more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 14 Apr 2010 03:26 On Apr 14, 1:58 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 13, 7:58 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:01:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner" > > >> <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >"John Larkin" <jjlar...(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. > > >A very different kind of trillion-dollar business from than that > >covered by Aviation Week. Individual aircraft cost millions. Any > >electronic component that costs more than $10 is expensive. > > But we buy millions of them. Collectively. It makes for a market with a very different structure. > >Most of the circuits that we see and use were designed for people who > >could - and would - buy 100,000 in a batch. They don't need the trade > >magazines to tell them what's available; the trade magazines exist to > >tell us what the big boys have had made, serving a much lighter (and > >less influential) class of light-weights than Aviation Week gets to > >cater for. > > >Linear Technology wouldn't notice if Highland Technology and a > >thousand small manufacturers like it went belly-up. > > They visit us a couple of times a year, and I take them to Zuni Cafe. > They sure would notice if we quit doing that. A couple of their marketing representatives would. > I think I got them to do the new current source chip. I sure ragged > them about how the world needs one. But how many have you bought? > And I also told them to do a > 3-output power-module switcher for FPGAs: +5 to +24 in, 3.3 and > 2.5/1.8 and 1.2 out. We'll see how they do on that one. We may find out if any of the high volume customers expressed a similar interest. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 14 Apr 2010 03:41 On Apr 14, 2:01 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:49 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 13, 9:58 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >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. > > >> Humor is fundamentally associated with design ability. Both require > >> welcoming ambiguity and seeing things from numerous different > >> perspectives. > > >Then James Arthur must be defectve in design ability, if that was his > >idea of humour. > > I know that he's not, and I know that you are. And he has a great > singing voice. And he's a pretty good cook. > > Do you sing or cook? We know you don't design. > > > > >> You wouldn't understand. > > >John Larkin once again reinvents reality to suit his perverse point of > >view. He doesn't recognise a real joke when he sees one in the > >mirror ... > > Get a job, bozo. Design some electronics. "Get a job" is easier said than done, particularly for a 67-year-old in the Netherlands. I'm still applying for the occasional job, but the statistical expectation that I'll ever get one around here has gotten to be vanishingly small. I have designed some interesting electronics recently, but I'm still busy getting a working example built - getting a new aortic valve did distract me for a while, but the post-operative complications are now getting resolved and I'm beginning to get back into it. Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 14 Apr 2010 03:42 On Apr 14, 8:40 am, Jeroen Belleman <jer...(a)nospam.please> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > [...] 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. > > Oh, I see, April fools day. Not exactly - as the article says, splitting off the hydrogen is the easier task. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 14 Apr 2010 10:24 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:26:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Apr 14, 1:58�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Apr 13, 7:58�pm, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:01:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner" >> >> >> <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >"John Larkin" <jjlar...(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. >> >> >A very different kind of trillion-dollar business from than that >> >covered by Aviation Week. Individual aircraft cost millions. Any >> >electronic component that costs more than $10 is expensive. >> >> But we buy millions of them. > >Collectively. It makes for a market with a very different structure. > >> >Most of the circuits that we see and use were designed for people who >> >could - and would - buy 100,000 in a batch. They don't need the trade >> >magazines to tell them what's available; the trade magazines exist to >> >tell us what the big boys have had made, serving a much lighter (and >> >less influential) class of light-weights than Aviation Week gets to >> >cater for. >> >> >Linear Technology wouldn't notice if Highland Technology and a >> >thousand small manufacturers like it went belly-up. >> >> They visit us a couple of times a year, and I take them to Zuni Cafe. >> They sure would notice if we quit doing that. > >A couple of their marketing representatives would. I have no time for salesmen. These are serious tekkies who help decide what they should design next. People like this visit us a lot, because we're bleeding-edge mainiacs who are willing to talk about what we do. And because we're in San Francisco. We get visits from TI, Hittite, Nitronex, ADI, LTC, folks like that. Tons of samples, too. > >> I think I got them to do the new current source chip. I sure ragged >> them about how the world needs one. > >But how many have you bought? None so far. It was just announced, and is too expensive in my opinion. We *are* using a lot of their land-grid integrated power converters (with internal everything, Ls and Cs too) these days, and a lot of their opamps and switchers. LTC makes great stuff, keeps making them, and we get good support. > >> And I also told them to do a >> 3-output power-module switcher for FPGAs: +5 to +24 in, 3.3 and >> 2.5/1.8 and 1.2 out. We'll see how they do on that one. > >We may find out if any of the high volume customers expressed a >similar interest. You are so totally out of touch with the electronics industry that you keep making these sour and absurd pontifications. It's getting sad, actually. John
From: John Larkin on 14 Apr 2010 11:06
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Apr 14, 2:01�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:49 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Apr 13, 9:58�pm, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> >> Humor is fundamentally associated with design ability. Both require >> >> welcoming ambiguity and seeing things from numerous different >> >> perspectives. >> >> >Then James Arthur must be defectve in design ability, if that was his >> >idea of humour. >> >> I know that he's not, and I know that you are. And he has a great >> singing voice. And he's a pretty good cook. >> >> Do you sing or cook? We know you don't design. >> >> >> >> >> You wouldn't understand. >> >> >John Larkin once again reinvents reality to suit his perverse point of >> >view. He doesn't recognise a real joke when he sees one in the >> >mirror ... >> >> Get a job, bozo. Design some electronics. > >"Get a job" is easier said than done, particularly for a 67-year-old >in the Netherlands. I'm still applying for the occasional job, but the >statistical expectation that I'll ever get one around here has gotten >to be vanishingly small. Well, as we say, duh. At our age, people don't give you jobs: you have to invent one. John |