| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/5/27-30 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:46768 Activity:low |
5/27 I just spend a few hours on a silly BIOS problem and I'm posting it
here so that you guys wouldn't have to go through this again. My
MB is Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro and the latest BIOS update is version
F17, which is in 2004. It comes with the MB Sil (Silicon Image)
3112A SATA controller, which unfortunately, is outdated from 2002
and does not recognize my Seagate 750G drive-- the boot loader
from Sil would get stuck trying to read info from the new drive.
Here's the main problem: Gigabyte's newest BIOS version F17 is
from 2004, but it is bundled with Sil 3112A's ancient and buggy BIOS
version 4.2.00. I can't just flash Sil's BIOS-- you either flash
all the MB's BIOS or nothing. According to discussion boards online,
Gigabyte seems to not update other vendor's new BIOS through
neglect. So here's what I had to do. I had to disassemble the BIOS
by first taking out Sil's old 4.2.00 on an image, then insert a newer
version of 4.2.83 back into image, then flash the image to the MB.
Viola, my old MB can now read my Seagate 750G SATA. For more
information, refer here (go to the bottom):
http://www.short-media.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-20543-p-2.html
\_ Summary to update SATA BIOS:
-Download MB's latest BIOS that bundles with other BIOS
Make a copy. The original file will be modified. Let's suppose
we call this BIOS MyMBBIOS.bin
-Download the right SATA BIOS
-Download the tool to dissect the MB BIOS
http://www.biosmods.com/download.php (CBROM215)
-Go to DOS prompt (Start->Run->"cmd"), put every file into
the same directory for simplicity
-C:\bios\> cbrom2xx MyMBBIOS.bin /pci release
Note which BIOS is the old SATA. Release it.
-Integrate SATA into MyMBBIOS.bin by doing
C:\bios\> cbrom2xx MyMBBIOS.bin /pci MyNewSataBIOS.bin
-Confirm integration with:
C:\bios\> cbrom2xx MyMBBIOS.bin /d
-Now flash your MB's BIOS using MyMBBIOS.bin
Hope it works because your MB may get totally messed up
permanently... or it may work. Good luck.
\_ Congrats on making this work but was it worth it? A new
motherboard is under $100 with all the bells and whistles. |
| 2007/5/27-31 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:46769 Activity:kinda low |
5/27 Is there a program in windows xp that does what unix "touch" does,
that is, simply to create a small file?
\_ I use "copy nul file". --mconst
\_ nul or nul: ?
\_ Either way's fine. I don't think the colon's been necessary
\_ Either way's fine. I think the colon's been optional
since DOS 3.1. --mconst
\_ And here I was still using it 3 versions later. So old
school. :-)
\_ iirc, there's both a nul: device, AND a nul entry in each
directory
\_ well, there's a Cygwin touch.exe ...
\_ Or MKS touch.exe |
| 2007/5/27-30 [Science/Electric] UID:46770 Activity:nil |
5/27 Finally, an electric scooter that can go above 60MPH and over
60 miles:
http://www.vectrixusa.com/default.aspx?portal=1&page=1 |
| 2007/5/27-30 [Uncategorized] UID:46771 Activity:nil |
5/27 first ipv6 killer ap
http://www.ipv6experiment.com
\_ Wow, free porn. This might actually work... |
| 2007/5/27-30 [Science/Electric] UID:46772 Activity:nil |
5/27 Nice electric hybrid bicycles:
http://www.electric-bikes.com/bikes/bikes.html#Charger%20Bicycles
At 30MPH, eGO is my favorite out there.
\_ At 30mpg, driver's license should be required.
\_ Isn't a powered bicycles sort of not the point?
\_ if it has a motor, it's not a bicycle. |
| 2007/5/27-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46773 Activity:high |
5/27 "But in a world saturated with selfhood, where every death is by
definition a death in vain, the notion of sacrifice today
provokes puzzlement more often than admiration." from a WSJ
op-ed (which I didn't/couldn't read)
After seeing tonight's 60 Minutes, I think this applies to the whole
country.
Unless you have had a loved one in harm's way, felt that
dread and loneliless for 15 months, the resulting pride when
it's all over is unfathomable to anyone who hasn't gone
through that anguish (or served themselves).
\_ huh?
\_ 60Min piece was about an Iowa National Guard unit in Iraq. They
lost a couple guys, but you also saw the effect it had on their
family at home. The point is that military personnel and their
families are bearing the entire burden of this war. Whether you
"support the troops" or not, it doesn't matter because the vast
majority of the nation has nothing at risk.
When you've felt that risk, and then it's all over, the pride
and awe you feel about their service is unimaginable to someone
who hasn't. Maybe if a larger cross section of the country had
something at risk, then there would be more common ground. So
we could disagree, but with respect for each other. Instead
the military folk feel like they have to support the President
at any cost, because the other side are peaceniks who call those
who serve stupid (which I have personally witnessed).
\_ that is why I've been arguing that we either reinstate the
draft or not invade Iraq at all. Even before we invaded
Iraq, something like 70% of US population support the war.
I suspect if husbands/sons/daughters need to be part of the
war, then, the support would be a lot less. In the end
we are loosing this war mostly because Bush knew he could
never won a popular support of the war if bulk of population
has to make sacrafice. That is why he pitched the war as
quick, cheap and few blood are required. Since entire
war was fought under false pretense, I am arguing that there
is nothing wrong for people gotten sick and tire of it, and
cut our loses and focus on places where that actually matters.
\_ The 'war' part of the war was quick and cheap. They
screwed up the aftermath having had no plan for the post-
conquer part. Please don't confuse the two. And what
we're doing now is hardly a war. Our troops go on patrol,
get shot at, get blown up, and go back to base. Repeat
the next day.
\_ The 'war' part of the war led inexorably to this
aftermath. This was predicted, lied about, and finally
ignored by those who wanted it. It's not "confusing
the two" to bring it up.
\_ Duh. Yes without an invasion there wouldn't be a
post-invasion period. Sheesh. Now then back here
in Reality World: if they had a post-invasion plan
we wouldn't be here, if they declared martial law
and took real control of the country on day one, we
wouldn't be here, if they allowed the troops who
have been there for years to actually engage the
enemy and use their training we wouldn't be here.
\_ I think your burden of proof on this statement
is higher than you can cash in. These are big
ifs with even bigger assumptions behind them.
As sold, this whole exercise was a gigantic
nation-building effort. However, this is something
we've never figured out how to do. I submit
that the post-invasion plan was offered and
summarily rejected. They don't want it actually
stable. In a more stable country, the funds we
dump in there might be accounted for. We might
not be able to strongarm them into passing
production sharing agreements with the oil
companies. In short, we couldn't steal as much
as we can now. This is why you can't separate
the two and say "if only".
\_ I would not risk my life to fight in Iraq unless I was forced
to do so. I don't believe in an afterlife. Maybe all those
religious people should go fight, since they have nothing to
lose. They say >90% of the US is religious. All religions
\- maybe by beliefs, but not by actions.
teach that death is basically fine. Or actually more than
fine... something to look forward to. So then: why should
any of them give a shit?
\_ Because they don't teach that death is fine or good for
starters. And the draft the other people are asking for
is the 'forced to do so' part.
\_ death -> heaven, virgins, nirvana etc -> yippee
\_ ignorant and silly simplification -> meaningless
drivel -> wasted bits
\_ So all you can offer is the "you're wrong"
argument. Thanks for playing. By the way,
your assertions are ignorant, meaningless, and
silly. And wasted drivel. Wow I feel better now!
\_ No. I offer the obvious: you made a gross and
negligent over reaching and ignorant assumption
about a) all religions and b) all religious
people and then reached an obviously false
conclusion that religious people should all
want to die. "Thanks for playing" as they say.
I understand that hating all religious people
is a form of religion on the motd, but that
doesn't make for a sound logical argument. And
for the record, I'm not religious, so don't
bother going there.
\_ I didn't say I hate all religous people and
didn't say they all want to die. Are you
mildly retarded perhaps? The underlying
\_ Are you? What did you add to this
by resorting to lame personal
attack? All it shows is your
frustration with your inability to
debate with facts and details.
School yard level insult is what
not-very-bright people fall back on
when they're unable to make their
point. In your case, you don't
have one so it is understandable.
\_ I completely agree. Look at your
first reply in this thread and
note the adjectives employed.
The personal dig here is that
you repeatedly put words in
my mouth.
\_ Communist!
point is clear and your posturing doesn't
address it. The vast majority of religious
people are Christian in this country. Is
it not true that Christianity teaches that
we have "eternal souls" and good people
go to "a better place"? (and/or achieve
eternal life, the specifics are irrelevant)
\_ Sigh, still missing the obvious. Just
because they say good people go to
Heaven and all that doesn't mean they
advocate suicide. Since you mention
Christians specifically, no, it is a sin
to kill yourself. Again, you take a tiny
shred of knowledge and over extend it to
a false general case and then misapply
your own false determination of how
Christians (or others) should be to
determine (again falsely) that any Good
Christians should be in favor of death,
suicide, etc, etc. I'm pretty sure no
one here is so blindly hateful of
religious people that they actually
believe what you're saying, thus you
must be a troll. I'm done. Did you
have fun trolling me?
\_ Did I say anything about suicides?
No. Why are you talking about suicide?
I see a trend in your "debate" style.
\- http://www.slate.com/id/2154856
\_ I did not have the Bush twins in mind. I was thinking of us. -op |