Please note - this started as a discussion about software engineers not engineers in general. If you wish to expand this discussion from it's original scope ie software engineers then please make that intent clear. Taking a single sentence out of context and altering it's scope to encompass all engineers does not make for a clear intent.
*********
Many states require engineers in certain fields to have a license. Now while many of your post's statements do/may hold true for licensed engineers, they do not hold true for those states or countries that do not require a license for practicing software engineers.
Accreditation by a professional association does not stipulate further legal responsibilities only ethical responsibilities. A license by a state or country stipulates further legal responsibilities but there are not many states or countries that require a license for practicing software engineers.
ie If the state or country they work in does not require a software engineer to be licensed then they have the same legal standing as a programmer; nothing more nothing less.
Yes but as you have admitted it's the "licensed engineer" not the "engineer" that requires an additional standard.
So my original statement stands the title "engineer" or "programmer" would have no legal bearing.
If you wish to contend that there is special circumstances for licensed engineers then you are modifying your original claim significantly from allgood software engineers to onlylicensed engineers.
And currently there are not very many states or countries that require {or even have} software engineer licenses
The air car was developed by MDI international from the efforts of the inventor Guy Nègre. More information on the development can be found at http://www.theaircar.com/aboutmdi.html
It is not your title ie engineer or programmer that makes you ethical - it is your beliefs and integrity!
Good engineer != ethical engineer unless you specifically define good to equal ethical in which case you have committed your statement to a state of circular definitions, and then your argument is effectively useless
The same would hold true for your 'real engineer' argument.
As for the line
Engineers can be held accountable, in many ways. Programmers on the other hand, can always hide behind the shield of the corporation.
Since you were initially discussing ethics - ethics do not let you always hide behind anything. If you are trying to switch the venue to law - then a programmer and a software engineer are going to be to a similar legal standard of responsibility based upon their respective position, education level and experience. The title "engineer" or "programmer" would have no bearing legally.
Nick I must admit that I am enjoying this discussion and hope that it is not offending nor disturbing you.
TGFEditor, as you may be following this discussion please note: I am not arguing with Nick's professional opinion on the background information of your shared fields. I will even go so far as to state - please follow Nick's advice, he's the expert in this field.
Nick if there is a concern about the tenor of this discussion - ie if you currently are considering this discussion as adversarial please let me know. I do not view our discussion in that vein and would be willing to forgo the discussion if that is a concern.
-Michael
*********
Now while I can see your viewpoint my statement was not "don't question what you have learned" it was "but organizations don't want new EMT graduates having significant doubts about the basics of their training"
ie for a new EMT questioning is suitable{necessary} but significant doubts can lead to a considerable loss of confidence.
While the difference between questioning and significant doubts is a matter of degree it can make for a noticeable difference when action is required.
Plus I did make certain to stipulate that this was for a new EMT {ie recently graduated as s/he has stated earlier} and that s/he should avail him/herself of the chance for updating his/her training.
*********
Perhaps I misunderstood the intended meaning of your anecdote; while you see it as a matter of her not questioning her training - I also noted you also directly related it to the previous post.
Thus I originally connected the two by not only a "question the training" but the reason for questioning the training: to wit in your anecdote the background knowledge had not changed, but in the CPR situation the background information has changed. I view that as a significant difference between the two situations and think this difference should be mentioned and considered when evaluating them.
*********
As for the last - I heartily agree with most of what you have written - to wit:
The problem is that confidence in what you do, if its the wrong thing, can wreak a lot of havoc. I'd rather be treated by the person who realizes what they are doing is fallible and is going to change and keeps up with any new updates like the ones I posted to that are over a year old
I do have a concern about the following though
2) You said its better for EMTs to be confident in what they learned rather than keep their training perfectly up to date.
I took a situation in which a person has recent and adequate training and claimed that significant doubts in that training based on the thread's original post background information was effectively invalid and that the newly graduated EMT should follow their training as well I later stipulated that they should seek opportunities to updated their training.
You seem to be equating my position to all EMTs ignoring updated training, information, protocols and a blind adherence to older information and procedures. Though I understand and agree with this concern, I do not believe that I made statements that should be reasonably interpreted in that manner.
ie I focused on the particular instances of new EMTs {recently graduated}, you have pulled it into a very general set of all EMTs
*********
Nick you are by your admission an ex-EMT and currently are an ER physician - I am by my admission not a medical professional. Thus the background information you had and I did not was relevant and important to your field of knowledge and expertise but not to mine. Part of a reasonable discussion is allowing for an appeal to authority - between the two of us you are effectively an authority in this field because of your background - I am not. Furthermore until you as an expert made me aware of these changes to the background infor
Very American centric view of 14 agencies working together - while NASA may have originated this particular arrangement - it is no longer their plan. The article even uses terms and phrases such as "the team' and "the group of fourteen" no particular mention is made about NASA's plan
Now that my grumbling is out of the way; it is very good to see these agencies working towards these collaborative efforts.
Nick thank you for the information I will try going over it sometime later.
I agree with your last sentence - the issue of blind adherence is a problem for both those that teach and those who fail to update their beliefs and skills.
As a teacher/mentor you should be willing to state to your classes/students/protege that as time goes on certain views and methods will change because of access to and/or better understanding of both older and new information.
As a person you should be willing to learn that things change and we should be willing to fairly examine the changes instead of blindly sticking to original positions or beliefs.
I would also like to address the issue of blind adherence as it relates to your example and my posts.
In your story the other EMT did not think the situation through as clearly as you did and a lack of judgment was the difficulty, not the background knowledge. There was no change in the background knowledge or protocol, instead there was a difficulty in applying judgment of the protocol in regards to the particular situation.
In the case of the CPR and rescue breathing the background knowledge has/is changing. Thus the protocol is changing, which is a different situation from your example.
Furthermore I do not believe blind adherence to a protocol was an issue in my posts nor in the "physician" post. I even stipulated in my preceding response that TGFEditor should seek voluntary options for re-training / updating, this is not normally an action taken when suggesting adherence to a particular position or belief. If you could point out where I have stipulated that TGFEditor 1) should not think and/or 2) blindly adhere to a protocol I would be willing to correct or expand upon my posts.
Your medical profession based responses should provide TGFEditor with a greater desire to seek re-training/updating on CPR and rescue breathing, but my advice was follow your training , not don't think nor never seek re-training.
Nick could you provide us with links to the relevant studies or articles? I do not doubt that you saw then and I might enjoy reading them.
Please note though, that the original article for this post was discussing average people performing CPR and rescue breathing - not medical professionals. Rules change - sometimes for a few of us, sometimes for everyone; but in this case the changes the average Jane and Joe get are not the changes medical professionals will get.This article was discussing the rule changes for us average Janes/Joes and the "physician" pointed that out to people who either did not RTFA or did not understand the article.
Oh and I am not a medical professional, but organizations don't want new EMT graduates having significant doubts about the basics of their training {CPR and rescue breathing are two of the basics of EMT training- can't do both - then you can't pass an EMT course}. A lack of confidence in what they have recently learned is often more dangerous, better to have them have with a healthy case of nerves and their basics training not quite perfect or up-to-the minute.
So Nick unless you are a medical professional I stand by my original statement to the new EMT- TGFEditor follow your training. If TGFEditor's training needs to be updated or modified then the organization s/he is working for will {should} send him/her for re-training. S/he should also keep an eye out for voluntary re-training/updating options available.
TGFEditor this study was not looking at EMTs or any medical professionals it was evaluating average Joe/Jane who might have a CPR course but nothing better.
This study should no direct bearing on your efforts - follow your training.
The study does provide you with information on what we average Jane's & Joe's might be doing incorrectly when we are trying to perform CPR and rescue breathing.
Search this thread for the "physician" comment - he explains the situation from a medical professionals perspective very well.
What 3 extra people? If the article is incorrect in stating 1027 people then I understand your question, but if you are asking why I wrote 1027 - well that is the number that the article mentions twice.
AMD alleges that more than a third of 1,027 case-specific Intel employees did not receive instructions to retain their data after the 2005 case initiation.
The maximum fine under the federal Copyright Act is $1-million and five years in jail for camcording a movie for commercial distribution.
Prove 'intent for' or 'act of' commercial distribution and the camcording individuals can face 1) a long time in jail and 2) very significant fines.
Retaining 1027 individuals email from 2005 forward makes it considerably easier than retaining all email for all Intel employees.
And it's 1027 out of approximately 100,000 employees, the 471 is 471 out of the 1027 case-specific individuals
As to "not working perfectly" and "herding cats" - it didn't even work adequately - Intel rep's even admits that they screwed up - from a sheer technical perspective this was/is not a difficult exercise for a firm of this size/type with the resources it has at it's command.
Thus what Intel has done is beyond "really a shame" it is legally, morally, organizationally and ITechically irresponsible.
The court instructed Intel to retain all email for 1027 case-specific individuals from the data of case initiation ie 2005.
This has nothing to do with leaving AMD in a not so great light; but it does have everything to do with Intel not properly following court orders - Intel even admitted they screwed up!
It's not all email from all Intel employees that must be retained
1027 case-specific individuals at Intel were identified and from 2005 case initiation date Intel is supposed to have all of their email retained; of these 1027 case-specific persons AMD is allowed to stipulate 471 for court scrutiny of data.
These employees, dubbed "custodians," are persons of interest in the legal proceedings.
Slashdot Mirror
Not according to the WTO and a number of the US investigators/officials. Canadian softwood is not artificially cheaper -- it's just cheaper.
Please note - this started as a discussion about software engineers not engineers in general. If you wish to expand this discussion from it's original scope ie software engineers then please make that intent clear. Taking a single sentence out of context and altering it's scope to encompass all engineers does not make for a clear intent.
*********
Many states require engineers in certain fields to have a license. Now while many of your post's statements do/may hold true for licensed engineers, they do not hold true for those states or countries that do not require a license for practicing software engineers.
Accreditation by a professional association does not stipulate further legal responsibilities only ethical responsibilities. A license by a state or country stipulates further legal responsibilities but there are not many states or countries that require a license for practicing software engineers.
ie If the state or country they work in does not require a software engineer to be licensed then they have the same legal standing as a programmer; nothing more nothing less.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/07/21/is-a-humme r-greener-than-a-prius/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hu mmer-is-not-greener-a-prius/
Yes but as you have admitted it's the "licensed engineer" not the "engineer" that requires an additional standard.
So my original statement stands the title "engineer" or "programmer" would have no legal bearing.
If you wish to contend that there is special circumstances for licensed engineers then you are modifying your original claim significantly from all good software engineers to only licensed engineers.
And currently there are not very many states or countries that require {or even have} software engineer licenses
The air car was developed by MDI international from the efforts of the inventor Guy Nègre. More information on the development can be found at http://www.theaircar.com/aboutmdi.html
It is not your title ie engineer or programmer that makes you ethical - it is your beliefs and integrity!
Good engineer != ethical engineer unless you specifically define good to equal ethical in which case you have committed your statement to a state of circular definitions, and then your argument is effectively useless
The same would hold true for your 'real engineer' argument.
As for the lineSince you were initially discussing ethics - ethics do not let you always hide behind anything. If you are trying to switch the venue to law - then a programmer and a software engineer are going to be to a similar legal standard of responsibility based upon their respective position, education level and experience. The title "engineer" or "programmer" would have no bearing legally.
Nick I must admit that I am enjoying this discussion and hope that it is not offending nor disturbing you.
TGFEditor, as you may be following this discussion please note: I am not arguing with Nick's professional opinion on the background information of your shared fields. I will even go so far as to state - please follow Nick's advice, he's the expert in this field.
Nick if there is a concern about the tenor of this discussion - ie if you currently are considering this discussion as adversarial please let me know. I do not view our discussion in that vein and would be willing to forgo the discussion if that is a concern.
-Michael
*********
Now while I can see your viewpoint my statement was not "don't question what you have learned" it was "but organizations don't want new EMT graduates having significant doubts about the basics of their training"
ie for a new EMT questioning is suitable{necessary} but significant doubts can lead to a considerable loss of confidence.
While the difference between questioning and significant doubts is a matter of degree it can make for a noticeable difference when action is required.
Plus I did make certain to stipulate that this was for a new EMT {ie recently graduated as s/he has stated earlier} and that s/he should avail him/herself of the chance for updating his/her training.
*********
Perhaps I misunderstood the intended meaning of your anecdote; while you see it as a matter of her not questioning her training - I also noted you also directly related it to the previous post.
Thus I originally connected the two by not only a "question the training" but the reason for questioning the training: to wit in your anecdote the background knowledge had not changed, but in the CPR situation the background information has changed. I view that as a significant difference between the two situations and think this difference should be mentioned and considered when evaluating them.
*********
As for the last - I heartily agree with most of what you have written - to wit:
I do have a concern about the following though
I took a situation in which a person has recent and adequate training and claimed that significant doubts in that training based on the thread's original post background information was effectively invalid and that the newly graduated EMT should follow their training as well I later stipulated that they should seek opportunities to updated their training.
You seem to be equating my position to all EMTs ignoring updated training, information, protocols and a blind adherence to older information and procedures. Though I understand and agree with this concern, I do not believe that I made statements that should be reasonably interpreted in that manner.
ie I focused on the particular instances of new EMTs {recently graduated}, you have pulled it into a very general set of all EMTs
*********
Nick you are by your admission an ex-EMT and currently are an ER physician - I am by my admission not a medical professional. Thus the background information you had and I did not was relevant and important to your field of knowledge and expertise but not to mine. Part of a reasonable discussion is allowing for an appeal to authority - between the two of us you are effectively an authority in this field because of your background - I am not. Furthermore until you as an expert made me aware of these changes to the background infor
Very American centric view of 14 agencies working together - while NASA may have originated this particular arrangement - it is no longer their plan. The article even uses terms and phrases such as "the team' and "the group of fourteen" no particular mention is made about NASA's plan
Now that my grumbling is out of the way; it is very good to see these agencies working towards these collaborative efforts.Nick thank you for the information I will try going over it sometime later.
I agree with your last sentence - the issue of blind adherence is a problem for both those that teach and those who fail to update their beliefs and skills.
As a teacher/mentor you should be willing to state to your classes/students/protege that as time goes on certain views and methods will change because of access to and/or better understanding of both older and new information.
As a person you should be willing to learn that things change and we should be willing to fairly examine the changes instead of blindly sticking to original positions or beliefs.
I would also like to address the issue of blind adherence as it relates to your example and my posts.
In your story the other EMT did not think the situation through as clearly as you did and a lack of judgment was the difficulty, not the background knowledge. There was no change in the background knowledge or protocol, instead there was a difficulty in applying judgment of the protocol in regards to the particular situation.
In the case of the CPR and rescue breathing the background knowledge has/is changing. Thus the protocol is changing, which is a different situation from your example.
Furthermore I do not believe blind adherence to a protocol was an issue in my posts nor in the "physician" post. I even stipulated in my preceding response that TGFEditor should seek voluntary options for re-training / updating, this is not normally an action taken when suggesting adherence to a particular position or belief. If you could point out where I have stipulated that TGFEditor 1) should not think and/or 2) blindly adhere to a protocol I would be willing to correct or expand upon my posts.
Your medical profession based responses should provide TGFEditor with a greater desire to seek re-training/updating on CPR and rescue breathing, but my advice was follow your training , not don't think nor never seek re-training .
-MichaelNick could you provide us with links to the relevant studies or articles? I do not doubt that you saw then and I might enjoy reading them.
Please note though, that the original article for this post was discussing average people performing CPR and rescue breathing - not medical professionals. Rules change - sometimes for a few of us, sometimes for everyone; but in this case the changes the average Jane and Joe get are not the changes medical professionals will get.This article was discussing the rule changes for us average Janes/Joes and the "physician" pointed that out to people who either did not RTFA or did not understand the article.
Oh and I am not a medical professional, but organizations don't want new EMT graduates having significant doubts about the basics of their training {CPR and rescue breathing are two of the basics of EMT training- can't do both - then you can't pass an EMT course}. A lack of confidence in what they have recently learned is often more dangerous, better to have them have with a healthy case of nerves and their basics training not quite perfect or up-to-the minute.
So Nick unless you are a medical professional I stand by my original statement to the new EMT- TGFEditor follow your training. If TGFEditor's training needs to be updated or modified then the organization s/he is working for will {should} send him/her for re-training. S/he should also keep an eye out for voluntary re-training/updating options available.
TGFEditor this study was not looking at EMTs or any medical professionals it was evaluating average Joe/Jane who might have a CPR course but nothing better.
This study should no direct bearing on your efforts - follow your training.
The study does provide you with information on what we average Jane's & Joe's might be doing incorrectly when we are trying to perform CPR and rescue breathing.
Search this thread for the "physician" comment - he explains the situation from a medical professionals perspective very well.Thank you for RTFA and commenting from a professional point of view.
LOL :) - thanks for the laugh
From me, pretty much the same.
ROFLMAO --> Thanks I needed that humour in the middle of all this :)
Fat fingered me - the parent quoted a different article than the one I qouted
The maximum fine under the federal Copyright Act is $1-million and five years in jail for camcording a movie for commercial distribution. Prove 'intent for' or 'act of' commercial distribution and the camcording individuals can face 1) a long time in jail and 2) very significant fines.
The article you are quoting says
So combine
1) the initial reports claiming 50% of movies were camcorded in Canada with
2) the threat of delayed movie releases in Canada and
3) demands for Americanized copyright protections in Canada
And you get a perfect example of bullying.
They don't, well at least not the majority of them don't.
Primarily because Canadians are much much to polite :D
Retaining 1027 individuals email from 2005 forward makes it considerably easier than retaining all email for all Intel employees.
And it's 1027 out of approximately 100,000 employees, the 471 is 471 out of the 1027 case-specific individuals
As to "not working perfectly" and "herding cats" - it didn't even work adequately - Intel rep's even admits that they screwed up - from a sheer technical perspective this was/is not a difficult exercise for a firm of this size/type with the resources it has at it's command.
Thus what Intel has done is beyond "really a shame" it is legally, morally, organizationally and ITechically irresponsible.
The court instructed Intel to retain all email for 1027 case-specific individuals from the data of case initiation ie 2005.
This has nothing to do with leaving AMD in a not so great light; but it does have everything to do with Intel not properly following court orders - Intel even admitted they screwed up!
It's not all email from all Intel employees that must be retained
1027 case-specific individuals at Intel were identified and from 2005 case initiation date Intel is supposed to have all of their email retained; of these 1027 case-specific persons AMD is allowed to stipulate 471 for court scrutiny of data.
LOL - not that I believe your comment is relevant to the conventional theory, but it is damn funny :)