By tone, I get the feeling you are in disagreement with me somewhere, but I'm not quite sure, since I agree with pretty much all you said.
Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to be confrontational, I just wanted to be clear on what we were both saying. Although I consider myself a competent sendmail admin, and have built mid size (10,000 user) sendmail systems, it is complex enough that I could easily see myself missing a simple solution to my problem. I was trying to discern whether you were proposing one. AFAIK, smarthost would work great for most people but wouldn't solve my initial problem. I thought maybe you knew something I didn't.
As for reconfiguring Mail.app? Why? I have all my SMTP servers configured at once, and if one fails, it prompts for the one to use. Personally, I think the default mail server of Mail.app should be tied into the network "Location". Actually, there are a few things that I think ought to be tied to the location.
For normal people that is probably great. But I want everything to just work transparently. My mail client shouldn't be asking me how to deliver half my messages. More importantly, ~500 of those 10,000 users have Macs. Some of those have Powerbooks. Probably all of those are MD/PhDs. Believe me, those people don't want any jib from their mail client. They screamed bloody murder when we cut off their external access to our relay. If they got an error requiring manual intervention everytime they sent a message from a different location I'd have to unplug my phone. My local relay config solves that problem. Unfortunately AOL has thrown me a curve with their disrespectful, draconian and arbitrary relay policy.
So to recap... My first paragraph was genuinely interrogatory, hoping you had a better idea on how I could accomplish my goal of transparent portable relaying from anywhere to anywhere. My second paragraph simply agreed with elaborated on your comments about AOL.
Others may follow this trend. But then again, it wouldn't matter if you just setup your local SMTP daemon to send mail through a relay just like an email client does. Then you use an authorized relay, but still gain the advantages of having your local MTA handle delivering mail.
You mean like a smarthost entry? Unless I find a third party open relay, I don't see how that helps me. My original problem is that both my relays (work and Comcast) restrict access. So I couldn't use either as a smarthost full time. That is why I relay locally; I don't want to reconfigure Mail.app twice a day. Swapping sendmail.cf out twice a day wouldn't be any more elegant.
AOL may not be violating RFC 821, strictly speaking, but blacklisting whole ranges of addresses without cause is a violation of the SMTP philosophy and etiquette. It is inverse spamming. SMTP is not meant to be controlled by a few ISPs and commercial entities. Everybody has a right to send non-abusive e-mail.
Comcast is a big compay which has many networks with a variety of policies. That is why I said "at least in New England." I should have been more specific but I didn't want you all to know where I live. This policy actually predates Comcast's aquisition of my provider. Trust me, they won't let me pop or relay from other providers. OTOH, in some parts of the country Comcast has tried to abolish home NATing, IIRC. Here it is no problem. The one thing they did change when they took over is the MAC registration requirement, which they eliminated.
okay, but i'm still left with questions. note these are not snide critisism cause I'm ignorant. I just want to understand.
No problem. I aim to please, or at least not be a jerk.
why cant you just connect to the work mailhost or to comcasts mail host.
If I had different computers at work and home that would be fine. But my main computer is a Powerbook.
I can connect to my work SMTP server from home, but it will only relay mail bound for my work domain. We do not allow external relaying (from and external source to an external recipient). When I am at work I can of course send to any recipient I like. Likewise, Comcast only allows access to their SMTP servers from Comcast IP addresses. They do not allow external relaying.
what has sending your e-mail out directly bought you?
Relaying off myself (my loopback address) ensures I can send mail from any physical location to any recipient without reconfiguring anything. Or at least that was true until a few weeks ago, when AOL started bouncing mail from Comcast user addresses.
And what does mobility have to do with anything here. that is, cant you see the comcast mailhost from anywhere and access it via an smtp connection that uses a password even if its not on their net?
No. There are several ways of adding authentication to SMTP services but Comcast does not rely on any of them. You also can't POP your Comcast mail (In New England anyway) from a non-Comcast address. If you have a non-Comcast IP you must use their webmail to send and receive mail.
if not then, mail programs (like mail.app) are happy to let you select the outgoing mail server so again its no big deal to switch from one to the other when at work/home. Am I missing something?
Personally I find it a burden reconfiguring my mail client twice a day. I think everything should work seamlessly with no user intervention and I don't mind doing a little up front work to make it so. This is even more true for our users at work. They would throw fits if we told them they had to reconfigure their client every time they changed locations. This way all I need to do is swap one file and they are set for life (or until Software Update clobbers their.cf anyway). I put it on our OS X image.
and finally my comapny recently started blocking port 110 connection FROM mailhosts outside the local network. thus you can only get mail sent to you through the companies mailhost. (they did this to force all e-mail to go through a virus sniffer on their host). Would this cause problems for sendmail?
So, maybe you did something wrong. Maybe you had open relaying enabled. THAT is something mail servers will refuse connections for.
Actually, AOL has recently started refusing mail from other ISP's adresses (other than their designated relays). here is an example bounce message.
The original message was received at Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:47:16 -0400 (EDT)
from localhost [127.0.0.1]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
****@aol.com
(reason: 554- (RTR:BB) The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic
)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to mailin-03.mx.aol.com
554- (RTR:BB) The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic
554- (residential) IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions
554- from this IP address until your ISP removes this IP address from its list
554- of dynamic (residential) IP addresses. For additional information,
554 please visit http://postmaster.info.aol.com.
I've always been confused by this. How does this gain anything? that is, presumbaly no matter where you are home, work on the road you have a ISP somewhere. and you send e-mail via them. If you dont have an ISP then how does send mail know where it can send its packets too and have them accepted?
My ISP, Comcast, nee ATTbi, nee MediaOne, only allows relaying from their own addresses. I have the same policy on my sendmail servers at work ( I accept mail from external sources for internal routing, but not to relay to third parties). So if I am at work I can't relay off Comcast's servers and at home I can't relay off my own. By enabling sendmail in daemon mode on my loopback address (127.0.0.1, but not my public address) I can relay from anywhere no matter what email account I am using. The down side is that AOL has recently started refusing mail from Comcast's user IP range, so I can't e-mail my dad from home. Guess I'll need to move him to a better ISP.
to the m4 file before generating your.cf. That will make sendmail listen only on the loopback address. Then you can point Mail.app at your loopback address and relay from any physical location without any fear of becoming a spam relay. This solves problems for me. At work we don't allow external relaying. Likewise comcast won't let me relay from work. But I can relay off myself no matter where I am or what account I am using. The only problem is that recently AOL has started refusing my messages simply because they come froma NATed address. Bastards!!
Otherwise sendmail will break everytime you run Software Update. You can fix it by chmoding / 755. Alternatively you can add a "chmod 755/" to the the end of your/etc/rc (since most updates seem to require a reboot anyway).
Back in the day (OpenStep) Mail.app let you call sendmail as an app, but AFAIK it now needs to relay off an address. There may be a way around this but I don't know it.
You recall incorrectly. The M16A2 is every bit as lethal, and possibly more, than the M16A1 or original M16.
I suspect that by "original M16" you mean the M16E1, the first model adopted by the US Army. In combat it proved quite a bit less effective than the M16 (original Stoner AR15 design) previously adopted by the Air Force. Most people atribute this to the introduction (against Stoner's advice) of a "fast" 1 in 12 twist barrel. Faster twist rifling increased the projectile's stability upon penetration, thus decreasing its destructiveness.
The M16A2 uses even faster 1 in 7 twist rifling. All else being equal it should be less lethal than the M16A1. However, it is unlikely all else is equal.
BTW, the M16E1 was also much less reliable than the M16/AR15, mainly due to a change in powder (also contraindicated by Stoner).
"What "Lepage gun?" Colonel Korn inquired with curiosity.
"The new three-hundred-and-forty-four-millimeter Lepage glue gun," Yossarian answered. "It glues a whole formation of planes together in mid-air."
- Catch-22, Joseph Heller
All kidding aside, the Germans did have Gauss gun research projects among their myriad secret weapons. Back then they called them "rail guns" as often as not. Not to be confused with these.
If I'm going to write it myself, it's going to be cross platform, rather than dependant on the GNOME mess. I want an email client I can run on my wife's mac, my Solaris box, my Linux box, my PC. Evolution was only acceptable as an alternative to any such client that I like (no, I didn't like Mulberry much either), and was only used for work email on Solaris and sometimes Linux.
Evolution will run on most of those platforms (Not Windows I assume. Not sure if there is GTK+ for Windows since I don't ever use the platform). On OS X the install is fairly straighforward with Fink. I can see why you wouldn't want to run it there though. For one thing, running local X apps on OS X is a bit of a letdown, even with Apple's X server/window manager. At one point a coworker and I were investigating a Cocoa port of Evolution. Nat Friedman said that if demand reached critical mass, which our user base would constitute, Ximian would port Connector. But shortly after we talked MS announced their own connector product for Entourage, due any day now. So we don't need either port. Solaris comes with a GNOME implementation, but only intsalling the bits you want is probably a pain.
Beyond that, I've always found that other people's code is almost always an enormous hairball that takes longer to understand than writing things myself. And just because I want to write my own email client doesn't mean I plan to actually release it to anyone....
Maybe they could make other things work right before worrying about the look and feel? Like the IMAP implementation? I just resolved today that I *am* going to get around to writing my own email client after the bloody thing stopped working with my IMAP INBOX for no apparent reason, and with no apparent fix in sight.
Wouldn't it be easier to fix their implementation than to write a whole new client from scratch? That is sort of the point of Free Software; if you don't like the implementation, change it. No?
The issue is that Kucinich, an avowed Catholic, has voted against NARAL's and NOW's preferred positions numerous times as a Congressman. Personally I'd like to hear about his rationale for the flip-flop -- it looks like he's just courting votes for the Democratic primary.
Kucinich doesn't give a rat's ass about courting votes. Apparently you don't know the Cleveland Municipal Light story. Dennis won the Cleveland mayoral race on his promise not to sell the popular public utility. However, once in office the city's creditor banks demanded they sell Muny Light to Cleveland Electric Illuminating company, of which the banks were major stockholders. Kucinich refused and the banks, in an unprecedented move, refused to roll over the city's debt. Rather than sell the citizen's future Dennis put the city into bankruptcy, a move which destroyed his political career but saved the utility.
Kucinich's principled stand kept him out of public office for 13 years. The local "business community" blackballed him and he couldn't even get a private sector job. However, he saved the citizens of Cleveland an estimated $195,148,520. And Muny Light runs at a profit!
When Kucinich ran for congress 15 years later, his campaign slogan was "Because he was right!" and voters strongly agreed. In 1998 the Cleveland City Council officially thanked him for sacrificing his career for the city.
Although Kucinich personally opposes abortion, he never backed the amendment movement or came out against Roe v. Wade. The worst he did was vote for the late term abortion ban. Furthermore, why is a candidate changing one position, once, a negative? If we don't want people to change their minds why do we bother arguing with them? Kucinich is scrupulously honest and beats every other Democratic candidate on every other issue. Progressives should shun him because he used to somewhat disagree with most of us on one issue but changed his mind? Not according to Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who says "He understands that this is a fundamental freedom. Do I think that's sincere? Yes I do."
Kucinich recently wrote a column in The Nation arguing in favor of Federal action to stem the private patenting of genes and drugs. He proposes a network of federally funded research laboratories, patenting genes and drugs and making them available under non-usurious licenses.
I will soon be introducing legislation that would create a new network of government labs for the research, development and manufacture of pharmaceutical products and biologics. The labs would be responsible for developing new cures and bringing them to the American people in a timely and affordable manner, something that the pharmaceutical industry has glaringly failed to do. Under the leadership of the National Institutes of Health, these government labs would receive direction on public health priorities. Labs would both perform the R&D for new therapies and cures, and form cooperative agreements with educational, research and private institutions.
In return for cooperative agreements to perform R&D, all research data and findings would be made public on a central website, just like the Human Genome Project. When discoveries are made, the patents would be held by the government and nonexclusive licenses would be attached to them. This would allow companies to compete to manufacture pharmaceutical products, just like generic drug companies do now. This would radically bring down the cost of drugs. In 2000, if drugs had not been subject to patent protection, total savings for government and consumers would have been roughly $80 billion.
I submitted this article as a story some time ago, but/. rejected it. Apparently Dean blogging is more interesting than the Chairman of the Congressional Progressive Cuacus introducing actual legislation.
Kucinich is hardly "bonkers." His positions are very much in the mainstream of "progressive" thought. He is the only candidate with an explicit, rational and workable healthcare plan for instance. He proposes we take our extremely efficient, proven and popular existing national health insurance system, Medicare, and expand it to universal coverage. This would bring our health insurance practices in line with the rest of the developed world without the complicated legal and fiscal gymnastics the compromise candidates propose.
Kucinich may be unelectable, but only because of the broken electoral and campaign finance systems. His positions poll extremely well. In a recent moveon.org mock primary, he finished second to Dean with 24% of the vote. Over 317,000 people voted, more than turned out for the 2000 New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina primary/cuacuses combined.
That "shit" president turned the US economy around and bankrupted the Soviets into submission.
If you can't wait out a recession in eight years you have a problem.
In actual fact the Reagan economic policy of the first term, a hodegepodge of Lafferite, Neo-Classical, Monetarist and Supply Side efforts, was disastrous. The recession of 1982 was by far the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Inflation peaked at a postwar record 14% in the summer of 1981. In 1982 unemployment hit a whopping 10%, by far the highest since the Great Depression. Seventeen thousand businesses failed, the highest number since 1933. The growth rate was -2.2% In 1983 Reagan's approval rating was 35%.
The best argument you can make in favor of Reagan's first term economic policy is that he didn't replace Carter appointee Paul Volker (not sure when he was up) when Volker intentionally put the US into a recession to combat the double digit inflation of 1979-81. But of course Volker initiated that program under Carter.
By 1984 Volker's tough love had inflation tamed and the Reagan Administration set about fixing the terrible growth problem with some good old fashioned Keynesian spending. It was an admission of the bankruptcy of their previous anti-Keynesian program.
Regarding bankrupting the USSR, I have no idea where people get that. Soviet military grew at a steady 1-1.5 percent anually from 1975 to 1988. There was no change in the growth rate under Reagan. Furthermore, Soviet spending on weapons procurement didn't rise at all under Reagan. Then in 1988 Gorbachev cut the overall military budget back to 1980 levels. All this while they were fighting a hot war in Afghanistan. When exactly did the USSR go "bankrupt" anyway? It was political bankruptcy which killed the CPSU regime, not economic bankruptcy. The economy was in decline, but it was far from collapsed. That came later under the Russian Federation.
Both Lotus Notes and First Class shipped in 1989. From talking to our Exchange admin, I get the impression it still provides only a fraction of the functionality of Notes and FC. OTOH, Notes has always had a horrible client interface. I have only heard good things from FC users.
It was especially fun to watch when senator John McCain was reading some Clearchannel executive the riot act for suppressing free speech, even though he strongly disagreed with what the Dixie Chicks said himself.
Looks like Clearchannel is going after him too. They put his picture up on their web site with the caption, ""Today, by one vote, the Senate Commerce Committee decided to ignore the Constitution and the best interests of radio listeners across the country,"
That line comes from their press releas on the subject, which also contains this gem,
"We are deeply disturbed that the Committee would attempt to force companies to divest assets simply because it decides to change the rules in the middle of the game. It is bad precedent and bad policy, and is precisely why the Fifth Amendment prohibits unlawful government takings. We certainly hope and expect the full Senate will reject this highly controversial and dangerous
measure,"
ROTFL! Unlawful governement takings! In light of the WZLS case, this is hysterical. WZLS in Asheville, NC was a family owned and operated, locally focused, 24/7 rock and roll station. On February 21 the FCC gave WZLS nine hours to get off the air. The FCC had auctioned off their frequency to Liberty Productions, an outfit a Federal Judge had found "unfit to be a Commission Licensee," for $2.3 million. They did this under a rider on the 1998 budget introduced by...you guessed it... John McCain! The owners of WZLS received no compensation from the FCC, even though they had divested themselves of an AM station in order to obtain their FM license. Liberty promtly turned around and sold WZLS to Saga Communications.
I would hardly equate "Bowling for Columbine" with NPR's All Things Considered. And that's about as close as you're going to get to "government run news" in the US.
How is that? Outside of project specific grants from a few federal agencies NPR receives no federal money. Such grants account for ~2% of NPR's budget.
Ironically, as federal money for NPR evaporated, their news grew decreasingly critical of Uncle Sam. This trend is especially evident since they hired Kevin Klose [current.org], Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau [ibb.gov], as their president. The IBB is the (literally) US Government run network which operates the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio and TV Marti and Radio Free Asia.
It happens to be that the majority of Americans don't want to see the anti-American retoric of Moore and other hard-core left-wingers.
This comment is based on the assumption that audiences are the media's customers, and that each of these customers is equally valuable. Both ideas are incorrect. Audiences, and more importantly demographics, are the media's product. Their customers are advertisers. The media shows what specific people want to see at specific times in order to package them up for sale to corporations.
Apparently a lot of Americans do want to see Michael Moore's "Anti-American rhetoric," because Bowling For Columbine is the most commercially successful documentary in history. I mean, how many documentaries have a whole episode of Oprah devoted to them?
When the Dixie Chicks got banned from many radio stations, do you think it was a US Gov't directive? Hardly. It was the intense demand from PEOPLE.
The Dixie Chicks continue to pack large venues. Their next two shows, Houston and Atlanta appear to be sold out. A lot more people are paying $65 a ticket to see them than are paying $.05 to call radio stations and demand their removal from rotation.
Understanding of New Commands: Less than 5 repetitions.
Obey First Command: 95% of the time or better.
1 Border Collie
2 Poodle
On-topic, I can't believe nobody realizes the ancestor post is a troll.
On dogs, ROTFL! Obviously the people who did these rankings never owned any of these animals. I have two border collies. One will certainly learn a command in five repetitions or less, but if she thinks she is going to get something out of it (other than a "good girl") she tries to move things along by performing every command she can think of before you ask. While she spazzes out, sitting, spinning shaking hands etc., the other dog drops into gear and starts herding her. Good luck getting her to even look at you then. She is what they call a "sticky" sheepdog. You can't turn her off. If she isn't herding she will at least stare at you blankly while you give her commands. No actual obedience though. Too bad because she has exceptional "eye" (herding ability). I once watched her herd a pack of ten Border Collies/Aussies into a little knot in the middle of a field.
I also have a poodle. He learns pretty quickly, but obedience isn't an accurate description. More like accomodation. He does exactly what you say right up until the first second your back is turned. Then he's on to his own agenda.
If you want to challenge everything you think you know about dogs, try this book on for size.
Hardly in the same league as Congressional pay, I think - or, say, the Equal Rights Amendment, which never managed to find its way to passage.
Actually, the ERA was passed in 1972. Unfortunately, Congress set an arbitrary seven year time limit on ratification. They later granted a four year extension. With Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, the GOP reversed it's 40 year history of support for the ERA. In 1981 a judge ruled the extension illegal but the US Supreme Court did not uphold his decision. When the deadline passed, the ammendment was three states (out of 38) shy of ratification. Two thirds of female and all black state legislators voted for ratification.
The ammendment reads, in it's entirety,
Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
The most egregious design flaw of the M-16 is the reloading arrangement to support semi-automatic fire. A small gas tube taps the barrel near the front sight and carries some of the hot gas from the cartidge's detonation back to a very short tube or "catcher" just above the rotary bolt that houses the firing pin. This means you have crappy, government gunpowder blowing crap right into the most critical part of the weapon. This residue rapidly gums up the area where bullet meets bolt and firing pin. (This area is called the firing chamber.) This problem calls for either frequent lubrication to loosen the deposits or a tolerance for the occasional jam. An old neighbour of mine was fortunate enough to not have his M-16 jam when he found himself three feet from a Viet Cong in the jungles of Viet Nam. In that case, the M-16 beat the Kalashnikov.
Another M-16 design flaw is the weak recoil spring that pushes the bolt back into place to chamber the next round after one is fired. This spring and the earlier-mentioned fouling problem caused the addition of the "forward assist" for the M-16A1. Inevitably, experienced shooters will forget that forward assist at the wrong moment because no other weapon I know of has such a jury-rigged loading process as the M-16. Talk about cruft... The operator's manual for an M-16A1 or the current M-16A2 recommends the forward assist be pushed forward with the heel of the hand following each loading of a fresh magazine's first round. The M-16's predecessors; M-14, M-1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, the Krag- Jorgensen and "Trapdoor Springfields" had no need for such a procedure to be followed in the middle of a firefight.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Eugene Stoner has repeatedly stated, to Congress and the press, that the reason why the M16 performed so poorly in Vietnam was the army having switched from a DuPont (IIRC) IMR powder to a ball powder. That increased the chamber pressure and cyclic rate (which helped overwhelm the spring). More importantly the new powder was much, much dirtier than the powder the rifle was designed to use. This caused the gas system fouling which had not been a problem in the extensive testing the AR-15 underwent in pre-war trials. In addition the Army increased the rifling twist, which supposedly reduced the effectiveness of the rifle.
The Air Force went to Vietnam using the original design and powder. A quick web search pulled up this account of the original AR15 design in combat,
This rifle (really should be classified a carbine) was not a Marine Corps issue weapon at the time of HMM-365 Vietnam tours of duty. The M-16/AR-15 that the squadron got their hot little hands on probably came from the U.S. Air Force who, at that time, had more of these rifles than any other service in Vietnam; or from the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group, with whom we had very good working relations (and probably trade relations, too).
If I remember correctly, it was Lance Corporal Frank Bermudez who first demonstrated to us the effectiveness of this little black rifle by picking off two VC from his helicopter. The first shot hit one of the VC in the back of the neck and sent him tumbling head over heels, and the next shot hit the other Cong in the torso and literally severed his body in half. The AR-15s that we had came with 20-round magazines. Later magazines were to hold 30 rounds, but we didn't see any of these. This particular early issue model had a 1 in 14 inches lands and grooves twist in the barrel, imparting a spin on the the bullet that barely stabilized it, causing the bullet to "tumble" upon impact. This tumbling effect caused violent impact on soft targets, as what happened to two of Frank Bermudez's kills.
I agree with your overall assessment. However, to be fair to Stoner, the unaltered design reportedly worked very well in Vietnam and was quite prized. It was the DOD's changes that rendered the rifle near useless. That said, changing
To a certain extent this is true, but remember the M16 was able to replace the M14. At the time the M14 was much more reliable, and it fired a round with a lot more stopping power.
Neither of these observations are really accurate. The AR15 as Stoner designed it, firing the Winchester manufactured.223/5.56mm round (bar powder) was significantly more reliable than the M14. The M14, essentially a lightened an slightly modernized version of John Garand's 1936 M1 design. It was under-engineered for use with the 7.62 NATO cartridge under averse environmental conditions. Likewise, while the muzzle and impact energy of the 7.62mm round is much higher than the 5.56mm, the projectile yields inherently inferior wound ballistics. Lightweight projectiles optimized for stability in air become radically unstable when they enter a liquid, such as water or a human body. American Special Forces and ARVN troops who used the AR 15 in combat were effusive in their praise of the weapon's effectiveness, ease of use and reliability. Part of the reason the Army adopted the M16 after having previously rejected it in rigged trials was soldiers were actually writing their families and congressmen requesting AR15s.
Unfortunately, the Army couldn't leave well enough alone. They added a superfluous bolt closure device to help soldiers damage the chamber with dirt. Worse yet they increased the rifling twist, which crippled the rifles previously legendary wound ballistics by making the projectile more stable. Lastly they changed the powder in the ammo without consulting the Gene Stoner or doing any validation. This raised the rate of fire and the chamber pressure. It upset the carefully engineered balance of the gas system. Army bullshit about poor cleaning aside, the ammo change more than anything was responsible for the M16's notorious unreliability in combat. In this form you are correct, it was less reliable than the M14. But it was not inherently so, and if it hadn't been for DOD corruption and incompetence, it would never have acquired that reputation.
Next thing you know the US army is in Vietnam - sure you can carry a lot more 5.56 ammo and fire it full auto, but the 7.62 goes through the jungle a lot more accurately, maybe you don't even need to fire as much of it.
The army was in Vietnam when this took place. It was the M14's ineffectiveness, contrasted with the AR15's demonstrated superiority, which prompted the change. However, you are right that the heavier projectile was less susceptable to brush deflection in the jungle. The Kalashnikov AKM was probably best under the conditions. It was even more reliable than the AR15 and was indestructible. The ammo was much lighter and gave better wound ballistics than the 7.62 x 51mm NATO round. Not as good as the Winchester powdered 5.56/AR15 barrel, but close to the Army's DuPont powdered version/M16 barrel. Note that in 1974 the USSR re-chambered the AKM for a 5.45 x 39mm cartridge (a necked down version of the AKM's 7.62 x 37mm), creating the AK-74. So the consensus seems to be that small bore rounds are superior military rifle cartridges.
Too much control is going to turn wine into Buddweiser. It's never skunky, it's never watery or too strong, but it's also never _GOOD_. Goodness is randomness in my book, but I'm a Wolfram-ite.
Sounds like you are describing the current state of Australian wine.
Slashdot Mirror
So to recap... My first paragraph was genuinely interrogatory, hoping you had a better idea on how I could accomplish my goal of transparent portable relaying from anywhere to anywhere. My second paragraph simply agreed with elaborated on your comments about AOL.
AOL may not be violating RFC 821, strictly speaking, but blacklisting whole ranges of addresses without cause is a violation of the SMTP philosophy and etiquette. It is inverse spamming. SMTP is not meant to be controlled by a few ISPs and commercial entities. Everybody has a right to send non-abusive e-mail.
Comcast is a big compay which has many networks with a variety of policies. That is why I said "at least in New England." I should have been more specific but I didn't want you all to know where I live. This policy actually predates Comcast's aquisition of my provider. Trust me, they won't let me pop or relay from other providers. OTOH, in some parts of the country Comcast has tried to abolish home NATing, IIRC. Here it is no problem. The one thing they did change when they took over is the MAC registration requirement, which they eliminated.
I can connect to my work SMTP server from home, but it will only relay mail bound for my work domain. We do not allow external relaying (from and external source to an external recipient). When I am at work I can of course send to any recipient I like. Likewise, Comcast only allows access to their SMTP servers from Comcast IP addresses. They do not allow external relaying.
Relaying off myself (my loopback address) ensures I can send mail from any physical location to any recipient without reconfiguring anything. Or at least that was true until a few weeks ago, when AOL started bouncing mail from Comcast user addresses. No. There are several ways of adding authentication to SMTP services but Comcast does not rely on any of them. You also can't POP your Comcast mail (In New England anyway) from a non-Comcast address. If you have a non-Comcast IP you must use their webmail to send and receive mail. Personally I find it a burden reconfiguring my mail client twice a day. I think everything should work seamlessly with no user intervention and I don't mind doing a little up front work to make it so. This is even more true for our users at work. They would throw fits if we told them they had to reconfigure their client every time they changed locations. This way all I need to do is swap one file and they are set for life (or until Software Update clobbers their
Umhh...I should have mentioned that I use a Powerbook, so I need to send mail from multiple locations. I forget people still use desktops.
The original message was received at Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:47:16 -0400 (EDT) from localhost [127.0.0.1]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
****@aol.com
(reason: 554- (RTR:BB) The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic )
----- Transcript of session follows -----
554- (residential) IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions
554- from this IP address until your ISP removes this IP address from its list
554- of dynamic (residential) IP addresses. For additional information,
554 please visit http://postmaster.info.aol.com.
DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=smtp,Addr=127.0.0.1, Name=MTA')
to the m4 file before generating your
You also might want to add.
define(`confDONT_BLAME_SENDMAIL', `GroupWritableDirPathSafe')
Otherwise sendmail will break everytime you run Software Update. You can fix it by chmoding / 755. Alternatively you can add a "chmod 755
Back in the day (OpenStep) Mail.app let you call sendmail as an app, but AFAIK it now needs to relay off an address. There may be a way around this but I don't know it.
The M16A2 uses even faster 1 in 7 twist rifling. All else being equal it should be less lethal than the M16A1. However, it is unlikely all else is equal.
BTW, the M16E1 was also much less reliable than the M16/AR15, mainly due to a change in powder (also contraindicated by Stoner).
"What "Lepage gun?" Colonel Korn inquired with curiosity.
"The new three-hundred-and-forty-four-millimeter Lepage glue gun," Yossarian answered. "It glues a whole formation of planes together in mid-air."
- Catch-22, Joseph Heller
All kidding aside, the Germans did have Gauss gun research projects among their myriad secret weapons. Back then they called them "rail guns" as often as not. Not to be confused with these.
I could see feeling that way.
Kucinich's principled stand kept him out of public office for 13 years. The local "business community" blackballed him and he couldn't even get a private sector job. However, he saved the citizens of Cleveland an estimated $195,148,520. And Muny Light runs at a profit!
When Kucinich ran for congress 15 years later, his campaign slogan was "Because he was right!" and voters strongly agreed. In 1998 the Cleveland City Council officially thanked him for sacrificing his career for the city.
Although Kucinich personally opposes abortion, he never backed the amendment movement or came out against Roe v. Wade. The worst he did was vote for the late term abortion ban. Furthermore, why is a candidate changing one position, once, a negative? If we don't want people to change their minds why do we bother arguing with them? Kucinich is scrupulously honest and beats every other Democratic candidate on every other issue. Progressives should shun him because he used to somewhat disagree with most of us on one issue but changed his mind? Not according to Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who says "He understands that this is a fundamental freedom. Do I think that's sincere? Yes I do."
I submitted this article as a story some time ago, but
Kucinich is hardly "bonkers." His positions are very much in the mainstream of "progressive" thought. He is the only candidate with an explicit, rational and workable healthcare plan for instance. He proposes we take our extremely efficient, proven and popular existing national health insurance system, Medicare, and expand it to universal coverage. This would bring our health insurance practices in line with the rest of the developed world without the complicated legal and fiscal gymnastics the compromise candidates propose.
Kucinich may be unelectable, but only because of the broken electoral and campaign finance systems. His positions poll extremely well. In a recent moveon.org mock primary, he finished second to Dean with 24% of the vote. Over 317,000 people voted, more than turned out for the 2000 New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina primary/cuacuses combined.
In actual fact the Reagan economic policy of the first term, a hodegepodge of Lafferite, Neo-Classical, Monetarist and Supply Side efforts, was disastrous. The recession of 1982 was by far the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Inflation peaked at a postwar record 14% in the summer of 1981. In 1982 unemployment hit a whopping 10%, by far the highest since the Great Depression. Seventeen thousand businesses failed, the highest number since 1933. The growth rate was -2.2% In 1983 Reagan's approval rating was 35%.
The best argument you can make in favor of Reagan's first term economic policy is that he didn't replace Carter appointee Paul Volker (not sure when he was up) when Volker intentionally put the US into a recession to combat the double digit inflation of 1979-81. But of course Volker initiated that program under Carter.
By 1984 Volker's tough love had inflation tamed and the Reagan Administration set about fixing the terrible growth problem with some good old fashioned Keynesian spending. It was an admission of the bankruptcy of their previous anti-Keynesian program.
Regarding bankrupting the USSR, I have no idea where people get that. Soviet military grew at a steady 1-1.5 percent anually from 1975 to 1988. There was no change in the growth rate under Reagan. Furthermore, Soviet spending on weapons procurement didn't rise at all under Reagan. Then in 1988 Gorbachev cut the overall military budget back to 1980 levels. All this while they were fighting a hot war in Afghanistan. When exactly did the USSR go "bankrupt" anyway? It was political bankruptcy which killed the CPSU regime, not economic bankruptcy. The economy was in decline, but it was far from collapsed. That came later under the Russian Federation.
Both Lotus Notes and First Class shipped in 1989. From talking to our Exchange admin, I get the impression it still provides only a fraction of the functionality of Notes and FC. OTOH, Notes has always had a horrible client interface. I have only heard good things from FC users.
Looks like Clearchannel is going after him too. They put his picture up on their web site with the caption, ""Today, by one vote, the Senate Commerce Committee decided to ignore the Constitution and the best interests of radio listeners across the country,"
That line comes from their press releas on the subject, which also contains this gem,
ROTFL! Unlawful governement takings! In light of the WZLS case, this is hysterical. WZLS in Asheville, NC was a family owned and operated, locally focused, 24/7 rock and roll station. On February 21 the FCC gave WZLS nine hours to get off the air. The FCC had auctioned off their frequency to Liberty Productions, an outfit a Federal Judge had found "unfit to be a Commission Licensee," for $2.3 million. They did this under a rider on the 1998 budget introduced by...you guessed it... John McCain! The owners of WZLS received no compensation from the FCC, even though they had divested themselves of an AM station in order to obtain their FM license. Liberty promtly turned around and sold WZLS to Saga Communications.
How is that? Outside of project specific grants from a few federal agencies NPR receives no federal money. Such grants account for ~2% of NPR's budget.
Ironically, as federal money for NPR evaporated, their news grew decreasingly critical of Uncle Sam. This trend is especially evident since they hired Kevin Klose [current.org], Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau [ibb.gov], as their president. The IBB is the (literally) US Government run network which operates the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio and TV Marti and Radio Free Asia.
This comment is based on the assumption that audiences are the media's customers, and that each of these customers is equally valuable. Both ideas are incorrect. Audiences, and more importantly demographics, are the media's product. Their customers are advertisers. The media shows what specific people want to see at specific times in order to package them up for sale to corporations.
Apparently a lot of Americans do want to see Michael Moore's "Anti-American rhetoric," because Bowling For Columbine is the most commercially successful documentary in history. I mean, how many documentaries have a whole episode of Oprah devoted to them? Mainly by people who happen to be Clear Channel executives lobbying Colin Powell's son Michael and Congress to "deregulate" TV and radio.
The Dixie Chicks continue to pack large venues. Their next two shows, Houston and Atlanta appear to be sold out. A lot more people are paying $65 a ticket to see them than are paying $.05 to call radio stations and demand their removal from rotation.
On dogs, ROTFL! Obviously the people who did these rankings never owned any of these animals. I have two border collies. One will certainly learn a command in five repetitions or less, but if she thinks she is going to get something out of it (other than a "good girl") she tries to move things along by performing every command she can think of before you ask. While she spazzes out, sitting, spinning shaking hands etc., the other dog drops into gear and starts herding her. Good luck getting her to even look at you then. She is what they call a "sticky" sheepdog. You can't turn her off. If she isn't herding she will at least stare at you blankly while you give her commands. No actual obedience though. Too bad because she has exceptional "eye" (herding ability). I once watched her herd a pack of ten Border Collies/Aussies into a little knot in the middle of a field.
I also have a poodle. He learns pretty quickly, but obedience isn't an accurate description. More like accomodation. He does exactly what you say right up until the first second your back is turned. Then he's on to his own agenda.
If you want to challenge everything you think you know about dogs, try this book on for size.
The ammendment reads, in it's entirety,
Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Eugene Stoner has repeatedly stated, to Congress and the press, that the reason why the M16 performed so poorly in Vietnam was the army having switched from a DuPont (IIRC) IMR powder to a ball powder. That increased the chamber pressure and cyclic rate (which helped overwhelm the spring). More importantly the new powder was much, much dirtier than the powder the rifle was designed to use. This caused the gas system fouling which had not been a problem in the extensive testing the AR-15 underwent in pre-war trials. In addition the Army increased the rifling twist, which supposedly reduced the effectiveness of the rifle.
The Air Force went to Vietnam using the original design and powder. A quick web search pulled up this account of the original AR15 design in combat,
This rifle (really should be classified a carbine) was not a Marine Corps issue weapon at the time of HMM-365 Vietnam tours of duty. The M-16/AR-15 that the squadron got their hot little hands on probably came from the U.S. Air Force who, at that time, had more of these rifles than any other service in Vietnam; or from the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group, with whom we had very good working relations (and probably trade relations, too).
If I remember correctly, it was Lance Corporal Frank Bermudez who first demonstrated to us the effectiveness of this little black rifle by picking off two VC from his helicopter. The first shot hit one of the VC in the back of the neck and sent him tumbling head over heels, and the next shot hit the other Cong in the torso and literally severed his body in half. The AR-15s that we had came with 20-round magazines. Later magazines were to hold 30 rounds, but we didn't see any of these. This particular early issue model had a 1 in 14 inches lands and grooves twist in the barrel, imparting a spin on the the bullet that barely stabilized it, causing the bullet to "tumble" upon impact. This tumbling effect caused violent impact on soft targets, as what happened to two of Frank Bermudez's kills.
I agree with your overall assessment. However, to be fair to Stoner, the unaltered design reportedly worked very well in Vietnam and was quite prized. It was the DOD's changes that rendered the rifle near useless. That said, changing
Neither of these observations are really accurate. The AR15 as Stoner designed it, firing the Winchester manufactured
Unfortunately, the Army couldn't leave well enough alone. They added a superfluous bolt closure device to help soldiers damage the chamber with dirt. Worse yet they increased the rifling twist, which crippled the rifles previously legendary wound ballistics by making the projectile more stable. Lastly they changed the powder in the ammo without consulting the Gene Stoner or doing any validation. This raised the rate of fire and the chamber pressure. It upset the carefully engineered balance of the gas system. Army bullshit about poor cleaning aside, the ammo change more than anything was responsible for the M16's notorious unreliability in combat. In this form you are correct, it was less reliable than the M14. But it was not inherently so, and if it hadn't been for DOD corruption and incompetence, it would never have acquired that reputation. The army was in Vietnam when this took place. It was the M14's ineffectiveness, contrasted with the AR15's demonstrated superiority, which prompted the change. However, you are right that the heavier projectile was less susceptable to brush deflection in the jungle. The Kalashnikov AKM was probably best under the conditions. It was even more reliable than the AR15 and was indestructible. The ammo was much lighter and gave better wound ballistics than the 7.62 x 51mm NATO round. Not as good as the Winchester powdered 5.56/AR15 barrel, but close to the Army's DuPont powdered version/M16 barrel. Note that in 1974 the USSR re-chambered the AKM for a 5.45 x 39mm cartridge (a necked down version of the AKM's 7.62 x 37mm), creating the AK-74. So the consensus seems to be that small bore rounds are superior military rifle cartridges.
Support your local wineries. Especially the tiny crafty ones.