|
They loook like completely different pages to me.
The cookie banner is at the top for one and on the bottom for the other, they're different banners too (I just opened it again and suddenly the banners are both at the bottom  still different though).
The margin on the edges is different, the overall page layout is different, the menu is slightly different...
I'm not sure what "av" in the URL means, but maybe they're testing a new design?
|
|
|
|
|
I also notice that your 'this' link has '/av/' between 'news/' and 'science-environment' in the URL. It seems it's for audio-visual stuff, and comes with a back button which just refreshes the page and restarts the video, rather than going back to codeproject. If you do nothing after the video ends, it automatically goes on to another video.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
Apparently this answer seems to be the only example on planet earth that demonstrates how to use the IGroupPolicyObject interface to programmatically set the removable drive policy using C++ on the Windows operating system. Which means it's a valid three-term Googlewhack but for multiple search engines.
This allows me to test the SEO related to those search terms and codeproject.com:
Bing[^]
Qwant[^]
Yahoo Search Results[^]
DuckDuckGo[^]
Ecosia[^]
Interestingly enough I cannot get the Google search engine to return the answer.
Google[^]
Even though when I search using the site: operator they have obviously indexed the information.
Google[^]
Yes, it's obviously Saturday and I have nothing better to do. 
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
You're famous! 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
I am thinking of the national security implications of the filter bubble surrounding the filtering of cyber security search terminology. Just a cursory look into this issue and I am finding that Chinese software engineers seem to have better access to cyber security resources/code samples:
百度安全验证[^]
Even the quality of the information is better. Those are great code samples.
88 results on github[^] for "IGroupPolicyObject AND CoCreateInstance"
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Google stopped being a way to find specific information a long time ago.
the loss of the "+" operator was the nail in the coffin.
now, you get what Google thinks you want. and you'd better like it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah,
The internet has completely changed from where it was just a decade ago. Just this morning I was going over my personal browsing logs and I can see that the majority of my (at home) traffic is going to a single CIDR at 151.101.0.0/16 owned by AS54113
If you are a software engineer you are most likely hitting the Fastly CDN daily:
codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net => 151.101.129.194 A 0x0001 0000504f
github.map.fastly.net => 151.101.0.133 A 0x0001 0000545a
reddit.map.fastly.net => 151.101.1.140 A 0x0001 0000509d Looks like their customer list has grown to well over 160,000 domains. The rest of my traffic is going to Cloudflare and Akamai.
The internet is getting smaller and more consolidated.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Did you turn Verbatim on? I always use Verbatim search with Google because I'm convinced their standard search is pure crap. Doing so with the phrase "IGroupPolicyObject REGISTRY_EXTENSION_GUID site:codeproject.com" returns a single link to that message. It did say it doesn't look like there are any great matches, but it did return the link.
With Verbatim on Google seems to act like it did way back when, when it was still good.
Verbatim Search - Chrome Web Store (you don't need this, as you can manually toggle it on the Google page, but this makes it easier)
PS - to replicate with your terms, leave out the '+' and such: "CLSID_GroupPolicyObject IGroupPolicyObject 53f5630d-b6bf-11d0-94f2-00a0c91efb8b site:codeproject.com"
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: site:codeproject.com
Yep, I mention at the bottom of my post that I can get the search engine to return the results when using the site: operator. Indeed there are better results when using verbatim mode.
But I really do miss the old capabilities, it's just not the same anymore.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why you would expect it without the site operator. Google is crap now (or a crap shoot now?).  But yeah, it was generally better back in the day.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
Here is something for you to think about. The google search engine has absolutely no problem indexing pure drivel.
Is a hexagon one stage after a hexagoing?[^]
Google[^]
But just can't manage to index Microsoft related API software engineering search terms.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
Here is something for you to think about. The google search engine can index Microsoft related API software engineering terms if you know exactly what you are looking for and enclose it in quotes, just like it can index pure drivel.
Enter this on a Google prompt, with quotes: "RegCreateKeyExW(key, L"SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\RemovableStorageDevices"
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. I do alot of googling because I've never don't many of the things I'm doing now. I am pleasently surprised? whan an ocasional CP post comes back in the results. It is exclusivly SO and mayby some blogs.
I'm greatfull for you all regartless. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes,
I am so glad that you worded it that way. You are absolutely correct.David O'Neil wrote: if you know exactly what you are looking for
This morning I spent an hour and a half going through the C++ forum here on codeproject looking at the questions from the past few months. I used the google search engine as if I did not know how to use the API and I came to the same conclusion that you did.
A software engineer looking to use the IGroupPolicyObject interface to set the removable drive policy will not be able to find much information about how to accomplish the goal. They have to know exactly what they are looking for... the 53f5630d-b6bf-11d0-94f2-00a0c91efb8b (GUID_DEVINTERFACE_VOLUME) and associated registry keys.
But hell... if you already know that... then you wouldn't need google in the first place.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect you and I could power the world from the energy of our mutually sarcastic remarks! We just seem to rub each other wrong somehow. Maybe we can share a beer someday and get over it!
Have a great day!
David
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: I suspect you and I could power the world from the energy of our mutually sarcastic remarks! We just seem to rub each other wrong somehow. Maybe we can share a beer someday and get over it!
Hang on, I am completely confused. Did you think that we were in some sort of argument or disagreement? I had no idea...
This is why I avoid the Lounge... all of you are nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh - our sense of humor is totally different. I'm sorry I misread things! I will change my thinking! Glad to know I was wrong. And yes, sometimes we're nuts! (I didn't think we were having an argument, but your 'Hmmm' comment struck me as condescending. I was wrong.)
Enjoy your weekend!
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
I've decided to close my account here again. I can't even figure out how you came to believe that you were in an argument. Seems to be a regular thing here on codeproject.com
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry. I never believed we were in an argument. But your response to this indicates that we do rub each other wrong. It was never my intention, and I will miss your input because you are a grandmaster in many things I've never played with.
Have a good weekend, and again, sorry to see you go. Hope you change your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Hope you change your mind.
Ok, I have decided to remain on the site. However I want you to know that I have the highest respect for you and that it's not within my personality to attack or be condescending towards anyone.
I have read over our conversation multiple times and I simply cannot figure out how you reacted that way. You literally went nuts right in the middle of a technical conversation and began to infer an imaginary emotional state.
David O'Neil wrote: this indicates that we do rub each other wrong.
I don't feel this way about you... this is so uncomfortable...
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize. I did not understand you. I better understand you now.
If you go back to my post where I talked about having a beer, realize that that was me realizing that something was off. I did not know what it was, and my intention with that post onward was to try to break that barrier and get beyond any differences we might have. The only post which you would be correct in that I was slightly condescending towards you was the one where I echoed your 'Hmmm' heading. At no other point was my intention to malign you, and even that post wasn't meant to be an attack on you.
If you had a different personality than you do, you would have taken it differently and we may have reached this point far quicker or far more slowly. I don't know. But I am now far better aware of your intentions, and I will not respond that way again. So again, I apologize.
Know that I, too, hold your expertise in the highest esteem. Your Windows knowledge is light-years beyond mine, and I hope you continue to contribute your valuable insights here.
Maybe someday we can enjoy a round together and share more interesting stories than stupidities like these.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
|
|
Apology accepted, and I offer my apologies for not being a very good communicator. Let's move forward.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
|
He likes to make claims about users that are unfounded. Just ignore him.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
After doing a bit of research it seems that miscommunication over text is fairly common. I found an interesting Honor's thesis done by a graduate of Liberty University (Klingensmith)
It's a fairly interesting read:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6d1c/42aff4de6dd891f0130dbf333f02ad824032.pdf[^] On page 12 the section titled 'Erroneous Statements and Miscommunication in Text Message Communication' gives a great overview of the research done at the time the paper was written.
The results of the experiment are explored beginning on page 20 with a table of conclusions on page 22. According to the experiment Anger was misinterpreted about 20% of the time with P=.026 at a sample size of 40 participants.
The methodology looks a bit flawed however, so I would question the accuracy. The real value in reading the paper for a laymen like myself is the amazing list of sources at the bottom of the paper. This isn't really a subject that I am interested in... but if I want to explore further I would start at one of those sources.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
