I have some rules as follows:  RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=permanent,L]   I would like to make the rewrite condition match ANY domain OTHER than the domain www.domain.com . How can I do this without explicitly make a RewriteCond for each case?
This is a  about Apache's mod_rewrite.   Changing a request URL or redirecting users to a different URL than the one they originally requested is done using mod_rewrite. This includes such things as:   Changing HTTP to HTTPS (or the other way around) Changing a request to a page which no longer exist to a new replacement. Modifying a URL format (such as ?id=3433 to /id/3433 ) Presenting a different page based on the browser, based on the referrer, based on anything possible under the moon and sun. Anything you want to mess around with URL   Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mod_Rewrite Rules but Were Afraid to Ask!  How can I become an expert at writing mod_rewrite rules?   What is the fundamental format and structure of mod_rewrite rules? What form/flavor of regular expressions do I need to have a solid grasp of? What are the most common mistakes/pitfalls when writing rewrite rules? What is a good method for testing and verifying mod_rewrite rules? Are there SEO or performance implications of mod_rewrite rules I should be aware of? Are there common situations where mod_rewrite might seem like the right tool for the job but isn't? What are some common examples?   A place to test your rules  The  web site is a great place to play around with your rules and test them. It even shows the debug output so you can see what matched and what did not.
How to get the size of a JavaScript object? Basic Electronics Book I need basic electronics books  (diodes,transistors,current.. etc) as I am just starting out with electronics and want to have something to read over the holiday.  Any suggestions of good beginners' books? Screen Resolution Problem with Ubuntu 14.04 and VirtualBox Analyzing limits problem Calculus (tell me where I'm wrong). I came accross: $$\lim_{x \to\ 0}\frac{x\cos x - \log (1 + x)}{x^{2}}$$  I tried the following please tell me where I 'm wrong:  $$\lim_{x \to\ 0}\frac{x\cos x - \log (1 + x)}{x^{2}} $$  $$\text{(Dividing by }x)$$   $$=\displaystyle\lim_{x \to\ 0}\dfrac{ \cos x - \dfrac{\log (1 + x)}{x}}{x} $$  $$=\lim_{x \to\ 0}\frac{\cos x - 1}{x} $$  $$=\lim_{x \to\ 0}\frac{-2\sin^{2} \dfrac{x}{2}}{x} $$  $$=\lim_{x \to\ 0}\frac{-2x\sin^{2}\dfrac{x}{2}}{(\dfrac{x}{2})^{2}\times 4} $$ $$\lim_{x \to\ 0}\dfrac{-x}{2}=0$$ But Answer given is $\dfrac{1}{2}$  Please Help. Almost half of disk space unaccounted for on Windows 7 computer I'm trying to determine what's eating almost half of disk on my Windows 7 Lenovo laptop but haven't been able to determine what.  I read some of the answers on this site but none of the causes seems to be the cause of my problem.  What I've done so far:   Checked Windows' System Restore points but only minimum use, either way I deleted around 2GB if usage from there Used WinDirStat and it came back with a total of 71.3GB usage at the root level C Drives properties says 135GB being used out of 138 GB total, ie, 135 GB - 71.3GB = 63.7GB missing somewhere No "Unknown" files reported by WinDirStat Windows Disk Management utility doesn't report any unused partitions or unclaimed space chkdsk comes out clean Windows disk cleanup tool doesn't report anything big, just small stuff in the lower MB range Lenovo backup tool hasn't been used nor there is a folder for the backup images   Any idea on what to look at and/or do?  EDIT: some additional info... Getting arguments underneath \min in an align environment How do I format a number in Java? Planet where humans fight for access to algae Set out on another planet where a human spaceship lands for a research and they observer a huge mass moving below them. On closer look this mass appears to be humans, and the density of the population increases towards the sea. The reason for this is algae,the only nutrition found on the planet. On a beach they discover tall, huge humans (developed due to the natural selection), controlling the best access to the algae. Eventually the researchers die, because humans eat them. Insert list of figures in the table of contents When Deadpool is in the hallway talking      he makes a joke about Fox springing for a few more X-Men and the camera pans to show Beast closing the door to get rid of the noise.   Who else was in the room? Good text on Clinical Trials? I'm an undergraduate statistics student looking for a good treatment of clinical trials analysis. The text should cover the fundamentals of experimental design, blocking, power analysis, latin squares design, and cluster randomization designs, among other topics.   I have an undergraduate knowledge of mathematical statistics and real analysis, but if there's a fantastic text that requires a bit higher level of statistics or analysis, I can work up to it. In "Knots and Primes: An Introduction to Arithmetic Topology", the author uses the following proposition   Let $h: Y \to X$ be a covering. For any path $\gamma : [0,1] \to X$ and any $y \in h^{-1}(x) (x = \gamma(0))$, there exists a unique lift $\hat{\gamma} : [0,1] \to Y$ of $\gamma$ with $\hat{\gamma}(0) = y$. Furthermore, for any homotopy $\gamma_t (t \in [0,1])$ of $\gamma$ with $\gamma_t = \gamma(0)$ and $\gamma_t(1) = \gamma(1)$, there exists a unique lift of $\hat{\gamma_t}$ such that $\hat{\gamma_t}$ is the homotopy of $\hat{\gamma}$ with $\hat{\gamma_t}(0) = \hat{\gamma}(0)$ and $\hat{\gamma_t}(1) = \hat{\gamma}(1)$.  The author then follows with; "In the following, we assume that any covering space is connected. By the preceding proposition, the cardinality of the fiber $h^{-1}(x)$ is independent of $x \in X$."   I am not sure why this results is true. This is my attempt at explaining it to myself. Take two different $x_1, x_2$ and their fibers $h^{-1}(x_1), h^{-1}(x_2)$ such that $y_1 \in h^{-1}(x_1)$ and $y_2 \in h^{-1}(x_2)$. Take two paths $\gamma_1, \gamma_2$ such that $\gamma_1(0) = x_1$ and $\gamma_2(0) = x_2$. Then we get two lifts $\hat{\gamma_1}, \hat{\gamma_2}$ with $\hat{\gamma_1}(0) = y_1$ and $\hat{\gamma_2}(0) = y_2$. Now, since our covering space is connected we can continuously deform $\hat{\gamma_1}$ into $\hat{\gamma_2}$ and conclude that every elements in $h^{-1}(x_1)$ is also in $h^{-1}(x_2)$ and vice versa. I feel that this is wrong but cannot figure out the right way to see this. Any help would be appreciated. $\sin \frac{1}{x}$ is not uniformly continuous on $[1, \infty]$ Please help me to prove the following result:  I recall that the holomorph $Hol(\Gamma)$ of a group $\Gamma$ is the semidirect product $Hol(\Gamma)=\Gamma\ltimes_{\phi} Aut(\Gamma)$ where $\phi: Aut(\Gamma)\to  Aut(\Gamma)$ is the identity map.  Let $G=Hol(C_8)$. In addition let $f(x)\in \mathbb{Q}[x]$ be an irreducible polynomial of degree $8$, $L$ a splitting field of $f(x)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ and suppose that $Gal(L/\mathbb{Q})\cong G$     Show that there is a subgroup of $S_8$ isomorphic to $G$   Thanks in advance. I am familiar with the set-theoretical definition of functions.   A function $f : A \rightarrow B$ from a set $A$ to a set $B$ is a subset $f \subseteq A \times B$ of the Cartesian product $A \times B$ such that the following conditions hold:   $\forall a \in A : \exists b \in B : (a,b) \in f$ $\forall a \in A : \forall b, b' \in B : (a,b), (a,b') \in f \rightarrow b=b'$   Is there a purely set-theoretical definition of the function evaluation $f(a)$ for every $a \in A$? I get as far as defining  $f(a) = \{ b \in B : (a,b) \in f \}$ but that defines rather the set of values of a multi-valued function. How to force Logger.debug output in Play! framework specs2 tests? Elements order in a "for (… in …)" loop OneDrive for Windows 10 - Remove logged out account Oxford Comma Conventions According to the Wikipedia page for the , "Use of the comma is consistent with conventional practice" and "Use of the comma is inconsistent with conventional practice." Did the Oxford Comma come before its omission, or was the Oxford Comma traditionally omitted?  It makes logical sense that every item in a list would be separated in the same way: by a comma. If the Oxford Comma is conventionally correct, when and why did people begin to omit it? I am currently in need of using apt-get on a chroot directory. The setup is the following.  I have a chroot setup with schroot. This chroot environment needs to be stripped down as much as possible. Therefore I am planning to remove apt-get and commin from the chroot environment.  I know that Gentoo has the possibility to use portage on a different root directory. Is this possible to set a different root directory for apt.get to install software into my chroot directory?  Thanks in advance