re: Question on Caching an HttpHandler for Speed - Robert McLaws: FunWithCoding.NET

Recent Posts

News

<script type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>

<!--

-->

You should feel free to challenge me, disagree with me, or tell me I'm completely nuts in the comments section of each blog entry, but I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason whatsoever. That said, I will most likely only delete abusive, profane, rude, or annonymous comments, so keep it polite, please.

Navigation

Blogroll

Cool .NET Articles

My .NET Tools

ASP.NET WebServer Here

My Builder.com Articles

My MSKB Articles

HOWTO: Windows 2003 DTC

Posted: by

Comments

Thom said:

You said it. I too sat there listening to Powell spell out what most of us already knew. I can't believe that countries like Germany and France have Saddam so far up their *&%^ that they can't see how snowed they really are. This guy is more of a menace I think than Hitler.

And as for other countries saying they are tired of the US stepping in and acting like we own the world, well, if you look at all of the loans and aid we give to more than half the nations in the world, we do!

See what happens to these small countries if the US were to pull back aid of all kinds. No money, protection, goods and services. They would all be falling flat on their faces. When will people learn that democracy is a good thing and not a dictatorship in a mini-skirt.

# February 6, 2003 1:01 AM

Pascal Leloup said:

Hey guys

A little bit of moderation please ! Where are the proofs ? Powel said that they are too confidential to reveal them. Come on ! And it's not because I am frnech (I am living and working in Ireland), and I am not a pacifist or a war campaigner.
Everybody know that US need the petrol from Irak, so admit that ! It's a fact that in October an american report said that US need to double importation of petrol in the next 5 years.
And for the weapons, whay US (and the others by the way) don't start to look at their own arsenal. Imagine tomorrow if americans vote for a new guy turniing dictator.
He will be happy with all the bombs !
And last thing, stop this idea about what Europe could be without America. that non sense.
Signed: Just an ordinary citizen of this planet so called Earth

# February 6, 2003 1:50 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Wow, people actually read my blog :).

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one Pascal, and here's why:

On American Dependance For Oil:
In Bush's State of the Union speech, Bush pledged something like $5B on fuel-cell research, to all but eliminate our dependance on foreign oil. We're going to take over their oil fields to finance the reconstruction of the country, not to become "imperialistic". Since when has the US EVER occupied a country to take their resources? Name me one instance.

On Fears of an American Dictator
Unfortunately, you fail to understand the concept of Democracy, and further the brilliance of the American Democratic System. The possibility of a disctator as president is impossible in our system of government. Why? Because of a little thing called legislative checks and balances. We have 3 branches of government, 2 legislative bodies, and a little thing called Impeachment. Contrary to popular belief, the people still have SOME power left in this country.

On Where Europe Would Be Without America
Sorry, but you can't deny the facts. We've bailed Europe out of every single major war. And France has TONS of experience understanding this. The French loathe us, until of course they are occupied again. Dennis Miller said: "[The French] have always been far to reluctant to surrender to the will of their friends and far to reticent to surrender to the will of their enemies." This is a true statement. You can't deny it, and any attempt to do so is ignorant. Just open up your history books.

Sorry if this ruffles a few feathers, but I'm a lot liek Donald Rumsfeld... I'm not hesitant to tell the truth, even if it hurts. True strength comes from learning from acknowleging and learning from those truths.

# February 16, 2003 3:50 PM

Pascal Leloup said:

Just that: Man, Peace and Love ;-)

# February 16, 2003 4:02 PM

Pascal Leloup said:

Just that: Man, Peace and Love ;-)

# February 16, 2003 4:09 PM

Fabrice said:

About this post and the previous ones :
Being outside the US, I can tell you that it is sad that the american people are blinded by the (private) medias running this country.
It's impressive to see all the propaganda these companies are doing over and over again. Free your mind...

# February 17, 2003 6:45 AM

Fleh said:

Any guess what percentage of the folks using these instructions will be doing so on legitimately acquired installs of Windows Server 2003 rather than pirated copies?

# February 25, 2003 11:22 AM

Robert McLaws said:

I'm running several systems on Windows Server 2003 RC2 as a legitimate RC2 tester. As for anyone else, I cannot estimate but I'm sure there are a bunch. I know the CPP (Customer Preview Program) for RC2 is huge, and there are tons of testers on the private MS newsgroups.

# February 25, 2003 11:46 AM

TrackBack said:

: ShowUsYour-Blog!

# February 28, 2003 10:40 AM

Don Box said:

# March 2, 2003 4:55 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Yes it is. From what I understand, you have to have a smart card reader to gain access. While I'm not an MVP yet (hint hint) [clears throat], I believe you can talk to your MVP lead about access.

LOL you're B0rg anyway, can't you walk down the hall and take a look at it? Speaking of the B0rg, what does it take to get assimilated?

# March 2, 2003 5:00 PM

Travis said:

"It will be nice working with proper villians again."

Oceans Eleven.

# March 2, 2003 5:50 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Congrats Travis. E-mail me at robert@interscapeusa.com with your e-mail address and I'll send you a license when we launch.

# March 2, 2003 5:52 PM

Mike Gunderloy said:

On Windows 2000, ipconfig /flushdns

# March 3, 2003 9:01 PM

Patrick Logan said:

WebSphere and WebLogic are being undermined by JBoss. I wouldn't be surprised if there are reasonable approximations of Lotus Notes as OSS. The days of big, expensive software systems is over. MSFT is just farther down the road. The steamroller's coming, just the same.

What could change that is a significant value added by an order of magnitude leap in functionality. e.g. simplifying the talent pool required to use the product.

# March 4, 2003 6:10 PM

Shawnmor said:

Assuming XP....

Did you try

C:\> ipconfig /flushdns?

# March 5, 2003 1:04 PM

Rogelio Morrell said:

Hey thanks for the information. Anyway, that article is misleading because people will think something else about InfoPath. I really see InfoPath as great tool. And also, I haven't tested the new Office yet, so that was my precaution, didn't want to go deep with something I wasn't sure about it.

Regards,
Rogelio Morrell

# March 6, 2003 1:45 PM

TrackBack said:

More on aggregators... : Loosely Coupled

# March 12, 2003 2:17 AM

TrackBack said:

I'm holding on... : Loosely Coupled

# March 12, 2003 11:17 AM

Fabrice said:

Err... "within two years"?

# March 12, 2003 1:46 PM

Greg said:

Oh No, Brady tatochip man himself is causing some smack to be thrown around..."what the &^%$ ...."tell him I said Hi, and "wazzzzz uppp"

# March 12, 2003 7:47 PM

Robert McLaws said:

I WANT A DATE!!!!! GET SPECIFIC HERE... I'm starting to raise funds already.

# March 12, 2003 8:39 PM

TrackBack said:

80s music... : Loosely Coupled

# March 12, 2003 9:33 PM

Greg said:

38 special baby, Lynyrd Skynrd relived...wow, scary, I know the band memeber's names and have the album..nice cover too!

# March 13, 2003 6:46 AM

Greg said:

Hey, we need to tell them about Molly Hatchet and Lover Boy!

# March 13, 2003 6:47 AM

Addys said:

OOps, sorry about that. Thanks for the correction!

I have updated my post :)

# March 14, 2003 3:17 PM

Royo said:

I Agree. this is not the best way to handle it. simply, i pointed out another way, which i hadn;t thought of - Another direction for implementing these things.

# March 16, 2003 2:01 AM

FnaD said:

What about Infragistics? Pricey, but I've heard nothing but good stuff about them. Unfortunately I haven't come accross a project that warrants (or can afford!) them...

If you are after free, theres the following very tasty looking DHTML offerings
young pup ypXMLTree - http://www.youngpup.net/?request=/components/ypXmlTree.xml
webfx have a couple of varieties of trees, including a load on demand tree - http://webfx.eae.net/

And, finally, something i stumbled accross the other day, http://www.xmlforasp.net/codeSection.aspx?csID=99 - Shaping Relational Data with XSLT and .NET. Not all that special to look at, but the concepts are really cool.

# March 16, 2003 11:04 PM

David Stone said:

I'm using Infragistics UltraWebGrid and their UltraWebTree in a project right now. They're a bit tricky to get used to at first (just like any new object model is), but once you get used to it, there are just sooo many options. It's very nice.

# March 16, 2003 11:11 PM

coacoacoa said:

You have anoter one at WebFX (http://webfx.eae.net/) with a full article that explains it. And there are a lot of stuffs here.

# March 17, 2003 3:19 AM

Jorge said:

There are *still* hookers on Van Buren? Heh. When I was in Phoenix in the 1980's, the city was trying to clean that strip up, around the same time that they were building that below-ground thoroughfare near McDowell road. I guess some institutions are too resistant to progress. Hmm, maybe the Mason Jar is still there, too...

# March 17, 2003 4:47 AM

FnaD said:

I gotta jump a little to Infragistics defense here - the 500 bucks gets you the entire suite of COM, .NET *and* ASP.NET stuff. There's some really nice looking stuff there. I've only had experience with their COM toolbars and Splitters, and I can tell you they were well worth the money we spent on them.

If you just want the tree itself, it can be purchased for a mere 400 bucks. Now *that* is a rip-off. I'm guessing designed to get people to upsize to the whole net advantage suite, it should be more like 50 bucks.

# March 17, 2003 6:59 AM

Robert McLaws said:

There aren't as many hookers there as there were before, but they are still there. The Mason Jar is still there too, and yes it's still a dive.

FnaD, unfortunately any gains they make by selling everything for $500 (which I did not know), they lose by selling one component for the same price. To quote Dustin Hoffman in <i>Hook</i>, "Bad form!"

# March 17, 2003 8:59 AM

Jorge said:

Robert, you missed one "anti". :-) She was marching in an anti-anti-war march.

# March 17, 2003 9:46 AM

Greg Reinacker said:

Looks to me like you get a lot of stuff for $495.

But more to the point, it's all about supply and demand. Obviously people are buying it for $495, or they would have to drop the price. And if I go to a client, and we need some fancy treeview thing, it's a no-brainer to spend $500 before committing a day of time to trying to build something (and it would likely take a lot longer than a day to build something robust).

And, if I find that the $500 one is more reliable, has less bugs, or has some cool feature I need, versus the $50 one, then again - it depends on who the client is. Most of my paying clients would much rather buy the thing, then have me waste time on a buggier one, or building one from scratch. On the other hand, if I need one for my personal use, then I'm not likely to use the $500 one. (disclaimer - I haven't used any of them, and don't really know anything about which one is better, more reliable, etc., just trying to make a point).

But in the end, I guess I don't understand what you're ranting about. If it's too much, then vote with your pocketbook and don't buy it. That's what capitalism is all about, right?

# March 17, 2003 5:05 PM

anonymous said:

Actually that's from satirewire:
http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/axis.shtml

# March 18, 2003 3:54 PM

TrackBack said:

Warning: Bad Dolphin Humor : Bloated Blog of .NET Blunders

# March 25, 2003 10:26 PM

TrackBack said:

Driving and SmartTags...grrrrr : Greg Robinson's Blog

# March 26, 2003 11:54 AM

Fabrice said:

This shows that you never had to drive in France! Otherwise you would understand that this cannot be a reason for us calling you arrogant :-) (that does not mean we don't have other reasons ;-) )
After a test drive in Paris you would love driving in Arizona...

# March 26, 2003 4:00 PM

G. Andrew Duthie said:

Another thing that rarely gets mentioned is just how minimal the civilian casualties have been, compared to past military conflicts / wars. While any civilian casualties are unfortunate, by comparison with Vietnam or the World Wars, this one is incredibly clean.

No comfort to those who lose loved ones, I know, but it's very clear that the coalition forces are going well out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, and are being very successful at it. They'd be even more successful if Hussein's forces weren't trying so hard to force civilians into the line of fire (or just killing them themselves and trying to blame the coalition forces).

# April 6, 2003 7:34 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Yeah, that is an amazing thing too. Take WWII for example. Berlin was bombed indescriminately, and the whole city was pretty much in ruins when it was all over. We have the cabability of surgically destroying only what we want to (with a relatively small margin of error, usually the Human Factor), while killing as few prople as possible.

And on another note, I wouldn't lend any creedence whatsoever to civillian death estimates by Iraq's DISInformation Minister. The guy said they killed 50 soldiers today, which we know is not accurate. They are exaggerating the numbers to make us look like monsters. I, however, trust our gov't WAY more that I do "Sodamn Insane".

# April 6, 2003 8:09 PM

HAHAHA said:

how much do they pay?

# April 6, 2003 10:29 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Not at liberty to discuss it.

# April 6, 2003 10:30 PM

Ben said:

Can't be done with HTML.

# April 7, 2003 12:10 AM

Dan F said:

yeah, what ben said. assuming by listitems you mean the listbox/combo box (select element in html parlance).

the guys over at webfx have some cool selectable list type stuff that you could probably bend into shape though.

# April 7, 2003 6:43 AM

JimS said:

push the envelope and give people that reason to change!

# April 7, 2003 6:01 PM

Phil Scott said:

Looks like fark.com but with a different table layout.

# April 8, 2003 12:43 PM

Tim Marman said:

Just so you know, and not that it really matters...

If you look at the output of that page, you won't see a <select> node. It's just a DHTML implementation that mimics the dropdown functionality.

So the people who told you it couldn't be done (not that I was one of them) weren't entirely wrong - you can't put an image into an <option>. You can, of course, make something that looks and behaves like a dropdown, which is what FunkeLab did.

# April 8, 2003 11:25 PM

Robert McLaws said:

I know. I never said that it had to be <b>the</b> DropDown server control. What FunkeLab did was provide a solution by thinking outside the box. Now that's my kind of developer.

# April 9, 2003 12:42 AM

TrackBack said:

RowSelectorColumn : ScottW's ASP.NET WebLog

# April 9, 2003 1:46 AM

TrackBack said:

Robert McLaws' reply to my "DataGrid Columns" post : Samer Ibrahim's Blog

# April 9, 2003 1:46 AM

Richard said:

Hi!

You might check out this DropDown control. http://www.funkelab.com/mydropdown

Costs $30, gives you the full source. Check out the online demo.

# April 9, 2003 8:01 AM

Robert McLaws said:

Ya I know. Tim Kilmer pointed to it earlier, and I posted about it to everyone last night. If you found it from here, it was from one of my posts ;). Thanks tho!

# April 9, 2003 9:19 AM

TrackBack said:

More on "DataGrid Columns" : Samer Ibrahim's Blog

# April 9, 2003 10:14 AM

Scott Stoecker said:

Nicely put.

# April 9, 2003 11:45 AM

M. Keith Warren said:

Ditto from me pal!

# April 9, 2003 1:08 PM

popol said:

Hey man, you really now burned a fuse !

Fascist ! And only 21 !

# April 9, 2003 2:26 PM

Adam Hill said:

There is a way to hose your system.

1) Install .Net 1.1 FMWrk.

2)Install .NET 1.1 SDK.

3) Make sure 1.0 bits are working make sure 1.0 bits *stll* working. Feel safe.

3) Remove 1.0 (We don't need no steenkin' legacy Framework.)

4. Everything quits working -- Old examples, current apps, VS 2002 (wait a sec... it *doesn't* have a 1.0 only manisfest why didi it break?)

5. Re-install 1.0 everything is back to working.

Anyone got any ideas?

adam hill...

# April 10, 2003 6:22 PM

TrackBack said:

MORE VS.NET 2003 Info : Bob.NET

# April 10, 2003 6:28 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Where you wenrt wrong is taking out 1.0 and still trying to use VS.NET 2002. VS.NET 2002 and 1.0 are like conjoined twins. Separate them, and one will die. Conversely, VS.NET 2003 and 1.1 are the same way.

In other words, LEAVE 2002 ALONE if you still want to compile to 1.0.

# April 10, 2003 6:32 PM

TrackBack said:

The ASPSmith's Blog

# April 10, 2003 7:30 PM

TrackBack said:

Robert McLaws

# April 10, 2003 7:30 PM

TrackBack said:

MORE VS.NET 2003 Info : ShowUsYour-Blog!

# April 10, 2003 7:30 PM

TrackBack said:

What's the fuss about VS .NET 2003? : Edgar S??nchez's .NET Blog

# April 10, 2003 7:30 PM

TrackBack said:

Robert McLaws

# April 10, 2003 7:40 PM

blink said:

Sort by "type" at the top left and you'll get a good page-full of T&A.

And, it is a bit like Fark. Fark was the inspiration--there's a very fark-like view, as well as a very text-only view, too.

Glad you were checking us out. Thanks!

# April 10, 2003 11:16 PM

blink said:

RSS feed, you say...

Send me a "howto" guide and I'll do it this weekend.

Fair enough?

# April 10, 2003 11:17 PM

Robert McLaws said:

http://backend.userland.com/rss

That would be awesome!

# April 11, 2003 12:00 AM

blink said:

Thanks--I'll see about working on it this weekend, for certain!

# April 11, 2003 12:31 PM

Tim Marman said:

Maybe they'll get it if you write it in a different language :)

# April 11, 2003 5:30 PM

Robert McLaws said:

# April 11, 2003 5:49 PM

Tim Marman said:

perfect :)

# April 11, 2003 5:54 PM

TrackBack said:

OK here it goes... : Bob.NET

# April 11, 2003 5:56 PM

TrackBack said:

Thoughts concerning "Stop It". : VB Defender

# April 11, 2003 5:56 PM

TrackBack said:

Thoughts concerning "Stop It". : VB Defender

# April 11, 2003 6:30 PM

David Stone said:

Brilliant! :D

# April 11, 2003 6:31 PM

Samer Ibrahim said:

you actually have a bug in that code...
[c#]
Thread stupidlanguagetopic = addressof(veryoldthread)

;)

# April 13, 2003 1:55 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Ugh, you're right. I'm not a C# guy ;) Can't you tell... I also forgot the semicolons. LOL.
It's fixed now.

# April 13, 2003 2:43 PM

M. Keith Warren said:

We support Israel because they are the only light in the darkness of the middle east. A democratic success amongst a dictator dominated region. We support Israel because they are out ally; and unlike certain European countries, we stand by our friends.

Sharon is hardly Hitler. He has been remarkably restrained considering the circumstances. If the West Bank situation where transplanted into this country, constant killing and terrorist attacks caused by a group of known terrorists living amongst us, I would expect our President to respond to the problem with such fierce force and relentless, un-merciless power that like minded people across the world would fear ever using the word jihad and U.S. in the same sentence...And if the president refused to respond; I would promise you that the patriots all across this land would rise up to deal with it.

I truly hope that our President will ignore the voices of the protestors, who are largely angry about the election, disestablishmentarianists who attend protests organized by groups like International Answer whose parent organization is a communist group; ignore those voices and deal with these problems head on. The path to peace in the middle east is bloody and difficult; it leads through Baghdad, into Syria, into Lebanon.

The path to peace in the middle east is on the road to victory in the war on terror. It is time to ignore the sovereignty of borders whose land is controlled by ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein; WMD or not, these men must be removed. If a country like Iran or Syria, or Lebanon is harboring terrorists; we must; for the sake of our children and the safety of our homeland, cross the borders - eliminate the problem.

The path to peace in the middle east does not include the UN. It ignores the cries of appeasement countries who are trying to protect their under the table dealings with these terrorist regimes.

The path to peace in the middle

# April 13, 2003 7:31 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Going to disagree with you there. Israel is wrong in occupying the West Bank and Gaza. I don't care what the Palestinians do to them.... it is wrong. Sharon is a warmonger who only wants to finish what he started in the 80's when he was Israel's defense minister battling Arafat. The fact that he wants peace now is outstanding, but there is HARDLY justification to create settlements in Palestinian territory... whether it has anything to do with ancestral land or not. A true friend will point out when you're wrong. We can stand by them and still say that they're wrong for doing what they're doing. But you don't see that happening do ya?

Further, the path to peace has NOTHING to do with ANWR. That is specious reasoning. Removing dependance on foreign oil is great, but not that way. How about through Fuel Cell technology, which NASA has had for 20 years, yet it's never made decent inroads in the private sector. Why? Because Big Oil wants to keep their power. We we don't use oil any more, most major countries and companies lose their income. Oil is Iraq's only resource (besides WMD).

I do agree that we can't do what the Founding Fathers did with slavery and pass it on for another generation to deal with. We have to deal with it now, wherever it may be.

# April 13, 2003 8:17 PM

Robert McLaws said:

By the way, I never said Sharon was Hitler. I said he was the biggest warmonger SINCE Hitler.

# April 13, 2003 8:18 PM

Robert McLaws said:

And the West Bank situation IS here in the US. The American Indians were here first. They are a series of soverign nations within our borders. You don't see us rolling tanks thru their towns, and we wouldn't even if they did have suicide bombers. It's called Posse Comitatus.... look it up.

# April 13, 2003 8:21 PM

M. Keith Warren said:

It is not specious reasoning. There is at least enough oil in ANWR to remove 1/5 of our foreign dependency for 3 decades, certainly long enough to see fossil fuel technologies go the way of the fossils themselves. That 1/5 is an industry estimate which will only likely go up once there is a tap; all this because environmentalists are worried about a caribou who has less than a 1% chance of being affected by such drilling.

I agree that drilling in ANWR has nothing to do with pali-israeli peace; but it certainly could affect OUR peace.

...

Specious reasoning is comparing the pali-israeli conflict to Native Americans. They are not blowing themselves up, trying to kill every american innocent and calling on the gods to destroy us all so they can put in place their own dictatorship.

...if they were; I would hope that you would take up arms with me and destroy them first.

# April 13, 2003 8:55 PM

Robert McLaws said:

It would not affect our peace in the least. And it is specious reasoning because we'vr destroyed enough of our land... it's protected for a reason.

Duh, the Indians aren't blowing themselves up. You missed the point entirely. I don't see the majority of the Palestinian public calling on the gods to destroy us all so they can put their own dictatorship. Back away from the extremes man. A small minority of Palestinians and other Arabs are attacking their occupiers. Go back and read my statements in their entirety. I was hoping you would come back with a valid argument and all I got was hyperbole.

I think you're a little out of whack man. You cannot destroy everyone because a few people go crazy. The Arab world thought we were gonna do this in Iraq. Well we didn't and look what happened. Besides that, you don't destroy the people, you destroy their capability of doing anything. You humiliate them to the point that they go back home in tears with their personal view of their manhood in question.

Finally, I'm done discussing this because it's pointless. I don't like arguing with extremists, and your point of view is a little too extreme for my taste. Now, I hope that doesn't mean you're gonna stop reading my stuff, it's just that I'd rather discuss coding then argue over garbage that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things anyways.

# April 13, 2003 9:12 PM

Dan Bright said:

If you do write anything like this, I would be extremely interested in reading it. I am thinking about colocating a box to offer my web clients hosting services, and while I can get a friend to host it in his office, I will need to do all of the configuration myself.

Please keep me in mind, and good luck.

# April 13, 2003 10:16 PM

James said:

I couldn't agree more - this is best chance at middle eastern peace in 50 years. On the Palestine/Israel issue: Bush is going to stick it to Israel, and he will stick it to the palestinians as well - he has already said there will be no negotiation on the peace plan Powell is working on. Sharon's statement is huge, because the administration is putting so much pressure on him, he has got to capitulate and he did/is starting to. This is good - both sides need to have major pressure applied for any settlement to come about. Bush get's the 'Brass Balls' award in my book - leadership is hard and sometimes unpopular, but he is doing the right thing, and the changes that he has set into motion are going to be incredible and positive over the next 20 years. When people start to realize what he has done (this will take a while), he will have a landslide election in 2004.

# April 13, 2003 10:25 PM

M. Keith Warren said:

Extreme...?
Lose a friend to a terrorist and then talk to me.

I am intelligent enough to realize that it is the fringe who has these attitudes; but the unfortunate problem is that in far too many of these cases, the fringe has the loudest microphone, the sit in the halls of leadership and rally their people to their radical and extreme beliefs.

...'Besides that, you don't destroy the people, you destroy their capability of doing anything...'

I agree totally; but you cannot take away the ability for Hamas to tell their followers to commit suicide. You cannot humiliate UBL to the point he would just go away. These extreme leaders must be taken out.

My problem is not with palis or arabs in general; my quam is with the radical islamic cleric who tries to manipulate the minds of the average muslim. It is with the pawns like Yasser Arafat who is a willing puppet of the terror groups.

..."it's protected for a reason":
What reason is that? The Caribou? It's pretty? Hey, I am all about saving the environment too pal but have you seen the plans? We are not exactly sticking a pole in the ground and letting crude pour into the pristince lakes. ANWR is almost 20 million acres and only about 2000 would be directly affected. That area is virtually uninhabitable, it is dark more than half of the year and reaches more than 50 below.

About 30 years ago there were similar cries regarding Prudhoe Bay. That area which according to environmentalists would only yield a few months of supply was the largest deposit in North America…and the threat to the Caribou – the population grew by almost 10 times over since that point.

Dont quit talking about this; I enjoy civil debate...it helps me to learn things.

# April 14, 2003 12:08 AM

Robert McLaws said:

E-mail me at robert@interscapeusa.com... we'll talk about my hosting plans that can help you out :).

# April 14, 2003 12:30 AM

Robert McLaws said:

Keith,

I apologize if I was a little harsh in our exchange. I value and respect your opinion, even if it differs from mine. You can at least explain your opinion without resorting to name calling.

The fringe will always have the loudest microphone. Why? Because they are so insignificant that they will do whatever it takes to be heard, no matter the cost. It is no coincidence that these people are usually the biggest fools.

# April 14, 2003 11:06 AM

Jesse Ezell said:

Do you have this code sample in C# also? ;-)

# April 14, 2003 12:18 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Meave it to Jesse to make me laugh. I needed that man thanks.

# April 14, 2003 12:21 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Meave it to Jesse to make me laugh. I needed that man thanks.

# April 14, 2003 12:21 PM

Robert McLaws said:

It posted 2x... hmmm. I meant to say "leave"

# April 14, 2003 12:26 PM

Phil Weber said:

Robert: A spammer could make the same argument: "If people don't like what I send them, why can't they just delete it?"

I subscribe to the DotNetWebLogs feed to keep up on the latest technical info. Because it's an aggregated feed, I can't simply unsubscribe from individual blogs; it's all-or-nothing. Off-topic posts waste my time, just like spam does.

# April 14, 2003 12:51 PM

Daniel Nolan said:

I've no objection to off-topic posts. As for people ignoring what they don't agree with, surely if you're entitled to post something, they have as much right to reply?

Also (ok, i should shuttup now) but surely "WonderWhyPeopleCantIgnoreWhatTheyDontAgreeWith" means america should ignore Iraq too? ;-)

# April 14, 2003 12:58 PM

Robert McLaws said:

I'm not gonna side with spammers here, but if it's a waste of time, then why do people waste EVEN MORE time responding? If you see it's not about .NET, have the self control to skip it and move on. You (read: everyone) read it because you want to know what other people have the guts to say. It's not my fault if you waste your time responding to it. if you truly believed that it wasn't worth reading, wouldn't you then have to agree by implication that it's not worth responding to?

# April 14, 2003 1:02 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Good point Daniel, but let me expound on your first statement to say that they gave the right to respond WITH RESPECT.

On #2, there is a difference between ignoring an opinion and ignoring what's right and wrong.

# April 14, 2003 1:04 PM

Daniel Nolan said:

Noted, and I apologise that how I replied may have been a little harsh, but I was trying to make a point. I think I'll call this one a day and we'll agree to disagree.

Never read your site before today but for some reason I've gone and subscribed to the rss feed :p

/me mutters about tiny comment boxes in mozilla (already prodded scott)

# April 14, 2003 2:12 PM

Phil Weber said:

"If you truly believed that it wasn't worth reading, wouldn't you then have to agree by implication that it's not worth responding to?"

Robert: I *do* agree that it's a waste of time to respond, which is why I haven't responded, other than to post these comments to try to help you understand why I (and others) object to political posts in a .NET feed.

# April 14, 2003 2:13 PM

Robert McLaws said:

Daniel you were not harsh at all. I was talking about everyone else.

Phil, that comment was more directed at everyone else than you. kind of tongue-in-cheek if you get my drift.

# April 14, 2003 2:18 PM

Tim Marman said:

On one hand, I say a blog should a place to truly express your opinions, censoring and filtering is a bad thing.

On the other, this is .NET weblogs, a community that Scott has been generous enough to provide us for free. Our primary focus should be .NET and technology in general, and we all need to keep in mind that this is a global community.

Let's not allow national, political, or religious interests to interfere with the real reason we're here, technology. It's easy to ignore an "off-topic" post; it's harder to ignore an "offensive" post.

Just remember - no matter how elegantly put, hatred is still hatred. The recent anti-French rhetoric isn't a far cry from racist or anti-Semitic commentary.

I would hate to lose someone from the community who has something to say about technology because of something stupid like this....

Can't we all get along? :)