The most archaic solutions, those that we usually resort to first, involve storing the things in the original storage places. This includes the CD jewel cases or even the spindle that the things came in. In the case of the CD jewel cases you will have to either make labels for all the jewel cases for each of the CD’s or DVD’s that you put into them or you are going to just slap them on a shelf and have to go through them every single time you want something. Since making functional labels is tedious (with traditional jewel cases you have to actually put a thin label on the outside edge so you can tell what is in the CD by looking at it on a bookshelf), you end up having to go through all the CD’s or DVD’s anyway to find the one you want since you have to look at the face. The new thin jewel cases do not help this out because they don’t even offer a way to put a thin label on the edge so you can see it on a shelf. Unless you keep your whole system indexed externally, it is just a big mess. I won’t even go into keeping them on a spindle, keeping track and moving CD’s and DVD’s out of a spindle is a nightmare.

The next thing to try is to keep all the media in a notebook. These are sold all over the place. Its usually a reinforced notebook of sorts, that hold maybe four DVD’s or CD’s per page side. I have a few that hold 300 a piece. These can be moderately expensive if you buy a more durable model, and pretty cheap if you like to clean up when the damn thing falls apart. Unlike the store on the shelf model outlined above, you have an easier flip book of media to go through and it can possibly take up a lot less space. Of course unless you keep track and order them appropriately it is still a big mess to actually find what you are looking for. Sometimes this is not entirely a bad thing, for example with movies you may want to browse through them to make a choice. However, for most things this is unsophisticated and cumbersome to find an exact disc when you want it.

The Cadillac of CD and DVD Storage, though, has to be the Disk Stakka by imation. This thing is like a jukebox for your media, where you are supposed to be able to just slide in any kind of media, it adds it to a database, and keeps track of everything for you. When you want a disc, you just go to your computer and then tell it what disc you want and it pops out of the unit. When you want to add a disc it will even scan its contents and add it to your database so you know exactly what files/music are on the disc. You can then query the database, not only on the disc title, but what the actual contents are. You can even take the units and stack them on top of each other, so you can have 5 units high, hooked to your computer with one USB connection all working together to store your 500 discs. This sounds great, doesn’t it? They are fairly cheap too, at around curious problem of arriving to your door completely DOA (dead on arrival). This happened to me. Unfortunately, the second problem that exacerbates the first is that their support (which is apparently handled by memorex now) is completely terrible. I sent them two emails and did not get a reply at all. At that point I read about some of these problems (as well as another which I will mention shortly) and decided to just return the thing to the place that I bought it.

The Disk Stakka does not protect your data. It is not a long term investment. For one, it only works on Windows, and technically I would say only on XP reliably. I switched to Windows Vista recently and it would not even function on Vista x64. On Vista x86 it seemed to work, but it was touch and go (at least for some of the functionality that I could see, the unit itself was obviously mechanically defective). The lack of support scared me because when I buy 5 or 10 of these things to create a long term storage solution, I want to be able to use it for just that … the long term. Who knows when they pull the product, discontinue support, or the things stop working and I cannot retrieve my disc from the inside of the unit!

Between those issues I brainstormed a compromise between all the methods I outlined above. Discgear has a few solutions that are alright on their own, but get better if we add to them. For one, as a desktop solution (although it is a bit unwieldy for a smaller desk), is the Selector 100. It is basically a Disk Stakka that is entirely mechanical. You have an index sheet of discs that are in numbered slots. You slide the slider to the disc number that you want and then you pop the top and the disc is automatically selected and waiting for you there. Pretty nice, though you do have to keep an index. At around $35, its pretty cheap too. They also have the Studio 100, which I think is the real pearl of the collection. Now it does not have the auto-selector and popup features of the Selector 100, but you can stack them on top of each other. They look nice and are boxed shaped and fit well on shelves or anywhere. When you open it up all the DVD or CD sleeves are numbered for an index sheet that you keep. Its pretty much as easy as the Selector 100. It is also around the same price, $35, which makes it an attractive alternative to actually organizing a collection as opposed to storing it with CD booklets and binders.

Of course, the way to pull this all together is to database-ize it and actually create your own home grown CD and DVD storage utility that you have control over, is easy to use, and can manage your collection and allow you to easily find what you are looking for when you have too many discs to just have index sheets. That will be the focus of my next article, a proposal for a discgear (though it will act the same for many media storage systems) database system to organize your media collection!

Share This

There is a way around this that I mentioned in the previous article though.

Install Windows Vista 32 bit on a clean partition using the partition tools, but do not enter in a license key. Once Vista is completely installed you can boot into it for the first time. At this step you will figure out that even when entering in a valid key (although for an upgrade), you will be unable to actually use it because Vista still demands that it be upgraded from a previous version and not a clean install. To get around this, just install Vista on top of itself as an upgrade which circumvents the whole purpose of this silly routine … making sure you have Windows XP or Windows 2000. When you upgrade your unlicensed version of Windows Vista 32 bit you will have no ill effects, a “semi” clean install, and a useless “Windows.old” directory that you can just delete. With this method you do not have to touch your XP disk, although you will have to install Vista twice. What a pain.

Share This

I finally found the solution. Just enter in the following in your power search box (Start -> “Start Search”).

%APPDATA%\Microsoft\Windows\SendTo

Once the folder is opened just drag shortcuts of any program you would like to appear there into that folder. Not as easy as WindowsXP is it?

Share This

In previous versions of Windows when you purchased the Upgrade version of the new operating system you could always just insert the CD of the previous version during the install to verify that you indeed had a previous version and were eligible for the upgrade version. In Vista, as far as I can tell, this is not possible. It actually checks for a previous operating system for an upgrade key. This makes for a huge inconvenience that in the end is completely retarded because there is a “workaround” that nullifies the whole process.

So I get my copy of Vista Ultimate the other day, mostly because I am technical enough to troubleshoot the problems, the first DirectX 10 games are coming out soon, and I like eye candy. I proceed to jump right into Vista x64 (the 64 bit version). I take my Windows XP partition, along with the 15 other partitions that I foolishly made (to keep partition sizes down, which I honestly do not care much about anymore), delete all of them, and create 3 new partitions from within the Vista install program. I format and install Vista onto the smallest of the three and everything installs great. It loads up no problem, all my drivers (except for my graphics card and ATI remote wonder) are pre-installed with the OS. I easily find my video card drivers on Nvida and install them easily. The ATI remote wonder, unfortunately has some problems, but by installing the manufacturer drivers (X10) and then the software I overcome everything. However, I my Disk Stakka does not seem to work in x64 and in looking in the benefits of x64 right now, and the drawbacks of device compatibility, I decide to switch back to x86 (32 bit).

Now comes the fun. What I should have tried (and since I prefer clean installs I did not try this) was to start the x86 disk inside of Windows itself and tried to “downgrade” through that. Unfortunately I cannot tell you if that works because before I could try that I had already started my standard clean install routine that I have done throughout all versions of windows.

So I am in the Vista install program after booting off the DVD and I decide to format the OS partition and do a clean install. It does not stop me from doing that. I go to install onto the clean partition and then it asks for the key. No problem. I put in the key and then Vista says, wait a second … you are an Upgrade version! I need to see an older version of Windows to allow you to do a 32 bit upgrade. This was not a problem with a 64 bit upgrade because they require you to do a clean install anyway.

So it wants me to install Windows XP to install Windows Vista 32 bit? I am not prepared to give up just yet though, so I choose not to enter in a key at all and just authenticate when Windows is up and running. So I go through the whole install process again and load up windows. I go to the windows authentication screen and enter in my key …. only to get an error about my key being for an Upgrade only. At this point I am pretty pissed off because sitting next to me is my shiny XP CD and I am literally begging the computer to just read it and say that its ok, I am not a pirate trying to steal software.

I end up biting the bullet and installing XP and then doing the stupid upgrade (I hate upgrades too). Luckily, since I just installed XP very fast, no service pack 2 or anything (I didn’t even activate my XP install, the first time it booted I inserted Vista and started the install process), it “forced” me to do a clean install. Unfortunately it did leave a “windows.old” directory on the partition, but that was easily deleted. I was worried that it would leave an older version of NTFS on there, but as far as I can tell all the Vista features (which consists of symlinks) work.

Later I found a nice workaround that negates the entire process and makes Microsoft look really stupid. Here I was jumping through hoops to make sure Vista knew that I had XP and was upgrading properly. To work around that all you have to do to do a “clean” install without XP is install Vista without a key. Once you boot up into Vista for the first time, just insert the CD/DVD again and then choose to “upgrade” to the same exact version. You don’t even have to let the software know that XP was ever installed. Using this process this could have been the first time you used Windows and you can use the upgrade option.

Way to go Microsoft. If securing your upgrade versions from pirates and users who are not really upgrading was your goal, you utterly failed. In the process you managed to make everyone else jump through hoops.

Share This

This post is obviously a spoiler, I would avoid reading it if you have not seen the show! Then again you can probably predict the ending if you have ever imagine up a semi-happy ending to some kind of hero like possible disaster.

Was it just me or was the Heroes big finale on Monday more of a big Fizzle? All season we have a build up to a supposedly spectacular ending that involves a bomb that is supposed to go off (from mysterious circumstances no less) in the middle of New York City. What we end up with is a cookie cutter ending that seems taken directly from any number of super hero comic books. That is all well and good, because obviously Heroes is a super hero show inspired by such works. On the other hand, the show had a kind of sophisticated story line (quasi-Lost like almost) that intrigued us all season. To end on such a predictable and comic book like ending was a let down for me, personally, because I expected some sophistication and surprise.

There were some surprises that we encountered. The little girl, Lilly, who can see anyone in the world and their exact location, mentioned that she knew of a person that was more evil than Silar and could see her when she saw him. Seeing as we are short some villains after the Finale and that the “League of Heroes” is together (corny and predictable), they might as well fight this new super villain (if the next season wasn’t so weird, more on that later).

Peter must live. He is the main character, so I expect him to live through that. I will be disappointed if he did not. I am already disappointed because the future that the showed a couple episodes before the finale, the bleak dark future where Silar is president and Peter is jaded but powerful, the world is splintered, and there is a kind of silent war on “heroes” … now that was interesting! I want a season about that future, not the warm fluffy future where the bomb does not go off and love between brothers conquers evil. Give me a break, I really hoped after seeing that bleak future that Heroes would finally surpass Lost as a sophisticated show (and yes I know Lost has its silly main stream unsophisticated moments). Unfortunately, only a mere couple of episodes later they disappoint me with the finale no less.

Then there is next season.

We could have new people and new storylines and new ideas and new threats and new bad guys and new heroes. So I would prepare the audience for that idea, that it’s not just a continuing serialized storyline about only these people. It’s a little more the 24 model than the Lost model.

I heard rumors that season 2 will be a prequel, however I have not confirmed that on the internet except for the fact that a twin mini-series will run while Heroes takes its break sometime next season called “Heroes:Origins” that explains the back stories of the characters. However, it seems here that we will see the some of the same characters but the writers are giving themselves the opportunity to trash, forget, or create characters at their discretion. You have to be cautious here though, since the story is character based. As Lost has found, introducing new characters can be a tricky affair, and many times people tend to just plain hate new characters because they appear so shallow to the old characters that have been well developed. However, unlike Lost, Heroes characters are not all that well shaped and developed. Instead of having to develop complex character personalities and back stories (ala Lost), Heroes simply adds a simple back story and personality and lets the audience concentrate on their super power. So shuffling characters in and out may work out for Heroes. Only time will tell.

I will say, it is a blessing and a curse, this final episode. One thing that I hate is an epic cliff hanger that I have to wait all summer to find the ending to. One thing that I love is an epic cliff hanger that I have to wait all summer to find the ending to. In the case of the Heroes finale, I won’t have to deal with either situation because it was not epic or much of a cliffhanger at all.

Share This

I am very busy lately since I graduated with a new job. It turns out that you have very little free time after college. Trying to fit everything you want to do and everything you have to do is hard in the few hours after work, and then the weekends you are busy doing even more stuff.

I would say stay tuned .. but chances are I am the only one reading this. Plus that weird guy Tom who keeps reading my blog.

Share This

Stay tuned.

Share This

There are two branches of explanation to the meaning of life. These are broken down into consequences and content. Consequences would be an expectation that life is building up to an ultimate goal, or that anything a human being does has an inevitable consequence and meaning. On the other side is content, where the meaning is within life itself.

Now under each of these categories there is a subjective and objective explanation as to the meaning of life.

Subjective Consequence

This is best described in religion. Instead of confronting the meaning of life, or looking for it in consequence that can be measured or observed, we look beyond our own world and explanation into the heavens. Thus the meaning of life is not discovered or attained until death, and then it is only subject to a deity or other religious belief. The problems with this are the same old problems with religion when discussed in a philosophical context. There is the problem of God and the status of God as evil or good, the notion that one must die to know, and the lack of any kind of reasonable evidence in our everyday experience.

Objective Consequence

Rocks. This is how my professor in existentialist philosophy put it. Objectively, that is using evidence in the real world, and observed logical conclusions, the consequences of our actions are just a different pattern of atoms. If I decide to throw my pencil across the room, then it is across the room. If not, then it is still here. The consequence of such actions, in context of the meaning of life, is that when all is said and done and billions of years have passed, rocks in outer space may be in a different place.

Subjective Content

The meaning of life is whatever makes me happy and whatever I see as valuable to me. This sounds like a reasonable claim. However, it is not. This is a leap away from the question, avoiding the meaning of life by assigning value to meaninglessness. It is the path of empty desire. Self fulfilling and is more of a distraction than anything else.

Objective Content

Meaning comes from everyone around us, and is evaluated objectively and logically. The ultimate truth of which comes with death. Everyone dies. Therefore the one objective and most reasonable answer for the “Meaning of Life” is death itself.

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, huh? Those existentialist are sure the life of the party.

Share This

This man has obviously never been laid

Our favorite asshole lawyer, Jack Thompson, has discovered *gasp* that people are actually naked under their clothes. This revelation came when Jack discovered that the game Oblivion accurately rendered women nude under their shirts.

Like most Republican prudes, Jack has never seen a naked woman and believes that people come from storks, at the ordering of God. He was also dropped on his head as a child.

I really do not understand the issue here. He does not even mention what I have already pointed out the most shocking aspect of this mod. How does plain nudity offend anyone, *unless* they are retarded prudish idiots? Maybe someone needs to talk to Jack about how babies are made.

In a game where you have missions to murder people and can kill people with swords and magic at will, the one thing the media and zealots pull out is a couple breasts. My solution? Get laid. I swear how messed up is this country? Isn’t this fairly analogous to art? What’s next, a condemnation of naked Barbie dolls? Perhaps you should rate them mature. People are naked, this is a fact. People have sex, this is a fact. There is no choice in the matter either, both of these things have to happen to continue living as a species. What does not have to happen is senseless violence. The fact that in American culture the thing that is natural is taboo and the thing that is not is totally integrated into our culture is just plain sad.

Share This

Don’t cry Kobe, you Vindictive Bastard

Kobe Bryant likes to prove his points in the playoffs, and he does not care if it means that the team goes home for the summer. He is the most vindictive bastard in the NBA and will make his team suffer because he feels slighted by the press. Tonight Kobe took only 3 shots in the entire second half and only scored 1 point off a technical shot. What an ass. I am only mad because I was forced to pick him in my playoff fantasy game and I thought he would fire away because with the Suns finally reaching their normal tempo, the Lakers pretty much had little chance playing an uptempo game.

We have seen it before. The Lakers take a loss when Shaq and Kobe are on the same team, a loss where Kobe takes a bunch of shots, and the media criticizes him. The next game Kobe comes in and takes not only less shots, but so few it leaves everyone scratching their head. There are only a couple explanations for this.

1. Kobe was taken out by defense - This is the most improbable. Kobe himself recognizes he can get any shot he wants, he has said so. We all know he can.
2. Kobe was told by Phil Jackson to not take shots or he thought his team had a better chance to come back by passing off - No, again not likely. Phil Jackson has no problem with Kobe taking shots. Down by 15 at the half and watching it go up to 25 by the 4th should be a good reason to start taking the ball .. if nothing else to throw the crowd off.
3. Kobe was criticized for taking too many shots in Game 6, he “shows them” that they need him more than he needs them - Vindictive bastard raise your hand. I guess he made his point. You want me to take no shots? We lose by 30+.

Point taken Kobe. Thank you. Go home.

Share This