FPGA Central

hi everyone,

Kindly excuse, for writing this long a post.

I'm new to DSP & to DspRelated.com. I currently work as a s/w programme
in the windows world, and have been for a while now. No offense to anyone
but i find what i do a little too dry which literally puts my brain t
sleep.
Hence i've been pondering to switch careers for a while now, and hav
decided to take the first step.

I have always loved math (kinda lost touch now). I had a course i
Signals & Systems and in DSP back in college, which i was interested in.
Hence, I decided to start learning DSP, did some Google'ing and picked u
this book which had some excellent reviews (rightfully so), "The Scientis
& Engineer's Guide to DSP By Steven W Smith". I have read a few topics
next is the Fourier analysis. Before i get over excited and quit my job,
would like to know a few things about this field.


I bumped into the following article, while i was also wondering what a DS
engineer would do.
http://www.dspdesignline.com/howto/206502300

Here he mentions how the industry has changed such that, a 'typical Ds
Engineer' need not even know much about DSP theory or the math involved.
How true is this? Is it a narrow minded view of Dsp (A field which
understand is pretty vast)? What would anyone potentially be doing with Ds
in real world?

Even better, i would greatly appreciate if you could spare some time, an
let me in on what you are doing in this world of Dsp.
This would really help me understand what i could achieve learning it, an
what path i can take in DSP.

Would also appreciate, any advice/suggestions/information you feel tha
could help me as a beginner.

Thanks
ShaQ

There are various past threads, some recent, that should interest you:

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...r+-opportunity


Martin

--
Quidquid latine scriptum est, altum videtur.

learningDsp wrote:
> hi everyone,
>
> Kindly excuse, for writing this long a post.
>
...
> I bumped into the following article, while i was also wondering what a DSP
> engineer would do.
> http://www.dspdesignline.com/howto/206502300
>
> Here he mentions how the industry has changed such that, a 'typical Dsp
> Engineer' need not even know much about DSP theory or the math involved.
> How true is this? Is it a narrow minded view of Dsp (A field which i
> understand is pretty vast)? What would anyone potentially be doing with Dsp
> in real world?
>

I guess that statement refers to the increasing reliance on wiring
prefabricated code blocks together, without worrying too much about how
they work in detail, or how they are designed. So supposedly the
industry is represented by "users" and "designers", though any
self-respecting engineer would expect to be both. From the many past
posts to this list, I suspect most people here would apply that
description to managers, not engineers.

Most people on this list probably would regard dsp as a means to an end,
so would ask "what do you want to use it for?". Sonar, comms, forensics,
military, space, etc. In my case, working on music software, DSP can be
as much the end as the means - you might discover/invent some hitherto
unknown dsp process, that becomes a world-leading synthesis or
processing technique; and you are designing these things as a direct
creative act, not so much to "solve a problem". So dsp in music and
audio can feed more than the brain. Read about VST plugins, consider the
Mac ( lots more fun than Windows these days...) and look therein at
CoreAudio AudioUnits; and even the iPhone. Some of the top Apps for that
are music/audio ones. Helps if you like music, of course.

It is however also true that most computer musicians these days are
users, not designers; they know just about enough to select a particular
type of filter to get some effect, but would not have any idea how to
design one from scratch. Guilty as charged!

Richard Dobson

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:26:28 -0500, learningDsp wrote:

> hi everyone,
>
> Kindly excuse, for writing this long a post.
>
> I'm new to DSP & to DspRelated.com. I currently work as a s/w programmer
> in the windows world, and have been for a while now. No offense to
> anyone, but i find what i do a little too dry which literally puts my
> brain to sleep.
> Hence i've been pondering to switch careers for a while now, and have
> decided to take the first step.
>
> I have always loved math (kinda lost touch now). I had a course in
> Signals & Systems and in DSP back in college, which i was interested in.
> Hence, I decided to start learning DSP, did some Google'ing and picked
> up this book which had some excellent reviews (rightfully so), "The
> Scientist & Engineer's Guide to DSP By Steven W Smith". I have read a
> few topics, next is the Fourier analysis. Before i get over excited and
> quit my job, i would like to know a few things about this field.
>
>
> I bumped into the following article, while i was also wondering what a
> DSP engineer would do.
> http://www.dspdesignline.com/howto/206502300
>
> Here he mentions how the industry has changed such that, a 'typical Dsp
> Engineer' need not even know much about DSP theory or the math involved.
> How true is this? Is it a narrow minded view of Dsp (A field which i
> understand is pretty vast)? What would anyone potentially be doing with
> Dsp in real world?
>
> Even better, i would greatly appreciate if you could spare some time,
> and let me in on what you are doing in this world of Dsp. This would
> really help me understand what i could achieve learning it, and what
> path i can take in DSP.
>
> Would also appreciate, any advice/suggestions/information you feel that
> could help me as a beginner.
>
> Thanks
> ShaQ

Richard Dobson nailed it when he said that most people on this list don't
do DSP, they _use_ DSP to get other stuff done. Even those of us who are
consultants applying DSP techniques to a wide variety of problems don't
"do DSP" so much as we do systems, communications, control, etc.

I disagree to some extent with the Designline article* about DSP work
diminishing to appliance users. If you count fielded units you'll find
that most of the design work is segregated into systems architects and
coders. Indeed, if you think about how special it is to have someone
who's an ace circuit designer as well as an ace coder this makes sense.
But if you count the total design hours spent I think you'll find a lot
of people on smaller projects who are embracing more of the work than the
article indicates. It's just that the work is embedded into other
things, rather than being sold as an end in and of itself.

I would suggest that a better use for your current skill set, and one
that could lead to more DSP work if you aim yourself correctly, would be
to try to get into doing embedded systems programming. This is another
field where the thing you do isn't the end product of the system (no one
sells microwave oven software, but lots of companies sell microwave
ovens). But if you like dealing with a wider variety of issues, and you
get satisfaction from seeing hardware work, programming embedded systems
can be a load of fun. Furthermore, since much of the 'real' DSP work
that's going on is embedded in the embedded firmware, embedded systems
programming is a good way to start sneaking up on the field of "DSP".

* Rune Allnor has also made comments to this effect: I respectfully
disagree with him, too.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

On Jun 11, 11:28*am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:26:28 -0500, learningDsp wrote:
> > hi everyone,
>
> > Kindly excuse, for writing this long a post.
>
> > I'm new to DSP & to DspRelated.com. I currently work as a s/w programmer
> > in the windows world, and have been for a while now. No offense to
> > anyone, but i find what i do a little too dry which literally puts my
> > brain to sleep.
> > Hence i've been pondering to switch careers for a while now, and have
> > decided to take the first step.
>
> > I have always loved math (kinda lost touch now). *I had a course in
> > Signals & Systems and in DSP back in college, which i was interested in..
> > Hence, I decided to start learning DSP, did some Google'ing and picked
> > up this book which had some excellent reviews (rightfully so), "The
> > Scientist & Engineer's Guide to DSP By Steven W Smith". I have read a
> > few topics, next is the Fourier analysis. Before i get over excited and
> > quit my job, i would like to know a few things about this field.
>
> > I bumped into the following article, while i was also wondering what a
> > DSP engineer would do.
> >http://www.dspdesignline.com/howto/206502300
>
> > Here he mentions how the industry has changed such that, a 'typical Dsp
> > Engineer' need not even know much about DSP theory or the math involved..
> > How true is this? Is it a narrow minded view of Dsp (A field which i
> > understand is pretty vast)? What would anyone potentially be doing with
> > Dsp in real world?
>
> > Even better, i would greatly appreciate if you could spare some time,
> > and let me in on what you are doing in this world of Dsp. This would
> > really help me understand what i could achieve learning it, and what
> > path i can take in DSP.
>
> > Would also appreciate, any advice/suggestions/information you feel that
> > could help me as a beginner.
>
> > Thanks
> > ShaQ
>
> Richard Dobson nailed it when he said that most people on this list don't
> do DSP, they _use_ DSP to get other stuff done. *Even those of us who are
> consultants applying DSP techniques to a wide variety of problems don't
> "do DSP" so much as we do systems, communications, control, etc.
>
> I disagree to some extent with the Designline article* about DSP work
> diminishing to appliance users. *If you count fielded units you'll find
> that most of the design work is segregated into systems architects and
> coders. *Indeed, if you think about how special it is to have someone
> who's an ace circuit designer as well as an ace coder this makes sense. *
> But if you count the total design hours spent I think you'll find a lot
> of people on smaller projects who are embracing more of the work than the
> article indicates. *It's just that the work is embedded into other
> things, rather than being sold as an end in and of itself.
>
> I would suggest that a better use for your current skill set, and one
> that could lead to more DSP work if you aim yourself correctly, would be
> to try to get into doing embedded systems programming. *This is another
> field where the thing you do isn't the end product of the system (no one
> sells microwave oven software, but lots of companies sell microwave
> ovens). *But if you like dealing with a wider variety of issues, and you
> get satisfaction from seeing hardware work, programming embedded systems
> can be a load of fun. *Furthermore, since much of the 'real' DSP work
> that's going on is embedded in the embedded firmware, embedded systems
> programming is a good way to start sneaking up on the field of "DSP".
>
> * Rune Allnor has also made comments to this effect: I respectfully
> disagree with him, too.
>
> --www.wescottdesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I call people who write low-level dsp software or do an equivalent
implementation in hardware, who do not understand the theory and
practical details behind DSP, "Lousy Engineers". They often make
stupid mistakes, producing systems that seem to them to work, but
whose performance falls short of what it is supposed to be. In
general, how do you test a system that you do not understand?

Dirk

On 11 Jun, 17:28, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

> Richard Dobson nailed it when he said that most people on this list don't
> do DSP, they _use_ DSP to get other stuff done.

Agreed. *

> I disagree to some extent with the Designline article* about DSP work
> diminishing to appliance users.
....
> * Rune Allnor has also made comments to this effect: I respectfully
> disagree with him, too.

Well, I have only expressed what observations I have
made on how the world actually works, which is not at
all how I would want that it worked.

I think Vladimir made the point for me with his list
of emails, published in another thread. To you and
me the people who write that sort of stuff are, well,
stupidents and studiots, to use Vladimir's words.

To the 15-year-olds of today, who might have talents
and interests which might lead them in contact with DSP
within the next decade or so, the same people are future
teachers, bosses and clients. Not a pleasent prospect,
if you ask me.

Rune

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:52:11 -0700, Rune Allnor wrote:

> On 11 Jun, 17:28, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>
>> Richard Dobson nailed it when he said that most people on this list
>> don't do DSP, they _use_ DSP to get other stuff done.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I disagree to some extent with the Designline article* about DSP work
>> diminishing to appliance users.
> ...
>> * Rune Allnor has also made comments to this effect: I respectfully
>> disagree with him, too.
>
> Well, I have only expressed what observations I have made on how the
> world actually works, which is not at all how I would want that it
> worked.

Interestingly, I'm expressing what observations I've made, too. There
are a _lot_ of "DSP appliance users" out there, who more or less
mindlessly put together canned routines, and who are aided and abetted by
The Mathworks. Yet there are also a lot of folk, not all of them old,
who are doing small apps, working from the bare metal outward, who meed
the definition of "old time DSP engineer". The salient point for this
thread is that they are rarely called "DSP engineers". They're called
"Bob, who always makes things work", or "Systems Engineer", or "FPGA guy
(give him all the weird stuff)", or "Senior Software Engineer (give him
all the weird stuff)", etc.

Clearly we come from the same worlds (unless Mars has it's Nordic
countries stashed someplace and you have a Very Interesting USENET
connection). Yet we see two different views. I think it's because I
come more from embedded where things have to be small and efficient, and
you seem to come more from the "gather a ton of data and process it on a
PC" world.

> I think Vladimir made the point for me with his list of emails,
> published in another thread. To you and me the people who write that
> sort of stuff are, well, stupidents and studiots, to use Vladimir's
> words.

Except that I absolutely, positively reject Vladimir's assumption that
just because they don't have knowledge and facility in the difficult
field of DSP that they are mentally or morally inferior to me. I can't
accept that assumption because I know too many people who are a lot
sharper than me in an infinite number of ways, yet get a different answer
every time they add two and two.

> To the 15-year-olds of today, who might have talents and interests which
> might lead them in contact with DSP within the next decade or so, the
> same people are future teachers, bosses and clients. Not a pleasant
> prospect, if you ask me.

True, but it's one that I deal with all the time. Fortunately I run
across enough people who are willing to call me a systems engineer* and
give me free rein. One _can_ function in such an environment, although
having good people skills as well as technical skills is practically
mandatory.

* The working definition of "Systems Engineer" is "We don't know what he
does, or how he does it, but he's obviously smart and valuable, so we'll
pay him".

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:52:11 -0700, Rune Allnor wrote:
<snip>
>
> Clearly we come from the same worlds (unless Mars has it's Nordic
> countries stashed someplace and you have a Very Interesting USENET
> connection). Yet we see two different views. I think it's because I
> come more from embedded where things have to be small and efficient, and
> you seem to come more from the "gather a ton of data and process it on a
> PC" world.
>

Last I checked, we can do both. Whether or not to do so
depends on the question being asked.

<snip>

--
Les Cargill

On 11 Jun, 19:17, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:52:11 -0700, Rune Allnor wrote:

> Clearly we come from the same worlds (unless Mars has it's Nordic
> countries stashed someplace and you have a Very Interesting USENET
> connection).

You might be surprised...

>*Yet we see two different views. *I think it's because I
> come more from embedded where things have to be small and efficient, and
> you seem to come more from the "gather a ton of data and process it on a
> PC" world.

Seems we have pretty much the same impression of our respecive
worlds, although I disagree with your suggested casues of our
different views and opinions.

I think the main difference is that you deal with measurable,
quantifiable deliveries: Either this controller contains the
temperature (or whatever the quantity is) in the specified
range - which is measured by some independent, well understood,
quantitative method - or it doesn't. Yes/No. Pass/Fail.
Quantitative = numbers. Very simple.

The people I used to work for appeared to have seen all the
Star Treks, Sci-Fis and C.S.Is, and wanted all those cool toys.
OK, C.S.I didn't start until I had already reached Dante's
6th level (I even had a quick decent to the 7th level, but I
fortunately didn't stay there very long), but you get the idea.

Anyway, the bosses and clients wanted a sonar that told them
that this target was, say, a wild salmon, while that target
was a farmed salmon. And they were only interested in salmons.
Cods, trouts, hallibuts - not intersting.

There were various economic, political, zoological, environmental
etc reasons for people wanting to make that distinction, and
the argument all too often went like "We are approaching/in
the 3rd millennium and this type of system ought to be available
by now. Rune is good at these things, we'll have him make
this data processing system."

When I told them that all a sonar can do is to locate *some*
*nondescript* target in space and *possibly* track it over
time (I certainly can not come up with a quantitative difference
between 'wild salmon' and 'farmed salmon' by means of sonar
data), *I* was all of a sudden blamed for being uncooperative.
Of course, it didn't take much of a discussion before bosses
and clients got the impression that I thought they were stupid[*].

Which usually (but not always) was wrong. I thought they were
incompetent.
[*] This has nothing to do with people skills. It is impossible
to point out a fact on a basic level similar to 2+2 =/= 5 without
the opposite party getting that impression. On one occasion I
essentially exposed a professor in radars and electromagnetics
as a fraud. In order to get his 'measurements' to fit, he guy
'calibrated' the EM refractive index of air to a value of 1.4.
I looked up a high-school physcs book to find a value of 1.0004
(or maybe it was 1.004, I don't remember).

I just can't see how people skills can prevent that this guy
gets the impression that I think he is incompetent/a fraud/a
total twat. But that was totally typical for the kind of
discussions I used to have with bosses and clients.

> > I think Vladimir made the point for me with his list of emails,
> > published in another thread. To you and me the people who write that
> > sort of stuff are, well, stupidents and studiots, to use Vladimir's
> > words.
>
> Except that I absolutely, positively reject Vladimir's assumption that
> just because they don't have knowledge and facility in the difficult
> field of DSP that they are mentally or morally inferior to me. *I can't
> accept that assumption because I know too many people who are a lot
> sharper than me in an infinite number of ways, yet get a different answer
> every time they add two and two.

Do you read a superiority syndrome into Vlad's posts? Really?

Interesting. I don't. I see somebody who is intensely
frustrated with people who want quick'n dirty, canned
solutions for free, be it economics or efforts. That's
a frustration I most certainly can recognize and sympathize
with. Maybe it's a cultural thing; some dividing line
down the midst of the Atlantic.

> > To the 15-year-olds of today, who might have talents and interests which
> > might lead them in contact with DSP within the next decade or so, the
> > same people are future teachers, bosses and clients. Not a pleasant
> > prospect, if you ask me.
>
> True, but it's one that I deal with all the time. *Fortunately I run
> across enough people who are willing to call me a systems engineer* and
> give me free rein. *One _can_ function in such an environment, although
> having good people skills as well as technical skills is practically
> mandatory.

What do you prefer the next time you travel by aeroplane?
A pilot who has people skills but only rudimentary knowledge
about planes and flying? Or a pilot who knows all the nooks
and crannies of his plane?

> * The working definition of "Systems Engineer" is "We don't know what he
> does, or how he does it, but he's obviously smart and valuable, so we'll
> pay him".

That particular situation - being approached as somebody who
has skills in my own rights, as opposed to being an operator
on somebody else's behalf - has occured to me exactly two (2)
times over the past 20 years. On both occasions with rather
stunning success, compared to all the BS I have been dragged
into. The first time I managed to use acoustics to do measurements
in rather complicated structures. That project started with
my clients being pissed off by some professor, who had suggested
an approach that obviously did not work, and my clients wanted
to cut him loose. I basically pointed out that the guy was a
fraud (it was the professor I mentioned above), told my clients
why, and what should be done instead. The other time I managed
to sort out a number of operational snags and glitches in a
complex operation.

Again, the problem is that people (bosses, clients) near my
line of work, who do not have basik skills, knowledge or the
hands-on experience I have, *think* they understand what might
be reasonable to expect, when in fact they do not.

That's a lose-lose situation for everybody involved.

Your greatest business asset is that your clients know
they are laymen in your field of work. Enjoy that situation
as long as it lasts. It will not remain like that forever.
Maybe you personally will stay 'top dog' due to age and
seniority, but from a community POV your profession, too,
will end up in the degenerate hell where mine has been
for decades already.

Rune

>Richard Dobson nailed it when he said that most people on this list don'

>do DSP, they _use_ DSP to get other stuff done. Even those of us who ar

>consultants applying DSP techniques to a wide variety of problems don't
>"do DSP" so much as we do systems, communications, control, etc.

Correct me if i am wrong,
Basically what it means for me is, i not only have to learn DSP, also nee
to be familiar with other technologies where it is used. Hence, I have
lot of reading coming up.

On 12 Jun, 15:34, "learningDsp" <ohS...@GMail.com> wrote:
> >Richard Dobson nailed it when he said that most people on this list don't
> >do DSP, they _use_ DSP to get other stuff done. *Even those of us who are
> >consultants applying DSP techniques to a wide variety of problems don't
> >"do DSP" so much as we do systems, communications, control, etc.
>
> Correct me if i am wrong,
> Basically what it means for me is, i not only have to learn DSP, also need
> to be familiar with other technologies where it is used. Hence, I have a
> lot of reading coming up.

No. It means you are approaching DSP from the wrong angle.
Don't get into DSP for its own sake. Learn and use DSP
because it serves some utilitarian purpose.

It's like banging a nail with a hammer: A total ridiculous
skill when seen in isolation, but a skill essential to woodwork.
In other words, you don't learn to use a hammer because you
think it's fun banging on stuff. You learn it because the skill
is necessary to achieve some larger goal.

So instead of searching up the tool DSP, search for applications
you think are fun. Then learn whatever skills are necessary
to get good in this activity.

Ah, yes: Don't quit your current job. 'Work' is about making
a living and obtaining an income. Quite essential to most
people. If you want 'fun', 'interesting' and 'satisfaction',
look for a hobby.

Rune

Thank you all for your quick responses. Its very encouraging for me to kno
there are a lot of professionals out here who are willing to take some tim
out to answer some really basic questions.

Unfortunately for me, I got lost quite a bit between posts. Maybe i shoul
do a little more reading and browsing, get some understanding of th
industry as to why..where..and how things are used. But, i surely will b
back for a few tips & suggestions. I understand people are here to discus
more complex real world problems that you face, hence i will try to refrai
myself from posting any 'homework problems'.

thanks
ShaQ

Thank you all for your quick responses. Its very encouraging for me to kno
there are a lot of professionals out here who are willing to take some tim
out to answer some really basic questions.

Unfortunately for me, I got lost quite a bit between posts. Maybe i shoul
do a little more reading and browsing, get some understanding of th
industry as to why..where..and how things are used. But, i surely will b
back for a few tips & suggestions. I understand people are here to discus
more complex real world problems that you face, hence i will try to refrai
myself from posting any 'homework problems'.

thanks
ShaQ

>....
>Don't get into DSP for its own sake. Learn and use DSP
>because it serves some utilitarian purpose.
>
>
>Rune
>

this is why i would like to know what a DSP engineer does so it helps m
understand where i stand as to.., am i taking the right path by trying t
learn DSP.
I came across a couple of links like...http://www.dspguide.com/ch1/2.htm
(Here a few applications of DSP are described at a 'high level?'.. If
may call it so)

It would be helpful, if i can come across links that explain DSP, maybe i
the same manner as above, but a little more in depth. Maybe, that way
could be introduced to, where in systems does DSP come into play, & wha
was achieved by going the DSP way.

I am not necessarily looking for a short description of the system, lik
in the link above.

On 12 Jun, 17:54, "learningDsp" <ohS...@GMail.com> wrote:
> >....
> >Don't get into DSP for its own sake. Learn and use DSP
> >because it serves some utilitarian purpose.
>
> >Rune
>
> this is why i would like to know what a DSP engineer does so it helps me
> understand where i stand as to.., am i taking the right path by trying to
> learn DSP.

No, you are not.

We are saying that you should find some topic you want to
learn how to work/play with, and *then* learn the tools
and trades necessary to become good or successful at this
activity. You seem to have fallen in love with the tool DSP,
and are looking for applications. Don't do that.

Would you choose to become a carpenter just because you
like to hit things with a hammer?

Rune

On Jun 12, 12:52*pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 12 Jun, 17:54, "learningDsp" <ohS...@GMail.com> wrote:
>
> > >....
> > >Don't get into DSP for its own sake. Learn and use DSP
> > >because it serves some utilitarian purpose.
>
> > >Rune
>
> > this is why i would like to know what a DSP engineer does so it helps me
> > understand where i stand as to.., am i taking the right path by trying to
> > learn DSP.
>
> No, you are not.
>
> We are saying that you should find some topic you want to
> learn how to work/play with, and *then* learn the tools
> and trades necessary to become good or successful at this
> activity. You seem to have fallen in love with the tool DSP,
> and are looking for applications. Don't do that.
>
> Would you choose to become a carpenter just because you
> like to hit things with a hammer?
>
> Rune

Rune,

I don't agree. I like doing DSP and Math. If there is not DSP in the
job I won't take it. I started learning DSP in an MSEE (DSP
concentration) program almost 30 years ago, then I have worked for
various companies (direct, contracting, consulting) that worked in
vastly different application areas, were I learned about the specific
application areas, learned what additional DSP or other information I
needed to know, and with a single exception, primarily worked on the
DSP part of the job.

The tools are facinating. Learning to apply them is interesting.
What they are applied to just has to be interesting.

Dirk

On 12 Jun, 19:46, bellda2...@cox.net wrote:
> On Jun 12, 12:52*pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Jun, 17:54, "learningDsp" <ohS...@GMail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >....
> > > >Don't get into DSP for its own sake. Learn and use DSP
> > > >because it serves some utilitarian purpose.
>
> > > >Rune
>
> > > this is why i would like to know what a DSP engineer does so it helpsme
> > > understand where i stand as to.., am i taking the right path by trying to
> > > learn DSP.
>
> > No, you are not.
>
> > We are saying that you should find some topic you want to
> > learn how to work/play with, and *then* learn the tools
> > and trades necessary to become good or successful at this
> > activity. You seem to have fallen in love with the tool DSP,
> > and are looking for applications. Don't do that.
>
> > Would you choose to become a carpenter just because you
> > like to hit things with a hammer?
>
> > Rune
>
> Rune,
>
> I don't agree. *I like doing DSP and Math. *If there is not DSP in the
> job I won't take it. *I started learning DSP in an MSEE (DSP
> concentration) program almost 30 years ago,

So you got into DSP in the mid/late '70s?

In those days DSP was a new and emerging field, computers
were the stuff of specialists and a musician had to actually
know how to play a musical instrument.

What worked for you 30 years ago, when you were a young and
curious engineer, doesn't work today. The fact that your
approach still works for you is down to your age and seniority
alone, not the field you chose for a profession.

Times change. Believe me, I'm old enough to know. Even, as it
seems, if I'm your junior by some 10-15 years.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:

Hello Dr. Rune,

Glad to see you again. Have you been in the sea all that time?
What a pleasure to see the real character here.

> Interesting. I don't. I see somebody who is intensely
> frustrated with people who want quick'n dirty, canned
> solutions for free, be it economics or efforts. That's
> a frustration I most certainly can recognize and sympathize
> with. Maybe it's a cultural thing; some dividing line
> down the midst of the Atlantic.

Cultural thing indeed. "We don't have bad students, we only have good
and average students". And btw, there is no such word in English for
something that can be explained as a combination of platitude, triteness
and vulgarity. That simply means they don't see this as a problem :-)

I think there should be a limit of how low do you want to go. Especially
as this is comp.dsp, not alt.idiot.student.help. The one who asks a
question should at least know what he is asking about.

VLV

On 15 Jun, 18:21, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> Hello Dr. Rune,
>
> Glad to see you again. Have you been in the sea all that time?
> What a pleasure to see the real character here.

No, unfortunately. It seems lots of activity at sea has
more or less ended, due to the banking crisis. I had to
refocus some of my work, from interesting long-term stuff
to can-provide-billable-services-in-a-few-months kind of
things.

> > Interesting. I don't. I see somebody who is intensely
> > frustrated with people who want quick'n dirty, canned
> > solutions for free, be it economics or efforts. That's
> > a frustration I most certainly can recognize and sympathize
> > with. Maybe it's a cultural thing; some dividing line
> > down the midst of the Atlantic.
>
> Cultural thing indeed. "We don't have bad students, we only have good
> and average students".

Reminds me of a Norwegian statement a few years back:
"We want everybody to be above average!"

> And btw, there is no such word in English for
> something that can be explained as a combination of platitude, triteness
> and vulgarity.

Is there such a term in Russian? One of the guy's I met
off-shore taught me a word that might be close. The best
seaman I ever met; grew up in the middle of Siberia. He
was 17 or 18 when he saw the sea the first time.
I *think* the word was 'njevjadzde' or something like that.
(This was three years ago; I haven't heard or used the term
since, so I might be way off.)

Anyway, the term was more derogatory than 'njekulturnik'.
'Njekulturnik' was, according to my friend, a result of
up-bringing and is thus an involuntary status. This other
term was apparently more about attitude, and thus about
personality.

> That simply means they don't see this as a problem :-)

It's amazing what can be learned from mere etymology.

> I think there should be a limit of how low do you want to go. Especially
> as this is comp.dsp, not alt.idiot.student.help. The one who asks a
> question should at least know what he is asking about.
>
> VLV

I'd settle for that those who don't know, know that they
don't know...

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:

> On 15 Jun, 18:21, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>Rune Allnor wrote:
>>Hello Dr. Rune,
>>
>>Glad to see you again. Have you been in the sea all that time?
>>What a pleasure to see the real character here.
>
> No, unfortunately. It seems lots of activity at sea has
> more or less ended, due to the banking crisis. I had to
> refocus some of my work, from interesting long-term stuff
> to can-provide-billable-services-in-a-few-months kind of
> things.

Interesing. So, did they abandon the oil exploration, or just changed
the approach?

>>Cultural thing indeed. "We don't have bad students, we only have good
>>and average students".
>
> Reminds me of a Norwegian statement a few years back:
> "We want everybody to be above average!"

Huh. This is one of the things that broke the West.

"You can't give everything to everybody, because there is too many of
everybody and too little of everything", as my friend used to say.


>>And btw, there is no such word in English for
>>something that can be explained as a combination of platitude, triteness
>>and vulgarity.
>
> Is there such a term in Russian?

"poshlost"

> One of the guy's I met
> off-shore taught me a word that might be close. The best
> seaman I ever met; grew up in the middle of Siberia. He
> was 17 or 18 when he saw the sea the first time.
> I *think* the word was 'njevjadzde' or something like that.

"nevejda" - ignoramus
"neveja" - lout

> (This was three years ago; I haven't heard or used the term
> since, so I might be way off.)
>
> Anyway, the term was more derogatory than 'njekulturnik'.

"uncultured"

> 'Njekulturnik' was, according to my friend, a result of
> up-bringing and is thus an involuntary status.

The behavior of a person is the responsibility of his own. Blaming on
something from the past is no more then a convenient indulgence.

> This other
> term was apparently more about attitude, and thus about
> personality.

Your friend has a good literature Russian.

>
>>That simply means they don't see this as a problem :-)
>
> It's amazing what can be learned from mere etymology.

BTW, in Russian, there is no word for "privacy", and this leads to the
correct conclusion, too.

I wonder what are the etymological differences in Norwegian.


VLV

On 15 Jun, 22:26, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 15 Jun, 18:21, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>Rune Allnor wrote:
> >>Hello Dr. Rune,
>
> >>Glad to see you again. Have you been in the sea all that time?
> >>What a pleasure to see the real character here.
>
> > No, unfortunately. It seems lots of activity at sea has
> > more or less ended, due to the banking crisis. *I had to
> > refocus some of my work, from interesting long-term stuff
> > to can-provide-billable-services-in-a-few-months kind of
> > things.
>
> Interesing. So, did they abandon the oil exploration, or just changed
> the approach?

Put it on hold. With the tension in the Korean peninsula, oil
prices are on the rise again, so everybody *want* to develop
new fields. But with no one wanting / being able to lend
out capital, no one can find funding for the projects.

> >>Cultural thing indeed. "We don't have bad students, we only have good
> >>and average students".
>
> > Reminds me of a Norwegian statement a few years back:
> > "We want everybody to be above average!"
>
> Huh. This is one of the things that broke the West.
>
> "You can't give everything to everybody, because there is too many of
> everybody and too little of everything", as my friend used to say.

One way of putting it.

> >>And btw, there is no such word in English for
> >>something that can be explained as a combination of platitude, triteness
> >>and vulgarity.
>
> > Is there such a term in Russian?
>
> "poshlost"
>
> > One of the guy's I met
> > off-shore taught me a word that might be close. The best
> > seaman I ever met; grew up in the middle of Siberia. He
> > was 17 or 18 when he saw the sea the first time.
> > I *think* the word was 'njevjadzde' or something like that.
>
> "nevejda" - ignoramus
> "neveja" - lout

I don't remember the exact context where the word came up.
It could be any of these.

> > (This was three years ago; I haven't heard or used the term
> > since, so I might be way off.)
>
> > Anyway, the term was more derogatory than 'njekulturnik'.
>
> "uncultured"
>
> > 'Njekulturnik' was, according to my friend, a result of
> > up-bringing and is thus an involuntary status.
>
> The behavior of a person is the responsibility of his own. Blaming on
> something from the past is no more then a convenient indulgence.
>
> > This other
> > term was apparently more about attitude, and thus about
> > personality.
>
> Your friend has a good literature Russian.
>
>
>
> >>That simply means they don't see this as a problem :-)
>
> > It's amazing what can be learned from mere etymology.
>
> BTW, in Russian, there is no word for "privacy", and this leads to the
> correct conclusion, too.
>
> I wonder what are the etymological differences in Norwegian.

One rather morbid difference between Norwegian and English
I am aware of, is that Norwegian has no mechanism to express
sympathy with somebody whose friends or distant family have
died.

In English the simple 'I'm sorry' covers this, but in Norwegian
the similar expression is a mere platitude. The equivalent to
'please accept my condolances' is very formal. I wouldn't use
it to anybody but close family of the deceased, and then only,
say, between the time of death and the end of the funeral
ceremony.

One can speculate why this is - maybe death was so common
in the olden days, it was not worth commenting on? I have
no idea.

Rune

Rune Allnor <[email protected]> writes:

[snip]

> One rather morbid difference between Norwegian and English
> I am aware of, is that Norwegian has no mechanism to express
> sympathy with somebody whose friends or distant family have
> died.
>
> In English the simple 'I'm sorry' covers this, but in Norwegian
> the similar expression is a mere platitude. The equivalent to
> 'please accept my condolances' is very formal. I wouldn't use
> it to anybody but close family of the deceased, and then only,
> say, between the time of death and the end of the funeral
> ceremony.

Now I am curious. I've been learning Swedish using Rosetta Stone, and
it has taught me to say "Jag beklagar sorgen." in such a circumstance,
which I believe means something like "I am sorry for (or regret) your
sorrow." I understand that Norwegian and Swedish are mutually
understandable. Does this translate into Norwegian, or is it also a
mere platitude? What is the Norwegian expression that "I'm sorry"
translates into?

> One can speculate why this is - maybe death was so common
> in the olden days, it was not worth commenting on? I have
> no idea.
>
> Rune

Scott
--
Scott Hemphill [email protected]
"This isn't flying. This is falling, with style." -- Buzz Lightyear

On 15 Jun, 23:15, Scott Hemphill <hemph...@hemphills.net> wrote:
> Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > One rather morbid difference between Norwegian and English
> > I am aware of, is that Norwegian has no mechanism to express
> > sympathy with somebody whose friends or distant family have
> > died.
>
> > In English the simple 'I'm sorry' covers this, but in Norwegian
> > the similar expression is a mere platitude. The equivalent to
> > 'please accept my condolances' is very formal. I wouldn't use
> > it to anybody but close family of the deceased, and then only,
> > say, between the time of death and the end of the funeral
> > ceremony.
>
> Now I am curious. *I've been learning Swedish using Rosetta Stone, and
> it has taught me to say "Jag beklagar sorgen." in such a circumstance,
> which I believe means something like "I am sorry for (or regret) your
> sorrow."

Your translation is correct.

>*I understand that Norwegian and Swedish are mutually
> understandable.

Yes, they are. The day-to-day languages are very similar,
excepth for single words[*]. However, Swedish is quite a bit
more formal. I, as a native Norwegian-speaker, can fully
understand the formal Swedish language, but I do not
necessarily understand the underlying rules and constructs
that govern it. So I wouldn't know what forms are
appropriate and which are not, in the types of situations
we are talking about here.

>*Does this translate into Norwegian, or is it also a
> mere platitude? *What is the Norwegian expression that "I'm sorry"
> translates into?

The exact translation of "I'm sorry" to Norwegian is
"jeg beklager." I'm sure you can see the similarity
with Swedish. It might be that what you have learned
works in Swedish; again, I am not familiar with the
subtle nuances of the Swedish language in such rather
sensitive circumstances.

As for the Norwegian "jeg beklager," it's what you would
say as an apology in everyday life, where you would use
"I'm sorry", "excuse me" or anything like that in English.

It's just the case of a loss of a reasonably close friend
or relative that is *not* covered by this expression in
Norwegian, and there are no other expressions I know of,
that do.

"Condolances" requires a *very* close relation to the
deceased, both in family relations and time. It's what
one could say to parents, spouses or children of the
deceased, but few others. Siblings of a deceased are
a borderline case: maybe it can be used, maybe not.
More distant than that - no.

Rune
[*] Some examples:

Artig : No - fun, hilarious
Swe- polite
Nyttig : No - useful
Swe- healthy
Rolig : No - quiet, calm, soothing
Swe- fun, hilarious

There is this story about a Swedish nurse that worked
on a Norwegian hospital. She noted "The patient has
glassögon" in the journal. The Norwegian nurse, who
relieved her, tried in vain to remove the eye from
the socket: "Glassögon" in Swedish means "eyeglasses,"
"spectacles." "Glassøye" in Norwegian means "prosthetic
for eyeball."

On Jun 12, 7:29*pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> In those days DSP was a new and emerging field, computers
> were the stuff of specialists and a musician had to actually
> know how to play a musical instrument.
>
> What worked for you 30 years ago, when you were a young and
> curious engineer, doesn't work today. The fact that your
> approach still works for you is down to your age and seniority
> alone, not the field you chose for a profession.
Hundred percent agree. To my knowledge, this has already changed.
Increasingly, you see employers after people who can work throughout
the acquisition chain. I, for instance, do analog, mixed-signal and
DSP, comms, all the way to architecture; write C (sometimes assembly),
RTL hdl, and worry about MUTEX in co-designed HW/SW. Perhaps I'm one
of those mediocre in everything folks that were mentioned earlier. I
didn't ask for this, I'm paid to do precisely this.

> Times change. Believe me, I'm old enough to know. Even, as it
> seems, if I'm your junior by some 10-15 years.
The landscape is changing. Gone are the days when people used to
squeeze every ounce of performance/cost in their systems. Believe it
or not, certain systems can live with shortcomings especially if you'r
in the business of evaluating ideas. That said, I find myself from
time to time stressing whether I'm trying to carry to many eggs in one
basket. Uncontrollable pangs of depression and self-doubt are the
results. But again, I'm a mere mortal and it's not for me to decide
how the world should work. Read Generation X to understand what kind
of pressure we - the wretched folks in their 20's - have to put up
with in a globalized world just to make ends meet.

I'm surrounded by bunch of programmers who hypothesize about how to
use readings from a perfect device as to yield the most engaging and
fun user experience. I turn around for help or discussion and find
nobody. I surf the net and get insulted by people of statures and
brilliance that leave me in a paradoxical mix of pain, joy, and awe.

"Is this it? Is this how it ends. Squirming and breathless. A mouse at
the feet of giants."

-M

On Jun 15, 3:06*pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> Reminds me of a Norwegian statement a few years back:
> "We want everybody to be above average!"

which is consistent with Garrison Kiellor's "Lake Wobegon, Minnesota"
with "Norwegian bachelor farmers" and "where the women are strong, the
men good-looking, and the children are above average."

Ya vell, maybe connection, I'll say.

you betcha.

r b-j