Brett Favre on Friday disputed a Mississippi state auditor's report that said the Hall of Fame quarterback received $1.1 million in welfare money for multiple speaking engagements that he didn't actually attend.

Verifying lane adapter state machine in a router design is quite an involved task and needs verification from several aspects including that for its link training functionality.

The diagram below shows two lane adapters connected to each other and each going through the link training process. Each training sub-state transition is contingent on conditions for both transmission and reception of relevant ordered sets needed for a transition. Until conditions for both are satisfied an adapter cannot transition to the next training sub-state.

As deduced from the lane adapter state machine section of USB4 specification, the reception condition for the next training sub-state transition is less strict than that of the transmission condition. For ex., for LOCK1 to LOCK2 transition, the reception condition requires only two SLOS symbols in a row being detected, while the transmission condition requires at least four complete SLOS1 ordered sets to be sent.

From the above conditions in the specification, it is a possibility that a lane adapter A may detect the two SLOS or TS ordered sets, being sent by the lane adapter B on the other end, in the very beginning as soon as it starts transmitting its own SLOS or TS ordered sets. On the other hand, it is also a possibility that these SLOS or TS ordered sets are not yet detected by lane adapter A even when it has met the condition of sending minimum number of SLOS or TS ordered sets.

In such a case, lane adapter A, even though it has satisfied the transmission condition cannot transition to the next sub-state because the reception condition is not yet met. Hence lane adapter A must first wait for the required number of ordered sets to be detected by it before it can go to the next sub-state. But this wait cannot be endless as there are timeouts defined in the specification, after which the training process may be re-attempted.

This interlocked way of operation also ensures that state machine of a lane adapter does not go out of sync with that of the other lane adapter. Such type of scenarios can occur whenever lane adapter state machine transitions to the training state from other states.

Cadence has a mature Verification IP solution for the verification of various aspects of the logical layer of a USB4 router design, with verification capabilities provided to do a comprehensive verification of it.

This is the 16th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, relates an old Russian joke about two peasants named Boris and Igor. They are both poor. Boris has a goat. Igor does not. One day, Igor is granted a wish by a visiting fairy. What will he wish for?

“I wish,” he says, “that Boris’s goat should die.”

The joke ends there, revealing as much about human nature as about economics. Consider the three things that happen if the fairy grants the wish. One, Boris becomes poorer. Two, Igor stays poor. Three, inequality reduces. Is any of them a good outcome?

I feel exasperated when I hear intellectuals and columnists talking about economic inequality. It is my contention that India’s problem is poverty – and that poverty and inequality are two very different things that often do not coincide.

To illustrate this, I sometimes ask this question: In which of the following countries would you rather be poor: USA or Bangladesh? The obvious answer is USA, where the poor are much better off than the poor of Bangladesh. And yet, while Bangladesh has greater poverty, the USA has higher inequality.

Indeed, take a look at the countries of the world measured by the Gini Index, which is that standard metric used to measure inequality, and you will find that USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom all have greater inequality than Bangladesh, Liberia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone, which are much poorer. And yet, while the poor of Bangladesh would love to migrate to unequal USA, I don’t hear of too many people wishing to go in the opposite direction.

Indeed, people vote with their feet when it comes to choosing between poverty and inequality. All of human history is a story of migration from rural areas to cities – which have greater inequality.

If poverty and inequality are so different, why do people conflate the two? A key reason is that we tend to think of the world in zero-sum ways. For someone to win, someone else must lose. If the rich get richer, the poor must be getting poorer, and the presence of poverty must be proof of inequality.

But that’s not how the world works. The pie is not fixed. Economic growth is a positive-sum game and leads to an expansion of the pie, and everybody benefits. In absolute terms, the rich get richer, and so do the poor, often enough to come out of poverty. And so, in any growing economy, as poverty reduces, inequality tends to increase. (This is counter-intuitive, I know, so used are we to zero-sum thinking.) This is exactly what has happened in India since we liberalised parts of our economy in 1991.

Most people who complain about inequality in India are using the wrong word, and are really worried about poverty. Put a millionaire in a room with a billionaire, and no one will complain about the inequality in that room. But put a starving beggar in there, and the situation is morally objectionable. It is the poverty that makes it a problem, not the inequality.

You might think that this is just semantics, but words matter. Poverty and inequality are different phenomena with opposite solutions. You can solve for inequality by making everyone equally poor. Or you could solve for it by redistributing from the rich to the poor, as if the pie was fixed. The problem with this, as any economist will tell you, is that there is a trade-off between redistribution and growth. All redistribution comes at the cost of growing the pie – and only growth can solve the problem of poverty in a country like ours.

It has been estimated that in India, for every one percent rise in GDP, two million people come out of poverty. That is a stunning statistic. When millions of Indians don’t have enough money to eat properly or sleep with a roof over their heads, it is our moral imperative to help them rise out of poverty. The policies that will make this possible – allowing free markets, incentivising investment and job creation, removing state oppression – are likely to lead to greater inequality. So what? It is more urgent to make sure that every Indian has enough to fulfil his basic needs – what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his fine book On Inequality, called the Doctrine of Sufficiency.

The elite in their airconditioned drawing rooms, and those who live in rich countries, can follow the fashions of the West and talk compassionately about inequality. India does not have that luxury.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

This is the 17th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

One of my favourite English words comes from chess. If it is your turn to move, but any move you make makes your position worse, you are in ‘Zugzwang’. Narendra Modi was in zugzwang after the Pulwama attacks a few days ago—as any Indian prime minister in his place would have been.

An Indian PM, after an attack for which Pakistan is held responsible, has only unsavoury choices in front of him. He is pulled in two opposite directions. One, strategy dictates that he must not escalate. Two, politics dictates that he must.

Let’s unpack that. First, consider the strategic imperatives. Ever since both India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, a conventional war has become next to impossible because of the threat of a nuclear war. If India escalates beyond a point, Pakistan might bring their nuclear weapons into play. Even a limited nuclear war could cause millions of casualties and devastate our economy. Thus, no matter what the provocation, India needs to calibrate its response so that the Pakistan doesn’t take it all the way.

It’s impossible to predict what actions Pakistan might view as sufficient provocation, so India has tended to play it safe. Don’t capture territory, don’t attack military assets, don’t kill civilians. In other words, surgical strikes on alleged terrorist camps is the most we can do.

Given that Pakistan knows that it is irrational for India to react, and our leaders tend to be rational, they can ‘bleed us with a thousand cuts’, as their doctrine states, with impunity. Both in 2001, when our parliament was attacked and the BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee was PM, and in 2008, when Mumbai was attacked and the Congress’s Manmohan Singh was PM, our leaders considered all the options on the table—but were forced to do nothing.

But is doing nothing an option in an election year?

Leave strategy aside and turn to politics. India has been attacked. Forty soldiers have been killed, and the nation is traumatised and baying for blood. It is now politically impossible to not retaliate—especially for a PM who has criticized his predecessor for being weak, and portrayed himself as a 56-inch-chested man of action.

I have no doubt that Modi is a rational man, and knows the possible consequences of escalation. But he also knows the possible consequences of not escalating—he could dilute his brand and lose the elections. Thus, he is forced to act. And after he acts, his Pakistan counterpart will face the same domestic pressure to retaliate, and will have to attack back. And so on till my home in Versova is swallowed up by a nuclear crater, right?

Well, not exactly. There is a way to resolve this paradox. India and Pakistan can both escalate, not via military actions, but via optics.

Modi and Imran Khan, who you’d expect to feel like the loneliest men on earth right now, can find sweet company in each other. Their incentives are aligned. Neither man wants this to turn into a full-fledged war. Both men want to appear macho in front of their domestic constituencies. Both men are masters at building narratives, and have a pliant media that will help them.

Thus, India can carry out a surgical strike and claim it destroyed a camp, killed terrorists, and forced Pakistan to return a braveheart prisoner of war. Pakistan can say India merely destroyed two trees plus a rock, and claim the high moral ground by returning the prisoner after giving him good masala tea. A benign military equilibrium is maintained, and both men come out looking like strong leaders: a win-win game for the PMs that avoids a lose-lose game for their nations. They can give themselves a high-five in private when they meet next, and Imran can whisper to Modi, “You’re a good spinner, bro.”

There is one problem here, though: what if the optics don’t work?

If Modi feels that his public is too sceptical and he needs to do more, he might feel forced to resort to actual military escalation. The fog of politics might obscure the possible consequences. If the resultant Indian military action causes serious damage, Pakistan will have to respond in kind. In the chain of events that then begins, with body bags piling up, neither man may be able to back down. They could end up as prisoners of circumstance—and so could we.

***

Also check out:

Why Modi Must Learn to Play the Game of Chicken With Pakistan—Amit Varma
The Two Pakistans—Episode 79 of The Seen and the Unseen
India in the Nuclear Age—Episode 80 of The Seen and the Unseen

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

This is the 21st installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

When all political parties agree on something, you know you might have a problem. Giriraj Singh, a minister in Narendra Modi’s new cabinet, tweeted this week that our population control law should become a “movement.” This is something that would find bipartisan support – we are taught from school onwards that India’s population is a big problem, and we need to control it.

This is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, our population is not a problem. It is our greatest strength.

The notion that we should worry about a growing population is an intuitive one. The world has limited resources. People keep increasing. Something’s gotta give.

Robert Malthus made just this point in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. He was worried that our population would grow exponentially while resources would grow arithmetically. As more people entered the workforce, wages would fall and goods would become scarce. Calamity was inevitable.

Malthus’s rationale was so influential that this mode of thinking was soon called ‘Malthusian.’ (It is a pejorative today.) A 20th-century follower of his, Harrison Brown, came up with one of my favourite images on this subject, arguing that a growing population would lead to the earth being “covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.”

Another Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, published a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, which began with the stirring lines, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich was, as you’d guess, a big supporter of India’s coercive family planning programs. ““I don’t see,” he wrote, “how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

None of these fears have come true. A 2007 study by Nicholas Eberstadt called ‘Too Many People?’ found no correlation between population density and poverty. The greater the density of people, the more you’d expect them to fight for resources – and yet, Monaco, which has 40 times the population density of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So is Bahrain, which has three times the population density of India.

Not only does population not cause poverty, it makes us more prosperous. The economist Julian Simon pointed out in a 1981 book that through history, whenever there has been a spurt in population, it has coincided with a spurt in productivity. Such as, for example, between Malthus’s time and now. There were around a billion people on earth in 1798, and there are around 7.7 billion today. As you read these words, consider that you are better off than the richest person on the planet then.

Why is this? The answer lies in the title of Simon’s book: The Ultimate Resource. When we speak of resources, we forget that human beings are the finest resource of all. There is no limit to our ingenuity. And we interact with each other in positive-sum ways – every voluntary interactions leaves both people better off, and the amount of value in the world goes up. This is why we want to be part of economic networks that are as large, and as dense, as possible. This is why most people migrate to cities rather than away from them – and why cities are so much richer than towns or villages.

If Malthusians were right, essential commodities like wheat, maize and rice would become relatively scarcer over time, and thus more expensive – but they have actually become much cheaper in real terms. This is thanks to the productivity and creativity of humans, who, in Eberstadt’s words, are “in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible.”

The error made by Malthus, Brown and Ehrlich is the same error that our politicians make today, and not just in the context of population: zero-sum thinking. If our population grows and resources stays the same, of course there will be scarcity. But this is never the case. All we need to do to learn this lesson is look at our cities!

This mistaken thinking has had savage humanitarian consequences in India. Think of the unborn millions over the decades because of our brutal family planning policies. How many Tendulkars, Rahmans and Satyajit Rays have we lost? Think of the immoral coercion still carried out on poor people across the country. And finally, think of the condescension of our politicians, asserting that people are India’s problem – but always other people, never themselves.

This arrogance is India’s greatest problem, not our people.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

Hi,

I'm a newbie and I'm working on a mixed-signal chip in Innovus. I've got a few analog LEF files that I've imported into my floorplan as macros.

My chip has got two power domains - VCC and VBAT.

One of the macro in the VBAT domain uses VBAT and GND as power rails myloweslife.com.

On doing Special-Route, I've got a lot of minute power rails for the standard cells, as expected.

But, the VBAT power rails are not getting extended till the outer power rings. Only the GND rails are correctly getting extended till the outer power rings.

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help

Hi,

I'm a newbie and I'm working on a mixed-signal chip in Innovus. I've got a few analog LEF files that I've imported into my floorplan as macros.

My chip has got two power domains - VCC and VBAT.

One of the macro in the VBAT domain uses VBAT and GND as power rails KrogerFeedback.com.

On doing Special-Route, I've got a lot of minute power rails for the standard cells, as expected.

But, the VBAT power rails are not getting extended till the outer power rings. Only the GND rails are correctly getting extended till the outer power rings.

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help

Hello, I am using Encounter 8.1. My mouse is working fine, but my keyboard is not working well in Encounter. I can type in some boxes, but in many boxes I cannot type. The binding key is also not responding. How do I fix this issue? Thanks.

I have been working on a an ASA 17.2 project for the last 6 months.

When I go to Project --> Settings, the settings window does not open. 

The tool indicates that a window is open, as I cannot click on anything else in the project. But it does not show the Settings window.

This has been happening only for the last 2 months. Before that it was working fine.

If I send the project to my colleague, the settings window shows up for him.

It's been a while since you've heard from me...it has been a busy year for sure. One of the reasons I've been so quiet is that I was part of a team working diligently on our latest best kept secret: The MMSIM 12.1.1/MMSIM 13.1 Documentation has...(read more)

Hi,

I am trying to write a skill code where it takes form inputs by default and just displays tree directly.

i have written below code,

procedure( create_tree()
let(()

leHiTree()
leTreeForm->treeOption->value="Current to user level"
leTreeForm->userLevel->value= 31
ipcSleep(1)
hiFormDone(leTreeForm)

))

the form takes in values but it is not closing.

tried with regtimer in place of ipc sleep, didn't work.

how to close form(should be same as pressing OK)? 

Thanks in advance,

vishwas 

Inside the scope of isCallable there is code which I don't want to be executed.

The procedure named in isCallable to-day is callable.

I want to make that procedure so it cannot be called.  How do I do that?

I can't change the isCallable line or the scope.  I want to change its behavior by making sure that the procedure does not exist (obviously this would be done before the code is executed).

When I place a pcell and do not change the W parameter (default is used) the value is not saved in the OA cell property.

When I change the default value of the super master now, the old pcell will get the new default value automatically because there is nothing saved inside the OA cell for this parameter.

Do you have any Idea, that how we can save the default values in the OA cell properties so that this value doesn't get updated if the default values are updated in the new PDKs

The Linley Processor Conference always opens with a keynote by Linley Gwenapp giving an overview of processors in whatever is the hottest area. Most of the other presentations during the conference...

[[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site. ]]

Hi experts,

I have a problem with my design as below

ERROR: in SHAPE (-2.3622 2.3622)

  class = ETCH

  subclass = TOP 

  Part of Symbol Def SHAPE_4725X4725.

      Which is part of a padstack as a SHAPE symbol.

  ERROR(SPMHDB-187): SHAPE boundary may not cross itself.

   Error cannot be fixed.

       Object has first point location at (-2.3622 2.3622).

Can you tell me how to solve my problem?

Thanks a lot.

Hi all,

I am creating shapes on plane layers for a coupon and want to void them using axlShapeAutoVoid()

The shapes are attached to a symbol.

I've tried using axlShapeAutoVoid, but this only voids the pins, not the route keepouts created by nc_backdrill.

I also tried selecting the shape, individually, then running axlShapeAutoVoid. That was unsuccessful, also.

planeShapes is a list of shapes I created. The code for voiding:

;run backdrill to get route keepouts
axlShell("setwindow pcb;backdrill setup ;setwindow form.nc_backdrill;FORM nc_backdrill apply ;FORM nc_backdrill close")

foreach(sHape planeShapes
axlShapeAutoVoid(car(sHape))
)

This is the 16th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, relates an old Russian joke about two peasants named Boris and Igor. They are both poor. Boris has a goat. Igor does not. One day, Igor is granted a wish by a visiting fairy. What will he wish for?

“I wish,” he says, “that Boris’s goat should die.”

The joke ends there, revealing as much about human nature as about economics. Consider the three things that happen if the fairy grants the wish. One, Boris becomes poorer. Two, Igor stays poor. Three, inequality reduces. Is any of them a good outcome?

I feel exasperated when I hear intellectuals and columnists talking about economic inequality. It is my contention that India’s problem is poverty – and that poverty and inequality are two very different things that often do not coincide.

To illustrate this, I sometimes ask this question: In which of the following countries would you rather be poor: USA or Bangladesh? The obvious answer is USA, where the poor are much better off than the poor of Bangladesh. And yet, while Bangladesh has greater poverty, the USA has higher inequality.

Indeed, take a look at the countries of the world measured by the Gini Index, which is that standard metric used to measure inequality, and you will find that USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom all have greater inequality than Bangladesh, Liberia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone, which are much poorer. And yet, while the poor of Bangladesh would love to migrate to unequal USA, I don’t hear of too many people wishing to go in the opposite direction.

Indeed, people vote with their feet when it comes to choosing between poverty and inequality. All of human history is a story of migration from rural areas to cities – which have greater inequality.

If poverty and inequality are so different, why do people conflate the two? A key reason is that we tend to think of the world in zero-sum ways. For someone to win, someone else must lose. If the rich get richer, the poor must be getting poorer, and the presence of poverty must be proof of inequality.

But that’s not how the world works. The pie is not fixed. Economic growth is a positive-sum game and leads to an expansion of the pie, and everybody benefits. In absolute terms, the rich get richer, and so do the poor, often enough to come out of poverty. And so, in any growing economy, as poverty reduces, inequality tends to increase. (This is counter-intuitive, I know, so used are we to zero-sum thinking.) This is exactly what has happened in India since we liberalised parts of our economy in 1991.

Most people who complain about inequality in India are using the wrong word, and are really worried about poverty. Put a millionaire in a room with a billionaire, and no one will complain about the inequality in that room. But put a starving beggar in there, and the situation is morally objectionable. It is the poverty that makes it a problem, not the inequality.

You might think that this is just semantics, but words matter. Poverty and inequality are different phenomena with opposite solutions. You can solve for inequality by making everyone equally poor. Or you could solve for it by redistributing from the rich to the poor, as if the pie was fixed. The problem with this, as any economist will tell you, is that there is a trade-off between redistribution and growth. All redistribution comes at the cost of growing the pie – and only growth can solve the problem of poverty in a country like ours.

It has been estimated that in India, for every one percent rise in GDP, two million people come out of poverty. That is a stunning statistic. When millions of Indians don’t have enough money to eat properly or sleep with a roof over their heads, it is our moral imperative to help them rise out of poverty. The policies that will make this possible – allowing free markets, incentivising investment and job creation, removing state oppression – are likely to lead to greater inequality. So what? It is more urgent to make sure that every Indian has enough to fulfil his basic needs – what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his fine book On Inequality, called the Doctrine of Sufficiency.

The elite in their airconditioned drawing rooms, and those who live in rich countries, can follow the fashions of the West and talk compassionately about inequality. India does not have that luxury.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 17th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

One of my favourite English words comes from chess. If it is your turn to move, but any move you make makes your position worse, you are in ‘Zugzwang’. Narendra Modi was in zugzwang after the Pulwama attacks a few days ago—as any Indian prime minister in his place would have been.

An Indian PM, after an attack for which Pakistan is held responsible, has only unsavoury choices in front of him. He is pulled in two opposite directions. One, strategy dictates that he must not escalate. Two, politics dictates that he must.

Let’s unpack that. First, consider the strategic imperatives. Ever since both India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, a conventional war has become next to impossible because of the threat of a nuclear war. If India escalates beyond a point, Pakistan might bring their nuclear weapons into play. Even a limited nuclear war could cause millions of casualties and devastate our economy. Thus, no matter what the provocation, India needs to calibrate its response so that the Pakistan doesn’t take it all the way.

It’s impossible to predict what actions Pakistan might view as sufficient provocation, so India has tended to play it safe. Don’t capture territory, don’t attack military assets, don’t kill civilians. In other words, surgical strikes on alleged terrorist camps is the most we can do.

Given that Pakistan knows that it is irrational for India to react, and our leaders tend to be rational, they can ‘bleed us with a thousand cuts’, as their doctrine states, with impunity. Both in 2001, when our parliament was attacked and the BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee was PM, and in 2008, when Mumbai was attacked and the Congress’s Manmohan Singh was PM, our leaders considered all the options on the table—but were forced to do nothing.

But is doing nothing an option in an election year?

Leave strategy aside and turn to politics. India has been attacked. Forty soldiers have been killed, and the nation is traumatised and baying for blood. It is now politically impossible to not retaliate—especially for a PM who has criticized his predecessor for being weak, and portrayed himself as a 56-inch-chested man of action.

I have no doubt that Modi is a rational man, and knows the possible consequences of escalation. But he also knows the possible consequences of not escalating—he could dilute his brand and lose the elections. Thus, he is forced to act. And after he acts, his Pakistan counterpart will face the same domestic pressure to retaliate, and will have to attack back. And so on till my home in Versova is swallowed up by a nuclear crater, right?

Well, not exactly. There is a way to resolve this paradox. India and Pakistan can both escalate, not via military actions, but via optics.

Modi and Imran Khan, who you’d expect to feel like the loneliest men on earth right now, can find sweet company in each other. Their incentives are aligned. Neither man wants this to turn into a full-fledged war. Both men want to appear macho in front of their domestic constituencies. Both men are masters at building narratives, and have a pliant media that will help them.

Thus, India can carry out a surgical strike and claim it destroyed a camp, killed terrorists, and forced Pakistan to return a braveheart prisoner of war. Pakistan can say India merely destroyed two trees plus a rock, and claim the high moral ground by returning the prisoner after giving him good masala tea. A benign military equilibrium is maintained, and both men come out looking like strong leaders: a win-win game for the PMs that avoids a lose-lose game for their nations. They can give themselves a high-five in private when they meet next, and Imran can whisper to Modi, “You’re a good spinner, bro.”

There is one problem here, though: what if the optics don’t work?

If Modi feels that his public is too sceptical and he needs to do more, he might feel forced to resort to actual military escalation. The fog of politics might obscure the possible consequences. If the resultant Indian military action causes serious damage, Pakistan will have to respond in kind. In the chain of events that then begins, with body bags piling up, neither man may be able to back down. They could end up as prisoners of circumstance—and so could we.

***

Also check out:

Why Modi Must Learn to Play the Game of Chicken With Pakistan—Amit Varma
The Two Pakistans—Episode 79 of The Seen and the Unseen
India in the Nuclear Age—Episode 80 of The Seen and the Unseen

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 21st installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

When all political parties agree on something, you know you might have a problem. Giriraj Singh, a minister in Narendra Modi’s new cabinet, tweeted this week that our population control law should become a “movement.” This is something that would find bipartisan support – we are taught from school onwards that India’s population is a big problem, and we need to control it.

This is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, our population is not a problem. It is our greatest strength.

The notion that we should worry about a growing population is an intuitive one. The world has limited resources. People keep increasing. Something’s gotta give.

Robert Malthus made just this point in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. He was worried that our population would grow exponentially while resources would grow arithmetically. As more people entered the workforce, wages would fall and goods would become scarce. Calamity was inevitable.

Malthus’s rationale was so influential that this mode of thinking was soon called ‘Malthusian.’ (It is a pejorative today.) A 20th-century follower of his, Harrison Brown, came up with one of my favourite images on this subject, arguing that a growing population would lead to the earth being “covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.”

Another Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, published a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, which began with the stirring lines, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich was, as you’d guess, a big supporter of India’s coercive family planning programs. ““I don’t see,” he wrote, “how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

None of these fears have come true. A 2007 study by Nicholas Eberstadt called ‘Too Many People?’ found no correlation between population density and poverty. The greater the density of people, the more you’d expect them to fight for resources – and yet, Monaco, which has 40 times the population density of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So is Bahrain, which has three times the population density of India.

Not only does population not cause poverty, it makes us more prosperous. The economist Julian Simon pointed out in a 1981 book that through history, whenever there has been a spurt in population, it has coincided with a spurt in productivity. Such as, for example, between Malthus’s time and now. There were around a billion people on earth in 1798, and there are around 7.7 billion today. As you read these words, consider that you are better off than the richest person on the planet then.

Why is this? The answer lies in the title of Simon’s book: The Ultimate Resource. When we speak of resources, we forget that human beings are the finest resource of all. There is no limit to our ingenuity. And we interact with each other in positive-sum ways – every voluntary interactions leaves both people better off, and the amount of value in the world goes up. This is why we want to be part of economic networks that are as large, and as dense, as possible. This is why most people migrate to cities rather than away from them – and why cities are so much richer than towns or villages.

If Malthusians were right, essential commodities like wheat, maize and rice would become relatively scarcer over time, and thus more expensive – but they have actually become much cheaper in real terms. This is thanks to the productivity and creativity of humans, who, in Eberstadt’s words, are “in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible.”

The error made by Malthus, Brown and Ehrlich is the same error that our politicians make today, and not just in the context of population: zero-sum thinking. If our population grows and resources stays the same, of course there will be scarcity. But this is never the case. All we need to do to learn this lesson is look at our cities!

This mistaken thinking has had savage humanitarian consequences in India. Think of the unborn millions over the decades because of our brutal family planning policies. How many Tendulkars, Rahmans and Satyajit Rays have we lost? Think of the immoral coercion still carried out on poor people across the country. And finally, think of the condescension of our politicians, asserting that people are India’s problem – but always other people, never themselves.

This arrogance is India’s greatest problem, not our people.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

Hi supporters,

I got the following error while I run simulation with gate netlist using Cadence Incisive (v15.20):

----

ncsim(64): 15.20-s076: (c) Copyright 1995-2019 Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
ncsim: *E,DLOALB: Design library 'tcbnxxx' not defined while reading module tcbnxxx.MAOxxx:bv (VST).
ncsim: *F,NOSIMU: Errors initializing simulation 'alu_tb' 

----

xxx: standard library name.

My netlist design uses a cell "MAOxxx". I already included the library behavior model to compile using ncverilog, there is no error while compiling. But when I run with ncsim to execute the test, I got above error.

I tried to run with other vendors such as VCS or MTI, they worked.

Please help to understand the error.

Thanks.

Hi,

I've vhdl block containing fsm . IMC not able to auto extract the state machine coded like this:

There is a intermediate state state_mux  between next_state & state.

Pls. help in guiding IMC how to recognize this FSM coding style? 

Snipped of the fsm code:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               type state_type is (ST_IDLE, ST_ADDRESS, ST_ACK_ADDRESS, ST_READ, ST_ACK_READ, ST_WRITE, ST_ACK_WRITE, ST_IDLE_BYTE);

               signal state : state_type;

               signal state_mux : state_type;

               signal next_state : state_type;

process(state_mux, start)

         begin

               next_state <= state_mux;

               next_count <= (others => '0');

           case (state_mux) is

                 when ST_IDLE => 

                            if(start = '1') then

                                 next_state <= ST_ADDRESS;

                              end if;

            when ST_ADDRESS =>

   …………….

          when others => null;

         end case;

     end process;

process(scl_clk_n, active_rstn)

               begin

                      if(active_rstn = '0') then

                           state <= ST_IDLE after delay_f;

                  elsif(scl_clk_n'event and scl_clk_n = '1') then

                             state <= next_state after delay_f;

                            end if;

end process;

process(state, start)

               begin

                     state_mux <= state;

               if(start = '1') then

                       state_mux <= ST_IDLE;

                              end if;

               end process;

Thanks

Raghu

xmsim is not exiting the simulation for this error. It is unusual for the simulator to not exit for an error. I have just started using uvm and this is occurring during the randomization step for a sequencer item.

xmsim: *E,RNDCNSTE

I am using -EXIT on the command line.

I am using Xcelium 19.03-s013.

Any insights are appreciated. Thanks.

-Jim

I am using PCB Editor v17.2-2016.

I tried to do placement by schematic page but not all pages are displayed.

Earlier, I successfully do the placement by schematic pages and it was showing all the pages. But then I decided to delete all placed components and to do placement again.

When I try to do placement by schematic page again, I noticed that only the pages that I have successfully do all the placement previously are missing.

Hi, I am in the middle of a design and had no problem going back and forth between schematics and layout. Now I am getting the error message below. I am using Cadence 17.2.

ERROR: Layout database has probably been reverted to an earlier version than that, which was used in the latest flow or the schematic database was synchronized with another board.

The basecopy file generated by the last back-to-front flow not found.

ERROR: Layout database has probably been reverted to an earlier version than that, which was used in the latest flow or the schematic database was synchronized with another board.

The basecopy file generated by the last back-to-front flow not found.

Error: CMFBC-1: The schematic and the layout constraints were not synchronized as the changes done since the last sync up could not be reconciled. Syncing the current version of the schematic or layout databases with a previous version would result in this issue. The  constraint difference report is displayed.

Continuing with "changes-only" processing may result in incorrect constraint updates.

Thanks for your input

Claudia

Hello all,

We are designing a backplane and in the design we are using some custom prefixes using the Advance Annotation tool. When annotating the occurances I get the following error:

ERROR(ORDBDLL-1224): The total number of components for prefix J0C exceeds the range supplied for it.
Increase the End value of the range.

Thanks in advance for the help

--Tom

Hi,

I have a new customer that uses Allegro Design entry HDL for the schematic and have a few questions.

1. How do you get pin/gate swaps into the symbols in the schematic ?

2. How do you transfer them to the pcb editor ?

3. How do you back annotate the swaps from the pcb editor to the schematic ?

4. How do you stop the export/Import physical from updating the constraints in the pcb file ? 

I'm trying to set up a VHDL-AMS simulation, so I made a new cell, selected the vhdlamstext type, and copied some example from the web. But when I hit the save and compile button, I first got the following NOLSTD error:

https://www.edaboard.com/showthread.php?27832-Simulating-a-VHDL-design-in-ldv5-1

So I added said file to my cds.lib and tried again. But now I'm getting this:

ncvhdl_p: *F,DLUNNE: Can't find STANDARD at /cadappl/ictools/cadence_ic/6.1.7.721/tools/inca/files/STD.

If I go over to the Library Browser, it indeed shows that the library is completely empty. Properties show it has the following files attached.

In the file system I've also found a STD.src folder. Is there a way to recompile the library properly? Supposedly this folder includes precompiled versions, but looks like not really.

Hello,

I am using ultrasim Version 18.1.0.314.isr5  64bit 03/26/2019 06:33 (csvcm20c-2).

When I run my netlist, ultrasim is blocked in the first DC stage and takes forever. Then it will fail or never progress. I am using a 22nm BSIMBULK model. I tried to tune different accuracy and convergence aids options but noting works.

 When I run the same netlist with spectre it works fine with no problem.

Also, If I use another model (not BULKSIM), ultrasim will work and converge with no problem.

My first feeling is that ultrasim has a problem with using BSIMBULK model.

Could you please advice,

Thank you,

Kotb

I put some stimulus in the simulation file section : 

_vpd_data_enb (pu_data_enb 0) vsource wave=[0 0 1n 0 1.015n vcchbm 3n vcchbm] dc=0 type=pwl
_vpu_data_enb (pd_data_enb 0) vsource dc=pu_enb type=dc

I get the following error. 

ERROR (OSSGLD-18): The command character after '[' in the NLP expression '[0 0 1n 0 1.015n vcchbm 3n vcchbm] dc=0 type=pwl

' is not a valid

character. The command character is the first character after '[' in the NLP

expression. It must be '?', '!', '#', '$', 'n', '@', '.', '~' or '+'. Enter a

valid character as the command character.

si: simin did not complete successfully.

I dont see anything wrong with the stimulus syntax

Cadence_SPB_17.4-2019 + Matlab R2019a

请参考本文档中的步骤进行操作

1，打开BJT_AMP.opj

2，设置Matlab路径

3，打开BJT_AMP_SLPS.slx

4，打开后，设置PSpiceBlock，出现或CEFSimpleUI.exe停止工作

5，添加模块

6，相同

7，打开pspsim.slx

8，相同

9，打开C： Cadence Cadence_SPB_17.4-2019 tools bin

orCEFSimpleUI.exe和orCEFSimple.exe

10，相同

我想问一下如何解决，非常感谢！

Ubuntu Security Notice 4058-1 - It was discovered that Bash incorrectly handled the restricted shell. An attacker could possibly use this issue to escape restrictions and execute any command.

Ubuntu Security Notice 4058-2 - USN-4058-1 fixed a vulnerability in bash. This update provides the corresponding update for Ubuntu 12.04 ESM and Ubuntu 14.04 ESM. It was discovered that Bash incorrectly handled the restricted shell. An attacker could possibly use this issue to escape restrictions and execute any command. Various other issues were also addressed.

Ubuntu Security Notice 4180-1 - It was discovered that Bash incorrectly handled certain inputs. An attacker could possibly use this issue to cause a crash or execute arbitrary code.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

afick is another file integrity checker, designed to be fast and fully portable between Unix and Windows platforms. It works by first creating a database that represents a snapshot of the most essential parts of your computer system. Then a user can run the script to discover all modifications made since the snapshot was taken (i.e. files added, changed, or removed). The configuration syntax is very close to that of aide or tripwire, and a graphical interface is provided.

BIOVIA CISPro 2020 Hot Fix 2