I want some bluetooth headphones.

I want some Bluetooth headphones

• A2DP - audio
• AVRCP  - remote control
• HSP, HFP - telephony
• CTP - cordless telephony (why not?)

That's the easy bit.

• Built in mic
• and voice-dialler.
• and noise-cancelling mics AND playback
• and volume-boost for quiet sources (I'm looking at you, DVD player)
• and AVC/compressor for classical music on noisy trains, planes and auto-mobiles.

That's easy too.

Other inputs:

• I want it to take a micro-SD card for a built-in mp3 player
• And even have built-in storage, MTP or FAT32 block device.
• And have a built-in FM/DAB+ radio.
• It must charge from micro-USB, and be a USB audio-interface when plugged via USB.
• I also want a 3.5mm stereo line-in socket so I can use them as normal headphones. But I want it to take a 4-connector 3.5mm jack so that it can function as headphones with mic.
• It should detect when a 3-connector 3.5mm jack is inserted, and offer a 3.5mm microphone out socket.
• I also want a 3.5mm line-out that feeds whatever audio source is selected, so that I can feed into an amplifier or to a friend who has the same headphones (so line-out should not necessarily cut off the built-in speakers).

Did I miss anything?

• It should be able to record to micro-sd or built-in storage. In stereo. From the stereo noise-cancelling microphones any of the other audio sources, including USB, and the phone.
• I should be able to play from any source to the phone. While recording the phone conversation.
• And waterproof for jogging in the rain. (Not for me, for joggers).

But not Chrome-cast or Mira-cast. That requires WLAN, and that would be a step too far.


For well less than £100.

On a stick. From standard parts.

BT interface. USB interface. Cross-bar audio mixer. SD interface. GPIO controlled radios.

On conspiracy theories...

The (perhaps hasty) assumption that conspiracy theory deniers are not a spook-stooge becomes evidence in favour of such theories.

Un-initiated, and without conscious inducement they defend such organisations as may exist.

By induction this may apply to various degrees at various levels, each person doing what they think is right and natural, a little self serving here and there - but selected because their resultant actions are convenient.

If you want a deed doing, find someone who wants to do the deed and let them do what they want. No direct commuication or coercion required. Their visible well meaning is all the better a disguise.

The strength of any conspiracy theory is it's veracity which trumps all so-called weaknesses.

Veracity is naturally hard to measure, particularly against a weakness of the defensibility of a theory when mistaken for a weakness of the theory.

A weakness of the theory would relate to difficulty for the parties of the theory to act according to the theory.

A weakness of the defensibility of the theory would be an implausibility of the theory which depends largely on the experiences of the listener and less on the theory itself.

What works wins. Does there have to be a grand design, or will natural selection work? or is that the grand design? I note that some players win many games of chess despite the implausibility of long term prediction of the opponents moves.

Let the hungriest power mongers fight it out, and nudge to authority those who can be led by their desires. And then lead them. That's the world we live in, and it has typically been so.

I happen to believe that the one with the most power is good, known as God, who does not enforce but rather invites, who can deliver the captives of the mighty and the prey of the terrible. This does not absolve me of responsibility but rather realises it.

And this is why I like Christmas. The birth of the one who was not deceived, who followed the will of the Father and provides the means to escape for all who will.

Hows that for a Christmas sermon? I can't apologise - for the ideas are inseparable; we can't save ourselves.

I think that a typical defence against truth is to find a reason not to listen. We cannot bear the horror of the world we live in, and pretend it is just about starving orphans in war torn droughts, attacks on the liberty of good manners and lazy rich people who've taken all the money.

Don't be illl (sic)

The danger of lapsing into sickness.

We think one small affliction will do us no harm, and maybe even some good - but then we find it becomes habit forming and we can hardly manage to get well again.

Consider the virtue of procrastination. Why get sick today if you can be sick tomorrow - or even next week!

Even better, make it a new years resolution and put it off for years. If you can procrastinate sickness, then maybe try to put off that final exit from life!

You know it makes sense!

I wonder

I wonder

	I wonder where I'm going
and	I wonder where I've gone,
	I wonder what I'm doing here
and	when I'm moving on
	I wonder when I'm going
as	I think on where I've been
	I wonder what I'm going for
	whatever can it mean:
	This coming and this going
	from there and place to place
	whatever do I do it for;
	I know it's not a race
	I wonder what I'm doing
	what I'm here for anyhow
	And does it really matter
	If I don't do it now?
	I know it has a reason
	but what that is I don't know
	I've tried to find out all my life
	I have to find out so —
	I'll remember where I'm going
and	I'll know just where I've been
	I'll know quite what I'm going for
and	remember what I've seen

 (c) 1991 Sam Liddicott
I found this a bit sickly at the time and my view hasn't changed much in the last 23 years. verse 2 and 3 were scribbled through but I've included them here.

Inspired by mission transfers; and the first couple of minutes of this video:

The next wonder poem

The next wonder poem

	Sometimes I'll wonder
&	sometimes I'll won't,
&	sometimes I'll wonder
	why sometimes I don't And when I sometimes wonder Why I'm sometimes won't I'm sometimesing wonder how I still am. wondering about nothing at all.

(c) 199x - 2014 Sam Liddicott

Poem: On wondering too much

On wondering too much

or

I also wonder

I wonder why I wonder,
What I do it for, and how,
I wonder as I wonder why I'm wondering right now

And as I wonder wonder wonder wondering today
I wonder if I should have really
stayed in bed today

(C) 1992 - 2014 Sam Liddicott

Passive Aggression

This essay so far only covers passive-aggressive as a defence against the narcissistic psychopath, and not as a method of attack used by the narcissistic psychopath, or as a substitute means of communication.

Arguably, this is not true passive aggression but rather a refusal to engage. For a fuller look at passive aggression, see http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/feb/19/ok-dont-read-this-article-about-passive-aggressive-behaviour-honestly-its-fine

Passive Aggression

Passive-aggressive: Term for practitioners of non-violent inaction, employed by those who have not yet discovered the futility of ridicule against the practice.

Introduction

Much so-called passive aggression is not so much aggression, as dis-interest.

The accusation of passive aggressive is the last attempt of the psychopath to manipulate and dominate those who have made the ultimate withdrawal from a hostile environment, by refusing to participate.

It's older equivalent from the age of physical violence, which may still be familiar to some, is: "Come back and fight me you snivelling little coward!" or as it was understood by the hearer: “Come back so that I can beat you into submission!”

Those whose eloquence or tired persistence have crumbled before the illogical, unreasonable and unremitting demands of the exploitative bully have concluded that the only way to win is not to play the game; that validation from the psychopath is unsatisfying, that the promise of validation is unbelievable, that while yielding may defer immediate pain into future pain, playing the game only promises pain.

And what's wrong with passive-aggression, if we can call it that? How about calling it non-violent inaction? Does one really prefer passionate aggression, or violence? And does one leave place for those who don’t?

Victim-blaming

The accusation of passive-aggressive is an attempt to blame failure to engage, or to kindle even the smallest spark of trust, on the one whose engagement is to be exploited.

Having spent every cent of political capital, the passive-aggressive-accuser will attempt to bully-up some more, revealing themselves as a psychopathic snake-head demanding the privilege to present, ad-infinitum, scenario after scenario until they can find one that will cause the other to willingly do their bidding.

Preferred Environment

Those who prefer passionate aggression may thrive in an environment of passionate aggression. It may be that they think that they are the most aggressive and persistent and that they can dominate that environment and “do things right” (because, “Hey! If I was wrong, I would have changed my mind”)

Likewise one might expect that those in favour of actual aggression also suppose themselves to be among the biggest and the strongest.

One might suppose that PA accusers are attempting to perpetuate an environment in which (actual violence being outlawed) they can win by force of personality, while simultaneously preventing their victims from carving out a sanctuary of their own.

What does the passive-aggressive see?

The passive-aggressive’s behaviour silently says: “Why should I be interested in your little scheme? I’m not a resource to be exploited to your ends!”, but has somehow found it no longer worthwhile to say this out loud. It is not worthwhile to provide the psychopath with feedback how to constructing a more effective message/weapon.

The passive-aggressive sees no union, no meeting of the minds, except perhaps superficially.

The psychopath will offer scenarios that ostensibly are desirable to both parties based on the superficial union, but the passive aggressive is aware of an additional cost that is too expensive to explain.

How to deal with a passive aggressive

Take some actual real unselfish interest in the welfare and independence of the passive aggressive.

If you find that this doesn’t work then it wasn’t really unselfish, just more latent psychopathy.

Clue: it’s not supposed to work, what were you actually trying to do? Try granting the other person a little self-sovereignty.

Not passive, just hidden?

It isn’t all non-violent inaction though. Here are some classic petty revenges.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pettyrevenge/comments/225mn6/a_game_of_ads_make_me_unemployed_and_youll_regret/

http://www.reddit.com/r/pettyrevenge/comments/21bblg/deli_customer_gets_her_own_back/

The revenge must be perfectly balanced, the punishment must fit the crime.

So is passive-aggressive nature or strategy? How are latent psychopathic in all of us manifest when we are not in a position to get caught by those who matter?

A Plea for Social Equality

True democratic wealth is time: everybody has 24 hours of it a day.

The significant social inequality of the day is that some peoples time is not exchangeable for much value, while other peoples time is very much in demand and exchangeable at a high rate.

I simplify somewhat, for a person can sometimes exert control over their exchange rate by means of how much effort they put in; but even at maximum effort there is still a large disparity between the exchangeable values of the time of different people, or in different locations.

In the corrupt imperial west there is a notion that 8 hours of effort per day should be exchangeable for necessities of life (and some discretionary comforts) but the opportunity to make this exchange is not granted equally to all people (and nor is the standard of life).

In the name of social conscience and humanity, this inequality is often reasonably addressed by moving a surfeit of value from those who found favourable exchange, to those who who found a poor rate of exchange.

Yet paradoxically, the extreme inequality of those who found no exchange is addressed by an attempt to provide the value of life necessities with no exchange required.

This does not introduce equality but instead introduces further inequality for in transferring the surfeit of value to those who find no exchange, it leaves them with a surfeit of time. It reduces them to the status of beggar and provides no way to contribute.

It would be more equitable to provide opportunity of exchange to those who found no exchange, making all equal contributors to society from the universal and collective wealth of time, and condemning none to the status of beggar.

TLDR: Or in other words, why in the UK when taxes are going up, and public works are going down, why, are we paying people to do nothing?

It is no socialist triumph to lose the working class and gain another idle class (however unwilling).

Let the time of each be valued equally - sufficient for life, and let all contribute.

And here's hoping for a shorter working day for all, enough time for dancing and singing.

Big heap o' stack frames

Why can't stack frames be allocated on the heap?

Of course I don't mean the heap, I want a stack frame to grow dynamically as much as anyone else, so a fresh memory map region might need allocating for each function cough; but of course dear reader you really want to know why.

Working with Samba multiple concurrent(ish) asynchronous network functions much work is done with continuations or callback functions which are invoked when forwarded network'd rpc responses are returned.

Co-routines

I had previously tried another way of working this by writing in synchronous style using libpcl, and spawning such functions as a private coroutine.

With every rpc-send function Samba has an rpc-receive function which will block in a nested event loop until the response packet is received (if the response has not already been received).

I modified the nested event loop code to switch back to the main co-routine. The packet-received callback routine then just has to switch back to my private co-routine and the rpc-receive function would then return with the now received packet.

It worked well enough but highlighted other bugs which came to light when concurrency became possible; such as use of a connection before it is properly established.

The reason co-routines were used here at all was to obtain a private stack as a simple way to preserve state when waiting for the response, as well as aid debugging - after all a linear stack trace is nicer than a state-machine state any day!

But if the main aim is to protect the stack from being torn down and destroyed, why not allocate the stack frame on a heap? This would allow a function to return to the caller (in some fashion) while preserving state so that mid-re-entry could be achieved at the callback. This is what C#'s yield return does and is perhaps along the lines of native C-ish support for call-with-current-continuation from Scheme (or Lisp). It would not be a full implementation of course unless a full copy of the application environment were made - but we don't want to re-invoke the return path anyway.

So can lightweight fibres be built into C, using such notation as:

do_something_slow(int a, int b) {

  int answer = callback(ask_question(a));

  printf("Answer %d\n", answer);

}

heap(do_something_slow(a, b));

printf("Task started\n");

where control will return to print "Task started" but sometime later the answer will be printed?

Of the two magic words heap and callback, the word heap signifies that a new non-returning stack frame would be allocated and the word callback signifies that the function ask_question will receive a callback address in some form which would cause execution to continue on the next line. This looks all very hand-wavy but of course the callback mechanism would have to be standardized, probably based on the event-loop mechanism by which the callbacks would be delivered.

This all corresponds very closely to my original case where a callback function was explicitly provided to the async function, and the sole role of the callback function was to switch execution to the saved stack. Having called the async function we then switch to the main stack and therefore the process which invoked heap.

I'll post my libpcl code soon, it has some custom varargs task launchers.

A word on Technicalities

I read a comment from a chap who didn't care at all about technicalities but just thought people should pay their share of tax.

He didn't understand that it is the technicalities that make it possible to know what one's share of tax is so that one can pay it.

I think he felt like a benevolent dictator who could whip people into paying their share, but didn't realise the chaos that would ensue when the dictator next to him did the same thing but with a slightly different idea of what the share should be.

It was a sad case of the dangerous liberal dictators which goes like this: "If only everyone would do it my way it would all be so much better and we'd all get along so nicely."

It also reminds me of the more rabid US anti-gun folk who steam away thinking: If only we could MAKE them give up their guns, the country would be more safe and more peaceful; but without realising that they would have to MAKE them like it too, which is no more possible than making the anti-gun chaps like guns.

In other words: We only have these hard conversations because agreement is hard. Yet another attempt to sweep away disagreement isn't going to work.

Technicalities bring peace and order to confusion and disagreement without the need for full agreement.

It is sometimes easier to agree on technicalities than on principle; and that is what politics is, although in politics often the principle is not so much at stake as is who will get the bigger slice of pie.

Discontinuous Existence

I had to laugh when I read about the discontinuous state of variables with fluid-let (on account of re-usable continuations).

It related nicely to the discontinuous existence of the planet earth as revealed in the extended trilogy, that wholly remarkable book, the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

You can read about the discontinuities introduced with fluid-let and continuations here: http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-ref/Dynamic-Binding.html but you should remember those largely friendly letters on the front of the other book: Don't Panic

I quote the key phrases here:

The extent of a dynamic binding is defined to be the time period during which the variable contains the new value. Normally this time period begins when the body is entered and ends when it is exited; on a sequential machine it is normally a contiguous time period. However, because Scheme has first-class continuations, it is possible to leave the body and then reenter it, as many times as desired. In this situation, the extent becomes non-contiguous. 

When the body is exited by invoking a continuation, the new value is saved, and the variable is set to the old value. Then, if the body is reentered by invoking a continuation, the old value is saved, and the variable is set to the new value. In addition, side effects to the variable that occur both inside and outside of body are preserved, even if continuations are used to jump in and out of body repeatedly.

I'm going to have fun with fluid-let but I just wonder about the hackiness that went into implementing that, and is (I suspect) related to dynamic-unwind.

There are no human rights

There are no human rights, only obligations.

If I strip a human of his rights and abuse him, it is me that becomes inhuman and a brute, not him.

If, therefore, the removal of rights changes me and not him, then the rights are really vested in me as an obligation.

It is my obligation to act as a human, and (dare I say it) to treat others as I would be treated.

It is sad to see that close on the heels of worldwide recognition of human rights comes the terms under which humans can be denied those rights; certain classes of felony, enemy combatants, terrorist suspect, and so on.

I wonder if the talk of human rights is merely a precursor to wider defined abuses which are legally justified and now morally acceptable.

Once we see that the rights do not exist, only as an obligation, we are free to wonder how inhuman brutes obtain positions of authority in a political democracy.

Ding dong all year long

"The choir of children sing their song. They've practiced all year long. Ding dong, ding ding dong. Simply having a wonderful Christmastime..." (as the song goes)

It's hard to imagine a choir of children practising any Christmas song all year long, but when the only words seem to be "ding dong ding dong ding dong" it becomes even harder to imagine them singing it with any feeling by the time Christmas comes around.

Perhaps the only thing that could be worse is to be the choir leader of a group of children doomed to practise "ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong" all year long, and the relief that Christmas is finally here and the knowledge that the children can finally get the wretched performance over with will surely be tainted by the certainty that they must start practising again as soon as the new year starts.

Justification for piracy

2 comments which say an awful lot; from slashdot story in which someone in the USA is fined $80,000 per song for copying 24 songs illegally.

As a side note, I've heard that in the UK it is not legal to copy a CD you have bought to your mp3 player in order to listen to it; copyright law was established before the means to replicate and distribute were available to the public - or indeed the desire or need to do so for private use (like copy to your mp3 player). It seems unfair therefore that copyright law is rigorously interpreted is this the context of today.

Also note; I am not justifying piracy but noting someone else's comments:

Re:Justifying piracy
(Score:5, Informative)

by hairyfeet (841228) <`bassbeast1968' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday June 18, @08:28PM (#28383463)

One sentence- Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright! The man has been pushing up the daisies (or sitting in the freezer, whichever you
prefer) for over half a fricking century, yet his FIRST work, one made when planes were made out of cloth and antibiotics were just a dream, is STILL under copyright.

Most of us here are for fair copyright.

Of course most of us would consider the outright bribery of our elected officials by multinational corporations to be treasonous. The US copyright system, which is being forced down the throats of more and more nations, was a CONTRACT, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED monopoly in the form of government imposed copyrights We, The People got in return a richer and more diverse Public Domain for all of us.

But we have been robbed, and the contract broken. We, The People are no longer represented anymore, because we can't cut individual checks to bribe our own elected officials like the multinationals can. Until We, The People are once again represented at the bargaining table then ALL copyrights should be considered by the people of this country and all those who have American copyrights forced upon them null and void and completely ignored. Crooked laws created by bribed officials should be looked upon as the illegal acts that they are. Period

Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)

by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday June 18, @10:29PM (#28384575) Homepage

The US copyright system, which is being forced down the throats of more and more nations, was a CONTRACT, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED monopoly in the form of government imposed copyrights We, The People got in return a richer and more diverse Public Domain for all of us.

Somehow this is what seems to get lost in a lot of copyright discussions. Not to give a complete history of the copyright, but there was a time when we had no copyright, and people wrote books, painted, composed music, and performed it because they wanted to, and often they found ways to get paid for their expertise and talent. One common way was to do work that someone else wanted them to do on commission, whether they wanted to do it or not. Though many artists wished to have control over their own work, it was just silly to expect as much. Another artist would copy your painting, or another author might rewrite your story, and that's how culture developed.

And basically all that was fine until the the printing press arrived, and book publishers started making a fortune from printing books, neglecting to pay the authors. People recognized this as unfair and discouraging to those who might want to write a book, so they invented the idea of the copyright. The idea wasn't to ensure profitability for  publishers by forcing readers to pay for the right to read a book, nor was it meant to allow authors to control the destiny of their work, but it was solely a way to help authors get a share of the huge profits publishers were already making.

Flash forward to the present, and now copyrights are being  manipulated in such a way as to have almost the opposite effect that was intended. Copyrights are being used to guarantee profits for the publishers, while the artists are being denied their fair share of the profits. If anything, the Internet should allow us to go back to  pre-copyright days, since distribution doesn't really require a "publisher" in the same way.

Now I'm not saying we actually should drop copyrights, but only that convention has twisted the purpose of the copyright and given bad expectations about what copyrights will accomplish. Now we think that people own, buy, and sell ideas. Further, that if you own an idea, you should retain ownership and complete control forever. That's just an unsustainable situation.

I import much of my music from mp3sparks in Russia, which as far as I can tell (and I've spent over an hour researching) is legal. I'm sad that the artist doesn't get their 2 pence per track (or whatever) but consoled by the fact that the immoral music industry doesn't get the other 98 pence. The fact that music publishers have directed artists not to register with the Russian copyright agency to receive their Russian equivalent of 2p makes me laugh even more. The only widely acclaimed moral response is actually to not buy music published by immoral publishers at all.

Practical Jokes

Practical Jokes - all the fun of mean tricks with none of the guilt.

Ever have trouble coming up with a mean trick that is appropriate to the
situation and also compliant with your nice personality? Of course you
have!

Practical Jokes have none of these problems, and are often expected to
be in bad taste. What's more you'll gain the reputation of being fun to
be with.

Stop your individualistic and crass cheap bullying and buy our practical
jokes today! People will like you for it!

Wild virtues

While reading Daniel Hannan's "If you pay people to be poor, you'll never run out of poor people" blog post, I came across this lovely quote from G. K. Chesterton:

"When a religious scheme is shattered, it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity is often untruthful." - GK Chesterton