Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment meme (Score 1) 3

What is the name of your least favorite child? I hate all children, equally.

In what year did you abandon your dreams? 2009, when I realized the recession was going to be a severe one.

What is the maiden name of your father’s mistress? Football.

At what age did your childhood pet run away? My pets have always loved me. Because they know they're not people.

What was the name of your favorite unpaid internship? Yard work for my parents.

In what city did you first experience ennui? Try English next time.

What is your ex-wife’s newest last name? Marriage is for suckers.

What sports team do you fetishize to avoid meaningful discussion with others? Watching sports is (generally) boring.

What is the name of your favorite canceled TV show? Nowhere Man.

What was the middle name of your first rebound? Off the backboard.

On what street did you lose your childlike sense of wonder? It was closed for resurfacing that day.

When did you stop trying? When I realized what Lefties truly are.

Comment sounds an awful lot like (Score 1) 2

What I want is to be able to configure a user's home page on the website with their choice & order of several widgets.

That sounds exactly like what I've (only*) read ASP.NET WebForms' "Web Parts" is for.

*I wouldn't know in practice; the place I work at never really learned ASP.NET, so they re-invented things like Web Parts and ASP.NET Membership.

after doing MVC the last 4 projects I'm thinking Yuck too with these code-behinds

Couldn't parse that of course, but it jogged my memory of something from an earlier discussion, where you said MVC was overkill for what you were doing, and after Slashdumb closed the discussion I was thinking the following. We've used ASP.NET MVC for our last three projects. Yet we haven't structured our code in the MVC pattern. The MVC pattern is just used by ASP.NET MVC framework, that we hook into. But really that's the same as WebForms. We don't architect our code to some kind of code-behind model, or say copy the Viewstate concept for anything else in our code. We just hook into the framework we're using, however it's been architected. Either way our application architectures are always (very poorly done) 3-tier ones.

p.s. We've stopped doing WebForms projects, so I've no idea if/how well that supports HTML5. Why I prefer ASP.NET MVC is the control over the HTML generated (which is especially important for jQuery-heavy UI's, like my immediate boss has grown accustomed to), and I started out web programming in now-classic ASP, so I had to learn how it really worked, sans WebForms' hiding of statelessness et al. (To me what WebForms hides from me, not to mention imposes on me (if you haven't been tripped up by the page life cycle, you haven't done anything really complex), is more trouble than it's worth. WebForms was intended to allow desktop application developers to make web apps without having to learn too much (the programming model is, intentionally, *very* similar to WinForms). So it doesn't at all apply to me (as a benefit).)

Comment Re:Yeah, and? (Score 1) 337

When it is war, possibly yes. When it is a domestic police issue, the answer is maybe but probably no.

You see, the world does not operate in black or white. There are so many shades and colors that one solution does not fit all. If it did, every one would be rich and happy from making all the same correct decisions.

Comment Re:Yeah, and? (Score 2) 337

Why don't you get real. The hospital is in a territory recently taken over by the Taliban and the air strikes were called in by afghan police who claimed they were taking fire from the building.

Given the history of the Taliban killing people from the west, what indication is there that this was still only a hospital and that these allied people were still alive and free at the time the air strike was called in? You do understand that when an enemy army takes over a city, that city is now behind enemy lines. What you know or thought you knew about it may or may not be even close to correct anymore because it is controlled by the enemy.

Comment Re:Wait a day or two before passing judgment (Score 1) 337

Why would or should any military or government for that matter have a problem bombing or attacking anyone, any building, or any organization who is directly aiding and comforting the enemy in a war?

Yes, it was a hospital. Outside of that, what makes it any different than any other building that the enemy captures and fires on the government or coalition soldiers? Docs without borders knew it was dangerous to go to the front lines and practice medicine in a war zone. It's like you running out in the middle of a street during rush hour traffic. Sure it's tragic if you get hit, but unless you are an imbecile and generally do not know any better, its your own fault. Why should I blame a driver for your death?

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 337

The US is there because we started the current problem in Afghanistan after ousting the old leadership (Taliban) who was protecting terrorist (Al Qaeda) who actually did plan and commit acts of terror on US soil as well as soil of US allies.

To say we have no reason to be there is idiotic and ignorant of history. If you are old enough to post an opinion of your own about this on slashdot, you are likely old enough to have lived through that BS and the progression to date. Perhaps you were too young to care and should ask you mom about it.

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.