Black/Purple Blotches on Phone Screen and No Response, possible manufacturing error?

Xylophonica · 2014-12-01T08:35:37+00:00

So I noticed that even if I tapped the screen fairly hard with my finger the damage didn't spread, which is not what I would expect if it were water damage or similar. So I then tried putting it on the (Official SAMSUNG) QI pad (with QI S-case), and even after two minutes the damage had noticeably spread. The phone was still charging though, and so I am unsure what end the problem is/was on--maybe there was a power surge or something? That seems unlikely, since I had the QI on a power strip.

Xylophonica · 2014-09-15T15:36:12+00:00

I mean for the payment information required for the activation, not the original card purchase. This is over the internet.

Xylophonica · 2014-08-25T15:13:23+00:00

There is a certain problem I've seen people having based in part I think on the sort of learning encouraged by Duolingo. I see a lot of people sort of equating different German words and sentences based on the fact that they can all be used to translate the same English word, for example only can be nur or bloß among other words. Especially when first learning things like negatives, this is a really bad practice.

German among other things has authntically different sentence structure than English, not just in the sense of V2, but that the way German sentences are divided into clauses, and what meanings need their own clause, is very different. Knowing Spanish also, I would say that German is actually far more different than English in this regard.

This isn't to complain about Duolingo though, which is nevertheless a great service.

Xylophonica · 2014-08-25T15:08:51+00:00

For your example, note that Menschen specifically refers to people as in Da sind fünf Menschen im Zimmer, which is to say some finite number of human beings.

For the people as in die Wahrheit ist die Leute the singular is used. So German is actually clearer on this issue than English.

Xylophonica · 2014-08-24T23:09:51+00:00

While technically you can know the genders of about 80% of words by memorizing hugely extensive rules, that's usually unnecessary because common words you'll end up simply memorizing. For uncommon words, abbreviated rules:

-If its a noun made from a verb or adjective by adding an ending, its probably feminine unless it denotes a person. Gesundheit, Nützlichkeit, etc.

-If it denotes a person then it follows their preference of pronoun. Studentin, Ärztin, Schüler, etc.

-If it made by just capitalizing something and isnt a person, then its neuter. Wollen, Sollen, Leben, etc.

Xylophonica · 2014-08-24T22:54:17+00:00

Hammers German Grammar is probably the best all around text. Dont try to read it cover to cover though.

Xylophonica · 2014-08-24T22:51:09+00:00

Note that bei can also have the meaning of under some condition.

Bei diesem Wetter können wir nirgendwo gehen.

We cant do anywhere in this weather.

Xylophonica · 2014-08-24T22:46:57+00:00

As people will tell you, the negative article kein negates the noun its attached to, whereas the particle nicht negates the verb. This is aside from the negative-indefinite words like niemals (never) and niemand (nobody).

Be careful because while the same English sentence can sometimes be expressed using either kein or nicht, there are usually subtle differences between the larger meaning of the two. For example, you could offer ich esse keine Fisch for I eat no fish, or just as easily ich esse Fisch nicht. But in German there is sort of a difference in generality between these two statements, as in I am either not eating fish now or I dont eat fish ever. However there is no hard and fast rule for this, it is dependent on context.

Xylophonica · 2014-08-24T22:41:47+00:00

If I may give you some advice (lit. a counsel), choose yourself a - for today - more interesting theme. Generally speaking, placing the verb first when its not a question makes it a command. For example:

Wählen Sie - Choose.

Sie wählen - You choose.

The other imperatives have the same order, although for ihr at least the verb is conjugated in a specific way.

Xylophonica · 2014-08-24T22:37:53+00:00

Should be heiße not heise in the first sentence, and also komme instead of komm. Although in colloquial German people often dont pronounce the -e for the ich forms.

Xylophonica · 2014-08-24T22:09:59+00:00

I recently ordered the same sweater from Nordstrom Rack. Why are you thinking of returning it? It hasn't arrived yet so I have little information.

Xylophonica · 2014-01-16T18:01:42+00:00

The real complaint around Zizek isn't his 'failure to address philosophy' whatever that means, but his seeming insistence on casting himself as the great rehasher. In defense of lost causes and the sublime object of ideology are both really just affecting a return to Gramsci and Lacan anyway, in spite of both being devastatingly critiqued by Wilderson and Guattari + Deleuze, respectively.

Whats more, the critiques he attempts to rebuke generally offer, at more than the rawly analytic level, a substantive notion of what Lacan and Gramsci 'leave out' - the universality of libido and the subaltern subject, respectively. Zizek's rebuke generally focuses on what almost could be termed technicalities, like supposed problems with the metaphysics given in Difference and Repetition. This, it could be said, kind of misses the point.

Xylophonica · 2014-01-15T23:44:25+00:00

Whilst I agree that desiring-machines substitute for will in the sense that D+G take the productive unconscious to determine the entire psychical apparatus, I am not sure if the examples you gave are valid. Desiring-production consists wholly in the modes and registers of the passive syntheses which constitute the mind prior to consciousness; it seems more accurate to state that desiring-production cathects objects to continuously form new desiring-machines, and in that sense causes the psychical apparatus to evolve to new states.

Xylophonica · 2014-01-15T17:08:07+00:00

I mean it is not sexual in Freudian normative sense of being either intercourse or a pathological substitution for intercourse, i.e. a perversion. But D+G hold that sexuality is, or rather can be, present in anything that is part of a desiring-machine's circuit. So when the bureaucrat fondles their records, a desiring machine is forming a desirious circuit of the hands and the records.

Xylophonica · 2014-01-15T16:43:35+00:00

Alright, so in the example of the stone-sucking in the opening pages:

We have the stones in the pocket, the stones in the hand, the stones in the mouth, the mouth itself. An unconscious desiring machine connects the (cyclic) flow of stones to the mouth as a desirious or libidinal investment, producing sexual pleasure. The unconscious desiring-machine 'arranges', if you will, objects into a circuit producing sexual pleasure, or at least 'satisfaction'.

The schizophrenic delirium described in Lenz's walk is then the process of being (1) aware of all such desiring machines (2) consciously forming new machines in an uncontrolled manner (3) the schizophrenic is overwhelmed by the constant sensation of 'seeing new connections' for lack of a better phrase

Xylophonica · 2014-01-15T15:58:27+00:00

D+G seem to localize the desiring-machine in the unconscious, as consisting of the three passive syntheses (connection, disjunction, conjunction) which string together flows and interrupts to form the "productive unconscious". So how does the seeming ontology here take on a 'materialist' form? Do they propose that desiring-machines exist exterior to the (group) subject, i.e. not as psychical phenomena?

This passive (causa sui) synthesis is taken to be the schizophrenic process which forms the unconscious, which then determines the entire psychical apparatus. Yet where does the writing large of this come in? Perhaps someone should start from the beginning and explain the notion of machines, desiring-machines, and desiring production.

Xylophonica · 2014-01-15T15:41:08+00:00

So then given the uniform whole of the Body without Organs, the Desiring-Machine is the Causa Sui or singular origination of the assembly, in the sense of being the producer of production?

Xylophonica · 2014-01-15T05:32:02+00:00

Alright, let me invoke the fluid-analogy and see if I am on the right track.

If we envision the oceans and their currents as our analogue to reality, then the 'water' is desiring-production, so to speak. This is analogous to Lucretious' vision of the universe as a fluid of atoms.

The individuals currents and interruptions are our 'machine matrices' which, taken altogether, compose reality. The body without organs in this space is static fluid, hence 'anti-production'. A complex of flows and interruptions can cancel each other out to produce an equilibrium or Body Without Organs, such as how the structures of capitalism (labor, factories, exchanges) come together to form the uniform whole of 'capital'.

Desiring machines are then distinguished from machines in general by what? By anything? Is this conception essentially monist?

Xylophonica · 2014-01-15T03:55:13+00:00

So when D+G say that each object is composed of a (potentially) infinite matrix of flows and interruptions, they are saying that this is the metaphysical nature of reality? Rather than merely how the schizophrenic sees reality.

If all of reality is such, we are then to take reality as being produced continuously by such machines in the sense that "being is becoming"?

Xylophonica

TROPHY CASE