Enabling Wordpress Multisite
I've just been working on adding a few users to Wordpress Multisite. It works pretty well. It's a lot more straight forward than the old WPMU. However, it didn't work that easily out of the box where your "network domain" is already a subdomain. I wanted to use wp.footboot.net to manage the network, but Wordpress is hoping for a top-level domain. Or rather, a domain to act as the root domain for all the domains in the network. That's fairly sensible, but it wasn't that practical here because there was too much stuff in my top level domain to use that and too many existing blogs setup as subdomains. So if your network domain is footboot.net then blogs will be at site1.footboot.net etc. If your network domain is wp.footboot.net then blogs will be at site1.wp.footboot.net Fortunately it isn't hard to rename blog domains after they are setup. So you can rename your site1.wp.footboot.net to site1.footboot.net. Everything seems to work all happy, until you try to login. Wordpress is willing to show you a blog at any domain I think, but cookies are more tricky. The cookie domain for every blog is determined from the network domain. So if your network domain is wp.footboot.net you cannot do any cookie stuff on site1.footboot.net. However, it seems if you set the COOKIE_DOMAIN define in your wp-config.php to the top level domain you can keep the network domain as a subdomain. So far that is working, and I haven't found any other consequences. I was importing from old blogs and I wanted to rename the blog domain **after** the import so that Wordpress would get the media from the old one. When you rename the blog domain all that media will break, but you can rename them with a plugin. So it's all running sweet now. Much better than the old software (but still surprisingly crap).
Mice
The mice have returned again the little dears. They have started to nibble on the pears and avocadoes. I have been leaving out those "happy" traps and take a couple outside to for some outdoors play most days. The other day John found a native mouse and brought it over so the cats wouldn't eat it. It was a whole other kind of cute. Much more puffsome and round. Darker brown. Quiet. I like them.
GT5 Prologue
I spent most of yesterday playing Gran Turismo 5 Prologue on our friends' PS3. It is probably the best game I have ever played. It might even be better than life. It certainly had heaps better resolution than life. It’s all so crisp and nice looking.
Almost everything is like real life including what happens when you try to drive ordinary cars really fast. I think I could spend a week just driving a Daihatsu around in circles.
Martin and I have got about six cars already including this sweet Ferari which neither of us can properly drive. But we will learn. Oh yes.
Panaracer Hiroads
I have some pretty good 26x1.5 Panaracer touring tyres. I can't take
them to Alice Springs because the NT has too many thorns. If anyone is
interested in them, they can have them.
them to Alice Springs because the NT has too many thorns. If anyone is
interested in them, they can have them.
Drupal 7
I've just installed Drupal 7 for a new media collective website I'm working on. The latest version is looking well slick.
Sunny Summers
I am having the nicest summer so far. Every day is a delight. I'm spent an almost perfect night and day in Hornsby with Hannah and Gem. And all the other days have been marvelous and full of friends as well. Although I have only been to the beach once.
Effects of Chernobyl
I'm reading about nuclear fuel supplies, nuclear accidents and the
consequences of Chernobyl. I'm basically opposed to nuclear energy due
to doubts about its costs and the risk that such concentrated energy
represents either as a fuel or as a weapon. The number of accidents in
the industry make me doubt our capacity to manage very dangerous
things safely, although this applies to plenty of industrial
technologies besides nuclear. So far it seems that there are few deaths attributable to nuclear
accidents. Excess deaths from Chernobyl appear to be around 20,000,
but this is based upon assumptions about total global radiation
exposure and the increased likelihood of a deadly cancer per unit of
radiation exposure. In the total context of industrial destruction
even 20,000 people dying over 40 years of an industry is not very
many. However, for that many people to die from one accident doesn't
inspire me to support a massive expansion of that industry. While reading a particularly pro-nuclear article, I came across this: > Bad administrative decisions made several million people believe that they were “victims of Chernobyl” although the average annual dose they received was only about one third of the average natural dose. This was the main factor responsible for the unnecessary economic losses, estimated to have reached $148 billion by 2000 for the Ukraine and to reach $235 billion by 2016 for Belarus. His basic argument is that while there were massive side-effects from
Chernobyl they all could have been avoided. Perhaps they could have,
however I think these costs still need to be attributed to the
industry. The uncertainty and fear about the nuclear industry is real
and is largely due to the unique aspects of nuclear technology. There
will never be a concentrating solar thermal accident that costs an
economy $235 billion, regardless how much its effects were to be
"irresponsibly exaggerated". Nobody could create or foment the same
sort of fear towards the solar industry, because the technology is
fundamentally more predictable and transparent. The widespread
opposition to the nuclear industry is certainly not arbitrary.
Economic costs due to uncertainty and fear are real costs. > There were 28 fatalities among rescue workers and employees at the power station due to very high doses of radiation, and 3 deaths due to other reasons. Otherwise, the only real adverse health consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe among approximately five million people living in the contaminated regions were the following: acquired psychosomatic afflictions that appear as diseases of the digestive and circulatory systems, and other post-traumatic stress disorders such as sleep disturbance, headache, depression, anxiety, escapism, “learned helplessness,” unwillingness to cooperate, overdependence, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicides. _[Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Minimal Radiation
Effects](http://knol.google.com/k/alexander-devolpi/chernobyl-nuclear-accident-minimal... It's harder to imagine a harsher interpretation of these health
consequences. Even if you agree that they entirely attributable to
"radiophobia" (a term which is very reminiscent of 1960s government
pro-nuclear propaganda), they are real effects upon real people.
Perhaps these effects would be less if there was another equivalent
disaster, but for all we know they could be greater. Most of a
continent lived under a toxic cloud for several days. Our science and
statistics are not good enough to tell us how much danger it actually
represented or even how toxic it was. But again, that is fundamental
to the type of toxicity. It affects people over decades, which makes
it incredibly hard to measure. The resulting uncertainty can't be
dismissed. I probably have much more critical things to say about the nuclear
industry, but my only real point here is that you can't exclude
negative impacts of something just because you hypothesise that they
could have been avoided. In the case of this article he brings up
these negative (and rather enormous) consequences as a criticism of
the "hysteria" following the meltdown. But even if you believe there
was an element of hysteria, the ultimate cause of these effects was
the meltdown itself.
consequences of Chernobyl. I'm basically opposed to nuclear energy due
to doubts about its costs and the risk that such concentrated energy
represents either as a fuel or as a weapon. The number of accidents in
the industry make me doubt our capacity to manage very dangerous
things safely, although this applies to plenty of industrial
technologies besides nuclear. So far it seems that there are few deaths attributable to nuclear
accidents. Excess deaths from Chernobyl appear to be around 20,000,
but this is based upon assumptions about total global radiation
exposure and the increased likelihood of a deadly cancer per unit of
radiation exposure. In the total context of industrial destruction
even 20,000 people dying over 40 years of an industry is not very
many. However, for that many people to die from one accident doesn't
inspire me to support a massive expansion of that industry. While reading a particularly pro-nuclear article, I came across this: > Bad administrative decisions made several million people believe that they were “victims of Chernobyl” although the average annual dose they received was only about one third of the average natural dose. This was the main factor responsible for the unnecessary economic losses, estimated to have reached $148 billion by 2000 for the Ukraine and to reach $235 billion by 2016 for Belarus. His basic argument is that while there were massive side-effects from
Chernobyl they all could have been avoided. Perhaps they could have,
however I think these costs still need to be attributed to the
industry. The uncertainty and fear about the nuclear industry is real
and is largely due to the unique aspects of nuclear technology. There
will never be a concentrating solar thermal accident that costs an
economy $235 billion, regardless how much its effects were to be
"irresponsibly exaggerated". Nobody could create or foment the same
sort of fear towards the solar industry, because the technology is
fundamentally more predictable and transparent. The widespread
opposition to the nuclear industry is certainly not arbitrary.
Economic costs due to uncertainty and fear are real costs. > There were 28 fatalities among rescue workers and employees at the power station due to very high doses of radiation, and 3 deaths due to other reasons. Otherwise, the only real adverse health consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe among approximately five million people living in the contaminated regions were the following: acquired psychosomatic afflictions that appear as diseases of the digestive and circulatory systems, and other post-traumatic stress disorders such as sleep disturbance, headache, depression, anxiety, escapism, “learned helplessness,” unwillingness to cooperate, overdependence, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicides. _[Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Minimal Radiation
Effects](http://knol.google.com/k/alexander-devolpi/chernobyl-nuclear-accident-minimal... It's harder to imagine a harsher interpretation of these health
consequences. Even if you agree that they entirely attributable to
"radiophobia" (a term which is very reminiscent of 1960s government
pro-nuclear propaganda), they are real effects upon real people.
Perhaps these effects would be less if there was another equivalent
disaster, but for all we know they could be greater. Most of a
continent lived under a toxic cloud for several days. Our science and
statistics are not good enough to tell us how much danger it actually
represented or even how toxic it was. But again, that is fundamental
to the type of toxicity. It affects people over decades, which makes
it incredibly hard to measure. The resulting uncertainty can't be
dismissed. I probably have much more critical things to say about the nuclear
industry, but my only real point here is that you can't exclude
negative impacts of something just because you hypothesise that they
could have been avoided. In the case of this article he brings up
these negative (and rather enormous) consequences as a criticism of
the "hysteria" following the meltdown. But even if you believe there
was an element of hysteria, the ultimate cause of these effects was
the meltdown itself.
Big Carparks
via Not Always Right | Funny & Stupid Customer Quotes by admin on 10/21/10
(Mall | Aurora, IL, USA)
(I work in security at a huge outlet mall. Occasionally, shoppers can’t find their car and we drive them around looking for it.)
Customer: “It seems my car was stolen. It definitely isn’t where I parked it.”
Me: “Okay, let’s drive around and just make sure it isn’t here.”
Customer: “This is ridiculous. I was here a year ago and it got stolen then, also!”
(We drive around the lots and all of a sudden she starts yelling.)
Customer: “Oh my god I don’t believe it! It’s here!
Me: “That’s your car?”
Customer: “No! I mean yes! That’s my car from last year. That’s right, that IS where I parked it!”
