So I guess a.WAV file would be better than an MP3, which would be better than OGG? Too much compression?:^)
But seriously, I agree with you. There are human aspects to music performance, the rhythm of the bow on a violin, the concordance of keys being hit on a piano, that are no longer limitations on the production of music using a synthesizer.
It's a well known effect of rhythm to induce hypnotic states that is used by revival preachers all the time, while it may be they don't know how they do what they do, but that they have a "feel" for what works. Mozart could easily have had just such a "feel" for what positively effected people. Remember that he started writing in the Baroque period, where mathematical precision and principles were being explored in music. See Bach for instance.
I was listening to the closing theme for Full Metal Alchemist, and I realized that right at the beginning of the song is a scale sequence that climbed well beyond any physical instrument I've ever heard of. It was a very eery effect, still perfectly in tune but just plain *wrong* to my ear. I have heard several performances of Baroque by modern artists who "interperate" the rhythm, and that too just sounds so *wrong*, so imprecise and chaotic compared to how it was written to be played.
I kid you not, the Debian Weekly News has several times included discussions about dropping "non-free" entirely.
This is something I personally consider a bad idea, as a long time Debian user. As dcocos says, just make it available explicitly as non-free the same way the nvidia drivers are now.
This has bitten me enough times in the past that I assume it any time a "media" file skips. Thanks for posting it first, from the rest of the comments it didn't occur to too many folks.
Bob-
Debian with 2.6.4 and it works like a charm.
on
Linux 2.6.5 is Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Don't delay, there's no reason to. There are enough differences between 2.4.x and 2.6.x that if you will want to upgrade, do it sooner rather than later. It took me a while to get everything hammered out.
TLS libraries, for instance, as well as pcmcia and alsa changes. 2.6 is also doing substantially more hardware discovery, which caused me a bit of trouble on my annoying Vaio laptop until I figured out what kernel modules to remove from the tree so they couldn't be installed.
As you already know, installing a later tertiary kernel version is very easy under Debian.
Bob-
Re:IP6s problem is much deeper than that.
on
The State of IPv6
·
· Score: 1
Maybe you didn't actually read my argument. I believe that increasing the address space and simplifying the protocol, rather than adding things like QoS, is exactly what should happen.
It is the additional crud that I disagree with. Smart hosts and relatively stupid (reliable!) network hardware is the way to go, not the other way around.
So what, exactly, do you disagree with me about?
Bob-
Re:IP6s problem is much deeper than that.
on
The State of IPv6
·
· Score: 1
IPv6 routing tables are much smaller because the address allocations are being done in a much more efficient manner.
Good. That has nothing to do with the protocol, however, that is simply the result of having an opportunity to "do it all over again" with present day conditions. The same would happen with IPv4 if the IANA were to completely reallocate. I agree it's a real benefit, but IPv6 is not the source of this benefit.
Also, IPv6 is simpler to route than IPv4, because header processing was simplified.
Interesting. What header? All but the first and last router don't care about anything but the source and destination address, and most times not about the source address at all. So what else is there to simplify?
I repeat my statement about "leaving it out", which seems to be what you are saying. Elimination of UDP, for instance, is done by leaving it out, and would simplify.
Bob-
IP6s problem is much deeper than that.
on
The State of IPv6
·
· Score: 1
If the only change were to increase the addressing to 128 bits, that would be wonderful.
The benefits of unique addressing every device exist, as do the benefits of NAT. It would be nice to have the choice of where to apply each of those techniques instead of being shoe-horned into NAT by necessity.
There is no technical reason not to use the period, our good friend ".", to act as a separator just the way that "." does now. I've seen lots of uses of the decimal representation of the 32 bit IPv4 addressing, especially in spam as an obfuscation method, like "http://2349879177/vi@gara/porn.cgi"
There is, however, no other benefit of IPv6. People can yell "better routing" all day long, it doesn't make it so. Routing tables are not improved by being made larger. All it means is greater and greater functionality required of the networking hardware, which means just more and more ways for the network itself to fail.
Several people have asserted that IPv6 fixes the "problems" of IPv4. The cure is worse than the disease.
I have a challange for supporters of IPv6: Leaving out the increase in addressable space, what is being "fixed" that simply leaving it out of the specification wouldn't solve?
I've lived in the North East of the United States, so I have a clue here to share with you.
During winter, ice and wind can break tree branches. This should be obvious, and some of the trees are of a type called "Sugar Maple".
When spring comes, the sap flows up into the trees to supply the growing leaf buds.
Sap, reaching the broken branches, leaks out. Sometimes, actually most years, it's still cold enough to make litteral "sap icecles" hanging from the broken tree branches.
Guess what? That frozen sap tastes great! Bring some in, put it in a pot on the wood stove to warm up....and what happenes when it's forgotten? It boils down a bit and becomes thicker. A curious person, with lots of time on their hands due to the snow on the ground, and wa-la. Maple Syrup.
You might as well ask yourself who invented lye-soap. Boil-down water that has leached through wood ash, take the resulting residue and mix it with lard, and wa-la! Soap!
By saying it "[s]eems like a lot of random crap", you under estimate the curiousity of billions of human beings who have lived before you. Minds as fantastic as Einstein, Liebnitz, Von Savant, have happened before, sometimes in the bodies of poor farmers with nothing to do but look at what was going on around them in tree sap, wood ash, and left-over animal fat.
No one told Firestone to mix sulphur with the rubber and fry it, he just tried it one day for the heck of it. And I thank Cromm for such curiosity, for we would all be pounding rocks without it.
One of the major reasons for the Militaries use of OSS is that it is auditable. Anyone who has worked for a government agency knows how important it is once in a while to explain and demonstrate how and why of what they do.
A substantial sore point for closed source software is that it cannot be reviewed. That is why the Military writes so much of its own code.
Now with the faucet running full-on with OSS, they can and do examine the code, build from source, and even make desired changes. Because They Can.
That is not to say that the Military operations and internal efforts are visible from the outside, it is to say that they are visible on the inside.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Perens helped solidify the organizational structure of Debian over the course of years. For that I am grateful.
But there is something between him and KDE. After he left Debian, KDE was brought in and is now well supported and integrated within Debian. I very much like being able to run Qt and GTK applications seamlessly at the same time regardless of what the window manager is.
As titular head of this UserLinux thing, he comes out and declares that the desktop will be GNOME and only GNOME.
Yet, right there for everyone to see, is Debian with GNOME and KDE existing side by side without conflict.
I'm sure Mr. Perens has a good reason for his preference. I cannot imagine what it is.
...and Unstable for those of us who live on the bleeding edge. Seriously, living on the edge is not fun. When the maintainers decide to change the wireless LAN software so that my 802.11 card is no longer eth1 but now wlan0, I need to be able to reconfigure quickly so that my laptop isn't unusable for an extended period.
That's why it's called unstable, because it really is. Things change, sometimes substantially.
Every objection you have is valid, with the caviat that Debian is not difficult for someone who has done it more than once. Installing Debian doesn't take me multiple hours or days, it takes little for the base install and the pre-designed task-based "standard" packages. Just because I choose to select packages through dselect one at a time doesn't mean you have to.
Knoppix is indeed astounding, and the hardware detection system Knopper uses is being fed back into the main distribution. When I installed on the laptop I'm using right now, a Vaio PCG-GRT170, I used Knoppix as the install medium.
I would not recomend this method unless Knoppix does everything you want it to do already, or you like installing software by hand. The dependencies and unique packages built into Knoppix make bringing it into the mainstream Debian update system a serious effort.
If you want to install Debian, get the minimalist 30MB CD image. This puts a small base system in place to be built into whatever you want it to be.
Seriously, sounds good. I don't even mind going to the 128 bits that are the address in IPv6. The adding of two octetts was merely what I thought the "6" was in IPv6 when I first heard of it.
Here's our disagreement: The problems as I see them are from trying to build functionality into the "routing" layer 3. I surmize from your tone that you would disagree, and wish to increase the functionality within that layer.
Where I see pointless complexity, others see desired functions such as QoS and VPN tagging. While I desire to make stupid, fast, reliable network devices and leave the intellegence to the hosts, there are people who disagree.
So what are the "problems" that IPv4 has, other than address space, that you would fix?
IPv6 sucks. Not because it doesn't work, but because it is designed to do too much.
The substantial increase in overhead in every packet increases traffic without increasing data being transfered.
The substantial increase in overhead at the router level to deal with all the added "functionality".
But let us discuss the rational for doing it at all: The increase in available space is nice all by itself, and could be accomplished, again, all by itself, by simply increasing the number of octetts in the address.
Rather than a "dotted quad", how about a "dotted sextet"? 65.188.192.168.4.4
That is in fact what I thought "v6" meant when I first heard about it. A simple and direct improvement in the one place where it could serve to be improved....but too bad. Now we have a Godzilla of a protocol being speced by people in the marketing department.
Do get on with your other projects, it's not worth the stresses to try to undo what cannot be undone by one person.
What you can do is change how you deal with money. Keep your money in things that are real, such as business investments, gold, land, things that the governments cannot create out of thin air. That way, when you need it, the "value" will be the same even when inflation would have made your $100 worth $50 during that same time.
One reason that Canada's "dollar" is worth a fraction of the US "dollar" is because Canada is printing (inflating) their currency even faster than the US is.
It's because the Fed is such an easy target. By printing money, it robs citizens of their savings by creating inflation. It ensures that bank executives who abuse their position are insulated from having their banks fail due to their mismanagement.
It also means that the government gets to print money to pay for programs any time that it would not be able to fund by direct taxation due to cost or unpopularity of the program.
With a commodity standard of trade, such as gold, the government cannot simply print money. It must balance its budget, it must justify its taxation to the taxpayer without being able to hide the true costs.
You are asking me a lot of "do they..." questions without noticing how things are done right here, right now.
In those places where many people utilize private agents for security, there are many different agencies of differing sizes. Some communities contract "together" for security, some places people do it one by one.
In all those situations, explicit contracts outlining responsibilities exist.
Yes, everything you suggest as negative repercussions can exist, just as with any human endevour. However, unlike governments, when Brinks and Pinkertons have a disagreement, they don't shoot each other.
Private security is not an "ism", it is freedom of contract for services, and it has always existed even when the State maintains its own internal military (aka "police").
Then why did crimes continue to be comitted? Did any of the crime victims get restituted by the police for their failure to protect them?
Democracy sucks. I have to pay for sub-standard services whether I use them or not. If I am not happy with the service of a private company, I can choose not to pay them.
Under this "democracy" crap, if I am dissatisfied I am forced to move or I am imprisoned if I do not pay for the services I neither want nor use.
Go ahead and show me anywhere that the police have been held accountable for failure to protect their citizenry. Just one. Even when the LAPD abandoned the city to rioters, no one in the police department was held accountable for "failure to protect". Get it?
Bob-
Re:"...at the expense of the poor who deserve..."
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
My appologies good sir if it was meant to be sarcastic. There was this thing about "their own money" which made my conclusion less than %100, I should have known better.
Cops have absolutely no legal requirement to "defend" anyone against crime. It's been repeated over and over in court, you cannot sue the police for failure to protect. There are lots of citations for this on the interested web sites, such as GOA and JPFO.
On the other hand, if I contract with a private agency, I can specify exactly what I want and they are contract bound to perform to that standard.
Bureaucrats are not even punished for failure to abide their own laws, much less the non-existant "social contracts".
Slashdot Mirror
So I guess a .WAV file would be better than an MP3, which would be better than OGG? Too much compression? :^)
But seriously, I agree with you. There are human aspects to music performance, the rhythm of the bow on a violin, the concordance of keys being hit on a piano, that are no longer limitations on the production of music using a synthesizer.
It's a well known effect of rhythm to induce hypnotic states that is used by revival preachers all the time, while it may be they don't know how they do what they do, but that they have a "feel" for what works. Mozart could easily have had just such a "feel" for what positively effected people. Remember that he started writing in the Baroque period, where mathematical precision and principles were being explored in music. See Bach for instance.
I was listening to the closing theme for Full Metal Alchemist, and I realized that right at the beginning of the song is a scale sequence that climbed well beyond any physical instrument I've ever heard of. It was a very eery effect, still perfectly in tune but just plain *wrong* to my ear. I have heard several performances of Baroque by modern artists who "interperate" the rhythm, and that too just sounds so *wrong*, so imprecise and chaotic compared to how it was written to be played.
Just musing.
Bob-
I fully expect that the Awdal Roads Project would love to have a space-bound affiliate.
http://www.awdal.com/
Somalia. Wide open, practically regulator-free.
Bob-
This sets a bad precedent by pretending that the FAA has authority to grant such licenses.
"But everybody knows you have to bend over for authority figures!"
Enough kow-towing to the bureaucrats. They've had space for more than 40 years and wasted it. Let's get off this rock!
Bob-
I kid you not, the Debian Weekly News has several times included discussions about dropping "non-free" entirely.
This is something I personally consider a bad idea, as a long time Debian user. As dcocos says, just make it available explicitly as non-free the same way the nvidia drivers are now.
Bob-
This has bitten me enough times in the past that I assume it any time a "media" file skips. Thanks for posting it first, from the rest of the comments it didn't occur to too many folks.
Bob-
TLS libraries, for instance, as well as pcmcia and alsa changes. 2.6 is also doing substantially more hardware discovery, which caused me a bit of trouble on my annoying Vaio laptop until I figured out what kernel modules to remove from the tree so they couldn't be installed.
As you already know, installing a later tertiary kernel version is very easy under Debian.
Bob-
Maybe you didn't actually read my argument. I believe that increasing the address space and simplifying the protocol, rather than adding things like QoS, is exactly what should happen.
It is the additional crud that I disagree with. Smart hosts and relatively stupid (reliable!) network hardware is the way to go, not the other way around.
So what, exactly, do you disagree with me about?
Bob-
IPv6 routing tables are much smaller because the address allocations are being done in a much more efficient manner.
Good. That has nothing to do with the protocol, however, that is simply the result of having an opportunity to "do it all over again" with present day conditions. The same would happen with IPv4 if the IANA were to completely reallocate. I agree it's a real benefit, but IPv6 is not the source of this benefit.
Also, IPv6 is simpler to route than IPv4, because header processing was simplified.
Interesting. What header? All but the first and last router don't care about anything but the source and destination address, and most times not about the source address at all. So what else is there to simplify?
I repeat my statement about "leaving it out", which seems to be what you are saying. Elimination of UDP, for instance, is done by leaving it out, and would simplify.
Bob-
If the only change were to increase the addressing to 128 bits, that would be wonderful.
The benefits of unique addressing every device exist, as do the benefits of NAT. It would be nice to have the choice of where to apply each of those techniques instead of being shoe-horned into NAT by necessity.
There is no technical reason not to use the period, our good friend ".", to act as a separator just the way that "." does now. I've seen lots of uses of the decimal representation of the 32 bit IPv4 addressing, especially in spam as an obfuscation method, like "http://2349879177/vi@gara/porn.cgi"
There is, however, no other benefit of IPv6. People can yell "better routing" all day long, it doesn't make it so. Routing tables are not improved by being made larger. All it means is greater and greater functionality required of the networking hardware, which means just more and more ways for the network itself to fail.
Several people have asserted that IPv6 fixes the "problems" of IPv4. The cure is worse than the disease.
I have a challange for supporters of IPv6: Leaving out the increase in addressable space, what is being "fixed" that simply leaving it out of the specification wouldn't solve?
Bob-
I made an error in the above post, meant to put it under "save the Saturn 5".
Just ignore, nothing here, move along. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Bob-
God damned blood sucking bureaucrats. If they don't want it, sell it.
Imagine the gall of begging from the people robbed at gunpoint to build it in the first place!
Thrice damned tax leaches. To hell with them.
Bob-
God damned bureaucrats always looking for another way to take my money.
If they don't want it, sell it, but don't go begging to the people robbed at gunpoint to build it in the first place.
Screw them, the greedy blood sucking tax leaches.
Bob-
I've lived in the North East of the United States, so I have a clue here to share with you.
...and what happenes when it's forgotten? It boils down a bit and becomes thicker. A curious person, with lots of time on their hands due to the snow on the ground, and wa-la. Maple Syrup.
During winter, ice and wind can break tree branches. This should be obvious, and some of the trees are of a type called "Sugar Maple".
When spring comes, the sap flows up into the trees to supply the growing leaf buds.
Sap, reaching the broken branches, leaks out. Sometimes, actually most years, it's still cold enough to make litteral "sap icecles" hanging from the broken tree branches.
Guess what? That frozen sap tastes great! Bring some in, put it in a pot on the wood stove to warm up.
You might as well ask yourself who invented lye-soap. Boil-down water that has leached through wood ash, take the resulting residue and mix it with lard, and wa-la! Soap!
By saying it "[s]eems like a lot of random crap", you under estimate the curiousity of billions of human beings who have lived before you. Minds as fantastic as Einstein, Liebnitz, Von Savant, have happened before, sometimes in the bodies of poor farmers with nothing to do but look at what was going on around them in tree sap, wood ash, and left-over animal fat.
No one told Firestone to mix sulphur with the rubber and fry it, he just tried it one day for the heck of it. And I thank Cromm for such curiosity, for we would all be pounding rocks without it.
Bob-
One of the major reasons for the Militaries use of OSS is that it is auditable. Anyone who has worked for a government agency knows how important it is once in a while to explain and demonstrate how and why of what they do.
A substantial sore point for closed source software is that it cannot be reviewed. That is why the Military writes so much of its own code.
Now with the faucet running full-on with OSS, they can and do examine the code, build from source, and even make desired changes. Because They Can.
That is not to say that the Military operations and internal efforts are visible from the outside, it is to say that they are visible on the inside.
Bob-
It is interesting to note that Mr. Perens helped solidify the organizational structure of Debian over the course of years. For that I am grateful.
But there is something between him and KDE. After he left Debian, KDE was brought in and is now well supported and integrated within Debian. I very much like being able to run Qt and GTK applications seamlessly at the same time regardless of what the window manager is.
As titular head of this UserLinux thing, he comes out and declares that the desktop will be GNOME and only GNOME.
Yet, right there for everyone to see, is Debian with GNOME and KDE existing side by side without conflict.
I'm sure Mr. Perens has a good reason for his preference. I cannot imagine what it is.
Bob-
...and Unstable for those of us who live on the bleeding edge. Seriously, living on the edge is not fun. When the maintainers decide to change the wireless LAN software so that my 802.11 card is no longer eth1 but now wlan0, I need to be able to reconfigure quickly so that my laptop isn't unusable for an extended period.
That's why it's called unstable, because it really is. Things change, sometimes substantially.
Every objection you have is valid, with the caviat that Debian is not difficult for someone who has done it more than once. Installing Debian doesn't take me multiple hours or days, it takes little for the base install and the pre-designed task-based "standard" packages. Just because I choose to select packages through dselect one at a time doesn't mean you have to.
Knoppix is indeed astounding, and the hardware detection system Knopper uses is being fed back into the main distribution. When I installed on the laptop I'm using right now, a Vaio PCG-GRT170, I used Knoppix as the install medium.
I would not recomend this method unless Knoppix does everything you want it to do already, or you like installing software by hand. The dependencies and unique packages built into Knoppix make bringing it into the mainstream Debian update system a serious effort.
If you want to install Debian, get the minimalist 30MB CD image. This puts a small base system in place to be built into whatever you want it to be.
Bob-
Seriously, sounds good. I don't even mind going to the 128 bits that are the address in IPv6. The adding of two octetts was merely what I thought the "6" was in IPv6 when I first heard of it.
Here's our disagreement: The problems as I see them are from trying to build functionality into the "routing" layer 3. I surmize from your tone that you would disagree, and wish to increase the functionality within that layer.
Where I see pointless complexity, others see desired functions such as QoS and VPN tagging. While I desire to make stupid, fast, reliable network devices and leave the intellegence to the hosts, there are people who disagree.
So what are the "problems" that IPv4 has, other than address space, that you would fix?
Bob-
IPv6 sucks. Not because it doesn't work, but because it is designed to do too much.
...but too bad. Now we have a Godzilla of a protocol being speced by people in the marketing department.
The substantial increase in overhead in every packet increases traffic without increasing data being transfered.
The substantial increase in overhead at the router level to deal with all the added "functionality".
But let us discuss the rational for doing it at all: The increase in available space is nice all by itself, and could be accomplished, again, all by itself, by simply increasing the number of octetts in the address.
Rather than a "dotted quad", how about a "dotted sextet"? 65.188.192.168.4.4
That is in fact what I thought "v6" meant when I first heard about it. A simple and direct improvement in the one place where it could serve to be improved.
Bob-
Do get on with your other projects, it's not worth the stresses to try to undo what cannot be undone by one person.
What you can do is change how you deal with money. Keep your money in things that are real, such as business investments, gold, land, things that the governments cannot create out of thin air. That way, when you need it, the "value" will be the same even when inflation would have made your $100 worth $50 during that same time.
One reason that Canada's "dollar" is worth a fraction of the US "dollar" is because Canada is printing (inflating) their currency even faster than the US is.
Bob-
It's because the Fed is such an easy target. By printing money, it robs citizens of their savings by creating inflation. It ensures that bank executives who abuse their position are insulated from having their banks fail due to their mismanagement.
9 5& id=64 ...and...
8 9& id=64
It also means that the government gets to print money to pay for programs any time that it would not be able to fund by direct taxation due to cost or unpopularity of the program.
With a commodity standard of trade, such as gold, the government cannot simply print money. It must balance its budget, it must justify its taxation to the taxpayer without being able to hide the true costs.
I suggest the following article:
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=13
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=13
Bob-
Two web sites:
http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/index.asp
http://www.mises.org/
Bob-
You are asking me a lot of "do they..." questions without noticing how things are done right here, right now.
In those places where many people utilize private agents for security, there are many different agencies of differing sizes. Some communities contract "together" for security, some places people do it one by one.
In all those situations, explicit contracts outlining responsibilities exist.
Yes, everything you suggest as negative repercussions can exist, just as with any human endevour. However, unlike governments, when Brinks and Pinkertons have a disagreement, they don't shoot each other.
Private security is not an "ism", it is freedom of contract for services, and it has always existed even when the State maintains its own internal military (aka "police").
Bob-
Then why did crimes continue to be comitted? Did any of the crime victims get restituted by the police for their failure to protect them?
Democracy sucks. I have to pay for sub-standard services whether I use them or not. If I am not happy with the service of a private company, I can choose not to pay them.
Under this "democracy" crap, if I am dissatisfied I am forced to move or I am imprisoned if I do not pay for the services I neither want nor use.
Go ahead and show me anywhere that the police have been held accountable for failure to protect their citizenry. Just one. Even when the LAPD abandoned the city to rioters, no one in the police department was held accountable for "failure to protect". Get it?
Bob-
My appologies good sir if it was meant to be sarcastic. There was this thing about "their own money" which made my conclusion less than %100, I should have known better.
Peace, may your aim never waver,
Bob-
Cops have absolutely no legal requirement to "defend" anyone against crime. It's been repeated over and over in court, you cannot sue the police for failure to protect. There are lots of citations for this on the interested web sites, such as GOA and JPFO.
On the other hand, if I contract with a private agency, I can specify exactly what I want and they are contract bound to perform to that standard.
Bureaucrats are not even punished for failure to abide their own laws, much less the non-existant "social contracts".
Bob-