Shouldn’t this disambiguation also list offering as in commerce? I’m asking instead of adding it directly because I only just now came across the corresponding term in my native language, but it seems pretty elementary in commerce.

According to the article, ”PCL-R officially lists four factors (1.a, 1.b, 2.a, and 2.b)”. Yet ”The two factors” only lists Factors 1 and 2 without dividing them into 1.a, 1.b and 2.a, 2.b. Is this a deliberate omission or a slip?

Minulla hädin tuskin kynä enää pysyisi kädessä, mutta lopputuloksen surkeus ei koskaan ollut läheskään yhtä iso este harrastukselle kuin se, etten keksi mielekästä piirrettävää. Jonkin olemassaolevan jäljentäminen tuntuisi ihan turhalta (kamerat ovat sitä varten), eikä mielikuvitukseni ole koskaan tuottanut mitään visuaalisesti omaperäistä.

Ihanat värit!

After dozens and dozens of boots with the 3.2.0-14 and 3.2.0-15 kernels, here’s what I know.

1. This *is* tied to wistron_btns as I reported. Without it, boot never fails (the way I initially reported, though I’ll redefine what ”fails” means further below).
2. With non-pae kernels, boot never fails.
3. With 3.2.0-14-pae, the boot always fails.
4. A cold boot with 3.2.0-15-pae never fails.
5. A re-boot with 3.2.0-15-pae after a *non-failing* boot never fails.
6. A re-boot of 3.2.0-15-pae, after a *failing* boot (of 3.2.0-14-pae for instance), is *almost* sure to fail. I’d give it a 10% chance of not failing.

If you put it another way, this appears is pretty interesting:
1. You can ”break” 3.2.0-15-pae by booting 3.2.0-14-pae first.
2. You ”fix” a thus ”broken” 3.2.0-15-pae by booting a non-pae kernel.

I suspect this brokenness is actually hidden in the hardware, in something (the wifi key perhaps?) controlled by wistron_btns. Booting 3.2.0-14-pae puts the controller(?) in a ”broken” state from which 3.2.0-15-pae can’t recover, but a non-pae kernel can. And though 3.2.0-15-pae can’t recover a ”broken” controller, it also cannot put it into that ”broken” state (which is a good turn of development).

So now, about that ”fails” part.

I discovered by accident that although the system appears to freeze in boots I referred to as ”fails”, it has in fact been brought down to *almost* complete halt, but *just* almost. If I’m patient enough to wait, it does actually boot into LDM, from where I can switch to another VT and log in… slooooooowly.

Thus I was able to find out what’s going on that makes it so slow:

jani@amilo:~$ head dmesg.fail
stron_btns: Unknown key code 10
[ 1011.554522] wistron_btns: Unknown key code 10
[ 1011.554722] wistron_btns: Unknown key code 10
[ 1011.554921] wistron_btns: Unknown key code 10
[ 1011.555120] wistron_btns: Unknown key code 10
[ 1011.555320] wistron_btns: Unknown key code 10
[ 1011.555518] wistron_btns: Unknown key code 10
[ 1011.555717] wistron_btns: Unknown key code 10
[ 1011.555916] wistron_btns: Unknown key code 10
[ 1011.556134] wistron_btns: Unknown key code 10
jani@amilo:~$ grep wistron dmesg.fail | wc -l
2520

Note that this is unrelated to pressing any actual physical buttons. It’ wistron_btns misbehaving under the conditions I described above.

According to a Xiph mailing list message from 2003,

ogginfo should check most things, at least the CRC integrity of everything.

I don’t know whether ogginfo is available for Windows though. You’d also have to script the recursion part, as ogginfo doesn’t do that (at least on UNIX).

jani@amilo:~$ LC_ALL=C aptitude show linux-image-3.2.0-14-generic-pae | grep ”more then”
Geared toward 32 bit desktop systems with more then 4GB RAM.

I believe the fix is to ’s/more then/more than/’ in DEBIAN/control.

Hi komputes.

The difference between a normal boot and a recovery mode boot is (among other things) in the parameters that are passed on to the Linux kernel. A normal boot uses Kernel Based Mode-setting (KMS) whereas in recovery mode KMS is turned off by default to make sure it causes no problems in case recovery mode is needed.

From the Release Notes of Ubuntu 10.04:

”Ubuntu 10.04 LTS enables the new kernel-mode-setting (KMS) technology by default on most common video chipsets. While this is a major step forward for the graphics architecture in Ubuntu, in some rare cases KMS will prevent your video output from working correctly, or from working at all. If you need to disable KMS, you can do so by booting with the nomodeset option.” https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LucidLynx/ReleaseNotes#Working_around_bugs_in_the_new_kernel_video_architecture

I believe the nomodeset parameter is behind the low graphics mode you’re seeing in recovery mode and therefore intentional, as visually unappealing as it may be.

I have two computers affected by this and one that is not, each running Precise. I’ve tracked down the cause, but I’m not sure which of the components involved (friendly-recovery, resolvconf, postfix and upstart) is the culprit, so I’ll file this for friendly-recovery which is at least severly affected. Feel free to correct the target with better insight.

Steps to reproduce:
0. Have the ’postfix’ and ’resolvconf’ packages installed.
1. Boot into recovery mode.

What happens:
The boot proceeds in nonsplash (text) mode, but in the end the recovery menu fails to show up. Instead the graphical greeter is brought up.

What I expect to happen:
For the recovery menu to show up so I can use it.

The cause:
For debugging this, I first enabled logging for friendly-recovery.conf. That log implicated resolvconf, so I enabled logging for resolvconf, and that in turn revealed this:

cp: cannot create regular file `/var/spool/postfix/etc/resolv.conf’: Read-only file system

So I checked, and indeed postfix wasn’t there on my laptop which wasn’t affected. It seems that due to the read-only file system, the resolvconf upstart job fails, which in turn leads to the resolvconf-dependent friendly-recovery job to also fail.

The workaround:
Uninstall postfix if you can afford to.

Ovatkohan Googlen maksullisen palvelun, jollainen yliopistolla kuvittelisin olevan, yksityisyysehdot samanlaiset kuin ilmaispalvelun? Voi olla että ovatkin, mutta toisaalta voisi kuvitella, että kun palvelusta jo kerran maksetaan, eikä siinä ole mainoksia (eihän?), ei ole myöskään syytä räätälöidä niitä mainoksia eikä näin ollen kyylätä käyttäjien sähköpostien sisältöä. Vähemmän turhaa dataa kerättävänä ja säilöttävänä = kustannussäästöjä.

Toisaalta jos se mainosinfra on jo olemassa, voidaan maksullisillekin asiakkaille tarjota mainoksia halvempaa hintaa vastaan, mikä sekin on kilpailuetu. Näkyykö yliopiston Gmailissa mainoksia?