While Poettering admits PulseAudio itself is not bug-free, he believes the majority of issues are being triggered by misbehaving drivers or applications.
Well, the way I see it, I can either use alsa and have (as far as I can tell) no bugs, or I can use PulseAudio and have more features and more bugs.
That might not be PulseAudio's fault, but it still means that if I use PulseAudio I will have a buggy sound system. Why do I want that? Why do I want it even if it's only buggy until all the applications get fixed?
Also, the promise of networked sound is kinda... meh... maybe I'd be happy if all my laptop sound got moved to my desktop box (which is connected to my stereo) automatically whenever my laptop is connected to my home access point (and, conversely, my desktop's sound automatically gets routed to my laptop whenever my laptop does an ssh home and is not around my home access point). But as far as I can tell, this is a bitch to set up, and I'm really not inclined to go clicking around some unintuitive menu system to set my sound up right every time I leave home or go back.
Sure, your browser may be free software, but since the operating system is closed source, others can still play dirty tricks on you.
I think that's because I don't read all the code I'm running; I happen to be prevented because it's closed source, but similar things can happen on Linux.
It'd be really interesting to have a good idea why such things won't or don't happen on Linux. Possibly peer review ("enough eyeballs") and people/companies being afraid of PR backlash if they put in dirty laundry that gets found out (accountability, i.e. a disincentive), plus enough people just wanting to make $NAME the best piece of software it can be?
Let me be clear about what I'm saying. I'm not saying open source is bad (far from it; I love it). I'm not saying this shit happens to Linux in practice. What I am saying is that "you can read the source" is not the real reason why it doesn't happen to Linux. The real reason has to have to do with peoples' incentives and the fact that enough of the people with pure enough intentions actually do read the source and catch the evil code. [Similarly for BSD, Haiku, etc., I presume, but with much less experience.]
(is this the point where I talk about "On Trusting Trust" and the Debian SSH issue?)
if the meeting was all guys, we'd all adjust ourselves for laughs and to see if he'd pick up on it--he was completely oblivious. For whatever reason it went on for years without anyone ever doing anything about it. On the cursing part, he did eventually get called in to HR and scolded for his language, to which I am told his exact response was "Holy shit, I'm so fucking sorry." He still kept his job, though.
Here's the lesson I learned from your post: some people are willing to change, they just need someone to tell them how they should change. They might even be grateful that you've helped them change for the better.
Now, ask yourself: whenever you find people you'd like to change, do you want to risk them never changing by not asking? How does that weigh against the risk of them being offended by you asking?
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
Is "is that sentence grammatically correct?" the correct question to ask?
Maybe a new multipurpose communication protocol to roll SMTP/HTTP/FTP/VOIP/whatever into one?
Why? What purpose would be served by doing this?
I can imagine an easy way of doing it: the first message from the client is the name of the protocol the client and server will be speaking for the remainder of the session. The rest will be protocol messages from that protocol. Implement this using an array of function pointers (or a big switch).... but why? What do these applications have in common? What's the advantage of rolling the protocols into one? Delivering mail is vastly different from serving web pages. Why should every web server also contain the dirty business logic of pushing out mail?
I'll grant that serving web pages contains as a sub-task that of serving files, so maybe we can do away with ftp (haven't we already?), but what else can realistically be merged?
Competition [...] may be a principle requirement for maximization of both GDP and a society's ability to satisfy wants.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the real point of economics is to study how We The Humanity can best allocate our resources to maximize the satisfaction of peoples' wants.
Owning stuff is nice, but to understand the goal we shouldn't ask Adam Smith, we should ask Abraham Maslow.
We now return you to your normal scheduled programming;-)
Reasoning of the form, "I like [x] governmental policy because it benefits me" bores me deeply.
Depending on whether or not it's bad for society at large or not, you get to call them a selfish bastard!;-)... or just introducing the idea of optimizing social welfare (maximizing the sum of how well-off each individual is) to their thinking.
I would prefer to hear cogent reasoning based on sound moral theory.
As would I ("you and I are not so different, you know...":D). I just don't know that there are any axioms one can take for granted---and in any case, that probably becomes "I'm of the opinion that axiom set A is good/best/true/valid". The ", thus [...]" part might be great, though:)
For example, the Diffie-Hellman algorithm which was the first modern crypto algorithm discovered uses the difficulty of this process to make it so that two people can without ever having talked to each other before have a conversation and at the end of it have a secret code that no one else can figure out without impractical levels of computation.
Note that this only works if all the evil people listening in don't modify anything that Alice and Bob. If they do, Alice knows that she's communicating in private with someone, not that she's communicating in private with Bob.
Here's how it works: the eavesdropper in the middle, Eve, pretends to be Alice as far as Bob can tell, and pretends to be Bob as far as Alice can tell. Alice and Eve can then communicate in private, as can Bob and Eve, so Eve can just pass along all the messages unmodified and listen in, or can insert, remove or alter messages.
and would be affected very differently by the choice of prime numbers.
I think they're more affected by the rules for the process by which the primes are chosen... rather than the particular choice of primes.
Let p be the number from the summary. If your rule is "choose a random element of {p}", it's fine for D-H and ElGamal, bad for RSA. If it's "choose a random element of {primes less than or equal to p}" and you just happen to (randomly!) choose p, it's not a problem for RSA any more. It's not that p has any particular numeric properties that makes it weak (it might, but with RSA, these days I hear it's more important to choose large numbers rather than specific kinds of numbers).
Well, except that your adversary might try a dictionary attack against your secret primes.
It's the same with weak passwords: no particular password is weak, were it not for a lot of other people being more likely to choose it rather than "%xF8o0_a". And to all the people who choose bad passwords: choose some hunter2-ing better passwords!;-)
Having been a victim of such harassment in the past myself I agree wholeheartedly [should be felony] I reported it to the police however they fairly resoundingly didn't appear to give a toss.
Do you believe this girl deserves a minimum stint of 2 years in jail with a maximum of 10 plus a fine up to $10,000?
It might be possible for the police force to actively and vigorously enforce a particular law and still have punishments that are reasonable taking the nature and consequences of the actual crime (or misdemeanor, or miscellaneous bad deed) into consideration.
Hypothetically, at least;-)
Would that perhaps be a good thing?
(I think) I believe people should be protected from harassment if it really damages them. It should be enforced, but the punishment should fit the crime.
It's maybe somewhat analogous to stupid enforcement of child porn laws. Anything without mutual informed consent is bad; whatever people do in their own homes that stays there and doesn't harm anyone is not something I should have any say about, and I defer having an opinion about the remaining 0.1% of the cases. That would be a decent set of principles to enforce. But punishing two mid-teen adolescents for having sex with each other (with mutual consent) and taking pictures of it (with consent) is just stupid.
Protect people, enforce good rules, but don't banish people from society just because they call others a poopface.
Restraining orders, house arrest, surveillance... they might be a good start?
Why does this need to be a felony? Support your claim with evidence.
I believe your parent was making a statement of opinion.
You want them to prove their opinion is correct? What does it even mean for an opinion to be correct?
One can reasonably ask for reasons why people hold the opinions they hold, or whether they have any evidence for what the consequence of enacting a particular law might be (that is a factual claim), but I think you're using dirty debating tactics if you ask people to prove their opinions.
(you might ask people to prove that they actually hold the opinions they claim to hold, but that's a different thing---basically lie detection.)
Your parent is asserting his opinion very strongly, though, as if it's an absolute truth. Questioning anything claimed to be an absolute truth, backed up only by the strength of the assertion, is a good thing. But ask the right question---they make for a better debate and you tend to learn more* about the people you're conversing with;-)
(*no, I don't have any evidence for that, and yes, it's a factual claim. I, like fate, am not without a sense of irony.)
Maybe a million years from now we'll send a compu-forming (as opposed to terra-forming) mission to Alpha Centauri and start turning it into a new supercomputer with an ~8 year ping time from Earth.;)
if it was implemented so it saturated your allocated pipe most of the time, but differentiated your VoIP packets from your P2P ones
There's the key.
It needs to prioritize my packets over my other packets, not my VoIP over my neighbour's linux[aXXo].iso.torrent.
If I pay for $PIPE_SIZE, I should get $PIPE_SIZE to use on whatever I want, no matter what my neighbour is using his $PIPE_SIZE for.
(Okay, due to the ISP oversubscribing the line to stay in business, I'll settle for less than $PIPE_SIZE, but that should be done by giving each the same fraction of their individual pipe size, not hitting the bulk transfer users the hardest)
Slashdot Mirror
While Poettering admits PulseAudio itself is not bug-free, he believes the majority of issues are being triggered by misbehaving drivers or applications.
Well, the way I see it, I can either use alsa and have (as far as I can tell) no bugs, or I can use PulseAudio and have more features and more bugs.
That might not be PulseAudio's fault, but it still means that if I use PulseAudio I will have a buggy sound system. Why do I want that? Why do I want it even if it's only buggy until all the applications get fixed?
Also, the promise of networked sound is kinda... meh... maybe I'd be happy if all my laptop sound got moved to my desktop box (which is connected to my stereo) automatically whenever my laptop is connected to my home access point (and, conversely, my desktop's sound automatically gets routed to my laptop whenever my laptop does an ssh home and is not around my home access point). But as far as I can tell, this is a bitch to set up, and I'm really not inclined to go clicking around some unintuitive menu system to set my sound up right every time I leave home or go back.
So what's the benefit of PulseAudio again?
Sure, your browser may be free software, but since the operating system is closed source, others can still play dirty tricks on you.
I think that's because I don't read all the code I'm running; I happen to be prevented because it's closed source, but similar things can happen on Linux.
It'd be really interesting to have a good idea why such things won't or don't happen on Linux. Possibly peer review ("enough eyeballs") and people/companies being afraid of PR backlash if they put in dirty laundry that gets found out (accountability, i.e. a disincentive), plus enough people just wanting to make $NAME the best piece of software it can be?
Let me be clear about what I'm saying. I'm not saying open source is bad (far from it; I love it). I'm not saying this shit happens to Linux in practice. What I am saying is that "you can read the source" is not the real reason why it doesn't happen to Linux. The real reason has to have to do with peoples' incentives and the fact that enough of the people with pure enough intentions actually do read the source and catch the evil code. [Similarly for BSD, Haiku, etc., I presume, but with much less experience.]
(is this the point where I talk about "On Trusting Trust" and the Debian SSH issue?)
if the meeting was all guys, we'd all adjust ourselves for laughs and to see if he'd pick up on it--he was completely oblivious. For whatever reason it went on for years without anyone ever doing anything about it. On the cursing part, he did eventually get called in to HR and scolded for his language, to which I am told his exact response was "Holy shit, I'm so fucking sorry." He still kept his job, though.
Here's the lesson I learned from your post: some people are willing to change, they just need someone to tell them how they should change. They might even be grateful that you've helped them change for the better.
Now, ask yourself: whenever you find people you'd like to change, do you want to risk them never changing by not asking? How does that weigh against the risk of them being offended by you asking?
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
Is "is that sentence grammatically correct?" the correct question to ask?
There is a 'Linux hype wave'? In which universe?
Well, 2010 will be the year of the Linux Hype Wave...
LOL! I AGREE!!!
Maybe a new multipurpose communication protocol to roll SMTP/HTTP/FTP/VOIP/whatever into one?
Why? What purpose would be served by doing this?
I can imagine an easy way of doing it: the first message from the client is the name of the protocol the client and server will be speaking for the remainder of the session. The rest will be protocol messages from that protocol. Implement this using an array of function pointers (or a big switch). ... but why? What do these applications have in common? What's the advantage of rolling the protocols into one? Delivering mail is vastly different from serving web pages. Why should every web server also contain the dirty business logic of pushing out mail?
I'll grant that serving web pages contains as a sub-task that of serving files, so maybe we can do away with ftp (haven't we already?), but what else can realistically be merged?
Competition [...] may be a principle requirement for maximization of both GDP and a society's ability to satisfy wants.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the real point of economics is to study how We The Humanity can best allocate our resources to maximize the satisfaction of peoples' wants.
Owning stuff is nice, but to understand the goal we shouldn't ask Adam Smith, we should ask Abraham Maslow.
We now return you to your normal scheduled programming ;-)
Explanation accepted, good sir! :)
Reasoning of the form, "I like [x] governmental policy because it benefits me" bores me deeply.
Depending on whether or not it's bad for society at large or not, you get to call them a selfish bastard! ;-) ... or just introducing the idea of optimizing social welfare (maximizing the sum of how well-off each individual is) to their thinking.
I would prefer to hear cogent reasoning based on sound moral theory.
As would I ("you and I are not so different, you know..." :D). I just don't know that there are any axioms one can take for granted---and in any case, that probably becomes "I'm of the opinion that axiom set A is good/best/true/valid". The ", thus [...]" part might be great, though :)
A good day to you :)
For example, the Diffie-Hellman algorithm which was the first modern crypto algorithm discovered uses the difficulty of this process to make it so that two people can without ever having talked to each other before have a conversation and at the end of it have a secret code that no one else can figure out without impractical levels of computation.
Note that this only works if all the evil people listening in don't modify anything that Alice and Bob. If they do, Alice knows that she's communicating in private with someone, not that she's communicating in private with Bob.
Here's how it works: the eavesdropper in the middle, Eve, pretends to be Alice as far as Bob can tell, and pretends to be Bob as far as Alice can tell. Alice and Eve can then communicate in private, as can Bob and Eve, so Eve can just pass along all the messages unmodified and listen in, or can insert, remove or alter messages.
and would be affected very differently by the choice of prime numbers.
I think they're more affected by the rules for the process by which the primes are chosen... rather than the particular choice of primes.
Let p be the number from the summary. If your rule is "choose a random element of {p}", it's fine for D-H and ElGamal, bad for RSA. If it's "choose a random element of {primes less than or equal to p}" and you just happen to (randomly!) choose p, it's not a problem for RSA any more. It's not that p has any particular numeric properties that makes it weak (it might, but with RSA, these days I hear it's more important to choose large numbers rather than specific kinds of numbers).
Well, except that your adversary might try a dictionary attack against your secret primes.
It's the same with weak passwords: no particular password is weak, were it not for a lot of other people being more likely to choose it rather than "%xF8o0_a". And to all the people who choose bad passwords: choose some hunter2-ing better passwords! ;-)
Having been a victim of such harassment in the past myself I agree wholeheartedly [should be felony] I reported it to the police however they fairly resoundingly didn't appear to give a toss.
Do you believe this girl deserves a minimum stint of 2 years in jail with a maximum of 10 plus a fine up to $10,000?
It might be possible for the police force to actively and vigorously enforce a particular law and still have punishments that are reasonable taking the nature and consequences of the actual crime (or misdemeanor, or miscellaneous bad deed) into consideration.
Hypothetically, at least ;-)
Would that perhaps be a good thing?
(I think) I believe people should be protected from harassment if it really damages them. It should be enforced, but the punishment should fit the crime.
It's maybe somewhat analogous to stupid enforcement of child porn laws. Anything without mutual informed consent is bad; whatever people do in their own homes that stays there and doesn't harm anyone is not something I should have any say about, and I defer having an opinion about the remaining 0.1% of the cases. That would be a decent set of principles to enforce. But punishing two mid-teen adolescents for having sex with each other (with mutual consent) and taking pictures of it (with consent) is just stupid.
Protect people, enforce good rules, but don't banish people from society just because they call others a poopface.
Restraining orders, house arrest, surveillance... they might be a good start?
Why does this need to be a felony? Support your claim with evidence.
I believe your parent was making a statement of opinion.
You want them to prove their opinion is correct? What does it even mean for an opinion to be correct?
One can reasonably ask for reasons why people hold the opinions they hold, or whether they have any evidence for what the consequence of enacting a particular law might be (that is a factual claim), but I think you're using dirty debating tactics if you ask people to prove their opinions.
(you might ask people to prove that they actually hold the opinions they claim to hold, but that's a different thing---basically lie detection.)
Your parent is asserting his opinion very strongly, though, as if it's an absolute truth. Questioning anything claimed to be an absolute truth, backed up only by the strength of the assertion, is a good thing. But ask the right question---they make for a better debate and you tend to learn more* about the people you're conversing with ;-)
(*no, I don't have any evidence for that, and yes, it's a factual claim. I, like fate, am not without a sense of irony.)
did you receive it personally in a fortune cookie?
Only to the extent fortune(6) knows me personally ;-)
Running part of that kind of infrastructure without change control would be like trying to manage the kernel source tree with cvs.
FTFY ;-)
Maybe a million years from now we'll send a compu-forming (as opposed to terra-forming) mission to Alpha Centauri and start turning it into a new supercomputer with an ~8 year ping time from Earth. ;)
Be sure to bring a pair of white mice :)
In other words, quoting a fortune cookie:
Progress means replacing a theory that's wrong by a theory that's more subtly wrong.
Corruption and lobbying.
I thought that was the same thing? ...
given the quality of most student English essays, it would probably be fine if the software [...] randomly assigned a passing grade.
Isn't this what $NATIVE_LANGUAGE teachers do anyway?
With jokes like these, Microsoft and IE really aren't worth complying about :)
a secret extract derived the the lubricant glands of the rare pythonus imaginarius.
>>> import lubricant_glands
>>> print lubricant_glands.extract
Let me be the first to say:
This sucks donkey balls!
On a more optimistic note, if this patent is enforced, nobody (except Microsoft) can make DRM'ed peer-to-peer networks---that is, you'll get less DRM.
Right? ;-)
if it was implemented so it saturated your allocated pipe most of the time, but differentiated your VoIP packets from your P2P ones
There's the key.
It needs to prioritize my packets over my other packets, not my VoIP over my neighbour's linux[aXXo].iso.torrent.
If I pay for $PIPE_SIZE, I should get $PIPE_SIZE to use on whatever I want, no matter what my neighbour is using his $PIPE_SIZE for.
(Okay, due to the ISP oversubscribing the line to stay in business, I'll settle for less than $PIPE_SIZE, but that should be done by giving each the same fraction of their individual pipe size, not hitting the bulk transfer users the hardest)
That's my opinion, at least.
# apt-get install snarblax-image-2.6.31-7-generic
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package snarblax-image-2.6.31-7-generic
# init 0
but nothing will replace Gothic Littera Bastarde
Back in my day, we used to carve writings into our walls.
A mighty "ugh!" to you all.