|
 It's always a good idea to be adaptable.
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
|
|
|
|
|
All he wanted to say was IE9 (he kind of got the 9 upside down).
The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realise it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it.
My latest tip/trick
|
|
|
|
|
I know how to fix it. Instead of the message:
"You cannot upload files with Internet Explorer 7. Please use a newer browser like IE6, IE8 or Firefox"
Show this one:
"You cannot upload files with your current browser. Try another one." 
Hey, you will never be able to upload files, but at least your message is not cheating.
|
|
|
|
|
Not a programming question.
I've been sniffing around the Shell namespace new in .NET 4.0, which is part of PresentationFramework assembly.
Well. A so-called "shell" is a part of OS which evolve quite quickly. What if a new feature is added, which will happen sooner or later? Will it be shipped with .NET 5.0 or in a java-like update or in another System.Core2 thing...
Adding wrappers for OS-specific shell features to the framework ain't a good idea -- just my 2 penses. Any thoughts about this?
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it is in the "System.Windows" namespace. I definitely think the annoying OS-specific stuff should be wrapped and be made available in the .Net Framework. That provides a layer to help avoid changes when the underlying OS changes. So in Windows 8 we can use the same .Net functions. If the functions no longer exist on that OS, they can perhaps throw an exception and having a bool that says IsFeatureAvailable would be nice too.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, OSes are pretty much a shell game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How else do you legitimately access those features?
|
|
|
|
|
Trollslayer wrote: How else do you legitimately access those features?
Hmm, you are right. Anyway it must be placed somewhere or we are back to interop.
The best place for that would be a 2nd party .NET library -- not in the framework itself. The same with GDI/WPF. Who uses both GDI and WPF? If GDI was in a separate lib from the beginning there wouldn't such a mess today. A designer would choose a technology for GUI and data storage and wouldn't have to reference all former/future technologies. But this is just my opinion.
Ouch. Kombadibilidy.
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
Found this great code for encryption in our codebase. All of the client's extremely sensitive information is being stored locally using this.
string Encryption::EncryptString(string dat) {
string n = "qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm"
n += n + n + n + n;
for (size_t i = 0; i < dat.size(); i++) {
dat[i] ^= n[i];
}
return dat;
}
And it gets even better when you see the decrypt function:
string Encryption::DecryptString(string dat) {
return EncryptString(dat);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Superb. Microsoft should remove the System.Security.Cryptography as soon as possible. 
|
|
|
|
|
Question: I use another keyboard layout. Will it still work?
However, this is a good encryption function - only the first 130 chars will be encrypted with a known key...
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Horror of Horrors... This one is certainly one of the best. I don't think it could have been any worse if it had been written in vbscript.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
That is a truly brilliant encryption strategy, I will have to use it the next time I need such a thing. 
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried your suggestion for encrypting and decrypting but it keeps giving me errors when I try to play the code.
I really need this to work ASAP as it is a very important project for me!!!
return 5;
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like some urgentz univoters didn't get it. 
PS. I had considered voting you up but I found these two uni-votes funnier than the content. Sorry
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
As long as you hide the key well, and use it only once...
--
Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
|
|
|
|
|
You know, this function is so great that it will crash the application if "dat" is long enough (longer than 130 symbols).
|
|
|
|
|
I was getting some weird compiler errors and spent about half an hour trying to figure them out. Long story short, this will not compile in ASP.Net:
<%@ Page Language="vb" %>
<script runat="server">
Protected Sub Test()
Dim s As String = "</script>"
End Sub
</script>
Without opening Visual Studio, any guesses as to why it doesn't compile? I've already figured it out, but I don't want to spoil the surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it because Visual Studio has realised the stupidity of VB and now only compiles C#?
return 5;
|
|
|
|
|
Weak...
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting choice of words
return 5;
|
|
|
|
|
TBH I had to put it in VS. Seems like a bug in VS right?
return 5;
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I was thinking of reporting this to Microsoft Connect. Seems like a bug in the parser.
|
|
|
|
|
They could really do with a good review of the asp editor in general. it is very annoying how it formats code when you start using if/else statements.
Also, something like the following causes warnings (even if it is bad coding)
<div>
<% if(true){ %>
It is true I tell you!</div>
<% } else { %>
You will never here from me!</div>
<% } %>
return 5;
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
