On 2022-06-23, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, I boot to the command line, as pi automatically
I type
amixer scontrols
it shows me Capture and Master controls
I type
alsamixer
it shows me Master control with stereo
Then I type
sudo su -
Now I am root, still on the command line (so no X )
I type
amixer scontrols
it shows me Headphone only
I type alsamixer
It shows Headphone control as MONO!!!!!
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to stereo with DIFFERENT controls
Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
I assume the difference between pi and root, is because the creators of
pios do not expect users to user the root account - they discourage it.
So if you use pios and go "off-piste" you are expected to know what you
are doing. I accept that, as I'm always doing things that don't fit the RPI >setup - like removing systemd, and pulseaudio and using my own desktop setup.
I did a quick google for "configuring alsa on PiOS" and there seem to be >several places that might help. Good luck.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:07:42 GMT
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to stereo
I suspect they did nothing to root but set up alsa the way they
wanted it on the pi user and so generated user specific configs instead of >system wide ones. So root wound up with a set of system defaults probably >designed to imitate the original Sun audio (8Khz mono PCM IIRC).
with DIFFERENT controls Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
I would go looking for the system wide alsa controls and set
things up by hand in there. Then I'd remove the user customisations for pi >(or just the user).
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:07:42 GMT Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to
stereo
I suspect they did nothing to root but set up alsa the way they
wanted it on the pi user and so generated user specific configs instead
of system wide ones. So root wound up with a set of system defaults
probably designed to imitate the original Sun audio (8Khz mono PCM
IIRC).
with DIFFERENT controls Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
I would go looking for the system wide alsa controls and set
things up by hand in there. Then I'd remove the user customisations for
pi (or just the user).
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:15:35 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
I would go looking for the system wide alsa controls and set
things up by hand in there. Then I'd remove the user customisations for
pi (or just the user).
... or simply set up another user, initiallly with default settings, and ignore 'pi'. Then its easy to modify your user to yse the settingds you
want.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/2022 14:13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:36:03 +0200, Deloptes wrote:
Did you put also the two words climate change in your search?No, of course not: TNP referred to Robert Brown as a physicist, so of
course I looked for a physicist with that name and didn't find one.
Replacing the 'physicist' search term with 'climate change' got just
two hits for "Robert Brown":
]
https://scholars.duke.edu/person/rgb
Thanks for that: it turns out that his published work is connected with Heisenberg's model of ferromagnetism and not a lot else. IMO this makes
his comments about climate modelling interesting but scarcely definitive.
The relationship (if any) between CO2 and temperature is what is
being modelled. The connection between those models and reality is what
is in dispute.
Nicely expressed.
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
For temperature trends from 20,000BC - 2016, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
and note that this also follows the same trend. XKCD may be a satirical
strip, but the author's background is in engineering and AFAICT he doesn't >> piss about with the numbers on this type of chart.
On his wiki page it does say engineer but also that his degree is a BS in physics. By trade he was a NASA software and robotics engineer for a while, maybe that's why? I thought engineer was a protected title in the US but no idea what the requirements are.
For temperature trends from 20,000BC - 2016, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
and note that this also follows the same trend. XKCD may be a satirical strip, but the author's background is in engineering and AFAICT he doesn't piss about with the numbers on this type of chart.
On 1 Jul 2022 18:13:06 GMT, TimS wrote:
The relationship (if any) between CO2 and temperature is what is
being modelled. The connection between those models and reality is what
is in dispute.
Nicely expressed.
Indeed, but since roughly 1800 the average temperature in the UK does in
fact correlate quite well with increases in CO2. Note, no climate models
are needed to see this correlation. See Figure 2 in
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and- temperature.html
which shows pretty good correlation, but also note the the text points
out that if you only look at a short time period, (Figure 1 on that page
Also note that these two data sets are measurements and that there is no climate model involved.
For temperature trends from 20,000BC - 2016, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
and note that this also follows the same trend. XKCD may be a satirical strip, but the author's background is in engineering and AFAICT he
doesn't piss about with the numbers on this type of chart.
On 01 Jul 2022 at 21:37:54 BST, A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
For temperature trends from 20,000BC - 2016, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
and note that this also follows the same trend. XKCD may be a satirical >>> strip, but the author's background is in engineering and AFAICT he doesn't >>> piss about with the numbers on this type of chart.
On his wiki page it does say engineer but also that his degree is a BS in
physics. By trade he was a NASA software and robotics engineer for a while, >> maybe that's why? I thought engineer was a protected title in the US but no >> idea what the requirements are.
What do you mean by "protected title"?
Yet it only covers short time periods. For climate long means tens
of thousands to millions of years. Look at the frequency if ice ages and interglacials for example.
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most significant effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to wait years for the effect to be noticeable, and I suspect NASA is happy to use Newton for any spacecraft. Fortunately there are no neutron stars or black holes near.but Newtonian mechanics works extremely well.It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull (Neutron
stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very small scales
(eg. tunnel diodes).
On 2 Jul 2022 14:53:11 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 02 Jul 2022 at 14:51:37 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
On 1 Jul 2022 18:12:15 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2022 at 16:43:48 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> >>>> wrote:
It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull
(Neutron stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very >>>>> small scales (eg. tunnel diodes).
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most
significant effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to
wait years for the
Perhaps electromagnetism is a more significant effect. I was amazed
when we did the calculations (Cambridge maths entrance exam preparation) >>> that the relativistic correction for the repulsive force of the moving
electrons (at all of a few mm/s) was precisely enough to account for the >>> magnetic force generated between two wires by the current flowing in
them.
Is that General Relativity? The gravitational business for Mecury is.
No special (do not ask for calculation details it was more than four decades ago) - as for Mercury IUSC Special Relativity gets it closer than Newton but General Relativity gets it spot on.
These days the puzzler is the behaviour of galaxies - hence dark
matter, dark energy and suchlike kludges, at least they look like kludges
to me but the maths involved is way beyond anything I ever touched.
On 02 Jul 2022 at 14:51:37 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On 1 Jul 2022 18:12:15 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2022 at 16:43:48 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull
(Neutron stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very
small scales (eg. tunnel diodes).
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most
significant effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to
wait years for the
Perhaps electromagnetism is a more significant effect. I was amazed when we did the calculations (Cambridge maths entrance exam preparation) that the relativistic correction for the repulsive force of the moving electrons (at all of a few mm/s) was precisely enough to account for the magnetic force generated between two wires by the current flowing in
them.
Is that General Relativity? The gravitational business for Mecury is.
On 02 Jul 2022 at 16:26:04 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
These days the puzzler is the behaviour of galaxies - hence dark matter, dark energy and suchlike kludges, at least they look like
kludges to me but the maths involved is way beyond anything I ever
touched.
To me they feel like the same sort of kludges that those who in earlier
times insisted that the Sun's and planetary orbits be perfect circles
around trhe Earth had to resort to in order to fit observed reality. At
some point someone will come up with a new paradigm and we'll all be
going, "Oh yeah, why didn't I think of that?"
Mind you, quanta were initially introduced as I recall to solve the ultra-violet catastrophe but then took on a life of their own.
On 02 Jul 2022 at 16:26:04 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On 2 Jul 2022 14:53:11 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 02 Jul 2022 at 14:51:37 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
On 1 Jul 2022 18:12:15 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2022 at 16:43:48 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> >>>>> wrote:
It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull
(Neutron stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very >>>>>> small scales (eg. tunnel diodes).
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most
significant effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to
wait years for the
Perhaps electromagnetism is a more significant effect. I was amazed >>>> when we did the calculations (Cambridge maths entrance exam preparation) >>>> that the relativistic correction for the repulsive force of the moving >>>> electrons (at all of a few mm/s) was precisely enough to account for the >>>> magnetic force generated between two wires by the current flowing in
them.
Is that General Relativity? The gravitational business for Mecury is.
No special (do not ask for calculation details it was more than four
decades ago) - as for Mercury IUSC Special Relativity gets it closer than
Newton but General Relativity gets it spot on.
These days the puzzler is the behaviour of galaxies - hence dark
matter, dark energy and suchlike kludges, at least they look like kludges
to me but the maths involved is way beyond anything I ever touched.
To me they feel like the same sort of kludges that those who in earlier times insisted that the Sun's and planetary orbits be perfect circles around trhe Earth had to resort to in order to fit observed reality. At some point someone
will come up with a new paradigm and we'll all be going, "Oh yeah, why didn't I think of that?"
Mind you, quanta were initially introduced as I recall to solve the ultra-violet catastrophe but then took on a life of their own.
My take on quantum mechanics is that the maths works but all the
explanations seem completely off the wall, although there are at least some formulations which avoid the very problematic observer.
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 11:39:32 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2022 05:52, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
Yet it only covers short time periods. For climate long means tens
of thousands to millions of years. Look at the frequency if ice ages and >>> interglacials for example.
I've seen it suggested that "climate" per se does not actually exist:
and that weather conditions are just fractal in nature. I'm not arguing
this one either way.
That is AFAIK a correct observation, climate is weather on a long scale.
And of course in any case, correlation !=> causation. I suspect you
Therein lies the main problem. All the causal paths are complex,
loaded with feedback and interact non-linearly, but if you say something
like that to a policy maker they'll tell you to come back when can give
them simple explanations that they can understand and convey. Hence the current dogmatic certainty.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 14:36:31 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
It is important to note that the Kantian view of the world - that
science is no more the descriptions dreamed up that *happen to work*,
"Happen to work" is a bit misleading. Science is a process designed
to filter descriptions that work repeatably from those that don't, it's pretty effective at it too.
rather than the *discovery* of *truths*, that the classical physicists
averred - is becoming far more useful in terms of both cosmology and
More simply the idea that when you have something that works it
must be the truth turns out to be false. Provably so because there are multiple contradictory explanations that work as well as can be tested and they can't all be true.
quantum level interactions.
Whereas we're getting our noses rubbed into the fact that it will
only be an approximation and even if we stumble on "the truth" we'll never know it or be able to prove it, we'll only know that it seems to work.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 14:32:45 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2022 14:59, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 11:39:32 +0100
Therein lies the main problem. All the causal paths are complex,Hence the ease with which random dogmatic *claimed* certainty affects
loaded with feedback and interact non-linearly, but if you say something >>> like that to a policy maker they'll tell you to come back when can give
them simple explanations that they can understand and convey. Hence the
current dogmatic certainty.
policy...
It is what is required to affect policy, nothing less would do the
job. That's why anyone working at changing policy toes the line and never expresses doubts whether or not they have any.
BTW have you seen the recent commercialisation of iron-iron flow batteries ? They appear to have really useful properties, very long lives
and really low costs for long term bulk energy storage. Energy density is nothing to write home about but it's not too shabby either and tanks of
iron chloride solution are cheap.
....
These days the puzzler is the behaviour of galaxies - hence dark
matter, dark energy and suchlike kludges, at least they look like kludges
to me but the maths involved is way beyond anything I ever touched.
At the risk of flying a kite, I think we should note that (at least
AFAIAA - I'm decades out of date on this stuff) most (all?) calculations
are based in the assumption that ε0, μ0 (and hence c) have the same
values everywhere and everywhen.
We've only measured them within a remarkably small space-time region,
yet extrapolate the observed constancy-within-experimental-errors to the entire universe throughout its history. Is that too arrogant an assumption?
I can't help but wonder if the need for "dark matter" would go away if
things weren't as constant as is generally held.
Bit like climate science in its way :-)
Not what I meant at all - more solar would be better and so would geo- thermal, which looks as if its no longer being ignored.
On 3 Jul 2022 21:35:37 GMT, TimS wrote:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/treatment-and-conditioning-of-nuclear-wastes.aspx
Thanks for that link. Most interesting.
and see the section on vitrification.
The issue of long term storage is a political one.Indeed, and seemingly being kicked into the long grass and otherwise
ignored.
Given the priority of the first reactors was plutonium for bombs,True, but not what I was on about: I was merely pointing out that they're still there and being treated as SEP (Someone Else's Problem).
unsurprising that little or no thought went into how they would
eventually be dismantled.
This is not the case for modern plant.
Well, I'm happy to burn more coal if you are.Not what I meant at all - more solar would be better and so would geo- thermal, which looks as if its no longer being ignored.
In the UK, we're too far north for sensible solar, especially in winter
when you need it most.
Not much geothermal here either, I wouldn't have
thought.
The real problem with renewables here is in winter, when you can get
periods of a week or more with a blocking high over most of northern
Europe, leading to no solar and not much wind. That happens a couple of
times a winter, typically.
On 4 Jul 2022 14:23:02 GMT, TimS wrote:
In the UK, we're too far north for sensible solar, especially in winterTrue, but wind and maybe tidal power are both fine in winter.
when you need it most.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 139:51:40 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 5,389 |
| Messages: | 223,236 |