more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: Joel Koltner on 13 Apr 2010 13:01 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:hf29s5h2kq4vo7v5set9mmk60mon3hue1v(a)4ax.com... > Interestingly, the microwave mags (Microwave Journal, Microwaves and > RF) and the optics stuff (Photonics Spectra, Laser Focus World) are > still good "High Frequency Electronics" is also decent (it's also microwave-oriented) > EET, ED, EDN are getting thinner and thinner. They just > don't get it. I think they're no longer sure who their audience is. They never really targeted, e.g., IC designers and the number of discrete circuit designers is very low these days, so they're stuck often being little more than a photocopier for datasheet "application" circuits, which puts them only a notch or so above the hobbyist magazines like Nuts & Volts (which is actually quite useful if you're trying to do things *on the cheap!*). ---Joel
From: Martin Brown on 13 Apr 2010 13:31 John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:31:28 +0100, Martin Brown > <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DFFJECICZMUC5QE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=224202619 >>> >>> MIT does one of these silly press-release scientific breakthroughs >>> about once a week, and EE Times prints them all. They are turning >>> themselves into Popular Mechanics. >>> >>> John >> In this instance you are being unfair to them. What they have achieved >> in the lab is clever and a very significant step forward in the art. >> Even their rivals admit that. But it is still a long way to go before we >> will see any products that can use synthetic photosynthesis long term. >> >> It is EE Times that has bastardised the original article. >> >> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/belcher-water-0412.html >> >> I just wish they would include links or a bibliography to the original >> papers so that it was made easier to find the original scientific >> journal articles before MITs press office has mangled them. >> >> Actually published in J Am Chem Soc 2010 Feb 10; 132(5) 1462-3 >> >> Using M13 viruses as a scaffold to keep the various molecules in the >> right places is a cunning ploy in these self assembling nano materials. >> >> Just because *you* don't understand it does not make it dumb. > > I don't need to understand it, and neither, apparently, does the > editorial staff of EE Times. MIT takes every paper produced by a few > grad students/postdocs, adds the mandatory "may lead to (new > batteries) (new solar cells) (super-strong materials) (cure for > cancer)", makes a popular press release version, and EE Times > dutifully publishes it. Of course the efficiency and cost of these > miracle solar cells/batteries/cancer cures is never mentioned, and > their delivery date is always 10 years in the future. That just says that the EET editor is bone idle and will publish anything that crosses his desk however tenuously related to electronics it might be as a space filler. It has always been the case that a well crafted press release will often find its way into a magazine on a slack news day/week/month. What is unusual is to have a slack news *decade*. > > Beats actually getting out of their swivel chairs and reporting about > electronics, I guess. These press release miracles make cheap filler > between the ads, so that the print version meets Post Office regs for > the low "magazine" rate. > > Most of our "professional" journals are pitiful embarassments: > Electronic Design, EDN, EE Times. Sadly I agree. The computer press is not much better :( Regards, Martin Brown
From: John Larkin on 13 Apr 2010 13:58 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:01:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:hf29s5h2kq4vo7v5set9mmk60mon3hue1v(a)4ax.com... >> Interestingly, the microwave mags (Microwave Journal, Microwaves and >> RF) and the optics stuff (Photonics Spectra, Laser Focus World) are >> still good > >"High Frequency Electronics" is also decent (it's also microwave-oriented) Yes, I like that one. > >> EET, ED, EDN are getting thinner and thinner. They just >> don't get it. > >I think they're no longer sure who their audience is. They never really >targeted, e.g., IC designers and the number of discrete circuit designers is >very low these days, so they're stuck often being little more than a >photocopier for datasheet "application" circuits, which puts them only a notch >or so above the hobbyist magazines like Nuts & Volts (which is actually quite >useful if you're trying to do things *on the cheap!*). These mags (ED, EET, EDN) seem to be in a content death spiral. Contrast that with Aviation Week: it costs $250 a year. When they review, say, a new helicopter, they don't cut and paste press releases, they go fly one. They know what the specs are, where the money is, what the problems are, where the bones are buried. Electronics is a trillion-dollar business. We deserve better mags. John
From: John Larkin on 13 Apr 2010 14:14 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:31:04 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:31:28 +0100, Martin Brown >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DFFJECICZMUC5QE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=224202619 >>>> >>>> MIT does one of these silly press-release scientific breakthroughs >>>> about once a week, and EE Times prints them all. They are turning >>>> themselves into Popular Mechanics. >>>> >>>> John >>> In this instance you are being unfair to them. What they have achieved >>> in the lab is clever and a very significant step forward in the art. >>> Even their rivals admit that. But it is still a long way to go before we >>> will see any products that can use synthetic photosynthesis long term. >>> >>> It is EE Times that has bastardised the original article. >>> >>> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/belcher-water-0412.html >>> >>> I just wish they would include links or a bibliography to the original >>> papers so that it was made easier to find the original scientific >>> journal articles before MITs press office has mangled them. >>> >>> Actually published in J Am Chem Soc 2010 Feb 10; 132(5) 1462-3 >>> >>> Using M13 viruses as a scaffold to keep the various molecules in the >>> right places is a cunning ploy in these self assembling nano materials. >>> >>> Just because *you* don't understand it does not make it dumb. >> >> I don't need to understand it, and neither, apparently, does the >> editorial staff of EE Times. MIT takes every paper produced by a few >> grad students/postdocs, adds the mandatory "may lead to (new >> batteries) (new solar cells) (super-strong materials) (cure for >> cancer)", makes a popular press release version, and EE Times >> dutifully publishes it. Of course the efficiency and cost of these >> miracle solar cells/batteries/cancer cures is never mentioned, and >> their delivery date is always 10 years in the future. > >That just says that the EET editor is bone idle and will publish >anything that crosses his desk however tenuously related to electronics >it might be as a space filler. It has always been the case that a well >crafted press release will often find its way into a magazine on a slack >news day/week/month. What is unusual is to have a slack news *decade*. I suppose nothing much is happening in electronics any more. John
From: Bill Sloman on 13 Apr 2010 14:49
On Apr 13, 6:39 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 13, 11:14 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 13, 6:00 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Apr 13, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> > > > wrote: > > > > It is EE Times that has bastardised the original article. > > > > >http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/belcher-water-0412.html > > > > Hey, just what we needed--a virus to get loose and bust all Earth's > > > water to oxygen and hydrogen. > > > Do read the article. The virus just provides the scaffold for the > > active nanoscale components, and MIT was merely boasting about having > > developed the bit that would split off oxygen; the part that would > > split off hydrogen is still under development. > > Humor. It's a higher function. Looks more like inept plagarism to me - science-fiction writers have been putting together duff end-of-the-world nanotechnology stories for at least a decade now, and you've just copied the neglect-of- conservation-of-energy aspect to try and make a feeble, unoriginal and irrelevant joke. As humour, it certainly high - dead and decaying - but scarcely functional. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |