Pavitra wrote:
> - reboot everything
Hmm, I might not have power-cycled the router, will try that
later. Linux server has gone through 'ifdown eth0; ifup eth0'
which should suffice.
> - assign static rather than dynamic ip addresses
The router acts like it allows this, then ignores it.
> - tu
> (in case anyone has any ideas)
Not really, but it's worth running quickly through the usual suspects
just in case.
- reboot everything
- assign static rather than dynamic ip addresses
- assign a large static ip address (.100) in case another device gets
dynamically assigned the .10
- turn off a
Short version: wifi router flakiness, zenith.homelinux.net may be
randomly unavailable for a few more days.
Long version (in case anyone has any ideas): We had a router die on us
on Saturday. While the new one mostly works, it insists on randomly
switching the home server from 192.168.0.10 to .
On 1 August 2011 17:46, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 11:21 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
>> [Preamble: contracts used to be able to impose SHALL requirements. I
>> believe the following will in effect enable the same for Promises,
>> without most of the problems that the old system had.]
>>
>> I
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> If any modification to the Asset rules would be effective
> at changing the properties of Promises, then clearly that gives a
> escalation scam at Power 2.
The way it's supposed to work now is a compromise: a power-2 scam
could transfer exist
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 08:18, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 31 July 2011 23:54, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> Set the power of rule 2166 (Assets) to 3.
>>
>> [Rationale: promises are assets at Power 3, so the defining rule needs
>> to be, too.]
>
> Why?
Many of the asset properties of promises don't fall
On 08/01/2011 11:46 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 11:21 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
>> [Preamble: contracts used to be able to impose SHALL requirements. I
>> believe the following will in effect enable the same for Promises,
>> without most of the problems that the old system had.]
>>
>> I s
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 11:21 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> [Preamble: contracts used to be able to impose SHALL requirements. I
> believe the following will in effect enable the same for Promises,
> without most of the problems that the old system had.]
>
> I submit the following proposal, "SHALL Promise
On 31 July 2011 23:54, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Set the power of rule 2166 (Assets) to 3.
>
> [Rationale: promises are assets at Power 3, so the defining rule needs
> to be, too.]
Why?
--
Charles Walker
9 matches
Mail list logo
