|
The older I get the worse journalism and indeed the world is getting. Proof reading, fact checking, spelling and accuracy aren't required any more. Seems if I was born anywhere in the last 20 years I could have been a professional journalist in about Kindergarten.
Currently reading First IVF baby's 40th birthday: How a tiny girl changed science and the world - Science News - ABC News[^] on the Australian Broadcasting Corporations website and find the following which makes me want to track down Genelle Weule and beat her to death with her own shoes (reference anyone?).
In July 1978...Louise Joy Brown was born in the United Kingdom...in Oldham General Hospital, shortly before midnight on July 25.
Less than a year after Ms Brown's birth, Australia's first IVF baby, Candice Reed, was born on June 23, 1980.
Bitch Puhlease! That is 2 days short of 1 year and 11 months, or less than 2 years later. She's probably proper educated and that, with a University Degree and all, but still dumb as dog shite.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
"If their mouths stop moving their brains will start working." -- as per DNA
|
|
|
|
|
You know the stories with all the correct grammar and spelling are probably generated by AI writing programs.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, that's because the Agile model is also used by journalists: incremental releases with bug fixes!
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
|
How appropriate a subject. This AM, on the way to work, I heard an short article where the talking head (radio style) talked about the speed of sound (vs. a slow city bus) as 767 miles/second
Because they're all now clueless. All they know is on their phone - and their collective batteries are otherwise dead.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Here we had the Gelmini tunnel.
|
|
|
|
|
GAK! You'd think they could grow better lookin' women in a controlled environment like that.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
The ABC, like QANTAS and SBS, do not allow physical appearance influence their presenters/stewardesses, I suspect they do not allow voice quality to have an influence either. We get some of the most horrid sounding plain looking creatures presenting our news.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
At least that's what Microsoft seems to think 
Upgraded a .NET Core 2.0 project to 2.1 and I got error that Microsoft.Extensions.SomePackacge version 2.1.1 is incompatible with .NET Core 2.1.
Had to install version 2.1.0 for pretty much every package for the error to go away.
Apparently some bug in .NET Core 2.1 
And my normal .NET projects can't find System.Net.Http at runtime.
VS gets it from some folder in Project Files.
At some point I had to remove that file to make it work locally.
VS went to the GAC for the package which seemed to work, but it fails (at runtime) when deployed through the build server (although it builds just fine).
Tried installing the NuGet package, but then the reference cannot be found at all (and the build fails) 
The problem is possibly that I have one or more packages installed that depend on the same package in .NET Core (or .NET Standard)...
What the sh*t Microsoft!?
Get your packages together! 
At least I get to experience what this DLL hell I've been hearing about is all about... It's not a bug, it's a feature
|
|
|
|
|
You are very wrong!
DLL hell is reserved for W32/64 native developers.
What you are facing smells more to an assembly hell.
Feel the difference  
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
And the last unicorn still working with Win16 
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever you call it it's a real PITA 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: System.Net.Http
We get this all the time. A consequence, evidently, of some backtracking on decisions within Microsoft. I read through the whole sordid mess a year or so ago when it first hit us and the head slapping is still stinging. The details, unfortunately, have faded.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I think this started when I installed .NET 4.7 and/or .NET Core 2.1.
In any case I haven't seen this problem before last week.
It works locally and it works when I deploy to Azure from my own machine.
So the only way for me to test this is to make a small change, commit it, wait for the build server to build and deploy (takes a few minutes), test it on Azure, repeat.
Chris Maunder wrote: The details, unfortunately, have faded.
Perhaps a little less head slapping next time
|
|
|
|
|
If you haven't done so - have a look at the packages.config file.
Nuget can sometimes mess things up and it is possible that you have more than one reference to differing versions of a dll in there.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
If only things were that simple.
The packages.config looks good.
I can manually reference the System.Net.Http assembly to look for the solution's package folder, but Visual Studio simply ignores it 
Event when I manually edit the csproj file it ignores the reference's path...
And the result is now: BadImageFormatException: Could not load file or assembly 'System.Net.Http' or one of its dependencies. Reference assemblies should not be loaded for execution.
I guess a new exception message means I'm making progress...
|
|
|
|
|
This is not DLL hell. Not even remotely. The real DLL hell was with Win16 or Win32. .Net destroyed all the fun with stuff like the GAC.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
It's about wrong versions of DLL's and it's hell for me.
Sounds like DLL hell to me!
DLL hell 2.0?
CodeWraith wrote: Not even remotely
It has nothing to do with remoting.
|
|
|
|
|
DLL purgatory, no more.
The original DLL hell was much worse because there were no mechanisms at all that cared about what DLLs in what versions existed in the system. I had a case where a program replaced a DLL with an older version when it was installed. That program worked fine, but some other program suddently started to do weird things.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
DLL Hell-- then
At least one .NET application (usually) doesn't mess up other .NET applications.
Experienced that with some old applications that need specific version to run (like Crystal Reports)
Luckily I'm too young for the real DLL hell!
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: can't find System.Net.Http at runtime.
I get that sometimes. It happens when a nuget package updates the reference in web.config. Just check web.config for System.Net.Http and make sure the version is 4.0.0.0 instead of 4.1 or whatever it gets changed to.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Tried it and... Could not file or assembly...
That even broke it on my local machine
|
|
|
|
|
Tried what exactly? Changed web.config's reference to System.Net.Http back to 4.0.0.0? If so, you must be getting a different error than I got. Just google it.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
011111100010 wrote: Changed web.config's reference to System.Net.Http back to 4.0.0.0?
Yes.
011111100010 wrote: Just google it.
If it were that easy I wouldn't be complaining here
Apparently, it's a bug in .NET/Visual Studio so the fix depends on your version(s) of those
And my problem is on the build server over which I have zero control...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
