Task 1) Report
Provide a short report (maximum 2 pages including references) that answers the following question:
What are the differences between the following processor instruction sets?
Include the following aspects:
• Number of instructions
• Processors using each approach
• Advantages and disadvantages of each approach
Task 2) Pelican System
You need to design a Pedestrian Light Controlled Crossing (Pelican) system using the flowchart method and then implement this using Arduino UNO. The specification of what is required is as follows:
• Design the circuit of the Pelican system, which includes an Arduino UNO, LEDs and other necessary components. The system has two sets of lights, one for car drivers (green + yellow + red LEDs) and one for pedestrians (green + red LEDs).
• Connect the components as designed.
• Write the code for the system. If a button is pressed by a pedestrian, the traffic lights should work following a standard UK sequence.
• More advanced features can be added into the system to improve safety and practicality.
Notes: You can also write debug commands to the serial port so you know what is going on.
Task 3) Automatic Swing Door
You need to design a simplified ‘automatic swing door’ system controlled by an Arduino UNO. In the system, a light dependent resistor (LDR) is used to detect an object approaching through the change of light brightness. A servo is used to simulate the operation of an automatic door, and an LED will indicate the status of the door. The specification of what is required is as follows:
• Design the circuit of the system, which includes an Arduino UNO, a servo motor, an LDR, an LED and other necessary components.
• Connect the components as designed.
• Write the code for the system. If an object approaches the LDR, the servo will move from its initial closed position (0°) to an open position (90°); then stay at the open position for 5 seconds; finally move back to the closed position.
• An LED is used to indicate the status of the door. If the door is open, turn on the LED; If the door is closed, turn off the LED.
• More advanced features can be added into the system to improve safety and practicality.
Basically, utilitarianism holds that the right game-plan is what will make the best level of satisfaction. Bentham called this the best satisfaction rule or the best felicity standard. He composed the best joy of each one of those whose interests are being referred to, as being correct and legitimate, and just right and appropriate and all around alluring, end of human activity. Utilitarians look for an observational reason for profound quality through the estimation of joy. The inquiry that an utilitarian will ask himself is will this, of every single conceivable activity, contribute most to the general bliss? Bliss is viewed as the main thing that is great in itself and misery the main thing that is terrible in itself. Utilitarianism has comprehensively been ordered as either act utilitarianism, which is the frame whereupon Bentham established his speculations and manage utilitarianism, which was created by John Stuart Mill. Act utilitarianism conceives that the best strategy in any given circumstance is the demonstration that will bring about the best utility (i.e. the best advantage). Administer utilitarianism, then again, holds that the right game-plan is what takes after the general control which offers ascend to the best utility. In this way, for instance, it may be reasonable as far as act utilitarianism for a gathering of companions to burglarize a man and offer the cash between themselves, yet in the event that this was to be the run connected in each such circumstance then the impact on society in general would be, for example, to exceed any satisfaction made by the demonstration. Reactions OF UTILITARIANISM Instinctively, utilitarianism has all the earmarks of being a to a great degree alluring reasoning. It offers an effortlessness that numerous other philosophical methodologies need and specifically slices through the hodgepodge of good guidelines supported by deontological masterminds. It is reconcilable with the majoritarianism supported by law based frameworks of government. Additionally, utilitarianism offers an undeniable response to the subject of why we should act absolutely without a religious defense. Notwithstanding this, the hypothesis has pulled in extensive feedback. On a commonsense level, utilitarianism has been criticized as unworkable, and even silly. It has been contended that there is no sufficient methods for characterizing bliss, nor any reasonable technique for evaluating levels of satisfaction. Regardless of whether the hypothesis can be made to chip away at a down to earth level, others contend, the outcomes are ethically off-base. Others question the decrease of the human experience to the quest for delight. The different reactions are excessively various and mind boggling, making it impossible to talk about in detail here and all things considered I will limit my dialog to two reactions that are especially pervasive in philosophical writing: the primary identifying with commonsense issues in applying the utilitarian idea and the second managing concerns emerging from the consequences of utilitarian investigation. (1) Impossibility the untenability of the felicific analytics A standout amongst the most clear issues with utilitarianism is that joy, which lies at the core of the hypothesis, is a theoretical idea. How might we would like to quantify a quality that exists just in our brains? Moreover, on the off chance that we can't gauge joy, how might we tell the impacts that an activity will have on the measure of satisfaction inside a general public? Bentham proposed a numerical recipe for computing how an activity will influence levels of joy, which he called the felicific analytics, or utility math. In Chapter 4 of An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham sets out his recipe in detail. Regardless of this endeavor at mathematisation, it is clear, as Smart calls attention to, that the weighing of outcomes appears to be more frequently a matter of obscure instinct than of logical computation. The felicific math can't generally represent distinctive degrees of satisfaction nor of the way that diverse individuals are made upbeat by various things, and to various degrees. It can't filter the brains of the populace and know for certain what will expand their satisfaction. It is regularly difficult to foresee even what the outcomes of an activity will be, so any endeavor to anticipate the impacts on joy are probably similarly unfeasible. For instance, an utilitarian may contend that, on the off chance that it were conceivable to movement back in time, at that point it would be altogether admissible to kill Hitler keeping in mind the end goal to keep the passings of a large number of individuals. Be that as it may, it is inconceivable for us to realize what the aftereffects of this would have been. Maybe a significantly more underhanded despot would win control in his place and this could bring about the agony and demise of twice the same number of individuals. In light of this trouble, Bernard Williams, among others, criticizes the felicific math as foolish. He contends that utilitarians would be caught in an endless procedure of estimation with an end goal to decide each minor outcome of their activities. One utilitarian reaction to this allegation is that utilitarian computations ought to be done subject as far as possible. On the off chance that the count technique was left to shake on endlessly then it in itself would turn out to be too expensive and would itself exceed the advantages to be gotten from the figuring. Allison said that utilitarians ought to embrace the rundown rules approach taken by Rawls in A Theory of Justice. A logical approach appears to be sensible. J S Mill contended that, despite the fact that the counts were vital, they have just been done in the entire past term of the human species and have now come to shape some portion of our ethical standards. Accordingly, we don't require to sit figuring the result of each activity before we make it. Obviously, to some degree it will be conceivable to tell intuitively what will bring about the best joy. Shockingly, this does rather undermine the exact approach that utilitarians appear to go for. In any occasion, the felicific analytics is unconvincing as a device of certifiable convenience and even current utilitarians seem to have come to dismiss it. (2) Conflict with the idea of individual rights Utilitarianism, as has already been commented upon, is principally worried about the interests of most of the group. This is hellish cursedness to the individuals who bolster the idea of individual rights as vital. Dworkin, for instance, trusted that rights are trumps that overpower all other good contemplations. In spite of the fact that he noticed the clear libertarian and fair nature of utilitarianism, and recognized that utilitarian contention regards, as well as encapsulates, the privilege of every resident to be dealt with as the equivalent of some other he goes ahead to bring up this was tricky and could without much of a stretch prompt the encroachment of individual rights. He gives the case of how racial isolation may be supported under the bliss guideline on the premise that isolation may be of advantage to a white law understudy as it would secure his interests despite the fact that a minority would endure. Dworkin flawlessly compresses his position when he composes If somebody has a privilege to accomplish something then it isn't right for the legislature to endeavor to deny it to him despite the fact that it would be in the general enthusiasm to do as such. It has been contended that the consequentialist idea of hypothesis implies that all way of rights infringement and barbarities may be defended by utilitarian examination. On the off chance that the end legitimizes the methods at that point, to give a topical case, is it adequate to torment a psychological militant so as to get data with regards to the whereabouts of a bomb? Is it adequate to torment his family to pressurize the psychological oppressor into talking? In the event that the torment brings about the finding of a bomb, which is then defused, sparing numerous lives, at that point the utilitarian position would probably bolster the torment in the two cases. Rights-based scholars, then again, would view torment as an infringement of the terrorist&s rights that would never be legitimized. In addition, at an instinctual level the normal individual would be revolted at the prospect of torment, if not of the fear based oppressor then unquestionably of the psychological militant's family. It is hard to perceive how utilitarianism can be accommodated with human nature in such conditions. A control utilitarian would try to bypass this issue by belligerence that torment, if connected when in doubt, would have such an unfavorable impact on society that its utilization can't be defended under the best satisfaction rule. Torment in a solitary circumstance may be supported, however the dread and disgrace that would emerge in the group everywhere because of a generally utilized strategy of torment would exceed the quick advantage in this circumstance. John Stuart Mill additionally contended that there was utilitarian incentive in the assurance of rights, since this would build general satisfaction. This is a convincing contention. The demonstration utilitarian, in any case, would apparently will undoubtedly acknowledge the torment as ethically genuine. What, at that point, of huge scale barbarities? It could be contended that a consequentialist approach has been utilized to legitimize a large number of the world&s most noticeably awful wrongdoings against humankind. Shrewd yields that, under a strict utilitarian examination, it is reasonable to make enduring and passing an expansive number of individuals in light of the fact that a much bigger number would at last advantage. In any case, he calls attention to that it would be essential in utilitarian terms to be certain that the future age would profit and, since it would more likely than not be difficult to be so sure without bounds, utilitarianism would not in truth authorize the outrage. In addition, he says, regardless of whether we could foresee the future with outright sureness, the possibility that a vast scale monstrosity would bring about an advantage of adequate scale to exceed the ghastliness it causes is remote to the point that utilitarians would in all likelihood censure the barbarity. Shockingly, this cautious contention serves to re-repeat one of the reactions already insinuated suggest: to be specific, the troublesome>GET ANSWER