Microsoft doesn't want you to use VB .Net

  • Thread starter Thread starter Homer J Simpson
  • Start date Start date
Randall,
It has EVERYTHING to do with .net!

I never encountered this clipboard prejudice against objects until I tried
moving the VB6 app in question to asp.net.

If you did use the IIS class from VB6, you would have the same problems.

The problem is just that the complete system of the client becomes more and
more closed from the InterNet side, you are not the only one with this
problem.

..Net does not mean Internet it uses only in a lot of cases the same
philosophy. (Hopefully never all those security limitations).

Cor
 
Aha, this must be part of the problem, the Bush white house is so bad,
Microsoft is so bad... I see the pattern now. Microsoft's products needed
improvement in security? So they put effort to solving the problem. The US
administration also saw a need for security, since it was so lacking? And we
have massive efforts to fix that security. But to some, you just cant win,
Microsoft is now paranoid, and how dare the US admin spy on terrorists.

Some people would complain that there was nothing to complain about.
 
Sometimes reflection helps those who are sarcastic and hyperbolic to realize
dialog has failed.

Since new years was approaching and everyone watches the Twilight Zone
marathon, people should know who Frisbee is.
 
Aha, this must be part of the problem, the Bush white house is so bad,
Microsoft is so bad... I see the pattern now. Microsoft's products needed
improvement in security? So they put effort to solving the problem. The
US
administration also saw a need for security, since it was so lacking? And
we
have massive efforts to fix that security. But to some, you just cant
win,
Microsoft is now paranoid, and how dare the US admin spy on terrorists.

Some people would complain that there was nothing to complain about.

The concept of "tongue in cheek" escapes you somehow?
 
Tongue in cheek? I never knew what that meant but if its that youre kidding?
great. So then you actually DO support the Bush Admin? Thats great.

I like to give credit where its due, there is a lot that I dont know about
in politics, but do know when to trust a good leader (Bush). And do
recognize Microsoft makes spectacular products, its a great time to be
coding.

I propose a toast in this time of New Year celebration, for success and
increasing prosperity
 
Brad Rogers said:
Tongue in cheek? I never knew what that meant but if its that youre
kidding?
great. So then you actually DO support the Bush Admin? Thats great.

I like to give credit where its due, there is a lot that I dont know about
in politics, but do know when to trust a good leader (Bush). And do
recognize Microsoft makes spectacular products, its a great time to be
coding.

Obviously you also go to Dr. Nick Riviera rather than to Dr. Julius Hibbert
for your mental health needs.
 
Aha! So you dont support the pres... Anyone who isnt in lockstep with the
accuse and hide left is "crazy". got it.

Besides Dr Nick makes some good points sometimes, where that Julius guy just
laughs, I dont like that.
 
You missed my point for sure. I'm saying security shouldn't be locked down
so tight for intranets IMO. I should at least have the option to open up
capabilities if I'm writing for a secure environment. But MS has chosen to
lock it down across the board, out of the box, and then we must jump through
numerous hoops to get our intranet apps semi-functional. THAT is paranoia.
And I'm still trying to find all the hoops, much less figure out just where
else Microsoft's documentation is incomplete, incorrect or just flat
missing.

And I note you are also resorting to childish sarcasm and hyperbole once
again, Brad. Is that the only mode of dialog you know?

Randall Arnold
 
Either you're out to bait or just flat delusional...just like Bush, one of
the absolute WORST leaders the US has ever suffered.

As for Microsoft, they do make decent products, but the support could sure
be better.

Randall Arnold
 
And anyone who isn't in lockstep with the namecalling right must be left,
eh?

Some of us are centrists, Brad. Libertarians. Independents. Party
agnostic. Etc etc etc.

People aren't obligated to fit into your simplistic definitions. Many of us
abhor certain politicians for our own reasons, especially when said
politicians violate the very principles upon which this great nation was
founded and then impugn others as "traitors" for daring to question the
status quo. Oh, and by the way: the founders were radical liberals.

Wake up. Orwell was right.

Randall Arnold
 
I understand what you're saying, Cor-- it's just that developing an
asp.net/vb.net intranet app for the first time has been an exercise in
near-futility for me. Too many of the things I attempt to do are either too
difficult or actually impossible, and why? Because the *security model* is
what seems to assume .NET means intranet-- at leats if the solution is
deployed on a web page.

IMO, mush more thought should have been placed into this situation. I
should be able to tell the IDE (in this case, Visual Web Developer) that my
app is 100% intranet and see that suddenly much more flexibility and
capability is accorded to me. Conversely, if some or all of my app exists
on the Internet, then I'm perfectly happy with many of the restrictions put
in place. I just don't want restrictions where they serve no valid purpose.

Randall Arnold
 
It doesnt matter what party a person belongs to, but being intellectually
honest DOES MATTER. Youre entitled to your own opinions but not your own
facts. If you dont agreee with me? I can respect that. But speaking of
namecalling, its the left that starts out with name calling, the right
discusses issues and facts. Monkey in the white house? comes from the
left. worst president ever? a childish and simplistic response to "lying
liars" like Al Franken, Michael Moore, Cindy whatzername and others caught
telling whoppers. Including "Bush lied" [fill in the blank] about the
war, about the economy, etc... Look in to those claims? what a suprise,
Bush never lied. does the left apologize? no, just more childish name
calling.


Traitors? I think there is a definition for the word, created long ago.
Its great we have a nation that can mock the sitting president during
wartime. But its a miserable failure to have major media outlets able to
slander and libel a sitting president during wartime, saying things to
encourage the enemy to "just keep trying" and defeat American Soldiers in
harms way.

Face it, the mainstream left only wants America to lose, the economy to
fail, any any progress made to be given back. The nation is a disaster, sez
the democrats... Come on, terrorists dont give up now? is the classic
opening dialog of most mainstream news shows. Bush is wiretapping
Americans? lets impeach him. Howard Dean was accused of being a traitor by
Mike Reagan a few weeks back, but why?? What did Reagan say?

I dont bait anyone, its all about facts. When a person cannot grasp
technical concepts then says what a failure the Bush admin is? probably
because the person ignored the facts? I make a parallel there, ignoring
technical facts, ignoring current events, inventing "doom" scenarios and
blaming Microsoft for being a success?

Its like Nokia, dont get me started on them and the political nonsense.
 
That's just more disingenuous commentary from you.

The left and right both lie. Politicos from both sides mistreat their
constituents to put it mildly. Clinton lied, and whether you are
intellectually honest enough to accept it or not, Bush lies too. I find him
to be singlehandedly the most dishonest president in my lifetime-- which is
saying something considering Johnson, Nixon and Clinton's records of
dishonor.

I see you have been brainwashed by the right into thinking it is
unacceptable to "criticize a president during wartime". That is utter
claptrap. If anything, that is when a president should be held MOST
accountable, and that includes criticism that you arbitrarily deride as
"mockery". Your comments about the left wanting "America to lose" are
delusional. An objective person would know better than to entertain such
useless hyperbole. people on the left are as human as you Brad-- they just
have differing opinions based on the same reality to which you are exposed.
Their filters work differently than your rightward ones. And though they
are as misguided as you, they (and you) are still thinking, feeling humans
and thus deserved of respect for that alone at the very least. Your wanton
demonizing is naive serves no valid purpose.

If you actually were "all about facts", you would be willing to face the
facts about Bush that easily contradict your brainwashing. Instead, your
talk is cheap. You want something of those you oppose that you are not
willing to provide yourself. Pure partisan drivel. You are as bad as those
about whom you complain, whether the subject be Bush, Microsoft or whomever.
Your defenses are admirable in their tenacity, but pathetic in their content
and motivation.

Wake up, Brad. Orwell was right.

Randall Arnold

Brad Rogers said:
It doesnt matter what party a person belongs to, but being intellectually
honest DOES MATTER. Youre entitled to your own opinions but not your own
facts. If you dont agreee with me? I can respect that. But speaking of
namecalling, its the left that starts out with name calling, the right
discusses issues and facts. Monkey in the white house? comes from the
left. worst president ever? a childish and simplistic response to "lying
liars" like Al Franken, Michael Moore, Cindy whatzername and others caught
telling whoppers. Including "Bush lied" [fill in the blank] about the
war, about the economy, etc... Look in to those claims? what a suprise,
Bush never lied. does the left apologize? no, just more childish name
calling.


Traitors? I think there is a definition for the word, created long ago.
Its great we have a nation that can mock the sitting president during
wartime. But its a miserable failure to have major media outlets able to
slander and libel a sitting president during wartime, saying things to
encourage the enemy to "just keep trying" and defeat American Soldiers in
harms way.

Face it, the mainstream left only wants America to lose, the economy to
fail, any any progress made to be given back. The nation is a disaster,
sez
the democrats... Come on, terrorists dont give up now? is the classic
opening dialog of most mainstream news shows. Bush is wiretapping
Americans? lets impeach him. Howard Dean was accused of being a traitor
by
Mike Reagan a few weeks back, but why?? What did Reagan say?

I dont bait anyone, its all about facts. When a person cannot grasp
technical concepts then says what a failure the Bush admin is? probably
because the person ignored the facts? I make a parallel there, ignoring
technical facts, ignoring current events, inventing "doom" scenarios and
blaming Microsoft for being a success?

Its like Nokia, dont get me started on them and the political nonsense.

Randall Arnold said:
And anyone who isn't in lockstep with the namecalling right must be left,
eh?

Some of us are centrists, Brad. Libertarians. Independents. Party
agnostic. Etc etc etc.

People aren't obligated to fit into your simplistic definitions. Many of us
abhor certain politicians for our own reasons, especially when said
politicians violate the very principles upon which this great nation was
founded and then impugn others as "traitors" for daring to question the
status quo. Oh, and by the way: the founders were radical liberals.

Wake up. Orwell was right.

Randall Arnold
 
By the way, Brad: I'd love to see you point out anywhere that Al Franken has
any of his facts wrong. While I often disagree with his approach, he's done
his homework. Your disagreement with the facts presented doesn't obviate
them.

But enough useless political effluvium, and back to the abject Microsoft
bashing. Anyone trying to explain reality to you is obviously wasting their
time.

Have a nice day.

Randall Arnold

Brad Rogers said:
It doesnt matter what party a person belongs to, but being intellectually
honest DOES MATTER. Youre entitled to your own opinions but not your own
facts. If you dont agreee with me? I can respect that. But speaking of
namecalling, its the left that starts out with name calling, the right
discusses issues and facts. Monkey in the white house? comes from the
left. worst president ever? a childish and simplistic response to "lying
liars" like Al Franken, Michael Moore, Cindy whatzername and others caught
telling whoppers. Including "Bush lied" [fill in the blank] about the
war, about the economy, etc... Look in to those claims? what a suprise,
Bush never lied. does the left apologize? no, just more childish name
calling.


Traitors? I think there is a definition for the word, created long ago.
Its great we have a nation that can mock the sitting president during
wartime. But its a miserable failure to have major media outlets able to
slander and libel a sitting president during wartime, saying things to
encourage the enemy to "just keep trying" and defeat American Soldiers in
harms way.

Face it, the mainstream left only wants America to lose, the economy to
fail, any any progress made to be given back. The nation is a disaster,
sez
the democrats... Come on, terrorists dont give up now? is the classic
opening dialog of most mainstream news shows. Bush is wiretapping
Americans? lets impeach him. Howard Dean was accused of being a traitor
by
Mike Reagan a few weeks back, but why?? What did Reagan say?

I dont bait anyone, its all about facts. When a person cannot grasp
technical concepts then says what a failure the Bush admin is? probably
because the person ignored the facts? I make a parallel there, ignoring
technical facts, ignoring current events, inventing "doom" scenarios and
blaming Microsoft for being a success?

Its like Nokia, dont get me started on them and the political nonsense.

Randall Arnold said:
And anyone who isn't in lockstep with the namecalling right must be left,
eh?

Some of us are centrists, Brad. Libertarians. Independents. Party
agnostic. Etc etc etc.

People aren't obligated to fit into your simplistic definitions. Many of us
abhor certain politicians for our own reasons, especially when said
politicians violate the very principles upon which this great nation was
founded and then impugn others as "traitors" for daring to question the
status quo. Oh, and by the way: the founders were radical liberals.

Wake up. Orwell was right.

Randall Arnold
 
That's just more disingenuous commentary from you.
The left and right both lie. Politicos from both sides mistreat their
constituents to put it mildly. Clinton lied, and whether you are
intellectually honest enough to accept it or not, Bush lies too.

You accuse me of not being "candid"? not being honest? But aside from me,
you have asserted Bush "might" lie? Or DOES lie? If you assert with no doubt
Bush lies? Then you are required to. PROVE IT! Others such as myself take
such accusations very seriously, and would ADMIT any such lies, if they
existed.

To then accuse me and other honest people of being dishonest because we
"wont admit" Bush told lies as president? Youre also adding all mainstream
Jewish and Christian religious leaders who exemplify honesty. To show how
extensive your claim of "Bush lied" reaches? It locks in anyone who claims
to be honest being duty-bound to admit the truth, so anyone who partakes of
the lie is also dishonest. The 'religious right' and 'Christian
conservatives' typical of Pat Robertson? Are not openly, publicly calling
for Bush to apologize for being a liar. Why not? Maybe the truth is Bush and
VP Cheney have not lied? Now I really don't follow news stories or the
latest books. On 911, my opinion was that military action was needed, Bush
led the military and now in 2005/6 we have the leftist media trying to tell
me that they want to revise and extend their remarks from around 2001? And
the start of the war in 2003?? No way, I followed the war then because it
was important. What the left is saying today is not what happened a couple
years ago.





I find him
to be singlehandedly the most dishonest president in my lifetime-- which is
saying something considering Johnson, Nixon and Clinton's records of
dishonor.

Johnson was a good "president" who would have went to war with Iraq. Kennedy
was the crook, protected by the leftist media, whom Clinton idolized. Nixon,
now that the swifties exposed Kerry and the left of lying about Vietnam? I
also believe the left has lied about Nixon with empty accusations.

a.. > I see you have been brainwashed by the right into thinking it is
unacceptable to "criticize a president during wartime". That is utter
claptrap. If anything, that is when a president should be held MOST
accountable, and that includes criticism that you arbitrarily deride as
"mockery".
b..
c.. Brainwashed? You wish. I didn't say criticize, did I? Without even
looking, I probably wrote slandered or libeled the president, which isnt the
same. Criticism helps find solutions and its my belief that criticizing the
president, or Microsoft brings about realization which leads to progress.
d..
e..
f.. Your comments about the left wanting "America to lose" are
delusional. An objective person would know better than to entertain such
useless hyperbole.
g..
h.. Don't say its useless hyperbole, because it's the absolute truth. Ive
watched parts of Secy of defense Rumsfeld make a speech, then hours later
hear nbc report on what he said? They misquote him. Then I noticed
something, the leftist media interviews democrats. They then accuse
republicans and get only them saying "Im innocent" then the reporter
finishes by paraphrasing what the republican said, twisting it to imply
guilt. They do this with everyone, interview the left, take a snippet of the
right then add accusations and innuendo. Very clever method to brainwash
people into hating Bush.
That's kind of advanced analysis, I evaluate code in detail and am careful
not to. ASSUME ANYTHING?!? So I apply similar standards.



a..
b.. people on the left are as human as you Brad-- they just
have differing opinions based on the same reality to which you are exposed.
Their filters work differently than your rightward ones. And though they
are as misguided as you, they (and you) are still thinking, feeling humans
and thus deserved of respect for that alone at the very least. Your wanton
demonizing is naive serves no valid purpose.
c..
d..
e.. What demonizing? This is a perfect example, I have never called the
person names. I reserve the right to disagree with what a person SAYS?? But
do not aspersionalize the person themselves. The left typically makes horrid
and groundless accusations like Bush lied about the war, and when people say
there was no lie, prove it? The response is: oh, we cant disagree or we are
called traitors, you idiots on the right, youre insane, youre stupid, youre
cavemen, youre monkeys.
f..
g..
If you actually were "all about facts", you would be willing to face the
facts about Bush that easily contradict your brainwashing. Instead, your
talk is cheap.
h..
i..
j.. Yes, I want to know if Bush lied so I can point it out to everyone.
When I find Bush hasn't lied?? I point out people like Franken, Moore, Corn
and others have the burden to apologize. Franken was ripped apart by
conservatives and exposed as a liar, it was on foxnews (the only news outlet
that lets conservatives speak) and Frankens errors were made public, I don't
know them maybe Rush Limbaugh or other famous people do. Moore? He isnt in
the news as much after being called a fraud and liar by Dick Morris, former
Clinton advisor?? Former democrat??


a.. You want something of those you oppose that you are not
willing to provide yourself. Pure partisan drivel. You are as bad as
those
b..
c.. Im not sure who you've spoken to in the past, but I wont waste time on
'drivel' or 'bologna'. I have respect for Bush who led the military into war
to protect the nation, and what does the left say?? We are losing, its
another Vietnam, it's a quagmire, we cant win, everything that's negative?
That's what the left puts in the news. I hear soldiers who complain that
what happens in Iraq is progress, but the news only shows or makes up
negative things?? That's reality, soldiers there who are saying NO!! the
networks are lying, they have some agenda. I point that out without
mentioning the soldiers and you essentially call me a liar.
d..
e.. The left talks about how many soldiers are killed in Iraq, as if when
they get to some number they can start impeachment proceedings, they
disrespect the soldiers and their deaths and that upsets me and every
rational person with friends and family in the military. The economy gets
better? Some democrat goes on tv and says the economy is the worst its ever
been, its just like 1929.
f..
g.. So who should seek intellectual honesty? Randall?? I think you and the
mainstream left who try to find errors where none exist.
h..
i..
about whom you complain, whether the subject be Bush, Microsoft or whomever.
Your defenses are admirable in their tenacity, but pathetic in their content
and motivation.
j..
k..
l.. Pathetic?? Being honest and defending the truth is pathetic to you?
Defending America is pathetic to you? Wanting freedom and democracy in the
middle east and making the world safer is pathetic to you? Randall you
should be honest and just admit republicans have better ideas and run the
nation and economy better. All the harping on lies or failures? Are just a
pathetic attempt to tell the American voting public: "we democrats don't
have ideas. But vote for us because the nation is so messed up and Bush
lied"
m..
n.. Oh everyone lies?? No Randall not everyone lies. Some of us have
standards and find lying morally reprehensible. Bush has not lied in office.
Be honest and admit that.
o..
p.. Can you point to anything the left media does or says about the nation
that is positive? Hopeful? Inspiring? NO!! NEVER! Its always doom and gloom.
 
You misunderstood significant portions of my post. Not surprising, based on
your ill-formed and poorly-thought replies.

As for Bush lying, it's been adequately proven. As a sheep in the
brainwashed right, you simply choose not to accept it. Partisan sheep like
you, ironically, believe that all contradictions of their heroes are purely
partisan-based and that none have any merit. This is improbable and
illogical. But that's ok, Brad: the sheep on the left wouldn't accept that
Clinton lied, either.

Just keep your blinders on, though, and press on with the excuse-mongering.
God forbid you or any other ignorant extremist, left or right, wake up.

Randall Arnold
 
Randall,

Im not sure what or who youre replying to there, my response was well formed
and intellectual. Bush's lying has been contested but still never proven,
its you in the brainwashed left that believes it without any proof.

I challenge you to also claim the mainstream Jewish and Christian leaders
worldwide are equally as lying??

Yikes, dont want to touch that one, do you? When it comes to proof? Then
its not worth your erudite time, but I say again, I checked the claims of
Bush lying, I checked the Rathergate forged papers, I checked the claims
against Cheney. Interesting thing Randall, when people in the media or
anyone are lying? they have similar patterns and react in similar ways when
exposed.

The word "lie" and "liar" have defined meanings. The left being caught
falsely accusing Bush, now has the best defense of "well I just dont feel as
romantic as I used to because Bush doesnt give me confidence. When Bush
says the nation is doing better? well Im not, so he lied".

Or if the topic is on yellowcake/Africa? Joe Wilson was caught lying saying
VP Cheney sent him to Africa, do you care about that?? no.

Clinton lied under oath, he admits it. In the day (1990s) the leftist media
was spinning that "lying is a first amendment right to free speech". But
now with Bush? he didnt even lie, yet your side claims he did and the mere
accusation alone is good enough? Democrats are spiraling out of control,
further into confusion, all they have is accusation. No substance on
issues. No one has come forward with proof of Bush lies, and the left is
tired of talking about it, its just an accepted fact Bush lied. That kind
of demented, twisted gapingly flawed logic causes other failures in logic.

What if Bush wrote software and you were the SQA person? Oh, its all full
of lies, Bush lied in the software. But Randall, it runs, where are the
bugs? oh they are in there, trust me. where? oh, youre just brainwashed
into believing Bush. Show me a bug? I dont have to. you have to prove it
doesnt have bugs.

My email can be easily formed, youre most welcome to contact me and correct
me. Im okay with others being democrats, Ive got friends on the left. But
Im not okay with being called dishonest or unable to distinguish reality
from some extremist agenda.

I dont even care that much about politics and dont follow every issue, but
the Bush lied thing is something that bothered me, Im certain there were no
lies and no bugs in Bushes software.
 
I understand the concept of Freedom of Speech, but could you guys practice your political diatribes
somewhere more relevant please?
 
I used QBASIC, VB, and VB.NET my whole life. I really like it, and I don't
liek to have to work in another language.
But really: did you try alreaddy the Visual Studio 2005.NET? It's really
terrible! A missed oppurtunity, and a shame!!
 
Back
Top