their hardware. I am beginning to think they might be onto something...
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty