Just came across this excellent resource on channel 9.
http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Defrag-Tools
Andrew Richards, Chad Beeder and Larry Larsen host this deep dive into the tools used on the tech support show Defrag (Mark Russinovich even makes an appearance). Each Defrag Tools show focuses on a specific tool, going deep in to a tool's features, explaining when and why you should use the tool, and provides experience based tips to get the most out of the tool.
If you've ever had to debug / diagnose a windows machine or if you'd like an introduction to common tools used to do that then this show might be of interest. They have covered Windows Debugging with WinDbg, Task Manager and Resource Monitor, ProcDump, VMMap, RAMMap, Autoruns, MSConfig, Process Monitor, and Process Explorer to date.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Philosophia Ancilla Theologiae
One thing that I've noticed in discussions concerning the Christian faith is the almost near universal view that Christian doctrine is somewhat static. Most people assume that the faith was handed to the Christian Church two-thousand years ago and hasn't changed at all. This is simply not true.
While the practice of the Christian religion may seems static, it is not and neither is Christian theology and doctrine. It has always evolved as the Church gains new understandings through revelation direct (in scripture or the Church) and indirect (through the study of nature and science). No real theological study of the divine would be an honest one if it did not incorporate indirect revelation. It has been this way since the beginning (the writings of Thomas Aquinas and John Damascene are a good classical examples) and continues to this day (ks. Dr. Wojciech Grygiel, Dr. John Polkinghorn or Fr. Dr. Michał Kazimierz Heller are good modern examples).
Like Theology, Christian doctrine is not some collection of static beliefs. Orthodox doctrine has always developed over time as advances in theology are made and accepted throughout the Church. The doctrine of the Trinity took over three hundred years to develop and wasn't accepted as orthodox until the Council of Nicaea. The doctrine of Transubstantiation took almost a Millennium to develop, the Protestant doctrine of Consubstantiation another four hundred and a denial of both by many Protestant denominations another two hundred. Even today, Christian thought on everything from Pneumatology to Ontology continues to evolve throughout the Church. Christianity is not a "static" set of beliefs.
Earlier this year, the Copernicus Center held an international seminar on Philosophy in Science. If you're interested in how theology is developing in relation to science, it is great watching (youtube link).
While the practice of the Christian religion may seems static, it is not and neither is Christian theology and doctrine. It has always evolved as the Church gains new understandings through revelation direct (in scripture or the Church) and indirect (through the study of nature and science). No real theological study of the divine would be an honest one if it did not incorporate indirect revelation. It has been this way since the beginning (the writings of Thomas Aquinas and John Damascene are a good classical examples) and continues to this day (ks. Dr. Wojciech Grygiel, Dr. John Polkinghorn or Fr. Dr. Michał Kazimierz Heller are good modern examples).
Like Theology, Christian doctrine is not some collection of static beliefs. Orthodox doctrine has always developed over time as advances in theology are made and accepted throughout the Church. The doctrine of the Trinity took over three hundred years to develop and wasn't accepted as orthodox until the Council of Nicaea. The doctrine of Transubstantiation took almost a Millennium to develop, the Protestant doctrine of Consubstantiation another four hundred and a denial of both by many Protestant denominations another two hundred. Even today, Christian thought on everything from Pneumatology to Ontology continues to evolve throughout the Church. Christianity is not a "static" set of beliefs.
Earlier this year, the Copernicus Center held an international seminar on Philosophy in Science. If you're interested in how theology is developing in relation to science, it is great watching (youtube link).
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
It’s responsible citizenry..
Right now several major websites are holding an Internet blackout over Congresses coquettish attempt at regulating the web for the IP industry. Sites like wikipedia have decided to ‘blackout’ their website in order to raise awareness about this issue. Maybe they’re succeeding, maybe they are not. At this point it doesn’t really matter.
Last weekend, in response to petitions made via We the People on WhiteHouse.gov the Obama administration clarified what they would and would not support in an anti-piracy bill; which means they wont be supporting the two bills that congress is debating (unless they are changed drastically). This is a good example responsible citizenry influencing policy, using tools available to express their will to their government. Effective democracy effectively killed these bills before sites like wikipedia could put together their high profile protest.
So rather than use the moment to highlight a bill that is already dead in the water, I’d rather use the moment to point out this tool.
For issues related to privacy, freedom of information etc, EFF generally has petitions that you can support. They make it easy for you and do the legwork. EFF.org and (http://blacklists.eff.org for this issues specifically)
"We the People" is an online tool that the White House set up to allow the citizenry to petition the administration to take action on any issue. Petitions with enough support are reviewed by White House staff, sent to appropriate policy experts, and garner an official response. You might also consider checking the Open Government Initiative website as it has links to Federal Agency websites that may have similar tools.
Last weekend, in response to petitions made via We the People on WhiteHouse.gov the Obama administration clarified what they would and would not support in an anti-piracy bill; which means they wont be supporting the two bills that congress is debating (unless they are changed drastically). This is a good example responsible citizenry influencing policy, using tools available to express their will to their government. Effective democracy effectively killed these bills before sites like wikipedia could put together their high profile protest.
So rather than use the moment to highlight a bill that is already dead in the water, I’d rather use the moment to point out this tool.
For issues related to privacy, freedom of information etc, EFF generally has petitions that you can support. They make it easy for you and do the legwork. EFF.org and (http://blacklists.eff.org for this issues specifically)
"We the People" is an online tool that the White House set up to allow the citizenry to petition the administration to take action on any issue. Petitions with enough support are reviewed by White House staff, sent to appropriate policy experts, and garner an official response. You might also consider checking the Open Government Initiative website as it has links to Federal Agency websites that may have similar tools.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Three years to the date...
I started the free-chrome project three years ago as a public service providing a binary of Chromium for others who couldn't...
At that time Chrome had a really terrible EULA. The agreement would legally "give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and nonexclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services." (story on gizmodo). They would essentially inherit rights to anything you posted or wrote using Chrome.
When I saw the legal implications of the EULA, I decided to compile my own version of Chrome from the Chromium source code. With the huge outcry about the EULA, it occurred to me that others might want to use Chomium as well. The free-chrome project was born. Later that month Google did the right thing and changed the EULA.
I provided binaries for Chromium until version five (sometime in 2009). This was before they decided to include flash player in the Chromium build. Once they put flash in Chromium the game was up. The browser was no longer the light, nimble piece of software that I had loved. It began to take on a trend... Chromium and Chrome in general became bloatware.
I toyed with the idea of just maintaining a branch of Chromium that only implemented security patches at version five. Updates and patches flood that project however... it was and is just too much for one guy to dive into... Eventually I lost interest in even considering it and haven't been able to rekindle interest since. It's been over a year and so it is time for me to admit that i'm no longer maintaining the project. Three years to the date..
At that time Chrome had a really terrible EULA. The agreement would legally "give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and nonexclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services." (story on gizmodo). They would essentially inherit rights to anything you posted or wrote using Chrome.
When I saw the legal implications of the EULA, I decided to compile my own version of Chrome from the Chromium source code. With the huge outcry about the EULA, it occurred to me that others might want to use Chomium as well. The free-chrome project was born. Later that month Google did the right thing and changed the EULA.
I provided binaries for Chromium until version five (sometime in 2009). This was before they decided to include flash player in the Chromium build. Once they put flash in Chromium the game was up. The browser was no longer the light, nimble piece of software that I had loved. It began to take on a trend... Chromium and Chrome in general became bloatware.
I toyed with the idea of just maintaining a branch of Chromium that only implemented security patches at version five. Updates and patches flood that project however... it was and is just too much for one guy to dive into... Eventually I lost interest in even considering it and haven't been able to rekindle interest since. It's been over a year and so it is time for me to admit that i'm no longer maintaining the project. Three years to the date..
Thursday, September 1, 2011
VIM does not have spell-check
Back in 2008 I released a program called USB History Dump. It's a program that I wrote in C that is used to trace evidence of USB thumb-drive activity from the Windows Registry. It's one of the more useful pieces of code that i've written. Like most of my code it's written to be compiled in Pelles C (it uses some compiler specific string functions) and I wrote it in VIM (much preferable to the editor in Pelles C). I spent a bit of time on it using some more advanced techniques in C like linked lists and such.
Today I was reviewing the code (i'm considering updating it and maybe adding a feature or two) when I noticed the most embarrassing thing... and it's right in the beginning of my code..
Yeah you catch that? USB History Dumb, not Dump. What the heck... a few years and several thousand downloads later... how many people noticed that i wonder?
Today I was reviewing the code (i'm considering updating it and maybe adding a feature or two) when I noticed the most embarrassing thing... and it's right in the beginning of my code..
/* * usbHistory.c - USB History Dumb * a tool to extract USB Trace Evidence * (c) nabiy . http://nabiy.sdf1.org * This program uses non-standard generic string functions * compile with Pelles C http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/ * or switch them with standard strings functions. */
#define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN #define WIN32_DEFAULT_LIBSYeah you catch that? USB History Dumb, not Dump. What the heck... a few years and several thousand downloads later... how many people noticed that i wonder?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Mohammed Nabbous
I woke up this morning to the news of Mohammed Nabbous death. Like many people I had been following his livestream and catching his reports via twitter. He gave real coverage to what was going on in Libya, investigating, interviewing, gathering first hand accounts.
When Gaddafi declared a ceasefire, Mo drove around Benghazi to show the world that his words did not reflect what was really happening on the ground. I think this is a huge loss for not only citizen journalism but for journalism, Libya and the world. He quite likely would have been one of the new leaders in Libya. I hope things turn out well there and honor the sacrifice he and citizens like him are making.
When Gaddafi declared a ceasefire, Mo drove around Benghazi to show the world that his words did not reflect what was really happening on the ground. I think this is a huge loss for not only citizen journalism but for journalism, Libya and the world. He quite likely would have been one of the new leaders in Libya. I hope things turn out well there and honor the sacrifice he and citizens like him are making.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
genetic intolerance
I read something today that really irritated me. It was an article on antisemitism (full article here). Actually, calling it an article is too generous. I'd call it a poorly written rant on 'Anti-Semitic Slurs'. Anyways, onto the portion that gave me grievance.
By implication, they are saying Jews do not have a certain gene that distinguishes them from others. This is hogwash. As a people, of course they have a gene that distinguishes them from other peoples! Genetic genealogy is built on this fact. Real genetic difference also has practical application in the medical field, even for those of Jewish heritage. This is real science. If someone says your racial heritage has a distinct gene by itself it is a statement of fact, not a slur.
This kind of prejudice and intolerance toward any science or remark that is remotely connected to Eugenics (a valid science) is just bigotry. The fact that it is published often in major liberal media groups is the quintessence of hypocrisy.
The economist: "All Jews have a certain gene … that distinguishes them from others." That remark, reminiscent of the master-race thinking of Nazi Germany, comes from Thilo Sarrazin, an economist who once sat on the board of Germany's central bank.
By implication, they are saying Jews do not have a certain gene that distinguishes them from others. This is hogwash. As a people, of course they have a gene that distinguishes them from other peoples! Genetic genealogy is built on this fact. Real genetic difference also has practical application in the medical field, even for those of Jewish heritage. This is real science. If someone says your racial heritage has a distinct gene by itself it is a statement of fact, not a slur.
This kind of prejudice and intolerance toward any science or remark that is remotely connected to Eugenics (a valid science) is just bigotry. The fact that it is published often in major liberal media groups is the quintessence of hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)