You clearly don't design electronics. Why use a new system that will add a considerable cost to your product if the old, well spread, reliable standard is available?
You do realise those labels mean nothing right? I can manufacture something today and put a CE label on it without ever testing it. Unless you're designing a big dangerous machine or a high power transmitter you really don't need to bother too much with the entire test procedure, especially not if you're a knock off Chinese manufacturer. You sell your stuff online, so the importer is the user, hence he/she is responsible according to EU law. You simply declare it to be conform and slap a CE logo on it. That's one of the main cost differences between electronics manufactured by reliable companies and those designed by knock-offs. The EMC testing alone generally requires a couple of EEs who know what they're doing, considering the cost of employing an EE who knows what he's doing runs up quickly. Especially RF experts willingly charge very high wages. And the equipment doesn't come cheap either. A faraday cage, good LISNs, probes, spectrum analysers,... We're talking about investments of 250 000 euro or more to buy this stuff yourself. And letting somebody else do it isn't much cheaper in the long run.
There is a lot of difference in the cheap knockoff ones. Fact of the matter is that if they hire a bunch of Indian college graduates to do it, well... Then you get something very dangerous. The real problem is that they don't stick to the reference designs of the semiconductor manufacturers. I've built countless flyback SMPS that run off the mains directly without ever having one blow up or anything weird. You just have to follow the design guidelines and avoid fake components. The latter is far more difficult, especially in large quantities. Chinese manufacturers flood the market with poor quality transformers and electrolytic capacitors, and when you're trying to lower cost you can sometimes run into a batch of those without realising it. That's why you should always order directly from a manufacturer's official suppliers. I've encountered electrolytics that lose 30% of their capacity after a week of use, and transformers where they used what seemed like standard varnish to coat the wires. Another thing the cheap manufactures often cheat with are ferrites. It's easy enough to place a few in the circuit yourself if you find the noise annoying. But to label all Chinese knock-off supplies as crappy is far from true. I've encountered some very nice and reliable SMPS modules from Chinese battery manufacturers, and that at very low prices. You simply have to be careful and put some research into it.
There is no reason not to use micro USB, and do you know why? There was a lot of thought put into the design. It's sturdy enough to avoid bending and so on, very small, provides good electrical connectivity, and it's considerably cheaper to manufacture. Side bonus is that it detaches from your phone if there's a sudden pull on it, if the connector was implemented correctly that is. There is nothing handy about their proprietary connector, other than making money that is.
Yes sure, everybody has a field service unit spectrum analyser that goes all the way down to -150 dBm in their hotel rooms!!!! Fact is that there are a lot better ways to track somebody. Radar isn't exactly something new either. I've built radars out of scrap minicircuits components that I found in my desk drawers, and even without trying you could see faint movements through walls on short ranges if your receiver's noise figure is sufficiently low.
Sure sure... The psychology people can't even apply least squares correctly for linear regression in a lot of cases. I know for a fact many of them don't even know the concept behind it. So I find your statement hard to believe.
And you're comparing social skills with classes, if you want engineering students to get some social skills then you should scrap the generic bullshit classes and give them some more free time so they can go out and learn to talk with people.
You're a rare case. But then again such methods should also be taught in an AI class if they're useful.
We take a singular approach to things? I disagree with you on that, but that's from a person to person basis. I know enough "engineers" (quotation marks because I don't really think they deserve the diploma) who couldn't solve their way out of a system of linear equations. For them not following a simple standard procedure seems to be difficult. The more accomplished ones will generally think outside the box on how to get from point A to B though.
Nothing is unsolvable, sometimes simply very hard to solve within the allocated resources!
A computer can't be creative, the problems we're dealing with are non deterministic in nature. Combined with the fact that the optimal solution is very complicated, we have to use fancy methods like simulated annealing simply to find the ideal block placement on FPGAs. But making something ready for real world usage is indeed problematic. Physicists fail to consider that and the mathematical models they produce are often useless for real world usage. But in between considering non-linear behaviour and multiplying safety factors by 3 you can usually get pretty far. And then you ought to call in an older colleague to look over the design. But it's still mostly a trial and error setting.
You do have a point there. But you can simply fill in the blanks with classes from other departments that you find fun yourself (nuclear engineering and photonics are always fun)!
Heh, Our statistics professor made us feel like we were of a particular race in the 1940s in Germany though. Even a small index wrong made you lose half the points for that question. Think the pass grade was somewhere around 30% for that class, but nobody really complained about it. All in good fun! I found lectures about numerical techniques relaxing for some reason though, maybe I should get my head examined?
Don't know about there, but over here we're a rare breed.:-P
The problem with psychology, sociology, etc. classes is that it's a waste of time. Or ethics for that matter. You don't need a degree in psychology or sociology to be able to analyse the performance of your team and to figure out what's wrong. Neither do you need an ethics class to know that clubbing baby seals with a giant robot is unethical, these are elementary values that your parents should have taught you from the grounds up. And analysing it will hardly be of any real use.
I disagree that people need a class on logical thinking either, or philosophy. The former is pretty clear, if you need a class on how to think logically you're probably not fit to be an engineering major. Logical thinking is sort of a prerequisite for our field, classes about it won't improve your ability on that aspect more than analysing existing designs. The advantage of the latter is that you also become familiar with the techniques of that particular field and the less obvious problems involved. Philosophy sounds nice and all, but there are two kinds of people around in this aspect. The ones who constantly think about philosophy and those who actually do things. We all know the freshman who goes around posting random philosophy crap on Facebook, yet you never see them achieve anything. Funny those are. But the latter might appreciate classes on philosophy but then you have to get rid of the former category. And teach it in a very different way. I've been in more than a few philosophy lectures from several professors, and they all target the former audience.
And forming logical arguments doesn't always win a debate, I hope you're aware of that. What I've found to work best is to first talk a while to the other person you're going to debate against a few days ahead of time so you can extrapolate their thought pattern. Then consider your own point you're defending and consider how they might attack it. And prepare counter arguments for that on top of your own arguments.
And actually, this rivalry got started for different reasons. Humanities students always complain about exams being hard, how their statistics professors are unfair, how they have to spend so much time studying. Yet our work load is significantly higher, difference being that we don't have the time to whine about it.
And not having solved an integral since college, well that might be in some disciplines. I have yet to see anybody design an analog circuit, that works properly with spread of components that is, without using advanced calculus; Especially when high frequencies are involved. Oh and before you ask, electronic engineer here:P
I agree engineering students should get some basic classes on economy and maybe one on communication so they stop making awful presentations. But psychology, sociology, etc., hell no! First of all, it should be the other way around. I have yet to meet a research psychologist that actually uses statistics correctly. And political science and philosophy majors tend to lose flat-out in debates against engineering students, simply because the latter knows how to analyse the situation correctly. Engineering is more about analysing problems, seeing the possible solutions for said problems and then implementing them. Arguing and being sceptic is based on the same premises. So in fact it should be the other way around.
If it's the other way around it might also make more of them fail, reducing the over-supply of humanities majors.
Heh, that's what you'd think right? Verbose code makes you start using indentation in very specific ways I've noticed. In fact, it's funny to see how almost everybody indents verbose code in the same structure. Enhances readability a lot. And I've seen auto doc implementations for these languages, but most sort of fail; The problem being that languages like Ada and VHDL operate in a very niche branch of coding. Especially VHDL is tricky in that aspect because even the order of things implies very different hardware structures in certain cases. What'd be far more useful is automatic test bench generation. Documenting these type of languages is sort of implied, you can't start designing in either without being very well aware about your goal and how you're going to get there. Just slapping parts together will lead to the compiler/synthesizer coming back around and hitting you in the head with your sloppy code.
I've seen a few attempts at it, none successful mind you. It'd be an interesting goal, though personally I don't think it's strictly necessary considering the way Ada encourages you to work. (Think first, write, verify instead of just starting and seeing where you end)
Ada actually does support unit tests (GNATtest is great). VHDL is indeed far more problematic, then again I don't think a computer would be very good at generating a test bench for VHDL because it's hard to predict what's to be expected. And generating input for a FSM with thousands or millions of states is a hopeless goal. But yeah, it's mainly a personal choice. Must admit I'm more of an electronics guy so I have a tendency towards these languages as they give me fine control over the things I care about (how multitasking happens, what data goes where under which format, does it arrive in the same shape, etc.).
Being verbose is often considered bad, yet languages like VHDL and Ada do it as well. The latter two combine it with a very strict syntax. As a result Ada and VHDL code that compiles/synthesizes has a larger chance of working on the first attempt. More keystrokes isn't exactly a problem. I'm not sure about you but my typing speed isn't the limiting factor in writing programs. The days of planning, flow diagrams, etc. are.
Yeah, but the 2.4 GHz band goes through walls and humans easily. 240 GHz is a different story. 50 GHz already has trouble getting through on a rainy day, 240 GHz won't do much better. You'll need some insane receivers for this thing.
Yeah, the actual development was probably done by a slave army of engineering grad students as usual. But putting a high school girl on the poster makes for a better press release. And as long as you get the grant that pays your rent at the end of the month you don't quite care as grad student who the hell takes credit for it.
Yep, Ada and the closely related VHDL are both a success story for a very good reason. Yet a lot of people seem to hate both due to how strictly they enforce their rules. But Ada always wins when reliability is a must.
You should learn to voice your opinion more carefully in that case. Cause the way you said it implies you support their actions.
And I very much know what's at stake here, so calling me a hypocrite is far from correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Even reputable brands often just buy something cheap and relabel it... You just have to check review sites and look a bit into the product to be sure.
You clearly don't design electronics. Why use a new system that will add a considerable cost to your product if the old, well spread, reliable standard is available?
You do realise those labels mean nothing right? I can manufacture something today and put a CE label on it without ever testing it. Unless you're designing a big dangerous machine or a high power transmitter you really don't need to bother too much with the entire test procedure, especially not if you're a knock off Chinese manufacturer. You sell your stuff online, so the importer is the user, hence he/she is responsible according to EU law. You simply declare it to be conform and slap a CE logo on it. That's one of the main cost differences between electronics manufactured by reliable companies and those designed by knock-offs. The EMC testing alone generally requires a couple of EEs who know what they're doing, considering the cost of employing an EE who knows what he's doing runs up quickly. Especially RF experts willingly charge very high wages. And the equipment doesn't come cheap either. A faraday cage, good LISNs, probes, spectrum analysers, ... We're talking about investments of 250 000 euro or more to buy this stuff yourself. And letting somebody else do it isn't much cheaper in the long run.
It isn't, the pull up resistor configuration is different than with most chargers.
There is a lot of difference in the cheap knockoff ones. Fact of the matter is that if they hire a bunch of Indian college graduates to do it, well... Then you get something very dangerous. The real problem is that they don't stick to the reference designs of the semiconductor manufacturers. I've built countless flyback SMPS that run off the mains directly without ever having one blow up or anything weird. You just have to follow the design guidelines and avoid fake components. The latter is far more difficult, especially in large quantities. Chinese manufacturers flood the market with poor quality transformers and electrolytic capacitors, and when you're trying to lower cost you can sometimes run into a batch of those without realising it. That's why you should always order directly from a manufacturer's official suppliers. I've encountered electrolytics that lose 30% of their capacity after a week of use, and transformers where they used what seemed like standard varnish to coat the wires. Another thing the cheap manufactures often cheat with are ferrites. It's easy enough to place a few in the circuit yourself if you find the noise annoying. But to label all Chinese knock-off supplies as crappy is far from true. I've encountered some very nice and reliable SMPS modules from Chinese battery manufacturers, and that at very low prices. You simply have to be careful and put some research into it.
There is no reason not to use micro USB, and do you know why? There was a lot of thought put into the design. It's sturdy enough to avoid bending and so on, very small, provides good electrical connectivity, and it's considerably cheaper to manufacture. Side bonus is that it detaches from your phone if there's a sudden pull on it, if the connector was implemented correctly that is. There is nothing handy about their proprietary connector, other than making money that is.
I disagree with you, but I'll leave it at that because it'll equal talking to a stone wall if I point out the flaws in your statement.
Yes sure, everybody has a field service unit spectrum analyser that goes all the way down to -150 dBm in their hotel rooms!!!! Fact is that there are a lot better ways to track somebody. Radar isn't exactly something new either. I've built radars out of scrap minicircuits components that I found in my desk drawers, and even without trying you could see faint movements through walls on short ranges if your receiver's noise figure is sufficiently low.
Sure sure... The psychology people can't even apply least squares correctly for linear regression in a lot of cases. I know for a fact many of them don't even know the concept behind it. So I find your statement hard to believe.
And you're comparing social skills with classes, if you want engineering students to get some social skills then you should scrap the generic bullshit classes and give them some more free time so they can go out and learn to talk with people.
Not really, in the end of the day you take a random sample of your previous users. Since those are most likely to use your software.
Are we required to provide a copy of our masters degree in engineering to slashdot.org? :P
You're a rare case. But then again such methods should also be taught in an AI class if they're useful.
We take a singular approach to things? I disagree with you on that, but that's from a person to person basis. I know enough "engineers" (quotation marks because I don't really think they deserve the diploma) who couldn't solve their way out of a system of linear equations. For them not following a simple standard procedure seems to be difficult. The more accomplished ones will generally think outside the box on how to get from point A to B though.
Nothing is unsolvable, sometimes simply very hard to solve within the allocated resources!
A computer can't be creative, the problems we're dealing with are non deterministic in nature. Combined with the fact that the optimal solution is very complicated, we have to use fancy methods like simulated annealing simply to find the ideal block placement on FPGAs. But making something ready for real world usage is indeed problematic. Physicists fail to consider that and the mathematical models they produce are often useless for real world usage. But in between considering non-linear behaviour and multiplying safety factors by 3 you can usually get pretty far. And then you ought to call in an older colleague to look over the design. But it's still mostly a trial and error setting.
You don't need psychology for that. A group of random people and basic knowledge of statistics is sufficient in most cases.
You know what they say, make something idiot proof and they'll make a better idiot.
You do have a point there. But you can simply fill in the blanks with classes from other departments that you find fun yourself (nuclear engineering and photonics are always fun)!
:-P
Heh, Our statistics professor made us feel like we were of a particular race in the 1940s in Germany though. Even a small index wrong made you lose half the points for that question. Think the pass grade was somewhere around 30% for that class, but nobody really complained about it. All in good fun! I found lectures about numerical techniques relaxing for some reason though, maybe I should get my head examined?
Don't know about there, but over here we're a rare breed.
A wild argument appears!
:P
The problem with psychology, sociology, etc. classes is that it's a waste of time. Or ethics for that matter. You don't need a degree in psychology or sociology to be able to analyse the performance of your team and to figure out what's wrong. Neither do you need an ethics class to know that clubbing baby seals with a giant robot is unethical, these are elementary values that your parents should have taught you from the grounds up. And analysing it will hardly be of any real use.
I disagree that people need a class on logical thinking either, or philosophy. The former is pretty clear, if you need a class on how to think logically you're probably not fit to be an engineering major. Logical thinking is sort of a prerequisite for our field, classes about it won't improve your ability on that aspect more than analysing existing designs. The advantage of the latter is that you also become familiar with the techniques of that particular field and the less obvious problems involved. Philosophy sounds nice and all, but there are two kinds of people around in this aspect. The ones who constantly think about philosophy and those who actually do things. We all know the freshman who goes around posting random philosophy crap on Facebook, yet you never see them achieve anything. Funny those are. But the latter might appreciate classes on philosophy but then you have to get rid of the former category. And teach it in a very different way. I've been in more than a few philosophy lectures from several professors, and they all target the former audience.
And forming logical arguments doesn't always win a debate, I hope you're aware of that. What I've found to work best is to first talk a while to the other person you're going to debate against a few days ahead of time so you can extrapolate their thought pattern. Then consider your own point you're defending and consider how they might attack it. And prepare counter arguments for that on top of your own arguments.
And actually, this rivalry got started for different reasons. Humanities students always complain about exams being hard, how their statistics professors are unfair, how they have to spend so much time studying. Yet our work load is significantly higher, difference being that we don't have the time to whine about it.
And not having solved an integral since college, well that might be in some disciplines. I have yet to see anybody design an analog circuit, that works properly with spread of components that is, without using advanced calculus; Especially when high frequencies are involved. Oh and before you ask, electronic engineer here
Don't forget the stereotype wannabe communists!
I agree engineering students should get some basic classes on economy and maybe one on communication so they stop making awful presentations. But psychology, sociology, etc., hell no! First of all, it should be the other way around. I have yet to meet a research psychologist that actually uses statistics correctly. And political science and philosophy majors tend to lose flat-out in debates against engineering students, simply because the latter knows how to analyse the situation correctly. Engineering is more about analysing problems, seeing the possible solutions for said problems and then implementing them. Arguing and being sceptic is based on the same premises. So in fact it should be the other way around.
If it's the other way around it might also make more of them fail, reducing the over-supply of humanities majors.
Heh, that's what you'd think right? Verbose code makes you start using indentation in very specific ways I've noticed. In fact, it's funny to see how almost everybody indents verbose code in the same structure. Enhances readability a lot. And I've seen auto doc implementations for these languages, but most sort of fail; The problem being that languages like Ada and VHDL operate in a very niche branch of coding. Especially VHDL is tricky in that aspect because even the order of things implies very different hardware structures in certain cases. What'd be far more useful is automatic test bench generation. Documenting these type of languages is sort of implied, you can't start designing in either without being very well aware about your goal and how you're going to get there. Just slapping parts together will lead to the compiler/synthesizer coming back around and hitting you in the head with your sloppy code.
I've seen a few attempts at it, none successful mind you. It'd be an interesting goal, though personally I don't think it's strictly necessary considering the way Ada encourages you to work. (Think first, write, verify instead of just starting and seeing where you end)
Ada actually does support unit tests (GNATtest is great). VHDL is indeed far more problematic, then again I don't think a computer would be very good at generating a test bench for VHDL because it's hard to predict what's to be expected. And generating input for a FSM with thousands or millions of states is a hopeless goal. But yeah, it's mainly a personal choice. Must admit I'm more of an electronics guy so I have a tendency towards these languages as they give me fine control over the things I care about (how multitasking happens, what data goes where under which format, does it arrive in the same shape, etc.).
Being verbose is often considered bad, yet languages like VHDL and Ada do it as well. The latter two combine it with a very strict syntax. As a result Ada and VHDL code that compiles/synthesizes has a larger chance of working on the first attempt. More keystrokes isn't exactly a problem. I'm not sure about you but my typing speed isn't the limiting factor in writing programs. The days of planning, flow diagrams, etc. are.
Two words: Self Destruct
Possibly a large enough explosion that makes an apple shaped mark on the device owner, so I know who to avoid talking to.
You sir win the argument!
Yeah, but the 2.4 GHz band goes through walls and humans easily. 240 GHz is a different story. 50 GHz already has trouble getting through on a rainy day, 240 GHz won't do much better. You'll need some insane receivers for this thing.
Yeah, the actual development was probably done by a slave army of engineering grad students as usual. But putting a high school girl on the poster makes for a better press release. And as long as you get the grant that pays your rent at the end of the month you don't quite care as grad student who the hell takes credit for it.
Yep, Ada and the closely related VHDL are both a success story for a very good reason. Yet a lot of people seem to hate both due to how strictly they enforce their rules. But Ada always wins when reliability is a must.
You should learn to voice your opinion more carefully in that case. Cause the way you said it implies you support their actions.
And I very much know what's at stake here, so calling me a hypocrite is far from correct.
No, you're a disgrace cause you're somewhat supportive for their actions. They use violence instead of reason, proof and logical arguments.