So there is a protest at work today and I can't help think to myself, don't they have anything better to do? I guess not.

If you haven't ever been protested by environmentalists, I recommend it. There is nothing quite so liberating as walking past a crowd who detests you for going to work. Most of the bigger companies will send out notifications on how to handle the protestors, and which entrances to use. Here in Houston we have a tunnel system so only those people who didn’t check their email don’t know how to come to work. The smart protestors wrap it up before lunch otherwise, employees tend to go outside and watch them while they eat. This can be demoralizing for those who have been out in the sun for several hours yelling and working up an appetite. Sometimes they even join in with signs like, “I am here for the chicks.”

One of the first times I was protested, I decided to go mingle and ask what they are so mad about. I was talking to a guy in the back, and he fed me some line about oil companies and the environment. I asked why is he so mad that he had to come down and yell chants. He told me that he wasn’t mad and that he was paid to be here. Hello, come again? Yeah, he does a few protests a month for drinking money. Basically the true crazies call him and others as filler. They give him slogans to use on the signs, and if they are really well financially backed they get t-shirts.

I started to see these demonstrations a little differently that day. For one, you start to wonder how they got to the protest. There aren’t any bikes lying around. So they all drove to downtown Houston, in rush hour, expending fuel to protest the oil companies. Maybe they all sent emails on their MacBook to coordinate a ride in one Prius (both of which are made of plastic derived from petroleum), but I have asked this point and alas they don’t. Evidently they don’t validate parking either.

Another thing, you notice is how really small they are. There are rarely more than 50 people, but in the news it always looks like so many more. Today, there are more cops than protestors. Cops from the city to keep order and sheriffs rented by the company to guard entrances are all over the place. You would think with a horrible disaster in the gulf they might be able to garner a larger crowd. You would be wrong, most likely because if you really gave a crap (and had free time) you would be 3 hours to our East in Louisiana volunteering right now. That is where I wish I was, doing something rather than bitching about it.

So from time to time I will write some code. It isn't all that often and I am not that great at it, but I can get it done normally with only a few drinks, clumps of hair and broken objects afterwards. I have graduated over time to C# because it helps if a BI professional can read a developer's poorly written C# code. Today I was dinking around teaching myself how to use the super simple "Web Site Administration Tool". It is a fairly basic interface that allows amateurs like me to add security without too much fuss. Well I was trying to point this app to use a database backend and could not for the life of me get it to work. So in hopes of saving you some time I will show you how I fixed it. Here is the error message:

There is a problem with your selected data store. This can be caused by an invalid server name or credentials, or by insufficient permission. It can also be caused by the role manager feature not being enabled. Click the button below to be redirected to a page where you can choose a new data store.

The following message may help in diagnosing the problem: An error occurred while attempting to initialize a System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection object. The value that was provided for the connection string may be wrong, or it may contain an invalid syntax. Parameter name: connectionString

This message of course is bullshizzle because I am using that same connection string to connect my webservice to obtain information. I read all the articles, post and every developer on the planet and I couldn't find a solution. So I had to (GASP!) figure it out for myself. As I suspected I felt pretty stupid when I figured it out, but I will post my solution so you don't spend nearly as much time before you feel stupid. Then again it could be said that if the connection string is good enough for the OleDBConnection object it should be fine for this too. I have wasted too much time to actually sit here and think about this little paradigm anymore, so with all the time you save by reading my solution you can put some thought into this. Just hit digg on your way out. Without further ado, here is the solution.

<connectionStrings>

<remove name="LocalSqlServer"/>

<add name="LocalSqlServer" connectionString="Data Source=blah\devdb;Initial Catalog=superdb;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=User1;Password=nunyabusiness;" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient"/>

<add name="SuperDBConnectionString" connectionString="Data Source=blah\devdb;Initial Catalog=superdb;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=User1;Password=neveryoumind;Provider=SQLOLEDB;" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient"/>

</connectionStrings>

So here are my connection strings, as found in the web.config for those of you playing along at home(the passwords and databases have been changed to protect the innocent, duh!). The first connection string is the one that works and the second is the one I was using for everything else. It seems that the SqlMembershipProvider chokes when you have the clause, "Provider=SQLOLEDB;". You don't need it, so if you leave it out it should work. I have it because I do switch back and forth between other oleDB providers, but I will cross that bridge later. The fact that it says larger than life "providerName" is not lost on me, but if you use this connection string with an OleDBprovider it doesn't seem to care whether you have that there or not. In fact I have changed it to a MySQL database just to see if it would work and it did. I know you aren't reading still but if you are, Thanks.

So the real question is when am I getting a video Cole? 

Army: Telephone

US Navy: Pump It.

Move Along: My personal favorite.

Royal Navy: Bohemian Rhapsody

Combat Dancing

This is why I am hot(Deployed Style)

I am on a boat.

That don't impress me much.

I filled out my census data recently and I am more than a little disturbed. In fact the more I think about it, the more confused I have become. Article 2 of the constitution states:

[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

So the idea is to get a count of the people. This makes sense to me for a lot of reasons. If the idea is to get a count of the people, then why ask race, ethnicity or whether or not you have a mortgage? I can only assume this is for an understanding of the services provided. In truth, citizenship status has a larger effect on government services than race or ethnicity should, and hopefully more than your homeownership status.

So originally it was important to note the color and state of freedom(ie slave or indentured servant) in order to determine how you are represented in Congress. Thanks to the 14th ammendment, it doesn't matter any more. It has never legally mattered what ethnicity you are. So why are they asking?

They are also not allowed to discriminate based on homeownership. The law states that you can vote whether or not you own land. Does it matter if I own that land outright? It shouldn't.

The one thing that does matter, and is suprisingly absent, is citizenship status. The Census's main purpose is to determine representation in Congress. So if we are determining representation based on a census that doesn't differentiate between citizens and not, doesn't this mean that states with a high number of people that aren't citizens will get a greater representation in Congress even though those they are representing is lower than stated?