VHDL and Verilog create gates and flip-flops, not code. Learning the languages isn't all that difficult. Learning the particulars about the FPGA's your "software" is going to go into is not trivial and requires hardware design knowledge.
Your FPGA isn't running on a virtual machine somewhere on the cloud. You need to know how to use a multimeter to make a FPGA go.
When's the last time you had a C++ file that defined your pin locations?
I think a logic analyzer is a bit more important than a multimeter when it comes to digital design.
VHDL seems to be thrown about slashdot a lot. Of course the 1990s saw heated debate about how VHDL is better than Verilog, but if you look at the ground reality, hardly anybody is doing new VHDL design. Even Europe, the last bastion of VHDL is moving to Verilog.
So if you want to upgrade your skills, and are new to the field, try Verilog and System Verilog.
Though SV started as a "simulation and tbench" language", its being increasingly used in design.
System verilog for design (google it) is a popular book.
PS: I am working in EDA and VLSI field for past 11 years, and have seen multiple designs from many large Semiconductor companies.
Um, no. I work for a multi-billion dollar aerospace company in the USA and we are strictly VHDL. It is simply better. Verilog is a low-level ASIC gate wiring language. VHDL can do everything from high level to low level, and reads better. If you're doing FPGAs, VHDL is the best. I consider this http://www.amazon.com/Designers-Guide-VHDL-Systems-Silicon/dp/1558602704 to be the absolute best book.
No, iPod and iPad are most certainly not the same thing. Do iPods have GPS receivers? No. Do iPods have wireless data plans? No. Do iPods even pretend to have applications that aren't games? No.
Yes, that's the point -- locations for which the DTV stations are out of range, form a "TV White Space," where the DTV frequencies are not used. The frequencies then can be re-used for other applications, like wireless, wide-area Internet access. It gives the person in rural areas an alternative to satellites.
No, that is not the point. White space is, as the summary points out, the space between DTV stations (i.e., unassigned to any station, empty "guardband" space between channels, much like using the white space margins on a piece of paper for notes). My point is that in rural areas where you can't get DTV, you are unlikely to receive broadband wireless on these frequencies because of terrain (e.g., mountains). Where there isn't enough market to put a TV station, is there enough market for a broadband station?
You're missing the point - this is to cover areas with broadband access that previously did not have access (or had really slow access because they are located so far from an exchange).
I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in the states, if you're in a rural area (no broadband), you generally also have no DTV reception and have to resort to satellite.
How's that 'diversity' bullshit working out for you? Not happy that your country hasn't quite been turned into a third world hellhole yet? You Slashdot retards claim to be intelligent, so please explain how filling your previously all white country with millions of useless third world scum is making it better? You must really hate your children.
For some like you, it was working quite nicely until Lincoln freed them.
Ok, I will give you a factor other than healthcare that effects average life expectancy. In the U.S., if a baby is born alive, yet dies within 24 hours of birth, it is counted as a live birth and thus impacts the life expectancy. In most other nations, such a baby is not counted as a live birth and thus is not calculated into life expectancy. Preventable deaths includes the victims of automobile accidents and violent crime who are dead at the scene, neither of which is a healthcare issue. so what factors other than healthcare influence long term survival rates after being diagnosed with cancer?
Or do you just want to keep up with your "USA sucks!" mindset?
USA does not suck. I just think we can do better and should stop pretending that we're the best when we are not.
As you can see "whether or not the government pays for healthcare" is not "one of its primary factors"
You say this after a sentence that says that one of the major factors is "who pays the cost". What they mean by that is, do you pay the cost for your medical treatment, or does your government pay the cost. So, yes, using the WHO ranking to argue for the government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning, since the WHO, everything else being equal, ranks a country where the government pays for healthcare higher than a country where the government does not pay for healthcare.
The fact of the matter is that the 5 year survival rate for someone diagnosed with cancer is higher in the U.S. than in Europe or Canada. That is a measure of quality of healthcare. I am not currently arguing about how affordable healthcare is, but about the quality of healthcare. You are the one who said that countries with government payment for healthcare had better healthcare. You did not say they had more affordable healthcare.
First, who pays is only one, and it is not who "person vs. government" but who as in what percent of a person's income they have to pay for their healthcare! Read the words. Second, it is only one of FIVE factors, so not a circular argument at all. Third, the 5 year survival rate is the only fact you can find where US is close to the top; healthy life expectancy and preventable deaths US is way down, but you just toss that out with "other factors," without saying what they are. I can equally "other factors" your 5 year survival. But your mind is set, keep up the "USA #1!!!!"
That's right, trust the rankings from an organization that uses whether or not the government pays for healthcare as one of its primary factors in judging how good the healthcare is to determine whether the healthcare in a country where the government does not primarily pay for healthcare is as good as the healthcare in a country where the government does pay for most healthcare. Using the WHO ranking to argue for the U.S. government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning.
It is not a circular argument. The rankings are based on "WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
As you can see "whether or not the government pays for healthcare" is not "one of its primary factors" In fact it is not one of its factors at all. Yes, it rates based on "financial burden," which is "The measurement is based on the fraction of a household’s capacity to spend (income minus food expenditure) that goes on health care (including tax payments, social insurance, private insurance and out of pocket payments). " Which is "how affordable" is the healthcare.
Like I said, keep shouting "Rah, rah, rah! We're number 1!" That's what your masters want. This is what WHO says: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html but I'm sure you think that's just a conspiracy.
Single Payer is a progressive policy. Of course, your considering it a "liberal" policy indicates that your definition of liberal does not involve liberty, since there is nothing liberating about having to get the approval of a government bureaucrat in order to get medical treatment.
You know nothing about single payer if you think you need government bureaucrat to get medical treatment. You must be sucking down all the "U.S.A. is number one!" crap that the right feeds their minions. The countries with universal healthcare have way better care.
The Wall Street fat cats consistently give more to Democratic political campaigns than they do to Republican political campaigns. Only when it is clear that Republicans are going to win overwhelmingly does Wall Street campaign donations trend towards Republicans and then only marginally. When the political winds are blowing the other direction, Wall Street overwhelmingly gives to Democratic political campaigns.
Additionally, look at which way the richest counties in America vote election after election. The vast majority vote solidly Democratic.
You are absolutely right liberal policies never get passed anymore, that's why Obamacare failed to get enacted...no wait, it did get enacted. I'm sorry, the EPA, FDA and other government agencies have not been dismantled. They are constantly writing more regulations just as the "liberals' and the big corporations desire. Your mistake is in thinking that the purpose of those agencies was to protect the little guy. The purpose of those agencies is to control people.
Sorry you are so disillusioned and fooled. You are just plain wrong. On Obamacare, the REAL liberal policy of Single-Payer would never pass. Obamacare is completely based on Republican policies previously proposed (such as Romneycare), but the Repubs are so evil they pretend that it is a liberal policy. Perhaps EPA, FDA are still in place, but Repubs constantly try to lower their funding (and the SEC, Glass-Stegal, etc).
You are also wrong about rich counties. I have lived in two of the richest in the country - Orange, CA and Loudoun, VA - both always vote republican.
Yeah, that's why corporate power has consistently expanded along with government power. Modern day liberals are relabeled progressives. Progressives have always proposed that our lives should be ordered "scientifically". That is, that "scientific" experts should make all of our decisions for us. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, Mussolini was a progressive, FDR was a progressive. All of those men reduced the freedom of the people in the countries they governed. All of those men believed that they had an obligation to take care of the lower classes, just as modern progressives believe. If modern day liberals protect the lower classes from the ultra-rich, why do so many of the ultra-rich support liberal policies? For that matter, why does income inequality get worse when liberal policies are enacted?
Bullshit. Hardly any of the ultra-rich are liberals - just some Hollywood types that like to make a show of themselves. The Wall Street Fat Cats and CEOs constantly support Republicans so they can dismantle all government protections (EPA, FDA, Consumer protections, Labor Laws). In case you've been sleeping, liberal policies just don't get passed anymore because of all the corporate money in politics.
Now, speaking as a liberal, Prohibition is unquestionably a liberal idea. It just wasn't a *good* liberal idea. Liberalism and conservatism are not at their roots ideologies; otherwise you'd go mad trying trace them through the ages. What is liberal in one generation is conservative in the next. They're attitudes. A liberal thinks things can be fixed if we're willing to try something new. Conservatives look at this as social engineering, and it its most extreme form it *can* be. Now personally I don't think the Republican party is a conservative party. It's just a different *kind* of liberal party from the Democratic party. It's a party which courts conservatives with hot button issues like abortion, but pursues a radical agenda.
Prohibition was not a liberal idea, though it may have had support from the left (progressives, actually). Liberal ideas are about liberty and protecting the working class from the abuses of the rich. Conservatives (of the social conservative variety) are most certainly not liberal - they want to control your liberties (restrict rights), which is the reverse of liberalism.
Of course, once upon a time a liberal was someone who was a proponent of liberty. Whereas today a "liberal" is a proponent of ever expanding government regulation and power.
Wrong. Liberals are still proponents of liberty. They originated and still are proponents of protecting the lower class from the robber barons. It takes government regulation to check the wealthy against their abuses. Stop drinking Faux News' kool aid and wake up. Unless you are one of the ultra-rich, you are being screwed by those who want to dismantle government.
Actually, I'm afraid the GP was quite right here. Women's Sufferage and the progressive income tax among other liberal mainstays were in fact pushed cheifly as a way to allow prohibition to happen. Women were thought to be overwhelmingly votes for prohibition (if only they were allowed to vote), and prior to the income tax the vast majority of government revenue came from liquor takes. It was thought that alcohol could never be banned by the government while it was its cheif source of income.
That's strange, considering that Prohibition (18th Amendment) came before Women's Suffrage (19the Amendment). Some Progressives did support Prohibition because they thought it would improve society, and Susan B Anthony (a suffragette) did support Prohibition. However, Liberals by definition do not support the restriction of individual rights.
The "lock out" would not occur in the first stage. To clarify:
1) Terms of the bill are debated.
2) Once the terms are decided, they are voted to be "locked in". If the vote fails, then they can get back to debating and adjusting.
3) Once the vote to accept the bill "as is" kicks in, then the timer starts.
4) If this "read-only" version of the bill fails to pass, then the provisions of it would be locked out for a year.
I get that. Let's say that the Democrats control congress. They come up with a bill that outlaws abortion (obviously, they don't want that). It goes to "lock in" and the bill fails to pass (by design). Now the Republicans cannot offer a bill that outlaws an abortion for a year. Now imagine that the Democrats load up a bill with everything the Republicans could possibly want. After it goes ready-only, they vote it down. Now the Republicans cannot offer anything they want for a whole year.
Note 'Modern' in your link. You should try to not use modern warped definitions when discussing history. The Republican party was originally born as liberal party, opposing the conservative Democratic party.
My point exactly, dumbass. Liberal != Democrat. In addition, did you even check the link? "Modern" in the article STARTS with 1880, certainly before Prohibition.
Slashdot Mirror
VHDL and Verilog create gates and flip-flops, not code. Learning the languages isn't all that difficult. Learning the particulars about the FPGA's your "software" is going to go into is not trivial and requires hardware design knowledge.
Your FPGA isn't running on a virtual machine somewhere on the cloud. You need to know how to use a multimeter to make a FPGA go.
When's the last time you had a C++ file that defined your pin locations?
I think a logic analyzer is a bit more important than a multimeter when it comes to digital design.
VHDL seems to be thrown about slashdot a lot. Of course the 1990s saw heated debate about how VHDL is better than Verilog, but if you look at the ground reality, hardly anybody is doing new VHDL design. Even Europe, the last bastion of VHDL is moving to Verilog. So if you want to upgrade your skills, and are new to the field, try Verilog and System Verilog. Though SV started as a "simulation and tbench" language", its being increasingly used in design.
System verilog for design (google it) is a popular book.
PS: I am working in EDA and VLSI field for past 11 years, and have seen multiple designs from many large Semiconductor companies.
Um, no. I work for a multi-billion dollar aerospace company in the USA and we are strictly VHDL. It is simply better. Verilog is a low-level ASIC gate wiring language. VHDL can do everything from high level to low level, and reads better. If you're doing FPGAs, VHDL is the best. I consider this http://www.amazon.com/Designers-Guide-VHDL-Systems-Silicon/dp/1558602704 to be the absolute best book.
No, iPod and iPad are most certainly not the same thing. Do iPods have GPS receivers? No. Do iPods have wireless data plans? No. Do iPods even pretend to have applications that aren't games? No.
Yes, the Microsoft shilling is getting pretty prevalent here. It's obvious when the person cries about the $ every time someone uses it. Get over it!
Yes, that's the point -- locations for which the DTV stations are out of range, form a "TV White Space," where the DTV frequencies are not used. The frequencies then can be re-used for other applications, like wireless, wide-area Internet access. It gives the person in rural areas an alternative to satellites.
No, that is not the point. White space is, as the summary points out, the space between DTV stations (i.e., unassigned to any station, empty "guardband" space between channels, much like using the white space margins on a piece of paper for notes). My point is that in rural areas where you can't get DTV, you are unlikely to receive broadband wireless on these frequencies because of terrain (e.g., mountains). Where there isn't enough market to put a TV station, is there enough market for a broadband station?
You're missing the point - this is to cover areas with broadband access that previously did not have access (or had really slow access because they are located so far from an exchange).
I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in the states, if you're in a rural area (no broadband), you generally also have no DTV reception and have to resort to satellite.
20 times better at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Warmer planet = more melting permafrost = more methane release = warmer planet.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/
So why hasn't a feedback loop destroyed the earth?
The time constant > your lifetime.
Google's in bed with the NSA. They can decrypt your files, no problem.
My daughter has an iTunes account without credit card number. It can be done. I'm not saying it's straightforward, but Apple has the mechanism.
Those are the flavors.
How's that 'diversity' bullshit working out for you? Not happy that your country hasn't quite been turned into a third world hellhole yet? You Slashdot retards claim to be intelligent, so please explain how filling your previously all white country with millions of useless third world scum is making it better? You must really hate your children.
For some like you, it was working quite nicely until Lincoln freed them.
Ok, I will give you a factor other than healthcare that effects average life expectancy. In the U.S., if a baby is born alive, yet dies within 24 hours of birth, it is counted as a live birth and thus impacts the life expectancy. In most other nations, such a baby is not counted as a live birth and thus is not calculated into life expectancy. Preventable deaths includes the victims of automobile accidents and violent crime who are dead at the scene, neither of which is a healthcare issue. so what factors other than healthcare influence long term survival rates after being diagnosed with cancer? Or do you just want to keep up with your "USA sucks!" mindset?
USA does not suck. I just think we can do better and should stop pretending that we're the best when we are not.
As you can see "whether or not the government pays for healthcare" is not "one of its primary factors"
You say this after a sentence that says that one of the major factors is "who pays the cost". What they mean by that is, do you pay the cost for your medical treatment, or does your government pay the cost. So, yes, using the WHO ranking to argue for the government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning, since the WHO, everything else being equal, ranks a country where the government pays for healthcare higher than a country where the government does not pay for healthcare. The fact of the matter is that the 5 year survival rate for someone diagnosed with cancer is higher in the U.S. than in Europe or Canada. That is a measure of quality of healthcare. I am not currently arguing about how affordable healthcare is, but about the quality of healthcare. You are the one who said that countries with government payment for healthcare had better healthcare. You did not say they had more affordable healthcare.
First, who pays is only one, and it is not who "person vs. government" but who as in what percent of a person's income they have to pay for their healthcare! Read the words. Second, it is only one of FIVE factors, so not a circular argument at all. Third, the 5 year survival rate is the only fact you can find where US is close to the top; healthy life expectancy and preventable deaths US is way down, but you just toss that out with "other factors," without saying what they are. I can equally "other factors" your 5 year survival. But your mind is set, keep up the "USA #1!!!!"
That's right, trust the rankings from an organization that uses whether or not the government pays for healthcare as one of its primary factors in judging how good the healthcare is to determine whether the healthcare in a country where the government does not primarily pay for healthcare is as good as the healthcare in a country where the government does pay for most healthcare. Using the WHO ranking to argue for the U.S. government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning.
It is not a circular argument. The rankings are based on "WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
As you can see "whether or not the government pays for healthcare" is not "one of its primary factors" In fact it is not one of its factors at all. Yes, it rates based on "financial burden," which is "The measurement is based on the fraction of a household’s capacity to spend (income minus food expenditure) that goes on health care (including tax payments, social insurance, private insurance and out of pocket payments). " Which is "how affordable" is the healthcare.
But that doesn't fit your right-wing narrative.
Like I said you'd claim conspiracy. Check these links:
Preventable deaths by country: http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html
Healthy life expectancy by country: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html
But keep up the "We're number one!" chant.
Like I said, keep shouting "Rah, rah, rah! We're number 1!" That's what your masters want. This is what WHO says: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html but I'm sure you think that's just a conspiracy.
Single Payer is a progressive policy. Of course, your considering it a "liberal" policy indicates that your definition of liberal does not involve liberty, since there is nothing liberating about having to get the approval of a government bureaucrat in order to get medical treatment.
You know nothing about single payer if you think you need government bureaucrat to get medical treatment. You must be sucking down all the "U.S.A. is number one!" crap that the right feeds their minions. The countries with universal healthcare have way better care.
The Wall Street fat cats consistently give more to Democratic political campaigns than they do to Republican political campaigns. Only when it is clear that Republicans are going to win overwhelmingly does Wall Street campaign donations trend towards Republicans and then only marginally. When the political winds are blowing the other direction, Wall Street overwhelmingly gives to Democratic political campaigns. Additionally, look at which way the richest counties in America vote election after election. The vast majority vote solidly Democratic. You are absolutely right liberal policies never get passed anymore, that's why Obamacare failed to get enacted...no wait, it did get enacted. I'm sorry, the EPA, FDA and other government agencies have not been dismantled. They are constantly writing more regulations just as the "liberals' and the big corporations desire. Your mistake is in thinking that the purpose of those agencies was to protect the little guy. The purpose of those agencies is to control people.
Sorry you are so disillusioned and fooled. You are just plain wrong. On Obamacare, the REAL liberal policy of Single-Payer would never pass. Obamacare is completely based on Republican policies previously proposed (such as Romneycare), but the Repubs are so evil they pretend that it is a liberal policy. Perhaps EPA, FDA are still in place, but Repubs constantly try to lower their funding (and the SEC, Glass-Stegal, etc). You are also wrong about rich counties. I have lived in two of the richest in the country - Orange, CA and Loudoun, VA - both always vote republican.
Yeah, that's why corporate power has consistently expanded along with government power. Modern day liberals are relabeled progressives. Progressives have always proposed that our lives should be ordered "scientifically". That is, that "scientific" experts should make all of our decisions for us. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, Mussolini was a progressive, FDR was a progressive. All of those men reduced the freedom of the people in the countries they governed. All of those men believed that they had an obligation to take care of the lower classes, just as modern progressives believe. If modern day liberals protect the lower classes from the ultra-rich, why do so many of the ultra-rich support liberal policies? For that matter, why does income inequality get worse when liberal policies are enacted?
Bullshit. Hardly any of the ultra-rich are liberals - just some Hollywood types that like to make a show of themselves. The Wall Street Fat Cats and CEOs constantly support Republicans so they can dismantle all government protections (EPA, FDA, Consumer protections, Labor Laws). In case you've been sleeping, liberal policies just don't get passed anymore because of all the corporate money in politics.
Now, speaking as a liberal, Prohibition is unquestionably a liberal idea. It just wasn't a *good* liberal idea. Liberalism and conservatism are not at their roots ideologies; otherwise you'd go mad trying trace them through the ages. What is liberal in one generation is conservative in the next. They're attitudes. A liberal thinks things can be fixed if we're willing to try something new. Conservatives look at this as social engineering, and it its most extreme form it *can* be. Now personally I don't think the Republican party is a conservative party. It's just a different *kind* of liberal party from the Democratic party. It's a party which courts conservatives with hot button issues like abortion, but pursues a radical agenda.
Prohibition was not a liberal idea, though it may have had support from the left (progressives, actually). Liberal ideas are about liberty and protecting the working class from the abuses of the rich. Conservatives (of the social conservative variety) are most certainly not liberal - they want to control your liberties (restrict rights), which is the reverse of liberalism.
Of course, once upon a time a liberal was someone who was a proponent of liberty. Whereas today a "liberal" is a proponent of ever expanding government regulation and power.
Wrong. Liberals are still proponents of liberty. They originated and still are proponents of protecting the lower class from the robber barons. It takes government regulation to check the wealthy against their abuses. Stop drinking Faux News' kool aid and wake up. Unless you are one of the ultra-rich, you are being screwed by those who want to dismantle government.
Actually, I'm afraid the GP was quite right here. Women's Sufferage and the progressive income tax among other liberal mainstays were in fact pushed cheifly as a way to allow prohibition to happen. Women were thought to be overwhelmingly votes for prohibition (if only they were allowed to vote), and prior to the income tax the vast majority of government revenue came from liquor takes. It was thought that alcohol could never be banned by the government while it was its cheif source of income.
That's strange, considering that Prohibition (18th Amendment) came before Women's Suffrage (19the Amendment). Some Progressives did support Prohibition because they thought it would improve society, and Susan B Anthony (a suffragette) did support Prohibition. However, Liberals by definition do not support the restriction of individual rights.
The "lock out" would not occur in the first stage. To clarify:
1) Terms of the bill are debated.
2) Once the terms are decided, they are voted to be "locked in". If the vote fails, then they can get back to debating and adjusting.
3) Once the vote to accept the bill "as is" kicks in, then the timer starts.
4) If this "read-only" version of the bill fails to pass, then the provisions of it would be locked out for a year.
I get that. Let's say that the Democrats control congress. They come up with a bill that outlaws abortion (obviously, they don't want that). It goes to "lock in" and the bill fails to pass (by design). Now the Republicans cannot offer a bill that outlaws an abortion for a year. Now imagine that the Democrats load up a bill with everything the Republicans could possibly want. After it goes ready-only, they vote it down. Now the Republicans cannot offer anything they want for a whole year.
Well then look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States (classical through modern) - no mention of Prohibition.
Note 'Modern' in your link. You should try to not use modern warped definitions when discussing history. The Republican party was originally born as liberal party, opposing the conservative Democratic party.
My point exactly, dumbass. Liberal != Democrat. In addition, did you even check the link? "Modern" in the article STARTS with 1880, certainly before Prohibition.