Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


davewantsmoore last won the day on April 22 2017

davewantsmoore had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,560 Superstar

About davewantsmoore

  • Rank
    Log! It's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
  • Birthday October 16

Profile Fields

  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, the design of a typical power supply and audio component is such that distortions in the mains are not carried through to the audio output. The designs of various audio components obviously vary though (some designs could be inadvertently susceptible) ... and also "THD" may not be a very sufficient way to quantify "distortion on mains". IMVHO, if it mattered, then I would throw my amplifier away (it is faulty).
  2. For the THD of the electricity (like you are measuring) there are no rules.... but it is unlikely to be important. THD from the speaker (ie. THD of the sound pressure you hear) is a different thing to what you're measuring here.
  3. Yes, this. Plant "disinformation", and let people (who don't particular bother to check or understand) repeat it. When you do this those people are your "stooges". Yes, I'm being somewhat derogatory. Because such little justification was provided for the position of "dogs breakfast". I think it is warranted.... but it is not "ad hominem". You see in fact, perhaps it is Rantan who himself resorted to ad hominem. Calling me an "apologist". Rather than retort any of the details or justification that I have provided..... he sums it all up as "you just think that because you're an apologist" .... as in I would say "anything" to support the NBN. That's perhaps a stretch sure..... but the point is that I am 1000% here to play the "ball" .... that is why I'm calling those like Al (and others) out. Because there is no "ball" in their argument to play (because there is little to no real justification provided) .... and I would like there to be. Show I can show others reading their error. I don't necessarily expect people to be happy with NBN .... but if you're going to poke at it, it needs to be compared realistically (ie. what's the mission, and what are projects it could be reasonably compared to, etc. etc.) Perhaps it's a bit much.
  4. All of the answers depend on each other .... and the best answer depends on exactly what you're trying to achieve. Max SPL required Frequency range required Possible positions in the room where subwoofers can go (be realistic) Ideal size of the subwoofer (be realistic) If you don't know the answers to these questions. Good. Stop. Don't avoid answering them. Figure out the answers ... and they will lead you to clear "you have to do this".
  5. Maybe a new dictionary would help? It is almost the opposite of ad hominem. I am attack the argument solely because the argument is wrong.... and I have suggested the other party provide more justification (so I can show that they are wrong). Why does someone repeat an incorrect argument (that they clearly don't understand), with no justification provided. Because they are a stooge (check dictionary again) of people who began originally spreading the misinformation. I am quite offended by the call of "ad hominem". I do not believe that the truth depends on who says it.... and I think it is quite "low" (and shows lack of intellect) to says "oh, you just think that because you're X" (which is what ad hominem is - attacking character, or other attribute of the person who said it - which is not related to the core argument).
  6. No, it is not ad hominem at all. I am not saying that "Al is wrong because Al said it". That would be "ad hominem"..... and I am not saying "Al is a stooge therefore you should believe what we says". I am saying that he is wrong (because he IS wrong), and that is what makes him "a stooge". I am saying that Al is wrong (and he doesn't know what he is talking about) because what he said is wrong. I am saying he is a "stooge" because the description fits. He is the "stooge" of those who want the NBN to be called a "dogs breakfast" without sufficient clear rational comparison to similar projects, or other (actually possible, no unicorns) options. No, I am playing the ball HARD. The ball is "is the NBN good"..... "Al says it's a dogs breakfast" .... but provides all of diddly squat actual reasonable support for that argument. This deserves to be smashed hard. Are you just salty that I did (or tried to, heh) the same to you? If he would actually provide a "this is why it's a dogs breakfast" (that contained more than whimsical anecdotes of pissing against walls) ..... then we could slice that up, and taste it. .... until then, we can only work with what we've got. There are many countries that are pretty good examples which we could follow. It's sad.
  7. There was never a plan on the table which didn't include "profitability" (ie. the NBN as a teleco wholesaler charging its customers enough money to turn a profit). ie. it wasn't morphed from "what proft thinks it should have been" .... into "what it is now". There have been agendas run which have taken advantage of the sentiment (disseminated by stooges like Al) that the project is too expensive, and too slow, and too incompetent. So let existing players gain more leverage in the game. This benefits those players greatly (in most ways, at your expense). This is a false equivalences. The social justice is getting everybody the opportunity of access to "broadband" services..... the "netflix tax" is a way to go about delivering that. If, instead, you believe that NOT asking people to pay for what the network costs to use ..... then you are asking for everyone to be punished equally. It will jeopardize such "deliver the access to everybody" missions. You cannot have the cake, and eat it too. You seem to misunderstand what this is about. ISPs can do this today (of their own free will) to their customers (you). This is NBN doing it to their customers (the ISPs). The ISPs don't have to pass it on, or purchase products under this pricing ..... but it's an opportunity for them to do, if they want (most big ones likely won't, as they already have managed the issue internally). If you want the voter to agree to spend more of their taxes ..... then consider that they never will if they are only fed "lies" about the nature of the project they are being asked to commit money to. Look to your fellow citizen, it is up to them. So far, it is. Lots of people have been convinced (mostly hearing it "from a mate", or on some news article or chat forum) that it's been poorly designed and run..... so, if the voter doesn't want to keep it.... then you can be certain it will be sold. The regulatory framework will be critical..... but we have a poor track record there.
  8. Yet you post little to no justification for such a strong opinion. ... and you call it "the reality". You don't know what you're talking about.
  9. Systems like this are exactly what is being developed right now. It is not that "they will collect the data" in the future. You will be the one creating the data, and you will create it in such a way, that only you can see it or control it (unless you decide otherwise).
  10. You agree. This is how the law works. If contemplating some different system, be very careful what you wish for In the future, the ideal is to have systems where you retain the exclusive control over your data. There will be no "privacy policy" as such. The data you create, will be stored somewhere you exclusively control. How it's used will be directly controlled by you. Nobody will have access to what you searched for, unless you let them see it (and you can revoke permission). You might require a company to pay you for access to your data, for example.
  11. Provide more detail of what EQ you need (PEQ, shelves, limiters, crossover?, delay, etc.) Do not blinker yourself to "analogue". Focus on getting the tool which gives you what you need. The right features and adjustability will give you orders of magnitude better results than "something else".
  12. It only makes sense if it is regulated well long term.... so the public is the boss. I think this will never happen while popularist decisions are made for MSM cheerleaders.
  13. Not a very good analogy for the NBN. Water and electricity (and many other things) are charged on some level of "pay per use" ..... and it needs to be that way. Decisions have been made with the NBN build, that mean not everyone can get gigabits to the home yet (FTTN, wireless, etc.) ..... NBN (needs to be) is more about retaining control over the next upgrade round(s) (to those people can get faster services at a time when it makes sense to the public, not to megacorp). The threat here is making half the country wait / stagnate on < 1gbps services for the entire 2030s..... while the rest of the world (and the rest of Australia) progresses. ie. a repeat of exactly what happened from 2000 to ~2015. If getting upset that the very large chunk of money we just spent, only stretches to what it did...... means that the idea of having "public control over telecommunications is flawed" [Just check some of the responses in this thread, or the MSM] ... then you are throwing the baby out with the bath water...... and it's a very important (and expensive) baby.... and by expensive, I mean, cost the alternate approach (eg. poorly regulated privateers), and figure out how much it will cost us over the next few decades (both in higher prices, but also lost opportunity). Staggering!
  14. Not a big concern. If the amplifier says it can drive 4ohm speakers, you will be dandy.
  15. We've discussed this quite a few times before.... but look above. You see why I keep telling you that the voter wouldn't agree to pay (loooottttss!!!!) more for the NBN. They already think "taxes for public good = bad" .... and "government can't do anything right". Yes, government are flawed, but they have to be compared to realisticalternativess.
  • Create New...