OT: I was suddenly struck with a thought (POLITICAL)

John Larkin · Jan 11, 2005

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:09:36 -0500, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Presently "they"* are trying to keep things together by running the USD
lower so that the US manufacturing will remain somewhat competitive - and
maybe "they" will luck out and China will break under the weight of
increasing prices for raw-materials and falling USD-earninges.

Maybe Not.

Nice analysis, except for the fact that tha US has a low unemployment
rate - far below most of the rest of the world, well below Europe -
and is creating new jobs at a good clip. If not for absorbing a huge
number of immigrants, we'd have a serious labor shortage. I see lots
of employment ads and "help wanted" signs, at least in my home town.

The unemployment rate only includes those who are still
drawing unemployment. That means that anyone who hasn't found a job
after 6 months of unemployment is not unemployed according to the
US gov't statistics.

I know tech professionals that have been "unemployed" for years. Most
are doing odd jobs well beneath their training.

Professionals aren't trained, they're educated. Dogs are trained.

The "help wanted" signs you are seeing in your home town are for high
quality jobs like waiters, janitorial, checkers, fast food jobs,
stockers, ... Things that out of work 40 something tech professionals
shouldn't have to do at this point in their careers.

Well, the signs are like that. The ads for professionals are in the
newspaper and Craigslist.

Where are the "help wanted" signs for IT, engineering, ...? They
are starting to come back in dribbles, but there are currently nowhere
near enough jobs to hire back all the "chronically unemployed" tech
professionals.

Sadly, too many tech workers are over-specialized in things that
nobody currently needs. And too many people who signed up for
engineering and CS degrees had no great aptitude except a desire to
make a lot of money. Just having a degree doesn't mean you're really
productive. I don't think truly good engineers are going unemployed;
in fact, they're hard to find.

John

John Fields · Jan 11, 2005

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:42:23 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:

I know several very good Engineers who would disagree. The
selection process is getting very specific! I was recently passed
over for a contract because I had not had six years experience
with a tool-program which only came out last year. I think they
WILL have a problem filling that one.

---
Perhaps not. The requirement may have been unique to _your_
application.

--
John Fields

Clarence_A · Jan 11, 2005

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
message news:0128u017kjkusk4l1iss62ssse3tbfsq05@4ax.com...

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:42:23 GMT, the renowned "Clarence_A"
no@No.com> wrote:

I know several very good Engineers who would disagree. The
selection process is getting very specific! I was recently
passed
over for a contract because I had not had six years experience
with a tool-program which only came out last year. I think
they
WILL have a problem filling that one.

They probably wanted someone half as old for a lot less money.

You got THAT right!
However, I expect a call in a few months to come fix whatever they
got done so far. It has happened five times in the last three
years. Hard to fix some of the messes! There is never any
documentation beyond a schematic, nor even a partial project
workbook! One place called me in just to document one design
for the test department. Couldn't figure out how to test, and
there was no information on what specifications it should meet!

Jim Thompson · Jan 12, 2005

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:59:02 -0800, John Larkin <john@spamless.usa>
wrote:

On 12 Jan 2005 14:05:22 GMT, Daniel Haude
haude@kir.physnet.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:

As far as WWII is concerned -- the US wasn't much of a killer unit then.
They just dabbled in the war pretty late just to secure some stakes in
Europe. WWII was mainly won by the Soviets (with tremendous losses), with
some help from the British.

Wow, it's a lot easier to make up history than to read all those long
boring books.

John

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Jan 12, 2005

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:20:43 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:59:02 -0800, John Larkin <john@spamless.usa
wrote:

On 12 Jan 2005 14:05:22 GMT, Daniel Haude
haude@kir.physnet.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:

As far as WWII is concerned -- the US wasn't much of a killer unit then.
They just dabbled in the war pretty late just to secure some stakes in
Europe. WWII was mainly won by the Soviets (with tremendous losses), with
some help from the British.

Wow, it's a lot easier to make up history than to read all those long
boring books.

John

Sno-o-o-o-o-ort !-)

I think Haude is just another NAZI in hiding.

...Jim Thompson

Whatever his politics, his ignorance of what happened from 1939 to
1945 is impressive. But then, there are lots of people who have no
desire to remember that era, much less accurately.

John

John Larkin · Jan 12, 2005

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:50:43 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"Daniel Haude" <haude@kir.physnet.uni-hamburg.de> schreef in bericht
news:slrncuahu5.20v.haude@kir.physnet.uni-hamburg.de...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:01:05 -0700,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote
in Msg. <gleau015jvdhsnl9br19shrdtlfq5lrdjd@4ax.com

Believe whatever propaganda you wish...

Is that all you can supply as a counter-argument?

Jim Thompson is a simple minded peasant. A few borrowed
spice tricks and the rest of his bag is empty.

Wow, the stupid peasant insult again. This guy is really down on
farmers.

John

John Larkin · Jan 12, 2005

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:56:10 -0500, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:09:36 -0500, Chuck Harris

Professionals aren't trained, they're educated. Dogs are trained.

Mince words all you want John.

The difference is real. Training teaches one to do a specific action
accurately, like writing Pascal or something. Education means
understanding basics and learning to solve problems. I was "trained"
to analyze vacuum-tube class-A amplifiers in college, and never used
the training. Being a working EE means a lifetime of study and keeping
current, something the kids aren't told when they sign up.

Having an EE degree is no guarantee of lifetime employment. About the
only undergrad education I know of that does guarantee lifetime
employment almost anywhere in the world is nursing.

John

Chuck Harris · Jan 12, 2005

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:56:10 -0500, Chuck Harris
cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:09:36 -0500, Chuck Harris

Professionals aren't trained, they're educated. Dogs are trained.

Mince words all you want John.

The difference is real. Training teaches one to do a specific action
accurately, like writing Pascal or something. Education means
understanding basics and learning to solve problems. I was "trained"
to analyze vacuum-tube class-A amplifiers in college, and never used
the training. Being a working EE means a lifetime of study and keeping
current, something the kids aren't told when they sign up.

Having an EE degree is no guarantee of lifetime employment. About the
only undergrad education I know of that does guarantee lifetime
employment almost anywhere in the world is nursing.

John

You are still mincing words John. Training and learning mean much the
same thing. The biggest difference is whether the activity is self
directed, or is done in a formal setting.

I have been an EE for 25 years. Throughout my entire career, I have
learned what I have needed to know to do my job. That is entirely immaterial
to our earlier discussion. When the rules change, and well trained,
highly experienced US engineers are not what is being employed anymore.

Because of the requirements of H1B visas, employers are required to first
show that they couldn't find a suitable candidate for a given job from
within the US job force before they can hire an H1B visa'd employee.

Employers are motivated to hire the H1B's because they are cheaper, so what
is done is the job descriptions are made with impossible requirements,
such as 7 years of experience with Windows 2000. When they cannot find
any US resume's that meets their impossible requirements, they hire the
H1B.

-Chuck

Jim Thompson · Jan 12, 2005

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:03:37 -0500, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:56:10 -0500, Chuck Harris
cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:09:36 -0500, Chuck Harris

Professionals aren't trained, they're educated. Dogs are trained.

Mince words all you want John.

The difference is real. Training teaches one to do a specific action
accurately, like writing Pascal or something. Education means
understanding basics and learning to solve problems. I was "trained"
to analyze vacuum-tube class-A amplifiers in college, and never used
the training. Being a working EE means a lifetime of study and keeping
current, something the kids aren't told when they sign up.

Having an EE degree is no guarantee of lifetime employment. About the
only undergrad education I know of that does guarantee lifetime
employment almost anywhere in the world is nursing.

John

You are still mincing words John. Training and learning mean much the
same thing. The biggest difference is whether the activity is self
directed, or is done in a formal setting.

I have been an EE for 25 years. Throughout my entire career, I have
learned what I have needed to know to do my job. That is entirely immaterial
to our earlier discussion. When the rules change, and well trained,
highly experienced US engineers are not what is being employed anymore.

Because of the requirements of H1B visas, employers are required to first
show that they couldn't find a suitable candidate for a given job from
within the US job force before they can hire an H1B visa'd employee.

Employers are motivated to hire the H1B's because they are cheaper, so what
is done is the job descriptions are made with impossible requirements,
such as 7 years of experience with Windows 2000. When they cannot find
any US resume's that meets their impossible requirements, they hire the
H1B.

-Chuck

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Jan 13, 2005

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:28:21 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:

In one case there was a PhD in charge. It was a digital function
generator which exhibited increasing third harmonic distortion in
the sinusoidal mode. (all, but it was most obvious in Sine.)

What was wrong with it?

John

Clarence_A · Jan 13, 2005

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
news

an.2005.01.13.17.36.18.220087@example.net...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:14:01 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:45:36 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com
wrote:

I think the designer used an ideal model, or none, in his
evaluation of anticipated performance.

I was shocked at his tantrum when I tried to explain my change
to
him. The circuit was fine, but he exploded! Claimed that the
u741 was "good to 1MHz" as a unity gain inverter. (Yes, but
there
IS a phase shift due to the compensation.)

Ah, a PhD fathead. Never heard of slew rate, either.

BS = Well, everyone knows what BS is.
MS = More of the Same.
PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper.

Cheers!
Rich

However I did not know that 'PhD' was explosive!
His quitting was probably due to 'losing face' with his employer!
I've seen that happen before.

Clarence_A · Jan 13, 2005

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com>
wrote in message
news:9mndu0dtdbrn292thnsmip64g9vigdtb36@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:44:47 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com
wrote:

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.13.17.36.18.220087@example.net...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:14:01 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:45:36 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com
wrote:

I think the designer used an ideal model, or none, in his
evaluation of anticipated performance.

I was shocked at his tantrum when I tried to explain my
change
to
him. The circuit was fine, but he exploded! Claimed that
the
u741 was "good to 1MHz" as a unity gain inverter. (Yes,
but
there
IS a phase shift due to the compensation.)

Ah, a PhD fathead. Never heard of slew rate, either.

BS = Well, everyone knows what BS is.
MS = More of the Same.
PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper.

Cheers!
Rich

However I did not know that 'PhD' was explosive!
His quitting was probably due to 'losing face' with his
employer!
I've seen that happen before.

Anybody who has to be right 100% of the time, and can't bear to
be
corrected by "inferiors", shouldn't be in the electronics
business.
I'm delighted when one on my engineers corrects one of my
mistakes: it
means they're thinking.

John

Absolutely! I was roundly criticized in one place for suggesting
that ALL designs be formally reviewed before release to
production. The "Consensus" was that only the assigned Engineer
needed to be comfortable with the release documents. We got the
review process in place and the average number of corrections or
changes per release was eight. Some were project stoppers. Now
there are release standards, and a check sheet, so the corrections
are down significantly. Learning from mistakes works!

Clarence_A · Jan 12, 2005

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:sqqdnWXUnv8mHnncRVn-uA@rcn.net...

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:09:36 -0500, Chuck Harris

<snip>

I don't think truly good engineers are going unemployed;
in fact, they're hard to find.

Just the opposite is true, I know numerous highly educated 40
something's
that cannot find engineering jobs. The current job offers are
all too
specific, and for way too little pay.
-Chuck

Hear - Hear!

Dirk Bruere at Neopax · Jan 12, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

On 12 Jan 2005 15:52:35 GMT, Daniel Haude
haude@kir.physnet.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:01:05 -0700,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote
in Msg. <gleau015jvdhsnl9br19shrdtlfq5lrdjd@4ax.com

Believe whatever propaganda you wish...

Is that all you can supply as a counter-argument?

--Daniel

It's pretty hard to reason with a person when they can't hear because
their head is firmly buried up their ass...

"They just dabbled in the war pretty late just to secure some stakes
in Europe", pretty well proves that you're just a brain-washed
EuroPeon... Peon... Peon... Peon... Peon... Peon... ;-)

For my personal enjoyment, may the EuroPeon crash come in my lifetime.

That will be some time after the US crash, and just before China becomes
history's final superpower.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Chuck Harris · Jan 12, 2005

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:09:36 -0500, Chuck Harris

Professionals aren't trained, they're educated. Dogs are trained.

Mince words all you want John.

The "help wanted" signs you are seeing in your home town are for high
quality jobs like waiters, janitorial, checkers, fast food jobs,
stockers, ... Things that out of work 40 something tech professionals
shouldn't have to do at this point in their careers.

Well, the signs are like that. The ads for professionals are in the
newspaper and Craigslist.

Where are the "help wanted" signs for IT, engineering, ...? They
are starting to come back in dribbles, but there are currently nowhere
near enough jobs to hire back all the "chronically unemployed" tech
professionals.

Sadly, too many tech workers are over-specialized in things that
nobody currently needs. And too many people who signed up for
engineering and CS degrees had no great aptitude except a desire to
make a lot of money. Just having a degree doesn't mean you're really
productive. I don't think truly good engineers are going unemployed;
in fact, they're hard to find.

Just the opposite is true, I know numerous highly educated 40 somethings
that cannot find engineering jobs. The current job offers are all too
specific, and for way too little pay.

-Chuck

Rich Grise · Jan 13, 2005

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:14:01 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:45:36 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:

I think the designer used an ideal model, or none, in his
evaluation of anticipated performance.

I was shocked at his tantrum when I tried to explain my change to
him. The circuit was fine, but he exploded! Claimed that the
u741 was "good to 1MHz" as a unity gain inverter. (Yes, but there
IS a phase shift due to the compensation.)

Ah, a PhD fathead. Never heard of slew rate, either.

BS = Well, everyone knows what BS is.
MS = More of the Same.
PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper.

Cheers!
Rich

Fred Abse · Jan 16, 2005

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:45:36 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:

floating paraphrase amplifier

In other words.......

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)

Clarence_A · Jan 16, 2005

"John Woodgate" wrote

Clarence_A wrote

How is this BAD?

It's not bad if no changes result from the review. It is bad *in
principle* if changes result, because changes are being made
after the
design process is suppose to be finished. It's like 'inspecting
quality
into the product'. But of course the end result, the improved
design, is
not bad. But it should not have been achieved that way, and if
designers
come to rely on the review process to find their mistakes, so
much the
worse.

So you are only quibbling!
If there were omissions then they had to be corrected. Having the
process in place generally assures that no changes to the design
are made late in the process, however incomplete or otherwise
inadequate documentation sometimes is a release issue. There are
some people who try to skip steps in the documentation process.
Also sometimes the descriptions are poorly worded and need to be
expanded to provide the level of clarity to make the description
useful to test of field installation. Not really a technical
issue.

However John, I realize that all this is irrelevant in a one
man
operation, or for audio work! Nothing "Mission critical" about
audio is
there!

You speak of what you do not know. Voice alarm systems are
safety-of-
life systems, even if they don't fly.

Your opine is noted.
Audio subsystems on aircraft are only "Mission critical" in the
cockpit!

John Woodgate · Jan 16, 2005

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <d89lu0pob9a3im50jv114ssoe89f6hsri2@
4ax.com&gt

about 'OT: I was suddenly struck with a thought (POLITICAL)',
on Sun, 16 Jan 2005:

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:03:30 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Clarence_A <no@No.com> wrote (in
sVuGd.2348$8Z1.397@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'OT: I was
suddenly struck with a thought (POLITICAL)', on Sun, 16 Jan 2005:

How is this BAD?

It's not bad if no changes result from the review. It is bad *in
principle* if changes result, because changes are being made after the
design process is suppose to be finished.

I think regular design reviews encourage designers to get it right the
first time, as a cultural/engineering macho thing. That applies
specially to things that work, or can be made to work, but are not the
best design, or are hard to manufacture or test. If there's no review,
and the thing is just built and manufactured that way forever. An
engineer should approach a design review as playing to an audience of
his peers (and sometimes his rivals), and should want to come out with
a great review.

Another longterm benefit of circuit reviews is that it encourages a
culture of collaboration, where an engineer will informally get
others' advice during the design process. This can have startling
benefits.

In short, design reviews aren't just "testing quality into designs"
but can change the design culture for the better.

In themselves, they ARE. The need to change the design culture is the

up-side and needs to be recognized and implemented. THEN the overall
effect is positive. If the design review is regarded by everyone as
trial by ordeal, and a Roman arena where lab politics and egos rule,
then the whole thing becomes corrosive and saps morale very quickly. You
may have noticed contributions to this thread that indicate what I mean.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Rich Grise · Jan 16, 2005

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:31:53 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:

"John Woodgate" wrote
Clarence_A wrote
....
We got the review process in place and the
average number of corrections or changes per release was eight.
Some
were project stoppers. Now there are release standards, and a
check
sheet, so the corrections are down significantly. Learning
from
mistakes works!

Indeed it does. It isn't the review process that's good - in
fact it's
in principle BAD - inserting quality (of design) after the
design
process is supposed to be over. What is good is that the process
causes
much better thinking at the design stage itself.

A step by step review of documents, and test results posted in a
design package are "In principal BAD?" The quality of the design
is not the issue, it is the verification and validation which is
the entire point.

Well, in the first place, he didn't say "in principal", he said "in
principle."

The point is, quality is supposed to be _built_ in, not _inspected_ in.

Cheers!
Rich

OT: I was suddenly struck with a thought (POLITICAL)

John Larkin

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Clarence_A

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Clarence_A

Guest

Clarence_A

Guest

Clarence_A

Guest

Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Fred Abse

Guest

Clarence_A

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor