Slashdot Mirror

I can't believe no one has suggested an unRAID server. You get redundancy, storage that can grow by just adding another drive, low power consumption, affordability, and the ability to telnet in. (Plus it runs Linux!) I really like this solution since the data isn't spread out over a bunch of disks in a way that only the RAID controller can understand. Instead it's just a bunch of files on a bunch of disks, with an extra parity drive for reliability.

If a drive goes down, you can just pop a new one in and recover the lost data from the parity drive. If two drives simultaneously fail (unlikely), you lose the data on the drives that failed. Compare that to the nightmare if your RAID controller fails.

Here's my unRAID server, built for $400 plus the drives. I love being able to do backups by just running rsync. Once the author gets sshd built into the system, I can even do automatic incremental snapshot backups using rsync --link-dest.

With Lasik, expect fluctuation for a year after though. I was happy that I had RK on one eye, since it tended to be more stable. I couldn't use the computer otherwise...

Hmm... I think you're asking for evidence.

Yes, you cracked the secret code in my message.

Let me first say - you need faith to please God - that is how he sorts out the wheat from the chaff.

This is putting the cart before the horse. There's no point in discussing methods of pleasing an entity for which there is no evidence of existence.

Firstly, read about the Bible - how it describes history, read how, in the past few hundred years, multiple scholar were proven wrong and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered. How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere. How Genesis describes a supercontinent.

Which scholars? Which peer-reviewed journal describes these archeological finds? Why would think that a book that describes the world as a sphere or describes a supercontinent in earlier times would automatically be non-fiction? Are you honestly claiming that you believe that any book that describes the world as a sphere is non-fiction or are you simply being disingenuous and hoping I was too stupid too notice?

Next look up at creation.

Describing everything as "creation" before you've proven that it was created is an error.

See yourself - see how you're put together. See a worm. Note, we still have been able to create even a worm.

I assume you meant we have not been able to create a worm. Five hundred years ago we couldn't fly. Only an idiot would think that this meant that it required divine intervention for a human to fly.

Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux, trying to account for new information - how bats, birds, and one more species evolved flight separately.

Scientific theories are constantly refined; this is nothing new. What is it about bible-thumpers that makes them think that scientific theories are required to be absolutely correct in every detail the first time they are proposed in order to be correct? Newton's laws have been discovered not to be completely correct at the quantum level or at high (near light) speed. No one with a brain calls them wrong; they're just recognized for what they are: an accurate description of physics in a subset of all cases.

Of course, you're defending a book that thinks bats are birds.

How many species evolved various body parts simultaneously. How there is a genetic bottleneck - all of us trace back to one man and one woman (as in "one") - see how this is the position of mainstream evolutionary geneticists.

Geneticists claim to have found the earliest known ancestors of humanity. They do not claim that these are the first humans; merely that they are the earliest ancestors we've found. Nice try though.

Does this remind you of Noah and his progeny after the flood?

You mean the flood that didn't happen?

See the sun. See the moon. See how the mooon perfectly covers the sun during a full solar eclipse. Ever wondered about the exactness in apparent size? The Bible says God gave the sun and moon for signs and seasons.

The bible says a lot of dumb things for which there is no evidence. Why are you claiming that the seasons involve solar eclipses?

But all this is evidence isn't directly personal.

None of what you've posted is objective evidence.

The most important step is when you, having noticed the evidence does not contradict God, take a leap of faith, and pray to him to help you out. You'll see how a *lot* of very very *personal* evidence accumulates and how that helps you.

Actual, the universe repeatedly contradicts

Hmm... I think you're asking for evidence.

Yes, you cracked the secret code in my message.

Let me first say - you need faith to please God - that is how he sorts out the wheat from the chaff.

This is putting the cart before the horse. There's no point in discussing methods of pleasing an entity for which there is no evidence of existence.

Firstly, read about the Bible - how it describes history, read how, in the past few hundred years, multiple scholar were proven wrong and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered. How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere. How Genesis describes a supercontinent.

Which scholars? Which peer-reviewed journal describes these archeological finds? Why would think that a book that describes the world as a sphere or describes a supercontinent in earlier times would automatically be non-fiction? Are you honestly claiming that you believe that any book that describes the world as a sphere is non-fiction or are you simply being disingenuous and hoping I was too stupid too notice?

Next look up at creation.

Describing everything as "creation" before you've proven that it was created is an error.

See yourself - see how you're put together. See a worm. Note, we still have been able to create even a worm.

I assume you meant we have not been able to create a worm. Five hundred years ago we couldn't fly. Only an idiot would think that this meant that it required divine intervention for a human to fly.

Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux, trying to account for new information - how bats, birds, and one more species evolved flight separately.

Scientific theories are constantly refined; this is nothing new. What is it about bible-thumpers that makes them think that scientific theories are required to be absolutely correct in every detail the first time they are proposed in order to be correct? Newton's laws have been discovered not to be completely correct at the quantum level or at high (near light) speed. No one with a brain calls them wrong; they're just recognized for what they are: an accurate description of physics in a subset of all cases.

Of course, you're defending a book that thinks bats are birds.

How many species evolved various body parts simultaneously. How there is a genetic bottleneck - all of us trace back to one man and one woman (as in "one") - see how this is the position of mainstream evolutionary geneticists.

Geneticists claim to have found the earliest known ancestors of humanity. They do not claim that these are the first humans; merely that they are the earliest ancestors we've found. Nice try though.

Does this remind you of Noah and his progeny after the flood?

You mean the flood that didn't happen?

See the sun. See the moon. See how the mooon perfectly covers the sun during a full solar eclipse. Ever wondered about the exactness in apparent size? The Bible says God gave the sun and moon for signs and seasons.

The bible says a lot of dumb things for which there is no evidence. Why are you claiming that the seasons involve solar eclipses?

But all this is evidence isn't directly personal.

None of what you've posted is objective evidence.

The most important step is when you, having noticed the evidence does not contradict God, take a leap of faith, and pray to him to help you out. You'll see how a *lot* of very very *personal* evidence accumulates and how that helps you.

Actual, the universe repeatedly contradicts

If you do Lasik, figure on having vision fluctuation for a year afterward. If you're planning on doing both eyes, I recommend doing one, waiting until it stabilizes, then doing the other. Otherwise, you'll have to buy a 5'x5' projection system to get any work done on the bad days.

With Lasik, they cut a flap on your eye, zap what's underneath, then replace the flap. The cutting is really unnerving. (I wish they had given me two valium instead of one.) Don't do PRK, which is basically laser without the flap to protect the eye afterwards.

Yes, at night you will get starbursts around lights, and light from the side will cause some flareups in your field of view. During the day your cornea is smaller, so the light doesn't pass through these "problem areas". The halo for my Lasik eye is like a fuzz, while the RK eye is more like a starburst (due to the scapel cuts).

This was several years ago, and my right eye isn't as clear as it was. Of course, my eyes always degraded over time.

If anyone does see a slot machine blue screen, I want a picture.
---------------------------------------- ---------------