sparky
Joined 17 years ago
Joined 17 years ago
Schmartboard also makes 1.0mm pitch BGA adapter boards, but a lot of the high-end stuff these days is moving to 0.8/0.5/0.4mm pitch. Of course, for those kinds of things, the extra parasitics of an adapter board are probably a no-no in any case.
For an example of what the signaling might look like, see https://research.nvidia.com/publication/054-pjb-20-gbs-groun...
2) For those companies that are privately held (whether that's because of the regulations in #1 or for more fundamental reasons), separate regulations (accredited investor rules et al.) prevent the average Joe from investing privately.
3) On top of #1 and #2, market forces and norms give more investment opportunities (both public and private) to large, established players than individual laymen. For example:
* Companies may prefer to take $1M each from 5 large investors than $1k each from 5000 people, both to reduce logistical burden and because those large investors statistically have other unique things to offer like expertise, advice, and connections. This is unfortunate for the small-time-but-sophisticated investor, but seems quite rational.
* IPO shares only being offered to large friends and clients of the underwriter. The justification is reduced logistical overhead as in the previous case, but the true motivation is widely suspected to be cronyism.
This is about doing histogramming on an FPGA, not a tool to group FPGA dice into speed grades :)
Would be interesting to see how an FPGA stacks up against a GPU on this problem. GPUs are very fast at parallel histogramming, but hardwiring the number-to-bin-index computation for a particular problem instance might buy you quite a bit of energy efficiency, or even possibly a bit of performance if the computation involves a divide. If the bins are of non-uniform size and the indexing computation involves a binary search on a lookup table, it seems like the much higher clock speeds on a GPU would win out.
* Trailers are 9-10 feet high, so a fully palletized truck would (a) Have very tall unwieldy pallets, and you'd have to carefully order things so boxes on the bottom don't get crushed, (b) need racks or something similar to hold multiple tiers of normal-height pallets, or (c) be half-empty
* Even with the current process, getting boxes off the truck is not even close to the bottleneck. When I worked at Target, 2 people threw boxes onto rollers, 5-6 people sorted the boxes onto pallets organized by area of the store as they went by, 2 people rolled those pallets onto the sales floor and threw each box in front of the appropriate aisle, and ~20 people opened the boxes and stocked the shelves. The 2 people unloading the truck could always keep well ahead of the 20 on the sales floor.
* An alternate strategy might be to sort the boxes into pallets by store area at the distribution center rather than at the store. You might get some economies of scale out of doing this process for 100 stores at 1 distribution center, but it may still not be worth it to put all that needed floor space, latency, and congestion in what I imagine is already a very congested point in the supply chain. Better to distribute that part to the endpoints, since you already have 100k square feet per store to work with that's just sitting there while the store's closed.
Goods that are seized and forfeited as bearing a mark
that is a counterfeit of a registered trademark, piratical
of a registered copyright or imported in violation of
distribution rights agreements are routinely destroyed,
unless the owner of the trademark/copyright gives
permission for other disposition, such as charitable
donations.
Fluke seems like they might be cool with that.[1] https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/105/kw/what%20h...
I can be reached at johnso(85+2)@illinois.edu, where the parenthesized expression is replaced with its result.
http://blog.mattj.me