"What does it matter? You knew what it was didn't you?"

Yes I did. Does that mean everybody else does? No.

If I were complaining that the submitter didn't provide a grammatically-correct, 1000-word summary of the topic at hand, that would be unreasonable.

That they didn't have the desire to even finish a freaking SENTENCE just strikes me as lazy. I've seen spam on this site that has more work put into the description for something of less interest to DNK's visitors. I refuse to apologize for criticizing CRAP when I see it, when submitting something that would have been equally as useful -- possibly more so -- would have taken little additional effort.

There's noise, there's signal, and then there's signal that is so weak that it should be considered noise. Leave the noise for Digg, Slashdot and IMTextingKicks.

Terrible headline. Is it that hard to write something like "ScottGu posts about release of ASP.NET 3.5 extensions?" ;(

"Transparency", my ass. BillG was asked a question he didn't have a nice answer for, and sh*t rolled downhill. Thus yesterday's completely useless IEBlog posting: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/05/internet-explorer-8.aspx ;(

Just as a FYI, a few months ago I assembled a ton of links related to plug-in development....might be useful: http://blog.caljacobson.com/2007/07/26/creating-a-plug-in-framework-in-c-resources/

Whoops, dclevitt beat me to it... :)

The "good" is that they will mail you a copy of VS2008 Professional when it's ready, free of charge. I'm not going to have anything installed -- I'm just going to see what there is to see and get some free software in a few weeks.

"Don't worry, that'll be fixed in VS 2011"

...and this is a useful submission *how*?

Not .NET related! ;(

A coding Paris Hilton? What's that, like a modeling Stephen Hawking?

ಠ _ ಠ

After watching this, I'm actually turned OFF by the product.

More direct link: http://forums.xna.com/thread/30546.aspx

I'd be more excited about full CSS 2 compliance, instead of this continuous marketing kabuki dance b.s. that passes as "news" from the IE team these days.

BigTuna, I would accept that argument in the classic definition of 'liberal': favorable to progress or reform, favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression, free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant and open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

Unfortunately, in the United States (at least), the term "liberal" is now applied almost exclusively to people whose ideology ranges from moderate left-wing politics to Marxism/socialism....the latter, as history has shown us, having little to do with supporting individual freedom as per the original definition.

I would submit that the majority of rational, educated people are liberal in the classic sense, regardless of their personal ideology. Furthermore, I'd argue that having a higher education degree does NOT make one educated...it merely demonstrates that a person attended an educational institution and managed not to fail tests. I have a Bachelor's degree but my IQ didn't jump the day it was awarded.

A true liberal should welcome alternative viewpoints. If they are based upon fallacies, then critical review will bear that out. Shouting down ones opposition -- or attempting to silence them altogether -- is the antithesis of classic liberalism, yet unfortunately it seems to be the m.o. of many self-proclaimed liberals active in politics today.

Aside from politics, ConservativeKicks.com makes use of the DNK code base, so it is just as worthy a story here as any other .NET-related item, in my opinion.

Agreed.