Slashdot Mirror


America Losing Its Edge In Innovation

jaywhybee writes "Forbes has an interesting article about America losing its edge in innovation because engineers and scientists in the US are not as respected as they are in other countries, and thus fewer youths aspire to become one. Quoting: 'I’ve visited more than 100 countries in the past several years, meeting people from all walks of life, from impoverished children in India to heads of state. Almost every adult I’ve talked with in these countries shares a belief that the path to success is paved with science and engineering. In fact, scientists and engineers are celebrities in most countries. They’re not seen as geeks or misfits, as they too often are in the US, but rather as society’s leaders and innovators. In China, eight of the top nine political posts are held by engineers. In the US, almost no engineers or scientists are engaged in high-level politics, and there is a virtual absence of engineers in our public policy debates.'"

123 of 757 comments (clear)

  1. It's pretty much the same here in the UK by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 4, Informative

    Especially among crooks^H^H^H^H^H^H politicians.

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    1. Re:It's pretty much the same here in the UK by Sique · · Score: 2

      That's probably why the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany is a quantum chemist.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  2. They once were by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Think back to the TV shows of the '50's and '60's. We had an Astronaut/physics guy as the main character in I dream of Jeanie, A senior marketing executive as the husband of a witch in Bewitched, and many many others. The key factor was, they were all intelligent.

    These days we have Homer Simpson and the King of queens, et al.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    1. Re:They once were by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure that a lack of respect for science is necessarily somehow tied to the reduction of male television parts being reduced to blubbering buffoon that natters at his wife's apron strings.

      I think a better example of the changes can be seen by recalling how much astronauts were admired and their pursuits followed by every man, woman, and child in the country (and outside of it), when my mom was growing up. The names and accomplishments stick with us today. Their generation watched it live on television in absolute awe.

      In my life, the only big events were two exploding shuttles about twenty years apart. The only time there is television coverage is during the launch of the shuttle that directly follows the one that just blew up. The only modern astronauts any of us can think of are the crazy cross-country-driving adult-diaper lady and the husband of the blonde chick that was shot in the head a couple weeks ago. There is no major mission expected in the foreseeable future and most of us don't expect to have an experience like our parents in our life time. Exploration and advancement is seen as a waste. I don't need me no space explorations -- I need the potholes in mah gawd-dayum street fixed and a bigger social security check, so I can afford me some smokes when I go play bingo!

    2. Re:They once were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless he has a 4-year degree in engineering, he is not an engineer. Its very unfortunate that the job title "engineer" is so commonly misused in the US.

    3. Re:They once were by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think back to the TV shows of the '50's and '60's. We had an Astronaut/physics guy as the main character in I dream of Jeanie, A senior marketing executive as the husband of a witch in Bewitched, and many many others. The key factor was, they were all intelligent.

      These days we have Homer Simpson and the King of queens, et al.

      That has a lot to do with man bashing. Intelligent women are permitted on prime time, just not intelligent while normal men, for purely political reasons.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:They once were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's stupid. "Engineer", like "doctor" is a reserved title in many societies. In Quebec you can't call yourself an engineer unless you have a degree. Photographers and writers are not responsible by what they do for the lives of people. An engineer who designed a bridge because he decided to call himself an engineer is a menace to society and therefore must be regulated. Surely you're smart enough to understand that?

    5. Re:They once were by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Would it be boring if it was showing towering heroes of science and exploration landing on the moon? Or landing on Mars, for the first time? of course not. It's boring, precisely because of the lack of encouragement and support to do great things that we're talking about in the first place.

    6. Re:They once were by RazorSharp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems like you cannot understand the intelligence behind the social commentary in The Simpsons. Do you seriously think that this show encourages people to aspire to the likes of Homer? And in any case, he is an engineer in that power plant, isn't he?

      The Simpsons is a sad case b/c almost everyone misses the social commentary. Or they realize it's a satire of couch potatoes, but it doesn't make them feel bad, rather it makes them feel accepted, or at least acceptable. The show itself kind of drops the ball in this regard: Marge always comes back to Homer, no matter what he does (which begs the question, whom is more stupid?). Intelligent/geeky characters are ridiculed: the science guy, comic book guy, Lisa.

      I love the show, but it only contributes to the negative perception Americans have of academics. Because, really, the show doesn't go out of its way to make political statements. An environmentalist is going to think it's pro-environmentalist b/c of Lisa, an anti-environmentalist is going to think it makes fun of environmentalists b/c of how everyone treats Lisa. The Simpsons rarely takes a stance, it allows the audience to make their own conclusions based on what characters they relate to and their own personal biases.

      You may see the Simpsons as making fun of fat dumb slobs, but fat dumb slobs see it as a reinforcing their normalcy. This was most damaging with kids during my generation (growing up in the 90s). Bart was an icon of cool. No one wanted to be a Milhouse or Martin.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    7. Re:They once were by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Technically, unless the person has a PE, they are not an engineer.

    8. Re:They once were by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      Indeed. The Big Bang Theory, while excellent, and containing many jokes that are only understandable if you ARE intelligent, doesn't have a single male character AFAIK that you could aspire to.

      Sheldon : OCD and social inadequacy.
      Raj : Unable to talk to women. Literally.
      Howard : Shouldn't be ALLOWED to talk to women.
      Leonard : Spineless underachiever.
      Zac : Thick as two short planks.

      Actually, I'll go further and say you wouldn't want to be the majority of the characters, but especially the intelligent ones. I think if you actually WERE one of the male leads (except Leonard) you wouldn't really mind that much, just because you were so blinkered about your shortcomings.

      Penny : Dead end job.
      Leonard's Mother : Overanalyzer.
      Leslie Winkle : User

      The only character I find without fault so far is Bernadette, because she enjoys her studies, works hard to pay for them, knows that Howard is a bit of a project but that she'll get his undying loyalty for a little work - she has her head screwed on and she isn't screwing with anyone else to get what she wants.

    9. Re:They once were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...(which begs the question, whom is more stupid?)...

      who, not whom

    10. Re:They once were by WCguru42 · · Score: 2

      That has a lot to do with man bashing. Intelligent women are permitted on prime time, just not intelligent while normal men, for purely political reasons.

      Maybe there has been a shift, but let's be honest, any character that is "normal" is most likely going to be boring. I'd say the following are quality examples of men on TV.

      Seely Booth on Bones

      Greg House in House

      Michael Weston on Burn Notice

      Cal Lightman on Lie To Me

      Dexter Morgan on Dexter

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    11. Re:They once were by iivel · · Score: 2

      No, if someone has a PE then they are a PE. There are other internationally recognized forms of engineering.

      engineer [en-juh-neer] –noun
      1. a person trained and skilled in the design, construction, and use of engines or machines, or in any of various branches of engineering: a mechanical engineer; a civil engineer.
      2. a person who operates or is in charge of an engine.
      3. Also called locomotive engineer. Railroads . a person who operates or is in charge of a locomotive.
      4. a member of an army, navy, or air force specially trained in engineering work.
      5. a skillful manager: a political engineer.

      –verb (used with object)
      6. to plan, construct, or manage as an engineer: He's engineered several big industrial projects.
      7. to design or create using the techniques or methods of engineering: The motor has been engineered to run noiselessly.
      8. to arrange, manage, or carry through by skillful or artful contrivance: He certainly engineered the election campaign beautifully.

      Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, Systems Engineering, Electrical Engineering, etc. are all valid uses of the term and have equivilent education/certification to a PE that is recognized internationally. (Maybe not in specific countries [that use the term engineer very specifically] true, but in general - unless you'd like to go back a few centuries and redifine engineering ...)

    12. Re:They once were by NoSig · · Score: 2

      Dexter killed a man for taking his childrens' picture and despite how he portrays himself to himself (and hence the viewer) he generally kills at the drop of a hat based on vague feelings about how people are, in his mind, guilty. House knows he's indispensable at his work so he takes every chance to be the biggest asshole he can be. These two are highly efficacious in what they do, but their quality as human beings is very low.

    13. Re:They once were by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      In many countries unless one is registered with a professional engineering institution and has an accreditation like "Chartered Professional Engineer" you're not really allowed to call yourself an engineer.

      I have been through 4 years of an engineering degree. I am a member of professional institution who monitor my professional work and I have a list of competencies that I must meet followed by a hard interview before I may become accredited. Until that time, despite of my degree I am not allowed to engage in what the law defines as "engineering" without having all of my work checked by a registered professional engineer or a chartered engineer.

      It pains me to see some idiot sales man then write "Sales Engineer" on their business card. It is an assault on the name of the profession.

      Oh I'm also a professional photographer. On the weekends I go to race tracks and take photos of motorbike racers and sell them afterwards, no legalities get in the way of that.

    14. Re:They once were by szilagyi · · Score: 2

      Interesting. I came to the opposite conclusion, or maybe it's the same conclusion from a different perspective: The Simpsons does take a clear position, but it's a moderate-liberal position on almost everything (not extreme), and they don't bash your head in with it to where a stupid viewer gets the message. It wouldn't be remotely as funny otherwise, and I think it wouldn't make its point as well. It's not South Park (which I also enjoy), where the overstatement is part of the joke.

      It's like Talladega Nights: I don't see how you could interpret it as other than making (perhaps loving) fun of Applebee's, but you can't come out and just say that, it would not be funny. Part of the funny is imagining all the drooling morons thinking they're actually not making fun of Applebee's, or thinking about how the executives at Applebee's thought about the product placement, presumably knowing they were being made fun of, but either having a sense of humor or gambling on the numerical majority of audience members not getting it. At each meta level, funny.

      I don't see The Simpsons contributing to a notional decline American cultural values. It makes some fun of some serious problems and makes points about where we're going that might not be so great. It's laughing at your own faults in a funhouse mirror, as opposed to pointing and laughing across an "us versus them" line between us smarties and them dummies.

      Donuts, NASCAR, pickup trucks, etc., are great. Yeah, maybe we go overboard. But making it really obvious that Homer is not a role model isn't going to get through to anyone more effectively. Making Jean Girard a less ridiculous character would not make us realize that we shouldn't be so xenophobic. We have to love the Homer in ourselves and laugh at how we look at the French, or it's not funny. If Homer is "them" or we don't accept that we are ourselves part of the racist and xenophobic whole of America, we don't laugh, and we don't take the point.

      So, I think it's the opposite. The Simpsons only has a hope of reaching the masses by being inclusive of them, and sincerely accepting the good with bad.

      Consider the Daily Show. Not trying to bring politics into it, but purely from outside, you can see that the Daily Show is not really inclusive of a conservative position, although it tries to be balanced. (I've heard better points from conservative guests in that venue than almost anywhere else.)

      Anyway, the Daily Show is clearly one-sided and takes a clear position. (I think it's much better than Fox News / MSNBC, but I claim it's clearly biased.) Do you know anyone who's changed their political views based on it? Jon makes plenty of great points, most of which I agree with, but I don't expect it to change anyone's mind.

      Likewise, a cultural position piece has to really go out of its way to be inclusive, and I think to do so sincerely, to have any hope of changing anyone's mind, or even making them think about anything. Humans are just like that (all of us). We reject overt challenges to our thinking and need to be approached very cautiously, from common ground, to keep an open mind.

    15. Re:They once were by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Canada a lot of software engineers have actual engineering degrees and have gone through all the actual engineer processes to get all the actual engineer trappings. Myself included.

  3. Given the anti-intellectial cheerleading.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone remember a film called 'A Face in the Crowd' that was done in the 1950s? This anti-intellectual bumpkin rises to the top of the media ladder on a wave of folksy intolerance and blather. Well, this was satire that's become truth. This weird form of popularism has become a way of attacking anyone with expertise. Elites are bad. People with specific knowledge are bad. If it's not blue collar around his neck -- DON'T TRUST HIM!

    Amazingly enough, the brainwork of innovation doesn't thrive in that culture.

    1. Re:Given the anti-intellectial cheerleading.... by cptdondo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Elites are bad. People with specific knowledge are bad.

      No shit. We're having a great debate right now about the direction of our school district - no money, teachers getting laid off, school days are being cut, all that jazz. Instead of people saying "We need to fix the schools", the attack seems to be focused on teachers themselves - "cut their benefits, make them work for free" - and the involved parents, who have been called "elitist" and "segregationist" for wanting a good education for their kids. Note that the "segregationist" label is being applied to the mexican immigrants parents, the vietnamese immigrant parents, equally as much as the white native parents....

      The message is clear - we want the cheapest teachers we can get, and we want parents who don't give a shit, so our kids can go to dumbed down schools as long as we don't have to pay a dime to the school system.

      My kids attended half a year at a school in the Czech Republic. Every teacher there had an advanced degree; at least a Masters equivalent. A significant percentage had Doctorates. Class sizes are held to 22 kids. Kids attend school 10 months out of the year and get few holidays and vacations.

      It's a scary thing, being in the US right now.

    2. Re:Given the anti-intellectial cheerleading.... by RazorSharp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't have to convince me, but what I find extremely frustrating about this situation is that most would discard your anecdote b/c you mentioned European schools. That makes you a snobby socialist elite who thinks Europe is better than America. So many Americans seem to believe that as long as we delude ourselves into believing we're the best, we are.

      Then there are those who send their children to private schools and don't believe they should have to be taxed to educate the poor. Those who send their children to public schools, but don't want to be taxed for it b/c they don't expect/encourage their children to seek higher education. And of course, the ever popular Rand belief in the individual. The schools are only as good as the individuals who attend them. If you fail to become educated it's your fault and no one else's.

      With the rise of charter schools, I don't know what can save our education system other than a constitutional amendment federalizing it. As much as the Democratic party angers me, I feel obligated to support it because the opposing party is wholly opposed to education. We have two major political parties and one opposes education. That's just absurd. Ayn Rand and John Wayne/Ronald Reagan are piss-poor teachers. This idea that everyone has an equal opportunity is a lie, and it's a lie that's taught by our public schools.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    3. Re:Given the anti-intellectial cheerleading.... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know if either party really supports education in the ways that would matter. Huge overhauls are needed and it's not just about more money. The entire public education structure is broken. When you look at detailed budgets from school districts (many have them online) you see a lot of administrators, and in some cases an admin type position for every single teacher. What are all these people doing? Teaching students no longer seems to be the goal of most public school systems.

      Then we have the teachers themselves. A HS teacher should have at least an MS in the field they teach and not in education. On the teaching side HS should be more like college and less like grade school (more on that later).

      Which brings us to HS students. There is still way too much plain old babysitting in HS. I think this is the main advantage of private schools. They simply kick out kids who don't want to be there. Since the parents are also paying extra for private school, they are more apt to provide outside discipline. Outside discipline severely lacks in public school.

      Now, to touch on one of your points, the individual absolutely does matter. You can't deny that there comes a point where an individual must make their own decision to become educated or not. Right now we mostly push this decision point to college in an almost sink or swim scenario, but I would want to push this decision to HS in a more gradual fashion.

      Speaking of individual education, I don't know how old you are, but kids today have access to more information than any other time in the history of humanity. When I was in HS if I didn't understand something I had to wait until class the next day. With the internet I could have figured out the problem and learned about it in excruciating detail on my own time. The resources that are now available to the individual are staggering, so much so that some of the blame must fall to them when they are not educated.

  4. Only... by Yaa+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only brainless jocks are perceived to have leader quality in the US, as long as you are tough and aggressive.
    People think that fear is respect and thus think that the one instilling most fear has to be respected most.

    1. Re:Only... by Idbar · · Score: 2

      The problem with the US and many other countries, is that politicians and movies stars became idols. And of course, they make lots of money. So while there's still a very good amount of people interrsted in science (and actually good at it)... A large part of the society is looking though on how to easily grab their piece of pie. I.e. I'll just work as cashier in McDonalds until I can sign up for the next reality shiw that would send me to the stars... In the mean time I'm going to be posting ridiculous youtube videos, as those seem to be the ones that people watch the most.

    2. Re:Only... by iivel · · Score: 2

      That's not a new theory in organizational behaviour and group dynamics. Machivelli wrote on this very subject and given the choice it is better to rule by fear - by fear you gain respect, you just must be careful not to let it fall into hate.

      Much research has also been done that shows that personality is much more important than intelligence when developing leadership traits when attempting to influence people (OB by Kreitner and Kinicki [2008] is a good read on the reasearch that supports your statement) ... though it is not just a US thing.

  5. No time.. by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No time to read this article, I have to see what my favourite hollywood actress is doing with her hair this week

  6. News flash by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People tend to gravitate towards professions that pay better. For instance, your typical Wall St analyst has about the same level of education as an engineer. If somebody is looking at those two options (because they're good with numbers and analysis), and wants to make the big bucks, which one are they going to pick, the one that will pull in $120K a year or the one that will pull in $250K a year?

    The wonderful thing about using the numbers here is that it's a completely objective measure. Unlike "respect" which is harder to quantify.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:News flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funnily enough, making $250k on Wall St will net you a relatively modest apartment in craptastic Manhattan, while $120k in much of the rest of the country can afford a nice home and plenty of luxuries. Maybe it's just me, but apartments suck monkey balls. Particularly in NYC.

      Or rather, maybe it's more scary than funny. I mean, it's the people who chose in work in our financial sector who are the ones unable to make this observation...

    2. Re:News flash by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The one that doesn't require me to work 80 hours a week under insane stress levels. Money per hour factoring in living expenses is a much better metric to use.

      The real problem is that the question you're asking when choosing jobs is the wrong one. Personally I'd aim for the job that is most likely to make me happy. In case you're wondering studies have noted that money does not correlate with happiness (assuming one's above the poverty line). Work satisfaction on the other hand is heavily correlated. So is health, relationship satisfaction/love and social life satisfaction. In other words all things that an intense high stress high hour job makes very difficult to keep up.

    3. Re:News flash by vlm · · Score: 2

      The one that doesn't require me to work 80 hours a week under insane stress levels

      In other words, why I did not apply to med school. You've got to wonder what they're thinking (or not) when setting up hazing like that.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:News flash by xplenumx · · Score: 5, Informative

      As someone with a PhD in Immunology, I couldn't agree with you more. While an undergraduate in the 1990s, quite a few of my classmates who were graduating with a BS in Biochemistry left for non-science professions such as banking and consulting because the pay was much better - those that 'remained in science' were mostly pre-med. Of my friends who left science, all were making over $100,000 per year before I finished my PhD. Of my friends who remained in science, all were making well under $100,000 within five years - though that's a bit unfair since the average pay for a graduate student was ~$20,000. Those who left immediately for industry were making around $50k after five years.

      I attended a graduate program at a top university (the Immunology program is consistently ranked in the top 10), and of my class only 2 out of 9 (includes me) continued on for a post-doc. The rest went into scientific writing, consulting, teaching, and most into law. With the exception of Biophysics, my friends in the Biochemistry, Cell Biology, Microbiology, and Genes and Development programs report similar experiences. Some of the reason for leaving science was burn out - low pay, long hours; not to mention everyone knew that a post-doc position was worse (which is very much a sink or swim environment). Pay for a post-doc ranges anywhere from $40k - $50k, with no retirement in most places. A post-doc is about a 5 year position, though many people do two post-docs. In comparison, everyone of my graduate school classmates who went into consulting or law were making well, well over $100k per year, with better work hours, with retirement, and with vacation. FYI, as a post-doc, at a top institution, in our three lab group we had 37 post-docs, 4 staff scientists, and two graduate students - 32 of the post-docs/fellows were foreign (though several had received their green card), all 4 of the staff scientists were initially foreign (two green cards, two citizens), and one of the graduate students were foreign. Some of the post-docs/fellows stayed here in the US, some left. The Ph.D. tend to stay, the MDs tend to leave as they can't practice medicine here without a residency.

      So you stick it out, worked your 80 hours per week (seriously - it's not forced, but you're competing with the world), and happen to have a Nature, Science, or Cell paper. Let's say you get hired as an assistant professor (for the record, there's nothing 'assistant' about being an 'assistant' professor - it simply means you haven't gone up for tenure review yet. An associate professor is tenured). Pay can vary wildly at top institutions, but starting pay is $90k - $110k per year. This is at a top institution who are recruiting the top post-docs, teaching colleges and second tier research institutions pay less. Industry pay tends to vary quite a bit, but the quality of the people and the positions vary quite a bit as well (the range I've seen is ~$60k - $125k per year. The work hours get better, but not by much (especially before tenure).

      For science you have $20k of 5 years of graduate school (no retirement), ~$50k of 6 years of post-doc (assuming only one post-doc, not a safe assumption... oh, and usually no retirement), and you manage to get a top faculty position... $100k. Average age of first faculty position is ~40 (younger if you're foreign by the way given the differences in the educational systems), while working 60-80 hours per week. Compare with all of my peers that peeled off into consulting, law, banking or business who were making far more, far sooner, with vacation, with benefits, with bonuses, with retirement, with a better work schedule the choice is clear. With that said, I love my job (and in fairness, my peers who left science love their jobs), but I'm certainly not encouraging my children to go into science.

    5. Re:News flash by Omestes · · Score: 2

      You've hit the nail on the head. These are doctors. Doctors are generally bullies with some macho delusion that they're invaluable to the world and, well, just *better* than everyone else. They also like throwing temper tantrums and generally carrying on in the most unprofessional, childish manner imaginable with anyone below them. It is simply a broken, abrasive culture of macho bullshit.

      Odd, most of the doctors I've seen (on a patient level), or known (on an acquaintance level) have been rather nice people. Most of whom are first or second generation immigrants who are trying to be better than their parents (you know the now dead "American Dream"). My family GP (of 20 years) is a Vietnamese boat person, devout Buddhist, and an all around nice guy, when my family faced a bit of hard time, he even did some work under the table for us. Sure, I've met a few asses, but there is a decent number of asses in every profession. Whatever your career is, I'm sure it is saturated with assholes too, should I judge you, and your whole profession based on them?

      Hell, I had the same reaction to lawyers for years, I even eschewed going to law school (despite scoring very high on the LSATs) because I thought the experience would suck out my soul. But then I realized that most lawyers aren't rich, aren't sleaze bags (most of them are glorified clerks), and are generally normal people. The highly visible ones are generally asses, but why should that taint the whole profession? Should I base all of computer science on RMS, Steve Jobs, Steve Balmer, or Hans Reiser?

      It's just sick, the whole thing.

      Perhaps you should see a doctor about that.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    6. Re:News flash by Moof123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Very nice comments. In short, science pays very poorly relative to the investment and expertise involved relative to many other professions.

      As a microwave and RF design engineer I can fully agree with the sentiment that I would not recommend it as a career choice for anyone who isn't into it out of passion. Lots of work, modest pay, and little respect. MBA's can find work in almost any city. Scientists and engineers often must specialize to find a job, and often that means you can count the number of cities doing that work on one hand, often those are not the cheap ones to live in either (or in Texas, ick).

      Foreign workers have been greatly masking the lack of scientists and engineers coming out of school, and also contributing to the problem. H1B visas keep wages down, which keep enrollment down. If more companies were truly hampered by the talent pool available in the US we'd have rising wages and rising enrollment. Not the whole problem for sure, but H1B's are masking the true extent of the problem.

    7. Re:News flash by 19061969 · · Score: 2

      I'd have to agree with this and can state my experience from a different angle. I had a PhD from the top rated institution in my country (not the US, rather the UK) which was followed by a successful 3 year postdoc. This was a 1 year contract which was extended by 2 and the promise that good performance would lead to a permanent position (note: not tenured, just permanent and substantive). My performance was good with presentations around the world at top conferences and some good papers (not science and nature but top in the field) but I was told that due to finances, I could only get my contract re-extended by another year rather than be made permanent. I could see that this was just going to continue with the institution avoiding to employ me properly.

      My income as a PhD was about $10,000 (no income tax) and my postdoc salary was about $30,000. With that, I couldn't afford even a studio flat in my home city.

      So newly married and with a child on the way, I resigned and set myself up as a freelance user experience consultant (my PhD and postdoc was relevant to this). Since then, I've been earning over $150,000 USD a year and I'm more or less my own boss. The work can be challenging but often isn't - the biggest challenge is selling designs to stakeholders. I'm contributing to projects that frankly I don't care much about but I can look after my family when invoices are paid. I still research in my spare time to produce papers and wish I could devote more time because I love it. However, in industry it is style rather than substance that wins rather than genuinely useful content. Make potential clients feel confident and you're winning.

      I have honestly come across even educated people deriding academic papers because they're "too hard to read" even if the information contained within is pure gold. My PhD has brought condescension of me being "too academic" even though I run a successful business and please commercial clients. I'm at the point where I barely mention the PhD in my resume because of all the snobbery it engenders even when it's topic pertains directly to a project. It's sad that people have these attitudes.

      I'm glad I got out of science purely for my family's needs but I really miss the fun of research.

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
  7. Innovation without borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't matter if innovation ceases in the US because innovation will occur elsewhere. The ideas, the innovations, that tangibly improve life will be shared by their creators wherever those creators are. Those ideas will still benefit us, whether those ideas were conceived in Hydrabad or Sunnyvale. Ideas and innovation are a type of imaginary property. Ideas are written down and transmitted digitally. Like any digital copy, when you share an idea with someone else, you do not deprive the person who conceived that idea of their property.

    1. Re:Innovation without borders by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      I think a fair few people are still under the "siege mentality" of WW2 and the Cold War, where if we don't make an innovation it will not be available to us.

      But honestly, the prospects of such a war happening again seem pretty slim to me (at least against a country as technically competent as Germany or Russia). I mean, it's doubtful some little shepard boy in Syria is gonna come up with warp travel and then we'll have to deal with Space Jihadists or something. because he won't share with the rest of us.

    2. Re:Innovation without borders by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2

      For the human race in general's progress, that is true. It doesn't matter who has the ideas, who works out the new ways of doing things, everyone will learn it and everyone will benefit, in the long run.

      However, the short-term gains are going to be for those closest to the new ideas, as they can learn the improved ways of doing things before others, and thereby get an advantage. From a Humanity standpoint, it doesn't matter. From a USA standpoint, it does, as the USA will find itself lagging behind in productivity gains and other improvements.

      At the moment there is also a political component that needs to be considered: The USA has the largest economy and armed forces of the world. (In each case, larger than most of the rest of the world combined.) It's also currently fairly agressive in exporting it's values (in the form of popular culture) and legal system. As such, a USA that is distinctly lagging in innovative fields will drag down the rest of the world's economy, and frustrate efforts at dealing with the ramifications, both social and legal, of those innovations.

      Long term of course that will just lead to the USA taking a smaller and smaller place on the word stage, as other countries learn how to ignore and work around the increasingly backward policies being pushed out by the USA, but in the short term damage will be done. 'Short term' here is likely to be most of my lifetime, so it worries me, because it will affect me.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  8. I was just thinking of this the other day.... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was just thinking of this the other day. We put so much importance on children to excel in sports, hoping that one dey they will make it into the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB that we neglect to realize how minuscule that chance is. The problem with trying to excel at sports is that if you aren't good enough to be in the top league, you are basically just a point where you don't make any money at all, or at best have to have a second job even to make ends meet. Even if you are good enough at football to make it to the CFL, you still have to have a second job because you don't make enough doing your sport. On the other hand, if we pushed kids to excel in school and intelligence, even if they didn't make it into the elite, for instance being a world class heart surgeon, they would still have plenty of good jobs to fall back on if it turned out they couldn't achieve being one of the best in the world. They could be a family practitioner, a nurse, or do many other things in the same field, and still make quite a decent living. There's only a market for 400+ (432 currently based on quick google) professional basketball players. The market for most other professions is quite higher. There's probably 400 doctors in my city.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:I was just thinking of this the other day.... by Seumas · · Score: 2

      The average American eagerly pays the stupidity tax by forking out cash for lottery tickets on a regular basis. They don't understand probability. Hell, they barely understand the most basic of arithmetic. Having children is just like having a giant lottery ticket that takes a lot longer to get the results for.

  9. follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why is it always the cynical capitalists that complain
    about lack of engineering talent. it's not like they're willing
    to pay for them.

    if you're a bright kid and want to make money, you don't
    go get an engineering degree. you go into finance.

    1. Re:follow the money by mick232 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks. But you should have told me that 10 years ago.

    2. Re:follow the money by confused+one · · Score: 3

      I was just thinking how ironic it was that when I went to college (late '80s) we engineering majors made fun of the business majors because many of them were the wash-outs. Couldn't hack engineering --> change major to business. Now, it seems, we're on the wrong side of that equation.

    3. Re:follow the money by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 3

      And they're still idiots and wash-outs today - possibly they make more money but I wouldn't trade my job for theirs any day of the week, I love going to work everyday, I love creating things and technology, and I love the mental stimulation - all those business majors will end up with Alzheimer's from their atrophied gray matter !

    4. Re:follow the money by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Doing what you enjoy doesn't pay the bills. Of course, there is the question of why those bills are so high to begin with. In particular, a tax system which only requires the top taxpayers to pay taxes on 50% of their income is deliberately broken in favor of the rich. They complain about paying the higher percentage of the taxes but they hold an even higher percentage of the wealth!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Written by someone who obviously is neither by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, a lot of those kids say they want to become scientists or engineers but very few actually have a passion for it, they only get into it because it's what their parents tell them to get into. It's been my experience that people without a passion for science/engineering and are only going through the motions because they were forced into make really shitty engineers. It's Friedman-esque reporting at its finest(ie taking PR points from companies as the honest truth and not scrutinizing a single thing they are fed provided it matches their preset narrative).

    1. Re:Written by someone who obviously is neither by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Exactly. People don't do engineering in school because they think it is hard. I'll take a candidate with a passion for engineering any day when hiring.

  11. And? by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who cares? Can't we just outsource that, too? Actually, *don't* we just outsource that, too?

    Anyway, America is about money, jesus, and big tits. Success is about catering to the common denominator. Intellectual advancement and pursuit is for "elitist" pricks with their fancy words and all. Anyway, America loves Jesus and Jesus doesn't give a shit about it. Jesus cares about celebrity and sports. If you need proof, just think of the last time you heard a scientist thank jesus for their discovery? Never! Because jesus only helps football players blond bimbos accepting their Golden Globes.

    And society reinforces this. I've been a jock and a nerd my entire life and I probably don't need to tell anyone what activities and accomplishments got audiences, rewards, cheerleaders, public acknowledgement, and respect . . . and which didn't.

  12. Nationalism or capitalism. Pick one. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In America, you purchase respect. America losing its edge in innovation because engineers and scientists in the US are not as well paid as they are in other countries relative to local prices. Why would anyone spend 4 years training to become a low paid engineer when they could become a highly paid lawyer or financier or manager?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Nationalism or capitalism. Pick one. by Seumas · · Score: 2

      It's essentially the same as saying "you're not making less money -- everything is just costing a hell of a lot more" and whichever direction is up or sideways, the result to you individually is the same. In a century, when the water has lifted all boats to equal, that'll be fine. In the meantime, there is opportunity for a tremendous disparity in leverage capability when the same work can be done in places of such differing costs of living. Until employees can all buy their milk and pay their rent on a global "cheapest value wins" scale the same way their employers can pull from a global labor pool, at least.

  13. Now you notice?? by dk90406 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It has been obvious for more than a decade for anyone watching USA from abroad.
    From watching US TV series I learn that brains have been replaced by God or other mysticism. Pseudoscience galore and the good science (from PBS) has no viewers.
    Universities are graduation foreign students in the sciences and Americans with lawyers and political degrees. Luckily you still have a private sector that has a lot of innovation and hires brains from other countries. That keeps a lot of the patents and wealth in USA.

    1. Re: Now you notice?? by Z8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Here is a list of the top five TV shows in order:
      • Grey's Anatomy
      • Bones
      • Fringe
      • Medium
      • Criminal Minds

      I'm not familiar with the last two, but a scientist is the star of at least the first three series. I don't know much about Criminal Minds, but I gather science and smart people (instead of action or magic) are also central to that show. Presumably Medium is just about mysticism though :-P

    2. Re:Now you notice?? by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      I've really noticed the dumbing down in TV shows. Maybe I'm just seeing everything through rose-tinted glasses (though I don't think I am), but I can definitely recall channels being better some years ago.

      Anecdotal evidence: there are three "specialized" channels that I listened and still (kinda) listen to. One is a discovery channel-alike. Before, you had lots of documentaries, science stuff. Not necessarily advanced and hard to comprehend, but still worthwhile. Now, the channel is 80% crime investigator shows, 15% "danger" shows (plane crash shows, anything with big explosions, some paranormal on the side) and 5% actual science, usually reserved for the 1AM slot. The history channel went from lots of in-depth history shows on all kinds of stuff to history-themed TV series and movies, usually corny and boring. The tech channel went from a lot of coverage on science and technology to horror shows, Ghost Whisperer, pseudo sci-fi shows and the occasional movie.

      Heck, you just need to look at G4"not so Tech"TV in Canada... The only thing I seem to catch is a bunch of supposedly mature cartoons.

    3. Re: Now you notice?? by Draek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Grey's Anatomy is, like its spiritual predecessor ER, all about rich doctors humping each other in between fits of jealousy, the actual practice of medicine is driven *far* into the background. Bones is an embarrassment, their use of Liberal Arts Science makes CSI look like a well-researched documentary by comparison, and Fringe is... look, the show has multiple instances of characters running around, coming from separate alternate universes. It's *that* kind of show.

      So, sex, science-as-magic, and science-as-magic-as-visualized-by-the-nuttier-elements-of-society. Not good. Medium is, as you say, all about mysticism (yet still manages to make more sense than Fringe), leaving us with Criminal Minds, which in spite of reminding me a bit of Law & Order, where you could easily tell the writers' political leanings from episode to episode, manages to be actually watchable and its mere existence not a complete embarrassment to society.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    4. Re: Now you notice?? by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 2

      Good point. You might add The Big Bang Theory, CSI and Futurama to a list of shows popular with viewers and ciritics.

      Before anyone points out the science in these shows isn't real science, I'd like to point out that neither was the science in Star Trek. And yet it inspired plenty of people who went on to real science in some form.

  14. Imaginary property law is the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Imaginary property law shifts the balance of power away from engineers and towards the paper pushers. It doesn't matter how smart an engineer you are if some lawyer waving a patent gets to determine what all engineers can and cannot build. By definition, patent monopoly grants prevent a free market in engineering services, distorting the market so that it's more profitable to be a lawyer with the right to control what thousands of engineers can do and horsetrading those rights. So smart americans aspire to be lawyers not engineers, because in america it's the lawyers in charge, thanks to patent grants. You have to really love engineering to become an engineer in america, because it's a fundamentally irrational choice to do so in america.

    Patents are a "right" to prevent other people doing something - engineers, psychologically, typically simply don't want to do that (there are exceptions, and lo, they are giant douchebags hated by most actual engineers - see edison vs. tesla...).

  15. in 2008... by avtchillsboro · · Score: 2

    In 2008, NH Senator Sununu was the only graduated, certified engineer in the US Senate...and was replaced by former Governor Jeanne "Red Ridinghood" Shaheen...

  16. The humanities have a role, too by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 2

    If the people of the developed world knew more of history and geography, they might realize that the lifestyle they enjoy is due to their societies' mastery of technology, and that it is not an entitlement. People of the developing world, for whom this issue is more clearly germane, can see that this is so.

    1. Re:The humanities have a role, too by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      You don't need to be a doctor of social studies to realise that technology makes everyone's life better. Even if you're an idiot who knows nothing, you realise that you can now take a mini computer in your pocket which is more powerful than the large tower you had 10 years ago.

      I don't think having more people who can recall the date of the Vietnam war is going to be as useful as having more people who are technologically inclined.

    2. Re:The humanities have a role, too by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 2

      I am not saying that it is not obvious, I am saying that people do not get it, anyway - more precisely, they don't get the implications of the fact, and they do not draw the connection to their own lives. Maybe more people would, if middle and high school humainities education tackled more relevant issues, and some of them might then become more interested in technology and/or policies that are favorable to technological development.

  17. Surprised? by maakri · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This should not come as much of a surprise. After all, some American people want to teach creationism in schools. If science does not get respect at the bottom most level, its hardly surprising that it doesnt get it at the higher ones.

  18. What's missing from this article? by Chapter80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems that the article's author leaps to the conclusion that a lack of engineers and scientists in politics is a bad thing for innovation. I would like to see evidence of that.

    In fact, one can argue the opposite: that engineers and scientists focused on engineering and science, rather than politics, is a better way to insure innovation.

    But since this article was probably not written by a scientist, I suppose we're unlikely to see any scientific methods used in his argument.

    1. Re:What's missing from this article? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fact, one can argue the opposite: that engineers and scientists focused on engineering and science, rather than politics, is a better way to insure innovation.

      I've seen what science & engineering can do to improve everyday life. I'd be willing to take the chance that they can improve politics if they'd just give it a chance.

    2. Re:What's missing from this article? by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems that the article's author leaps to the conclusion that a lack of engineers and scientists in politics is a bad thing for innovation. I would like to see evidence of that.

      Then you've not bothered to look at corporate America. Nor have you bothered to look at modern politics or the state of the global economy. The former of the two have have become, "What's mine", and "Fuck the rest of you."

      In fact, one can argue the opposite: that engineers and scientists focused on engineering and science, rather than politics, is a better way to insure innovation.

      Only so long as one can independently operate of the other. But they can't. Which means science is under foot of politics. Which means any time science is in conflict with, "What's mine", or, "Fuck the rest of you", politics wins and science loses. Oddly enough, that's exactly what we see everywhere.

      Lastly, the current state of the economy and global markets is exactly what you get when greed becomes your mantra and literal sociopaths becomes the ideal corporate heads. Unless things change, such as what the article suggests, it can only lead to one end game; the destruction of America. Hardly surprising the world recently got a glance at what's just over the horizon.

    3. Re:What's missing from this article? by jepaton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe that it says more about politics than innovation that few engineers and scientists choose to enter politics. Perhaps engineers and scientists feel that they can't succeed with a well researched fact-based viewpoint against the slippery populist rhetoric of typical politicians. It's either that, or politicians have provided the ideal environment for engineers and scientists such that they feel there is no need to effect change through politics.

    4. Re:What's missing from this article? by Sique · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean, they are no longer using tanks to roll down protests at the Tianman Square?

      In fact, the revolutionary wave in Eastern Europe of the 1989 and 1990 was mainly carried by engineers and artists, a very unique coalition.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:What's missing from this article? by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact, one can argue the opposite: that engineers and scientists focused on engineering and science, rather than politics, is a better way to insure innovation.

      In a nation of approximately 300,000,000, we can spare a few people from each field for other purposes. For example, Steven Chu has done a decent job as Secretary of Energy, and he is a physicist. I think science-minded people are good for representing us in government: when you elect lawyers and businessmen, that is when you engage in politics, as opposed to representation. Let most of the scientists and engineers focus on their disciplines, yes, but take a few for government as well. I would apply the same logic to plumbers, car mechanics, teachers, chefs, call center representatives... every walk of life. We need that diversity in our government if we are going to succeed at the intent of our Constitution.

      Remember, the preamble to the Constitution says "people," not "lawyers and society's elite:"

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    6. Re:What's missing from this article? by nurd68 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. As an engineer who "got my feet wet" with a stint in local politics, because it was like dealing with a bunch of children. Everyone hated everyone else, it was full of petty rivalries and such. It does show that Diplomacy is actually quite accurate, but that doesn't mean that I wanted to do it for real.

    7. Re:What's missing from this article? by nurd68 · · Score: 2

      Point of information - right or wrong, at the time it was written, "We the people" was wealthy landowners and business-owning white men. Women and unpropertied white men weren't counted.

      (That said, I agree with your point - just because you're not an engineer doesn't mean you should be restricted from acting as a sovereign citizen and exercising control over your life.)

    8. Re:What's missing from this article? by foobsr · · Score: 2

      mathematicians are not "scientists", they are artists

      What is so bad about being an artist? I remember a book 'TAOCP'.

      The author earned a Ph.D. in mathematics.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    9. Re: What's missing from this article? by Roblimo · · Score: 2

      The thing is, if a group of engineers discusses an idea, sooner or later an idea pops up that everyone at the table agrees is the best possible solution, given the problem to be solved and the resources available to solve it. Then they go put their solution into practice. Politics isn't like this. There are always a few nimrods who will denounce even the sanest solution to any problem as "statist" or "communist" or whatever the appropriate political insult is at the moment, so the end solution is almost never the sanest one.

      QUICK: Name the last president we had with an engineering degree.

      A: J. Carter

      He didn't work out too well, did he? :(

    10. Re:What's missing from this article? by Wansu · · Score: 4, Insightful

        It seems that the article's author leaps to the conclusion that a lack of engineers and scientists in politics is a bad thing for innovation.

      That was one point he made. I agree with you that he's out to lunch on that.

      He claims that the reason young people in the US don't pursue engineering careers is because engineering isn't respected. Ummmm, no. It's because the market works. There's little market demand for engineers today. We're not using the engineers we already have and don't need more. Engineering jobs have been offshored even faster than the manufacturing jobs which preceded them. No doubt the spectacle of their peers working their butts off in engineering school for 5+ years only to graduate to diminishing job prospects was probably enough to persuade many not to follow in their footsteps.

      Next he proclaims the schools are broken, that we need to train more engineers and scientists, fund more research, etc.. No. That's what we've been doing all along and the jobs disappeared anyway.

      Former Intel Andy Grove has a much better understanding of our situation. How to Make an American Job Before It's Too Late: Andy Grove

      Andy understands that scaling up innovation is what makes innovation matter and it's the scaling up that is not taking place in America anymore. Scaling up is my specialty. I don't much care for pure research. But if you want to make a million of 'em, I'm your man. All this business has been airmailed to China to make big bonuses for corporate CEOs. And now everyone wonders why we don't make things anymore.

      I have news for Norm Augustine. Flogging ourselves about the schools is not going to bring those jobs back. Further, America is not losing it's edge in innovation. The edge he refers to disappeared almost 2 decades ago.

      --
      Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    11. Re: What's missing from this article? by techmuse · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing is, if a group of engineers discusses an idea, sooner or later an idea pops up that everyone at the table agrees is the best possible solution, given the problem to be solved and the resources available to solve it. Then they go put their solution into practice. Politics isn't like this. There are always a few nimrods who will denounce even the sanest solution to any problem as "statist" or "communist" or whatever the appropriate political insult is at the moment, so the end solution is almost never the sanest one.

      QUICK: Name the last president we had with an engineering degree.

      A: J. Carter

      He didn't work out too well, did he? :(

      Carter inherited a disastrous economy, which resulted from a prolonged war funded by future earnings. When the bill came due at the end of the decade, the economy had massive problems. Sound familiar?

    12. Re: What's missing from this article? by TheEyes · · Score: 2

      The irony is that Reagan gets credit for fixing the economy, when in reality he did so by following Carter's playbook. Hell, he even used the same people to do so: the Fed chief and most of his economic advisors for the first part of his presidency were the same people used by the Carter administration. It was only late first term and second term that Reagan went off on his, "tax breaks for the rich and unbounded government deficit in support of the military industrial complex will save us!" bender that threw us into another recession (the S&L crisis of 1987, which was ironically similar to the banking collapse of 2007-8, except on a smaller scale), and set the tone for American decline for the next thirty years.

    13. Re:What's missing from this article? by Gonoff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have some things in common
      A lot of engineers and artists are decently educated. Some of them even went to college.
      The big thing they have in common is that very few of them are proud of being ignorant. If they come accross something they don't know, they will either try and find it out or decide that it does not matter to them.
      A lot of people - especially those in charge feel that they are superior to creative and technical people specifically because they are not. Some of them run newspapers, others run businesses and others become politicans.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    14. Re:What's missing from this article? by White+Flame · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's little demand for *entry level* engineering positions. Many places here in the US are dying for senior people. Problem is, there's few paths to get from basic to expert in high-tech. People in the low end can have their jobs outsourced, and potentially get easier positions that pay more and carry less demands. Plus, with the societal focus on popularity and fame, they're not seeing tech jobs as someplace where they can hit the spotlight, but undesirable as cogs in the machine.

      Many of these factors work into draining the low end out of tech, meaning as time marches on there are fewer high-end experts in the field to keep entrepreneurship, strong technical leadership, and R&D alive in American companies. (and this probably spreads to more of the "West" than just the USA)

    15. Re:What's missing from this article? by turkeyfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "There's little market demand for engineers today."

      Not so. Its just that the market doesn't want to pay for their services, so they get employed in India, China and elsewhere, where salaries are lower and what they do get constitutes a living wage.

      "Next he proclaims that schools are broken, that we need to train more engineers and scientists, fund more researh, etc. No. That's what we've been doing all along and the jobs are disappeared anyway".

      No so. If you look at the total cost of entire budget dedicated toward paying scientists and teachers of science, it hardly amounts to a couple of ships, a few planes, and a few trainloads of ammo. The military spends way more in a week, what would fund NSF for a year. Likewise, for the total expenditures of most US corporations. The expenditure toward R&D is a small fraction of what they pay the top 5% of their corporate managers.

      "Scaling up innovation" is what has caused the Amazon to disappear, rivers to be polluted, the earth to warm via carbon dioxide, the oceans to acidify, and biodiversity everywhere to disappear. The only thing humans will be scaling up in the next 50-100 years will likely be their extinction.

    16. Re: What's missing from this article? by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Carter inherited a disastrous economy, which resulted from a prolonged war funded by future earnings. When the bill came due at the end of the decade, the economy had massive problems. Sound familiar?

      Most of the things I've seen on why Carter was a bad president give him that part. Where they really come down on him is in two different areas both dealing with defense. Carter was smart. he saw that the Soviet Union was not stable due to increased funding of the cold war. His plan was to back off the cold war, give the USSR a chance to get itself on it's feet. Instead, the Soviet Union took that opportunity to steamroll straight ahead and invaded Afganistan with the USA in a position that we couldn't do anything about it even if we had wanted to.* Then there was the fall of Iran and the hostages along with a botched rescue attempt again showing that we weren't protecting ourselves.**

      *Reagan on the other hand ramped up cold war spending in order to break the USSR bank which worked. However, when the bank was breaking, there was a non-zero chance that the USSR would use all those military toys to try and maintain control. Luckily, Gorbachev opted not to have military conflict and let the USSR fall.

      **And some put forth that Reagan worked to keep them as hostages till after the election just for that reason.

  19. TV shows? by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We had an Astronaut/physics guy as the main character in I dream of Jeanie, A senior marketing executive as the husband of a witch in Bewitched, and many many others

    Well, if someone thinks a "senior marketing executive" is a position that inspires technical innovation, I think I've found why the US is losing its edge.

    In other TV shows of the time there was "Get Smart" with the most incompetent secret agent you can imagine and "Gilligan's Island" with the most incompetent sailor you can imagine. Of course, in the 1960s you also had "Hogan's Heroes" with a bunch of pretty competent fliers. Then in the 1980s there was "MacGyver" which is the epitome of technological ingenuity.

    No, I don't think you can get much information on this trend from TV shows.

  20. Re:public policy is made by real economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can debate in government until you are blue in the face, but if the government is the one destroying the economy, it will not help you, will not see things your way.

    From an outsider's perspective, I'd have to disagree. I don't see your government doing that much differently than it has in the past. What I do see is corporate-controlled media promote a general deference to large companies. For instance, where innovators once thought of creating that great new gadget, then bringing it to market and building a huge company, I now see people who simply want to make that great gadget, then sell out to the first big company with a wad of cash. There is an inherently non-competitive mindset being entrenched, and IMO is the single greatest stifling force your imaginative entrepreneurs are up against. There is also the insane culture of litigation. Noone, *noone* can expect to bring a new thing to market in America, without enduring a barrage of utterly ridiculous lawsuits. If your product is popular enough to supply an income, the lawyers make sure that the bulk of it is diverted into their profession.

  21. Gone are the days of sanity... by bananaendian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The popular belief these days is that everyone is allowed to a have 'democratic' opinion on any subject regardless if they have any clue as to what they are talking about.

    No more do we look up, listen to and expect people with expertise to give us the benefit of their experience. Rather we shun 'experts' with their 'facts', since surely that sort of commitment to their field has made them biased and unreliable sources. Only the truly uneducated and ignorant are 'pure' in their innocence, only the most intuitive, simplistic and superficial description of the world maybe be considered honest. Anyone with an explanation longer than a sound bite, let alone a formula, is a charlatan, using his book-knowledge to fool us!

    Trust your gut feelings, your most primitive prejudice, that which you share with those who are the loudest. Because they are the ones in charge now, they are the ones who get what they want in this world. Who gives a toss about the laws of physics, logic or math, when the truth is determined by everyone - with mod points.

    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
    1. Re:Gone are the days of sanity... by SpeedyDX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Grats on pointing out the thesis of The Colbert Report since 2005.

    2. Re:Gone are the days of sanity... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      The idea of "experts" in a lot of ways are based on reputation, not necessarily competence.

      To get reputation among other experts, competence is a prerequisite.

      Among the general public it seems to depend on how many hit singles you've had.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  22. Please don't call it communism... by Haedrian · · Score: 2

    I don't think China is communist by any sense of the word. It is a dictatorship and that's true. And I do think democracy is a mess.

    But I don't think a country which lets large foreign corporations open large factories on its soil can be described as "Communism" by any sense of the term. In fact:

    "7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. " ... "all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation"

  23. Funding is part of the problem by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When we keep cutting (or allowing to stagnate) the funding for science and engineering research, this is exactly what we get. We can't expect good science to be done with no financial backing. Scientists who love their work will indeed work for embarrassingly little money, but eventually they do need to pay the bills to keep the lights on in the lab to keep the work moving.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  24. The Nation speaks by bananaendian · · Score: 4, Funny

    The funny thing is, the moment I pressed submit on that one, I realized I had been brainwashed by too much Colbert, and ashamed for having no original thought of my own.

    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
  25. Re:public policy is made by real economics by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From an outsider's perspective, I'd have to disagree. I don't see your government doing that much differently than it has in the past.

    - which past? If we are talking about the last 98 years, then you are right, the gov't is doing mostly the same thing (safe for Harding, who actually cut gov't by 70%, fired 70% of federal gov't to fight the Fed caused recession in 1920, which was a huge success, the recession was over in 1 year).

    But the chickens came home to roost. The inflationary policies of the Fed and gov't, the borrowing, the spending, the growth of gov't, the growth of spending of borrowed money, the wars, the ever growing size of list of business regulations, the growing monopolization of all industries by gov't intervention, yes, all of those things have been happening in one form or another, but now, the USA is no longer a producer of goods. It's running 50+ Billion USD/month trade deficit because it cannot supply itself with goods, energy and even food (thank you, department of Agriculture). The USA cannot supply itself with educated people (thank you, department of Education.) USA has a gov't, which caused massive problems in everything, from foreign policies to civil rights. Yes, imagine, I am one of the people who is against all rules and regulations, including the part of the Civil Rights act, which concerns private establishments. Why, do you ask? Am I a racist? No. I am looking at this and seeing the exact same thing: backfiring. Before the Civil Rights act the young black people in USA from ages of 16-24 had 85% employment. Today they are 50% unemployed. That's not good, but the society is NOT more racist today, far from it. But the policy of the government has created this problem, it backfired, because the small businesses cannot afford any lawsuits and thus they would rather avoid hiring anybody who is a minority, than hire them, then risk having a lawsuit on their hands - be it a woman, and a possible sexual harassment lawsuit, be it a minority, and a possible discrimination lawsuit resulting from trying to fire them.

    But you see, people were always hired and fired, but once you have gov't laws on your side, you can now try and apply them for any situation, and even situations that have nothing to do with you being fired.

    Gov't policy on agriculture subsidies and food price fixing policies have backfired and caused massive obesity in population because fructose is in everything, because it's subsidized and cheap, while prices on food are 'fixed' by gov't and so instead of having them fluctuate, the companies look for the most efficient ways to lower costs all the time - thus ingredients that are worse and worse.

    Gov't foreign policy is constantly backfiring. All of the intervention, the wars - Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Iraq, Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other 'unseen' wars, Columbia... The drug wars.

    The war on poverty - well, here is another war that gov't started and again, the poverty is winning.

    -

    I am of an opinion that anything that gov't does can be understood completely by just turning it on its head, upside down and looking at the opposite of what gov't is proposing, and then you will see the real meaning, the real results.

    If gov't is 'fighting poverty', then it means gov't will increase poverty.

    If gov't is 'fighting drugs', then there will be more deaths associated with that and more drug problems.

    If gov't is helping Osama Bin Laden, then he'll be eventually trying to kill US citizens.

    If gov't is helping Saddam Hussein, then eventually there will be a war with him.

    If gov't is setting a liability cap of 10Million dollars to let deep water oil drilling while simultaneously prohibiting shallow water oil drilling - prepare for a disaster.

    If gov't is saying: everybody must have a house, then NOBODY will have a house.

    If gov't is saying: we will insure your bank deposits with FDIC, then they w

  26. Too busy at sports practice by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am not going for flames, I am being honest here. I teach at what would be called a "rich kids" school (in a medium sized metro area of 1.2 million), even though the real rich kids schools are even higher up the tuition scale than my school. I bring this up to point out what seems to be most important to a vast majority of "elite" families: playing, starting and excelling on sports teams. Science club? What kind of dork does that!? Focus most time on studies? Loser! I fear much of our nation is stuck in a trap where parents are reliving their lives and the kids are feeding like crack addicts off of this behavior. What the hell kind of future do we have when the "top" young people of the future will sit around at board meetings talking about the time they caught the game winning touchdown in a flag football game played in 8th grade?

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    1. Re:Too busy at sports practice by penguinchris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, your answer kind of dances around the real problem - the high-paying jobs are not in science. In fact, it is unbelievably difficult for recent science grads to find any kind of job right now, and universities can't get enough funding for tons of grad students, even if there were enough professors to support them academically.

      I mean, how exactly did all those well-off parents get to be where they are today? Evidently it was not by doing well in school, or else they would probably encourage their kids to do that more than sports and so on.

    2. Re:Too busy at sports practice by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well-connected people don't need technical or scientific skills. They only need personal and networking skills, and the understanding of how to leverage their contacts to take advantage of the less fortunate. Therefore it makes sense for them to work to succeed in sports since that will increase their cachet among their peers, and they will be able to parlay that into influence among those same peers later when those peers have influence of their own to exert against society.

      On the other hand, for the disadvantaged, education is everything, since only a statistically insignificant percentage of the population will become a sports hero or a music legend. Unfortunately, they are still trying to emulate the rich without understanding that acting like you're #1 only serves to make you into a #2.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. Forbes can kiss our behinds by tyrione · · Score: 2

    That flat tax POS who inherited his wealth from Daddy can move to Bejing that useless piece of pond scum. He couldn't innovate out of a paper bag.

  28. It's happened before... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Arabic countries led by the Muslims were the most advanced scientists and engineers in the world, until they let the religious crazies take over. Just sayin', America...

    1. Re:It's happened before... by webminer · · Score: 2

      I disagree. The Persians were the one of the most advanced scientists and engineers in the world before Arabs i.e. Muslims took them more over and destroyed their knowledge base.

    2. Re:It's happened before... by Temposs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate when people say they disagree just to proceed to lay out some unrelated bit of knowledge they have floating around in their head, for their own gratification...

      Please realize that the fact of the Persians being the most advanced civilization before the Arabs/Muslims is in fact orthogonal to the Muslims being the most advanced later on. The downfall of the Persian empire may have enabled it somewhat, but in no way can you disagree that there was a period of superiority by the Arab Muslim civilization, nor does the fact of Arab Muslims' conquest of the Persian empire in any way diminish the Arab empire's superiority in science and engineering later on.

      --
      Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
    3. Re:It's happened before... by muzicman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're nearly right.

      It was the Mongol invasions that destroyed Mesopotamia. One of the most significant losses was the sacking of the library of Baghdad. Eye witness accounts of this wrote that the river Tigris went black from the ink of the books that were thrown in.

      It was the religious crazies that stopped it from regaining that knowledge.

      That said, just because you aren't 100% correct about the Arabic countries doesn't mean that a nutter religious fanatic like Sarah Palin (who has said she wants creationism taught in science classes) should be allowed to run a country. IMHO I don't think the has enough about her to run her own bank account. People like this are weakening our gene pool and should not be allowed to breed.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flamebait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    4. Re:It's happened before... by careysub · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The downfall of the Persian empire may have enabled it somewhat, but in no way can you disagree that there was a period of superiority by the Arab Muslim civilization, nor does the fact of Arab Muslims' conquest of the Persian empire in any way diminish the Arab empire's superiority in science and engineering later on.

      Yes it does. If the act of invading and acculturating the Persian empire, the Arab culture may have picked up a few techniques and smart groups for a time - ...

      Are you asserting this as an actual fact or are you just spinning a random scenario? The accomplishments of Arab scientists through the Western Middle Ages is very lengthy and very well know. Any hypothesis that they were all really Persians in Arab-drag is a foolish one. Not knowing of this lengthy list makes the hypothesis fatally uninformed.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  29. A lot of problems. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I go back to the same set of problems being responsible for this; and they're especially obvious having lived in Asia for several years.

    1) An excessive and irrational fixation on "being yourself". American culture is obsessed with stressing the supposed significance of being a special little snowflake. I can't count the number of children's shows that harp on about this nonsense. The irony is that Americans end up conforming themselves to pre-defined pigeon holes anyway way worse that I've seen in other countries.

    And with this comes the idiocy that you're not going to be told what to do. You're going to live your life your own way. And that brings me to number 2:

    2) A fixation on pleasure. American culture portrays this unrealistic image of what life should be. Basically, if we're not mountain climbing, or doing some other extreme activity, by day and not actively participating in the bar/club scene at night we're not living life. So what does that mean? We're supposed to devote our lives to pleasure and not work. We're suckers if we work for a living.

    There's also this tendency to "do what you love" as opposed to doing what will ensure success. Along with this comes the compulsive desire to make science and math fun. I think that's great but in the right context. The fact is that science and math usually isn't fun; it's a lot of hard work. So stop instilling unrealistic expectations in the youth that they can grow up to do fun things.

    3) A crap work ethic. Too many Americans have an awful work ethic. They do just enough to get by but somehow think they're entitled to that job. Far too often I seen people rationalize that mentality by arguing that they deserve better, that they could do what management does. Maybe they can, but given that they can barely do their own jobs right, I wouldn't bet on it. There's too much self-righteousness going around.

    Not that Asia is this wonderland of success. There are a lot of people who end up going nowhere in life and get just as screwed as anyone you might find in the states. A common problem I encountered was that a lot of men were so obsessed with having their own business, despite lacking the skills or resources to accomplish this, that they refused to get a job and work for someone else. Some would get some low-wage job like driving taxis but most lived off their parents and, if married, their wives. I'd say a lot of that is due to the excessive positive reinforcement and generally spoiled lives a lot of boys there have encountered growing up. And in general, I've been seeing the same cultural attitudes we have in the US cropping up there.

    But the fact is that by and large hard work is still valued. Parents instill the importance of education and hardwork in their kids. They engage them in activities they're convinced will ensure academic success. They aren't fixated on raising athletes, celebrities or kids who are socially popular. And people tend choose careers based on what will provide the best living, not what will make them happiest. And they work their asses off, putting in long hours on a regular basis.

    I know quite a few couples where the father barely sees their kids. And while not happy about the situation their perspective is that it's better to work hard now and ensure a good education and better life for their kids. Some of them probably don't even think that far, this is simply how life is.

    My point has meandered a bit here, but the gist of what I'm saying is that Americans, and Europeans, don't value hard work like Asians do, but they're sure convinced they're entitled to success.

    1. Re:A lot of problems. by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1) An excessive and irrational fixation on "being yourself"

      So, what are we supposed to be, great leader? Automatically submit to authority no matter what just so we can earn its favor and maybe some cash too?

      The irony is that Americans end up conforming themselves to pre-defined pigeon holes anyway way worse that I've seen in other countries.

      Of course, because in other countries, the kids are told what they're going to be, and if they don't measure up, they commit suicide working in some factory. See, I can stereotype too. Conformist attitudes (like yours for ex) are common to the species. Now there's some irony for you.

      2) A fixation on pleasure.

      As opposed to? A fixation on thankless wage-slave servitude? What would make anyone wake up and want to go to work in the morning except the threat of starvation? What a shitty life that would be. I don't do extreme sports or go anywhere near the club scene so I guess I'm safe from your wrath for now.. Talk about stereotyping. Sounds like you're watching too much TV. You must have too much free time, please get another job, lazy person.

      3) A crap work ethic.

      So anything less than a chinese slave-wage laborer is laziness? Your argument is a false dichotomy: there is middle ground between 'special little snowflake' and 'thankless cog.' work-life balance is what's supposed to separate free countries from the rest. Without that, there's nothing to live for. All that would be left is the details of how people are enslaved. In china, you're told what you're going to be by family/government, in the states, you get one chance to succeed at what you select, but if you fail, you're destitute for the rest of your life because the school debt has to be paid by a low wage alternative. Thanks to modern computers, more often than not, everyone (potential employers, law enforcement, friends) knows your personal history whether it is desired or not, and it's people with your attitude that usually want this information so they know what resumes to skip in the pile. Meanwhile, these same attitudinally-challenged douchebags bitch about how there are so many 'lazy' people out there who aren't working. Those who are 'lucky' enough to work for said employers end up being overworked, underpaid, and given zero respect. People aren't robots, but maybe there is something to the asian stereotypes about behaving that way. Sorry, but I have no desire to live that way.

      But the fact is that by and large hard work is still valued. Parents instill the importance of education and hardwork in their kids. They engage them in activities they're convinced will ensure academic success. They aren't fixated on raising athletes, celebrities or kids who are socially popular. And people tend choose careers based on what will provide the best living, not what will make them happiest. And they work their asses off, putting in long hours on a regular basis.

      Best living? What is best living without being content? making the most money? Is that all there is to life? Sadly, it's the semi-rich (six figure income) people who suffer from this the most: they have all that wealth yet have no time to enjoy it. They're ALWAYS working. Where's the success in that? No, I am not advocating that prima-donning kids is a good idea.

      Too many Americans have an awful work ethic. They do just enough to get by but somehow think they're entitled to that job. Far too often I seen people rationalize that mentality by arguing that they deserve better, that they could do what management does. Maybe they can, but given that they can barely do their own jobs right, I wouldn't bet on it. There's too much self-righteousness going around.

      Usually, it's management who can't do the job, so they hire people who can in the form of 'consultants' and *gasp* employees who know what they're doing! When the

    2. Re:A lot of problems. by sjames · · Score: 2

      Crap work ethic comes directly from crap PAY ethic. Look at the GDP/capita in adjusted dollars from 1960 to today. We each produce 3-5 times as much now than in 1960, So why is it that two incomes today can barely do what one income did in 1960? Where'd the rest go? Plenty of people work plenty hard and then their job is sent overseas anyway, usually by someone working less hours for several times the pay. Often by someone who, if fired, will be handed a check for enough money to support a middle class family for life, perhaps even 2 generations.

      In other words, perhaps people have quit working so hard because they are no longer rewarded appropriately for doing so. Buying power is way down and so is job security. Companies have even given people what amounts to a retroactive pay cut by not living up to promises for retirement benefits. It's well and good to spout on about the virtues of working long and hard estranged from your family for their own good, but when you write out the check, you reveal what you really think.

    3. Re:A lot of problems. by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, what are we supposed to be, great leader? Automatically submit to authority no matter what just so we can earn its favor and maybe some cash too?

      You didn't get it.

      There is a very important difference between being "good" and being "unique". When everyone is "unique", the term loses all meaning. It becomes a triviality. And besides, it matters little. What matters is if you're ok, good, a positive being. So what if everyone else is also ok?

      That, in a nutshell, is the problem of american culture. That it isn't sufficient to be good at something, you have to be exceptional. It doesn't matter how good you are, if you aren't unique and special, you don't count. That creates a culture of opposition and hostility, because you can't accept that someone else is also good - it would devalue you.

      In reality, this system of thought continually devalues you, because no matter who you are and how good you are, you will always find someone who is better at something. Subscribing to this belief is setting yourself up for disappointment.

      The other mindset, the more asian one, is that it matters how good you are, and if someone else is also good, or even better, that's ok. You may strive to become as good if he's better, but it doesn't reduce your own value - you are still good.

      Basically, americans consider personal value to be a relative measure - how you relate to others. If someone else is 2 points ahead of you, your value is -2. If someone else is 10 points behind you, your value is +10.
      Asians (and some europeans, though the number is decreasing) see personal value is an absolute measure - how you relate to the world. If you are a 15, then you are always a 15, no matter how others score. Seeing that someone else is a 17 makes it clear that you can do better, but you are still a 15, not a -2. Likewise, seeing that everyone else is a 5 makes it clear that you are indeed very good, but your personal value isn't +10, it is still 15.

      None of the systems is perfect. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. One of the disadvantages we found out about the hard way is that the relative system combined with the demand to be special and unique leads to frustration, depression and low self-esteem. Because you're putting up a goal that is impossible to reach. If the goal is to be among the top 1% in anything, then automatically 99% of the participants will fail no matter how well they do.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  30. Pure economics by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    A winning football team brings back alumni to fill the stadium. These proud alumni donate money to the university. That probably easily covers the costs of any sports scholarships, and there is probably plenty left over to help finance the university. And it's good for the university image, and keeps it in the limelight.

    However, to kill my own argument, do we really want a system where students choose a university based on winning sports teams?

    Admissions Officer: "Son, why do you want to attend the University of Texas?"

    Potential Student: "Uh, the football team is good? Is that the right answer?"

    I'd rather see a system where universities were well known for academic departments, instead of sports:

    Sports Commentator: "Well, Princeton seems to be fielding an excellent physics faculty this year! Anything to add to that John Madden?"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  31. Re:!Surprise by night_flyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny... that stuff was also taught in the early 1900s as well... didnt we become a superpower in that timeframe?

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  32. Salesman & marketing pukes run my company... by Bruinwar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Salesman & marketing pukes run my company that was founded & ran for it's first 50 years by engineers. Now we do nothing unless it's chasing the competition. At that point our leaders point & claim how our engineers dropped the ball & did not come through with the innovative product. All the while outsourcing more & more tech work to India & China. & we wonder why kids don't want to go into engineering.

    We get no respect. We get little resources. None of them ask for our will listen to our opinions. All we can do it work more hours (to keep our jobs) while looking for work elsewhere. From what I read in my user groups, marketing pukes running the company is becoming quite common.

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
  33. Old Joke by Epeeist · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is an old joke in the UK, at a dinner party tell your host you are an engineer and he will show you his washing machine. Do the same in Germany and he will introduce you to his daughter.

    1. Re:Old Joke by starless · · Score: 4, Funny

      German engineers are supposed to be good at babysitting?

  34. As an Engineer... by bananaendian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an engineer I work on things everyday that have direct and immediate consequences in the physical world. Hence my errors of judgment or bias have a direct feedback to me. The physical world is a hard unforgiving taskmaster.

    A politician is buffered from any consequences or feedbacks to his actions by distance; the bureaucracy surrounding him as well as the physical disconnect.

    As an engineer I must compromise between contradictory and opposite qualities and find practical combinations that satisfy a multitude of specifications and demands. I must accommodate as well as critically evaluate the demands of users, marketing and design and architecture people, and come up with a mutual understanding of what they actually want within the means of what is possible.

    A politician is defined only by what that supports him in power - those who fund and elect him for the next term.

    The limits with my work are the laws of physics - both direct resources: money, time, people - as well as all kinds of non-intuitive ones: scaling, flow rate, logistic function, probability distribution. Hence my sense for the 'truth' is not based on passion but experimentation, and I appear unsure and as having no confidence in my 'opinions' - which I don't really have at all, as most people understand them. An opinion for me is always something I can explain - at least to myself - and most of the time to others. It is this process that both helps me understand my own reasoning better (keeps me honest to myself), as well as provides a further insight into my cognition as well as to some extent of those of others.

    A politician swims in the superficial memes of popular sentiment. He maybe an ideologue but a successful one is also a pragmatist: he shapes truth into what is most convenient for the occasion and in doing so may actually benefit from self-delusion, even intentional and conscious.

    It maybe be argued that in this way a politician is more 'human' than an engineer and thus is more suited to lead us. And that my friends is the conclusion that cost me my mod points.

    Burn baby burn!

    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
  35. Re:42 years ago Americans were on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "US did it with no computers, no prior art, and no research base to draw from.."

    There's just so much absurdity and stupidity in that sentence I *have* to answer. In the 1960s half the planet was computerized. The 1960s were THE decade of computer innovation. It's sad that you remember the '60s as the decade that put a lot of kerosene into a metal tube and not the decade that gave us the mother of all demos and sketchpad.

    The Mother of All Demos by the man who invented the mouse in the '60s

    Yeah, guess what, the mouse wasn't invented by Apple.

    Sketchpad. As a youtube commenter puts it: ooooomg.... 1962/1963 !!! I just can't believe it! Way cooler than going to the moon!

    Computer on the Saturn V

    And as for your assertion that there was no prior art, that's just fucking stupid. What the hell do you think NASA took the best Germans for? Their potato salad recipe? Do you honestly believe all these heroic Americans just invented everything out of thin air in less than a decade because going to the Moon is just so useful? Get your head out of your ass. America went to the Moon as the biggest stunt in history using the developped technological base that came out of WWII and business and science needs that drove the computer industry. NASA was a *USER*, not a developper of computers.

    You probably think we only have computers today because of the Moon missions when it's the other way around.

    Look, in 1959 there were already experimental graphic design tools for making CARS. *Nothing* to do with rockets or going to the Moon.

    Picture

    Learn some history I've rarely seen such pig-ignorance, and in an era of instant information access, it's PATHETIC.

    And as for your retarded spelling of "cosmonaughts", Jesus wept, man, Jesus wept.

  36. Why would any kid want to be an engineer? by apmonte · · Score: 2

    Put aside our horrible primary/secondary education system that doesn't adequately prepare them for the curriculum. I'm an engineer for a Dow component corporation and they are more interested sourcing their engineering work to low cost centers (read India) than staffing to appropriate levels here in the states. That's not to say that we don't hire US engineers, just not in the numbers required to do all of the work that needs to be done. Most engineers that I know spend more time managing/supporting outsource efforts or other company initiative stuff than doing actual engineering work.

  37. You should consider move to another country by Edsj · · Score: 3, Informative

    We are having a huge problem of lack of engineers here in Brazil. People are leaving universities already hired even if you have zero experience. If you want a good life outside the financial market you should consider move to another country.
    Brazil has some bureaucracy to get residence permission to work here but I am sure you will get a good salary and a nice quality of life. And yes, people here care more about engineers, medical doctors (one exception would be famous soccer players).
    This is just an expample. I don't know the situation of India, China and others. But an experienced engineer here can get about US120k a year but you are going to pay half of the price for food and house and other things. Cars is an exception, it is more expensive than america and internet connection i pay about US$50 for 30Mbps FTTH connection.
    This is just an example, there are more need for example in Africa. One of my friends a few years ago saved some money and decided to try bulding some houses in Angola. He opened a company with only him as an engineer and hired local people to build. He's fucking rich now and offered me to work there for US250k a year. If I wasn't coward because Angola had a civil war 10 years ago I would probably go. You can make huge savings for your retirement in places you probably never considered going. Take a time and look for the oportunities.

  38. Re:public policy is made by real economics by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

    Current policy is the problem, but it's always a fallacy to say "government is the problem." Unless you support anarchy (and by anarchy I don't mean some utopian Chompsky anarchy that never has nor will exist, I mean chaos), then government cannot be a problem in and of itself. Government policy can be a problem, but here the problem is that the government isn't investing in education.

    When you personify the government as some crazy anti-individual you only illustrate how out of touch you are with reality.

    Way to cite your own post, btw. Here's the problem with your argument: manufacturing jobs will be lost to robots, so it really doesn't matter if we lose them to foreign countries in the short term. In the long term they're gone. We need to create a society of educated individuals whose jobs cannot be replaced by computers, robots, and machines. This starts with education and it requires the government's support.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  39. Engineering by bananaendian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So anybody at all can be an engineer if they just decide so?

    Yes! exactly. Engineering is about a state of mind. You can sit in a school all you like but you'll never become an engineer.

    An engineer is someone who makes things, makes things better, as is passionate about it. The questions is: when did I become an engineer?

    When I took apart my first machine and put it back together?

    When I designed my first circuit, programmed my first code?

    When I sold my first design, setup and registered my own business?

    You can cry into your pillow all you like about formal qualifications - the most successful and inspiring engineers I know never benefited from or cared much for the education they went through - they were already engineers.

    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
  40. Re:public policy is made by real economics by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Government is the one, that is causing the fall of the US economy

    Sad that you ruin your comment with a largely baseless shot against your favorite boogeyman, because you then move on to make a valid point:

    Science and engineering will not be promoted in a society that has no production

    This is not the problem caused by gubmint. Countries where science and engineering are thriving, such as in Germany or Canada, have much larger government spending per capita and more social programs than the United States. The idea that government is the principal hurdle to overcome would only make sense if we had no data from outside the United States, but fortunately we have discovered that there places with similar economies in the lands beyond these shores.

    I'd argue that the challenge is split between two factors: culture (as in, sports are cool, science and math are not) and economics (manufacturing goes elsewhere because of liberal trade policies and a strong dollar relative to other currencies). Again, you can't argue that the latter problem is caused by government just because that nicely fits into your preferred world view, or you would get stuck failing to explain why countries with government run healthcare (unlike ours, even under the recent reform) and sub-65 retirement ages have employment rates equal to or higher than ours, as well as more manufacturing.

    Two modest solutions:

    • Cut school sports, reduce pupil headcount per teacher
    • Tariffs on imports. It's called "protectionism," and though it's a no-no when you have free trade policies that actually work, it's exactly what you do when something as silly as exchange rates causes lopsided export levels.
  41. It's less about engineering and science.. by log0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and more about a lack of respect for any sort of intellect. At least here in the US.

    Turn on Fox News.. at least once during every host's shift you'll see a casting of all things liberal and intellectual as evil and bad for america. 'My politics are right. Yours just aren't wrong, they're evil.' (Jon Stewart comment iirc)

    It's an inferiority complex. Dumb people are just smart enough to know they are dumber than intellectuals. And like every insecure bully ever, they lash out.

  42. Re:!Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny... that stuff was also taught in the early 1900s as well... didnt we become a superpower in that timeframe?

    Uhm, no? You became a superpower when Europe was torn apart by wars, and many scientists fled to the US to continue their work.

  43. We're starting to believe in our own caricatures by poity · · Score: 3, Informative

    President Barack Obama - Law
    Vice President Joe Biden - Law
    Speaker of House John Boehner - Business
    President pro tempore Daniel Inouye - Law
    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - Law
    Secretary of the Treasury (Timothy Geithner) - Asian Studies/Economics
    Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) - History
    Attorney General (Eric Holder) - Law
    Secretary of the Interior (Ken Salazar) - Law
    Secretary of Agriculture (Tom Vilsack) - Law
    Secretary of Commerce (Gary Locke) - Law
    Secretary of Labor (Hilda Solis) - Public Policy
    Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius) - Public Policy
    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Shaun Donovan) - Public Policy
    Secretary of Transportation (Ray LaHood) - Education/Sociology
    Secretary of Energy (Steven Chu) - Physics
    Secretary of Education (Arne Duncan) - Sociology
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Eric Shinseki) - Science/Literature
    Secretary of Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano) - Law

    The top posts are held by those who have been educated in law, and Cabinet members mostly educated in fields related to their positions.

    You want to talk about the decay of culture and values? That's nothing new, every aging generation in every society in the history of humanity has fretted, writhed, and screamed about it.
    The fact that American media prefers a self-deprecating sense of humor doesn't mean we embody those caricatures of ourselves.

    "In China, eight of the top nine political posts are held by engineers"
    Well, those politicians, like my father, were born, raised, and educated in a system that made that decision for them - they were assigned to study engineering by the government to fulfill quotas demanded by the planned economy. It was only in the 80's when the planned economy was abolished and economic reforms were instituted that this practice came to an end. Scientists at the time were indeed looked up to for their intelligence and social contributions, but so too were they looked up to because graduating from a top science school and joining the Communist Party was the only path to political power and thus wealth in those days. Nowadays in China, people no longer have such respect for scientists because they see that even middle school drop-outs can start factories or businesses and strike immense fortunes. They have greater respect (and disgust) for those who wield guile and personal connections, like everyone else in the world.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  44. being a leader is a pain by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any engineer or scientist who doesn't want the responsibility can easily duck it, and usually does. They know doing an honest job of it is hard work. They know leaders are targets. And there is an unending supply of loudmouthed suckers who will leap at a chance to be The Man because they think "it's good to be the king", think they'd enjoy calling the shots. They think the ones doing it now are a bunch of idiots and doing better than them will be easy. Or they don't give a damn, and just want the bigger paycheck. All the engineers have to do is be quiet, and the loudmouth will look proactive, "can do", and energetic. The higher ups or customers will fall for it almost every time. Once in a leadership position, they find it very convenient to blame problems on the "incompetent" engineers, as if they could do any better. Everyone else sees the bosses slanging the engineers, so what to they do? Pile on of course. Galling to work under someone who has no clue how hard or easy the work is, and who has caused many of the problems being blamed on the engineers. As if mere technical problems aren't plenty hard enough, have to deal with all the politicking too.

    The opinionated loudmouths are the ones who shouldn't be leading, but they end up in a disproportionate number of leadership positions. Even when the engineer wants to take on the responsibility, it's tough to compete with the flashy, smooth-talking, boot licking Man with a Plan who understands the Realities of Business. And if the quiet engineer somehow wins the job anyway, then this guy is a constant thorn in the side. He's angry, and he's looking for any chance to take the engineer down. And being the sort of fool he is, he may well do it even if that leads to disaster, and gets everyone fired or causes the company to tank.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  45. Dunning-Kruger Effect by llamafirst · · Score: 3, Informative

    The popular belief these days is that everyone is allowed to a have 'democratic' opinion on any subject regardless if they have any clue as to what they are talking about

    These links may also be enlightening:

    http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/12/confident-dumb-peopl.html

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_Effect

  46. Re:!Surprise by TarPitt · · Score: 4, Informative

    We imported most of our scientists. We can thank Hitler and Mussolini for our scientific talent. Einstein, Fermi, many other came here.

    In the twentieth century flows of intellectual capital increased from trickles to torrents, measured not just in individuals but in dozens and hundreds of scientists. Some migrated to take advantage of professional opportunity, for instance abandoning the backlog of academic jobs in Germany for the growing academic and industrial research system in the United States early in the century. But many scientists were uprooted either as victims of political persecution or as spoils of war claimed by victorious nations. The rise of fascism in the 1930s drove hundreds of scientists from Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Italy, including many of the leading lights of European science. Over thirty nations took in émigrés, but most went to Britain or the United States. Their colleagues tried to find academic jobs for them, whether out of obligation or opportunity, and often succeeded despite the Great Depression and anti-Semitism.

    http://science.jrank.org/pages/48899/brain-drains-paperclip-operations.html

    Anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-intellectualism, and declining opportunities in the US as opposed to other immigrant destinations has diminished this desirable in-migration. The same factors that discourage native-born citizens from entering technical professions also discourage immigrants

    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  47. Re:"experts" are sometimes wrong by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Experts can be wrong too.

    No shit? Everyone screws up from time to time, but take a guess at who is more likely to be right, an expert or an idiot. That experts are periodically wrong does not mean we should trust ignorance instead, which is what a lot of people seem to be doing these days.

  48. Forbes article is just pro-H1B propaganda by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The slashdot story comes from this article in Forbes. As expected, the forbes article is just another cookie-cutter pro-H1B propaganda article. Same old "arguments." Basically, they are saying "because of the desperate shortages of US tech workers, we need to temporarily allow more H1Bs, just until US schools get up to speed."

    This corporate propaganda has been fully disproved many times, but the flood of these cookie-cutter articles, continues. Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth.

    From Forbes:

    Jan 20, 2011
    Danger: America Is Losing Its Edge In Innovation

    * Improve K-12 science and math education.
    * Invest in long-term basic research.
    * Attract and retain the best and brightest students, scientists and engineers in the U.S. and around the world.
    * Create and sustain incentives for innovation and research investment.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2011/01/20/danger-america-is-losing-its-edge-in-innovation/

    Here is the real situation:

    Duke University study reporting no shortage of US Engineers:
    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/Study-There-Is-No-Shortage-of-US-Engineers/

    PISA Scores Show Demography Is Destiny In Education Too—But Washington Doesn’t Want You To Know
    http://www.vdare.com/sailer/101219_pisa.htm

  49. There's a bit of hyperbole here, I think by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 2

    I've been to the Bay Area, Hong Kong various cities in China (e.g. Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, etc.) before. I'm in Hong Kong right now but I'm going back to the Bay Area next month.

    Bay Area: Engineers are rather well respected from what I can see. My sample may be biased though since I've been working with the upper layer of the valley so far (VCs, CxOs, Stanford PhDs, etc.) But hey, if your company just exited for a few million dollars, the local media and TechCrunch cares. You open a party and your friends love you.

    Hong Kong: If you're an engineer (even a CTO "engineer"), you're a loser, period. Nobody ever heard of a VC or angel investor here - these things takes time to pay off, all people want is fast money. I can go rant about HK's economic environment until my face turns blue but suffice to say, innovation, technology, entrepreneurship are thinly veiled insult words here meaning you can't make fast and easy money. Some of my friends got funding of >$100M HKD and the media never paid any attention. Someone else just exited for $1B HKD last week and the mainstream media just don't care.

    China: Yes there're many high tech firms in Beijing and Shenzhen and engineers do get much higher salaries (5x - 100x, depending on who you're comparing to) compared to the average uneducated worker (China has high literacy level but very low education level). Things is.. that's only for the lucky people who attended the top Chinese universities (e.g. Tsinghua) and succeeded in getting a job and work permit in the high tech cities only. If you aren't one of those 1-in-a-1000 lucky guys... sorry man but your life is gonna suck. Even if you are one of the lucky engineers - the top of the food chain in China is being a government official, not a C-Suite executive, and 100% not an engineer. The real elites in China aren't looking to become an engineer, but rather join the government and make a few really fast million bucks there.

    So, from what I can tell... US's fear on losing its tech edge to Asia is highly overrated. If you really want the top tech companies, engineers and scientists in the world, the people have to love doing it and are financially allowed to keep doing it out of love (not every engineer is a tech company CxO or got hired by Google, you see...). That's simply not happening in China nor Hong Kong. The thing about Chinese engineers being ultra competitive is way overblown - if you're constantly under threat of being evicted from your ultra-expensive (compared to your tiny salary) flat, and your flat sucks - you'd be aggressive too. But it also makes you very short sighted because all you can think of is how to get a nicer house to live in, but not how to make the next Google or figure out how to build rockets cheap. So you're surely not gonna be doing better scientific research, opening a novel tech startup, or doing an open source project. Copying and cutting corners, on the other hand, works short term, but that's doesn't get China any edge ahead of the US.

  50. Re:"experts" are sometimes wrong by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet unlike idiots trusting their gut on complex societal and engineering issues, experts have a means of discerning when they are wrong and a means of correcting the errors.

  51. Re:!Surprise by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-intellectualism, and declining opportunities in the US as opposed to other immigrant destinations has diminished this desirable in-migration. The same factors that discourage native-born citizens from entering technical professions also discourage immigrants

    The interesting thing is that's tons of immigrants here, especially illegal ones. I live in Arizona, ground zero for illegal immigration, and they're everywhere. But these people aren't exactly pro-intellectualism either, they're exactly the opposite. They're basically just like dumb white rednecks, except their skin's a little bit darker and they speak Spanish, and they're much more interested in starting fistfights to prove their manhood.

    Basically, we're allowing in a bunch of uneducated, backwards immigrants, because businesses like having an ultra-cheap labor pool, while no longer being attractive to the highly educated and skilled immigrants who are the people you want to come to your country.

  52. Eight of Nine? Not. by mischasan · · Score: 2

    I guess people like to make bald statements ("Eight of nine top political posts (in the PRC) are held by engineers.
    Sheesh; that was easy to check; and wrong. Even the "nine" is problematic. What's real is:

    Hu JinTao - Gen secy of CPC, Pres of PRC; hydraulic eng.
    Xi JinPing - first secy of CPC, VP of PRC; chem eng. ...Wen JiaBao - premier of PRC; PhD in geology

    Not bad. But from there on, they're business-school degrees (albeit one from LSE) plus the minEd has a history degree.
    A long way down the list (way past "nine") is Chen Zhu - minHealth; PhDs in microbiology and medicine from Shanghai and Université Paris. Curiously, not a CPC member.