For some reason, in Ubuntu, the Apache default configs seem to include a plethora of calls for 'NameVirtualHost *:80'. It seems that the very second you install Apache, it starts complaining about 'NameVirtualHost *:80 has no VirtualHosts'. While this is just a warning and can be safely ignored, it is a brand new box and you probably want it to run nicely. I know I do. So I started hunting. I removed all calls for "NameVirtualHost *:80" in ./apache2/sites-enabled/ and that didn't seem to help, there were still warnings about it. Turns out there is one extra call tucked away.
Go into /etc/apache2/ports.conf, find and comment out: "NameVirtualHost *:80"
Piece of cake, if you know where to look. Really Apache should give file names with your warnings, but that would make it user friendly. We can't have just any old peon being able to work Apache, that might run some Linux geeks like me out of a job.
Thursday, March 11. 2010
I hate modern TV schedules
Let's take a quick look back at TV in the mid 90s. When a show started for the season, you were safe in assuming that the show would be 24 to 26 episodes in length and that it would be on essentially contiguously. Sure, nothing was on TV during the week of Thanksgiving or Christmas, but who cares? It was the holidays, specials were on and generally you were busy with other things. If a show came on in September, it was on at the same time every single week until it went off the air in February or March. Times were good...
Nowadays, modern TV scheduling is stupid, plain and simple. I don't particularly mind the "summer" shows which tend to be half seasons (roughly 13 episodes) though most of those that I watch are, I feel, better than the regular TV seasons and should be on full length. The scheduling though, who thought of this bull? A show can be on for 2 weeks, off for 3, back on for a week, off for another 2. Even the half season shows aren't immune to this. The TV executives blame the fall of TV viewership on DVRs (like TiVo), streaming (Hulu) or illegal downloads (Torrents). Sure, those might help, but the reality is that people TiVo their shows because THEY CAN'T FIND THEM.
Let's look at a few examples: Chuck Season 3 took a 2 week break in February. The start of Human Target was just all over the place. FlashForward started at the end of September and ran to November, then took a few week break to come back for ONE more episode. It is supposed to FINALLY come back on the air next week. A 3 month break? V (2009) ran 4 episodes in November and won't be back till the end of March. Castle (Season 2) started in September and ran until the beginning of December (didn't skip Thanksgiving) but then took a month off for the "Holidays". It returned only to take another 3 weeks off in February/March.
I could keep going, but you get the point. If TV execs want to save TV from being completely destroyed by the internet, give us a damn schedule we can follow.
Nowadays, modern TV scheduling is stupid, plain and simple. I don't particularly mind the "summer" shows which tend to be half seasons (roughly 13 episodes) though most of those that I watch are, I feel, better than the regular TV seasons and should be on full length. The scheduling though, who thought of this bull? A show can be on for 2 weeks, off for 3, back on for a week, off for another 2. Even the half season shows aren't immune to this. The TV executives blame the fall of TV viewership on DVRs (like TiVo), streaming (Hulu) or illegal downloads (Torrents). Sure, those might help, but the reality is that people TiVo their shows because THEY CAN'T FIND THEM.
Let's look at a few examples: Chuck Season 3 took a 2 week break in February. The start of Human Target was just all over the place. FlashForward started at the end of September and ran to November, then took a few week break to come back for ONE more episode. It is supposed to FINALLY come back on the air next week. A 3 month break? V (2009) ran 4 episodes in November and won't be back till the end of March. Castle (Season 2) started in September and ran until the beginning of December (didn't skip Thanksgiving) but then took a month off for the "Holidays". It returned only to take another 3 weeks off in February/March.
I could keep going, but you get the point. If TV execs want to save TV from being completely destroyed by the internet, give us a damn schedule we can follow.
Wednesday, March 10. 2010
Google Apps users screwed again, still no Google Buzz
If you own your own domain name, you can have Google Apps for your domain. Basically, what this means is you get all the standard Google applications like Gmail, Calendar, Docs and Gtalk, but under your own domain name. It really isn't terribly complicated to setup and for only a few small time users, it is free. Personally, I think it is great because I like Gmail overall but I'd rather have my own email address than an @gmail.com one. So I use Google Apps for several domains, including my main email/account @ snowulf.com.
Everything about it works well in my book except for the fact that new features for Gmail tend to lag on deployment to Google Apps. As such, Buzz has been out for over a month now and I still can't use it on my account. They said (don't they always) that it would be coming to Apps 'shortly after launch' (or something to that effect). Anyways, I can accept several weeks delay, even a month, but that has come and gone and still no Buzz.
I know there were a lot of issues with Buzz's launch (not every product launch is smooth ::cough::Assassins Creed 2::cough::), but I still think it has potential. Google will work out the bugs and patch in some new features (like a shiny API) and life will be good. Good as long AS THE GOOGLE APPS USERS CAN HAVE BUZZ TOO, PLEASE.
Everything about it works well in my book except for the fact that new features for Gmail tend to lag on deployment to Google Apps. As such, Buzz has been out for over a month now and I still can't use it on my account. They said (don't they always) that it would be coming to Apps 'shortly after launch' (or something to that effect). Anyways, I can accept several weeks delay, even a month, but that has come and gone and still no Buzz.
I know there were a lot of issues with Buzz's launch (not every product launch is smooth ::cough::Assassins Creed 2::cough::), but I still think it has potential. Google will work out the bugs and patch in some new features (like a shiny API) and life will be good. Good as long AS THE GOOGLE APPS USERS CAN HAVE BUZZ TOO, PLEASE.
Tuesday, March 9. 2010
Disabling sleep on MacBooks
I complain about Apple products a lot, mainly in how they dumb everything down. It isn't the internet that is making people stupid, it is Apple devices like the iPhone and OSX. Last time I was complaining about the Macs need for hibernation, this time it about their need to NOT sleep. It is one of those fascinating dumb downs of Macs, you will use this device how the designers made it and you don't have a choice in the matter. Either the Mac is on or off. If it is on and you close the lid, it is going to sleep. This is so universal that even my mother knows it.
Turns out, someone wrote some software to fix this issue. Really depressing that 3rd party software is needed, but what do you expect, it is the IdiotBook. It is really simple:
I can think of about a hundred reasons why you'd want to do this. For me the major push was to play music at Christmas. But you might want to leave your computer running for a long download (For example). The only word of caution I have, at least on the MacBook Air, it doesn't turn off the screen. So I turn it off with the screen brightness settings (F1/F2) before I close it. Annoying, but better than nothing.
Turns out, someone wrote some software to fix this issue. Really depressing that 3rd party software is needed, but what do you expect, it is the IdiotBook. It is really simple:
- Go to the InsomniaX homepage
- Download InsomniaX (Direct DL Link)
- Install & Execute
- You'll see a new blue icon in the top tray, click on it
- Click "Enable Insomnia"
- Close your screen and relish in the fact that your mac hasn't gone to sleep
I can think of about a hundred reasons why you'd want to do this. For me the major push was to play music at Christmas. But you might want to leave your computer running for a long download (For example). The only word of caution I have, at least on the MacBook Air, it doesn't turn off the screen. So I turn it off with the screen brightness settings (F1/F2) before I close it. Annoying, but better than nothing.
Monday, March 8. 2010
Review: Battlefield: Bad Company 2
As you may well know (perhaps from our earlier entry), Battlefield: Bad Company 2 came out last week. I've devoted most of my game playing time since then to playing the game and thought it was about time to do a review. Now some of this review of Bad Company 2 (BC2) will be a comparison to how it stands up against Modern Warfare 2 (MW2). It isn't that I believe the games are in anyway the exact same kettle of fish, but MW2 is the undeniable "big shooter" of the moment, so it is that which all other new shooters will be compared against (until something undeniably better comes out).
Let me give you the ultra short version: It is definitely an improvement over Bad Company 1. My major complaints for BC1 single player were addressed in BC2. The single player campaign of BC2 isn't long, but it is enjoyable and longer than MW2 was. The online multiplayer is also quite enjoyable and mostly major bug free (so far that I've seen). BC2's multiplayer is much different than MW2 and personally I prefer BC2. If you enjoy shooters in general and haven't bought BC2, you're missing out.
Now we get on to the long version of the review. First I'm going to cover the single player game and then I'll get into the online play. Continue reading "Review: Battlefield: Bad Company 2" »
Let me give you the ultra short version: It is definitely an improvement over Bad Company 1. My major complaints for BC1 single player were addressed in BC2. The single player campaign of BC2 isn't long, but it is enjoyable and longer than MW2 was. The online multiplayer is also quite enjoyable and mostly major bug free (so far that I've seen). BC2's multiplayer is much different than MW2 and personally I prefer BC2. If you enjoy shooters in general and haven't bought BC2, you're missing out.
Now we get on to the long version of the review. First I'm going to cover the single player game and then I'll get into the online play. Continue reading "Review: Battlefield: Bad Company 2" »
Friday, March 5. 2010
Ride Friday: Why motorcycles don't honk (much)
I've noticed that even on the nice summer days when there are lots of bikes out, you rarely hear them honk. I asked myself, "why is this? Why don't motorcyclists honk much?" I've come up with a few reasons and I thought I'd share.
This all being said, I do honk from time to time. Though mostly on city streets and intersections rather than the highways. All too many times when making left turns have I watched idiots think they can make that right turn before I'll get there. NO! BAD CAGER. I am faster than you think, wait your damn turn.
- Stock motorcycle horns suck - Let's be realistic, taking one of those canned air horns that people use at sports games and duct taping it to your bike would be a LOT louder than the motorcycle horn. I'm not really sure why all makers skimp so much on this, but it is basically universally accepted. It isn't like there aren't very loud and powerful horns that are small enough for bikes, on the contrary, there are plenty of aftermarket horns you can buy.
- We're generally not stuck - One of the biggest reasons cars honk is because they are stuck behind someone who is going slow or not moving or generally being stupid. It is very rare that a motorcycling is truly stuck. We can get around almost anything and lane split where necessary (and of course only when it is legal to do so).
- We're too busy - Someone tried to merge into my lane the other night; I would have honked, but I was simply too busy. Think about it. I've got my right hand grabbing the front breaks, right foot hitting the rear breaks, left hand pulling the clutch in, left foot down shifting and using my body to swerve away. While I could physically have hit my horn during this, I've got too many other things I need to do. By the time I've freed up enough brain power to honk at you, it is too late.
- You cagers are idiots - For those that don't know, "cager" (As in stuck in a cage) is one of many terms used to describe those in 4 wheels vehicles. I basically assume that every single one of you is out to kill me because you aren't paying attention. Most of the time I see your stupidity (and attempts to kill me) coming and GTFO before you get there.
This all being said, I do honk from time to time. Though mostly on city streets and intersections rather than the highways. All too many times when making left turns have I watched idiots think they can make that right turn before I'll get there. NO! BAD CAGER. I am faster than you think, wait your damn turn.
Thursday, March 4. 2010
Ham'ing it up: Successful test of CARLA
Last night, Jon and I finally got around to trying out a nearby repeater system, that is the C.A.R.L.A. (California Amateur Radio Linking Association) system.
As you can see on the aforementioned link, there are a number of repeaters in the California/Nevada area that allow easy communication between the Bay Area (where Jon is) and Tahoe (where John is). If you use the Interactive Coverage Map, you can see the various paths, and repeaters, even see how the coverage works.
One interesting thing we noticed was Jon was able to hear me much better on the South Lake repeater (#8) versus the North Lake repeater (#23), however he came in slightly scratchier on #8. When we turned on the Paths on the interactive coverage map, I realized that the path the signal took might have been a strong contributor.
To reach Jon at station 11, we either go 8 --> 16 --> 11 or 8 --> 18 --> 11, whereas with 23, we have to go 23 --> 18--> 8 --> 16 --> 11 or 23 --> 18 --> 11.
Regardless, it worked and worked well. I was very impressed with the signal from INSIDE my office, specifically, from my desk via handheld.
Last but not least, this was my first Ham radio transmission. Didn't hear anyone else on the line, so hopefully no one else had to put up with our idiocy.
As you can see on the aforementioned link, there are a number of repeaters in the California/Nevada area that allow easy communication between the Bay Area (where Jon is) and Tahoe (where John is). If you use the Interactive Coverage Map, you can see the various paths, and repeaters, even see how the coverage works.
One interesting thing we noticed was Jon was able to hear me much better on the South Lake repeater (#8) versus the North Lake repeater (#23), however he came in slightly scratchier on #8. When we turned on the Paths on the interactive coverage map, I realized that the path the signal took might have been a strong contributor.
To reach Jon at station 11, we either go 8 --> 16 --> 11 or 8 --> 18 --> 11, whereas with 23, we have to go 23 --> 18--> 8 --> 16 --> 11 or 23 --> 18 --> 11.
Regardless, it worked and worked well. I was very impressed with the signal from INSIDE my office, specifically, from my desk via handheld.
Last but not least, this was my first Ham radio transmission. Didn't hear anyone else on the line, so hopefully no one else had to put up with our idiocy.
(Page 1 of 106, totaling 737 entries)
next page »




