Use qmail as the MTA. It's way more secure, and more compatible with with cutting edge virus scanners and spam filters like spamassassin.
Ideally your exchange server should end up being nothing more than a storage place for email (seems like you're doing that). I'll be doing this in about two weeks at my company, too. Good luck!
I know you said "other than 'buy a laptop'", but nevertheless, I have to say that that's the most legitimate solution. The elements you've described were built for a stationary environment, and they are best used as such.
If your son is serious about his fencing, he'll forgo the gaming while he does his best to win.
it's possible that they're not compressed at all, but that they're like the cd's radio stations used to use; that is, cd's that are the size of records. if he's actually seen any of them, though, he'll know whether this is the case or not.
Thanks for the quotes. I must admit, I have trouble making sense of all this. Maybe I'll just wait until they've analyzed all the data from the Hubble looking back in time 18 Billion years. Now that's some cool stuff.:)
>Science does not exist to "crush" religion.
>Science exists to enquire about the nature of
>physical reality; religion exists to enquire
>about codes of behavior and/or the existence of
>a "supreme being" in whatever form may be
>supposed. They do not necessarily overlap with
>their subject matter.
He never claimed that Science exists to crush Religion. He said, "for all those who think" that, obviously referring to some of the flippant, mindless, mouthpieces of ignorance who have posted in this article.
>Did we really need your two cents?
What makes you think that anyone wants to listen to your ostentatious bitching any more than what he had to say?
Okay, a lot of people have been saying that an infinite cycle of exands and contracts would NOT generate infinite heat. Here's what Steven Weinberg has to say:
"Some cosmologists are philosophically attracted to the oscillating model, especially because, like the steady-state model, it nicely avoids the problem of Genesis. It does, however, face one severe theoretical difficulty. In each cycle the ratio of photons to nuclear particles (entropy per nuclear particle) is slightly increased by a kind of friction (known as "bulk viscosity") as the universe expands and contracts. As far as we know, the universe would then start each new cycle with a new, slightly larger ratio of photons to nuclear particles. Right now this ratio is large, but not infinite, so it is hard to see how the universe could have previously experienced an infinite number of cycles."
Pysicist Sidney A. Bludman says:
"Our Universe cannot bounce in the future. Closed Friedman universes were once called oscillatory universes. We now appreciate that, because of the huge entropy genereated in our Universe, far from oscillating, a closed universe can only go through one cycle of expansion and contraction. Whether closed or open, reversing or monotonically expanding, the severely irreversible phase transitions give the Universe a definite beginning, middle and end."
If any of you have counter-quotations from equally famous physicists, I would love to read them. This is all I have found on the matter so far.
But how does this theory counter the current thought among almost all physicists that there is 10 times too little mass to cause the universe to implode?
Furthermore, how does it respond to the other theory that even if it were to collapse, the result would be an enormous black hole out of which nothing could ever come?
Enlightenment and many other WMs have been able to this for ages; but then again. ..most of those WMs, including Enlightenment, suck in many ways that Quartz doesn't. So I suppose this is a good thing added to a good thing.
But why does this have to come from some strange third party source? Is this an indication on a micro-level that OS X will become a distro of gathered goods from everywhere like Linux?
Not that this particular development is all that impressive, but if OS X gets much more impressive I may have to switch!
By this I mean that this bill does NOT appear to infringe on the first ammendment. Restricting specific web content (with fair and agreed-upon guidelines) to specific domain suffixes is perfectly legitamate. People too often expand the first ammendment to include anything they want as long as they can somehow show that they were "expressing themselves."
Think about it: I'm not allowed to register a.gov domain, right? And I shouldn't be.
Now, I don't think that making people give up domains is the way to go about this. That's a little bit insane; but to make a rule for the future (assuming it can be instituted and that it works) does not harm anyone's free speech. That's my only point.
The idea is pretty good, though: people who want porn can find it easier, and people who don't want it can avoid it easier.
I'm with you on this one. And I think that this is an area that will always house the kind of geeks (like me and you) whose decline the writers of the article seem to lament. Computers and computer needs are too dynamic to recede into that sort of thing that nobody builds themselves anymore.
I mean, who's going to sell me a box that serves as a firewall, coffee-maker manager, and garage door opener?
Hydrogen plants seem to be the best bet for an oil alternative for this reason. Arriving at the best method for converting Hydrogen to usable energy is the complex part (which the Iceland project hopes to come closer to solving), but the simplicity of the Hydrogen atom just screams of beauty and power.
F=MA. Very simple. Tough shit to arrive at, though (at least in Newton's time). The same simply must be true of Hydrogen.
What is your take on the apparent paradox resulting from:
1. the goal of uniformity on the Linux desktop, and
2. the many, many, groups who have this as their own special goal?
Mandrake and RedHat work toward this on the OS level, and Gnome and KDE battle it out on the desktop integration level, and many others espouse some sort of a "grand unification theory" of Linux.
Do you subscribe to the theory that less is more, or that multiple groups with a common goal will result in the goal's earlier acheivement?
I agree. The solution to irresponsible sysadmins who let software get outdated is to fire them. It's as simple as that: people who do not do their job deserve to get fired; and people who can't hire responsible sysadmins deserve to have their systems hacked.
I just found this article and recalled that I used to work one floor below Dean (in the good ol' mills of Manchester). I've seen the prototype (it was about a year ago), and he even let me ride it. It's really quite amazing--it's basically a wheel chair that "stands up" on two sets of two wheels and keeps itself from falling over when you use the controls to move it forward. He had me push it as hard as I could when he was in it and I was able to get it to fall down onto four sets of wheels, which is what he had just finished getting it to do. I didn't see it climb any stairs at that point, but he was working on it.
Dean is quite a guy--drives a hummer to work on the days he doesn't take his helicopter. Seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Use qmail as the MTA. It's way more secure, and more compatible with with cutting edge virus scanners and spam filters like spamassassin.
Ideally your exchange server should end up being nothing more than a storage place for email (seems like you're doing that). I'll be doing this in about two weeks at my company, too. Good luck!
The RFC is the standard. If IE doesn't render html the way the RFC outlines, it is not rendering accurately, even if the developer likes it that way.
The standard is important so that the web doesn't become an even bigger mess than it is.
I know you said "other than 'buy a laptop'", but nevertheless, I have to say that that's the most legitimate solution. The elements you've described were built for a stationary environment, and they are best used as such. If your son is serious about his fencing, he'll forgo the gaming while he does his best to win.
it's possible that they're not compressed at all, but that they're like the cd's radio stations used to use; that is, cd's that are the size of records. if he's actually seen any of them, though, he'll know whether this is the case or not.
Thanks for the quotes. I must admit, I have trouble making sense of all this. Maybe I'll just wait until they've analyzed all the data from the Hubble looking back in time 18 Billion years. Now that's some cool stuff. :)
>Science does not exist to "crush" religion.
>Science exists to enquire about the nature of
>physical reality; religion exists to enquire
>about codes of behavior and/or the existence of
>a "supreme being" in whatever form may be
>supposed. They do not necessarily overlap with
>their subject matter.
He never claimed that Science exists to crush Religion. He said, "for all those who think" that, obviously referring to some of the flippant, mindless, mouthpieces of ignorance who have posted in this article.
>Did we really need your two cents?
What makes you think that anyone wants to listen to your ostentatious bitching any more than what he had to say?
Okay, a lot of people have been saying that an infinite cycle of exands and contracts would NOT generate infinite heat. Here's what Steven Weinberg has to say:
"Some cosmologists are philosophically attracted to the oscillating model, especially because, like the steady-state model, it nicely avoids the problem of Genesis. It does, however, face one severe theoretical difficulty. In each cycle the ratio of photons to nuclear particles (entropy per nuclear particle) is slightly increased by a kind of friction (known as "bulk viscosity") as the universe expands and contracts. As far as we know, the universe would then start each new cycle with a new, slightly larger ratio of photons to nuclear particles. Right now this ratio is large, but not infinite, so it is hard to see how the universe could have previously experienced an infinite number of cycles."
Pysicist Sidney A. Bludman says:
"Our Universe cannot bounce in the future. Closed Friedman universes were once called oscillatory universes. We now appreciate that, because of the huge entropy genereated in our Universe, far from oscillating, a closed universe can only go through one cycle of expansion and contraction. Whether closed or open, reversing or monotonically expanding, the severely irreversible phase transitions give the Universe a definite beginning, middle and end."
If any of you have counter-quotations from equally famous physicists, I would love to read them. This is all I have found on the matter so far.
But how does this theory counter the current thought among almost all physicists that there is 10 times too little mass to cause the universe to implode?
Furthermore, how does it respond to the other theory that even if it were to collapse, the result would be an enormous black hole out of which nothing could ever come?
Enlightenment and many other WMs have been able to this for ages; but then again. . .most of those WMs, including Enlightenment, suck in many ways that Quartz doesn't. So I suppose this is a good thing added to a good thing.
But why does this have to come from some strange third party source? Is this an indication on a micro-level that OS X will become a distro of gathered goods from everywhere like Linux?
Not that this particular development is all that impressive, but if OS X gets much more impressive I may have to switch!
By this I mean that this bill does NOT appear to infringe on the first ammendment. Restricting specific web content (with fair and agreed-upon guidelines) to specific domain suffixes is perfectly legitamate. People too often expand the first ammendment to include anything they want as long as they can somehow show that they were "expressing themselves."
.gov domain, right? And I shouldn't be.
Think about it: I'm not allowed to register a
Now, I don't think that making people give up domains is the way to go about this. That's a little bit insane; but to make a rule for the future (assuming it can be instituted and that it works) does not harm anyone's free speech. That's my only point.
The idea is pretty good, though: people who want porn can find it easier, and people who don't want it can avoid it easier.
I'm with you on this one. And I think that this is an area that will always house the kind of geeks (like me and you) whose decline the writers of the article seem to lament. Computers and computer needs are too dynamic to recede into that sort of thing that nobody builds themselves anymore.
I mean, who's going to sell me a box that serves as a firewall, coffee-maker manager, and garage door opener?
I don't know how the hell they got to the Italian Riviera, but I'm glad someone found my ant farm.
I'M COMIN' GUYS!!!
Hydrogen plants seem to be the best bet for an oil alternative for this reason. Arriving at the best method for converting Hydrogen to usable energy is the complex part (which the Iceland project hopes to come closer to solving), but the simplicity of the Hydrogen atom just screams of beauty and power.
F=MA. Very simple. Tough shit to arrive at, though (at least in Newton's time). The same simply must be true of Hydrogen.
I would like to know:
What is your take on the apparent paradox resulting from:
1. the goal of uniformity on the Linux desktop, and
2. the many, many, groups who have this as their own special goal?
Mandrake and RedHat work toward this on the OS level, and Gnome and KDE battle it out on the desktop integration level, and many others espouse some sort of a "grand unification theory" of Linux.
Do you subscribe to the theory that less is more, or that multiple groups with a common goal will result in the goal's earlier acheivement?
I agree. The solution to irresponsible sysadmins who let software get outdated is to fire them. It's as simple as that: people who do not do their job deserve to get fired; and people who can't hire responsible sysadmins deserve to have their systems hacked.
Dean is quite a guy--drives a hummer to work on the days he doesn't take his helicopter. Seriously.