Here's a project for those who are complaining about aircraft noise to
support:


EU BACKS FUEL CELL AIRCRAFT BID

The European Union has given Polytechnic of Turin, Italy, and its
11 partners about $6 million to install fuel cells and electric
motors in a variety of two-place aircraft to show it can be done.
But the real goal is to develop a 12- to 15-passenger commuter
aircraft powered by fuel cells. "Hydrogen and fuel cell power
technologies have now reached the point where they can [be]
exploited to initiate a new era of propulsion systems for light
aircraft and small commuter aircraft," says a report on the
ENvironmentally Friendly Inter City Aircraft powered by Fuel Cells
(ENFICA-FC) project's Web site
(http://www.enfica-fc.polito.it/en/presentation).
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/879-full.html#195334

Slideshow: http://www.enfica-fc.polito.it/en/documents/slideshow

http://www.enfica-fc.polito.it
ENvironmentally Friendly Inter City Aircraft powered by Fuel Cells
(ENFICA-FC).

The ENFICA-FC project led by Politecnico di Torino and comprising
11 partners has been selected for co-funding by the European
Commission in the Aeronautics and Space priority of the Sixth
Framework Programme (FP6).

The main objective of the ENFICA-FC project is to develop and
validate the use of a fuel cell based power system for the
propulsion of more/all electric aircrafts. The fuel cell system
will be installed in a selected aircraft which will be flight and
performance tested as a proof of functionality and future
applicability for inter city aircrafts.

Through this project, the research and industrial Consortium
partners will focus on developing and providing operational
zero-pollution solutions to the immediate needs of aircraft
services.

The project will bring together key industrial and academic
players in the design and development and validation of intercity
aircraft together with fuel cell expertise for propulsion systems
and hydrogen storage. The overall budget is 4.5 M€, of which 2.9
M€ will be funded by the European Commission.

Hydrogen and fuel cell power technologies have now reached the
point where they can exploited to initiate a new era of propulsion
systems for light aircraft and small commuter aircraft. In
addition, these technologies can also be developed for the future
replacement of on-board electrical systems in larger
‘more-electric’ or ‘all-electric’ aircraft.

The primary advantages of deploying these technologies are low
noise and low emissions – features which are particularly
important for commuter airplanes that usually take-off and land
from urban areas. The possibility to takeoff and land without
contravening the noise abatement regulations set for small
airfields, in urban areas and near population centres, will allow
the use of these airfields during the late night hours when the
noise abatement regulations are even more stringent.

No other Project funded by The European Commission promises such
ambitious results which will be presented at both an on-ground
public event and at an in-flight public event within the scheduled
time.

Within the course of the 3 years ENFICA-FC project, which was
launched on the 1st of October 2006, two key objectives will be
realised:

1) A feasibility study will be carried out to provide a
preliminary definition of new forms of aircraft power systems that
can be provided by fuel cell technologies (Auxiliar Power Unit,
Primary electrical generation supply, Emergency electrical power
supply, Landing gear, De-icing system, etc); also Safety,
certification & maintenance concepts shall be defined as well as a
Life Cycle Cost evaluation.

In defining the Inter-City aircraft systems that can be powered
byv fuel cell technologies, the feasibility study will take into
account the performance improvements of future generation
fuel-cells and will thereby show the technical (and performance)
advantages that could be obtained in contrast to existing
conventional systems.

In addition, the feasibility of an all-electric propulsion
inter-city aircraft (10-15 seat), completely powered by fuel
cells, will be studied in order to assess the impact that a more
silent and less polluting aircraft will have in being able to
takeoff and land from congested urban areas using short airfields.
2) By the end of the project an electric-motor-driven two-seat
airplane powered by fuel cells will be developed and validated by
flight-test at a public event.

An existing and certified high efficiency two-seat aircraft design
will be used. The fuel cell system and the electric motor will be
integrated on board; the flight control system will also be
converted into an electric system.

A fuel cell unit and a high efficiency brushless electric motors
and power electronics apparatus for their control shall be
designed, built and tested in laboratory prior to installation on
board for flight;

Efficiency greater than 90% would be obtained by an optimised
aerodynamic propeller design and the flight mechanics study of the
new aircraft will be carried out to verify the new flight
performance.

Flight testing of the aircraft capable of remaining aloft for one
hour will be a major goal of the project to validate the overall
high performance of an all electric aircraft system.

A tip-of-the-hat to the Europeans, who, along with the Asians, and the
Indians, and even some South American countries, are pulling ahead of
the Americans in any number of technology areas. But we've got
faith-based democracy! And a stay-the-course presidency. Yay.
--
"He had delusions of adequacy." - Walter Kerr, who might've said it
about dub-ya.

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:35:11 -0700, Bob Fry >
wrote in >:

>A tip-of-the-hat to the Europeans, who, along with the Asians, and the
>Indians, and even some South American countries, are pulling ahead of
>the Americans in any number of technology areas. But we've got
>faith-based democracy! And a stay-the-course presidency. Yay.



Bowing partnered with a group in Spain:

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/august/i_atw.html
Imagine an aviation technology that one day will be so
energy-efficient and environmentally preferred that it will
revolutionize the commercial airplane industry's use of fuel. If
the Boeing Research and Technology Center in Madrid, Spain, has
its way, this future won't be so far off.

The center's first major project is one designed to both develop
and flight-test a fuel cell-powered electric demonstrator
airplane. Recently, the Center—which opened in July 2002—announced
both the project and its industry partners. The Fuel Cell
Demonstrator airplane is scheduled to make its first flight in
late 2004 or early 2005.

Boeing Phantom Works, the advanced research and development unit
of the company, operates the R&T Center.



Here's the future:


http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/xips/nstar/ionengine.html
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q2/nr_030414s.html
EDD will lead a team in the development of advanced Carbon-Based
Ion Optics, or CBIO. These are the critical components of
high-power gridded xenon ion thrusters that have a traditionally
limited lifetime. A two-phase effort, the first phase entails a
16-month effort to design, fabricate and test ion optics made from
carbon-carbon composites and pyrolytic graphite. The CBIO project
also includes the development and validation of an Ion Optics
Lifetime Computer Model to predict the performance and lifetime of
candidate grid designs.

The second phase is a 12 1/2-month extension period to develop and
test carbon based ion optics designs for possible use on the next
generation ion engine. EDD is teamed with the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) and NASA Glenn Research Center on the CBIO
Project.

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Here's a project for those who are complaining about aircraft noise to
> support:
>
>
> EU BACKS FUEL CELL AIRCRAFT BID
>
> The European Union has given Polytechnic of Turin, Italy, and its
> 11 partners about $6 million to install fuel cells and electric
> motors in a variety of two-place aircraft to show it can be done.

Well for SIX MILLION dollars, it better be able to be done.

Anybody can throw money at a problem and eventually come up
with something that works. In the end, it has to be cost
effective, useful and practical.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:22:28 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Here's a project for those who are complaining about aircraft noise to
>> support:
>>
>>
>> EU BACKS FUEL CELL AIRCRAFT BID
>>
>> The European Union has given Polytechnic of Turin, Italy, and its
>> 11 partners about $6 million to install fuel cells and electric
>> motors in a variety of two-place aircraft to show it can be done.
>
>Well for SIX MILLION dollars, it better be able to be done.
>
>Anybody can throw money at a problem and eventually come up
>with something that works. In the end, it has to be cost
>effective, useful and practical.


Often the cost of developing a prototype exceeds the cost of the
production product.

>>>>> "kontiki" == kontiki > writes:
kontiki> Well for SIX MILLION dollars, it better be able to be
kontiki> done.

$6M...isn't squat these days. If they can develop a prototype at that
cost it's amazing.

kontiki> Anybody can throw money at a problem and eventually come
kontiki> up with something that works.

Really?? Rather, anybody can throw money at a problem, and...keep
throwing money at it. Like sending a flight loads of ca$h to Iraq
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1734939,00.html and many
other refs].

To actually solve a problem, regardless of money, takes insight and a
modicum of intelligence. As an American and engineer I'm seeing less
and less of both here, and it ****es me off. But we got about half
the country thinking our decline is caused because the other half
doesn't pray. Science? Engineering? Rational thought? That's for
the weird-sounding foreigns, 4-eyed geeks, and far-left libs. No, we
just need to return to God and Jesus and everything will be fine.

--
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing
it and then misapplying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx, who must've known something about the bushies.

On Jun 6, 9:19 am, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "kontiki" == kontiki > writes:
>
> kontiki> Well for SIX MILLION dollars, it better be able to be
> kontiki> done.
>
> $6M...isn't squat these days. If they can develop a prototype at that
> cost it's amazing.
>
> kontiki> Anybody can throw money at a problem and eventually come
> kontiki> up with something that works.
>
> Really?? Rather, anybody can throw money at a problem, and...keep
> throwing money at it. Like sending a flight loads of ca$h to Iraq
> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1734939,00.htmland many
> other refs].
>
> To actually solve a problem, regardless of money, takes insight and a
> modicum of intelligence. As an American and engineer I'm seeing less
> and less of both here, and it ****es me off. But we got about half
> the country thinking our decline is caused because the other half
> doesn't pray. Science? Engineering? Rational thought? That's for
> the weird-sounding foreigns, 4-eyed geeks, and far-left libs. No, we
> just need to return to God and Jesus and everything will be fine.
>
> --
> Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing
> it and then misapplying the wrong remedies.
> Groucho Marx, who must've known something about the bushies.

Hi Bob,

As another American engineer, I'm in agreement with you 100%. Our
government is allowing, no incentivizing our corporations to take our
jobs overseas to China and India to save on salaries, medical, and
taxes. Then, when these same companies want to repatriate their U.S.
dollars, they get a special tax break cut for them by congress. Then,
because even college grads in engineering don't want to work for
peanuts, they claim that there is an "engineering shortage" because
they can't fill job requisitions that they post at below starting
salary market wages and scream to raise the H1-B visa limits so they
can bring in more slave-labor body shopper engineers from India and
China.

There is something seriously wrong with our country when an MBA
managing a Target or Walmart can make twice as much annually as an
engineering desiging multi-million dollar revenue generating
products. If this keeps up, more and more college age kids are going
to avoid this profession and corporations will get the shortage that
they are claiming. I know there is no shortage right now because
100's of good engineers are being let go by companies like HP as
recently as May 31. "Early retirement" at 48 years old? Yeah,
right...

Dean

> As another American engineer, I'm in agreement with you 100%.

It's not just engineering. Pure science, which is the bastion of future
engineering as well as an attraction to bright minds, is being done
offshore because research which violates superstition or offends our
superstitous leaders (such as stem cell research) is illegal here.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> As another American engineer, I'm in agreement with you 100%.
>
> It's not just engineering. Pure science, which is the bastion of
> future engineering as well as an attraction to bright minds, is being
> done offshore because research which violates superstition or offends
> our superstitous leaders (such as stem cell research) is illegal here.
>
> Jose

Stem cell research is not illegal in the US. Just because the federal
government has decided not to fund such research does not make it illegal.
So, do you have another example of scientific research that is being moved
offshore because it is illegal in the US?

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> So, do you have another example of scientific research that
> is being moved offshore because it is illegal in the US?

Sorry to butt in (but this _is_ Usenet!) but I believe it is illegal in the
U.S. to perform any scientific research on Schedule I drugs (as defined by
the Controlled Substances Act) unless one can "get a Schedule I research
license from the DEA, an investigating new drug (IND) approval from the
FDA, a licensed commercial laboratory who will provide you with the drug,
and obtain approval of your detailed research protocol from the DEA, the
FDA and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the academic location where
the study will take place.
[...]
What is one to fear if he wishes to eventually do this kind of work? Aside
from the medical risks of exploring new drugs in humans, the only certain
risk is the law. Work with a competent physician, and also with a competent
lawyer. Or work in a country such as Switzerland where research of this
nature is considered a medical matter, not a legal one."

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/adsarchive/illegal_research.htm

Recently, Bob Fry > posted:
>
> To actually solve a problem, regardless of money, takes insight and a
> modicum of intelligence. As an American and engineer I'm seeing less
> and less of both here, and it ****es me off. But we got about half
> the country thinking our decline is caused because the other half
> doesn't pray. Science? Engineering? Rational thought? That's for
> the weird-sounding foreigns, 4-eyed geeks, and far-left libs. No, we
> just need to return to God and Jesus and everything will be fine.
>
One of the most disappointing thing about last night's Republican "debate"
was the number of candidates that are completely clueless about what
science is and is not. At least Mitt Romney acknowledged that science and
religion are not in opposition to one another, but he then went off on a
tangent that completely failed to separate religious concepts from
learning the discipline of science. It left me with the impression that if
a Republican administration is elected from this bunch, we'll be
hopelessly bogged down in ignorance that, if nothing else, will lessen the
likelihood that their "Apollo Project" to solve our energy needs and
reduce global warming could ever become a reality. We won't accomplish
such a thing by praying for it.

Neil

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> As another American engineer, I'm in agreement with you 100%.
>
> It's not just engineering. Pure science, which is the bastion of
> future engineering as well as an attraction to bright minds, is being
> done offshore because research which violates superstition or offends
> our superstitous leaders (such as stem cell research) is illegal here.
>
Not only is stem cell research legal here, some states have actually
started funding it because the feds won't. One of the better things about
this country is that it is big enough that a few states can actually have
a significant impact on such things compared to other countries around the
world.

Neil

"Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Jose > posted:
>
>>> As another American engineer, I'm in agreement with you 100%.
>>
>> It's not just engineering. Pure science, which is the bastion of
>> future engineering as well as an attraction to bright minds, is being
>> done offshore because research which violates superstition or offends
>> our superstitous leaders (such as stem cell research) is illegal
>> here.
>>
> Not only is stem cell research legal here, some states have actually
> started funding it because the feds won't.

And some states, such as South Dakota, explicitly make such research
illegal. Here's a table of of fetus research laws on a state-by-state
basis:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/embfet.htm

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> So, do you have another example of scientific research that
>> is being moved offshore because it is illegal in the US?
>
> Sorry to butt in (but this _is_ Usenet!) but I believe it is illegal
> in the U.S. to perform any scientific research on Schedule I drugs
> (as defined by the Controlled Substances Act) unless one can "get a
> Schedule I research license from the DEA, an investigating new drug
> (IND) approval from the FDA, a licensed commercial laboratory who
> will provide you with the drug, and obtain approval of your detailed
> research protocol from the DEA, the FDA and the Institutional Review
> Board (IRB) of the academic location where the study will take place.
> [...]
> What is one to fear if he wishes to eventually do this kind of work?
> Aside from the medical risks of exploring new drugs in humans, the
> only certain risk is the law. Work with a competent physician, and
> also with a competent lawyer. Or work in a country such as
> Switzerland where research of this nature is considered a medical
> matter, not a legal one."
>
>
> http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/adsarchive/illegal_research.htm


Well we as a nation have decided that Sked 1 drugs are a bad thing and have
regulated them as such. Now I have no knowledge of the law in Switzerland
but if just anyone can "research" drugs that are otherwise illegal then
there is a huge whole in the law that I'm sure is used to get out of trouble
when you get busted.

Bob Fry wrote:

>
> Really?? Rather, anybody can throw money at a problem, and...keep
> throwing money at it. Like sending a flight loads of ca$h to Iraq
> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1734939,00.html and many
> other refs].
>

Bob... give me six million dollars and I will make a small electric
plane that flies with a fuel cell.

Will it be cost effective? who knows. Will anyone want it?

> To actually solve a problem, regardless of money, takes insight and a
> modicum of intelligence. As an American and engineer I'm seeing less
> and less of both here, and it ****es me off. But we got about half
> the country thinking our decline is caused because the other half
> doesn't pray. Science? Engineering? Rational thought? That's for
> the weird-sounding foreigns, 4-eyed geeks, and far-left libs. No, we
> just need to return to God and Jesus and everything will be fine.
>

I'm an engineer too Bob. Taxpayers have spent many millions for
special development projects over the years. What I would find
interesting is to know if any of them ever made a dime out of
their "investment".

When you have to convince a group of private investers to put
up a lot of money for R&D of a potential new product you have
to do a lot of homewrok to convince them that what you are
doing will end up a viable product.

wrote:

>
> Hi Bob,
>
> As another American engineer, I'm in agreement with you 100%. Our
> government is allowing, no incentivizing our corporations to take our
> jobs overseas to China and India to save on salaries, medical, and
> taxes.

Then wouldn't it be logicaol that government try to reduce taxes...
or do other types of things to "incentivize" them to stay here?


> Then, when these same companies want to repatriate their U.S.
> dollars, they get a special tax break cut for them by congress. Then,
> because even college grads in engineering don't want to work for
> peanuts, they claim that there is an "engineering shortage" because
> they can't fill job requisitions that they post at below starting
> salary market wages and scream to raise the H1-B visa limits so they
> can bring in more slave-labor body shopper engineers from India and
> China.

Really good engineers can pretty much name their own salary.
I've interviewed dozens that put a lot of buzz words on a resume and
really didn't know squat.

>
> There is something seriously wrong with our country when an MBA
> managing a Target or Walmart can make twice as much annually as an
> engineering desiging multi-million dollar revenue generating
> products. If this keeps up, more and more college age kids are going
> to avoid this profession and corporations will get the shortage that
> they are claiming. I know there is no shortage right now because
> 100's of good engineers are being let go by companies like HP as
> recently as May 31. "Early retirement" at 48 years old? Yeah,
> right...
>

sheesh... whine whine whine....

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> One of the most disappointing thing about last night's Republican "debate"
> was the number of candidates that are completely clueless about what
> science is and is not.

Oh I totally agree... and so are all the democrat candidates. Most
of your politicians in Washington are totally cluless about a lot
of things, not just technology. We need some fresh meat/// people
who have held actual real jobs, or run companies.

> At least Mitt Romney acknowledged that science and
> religion are not in opposition to one another, but he then went off on a
> tangent that completely failed to separate religious concepts from
> learning the discipline of science. It left me with the impression that if
> a Republican administration is elected from this bunch, we'll be
> hopelessly bogged down in ignorance that, if nothing else, will lessen the
> likelihood that their "Apollo Project" to solve our energy needs and
> reduce global warming could ever become a reality. We won't accomplish
> such a thing by praying for it.


Agreed. I see no one... from either party... who is worth voting
for. Like I said... We need some fresh meat. Fire every damn one
of 'em and start over. We certainly couldn't do any worse than
what we have now.

kontiki > wrote:
> Really good engineers can pretty much name their own salary.
> I've interviewed dozens that put a lot of buzz words on a resume and
> really didn't know squat.

What engineering discipline are you trained and licensed in?

>>>>> "kontiki" == kontiki > writes:
kontiki> Then wouldn't it be logicaol that government try to
kontiki> reduce taxes... or do other types of things to
kontiki> "incentivize" them to stay here?

Probably not. America reached a technology peak in the 1960s, with
very high involvement by the feds and states (California at least) in
science and tech. There are lots of things that only governments can
properly take a risk with.
--
When you're riding in a time machine way far into the future,
don't stick your elbow out the window, or it'll turn into a
fossil.
- Jack Handey

"kontiki" > wrote in message ...

>
> Agreed. I see no one... from either party... who is worth voting
> for. Like I said... We need some fresh meat. Fire every damn one
> of 'em and start over. We certainly couldn't do any worse than
> what we have now.

Interesting campaign here: http://payattention.org/

>>>>> "kontiki" == kontiki > writes:
kontiki> I'm an engineer too Bob. Taxpayers have spent many
kontiki> millions for special development projects over the
kontiki> years. What I would find interesting is to know if any of
kontiki> them ever made a dime out of their "investment".

You aren't much of an engineer if you don't know the origin of the
Internet, just one example to your implied question above.

kontiki> When you have to convince a group of private investers to
kontiki> put up a lot of money for R&D of a potential new product
kontiki> you have to do a lot of homewrok to convince them that
kontiki> what you are doing will end up a viable product.

And you don't understand the origins of engineering either. You think
private is going to invest in fundamental science discovery?

Private investment and companies have a place. Government has a
place. What doesn't have a place in an industrial, or post-industrial,
democratic society is leaders ignorant of the scientific process,
unable and unwilling to try to understand other opinions, and
examine--or even acknowledge--that other countries are doing well for
their people without all the dogmatism and blind faith crap. But that
requires using the frontal cortex, an energy-intensive activity, and
strange to the back-slapping, glad-handing bozos so often running
things now.
--
If you are a happy employee does that make you 'gruntled' ?
- Jack Handey

Jim Logajan wrote:
> kontiki > wrote:
>
>>Really good engineers can pretty much name their own salary.
>>I've interviewed dozens that put a lot of buzz words on a resume and
>>really didn't know squat.
>
>
> What engineering discipline are you trained and licensed in?

Software... systems architecture and database design, real time.

I've never been required to be "licensed".

Bob Fry wrote:

>>>>>>"kontiki" == kontiki > writes:
>
> kontiki> I'm an engineer too Bob. Taxpayers have spent many
> kontiki> millions for special development projects over the
> kontiki> years. What I would find interesting is to know if any of
> kontiki> them ever made a dime out of their "investment".
>
> You aren't much of an engineer if you don't know the origin of the
> Internet, just one example to your implied question above.

Oh come on Bob, give me a break. I can see now it is impossible
to have a conversation with you.

>
> kontiki> When you have to convince a group of private investers to
> kontiki> put up a lot of money for R&D of a potential new product
> kontiki> you have to do a lot of homewrok to convince them that
> kontiki> what you are doing will end up a viable product.
>
> And you don't understand the origins of engineering either. You think
> private is going to invest in fundamental science discovery?
>
> Private investment and companies have a place. Government has a
> place. What doesn't have a place in an industrial, or post-industrial,
> democratic society is leaders ignorant of the scientific process,
> unable and unwilling to try to understand other opinions, and
> examine--or even acknowledge--that other countries are doing well for
> their people without all the dogmatism and blind faith crap.

Blaind faith crap? Oh you mean all those wonderful promises of
'universal health care' and so forth all the politicians keep
talking about? HAhahahahaaa

> But that
> requires using the frontal cortex, an energy-intensive activity, and
> strange to the back-slapping, glad-handing bozos so often running
> things now.

Yeah... the glad-handing bozos in Washington DC. I give up with you.

On Jun 6, 4:54 pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "kontiki" == kontiki > writes:
>
> kontiki> I'm an engineer too Bob. Taxpayers have spent many
> kontiki> millions for special development projects over the
> kontiki> years. What I would find interesting is to know if any of
> kontiki> them ever made a dime out of their "investment".
>
> You aren't much of an engineer if you don't know the origin of the
> Internet, just one example to your implied question above.
>
> kontiki> When you have to convince a group of private investers to
> kontiki> put up a lot of money for R&D of a potential new product
> kontiki> you have to do a lot of homewrok to convince them that
> kontiki> what you are doing will end up a viable product.
>
> And you don't understand the origins of engineering either. You think
> private is going to invest in fundamental science discovery?
>
> Private investment and companies have a place. Government has a
> place. What doesn't have a place in an industrial, or post-industrial,
> democratic society is leaders ignorant of the scientific process,
> unable and unwilling to try to understand other opinions, and
> examine--or even acknowledge--that other countries are doing well for
> their people without all the dogmatism and blind faith crap. But that
> requires using the frontal cortex, an energy-intensive activity, and
> strange to the back-slapping, glad-handing bozos so often running
> things now.
> --
> If you are a happy employee does that make you 'gruntled' ?
> - Jack Handey

Bob,

Don't waste your breath on Kontiki. He is a smug know-it-all who
thinks that he has all the answers. Read all his posts and you will
see what I mean. I have met too many geeks like him in our
profession. He thinks he has all the answers until the day the axe
falls on his neck and then he will scream louder than anyone else.

Dean

Recently, kontiki > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> One of the most disappointing thing about last night's Republican
>> "debate" was the number of candidates that are completely clueless
>> about what science is and is not.
>
> Oh I totally agree... and so are all the democrat candidates. Most
> of your politicians in Washington are totally cluless about a lot
> of things, not just technology. We need some fresh meat/// people
> who have held actual real jobs, or run companies.
>
Considering how many companies are run, I don't think that would help
much. Take a look at the US auto industry for a hint of how to do things
stupidly. They only had a couple of decades to get a clue.

Neil

>>>>> "kontiki" == kontiki > writes:

kontiki> Software... systems architecture and database design,
kontiki> real time.

That is not an engineering discipline.

It's certainly a valuable technical discipline, and even has a
sprinkling of science in it (relational DB theory), but it's not
engineering.
--
I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it.
- Jack Handey

On Jun 6, 3:25 pm, kontiki > wrote:

> Really good engineers can pretty much name their own salary.
> I've interviewed dozens that put a lot of buzz words on a resume and
> really didn't know squat.


If you or anyone else who actually hires engineers has anything
constructive to say about
the holes in American engineering education, as one of the people who
can actually do
something about it, I want to hear the suggestions.

Please note that for email contact, I'm now at cal state northridge
(csun) rather than utdallas.

RW Mehler, Ph.D.
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
California State University Northridge

> Stem cell research is not illegal in the US.

I stand corrected. It was my impression that it was not possible to
obtain any but a few stem cell lines here in the US. Since stem cell
lines are rather critical in doing stem cell research, it is better to
go offshore.

> So, do you have another example of scientific research that is being moved
> offshore because it is illegal in the US?

Research in illegal drugs comes to mind (marijuana for cancer, for
example). I don't know if this is being "moved offshore" or not however.

Research in evolution... well, it's not illegal in most states, but
teaching it is illegal in some states (or is bundled with teaching
superstition as science). Lose the researchers to superstition when
they are young, and you won't have to make research illegal. Nobody
will even know what research =is=.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Jun 6, 7:46 pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "kontiki" == kontiki > writes:
>
> kontiki> Software... systems architecture and database design,
> kontiki> real time.
>
> That is not an engineering discipline.
>
> It's certainly a valuable technical discipline, and even has a
> sprinkling of science in it (relational DB theory), but it's not
> engineering.
> --
> I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it.
> - Jack Handey

Bob,

I agree. Software architecture and database design is not
engineering. It is a technical trade.

Dean

Much of the private-sector research of the kind that used to be done
by Bell Labs is no more, a victim of tax laws. There is plenty of
government-funded research a-la NASA, Sandia, and Universities.

Research may go offshore at some point, but the new capitalists in
eastern Europe, China, and India need to pick the low-hanging fruit
associated with cheap development and manufacturing engineering before
they can look at stuff that takes decades to pay off.

There is a shift in sources of innovation to the extent that it lies
in the intersections between academic discipllines, rather than in the
depths of the disciplines themselves, and some North American
universities seem to be in the process of sorting that out.

Don

wrote:

>
> Bob,
>
> Don't waste your breath on Kontiki. He is a smug know-it-all who
> thinks that he has all the answers. Read all his posts and you will
> see what I mean. I have met too many geeks like him in our
> profession. He thinks he has all the answers until the day the axe
> falls on his neck and then he will scream louder than anyone else.
>
As I recall, your posts were the ones full of whining and complaining
that you weren't being paid enough.

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> It's certainly a valuable technical discipline, and even has a
> sprinkling of science in it (relational DB theory), but it's not
> engineering.

Oh.. I guess that makes me one of the unwashed. Unworthy of having
any opinions regarding the subject matter at hand.

Let me ask you Bob.... how many patents do you hold? Have you ever
incorporated and run a business of your own? have you ever created
a marketable products and successfully marketed and sold them?

I have done all of these things, and so have thousands of others.
Sorry if it doesn't qualify in your mind as "engineering" but
frankly Bib, I don;t give a **** what you think and, fortunately,
most other people (except Dean here..) don't either.

Jose wrote:
>> Stem cell research is not illegal in the US.
>
> I stand corrected. It was my impression that it was not possible to
> obtain any but a few stem cell lines here in the US. Since stem cell
> lines are rather critical in doing stem cell research, it is better to
> go offshore.

That is what the liberal politicians want you to believe...

kontiki wrote:
> Bob Fry wrote:
>>
>> It's certainly a valuable technical discipline, and even has a
>> sprinkling of science in it (relational DB theory), but it's not
>> engineering.
>
> Oh.. I guess that makes me one of the unwashed. Unworthy of having
> any opinions regarding the subject matter at hand.
>
> Let me ask you Bob.... how many patents do you hold? Have you ever
> incorporated and run a business of your own? have you ever created
> a marketable products and successfully marketed and sold them?
>
> I have done all of these things, and so have thousands of others.
> Sorry if it doesn't qualify in your mind as "engineering" but
> frankly Bib, I don;t give a **** what you think and, fortunately,
> most other people (except Dean here..) don't either.

Why does it matter? Engineering is a very valuable discipline (I are
one! :-) ), but so are many other technical and business disciplines.
Engineers need to be careful as to who calls themselves an engineer just
as doctors need to be careful who calls themselves a doctor.

Matt

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> Considering how many companies are run, I don't think that would help
> much. Take a look at the US auto industry for a hint of how to do things
> stupidly. They only had a couple of decades to get a clue.
>

Statistically, far more people are employed by small businesses vs.
large businesses. It may be possible that the larger the business
the more difficult it is to run effectively.

I guess you could draw the same analogy between small government vs.
large government. In any case, people who run businesses in the
private sector tend to be more accountable than people who run
government (i.e. politicians) and they tend to get less of a pass
when they screw up.

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> Comparing apples to apples, your hypothesis wouldn't explain the fact that
> auto manufacturers that saw the writing on the wall in the '70s and shaped
> their businesses accordingly are now the successful companies.
>

Uhhh I'm not so sure I'd go that far and say they are now the most
successful companies. Since they "saw the handwriting" (I would call
more of facing the music) in the 70's as you say, Chrysler was bailed
out of bankrupcy, later General Motors stock went to junk status
over night and Ford has struggled. Plants were closed, concessions
were required of unions and quality needed upgrading to compete
with Japanese car makers (who are typically not unionized).

It would be hard to find another industry (other than the airplines)
that has struggled and suffered as much as the auto industry has
over the past 35 years. Small aviation struggled for quite a while
also in the 80's as a result of one lawsuit after another until
some protective (and very well needed) legislation was inacted.

Recently, ktbr > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> Considering how many companies are run, I don't think that would help
>> much. Take a look at the US auto industry for a hint of how to do
>> things stupidly. They only had a couple of decades to get a clue.
>>
>
> Statistically, far more people are employed by small businesses vs.
> large businesses. It may be possible that the larger the business
> the more difficult it is to run effectively.
>
Comparing apples to apples, your hypothesis wouldn't explain the fact that
auto manufacturers that saw the writing on the wall in the '70s and shaped
their businesses accordingly are now the successful companies.

Neil

On Jun 7, 4:04 am, kontiki > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Bob,
>
> > Don't waste your breath on Kontiki. He is a smug know-it-all who
> > thinks that he has all the answers. Read all his posts and you will
> > see what I mean. I have met too many geeks like him in our
> > profession. He thinks he has all the answers until the day the axe
> > falls on his neck and then he will scream louder than anyone else.
>
> As I recall, your posts were the ones full of whining and complaining
> that you weren't being paid enough.

No they weren't. But your posts were full of condescening name
calling...
Your recollection sucks.

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> kontiki > wrote:
>>
>>>Really good engineers can pretty much name their own salary.
>>>I've interviewed dozens that put a lot of buzz words on a resume and
>>>really didn't know squat.
>>
>>
>> What engineering discipline are you trained and licensed in?
>
> Software... systems architecture and database design, real time.
>
> I've never been required to be "licensed".

AIR, to call yourself an "Engineer" in some states, you must be licensed.

Recently, ktbr > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> Comparing apples to apples, your hypothesis wouldn't explain the
>> fact that auto manufacturers that saw the writing on the wall in the
>> '70s and shaped their businesses accordingly are now the successful
>> companies.
>>
>
> Uhhh I'm not so sure I'd go that far and say they are now the most
> successful companies. Since they "saw the handwriting" (I would call
> more of facing the music) in the 70's as you say, Chrysler was bailed
> out of bankrupcy, later General Motors stock went to junk status
> over night and Ford has struggled. Plants were closed, concessions
> were required of unions and quality needed upgrading to compete
> with Japanese car makers (who are typically not unionized).
>
The "successful (auto) companies" I refer to are not found in Detroit.

> It would be hard to find another industry (other than the airplines)
> that has struggled and suffered as much as the auto industry has
> over the past 35 years.
>
That's because they were and are still stupidly managed. In the late '60s,
the auto industry began laying off their engineers. That resulted in '70s
cars that were assembled from outdated technology, rather than designed
for the times. In the '80s, they lobbied against the CAFE standards (as
they are doing today). As a result, they could only offer inefficient
pigs. Then, they sold people on "SUVs" that may be the least practical
vehicles in urban environments. Today, they're left with an inventory that
they can't give away, and Toyota et al are eating their lunch.

Neil

Jose wrote:
>> Stem cell research is not illegal in the US.
>
> I stand corrected. It was my impression that it was not possible to
> obtain any but a few stem cell lines here in the US. Since stem cell
> lines are rather critical in doing stem cell research, it is better to
> go offshore.
>
>> So, do you have another example of scientific research that is being
>> moved offshore because it is illegal in the US?
>
> Research in illegal drugs comes to mind (marijuana for cancer, for
> example). I don't know if this is being "moved offshore" or not
> however.

Marinol, a synthetic THC, has been approved in the USA as a prescription
drug since the mid '80s. What is illegal on the federal level is crackpot
doctors and others selling pot as, pardon the pun, a roll your own med.


> Research in evolution... well, it's not illegal in most states, but
> teaching it is illegal in some states (or is bundled with teaching
> superstition as science). Lose the researchers to superstition when
> they are young, and you won't have to make research illegal. Nobody
> will even know what research =is=.
>

Evolution is studied by researchers all over the country. While a agree that
schools shouldn't be teaching ID or creationism as science do you really
thing a child who is bright enough to become a scientist is going to not
figure out what is going on? All they have to do is pick up book or turn on
the internet.

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jim Logajan wrote:
> >> kontiki > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Really good engineers can pretty much name their own salary.
> >>>I've interviewed dozens that put a lot of buzz words on a resume and
> >>>really didn't know squat.
> >>
> >>
> >> What engineering discipline are you trained and licensed in?
> >
> > Software... systems architecture and database design, real time.
> >
> > I've never been required to be "licensed".
>
> AIR, to call yourself an "Engineer" in some states, you must be licensed.

My official job title is "Principal Engineer". I don't hold a PE license.
Apparently people with my same job in my company who work in Canada have a
different title, because Canadian laws do not allow a job title to include
the word "engineer" unless they are licensed.

My email signature at work just says, "Software Guy", however.

> What is illegal on the federal level is crackpot
> doctors and others selling pot as, pardon the pun, a roll your own med.

.... and what makes those doctors crackpot? The fact that they prescribe
marijuana?

> do you really thing a child who is
> bright enough to become a scientist is going to not
> figure out what is going on?

Yes. There are plenty of bright, superstitious people.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> What is illegal on the federal level is crackpot
>> doctors and others selling pot as, pardon the pun, a roll your own
>> med.
>
> ... and what makes those doctors crackpot? The fact that they
> prescribe marijuana?

Pretty much, yes. Most doctors don't go around making up their own
prescriptions.

>
>> do you really thing a child who is
>> bright enough to become a scientist is going to not
>> figure out what is going on?
>
> Yes. There are plenty of bright, superstitious people.
>

If they have enough of a questioning mind to become a useful scientist then
they should have enough of one to get all the info that is out there and
decide things for themselves.

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>> kontiki > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Really good engineers can pretty much name their own salary.
>>>>> I've interviewed dozens that put a lot of buzz words on a resume and
>>>>> really didn't know squat.
>>>>
>>>> What engineering discipline are you trained and licensed in?
>>> Software... systems architecture and database design, real time.
>>>
>>> I've never been required to be "licensed".
>> AIR, to call yourself an "Engineer" in some states, you must be licensed.
>
> My official job title is "Principal Engineer". I don't hold a PE license.
> Apparently people with my same job in my company who work in Canada have a
> different title, because Canadian laws do not allow a job title to include
> the word "engineer" unless they are licensed.
>
> My email signature at work just says, "Software Guy", however.

As long as you are working for a company and not offering services to
the public, you can use any title you desire.

Matt

>>>>> "xxx" == xxx > writes:

xxx> If you or anyone else who actually hires engineers has
xxx> anything constructive to say about the holes in American
xxx> engineering education, as one of the people who can actually
xxx> do something about it, I want to hear the suggestions.

Sure, I hire entry-level engineers. Their skills are OK but can you
teach them to have a good attitude about just doing work?

The problem really isn't in our university system, it's in our
society, which only occasionally honors the thinking professions.
--
"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." --Vice
President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

>>>>> "DT" == Don Tuite > writes:

DT> Much of the private-sector research of the kind that used to
DT> be done by Bell Labs is no more, a victim of tax laws.

Could you explain further? Because Bell Labs, a part of the old AT&T,
did its best work as a regulated monopoly and was guaranteed a
profit. Hence they could afford to investigate some basic things
without immediate commercial value.
--
If we could read the secret history of our enemies we should find in
each person's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all
hostility.

- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

>>>>> "MW" == Matt Whiting > writes:

MW> As long as you are working for a company and not offering
MW> services to the public, you can use any title you desire.

No, you can't. There are legal restrictions on some titles of
engineering. Nevertheless, one certainly need not be registered to
call themselves an engineer. What's almost always recognized is a
4-year degree or better in engineering from an acredited engineering
program.
--
"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts,
corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence
services of other countries." --Secretary of State Colin Powell,
testifying about Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
capabilities before the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>> "MW" == Matt Whiting > writes:
>
> MW> As long as you are working for a company and not offering
> MW> services to the public, you can use any title you desire.
>
> No, you can't. There are legal restrictions on some titles of
> engineering. Nevertheless, one certainly need not be registered to
> call themselves an engineer. What's almost always recognized is a
> 4-year degree or better in engineering from an acredited engineering
> program.

In the US you can in most states anyway. There may be a state or two
where this isn't true, but I'm not aware of any.

http://www.todaysengineer.org/archives/te_archives/feb02/te1.asp

I have no idea what the law is in Canada or other countries, but in the
USA the "industrial exemption" is pretty much universally excepted.

What are the restrictions you are referring to with respect to titles?

Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Bob Fry wrote:
>> No, you can't. There are legal restrictions on some titles of
>> engineering. Nevertheless, one certainly need not be registered to
>> call themselves an engineer. What's almost always recognized is a
>> 4-year degree or better in engineering from an acredited engineering
>> program.
>
> In the US you can in most states anyway. There may be a state or two
> where this isn't true, but I'm not aware of any.

North Carolina is one:
"Illegal use of engineer title raises ire of profession"
http://triad.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2004/04/12/focus3.html

Tennessee is another (well, it is even worse in that it is argued that
is is illegal to arbitrarily title oneself a "Software Engineer" in all
50 states!):

"Software Engineering is Illegal" (First part)
"YOU ARE A SOFTWARE ENGINEER!!!" (Second part; rebuttal)
http://staff.science.uva.nl/~boasson/SE/SEillegal.pdf

This next article costs money (which I haven't shelled out!) but the
title and the context Google provided suggests it is relevant:

"What Do You Mean I Can't Call Myself a Software Engineer?"

http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/DLAbsToc.jsp?resourcePath=/dl/mags/so/&toc=comp/mags/so/1999/06/s6toc.xml&DOI=10.1109/52.805472

And here's a legal decision regarding the use of "Software Engineer" in
one Canadian province:

"Quebec engineers win court battle against Microsoft

Microsoft Canada has contravened a provincial professional code by using
the word "engineer" in its international software certification program,
a Quebec court has ruled.

The decision by Judge Claude Millette of this Court of Quebec this week
marks the first time in Microsoft's history it has been penalized over
use of the term. It also provides a historic, if largely symbolic,
victory for professional engineers across Canada who have been trying to
curtail the word's use in the context of software development."

http://www.peo.on.ca/enforcement/Quebec_MS_April2004.pdf

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Bob Fry wrote:
>>> No, you can't. There are legal restrictions on some titles of
>>> engineering. Nevertheless, one certainly need not be registered to
>>> call themselves an engineer. What's almost always recognized is a
>>> 4-year degree or better in engineering from an acredited engineering
>>> program.
>> In the US you can in most states anyway. There may be a state or two
>> where this isn't true, but I'm not aware of any.
>
> North Carolina is one:
> "Illegal use of engineer title raises ire of profession"
> http://triad.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2004/04/12/focus3.html

Did you actually read this article? On page 2 it supports what I said,
not what you claim.

"Ritter says engineers must only be licensed by the state if they are
offering their services directly to the public and not just to their
employer.

For example, an engineer designing roads would have to be licensed, but
someone with engineering training working for Ford to design cars to
drive those roads would not need to be licensed."



> Tennessee is another (well, it is even worse in that it is argued that
> is is illegal to arbitrarily title oneself a "Software Engineer" in all
> 50 states!):
>
> "Software Engineering is Illegal" (First part)
> "YOU ARE A SOFTWARE ENGINEER!!!" (Second part; rebuttal)
> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~boasson/SE/SEillegal.pdf
>
> This next article costs money (which I haven't shelled out!) but the
> title and the context Google provided suggests it is relevant:
>
> "What Do You Mean I Can't Call Myself a Software Engineer?"
>
> http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/DLAbsToc.jsp?resourcePath=/dl/mags/so/&toc=comp/mags/so/1999/06/s6toc.xml&DOI=10.1109/52.805472

Again, these involve offering services to the public, not simply having
a title within a company that includes engineer. I did though in my
searching find one state that apparently doesn't have an industrial
exemption, but the other 49 do last I knew. So, I'll say it again,
unless you are offering services to the public (or live in Mississippi),
there is no problem having engineer in your title.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/engineering/pe-eit-exam/


Matt (an engineer by training, by trade, and by license in two states)

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> North Carolina is one:
>> "Illegal use of engineer title raises ire of profession"
>> http://triad.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2004/04/12/focus3.html
>
> Did you actually read this article? On page 2 it supports what I
> said, not what you claim.

Hey - I doth protest! I kinda read it! Proper context sir:

"In other words, if the word engineer appears in your job title, business
card or stationary, the public can assume you have met the qualifications
to be a licensed engineer. So if non-engineers use the title, they
publicly claim to be something they're not and are offering services
they're not licensed to offer."

> "Ritter says engineers must only be licensed by the state if they are
> offering their services directly to the public and not just to their
> employer.
>
> For example, an engineer designing roads would have to be licensed,
> but someone with engineering training working for Ford to design cars
> to drive those roads would not need to be licensed."

"But, Ritter says, if the "engineer" working for Ford begins telling
people he's an engineer, he may be crossing the line.
"If he hands you his business card and it says engineer on it, he is
putting himself out in public as an engineer," he says.

I presumed from _the entire context_ that the article was suggesting that
simply making the job title "Software Engineer" public is sufficient to
be in violation of the law. Programmers exist by the ton[1] who have
"Software Engineer" on the business cards their employers give them and I
can assure you that those cards are handed out on a regular basis to
prospects, customers, vendors, friends, and family. And when they write
their resumes they will almost certainly claim the title.

I will concede, though, that you are absolutely correct that simply
having an internal company title with the term "engineer" in it is
perfectly legal. But that, I submit, is the exceptional case.

> Matt (an engineer by training, by trade, and by license in two states)

Just curious, but what kind of engineering?

[1] It's a sedentary career so it doesn't take many programmers to add up
to a ton. ;-)

>>... and what makes those doctors crackpot? The fact that they
>> prescribe marijuana?
>
> Pretty much, yes. Most doctors don't go around making up their own
> prescriptions.

Well, that's a pretty circular reasoning. You can argue any point that
way. And, as a matter of fact, doctors =do= go around making their own
prescriptions. Once a drug is approved for =anything=, it can be
prescribed for anything else.

Marijuana has been shown to be superior to commercial prescrptions for
the relief of nausea in terminal cancer patients. I don't see any
objection to such use, except perhaps by the supersticious and meddlesome.

> If they have enough of a questioning mind to become a useful scientist then
> they should have enough of one to get all the info that is out there and
> decide things for themselves.

Alas, religion provides plenty to occupy an enquiring mind. One can
devote their entire life to interesting theological research. While it
is true that all the theological research in the world doens't make the
superstition true, it does occupy an otherwise bright mind.

People believe what they are fed as a child. Some rebel later, but not
out of reason.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> North Carolina is one:
>>> "Illegal use of engineer title raises ire of profession"
>>> http://triad.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2004/04/12/focus3.html
>> Did you actually read this article? On page 2 it supports what I
>> said, not what you claim.
>
> Hey - I doth protest! I kinda read it! Proper context sir:
>
> "In other words, if the word engineer appears in your job title, business
> card or stationary, the public can assume you have met the qualifications
> to be a licensed engineer. So if non-engineers use the title, they
> publicly claim to be something they're not and are offering services
> they're not licensed to offer."

Ceratinly! The context is offering services to the public, just as I've
been saying! Notice "the public" can assumer.... If you are only
working for your industrial employer designing products, you are fine.


>> "Ritter says engineers must only be licensed by the state if they are
>> offering their services directly to the public and not just to their
>> employer.
>>
>> For example, an engineer designing roads would have to be licensed,
>> but someone with engineering training working for Ford to design cars
>> to drive those roads would not need to be licensed."
>
> "But, Ritter says, if the "engineer" working for Ford begins telling
> people he's an engineer, he may be crossing the line.
> "If he hands you his business card and it says engineer on it, he is
> putting himself out in public as an engineer," he says.
>
> I presumed from _the entire context_ that the article was suggesting that
> simply making the job title "Software Engineer" public is sufficient to
> be in violation of the law. Programmers exist by the ton[1] who have
> "Software Engineer" on the business cards their employers give them and I
> can assure you that those cards are handed out on a regular basis to
> prospects, customers, vendors, friends, and family. And when they write
> their resumes they will almost certainly claim the title.
>
> I will concede, though, that you are absolutely correct that simply
> having an internal company title with the term "engineer" in it is
> perfectly legal. But that, I submit, is the exceptional case.

I've heard some urban legens along the lines of the Ford example given
above, but I've heard more court cases that through out such claims.
Unless the engineer gave his Ford business card to John Q. Public AND
also offered them engineering services, he is safe.


>> Matt (an engineer by training, by trade, and by license in two states)
>
> Just curious, but what kind of engineering?

Initially software (BSCS degree), then later electrical (BSEE) and I'm
about to complete my structural engineering masters and plan to do some
consulting in this field as I enter retirement in a few years. My
original PE in NY state was taken in electrical, but for my recently
acquired PA license I listed both electrical and structural as areas of
practice.

I'll admit that after getting my EE degree, after 5 years of work
experience, I have to concur with the folks who claim that software
engineering really doesn't exist. I've seen nothing in industry that
even approaches the way both electrical and structural engineers
operate. I've heard of a few aerospace companies that use, or at least
claim to use, formal proofs for software, etc., and that is probably
approaching the way a true engineering discipline operates, but I've yet
to really see this in action. All of the software I wrote and was
involved with wasn't at all based on any scientific laws or principles
and really was closer to art (writing a novel), than it was to science.


Matt

Then, they sold people on "SUVs" that may be the least practical
> vehicles in urban environments. Today, they're left with an inventory that
> they can't give away, and Toyota et al are eating their lunch.
>
> Neil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Toyota has become an american corporation with overseas owners - in a
big part because labor in Japan is just too damned expensive <picture
evil grin>...
Over the past couple of years their quality is slipping <JD Powers>
based on buyer complaints - must be those lazy american workers - or
maybe it is because Toyota's management is being pressed to improve
the profit margin because the Japanese bank/market monolith is
teetering on the edge of a huge meltdown...

The american car companies do 'get it' for the most part... Their
curse is the legacy of having been big and the contracts they agreed
to in the past are now eating them... That is temporary and being
changed as fast as the laws will let them...

I have people I talk to daily who are GM employees / executives, and
those who are suppliers to GM... The suppliers are frantically moving
production from the USA to Mexico as is GM itself... Delphi Chassis
Saginaw is rapidly transferring its disc brake production south of the
border because congress continues to roll over for the UAW and refuses
to give the employer a fair shake...
IF you want to know who is to blame for jobs leaving the country just
look at the congress critter you voted in... The buck stops there <as
the bucks continue to flee the country>

denny - old GM guy who still bleeds bowties, but is glad he left

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>> North Carolina is one:
>>>> "Illegal use of engineer title raises ire of profession"
>>>> http://triad.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2004/04/12/focus3.html
>>> Did you actually read this article? On page 2 it supports what I
>>> said, not what you claim.
>>
>> Hey - I doth protest! I kinda read it! Proper context sir:
>>
>> "In other words, if the word engineer appears in your job title,
>> business card or stationary, the public can assume you have met the
>> qualifications to be a licensed engineer. So if non-engineers use the
>> title, they publicly claim to be something they're not and are
>> offering services they're not licensed to offer."
>
> Ceratinly! The context is offering services to the public, just as I've
> been saying! Notice "the public" can assumer.... If you are only
> working for your industrial employer designing products, you are fine.
>
>
>>> "Ritter says engineers must only be licensed by the state if they are
>>> offering their services directly to the public and not just to their
>>> employer.
>>>
>>> For example, an engineer designing roads would have to be licensed,
>>> but someone with engineering training working for Ford to design cars
>>> to drive those roads would not need to be licensed."
>>
>> "But, Ritter says, if the "engineer" working for Ford begins telling
>> people he's an engineer, he may be crossing the line.
>> "If he hands you his business card and it says engineer on it, he is
>> putting himself out in public as an engineer," he says.
>> I presumed from _the entire context_ that the article was suggesting
>> that simply making the job title "Software Engineer" public is
>> sufficient to be in violation of the law. Programmers exist by the
>> ton[1] who have "Software Engineer" on the business cards their
>> employers give them and I can assure you that those cards are handed
>> out on a regular basis to prospects, customers, vendors, friends, and
>> family. And when they write their resumes they will almost certainly
>> claim the title.
>>
>> I will concede, though, that you are absolutely correct that simply
>> having an internal company title with the term "engineer" in it is
>> perfectly legal. But that, I submit, is the exceptional case.
>
> I've heard some urban legens along the lines of the Ford example given
> above, but I've heard more court cases that through out such claims.
> Unless the engineer gave his Ford business card to John Q. Public AND
> also offered them engineering services, he is safe.
>
>
>>> Matt (an engineer by training, by trade, and by license in two states)
>>
>> Just curious, but what kind of engineering?
>
> Initially software (BSCS degree), then later electrical (BSEE) and I'm
> about to complete my structural engineering masters and plan to do some
> consulting in this field as I enter retirement in a few years. My
> original PE in NY state was taken in electrical, but for my recently
> acquired PA license I listed both electrical and structural as areas of
> practice.
>
> I'll admit that after getting my EE degree, after 5 years of work
> experience, I have to concur with the folks who claim that software
> engineering really doesn't exist. I've seen nothing in industry that
> even approaches the way both electrical and structural engineers
> operate. I've heard of a few aerospace companies that use, or at least
> claim to use, formal proofs for software, etc., and that is probably
> approaching the way a true engineering discipline operates, but I've yet
> to really see this in action. All of the software I wrote and was
> involved with wasn't at all based on any scientific laws or principles
> and really was closer to art (writing a novel), than it was to science.
>
>
> Matt
I have to disagree with your point of view that Software Engineering is
not engineering . I have both a BSCS and a MSCS and have worked at
both Fortune 5 companies and well as much smaller organizations. While,
just like in other engineering fields, it's possible not to follow a
rigorous development process, I have seen and worked within a process
that had all the hallmarks of a engineering process in other fields.
That you have not seen it does not mean it does not exist.

As part of this thread I started looking in to the licensing of
Engineers and looking at the national standards I saw that there is no
licensing of the software engineering field. The closest I could find
was Electrical and Computer Systems but that was 70 directed to the
electrical aspects of designing the hardware with a small ( 30%) amount
devoted to software itself. It would seem that NCEES thinks software
is important enough to test for but not to license as a separate
category. Perhaps this will change but given that this board equates
surveying with engineering make me question just how relevant they are.


John

Recently, Denny > posted:

> Then, they sold people on "SUVs" that may be the least practical
>> vehicles in urban environments. Today, they're left with an
>> inventory that they can't give away, and Toyota et al are eating
>> their lunch.
>>
>
[...]
> The american car companies do 'get it' for the most part... Their
> curse is the legacy of having been big and the contracts they agreed
> to in the past are now eating them... That is temporary and being
> changed as fast as the laws will let them...
>
If the US car companies "got it", why are they perpetuating the production
of vehicles that people won't buy? The only thing that seems to have put a
crimp into that practice is that they don't have any more room to store
the inventory. What's stopping the US manufacturers from making the kind
of fuel-efficient, reliable autos that one can buy from any number of
off-shore manufacturers? As I see it, THAT is the major problem that the
US auto industry faces.

Neil

John Theune wrote:
>
> As part of this thread I started looking in to the licensing of
> Engineers and looking at the national standards I saw that there is no
> licensing of the software engineering field. The closest I could find
> was Electrical and Computer Systems but that was 70 directed to the
> electrical aspects of designing the hardware with a small ( 30%) amount
> devoted to software itself. It would seem that NCEES thinks software
> is important enough to test for but not to license as a separate
> category. Perhaps this will change but given that this board equates
> surveying with engineering make me question just how relevant they are.
>

Well, when you consider that virtually everything we use today
involves software it is a dsicipline in its own right. It is a
vitally important component of any engineering process from design
and development, modeling, simulation, manufacturing, process control
(a pilot could not fly an F117 without the software systems), testing
and on and on.

I've designed and developed both analog and digital hardware and
written the software to support it. I started out in hardware
and eventually over the years gravitated into software development
because (at least where I have worked) good software engineers
were always in high demand. Understanding the CPU architecture
is important to designing an efficient solution to any problem.

The same engineering principles apply whether you are designing
a software system or a hardware system and the best designs
involve a proper division of both disciplines, because most
most software is controlling or sensing some sort of hardware,
or interfacing with humans or other systems. Software is
very diverse and can be extremely low level (micro-coded devices),
mid level (operating systems and device drivers) and high level
(applications).

Software engineering in terms of design and developing systems
is engineering (whether anyone likes it or not). Writing a few
macros for a spreadsheet is not engineering.... but that isn't
what were were talking about.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Jim Logajan wrote:
>> >> kontiki > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Really good engineers can pretty much name their own salary.
>> >>>I've interviewed dozens that put a lot of buzz words on a resume and
>> >>>really didn't know squat.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What engineering discipline are you trained and licensed in?
>> >
>> > Software... systems architecture and database design, real time.
>> >
>> > I've never been required to be "licensed".
>>
>> AIR, to call yourself an "Engineer" in some states, you must be licensed.
>
> My official job title is "Principal Engineer".

Inside-the-company job titles don't count.

> I don't hold a PE license.
> Apparently people with my same job in my company who work in Canada have a
> different title, because Canadian laws do not allow a job title to include
> the word "engineer" unless they are licensed.

To sell a service in which you call yourself an "engineer" is what I was
refering to.

I have held state certificates as a Mechanical Engineer, and as a Civil
Engineer, but neither does me much good anymore (and haven't for a long
time).


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY
> My email signature at work just says, "Software Guy", however.

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:elcai.10505$fX4.6903@trndny03...
> I have to disagree with your point of view that Software Engineering is
> not engineering . I have both a BSCS and a MSCS and have worked at both
> Fortune 5 companies and well as much smaller organizations. While, just
> like in other engineering fields, it's possible not to follow a rigorous
> development process, I have seen and worked within a process that had all
> the hallmarks of a engineering process in other fields. That you have not
> seen it does not mean it does not exist.
>
> As part of this thread I started looking in to the licensing of Engineers
> and looking at the national standards I saw that there is no licensing of
> the software engineering field. The closest I could find was Electrical
> and Computer Systems but that was 70 directed to the electrical aspects of
> designing the hardware with a small ( 30%) amount devoted to software
> itself. It would seem that NCEES thinks software is important enough to
> test for but not to license as a separate category. Perhaps this will
> change but given that this board equates surveying with engineering make
> me question just how relevant they are.
>

Many years ago, a guy I worked with, who was a software geek, had a cartoon
on the wall of his cubicle that showed a fellow walking out of a bay (of
cubes) and saying over his shoulder, "I'll go upstairs and see what they
want; the rest of you start coding!".

I've seen certified engineers work in much the same fashion, particularly on
state and federal pork-barrel projects.


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Then, they sold people on "SUVs" that may be the least practical
>> vehicles in urban environments. Today, they're left with an inventory
>> that
>> they can't give away, and Toyota et al are eating their lunch.
>>
>> Neil- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Toyota has become an american corporation with overseas owners - in a
> big part because labor in Japan is just too damned expensive <picture
> evil grin>...

Back in the early 80's, the American auto industry was railing about how
Japanese cars cost less because their workers made less $$$ (or, yen, as it
were).

A study showed the American auto worker made something like $20.50 and hour,
and his Japanese counterpart made around $24 an hour.

> Over the past couple of years their quality is slipping <JD Powers>
> based on buyer complaints - must be those lazy american workers - or
> maybe it is because Toyota's management is being pressed to improve
> the profit margin because the Japanese bank/market monolith is
> teetering on the edge of a huge meltdown...

Not anymore. It did lead to the NIKKEI collapsing back around '91, but
they're (slowly) coming out of it. The Japanese central bank did,
essentially, what the Federal Reserve did in the late 1920's in the US.

>
> The american car companies do 'get it' for the most part... Their
> curse is the legacy of having been big and the contracts they agreed
> to in the past are now eating them... That is temporary and being
> changed as fast as the laws will let them...

>
> I have people I talk to daily who are GM employees / executives, and
> those who are suppliers to GM... The suppliers are frantically moving
> production from the USA to Mexico as is GM itself... Delphi Chassis
> Saginaw is rapidly transferring its disc brake production south of the
> border because congress continues to roll over for the UAW and refuses
> to give the employer a fair shake...

> IF you want to know who is to blame for jobs leaving the country just
> look at the congress critter you voted in... The buck stops there <as
> the bucks continue to flee the country>

In part...but also thank OSHA, EPA, and a dozen other alphabet soup
bureaucracies.

(and please don't anyone give me that strawman crap about what would happen
without the alphabet soup nonsense: if the 55MPH speed limit was to save
lives and gas, the equivalent would be to make the limit 15MPH).

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>>> What is illegal on the federal level is crackpot
>>> doctors and others selling pot as, pardon the pun, a roll your own
>>> med.
>>
>> ... and what makes those doctors crackpot? The fact that they
>> prescribe marijuana?
>
> Pretty much, yes. Most doctors don't go around making up their own
> prescriptions.
>


Oh, Gawd! I'm havig flashbacks of "Reefer Madness", and "Up in Smoke" at the
same time!!!

John Theune wrote:

> I have to disagree with your point of view that Software Engineering is
> not engineering . I have both a BSCS and a MSCS and have worked at
> both Fortune 5 companies and well as much smaller organizations. While,
> just like in other engineering fields, it's possible not to follow a
> rigorous development process, I have seen and worked within a process
> that had all the hallmarks of a engineering process in other fields.
> That you have not seen it does not mean it does not exist.

I'll agree to disagree. I thought the same as you until I got my EE
degree. There is simply no comparison. The Comp Sci degree was a walk
in the part compared to EE. And EE's design based on mathematical and
physical principles. I almost never used math when working as a
software developer.


> As part of this thread I started looking in to the licensing of
> Engineers and looking at the national standards I saw that there is no
> licensing of the software engineering field. The closest I could find
> was Electrical and Computer Systems but that was 70 directed to the
> electrical aspects of designing the hardware with a small ( 30%) amount
> devoted to software itself. It would seem that NCEES thinks software
> is important enough to test for but not to license as a separate
> category. Perhaps this will change but given that this board equates
> surveying with engineering make me question just how relevant they are.

Did you look at Texas? I haven't followed this closely, but a few years
back they were planning to license software engineers.

Matt

ktbr > wrote:
> Well, when you consider that virtually everything we use today
> involves software it is a dsicipline in its own right.

Ahem. I've written a fair amount software with no dominatrix involved at
all, so I know it can be done undisciplined.


;-)

ktbr wrote:

> Well, when you consider that virtually everything we use today
> involves software it is a dsicipline in its own right. It is a
> vitally important component of any engineering process from design
> and development, modeling, simulation, manufacturing, process control
> (a pilot could not fly an F117 without the software systems), testing
> and on and on.

A discipline, yes. An engineering discipline, no.


> I've designed and developed both analog and digital hardware and
> written the software to support it. I started out in hardware
> and eventually over the years gravitated into software development
> because (at least where I have worked) good software engineers
> were always in high demand. Understanding the CPU architecture
> is important to designing an efficient solution to any problem.

What is your degree in?


> The same engineering principles apply whether you are designing
> a software system or a hardware system and the best designs
> involve a proper division of both disciplines, because most
> most software is controlling or sensing some sort of hardware,
> or interfacing with humans or other systems. Software is
> very diverse and can be extremely low level (micro-coded devices),
> mid level (operating systems and device drivers) and high level
> (applications).

What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's equations?


> Software engineering in terms of design and developing systems
> is engineering (whether anyone likes it or not). Writing a few
> macros for a spreadsheet is not engineering.... but that isn't
> what were were talking about.

What is the fundamental difference between coding a macro and coding a
database routine?

Matt Whiting asked ... "What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's
equations?"

Knuth

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> I'll agree to disagree. I thought the same as you until I got my EE
> degree. There is simply no comparison. The Comp Sci degree was a walk
> in the part compared to EE. And EE's design based on mathematical and
> physical principles.

your CS degree didn't include any numerical analysis? or discrete math?

> I almost never used math when working as a software developer.

you never did any dsp code? Some of the software developers I'm
working with now are doing a considerable amount of math (the
exact nature of this application is sensitive so I won't go into
details)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:33:28 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
> wrote:

>Matt Whiting asked ... "What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's
>equations?"
>
>Knuth

A stretch. "GOTO Seen Harmful"? K&R? I don' think that dog's gonna
hunt. You've gotta get down to Shannon, which I don't think answers
the question wrt programming.

If Swain had a contrary opinion, I'd listen to it.

Don

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> I'll agree to disagree. I thought the same as you until I got my EE
> degree. There is simply no comparison. The Comp Sci degree was a walk
> in the part compared to EE. And EE's design based on mathematical and
> physical principles. I almost never used math when working as a
> software developer.
>
>
FYI I have an EE degree... my minor was in CS. In the areas I have
worked I have actually found software more challenging than hardware
(and I've done both). Just because you never used your CS knowledge
to do much of anything complicated does not mean others don't.

Finally... controlling systems in real time demands that
you understand the engineering laws of electronics/physics
because you design the software to perform the calculations/transforms
or whatever else to produce to correct result... as well as
perform tasks that check the resulting action to insure it
is working then take corrective action if it doesn't.

It takes an excellent electrical engineer to design these
systems. You can marginalize it all you want.

Bob Noel wrote:

>
> you never did any dsp code? Some of the software developers I'm
> working with now are doing a considerable amount of math (the
> exact nature of this application is sensitive so I won't go into
> details)
>

Exactly. It's obvious Matt has never done any serious
design and development of bleeding edge software, so he
just calls software engineers 'geeks' in order to marginalize
the whole thing and make himself feel better.

Personally I've met just as many geek hardware guys as
software guys and I've worked in both environments.

Don Tuite wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:33:28 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
> > wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting asked ... "What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's
>> equations?"
>>
>> Knuth
>
> A stretch. "GOTO Seen Harmful"? K&R? I don' think that dog's gonna
> hunt. You've gotta get down to Shannon, which I don't think answers
> the question wrt programming.
>
> If Swain had a contrary opinion, I'd listen to it.
>
> Don

K&R isn't even close. Knuth is getting closer. I personally think that
Nicklaus Wirth has come the closest to software engineering, but even he
is more of a computer scientist than an engineer and much the same holds
for Dijkstra.

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> I'll agree to disagree. I thought the same as you until I got my EE
>> degree. There is simply no comparison. The Comp Sci degree was a walk
>> in the part compared to EE. And EE's design based on mathematical and
>> physical principles.
>
> your CS degree didn't include any numerical analysis? or discrete math?

Yes, but that was not used in practice. I'm sure their are some folks
who use math in practice, but I've come across VERY few. OTOH, EE, ME
and other engineers use their math tools almost daily.

The reality is that most software that is developed really is about
process and programming, not engineering. Very few programmers can
predict in advance exactly how fast their programs will execute. As a
structural engineer, I can predict with pretty high accuracy how much my
structure will deflect under various loads, what its frequency response
will be to excitation from earthquakes or wind, etc. I've only
extremely rarely seen anything even close to this in the software world.


>> I almost never used math when working as a software developer.
>
> you never did any dsp code? Some of the software developers I'm
> working with now are doing a considerable amount of math (the
> exact nature of this application is sensitive so I won't go into
> details)

No, I never had occasion to write DSP code. I worked in control systems
and similar embedded systems for process and machine control.

Matt

kontiki wrote:
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
>>
>> you never did any dsp code? Some of the software developers I'm
>> working with now are doing a considerable amount of math (the
>> exact nature of this application is sensitive so I won't go into
>> details)
>>
>
> Exactly. It's obvious Matt has never done any serious
> design and development of bleeding edge software, so he
> just calls software engineers 'geeks' in order to marginalize
> the whole thing and make himself feel better.
>
> Personally I've met just as many geek hardware guys as
> software guys and I've worked in both environments.
>

Do you have degrees in both computer science and engineering? If you
do, then we can talk further. If you don't, then you don't know what
you are talking about. I have degrees in both and they are vastly
different.

Matt

kontiki wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll agree to disagree. I thought the same as you until I got my EE
>> degree. There is simply no comparison. The Comp Sci degree was a
>> walk in the part compared to EE. And EE's design based on
>> mathematical and physical principles. I almost never used math when
>> working as a software developer.
>>
>>
> FYI I have an EE degree... my minor was in CS. In the areas I have
> worked I have actually found software more challenging than hardware
> (and I've done both). Just because you never used your CS knowledge
> to do much of anything complicated does not mean others don't.
>
> Finally... controlling systems in real time demands that
> you understand the engineering laws of electronics/physics
> because you design the software to perform the calculations/transforms
> or whatever else to produce to correct result... as well as
> perform tasks that check the resulting action to insure it
> is working then take corrective action if it doesn't.
>
> It takes an excellent electrical engineer to design these
> systems. You can marginalize it all you want.
>

I absolutely agree that it takes an excellent electrical engineer to
design these systems! That was my point. And electrical engineer is an
engineer. A "software engineer" who has no engineering degree or
background is not an engineer.

Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Don Tuite wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:33:28 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting asked ... "What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's
>>> equations?"
>>>
>>> Knuth
>>
>> A stretch. "GOTO Seen Harmful"? K&R? I don' think that dog's gonna
>> hunt. You've gotta get down to Shannon, which I don't think answers
>> the question wrt programming.
>>
>> If Swain had a contrary opinion, I'd listen to it.
>>
>> Don
>
> K&R isn't even close. Knuth is getting closer. I personally think that
> Nicklaus Wirth has come the closest to software engineering, but even he
> is more of a computer scientist than an engineer and much the same holds
> for Dijkstra.

Edgar Codd based his relational database model on predicate logic and set
theory. I'd call it the rough equivalent of Maxwell's equations in the
database world. Databases are pretty fundamental to a lot of applications,
so I don't think it is that much of a stretch.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Don Tuite wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:33:28 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting asked ... "What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's
>>>> equations?"
>>>>
>>>> Knuth
>>> A stretch. "GOTO Seen Harmful"? K&R? I don' think that dog's gonna
>>> hunt. You've gotta get down to Shannon, which I don't think answers
>>> the question wrt programming.
>>>
>>> If Swain had a contrary opinion, I'd listen to it.
>>>
>>> Don
>> K&R isn't even close. Knuth is getting closer. I personally think that
>> Nicklaus Wirth has come the closest to software engineering, but even he
>> is more of a computer scientist than an engineer and much the same holds
>> for Dijkstra.
>
> Edgar Codd based his relational database model on predicate logic and set
> theory. I'd call it the rough equivalent of Maxwell's equations in the
> database world. Databases are pretty fundamental to a lot of applications,
> so I don't think it is that much of a stretch.

Yes, I would tend to agree that the designer of the relational database
was engineering software or at least coming very close. However, I
disagree that the folks that use relational database and design
applications for them are performing engineering.

Unfortunately, what is called software engineering is seldom such. I'm
sure there are a handful of people in the world, but not many compared
to the more traditional engineering disciplines.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Do you have degrees in both computer science and engineering? If you
> do, then we can talk further. If you don't, then you don't know what
> you are talking about. I have degrees in both and they are vastly
> different.
>
> Matt

No, I don't have degrees in both, only Electrical Engineering. But I
don't put down other engineering disciplines like you do. But hey...
like I said.. if it makes you feel better go for it. ;^)

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I absolutely agree that it takes an excellent electrical engineer to
> design these systems! That was my point. And electrical engineer is an
> engineer. A "software engineer" who has no engineering degree or
> background is not an engineer.
>


Whatever... I've interviewed both CS and EE's. Some were excellent
engineers, some were **** poor the rest were average and I never found
those with an EE degree any smarter (ona average) that those with a CS
degree. Attitude counts a lot more with me than what flavor engineering
degree one has. But that's me.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
>>
>> you never did any dsp code? Some of the software developers I'm
>> working with now are doing a considerable amount of math (the
>> exact nature of this application is sensitive so I won't go into
>> details)
>>
>
> Exactly. It's obvious Matt has never done any serious
> design and development of bleeding edge software,

How much of current (and past) software development is "bleeding edge"?

> so he
> just calls software engineers 'geeks' in order to marginalize
> the whole thing and make himself feel better.

How many software "engineers" are actually mere "programmers"?

I recall many teenagers doing "software". I even recall many such places
being called "hobby shops".

> Personally I've met just as many geek hardware guys as
> software guys and I've worked in both environments.

Im not a software person, but I would suspect, based on the handful of
programs I wrote many years ago, that HARDWARE actaully requires/uses
engineering principles that software misses, or, being more abstract,
doesn't support.

IOW, software is more and ART, whereas hardware and other tangibles, are
true ENGINEERING projects.

kontiki wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Do you have degrees in both computer science and engineering? If you
>> do, then we can talk further. If you don't, then you don't know what
>> you are talking about. I have degrees in both and they are vastly
>> different.
>>
>> Matt
>
> No, I don't have degrees in both, only Electrical Engineering. But I
> don't put down other engineering disciplines like you do. But hey...
> like I said.. if it makes you feel better go for it. ;^)

I haven't put down any other engineering disciplines.

Matt

I agree software development isn't engineering, even though I've held the
title of Software Engineer.

In engineering, it's possible to design something (beam, bolt, resistor,
whatever) that's 50% stronger than required. I'd love to know how to design
software that's 50% more reliable than required.

I call myself a Software Architect.

Designing good software is more difficult than practicing any engineering
discipline.

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
> I agree software development isn't engineering, even though I've held the
> title of Software Engineer.
>
> In engineering, it's possible to design something (beam, bolt, resistor,
> whatever) that's 50% stronger than required. I'd love to know how to design
> software that's 50% more reliable than required.

Yes, that is one of the key differences.


> I call myself a Software Architect.

Sounds very appropriate.


> Designing good software is more difficult than practicing any engineering
> discipline.

I don't disagree having written software and designed circuits and now
designing structures (got bored with the electrical/computer world).
And this is exactly the reason that most engineers object to others
using the term engineering inappropriately. Computer science has not
yet progressed to the stage where one can make predictions of
performance in advance and, better yet, design to a specific performance
target. That is one of the essential elements of engineering.

Personally, I object to people using the term engineering just to gain
credibility that aren't willing to earn. When software is designed and
constructed with the precision, predictability and reliability of
products from real engineering disciplines, then I'll be happy to
welcome software into the engineering realm.

I doubt, however, that this is likely anytime soon for the simple reason
that software really is different from most other technical disciplines
and in many ways is as close to writing a novel as to designing a structure.

That aside, I personally believe if people in the software world would
spend as much effort on developing their craft as they do on trying to
claim an engineering title they haven't earned, they might actually
progress the discipline to the point that it would have credibility on
its own.

One of the reasons I left the software world in the mid 90s is the
prevailing culture of mediocrity. I was always researching techniques
to improve software reliability and predictability, looking at more
robust languages such as Ada, more reliable operating systems, etc., but
my colleagues much preferred languages such as C and OSes such as
Windows that have holes you can drive a truck through. After several
years of being the only one in the department who really cared about
advancing the profession rather than being a cowboy, I decided to move
into a real engineering discipline. I haven't looked back and I see no
indication of any real culture change in the industry.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote
> ... One of the reasons I left the software world in the mid 90s is the
> prevailing culture of mediocrity.

Unintentionally encouraged by management, in my experience.

> I was always researching techniques to improve software reliability and
> predictability, looking at more robust languages such as Ada, more
> reliable operating systems, etc., but my colleagues much preferred
> languages such as C and OSes such as Windows that have holes you can drive
> a truck through.

I'm able to write lousy programs in both Ada and C. <g>

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote
>> ... One of the reasons I left the software world in the mid 90s is the
>> prevailing culture of mediocrity.
>
> Unintentionally encouraged by management, in my experience.
>
>> I was always researching techniques to improve software reliability and
>> predictability, looking at more robust languages such as Ada, more
>> reliable operating systems, etc., but my colleagues much preferred
>> languages such as C and OSes such as Windows that have holes you can drive
>> a truck through.
>
> I'm able to write lousy programs in both Ada and C. <g>

I'm sure you are! However, in C it comes almost automatically.

Matt