The most important variable is frequency. Anything near microwaves around 2.5 GHz is in the band that causes heating in materials with significant water. FM has never been a problem since it's so much lower. GSM tops out at 1.9 GHz, UMTS-FDD has versions right in the danger zone. As said in the quoted post, get an RF meter and measure for yourself. That being said, at 8 m the power is down by a factor of ~1/(2^4). So a 40 dBm EIRP would be around 2.5 dBm in your apartment. Compare that to 700 W that you'd find in your typical oven. Big difference...
Last, I agree that you should consider future sale value as perceptions, especially uninformed as you are like to see in the general population, will trump logic...
I once dealt with an programmer, Chris, who was motivated only by deadlines in that he believed that success meant the apperance of ticking off a milestone. To wit, 6 or so months after he was let go for total lack of engineering ability (another story itself), I found myself working with the best debugger dude in out group trying to figure out why my code was badly broken. Eventually we thought we should step into a module written by Chris that was supposedly released. Process being what was, Chris had self-tested and self-released it. When the debugger entered, we were greeted with a function body that was empty except for a giant comment saying,
/* Cam, I don't know what this is supposed to do */
return 0;
Needless to say, there was a bit of a panic to review all his "released" code...
If I catch on fire, I very much hope that a scientist is around instead of the chamber members who will have to ask if they're to blame before deciding whether or not to put me out...
I believe that the dinosaur chamber of commerce also initiated a similar lawsuit when the general population noticed that numbers were thinning. Sadly for them too, it was the lawyers that did them in:-)
'cause London is burning and I, I live by the river
I believe there's a parallel here with the oil and gas industry. Here in Alberta, you can tell where oil and gas activity is prevalent by the nature of the roads. Forestry trunk roads that were only 1 vehicle width when I was a kid are now more than 4 vehicle widths, well-graded, and maintained throughout the year, especially in the winter when drilling takes advantage of frozen ground.
We have a good number of wind turbines in southern Alberta and I've never heard of any kind of transportation problem.
Basically, government will catch up with infrastructure (roads) if they really want to support this new industry. Of course, slapping a royalty on the resource (is wind like oil?) might help:-)
Oh, of course, the government can't prevent people from not planning ahead in their route selection or choice of truck driver educational/IQ standards...
Oh, this reminds me of a beaut I heard up here in Snowanada
It appears that a politician running for mayor in fair Calgary, Alberta, may accept funds from, say, land and commercial developers, for his campaign. What ever is left over is his/hers to keep, personally.
I bet they even get a discount on new homes in new developments...
Except that a corporation more than likely does not represent the collective rights of its employees (directors, whatever).
I suppose you might even argue that they are denying their "people" elected representation if they indeed act on their behalf as it's doubtful that any kind of democratic process granted that privilege.
Thus, the corporation is a faux individual...
(no knee-kicking; I've incorporated! Thrice to date, so I get three extra votes:-)
For the same reason that we shouldn't consider the mass murder of Hiroshima and Nagasaki anything other than that.
A corporation is ultimately made of people. Just because it is a collection of them, not a single individual, shouldn't make them have any less rights than a person does.
Just like a bunch of Japanese civilians don't lose some of their rights because the B-29 dropped a bomb on a 'city', not an 'individual'.
This echoes my own experience in challenging government policy here in Canada, and makes me sad that everywhere people don't get the whole picture because they don't receive all the information on a topic.
In my own case, I wrote to every Opposition and Cabinet Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Alberta challenging the logic of electricity deregulation a few years ago. Since Alberta is a one-party state in effect, I got replies from all Opposition MLAs, but only one from the Government, directly from the Minister in charge. At first I had to admit it was a well-written reply and seemed to have some "weight" in that it referred to Alberta's achievements in electricity deregulation and promoting free markets. However, a quick Internet search revealed that the whole letter was just a cut and paste job of speeches delivered to various groups in Canada and the US. Moreover, some of the groups were pure sham. One named in the letter purported to be a Marketing Association or something based in Washington and they lauded Alberta as leading the way in a group of five or so "progressive" provinces and states. Other than the minister's speeches, I couldn't find any evidence that they actually existed!!!
The most egregious claim in the letter was that since some point in time in 2000 or 2001 (I forget the exact date selected) Alberta's electricity rates had declined by a significant amount. WTF? They chose a date that was the highest point in terms of price. Prices are still not close to pre-2000 levels, especially when you factor in tacked-on transmission and delivery charges (money grabs).
The final kicker was that despite the Alberta Government's new rules about patronage appointments, several years later, after the damage was done, the Minister got a plush posting in Washington.
My final comment is that it was embarrassing how simplistic their "deception" was. I guess given that since the late 70s Alberta's government has been run by leaders and ministers that average, probably, no better than a high school education and have that eroded by populist, short-term focused politics I shouldn't be surprised.
I can't wait for copyright taxes to be challenged in the courts here in Canada, and hope to be able to watch, if not support, an educated and articulate public battle the real interests behind all this...
Please, not before my application for the indexing of data volumes (with a preferred embodiment based on vegetable dyes stamped onto processed cellulose sheets) such that information such as authorship, data category, repository location, publication date, publisher, and such is presented in an index consisting of cards (see later preferred embodiments) arranged in stacks contained by sliding card-holding racks (see later preferred embodiments for examples in wood and steel). Said racks are located in a central repository and locatable via instructions presented by a second invention (referenced therein) with preferred embodiments including signs, help desk brochures, verbal instruction from repository custodians, etc.
for the love of god, slashdot, stop confusing engineers with sysadmins.
Thank goodness, finally a thread that starts with the core issue. I believe the question encompasses the trade-off between further education and earnings. I can only relate that to my own experience.
As a Computer Engineering grad I chose to stay around for a Masters (though in a field of applied engineering) out of interest in further courses and to see if I could succeed at it. It was partly a question of figuring out what I was best suited to. However, my plan was to definitely get real-world experience thereafter and see if I could hack it in industry. I did that for a few years after the M.Sc. and then wondered if a Ph.D. was worth doing. I knew I could fall back to a job in industry so the risk was minimal (also wasn't married with kids at the time).
I've always thought an M.Sc. was like an intro to research, while a Ph.D. required passion for it (or a specific problem). You gotta have the passion to finish a Ph.D.
Professors are always keen to see students do advanced degrees (partly) because they are rated on the number of students they churn out. Being cynical, that's why it's hard to fail a grad course;-) Grant values are tied to # of students.
Last, I found that by doing extra degrees and varying my jobs every 2-4 years, I've acquired some very broad experience (from embedded/server level software through digital HW to RF and on to R&D management). This allows me to consider all kinds of jobs with good qualifications in hand.
If varied/broad experience is what you want, consider the above. But if not, there's nothing wrong with focusing on what you have and carving a strong career in a narrower domain.
BTW, the money may or may not even out, depending on your opportunities. Is money important to you? then start earning and saving ASAP, and maybe start an Apple/Google-killer...and give me a call if you need help;-)
You almost make the point that is the most telling in this argument, at least for me. When push comes to shove, I can get my work done on any system. However, as a Mac owner since my first 512k in 85, my conclusion is that I get 7 years of use on average for a Mac and about 3 years of use for a Windows-based PC before replacement. My G5 tower is 5 years old this month and as good as ever.
The equation is simple; even if a Mac cost 2x as much as a PC, I'd break even. Now, if you factor in the difference in maintenance due to viruses/malware/etc. the Mac has saved me years of productivity; what's that worth in $ ?
I'm looking forward to my next cost-effective investment in a uni-body laptop:-)
If you can, "invest" in a Mac; all computers depreciate, but a Mac's value goes to zero more slowly.
Actually, I quite enjoy living in our giant commune, being deferential to the kommisars, working in my government-supplied job that makes me a cog in Canada's 5-year plan. I plan to make the pilgramage to Ottawa to see the perfectly preserved body of our great revolutionary leader, John A. MacDonald, as he lies in state in perpetuity reminding us how we shrugged off the totalitarian rule of a constitutional monachy that offered us independent government and self-determination.
Most comforting of all is that by maintaining the facade of a pseudo-communist society, we have effectively kept reactionary, mythology-promoting/believing liberty-before-death(through non-affordable health-care) Americans out of the country...
click for help
Therein lies a serious problem. Take a look at the number of patents granted before and after the gov't had the USPTO change their financial underpinnings. Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon in which the boss offers the programmers a dollar for each bug they uncover. The punchline is Wally saying "I'm gonna code me a mini-van." or something like that. The USPTO has a "supposed" mandate contrary to its own best interests.
Start by disallowing all (I mean ALL) business model patents. Then get serious about differentiating physically realizable patents from software, just to establish some kind of box around software. For physically realizable patents, we may want to go back to the way it was in the 1800s and require (within some period) a working model of the invention. Suitably documented lab experiments may also suffice.
For software, there should be a caveat that if credible prior art is found within N years of the filing, the patent is automatically dismissed and the onus put on the inventor to counter the argument.
Of course, all these ideas are surely repeated elsewhere above/below...
A good book indeed by a great author. I can strongly recommend Global Catastrophes: A Very Short Introduction [Amazon.ca]. It's one of several very thin, but excellent books by Oxford University Press.
Definitely 3 of the books I'd recommend. As per another poster, if you don't have a solid base book like Sedra and Smith, look for it. Millman and Halkias is dated, but still relevant IMHO. The new edition is probably what you want, but I've not yet seen it.
Nope, the original patent holders are the founders of Wi-LAN, which holds all patents. That probably answers your second point. I was VP Eng there in the late 90s and know the patents and founders well.
In general, and especially when it comes to software patents and so-called business model patents, I'm on the side of busting 'em up. I've seen far too many far too obvious software patents in my work over the past 10 years.
However, I have to come down on the side of Wi-LAN for this one. Like the previous poster, I too am an EE (Comp. E, and Ph.D. EE). But unlike him I have extensive background in this particular matter because as VP of Engineering for Wi-LAN in the late 90's I did a lot of the hands on work making the technology work, wrote ancillary patent applications, and in so doing went through all the history of the technology. The key, novel claim for W-OFDM is the idea of employing OFDM in a wideband signal. This combats fading because each of the sub-carriers effectively experiences flat fading. Prior to that idea (which the authors of the patents had in 1990 or so), OFDM was used in narrowband (relatively speaking) systems and had it's share of problems.
"Just pick up any book on RF coms. This is basic stuff for anyone experienced in the field. "
People are right in that it's now standard textbook stuff. But before 1999, I don't think it was mentioned in any undergrad textbooks, at least none that I'm aware of. The best reference was Cimini's paper (but I digress...).
Other claims/ideas from Wi-LAN related to OFDM pertained mostly to making the technology practical to implement. In the early 90s, there was really no way to economically build an OFDM-based modem for commercial/consumer applications. I used a simple measure of dollars/bit/s/Hz to illustrate the relative costs of DSSS vs OFDM. About 1996 or 1997, fabrication processes made OFDM cost competitive. Part of what the founders of Wi-LAN did was to anticipate what would be needed for a commercial OFDM system and build a company to do the research required to be ready for the arrival of cost-effective technology to realize the modem.
Anyway, you get the point.
Last, and perhaps most important. I sat on the TGa and TGb subgroups in the IEEE 802.11 standards meetings and helped to define the standard. As anyone who has helped in IEEE standards definition work knows, the task groups are required to get signed letters from the holders of any IP related to the standard being worked on saying (I paraphrase) that the IP holder promises to license their technology in a reasonable fashion, at a fair rate, and without bias to all parties. Thus, this lawsuit is all about testing the veracity of Wi-LAN's claims, not about grabbing something that people haven't already agreed might be due to them. If they are right, they stand to get a very small percentage of the cost of a chip set in licensing fees (in the semi business, this is always much less than 5%; a "fair" rate). If they are wrong, they are out of luck wrt all that initial investment and long hours of work.
There is one other point for people to ponder... A common thing for the big companies like Cisco to do is to buy smaller companies. Radiata, the original company that Wi-LAN sued, was bought by Cisco and, hence, their involvement. Why do big companies buy little ones? To get the IP. If you read an article in a recent MIT Tech Review on why big companies can't do R&D, you'll find the author's argument that the VC business model is to blame. He argues that VC fund small, really talented groups of people to invent new things with the promise that the founders will get rich. It works pretty well, well enough that many of the best people don't join big labs like they used to in the 60s and 70s, but prefer to assume the risk of a start up. Thus, to get the "research" large companies are compelled to buy startups. From the VC perspective, everyone wins...
Amusingly, I remember being at an IEEE 802.11 meeting in San Antonio and eavesdropping on a senior Cisco wireless engineer talking about how Cisco valued companies for acquisition (this is in 1999). He basically said that they paid L, M, or N millions for each engineer, executive, and technician. Times were good back then;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Last, I agree that you should consider future sale value as perceptions, especially uninformed as you are like to see in the general population, will trump logic...
Needless to say, there was a bit of a panic to review all his "released" code ...
I believe that the dinosaur chamber of commerce also initiated a similar lawsuit when the general population noticed that numbers were thinning. Sadly for them too, it was the lawyers that did them in :-)
'cause London is burning and I, I live by the river
I believe there's a parallel here with the oil and gas industry. Here in Alberta, you can tell where oil and gas activity is prevalent by the nature of the roads. Forestry trunk roads that were only 1 vehicle width when I was a kid are now more than 4 vehicle widths, well-graded, and maintained throughout the year, especially in the winter when drilling takes advantage of frozen ground.
We have a good number of wind turbines in southern Alberta and I've never heard of any kind of transportation problem.
Basically, government will catch up with infrastructure (roads) if they really want to support this new industry. Of course, slapping a royalty on the resource (is wind like oil?) might help :-)
Oh, of course, the government can't prevent people from not planning ahead in their route selection or choice of truck driver educational/IQ standards...
Oh, this reminds me of a beaut I heard up here in Snowanada
It appears that a politician running for mayor in fair Calgary, Alberta, may accept funds from, say, land and commercial developers, for his campaign. What ever is left over is his/hers to keep, personally.
I bet they even get a discount on new homes in new developments...
Except that a corporation more than likely does not represent the collective rights of its employees (directors, whatever).
I suppose you might even argue that they are denying their "people" elected representation if they indeed act on their behalf as it's doubtful that any kind of democratic process granted that privilege.
Thus, the corporation is a faux individual... (no knee-kicking; I've incorporated! Thrice to date, so I get three extra votes :-)
For the same reason that we shouldn't consider the mass murder of Hiroshima and Nagasaki anything other than that.
A corporation is ultimately made of people. Just because it is a collection of them, not a single individual, shouldn't make them have any less rights than a person does.
Just like a bunch of Japanese civilians don't lose some of their rights because the B-29 dropped a bomb on a 'city', not an 'individual'.
In my own case, I wrote to every Opposition and Cabinet Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Alberta challenging the logic of electricity deregulation a few years ago. Since Alberta is a one-party state in effect, I got replies from all Opposition MLAs, but only one from the Government, directly from the Minister in charge. At first I had to admit it was a well-written reply and seemed to have some "weight" in that it referred to Alberta's achievements in electricity deregulation and promoting free markets. However, a quick Internet search revealed that the whole letter was just a cut and paste job of speeches delivered to various groups in Canada and the US. Moreover, some of the groups were pure sham. One named in the letter purported to be a Marketing Association or something based in Washington and they lauded Alberta as leading the way in a group of five or so "progressive" provinces and states. Other than the minister's speeches, I couldn't find any evidence that they actually existed!!!
The most egregious claim in the letter was that since some point in time in 2000 or 2001 (I forget the exact date selected) Alberta's electricity rates had declined by a significant amount. WTF? They chose a date that was the highest point in terms of price. Prices are still not close to pre-2000 levels, especially when you factor in tacked-on transmission and delivery charges (money grabs).
The final kicker was that despite the Alberta Government's new rules about patronage appointments, several years later, after the damage was done, the Minister got a plush posting in Washington.
My final comment is that it was embarrassing how simplistic their "deception" was. I guess given that since the late 70s Alberta's government has been run by leaders and ministers that average, probably, no better than a high school education and have that eroded by populist, short-term focused politics I shouldn't be surprised.
I can't wait for copyright taxes to be challenged in the courts here in Canada, and hope to be able to watch, if not support, an educated and articulate public battle the real interests behind all this...
Please, not before my application for the indexing of data volumes (with a preferred embodiment based on vegetable dyes stamped onto processed cellulose sheets) such that information such as authorship, data category, repository location, publication date, publisher, and such is presented in an index consisting of cards (see later preferred embodiments) arranged in stacks contained by sliding card-holding racks (see later preferred embodiments for examples in wood and steel). Said racks are located in a central repository and locatable via instructions presented by a second invention (referenced therein) with preferred embodiments including signs, help desk brochures, verbal instruction from repository custodians, etc.
He's not an IT grad. He's a Comp.E.
for the love of god, slashdot, stop confusing engineers with sysadmins.
Thank goodness, finally a thread that starts with the core issue. I believe the question encompasses the trade-off between further education and earnings. I can only relate that to my own experience.
As a Computer Engineering grad I chose to stay around for a Masters (though in a field of applied engineering) out of interest in further courses and to see if I could succeed at it. It was partly a question of figuring out what I was best suited to. However, my plan was to definitely get real-world experience thereafter and see if I could hack it in industry. I did that for a few years after the M.Sc. and then wondered if a Ph.D. was worth doing. I knew I could fall back to a job in industry so the risk was minimal (also wasn't married with kids at the time).
I've always thought an M.Sc. was like an intro to research, while a Ph.D. required passion for it (or a specific problem). You gotta have the passion to finish a Ph.D.
Professors are always keen to see students do advanced degrees (partly) because they are rated on the number of students they churn out. Being cynical, that's why it's hard to fail a grad course ;-) Grant values are tied to # of students.
Last, I found that by doing extra degrees and varying my jobs every 2-4 years, I've acquired some very broad experience (from embedded/server level software through digital HW to RF and on to R&D management). This allows me to consider all kinds of jobs with good qualifications in hand.
If varied/broad experience is what you want, consider the above. But if not, there's nothing wrong with focusing on what you have and carving a strong career in a narrower domain.
BTW, the money may or may not even out, depending on your opportunities. Is money important to you? then start earning and saving ASAP, and maybe start an Apple/Google-killer...and give me a call if you need help ;-)
You almost make the point that is the most telling in this argument, at least for me. When push comes to shove, I can get my work done on any system. However, as a Mac owner since my first 512k in 85, my conclusion is that I get 7 years of use on average for a Mac and about 3 years of use for a Windows-based PC before replacement. My G5 tower is 5 years old this month and as good as ever. The equation is simple; even if a Mac cost 2x as much as a PC, I'd break even. Now, if you factor in the difference in maintenance due to viruses/malware/etc. the Mac has saved me years of productivity; what's that worth in $ ? I'm looking forward to my next cost-effective investment in a uni-body laptop :-)
If you can, "invest" in a Mac; all computers depreciate, but a Mac's value goes to zero more slowly.
Actually, I quite enjoy living in our giant commune, being deferential to the kommisars, working in my government-supplied job that makes me a cog in Canada's 5-year plan. I plan to make the pilgramage to Ottawa to see the perfectly preserved body of our great revolutionary leader, John A. MacDonald, as he lies in state in perpetuity reminding us how we shrugged off the totalitarian rule of a constitutional monachy that offered us independent government and self-determination. Most comforting of all is that by maintaining the facade of a pseudo-communist society, we have effectively kept reactionary, mythology-promoting/believing liberty-before-death(through non-affordable health-care) Americans out of the country... click for help
Therein lies a serious problem. Take a look at the number of patents granted before and after the gov't had the USPTO change their financial underpinnings. Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon in which the boss offers the programmers a dollar for each bug they uncover. The punchline is Wally saying "I'm gonna code me a mini-van." or something like that. The USPTO has a "supposed" mandate contrary to its own best interests. Start by disallowing all (I mean ALL) business model patents. Then get serious about differentiating physically realizable patents from software, just to establish some kind of box around software. For physically realizable patents, we may want to go back to the way it was in the 1800s and require (within some period) a working model of the invention. Suitably documented lab experiments may also suffice. For software, there should be a caveat that if credible prior art is found within N years of the filing, the patent is automatically dismissed and the onus put on the inventor to counter the argument. Of course, all these ideas are surely repeated elsewhere above/below...
A good book indeed by a great author. I can strongly recommend Global Catastrophes: A Very Short Introduction [Amazon.ca]. It's one of several very thin, but excellent books by Oxford University Press.
That's no tax.... that's extortion.
Precisely. I'm pretty sure that any Uni will view this as a mafia-esque protection racket. Pay me so I won't hurt you.
Can someone in the U.S. clarify the law concerning asking for money under the threat of legal suit?
Definitely 3 of the books I'd recommend. As per another poster, if you don't have a solid base book like Sedra and Smith, look for it. Millman and Halkias is dated, but still relevant IMHO. The new edition is probably what you want, but I've not yet seen it.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070634556/information_center_view0/
Don't overlook noise. I started with Howard Johnson's "Black Magic" book, but there are definitely better books out there. For exampele,
http://www.amazon.com/High-Speed-Circuit-Integrity-Microwave-Library/dp/1580531318/ref=pd_sim_b_4
Nope, the original patent holders are the founders of Wi-LAN, which holds all patents. That probably answers your second point. I was VP Eng there in the late 90s and know the patents and founders well.
Hi all,
;-)
In general, and especially when it comes to software patents and so-called business model patents, I'm on the side of busting 'em up. I've seen far too many far too obvious software patents in my work over the past 10 years.
However, I have to come down on the side of Wi-LAN for this one. Like the previous poster, I too am an EE (Comp. E, and Ph.D. EE). But unlike him I have extensive background in this particular matter because as VP of Engineering for Wi-LAN in the late 90's I did a lot of the hands on work making the technology work, wrote ancillary patent applications, and in so doing went through all the history of the technology. The key, novel claim for W-OFDM is the idea of employing OFDM in a wideband signal. This combats fading because each of the sub-carriers effectively experiences flat fading. Prior to that idea (which the authors of the patents had in 1990 or so), OFDM was used in narrowband (relatively speaking) systems and had it's share of problems.
"Just pick up any book on RF coms. This is basic stuff for anyone experienced in the field. "
People are right in that it's now standard textbook stuff. But before 1999, I don't think it was mentioned in any undergrad textbooks, at least none that I'm aware of. The best reference was Cimini's paper (but I digress...).
Other claims/ideas from Wi-LAN related to OFDM pertained mostly to making the technology practical to implement. In the early 90s, there was really no way to economically build an OFDM-based modem for commercial/consumer applications. I used a simple measure of dollars/bit/s/Hz to illustrate the relative costs of DSSS vs OFDM. About 1996 or 1997, fabrication processes made OFDM cost competitive. Part of what the founders of Wi-LAN did was to anticipate what would be needed for a commercial OFDM system and build a company to do the research required to be ready for the arrival of cost-effective technology to realize the modem.
Anyway, you get the point.
Last, and perhaps most important. I sat on the TGa and TGb subgroups in the IEEE 802.11 standards meetings and helped to define the standard. As anyone who has helped in IEEE standards definition work knows, the task groups are required to get signed letters from the holders of any IP related to the standard being worked on saying (I paraphrase) that the IP holder promises to license their technology in a reasonable fashion, at a fair rate, and without bias to all parties. Thus, this lawsuit is all about testing the veracity of Wi-LAN's claims, not about grabbing something that people haven't already agreed might be due to them. If they are right, they stand to get a very small percentage of the cost of a chip set in licensing fees (in the semi business, this is always much less than 5%; a "fair" rate). If they are wrong, they are out of luck wrt all that initial investment and long hours of work.
There is one other point for people to ponder... A common thing for the big companies like Cisco to do is to buy smaller companies. Radiata, the original company that Wi-LAN sued, was bought by Cisco and, hence, their involvement. Why do big companies buy little ones? To get the IP. If you read an article in a recent MIT Tech Review on why big companies can't do R&D, you'll find the author's argument that the VC business model is to blame. He argues that VC fund small, really talented groups of people to invent new things with the promise that the founders will get rich. It works pretty well, well enough that many of the best people don't join big labs like they used to in the 60s and 70s, but prefer to assume the risk of a start up. Thus, to get the "research" large companies are compelled to buy startups. From the VC perspective, everyone wins...
Amusingly, I remember being at an IEEE 802.11 meeting in San Antonio and eavesdropping on a senior Cisco wireless engineer talking about how Cisco valued companies for acquisition (this is in 1999). He basically said that they paid L, M, or N millions for each engineer, executive, and technician. Times were good back then