Just got my replacement hard drive today and, while Truecrypting it, I get a corrupted sector message.. I checked it and the power cable was ever so slightly loose so I pushed it in hard. I hope I'm not returning this again.
Edit: Hard drive is now making very loud, very rapid clicking noise..
Edit 2: Aaannnd.. is no longer recognized by the BIOS.
Edit 3: Desktop hard drive II, pronounced dead at 11:44 AM on Wednesday 10th of March 2010. Rotate in peace. It, at least, had the dignity to crap out within the first two hours.
Just got my replacement hard drive today and, while Truecrypting it, I get a corrupted sector message.. I checked it and the power cable was ever so slightly loose so I pushed it in hard. I hope I'm not returning this again.
Edit: Hard drive is now making very loud, very rapid clicking noise..
Edit 2: Aaannnd.. is no longer recognized by the BIOS.
Edit 3: Desktop hard drive II, pronounced dead at 11:44 AM on Wednesday 10th of March 2010. Rotate in peace. It, at least, had the dignity to crap out within the first two hours.
You probably just got one of those few drives that suffer from infant death. Just call the manufacturer and they'll send you a new one.
For the first time ever, I read a judicial opinion that was so fraught with fallacious reasoning and stupidity that it physically impacted my ability to see. My rage burns with the unmitigated hatred of a thousand suns.
I disagree with the outcome, but if the reasoning was at least sound, I would be able to respect it. They took valid points and dismissed them in the most convoluted, stupid way possible.
For the first time ever, I reada judicial opinionthat was so fraught with fallacious reasoning and stupidity that it physically impacted my ability to see. My rage burns with the unmitigated hatred of a thousand suns.
I disagree with the outcome, but if the reasoning was at least sound, I would be able to respect it. They took valid points and dismissed them in the most convoluted, stupid way possible.
Oh wow. They really did just say, "That's a good point, but we're going to ignore it, because we're idiots."
EDIT: Here's one of my favorites.
While same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are easily distinguished, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples likely to have children would require grossly intrusive inquiries, and arbitrary and unreliable line-drawing.
Really? I mean, really? What the fuck?
A legislature that regarded marriage primarily or solely as an institution for the benefit of children could rationally find that an attempt to exclude childless opposite-sex couples from the institution would be a very bad idea.
Verizon. The coverage and service is good, but fuck their plans. They're stupid expensive, and the sales people rely on vague language and pushy sales practices to try and get you to buy shit you don't need. Two years from now we're dumping their asses.
Yeah, they basically said, "this is rational, so the court could have rationally found it." Circular argument!
My favorite:
The state has an interest in having good, stable homes for children. Homosexual couples who want children tend to be more stable because they don't have surprise kids from unwanted pregnancies. Heterosexual couples are more likely to become unstable environments/broken homes because of surprise pregancies. Therefore, homosexual couples don't NEED the benefits the government gives via marriage to help stabilize the home for the children.
WTF? Completely ignoring the fact that not being married is a HUGE obstacle to adoption, or the fact that marriage is not solely granted to heterosexual broken homes.
Yeah, they basically said, "this is rational, so the court could have rationally found it." Circular argument!
My favorite:
The state has an interest in having good, stable homes for children. Homosexual couples who want children tend to be more stable because they don't have surprise kids from unwanted pregnancies. Heterosexual couples are more likely to become unstable environments/broken homes because of surprise pregancies. Therefore, homosexual couples don't NEED the benefits the government gives via marriage to help stabilize the home for the children.
WTF? Completely ignoring the fact that not being married is a HUGE obstacle to adoption, or the fact that marriage is not solely granted to heterosexual broken homes.
Let alone the fact that being able to be married carries with it a social legitimacy that will make it more socially acceptable (and thus easier) for homosexual couples to adopt in general.
The state has an interest in having good, stable homes for children. Homosexual couples who want children tend to be more stable because they don't have surprise kids from unwanted pregnancies. Heterosexual couples are more likely to become unstable environments/broken homes because of surprise pregancies. Therefore, homosexual couples don't NEED the benefits the government gives via marriage to help stabilize the home for the children.
Yeah, I was scratching my head at that one. It didn't raise the ire alarm, though, because it was way too retarded. It's like getting mad at a guy who has Down's Syndrome. The stuff about the arbitrary line-drawing made me yell at the monitor.
Today I found out that my school, so called liberal and open minded, does not like students finding out about gay rights. However I am totally free to look at 2 girls 1 cup at school, or any porn related website I can find that is not gay porn, while all of the websites about sexual health are blocked. I am feeling rather confused about my school......... Proof: The pathetic nature of this situation is that as I am at school now, I can't render the screen grabs in my browser because they have the word gay in the header. FAIL. Do you think I should try and call my school administration out on this? Damn, I might be called gaywad.....
EDIT: With some creative file name editing, I have am now able to look at my images at school.
Yeah, they basically said, "this is rational, so the court could have rationally found it." Circular argument!
My favorite:
The state has an interest in having good, stable homes for children. Homosexual couples who want children tend to be more stable because they don't have surprise kids from unwanted pregnancies. Heterosexual couples are more likely to become unstable environments/broken homes because of surprise pregancies. Therefore, homosexual couples don't NEED the benefits the government gives via marriage to help stabilize the home for the children.
WTF? Completely ignoring the fact that not being married is a HUGE obstacle to adoption, or the fact that marriage is not solely granted to heterosexual broken homes.
Well you should decide A A is clearly the superior choice therefore B
*scratches head* These guys are out crafting politicans now.
Verizon. The coverage and service is good, but fuck their plans. They're stupid expensive, and the sales people rely on vague language and pushy sales practices to try and get you to buy shit you don't need. Two years from now we're dumping their asses.
Oh noes, you buy in the website man, don't go and talk to them! As much as I love to knock verizon for their price, and my Droid's service is silly expensive, but my phone works when I god damn need it to...even on Manhattan.
So, I have AT&T and a first gen iPhone, and I have yet to have a problem with reception. I also have reception in many places where Pete and my roommate (both on Verizon) do not have it, such as certain grocery stores. My phone works quite well when I need it to, so I don't understand all the hate. My phone has never failed to work on Manhattan except in the underground subways, where I wouldn't expect it to.
Of course, I also don't have a 3G phone, so I have experienced nothing in regards to that part of the service.
1 Section 1. The general business law is amended by adding a new section 2 399-bbb to read as follows: 3 S 399-BBB. PROHIBITION ON SALT; RESTAURANTS. 1. NO OWNER OR OPERATOR 4 OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARA- 5 TION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT, 6 INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAU- 7 RANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.
1 Section 1. The general business law is amended by adding a new section 2 399-bbb to read as follows: 3 S 399-BBB. PROHIBITION ON SALT; RESTAURANTS. 1. NO OWNER OR OPERATOR 4 OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARA- 5 TION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT, 6 INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAU- 7 RANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.
I hate everything right now.I kinda want this to pass, if only to see if any Salt Speakeasys start popping up.
1 Section 1. The general business law is amended by adding a new section 2 399-bbb to read as follows: 3 S 399-BBB. PROHIBITION ON SALT; RESTAURANTS. 1. NO OWNER OR OPERATOR 4 OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARA- 5 TION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT, 6 INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAU- 7 RANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.
I hate everything right now.
I kinda want this to pass, if only to see if any Salt Speakeasys start popping up. I'm sure everyone would ignore the law.
And you all mocked me when I stood up for the rights of soda drinkers. HAHAHAHA
Well, there's a huge difference between taxing soda and banning salt. Salt is a fundamental necessity in almost all cooking, and an essential nutrient. Soda, not so much. The problem is overconsumption of salt, but that is due, in part, to underseasoning of food during cooking. Salt added to food after cooking is less effective at flavor enhancement than salt used during cooking.
So yeah, this is a bad idea all around. Besides, what's to stop people from bringing salt shakers with them when they go out to eat?
Comments
I checked it and the power cable was ever so slightly loose so I pushed it in hard. I hope I'm not returning this again.
Edit: Hard drive is now making very loud, very rapid clicking noise..
Edit 2: Aaannnd.. is no longer recognized by the BIOS.
Edit 3: Desktop hard drive II, pronounced dead at 11:44 AM on Wednesday 10th of March 2010. Rotate in peace.
It, at least, had the dignity to crap out within the first two hours.
I disagree with the outcome, but if the reasoning was at least sound, I would be able to respect it. They took valid points and dismissed them in the most convoluted, stupid way possible.
EDIT: Here's one of my favorites. Really? I mean, really? What the fuck?Using what rationale? I'd love to hear it.
My favorite:
The state has an interest in having good, stable homes for children.
Homosexual couples who want children tend to be more stable because they don't have surprise kids from unwanted pregnancies.
Heterosexual couples are more likely to become unstable environments/broken homes because of surprise pregancies.
Therefore, homosexual couples don't NEED the benefits the government gives via marriage to help stabilize the home for the children.
WTF? Completely ignoring the fact that not being married is a HUGE obstacle to adoption, or the fact that marriage is not solely granted to heterosexual broken homes.
Proof:
The pathetic nature of this situation is that as I am at school now, I can't render the screen grabs in my browser because they have the word gay in the header. FAIL. Do you think I should try and call my school administration out on this? Damn, I might be called gaywad.....
EDIT: With some creative file name editing, I have am now able to look at my images at school.
Also be wared that school administrations can screw things up even more in an attempt to fix things.
A is clearly the superior choice
therefore B
*scratches head* These guys are out crafting politicans now. Oh noes, you buy in the website man, don't go and talk to them! As much as I love to knock verizon for their price, and my Droid's service is silly expensive, but my phone works when I god damn need it to...even on Manhattan.
Of course, I also don't have a 3G phone, so I have experienced nothing in regards to that part of the service.
I'm sure everyone would ignore the law.
So yeah, this is a bad idea all around. Besides, what's to stop people from bringing salt shakers with them when they go out to eat?