Trim Intel X-25m on Windows 10

Okay, the situation with the Windows 7 update became so untenable for me (the updates would get stuck) that I was compelled to move on to Windows 10. I hate to admit it, but the move was not as bad as I feared it would be. My legacy programs worked, for the most part, as they should, which is funny, since I had tried installing some of these very same programs from scratch on another machine and they wouldn't work. So, the first lesson I guess is to have those programs installed already before upgrading to 10.

For some reason, Yahoo wouldn't login using Microsoft's new browser, Edge, nor even with the dedicated app from the store. Internet Explorer 11 was horribly slow. Switched entirely to Chrome.

The biggest possible showstopper with the Windows 10 upgrade was my very trusty Intel X-25 160gb SSD. My old Intel solid-state drive toolbox (ver 1. something) wouldn't optimize the drive using TRIM. Without TRIM I anticipated that sooner, rather than later, the drive would become unusable. Here is what I did to solve it:

Deleted the refuse left by the old toolbox on the root C: drive (*intel*.bin) 

Downloaded and ran the latest version of the Toolbox:

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/26085/Intel-Solid-State-Drive-Toolbox

Updated the firmware (had to cross my fingers on this one):

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/18363/Intel-SSD-Firmware-Update-Tool

When I found that the Toolbox optimization still wouldn't complete (I was getting error 100), I dug around a bit and found this solution, which only consisted in deleting a hidden folder:

https://communities.intel.com/thread/44443

Success!

Fallacies in symbolic form

On this occasion I wanted to just give a few examples of argumentative fallacies and how they would look on symbolic form. Since symbols can cut through any haze, these can be used whenever possible to get clarity on what tricky arguments one is facing. Definitely not everything is here, but only some that have caught my eye. (Hope my symbols display well on your browser)

The Post Hoc

If something happens first (P) and something next (Q) one could conclude that

P→Q

4	P	From above
5	Q	From above
6	P→Q	?

Correct

4	P	From above
5	Q	From above
6	P˄Q	Conj 4,5

The most we can say is that something happens and that something else happens. 

P→Q might be True, but it cannot be logically derived from what we have here.

Appeal to Ignorance

You cannot prove you are not a communist, therefore you are one.

1	P→~Q	Premise (enthymeme. If you had proof, then you would not be...)
2	~P	P (You cannot prove…)
3	~~Q	From negating the antecedent 1,2
4	Q	Double negation 3 (Therefore you are a…)

Hmm...1 and 2 makes this one doubly wrong.

What about the ex silentio argument which is nonfallacious and looks similar?

1	Q→R	Premise  (If so-and-so was True, there would be evidence)
2	~R	Premise  (We've looked for the evidence and there's none)
3	~Q	MT 1,2 (So-and-so isn't True)[This one is valid]

Poisoning the well

These examples are taken from Madsen Pirie's How to Win Every Argument. Second lines are paraphrases. The first two seem to focus on the one making the proposal while the third on the proposal itself.

Everyone except an idiot knows…

Only an idiot doesn't know…

∀x(~Kx→Ix)

∀x(~Ix→Kx)

∀x(Ix ˅ Kx)

∀x~(~Ix ˄ ~Kx)

 ~∃x (~Ix ˄ ~Kx)

Only those who are inadequate now advocate…

Everyone except the inadequate do not advocate…

∀x(Ax→Ix)

∀x(~Ix→~Ax)

∀x(Ix ˅ ~Ax)

∀x~(~Ix ˄ Ax)

~∃x (~Ix ˄ Ax)

Choice in education is only a device…

The only thing that is choice in education is a device…

∀x(Cx→Dx)

∀x(~Dx→~Cx)

∀x(~Cx ˅ Dx)

∀x~(Cx ˄ ~Dx)

~∃x (Cx ˄ ~Dx)