Most universities these days do not distinguish between electrical and electronics engineering these days. These programmes are usually titled "Electrical Engineering" or "Electrical & Electronics Engineering", and have a fair mix of both electrical and electronics stuff in their foundational modules. The difference only occur in the senior years when students get to choose specializations such as signal processing, embedded systems, power engineering, controls and automation, microelectronics and etc. These specializations are distinct enough that graduates from the same course but in different specializations can have completely different skillsets. Were it not for the common set of foundational moddules, I think it might as well have been 6 or 7 disciplines instead. All of these are however considered to be "Electrical Engineering" by IEEE.
The way the article uses the term "Electrical Engineers" probably along the lines of academic disciplines like you described. It isn't just referring to power systems related jobs but all of the above specializations, most of which are closely tied to hardware and manufacturing jobs.
Yah, it's called capitalism. You find ways of doing things more efficiently and profit from it, less efficient ways are eventually phased out. You wouldn't say a company that has found ways of using computers to improve production efficiency is a tax on its less innovative competitors. So why should this be a special case?
Like many of the slashdotters here, employers are beginning to figure out that a college education is more about imparting theories and training students in intellectual thinking. That is not entirely a bad thing, you do need to understand some of these things to acquire the skills you'll need in your future job. The problem however, is that what you can do and what practical skills you possess is more important to an employer than say your grade in that discrete math module or compiler theory module and most fresh graduates have no such skills. Some of them believed that their degree programme taught them all that they need to know to perform real work, the article is essentially about them.
IMO, if you're hoping a second major will help with your first job, don't bother. It really doesn't matter at all. If a company producing mechanical products that require a control system, chances are they already have an electrical engineer or two on the team for that purpose or they'll simply hire a consultant if it's a once off type of project.
I think rather than going for a 2nd major, what you should do is to take up modules that teach you employable skillsets. This is something I find lacking in alot of college engineering programmes. Colleges are mostly using some outdated technology for their teachings, while the fundamental concepts remain largely the same, I think employers would rather hire someone who already has experience using the current version. Graduating from an engineering programme alone doesn't mean you have the necessary know-hows to contribute to a real world engineering task.
Notice how your radios, cellphones and devices that work based on radio signals tend to fail inside tunnels. Radio frequencies have very limited penetration depth against concretes and the likes, out of which buildings are constructed. Given that it's a reinforced powerplant with very thick walls, I doubt you'll get a range of more than 20 metres even with the operator standing right outside the entrance.
Small boats threat? It makes more sense as a defence against anti-ship missles. Modern anti-ship missles are programmed to approach in an erratic trajectory that makes it very difficult for CIWS to track and take out since they have to compensate for the flight time and distance of the projectiles. A laser will CIWS will most certainly be more effective.
Small boats threat? It makes more sense as a defence against anti-ship missles. Modern anti-ship missles are programmed to approach in an erratic trajectory that makes it very difficult for CIWS to track and take out since they have to compensate for the flight time and distance of the projectiles. A laser will CIWS will most certainly be more effective.
Considering the importance of that cable and that an ELDERLY woman managed to damaged it with a spade, people should be asking if the service provider has invested in sufficient protection for it.....
Slashdot Mirror
Most universities these days do not distinguish between electrical and electronics engineering these days. These programmes are usually titled "Electrical Engineering" or "Electrical & Electronics Engineering", and have a fair mix of both electrical and electronics stuff in their foundational modules. The difference only occur in the senior years when students get to choose specializations such as signal processing, embedded systems, power engineering, controls and automation, microelectronics and etc. These specializations are distinct enough that graduates from the same course but in different specializations can have completely different skillsets. Were it not for the common set of foundational moddules, I think it might as well have been 6 or 7 disciplines instead. All of these are however considered to be "Electrical Engineering" by IEEE. The way the article uses the term "Electrical Engineers" probably along the lines of academic disciplines like you described. It isn't just referring to power systems related jobs but all of the above specializations, most of which are closely tied to hardware and manufacturing jobs.
Yah, it's called capitalism. You find ways of doing things more efficiently and profit from it, less efficient ways are eventually phased out. You wouldn't say a company that has found ways of using computers to improve production efficiency is a tax on its less innovative competitors. So why should this be a special case?
Like many of the slashdotters here, employers are beginning to figure out that a college education is more about imparting theories and training students in intellectual thinking. That is not entirely a bad thing, you do need to understand some of these things to acquire the skills you'll need in your future job. The problem however, is that what you can do and what practical skills you possess is more important to an employer than say your grade in that discrete math module or compiler theory module and most fresh graduates have no such skills. Some of them believed that their degree programme taught them all that they need to know to perform real work, the article is essentially about them.
IMO, if you're hoping a second major will help with your first job, don't bother. It really doesn't matter at all. If a company producing mechanical products that require a control system, chances are they already have an electrical engineer or two on the team for that purpose or they'll simply hire a consultant if it's a once off type of project. I think rather than going for a 2nd major, what you should do is to take up modules that teach you employable skillsets. This is something I find lacking in alot of college engineering programmes. Colleges are mostly using some outdated technology for their teachings, while the fundamental concepts remain largely the same, I think employers would rather hire someone who already has experience using the current version. Graduating from an engineering programme alone doesn't mean you have the necessary know-hows to contribute to a real world engineering task.
Notice how your radios, cellphones and devices that work based on radio signals tend to fail inside tunnels. Radio frequencies have very limited penetration depth against concretes and the likes, out of which buildings are constructed. Given that it's a reinforced powerplant with very thick walls, I doubt you'll get a range of more than 20 metres even with the operator standing right outside the entrance.
Small boats threat? It makes more sense as a defence against anti-ship missles. Modern anti-ship missles are programmed to approach in an erratic trajectory that makes it very difficult for CIWS to track and take out since they have to compensate for the flight time and distance of the projectiles. A laser will CIWS will most certainly be more effective.
Small boats threat? It makes more sense as a defence against anti-ship missles. Modern anti-ship missles are programmed to approach in an erratic trajectory that makes it very difficult for CIWS to track and take out since they have to compensate for the flight time and distance of the projectiles. A laser will CIWS will most certainly be more effective.
Considering the importance of that cable and that an ELDERLY woman managed to damaged it with a spade, people should be asking if the service provider has invested in sufficient protection for it.....
At such velocity,I sure hope the capsule won't add to the dust.