Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!cs.uu.nl!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mit.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Hadron Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: The low road versus the high road Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:10:35 +0200 Organization: gnu Lines: 72 Message-ID: <87bnvlpegk.fsf@gmail.com> References: <8761lzvus6.fsf@gmail.com> <87tx9h4o1a.fsf@gmail.com> <87oazpqdg9.fsf@gmail.com> <87fvkxpg8j.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: mit.eternal-september.org; posting-host="07eb11d006e4bc5020972c87fef4388d"; logging-data="1550"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19xKn/4hOv6z898HowHIuC1fVBIHl/ffWo=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Face: 2h#||Cd#d%F*NCm59[_6/{1a@jy%;|j>{D~4^gKg(^i%7j0IK?+,/GmW&:CD5fEKb_! Cancel-Lock: sha1:JjJ1d+s/VYUyIT49a54ZhifRLaw= sha1:j+wauhuqPsnj16wWwq+RJTdJNtE= Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:240662 Chris Ahlstrom writes: > Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >> >>> >>>> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >>>> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >>>> answer. >>> >>> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >>> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. >> >> It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. Too much of ANYTHING breaks things, For crying out loud. Do we have to go back to 1+1 == 2? For crying out loud. >> Apart from the fact that overdoing it will remove much gain, making more >> amp-stages necessary (which will introduce additional noise and distortion) >> >> You again try to imply that you are a "knowledgeable" man (after all, you >> were at CERN and IBM [rolls eyes]) I was. I also DO have a EE Bsc... Admittedly from the 80s but even then negative feedback was a staple of ANY engineering. >> >> You have about as much of an idea about electronics as you have about >> linux. I know more about Linux than you Kohlkopf. As I have repeatedly shown. >> Any slightly demented cow knows more about quantum physics than you do about >> linux or electronics. You just "know" what google tells you, and because you >> are a incredibly stupid prick don't understand even 1% of that > > Yup. > > And Ian is absolutely right in attempt to clarify terms and meanings, and to > explain how there is more than one goal being effected by choosing the type > of feedback. He clarified nothing. What he DID do was, in a mealy mouthed, way show turd to be a frothing idiot. But he had to cover that up with "only half an answer". > >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick > > Is that the sound of one "Hadron" fapping? Its probably the sound of you slurping pee pees you little weenie. Negative feedback IS USED TO STABLISE SYSTEMS END OF STORY. It is used for other things too including noise reduction. turd was wrong and you're too much of a simpering little tit to admit it. -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/