That's not true at all. Although I believed that in school because I was surrounded by boring professors with boring interests and a workload that prohibited inefficient trips to the bathroom, and watching liberal arts students drink and get laid, party and still manage to get good grades.
What I think is worst about engineering education, is what's not in the article. I liked what I thought the field was about. What made me want to quit, over and over again, was that what I was learning in school was not what I wanted to do with my career. That's not to say what I was learning in school wasn't USEFUL in my career, it has become more important as I have become more senior, but it's not what made me say "I want to be an EE".
What they taught was primarily math and techniques for understanding and analyzing circuits (in the beginning) and advanced into information theory and applied math. All of which are entirely useful to the practicing engineer...none of which are what an 18yo kid wants to get in to engineering for. I wanted to build an mp3 player, or some whizbang gadget or another. I wanted to learn how that's done, in the real world, what are some problems I will face, in the real world. Most of them do resolve down to topics they did cover. But if it were taught from the standpoint of "Let's design a " rather than drawing equations all over, would have greatly improved the whole experience and possibly encouraged me to stick around for more than the obligatory masters. Instead they applied so much work, and so much repetition that there was no time for the FUN part of it. I was busy making plans to get in to management and escape engineering because it seemed like the embodiment of death.
Not so, once I got out, it's actually the fun I thought it was. It's true, not every day is a truckload of excitement, but neither is it as dry or boring as my professors made it out to be. I got a masters in EE and had no idea how to build...anything. 10 years later, and NOW all that stuff I learned in school is exciting. I can see the applications for it, and I'm senior enough that my keepers will trust me to actually implement what I learned. But there was a time in my 20s where I really thought I screwed my life up and if an easy option was available, I would have taken it and never known what I missed.
All of these arguments apply to artists/writers/etc. who go in to a liberal arts program hoping to become better, but who get frustrated amidst the sea of academia (which may be helpful, but again, are just thinking methods to solved problems). Perhaps the only difference is that they have the time/money to do what interests them (write/paint/whatever) and gradually apply (even unknowingly) what they're learning and become better. Whereas in EE (or ChemE, or Aerospace, etc.) we do not. There isn't the money to build a circuit board, or fab an IC (generally speaking), nor a sufficiently large staff to help students understand "what problems to solve, where" as there is in a real for-profit engineering company. Classroom topics remain abstract "neat but...how do I use it" topics until you finally faceplant in an engineering company and learn through the trial by fire. Then, after several years heavily resembling what I hear medical residents describe (but a lot less stressful and with maybe somewhat better hours), it all starts to make sense. But you have to patiently invest almost a decade from the start of your education through your first job, to really get the feedback. I'm not sure what other fields require that level of of delayed gratification, nor am I convinced that it's necessary.
If I ran an engineering degree program, I'd teach it very differently. On the other hand, I'd have to take a huge paycut, and that's part of the problem too.
Analog skills are still alive and well and as important as ever. Behind every "digital" transmission system is an Analog Front End. Instead of building transistor radios in college electronics labs, we build frequency hopped radios and the like. As for home projects...they're still out there. Radios aren't as interesting, but other things have taken their place.
Physical addiction is taught in school "health ed" programs in the sense that you use chemical dependence. Chemical dependence seems to get used by the unwashed masses even for people who drink alcohol in excess.
All of this because people want to believe it's their biology at fault.
Don't forget [insert your favorite virtual machine tool]...to run the "authorized" corporate image that suffers from bitrot and administrative whim. Then we run the leaner, meaner OS beneath (with the unauthorized apps that don't need to be with the corporate image). We're also inclined to divert internet bound traffic through our cell phones, because...there's no proxy in the way.
But are we bad employees...none of us think so. It's how we do more with less, which outside of IT, is what we're all pushed for.
I'm not sure about that. Creative people don't need EA to make great games, they just need money...wherever it comes from. Once you've brought your creation as far as it can go, and it becomes a "release a new version every year before christmas"...it's really time to move on anyway. It's just hard to walk away from a paycheck. EA buying out TT, and then the inevitable fallout of people smart enough to know they can do better, might actually improve things for gamers.
Because they want to go after those people, they released a locked down SDK and downplayed their restrictions. Now they can claim they're not being anti-competitive, that they allow development, and that they're just prosecuting "thieves".
It's not about the government hating sex or gay people, it's about sex being an optional activity that can be done without negative social effect by smart people not under the influence of something. However implemented across the board by the people doing it most, can be a significant drain on society if we socialize the burden.
If you have HIV you shouldn't be having sex (with anyone who isn't 100% aware and willing to accept the risk). Even if you are not contagious, that's for the partner to decide, not you. In an educated country like the US, there's no need for any additional money to be spent just to keep you from spreading it. We can argue about national healthcare elsewhere, along with the possible use of this as a treatment for HIV. Some people continue to engage in high risk activities, eventually they will hurt themselves or others. Similarly, people who continue to drive drunk will probably kill someone but we do not punish all of society by banning alcohol. Whether you have HIV or not, the story is the same: if you don't want to get infected, don't sleep around. This isn't hating sex, this is common sense.
Given that most of this country is educated, and that few are not at least peripherally aware of the risks of promiscuous sex (unprotected or no) there's no need for society to bear the burden locally. The price of being rich and educated, relatively, is carrying a higher responsibility for your actions. Further, if we did see value in implementing this we'd have to fund it at 100%, and we could never remove it (unless the disease was cured). Everyone who had HIV would have to get the treatment. This is a large, permanent burden to place on a country. Finally, how effective would it be in practice? I know several women who managed to get pregnant at one point in their fertile years while using the pill. Big deal, they could handle it. All they had to do was take the pill regularly...yet oops. A different story when you're talking about spreading a fatal illness. For HIV we're talking about getting people to regularly take this treatment -AND- NOT get some other STD -AND- behave themselves for 6 months. Yet somehow they got it in the first place, and all they had to do was wrap it up and/or not share a needle. (I'm lumping those who got HIV through uncontrollable sources and are aware of it, in the category of those who wouldn't be high risk carriers, not necessarily true)
Now, the 3rd world is an entirely different story. The disease is out of control and education levels are low (along with cultures that have some control over sex). We have a fixed budget that's small compared to our tax burden, and we could calculate the risk v. reward and apply the treatment for maximal effect compared with other treatments in use. We could experiment with it and evaluate the ROI and cut it entirely if shown to be ineffective. That's the burden of the third world, you take what you're given and are grateful.
I don't know, I think I would urge my child not to even consider a career in science or engineering. The hard sci/engineering jobs are either going overseas or rotting away in universities, there will always be some, but the barriers are going higher. He's far better off studying hard to get in a brand-name school, getting a degree that sounds like tech, but also getting an MBA and some "field psychology", and preparing for a career in vendor management. He'll get farther, faster and make a buck.
Basically, I agree with you, except that I think the far-east is going to go from being our cheap knaves, to providing the true innovation for the next 70 years while the western world gets to the point of a) recognizing there is a problem and then b) returning to what made us so rich and powerful in the first place. Right now, however, only those of us who actually like this geekdom care...and one might just say it's sour grapes.
Re:You insensitive clod, I own a movie theater
on
33 MegaPixel TV in 2015
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you were only overcharged $.50 cents on your purchase of popcorn and a medium soft drink, you should consider yourself lucky.
I cannot tell the difference between a 32x32 icon stretched fullscreen at 640x480 versus the same 32x32 icon stretched to 1920x1080 (assuming aspect ratio is maintained of course).
It really depends on the source material. My current aggravation with the "HDTV" logo, is that it only indicates the display resolution. My satellite provider provides "HD Content", but it's noticeably inferior to the "HD Content" I got from Comcast back in my old place. I remember watching Spiderman in HD and seeing how much of the set was made of rubber and plastic. With satellite, I can't see that detail (same 60" HD DLP), and in fact is hard to distinguish from SD.
But my XBox 360 in 480 vs 1080? Night and day. Looking at my Wii is often painful.
If the argument is that HD isn't worth everyone running off to the store and buying a new crop of TVs and A/V equipment and participating in some bizarre corporate control war, I agree. BluRay or HD-DVD, the only people who see the difference there are the corporations behind them. No sensible person should take sides and fanboi. Until you can buy a DVD player that does both, or one or the other dies totally, we shouldn't care. But there IS (or should be) a noticeable difference between SD and HD. If we can't see it it's probably because we were sold shitty content. This is another reason it may still be too early for HD adoption.
That all sounds great in theory, but having some amount of privacy and a place to go that isn't noisy and full of people and subject to so much easy distraction is advantageous.
Further, as a HW guy, I often keep equipment, boards, etc. that I'm working on in my "personal space" (cube, lab bench with my name on it). I do this a) to isolate stuff I've modified so that someone else won't take it and get hit with my nonsense and b) to protect the stuff I'm working on when some MGR tries to get promoted by shortchanging us on equipment. I do not wish to lose hours a day hunting for parts, or stealing a board to work on, getting apparatus set up, and then doing testing..every day.
Finally, imagine a world where both HW, Software and Mechanical engineers like to have multiple large screen monitors on their desk (all of these jobs benefit greatly). This sort of thing can't be done easily with this open floor plan environment. Everyone's needs are not the same, but the exceptions are more numerous than the rules. Sales, marketing and management can often live with this "on the go" lifestyle, as their duties are necessarily more social and dynamic...but for a lot of us grunts who actually design and cause to be built the products companies make money on...we need desks.
Unfortunately I see us being victimized by this process (having in the past 5 years gone from an office, to a large cube with high walls, to a small cube with low walls, to soon a smaller cube with smaller walls, to this new stupid thing) until it's realized it doesn't work. We live in the era of "one size fits all", even when it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't...mgmt proceeds to do so anyway until they get "data" that proves it.
You'll buy your daughter a "Barbie goes to the mall" game on a whim, whether she wants it or not, and not worry about it much. You'd buy manhunt 2 for your child only if asked.
I think it's a pretty plausible explanation. Effectively this is just buying karma for when you need it later (like Manhunt 3, which everyone wants, and features full body degloving!).
A dollar isn't an SI unit of measurement either, but when the realtor tells me the house is $1M, I assume $1,000,000, not $1,048,576. Since a dollar is 2^2 quarters it is not a base 10 operation, thus I should expect this, correct?
All that we've accomplished here is forced Seagate (and friends) to put more fine print on their boxes qualifying exactly how many bytes are on the hard drive, and possibly caused them to lose a lot of money. Meanwhile nobody was really misled or damaged in any tangible way. Way to screw America!
Actually, I'm pretty sure the stockholders don't want that as clearly you have some inefficiencies to cut.
But speaking as someone who worked in that environment in the past, but now works in a large monolithic company...count your blessings;) There's a high "corporate tax" on each employee, such that I do almost 100% less daily, due to spending so much time "maximizing synergy". The sad part is my manager thinks that's great, he's annoyed when i spend a day in the lab developing and testing our new product.
Hopefully in 50 years no one will know what a record company is. But I think we will be talking about how democracy was nearly lost to corporations at the turn of the century, but the threat of armed rebellion forced legal change over the heads of lobbyists and crooked politicians.
I'm not sure if net neutrality is exactly their concern. Abortion is just hotly contested by two very vocal sides, with sufficient money and interest to see Verizon brought to court, and cause them to lose the ability to censor media not currently protected by the government. I doubt they care about abortion, or any other social issue that doesn't cost them any money.
Non big-brother uses of this ability might include their ability to control who uses their network for advertising and other 3rd party pay services, which they might not be able to do if it were covered by common carrier laws. Remember, their goal is to charge for use of their network to every single party involved , not what it costs to use the network plus a small percentage...but as much as they think the person will pay.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true at all. Although I believed that in school because I was surrounded by boring professors with boring interests and a workload that prohibited inefficient trips to the bathroom, and watching liberal arts students drink and get laid, party and still manage to get good grades.
What I think is worst about engineering education, is what's not in the article. I liked what I thought the field was about. What made me want to quit, over and over again, was that what I was learning in school was not what I wanted to do with my career. That's not to say what I was learning in school wasn't USEFUL in my career, it has become more important as I have become more senior, but it's not what made me say "I want to be an EE".
What they taught was primarily math and techniques for understanding and analyzing circuits (in the beginning) and advanced into information theory and applied math. All of which are entirely useful to the practicing engineer...none of which are what an 18yo kid wants to get in to engineering for. I wanted to build an mp3 player, or some whizbang gadget or another. I wanted to learn how that's done, in the real world, what are some problems I will face, in the real world. Most of them do resolve down to topics they did cover. But if it were taught from the standpoint of "Let's design a " rather than drawing equations all over, would have greatly improved the whole experience and possibly encouraged me to stick around for more than the obligatory masters. Instead they applied so much work, and so much repetition that there was no time for the FUN part of it. I was busy making plans to get in to management and escape engineering because it seemed like the embodiment of death.
Not so, once I got out, it's actually the fun I thought it was. It's true, not every day is a truckload of excitement, but neither is it as dry or boring as my professors made it out to be. I got a masters in EE and had no idea how to build...anything. 10 years later, and NOW all that stuff I learned in school is exciting. I can see the applications for it, and I'm senior enough that my keepers will trust me to actually implement what I learned. But there was a time in my 20s where I really thought I screwed my life up and if an easy option was available, I would have taken it and never known what I missed.
All of these arguments apply to artists/writers/etc. who go in to a liberal arts program hoping to become better, but who get frustrated amidst the sea of academia (which may be helpful, but again, are just thinking methods to solved problems). Perhaps the only difference is that they have the time/money to do what interests them (write/paint/whatever) and gradually apply (even unknowingly) what they're learning and become better. Whereas in EE (or ChemE, or Aerospace, etc.) we do not. There isn't the money to build a circuit board, or fab an IC (generally speaking), nor a sufficiently large staff to help students understand "what problems to solve, where" as there is in a real for-profit engineering company. Classroom topics remain abstract "neat but...how do I use it" topics until you finally faceplant in an engineering company and learn through the trial by fire. Then, after several years heavily resembling what I hear medical residents describe (but a lot less stressful and with maybe somewhat better hours), it all starts to make sense. But you have to patiently invest almost a decade from the start of your education through your first job, to really get the feedback. I'm not sure what other fields require that level of of delayed gratification, nor am I convinced that it's necessary.
If I ran an engineering degree program, I'd teach it very differently. On the other hand, I'd have to take a huge paycut, and that's part of the problem too.
Analog skills are still alive and well and as important as ever. Behind every "digital" transmission system is an Analog Front End. Instead of building transistor radios in college electronics labs, we build frequency hopped radios and the like. As for home projects...they're still out there. Radios aren't as interesting, but other things have taken their place.
Physical addiction is taught in school "health ed" programs in the sense that you use chemical dependence. Chemical dependence seems to get used by the unwashed masses even for people who drink alcohol in excess.
All of this because people want to believe it's their biology at fault.
Don't forget [insert your favorite virtual machine tool]...to run the "authorized" corporate image that suffers from bitrot and administrative whim. Then we run the leaner, meaner OS beneath (with the unauthorized apps that don't need to be with the corporate image). We're also inclined to divert internet bound traffic through our cell phones, because...there's no proxy in the way.
But are we bad employees...none of us think so. It's how we do more with less, which outside of IT, is what we're all pushed for.
I'm not sure about that. Creative people don't need EA to make great games, they just need money...wherever it comes from. Once you've brought your creation as far as it can go, and it becomes a "release a new version every year before christmas"...it's really time to move on anyway. It's just hard to walk away from a paycheck. EA buying out TT, and then the inevitable fallout of people smart enough to know they can do better, might actually improve things for gamers.
Because they want to go after those people, they released a locked down SDK and downplayed their restrictions. Now they can claim they're not being anti-competitive, that they allow development, and that they're just prosecuting "thieves".
It's not about the government hating sex or gay people, it's about sex being an optional activity that can be done without negative social effect by smart people not under the influence of something. However implemented across the board by the people doing it most, can be a significant drain on society if we socialize the burden.
If you have HIV you shouldn't be having sex (with anyone who isn't 100% aware and willing to accept the risk). Even if you are not contagious, that's for the partner to decide, not you. In an educated country like the US, there's no need for any additional money to be spent just to keep you from spreading it. We can argue about national healthcare elsewhere, along with the possible use of this as a treatment for HIV. Some people continue to engage in high risk activities, eventually they will hurt themselves or others. Similarly, people who continue to drive drunk will probably kill someone but we do not punish all of society by banning alcohol. Whether you have HIV or not, the story is the same: if you don't want to get infected, don't sleep around. This isn't hating sex, this is common sense.
Given that most of this country is educated, and that few are not at least peripherally aware of the risks of promiscuous sex (unprotected or no) there's no need for society to bear the burden locally. The price of being rich and educated, relatively, is carrying a higher responsibility for your actions. Further, if we did see value in implementing this we'd have to fund it at 100%, and we could never remove it (unless the disease was cured). Everyone who had HIV would have to get the treatment. This is a large, permanent burden to place on a country. Finally, how effective would it be in practice? I know several women who managed to get pregnant at one point in their fertile years while using the pill. Big deal, they could handle it. All they had to do was take the pill regularly...yet oops. A different story when you're talking about spreading a fatal illness. For HIV we're talking about getting people to regularly take this treatment -AND- NOT get some other STD -AND- behave themselves for 6 months. Yet somehow they got it in the first place, and all they had to do was wrap it up and/or not share a needle. (I'm lumping those who got HIV through uncontrollable sources and are aware of it, in the category of those who wouldn't be high risk carriers, not necessarily true)
Now, the 3rd world is an entirely different story. The disease is out of control and education levels are low (along with cultures that have some control over sex). We have a fixed budget that's small compared to our tax burden, and we could calculate the risk v. reward and apply the treatment for maximal effect compared with other treatments in use. We could experiment with it and evaluate the ROI and cut it entirely if shown to be ineffective. That's the burden of the third world, you take what you're given and are grateful.
I don't know, I think I would urge my child not to even consider a career in science or engineering. The hard sci/engineering jobs are either going overseas or rotting away in universities, there will always be some, but the barriers are going higher. He's far better off studying hard to get in a brand-name school, getting a degree that sounds like tech, but also getting an MBA and some "field psychology", and preparing for a career in vendor management. He'll get farther, faster and make a buck.
Basically, I agree with you, except that I think the far-east is going to go from being our cheap knaves, to providing the true innovation for the next 70 years while the western world gets to the point of a) recognizing there is a problem and then b) returning to what made us so rich and powerful in the first place. Right now, however, only those of us who actually like this geekdom care...and one might just say it's sour grapes.
If you were only overcharged $.50 cents on your purchase of popcorn and a medium soft drink, you should consider yourself lucky.
I cannot tell the difference between a 32x32 icon stretched fullscreen at 640x480 versus the same 32x32 icon stretched to 1920x1080 (assuming aspect ratio is maintained of course).
It really depends on the source material. My current aggravation with the "HDTV" logo, is that it only indicates the display resolution. My satellite provider provides "HD Content", but it's noticeably inferior to the "HD Content" I got from Comcast back in my old place. I remember watching Spiderman in HD and seeing how much of the set was made of rubber and plastic. With satellite, I can't see that detail (same 60" HD DLP), and in fact is hard to distinguish from SD.
But my XBox 360 in 480 vs 1080? Night and day. Looking at my Wii is often painful.
If the argument is that HD isn't worth everyone running off to the store and buying a new crop of TVs and A/V equipment and participating in some bizarre corporate control war, I agree. BluRay or HD-DVD, the only people who see the difference there are the corporations behind them. No sensible person should take sides and fanboi. Until you can buy a DVD player that does both, or one or the other dies totally, we shouldn't care. But there IS (or should be) a noticeable difference between SD and HD. If we can't see it it's probably because we were sold shitty content. This is another reason it may still be too early for HD adoption.
You're assuming the majority of people put more thought into who they vote into office than they do in choosing their pickles.
I'd say our current president closely resembles a cheap Dill.
wait a minute...a soldier putting his life on the line for doing his job? Shit, that never happens.
That all sounds great in theory, but having some amount of privacy and a place to go that isn't noisy and full of people and subject to so much easy distraction is advantageous.
Further, as a HW guy, I often keep equipment, boards, etc. that I'm working on in my "personal space" (cube, lab bench with my name on it). I do this a) to isolate stuff I've modified so that someone else won't take it and get hit with my nonsense and b) to protect the stuff I'm working on when some MGR tries to get promoted by shortchanging us on equipment. I do not wish to lose hours a day hunting for parts, or stealing a board to work on, getting apparatus set up, and then doing testing..every day.
Finally, imagine a world where both HW, Software and Mechanical engineers like to have multiple large screen monitors on their desk (all of these jobs benefit greatly). This sort of thing can't be done easily with this open floor plan environment. Everyone's needs are not the same, but the exceptions are more numerous than the rules. Sales, marketing and management can often live with this "on the go" lifestyle, as their duties are necessarily more social and dynamic...but for a lot of us grunts who actually design and cause to be built the products companies make money on...we need desks.
Unfortunately I see us being victimized by this process (having in the past 5 years gone from an office, to a large cube with high walls, to a small cube with low walls, to soon a smaller cube with smaller walls, to this new stupid thing) until it's realized it doesn't work. We live in the era of "one size fits all", even when it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't...mgmt proceeds to do so anyway until they get "data" that proves it.
No, these are psychologists, not real scientists.
False, my great grandmother was significantly overweight and lived to well over 100.
Ah hah, distributing microsoft product the old fashioned way eh!
You'll buy your daughter a "Barbie goes to the mall" game on a whim, whether she wants it or not, and not worry about it much. You'd buy manhunt 2 for your child only if asked.
I think it's a pretty plausible explanation. Effectively this is just buying karma for when you need it later (like Manhunt 3, which everyone wants, and features full body degloving!).
You are sentenced to school until such time as you earn the grade you created by hacking.
A dollar isn't an SI unit of measurement either, but when the realtor tells me the house is $1M, I assume $1,000,000, not $1,048,576. Since a dollar is 2^2 quarters it is not a base 10 operation, thus I should expect this, correct?
All that we've accomplished here is forced Seagate (and friends) to put more fine print on their boxes qualifying exactly how many bytes are on the hard drive, and possibly caused them to lose a lot of money. Meanwhile nobody was really misled or damaged in any tangible way. Way to screw America!
that's no galaxy
You have to fight, for your right, to Party.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the stockholders don't want that as clearly you have some inefficiencies to cut.
;) There's a high "corporate tax" on each employee, such that I do almost 100% less daily, due to spending so much time "maximizing synergy". The sad part is my manager thinks that's great, he's annoyed when i spend a day in the lab developing and testing our new product.
But speaking as someone who worked in that environment in the past, but now works in a large monolithic company...count your blessings
They either keep shipping phones that are locked, or they won't be shipping phones at all.
Hopefully in 50 years no one will know what a record company is. But I think we will be talking about how democracy was nearly lost to corporations at the turn of the century, but the threat of armed rebellion forced legal change over the heads of lobbyists and crooked politicians.
I'm not sure if net neutrality is exactly their concern. Abortion is just hotly contested by two very vocal sides, with sufficient money and interest to see Verizon brought to court, and cause them to lose the ability to censor media not currently protected by the government. I doubt they care about abortion, or any other social issue that doesn't cost them any money.
Non big-brother uses of this ability might include their ability to control who uses their network for advertising and other 3rd party pay services, which they might not be able to do if it were covered by common carrier laws. Remember, their goal is to charge for use of their network to every single party involved , not what it costs to use the network plus a small percentage...but as much as they think the person will pay.