Initial indications are that the solution to my Vista laptop's Blue Screening problem is to add more memory.

This is a problem for a number of reasons.

1. Cost. I don't know how much extra memory for this model of laptop will cost, or whether I can get it from computer fairs or need to order it from some website.


2. I don't even know whether this model of laptop will take additional memory. It may be that all of its slots are already filled. It has 1Gb of RAM currently.


3. I don't know yet whether this is actually the problem. Tonight's BSoD was a 0x0000034 error CACHE_MANAGER. Other nights when I've noticed it has been a 0x0000008 error. Tonight may be an aberration.

Conclusion: I'm totally fucking confused.

The problem is a 100% reliable - BsOD a short while after waking from hibernation. As far as I can tell, I've done all of the things that are recommended solutions to that particular problem. But it's still happening. Right now it's a low priority problem. I know what it does and can plan for it. I must remember to start Thunderbird after it crashes though. Otherwise it goes and downloads all my emails twice.

My computer is working again. It was simply a matter of removing the RAM and cleaning the contacts.

My desktop computer will not start. It's dead. It appears to have a power supply problem, since there is absolutely no response from pushing he power button. Like it was simply unplugged - except that it's not.

All is not lost - I have a laptop. I can do most of the things on the laptop that I could do on the main box. There is, however, some data on that computer that I kinda need. I also have some software installed on that machine and not on this one that I need - in particular the Skype Recorder that I have registered. The registration key, is of course in my email folder on the desktop box.

I need the Skype Recorder because I've got an interview lined up for this weekend for the Nonsense Podcast.

Nate Phelps is one of the estranged children of Westboro Baptist Church pastor Fred Phelps. He recently came out as an atheist and gave a speech at the American Atheists Convention. He has a website where he has posted the transcript of that speech. It's pretty harrowing reading.

But this is my very first real interview, ever, and I'm struggling a little with my preparation. So I'll ask the LJ Muse:

Read Nate's story. What would you like me to ask him?

Thunderbird just lost my address book. Don't know why, but it may be related to a power outage we had earlier that shut the computer down unexpectedly.

I can remember most of the email addresses that are important to me, and Thunderbird collects addresses automatically, so it's no real big deal. But if you think I may have forgotten your address, please feel free to send me an email.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/129

Wow. Just... wow.
The potential applications for this technology are astounding.

Well, we have finally switched over to a non-dial-up connection at home. It's a full satellite broadband connection, and while it's not as fast as a landline broadband, it's a damn sight better than the connection we used to have. I can now browse picture-heavy sites without having to wait half an hour, and I can watch YouTube videos in almost-real time. It's pretty good. It does suffer occasional unexplained dropouts, but it is squirting the bird, after all. And the dish is HUGE!

Anyway. Since swapping over, I haven't been able to use Outlook for email. And before you say "oh it's that evil Micro$oft shit" let me say that I have tried it with Thunderbird as well with absolutely identical results. The problem, basically, is that I can't connect to my SMTP server. I can connect to POP, which means that I can download my mail, I just can't send it.

I've been emailing my technical support, and they appear to be just as stumped as I am - they just won't admit it. They told me to switch my SMTP server settings from port 25 to port 587. When I did that, Outlook appeared to be able to connect to the SMTP server, but not the POP. I've sent them screen dumps of the settings and the errors. Their latest effort is to ask whether out satellite ISP is blocking the port, but Beth can connect to her SMTP server fine on the same workstation, with the same satellite connection, using Outlook, under a different profile.

For now I'm accessing mail through the browser, which works just fine. I like having Bayesian spam filtering and offline storage though. If any of my techie friends have any idea at all, I'd welcome it about now.

http://neil.fraser.name/writing/tank/

Email post from Arthwollipot
http://www.arthwollipot.com/

Aaargg! I've now got three MSN conversations going at once! And I'm posting on forums.

See, this is why I don't like IM so much.

If you want to messenge me, I'm at my email address.

Military Hacker to Fight Extradition

The hacker was known as "Solo". Cyberpunk, anyone?

http://www.unc.edu/~mumukshu/gandhi/gandhi/hofstadter.htm

earthnative pointed this article out to me. As a lifelong fan of Hofstadter, I've naturally been wondering what he's about these days. After reading this article I have to concede that he is a bit of a snob where music is concerned. That's all right, because so am I, and I'm not shy of admitting it.

He writes:

What worries me about computer simulations is not the idea that we ourselves might be machines; I have long been convinced of the truth of that. What troubles me is the notion that things that touch me at my deepest core -- pieces of music most of all, which I have always taken as direct soul-to-soul messages -- might be effectively produced by mechanisms thousands if not millions of times simpler than the intricate biological machinery that gives rise to a human soul. This prospect, rendered most vivid and perhaps even near-seeming by the development of EMI, worries me enormously, and in my more gloomy moods, I have articulated three causes for pessimism:
(1) Chopin (for example) is a lot shallower than I had ever thought.
(2) Music is a lot shallower than I had ever thought.
(3) The human soul/mind is a lot shallower than I had ever thought.

I can see here that like a lot of people, he is approaching the subject of music from the wrong angle. Our emotional response to music comes not from the composer or the performer, it comes from the listener. If it were all generated from the composer, each of us would be equally moved by Chopin, Bach, Marilyn Manson and Diana Ross - all of them brilliant in their own ways. However, while Chopin and Bach can move me to tears, Marilyn Manson and Diana Ross most certainly do not. I get nothing from them. If it were their "soul" in the music, then how could I help but feel the emotions that they put into the music? As it is, I am convinced by the fact that some people do get emotionally moved by those composers and performers that I couldn't give two cents for that it is the emotions of the listener that is involved.

Some people like Marilyn Manson, some people like Bach. People are different. What it takes to move one listener will not necessarily do anything for another.

This is not to say that any music is created has the potential to be brilliant to someone - although that may be the case, I don't know. It is to say that the brililance in music is the capacity to move a large number of listeners. Bach and Manson both have a huge number of devotees - a huge number of people whose "souls" are moved by their music. By that I conclude that their music "has what it takes", and is therefore well-composed.

This seems to be an argument in favour of top-40 music, and in a way I guess it is. Top-40 pop has what it takes for lots of people to enjoy it. However, I feel that the level of musical sophistication in those listeners who are moved by it is pretty shallow, in the way that Hofstadter meant it in the excerpt I quoted above. My personal taste in music is very different from that of most people I know. My musical training, in a large part, is what has made me a snob.

On a completely different note (pun intended) it is interesting that music is the only subject where I feel that I can use the word "soul" seriously. But that's a matter for another discussion.