RE: [OT] Action Pack subscription
Hi Ian, I renewed mine most recently as a download only option which from memory was $360 + GST so roughly $400 all up. Here's a list of what's in it currently: Microsoft Office Enterprise 2007 3 Office 10 Software includes Office Communicator 2007. Microsoft Office Project Professional 2007 3 Office 10 Microsoft Office Visio Professional 2007 3 Office 10 Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 with Business Contact Manager 3 Office 10 Microsoft MapPoint 2009 with North American maps Office 10 Microsoft MapPoint 2009 with North American maps currently does not ship outside of North America. Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Standard Servers 1 Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Enterprise client access licences (CALs) Office 10 CALs may be used in user or device mode. The Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Standard CAL is a prerequisite to the Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Enterprise CAL. Both versions of the CAL may run on either version of the server. Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Standard CALs Office 10 CALs may be used in user or device mode. The Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Standard CAL is a prerequisite to the Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Enterprise CAL. Both versions of the CAL may run on either version of the server. Windows 7 Professional 3, 4 Windows 10 The product keys and the software provisioned allow for either a clean or custom install. However, the software licences are upgrade licences only. By subscribing to Action Pack, you acknowledge that you will install the Windows 7 operating system only on those computers within your environment that have a preexisting, qualifying operating system licence. Windows 7 Ultimate 3 Windows 1 Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise 3 Windows Server 1 Windows Server 2008 CALs Windows Server 10 CALs may be used in user or device mode. Windows Server 2008 Terminal Server CALs Windows Server 10 CALs may be used in user or device mode. Shipped in toolkit. Windows Web Server 2008 R2 3 Windows Server 1 Windows Home Server 2008 3 Windows Server 1 Windows SBS 2008 Standard 3 Windows Server 1 Windows SBS 2008 CALs Windows Server 10 CALs may be used in user or device mode. Windows EBS 2008 Standard 3 Servers 1 Windows EBS 2008 CALs Windows Server 5 CALs may be used in user or device mode. Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Standard 3 Servers 1 Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Standard CALs Server 10 CALs may be used in user or device mode. Microsoft Forefront Client Security Management Console Servers 1 Microsoft Forefront Client Security agent Servers 10 Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway 2010 Standard (per processor) Servers 1 Forefront Threat Management Gateway Web Protection Service is not included. Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 Standard 3 Servers 1 Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 Standard CALs Server 10 CALs may be used in user or device mode. Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Standard 3 Servers 1 Microsoft SQL Server 2008 CALs Server 10 CALs may be used in user or device mode. Microsoft System Center Data Protection Manager 2007 Server Licence 3 Servers 1 Microsoft System Center Data Protection Manager 2007 Enterprise Data Protection Maintenance Licence (ML) 3 Servers 1 Microsoft System Center Data Protection Manager 2007 Standard Data Protection ML 3 Servers 1 Microsoft System Center Data Protection Manager 2007 Client Data Protection ML 3 Servers 10 Microsoft System Center Essentials 2007 3 Servers 1 System Center Essentials 2007 includes MLs to manage 10 Windows-based server operating system environments and 50 Windows-based PC operating system environments. Additional MLs for System Center Essentials 2007 must be acquired through the retail channel if 10 licences are not sufficient for your business. MLs acquired through Microsoft Volume Licensing will not work with the Action Pack-supplied licences. Microsoft Dynamics CRM 4.0 Workgroup Server 3 Business Solutions 1 Microsoft Dynamics CRM 4.0 Workgroup Server supports a maximum of five users. Licences are included in the Action Pack distribution for evaluation and demonstration purposes and cannot be upgraded with additional user licences or CALs. Microsoft Dynamics CRM 4.0 (workgroup edition CALs) Business Solutions 5 CALs may be used in user or device mode. Cheers, Trevor Andrew From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Ian Thomas Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 5:59 PM To: ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com Subject: [OT] Action Pack subscription I'm out of touch with Microsoft's Action Pack - what's in it, and what is the annual cost these days? _ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia
RE: [OT] Action Pack subscription
Hi Ian, I think it is, because by following that link and signing in, I eventually get to the same page where I can download the Action Pack Subscription software from. Cheers, Trevor From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Ian Thomas Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 9:14 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: [OT] Action Pack subscription Trevor - is that sign-up/renewal via the "MAPS" website https://partner.microsoft.com/global/program/ ?? Thanks for the details - I'll check it out. _ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia _ From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Trevor Andrew Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 5:38 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: [OT] Action Pack subscription Hi Ian, I renewed mine most recently as a download only option which from memory was $360 + GST so roughly $400 all up. Here's a list of what's in it currently: Cheers, Trevor Andrew From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Ian Thomas Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 5:59 PM To: ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com Subject: [OT] Action Pack subscription I'm out of touch with Microsoft's Action Pack - what's in it, and what is the annual cost these days? _ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia
Empower Program being terminated / new Microsoft Action Pack Development and Design - thoughts?
Hi All, Just wondering whether anyone can shed some light on the upcoming changes to the Empower program? From reading on the Partner web site, Empower is being replaced with a new edition of the Action Pack called the "Microsoft Action Pack Development And Design" on May 24th. I was looking at the most effective way of getting VS2010 and associated tools, and was reviewing again the requirements for Empower (agree to develop a product etc, etc). I was surprised to see the program was being phased out, and you wouldn't be able to enrol after May 21st. I spoke briefly with someone on the Partner help line, and they knew of this new edition of the Action Pack, but had no details of price, and they believed it couldn't even be ordered before the 24th. I'm interested in understanding why they're pulling Empower - My recollection, although I didn't confirm it today when speaking with the rep was that the program fee for Empower was reasonably small - was it $300 - can someone confirm. I'd also like to get some sort of a feel for how much this new Action Pack edition might cost? I've currently got a "standard" MAPS download only subscription which costs just on $400 annually, and as the "Development and Design" Action Pack pretty much builds on what's in the existing Action Pack, from what I can see ... https://partner.microsoft.com/Australia/program/managemembership/40133000 ... I suspect it's going to be considerably more expensive. Having read some of the end of life restrictions on Empower, such as some things not being available after November 2010 or the end of your year subscription, whichever comes first, I'm not sure it would make sense to join the Empower program now, except for the fact that without concrete information, I suspect it will be a cheaper outlay, albeit with the obligation to market a product, than waiting for this new "Development and Design" Action Pack. Although as Empower is being phased out, I'm assuming others already in the Empower program will already have Access to VS2010? So if anyone has thoughts / opinions / experiences regarding the Empower program, or greater detail on the new "Development and Design" Action Pack, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers, Trevor Andrew
RE: Empower Program being terminated / new Microsoft Action Pack Development and Design - thoughts?
Hi Jorke (and list), Any further news on these changes? Regards, Trevor Andrew From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Jorke Odolphi Sent: Thursday, 15 April 2010 10:06 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: Empower Program being terminated / new Microsoft Action Pack Development and Design - thoughts? Hi Trevor, I've asked this question of the partner team and will post back to the list once we have a clear picture of what is happening. Cheers Jorke Jorke Odolphi <http://blogs.technet.com/jorke> | Web Platform Evangelist | http://blogs.technet.com/jorke Microsoft Australia <http://www.microsoft.com/australia> | e: jor...@microsoft.com | im: jodol...@hotmail.com| twitter.com/jorke +61 2 8817 9126 | +61 488717714 From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Trevor Andrew Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2010 8:48 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: Empower Program being terminated / new Microsoft Action Pack Development and Design - thoughts? Hi All, Just wondering whether anyone can shed some light on the upcoming changes to the Empower program? From reading on the Partner web site, Empower is being replaced with a new edition of the Action Pack called the "Microsoft Action Pack Development And Design" on May 24th. I was looking at the most effective way of getting VS2010 and associated tools, and was reviewing again the requirements for Empower (agree to develop a product etc, etc). I was surprised to see the program was being phased out, and you wouldn't be able to enrol after May 21st. I spoke briefly with someone on the Partner help line, and they knew of this new edition of the Action Pack, but had no details of price, and they believed it couldn't even be ordered before the 24th. I'm interested in understanding why they're pulling Empower - My recollection, although I didn't confirm it today when speaking with the rep was that the program fee for Empower was reasonably small - was it $300 - can someone confirm. I'd also like to get some sort of a feel for how much this new Action Pack edition might cost? I've currently got a "standard" MAPS download only subscription which costs just on $400 annually, and as the "Development and Design" Action Pack pretty much builds on what's in the existing Action Pack, from what I can see ... https://partner.microsoft.com/Australia/program/managemembership/40133000 ... I suspect it's going to be considerably more expensive. Having read some of the end of life restrictions on Empower, such as some things not being available after November 2010 or the end of your year subscription, whichever comes first, I'm not sure it would make sense to join the Empower program now, except for the fact that without concrete information, I suspect it will be a cheaper outlay, albeit with the obligation to market a product, than waiting for this new "Development and Design" Action Pack. Although as Empower is being phased out, I'm assuming others already in the Empower program will already have Access to VS2010? So if anyone has thoughts / opinions / experiences regarding the Empower program, or greater detail on the new "Development and Design" Action Pack, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers, Trevor Andrew
RE: Contracting to a single company
HI Michael, The things you need to ask an account about is "How familiar are you with Personal Services Income workers". That's the ATO term for contractors who earn 100% or nearly 100% of their income from a single source. If you don't have multiple clients then the Tax Office wants you to declare yourself, as a sole trader or as a Pty Ltd company, as a Personal Services Income entity. If you have a company you "work through", they're interested in ensuring that of the income the company earns from your personal exertions practically 100% of that income is paid out as a single salary (to you) + the costs of being self-employed - like paying Superannuation Guarantee payments, professional costs such as computers, software, etc, etc. What they don't want to see is your company earns X, and you pay a salary of X/2 to you and X/2 to your wife for "doing the books". Cheers, Trevor From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Michael Ridland Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2010 4:37 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Contracting to a single company Hi I've heard from some people that there is tax implications of contracting to a single company for more than 75 percent of your income, is there any truth to this? Thanks,
RE: Contracting to a single company
Hi Dave, Absolutely! I guess I was trying to convey that direct 50/50 income splitting is what proliferated in the 90's and that's what they're trying to stamp out with PSI ... After all, doing the books of a 1 (oh that's right 2) person company hardly constitutes a full-time job does it J Cheers, Trev From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of David Burstin Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2010 5:12 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Contracting to a single company On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Trevor Andrew wrote: What they don't want to see is your company earns X, and you pay a salary of X/2 to you and X/2 to your wife for "doing the books". Unless your wife really is doing the books, has timesheets to prove it, and is just paid for her actual time at a commercial rate. Cheers Dave Cheers, Trevor From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Michael Ridland Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2010 4:37 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Contracting to a single company Hi I've heard from some people that there is tax implications of contracting to a single company for more than 75 percent of your income, is there any truth to this? Thanks,
RE: Contracting to a single company
Hi James, But if you are a "one-man company", and you do only have a single client and hence a single source of income, you can simply accept that you are a PSI entity. The only ramification to satisfy the ATO is that you pay the vast majority of your company's income as a single salary (to you) minus the legitimate costs of "running your company". About the only advantages this confers is that some costs you may have chosen to pay for out of your personal post-tax money, you can now pay for (partially / fully) from your company's funds. But not many. You definitely need the assistance of an accountant to ensure you do this appropriately. So as I understand it, it is still very feasible. You simply have to accept that you are earning your income as a PSI entity, declare that to the ATO, and plan how you distribute the income that PSI entity receives carefully. Cheers, Trevor From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of James Chapman-Smith Sent: Friday, 30 April 2010 11:21 AM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: Contracting to a single company Hi folks, You simply can't get away with PSI without serious implications from the ATO. You must earn at least 20% of your income from an independent source - ie no more than 80% from one company (or related company). You can NOT pay your spouse to do "secondary" tasks relating to your business to avoid PSI. Secondary tasks include accounting, marketing, etc. Primary activities would be like programming, installations, etc. So, "doing the books" does not count no matter if you have timesheets or not. The two biggest ways to avoid PSI is by having legitimate employees or by taking on projects that get you paid on completion not by the hour. You may have a single company as a client provided you don't charge by the hour and you must have a contract that clearly stipulates the deliverables required to get paid. Folks, the ATO has this sewn up and they are TARGETING IT professionals. Sorry for the bad news. Cheers. James. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Price Sent: Friday, 30 April 2010 00:17 To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Contracting to a single company My wife is doing my books. You should hear her complain about it. And I have to really pay her to do it. The ATO understand. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:12 PM, David Burstin wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Trevor Andrew wrote: What they don't want to see is your company earns X, and you pay a salary of X/2 to you and X/2 to your wife for "doing the books". Unless your wife really is doing the books, has timesheets to prove it, and is just paid for her actual time at a commercial rate. Cheers Dave Cheers, Trevor From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Michael Ridland Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2010 4:37 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Contracting to a single company Hi I've heard from some people that there is tax implications of contracting to a single company for more than 75 percent of your income, is there any truth to this? Thanks,
RE: Contracting to a single company
Hi James, I'm speaking from experience of operating a Pty Ltd company with a single employee (me), with (usually) a single client at a time, and hence a single income stream. By using the term "PSI entity", I mean the company declares that it's income is derived from PSI sources, which changes how the company and your personal tax return are assessed. But it is the company that still very much raised the invoices, received the money, paid the sole employee of the company a salary, and paid SGC payments on behalf of the sole employee. So it's not me receiving the money, it's the company, and the company acknowledges in its tax return that the income was derived from PSI sources. And what you said is correct, the number of things that the company can pay for before paying the rest out as a salary to its sole employee is very limited, but includes: . Superannuation Guarantee payments on your behalf . Work Cover . Statutory requirements (ASIC, etc) . Other professional insurances . Tools of trade, such as computer, software etc, etc . Business related library . Business related communications expenses (phone, internet etc) . Business related travel And yes the remainder has to be paid out as a salary to the sole employee of the company, you. As far as I understand it, the introduction of PSI, combined with FBT, has closed a lot of the loopholes that a lot of people, used to exploit when working as IT contractors. The benefits of working through your own company are significantly diluted over what they were, but there are still some. And having been through a PSI audit myself, this style of operating was described as "squeaky clean" by the ATO officers I dealt with. I guess the reason I responded originally was that the original poster (Michael) thought that working in this way was no longer possible, or that you were in some way in breach of ATO laws and regulations. I believe it is still possible, and in some cases preferable to operate in this way, rather than become a "temporary" employee of the particular contracting agency who finds you the work (if there is one). Alternatively, for some people working that way might suit better - e.g. they don't want to get into all the mucking about of lodging BASs, having a more complicated end of year tax preparation to do, etc, etc Cheers, Trevor From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of James Chapman-Smith Sent: Friday, 30 April 2010 12:37 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: Contracting to a single company Hi Trevor, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "plan how you distribute the income that PSI entity receives"? The entity doesn't get the PSI, you do. You don't have a choice but to "distribute" it to yourself. Apart from the legitimate expenses that the company has it is as if you earnt the money as an employee. I also understand that a "one man band" also means that many of the otherwise legitimate company expenses are also no longer so. You almost only can claim personal tools, and work cover and professional insurances. That kind of thing only. Cheers. James. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Trevor Andrew Sent: Friday, 30 April 2010 11:58 To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: Contracting to a single company Hi James, But if you are a "one-man company", and you do only have a single client and hence a single source of income, you can simply accept that you are a PSI entity. The only ramification to satisfy the ATO is that you pay the vast majority of your company's income as a single salary (to you) minus the legitimate costs of "running your company". About the only advantages this confers is that some costs you may have chosen to pay for out of your personal post-tax money, you can now pay for (partially / fully) from your company's funds. But not many. You definitely need the assistance of an accountant to ensure you do this appropriately. So as I understand it, it is still very feasible. You simply have to accept that you are earning your income as a PSI entity, declare that to the ATO, and plan how you distribute the income that PSI entity receives carefully. Cheers, Trevor From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of James Chapman-Smith Sent: Friday, 30 April 2010 11:21 AM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: Contracting to a single company Hi folks, You simply can't get away with PSI without serious implications from the ATO. You must earn at least 20% of your income from an independent source - ie no more than 80% from one company (or related company). You can NOT pay your spouse to do "sec
RE: Contracting to a single company
Agreed, but ask them if they know anything about PSI first, not all do! From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Friday, 30 April 2010 2:34 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Contracting to a single company On 30 April 2010 14:19, Trevor Andrew wrote: I guess the reason I responded originally was that the original poster (Michael) thought that working in this way was no longer possible, or that you were in some way in breach of ATO laws and regulations. The complexity of this thread and the differing opinions should teach Michael one thing: Go and talk to a CPA for this sort of advice. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
RE: Ignoring excpetions in catch
Hi Matt,
Text wrapping got the best of you I suspect ... The 'x' from the .aspx
extension was wrapped onto the next line of the message.
Cheers,
Trevor
-Original Message-
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 10:50 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: Ignoring excpetions in catch
LOL, when I tried that link, I got an exception(404) AND IT WASN'T
HANDLED, ROFL.
I guess that's your point!
Regards,
Matt
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." Brian W. Kernighan
James Chapman-Smith wrote:
> Handling exceptions requires exceptional programming - literally &
> figuratively.
>
> I find that there are very few times that you actually need to handle
> exceptions. Very few.
>
> Rampant exceptional handling creates more nightmares than it solves. It
> makes debugging almost impossible as your code stops at the wrong lines in
> the wrong classes in the wrong projects.
>
> No, my friends, exception handling is generally poorly handled by all but
> the most experienced developers.
>
> Have a read of this article from Eric Lippert -
>
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions.asp
> x - he sums it up nicely I think.
>
> :-)
>
> James.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
> On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 10:09
> To: ozDotNet
> Subject: Ignoring excpetions in catch
>
> I thought only the beginner programmers or programmers without any
> pride in their work or self discipline would write code like this:
>
> try
> {
> //some code goes here
> }
> catch
> {
> //No code here just business as usual, do nothing about the exceptions!
> }
>
> but maybe I am wrong, this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319465 was
> unexpected!
> in the code in the above link are there any reasons for
> 1)Checking the type, or more generally first checking that at least
> the minimum requirements of an operations will be satisfied before
> using a sledge hammer?
>
> 2)Using some other (better) code e.g. reflection etc. would be
> definitely more preferable to ignoring excpetion?
>
> 3)Any other suggestions?
>
> Regards
>
> Arjang
>
>
>
>
RE: [OT] Friday - Conway (or.. Labor govt) once againdelaysInternet Filter
Hi Guys, I know this thread is marked as OT, but I don't think it even comes close to being within that very broad scope for the OZDOTNET list . The majority of recent posts have all been just opinions, and everyone has a right to hold them, and I defend everyone's right to their own opinion. But I'm pretty sure that this isn't the forum to express them. Cheers, Trevor Andrew From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of .net noobie Sent: Saturday, 10 July 2010 3:04 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Friday - Conway (or.. Labor govt) once againdelaysInternet Filter "Debt itself isn't a problem", this is garbage debt does matter, it matters alot more debt = less options massive debt = no options and spending money for the sake of votes is also garbage i needed to make the correction also On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Tony Wright wrote: Ah, naive, and so transparently biased. Labor do have a stack of policies, it's just that they're mostly failures. As opposed to Liberals who actually don't stand for anything other than telling us one thing and then implementing the complete opposite. A neighbour of mine used to say they were blue and bluer - the Liberal party representing the rich and sucking in a whole lot of aspirational voters into thinking that meant them as well, while Labor is the try-hard party, trying to get the rich to like them as well, while still having problems with the unions. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of .net noobie Sent: Saturday, 10 July 2010 1:24 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Friday - Conway (or.. Labor govt) once againdelaysInternet Filter "Liberals actually have 2 whole policies now I believe." Well that would be 2 more than Labor, lets face it, they just have a long line of disasters/failures/wasted many many billions and debt your great great grand children will still be paying off ;) But if I think you follow politics a bit more closely they have a few more positions/policies than 2 On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ian Thomas wrote: 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee 1,2,3,3' - The Albert Langer Story http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/1995-96/96cib14.htm _ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia _ From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Ian Thomas Sent: Friday, 9 July 2010 5:08 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: [OT] Friday - Conway (or.. Labor govt) once againdelaysInternet Filter Greg I'm not sure if you remember Albert Langer (decades ago, in Victoria), but he was gaoled for a short time for infringing the electoral act by forming a political party called Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee which encouraged people not to vote. Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia
RE: Raising property changed events
David, I think that Stephen's original rant was not that this was one example of a page documentation needing improvement, but that the entire style of the documentation is so minimal as to be close to useless. Unless I'm getting to the wrong bits, very little of the documentation I reach initially on MSDN is of any more use than confirming syntactic correctness and the most minimal explanation of the usage variation. And as Stephen pointed out, sometimes almost laughably obvious explanations of usage at that. My recollections of earlier versions were that they contained much more descriptive information, examples, guidance on the use of methods and the like. As stated below, it starts to look like Google gives broader information than MSDN does. Cheers, Trevor From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of David Kean Sent: Thursday, 24 March 2011 2:17 AM To: djones...@gmail.com; ozDotNet Subject: RE: Raising property changed events If you come across pages where you think the docs need improvement, please use the Rating box in the top right. Given that there's something like 200,000+ pages on MSDN, the UE (doc guys) combine that with page views to focus on low rated, high viewed pages first. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of djones...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:54 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Raising property changed events Imo. This has been the problem with msdn since the inception of .net. The last usable msdn was '98. Where you could find examples on all methods with related BUG: documents linked. The xml autodoc and java suffer from the same problem, the developers are there to write code and not provide examples. I haven't pressed F1 in visual studio since early 2001. It's a waste of time installing the docs as google will give you better and more concise information in half the time. .02c Davy "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." I feel much the same way about xml _ From: Stephen Price Sender: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:48:10 +0800 To: ozDotNet ReplyTo: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Raising property changed events I was going to use this an opportunity to vent about the msdn documentation and then discovered that the page on this particular method is better than what I usually get on msdn docs. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.reflection.assembly.getexecut ingassembly.aspx Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly Method Gets the assembly that contains the code that is currently executing. so does anyone else get frustrated with this kind of documentation? It's like finding comments in your code that say "Gets the value from the property". yeah, I can see that from the code. Tell me something about why, or how to use it? 95% of the msdn doc pages have no examples. Typically, this particular one DOES but I'm sure thats because I wanted to rant about it and murphy's law was invoked. Most don't. Some explanations on what things actually do or why. Some examples. Please. We're guessing here and don't always have time or skills to crack open the dll with decompiler of the month and figure it out for ourselves. More examples please. Free standing, spelt out, working examples. Pretend we want to know how to use the methods. Give us an instruction manual. Please!! You'd make some happy people if you showed us how to use the framework. Throw some unit tests in there or something. thanks, Stephen On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:06 PM, David Kean wrote: Hmm, I'll check internally, but I'd be surprised if we give that guarantee. We're free to change our inlining policy at any time, in fact, we did just that in 3.5 SP1 x64 which broke a lot of customers who were relying on Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly() without explicitly turning off inlining for the method. Whether you can repro something now, is not a good indication of whether we'll continue to support in a future service pack or version - always check the docs. However, in saying that, the docs don't really make it clear that this might not work correctly in certain situations. In which case, if we don't give the above guarantee I'll make sure they call it out. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Mark Hurd Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:36 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Raising property changed events On 23 March 2011 15:00, Mark Hurd wrote: > I believe it was in this mailing list that we previously confirmed > using GetCurrentMethod, even when included in convoluted ways, > guarantees the method will not be inlined. Gmail says GetCurrentMethod has /not/ been mentioned before on this mailing list since I've been part of it, so I'm remembering that wrong. > Can you show an example where GetCurrentMethod does not retu
