Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:FreeNAS (Score 1) 211 211

I might be missing something here, but I run a small BSD ZFS file server with samba and the little PC it runs on only has 2Gb or RAM. I am not doing anything more complex than a simple mirror (I have backups, the mirror is for availability), the equivalent of RAID 1+0, and sure caching is off, but performance is fine for the 6 people that use it(some even running their virtual machines off it, though I try to discourage that). What am I missing?

Comment: Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? (Score 1) 597 597

DC motors still have their place, but with the advent of VSDs, not as much as before. That being said, large AC motors/generators still require a DC field current. In the old days this was done by a DC generator on the same shaft(with associated brushes...). Now days we do it electrically (thyristors to make a variable field), but most medium to large AC motors I have worked on have brushes for the field current. Not everything can be self-excited or use permanent magnets.

Comment: Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score 1) 445 445

You can disagree all you like, but you miss the point. Few of the reasonable are interested in making you understand. You are completely free to continue in your ignorance of other points of view. Go ahead, I got no problem with that. Your opponents certainly don't understand your POV. Fair is fair.

Should you wish to engage with Christians or other philosophies to your own, you will need to adjust your attitude. The trouble is, because your fundamental set of assumptions are so wildly different from those you argue with, you don't even realise how little sense you make to them, or vice versa.

I make the claim to have some understanding of both Christian and naturalistic philosophy, and I am much happier for it. It may frustrate you however. I don't speak for you.

Comment: Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score 1) 445 445

I think the point was to convey the idea that such a being's limitations in doing anything is not in terms of ability, but in terms of character. This concept is common across all theological systems that I have encountered. God could do anything but there are things he won't do, because then he would not be God. Trivial example - if God chose to cease to exist.

Omniscient has a wider range of meaning within Christianity, though all affirm the word. For example, a calvinist would agree with your definition, while a non-calvinist might take it to mean that the end is known, but not necessarily all internal states. There has been some discussion on the topic for some time with extreme positions on both side. It is controversial even within Christianity

As I pointed out to the other poster, specialized vocabulary is not unique to Christianity. You also have to remember that your average nutter crying out in the street that "evolution is just a theory" is not representative of the state of academic or philosophic Christianity. He is, in fact, as far as I can tell, an export of America.

Comment: Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score 1) 445 445

It is, of course not possible for words to have specific meanings within specialized contexts.

I am going to put it another way: If a [Insert person whose philosophy/religion/texteditor you disagree with] wants to use a word and you wish to understand their point of view, then you must let them define their terms. You don't get to define the terms.

Language is somewhat fluid. We don't have words for everything, and specialized vocabularies develop quite easily. In this case, not least because the source documents are not English.

If, however, you have no interest in understanding, but just like to rant on slashdot, don't let me stop you. Carry on.

This is the entirety of my point. I feel I have adequately made it, and I have no real interest in discussing the other topics you bring up, as they are tangential.

Comment: Re:It's kinda cute (Score 1) 445 445

I do blame America for creationism. Most Christians outside America were quite happy with various interpretations of Genesis until the bullys in America said "If you don't buy our (out of context) version, you're going to hell."

One longs for a time when people understand Genesis literally. As in it is literally a temple inauguration story, and not a material origins story.

Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about. -- Philippe Schnoebelen