ENvironmentally Friendly Inter City Aircraft powered by Fuel Cells

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