<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/atom.xsl" media="screen"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en"><title type="html">Like pancakes...</title><subtitle type="html">the random ramblings begin...</subtitle><id>http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/atom.aspx</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/default.aspx" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/atom.aspx" /><generator uri="http://communityserver.org" version="3.1.20917.1142">Community Server</generator><updated>2006-03-02T11:35:00Z</updated><entry><title>Booooo Comcast SportsNet</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/06/09/879.aspx" /><id>http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/06/09/879.aspx</id><published>2006-06-10T00:24:00Z</published><updated>2006-06-10T00:24:00Z</updated><content type="html">&lt;P&gt;That's right, I'm posting AGAIN! Anyway, to the point of this post...&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Comcast SportsNet (Channel 37 on my TV) has the worst technical team of ANY television station I've ever seen. When WGN doesn't broadcast the Cubs CSN usually does. Earlier in the season CSN had some &lt;A href="http://wgntv.trb.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1906"&gt;technical difficulties &lt;/A&gt;during a ton of games in a short period of time. They lost sound, picture or both way to often to be labeled anything but reliable.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;And then we fast foward to tonight. I'm sitting, watching my Reds (1st place in the NL Central) play the Cubs when the sound goes out. When it's the Cubs I don't mind so much, but preventing me from listening to the Reds comeback and win is just annoying enough for this post. (Note that at the time of the post I now have sound again and the Reds are still down a run. But I have faith...)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.claritycon.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=879" width="1" height="1"&gt;</content><author><name>lroth</name><uri>http://blogs.claritycon.com/members/lroth.aspx</uri></author></entry><entry><title>New name</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/06/09/878.aspx" /><id>http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/06/09/878.aspx</id><published>2006-06-10T00:22:00Z</published><updated>2006-06-10T00:22:00Z</updated><content type="html">Just thought I'd make a little Mitch Hedberg reference....mostly pointing out that&amp;nbsp;I haven't posted in a long time. If you don't get the reference, look it up or ask me.&lt;img src="http://blogs.claritycon.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=878" width="1" height="1"&gt;</content><author><name>lroth</name><uri>http://blogs.claritycon.com/members/lroth.aspx</uri></author></entry><entry><title>Photohunt Mobile v1.0</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/07/281.aspx" /><id>http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/07/281.aspx</id><published>2006-03-07T23:10:00Z</published><updated>2006-03-07T23:10:00Z</updated><content type="html">It's finally here! What you've all been waiting for! OK, so no one has been waiting for it...but if you are interested I created a short (3 pictures), simple version of PhotoHunt for the Pocket PC. It should run on any Pocket PC running Windows Mobile 5.0 and .NET CF 2.0. Download the zip &lt;A href="http://employees.claritycon.com/lroth/blog/code/PhotoHuntMobile.zip"&gt;here&lt;/A&gt;. Then just use ActiveSync to put the unzipped files (there are 2) on your PPC. Click Photohunt.exe to start and your playing. Enjoy.&lt;img src="http://blogs.claritycon.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=281" width="1" height="1"&gt;</content><author><name>lroth</name><uri>http://blogs.claritycon.com/members/lroth.aspx</uri></author><category term="Windows Mobile" scheme="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/tags/Windows+Mobile/default.aspx" /><category term="Windows Mobile" scheme="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/tags/Windows+Mobile/default.aspx" /></entry><entry><title>Pocket PC and .NET Compact Framework Deploy Issues</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/07/280.aspx" /><id>http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/07/280.aspx</id><published>2006-03-07T21:41:00Z</published><updated>2006-03-07T21:41:00Z</updated><content type="html">&lt;P&gt;Recently I've been playing with creating an application for a Pocket PC. Visual Studio 2005 (with Pocket PC SDK) and &lt;A href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4c254e3f-79d5-4012-8793-d2d180a42dfa&amp;amp;DisplayLang=en"&gt;ActiveSync 4.1&lt;/A&gt; make this a relatively simple project. Simple means that VS2005 provides a form designer and emulator for all your design and debugging needs. Once you've connected your actual device with ActiveSync you can deploy to it with just a quick change of menu option (If you want more details on this process I can write up a quick guide).&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;So, what could possibly go wrong? Well, you your device should have the latest version of the .NET Compact Framework. Fortunately VS2005 offers this nifty little option in the solution properties, devices tab: "Deploy the latest version of the .NET Compact Framework". Just make sure that option is checked, right? Except it just wasn't that simple. After a few attempts failed and I was beginning to get frustrated I decided to forego the built-in option and update the framework myself. I uninstalled the framework and reinstalled it on the device. And, surprise! now it works!...no more deployment errors, just fun fun fun!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I don't know why the VS2005 option resulted in error after error, but I am glad that &lt;A href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9655156B-356B-4A2C-857C-E62F50AE9A55&amp;amp;displaylang=en"&gt;Microsoft's installer packet&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;worked.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.claritycon.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=280" width="1" height="1"&gt;</content><author><name>lroth</name><uri>http://blogs.claritycon.com/members/lroth.aspx</uri></author><category term="Windows Mobile" scheme="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/tags/Windows+Mobile/default.aspx" /><category term="Windows Mobile" scheme="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/tags/Windows+Mobile/default.aspx" /></entry><entry><title>Dark Tower?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/03/265.aspx" /><id>http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/03/265.aspx</id><published>2006-03-04T04:19:00Z</published><updated>2006-03-04T04:19:00Z</updated><content type="html">&lt;P&gt;How many people out there have read Stephen King's Dark Tower series and want to hear my thoughts? This is a poll, so&amp;nbsp;email or comment and let me know if I should dedicate a post to it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.claritycon.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=265" width="1" height="1"&gt;</content><author><name>lroth</name><uri>http://blogs.claritycon.com/members/lroth.aspx</uri></author></entry><entry><title>Wikipedia - 1,000,000 english articles and growing</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/02/260.aspx" /><id>http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/02/260.aspx</id><published>2006-03-03T04:52:00Z</published><updated>2006-03-03T04:52:00Z</updated><content type="html">&lt;P&gt;Wikipedia &lt;A href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Publishes_Millionth_Article"&gt;announced&lt;/A&gt; their one millionth English article, and claims to have 3.3 million articles in more than 125 languages. While I am an avid user of the site (as well as everyone else I know) sometimes I wonder just how accurate all the facts are. Sure, articles are labeled with "Under Review" and other &lt;A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush"&gt;disclaimers&lt;/A&gt; when they are caught, but how many can they catch? Assuming 5% of articles are "tainted" and only 5% of those slip through we are still talking about over 8,000 erroneous articles. Are we putting too much faith in the masses here? Are we assuming that the informed minority will be able to control the overwhelming majority who either don't know what they are talking about, or intentionally post misinformation? I'll continue to use the site and others like it, and I assume you will too, but be aware...that's all I'm saying.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.claritycon.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=260" width="1" height="1"&gt;</content><author><name>lroth</name><uri>http://blogs.claritycon.com/members/lroth.aspx</uri></author></entry><entry><title>Welcome</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/02/257.aspx" /><id>http://blogs.claritycon.com/blogs/lee_roth/archive/2006/03/02/257.aspx</id><published>2006-03-02T17:35:00Z</published><updated>2006-03-02T17:35:00Z</updated><content type="html">&lt;P&gt;Welcome to my blog. This is my first experience with blogging, so you might have to bear with me at first. Actual content coming soon....&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.claritycon.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=257" width="1" height="1"&gt;</content><author><name>lroth</name><uri>http://blogs.claritycon.com/members/lroth.aspx</uri></author></entry></feed>