You advance some interesting ideas, Brian. You certainly don't have to defend yourself to me as a futurist. I am, in large measure, paid my modest wage to be exactly that. And I agree that others often have no clue what people like us are blathering about.
That being said, there is, to my knowledge, very little empirical evidence that futurists are either particularly accurate or particularly influential in predicting/enacting the future that we so gleefully envision. One can think of exceptions, of course. (I have to throw this in...) Hello Brian! The oil spill is BOTH an engineering problem, AND a political problem. It would be naive to think otherwise and you do not strike me as naive. The attitude you express here, "What this says (to me) is that the end-users don't really see what they need or want out to the 5-year time frame" typifies a frequent IT developer response to end users: "You really don't know what you want/need, but we do." And, without wishing to be offensive, I find that position hubristic, at least when speaking of marketable products. The vast majority of high tech devices today are evolutionary rather than revolutionary products no matter how glibly media flacks employ the latter term. Now, there is nothing in the world wrong with old men telling tales and young men dreaming dreams of things like 100-antenna diversity receivers, and filtering algorithms that require no operator intervention, and demods that can decide for me whether I want to work PFSK or Olivia, although one might question whether hams, the ultimate tinkerers, will be pleased to have their radio experience reduced to that of using a telephone. But in the meantime, the bulk of development efforts--again, in the marketing/selling/making-a-living sector--do need to focus on delivering the product that the Visa card holder wishes to buy. I will, however, follow your explorations into the world on radio-2020 with great interest. 73 from one old curmudgeon to another! Bill On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Brian Lloyd <[email protected]>wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:21 AM, William H. Fite <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Two questions, Brian, and with my tongue only slightly in my cheek. >> > > That is OK with me. In my old age I have lost all pretext to political > rhetoric. That is just another way of saying, "I have become an annoying, > irascible, irreverent curmudgeon." For some reason that seems to get > people's hackles up. ;-) > > >> 1. How do you sort the genuinely clueful people from those who are >> merely persuaded that they are clueful? I'm quite sure that in software >> development, as in all areas of human endeavor, the latter generously >> outnumber the former. >> >> In my experience of many years of developing protocols for the internet, > the biblical phrase, "By their works you shall know them," applies quite > aptly. > > In any group you have only 10% of the people who actually do anything so > that helps to clear things up. Time helps you here. The lookie-loos > generally drift away. You also have some (hopefully small) percentage who > hope to bend the process for their own self-aggrandizement. These people > shall be known as Politicians and are usually found chattering on about > "consensus", "organization," "process," etc. They are going to organize your > organization right out from under you while garnering accolades for their > good works. The only problem is, they don't care if anything actually gets > done, only that they appear to be in the lead. There seems to be a lot of > that about on the TV right now. > > (Hello Washington! The oil spill is an ENGINEERING problem, not a POLITICAL > problem. Oh yeah, you want to be reelected so you have to appear to be doing > something. <sigh>) > > >> >> 1. Where does consultation with the end users figure into this? All >> of us who are non-IT people are wayyyy too familiar with, "Don't bother us >> with what you want; we'll tell you what you are going to get." My beloved >> spouse (a PhD in quantum information theory) and I have been round and >> round >> about that. >> >> I presume that is #2. I suspect you added #1 as an afterthought. ;-) More > below. > >> >> >> Of course, if the initiatives under discussion are merely for the >> entertainment and edification of the would-be developers, then neither of my >> questions is particularly relevant. >> > > In some ways it is relevant and some ways not. For much of my life I have > lived focused about 5-10 years out. It gives me a very strange view of the > world. Most people just think I am nuts because nothing I say seems to make > sense ... for about 5 years. What this says (to me) is that the end-users > don't really see what they need or want out to the 5-year time frame. So > asking users what they want only gets you the tactical advantage, i.e. > winning the current, immediate, marketing battle, but doesn't really help in > gaining the strategic advantage, i.e. winning the marketing war. The latter > only happens when you are able to think far enough ahead to that you already > standing in the middle of the road when the wandering masses finally arrive, > five years later. > > Here is the thing -- most of what I hear people talking about WRT PowerSDR > is how to do the things we already do, better. It is a discussion of things > like noise blankers, noise limiters, VFOs, memories, filters, interfacing to > digital mode programs, etc. It is an evolutionary thought process that is > the logical follow-on to the KWM2. If you look at most radios today, and I > include the Flex radios in that via PowerSDR, they are still KWM2 analogs. > Other than better filtering and computer control of the knobs, (and tuning a > tube PA), the ham from 50 years ago has to make very little transition to go > from the KWM2 to the Flex 5000. Yes, there are lots of fiddling details but > the basic operating concepts have not changed appreciably. (Yes, the Flex > 5000 has plenty of knobs, you just can't touch them short of using a mouse.) > > Using the horse-and-buggy-to-automobile analogy, we are at the point where > we have the internal combustion engine (SDR) but we are using it to make a > self-propelled horse-and-buggy. It is immediately familiar to someone who > has driven a horse-and-buggy. But the internal combustion engine (SDR) has > the ability to enable the airplane. The paradigm shift from horse-and-buggy > to airplane is revolutionary, not evolutionary. The SDR I am beginning to > see take hazy shape in my mind bears little resemblance to the KWM2. > > Here are some of the things that seem to be coalescing in my mind: > > 1. It will be normal for the radio to decode *all* transmissions it hears > on *all* modes *all* the time. You won't pick the mode you are operating, > only the channel to which you wish to pay attention. > > 2. CODECs will tell the RF/IF deck what the operating parameters should be. > The operator will not mess with filters or other settings needed to optimize > reception. That will be a fully automatic process. > > 3. Receivers will be "ganged" across the network. If you think that Bob's > dual-receiver diversity reception is cool now, wait 'till you see it being > done by 100 receivers connected across the Internet. In fact, all the > available receivers will be ganged together to enable improved reception. > You can kiss QSB and the need for large amplifiers good-bye. > > So, for the sake of argument, imagine the above is true. What do you think > the radio front-panel needs to look like? Me? I don't know either. But I am > pretty sure it won't look like a KWM2 or PowerSDR. > > So coming back from the geostationary world-view to ground-level reality, > what does that mean for the design of DI? I am still thinking about it. But > it does seem to require a blank sheet. > > > -- > Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL > 3191 Western Dr. > Cameron Park, CA 95682 > [email protected] > +1.931.492.6776 > (+1.931.4.WB6RQN) > > -- The proportions and relations of things are just as much facts as the things themselves. _______________________________________________ Flexedge mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexedge_flex-radio.biz This is the FlexRadio Systems e-mail Reflector called FlexEdge. It is used for posting topics related to SDR software development and experimentalist who are using alpha and beta versions of the software.
