Push, you suck

[BMWdude]

well if their running out at 90Gb that leaves 410Gb un-crumbed. No wonder they got lost. you need to get one of the new seagate professional ones. (they come with GPS equiped data munchkins)

LOL

Grrrrr I'm so bored!! Whatever you guys do don't get a job in high-tech lol

 

[PuShAkOv]

lol

me too, soo bored.. this is the only decent site thats not blocked on here

 

[Pink_Floyd]

lol

me too, soo bored.. this is the only decent site thats not blocked on here

.

Anna, just change the proxy in IE. That works for most systems. I know it does for my school. I just setup an analog x proxy at my house and use my computer as a gateway when I'm at school. If you want a good proxy go to www.multiproxy.org

Also, when I get home I'll send you an anonymous netsent program. Nothing funnier than sending a domain-wide message from "God" saying "You suck!" [fake]

 

[PuShAkOv]

lol, thanks for the program.

I actually didn't think of changing the proxy in IE.. I only looked in the network settings in the Control Panel, TCP/IP and all the proxy settings and everything we're blocked... The sites blocked on here, and so are all the proxy sites I know but I'll email a couple to myself when I get home and try it tommorow. One thing I was wondering though, wouldn't it have to go through the Beachwood proxy to connect to the other Proxy?

 

[Pink_Floyd]

lol, thanks for the program.

I actually didn't think of changing the proxy in IE.. I only looked in the network settings in the Control Panel, TCP/IP and all the proxy settings and everything we're blocked... The sites blocked on here, and so are all the proxy sites I know but I'll email a couple to myself when I get home and try it tommorow. One thing I was wondering though, wouldn't it have to go through the Beachwood proxy to connect to the other Proxy?

Yes, but it will bypass the net protection software, atleast it worked for me. It all really depends on how your entire schools network is setup. It sounds like there isn't very much sercurity, as you were able to access the control panel, lol.

 

[wileycoyote]

OK you high tech people, let's play a little game called, "Find the missing expression in the SQL statement". SQL statement below, created by VB.net SQL wizard, oddly it doesn't work.

sqlselect.CommandText = "SELECT POHeader.PONumberPK, Vendors.Name, POHeader.ItemTotal, Vendors.VendorPK FROM Vendors INNER JOIN POHeader ON Vendors.VendorPK = POHeader.UserFK RIGHT OUTER JOIN ApprovalRequired ON POHeader.PONumberPK = ApprovalRequired.PONumber"

 

[PuShAkOv]

"WHERE" after vendors

 

[wileycoyote]

Nope, still no worky...

Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression 'INNER JOIN POHeader ON Vendors.VendorPK = POHeader.UserFK RIGHT OUTER JOIN ApprovalRequired ON POHeader.PONumberPK = ApprovalRequired.PONumber'.

 

[Kirby]

There's nothing wrong with the SQL syntax for Microsoft Transact SQL.

 

[wileycoyote]

ASP .net wanted some () around the joins.

 

[Kirby]

Really? That's not good... I have hundreds of pages with code similar to that - no parens around the joins. That sucks - Transact SQL doesn't require parens so it's got to be in the ASP.NET parser. That implies that they will all have to be fixed up for ASP.NET. That would suck.

Are you running against MS SQL Server, or its variants, i.e. MSDE? Or perhaps against another DB? That might explain it.

 

[mikev]

you need a ; at the end

 

[wileycoyote]

It's an Access database (I know, bad idea, but it's just a proof of concept right now, if the project is approved we will use Oracle), but I fear you are correct in that the ASP .NET sql parser is not fully ISO 8859 compliant.

Oddly, Access does not appear to require the trailing ";" Here's the SQL that works:

SELECT
POHeader.PONumberPK,
Vendors.Name,
POHeader.ItemTotal,
POHeader.[Date],
Vendors.VendorPK
FROM
(
Vendors INNER JOIN
POHeader
ON
Vendors.VendorPK = POHeader.VendorFK
)
INNER JOIN
ApprovalRequired
ON
POHeader.PONumberPK = ApprovalRequired.PONumber

 

[Kirby]

It's an Access database (I know, bad idea, but it's just a proof of concept right now, if the project is approved we will use Oracle), but I fear you are correct in that the ASP .NET sql parser is not fully ISO 8859 compliant.

Ahh that explains it. The Access driver does things a little differently, because Access doesn't properly support SQL, nesting, certain views, stored procedures, etc. There's nothing wrong with using Access for proof of concept, just gotta go back and fix all those quirks.

I came across another SQL screwup caused by a Microsoft Hotfix MS03-018:

You've got a textbox you want to submit (). The text box contains "foo bar"
Your code:
IF '%txt%' = '' OR '%txt%' = 'None' OR '%txt%' = 'Nothing' ...

When the page is parsed and SQL actually passed to the driver:
IF ''foo bar'' = '' OR ''foo bar''foo bar'' = 'None' OR ''foo bar''foo bar''foo bar'' = 'Nothing' ...

Yea! - a hotfix breaks something that used to work.....