NPR covers CBP illegal searches

Do they look like drug smugglers? Everyone's a criminal in an Orwellian society.

Click through for full story and audio.

"The Internet with a Human Face"

Awesome write-up about some "concerns" about the Internet. Must. Read.

Funniest bit:

"There was an ad for the new Pixies album. This was the one ad that was well targeted; I love the Pixies. I got the torrent right away."

Pulseaudio and Jack on Ubuntu Linux

Perhaps you've fiddled with Linux sound configuration until you're blue in the face. Perhaps you've flip-flopped between Pulseaudio and Jack because they each did something useful but each also missed something you needed. Perhaps you (too) tried endless .asoundrc config files trying to get ALSA to do what it is you wanted.

There's a better way. Just use Pulseaudio *with* Jack.

Pulseaudio (hereafter PA) has the convenience that everything uses it; Chrome and Ubuntu practically force you to use it. Only some programs support the Jack API but those that do absolutely need it, and besides, you want to use it for its quick hook-up features. You *can* have the best of both worlds.

The following recipe will run PA on top of Jack. Programs that use PA will simply use it. Likewise for Jack. Yet, you will be able to select which sound card to use relatively easily, and you will be able to insert various filters, recorders, etc.

First, add yourself to the audio group:

% sudo usermod -a -G audio $USER

You may have to logout/login to see the effect.

Next, install any packages that you might be missing:

% sudo apt-get install jackd2
% sudo apt-get install pulseaudio-module-jack
% sudo apt-get install patchage

Now to start loading things. There are 2 ways to go about this. One is a fairly light handed way, the other fairly heavy handed. Try both, take your pick.

Both methods require that something useful be in ~/.jackrc. Here is a reasonable default:

% echo /usr/bin/jackd -d alsa > ~/.jackdrc

Jack will grab the first audio device listed by:

% aplay -l

It can happen that this isn't the system default device. Therefore, it's a good idea to actually specify the device name, not the number:

% aplay -l
**** List of PLAYBACK Hardware Devices ****
card 2: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 0: ALC262 Analog [ALC262 Analog]
  Subdevices: 0/1
  Subdevice #0: subdevice #0

See how my first device is card 2, not zero(0) ? That's because ALSA found some USB devices first on boot-up. Therefore, my Jack command line is:

/usr/bin/jackd -d alsa -d hw:PCH

Yes, those are 2 "-d" options. The first "-d" tells Jack which back-end to use. Once a back-end is selected, the remaining arguments are sent to that back-end. The second "-d" tells the ALSA back-end which device to grab. Again, I specified the name (in this case, "PCH"), not the number.

Starting Jack

% mkdir ~/.pulse
% cp /etc/pulse/default.pa ~/.pulse

Then edit ~/.pulse/default.pa and add:

load module-jack-sink
load module-jack-source

and re-start PA:

% pulseaudio -k

This should force load jackd, but I have seen Pulseaudio refuse to start the Jack server. If you don't see any Jack devices in the Gnome sound configuration tool, try this:

% pactl load-module module-jack-sink
% pactl load-module module-jack-source

Whichever method you got working, start the Gnome sound configuration tool (pavucontrol might work in non-Ubuntu distros) and select the Jack source for Input, and the Jack sink for output. Set both volumes to 100% and close the config tool.

Next, start up Patchage. In the tool's window, you should see PA's sink connected to "system:playback", and likewise "system:capture" connected to PA's source. By clicking on various connections, you can move or remove them. Play with it. You can't break anything.

If you don't see both the system input and output, then Jack probably grabbed the wrong device, probably an input-only or an output-only device. See above to specify the actual device.

If you need to add any sound cards (or devices) that aren't listed, you will need to create Jack clients for them. For each *input* device (e.g. microphones), run:

% alsa_in <what-you'd-like-to-call-it> <input-device>

for example:

% alsa_in my-usb-mic hw:2,0 &

For each *output* device, run:

% alsa_out <output-name> <output-device> &

Note the terminating ampersand(&). This will run it in the background. You might need to devote a console to them because they spit out occasional error messages. I like using the program "screen" for this.

Once they are started, you should see blocks representing the new inputs and outputs in Patchage. Connect them to PA's ports if desired (inputs to PA sources, PA sinks to outputs), or connect them directly to the system inputs and outputs (not to themselves, of course.) This flexibility is the beauty of Jack.

You can also install utilities that tweak the sound pretty easily. For instance, zita-at is an auto-tuner, rakarrack is a guitar distortion utilitity, and jack-rack is a general sound tweaker. It can do lots of things including reverb, chorus, mute and amplification. Want to record all your video calls? Just start a Jack recorder (e.g. audacity) and connect it to an output (or PA sink).

Howl's Moving House

Fairy tale:

Scary fail?

Just kidding. I applaud the intent, but in the city, wouldn't basic wheels have been simpler? Trailers converted into tiny houses, and classic trailer campers (Airstreams and tear drop) abound in the Web.

http://www.n55.dk/MANUALS/WALKINGHOUSE/walkinghouse.html

Why do people hate airports? The Shadow knows

TL;DR

People opposed to airports are not really annoyed by the noise, or worried about pollution or crashes. They are, instead, afraid of the shadow that the airplane makes on the ground.

ahem

The smaller airports in this country are under constant attack, by the people - it should come as no surprise - who don't use them. People buy houses next to them and wake up one day and ask,

"Who put this airport here?? It wasn't here yesterday! Where's my torch and pitchfork??"

The people then write letters to their city council representatives and a long, expensive legal battle ensues (no pun intended.) Eventually the airport must be shut down, due to sheer exhaustion.

Why do people do this? Why do they hate airports so much? Ignoring why they moved there in the first place, why don't they wake up and say, "Oh cool! We're near an airport! We can go flying any time!" ?

People claim there are many reasons:

Noise

When a jet airplane takes off, there's little argument that it makes a lot of noise. There's no mystery to it: Engines designed around a constant explosion going off in mid-air tend to squeak a little.

This makes one wonder: Why didn't the people buying the houses know about the airport with all the noise? Do the planes have a "stealth mode" that they enable during Sunday open houses ?

Hardly. Jet operations - or even propeller operations - simply don't occur that often. Even the busiest airports only have a take-off on average every 10 minutes, and that includes little propeller planes. The fastest an airport can launch a jet is basically every 2 minutes. In the grand scheme of things, you're more likely to hear a chopper or muscle car pass before an airplane.

Clearly the issue isn't noise.

Crashes

Airplanes crash. Occasionally. If you're under it when it does, you're going to have a bad time.

But does it really occur that often? The embattled airport of Santa Monica is a fairly busy airport with about 300 operations per day. Yet, it only experiences on average one crash per year.

Note that this includes non-fatal non-damaging off-airport landings.

Compare this with the streets around your house. On any city block, there is a crash every week. In any city, there are thousands of crashes per year and, for example, Los Angeles sees about 300 deaths per year.

But that's not all! People even get into cars, and go traveling in them on these roads! In fact, they hurl themselves at life-threatening speeds! They even do it *across the paths* of other drivers! Why, you can't go a single block before crossing what's called an "intersection" where dozens of other drivers are speeding too - *perpendicular* to their path!

But not being in a car doesn't save you. Los Angeles also recently received the honor of being the deadliest place in America for pedestrians.

With such devastation, it's a wonder anyone puts their house so close to such "arteries of death"!

Compared to this devastation, once-a-year pace of airplane crashes are as legendary as unicorns.

Clearly the issue isn't crashes.

Pollution

What do the environmentalists claim kills more people than car crashes ? Pollution from cars, trucks and airplanes.

"Airplanes! There they are again!"

People dislike the pollution produced by airplanes, but apparently don't mind the pollution from cars and trucks. Why is this?

Surely it can't be the amount. Taking Santa Monica again, the city might experience 150 take-offs a day (again, including the little prop planes.) (Airplanes don't burn much gas landing.) The airplane will travel down Rose, and over the ocean never to be seen again. That's what? 2 miles?

Compare this with the thousands of cars driving all over the city, each covering dozens of miles. To get to work, my own car travels through 10 miles of Santa Monica, and again when I go home.

And of course, I'm not alone. The commute includes so many cars, that the West Side has some of the worst traffic in the world.

The 10 and 405 intersection are also in Santa Monica (maybe Mar Vista) carrying its share of the cargo trucks coming out of Long Beach, along with buses, etc.

"But isn't the pollution from a single plane spread over a wider area ?"

Yes, and this makes it less potent. If you want to get technical, the parts per million (PPM) is much lower.

Again, the airplane's contribution is tiny.

Clearly the issue isn't pollution

What then is the problem ???

The only reason that I can think of, why people hate airports and airplanes, is that they are afraid of the shadow that the airplane makes as it passes over them.

I'm not being coy. There is research to back me up. When a shadow passes over us, it produces a visceral, primitive reaction in our lizard brains. It is powerful and uncontrollable.

When a shadow passes over us, our instinct is that a predatory bird is about to pounce on us and eat us. Think of all the prairie dogs and chickens who dive for cover when a hawk or eagle passes over. They can't hear the raptors coming and so have to keep a look out.

To see this for yourself, find a pool of water containing mosquito larvae. Wave your hand over the pool and watch the larvae run (well, wiggle) to the bottom. If you do it long enough, you will drown them.

We evolved from the same scampering rat that these other animals did, that same first mammal who had to run in fear from much taller dinosaurs. That same panic reaction wells up in us when a shadow crosses us.

When you look at it this way, it's really no wonder why people hate airplanes. They cause us a lot of stress.

How do we fix this ?

The solution is to remove the shadows obviously. One way to do this would be to produce so much pollution - as much pollution as Hong Kong - that the sun never shines. It is widely known that people in China do not fear airplanes. In fact, the Chinese word for airplane translates roughly as, "What's that noise above us?"

Another solution comes from the comic book world, of all places. If the airplanes were transparent, they obviously wouldn't produce a shadow. Yes, I'm suggesting we should license the invisible jet technology from the Amazons of Themyscira, who Wonder Woman is a member of.

No, that would never work because we'd never find their invisible island.

Therefore I would propose that we just get over it.

Awesome hot tub tiny house

Check it out here.

Hypocrisy

"Why is it that, in 2014, affluent communities like Santa Monica, Mar Vista and Venice must suffer these horrendous health and safety impacts as part of daily life?"

Darn straight! That's for the poor neighborhoods!

Unless, of course, you buy a house in a flight path. Not that it matters because you'll be killed by automobile exhaust or impact first.

http://www.santamonicanext.org/jonathan-steins-open-letter-on-lawsuit-opposing-referendum-to-save-smo/