Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards?

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:06:27 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> Gave us:

>On 9/22/2014 8:35 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> Yet, despite all these "inefficiencies", life (business) still seems to
>>> go on!  And, commercially, apparently pretty well!
>>
>> And you wonder why people say your posts wander...
>>
>> I made a light-hearted jibe at American measurements - I didn't plan a
>> discussion on every measurement system since the dawn of mankind!
>
>My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified"
>countries -- every day.  And, life still goes on.  If there was reason to
>decimalize these other things, why then, not EVERYTHING?  Those souls
>still have to deal with "odd quantities" (how many stone do you weigh?)
>


  Personally, I like how we are able to discriminate a GPS signal when
the received strength is right down next to the baseline noise floor.

  But on the lighter side...

  Yeah, and where do you gauge at on that silly Scientology meter
thingy?

  Good thing the astrology circles didn't come up with too many weird
quantifications, or device with which to measure them!

  Bwuahahahahahaha!  BRL!

Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y:

> My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified"
> countries -- every day.

You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then.

E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in 
practical, much less every-day use.  And it's been like that since about 
the 1950s, at the least.

Part of the reason is that it's been made effectively illegal to offer 
anything to the general public if it's quantified in non-metric units, 
by way of "fair conduct of commerce" laws.

About the last hold-out are display screen diagonals given in inches, 
but even those are only tolerated, as an extra bit of information.   The 
official product specification has to be metric, though, or you open 
yourself to competitors' cease-and-desist, and eventual lawsuits.

On 22/09/14 19:48, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker wrote:
> Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y:
>
>> My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even
>> "metrified"
>> countries -- every day.
>
> You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then.
>
> E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in
> practical, much less every-day use.  And it's been like that since about
> the 1950s, at the least.
>
> Part of the reason is that it's been made effectively illegal to offer
> anything to the general public if it's quantified in non-metric units,
> by way of "fair conduct of commerce" laws.
>
> About the last hold-out are display screen diagonals given in inches,
> but even those are only tolerated, as an extra bit of information.   The
> official product specification has to be metric, though, or you open
> yourself to competitors' cease-and-desist, and eventual lawsuits.
>

The main odd one out is time - we use a variety of units there, even in 
metric countries.  Scientific and technical fields use seconds, and 
metric fractions thereof, but in daily life we have hours, minutes, 
days, months, years.

On 9/22/2014 9:19 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 22/09/14 14:00, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 22/09/14 12:33, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2014 3:44 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 22/09/14 11:25, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2014 4:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try this recipe for variety:
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me try to translate the ingredients...
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3 dl. cream   -  1-1/4 cups
>>>>
>>>> Despite being Scottish, I've never been good at imperial measures.
>>>> Inches are all right, but how can one possibly use a "cup" as a unit of
>>>> measure?  I've got cups of all different sizes - and no doubt an
>>>> American "cup" is twice that of a British cup...
>>>
>>> Obviously, a cup is a standardized unit of measure.
>>
>> Er, no. See, as a starting point,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_%28unit%29
>
> I love the second sentence of that page - "It is principally used in the
> United States and Liberia".  There is no denying the technical
> achievements the US has made, but think how much more they could do if
> their dropped the medieval units of measurement!

You are preaching to the choir!  Amen!

-- 

Rick

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:09:30 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>On 9/21/2014 6:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:50:42 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 01:47:00 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Why would Google buy Nest?  For how many billions of dollars?  How many
>>>> multiples of their total sales??  Heck, can't the folks at Google come
>>>> up with a thermostat design on their own??  :>
>>
>>> For access to their customer base.  I wouldn't have bought Nests if it
>>> were a Google design.
>>
>> Hardly.  Nest has only a US only customer base.  As of 2012, Nest does
>> not allow operation outside of the USA.
>> <http://motote.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/nest-thermostat-in-europe-hacks-ii.html>
>> I don't know if this is still the current situation or why the
>> restriction.
>>
>> In 2014, Google bought 28 companies:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Google>
>> At $3.2 billion, Nest was one of the biggest buys, behind Motorola
>> Mobility for $12.5 billion in 2011.  When a company gets as big as
>> Google, and makes as much money as Google, it eventually runs out of
>> places to spend it's money to balance its profits for tax purposes.
>> So, it buys overpriced companies.
>>
>> "5 Reasons Nest Sold To Google"
>> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/01/14/5-reasons-nest-sold-to-google/>
>>
>> "What Google Really Gets Out of Buying Nest for $3.2 Billion"
>> <http://www.wired.com/2014/01/googles-3-billion-nest-buy-finally-make-internet-things-real-us/>
>>
>> According to the usual unreliable sources, at the time of purchase,
>> Nest was moving about 50,000 thermostats per month at $250/ea for a
>> bad guess total of $150 million per year, making the purchase about 20
>> times annual revenue.  Currently, they're at maybe $300 million per
>> year or 10 times annual sales.  Hardware companies usually sell for
>> maybe 4 times annual sales at most:
>> <http://www.businessinsider.com/nest-revenue-2014-1>
>
>Google wants a beachhead IN your house.

*EXACTLY*  They want the customer base.  There is no way Nest was
worth $3B for anything else.

>Monitoring *your* searches (if
>you think they don't know who YOU are, you're misguided!), reading your email
>(in addition to GMail, google also silently provides mail services for
>many "traditional" ISPs), isn't enough.  They need to *watch* you to see
>what ELSE they can SELL YOU (ahem... of course I mean "do to improve your
>quality of life").
>
>TV's now "watch" (optically) their user's ("Dear Gillette, 27% of the folks
>who were seated in front of the TV at the time your commercial aired got
>up and left the room within the first 7 seconds of airing.  Here are the
>names of the folks who sat through the entire commercial:").
>
>Refrigerators will (soon) track (and, of course, report) your eating habits.
>(I actually wonder if a timewill come when things like appliances will be
>given away -- like toilet paper dispensers -- solely to allow "them" to
>get a closer look at your behavior "behind closed doors")
>
>Do you not think google's "payment" system (name escapes me) and Apple's
>new "Wallet" won't be diverting copies/summaries of your transactions
>to marketing folks for other companies?  Political parties?  etc.
>
>"43% of the rhubarb sold in this country is eaten by Republicans; the
>rest is thrown out"  (sorry, it's an old joke that "fit" here)
>
>I wonder if there will soon be a time when dealing in CASH will put you
>on a "watch list"?  :(
>
>Remember:
>"Any time you are getting something for free, YOU are the product being sold!"

Yep!

In comp.arch.embedded David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)

>>> 3 dl. cream   -  1-1/4 cups
 
> Despite being Scottish, I've never been good at imperial measures.
> Inches are all right, but how can one possibly use a "cup" as a unit 
> of measure?  I've got cups of all different sizes - and no doubt an
> American "cup" is twice that of a British cup...

American "cup" is about 236ml.  Most measuring cups for liquid
measuring (some of which are more than one cup) have metric lines
also marked. 

Dry measurements are done with a set of nested cups with no lines,
the come in 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and 1 cup sizes.  You scoop into the bag
of, for example, sugar, level off the top with a knife, then pour
into the bowl.

Canada used to have imperial units (they are now metric) that
were 5/4 times the size of the American unit. Gasoline was sold
in Imperial gallons, for example, but now in liters.

As I found out not so long ago, the duty free allowance for alcoholic
beverages into the US is 1L, into Canada it is 40 ounces, though
I am not sure by now the size of the ounces. That might be
40 US ounces, or 32 Imperial ounces. 

(snip)
 
>>> 3 eggs, split -  3 eggs.... separated?  No yolks?
 
> The yolks get used later, mixed with the cheese.  
> You can't whip eggs with the yolk in it.

(snip)
-- glen

On 9/22/2014 1:53 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
> (snip, someone wrote)
>
>>>> 3 dl. cream   -  1-1/4 cups
>
>> Despite being Scottish, I've never been good at imperial measures.
>> Inches are all right, but how can one possibly use a "cup" as a unit
>> of measure?  I've got cups of all different sizes - and no doubt an
>> American "cup" is twice that of a British cup...
>
> American "cup" is about 236ml.  Most measuring cups for liquid
> measuring (some of which are more than one cup) have metric lines
> also marked.
>
> Dry measurements are done with a set of nested cups with no lines,
> the come in 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and 1 cup sizes.  You scoop into the bag
> of, for example, sugar, level off the top with a knife, then pour
> into the bowl.

And smaller quantities are handled with "(nested) measuring spoons":
1/8t, 1/4t, 1/2t, 3/4t, 1t, 1T -- and, less commonly, smidgen,
pinch and dash.  Note, also, that some ingredients (e.g., baking
powder) are often packaged in containers that deliberately provide
an "edge" to scrape the excess off the spoon as you withdraw it from
the container!

I frankly can't imagine anyone using a scale/balance and being able to
measure ingredients anywhere near as quickly!  Biggest hassle is measuring
liquid ingredients AND dry ingredients using the same set of spoons/cups:
either do ALL the dry ingredients first; or, clean and dry the spoons/cups
after using them on liquid measures (which commonly go into baked goods
*first*) before dipping them into the dry.

Or, buy more than one set of spoons/cups and toss each into the sink
after its initial use!  (my prefered solution -- they only take
seconds to wash -- unless you were using them to measure something
sticky or greasy!)

In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

(snip on units)

>> American "cup" is about 236ml.  Most measuring cups for liquid
>> measuring (some of which are more than one cup) have metric lines
>> also marked.

>> Dry measurements are done with a set of nested cups with no lines,
>> the come in 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and 1 cup sizes.  You scoop into the bag
>> of, for example, sugar, level off the top with a knife, then pour
>> into the bowl.
 
> And smaller quantities are handled with "(nested) measuring spoons":
> 1/8t, 1/4t, 1/2t, 3/4t, 1t, 1T -- and, less commonly, smidgen,

1t is close to 5ml. It is commonly used for prescription
medicine, where I believe it is exactly 5ml. 

I haven't seen a 3/4t, but recipes do often call for one.
I used to have a 1/2 T, though.  

(snip)

> I frankly can't imagine anyone using a scale/balance and being able to
> measure ingredients anywhere near as quickly!  

I probably agree for just about everything except flour. 
Flour compresses as you squeeze the air out of it, making
volumetric measurments not so accurate. 

> Biggest hassle is measuring
> liquid ingredients AND dry ingredients using the same set of spoons/cups:
> either do ALL the dry ingredients first; or, clean and dry the spoons/cups
> after using them on liquid measures (which commonly go into baked goods
> *first*) before dipping them into the dry.

I have enough sets to use, and then they all go into the dishwasher
to get washed.  Buy more from a thrift store so that you have
enough of them.

> Or, buy more than one set of spoons/cups and toss each into the sink
> after its initial use!  (my prefered solution -- they only take
> seconds to wash -- unless you were using them to measure something
> sticky or greasy!)

-- glen

On 9/22/2014 11:35 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 22/09/14 16:55, Don Y wrote:
>> On 9/22/2014 6:19 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 22/09/14 14:00, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>> On 22/09/14 12:33, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2014 3:44 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/09/14 11:25, rickman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/22/2014 4:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try this recipe for variety:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me try to translate the ingredients...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3 dl. cream   -  1-1/4 cups
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite being Scottish, I've never been good at imperial measures.
>>>>>> Inches are all right, but how can one possibly use a "cup" as a
>>>>>> unit of
>>>>>> measure?  I've got cups of all different sizes - and no doubt an
>>>>>> American "cup" is twice that of a British cup...
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, a cup is a standardized unit of measure.
>>>>
>>>> Er, no. See, as a starting point,
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_%28unit%29
>>>
>>> I love the second sentence of that page - "It is principally used in the
>>> United States and Liberia".  There is no denying the technical
>>> achievements the US has made, but think how much more they could do if
>>> their dropped the medieval units of measurement!
>>
>> Don't Brits still use pints?  Miles?  Feet?
>>
>
> I've lived in Norway for the last 20 years, so I'm a bit out of touch...
>
> Yes, people still use pints, miles, feet and inches, and sometimes
> pounds weight and gallons (especially for petrol) - but they are very
> rarely used for anything accurate.  Older generations use Fahrenheit for
> weather (as long as it is above freezing - below freezing, everyone uses
> Celsius).  Recipes are, of course, always approximate, and it's not
> uncommon to use imperial units there.
>
> Milk can be in litres or pints.  Beer is always in pints - even if it is
> actually half a litre...

Here in the US the liquor industry jumped on the metric bandwagon faster 
than any other segment of commerce.  I think the reason is because they 
saw a way to profit by it.  When they converted, every standard size 
bottle shrank a small amount...

            Old size   New size
Miniature   2 oz      50 ml (1.7 oz)
Half Pint   8 oz     200 ml (6.8 oz) could have been 250 ml or 8.4 oz
Pint       16 oz     375 ml (12.7 oz) Wow, they really whacked this one
Fifth      25.6 oz   750 ml (25.36 oz) couldn't get much closer
Quart      32 oz    1000 ml (33.8 oz) they broke the rule here
Half Gal   64 oz    1750 ml (59.2 oz) back on track

The quart is the only size that actually increased.  They would have had 
to either drop the size or drop to some really odd sounding size like 
950 ml.

The point is they likely didn't adjust the pricing initially, so they 
made more money.  I bet this drove the tax guys nuts.  The tax is based 
on the amount of alcohol and they used charts with sizes and proofs.  I 
wonder if they redid the charts for metric?


>> Units of measure see very different uses, here.
>>
>> Scientists, engineers, etc. *may* (opt) to work in metric units -- or not.
>> When I create a CAD drawing, I have to pick which units of measure to adopt
>> throughout.
>
> Apart from occasional exceptions, such as PCB track widths in mils, you
> will not find many non-metric units in modern science, engineering, or
> technical fields outside the USA.

I even see track widths in mm.  Especially with today's very fine 
features mils doesn't buy convenience anymore.  I'd rather use 0.1 mm 
than 3.5 mils.


>> Government endorsed/standardized units are what they are (argue with
>> the politicians).  They really only apply to legal comparisons -- The
>> Market (largely) allows items to be sold in whatever units the two
>> parties agree upon.
>>
>> Joe Public has no incentive to abandon what his parents/grandparents have
>> used.  What's the benefit?  Start buying fuel in liters instead of gallons?
>> The price per unit energy doesn't change (though it *will* for some
>> reason).
>> Start buying milk in 4 liter bottles (why 4 and not 1 -- or 10)?  Should
>> hotdogs be sold in packages of *10*?  Ditto buns?  A bottle of beer always
>> a liter?  And, 10 bottles in a "6 pack"?  Should there be some decimal
>> number
>> of slices of bread in a "loaf"?  (think of how hard it would be to compare
>> loaves, otherwise!  :> )  Sell eggs in quantities of 10?  How large should
>> a container of fresh strawberries be?  Should the next larger container be
>> a 10-fold increase?  If you want something between the two, buy some number
>> of the smaller size?  Should canned corn be sold in the same size (weight)
>> cans as canned peas?  What about asparagus?
>>
>> How do you deal with bulk produce -- X grams of celery @ $0.0025/g?
>> Does it even make sense to compare celery prices (per g) to that of
>> potatoes?  (potatoes are sold by the pound, here; celery by the "bunch")
>> How does a "bunch" of cilantro compare to a bunch of celery?  Do we
>> even care?  Do we standardize on the leaf size of the cilantro (as it
>> directly affects the usable portion of the weight that you are paying for!)
>>
>> Joe Public is accustomed to buying things in "conventional sizes" -- even
>> if those sizes are not standardized (except "by convention").  Rx's call
>> for "the zest of a large lemon" or "a small onion".  They are typically
>> just starting points -- add more or less to taste.  (each time I make an
>> Rx, I make small changes to evaluate their impact on the resulting taste,
>> cooking time, etc.  Then, markup the recipe with my ideas for what to
>> try *next* -- "the result was too tart when the lemon was increased;
>> try XXX next time!")
>>
>> Vendors have seized upon this informal size convention to silently increase
>> prices without changing the MARKED price on an item.
>>
>> E.g., OJ is purchased in 56 oz containers (1 qt, 1 pt, 1 cup) -- despite
>> the
>> fact that it *looks* like a "half gallon" (of *milk*!)  Come out with a new
>> package, bundle TWO of them together (to make it appear to be *more* than
>> the old package -- but not exactly TWICE!) and convince folks that it is
>> a better "deal" than the old package (which you no longer offer for sale!).
>> Then, eventually sell them singly for a net increase in price.
>>
>> How large is a bottle of laundry detergent?  A bottle of soda?  A *can* of
>> soda?  (e.g., Coke's used to come in 7 oz bottles).  Coors (beer) once
>> tried introducing (silently) an 11 oz can of beer.  Change the shape a
>> little bit and it's *roughly* the same "heft" (when full)... "Who's gonna
>> know?  ~8% invisible price increase -- marketing coup!!"  How many
>> sheets in
>> a roll of paper towels?  Toilet paper?
>>
>> [We have a term for this:  it is called The Free Market!  The theory is
>> that consumers -- unaided by gummit -- are smart enough to drive the
>> market in the "right direction" (whatever that means).  Any sort of
>> regulation/standardization would *interfere* with their rights to
>> dynamically engage in this interactive "struggle"]
>>
>> And why anything other than cents, dimes (10c), dollars (100c), ten dollar,
>> hundred dollar and thousand dollar bills?  Why these oddball units (25c,
>> 50c, $2, $5, $20, $50)?
>>
>> And what about this silly clock and calendar??!  60 minutes, 60 seconds, 24
>> hours, ... Think about all the effort wasted as people try to compute
>> differences in times-of-day!  And, keeping track of which months have 31
>> days vs. 30 -- and that pesky February!  What is the *date* 30 days hence?
>> Time zones?  Why do we all have to agree that "Sun ROUGHLY directly
>> overhead"
>> is "noon"?  Why can't it be 1500 in someplaces and 0200 in some others?
>> You *still* have to know what the local "activity schedule" is in some
>> remote location ("It's 7PM, there -- businesses will be closed") and
>> be able to determine the time skew (zone).  Wouldn't it be nicer to just
>> be able to say, "I will call you at 2315?" -- having already compensated
>> (in your mind) for the fact that 2315 is midday, there?
>>
>> Yet, despite all these "inefficiencies", life (business) still seems to
>> go on!  And, commercially, apparently pretty well!
>
> And you wonder why people say your posts wander...
>
> I made a light-hearted jibe at American measurements - I didn't plan a
> discussion on every measurement system since the dawn of mankind!

Lol.  Be careful what you start...

-- 

Rick

On 9/22/2014 1:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/22/2014 8:35 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> Yet, despite all these "inefficiencies", life (business) still seems to
>>> go on!  And, commercially, apparently pretty well!
>>
>> And you wonder why people say your posts wander...
>>
>> I made a light-hearted jibe at American measurements - I didn't plan a
>> discussion on every measurement system since the dawn of mankind!
>
> My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified"
> countries -- every day.  And, life still goes on.  If there was reason to
> decimalize these other things, why then, not EVERYTHING?  Those souls
> still have to deal with "odd quantities" (how many stone do you weigh?)

I congratulate you on your short and to the point post... :)

I don't agree however.  lol

Yes, we will be using Fahrenheit for a long time to come even if we did 
go "metric".  But in professional work it bugs me no end to see PC 
boards being done in inches when nearly all the packages are metric! 
Heck, even the inch is metric, defined as 0.0254 meters.

Professionally there is no reason to continue to use the old English 
units and lots of reasons to not.  Actually it is not a question of 
whether to adopt metric as we are already using metric.  The question is 
whether we stop using the old English systems.  It's time has passed...

-- 

Rick