CAN I BE OF ASSISTANCE?
Thursday, March 31
Skeptics 'R'n't Wizbang
I'm busy reabsorbing the blogosphere after a mostly-absence of a month, and in the course of this endeavour, I wandered over to
Wizbang. Usual stuff - the unfortunate Terri Schiavo (skip), Bonfire, UN scandal, various little items, and then I ran into
this:
Do I have to draw a picture?
Since the Oozer Zealots don't read or think, typing any more, is pointless. Maybe a picture will sum the whole thing up.

This puzzled me for a moment. Okay, from the labels on the graph, he's talking about evolution, but Oozer Zealots as a term for Creationists is a new one on me.
Then I realised that Oozer Zealots is actually a derogatary term for people accept Evolutionary Theory. Paul - the poster in this instance - is arguing the Creationist point of view.
Well, I went into the comments to see what people had to say about that, and to add my $2 (partly inflation, but mostly because I have a lot to say), only to find that the comments were closed.
Trackbacks weren't closed, though, and Paul receives a well-earned spanking from Pharyngula. Even better, the Commissar offers these two detailed posts, followed by (mostly) informed and rational commentary, explaining where Paul is wrong, why he is wrong, and how we know he is wrong.
Paul does not help his case with this response:
You are an idiot.
And a paranoid idiot at that.
Now I'm a closet bible thumper?
Way to advance an argument.
And that was to the earlier post, before the Commissar got really warmed up.
Back in December, I wrote this:
My aim is to promote Science and Civilisation, and it's a selfish aim. I want the products of Science and Civilisation for myself: Peace and wealth and effective medicine and a comfortable home with air conditioning and a fancy computer and an interesting and productive job. The people who attack Science and Civilisation are trying to deprive me of all that, and I won't allow it.
The Creationists pushing their fraudulent spin on Evolutionary Theory; the Post-Modernists denying the concept of Objective Truth; the Islamists trying to do both at the same time; the historical revisionists; the Psychics; the "Alternative Health Practitioners"; the academics who see their role being not to teach but to brainwash their students into leftist zombiehood; the "free speech" proponents who want to stamp out speech they don't like; Mysticism and Obscurantism; the spammers and scammers and hackers who are doing their level best to destroy the Internet; the nanny-state idiots and the totalitarian hardliners who try to legislate problems out of existence: These and more are what I truly oppose.
Yeah, Paul, I'm talking to you.
The only way you can maintain a Creationist belief system these days - if you are an adult in a developed country - is through deliberate ignorance. Maybe you don't care much about evolution. That's not so bad; not everyone needs to be a biologist. Still, it is probably the single most significant scientific theory ever formulated, and you should care. But if it's not your thing, and you have chosen not to study it, and you've gone into, say, accounting or civil engineering, that's not a problem.
But that doesn't apply to Paul. He's not only chosen to ignore the facts that are at his fingertips, but to spit in the face of the people who are patiently trying to explain the facts to him. He has inflicted ignorance upon himself, and wishes to inflict it upon others.
No.
There are valid questions regarding Evolutionary Theory, but Paul asks none of them, merely repeating the tired old Creationist talking points. You know how you feel when you hear the same old Democrat talking points, refuted countless times, trotted out once again? Well, yeah. Only this is worse. This is Science he's messing with. This isn't just politics, this is real. More even than democracy, this is the bedrock of our civilisation.
Fortunately, in science, what Paul thinks doesn't matter. No working biologist cares one whit what Paul has to say about the matter. No paleontologist is going to lose any sleep over his posts at Wizbang. No geneticist is going to have an upset tummy at lunchtime today.
There's a little saying popular among scientists and engineers: It's so bad, it's not even wrong.* What this means is that what someone has said is so confused that it is neither true nor false, it simply doesn't make sense.
That's where Paul finds himself from the scientific perspective. He is attacking one of the best supported scientific theories we have, from a point of ignorance, with claims long since refuted. Neither Creationism nor it's stepchild Intelligent Design are scientific theories; nor indeed do they have anything to do with science apart from distorting and misreporting scientific findings.
I'm not going to offer a point by point refutation, because it's been done. If you're interested, there is no better place to start than the Talk.Origins Archive. The works of Stephen Jay Gould are also a wonderful and accessible source of information (though he had his disagreements with other biologists on the fine points of evolutionary theory). There is an unending wealth of information on the subject, much of it wonderfully written (and illustrated!), a joy, a delight of learning. All of which Paul has rejected.
In that post in December, I remarked in closing:
So I shouldn't want for subject matter.
And so I shan't, but I hadn't expected it to be coming from my side of the fence.
* Attributed to Wolfgang Pauli
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
06:32 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 930 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I've almost stopped reading Wizbang because of that...
I know the futility of trying to point out facts, I used to lurk on talk.origins.
Posted by: Kathy K at Thursday, March 31 2005 10:05 AM (TXTKm)
2
You said:
"Then I realised that Oozer Zealots is actually a derogatary term for people accept Evolutionary Theory. Paul - the poster in this instance - is arguing the Creationist point of view."
Both of those are 100% incorrect.
I realize that you came in in the middle of the movie but you are 180 degrees out of phase.
#1) Oozer Zealots are people who believe that everything we know about evolutionary biology today is 100% correct and there is absolutely no chance we are wrong in any way. They further believe that they should not take the time required to listen to anyone who might think we still have many unanswered questions, they should just attack and call people bible thumpers. (After reading this post, you can see your local mirror for an example of this behavior.)
#2) If you had a brain you would notice I specifically argued AGAINST creationism multiple times.
Do you even give half a shit about being right? geeze
Posted by: Paul at Thursday, March 31 2005 11:42 AM (zvRKM)
3
I love it. "Paul is wrong" but you have no clue what I said. And you talk about me?
Posted by: Paul at Thursday, March 31 2005 11:44 AM (zvRKM)
4
Paul is a Creationist stalking horse. He repeats all their nonsense. He seems to have numerous admitted Creationist commenters that go right along.
"I specifically argued AGAINST creationism multiple times." Deep in comment thread, sure. Never in a headline post.
He uses their tactics repeatedly.
Paul, if you comment here again, please let us know why why said "no inter-species evolution. NOT ONE documented case?" Then when confronted with a list of HUNDREDS of transitionary fossils, you mis-characterized it as '30 or 40 questionable' fossils? Which ones were questionable?
Paul is a liar, a coward, a lazy propagandist, and a serial comment-deleter.
Posted by: The Commissar at Thursday, March 31 2005 02:56 PM (FHWvc)
5
Paul, as the Commissar points out, you made the claim that there are no transitional fossils. This is utterly, hopelessly wrong, as you could find out if you did 30 seconds of research - or even listened to the people trying to explain this to you.
It is also one of the most common Creationist talking points.
If you're not a creationist, why are you using their methods and their arguments - both completely discredited - against their targets? Why are you acting exactly like a creationist?
Oozer Zealots are people who believe that everything we know about evolutionary biology today is 100% correct and there is absolutely no chance we are wrong in any way.
And who exactly believes this? You do realise that some biologists disagree with some other biologists on some points of Evolutionary Theory?
Yes?
Well, the point remains that Evolution happened, and is happening right now. That's Evolution the fact. Evolution the theory is our explanation for how and why and when and where evolution happens, how fast it happens, what it can do. There are questions about Evolutionary Theory. There are no questions about whether Evolution happened (at least, not sensible ones). It did.
They further believe that they should not take the time required to listen to anyone who might think we still have many unanswered questions, they should just attack and call people bible thumpers.
I said you are arguing the Creationist point of view. You are. I said all your claims are refuted in one handy place,
Talk.Origins, and they are. I noted that the Commisar had refuted your claims in detail, and he has.
I didn't call you a bible thumper. I didn't even call you a creationist. What I did say, was:Paul - the poster in this instance - is arguing the Creationist point of view.AndThere are valid questions regarding Evolutionary Theory, but Paul asks none of them, merely repeating the tired old Creationist talking points.But what I think really has you ticked off is thisFortunately, in science, what Paul thinks doesn't matter.You are arguing from total ignorance. If you wish to dispute the findings or theory of evolution, you can damn well learn something about it first. Because until you do, what you say
doesn't matter. To science, anyway, and to anyone who does know something about the subject.
Unlike politics, it's not about opinion, it's about facts. Fact is, you're wrong -
at best. Present Evolutionary Theory may not be right about every detail, but it's right.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, March 31 2005 05:57 PM (+S1Ft)
6
Paul is just an example of the most disturbing trends in modern argument; to deny that you're making the points that you're trying to make, and that you don't support the position you support. The Soviets had a term for it: Disinformation.
Not that Paul is the only case of this, it's very widespread, and is historically represented in numerous cases, though it first made its appearance in religion and continues to flourish there, as well as in pseudo-religious ideologies such as Communism and Fascism.
The reason for this is that the more ridiculous or dangerous your argument, the more, and larger, lies and deceits in which it must be cloaked. If you want to control someone, tell them you're liberating them, if you want to steal from everyone, tell them you want to give to everyone.
This method has worked for thousands of years, and continues unabated today, with full and enthusiastic support from those with minds too weak to see the truth of the matter, or those with an agenda that is only supported by such methods because to tell the truth would be death.
People who have to use lies and deception to further their position are easy to spot though, because they will never, ever, let themselves get drawn into an argument based on pure reason and logic, and will always respond to a reasoned argument with insults and unsopportable "facts" that they make up as they go along, or draw from equally dubious sources.
I left the following post on wizbang, I can't wait to see Paul's response, though I think it will most likely get deleted:
I don't know about lighting striking ooze and all that, though electro-chemical reactivity is easily proven and well established, but the Big Invisible Man in the Sky theory (read: myth) is a tough one to prove as well, especially considering that religion makes no sincere effort whatsoever to connect beliefs with reality. (I should have also added here that there are literally hundreds of creation myths.)
But let's suppose for a minute the creationists are right, that there is a Greater Power that made everything, what then? Did it abandon us or does it choose to limit its control or influence over us? Or, an even more scary proposition, what if it is in control of everything? Of the three scenarios; no involvement, limited involvement, or total contol, the second and last are most disturbing, because given the evidence of the sad state of human affaits, God is a sadistic psychopath who gets off on schadenfreude. If the first is the case, then He's nothing more than a deadbeat parent, so screw Him, amen.
By the way, Paul, I dare you to reply without using juvenile insults, though given your previous posts, if you can't insult me, you'll just delete this post and ban me.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at Friday, April 01 2005 02:52 PM (0yYS2)
7
P.M.
I'm working thru a question, on the origin of life question. Absent evidence, science admits that it does not know. As an unproven, but not disproven, hypothesis, perhaps God did it.
Creationists then argue, "You cant explain how life started, but I can, therefore I win."
I want to write up a short discussion of the logical fallacy they're employing. Any suggestions?
Posted by: The Commissar at Saturday, April 02 2005 10:32 AM (jNXzj)
8
ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net
Posted by: ya pidoras at Tuesday, July 25 2006 10:10 AM (NePLc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tuesday, March 01
Bad Apple
Apple have told me, in polite and carefully chosen words, that they are not responsible for people who get bitten by their abrupt price changes.
I have replied, in likewise polite and carefully chosen words, that I do not find this response entirely satisfactory.
We'll see.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
04:32 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You're going to be an unusual guy if you did get any results. That's pretty much been the company's standard deal for decades, ever since my Performa was sold the next day for half price.
Now that I think about it, I'm still mad that the $1200 TI-99/4A sold for $50 about two weeks after I bought it....
Posted by: Chap at Thursday, March 03 2005 07:50 PM (wp4/x)
2
It's not just Apple, either. You'd be unusual if you got results from ANY retailer, unless they have a "price guarantee" policy.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Friday, March 04 2005 01:34 AM (IZSVr)
3
And we don't get to see this carefully worded reply??? I for one am on tetherhooks (what is the origin of that phrase?)
Posted by: Rachel Ann at Wednesday, March 16 2005 05:17 AM (TgJbS)
4
Most retail outlets offer
some kind of price guarantee, though -- especially if it's only been two weeks.
Or else you can take it back, get a refund at your original price, then buy it again at the lower price.
Another reason not to buy online, I guess.
Posted by: david at Wednesday, March 16 2005 09:04 PM (nZG6k)
5
I bought my Color Computer III the week it came out. I walked back into the same Radio Shack two weeks later for some components for an unrelated project, and the salesman told me I had a refund coming because the price had dropped.
That thing was actually one heck of a computer in its day, and OS/9 was the best operating system on the market up till then, but the company, and even more so the stores, just pissed its value away.
Posted by: triticale at Saturday, March 19 2005 10:41 PM (J8WV5)
6
.. you alive, or what, fearless leader?...
Posted by: Eric at Sunday, March 20 2005 10:14 AM (YlwMq)
7
Uh oh. He complained about Apple and hasn't been seen since.
We can put two and two together.
Posted by: TallDave at Thursday, March 24 2005 05:27 PM (lZMuK)
8
Are you mostly dead? Can I send you chocolate?
Posted by: Susie at Monday, March 28 2005 10:39 AM (g8g3w)
Posted by: Susie at Monday, March 28 2005 10:45 AM (g8g3w)
10
ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net
Posted by: ya pidoras at Tuesday, July 25 2006 09:02 AM (hNGYv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Saturday, February 26
And Two Weeks Later
They cut the price of the iPod by a third.
Grrr.
You can't win.
On Wednesday I ordered a new monitor because I noticed it had come down in price. $770 before Christmas, and only $450 now.
Of course, the reason it's so cheap is that they don't make them any more.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
03:59 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
1
My gf's dad bought a $15000 42" plasma TV a couple years ago, and the burn-in is becoming noticeable. He was a bit steamed when I got a 63" flatscreen 3rd-gen DLP (that never burns in) for $4000 in November.
Posted by: TallDave at Saturday, February 26 2005 11:16 AM (z0bus)
2
Check with the outlet you bought it from you may be able the price cut refunded.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at Saturday, February 26 2005 07:33 PM (U3CvV)
3
able
to get the price cut refunded.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at Saturday, February 26 2005 07:48 PM (U3CvV)
4
I bought it direct from Apple.
I've sent them a very polite note pointing out that recent purchasers of iPods may be feeling a little peeved at this point, and suggesting they consider some sort of promotion or rebate to rememdy this.
I
was thinking of getting a Mac mini, but now I'm not.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, February 26 2005 07:49 PM (+S1Ft)
5
The interesting thing here is that you're complaining.
So far as I can tell, Moore's Law has drastically slowed down over the last few years. I remember predictions back when I went to college that terrabyte hard drives would be coming onto the market about now. That was about four cycles ago, but processors aren't 16 times faster than they were then; they're actually kinda stuck at about six (at least, in terms of clock speed).
It seems that people have gotten used to relatively stable prices again.
I suspect Apple did what it did because they've started losing market share to Creative and others (Creative alone sold two million MP3 players in the fourth quarter last year), and they need to lower prices because people are realizing that someone else makes MP3 players.
Posted by: John A. Kalb at Monday, February 28 2005 05:48 PM (V/SV3)
6
With hard disks, you tend to see prices ticking slowly downwards, 1% or 2% each week. Sure, after a few months they'll be significantly cheaper, but then you've had your drive for a few months.
Apple just applied six months worth of price reductions in one go. That's going to irritate people.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, February 28 2005 06:06 PM (+S1Ft)
7
ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net
Posted by: ya pidoras at Tuesday, July 25 2006 07:34 AM (hNGYv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Friday, February 11
On The Other Paw
Browsing through the little booklet that comes with my iPod while it formats, I come across this goodie:
You cannot switch from using iPod photo with a Mac to using it with a Windows PC (or vice versa) without erasing all data on iPod photo.
You
morons.
This of course explains why the miserable piece of crap decided it had to be formatted before I could use it. (It's still bloody formatting.)
Look, Apple, I have a PC and a Mac. You want to sell Macs to PC owners, you have to make the iPod work with both. None of this insane reformatting bullshit, it has to just work.
Now stop sitting on your thumbs and fix it.
(I deleted the first version of this post, in which I was rude.)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
05:16 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
1
there are alternative iTunes software and firmware patches you can get to address the multi device issue...
I just opted for the easy life and didn't buy an iPod!
Posted by: Rob at Friday, February 11 2005 06:34 AM (kXZI6)
2
What? iPods work with both!!
Posted by: Cleopatra at Friday, February 11 2005 06:57 AM (OL7sU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tuesday, February 08
One Would Think
One would think that if one were a major telecommunications company and one had a router that crashed every day, and that there was no explanation for this behaviour and that it had been happening for months, and was causing considerable difficulties for one's customers, that one might take steps to correct the issue, and that one might also consider notifying one's major re-sellers.
Of course, one would be wrong.
Oh, and one might advise one's service staff not to fob off customers by blaming the problem on line filters. This applies doubly in instances where there are no line filters installed.
And you know what? You know what? It's bloody hard to write consistently in the first person indefinite subjunctive.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
09:14 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Susie at Wednesday, February 09 2005 08:43 AM (MYr06)
2
If one understood, yes.
Posted by: Ted at Wednesday, February 09 2005 11:11 AM (blNMI)
3
Indeed several would, more or less simultaneously.
Posted by: triticale at Thursday, February 10 2005 12:46 AM (8QhBe)
Posted by: Dean Esmay at Thursday, February 10 2005 08:54 AM (zNte6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Saturday, January 22
Same Old
So, if you have a drive failure in a RAID-5 set, what is the probability that another drive will fail while you are backing the data up?
All those who answered "one" go to the head of the class.
There is, apparently, a way to fix this, since the second failure was a transient glitch and the drive actually works. However, it involves scary things that I haven't done before.
Grumble grumble.
I've posted a cry for help in the appropriate newsfroup, and I'll see what happens.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
09:21 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Obviously chocolate is required here.
Posted by: Susie at Saturday, January 22 2005 10:11 AM (CDC0W)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, January 22 2005 10:13 AM (+S1Ft)
3
... ouch, brother... good luck stormin' the castle...
Posted by: Eric at Sunday, January 23 2005 09:14 AM (YlwMq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Thursday, December 23
S'Greetz
The City of Sydney has gaily-painted* banners fluttering beside its major thoroughfares this Christmas, bearing messages in many different languages. I could see two different Chinese scripts, one that I thought I recognised as Thai, one in the Cyrillic alphabet, and many others. One I saw was in Spanish**; the first word was
Felice; I didn't catch the second since the banner was waving in the wind, but I could see that it wasn't
Navidad as one might expect.
Then I found one in English. It reads:
Season's Greetings
Well, quite. And a Pleasant Summer and Cheerful Winter to you as well.
James Lileks has his own observations on the topic.
(It's Felice Fiestas as it turns out. And isn't it Feliz Navidad in Spanish? Are Fiestas of a different gender to Navidads or something? Why are you looking at me like that?)
* Or printed, or however they do it these days.
** I think.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
07:04 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Felice Fiestas would be the Spanish equivalent of 'Happy Holidays'. Though fiesta is closer to party or celebration than to 'holiday'.
Posted by: Kathy K at Sunday, December 26 2004 02:34 PM (xSrFL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tuesday, November 30
ctrl-shift-c intprop censorgridsize 0
Over the weekend I finally got around to installing all my essential software on my rebuilt Windows box, and so I at last got a chance to play with Sims 2.
For about fifteen minutes. Then my computer crashed. And again ten minutes after that. And again twenty minutes after that, and five minutes after that, and... so on. The screen freezes, or goes black, or drops me back to Windows, or when I'm really lucky the machine just reboots.
I thought maybe the power supply wasn't quite coping, what with the three new hard disks I added. I pulled out a couple of cards I wasn't using (video capture and second network card) and it seemed to be going longer between killing my sims, so yesterday I ordered a shiny new 480W power supply and this morning I installed it.
As you can probably guess, it wasn't the power supply.
So, now I have a problem. This is the second video card I've had trouble with in that machine. The first one locked up all the time, even when I was just scrolling a web page. The replacement has been reliable enough until now; I can use it all day for applications and web stuff and watching videos without even the hint of a hiccup. But it sure doesn't like Sims 2.
I could buy a fancy new video card, which would make things faster - except that AGP, which is what I have, is fast being replaced by PCI Express, so if I buy an expensive video card now it's not going to have a very long life. And this is the second time I've had problems with video cards in this machine, so what if it's not the card? If I spend hundreds of dollars on a new card and it doesn't work either, I won't be a happy bunny. Now, a few times I have got actual errors back from the video drivers, so I'm sort of confident that it's the card, but what if the chipset on my motherboard is slightly wonky? But then, it runs fine for days when I'm not using 3D graphics.
Mrble.
Fortunately, I'm currently building a couple of systems for work right now. So I've ordered myself a cheap Radeon 9250, and if that works at home I can then put it in the new work machine and expense it, haha! And then go on the waiting list for an Nvidia 6600GT, which is currently a yes, we have no bananas sort of thing.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
06:57 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 432 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ouch! There IS a site that can scan your innards (not YOURS, you know what I mean) and tell you if your system will work with Sims2, but. . .I understand that may not be high-tech enough nor very reliable.
I will light a candle and dance by the light of the moon that it gets working for you, hon.
You know, so you can get the new expansion pack due out in March of 2005? Sims University! Rawk! Awn!
Posted by: Margi at Thursday, December 02 2004 12:39 AM (rKX9f)
2
Sweetie -- while I was looking for the Sims2 section wherein you check system stats, I found this:
Sims2 Patch. (http://thesims2.ea.com/update/)
Specifically, this jumped out at me:
System/Config issues:
Users with limited user accounts can now run the game.
Improved performance with Radeon X800 cards.
Users continuing to experiencing problems should update to the 4.10 driver.
The game no longer affects a user's modem settings when connecting to the internet via the modem.
Fixes a problem with default collections not being available when user data is regenerated.
I hope this helps!
Posted by: Margi at Thursday, December 02 2004 03:49 AM (rKX9f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Monday, November 22
Peeve of the Day
So I select the items I don't want, and I click on Trash. And then I open the Trash Manager, and I select them again, and I click on Delete. And then I get a page saying that these items will be deleted, and I click on Delete again. Then I get a pop-up asking me if I really want to delete these items, because if I delete them they will be, like,
deleted.
YES I BLOODY WANT TO DELETE THE BLOODY THINGS YOU PIECE OF CRAP!!!!
If you design your software so that it treats your users like morons, you will soon find that only morons use your software. And you will have to take all the support calls because everyone else will somehow contrive to be at lunch when the phone rings. Even if it's 8 am.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
10:15 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Shift-Delete. And there's a setting somewhere so it doesn't ask you "if you're really, really sure that you want to delete it, maybe you should call your Mom first, this is the real deal y'know, can't be undone, how about you sleep on it and try again tomorrow".
Posted by: Jim at Tuesday, November 23 2004 08:06 AM (tyQ8y)
2
ROFLMAO! I mean, I feel your pain... ;)
Posted by: Susie at Tuesday, November 23 2004 12:02 PM (oQsnM)
3
Real men don't delete files manually. They have a cronjob delete a random file every 10 minutes.
Posted by: Rossz at Thursday, November 25 2004 09:41 PM (n5Jbg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Saturday, September 18
A Pox, I Say!
A pox on all makers of disk drives and designers of file systems!
A pox!
Yes, while I was backing up everything on my Windows box so that I could attempt to convince it that the boot disk was not the G drive and that the system disk was not that spare disk I installed one day with a certain amount of comfort that I would not lose every last one of my files, my trusty* external disk decided that it didn't want to play any more. Well, it decided it was going to make some unhappy noises and refuse to write anything more and Windows decided that that was a good enough excuse to lock up completely.
So I've now pressed my emergency back-up Linux box into play. It's built up out of all the spare parts I have lying around from previous systems, and it has so far stubbornly refused to die. Of course, it's old and clunky and slow, but it actually works.
So now I can copy all my files onto that, reformat everything attached to my Windows box, reinstall Windows for the third time in a week, and then copy everything back again. Joy.
Then I'm going to buy me a UPS.
* It hasn't suffered massive file corruption for, like, months.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
08:30 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Pixy;
Don't you image your windows install after you first create it? At least then it's just a file copy, instead of a 2.5 hour install to get it back...
Posted by: Light & Dark at Saturday, September 18 2004 09:32 PM (eT6wp)
2
You might find this useful when it comes time to pick out a UPS:
UPS Info.
MGE makes the Rolls Royce of UPSes, but you'll pay a little more for them. The company also fully supports the open source community and has made full technical specifications available. Unlike APC, which has become a bit too secretive in my opinion.
Posted by: Rossz at Sunday, September 19 2004 02:10 AM (n5Jbg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
81kb generated in CPU 0.0684, elapsed 0.1945 seconds.
59 queries taking 0.1783 seconds, 265 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.