Daniel Kuehn recently wrote here about Ryan Murphy's reading of Thomas Kuhn, drawing from a couple passages in the scientist's groundbreaking work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Here I respond briefly to Murphy and then I launch into my own - and likely highly idiosyncratic - examination of Kuhn as I am in the process of reading him (for the reader's sake I have defined the break in topic). I wrote my personal response to Kuhn first, and my response to Ryan Murphy followed.
On the appearance of tautologies in the sciences, for Ryan Murphy
It may be useful to consider the immediate history of quantum investigation which provided the backdrop for Kuhn's work as a scientist. It is not clear to me that many in the Copenhagen School of quantum theory were preoccupied with a case for dividing universal and proximate explanations; they thought of themselves as practitioners of "hard science" and empiricists through and through. Neither is it clear (I went on this topic in more depth at a post on my blog) that they were convinced of a possible gap between achievable and unachievable explanations. If there is a distinction in that vein, I believe explanation may depend upon and correlate to the type of explanatory framework utilized - whether it be mainly based on empirical work or pure reasoning (if indeed Kuhn respects this distinction) may determine whether you can assert a result, and empiricism might be thought of as merely a more proximate kind of result.
Newton certainly respected the difference between the two. He thought that there may be a sound mechanism for creating gravity - if only God. While untestable by empirical methods, which Newton recognized, it is not necessarily a tautological explanation for gravity. What is interesting is that the reasoning process used to divine the Divine, for Newton coming to the conclusion that God might be behind gravity (I fear I am sorely abusing Newton's argument here) is a tautology or circular argument, but one which involves empirical evidence at a point in the chain. It would be a disservice to Newton to argue that he didn't understand that allusions to God or anything empirically unproven could be less than useful in science - he had a profound aversion to what he called "mere hypotheses."
The appearance of validity of this mode of inference, even given the logically formalized assertion of its invalidity (which appears in some sense, to me, arbitrary and limited to our own sphere of influence) which denies it, is an open question as far as I am aware.
I haven't read the whole paper yet, but Dr. Timothy McGrew makes some sound arguments here about the appearance of relativism in Kuhn's work. I haven't finished Kuhn either (via anthology) but it is fairly striking that Kuhn seems to admit no strong foundation for knowledge, and that is the basic observation from which most of the criticisms extend.
A personal response to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
What puzzles Ryan Murphy puzzles me as well. Kuhn's writing reminds me of how I often attack subjects - trying to delineate a problem by categorization, and finding implications for the shape of the enterprise in the relationships of parts, especially long historical passages.
I was aware when I was still very little that there was the appearance of a progression from one theory to another - I knew that there was something the ancients thought, then there was Galileo, then Newton, then Einstein, and now there were newer things still. Kuhn argues there is not a smooth progression here - he even says that in many respects Newton's laws may have retarded the course of science, albeit in practical and useful ways, along with ways that were perhaps not so. However, there are some distinct possibilities that I don't see Kuhn grasping with. One is that, as I thought when I was ten, maybe empirical knowledge would keep getting more finely and finely grained, as one answer suggests ten questions; the structure of truth ends up being like Descarte's atomism without voids, where increasingly smaller spheres fill the space between other spheres - more finely and finely grained "truths" to find add smaller and smaller refinements to the structure of a model. This is not a revolution. If true, Kuhn's process of revolutions would not necessarily hold more sway in a highly mature system, especially if the nature of the incremental and diminishing theoretical improvements became apparent.
Another possibility is that Newton's laws, or something much like them, are not merely a paradigm to be overthrown, but something actually useful as a starting point for a better approximation of the universe. (I interpret one of Quentin Smith's recent lecture points, in his "Religion and Cosmology" course, as suggesting that Newtonian physics with some modifications might better explain phenomena previously thought solely the province work by Einstein and since.)
In Kuhn's Introduction he writes of "normal science," which I take to be the process of trying to refine existing "paradigms" or the structure of science. He speaks, for example, of trying to box the facts into the paradigm - a classic complaint hailing back at least to Aristotle.
At this point he mentions two examples of signal events which usefully break from this paradigm - the refusal of a puzzle to be solved, or (this second is an area he seems to return to more often) the result of an experiment failing to match the known prediction.
The first area is worth more elaboration, whose implications Kuhn apparently does not treat to my satisfaction (at least in my cursory examination) when he concludes abruptly in this passage that "normal science often goes astray." I hope to see how he treats the following problem I pose later in his work: What happens when normal science does not go astray, but instead we have reached the end of theory and experiments? This scenario is suggested by his first signal event.
He leads us with this passage to expect that the theory or paradigm is wrong and that there is a further answer - in the history of scientific revolutions. However, since at least the 1930s, Kurt Godel's incompleteness proofs provide a basis for suggesting that it may well be impossible to prove all the axioms of a usefully complicated self-consistent system (i.e., a system of arithmetic, in Godel's proof), and for thinking that there may be created a theory as perfect as can be obtained. Improving it only requires some perspective not afforded us; i.e., a perspective outside our seat in the midst of dimensions, a perspective not reined in by limitations in the scale and energy of experiments that may be conducted, perhaps a perspective outside time and space.
Kuhn's method of inquiry is necessarily constrained by one's time period, and by the availability of a list of all the possibilities (Baconian inductivism). Kuhn was perhaps lead on by the remarkable history of science at the time he was an active participant. His time in quantum mechanics was exemplified by new discoveries in quantum events leading to refinements of quantum theory. Today, on the other hand, we have the unique distinction of wondering where to go for a falsifiable theory as the Higgs Boson appears to have been found - to the chagrin of many scientists (and science followers) hoping for the reconstruction of the theory of the universe. We have a mechanical "explanation," by one measure, of events (in the case of the Higgs boson, the particle contributing the small remainder of the mass of objects in the universe); by another, we do not have an understanding of the causes of those events. This is a point on which I understand Kuhn attracts criticism. (My discussion of Newton vis-a-vis Kuhn for Ryan Murphy explains this criticism above.)
I need to finish up the section before I can say much more. I am impressed (as always) by the thoughtfulness and general usefulness of Kuhn's writing. However, he appears to suppose some things which may not still be supportable. We are left with something with an appearance like Goodman's new riddle of induction: What if the facts only hold so far, until they are replaced abruptly by other facts?
Kuhn deals more or less directly and repeatedly with this theme, not so named, throughout the introduction and the first sections of his work. Instead of absolute facts changing, he treats relatively known facts, the hidden or "layered" complexity that unravels with closer and persistent scrutiny - not the actual values of the world changing. That will be my foremost question for the reading: How do you discern the two, and is this a fair point to make? I think that the application of the riddle can have some surprising consequences - not only might you say (as he does) that science only moves to a more useful analysis on the discovery of (absolutely or relatively) new facts and a closer-fitting paradigm, but you might also say that the appearance of a fact might be merely contingent on a fact - this is absurd and I think Kuhn treats it as such, but how then do we determine whether (as per Goodman's riddle) whether a fact is absolute or relative to our temporal (or some other) reference? This is merely another complication on top of that which I already mentioned, the lackuse of revolutions when the facts are actually known.
And, following Wittgenstein on helio- and geocentrism, how would the world have looked as if the progress of science was not by revolutions? Even more strongly than the appearance of the sun going around the earth (rather than otherwise), the appearance of scientific revolutions may be the product entirely of our historical perspective. On the other hand, why should the theoretical virtues and other methodological tools not share in this?
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Easy as pie: Upgrading a laptop hard drive
The problem: My laptop was running out of storage, and so it was time to swap out the standard Asus G2S-B2 drive, the Hitachi Deskstar 7K200 200GB - a good drive - with a larger one. Blow-by-blow with many parenthetical asides follows; you may wish to just skip to the very end for a quick digest of my findings.
It turns out the solution is as simple as using software from my drive's manufacturer, but I'll first go over some of the failed paths I took getting to that point. On one of my regular desktop computers, it was a simple process: Swap out the drive and reinstall the OS using the retail disc and copy any files over (or reinstall from the 'net). However, this laptop took me back into the wonderful world of preinstalled OSes, which I've studiously avoided since the early part of the decade (remember Best Buy's in-house brand VPR Matrix? Not only did they die, but one of the restore CDs they put in the package was corrupt). Humorously, I have two full Vista installation discs lying around, but neither was the correct version (Business, and even Ultimate 64-bit on DVD). These discs can be helpful for fixing a different version of Vista, but they didn't provide the needed solution. More on that later.
There are a variety of freeware (and pay-ware) programs which promise easy duplication of a hard drive's contents to a new drive, along with a bevy of other features. After some experimentation, it's true that a free drive cloning program can copy partitions just as quickly as non-free software - and provide some additional features to boot - but you likely still need more than one program to do the job to get a true copy of a disk that will boot the OS. However, you can still do it for free if you know where to look.
Some initial 'net searches led me to some well-regarded freeware programs, including EASEUS Partition Master Home Edition (as the name indicates, only free if you're a "non-commercial" user, whatever that means), and Driveimage XML (I also found a reference to another freeware package, but its URL has been absorbed by a domain squatter).
The preparation stage was like this: I bought the new drive - a 500GB Seagate Momentus 7200.4, which I think uses only two platters. It's fairly energy efficient, more so than even the 7K200 it replaces, while it's still a true performance drive; it doesn't seem to run quite as hot as the Hitachi. Cost per gigabyte (using the 1 billion bytes gigabyte, however) is 24 cents/per, while there is an anomalously-priced 320GB model (the 250GB model is the same price, $70 after a $10 drop compared to the 320's $5 drop) with a price of about 22 cents per; I could have gotten 140 extra billion bytes (across two drives) for the same price, but maximum capacity was important here. Secondly, to assist in transferring the data and to give myself a nice 180GB removable drive and backup, I picked up a cheap but sturdy and effective e-SATA enclosure from no-name brand Coolmax (keeping in mind you need to have an eSATA port on your laptop to use this, otherwise you're stuck with USB) in Hollywood starlet cigarette case yellow and silver (...for lack of a better image coming to mind). I'm actually very happy with it, though eSATA cable isn't flexible enough. Finally, I temporarily disabled Vista's UAC so I could access the Disk Management console and alter disk attributes easily (it's also worth noting that version 4.39 of the great SpeedFan software has vastly improved new S.M.A.R.T. disk monitoring, but it wouldn't show any disks until I disabled UAC.
Failure one: I got interested in the differences between MBR and GPT. MBR is allegedly obsolete, and can't deal with partitions over 2TB in size, but as my current disk was set up as MBR I couldn't copy the partitions to it, much less expect them to boot. The end. I sheepishly deleted the GPT formatting and started over with MBR.
Failure two: I'll spare all the details of the next failure, but suffice to say that copying the hidden restore partition, the boot drive (C:\), and the data partition (D:\, which computers preinstalled with Vista are starting to use to allow you to save your data if the OS becomes corrupted, which would have been a bit more useful in the days of Win9X and NT to XP) was not enough to make a boot drive. The drive letters were wrong (C became A, while D became B), which will doubtlessly confuse some software. Just as importantly, the all-important special attributes - System, Boot, Page File, and Crash Dump, seen in the Disk Management console (from the Run item in the Start Menu, type diskmgmt.msc) - could not be set. Microsoft obviously has an interest in not letting people set drives as boot at whim from within Windows (that reason is preventing piracy). I could set Primary and Active, as well as hide the backup partition, but I couldn't make the drive boot. The flashing cursor would appear after the BIOS logo/diagnostic screen, and there the PC would sit as long as I left it on, languishing without direction. No surprise there.
Failure two, Part two: Going off another online tip, I pulled out the Vista Business disk, set the BIOS to boot first from removable media (on a G2S-B2, that's Escape followed by F2, joy, and don't forget to turn the BIOS sound off, what the?), and used the "Repair your computer" option from the Vista installation (which appears on the second screen along with the installation option, immediately after you set your location). It did what I'd read it would, restarting a few times, but soon it started reporting that the installation looked fine - even though the system clearly still wasn't booting. Whoops! It wasn't setting the attributes (system, boot, et cetera - what I listed earlier) and so the drive still wasn't booting.
The solution: Ridiculously simple. Since I bought a Seagate drive, I had the option of using DiscWizard software from Acronis, a free download on Seagate's site. I can't say whether it ran faster than the freewares, but what's important is that it gave the drives the correct labels (C and D) and attributes. DiscWizard (why the c and not a k in the name, I wonder?) deleted the partitions I'd copied over earlier (which made me unhappy since it seemed unnecessary, but the software isn't meant to be that flexible) and made a true one-to-one copy.
Cleanup: I'm not ready to ditch all the freeware yet; I still need to resize the partitions to give myself more room on C:\ and D:\ and use the rest of the hard drive, of which more than half is still unpartitioned. EASEUS Partition Master Home Edition allows you to easily set the size of the partitions from a single view - a bit easier than doing it within Vista, which is certainly possible. The GUI looks a lot like Vista's Disk Management console, which is great, although I feel it's slightly better since the partitions are arranged in a traditional tree view which makes it more obvious that an entire disk can be selected (in Vista's console the entire disk is shown as a gray box, which isn't obviously selectable given the longstanding Windows design of gray items being unselectable).
GOOD:
Software: Seagate's DiscWizard, developed by drive tool manufacturers Acronis, is all you need to do a direct copy from one drive to another if you have a disk enclosure. Go get one; you'll like having a backup in case of emergencies, and even if you keep that other drive at home you'll still want that enclosure for the time savings (all you're paying for is basically a SATA to eSATA converter) of copying directly, automatically, from one drive to another. Don't worry about installing Bootable Media Builder or BartPE. Finally, you will likely need to extend the partitions on a larger drive, and I found EASEUS Partition Master Home Edition very useful.
Hardware: Seagate's Momentus 7200.4, and Coolmax's $13 HD-250YL eSATA enclosure.
BAD:
Freeware tools from independent, unaffiliated vendors and Windows' Disk Management console didn't seem able to make a drive the booting one, or copy C:\ to C:\ - not without using an intermediary drive or other removable media, which is a time and money waster. Go directly from one drive to another whenever you can.
Transferring a working OS installation from MBR to GPT seems impossible using automated tools; furthermore, GPT limits your choice of OS installations and requires an EFI "BIOS" (as GPT is EFI's replacement for MBR).
UGLY:
Any hard drive manufacturer who doesn't offer a free variant of DiscWizard (do these even exist) for their customers.
Clearly, manufacturers need to start supporting EFI, the replacement for the BIOS, before drives larger than 2TB start appearing or else people are going to start wondering why they have to partition their drives...and let's not get started on the "partitioning for speed" myth.
Don't forget to reactivate UAC!
It turns out the solution is as simple as using software from my drive's manufacturer, but I'll first go over some of the failed paths I took getting to that point. On one of my regular desktop computers, it was a simple process: Swap out the drive and reinstall the OS using the retail disc and copy any files over (or reinstall from the 'net). However, this laptop took me back into the wonderful world of preinstalled OSes, which I've studiously avoided since the early part of the decade (remember Best Buy's in-house brand VPR Matrix? Not only did they die, but one of the restore CDs they put in the package was corrupt). Humorously, I have two full Vista installation discs lying around, but neither was the correct version (Business, and even Ultimate 64-bit on DVD). These discs can be helpful for fixing a different version of Vista, but they didn't provide the needed solution. More on that later.
There are a variety of freeware (and pay-ware) programs which promise easy duplication of a hard drive's contents to a new drive, along with a bevy of other features. After some experimentation, it's true that a free drive cloning program can copy partitions just as quickly as non-free software - and provide some additional features to boot - but you likely still need more than one program to do the job to get a true copy of a disk that will boot the OS. However, you can still do it for free if you know where to look.
Some initial 'net searches led me to some well-regarded freeware programs, including EASEUS Partition Master Home Edition (as the name indicates, only free if you're a "non-commercial" user, whatever that means), and Driveimage XML (I also found a reference to another freeware package, but its URL has been absorbed by a domain squatter).
The preparation stage was like this: I bought the new drive - a 500GB Seagate Momentus 7200.4, which I think uses only two platters. It's fairly energy efficient, more so than even the 7K200 it replaces, while it's still a true performance drive; it doesn't seem to run quite as hot as the Hitachi. Cost per gigabyte (using the 1 billion bytes gigabyte, however) is 24 cents/per, while there is an anomalously-priced 320GB model (the 250GB model is the same price, $70 after a $10 drop compared to the 320's $5 drop) with a price of about 22 cents per; I could have gotten 140 extra billion bytes (across two drives) for the same price, but maximum capacity was important here. Secondly, to assist in transferring the data and to give myself a nice 180GB removable drive and backup, I picked up a cheap but sturdy and effective e-SATA enclosure from no-name brand Coolmax (keeping in mind you need to have an eSATA port on your laptop to use this, otherwise you're stuck with USB) in Hollywood starlet cigarette case yellow and silver (...for lack of a better image coming to mind). I'm actually very happy with it, though eSATA cable isn't flexible enough. Finally, I temporarily disabled Vista's UAC so I could access the Disk Management console and alter disk attributes easily (it's also worth noting that version 4.39 of the great SpeedFan software has vastly improved new S.M.A.R.T. disk monitoring, but it wouldn't show any disks until I disabled UAC.
Failure one: I got interested in the differences between MBR and GPT. MBR is allegedly obsolete, and can't deal with partitions over 2TB in size, but as my current disk was set up as MBR I couldn't copy the partitions to it, much less expect them to boot. The end. I sheepishly deleted the GPT formatting and started over with MBR.
Failure two: I'll spare all the details of the next failure, but suffice to say that copying the hidden restore partition, the boot drive (C:\), and the data partition (D:\, which computers preinstalled with Vista are starting to use to allow you to save your data if the OS becomes corrupted, which would have been a bit more useful in the days of Win9X and NT to XP) was not enough to make a boot drive. The drive letters were wrong (C became A, while D became B), which will doubtlessly confuse some software. Just as importantly, the all-important special attributes - System, Boot, Page File, and Crash Dump, seen in the Disk Management console (from the Run item in the Start Menu, type diskmgmt.msc) - could not be set. Microsoft obviously has an interest in not letting people set drives as boot at whim from within Windows (that reason is preventing piracy). I could set Primary and Active, as well as hide the backup partition, but I couldn't make the drive boot. The flashing cursor would appear after the BIOS logo/diagnostic screen, and there the PC would sit as long as I left it on, languishing without direction. No surprise there.
Failure two, Part two: Going off another online tip, I pulled out the Vista Business disk, set the BIOS to boot first from removable media (on a G2S-B2, that's Escape followed by F2, joy, and don't forget to turn the BIOS sound off, what the?), and used the "Repair your computer" option from the Vista installation (which appears on the second screen along with the installation option, immediately after you set your location). It did what I'd read it would, restarting a few times, but soon it started reporting that the installation looked fine - even though the system clearly still wasn't booting. Whoops! It wasn't setting the attributes (system, boot, et cetera - what I listed earlier) and so the drive still wasn't booting.
The solution: Ridiculously simple. Since I bought a Seagate drive, I had the option of using DiscWizard software from Acronis, a free download on Seagate's site. I can't say whether it ran faster than the freewares, but what's important is that it gave the drives the correct labels (C and D) and attributes. DiscWizard (why the c and not a k in the name, I wonder?) deleted the partitions I'd copied over earlier (which made me unhappy since it seemed unnecessary, but the software isn't meant to be that flexible) and made a true one-to-one copy.
Cleanup: I'm not ready to ditch all the freeware yet; I still need to resize the partitions to give myself more room on C:\ and D:\ and use the rest of the hard drive, of which more than half is still unpartitioned. EASEUS Partition Master Home Edition allows you to easily set the size of the partitions from a single view - a bit easier than doing it within Vista, which is certainly possible. The GUI looks a lot like Vista's Disk Management console, which is great, although I feel it's slightly better since the partitions are arranged in a traditional tree view which makes it more obvious that an entire disk can be selected (in Vista's console the entire disk is shown as a gray box, which isn't obviously selectable given the longstanding Windows design of gray items being unselectable).
GOOD:
Software: Seagate's DiscWizard, developed by drive tool manufacturers Acronis, is all you need to do a direct copy from one drive to another if you have a disk enclosure. Go get one; you'll like having a backup in case of emergencies, and even if you keep that other drive at home you'll still want that enclosure for the time savings (all you're paying for is basically a SATA to eSATA converter) of copying directly, automatically, from one drive to another. Don't worry about installing Bootable Media Builder or BartPE. Finally, you will likely need to extend the partitions on a larger drive, and I found EASEUS Partition Master Home Edition very useful.
Hardware: Seagate's Momentus 7200.4, and Coolmax's $13 HD-250YL eSATA enclosure.
BAD:
Freeware tools from independent, unaffiliated vendors and Windows' Disk Management console didn't seem able to make a drive the booting one, or copy C:\ to C:\ - not without using an intermediary drive or other removable media, which is a time and money waster. Go directly from one drive to another whenever you can.
Transferring a working OS installation from MBR to GPT seems impossible using automated tools; furthermore, GPT limits your choice of OS installations and requires an EFI "BIOS" (as GPT is EFI's replacement for MBR).
UGLY:
Any hard drive manufacturer who doesn't offer a free variant of DiscWizard (do these even exist) for their customers.
Clearly, manufacturers need to start supporting EFI, the replacement for the BIOS, before drives larger than 2TB start appearing or else people are going to start wondering why they have to partition their drives...and let's not get started on the "partitioning for speed" myth.
Don't forget to reactivate UAC!
Monday, June 15, 2009
Canon T1i memory card choices from SanDisk
The (unofficial) Canon T1i Blog has a recent post regarding SDHC memory cards for the Canon T1i. Unfortunately, it lacks an indepth analysis; a point about card capacity can be misleading (they quoted large JPEGs, but not RAW shooting which will be of interest to the dedicated amateur). In this blog post I'll attempt to answer the question: Between rated speed and capacity, which is more important?
First the good news: The blog recommends the 20 MByte/sec SDHC Class 6 Extreme III 8 GB cards, which give a decent price to performance ratio, with a focus on maximum capacity, i.e., being able to store double the shots of a 4GB model. You could certainly do worse than shoot with those cards. However, they're slightly more expensive than my option, and you may not use all the space in any trip, which would cancel out the reason for buying the larger cards (keep in mind that, unlike lenses, memory cards are not a long-term investment).
The bad news: The blogger doesn't mention the rebates currently available. Adorama.com provides a PDF download on their site to mail in with barcodes from the packages of their three-packs, shaving nearly half the price off the two deals I'm going to look at. Of course, you don't need to buy from them if you don't want to; the rebate lists other qualifying e-tailers.
The ugly: There's more to consider than simply "bigger is better;" what's important to the photographer. Furthermore, simply pushing Class 6 without noticing the huge differences (advertised, not tested!) in data rate is giving incomplete guidance; yep, Extreme III is no guarantee of the best speed. No worries though: Here is...the rest of the story.
When I went to get SDHC cards for my own T1i, I wanted to balance speed and capacity against price. Speed is a priority for the movie mode (slow cards fill the camera's buffer, and when that's full, video recording ends until it's saved to the card) - a mode which, so far, I've not needed to use; instead, I've noticed the speed pays off when previewing pictures still on the camera body - it's fast enough that I can easily separate good shots from the bad, and delete them right off the camera. In fact, turning on the camera and getting Windows to recognize it is by far the longest part of the deal (and even that's just a few seconds).
How many shots can I take with a 4GB card?
Let's clear up a minor point of contention from that blog. Their quoted figure of 600 shots is just for the largest-size high quality JPEGs. This is good for most purposes, but if you want to print your photos, or do fancy stuff like correcting chromatic abberation introduced by your cheap-o 18-55mm EF-S kit lens, you'll want RAW.
The T1i estimates you'll get 127 shots in RAW + high quality JPEG mode with a factory-fresh SanDisk 4GB SDHC Class 6 Extreme III; the T1i manual estimates you'll get about 18 minutes of video (I believe that's the 720p HD mode, but don't quote me on it). Switching the camera to RAW only gives 163 shots estimated. We're talking about 15 Mbytes for RAW shooting (4752x3168), and about (this next figure is based off my own shooting experience) 20 Mbytes for RAW + high quality JPEG shots. The JPEGs I've found to be between 4 and 5 Mbytes; the RAWs account for the rest.
The "ultimate" SDHC Class 6 card would be an 8GB (or larger) Extreme III 30 MB/sec edition (recognizable by its red label, as opposed to the 20 MByte/sec version's flat shades), but that will cost you an arm and a leg. If you need that card, you certainly aren't in need of my guidance; you'll be making use of every last shot and still swapping cards, and using the fast speed to save time transferring their pictures to the PC (of course, users that need the space are probably using cameras that can use the larger, physically and bit-wise, Compact Flash format - which SanDisk feels already warrants an "Extreme IV" label, giving it a bump up from SDHC and it's not more expensive either; but it won't fit in the T1i we're discussing today, nor many of its cousins).
For the average user, paying as much for memory cards (which are quickly superceded by better, faster models) as for lenses makes no sense.
Pricing breakdown: How many dollars per gigabyte?
I wanted three cards (more on that at the end; see Conclusion). Here's the pricing off Adorama's Camera, with the rebates factored in (the rebates are linear, i.e. buying three cards gives you three rebates, and they can be stacked for each card):
SDHC Class 6 Extreme III, three 8 GB cards, 20 MByte/sec
99.95 / 24
4.16 dollars / gigabyte (24 gigabytes)
SDHC Class 6 Extreme III, three 4 GB cards, 30 MByte/sec
74.95 / 12 GB
6.25 dollars / gigabyte (12 gigabytes)
We're getting closer to the conclusion, don't worry! In terms of a straightforward dollar / gigabyte ratio, sure, the 20 MByte/second version wins. However, you see that your unit cost is lower; this holds for the three-pack by $15. Not gonna break the bank, but consider that the 12 GB cards are also faster than the 20 MByte/second ones, which are only 2/3 the speed of the 30 MByte/second cards.
Factor in that speed, and the price evens out.
Factor in a realistic working environment
Well, that's a bit messy. I haven't tried out the movie mode, which could be the definitive point - but I can say that the 30 MB/second edition will soak in data faster than the 20 MByte/sec cards can, so at best it doesn't change my analysis for the 20 MByte/sec edition. At worst, the 20 MByte/sec edition could prove too slow for shooting continuous videos.
What I can say is that 12 GB has proven enough for days of experimental shooting for me - I haven't even touched the final card. In a situation where I had to shoot a lot of pictures and didn't have quick access to a PC, I'd be very happy for all three cards. All things being equal, the double capacity of the 8 GB cards would finish this contest off. But the market has pushed the price of the 4GB cards down considerably; it's $15 less out of your pocket (after the rebate) and they're faster. This extra speed is very handy for a faster workflow.
Depending on your personal computer, you'll probably find that 20 MByte/sec is already fast enough for you - theoretically it'll load up those previews on your computer quicker than anything you're used to. If you're using a USB to miniUSB cable and USB 2.0 slots, you'll find that the data connection is wide enough (at 60 Mbytes/sec) not to be a bottleneck, and on a good computer they'll probably load at just about one second. I find that the 30 MByte/second card pause for loading the 5MB full-resolution JPEGs is just short enough to avoid being an annoyance. It lets me quick-flip between pictures and compare them - although the better practice would be to load each preview into its own separate window (i.e. Irfanview versus Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, Windows XP's image "preview" application).
Of course, all bets are off if you have a terrible old PC. On a 1.7 GHz Celeron with 1GB of RAM, it takes many seconds to load previews (and they're less easily flipped through as well).
Conclusion
Ultimately, I'm glad I paid less in total for the 4 GByte cards, and it's nice that they're faster. But smart workflow procedures (namely, loading each preview into its own window, and putting pictures onto a semi-modern hard drive for detailed work) should remove the speed advantage of the 30 GByte-second format for all purposes but possibly file transfers (2/3 speed is not likely to break your patience) and possibly movie shooting.
The question you need to ask, then, is: Am I going to need more than 127 pictures on each card? Answering that question will point you towards the answer.
Of course, if you're shooting lower-quality or lower-resolution shots, or not using RAW, by all means go with what's cheapest since shooting just the large, high-quality JPEGs will give you 600 shots, and the hobbyist shooter is not likely to need more than that. The T1i isn't fast enough in burst shooting to use that much quickly.
You could play a game of "egg consolidation" (all the eggs in fewer baskets) by going for two 20 MByte/sec cards, and you'd be saving money over my choice while still having 4GB more space, but I liked the three-card bundle better because the extra space wasn't really necessary. Turns out that's about exactly the right amount of storage for me - 3 cards will span me roughly three days of normal project shoots, and would do me well for one long, very tiring day-long shoot, something like being at the best theme park in the world (your choice; I'll pass, personally) from sunup to sundown.
If you're generally tethered to your home and just use a camera for short nature walks and local excursions, you might get by with just two cards if you want a baseline level of redundancy to avoid being unable to shoot for a while if one goes bad. You can invest the savings towards getting an efficient three-platter 1-terabyte hard drive! Even the savings from one card will cover a significant part of such an expense.
A final note about monitor resolution
Without consciously dividing the resolution, I noticed my 1600x1200 monitor shows roughly 1/9 of the photo when zoomed in all the way (and indeed it does, as the images are 4752x3168), so I can use the elevator scroll bars as if they only had three positions each and not miss any of the picture - in fact there's a little overlap which roughly covers for the loss to the Windows Taskbar and title bars. Nice! For this camera, that is the minimum monitor resolution you should be working on (caveats about lower DPI to save your eyes apply, however; I'm looking at roughly a 21" monitor size). Of course, 1920x1200 is the future, but that's another blog post, isn't it?
First the good news: The blog recommends the 20 MByte/sec SDHC Class 6 Extreme III 8 GB cards, which give a decent price to performance ratio, with a focus on maximum capacity, i.e., being able to store double the shots of a 4GB model. You could certainly do worse than shoot with those cards. However, they're slightly more expensive than my option, and you may not use all the space in any trip, which would cancel out the reason for buying the larger cards (keep in mind that, unlike lenses, memory cards are not a long-term investment).
The bad news: The blogger doesn't mention the rebates currently available. Adorama.com provides a PDF download on their site to mail in with barcodes from the packages of their three-packs, shaving nearly half the price off the two deals I'm going to look at. Of course, you don't need to buy from them if you don't want to; the rebate lists other qualifying e-tailers.
The ugly: There's more to consider than simply "bigger is better;" what's important to the photographer. Furthermore, simply pushing Class 6 without noticing the huge differences (advertised, not tested!) in data rate is giving incomplete guidance; yep, Extreme III is no guarantee of the best speed. No worries though: Here is...the rest of the story.
When I went to get SDHC cards for my own T1i, I wanted to balance speed and capacity against price. Speed is a priority for the movie mode (slow cards fill the camera's buffer, and when that's full, video recording ends until it's saved to the card) - a mode which, so far, I've not needed to use; instead, I've noticed the speed pays off when previewing pictures still on the camera body - it's fast enough that I can easily separate good shots from the bad, and delete them right off the camera. In fact, turning on the camera and getting Windows to recognize it is by far the longest part of the deal (and even that's just a few seconds).
How many shots can I take with a 4GB card?
Let's clear up a minor point of contention from that blog. Their quoted figure of 600 shots is just for the largest-size high quality JPEGs. This is good for most purposes, but if you want to print your photos, or do fancy stuff like correcting chromatic abberation introduced by your cheap-o 18-55mm EF-S kit lens, you'll want RAW.
The T1i estimates you'll get 127 shots in RAW + high quality JPEG mode with a factory-fresh SanDisk 4GB SDHC Class 6 Extreme III; the T1i manual estimates you'll get about 18 minutes of video (I believe that's the 720p HD mode, but don't quote me on it). Switching the camera to RAW only gives 163 shots estimated. We're talking about 15 Mbytes for RAW shooting (4752x3168), and about (this next figure is based off my own shooting experience) 20 Mbytes for RAW + high quality JPEG shots. The JPEGs I've found to be between 4 and 5 Mbytes; the RAWs account for the rest.
The "ultimate" SDHC Class 6 card would be an 8GB (or larger) Extreme III 30 MB/sec edition (recognizable by its red label, as opposed to the 20 MByte/sec version's flat shades), but that will cost you an arm and a leg. If you need that card, you certainly aren't in need of my guidance; you'll be making use of every last shot and still swapping cards, and using the fast speed to save time transferring their pictures to the PC (of course, users that need the space are probably using cameras that can use the larger, physically and bit-wise, Compact Flash format - which SanDisk feels already warrants an "Extreme IV" label, giving it a bump up from SDHC and it's not more expensive either; but it won't fit in the T1i we're discussing today, nor many of its cousins).
For the average user, paying as much for memory cards (which are quickly superceded by better, faster models) as for lenses makes no sense.
Pricing breakdown: How many dollars per gigabyte?
I wanted three cards (more on that at the end; see Conclusion). Here's the pricing off Adorama's Camera, with the rebates factored in (the rebates are linear, i.e. buying three cards gives you three rebates, and they can be stacked for each card):
SDHC Class 6 Extreme III, three 8 GB cards, 20 MByte/sec
99.95 / 24
4.16 dollars / gigabyte (24 gigabytes)
SDHC Class 6 Extreme III, three 4 GB cards, 30 MByte/sec
74.95 / 12 GB
6.25 dollars / gigabyte (12 gigabytes)
We're getting closer to the conclusion, don't worry! In terms of a straightforward dollar / gigabyte ratio, sure, the 20 MByte/second version wins. However, you see that your unit cost is lower; this holds for the three-pack by $15. Not gonna break the bank, but consider that the 12 GB cards are also faster than the 20 MByte/second ones, which are only 2/3 the speed of the 30 MByte/second cards.
Factor in that speed, and the price evens out.
Factor in a realistic working environment
Well, that's a bit messy. I haven't tried out the movie mode, which could be the definitive point - but I can say that the 30 MB/second edition will soak in data faster than the 20 MByte/sec cards can, so at best it doesn't change my analysis for the 20 MByte/sec edition. At worst, the 20 MByte/sec edition could prove too slow for shooting continuous videos.
What I can say is that 12 GB has proven enough for days of experimental shooting for me - I haven't even touched the final card. In a situation where I had to shoot a lot of pictures and didn't have quick access to a PC, I'd be very happy for all three cards. All things being equal, the double capacity of the 8 GB cards would finish this contest off. But the market has pushed the price of the 4GB cards down considerably; it's $15 less out of your pocket (after the rebate) and they're faster. This extra speed is very handy for a faster workflow.
Depending on your personal computer, you'll probably find that 20 MByte/sec is already fast enough for you - theoretically it'll load up those previews on your computer quicker than anything you're used to. If you're using a USB to miniUSB cable and USB 2.0 slots, you'll find that the data connection is wide enough (at 60 Mbytes/sec) not to be a bottleneck, and on a good computer they'll probably load at just about one second. I find that the 30 MByte/second card pause for loading the 5MB full-resolution JPEGs is just short enough to avoid being an annoyance. It lets me quick-flip between pictures and compare them - although the better practice would be to load each preview into its own separate window (i.e. Irfanview versus Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, Windows XP's image "preview" application).
Of course, all bets are off if you have a terrible old PC. On a 1.7 GHz Celeron with 1GB of RAM, it takes many seconds to load previews (and they're less easily flipped through as well).
Conclusion
Ultimately, I'm glad I paid less in total for the 4 GByte cards, and it's nice that they're faster. But smart workflow procedures (namely, loading each preview into its own window, and putting pictures onto a semi-modern hard drive for detailed work) should remove the speed advantage of the 30 GByte-second format for all purposes but possibly file transfers (2/3 speed is not likely to break your patience) and possibly movie shooting.
The question you need to ask, then, is: Am I going to need more than 127 pictures on each card? Answering that question will point you towards the answer.
Of course, if you're shooting lower-quality or lower-resolution shots, or not using RAW, by all means go with what's cheapest since shooting just the large, high-quality JPEGs will give you 600 shots, and the hobbyist shooter is not likely to need more than that. The T1i isn't fast enough in burst shooting to use that much quickly.
You could play a game of "egg consolidation" (all the eggs in fewer baskets) by going for two 20 MByte/sec cards, and you'd be saving money over my choice while still having 4GB more space, but I liked the three-card bundle better because the extra space wasn't really necessary. Turns out that's about exactly the right amount of storage for me - 3 cards will span me roughly three days of normal project shoots, and would do me well for one long, very tiring day-long shoot, something like being at the best theme park in the world (your choice; I'll pass, personally) from sunup to sundown.
If you're generally tethered to your home and just use a camera for short nature walks and local excursions, you might get by with just two cards if you want a baseline level of redundancy to avoid being unable to shoot for a while if one goes bad. You can invest the savings towards getting an efficient three-platter 1-terabyte hard drive! Even the savings from one card will cover a significant part of such an expense.
A final note about monitor resolution
Without consciously dividing the resolution, I noticed my 1600x1200 monitor shows roughly 1/9 of the photo when zoomed in all the way (and indeed it does, as the images are 4752x3168), so I can use the elevator scroll bars as if they only had three positions each and not miss any of the picture - in fact there's a little overlap which roughly covers for the loss to the Windows Taskbar and title bars. Nice! For this camera, that is the minimum monitor resolution you should be working on (caveats about lower DPI to save your eyes apply, however; I'm looking at roughly a 21" monitor size). Of course, 1920x1200 is the future, but that's another blog post, isn't it?
Friday, May 1, 2009
The after-show party
No more photos yet - for that I apologize. Read to the bottom for the reason why (or just consider it's 1:23 AM locally; 4:23 my home time).
At the party: Lots of noise but a fair number of the cast members. I thought they had us driving into a warehouse - just an open-air affair with some gas lamps for heat here and there. I saw the big dude (Hugo?) from Lost as we were getting ready to make a u-turn for leaving the car off at valet parking, and I'd see him a few more times before we were done. No Mrs. Nimoy or Sulu, but I saw Walter Koenig a few times in the area with a roof. A couple of the new Trek core cast members (Sulu, possibly Scotty) seemed to be hanging out in the center of the outdoors area.
Obviously, I have a ton of photos to go through sometime. After a pretty relentless movie (I was thinking, while watching the film, that the video game adaptation couldn't possibly keep up the pace), and then a big party.
Big dang speakers all over the place, with a deejay up on a platform happily banging away. I caught some bass-heavy remixes of Corey Hart's "Sunglasses at Night" and "You Turn Me Right Round."
The big attraction, aside from rubbing elbows (hah) with cast members (who I didn't even want to bother with a flash) was the photo booth. Basically dress-up with toy blasters and flip-open tricorders and such - made in China with copyright dates of 2009. I think people were picking up early samples of the mass-market toys we'll be seeing for the movie.
You can check out pictures of the photos (many starring celebrities!) here:
www.politeinpublic.com/star-trek/premiere/
Can you figure out which one is mine?
On the way out, they were passing out collectable glasses: Uhura, Spock, Kirk, and the bad guy. Almost took the bad guy's glass because they didn't seem to have passed out any, but the guy at the table said they'd just restocked. What the hell, I took Kirk's glass. I'll definitely be arranging for some stuff to be shipped home from our next hotel: glass, four popcorn buckets (heh), and various other stuff.
I almost forgot to mention they had three people in suits: the Burger King as a Klingon (!)
Next time, I'll try to finally get some more pictures up. I'm afraid browsing through a bunch of blurry no-flash compact camera pictures at this hour will provoke a little twinge in my left brow into a full-on headache.
(Edit 6/16/09: added tags)
At the party: Lots of noise but a fair number of the cast members. I thought they had us driving into a warehouse - just an open-air affair with some gas lamps for heat here and there. I saw the big dude (Hugo?) from Lost as we were getting ready to make a u-turn for leaving the car off at valet parking, and I'd see him a few more times before we were done. No Mrs. Nimoy or Sulu, but I saw Walter Koenig a few times in the area with a roof. A couple of the new Trek core cast members (Sulu, possibly Scotty) seemed to be hanging out in the center of the outdoors area.
Obviously, I have a ton of photos to go through sometime. After a pretty relentless movie (I was thinking, while watching the film, that the video game adaptation couldn't possibly keep up the pace), and then a big party.
Big dang speakers all over the place, with a deejay up on a platform happily banging away. I caught some bass-heavy remixes of Corey Hart's "Sunglasses at Night" and "You Turn Me Right Round."
The big attraction, aside from rubbing elbows (hah) with cast members (who I didn't even want to bother with a flash) was the photo booth. Basically dress-up with toy blasters and flip-open tricorders and such - made in China with copyright dates of 2009. I think people were picking up early samples of the mass-market toys we'll be seeing for the movie.
You can check out pictures of the photos (many starring celebrities!) here:
www.politeinpublic.com/star-trek/premiere/
Can you figure out which one is mine?
On the way out, they were passing out collectable glasses: Uhura, Spock, Kirk, and the bad guy. Almost took the bad guy's glass because they didn't seem to have passed out any, but the guy at the table said they'd just restocked. What the hell, I took Kirk's glass. I'll definitely be arranging for some stuff to be shipped home from our next hotel: glass, four popcorn buckets (heh), and various other stuff.
I almost forgot to mention they had three people in suits: the Burger King as a Klingon (!)
Next time, I'll try to finally get some more pictures up. I'm afraid browsing through a bunch of blurry no-flash compact camera pictures at this hour will provoke a little twinge in my left brow into a full-on headache.
(Edit 6/16/09: added tags)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
I just got out of the movie.
The last time I saw an advance screening of a film was in advance of the summer '02 blockbuster - Spiderman. That was definitely a cool movie, and I remember the cheer during the "messing with New York" scene.
The viewing crowd was clapping and cheering at least five times during this movie - loudly. I don't know how they did it - sheer length perhaps (I believe we got out at 10 PM, and they started at 7:30 - after maybe ten minutes of speeches, a very flat one by some Paramount exec, and then J.J. Abrams who gave a somewhat less flat one), but it didn't feel long at all - but this movie seems to be packed past the gills with action. Maybe twice as much action, and they managed to add in the contemplative moments as well.
Without spoiling everything (yet - I'll try to give as close to a scene-by-scene synopsis as I can), here's how I felt.
They start the thing off with backstory sequences - Kirk's dad is killed by a strange ship sporting unknown and advanced weapons; Kirk and Spock as kids; Captain Pike convinces a young, underachieving Kirk into Starfleet after a bar brawl that I thought would end with a knife in Kirk's heart (wrong Trek captain). "It's yours," Kirk says as he flips the keys to his motorbike to a Starfleet shuttle attendant in Iowa. Scenes in Starfleet - more character building, Kirk with Uhura's green-skinned Orion dormmate. The Kobayashi Maru scenario, ending with an expulsion hearing that gets interrupted by a distress call from Vulcan and the immediate mobilization of the whole class of cadets.
There were points, up to this part, that struck me as pretty cheesy. Indeed, they continue throughout the movie, but with the action in this thing they later become punchlines and gasps of air between sequences in what is the most relentless film I've seen in a long while.
This is certainly a Trek movie for a new generation, and so for that reason it wouldn't feel right calling it the best Trek (anything) yet. I remember watching the "Why does God need a starship" scene as a kid fondly, however; the overall effect of the film is to challenge even the Trek expert into noticing the nods to what is actually an alternate history of Trek in a highly enjoyable way - while presenting a film with a hell of a kick. Lots of kicks, sustained.
Good grief. After-party next and then I suppose I'll go have a heart attack. I'll have to see if any of my pictures came out (no surrepetitious filming of the movie screen here, sorry!)
(Edit 6/16/09: added tags)
The last time I saw an advance screening of a film was in advance of the summer '02 blockbuster - Spiderman. That was definitely a cool movie, and I remember the cheer during the "messing with New York" scene.
The viewing crowd was clapping and cheering at least five times during this movie - loudly. I don't know how they did it - sheer length perhaps (I believe we got out at 10 PM, and they started at 7:30 - after maybe ten minutes of speeches, a very flat one by some Paramount exec, and then J.J. Abrams who gave a somewhat less flat one), but it didn't feel long at all - but this movie seems to be packed past the gills with action. Maybe twice as much action, and they managed to add in the contemplative moments as well.
Without spoiling everything (yet - I'll try to give as close to a scene-by-scene synopsis as I can), here's how I felt.
They start the thing off with backstory sequences - Kirk's dad is killed by a strange ship sporting unknown and advanced weapons; Kirk and Spock as kids; Captain Pike convinces a young, underachieving Kirk into Starfleet after a bar brawl that I thought would end with a knife in Kirk's heart (wrong Trek captain). "It's yours," Kirk says as he flips the keys to his motorbike to a Starfleet shuttle attendant in Iowa. Scenes in Starfleet - more character building, Kirk with Uhura's green-skinned Orion dormmate. The Kobayashi Maru scenario, ending with an expulsion hearing that gets interrupted by a distress call from Vulcan and the immediate mobilization of the whole class of cadets.
There were points, up to this part, that struck me as pretty cheesy. Indeed, they continue throughout the movie, but with the action in this thing they later become punchlines and gasps of air between sequences in what is the most relentless film I've seen in a long while.
This is certainly a Trek movie for a new generation, and so for that reason it wouldn't feel right calling it the best Trek (anything) yet. I remember watching the "Why does God need a starship" scene as a kid fondly, however; the overall effect of the film is to challenge even the Trek expert into noticing the nods to what is actually an alternate history of Trek in a highly enjoyable way - while presenting a film with a hell of a kick. Lots of kicks, sustained.
Good grief. After-party next and then I suppose I'll go have a heart attack. I'll have to see if any of my pictures came out (no surrepetitious filming of the movie screen here, sorry!)
(Edit 6/16/09: added tags)
Star Trek premiere in Los Angeles: Buildup
The Star Trek movie premiere will be at 7:00 PST. I'll be here. I've been taking photos as often as possible. Here's a little sampling of the photos I've come up with so far.
First, the mandatory "look, the Hollywood(land) sign" image, made ugly through the power of a Olympus subcompact camera. This is taken from the approach to Griffith Observatory in the hills of Griffith Park, east and slightly north of the center of Hollywood. The Star Trek Voyager (oh boy) episode "Future's End" was filmed here (that's the one from the 90s, and so that's all I can tell you). I left the hills in the front to give some impression of the semi-desert area you see in "Shore Leave" and some of the other original Trek episodes; turns out that wasn't filmed here.
Inside the Observatory is the "Leonard Nimoy Event Horizon Theater," which is showing something or other. Watched something else in the main planetarium instead - their system is definitely state of the art with full-color graphics over the dome, a star sphere, and individually tracked points (like planets) all at the same time. The show had water in the title, but the tickets
they printed off read "Centered in the Universe," which was showing later.
Here's an ABC News van careening into the blocked-off area in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater. See the "ELT" in the distance on the left, near the very top of the frame? That's the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. My room's window looks out from the other side - same street, but not towards the theater.
I heard the security people out there right now are misdirecting people into a coffee shop for the roll call tickets. Roll call for tickets starts at 5:45, but I'll be down there at 5:30 just to avoid a gigantic crush for tickets.
The last three pics are from the corner Roosevelt is sitting on - directly under the Roosevelt in the ABC Truck picture, looking towards the viewer. Workers setting up some walls - possibly some music event that seems unrelated to the actual premiere.
Check this space after the premiere (and I guess the following party - ?) for my impressions of the movie, if I can stay awake long enough to post 'em.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Wikipedia
Some of Wikipedia's finest writing and reporting appears in the Wikipedia Signpost, which I find myself reading with some frequency in between Daikatana play sessions - in spite of my better judgment. There is a void in every person's soul which must be constantly filled with a steady stream of gossip and minutiae. Logically speaking, it seems amusing to write this mundane tendency off as a "survival trait" when the result - sitting in one's overstuffed (or, in my case, blood flow-restricting) computer chair for excessive amounts of time.
You can imagine, then, that I drew in a sharp breath when my computer-weakened corneas fixed on the following statement in the latest Signpost:
"Admin Jiang ... was indefinitely blocked and desysopped after deleting the main page. Jiang admitted on his user talk page that his password was "fuckyou", which is one of the most commonly used passwords."
In the computer world, loss of the virtual self is tantamount to death. Writing sentences like this is tantamount to taking out shares in Freud, LLC (currently trading for pennies over the counter). Ah, where was I going with this? Too blasted late to think straight. That's rare for me; usually my mysterious statements are conscious experiments in surrealism.
Definitely rethink having "fuckyou" as a password.
I've got a bit on my mind. Big eBay auction about to expire. Need to look up a real college to attend (or at least a more realer one than I'm at now). Gotta get some small CFL bulbs for my ceiling lamp. Tomorrow, I'm going to be sitting in on a presentation to provide emergency tech help on a power point if so needed (yes, I should have written up some information on my volunteer work for this summer, but that's alright; next time!) Thinking still about the FBI and Peltier. Got my good computer working again - no idea what the problem was, although I've now connected the fan. Didn't realize that the PSU (power supply) I replaced was a 500 Watt Seasonic (with an Antec Truepower Trio capable of pushing out 550W, which loses all sorts of cool points for being a Best Buy purchase - I will say that it at least shouldn't be less efficient than the Seasonic; both are marketed as being "up to 85% efficient") until today when I glanced at the box - I had thought that I went with a 430W model again. I should offer to replace somebody's 430W PSU with that one, then (I'm not about to switch back to the Seasonic because the wires are messier than in the Antec, which I have bundled up just the way I like).
You can imagine, then, that I drew in a sharp breath when my computer-weakened corneas fixed on the following statement in the latest Signpost:
"Admin Jiang ... was indefinitely blocked and desysopped after deleting the main page. Jiang admitted on his user talk page that his password was "fuckyou", which is one of the most commonly used passwords."
In the computer world, loss of the virtual self is tantamount to death. Writing sentences like this is tantamount to taking out shares in Freud, LLC (currently trading for pennies over the counter). Ah, where was I going with this? Too blasted late to think straight. That's rare for me; usually my mysterious statements are conscious experiments in surrealism.
Definitely rethink having "fuckyou" as a password.
I've got a bit on my mind. Big eBay auction about to expire. Need to look up a real college to attend (or at least a more realer one than I'm at now). Gotta get some small CFL bulbs for my ceiling lamp. Tomorrow, I'm going to be sitting in on a presentation to provide emergency tech help on a power point if so needed (yes, I should have written up some information on my volunteer work for this summer, but that's alright; next time!) Thinking still about the FBI and Peltier. Got my good computer working again - no idea what the problem was, although I've now connected the fan. Didn't realize that the PSU (power supply) I replaced was a 500 Watt Seasonic (with an Antec Truepower Trio capable of pushing out 550W, which loses all sorts of cool points for being a Best Buy purchase - I will say that it at least shouldn't be less efficient than the Seasonic; both are marketed as being "up to 85% efficient") until today when I glanced at the box - I had thought that I went with a 430W model again. I should offer to replace somebody's 430W PSU with that one, then (I'm not about to switch back to the Seasonic because the wires are messier than in the Antec, which I have bundled up just the way I like).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)