Women in sports get a lot of attention, but usually the wrong kind. Men in sports have a very high level of expectations placed on them, are subject to constant abuse when they don't perform, and are ultimately fired and no one sheds a tear. They rise and fall most significantly, with their performance on the field.
Women in sports, if they play well but are not attractive, get very little attention or respect. If they are attractive, it doesn't matter if they play well or not, they get a lot of attention and discussion over the parts of their athleticism that have nothing to do with their sport. Golf and Tennis are most well known for this, the best women players are all but ignored, but occasionally a hottie gets out there and she gets tons of press in spite of weak play.
Regardless, the dictionary definition of "sport" does include eSports, as well as Hunting, Fishing, Bowling and even Golf. eSports, to me, seems to fit a second meaning of sport, i.e. "mockery", better than any of the other definitions, but that's the eye of the beholder part.
Of course most sports playing in a "sporting" way, tend to have totally lost the original definition of the word "sport", that is to cause mirth and enjoyment. Very few competitive sports do that, most of the time. I find the people who play them are there for the 5% of the time something awesome happens, and suffer the other 95%.
I think that's a generalization that's dangerous, particularly when this is done based on percentage of a self-selecting subset of a population. I know very few grown men who play CoD or that ilk, and actively hate those games and the people who play them (and generalize as such!). I think there's even a brogaming hate website out there or two. Similarly Angry Birds didn't get popular from women alone, it's a pretty popular game. So what's the breakdown?
The statistics are this, 47% of gamers are female, 60% of female gamers are more or less exclusive mobile gamers. That leaves quite a large population of women on consoles and PCs. Such that 30% of the gaming population is female and playing on platforms that are eSports friendly. They are either not playing those games, they are playing but not competitively, or they are concealing their gender. Given that black and middle eastern men are definitely also playing games, but are not identifying, may suggest that concealing ones background is advantageous in the eSports arena.
This isn't surprising, competition tends to bring out the absolute worst in personalities. Look at football, in 2014 a guy admits to being gay, brouhaha ensues. Certainly there are other gay men in football, but they're on the DL.
Hunting is considered a sport, but you normally can't lose (I haven't seen a deer with a rifle yet). Even hunting game that can hunt back, the game plays with a pretty heavy handicap. Generally you either win, or you drink beer in the woods for a few hours and go home, which maybe is also a win.
Fishing is considered a sport, very similar to hunting. The odds are stacked heavily in your favor.
Hang-gliding and skydiving are considered sports, but there's no competition whatever. I suppose winning is defined as landing softly enough to live.
eSports is like regular sports in that it is dumb. eSports is unlike regular sports in that you cannot accidentally get fit playing them. That sums up [e]Sports. Women here are demonstrating their vastly superior intellect by ignoring eSports in droves.
I don't know, I use Android because I must, but the iPhone and iPad seem like better products in most measurable ways. However, as Apple has always done, there are a few big gotchas. Price, closed software market, and Apple deciding what kind of apps are/are not acceptable for me. Those last two are showstoppers, I can overlook price for a better product.
I won't ignore that social factors are a big factor in Apple purchases, that's certainly true and Apple definitely uses it to their advantage.
But going back to the original point, in spite of having the better product, the cool/social/hip crowd represents the smaller share of the market. A product does not need, and in some ways may benefit from not having, that market segment.
Use it as a reminder that you are almost always being recorded in public. I was bored at the mall, waiting for my wife to do whatever it is one does in curio stores and started counting cameras. I gave up in the low double digits when i started seeing very subtle cameras and realized for every one I saw, there was another one I had initially missed.
Glassholes are your friend, they remind you that big brother is always watching.
Obviously not true. Apple has always struggled to gain acceptance with their products, and didn't start succeeding until they actually offered the superior product too. Nerds and the general user base also share one other thing: both tend to like the cheaper option that, while less polished, gives the greatest personal freedom. Witness Android vs. iOS. Very clear what the better product is, but Android is the PC to Apple's Mac.
It turns out that cool, sociable people are also annoying and less popular than they think.
I'm all for privacy on your property. But if you're in public, assume you're taped. Chances are you already are, and you just don't realize it.
The engineers are leading projects, but no one is managing the resources.
I'm saying what I have seen to be true, but I can't imagine why anyone would go in to management to begin with in spite of some of the importance of the above statement. The biggest issue is taking responsibility for my boss (and so on up the chain). Bottom line: wall street can go fuck themselves, I won't represent that their shit doesn't stink, that it's a good idea, or even necessary. But once you have product and customers, they want to be large and in charge of the inevitable collapse they will bring, and they need that structure of managers to inflict their will.
Actually this was done between 1996 and 2001 for telecom, as a result we saw huge boom in internet service providers, $/bandwidth, and overall service. Dubya killed that for us, how helpful. Since it was repealed, things have gone to pot, at least with twisted pair. It's a little harder for cable companies in terms of video service, but thanks to the internet that too is changing.
What is truly the blocking issue here is that these people scream bloody murder if they're forced to compete.
Oh, this bill was sponsored by Republican candidates, so it must be bad, because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists. And, of course, Obama and the Democrates are all open and transparent and honest! Obama's EPA would never do anything that wasn't scientifically reproducible and valid, even if they won't show us how they did it!
There is no doubt in my mind that the republicans will absolutely do bad things if they get their way. The problem is that they're right.
What can we build so you won't be here asking for money again?
Nothing. They will get bigger and bigger until we can't afford them anymore, then time and technology will advance, and maybe the cost comes down some, and we'll be able to afford it and build it. Then repeat.
I would imagine it's primarily an incentive for Russia to keep him alive, at this point the NSA has no doubt been trying to kill him for some time. They may prefer to know what he knows so they can figure out how he got it, but the damage he's doing is such that I'm sure they're willing to use their imagination and just make him dead.
It's more like urban violence, brought to the suburbs. What is going on there is like what happens in any given ghetto: they rob the local grocery store owner/gas station/deli, because he's the richest guy on the block. In fact he's just a working stiff with no actual power to cause change, and hardly rolling in piles of cash. This is part of why income inequality is such a problem: we cannot even fathom the truly rich. These people aren't the "1%", they're the 10%, and only so long as they have jobs. They're not making enough to put away any real money beyond saving for retirement (which makes them richer than most, of course) As anyone in the tech industry knows you're a superhero while you're below 35, after that you become expensive, burdened with familial attachments and unwilling to work 80 hours a week: i.e. you become undesirable.
This VC on the other hand, is the 1%. Note how he's detached both by the victims and assailants. He doesn't care, he isn't on a google bus wage slaving. He's deciding which companies to fund and which ones to pull out of (and likely terminate, with all employees). This is concerning to him as it may eventually find its way to his front door, but so long as people are wasting time on wealthier working class people, they're leaving him alone.
This whole thing is stupid, if you want to "protest the rich" take it to their mansions in the hills, their vacation homes in Aspen or their neighborhoods in Connecticut. If you're too lazy for that, then you really don't care that much anyway.
That would be the third miracle in the mission! The first is how they prayed the ship into space, the second about how they prayed their message down to Houston. They're pushing their luck!
Gates and timing closure is a physical designers job, not the fab. And he trades area, clock rate and power based on design intent. But for FPGAs it's fairly straight forward.
Nope, you can translate most anything if you are patient, and throw enough gates and sram at it.
And HW manufacturers are manufacturers, they don't necessarily know anything about the designs they manufacture. Foxconn is a prime example, they are clueless as all get out about any form of design. Including and perhaps especially their design centers.
Unless you wanted to sell a chip that had this feature built in to it. Thus people do this operation all the time. It just takes someone with RTL experience to do.
Yet software algorithms that run on these architectures are converted to straight HW implementations all the time. It's just not "turn key", it takes quite a bit of work but it often pays off.
To give a more helpful, unhelpful answer, it's an ill-formed question. "How many gates" depends on the target on which you synthesize the hardware: a PCB, an FPGA, actual silicon (which fab? Which process? whose std cell library? what clock frequency?).
If somehow the above could be narrowed down by asking the customer, then the next thing I'd advise is contracting someone who can write RTL using an HDL (verilog is most popular). The synthesizeable subset of HDL is tricky to learn for non-HW people, so unless you understand digital logic well I'd suggest finding someone else to do it for you. They can then synthesize it to the targeted device/platform. If you can do this, you should charge quite a lot of money since this form of IP is expensive, and they know it. If they're ok with that, you may also want to have this contractor also write the design verification suite, since this company will certainly want that to integrate into their own testing. Lots of contractors are out there for this due to the cyclic nature of this job, make sure you also have some support feature in place if you need them to fix/update the code later.
Even simple software algorithms can be very big in HW, but some surpisingly complex SW algorithms are next to 1 liners in HW (like any form of bit masking or bit swizzling is free!). But generally if there are a lot of sequential steps, and those steps are different...it gets big. Also assume that for every 1 SW guy that wrote the code, you will need 1 RTL designer. If you take the verification step, it may be 1-2 verification engineers for 1 RTL, depending on your timeline.
Slashdot Mirror
Women in sports get a lot of attention, but usually the wrong kind. Men in sports have a very high level of expectations placed on them, are subject to constant abuse when they don't perform, and are ultimately fired and no one sheds a tear. They rise and fall most significantly, with their performance on the field.
Women in sports, if they play well but are not attractive, get very little attention or respect. If they are attractive, it doesn't matter if they play well or not, they get a lot of attention and discussion over the parts of their athleticism that have nothing to do with their sport. Golf and Tennis are most well known for this, the best women players are all but ignored, but occasionally a hottie gets out there and she gets tons of press in spite of weak play.
Regardless, the dictionary definition of "sport" does include eSports, as well as Hunting, Fishing, Bowling and even Golf. eSports, to me, seems to fit a second meaning of sport, i.e. "mockery", better than any of the other definitions, but that's the eye of the beholder part.
Of course most sports playing in a "sporting" way, tend to have totally lost the original definition of the word "sport", that is to cause mirth and enjoyment. Very few competitive sports do that, most of the time. I find the people who play them are there for the 5% of the time something awesome happens, and suffer the other 95%.
I think that's a generalization that's dangerous, particularly when this is done based on percentage of a self-selecting subset of a population. I know very few grown men who play CoD or that ilk, and actively hate those games and the people who play them (and generalize as such!). I think there's even a brogaming hate website out there or two. Similarly Angry Birds didn't get popular from women alone, it's a pretty popular game. So what's the breakdown?
The statistics are this, 47% of gamers are female, 60% of female gamers are more or less exclusive mobile gamers. That leaves quite a large population of women on consoles and PCs. Such that 30% of the gaming population is female and playing on platforms that are eSports friendly. They are either not playing those games, they are playing but not competitively, or they are concealing their gender. Given that black and middle eastern men are definitely also playing games, but are not identifying, may suggest that concealing ones background is advantageous in the eSports arena.
This isn't surprising, competition tends to bring out the absolute worst in personalities. Look at football, in 2014 a guy admits to being gay, brouhaha ensues. Certainly there are other gay men in football, but they're on the DL.
Hunting is considered a sport, but you normally can't lose (I haven't seen a deer with a rifle yet). Even hunting game that can hunt back, the game plays with a pretty heavy handicap. Generally you either win, or you drink beer in the woods for a few hours and go home, which maybe is also a win.
Fishing is considered a sport, very similar to hunting. The odds are stacked heavily in your favor.
Hang-gliding and skydiving are considered sports, but there's no competition whatever. I suppose winning is defined as landing softly enough to live.
What is a "sport" is in the eye of the beholder.
eSports is like regular sports in that it is dumb. eSports is unlike regular sports in that you cannot accidentally get fit playing them. That sums up [e]Sports. Women here are demonstrating their vastly superior intellect by ignoring eSports in droves.
I don't know, I use Android because I must, but the iPhone and iPad seem like better products in most measurable ways. However, as Apple has always done, there are a few big gotchas. Price, closed software market, and Apple deciding what kind of apps are/are not acceptable for me. Those last two are showstoppers, I can overlook price for a better product.
I won't ignore that social factors are a big factor in Apple purchases, that's certainly true and Apple definitely uses it to their advantage.
But going back to the original point, in spite of having the better product, the cool/social/hip crowd represents the smaller share of the market. A product does not need, and in some ways may benefit from not having, that market segment.
Use it as a reminder that you are almost always being recorded in public. I was bored at the mall, waiting for my wife to do whatever it is one does in curio stores and started counting cameras. I gave up in the low double digits when i started seeing very subtle cameras and realized for every one I saw, there was another one I had initially missed.
Glassholes are your friend, they remind you that big brother is always watching.
Obviously not true. Apple has always struggled to gain acceptance with their products, and didn't start succeeding until they actually offered the superior product too. Nerds and the general user base also share one other thing: both tend to like the cheaper option that, while less polished, gives the greatest personal freedom. Witness Android vs. iOS. Very clear what the better product is, but Android is the PC to Apple's Mac.
It turns out that cool, sociable people are also annoying and less popular than they think.
I'm all for privacy on your property. But if you're in public, assume you're taped. Chances are you already are, and you just don't realize it.
Certainly cheaper than marching in there and slapping some cuffs on him (or a noose on his neck)!
Anyway I'm sure they're bad, but someone else can take the reigns on this one. Team America, World Police needs to retire.
The engineers are leading projects, but no one is managing the resources.
I'm saying what I have seen to be true, but I can't imagine why anyone would go in to management to begin with in spite of some of the importance of the above statement. The biggest issue is taking responsibility for my boss (and so on up the chain). Bottom line: wall street can go fuck themselves, I won't represent that their shit doesn't stink, that it's a good idea, or even necessary. But once you have product and customers, they want to be large and in charge of the inevitable collapse they will bring, and they need that structure of managers to inflict their will.
Actually this was done between 1996 and 2001 for telecom, as a result we saw huge boom in internet service providers, $/bandwidth, and overall service. Dubya killed that for us, how helpful. Since it was repealed, things have gone to pot, at least with twisted pair. It's a little harder for cable companies in terms of video service, but thanks to the internet that too is changing.
What is truly the blocking issue here is that these people scream bloody murder if they're forced to compete.
Oh, this bill was sponsored by Republican candidates, so it must be bad, because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists. And, of course, Obama and the Democrates are all open and transparent and honest! Obama's EPA would never do anything that wasn't scientifically reproducible and valid, even if they won't show us how they did it!
There is no doubt in my mind that the republicans will absolutely do bad things if they get their way. The problem is that they're right.
What can we build so you won't be here asking for money again?
Nothing. They will get bigger and bigger until we can't afford them anymore, then time and technology will advance, and maybe the cost comes down some, and we'll be able to afford it and build it. Then repeat.
Sure we can, that's what makes this politics.
I would imagine it's primarily an incentive for Russia to keep him alive, at this point the NSA has no doubt been trying to kill him for some time. They may prefer to know what he knows so they can figure out how he got it, but the damage he's doing is such that I'm sure they're willing to use their imagination and just make him dead.
It's more like urban violence, brought to the suburbs. What is going on there is like what happens in any given ghetto: they rob the local grocery store owner/gas station/deli, because he's the richest guy on the block. In fact he's just a working stiff with no actual power to cause change, and hardly rolling in piles of cash. This is part of why income inequality is such a problem: we cannot even fathom the truly rich. These people aren't the "1%", they're the 10%, and only so long as they have jobs. They're not making enough to put away any real money beyond saving for retirement (which makes them richer than most, of course) As anyone in the tech industry knows you're a superhero while you're below 35, after that you become expensive, burdened with familial attachments and unwilling to work 80 hours a week: i.e. you become undesirable.
This VC on the other hand, is the 1%. Note how he's detached both by the victims and assailants. He doesn't care, he isn't on a google bus wage slaving. He's deciding which companies to fund and which ones to pull out of (and likely terminate, with all employees). This is concerning to him as it may eventually find its way to his front door, but so long as people are wasting time on wealthier working class people, they're leaving him alone.
This whole thing is stupid, if you want to "protest the rich" take it to their mansions in the hills, their vacation homes in Aspen or their neighborhoods in Connecticut. If you're too lazy for that, then you really don't care that much anyway.
I doubt you'd play at all with so little emotional investment.
That would be the third miracle in the mission! The first is how they prayed the ship into space, the second about how they prayed their message down to Houston. They're pushing their luck!
You are funny, history is DOMINATED by belief over facts.
There, fixed that for you.
Gates and timing closure is a physical designers job, not the fab. And he trades area, clock rate and power based on design intent. But for FPGAs it's fairly straight forward.
Nope, you can translate most anything if you are patient, and throw enough gates and sram at it.
And HW manufacturers are manufacturers, they don't necessarily know anything about the designs they manufacture. Foxconn is a prime example, they are clueless as all get out about any form of design. Including and perhaps especially their design centers.
Unless you wanted to sell a chip that had this feature built in to it. Thus people do this operation all the time. It just takes someone with RTL experience to do.
Yet software algorithms that run on these architectures are converted to straight HW implementations all the time. It's just not "turn key", it takes quite a bit of work but it often pays off.
RAM and ROM, not being comprised chiefly of logic "gates" would probably not be all that helpful.
To give a more helpful, unhelpful answer, it's an ill-formed question. "How many gates" depends on the target on which you synthesize the hardware: a PCB, an FPGA, actual silicon (which fab? Which process? whose std cell library? what clock frequency?).
If somehow the above could be narrowed down by asking the customer, then the next thing I'd advise is contracting someone who can write RTL using an HDL (verilog is most popular). The synthesizeable subset of HDL is tricky to learn for non-HW people, so unless you understand digital logic well I'd suggest finding someone else to do it for you. They can then synthesize it to the targeted device/platform. If you can do this, you should charge quite a lot of money since this form of IP is expensive, and they know it. If they're ok with that, you may also want to have this contractor also write the design verification suite, since this company will certainly want that to integrate into their own testing. Lots of contractors are out there for this due to the cyclic nature of this job, make sure you also have some support feature in place if you need them to fix/update the code later.
Even simple software algorithms can be very big in HW, but some surpisingly complex SW algorithms are next to 1 liners in HW (like any form of bit masking or bit swizzling is free!). But generally if there are a lot of sequential steps, and those steps are different...it gets big. Also assume that for every 1 SW guy that wrote the code, you will need 1 RTL designer. If you take the verification step, it may be 1-2 verification engineers for 1 RTL, depending on your timeline.