Menu lock

Federal Election 2013

Sep 4, 2013

ReachTEL: 52-48 to Coalition

A new ReachTEL poll offers Labor some vague encouragement, and concurs with Morgan and Essential in having Clive Palmer's party at 4% nationally.

This morning’s Seven Sunrise (which the Liberal Party is carpet-bombing with advertising) has results from a ReachTEL automated phone poll, reporting primary votes of 35% for Labor, 45% for the Coalition and 4% for the Palmer United Party (remarkable unanimity on that figure from pollsters lately). (UPDATE: Full results here. The Coalition vote turns out to round to 44%, not 45%, and the Greens are on 9.7%.) The Coalition’s two-party preferred lead is at 52-48, down from 53-47 a week ago. Tony Abbott leads Kevin Rudd 53-47 on ReachTEL’s all-inclusive preferred prime minister rating, and 51% of respondents reported they favoured abolishing the carbon tax against 34% opposed.

In an otherwise quiet day on the polling front yesterday, AMR Research has published its third online poll of federal voting intention, conducted between Friday and Monday from a sample of 1101, showing Labor on 34%, the Coalition on 44%, and the Greens on 10%.

Finally, to give you something to look at, I’ve extended yesterday’s exercise of providing a state-level BludgerTrack chart for Queensland across all mainland states, with two-party preferred shown along with the primary vote. Once again, black represents the combined “others” vote. Note that the data gets “noisier” as sample sizes diminish for the smaller states. This is not as bad as it looks though with respect to the trendlines, as the outliers are generally from the smallest samples and the model is weighted to limit the influence.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

1993 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
gough1
Guest

if we are 48 – 52 now.

And vote compass has undecided at 15% and leaning as follows:

37% labor

27% libs

15% greens,

balance others

For the psephs If the undecided 15% vote this way what does that get us on Sunday?

izatso?
Guest

I shall ever be grateful for the few land masses/oceans sheilding us from electronic voting.
murdoch and hash cookies.
It’s Freudband.

Hash Convicts
Guest

Radguy

So your argument at 1976 goes something like “because the net will sometimes be busy, we don’t need 100Mb?”

Ever?

I also know that if a fast and slow connection are competing for bandwidth, the slower link is far less responsive beyond it’s physical slowness. I don’t know the exact explanation for this, but I know it happens, particularly with nab servers if you are being shaped by your ISP. In fact, you can’t login to their oline banking.

So when many people on fibre start demanding their 4k movies, those with slow connections may have trouble accessing sites. Digital divide, here we come!
—————

This isn’t sometimes, this is common and has also to do with distance. It is also common the have all the same people on the same speeds but in different countries receive different speeds, and those who are closer to the servers are the one who receive those speeds. So, if we are connecting on 100MB/sec connection, and the bottleneck is going to be the server, like it often is, and is a common occurrence with filehosting service like rapidshare (forget torrents, they do not even come close), you realise that Australian on 100MB/sec connection will be lucky to see half of this. Again, show me one person, who has the NBN in Australia, and has sustained 100MB/sec or close connecting and downloading from servers overseas.

Hash Convicts
Guest

This is an example where for 2 nights I had been talking about bandwidth restrictions based on server locations hosting files outside of Australia, something that has been explained to zoidlord numerous times, however his political ignorance refuses to not only provide us with one example of a filehost outside of Australia that can provide its users with sustained 100MB/sec speeds, but now you have others thinking that we should have 100MB/sec connections without being able to reach this speed outside of Australia under almost every circumstance. The very fact that not one of these people can provide one example of where this has been reached outside of Aus is amusing. Note his comment about I should look into a better provider. Usenet are huge, they have been around forever and have the ability to serve thousands of people, but 2 issues sending to Aus slow it down, distance to server and the amount of users downloading at the same time from other countries closer than ours, hence a slower speed to Australian users.

Has anyone on the NBN here seen one person connecting to a filehost/torrent server outside of Australia with 1000s of users connecting to it at the same time, seen speeds of 100MB/sec or even close?

zoidlord
Posted Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 2:07 am | Permalink
@Hash Convicts/1982
No your continued to put words in peoples mouths without fixing up your own crap posts.
Now your talking about rapid-share bandwidth, which is different subject.
That is like backbone network between the servers.
In regards to your mythical 1000 users to servers.
I suggest you look into a better provider with better User Contention ratio (i.e. a number of users per server and possibly per hard disk).

zoidlord
Guest

@Radguy/1987

It seems to be the case.

However, you create demand by having faster connections in the first place, the more demand, the more likely and more often the servers will upgrade their bandwidth.

It’s really that simple.

You don’t create a slow system, just because there is a bottleneck somewhere down the line.

Radguy
Guest

So your argument at 1976 goes something like “because the net will sometimes be busy, we don’t need 100Mb?”

Ever?

I also know that if a fast and slow connection are competing for bandwidth, the slower link is far less responsive beyond it’s physical slowness. I don’t know the exact explanation for this, but I know it happens, particularly with nab servers if you are being shaped by your ISP. In fact, you can’t login to their oline banking.

So when many people on fibre start demanding their 4k movies, those with slow connections may have trouble accessing sites. Digital divide, here we come!

zoidlord
Guest

@briefly/1983

At least I’m not alone!!!

zoidlord
Guest

@Hash Convicts/1982

No your continued to put words in peoples mouths without fixing up your own crap posts.

Now your talking about rapid-share bandwidth, which is different subject.

That is like backbone network between the servers.

In regards to your mythical 1000 users to servers.

I suggest you look into a better provider with better User Contention ratio (i.e. a number of users per server and possibly per hard disk).

David Mills
Guest

@Hash

My (lengthy) reply at 1942 …

briefly
Guest

[1978…Hash Convicts]

I don’t mind much wot you do….just wish these postings were even vaguely readable.

Hash Convicts
Guest

zoidlord

Come back to me when you drop this nonsense about 1000 users thing.

You are confusing web hosting environment vs your internet connection.
——
So basically your saying that there is never an instance that there isn’t 1000 users connecting to multiple servers.

That has to be your best comment yet.

Go look at Warezbb, Rapidshare and the millions of users that use them and thousands per hour, then tell me that there are not 1000s of users connecting to those servers every minute. Also go look at how many upgrades Rapidshare have made in the last 7 years to cater for its growing data output. Its your political bias that is clouding your inability to accept a simple concept that you cannot give what you don’t have.

crikey whitey
Guest

If you have the stomach for it.

Roger Corbett applauds Tony Abbott at Liberal Party fund-raiser

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/roger-corbett-applauds-tony-abbott-at-liberal-party-fundraiser-20130904-2t5mp.html#ixzz2dwLB3OIs

Hash Convicts
Guest

This is like someone unable to work out that dialup user in the USA cannot output enough upload speed to 1 adsl2 user in AUS while there are 2 other dialup people in the USA connecting to the same source…

zoidlord
Guest

@Hash Convicts/1974

Come back to me when you drop this nonsense about 1000 users thing.

You are confusing web hosting environment vs your internet connection.

Hash Convicts
Guest

briefly
Geeez this stuff is arcane. There must be an auto-delete feature built into hash trivia. If not, there should be. We need a troll herding app…a kind of kiddie pen where all trolls can meet and drive each other insane.
———-

Perhaps you would like me to start playing to the political tune of others here, just so they can all sit here and tell me how right I am. Either that or I couldn’t care less what you think of my comments. 😛

briefly
Guest

[1974…Hash Convicts]

Geeez this stuff is arcane. There must be an auto-delete feature built into hash trivia. If not, there should be. We need a troll herding app…a kind of kiddie pen where all trolls can meet and drive each other insane.

Hash Convicts
Guest

zoidlord

@Hash Convicts/1968

There wouldn’t be 1000 users on a single server, this is where you go wrong, this isn’t web hosting.

You are using something for more dedicated use.

For one example, a provider says “we never put more than 5 users per hard disk”.

It’s bit hard to talk to you in detail, which is why I told you to email the providers.
————-

No. I never said a single server, I said a server host, there is a huge difference. Server hosts have multiple servers that all work together to send data to users, this is the same principle as trackers.

Let put this simpler. If you needed a file from 3 dialup users, they could output at 15kb/s then this is all you will receive. Correct? Correct.

If you have 10 servers capable of outputting to say 20 users at 100MB/sec (max) then this is what they receive Correct? Correct.

If you have 10 servers capable of outputting to say 20 users at 100MB/sec (max), however these servers are in USA, and 20 Americans connect to them, and 10 Aussies connect to them (they are all on 100MB/sec) then the Americans will receive more bandwidth than the Aussies, and the Aussies will see a significant download speed loss, lets say 50MB/sec, until say half the yanks drop off.

I don’t know if I can explain this any clearer.

This is about bandwidth/distance restrictions and physical limitations regardless of what connection we use.

briefly
Guest

1970
William Bowe
Posted Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 1:30 am | Permalink

Suspect you’re right again, WB

Hash Convicts
Guest

zoidlord

This is where you go wrong.

Most sensible people use downloader software that can connect to the servers multiple times.

JDownloader for things like Rapidshare etc.
uTorrent (Vuze, BitLord) for BitTorrent.
Alt.Binz (or Newsbin, SABnzbd) for Usenet.

These are software you can configure to connect to the server to multiple times to maximize your connection.

That’s what people in say Netherlands, Japan, UK, US, anywhere would use.
————

Just for future reference I need to copy this response of yours, just to show how wrong you are, you are not getting this for what I believe to be political stubbornness, however others can make up their own minds.

1: You keep talking about these apparent servers that can handle this type of load, yet have failed to name one. All you have said is that they are in other countries, yet you do not understand that the limitations of those servers under-load will not sustain a consistent data output to 1000s of users all downloading from them at 100MB/sec. You are unable to name one, and suggested people should just go ‘research it’.

2.Utorrent can not only sustain this type of connection either, there is not one Utorrent tracker that can output at 100MB/sec to 1000s of users at the same time, if Rapidshare cant do it, someone hosting boxes will not have the capability. Private trackers are private, and again this has the same limitation. In addition, who wants to use non-encrypted downloading? This is simple to understand.

3. Name one Newsgroup that can output to Aus at 100MB/sec, again the same situation. I am with Usenet, use sadnzbd and can recieve 1MB a sec, some night Usenet can only output at around 700Kb/sec, regardless of which server I am on. Other users have had the same experience.

This is not about people in Netherlands, Japan, UK, US, this is about people in Australia, purchasing a 100MB/sec connection and connecting to those countries only to find that they cannot receive these speeds due to server overload.

wpDiscuz