First off, when I finally have some spare cash and decide to get a new computer, I'm calling you P. All insanity aside, it sounds as if you at least know what you're doing (well, for the most part), and building your own system is just so much cheaper than the alternative. My PC, which is sitting in storage at the moment, is from '03 or '04. Yeah. It's that old.
On another note entirely, I was horrified earlier this week when I discovered that I agreed with PETA on something. The Colbert Report did a piece on the emerging science of growing meat in the laboratory, and spent some time interviewing the head of the organization; you know, the lady who wants her flesh fried in a public place upon her death so that people will realize that human and animal flesh is essentially the same thing, and it's morally wrong to eat either.
PETA is offering $1M to whomever comes up with a viable method of growing meat in the lab. Now I think growing my steak and cheeseburger is a fantastic idea, yet I seem to be pretty much alone in this. Most everyone I've ever discussed the topic with (it's a great conversation starter...) finds the entire concept disgusting. Growing meat seems like a fantastic idea though. We no longer have to waste resources on gargantuan numbers of farm animals, and as an added bonus it may slow the destruction of the Amazon as the need for the multitude of continually migrating ranches would evaporate. In addition, meat has a very large energy content (not to mention protein content), which, as I understand evolutionary biology, is why the smarter animals tend to be the meat eaters. Human evolution sped up once we became omnivores. Meat is therefore a very important food item. It's scarcity in places makes it a luxury though, leading to diminished statures and health. There's a reason politicians from Henry IV to Herbert Hoover promoted the idea of a chicken in every pot as a prime of community development. Growing meat could radically expand the number of people who could enjoy such luxuries.
...Still, now that I learn that I and PETA are in agreement on something, I'm forced to rethink my position. Maybe all those people who I decided Just Didn't Get It have a point? The alternative, that PETA may actually be right about something, is a concept almost to horrible to contemplate.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
BHO & Congr. Leadership Parte Tres
It's been a while, so let's see if I can do this without rambling incoherently for two or three pages. Here goes!
On Part the First, P, you're absolutely right; as I recall, you were postulating that President Obama's popularity, in conjunction with his obvious intelligence and (I think) even-handedness would ensure that he would hold the upperhand in the never ending contest between the Executive and Legislative branches. I admit that I hadn't viewed the administration's having the bill wholly crafted by the House in the same light as you P. I can see where you're coming from though, even if my gut tells me that my original interpretation seems more likely. I suspect that's because of the different lenses through which we each view Obama so early in his Presidency, before he's really had a chance to define himself. As an aside, I tend to believe, as you do, that he truly does want Republican support for his measures. My imagined rationale for that urge is however filtered through the same aforementioned lens, so I tend to view that in a more cynical light. Does he want their input, or is he trying to avoid conflict for it's own sake?...Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. After eight years of on-high pronouncements from the White House, I welcome a move in the opposite direction.
Moving on to the second point, the work of Deng Xiaoping should be required study at the undergraduate level for any liberal arts student. I may have issues with some of his political decisions (I hail from a nation that prizes individual liberty and free choice, so I'm naturally going to be condemnatory on issues ranging from Tiananemen to Tibet), but his economic policy directions were foresighted and help lift, in a very real way, hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But I digress.
President Obama is a pragmatist, he's not a raging lefty and, you're right, he makes me look exciting. He's an incredibly boring 40-something with a beautiful family whose greatest political aspect is that he's got the charisma of Bill Clinton, without the sleaziness...also, it helps that he's never performed an exorcism. I still believe that the existing evidence points to his being too pragmatic. That being said, your defense of his career from the 2004 convention forward during our drink at that restaurant following the Maher/Coulter smackdown was well thought out, and I freely admit that his only real 'sin' since that time has been hubris which, again, is needed in a politician and is after all what's brought us to this (happy) day. I think the greatest threat at this point is that the President begins to believe his supporters' claims that he rose clean and pure from the depths of the political cesspool, held aloft by the seraphim of Hope and Change. He doesn't seem to be falling into that trap though, much to his credit.
On the final point, thanks for your perspective there P. Truly; I appreciate it. On the God front, I've been trying to refine that argument of late, figuring that after nearly a decade, it was getting a bit stale. I readily admit that science, in its pure form, is not a faith. Aristotle, al-Haytham, Bacon, Galileo, and so many others made sure of that over the long and arduous development of the scientific method. However, just as no rational third party observer would equate the religious thought and depth of Thomas Aquinas with that of Joe the Plumber, neither do I think that you can honestly equate the stereotypical faith the majority of the population seems to place in scientific achievements with the steadied rationality of the men and women working to make the discoveries and inventions that add to the collective body of human knowledge.
Two examples to try and better articulate that. The recent stem cell debate has been led in large part by those claiming that the things are likely to be a panacea for all manner of ills, from Alzheimer's to paralysis to retinal degeneration. They're a blank slate onto which people pour their hopes and dreams. Talk to the men and women in the field, and the response is far more measured. They believe in the technology (as do I), but also believe it has firm limits. But that's not what people want to hear. They want to believe that 'scientists' will be able to use this latest alchemical concoction to cure whatever ails or may ail them. You find a similar mentality in the less urgent realm of climate change. Republican or Democrat, both firmly believe that science will magically find a way to solve the issue by devising new economically sound power generation tools; the foolishness over 'clean coal' springs immediately to mind.
Humans crave certainty. Even those who believe in a higher power tend to attribute to modern science abilities it is not likely to possess. In this way, science is treated as a religion, with 'scientists' taking on the role of the High Priests. We ask the priests to solve our problems, and offer up tithings to them as they beseech the Gods. Is this a perfect analogy? No, of course not. Science actually stands a chance of succeeding in solving whatever issue it's attacking, wheras Zeus and Ahura Mazda very rarely bothered to stop the plague or bestow more advanced defensive weaponry on their worshippers. But my contention, poorly worded though it may be at 2:00 in the morning, is that this is how science is treated and viewed by the vast majority of the population. Thoughts?
On Part the First, P, you're absolutely right; as I recall, you were postulating that President Obama's popularity, in conjunction with his obvious intelligence and (I think) even-handedness would ensure that he would hold the upperhand in the never ending contest between the Executive and Legislative branches. I admit that I hadn't viewed the administration's having the bill wholly crafted by the House in the same light as you P. I can see where you're coming from though, even if my gut tells me that my original interpretation seems more likely. I suspect that's because of the different lenses through which we each view Obama so early in his Presidency, before he's really had a chance to define himself. As an aside, I tend to believe, as you do, that he truly does want Republican support for his measures. My imagined rationale for that urge is however filtered through the same aforementioned lens, so I tend to view that in a more cynical light. Does he want their input, or is he trying to avoid conflict for it's own sake?...Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. After eight years of on-high pronouncements from the White House, I welcome a move in the opposite direction.
Moving on to the second point, the work of Deng Xiaoping should be required study at the undergraduate level for any liberal arts student. I may have issues with some of his political decisions (I hail from a nation that prizes individual liberty and free choice, so I'm naturally going to be condemnatory on issues ranging from Tiananemen to Tibet), but his economic policy directions were foresighted and help lift, in a very real way, hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But I digress.
President Obama is a pragmatist, he's not a raging lefty and, you're right, he makes me look exciting. He's an incredibly boring 40-something with a beautiful family whose greatest political aspect is that he's got the charisma of Bill Clinton, without the sleaziness...also, it helps that he's never performed an exorcism. I still believe that the existing evidence points to his being too pragmatic. That being said, your defense of his career from the 2004 convention forward during our drink at that restaurant following the Maher/Coulter smackdown was well thought out, and I freely admit that his only real 'sin' since that time has been hubris which, again, is needed in a politician and is after all what's brought us to this (happy) day. I think the greatest threat at this point is that the President begins to believe his supporters' claims that he rose clean and pure from the depths of the political cesspool, held aloft by the seraphim of Hope and Change. He doesn't seem to be falling into that trap though, much to his credit.
On the final point, thanks for your perspective there P. Truly; I appreciate it. On the God front, I've been trying to refine that argument of late, figuring that after nearly a decade, it was getting a bit stale. I readily admit that science, in its pure form, is not a faith. Aristotle, al-Haytham, Bacon, Galileo, and so many others made sure of that over the long and arduous development of the scientific method. However, just as no rational third party observer would equate the religious thought and depth of Thomas Aquinas with that of Joe the Plumber, neither do I think that you can honestly equate the stereotypical faith the majority of the population seems to place in scientific achievements with the steadied rationality of the men and women working to make the discoveries and inventions that add to the collective body of human knowledge.
Two examples to try and better articulate that. The recent stem cell debate has been led in large part by those claiming that the things are likely to be a panacea for all manner of ills, from Alzheimer's to paralysis to retinal degeneration. They're a blank slate onto which people pour their hopes and dreams. Talk to the men and women in the field, and the response is far more measured. They believe in the technology (as do I), but also believe it has firm limits. But that's not what people want to hear. They want to believe that 'scientists' will be able to use this latest alchemical concoction to cure whatever ails or may ail them. You find a similar mentality in the less urgent realm of climate change. Republican or Democrat, both firmly believe that science will magically find a way to solve the issue by devising new economically sound power generation tools; the foolishness over 'clean coal' springs immediately to mind.
Humans crave certainty. Even those who believe in a higher power tend to attribute to modern science abilities it is not likely to possess. In this way, science is treated as a religion, with 'scientists' taking on the role of the High Priests. We ask the priests to solve our problems, and offer up tithings to them as they beseech the Gods. Is this a perfect analogy? No, of course not. Science actually stands a chance of succeeding in solving whatever issue it's attacking, wheras Zeus and Ahura Mazda very rarely bothered to stop the plague or bestow more advanced defensive weaponry on their worshippers. But my contention, poorly worded though it may be at 2:00 in the morning, is that this is how science is treated and viewed by the vast majority of the population. Thoughts?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Trials and Tribulations of Building A Computer
As I was sitting on the beach for 4 months I decided I wanted to play video games. But I wanted to play them on a computer. And seeing as my current computer couldn't even play SimCity 3000 anymore, now was the time to build a new one. Since I built my last computer, discovered my fatal mistake in building it and then realized that I could not undo that mistake, I've been waiting for the day to be able to build another one. That day was afew weeks ago.
Spending more than twice as much as I did last time I built my i7 core 3.2 gHZ, Full ATX (4 case fans), 900 W PSU, 12 GB RAM, 1.1TB (2 HDD), nVidia GTX 285 1 GB (BFG) rig. It's pretty sweet. But you'd think with my previous experience building my last computer it would have been a cinch. You'd have been wrong.
After three minor crises I got the machine running. (Crisis 1, I bought a non standard heatsink fan and thought I'd bought the wrong size. After installing the stock one, I found the mounting brackets for my mobo and was able install the sweet ass heatsink. Crisis 2, I missed the mobo's 2nd 8-pin power plug and couldn't figure out why the thing wouldn't turn on... that lasted for 20 minutes. Crisis 3, after repeated attempts to install Vista and the machine wouldn't, I was convinced that it was because my BD-ROM wasn't reading the DVD fast enough. As I disconnected my old 80 GB HD from the IDE connection so I could hook up my CD/DVD drive I bent the pins on the IDE slot o nthe mobo. It was the mobo's only IDE slot. )
But even after it was running, the first major crisis was apparent. I couldn't install Vista. I became convinced that Vista sucked and I needed to get my hands on XP. I picked up, for an additional $175, one of the last copies of XP in the city of Chicago. It installed on the computer with no problem. As I installed the drivers for my graphics card, it told me that my graphics card was really meant for Vista, and it wasn't going to work correctly. It didn't really.
But the computer was running on XP and I was sated temporarily. Sims2 kept crashing without warning and seriously, its frigging Sims2, my card should be handling its graphics with ease. I came to find out that XP had a built in RAM limit, it wouldn't recognize more than 4GB. I pulled out the unecessary RAM. But now I was pissed, I spent a lot of money on that RAM and I was gonna fucking use it. I searched for Vista RAM issues. Vista 64 (the version I had) recognizes unlimited RAM supposedly. I reinstall the RAM and attempt to reinstall Vista. Still doesn't work. Then I find out that Vista won't install with more than 1 GB of RAM installed. Well that meant I was fucked because I had 6 sticks and they were all 2GB. I pulled out all but 1 stick and gave it a shot. SUCCESS! Vista installed. Now I could use my RAM and my graphics card.
I installed the rest of the RAM, and then Windows wouldn't start. Must be a bad stick of RAM, or a bad DIMM slot. I pull out all the RAM, use a sharpie to mark them and keep track and then begin testing. It must be the DIMM6 slot. For balance I decide to run on 6GB, that's really 2-3x more than anyone really needs.
But now, when I'm connected to the internet the computer crashes. ??? I can't get through 10 minutes of hulu.com. WTF!?!? Finally it becomes too much. As I'm looking through the documentation that came with the components I see that I may have installed the graphics card in the wrong PCI-E slot. Yes, my computer is so bad ass, it has TWO PCI-E slots. I move the card and go to start it up and ......Vista won't start!?!?!? It doesn't recognize the HDD or the BD-ROM. I must have static fried them when moving the card around. ???? BUt that doesn't make sense.
AFTER I install a brand new HDD and the mobo still doesn't recognize it, do I realize, that somewhere along the way I unplugged the HDD (by extesnion the BD-ROM as well) from the power supply. I now have 2 pefectly good 1 TB HDDs.
Today, I was also able to watch 2 hours of hulu with no problems. We'll see if this is the end of my frustrations. One can only hope.
Monday, March 16, 2009
BHO and Congr. Leadership II
This may be ugly. I haven't had enough sleep so I may stumble several times through this response but it's been far too long since I've posted and DH has been very patient.
I was going to try to address this logically but I just got confused so here goes.
1) I don't recall offhand saying that Obama will rope in the Senate and the House (although I dont' think DH is lying or mistaken, I just mention it because I'm uncertain about the context) but I assume I was talking about his popularity having the propensity (through no extra effort of his own) to pressure other legislators to go along with him. If that's the case, the stimulus bill was a great example of that. The rotten republican stump in the house (highly partisan districts that have no chance of coging for Obama, save a few) felt no pressure and wanted to make a "strategic statement." So they voted against him. But moderate, blue state Senators, voted with him. The fact that it was a house bill was not Obama rolling over to Congressional pressure, it was his conscious choice to let them be a part of the solution. He could have if he wanted to (unless there's something we're missing), driven the bill from the White House but didn't. Was this a calculation so that he can drive Health Care and entitlements? Maybe who knows. But I get the feeling that he actually does want Republican support, he actually does want Congressional involvment, this is not a new Caesar.
2) Obama is a pragmatist, we're seeing it every day. Republicans, even Ann Coulter, are discovering it with amazing swiftness. Obama is NOT a raging liberal trying to foment communsim? I'm shocked. And they are. Although given that lead up I shouldn't quote a communist. But Obama could very easily be said to fit in the Deng Xiapang box of, "What difference does it make what color the cat is as long as it catches the mice?" And, he's fairly boring. He's an eloquent and inspirational version of Bobby Jindal. I don't know for a fact but DH's assertion that Obama didn't raise a stink in the IL GA is probably right. He's a pragmatist. He's more concerned with doing actual work. Video taped confessions etc. I don't think he was "building his power base" because he still doesn't have one. What's his power base? The American people, but he doesn't have some secret alliance of lawmakers. The establishment was for Clinton. He has a few friends here and there, and now he has lots of people who want to ride his c**k because he's president. People who build grass roots movements don't have power bases, otherwise they wouldn't have built the grassroots effort. It's really hard to build a grass roots movement. Anyway, that's a tangent.
3) DH, I don't think you or BHO rollover. BHO hear's the viewpoints but once he's made his decision, he's not against kneecapping you. Albeit nicely in a way only BHO can. Once the stimulus was set Obama basically said, "These guys are douchebags. they're not even speaking English. No shit it's a spending bill!" Or ala Bill Maher, "We are ready to lead AGAIN! Since Bush was a major douche and I am not."
When we have discussions, you concede quite a bit, sometimes too much. But I've always viewed it as honest, as in, I said something that 1) you hadn't thought of in that way so you'll think it over but concede for now or 2) I actually dropped some enlightneing shit on you, new information or something and it immediately becomes apparent that (at least in the narrow sense I may be framing my argument) I'm right. But that buys you respect and consideration. The difference between you and me is that in 1 I usually don't concede but I will say, "Ahhh, I've not heard A before. Let me get back to you on that." And we move on. In 2 I also concede. But I argue and debate with you effortlessly and without prejudice because I know you're an honest broker. I admi t when I'm wrong, but I wouldn't say I roll over. And I wouldn't say you do either, especially if we're discussing more philosophical stuff, like the existence of god. You always like to bring up the science is another religion....blach.
Anyway, that's enough for now. I should get back to work. If this was rambling and incoherent, sorry.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Meet The Press and Defense Secretary Gates
At the end of his interview with Defense Secretary Gates, David Gregory asked him a throwaway question that I thought ended up being very revealing. After asking him what the major difference was between working for President Bush and President Obama, the Secretary took a long pause and responded thusly:
"President Obama is somewhat more analytical and he makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue, and if they don't speak up he calls on them.
President Bush was interested in hearing different points of view but didn't go out of his way to make sure everybodt spoke if they hadn't spoken up before."
This response really grabbed my attention, and increased my respect for the President significantly. President Obama follows a style of leadership that I truly believe is essential to bringing out really good ideas and, if my former Kellogg professors who've come from high leadership positions are correct, it's the best way to lead a corporation, and, I should think, a country as well.
"President Obama is somewhat more analytical and he makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue, and if they don't speak up he calls on them.
President Bush was interested in hearing different points of view but didn't go out of his way to make sure everybodt spoke if they hadn't spoken up before."
This response really grabbed my attention, and increased my respect for the President significantly. President Obama follows a style of leadership that I truly believe is essential to bringing out really good ideas and, if my former Kellogg professors who've come from high leadership positions are correct, it's the best way to lead a corporation, and, I should think, a country as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)