 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Did you know I've got a l33t motherf---ing geek in the family? He's
finishing up his Masters and will get a Doctorate in EE. I've always
believed that if not for the efforts of a tiny percentage of the
population humanity would still be living in grass huts.
From my np brother:
"""
what the hell am I doing?
I thought I would write about what I study and research as it's a very
esoteric field but may be interesting to some of you. Or if it's not
interesting to you, at least you'll have something to say when someone
asks you what I do. I'll try to avoid the minutiae of the subject while
still giving you some tangible information.
I study Sigma-delta data converters. Sigma-delta is a specific type of
architecture that works well for 16 to 24-bit applications like audio.
A data converter is a specific type of integrated circuit (IC) that
converts analog signals to or from digital signals.
Analog signals are voltages or currents that represent "real-world"
signals. Two examples are:
(1) the current on a speaker wire that represents the desired acoustic
output of the speaker
(2) the voltage driving a transmitting radio antenna the represents the
desired electro-magnetic radiation
Digital signals are 1's and 0's that can be processed by a computer.
In short, analog signals are a necessary evil and digital signals offer
some attractive benefits (e.g. robust manipulation, compact storage,
accurate duplication). Data converters then exist at the boundary of
the real-world and the digital world.
For example, an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) can take the voltage
signal from a microphone on a cell phone and convert it to a digital
format so that it can be transmitted. Likewise, a digital-to-analog
converter (DAC) can take the digital signal the cell phone receives and
convert it into a current signal that can drive the speaker.
The big areas of research in this field are (1) lower power and (2)
migrating technologies. The desire for lower power is easy to
understand: lower power = more battery life in a portable device.
Analog circuits usually consume more power than digital circuits so good
research in this area can be lucrative.
Migrating technologies refers to the changing transistor dimensions.
This is what the terms 90nm, 65nm, 45nm (nm = nanometer) mean. Cost in
the IC business is proportional to area. So, there's a big push from
the "digital circuits people" for smaller transistors and newer
technologies. These smaller transistors make analog design very
difficult and new, innovative techniques are required at each technology
node to maintain the performance of the previous generation.
My research is looking at replacing some very complex analog circuits
inside a sigma-delta ADC with "digital-like" circuits that produce the
same function.
In my opinon, data converter design is one the most difficult aspects of
IC design. A good designer has to know analog circuits, digital
circuits, signal-processing, and sensors/transducers. And as long as
innovative designs are required, there will be good jobs for high
quality engineers.
End transmission.
"""
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sha### [at] none none> wrote:
> I've always
> believed that if not for the efforts of a tiny percentage of the
> population humanity would still be living in grass huts.
Agreed. It has always irritated me how some people belittle the "nerds"
who "don't have a life" and instead sit all day long in their dark
libraries and laboratories doing nerdy stuff. These people who belittle
the "nerds" say that they should get a life and that they are missing what
life is all about, wasting their life. These people who belittle them are
saying this while driving cool cars, watching television, playing game
consoles, talking to their cellphones, going to the doctor to be cured of
diseases which were lethal a couple of hundred years ago...
Without those "no-life nerds" we would still live in the grass huts.
Because of the different interests at least some people have, we can have
luxuries today.
Another thing which irritates me is the definition of "having a life"
these people have. Why is their definition more correct than other people's?
Don't you "have a life" when you are happy with what you are doing? Why
should someone be belittled as not "having a life" just because his
interests are different?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Don't you "have a life" when you are happy with what you are doing?
Totally agreed with all of it, but especially this. How many of the
people telling you to "get a life" just can't wait to get off for the
weekend so they can have some fun?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Another thing which irritates me is the definition of "having a life"
> these people have. Why is their definition more correct than other
> people's?
> Don't you "have a life" when you are happy with what you are doing? Why
> should someone be belittled as not "having a life" just because his
> interests are different?
Agreed too Warp, my girlfriend says how she used to laugh at people like me
at school and tell them to "get a life", but now she admits that actually
it's the other way round. She still says to me sometimes about me and my
work colleagues pretending to do important stuff the whole time which really
isn't, until I remind her that things like mobile phones will not invent
themselves, and actually it takes a *HUGE* number of people to get a product
like that onto the market.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> I study Sigma-delta data converters. Sigma-delta is a specific type of
> architecture that works well for 16 to 24-bit applications like audio. A
> data converter is a specific type of integrated circuit (IC) that
> converts analog signals to or from digital signals.
IIRC, this involves generating a pulse train from an analogue signal.
This train consists of negative and positive pulses in such a way that
if you average them together, you get the original signal. But actually
to make the converter, you send the pulses to a counter, which then
converts them into normal binary numbers.
(The pulse train itself has the desirable property that all the pulses
are "equal". In other words, unlike a binary signal that has a most
significant bit and a least significant bit, and you need to know which
bits those are, the pulse train doesn't require any such synchronisation.)
The DSP book I read had a whole chapter on A/D and D/A conversion.
Apparently A/D conversion actually works better if you deliberately add
a tiny amount of noise. (For the same reason that POV-Ray purposely adds
sampling jitter to the antialias pass.)
> The big areas of research in this field are (1) lower power and (2)
> migrating technologies.
Makes sense...
> In my opinon, data converter design is one the most difficult aspects of
> IC design. A good designer has to know analog circuits, digital
> circuits, signal-processing, and sensors/transducers. And as long as
> innovative designs are required, there will be good jobs for high
> quality engineers.
Heh. It's well beyond my field... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> IIRC, this involves generating a pulse train from an analogue signal.
> This train consists of negative and positive pulses in such a way that
> if you average them together, you get the original signal. But actually
> to make the converter, you send the pulses to a counter, which then
> converts them into normal binary numbers.
Sounds like PWM.
Fun stuff. A while back I was playing around with some DSP-type stuff.
What I found was interesting is that if you generate an ideal square
wave, them attempt to sweep it, you'll get audible artifacts, but if you
generate the square wave by adding sine waves at odd harmonics, and you
use a cycle of that generated wave to produce a sweep, it works nice and
smooth, as it should.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Sounds like PWM.
Strictly, that's what D/A and A/D converters do. ;-)
> Fun stuff. A while back I was playing around with some DSP-type stuff.
> What I found was interesting is that if you generate an ideal square
> wave, them attempt to sweep it, you'll get audible artifacts, but if you
> generate the square wave by adding sine waves at odd harmonics, and you
> use a cycle of that generated wave to produce a sweep, it works nice and
> smooth, as it should.
Somebody doesn't understand the Nyquist limit, and sinc filtering,
methinks...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Somebody doesn't understand the Nyquist limit, and sinc filtering,
> methinks...
I understand the Nyquist limit, but not sinc filtering.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Somebody doesn't understand the Nyquist limit, and sinc filtering,
>> methinks...
>
> I understand the Nyquist limit, but not sinc filtering.
OK, well suffice it to say that if you have an odd number of samples,
it's not possible to make half of them negative and half of them
positive. ;-)
If you manually sum sinewaves, it does the right thing automatically.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> OK, well suffice it to say that if you have an odd number of samples,
> it's not possible to make half of them negative and half of them
> positive. ;-)
>
> If you manually sum sinewaves, it does the right thing automatically.
Ahh, makes sense.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK, well suffice it to say that if you have an odd number of samples,
>> it's not possible to make half of them negative and half of them
>> positive. ;-)
>>
>> If you manually sum sinewaves, it does the right thing automatically.
>
> Ahh, makes sense.
Yeah.
I don't know if you know this already, but... the sinc function is the
impulse response of a perfect lowpass filter - which would be the ideal
kind of antialias filter.
If you take a digital signal and just throw away some of the samples to
change the pitch, you get aliasing. (High frequencies become distorted
into lower ones.)
Sure, you take the average of several points instead of just using one
of those points. This is equivilent to applying a moving-average filter
to the signal before downsampling it. If you look at the frequency
response for such a filter, you'll see it doesn't actually remove high
frequencies especially efficiently.
If, on the other hand, you apply a (windowed) sinc filter first, this
*will* remove high frequences more efficiently. Then when you
downsample, there won't be any high frequencies to alias.
Trouble is, a "perfect" lowpass filter requires an infinite kernel -
which isn't computable. (But note that if you're manipulating equations
rather than numerical samples, the magic of integral calculus means it
usually *can* be computed!) That's why it must be a "windowed" sinc.
sinc 0 = 1
sinc x = (sin x) / x
(This is actual, valid Haskell source code, BTW.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> sinc 0 = 1
> sinc x = (sin x) / x
>
> (This is actual, valid Haskell source code, BTW.)
That explains at least why sounds that have been slowed always seem to
get a bit electronic sounding.
The aliasing I was speaking of, btw was more on the lines of taking a
sweep, say from 440-3520hz you'll hear a "banding" artifact in the sweep
where if you use the sum of harmonics square wave, the banding doesn't
occur.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> sweep, say from 440-3520hz you'll hear a "banding" artifact in the sweep
When I say banding, I mean it almost sounds like mach banding looks. (it
sounds like sudden jumps in frequency, instead of a smooth transition)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> sweep, say from 440-3520hz you'll hear a "banding" artifact in the sweep
>
> When I say banding, I mean it almost sounds like mach banding looks. (it
> sounds like sudden jumps in frequency, instead of a smooth transition)
How were you generating the sweep?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> sweep, say from 440-3520hz you'll hear a "banding" artifact in the sweep
>
> When I say banding, I mean it almost sounds like mach banding looks. (it
> sounds like sudden jumps in frequency, instead of a smooth transition)
...which probably means the way you're generating the waves constrains
them to have integer wavelengths. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> How were you generating the sweep?
>
Its been a while since I did it ... I can't remember.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> ...which probably means the way you're generating the waves constrains
> them to have integer wavelengths. ;-)
Probably. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Its been a while since I did it ... I can't remember.
Oh just because I once made a program to generate a sweep something like
this:
for sample = 0 to 100000
frequency = sample / 1000
wave[sample]= waveFunction(sample/sampleRate*2*pi*frequency)
Where waveFunction can be your sine wave, square wave or whatever.
But of course it doesn't work like that as I found out...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Its been a while since I did it ... I can't remember.
>
> Oh just because I once made a program to generate a sweep something like
> this:
>
> for sample = 0 to 100000
> frequency = sample / 1000
> wave[sample]= waveFunction(sample/sampleRate*2*pi*frequency)
>
> Where waveFunction can be your sine wave, square wave or whatever.
>
> But of course it doesn't work like that as I found out...
>
>
I think I had something similar. I really can't remember though. I then
moved to a wavetable method, where I had generated a cycle of saw,
square, and triangle at a low enough frequency where I wouldn't need to
stretch it. For sine, I think I just used the sine function (can't
remember, exactly). and dropped the appropriate number of samples to
raise pitch, using an even spacing. It worked pretty well with the
generated waves. Basically just scaling the waves up and down.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I remind her that things like mobile phones will not invent
> themselves, and actually it takes a *HUGE* number of people
> to get a product like that onto the market.
I dug piers out of the mud with a shovel during the construction of the
Motorola building in Austin, TX. So there's +1 person.
Regarding the "geeks having a life" stuff, I suppose it means what you
mean by "geek." I think there are two types:
1. The person who f**ks with computers, programming, etc. so much that
he is eventually able to turn his hobby into a career. Those I know of
this type really do have no lives. After the long work hours, the junk
food, the smoking, and WOW, there isn't much time or energy left for a life.
2. The person who learns some highly-technical skill at College. My
brother is this type. I'm not sure he can program or hack his OS at all.
He is hard-working and compulsive, but not WOW compulsive. He finds
plenty of time in his day for preparing food, exercising, etc.
Kind of like the distinction between a gifted burnout blues guitar
player and a Juilliard-schooled orchestra player. Both are skilled, bot
only one is killing himself for his craft.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Warp wrote:
>> Don't you "have a life" when you are happy with what you are doing?
>
> Totally agreed with all of it, but especially this. How many of the
> people telling you to "get a life" just can't wait to get off for the
> weekend so they can have some fun?
Yes, while we actually have fun solving computer problems! :D
Weekend to me means boring work: taking my daughter to the park, to the
Mall etc. Not exactly the kind of life I'd wish to get for myself... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I don't know if you know this already, but...
This is exactly the sort of random s__t you say off the cuff that
convinces me you're a heck of a lot smarter than than you think you are.
I'm thinking "sinc filter? Is that a typo?" and here you're explaining
it, providing code to calculate, and describing how and why the
alternatives don't work. As if "well, just in passing, in case you
didn't know about this...."
Damn, you need to apply to smarter jobs. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I don't know if you know this already, but...
>
> This is exactly the sort of random s__t you say off the cuff that
> convinces me you're a heck of a lot smarter than than you think you are.
> I'm thinking "sinc filter? Is that a typo?" and here you're explaining
> it, providing code to calculate, and describing how and why the
> alternatives don't work. As if "well, just in passing, in case you
> didn't know about this...."
A trivial matter of Wikipedia, my friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_function
It's all there, and more besides. When you're as bored as me, you find
these things out.
I love the way that if you say something with enough conviction, people
will *assume* that you know what you're on about, and that what you say
is correct. ;-) In the case of Mike's problem, I was merely taking
educated guesses and passing them off as fact. Successfully, by the look
of it.
> Damn, you need to apply to smarter jobs. :-)
"When you're as bored as me" would seem to suggest that, yes.
I find myself questioning whether "smarter jobs" actually exist. I mean,
I guess *somebody* must design DSP algorithms for a living... but it
doesn't sound like a very large field.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I love the way that if you say something with enough conviction, people
> will *assume* that you know what you're on about, and that what you say
> is correct. ;-)
Most definitely. It's a highly useful skill.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shay [mailto:sha### [at] nonenone]
> In short, analog signals are a necessary evil and digital signals
offer
> some attractive benefits (e.g. robust manipulation, compact storage,
> accurate duplication).
Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
;)
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Did you know I've got a l33t motherf---ing geek in the family? He's
> finishing up his Masters and will get a Doctorate in EE. I've always
> believed that if not for the efforts of a tiny percentage of the
> population humanity would still be living in grass huts.
Having gone down that road myself (not yet finished), let me assure you
a doctorate is more or less neutral. I, for one, have always objected to
their having a title. But that's because I'm against virtually all
honorifics... Some people will do good things with a PhD, and I hope
your brother is one of them. And obviously, for some, getting a
doctorate will prevent them from doing great things.
As I recently started to tell people: There are no noble professions
(e.g. as people like to think regarding doctors). There are only noble
professionals.
--
The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I find myself questioning whether "smarter jobs" actually exist. I mean, I
> guess *somebody* must design DSP algorithms for a living... but it doesn't
> sound like a very large field.
I would imagine there is a large team within most mobile telecoms companies
working solely on DSP, that's a huge market.
Oh and don't think, "oh they have a working solution so why would anyone
need to work on it", companies wouldn't survive if they had that mentality.
They are always working for better DSP algorithms, eg lower power usage,
higher sound quality, lower bitrate, new features etc.
A quick google brought up several jobs at Nokia which seem to fit:
"Your main responsibilities will be within the following categories: *
Implementation and integration of advanced transceiver algorithms, e.g. in
the area of channel, timing and frequency estimation, bit detection and
coding/decoding"
"You will be developing new DSP SW features, whilst also verifying and
debugging existing features. Reporting to the Team Leader on deliverables
and maintaining ownership for personal planning and prioritization. On
occasions you may also be guiding other team members."
"In Enhancements R&D, a part of Nokia's Devices / Focused Businesses
organization, we are looking for an independent-minded professional to join
our R&D team as a DSP specialist"
So certainly those jobs are out there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shay [mailto:sha### [at] nonenone]
>> In short, analog signals are a necessary evil and digital signals
> offer
>> some attractive benefits (e.g. robust manipulation, compact storage,
>> accurate duplication).
>
> Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
>
> ;)
Not with consumer-grade equipment you can't. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
>>
>> ;)
>
> Not with consumer-grade equipment you can't. :-P
Of course you can hear the difference, usually the (perhaps superior) analog
recording is accompanied by lots of crackles and hiss ;-)
Seriously though, perhaps not with your 25.99 record deck+amp+speakers from
Argos, but if you spend a few hundred quid on each component (deck, amp,
speakers) you will be *really* surprised how different it sounds to CD. I
did just this a few months back when my dad got down his old deck and tidied
it up, we had a few records that we also had on CD. Whilst it was hard to
say which was "better" or "worse", there was definitely a very noticeable
difference in the sound "feeling". Maybe the CDs just had more compression
(of the dynamic range variety) I don't know.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
492671b0@news.povray.org...
> Maybe the CDs just had more compression (of the dynamic range variety) I
> don't know.
>
I don't see why one would compress dynamics more on a CD with a 90+ dB
signal to noise ratio available than on a LP with a mere 60dB :-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
>>>
>>> ;)
>>
>> Not with consumer-grade equipment you can't. :-P
>
> Of course you can hear the difference, usually the (perhaps superior)
> analog recording is accompanied by lots of crackles and hiss ;-)
Indeed. The CD itself is *highly* unlikely to be the weakest point in
the chain. Maybe the recording was done with cheap microphones, maybe
the sound engineer wasn't the best, and maybe your speakers suck. But
the CD itself is far from being the weakest link.
> Seriously though, perhaps not with your 25.99 record deck+amp+speakers
> from Argos, but if you spend a few hundred quid on each component (deck,
> amp, speakers) you will be *really* surprised how different it sounds to
> CD.
I have a £200 CD player, a £200 amplifier, and £100 headphones. I'm
still waiting to hear a difference. ;-) (And I'm a musician, remember?)
> I did just this a few months back when my dad got down his old deck
> and tidied it up, we had a few records that we also had on CD. Whilst
> it was hard to say which was "better" or "worse", there was definitely a
> very noticeable difference in the sound "feeling".
Which probably just means they were mastered differently. Hey, maybe the
LPs date to the valve era? It's widely reported that valve amps sound
quite different to transistor amps...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Maybe the CDs just had more compression (of the dynamic range variety) I
>> don't know.
>>
> I don't see why one would compress dynamics more on a CD with a 90+ dB
> signal to noise ratio available than on a LP with a mere 60dB :-)
Because usually CDs are played on way cheaper and lower quality equipment
than LPs?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I have a £200 CD player, a £200 amplifier, and £100 headphones. I'm still
> waiting to hear a difference. ;-) (And I'm a musician, remember?)
Do you have a decent record deck and preamp, and a comparable LP/CD to test
though?
> Which probably just means they were mastered differently.
Probably, damn why do they have to mess about with stuff like this!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
49267ef6$1@news.povray.org...
>> I don't see why one would compress dynamics more on a CD with a 90+ dB
>> signal to noise ratio available than on a LP with a mere 60dB :-)
>
> Because usually CDs are played on way cheaper and lower quality equipment
> than LPs?
>
That's true now than LP desks owners are only audio fans but when it was the
only equipment choice you could find crap more often than gold.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> LPs date to the valve era? It's widely reported that valve amps sound
> quite different to transistor amps...
Hmmm. Most guitar amps are valve. I think the main difference is how
they act in overdrive, as compared to something like MOSFET.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> 1. The person who f**ks with computers, programming, etc. so much that
> he is eventually able to turn his hobby into a career.
Sounds like me.
> Those I know of
> this type really do have no lives.
Usually having "no life" can be translated directly into "not having a
girl-/boyfriend" and/or "not enjoying all freetime at bars/pubs/nightclubs".
Yes, I live alone and I actually enjoy my home and being here. That
might have something to do with years of work to get such homy home, but
also has something to do with my nature.
> After the long work hours,
Agreed, I do some days longer than needed. Then again, it has something
to do with traffic - while I can choose my own working times (as long as
I do enough work, so my employer gets what it pays for), I adjust them
mostly so that traffic would be as easy as possible, since my job is
75km away from my home.
> the junk
> food,
Yes, I daily eat at restaurants or lunch restaurants. If that's junk
food, then I'll let it be junk food.
> the smoking,
No, this I can't agree - I've never smoked a single cigarette in my life.
> and WOW, there isn't much time or energy left for a
> life.
Yes, from time to time. But that's not due to listed reasons, that's
because personal case-by-case choices (for example this friday-evening
goes resting, because me and one friend went to get a new puppy for her,
the trip took 17h15min and little over 1Mm - I was at home 4:15 at night).
> -Shay
-Aero, breaking the generalizing
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
> Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
Yes. Try driving digital signal to the speakers themselves ;).
> ;)
>
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes, but analog sounds better, and you CAN hear the difference!
>
> Yes. Try driving digital signal to the speakers themselves ;).
I rather suspect you'd hear nothing at all. Digital signals usually
operate at frequencies way outside the sensitivity of the human ear, if
not the speaker cones themselves... (Besides being *far* too low
amplitude in the first place.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> A quick google brought up several jobs at Nokia which seem to fit:
And I'll point out that learning about cell phones seems to give you a
lifetime career, in the sense that you can walk into anywhere building
or selling cell phones, say "I know technical details about how they
work", and pick up a job.
(I say "seems to" because who knows if cell phones will be replaced by
something even more magical in the future. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
> Usually having "no life" can be translated directly into "not having a
> girl-/boyfriend" and/or "not enjoying all freetime at bars/pubs/nightclubs".
Having "no life" is missing out on the kinds in relationships which take
hours and hours to develop - is not being able to keep commitments you
*wan't* to keep - is failing to progress in your personal goals outside
of one non-social area of interest.
I'm a little compulsive, so I've been there myself (most have, I'm
sure), and would be very wary of entering an occupation which led me
into that kind of dark corner. Too many in my generation (I'm 35) have.
We were told as children than programmers would be as respected and
wealthy as doctors. Some can treat computer-work like any other career,
but many get caught up with gaming, chatrooms, internet, learning new
languages, etc..
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:
> 1. The person who f**ks with computers, programming, etc. so much that
> he is eventually able to turn his hobby into a career. Those I know of
> this type really do have no lives. After the long work hours, the junk
> food, the smoking, and WOW, there isn't much time or energy left for a life.
Personally I think you are just presenting your ideal of what "having a
life" is, and when someone does not have it. And it's precisely what I was
talking about: Why is your definition of "having a life" more correct rather
than someone else's? Isn't someone "having a life" when he is happy with
what he is doing?
Just because someone doesn't act like the majority of people doesn't mean
he doesn't "have a life". Just because someone isn't so social as most of
other people, and just because he doesn't have "healthy" hobbies besides
work doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't "have a life".
Personally I don't enjoy "socializing" by going to night clubs and bars
and the like. They are noisy, crowded, chaotic and often full of tobacco
smoke. I don't drink nor smoke, I don't enjoy talking with drunken people,
and there's nothing in night clubs and bars that I would enjoy. Yet someone
could say that I "don't have a life" because of that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Personally I think you are just presenting your ideal of what "having a
> life" is, and when someone does not have it. And it's precisely what I was
> talking about: Why is your definition of "having a life" more correct rather
> than someone else's? Isn't someone "having a life" when he is happy with
> what he is doing?
I agree.
If I can find a way of living my life that actually makes me happy and
leaves me feelin fulfilled... I'll be happy. :-D
Well... I guess that's kind of a tautology... hmm.
I say that I "don't have a life" because the way I'm living currently
does *not* make me feel happy and fulfilled. And I'm sure there are
plenty of people who never touch a computer who never the less feel just
the same way.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>>
>> Usually having "no life" can be translated directly into "not having a
>> girl-/boyfriend" and/or "not enjoying all freetime at
>> bars/pubs/nightclubs".
>
> Having "no life" is missing out on the kinds in relationships which take
> hours and hours to develop - is not being able to keep commitments you
> *wan't* to keep - is failing to progress in your personal goals outside
> of one non-social area of interest.
Ah yes, what I ment is how having no life is normally intepreted here
(physical location, ie. southern Finland). Goes partly on top of each
other - eg. being single can be either own choice or unwanted failure.
> We were told as children than programmers would be as respected and
> wealthy as doctors.
It might have been the image back then, but the world changes. Respect
also depends on who's judging - eg. I don't respect titles, I respect
persons. No matter if you're doctor, lumberjack, stock player, teacher
or anything else - if you're person to respect, you'll gain respect.
> Some can treat computer-work like any other career,
> but many get caught up with gaming, chatrooms, internet, learning new
> languages, etc..
True. Computers and digital world offer so much choices that it can be
very addictive.
> -Shay
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Yes. Try driving digital signal to the speakers themselves ;).
>
> I rather suspect you'd hear nothing at all. Digital signals usually
> operate at frequencies way outside the sensitivity of the human ear, if
> not the speaker cones themselves... (Besides being *far* too low
> amplitude in the first place.)
>
Digitality doesn't define frequencies, besides they can (and will) be
mixed (you know that GSM-noise that comes out of your speakers if you'll
keep phone too close to preamp? It's ~200Hz, while the phone's interval
to discuss with base station is 4,7ms). Digitality defines having
limited amount of values, theoretically making the sound being like
morse-coding. OTOH, if you calculate the pulses to match the speaker
correctly, you'll end up with normal sound (the speakers have inductance
and capacitans) by using the speaker itself as D/A-converter driven by
eg. PWM.
Ah, and don't worry about amplitude. Amplifiers have been invented.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay
Subject: Re: What the Hell he's doing.
Date: 21 Nov 2008 14:12:41
Message: <49270829@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4926f5ac@news.povray.org...
> I say that I "don't have a life" because the way I'm living currently does
> *not* make me feel happy and fulfilled. And I'm sure there are plenty of
> people who never touch a computer who never the less feel just the same
> way.
I think you just hit the nail on the head.
I used to be much more of an introvert than I am now, but I seem to waiver
between "Having a life" and "not". For me, the problem becomes when I
obsess on something to the point of neglecting other things which should be
a priority. I don't feel good about myself when that happens. I've done it
with programming, porn, poker, povray (to a lesser extent), and a hand-ful
of other things.
Generally, the phrase seems to be more about developing aquaintences,
friends, and otherwise being sociable. But for the vast majority of the
population, they can never understand things like the thrill of getting X to
work after spending days/weeks/months of hard work to resolve a problem.
Alcoholics may "have a life", in terms of the idea that they are developing
the social aspects of their lives, but it is certainly not beneficial to
them. But at least they don't drink alone...
Personally, I think that the times of "not having a life" need to be
balanced. Last year, I worked (at my job) pretty much the entire month of
September and part of October. I'd get home late, and had to work most
weekends. It took a toll on me, but after the job was done, I took some
days off (not all in a row), and otherwise slowed down the pace. The
overall effect for me was a great feeling of accomplishment (I met the
deadline) and then the time-off seemed so much sweeter. But in that time, I
truly went into my own world. I ate, drank, and slept my job
(figuratively). I had "no life" in the social sense, but I felt very
fullfilled at my job. For 1.5 months, I was the most important person at my
company.
Having been an introverted nerd, and whatever I am now (less introverted), I
honestly believe that getting out and exposing yourself to social situations
is good for the soul/psyche or whatever else you want to call it. I don't
really believe that someone can be fullfilled without that. I've been doing
a camping, bicycle tour for the last 4 years, and I'm really glad that I do
it. It forces me to interact with people in situations where I would
otherwise feel uncomfortable. Riding a bike alone for 6 hours/day REALLY
SUCKS! Riding with good company can be a ton of fun!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I say that I "don't have a life" because the way I'm living currently
> does *not* make me feel happy and fulfilled. And I'm sure there are
> plenty of people who never touch a computer who never the less feel just
> the same way.
I'm currently feeling like: http://bash.org/?505242
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> But for the vast majority of the population, they can never
> understand things like the thrill of getting X to work after
> spending days/weeks/months of hard work to resolve a problem.
They understand the thrill AND what an expensive high that thrill is. We
all do, but many of our expensive highs are not as accessible as the
computer in the next room and are therefore less dangerous. The poker
with which you were so obsessed was Online poker, wasn't it? :)
Chasing these highs is exactly what takes a person away from "having a
life." And I'm not talking about bars a night clubs either. I'm married,
35 years old, and have never had a drink in my life - nightclubs hold
little fascination.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> I say that I "don't have a life" because the way I'm living currently
> does *not* make me feel happy and fulfilled. And I'm sure there are
> plenty of people who never touch a computer who never the less feel just
> the same way.
Yes, but a geek doesn't just "touch a computer." He spends months or
years in front of one (in essence, playing with fire) developing his
skills. Some resist temptation, but non-geeks are not subject to those
temptations at all.
After reading some of your posts, I though it might be fun to learn
Haskell myself. Thankfully, sanity prevailed.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Yes, but a geek doesn't just "touch a computer." He spends months or
> years in front of one (in essence, playing with fire) developing his
> skills. Some resist temptation, but non-geeks are not subject to those
> temptations at all.
Nice, now define "nerd" please.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:46:48 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Yes, but a geek doesn't just "touch a computer." He spends months or
>> years in front of one (in essence, playing with fire) developing his
>> skills. Some resist temptation, but non-geeks are not subject to those
>> temptations at all.
>
> Nice, now define "nerd" please.
Network Emergency Repair Dude (or "Dudette", if you prefer)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
