2013년 12월 31일 화요일

Wayne Madsen ~ National Security Agency Surveillance Reflections and Revelations, 2001-2013


Wayne Madsen ~ National Security Agency Surveillance Reflections and Revelations, 2001-2013


The National Security Agency ignited a firestorm of controversy with widespread surveillance and eavesdropping.

Edward
Snowden has stated no phone call is made in America without being noted
by the Federal Government. Documents reveal the NSA even spied on the
Pope.

Revelations of spying on world leaders and foreign
nationals may change Washington. Congress is now considering a bill that
would require Senate confirmation of any future head of the spy agency.


The Obama Administration said any check on its power in this matter could harm national security.





Even
California Senator Dianne Feinstein is in favor of the confirmation
process. Feinstein is normally an avid supporter of the spy agency.
President Obama may name a civilian to head the NSA under intense public
pressure to reform the agency.

Polls show the American people are largely opposed to the surveillance program.

Wayne Madsen
Wayne
Madsen is an investigative journalist who has been researching the NSA
for several years. He is the author of National Security Agency
Surveillance: Reflections and Revelations.




That was the Doctor Who that was - A 50th Anniversary Post


That was the Doctor Who that was - A 50th Anniversary Post

From the outset, I make no apologies for any spoilers in this post. You really should have watched the Doctor Who 50th anniversary stuff by now, and if you haven't and go any further, you deserve everything you get.


So, the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who and all the associated shenanigans.

Ultimately, what a load of old rubbish.

The plot made absolutely no sense - who are these "Gallifresians" that they keep banging on about? That Wurzel Gummidge chap Jonathan Pertwee wasn't even given any lines which is absolutely unforgivable being as he was the longest Doctor Who ever for the eight years before 1948 and 1956, and the continuity people didn't even give Tom Baker the right coloured hair or a funny long scarf. They had David Tennants doctor running about even though I definitely remember him "rejuvenating" (See, I know all the terms) into Matthew Smith (the guy who wrote Maniac Miner for the Spectrum 48k) back in 2002 or something, and for some reason they had Kane from Alien wandering about calling himself the "Wart Doctor". And why do they have to bring back the Daleks over and over again? What's wrong with using some of the classic villains like The Hood or Zelda and Yung-Star? What a load of old bollocky nonsense - Michael Grade had the right idea putting it on the TV schedule against Crossroads years back so it would die a natural death - Stephen Muffet is terrible and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Doctor Who. Bring back Russell T. Davison - he never got anything wrong, especially when he did that great one ("Loving Monsters?") with Peter Kay.

So I hear - I didn't even watch it. It's a kids show anyway.

But of course, that's not true at all, is it? I thought the pinnacle of the 50th celebrations would have been "An Adventure in Space and Time", a wonderful dramatisation of the creation of the series back in 1963. Poignant and made with a level of loving detail that you don't see very often, it was clearly Mark Gatiss writing a love letter to a show that is clearly so dear to him.

But the big event of the celebrations was the 50th Anniversary episode "The Day of the Doctor". Excitement had already begin building to fever pitch after the mini episode prequel in which we got to see Paul McGann playing the doctor again and regeneration into John Hurt, but this episode carried the weight of a great deal of expectation.

And did it deliver?

Oh yes. Again, one of those scripts that dazzled you and left you breathless and didn't give you time to think about the occasional pothole "Hey, hang on, didn't he just--? Whoa! Explosions and daleks!", but overall a cracking 50th anniversary episode. The production values made it feel big but rather than go the Michael Bay route of style over substance there were enough moments of contemplation and poignancy and a tendency to enjoy and celebrate the damn history of the thing that it carried itself nicely. With an ending that almost mirrors the doctors habit of regenerating by regenerating the series itself, giving it a new sense of purpose and urgency that it's been lacking in recent seasons.

Splendid telly. Here's to the 100th.

..and for those of you around in 2063 (which is unlikely to include me) I want you to do me a favour. Seriously. Do it for me.

When you're on whatever the internet is called then (probably the SuperHyperBrainNet, or something) and you see someone talking about the impending 100th Doctor Who Anniversary episode and they're moaning about what little they know of the plot and are suggesting a myriad of ways in which it could be improved if they were in charge, then please copy and paste the following chunk of text in response to it:

Hi there. Its more than likely that I'm dead now, but somebody has done me the favour of copying and pasting my catch-all response here, and I think it'll probably apply. I'm sorry to say that - even though I'm a Star Wars fan - I've never known such a pissy and entitled group of fans as those who watch Doctor Who. Can you please for one second stop fucking whining about what should be a wonderful celebration of a well loved program and have a little faith that the program makers will get it right? And If you're stating three weeks in advance you're not going to watch it because it'll be shit, that your friends holdyou to that and if you dare start enthusing about it five minutes after it finishes then they're given my posthumous permission to beat your face into a sloppy pulp.

And stop writing pissing script ideas that you think would make it better. You can't even tell the difference between "could have" and "could of" so you'll forgive me in not holding my breath (joke, I'm dead) for you to come up with some wonderful BAFTA winning Doctor Who script.

In short, piss off and start enjoying it.

You doing this small favour for me is the closest I'll ever get to time travelling. Thanks in advance.


Predictable


Predictable


Go tell Obama.
Black community leaders in Brooklyn blamed “lack of jobs” for the recent knock-out game violence.
There have been several “knock-out attacks” on Jews in Brooklyn recently.

The local leftists want more money to tackle the problem.
News 12 reported:Community leaders in East New York say that jobs are the answer to ending the so-called “knockout” game.
Councilman Charles Barron and other local activists spoke publicly for a second time about a rash of assaults involving young people punching unsuspecting victims. Barron says the root of the problem is that young people need jobs to help keep them out of trouble.
In recent weeks, at least half a dozen people have been randomly assaulted in Brooklyn. Officials say suspects are participating in a dangerous nationwide trend that allegedly involves attempting to knock out victims with a single punch.
Barron also suggested additional funding to community patrol groups who can act as lookouts and help put an end to the violence.
Under Barack Obama, the black unemployment rate is twice that of the white rate.
thegatewaypundit


Michael Ventrella Interview with Me!


Michael Ventrella Interview with Me!

Interview with author MarkArnoldPosted on November 17, 2013 by Michael A. Ventrella MICHAEL A. VENTRELLA: Im pleased to be interviewing author Mark Arnold today. Mark is a comic book and animation historian, and has had many articles published in various publications.
He has a BA in Broadcast Communication Arts from San Francisco State and has published “The Harveyville Fun Times!” since 1990. His books include IF YOURE CRACKED, YOURE HAPPY: THE STORY OF CRACKED MAGAZINE, THE BEST OF THE HARVEYVILLE FUN TIMES, MARK ARNOLD PICKS ON THE BEATLES, and CREATED AND PRODUCED BY TOTAL TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS. His most recent is FROZEN IN ICE; THE STORY OF WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS 1966 – 1985. He has also produced and recorded DVD commentaries for Shout! Factory and has helped the San Francisco Cartoon Art Museum with various art shows.
Mark, how did you first get involved in writing?
MARK ARNOLD: I always liked writing since I was very young. I learned how to read and write probably around age four. I was plopped down in front of “Sesame Street” the day it debuted at age 2½ and by the time I entered pre-school I know I could read and probably write.
VENTRELLA: What sparked your interest in comics?
ARNOLD: Comic books were always around the house. I always enjoyed the pictures and liked them more once I knew how to read them. I also always had an interest in animated cartoons and movies and everything kind of just blossomed from there.
VENTRELLA: There are lots of comic book historians dealing with superhero comics (which I, admittedly, never got into) but fewer dealing with the humorous comics (which I read a lot of). Why do you think that is?
ARNOLD: I dont know. I guess others identify with superheroes or aspire to be them. I always liked superheroes to a point, but always wanted a little humor behind them like on the “Batman” TV show with Adam West. I always wanted to laugh. I started off with Harvey Comics and other funny animal books and then graduated to Archie Comics and then superheroes. I shouldnt say graduated actually, because I never stopped reading the Harveys and the Archies, I just added to my reading. Over time, as superheroes got more realistic, I found them to be more boring and eventually I stopped reading them, but I still admire the DC comics from the Golden Age and the Marvel comics from the Silver Age.
Im even disinterested in the live-action movies they make these days, but I eventually see them just to keep up, but my favorite comic book stuff was and is humor comics, especially those done by Harvey and Archie and Gold Key and humor magazines like Mad and Cracked, etc.
VENTRELLA: What was your first book?
ARNOLD: My first book was THE BEST OF THE HARVEYVILLE FUN TIMES! which featured reprints from my long-running Harvey Comics fanzine (1990-2011). It was self-published as was the fanzine and was my attempt to see if I could actually publish a book.
VENTRELLA: How did you arrange the publishing?
ARNOLD: I went to the APE in 2005 and bought a book from someone that said it was published by Lulu. I had heard about Lulu, but what I didnt know is that the books they publish look and feel like real books and have bar codes and ISBN numbers and everything. I published my first book through Lulu in 2006. Prior to that, I always dreamed about publishing a book, but felt that I didnt have the connections or the funds to do it. Lulu.com made it easy, because all you really need is around $150 and Lulu prints what you need on demand and it gets listed on all the major book sites such as Amazon and Barnes Noble and you get an ISBN bar code. It doesnt get into bookstores this way, but thats no big deal as more and more people are buying books online anyway than in stores, but I did get it distributed through Diamond, who is the major distributor to comic book stores. It sold quite well, actually.
VENTRELLA: Tell us about BearManor Media.
ARNOLD: BearManor Media is also print on demand as is Lulu.com, but the difference is, you dont have to format the book and do all the production work yourself. They do it for you. Your commission for each book sold is less than if you self-publish, but I feel that it is worth it, in order to not have to do all that stuff and stick with the creative end such as writing. BearManors focus is on pop culture books, so if you want to write a novel, they are not the publisher for you, but there are others that do focus on fiction and they can help those wanting to get published. Check Google to find out who.
VENTRELLA: Youve also written the Cracked magazine history. Did you get assistance with that from Cracked? Did anyone from the magazine object?
ARNOLD: I went to the current owners of Cracked.com, the website that is owned by Demand Media. They really didnt care that I was doing a history of Cracked magazine. All they were interested in was whether I was reprinting anything from the website, which I wasnt.
In fact, I told them I wasnt interested in discussing the website at all except for the fact that it needed to be mentioned in the history to say what happened to Cracked after it ceased publishing as a print magazine. I got no assistance from the current owners and did not interview any of them. I got the most assistance from Mort Todd, who was editor of Cracked magazine from 1985-1990 and he helped design and layout the book cover using new artwork from the great John Severin.
VENTRELLA: What do you think of their current web page, which is not at like the magazine?
ARNOLD: I actually do like the website and the two books that they have published with material from it, but it really isnt Cracked. The funny thing is that the current owners paid a big amount (I think it was in the millions) and basically ended up with a name, since all the films from the old magazines had to be destroyed after anthrax was sent to the National Enquirer offices in Boca Raton, Florida where the films of the old Cracked magazine issues just happened to be housed. This was the same anthrax that hit the world news shortly after 9/11 and at least one person died as a result. If someone was to do a “Best of Cracked” now, they would have to get permission from Demand Media to do so, and they would also have to scan all the old issues or the original artwork in order to do it. I am trying to work on this as we speak.
VENTRELLA: Your latest book, FROZEN IN ICE, is about the Disney films in one of their darkest and least successful eras. What made you decide to look at those years?
ARNOLD: Those were the years that I grew up and I didnt have problems with the films as others have. I actually enjoyed Disney during the 1970s, especially the gimmick films which I dubbed the “dopey Disney comedies”, where they took some premise like invisibility or the goose that laid golden eggs and ran with it. I didnt necessarily think that the Disney of the 1950s or 1960s was that much different. The animation was different with the Xeroxing, but Disney had this nice habit of reissuing all of their old product, so it seemed like these old cartoons like “Snow White” and “Pinocchio” were fresh and new to me. Also, many books about Disney tended to say something like: “And then Walt Disney died and after a few years, Michael Eisner took over and revitalized the company.” I wanted to cover the years that always seemed to be glossed over by most Disney history books.
VENTRELLA: For those of us of a certain age, this book brings back many memories, since these were always kid-friendly films my Mom could safely take me to. I was surprised at how many were familiar. Did you rewatch all of these films to write this?
ARNOLD: Yes I did. There are approximately 75 new theatrical Disney films that they released during the time period covered and even in this day of mass marketed DVDs, its amazing that there are a few of them that just are not on home video in any form. I was still able to secure copies, but it took some doing.
VENTRELLA: Which ones stick out as particularly better or worse than you thought theyd be?
ARNOLD: When I was a kid, I was never a fan of the nature films. I felt like I was in school. As an adult rewatching them, I was amazed at how well done some of them are like “Rascal” (1969) or “Run, Cougar, Run” (1972). Others were as bad as I expected like “Scandalous John” (1971) and others like “Smith!” (1969) were actually surprisingly good. I never saw the last two as a kid. One example that I particularly like was “The Littlest Horse Thieves” which was released in the US in 1976. It is a surprisingly good film and grossly overlooked, then as now.
VENTRELLA: Your analysis of the films is pretty straightforward, although you do give personal comments at times. Why did you decide not to be more subjective?
ARNOLD: I was following in the format of Leonard Maltins THE DISNEY FILMS, but I put my own spin on it.
I didnt want to be too dry but I did follow Maltins format of film synopsis and commentary. Some have complained that there might be too much synopses in the book, but it is a reference book, not a straight narrative and I wanted people to use it in tandem with Maltins work which ends its detailed coverage of films in 1967.
VENTRELLA: Was the main problem with Disney at the time the “What Would Walt Do?” mentality? Did it keep them from progressing?
ARNOLD: Initially, the “What would Walt do?” mentality worked well for them. Walt had left such a wealth of unfinished ideas and had such a talented staff that everything ran kind of like a well-oiled machine running on auto pilot for the first few years after his death. The company was very profitable during these years (1967-1975), but by the end of that period came the end of Walts ideas. Then the big movie release of “Star Wars” in 1977 and that really did them in. Movies for kids had started to change and improve with higher production values, but Disney was slow to change with it. By the time they did, Walt Disney Productions was in serious trouble. Their official answer in 1979, “The Black Hole” was somewhat disappointing, even though the film has its moments and its fans.
VENTRELLA: You also discuss Disneys other projects during this time, although not in the great detail in which you discuss the films. Why do you think that is important?
ARNOLD: The films were what made Walt Disney Productions. I do mention what happened at the Disney parks and TV shows, comic books and record albums. I dont go into a lot of detail because there are other books that go into each of these areas in greater detail and those are mentioned in my bibliography if people want to research this period further.
VENTRELLA: I founded and edited a magazine called Animato! during that period. We were thrilled when “The Black Cauldron” came out, mostly because back then wed be excited if any animated feature was released since they were so rare. Why do you think Disney ignores that film now? Was it that bad?
ARNOLD: I love Animato! and wished it still existed. I have every issue!
Actually, I didnt mention “The Black Cauldron” when you asked about films that I felt are better now than when I first saw them. Its still not a great film, but I liked it a lot better when I viewed it back in 1985. I think that because there was such a long gap between Disney animated films back then, there was higher anticipation for each film, especially when it was a Disney cartoon and that one took an especially long time to get finished and released.
Nowadays, it seems, there is a new CGI film released each week by any number of studios and unfortunately, they are all starting to look the same. Its a group of animals or birds or cars or monsters or toys that have to overcome some obstacle and they are happy at the end. It used to be an individual on a quest. Now its all of these groups. It was James Bond. Now, its The Expendables. There are some good ones now, but unfortunately, a lot of bad ones and many of those are made by Disney.
I think Disney doesnt think too highly of “The Black Cauldron” because its not based on a classic fairy tale and its slightly bit gorier than other Disney films being the first PG-rated animated Disney film. Also, at the time and now, it was hard to market that film.
There wasnt a lot of merchandise, the characters didnt walk around Disneyland and it was released during a time of transition and Michael Eisner really wanted to sweep it under the carpet and work on animated films that he was planning like “The Great Mouse Detective” rather than looking backwards. Its taken Robert Iger to embrace the Disney past better with a newer Love Bug and Witch Mountain films. “The Black Cauldron” is still kind of lost in the shuffle, but so have latter day Disney films like “Brother Bear” and “Dinosaur”.
VENTRELLA: You also wrote a book analyzing Beatles songs. What led you to do that, when there are so many Beatles books on the market now?
ARNOLD: My book covered every Beatles song, group and solo, released and unreleased. With the era of illegal downloading and YouTube, it is now easier than ever to listen to unreleased Beatles songs. I felt that a guide was needed and that was sort of a vanity project for me. For MARK ARNOLD PICKS ON THE BEATLES, I self-published once again with Lulu and got a lot of my friends in the cartoon and animation fields to submit Beatles drawings like Bill Morrison and Patrick Owsley. It was a fun project to do because I love listening to the Beatles music so much. I know The Beatles keep releasing “new” product like “The BBC Sessions, Volume 2”, the songs off which Ive owned on a bootleg for years, but for me, its old news. Ultimately, I have to confess, it has been my worst seller and Ive concluded that people would rather listen to Beatles music that read about it. I dont know how most of these other books fare. Im sure some do well, but probably many do not and are releasing a Beatles book in hopes of making a quick buck.
VENTRELLA: What do you offer in that Beatles book that is different from all the others?
ARNOLD: As I said, its my own opinions about the songs and I add my own sense of humor. Most people dis or completely ignore Ringo, for example. Ive called him in the book “the Yoko of The Beatles.” I also give a ratings systems that ranks from four Beatles down to one and the few songs that do rate a zero star is represented by Pete Best. Its all in fun and I had a blast doing it. I also have an “intermission” in the middle of the book where I discuss the comic books on Pauls Hammond organ stand as featured in “Help!” With the help of the Grand Comics Database and Jerry Beck and Lee Hester, I was able to determine which comics were on the easeL. I offered the article to “Beatlefan” and they turned it down, so I used it for my book.
VENTRELLA: Do you plan on attending any Beatles conventions to promote that book? (Theres a big one just outside of NYC that I attend almost every year…)
ARNOLD: Strangely, Beatles conventions on the West Coast are not very common. Theres finally going to be one on in Los Angeles in late 2014 after none for many, many years. I might do that one, or I might just attend it. Ive never attended an East Coast show and certainly never have exhibited on the East Coast. I have been to New York a few times, most recently for my own Harvey Art Show at the MoCCA in 2009, which did have my Harvey book for sale.
VENTRELLA: How do you promote your work?
ARNOLD: Initially, I promoted my work when I started “The Harveyville Fun Times!” in 1990 by attending the San Diego Comic Convention and getting mentioned in the Overstreet “Comic Book Price Guide.” Ive never had a ton of money for promotion, but I did take out ads in “Comic Buyers Guide” and other publications that no longer exist that resulted in a good subscriber base.
When email and the Internet came along, I developed an email list and had a website very early on, like around 1995 or 1996 and promoted things that way.
Later, I started a blog and still write on it to this day every so often.
Currently, for my books, I have used Facebook as my prime way of promotion and I pay a guy named Jon Guerzon to help me promote things all around the Internet as I dont have as much time as I used to in order to promote and write and do the other stuff that I do. I have a Facebook page for each of my books and my email signature promotes my books and I promote myself when I write for magazines like “Back Issue” and still have my email list. I also print up postcards through Next Day Flyers and distribute them through the mail and at shows.
BearManor now does much better promotion than they used to and they also print up postcards and mail them out and take out print ads in various targeted magazines.
VENTRELLA: Although I advise fiction writers on my blog to never self-publish, there is no stigma attached to non-fiction self-publishing (and I have done that myself with my gaming books). What advice do you have to writers about self-publishing (if any)? ARNOLD: If you want your book to be in a brick-and-mortar store, please be aware that if you do any print on demand publishers like BearManor or services like Lulu.com, that most bookstores will not carry your book. You will have to contact each bookstore or bookstore chain independently and they probably will ask you to pay a consignment fee for carrying your book, so it might not even be worth doing. In this day of Amazon, I find it almost unnecessary to be in a bookstore, but if you do have a book that you want to be distributed, Diamond will carry self-published books and distribute them to bookstores, but they have to sell a certain amount and Diamond has to approve the listing, which can be trickier with fiction than with non-fiction about a known quantity like Disney or The Beatles.
Now, if you get involved with a larger publisher like say Random House, you will get in the bookstores, but now you have to face the problem of your book not selling and then being returned and then going out of print and the remaining stock sold as remainder stock at a loss. So, there are hurdles either way you go.
VENTRELLA: Where do you see the future of publishing heading?
ARNOLD: I think books will coexist as both print items and digital items. The important thing is if you have a passion for writing and want to get your work out there, things are easier now than they ever have been to get published or to publish yourself. It still helps to know people and also to learn so you know what youre doing, but gone are the days where you had to pay a publisher to print 1000 copies of your book only to have them sit in your garage gathering dust. Theres no need to have stock anymore. You can even publish solely in an ebook format or online. Its up to you. The harder part is making a lot of money at it. If thats the only reason you are writing or publishing a book, you might as well stop now, because you will be very disappointed. The odds of success there are still the same unless you come up with a story about a boy learning to become a witch or teen vampires that fall in love with each other or anything about zombies.


Improving the bass response of a (cheap) subwoofer amplifier system by reducing its bass response


Improving the bass response of a (cheap) subwoofer amplifier system by reducing its bass response


Several weeks ago I happened to be at a local electronics type store (I'll admit it, it was Radio Shack) and they had on clearance - for a pretty good price - a nice-looking set of computer speakers (40-288). These consist of a pair of small-ish speakers for the upper-bass, midrange and highs along with a single, larger "subwoofer" for bass. I didn't get these for a computer, but to reinforce the sound from a
small, flat-screen TV that I have near my electronics workbench that has
appallingly bad internal speakers.



Figure 1:
The inexpensive speaker/subwoofer system.
Click on the image for a larger version. Upon connecting them to the TV I was immediately struck by the fact that they sounded OK - except that the bass sounds were frequently breaking up at moderate volumes during musical bass notes and explosions. I flipped the subwoofer on end and noted that, as expected, it was a ported enclosure (see Figure 3) which is common for low-frequency speakers, large and small.

Knowing the size of the speaker's enclosure - roughly a cube that is 11.5cm on a side internally - and also the diameter of the speaker itself - about 6cm - I also knew that it could not provide extremely low bass-frequency response. Based on a guess, I figured that its usable frequency response would extend down to roughly 125 Hz or so: You just can't get much lower than that with reasonable efficiency using a simple ported box and (inexpensive) bass driver that is that small!

The problem:

The problem with the design of this subwoofer is one that is commonly seen: If the system is "asked" to amplify frequencies well below the range that may be reproduced by the bass driver and its enclosure, several things are likely to happen:Power will be wasted with the speaker's cone flapping about and frequencies well below those in which it is likely to be able to move air. What this means is that instead of working on frequencies that can be amplified, much of the amplifier's power will be used up (e.g. wasted) on these other "useless" (to the speaker, anyway) frequencies.
The speaker itself may be damaged. On a ported enclosure such as this, too low a frequency, and the speaker just can't transfer energy to the air mass efficiently and in so doing, its cone moves too "easily." If this happens the speaker's excessive cone excursions can cause physical damage and heat can even build up in the voice coil assembly. The latter is a bit less likely to happen with this small of a speaker and with the modest amplifier power level involved, but it is still possible.
It will sound terrible. With the amplifier clipping, trying to amplify too much low-frequency range that cannot be reproduced and with the speaker itself flapping about trying to reproduce the low-frequency sound, you can end up with distortion, popping and buzzing.Connecting it to an audio generator I swept from about 1 kHz down to 10 Hz or so and as expected, the crossover point was in the general area of 200 Hz - not sharp, but definitely there. I did note that the speaker was still being fed power when I got down below 10 Hz, uselessly flapping about as there was no way that it could reasonably be expected to efficiently transduce energy at that frequency, and that was the reason why it sounded like it was breaking up on low bass notes! Careful observation revealed that the amplifier seemed to have a slight "peaking" effect in the area of 100-200 Hz - likely done to slightly emphasize the frequencies best conveyed by the subwoofer. (I didn't reverse-engineer the circuit enough to determine if this was intentional or not.)

The "fix"


Figure 2:
Bottom-side location of the capacitor to be changed along
with the added 10k resistor.
Click on the image for a larger version. Popping apart the satellite speaker that contained the amplifier I started poking around with an oscilloscope while varying the frequency of the audio generator and quickly found where the wipers of the dual volume control went over to a pair of surface-mount 3.6k resistors and the audio from the left and right channels were combined ("3R1" and "3R2" in Figure 2). I then followed the audio through a 2.2 uF coupling capacitor (mounted on the other side of the board) and then to the input of the audio amplifier for the subwoofer - a stereo chip configured to drive the subwoofer in bridge mode to achieve maximum power power output for the supply voltage.

Note: I didn't remove the heat sinks, so I don't know which audio amplifier chips are used in this speaker system.

At this point something struck me: In comparing, with the oscilloscope, the audio level "before" and "after" the 3.6k resistors used to combine the left and right channel I could see that there was practically no difference, indicating that the amplifier itself minimally loaded the audio line beyond that point. Having just followed this signal path I also knew that there was nothing that limited the low frequency response of the amplifier to something within a reasonable range of what the speaker itself was likely to be able to reproduce!

To satisfy my hunch I replaced the 2.2uF capacitor with a 0.022uF capacitor and noted that it only just started rolling off the frequency response below 100 Hz, indicating that the amplifier's input impedance was likely in the range of 50-100k, so with the 2.2uF coupling capacitor, the amplifier was going to amplify signals down to less than 1 Hz with minimal rolloff! What I needed to do was to limit the frequency range of the amplifier to something more reasonable in terms of what the speaker was likely to be able to reproduce!

To do this, there are two reasonable options:Build a nice, multi-pole high pass filter that will sharply cut off the audio below a certain frequency - say, 100 Hz. This would require either a transistor or two or an op amp along with a handful of other components and would be built upon a small circuit board that was added into the enclosure and connected inline with the subwoofer amplifier's audio path.

Figure 3:
The bottom side of the subwoofer cabinet showing
the driver and port. If you throw too-low a frequency at this sort
of speaker it just thrashes around and doesn't really
produce much sound.
It's best to send only those frequencies to the speaker that it
would be able to reproduce!
Click on the image for a larger version.Just kludge it and make a simple R/C high pass filter. This wouldn't as sharply cut off the low frequencies, but it would likely do the job of preventing ridiculously low frequencies from getting to the amplifier and cause it to waste effort!I chose the latter.

In poking around on the audio input pin of the amplifier I saw that there was no DC offset, so I temporarily connected a 10k resistor between it and what appeared to be a nearby ground - at least, it was where there was a capacitor connected across the input to roll off the high frequencies above which the subwoofer was not supposed to amplify. Temporarily tacking the 2.2uF back into place, I saw with the oscilloscope that the 10k resistor made almost no difference the subwoofer's output level and that its output remained clean. I then made the 10k resistor a permanent part of the circuit, soldering it on the bottom side of the board as can be seen in Figure 2.

Grabbing a calculator I crunched a few numbers and decided that a 0.1uF capacitor (a nice, round value) in place of the original 2.2uF capacitor would be worth trying as it, in conjunction with the 10k resistor, would provide a -6dB roll off frequency of about 159 Hz - a fact confirmed using the oscilloscope and audio generator. With the amplifier's slight "peaking" noted above, the power wasn't down by 6dB at 160 Hz, but closer to 100 Hz at the -6dB point. (I used a plastic capacitor rather than a ceramic capacitor because the latter would have terrible temperature stability.)

Feeding some music with a lot of low bass into the speaker system it seemed to sound just fine: Reasonable low-frequency response and no obvious distortion - even at fairly high audio levels. Tacking the 2.2uF capacitor back into place, the bass response improved slightly, but now the audio amplifier was breaking up badly with obvious clipping and distorting as before. Taking the 2.2uF capacitor off again I tacked another 0.1uF across the first (for a total of 0.2uF) to set the hypothetical -6dB frequency to about 80 Hz and could hear a very slight increase in amplitude of the bass notes and a bit of occasional clipping at fairly high volume, but it didn't seem to be worth it to have the extra capacitor on there so I left it at just 0.1uF.


Figure 4:
The completed modifications - along with the added
heat sink material.
Click on the image for a larger version. While having the unit apart I noticed that the heat sink of the subwoofer's amplifier chip was far too hot to touch after a few minutes of abuse from the signal generator. Typically, these sorts of chips have built-in thermal protection, so it was not too likely to be damaged by getting hot, but this thermal protection usually works by causing the amplifier to cut its power back - usually causing distortion. To be sure, my reducing the frequency response of the amplifier greatly reduced that amplifier chip's thermal load, but I decided to solder a bit of scrap copper to the heat sink fins on the bottom side of the board (which actually faces up when the board is installed) to increase its heat dissipation ability.

Putting the entire thing back together, it now works fine in its intended role: As a half decent sounding speaker system for the small TV!




Exposing the specificity of Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC


Exposing the specificity of Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC


Today I re-readFaye Sonier's article, reprintedin LifeCanada's Journal, on the BC Crisis Pregnancy Centres defamation case against Joyce Arthur Defamation Suit and the Tactic of Being Vague.

Fayesays:Unfortunately the court found that the report was so unclear in its attributions of wrong-doing that a reasonable person reading the report wouldnt necessarily think that the Vancouver and Burnaby CPCs were guilty of committing those particular ethical breaches. As the judge ruled, “it is difficult to say that the deceptive tactics reflect personally on the plaintiffs. The impugned statements do not have any specificity; the Report describes the tactics in broad generalizations.”
Ialways thought Arthur waswriting about BC's CPCs, for the same reasons Faye does:And keep in mind, that these allegations are made within a report entitled Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, where that title appears on the top of each page of the report, wherein the stated goal of the report is to “find out what these centres were doing and saying to women in B.C., and whether they were engaging in deceptive or harmful practices,” and where the appendix lists only B.C. CPCs. I think the average reader would likely assume that the allegations made within the report apply to B.C. CPCs, and likely to the two CPCs which launched the suit against Arthur.
What exactly isnot specificabout "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia" appearing as a title on every page of the report?

I decided to take another look at my ATIP to Status of Women regarding the infamous$27,400 funding Joyce Arthur received to write this horrid report.

Here are a few"specific" references to CPCs in BC from thatATIP.And remember. This document is what clinched the funding for Arthur.

From Arthur's proposal:There are CPC's in almost every city in BC. With the closure of many women's centres, and the brief office hours of most family planning clinics around BC, comprehensive and non-judgmental reproductive services for women (and referrals to such services) are becoming very difficult to access. In some areas, women may only be able to access the local CPC. In fact, CPC's are striving to replace feminist-based agencies. They even obtained government funding from the BC Liberals while funding cuts for Women's Centres were being planned.It is critical to research and evaluate the extent and impact of CPCs' reach and influence in BC. Armed with this knowledge, we can take concrete steps to stem the tide, by educating women and the public about the true nature of these centres, lobbying government to stop funding them, using the media to publicize the CPC anti-feminist agenda and tactics, and promoting and establishing feminist-based alternative services for women.
Under the documententitled Goal and Objectives in Arthur's proposal:The overall goal of this social justice project is to minimize the harmful impact of CPC's through public education. As part of that goal, we hope to be able to accomplish the following objectives:research the current situation in BC -- for example, numbers, locations, sizes, and resources of CPC's and similar agencies
research community influence of CPC's — for example, relationship between them and other women's groups, whether legitimate agencies refer to them, alternative services in the community impact on minority groups and youth in particular, etc.
research how CPC's shape public policy and discourse on reproductive rights — for example:– analyze how these groups are co-opting feminist language and strategies while using them to foster a right-wing patriarchal agenda that promotes a traditional, narrow role for women as wives and mothers
– evaluate how and to what extent their anti-feminist agenda asserts itself into the public consciousness and negatively impacts women's ability to achieve equality
– evaluate their relative success at supplanting feminist-based resources in local communities in BC, and look at ways to counter thissolicit and collect stories from women who have been harmed or deceived by CPC services
research and try to curtail CPC's public funding sources
publicity expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPC's using various public education and media initiatives, and by doing so, work tomitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women
shift public awareness by alerting and educating the following target audiences (in BC):— women
— aboriginal, minority, and youth group— women's groups and other community organizations
— health professionals and institutions who might refer to CPC's, including doctors, walk-in clinics, hospitals, counselors, family planning clinics — government
— public
Under section 24. JUSTIFICATIONExpected concrete results:1. To examine the state and organization of CPC's in B.C., including numbers, size, locations, funding sources, their influence in the community and how they shape public policy discourse on reproductive health issues2. To examine the ways in which CPCs disseminate deceptive and misleading information to circumscribe women's right to full reproductive agency3. To produce a report detailing the research findings, which will be used as a tool to inform the public about the anti-woman agenda and practices of CPCs, with a particular focus on educating women's organizations, health professionals and government as well as individual women4. To implement any changes recommended in the report5. To persuade CPCs to alter their current practices in order to ensure women have full choice over their reproductive health
In Arthur's Summary Of Expected Outcomes:Public discourse on the issue of women's reproductive choices is drawn from a broad spectrum of perspectives, including a feminist perspective
Diverse women throughout BC have full access to comprehensive arid nonjudgmental reproductive servicesAnd finally, this from Status of Women Canada, in their recommendation for approval of the funding to Arthur, and SWC's brief description of the initiative:This initiative seeks to ensure access by a diversity of women in British Columbia to comprehensive and non-jugmental reproductive services as well as a representative speck of perspectives on women's reproductive rights. It has two related components, research and public education. The first component will consist of examining the current trend towards the proliferation of crisis pregnancy centres operating in the province and their role in shaping public discourse on women's reproductive rights. The second part of the initiative will be to inform the public, educators, health professionals and governments about the results of this research. This information will help ensure the public has an accurate understanding of the various approaches to supporting towards women's reproductive choice, as part of an overall strategy to provide the public with a comprehensive understanding of women's reproductive rights. Aset of indicators will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of both components of this initiative in achieving planned outcomes.
There's only one question left to ask.

If Arthur's report is not "specifically" referring to Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, then why would Status of Women Canada, use funds from theWomen's Program, whose mandate"is to achieve the full participation of women in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada. Funding is provided to eligible organizations in support of projects at the local, regional and national levels", hand over Canadian tax dollars, to a Canadian person, for a report that is about Crisis Pregnancy Centres not in Canada?


Chinese regulators blame computer for stock frenzy - Businessweek


Chinese regulators blame computer for stock frenzy - Businessweek


Business - Google NewsChinese regulators blame computer for stock frenzy - Businessweek
Philly.comChinese regulators blame computer for stock frenzyBusinessweekBEIJING (AP) — A trading frenzy that caused Chinese stock prices to swing wildly last week was caused by a design flaw in a brokerage"s computer, the market regulator said Sunday. The avalanche of orders Friday from Everbright Securities Ltd. caused...Asian Stocks Post Weekly Gain as Chinese Shares RallyBloombergWidespread Confusion as China Shares Rise SharplyWall Street JournalChina shares rebound with surprising surge that lifts Hong KongReutersMarketWatch-Financial Times-CNN (blog)all 112 news articles»more info...