hijack not autoupdating using jemplode

jemplode keeps telling me i must have an ethernet connection and hijack installed to upgrade hijack.
check and check
both are there, and hijack is a higher version than 242, which is what i thnk jemplode specified the first time.

also the animation download and upload otions dont work either, stating a similar error.

i must have an ethernet connection

Are you using the ethernet connection to connect between Jemplode and the player itself?

Have you password protected the Hijack servers on the player?

Can you connect to the Hijack web services from the same PC that's giving you the Jemplode error? (http://<yourempegaddress>)

Are you using the ethernet connection to connect between Jemplode and the player itself?

a direct cable connection, no. ive my empeg plugged into my rats nest

Have you password protected the Hijack servers on the player?

no

Can you connect to the Hijack web services from the same PC that's giving you the Jemplode error? (http://<yourempegaddress>

yes

Then I'm stumped, sorry. Mike?

I had this same problem. What I figure is that the Fujitsu drives are junk! But I found a work-around. I put a small 5GB IBM drive in mine as the slave drive, and everything works. Take it out, and I have the exact same problems you have. I really think it is the drives. I figure the fact that you can't auto update hijack doesn't fall under the warranty... besides the Fujitsu I have is my 3rd one. If you can get a spare drive to check it out, do it.

Bull-puckey.

The drives have nothing at all to do with self-updating Hijack, unless perhaps Jemplode has some such dependency (unlikely).

Try FTPing to your Hijack'ed player -- http proves nothing here -- FTP is required for the update function.

-ml

I'm getting the same thing. I can FTP, but can't login. It is like it still has a password set, even though I removed the entry. However, trying the password I had set doesn't work.

Now, if I go in and set a password, then I can get in just fine. As soon as I try and remove it, I run into the same problem...

b13, v293


EDIT: Wait, I got it. I set:

kftpd_password=

Unplugged the empeg. That didn't work. So, then I completely removed the line (again, it was gone before the previous step), and unplugged it. Plugged it back in and now I'm up to v298.

Hey, I can't explain it, but it worked. Mike and I tried to figure it out back in march here.

The "empty" password you had in config.ini must have had trailing spaces/tabs. If it was REALLY empty, it would have worked as you expected (I just verified this on my own unit right now).

cheers

In reply to:

---

The "empty" password you had in config.ini must have had trailing spaces/tabs.

---

Or perhaps a trailing carriage-return? If it was transferred using FTP from a CRLF system using "binary" mode, perhaps.

>Or perhaps a trailing carriage-return?

Naw, Hijack handles those just fine.

I thought I checked for that, but that could've been it.

It was just odd that, even though the line was completely gone, it still was requiring a password. That is, until I did the add/remove again.

well, not sure what was going on yesterday at all.
i plugged in my empeg this morning, opened jemplode, it said v299 hijack is now out lets upgrade. i said sure, why not. it upgraded fine.
it now tells me that my hijack is up to date if i click on update hijack.

strange.

Is that really your license plate?

You probably got confused by the reboot requirement somewhere along the way. Not a player "restart', but rather a good old fashioned cycle-the-power reboot (or Hijack menu reboot). The httpd/ftpd options require a real reboot before certain changes can be recognized.

-ml

Is that really your license plate?

yep, and yes

hmm... i dont think that that was the problem mark, as yesterday wasnt the first day it didnt let me update it, and since i take it home with me every night it had to have been power cycled.

I have Hijack v293 installed at the moment, and hijack won't autoupdate for me either. In my case ftp seems to be broken too though. I can open an ftp connection to the empeg, and some commands such as cd, pwd and ? work, but ls and dir return:
500 Bad Command
200 Okay
150 Openning Data Connection
and then it just sits there doing nothing until I kill the session.

I don't have any kftpd_passwork line in my config.ini either. Here is what I do have in the Hijack section:
[output]
notify=1
[hijack]
temperature_correction=-3
suppress_notify=1
disable_bass_boostFM=1
volume_boost_FM=6
volume_boost_AM=-2
kftpd_show_dotfiles=1
khttpd_show_dotfiles=1

I'm running Mac OS X, but that shouldn't really effect anything here. Any suggestions (apart from loading the newest Hijack over serial - can't get to a machine with a serial port for a couple of weeks ...).

See if removing the show dotfiles lines helps.

nah, not a sausage

A full power-cycle of the player (pull the power plug) was done after removing those lines? Not just a synch?

I've been curious about this for a while now, how do US number (licence) plates work?

In the UK they uniquely identify the vehicle which in turn gives traceability to the registered owner.

I've seen on this board two 'empeg' number plates and now a highly desirable and I guess duplicable 'h4xor' plate and was wondering.....
If you get seen speeding or knocking little old ladies down, how are the police gonna get ya'? I presume they can and do but how?

yep, realised that. Did it too. Didn't help :-( Put *seems* to work, so if I could remember the name of the flash device I could try loading a new kernel ... am not so sure if I want to risk it though. An empeg that works fine, albeit with an older kernel, is much much better than an empeg with no kernel at all!! ;-)

They are unique to each U.S. state... Rob in New York, Tony in California.

And to elaborate on the state thing...

Each state in the US has some things that are governed differently for each state. Vehicle registration and even some traffic laws differ from state to state.

For instance, in some states, it is legal to make a right turn onto a street against a red light, as long as you stop and check for oncoming traffic (treat it like a stop sign), in some states it is not. It's rather frustrating when I'm behind a person with out-of-state plates and they are waiting for the red light to turn green before turning right.

We pay both state and federal taxes, and the taxes are different from state to state. Some states have a sales tax, others do not, for example. And property and income taxes and the tax laws vary from state to state.

Some states do not allow you to pump your own gas, there are no "self service" pumps in those states.

I haven't been to Utah in a long time, but when I was there last (nearly 20 years ago), restaurants were not allowed to serve Alcohol on Sunday. My stepfather insulted a waitress when she wouldn't serve him a martini when we stopped in Utah on a cross country trip.

So it does get kind of confusing.

Geez...I thought Quebec was the only place in the modern world that had that wierd rule obout no right turns on reds. AFAIK, it's the only province in Canada that has it. It really sucks too.

actually the rest of the modern world doesn't allow you to turn right on reds (or left for that matter in countries where they drive on the left). It's only you strange people in North America that allow it. We all have to wait for green arrows to be allowed to do that (although in Germany they are sometimes painted on!)

Hi.

It even makes a difference if the green (right) arrow is painted or lit:
A lit arrow tells you that you can turn without paying much attention to traffic from other directions, all you have to care about are pedestrians who might have a green (aka "walk") light as well as you.
A painted arrow tells you that you are allowed to turn, but only if the other traffic allows it (you have to stop first). Of course, pedestrians might still be crossing the road you want to turn to, so you also have to watch them.

Personally, I think this is a helpful way of handling right turns on red lights:
You are generally not allowed to turn right on red, except expresssively allowed. The different handling of green light and green paint might be confusing at first, but it still has it advantages to those who plan traffic flow and traffic control as well as for the drivers themselves.

cu,
sven

Pennsylvania allows right turns on red, however here in Pittsburgh there are probably too many intersections where this would lead to accidents. So most intersections have these big 'No Turn on Red' signs.

We do have the Pittsburgh left to compensate for the loss in right turns.

In the UK, we've figured out how to sequence our traffic lights so that pedestrians don't get a green light at the same time as the traffic .

Well here in the US most places we don't care about the pedestrian. It's only when the body count gets too high do we bother with crosswalks, lights and perhaps beepers for the blind.

Ever see Deathrace 2000?

-Zeke (in an evil mood)

We got "Right on Red" as a standard during one of the oil embargoes as a means to save fuel in the 70s.

Too many traffic light controllers are sufficiently old (as are the signals they control) to make arrows difficult, and we wouldn't want green arrows anyhow; "Right on Red" you must yield to other traffic where a "green arrow" (painted or not) would imply no conflicting maneuvers were possible (except possibly a flashing walk sign and thus people crossing in front of you).

Well, for all the green arrows I've seen, they're always timed with the walk signs so that pedestrians aren't supposed to walk while you've got a green arrow. Now, 75% of pedestrians(including myself) pay no attention to the walk signs, so it's a moot point...

Matthew

actually the rest of the modern world doesn't allow you to turn right on reds

Probably because the rest of the modern world believes in roundabouts instead of 5 billion red lights all timed wrong between you and your destination.

(The light timing situation here in Colorado Springs has irritated me quite a bit lately. I'm currently researching exactly what government building I need to visit to file a complaint.)

...only in the US could convenience win over safety. I have no problem with right-on-red in principle, although I'd much rather have arrows - green for go, flashing yellow for yield. But at least the right-on-red could be made fail-safe by disallowing it unless explicitly signed otherwise. There's too many junctions where the "No turn on red" sign is posted obscurely and too easy to miss.

I doesn't make any difference, since people regularly ignore clearly posted no-right-on-red signs. But (possibly) even more annoying are the unnecessary ones, where everything is clearly visible, yet they've decided you can't turn right on red anyway, for no discernible reason.

One thing i noticed in london last time i visited, was before the light turns green, the yellow yield light comes on for a second to let you know the light is about to turn. This is something that my city here in the usa needs to implement!

the yellow yield light comes on for a second to let you know the light is about to turn. This is something that my city here in the usa needs to implement!

What, so people can jump the gun on the green, and slam into all the other people running the red light on the cross street?

exactly

Actually it works pretty well. I quite like it in comparison to NZ where it goes straight from red to green. I think part of the idea here is Germany is that you can turn your motor off while you are stopped at the lights, and the amber before the green gives you enough time to get it going again without holding things up. You are taught to turn the motor off whenever you can to reduce fuel consumption and pollution when you get you drivers licence here. The timing of the lights is usually quite well set up too, and if someone is still sitting in the intersection when you get the amber/green people are *usually* reasonably patient. Well that's my experience.

I think part of the idea here is Germany is that you can turn your motor off while you are stopped at the lights

Except that starting your engine consumes more fuel and produces more pollution than if you'd just let it idle.

Not to mention the additional wear and tear on the engine because starting causes more wear and tear than just running. And then there's the chance of causing a traffic jam because sometimes cars stall when you try to start them......

depends how long you sit there idling really doesn't it, and don't forget that Europeans drive small fuel efficient cars with hightech engine management systems - they don't need one gallon of fuel just to turn the motor over like some of Detroit "iron", they start with almost no effort at all.

The wear and tear thing, well Germany does have an automobile industry to support ;-) and really that isn't a big thing.

And causing traffic jams because you stall the thing, well you shouldn't be on the road if you can't drive should you Actually the worst that usually happens there is that you get tooted at by the car behind you, just like you would if you weren't paying attention and missed the light going green. Can't imagine that actually causing a traffic jam!

depends how long you sit there idling really doesn't it

It would have to be a very very long time, longer than any stoplight I know of.

well think about this, if you're sitting at the lights for 2 minutes, which can happen, and your 2l engine idles at 800 rpm then in that time you have produced 800l of exhaust gas. Even if you have a slightly richer mixture to start the engine you aren't going to produce anywhere that much polution. Don't forget, we're talking about hot starts here, NOT cold starts! That is someting completely different!

That's one of those urban legends i've heard a million times that is in no way true. Every source i've found says that idling for more than 30 seconds causes more pollution than restarting (some say 10 seconds), and the engine wear part is pretty bunk as well IMHO... this is a warm start.

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/reflect/mar1102.htm
http://www.drivecleanacrosstexas.org/help.stm
http://shellne.com/enviro.html#ques8
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:5EwAuZ2ESYIC:prairie.sierraclub.ca/idling/+idling+less+gas+starting+engine&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

there's TONS more....

the car talk boys say more than three minutes, but what the hell do they know. =]

the car talk boys say more than three minutes, but what the hell do they know. =]

Yeah, I was going by their information, stating that you could let your car idle for very long periods of time and it would hardly use any gas at all.

welp, every clean air organization on earth (okay, so i've really only found like 7) and what appears to be everyone else disagrees with them. Anyone find some imperical evidence on this... expirement or something? I've always followed the "shut it off it you're sitting for more than 30 seconds" mantra, with the exception of stop lights.

I've always followed the "shut it off it you're sitting for more than 30 seconds" mantra,

I'm on your side with this one, loren.

When your engine is idling, it is burning gasoline. When it is off, it is not.

With modern fuel management systems, it takes no more fuel to start an engine than it does for the engine to idle -- there is no fuel enrichment with a hot engine; one second the engine is off; the next second it is idling at 800-1000 rpm and nothing unusual is going on regarding fuel consumption during the startup cycle.

As for wearing things out... the only thing getting extra wear is your electric starter. Well, maybe the alternator and battery have to do a bit of extra work, but nothing significant. I think I'd rather wear out my $150 starter than my $4500 engine.

This idling argument is related to the (mostly mis-informed) opinions of people who think they are doing their engine a favor when they start it up in the morning and let it warm up for 20 minutes before they drive away. Better to just get in and go -- assuming moderate use of throttle for at least the first couple of minutes. The engine will warm up much faster that way, and what wears engines out is how many times do the pistons go up and down when the engine is cold and the tolerances and clearances are not optimal. Sooner you get it warmed up, the better -- not to mention the extra wear on the engine just from sitting there idling.

Well, now I've probably gone and started a religious argument... so bring on the heretics and the true believers and get those torches lit.

tanstaafl.

i'll try a hijack update on my OS X box tomorrow and see what happens ....

a what??
oh yeah..

heh, this topic got so far ot i almost forgot why i started it.

>>What, so people can jump the gun on the green, and slam into all the other people running the red light on the cross street?

No - the red and amber come on as the green on the cross street goes to red giving time for the cross traffic to get out the way before you jump the green.

A lot of junctions here do have cameras to get you if you are too early, so usually you just get your revs up to 5,000 or so and wait for the green to dump the clutch

I'm sure it reduces wear and tear on people's hearts. When I've been abroad and the light goes from red to green I'm like, "Whoa" and it's a bit of a shock. In the UK it's all pretty relaxing really.

Just to clarify: Traffic light sequencing in the UK is:

1. Red
2. Red+Orange
3. Green
4. Orange
5. Red

Pedestrian (pelican) crossings are the same, except that step 2 is flashing orange -- meaning that there might still be pedestrians on the crossing.

There is no right (or left, in this case) turn on red.

4. Orange

I though that was ``amber''. (As in ``although my name's not Bamber.'')

There is no right (or left, in this case) turn on red.

Some places in the US you can turn left on red, when turning from a one-way street to another one-way street. At least that's what it said in my drivers' ed handbook. Not around here, though, despite the profusion of one-way streets.

I'm a guy. What do I know about the difference between orange and amber? Two shades of the same colour, no?

Some places in the US you can turn left on red.... Not around here, though

Tell me about it...I got pulled in NC for doing that. I told the officer I had just moved out from CA where it was legal and they let me go with a warning.

I'm so glad I live in an almost-civilized state. If only we had West Virginia's 70mph speed limit to go with out left-on-red-at-one-way-intersections, no silly cell phone bans, etc...

Some places in the US you can turn left on red

Colorado is one of the places. The law is written to indicate a car may always turn at a red if the driver treats it as a stop, and by turning, the driver never crosses a path of travel opposite to theirs.

We have a normal intersection in the northern part of Colorado Springs with two right turn lanes, and turns are allowed from both on red.

If only we had West Virginia's 70mph speed limit

Speed limit on I25 is 75mph most of the way, and State Patrol rarley pulls anyone over unless they are going over 85. Problem recently though has been the huge amount of traffic between Denver and Colorado Springs. It's near impossible to average even 70mph now on that stretch. (Though the 3 lane expansion between Castle Rock and Denver has helped quite a bit)

I can't remeber exactly who did this (but I think it was VW). The had a small car (a Lupo IIRC) with automatic gear switching running on a small and efficient diesel engine (something like 3 litres per 100km). They did three tests:

1. Let the engine idle at stops.
2. Automatically stop the engine when the car stood. Restarts where also automatic on first touch of the gas pedal.
3. Automatically stop the engine when slowing down (actually whenever the brake was used), restart automatically when releasing the brake (if not standing) or when gas pedal is touched.
   

Restarting the engine took only about 0.5 seconds. Well the outcome was like this: Stopping the engine whenever the car stood (which includes traffic lights, ordering at drive-throughs, traffic jam etc.) caused the amount of fuel need to drop by about 10% (almost completely independent of the driver). Stopping the engine whenever the brake was used dropped it by another 5-10%, depending on the driver.
Most experts at that time agreed that higher consumption engines might have even bigger savings. IMO its a pity that technology didn't make it into everydays cars.

cu,
sven

Melbourne has two dumb traffic laws.
1. turn left on red
2. turn right from left lane. although this is being phased out i believe.

We drive on the correct (left) side of the road so turn left on red is possible. Due to the trams in the middle of many roads in Melbourne you must get into the left lane so you don't clog up the tramway. Many situations that let you do this now have signs saying you cant.

It is a silly place