I cringed at the sentence "Receive tuning (if it can be called such) was achieved by the precisely cut antenna." which is actually how EVERY radio is tuned; the antenna is a component of the resonant circuit which forms the receiver.
Uhm, sorta but not really. The antenna is certainly a component of the system but it doesn't tune anything. Antennas frequently have a bandwidth much higher than necessary so a radio can receive/transmit multiple frequencies (sometimes at the same time). Radios (even simple ones) have post antenna tuning circuitry to tune-in the frequency of interest. Otherwise your car antenna (or TV antenna) couldn't receive multiple stations. Or your cell phone and/or RC transmitter couldn't frequency hop. Frequency hopping radios are a thing, and only have one antenna to do it with.
If you know procedural coding, VHDL is a stronger break in syntax and can help you think in terms of hardware.
BUT there are some weird issues with support of the latest VHDL standards from a lot of vendors which SUCKS. VHDL 2008 is still not fully supported, UGH.
All good advice. I would add that you don't need an actual device to run synthesis, you can get versions of the quartus and xilinx tools from their website and run your design through it. Check the synthesis logs for warnings, and check your timing reports. Don't try to implement a huge logic cloud between clocks, but you can do a surprising amount. The timing reports will tell what's possible for a particular device and when you need to break your logic up more.
LEARN state machines!
Understand what the PLLs are for on each chip!
Learn how to cross clock domains properly, and how to limit your clock resource usage.
Indeed, it seems like if you're hiring for a very specific skill set, state that in the job req. If its a very narrow skillset and you want them to be up to speed from the get go, be prepared to pay a premium. Otherwise you might want to give more attention in the interview to what they can learn vs what they currently know. Especially in security related applications where things change all the time.
It sounds like you've entered full snark mode here. To make the analogy complete you must include the fact that congress passed a law making them the only ones able to push out an update. It's been said before, even if Google did write a patch how do you propose they actually get it onto the vulnerable devices?
XBOX Live account required for XBOX branded appliances (terms and conditions apply). Now connect with your friends in whole new ways! Achievement! You made toast today! Achievement! Dinner meals for the week planned. PLUS Voice control features available in any room with an XBOX branded appliance! *ALL XBOX branded appliances must remain connected at all times or your account may be voided.
the media would have you believe there are millions of people out there raping women and whatnot...
I said:
I think it takes millions of rapists (mostly men natch) to reach that number.
You said:
That's still seven or eight million men in absolute terms, of course
Everything else you said was arguing with statements nobody made. The definition of a straw-man argument. There really are millions of people (eight or nine to use your number) committing these crimes. This is staggering to me. All I was trying to show was that the decimal place in the OPs thought may have been misplaced. Nobody said tens of millions or hundreds of millions, or anything resembling ALL. The name 'millions' is absolutely the correct term to use, which was my one point. As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure who you're talking to.
I think you're conflating two points. From what I've seen, misogyny in games is described where a female character is portrayed with extremely negative female stereotypes.
I think this is a vastly different issue than commenting on the lack of representation in games. Those comments are saying 50% of the population is female, 50% of gamers are female, but only a few percent of characters in games are female. The gender of a specific character is irrelevant (and not typically discussed in that context), but in the aggregate there appears to be something out of place. Commenting on that dramatic difference is not calling developers misogynistic. People wanting that difference reduced to a fraction closer to something representing the actual people playing the games is also not calling developers misogynistic.
Issues of Gender Representation and Misogynistic representation are both gender related, and often discussed together. But you can't lump them into the same thing as they have very different consequences. You could have 100% of games with female leads but still be a horrible representation of women, and you could have no games with female leads and have no outright misogynistic representations. However, I think the point people are trying to make about gender representation is this: "An overly imbalanced representation of gender in the aggregate (towards either gender) has consequences and implications which are at best neutral and at worst quite negative. Given this, can we make things better?"
I feel compelled to point out that having more female leads/characters doesn't change the array of game TYPES at all. An FPS with a female lead is still an FPS, NOT a different type of game. Carry on.
Unless it happens to be a PERSON where the death threat included home address information. Regardless of gender, THAT's the line that makes a threat credible.
Tangentially, the behavior you describe is the reason I don't play those games. It's also a behavior that doesn't need to be there. Why defend it as if its necessary for some reason?
This is not limited to gaming. Here's a breakdown of the statistics as they are known right now. Based on this: Wiki-link rape statistics 1/6 women have been raped in the US. Out of 150 million women in the US, that is around 25 million women estimated which have been raped. I think it takes millions of rapists (mostly men natch) to reach that number. So YES, millions of people (mostly men) ARE in fact out there raping people. No media bias needed, just knowing some real numbers.
Want a fun game? Try one where a 5 year old might beat you with a random turn of a card and absolutely no strategy, instead of one in which you can feel good about yourself by constantly beating a 5 year old.
Is that even really a game, by definition?
That's like two people roll a dice, higher roll wins. There's nothing to play, no input or decisions on the part of the player, and precious little interaction between players. I don't think that would be very fun at all.
To be fair, the definition of "well" I intend isn't an arbitrary X/Y value. There's already very well defined numbers for the hardware which currently runs the algorithm. To transfer "Well" to custom hardware would be somewhere in the vicinity of: less than the original general purpose CPU by enough that it justifies the design effort involved and doesn't cost MORE to manufacture. All engineering decisions are trade-offs, and if the trade-off isn't worth the effort and resource cost you don't do it. For a transfer effort to go "Well" means at the end of the day you come out ahead somewhere.
If you have to spend 3 million dollars on custom hardware development just to get performance parity with a COTS general purpose CPU... you'd be hard pressed to call that "well" by any measure. This is what is implied by the setup of the original Ask Slashdot question, asking an engineering question about feasibility and cost.
Not really. The biggest conversion issues I deal with (when converting algorithms to hardware) are related to how software treats RAM vs how hardware treats RAM. They are fundamentally different methods of operation. In software RAM is cheap/free, so it is preferred over CPU cycles. In hardware, the processing is cheaper (in general) and RAM is more expensive.
Buffering and holding a megabyte of data between each stage of processing is natural and very easy for software. But in hardware this is a very inefficient way to do things. Converting from one method to the other can be quite difficult depending on the algorithm.
Slashdot Mirror
Error on the side of caution (i.e. the customer), and don't be a dick about trying to weasel out of the agreement. No problems.
I had mod points the other day. None now. This post deserves to modded up.
How much in Traganic Pus?
You are confusing "elligble" with "qualified". These are different words.
"Overconfidence is their weakness."
And at the end of Jedi: "He's alright, I can feel it."
I cringed at the sentence "Receive tuning (if it can be called such) was achieved by the precisely cut antenna." which is actually how EVERY radio is tuned; the antenna is a component of the resonant circuit which forms the receiver.
Uhm, sorta but not really. The antenna is certainly a component of the system but it doesn't tune anything. Antennas frequently have a bandwidth much higher than necessary so a radio can receive/transmit multiple frequencies (sometimes at the same time). Radios (even simple ones) have post antenna tuning circuitry to tune-in the frequency of interest. Otherwise your car antenna (or TV antenna) couldn't receive multiple stations. Or your cell phone and/or RC transmitter couldn't frequency hop. Frequency hopping radios are a thing, and only have one antenna to do it with.
Smart people who love books.
Librarians are awesome. Secret Superheroes indeed
BUT there are some weird issues with support of the latest VHDL standards from a lot of vendors which SUCKS. VHDL 2008 is still not fully supported, UGH.
All good advice. I would add that you don't need an actual device to run synthesis, you can get versions of the quartus and xilinx tools from their website and run your design through it. Check the synthesis logs for warnings, and check your timing reports. Don't try to implement a huge logic cloud between clocks, but you can do a surprising amount. The timing reports will tell what's possible for a particular device and when you need to break your logic up more.
LEARN state machines!
Understand what the PLLs are for on each chip!
Learn how to cross clock domains properly, and how to limit your clock resource usage.
Indeed, it seems like if you're hiring for a very specific skill set, state that in the job req. If its a very narrow skillset and you want them to be up to speed from the get go, be prepared to pay a premium. Otherwise you might want to give more attention in the interview to what they can learn vs what they currently know. Especially in security related applications where things change all the time.
It sounds like you've entered full snark mode here. To make the analogy complete you must include the fact that congress passed a law making them the only ones able to push out an update. It's been said before, even if Google did write a patch how do you propose they actually get it onto the vulnerable devices?
XBOX Live account required for XBOX branded appliances (terms and conditions apply). Now connect with your friends in whole new ways! Achievement! You made toast today! Achievement! Dinner meals for the week planned. PLUS Voice control features available in any room with an XBOX branded appliance! *ALL XBOX branded appliances must remain connected at all times or your account may be voided.
You're clearly arguing with someone not me.
The post I was responding to said:
the media would have you believe there are millions of people out there raping women and whatnot...
I said:
I think it takes millions of rapists (mostly men natch) to reach that number.
You said:
That's still seven or eight million men in absolute terms, of course
Everything else you said was arguing with statements nobody made. The definition of a straw-man argument. There really are millions of people (eight or nine to use your number) committing these crimes. This is staggering to me. All I was trying to show was that the decimal place in the OPs thought may have been misplaced. Nobody said tens of millions or hundreds of millions, or anything resembling ALL. The name 'millions' is absolutely the correct term to use, which was my one point. As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure who you're talking to.
I think you're conflating two points. From what I've seen, misogyny in games is described where a female character is portrayed with extremely negative female stereotypes.
I think this is a vastly different issue than commenting on the lack of representation in games. Those comments are saying 50% of the population is female, 50% of gamers are female, but only a few percent of characters in games are female. The gender of a specific character is irrelevant (and not typically discussed in that context), but in the aggregate there appears to be something out of place. Commenting on that dramatic difference is not calling developers misogynistic. People wanting that difference reduced to a fraction closer to something representing the actual people playing the games is also not calling developers misogynistic.
Issues of Gender Representation and Misogynistic representation are both gender related, and often discussed together. But you can't lump them into the same thing as they have very different consequences. You could have 100% of games with female leads but still be a horrible representation of women, and you could have no games with female leads and have no outright misogynistic representations. However, I think the point people are trying to make about gender representation is this: "An overly imbalanced representation of gender in the aggregate (towards either gender) has consequences and implications which are at best neutral and at worst quite negative. Given this, can we make things better?"
I feel compelled to point out that having more female leads/characters doesn't change the array of game TYPES at all. An FPS with a female lead is still an FPS, NOT a different type of game. Carry on.
Unless it happens to be a PERSON where the death threat included home address information. Regardless of gender, THAT's the line that makes a threat credible.
Tangentially, the behavior you describe is the reason I don't play those games. It's also a behavior that doesn't need to be there. Why defend it as if its necessary for some reason?
This is not limited to gaming. Here's a breakdown of the statistics as they are known right now. Based on this: Wiki-link rape statistics 1/6 women have been raped in the US. Out of 150 million women in the US, that is around 25 million women estimated which have been raped. I think it takes millions of rapists (mostly men natch) to reach that number. So YES, millions of people (mostly men) ARE in fact out there raping people. No media bias needed, just knowing some real numbers.
Yes indeed, Go doesn't get enough love. Although it's only two player and isn't co-operative, as a two player game, it is outstanding.
Want a fun game? Try one where a 5 year old might beat you with a random turn of a card and absolutely no strategy, instead of one in which you can feel good about yourself by constantly beating a 5 year old.
Is that even really a game, by definition?
That's like two people roll a dice, higher roll wins. There's nothing to play, no input or decisions on the part of the player, and precious little interaction between players. I don't think that would be very fun at all.
'a' 'space' 'r'
'a' 'space' 'r'
'a' 'space' 'r'
'a' 'space' 'r'
Oh the memories. Not sure if that's what I call good, or simply nostalgic.
And Go.
Isn't that saying the same thing as the parent? "If people weren't people this system would work great!"
To be fair, the definition of "well" I intend isn't an arbitrary X/Y value. There's already very well defined numbers for the hardware which currently runs the algorithm. To transfer "Well" to custom hardware would be somewhere in the vicinity of: less than the original general purpose CPU by enough that it justifies the design effort involved and doesn't cost MORE to manufacture. All engineering decisions are trade-offs, and if the trade-off isn't worth the effort and resource cost you don't do it. For a transfer effort to go "Well" means at the end of the day you come out ahead somewhere.
If you have to spend 3 million dollars on custom hardware development just to get performance parity with a COTS general purpose CPU... you'd be hard pressed to call that "well" by any measure. This is what is implied by the setup of the original Ask Slashdot question, asking an engineering question about feasibility and cost.
Not really. The biggest conversion issues I deal with (when converting algorithms to hardware) are related to how software treats RAM vs how hardware treats RAM. They are fundamentally different methods of operation. In software RAM is cheap/free, so it is preferred over CPU cycles. In hardware, the processing is cheaper (in general) and RAM is more expensive.
Buffering and holding a megabyte of data between each stage of processing is natural and very easy for software. But in hardware this is a very inefficient way to do things. Converting from one method to the other can be quite difficult depending on the algorithm.