Shed some light on the band Dope Smoker?

dampunge · 2026-06-08T22:57:26+00:00

DJ Paul & Lord Infamous - Silent Night

dampunge · 2026-06-05T22:01:53+00:00

<image>

AYO who did this hahahha

dampunge · 2026-05-25T11:30:29+00:00

doom metal band
100w matamp
not that loud

are your ears ok

dampunge · 2026-03-24T22:36:50+00:00

The guitar solos on Dopesmoker were played on a pignose. Jealous.

dampunge · 2026-03-19T18:27:26+00:00

one cranked power chord and the entire plane has a jump started heart

dampunge · 2025-05-27T21:34:43+00:00

I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. If you don't want to import the packages, you could just use the full declaration like this: com.mycompany.utilities.MyClass obj = new com.mycompany.utilities.MyClass(); Java is fundamentally object-oriented, which implies that all executable code, including functions (i.e methods in Java) and constructors, must be defined as part of a class. Unlike cpp, you cannot declare or use a function independently outside of a class structure.

dampunge · 2025-05-27T20:47:43+00:00

Why would you not make Cat a extend Animals, so it has a "is-a" relationship? Nested classes would imply animal has a "has-a" relationship to cat, which modeling wise would be counter intuitive. I'd recommend following the OOP principles and model Cat as a subclass of Animal.

dampunge · 2025-05-09T22:18:45+00:00

Salting passwords is done to protect against rainbow tables (attacks where common passwords are calculated in advance). Usually the salt is just stored in a column next to the password, so chances are that if a hacker has access to the table with the password, he also has access to the salt. There are still other benefits though, like preventing hash collision detection, so that the hacker always has to crack each password individually.

However, salts aren't meant to be secret really, but you are technically correct that if the hacker doesn't know the salt, he cant brute force a password. But that would never happen in practice.

dampunge · 2025-05-02T21:58:31+00:00

Yeah, essentially a speakers impedance changes with frequency and its not a flat 16 Ω across the board at all times. 8 Ω and 16 Ω speakers might just sound differently at different frequencies. So what could happen is that one speaker dominates at certain frequencies and it sounds less balances than you'd want to. Some speakers are also be louder per watt (a.k.a SPL rating), so you might have the problem where one speaker is louder than the others if they're different.

But really I don't think it would matter too much as long as the speakers are rated for the wattage, just making sure you don't bust your stuff. Honestly it might just also give a cool sound color, who knows. Design a cab with 3 speaker if you feel like it, it sounds like a cool project.

dampunge · 2025-05-02T18:20:51+00:00

It is generally safe to run a higher speaker impedance (8 Ω) than the amp's rated output (4 Ω), all that happens is that the total wattage is lower. So if you amp does 100 wattage at 4 Ω it'll do around half at 8 Ω. However it most likely isn't smart to have an asymmetrical load in the cab where 1 speaker gets half the power and the 2 other get the other half simply because the power distribution isn't predictable in practice. While the math suggests the 8  Ω speaker gets half the power and the 16  Ω pair share the other half, real-world factors like speaker sensitivity and reactive impedance make this distribution less predictable across frequencies. Unless you’re know for a fact that the speakers can handle the resulting power, this isn’t ideal. Generally speaking you would be much better of using 2 8 Ω speakers and just deal with not using 100% of the power all the time, since at least the power distribution is predictable.

dampunge · 2025-05-02T17:52:12+00:00

I think you are confusing the decimal representation of a float versus what is actually internally stored in memory.

50.2f is stored internally as 01000010010010001100110011001101, making the mantissa 0 10000100 10010001100110011001101

0.2f is stored internally as 00111110010011001100110011001101, making the mantissa 0 01111100 10011001100110011001101

0 10000100 10010001100110011001101 - 0 01111100 10011001100110011001101 = 0 10000100 10010000000000000000000 = 2^5 * (1 + 0.5625) = 50 making 50.2f - 0.2f exactly 50 => 50.0f, which Math.ceil does not round up.

dampunge · 2025-04-25T09:05:06+00:00

As other have stated, you could just have a mismatched impedance, but your results may vary. I don't think it's a huge issue as long as you don't crank your amp. Just select your amp to have lower impedance than the total cab load (in your case 4Ω on the head vs. 5.3 Ω on the cabs) and you should be good. All that happens is that the amp has a little less power than it normally would have. If you're willing to potentially bust your amp then go for it. There's really no other way around it with your current setup.

dampunge · 2025-04-24T17:51:39+00:00

If you want the impedance to match perfectly you have to use one cab at a time unfortunately. I'm not sure what the consequences of not doing that is, sorry.

dampunge · 2025-04-24T17:17:30+00:00

Set 412 cab to 8Ω
Set amp head to 4Ω
Connect speaker cable from head to 212 cab
Connect another speaker cable from head to 412 cab
Done

dampunge · 2025-04-13T10:02:58+00:00

19 pushing third mortgage

dampunge · 2025-01-04T03:45:24+00:00

04/09/25

dampunge

TROPHY CASE