Even worse, while those dongles use nowhere near the bandwidth available form the port they plug into, they don't daisy chain. It's easy to say that shouldn't be a problem because you can just plug it in at the end of the chain, but we're talking about something you'll always want plugged in, which should dictate that it's at the start of the chain. Furthermore, almost no Thunderbolt devices daisy chain properly, so you can't just stick it at the end of the chain in the first place. And I largely blame Apple for that, as the company pushing hardest for the proliferation of Thunderbolt; they set the example and everyone else follows it. When their devices don't daisy chain, nobody else is going to bother, either.
4 ports could be enough if peripherals supported the spec properly. With USB, it's plenty as you can use a hub. Thunderbolt doesn't work like that, it's daisy chain or nothing; if you have more than 3 things to plug in (power being #4) you're screwed.
Sadly, no, they'll thrash around for a couple decades on their cash reserves, doing a lot of damage to the tech industry and to the global economy as a whole before they die. Buckle up, it's going to get interesting.
I wish I could believe they might turn things around, but I gave up any hope of that when they trash can was brought to market.
There are so many things in computing that are simply much more difficult and unreliable than they need to be.
There are so many things in computing that are simply much more difficult and unreliable than they used to be.
My fallback example is printer drivers.
Funny, so is mine!
I can understand 3D printers still needing custom drivers
Interestingly, most of them don't. You just drop the STL file on an SD card or upload it to a web interface hosted on the printer itself, no drivers needed.
I'm 100% absolutely with you, here. When I look at where computing is today, I hang my head in sadness. Yes, machines have gotten faster, but it now takes longer to get anything done. This is not progress.
All of those represent situations where bad *data* can put lives at risk. If the software pulls the incorrect record from the database, its output would also show the incorrect patient name, which is something the human handing out the medication, performing the procedure, or treating the patient should be reviewing; if they're not verifying the patient name, they're going to kill someone eventually even if the software is perfect.
Mind you, I never said that software doesn't or can't contribute to putting lives at risk; it certainly did in the case of Therac-25. But cause? No. Relying on software as the sole safety mechanism in a system is the cause of many dangers, but that's a fault in the system itself.
If you think I'm wrong, buy a 737 and strip out any physical safeties that are made redundant by software, and see if you can find a pilot willing to fly it. If you manage to find one dumb enough, plan yourself a route that's mostly over water, buckle up, and enjoy the flight.
I specified a water route to limit casualties, because there will be at least two.
Do you seriously believe that a lack of physical safety interlocks in hardware is the fault of software? Take Therac-25 as a prime example. Yes, the radiation overdoses were caused by a software glitch; however, it was the lack of physical interlocks that allowed that glitch to cause damage. The software running on the Therac-25 was reused from an older model which did have hardware interlocks; the developers who wrote it did not intend it to be used in an application without such safety measures and certainly did not sign off on that use. The damage it caused was entirely a failure of the physical design; specifically, that it was used with hardware for which it was not intended.
Provide a counterexample and I'll be more than happy to pick it apart, as well.
Software merely controls hardware. Hardware that is not sufficiently designed to prevent unsafe operation is what puts lives at risk; that's why we require licensing for the people who design it.
Now, were Software Engineering a licensed profession as well, a Software Engineer would have had to sign off on the reuse of the existing software for Therac-25. No licensed Software Engineer would have taken that liability; they would have insisted on hardware interlocks and kicked the design back down to the ME who signed off on it.
And that's why I believe it should be a licensed profession.
If I never took time to unwind, I'd go crazy. It appears you've learned that lesson the hard way. Yes, I could spend a few hours updating my site today, but it's not like I could take on more work than I'm already doing... there's truly no benefit to it at this point in time. I already explained that.
And you already read it and chose to ignore it because acknowledging it would make your trolling attempt look silly. Well, in your own mind, at least; it already looks silly to everyone else who might be reading along. But, and here's the important part, nobody else is reading this. There's you and there's me, and that's it; literally nobody reads more than a couple levels deep into an obvious troll thread. You're playing to an audience of one who recognizes that fact and is willing to exploit it.
And even if someone else were to read this... So what? What I do at 11 AM on a Sunday in no way affects what I do during the week when my clients expect me to be available to work on their projects. Hell, what I do to unwind periodically during the work day benefits them, as well; while I'm replying to you, I'm also considering the next bit of code I am going to write. Most legitimate developers think about their work before they do it, while they're doing other things.
Maybe if you read the entire post you'd realize there's no buck-passing going on here and that I actually support licensing the use of the title. I was merely pointing out why it's not currently a licensed title.
I just enjoy baiting trolls like you from time to time. It's basically the only reason I stay on this site anymore; any legitimate discussion that may go on here is just icing. We all need an outlet, I suppose. Trying to rustle my jimmies is your outlet and letting you think you're succeeding is mine.
It's not about monetary loss or body count, it's about making people feel unsafe everywhere. They've already managed to make sheep feel unsafe in airports and on planes; they keep the fear going with a few "failed" attacks (which were never destined to succeed in the first place) here and there. They're now concentrating on making the same sheep feel unsafe in theaters and concert halls; I suspect shopping malls will be next, likely followed by sporting events, though I may have those reversed as I don't have access to the same intel the JTTF does.
Of course, all of the above is my opinion and any predictions are pure conjecture based on common sense. The long and the short of it is that it's silly to fear terrorism, whether a single act kills 1, 12, 89, 192, 259, or 2996; you're still more likely to die from choking on a bite of food, but that probably doesn't stop anyone from eating.
No, it's because software alone does not put lives at risk. Where software is controlling equipment which could potentially put lives at risk, it is expected that the licensed EEs and MEs who designed the hardware that software is controlling have implemented sufficient measures to ensure that their work does not kill or maim, even when instructed to do so by software (unless that's what it's intended to do, but that's a different story altogether).
I stand behind my work, I support what I put out there, and I write liability clauses which very much mimic the liability your typical PE might face, as well as the protections they enjoy, into my contracts. That last one, I bet you're asking yourself "why in the hell would you codify your own liability into a contract?" Well, it's simple: it keeps my head on straight and, oh, did I mention I charge a premium for that?
As for the legal aspect of calling myself an Engineer, well... Again, the capitalization of "engineer" on that page is stylistic, rather than syntactic; having "engineering Lead" next to "Design Lead" would look silly, wouldn't it? Meanwhile, there's nothing stylistic about capitalizing it in the middle of a sentence; that's pure syntax; and when it's not capitalized at all, it's clearly not being used in the legal sense. The exception to that last bit, of course, being its use in a legal document defining the term, where it may or may not be capitalized depending on stylistic decisions made earlier in the document; you'll find an example of that below.
practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering
and avoid using the titles
“consulting engineer,” “professional engineer,” or “registered engineer,” or any combination of those titles or abbreviations thereof
and, even then, there are well-defined exceptions where someone may be allowed to practice Engineering and/or use those titles without a license. Keep in mind that those are quotes, used in the correct context, from California Business and Professions Code Chapter 7 Paragraph 6704.
As defined by the law that governs the use of the title of Engineer in my state (you can find these definitions in the same above-linked document):
Civil engineering embraces the following studies or activities in connection with fixed
works for irrigation, drainage, waterpower, water supply, flood control, inland waterways,
harbors, municipal improvements, railroads, highways, tunnels, airports and airways, purification
of water, sewerage, refuse disposal, foundations, grading, framed and homogeneous structures,
buildings, or bridges
which I don't do professionally,
Electrical engineering is that branch of professional engineering described in Section
6734.1 that embraces studies or activities relating to the generation, transmission, and utilization
of electrical energy, including the design of electrical, electronic, and magnetic circuits, and the
technical control of their operation and of the design of electrical gear
which I don't do professionally,
Mechanical engineering is that branch of professional engineering described in Section
6734.2 that deals with engineering problems relating to generation, transmission, and utilization
of energy in the thermal or mechanical form and also with engineering problems relating to the
production of tools, machinery, and their products, and to heating, ventilation, refrigeration, and
plumbing
which I also don't do professionally. Those activities, and the use of the titles specifically mentioned above, are the things I can't do without a license (and, in the case of the activities themselves, I can do them under the supervisio
Yes, my website still only lists my wife and I (that's zero employees, two owners, so it looks like you got your facts wrong... again); did I mention that I just finished hiring? That is, 5 hours before I wrote that; the team page will be updated some time after the first work day, when they've actually proven themselves part of the team.
Aside from that, did you ever stop to think think that, maybe, I haven't updated my website in 2 and a half years because I've been too busy to do so? Why spend the time and resources on even the simplest of marketing when you're already working over-capacity? Just seems a waste of resources to me.
The rest of your post is in no way based in reality and doesn't even merit a response; troll harder so you're at least entertaining to play with.
There is no formal licensing requirement for Software Engineering. In fact, there 's no Software Engineering license at all. If there were, I would be licensed.
Also, consider that the word "engineer" may be capitalized for reasons other than its use in a title; for example, being the first word in a sentence or standalone phrase like... oh... engineering lead. Thanks for the publicity, though; I did just finish a round of hiring, perhaps I'll need to hire a few more.
D&B doesn't have correct information about my work. I refuse to pay their extortion fees to correct their files; that's their job and they can pay me to do it for them or they can do it themselves. The only thing you got right is that I live in an apartment.
I can't believe you actually spent money looking me up, though. Planning on paying me a visit? That might not be wise.
In fact, having a law degree does make one a Lawyer, just as holding a doctorate makes one a Doctor. Passing the BAR makes one an Attorney at Law and passing medical licensing exams and meeting various other requirements makes one a Medical Doctor.
You're half right; Engineer is a legal title, but engineer is just a word. I know, millennials have trouble with syntax such as capitalization, but it's really not that difficult to follow if you slow down and realize that taking the extra second to apply what you were taught in middle school English class isn't going to cause you to miss out on life.
There is also a distinct difference between an Engineer and an engineer, which only makes your point stronger. He did say, at one point, "And yes, I'm an excellent engineer." That's engineer with a little-e, not Engineer, though his degree does so entitle him. If anything he under-represented himself, likely because he was commenting outside of his field of expertise and did not want to mislead.
To clarify your point to those who might miss it, it is both.
An engineer is someone who has engineered something, an Engineer is someone with an engineering degree. Further, a Professional Engineer is someone who is licensed as such.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, I wonder if they include a manual page that tells you that. If they do, it's probably in iBooks.
Even worse, while those dongles use nowhere near the bandwidth available form the port they plug into, they don't daisy chain. It's easy to say that shouldn't be a problem because you can just plug it in at the end of the chain, but we're talking about something you'll always want plugged in, which should dictate that it's at the start of the chain. Furthermore, almost no Thunderbolt devices daisy chain properly, so you can't just stick it at the end of the chain in the first place. And I largely blame Apple for that, as the company pushing hardest for the proliferation of Thunderbolt; they set the example and everyone else follows it. When their devices don't daisy chain, nobody else is going to bother, either.
4 ports could be enough if peripherals supported the spec properly. With USB, it's plenty as you can use a hub. Thunderbolt doesn't work like that, it's daisy chain or nothing; if you have more than 3 things to plug in (power being #4) you're screwed.
Making an exception to my no AC replies rule to nominate you as the next CEO of Apple. You might turn this shit around yet!
Sadly, no, they'll thrash around for a couple decades on their cash reserves, doing a lot of damage to the tech industry and to the global economy as a whole before they die. Buckle up, it's going to get interesting.
I wish I could believe they might turn things around, but I gave up any hope of that when they trash can was brought to market.
There are so many things in computing that are simply much more difficult and unreliable than they need to be.
There are so many things in computing that are simply much more difficult and unreliable than they used to be.
My fallback example is printer drivers.
Funny, so is mine!
I can understand 3D printers still needing custom drivers
Interestingly, most of them don't. You just drop the STL file on an SD card or upload it to a web interface hosted on the printer itself, no drivers needed.
I'm 100% absolutely with you, here. When I look at where computing is today, I hang my head in sadness. Yes, machines have gotten faster, but it now takes longer to get anything done. This is not progress.
So, you're saying Apple users and bikers have a lot in common, between the leather, handlebars, and kickstarting?
All of those represent situations where bad *data* can put lives at risk. If the software pulls the incorrect record from the database, its output would also show the incorrect patient name, which is something the human handing out the medication, performing the procedure, or treating the patient should be reviewing; if they're not verifying the patient name, they're going to kill someone eventually even if the software is perfect.
Mind you, I never said that software doesn't or can't contribute to putting lives at risk; it certainly did in the case of Therac-25. But cause? No. Relying on software as the sole safety mechanism in a system is the cause of many dangers, but that's a fault in the system itself.
If you think I'm wrong, buy a 737 and strip out any physical safeties that are made redundant by software, and see if you can find a pilot willing to fly it. If you manage to find one dumb enough, plan yourself a route that's mostly over water, buckle up, and enjoy the flight.
I specified a water route to limit casualties, because there will be at least two.
On the contrary, I'm claiming to be taking this time to unwind. Perhaps you should take some time to work on your reading comprehension?
It's 11:30 AM on a Sunday. No, I'm not working right now.
Do you seriously believe that a lack of physical safety interlocks in hardware is the fault of software? Take Therac-25 as a prime example. Yes, the radiation overdoses were caused by a software glitch; however, it was the lack of physical interlocks that allowed that glitch to cause damage. The software running on the Therac-25 was reused from an older model which did have hardware interlocks; the developers who wrote it did not intend it to be used in an application without such safety measures and certainly did not sign off on that use. The damage it caused was entirely a failure of the physical design; specifically, that it was used with hardware for which it was not intended.
Provide a counterexample and I'll be more than happy to pick it apart, as well.
Software merely controls hardware. Hardware that is not sufficiently designed to prevent unsafe operation is what puts lives at risk; that's why we require licensing for the people who design it.
Now, were Software Engineering a licensed profession as well, a Software Engineer would have had to sign off on the reuse of the existing software for Therac-25. No licensed Software Engineer would have taken that liability; they would have insisted on hardware interlocks and kicked the design back down to the ME who signed off on it.
And that's why I believe it should be a licensed profession.
If I never took time to unwind, I'd go crazy. It appears you've learned that lesson the hard way. Yes, I could spend a few hours updating my site today, but it's not like I could take on more work than I'm already doing... there's truly no benefit to it at this point in time. I already explained that.
And you already read it and chose to ignore it because acknowledging it would make your trolling attempt look silly. Well, in your own mind, at least; it already looks silly to everyone else who might be reading along. But, and here's the important part, nobody else is reading this. There's you and there's me, and that's it; literally nobody reads more than a couple levels deep into an obvious troll thread. You're playing to an audience of one who recognizes that fact and is willing to exploit it.
And even if someone else were to read this... So what? What I do at 11 AM on a Sunday in no way affects what I do during the week when my clients expect me to be available to work on their projects. Hell, what I do to unwind periodically during the work day benefits them, as well; while I'm replying to you, I'm also considering the next bit of code I am going to write. Most legitimate developers think about their work before they do it, while they're doing other things.
Maybe if you read the entire post you'd realize there's no buck-passing going on here and that I actually support licensing the use of the title. I was merely pointing out why it's not currently a licensed title.
Yup, so rattled. :)
I just enjoy baiting trolls like you from time to time. It's basically the only reason I stay on this site anymore; any legitimate discussion that may go on here is just icing. We all need an outlet, I suppose. Trying to rustle my jimmies is your outlet and letting you think you're succeeding is mine.
It's not about monetary loss or body count, it's about making people feel unsafe everywhere. They've already managed to make sheep feel unsafe in airports and on planes; they keep the fear going with a few "failed" attacks (which were never destined to succeed in the first place) here and there. They're now concentrating on making the same sheep feel unsafe in theaters and concert halls; I suspect shopping malls will be next, likely followed by sporting events, though I may have those reversed as I don't have access to the same intel the JTTF does.
Of course, all of the above is my opinion and any predictions are pure conjecture based on common sense. The long and the short of it is that it's silly to fear terrorism, whether a single act kills 1, 12, 89, 192, 259, or 2996; you're still more likely to die from choking on a bite of food, but that probably doesn't stop anyone from eating.
I stand behind my work, I support what I put out there, and I write liability clauses which very much mimic the liability your typical PE might face, as well as the protections they enjoy, into my contracts. That last one, I bet you're asking yourself "why in the hell would you codify your own liability into a contract?" Well, it's simple: it keeps my head on straight and, oh, did I mention I charge a premium for that?
As for the legal aspect of calling myself an Engineer, well... Again, the capitalization of "engineer" on that page is stylistic, rather than syntactic; having "engineering Lead" next to "Design Lead" would look silly, wouldn't it? Meanwhile, there's nothing stylistic about capitalizing it in the middle of a sentence; that's pure syntax; and when it's not capitalized at all, it's clearly not being used in the legal sense. The exception to that last bit, of course, being its use in a legal document defining the term, where it may or may not be capitalized depending on stylistic decisions made earlier in the document; you'll find an example of that below.
That said, if I wanted to use it in the legal sense in the state of California, I sure as hell could, so long as I don't
practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering
and avoid using the titles
“consulting engineer,” “professional engineer,” or “registered engineer,” or any combination of those titles or abbreviations thereof
and, even then, there are well-defined exceptions where someone may be allowed to practice Engineering and/or use those titles without a license. Keep in mind that those are quotes, used in the correct context, from California Business and Professions Code Chapter 7 Paragraph 6704.
As defined by the law that governs the use of the title of Engineer in my state (you can find these definitions in the same above-linked document):
Civil engineering embraces the following studies or activities in connection with fixed works for irrigation, drainage, waterpower, water supply, flood control, inland waterways, harbors, municipal improvements, railroads, highways, tunnels, airports and airways, purification of water, sewerage, refuse disposal, foundations, grading, framed and homogeneous structures, buildings, or bridges
which I don't do professionally,
Electrical engineering is that branch of professional engineering described in Section 6734.1 that embraces studies or activities relating to the generation, transmission, and utilization of electrical energy, including the design of electrical, electronic, and magnetic circuits, and the technical control of their operation and of the design of electrical gear
which I don't do professionally,
Mechanical engineering is that branch of professional engineering described in Section 6734.2 that deals with engineering problems relating to generation, transmission, and utilization of energy in the thermal or mechanical form and also with engineering problems relating to the production of tools, machinery, and their products, and to heating, ventilation, refrigeration, and plumbing
which I also don't do professionally. Those activities, and the use of the titles specifically mentioned above, are the things I can't do without a license (and, in the case of the activities themselves, I can do them under the supervisio
Yes, my website still only lists my wife and I (that's zero employees, two owners, so it looks like you got your facts wrong... again); did I mention that I just finished hiring? That is, 5 hours before I wrote that; the team page will be updated some time after the first work day, when they've actually proven themselves part of the team.
Aside from that, did you ever stop to think think that, maybe, I haven't updated my website in 2 and a half years because I've been too busy to do so? Why spend the time and resources on even the simplest of marketing when you're already working over-capacity? Just seems a waste of resources to me.
The rest of your post is in no way based in reality and doesn't even merit a response; troll harder so you're at least entertaining to play with.
There is no formal licensing requirement for Software Engineering. In fact, there 's no Software Engineering license at all. If there were, I would be licensed.
Also, consider that the word "engineer" may be capitalized for reasons other than its use in a title; for example, being the first word in a sentence or standalone phrase like... oh... engineering lead. Thanks for the publicity, though; I did just finish a round of hiring, perhaps I'll need to hire a few more.
If you're an Engineer anywhere, you're an Engineer. He's not an Engineer licensed in the state of Oregon but, then, he never claimed to be.
You realize I was agreeing with him, right? Check yourself, Alexander.
D&B doesn't have correct information about my work. I refuse to pay their extortion fees to correct their files; that's their job and they can pay me to do it for them or they can do it themselves. The only thing you got right is that I live in an apartment.
I can't believe you actually spent money looking me up, though. Planning on paying me a visit? That might not be wise.
Last time I checked, all seven of them. Is that so surprising?
In fact, having a law degree does make one a Lawyer, just as holding a doctorate makes one a Doctor. Passing the BAR makes one an Attorney at Law and passing medical licensing exams and meeting various other requirements makes one a Medical Doctor.
You're half right; Engineer is a legal title, but engineer is just a word. I know, millennials have trouble with syntax such as capitalization, but it's really not that difficult to follow if you slow down and realize that taking the extra second to apply what you were taught in middle school English class isn't going to cause you to miss out on life.
There is also a distinct difference between an Engineer and an engineer, which only makes your point stronger. He did say, at one point, "And yes, I'm an excellent engineer." That's engineer with a little-e, not Engineer, though his degree does so entitle him. If anything he under-represented himself, likely because he was commenting outside of his field of expertise and did not want to mislead.
Is it a title, or a descriptive word?
To clarify your point to those who might miss it, it is both.
An engineer is someone who has engineered something, an Engineer is someone with an engineering degree. Further, a Professional Engineer is someone who is licensed as such.
No, but anyone who graduates with a doctorate degree is.