Slashdot Mirror

I am an engineer* for reals, this isn't really a relevant problem. There is something called a Professional Engineer, there is a process for obtaining this license . There are places where it is mandatory. One should not represent that he has this license if he does not have it, that is clearly fraud. If one is in a position where he absolutely needs a licensed Professional Engineer, one should also check that the person speaking has one, the board will happily oblige inquiry. If he does not, he may be well educated and informative, but can't make the final decision. However, his input is not necessarily invalid. Some civil servant who didn't want his 9-5 disrupted because some unlicensed engineer documented facts that happened to piss on his wheaties does not get to ignore the problem and file a lawsuit, I would argue he should lose his license for clearly unprofessional behavior.

However, saying "I am an engineer" does not confer this, and having PEs lay claim to the title when the vast majority of us engineers* do not want the license is disingenuous at best. Most engineers* are fully competent in their fields, or they do not last very long. Most engineers* do not even consider a PE license at any point in their careers. Unlike that website I linked, it has absolutely 0 value outside of a few limited areas, and has absolutely 0 impact on your career path except in narrow circumstances where you work in a business where a PE might be a requirement. The NSPE may wish it were not so, but the licensed PE has a few very onerous limitations with it, and sensible people avoid it like the plague.

* people in possession of university degrees in engineering disciplines such as mechanical, electrical, chemical, software, civil engineering, who are practicing in those fields for money as their means of income

There are historical reasons for engineering ethics. Some of the ethics go beyond engineering into just being a good person, while other ethics are the kind that when not followed and people die, bad things happen to the company that failed to act ethically.

https://www.nspe.org/resources...

Wrong.
https://www.nspe.org/resources...

Not sure about the legality of practicing as an engineer across state lines but there is a process of licensure for existing professional engineers: https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/resources/licensure-comity

You're wrong. Read this: https://www.nspe.org/resources...

Try spotting them. Sociopaths excel at manipulation. If you don't have the skills to spot them and they get in, you put yourself at risk trying to get them back out.

This is one reason that actual, licensed engineers have a strict code of ethics. Problem: Software 'engineering' doesn't fall under most states' PE licensing laws. So a lot of the bad actors tend to gravitate toward that profession.

The term he's looking for may be "Professional Engineer".
They've made a society for that where that collects money and give you a test that most people pass.
You don't get to tell people they are not an engineer just because it doesn't mean an all that you want it too.

If I'm working with engineers to build a device, they are not engineering while they're troubleshooting embedded circuits yet not engineering while they're troubleshooting embedded code. Nor are the application people who are using their code on the same compiler crossing a threshold into non-engineering. We're all creating a system that will generate a specific type of output based on an input, trying to balance resource restraints to meet some form of requirements. The risk of failure of any system is a part of that equation. The risk of failure of a game is different than the risk of failure of a missile-defense system.

A PE is an Engineer, but an Engineer doesn't have to be a PE.

Depends on the state in the USA. Not all states have an industrial exemption from licensing engineers working on their products.

Off topic somewhat: This raises interesting issues for designs produced in one jurisdiction (where the exemption exists) but manufactured in another (where the engineering must be produced by a licensed individual). One interesting example: Boeing designs aircraft in WA (which has an exemption) but manufactures them in SC (which does not).

Scientists and engineers are by definition not supposed to be ethical.

Professional Engineers (PEs) disagree:

Ethics - National Society of Professional Engineers

and

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers

Scientists and engineers are by definition not supposed to be ethical.

Professional Engineers (PEs) disagree:

Ethics - National Society of Professional Engineers

and

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers

...it's about being able to learn stuff, as needed, with almost no help, on a deadline.

Clearly, an engineer should not take a senior position of a job he has no knowledge of. It's against the engineering code of ethics. However, not knowing something specific you think might be obvious, in a field with topics as numerous as there are stars in the sky, is silly. A worker is not judged by what they know, they're judged on what they can do. And what they can do is capable of changing with the application of learning.

Your man might not know public key encryption when you asked. The test of a man's character is "What did he do afterward?" If he immediately noticed he didn't understand a fundamental topic, and started researching it, he's a damn fine employee.

You may think you're looking at an employee who doesn't know fundamentals, but I'm doing the same thing. Looking at someone who doesn't understand the fundamentals of running a business long-term.

If you provide specific data, why not cite it? Here are the numbers pulled from the total January 2014 unemployment rate column of your link:
- Overall unemployment is 7.0% exactly, which you got right
- The closest category I could find to science professions has a 3.1% unemployment rate
- Computer and mathematical professionals have a 2.3% unemployment rate
- Engineers have a 3.8% unemployment rate; the 3% you cited was for a much broader class of professions

All of those rates are lower than they were last year, suggesting that demand is picking up.

The NSPE indicates that the number of licensed engineers is around 450,000 as of 2010, and that only about 20% of graduates in relevant majors actually go on to become licensed engineers. Their rough estimates are that there are currently about 2.2 million people in the workforce who graduated with a relevant degree, but by no means would all 2.2 million of those people be considered practicing engineers. In fact, the link indicates that 80% of them never got licensed and have likely moved on to another field.

You also only cited numbers for the E in STEM, then made generalizations about STEM as a whole, which is a bit hand-wavey of you. The article I linked did the reverse of that (as have I, inasmuch as I referenced information from the article), since they talked about T and E when they lumped computer science in with engineering for the 2.2 million number, but then used that number to make specific claims about the number of licensed engineers, despite the fact that P.E. licensure isn't relevant to the vast majority of computer science graduates.

All in all, the numbers from all of these sources--flawed as they are--seem to suggest that demand for STEM field practitioners is far outstripping the available supply (as indicated by extremely low unemployment rates and extremely low rates of new supply becoming available). As such, while we may not be shedding jobs, we do appear to have a shortage. I make no claims about whether we're shedding jobs or not, since no one in this thread has provided sufficient facts to make their case, though if we are shedding jobs, we must also be shedding new supply at an even faster rate, given that unemployment rates have gone down for all STEM fields over the course of the last year.

>a professional engineer is required by law to write any software code where safety is on the line.

Uh-huh. Let's take a look at what it takes to become a PE.

• A degree
• Passing the Fundamentals of Engineering (a.k.a. Engineer in Training) exam.
• 4 years of experience under the supervision of another PE.
• Passing the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam

Yep, two exams and managing not to get fired for four years is all it takes. If that is sufficient to reassure you that having a PE on the job means that your product will be well designed and safe, all I can say is that you have a very low bar for reassurance.

Though the title of PE has a certain respectability associated with it granted to it by age, for software engineers, its not much different from worthless certificates such as A+ or MCSE.

. . .really, really skeptical about people whose science can be bought

My general position is so close to that which you've expressed in this posting that it sounds like words I may have said. This last bit, though, deserves a slightly cautionary warning. As my username makes clear, I'm not a scientist, but an engineer. For more than a decade, I worked as a consulting engineer preparing traffic, parking and other transportation studies, generally for private enterprise. Over the last 2 1/2 years, I've worked in the public sector designing highway safety improvements, as well as preparing parking studies. Right now, I'm repairing a parking study, initially prepared by other engineers, that is so badly skewed in the public favor, that I strongly suspect an ill-favored bias on the previous engineers' part, or perhaps a ridiculous incompetence in the subject matter. (Both positions are difficult, as I know the engineers involved in the previous study.)

While I used the previous paragraph to make a point, I'm going to use this one to counter it. I don't know about scientists, but engineers (ostensibly) work under a code of ethics that should prevent a bias. My experience in the private sector, with primarily private sector clients, and my work in the public sector with some truly outstanding people, suggests to me that the majority of engineers are mindful of the ethics governing our profession. (I want to be clear, here, that I'm not a scientist. My work was strictly a stochastic analysis of empirical data to hypothetical future conditions.

I don't know if geophysicists (or climate scientists) in Stockholm, Algiers, Timbuktu, or Bumfuck, Ohio are governed by a professional code of conduct. I tend to think, though, that most are really trying to do good work, even if I think some are misguided. Others will make their bias clear, while a few will be completely incompetent or have a problem with judgment (like our friend the water-dowser) that makes their professional work suspect.

The sum result of my blathering should be that you ought to be as suspicious of research funded by, edited by or done by the public sector or the WWF as you are of the same performed by a petroleum institute.

--

p.s. I don't give a pass to oil companies or to institutions in the field. My initial degree study (3 years) was for a BS in petroleum engineering. My first internship was with a drilling company; an internship which caused me to change my major. I also live in Alaska, whose legislature was recently convinced to change our taxes on oil production. I *know*, first-hand, how short-sighted and selfish these companies are. I also understand quite well how dependent the related academia is on money from the industry.

I am not sure if the article writer actually thought this one through. In engineering as I understand it there is a category of engineers called professional engineers, which are allowed to sign off on work done and are held liable for any defects that may arise through normal, non extraordinary use. Bridge falls down under a normal load limit and well within expected age, s/he's on the hook. Building collapses with no reason, s/he's on the carpet explaining themselves. These engineers are for the most part licensed on a state by state basis and are mostly concentrated in the civil/structural engineering field, though there are others.

For fields in which there is no state by state regulation, or products which are not confined to a single state (cars, airplanes) there is a thing called an industrial exemption, which basically stipulates that engineers are exempt from individual licensing and liability in designing and manufacturing products while under the employ of a company. The thought behind this is twofold (or more):

1. It would be unfair to require and individual to maintain multiple license for each state the product is sold in, for the case of a company like Ford, all of them
2. Existing product liability laws are in place in case the product does fail in order to recompense the public for any defects. Not saying that is right or not but there it is.

Now given my semi understanding of the field of professional engineering licensing, which I will admit is only based on heresy and 10 minutes of Google research, I am wondering which model of licensing the author is proposing? The once where licensing is done on a state by state basis, which would effectively kill any sort of large software distribution, including Microsoft, Linux, Google, and any thing else that grows beyond someones the locale city website. Or the one in which software is treated as a product, covered by all the end user license agreement and statements that it is delivered as-is, with no guarantees of suitability for purpose and which does not actually require a licensed engineer to make?

Now obviously IANAL nor am INAE, but I think that maybe his proposal will not work out the way he thought it would.

If you're an engineering student and you "cheat"* to get past material you don't understand, you are disgracing the profession. And you're placing our lives in danger. Your core courses aren't chosen haphazardly, and you're expected to understand and respect that. Do us a favour and do it right or find another profession.

And whether you hold to it or not, there is always the Creed:
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Creed/creed.html

* Let's be careful about what we call cheating, though. There is a case to be made for collaboration between students, as most of us don't work in a vacuum and you'll be better prepared for the workforce if you know how to work with others.

You probably have never worked with MDs before. But let me tell you they are the worst people to deal with. Because they have a Dr. for a prefix and a MD for a suffix to their name they act like they are the smartest person in the world. So when they encounter something new to them, and out of their main scope they get very offensive, rude and makes everyones lives a little bit more stressful.

I am not disagreeing with you here, but I must interject that this syndrome is not isolated to MDs, or any doctors for that matter. Professional Engineers tend to be just as bad, and I'm sure there are other highly educated folks who, as a group, tend to exhibit this behavior more than other groups.

All that said, I think everyone could do with a little more courtesy (professional and otherwise). Seriously, it takes no effort and no significant time to say "please" and "thank you". People would be surprised what a little common courtesy will do for improving just about any situation.

I've been hoping for a long time that there would be some kind of CPA/SPE/bar/board equivalent for both IT and software design and engineering. It would really help our industries so very much. I believe it's only a matter of time before such things are created, but I really wish it would happen sooner rather than later.

No need for all that. We could start with a simple code of ethics. If people adhere to it, they don't need anything else, and if they don't adhere to it, no amount of certification or regulation will help.

It would include such complicated requirements as "Don't pirate shite. Not even good shite." "Don't enable invasion of privacy." "Do encourage open standards instead of shite." "Do document your own shite." "Shite happens is not an excuse." "When you leave a place, leave passwords, code, etc. behind - it's not yours." "NDA term is 1 year from exit. No more, no less."

There ae plenty of examples to draw from.

or, for those who prefer KISS:

10 REM BASIC CODE OF CONDUCT (PUN INTENDED)
20 DO NOT SCREW PEOPLE OVER
30 GOTO 10

/* C our new code of ethics */
#include <std/ethics.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[], char* env[]) {
ethics_init();
ethics_run();
/* insert your code here */
ethics_free();
return NO_ETHICAL_VIOLATIONS_FOUND;
}

#regex code of ethics - see the power of regular expressions!
s/evil/good/gi;

I'd put a java version, butTheNamesOfTheVariousClassesWouldBeTooFuckingLongAndTheMethod-InvocationsAndAllTheTryExceptHandling-WouldBeSooooooooErrorProne-ItWouldBeAnEthicalViolationToDoSo and we'd end up in debugging ecursion hell anyway.

I agree completely. People/companies should use the term only if they are actually engineers (e.g. hold an accredited engineering degree).

Furthermore, we could argue the fact that these so called engineers should be Registered Professional Engineers* (licensed) to practice "engineering". It totally bugs me how IT has abused and undermined the term.

* = http://nspe.org/pf-home.asp

Exactly! Right from the Code of Ethics of a Professional Engineer? Here's a link.

Notice, the first fundamental canon is: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

The third is: Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

If we go down to the specific Rules of Practice:

If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate. This is what he was worried about. However, the "normal" people to inform were ignoring him and he didn't know any other way to get this information to the people who would be affected - not only the Coast Guard personnel, but the public that will be sharing the waters with them, and the People of the United States who are the ultimate client.

Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code. As a Person of the United States, he has my consent. As do all other Engineers who have concerns. Also, the previous rule requires him to do this.

Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm. Which he did not. Sorry he lost his position. Hopefully something good will come around for him.

Now, I hope he gets a lot of money for speaking engagements at different Engineering conferences. He chose the difficult road, but proved he is an Engineer. If Ethics were easy, we wouldn't need to write them all down in Codes of Ethics.

While his employers probably will administratively punish and / or fire him, because his actions may save my coastie brothers and sisters in the long run,I tip my hat off to you. Sometimes you gotta grab life by the horns, to do the right thing.

Just for reference: here is a link to the National Society for Professionl Engineers website for the code of ethics. http://www.nspe.org/ethics/eh1-code.asp Section 7 specifically deals with this case.

From the About page:

"Founded in 1934, NSPE strengthens the engineering profession by promoting engineering licensure and ethics, enhancing the engineer image, advocating and protecting PEs' legal rights at the national and state levels, publishing news of the profession, providing continuing education opportunities, and much more."

Maybe he remembers the space shuttle Challenger disaster. Seven people died then, when an engineer followed company orders not to oppose the launch and to keep quiet.

Maybe Mangan, the former ITTech engineer, has a conscience and takes his ethical responsibilities as an engineer seriously. If he knows of a problem and knows the company has falsified test data, it is his duty to come forward. To remain quiet would make him partially responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people should a catastrophic failure occur in the Airbus pressure valves.

Also, how reliable are the systems that tell the forward landing gear to point sideways? (Remember the recent Airbus emergency landing?)

Gotta justify your tuition to MIT? Anyone can take the professional engineer exams, just like you can take the Bar exam w/o having a JD first (like Frank Abagnale). (I worked with a state traffic engineer [yes, he passed the Professional Engineer exam... Hi, Ed) who's BS was in geography, not civil engineering).

From the National Society of Professional Engineers:

Licensure laws vary from state to state and are exclusively under the control of the individual state legislatures. But generally, the licensure laws for professional engineers require graduation from an accredited engineering curriculum followed by approximately four years of responsible engineering experience, and finally the successful completion of a written exam. Some states may waive the written exam on the basis of education and experience, but the trend is toward an examination requirement.

Though many states allow non-engineering graduates to take the exam on the basis of a long term of work experience in engineering.

Well, in the US you can't technically be an "Engineer" unless you're licensed by the National Society of Professional Engineers, but that doesn't really seem to stop people much.

Quebec court rules against Microsoft - by Shane Schick ITBusiness Staff Microsoft Canada has contravened a provincial professional code by using the word "engineer" in its international software certification program, a Quebec court has ruled. The decision by Judge Claude Millette of the Court of Quebec marks the first time in Microsoft's history it has been penalized for using the term. It also provides a historic, if largely symbolic, victory for professional engineers who have been trying to curtail the word's use in the context of software development. Microsoft has said it will appeal the decision, which carried a $1,000 fine, once it has obtained a transcript. The case was brought forward by the Ordre des ingenieurs du Quebec (OIQ), a group of more than 48,000 professionals in every field of engineering except forestry. ....

Hold the phone. I tried that route (unintentionally), and it takes several years of living independently before only your income will be considered and not your income plus your parents' income according to IRS rules. Your school financial aid office can override this in extenuating circumstances, but you have to provide an assload of information proving you are actually independent. Even still, it's no guarantee you'll be considered independent for financial aid purposes.

Stay on your parents' taxes, fill out scholarship/grant applications like mad, and keep the grades up. It also doesn't hurt to get involved in a professional organization at your school such as IEEE, ACM, or NSPE. They either provide scholarships directly or will get you exposure with professors and administrators in order to get other scholarships.

Avoid loans if at all possible, but don't put off your education unnecessarily. Get a co-op job where you can - at least you're getting experience in your field.

The Question: Can those managers be charged with manslaughter now?

Says Bladernr:

"Probably not. If you could prove their behavoir was malicious, instead of merely stupid or calous, then maybe. People performing in their legal line of work are generally protected"

I'm not to sure about that. I know it doesn't apply, but the law in Oregon is:

163.145 Criminally negligent homicide. (1) A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, the person causes the death of another person. (2) Criminally negligent homicide is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 91]

To me, if it is as simple as the managers telling the engineers who should know to go away, then it is criminal negligence. The guy I called at the county law library said that, in court, "criminal negligence" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it does on the street.

Futher, (10) "Criminal negligence" or "criminally negligent," when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. [1971 c.743 7; 1973 c.139 .] This foaming mass comes from Chapter 161 of the ORS, so I don't know if it applies to the laws in Chapter 163, the chapter that defines criminally negligent homicide.

According to Lawinfo, "Negligence is always assessed having regards to the circumstances and to the standard of care which would reasonably be expected of a person in similar circumstances. " Futher from Lawinfo, "Gross negligence is 'Any action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another.

In view of this, I'd say that being a calous moron could get you in trouble.

Making something perfectly safe or as safe as it can be made is not always sensible. People take unnecessary risks all the time for money and thrills, including astronauts. Insisting on perfect safety would be insanely expensive and boring.

But, speaking personally, If someone didn't do something that they could have, just to save a tiny fraction of the total project cost or to save face, I would want heads to roll. I mean that literally.

Whatever else happens, we must be careful not to make managing inherantly risky endeavors like space travel so risky that good people will back off. I really don't know where that line should be drawn.

I'm guessing that these turkeys won't be charged with anything. Even if they do get fired they will probably be able to get another management job.

I do know one thing for sure. If I don't get on with my day I will miss the laundry-mat and then I'll be charged with criminally negligent stinkiness for sure. Besides, all this law stuff making my head hurt.

I'll start with the "flamebait" part and then go back to the top -

1. Because it is flamebait! But I'll bite anyway. It has been pointed out time and again that the technological boom of the 1990's and the resulting drop in crime and unemployment was a direct result of the Apollo program of the 1960's and 1970's. Here and Here are two sources.

2. "lethal radiation" - The dose of radiation an astronaut would receive on a 1.5 year Mars mission is about 52rem (using a conjunction trajectory). This would increase the chance of death attributed to radiation (cancer) of that astronaut on the order of 1%. [Zubrin, The Case for Mars]

3. "putting more than one person..." - Well we have, on this Earth, a place known as the New World. You might remember from history explorers found it by setting sail on small boats for years at a time. Think along the lines of Magellan and Columbus. I think you see where this goes. No cite necessary.

4. "Furthermore... why? Who gets fed?" - You get two for this one. First see #1 above. Second, I'll point you to the works of Thomas Malthus. We need more space to grow as a civilization, and as hard as we might try to kill each other we will run out of space eventually!

Q.E.D.

I. Fundamental Canons

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.

2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.

3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

5. Avoid deceptive acts.

6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

What you're describing is what's known as a Professional Engineer (PE) certification. *Very* few engineers go for their PE, since it takes a lot of time and a lot of money, though the resulting salary increase is very nice. A PE is equivalent to "MD" after a name, or being licensed to practice law. IE, not everyone involved in medicine is an MD, not everyone who works in law offices is a lawyer and has passed the Bar (think paralegals, etc), and not everyone involved in engineering is a PE.

It's also necessary to usually have at least 4 years of qualifying experience before you can even take the examination.

The National Society of Professional Engineers will have probably more information than you want to deal with on the subject.

Just remember, when a PE signs off on something, he's signing off on the work of everyone who's worked on the project. Given what I know of most of the other developers I've met, I don't think I'd be willing to be liable for their code...

What you're describing is what's known as a Professional Engineer (PE) certification. *Very* few engineers go for their PE, since it takes a lot of time and a lot of money, though the resulting salary increase is very nice. A PE is equivalent to "MD" after a name, or being licensed to practice law. IE, not everyone involved in medicine is an MD, not everyone who works in law offices is a lawyer and has passed the Bar (think paralegals, etc), and not everyone involved in engineering is a PE.

It's also necessary to usually have at least 4 years of qualifying experience before you can even take the examination.

The National Society of Professional Engineers will have probably more information than you want to deal with on the subject.

Just remember, when a PE signs off on something, he's signing off on the work of everyone who's worked on the project. Given what I know of most of the other developers I've met, I don't think I'd be willing to be liable for their code...

"Software Engineer" is a bad term. They are not engineeers. They do not offer engineering services as defined under the law. Every state has licensing for professional engineers, and define engineering services (not that you need a PE to practice these engineering services as an employee, but they are defined there). Now a given coder might be multi-talented and can also provide these services in another field, but that's beside the point - it's impossible to get a PE in "Software Engineering," it simply does not exist. "Software Engineers" should stop trying to put themselves with the likes of "Sanitation Engineers" and either get legislation passed to include them as official licensed engineers or stand on their own profession's two feet. BTW, there is a code of ethics for professional engineers - maybe you should look at that and use it as a basis for what you want.

• 1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
• a. If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
• b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards. ...
• e. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

This works. Very few structures fall down in the developed world because of engineering errors.

One way would be to require that programs whose malfunction can cause nontrivial harm be signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer, the way building plans are signed. To give this teeth, certificates for code-signing would be issued only through registered professional engineers.

Someday, programming may grow up and go this route.