Ideally, one wouldn't stereoptype all "bookish" programmers as "socially inept." Books can be a pretty valuable programming resource, after all. Besides, everyone is either under a beer bong, or they must be socially inept, right?
Depending on where you work, being "socially inept" is probably not that big of a handicap. Do you just grind out code? You need to be able to communicate with your boss and your team. Are you a project lead? You need to fight for a budget, justify a schedule, stick to that schedule, talk with the marketing types, solicit funds, etc. Oh, and manage the "socially inept."
Of course, it all depends on where you work, and it's not like I've worked at a representative, random sample of places, or even talked with people who have. But, point is: If you feel you lack social skills, don't go for a "people" position that relies on them.
I, the President of the Twitter Reduction Organization, request that you cease the unnecessary and vulgar bandmouthing of our organization. We provide a valuable service, and as of July 100% of all proceeds go directly towards Twitter suppression activities.
The roads where I live have ridiculous potholes - there's still an 8" deep one from when my parents moved into their current house 20-odd years ago. We get our electricity from a private (although admittedly regulated) utility. My neighbor's car was broken into last night, and a nearby town's water is unbreakable because of an E. Coli contamination.
But, I did get some mail yesterday! Is it the government that pre-approves me for all these amazing credit offers...?
You can't force a process to run "100%" on multiple cores if it only has one thread (as most do.)
If you have a dual-core processor and a two-threaded process, those threads can't be interdependent. And then, they have to be doing work "hard" enough to tax both cores. And that work can't be constrained by other devices - no waiting for your disk buffer to be filled, a network packet, etc.
The other part of the problem is that Windows' task scheduler doesn't let programs monopolize the CPU. If it finds a mostly non-interactive program that's a processor-cycle black hole, it's priority will get downgraded. The closest thing you can do to peg your cpu is write a for(;;) loop at "realtime" priority
Reading the article, it sounds like the telcos are suing over anti-competitive tactics used by the cities. (Telcos suing the government for monopolistic practices? Reads like a certain slashdot meme...)
Attorneys for telecommunications companies say the litigation is needed because municipalities with the ability to borrow money cheaply -- and not hobbled by the need to return a profit -- have unfair competitive advantages
...which is an interesting point. I'm inclined to give some sympathy to the telcos because of another bit in the article:
Goodnight cited an association of Utah cities formed to promote the construction of a broadband networks in smaller cities and rural areas. "What we found during discovery was that the cities were providing facilities and personnel at no cost, interest-free loans and, in some instances, outright cash infusions," he said.
So, the Telcos make it sound like municipalities are arbitrarily picking "winners" in the broadband market. Kind of a no-no. But, I wonder if that's really the case, especially given the cities complaint of lack of service. Can you sue the city for anti-competitive practices (or whatever the actual suits are about, the article doesn't say) if you weren't competing there? If no one was offering broadband services prior to the cities mucking about?
I like the typo at the end, too:
A motion for dismal is scheduled to be argued on July 18.
Other thing is the "8.4" URL may point to a file on a server somewhere named something completely different. Maybe "cpyright.msps" brings up "c:\wwwpub\copyright.zomgextension" on some disk platter.
Interesting - I was operating on bad information. (Shh!)
Internet Explorer's ActiveX controls (on non-Vista/IE7 machines, so most of them) with native privileges. Evidently they were designed to run fast-as-native-code and be "building blocks" other programs could hook into. For example, Internet Explorer exports a COM interface, which lets other apps load web pages or parse an HTML interface.
So, my Googling found that ActiveX relies on digital signatures and permissions explicitly given by a user.
In IE7 on Vista, those bits (and everything you do, actually) are sandboxed. It's called protected mode and like everything well-written and intelligible in life, there's a MSDN article. ~~
If you can get to a Vista machine, boot up Internet Explorer 7. In the bottom-right hand corner, you'll see a "Internet|Protected Mode: On." Internet Explorer, and everything launched in/from IE, run under a low "Integrity Level", which means they only have access to the "Temporary Internet Files\Low" folder and "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\LowRegistry" key.
Any file access is transparently redirected from these points: An ActiveX control trying to create "virus.dll" in "c:\windows\system32" will have it actually created "Temporary Internet Files\Low\C\Windows\System32". (Nothing in this folder is executable.)
Open up task manager. (CTRL+SHIFT+ESC) You'll notice an "ieuser.exe" process - should something need more privileges, like you saving a file to your downloads directory, this process will grant that one action regular, non-admin user privileges. Anything system changing has to pass through an "IEinstal.exe" process, which will trigger a UAC prompt.
My understanding is limited to some Vista beta-era documentation and the MSDN article I linked, but they pretty much sandboxed the entire browser with sub-guest-account privileges. It's relies on some new parts of the Vista kernel (you won't see the same sandboxing on IE7 in XP) but it's still pretty nifty, I think.
The proper response is to change the law - not whine about felons not having the right to vote.
I am somewhat of a libertarian; I have no problems with people wrecking themselves in whatever chemical ways they deem necessary. However, felons should not be voting. Period. Or owning firearms, for that matter.
Perhaps drug use shouldn't be a felony charge - well and good. Doesn't mean anyone who is convicted of violating the sacred social contract our country is founded upon should retain all the privileges that went with it.
What better way to silence critics of your anti-drug policy than slapping everyone who smokes marijuana with a felony charge?
What better way to silence critics of your anti-theft policy than slapping everyone who steals with a felony charge?
What better way to silence critics of your anti-murder policy than slapping everyone who murders with a felony charge?
What better way to silence critics of your anti-speeding policy than slapping everyone who speeds with a felony charge?
What better way to silence critics of your anti-x policy than slapping everyone who x-es with a felony charge?
This isn't some conspiracy to disenfranchise and silence druggies. Using Schedule I drugs is a felony, and has been since Nixon's time. This isn't "putting a microsocope to them and digging up some conmon everyday activity which happens to be a felony" - this is something that is illegal for which you were convicted by a jury of your peers.
Can any reader come up with a "common everyday activity" which just happens to be a felony? I can't, and I'm just fine with disenfranchising cokeheads.
So is responding to flamebait - but here goes. ActiveX is the same as add-ons, except the code is sandboxed and not just allowed to run natively at browser privileges.
But more importantly, you missed the big link at the top of the page for the PowerToy for XP. No browser needed.
I didn't even know you could tune ClearType - but you can, and it makes ALL the DIFF uh rence... intheWORLD. Just like the right man in the wrong place...
Now, maybe this "quartz" would have a more durable whammy bar and orange button. When you're as talented as I am, the orange and green buttons wear out first.
I didn't say Microsoft was suddenly in favor of "interoperability"... I said that releasing the 2003 binary specs is a Good Start.
Now, we can malign M$ for whatever else we want, but I'm happy they're releasing some specs.
Everybody else who lives on the scraps is in favor of interoperability. Who you think is right depends on whether you think the currently in power monopolist has the God given right to be the only one in the business.
Please don't force me into the false dichotomy of the camp of "everyone else who lives on the scraps" or the divine-right monopolist.
Sigh. Microsoft can never do anything right, can they?
A week or so ago people were whining that they wouldn't release the specs. Well, they've started external documentation for the 2003 binaries - and your link has documentation links for 2007 as well.
At least they warn you that they might have patents - this isn't some kind of submarine patent trolling operation. For commercial products, they even give you a link to some Nice People who will help you wade through the minefield.
Not perfect, amazing, miraculous, or complete, but surely we can agree that this is a Good Thing. It definitely doesn't hurt anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideally, one wouldn't stereoptype all "bookish" programmers as "socially inept." Books can be a pretty valuable programming resource, after all. Besides, everyone is either under a beer bong, or they must be socially inept, right?
Depending on where you work, being "socially inept" is probably not that big of a handicap. Do you just grind out code? You need to be able to communicate with your boss and your team. Are you a project lead? You need to fight for a budget, justify a schedule, stick to that schedule, talk with the marketing types, solicit funds, etc. Oh, and manage the "socially inept."
Of course, it all depends on where you work, and it's not like I've worked at a representative, random sample of places, or even talked with people who have. But, point is: If you feel you lack social skills, don't go for a "people" position that relies on them.
I, the President of the Twitter Reduction Organization, request that you cease the unnecessary and vulgar bandmouthing of our organization. We provide a valuable service, and as of July 100% of all proceeds go directly towards Twitter suppression activities.
We accept Pay-Pal.
The roads where I live have ridiculous potholes - there's still an 8" deep one from when my parents moved into their current house 20-odd years ago. We get our electricity from a private (although admittedly regulated) utility. My neighbor's car was broken into last night, and a nearby town's water is unbreakable because of an E. Coli contamination.
But, I did get some mail yesterday! Is it the government that pre-approves me for all these amazing credit offers...?
[Being a casual gamer] means that you play many games, but you don't expect to buy it and you don't have to call the game the next day.
That metaphor puts an interesting spin on "copy protection" ...
You can't force a process to run "100%" on multiple cores if it only has one thread (as most do.)
If you have a dual-core processor and a two-threaded process, those threads can't be interdependent. And then, they have to be doing work "hard" enough to tax both cores. And that work can't be constrained by other devices - no waiting for your disk buffer to be filled, a network packet, etc.
The other part of the problem is that Windows' task scheduler doesn't let programs monopolize the CPU. If it finds a mostly non-interactive program that's a processor-cycle black hole, it's priority will get downgraded. The closest thing you can do to peg your cpu is write a for(;;) loop at "realtime" priority
Absolutely right. You only have to unmount a live filesystem. Can't believe I'd forget something that elementary.
Wait, what? You were thinking of something else...?
Agree. I think where he went wrong was killing his wife. Also, optimizing for edge cases which rarely appear standard operation...
Thank you! But, perhaps you deserve a promotion from Captain to, um, whatever comes after Captain? ^.^
(Still, surprising anyone can identify G-Man's weird vocal intonations in text with a few capital letters and ellipses...)
Good thing he was journaling. We can just dismount his wife and restore her to a known-working version... questionmark?!
Reading the article, it sounds like the telcos are suing over anti-competitive tactics used by the cities. (Telcos suing the government for monopolistic practices? Reads like a certain slashdot meme...)
Attorneys for telecommunications companies say the litigation is needed because municipalities with the ability to borrow money cheaply -- and not hobbled by the need to return a profit -- have unfair competitive advantages
...which is an interesting point. I'm inclined to give some sympathy to the telcos because of another bit in the article:
Goodnight cited an association of Utah cities formed to promote the construction of a broadband networks in smaller cities and rural areas. "What we found during discovery was that the cities were providing facilities and personnel at no cost, interest-free loans and, in some instances, outright cash infusions," he said.
So, the Telcos make it sound like municipalities are arbitrarily picking "winners" in the broadband market. Kind of a no-no. But, I wonder if that's really the case, especially given the cities complaint of lack of service. Can you sue the city for anti-competitive practices (or whatever the actual suits are about, the article doesn't say) if you weren't competing there? If no one was offering broadband services prior to the cities mucking about?
I like the typo at the end, too:
A motion for dismal is scheduled to be argued on July 18.
(Sounds like it's already pretty dismal.)
Make sure they keep your ghost intact. But, I suspect this to happen with increasing frequency as we approach a Stand Alone Complex...
Ewww.. I understood that. Icky icky
{icky; icky(); if ((_hIcky32 = GetIck32(hWnd, pIck))==SUCCESS) { //ICKY! }
Icky LISP!
Other thing is the "8.4" URL may point to a file on a server somewhere named something completely different. Maybe "cpyright.msps" brings up "c:\wwwpub\copyright.zomgextension" on some disk platter.
Just sayin'.
Oh, I see, Mr. Malthus. The problem is that population growth is geometric, yet food and resource growth is linear?
The only solution is to eat our children, resolving both problems in one fel stroke. ~~
I dunno, man. Pretty much every point you covered is Wiki-able. [Citation needed]
Interesting - I was operating on bad information. (Shh!)
Internet Explorer's ActiveX controls (on non-Vista/IE7 machines, so most of them) with native privileges. Evidently they were designed to run fast-as-native-code and be "building blocks" other programs could hook into. For example, Internet Explorer exports a COM interface, which lets other apps load web pages or parse an HTML interface.
So, my Googling found that ActiveX relies on digital signatures and permissions explicitly given by a user.
In IE7 on Vista, those bits (and everything you do, actually) are sandboxed. It's called protected mode and like everything well-written and intelligible in life, there's a MSDN article. ~~
If you can get to a Vista machine, boot up Internet Explorer 7. In the bottom-right hand corner, you'll see a "Internet|Protected Mode: On." Internet Explorer, and everything launched in/from IE, run under a low "Integrity Level", which means they only have access to the "Temporary Internet Files\Low" folder and "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\LowRegistry" key.
Any file access is transparently redirected from these points: An ActiveX control trying to create "virus.dll" in "c:\windows\system32" will have it actually created "Temporary Internet Files\Low\C\Windows\System32". (Nothing in this folder is executable.)
Open up task manager. (CTRL+SHIFT+ESC) You'll notice an "ieuser.exe" process - should something need more privileges, like you saving a file to your downloads directory, this process will grant that one action regular, non-admin user privileges. Anything system changing has to pass through an "IEinstal.exe" process, which will trigger a UAC prompt.
My understanding is limited to some Vista beta-era documentation and the MSDN article I linked, but they pretty much sandboxed the entire browser with sub-guest-account privileges. It's relies on some new parts of the Vista kernel (you won't see the same sandboxing on IE7 in XP) but it's still pretty nifty, I think.
ActiveX controls sound a lot like Firefox Add-Ons. Except ActiveX controls are sandboxed, whereas Add-Ons run at browser privileges.
Am I wrong? Or should Firefox scrap Add-Ons before IE8 scraps ActiveX?
The proper response is to change the law - not whine about felons not having the right to vote.
I am somewhat of a libertarian; I have no problems with people wrecking themselves in whatever chemical ways they deem necessary. However, felons should not be voting. Period. Or owning firearms, for that matter.
Perhaps drug use shouldn't be a felony charge - well and good. Doesn't mean anyone who is convicted of violating the sacred social contract our country is founded upon should retain all the privileges that went with it.
What better way to silence critics of your anti-drug policy than slapping everyone who smokes marijuana with a felony charge?
What better way to silence critics of your anti-theft policy than slapping everyone who steals with a felony charge?
What better way to silence critics of your anti-murder policy than slapping everyone who murders with a felony charge?
What better way to silence critics of your anti-speeding policy than slapping everyone who speeds with a felony charge?
What better way to silence critics of your anti-x policy than slapping everyone who x-es with a felony charge?
This isn't some conspiracy to disenfranchise and silence druggies. Using Schedule I drugs is a felony, and has been since Nixon's time. This isn't "putting a microsocope to them and digging up some conmon everyday activity which happens to be a felony" - this is something that is illegal for which you were convicted by a jury of your peers.
Can any reader come up with a "common everyday activity" which just happens to be a felony? I can't, and I'm just fine with disenfranchising cokeheads.
So is responding to flamebait - but here goes. ActiveX is the same as add-ons, except the code is sandboxed and not just allowed to run natively at browser privileges.
But more importantly, you missed the big link at the top of the page for the PowerToy for XP. No browser needed.
At least you clicked the link, though.
Try this site if you're using XP.
I didn't even know you could tune ClearType - but you can, and it makes ALL the DIFF uh rence... intheWORLD. Just like the right man in the wrong place...
I'd rather have the guitar.
Now, maybe this "quartz" would have a more durable whammy bar and orange button. When you're as talented as I am, the orange and green buttons wear out first.
I didn't say Microsoft was suddenly in favor of "interoperability"... I said that releasing the 2003 binary specs is a Good Start.
Now, we can malign M$ for whatever else we want, but I'm happy they're releasing some specs.
Everybody else who lives on the scraps is in favor of interoperability. Who you think is right depends on whether you think the currently in power monopolist has the God given right to be the only one in the business.
Please don't force me into the false dichotomy of the camp of "everyone else who lives on the scraps" or the divine-right monopolist.
Sigh. Microsoft can never do anything right, can they?
A week or so ago people were whining that they wouldn't release the specs. Well, they've started external documentation for the 2003 binaries - and your link has documentation links for 2007 as well.
At least they warn you that they might have patents - this isn't some kind of submarine patent trolling operation. For commercial products, they even give you a link to some Nice People who will help you wade through the minefield.
Not perfect, amazing, miraculous, or complete, but surely we can agree that this is a Good Thing. It definitely doesn't hurt anything.