I won’t bore you with the gory details (for a change). Suffice to say that the machine henceforth known as Tenchi is alive and accepting file transfers.
Yes, I named it Tenchi. (Sorry, Ben, but the Holy Grail Naming Scheme is now almost fully defunct.)
And now for a few late nights spent copying files and attempting to ensure that when I make the big switcheroo we won’t face immediate disaster. Wish me luck. Better yet, bring me snack food. Or just help keep me awake.
This morning the last of the hard drives arrived. Yippee! I gleefully unwrapped them, placed them into the Proliant DL380 chassis and tapped the Power button.
Let me state that the Proliant DL380 rackmount server is one of the noisiest chassis I’ve ever heard. It sounds like there’s a small aircraft experiencing engine trouble in my office.
After a couple of false starts (in other words, I tried to do things my way instead of the right way) I ran the SmartStart ™ CD-ROM and told the machine I wanted to install Netware 5.x.
But, you see, when the BIOS options says “Netware 5.x/6.0,” what it really means is “Netware 5.1/6.0,” and my copy of Netware 5.0 is system-non-grata.
Then I tried the so-called “manual” method, just booting from the Netware CD and letting things fly. Alas, it wasn’t meant to be.
That’s right, folks. It is impossible for Netware 5.0’s installer to recognize the array controller of a HP/Compaq Proliant DL380 G3. (Does Apple know that they’re using the “Gx” nomenclature, by the way?)
As things now stand, I’m sitting at my desk waiting for a quote from CDW on the cost of Netware 5.1 plus upgrade licenses for 150 connections. If the price tag doesn’t a) cause heart failures along Officer’s Row and/or b) get me fired, it’ll still be a couple of days before I can start on this project.
Again.
The best-case scenario, right now, is that I’m going to lose my Memorial Day weekend for this stupid project. I don’t want to think about the worst-case scenarios.
|
Conscious self
|
Overall self
|
 |
 |
Take Free Enneagram Test
The results page goes on to add,
Your mean type is a better predictor of how you generally act whereas your main type reflects how you prefer to act. By analogy, if you were a bus with nine different possible drivers, your main type is the most frequently used driver (which suggests you prefer that behavior/driver) but your mean type represents the sum influence of all nine drivers. Another way to look at it is that your mean type reflects where you are overall in the evolutionary race and your main type reflects the direction you are most often choosing to move in (if it’s higher than your mean type you are moving forward, otherwise you are moving backward or nowhere). Most Enneagram books and tests focus on main type and use an additional “variant” classification to account for the influence of the other eight behavior types (drivers). Based on your test results your variant is Sexual. So when reading other Enneagram books or websites refer to the Type 6w7, Sexual variant descriptions.
Derive what amusement from all of this that you can, friends.
A few quickies for the day, in lieu of actual content. (One could argue that all of my entries are “in lieu of actual content,” I suppose.)
Off to the left, down where the other buttons live, is my GeoURL link. Yes, you can find me (or people near me) by physical location. Isn’t technology grand? Just more proof that I’m probably not as paranoid as I ought to be, or something.
Off to the right, below the daily email address link, are my instant messaging system nicknames. The AOL Instant Messenger one is also a link to send me a quick message. As AIM’s the system I’m almost always on, I figure that’s the only one I’ll bother putting a link for.
In other news, Intellectual Orgy can be traded on BlogShares. I leave the value of this fact as an intellectual exercise for the reader, given that I’m not really that vigorous about “playing” the BlogShares game.
Uncle Pete will be sending me a copy of his write-up of the story of Uncle George’s passing at some point in the (relatively) near future. Shortly afterward it will become a permanent part of this website. If you’re so inclined, please think positive thoughts in the direction of southern Texas. Pete can use all the love and joy he can get right about now.
That’s all for tonight, folks. Maybe I’ll do some photography for next time. What do you think?
PAST: – When we’re young, we tend to believe the silliest things. Superstitions like “step on a crack,” for instance, wreak havoc with our grasp of cause-and-effect. What childhood superstition kept you hopping, as it were?
PRESENT: – Discarding probability math in favor of superstition, what’s your lucky number and what’s it done for you lately?
FUTURE: – Gazing into your crystal ball for a moment, do you see the world becoming more cold-eyed and skeptical, or more prone to voodoo philosophies and superstitions? In the end, will the likes of James Randi and Michael Shermer win, or will the John “Crossing Over With” Edwards of the world triumph over sense and reason?
Gee, are my prejudices on full display or what? Hey, it’s my meme, so deal with it. Thpppt.
You know the drill, ladies and germs. Leave a comment (quack me up!) with your answers or a link thereto, and if you should choose to link back here, please use http://greyduck.net/ppf/ as that will always point to the most-current entry. Thank you!
So I was chatting this afternoon with someone who mentioned that in a particular movie they’d seen very recently, one of the lead characters used the butt end of a bladed weapon to hit his opponent. I was instantly reminded of one more bit of pain from my new least-favorite movie. (See two entries down, if you’re new here.)
At what point did swords become blunt instruments? When you give someone a sword and place them in harm’s way, surrounded by armed opponents who are (presumably) trying to kill the aforementioned someone… why does that someone not use the dangerous part of the weapon against those opponents? I’ve lost track of how many times a supposedly-intelligent hero grabs a sword, bangs it against the other guy’s sword a few times and then proceeds to either kick, punch or bludgeon the other guy, often with the pommel of his sword. I’m not impressed.
At first we only saw this sort of thing in TV shows of the “Saturday Afternoon Special” variety. You know, Hercules and Beastmaster and, oh, a bunch of other craptacular shows whose names escape me. Apparently it’s catching on in moviemaking, though, a trend that only fills me with dread as political correctness wins out over anything resembling suspension of disbelief.
Please don’t give me any nonsense about reducing the level of violence for the sake of the younger viewers, either. All you’re teaching the kiddies is that swords are perfectly safe and can’t hurt anybody. Oh, and that heroes are phenomenally stupid gits who carry the day with sheer luck and a sprinkling of charm. If you want to protect the children from violence, make sure they don’t watch violent shows. It’s a radical notion, to be sure.
I’m not asking for blood and guts. I would, however, like at least the illusion that enemies are being dispatched through something resembling sensible use of the weapons at hand. Perhaps I’m expecting too much of my mindless fantasy entertainment…
