Confluence setup error: Spring Application context has not been set

Here’s the error:
HTTP Status 500 – java.lang.IllegalStateException: Spring Application context has not been set

You’re trying to set up Confluence, but after “trying stuff”, you eventually get this error.

Here’s the fix:
Restart the Confluence setup wizard. How? Go to the following directory and delete the file confluence.cfg.xml:

That makes Confluenc run the setup wizard the next time you get there.

Here’s more of what you’ve likely been starting at on the error page. Hopefully this helped:

HTTP Status 500 – java.lang.IllegalStateException: Spring Application context has not been set

type Exception report

message java.lang.IllegalStateException: Spring Application context has not been set

description The server encountered an internal error that prevented it from fulfilling this request.


com.atlassian.util.concurrent.LazyReference$InitializationException: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Spring Application context has not been set

Splunk – forwarding to a receiver that forwards to an indexer

– Splunk Universal Forwarder on a server
– Pointed at a Splunk Enterprise instance that’s configured for receiving and forwarding (yeah, very easy)
– Receiver/Forwarder is pointed at another Splunk Enterprise instance that does the actual indexing

Note, if you have anything in props.conf on your indexer, you will have to put that on the receiver/forwarder. Otherwise it won’t work, and you’ll get the unclean rows. As soon as you put the same props.conf file on the receiver/forwarder instance, all is well again.

Figured I’d share. It could be a bit of a gotcha.

I’m linking to a Raph Koster post, as I’m sure all self-respecting gaming blogger should.  It’s entitled “A brief SF tale“.  It’s a short historical fiction on the nature of human ingenuity, a recurring theme for me over the past months.

Once Upon A Time, there were many sites dedicated to sharing photos, and videos, and for listening to music. But there was a war on, so the military blocked access to those sites because the traffic was huge, and soldiers kept leaking info they weren’t supposed to, and so on.
But soldiers, being trained to be smart and clever about working around limitations, found that for every Photobucket, there was a Flickr, and for every Pandora there was a private podcast, and so on.

I’d recommend reading the post in its entirety (it’s a quick read).  To me, the interestingly-worded theme is that when humans want something, like, actively want it, not just a passive “that would be nice”, generally, they figure out how to get it.  And when that something they want seems to them to be perfectly fine, there is very little that can get in their way.  So, those people in charge who make decisions on what is to be restricted.

This is not meant to be any sort of critique on the war in Iraq.  It’s not even meant to be a critique on war in general, though it’s included.  Incidentally, I bet most conflicts could be boiled down to a handful of people on one side of the conflict being pissed at the handful of people on the other side who are pissed at them.  When at least one of those two handfuls of people are top political “leaders” of their respective society, that’s when you get a war.  But that’s another topic entirely.

When a person wants something that makes perfect sense and is not blatantly, intrinsically wrong (like stealing a car or mugging someone), then not only can I guarantee you there will be many others wanting that thing, but I can promise you one of those people will figure out a way to get it.  The more obvious “things” today are music, movies, games, information-sharing, etc.  If the roadblock to getting said desired things is from some dictate, then those handing down that dicate need to revisit the entire situation.

In the case of online media distribution I think it’s the case of traditional distribution models being rendered obsolete, and the assumption such an event would be more bad than good, that prevents the wholesale embrace of online distribution.  Personal relationships figure in there to an unknown degree of course.  But the fact remains that people want music, tv shows, and movies online and what they want is not being made available in some way.  I think it’s likely a price issue, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.

In the case of soldiers inadvertently sharing sensitive intelligence, I’d argue the issue is a whole level of abstraction deeper.  Here’s what I mean.  If a person understands the situation in which they are in is of critical, immediate importance to their own well-being, then they will not share information that could compromise it. If there is a consistent problem of soldiers sharing sensitive information, then I think it’s obvious there is a general lack of conviction of the importance of the immediate situation in which those soldiers find themselves.  I think it’s quite possible this is due to the motivations, goals, and leadership of the war, and I am talking about the top political “leaders” that triggered and encourage the war, not the so much the military members.  And I think this points out what I think is a fact that most conflicts, whether wars or arguments between coworkers, are unnecessary.  They usually boil down to one or both sides refusing to swallow their pride, apologize for their part, and make it easy for the other side to do the same.  If caught early on, it’s relatively easy.  If left to fester for a while, it gets pretty difficult.  Didn’t we learn that in Kindergarten along with looking both ways before crossing the street?

this is not quite working…. .I’m getting distracted by all the aspects that seem directly relevant.

In my earlier post on items having static attributes or arbitrary attributes, the issue of how to organize items came up as something that must concurrently be considered when deciding on static, dev-created items or player-generated items.

In Eve Online, they have opted for static, dev-created items.  Crafters of a common item differentiate themselves only on the back end: profit margins.  All player-crafted 125mm Ionic Rail Guns, for example, are identical.  Now, the blueprints used to craft those rail guns, however, can be different.  But they are only different in how much time and materials are required to create the item.  A “better” crafter simply means he has a cheaper, more efficient way to produce the exact same item than a “lesser” crafter does.  A “better” crafter does not and cannot make an item with better attributes than a “lesser” crafter can.

Contract Eve Online with Star Wars Galaxies: the “better” crafter is the one who, in addition to sourcing materials cheaper, sources materials of better attributes and produces an item with better attributes than a “lesser” crafter can.

A democracy is a place where the majority sets the rules, an important characterstic of a democracy no doubt. But equally important, if those rules infringe on the human rights of the minority, it is no longer a democracy.

It strikes me the above line of reasoning may be a subset of a larger, more general rule.  Right now, the group whose human rights are important is the minority group.  What about cases where the human rights of the majority group are compromised?

Interestingly, the initial reaction focuses on the notion that the majority needs to be protected from themselves by some kind of legislation; and that something will typically be a positive something in a governmental role that acts as a kind of baby sitter. 

The point of the quote is that in order to protect the rights of the minority population there must be limits on what the majority can legislate.  However, take a step back and note that in order to protect the rights of the population in general there must be limits on what can legislated.  Put another way, there must be things government cannot mess with.  Or,

Reliability and How it Influences Economic Potential

Reliability is the single most important aspect of a successful economy.  This firstly originates from within the worldview of the population and secondly from the actions of the government.

In order for advanced financial products such as derivatives to exist, there must be a reliable trading market whose operational mechanisms are fully predictable.  In order for a trading market to exist there must be reliable banking and transaction systems in operation.  In order for banking and transaction systems to exist there must be a reliable rule of law that provides severe consequences for transaction and banking fraud or theft.  In order for a reliable rule of law to exist there must be a cultural and social desire to maintain a reliable rule of law, and there must be reliable sets of rules by which the enforcers abide.  It’s this last one that largely determines the strength of an economy.

The cultural and social desire to maintain a reliable rule of law.  I think you could look at this in terms of Game Theory, with the culture determining how a member of its population interprets the goal of “maximizing his returns”.  This is a touchy subject, since its logical extent lays the blame for economic failings at the feet of the cultural beliefs of the population(s) effected; and since any critique of one’s culture tends to be a very personal criticism, tempers typically begin to flare.

Climate Change

I’ve heard it said quite a few times that climate change is at this point inevitable.  I think there is some debate still over whether it’s us humans who are doing it or if it’s just the increased solar activity since the 60s, which incidentally, seems set to peak in 2010 or so. But that’s not what I’m writing about.  Pragmatically, the concerns over climate change center on increased weather fluxuations, rising sea levels, and “irridiation” of land.  Coming in on the same moment is the question of what we should do about it.

As far as governments go, nothing.  Governments should do nothing.  Let everyone figure it out.  Concentrate on maintaining law and order.

The thing is, climate change is going to happen slowly enough that the natural economy will easily be able to adapt to whatever environmental changes do occur.  Predictably, if hurricane activity increases, resulting in coastal areas getting destroyed, the [potential] cost of living or doing business in a coastal areas will further result in people moving inland.  Just give it 3 weather-related episodes.  Unfortunately, the brilliance of the collective intelligence that government is will result in exactly the kind of legislation being proposed in Mississippi and Louisiana that forces down the cost of living or doing business in coastal areas.  Humorously, however, the same people involved in that legislation are probably staying up nights worying about what should be done about climate change.

Check out the picture on this page. I guess my point is the kind of thing pictured won’t really happen without the express interference of government regulation.  Just let each person figure out what they need and let them do it.

All that laissez faire, libertarianism being said, I have no problems with certain efficiency targets.  However, I bet many inefficiencies are [still] present merely because of various other government-instituted regulation of dubious use.

Means of Expression and Transportation

A response to the following quote by Leon Trotsky here.

The real tasks of the workers’ state do not consist in policing public opinion, but in freeing it from the yoke of capital. This can only be done by placing the means of production – which includes the production of information – in the hands of society in its entirety. Once this essential step towards socialism has been taken, all currents of opinion which have not taken arms against the dictatorship of the proletariat must be able to express themselves freely. It is the duty of the workers’ state to put in their hands, to all according to their numeric importance, the technical means necessary for this, printing presses, paper, means of transportation.

What about when everyone has the means to express themselves freely as well as the means of transporation?  What if, presented with these means, a person still does not take up the cause against the bourgeois?  What if they simply write about celebrities’ misadventures,