Have logged this with @Jawbone about a bug with Big Jambox; let’s see what they do.

Hi Guys!

I am running a software-updated 11-inch, Mid 2011 MacBook Air and using my Big Jambox. For reference I am a Unix system programmer and developer with 25 years of experience, so if you want to talk to me using quite long technical words, I am very happy.

Long story short: I have paired and re-paired, software updated, and connected-via-USB-and-wiped-all-the-pairings-and-again-paired my Big Jambox with my Macbook Air, and yet STILL it refuses to play sound from my Mac whilst the Sound Preferences are set to STEREO “Bluetooth Headphones” (my emphasis) – but it is really well behaved and plays well as non-stereo Bluetooth Headphones… except it just sounds like crap.

So, to recap:

1) I go to System Preferences > Sound, while paired.

2) If I select “Alec M Jambox .. Bluetooth Headphones” => okay but low rez mono audio

3) If I select “Alec M Jambox Stereo .. Bluetooth Headphones” => does not work at all, no audio, silence. Makes a depressing “bloop” noise when I select it, then silence. Selecting back to non-stereo and it start playing again immediately.

Syslog says this when I switch it to Stereo mode:

Sep 13 21:11:06 mistral.local coreaudiod[147] : Enabled automatic stack shots because audio IO is inactive
Sep 13 21:11:06 mistral kernel[0] : REQUIRE_NO_ERR_GOTO_ACTION failure: 0xe00002c0 – file: /SourceCache/IOBluetoothFamily_kexts/IOBluetoothFamily-4140.4.2/Core/Family/Drivers/IOBluetoothSCOAudioDriver/IOBluetoothSCOAudioEngine.cpp:550
— last message repeated 1 time —
Sep 13 21:11:08 mistral.local coreaudiod[147] : Disabled automatic stack shots because audio IO is active

…at which point it goes silent. When I switch it back to mono audio playback I get this:

Sep 13 21:11:59 mistral.local coreaudiod[147] : Enabled automatic stack shots because audio IO is inactive
Sep 13 21:11:59 mistral.local coreaudiod[147] : Disabled automatic stack shots because audio IO is active
Sep 13 21:11:59 mistral kernel[0] : [AppleBluetoothHCIControllerUSBTransport][HandleIsochData] — Error: 0xE000400F (kIOUSBMessagePortWasNotSuspended)
Sep 13 21:11:59 mistral kernel[0] : E:[AppleBluetoothHCIControllerUSBTransport][AppleBluetoothHCIControllerUSBTransport::HandleIsochData] error 0xe000400f (kIOUSBMessagePortWasNotSuspended) — Isoch In pipe

….and then it springs into lo-fi life.

It’s deeply vexing not to be able to use the Big Jambox over bluetooth properly. I am, I repeat, running the latest 10.8 OSX patches, and have run Disk Utility permissions-checking to ensure nothing is untoward in /dev. Looks like a driver issue to me.

Any idea how I can fix this, please?

I am still trying to work out what happened to the Guardian’s followup Clegg article

So Googling for the relevant phrase yields this:

Screen Shot 2013-08-25 at 13.29.09


Mousing over the “Nick Clegg queries…” link at the top yields the link illustrated at the bottom; but when you click through to Nicholas Watt’s article it does not use the word “intent” or any other of the relevant text. I am trying to establish whether the matching search text comes from the original article or somehow from comments, or similar, on Watt’s posting.

Or, it may too have been edited.  But silently. Not sure yet.

Apparently the Deputy PM thinks Anti-Terrorism Legislation is fairly used to retrieve/destroy classified data #Miranda

Interesting. Nick Clegg’s recent (friday evening) posting in the Guardian has been amended, saying:

This article was amended at 21.05 BST for legal reasons

Why would that be? Well a blogger notes:

Really, I don’t think I need say any more than point this out; and if the comment has been culled “for legal reasons”, all the more reason to highlight what was formerly said and presumably thought, I feel…

See also Reddit and just google the phrase to watch for a cascade of edits in other forums.

A simple rebuttal to @cguitton’s attempt to trash Tor Hidden Services /cc @torproject

There’s this paper by this guy at KCL.

That he’s posted it on Dropbox is both relevant and ironic.

In it, and in his Twitter feed, he argues essentially that Tor is OK-ish, but promotes anonymity – which he sees as “bad” – and Tor Hidden Services are intolerable and should “no longer be developed” because they promote so many bad things.

There are a bunch of arguments one could have about morality, privacy, anonymity, etc; but that’s playing the game in the expected fashion, leading to much postmodern posing and wastage of breath; so I will try a different, more Turingesque machine-based approach.

It’s very simple:

Strategically there is no communications difference between Tor, and Tor Hidden Services; what do I mean by this? I mean that both are simply forms of communication, and all forms of communication are functionally interchangable. To explain:

Tor mirrors the Internet and provides a connected graph of nodes which can communicate peer-to-peer; Tor Hidden Services provide a client-server model akin to the Web which runs atop the Internet.

If we are talking about access to data at rest – then we can provide such access in both models; with peer-to-peer networks we use Content-Based Addressing (a-la “Magnet Links” on Bittorrent) and on client-server networks we use Resource-Based Addressing (a-la URLs on the Web)

If we are talking about access to data in motion – then we can also provide such access in both models; with peer-to-peer communications (Skype, Bittorrent, E-Mail, USENET) – which may be synchronous (VoIP) or not (store-and-forward); and on client-server networks we historically just emulate the endpoints of peer-to-peer communication (E-mail becomes IMAP).

If data is not at rest or in motion, what is it?

So: there are two sorts of data and two communications mechanisms which are equivalent, merely using alternate addressing strategies* to distinguish them; with this understanding there is no way to choose one over another, nor reject one as “bad” while the other is “ok” or “good”.

Therefore, when one is dismissing a communications mechanism as bad, one is not talking about the medium, because all communications media are technically equivalent.

Instead, one is talking about the message. Therefore one is talking about censorship.

Welcome to your new role, Clement. Censor. QED.

Also, Dropbox, really? That’s not a proper webserver at all. If anything, it’s a peer-to-peer network with hierarchical backing storage and distributed web-emulating frontends.

* Another example:

  • Resource based addressing: “third shelf, fourth book along”
  • Content based addressing: “says it’s authored by Dickens, begins with ‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…'”

Do you know what it is, yet?