I think this is the primary effect of copyright and patent law. It becomes more important to be the person who controls the output of scientists than it is to be a scientist yourself.
It'll be like that until everyone realize that it takes a scientist to properly control output of other scientists.
Well, but maybe USA needs more and more outsourcing and maybe some hi-tech crisis to realize that. But that's not something we'd like to see (and I'm not American).
It'll be like that until everyone realize that it takes a scientist to properly control output of other scientists.
I'm an engineer you insensitive clod!
Joking aside, I think it's important to point out that what we need a lot of are engineers, not scientists. Scientists are wonderful people who advance our knowledge from a 50,000 foot level, and do so for little pay. These guys dream math calculations that make my mind gloss over just thinking about it.
Engineers OTOH, use a combination of scientific research and intuition to develop real and practical devices that advance civilization. Most of these guys are also very smart, but from a far more practical standpoint. Their job is to use all that research done by really smart scientists to exploit the laws of nature for the purpose of creating advanced machines that can do "work". (In CompSci, that would be a matter of applying the proper data structures and formulas to derive a computational machine that does work.)
The primary difference here is that Scientists tend to do the research because they love it. They have a keen insight into the universe and its working, and generally won't stop research even if they can't find funding. In addition, country borders rarely mean anything to their research. They could be American, Russian, Indian, British, French, or whatever. When their research gets published, everyone benefits.
Engineers (being more practical by nature) tend to aim for either the fortune of working for hire, or the fame of engineering some really amazing project. Their focus is to find a way to achieve whatever goals are put in front of them. I could tell some Aerospace engineers that I wanted to colonize Alpha Centauri, and they should be able to tell me how it can be done, how long it will take, what technologies must be developed, and at what cost. The idea that it *can't* be done is not the way they think. It's only about whether someone is willing to fund the project to its needs.
While I'm painting something of a rosy picture here, I do have a point to this rant. The US is losing *engineers* for various reasons. One reason is lower pay. Another reason is today's poor education system that often denies potential engineers from becoming such. The most damaging thing, however, is the continuously laxing standards for "engineers". A construction worker is not an engineer. Neither is a programmer a "software engineer". Yet kids fresh out of school have scented money, and said "I'll be an engineer! I'll cram my way through the schoolwork, then I can stop learning because no one will ever make me prove myself again!" As a result, the signal to noise ratio of engineers is ever dropping.
I'm not sure what the solution is yet, but I do know one thing: we need a different system for separating the wheat from the chaff. Traditional thinking says that School Degree == Knows His Stuff. Yet the reality is that you have a lot of people who go to school, but aren't really qualified for the job. At the other end of the spectrum, you have a lot of people who've made use of today's information mediums to become qualified without a degree. It's all a very confused situation.
I happen to be a software writer (call me an engineer or a programmer, whatever you like).
In my field, I have two ideas that are somewhat related.
1. Create a certification program for various software disciplines. It should be by engineers/programmers for engineers/programmers. It should be free (as in speech) and as close to free (as in beer) as possible. Possibly developed using a model where certified practitioners give feedback and continue to contribute to the test as part
IMO, we're "losing" engineers because we're not making real engineers. The percentage of "good" engineers, those that really have the talent and breadth to create things that just make you go "wow", was way different in the crop of the 90s versus the crop of the 50s and 60s. Good engineers are still in high demand and are still paid very well. In fact, because they are getting more and more scarce, I'd say they are in higher demand than ever. I know good engineers with just Bachelors degrees making 100K
IMO, we're "losing" engineers because we're not making real engineers.
Isn't that what I just said?
And by the way, if you're not a teenager and you're looking to find what you can do to become a good engineer, you probably ought to find another career.
I'm quite happy in my current engineering role, thank you. I'm not looking to "improve myself" (I'm quite good already), I'm looking to improve the way the "system" indentifies engineers. Currently the "system" says "Master's goooood, self-learning baaaaa
I think a master's degree implies that you are able to take a task assigned to you, and complete it satisfactory. That is of main concern to an employer, not how brilliant you are. Completing a master's degree is a sign that you know how to get things done. Yes, part of getting a degree is gaining a general knowledge of the subject, but the higher education system is not set up to teach people practical skills that are often needed in engineering. That is why they had apprenticies in the old days, that'
I think a master's degree implies that you are able to take a task assigned to you, and complete it satisfactory.
No, it doesn't. While I've seen some truly brilliant Masters through the years, many of them really just crammed their way through without any good idea of what they're doing. (I even knew one guy who couldn't write a line of code or figure out an algorithm if his life depended on it. He *sounded* great during the interview, but it seems he was a professional bullshitter.)
I seem to have a talent for miscommunicating today. I was in fact agreeing with you (mostly) and trying to expand on what I see as the core factor. And the "if you're not a teenager" was directed at "you" the general reader thinking of changing careers, not "you". Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Where we might differ is in the identification of where in the education system we're losing the "could've been engineers". I think we're losing them earlier rather than later. I'd even say it starts in preschoo
And by the way, if you're not a teenager and you're looking to find what you can do to become a good engineer, you probably ought to find another career
Do you suppose that there are talented, creative people in other disciplines that haven't found their true calling yet? Should they be locked out of mid-life course corrections?
You should be in HR; they have a lot of people who believe that folks over 30 should consider a condo in Florida to finish out their last years.
Sorry, my apologies if I offended. I've definitely miscommunicated and, in fact, still can't think of the best way to say it. So, I'll struggle with several.
I have seen older folks transition in successfully, but after talking with them, I've found they always were an engineer and didn't know it or knew it and wanted it but got sidetracked. Also, note that I use the term "engineer" widely. A master chef is usually a master "engineer". Many good authors "engineer" their books. Perhaps since the word "
I feel myself to be one of these "born engineers" you talk of. However, I've found that many, if not most, "engineering" jobs these days don't take advantage of engineers' ability to create, try new ideas, etc. Instead, they get stuck doing one incredibly small and focused task repetitively, like cogs in a huge machine with its purpose being to churn out this quarter's new product which is just a re-hash of last quarter's product.
Yes, I've seen the trend. I'd expand that this is a shift away from what engineering used to be. It also offers an explanation as to why "engineering jobs" can be moved overseas now that couldn't before. Many of the ones that are moving aren't what we would have called engineering jobs in the past. They are more like what engineering assistants used to do.
Perhaps what has happened in engineering is similar to what has happened in education. In education, we've clearly boosted bottom at the price of a
Yes, I've seen the trend. I'd expand that this is a shift away from what engineering used to be. It also offers an explanation as to why "engineering jobs" can be moved overseas now that couldn't before. Many of the ones that are moving aren't what we would have called engineering jobs in the past. They are more like what engineering assistants used to do.
Another thing I'm seeing is that the whole seniority system is screwed up. I'm "only" 30, but it seems to me that in the old days, a "senior" engineer
Scientists are wonderful people who advance our knowledge from a 50,000 foot level, and do so for little pay. These guys dream math calculations that make my mind gloss over just thinking about it.
Reminds me of a quote:
"Science looks at the world that never was.
Engineering creates the world that has never been."
Joking aside, I think it's important to point out that what we need a lot of are engineers, not scientists. Scientists are wonderful people who advance our knowledge from a 50,000 foot level, and do so for little pay. These guys dream math calculations that make my mind gloss over just thinking about it.
Why do we distinguish between scientists and engineers? I think most of the distinction is artificial. OTOH, as a scientist I could make a mistake which kills people, but I wouldn't suffer for it unlike a
I disagree. Engineering journals are teeming with mathematical demonstrations and derivations, but very little that would qualify as a mathematical proof.
As mathematicians view the concept, proof implies a level of detail and rigor which engineers generally find unnecessary and detrimental.
Engineers design things, math is a tool.
An engineer puts enough energy into the mathematics to make it unlikely that his equations are wrong. The required unlikelihood of error depe
Of course, we've kind of blurred that distinction in Computational Sciences. Now we have a field that does scientific research into mathematical concepts so that Engineers can (hopefully) apply them to the development of real world machines.
Just ask a mathematician what he thinks about renormalisation (extremely dodgy infinity cancellations) in quantum physics...
I think this is a temporary situation. Surprisingly, some aspects have been defined rigorously (I recall seeing two different claims to have rigorously defined the Riemann integral, for example, though I doubt either method touches on the issues surrounding renormalization), but these results seem virtually invisible.
Joking aside, I think it's important to point out that what we need a lot of are engineers, not scientists.
The market signals say we do not need more engineers or scientists. Right now many are finding it difficult to stay employed. This article is a sober albeit sketchy assessment of the employment prospects for engineers and scientists. I've been in engineering for 25 years. I'd like to stay in it another 25 years but I'm not very optimistic.
The market signals say we do not need more engineers or scientists.
My belief is not so much that we need more engineers as we need more *real* engineers. Too many people of the current generation have entered hi-tech fields without the skills to actually do their job effectively. Many of these people would be much happier in other fields, but they were attracted to tech jobs by the money and the articifcial need in the market. The result is that we've got managers who believe that hardware/software/aeros
I'm not sure what the solution is yet, but I do know one thing: we need a different system for separating the wheat from the chaff. Traditional thinking says that School Degree == Knows His Stuff. Yet the reality is that you have a lot of people who go to school, but aren't really qualified for the job. At the other end of the spectrum, you have a lot of people who've made use of today's information mediums to become qualified without a degree. It's all a very confused situation.
Exactly! Now if only such a system were as easy to implement in real life as it seems on paper. As much as an employers (and many employees!) would like to have resumes reduced to a set of competence numbers, people will always look for a way to cheat the system. Hell, we have bookstores devoted to cheating the system! "Preparing for your ACTs", "Passing Sun Certification", "C++ in 24 Hours", etc.
The only way such a system would work is if you have a human you trust making the evaluation. But how do you de
Any engineers out there recently sit for the P. E. examinations? Any engineers out there ever sit for the P. E. exams? Although not required, the P. E. exam is one of the mechanisms in place to make sure engineers know what engineering is about . . . of course a P. E. will command a top-dollar wage.
And how many engineers upon graduation went to work for an Engineering firm apprenticed to an experienced Engineer with a P. E. for three to five years (depending on engineering discipline) prior to sitting fo
Well actualy you forgot one last point, the MBA, and why they are paid 150,000$.
unlike scientist or enginers, they know the human side of the product. they are the one who transform an inovation to profit. and any great inovation with no actual profit will generate Zero Revenu meaning Zero pay for the eng.
Nevertheless, there are lots of company who pay more to the scientist that the MBA. because not all MBA are payed 150,000. most of them are payed around 45,000 which is the average salary of a Master of
Well actualy you forgot one last point, the MBA, and why they are paid 150,000$.
I didn't so much as "forget" it as simply "not address" the topic. MBAs are payed well because they should be generating money for a company and/or themselves. How they go about that is somewhat their business, with the exception of when screwy ideas begin to enter "MBA-land" as gospel. In particular, the "warm-bodies" idea is an idea that should be taken out and shot.
Many MBAs currently think that three $45,000 programmers
Then Again, if you only hirer senor Enginers, you will be in big shit 3 years down the road, because when the baby boomers start to retier you will have No more senior and LOADS of Untrained Jr, Eng. with NO MENTOR to help then. your momentary 5x boost will decrease to -15 if you don't maintaint your flow of jr/sr within your company.
The core of the problem is that companies are hiring *all* juniors. You need some juniors, but only as many as you can mentor. (Basically, apprentices.) The rest of your tea
I know a PHB who hired two seinors instead of one senior once: They were really good at repairing damaged fishing nets but could do little about the job at hand. Later he tried hiring three senors, but all they did was play guitar in mariachi suits with big hats. Finally he had to hire a junior whose noledge new no ledges.
Same PHB (an MBA!) was replaced by a PhD scientist who could spell. I can't tell you how much life around the office has improved since that day.
were the way that people involved in the practical application of technology for hundreds of years. Not three years at school. It doesn't matter whether you were a blacksmith or a doctor, it was acknowledged that much of your learning must come from practical experience and working alongside those who already have experience.
Many professions have kept the experience element. A docyor or an architect needs formal study plus a number of years experience before they are considered fully qualified. Something
While I'm painting something of a rosy picture here, I do have a point to this rant. The US is losing *engineers* for various reasons.
I am not an engineer, I'm a scientist (specifically, a physicist) and we are losing scientists too. For about 20 years we [the science community] have been off-setting that loss by pulling in more international students, but as INS tightents the visa rules and the processing times have gone up, many internationals are opting to go elsewhere (Europe?) instead of studying i
You show typical engineer bias throughout your post. It carries the "holier than thou" attitude most engineers thrive on. Well, I'm a computer scientist. I chose my field because I enjoy working with software over hardware, programming instead of soddering, logic instead of circuits.
Why you place engineers on some sort of higher pedastal over scientists, I'll never know. Your very tirade contradicts itself...you claim scientists tend to do the research because they love it.
You show typical engineer bias throughout your post. It carries the "holier than thou" attitude most engineers thrive on. Well, I'm a computer scientist. I chose my field because I enjoy working with software over hardware, programming instead of soddering, logic instead of circuits.
Oh dear Lord. Do you people go *seeking* offense? I certainly wasn't intending any.
Why you place engineers on some sort of higher pedastal over scientists, I'll never know.
Bzzt! A true Computer Scientist is someone who researches computational theory, information theory, encryption theory, etc. He is a producer of knowledge and mathematics, not end products. To him, a modern computer is the end product of computational research.
Not all Computer Scientists are hard-core theorists, man. There any many aspects of Computer Science, only one of which is deep magic math formulaic research. Implementation is just as big of a part of Computer Science (else they wouldn't even TEAC
You seem to have no problem lumping "programmers" into a category,
Actually, I didn't "lump them" in so much as "define the term". A programmer is simply someone who can program a machine. The term does not imply if they are an engineer.
but seem to think that any computer work that extends outside of logical proofs is the work of an engineer. That's simply untrue. When I architect, design, and write a program, it's the work of a computer scientist, not an engineer.
I'm not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is the primary effect of copyright and patent law. It becomes more important to be the person who controls the output of scientists than it is to be a scientist yourself.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, but maybe USA needs more and more outsourcing and maybe some hi-tech crisis to realize that. But that's not something we'd like to see (and I'm not American).
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an engineer you insensitive clod!
Joking aside, I think it's important to point out that what we need a lot of are engineers, not scientists. Scientists are wonderful people who advance our knowledge from a 50,000 foot level, and do so for little pay. These guys dream math calculations that make my mind gloss over just thinking about it.
Engineers OTOH, use a combination of scientific research and intuition to develop real and practical devices that advance civilization. Most of these guys are also very smart, but from a far more practical standpoint. Their job is to use all that research done by really smart scientists to exploit the laws of nature for the purpose of creating advanced machines that can do "work". (In CompSci, that would be a matter of applying the proper data structures and formulas to derive a computational machine that does work.)
The primary difference here is that Scientists tend to do the research because they love it. They have a keen insight into the universe and its working, and generally won't stop research even if they can't find funding. In addition, country borders rarely mean anything to their research. They could be American, Russian, Indian, British, French, or whatever. When their research gets published, everyone benefits.
Engineers (being more practical by nature) tend to aim for either the fortune of working for hire, or the fame of engineering some really amazing project. Their focus is to find a way to achieve whatever goals are put in front of them. I could tell some Aerospace engineers that I wanted to colonize Alpha Centauri, and they should be able to tell me how it can be done, how long it will take, what technologies must be developed, and at what cost. The idea that it *can't* be done is not the way they think. It's only about whether someone is willing to fund the project to its needs.
While I'm painting something of a rosy picture here, I do have a point to this rant. The US is losing *engineers* for various reasons. One reason is lower pay. Another reason is today's poor education system that often denies potential engineers from becoming such. The most damaging thing, however, is the continuously laxing standards for "engineers". A construction worker is not an engineer. Neither is a programmer a "software engineer". Yet kids fresh out of school have scented money, and said "I'll be an engineer! I'll cram my way through the schoolwork, then I can stop learning because no one will ever make me prove myself again!" As a result, the signal to noise ratio of engineers is ever dropping.
I'm not sure what the solution is yet, but I do know one thing: we need a different system for separating the wheat from the chaff. Traditional thinking says that School Degree == Knows His Stuff. Yet the reality is that you have a lot of people who go to school, but aren't really qualified for the job. At the other end of the spectrum, you have a lot of people who've made use of today's information mediums to become qualified without a degree. It's all a very confused situation.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
I happen to be a software writer (call me an engineer or a programmer, whatever you like).
In my field, I have two ideas that are somewhat related.
1. Create a certification program for various software disciplines. It should be by engineers/programmers for engineers/programmers. It should be free (as in speech) and as close to free (as in beer) as possible. Possibly developed using a model where certified practitioners give feedback and continue to contribute to the test as part
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
IMO, we're "losing" engineers because we're not making real engineers. The percentage of "good" engineers, those that really have the talent and breadth to create things that just make you go "wow", was way different in the crop of the 90s versus the crop of the 50s and 60s. Good engineers are still in high demand and are still paid very well. In fact, because they are getting more and more scarce, I'd say they are in higher demand than ever. I know good engineers with just Bachelors degrees making 100K
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Isn't that what I just said?
And by the way, if you're not a teenager and you're looking to find what you can do to become a good engineer, you probably ought to find another career.
I'm quite happy in my current engineering role, thank you. I'm not looking to "improve myself" (I'm quite good already), I'm looking to improve the way the "system" indentifies engineers. Currently the "system" says "Master's goooood, self-learning baaaaa
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. While I've seen some truly brilliant Masters through the years, many of them really just crammed their way through without any good idea of what they're doing. (I even knew one guy who couldn't write a line of code or figure out an algorithm if his life depended on it. He *sounded* great during the interview, but it seems he was a professional bullshitter.)
I can't say how this
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
I seem to have a talent for miscommunicating today. I was in fact agreeing with you (mostly) and trying to expand on what I see as the core factor. And the "if you're not a teenager" was directed at "you" the general reader thinking of changing careers, not "you". Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Where we might differ is in the identification of where in the education system we're losing the "could've been engineers". I think we're losing them earlier rather than later. I'd even say it starts in preschoo
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you suppose that there are talented, creative people in other disciplines that haven't found their true calling yet? Should they be locked out of mid-life course corrections?
You should be in HR; they have a lot of people who believe that folks over 30 should consider a condo in Florida to finish out their last years.
I refuse to live my life on a line
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Sorry, my apologies if I offended. I've definitely miscommunicated and, in fact, still can't think of the best way to say it. So, I'll struggle with several.
I have seen older folks transition in successfully, but after talking with them, I've found they always were an engineer and didn't know it or knew it and wanted it but got sidetracked. Also, note that I use the term "engineer" widely. A master chef is usually a master "engineer". Many good authors "engineer" their books. Perhaps since the word "
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
I feel myself to be one of these "born engineers" you talk of. However, I've found that many, if not most, "engineering" jobs these days don't take advantage of engineers' ability to create, try new ideas, etc. Instead, they get stuck doing one incredibly small and focused task repetitively, like cogs in a huge machine with its purpose being to churn out this quarter's new product which is just a re-hash of last quarter's product.
When I'm working on personal projects, I
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Yes, I've seen the trend. I'd expand that this is a shift away from what engineering used to be. It also offers an explanation as to why "engineering jobs" can be moved overseas now that couldn't before. Many of the ones that are moving aren't what we would have called engineering jobs in the past. They are more like what engineering assistants used to do.
Perhaps what has happened in engineering is similar to what has happened in education. In education, we've clearly boosted bottom at the price of a
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Another thing I'm seeing is that the whole seniority system is screwed up. I'm "only" 30, but it seems to me that in the old days, a "senior" engineer
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Reminds me of a quote:
"Science looks at the world that never was.
Engineering creates the world that has never been."
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Why do we distinguish between scientists and engineers? I think most of the distinction is artificial. OTOH, as a scientist I could make a mistake which kills people, but I wouldn't suffer for it unlike a
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
I disagree. Engineering journals are teeming with mathematical demonstrations and derivations, but very little that would qualify as a mathematical proof.
As mathematicians view the concept, proof implies a level of detail and rigor which engineers generally find unnecessary and detrimental.
Engineers design things, math is a tool.
An engineer puts enough energy into the mathematics to make it unlikely that his equations are wrong. The required unlikelihood of error depe
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Of course, we've kind of blurred that distinction in Computational Sciences. Now we have a field that does scientific research into mathematical concepts so that Engineers can (hopefully) apply them to the development of real world machines.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
I think this is a temporary situation. Surprisingly, some aspects have been defined rigorously (I recall seeing two different claims to have rigorously defined the Riemann integral, for example, though I doubt either method touches on the issues surrounding renormalization), but these results seem virtually invisible.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
So what are you when you focus on both? That's my point. The distinction is artificial.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Joking aside, I think it's important to point out that what we need a lot of are engineers, not scientists.
The market signals say we do not need more engineers or scientists. Right now many are finding it difficult to stay employed. This article is a sober albeit sketchy assessment of the employment prospects for engineers and scientists. I've been in engineering for 25 years. I'd like to stay in it another 25 years but I'm not very optimistic.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
My belief is not so much that we need more engineers as we need more *real* engineers. Too many people of the current generation have entered hi-tech fields without the skills to actually do their job effectively. Many of these people would be much happier in other fields, but they were attracted to tech jobs by the money and the articifcial need in the market. The result is that we've got managers who believe that hardware/software/aeros
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
That is something that's be
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
The only way such a system would work is if you have a human you trust making the evaluation. But how do you de
P. E. exams (Score:1)
And how many engineers upon graduation went to work for an Engineering firm apprenticed to an experienced Engineer with a P. E. for three to five years (depending on engineering discipline) prior to sitting fo
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:1)
unlike scientist or enginers, they know the human side of the product. they are the one who transform an inovation to profit. and any great inovation with no actual profit will generate Zero Revenu meaning Zero pay for the eng.
Nevertheless, there are lots of company who pay more to the scientist that the MBA. because not all MBA are payed 150,000. most of them are payed around 45,000 which is the average salary of a Master of
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
I didn't so much as "forget" it as simply "not address" the topic. MBAs are payed well because they should be generating money for a company and/or themselves. How they go about that is somewhat their business, with the exception of when screwy ideas begin to enter "MBA-land" as gospel. In particular, the "warm-bodies" idea is an idea that should be taken out and shot.
Many MBAs currently think that three $45,000 programmers
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Then Again, if you only hirer senor Enginers, you will be in big shit 3 years down the road, because when the baby boomers start to retier you will have No more senior and LOADS of Untrained Jr, Eng. with NO MENTOR to help then. your momentary 5x boost will decrease to -15 if you don't maintaint your flow of jr/sr within your company.
The core of the problem is that companies are hiring *all* juniors. You need some juniors, but only as many as you can mentor. (Basically, apprentices.) The rest of your tea
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:1)
Same PHB (an MBA!) was replaced by a PhD scientist who could spell. I can't tell you how much life around the office has improved since that day.
Apprentice, Journeyman and Master... (Score:2)
Many professions have kept the experience element. A docyor or an architect needs formal study plus a number of years experience before they are considered fully qualified. Something
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
I am not an engineer, I'm a scientist (specifically, a physicist) and we are losing scientists too. For about 20 years we [the science community] have been off-setting that loss by pulling in more international students, but as INS tightents the visa rules and the processing times have gone up, many internationals are opting to go elsewhere (Europe?) instead of studying i
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:1)
You show typical engineer bias throughout your post. It carries the "holier than thou" attitude most engineers thrive on. Well, I'm a computer scientist. I chose my field because I enjoy working with software over hardware, programming instead of soddering, logic instead of circuits.
Why you place engineers on some sort of higher pedastal over scientists, I'll never know. Your very tirade contradicts itself...you claim scientists tend to do the research because they love it.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Oh dear Lord. Do you people go *seeking* offense? I certainly wasn't intending any.
Why you place engineers on some sort of higher pedastal over scientists, I'll never know.
Simple. I didn't. I placed Scientists as truly
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:1)
Not all Computer Scientists are hard-core theorists, man. There any many aspects of Computer Science, only one of which is deep magic math formulaic research. Implementation is just as big of a part of Computer Science (else they wouldn't even TEAC
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Actually, I didn't "lump them" in so much as "define the term". A programmer is simply someone who can program a machine. The term does not imply if they are an engineer.
but seem to think that any computer work that extends outside of logical proofs is the work of an engineer. That's simply untrue. When I architect, design, and write a program, it's the work of a computer scientist, not an engineer.
How so? You've made a statement, but