Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:May:27 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
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        3112A SATA controller, which unfortunately, is outdated from 2002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):
        \_ 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
           -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
        \_ 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:
2007/5/27-30 [Uncategorized] UID:46771 Activity:nil
5/27    first ipv6 killer ap
        \_ Wow, free porn. This might actually work...
2007/5/27-30 [Science/Electric] UID:46772 Activity:nil
5/27    Nice electric hybrid bicycles:
        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
        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.
           \_ I did not have the Bush twins in mind. I was thinking of us. -op
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:May:27 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>