Ambient Irony

I'm in the future. Like hundreds of years in the future. I've been dead for centuries.
Oh, lovely, you're a cheery one aren't you?

Saturday, May 21

A Bridge Chip Too Far

I was trying to do a final check to make sure that everything had been copied to the new box correctly, but after four crashes in two hours due to the flaky old SATA controller, I gave up.

Shut everything down, installed the new Promise controller, tweaked a couple of files so that it was recognised, and off we go - except the main RAID array wasn't recognised. And when I tried the old trick that recovered it last time, it wasn't having any. 600GB of toast.

Good thing I backed up all that toast first. Well, that was the whole point of the exercise. Indeed, it was the idea from the start, redundant arrays of inexpensive toast. Disks. Whatever.

I told you butter wouldn't suit the works.

Update: Splut.

This means war.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 08:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

Right and Wrong, Part II

This is wrong.

But note the source for the New York Times' report: A military investigation.

And recall that Abu Ghraib was also the subject of a military investigation before it was a blip on the radar of the media.

Our military is imperfect, but it does police itself, and it does hold itself accountable.

There's a lesson there, for those willing to learn.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 03:08 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Does it police itself? The report named twenty-some people, including officers several layers above the individuals committing the abuse, as at least partially responsible for either knowing about abuse and not reporting it, for giving directives that either clearly encouraged abuse or were obviously vague enough to be interpreted as allowing abuse. So far only the grunts have been indicted -- same as at Abu Ghraib. And when you consider that some of the treatments described in the report -- and previously reported at Abu Ghraib -- were cleared by Rumsfeld and/or suggested by the Gonzalez draft memo, it's hard to escape the conclusion that responsibility OUGHT to extend, at a minimum, up to Rumsfeld -- even if it's not criminal liability, it IS responsibility. If he were a man of honor, he would've resigned in disgrace by now.

Posted by: Auros at Sunday, May 22 2005 06:25 PM (hzFpF)

2 So far only the grunts have been indicted -- same as at Abu Ghraib. The officer overseeing prisons in Iraq, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski has been busted back to Colonel, which is a career-destroying demotion. She wasn't there and took no part in the abuse and so hasn't been indicted, but she was judged derelict in her duty. Five other officers have also been the subject of disciplinary action over Abu Ghraib. The New York Times report mentions that no officers have been indicted over the abuse in Afghanistan, but doesn't say anything else. I expect that the situation is much like Abu Ghraib: Officers not directly involved in the abuse but who should have taken action to stop it have been dealt with short of court-martial. blah blah Rumsfeld blah blah Gonzalez blah No. Nothing in that paragraph is either factual or logical. Sorry, but you are an idiot.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, May 22 2005 08:22 PM (+S1Ft)

3 Says you. "Despite autopsy findings of homicide and statements by soldiers that two prisoners died after being struck by guards at an American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, Army investigators initially recommended closing the case without bringing any criminal charges, documents and interviews show." Part two of the same article, published this morning.

Posted by: Auros at Monday, May 23 2005 03:56 PM (hzFpF)

4 Was the case closed? The case was not closed. Were charges brought? Charges were brought. Did you have a point? No, I thought not.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, May 23 2005 08:25 PM (+S1Ft)

5 Before you congratulate yourself, you should also note that if it weren't for ONE decent individual taking the in initiative to see the CIC because he was dissatisfied with the military's own inquiry, ONE decent individual who then leaked the CIC report to the Press, the military's "self-policing" would have wound up nought. Most of the soldiers were charged last week, probably because of imminent media exposure, and NONE for causing the deaths. "Our military is imperfect, but it does police itself, and it does hold itself accountable."??? I wouldn't call it self-policing if it exonerates itself in its own inquiry and takes no further action until a whistleblower leaks information to the CIC and the press. "In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command. Until then, he had never been interviewed." "Even though military investigators learned soon after Mr. Dilawar's death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the Army's criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram interrogators, led by the same operations officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to a high-level Army inquiry last year, Captain Wood applied techniques there that were "remarkably similar" to those used at Bagram. Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case. So far, only the seven soldiers have been charged, including four last week. No one has been convicted in either death. Two Army interrogators were also reprimanded, a military spokesman said. Most of those who could still face legal action have denied wrongdoing, either in statements to investigators or in comments to a reporter. "

Posted by: qwerty at Tuesday, May 24 2005 12:54 PM (6CPp5)

6 Before you congratulate yourself Eh? you should also note [unsupported assertions] Your quotes directly undermine your claims.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, May 24 2005 01:06 PM (+S1Ft)

7 Not a chance. My quotes were actually gleaned from the NYTimes quoting the CIC report. Note, it isn't the military's own internal report investigating the deaths of prisoners, but the CIC's investigation instigated by a whistleblower. If there were no whistleblowers, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, no one would even know about the military's torture and abuses. According to the Red Cross, it seems many more complaints were lodged and reported to the military, but we hear nothing about them. And I wouldn't call a system which relies on whistleblowers sticking their necks out to report abuses a "self-policing" one. It's akin to saying the tobacco companies are self-policing simply because a whistleblower came out to the media and authorities and they were then reprimanded in court. By definition, any organisation that covers up its abuses and is only called into account by the stray whistleblower reporting to an outside, higher authority isn't self-policing.

Posted by: qwerty at Wednesday, May 25 2005 06:56 AM (6CPp5)

8 From the same article, Mr. Pick-and-Chooser: Citing "investigative shortfalls," senior Army investigators took the Bagram inquiry away from agents in Afghanistan in August 2003, assigning it to a task force based at the agency's headquarters in Virginia. In October 2004, the task force found probable cause to charge 27 of the military police guards and military intelligence interrogators with crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to lying to investigators. Those 27 included the 7 who have actually been charged. "I would acknowledge that a lot of these investigations appear to have taken excessively long," the Defense Department's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, said in an interview on Friday. "There's no other way to describe an investigation that takes two years. People are being held accountable, but it's taking too long." There are valid criticisms to be made against the military over both the incident and the handling of the investigation. The problem is, you aren't addressing those points, you are instead choosing to press claims that have no basis in fact. On the other hand, the military is addressing those points. Which is exactly what I said in the first place. You say: If there were no whistleblowers, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, no one would even know about the military's torture and abuses. That's completely false. Not only was the Abu Ghraib incident the subject of a military investigation months before it became the liberal media's number-one chew toy, it was specifically included in press briefings. Military 4, Liberal Media 0

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, May 25 2005 07:06 AM (+S1Ft)

9 You are seriously deluded. It was another whistleblower, Darby, that exposed Abu Ghraib, and Seymour Hersh broke it before the Pentagon was forced to admit it. In the case of Bagram, "In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command." This is the whistle blower. Two months later "Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case." Before then, the internal miitary inquiry ended with no recommendations to take any action. If it weren't for the whistleblowers, one or two men out of hundreds and thousands, not a squeak would have been heard. Any respectable self-policing org would have started immediate investigations into dead prisoners and STOPPED any further abuses and brought those responsible for torture and manslaughter to justice. Instead, the torturers and killers at Bagram were sent to Abu Ghraib to repeat their stellar performance AFTER the deaths of the two innocent Afghans by their superiors. You still haven't explained how the Red Cross reports about torture and killings went IGNORED by the Pentagon for years. This isn't a self-policing entity. Unless self-policing means getting away with murder. The refutation isn't personal or meant to undermine you, but many of us no doubt find it troubling you invest such faith in a military that has repeatedly been exposed as perpetrating crimes with impunity. In effect, you are saying that things are just great and dandy in the military. If not for the "liberal" media you despise, Hersh and NYTimes, all would have remained buried. It is strange how instead of appreciating them for speaking truth to power, you would belittle them. I have enough of this rah, rah, rah, ain't we great stuff. Enjoy more of the same from your Bush.

Posted by: qwerty at Wednesday, May 25 2005 08:55 AM (6CPp5)

10 Sorry, no. This is the whistle blower. An army sergeant, reporting to an army investigative body. In other words, even when the inital investigation failed, the military could be trusted not only to reopen the investigation, but to launch an inquiry into its own procedures. Which means that we have a whole new level of trust established - the old "Quis custodiet ipso custodes" is answered. Instead, the torturers and killers at Bagram were sent to Abu Ghraib to repeat their stellar performance AFTER the deaths of the two innocent Afghans by their superiors. That is the first intelligent thing you have said. That is a very legitimate criticism that I haven't seen addressed by the military. Even ignoring your slant, it should never have been allowed to happen. You still haven't explained how the Red Cross reports about torture and killings went IGNORED by the Pentagon for years. The Red Cross reports have been investigated. In almost - not quite, but almost - every case they have been determined to be unfounded. Unfortunately in recent years the Red Cross has developed the same brain-eating anti-Americanism that is so widespread elsewhere. It doesn't matter that you can't tell right from wrong; you're just one idiot. It does matter that the Red Cross has lost all sense of proportion. This isn't a self-policing entity. A 2000-page report proves you wrong. In effect, you are saying that things are just great and dandy in the military. In effect, you can't read. If not for the "liberal" media you despise, Hersh and NYTimes, all would have remained buried. Hah. Hersh is even more loosely connected to reality than you are. He is hopelessly unreliable. The NYT as a whole is just hopelessly biased. Fortunately, we do not need to rely on either one for anything. It is strange how instead of appreciating them for speaking truth to power, you would belittle them. "Speaking truth to power"? That pathetic line, again? With Hersh and the NYT, we see not so much speaking truth to power, as speaking falsehoods to the insane. Which includes you, I'm afraid. Read part one of this piece, which details your mental problems. Or better, read Bill Whittle's Sanctuary.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, May 25 2005 10:21 PM (AIaDY)

11 ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net

Posted by: ya pidoras at Wednesday, July 26 2006 12:52 AM (w4nDS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Right and Wrong

Commenter Juan Kerr on the aforementioned Bill Whittle piece lists his requirements for a Just War, including this gem:

War can only be waged with the right intention. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not. Thus a war that would normally be just for all other reasons would be made unjust by a bad intention. Right intention requires that democratic statesmen accept the decision of their nations' courts and electorates on the legitimacy and the justice of their action.

This is the left playing the old Heads I win, tails you lose game again.

Because even if we state that our intent is to rid a country of its oppressors, even if we actually do so at great cost to ourselves, even when the country elects a representative government while we defend the fledgling democracy from predators who would destroy or enslave it, all they have to do is deny that this was our true intent, and they can claim that the war was unjust, and that we, the liberators, are the true oppressors, and that the vilest and blackest of murderers are actually freedom fighters, even while the people they murder are their own countrymen.

Even though our actions match our intent, even though the outcome matches our intent, they choose to deny the entirety of our sacrifice and a people's liberation just so that they can also deny a success to their ideological opponents.

That's why Abu Ghraib resonates so strongly with the left. One incident of abuse (not torture, not to anyone with access to a dictionary), at one location, on one day, involving a small handful of under-supervised idiots. But it reflects their inverted worldview, when no other part of more than three years of effort in Afghanistan and Iraq does. To them, Abu Ghraib is true; everything else that has happened in the process of liberating those two countries is false. And the real murder and torture and rape that took place in Abu Ghraib prior to the liberation of Iraq simply does not register. It isn't part of the script. It's not that it's unimportant, it's that it's irrelevant, as if it happened in a story rather than the real world.

And they call themselves the reality-based community. Well, I have something to tell you: We aren't based on reality, we actually live there. You, with your reality-based giant puppet heads and your reality-based baby-eating soldiers, your sacred cows and your eternal paranoia, are based on reality just as a made-for-TV movie is based on a true story.

Which is to say, not at all.

The problem is, you have created these bubbles, and sealed yourselves away from the real world, from any sort of understanding or responsibility. And we can't reach you to help you. Not until something punctures your bubble, and that either requires an effort on your part, or an act in the real world so violent that we would sooner endure your continued estrangement. September 11 woke some people up, but who among us would not rather you had continued your slumber? And for those who did not wake, what would it take? For the Chomskys and the Moores, what appalling shock or tragedy would it take to make them finally acknowledge the real world?

Because argument won't work; we know that. Argument by logic and fact is a tool for debate among people who share a common reality; it serves no purpose for those who have repudiated the world in favour of a phantasm. In the end, Bill's posts, and mine, and Glenn's and Tim's and Ace's and Susie's and Jen's and Ted's and those of thousands of other bloggers are for us and for the people we share this world with, and not for you.

Because what it comes down to is that you are insane, and there's no point talking to you. And the cost of shock therapy is too high to bear. We'd feel pity, except that you chose your insanity, and that's inexcusable.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 679 words, total size 4 kb.

Evil 'R' Us

So I got up this morning, went to the bathroom, then sat down in front of my computer and oops, Kei has rebooted overnight. Bit of a shame, since it's been very reliable since I swapped out the video card. In fact, the last time I thought it had crashed, it turned out to be the bloody Windows XP automatic update had decided to reboot the machine to apply some silly patch.

And hey, look what it was this time.

I had twenty applications running, you miserable piece of crap. Did I tell you to reboot? Did I?

Bah.

Unfortunately I still sort of need Windows around. Well, that or a Mac, and I right now I still hate Apple, so that's out.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Important Things

Bill Whittle has a new post up. He's gotten a little irritated by the incessant carping of the left, and explains a few things to them.

Oh, and my SATA controller has arrived, so I'll be able to rebuild Yuri this weekend. The only problem is that it's a PCI card, of course, so it will be quite a bit slower than using the controller built into the motherboard, which sits on its own high-speed bus. On the other hand, it should actually work. There are few things more irritating than an intermittent, untraceable, and fatal fault in a $2000 machine. Well, actually there are many things more irritating than that, but Bill just dealt with most of them.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Friday, May 20

The Sickness Spreads

The New York Times has jumped into the mud (alongside Andrew Sullivan and the Daily Kos) to defend Newsweek and journalistic standards:

Newsweek is under intense criticism for a report it has now retracted about the American prison in GuantÃƒÂ¡namo Bay.

Yes, they are. They printed inflammatory bullshit on the basis of a single unnamed third-hand source. They damn well should be criticised.

Since we've weathered a journalistic storm or two

Translation: Since we're not only hopelessly biased but have been caught red-handed making up stories.

we can only say the best approach is transparency as Newsweek fixes whatever is broken, if anything.

"If anything"?

Says it all, doesn't it? Look, you miserable swamp rat, Newsweek purports to be a news magazine. That involves reporting what actually happens. The Koran-flushing story was selected on the basis of consistent editorial bias, and not subjected to even the slightest examination before printing.

The entire bleeding magazine is broken, and indeed most of the industry.

There is already a debate about journalistic practices, including the use of anonymous sources, and these things are worth discussing - especially at a time of war, national insecurity and extreme government secrecy, a time when aggressive news reporting is critical.

There it is again.

No, you pathetic pismire, what is critical is accurate reporting. Aggression is for opinion pieces, and rarely helps even there.

Just try, try for once, losing the aggression and presenting the facts.

But it is offensive to see the Bush administration use this case for political purposes, and ludicrous for spokesmen for this White House and Defense Department to offer pious declarations about accountability, openness and concern for America's image abroad.

Why, exactly?

Should not the White House and the Defense Department be concerned with these matters? Since the mainstream media are quite obviously not; or at least only concerned with the destruction of all three.

It took Newsweek about two weeks to retract its report.

Two weeks to retract two sentences.

It has been a year since the very real problem behind the article - the systematic abuse and deliberate humiliation of mainly Muslim prisoners - came to light through the Abu Ghraib disaster.

Abu Ghraib?

Which was already being investigated by the military before any newspaper touched the story?

Which involved the abuse and humiliation of prisoners on a single day?

Which did not in fact demonstrate any sort of systematic abuse, but has been shown to be one of a small handful of incidents?

Which was not any sort of disaster?

That Abu Ghraib?

And the Bush administration has not come close to either openness or accountability.

You mean, except for investigating everyone involved, and everyone in their chain of command?

Except for that, right?

The White House and the Pentagon have refused to begin any serious examination of the policymaking that led to the abuse, humiliation, torture and even killing of prisoners taken during antiterrorist operations and the invasion of Iraq.

more...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1216 words, total size 8 kb.

Mistake in the Job Description

Hugh Hewitt had ABC News' Terry Moran (who I have never heard of) on his show, discussing the extraordinary exchanges between him and White House press secretary Scott McClellan, and McLellan and Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times.

This is what Moran had to say for himself:

It comes from, I think, a huge gulf of misunderstanding, for which I lay plenty of blame on the media itself. There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing it's job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.

Maybe it's just me, but I somehow thought that the media's job was accurate reporting?

We saw this during the Hutton Enquiry in Britain as well, with a senior BBC figure making the statement that the BBC's primary function was to oppose the government of the day. (I'd love to find the exact quote for that.)

Excuse me, but there is an actual, elected opposition to do that.

Your job is to present the facts. If you don't like that, you should have gone into real estate rather than journalism.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 03:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 238 words, total size 1 kb.

Bonk/Oif

Let's see, 56 GB to go at hmm, 40 MB per second, which will drop down to 30 or so by the time it gets to the inner tracks, so call it 35 on average, that's 1600 seconds, a bit under half an hour, and this particular ϖ∂* run will be over.

It's done nearly 150 GB without errors, and normally it spluts within the first few minutes.

What's the difference?

I'm only testing one drive at a time.

I've run into this once before, and it's really, really nasty: With certain revisions of certain SATA controllers, everything works perfectly if you only have one such card in the machine. Things start to get a little flaky if you install a second identical card, but you can't track it down.

But, if you run ϖ∂ or some other stress test that runs both cards flat out at the same time, you get inundated with spurious errors.

I couldn't tell that this was happening because on this particular system, the spurious errors caused a "screaming interrupt" which effectively locked up the system. On the previous system, I could at least see that running two copies of ϖ∂ at once would report huge numbers of errors, which would stop immediately if one copy of ϖ∂ was terminated.

About 34 GB to go now. I think maybe the Promise SATA150-TX4.

28 GB to go. The thing I couldn't understand was that it looked like I had two bad drives and two bad controllers, which just didn't make any sense. Bad drives are a common enough phenomenon here at Pixy Central, but two out of four brand new drives and the controller card and the motherboard chipset? Seems a bit much even given the infamous Pixy Central Entropy Field.

22 GB to go. If I order now, I should get the card for the weekend, which would be nice.

This still leaves unexplained the spluttage of the IDE raidset. I guess I'll have to chalk that one up to gremlins.

14 GB to go. Order placed. Pity I didn't work this out at the time I was building the machine. Sigh.

Test completed, no errors. That's three done. Now, /dev/sda seems to be poigled right now from previous tests, so I'm going to reboot and run the test again.

Uh-oh, no rebootee. Have to wait until I get home tonight.

* Latterly known as badblocks.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 02:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.

Thursday, May 19

Yummy I/O Bandwidth!

[root@naga ~]# iostat -k 60
Linux 2.6.9-5.0.3.EL (naga.mu.nu)       19/05/05


avg-cpu:  %user   %nice    %sys %iowait   %idle
           0.24    0.00   36.99   62.77    0.00

Device:            tps    kB_read/s    kB_wrtn/s    kB_read    kB_wrtn
hda               0.00         0.00         0.00          0          0
sda            1068.33     68366.46         1.04    3946112         60
sdb            1084.75     69425.36         0.00    4007232          0
sdc            1106.03     70785.86         0.07    4085760          4
sdd            1094.39     70028.55         0.90    4042048         52

Yep, 70 megabytes per second sustained from all four drives at the same time.

Woot!

Interestingly enough*, sda and sdb are firmware revision 1.01, and sdc and sdd are revision 1.03, and are getting slightly better performance.

* If you're a geek.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 08:11 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Updating the Update to the Update

I now recall that I actually worked out that point about the screaming interrupt possibly being fixed in more recent kernels some months ago, when the spluttage originally recommenced. (This was after rebuilding the system following the previous spluttage.)

However, when I upgraded to the latest-and-greatest-at-that-time kernel, it renamed my block devices.* My old kernel treated SATA devices like IDE devices, so they were named /dev/hdX, where X was some appropriate letter. However, since SATA only has one drive per channel, it actually skipped every second letter. Given the two channels of IDE on the motherboard† taking up hda through hdd, my SATA devices were hde, hdg, hdh and hdk. And then the drives on my PCI IDE controller were hdm through hdp.

Um, yeah.

Anyway, when I updated the kernel, it turned out that in th -

[Excuse me, something bad just happened. I was running badblocks again and it froze, apparently taking the disk offline. Doesn't seem inclined to bring it back, either. Unlike the old kernel, though, the system went neither clunk nor splut, which is at least some improvement.]

- in the process of patching this problem, they had changed things so that SATA drives were now pretend SCSI drives instead of being pretend IDE drives, and were now assigned device names starting with /dev/sda. Of course, my RAID arrays were built using the old device names, and so it, well, I believe the term is failed to proceed.‡

So I went back to the old kernel.

The very latest kernel, as it happens, takes care of all that, automagically fixing my RAID settings and bringing up the appropriate filesystems. Still borked, unfortunately.

[badblocks actually just reported in after a long nap, and then rolled over and went back to sleep.]

However, upon testing things with badblocks, or ϖ∂ as I like to call it, it seems that things are not much improved in terms of actually working. In terms of not bringing the entire system down, though, 2.6.10 scores major points.

So a win, more or less. Some more fiddling around for Pixy, and I'm probably still in the market for a good, cheap, four-port SATA controller. And don't mention the name "Highpoint", or I might be forced to bite you.

[Oh look, Lina just fell over. How about that. The one box that hasn't been giving me fits, and the place were all the munu backups are kept. Splut.]

* Equivalent to drive letters on Windows, except that on Linux you don't normally see them.
† Actually four, but I was only using two because the kernel I originally used didn't support the chipset for the other two.
‡ Some details of this might be wrong; I am going from memory here, and that is only slightly more reliable than my computers.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 09:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

86kb generated in CPU 0.0414, elapsed 0.4903 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.4621 seconds, 375 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Using http / http://ai.mee.nu / 373

Saturday, May 21

Friday, May 20

Thursday, May 19

Praise for Ambient Irony

Contact Support

Contact Pixy

Business News

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Topics

Monthly Traffic

Content

Categories

Archives

A Fine Selection of Aldebaran Liqueurs

That Ol' Janx Spirit

Mostly Harmless

MuNu Blogroll

Dish of the Day

Feeds