If they're reviewing the plan every week and trying it twice a year, then they're probably having a blast. Survivalists enjoy doing this kind of stuff. Be glad there are people out there with this hobby.
Only in the contemporary. Classical understanding of the terms has a Democracy almost exclusively referring to direct democracy. This is a question of scholarly understanding. Utah should consult the philosophy professors at U of U to decide how the terms should be taught in schools today. I myself no longer know if referring to a democratic republic as a democracy is correct usage of the term today. Any philosophy professors on here want to chime in?
brakes are never brake-by-wire, and the handbrake works, too.
Not to say that I disagree with your post. However, electronic brakes are quite common. That said, it's always possible to "push through" and mechanically activate the brakes should all of the redundancies fail. Electronic park brakes are also coming onto the scene that are only activated by a simple switch. I know the Volt has one.
I'm a senior systems analyst/engineer for a government contractor. We pay entry level engineers 50-60. Dunno where you are, but it must be fairly low cost of living; which probably means the pay for teachers is lower too.
Government contractors tend to have much higher pay scales than normal. I live in Southern California, hardly a low cost of living area. On average, teachers here get paid more than me. However, their starting salary is generally less than $50k. With all the time they have to do with as they please, I am not sympathetic. Yes it's a high stress job and crap like No Child Left Behind has created performance metrics that would make me want to jump off a cliff, but the pay isn't bad. Trust me when I tell you that teachers where I live (and in the low income area where I grew up) get by just fine making a pretty healthy salary with good benefits compared to many of their fellow English and history majors.
Also, I suspect that after a year of teaching for 35K a year, you'd be done anyway. Even a fresh engineering grad can expect to make nearly twice as much as a teacher in better working conditions.
What!? I make twice that after five years experience in industry and a battery of peer review publications under my belt, and I'm slightly above the median in my geographic location according to IEEE. Don't make me laugh. I have no hope of tenure and sabbatical, I get 2 weeks vacation, no lounge, no union protection, and my mistakes at work could result in killing people if they go undiscovered. I hope you're not an engineering student who seriously expects to start out somewhere near $70k when you graduate.
Why would you want someone with an MS in physics to be teaching grade school? It's excessive and overkill. It's like hiring an engineer to change the brake pads on your car. We don't need top graduates from top universities to be teaching our kids. In fact, we avoid a lot of weird problems by not having them teach our kids.
$33,227/year with 3 months vacation for a fresh BA/BS non-technical graduate is pretty darn good in most parts of the country. The real question is what that number looks like when they reach tenure.
I'll also quote for you: Due to industrial exemption many professionals are titled as engineering. Examples are Production Engineers, Test Engineers, Integration Engineers, Network Engineers, Project Engineers, Systems Engineers, Sales Engineers etc.
Ok so fair enough. Technically speaking you could say this means the term "engineer" is regulated. But with such a broad exemption, the result is that only a limited set of activities are regulated.
No it's not. The argument here has been over whether or not the title of "Engineer" is regulated. It's not. Practice of very specific activities within the engineering discipline is. "Engineer" is just a word. Get over it.
Depending on where you live, you could. There is no regulation regarding titles in the US that I am aware of. You can call yourself Docter, Duke, King, Esquire, Maser, etc without any legal ramification. This is one reason why employers want to know where you received the supposed right to declare that title. In engineering for example, coming from an ABET accredited school is key. That doesn't mean that non-ABET accredited schools can't hand out a BS in engineering.
Besides, within the tech industry alone there already exists a lot of dubious titles that people tack onto their name. SSBB, SSGB, CQE, CSEP, CBA, etc. The list is probably endless.
The question comes down to what qualifies you to call yourself an engineer. In most industries it is not a certification from the government. Some times and in days past, it's not even a college degree. It's a question of what you do and how your knowledge base supports your competence.
Yo do not need a medical degree to call yourself a doctor. Everyone with a PhD calls themselves a doctor. It's legal for them to do so. It is the practice of medicine that is regulated, not the title.
Anymore the term Automotive Engineer is about as loaded as Biomedical Engineer. Which engineer in automotive design is the automotive engineer? The style designers? Electrical system architects? Powertrain engineers? Chassis designers? Quality engineers? It's about as laughably vague as the term "bio-tech" which could refer to anything from creating ethanol with algae to building medical devices. Of course, when people use these words they usually have one specific thing in mind that you will be unable to ascertain from their language.
It is related. Engineer is a job title and nothing else. Thats what some people here are having a hard time getting through their thick skulls. Professional Engineer is a licensed title just like SSBB. The term "engineer" itself is not tied to any kind of government regulation.
Am I not allowed to call myself a test engineer if I don't have a BS in Test Engineering from an ABET accredited university? That must be a hard position to fill! Honestly the degree is just BS and nothing else. It's a piece of paper that you can hang on the wall as evidence of being smart. It means less and less every year that goes by after it being awarded. Your title is what you do, not what you're educated in.
You need to read the article yourself. THE FIRST ****ING SENTENCE STATES "A Professional Engineer or Chartered Engineer or Incorporated Engineer is an engineer who is registered or licensed within certain jurisdictions to offer professional services directly to the public."
No license needed to be an engineer! A license only provides a small set of privileges over not having one. Some industries (like civil engineering consulting) depend on them heavily. Most don't.
No one in the US bothers to get a PE unless they are planning on going into construction or government infrastructure contracting. There is no reason to have it otherwise.
However the word 'engineer' has a specific meaning and is regulated just like the word 'doctor' or 'lawyer'.
The word "engineer" is not regulated in most places. There is a licensure involved for very specific types of work. Otherwise there is no law preventing anyone from calling themselves an engineer. The same goes for "doctor" and "lawyer". The titles themselves are not regulated. A license is required to engage in specific activities, not to use the term.
Consider how much floor space it takes to have 10 or 11 registers.
Not much at all for a department store (because it usually requires very little counter space). But lets consider Costco as the worst case scenario. Simply breakup the system into 2 or 3 queues to make up for customers failing to pay attention to all of the registers.
The simple answer is this. If you don't know, and you are not getting honest and complete answers from the judge or the prosecution, then find the defendant not guilty. The life long impact of finding someone guilt of a felony should not be tossed around as something that can be risked on an innocent person. Especially in a sex crimes case where the sentence is a life long one for being put on the public sex offenders list.
Someone is going to have to explain to me, someday, how MRIs are anywhere near as expensive as they are. Them, and labs, are a huge example of absurd amount of wasted money in the system. And it's because patients don't really understand what's going on.
Radiology is a cash cow of hospitals everywhere. Essentially, it's the health care system pushing for the latest and greatest technology, which is extremely expensive. Since you and I are in no position to say we're happy with the resolution that we have, we just get to bit the bullet and pay for it. Making diagnoses based on medical imaging is a special skill to be sure, but believe me the salaries paid to radiologists is jaw dropping.
We do need to cut costs, but it should be because the providers have an incentive to do it cheaper, not because patients figure that one place is 5% cheaper
Completely agree here. But keep in mind that "value" does not always mean cheaper. If a doctor costs you twice as much but fixes the problem in 1/4 the time and more reliably, generally it's worth the upfront cost. Patients need to educate themselves. With information flowing so freely, there's no reason to rely entirely on what your doctor says. For anyone with a moderate education, those days should be over.
Getting paid mostly the same is an excellent reason to cut costs. I think you're looking at the problem backwards.
What we should have is set payments for stuff, and doctors get paid that much. If they can do it cheaper, hey, look, they just made money. Once everyone starts doing it cheaper, we lower payments a bit.
Ha, good point. But remember, value does not always mean cheaper. There is a lot of expense that the family practitioner does not make nor invest money on (such as diagnostic testing, imaging, prescriptions, etc).
They make about 5% profit, and about 20% overhead
Plus all of the consequential cost increases due to the existence of the system.
Now this is the kind of civil, sane, and healthy debate I wish the rest of the country could have on this topic.
I don't think people really understand the cost consequences of health insurance as it exists now. For one, you have patients who do not think to shop around for maximum value and doctors who do not compete because they all get paid mostly the same anyways. Then there is the negotiated payments from insurance companies which encourage the industry to artificially inflate prices (for those without insurance) to get what they believe is a fair compensation (less than list price). Then there is the administrative cost for doctors to process the paperwork. The system results in costs where people cannot afford to even protest against it.
Consider this. For health insurance companies to turn their fat profits, we need to spend a LOT more on our insurance premiums than the entire country is spending on health care. This is madness even in a pure free market.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're reviewing the plan every week and trying it twice a year, then they're probably having a blast. Survivalists enjoy doing this kind of stuff. Be glad there are people out there with this hobby.
Only in the contemporary. Classical understanding of the terms has a Democracy almost exclusively referring to direct democracy. This is a question of scholarly understanding. Utah should consult the philosophy professors at U of U to decide how the terms should be taught in schools today. I myself no longer know if referring to a democratic republic as a democracy is correct usage of the term today. Any philosophy professors on here want to chime in?
brakes are never brake-by-wire, and the handbrake works, too.
Not to say that I disagree with your post. However, electronic brakes are quite common. That said, it's always possible to "push through" and mechanically activate the brakes should all of the redundancies fail. Electronic park brakes are also coming onto the scene that are only activated by a simple switch. I know the Volt has one.
I'm a senior systems analyst/engineer for a government contractor. We pay entry level engineers 50-60. Dunno where you are, but it must be fairly low cost of living; which probably means the pay for teachers is lower too.
Government contractors tend to have much higher pay scales than normal. I live in Southern California, hardly a low cost of living area. On average, teachers here get paid more than me. However, their starting salary is generally less than $50k. With all the time they have to do with as they please, I am not sympathetic. Yes it's a high stress job and crap like No Child Left Behind has created performance metrics that would make me want to jump off a cliff, but the pay isn't bad. Trust me when I tell you that teachers where I live (and in the low income area where I grew up) get by just fine making a pretty healthy salary with good benefits compared to many of their fellow English and history majors.
Also, I suspect that after a year of teaching for 35K a year, you'd be done anyway. Even a fresh engineering grad can expect to make nearly twice as much as a teacher in better working conditions.
What!? I make twice that after five years experience in industry and a battery of peer review publications under my belt, and I'm slightly above the median in my geographic location according to IEEE. Don't make me laugh. I have no hope of tenure and sabbatical, I get 2 weeks vacation, no lounge, no union protection, and my mistakes at work could result in killing people if they go undiscovered. I hope you're not an engineering student who seriously expects to start out somewhere near $70k when you graduate.
Why would you want someone with an MS in physics to be teaching grade school? It's excessive and overkill. It's like hiring an engineer to change the brake pads on your car. We don't need top graduates from top universities to be teaching our kids. In fact, we avoid a lot of weird problems by not having them teach our kids.
$33,227/year with 3 months vacation for a fresh BA/BS non-technical graduate is pretty darn good in most parts of the country. The real question is what that number looks like when they reach tenure.
I'll also quote for you: Due to industrial exemption many professionals are titled as engineering. Examples are Production Engineers, Test Engineers, Integration Engineers, Network Engineers, Project Engineers, Systems Engineers, Sales Engineers etc.
Ok so fair enough. Technically speaking you could say this means the term "engineer" is regulated. But with such a broad exemption, the result is that only a limited set of activities are regulated.
No it's not. The argument here has been over whether or not the title of "Engineer" is regulated. It's not. Practice of very specific activities within the engineering discipline is. "Engineer" is just a word. Get over it.
Yes you can. Doctor Dre can call himself "Doctor" because there is no law forbidding him to do so.
Depending on where you live, you could. There is no regulation regarding titles in the US that I am aware of. You can call yourself Docter, Duke, King, Esquire, Maser, etc without any legal ramification. This is one reason why employers want to know where you received the supposed right to declare that title. In engineering for example, coming from an ABET accredited school is key. That doesn't mean that non-ABET accredited schools can't hand out a BS in engineering.
Besides, within the tech industry alone there already exists a lot of dubious titles that people tack onto their name. SSBB, SSGB, CQE, CSEP, CBA, etc. The list is probably endless.
The question comes down to what qualifies you to call yourself an engineer. In most industries it is not a certification from the government. Some times and in days past, it's not even a college degree. It's a question of what you do and how your knowledge base supports your competence.
Yo do not need a medical degree to call yourself a doctor. Everyone with a PhD calls themselves a doctor. It's legal for them to do so. It is the practice of medicine that is regulated, not the title.
Like any good risk analysis, you have a Likelihood and a Severity generating your RPN.
Anymore the term Automotive Engineer is about as loaded as Biomedical Engineer. Which engineer in automotive design is the automotive engineer? The style designers? Electrical system architects? Powertrain engineers? Chassis designers? Quality engineers? It's about as laughably vague as the term "bio-tech" which could refer to anything from creating ethanol with algae to building medical devices. Of course, when people use these words they usually have one specific thing in mind that you will be unable to ascertain from their language.
It is related. Engineer is a job title and nothing else. Thats what some people here are having a hard time getting through their thick skulls. Professional Engineer is a licensed title just like SSBB. The term "engineer" itself is not tied to any kind of government regulation.
Am I not allowed to call myself a test engineer if I don't have a BS in Test Engineering from an ABET accredited university? That must be a hard position to fill! Honestly the degree is just BS and nothing else. It's a piece of paper that you can hang on the wall as evidence of being smart. It means less and less every year that goes by after it being awarded. Your title is what you do, not what you're educated in.
You need to read the article yourself. THE FIRST ****ING SENTENCE STATES "A Professional Engineer or Chartered Engineer or Incorporated Engineer is an engineer who is registered or licensed within certain jurisdictions to offer professional services directly to the public."
No license needed to be an engineer! A license only provides a small set of privileges over not having one. Some industries (like civil engineering consulting) depend on them heavily. Most don't.
No one in the US bothers to get a PE unless they are planning on going into construction or government infrastructure contracting. There is no reason to have it otherwise.
A PE is only required for specific types of work. Generally this is limited to civil infrastructure and construction.
However the word 'engineer' has a specific meaning and is regulated just like the word 'doctor' or 'lawyer'.
The word "engineer" is not regulated in most places. There is a licensure involved for very specific types of work. Otherwise there is no law preventing anyone from calling themselves an engineer. The same goes for "doctor" and "lawyer". The titles themselves are not regulated. A license is required to engage in specific activities, not to use the term.
Consider how much floor space it takes to have 10 or 11 registers.
Not much at all for a department store (because it usually requires very little counter space). But lets consider Costco as the worst case scenario. Simply breakup the system into 2 or 3 queues to make up for customers failing to pay attention to all of the registers.
The simple answer is this. If you don't know, and you are not getting honest and complete answers from the judge or the prosecution, then find the defendant not guilty. The life long impact of finding someone guilt of a felony should not be tossed around as something that can be risked on an innocent person. Especially in a sex crimes case where the sentence is a life long one for being put on the public sex offenders list.
Someone is going to have to explain to me, someday, how MRIs are anywhere near as expensive as they are. Them, and labs, are a huge example of absurd amount of wasted money in the system. And it's because patients don't really understand what's going on.
Radiology is a cash cow of hospitals everywhere. Essentially, it's the health care system pushing for the latest and greatest technology, which is extremely expensive. Since you and I are in no position to say we're happy with the resolution that we have, we just get to bit the bullet and pay for it. Making diagnoses based on medical imaging is a special skill to be sure, but believe me the salaries paid to radiologists is jaw dropping.
We do need to cut costs, but it should be because the providers have an incentive to do it cheaper, not because patients figure that one place is 5% cheaper
Completely agree here. But keep in mind that "value" does not always mean cheaper. If a doctor costs you twice as much but fixes the problem in 1/4 the time and more reliably, generally it's worth the upfront cost. Patients need to educate themselves. With information flowing so freely, there's no reason to rely entirely on what your doctor says. For anyone with a moderate education, those days should be over.
Getting paid mostly the same is an excellent reason to cut costs. I think you're looking at the problem backwards. What we should have is set payments for stuff, and doctors get paid that much. If they can do it cheaper, hey, look, they just made money. Once everyone starts doing it cheaper, we lower payments a bit.
Ha, good point. But remember, value does not always mean cheaper. There is a lot of expense that the family practitioner does not make nor invest money on (such as diagnostic testing, imaging, prescriptions, etc).
They make about 5% profit, and about 20% overhead
Plus all of the consequential cost increases due to the existence of the system.
Now this is the kind of civil, sane, and healthy debate I wish the rest of the country could have on this topic.
I don't think people really understand the cost consequences of health insurance as it exists now. For one, you have patients who do not think to shop around for maximum value and doctors who do not compete because they all get paid mostly the same anyways. Then there is the negotiated payments from insurance companies which encourage the industry to artificially inflate prices (for those without insurance) to get what they believe is a fair compensation (less than list price). Then there is the administrative cost for doctors to process the paperwork. The system results in costs where people cannot afford to even protest against it.
Consider this. For health insurance companies to turn their fat profits, we need to spend a LOT more on our insurance premiums than the entire country is spending on health care. This is madness even in a pure free market.