I honestly want to know why vendors don't use MSI. Why is it that Adobe feels the need that they must create a 'custom' installer when they should use the generic packaging method provided by Microsoft and can be integrated with their deployment infrastructure. I don't understand and quite frankly I'd love to see Microsoft make compulsory MSI usage as part of their Windows certification programme. The day when Microsoft stops allowing vendors putting the Windows logo to their software until it reaches certain standards - that will be the day when the quality of software will improve to a level I'd be satisified with.

Yeap, its all dumpted in Windows directory, over writing older and newer version - and you have a giant cluster fuck. You have newer DLL's that have new quirks that older applications haven't been tested against, then you have older DLL's over writing new ones with the obvious results, then there are the customised versions which over write the generic ones included with the operating system itself.

Then there is inter-generational operating system support because of the chain reaction effect of multiple components of Windows relying on multiple DLL's, which if upgraded can let off a chain reaction and fuck the system from top to bottom.

Oh, and if you say Linux doesn't suffer from it - I'll shove a red hot pocker up your ass; because obviously you don't track the compatibility issues that result in one library being updated resulting in 5 applications that rely on that one library to require updating as well.

Again, let the fucking operating system alone, load the libraries you bundle with your software in your own application directory; a few extra megs being used I'd sooner pay for in extra hard disk being used up than finding my system is a glorified clusterfuck because of your smart ass know it all approach to programming and deployment.

In all due respects - how the fuck is it counter intuative? If I have a game, I expect the game settings, the saved games etc. to all sit in my user directory. It is called a user directory for a reason, it is specific to YOU and only YOU. The purpose of a multi-user environment is to seperate YOUR personal files away from the files that will be shared with anyone else using or having access to your system.

Good lord, its common sense. Your files belong to YOU there fore they sit in YOUR directory and not bob's, tom's or mary's directory.

WARNING: Intense rant built up over years of raging against boy wonder dickhead programmers who think they're top shit.

Here is a great hint for all those boy wonders who write shit applications that spray their shit applications everywhere - fix your damn applications up.

It pisses me off when I see vendors spray DLL's everywhere, from their own directory to the Windows directory to the user directory and everything in between.

1) Keep your fucking application exe and all the bundled DLL's in your application director - leave the fucking Windows directory alone. It is not for YOU to place YOUR shit into. It is for Windows and Windows only.

2) Don't write shit to your application directory; if it is a universal setting then you should ask the user for permission and write it to the global registry. Is it a user related setting then save it to the user profile. No if's, no buts.

3) Don't use undocumented API's and hacks. You aren't cool, you aren't hip, it doesn't make you gods gift to the world because you're using private API calls never intended by Microsoft to be used outside their operating system development teams. Its private for a reason - private meaning it is not for you to fucking use. Hack away at Microsoft's private api's and I'll hack away at your privates.

Do the fucking job properly the first fucking time and stop turning a clean and pristine Windows installation ito a fucking dogs breakfast because you think you're top shit when clearly you're not.

"People should be allowed to get help when trying to achieve their personal and professional goals. That's all this is about, and in the end, we'll all benefit."

Ah yes the old bullshit of 'it takes a village to raise a child'. Please, leave your emotionally dripping Marxism at the door and stick to facts instead of dredging up emotional sob stories.

"The problem with your criticism here is that feminists want to make these options available for men too. The description you cite is very misleading, I'll grant: it's described as "options for women" because the proposals would have a bigger effect on women than on men. Feminists in fact would be quite delighted if men took the option described in larger numbers, instead of treating child rearing as their women's responsibility..."

Why should we accommodate peoples lifestyle choices? Christ! lets take the slippery slope to the point that we grant males 14 weeks per year to pursue masculine past times as part of their right to express their manliness?!

"Ok. Do you disagree with the idea that women are as capable as men? Or do you disagree that women face a natural handicap in merit-based careers because they are forced to lose a year of their working life for every child they have?"

Tell me, when was the last time a baby just spontaneously popped out of a female?

Having a baby is a lifestyle choice and is not comparable to a person in a wheel chair; NOW if the person in the wheel chair chose to buy a flasher wheel chair to the point that it didn't fit through a standard door way then it would be a matter of a lifestyle choice.

"I am not a feminist; at least, I don't believe I am. But I think you're taking a slightly male-centric tack when you say 'in regards to the same starting point'."

Excuse me, but I'm finding that society is far too heterosexual, I want special treatment - I want all the straight men to take special pills to make them bisexual to it improves my chances of getting a boyfriend.

Society exists as it is; it is you who demands that society accommodate you choice of wanting to have children. If you want to have children then all power to you but don't expect society to give you special treatment in the same way of me demanding all straight males start taking pills so that it improves my chances of getting a boyfriend.

That metaphor is broken simply because females choose to have children where as those humans have to breath oxygen and cannot exist without it. Will a female die if she doesn't have a off spring? no. End of story.

Both male and female make lifestyle choices; you can choose to have a family, take up an interest in monster truck rallies, going to the local swingers club each Tuesday and partake in partner swapping. All of these are lifestyle choices in which your life as a single entity does not rely on for its continued existence.

Who's forcing them to have a family? it is a lifestyle choice - like buying a washing machine or allocating 14 weeks off each year to immerse oneself into Super 14 Rugby.

Have they also thought that maybe females are actually making the choice to have families over having a career? why is it every time there is a feminist jackass who comes out of the wood works that there is this claim that some how if females aren't career oriented and pumping out kids (they choose one or the other instead of doing both) - apparently it is the man's fault?

Good lord, let people do their own thing and stop trying to think that you need to socially engineer a given field in one direction or another? what next - insufficient gay's and lesbian's in quantum physics?*

* Disclaimer, I am gay myself, I need to put this disclaimer because some jackass will go, "ooh, he's homophobic, I'll mark down his post" *Teeheehee*

From the "I thought feminism meant female equality with males" file and the interesting part was the bottom 'recommendation':

"The authors recommended that universities and companies create options for women with math talents who want to pursue math-intensive careers. These could include deferred start-up of tenure-track positions and part-time work that segues to full-time tenure-track work for women who are raising children, and courtesy appointments for women unable to work full time but who would benefit from use of university resources (e-mail, library resources, grant support) to continue their research from home."

Ah, so when feminists talk about 'equality' what they really mean is, "we want special treatment so that we get equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity based on the same starting point". Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males in regards to the same starting point and a meritocratic system where skills and knowledge are the basis of advancement forward rather than the old boys network.

People wonder why I given feminists as much credibility has hearing Saudi Arabia preach about human rights, tolerance and respect.

Quite simply getting access to some of the finest German shizer films on the web!

What? you'd claiming that the internet is used for more than just fulfilling the fetish desires of lonely men in their basement?! heresy! heresy I say!

Mate, there is a reason why the tranmission towers are turned off when being serviced; I don't know what shit box operation you're running in the US but in most other countries they don't subject employee's to radio waves that can kill birds.

Lets remember that as part of becoming integrated into the economy - Vietnam will be told taht they have to crack down on piracy.

Do they crack down on piracy and push up the cost of doing business in Vietnam by having all departments use Windows + Office, and thus all those who interact with the government having to have said software - or is it smarted to start off using opensource software now given that they are pretty much starting from a clean slate? They've made a good move - and I'll put money on it people will be looking in and asking their own government why Microsoft is given multi-billion dollar contracts when Vietnam's public service is just as productive (if not more) using Linux/OpenOffice.org as they would using Windows.

Believe it mate. New Zealand is in the current sorry state thanks to the two major parties doing very little to improve on the status quo.