Bug Vanquisher

29 November 2007

Definitely Buggy (Next Part)

Filed under: Bugz, Fun — Tanveer Badar @ 4:44 PM

I have refrained from giving the heading a name ending in ‘Part 2’ because I suspect many more will come and eventually I’ll reach infinity.

Five minutes ago, Internet Explorer crashed pointing a finger to Flash9.ocx. I submitted a bug report to WER like a good citizen. After that, a little pop-up appeared thanking me and hosting a link for further information.

But, it took part of URL from my current culture, ur-PK. Therefore, the resultant link was http://wer.microsoft.com/responses/Response.aspx/2349/ur/5.1.2600.2.00010100.2.0?SGD=529579a5-9a25-41fa-88e3-358209fcca39
which is never going to work in a million years, unless you expect US President to speak Urdu as mother-tongue.

After a little (another) stroke of genius, I spotted the mistake and made it to the correct page.
http://wer.microsoft.com/responses/Response.aspx/2349/en/5.1.2600.2.00010100.2.0?SGD=529579a5-9a25-41fa-88e3-358209fcca39

There, I realized I had worked pointlessly as there is no useful information available there.

Advertisements

26 November 2007

The Reality!

Filed under: Decontamination — Tanveer Badar @ 4:53 PM

I wrote about the looming danger and entirely incorrect interpretation western media is giving to a Saudi Arabian rape case, here are more details detailing the other side of the picture. [There are four or five edits to change some spellings.]


Qatif Woman’s Case and the Saudi Judgment

By Faraz Omar

Link – iNarrators.com

The recent attention to the Qatif court case in which a gang raped victim was penalized with lashes and imprisonment has re-surfaced criticism of the Saudi Judicial system in the media. However the view circulated is to an extent biased and one-sided. Often one gets misled by looking at just one side of the coin. International newspapers carried the story with various headlines but a common theme – A gang rape victim sentenced for lashes and imprisonment. A common reader might be disgusted by the very thought, "How could a victim of a gang rape be penalized? Could there be anything more inhuman than punishing an oppressed victim herself? And all her guilt lies in being with a man she is not related to." These thoughts would be sufficient for most of us to come to a very satisfied conclusion and justify the international media remarks such as ‘Barbaric Laws’ and ‘Inhuman interpretation of laws’.

Having lived in Saudi Arabia and knowing it personally, I attempt to present the other side of the coin. To give a background first, Saudi Arabia’s judicial system is largely based on the Islamic Law. The Religious Scholars do accept that it’s not purely based on Islamic Law and has its shortcomings, but yet largely and fundamentally it follows the Islamic Law. One of the basics of Islamic Law is that not only are all types of crimes prohibited, but all things which lead to such crimes are also prohibited. And on the other hand, good things which prevent these crimes are much encouraged. For example, Islam prohibits adultery and fornication i.e. sex outside marriage, premarital sex etc. It views them as one of the biggest social crimes. So it prohibits all things that lead to them such as gazing or staring at the opposite sex, immodesty, dating etc. On the other hand it promotes and encourages marriage. It doesn’t deny the basic instinct of a human being but it regulates it into a manner that would preserve the well-being of a family; promote modesty and protect the society from sexual crimes.

Having said that let us look at the Qatif Girl’s case. She is a young married woman who had an illegal relationship with a man. And this man threatened her that he would publicize her pictures taken with him during the relationship. She was with this man when they were abducted and raped. The pictures were handed over to the police later on. So the Saudi judges first gave 10 months to 5 years imprisonment to the rapists and 90 lashes to the woman as punishment for her involvement in an illicit relationship. The atmosphere of Saudi Arabia is very different than most countries. It is a very conservative and religious country. Rapes are especially unheard of, however, as we see the society become more western, such crimes are now increasing than before. Saudi religious leaders take every step to preserve modesty and stop youth from getting into immoral relationships.  We know that most of the sexual crimes are done by ‘known people’. ‘Date Abuse’ and ‘Date Rape’ where women are subjected to the most sexual abuse is a major problem in the western world. After clear evidence that pointed towards the illegal relationship of the Qatif Woman surfaced which could have also been the cause leading to the horrific gang rape, it became incumbent upon the Saudi authorities that they also punish her for violating the country’s well known law. When the appeal for this matter was publicized to create sympathy and draw criticism over the law, the punishment was raised to 200 lashes and 6 months of imprisonment for the girl. [The Appeals court also increased the punishment of the rapists to 2 – 7 years imprisonment]. This raise of punishment, according to official sources, was due to "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media" which is a pretty valid point.

The punishment by lashes is also misunderstood as ‘barbaric’. While lashing the hand should not be raised such that the underarm is seen, which means that one cannot apply do it with force. We see so much from the western hypocrisy that they allow ‘the accused’ who are not yet convicted to undergo severe torture. Pain, extreme temperature conditions, psychological trauma and more unspeakable tortures in prisons like ‘Guantanamo Bay’, Abu Ghraib etc are pretty common. And all this is before even being convicted. This is their hypocrisy, they have a law but their practice is different. Islamic Law is direct and straight forward. It has clear described laws and punishments for those who violate it without infringing their rights.

Again everyone may not agree with this side of view, but there are many others who agree to it. We keep talking about tolerating others views and accepting diversity, but in practice we are really forcing our view of liberalization and freedom. So if some differ they are labeled as intolerant and oppressors.

19 November 2007

Definitely Not My Culture

Filed under: Fun, Rant vs Vent — Tanveer Badar @ 1:08 AM

A couple of days ago, I sign-up to second life to check out what the hype is all about. Then, I forgot the password, that recovery email is yet to come. Instead I got this:

Jackhammer John has invited you to join a group in Second Life.
Jackhammer John has invited you to join a group.
There is no cost to join this group.
Group:
Sinful Erotic Xstacy Vip: This Group is for Our SEXY and Hot Patrons!!! If Your Not Here what are u doing on Sl??Come and Enjoy Yourself in SL Up and Rising Hot Night and Day Spot*wink wink*
Were open for business *winking*
Log in to accept or decline this invitation.

And the irony is two fold. I still cannot log-in to my account. And certain keywords in this post will increase unwanted traffic to my blog. I already had the misfortune of not understanding my actions and periodically get unwanted hits to disappoint the searcher. :)

16 November 2007

Super Cool!!!

Filed under: Dev inside!, Fun — Tanveer Badar @ 8:23 PM

It seems my love is not the only love around. People are crazy about their stuff too.

.NET – A Love Story

.NET Love Story Continues…

I Demand An Explanation

Filed under: Funnier, Rant vs Vent, Windows Vista — Tanveer Badar @ 2:26 AM

image

They say “A picture is worth a thousand words”. Therefore, I’ll keep this post very short and let you figure out and tell me which part of hardware is from ATI/AMD on my system when everything screams an “Intel Inside”!

Perhaps, these may help you make your decision quickly.

image
(from msinfo32)

image
(from device manager)

Is Microsoft playing “Idiot Outside”? Do count this when making announcing the verdict.

11 November 2007

More Horrors

Filed under: Computer Theory — Tanveer Badar @ 3:46 PM

Right off Brad Abrams blog!

Isn’t it odd that…

From the files of things that make you go “hmmmm”.

System.Exception (the base class for all exceptions) is indeed an exception: throw new Exception ()

But…

System.Enum (the base class for all enums) is not an enum: typeof (Enum).IsEnum == false

System.ValueType (the base class for all ValueTypes) is not a ValueType: typeof (ValueType).IsValueType == false

System.Attribute (the base class for all custom attributes) is not a custom attribute [Attribute] -> compile error

# Brad Abrams said on May 10, 2004 9:21 PM:

Oh, and I just noticed that System.Array is not an Array:
typeof (Array).IsArray = false…

This again proves my point that root in a hierarchy is always special. The rules used to build that hierarchy do not apply to the root, breaking the constraint system.

Why I Hate VB?

Filed under: Funnier — Tanveer Badar @ 1:14 PM

Just read:

"Has anyone worked with a VB developer that was actually confused by this? I’ve worked with VB developers that get confused about LOTS of things… Never specifically this though :)"

Anecdotal, Yet Outdated and Incorrect

Filed under: Rant vs Vent — Tanveer Badar @ 12:22 PM

As a closed group of friends knows how much I read and the 150+ blogs blessed with my reading, I spend most of my time reading something, anything technical.

I have seen a phenomenon occurring over and over for the last few months. It is my habit to read a blog back to front when it is blessed :). And during those flash backs to past posts for the writer, I frequently encounter links which have been broken, out dated information, design decisions which never made to light of day etc.

As four (yes,four not just one) examples, consider these blogs (all are from Microsoft employees). The Old New Thing, Larry Osterman’s Weblog, Brad Abrams and IRhetoric (this blog has been moved since).

First two are really old times for Microsoft. Their blogs are proud story tellers, recounting the events they had had over their career. But they don’t stink, because they are not littered with broken links, code which will no longer compile, examples which do not apply to what is running right now on my computer. Well, honestly, Raymond’s stinks a little because of his dry (sarcastic, add any others you may like) jokes.

On the other hand, consider the other two. Brad Abrams is the oldest one from any Microsoft  employee I have read so far. But being old should count as a negative point. Earliest posts are from even before the PDC 2003 era. Most of the links are broken because they refer to GotDotNet. Some of the information about Longhorn (read Vista) is entirely incorrect.

Similar analysis can be done for IRhetoric. The links are broken all over the place. Information is entirely incorrect in earlier posts. What used to be Avalon, has posts containing sample which will never compile with the RTM bits.

But there has been no urge to update the code, fix the links or at least point out in the post that those links will no longer work, the code will not compile etc.

5 November 2007

One Down, Many More to Go

Filed under: Funnier — Tanveer Badar @ 9:49 PM

Raza had his words about the prevailing situation in the country. I must note that he and some other friends used to be strong supporters of Mushhi in the earlier days.

But I wonder how can we be in fourth Martial Law right now when it has been imposed since 1999? I do recommend that you grab a copy of Military Inc. and give it a read.

4 November 2007

CppCodeProvider Bug List

Filed under: Bugz, C++ — Tanveer Badar @ 7:57 PM

Despite making major strides in the implementation of CppCodeProvider there are still some pieces missing. There are still few cases where you get no definition when rendering UDTs split. Specific cases are:

  • Foremost, MemberType and PointerToMember¬† will throw FunctionNotImplementedException if rendered.

  • Member types (UDT/enum/union) which are not specified to be defined inline are missing definitions.

  • I would love to add support to declare a function/type as friend of another UDT or union.

  • If a member variable is declared static const and not an integral type, it is not defined.

  • If a member function (function/operator/constructor/destructor) is not declared inline

Irrelevant of rendering UDTs split or not, member type and pure virtual function rendering is broken and here is why:

  • If a member UDT has enclosing type as one of the bases, it is not even defined.

  • If a member function is pure (exception constructors), it is not defined anywhere.

Apart from these, there is memory leak when you try to assign a destructor to a UDT. I am investigating that issue.

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.