For quite a while, I've been playing all my music and stuff off of CDs. When I switched to Windows 10 months ago or so, I got rid of most of my computer collection, figuring I'd re-rip it, and then never bothered to find a program for Windows that could convert to .ogg. My stereo has a 5 CD changer and decent programming/shuffle capability, so it was okay. Then when I got back on Linux at the end of December, sound wasn't working at all—likely, I thought, because I have a pretty high-end sound card and needed to change some configuration files or recompile the kernel with the right drivers. When I switched to kernel 2.6.10 I found the right driver but it still didn't work properly. Again I figured it must be configuration files but I had no idea which, so I left it for a while.
Yesterday I decided to try to get it working. I doubted I could figure out what the problem with my current stuff was, so I decided to just go and install the latest version, following their instructions for that. This has worked for me in the past quite a few times (including with the kernel—that was my original "reason" for switching from 2.4 to 2.6). So I went to the ALSA site, got the sources, followed the instructions they gave on the site and the warnings given after (I think)
make install that said I needed to change a config file and that it was muted by default, and it worked perfectly. Well enough to hook up my stereo's speakers and get (semi-)surround sound.
And now, in retrospect, the original problem was most likely that I needed to unmute it, or change that config file. Oh, well. I have the newest version now, and I learned a lot.
Asa yesterday made a reference to WF2, and I'm trying to figure out exactly what it means.
It's time for a new roadmap (well, maybe a little bit past time) and Brendan, drivers, and our development leads have been working out the details since last year's Developer day where Brendan outlined the big picture (slides available online). Discussion continues on the Wiki, in drivers meetings, in meetings with module owners and even representatives from other browser makers and major Internet technology builders. This document doesn't exist yet, but much of the work that will be reflected in it has been going on for quite a while. You can see lots of great work going on in areas like XULRunner, WebForms 2.0, SVG, APNG, Canvas, NPRuntime, Cairo integration, an entirely new storage system, etc. When Brendan gets free from other commitments, he'll post the new roadmap document to the web site, but all of this work (and more) isn't happening without coordination and direction -- just because we don't have that page updated yet.
After a couple read-throughs, it sounds like someone(s) are already working on implementing WF2 in Mozilla. Is this right?
If so, cool.
Since the default kernel that comes with SuSE is loaded with support for pretty much anything and everything, and I don't have anything and everything (indeed, I have very little), I decided to recompile it.
This isn't the first time I've recompiled a kernel—I did it before when I had Fedora Core 1 and I had to put in a (partically binary-only, because the FCC is stupid) wireless driver, then again a few times as I installed Gentoo twice and got rid of it—but I haven't done it often.
So, the first thing I noticed was that
make xconfig wasn't working.
No problem, I thought to myself,
I'll just use . That didn't work either. Apparently SuSE didn't install ncurses-devel. So I hunted that down, and
make menuconfig instead
menuconfig worked. Then I spent a couple days (in small sessions) going through all the options, many of which were familiar (because of those Gentoo installs I mentioned earlier) but many of which were eerily-similar-yet-different (because for Gentoo I used 2.6.9, but this SuSE came with 2.4.21). And after that, I compiled.
And it didn't work. That was the point at which I actually looked at the version I was compiling and saw that it was from June '03, and went to get a more up-to-date version. So now I'm halfway through
make menuconfig for the 2.6.10 kernel (
make xconfig still didn't work). Fun.
Most of the time when you get spam, if it passes through your filters you just hit "j" to mark it junk, and never bother with it again, except to delete it and compress the folders. Every once in a while, though, you get a piece of spam that really irks you, like this one I just got today:
From - Mon Jan 3 21:36:34 2005
Received: via dmail-2000(11) for +INBOX; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:45:47 -0600 (CST)
Received: from rs10.luxsci.com ([10.225.3.202])
by rs16.luxsci.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j040jlL7024460
for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:45:47 -0600
Received: from rs10.luxsci.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by rs10.luxsci.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j040jlP6011050
for <email@example.com>; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:45:47 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
by rs10.luxsci.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j040jlpk011049
for firstname.lastname@example.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:45:47 -0600
Received: from p00m166.mxlogic.net (p00m166.mxlogic.net [126.96.36.199])
by rs10.luxsci.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j040jkYE011037
for <email@example.com>; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:45:47 -0600
Received: from unknown [188.8.131.52] (EHLO 1million2006.com)
by p00m166.mxlogic.net (mxl_mta-2.5.0-63)
with ESMTP id b37e9d14.2693663664.11516.p00m166.mxlogic.net (envelope-from <firstname.lastname@example.org>);
Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:45:47 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from email@example.com) by 1million2006.com (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id 24zl4Oq1cN.4Y) for firstname.lastname@example.org; Mon Jan 3 20:51:38 2005) (envelope-from email@example.com))
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:51:38 GMT
From: "Scott Reese" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: GDI Mailer (0.02...7739)
Subject: dolphinling.net is yours, right?
X-Lux-Processed-For: user #5561 on rs10.luxsci.com
X-Lux-Processed-For: user #5561 on rs16.luxsci.com
Scott Reese here. I was wondering how you are doing with
I've earned substantial money with my web site, partnering
with a California-based and Inc. 500 ranked Internet company
that is growing like wildfire - and it never cost me a penny
to get started.
If you're interested in generating an income online, I was
wondering if you would be willing to review this short flash
movie and let me know what you think?
You can either check out that URL, or call my phone number
below for a brief 3-minute recorded overview.
This is an exploding opportunity in a $20 billion per
year industry, and it's growing very quickly worldwide.
If what you see and hear interests you, I'll show you how
to use dolphinling.net with this to make a serious income that
will grow each month and come to you for years.
Anyway, just thought I would ask. I'm doing well with this
and I'm very curious to know if other website owners find
the concept as interesting as I have.
Thank you in advance for your time. I know it's valuable.
If you wish to never receive an email from me again,
please go here: http://1million2006.com/delete.html
Box 10715 * College Station, TX 77842
Since I just got my domain name yesterday, this person is obviously monitoring DNS changes and spamming anyone on the list. Is there somewhere I can report this to?
Oh, yeah, and my domain's through DNS now! http://dolphinling.net/ :-) Still working on a few things with my friend who I share the hosting costs with before I actually do anything with it, but YAY!!
Thu, Dec. 30th, 2004, 05:24 pm
I don't particularly feel like writing right now, but I'm back online after about two weeks. I'm on SuSE 9.0 with gnome (with lots of updates--the 9.1 CD, which is out, didn't work on my computer for some reason) after trying several other distros, all of which gave me at least some problems. A lot of the time was also due to me being sick for the first time in years, and my own laziness. I still have stuff to work out, but for the most part everything's good now.
Oh, I'm also getting a webserver (sharing with a friend). Yay
I was just looking through the full headers of some emails, and I noticed one called List-Id. Apparently this tells you what mailing list something was sent from. Now I can filter things based on where they really came from, instead of trying to fake it with the Subject, From, or To headers (which often fails when something is sent to multiple lists at once—my original reason for looking through said headers).
Yay. *hopes he helped someone with this*
Mon, Dec. 13th, 2004, 12:42 pm
Another thought on
abbr: is it proper to do something like
<abbr title='HTML'>HyperText Markup Language<abbr>? If so, when should it be used rather than the more normal way of putting the long form in the title?
The spec says
- Indicates an acronym (e.g., WAC, radar, etc.).
which doesn't in my mind forbid it, and
The content of the ABBR and ACRONYM elements specifies the abbreviated expression itself, as it would normally appear in running text. The title attribute of these elements may be used to provide the full or expanded form of the expression.
which seems to contradict itself.
Take, for example, something like
As a result, Penn State's Information Technology Services (ITS) is urging that the University computing community use standards-based Web browsers other than Internet Explorer…
Now, the part that would "normally appear in running text" is
Penn State's Information Technology Services. It's only after this that the acronym is introduced, and it's parenthetical—one could almost say that it's not part of the content at all. But it makes no sense here to put the expanded form in the title, since it's already written out.
Blah, I don't want to finish writing this. I'll just say that I think it's perfectly acceptable to do things this way, and ideally XHMTL 2 will introduce two new attributes to distinguish between the two, and title can be left for when it shouldn't be written out at all, but you want to still let people know what it means, like on Anne's site .
Wed, Dec. 8th, 2004, 08:11 pm
I just read Once With Heads Held High from Eric Meyer's blog, and I agree with nearly the entire post, but I'm confused about one thing:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
—from the opinion of the U.S Supreme Court in 388 U.S. 1, Loving v. Virginia, 1967
I entirely agree with the Court. And no, I don’t see an ethical difference between prohibitions of marriage based on gender and those based on race, which is what 388 U.S. 1 addressed.
Why is this? I have, off and on, advocated the abolishment of marriage as a legal whatever-it-is altogether, as I think the current system is too flawed to be easily fixed, and I don't really see a good use case. (This as opposed to getting rid of marriage and putting in Civil Unions that are basically the same but differ only in name and that they allow both hetero- and homosexual unions.)
After all, what is marriage? To me it seems like a way for people to announce and/or formally state to the world that they are in love, and that they, together, are to be considered as a unit. Now, here I'm talking about marriage in its intended form, its simplest manifestation, not in all in all the various other incarnations it's popped up as (perhaps like, for those who understand the simile, semantic HTML rather than HTML 3.2).
Now, as to why the current model is flawed, there are plenty of reasons. Obviously, same-sex marriages are illegal or at least in significant question as to be impractical in all but a few places (I think there is one/some somewhere in Europe?). Now what about polygamy? I frankly can't see any reason for that to be illegal either. Of course, when you put that in you have to make sure you don't accidentally leave out same-sex polygamy, nor make it so it's only a one-to-many thing (i.e. if man A has multiple wives, wife B should also be able to have multiple husbands (and/or wives)). There's really also no reason to limit something to only a group of two people--represented with these crude ascii art drawings as
A--B--C != / \ != |ABC|
(Don't try to convince yourself that that's never happened, either. It's uncommon enough that it's not often voiced for fear of people thinking them strange (just like homosexuality used to be), but I'd be very surprised to find that it's never happened or that, as society becomes more open and tolerant, people don't start voicing it.) And when we can finally communicate with an extraterrestrial species, or if another earth-based species happens to become intelligent and we can communicate with them, (or, I suppose, if artificial intelligence immerges), why should cross-species marriages be illegal?
Now, allowing all that would require a significant rehaul in the marriage system. Admittedly, the final product could be quite simple--something along the lines of allowing allowing any two entities that both understand and consent to be included as part of a new entity. But here we get to the question of the use case.
Namely, what is it? Sure, something like a credit card could be issued to the entity (person A and person B), but it could just as easily be issued to person A and person B. Child care could be the privelage/responsibilty of (person A and person B), but again it could just as easily be the responsibility of person A and person B, just as (I expect, not know) it is now for an unmarried couple who have a child now. And when you get to taxes... if you have two wives and a husband, how do you pay your taxes? You can't just do "filing jointly", because you have to do three different "joint" filings, plus probably one of your own for things you do unrelated to any of them. It is, quite frankly, much simpler to do away with all joint filings and simply have each person file their own taxes.
So it seems to me that marriage, as it stands now, is fatally flawed, and that any other way of doing marriage, while perhaps much better, doesn't have a good reason to be implemented. After all, I agree that Love is a human right—and indeed one nearly impossible to take away—and the ability to announce that love—to let it be known, to constantly show it, to shout it out to the stars—is too. I just don't see how marriages is a right or even something useful.
Keep in mind as I write this that I'm only 17, so I really don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just here to provoke thought.