.  :  |  A R C H A I C  |  :  .     ______________
           .  :  |   N E T W O R K S  |   :  .

And I also love boots. Screw tennis shoes, screw loafers, screw sandals, screw everything else. My original and endearing love affair is with the boot.

As such, these Mark Nason boots are AWESOME. If only I had some money. Would anyone like to donate?

What’s the difference between storage and access?

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34065/135/

CARAAAAAZY. I wonder what the next hybrid between this (taking up a full PCIe, probably x4 slot) would be (yucky in a 1U server) and the current-or-coming proliferation of flash-based conventional hard disk drives. This thing is far more intriguing… but then again, I always loved databases.

This may have saved me a ton of time at this point: http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=444831

Update:

It had saved me quite a bit of time, but it only seems to work with switching from IDE mode to AHCI. I’m not that familiar with Intel’s ICH9R yet, but trying to enable RAID instead of AHCI using this method causes Windows XP to hang and reboot. My guess is some other .sys driver is being used, instead of IaStor.sys? RAIDing the drives back up still doesn’t work.

In the days of “Free Speech Zones” and “rally squads,” people seem to forget that the entire United States of America is a Free Speech Zone, as a result of the constitutionally enshrined rights to freedom of speech and to assemble and petition the government of redress of grievances. While it is unfortunate for Katie Couric (who said, when introducing “Free Speech,” “expressing your opinion is very American, one of the privileges of living in this country.” … apparently misunderstanding the difference between privileges like driving, and rights like speech) and John Kerry, it is absolutely essential to a free society. In fact, it is absolutely without explanation that someone in charge of writing the laws of the land disregards the Constitution to the point where he can ignore something like this occurring RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM:

For a sitting United States Senator to NOT uphold his sworn duty to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is an egregious breach of the public trust in a public servant. To stand idly by why an individual (as annoying as he may or may not be) is squelched by the use of excessive and obviously unnecessary force for attempting to use his rights as an American and an individual in a free and open society is both unexplainable and indefensible.

But, during confusion and chaos, I couldn’t personally hold lack of good intervention against Kerry. He did say aloud to the officers present that he would like to address the student without their interruption, so that is respectable. But, later, he released such as weak-willed statement about how he “believed he could have handled the statement” and he “didn’t know a taser was used,” which is a ridiculous statement when the student was clearly screaming in pain and yelling “Don’t tase me, bro!” Kerry should have, at the very, very, very least, confirmed a commitment to protecting freedom of speech and HIS OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

The SENATE should be the one place where constitutional rights are absolutely, unequivocally sacred. Breaking the oath of office should be grounds for censure or impeachment, based upon the offense. This issue is far more important, leagues above and beyond, than some silly misdemeanor in some men’s room in some airport. This lack of respect and defense of the Constitution is why John Kerry is not fit to be President of the United States, and even sadder due to his history as an free expresser of speech. The Senate should be the public’s defense of liberty against the encroachment of executive purview, and if this Senator is not up to the task, he should not be a Senator, and if he is not up to the task as a Senator, he most certainly is not up to the task of not damaging civil society when placed in a role that naturally seeks to extend power at the expensive of individual’s liberty. As a great man once said, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” There is no rest, and no place for weakness in matters this important.

More important than the question of whether or not Senator Larry Craig should remain in office is the question of whether or not he is qualified to be there in the first place. I mean, this guy has to be the least intelligent elected official in my living memory. First he didn’t bother to retain a lawyer when the police arrested him. Then he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct without fighting the charges in court. But now he’s even left a message about his political plans on some person’s answering machine accidentally, having not noticed he dialed the wrong number!

I go back and forth between believing the man is just closeted and can’t come to terms with himself and believing that he’s just some person caught in a strange circumstance. The taped recording of his interview with the police officer actually decreased certainty in his guilt, and the whole thing really is an ambiguous affair - and I don’t think, had he gone to trial, that he would have faced a conviction. But he didn’t bother going to trial, he accepted guilt. You can’t plead idiocy to turn back time and get a second chance to make your decision. He does seem somewhat like a victim, in all honestly, but a victim purely of his own doing.

As far as the Senate Ethics Committee, a guilty plea should be all she wrote. If the Senate wishes to toss out a Senator charge with a misdemeanor, I’m all for that. That he claims innocense now is none of my, nor should it be any of the Senate’s concern. I also think, however, that the members of the Senate should be held to higher account than representatives in the House. After all, Senators have approximately five times the responsibility in crafting the laws, so they should be expected to abide by them to an even greater extent than the House. This is not to say, however, that House members should not be expected to abide by the laws.

Also, traditionally, the House is supposed to be “closer to the people” whereas the Senate is generally intended to be comprised of elite / elder statesmen. So, fine, there are certain portions of individuals in society that break laws, and House members can more easily and to a greater extent represent those individuals… for example, any individual that has sped on a freeway. It can even be argued that some areas have a high proportion of “criminals” - and those whom commit crimes should be represented in government, if for no other reason than not all laws are that great, and not all crimes should necessarily be crimes, or be worse crimes. There is a NATURAL constraint, too, upon the conduct of House members - every two years, they face re-election. The members of the House are more accountable to the people, and directly to the people. So, it is perfectly logical and proper to hold Senate members to higher ethical standards than House members.

But, regardless, it would be proper for Larry Craig to resign, and it would also be proper for the Senate Ethics Committee to take what action they may against him. Although, in a world with a more intelligent Larry Craig, none of this ever would have had to happen. Perhaps a departing Larry Craig will mean an influx of thought and ability into the Senate, which desparately needs to remember what it exists for.