Survey: FPGA PCB layout
in [FPGA]
|
Prev: attached a 2nd peripheral to FSL bus. how to use it in software?
Next: XST design frequency setting
From: Joerg on 19 Apr 2008 16:39 Joel Koltner wrote: > "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in message > news:tq7Oj.1556$FF6.588(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling... > > Well, it's entirely reasonable to have retirement benefits for public > employees be comparable to what private companies offer... I just hope that > public employee salaries will then become comparable as well (which implies a > pay raise), since otherwise I don't see how the gov't. expects they'll get > comparable quality out of their workers. > Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those days are long gone. > One problem with the government seems to be that they don't expect their > employees to be agile over time. See this article: > http://www.gcn.com/print/24_30/37174-1.html -- Someone the government ends up > with a bunch of 70 year old programmers and therefore has to hire IBM to build > them the modernized e-filing systems? Surely there must be some new hires in > the past, say, 40 years who could have been working on this and hence, on > average, would only be middle-aged today!? > A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. At least that's my impression when I see all the "modern" bloatware ;-) >> Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit tied to the last work >> year. > > I expect that was implemented to help people who were *forced* to move? > > It seems like it needs reworking to differentiate between cases where the > government wants to move you vs. you just voluntarily wanting to do so. > Or you just have to have the right connections to make that happen ... Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of service? IMHO that's wrong. For everyone else it sure doesn't work that way. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 19 Apr 2008 17:17 Nico Coesel wrote: > Dave <dhschetz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your >> optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean? >> The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if >> anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here. > > I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start > to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual > pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to > troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need > to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram). > For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap amp A with amp C and stuff like that. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 19 Apr 2008 20:47 In article <PLsOj.7522$GE1.332(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net says... > Joel Koltner wrote: > > "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in message > > news:tq7Oj.1556$FF6.588(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > >> All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling... > > > > Well, it's entirely reasonable to have retirement benefits for public > > employees be comparable to what private companies offer... I just hope that > > public employee salaries will then become comparable as well (which implies a > > pay raise), since otherwise I don't see how the gov't. expects they'll get > > comparable quality out of their workers. > > > > Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those > days are long gone. I don't know about "gone". The age of the "defined benefit" is pretty much gone in private industry but several still have "defined contribution" plans. Now, 401Ks make up for a lot of what's been lost and are portable. > > One problem with the government seems to be that they don't expect their > > employees to be agile over time. See this article: > > http://www.gcn.com/print/24_30/37174-1.html -- Someone the government ends up > > with a bunch of 70 year old programmers and therefore has to hire IBM to build > > them the modernized e-filing systems? Surely there must be some new hires in > > the past, say, 40 years who could have been working on this and hence, on > > average, would only be middle-aged today!? > > > > A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. At least > that's my impression when I see all the "modern" bloatware ;-) Maybe. There are better things to do at 70, though. ;-) > > >> Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit tied to the last work > >> year. > > > > I expect that was implemented to help people who were *forced* to move? > > > > It seems like it needs reworking to differentiate between cases where the > > government wants to move you vs. you just voluntarily wanting to do so. > > > > Or you just have to have the right connections to make that happen ... > > Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of > service? IMHO that's wrong. For everyone else it sure doesn't work that way. The last years' is indicative of the final salary. Most "defined benefit" plans do take the last year, or last couple of years into account. What most private pensions *don't* do, that public plans do is include overtime in the formula. It's not hard to double one's income for a couple of years. There is no way the tax payer should pay that forever. -- Keith
From: Joerg on 19 Apr 2008 20:54 krw wrote: > In article <PLsOj.7522$GE1.332(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, > notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net says... >> Joel Koltner wrote: >>> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in message >>> news:tq7Oj.1556$FF6.588(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>>> All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling... >>> Well, it's entirely reasonable to have retirement benefits for public >>> employees be comparable to what private companies offer... I just hope that >>> public employee salaries will then become comparable as well (which implies a >>> pay raise), since otherwise I don't see how the gov't. expects they'll get >>> comparable quality out of their workers. >>> >> Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those >> days are long gone. > > I don't know about "gone". The age of the "defined benefit" is > pretty much gone in private industry but several still have "defined > contribution" plans. Now, 401Ks make up for a lot of what's been > lost and are portable. > Sure, but 401(k) is generally funded by the employee. Occasionally the company throws in a little extra but that is mostly a mere drop in the bucket in contrast to the lavish pension plans that cover many state workers. >>> One problem with the government seems to be that they don't expect their >>> employees to be agile over time. See this article: >>> http://www.gcn.com/print/24_30/37174-1.html -- Someone the government ends up >>> with a bunch of 70 year old programmers and therefore has to hire IBM to build >>> them the modernized e-filing systems? Surely there must be some new hires in >>> the past, say, 40 years who could have been working on this and hence, on >>> average, would only be middle-aged today!? >>> >> A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. At least >> that's my impression when I see all the "modern" bloatware ;-) > > Maybe. There are better things to do at 70, though. ;-) Yes, definitely. OTOH completely quitting a career has brought many fine engineers into the grave within less than a year. My father who worked as a data processing engineer continued as a consultant and gradually tapered it off. He said that there was a rash of unexpected deaths of otherwise quite healthy colleagues right after retirement, and it was among the group of engineers who shut their careers down more or less overnight after the first retirement check arrived. >>>> Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit tied to the last work >>>> year. >>> I expect that was implemented to help people who were *forced* to move? >>> >>> It seems like it needs reworking to differentiate between cases where the >>> government wants to move you vs. you just voluntarily wanting to do so. >>> >> Or you just have to have the right connections to make that happen ... >> >> Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of >> service? IMHO that's wrong. For everyone else it sure doesn't work that way. > > The last years' is indicative of the final salary. Most "defined > benefit" plans do take the last year, or last couple of years into > account. What most private pensions *don't* do, that public plans > do is include overtime in the formula. It's not hard to double > one's income for a couple of years. There is no way the tax payer > should pay that forever. > But it's happening. And we are all paying for that. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 19 Apr 2008 22:34
In article <ovwOj.2084$pS4.1733(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net says... > krw wrote: > > In article <PLsOj.7522$GE1.332(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, > > notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net says... > >> Joel Koltner wrote: > >>> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in message > >>> news:tq7Oj.1556$FF6.588(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > >>>> All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling... > >>> Well, it's entirely reasonable to have retirement benefits for public > >>> employees be comparable to what private companies offer... I just hope that > >>> public employee salaries will then become comparable as well (which implies a > >>> pay raise), since otherwise I don't see how the gov't. expects they'll get > >>> comparable quality out of their workers. > >>> > >> Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those > >> days are long gone. > > > > I don't know about "gone". The age of the "defined benefit" is > > pretty much gone in private industry but several still have "defined > > contribution" plans. Now, 401Ks make up for a lot of what's been > > lost and are portable. > > > > Sure, but 401(k) is generally funded by the employee. Occasionally the > company throws in a little extra but that is mostly a mere drop in the > bucket in contrast to the lavish pension plans that cover many state > workers. It's quite normal for a company to add significantly to the 401K, sometimes with strings attached, sometimes without. My PPOE had a fairly decent 401K (in addition to pension plans for everyone joining before '06, or so). They matched 1:1 up to 6% of salary (plus bonusus) and had no management fees for the normal funds. I understand it's gotten better since they've dropped the pension plans for the newbs. > >>> One problem with the government seems to be that they don't expect their > >>> employees to be agile over time. See this article: > >>> http://www.gcn.com/print/24_30/37174-1.html -- Someone the government ends up > >>> with a bunch of 70 year old programmers and therefore has to hire IBM to build > >>> them the modernized e-filing systems? Surely there must be some new hires in > >>> the past, say, 40 years who could have been working on this and hence, on > >>> average, would only be middle-aged today!? > >>> > >> A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. At least > >> that's my impression when I see all the "modern" bloatware ;-) > > > > Maybe. There are better things to do at 70, though. ;-) > > > Yes, definitely. OTOH completely quitting a career has brought many fine > engineers into the grave within less than a year. My father who worked > as a data processing engineer continued as a consultant and gradually > tapered it off. He said that there was a rash of unexpected deaths of > otherwise quite healthy colleagues right after retirement, and it was > among the group of engineers who shut their careers down more or less > overnight after the first retirement check arrived. I got quite bored, once I wasn't allowed to make messes at home anymore. Good thing that only lasted a week or two. ;-) > > >>>> Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit tied to the last work > >>>> year. > >>> I expect that was implemented to help people who were *forced* to move? > >>> > >>> It seems like it needs reworking to differentiate between cases where the > >>> government wants to move you vs. you just voluntarily wanting to do so. > >>> > >> Or you just have to have the right connections to make that happen ... > >> > >> Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of > >> service? IMHO that's wrong. For everyone else it sure doesn't work that way. > > > > The last years' is indicative of the final salary. Most "defined > > benefit" plans do take the last year, or last couple of years into > > account. What most private pensions *don't* do, that public plans > > do is include overtime in the formula. It's not hard to double > > one's income for a couple of years. There is no way the tax payer > > should pay that forever. > > > > But it's happening. And we are all paying for that. Precisely. It's not going to get better. The government requires others to have fully funded retirement plans, but would have none of it for themselves. -- Keith |