Dor-lómin

In the hopes that this might be picked up by Google and help someone else out there. . .

I run a Fedora Core 5 (FC5) server at work. I’m in the process of migrating things to a new server that will be Fedora 7 (no longer called “core”).

We make use of Tomcat for java applications. However, upon installing Tomcat in the exact same way for Fedora 7 as I did for FC5, all I would see when trying to view my Tomcat server’s web pages were (totally) blank pages.

To replicate the problem (then the solution). . .

Install Java according to these instructions (though use the JDK instead): Link.

Install Tomcat like so:

>yum install tomcat5 tomcat5-webapps tomcat5-admin-webapps

Start the tomcat service (it should be available under the services GUI now. . . if not, restart the server).

Now, you too should be getting blank pages when you try to view http://localhost:8080

I had seen several reports that the F7 and FC6 default installations of tomcat were “bad” or “non-functional.” At that point, everyone appears to just give up. No solutions seem available out there other than to download the application from Jakarta and install it manually.

Here’s an easier “fix.” Though, I don’t know if this might be a bad idea.

The problem appears to be that Tomcat no longer likes the default installation of Java on FC6 or F7. Further, it won’t listen to you if you try to change JAVA_HOME via the /etc/tomcat5/tomcat5.conf file.

This is (apparently) because the /etc/tomcat5/tomcat5.conf file (where you’d think you should go!) is overridden by the /etc/sysconfig/tomcat5.conf file. So, make the change there, and all should work again.

For example. . . in /etc/sysconfig/tomcat5.conf, I made it:

JAVA_HOME="/opt/jdk1.6.0_02"

All now works!

Someone just stole $54 million from me.

I went into a local liquor store to buy a $5 quick-pick lotto ticket and some gum for the wife. Ya know. . . just had a lucky feeling. And you can’t win if you don’t play (and all that stupid stuff we tell ourselves as we do something ridiculous and counter to our better judgement).

Anyways, I get a pack of Orbit gum, Almond M&Ms, and a Hershey’s w/ Almonds (King Size) (hey, I like almonds). . . and then ask for a $5 quick-pick. He prints the ticket and hands it to me. I then get out my debit card and he says:

“Sorry, no credit cards for Lotto.”

“Really? Well, this is a debit card.”

“Doesn’t matter. The Manager saw video of us selling Lotto tickets on credit cards and got upset.” He then gestured to a small hand-printed sight barely legible above the register with about five other equally tiny, barely legible signs.

“Okay. I’ll go see if the wife has any cash.”

So. . . I schlep myself outside, and across the parking lot to the car and get a $5 from the wife (all she had in cash on her). And then head back inside.

So I cheerfully say: “Okay. . . here you go. This is for the Lotto. And I’ll use the card for the other stuff.”

And then he says: “$5 minimum for charges.”

Now, normally, I’m not one to lose my cool. And I’m not proud of doing so here. But I say: “You know what? Forget it.”. . . and then I pick up my $5 off the counter, leaving the Lotto ticket and the candy/gum as well.

As I leave, over my shoulder I say: “Show this to your boss on the video camera.”

Then, as I walk outside, through the glass walls I see the guy rushing to the front of the store, and can vaguely hear him yelling at me. . . I assume with obscenities.

Now, a brighter man would have just wandered off. But I don’t think I have done anything to warrant being yelled at. . . so I put my arms up in a “WTF?” gesture and say back to him (through the glass): “Wow. . . that’s great customer service.”

At which point he comes outside and says: “I heard what you said to me!”

“What did I say!?!”

“I heard what you said!”

“What did you hear?”

“What you said!”

“What. . . did. . . I. . . say?”

“You told me to shut up.”

The guys from the neighboring Ralph’s are watching all this with keen interest.

“No, I didn’t,” I replied. “I said that I hope your boss sees on the video camera an angry customer and some lost business due to his lame policy in the same way he earlier saw someone buying Lotto tickets on a credit card.”

“That’s not what I heard. You told me to shut up.”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“I don’t make the rules.”

“I know. That’s why the comment was directed towards your boss.”

“Well, man, I didn’t mean to disrespect you. I must have misheard you.”

“It’s cool. I apologize too for losing my temper in the first place.”

We shake hands. I walk back to my car and start telling the story to my wife. . . who has been oblivious to the entire saga as she listened to the radio.

Then I remember. . . my Lotto ticket. What if those were the winning number for $54 million! At moments like this, you get a tremendous sense of the universe conspiring against you. Can you imagine if you had ever won the lottery, and then lost the ticket. . . well, how about you bought the winning ticket. . . but then the clerk kept it and won in your place because you threw a (minor) tantrum over a lame policy and left the store. When you could have just as easily decided to just use the $5 in cash for the ticket and left the candy (which we don’t really need given my rapidly expanding belt line).

So, wanting to smooth things over further with one of our local shopkeeps, and hoping to get that ticket, I went back in and further explained exactly why I said what I said and what I meant by it. . . and then asked if he still had the ticket.

“No. I sold it.”

Now, nobody else has been in the store at this point. To my knowledge.

“I don’t like to void them” he says.

“You sold it? Really?”

“Yeah.”

Now, what do I do? Demand that he confess to stealing my ticket? Demand that he give me my original ticket? How could he have sold it considering nobody else had come in? What are the odds that if someone came in during the two minutes I was explaining the situation to my wife, that they too wanted exactly $5 in quick pick Super Lotto tickets.

So, what do I do? I just buy another $5 Quick Pick. Like a giant pussy. And then, upon getting home, I realize that this still means that my original ticket is out there. Probably in the pocket of that clerk at the liquor store. So, come tomorrow, if there are any reports of a winning ticket being purchased from that store, and it ain’t mine. . . there’s going to be some big trouble going down.

Yes, I realize that the odds of either of our tickets having the winning numbers are astronomical. But it’s moments like this that you can just feel it coming. . . when I read in the paper tomorrow that a local liquor store worker happened to buy a $5 quick pick that won him $54 million. . .

I have my problems with post-Raiders Indy films. But this has always tickled me. . .

. . . the little smilie (frownie?) at the end just kills me.

Will be changing web hosts this week. We’ll be back. Hopefully.

We keep hearing over and over again that, though there were doubts previously, scientists now agree that global warming is real, and that mankind is responsible for it.

So, every six months or so, there is apparently some new scientific evidence introduced that convinces all the nay-sayers. And yet six months later, despite being told previously that the naysayers had already been convinced, we’re told that some new evidence has come forward and now the naysayers are convinced.

But, besides that conundrum, I also have a problem with the messengers and their motives. Here’s Al Gore:

But the fact that we face an ecological crisis without any precedent in historic times is no longer a matter of any dispute worthy of recognition. And those who, for the purpose of maintaining balance in debate, take the contrarian view that there is significant uncertainty about whether it’s real are hurting our ability to respond.

Here’s the problem: He said that in 1989. So, almost twenty years ago, he was already telling people that dissent was dangerous and that the argument was already over. Does that not hurt his credibility? Is it not disturbing to anyone that prior to the last decade or two of science devoted to climate change, he was already telling people to just shut up and follow orders?

He was trying to stifle debate before the space shuttles’ climate-oriented “missions to earth.” He was trying to shame dissenting scientists into keeping quiet before the computer models were generated that now allegedly tell us that there is no more room for debate. He was trying to cease all debate long before he had any real evidence with which to do so. So why should we trust his asseration about what the “evidence” shows now?

And, of course, it seems odd to me that the Clinton/Gore Administration did nothing for eight full years regarding climate change (even burying the Kyoto treaty after the Senate voted unanimously to preemptively reject it), despite his prior (absolute) certainty that we are all certainly doomed beyond any (dangerous) doubts.

Anyone so desperate to cease all dissent (especially so early in the debate) causes me great concern. And, quite honestly, makes me question their claims all the more. And, even as the New York Times (bless them, for once) now reports, more mainstream scientists are finally standing up to be counted as “skeptics” as well.

I used to write a lot about Libby on this page. So, to be fair, I suppose I should say something about the verdict.

I realize that this all could seem far afield and not directly relevant to Libby. But the fact that Libby is going to prison while Sandy Berger walks free with a slap on the wrist and Joe Wilson is getting rich(er) and famous (with help from a sympathetic media) while repeatedly(and demonstratively) lying in order to manufacture a “scandal”. . . all of this just leaves me with absolutely no sympathy for those who want to imprison Libby on the principle that he lied.

I mean, the media still reports on the “Uranium from Niger” story as being “discredited”. . . and they still say that Wilson “debunked” it. Yet both the CIA and a bipartisan Senate Committee found that his report actually supported the contention that Iraq had attempted to obtain yellowcake from Niger. And, yes, the British still believe this.

Okay, so first we’ve got Wilson mischaracterizing what he found there and stating that he found “no evidence” of Iraq attempting to buy yellowcake. Of course, he conveniently fails to mention that Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki told Wilson that Iraq had approached Mayaki in 1999 with a request to “expand commercial relations” which Mayaki instinctively knew to mean “yellowcake sales” (and told Wilson of his interpretation). This seems fair considering that 72% of all Nigerian export revenue comes from uranium. So, one can see why the CIA and the Senate bi-partisan committee found this to be contrary to how Wilson characterized his findings publicly.

And yet Libby is going to prison because he said Tim Russert told him about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA.

That these facts that form the basis of the story were not and are not being more widely reported (especially now while the media selectively chooses context that is almost invariably hostile to the Bush Administration while reporting on the Libby verdict) has nearly made me soil myself with rage.

Then there are the claims that he had debunked the “forged documents” that the Left still falsely claims were the entire basis for all contentions regarding Iraq, uranium, and Niger. Yet, as the British Butler Report said: “The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.” The bi-partisn Senate Committee on Intelligence found the same thing: There were multiple sources for believing the Iraq-Niger-Uranium claims, and the forged documents were not among them.

Wilson himself tried to claim that the forged documents were the basis for the CIA’s Niger/yellowcake contentions and had personally debunked them as part of his assigned mission, telling the Washington Post: “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.” When it was pointed out that the CIA did not come into possession of the forgeries until eight months after Wilson’s trip to Niger, Wilson conceded that he may have “mispoken.”

And yet Scooter Libby’s life is now ruined because he said Tim Russert told him about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA.

Then there is the contention (alluded to by Wilson himself) that the Vice President’s office made a request that the CIA send someone to Niger in the first place. This is where his wife enters the picture. Various media outlets had been reporting that the Vice President and President ignored the findings of the very person they sent to investigate the claims. This was a nice (dishonest) spin on the story. So, naturally, many reporters probably began asking the White House: “Why would you send someone like Joe Wilson –who was known to be hostile to the first Iraq War and unlikely to support the Administration– on such a mission and then simply ignore his findings when he returned?” To which, it would seem logical to answer:

1. His findings were not seen as debunking the CIA’s beliefs about Niger and Iraq.
2. The Vice President’s Office did not “send him.”
3. We believe that Wilson’s wife, who works at the CIA, got the gig for him.

Now, apparently, this constituted a criminal act. Rather than setting the record straight, this was viewed by Administration critics as an “attack” on Joe Wilson. Indeed, some went so far as to allege that the Administration was trying to get his “spy wife” killed in retaliation. Almost certainly by an eyepatch-wearing man stroking a cat. But, of course, to the more rational among us, it merely looks lie an attempt at setting the record straight.

Joe Wilson, of course, did everything he could to perpetuate the (false) impression that his wife was actively covert (as would be required for her “outing” to be a criminal act) and that her “outing” constituted vicious retaliation and an attempt to punish him by harming his wife. He stated in no uncertain terms that Rove and Cheney were behind it. He has even now filed a civil suit against them. While never actually stating unequivocally that his wife’s status was covert, he implied it many times. Yet for some reason, gracing the cover of Vanity Fair with his wife was deemed appropriate.

Yet, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has found that no underlying crime had been committed (as several media outlets argued privately in many “friend of the court” filings while reporting things very differently). Indeed, it now turns out that the person who outed her was administration foe and outspoken critic Richard Armitage in the State Department (not the White House!). It also came to light that other reporters had known of Valerie Plame’s status and had been totally missed by the prosecution. Meanwhile, Andrea Mitchell stated on national radio that “everyone knew” about Valerie Plame, but then later said that she too had “misspoken” (popular phrase!).

And yet Scooter Libby’s may not see freedom for up to twenty-five years because he said Tim Russert told him about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA.

So, Alan Greenspan had this to say recently:

“While, yes, it is possible we can get a recession in the latter months of 2007, most forecasters are not making that judgment and indeed are projecting forward into 2008 … with some slowdown,” he said.

Greenspan said that while it would be “very precarious” to try to forecast that far into the future, he could not rule out the possibility of a recession late this year.

Now, if you work for the AP, how do you write a headline for that? Apparently, by lying:

Greenspan Warns of Likely U.S. Recession

Huh? Where exactly does he say that it is “likely?” How does “cannot rule out” become “likely?”

And, do you think whoever creates these headlines would be so prone to exaggeration/falsification if this were a Clinton economy?

Our current economy is miraculous. Especially given the stresses it has been put under (high fuel prices, 9/11, etc.). GDP, unemployment and inflation have all been on par with the universally hailed Clinton economy of the 90s. Which, of course, is why you don’t hear about it. And, with a Republican in the White House, probably why that headline reads the way it does.

UPDATE: And, what do you know, the Chinese markets plummeted the next day. Followed by the U.S. markets today. I’m not saying they’re clearly related.  But Greenspan was in (or on his way to) Hong Kong when he made those remarks that were so badly (wilfully?) misinterpreted.  Our economies are just as easily influenced by perceptions as they are by facts. Oh, and I sent in the above blurb to the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” and it was actually used (though modified/truncated a bit). Hehe, I’m published.

Well, it had only been four years!

I was cleaning out a closet the other day, and was surprised to find many of the innards for my old PII 450 machine (c. 1998). All I needed to resurrect it was a power supply and a hard drive. $70 and two days later (I love newegg), I had her up and running.

This, of course, provided me with a new ISA-slot-equipped home for my Roland LAPC-1 and Roland SCC-1 MIDI cards. So, I took this opportunity to make some recordings and update the Ultima Digital Music Archive (UDMA) with an entry for Ultima Online.

At some point, I do hope to upload some recordings from Ultima Underworld as well as Ultima VIII: Pagan (game was terrible. But music was great!).

Yes, the UDMA is still there. On the right under “Defunct Geekery.”

No, my wife doesn’t understand. Bless her.

Dear God, could this guy at the NYT be a bigger f’ing weenie if he tried?

Super Bowl Ads of Cartoonish Violence, Perhaps Reflecting Toll of War

But the ongoing war seemed to linger just below the surface of many of this year’s commercials.

More than a dozen spots celebrated violence in an exaggerated, cartoonlike vein that was intended to be humorous, but often came across as cruel or callous.

How much of a whiny little dweeb do you need to be to write something like this? You see a person slap someone in a commercial in an attempt to be humerous. . . and the first thing that comes to your mind is: George Bush’s war is tearing us apart! The violence!

Personally, I find it annoying that in every commercial, if anyone ever apparently comes to harm, almost every time, that person is shown to be just fine in a quick second or two at the very end. We can’t dare risk harming the delicate sensibilities of someone who might have grown attached to a character in a 15-second beer commercial!

But I digress. I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that the NYT even managed to lament the war and blame it for Very Bad Things(tm) even in a write-up of Super Bowl commercials.