ST brings 32-bit-MCU possibilities to simple applications

first_img Continue Reading Previous Flex Power Modules adds active current sharing to DC-DC converterNext Murata’s ultra-small SAW devices address the needs of 5G STM32 microcontrollers from STMicroelectronics are now available in an 8-pin package, enabling simple embedded projects to leverage 32-bit performance and flexibility in a compact and cost-effective outline.The four new STM32G0 devices deliver a unique combination of 8-pin economy with a 64MHz Arm Cortex-M0+ CPU giving 59 DMIPS, up to 8Kbyte RAM and 32Kbyte Flash on-chip, and high-performing peripherals including a 2.5Msps ADC, high-resolution timer, and a high-speed SPI. With flexible mapping of I/O pins and internal MCU functions, designers can upgrade end-product functionality without trading board real-estate or bill-of-materials costs. The stability of the internal oscillator, which is accurate to ±1% over wide temperature and voltage ranges, also saves external clock components.Benefiting from the proven low-power design features of the STM32 MCU family, the 8-pin STM32G0 devices are ready to take over in energy-conscious applications governed by battery-capacity limits, eco-design legislation, or market expectations such as appliance energy ratings.The new MCUs also ease future scalability through the features available across the STM32G0 series, which offers up to 100 package pins, up to 512Kbytes Flash, additional high-performance analog peripherals, and cyber-protection features.The new 8-pin STM32G0 MCUs are available now in 6mm x 4.9mm SO8N, from $0.31 for 1000-piece orders of the STM32G030J6 Value Line MCU. The 8-pin Discovery kit STM32G0316-DISCO eases developers’ lives with quick and affordable evaluation. STM32G031J6, STM32G031J4, and STM32G041J6 Access Line MCUs are also available in SO8N, offering additional functionality including a hardware AES acceleration, Securable Memory Area enabling secure boot or firmware update, extra timers, and 96-bit unique device ID.Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInMoreRedditTumblrPinterestWhatsAppSkypePocketTelegram Tags: Chips & Components last_img read more

No 16 Seeds Are Due

1991Arkansas2034Georgia St.144896.639.0 1997Kentucky2181Montana157897.727.9 1991UNLV2187Montana159298.443.1 1999Michigan St.2112Mount St. Mary’s142898.925.0 1985St. John’s1948Southern163687.783.7 1999Connecticut2140Texas San Antonio146898.625.3 2009North Carolina2103Radford152098.010.8 1986Kansas2059North Carolina A&T151797.179.6 2005Washington1964Montana150495.217.4 2013Kansas2024Western Kentucky149997.76.5 2012Syracuse2054UNC-Asheville161994.97.5 1992Duke2209Campbell134599.738.2 1990UNLV1989Ark.-Little Rock160794.048.0 2007Kansas2063Niagara161395.212.6 This data suggests that No. 16 seeds have in fact been pretty unlucky. On average, Elo would have given the No. 1 seed a 97.6 percent chance of winning each individual game; the range runs from 99.9 percent (Duke against Florida A&M in 1999) to 87.1 percent (Memphis against Oral Roberts in 2006). But given 124 chances to pull a rabbit out of their hats, No. 16 seeds “should” have come away with about three victories, according to Elo. Furthermore, the probability of them having gone winless is only about 5 percent. I wouldn’t call the No. 16s phenomenally unlucky — we’re talking about odds of about 20-to-1 against, not 20,000-to-1 against — but this confirms my intuition that they haven’t caught very many breaks.The good news for No. 16 seeds is that their situation has been improving very slightly. Since the tournament introduced its play-in game in 2001, the average No. 16 to play a No. 1 had an Elo rating of 1504; before that, their average rating was 1470. The play-in games are helpful to the cause of the No. 16 seeds in two ways. First, the truly execrable No. 16s, like Florida A&M in 1999 (which came into the tournament with a 12-18 record in the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference), will be routed into the play-in game and will usually lose it instead of wasting one of the 16-seeds’ four opportunities. Second, the play-in winners will have a game of NCAA Tournament experience under their belts. That helps both in real life and for a team’s Elo rating, since Elo weights recent games (and especially recent tournament games) more heavily.So cheer up, Holy Cross, Hampton, Florida Gulf Coast University and Austin Peay State. Yes, you’re probably going to lose by 30 points. But sooner or later, one of you is going to make history.Check out FiveThirtyEight’s 2016 March Madness Predictions. 1988Purdue2015Fairleigh Dickinson150297.562.6 1988Oklahoma2043Chattanooga152995.759.9 Embed Code 1999Duke2295Florida A&M124899.925.3 YEARNO. 1 SEEDELONO. 16 SEEDELOTHIS GAMECUM. GAMES 1985Georgetown2135Lehigh125699.7%99.7% 1989Illinois2094McNeese St.150998.553.6 1994Arkansas2001North Carolina A&T136498.932.7 2011Duke2117Hampton147598.78.2 Every No. 1 vs. No. 16 men’s NCAA Tournament matchup, ever 2015Wisconsin2129Coastal Carolina148498.95.1 1990Michigan St.2052Murray St.160794.543.8 1987North Carolina2133Pennsylvania149298.869.3 2007Florida2046Jackson St.136598.712.4 2009Connecticut2024Chattanooga150397.411.1 1995Kentucky2115Mount St. Mary’s144399.031.4 By Nate Silver 2007Ohio St.2084Central Conn. St.155097.713.2 1992Kansas2106Howard141098.937.8 2003Arizona2069Vermont148198.520.3 It’s the sort of statistic that seems ripped from pages of the Washington Generals media guide. Since the men’s NCAA Tournament went to a 64-team format in 1985, No. 16 seeds are winless: an imperfect 0-124 record.No. 16 seeds can be pretty bad basketball teams, of course. Often, they’re teams from small conferences that won automatic bids by winning their conference tournament in a series of upsets after having barely cleared .500 during the regular season. (Small-conference teams that win both the regular season and their conference tournaments will usually wind up with No. 13, 14 or 15 seeds instead.) Furthermore, No. 16s have the misfortune of being matched up against No. 1 seeds, which are theoretically the four best teams in the country.But being bad is one thing; going 0 for 124 is another. My hunch is that No. 16 seeds have been unlucky not to have pulled off at least one upset.Consider that in the 1998 women’s NCAA Tournament, No. 16 seed Harvard (those plucky upstarts) beat No. 1 seed Stanford. And in the men’s tournament, several No. 16 seeds have come close to winning. Two of them, Princeton and East Tennessee State, lost by a single point in 1989 to Georgetown and Oklahoma, respectively. The next year, No. 16 seed Murray State took Michigan State to overtime before losing by four.Meanwhile, plenty of No. 15 seeds have won. Well, not plenty, but seven of them have upset No. 2 seeds. And No. 14 seeds have beaten No. 3 seeds 20 times. These results suggest that 16-versus-1 upsets ought to be possible, especially because there isn’t always a whole lot of daylight separating teams from one seed to the next. As its choices this year made clear, the selection committee is not infallible. Sometimes a team gets seeded as a 16 when it should probably have been a 14 or 15. Sometimes a No. 1 seed should have been a No. 2 seed. If a No. 15 seed can beat a No. 2 seed, then surely a 15-seed that’s mis-seeded as 16 can beat a 2-seed that’s mis-seeded as a No. 1.But we can be more precise about this. In building our NCAA Tournament forecasts this year, we developed an Elo ratings system for college basketball. Although our forecasts for this year blend Elo with several other computer ratings, we can run Elo-based projections for past tournament games going back as far as we like.Here, then, is how Elo would have forecast every past 1-versus-16 matchup on the day it was played. Once we figure out the No. 1 seed’s odds of winning each game, we can simply multiply the probabilities to figure out their cumulative odds of winning all 124. It’s a long table, so scroll down to the bottom for the punch line. 2014Wichita St.2041Cal Poly153997.45.9 1988Temple2058Lehigh152197.258.2 1993Michigan2095Coastal Carolina146398.534.6 1990Oklahoma2101Towson150498.651.1 2013Louisville2124North Carolina A&T145199.06.8 2001Stanford2113UNC-Greensboro145999.123.4 2006Villanova2035Monmouth150597.413.7 2013Gonzaga2032Southern143598.46.7 1992UCLA1959Robert Morris148597.036.6 2006Duke2084Southern143199.116.5 1995UCLA2059Florida Intl.131399.531.2 2009Louisville2059Morehead St.153497.010.1 1993Kentucky2066Rider142798.835.1 1995Wake Forest2077North Carolina A&T136199.131.7 1994Purdue2036Central Florida137399.034.2 2000Michigan St.2125Valparaiso147098.824.7 1991North Carolina2108Northeastern155797.241.9 1987Georgetown2015Bucknell148197.364.2 1994North Carolina2082Liberty145098.433.1 2011Kansas2117Boston U.157098.18.1 1996Kentucky2127San Jose St.157797.830.5 2007North Carolina2097Eastern Kentucky149498.413.5 2010Syracuse1986Vermont161992.68.8 1996Massachusetts2127Central Florida136599.629.4 1998Kansas2144Prairie View131799.626.4 1996Connecticut2134Colgate146698.829.1 2014Florida2086Albany155498.06.0 2010Duke2059Arkansas Pine Bluff142298.79.5 Our sports podcast Hot Takedown previews March Madness. 2008Memphis2023Texas Arlington144298.111.4 2000Duke2161Lamar137299.624.0 1997Minnesota2023Texas St.142398.327.4 1995Kansas2049Colgate147997.732.0 1987UNLV2064Idaho St.150697.367.4 2001Michigan St.2105Alabama St.145098.522.6 2010Kansas2161Lehigh151499.09.7 2002Kansas2066Holy Cross156197.321.9 2009Pittsburgh2021East Tennessee St.153696.210.4 2014Virginia2028Coastal Carolina145197.85.5 2006Connecticut2109Albany153197.916.2 2002Maryland2110Siena154298.321.5 1993North Carolina2147East Carolina148098.936.2 2012Kentucky2105Western Kentucky147698.57.9 2012Michigan St.2029Long Island U.157995.76.9 2003Oklahoma1975South Carolina St.147397.820.6 2004Stanford2041Texas San Antonio145098.418.5 2004Kentucky2085Florida A&M142199.018.3 1992Ohio St.2038Miss. Valley St.147598.138.3 2005Illinois2132Fairleigh Dickinson147599.017.2 1996Purdue2050Western Carolina153996.829.5 2002Cincinnati2055Boston U.149497.821.1 1993Indiana2130Wright St.155797.935.5 2004Saint Joseph’s1941Liberty144896.518.9 2015Duke2028Robert Morris155496.45.2 2005North Carolina2095Oakland151098.417.0 1998Duke2135Radford146298.826.5 2011Pittsburgh2008UNC-Asheville159494.58.3 CHANCE THAT NO. 1 SEED WINS … 2001Illinois2030Northwestern St.147598.023.0 2012North Carolina2059Vermont162996.07.2 1999Auburn1988Winthrop143897.425.7 2008North Carolina2141Mount St. Mary’s156398.311.6 1997Kansas2194Jackson St.145199.228.6 1991Ohio St.1997Towson153096.540.4 2006Memphis1931Oral Roberts162987.114.1 1986Kentucky2029Davidson152495.674.2 1989Oklahoma2028East Tennessee St.151796.254.4 2010Kentucky2029East Tennessee St.152696.59.8 2002Duke2193Winthrop141199.522.5 1989Georgetown2055Princeton153196.751.9 2013Indiana1986James Madison157494.56.2 1985Oklahoma1963North Carolina A&T154495.795.4 2004Duke2037Alabama St.133999.318.8 2011Ohio St.2115Texas San Antonio152398.78.0 1988Arizona2003Cornell149497.756.9 2003Texas1919UNC-Asheville127298.419.6 1986Duke2116Miss. Valley St.160797.577.7 1997North Carolina2099Fairfield143399.128.8 2005Duke2058Delaware St.146998.316.7 1994Missouri2003Navy141498.333.6 2015Villanova2086Lafayette149998.05.4 2001Duke2149Monmouth154498.623.7 2008UCLA2074Miss. Valley St.135099.512.3 1989Arizona2117Robert Morris136099.556.6 2003Kentucky2149IUPUI155998.119.9 2014Arizona2012Weber St.155795.75.6 1998North Carolina2155Navy146498.926.8 1986St. John’s2006Montana St.154094.470.1 2015Kentucky2158Hampton150399.05.4 2008Kansas2102Portland St.169895.511.8 1987Indiana2007Fairfield147398.066.0 More: Apple Podcasts | ESPN App | RSS | Embed 1990Connecticut2015Boston U.153396.446.3 1985Michigan2024Fairleigh Dickinson146198.082.0 2000Stanford2092South Carolina St.141798.424.1 2000Arizona1982Jackson St.139699.024.5 1998Arizona2159Nicholls St.152198.827.1 read more

Turks and Caicos AG Chambers defends Civil Servant in false news attack

first_imgFacebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsAppProvidenciales, Turks and Caicos – July 17, 2017 – Fake or false news strikes again and this time it tried to take down the Registrar of Lands, Brandie Nova Anderson of Jamaica.  The Attorney General’s Chambers came to the defense of Ms Anderson and the Integrity Commissioned denounced that it is investigating the woman who has been Registrar of Lands since November 2014.No one knows who Joshua Pierre is, but that is the name put to a statement of a most damaging nature posted to social media about Anderson.It is said the statement was packed with lies and the AG has reported to the matter to the Police for investigation.  It was also explained in those Friday media releases that, “it is now very clear that some person or persons hiding behind the name “Joshua Pierre” made a malicious and damaging publication that has no basis in truth as it has been confirmed that no investigation into Ms. Anderson is being carried out by the Integrity Commission.”As for funds and how they are handled at the Lands department, there was this,   “The Government’s funds, including that, which have been appropriated to the Land Registry, are managed and paid through strict financial management and procurement procedures, and audited at the end of each Financial Year. There has been no finding to implicate Ms. Anderson of any wrongdoing since she commenced her service with TCIG.”The assault on the reputation of Anderson is called malicious.“All persons are reminded of the serious legal consequences of causing damage to the professional reputation of public officers who are merely seeking to carry out their functions in accordance with the high professional standards of the public service.”It was also explained that Ms. Anderson won the job of leading the Register of Lands through a fair and transparent process, a clean police record and she is also cited with having  “transformed the Lands Registry into an efficient operation in accordance with the requirements of the Registered Land Ordinance and has garnered the respect of her peers both within and outside of the public service.”#AGdefendscivilservant#IntegrityCommissiondeniesinvestigation#Andersonnotunderinvestigation#TCIGpublicservicestandard#FakenewsinTCI Related Items:#AGdefendscivilservant, #Andersonnotunderinvestigation, #FakenewsinTCI, #IntegrityCommissiondeniesinvestigation, #magneticmedianews, #TCIGpublicservicestandard Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApplast_img read more

San Diego City Council approves funding for homeless navigation center

first_img 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek  . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsSAN DIEGO (KUSI) – The San Diego City Council yesterday approved funding for a navigation intake center for the homeless over the objections of four council members who said the center provides no shelter beds and guarantees no housing.The mayor agrees we need more housing but for now he’s focused on the short term needs of the homeless who are without shelter.In the meantime, the council has taken the lead on providing low cost housing by recently passed a resolution requesting each council district identify sites for 140 housing units that would get the city to 1260 units a number that would match the number of chronically homeless in the city.Additionally, the council hopes to expand the reach by including school districts land and property owned by the state. Steve Bosh, Posted: November 14, 2018 San Diego City Council approves funding for homeless navigation center November 14, 2018 Steve Bosh Categories: Local San Diego News FacebookTwitterlast_img read more

San Diego police make 62 DUI arrests during holiday period

first_img Posted: July 6, 2019 SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – The California Highway Patrol arrested 62 drivers for suspicion of drunk driving in San Diego County over the holiday period, officials said today.While there were no fatalities on county freeways this year, the CHP said 17 people were killed in California during the July Fourth holiday period. The CHP holiday reporting period was from 6 p.m. Wednesday to 6 a.m. Saturday.The arrests for suspicion of DUI in the county increased over last year’s holiday period by 28. The CHP only tracks DUI arrests made by CHP officers.Statewide, three pedestrians were killed during the holiday period in the CHP’s jurisdiction. There were two motorcycle deaths reported statewide.This year there were 17 driving fatalities in California, as reported by all law enforcement agencies. Last year there were also 17. This year there were 839 arrests by CHP officers for suspicion of DUI throughout California. There were 389 last year. San Diego police make 62 DUI arrests during holiday period July 6, 2019 Categories: Local San Diego News FacebookTwitter KUSI Newsroom KUSI Newsroom, last_img read more