Casey Anthony/Double jeopardy/Due process/George Zimmerman

Defending due process

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I understand it is frustrating seeing someone put on trial only to see them walk out of Court, having been acquitted of the charges in what many would’ve called a “slam dunk” case. And the unfortunate response to these trials seems to be an attack on due process itself.

On Facebook I am subscribed to the page “Refutations to Anti-Vaccine Memes“, and I like a lot of what they share, but their recent example just didn’t sit well with me:

10478186_718870461516299_3732523292410460878_n.jpg

A lot of people believe adamantly that OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony got away with murder. If they’d thrown George Zimmerman in with this, then whoever created this would’ve had the trifecta on that one.

If this was intended to be sarcastic, their intentions fell flat because it is far from. When someone tried to point out that it is intended to be sarcasm, I said this:

Rachel and Margaret, there isn’t any sarcasm here to be observed. Simpson and Anthony were both acquitted by juries because there was not enough evidence to satisfy the burden of proof. Holding up two acquittals as examples of Courts being “wrong” is absurd in the kindest terms.

And to anyone who might, don’t bother trying to argue the merits of the cases or whatever the facts of the matters are, as the trials are over and the acquittals set in stone, so whatever anyone has to say on the matter is immaterial.

Another person said this:

I too, must object to the use of these cases as examples of the court being wrong. The court, for a change, was absolutely right, in both cases, because it rejected crappy science. In the Casey Anthony matter, they couldn’t determine a cause of death but they COULD say it was murder? Absolutely garbage, and that tripe was coming from one of the leading forensic pathologists in the country. These were both, actually, excellent examples of the court getting it RIGHT, and not being influenced by hysteria and public opinion (as the anti-vaxx movement is trying to do) Maybe you should use the case of the Central Park 5…innocent boys sent away to prison, because THEN the courts got it wrong, partially because of media/public frenzy.

Later a person named Erin posted a couple comments, since removed, bashing people she felt were actually defending Simpson and Anthony, even going so far as to say that we’re “almost as bad as the anti-vaxxers”. Now I never watched the OJ Simpson trial. I was in high school at the time, and the trial went on during the day during the school year (though it did extend through the summer into the following fall), so I only saw whatever was reported on the news. And I never watched the Casey Anthony trial either, and the same with the George Zimmerman trial. And if you were to read through the other articles I’ve written on this blog regarding both cases, you’ll see I don’t defend either Zimmerman or Anthony. Instead what I am defending in discussing both cases is due process itself. And I said such on Facebook:

Actually Erin, I never saw either trial. Never watched OJ’s trial (I was in high school at the time, so couldn’t), and never watched the Casey Anthony trial either as I was never interested. As such, I’m not defending either. Instead I’m defending the due process that saw them acquitted, and the double jeopardy doctrines that mean they can never again be put on trial.

When you or anyone else puts up these two acquittals, or any other acquittal, as a demonstration of the court being “wrong”, you are attacking everyone’s right to due process, everyone’s right to be presumed innocent, merely because you “know” they are guilty. Umm, no you cannot know they are guilty, not unless you saw every single piece of evidence the investigators saw. Not unless you were part of the investigation that resulted in their arrests. Instead, like with vaccine science, all you can do is trust the right evidence was gathered and enough evidence was gathered to demonstrate the claim. And in the case of Anthony, Simpson and, I’ll add for good measure, Zimmerman, the evidence wasn’t their [sic] supporting the charges. Plain and simple.

And regardless of what you might think, they do still retain their right to be presumed innocent because of their acquittals. If you expect that right for yourself, respect it for everyone else.

There’s a big difference between defending a person and defending a principle. There’s a big difference between supporting a defendant and supporting their right to defend themselves against accusations. There is a big difference between defending what someone has done and the right to have those actions proven in a Court of Law beyond reasonable doubt.

I don’t defend the defendants. Instead I defend due process. I defend double jeopardy. I defend the processes to which I may one day become subject, and the rights that I want to be able to exercise should that happen. As I expect those rights and processes for myself, I defend them and respect them for everyone else.

The “court of public opinion” is a Court in which there is no presumption of innocence and no due process. All verdicts are determined before the actual criminal trial begins, and if the criminal trial results in a verdict that differs from the court of public opinion, then due process in the criminal court is itself attacked, the jury process attacked as well, and everyone’s rights suffer for it.

Yet it is a problem that is not going away any time soon, if ever.

Crime/Due process/Feminism/Sex

Replying to Jen Gunther, MD, regarding campus rape and sexual assault

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

A man writes an article that mentions rape and it’s twisted into a few different directions by a feminist. Nothing new. Because one thing a lot of men don’t seem to realize is the fact that rape is owned by feminism, to be defined and refined however they wish. Today’s article is in response to Jen Gunther, MD, who is an OB/GYN, and her article titled “An OB/GYN writes to George Will about college rape“. She was responding to George Will’s recent article in the Washington Post.

Take it away, Doctor.

I read your recent column on the “supposed campus epidemic of rape, a.k.a. sexual assault” and am somewhat taken aback by your claim that forcing colleges to take a tougher stand on sexual assault somehow translates into a modern version of The Crucible that replaces witchcraft with rape hysteria.

Doctor Gunter, if you’d actually read George Will’s article as you claim, you would have seen that his article wasn’t about the “supposed campus epidemic of rape”. It was a topic on which he spent, arguably, too much time, but that was not the sole focus of his article. I’m wondering if you read only what you wanted to read from it. I’ll get to the idea of colleges taking a “tougher stand on sexual assault” later, and all I’ll say up front is that what you might call a “tougher stand” is certainly a rather troubling idea.

But bear in mind that rape victims are not the only kind of victims on college campuses, and while he, again, spent an inordinate amount of time on sexual assault and rape, he was more speaking to all kinds of victimization on campuses, as noted by this paragraph:

Meanwhile, the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is “trigger warnings.” They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity. This entitlement has already bred campus speech codes that punish unpopular speech. Now the codes are begetting the soft censorship of trigger warnings to swaddle students in a “safe,” “supportive,” “unthreatening” environment, intellectual comfort for the intellectually dormant.

Again, I’m wondering if you only read from the article what you wanted to read as opposed to what was actually written.

I was specifically moved to write to you because the rape scenario that you describe somewhat incredulously is not unfamiliar to me.

The rape scenario that George Will quoted is that of a former student at Swarthmore College named Lisa Sendrow, which she relayed in an interview with Philadelphia Magazine contributing writer Simon Van Zyulen-Wood for an article called, simply, “Rape Happens Here“:

But in the midwinter of 2013, Sendrow says, she was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months. They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. “I basically said, ‘No, I don’t want to have sex with you.’ And then he said, ‘Okay, that’s fine’ and stopped,” Sendrow told me. “And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.”

This is certainly a problematic situation. But he didn’t describe it “incredulously”. He merely quoted the situation word-for-word out of the magazine article as I have just reproduced here. The alleged incredulity you feel he is granting this situation comes merely from the fact the alleged rape wasn’t reported until six weeks later. And when she attempted to relay details of how she was raped, that is where she was met with what she described as incredulity:

A month and a half went by before Sendrow paid a visit to Tom Elverson, a drug and alcohol counselor at the school who also served as a liaison to its fraternities. A former frat brother at Swarthmore, he was jolly and bushy-mustached, a human mascot hired a decade earlier to smooth over alumni displeasure at the elimination of the football team, which his father had coached when Elverson was a student. When Sendrow told him she had been raped, he was incredulous. He told her the student was “such a good guy,” she says, and that she must be mistaken. Sendrow left his office in tears. She was so discouraged about going back to the administration that it wasn’t until several months later that she told a dean about the incident. Shortly thereafter, both students graduated, and Sendrow says she was never told the outcome of any investigation.

The big problem with this particular situation, and why I called it an “alleged rape”, is simply the lack of evidence. This situation boils down to little more than a “he said, she said” kind of scenario. He could claim consent while she can discount it. Who do you believe? But this situation differs quite differently from the one that you relate in your response, again making me wonder if you actually read what George Will wrote:

The lead up was slightly different, but I too was raped by someone I knew and did not emerge with any obvious physical evidence that a crime had been committed. I tried to push him away, I said “No!” and “Get off” multiple times,” but he was much stronger and suddenly I found my hands pinned behind my back and a forearm crushing my neck and for a few minutes I found it hard to breathe. I was 22, far from home, scared, and shocked and so at some point I just stopped kicking and let him finish.

First I need to point out an inconsistency in your narrative.

You say you “did not emerge with any obvious physical evidence” that you were raped, but then mentioned that your throat was “crushed” by the perpetrator’s forearm. I don’t need to be a medical doctor to know that such an action would’ve likely left some kind of bruising on your throat. That’s physical evidence that you were, at the least, physically assaulted. The rape kit, if collected in a timely manner, would likely have provided evidence of sexual assault. Take those two together, and you probably have evidence that could demonstrate rape charges beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.

You labor under the fear (as some men do) that there is an epidemic of false rape. That good young men will go to jail for consent withdrawn after the fact. And while false accusations likely do happen (the Duke Lacrosse case is a recent, well-known example) these are the exception and not the rule and each time a male with a platform spouts off about a false epidemic of rape it only makes it harder for women who have been violated to come forward.

Not an epidemic of “false rape”, but false rape accusations. And it’s not “likely” that they occur. False rape accusations do happen. And it’s not “consent withdrawn after the fact” either, but also outright manufactured claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape. And what is your evidence that they are the “exception”? I don’t believe there are any statistics on the number of false rape allegations versus legitimate allegations, so for you to say they are the “exception” is as without merit as it would be for me to say they are commonplace.

But the fact they do happen is the reason a lot of men fear the prospect. You see, Doctor, this is one thing you will likely never have to fear. You will never have to fear that a passing glance at a person of the opposite sex at your practice will be construed into a charge of sexual harassment that ends your career. You don’t have to worry about a false rape allegation being levied against you that can also end your career.

You see, the allegation of rape or sexual harassment by itself, just the allegation regardless of evidence corroborating it, can be enough to end careers and ruin lives. This is the reason that George Will mentioned this:

Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal “preponderance of the evidence” standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female “survivors” — note the language of prejudgment.

The “preponderance of evidence standard”, Doctor, I’m unsure if you are aware, is merely weighing two mutually exclusive propositions to determine which is more likely to be true. It is far less than the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” that is necessary to secure a conviction in a criminal case. Now I’m aware of the fact that rape cases are difficult to try, especially if victims do not come forward in a timely manner to report their rape and have a rape kit collected while physical evidence, if any, is still viable.

To lower the standard to mere preponderance allows any woman who regretted her night with a particular guy to suddenly start calling it rape. And feminists have managed to elevate a woman’s claim of rape to be beyond reproach, to be accepted as fact, and you’re a misogynist or a rape apologist if you don’t believe a woman’s rape allegations without question.

As such in the situation relayed above that was quoted by George Will in his article, the question must be asked: how can we know that she was indeed raped, sexually penetrated against explicit denials of consent as claimed, and that she did not just manufacture the story after the fact? We cannot. This is not to say her claim of rape is false, but it is to say we cannot know if it is true. And as the burden of proof for any accusation is on the accuser, we must grant the presumption of innocence.

But when a woman screams rape, even if it doesn’t happen till weeks after the fact, no such presumption is granted. Because to grant that presumption is to be met with waves of screaming feminists demanding you revoke such presumption and accept the accusation of rape outright, regardless of the status of evidence corroborating such an accusation.

Again, Doctor, such allegations, the truth of which notwithstanding, can end careers and ruin lives. And if the accusation is later withdrawn, the damage is still done. And it isn’t just with rape that this is true. False accusations of any heinous nature can do significant damage to a person’s reputation, much of which is likely irreparable. And these accusations will always be levied significantly more against men than women. And they go beyond rape.

After all, if you walk up to a random child who appears in need of help to offer it, you don’t have to be concerned about being looked upon as if you’re going to kidnap that child to have your wicked ways with them.

First a woman has to get over her fear of her assailant and the shame imparted by society and then she has to deal with the police… And if fear and shame and being disbelieved by law enforcement were not enough of a deterrent think about having your pubic hair combed for your rapist’s DNA while you are dripping with his ejaculate. And you have the gall to wonder why some women might not immediately (if ever) report a rape?

And that is why there have attempted to be numerous education programs trying to instill into women’s minds that the first thing they must do after an alleged rape is seek out the police or medical attention. I remember seeing that kind of literature when I was in middle school. The sooner after the incident you seek out the police or a hospital emergency room, the better. And that is true not just with rape, but with any physical assault and really any other crime.

That is merely the fact of the matter, Doctor.

As an OB/GYN, you are likely aware that even if the victim does not shower, the evidence deteriorates quite quickly. As you have collected rape kits, so you say in your article, you are also likely aware of how crucial that evidence along with any other physical evidence on the body is to a successful prosecution. Yes, collecting that evidence can amplify a person’s feelings of degradation because they went from being treated as a piece of meat to being, essentially, a living crime scene. But that doesn’t lessen the importance of collecting that evidence, and that is what must be made clear to the victim: that her cooperation in collecting the physical evidence from her body and her clothing is of paramount importance to seeing her rapist brought to justice.

And if she is unwilling to cooperate, then it must be spelled out to her, made clearer than crystal that she is only jeopardizing her chances of seeing her rapist arrested and prosecuted.

It might sound like I’m being just utterly heartless in writing this, but again that is just the fact of the matter, Doctor.

How easy do you think it is for a scared 20 year-old to call 911 or walk into a police station and say, “I was just raped?”

Easy or not, again, it is a necessity. And if she won’t call 911 or walk into a police station, at the least she needs to visit the emergency room. As most nurses in ERs are women, she will likely have no difficulty in finding help and those sympathetic to what just happened.

There is no woman who I have ever met personally or as an OB/GYN who thinks that surviving a rape confers some sort of privilege.

And from where in George Will’s article are you deriving any implication that even George Will thinks it does. I could find no such implication in reading the article in its entirety. Here is what Will stated:

They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.

He’s not saying that the victims themselves are demanding or deriving any kind of privilege from their status, but that others are giving it to them. Privileges can also come from other sources. Now if a rape victim herself were to start demanding all kinds of privileges merely because she is an alleged victim of rape, then that would be a quite different story. But as you said, and I agree, it doesn’t happen, or at least it is exceedingly uncommon as to be easily ignored.

But again, Will was not saying the victims themselves think they have some kind of privilege by being a victim. A lot of people probably don’t think such. It’s something a bit more subtle that only becomes apparent when you look for it.

And then we have the professional victims, people who will routinely manufacture all kinds of claims to gain sympathy and, yes, privilege from others. Rebecca Watson is a ready example there, as is Melody Hensley and her Twitter-derived PTSD – interesting story behind that one.

This weekend I was out dancing and experienced what I think you referred to as “micro-aggressions.” I had my buttocks pinched three times and my breasts groped twice. I was called a “bitch” and a “50-year-hag” when I politely declined hopeful suitors. Whether it is a cat call or a grope these actions represent sexual aggression and Mr. Will they have little to do with sex and everything to do with aggression.

As someone who has “cat called” other women and attempted to engage other women in conversation, yes with the intent of possibly finding a sex partner, I can tell you that your blanket statement is not correct. Those men could have genuinely thought that their actions were going to get them a night with you. You cannot know as you cannot read their minds, so your mere interpretation or feeling that you were aggressed upon is not to say that their intent was aggression.

There is no survivor privilege, just survivors.

I wish I could agree. Again, that privilege is not being demanded by the survivors, but being conferred by others upon them for being survivors. There’s a big difference.

First water cooled build

Water cooling build in my wife’s computer – Part VI

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment
Build Log:

The original CPU water block was sent on its way to Germany a little later than I wanted, via USPS. That was part of the delay, as I originally wanted to send it either via UPS or FedEx, but both wanted what I considered too large an amount to send a 1lb package international. UPS was the worst, quoting me over $100, while FedEx wanted about $85. DHL quoted me at $75. The postal service, however, wanted only $25 using a flat-rate box.

But at least that’s out of the way.

Revisiting components

While talking with AlphaCool I was looking for alternate hardware, namely to replace the water block. I didn’t want to go with Alphacool again. Nothing on them, and I’m sure my experience was a 1-in-a-million occurrence, but when you are that 1 in the million, it tends to turn you away from them. And in this case, it’s turning me away, at least with regard to the CPU water block.

So I researched around a bit more and found the Koolance CPU-380A, which I ultimately purchased from Performance-PCs to replace the AlphaCool block. About the only concern with the block is its warranty, which carries this provision: “Use of 3rd-party replacement parts, coolants, or coolant additives will void this warranty.” So to keep the warranty in place, you need to use their coolants. This isn’t all that shocking since they can’t possibly test their water blocks with everything on the market. And I have no interest in using any dyes or additives anyway.

But having the block in hand, it feels significantly more solid than the AlphaCool block. I don’t think I’m going to have any problems with it. My only minor complaint is simply how heavy the block is, but again it feels significantly more solid.

For the graphics cards I gave my wife the option to upgrade to something else if she desired, but given that would require acquiring other water blocks, we decided to stick with the GTX 660, and getting two again as well since we’ve already got the water blocks and there is no indication either was damaged.

But on the coolant side, I was originally planning to go with just plain distilled water and copper sulfate, which is an anti-microbial. I ultimately decided to go with Koolance’s coolant in the end to avoid impacting the warranty on the CPU block (EK’s warranties don’t carry such limitations). The Koolance CPU block is entirely nickel-plated copper, even on the side exposed to the fluid, which is perfect as the EK blocks are the same so there isn’t really any concern about mixed metals with regard to the blocks, only the fittings.

Now one thing I discovered searching around on EK’s website is their suggestion that copper sulphate additives not be used as they can tarnish the components, especially nickel components. Again that is what I had originally considered using, just plain distilled water and copper sulphate. And that is what pushed me too Koolance’s liquids. The fact I’m not affecting the warranty on the CPU block is just a nice plus.

Different pump

Around the time I purchased the second radiator that was going to be installed before this whole mess started, I also purchased another pump – the AlphaCool VPP655. Performance-PCs had a special on it, getting the pump body only, no housing, for $75, which is still going on as of the time I write this. Getting this pump to flow, however, when getting it tubed into the smaller radiator has been problematic. I purchased the Bitspower D5 mod top from my local Microcenter for housing it, and again it seemed to not want to flow regardless of what I did. So I found AlphaCool’s HF D5 top for their pump and ordered that in.

In hindsight I should’ve just ordered it to begin with, especially given the price difference. But hey, you live and learn. And now I have a spare D5 pump top. Perhaps I’ll list it on Amazon after I replace the screw that ended up falling down the sink drain.

So why did I go with the D5 pump? Well in trying to tube up the reservoir to her existing pump, I was going through different fittings trying to figure things out, and the threads on the Phobya pump stripped as a result. Fittings can get purchase on it, but in trying to tube things up it’s easy to wrench things loose without realizing it with how stripped the threads have become.

Plus the D5 pump just looked better in the Bitspower housing – and it’ll look still better in comparison to the Phobya pump in the Alpahcool housing I have on the way, especially with the LED I also ordered to go with the unused LED plug that came with the Bitspower reservoir.

And the D5 is considered the more powerful pump as well.

So I’ll just keep the Phobya pump around for creating makeshift loops for flushing components. I do still need to put the new radiator through the water filter, now that I think about it, even though I’ve washed several gallons of distilled water through it. Just to be sure it’s rinsed out completely.

More time to wait

All in all, though, we’re not exactly in a hurry to get another loop built out. Instead I’m more concerned with what Alphacool is going to determine when they receive and examine the CPU block. Now while I’d like to get working on a new water loop for my wife’s machine, I’m content in waiting, even if I wait till I get new graphics cards. I’ve already ordered new thermal pads for the blocks.

I’ve still got plenty to do in the interim. I need to flush out both radiators and both of the graphics card water blocks. I’ll likely need to soak all the fittings in distilled water as well to ensure all traces of the previous coolant is gone. I need to wait for the new pump housing so I can figure out how to tube up everything – actually I have an idea in mind on how to tube the pump to what will be the lower radiator, so it’s just a matter of getting things hooked up and testing for flow.

So there’s definitely more to come in the future on this. And hopefully sometime in the next month I’ll have a finished water loop that won’t leak again two months down the road.

Technology

Computer build tip: Front-panel connectors

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Here’s a tip I saw recently on a video for Singularity Computers that I decided to implement myself.

Recall from a previous post regarding my wife’s computer that I’m having to rebuild it with a new mainboard. Part of this will require working with the front panel connector plugs, plugging them into the mainboard. I’ve always hated these things because they tend to require being plugged up while working in a tight space.

My wife’s build had the additional concern of the front panel connectors on her case – the Corsair 750D – not being able to reach. But I found extension cables by NZXT at my local Microcenter, so all was saved on that. Well the extension cables allowed me to build out different plugs for the cables, and the fact my wife’s computer caught fire and needed to be rebuilt was the perfect opportunity to try it out as a concept.

Basically I scrounged some USB connectors out of another case I had – actually my wife’s previous case – after pulling all the cables out. Tedious work, because I had to use a staple instead of what could be considered a proper tool, but it saved me from needing to order new ones. And using the FPIO pinout on her mainboard, I assembled two plugs from the extension cables that can then get plugged into her mainboard.

DSC_0725.jpg

DSC_0731.jpg

DSC_0737.jpg

Looks a hell of a lot cleaner, right?

Now this does take a little work, but it definitely allows things to stay cleaner, and these plugs had the added benefit of not slipping off the mainboard’s pin array when tying them up, so I didn’t have to keep double-checking them.

If you want to do this yourself but don’t have any connectors you can scrounge, you can buy additional ones from Performance-PCs. Those ones have the benefit of not having any of the plugs blanked out, so they’ll have greater compatibility with more mainboards, since some mainboards have a full set of pins for the array – this one has blank spots – that could render USB-specific connectors useless.

Now on a full-tower case this isn’t always necessary as you’ll have more room around the mainboard and power supply for accessing the FPIO pin array on the mainboard. On smaller cases, like mid-towers and smaller, I highly recommend giving this a try. But before you do, I’d recommend getting a proper toolkit to help with this.

First water cooled build

Water cooling build in my wife’s computer – Part V

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment
Build Log:

Yes the build log continues, but this iteration does not begin on a high note. And just to warn you, this is going to be a long article, but I cover a lot of things that happened in a short period of time with a lot of explanatory information as well.

About 8 weeks post-installation of my wife’s loop, we had a catastrophic failure of one of her components, and I think it’s the CPU block that failed. Recall from previous iterations of this series that the CPU block is the AlphaCool NexXxoS XP³ Light – Plexi Edition. In the loop we’d been using the Mayhem’s XT1 coolant diluted to about 1.5L, about a 10% dilution.

Prior to the failure, I had acquired an AlphaCool XT45 240mm radiator to install in the floor of my wife’s case. My intent with adding the second radiator was to also flush out the coolant and replace it with just straight distilled water and a few drops of copper sulfate. Her reservoir came with a silver plug so there would be no need for a kill coil. And I had intended on doing the installation the weekend following the catastrophic failure, after I had acquired the last of what I needed to do the installation.

Needless to say, those plans got scrapped.

The failure was beyond catastrophic to the point of it being lucky I was home. The leaking coolant fell onto the first graphics card and ignited, while some additional coolant fell to the second graphics card and caused some corrosion but did not ignite. Thankfully the flame didn’t last long, but I cut power and pulled the plug to be sure while also grabbing the fire extinguisher as an extra precaution – you do have one of these in your home, right? Had neither my wife or I been home – the failure occurred about 20 min after she left for work – what would we have been coming home to?

The material safety data sheet for the coolant specifies that the main ingredient is mono-ethylene glycol, which is classified as a flammable liquid – it likely shorted out several of the components on the graphics card where it made contact, causing it to ignite.

Once I was sure nothing was going to flare up, my first move was to drain the loop – that all-important drainage system I made sure to install and test comes in handy yet again. Then it was a matter of pulling things out, starting with the graphics cards. Things didn’t look good.

What led me to believe the CPU block was the cause of the failure was the drips of coolant that were hanging off it after I had drained the loop. You can see from the pictures that there were not any trails of coolant leading from the fittings, leading me to believe the perimeter of the block is what failed, likely from the o-ring inside it. This picture below shows drops of water still sitting on the lower edge of the CPU water block.

DSC_0662.jpg

Under the graphics cards was a horror story as well, as you can tell by the above pictures. This is what happens when you mix flames with PCBs. The fact several of the electricity-regulating components got fried, literally, led me to declare all the singed components to be a total loss.

My concern then fell to what else might have been lost beyond the mainboard and graphics cards. The memory chips looked perfectly fine, but the scorching reached to alongside the CPU socket. Getting the block off the CPU, I was able to inspect it and didn’t see anything obvious wrong with it. There wasn’t any scorching or anything like that on the CPU, so I was confident it survived – though I would need to acquire another mainboard to know for certain to set up a bench test on both the CPU and memory chips with a spare video card.

So yet another trip to my local Microcenter was in order. In the mean time I needed to also get the larger radiator out of the system so I could flush it out, get all traces of the glycol coolant out of what remained of the loop, along with the pump and reservoir.

In the mean time, I also took some time to see if I could figure out what happened. I built a makeshift loop with another pump and reservoir and some spare fittings to get the CPU block back under pressure. One thing I noticed right away was the thickness of the water coming out of the loop, as if the glycol solution had separated and gelled up inside the block. How that could lead to the catastrophic failure I’m unsure, but I could definitely notice the water coming out of the block and back toward the reservoir was definitely not the same as the water that originally went in and it seemed a lot of the concentrate was being rinsed out.

Unfortunately I was not able to reproduce a leak, so I’m not sure what happened, and in hindsight I realized that what I could’ve done was hooked the pump to an external power supply to keep the loop under pressure to see if I could observe a leak. But when your system just caught fire, you’re probably not going to be thinking along those lines.

But I was still of the conclusion that the CPU block was to blame, either directly through a component failure, or indirectly by way of the coolant separating and gelling up. So the next task on the list was getting ahold of AlphaCool.

* * * * *

Contacting AlphaCool

Now trying to figure out how to contact AlphaCool was initially not easy, as their main website is a mix of English and German and I’m an English-only kind of person. So I contacted Performance-PCs, the retailer through which I ordered the block, for assistance in contacting AlphaCool to help get this or at the least investigated. Performance-PCs forwarded my e-mail of to their sales representative with AlphaCool UK who replied back to them with permission to give me his e-mail address. So I sent an e-mail directly to the sales rep:

Recall from the previous e-mail chain with Performance-PCs that the component in question is the AlphaCool NexXxoS XP3 Light – Plexi Edition. It was installed on an AMD FX-8350 processor on an ASRock 990FX Extreme4 mainboard.

How to begin on this… I believe the AlphaCool CPU water block that was being used in my wife’s computer failed in some way and leaked coolant inside her computer, causing components to literally catch fire. Thankfully the fire was small and did not last long, but it still caused the loss of two graphics cards plus her mainboard. I’m unsure if the memory and CPU were lost as well as I have not yet had an opportunity to test those, as I need to acquire a new mainboard first.

Getting back to the water block. It was installed about eight (8) weeks ago. The installation was smooth and the leak testing went smoothly as well and I had no reason to believe there was a leak from any of the components or fittings in the loop. Everything ran smoothly until yesterday afternoon when the aforementioned leak occurred. I’m unsure if the failure was due to the water block being faulty, or if the issue was caused or exacerbated by the coolant I chose for her system — Mayhem’s XT-1 Clear, which according to its material safety data sheet is made from monoethylene glycol (MSDS is available here: http://www.mayhems.co.uk/front/download/XT1-150ml-MSDS.pdf).

I also have pictures of the components following the failure, and I can forward those to you if you desire — they are several megabytes a piece which is why I have not just directly attached them here.

So the first thing I believe needs to happen is I need to get the CPU block back to AlphaCool to be examined. So starting with that, how can I get the process started to do that?

Again my intent with initiating contact was to find out if the CPU block actually failed, and AlphaCool would be best able to examine this. They can determine if the block did actually fail due to some fault in its manufacture, or if the coolant was the issue. If the coolant was the concern, then I would have to take things up with Mayhem’s. As it was a Friday afternoon my time when I contacted him, meaning Friday night in the UK, I realized it might be till the following Monday before I heard back.

And the following Monday I received a reply from AquaCool’s UK representative, pointing me to the details on how I can start a defective item claim through the Aqua Tuning store, which I started that evening after getting home as the support request required attaching pictures for defective items. Good thing I have a high quality camera.

* * * * *

Microcenter and Testing the hardware

At Microcenter, I considered getting her the same mainboard I run in my system, the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3, which Microcenter had for a shelf-price of $135. Unfortunately they did not have her original mainboard in stock anymore. But in searching their site the night of the fire, I discovered they had an ASUS Sabertooth R2.0 mainboard for $148 as an open box – it’s typically $185 on the shelf right now. So for only $13 more, I decided to spring for that given this is for a predominantly gaming machine that will, in the end, be overclocked and water cooled. Unfortunately the mainboard did not have the back-panel I/O shield, but I was able to order a replacement through ASUS’s eStore.

When I got home, I decided to break down the computer more out of the case. I discovered that the smell from the burnt PCB had gotten into the radiator, and I wasn’t sure how to get that smell out. I decided that the best attempt would be to run the fans that were on it continually to see if that would work. The smell was also on the case, and I wasn’t sure if I’d have to scrap it or if I could recover it in similar fashion. I was hoping I wouldn’t have to scrap either.

First order of business though would be testing the CPU and memory chips.

I set up a test workbench on the mainboard’s box, using the stock CPU cooler I still had around and a spare graphics card along with a spare power supply. Once I got everything seated and double-checked (the DRAM_LED on the mainboard kept trying to tell me the memory chips weren’t seated properly), I powered it up and watched as everything came to life. So far, so good, and meaning I wasn’t out yet another $300 in hardware for the processor and memory chips, or so I hoped.

But merely getting a response from the mainboard wouldn’t tell me if the CPU and chips suffered any damage, only that they were responding when the mainboard pinged them. To fully test them, I booted up an Ubuntu USB drive and pulled Prime95 off the web. Now for the CPU cooler I was using IC Diamond thermal compound, and the temperature maxed out at 53C according to Psensor, running Small FFT on all 8 cores to have them maxed out at 100%. I left that running for about an hour before declaring it done – if there were any major issues, I figured it would’ve been found within that time frame.

After that came the memory test with MemTest86+ – press F6 while the nearly-blank purple screen is displayed as the live drive is booting and select “Test Memory”. That test came back clean as well.

So thankfully the only losses were the graphics cards and the mainboard – the latter of which is already replaced simply because I needed it to make sure the CPU and memory chips weren’t dead as well, as well as set my wife up with a working system until I can start building out a water cooling loop again. That will happen when I get another CPU water block, as I’ll build out a CPU water loop at least since the stock AMD cooler sounds like a blow drier.

* * * * *

Smelly components

If you’ve ever had the wonderful opportunity to be in the vicinity of burning PCBs, you probably know the smell very readily. Prior to this, the last time I encountered that smell that I can readily recall was a little over 15 years ago when I attempted to upgrade a computer with an AT mainboard and power supply. Some of you probably know where this is going. I connected the power supply to the mainboard incorrectly, and fried the power supply and the mainboard as a result – literally there was smoke coming out of the power supply via the exhaust fan. My father was sitting in the living room at the time – we lived in a 3 bedroom apartment – and he recognized the smell straight away.

Now thankfully that smoke wasn’t accompanied by any flames, that I could readily tell at least, so the smell didn’t really linger. Unfortunately for my wife’s computer, the smell got into her radiator and also settled quite readily into her case. I wasn’t ready to declare them to be a loss, though, though I feared I would be doing so.

After getting her case virtually cleared out, I got the Bitspower X-Station out as well and used it for powering the fans on her radiator (Corsair SP120s) with an external power supply and let the fans blow overnight before checking on them. The smell was almost completely gone from the radiator after that. There was a slight lingering odor where there was a gap between two fans, but I wasn’t concerned as the vast majority of the smell was gone, though I did leave the fans blowing for another couple hours to clear out as much of the last as possible.

Taking that as a good sign, I set up a large fan to blow on her case. My wife and I had a concert in Omaha to see that day (Lindsey Stirling at the Sumtur Amphitheater in Papillion, NE), so there’d be plenty of time for the fan to do its work, hopefully. Now I knew the case would likely take longer simply because it’s larger but the fan did do the trick. We got home about 3am following the concert, and when I checked on the case I could not smell any of that burnt scent on it.

Another $225 in components saved.

* * * * *

Following up with AlphaCool

The reply to my e-mail to the AlphaCool support e-mail address would be from the UK rep. I had no idea the e-mail would be going to the same person, and worded my e-mail as such. The reply included two follow-up questions: was the pump still working and were the temperature alarms turned off on the mainboard?

The manual for the mainboard doesn’t specify any kind of configurable alarms, so the answer to the latter is No by default. I do know that many modern mainboards have temperature fail-safes: they will power the system off if the CPU gets too hot. And if you attempt to turn the system back on, it’ll either power down quickly or the BIOS will issue a beep code saying the CPU is overheating.

You might be surprised to know that this feature wasn’t implemented until relatively recently in computer years. This meant that prior to such an implementation, it was quite easy to cook your processor, and the mainboard with it. Computer processors get very, very hot – hotter than you can touch without burning your skin – even with the kind of air cooling solutions available. It is easy for the processor temperature to jump into the 40s Celsius in just the first 15 seconds after you turn on the computer, and that’s with the processor fan on. Without the fan on, or without a cooling solution on the processor at all, temperatures can fast climb over 100 Celsius and higher, getting hot enough to literally fry the processor and mainboard – search YouTube for ‘cpu no heatsink’ and you’ll find some videos showing this.

Recently I saw a video of a guy building a computer where he didn’t even put the cooling solution onto his processor before getting it powered on. He had a somewhat good reason for doing so: he wanted to get the computer to POST before continuing further, as if it didn’t POST, then he would’ve had reason to believe something was faulty. Without those failsafes, though, he could’ve easily fried his machine doing that. And as in that video he was using an ASUS Rampage IV Extreme mainboard with an Intel i7 3930K processor – i.e. $1,000 worth of components according to NewEgg’s current pricing – it was one costly risk to take that thankfully worked out in the end.

Personally, I was waiting for the thing to practically burst into flame watching the video.

And I certainly understand the nature of the question regarding the pump, given that in my e-mail to the support address and the earlier e-mail, I’m alleging that the failure of the component that is still under warranty and should not have failed caused the loss of several hundred dollars in components. So naturally he’s going to want to ask a few additional questions to determine if another failure in the system led to the block failing. And as CPUs can get pretty hot, if the pump failed, then the coolant would start heating up, possibly causing a build-up of steam pressure inside the loop, with coolant leaking at the first point of failure.

But I tested the pump by setting up a makeshift loop and all was well. So far everything still points to the CPU block.

* * * * *

And that is where I’ll call this iteration. I’ll be sending the block into AlphaCool later this week, which will be interesting since I’ve never actually mailed anything international before – AlphaCool is in Germany. I’ll continue with another iteration once I hear back from AlphaCool on the status of the water block or if I have anything new to add with regard to getting my wife’s system back up and running.

Concealed carry/Crime/Feminism

Why so passive on harassment?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Time to sound like a complete pig.

There seems to be more and more articles showing up about women talking about what has become known as "street harassment". I recently encountered one such article today, courtesy of one of my Facebook friends. And the common denominator among all of these articles is this: this is what happened to me, and we know the problem is pervasive in society.

And then skeptical people like me come along and ask one question that has yet to be answered: how pervasive is it, and what evidence can corroborate this alleged pervasiveness? Because the rule of thumb with most skeptically minded people is simply that the plural of anecdote is not data. Yet merely calling into question the pervasiveness of such harassment tends to get me labeled quite quickly: misogynist, rape apologist, victim blamer, and on from there. Hell even suggesting that women carry firearms, as it’s been shown that presenting a firearm to a potential attacker will get you out of that situation virtually every time, gets me labeled the same by much the same people.

On the mark of there not being really any significant amount of data backing up the claim that street harassment is pervasive, I have one question: given the pervasiveness of camera phones and smartphones, and smaller video-capable cameras also available on the market, where is the video of this occurring? I mean video cameras and their mere presence is enough to keep police officers at bay – mostly.

The author of the above-linked article noted that much of her harassment occurred while she was riding her bike. She doesn’t need to just merely put up with it, but why is her response to it merely complaining about it, either to her boyfriend or, now, online? Why are the subsequent events to this alleged harassment merely just writing about it or complaining about it? Why does it seem no one is actually doing anything about it?

I’d wager that if the author of that article had a small camera mounted to her bike that was constantly recording, with the blinking light clearly and plainly visible, she’d probably get left alone a good majority of the time. I’m not going to say 100% of the time, but it’d probably come pretty close as there are always going to be assholes out there who will be assholes even if a camera is rolling. And the harassment events she does capture will have clear and decisive evidence to back it up – possibly evidence that could stand up in Court.

Yet no one seems to be taking such a pro-active role in trying to combat this "epidemic" of harassment against women. And I don’t understand it. Instead it seems the programmed response to saying that women need to be pro-active is, "We need to tell men to not rape", or something along those lines. And the cycle continues, and the only thing women do about it is complain or wallow in secrecy.

Meanwhile people like me, who say that pro-active measures need to be taken, are called victim blamers, rape apologists and misogynists.

Let me put it this way: if merely telling or teaching people to not break into homes actually worked, home alarms and car alarms wouldn’t be necessary. If merely telling people to not kill was enough, concealed carry wouldn’t be a consideration. And if telling men to not rape – and telling women to not rape as well – was all it took, women wouldn’t have any basis for complaint. So why is it that women continue to want to take passive roles on this? Why do they continue to suffer, only to complain about it online or in secret, when there are proactive measures they can take to actually combat the problem?

It makes me wonder if they actually want the problem to go away. I’m not talking about the women who are actually being victims. I’m certain they want the issue to disappear. I’m talking about the women who seem to be fueled by each story of this happening, the ones whose livelihoods are funded by the fact this issue exists. I’m really starting to wonder if they actually want the issue to go away. If they did, they’d be calling for women to be more proactive. The means exist to be more proactive. We have the technology, yet it doesn’t seem to be getting used. Why not?

I really think it’s because there is a small group of women who need these victims to not only exist but for more to keep cropping up. And until women get more pro-active about harassment, they will not only be victims for their harassers, but will also be used by those who need them around for their own livelihoods.

And really that seems to be a problem, not just with street harassment, but in general. Too many people are making money or gaining political power from the victims of harassment and violent crime, meaning I don’t believe they genuinely want the issue to go away or become a very infrequent occurrence, because their power and money would then dry up in short order.

Second Amendment

Nowhere else to move

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Back in December 2012, just after the Sandy Hook tragedy, the anti-gunners were hoping that the incident would turn gun laws in their direction, hoping that it would lead to numerous new restrictions on firearms. While they would win in many State legislatures – in States already having restrictive gun laws, so they wouldn’t exactly gain any new ground – they would  lose at the Federal level.

After the tragedy in Isla Vista, CA, gun owners are once again being blamed.

Here’s the irony: California already gives the anti-gunners, the “gun control lobby”, most everything they could want, and it still could not stop a lunatic with an inferiority complex. Elliot Rodger passed not just one, but two background checks. And this isn’t the NICS “instant” background check, but a background check conducted across a 10-day waiting period. He legally acquired two 9mm pistols. And under California law, those pistols also had to be registered with the State, and he had to pass a firearms safety course prior to purchasing his first pistol as well.

So why did this not work? Why did laws not stop him? Because like the other mass shooters before him, laws did not dissuade him. The bureaucratic hurdles lawmakers threw in front of him didn’t slow him down. He had his mind set on killing women. His manifesto detailed his plans. This was a man with an extreme inferiority complex combined with one hell of a sense of entitlement, who wanted to make the world suffer because the world wasn’t giving him what he felt he had coming.

He even made disturbing videos and posted them online, and his behavior was becoming increasingly worrisome, resulting in a visit by the police. Why did the police not move to seize his firearms? Was there nothing under California law allowing the police to obtain a seizure warrant through the Court? Was there nothing the State of California could’ve done that could’ve prevented this tragedy? At the least, was no one in law enforcement watching his YouTube account?

Instead people are once again blaming gun owners. And the reason is quite simple: the person on whom all blame should instead be laid put a bullet through his head.

This incident has the gun control lobby pretty much backed into a corner. The only legitimate move they have now is to call for outright bans on firearms. Nothing they could request will ever again be seen as “common sense”. Everything else they’ve called “common sense” and “necessary to prevent future tragedies” failed to stop such a tragedy.

So now anything less than a complete and total ban on firearms called for by any anti-gun group is pretty much a petty exercise, because Isla Vista shows it won’t be enough, that it won’t meet the ends they claimed it would meet.

In short, virtually all of gun control’s claims pretty much died with the Isla Vista killer and his six victims.

Firearms and Ammunition

Electronic flaws

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently in the news you’ve probably been hearing a lot about "smart" firearms. The concept is simple: a firearm with an electronic "lock" that must be disengaged in an appropriate manner before the firearm can discharge. The flaws with the concept are immense and myths abound about it. So let’s get into this.

First, proper care of any firearm requires disassembly so you can clean it. Sometimes the takedown is simple to clean out the barrel and firing chamber, perhaps scrub out the slide. Every once in a while the takedown needs to be a bit more involved to clean out gunk that gets into all kinds of nooks and crannies and piles up over time. If you own a Beretta 92, you probably know that periodically you need to remove the extractor and clean under it – and you’ve probably seen what can build up under there over time.

It’s one of the reasons Glocks are so popular, as they are quite easy to properly maintain.

This means that because disassembly is a mandatory part of maintenance, there would need to be disassembly instructions available, meaning instructions to potentially get to the electronic lock on the firearm and either bypass it or completely remove it.

Now it’s a common assertion for anti-gun proponents that the NRA is "blocking" smart guns from coming to market – which is not true, they are only seeking to block mandates surrounding them, such as the one in New Jersey. They say these guns are needed because they can "only" be fired by the person who owns it. This is not true.

For one, any firearm that would rely on a radio signal to function can be jammed. This means that if these firearms started becoming standard issue for military and police, signal jammers, despite their illegality, would start becoming widely popular among gangs, organized crime syndicates, terrorists, and the like. Guaranteed.

Second, the eletronic discharge authorization mechanism – the electronic "lock", so to speak – can be bypassed or removed altogether, meaning the safety mechanism that gun control proponents are most demanding (short of an outright ban on civilian firearm ownership) is easily bypassed or disabled. All it’d take is a multimeter to various contact points on the circuit board to find out which chip to bypass, in which case it’s a simple solder job to render the "lock" inoperable. Meaning the stolen firearm that wouldn’t work because of a biometric or RF lock is no longer inoperable and can be used like any other firearm.

But you know what cannot be easily bypassed? The safety mechanisms already built into every firearm on the market today, because they are tightly integrated into the function of the firearm.

Plus, depending on how the firearm is built, something as simple as a static discharge to the body of the firearm could render it dead. So hopefully whoever’s making these "smart" firearms are doing some ESD tests across the entire body of the firearm.

"Oh but we can pass a law that makes it illegal to bypass such mechanisms." For one, most States already have such laws, as the laws against defacing a firearm would apply to attempting to modify or disable such electronic mechanisms. But do you really think that’d stop people from doing it?

And how much effect do you think that’d have on the illegal arms trade, both in the US and abroad? Likely none, since a lot of firearms are defaced or illegally modified before being sold on the illicit markets – an example is modifying the mechanisms that prevent automatic fire in a semi-auto firearm.

Plus if a person disables the electronic lock, how can a police officer determine if the lock is functioning? They have to discharge it. So are they going to discharge it during a roadside detention for something minor? Absolutely not, because it would be an unjustifiable discharge of a firearm and expose the officer to potential criminal liability. So they’d have to seize the firearm to either examine it on sight or take it to a lab, which would require probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, meaning if challenged the officer would have to demonstrate through evidence a very sound reason to believe the firearm they seized was illegally modified.

Too many gun control proponents appear to look at "smart" firearms as their Holy Grail without looking at the fake gems and flaking gold leafing coming off the chalice to reveal the smart firearm to be anything but.

Technology

AMD vs Intel

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Ah AMD or Intel? If you’re building a computer, you’ve probably debated this idea. You’ve probably even run some numbers, done some reaserch to see what benchmarks look like, and probably only come out of it even more confused than you did going in. Which should you buy?

Well on price point, AMD will save you money. This isn’t without its tradeoffs though, as Intel beats AMD in most every benchmark that matters except one: heat. Intels knowingly run hotter than AMD chips, and this is because of a known change that Intel made to their processors with the Ivy Bridge line, but I’m not going to get into that. Just know that if you buy Intel, you’re not only paying more for your processor, you’re going to need much better cooling capacity for it.

But overall, which should you go for?

Well I’ll just give you an idea of what I do, along with my desktop’s specifications. First, I do games. I run mostly FPS games like Bioshock Infinite, but I do other games as well like Diablo III, Max Payne 3, and Unreal Tournament. Basically I have a range of games that have a range of requirements. I’m also a professional software engineer, and I write code on my desktop machine.

That said, I run AMD:

  • CPU: AMD FX-8350 (at stock speeds right now)
  • Mainboard: Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3
  • Cooling: Corsair H60
  • Graphics card: PNY GTX-770
  • Graphics card cooling: Kraken G10 and ThermalTake Water 2.0 Performer for cooling, using Corsair SP120 fan instead of stock fans
  • Memory: 8 GB
  • Hard drive: Western Digital Black 1 TB

I’ve actually been running AMD chips for over 15 years predominantly. I’ve had Intel only once that I can recall. Here’s what chips I’ve run in the past:

  • Intel 486DX-2 66MHz
  • AMD K6-2 333 MHz initially, then upgraded to 500 MHz
  • AMD Athlon 800 MHz (Slot A)
  • AMD Athlon XP (can’t recall specifically which)
  • AMD X2 4200+

So I’ve typically gone with AMD, and I’ve never had issues.

Initially I went with AMD because the Intel 486DX-2 was an AT mainboard in an AT case, so upgrading from that and keeping my case meant going with an AT mainboard, specifically a baby-AT mainboard. This was 1999, mind you, and the baby AT mainboard I purchased (it was an EFA P5MVP3-AT) had both AT and ATX compatibility, and you could buy ATX cases that supported baby-AT mainboard with ATX connectors. For all the IT guys who’ve been around the block, hands up if you’ve ever fried an AT power supply because you connected it wrong! Initially when I ran that mainboard, I think I actually had a Cyrix processor and then traded up to the K6-2 after a short while.

It wouldn’t be until after I’d received my Associate’s degree and was pursuing my Bachelor’s degree that I’d upgrade to an ATX case while sticking with the baby-AT board. But having the ATX case allowed me better upgrade options, and I took on an AMD Athlon (Slot A) processor/mainboard combination my college roommate was selling off after he upgraded to something better. I ran that for a year before upgrading to the Athlon XP. And I ran that for almost 3 years before upgrading to the X2 in mid-2007. And I upgraded from the AMD X2 only this past December, when I went with an AMD FX-8350, meaning I had the X2 for about 6 1/2 years.

And I’ve never regretted sticking with AMD because I could not justify the higher price tag of the Intel chips and mainboards. Even with the laptops I’ve owned, I’ve gone with AMD. And I would argue that for most PC users, AMD is the way to go. You’ll get pretty good performance, and an Intel chip won’t provide noticeable differences in most anything a typical user could throw at it.

Now for things that are more CPU intensive, then you may want to lean toward Intel. But the only way you could justify it is if your livelihood rested on you having the Intel processor. For example, if you do professional photography, videography, cinematography or film development, or you’re a marketing consultant or contractor making advertising campaigns. Basically if you’re doing things that are very high end, where every little bit of performance makes the difference between meeting a deadline or not.

For gaming, go with AMD. The only place where Intel beats AMD with regard to gaming is benchmarks. But the performance difference is not something you’ll actually see. Any FPS that is above the refresh rate of your monitor it won’t display. And as long as the FPS is in the 40s or better, sustainably, you won’t really notice anything better than that. Your eyes can’t tell the difference between 50 FPS and 80 FPS unless you’ve got a crappy monitor. Remember that television is 29.97 frames per second for NTSC, 25 frames per second for PAL, and most film is at 23.97 or 24 frames per second. Virtually all videos you watch on YouTube will be 30 frames per second at best.

So if you are a gamer, go with AMD and take the money you’d save and either go with more memory, a better mainboard, a better graphics card, or better cooling. You could even take it and go with a better case if you’ve otherwise budgeted on everything else. The money you save going with AMD can be poured into your system elsewhere where it will count, and for many games, your GPU matters more.

If you’re a developer, unless you absolutely must have Intel, go with AMD and take the money you otherwise would’ve spent and go with better storage options, whether internal or external. If you’re going to be running virtual machines or doing any kind of virtualization – such as for Android or Windows Phone development – then memory is where you should concentrate, as you’ll want the fastest and largest amount of memory you can afford, so pour your money there.

Only if you find yourself in need of triple or quad-channel memory should you go with Intel or one of the server AMD options, but that’s going to cost you one hell of a premium. You’ll need an Intel i7 3820, 39xx or 49xx processor and a mainboard with 6 or 8 DIMM slots. The i7 3820 retails for around $300, while the 3930K is about $600 depending on retailer. And the mainboards are going to run several hundred dollars as well. Unless you’re running multiple VMs simultaneously on your desktop, you’re not going to need that and an AMD FX processor with dual-channel RAM will suit you just fine – just make sure you have plenty of RAM for when you’re running VMs depending on what operating systems you’ll be running.

Now after all of this, some might call me an AMD fanboy. Except I’ve gone with AMD all this time merely because of value. AMD is the better value overall in my opinion, and it will be for most people as well. And the money saved by going with AMD can be poured into other areas that’ll get better bang for the buck: more or better memory, a better mainboard, better storage options or more storage, better cooling, and so on.

In short, unless your livelihood rests on your computer’s raw performance, save your money and go with AMD.

Religion

Atheism is a religion

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Just as many atheists say that “atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods” is one phrase that irks me to no end, another common statement that I’ve always found troubling is “atheism is a religion like off is a TV channel”. Along a similar vein, “atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color”. Aside from being childish, they’re not correct. And they also assist to undermine the legal protection of the First Amendment to which all atheists are entitled.

This is the proper comparison: atheism is a religion like not speaking is speech. Let me explain.

I’ve already explained how the freedom of speech includes the right to withhold speech. The Supreme Court of the United States has numerous times defended the freedom of speech against laws that compel people to actually say something:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

— West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943) at 642

They have also defended the freedom of religious expression against laws that compel a person to proclaim belief in a deity:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person “to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.”

— Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 US 488 (1961) at 495

The right of a person to not speak is a right considered so sacred that law enforcement is required to inform you of that right before you are interrogated, though whether you actually exercise that right by shutting up is up to you. Clearly the idea that you cannot be compelled to speak, except under certain conditions (such as an oath of office, being sworn into the military, etc…), is so sacred that to say “atheism is a religion like off is a TV channel” or something like that is just completely stupid.

Again atheism is a religion just as not speaking is a form of speech. You cannot be compelled to speak and you cannot be censored except in very, very rare circumstances. Both are protected by the First Amendment. No person can be prescribed to or proscribed from proclaiming a belief in a deity as well. And as atheism is not believing in a deity (it’s not a “lack of belief” as so many atheists assert, continually), the proper assertion is that atheism is a religion just as silence is speech.

So yes, atheism is a religion. Not in the same way as Christianity, as so many Christians like to assert. Instead, again, atheism is to religion what silence is to speech. Plain and simple.

And let’s shoot down a couple common retorts before they have a chance to rear their ugly heads. First, not teaching Christianity is not the same as teaching atheism – i.e. not telling a student that the Christian god exists is not the same as telling them no deity exists. That’s like saying not teaching a child that oranges exist is the same as telling them they don’t exist. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way.

And teaching evolution is not teaching atheism. Evolution is not the “atheist creed” either, as many Christians – especially creationists – like to assert. Atheism doesn’t have any creed – though if the Atheism+ people have their way, that’ll likely change.