Here’s my experience in using the HP special extended warranty

I bought my dv6000 laptop off the shelf in November 2006. In March 2008, my dv6000 suddenly refused to turn on. No lights, no sound, nothing. A motherboard component failed, I figure.

I did some research to see how others on the web handled this problem. I learned about a special HP extended warranty program for dv6000 owners who had this very problem (along with a few other problems that plague this particular series of laptops). The number to call is 1-866-671-7362. Here’s the link to HP’s info page about the extended warranty on the dv6000 and other series laptops. CAUTION: Your serial number must match the list in order for your laptop to be covered by the extended warranty.

I did not call HP right away, because It took a couple of weeks for me to figure out how to get my data off the laptop hard drive.

The HP laptop hard drive is a new-fangled SATA hard drive. I do not have any other PCs that use the SATA technology, and so I lacked any means of connecting the laptop hard drive to another computer in order to download the data.

To get the data off my laptop, I found some websites that taught me how to remove my laptop hard drive, and then I ordered an external 2.5 inch SATA harddrive enclosure from TigerDirect for about $20. The enclosure worked perfectly, and I downloaded my data onto another computer via a USB connection.

Then I put the harddrive back into the laptop. Then I removed the extra 1 GB memory chip I had installed, just in case the technicians decided to replace my laptop rather than repair it. Now I was ready to call HP.

I called HP April 8, 2008. When I called the HP help line at 1-866-671-7362, I got right through no waiting (1030 am on a Tuesday).

The HP telephone operator was nice, and was thorough. My serial number matched those eligible for the extended warranty. No hassles at all.

I am now waiting for the prepaid shipping container to arrive, which is supposed to be in a few days.

STAY TUNED ……..

Sunset Lanes on Watson Road in St. Louis hosted a PBA Experience Sport Bowling League this summer, 2007. It was a great league.

Sunset really put a lot of effort into doing well with the PBA Experience League. For example, every Sunday and Monday during the league, Sunset set aside 4 lanes and laid out that week’s PBA Experience oil pattern, for practice. Plus, summer rates were only $0.75 per line.

The 5 PBA oil patterns differ pretty much from each other. You can tell that you are on a different pattern from last week’s. The Cheetah is all backend, while the Shark is long and relatively oily, and the Chameleon, Viper and Scorpion are various grades of in-between, but each having a different length and different placement and quantity of oil — 5 really different patterns.

Several years earlier I bowled in a “Sport League” in St. Louis at another house. It was an unfun experience. Allegedly, the house was putting out 4 different so-called “Sport Patterns”. Well, I couldn’t tell the difference between them — every damn one of them was the same —– Very Long, Very Heavy Oil. My ball always came back heavily tracked with oil, no matter where I threw it, on all the patterns. There wasn’t more than 5 feet of backend on any of the 4 patterns, it seemed to me. It was a miserable experience.

Based on that earlier terrible sport experience, I had a bad opinion of Sport Leagues. Then I read about the PBA Experience, and I wished my home house offered it. The PBA Patterns seemed to be real distinct patterns, and not just floods of long oil.

So when Sunset Lanes announced at the last minute that they were going to run a PBA league this past summer, I jumped on it. And I’m glad I did. I’ll be a repeat customer next summer.

By the way, Sunset might run a Fall PBA Experience League. The manager said he’s thinking about a first and third Saturday afternoon PBA league.

Below is the allegedly offensive joke - it’s about the third joke in the list:

From MediaBistro Roger Ailes Speech:

It is true that I said Britney Spears looked great at the Academy Awards. and I later found out it was Jack Nicholson.

[Laughter/ooohs]

It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.

[Laughter]

And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don’t know if it’s true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, ‘Why can’t we catch this guy?’

[Laughter]

I view Ailes’s joke as being at the expense of Bush, not Obama, as in “Bush is so stupid he thinks Senator Obama is Osama bin Laden”. But some prominent Dems disagree, or are disingenuously distorting the meaning, claiming Ailes compared Obama to terrorists.

• MyDD’s take
• DailyKos diarist’s take - discussing how Nevada Dems used Ailes’s joke as excuse to cancel a Fox debate. See also Politico’s news item about Nevada Dem Party and the debate controversy. Seems to me that the Nevada Dems found Ailes’s joke to be the easy way out of a controversial Fox-sponsored debate in Nevada. Accordingly, Dems became willing to distort Ailes’s meaning.
• Huffington Post’s take

Anti-Bush forces pulled the same distortion with Bush’s “Catapult the Propaganda” remark.

We don’t need to distort our political enemies’ words and meanings, because that reduces us to the level of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, Savage, Beck, and their ilk.

Maybe there’s something wrong with my humor receptor, but it seems pretty clear that Ailes is poking fun at Bush.

This gun ban bill starts the process of balancing out the wingnuttery of the GOP from the time of Republican control

Leftist gun ban bill by Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) hurts the personal liberty stance of the Dem party, driving off moderates. Bright side: apparently no co-sponsors are willing to sign on (yet). This bill sounds way too radical, even for that handful of genuine anti-gun fanatics in Congress.

Wingnuts come in both colors, GOP and Dem. During the era of Dem control, I’m sure lots of anti-freedom nanny culture junk from the Left perspective will get introduced, just as Rightwing anti-freedom nanny culture junk got introduced during GOP rule.

Let’s hope the moderates can hold the center. We should have a better chance of the moderates holding now then when the GOP was in power. Moderate Dems have always been able to show themselves safely, but moderate GOPers had to keep a low profile during GOP rule. But now GOP moderates can come out into the sunshine. And so the center should be stronger now.

The case is instructive on the subject of judicial reasoning. You will learn how judges do things by studying this case.

By the way, the 3-judge panel is comprised of Nixon, Bush I and Clinton appointees - the decision was unanimous, and was written by the Clinton appointee

The case is Williams v. Morgan (pdf file).

Here’s a synopsis of the opinion. The ACLU started a lawsuit in Alabama seeking to overturn Alabama’s law against the sale of dildos and other sexual devices. At the time, the US Supreme Court had just overturned laws against private gay sex. So the ACLU figured it was time to clarify that there exists a right to sexual privacy generally.

Well, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Read the opinion for their analysis. We do not have a fundamental right to sexual privacy.

The Court then reasoned that, since there is no right to sexual privacy, then Alabama only needed a “rational basis” to justify the law. Then the Court decided that Alabama’s interest in promoting public morality provided the rational basis to justify the law banning the sale of sexual devices.

The Court stated that “We declined to recognize a new fundamental right to sexual privacy”. I disagree with that characterization of what the Court was being asked to do. In my opinion, the Court was being asked to declare that Alabama had no business treading upon our liberty interest (or fundamental right) to sexual privacy. You see, in my minority opinion the 9th Amendment grants us all rights not specified in the Constitution. Therefore, we have the right of sexual privacy by default, in my opinion. The court isn’t being asked to “recognize” a “new” right - it’s being asked if anything had happened to take away our right. (Most legal minds disagree with my view of the power of the Ninth).

But by framing the issue as if the Court were being asked to “create” a right, the Court was able to duck the political hot potato of issuing a pro-freedom ruling in the religiously controversial area of sexual relationships. The judges were able to render a “conservative” opinion by not “creating a new right”.

In my view, the Court ended up making a political ruling anyway, in the sense that it is politically unpopular to render pro-freedom rulings in the sexual arena - and the Court endorsed the idea that it would cause a lot of social turmoil to “recognize” the right of sexual privacy.

Judges recognize that our religious leaders would create a firestorm if they issue pro-sexual-freedom rulings.

And so the forces of theocracy prevail, and effectively subvert our freedoms through generating fear of vicious protest.

Republicans threw the Golden Rule out the window in the recent past, as their power rose due to the arrogant demagoguery of powerful leaders like Falwell and Robertson, and then Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Ingraham, etc etc etc.

Golden Rule explained - The Ethic of Reciprocity. It’s how you would wish to be treated if you were in the other’s shoes.

Republicans have enjoyed years of pure arrogance. They behaved as if they need not listen to other viewpoints (they themselves and their supporters had all the answers). Moreover, they acted as if mere political disagreement (by other parties) meant treason (code for Death!). This era of wingnuttery is, thank God, closing. Reason and civility are going to be returning, more and more as time goes on.

Want a reminder of how the Republicans have thrown out the Golden Rule? Take a look at this article for a small collection of examples.

It’s SO ironic that the Republicans don’t wish to be treated the way they’ve treated others. Now that Congress is changing hands into Dem control, Bush is calling for LESS partisanship, and House Republicans are begging to be treated fairly by the new majority party

BUSH ASKS DEMS FOR LESS PARTISANSHIP. He says “… we can’t play politics as usual.” See also BUSH APPEALS FOR CONGRESSIONAL UNITY.

REPUBLICANS BEG TO BE TREATED FAIRLY BY DEM MAJORITY. This begging by the Republicans is called “Congressional Minority Bill of Rights”, and it’s actually a good idea. However, in 2004 whene the Democrats proposed the same thing, House Speaker Hastert refused to consider it. Such has been typical of the kind of gross arrogance of powerful Republicans generally in this era.

The Dems should grant the Republicans their Minority Bill of Rights, because it’s the right thing to do for the nation, to somewhat minimize the ability of one party to abuse its power to the detriment of us all.

The Repubs know they screwed up the nation, when they get honest in their quiet times. The Repubs busted the budget miserably : Bush hopes for balanced budget by 2012. Contrast the Repub’s fiscal performance with Bill Clinton’s: From the Whitehouse biography of Clinton - he proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a surplus.

I don’t even wanna get into how our moral authority worldwide has been reduced to a smoldering ember compared to the bright flame we were previously able to carry. Torture! Secret Prisons! Unjustifiable Wars! Big Brotherism and unlawful surveillance!

Ye Gods! How are we ever gonna fix all this mess?

I enjoy writing about science verses religion, and I’m at it again.

Check out this press release: HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology. And you might also notice in the report that the National Park Service has been offering a creationist book for sale.

I don’t know if it’s true that Bush has ordered the submersion of science. But I bet it is, because there are plenty of other examples of this administration rejecting science when the science contradicts religious dogma. If Bush had a free hand, and no pesky constitution to stop him, I wonder how far he would go in pushing fundamentalism and creationism.

Bush seems to be a true believer in the creationist movement, and he truly seems to reject contradictory science. I say this because I have heard credible people say that the great majority of religious persons are not fundamentalists and not creationists. And yet, Bush is willing to alienate those persons by favoring fundamentalism. The politics of the situation would seem to indicate that Bush should be more mainstream rather than cater to the fringe. But cater to the fringe he does! And so I think he’s a true believer.

I’m sorry, but religion isn’t science, and the government shouldn’t be promoting religion over science. There’s a question I heard Jon Stewart ask once, and I’ve mentioned it before here. The question goes something like this: Did you first become religious and then accepted creationism, or did you first find that the scientific evidence favored creationism and then became a creationist because the science persuaded you? I think that question gets to the core of the creationism verses science debate, and I think I know how people would answer the question if they are willing to be honest.

Assuming that the report linked above is correct, I want to mention one final thing. The sub-species of creationism that Bush is catering to is known as the “young earth” creationist movement. I’ve written about the Young Earth creationist movement before. It would be truly fascinating to find a legitimate working scientist who was a young earth creationist because of the evidence, and yet was not otherwise a religious believer.

If I were a young earth creationist, I would personally be overjoyed to have my belief system validated by the government. If I were a religious leader, I could win more followers, and cement loyalty, if i could persuade the government to endorse my preachings. So I understand why the powerful creationist faith-leaders would encourage their friends in the Bush administration to endorse their doctrines. And Bush complies, because he seems to share their views. I disagree with this, but I understand the allure.

Here’s a short post, just to let you know I’m still around. I haven’t been posting much since the November elections.

We tend to be tribal, especially in politics. I think we are willfully ignorant, or at least we willfully minimize things in order to support our tribe. I think we support our tribe through thick and thin, even if that means we conveniently do not give appropriate thought to some fact or other.

I think the Republicans are worse than the Dems in ignoring facts and blindly cheerleading for their tribe. I see this trait manifested in public discourse, and also in private discourse. I’m sure the far left flaming libs are just as nutty as the highly partisan Republicans, but the nutty Republican cheerleaders have achieved very high profiles in society. Flaming libs are not well represented in the public arena.

Libs in the public arena tend to be mainstream liberals, and not radical leftists. Republicans in the media are often radical rightists, cheerleading for their team even in the face of harsh opposite reality (which Rush calls “Carrying the water”). Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Ingraham, etc etc etc…..

Check out this article on DailyKos for a depiction of the ways in which the Right seem to be willfully blind these days.

On Nov 7, 2006, I voted touchscreen for the first time. Here’s the scoop, good and bad. In some ways it’s far better than I expected. In others, far worse.

Great news about St. Louis County touchscreen voting machines

The touch screen voting machines in St. Louis County create a paper trail for recount purposes!!!!!. Yes, that’s RIGHT!

Here’s how the St. Louis County voting machines work: You have a very wide display screen area. The right 2/3 of the display area is a TV-screen type thingy for touchscreen voting. On the left 1/3, there is a long narrow window - and behind the window is a SCROLLING PAPER ROLL PRINTING OUT YOUR VOTES AS YOU ENTER THEM ON THE SCREEN !!!!!!

I think that’s FABULOUS! No, you don’t get to take the printed voting paper home. It stays with the machine, obviously for recount purposes.

Awful news about St. Louis County touch screen voting machines

• The printed paper trail is NOT secure. I watched today as the poll workers opened up the machines in order to change the paper rolls. It appeared to me that the printed tape containing the votes was entirely unprotected. In the old days of butterfly ballots, no one could touch the ballots once they were voted. The ballots went into a lockbox. But with these touchscreens, I bet it’s possible to switch out the voted paper rolls with bogus fraudulent rolls.
• Not enough paper in the machines, and it’s time-consuming to change the paper. I watched today as three of the four voting machines were offline at the same time, due to all of them running out of paper. It was taking the technicians lots of time to change the paper in each machine. The voting assistant told me it was a ZOO early in the morning, as the machines kept running out of paper and the lines got long.
• Not enough machines. There were only FOUR touchscreen machines in my precinct. In the butterfly ballot days, we used to have at least 8 machines for a big election like this one. We might have four machines occasionally, but only for local special elections with expected low turnout. People were waiting quite a while for a machine to open up. And the four machines frequently went off line for paper changes.

Conclusion: I’m much more optimistic about touchscreen voting then I was previously

See the following set of links for analysis and charts derived from the government’s own numbers produced under the Freedom of Information Act. Libertarians fear that governments rarely give up power: True to form, the staff increases that we gave the FBI after 9-11 seem to be permanent, and are being turned to culture warrior work, now that the need for terror prosecutions seems to have lessened.

• Intro to the study of FBI enforcement trends, special focus on FBI’s changing emphasis on Terrorism since 9-11.
• FBI Enforcement Trends by Type of Prosecutions Filed FY 1986-2006, with Porn chart at the bottom. .

Why did I say above that the need for terror prosecutions has apparently lessened? Because it apparently HAS lessened, according to the FBI’s own numbers.

Surely the FBI would not take essential anti-terror resources and convert them to fighting porn, unless the need for anti-terror resources had dropped ….. why, that would be idiotic!

And so, I think we can conclude that the FBI believes that it is doing enough to fight terror (and crime), and so it can devote more resources to porn now. (BeginSnark)There’s absolutely zero chance that the FBI is focusing on porn merely to please the GOP base, for surely the FBI would not endanger public safety merely for political purposes by diverting resources from the terror war. (/EndSnark)

Here’s what’s wrong with the GOP’s emphasis on Porn

The war on Porn is not a necessary step to protect the American people from being harmed by criminals and terrorists. In order to attack porn, the GOP seems to be choosing to reduce its attacks on terrorists, white color criminals, and drug smugglers (as the charts suggest).

Those of us of a more civil libertarian bent fear governmental power. Years ago, we feared that the government would use the War on Terror to vastly expand the police force (which it did) and then turn that police force against our civil liberties (which it is doing). We don’t need our government to use the police to try to win the “culture war” - we need the police force to keep us safe from our real enemies, and preserve our liberty.

Just to be clear, I am only questioning the value of prosecuting people for creating or distributing consensual adult porn.

Credit to this DailyKos diary: What Is The FBI Doing? An Essay in Pictures.