The "education" community has long forsaken their responsibility to teach and educate. Putting electronic devices in the hands of the uneducated is easy. To actually educate the uneducated is very difficult. What form the book takes is of no consequence. Relying on the book alone to educate the uneducated leads only to a very naive, uneducated, and easy to control population.
It is true that one should prepare oneself for employment. One does, after all, have to support self and family. However, the study of the liberal arts is essential for success in a technical career.
The very best course I ever took to prepare me to work with computers was in Formal Logic taught in the Philosophy Department by a professor who knew nothing about computers and never mentioned them. Computers are nothing more than boxes filled with on/off switches. Formal Logic is a means of thinking that is restricted to on/off, in/out, yes/no. It was invented in ancient Greece by Aristotle. Computers simply mechanize this manner of thinking. Once one has an understanding of the fundamental nature of computers, everything else is a detail. Even fuzzy logic comes down to a crisp decision that excludes all others.
The second best course was in Boolean Algebra taught in the Math Department by a professor who also knew nothing about computers and never mentioned them. Boolean Algebra is a formal symbology and approach for manipulating Formal Logic statements. It gives structure that can be more readily mechanized.
Besides becoming educated in the fundamentals that underlie their craft, technical people need to know how to communicate. They also need an understanding of the industrial and business world. Without such knowledge, a technical person has a glass ceiling over themselves that can not be breached. Even if one stays technical, one still needs to be in synergy with the surrounding environment. This is especially true as one becomes more senior.
CorpSpeak is a program readily downloadable. Given a few keywords it can generate loads of nonsense that makes perfect sense. It would be easy to apply that program to the subject application.
Bardwick is correct. Even if the committee had "succeeded", our spending would still be out of control. What we need is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. America has passed its debt capacity and needs to reform itself.
Another thought along these lines is that the American people do not hold their government accountable. Americans, as a whole, do not even vote. My wife, a poll worker, tells me that less than half of the people bother to register and only half of those trouble themselves to actually go to the polls. So, when a politician says they have a mandate, they are not talking about the majority of Americans. Even the richest person gets the same number of votes as the poorest, ONE. Plus, corporations can not vote. YOUR VOTE COUNTS, even if you just write in someone's name. It will become readily evident that most Americans are not voting for the two main-line parties that have proven that they do not offer the solution America needs.
Q-Hack has hit the nail on the head. Some other thoughts:
Sounds like a case of someone who has reached the asymptote of growth in his current job. Yes indeed, get out of your comfort zone. Stop turning the crank. Do something new. Take on new challenges. Write an article for publication. Go to graduate school at night. Dream on. Then plan and implement. If your current company is limiting you, seek out a company that offers opportunity and that appreciates its people.
In my own career (35 years and counting) I have always followed the idea that if anyone could do something, I just let them do it. Instead, I look for challenges that scare others. At this point, it is very rare for anyone to ask me to do something I already know how to do. Never never get involved in commodity work using commodity skills. Always aim for the challenge, those things most people can not do.
Dream on....... With an attitude like one reaches age 50 unable to find or keep a job. A person ends up expecting senior pay for doing junior work or skilled only in things nobody cares about any more. I have seen this happen to people over and over again.
* chuckle * A company once wanted to hire me because I had spent several years programming DEC PDP 8 computers. Turns out they were running their assembly line using those things 15 years after DEC went out of business. I promptly took all that old stuff off my resume. It does not do to get identified with ancient technology if one wants a cutting-edge career.
Languages do evolve. Even if you continue to program in an existing standard such as Java or C++, you need to keep up with the latest standards. Fortran especially has evolved a great deal since its origination. Then there is the matter of new applications to which a language is applied. It is important to know how companies are trying to apply computers and what problems they are trying to solve.
So, while the language survives by name, the language itself and its application evolves. The technologist must undergo a similar evolution.
Have you seen the articles with titles like "Finished at Age 35"? It is very true. Consider: Most statistics I see say that the half-life of a technology degree is five years or less. If a person starts college at 19 and spends five years (not at all uncommon) then the technology learned is half old at age 29 (five years after graduation). Five years after that the person is 34. That is how people at that age end up out of work if they fail to continue their education and training.
My experience has been that one has to balance keeping up with one's technical field and avoiding chasing fads. Too often "keeping fresh on new tech trends" boils down to chasing fads and, for instance, using a new language because it is there. What I have concentrated on are the technologies needed to solve difficult customer problems as they push their own application and technological domains. To make this work I keep up a constant cycle of study-learn-work-produce. That has worked well for 35 years and keeps me in demand as a senior research engineer (Ph.D.) at 60 years of age.
At what point do we hold the educational establishment accountable? At what point do we look at their income relative to what that income is spent on? What objective organization performs such an audit? An example: a local university wanted to build a commercial conference center and staging for commercial entertainment. They called it a business investment but they raised tuition in order to afford it. They had no need for the building since existing buildings served the student body and faculty well. At the same time, this university tells the faculty to cancel courses when there are not enough students. Yet, one will never see a management flunky laid off. The focus of universities has set education aside. The loan program is just one means by which citizens pour money down a black hole. It is time to require an outside auditor to review the total picture of income vs. expenditure for each university receiving tax-payer dollars. For every dollar not spent directly on educational services, one dollar should be deleted from the allocation from tax-payers. If that causes a few money grubbers to go out of business, so be it. The ones that concentrate on education will survive.
After teaching for three colleges during a five-year period, I found that those colleges were more interested in retaining students than providing an education. Increasingly, "students" from far out to the left of the bell curve are recruited. Thus, courses have to be continually watered down to make it look like these people are passing. They get a piece of paper stamped "degree" but it is worthless. At least industry has recognized the trend. I have seen companies keep a black list of "colleges". Any resume from a place on that list is just thrown in the trash. Other companies publish a very short list of universities whose degrees are acceptable. That is at least one form of accountability.
On the one hand they say that they understand everything and so do not need a "God Concept". On the other hand they say that they do not understand and so God could not have possibly done it. As someone who holds a Ph.D. I realize that people with that degree feel a need to have something totally new, unique, and significant to say. This article is no different. A deeper understanding of God is possible through the study of science. But when it comes to saying things like, "... no fall toppled man from a state of innocence.", we are going too far. We dig ourselves deeper into a Godless society thereby.
I can dig that one me man. During a Calculus course the professor asked my friend and I to stop coming to class. He said we asked really good questions and he thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. But, the rest of the class was not up to it and he needed to teach at their level to get them up to speed. This was one good professor. He taught well and it was very motivating to have him as a mentor and teacher. Such a relationship is key to education. That is why I am unhappy with "online learning" and large classes. This may work for skills training but not for education.
The whole thing sounds like a desperate attempt by NASA to grab favorable attention. Having watched the decline of NASA over the last few decades, my feeling is that NASA needs a mission to which they are held accountable, with no excuses accepted. "Missions to Mars" and "Manned Moon Stations" are not relevant to Earth's needs. They need a mission such as developing and demonstrating space-generated energy with transmission to earth-based distribution stations. They have already shown that they can not cost-electively build, maintain, and resupply a relatively near-orbit space station nor build and evolve a fleet of taxis to and from space.
After 35 years as a technical specialist in computers, I have to agree with the Dijkstra quote. My experience has been that success in working with computers has little to do with computers themselves. Jaw's comment about a need for theory is also very true in my experience. Bar none, the course that taught me most helpfully was a course in formal logic given in the philosophy department by a professor who knew nothing about computers and never mentioned them. Formal logic is an ancient way of coming to conclusions based on pure black and white logic. Computers are nothing more than boxes filled with on/off switches that are either completely on or completely off. The second best course was one in Boolean algebra. This is a mathematical means of representing and manipulating formal logic statements. Once one understands the basics, everything else is a detail that can be looked up in a book.
Obama's statement about needing more engineering degrees is akin to his saying that "every child deserves a degree". What this leads to is watering down courses so that those on the far left of the performance-ethic bell curve can still look like they passed. The result is the issuing of paper degrees by worthless schools. In my personal experience teaching graduate and undergraduate courses for six years is that only 25% of the students have the performance ethic needed to pass through a rigorous study program. 50% will do the bare minimum to get by, and only that minimum. The remaining 25% will not even do the minimum but they still expect to get a passing grade. If they do not get a passing grade they complain to the school's administration. The professor has to either change the grade or lose his contract.
In one school I know about, local companies call the professors personally and ask them for a list of their best students. If a graduate is not on that list they do not get hired, regardless of their grades.
The slippery slope has already been foretold in the Bible, '... thorns and thistles will rise up upon their altars and they will say to the mountains, "Bury us!" and to the high places, "Fall on us!"' As we push God further and further from our lives, we gradually perish. This applies to individuals, societies, and nations.
This amounts to watering down a course so people on the far left of the bell curve can still pass. In a world that increasingly needs strong expertise, a process like this will never produce anyone who can compete. My advice is to stick with credible universities that have strong reputations.
In my personal opinion, it is a mistake for our profession to defend the likes of a person who carries out such an act. While the restitution is clearly beyond his means, his actions are just as clearly unconscionable. I have been in this profession for 35 years and still work at the technical level. We need to act with integrity and disassociate ourselves from such malpractitioners. Otherwise, our profession will fall under deep suspicion and eventually die.
Once all the laughter dies down: Consider an active component to home security. Just having cameras is not sufficient. Use a simple frame-to-frame change detector coupled to automated email. The email should send basic information in text accompanied by an image or two. If a microphone is attached, a wave file can also be sent. Going further, real-time remote monitoring could be enabled. Be sure to be subtle. Don't put cameras and microphones in obvious places.
Generally, I agree with BitZstream's post. Ungently put but it is true. As an industrial R&D specialist I look for interns who can function on their own with just a bit of mentoring. If I already knew how to do something I would not need to hire an intern. The opportunity postings say as much. Rarely does more than one application arrive from a nation-wide posting. That tells me that by far most students do not have the right stuff. As an example of something that a new graduate needs is a publication or two in the peer-reviewed literature. That really stands out as an accomplishment since it means the student was part of an R&D team as an undergraduate. Some schools accept students to their graduate program before the student earns the undergraduate degree and allows the student to take graduate-credit courses. That is another stand-out accomplishment. Doing what everyone else does is just commodity work that gets you nowhere.
While an electrical engineering undergraduate a new group was nominated for Tau Beta Pi. During our discussion on the new nominees it was revealed that two of them bragged opening about their successful cheating. We denied them membership. Tau Beta Pi is the top fraternity for engineering students. It says a lot more about you than just grades. Having been denied membership also tells a lot about you.
Slashdot Mirror
From what you said, they own the work since you did it on company time.
The "education" community has long forsaken their responsibility to teach and educate. Putting electronic devices in the hands of the uneducated is easy. To actually educate the uneducated is very difficult. What form the book takes is of no consequence. Relying on the book alone to educate the uneducated leads only to a very naive, uneducated, and easy to control population.
'not found proof of any breach on the iBahn network' is not at all the same as saying that a breach did not take place.
It is true that one should prepare oneself for employment. One does, after all, have to support self and family. However, the study of the liberal arts is essential for success in a technical career. The very best course I ever took to prepare me to work with computers was in Formal Logic taught in the Philosophy Department by a professor who knew nothing about computers and never mentioned them. Computers are nothing more than boxes filled with on/off switches. Formal Logic is a means of thinking that is restricted to on/off, in/out, yes/no. It was invented in ancient Greece by Aristotle. Computers simply mechanize this manner of thinking. Once one has an understanding of the fundamental nature of computers, everything else is a detail. Even fuzzy logic comes down to a crisp decision that excludes all others. The second best course was in Boolean Algebra taught in the Math Department by a professor who also knew nothing about computers and never mentioned them. Boolean Algebra is a formal symbology and approach for manipulating Formal Logic statements. It gives structure that can be more readily mechanized. Besides becoming educated in the fundamentals that underlie their craft, technical people need to know how to communicate. They also need an understanding of the industrial and business world. Without such knowledge, a technical person has a glass ceiling over themselves that can not be breached. Even if one stays technical, one still needs to be in synergy with the surrounding environment. This is especially true as one becomes more senior.
Computer Engineering, from an engineering school, with a minor in applied statistics from a math school.
CorpSpeak is a program readily downloadable. Given a few keywords it can generate loads of nonsense that makes perfect sense. It would be easy to apply that program to the subject application.
Bardwick is correct. Even if the committee had "succeeded", our spending would still be out of control. What we need is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. America has passed its debt capacity and needs to reform itself. Another thought along these lines is that the American people do not hold their government accountable. Americans, as a whole, do not even vote. My wife, a poll worker, tells me that less than half of the people bother to register and only half of those trouble themselves to actually go to the polls. So, when a politician says they have a mandate, they are not talking about the majority of Americans. Even the richest person gets the same number of votes as the poorest, ONE. Plus, corporations can not vote. YOUR VOTE COUNTS, even if you just write in someone's name. It will become readily evident that most Americans are not voting for the two main-line parties that have proven that they do not offer the solution America needs.
Q-Hack has hit the nail on the head. Some other thoughts: Sounds like a case of someone who has reached the asymptote of growth in his current job. Yes indeed, get out of your comfort zone. Stop turning the crank. Do something new. Take on new challenges. Write an article for publication. Go to graduate school at night. Dream on. Then plan and implement. If your current company is limiting you, seek out a company that offers opportunity and that appreciates its people. In my own career (35 years and counting) I have always followed the idea that if anyone could do something, I just let them do it. Instead, I look for challenges that scare others. At this point, it is very rare for anyone to ask me to do something I already know how to do. Never never get involved in commodity work using commodity skills. Always aim for the challenge, those things most people can not do.
Dream on....... With an attitude like one reaches age 50 unable to find or keep a job. A person ends up expecting senior pay for doing junior work or skilled only in things nobody cares about any more. I have seen this happen to people over and over again.
* chuckle * A company once wanted to hire me because I had spent several years programming DEC PDP 8 computers. Turns out they were running their assembly line using those things 15 years after DEC went out of business. I promptly took all that old stuff off my resume. It does not do to get identified with ancient technology if one wants a cutting-edge career.
Languages do evolve. Even if you continue to program in an existing standard such as Java or C++, you need to keep up with the latest standards. Fortran especially has evolved a great deal since its origination. Then there is the matter of new applications to which a language is applied. It is important to know how companies are trying to apply computers and what problems they are trying to solve. So, while the language survives by name, the language itself and its application evolves. The technologist must undergo a similar evolution.
Have you seen the articles with titles like "Finished at Age 35"? It is very true. Consider: Most statistics I see say that the half-life of a technology degree is five years or less. If a person starts college at 19 and spends five years (not at all uncommon) then the technology learned is half old at age 29 (five years after graduation). Five years after that the person is 34. That is how people at that age end up out of work if they fail to continue their education and training.
My experience has been that one has to balance keeping up with one's technical field and avoiding chasing fads. Too often "keeping fresh on new tech trends" boils down to chasing fads and, for instance, using a new language because it is there. What I have concentrated on are the technologies needed to solve difficult customer problems as they push their own application and technological domains. To make this work I keep up a constant cycle of study-learn-work-produce. That has worked well for 35 years and keeps me in demand as a senior research engineer (Ph.D.) at 60 years of age.
At what point do we hold the educational establishment accountable? At what point do we look at their income relative to what that income is spent on? What objective organization performs such an audit? An example: a local university wanted to build a commercial conference center and staging for commercial entertainment. They called it a business investment but they raised tuition in order to afford it. They had no need for the building since existing buildings served the student body and faculty well. At the same time, this university tells the faculty to cancel courses when there are not enough students. Yet, one will never see a management flunky laid off. The focus of universities has set education aside. The loan program is just one means by which citizens pour money down a black hole. It is time to require an outside auditor to review the total picture of income vs. expenditure for each university receiving tax-payer dollars. For every dollar not spent directly on educational services, one dollar should be deleted from the allocation from tax-payers. If that causes a few money grubbers to go out of business, so be it. The ones that concentrate on education will survive. After teaching for three colleges during a five-year period, I found that those colleges were more interested in retaining students than providing an education. Increasingly, "students" from far out to the left of the bell curve are recruited. Thus, courses have to be continually watered down to make it look like these people are passing. They get a piece of paper stamped "degree" but it is worthless. At least industry has recognized the trend. I have seen companies keep a black list of "colleges". Any resume from a place on that list is just thrown in the trash. Other companies publish a very short list of universities whose degrees are acceptable. That is at least one form of accountability.
On the one hand they say that they understand everything and so do not need a "God Concept". On the other hand they say that they do not understand and so God could not have possibly done it. As someone who holds a Ph.D. I realize that people with that degree feel a need to have something totally new, unique, and significant to say. This article is no different. A deeper understanding of God is possible through the study of science. But when it comes to saying things like, "... no fall toppled man from a state of innocence.", we are going too far. We dig ourselves deeper into a Godless society thereby.
I can dig that one me man. During a Calculus course the professor asked my friend and I to stop coming to class. He said we asked really good questions and he thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. But, the rest of the class was not up to it and he needed to teach at their level to get them up to speed. This was one good professor. He taught well and it was very motivating to have him as a mentor and teacher. Such a relationship is key to education. That is why I am unhappy with "online learning" and large classes. This may work for skills training but not for education.
The whole thing sounds like a desperate attempt by NASA to grab favorable attention. Having watched the decline of NASA over the last few decades, my feeling is that NASA needs a mission to which they are held accountable, with no excuses accepted. "Missions to Mars" and "Manned Moon Stations" are not relevant to Earth's needs. They need a mission such as developing and demonstrating space-generated energy with transmission to earth-based distribution stations. They have already shown that they can not cost-electively build, maintain, and resupply a relatively near-orbit space station nor build and evolve a fleet of taxis to and from space.
After 35 years as a technical specialist in computers, I have to agree with the Dijkstra quote. My experience has been that success in working with computers has little to do with computers themselves. Jaw's comment about a need for theory is also very true in my experience. Bar none, the course that taught me most helpfully was a course in formal logic given in the philosophy department by a professor who knew nothing about computers and never mentioned them. Formal logic is an ancient way of coming to conclusions based on pure black and white logic. Computers are nothing more than boxes filled with on/off switches that are either completely on or completely off. The second best course was one in Boolean algebra. This is a mathematical means of representing and manipulating formal logic statements. Once one understands the basics, everything else is a detail that can be looked up in a book.
Obama's statement about needing more engineering degrees is akin to his saying that "every child deserves a degree". What this leads to is watering down courses so that those on the far left of the performance-ethic bell curve can still look like they passed. The result is the issuing of paper degrees by worthless schools. In my personal experience teaching graduate and undergraduate courses for six years is that only 25% of the students have the performance ethic needed to pass through a rigorous study program. 50% will do the bare minimum to get by, and only that minimum. The remaining 25% will not even do the minimum but they still expect to get a passing grade. If they do not get a passing grade they complain to the school's administration. The professor has to either change the grade or lose his contract. In one school I know about, local companies call the professors personally and ask them for a list of their best students. If a graduate is not on that list they do not get hired, regardless of their grades.
The slippery slope has already been foretold in the Bible, '... thorns and thistles will rise up upon their altars and they will say to the mountains, "Bury us!" and to the high places, "Fall on us!"' As we push God further and further from our lives, we gradually perish. This applies to individuals, societies, and nations.
This amounts to watering down a course so people on the far left of the bell curve can still pass. In a world that increasingly needs strong expertise, a process like this will never produce anyone who can compete. My advice is to stick with credible universities that have strong reputations.
In my personal opinion, it is a mistake for our profession to defend the likes of a person who carries out such an act. While the restitution is clearly beyond his means, his actions are just as clearly unconscionable. I have been in this profession for 35 years and still work at the technical level. We need to act with integrity and disassociate ourselves from such malpractitioners. Otherwise, our profession will fall under deep suspicion and eventually die.
Once all the laughter dies down: Consider an active component to home security. Just having cameras is not sufficient. Use a simple frame-to-frame change detector coupled to automated email. The email should send basic information in text accompanied by an image or two. If a microphone is attached, a wave file can also be sent. Going further, real-time remote monitoring could be enabled. Be sure to be subtle. Don't put cameras and microphones in obvious places.
Generally, I agree with BitZstream's post. Ungently put but it is true. As an industrial R&D specialist I look for interns who can function on their own with just a bit of mentoring. If I already knew how to do something I would not need to hire an intern. The opportunity postings say as much. Rarely does more than one application arrive from a nation-wide posting. That tells me that by far most students do not have the right stuff. As an example of something that a new graduate needs is a publication or two in the peer-reviewed literature. That really stands out as an accomplishment since it means the student was part of an R&D team as an undergraduate. Some schools accept students to their graduate program before the student earns the undergraduate degree and allows the student to take graduate-credit courses. That is another stand-out accomplishment. Doing what everyone else does is just commodity work that gets you nowhere.
While an electrical engineering undergraduate a new group was nominated for Tau Beta Pi. During our discussion on the new nominees it was revealed that two of them bragged opening about their successful cheating. We denied them membership. Tau Beta Pi is the top fraternity for engineering students. It says a lot more about you than just grades. Having been denied membership also tells a lot about you.