Telecommuting

[DJOrtley]

What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal processing?

I recently left my job in pursuit of web development so I could d
telecommuting and travel with my family. However, I'm finding that
really don't like web development that much, and I liked signal processin
while I was in college (last job was doing application development.)

Aside from SME's with PhD's, both of which I'm not, do people se
opportunity out there for telecommuting with this type of stuff? What ar
people's thoughts on the subject in general, I'm just curious?

-DJ

[Randy Yates]

"DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:

> What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
> processing?

I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.

However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Steve Underwood]

Randy Yates wrote:
> "DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
>> processing?
>
> I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
> contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
> comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>
> However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
> that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
> DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
> it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
> to do integration, use test equipment, etc.

The test equipment I used in my early career cost many years salary. The
test equipment I use now costs maybe a month's salary. Whilst I am not
doing exactly the same kind of work, I think equiping yourself has
become a great deal more affordable over the years.

Steve

[John]

On Oct 26, 1:24 pm, Randy Yates <[email protected]> wrote:
> "DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
> > What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
> > processing?
>
> I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
> contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
> comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>
> However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
> that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
> DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
> it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
> to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
> --
> % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
> %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
> %%%% <[email protected]> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com

Randy,

I clicked on your website and wanted to suggest a different color for
the hyperlinks. Bright on dark green is hard to read, at least for me.
I'm using Firefox on OS-X at the moment, if that matters.

John

[Richard Owlett]

John wrote:

> On Oct 26, 1:24 pm, Randy Yates <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
>>>processing?
>>
>>I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
>>contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
>>comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>>
>>However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
>>that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
>>DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
>>it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
>>to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
>>--
>>% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
>>%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
>>%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
>>%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com
>
>
> Randy,
>
> I clicked on your website and wanted to suggest a different color for
> the hyperlinks. Bright on dark green is hard to read, at least for me.
> I'm using Firefox on OS-X at the moment, if that matters.
>
> John
>

I second the motion ;)
Actually so many sites do things like that that I've set my preferences
to override with "correct" color scheme. I'm right, world is wrong ;0>

[mk]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:21:02 -0000, John <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Oct 26, 1:24 pm, Randy Yates <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
>> > What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
>> > processing?
>>
>> I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
>> contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
>> comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>>
>> However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
>> that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
>> DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
>> it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
>> to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
>> --
>> % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
>> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
>> %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
>> %%%% <[email protected]> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com
>
>Randy,
>
>I clicked on your website and wanted to suggest a different color for
>the hyperlinks. Bright on dark green is hard to read, at least for me.
>I'm using Firefox on OS-X at the moment, if that matters.
>
>John

I agree light green on dark green has low contrast but I think there
is a more serious issue with the web site. Most of the links don't
seem to work.

[Randy Yates]

mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> writes:

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:21:02 -0000, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 26, 1:24 pm, Randy Yates <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> > What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
>>> > processing?
>>>
>>> I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
>>> contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
>>> comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>>>
>>> However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
>>> that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
>>> DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
>>> it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
>>> to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
>>> --
>>> % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
>>> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
>>> %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
>>> %%%% <[email protected]> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com
>>
>>Randy,
>>
>>I clicked on your website and wanted to suggest a different color for
>>the hyperlinks. Bright on dark green is hard to read, at least for me.
>>I'm using Firefox on OS-X at the moment, if that matters.
>>
>>John
>
> I agree light green on dark green has low contrast but I think there
> is a more serious issue with the web site. Most of the links don't
> seem to work.

My website, as you all have noticed, is a train-wreck. I've been meaning to
rework the whole thing for many months now, but I haven't found one
of those circular tuits. When I get a round tuit, I'll update it.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% <[email protected]> % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:24:33 +0800, Steve Underwood <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Randy Yates wrote:
>> "DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
>>> processing?
>>
>> I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
>> contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
>> comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>>
>> However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
>> that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
>> DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
>> it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
>> to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
>
>The test equipment I used in my early career cost many years salary. The
>test equipment I use now costs maybe a month's salary. Whilst I am not
>doing exactly the same kind of work, I think equiping yourself has
>become a great deal more affordable over the years.
>
>Steve

I've worked from home for about five years, but it really depends on
who you're working for and what you're doing. You also need to be the
sort of person who can do that...it doesn't work for everybody.

And I agree with Steve's point about test equipment. Everyone in our
little company right now works from home, and we just expanded from
having two 'labs' to three, all in the homes of the guys doing the
work. One of the 'labs' is instrumented primarily with chipscope
(which works on Xilinx FPGAs), so the equipment cost was nearly zilch.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

[Randy Yates]

Eric Jacobsen <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:24:33 +0800, Steve Underwood <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>> "DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
>>>> processing?
>>>
>>> I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
>>> contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
>>> comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>>>
>>> However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
>>> that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
>>> DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
>>> it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
>>> to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
>>
>>The test equipment I used in my early career cost many years salary. The
>>test equipment I use now costs maybe a month's salary. Whilst I am not
>>doing exactly the same kind of work, I think equiping yourself has
>>become a great deal more affordable over the years.
>>
>>Steve
>
> I've worked from home for about five years, but it really depends on
> who you're working for and what you're doing. You also need to be the
> sort of person who can do that...it doesn't work for everybody.
>
> And I agree with Steve's point about test equipment. Everyone in our
> little company right now works from home, and we just expanded from
> having two 'labs' to three, all in the homes of the guys doing the
> work. One of the 'labs' is instrumented primarily with chipscope
> (which works on Xilinx FPGAs), so the equipment cost was nearly zilch.

I agree that lots of equipment has come way down in recent years. I
think it was in one of the trade mags (EETimes, Electronic Products)
that I recently saw a relatively decent portable scope for $700 brand
new!

But still, equipping your home lab can be costly when you consider
some of the potential items: JTAG debugger, Code Composer (what, $3000?
ouch!), Matlab (which most companies buy and provide to you), scopes,
DMMs, microscopes. Not impossible, and much more within reach than
in the past, but still a little pricey (for my salary at least!).
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Steve Underwood]

Randy Yates wrote:
> Eric Jacobsen <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:24:33 +0800, Steve Underwood <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>>> "DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
>>>>> processing?
>>>> I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
>>>> contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
>>>> comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>>>>
>>>> However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
>>>> that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
>>>> DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
>>>> it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
>>>> to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
>>> The test equipment I used in my early career cost many years salary. The
>>> test equipment I use now costs maybe a month's salary. Whilst I am not
>>> doing exactly the same kind of work, I think equiping yourself has
>>> become a great deal more affordable over the years.
>>>
>>> Steve
>> I've worked from home for about five years, but it really depends on
>> who you're working for and what you're doing. You also need to be the
>> sort of person who can do that...it doesn't work for everybody.
>>
>> And I agree with Steve's point about test equipment. Everyone in our
>> little company right now works from home, and we just expanded from
>> having two 'labs' to three, all in the homes of the guys doing the
>> work. One of the 'labs' is instrumented primarily with chipscope
>> (which works on Xilinx FPGAs), so the equipment cost was nearly zilch.
>
> I agree that lots of equipment has come way down in recent years. I
> think it was in one of the trade mags (EETimes, Electronic Products)
> that I recently saw a relatively decent portable scope for $700 brand
> new!
>
> But still, equipping your home lab can be costly when you consider
> some of the potential items: JTAG debugger, Code Composer (what, $3000?
> ouch!), Matlab (which most companies buy and provide to you), scopes,
> DMMs, microscopes. Not impossible, and much more within reach than
> in the past, but still a little pricey (for my salary at least!).

Equiping your home with real physical equipment is pretty affordable
now. Its equiping your home with CAD software that will really cripple
you. Something seems seriously screwed up about that.

Steve

[Randy Yates]

Steve Underwood <[email protected]> writes:
> [...]
> Equiping your home with real physical equipment is pretty affordable
> now. Its equiping your home with CAD software that will really cripple
> you. Something seems seriously screwed up about that.

How much is it for a single seat of OrCad these days? Including
layout/autorouter?
--
% Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground you walk
%%% 919-577-9882 % upon."
%%%% <[email protected]> % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates]

Steve Underwood <[email protected]> writes:
> [...]
> Equiping your home with real physical equipment is pretty affordable
> now.

It depends. Sony Ericsson has an anechoic chamber that probably cost
on the order of $100,000. You're telling me that's affordable?

Similarly, depending on your work, you may not have all the necessary
equipment. As another example, consider some of the specialized
Rohde and Schwartz equipment for 3G testing.

Yeah, sure, the little things are affordable, but that wasn't my point.
--
% Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground you walk
%%% 919-577-9882 % upon."
%%%% <[email protected]> % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:40:23 -0400, Randy Yates <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steve Underwood <[email protected]> writes:
>> [...]
>> Equiping your home with real physical equipment is pretty affordable
>> now.
>
>It depends. Sony Ericsson has an anechoic chamber that probably cost
>on the order of $100,000. You're telling me that's affordable?
>
>Similarly, depending on your work, you may not have all the necessary
>equipment. As another example, consider some of the specialized
>Rohde and Schwartz equipment for 3G testing.
>
>Yeah, sure, the little things are affordable, but that wasn't my point.

Well, it does depend on what it is that you're doing. You're right
that if you need some specialized test equipment for a particular
application that it might get expensive. In general, though, getting
a decent scope, logic analyzer, and perhaps even spectrum analyzer
isn't all that tought these days, at least not nearly as bad as it
used to be. I've gotten a lot of stuff (a couple of nice scopes, a
Wavetek signal generator, an HP synthesizer, etc.) on ebay for a few
hundred dollars at a time. It only takes finding a few good deals
like that to get a pretty well-equipped lab for not much money.

For some reason we always have trouble finding BER testers for
reasonable money, so now we just build our own.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

[John]

On Oct 27, 1:39 pm, Eric Jacobsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:24:33 +0800, Steve Underwood <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Randy Yates wrote:
> >> "DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >>> What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
> >>> processing?
>
> >> I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
> >> contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
> >> comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>
> >> However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
> >> that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
> >> DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
> >> it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
> >> to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
>
> >The test equipment I used in my early career cost many years salary. The
> >test equipment I use now costs maybe a month's salary. Whilst I am not
> >doing exactly the same kind of work, I think equiping yourself has
> >become a great deal more affordable over the years.
>
> >Steve
>
> I've worked from home for about five years, but it really depends on
> who you're working for and what you're doing. You also need to be the
> sort of person who can do that...it doesn't work for everybody.
>

I think this is a key point, Eric. I have worked from home in the past
and have recently had long stretches of mostly working alone on a
distributed team and found that it just doesn't work for me
psychologically. I really missed the camaraderie, informal learning,
and joking around that comes with working side by side with team mates
and makes the days go by faster. I'll try to avoid isolating myself in
the future. As you said, this isn't something that applies to
everyone, but is a lesson I learned about myself at almost 40 years of
age.

John

[Ray Andraka]

Randy Yates wrote:


> But still, equipping your home lab can be costly when you consider
> some of the potential items: JTAG debugger, Code Composer (what, $3000?
> ouch!), Matlab (which most companies buy and provide to you), scopes,
> DMMs, microscopes. Not impossible, and much more within reach than
> in the past, but still a little pricey (for my salary at least!).


The test equipment is downright cheap compared to the cost of the
development software I use in my business (DSP applications for FPGAs).
Even Matlab is comparatively cheap. I use Matlab, Aldec Active HDL,
Modelsim, Synplicity and the FPGA specific tools. Not only that, but
most of the test equipment can be bought and sold on ebay quite
reasonably. There have even been instances where I've made a small
profit selling equipment I'd bought a few months earlier for a project.

[Ray Andraka]

Randy Yates wrote:

> Steve Underwood <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>[...]
>>Equiping your home with real physical equipment is pretty affordable
>>now.
>
>
> It depends. Sony Ericsson has an anechoic chamber that probably cost
> on the order of $100,000. You're telling me that's affordable?
>
> Similarly, depending on your work, you may not have all the necessary
> equipment. As another example, consider some of the specialized
> Rohde and Schwartz equipment for 3G testing.
>
> Yeah, sure, the little things are affordable, but that wasn't my point.

There are facilities around here where you can rent chamber quite
reasonably.

[Randy Yates]

Ray Andraka <[email protected]> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Steve Underwood <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>Equiping your home with real physical equipment is pretty affordable
>>> now.
>>
>>
>> It depends. Sony Ericsson has an anechoic chamber that probably cost
>> on the order of $100,000. You're telling me that's affordable?
>>
>> Similarly, depending on your work, you may not have all the necessary
>> equipment. As another example, consider some of the specialized
>> Rohde and Schwartz equipment for 3G testing.
>>
>> Yeah, sure, the little things are affordable, but that wasn't my point.
>
> There are facilities around here where you can rent chamber quite
> reasonably.

Well, you're lucky! :) (And I know the acoustics guys at Sony Ericsson,
too, but what's the chances of that being the case for all or even most
folks in all equipment-need situations???)

Renting equipment is an option, but that can get expensive quickly. (At
least on my salary it can...) And any particular client/company may be
unwilling to shell out A*B bucks per month for A folks using equipment
that cost B bucks per month when it can be "time-shared" at an office.

But yes, I agree (and already concurred) that more equipment is more
affordable now than it ever has been. Just a logic analyzer would've
been out-of-reach 20 years ago. But I still say "it depends," and I
still think it's much more likely that you're going to be required to
"come in" when testing and integration is involved.
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates]

Ray Andraka <[email protected]> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>
>> But still, equipping your home lab can be costly when you consider
>> some of the potential items: JTAG debugger, Code Composer (what, $3000?
>> ouch!), Matlab (which most companies buy and provide to you), scopes,
>> DMMs, microscopes. Not impossible, and much more within reach than
>> in the past, but still a little pricey (for my salary at least!).
>
>
> The test equipment is downright cheap compared to the cost of the
> development software I use in my business (DSP applications for
> FPGAs). Even Matlab is comparatively cheap. I use Matlab, Aldec
> Active HDL, Modelsim, Synplicity and the FPGA specific tools. Not
> only that, but most of the test equipment can be bought and sold on
> ebay quite reasonably. There have even been instances where I've made
> a small profit selling equipment I'd bought a few months earlier for a
> project.

You're not average, Ray. :)
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <[email protected]> % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Steve Underwood]

Randy Yates wrote:
> Ray Andraka <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Underwood <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> Equiping your home with real physical equipment is pretty affordable
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> It depends. Sony Ericsson has an anechoic chamber that probably cost
>>> on the order of $100,000. You're telling me that's affordable?
>>>
>>> Similarly, depending on your work, you may not have all the necessary
>>> equipment. As another example, consider some of the specialized
>>> Rohde and Schwartz equipment for 3G testing.
>>>
>>> Yeah, sure, the little things are affordable, but that wasn't my point.
>> There are facilities around here where you can rent chamber quite
>> reasonably.
>
> Well, you're lucky! :) (And I know the acoustics guys at Sony Ericsson,
> too, but what's the chances of that being the case for all or even most
> folks in all equipment-need situations???)
>
> Renting equipment is an option, but that can get expensive quickly. (At
> least on my salary it can...) And any particular client/company may be
> unwilling to shell out A*B bucks per month for A folks using equipment
> that cost B bucks per month when it can be "time-shared" at an office.
>
> But yes, I agree (and already concurred) that more equipment is more
> affordable now than it ever has been. Just a logic analyzer would've
> been out-of-reach 20 years ago. But I still say "it depends," and I
> still think it's much more likely that you're going to be required to
> "come in" when testing and integration is involved.

There is a commercial test house I have used in Shenzhen, which does
mostly EMI/EMC/ESD testing. You'll always find people from Seiko, Epson,
Philips and others there testing bits of consumer and office equipment.
Even big companies with large development centres in the area frequently
use rented facilities. It makes sense. The guys in those places do the
same thing all day. They'll go straight to the weak spot in your UUT
without hesitation. Its very efficient. :-)

Steve

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:03:53 -0000, John <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Oct 27, 1:39 pm, Eric Jacobsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:24:33 +0800, Steve Underwood <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Randy Yates wrote:
>> >> "DJOrtley" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> >>> What are peoples' experiences with telecommuting and signal
>> >>> processing?
>>
>> >> I recently (in the past year) had the privilege of securing a
>> >> contract that was all-software so I could perform it from the
>> >> comfort of my own computer. It was absolutely wonderful.
>>
>> >> However, my feeling is that these types of contracts are not
>> >> that common. In my case the job was all-software, but most
>> >> DSP involves hardware, and when there's custom hardware involved
>> >> it is much more likely you will be required to be on-site, e.g.,
>> >> to do integration, use test equipment, etc.
>>
>> >The test equipment I used in my early career cost many years salary. The
>> >test equipment I use now costs maybe a month's salary. Whilst I am not
>> >doing exactly the same kind of work, I think equiping yourself has
>> >become a great deal more affordable over the years.
>>
>> >Steve
>>
>> I've worked from home for about five years, but it really depends on
>> who you're working for and what you're doing. You also need to be the
>> sort of person who can do that...it doesn't work for everybody.
>>
>
>I think this is a key point, Eric. I have worked from home in the past
>and have recently had long stretches of mostly working alone on a
>distributed team and found that it just doesn't work for me
>psychologically. I really missed the camaraderie, informal learning,
>and joking around that comes with working side by side with team mates
>and makes the days go by faster. I'll try to avoid isolating myself in
>the future. As you said, this isn't something that applies to
>everyone, but is a lesson I learned about myself at almost 40 years of
>age.
>
>John

That is a big part of it. I miss the daily social interactions as
well, and that part of working from home does suck. I don't miss the
commute, I don't miss needless interruptions, I don't miss
low-productivity meetings, etc., etc. It's just a different way of
working, but with gasoline prices continuing to rise I think it's
going to get more popular.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:10:58 -0400, Randy Yates <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ray Andraka <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Underwood <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>Equiping your home with real physical equipment is pretty affordable
>>>> now.
>>>
>>>
>>> It depends. Sony Ericsson has an anechoic chamber that probably cost
>>> on the order of $100,000. You're telling me that's affordable?
>>>
>>> Similarly, depending on your work, you may not have all the necessary
>>> equipment. As another example, consider some of the specialized
>>> Rohde and Schwartz equipment for 3G testing.
>>>
>>> Yeah, sure, the little things are affordable, but that wasn't my point.
>>
>> There are facilities around here where you can rent chamber quite
>> reasonably.
>
>Well, you're lucky! :) (And I know the acoustics guys at Sony Ericsson,
>too, but what's the chances of that being the case for all or even most
>folks in all equipment-need situations???)
>
>Renting equipment is an option, but that can get expensive quickly. (At
>least on my salary it can...) And any particular client/company may be
>unwilling to shell out A*B bucks per month for A folks using equipment
>that cost B bucks per month when it can be "time-shared" at an office.
>
>But yes, I agree (and already concurred) that more equipment is more
>affordable now than it ever has been. Just a logic analyzer would've
>been out-of-reach 20 years ago. But I still say "it depends," and I
>still think it's much more likely that you're going to be required to
>"come in" when testing and integration is involved.

There are a lot of other advantages to actually going in to a lab,
especially if you have collaborators. Very often it's beneficial to
get more than one set of eyes on a problem, and having the benefit of
multiple experienced brains looking at a nasty problem often shortens
time to resolution by orders of magnitude. Plus you learn a lot more
working with other people on things than you do sitting by yourself
all the time.

I always look forward to the times when we do get together for
critical debugs or whatever.

It's a tradeoff. For debug I think having a lab that's accessible to
whoever needs it is a benefit, but if the team is geographically
distributed (even within the same city), commute times and fuel prices
continue to work against us.
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

[Randy Yates]

Eric Jacobsen <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:10:58 -0400, Randy Yates <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Ray Andraka <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Underwood <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>Equiping your home with real physical equipment is pretty affordable
>>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It depends. Sony Ericsson has an anechoic chamber that probably cost
>>>> on the order of $100,000. You're telling me that's affordable?
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, depending on your work, you may not have all the necessary
>>>> equipment. As another example, consider some of the specialized
>>>> Rohde and Schwartz equipment for 3G testing.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, sure, the little things are affordable, but that wasn't my point.
>>>
>>> There are facilities around here where you can rent chamber quite
>>> reasonably.
>>
>>Well, you're lucky! :) (And I know the acoustics guys at Sony Ericsson,
>>too, but what's the chances of that being the case for all or even most
>>folks in all equipment-need situations???)
>>
>>Renting equipment is an option, but that can get expensive quickly. (At
>>least on my salary it can...) And any particular client/company may be
>>unwilling to shell out A*B bucks per month for A folks using equipment
>>that cost B bucks per month when it can be "time-shared" at an office.
>>
>>But yes, I agree (and already concurred) that more equipment is more
>>affordable now than it ever has been. Just a logic analyzer would've
>>been out-of-reach 20 years ago. But I still say "it depends," and I
>>still think it's much more likely that you're going to be required to
>>"come in" when testing and integration is involved.
>
> There are a lot of other advantages to actually going in to a lab,
> especially if you have collaborators. Very often it's beneficial to
> get more than one set of eyes on a problem, and having the benefit of
> multiple experienced brains looking at a nasty problem often shortens
> time to resolution by orders of magnitude. Plus you learn a lot more
> working with other people on things than you do sitting by yourself
> all the time.
>
> I always look forward to the times when we do get together for
> critical debugs or whatever.
>
> It's a tradeoff. For debug I think having a lab that's accessible to
> whoever needs it is a benefit, but if the team is geographically
> distributed (even within the same city), commute times and fuel prices
> continue to work against us.

Very good points.

I definitely have the "telecommuting" mindset, but even for me, it does
have the same downsides you and John have discussed.

Well, ya'll did miss one important point: the opportunity to hear a few
new jokes...
--
% Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Jim Thomas]

Randy Yates wrote:
> Well, ya'll did miss one important point: the opportunity to hear a few
> new jokes...

Or having someone to share them with. I know few people outside of work
with whom I can share one like this:

http://xkcd.com/184/

--
Jim Thomas Principal Applications Engineer Bittware, Inc
[email protected] http://www.bittware.com (603) 226-0404 x536
The plural of anecdote is not data.

[Rick Lyons]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:30:55 -0400, Randy Yates <[email protected]>
wrote:

(snipped)
>
>Very good points.
>
>I definitely have the "telecommuting" mindset, but even for me, it does
>have the same downsides you and John have discussed.
>
>Well, ya'll did miss one important point: the opportunity to hear a few
>new jokes...

Hi Randy,
OK, here's one.

How did the midget in the circus have ***
with the 50-foot woman?



His friends put him up to it.

[-Rick-]

[Rick Lyons]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:57:18 -0400, Ray Andraka <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Randy Yates wrote:
>
>
>> But still, equipping your home lab can be costly when you consider
>> some of the potential items: JTAG debugger, Code Composer (what, $3000?
>> ouch!), Matlab (which most companies buy and provide to you), scopes,
>> DMMs, microscopes. Not impossible, and much more within reach than
>> in the past, but still a little pricey (for my salary at least!).
>
>
>The test equipment is downright cheap compared to the cost of the
>development software I use in my business (DSP applications for FPGAs).
> Even Matlab is comparatively cheap.

(snipped)

Hi Ray,
I always thought MATLAB was wildly expense.

Some time ago I talked to a guy at Lockheed-Martin
who purchased MATLAB for a single PC.
He told me the cost was $18,000 (18 thousand)!!
Although he did say that he bought 3 or 4 toolboxes.

$18,000 sure seems like a lot to me.

See Ya',
[-Rick-]

[Steve Underwood]

Rick Lyons wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:57:18 -0400, Ray Andraka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But still, equipping your home lab can be costly when you consider
>>> some of the potential items: JTAG debugger, Code Composer (what, $3000?
>>> ouch!), Matlab (which most companies buy and provide to you), scopes,
>>> DMMs, microscopes. Not impossible, and much more within reach than
>>> in the past, but still a little pricey (for my salary at least!).
>>
>> The test equipment is downright cheap compared to the cost of the
>> development software I use in my business (DSP applications for FPGAs).
>> Even Matlab is comparatively cheap.
>
> (snipped)
>
> Hi Ray,
> I always thought MATLAB was wildly expense.
>
> Some time ago I talked to a guy at Lockheed-Martin
> who purchased MATLAB for a single PC.
> He told me the cost was $18,000 (18 thousand)!!
> Although he did say that he bought 3 or 4 toolboxes.
>
> $18,000 sure seems like a lot to me.

All forms of CAD tool have always had this dumb cycle.....

Why is it $100k for an analogue workstation?

Because we don't sell a huge number, and $100k is what it takes to make
a reasonable profit.

So, if you sold 100 times as many copies it could be $1k, if you ignore
the support costs?

Well, the support costs are high, but ignoring those, then yes.

But, aren't the support costs heavily affected by the buginess and lousy
documentation you always get with a low volume product?

Well, there just isn't the volume to change that.

Have you actually watched your products in use? People install them only
where absolutely necessary. Floating licences improve thingsa little.
However, it results mostly in people at inexpensive workstations hunting
for a licence to run a model. Wouldn't cheap software let people have
copies everywhere? On their notebooks as they travel? On their home
machines for a little weekend work? Wouldn't every designer having a
copy at $1-2k each generate similar revenue by making the stuff cheap
enough to install everywhere?

Er, well.... Its $100k per licence, Sir.

Steve

[Randy Yates]

R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org (Rick Lyons) writes:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:30:55 -0400, Randy Yates <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>>
>>Very good points.
>>
>>I definitely have the "telecommuting" mindset, but even for me, it does
>>have the same downsides you and John have discussed.
>>
>>Well, ya'll did miss one important point: the opportunity to hear a few
>>new jokes...
>
> Hi Randy,
> OK, here's one.
>
> How did the midget in the circus have ***
> with the 50-foot woman?
>
>
>
> His friends put him up to it.

Ha! Friends are good!

Did you hear about the three strings who went to a bar to have a
beer? The first string went to the bar and said, "Bartender, gimme
three beers for me and my friends!" The bartender says, "You're a
string, aren't ya'?" String: "Well, yeah..." Bartender: "We don't
serve your type in here - you and your buddies take it home."

Well the first string went back and told his buddies what happened.
The second string said, "I'll get us a beer - just wait here." He
then proceeded to the bar just when the bartender was busy with
his back turned and said, "Three beers, please." The bartender
whips around and says, "You're a string, aren't ya'?" The string
said, "Yeah." Bartender: "I told your buddy we don't serve people
like you here - now split!"

So the second string sat down and told his buddies the situation.
The third string said, "*I'll* get us a beer." He musses his
hair up and ties himself up, addles up to the bar, and says,
"BARTENDER, GIVE ME THREE BEERS FOR ME AND MY BUDDIES." The
bartender says, "You're a string, aren't ya'?" The string
replies, ...






































































"NO, I'M A FRAYED KNOT!!!"


--
% Randy Yates % "Midnight, on the water...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % I saw... the ocean's daughter."
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head'
%%%% <[email protected]> % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Peter K.]

Aaaaaaggggghhh.

--
"And he sees the vision splendid
of the sunlit plains extended
And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars."

[Ray Andraka]

Rick Lyons wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:57:18 -0400, Ray Andraka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>But still, equipping your home lab can be costly when you consider
>>>some of the potential items: JTAG debugger, Code Composer (what, $3000?
>>>ouch!), Matlab (which most companies buy and provide to you), scopes,
>>>DMMs, microscopes. Not impossible, and much more within reach than
>>>in the past, but still a little pricey (for my salary at least!).
>>
>>
>>The test equipment is downright cheap compared to the cost of the
>>development software I use in my business (DSP applications for FPGAs).
>> Even Matlab is comparatively cheap.
>
>
> (snipped)
>
> Hi Ray,
> I always thought MATLAB was wildly expense.
>
> Some time ago I talked to a guy at Lockheed-Martin
> who purchased MATLAB for a single PC.
> He told me the cost was $18,000 (18 thousand)!!
> Although he did say that he bought 3 or 4 toolboxes.
>
> $18,000 sure seems like a lot to me.
>
> See Ya',
> [-Rick-]
>
>

Depends on what toolboxes you get with it. If you limit your selection
of toolboxes, it is far more reasonable. The mathworks website lists the
current price for an individual license at $1,900 for Matlab by itself,
and $800 for the signal processing toolbox. That is my set-up, plus the
matching simulink tools. Those prices are less than just the annual
maintenance on some of the logic synthesis and simulation tools. It is
a lot of money, but for someone like me, it is just factored into the
cost of doing business.