Score:5, Offtopic

It's my blog. The name is a reference to a quirk in the Slashdot moderation system that allows a post to have a negative (in this case, offtopic) moderation, but be scored 5, the maximum positive score. Basically, there's no point to it, but it may be good. There'll be all sorts of computer crap in here...

2005-06-25

It's AALIIIIIVEE!

Yep, I've got the laptop!

It's working pretty well - nice and snappy with Windows 2000.

The only problem? Heat - I don't know if the fan's dead, or what, but it runs REALLY hot (~80 C outside of the UltraBase, 90+ C in it). Part of me says to stop folding...

2005-06-22

Well, I've got the new laptop...

...but it's a doorstop...

Basically, the network controller and modem are conflicting, and giving me this error:
ERROR
Resource Conflict - PCI Network Controller
Bus:00, Device:0A, Function:00
ERROR
Resource Conflict - PCI
Bus:00, Device:0A, Function:01

It won't let me boot, either.

So, I called the place that sold it to me, and they gave me an RMA number. I'll drop it off sometime soon, and they should be able to fix it while I wait.

Anyways, it seems like a nice lappy otherwise. Small, light, well designed.

So, you guys get a comparison pic for now (note: the ThinkPad is in the UltraBase - that doesn't do it justice when it comes to thickness):

2005-06-19

A variation on Ladder Theory that makes sense

A Corollary to the Ladder Theory -- Applications to Nerds
Finally - the Ladder Theory makes sense! Of course, it took reworking the whole thing...

Basically, this corollary discusses the issues that "nerds" have with relationships, and how to apply Ladder Theory in that case. (nerds are, for the purposes of that article, defined as: "They're smart and a little awkward socially; still, they shower regularly and have friends and know that girls won't be impressed by an extensive knowledge of cheat codes for the TurboGrafx 16 (God rest its soul). They'd like nothing more than to treat a girlfriend to a birthday dinner in a nice restaurant or go on a romantic walk through the gently falling snow. They're careful about what they say and genuinely respect women. In short, nice guys." - geek is the word that I would use in this situation, and I am one)

The first thing it does? Throw out large parts of Ladder Theory. In fact, it quite simply throws out the same parts that I had torn apart in my last blog entry. It focuses on relationships between "nerds", but some of it probably still applies if there's only one "nerd" involved.

Anyway, my favorite part, because I COMPLETELY understand it
Correspondingly, he reads far more into her every action than he should. Invited her to a movie and she didn't seem very enthusiastic? “Further proof that she has no interest!” She invites you over to “hang out”? “Ohmygodmaybethiswillbeit!!!!”

Heh. I know that feeling... Of course, us geeks being overanalytical as it is, when something's THAT CLOSE to our hearts, it sends us into overdrive. Attempting to analyze where this one girl stood when it came to me took up all of my thought processes - I could watch my grades slip a percentage point here, a percentage point there as the runaway process (running at nice -20, no less) ate away all of my brainpower. It nearly killed me analyzing where I went wrong when she rejected me (partially because I had slipped into a depression, but that's a whole 'nother story).

It also goes into detail about how the nice guys CAN get the girls. First, it debunks the "fact" in the original Ladder Theory that says that only assholes and rich guys can get the girls, and therefore, to get girls, a nice guy must become an asshole. You see, it's not that us geeks are not appealing to the geeky girls. It's that we don't have the balls to ask said geeky girls out, and they're afraid as well. It REALLY doesn't help when one is morbidly afraid of rejection - as I was. I eventually did ask this girl out, and got rejected. It's just the best of feelings to fall flat on your face, now, isn't it? However, my main problem is that even though I did ask her out, I had ZERO confidence whatsoever. I was EXPECTING to fall flat on my face - and I think it showed.

Now, as for the one tenet of Ladder Theory they left standing:
a man cannot have a normal friendship with a woman he's attracted to.

(my emphasis)
I agree to an extent. A normal friendship is nearly impossible. However, I've heard of too many cases of successful friendships, and not the so-called "intellectual whore" relationships, either, in which one party was STRONGLY interested in the other, but the feelings weren't mutual, to say that it's impossible. Heck, I'm working on being one of those success stories. I recognize that she's a DAMN good friend, and I need to keep as many good friends as possible. If that means keeping my feelings for her from getting in the way, it means keeping my feelings for her from getting in the way. It's as simple as that (well, I know, easier said than done...)

2005-06-17

The Ladder Theory, and what's wrong with it

The night before last, I read about a little something called the "Ladder Theory". It claims to be a theory that explains how relationships work, and how not to be an "intellectual whore". The author of this theory summarizes what an intellectual whore is like this:
In short, it does not refer to a "smart slut" as it were, but rather to males who are kept around by women for their mental entertainment. These men usually want to sleep with these women who usually consider these men friends.

Hmm...

Anyway, the Ladder Theory is targetted towards these so-called intellectual whores.

The Ladder Theory, Summarized


Basically, the Ladder Theory is quite simple, if you just look at the core. It also makes perfect sense. Basically, it illustrates a difference in how men and women are wired. It states that men have a single ladder that extends into an "abyss". At the top of the ladder is the woman that the man in question wishes the most to have sex with. It goes down the ladder, through women that the man "would have sex with sober", women that the man "would have sex with drunk, and admit it", to women that the man "would have sex with drunk, and wouldn't admit it". Another critical part is that ALL women are on this ladder at some point - granted, some may be in the abyss, but they're all in there. This part, I can agree with - it seems quite obvious to me, and applies.

The rules change for women. According to this theory, women have two ladders suspended above the abyss. One ladder, known as the "real" or "good" ladder, has the men that the woman wishes to have sex with. The other ladder is known as the "friends" ladder, and holds men that the woman wishes to have as friends. The two ladders are mutually exclusive. Except for that last part, it all makes sense to me.

Here's where it gets a bit fuzzy, however. The author of the Ladder Theory states that there are instinctual desires that men and women have. According to the Ladder Theory's Lemma #1 (and various extensions of this lemma), the chances of a woman liking an "outlaw biker" (someone who has tattoos, etc., etc.) or a rich guy are MUCH higher than a woman liking a nice guy (in that way).

The Theory then goes into detail about how one should get out of there if she sends signals that they're only friends, and avoid that person at all costs (the forums describe one process to do this as NEXTing). It also says that it's a bad idea to try to turn the tide, and jump over to the "good" ladder.

The Problems With Ladder Theory


I, personally, see MAJOR problems with Lemma #1, because it attempts to say that everybody has those exact numbers. I've seen cases with my own two eyes that say that those graphs can be WAY off - experiences can skew those values, it seems. So, a nice guy has a chance of getting on the "good" ladder - I know, because I've been on it ;-). Strike one.

The Ladder Theory also states that one cannot be on both ladders. However, the Ladder Theory appears to be written in a context of "how do I get laid the fastest?", not "how do I find a good girlfriend?" I don't have any experience in this field, but I'm going to go towards axeing this one. Heck, many of the Ladder Theory's disciples appear to disagree with this one. Strike two.

Finally, the Ladder Theory states that it is simply not possible to be friends with a woman, especially if she is/was high on your ladder, due to sexual tension. I'm going to disagree with this one. I've got a friend who was at the top of my ladder just a couple of months ago (and still is, as a matter of fact), but I'm working through the tension, and ignoring it. It IS possible to be just friends with a woman who is at the top of one's ladder... Strike three, Ladder Theory's out.

Conclusions


Frankly, I think that Ladder Theory is a bunch of hogwash. It draws a bunch of false conclusions, and suggests practices that, while they will get you laid quickly, will not work in the long run.

You'd be amazed at how much pressure there is to not be an "intellectual whore" in the IW forums. However, my theories are that if a girl uses so-called "intellectual whores" knowingly, and intentionally (making her an "intellectual pimp"), then she probably isn't the right girl. There's gotta be SOMEONE out there who ISN'T an "intellectual pimp", after all. I think that this guy has simply only met the "intellectual pimps". I mean, this guy has even said that he considers 99.999% of women as "bitches"! Do ya THINK he's going to get the good girls? Ah, well, they're left over for me. ;-)

I also think that "ladder jumping" is possible, and that the best way to do it is to actually be on BOTH ladders - meaning that it isn't necessarily bad to start out on the friends ladder. Aren't the most successful relationships the ones where the parties are not just sexual partners, but best friends?

Ladder Theory actually seems to be DESIGNED to rope in the "intellectual whores", and cause itself to be true. It says that men cannot have platonic relationships with women, causing these "recovering intellectual whores" to avoid platonic relationships with women. I was very nearly roped in, until I saw these gaping holes.

This concludes my rant on Ladder Theory. Feel free to flame me - I might not have caught on to some part of Ladder Theory. However, you're probably not going to convince me. Also, please feel free to agree with me.

If you really want to see this pointless drivel, it's at the Intellectual Whores Homepage. Just remember to take it with a grain of salt - or, for that matter, a whole salt shaker.

2005-06-14

Fans are good!

Copied from a post I just made on DYMT a few minutes ago

I just had to dismantle my parents' Celeron 2GHz Northwood... It was freezing on all sorts of stuff, and acting quite weirdly. I ran MemTest86+ on it, and no errors. The only things I did on that power on were: burn 2 CDs (MemTest86, and Win2K (for the laptop I'm getting)), then run MemTest86+. I immediately went into the hardware status, and it said 58 C - after that short run. My 2.2GHz (desktop) P4 laptop runs at 56 C, and it's folding continuously!

Ambient is 84 F in that room (probably about 80 in my room, which has better ventilation, and is fully shaded).

I open it, and I start HACKING from all of the dust...

So, I blow the dust out, and hook it back up.

I get it running for a while, put MBM5 on, and MBM immediately starts screaming "The CPU has reached 76 C, which is greater than the maximum temperature you set of 70 C!"...

So, the computer's down, for now...

FWIW, the only fans in it were the PSU fan and the CPU fan (at least it's Intel stock, and not cheapest-HSF-the-sleazy-whiteboxer-could-get-their-hands-on grade...)

I guess this warrants a visit to Newegg for a couple 80mm fans, and possibly a better Socket 478 heatsink!

2005-06-13

The laptop has shipped!

The subject says it all.

Estimated ship date was the 16th, and it shipped today, so I should get it soon!

Why Overclocking Is Bad



That was a friend of mine, after riding Raptor at Cedar Point (this was a while back - I just now got a chance to upload it). I know what you're thinking: "RAPTOR? Who gets sick after RAPTOR?!?!?"

Well, when Raptor normally runs, it runs for 2 minutes, 16 seconds, along a 3,790 foot long track. That averages out to 19.0006686 mph - not too fast, right? Enough for some thrill when it hits higher speeds (max speed is approximately 57 mph, according to Cedar Point's site), but not too fast.

The last run of the night, it took NINETY SECONDS. Doing the math, that comes out to 28.7121212 mph! THAT will screw you up.

Not to mention, there was LOTS of Mountain Dew (ahh, the drink of the gods!) involved - therefore, the coaster wasn't the only thing overclocked. So was the rider. (In case you're wondering, that's partially processed Mountain Dew there.)

I, luckily, did not do that ride (that time, anyway). I had already done my throwing up for the day, after Disaster Transport, of all coasters... In my defense, I had JUST eaten a HUGE cheeseburger... Of course, one of my friends said that throwing up is half the fun of riding coasters, so by that metric, I had a good day, but I disagree... ;-)

2005-06-12

dont ya mean type

I've never used the TR forums for much, but yesterday decided to dive in. I was looking at the "hot threads" on the home page, and saw something called "dont ya mean type". I decided to dive in. It's at 219 pages (30 posts * 218 pages + 4 posts = 6544 posts) right now.

What is it about? Good question. Nobody really knows. It started when imi, a new forum member at the time, accidentally hit "New Topic" instead of "Post Reply". Somehow, the topic exploded. It quickly became the story of the relationship between imi and pattouk2001 (who doesn't post much anymore - he's too busy with his new girlfriend ;-)), and how it ended. However, the topics have ranged from discussion of member Action Jim's life experiences, to beer, to clam-flavored Pringles. It also discusses the topic itself... There's even a user on Folding@Home called "dont_ya_mean_type", who I and two other users are folding for.

The best QUICK guide is at dontyameantype.net. However, that's no substitute for actually reading the thing. It took me 8 hours to get through 218 pages (I helped push it to 219), and I'm a VERY fast reader.

TR Forums :: View topic - dont ya mean type

2005-06-11

New laptop coming soon to a doorstop near me

I'm ordering a used ThinkPad X21 (2662-66U). Here goes the specs:

Processor: Pentium III 700MHz, Low Voltage
RAM: 384MB PC100 SDRAM (after an upgrade that I've already ordered)
Hard Drive: 20GB 4200RPM IDE
LCD: 12.1" XGA TFT

Expansion: UltraBase X2 (a media slice, but it can also be used like a docking station)
Optical drive: UltraBay 2000 DVD-ROM (in the media slice)

$332.50 for the laptop after shipping, $67 for 256MB RAM (I know I got ripped off on that...)

I'll run Windows 2000 Pro on this, FWIW - I don't have the cash for XP, or I would (yes, I'm insane. XP on a P3 isn't THAT bad, though, if you tune stuff down...)

The company that I bought it from estimates the ship date as 2005-06-16, but also says that the status is "Shipping". However, they don't list an actual ship date...

2005-06-10

Well, welcome to the blog...

I'll put more in here sometime...

Look for all sorts of fun crap - just nothing now ;-)