HP is currently in talks to buy Electronic Data Systems Corp. for the modest price of $12.6 billion in cash. HP takes the lead when it comes to manufacturing personal computers for the world but teamed up with the technology services of EDS they are hoping that they can start a company to rival the all knowing IBM.
Even with this goal unachieved HP is expected to come close to doubling their revenue with this acquisition. In 2007 EDS alone had $22.13 billion while HP brought in a good $16.6 billion. HP has gone on to say that the business would have its home office in Plano, Texas at EDS Headquarters and led by the chairman and Chief Executive Ronald A. Rittenmeyer.
Seeing as it is HP’s biggest deal in six years it is understandable that they have big plans for EDS if the deal is closed. HP sees this as an opportunity to challenge the IBM Corp. basically at its own game in technology services (IT). As companies expand and see the need for faster better and more technology their need for a great IT service grows, but at the end of the day whom are you going to choose HP or IBM?
Most I & E Technicians are long time fans of Fluke meters. We at PCO are big fans and we use several pieces of their test and laboratory equipment. Almost every Instrument and Electronics technician has a trusty Fluke 87 or simular meter. The also usually have an 4 to 20 ma process simulator. from a company like Altek, Transmation or Unical. These are typically somewhat limited and not very field toughened.
Fluke has a new meter, the 789 Processmeter. It is a standard volt Ohm Current meter with the diode test and beeping continuity check, but it can output 0 to 20 milliamp signals. It behaves as a a source or as a passive device. It is as close as a field tech will ever get to a one meter fits all solution.
Our 789 came with 2 sets of leads: the standard Fluke multimeter probes and another set of leads with big rubberized alligator clips on the end. The first thing I did when I got my meter was fabricate a set of miniclip leads. The alligator leads are just fine for larger lugged terminations but are too big for smaller terminations that most newer systems are using today. One of the first things I noticed is that it uses 4 AA cells instead of 9Volt batteries that never seem to be around when you need them. We also have the C Cell adaptor so that the unit can run on the very long lasting C cells for our benchwork. The C cells seem to last forever. It has a large well laid out display that can be back lit if needed.
The meter displays 5 digits of accuracy in both input and output. 0.000 to 20.000 Which is up to par for 16 bit measurement systems
24 V Loop power supply
Double-sized, dual display
Enhanced backlight with 2 brightness settings
20mA drive into 1200 ohms
HART mode setting with loop power (adds 250 ohm resistor)
0% and 100 % mA Span Check buttons to toggle between 4 and 20 mA
Externally accessible fuses for easy replacement
Infrared I/O serial port compatible with FlukeView Forms software
Precision 1000 V, 440 mA True-RMS digital Multimeter
0.1% dc voltage accuracy
0.05% dc current accuracy
Frequency measurement to 20 kHz
Min/Max/Average/Hold/Relative modes
Diode Test and Continuity Beeper
Simultaneous mA and % of scale readout
20 mA DC current source / loop calibrator / simulator
Manual Step (100%, 25%, Coarse, Fine) plus Auto Step and Auto Ramp
Improved battery power with four AA batteries
Fluke has found a need and filled it for those who seek the one meter that does everything.
It seems that Google has got something that no one is even close to attaining: a network of tools and users. I am a firm believer in the Sherman Act don't get me wrong, but for those who are screaming monopoly at Google, I don't see it. Google has done something that all of the other search engines haven't figured out yet; they have a cult like following of users. I hate to say this but yes I am addicted to Google too. It's not the Internet and everything on Google, it's all of the tools they offer. I use 16 different tools the Google offers. From one page (see screen shot below) I can manage my PPC(Google AdWords) and see the traffic(Google Analytics) they are driving to my site. Or I can share documents(Google Docs) with my friends in Austin. Oh and here's the real kicker it's free. Well free in the sense that I don't have to pay for it. However, I am not naive enough to think that Google is not collecting all sorts of information on my internet habits, but you know what as long as they keep delivering I could care less. Another thing Google has working for it is that their help center consists of volunteers; i.e. Internet gurus that browse the Google Groups all day answering questions. I can post a question in the Google Webmaster Forum and have 10 answers by the time I get back from lunch. You can't beat that with a ten foot stick. However, there is still one question that is plaguing me: Why is that the other big names in Search Engines don't offer the same resources? I'm not going to lie...I have no idea. The best I can figure is that they don't see the value in it. Google already has the web wrapped around its "$800 million in revenue? $200 million in profit?" finger. Personally if Yahoo! or Microsoft developed tools comparable to Google's I would be privy to use them. It only makes sense to obtain information from more than one place, the problem is there's nowhere else to turn to. So until Yahoo! or Microsoft ante up and give all of us Webmasters something to work with, Google it is.
ETH Zurich has successfully tested a WLAN network using MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) technology that makes transmission speeds of 216 Mbps possible on conventional networks. The MIMO technology lets several transceivers communicate with each other at the same time all while using the same bandwidth.
The use of multiple antenna technology sounds great but comes with some limiting disadvantages. Take into account that WLAN networks means that there will most likely be more than one user at a time sending and receiving data. This can become quite a task for a computer to not only send a lot of packets of information but it will have to receive and decode the incoming signal to its original base-band signal. Here’s a good example, imagine a room full of cubicles and now every individual is looking over their cubicle throwing handfuls of paper every direction. To simulate computing speed, there is one guy going through all of these papers in the corner of the room. This can get messy and very slow when many users are involved, obviously. The models using MIMO technology need to be built using the most cost effective solutions, which means cheap chips will be used to decode all of the data back to base-band and that basically spells out that it will have a slow computing speed. All in all, until better and more effective chips are found/developed this transfer speed can not be properly used to its fullest capabilities.
Currently there are limitations but we can always count on time and future developments to give us an idea when it will be commercially available.
Let’s face it; the compact disc’s time is up. All make way for the mp3 revolution! Alright, alright it’s been here for a while and most of us are used to it by now. Then came the construction of handheld devices comparable to portable CD players, the mp3 player. Since their release, the market for mp3 players has risen sharply from $532 million in the year 2000 to $1.3 billion in 2005. This is hardly a slight increase in sales and explains why we are bound to run into someone with headphones in their ears no matter where we go.
Following this trend of development our favorite musicians are now offering us the chance to own their music, not on a CD but a flash drive instead. The flash drive concept is not a bad idea but just like anything it has its pros and cons. For one thing, an USB flash drive can hold a lot more songs than a CD ever could, and you never have to worry about a scratched flash drive ruining your music. While those are pure advantages over CDs they still have flaws such as data loss. By not removing your flash drive properly from the computer you risk the chance of losing your files or corrupting them. “Oh, bye new music…” Expect that to happen to you forgetful ones at some point. Also how many times have you left your flash drive in a computer you were using and walked away? Exactly, a flash drive is small and easy to lose. If it’s not left in a computer at work, school, or anywhere else you have access; it’s lost in your purse, car, house, or worse stolen.
Of course, this is not enough to stop things now; people have chosen and I can’t say it is a horrible decision. Overall it’s easy and convenient what more can you ask for? Soon our movies will arrive in a DVD-shaped case sans DVD and in its place, a neat little flash drive. Although, they are still in the idea stages of flash drive food, it’s only a matter of time. I can taste it now.
Nanolasers are paving the way for higher storage capacity where magnetism alone can no longer travel.
A research team led by Sakhrat Khizroev, an associate professor of engineering, is exploring the use of nanolasers to further miniaturize our hard-drives while supplying over 50 times the data storage that we are able to achieve today with magnetic storage. The team talks of storing 10 terabits in a one-half-inch-square footprint with nanolasers they’ve developed, as they can focus light as small as 30 nanometers and provide 250 nanowatts of power. Keep in mind that nanometers and nanowatts are on a molecular scale, meaning that ideas of even smaller drives with less storage capacity than 10 terabits are soon to be attainable.
Researchers have found out that by using a combination of magnetism and light they are able to contain bits of data on smaller areas on the disk. This is fortunate because lately many have begun to realize that the old form of magnetic storage is beginning to reach the end of the road for miniaturization. The team has stated that their next goal is to improve the nanolaser to generate light beams as small as 5 nanometers, the team suspects this can be achieved by refining the gallium ion beams used in fabrication.
Khizroev has stated that there will be numerous things to consider when trying to produce “tiny disk drives” for consumers, such as integrating the nanolaser with a recording head and lubricating tiny parts. However, he insists that the 10 terabit drive is a near-term innovation and is expecting a consumer version in as little as two years.
This development just gives a little insight as to how far we will advance in another 10 years. In 1998 we saw IBM’s Microdrive which was able to store a whopping 350MB on a 1-inch platter. Fast forward to present time and realize that we are now talking of storing 10 terabits on a similarly sized drive. Surely when we see advancements such as this in one aspect of the computer and electronic field we know that there will be 10 more just like it, not only in storage but in computing speed for example. Over the past 7 years we have seen great improvements to our processing speed to where we now have dual quad-core processors as a standard in most new computers. Not much thought is given to the fact that we are making HD a standard in televisions and gaming consoles. As stated earlier, all of the technology that has become available in the last 10 years is just a small peephole in an ever-thinning wall that separates man from machine.
