Unfortunately you'd probably find more options if you decided to switch to Linux.
Cinelerra comes to mind, or Kdenlive.
Cinelerra is very powerful, but needs a lot to get used to and learn to avoid its bugs. IMHO, in the end it's well worth the effort, because it has some really nifty features.
If a steep learning curve is not your thing, stay with Kdenlive.
You are mixing two different things: I did not say kids in general where getting dumber. I only said that electrical engineers graduating from college and universities nowadays are of much worse (professional) quality than, say 10 or 15 years ago. This also is not the typical sort of cliche-rant that every adult seems to have against kids of newer generations. There really is a measurable and substantial difference. We receive interns regularly at my job, and all of my colleagues agree with this fact: basic electric (electronic-) engineering skills have declined dramatically.
I get your point, but trust me: I am comparing things that I (and some of my class-mates) did while still at the university with the capabilities of students that finish college or university today. There is a BIG difference, and most of my current colleagues agree with me. We have interns here regularly, so we can keep track of their accomplishments easily.
I am an electrical engineer, and work in Europe. What I see here, is that the quality of engineers coming out of college or universities is declining at an alarming rate. The knowledge-level about basic subjects is embarrassing to say the least. If this trend is comparable in the US, I can fully understand why US companies prefer to look elsewhere for good engineers.
The decline in quality here seems due to the lack of students really interested in electrical engineering and "complicated" studies becoming less popular. Colleges and universities here need to lower the level of "difficulty" to make the curriculum more attractive and gain more students. The result is catastrophic.
Well, this is exactly what I have always been saying. Many previous studies tend to ignore the effect of heat generated by incandescents on your heating bill. In contrast, this study does mention this effect (simple thermodinamics as you correctly state it), but I don't believe their figures.
Their study says that assuming 75% of the total time the incandescent light bulb is used, is during periods where central heating is also used, and that central heating is fuled by natural gas, the total amount of CO2 emissions saved on your GAS (heating) bill will only by about 17 kg over the whole 25000 years.
I think their math doesn't add up, since it should not be too much lower than just 75% of the CO2 emissions of the electrical energy used to light the bulb (again, relatively simple thermodynamics). Searching on the internet a little, one finds that 1 kWh of heat from natural gas produces roughly 200gr of CO2. Considering all the energy going into an incandescent bulb is converted into heat (that little fraction that is emitted as light eventually also generates heat - simple thermodynamics), that means that this 40Watt light bulb is generating 25000*0.04*0.75 = 750 kWh of heat over its 25000 hour life-span (well, in the study that's actually 25 light bulbs at 1000h each).
That yields approximately 150kg of CO2 saved by the bulb(s)... sounds much more like it.
And this result is without considering the fact that central heating also has losses (through exhaust, ventilation, etc... which yields less than 100% efficiency), so saved emissions should be even higher!
They actually briefly mention this point in the study, so it is at least being considered (RTFA).
Although I do not entirely agree with some assumptions made and the last calculation about heat.
You also forget to mention the opposite possibility: excess heat being benefical in colder places. The study mentions an example where they dismiss the heating effect of the incandecent bulb under conditions where the bulb is used 75% of the time when heating is needed, as saving only 17 kg of CO2. I have made some calculations, and being very pessimistic, assuming your central heating has 100% efficiency, you should still save some 150 kg of CO2 over the 25000 hour lifecycle. That is not being insignificant anymore, but the study just dismisses it.
Please mod this one up! Oregano is indeed an excelent frontend (although with some rough edges and a few bugs) that whould run on Linux, MacOSX and probably also Windows, since it's built on GTK+.
It is quite easy and intuitive to use, works much better than gEDA, but needs some getting used to working around it's glitches, specially to discover a few tricks about how to work easily with any external spice subcircuit.
Simulation can be done through berkeley-SPICE, ngspice or GnuCAP.
It's a shame this is the only post so far mentioning it.
There's no such thing as "100% efficiency conversion to heat".
Why not? Of course there is! Where does all the electric energy go that your PC consumes? I'll split it out for you:
- Most part is converted into heat directly in wire resistance and switching losses of transistors (in power supply, processor, logic, etc).
- Then there's light from the LED's and your monitor. But light ends up being transformed into heat ALWAYS, whether it is inside the room you're in, or outside (that portion of light that escapes through your windows).
- Then there's acoustic energy, from vibrating hdd heads, fans, etc... but that also ends up as heat being absorbed by walls and whatever (except maybe for the tiny fraction of noise that escapes the room).
- And finally there's moving air (from the fans) which ends up converted into heat through friction.
Conclusion: your PC is as efficient as an electric heater in generating heat... difference is that your PC can do something useful (other than generating heat) in the meantime (like downloading pr0n;-), at no cost in terms of heat-conversion efficeincy.
Please note that I never intended to say that it is a good idea to leave your PC powered-on when not used. I merely wanted to make a point that figures stating the supposed amount of wasted energy are not quite realistic.... but it still is a waste of energy.
Leaving PC's on when they are not used is most probably a terrible waste, but I suspect that numbers about losses due to this are probably not very accurate. At least I have never seen evidence that those calculations take into account the simple fact that energy never dissapears, it only changes nature:
This way unused PC's basically transform electrical energy into heat... with 100% efficiency (!). In many parts of the world however, during important parts of the year, heating is necessary. Heating costs a certain amount of energy, whether it comes from burning gas or oil directly or from electricity is just a matter of a difference in price (heat generated from electricity is probably more expensive). Of course you'd say that leaving the heating on during the night in a building that is only used during the day is also a waste, but take into consideration that (big) buildings do have quite a considerable thermal mass, so if you keep it warmer over night, the next day you still need less energy to heat it up again.
Conclusion: when the heating is actively used, leaving your PC (or light-bulb, stand-by transformer or whatever) on when not used, will still save you money on the gas bill (but cost you more on electricity of course). The overall balance is still for a loss of course, but in some situations, a significantly smaller loss than many people tend to think.
The same idea is true for energy saving light bulbs, btw, but that's for a different discussion.
Be careful with what you do! I have tried the same way, using OpenOffice to edit M$-Word documents, but after a while, I scared the sh*t out of myself when suddenly my boss started complaining that his M$-Office crashed on every single document I had worked on when he tried to print them. There where other issues too, but that sure was serious enough that I decided to start using VMware with Windows-2000 and Office-2000 on it. I hate to admit it, but those tiny incompatibilities between OpenOffice and M$-Office, might bite you sooner or later...
You don't get it.
Try not to sound so agressive when you believe someone doesn't understand you. I perfectly do. Of course there are many applications for which 1MIPS is more than enough, that's why I suggested looking at Atmel's AVR line of uC's. Those are also cheap, easy to understand, readily available, but are of a less awkward architecture, that's not 30 years old, and was not originally designed to be just a sort of "intelligent peripheral" for a "real" microprocessor (yes, that's what PIC stood for originally: "Peripheral Interface Controller"). I know that PIC's have become more advanced over time, adding more instructions and more on-chip peripherals, and I have used and programmed PIC's myself, and it still feels like old, outdated technology, patched together and improved with various kludges.
IMHO, if you start learning uC's now, and begin with a PIC, you are beginning with obsolete technology, studying what IMO is a bad design for a uC.
If you really want to start with old, simple designs, start learning a more elegant machine, like for example the motorola (freescale) 68xx derivatives, or for history sake, the MOS 6502 (that was btw the first machine language I learned, and I still think that it's simplicity and elegance is remakable).
Kids that want to learn about microcontrollers now, and want that knowledge to serve them after they finish school, are better confronted with learning tools that have a future, and not tube-radios;-)
Pure crap. Latest offerings have up to 128k flash, 4k RAM and EEPROM. The onboard peripherals include UARTs, SPI, I2C, A/D converters, PWM, on and on...
That is indeed poor for top-of-the-line models nowadays. Latest offerings from Atmel, NXP and Fujitsu are having 512k Flash and up to 64k RAM or even more sometimes. If you compare performance/price ratios, the PIC's are indeed expensive.
20 MIPs ain't fast enough for ya?
No, it isn't. ARM7 cores do up to 70 MIPS moving 32-bit data, so that'll be around 12 times as fast, and that for the same or less money! Where's yor eceonomics going?
There are variants that run less than $1
Same goes for Atmel AVR 8-bit processors, and they have a much better instruction set IMHO. I also use cheap 8-bitters to replace discrete logic sometimes. In my latest design I used an Attiny13V as a cheaper Watchdog/Reset circuit for a Freescale MPC5200 running embedded linux. The Attiny13V can be (re-)programmed via the MPC5200's SPI port;-)
For around US$1.50 you'd already get a NXP LPC2101, 32-bit ARM core which you can program in C.
Rabbits have z-80 cores, not 8051.
This time you are absolutely right. Sorry for the mistake. Shame on me.
You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about!
Well, if you refer to confusing z80 with 8051, you might be right, otherwise, I'm sure you're wrong;-)
P.S.: Next time don't be an anonmyous coward when you reply like this.
Please stop recommending braindead technology from 2 or 3 decades ago, like the PIC's from Microchip. Those chips won't teach anybody good design and programming practices. I never fully understood why PIC's are so popular, given that they are hard to program (the PIC16 series instruction set is not complete enough to write a modestly working C compiler for it), have very poor performance compared to recent microcontrollers, very little on-chip resources (almost no RAM, very little flash memory, and very limited set of peripherals), and are not cheap either.
The same goes for 8051 derivatives (including the Rabbit line of micros), and even the old-school freescale 68xx derivatives. They are old, outdated and inefficient technology.
The Atmel AVR line is still something you could talk about, although I am not sure if you really want the limitation of 8-bit processors, when you can have a full-blown 32-bit ARM controller for almost the same price (NXP (ex Philips) LPC2103 for little less than US$ 2.- a piece).
I would really recommend looking at more modern designs, like the range of ARM-base microcontrollers from Atmel, NXP (ex-Philips) and ST for example. Those are very powerful, extremely cost-effective and easy to use. They are programmable in C and C++ (GNU toolchain), with all the luxury of a 60MHz core clock and 32-bit registers, decent and flexible PWM generators, UARTS (even 16C550-compatible in the case of NXP), and a whole lot of other nice peripherals.
I'd take a wild guess that you're wrong. There are also a _LOT_ of embedded PowerPC and MIPS devices out there. Probably ARM is still in first place, but not by much. Many people nowadays tend to confuse "embedded-systmes" with handheld devices or PDA's. While PDA's still are considered embedded systems, in fact an ambedded system is almost about any piece of electronic that forms part of a device or machine, which contains some sort of microprocessor. That could be inside your microwave oven, a car, an industrial control system, your TV, your DVD player, etc... nowadays almost anywhere.
The ARM cores excell in power-efficiency, that's why there is hardly any better alternative for battery-powered hand-held devices, but the vast mayority of embedded systems are NOT battery powered, thus other processor cores might be better suited. If you need a 32-bit processor with memory-management functions that is able to interface vast amounts of RAM/Flash (i.e. something that can run linux), there are other choices besides ARM: PowerPC, MIPS, Super-H, Infineon Tri-Core, etc...
Have a look at the MPC5200, MPC8xxx or MPC8xx ranges of processors from Freescale (ex Motorola) for instance, they have an impressive set of on-chip peripherals that is not equalled by any ARM based processor AFAIK.
Re:Code optimization != specialized blades
on
The Future of Computing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Splitting the code in different blades is definitely not really code optimization anyway.
Of course it is not. Why doesn't everybody realize, that this Max Fomitchev has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. This is complete rubbish. "Microblades" to save power? Come on, do the math: More power supplies that produce energy loss (no power supply has an efficiency of 100%), more complex software (because tasks are split up over different cpu's and have to communicate over a sort of network connection)... How on earth is such a thing going to be simpler and more energy-efficient? Ok, in the past, there was one big mainframe, where we now have a rack full of smaller servers (blades), but every one of those small servers does much more than that mainframe we had in the past. This fact is a simple balance of two forces: Frist, computers need to get more powerful and efficient, in order to be able to do more computing with less power in less space. Second, since computers get smaller, we can put more computers in that same space to get even more computing power. The point of balance between small and powerful is a simple matter of costs. One huge mainframe with many CPU's eventually gets more expensive to build than a collection of smaller servers with only a few CPU's each.
I can't believe how many people, who are supposed to be knowledgeable, can talk so much nonsense. He's supposed to be a computer science professor, isn't he? And then there are so many who believe that stuff whithout even thinking about it.
Now if you need hard realtime capabilities, neither.
Why not? Ever heared of Xenomai?
With Xenomai (formerly kown as RTAI-fusion) you can write user-space apps in Linux that can switch hard real-time mode on or off seamlessly. You can basically forget about VxWorks, QNX and other hard-RTOS's, since Xenomai has API "skins", that can be used to run software written for your favorite RTOS directly on Linux; just as reliable and predictable, with truely deterministic real-time behaviour. If your favorite RTOS doesn't have a Xenomai "skin" yet, write one, and switch to Linux!
Well, even if the article is correctly worded in the sense of equating 10kW to power, it still doesn't say anything.
You need energy to power something over time, not power. In theory one could "generate" 10kW (of power) with the flip of a finger... it just would not last very long.
In other words, The article feels like talking about energy, but instead is talking about power, which makes no sense!
To clarify things to those not so at home in physics, here is a little reminder:
Energy is power*time. If power is very high and time is very short, it's as useless as little power over a long time. Since the article doesn't mention time at all, it esentially says nothing about the energy that ramp delivers, and that would be the only real interesting figure.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are very much 3 variations on the same religion. So it wouldn't be that suprising if they looked very similar when perverted.
Yes, you are right about that. Indeed nobody seems to talk about other religions anymore. On the other hand, other religions like buddahism for example are not so widespread as these three you mention. I wonder if extremism would appear there also if they were so widespread as for example christianism.
This is not only true for christians, but for all religions. There are always very vocal minorities that misuse religion and give it a bad name. Be it extreme muslim fundamentalism, christian fundamentalism or whatever.
What makes me worry the most is the fact that lately most conflicts in this world are related to such extremists, most probably hiding their social resentment behind their supposed faith.
If Bush is really stepping on that bandwagon now (if he hasn't already a long time ago) I fear he's not that much better than the likes of Osama bin Laden. If what I say smells a little bit like "Farenheit 9/11", let me make it clear that I have had that feeling long before I saw that movie... and it hasn't changed since, despite me being basically christian in faith, more in the way of the original author of this thread.
Sad, but apparently true.
You are a fool for starting a career that has a dead end. If you dedicate your life to coding for a monopoly and decide to stop short before beeing completly owned by it, then you are indeed a fool, because that was predictably inevitable.
Wanting to "maintain control" in a world that is owned, controlled and dominated by the one single company is like trying to sell raincoats in the sahara.
Stay free, use free tools, write free software for a free OS, so noone can fire you for not accepting the lock-in.
Here is why: It doesn't make sense. The only thing M$ would accomplish by implementing such a blathant FUD lie, is for a lot of people not to take the results of their anti-spyware tool serious anymore. That'll be like shooting themselves in the foot.
Think anout it for a second, this is most probably a fake screenshot.
Weeellll... I don't remeber the details anymore, since it is quite some time back, and I tried so many things back then....
I think, that in the end I just installed it on a 5 or 6Gb image, and deleted the files afterwards, but there must be a way to do it in the middle of the process....
Of course, if you delete files on a frozen system, you need to be aware that you are deleting files on a running system without it knowing, so this will be quite tricky. Parts of the disk-image might still be in RAM, and are about to be written back later.
You probably have to start off installing on a FAT partition because it is the easiest to tweak or fix by hand, and use a disk-editor to just unlink the FAT chains that are in use by those files, and hope the FAT is not entirely cached in RAM at that moment. Anyway that's a guess.... you'll have to try.
damn you, Texas Instruments! Where's your Linux version of Code Composer?
CodeComposer compiler binaries run just fine with wine. The IDE sucks anyway IMHO, so you can live without windows here. Just use you favorite linux-IDE, gnu-make and some wine-wrapper scripts around the windows command-line executables.
Just to stay on-topic, I have had the same mentioned problem installing Win2k on QEMU, the virtual HD really gets filled up with strange log files of errors that seem to occur during the hardware detection stage. You can either make a really big virtual HD image, or freeze the process half way and manage to erase those files somehow, then continue the installation.
I think that's also the reason it is so slow during install. Once it is installed, speed is actually quite usable.
Yes, they do. AFAIK a few chip developers from SGI went to AMD after SGI's chip division went belly-up.
As a result they helped creating the Alchemy series of embedded processors. I don't know if some of the ex-DEC engineers also had something to do with it or not.
What everybody does know, I believe, is that Digital developed the DEC Alpha processor, the most powerful processor at that time (64-bit). Also some Digital engineers who worked on the Alpha joined AMD after DEC went boom. The result of this is the AMD Athlon and specially it's outstanding local bus system.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately you'd probably find more options if you decided to switch to Linux. Cinelerra comes to mind, or Kdenlive. Cinelerra is very powerful, but needs a lot to get used to and learn to avoid its bugs. IMHO, in the end it's well worth the effort, because it has some really nifty features. If a steep learning curve is not your thing, stay with Kdenlive.
You are mixing two different things: I did not say kids in general where getting dumber. I only said that electrical engineers graduating from college and universities nowadays are of much worse (professional) quality than, say 10 or 15 years ago. This also is not the typical sort of cliche-rant that every adult seems to have against kids of newer generations. There really is a measurable and substantial difference. We receive interns regularly at my job, and all of my colleagues agree with this fact: basic electric (electronic-) engineering skills have declined dramatically.
I get your point, but trust me: I am comparing things that I (and some of my class-mates) did while still at the university with the capabilities of students that finish college or university today. There is a BIG difference, and most of my current colleagues agree with me. We have interns here regularly, so we can keep track of their accomplishments easily.
I am an electrical engineer, and work in Europe. What I see here, is that the quality of engineers coming out of college or universities is declining at an alarming rate. The knowledge-level about basic subjects is embarrassing to say the least. If this trend is comparable in the US, I can fully understand why US companies prefer to look elsewhere for good engineers. The decline in quality here seems due to the lack of students really interested in electrical engineering and "complicated" studies becoming less popular. Colleges and universities here need to lower the level of "difficulty" to make the curriculum more attractive and gain more students. The result is catastrophic.
2*2=4, so that would be a quadruple, I guess.
Well, this is exactly what I have always been saying. Many previous studies tend to ignore the effect of heat generated by incandescents on your heating bill. In contrast, this study does mention this effect (simple thermodinamics as you correctly state it), but I don't believe their figures.
Their study says that assuming 75% of the total time the incandescent light bulb is used, is during periods where central heating is also used, and that central heating is fuled by natural gas, the total amount of CO2 emissions saved on your GAS (heating) bill will only by about 17 kg over the whole 25000 years.
I think their math doesn't add up, since it should not be too much lower than just 75% of the CO2 emissions of the electrical energy used to light the bulb (again, relatively simple thermodynamics). Searching on the internet a little, one finds that 1 kWh of heat from natural gas produces roughly 200gr of CO2. Considering all the energy going into an incandescent bulb is converted into heat (that little fraction that is emitted as light eventually also generates heat - simple thermodynamics), that means that this 40Watt light bulb is generating 25000*0.04*0.75 = 750 kWh of heat over its 25000 hour life-span (well, in the study that's actually 25 light bulbs at 1000h each).
That yields approximately 150kg of CO2 saved by the bulb(s)... sounds much more like it.
And this result is without considering the fact that central heating also has losses (through exhaust, ventilation, etc... which yields less than 100% efficiency), so saved emissions should be even higher!
They actually briefly mention this point in the study, so it is at least being considered (RTFA).
Although I do not entirely agree with some assumptions made and the last calculation about heat.
You also forget to mention the opposite possibility: excess heat being benefical in colder places. The study mentions an example where they dismiss the heating effect of the incandecent bulb under conditions where the bulb is used 75% of the time when heating is needed, as saving only 17 kg of CO2. I have made some calculations, and being very pessimistic, assuming your central heating has 100% efficiency, you should still save some 150 kg of CO2 over the 25000 hour lifecycle. That is not being insignificant anymore, but the study just dismisses it.
Please mod this one up! Oregano is indeed an excelent frontend (although with some rough edges and a few bugs) that whould run on Linux, MacOSX and probably also Windows, since it's built on GTK+.
It is quite easy and intuitive to use, works much better than gEDA, but needs some getting used to working around it's glitches, specially to discover a few tricks about how to work easily with any external spice subcircuit.
Simulation can be done through berkeley-SPICE, ngspice or GnuCAP.
It's a shame this is the only post so far mentioning it.
There's no such thing as "100% efficiency conversion to heat".
Why not? Of course there is! Where does all the electric energy go that your PC consumes? I'll split it out for you:
- Most part is converted into heat directly in wire resistance and switching losses of transistors (in power supply, processor, logic, etc).
- Then there's light from the LED's and your monitor. But light ends up being transformed into heat ALWAYS, whether it is inside the room you're in, or outside (that portion of light that escapes through your windows).
- Then there's acoustic energy, from vibrating hdd heads, fans, etc... but that also ends up as heat being absorbed by walls and whatever (except maybe for the tiny fraction of noise that escapes the room).
- And finally there's moving air (from the fans) which ends up converted into heat through friction.
;-), at no cost in terms of heat-conversion efficeincy.
Conclusion: your PC is as efficient as an electric heater in generating heat... difference is that your PC can do something useful (other than generating heat) in the meantime (like downloading pr0n
Please note that I never intended to say that it is a good idea to leave your PC powered-on when not used. I merely wanted to make a point that figures stating the supposed amount of wasted energy are not quite realistic.... but it still is a waste of energy.
Leaving PC's on when they are not used is most probably a terrible waste, but I suspect that numbers about losses due to this are probably not very accurate. At least I have never seen evidence that those calculations take into account the simple fact that energy never dissapears, it only changes nature:
This way unused PC's basically transform electrical energy into heat... with 100% efficiency (!). In many parts of the world however, during important parts of the year, heating is necessary. Heating costs a certain amount of energy, whether it comes from burning gas or oil directly or from electricity is just a matter of a difference in price (heat generated from electricity is probably more expensive). Of course you'd say that leaving the heating on during the night in a building that is only used during the day is also a waste, but take into consideration that (big) buildings do have quite a considerable thermal mass, so if you keep it warmer over night, the next day you still need less energy to heat it up again.
Conclusion: when the heating is actively used, leaving your PC (or light-bulb, stand-by transformer or whatever) on when not used, will still save you money on the gas bill (but cost you more on electricity of course). The overall balance is still for a loss of course, but in some situations, a significantly smaller loss than many people tend to think.
The same idea is true for energy saving light bulbs, btw, but that's for a different discussion.
Be careful with what you do! I have tried the same way, using OpenOffice to edit M$-Word documents, but after a while, I scared the sh*t out of myself when suddenly my boss started complaining that his M$-Office crashed on every single document I had worked on when he tried to print them. There where other issues too, but that sure was serious enough that I decided to start using VMware with Windows-2000 and Office-2000 on it. I hate to admit it, but those tiny incompatibilities between OpenOffice and M$-Office, might bite you sooner or later...
Try not to sound so agressive when you believe someone doesn't understand you. I perfectly do. Of course there are many applications for which 1MIPS is more than enough, that's why I suggested looking at Atmel's AVR line of uC's. Those are also cheap, easy to understand, readily available, but are of a less awkward architecture, that's not 30 years old, and was not originally designed to be just a sort of "intelligent peripheral" for a "real" microprocessor (yes, that's what PIC stood for originally: "Peripheral Interface Controller"). I know that PIC's have become more advanced over time, adding more instructions and more on-chip peripherals, and I have used and programmed PIC's myself, and it still feels like old, outdated technology, patched together and improved with various kludges.
IMHO, if you start learning uC's now, and begin with a PIC, you are beginning with obsolete technology, studying what IMO is a bad design for a uC.
If you really want to start with old, simple designs, start learning a more elegant machine, like for example the motorola (freescale) 68xx derivatives, or for history sake, the MOS 6502 (that was btw the first machine language I learned, and I still think that it's simplicity and elegance is remakable).
Kids that want to learn about microcontrollers now, and want that knowledge to serve them after they finish school, are better confronted with learning tools that have a future, and not tube-radios
That is indeed poor for top-of-the-line models nowadays. Latest offerings from Atmel, NXP and Fujitsu are having 512k Flash and up to 64k RAM or even more sometimes. If you compare performance/price ratios, the PIC's are indeed expensive.
20 MIPs ain't fast enough for ya?
No, it isn't. ARM7 cores do up to 70 MIPS moving 32-bit data, so that'll be around 12 times as fast, and that for the same or less money! Where's yor eceonomics going?
There are variants that run less than $1
Same goes for Atmel AVR 8-bit processors, and they have a much better instruction set IMHO. I also use cheap 8-bitters to replace discrete logic sometimes. In my latest design I used an Attiny13V as a cheaper Watchdog/Reset circuit for a Freescale MPC5200 running embedded linux. The Attiny13V can be (re-)programmed via the MPC5200's SPI port
For around US$1.50 you'd already get a NXP LPC2101, 32-bit ARM core which you can program in C.
Rabbits have z-80 cores, not 8051.
This time you are absolutely right. Sorry for the mistake. Shame on me.
You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about!
Well, if you refer to confusing z80 with 8051, you might be right, otherwise, I'm sure you're wrong
P.S.: Next time don't be an anonmyous coward when you reply like this.
Please stop recommending braindead technology from 2 or 3 decades ago, like the PIC's from Microchip. Those chips won't teach anybody good design and programming practices. I never fully understood why PIC's are so popular, given that they are hard to program (the PIC16 series instruction set is not complete enough to write a modestly working C compiler for it), have very poor performance compared to recent microcontrollers, very little on-chip resources (almost no RAM, very little flash memory, and very limited set of peripherals), and are not cheap either.
The same goes for 8051 derivatives (including the Rabbit line of micros), and even the old-school freescale 68xx derivatives. They are old, outdated and inefficient technology.
The Atmel AVR line is still something you could talk about, although I am not sure if you really want the limitation of 8-bit processors, when you can have a full-blown 32-bit ARM controller for almost the same price (NXP (ex Philips) LPC2103 for little less than US$ 2.- a piece).
I would really recommend looking at more modern designs, like the range of ARM-base microcontrollers from Atmel, NXP (ex-Philips) and ST for example. Those are very powerful, extremely cost-effective and easy to use. They are programmable in C and C++ (GNU toolchain), with all the luxury of a 60MHz core clock and 32-bit registers, decent and flexible PWM generators, UARTS (even 16C550-compatible in the case of NXP), and a whole lot of other nice peripherals.
I'd take a wild guess that you're wrong. There are also a _LOT_ of embedded PowerPC and MIPS devices out there. Probably ARM is still in first place, but not by much. Many people nowadays tend to confuse "embedded-systmes" with handheld devices or PDA's. While PDA's still are considered embedded systems, in fact an ambedded system is almost about any piece of electronic that forms part of a device or machine, which contains some sort of microprocessor. That could be inside your microwave oven, a car, an industrial control system, your TV, your DVD player, etc... nowadays almost anywhere.
The ARM cores excell in power-efficiency, that's why there is hardly any better alternative for battery-powered hand-held devices, but the vast mayority of embedded systems are NOT battery powered, thus other processor cores might be better suited. If you need a 32-bit processor with memory-management functions that is able to interface vast amounts of RAM/Flash (i.e. something that can run linux), there are other choices besides ARM: PowerPC, MIPS, Super-H, Infineon Tri-Core, etc... Have a look at the MPC5200, MPC8xxx or MPC8xx ranges of processors from Freescale (ex Motorola) for instance, they have an impressive set of on-chip peripherals that is not equalled by any ARM based processor AFAIK.
Of course it is not. Why doesn't everybody realize, that this Max Fomitchev has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. This is complete rubbish. "Microblades" to save power? Come on, do the math: More power supplies that produce energy loss (no power supply has an efficiency of 100%), more complex software (because tasks are split up over different cpu's and have to communicate over a sort of network connection)...
How on earth is such a thing going to be simpler and more energy-efficient? Ok, in the past, there was one big mainframe, where we now have a rack full of smaller servers (blades), but every one of those small servers does much more than that mainframe we had in the past. This fact is a simple balance of two forces: Frist, computers need to get more powerful and efficient, in order to be able to do more computing with less power in less space. Second, since computers get smaller, we can put more computers in that same space to get even more computing power. The point of balance between small and powerful is a simple matter of costs. One huge mainframe with many CPU's eventually gets more expensive to build than a collection of smaller servers with only a few CPU's each.
I can't believe how many people, who are supposed to be knowledgeable, can talk so much nonsense. He's supposed to be a computer science professor, isn't he? And then there are so many who believe that stuff whithout even thinking about it.
Well, even if the article is correctly worded in the sense of equating 10kW to power, it still doesn't say anything.
You need energy to power something over time, not power. In theory one could "generate" 10kW (of power) with the flip of a finger... it just would not last very long.
In other words, The article feels like talking about energy, but instead is talking about power, which makes no sense!
To clarify things to those not so at home in physics, here is a little reminder: Energy is power*time. If power is very high and time is very short, it's as useless as little power over a long time. Since the article doesn't mention time at all, it esentially says nothing about the energy that ramp delivers, and that would be the only real interesting figure.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are very much 3 variations on the same religion. So it wouldn't be that suprising if they looked very similar when perverted.
Yes, you are right about that. Indeed nobody seems to talk about other religions anymore. On the other hand, other religions like buddahism for example are not so widespread as these three you mention. I wonder if extremism would appear there also if they were so widespread as for example christianism.
This is not only true for christians, but for all religions. There are always very vocal minorities that misuse religion and give it a bad name. Be it extreme muslim fundamentalism, christian fundamentalism or whatever.
What makes me worry the most is the fact that lately most conflicts in this world are related to such extremists, most probably hiding their social resentment behind their supposed faith.
If Bush is really stepping on that bandwagon now (if he hasn't already a long time ago) I fear he's not that much better than the likes of Osama bin Laden. If what I say smells a little bit like "Farenheit 9/11", let me make it clear that I have had that feeling long before I saw that movie... and it hasn't changed since, despite me being basically christian in faith, more in the way of the original author of this thread.
Sad, but apparently true.
You are a fool for starting a career that has a dead end. If you dedicate your life to coding for a monopoly and decide to stop short before beeing completly owned by it, then you are indeed a fool, because that was predictably inevitable.
Wanting to "maintain control" in a world that is owned, controlled and dominated by the one single company is like trying to sell raincoats in the sahara.
Stay free, use free tools, write free software for a free OS, so noone can fire you for not accepting the lock-in.
Here is why: It doesn't make sense. The only thing M$ would accomplish by implementing such a blathant FUD lie, is for a lot of people not to take the results of their anti-spyware tool serious anymore. That'll be like shooting themselves in the foot.
Think anout it for a second, this is most probably a fake screenshot.
Weeellll... I don't remeber the details anymore, since it is quite some time back, and I tried so many things back then....
I think, that in the end I just installed it on a 5 or 6Gb image, and deleted the files afterwards, but there must be a way to do it in the middle of the process....
Of course, if you delete files on a frozen system, you need to be aware that you are deleting files on a running system without it knowing, so this will be quite tricky. Parts of the disk-image might still be in RAM, and are about to be written back later.
You probably have to start off installing on a FAT partition because it is the easiest to tweak or fix by hand, and use a disk-editor to just unlink the FAT chains that are in use by those files, and hope the FAT is not entirely cached in RAM at that moment. Anyway that's a guess.... you'll have to try.
damn you, Texas Instruments! Where's your Linux version of Code Composer?
CodeComposer compiler binaries run just fine with wine. The IDE sucks anyway IMHO, so you can live without windows here. Just use you favorite linux-IDE, gnu-make and some wine-wrapper scripts around the windows command-line executables.
Just to stay on-topic, I have had the same mentioned problem installing Win2k on QEMU, the virtual HD really gets filled up with strange log files of errors that seem to occur during the hardware detection stage. You can either make a really big virtual HD image, or freeze the process half way and manage to erase those files somehow, then continue the installation.
I think that's also the reason it is so slow during install. Once it is installed, speed is actually quite usable.
Yes, they do. AFAIK a few chip developers from SGI went to AMD after SGI's chip division went belly-up. As a result they helped creating the Alchemy series of embedded processors. I don't know if some of the ex-DEC engineers also had something to do with it or not.
What everybody does know, I believe, is that Digital developed the DEC Alpha processor, the most powerful processor at that time (64-bit). Also some Digital engineers who worked on the Alpha joined AMD after DEC went boom. The result of this is the AMD Athlon and specially it's outstanding local bus system.