Slashdot Mirror

I run my own mail server. Backup isn't that hard to manage. rsync to a local box, rsync to a remote box, email the results of the backup jobs to yourself. What is more of a problem (alluded to in your comment) is the time needed to get it back up and running when the HDD dies. Of course it helps if your backups actually work... as I discovered recently.

The expense of backup options is pretty minimal. I have fairly modest needs when it comes to storage 100GB ATM, so the cost for me was ~$70 per box (2nd hand box) + (at that time) $100 / HDD. At the time I bought more than one box to have one spare box if I needed spare hardware.

At some point in the future I'd rebuild the whole thing (mail server, file server, onsite backup, offsite backup) with some new boxes, RAID 1 etc.

This is pretty much the same problem as storing your own local files, just with emails.

> 2. The Google search bar (now the Google or Yahoo! search bar). Yes, Firefox has a search bar that supports more browsers, but it doesn't have a drop down list with my previous searches.

Google toolbar?

> 3. Close buttons for each tab in each tab (yes, I know Firefox finally got on board with this in v2.0)

Actually I hate this, but it is configurable. Besides as you say it is in 2.0+

> 7. iSync support for syncing bookmarks across multiple Macs.

Google Browser sync

8. Better history feature. No sidebar required.

YMMV but I clear all history each time I close the browser. But yeah the FF history does seem to suck.

Some reasons to use firefox:

1. Extensions
2. Extensions
3. Extensions

My personal list. IMO if you write code for the web and don't use firefox you are a masochist.

With a dell, there is no clear differentiation between product lines.

"The second (and to my mind stranger) thing that dell does, is that they sell overlapping products. Looking at just the notebook range for small business you can get an inspiron, a latitude or a precision. There seems to be little in common between the different types of inspiron laptops, 3 of them look similar but are different sizes, the XPCs are in a class of their own and there is the odd one out, the 1300. Likewise with the latitude, the laptop models don't seem to have much in common. It is in no way clear which laptop may suit you, particularly as you can customise them further, upgrading CPUs and RAM.

Compare this to two other laptop manufacturers: Apple and Lenovo thinkpads (formerly IBM). Apple sells two laptop ranges: Macbook and macbook pro. All the macbooks look similar (you can get white or black) and are all 13 and top out at a 2Ghz CPU. The macbook pros all look similar and come in two different form factors 15.4 and 17. For lenovo, there are the X series (ultralite and small), the X series tablet, R series (lower end machines), Z series (high end desktop replacement), T series (high performance portable). Each model also has a number (eg T42), which distinguishes it from previous revisions. All models look exactly the same."

from a blog posting of mine

IIS is great until you move just a little off the beaten path. Apache is *way* more flexible.

Indeed. I wrote an article about some of the issues with perl. link

And yet they miss key features like WPA.

The problem is partly interia. The problem is also that the sexy area of linux distros is still server side and command line. And that is not what desktop users want.

But if I did that then the number of windows drivers would go to zero. I'd have to exclude people like Netgear.

However, you're raising multiple conflicting arguments why Christians do not follow Kosher. One argument is how Jesus feed everyone from Mosaic law, meaning they could eat whatever. Another is that you should live among and follow the Gentiles' way. Don't these cause division in the faith or call into question the Bible when it contradicts itself like this?

Actually what I am saying is that it isn't important. The passage from Jesus says that the mosiac law does not apply. There are plenty of others, for example Galatians on the issue of circumcision. Galations is fantastic also because it talks about the circumcision group, as a "lobby" group. I just love it. Humour aside, the passage from Paul is talking about the same issue from a different direction. Paul is saying that because it isn't important don't let it be a barrier for people who see this as an issue. That is, we are freed from the law, but we may choose to live by the requirements of the law so that other people may not lose respect for the gospel.

A concrete example of applying this passage would be a Christian working amoung muslims. There is no law that prohibits Christians from drinking alcohol, in fact there are some passages that explicitly permit this (one psalm talks about God creating "wine to gladden the hearts of men", and in Timothy Paul suggests that he drink some wine for his health), in moderation. However if you were a Christian working amoung muslims, if you drank this might immediately cause them to disregard what you say. In that situation, because it isn't important, the appopriate thing to do would be not to drink at all. Equally s/muslim/jew/ and s/alcohol/pork/

BTW, I'm only on top of this issue at the moment because I've recently led a bible studies on the 1 Cor passage.

Coming from a Catholic background, I was told not to be literal with the bible, due to its imperfections and changes.

I think you have to be really careful with calling the bible imperfect. If the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is God's word to mankind, then how could it be imperfect? Though I'd certainly agree that there can be imperfections in the translations and interpretations. There are also some areas where it isn't certain that some sections are part of the original manuscripts (eg John 8:1-11).

Equally the Catholic church is (from my perspective) a little strange in that it gives equal weight to church tradition and to the bible. In practice this can mean that church tradition wins when there is a conflict. I could give examples, but I think that is a discussion for another day.

That aside what may have been meant is that you should not interpret the bible literally. I agree with this, although care must be taken. It is possible to interpret the bible in a way that suits you. Equally reading the bible literally can be dangerous. At the very least I'd have to tell my wife to take her wedding ring off and throw out the pearl earings her parents gave her. In that case Paul is telling women to dress modestly, braided hair, pearls, gold being examples.

As I understand it, the texts of the OT were extremely contraversial...

OK I don't honestly know the background the selection of the old testament as well as the new. The controvesy that I am aware of centered more around Song of Songs. Frankly this is largely a question that a jewish person might be better equipped to answer that.

What I do know is that it is worth being careful comparing contemporary (to OT) literature and going too far. The fact that styles, structure and even stories may be the same does not mean that the message is the same.

An example of this is the creation story in Genesis. This is very similar (IIRC) to other creation stories for the region. What is interesting is where it difers. As each thing is created it does not mention the god in charge of that area of creation, which the other accounts do. The point of this is that the creation story is told using styles and stories that are familiar but the differences emphasise the point even more. ...but only if you aren't one of those "the bible is literal truth" guys...

I'm not, otherwise I'd be telling my wife to take her wedding ring off because it is against 1 Timothy 2.

No, I'm something much more dangerous: I have a good mind and I believe that all scripture is the word of God.

Religion was used not only as a way to keep the people who need fairy stories to maintain morality in line spiritually, but also socially.

I'd seriously suggest reading some of the history. I'm sorry but I some of what you are saying betrays a lack of knowledge of the history of "the church", particulary early history.

What you are saying assumes that it was always in a dominant position. That is it was used by rulers as a means of keeping the populace down. However until the time of Constantine it was in no way associated with government, or even gained government recognition. Christians and Christianity were persecuted. Just google Nero for example, and remember that the Roman empire controlled most of the known world at the time.

In addition I'm not sure I really explained the criterial all that well. In most cases the councils that approved the books were just approving what was currently common practice (I said "accepted by the church at large"). Note that this was common practice before Constantine, the first Christian ruler was in place. This is hardly a question of pressure.

I don't mean to offend sensibilities and I'm stating the following as my opinion. The Bible as it stands today is nothing but a load of old fairy stories. In saying that, I think it should be kept around to keep the amoral masses in line. It's much easier than having to identify and counteract amoral people who discover Taoism.

I'm not offended. I'm just disappointed that you would dismiss the bible out of hand like that. I'm not sure what is your basis for deciding that it is a bunch of fairy tales, but that view not seem to be shared by historians.

It is remarkable book by any account.

I haven't forgotten about this issue, I've now had the time to actually work on it.

Of the two errors I hit I wasn't able to reproduce one (unable to select items in a dynamically created select list) on the latest version of opera. As it turns out I was testing against an earlier version of Opera.

I was able to reproduce the other bug (set options using innerHTML). I've built a test case and submitted it to Opera. The test case is here.

It can happen (if you take the word of eMusic).