Category: Randomosity…

During normal lapses of insanity…


Best Case I ever used in a rig…

This was a review I left on Newegg…because it deserved it.

The Corsair 730T

PROS
Everything is metal, and not cheap metal. Like a .22 round will only dent it.
Case is grounded out – it isnt advertised as such, but mine has been hit with more than a few hot lines…never touches the electronics.
Easy-access on both sides is soooo NICE.
You can park a Chevy350 in it, and still have room for the blower.
The stands are high enough off the ground that mild flooding will not ruin your life.
No mamsy-pamsy windows on it, stays cool and doesnt show how much dust accumulates in the $5000 machine you built 4 years ago.
Tire-kicker modders shut their face when they see it.

CONS
It doesn’t do my dishes.
Only has 4 built in USB plug in front, I needed 16.

OTHER
I would recommend it, but Corsair for some reason hasn’t produced any of these in 3 years. I would have bought 20 more of them for future builds if I had known they werent going to manufacture them anymore.

**This post was a random thing, obviously not a paid thing 😉 -T



A Letter Concerning Toleration

I have wanted to post this for a long time. But recently it seems like it’s imperative. It’s not a short read…or an easy one…but it is a damn good read regarding toleration. Why? …Because he’s one of the most conservative religious figures in history…and yet he’s speaking/arguing in favor of tolerance. Not in half-baked ambiguous rhetoric, but using both logical argument as well as biblical verse forms what’s considered one of the renowned arguments in favor of religious tolerance ever. There are of course a few points that arent covered in this letter that are addressed in later discourse, but a lot of the logic is still pretty sound.

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke (1689)1

john_lockeHonoured Sir,

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith; for everyone is orthodox to himself; these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. “The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them,” said our Saviour to his disciples,” but ye shall not be so.”1 The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men’s lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. “Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity.”[2] “Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,” said our Lord to Peter.3 It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other people Christians, who have not really embraced the Christian religion in their own hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man can be a Christian without charity and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love. Now, I appeal to the consciences of those that persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretence of religion, whether they do it out of friendship and kindness towards them or no? And I shall then indeed, and not until then, believe they do so, when I shall see those fiery zealots correcting, in the same manner, their friends and familiar acquaintance for the manifest sins they commit against the precepts of the Gospel; when I shall see them persecute with fire and sword the members of their own communion that are tainted with enormous vices and without amendment are in danger of eternal perdition; and when I shall see them thus express their love and desire of the salvation of their souls by the infliction of torments and exercise of all manner of cruelties. For if it be out of a principle of charity, as they pretend, and love to men’s souls that they deprive them of their estates, maim them with corporal punishments, starve and torment them in noisome prisons, and in the end even take away their lives ; I say, if all this be done merely to make men Christians and procure their salvation, why then do they suffer whoredom, fraud, malice, and such-like enormities, which (according to the apostle)4 manifestly relish of heathenish corruption, to predominate so much and abound amongst their flocks and people? These, and such-like things, are certainly more contrary to the glory of God, to the purity of the Church, and to the salvation of souls, than any conscientious dissent from ecclesiastical decisions, or separation from public worship, whilst accompanied with innocence of life. Why, then, does this burning zeal for God, for the Church, and for the salvation of souls ; burning I say, literally, with fire and faggot ; pass by those moral vices and wickednesses, without any chastisement, which are acknowledged by all men to be diametrically opposite to the profession of Christianity, and bend all its nerves either to the introducing of ceremonies, or to the establishment of opinions, which for the most part are about nice and intricate matters, that exceed the capacity of ordinary understandings? Which of the parties contending about these things is in the right, which of them is guilty of schism or heresy, whether those that domineer or those that suffer, will then at last be manifest when the causes of their separation comes to be judged of He, certainly, that follows Christ, embraces His doctrine, and bears His yoke, though he forsake both father and mother, separate from the public assemblies and ceremonies of his country, or whomsoever or whatsoever else he relinquishes, will not then be judged a heretic.

Show 1 footnote

  1. Reviewed from Popple’s translation




When the artist gets the rights of the owner…

Scenario.
I buy land on a mountain in an out-of-the way rural area. I am not farming said land, nor using it for business purposes. Without my knowledge or consent, some artist shows up and proceeds to build an amazingly beautiful 50′ tall monument carved into the mountain of an angel cradling a baby that can be seen from half a mile away, and becomes very popular tourist attraction.

Unfortunately, I purchased this land because it is away from the population, and with expectations of maintaining a modicum of privacy. I give the artist the chance to start a project to move the monument someplace else and they refuse. Eventually, I come to the conclusion that the monument must go, as people are driving up to my house at every day at all hours and I am not getting any privacy.

After the monument is demolished, the artist sues me for 6.7 million in damages to HIS work.

Does this seem right to you?

I read an article recently and it really provokes some thought on this. Recognizing the value of the artwork should not impact an owner’s rights, even if there is a loss of value to someone else, right? Whats the use of owning the property if some guy can walts up and sue you for using it as you want?

Here is the original NY Times Article