Curse of the Day:
¤ May you possess an itchy trigger finger.  Metaphorically speaking.

When we tried to do the normal upgrade install in the #2 machine, it works perfectly until it actually restarts and begins to write to the C drive, at which point it says that C has a fatal read problem, and the install is aborted.  It says the same thing when we try to do a full install, or even when we try to reformat the C drive via the WinXP set up interface.

Of course the C drive is working perfectly, running the computer with the failing install of Win98 that's been on it for years, and was just defraged and error scanned Friday Night.

I had a spare 3rd hard drive in this machine, one that I just used for file back ups.  I can live without it though, so I put it into the old tower and we tried to install XP to it.  Got the same error about the C drive being corrupt.  Why the C drive being corrupt or innocent should matter when we're trying to install an OS from a CD-Rom to the D drive is a question I can no answer.

And no, it's not possible to just hook up the D drive as the new C drive, since D has no working OS on it, and the machine won't boot since the XP we got is the upgrade version, and won't work as a boot disk to power a full format and install of a blank HD.  I think the full version of XP would, but it was $210 at Fry's, while the upgrade version was $100, and we had no reason to think the upgrade version wouldn't work fine, given that we had a working computer with Win98 on it.

As Mac-using Malaya (constantly) says, "I fucking hate Windows.  It's the worst OS ever."

I was able to counter that comment with "My computer with XP has almost always worked perfectly for me." at least until we paid top dollar for the XP that's been useless for 2 days thus far.

If installing XP to the 3rd HD and then swapping that back into the other machine doesn't work, I don't know what to tell you.  Short of calling the Windows phone support, I'll be entirely out of options other than just taking XP back to the store and getting a refund.

And yes, the old computer exceeds the minimum system requirements, the drive is writeable, I have everything hooked up properly, etc.  Sorry, just practicing for the tech support ordeal that's probably going to go on Monday afternoon after the hours I spend swapping Hard Drives doesn't work either.

Anyway, we got busy with that crap Saturday, and then had a big fight and make up time that went for hours that night when I was going to blog about something, so there was no update yesterday.  I wasn't going to do one tonight either, but after we got back from attending a martial arts show up at Sonoma State that occupied us (including the drive up, dinner, and dessert on the way back with one of Malaya's best friends) from around 3pm-midnight, and certain bathtub and bedroom related activities with Malaya that occupied me until well after 2am, I still had energy and consciousness, at least enough to come in here and play D2 for an hour.

Unfortunately, once I got in here I thought about how I really should blog some after missing yesterday, as well as check email and quick surf around a bit for some news and such, I got into the mood to write some.  Which brings us to where we are right now.

Actually this is about the last thing I'm writing on this update, since I wrote the following news item about the Loch Ness Monster 2 days ago, and I wrote the lower section about reader mails an hour or so ago. So that's pretty much that, as it turns out.

I took a ton of photos at the Sonoma State event tonight, and I'll be sorting those and probably posting some as well as blogging about it tomorrow.  I've also got some funny new shots of kitty interacting with the rodents, and good shots of the rodents in their tank, and I'll be posting those soon enough.

Which reminds me of another good email recently.  It came from a reader who said nice things, but was just bothered by me constantly calling the rat cage an "aquarium" when technically that's a term for something full of water, and quite often fish as well, I hear.  He suggested "terrarium" for the rats, which is an aquarium that's full of air, and dry land creatures.  That's probably a more correct usage, but I inextricably associate "terrarium" with a container for snakes and lizards, and it seems very wrong to use that term for rats, since their tank is not at all set up to be comfortable for reptiles.

I do not know see how this issue will be resolved.

Just one news item today, one I saw a few days ago and was charmed by.  As usual, my comments are longer than the article itself, as well as far more off track.

¤ A BBC production team just finished an extensive survey of Loch Ness, trying to find some evidence of the fabled Loch Ness Monster.  Their methodology was impressive; their results were predictable.

The team used 600 separate sonar beams and satellite navigation technology to trawl the loch, but found no trace of any monster, the BBC said in a television program broadcast Sunday.

They hoped the air in Nessie's lungs would reflect a distorted signal back to their sonar sensors.

"We went from shoreline to shoreline, top to bottom on this one, we have covered everything in this loch and we saw no signs of any large living animal in the loch," said Ian Florence, one of the specialists who carried out the survey for the BBC.

His colleague Hugh MacKay added: "We got some good clear data of the loch, steep sided, flat bottomed — nothing unusual I'm afraid. There was an anticipation that we would come up with a large sonar anomaly that could have been a monster, but it wasn't to be."

I can't think anyone will be too surprised to hear that there's not really a bunch of 70 million year extinct dinosaurs in a 10,000 year old pond in Scotland, but some people do seem to still be clinging to the hope.  I would love there to be mysterious monsters in lakes around the world myself, but I'm realistic enough to accept that there aren't.  It's like bigfoot; it's fun to pretend, but don't go wasting any real time or effort on the fantasies.  One mysterious creature somewhere is possible, but for things to persist over time there has to be an ecology that supports them, and a viable breeding population.  Just one individual obviously isn't going to last that many years, and Adam and Eve fairy tales aside, a male and a female of a given creature is not a viable population.  The inbreeding would lead to genetic disaster in just a few generations.

As for the Loch Ness Monster, all of the best sightings and pictures have been debunked, studies have shown that there's not enough fish in the loch to support any large aquatic life forms, much less a family of them, etc.  However since lots of people really want to believe in Nessie (as well as other popular myths such as Bigfoot, UFOs, dinosaurs in Africa, Yeti, the risen Baby Jesus, Bush's excuses for the Iraq Attack, and so on...) it's unlikely that any amount of "proof" will ever dissuade them.

As the article on the BBC show says:

The BBC team said the only explanation for the persistence of the monster myth — and regular "sightings" — is that people see what they want to see. To test this, the researchers hid a fence post beneath the surface of the loch and raised it in view of coach full of tourists. Interviewed afterward, most said they had observed a square object but when asked to sketch what they had seen, several drew monster-shaped heads, the BBC said.

I personally still want to go to the Loch, at least as part of my whole Scottish castle/wilderness tour, someday.  It's the homeland of my peoples, after all, at least according to my surname, and I want to walk through the gloomy moors and windswept crags and all the rest of the prototypical highland landscapes.  And I'd love to sit in a murky forest at the edge of a cold, deep loch, and think about the mysterious creatures that might be swimming deep below the placid surface.

Even though I know they really aren't.

Sometimes I just quote good mails in the daily updates and reply that way, but I'm not doing that either just yet.  One mail recently asked a good question, with the author wondering whether I'd be writing an article on my v1.10 D2X Beta play experiences and opinions.  I hadn't really thought about it, but I should probably do one on the D2 site.  I have a long page of new info and funny screenies and such about v1.10 that I've been meaning to get done and online for like 2 weeks, but I've just had so little time/inclination to do D2 site stuff, it hasn't happened yet.  However since I've had at least a dozen hours of play time on the patch, mostly in games with Malaya (during the brief intervals when the 2nd computer is actually functional) I have played enough to write something about it.  And that would be a decent D2 site feature.

One problem is that I've built up a Bowazon to 47 and a Paladin to 35, but both are totally from scratch with no twinks (well, I gave the Pal some stuff the Amazon found, but I mean no twinks from any pre-existing chars) and my play experience is very different from what it would be for a new v1.10 char on the realms, whom I could twink up with virtually anything they desired.

Another problem is that the Pal is just in Act 5/Normal, while the Bowazon is in Act 2/Nightmare.  Far too early in the game to comment with any authority on the new v1.10 changes, especially since most of those come in only in Hell difficulty.  And even when I am in hell and seeing the changes, I'll be seeing those with chars who have far far lower quality equip than mine on the realms, which makes a huge difference in how the game plays.

I could write a pretty good short guide to starting off from scratch in v1.10 now, but I'd be more interested in writing about major differences in Hell, high level equipment, how the new recipes work for hell chars, and so on. However since I don't really have any interest in playing high level chars in v1.10 just to test it (they all seem so old or irrelevant or easy now), and I'm not playing enough to get to Hell any time soon, I guess I should write about what I can write about, if I want it done soon enough for anyone to care.

Here is another email I haven't replied to, though I can't see me actually doing that.  You'll find out why once you read it.

It's actually two emails, but they came from the same guy, with just six minutes between them, so we'll count it as one.  As with most rippingly-clueless mails I get here, it's about the Band Names section.  Feel free to skim over it if you can't read every word; I'm sure I wouldn't be able to wade through the whole train wreck if weren't about me and my website, and therefore of greater personal interest.

Tool only got a 5 and yet Toad the wet spoket got a 7, WTF is wrong with you people. Do yourselves a favor, go out and get their cd's, listen to them, dont fuck around watching videos you fuckin MTV cocksuckers. They hardly got any video play till their latest album and even that wasnt too long. Listen well to the lyrics, the guitar, the bass, the fuckin drums!!!! what is wrong with you people, the rating u give these bands, I would think your fudgepackers. Start listening to real music, from people who play from their fuckin hearts. And Ted Nuggent, yea he may have gone insane, but fuck he had more pussy than Gahndi. Maybe you havent gotten laid yet, but when u do put on Nuggent, His words are like gospel. and where the fuck are all the other great bands that start with T?? Tom Petty, Timbaland and Magoo, the presidents of the united states of america(dont know if they fit in T, but WTF), plenty of other i cant think of off the top of my head, but get back to me on this, sorry for all the cursing and putdowns, but seeing ur ratings pissed me off. 
Signed,
Tool fuckin Rocks

Ur fuckin fags i can tell, this is horrible, i just went around the rest of ur site. You people have no taste in music, this i am sure of. You might ass well be with the boy bands and britney spears sucking Satan's cock. Take that big scaly pecker down ur throat and open wide for the big black load of maggot cum you fucking piece of shit. kill yourself, do the world a favor, and kill yourself. No joke, no puns, just get a fuckin gun and kill urselfs. I think the 80's left u rump rangers behind and now ur here to destory my faith in mankind. Kill yourself. please, no one who really care, its not like ur existance is effecting anything in a positive way, U probably listen to N'suck and sit there going, wow what great talent. Kill yourself, Please dear god, wipe these fucking turds from this planet, let it rain 40 days, please kill these fucking people.
PissedofToolfan

And yes, of course he's an AOLer with a stupid random caps/numbers user name (NoUse4aSNx). They always are.

I've quoted amazingly stupid mails in the past, and gone on to rant about how people can be so dumb as to make this big a fool of themselves in this fashion when there's a very prominently-linked FAQ that explains everything they are so confused about.  So I'm not going to rant about that again today.  Much though I'd like to.

I think part of the problem is that since they are obviously so confused I assume that they must be feeling some level of confusion.  That seems redundant to say, but think about it.  We assume they are confused since they're making no sense, but the thing to realize is that they just don't know enough to be confused. In their little minds all makes perfect sense; the unknown people who wrote this Band Names section are making detailed evaluations and ratings of the bands, and higher scores must mean that the raters think that band is better.  The whole "band names" thing just never registers on any level; I mean the "names" part.  It simply doesn't occur to them (the stupid emailers) that "name" is what's being rated, rather than the coolness of the band itself, or the quality of their music, or something like that.

As for the fact that every entry is written in quirky, irreverent, and sarcastic fashion, things that would tip off a normal person in a minute that it wasn't just a straight rating like you'd find on a music site... well those things are just not even grasped at all.  Lots of people just have no ability to understand sarcasm or tongue in cheeky humor when they hear it verbally, and/or don't have the reading comprehension to grasp it from text.

And true, I relish this sort of cluelessness via email, and figured I'd get lots of these type mails when I was writing the Band Names section, but they still depress me on some level.  I don't like such regular reminders of how utterly clueless so many people really are.

Lastly, when I read this mail late Saturday night and laughed about it with Malaya, I clicked to the FAQ just to see if the issues this emailer has were actually covered in the first question.  They aren't, #1 talks about where the section idea came from.  However #2 and #3...

In a later question the date for the beginning of the whole section is listed, and ironically enough, it was August 3, 2002.  If you wonder why that's ironic, check a calendar.  Happy Birthday, Band Names!

<-- Previous  --  Next -->
Archives Index Page