The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.
I don't believe you. Do you have evidence?
I'm serious. Why call it a sin? Why do you think that the human mind is the sort of thing that can be sinned against? Why is it the deepest? What if you were shown a "deeper sin"?
The increasing number of articles devoted to Microsoft is somewhat disturbing.
One great thing about Slashdot is cusomization. Almost everything is customizeable. That means that the Anti-MS zealots could choose to block every story except MS-related stories, effectively turning their Slashdot experience into the limit of what you're describing. They could then bash MS to their hearts' content.
Also, you could block out every MS-related story, and never see another one again. Why don't you just do that?
Scopeware (the system he built) is actually pretty interesting.
Yes, I've seen Scopeware, too. I work in IT for a small liberal arts college. We have lots of paper correspondence with prospective students, alumni, and donors. We've been evaluating a few Electronic Document Storage solutions (or Paperless Office, whatever you want to call it) for the past year now to try to eliminate some of the busy work in the filing/finding process for various document types.
The premise (or part of it) is that people aren't good at filing things in a hierarchical filesystem.
I guess you have to figure out whether you need to teach people to be good at this, or develop a whole new paradigm to play to their weaknesses. If people aren't "good at" it, then why not? Is it because they're not trained properly, or because there is some essential flaw in the way we think about hierarchical files?
I work with lots of different kinds of people here. The ones that funtion well in their jobs are often the ones that can manage their own offices. In my view, if you can't do something as simple as keeping your desk mostly clear of papers, and filing things in a semi-orderly way, then you've got issues that no new paradigm will solve. Of course there's the odd genius that is intuitive and bright and has no social or organizational skills. Fine. But that guy doesn't need new computing paradigms, because he is perfectly capable of funtioning intuitively in whatever environment he's in. The rest of us non-geniuses need a little structure.
Instead, the system simply keeps everything in one long hierarchical sequence, and tries to provide more intuitive ways of searching it.
If the problem is a human one, then great, let's find new paradigms like the one Gelerntner has proposed in Scopeware. But if it's just a matter of organizational habits, then lets fix ourselves first.
As someone has already posted, Gelerntner is just one of these bright-enough guys who surrounds himself with people who call him a visionary and a genius, and that makes him feel good. I've read some of his stuff, and I really don't think he's all that. I think this "article" reveals his weaknesses to most of us.
No, I do. I see your point, and you're right. But...
A one liner is not meant to be taken 100% literally.
That's true, but I guess I tend to react extremely to people using one-liners because of the way in which they're often used. You've always got people dropping pithy quotations from Twain, Chesterton, Nietsche, Plato, or whatever, and they think that one line somehow substitutes for a real, intelligent defense of their position. A one-liner used to support a position is one thing, but to substitute for one is another. Often, the one-liner is taken way out of context, and has no applicablity to the issue at hand.
I just don't want to stand by while people let others do all of their thinking for them.
There is a saying that the wiseman points to the sky and the idiot looks at the finger...
That's great, Confucious, but while I was pointing to the sky, you were looking at my finger.
My point was that the original poster was holding education to be the greatest common good. I chose to disagree with him. Education is a common good. It is even a great good (depending on what you mean by education, of course). It's certainly worth spending money to teach people. I'm in the education sector, so of course I think it's worthwhile. But just how much is enough? This guy doesn't seem to think there's a limit.
It's typical myopic thinking just to say things like "Money spent educating people is never a waste." That kind of thinking is what leads voters and legislators to throw bags of cash at schools without any real purpose. We in CA just voted yesterday to throw a $13B bag of cash into the schools. But the reality is that there are few controls over how that money is going to be spent. They'll probably just buy iPAQs for every kindergardener in CA, call it "education", and walk away thinking they did the right thing. Voters just went to the polls yesterday thinking, "Oh, money for education? Must vote YES. Must not think for myself. 'Money spent educating people is never a waste.' Mghm."
They're spending $15K on this. What if it were $15 million? $15 billion? $15 trillion? There's always a point at which spending can become wasteful. Care to recant?
Ive been hearing alot of this argument -- mostly from Christians who believe the planet was created by their god, for their exploitation (Your a Christian are you not..?)
What I've said has nothing to do with Christianity, religion, or evolution. I'm just asking about our role as humans in the environment. I want to know your arguments as to why we have a responsibility that other species don't. I haven't even put forth a position on the matter, actually. I've just asked questions. In fact, I DO think that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the natural world. I just wanted to hear your (or the original poster's) reasons for his positon. I still haven't heard anything rational.
What humans do is unnatural. Why? Because it is out of balance.
Out of balance with what? How was that balance determined? What is the measure of balance in the world? It seems that people determine balance in the world by (mentally) removing humans from it, then figuring out what the world would be like without us, then artificially implanting us back in, and blaming us for everything that's wrong. Why aren't we part of nature?
What we do is decidedly unnatural do [sic] to scale.
I see. So just because we can make bigger stuff than other species, our artifices are "decidedly unnatural". For something to be contrary to nature (that's what unnatural means), it must be not just "more" or "bigger" or different in degree, but it must be different in kind. Scale simply speaking cannot be the principle of the unnatural.
Our path, based on our consumption and disregard (arrogance and hubris (as youve displayed))
Again, I haven't even made any positive assertions. I don't know why you've called me arrogant. I simply have asked questions about the principles of someone's argument. I must reiterate that I do recognize human responsibility to the environment.
When we've finished paving over the planet...
I don't rememeber recommending the "paving over" of anything. I simply want to know why you and others keep saying that humans are somehow both a product of nature ("naked apes") and outside nature ("unnatural"). Don't you see your inconsistency?
Now, I've directly quoted and responded to you. I haven't put any words into your mouth. If you reply to me, please give me the same courtesy. Last time, you replied to a straw man. I wasn't the target of your attack.
But to claim that we must reject evolutionary theory if we're to use the word "natural" in its dictionary sense is going a bit far...
That's great; I agree. I'm not talking about rejecting evolutionary theory or dictionary definitions of words. Sorry if the talk about apes confused you. I'm just asking the original poster to think about his position.
I'll put it another way: why is our use of the land morally reprehensible, while other animals' similar use is not? Why is a beaver dam not an abomination of nature, but a human dam is? Why is a bird's nest, an apparently "artificial" abode, perfectly natural, but land is defiled by a human residence?
Forget the dictionary for a sec. I won't even use the word "natural". Why don't African termites form little environmental protests against other African termites for building big, monstrous hives in the desert (or whatever African termites do)?
Every species affects other species with their activity. Sometimes one species will cause the extinction of another species. When humans do that, it's an abomination. But if another species does it, it's just part of the ecosystem.
You think that's bad, I've got KatzVo. The damn thing only records shows about 9/11, Columbine and Globalism!
That's funny. Now, to save the copycats the trouble, I've created this easy-to-use template:
"Yeah, well I've got [FILL-IN]Vo. It stinks because it only {derogatory comment about [FILL-IN]}, and doesn't even {other derogatory comment about [FILL-IN]}!
people...would like to see more of the planet left in a natural (unmolested by humans) state.
And another thing, the planet covered w/ multi-level greenhouses so we can drive SUVs, have unnatural domestic landscapes...
This is not a troll; I'm sincerely wondering this: why do you equate the natural and "unmolested by humans"? Is a beaver dam natural or unnatural? How about a bird's nest? If they're natural, why is a Manhattan skyscraper or a 2500 sq.ft. home in the suburbs unnatural?
Most environmentalists (you're a self-proclaimed "tree-hugger") wear two hats: on the one hand, they suggest that humans are simply highly evolved apes, but on the other hand they see humans and human art as somehow "unnatural". You can't have it both ways. If humans are apes, then everything we do is as natural as everything they do, and there's no room for environmental criticisms. If humans are different in kind from apes, then where did we come from, and why do we have a responsibility to the environment?
two weeks ago, we had a big hulabaloo here at uiuc.edu because of this. all the win2k/xp machines on all of campus still running the messenger service...
I'm confused: does this mean that UIUC has a firewall with incoming port(s) 13x open? Or was the spammer doing it from on campus?
But the $6.9 billion project has turned into a major technology headache for the services and the prime contractor on the job, Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS).
Hey, if EDS can herd cats, they can do this job, no sweat.
Right. Datum is Latin for "that which is given". (It's the past participle of the verb "do,dare" which means "to give"). In Latin, neuter nouns like Datum are pluralized by removing the -um and adding -a. Therefore, Data simply means "those things which are given".
Which is what data means in English, too, more or less. "Givens".
In summary, for those Slashdottian Linkophobes, The Catholic Church presents hell as 'eternal fire', perhaps literal, perhaps not (it leaves itself somewhat agnostic on the matter). Regardless of the literalness of the fire part, Hell is certainly real. "The chief punishment of Hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." (from the link above, Pgh. 1035.
HP Openmail (now Samsung Contact) does ALL of this. Here's a play-by-play:
Server Side: 1. The replacement must support Outlook as a client, people actually like Outlook as an integrated client.
Integrates with Outlook 2000 via Openmail MAPI drivers. Check.
2. The Replacement must work with the Sendto functions of Microsoft Office.
This works fine. Check.
3. The Replacement must be able to scale to 10's of thousands of users, in geographically diverse locations.
Openmail has been reliably scaled this high and higher. Check.
4. Must Support Multipule languages.
Yes. Openmail is used all over the world. Check.
5. Must be easily scannable for Virus protection, and must be able to deny delivery of messages that fit certain criteria.
Integrates with Trend Micro's product for virus scanning. Check.
6. Easy rules based scripting of mail events stored on the server as part of the user's mail box.
Web-based Personal Administration Wizard (PAW). Rules stored on the server. Check.
7. Must support enterprise calendaring / scheduling.
Works great with Outlook 2000. Check.
8. Must inter-operate with Exchange during migration
HP's Exchange Connector does exactly this. Check.
9. Must support server and OS of choice at the company(You know what that means)
Runs on just about anything except Windows Servers. Linux, HP/UX, AIX, etc.
10. Must offer web mail capabilities equal too or better than OWA(this includes the ability to secure the web mail client via SecureID)
Comes with Webmail. Alternatively (I do this), set up IMP or TWIG or some other free webmail package and hit the IMAP server (included) with it. Check.
Caveat: what I have in place is for mail only. I don't need/have a web-accessible calendaring solution, though I believe you can use a Steltor product (OpenTime?) for that. Someone will post about it.
11. Must support massive data stores, on the order of 500GB-1TB(yes exchange can do this)
Yes. Volume spanning is supported. Volumes can live *anywhere*, across multiple servers in multiple locations. Check.
12. Must Integrate with our directory services, like exchange 2000 integrates with AD.
It integrates with its own internal and configurable LDAP server the way Exchange2000 integrates with AD. Check.
13 In short it has to do all the things that exchange can do, and more, and better.
Well, that's for you to decide. One thing it doesn't do, is make you feel all icky inside for supporing MS.;) Check.
Client Side: 1. Must have a client which supports all the functions of the server side. In short its gotta work like Outlook.
It works exactly like Outlook, because it supports Outlook 2000 as a client. It also offers its own client if you prefer. Check.
2. Must Support OS, and hardware of choice.
Sort of. If you want to use Outlook, you use Windows (doesn't support Mac Outlook/Entourage). For mail, they have Unix GUI clients, Mac GUI clients, or you can just use your own POP/IMAP client. Again, that's mail only. If you want calendaring, you use Outlook 2000 on Windows. Check.
3. Easy Rules based scripting interface to server and client side rules(Think Outlook rules wizard)
See above. PAW. Check.
4. Must be dead simple for users to use, users don't learn they want everything to work just like it always has, even if you give them a new application to do it.
It's as simple as Outlook. Since you already use it, this isn't a problem. Check.
Summary: If you want the Exchange monkey off your back, look into Samsung Contact (as the product is now called). I've had nothing but fabulous success with the HP version of the product, and HP support lasts until 2006, so I'm not going to switch to Samsung for a while yet. I can't vouch for Samsung as a company, but the product itself is very nice.
Ah, that's true, but a lot of people (like me) turn to it when the PHB's demand things like painless group calendaring. HP Openmail (Samsung Contact) is a product that does what the execs need for the company, yet runs on my *nix boxen, so I don't have to drop an Exchange server onto my network.
I've run HP Openmail for the last two years or so, and it's been as flawless as I can expect. Very flexible, configurable (all by CLI and.conf files, I might add, no GUI necessary). My users can run Outlook (with full Public Folders and shared calendar support), or any old IMAP client.
HP will support the product until 2006, so I have lots of time to wait for Samsung to get their act together with Contact. They're still sort of fumbling about, last time I stopped by their website. They've had a support rep contact me a few times about the switchover process, but he's not a tech guy, and just keeps telling me to be patient, which is fine with me. Detailed migration help is on the way.
So the short answer is that Openmail/Contact fills a niche that no free software does yet. People that need a mature and complex messaging backend (more than just an MTA), but don't care much for Exchange will love it.
How do you know your God exists? The Bible says so. How do you know the Bible is accurate? Because it was inspired by God.
I wholehartedly agree with your condemnation of the above. Unfortunately for your argument, neither of those are the historical Christian arguments for either.
Every religion is a cult. At least science can be supported or disproven by use of logic.
Well, traditionally speaking, Theology is a science (in fact it's called the "Queen of the Sciences") though the meaning of the word "science" has come to mean something different in more modern times. What we call "science" today used to be called "natural philosophy", merely a sub-branch of all certain knowledge.
Science is simply what we call things that we can know for certain, and that do not change. These things are known for certain because we begin with premises that cannot be denied (like the principle of non-contradiction, and other propositions that you might call "very obvious", silly modern philosophy aside), and proceed syllogistically (that is, logically) to greater and greater truths. Euclid's Geometry (in 13 Books) is a very simple example of such a science.
Theology (as put forth most succinctly by the medieval Christian Scholastics like Thomas Aquinas) is just such a science because it begins from self-evident premises (like the facts of existence and motion, which no modern scientist would deny), and argue logically for the existence of God. Read the first 13 Questions of the First Part (Prima Pars) of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica for the arguments, keeping an open mind, because your modern notions and word usage might differ drastically from what you find written there.
The idea of a liberal arts education is often presented as being the opposite of an engineering or scientific education, but let's just review what the seven liberal arts actually were, shall we? Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. Science and math were strongly represented; enough said.
Of course it should also be noted that the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic) and Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy) were in the past mere pre-cursors to the study of Philosophy. The seven liberal arts were studied by children (that's how Grammar School got it's name) and adolescents, whereas college students studied Philosophy. Over the door of Plato's academy hung the famous sign, "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here," no, wait, that was the sign above Hell in Dante's Inferno. Plato's sign was, "Let No One Enter Who Knows Not Geometry."
Are you a Ph.D.? Then you are "one learned in Philosophy". The liberal arts are mere tools toward the study of the highest sciences of Philosophy. Nowadays, philosophy is unfortunately an obscure little science at most universities. But all scientists, mathematicians, and students of the humanities should recognize the debt they owe to the Philosophy of old.
Slashdot Mirror
The bummer part was when some dude who got whacked in the crotch won the grand prize for the show.
That guy always won. Every single week. That show should've been called "Takin' It In The Nuts."
talk about being offtopic... you're reply to his sig...
Not any more offtopic than you: replying to a reply to a reply to a sig? Oh, and is it just a coincidence that you and "he" have the same homepage?
Belloc
The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.
I don't believe you. Do you have evidence?
I'm serious. Why call it a sin? Why do you think that the human mind is the sort of thing that can be sinned against? Why is it the deepest? What if you were shown a "deeper sin"?
Belloc
The increasing number of articles devoted to Microsoft is somewhat disturbing.
One great thing about Slashdot is cusomization. Almost everything is customizeable. That means that the Anti-MS zealots could choose to block every story except MS-related stories, effectively turning their Slashdot experience into the limit of what you're describing. They could then bash MS to their hearts' content.
Also, you could block out every MS-related story, and never see another one again. Why don't you just do that?
Belloc
For those running bind, you may want to try this instead:
/var/named/named.ca" is WAY more complicated.
Yeah, because "wget ftp://ftp.internic.net/domain/named.root ; cp named.root
Belloc
Scopeware (the system he built) is actually pretty interesting.
Yes, I've seen Scopeware, too. I work in IT for a small liberal arts college. We have lots of paper correspondence with prospective students, alumni, and donors. We've been evaluating a few Electronic Document Storage solutions (or Paperless Office, whatever you want to call it) for the past year now to try to eliminate some of the busy work in the filing/finding process for various document types.
The premise (or part of it) is that people aren't good at filing things in a hierarchical filesystem.
I guess you have to figure out whether you need to teach people to be good at this, or develop a whole new paradigm to play to their weaknesses. If people aren't "good at" it, then why not? Is it because they're not trained properly, or because there is some essential flaw in the way we think about hierarchical files?
I work with lots of different kinds of people here. The ones that funtion well in their jobs are often the ones that can manage their own offices. In my view, if you can't do something as simple as keeping your desk mostly clear of papers, and filing things in a semi-orderly way, then you've got issues that no new paradigm will solve. Of course there's the odd genius that is intuitive and bright and has no social or organizational skills. Fine. But that guy doesn't need new computing paradigms, because he is perfectly capable of funtioning intuitively in whatever environment he's in. The rest of us non-geniuses need a little structure.
Instead, the system simply keeps everything in one long hierarchical sequence, and tries to provide more intuitive ways of searching it.
If the problem is a human one, then great, let's find new paradigms like the one Gelerntner has proposed in Scopeware. But if it's just a matter of organizational habits, then lets fix ourselves first.
As someone has already posted, Gelerntner is just one of these bright-enough guys who surrounds himself with people who call him a visionary and a genius, and that makes him feel good. I've read some of his stuff, and I really don't think he's all that. I think this "article" reveals his weaknesses to most of us.
Belloc
You don't get it, do you?
No, I do. I see your point, and you're right. But...
A one liner is not meant to be taken 100% literally.
That's true, but I guess I tend to react extremely to people using one-liners because of the way in which they're often used. You've always got people dropping pithy quotations from Twain, Chesterton, Nietsche, Plato, or whatever, and they think that one line somehow substitutes for a real, intelligent defense of their position. A one-liner used to support a position is one thing, but to substitute for one is another. Often, the one-liner is taken way out of context, and has no applicablity to the issue at hand.
I just don't want to stand by while people let others do all of their thinking for them.
Belloc
There is a saying that the wiseman points to the sky and the idiot looks at the finger...
That's great, Confucious, but while I was pointing to the sky, you were looking at my finger.
My point was that the original poster was holding education to be the greatest common good. I chose to disagree with him. Education is a common good. It is even a great good (depending on what you mean by education, of course). It's certainly worth spending money to teach people. I'm in the education sector, so of course I think it's worthwhile. But just how much is enough? This guy doesn't seem to think there's a limit.
It's typical myopic thinking just to say things like "Money spent educating people is never a waste." That kind of thinking is what leads voters and legislators to throw bags of cash at schools without any real purpose. We in CA just voted yesterday to throw a $13B bag of cash into the schools. But the reality is that there are few controls over how that money is going to be spent. They'll probably just buy iPAQs for every kindergardener in CA, call it "education", and walk away thinking they did the right thing. Voters just went to the polls yesterday thinking, "Oh, money for education? Must vote YES. Must not think for myself. 'Money spent educating people is never a waste.' Mghm."
That's what I was talking about.
Belloc
Money spent educating people is never a waste.
They're spending $15K on this. What if it were $15 million? $15 billion? $15 trillion? There's always a point at which spending can become wasteful. Care to recant?
Belloc
>>A modicum of science education ought to have been enough to have the nation laughing at these poodle buggering ninnys.
>It's a little unfair to call these people ninnys.
Oh, of course, but "poodle-buggering" is well within bounds...
Belloc
Ive been hearing alot of this argument -- mostly from Christians who believe the planet was created by their god, for their exploitation (Your a Christian are you not..?)
What I've said has nothing to do with Christianity, religion, or evolution. I'm just asking about our role as humans in the environment. I want to know your arguments as to why we have a responsibility that other species don't. I haven't even put forth a position on the matter, actually. I've just asked questions. In fact, I DO think that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the natural world. I just wanted to hear your (or the original poster's) reasons for his positon. I still haven't heard anything rational.
What humans do is unnatural. Why? Because it is out of balance.
Out of balance with what? How was that balance determined? What is the measure of balance in the world? It seems that people determine balance in the world by (mentally) removing humans from it, then figuring out what the world would be like without us, then artificially implanting us back in, and blaming us for everything that's wrong. Why aren't we part of nature?
What we do is decidedly unnatural do [sic] to scale.
I see. So just because we can make bigger stuff than other species, our artifices are "decidedly unnatural". For something to be contrary to nature (that's what unnatural means), it must be not just "more" or "bigger" or different in degree, but it must be different in kind. Scale simply speaking cannot be the principle of the unnatural.
Our path, based on our consumption and disregard (arrogance and hubris (as youve displayed))
Again, I haven't even made any positive assertions. I don't know why you've called me arrogant. I simply have asked questions about the principles of someone's argument. I must reiterate that I do recognize human responsibility to the environment.
When we've finished paving over the planet...
I don't rememeber recommending the "paving over" of anything. I simply want to know why you and others keep saying that humans are somehow both a product of nature ("naked apes") and outside nature ("unnatural"). Don't you see your inconsistency?
Now, I've directly quoted and responded to you. I haven't put any words into your mouth. If you reply to me, please give me the same courtesy. Last time, you replied to a straw man. I wasn't the target of your attack.
Belloc
But to claim that we must reject evolutionary theory if we're to use the word "natural" in its dictionary sense is going a bit far ...
That's great; I agree. I'm not talking about rejecting evolutionary theory or dictionary definitions of words. Sorry if the talk about apes confused you. I'm just asking the original poster to think about his position.
I'll put it another way: why is our use of the land morally reprehensible, while other animals' similar use is not? Why is a beaver dam not an abomination of nature, but a human dam is? Why is a bird's nest, an apparently "artificial" abode, perfectly natural, but land is defiled by a human residence?
Forget the dictionary for a sec. I won't even use the word "natural". Why don't African termites form little environmental protests against other African termites for building big, monstrous hives in the desert (or whatever African termites do)?
Every species affects other species with their activity. Sometimes one species will cause the extinction of another species. When humans do that, it's an abomination. But if another species does it, it's just part of the ecosystem.
Belloc
You think that's bad, I've got KatzVo. The damn thing only records shows about 9/11, Columbine and Globalism!
That's funny. Now, to save the copycats the trouble, I've created this easy-to-use template:
"Yeah, well I've got [FILL-IN]Vo. It stinks because it only {derogatory comment about [FILL-IN]}, and doesn't even {other derogatory comment about [FILL-IN]}!
Belloc
people...would like to see more of the planet left in a natural (unmolested by humans) state.
And another thing, the planet covered w/ multi-level greenhouses so we can drive SUVs, have unnatural domestic landscapes...
This is not a troll; I'm sincerely wondering this: why do you equate the natural and "unmolested by humans"? Is a beaver dam natural or unnatural? How about a bird's nest? If they're natural, why is a Manhattan skyscraper or a 2500 sq.ft. home in the suburbs unnatural?
Most environmentalists (you're a self-proclaimed "tree-hugger") wear two hats: on the one hand, they suggest that humans are simply highly evolved apes, but on the other hand they see humans and human art as somehow "unnatural". You can't have it both ways. If humans are apes, then everything we do is as natural as everything they do, and there's no room for environmental criticisms. If humans are different in kind from apes, then where did we come from, and why do we have a responsibility to the environment?
These are honest questions I have.
Belloc
two weeks ago, we had a big hulabaloo here at uiuc.edu because of this. all the win2k/xp machines on all of campus still running the messenger service...
I'm confused: does this mean that UIUC has a firewall with incoming port(s) 13x open? Or was the spammer doing it from on campus?
Belloc
But the $6.9 billion project has turned into a major technology headache for the services and the prime contractor on the job, Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS).
Hey, if EDS can herd cats, they can do this job, no sweat.
Belloc
Right. Datum is Latin for "that which is given". (It's the past participle of the verb "do,dare" which means "to give"). In Latin, neuter nouns like Datum are pluralized by removing the -um and adding -a. Therefore, Data simply means "those things which are given".
Which is what data means in English, too, more or less. "Givens".
Belloc
What if Google links to this story? Then you get the Slashdot slashdotting Google...
Somehow, I don't think so. I mean, there's not even a "Geek" item on the lefthand navigation menu...
Belloc
Of course, in Catholic doctrine, there is no literal fire-and-brimstone. Hell is the absence of God. So maybe you're already there!
Of course, that's almost true but not quite.
In summary, for those Slashdottian Linkophobes, The Catholic Church presents hell as 'eternal fire', perhaps literal, perhaps not (it leaves itself somewhat agnostic on the matter). Regardless of the literalness of the fire part, Hell is certainly real. "The chief punishment of Hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." (from the link above, Pgh. 1035.
Belloc
Do Long Work Hours Effect Code Quality?
Ask Slashdot: Does bad spelling AFFECT code quality?
HP Openmail (now Samsung Contact) does ALL of this. Here's a play-by-play:
;) Check.
Server Side: 1. The replacement must support Outlook as a client, people actually like Outlook as an integrated client.
Integrates with Outlook 2000 via Openmail MAPI drivers. Check.
2. The Replacement must work with the Sendto functions of Microsoft Office.
This works fine. Check.
3. The Replacement must be able to scale to 10's of thousands of users, in geographically diverse locations.
Openmail has been reliably scaled this high and higher. Check.
4. Must Support Multipule languages.
Yes. Openmail is used all over the world. Check.
5. Must be easily scannable for Virus protection, and must be able to deny delivery of messages that fit certain criteria.
Integrates with Trend Micro's product for virus scanning. Check.
6. Easy rules based scripting of mail events stored on the server as part of the user's mail box.
Web-based Personal Administration Wizard (PAW). Rules stored on the server. Check.
7. Must support enterprise calendaring / scheduling.
Works great with Outlook 2000. Check.
8. Must inter-operate with Exchange during migration
HP's Exchange Connector does exactly this. Check.
9. Must support server and OS of choice at the company(You know what that means)
Runs on just about anything except Windows Servers. Linux, HP/UX, AIX, etc.
10. Must offer web mail capabilities equal too or better than OWA(this includes the ability to secure the web mail client via SecureID)
Comes with Webmail. Alternatively (I do this), set up IMP or TWIG or some other free webmail package and hit the IMAP server (included) with it. Check.
Caveat: what I have in place is for mail only. I don't need/have a web-accessible calendaring solution, though I believe you can use a Steltor product (OpenTime?) for that. Someone will post about it.
11. Must support massive data stores, on the order of 500GB-1TB(yes exchange can do this)
Yes. Volume spanning is supported. Volumes can live *anywhere*, across multiple servers in multiple locations. Check.
12. Must Integrate with our directory services, like exchange 2000 integrates with AD.
It integrates with its own internal and configurable LDAP server the way Exchange2000 integrates with AD. Check.
13 In short it has to do all the things that exchange can do, and more, and better.
Well, that's for you to decide. One thing it doesn't do, is make you feel all icky inside for supporing MS.
Client Side: 1. Must have a client which supports all the functions of the server side. In short its gotta work like Outlook.
It works exactly like Outlook, because it supports Outlook 2000 as a client. It also offers its own client if you prefer. Check.
2. Must Support OS, and hardware of choice.
Sort of. If you want to use Outlook, you use Windows (doesn't support Mac Outlook/Entourage). For mail, they have Unix GUI clients, Mac GUI clients, or you can just use your own POP/IMAP client. Again, that's mail only. If you want calendaring, you use Outlook 2000 on Windows. Check.
3. Easy Rules based scripting interface to server and client side rules(Think Outlook rules wizard)
See above. PAW. Check.
4. Must be dead simple for users to use, users don't learn they want everything to work just like it always has, even if you give them a new application to do it.
It's as simple as Outlook. Since you already use it, this isn't a problem. Check.
Summary: If you want the Exchange monkey off your back, look into Samsung Contact (as the product is now called). I've had nothing but fabulous success with the HP version of the product, and HP support lasts until 2006, so I'm not going to switch to Samsung for a while yet. I can't vouch for Samsung as a company, but the product itself is very nice.
Belloc.
It isn't free or open source...
.conf files, I might add, no GUI necessary). My users can run Outlook (with full Public Folders and shared calendar support), or any old IMAP client.
Ah, that's true, but a lot of people (like me) turn to it when the PHB's demand things like painless group calendaring. HP Openmail (Samsung Contact) is a product that does what the execs need for the company, yet runs on my *nix boxen, so I don't have to drop an Exchange server onto my network.
I've run HP Openmail for the last two years or so, and it's been as flawless as I can expect. Very flexible, configurable (all by CLI and
HP will support the product until 2006, so I have lots of time to wait for Samsung to get their act together with Contact. They're still sort of fumbling about, last time I stopped by their website. They've had a support rep contact me a few times about the switchover process, but he's not a tech guy, and just keeps telling me to be patient, which is fine with me. Detailed migration help is on the way.
So the short answer is that Openmail/Contact fills a niche that no free software does yet. People that need a mature and complex messaging backend (more than just an MTA), but don't care much for Exchange will love it.
Belloc
How do you know your God exists? The Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is accurate? Because it was inspired by God.
I wholehartedly agree with your condemnation of the above. Unfortunately for your argument, neither of those are the historical Christian arguments for either.
Every religion is a cult. At least science can be supported or disproven by use of logic.
Well, traditionally speaking, Theology is a science (in fact it's called the "Queen of the Sciences") though the meaning of the word "science" has come to mean something different in more modern times. What we call "science" today used to be called "natural philosophy", merely a sub-branch of all certain knowledge.
Science is simply what we call things that we can know for certain, and that do not change. These things are known for certain because we begin with premises that cannot be denied (like the principle of non-contradiction, and other propositions that you might call "very obvious", silly modern philosophy aside), and proceed syllogistically (that is, logically) to greater and greater truths. Euclid's Geometry (in 13 Books) is a very simple example of such a science.
Theology (as put forth most succinctly by the medieval Christian Scholastics like Thomas Aquinas) is just such a science because it begins from self-evident premises (like the facts of existence and motion, which no modern scientist would deny), and argue logically for the existence of God. Read the first 13 Questions of the First Part (Prima Pars) of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica for the arguments, keeping an open mind, because your modern notions and word usage might differ drastically from what you find written there.
Belloc
The idea of a liberal arts education is often presented as being the opposite of an engineering or scientific education, but let's just review what the seven liberal arts actually were, shall we? Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. Science and math were strongly represented; enough said.
Of course it should also be noted that the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic) and Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy) were in the past mere pre-cursors to the study of Philosophy. The seven liberal arts were studied by children (that's how Grammar School got it's name) and adolescents, whereas college students studied Philosophy. Over the door of Plato's academy hung the famous sign, "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here," no, wait, that was the sign above Hell in Dante's Inferno. Plato's sign was, "Let No One Enter Who Knows Not Geometry."
Are you a Ph.D.? Then you are "one learned in Philosophy". The liberal arts are mere tools toward the study of the highest sciences of Philosophy. Nowadays, philosophy is unfortunately an obscure little science at most universities. But all scientists, mathematicians, and students of the humanities should recognize the debt they owe to the Philosophy of old.
Belloc
A Liberally Educated Engineer
...anybody who claims ANYTHING is a magic pill should be taken out back and shot
I claim that a magic pill is a magic pill.
[shuffle..shuffle...blam!]
Belloc