List Of Prf&L Referenced Journal Articles: Fill & Download for Free

I think what you are looking forward is method to "isolate" a service to run in its own "svchost" process. Depending on service group order, Windows combines a set of "windows services" to run in shared mode under same svchost process instance. The command to get list of services running in each svchost process is "tasklist /svc".Now when you have identified a suspected service, you can use this command to isolate that service:sc config <service_name> type= ownExample, to isolate Windows Management Instrumentation (winmgmt) service: sc config winmgmt type= ownNote that the space between '=' and 'own' is deliberately put and is required.To revert to shared mode:sc config <service_name> type= shareThe command affects this reg value:HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\<service_name>\TypeRefer:PRF: High CPU (SVCHOST.EXE)Getting Started with SVCHOST.EXE TroubleshootingGood luck!

Gratitude and Dua for a very thought provoking questionThe word “Peace” is called, “Aman” in Arabic. Arabic is a fascinating language. Each word has a parent “root-word” which is comprised of three alphabets. This root gives rise to multiple words, phrases, expressions under strict linguistic rulesAman is comprised of Alif-Meem-Noon. This root gives rise to many words. SOme of them are:Amaan: Refuge and securityEeman: True beliefMomin: True believerAmaanat: Asset given for safekeeping to an honest personI am giving you a list of all the possible derivations of “Peace” used in Quranم نAlif-Meem-Nun = become/feel safe/secure, state of security/safety, trust, become quiet/tranquil in heart/mind, become free of expectation of evil or free of an object of dislike/hatred, promise/assurance of security/safety, become trustful/faithful/confident, to believe/acknowledge it, manifestation of humility/submission.Amina (prf. 3rd. p.m. sing.): Became safe; Considered one self safe; Trusted a person.Aminuu (prf. 3rd. p.m. plu.): They are in safety.Amintum (prf. 2nd. p.m. plu.) You are in safety.Antintu (prf. 1st. p. sing.): I trusted.Ya'manu (imp. 3rd. p.m. sing.): He feels secure.Ya'manuu (imp. 3rd. p.m. plu.): They trust.Ta'manu (imp. 2nd p.m. sing.): Thou trusts.Aamanu (imp. 1st. p. sing.): I shall trust.Aamana (prf. 3rd. p. m. sing. IV): He believed, had a faith.Aamanat (prf. 3rd p. f. sing.): She believed.Aamantu (prf. 1st. P. sing. IV): I believed.Aamanuu (prf. 3rd. p.m. plu.): They believed.Aamantum (prf. 2nd. p.m. plu.): You believed.Aamannaa (prf. 1st. p. plu.): We believed.Yu'mina (imp. 3rd p.m. sing.): He believes.Tu'minuu (imp. 2nd. p. m. plu.): You believe.Yu'minuuna (imp. 3rd. p. m. plu.): They believe.Tuu'minu / Tuminuuna (imp. 2nd. p. m. plu.): You believe.Nu'minu (imp. 1st. p. plu.): We believe.Yu'minanna (imp. 3rd. p.m. sing. emphatic.): He certainly shall believe.Tuu'minanna (imp. 2nd. p. m. sing. emp.): Thou shall have to believe.Nu'minanna (imp. 1st. p. plu. emp.): We shall certainly be believing.Aman (n.): Security. Peace.Aaminun (act. pic. m. sing.): Aaminatu: (act. p.c. f sing.): Peaceful.Aaminiina/ Aaminuuna (acc./ act. pie. m. plu.): Those who are safe, in peace, secure.Amiinun (act. 2nd. pic.): Trustworthy; Faithful; Steadfast.Aamanatun (n.): Security.Amaanatun (n.): Trust; Security; Pledge; Covenant; Faith; Trust. Duties; Government; Governed duties.Amaanaat (n. plu.): Trusts.U'tumina (n.): Who is entrusted.Iimaan (n.): Faith; Belief.Aamiin : Be it so; Yes.Muu'min (ap-der. m. sing. IV): Believer.Muu'miniin / Muu'minuuna (acc./ ap-der. m. plu. IV): Believers.Muu'minaatun (ap-der. f. sing. IV): Believer (female).Muu'minaatun (ap-der. f. plu. IV): Believing women.Ma'manun (n. for place): Place of safety.Ma'muunun (pact. pic.): Secured.Reference: | Project Root ListI hope reading these interpretations give you a fair idea about how “Peaceful World” is described in QuranThe link given also quotes Chapter numbers and verse numbers where these terms are usedThanks againPeace!

As other have mentioned here, designing a product to "mil-spec" adds a lot of cost. However, I don't think that the other answers have the reasons for this quite correct. The increased cost doesn't come as much from the fact that the spec says that the product as a whole has operate from -55°C to +85°C. Its that every resistor, transistor and connector (or spring, firing chamber, latch) that goes into the unit has to be tested to operate from -55°C to +85°C.I design electronics for spacecraft, and have to deal with these kind of components quite a bit. To get a "mil-spec" transistor, a manufacturer will take a lot of transistors that were made on their production line and run them through a number of tests. The testing takes a lot of time and effort. You also have to be a "qualified manufacturer," which is probably a difficult and expensive designation to acquire.Here's the simplified list of the testing required to call a capacitor a "MIL-PRF-123" component (one of the older specifications for military grade capacitors):Take about 500 capacitors from your production line and "qualify" them through the following tests:1) Visual inspection2) Radiographic (x-ray) inspection (only required if encapsulated)3) Thermal shock (put it in chamber with +125°C air, then move it to a cold chamber with -55°C, repeat 100x). Test at least 186 parts, 97% must pass all of these tests after thermal shock:a) Dielectric Withstand Voltage: apply 2.5x to 4x rated voltage for 5 seconds without damage or breakdownb) Insulation resistance +25°C: Capacitor shouldn't "leak"c) Insulation resistance +125°C: Capacitor shouldn't leak when hot either.d) Capacitance: Capacitance should be within tolerance.e) Dissipation Factor: make sure equivalent series resistance of capacitor is lower than specified.Tests a) through e) are repeated after each of the following steps (except for the Destructive Physical Analysis).4) Destructive Physical Analysis: Encapsulate 15 capacitors, polish a few fractions of a mm away at a time, looking for small cracks under a microscope, repeat until you've gone through most of the capacitor.5) Terminal strength: yank on the leads - they shouldn't break.6) Solderability: check that solder adheres to the leads well - can be a problem if you use bad plating.7) Resistance to soldering heat: part needs to be able to withstand the +300°C of a soldering iron without being damaged.8) Voltage-Temperature limits: The value of a capacitor tends to change with the applied voltage and temperature. This test verifies that these changes are within the limits advertised.9) Moisture/Humidity resistance: some capacitors don't do well in a humid environment. Put it in a hot and moist chamber and make sure everything works fine afterwards.10) Vibration: Shake it like its hot. It shouldn't break. (Very important for things on rockets or other things that experience high g-forces)11) Resistance to solvents: putting alcohol or acetone on it shouldn't damage it12) Life test: This is actually the most expensive one. Take 123 units, put them in a chamber at +125°C for 4000 hours. That's almost half a year. At 1.5 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and when finished, take them out to run tests a) through e). If two parts fail, your whole lot is failed.If you pass, congratulations, your production line is qualified! for this particular part number! out of thousands of part numbers!...on to screening.For a given production run (also known as "lot"):Perform tests 1), 2) and 3) from the qualification list above...for every single part you sell.On a small sample of parts (5 to 40 depending on lot size), perform 4)Perform tests 8) and 9) on 12 items each. No failures allowed.Perform 12). Yes, the expensive one. This time you can stop after 6 weeks.Congrats, you can now send these to customers.Don't forget to repeat all the tests from qualification that you didn't do in the screening every two months.Full spec can be found here: Page on dscc.dla.milYou can see how much more there is, and how difficult it is to translate these requirements. I've certainly gotten a detail or two wrong. I'm sure there are a couple employees (maybe lawyers) at each manufacturing firm whose job it is to translate these specifications into actual requirements.All this for a single part. $25 for this capacitor is starting to sound like a good deal. A single piece of electronics has a hundred to a few thousand components, all of which have to be tested in a similar way in order for the military to be allowed to buy it (by their own purchasing guidelines).So why does the military and the US government in general insist on procuring parts that go through this much testing?Well, there's an obvious example of why its a good idea: the space shuttle. There are some 2.5 million components that go into the space shuttle. The chance there will be no failures is (1-p)^n, where p is the probability of a part failing and n is the number of parts. Even if we assume that only 25000 parts are "critical" (i.e. a failure of the component causes failure of the system), then a failure rate of 1/10000 gives just a 78% chance of success.Now, does that mean that we should build every gun, radio, toothbrush, etc. to military spec? There's something to be said for having everything we give to our military forces being extremely reliable...but is it worth the cost. Its not an easy question to answer.Consider this anecdote - I don't have sources for its veracity, but I heard it from a NASA veteran:In the 90's, with pressure to cut the NASA budget, a NASA manager or administrator had the idea that they should scrap the requirements to use mil-spec parts in order to save money (it actually wasn't just the parts rules - most of the cost of a mission goes to management and engineering salaries, but there are shortcuts to be made there too). The thinking was that its better to build five missions for a fifth of the price than one mission for full price, even if half of the missions fail. The plan was approved, and NASA got to work building missions with commercial components. More missions were launched, on a shorter time frame, and at a significantly cheaper cost than previously. At some point, the first failure happened. Congress was furious that half a billion dollars had been wasted. It didn't matter to them that the same project would have cost 2.5 billion under the old regime. The managers were canned and these days NASA tends to be very adverse to taking shortcuts with high profile missions.