Ok so I bought a new ssd, and tried to get a fresh install if windows 10 going. I unplugged all other drives, so only the one was there (brand new one). Booted from a flash drive, installed Windows 10, fresh install. Install goes just fine. Get into Windows. Reboot once, and immediately having problems again. Bios would pop up, then the initial windows loading screen for a brief moment, then I get a black screen with a mouse cursor that I can actually move around... but nothing else. Odd I think, so I connect the hard drive to a difference set of cables just in case.
Now, my bios flash doesn't even show up... it's trying to go straight into W10, but I'm ending up with a black screen, no cursor. Can't even get into bios any more.
At this point I'm happy enough just to identify what hardware needs replacing and replace it ASAP. But I can't put my finger on what it likely is.
RAM problems should have me actually crashing. Surely can't be my brand new SSD having similar problems to my old SSD. I'm thinking likely motherboard? Any ideas?
Good thinking. I ordered a clean SSD to be arriving today, so I'll try a clean install on that. Of course, my current install came from an upgrade, so I'm having trouble getting a Windows 10 install going now. Windows 7 key doesn't work (which supposedly some do), and it is supposed to recognize the pc from the hardware but that isn't happening.
Hoping someone here can help me out. I've had an extremely shitty 48 hours, and fixing this would go a long way to improving my mood. My home pc is set up with an SSD as my primary drive, a large regular had drive for storage, and two more ssds for game installations. I leave to drop my son off at school yesterday morning, come back and my monitors are both blank, with the classic blinking light to show they aren't getting input from the pc. Odd, I thought... so I rebooted my PC. Or tried to.
Bios shows up, then it acts like it's about to go onto the next stage but instead... nothing. PC is on, monitors stop showing input from the pc. I reboot, go into the bios and check a few things. Drives are all still registering, temperatures all seem fine. So I reboot. This time I get a windows symbol past bios, and it tells me windows didn't shut down properly. I tried to do a startup repair, but that failed. What the heck, I rebooted. Now I'm back to square one. I go back to bios again, reboot again and get windows again. This time I elect to reinstall Windows 10. Set that to going, once it reaches about 8% I leave the room for a little while. I come back, screen is a dark grey/black. I have a mouse cursor I can move around, nothing else. Patience is a virtue so I leave it alone for an hour, come back and nothing has changed. Reboot time.
Now when I reboot, I get the windows symbol after the bios, but then it seems to just be frozen. No more options to repair, etc etc. A short while ago I threw in my old WIndows 7 DVD, and I'm installing Windows 7 from that. So far so good, I'm 75% into expanding windows files.
Power supply is fine obviously. If it were ram I would think I'd be getting blue screens, or making it into windows at least some of the time. CPU seems to be working fine. Graphics card is there or I wouldn't have anything on the screen. The only thing I can think of is my ssd is failing or failed in some fashion. I've had no experience with that though so was hoping someone here might have an idea. I'd really like to get this up and running again ASAP for both work and personal reasons. THanks in advance for any help.
UPDATE: I got Windows 7 successfully installed, but it didn't detect my network adapter. I tried to reboot, and it tells me that it needs to check one of the disks for consistency (one of my gaming ssds). It then freezes and nothing actually happens.
I'm thinking about acquiring a new console. I currently have a PS3 and Xbox 360 but the PS3 is broken, and I need a new blu ray player!
My kids are a 5 year old boy and a 7 year old girl. For them I'd be looking for games either completely or virtually devoid of violence - preferably games where they built stuff, or learned things. For me, on consoles I like playing racing games, enjoyed Batman: Arkham Asylum and enjoy sports games. I'm not into console shooters that are fast paced (like Halo, Battlefield etc - those belong on the PC!).
So help me out: which console would be better? Which has the better game selection for kids? Does the new Kinect work better than the old one? Is it worth getting so my kids can do stuff with it?
So I've got both a decently powered PC, and an Xbox 360 (my PS3 kicked the bucket ). I'm thinking about diving into the Assassin's Creed series, but there's so fricking many of them and I'm not sure where to start. So here's the deal:
1. PC or Xbox 360? Which platform is better?
2. I don't mind both open world, and fairly controlled storylines. Which games in the series are the best?
3. Do I need to play them in order? Would it make the most sense to get my hands on the first game and go from there?
Quote from: USMC Kato on February 18, 2015, 06:49:15 PM
I may very well take you up on that, especially for my next fight Knightshade. Yeah the Marines kept me nice and lean, but I needed to bulk up a little to be more competitive. I do have a weight class question. I'm 5 foot 7, walk around normally at 155-158. Last 2 weeks at my last fight camp I made weight easily at 150 and didn't even have to cut before weigh ins. But at that point I'm at 7-8 percent body fat. Should I be cutting a few pounds more to make a lighter weight class? At 150 I feel strong, but I'm usually fighting taller guys with the longer reach. If I fight at 145, I'll be a big welterweight but that last 5 pounds is actually a hard cut for me because I would definitely be losing some muscle.
I'd stick at the heavier weight class and be stronger. You're giving up reach but that also means you're probably carrying more lean muscle mass than all your opponents too, which means more strength/power.
And to ATB: The other thing an adrenaline dump does is seriously screw up your body chemistry. You aren't just fatigued, you're at a significantly higher risk of cramping, which in a fight is a huge problem
I write a blog for tennis at www.tacticaltennisblog.com. I get about 3000-5000 visitors a month typically. I have the beginnings of a novel set in 17th century Japan written but I never seem to get going on writing the whole thing.
I get what they did. I'm saying it is not consistent with any of our understanding of time travel logic.
Spoiler for Hiden:
There's just no reason for LC2 to replace LC1 once the future has been changed. It's hand waving to create that final scene with the school and Jean. I get that they 'laid the rules out' and stayed consistent with them. But the rules don't make any sense.
Quote from: EngineNo9 on May 26, 2014, 02:34:21 AM
Quote from: Crux on May 26, 2014, 02:07:11 AM
Spoiler for Hiden:
2. The ending. WTF. Wolverine just skips, what 50 years and wakes up in his own body in a future he doesn't recognize anymore? There's just no time travel logic in which that makes sense.
That part was specifically mentioned several times in the movie and was consistent with the whole plot.
Spoiler for Hiden:
The idea is that all of the changes he had been making back in the past were changing the potential future and as soon as he returned to that future timeline the past was now "set" making that alternate timeline having happened and he would be the only one that knew the previous timeline. They had specifically mentioned this before they put him under and also that was how they used Bishop to avoid the Sentinels time and again. It would make sense that he didn't know the 50 years in the alternate history because he hadn't actually lived it.
That's not how any of our theoretical understanding of time works though.
Spoiler for Hiden:
Let's establish there is two Logans: Logan-1 is the original 1970's Logan. Logan-2 is the Sentinal-Future-Logan whose consciousness is sent back. When Logan-2 goes back and begins changing things, he splits the future into two separate paths - one in which the Sentinals were built, and he's lying on a table trying to fix the past, and another in which the alternate, 'saved' future is the reality. The instant Logan-2 is successful, the future his consciousness got sent back from ceases to exist. Now, you've got two possibilities here.
1. Kitty's consciousness transference is permanent for some reason, and when they pull Logan's body out of the river alternate future that now never happened Logan-2 in it. In this case he wakes up, has the memories of everything from his prior life and continues going from the 1970's OR
2. The moment that future ceased to exist, Logan-2's time-travel ended. Which puts Logan-1 back in control of his body. Now when Logan-2's time travel ends, there's no future timeline for him to go back to - it no longer exists. So he no longer exists. Instead Logan-1 would wake up, have no recollection of the previous few days and live his life seemingly for forever.
What makes absolutely no sense is this idea that Logan-2's consciousness would just... sit out in the ether for 50 years then suddenly at the exact instant appear. Who has been living in Logan's body this whole time? Logan-1? What happens to Logan-1? Does Logan-2 supplant him suddenly? Why? Kitty's not there to transfer his consciousness around. Why would Logan-2's consciousness take precedence?
She actually ended up calling out sick so it never happened. I met again with my boss's boss and he assured me that I have job security, and that he will be watching closely to make sure there are no other instances of attempted 'payback' on her part. I'm going to present her a list of things she can help me with, some of which I cleared with her boss during our meeting and he agreed those things shouldn't be my responsibility. Overall I think I'm in good shape.
So my boss is terrible at her job. When I first started there she literally wasn't doing it. We had no trainers, no medical treatment for our athletes despite there being a budget for it. It would sometimes take asking her the same thing 10+ times over the span of 2-3 weeks to get answers to simple questions. It was downright horrific. I reported it to HR, and she almost got fired for it (after corroboration from my colleagues). Truth be told she probably would/should have been but as a woman of color, she'd previously threatened to sue over an imagined discrimination issue in the past so I think they kept her just to avoid all of that. After that, her performance picked up. Still not *good*, but at least bare minimum.
She did, however, increase our workloads - shoveling as many of her responsibilities as she could onto us, delegating even simple tasks rather than do them herself. The feeling i and my colleagues had was that she was creating a paper trail so she'd have grounds to write us up/get us fired in retaliation. Fast forward to a month ago, and I had a meeting scheduled with her over something, with a very short time to do it in. I go into her office, and she hands me a form where she's written me up for "insubordination". It's completely and utterly bogus, all based around two short emails I sent her in fairly quick succession over a short-notice meeting I tried to schedule with her from two days before. I sent one email asking if she could meet, then shortly after sent another saying "Scratch that, I realized I won't have time to do that and get to practice on time." She took my emailing her with the phrase "Scratch that" as rude and insubordinate, despite us having an established history of fairly informal communication via text and email.
Here's where it gets interesting. Right before handing me the notice, she told me that we don't communicate enough and she wants us to talk more. I of course pointed out the absurdity of telling me we should talk more, and then taking offense at a simple email and formally writing me up without talking to me about it. She wasn't interested in that line of thinking. So, I immediately took the email and went to see her boss about it. I gave him the 2 minute run down, handed him the form. He said it was ridiculous, photocopied it, and then told me not to respond, and not to worry about it at all. So I've left it alone since. She's still barely competent, still not doing her job well.
Last week in our staff meeting, she asked us, for the first time since I took the job, what she could do to make our jobs easier. It actually came across as sincere, which was shocking from a woman who has been lazy, dishonest and downright crappy. None of us had an easy answer because this came out of the blue. I decided it might be worth meeting with her to try to clear the air. So, I've tentatively scheduled an informal lunch meeting with her tomorrow. I don't want to spend my time at my job watching my back because of the knife I think she is currently sharpening to stick there. At the same time I work in an at-will state and I'm a white male - the most fire-able of commodities even though I am excellent at my job. Is meeting with her and trying to clear the air a bad idea? Is it stupid of me to think she might handle this like an adult, talk about the issues we've had and try to sort it all out? Should I keep the lunch light, informal and not touch on anything substantial?
Hive mind I ask thee: what is my best course of action?
I can't think that a whole lot of good will come from this. I'm fortunate enough to train at a Crossfit gym where the owner/head trainer is a woman who has qualified for the Crossfit Games 4 years in a row. She's an absolute animal. However maintaining that level of strength and fitness is basically a full-time job for her, and she's something of a freak of nature in many regards. Push comes to shove, the number of women who are truly physically capable enough to take arms beside men on the front lines and genuinely hold their own from a strength/endurance perspective are so few that I think this entire exercise is a bit of a farce.
Quote from: TheEgoWhip on January 02, 2014, 04:51:56 AM
Saw it tonight with the girlfriend, and we also really liked it.
Spoiler for Hiden:
The only thing that took me out of the moment in the entire movie was his ability to get clear cell reception in the most remote places... 18,000 ft up in the Himalayas... On a remote stretch of road between the only two cities in Iceland..Afghanistan... When I went to Europe last year my Verizon smartphone wouldn't work on their network without some insane world plan (Gfs Iphone was a simple phone call to turn worldwide data on tho ) and how was his old school flip phone even working after a swim in the north Atlantic? Girlfriend really liked the Benjiman Button daydream too.
Spoiler for Hiden:
For what it's worth, I believe you can now get mobile internet access on Mount Everest, so getting a cell phone signal isn't out of the question.
You know the more I think about it as a result of this discussion, the more I realize a huge part of why I didn't like the movie: there were no surprises. Not in the "I needed a plot twist" kind of way, but just that virtually every aspect of the movie was utterly predictable because it followed so many cliches and tropes.
Spoiler for Hiden:
From the moment the brother died, I right away sensed the surviving brother would go off and quit the program into a spot of obscurity. The two scientists - you just *knew* there was going to be a last second revelation regarding the portal. You knew the Japanese girl was going to flake out only to come up big when it really mattered. You knew the aussie asshole was going to get saved by them and begrudgingly admit his respect. The moment the commander guy talked about not being able to survive another spell in a Jaeger due to his previous radiation exposure you knew he was going to get in one to save the day. It was just one after the other of absurdly predictable moments. There have been plenty of action movies that were fairly brainless with decently large plot holes. Plenty that were *largely* predictable. But the utter degree to which all of the plot developments in this movie could be predicted was just a deal breaker for me.
Quote from: Ascendent on December 26, 2013, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: Soulchilde on December 26, 2013, 03:28:43 PM
Well, I enjoyed it so much I brought the Blu Ray.
Yup...I've seen it maybe 6-7 times altogether, as for why they did things, because it's a movie. So why didn't they use the sword before...because it's a movie, that wall was dumb it isn't going to stop...it's a movie, why did the jet fly within 50 feet of...it's a movie. I enjoyed it immensely, though I'm a fan of the genre so I tend to be more forgiving then others.
Yeah "It's a movie" is just a really bad way of making excuses for unnecessarily poor film making in my opinion. I can use that line with regards to explaining the *setting* for a movie, but not for internally inconsistent logic within the movie itself. For example, if someone asks me why magic exists within the Harry Potter films I can say "It's a movie. It's not real". But I still expect that *within* the setting of Harry Potter they aren't going to break down the fabric of the setting. To me, this is what Pacific Rim did. For you clearly it did not. You're welcome to your opinion and I'm welcome to mine At the end of the day when the credits rolled I felt like it just tried too hard to hit all the action blockbuster high points and was lessened as a movie as a result.
Quote from: Turtle on December 24, 2013, 03:24:26 AM
Spoiler for Hiden:
Apparently, the swords were a new addition. The Chinese one had spinning blades.
The Wall was supposed to be ridiculous. It was a stupid, and desperate political move from politicians completely unable to comprehend things.
I don't even like the movie that much, but frankly, if you were looking for high cinema, or even through provoking cinema, in a movie with giant robots fighting giant monsters, not sure where I could point you to to satisfy that.
Contrary to the opinions of some listed above, I wasn't expecting high cinema. I wasn't even expecting thought provoking. I've got plenty of room in my tastes for fairly mindless action - for example I loved the Expendables which wasn't without its flaws. I just came away from that movie thinking it was a huge missed opportunity to do a genuinely great action flick. Instead it was merely mediocre. A tighter plot line, a few less cliches and it would have been nothing short of fantastic. But really:
Spoiler for Hiden:
The rebellious pilot who doesn't follow orders = Top Gun. The invaders from elsewhere who travel to worlds and consume them = Independence Day. The end of the line sacrifice with the nuclear explosion to save humanity = Armageddon. It was just like instead of making his own blockbuster movie, he tried to nab the best parts of all of the old ones. I get that there are themes that are common in movies. I understand people borrow form each other, are inspired by each other. The lack of originality left me feeling exceedingly underwhelmed.
Finally got around to seeing this last night with the wife and I have to say it was sorely disappointing after good-looking trailers and all of the praise it received on these boards The whole movie seemed like a collection of past 'blockbusters': Transformers meets Top Gun meets Godzilla meets Independence Day meets Armageddon.
Spoilerized Issue #1:
Spoiler for Hiden:
So let me get this straight: the Jaegers have built in swords that can cut into the hides of even the Class 4 and 5 Kaiju, but instead they spend 85% of the movie *punching* the monsters even though it seems to do little real harm to them?
Spoilerized Issue #2:
Spoiler for Hiden:
"The Wall." Seriously? Discontinue the Jaegers to build a coastal wall, that I guess has to cover at the very least the coastline of every "Pacific Rim" nation, and realistically the coastline of every planet on earth? And having done so, they find out a single Kaiju can break one down in approximately one hour? Was this thing designed and built by my three year old?
I could go on, but what's the point? There was so much potential here for a genuinely fantastic movie. He had the budget. He had the source material. And we got a series of cliches and what seemed like the bastard love child of a mass orgy of eight different action films. Meh.
I watched this on Thursday and enjoyed it. Depp is fantastic, and the movie has a lot of good humor sprinkled throughout. I'm not entirely sure how i feel about it yet, but I don't think it was at all a bad film. Some heavier themes than I anticipated going in, and the lady actually left the movie theater a little sad.
Anyone playing this latest iteration? How does it feel compared to 2012? It's on sale on Steam right now for 50% off ($20) and if there was enough interest I figured we might be able to get a league going using the new multiplayer features (where you can just play games using teams, not having to do the entire game with transfers etc). Any other addicts out there?