Posts by Bryan Fisher7

Hit the options button at the top, just under the ad, and pick "Edit Options." Scroll down. You'll see one called Avatar. That's where you upload your pic.

No way, I’m just getting started. I'm looking for a fight.

Actually, let's light up a joint first, then we can argue.

Honestly, I’m lucky I don't have ambitions like that.

Regarding Microsoft, I'm not sure if you noticed, but I'm not out here "shilling" for them or anything. I'm currently working on J2EE projects, and I haven't even touched .NET yet. I'm just trying to point out that there's some kind of balance in the market. Microsoft is one of those—okay, the biggest and most successful—software companies that naturally tries to grab the biggest slice of the pie. If it weren't for Microsoft, Linux probably wouldn't be where it is today (actually, I doubt Linux would even exist, but that's a whole other conversation). Do Microsoft products have holes and flaws? Sure. Do they have more than any other platform? I doubt it. It's just that Microsoft, like I mentioned before, is the most interesting target to hit, so their screw-ups get way more attention.

I still think Daniel Fowler9's topic is one of the most useful things on this board, and from what I can see, you're the only one attacking it. She made a good point—let's see some gentlemen throw out a helpful (doesn't even have to be useful) Java example so we can actually enrich this forum.

Go after her "Microsoft rules" take, not the constructive part.

slycrane94 said:So I’m not allowed to have an opinion? Look, being a mod doesn't mean I lose my right to speak. If you actually think I messed up a mod call—like if I moved a thread or deleted something incorrectly—then let me know. But my opinions are my own.

Regarding the hate for the example code, I already covered this. It’s way easier to stay motivated when there’s a practical use for what you're coding. You seem to have forgotten what it was like actually learning to program.

And as for competition, we’re all for it, except for the fact that Microsoft is aggressively (and illegally) trying to crush it.

Look, it’s nothing personal, so don't get all worked up. You can have an opinion, sure, but don't just trash everything and kill any chance of making this one little forum actually useful.

Like I said, your comment on Daniel Fowler9's thread—which is honestly one of the most helpful things since we moved the boards to this URL—is just a reflection of your anti-Microsoft bias. Attacking the example code with zero actual arguments fits right in with that pattern.

Add in your terrible English, and I honestly have no idea how you even managed to land a moderator gig.

slycrane94 said:Look, I don't care if we aren't on the same page here. Some people actually look ahead. Being technically superior isn't always the winning move. But hey, who cares about monopolies when you can just play in the .NET sandbox and feel cool for using it?

Like I said. Efficiency only matters if it actually makes sense.

I’m just being moderate. I'm not a fanboy for any side; I just think competition is healthy. Everyone has their niche—whether it's Microsoft, Linux, Solaris, .NET, or J2EE.

But that has zero to do with what we were actually arguing about. You attacked a valid, evidence-based topic where someone could have actually learned something, yet as a moderator, you should be encouraging that. That's why I agree with Daniel Fowler9—you shouldn't be a moderator. First off, you're biased, not neutral. You insult the people making this forum worth reading, and your American isn't even that great. You lack pretty much every quality a moderator is supposed to have.

It seems like you're struggling to grasp the point, so I won't waste my breath. My argument is simple: the actual purpose of the app doesn't matter. What matters is understanding the core logic, which is why the clean, straightforward example provided by Daniel Fowler9 is so useful. It’s not about what the code does; it’s about grasping the underlying principle so you can apply it elsewhere.

Your bashing isn't even based on facts; it's just a reflection of your biased, anti-Microsoft stance. If the example had been anything else, you would have found a way to tear it down anyway. As a moderator, you really ought to try being a bit more objective.

Man, whoever appointed you as a moderator seriously has no clue what they’re getting into. Either put a paper bag over your head or just stop showing up to these threads, because honestly, you're just making yourself look bad.

I'm not even going to touch Daniel Fowler9's "fanboy" threads—I hate those just as much as the usual OSS cheerleading posts—but the example in her thread is just a basic web service demo; it wasn't meant to be a standalone tool. Anyone actually reading the post for the right reasons is going to get plenty of value out of the code itself. If you don't care about how web services work, there's no reason to be in that thread, let alone comment on the post or the code. It's actually better that the example isn't a finished product; its whole purpose is to demonstrate the concept. That's what helps someone actually learn enough to build something useful for themselves later. If you don't get that, then this IMF is in serious trouble if they think you're fit to moderate software discussions.

As for her little bias ("IE, definitely not Mozilla" accompanied by all the emojis), I'll pass. I don't want to trigger another one of those endless MS vs. OSS debates that seem to be taking over everything lately.

slycrane94, man, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself.

Can we dial back the insults and the trash talk? Daniel Fowler9 has a point—the document Piper cited suggests .NET has a faster, more efficient architecture (though maybe not quite as convincingly as she’d like to admit). Still, the critiques regarding the comparison between Sun's pet Store 1.0 and Microsoft's version hold water; you can clearly see the massive speed jump once the 2.0 version was optimized. Pet Store 1.0 wasn't meant to be some flashy commercial; it was just a baseline for using J2EE architecture. It’s obvious that .NET is more than just a solid alternative to the now much more widespread J2EE. As for what happens next, we'll just have to wait and see. Just less fanaticism and fewer jabs, please—let's stick to objective takes.

Alright, finally got around to looking at that document. Haven't had time for a deep dive, but one thing is clear: this was put together by Cowen (http://www.cowen.com) and isn't some "research funded by Microsoft." Then again, the findings feel pretty thin. It's mostly just predictions and quotes from execs about where they'll be heading over the next year, and those companies—or their statements—could easily be under direct or indirect influence from Microsoft. Plus, there’s no list of the companies actually participating in this "survey," which makes the results even less credible. I also have no idea how they're interpreting certain data points, mainly because I highly doubt—actually, I'm certain—that Microsoft could possibly lead the pack when it comes to server OSs. Sure, if you count every Windows workstation used for basic file sharing or print services as a "server," and if you treat a dozen machines running Sun Cluster-e as just a single server (which technically works since the network sees them as one unit), then you can massage the numbers to show Microsoft winning. But if you look at reality—processing power, actual capacity, workload handling, and especially the price tag—Sun (or whatever else is out there) has a massive lead. It's the same story with DBMS; Microsoft SQL is a solid platform, but Oracle is the heavyweight champion globally when you talk capabilities, limits, speed, just name it. If we were measuring based on financial value, total data stored, or daily request volume, Oracle would crush them every time.

So, the document is legit, and not directly funded by Microsoft, but I still get the feeling Microsoft managers were pulling strings behind the scenes to shape the final product. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows, but that's the vibe.

Not really, you actually reminded me though. Just tried it, but the link's dead.

Daniel Fowler9 said:It's pretty weird that neither Shadowman nor Bryan Fisher7 have weighed in on this thread yet. Shadowman, you think the doc is fake or just totally off base? And what about you, Bryan?

Sorry, I haven't had the time to dig into the document either. I'll poke around it over the next few days and let you know what I think.

Daniel Fowler9, if you want a real debate on this, post the actual document. Otherwise, it just looks like some fake white paper cooked up for Microsoft PR.

Personally, I think more than half of what you wrote is flat-out wrong, or at least some kind of statistical trick to make things look better than they are. Take DBMS, for example: my company uses Oracle because no other system could actually handle our databases. That’s not an opinion; it’s just a limitation of Microsoft SQL Server.
Total installation numbers don't mean a thing.

Microsoft servers are still way less common than Unix. I say this because the firm I work for deals with tons of major corporations, and I've seen plenty of massive systems. Trust me, there's much more Solaris, HP-UX, and the like out there.

Java is still the industry standard. .NET is trying to get there, but it needs to shake off those growing pains first. And obviously, they need to release virtual machines for other platforms, or it's a non-starter.

Nobody is disputing that Microsoft is currently the most powerful software company on the planet. I assume they'll stay that way. But this kind of propaganda actually does them more harm than good. Microsoft built its empire on workstation OSs and consumer apps. They'll stay #1 there. But when it comes to enterprise systems, servers, DBMS, and so on, there are still stronger players, and that trend isn't changing anytime soon.

KRT, please chill out. Drop the "retarded" and "idiot" stuff from your vocabulary. You sound like a guy at a construction site rather than someone participating in a software forum.

Nah, it’s not exactly an overkill, but it is pretty obnoxious. And honestly? It’s just poorly executed.

Charlie's Angels is just a failed parody of The Matrix.

I’ve also got plenty of gripes with "The Two Towers."

Well, Peter Jackson did say Shelob shows up in the third movie. I’m assuming the showdown between Gandalf and Saruman is pushed to the third part too. Since we aren't getting that bit where the Hobbits head back to Hobbiton—and considering the third book is actually pretty thin (most of it is just appendices, anyway)—I think moving some stuff from the second film to the third is a fine call. Otherwise, the movie would be way too short or just boring, and it needs to be the big spectacle.

Still, certain things in "The Two Towers" just won't sit right with me. Faramir being totally different from the book version, the trip to Osgiliath, waving the ring in front of the Nazgûl... he shouldn't have done that. That said, there's plenty of good stuff in there, so all in all, I still enjoyed the movie.

Look at it this way: for home stuff, you grab a decent, cheap Epson (like a 42ux or whatever), then you shell out maybe 20-$10 for black ink and 30-$17 for color. Then you can just sit back and enjoy the savings.
I saw a shop in a small town outside of Atlanta where a full set of black and color cost $17. That’s basically what your boyfriend spends just taking you to see a movie—and that's not even counting the popcorn and soda!

HP is definitely the king when it comes to Inkjet quality, and since the print heads are built into the cartridges, it's a clever setup (you swap the heads every time you change ink), but man, it's pricey. Third-party inks aren't much cheaper because you're essentially paying for the heads, not just the liquid. You could try the whole "refill the cartridge" headache, but it's a massive pain, it doesn't always work, and eventually, those heads will give out anyway, forcing you to drop another $167 on a new set.

An Epson isn't a bad choice either. They're cheap, though the print heads are part of the machine itself. If they die, you might as well buy a new printer since the heads alone cost more than a whole unit, but it'll probably last you a few years. Given how little the actual printer costs, the printing itself ends up being dirt cheap...

Oh, right—that whole mess with the chips only applied to certain models (like the Epson 680, for instance), while most of these newer little printers don't have that issue. Still, double-check before you buy.

If you need anything remotely professional, forget all this advice and just get a laser printer (or a heavy-duty Inkjet if you absolutely need color).

Jackson's biggest blunder:

He forgot the Disclaimer:
If you worship Tolkien like some kind of deity, get out of the theater now, otherwise you’re going to be massively disappointed. This isn't a page-for-page adaptation; it's just a different version of the same story. Details change, even if the core remains.

I mean, seriously... I've read the books a few times—The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, even scrolled through the history of Middle-earth and regularly check the online Arda encyclopedia—and yet, I still enjoyed the movie. Is it worse than the book? Obviously. Most movies are. Is it good? Yeah, it is. Did the filmmakers put in the work? They sure did.
They could have spent that same budget on an original epic that had nothing to do with Tolkien's world, but they would've needed someone to actually write a solid script from scratch. Why take the path of least resistance and buy a proven, high-quality story just to do whatever they want with it?
You can argue all you want, but from a directing standpoint, PJ did a killer job, and the movie crushed it at the box office, which matters given the investment. I'll say it again for the people in the back: this movie is just an illustration for the book.

P.S. electricpanther12, "she" shows up in The Two Towers (though in the movie version, she's in Return of the King). If you've only read the third book—which seems to be the case, since you'd definitely remember her if you'd read them all—then I can't help you.

P.P.S. Bryan Fisher7, great username. 😁

FF is basically all flash and no substance, kind of like Vidocq—it’s just a showcase for special effects and camera tricks. There's zero depth here; the plot feels like it was scribbled down by a middle schooler. Honestly, that’s why it’ll be forgotten by next week.

Compared to FF, Ice Age actually holds some weight (even if it isn't a masterpiece either).

Plus, Ice Age goes with talking animals. FF tries to use animation to fake reality—trying to mimic how people and environments look in real life, even though it's set in the future. It's not a fair fight. Even though FF is technically more complex and nearly flawless from a production standpoint, Ice Age works way better because its animation is simpler. My only gripe with Ice Age is the humans. Animating people is always a struggle; even in FF, where they tried their best, the characters still look a bit too artificial and plastic.

Matthew Doyle73 said:The whole idea is that the plot is for kids, the jokes are for adults, and the message is for kids. That way, the whole family can enjoy watching 🙂
.
(some people probably missed most of the jokes, so they figured it was too mature for children 😛)

I mean, what was there really to "get"? People used to say certain kid jokes were a bit too clever, so they assumed it was adult stuff.😁

By the way, Višnjić is basically your version of Soto, the leader of the Saber-toothed Tigers (like Bryan Martin31 already mentioned).