bmajik launches a first post.
According to the mission profile, due to moderation, his positive karma will burn up during re-entry.
More seriously, I'm glad Space X is apparently doing things right. More successful launches... not just more launch attempts. The eyes are on them and lots of vested interests are looking to pounce and capitalize once they make a serious mistake.
hmmm. You're making me hungry, boy. I want to eat me some whale.
Nothing.
One critical difference: services.msc isn't actually responsible for orchestrating system startup on windows.
Services.msc is an administrative tool meant for interactive use. It is one of several administrative surfaces for interacting with windows service configuration. The commandline tool "sc" still exists and is still functional, and powershell undoubtedly has a more robust suite of tools for manipulating system startup.
The actual inner plumbing of starting up a windows machine is in some way abstracted from the management surfaces used. For instance, during the Windows XP era, a bunch of work was done on making bootup faster. Part of that work was done by allowing some parts of system startup to happen in parallel that were previously serial.
In versions of windows since XP, other subtle changes have been made to windows startup behavior to positively impact performance. The measure people most care about is how long until you can see your desktop, so some startup services have been moved into Deferred groups if they aren't implicated in giving you a login desktop.
All of these changes have been possible without critically altering the different management surfaces that exist for windows administrators. Service dependency chains, run levels, etc have been in the NT family since early days.
New features show up in these experiences over time; e.g. once upon a time every single service ran as the SYSTEM credential; now there are lots of pre-built discrete identities with different rights to effect some degree of privsep. But these were new values showing up on combo boxes in the existing tooling; not throwing away everything you knew and asking you to start over with something entirely foreign.
One key difference between Windows and rc/sysV is that the latter makes it much easier to promote a random shell script into something the unix startup orchestration knows about.
Windows services have a richer interface contract (start, stop, query status, etc) that is based on C-style calling conventions (iirc). Implementing something as a windows service as a practical matter requires knowing that's what you want it to be before you start coding.
The downside of the unix flexibility is that people ship broken ass shit like Ubuntu LTS where half your stuff is reasonable and half your stuff tells you, "hey, i'm an upstart job! So what you tried won't work any more for some reason that has no fucking bearing on your life! fuck you buddy!"
I got my start on linux in the a.out binary days, and simultaneously worked on Solaris and IRIX machines about 20 years ago. I've added other unicies since then. I'm very comfortable with both rc and sysV. Recent follow-ons like "upstart" have jut felt like hacky shit to me that unceremoniously throws out what met my needs and provides a fundamentally worse experience.
I spent a great deal of time debugging OSX startup a while back (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mattev/archive/2004/06/21/161770.aspx) and that system was at least sensical and consistently implemented.
If you want the real deal on windows internals, the Windows Internals Books with Mark Russinovich are excellent, and explain the internal kernel concepts and data structures in tremendous detail. System startup is also covered, including the orchestration between smss.exe, lsass.exe, csrss.exe, and all other associated friends.
In the long run, humanity would be better served if people just learned to lighten up and not get so upset about things written by people they don't know and will never meet.
Death threats in the real world? Yes, that's a thing that is actionable. That's not what I'm talking about.
You do not have a right to never be offended.
It was a hard lesson for me when I was an opinionated teenager who hopped on IRC in the 90s.. all of these older smarter people were trolling me and being mean to me! Poor me!
It was also a GOOD lesson for me. In the internet of back then, the trolls were smarter, and there were no feelings police... no forum moderators... people said what they liked and you either dealt with it or you didn't.
And I look at people who come unglued over what they read on the internet and just shake my head.
An online forum with no rules and no judges and no consequences is one of the most interesting and wonderful things in human history.
I don't want it to die because of your hurt feelings. I'd rather you went somewhere else.
You joke, but two(ish) decades ago we had an ISP tell my father that their "Unlimited Internet" referred to unlimited access (eg: 24/7/365) and not unlimited bandwidth. When he asked what the monthly data allowance was, he was told that there wasn't one... but it wasn't unlimited. It was just that our household was using more bandwidth than usual (entirely my fault, being a tech-crazed teenager at the time) and it would be really nice if we would cut that out - for the good of the network. So my father explained that he had a better solution for the good of the network, and canceled our cable TV and internet on the spot. We signed up with their competition (who assured my father that their unlimited internet really was unlimited) the next day.
Of course, now no one in my area offers an unlimited bandwidth internet package for anything shy of $130/mo.
*raises hand*
I've posted about this before many times.
I have a pulse
I am not sure about having a conscience -- that may disqualify me.
I have an IQ over 30
I am a citizen
I am not a politician
I am not a CEO.
I've been an engineer at Microsoft since 2000. I've worked on developer tools and ERP products. I've worked in Redmond; I currently work in Fargo.
I have interviewed hundreds of people for Microsoft positions. I am not a manager, but I've played manager at times. I understand the compensation system quite well, and how it has evolved over my 15 years at the company.
I have also worked with non-citizens and non-native born my entire career, including many who are on H1-Bs currently.
You could go and dig through my old posts if you wanted to. I'll try and give the short version
1) In my opinion, Microsoft pays very well. If i lost my job in North Dakota, I think i'd be taking a huge pay cut to work anywhere else. I base this on the numbers people throw out when I've interviewed with other companies. (You get frustrated from time to time in 15 years with the same company. I've shopped around. I've stayed put)
2) There are a lot of "paper qualified" people out there. I can't hire even half of the ones I talk to.
I see both ends of the "funnel" of candidates. For university recruiting trips, there is essentially no filtering done before I get to talk to them. For industry hires, they had to get through a few people before they talk to me.
We're already paying a competitive wage and we cannot hire many of the people we talk to. The obvious move is to try and expand the # of people we're able to talk to.
3) For a variety of reasons, it is MORE expensive for Microsoft to deal with H1-B candidates. There are all kinds of legal costs and challenges, as well as employee time wasted dealing with immigration bullshit -- that normal domestic employees do not incur.
For each domestic job type at Microsoft, there is a flyer posted in the breakroom that says what the title is, what the qualifications are, and what the salary range is. The salary ranges are the ones I am familiar with. Any H1-B could simply look at the flyer, and if they were getting paid less than that, they could lawyer up and retire. Every state's attorney in the US would want in on that lawsuit. Saving a few thousand dollars a year on salary costs couldn't possibly be worth it to us.
4) I feel no particular allegience to "the american worker". So you were good at choosing where your parents were when you were born? And the benefits of this should accrue to you WHY?
I am interested in people who will improve the caliber of my company and the caliber of my society. Hard working, intelligent people often have that potential. I don't care about where they were born. i care about what they will do.
I want the US to suck every brilliant engineer out of India and China. I don't want China getting any better at matching the US military industrial complex, and I want India to change its society so that innovators can effect meaningful change there, instead of being trapped in a hopeless system of patronage and bribery.
(have you talked to Indians who are in the US? There's a reason they are here...)
I would love to have the problem of drowning in qualified American talent. But that isn't a problem I've ever had in my entire career.
Finally, before you run your mouth about Microsoft not doing anything about to help with the domestic labor supply, Microsoft pays for me to volunteer 1 hour a day teaching Computer Science at a local high school. I start my 2nd year this Monday. I'll be helping teach a section of AP Computer Science -- in JAVA. Do you think this is some kind of sweetheart deal for MS? They are losing my work time, they are giving money to the school, and I am teaching the kids using Eclipse and the Java stack -- the direct competitors to the product and ecosystem that I work on (i work on Visual Studio).
What we're doing, is widening the pipeline of people who get exposed to CS, so that hopefully, more of them do CS in college, and more of them are GOOD at it. That is going to help the entire industry.
I don't know what experiences you've had, but I feel confident in saying that they haven't been at Microsoft.
A response that might be expected from an Alabama asshole with eye holes cut out of his sheets.
So much for the most metropolitan league on the planet. Provincial idiots like yourself are only one step removed from the buffoons tossing bananas at players.
That doesn't address the desire to send text messages during protests without being eavesdropped .
Or the issue of documenting the event and not having your phone taken off you, thus losing all those pics/vids/etc.
Focusing on gun crimes is the tactic that gun control advocates use.
The problem is that victims don't care if they are stabbed to death or shot to death.
The correct metric is _total_ crimes of bodily threat or assault. Good guys use legally carried weapons to deal with bad guys irrespective of what the bad guys did or didn't bring.
So, don't focus on gun deaths (which, btw, also counts suicides.. which is also totally disingenuous)
Focus on murders. How does Illinois compare to say, North Dakota, in murders?
I'll stay in rural North Dakota, thanks.
So because Suarez is in the UK, when speaking in his native tongue, he uses a word that sounds like nigger, he is automatically a racist? This word negrito, btw, a word Suarez's grandmother still calls him.
So much for the most cosmopolitan league in the world. It's no wonder that all the best players are leaving for Spain. I never thought the country of Wilberforce would be so racist in the 21st century as to make the USA look tolerant in comparison.
The Premier League / FA is a bunch of racists. The hitjob they did on Luis Suarez for the use of his non-offensive word negrito (ie blackie, a South American equivalent of calling someone Red) smacks of the worst of Jim Crow. England should and eventually will be ashamed of this.
The Premier League / FA should also be ashamed that they allow so much corrupt Russian money to go flowing into Chelsea. That football club was bought and paid for by the blood of the Russian people. They have allowed Abramovich, the good buddy of dictator Putin, to run riot with stolen money.
All bank notes have a unique identifying number, so receiving banknotes without them being linked to you means you can be more sure that you're free to do whatever you like with that money (join a gay dating site, pay for health tests, donate to activist groups, etc.) without someone having a record linking you to your purchases.
It also cuts out the banks, who can be controlled by corrupt governments (i.e. all of them, to varying degrees) who can get your accounts frozen, even when doing so is illegal. Just ask Julian Assange. Sometimes private businesses (e.g. PayPal) can do this too.
> you are frustrated by the negative tone, the airing of "dirty laundry," etc.
On the contrary. I'm disappointed that the blogger ignored the dirtier laundry and instead focussed on the attention grabbing stuff like monkey selfies.
He indeed proposes solutions, but he doesn't mention that similar things have been in discussion for years and there are known problems with these proposals.
That's what I call disingenuous. The author seems informed about Wikipedia, so he should know that his missing the target and spreading out of date ideas.
(Thanks for the friendly reply, quite disarming, sorry I was a bit abrasive.)
The monkey-selfie story is a red flag for me because it's a honeypot for zero-effort journalists. The headlines come already half-written. It does have to get solved, but there are loads of other issues that are at least as important but are getting no attention from journalists because they'd take more work.
The proposed (and rejected) use of patented video formats is a much bigger story but it has no buzzwords and what picture are they going to show under the headline? Or, I'd be delighted to see an article ridiculing the quality of the articles about football/soccer players, which are written event-by-event by fans of that player and rarely given a top-down coherency review or any critical review at all. But that would also take time to research.
The blog entry's coverage of transparency/anonymity is also poor. Only one side is presented, and it's presented like it were an issue that WF has not yet tried to address. The truth is that it's been discussed to death and the blog entry's suggestions are mostly impossible. Some people need to be anonymous, and WF couldn't check everyone's identity even if there was consensus for it.
It's clear the author of that blog entry knows Wikipedia, so it's hard to imagine that he's unaware of the state of he anonymity debate, or that there are strong arguments for anonymity. So that's another red flag for disingenuous writing.
The suggestions regarding biographies of living persons too. The debate is much more advanced than what is presented in the blog entry, and it seems strange that the blog author doesn't know this.
(I haven't read reviews of Wikimania2014. I didn't even know it took place. The Wikimania conferences are a non-event for 99% of Wikipedia editors. That might explain lack of coverage in non-UK press.)
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
