See, now, this has all the elements for a new game show, a cross between 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire', 'Junkyard Wars' and 'Monster Garage'. A daunting series of increasingly complex tasks to overcome! Limited resources at your disposal! Your wits, intuition, and experience are your only hope! Strong language, potential violence...oh, the drama!! Heck, you even get to phone a friend!
Somebody come up with a title with a hook; I'll call TNN :)
snip
Your off to a bad start. For some reason (that I can't explain), the term "Engineer" increasingly means a computer software writer. I was complaining about a problem with Google Adwords to a tech who demanded, "Are you an Engineer?!" Confused, I say "Yes." This took her aback. It was only later that I realized that she was asking if I wrote code.
Where is the "engine" for this type of "Engineer"? I worked with an old Engineer doing Space hardware who ridiculed the young crop of Mechanical Engineers who had never so much as changed spark plugs. In his mind, even the old, classic definition of "engine" (meaning any moving, mechanical device) doesn't justify applying "Engineer" to someone who designs, say, stationary brackets. Imagine what he'd say about code writers gaining the moniker.
I'd watch it :) How about "Knuckle Busters". "Great Fuming Pissed Off Gear Heads"? Or i know "Who Wants To Be An Arm Chair Engineer!" at the end of the show the contestant gets to point out how by moving something one or two inches the engineers of the device could have made it run better or be more serviceable.
I can see it now... Host: "to be serviceable; the #4 plug boot on a 95
5.0 Mustang must be: A) reachable with at least one finger B) reachable with one finger and one flat bladed screw driver C) reachable by taking off lines, unbolting crap, and disconnecting stuff or D) reachable by at least two fingers of the human hand AND opposable thumb.Okay, boy was she wrong (the google lady) I have a degree in Computer Engeneering and we were taught how to design parts that run a computer. People who just write code are not engineers.
I also own a 94 Mustang GT and was ROTFLMMFAO. I ripped off the #5 boot (passenger side, firewall). It took me about an hour before I could even get the new plug into the hole and started.
Oh, and I broke my Universal drive on plug #8 (just bought the car and the plugs were rusted in, not the threads to much, but I guarentee that no anti-seize was used). Darn drive cost $10 to replace.
-Arjay
Ron Hammon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@charter.nyet:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 23:25:47 -0400, Simon Juncal wrote something wonderfully witty:
Would that be spelling?
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 23:17:37 -0500, Ron Hammon wrote something wonderfully witty:
Even though this is quite off-topic I will throw my .02 cents in. An Engineer is simply at it's purist form is one who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering. This could include Software Engineering. However, a Software Engineer is not one who writes code, but one who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance; an efficient manager. They oversee a project develop milestones, project plans, staffing models, work with predictive tools such as the COCOMO model. Please see the following web site
Flame suit is now on for ever opening my big mouth on the subject. Fire away.
snip
snip
This is exactly the point. Where is the "engine", the real-world, mechanical mechanism? Stretching "Engineer" to fit any desired position (sanitary engineer), is just plain silly. One who manages software projects is no more an "Engineer" (a designer/operator of mechanisms, even electrical mechanisms) than a code writer. The same is doubly true for the (ab)use of "Architect" (a designer of physical structures).
Most engineers I deal with are the WORST spellers I know! ;^) Ever read set of drawings? StuK
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
Would you like your official anal retentive spelling checker of RAMFM badge now, or should we save it for the next time you misspell something?
of drawings?
snip
Let me wade in here. Coming from a long and varied career in drawing production, from junior drafter up, I can assure you that spelling is seldom a problem. This may have changed somewhat since they now turn "little boy engineers" loose with CAD software.
My beef is with the absolute lack of tense consistency in general notes. MIL-STD-100 clearly states the definition of an engineering drawing as defining the end-product as it EXISTS! This means that a part isn't "to be painted" or "paint with", it IS painted! It IS deburred. It IS identified. It IS assembled. (The examples in MIL-STD-100 don't even meet its own definition!)
Now that the secret is out, you're now ruined! From now on, every drawing that you see will have a strange mix of tenses in the general notes. One note will state "trimmed" and the very next one will say "ream".
By the way, I am the drawing checker from hell!
It was a joke BTW! However kudos to you on your thoroughness.
"shall be" are the words I generally look for.
Apart from the drawings I deal with it is always a great laugh to see the specs I have to match to the drawings. Some look like the consultant ate their last 10 bid specs and then puked them onto a new ream of paper! Ah the evil that is "drive by" cut and paste. Most of the time you get three names for one room. Well is it the "LAN room", "Telecom closet" or "Telecommunications room" and on the drawing it's just a room number, the Riser diagram it's called "Data Hub" geeze! And nowhere do any of the names cross-reference to one another in the specs.
I have an idea that consultants have their own personal hell waiting for them ( and they are all going there!). In it they must produce a quote based on their own documents! Revenge is sweet. StuK
drawings?
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:09:06 -0500, Ron Hammon wrote something wonderfully witty:
Grab a dictionary my friend, many words have more then one meaning.
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:33:11 -0400, Simon Juncal wrote something wonderfully witty:
^^^^^^^
Would you like your own official smart-ass badge or a sense or humor.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 05:47:45 -0500, Ron Hammon wrote something wonderfully witty:
I thought that I was rather clear that I was professionally trained as a Software Engineer and certified by the SEI. I only worked in the career field briefly before making a jump to executive management.
If the point you are attempting to make is that the term "Engineer" is over used, I agree. If you are attempting to say that there is no such thing as a Software Engineer I do not concur, nor does Carnegie Mellon University or the SEI. I provided links in my original post that will provide you with all the information as to the course of study and why it is considered a form of Engineering.
From
An Engineer is: One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering.
Engineering is: To plan, manage, and put through by skillful acts or contrivance; maneuver.
From Latin it is simply: ability to contrive.
Is that a Job offer? I don't know if I have what it takes; the thought of abandoning common sense so I can get away with things like using a longer length of ridged metal tubing just so I can block a spark plug in. Or securing a nylon cord using one small screw and a stamped metal washer so the the cord snaps off after 20 or 30 starts. While getting to the cord requires removing 25 odd male AND female torx bolts, just to secure two pieces of non-structural plastic together. I guess the washers they drew up didn't have sharp or burred edges in AutoCAD.
Seriously I don't have anything against Engineers, I just think more of them need some hands on experience with the mechanisms they'll be designing.
You're right I thought you were defending them :) FWIW I do it for a living to some degree. I'm a shop manager, and get to deal with all sorts of busted small and large equipment, and regular maintenance on our vehicles.
I am not sure exactly what you are getting at, and while there are engineers out there that can't do jack, and I've worked with a number of them, these are the types big corporations love to hire and promote. Engineers who actually can wield tools are generally confined to the lowest ranks where they are most useful, and the others useless.
Now those useless engineers get promoted to manage the useful ones and you begin to see why designs end up bad. Now throw in making design decisions based on the manager's bonus being maximized, political considerations within the company, cost, manufacturing, quality departments, and so forth and that's why you get what you get.
You seem to think that servicing is the only consideration. Let me tell ya something, it's about last on the list generally for most products. The only time it's not is when the company pays for it. If the customer pays for it and/or only warranty is paid by the company you can forget about the engineers being allowed to add cost or compromise manufacturing to make it easier to work on.
As I went through my engineering coursework and first job I began to realize why it's such a pain to do this-or-that under the hood of the car. I could see *exactly* what was prioritized, how the car went together in the factory, how that stupid f'ing thing got in the way because it was 2 cents cheaper to build that way, etc and so on.
In other words, much of it has a rational explaination when you know the whole picture. Then toss in the stuff from my previous post and that's the rest of it.
Was that supposed to *improve* my opinion of engineers?
It was supposed to give insight as to the way things are. You think servicing the products is hard, you try reporting to, ,implementing the designs of, and cleaning up the disasters caused by, people who can't design their way out of a wet paper bag!
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.