Hey, guys.....
Me
Another afterthought:
Maybe two months ago I got a (slick, cardstock) brochure from one of the
societies I used to belong to about an upcoming international meeting (I
used to go to them, but I stopped paying my dues long ago and, of course,
they stopped sending the usual stuff to me, but once in a while I still
get meeting announcements (registration fees went up quite a bit, too).
So, I looked it over to see what names I would recognize out of at least
a hundred of the invited speakers, etc. I think I barely recognized maybe
two out of all. So, there you are. Turnover in about 15 years: more than
90-95%. How about topics, subject areas, disciplins, whatever? I'm going
to guess from memory about 15 % were new or emerging "hot topics" or
technologies. The rest (~85%) were all the usual, high permanence areas
that have been around for 3-4 decades back.
Now, here is the doozie part: There was a session organized around the
'career' portion of the conference and here was the title:
"If I only knew then what I know now"
And under it was one of those heart-to-heart paragraphs that talked all
"around" whatever "it" was that people know now that they wished they
knew back then. Kinda sounded like it was going to be some kind of "group
therapy" and hand-holding, maybe wishful thinking, too. Whatdya wanna
bet it was about the crappy job prospects for scientist careers?
BMJ
Last weekend was the annual alumni event at my alma mater. My
participation was limited to singing with the alumni of a choral group I
was a member of during my final undergraduate year.
We rehearsed some pieces that we were going to perform at the gala. Due to
a mixup in the program, we didn't sing our last number when we thought we
would, so we waited for a few minutes. During that time, we listened to
some speeches which were largely concerned with--you guessed it--$$$$, and
lots of it.
One of the speakers was the president who trotted out some cutesy
rags-to-academic-success stories (barf!) and blathered on about "paying it
forward". The bad news of it all was that the university renewed her
contract, no doubt as a reward for all the loot she managed to haul in over
the past few years.
I guess that explains why the uni rose in the just-released annual
rankings. Meanwhile, a lot of well-educated alumni can't get jobs....
Me
Hi Bernhard,
Another afterthought: I came across this book (notice the title):
"International Challenges to the American Colleges and
Universities--Looking Ahead"
by two adminstrators who were editors (chapters authored by other
adminstrators, deans), and published by the Am Council on
Education (another--you guessed it--lobbying group)
To cut a long story short, the "corporatization" of the educational system
also includes its globalization (read: establish branch campuses offshore)
and grow in size, etc.
So, here we have a further evolution in an organization away from its
primary, original mession: the guardian and propagator of knowledge and
wisdom. Now, its all about growth and _moneyharvesting_. Yes, I read parts
of it, here and there. It was also quite confused, but I think the nitty
gritty was really known by the authors but hidden because they did not
want to seem "unseemly" but if you read any of it, you got the picture,
sublininally (yes, money was important).
If there was any semantic detail, it was that the word
"internationalization" was thrown around at ever opportunity, just as you
would see the word "globalization" in any kind of medium dealing with
commercial business.
Welcome to the Matrix.
BMJ
<snip>
G'day.
>
> Another afterthought: I came across this book (notice the title):
>
> "International Challenges to the American Colleges and
> Universities--Looking Ahead"
>
> by two adminstrators who were editors (chapters authored by other
> adminstrators, deans), and published by the Am Council on Education
> (another--you guessed it--lobbying group)
>
> To cut a long story short, the "corporatization" of the educational
> system also includes its globalization (read: establish branch campuses
> offshore) and grow in size, etc.
I noticed that with my alma mater and the place I went to for my first
undergrad year.
The local uni has outgrown its main campus location and has opened up two
city branches, which includes churning up some prime real estate on its
farm. The junior college where I studied as a freshman (an hour's drive
away) ran itself into the ground and, from what I heard, was sold to the
uni for the token dollar. Its objective is to not just be one of the
world's top 20, but double its student population from when it was when I
was an undergrad 30 years ago.
My former employer is busy with its own program of mergers and
acquisitions. It took over a number of small local colleges throughout the
province and slapped its insignia on the door. It wants to be the biggest
institution of its kind in the country.
>
> So, here we have a further evolution in an organization away from its
> primary, original mession: the guardian and propagator of knowledge and
> wisdom. Now, its all about growth and _moneyharvesting_. Yes, I read
> parts of it, here and there. It was also quite confused, but I think the
> nitty gritty was really known by the authors but hidden because they did
> not want to seem "unseemly" but if you read any of it, you got the
> picture, sublininally (yes, money was important).
I attended a number of alumni functions over the past year or so. Although
it wasn't specifically stated, the objective of those gatherings was to
charm money out of our pockets. At one, I introduced myself to the dean of
engineering. When I told him that I was semi-retired, his response was
something like "Ooooh! I guess you can make a tuition donation now! I bit
my tongue.
It turns out that I wasn't the only one who noticed his tendency to be a
shameless shill. I was at an IEEE meeting last year and talked to someone
who works inside the dean's office. She told me similar stories.
>
> If there was any semantic detail, it was that the word
> "internationalization" was thrown around at ever opportunity, just as
> you would see the word "globalization" in any kind of medium dealing
> with commercial business.
>
> Welcome to the Matrix.
QSL.
>
>
>
Me
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
As our plutocracy becomes even more plutocracized, more and more
organizations (eg. companies) are becoming "fronts" for the new scam which
is that the organization is a money redistributor aimed to enrich the
administrators/managers/executive (usually at the expense of the
underlings).
> The local uni has outgrown its main campus location and has opened up two
> city branches, which includes churning up some prime real estate on its farm.
> The junior college where I studied as a freshman (an hour's drive away) ran
> itself into the ground and, from what I heard, was sold to the uni for the
> token dollar. Its objective is to not just be one of the world's top 20, but
> double its student population from when it was when I was an undergrad 30
> years ago.
>
> My former employer is busy with its own program of mergers and acquisitions.
Education has become a new racket: Besides your formal, for credit
programs, they have non-credit programs and "institutes for life-long
learning." They will be glad to take your money as another form of
"socialism" (i.e. a guaranteed revenue stream) for the administrators/etc.
> It took over a number of small local colleges throughout the province and
> slapped its insignia on the door. It wants to be the biggest institution of
> its kind in the country.
Here where I am, at least one of the local colleges runs all kinds of
"trips" as "educational experiences" and they include world travel
programs (you visit Europe, Russia, etc), daytrips to NJ casino cities,
etc.
>>
>> So, here we have a further evolution in an organization away from its
>> primary, original mession: the guardian and propagator of knowledge and
>> wisdom. Now, its all about growth and _moneyharvesting_. Yes, I read parts
>> of it, here and there. It was also quite confused, but I think the nitty
>> gritty was really known by the authors but hidden because they did not want
>> to seem "unseemly" but if you read any of it, you got the picture,
>> sublininally (yes, money was important).
>
> I attended a number of alumni functions over the past year or so. Although
> it wasn't specifically stated, the objective of those gatherings was to charm
> money out of our pockets.
High pressure, high hype self-promotion is the new "business model" where
an actual product/service is not what you get for your money; instead YOU
are supposed to get this big warm-fuzzy feeling in your heart and THEY get
the bucks.
At one, I introduced myself to the dean of
> engineering. When I told him that I was semi-retired, his response was
> something like "Ooooh! I guess you can make a tuition donation now!
My alma matter keeps sending me panderings to make a bequest to its
"capital development" fund or its scholarship pool.
My wife gets these, too.
I bit
> my tongue.
You should have said: "In your dreams!"
> It turns out that I wasn't the only one who noticed his tendency to be a
> shameless shill. I was at an IEEE meeting last year and talked to someone
> who works inside the dean's office. She told me similar stories.
There is a lot of this going around. Too bad they don't have a flu shot
for it.
>>
>> If there was any semantic detail, it was that the word
>> "internationalization" was thrown around at ever opportunity, just as you
>> would see the word "globalization" in any kind of medium dealing with
>> commercial business.
>>
>> Welcome to the Matrix.
>
> QSL.
Perhaps I should explain my reference to the Matrix (where "reality" is
"simulated" to look like something other than the real reality). Or, the
psychologists make reference to "the elephant in the living room" that
certain people can't see.
Oh, yes (and for Phil Scott) I picked up (again at one of the local thrift
stores for a buck) another book "Why Smart Executives Fail" and was paging
through it. Why? Its kinda like my old question: why scientists (and other
PhDs) are unable to: i) see (anticipate) their own plight, and ii)
unwilling to do anything about it (viz. my efforts from 1992-about 2000
to warn guys, try to get guys together) to do something about the problem
(i.e. "if I only knew then what I know now"). But, here we have a business
professor who wrote a book (not all good, not all bad) with the idea that
if BA and MBA types would try to understand how plane crashes can be
studied they might maybe learn something that would help prevent future
plane crashes (if you get my drift).
Again, looking at the reference list I saw that about half of the
references were to interviews with executives or former executives about
their failed companies or failed efforts. What I did not see much of is
any breakdown or analysis from outside observers to see if independent
observers agreed with the self-reporting by the executives.
I think it is also good to read the biographies and business history
books, too (eg. "Chainsaw Al" and "Barbarians at the Gate" and "Trust Me
[Charles Keating]") to really see how completely out of touch with reality e
xecutives can be and how blind BoDs can be, too (Sunbeam's BoD chose about
4-5 CEOs right in a row and they were all duds and made life miserable for
the employees and last time I heard [a few years ago], the company was
still not doing well).
You know, they've had books out on this stuff (eg. "In Search of
Excellence" [the antithesis of "Why Smart Executive Fail"]) for some
three decades now, and last time I heard, business failure rates are
still, today, about where they were decades ago. Kinda reminds me about
the "economist problem(s)"-- they don't know their asses from a hole in
the ground, either.
BMJ
<anip>
>>> Another afterthought: I came across this book (notice the title):
>>>
>>> "International Challenges to the American Colleges and
>>> Universities--Looking Ahead"
>>>
>>> by two adminstrators who were editors (chapters authored by other
>>> adminstrators, deans), and published by the Am Council on Education
>>> (another--you guessed it--lobbying group)
>>>
>>> To cut a long story short, the "corporatization" of the educational
>>> system also includes its globalization (read: establish branch
>>> campuses offshore) and grow in size, etc.
>>
>> I noticed that with my alma mater and the place I went to for my first
>> undergrad year.
>
> As our plutocracy becomes even more plutocracized, more and more
> organizations (eg. companies) are becoming "fronts" for the new scam
> which is that the organization is a money redistributor aimed to enrich
> the administrators/managers/executive (usually at the expense of the
> underlings).
I saw that at the place where I used to teach. There was never enough
money to pay the instructors properly but there was always a new carpet in
the executive office or another display or monument put up for
distinguished (i. e., rich and generous) alumni or donors.
At the same time, these institutions provide convenient settings for petty
bureaucrats to advance themselves and, thereby, make a lot of money. A
while ago, I read that a former office mate of mine is now assistant dean.
I knew that he'd become assistant department head a few years after I
left but I didn't think he was going to go further. (I guess he has to
keep up with his wife who started as a member of the separate school board
and is now a member of the provincial legislature.)
>
>> The local uni has outgrown its main campus location and has opened up
>> two city branches, which includes churning up some prime real estate
>> on its farm. The junior college where I studied as a freshman (an
>> hour's drive away) ran itself into the ground and, from what I heard,
>> was sold to the uni for the token dollar. Its objective is to not
>> just be one of the world's top 20, but double its student population
>> from when it was when I was an undergrad 30 years ago.
>>
>> My former employer is busy with its own program of mergers and
>> acquisitions.
>
> Education has become a new racket: Besides your formal, for credit
> programs, they have non-credit programs and "institutes for life-long
> learning." They will be glad to take your money as another form of
> "socialism" (i.e. a guaranteed revenue stream) for the administrators/etc.
Along with that one can include courses which are offered for credit
towards one's mandatory professional development hours. I've seen ads for
many of them. Typically, one pays the proverbial arm and a leg for one or
two days of information which one could obtain by reading the right kind of
books. But, because they are officially recognized for that purpose, one
is encouraged to take them.
Somebody's likely making a lot of money on that one.
>
>> It took over a number of small local colleges throughout the province
>> and slapped its insignia on the door. It wants to be the biggest
>> institution of its kind in the country.
>
> Here where I am, at least one of the local colleges runs all kinds of
> "trips" as "educational experiences" and they include world travel
> programs (you visit Europe, Russia, etc), daytrips to NJ casino cities,
> etc.
My alma mater's alumni association offers the same sort of thing.
>
>>>
>>> So, here we have a further evolution in an organization away from its
>>> primary, original mession: the guardian and propagator of knowledge
>>> and wisdom. Now, its all about growth and _moneyharvesting_. Yes, I
>>> read parts of it, here and there. It was also quite confused, but I
>>> think the nitty gritty was really known by the authors but hidden
>>> because they did not want to seem "unseemly" but if you read any of
>>> it, you got the picture, sublininally (yes, money was important).
>>
>> I attended a number of alumni functions over the past year or so.
>> Although it wasn't specifically stated, the objective of those
>> gatherings was to charm money out of our pockets.
>
> High pressure, high hype self-promotion is the new "business model"
> where an actual product/service is not what you get for your money;
> instead YOU are supposed to get this big warm-fuzzy feeling in your
> heart and THEY get the bucks.
The typical ploy is to appeal to one's recollection of those halcyon days
when one was a student. Upon hearing the pitch, the alumnus or alumna
towards whom that's been directed is supposed to heave a nostalgic sigh,
and write a generous cheque in the hope that some student will have a
similarly joyous experience. Never mind the fact that things have likely
changed considerably in between time and the money's likely going to be
frittered away on something ridiculous like team-building training.
After how I saw, while I was working on my last two degrees, money being
shamelessly squandered, I figured that the uni didn't need anything from me.
>
> At one, I introduced myself to the dean of
>> engineering. When I told him that I was semi-retired, his response
>> was something like "Ooooh! I guess you can make a tuition donation now!
>
> My alma matter keeps sending me panderings to make a bequest to its
> "capital development" fund or its scholarship pool.
>
> My wife gets these, too.
I get my share of those, too.
>
> I bit
>> my tongue.
>
> You should have said: "In your dreams!"
I thought of giving him an answer like that, but I wanted to be polite.
>
>> It turns out that I wasn't the only one who noticed his tendency to be
>> a shameless shill. I was at an IEEE meeting last year and talked to
>> someone who works inside the dean's office. She told me similar stories.
>
> There is a lot of this going around. Too bad they don't have a flu shot
> for it.
I'm frequently reminded of that old brokerage ad in which the actor John
Houseman spoke the line: "We make our money the old-fashioned way--we
*earn* it." It would be refreshing to see one's alma mater use that
approach to its finances rather than: "You alumni owe your prosperity to
*us*, now pay up!"
>
>>>
>>> If there was any semantic detail, it was that the word
>>> "internationalization" was thrown around at ever opportunity, just as
>>> you would see the word "globalization" in any kind of medium dealing
>>> with commercial business.
>>>
>>> Welcome to the Matrix.
>>
>> QSL.
>
> Perhaps I should explain my reference to the Matrix (where "reality" is
> "simulated" to look like something other than the real reality). Or, the
> psychologists make reference to "the elephant in the living room" that
> certain people can't see.
Or, one is assimilated into some social or intellectual matrix like the
Borg might do.
>
>
> Oh, yes (and for Phil Scott) I picked up (again at one of the local
> thrift stores for a buck) another book "Why Smart Executives Fail" and
> was paging through it. Why? Its kinda like my old question: why
> scientists (and other PhDs) are unable to: i) see (anticipate) their own
> plight, and ii) unwilling to do anything about it (viz. my efforts from
> 1992-about 2000 to warn guys, try to get guys together) to do something
> about the problem (i.e. "if I only knew then what I know now"). But,
> here we have a business professor who wrote a book (not all good, not
> all bad) with the idea that if BA and MBA types would try to understand
> how plane crashes can be studied they might maybe learn something that
> would help prevent future plane crashes (if you get my drift).
One reason is the obsession with success and positivity, the emphasis being
on producing only good results. I learned a lot when things went cockeyed
and when I looked over what happened, I often found something that I missed
or didn't do properly.
>
> Again, looking at the reference list I saw that about half of the
> references were to interviews with executives or former executives about
> their failed companies or failed efforts. What I did not see much of is
> any breakdown or analysis from outside observers to see if independent
> observers agreed with the self-reporting by the executives.
>
> I think it is also good to read the biographies and business history
> books, too (eg. "Chainsaw Al" and "Barbarians at the Gate" and "Trust Me
> [Charles Keating]") to really see how completely out of touch with
> reality e
> xecutives can be and how blind BoDs can be, too (Sunbeam's BoD chose about
> 4-5 CEOs right in a row and they were all duds and made life miserable for
> the employees and last time I heard [a few years ago], the company was
> still not doing well).
Ha! We've got them beat here in Canada. Look up Nortel (or Northern
Telecom as it used to be known). Over a decade ago, its stock traded at
well over $100/share. It slowly went down to less than a buck (having to
restate earnings a few times didn't help) and now the company's being
broken up and sold off one piece at a time.
Antonio Huerta
> Whatdya wanna
> bet it was about the crappy job prospects for scientist careers?
I bet it was drumming up the positive thinking.
See, in the USA, you already got a recession and unemployment and
housing bubble collapse. In our backwater part of the world, the
employment held up and actually increased in the past half a year. The
house prices are still increasing, and people are lining up in queues
to buy investment houses saying: "Isn't the GFC already over ?" (GFC =
global financial crisis).
There are clouds on horizon for the real estate industry, and the real
estate agents spruiking like mad in the mass-media. We are constantly
bombarded with the articles in newspapers on the topic: "The GFC is
over, prices are going to hit the roof, jump on the train while it's
not late".
Same as the science career job spruikers.
Antonio Huerta
Huh, Bernhardt (hope I wrote your name correctly), I have not heard
from you for ages and ages. I thought something happened to you...
highly positive or negative. Or, you got sick of s.r.c. and
concentrated on doing the interesting real life-relevant stuff such as
Marc Adelman did in his time (huh, it was mabe a decade ago).
Me
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Antonio Huerta wrote:
> On Oct 9, 11:28 am, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> Whatdya wanna
>> bet it was about the crappy job prospects for scientist careers?
>
> I bet it was drumming up the positive thinking.
LOL, that would have to follow the understanding that the job market is
crappy, but, yes, that is an amusing component. However, I did not see
Dave Jensen's name as organizer.
> See, in the USA, you already got a recession and unemployment and
> housing bubble collapse. In our backwater part of the world, the
> employment held up and actually increased in the past half a year. The
> house prices are still increasing, and people are lining up in queues
> to buy investment houses saying: "Isn't the GFC already over ?" (GFC =
> global financial crisis).
>
> There are clouds on horizon for the real estate industry, and the real
> estate agents spruiking
^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, I can't figure out what word this is supposed to be. Can you help?
like mad in the mass-media. We are constantly
> bombarded with the articles in newspapers on the topic: "The GFC is
> over, prices are going to hit the roof, jump on the train while it's
> not late".
Typical hype.
> Same as the science career job spruikers.
Do you mean the very old saying "There is a vast shortage of scientists
and engineers"?
Me
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Antonio Huerta wrote:
I've known a number of guys who just lurk. Its very cheap entertainment.
And, the rest of us do ALL the work to come up with the material.
Regardless of whether anyone thinks its worth reading.
BMJ
> On Oct 9, 11:49 am, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Huh, Bernhardt (hope I wrote your name correctly),
No T.
I have not heard
> from you for ages and ages. I thought something happened to you...
> highly positive or negative. Or, you got sick of s.r.c. and
> concentrated on doing the interesting real life-relevant stuff such as
> Marc Adelman did in his time (huh, it was mabe a decade ago).
I decided to quit for a while as the discussions on here got, at times, a
bit ridiculous. It was the earlier comment about the warm-and-fuzzy gang
that brought me out of the woodwork. After having to endure the pitches
for money from my alma mater just over a week ago, I thought I'd say something.
Meanwhile, I've been keeping busy with my research software (I got the
critter running but it's a long way from being finished) and I've been
tinkering with Linux and FreeBSD.
As well, I've been spending a lot of time with my amateur radio activities
as I started working with satellites just over a year ago. I've made over
1000 contacts across North America and spoken with at least 80 different
stations over 4 different spacecraft, and that's only on FM. I've worked
each state, province, and territory north of Mexico and west of Ontario
except for Nunavut, the Yukon, and Nebraska. I've spoken with hams near
the American east coast (furthest confirmed contact was around 3200 km
away) as well as two inside the Arctic Circle. I have heard Hawaii as well
as central Mexico but haven't been able to contact those places yet. One
has to be patient and have a bit of luck sometimes.
And, like everyone else, I'm waiting for the economy to improve.
73s
BMJ
Some of the discussions in the past got rather wild and woolly, as well as
ridiculous (remember our buddy Mr. Prasad?).
phil scott
the lurker ratio is approx 100 to 1.... those who post intelligently
are appreciated and
carry more influence than they might think .... good or correct or
advanced idea's go viral.
then a tidbit of whats posted triggers a land slide and morphs to
things no had thought of.
Phil scott
Me
Yeah, he's been around on a.c.c until recently. I think I "out-talked" him
and he hasn't been around much. Its so funny that as he was giving
everyone his bountiful "lectures on world economics" and "USA = bad"
messages, I, myself, was reading more economics books myself and finding
his "lectures" were more like "Rush Limbaugh economics" (if you get my
drift). So, I gave him a hard time, right back.
Its kinda like alt.politics.economics where most of the "discussion" is
just yelling-and-shouting-and-huffing-and-puffing and more heat than
light, and above all, a pretty big fraction of them really don't know ANY
history or economic history.
I can take on one or two, but not the mass mediocrity.
Oh, then there is Rod Speed, if you ever read any of his commentary.
He likes to play "I'm always right, you're always wrong, and I don't have
to prove anything because, by definition, I'm right, and I get to call
you nasty names, too." But, then, there is a lot of that on the
newsgroups. I've revisted a few NGs and its all name-calling, perverted
sex, insults, and other low-brain one-liners, or less.
I'm still building electronic ham gear, too, and having fun. Also got out
my old telescope parts gathering dust and plan to rejuvenate my old
amateur astronomy hobby, too.
And, I'm reading still more economic history and actually some books on
banking-finance. So, at least I can appreciate how and why these
corporations have CFOs now; they are actually performing a lot of the
functions of banks (i.e. corporations, which in the past had the job of
making a product, now have two new functions more important than making a
product: i) be a scam moneyharvesting operation to overpay the executives,
and ii) become involved in making money (instead of a legitamate product)
using money or tax dodges or manipulating the financial and insurance
markets. Speaking of which, there was a WSJ article back a few weeks ago
that five HF trader/flash order companies with less than 200 employees
each account for 30% of all trade on the stock exchange. Just think of
that: just five business entities do 1/3 of all the stock trades.
phil scott
> Another afterthought:
>
> Maybe two months ago I got a (slick, cardstock) brochure from one of the
> societies I used to belong to about an upcoming international meeting (I
> used to go to them, but I stopped paying my dues long ago and, of course,
> they stopped sending the usual stuff to me, but once in a while I still
> get meeting announcements (registration fees went up quite a bit, too).
>
> So, I looked it over to see what names I would recognize out of at least
> a hundred of the invited speakers, etc. I think I barely recognized maybe
> two out of all. So, there you are. Turnover in about 15 years: more than
> 90-95%. How about topics, subject areas, disciplins, whatever? I'm going
> to guess from memory about 15 % were new or emerging "hot topics" or
> technologies. The rest (~85%) were all the usual, high permanence areas
> that have been around for 3-4 decades back.
>
> Now, here is the doozie part: There was a session organized around the
> 'career' portion of the conference and here was the title:
>
> "If I only knew then what I know now"
>
.> And under it was one of those heart-to-heart paragraphs that talked
all
> "around" whatever "it" was that people know now that they wished they
> knew back then. Kinda sounded like it was going to be some kind of "group
> therapy" and hand-holding, maybe wishful thinking, too. Whatdya wanna
> bet it was about the crappy job prospects for scientist careers?
no way in hell would it be about that... it would be blather from some
complete fat headed
moron with no clue on the topic.... net working, more degrees,
he wouldnt be bright enough to mention joint ventures or solutions
development services on contingency.
(that last not such a bad idea for the right guys).
Phil scott
BMJ
It would probably be like the blather I listened to during my alma mater's
alumni weekend. A bright and shiny future awaits us if only the uni
produced more graduates and that would only be possible if one gave until
it hurts.
BMJ
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>
>> Me wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Antonio Huerta wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 9, 11:49 am, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Huh, Bernhardt (hope I wrote your name correctly), I have not heard
>>>> from you for ages and ages. I thought something happened to you...
>>>> highly positive or negative. Or, you got sick of s.r.c. and
>>>> concentrated on doing the interesting real life-relevant stuff such as
>>>> Marc Adelman did in his time (huh, it was mabe a decade ago).
>>>
>>> I've known a number of guys who just lurk. Its very cheap entertainment.
>>>
>>> And, the rest of us do ALL the work to come up with the material.
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether anyone thinks its worth reading.
>>>
>>
>> Some of the discussions in the past got rather wild and woolly, as
>> well as ridiculous (remember our buddy Mr. Prasad?).
>
> Yeah, he's been around on a.c.c until recently. I think I "out-talked"
> him and he hasn't been around much. Its so funny that as he was giving
> everyone his bountiful "lectures on world economics" and "USA = bad"
> messages, I, myself, was reading more economics books myself and finding
> his "lectures" were more like "Rush Limbaugh economics" (if you get my
> drift). So, I gave him a hard time, right back.
Oh, in other words, he hasn't changed.
>
> Its kinda like alt.politics.economics where most of the "discussion" is
> just yelling-and-shouting-and-huffing-and-puffing and more heat than
> light, and above all, a pretty big fraction of them really don't know
> ANY history or economic history.
I take it the typical discussion went like:
"You're a jerk!"
"No, *you*'re a jerk!"
"You were a jerk first!"
"Was not."
"Were too."
Ad nauseum.....
>
> I can take on one or two, but not the mass mediocrity.
>
> Oh, then there is Rod Speed, if you ever read any of his commentary.
> He likes to play "I'm always right, you're always wrong, and I don't
> have to prove anything because, by definition, I'm right, and I get to
> call you nasty names, too." But, then, there is a lot of that on the
> newsgroups. I've revisted a few NGs and its all name-calling, perverted
> sex, insults, and other low-brain one-liners, or less.
I've come across his name on other newsgroups as well and the infantile
behaviour you described appears elsewhere as well. Check any Usenet space
newsgroup.
>
> I'm still building electronic ham gear, too, and having fun.
I worked the AO-27 satellite about an hour ago and made a contact in
Delaware. I was lucky, considering the pileups that are on the bird during
a mid-afternoon pass. The path is east of my grid square and comes up
along the middle of the continent, so there are a lot of stations trying to
get on it.
The westerly passes for both '27 and AO-51 don't have as much traffic, so
contacts are often easier. The SO-50 OSCAR is a lot quieter, but trickier
to work because of its lower-power transmitter plus the requirement for a
tone. Often, I'm the only one on, but I have made contacts through it as
far away as southeastern Alaska and west central Texas.
Also got
> out my old telescope parts gathering dust and plan to rejuvenate my old
> amateur astronomy hobby, too.
The tripod for mine needs to be fixed as a leg clamp broke. Rather than
repairing it, I might just buy a surveyor's tripod and mount the telescope
to that.
>
> And, I'm reading still more economic history and actually some books on
> banking-finance. So, at least I can appreciate how and why these
> corporations have CFOs now; they are actually performing a lot of the
> functions of banks (i.e. corporations, which in the past had the job of
> making a product, now have two new functions more important than making
> a product: i) be a scam moneyharvesting operation to overpay the
> executives, and ii) become involved in making money (instead of a
> legitamate product) using money or tax dodges or manipulating the
> financial and insurance markets.
You might find this interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html
Needless to say, the employees are the ones who suffer each time an owner
flips the company, adding on more debt than before. Pension plans and
university endowments were mentioned as benefiting from that.
Speaking of which, there was a WSJ
> article back a few weeks ago that five HF trader/flash order companies
> with less than 200 employees each account for 30% of all trade on the
> stock exchange. Just think of that: just five business entities do 1/3
> of all the stock trades.
That's not surprising. Similar things went on in the mid-'80s.
Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/your-money/10shortcuts.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/11every.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
its a whole lot easier to freelance... screw the HR idiots.
BMJ
<snip>
>> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/your-money/10shortcuts.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/11every.html
<snip>
> its a whole lot easier to freelance... screw the HR idiots.
I found out recently that bizbabble and HR speak have little influence on
whether a company stays in business.
A few years ago, I had a meeting with a local computer equipment
manufacturer and I thought that I would have a possibility of a job there.
All during that meeting, there were frequent references to things like
"team" and "fit". A few days later, I was told something like "nice
chatting with you, but we wanted someone more junior".
After that, a few things changed. The chap I met with split from the
company and started his own. It changed names at least once since that
happened, which often isn't a good sign. That sometimes means an internal
restructuring, which is required not to accommodate growth but to remain
solvent.
This past summer, I rode my bike past the original company's building as I
attended to some business in the area and I noticed a different name on the
side. I did a quick Internet search and learned a few interesting things.
The new name was that of a firm that had taken a major stake in the
company a few years earlier. From what I gathered, the original outfit
went on the skids and the shareholder finally took over the entire kit and
kaboodle. A lot of bodies were, apparently, chucked over the side.
I always thought something was wrong there. It opened its doors nearly ten
years ago with press releases and hype and hoopla but that soon faded.
Eventually, there were rumours of this company burning through sackfuls of
cash and that it had problems meeting delivery deadlines (definitely not a
good sign). Finally, it turned to external partners in order to remain
afloat, but, as it turned out, it didn't do much good.
Among the casualties was one of the company's founders. I met him when I
stopped by for my meeting and I had the impression that he was a crap
artist. That outfit was the second start-up he was involved with that went
belly up. (The other one was established to design and build a
supercomputer. Again, there was a lot of talk about what it was *going* to
do but nothing about what it accomplished. It was always running close to
bankruptcy and when needed funding never materialized, the company sank out
of sight with the only trace being a lot of people out of work.)
Then there was a company in a nearby city that I had an interview with. In
that session, I also heard a lot of bizspeak about "dream job" and "team"
and similar such nonsense. I didn't get the job, though I wasn't entirely
disappointed. I had my suspicions about that outfit before the meeting
when I read its annual report and some of the numbers weren't all that
good. Then I heard its chief engineer, a kid young enough to be my son,
skedaddled to another company soon after my interview.
The final irony was that the company was taken over by another one in which
I own stock. I wasn't allowed to work there, so now it works for me.
Antonio Huerta
> > There are clouds on horizon for the real estate industry, and the real
> > estate agents spruiking
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Sorry, I can't figure out what word this is supposed to be. Can you help?
>
> like mad in the mass-media.
Geez, I did a search on the Internet, and it came out that the word
"spruik" actually originated from our province. Among ceratin part of
the society, it is used tohether with the words "real estate agent",
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561508115/spruik.html
spruik [ sprook ] (past and past participle spruiked, present
participle spruik·ing, 3rd person present singular spruiks)
intransitive verb
Definition:
Australia promote: to promote goods, services, or a cause by
addressing people in a public place ( humorous )
[Early 20th century. Origin ?]
Me
The whole scientist career landscape is trapped in the student-postdoc-job
quicksand. This is vastly different from the situation some 35-40 years
ago when lots of community colleges were being built and campuses were
expanding and hard money was around.
Unfortunately, the imperitive is on expansion (which means for every
graduate faculty you have to fill at least 20-30 seats, and that means
19-29 graduates who will not have a faculty job offer.
National studies (I used to follow this in detail) show that at least half
of all PhDs (generally) will not have lifetime permanent jobs, and the
attrition, half of which, itself will be involuntary early terminations of
careers.
Me
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
> Me wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>>
>>> Me wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Antonio Huerta wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 9, 11:49 am, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh, Bernhardt (hope I wrote your name correctly), I have not heard
>>>>> from you for ages and ages. I thought something happened to you...
>>>>> highly positive or negative. Or, you got sick of s.r.c. and
>>>>> concentrated on doing the interesting real life-relevant stuff such as
>>>>> Marc Adelman did in his time (huh, it was mabe a decade ago).
>>>>
>>>> I've known a number of guys who just lurk. Its very cheap entertainment.
>>>>
>>>> And, the rest of us do ALL the work to come up with the material.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of whether anyone thinks its worth reading.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some of the discussions in the past got rather wild and woolly, as well as
>>> ridiculous (remember our buddy Mr. Prasad?).
>>
>> Yeah, he's been around on a.c.c until recently. I think I "out-talked" him
>> and he hasn't been around much. Its so funny that as he was giving everyone
>> his bountiful "lectures on world economics" and "USA = bad" messages, I,
>> myself, was reading more economics books myself and finding his "lectures"
>> were more like "Rush Limbaugh economics" (if you get my drift). So, I gave
>> him a hard time, right back.
>
> Oh, in other words, he hasn't changed.
Correct.
>>
>> Its kinda like alt.politics.economics where most of the "discussion" is
>> just yelling-and-shouting-and-huffing-and-puffing and more heat than light,
>> and above all, a pretty big fraction of them really don't know ANY history
>> or economic history.
>
> I take it the typical discussion went like:
>
> "You're a jerk!"
> "No, *you*'re a jerk!"
> "You were a jerk first!"
> "Was not."
> "Were too."
> Ad nauseum.....
No, it was like this:
Kamal Prasad: The USA prints its money which has no intrinsic value and is
wortheless.
My response (sample): Name a country anywhere on the planet that does not
print its money.
All that "worthless" paper money you complain about all the time
has been shown to be accepted by every store or business
I've ever gone to without any problems, so explain why
its worthless (and he would not answer that).
Lots of other nonsense that he would not answer when confronted with
facts.
He also liked to talk about the "Law of Comparative Advantage" and I'd get
no answer when I told him that most of the economics books I've read talk
about the "Theory of Comparative Advantage". There is a difference between
a law and a theory, even when economists (at least the honest onese) talk
about it.
>>
>> I can take on one or two, but not the mass mediocrity.
>>
>> Oh, then there is Rod Speed, if you ever read any of his commentary.
>> He likes to play "I'm always right, you're always wrong, and I don't have
>> to prove anything because, by definition, I'm right, and I get to call you
>> nasty names, too." But, then, there is a lot of that on the newsgroups.
>> I've revisted a few NGs and its all name-calling, perverted sex, insults,
>> and other low-brain one-liners, or less.
>
> I've come across his name on other newsgroups as well and the infantile
> behaviour you described appears elsewhere as well. Check any Usenet space
> newsgroup.
Go over to alt.politics.economics and read a few of his posts.
>>
>> I'm still building electronic ham gear, too, and having fun.
>
> I worked the AO-27 satellite about an hour ago and made a contact in
> Delaware. I was lucky, considering the pileups that are on the bird during a
> mid-afternoon pass. The path is east of my grid square and comes up along
> the middle of the continent, so there are a lot of stations trying to get on
> it.
>
> The westerly passes for both '27 and AO-51 don't have as much traffic, so
> contacts are often easier. The SO-50 OSCAR is a lot quieter, but trickier to
> work because of its lower-power transmitter plus the requirement for a tone.
> Often, I'm the only one on, but I have made contacts through it as far away
> as southeastern Alaska and west central Texas.
I'm glad you're getting some satisfaction out of the hobby, being in an
appartment complex limits your antenna options.
> Also got
>> out my old telescope parts gathering dust and plan to rejuvenate my old
>> amateur astronomy hobby, too.
>
> The tripod for mine needs to be fixed as a leg clamp broke. Rather than
> repairing it, I might just buy a surveyor's tripod and mount the telescope to
> that.
>
>>
>> And, I'm reading still more economic history and actually some books on
>> banking-finance. So, at least I can appreciate how and why these
>> corporations have CFOs now; they are actually performing a lot of the
>> functions of banks (i.e. corporations, which in the past had the job of
>> making a product, now have two new functions more important than making a
>> product: i) be a scam moneyharvesting operation to overpay the executives,
>> and ii) become involved in making money (instead of a legitamate product)
>> using money or tax dodges or manipulating the financial and insurance
>> markets.
>
> You might find this interesting:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html
>
> Needless to say, the employees are the ones who suffer each time an owner
> flips the company, adding on more debt than before. Pension plans and
> university endowments were mentioned as benefiting from that.
Employees are almost always the underlings.
> Speaking of which, there was a WSJ
>> article back a few weeks ago that five HF trader/flash order companies with
>> less than 200 employees each account for 30% of all trade on the stock
>> exchange. Just think of that: just five business entities do 1/3 of all the
>> stock trades.
>
> That's not surprising. Similar things went on in the mid-'80s.
>
> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/your-money/10shortcuts.html
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/11every.html
If "automation," offshoring, etc, etc., keeps on expanding, there won't be
anywhere near the jobs and how are people going to buy stuff companies
make?
Me
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
> phil scott wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/your-money/10shortcuts.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/11every.html
>
> <snip>
>
>> its a whole lot easier to freelance... screw the HR idiots.
>
> I found out recently that bizbabble and HR speak have little influence on
> whether a company stays in business.
Phil, I am so surprized at you. Over on a.c.c your last ten posts were
almost, if not absolutely, only directed at _government_ and I thought you
would never START a post by attacking a _non-government_ entity.
;-)
> A few years ago, I had a meeting with a local computer equipment manufacturer
> and I thought that I would have a possibility of a job there. All during
> that meeting, there were frequent references to things like "team" and "fit".
> A few days later, I was told something like "nice chatting with you, but we
> wanted someone more junior".
Its getting worse than that (from WSJ articles). The companies are having
extended telephone interviews now with people that can last an hour, and
then they come back and re-interview the candidates sometimes many times
before (if) they even have an in-person interview.
I've got my own collection of stories like those below....
Me
Thanks, that is what I'd guess from the context, but wanted to ask
specifically.
Me
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
> Me wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>> and above all, a pretty big fraction of them really don't know ANY history
>> or economic history.
>
> I take it the typical discussion went like:
>
> "You're a jerk!"
> "No, *you*'re a jerk!"
> "You were a jerk first!"
> "Was not."
> "Were too."
> Ad nauseum.....
Yes, that sounds like alt.politics.economics
And...
Here are some of Rod Speed's favorite lines....
===============================
----- quotes --------
Samples of actual sentences (actual quotes) that Rod Speed uses to
displayh his intellectual brilliance, spelling and grammatical prowess,
and other elements of his politeness/compassion/patience.....
---------
No one ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
He's just another pig ignorant fool. No surprise that you 'think' that
the sun shines out of his arse.
Like hell it does.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a
fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
=====================
From reading him off and on for over a year, I think he has a macro-insert
on his computer and just "speed-dials" the same sentences over and over.
Got me beat. I have to use two keystrokes to get my insertable files into
a message.
But, I've got him beat with my unix shell account (my computer
is unhackable).
BMJ
<snip>
So, he doesn't appear to have become smarter in the past few years.
<snip>
>> I worked the AO-27 satellite about an hour ago and made a contact in
>> Delaware. I was lucky, considering the pileups that are on the bird
>> during a mid-afternoon pass. The path is east of my grid square and
>> comes up along the middle of the continent, so there are a lot of
>> stations trying to get on it.
>>
>> The westerly passes for both '27 and AO-51 don't have as much traffic,
>> so contacts are often easier. The SO-50 OSCAR is a lot quieter, but
>> trickier to work because of its lower-power transmitter plus the
>> requirement for a tone. Often, I'm the only one on, but I have made
>> contacts through it as far away as southeastern Alaska and west
>> central Texas.
>
> I'm glad you're getting some satisfaction out of the hobby, being in an
> appartment complex limits your antenna options.
I bought myself a Yaesu FT-817 which is a multi-mode, multi-band portable
QRP transceiver after seeing one at a Field Day event last year. I made my
first satellite contact just over a year ago with the stock rubber duck
antenna but I eventually obtained an Arrow dual-band Yagi, which many
stations use for working the birds.
The difference in the performance was immediately apparent and it allowed
me to work stations all over western North America. With that rig, I talk
regularly to California, Arizona, and Alaska.
Meanwhile, I've been working on a portable backpack station as the
apartment management could get sticky about erecting antennas. I bought a
plastic ammunition case from a local gun shop and I'll be putting my IC-706
into that. I've got several antennas to tinerk with and, eventually, I
might replace the sealed lead-acid batteries with a custom-built unit (gel
cell or something similar).
<snip>
>> You might find this interesting:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html
>>
>> Needless to say, the employees are the ones who suffer each time an
>> owner flips the company, adding on more debt than before. Pension
>> plans and university endowments were mentioned as benefiting from that.
>
> Employees are almost always the underlings.
Yup.
>> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/your-money/10shortcuts.html
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/11every.html
>
>
> If "automation," offshoring, etc, etc., keeps on expanding, there won't
> be anywhere near the jobs and how are people going to buy stuff
> companies make?
One thing that I frequently heard during the alumni functions I attended
was the claim that there was the proverbial need for scientists and
engineers (bright shiny future, and all that).
>
>
BMJ
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>
>> phil scott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/your-money/10shortcuts.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/11every.html
>>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> its a whole lot easier to freelance... screw the HR idiots.
>>
>> I found out recently that bizbabble and HR speak have little influence
>> on whether a company stays in business.
>
> Phil, I am so surprized at you. Over on a.c.c your last ten posts were
> almost, if not absolutely, only directed at _government_ and I thought
> you would never START a post by attacking a _non-government_ entity.
>
> ;-)
>
>
>> A few years ago, I had a meeting with a local computer equipment
>> manufacturer and I thought that I would have a possibility of a job
>> there. All during that meeting, there were frequent references to
>> things like "team" and "fit". A few days later, I was told something
>> like "nice chatting with you, but we wanted someone more junior".
>
> Its getting worse than that (from WSJ articles). The companies are
> having extended telephone interviews now with people that can last an
> hour, and then they come back and re-interview the candidates sometimes
> many times before (if) they even have an in-person interview.
The doctrine of CYA has become completely out of control. It seems nobody
wants to make a decision in hiring anyone, let alone take any
responsibility for it.
Well, maybe not completely. One day, I took a look at Rate My Professors
and I came across a familiar name in the list of people for the place I
where used to teach. The chap was a former student of mine and he was a
dumb and lazy whiner. He could get away with his antics because daddy was
on staff in another department. Now he's an instructor and, based on the
comments made about him, he hasn't improved.
It baffled me how someone as inept as him could get a teaching position
there and hang on to it. A bit more digging and I determined that another
former student was hired a few years earlier and is now a department
administrator. This other chap was one of his classmates and, possibly,
they were buddies.
I long figured out that in order to get and keep a job in my former
department, one had to be chummy with someone, though this came about after
I was hired 20 years ago. Talent and intelligence are of little importance.
<snip>
phil scott
> phil scott wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>
the situation is pandemic... these types dont know what they dont
know..so proceed on
their mix of bogus notions.... which sinks thier boat when overhead is
concerned...those
do suceed though though were start up and other overhead is low...
on line approaches in many cases, and small trades businesses.
Im running cad software now, a mix of ultra advanced and total fail
mode.. I think they fired or lost the original brains...whats left is
unable to cope ..so they lie a lot... maybe I will sue them for
fraud.
Phil scott
BMJ
There's nothing like the Internet for intelligent and logical discourse, is
there?
>
> =====================
>
> From reading him off and on for over a year, I think he has a
> macro-insert on his computer and just "speed-dials" the same sentences
> over and over.
>
> Got me beat. I have to use two keystrokes to get my insertable files
> into a message.
>
> But, I've got him beat with my unix shell account (my computer is
> unhackable).
>
>
>
This chap reminds me of some of the activity on 14.275 MHz on 20 metres. I
heard some traffic on that frequency last year and it was quite wild and
woolly. There's one station on it who has no qualms about who he offends
and how but the twit gives his callsign. He's quite well known on both
sides of the 49th parallel but Canadian authories haven't closed him down.
I did an Internet search on him soon after that. Describing him as barking
mad is likely an understatement. Fortunately, I haven't heard any such
nonsense on the satellites I've worked.
phil scott
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
> > phil scott wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> its a whole lot easier to freelance... screw the HR idiots.
>
> > I found out recently that bizbabble and HR speak have little influence on
> > whether a company stays in business.
>
> Phil, I am so surprized at you. Over on a.c.c your last ten posts were
> almost, if not absolutely, only directed at _government_ and I thought you
> would never START a post by attacking a _non-government_ entity.
>
> ;-)
I make money dealing with businesses, govt on the other hand has
generally been
all over my ass with drooling morons and sociopaths... getting paid
100k to produce
absolute disaster in a vast percentage of cases.... the small
company private sector is both honest and efficient.. relatively..
thats what it takes to stay in business.
international corps can be as corrupt as govt. 90% or so of US
business is small business however...it cant afford to behave like
morons..those that do, go broke.
govt however ruins its entire host nation, starves half if its peoples
to death... then...collapses., meantime producing no goods.... I do
support the 10% valid aspect of govt however... its vital and
necessary.
>
> > A few years ago, I had a meeting with a local computer equipment manufacturer
> > and I thought that I would have a possibility of a job there. All during
> > that meeting, there were frequent references to things like "team" and "fit".
> > A few days later, I was told something like "nice chatting with you, but we
> > wanted someone more junior".
>
> Its getting worse than that (from WSJ articles). The companies are having
> extended telephone interviews now with people that can last an hour, and
> then they come back and re-interview the candidates sometimes many times
> before (if) they even have an in-person interview.
I only talk to the buiness owners now...no one else. if its a corp I
seldom return
their calls unless its about my freelance or contract services.
the false hope and heartburn and having to deal with abject scum is
not even remotely
worth the faintest association.
Phil scott
> > own stock. I wasn't allowed to work there, so now it works for me.- Hide quoted text -
BMJ
One of my undergrad profs used to say that 90% of engineers eventually get
out of the business and he was likely right.
One of my undergrad classmates eventually turned his photography hobby into
a full-time job. At least three became corporate vice-presidents. Several
of them were middle managers and many of those are working on some of the
major construction project currently underway in my province. One of my
former classmates is an academic (department head at a Canadian university)
and it seems that both he and I were the only ones to get Ph. D.s
From what I was able to determine, I'm the only one who is still involved
with nuts-and-bolts engineering. The rest are in management, which usually
means becoming distant from actual technical work.
It was a bit different for some of my grad school buddies when I was
working on my first master's degree. Three became profs and still are.
One went back to India after he convocated and was a prof for a while, but
I gathered that he's now working for a farm machinery company.
One more got completely out of engineering. He had a computing background
and, after he finished his master's degree, he eventually worked for a
company which installed systems for brokerages. He later wrote the
stockbroker's exam and was working for one of the major houses when I
called him last year.
phil scott
> Me wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>
> >> phil scott wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> its a whole lot easier to freelance... screw the HR idiots.
>
> >> I found out recently that bizbabble and HR speak have little influence
> >> on whether a company stays in business.
>
> > Phil, I am so surprized at you. Over on a.c.c your last ten posts were
> > almost, if not absolutely, only directed at _government_ and I thought
> > you would never START a post by attacking a _non-government_ entity.
>
> > ;-)
>
> >> A few years ago, I had a meeting with a local computer equipment
> >> manufacturer and I thought that I would have a possibility of a job
> >> there. All during that meeting, there were frequent references to
> >> things like "team" and "fit". A few days later, I was told something
> >> like "nice chatting with you, but we wanted someone more junior".
>
> > Its getting worse than that (from WSJ articles). The companies are
> > having extended telephone interviews now with people that can last an
> > hour, and then they come back and re-interview the candidates sometimes
> > many times before (if) they even have an in-person interview.
>
> The doctrine of CYA has become completely out of control. It seems nobody
> wants to make a decision in hiring anyone, let alone take any
> responsibility for it.
that may be 90% of the problem.
.the other '90%' is that the people at the company are idiots, esp
management, and the techks competent often but in their own narrow
range, and are unable to evaluate beyond that range.... since we live
in a vastly multi disciplined world... disfunction is the rule.
these do not have the hands on experience, to spot talent. thats
why I build specialty equipment..no hourly rate is involved... I get
paid for the net value of the product.
as soon as an hourly rate is involved it goes south... they pay their
top idiot xxxx...thats all you will get for 10x the brains.
Phil scott
>
> Well, maybe not completely. One day, I took a look at Rate My Professors
> and I came across a familiar name in the list of people for the place I
> where used to teach. The chap was a former student of mine and he was a
> dumb and lazy whiner. He could get away with his antics because daddy was
> on staff in another department. Now he's an instructor and, based on the
> comments made about him, he hasn't improved.
>
> It baffled me how someone as inept as him could get a teaching position
> there and hang on to it. A bit more digging and I determined that another
> former student was hired a few years earlier and is now a department
> administrator. This other chap was one of his classmates and, possibly,
> they were buddies.
>
> I long figured out that in order to get and keep a job in my former
> department, one had to be chummy with someone, though this came about after
> I was hired 20 years ago. Talent and intelligence are of little importance.
>
> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
BMJ
> On Oct 11, 10:28 pm, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> phil scott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/your-money/10shortcuts.htmlhttp://w...
>> <snip>
>>
>>> its a whole lot easier to freelance... screw the HR idiots.
>> I found out recently that bizbabble and HR speak have little influence on
>> whether a company stays in business.
<snip>
>> Then there was a company in a nearby city that I had an interview with. In
>> that session, I also heard a lot of bizspeak about "dream job" and "team"
>> and similar such nonsense. I didn't get the job, though I wasn't entirely
>> disappointed. I had my suspicions about that outfit before the meeting
>> when I read its annual report and some of the numbers weren't all that
>> good. Then I heard its chief engineer, a kid young enough to be my son,
>> skedaddled to another company soon after my interview.
>>
>> The final irony was that the company was taken over by another one in which
>> I own stock. I wasn't allowed to work there, so now it works for me.
>
> the situation is pandemic... these types dont know what they dont
> know..so proceed on
> their mix of bogus notions.... which sinks thier boat when overhead is
> concerned...those
> do suceed though though were start up and other overhead is low...
> on line approaches in many cases, and small trades businesses.
>
> Im running cad software now, a mix of ultra advanced and total fail
> mode.. I think they fired or lost the original brains...whats left is
> unable to cope ..so they lie a lot... maybe I will sue them for
> fraud.
<snip>
When I finished my B. Sc., I worked for a multi-national oil and gas
company. I took the job because I wanted to practice what I'd learn and
become proficient at it before eventually heading back to grad school.
It didn't take long before I realized that concentrating on technical
matters was to be discouraged. The company had the attitude that real
engineers became *managers* and that purely technical matters were handled
by its in-house stable of experts in its head office.
BMJ
<snip>
>
>> The doctrine of CYA has become completely out of control. It seems nobody
>> wants to make a decision in hiring anyone, let alone take any
>> responsibility for it.
>
> that may be 90% of the problem.
>
> .the other '90%' is that the people at the company are idiots, esp
> management, and the techks competent often but in their own narrow
> range, and are unable to evaluate beyond that range.... since we live
> in a vastly multi disciplined world... disfunction is the rule.
>
> these do not have the hands on experience, to spot talent. thats
> why I build specialty equipment..no hourly rate is involved... I get
> paid for the net value of the product.
>
> as soon as an hourly rate is involved it goes south... they pay their
> top idiot xxxx...thats all you will get for 10x the brains.
The oil and gas company I worked for after I received my B. Sc. was
well-known for that. The technical competence of my last boss was,
frankly, debatable, as I would ask him a question and he would either send
me off to someone else or give me a wishy-washy answer.
Back then, I was a young and foolish holder of a fresh engineering degree,
and I thought that if one was a boss, one became one by what one knew and
what one did with it. In the old European trade system, one didn't become
a master without having learned a thing or two, so I figured the same
applied to my profession.
That view was a big mistake. When I began having doubts about my boss's
competence, I was assured with statements such as "I've got lots of
experience...." or "he's a good man". Later, it dawned on me that one
didn't get into a corner office in that company through technical ability
but by being a loyalist and lots of blarney.
Unfortunately, most of my employers after that weren't much different.
<snip>
Me
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, phil scott wrote:
> On Oct 12, 6:10 am, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>>> phil scott wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, it's amazing that anybody ever gets hired at all:
>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/your-money/10shortcuts.htmlhttp://w...
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>> its a whole lot easier to freelance... screw the HR idiots.
>>
>>> I found out recently that bizbabble and HR speak have little influence on
>>> whether a company stays in business.
>>
>> Phil, I am so surprized at you. Over on a.c.c your last ten posts were
>> almost, if not absolutely, only directed at _government_ and I thought you
>> would never START a post by attacking a _non-government_ entity.
>>
>> ;-)
>
> I make money dealing with businesses, govt on the other hand has
> generally been
> all over my ass with drooling morons and sociopaths... getting paid
> 100k to produce
> absolute disaster in a vast percentage of cases.... the small
> company private sector is both honest and efficient.. relatively..
"relatively"?
Funny thing, I've been in the US Army, had other govt services (GI bill,
Medicare, etc.) all work 100% just fine.
Where I've had problems is with the private insurance (phoney denial of
claims, stallling, mistakes... all my life).
> thats what it takes to stay in business.
Also, being a crook helps and finding fools, marks, and victims helps,
too.
CYA
> international corps can be as corrupt as govt. 90% or so of US
> business is small business however...it cant afford to behave like
> morons..those that do, go broke.
Now you're talking my language.
Don't forget all those financial types that were more interested in their
bonuses than doing any work.
> govt however ruins its entire host nation, starves half if its peoples
> to death... then...collapses., meantime producing no goods.... I do
> support the 10% valid aspect of govt however... its vital and
> necessary.
OK, I won't list my benefits of govts but I might make an insertable file
just to remind you that we'd have chaos and a society of monopolies if
there were no govt. We'd also have a ton of people packing heat, and
shoot-outs at the "OK" coral every morning and evening, too.
/////////////////////////////////
BMJ
<snip>
>> I make money dealing with businesses, govt on the other hand has
>> generally been
>> all over my ass with drooling morons and sociopaths... getting paid
>> 100k to produce
>> absolute disaster in a vast percentage of cases.... the small
>> company private sector is both honest and efficient.. relatively..
>
> "relatively"?
>
> Funny thing, I've been in the US Army, had other govt services (GI bill,
> Medicare, etc.) all work 100% just fine.
>
> Where I've had problems is with the private insurance (phoney denial of
> claims, stallling, mistakes... all my life).
You might be interested in Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko", which aired
on the Newsworld channel here in Canada last week.
<anip>
Me
OOOoooooOOOOoooo.... nepotism? Clout? Suck? Pull?
Now he's an instructor and, based on the comments made
> about him, he hasn't improved.
>
> It baffled me how someone as inept as him could get a teaching position there
> and hang on to it. A bit more digging and I determined that another former
> student was hired a few years earlier and is now a department administrator.
> This other chap was one of his classmates and, possibly, they were buddies.
Networking? You scratch my back, I scratch yours?
> I long figured out that in order to get and keep a job in my former
> department, one had to be chummy with someone, though this came about after I
> was hired 20 years ago. Talent and intelligence are of little importance.
I, quite frankly, was shocked to learn that this is really how most of
the real world works. And, even more shocked that its been like that for
all of recorded history.
And, even still more shocked at how "the royalty" operates: if father was
king, and mother was queen, then YOU could become king someday just
because of who your father was.
You could also become king (or emperor) if you could kill your enemy king,
regardless of whether he was good or not.
Did you know that Nero's palace occupied 1/3 of the land area of Rome?
> <snip>
>
Me
(toungue in cheek)
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> From reading him off and on for over a year, I think he has a macro-insert
>> on his computer and just "speed-dials" the same sentences over and over.
>>
>> Got me beat. I have to use two keystrokes to get my insertable files into a
>> message.
>>
>> But, I've got him beat with my unix shell account (my computer is
>> unhackable).
>>
>>
>>
>
> This chap reminds me of some of the activity on 14.275 MHz on 20 metres. I
> heard some traffic on that frequency last year and it was quite wild and
> woolly. There's one station on it who has no qualms about who he offends and
> how but the twit gives his callsign. He's quite well known on both sides of
> the 49th parallel but Canadian authories haven't closed him down.
>
> I did an Internet search on him soon after that. Describing him as barking
> mad is likely an understatement. Fortunately, I haven't heard any such
> nonsense on the satellites I've worked.
Actually, a lot of this goes back for decades. And, sometimes in QST
editorials you can find in issues that came out even before I was born.
BMJ
<snip>
>> This chap reminds me of some of the activity on 14.275 MHz on 20
>> metres. I heard some traffic on that frequency last year and it was
>> quite wild and woolly. There's one station on it who has no qualms
>> about who he offends and how but the twit gives his callsign. He's
>> quite well known on both sides of the 49th parallel but Canadian
>> authories haven't closed him down.
>>
>> I did an Internet search on him soon after that. Describing him as
>> barking mad is likely an understatement. Fortunately, I haven't heard
>> any such nonsense on the satellites I've worked.
>
> Actually, a lot of this goes back for decades. And, sometimes in QST
> editorials you can find in issues that came out even before I was born.
There are several reasons why that malarkey occurs on the bands.
One is the convenient excuse of "free speech", though that would be more
applicable in the U. S. rather than Canada.
Second is lack of resources for effective enforcement. Presently, there
are matters of greater priority for the communications authorities, such as
the conversion to digital TV (that's supposed to happen early in the next
decade for us up here). A nutter on an amateur frequency isn't going to
warrant much government attention unless, say, something serious is being
transmitted.
For several years, there was a weekly repeater net across much of the
province I live in. I heard from one fellow ham that certain stations have
been unofficially banned from being net controllers because of some
previous on-air antics, such as remotely dropping repeaters while a certain
party is on and that sort of thing.
The ban takes the form of shunning. Either nobody participated in the net
when the blacklisted hams were running the net or, when the bad guys
requested assistance, nobody pitched in.
<snip>
BMJ
<snip>
>>> Its getting worse than that (from WSJ articles). The companies are
>>> having extended telephone interviews now with people that can last
>>> an hour, and then they come back and re-interview the candidates
>>> sometimes many times before (if) they even have an in-person interview.
>>
>> The doctrine of CYA has become completely out of control. It seems
>> nobody wants to make a decision in hiring anyone, let alone take any
>> responsibility for it.
>>
>> Well, maybe not completely. One day, I took a look at Rate My
>> Professors and I came across a familiar name in the list of people for
>> the place I where used to teach. The chap was a former student of
>> mine and he was a dumb and lazy whiner. He could get away with his
>> antics because daddy was on staff in another department.
>
> OOOoooooOOOOoooo.... nepotism? Clout? Suck? Pull?
Well, it wouldn't have looked good for a staff member's kid to flunk out of
that place. It might have caused some unwanted difficulties.
I remember one of my first students was also an institution brat as his
father was also an instructor there but in a different department. The kid
tried many of the same things as this other chap but soon dropped out a
course or two short.
He took a job for two or so years but he soon got wise and decided to
return to make up the deficient credits. Quite likely, he realized that
his future was limited without his diploma.
>
> Now he's an instructor and, based on the comments made
>> about him, he hasn't improved.
>>
>> It baffled me how someone as inept as him could get a teaching
>> position there and hang on to it. A bit more digging and I determined
>> that another former student was hired a few years earlier and is now a
>> department administrator. This other chap was one of his classmates
>> and, possibly, they were buddies.
>
> Networking? You scratch my back, I scratch yours?
I figured it was something like that.
While I was teaching, one of my colleagues became assistant department
head. After his promotion, nearly everyone that got hired had one thing in
common: they were friends with him at one time or another. That went on
for years but nobody seemed to mind.
>
>> I long figured out that in order to get and keep a job in my former
>> department, one had to be chummy with someone, though this came about
>> after I was hired 20 years ago. Talent and intelligence are of little
>> importance.
>
> I, quite frankly, was shocked to learn that this is really how most of
> the real world works. And, even more shocked that its been like that for
> all of recorded history.
>
> And, even still more shocked at how "the royalty" operates: if father
> was king, and mother was queen, then YOU could become king someday just
> because of who your father was.
Succession by right of inheritance. The designated heir or heiress would
spend their entire lives preparing to take over. Often that can cause a
crisis when that person abdicates or dies before ascending the throne. A
recent example was Edward VIII, who forfeited his future position when he
wanted to marry Mrs. Simpson.
>
> You could also become king (or emperor) if you could kill your enemy
> king, regardless of whether he was good or not.
>
> Did you know that Nero's palace occupied 1/3 of the land area of Rome?
I didn't know that but I'm not surprised. Many of the emperors were given
to excess.
>
>> <snip>
>>
Russell
snip
>
> No, it was like this:
>
> Kamal Prasad: The USA prints its money which has no intrinsic value and is
> wortheless.
> My response (sample): Name a country anywhere on the planet that does not
> print its money.
> All that "worthless" paper money you complain about all the time
> has been shown to be accepted by every store or business
> I've ever gone to without any problems, so explain why
> its worthless (and he would not answer that).
>
> Lots of other nonsense that he would not answer when confronted with
> facts.
>
> He also liked to talk about the "Law of Comparative Advantage" and I'd get
> no answer when I told him that most of the economics books I've read talk
> about the "Theory of Comparative Advantage". There is a difference between
> a law and a theory, even when economists (at least the honest onese) talk
> about it.
That book I was telling you about, _How Rich Countries Got Rich
and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor_, discusses comparative
advantage and points out that it assumes all units of labor are
qualitatively equal, which is untrue. In other words, an hour of
washing dishes is not the same as an hour of being a CEO at an
investment bank, and this is why free trade fails to raise the wealth
of poor countries as the ascendant economic theory of the moment
says it should. Poor countries have a comparative advantage in
doing things that keep them poor, activities with "perfect markets"
like exporting raw materials, while rich countires have comparative
advantage in things with "imperfect markets" which make them
richer. According to the author, if you look historically no country
ever became rich by pursuing Ricardian economic policies.
Russell
Russell
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've been looking for a job, and I see 20 postdoc jobs advertised for
every "real" job. I also attend meetings of a group of unemployed
professionals, i.e. people with degrees (often graduate degrees),
people with executive experience, even a few lawyers. More than
half are engineers or scientists. Among close to 30 participants,
meetings included about 3 PhD physicists, a PhD ME, a PhD
chemist, a PE, I think a PhD biologist on occasion. With my two
Masters degrees I feel downright underachieving. :-) Of course,
Dave doesn't appreciate such facts when I post them on his forum;
too "negative".
Russell
Me
Yeah, I'd still like to read that book, and you're right, too.
Poor countries have a comparative advantage in
> doing things that keep them poor, activities with "perfect markets"
> like exporting raw materials, while rich countires have comparative
> advantage in things with "imperfect markets" which make them
> richer. According to the author, if you look historically no country
> ever became rich by pursuing Ricardian economic policies.
Chang's book "Bad Samaritans--the myth of free trade...." says the same
thing and I was very impressed with how much the guy knew about economic
history and how much he had to read to be able to explain something so the
explanation would be closer to what is really going on.
I'm not sure the "poor" countries are staying poor (look at China and
India has come up some, too). But, I'll bet a lot of money that they are
going to keep their currencies cheap (they always do) as their
"comparative advantage". How Japan screwed us is best explained in Clyde
Prestowitcz's book "Trading Places" the title of which is meant to reflect
how Japan got our technology, most of the markets, and wreaked our tech
industries and our industrial base. I read that book cover to cover, too.
Recently, the near term predictions for India don't look that good, and
there are some other questions about China's future (China's stimulus
package was to vastly increase loans to keep the economy expanding, but I
don't have access to lots of data nor the time to look into it myself in
the kind of detail I'd like) so we'll have to wait 1/2 -1 year to see what
happens over there.
Personally, I can't figure out how China can grow any more from selling in
the USA since most of our stores (i.e. Walmart) already have almost
everything on their shelves "made in China." But, I'm sure we're going to
see Nanos and Cherys being sold in the USA next year or year after, and maybe
a lot of the Ford, Chrysler, and GM dealerships will get Chinese names
pasted over them?
Here is the latest book I'm reading now (about 2/3 way through):
"An Introduction to the Sources of European Economic History: 1500-1800"
Edited by Charles Wilson and Geoffrey Parker (1977, a bit old, but at
least the reference list should be good for historical information and if
I want more, I can google on author names for more recent information,
and sometimes the older books are better written and researched than the
newer books, too.).
The really good book I read recently on this stuff is "European Economic
History" by Heaton (started with 2000 years ago and up to about 1940).
> Russell
>
Russell
Right, but they are not following Ricardian principles. They are
doing
what the author of the book says that countries in the West did to
develop, that was emulate what was working for other countries. If
France developed a ceramics industry that was making it money,
England didn't say "Well, the French have a comparative advantage
on us, we'll just keep exporting wool". They developed a competing
ceramics industry, and countries used tariffs to protect their
industries while they were developing. plus they exploited colonies.
> But, I'll bet a lot of money that they are
> going to keep their currencies cheap (they always do) as their
> "comparative advantage". How Japan screwed us is best explained in Clyde
> Prestowitcz's book "Trading Places" the title of which is meant to reflect
> how Japan got our technology, most of the markets, and wreaked our tech
> industries and our industrial base. I read that book cover to cover, too.
>
> Recently, the near term predictions for India don't look that good, and
> there are some other questions about China's future (China's stimulus
> package was to vastly increase loans to keep the economy expanding, but I
> don't have access to lots of data nor the time to look into it myself in
> the kind of detail I'd like) so we'll have to wait 1/2 -1 year to see what
> happens over there.
Like our prospects are so good? ;-)
BMJ
<snip>
>> The whole scientist career landscape is trapped in the student-postdoc-job
>> quicksand. This is vastly different from the situation some 35-40 years
>> ago when lots of community colleges were being built and campuses were
>> expanding and hard money was around.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the imperitive is on expansion (which means for every
>> graduate faculty you have to fill at least 20-30 seats, and that means
>> 19-29 graduates who will not have a faculty job offer.
>>
>> National studies (I used to follow this in detail) show that at least half
>> of all PhDs (generally) will not have lifetime permanent jobs, and the
>> attrition, half of which, itself will be involuntary early terminations of
>> careers.- Hide quoted text -
<snip>
> I've been looking for a job, and I see 20 postdoc jobs advertised for
> every "real" job. I also attend meetings of a group of unemployed
> professionals, i.e. people with degrees (often graduate degrees),
> people with executive experience, even a few lawyers. More than
> half are engineers or scientists. Among close to 30 participants,
> meetings included about 3 PhD physicists, a PhD ME, a PhD
> chemist, a PE, I think a PhD biologist on occasion. With my two
> Masters degrees I feel downright underachieving. :-) Of course,
> Dave doesn't appreciate such facts when I post them on his forum;
> too "negative".
<snip>
At a university money-grubbing--oops! I mean, alumni--session this past
spring, I spoke with a current department chairman. We discussed the
matter of why there so few new faculty members coming in from industry,
where they clearly have experience which could benefit the students. I was
told that the university wanted younger people who could be "trained",
whatever that was supposed to mean.
When I was an undergrad over 30 years ago, professors who spent time in
industry were greatly valued. Nowadays, universities turn out engineering
graduates who can't tell the difference between coax cable and a U-bolt.
Oh, well, it's their loss.
Me
You would have to give a few examples of this.
If
> France developed a ceramics industry that was making it money,
> England didn't say "Well, the French have a comparative advantage
> on us, we'll just keep exporting wool". They developed a competing
> ceramics industry, and countries used tariffs to protect their
> industries while they were developing. plus they exploited colonies.
Yes, that is true. And, among others, Chang's book backed up that
"process" and most of his examples were SE Asian area countries including
his, S. Korea. And, England had hundreds of years of "protectionism" and
laws (not to mention its imperialism) to promote its own economic
interests.
>> But, I'll bet a lot of money that they are
>> going to keep their currencies cheap (they always do) as their
>> "comparative advantage". How Japan screwed us is best explained in Clyde
>> Prestowitcz's book "Trading Places" the title of which is meant to reflect
>> how Japan got our technology, most of the markets, and wreaked our tech
>> industries and our industrial base. I read that book cover to cover, too.
>>
>> Recently, the near term predictions for India don't look that good, and
>> there are some other questions about China's future (China's stimulus
>> package was to vastly increase loans to keep the economy expanding, but I
>> don't have access to lots of data nor the time to look into it myself in
>> the kind of detail I'd like) so we'll have to wait 1/2 -1 year to see what
>> happens over there.
>
> Like our prospects are so good? ;-)
Hey, from Prestowitcz's story the USA had totally or almost totally open
markets for Japan for many decades, but most Japanese markets were closed
the US industry for all of those same decades. They say today those
markets are open, but now, today, the US has almost no electronics (etc)
industries to make anything to be exported to Japan even though Japanese
Yen and USD are fairly even. Yen is not a cheap currency.
And, the way it looks, its almost a free ride for India and China, too.
So, as far as I'm concerned, cheap prices at Walmart come at the cost of
further destruction of our industrial base.
No, I don't think our prospects are so good <:-(
And, suppose the Chinese get swelled heads over the next few years (with
20% annual increases in their defense budgets?) and start getting "world
domination" ideas in its head? Or...maybe you can name any country in
history that had a large military capability and never used it, sooner or
later?
I'm open to speculations on that.
//////////////////
Me
The post containing this (above) did not show up on my server, but I
sympathise with the content.
> <snip>
>
> At a university money-grubbing--oops! I mean, alumni--session this past
> spring, I spoke with a current department chairman. We discussed the matter
> of why there so few new faculty members coming in from industry, where they
> clearly have experience which could benefit the students. I was told that
> the university wanted younger people who could be "trained", whatever that
> was supposed to mean.
I'll venture it means they can offer a lower salary and expect a candidate
to jump at the offer. The industry guy might get the idea (which I would
agree with) to just start his own business and be the boss instead of an
underling.
> When I was an undergrad over 30 years ago, professors who spent time in
> industry were greatly valued. Nowadays, universities turn out engineering
> graduates who can't tell the difference between coax cable and a U-bolt.
OJT still has value and lucky is the guy who gets a chance to hook up to
such jobs.
I graduated in 1966 with a BS degree and felt flattered when the guys I
worked for (as a project engineer) appreciated that I could read
blueprints (with no formal education in blueprint reading) and actual
engineers graduating in my era could not read blueprints.
I was amazed since I didn't think it was a big deal, and not hard either.
> Oh, well, it's their loss.
Maybe you can appreciate Phil Scott's "whining" and moaning about
ineptitude among today's management and considerable incompetance even
among staff (then we have Indians over on a.c.c who insist that they are
smarter than Americans and I read stories even from Indian sources that
very large fractions of Indian graduates in India are not employable,
either).
And, to further amplify, I had a good German student in my lab back before
I retired and he even admitted that not all German graduates in Germany
were that good, either. Oh, yes, he is a professor now at his institution,
permanent Phd-requiring job too, and still publishes and does research.
My other student got into Harvard Medical School (a research orriented
program) and surely is out there somewhere doing pretty high powered work.
BMJ
<snip>
>>
>> Like our prospects are so good? ;-)
>
> Hey, from Prestowitcz's story the USA had totally or almost totally open
> markets for Japan for many decades, but most Japanese markets were
> closed the US industry for all of those same decades. They say today
> those markets are open, but now, today, the US has almost no electronics
> (etc) industries to make anything to be exported to Japan even though
> Japanese Yen and USD are fairly even. Yen is not a cheap currency.
>
> And, the way it looks, its almost a free ride for India and China, too.
>
> So, as far as I'm concerned, cheap prices at Walmart come at the cost of
> further destruction of our industrial base.
>
> No, I don't think our prospects are so good <:-(
>
> And, suppose the Chinese get swelled heads over the next few years (with
> 20% annual increases in their defense budgets?) and start getting "world
> domination" ideas in its head? Or...maybe you can name any country in
> history that had a large military capability and never used it, sooner
> or later?
>
> I'm open to speculations on that.
Considering the recent internal problems it's had, it might use it there.
Ever since its founding, the PRC hasn't had a stellar record in its
military encounters with other countries. At best, those ended in a draw.
BMJ
That's sort of what I thought. Get 'em while they're too dumb to know any
better.
Another thing is that if someone more experienced comes in from outside, he
or she might see just how badly that place is run, but that's applies to
other employers as well. In addition, it's been my experience that
universities are root-bound with regards to research topics and someone
coming in from industry might have something that's worth investigating but
too far outside of what everyone else is involved with.
>
>> When I was an undergrad over 30 years ago, professors who spent time
>> in industry were greatly valued. Nowadays, universities turn out
>> engineering graduates who can't tell the difference between coax cable
>> and a U-bolt.
>
> OJT still has value and lucky is the guy who gets a chance to hook up to
> such jobs.
>
> I graduated in 1966 with a BS degree and felt flattered when the guys I
> worked for (as a project engineer) appreciated that I could read
> blueprints (with no formal education in blueprint reading) and actual
> engineers graduating in my era could not read blueprints.
On the other hand, at the first company I worked for after my first
convocation, we had fire fighting training one day. We were shown how to
use a fire extinguisher and given a piece of corrugated metal over which
some dirty oil had been poured and ignited. Two years earlier, during my
second summer working in an oil refinery, I'd learned how to do just that
and had actually put it to good use.
I didn't have much problem in putting out the training fire, but there were
a few people who didn't appreciate that as I seem to have hurt their
feelings. Engineers, I think, were to be seen as having no practical sense
whatsoever (and those were supposed to eventually become managers--go
figure), and I didn't give them that satisfaction.
>
> I was amazed since I didn't think it was a big deal, and not hard either.
When I was an undergrad, we had to take a drafting course in our freshman
year. I had taken one in high school and, so, breezed through that.
Nowadays, conventional drafting is seldom taught, if at all, with the
emphasis being on sketching and 3-D modelling.
>
>> Oh, well, it's their loss.
>
> Maybe you can appreciate Phil Scott's "whining" and moaning about
> ineptitude among today's management and considerable incompetance even
> among staff (then we have Indians over on a.c.c who insist that they are
> smarter than Americans and I read stories even from Indian sources that
> very large fractions of Indian graduates in India are not employable,
> either).
>
> And, to further amplify, I had a good German student in my lab back
> before I retired and he even admitted that not all German graduates in
> Germany were that good, either. Oh, yes, he is a professor now at his
> institution, permanent Phd-requiring job too, and still publishes and
> does research.
>
> My other student got into Harvard Medical School (a research orriented
> program) and surely is out there somewhere doing pretty high powered work.
I attended some electrical engineering social functions over the past few
years, including some at the local uni. I took my FT-817 along as I hoped
that I might work a satellite from that part of the city.
At one alumni gathering, I stepped outside with my radio when the time came
for a pass. I got a lot of strange looks from people wondering just what I
was doing. I remember someone actually going to a window and looking out
to see what I might have been pointing the antenna at but she didn't see
anything.
A few minutes later, I spoke with her and her friends and explained a bit
about amateur radio and amateur radio satellites in particular. I got a
lot of bewildered reactions as they couldn't possibly comprehend why
anybody would even be interested in something like that. After all, why
buy and set up all that equipment to talk to someone in another part of the
continent when there are cell phones and the Internet?
Many of the people I spoke with were *recent* engineering graduates. Now
that's scary!
>
>
>
>
>
>
phil scott
you missed my KEY point... I said SMALL business was relatively
honest etc...not big business, which is often corrupt
and incompetent to the core. Did you miss that?
Insurance companies are the biggest of big business, same with most
banks etc.
>
> > thats what it takes to stay in business.
>
> Also, being a crook helps and finding fools, marks, and victims helps,
> too.
>
> CYA
>
> > international corps can be as corrupt as govt. 90% or so of US
> > business is small business however...it cant afford to behave like
> > morons..those that do, go broke.
>
> Now you're talking my language.
>
> Don't forget all those financial types that were more interested in their
> bonuses than doing any work.
errr...that was BIG business... translation, big burocracy..
>
> > govt however ruins its entire host nation, starves half if its peoples
> > to death... then...collapses., meantime producing no goods.... I do
> > support the 10% valid aspect of govt however... its vital and
> > necessary.
>
> OK, I won't list my benefits of govts but I might make an insertable file
> just to remind you that we'd have chaos and a society of monopolies if
> there were no govt. We'd also have a ton of people packing heat, and
> shoot-outs at the "OK" coral every morning and evening, too.
for the 500th time ...I Never..never..ever said ALL GOVT WAS BAD... in
fact I said
govt was N E C E S S A R Y.
got that?
I did say that US govt was bloated as hell and had turned cancerous in
spots, and was
about to destroy the nation, and that SOME govt, such the morons
involved in the foreign oil mess and
wars was totally corrupt.
You tend to polarize it seems, then read selectively.
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Me
According to several sources, they beat the living crap out of Indians
back in 1962.
They helped Korea in the Korean war that we were in and _we_ did not do
all that well in Korea, ourselves.
Me
It is really unfortunate that kids get BS degrees and think they are,
therefore, hot shit.
Of course, when I got my PhD, I sorta thought I learned a little more and
at least some of my humility also grew with my ego.
After some two decades of going through further meat-grinders of various
kinds, I thought I was in a position to tell a lot of people: "Hey, if
you're smart, don't do this."
Now, after reading (in my retirement) over 200 books, mostly on history, I
am again blown away by what I might call "the human experience" and can
look back at my own past inflated ego as unwarranted.
Then, when I meet people like you are talking about (who appreciate
nothing), I have a new philosopy: keep my mouth shut and give them dumb
looks. Its not worth doing any more or saying any more.
Next time what you might consider doing is not even bringing your 817ND
but just hang around and laugh at their inane jokes and try a few of your
own (if they don't laugh when you tell your jokes, then stop going to
parties).
Me? I'm really too serious for most people; most people want to tell
jokes, get drunk/stoned, screw, and talk about
sports/popmusic/crapTV/oppositesex, etc.
Me
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, phil scott wrote:
> On Oct 12, 10:03 am, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, phil scott wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 am, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>>> absolute disaster in a vast percentage of cases.... the small
>>> company private sector is both honest and efficient.. relatively..
>>
>> "relatively"?
>>
>> Funny thing, I've been in the US Army, had other govt services (GI bill,
>> Medicare, etc.) all work 100% just fine.
>>
>> Where I've had problems is with the private insurance (phoney denial of
>> claims, stallling, mistakes... all my life).
>
> you missed my KEY point... I said SMALL business was relatively
> honest etc...not big business, which is often corrupt
> and incompetent to the core. Did you miss that?
Actually, I have found references that say or convey that small businesses
cheat, lie, steal, etc., at about the same rate as large businesses.
And, in my personal experience, and hiring or searching for small
businesses and individuals (in connection with the construction of my
retirement home plus additional work I've hired people for), I've actually
found or otherwise run across cheaters, liars, theifs, and incompetants, too.
I could also talk about doctors and lawyers, in small or individual
practices, that I would or would not use depending on what my project
would be.
> Insurance companies are the biggest of big business, same with most
> banks etc.
It helps to do searches on the internet for the experiences and surveys of
other people, sometimes ask them for references or other evidence of their
quality of work or performance.
Some big corporations do a fairly good job of backing up their products,
some you can tell they are chintzing you (offshore call center support to
India when the guy can't/doesn't understand what you are saying, and you
don't understand what he is saying, or even better the guy can't even
tune in on your problem).
>>> international corps can be as corrupt as govt. 90% or so of US
>>> business is small business however...it cant afford to behave like
>>> morons..those that do, go broke.
>>
>> Now you're talking my language.
>>
>> Don't forget all those financial types that were more interested in their
>> bonuses than doing any work.
>
> errr...that was BIG business... translation, big burocracy..
The bureacracy in the (private) insurance industry with its investigators,
utilization review, precertification, preauthorization, denial of claims,
and aggressive use of lawyers to aggressively screw insurance policy
holders is .... obscene.
Your state govt Department of Insurance is your friend. They have actually
helped me and my wife several times in past years.
>>> to death... then...collapses., meantime producing no goods.... I do
>>> support the 10% valid aspect of govt however... its vital and
>>> necessary.
>>
>> OK, I won't list my benefits of govts but I might make an insertable file
>> just to remind you that we'd have chaos and a society of monopolies if
>> there were no govt. We'd also have a ton of people packing heat, and
>> shoot-outs at the "OK" coral every morning and evening, too.
>
> for the 500th time ...I Never..never..ever said ALL GOVT WAS BAD... in
> fact I said
> govt was N E C E S S A R Y.
OK, I'm going to save that.
> got that?
YES, YES, YES.
And...
THANK YOU. THANK YOU V_E_R_Y M_U_C_H !!!!!!!!!!
> I did say that US govt was bloated as hell and had turned cancerous in
> spots, and was
> about to destroy the nation, and that SOME govt, such the morons
> involved in the foreign oil mess and
> wars was totally corrupt.
Can I throw Detroit in with that?
> You tend to polarize it seems, then read selectively.
Gee, I thought you were already polarized.
;-)
BMJ
But what did they actually gain from it? Land? Prestige? Very little of
either, if any, as I recall.
>
> They helped Korea in the Korean war that we were in and _we_ did not do
> all that well in Korea, ourselves.
They certainly did but many of them had no weapons. That war ended in a
stalemate.
>
>
BMJ
Especially since most of their education before post-secondary studies have
been exercises in self-esteem building and enhancement.
At one engineering alumni function, there were a number of student projects
on display, so I chatted with some of the people who were there. Many of
them thought that because they worked on those devices that they were
experts and geniuses. Since I had much more experience in some of those
areas, I asked them a few questions and it became evident that many didn't
know much about what they tinkered with.
>
> Of course, when I got my PhD, I sorta thought I learned a little more
> and at least some of my humility also grew with my ego.
>
> After some two decades of going through further meat-grinders of various
> kinds, I thought I was in a position to tell a lot of people: "Hey, if
> you're smart, don't do this."
That sounds familiar. For me, more often than not, the response was "yeah,
right, as if *you're* an expert". As the ad from many years ago said, you
can pay me now or you can pay me later....
>
> Now, after reading (in my retirement) over 200 books, mostly on history,
> I am again blown away by what I might call "the human experience" and
> can look back at my own past inflated ego as unwarranted.
>
> Then, when I meet people like you are talking about (who appreciate
> nothing), I have a new philosopy: keep my mouth shut and give them dumb
> looks. Its not worth doing any more or saying any more.
I've long stopped giving advice to people a long time ago, except in rare
cases. Most of the kiddies coming out of university have all the answers,
anyway. I certainly had that feeling while I was teaching.
>
> Next time what you might consider doing is not even bringing your 817ND
> but just hang around and laugh at their inane jokes and try a few of
> your own (if they don't laugh when you tell your jokes, then stop going
> to parties).
My problem with such social occasions is that I quickly become bored and
soon start looking at my watch as to when earliest time to sneak out might be.
The only reason I went to those alumni functions was to see if there was
anybody I remembered from bygone days. There were some there, but not as
many as I thought. Fortunately, the university's milestone anniversary
blow-out is over so I can keep a low profile for a few years.
>
> Me? I'm really too serious for most people; most people want to tell
> jokes, get drunk/stoned, screw, and talk about
> sports/popmusic/crapTV/oppositesex, etc.
That's one reason I stopped going to any office gatherings. Why should I
have spent a few hours of my time when I could get that same nonsense while
working and, presumably, got paid for it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Me
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
> Me wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course, when I got my PhD, I sorta thought I learned a little more and
>> at least some of my humility also grew with my ego.
>>
>> After some two decades of going through further meat-grinders of various
>> kinds, I thought I was in a position to tell a lot of people: "Hey, if
>> you're smart, don't do this."
>
> That sounds familiar. For me, more often than not, the response was "yeah,
> right, as if *you're* an expert". As the ad from many years ago said, you
> can pay me now or you can pay me later....
When I am up against some issue, these days, I have no hesitation to ask
relevant people: "Hey, have you had any experience with 'X'?" and I go
from there.
>> Now, after reading (in my retirement) over 200 books, mostly on history, I
>> am again blown away by what I might call "the human experience" and can
>> look back at my own past inflated ego as unwarranted.
>>
>> Then, when I meet people like you are talking about (who appreciate
>> nothing), I have a new philosopy: keep my mouth shut and give them dumb
>> looks. Its not worth doing any more or saying any more.
>
> I've long stopped giving advice to people a long time ago, except in rare
> cases. Most of the kiddies coming out of university have all the answers,
> anyway. I certainly had that feeling while I was teaching.
There is an 'arrogance' among some youth that is a parallel to another old
phrase: "young and foolish" as if the two words in that phrase go
together. The converse is: "older and wiser" and now that I've been on
both ends of that spectrum.... ;-)
>> Next time what you might consider doing is not even bringing your 817ND but
>> just hang around and laugh at their inane jokes and try a few of your own
>> (if they don't laugh when you tell your jokes, then stop going to parties).
>
> My problem with such social occasions is that I quickly become bored and soon
> start looking at my watch as to when earliest time to sneak out might be.
>
> The only reason I went to those alumni functions was to see if there was
> anybody I remembered from bygone days. There were some there, but not as
> many as I thought. Fortunately, the university's milestone anniversary
> blow-out is over so I can keep a low profile for a few years.
You may be the type that will be destined to not enjoy parties. I found
out about myself that way long long ago. Of course, when a certain
self-promoting-positive-attitude-blowhard showed up on this NG many years
ago, we had serious flamewars.
>> Me? I'm really too serious for most people; most people want to tell jokes,
>> get drunk/stoned, screw, and talk about sports/popmusic/crapTV/oppositesex,
>> etc.
>
> That's one reason I stopped going to any office gatherings. Why should I
> have spent a few hours of my time when I could get that same nonsense while
> working and, presumably, got paid for it?
Your choice.
BMJ
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>
>> Me wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, BMJ wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Of course, when I got my PhD, I sorta thought I learned a little more
>>> and at least some of my humility also grew with my ego.
>>>
>>> After some two decades of going through further meat-grinders of
>>> various kinds, I thought I was in a position to tell a lot of people:
>>> "Hey, if you're smart, don't do this."
>>
>> That sounds familiar. For me, more often than not, the response was
>> "yeah, right, as if *you're* an expert". As the ad from many years
>> ago said, you can pay me now or you can pay me later....
>
> When I am up against some issue, these days, I have no hesitation to ask
> relevant people: "Hey, have you had any experience with 'X'?" and I go
> from there.
Soon after I started at my first post-B. Sc. job, I was stuck in
interpreting some well data. I had a manual on hand from the company that
did the work for us but I couldn't find anything that explained what I was
looking at. Asking people who, I assumed, had experience with that sort of
thing didn't help, with a typical conversation went like:
"I can't figure this out."
"Look in the book"
"I did and it doesn't answer my question. That's why I'm asking people
around the office."
"Look in the book."
"I did and it doesn't answer my question. That's why I'm asking people
around the office."
"Look in the book."
Etc., etc.
After a while, I stopped asking people for information and tried to figure
out things on my own. If all I got was dumb answers, what did I need them for?
>
>>> Now, after reading (in my retirement) over 200 books, mostly on
>>> history, I am again blown away by what I might call "the human
>>> experience" and can look back at my own past inflated ego as
>>> unwarranted.
>>>
>>> Then, when I meet people like you are talking about (who appreciate
>>> nothing), I have a new philosopy: keep my mouth shut and give them
>>> dumb looks. Its not worth doing any more or saying any more.
>>
>> I've long stopped giving advice to people a long time ago, except in
>> rare cases. Most of the kiddies coming out of university have all the
>> answers, anyway. I certainly had that feeling while I was teaching.
>
> There is an 'arrogance' among some youth that is a parallel to another
> old phrase: "young and foolish" as if the two words in that phrase go
> together. The converse is: "older and wiser" and now that I've been on
> both ends of that spectrum.... ;-)
I was young and foolish myself at one time, but, fortunately, I overcame
that affliction, not that I'm batting 1.000 nowadays.
>
>
>>> Next time what you might consider doing is not even bringing your
>>> 817ND but just hang around and laugh at their inane jokes and try a
>>> few of your own (if they don't laugh when you tell your jokes, then
>>> stop going to parties).
>>
>> My problem with such social occasions is that I quickly become bored
>> and soon start looking at my watch as to when earliest time to sneak
>> out might be.
>>
>> The only reason I went to those alumni functions was to see if there
>> was anybody I remembered from bygone days. There were some there, but
>> not as many as I thought. Fortunately, the university's milestone
>> anniversary blow-out is over so I can keep a low profile for a few years.
>
> You may be the type that will be destined to not enjoy parties.
I used to when I was younger, but not so much nowadays.
I found
> out about myself that way long long ago. Of course, when a certain
> self-promoting-positive-attitude-blowhard showed up on this NG many
> years ago, we had serious flamewars.
His initials aren't, by any chance, DJ? Is he still around?
>
>>> Me? I'm really too serious for most people; most people want to tell
>>> jokes, get drunk/stoned, screw, and talk about
>>> sports/popmusic/crapTV/oppositesex, etc.
>>
>> That's one reason I stopped going to any office gatherings. Why
>> should I have spent a few hours of my time when I could get that same
>> nonsense while working and, presumably, got paid for it?
>
> Your choice.
Now, of course, I don't have to worry about that.
phil scott
emphatically yes, you can throw detroit into that.
>
> > You tend to polarize it seems, then read selectively.
>
> Gee, I thought you were already polarized.
I am NOT polarized..just a bit loopy from decades of dealing with
architects, owners, managers and
assorted tweekers.
Phil Scott
>
> ;-)- Hide quoted text -
BMJ
>> A few minutes later, I spoke with her and her friends and explained a bit
>> about amateur radio and amateur radio satellites in particular. I got a
>> lot of bewildered reactions as they couldn't possibly comprehend why
>> anybody would even be interested in something like that. After all, why
>> buy and set up all that equipment to talk to someone in another part of the
>> continent when there are cell phones and the Internet?
>>
>> Many of the people I spoke with were *recent* engineering graduates. Now
>> that's scary!
>
Only if it could fit into a video player or smart phone as that seems to be
the only technical devices with which they're familiar.
BMJ
>> It is really unfortunate that kids get BS degrees and think they are,
>> therefore, hot shit.
>
> infallibility in their own minds.
>
> Most eventually learn how things really work by the school of hard
> knocks after a decade or two.
I worked for a multi-national oil company after I got my B. Sc. It turned
out that one's main job function was to get promoted and to do so as
rapidly as possible. Such an attitude certainly didn't hurt there.
BMJ
>>> Most eventually learn how things really work by the school of hard
>>> knocks after a decade or two.
>> I worked for a multi-national oil company after I got my B. Sc. It turned
>> out that one's main job function was to get promoted and to do so as
>> rapidly as possible. Such an attitude certainly didn't hurt there.
>
Actually, I think that Dilbert only repeats something that's been going on
for decades.
I find the show "Mad Men" quite entertaining. Although it's set in the
early 1960s, a lot of what's shown about what went on in the office was
still going on when I worked for a large oil company. Most of the
characters remind me of someone I crossed paths with while I was there.