Pangloss

I've been following this with great interest, and have been wondering if it might be time to pick up a copy of OS X and see if I can get it working. I'm an old Mac fan from the early days, and I think another OS option would be really cool.

The way that for 150 years certain people have been devoted to such an extraordinarily illogical belief as the theory of gravity is a great miracle created by God by making use of Satan. Those with good sense and faith in God and who are aware of this miracle have been waiting for 150 years to see just when gravitationists would become aware of this deception of Satan's, and have been using various means of suggestion, employing scientific and rational methods, to awaken them. The way that hundreds of thousands of professors, scientists, university students and doctors have blindly believed in the exceptionally illogical claims of the theory of gravity is a historical phenomenon that will be remembered with astonishment in no more than 20 years, and will be the subject of jokes and sketches. Believers in gravity fall under the spell of the Latin terminology and pompous language employed by gravitationist scientists, saying, "whatever they say must be true," and do not think about the real meaning of what they are told. One of the most effective ways of getting these people to think is to explain what the theory of gravity actually maintains in a very clear and simple manner, and thus to remove the spell under which they have fallen.

Well put.

I agree about tabbed browsing. Isn't it funny how sometimes the simplest little thing, something that probably sounded like a really STUPID idea in planning sessions ("uh, why can't they just open a new browser window, chief?"), but turned out to be a real useful little trick. See that's the great thing about competition. The goal here is not to slay the Microsoft behemoth, but to build a better mouse trap. When competition exists, we all win. It goes *both* ways, and when the Mozilla org get bogged down and bloated, we NEED to have Microsoft available, to hold up and say "we want that, give it to us right now or we walk". THAT's how you win.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050813/wl_uk_afp/britainenvironment_050813002025;_ylt=Ap_QKvWEIgm_dJvjEJ1DY16s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc- Here's my favorite part: ROFL! (Just a bit of friendly nose-tweaking to our friends across the pond! Don't kill me!)

Interesting response from an Iraqi blogger to Cindy Sheehan: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Interesting points. It's a shame you want to use them as excuses to justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater, making your "solution" no better than that of the extreme right-wingers who want everyone who even looks funny at a child thrown in jail for life.

I'll check it out, thanks. (Interesting... that site has pop-ups that get around Mozilla's pop-up blocker too. Better check your HD for spyware, JB.) Sounds about right.

BS -- if you don't know what you're missing, then it's nothing but bad. That's called putting ideology ahead of reality. Those of us here are smart enough to figure it out if we've missed something important. But what about the hundreds of customers that I have personally set up to use previous versions of Mozilla? When they call me because it won't display a site correctly I look like an idiot. That totally blows chunks. There's no excuse for it. And Firefox is more secure than IE, but in large part that's because it's protected by a lower user base that makes it not worth a hacker's while to hack it. That's what makes it more secure. As we've seen in recent news reports, it's just as frought with security problems as IE. Even worse, Mozilla (I'm not sure if this applies to Firefox) was a crash maven of the very first order. Just to give an example of that, it used to be that there was not one single site on the Internet that could get around Mozilla's pop-up blocker. Now there are many. The Internet Movie Database is one popular example, but I visit many on a regular basis. As its popularity grows, people start to work around its "security". Let's face it: Modern web browsers just plain suck in general. There's no point in acting like Firefox is god's gift from heaven and IE is a red-headed stepchild. I know herme3 is a Microsoft fanboy, but those of us who have to survive in the real world know that Firefox is just not a complete answer yet. I hope it will be soon, but it's not there yet. Bear in mind, I love FF and Moz -- when it comes to FF acceptance and market-share amongst non-geeks, I'm the guy who's actually making that happen, and I have every intention of continuing to do that. Not only do I install Moz or FF on every workstation of every customer I have, I also give it out free to every one of my students whenever I teach any class, even something like Word or PowerPoint, as well as my MCSE students. They all get a free CD with FF on it and a lecture about how it's a good idea to use it, and why. I'm just disappointed that it's not as good as it could (and should) be.

I visit sites all the time that won't display properly in Firefox/Mozilla. Sometimes it's not immediately obvious, because a feature may be covered up and you don't realize it, or you don't know how it's supposed to look. I really wish they'd fix that, because it's very annoying. I wish I didn't have to ever use IE at all. The really annoying thing is when it happens with PHP-based forum software! I mean there is really no excuse for that. Yeesh. They did a great job with the upgrade of this board s/w, though. The standards argument bugs me for another reason: I make sites all the time in Dreamweaver using regular WYSIWYG techniques that look great in IE but get all messed up in Firefox or Mozilla. I don't know who's fault that is, but I really don't appreciate having spent a lot of money on a fancy web design product only to have to constantly adjust my code for multiple web browsers. I mean it's 2005, for crying out loud, not 1995.

The Iraqi insurgents regularly make intentional attacks on Iraqi civilians. Cafes, hospitals, food markets, are all fair game to them, and these are their normal targets. They also go after any infrastructure they can find, such as electricity, water, sewage, emergency services, and anything else they can think of. The idea that they're fighting to free the people they're busy blowing up is really pretty ludicrous. It'd be like the IRA blowing up Irish catholics and then saying "nya nya" to the British. Or the Palestinian suicide bombers blowing up Palestinian school children and then saying "Look what you made us do!" to the Israelis. It simply makes no sense. But that's what Michael Moore and Al Franken would have us believe.

Oh the opinion is fine. That's not the problem. The issue is one of trust. We're all here because we want to listen and learn and occasionally, once in a blue moon, say something intelligent that contributes to the debate, right? And perhaps we also want to go on to apply some of that experience in the "real world", where maybe we can make a difference with those who haven't been "in the debate". But you cannot be that person, that mind-changer, that world-changer, if your mind is closed. And this is true no matter what it is that you happen to be closed-minded about. Anybody who comes to a debate forum intending to talk and not listen is a loser even before they type in their first post, and from that point on they're doing nothing but waste everyone's time. And no matter how hard they try, no matter how loud, vociferous, elegant, literate, nasty, degenerate, or decent and kind they try to be, everyone will know the truth -- that they cannot contribute anything interesting to the debate. Ever. Sadly, it's also something they'll never understand. So perhaps, in the end, there's little point in harping about it.

No matter how badly you and Michael Moore wish it, the insurgents of Iraq will never be "Freedom Fighters". One simple difference alone is enough to make the distinction: Freedom fighters don't slaughter their own people to get what they want. And the fact that you don't understand that is why you don't have anything interesting to add to this discussion.

Yes, the latter, exactly. But maybe it's just another form of ideology. That's the dilemma. No worries, I get all sorts of variations.

It's interesting that people always want fun and exciting things to be determined by the people, except when what the people like happens to come from a corporation -- then the power has to be taken away from the people and given to an elite group that "knows what's best for everyone". (sigh) Hypocrisy in the computer business is so much like hypocrisy in politics. Still, it is probably a good thing that independent standards bodies exist, and it's probably for the best that Microsoft be forced to adhere to them, much as that statement galls my libertarian side. Otherwise it's just a matter of time before we're all paying $30 a month to use Windows. And then $35. And then $40. Because as we all know, it's not enough that corporations make the same amount of money they did last year -- CEOs get fired when that happens. Just don't delude yourselves into thinking that this is a good thing. At most it's the best of a bad situation -- and one that we are all responsible for creating. We're putting a lot of power into the hands of some really wonky ideologues (if you don't believe me, check out some of the infrastructure and standards newsgroups some time), and power always corrupts. There will be a price, and we will all have to pay.

You could be right, but I'm actually becoming more and more convinced that it does. I.E. having a closed mind makes you wrong, even if the opinion you happen to hold happens to be something that most people agree is the right way to go. I'm still pondering this POV, though. Maybe I'm being overly blunt, but I'm not sure I see much of a difference between a terrorist and an anti-war extremist. Certainly the peacenik isn't going to whip out a gun and shoot you. But we're talking about society as a whole at the moment. Both are equally dangerous in the wider arena, IMO. It's not extremist viewpoints that are dangerous. As you say, they serve a purpose in society, in terms of marking off the bad places you don't want to stray into. What's dangerous is when people become convinced that that bad place is maybe not so bad after all. Cindy Sheehan wants to take us to a very bad place, and she wants to do it for a very selfish (if understandable) reason. Note that I'm not talking about withdrawl from Iraq, or even impeaching Bush. Those things are trivial in comparison with the country that Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and Al Franken (and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc) want to build. That doesn't mean, for example, that people who have closed minds should be disrespected. I'm reflecting Thomas Kirby's comments on this board, but I'm only reflecting them, I'm not trying to personally attack him (although I'm sure he feels that I am). There's a method to my madness. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Most people will never seriously challenge or critique their opinions. But (arguably) more people are doing so today than ever before, which I think is the good news. The bad news is that they're every bit as maleable and porous as they've always been. It's up to us, the few who've been through the debates, who've fought the good fights over the years, to lead them through the morass of extremism and into the light of objective, spin-free decision-making. God help us. ;-)

In many cases, cited here (which apparently you've just neglected to read), we don't. Jessica's law, for example, which sentences adults to 25 years to life on the first offense, only applies to violent acts against children ages 12 or less. It doesn't affect minors, and it doesn't affect the kind of "hey she looked 18 to me" events we've talked about here. This thread is another example -- the restriction on hurricane shelters only applies to those who have been specifically prohibited from contact with minors, which is not the case in those "hey she looked 18 to me" cases. And yet you steadfastly refuse to agree upon the value of even these laws, erroneously clinging to your argument that we shouldn't enact these laws because they are of the "hey she looked 18 to me" variety, in spite of the fact that it's been explained to you, with supporting links, from the very first post in this thread, that that is not the case. Well?

I think it's a fatal mistake to spin the debate over dealing with people who rape and murder children into some kind of attack on the freedom of sexual preference and practice. Why can't we deal with both as separate issues? Why would the protection of children against violent rapists and murderers have to be sacrificed because there are idiots out there who can't stand to see Janet's nipples pop out during the SuperBowl? That simply makes no sense at all. Just because you are incapable of separating issues along non-partisan, real-world lines does not mean that everyone else is incapable of doing so.

Okay, once again, let's see if we have your opinion straight. What you're saying is that you feel that we should abandon any and all attempts to deal with sex offenders because: 1) Sometimes people are mislabelled as sex offenders (a problem which can surely be dealt with through proper legislation and awareness) 2) There is a "main force behind the movement to classify so much of human sexuality as dangerous" (sounds like two wrongs making a right to me) 3) All sex offender trials are "farcical" (an obvious straw man) You're wrong. I know exactly what I am facing.

Cindy Sheehan's son was killed in Iraq. She was already, at that time, opposed to the war. But she and the family did meet with President Bush, and after that meeting she expressed that she felt better because of the meeting, and that the president had been sympathetic, and helped the family a great deal. Her family continues to feel that way, and in fact her husband has separated from her over this issue. But Mrs. Sheenan took a different route, hooking up with extremist groups and Michael Moore, and is now camped outside the president's home in Texas, lying about her background, her connections, her feelings, her previous disposition, and her previous meetings with the president. And the press is soaking it up like a sponge, with over 1100 stories currently on Google News on the subject. (Would there be 1100 stories if 100 families of dead Iraqi war soldiers had showed up to support the president instead?) I am extremely sympathetic with Mrs. Sheehan's loss. I also think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what she is doing. More power to her. (Except for the lies -- that's just wrong.) But I also think it's a mistake for anybody to view this as a case of an aggrieved mother who has been slighted by an uncaring administration. That is a fallacy, clearly debunked by the facts of the case. Furthermore, there is a nasty logical trap here that I fear many will fall into, which is this: President Bush did not kill her son. Extremist terrorists did. People who, in fact, have about as open a mind as hers. So what, exactly, is the lesson we can learn here? What purpose is she serving? What greater good is produced by her demonstration? Is the lesson here that if we simply close our minds and let extremists tell us what to do, everything will be okay? Is that really the way we want our country to be run? To my mind, the whole thing is just a tragic waste. Not only have we wasted lives, money and time in Iraq, but now we find that we are also wasting our self-esteem, our intellectual and moral bravery, and our willingness to do the right thing. All sacrificed on the false alter of "security." It's a damn shame is what it is. Here are a couple of articles for background: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5206400,00.html http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007102

Well I wouldn't map over sectors at this point -- that was to get you back up and running. Since you're up and running, and you're now seeing other corrupted data, I would say that your best move is to get everything off that drive that you can, and then discard it. It's obviously had a serious malfunction of some kind.

K, sounds like a busted hard drive. It may be just one failed sector, and that sector happened to contain NTLDR, so it can't boot. If you map over that sector (so it can't be used) and then replace NTLDR, it should boot. But that's a tricky operation if you've never done it before. Better option would be to move that hard drive into another computer, copy your data off of it, and replace the drive completely. After all, you don't know what caused that sector to go bad, so it could easily happen again.

Ok, that's a good sign -- most of the hardware is likely working. But you could be having a hard drive failure, which seems like the most likely culprit to me at the moment. I think you should try to boot off some other media, such as an attached device or drive, or perhaps a bootable CD-ROM, and see what happens. Not the Windows XP CD -- that does have a repair feature but I wouldn't use it until I was sure I knew what the problem is. I have a bootable CD that has a stripped copy of Windows (command line only, like CMO Safe Mode) that I sometimes use for cases like this, but if you don't have one prepared you'll have to use something else. A Windows 98 boot CD won't work here if your hard drive is formatted in NTFS, but if it's formatted in FAT it will. The goal is to be able to see the hard drive after booting, to see if it's working ok. Read and write some data to it and see what happens, that sort of thing. Could be a corrupt NTLDR, BOOT.INI or one of the other system files that boots the computer.

Can you get into BIOS?