I like Fox News but I don't believe everything they report is the equilivant of something being etched in stone tablets. It's just far better than the other news programs out there.
As for their personalities, it's a mixed bag. Hannity is an ignorant boob. O'Reilly is marginally better at times. I really like Neil Cavuto (Porked, anyone?)though and he shows why in this piece. There's really not much I can add. It's simply splendid. This is exactly the way I see the issue.
In case anyone is wondering, I'm also a big fan of Andrew Napolitano, Brit Hume, Shepard Smith, and Tony Snow back when he was around.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Obama Yomomma
Reports out today say that in a book Barack Obama wrote in 1995 entitled Dreams of My Father that he admitted to cocaine use. Most people that I usually line up with politically are, I'm sure, outraged. Me? I honestly don't think it's a big deal.
Let me say a couple of things before people jump to conclusions. I'm not in favor of drug use. I've never used drugs myself - never even tried them. But I don't think the fact that Obama tried cocaine when he was reportedly in his late teens or early twenties means that much. If he still used drugs or if he looked back on that time wistfully then that would be one thing. But to say, yeah, I did it, I made some mistakes, don't make the mistakes that I made - which is totally the attitude that it sounds like he has - then that just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. We've all made mistakes and having made a mistake in a previous life shouldn't necessarily make you unworthy to serve as an elected official. Especially not when it's a mistake that most other elected officials have probably also made.
Another word on Obama since he's grabbing so many headlines nowadays. I like the dude. I won't be voting for him in the Presidential election. I disagree with him on way too many issues. I genuinely like the guy, though. He seems like someone I could work with one day. The same goes for Harold Ford, Jr. I wouldn't have voted for him for Senate in TN either but what I know of him, I like the guy. We need good people in elected office, regardless of their past mistakes.
Let me say a couple of things before people jump to conclusions. I'm not in favor of drug use. I've never used drugs myself - never even tried them. But I don't think the fact that Obama tried cocaine when he was reportedly in his late teens or early twenties means that much. If he still used drugs or if he looked back on that time wistfully then that would be one thing. But to say, yeah, I did it, I made some mistakes, don't make the mistakes that I made - which is totally the attitude that it sounds like he has - then that just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. We've all made mistakes and having made a mistake in a previous life shouldn't necessarily make you unworthy to serve as an elected official. Especially not when it's a mistake that most other elected officials have probably also made.
Another word on Obama since he's grabbing so many headlines nowadays. I like the dude. I won't be voting for him in the Presidential election. I disagree with him on way too many issues. I genuinely like the guy, though. He seems like someone I could work with one day. The same goes for Harold Ford, Jr. I wouldn't have voted for him for Senate in TN either but what I know of him, I like the guy. We need good people in elected office, regardless of their past mistakes.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Partial Classes
Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 and Visual Studio 2005 introduce a concept called partial classes. Partial classes allow you to divide the code from a single logical class into multiple files. This can help alleviate the problem of file contention among developers. Visual Studio 2005 uses partial classes when you add a Windows Form to your solution. Instead of having to see all of the designer generated code within your class, this is hidden away in a partial class. The designer generated code for a file named FileName would be stored in a partial class named FileName.Designer.cs.
The only thing you have to do in code to make a class a partial class is to add the partial identifier as part of the class declaration. In C#, all files that make a class have to have the partial class designation. In VB.NET only one of the files that make up the class have to have the partial class designation.
After using partial classes for some time, one of my files was becoming rather large. I decided I'd try to add another partial class, FileName.SectionA.cs. It worked great but unfortunately it didn't appear in VS underneath the FileName.cs file the way FileName.Designer.cs did. This bugged me. After poking around for a while both within Visual Studio and on the web, I was unable to find a straightforward way to do this. I started looking at the project file itself and I noticed that FileName.Designer.cs looked something like this:
<compile include="FileName.Designer.cs">
<dependentupon>FileName.cs</dependentupon>
</compile>
The file that I had added looked something like this:
<compile include="FileName.SectionA.cs">
<subtype>Form</subtype>
</compile>
By editing the project file with Notepad I replaced the SubType node with the DependentUpon node like so:
<compile include="FileName.SectionA.cs">
<dependentupon>FileName.cs</dependentupon>
</compile>
After reloading the project... voila! I got the result I was looking for which was FileName.SectionA.cs appearing underneath FileName.cs.
The only downside to this approach I've found is that by default, if you checkout FileName.cs then all of the subsequent "child" files (such as FileName.Designer.cs and FileName.SectionA.cs) are also checked out. If your main concern is file contention then you need to consider this. If you're more interested in better organization then this is probably not an issue but I felt it was worth mentioning.
The only thing you have to do in code to make a class a partial class is to add the partial identifier as part of the class declaration. In C#, all files that make a class have to have the partial class designation. In VB.NET only one of the files that make up the class have to have the partial class designation.
After using partial classes for some time, one of my files was becoming rather large. I decided I'd try to add another partial class, FileName.SectionA.cs. It worked great but unfortunately it didn't appear in VS underneath the FileName.cs file the way FileName.Designer.cs did. This bugged me. After poking around for a while both within Visual Studio and on the web, I was unable to find a straightforward way to do this. I started looking at the project file itself and I noticed that FileName.Designer.cs looked something like this:
<compile include="FileName.Designer.cs">
<dependentupon>FileName.cs</dependentupon>
</compile>
The file that I had added looked something like this:
<compile include="FileName.SectionA.cs">
<subtype>Form</subtype>
</compile>
By editing the project file with Notepad I replaced the SubType node with the DependentUpon node like so:
<compile include="FileName.SectionA.cs">
<dependentupon>FileName.cs</dependentupon>
</compile>
After reloading the project... voila! I got the result I was looking for which was FileName.SectionA.cs appearing underneath FileName.cs.
The only downside to this approach I've found is that by default, if you checkout FileName.cs then all of the subsequent "child" files (such as FileName.Designer.cs and FileName.SectionA.cs) are also checked out. If your main concern is file contention then you need to consider this. If you're more interested in better organization then this is probably not an issue but I felt it was worth mentioning.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Seems Like It's Been Forever
So I haven't posted in a while. I've been a little preoccupied with some personal things going on. Work, having a baby, buying a new house, moving, you know, little things like that. If it's of any consolation to anyone, I did think about the blog in the ~3 months since I last posted. I created a quick draft of a number of articles that were of interest to me over that time along with some quick thoughts. Now that I have a little time I'm going to try to go back and turn those 9 drafts into 9 posts. Hopefully you'll see them appearing over the next few days. They're all back dated to the time I created the draft. They'll appear to be old but they're really not. I haven't posted anything since 4/19. Time to get to work.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Chemical Weapons in Iraq
Here's a story that wasn't reported in the mainstream press. Chemical weapons were found in Iraq. That's right. This is probably news to you. Newsbusters noticed that no one else seemed to report on it.
The few media outlets that have discussed it talked about how it wasn't as many weapons as what we suspected or how they were old weapons, not newly made weapons. What they don't mention is that a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon and under International Law Iraq was unable to possess them. By Iraq's admission they did not possess them. Neither the law nor Iraq's admission tempered the statements to say they didn't create any new weapons. They didn't say they only had less than 5. The law was they couldn't have any.
I know maybe I'm beating a dead horse here but you'll here in the press for years about how we went into Iraq and there were no weapons. This isn't true. I'm not advocating the manner in which we went into Iraq but lets stick to the facts. Iraq did have chemical weapons. The press just didn't have the objectivity to report it.
The few media outlets that have discussed it talked about how it wasn't as many weapons as what we suspected or how they were old weapons, not newly made weapons. What they don't mention is that a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon and under International Law Iraq was unable to possess them. By Iraq's admission they did not possess them. Neither the law nor Iraq's admission tempered the statements to say they didn't create any new weapons. They didn't say they only had less than 5. The law was they couldn't have any.
I know maybe I'm beating a dead horse here but you'll here in the press for years about how we went into Iraq and there were no weapons. This isn't true. I'm not advocating the manner in which we went into Iraq but lets stick to the facts. Iraq did have chemical weapons. The press just didn't have the objectivity to report it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
