Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2017, 09:55:55 pm
content: Michigan State University professor Indrek WichmanEngineering Education: Social Engineering Rather than Actual Engineeringoriginal essay;some snippets below (watch I didn't mess up context):"... a phalanx of social justice warriors, ideologues, egalitarians, and opportunistic careerists has ensconced itself in America’s college and universities. The destruction they have caused in the humanities and social sciences has now reached to engineering.One of the features of their growing power is the phenomenon of “engineering education” programs and schools. They have sought out the soft underbelly of engineering, where phrases such as “diversity” and “different perspectives” and “racial gaps” and “unfairness” and “unequal outcomes” make up the daily vocabulary. Instead of calculating engine horsepower or microchip power/size ratios or aerodynamic lift and drag, the engineering educationists focus on group representation, hurt feelings, and “microaggressions” in the profession."... "Engineering does not care about your color, sexual orientation, or your other personal and private attributes. All it takes to succeed is to do the work well.Even as an undergraduate many years ago, my engineering classmates and I noticed that fact, and we were proud to have a major that valued only the quality of one’s work. In that sense, engineering was like athletics, or music, or the military: there were strict and impersonal standards."... “The door to engineering is open to everyone, just as the floor of the basketball court is open to everyone, or applying to the  SEALS is open to everyone,” he said. “The question then is, are you good enough?”“Nobody wants to see an uncoordinated doofus on the NBA basketball court simply to add ‘diversity,’ ” Mr. Wichman said. “We pay to see top-notch talent compete for victory.We should apply the same standards to engineering and stop pretending that we can ‘game’ our wonderful profession so that anyone can succeed.”

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2017, 10:29:47 pm
content: Diversity can only be attained when a sufficient pool of people willing to learn and do the work exists. There is always going to be a ratio of people that want to be engineers and those that have the mental abilities to do so. That ratio I do not believe naturally changes across race or sex. The right way to go about trying to bring diversity into a field is to encourage people to take it up in the first place. The wrong, and quite often used way is to try to upset the ratio between people who are good at something vs people who want to do something so that you end up with a load of bumbling morons in the field who are only there because the school has to meet a diversity quota.I am entirely for the concept of equality, but we need to remember that we can't start hopping on the equality bandwagon and follow the mob mentality's idea of equality. To me, the concept of an SJW is simply someone who tries to work for their idea of equality, and only ever their idea of equality. SJWs tend to not reason with other people.Before I go further, I understand this is a hot topic, but I do think it is a valid one that has room for reasonable discussion.Colleges are a scary place in terms of SJWs. It's my main concern when I go to college full time. I feel the need to take extra care in my actions so that people don't try to screw me over through the absolutely broken US regulations on the matter. SJWs are the metaphorical cancer of the left. They are the liberal's version of the Alt-Right. They are both pieces of shit, and I can prove it mathematically.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2017, 10:56:02 pm
content: I agree this is a difficult topic to discuss, but Mr. Wickman is bang on here. His essay seemed to be driven by the agenda of dean of Purdue’s school, Dr. Donna Riley.In her words (Wickman's italics):“I seek torevise engineering curriculato be relevant to afuller rangeof student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics, andsocial responsibility; de-centering Western civilization;and uncovering contributions ofwomenand otherunderrepresented groups…. We examine how technology influences and is influenced byglobalization, capitalism, and colonialism…. Genderis a key…… the course…. We……racist and colonialistprojects in science…."Society seems to oscillate between alt-right and alt-left; neither is healthy.I did see Engineering grades (Bell Curve) being changed to match other faculties at my university like Computing Science, Science etc.Engineering grades were lower, so I was WTF my grades all went up 20% just so transfers between faculties didn't upset GPA, and for more students to pass the program.It would be horrible for the profession and nation to lower the bar for select students just for the sake of "inclusion".

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2017, 11:09:28 pm
content: There's quite a few academics in America and Canada that have been sounding the alarm for decades, but it's quite possible they're trying to stop a runaway train. Universities are laying the groundwork for a future where they have priced themselves out of the education market. Not only financially - why would you pay 10's even 100's of thousands of dollars to have a whole bunch of toxic far left post-modernist authoritarian marxist ideology drilled into your heads? Even in strict STEM fields, some universities require students to waste precious time and money taking "social justice" courses, time that should be spent honing your skills in your chosen field. Not to mention the extra institutional dangers related to due process if you're a male student. The only hope is if universities start feeling the financial burn like mizzou and evergreen state college. The overwhelming dominance by far left ideology will be slow to correct, but if it brings a university to the brink of financial ruin in less than decade, that may spark some change.I know this forum seems to have a "no politics" attitude, but I hope this isn't closed. This is one of the greatest problems facing higher education. As the saying goes, you may not take an interest in politics, but politics will eventually take an interest in you.Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 04, 2017, 10:29:47 pmThis is true, and while it might be a politically contentious claim, from a scientific perspective this is probably one of the least contentious claims. If you take a recent topic like the firing of a google employee for stating reality as its reflected in the scientific literature, there are differences between sexes in the average scoring of the big 5 personality traits. A notable difference would be that occupations with a social dimension, such as caretaking, therapy etc (anything with lots of human contact) would tend to be female dominated, while things that are abstract and object oriented, such as maths, physics, engineering etc would be male dominated.For the average man and woman, the difference may be quite small. However, when you have fields that inherently select for exceptional qualities, that is when you will naturally see the greatest disparity. What's even more worth noting is that in the nordic countries, where social engineering in "gender equality" is pushed to the greatest degree, you see the largest disparities in occupation choices amongst men and women. This goes directly against one of the core shibboleths of gender studies department, that if all other variables are removed, you would expect 50/50 sex distribution (but only in fields that they prefer, not garbage truck driving obviously). Alas, those departments aren't sciences, no matter what they label themselves as, and you shouldn't expect they'll update their ideas with evidence.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2017, 11:13:13 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on September 04, 2017, 10:56:02 pmAs if she needs to do that... with the majority of products being made in the East, is the West even at the "center" of engineering now?Ironically, it could be because the US has managed to dig itself into the trench of politics, that China is going to come out ahead...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 04, 2017, 11:53:33 pm
content: QuoteSeriously,Well, at least they are waving a big red flag so you know what engineering schoolnotto go to now.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2017, 11:55:40 pm
content: The solution is to ensure that women and minorities have a fair and accessible path forward into STEM. The biggest problem is mentorship, which is usually lacking for most first-generation college students.. This is best accomplished with booster programs in the elementary and middle school years, not by dumbing down the curriculum.Fortunately, we now live in a role-model rich world as compared to a few decades ago.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 04, 2017, 11:58:35 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 04, 2017, 11:55:40 pmHow exactly is it currently "unfair"?

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 12:09:57 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 04, 2017, 11:58:35 pmIt's often quite fair AFAIK. In fact, at least in the school that I go to, there are more women enrolled than men.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 12:18:33 am
content: For my engineering program years (decades) ago, 3.4% of engineering (students) were women.I helped many with CAD courses as they really struggled with them.Talking with a psychology grad student, he said women have difficulty with "mental rotation" where you imagine a shape or object in your mind, and rotate it. This is apparently a well studied gender difference.The women, most with top marks all their lives, got destroyed in the CAD class.The (asshole) prof told them if they have a "learning disability" he could make allowances if they could provide proof. The gals were in tears.Certainly genders and races are different for their abilities, strengths, weaknesses.I have no idea how to have a curriculum that doesn't nail somebody.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 12:23:03 am
content: I am quite Dr. Riley's concerns addressed in a history of technology class. But in the vast majority of the engineering curricula the genesis of the ideas presented is from tiny to non-existent. In my courses decades ago the inventors were identified by last names which have zero sex coding or gender coding, and only moderate racial and cultural coding.While a paucity of mentors might be a problem, I certainly didn't get any mentoring beyond the grading of homework and tests during university in spite of my male, white, European heritage. Nor did any of my peers as far as I know. But for full disclosure, I and many of my peers did come from families with strong science and engineering heritage. If families are not provided sufficient encouragement for their female children the problem should be addressed at that level, not at university.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 12:23:35 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 04, 2017, 11:58:35 pmIt is largely unfair in the sense that a minority in the US will attend a vastly inferior set of schools that her or his white counterpart. The racial disparity in education in the US is caused by how education is funded: property taxes. Rich neighborhoods have great schools. Poor neighborhoods have correspondingly poorer schools The poor are trapped in an underfunded educational system and end up at a huge disadvantage if they are accepted to college at all.At least in the US, minorities are still at a substantial disadvantage for college attendance. The solution is to fix primary and secondary education, not dumb down the college curriculum.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 12:31:21 am
content: Check out some of the links in the comments:This is from an "engineering professor"http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/04/virginia-tech-engineering-professor-discusses-gender-based-violence-in-stem-fieldsMy, the termites have dined long and hard. Plus the termites had AIDS.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:03:38 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on September 05, 2017, 12:47:17 amI agree.My answer would start with "Well, what did the previous feeder system look like?" "What percentage of arbitrary group <X> took advanced math and science courses in high school?" "What percentage of group <X> did extra-curricular activities with a hard sciences/engineering bent?"When I think back to my AP Physics, AP Chemistry, AP Calculus, and AP Computer Science courses in high school (late 1980s), the gender ratio was far from 50:50. AP English and AP History were biased in the other direction, BTW.It's no shocking news to me that the pipeline for engineering starts to exhibit bias prior to college entrance. As an engineer, I'd look there for a root cause well before looking to patch it at the college entrance time.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:14:05 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 04, 2017, 11:58:35 pmI believe it is well documented that female students in high school are treated differently (on average) when it comes to STEM subjects. They do not receive the same encouragement as male students, and career counselors do not propose an engineering vocation as readily as they do for male students. This means that disproportionately fewer women seek a career in engineering compared to the number who are able and qualified to do so.(I can tell this anecdotally, when there were only one or two women in my high school physics class comprised almost entirely of males. Similarly for chemistry and mathematics. I don't think this was statistically representative of the abilities across the student intake.)

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:23:12 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 04, 2017, 10:29:47 pmSounds like you could benefit from finding yourself a safe space?(Thought: maybe - just maybe - the way you feel these things "scary" and 'concerning' is very similar to the way people who aren't members of [Privileged In-Group, whatever the domain] feelall the timein places where the [Privileged In-Group] dominates everything, from discussion to everyday life.And consider that the academic discourse & papers that everyone's mocking / are afraid of is just the way that people who study society frame things in their own well-defined terms and language. Something which goes on here everyday, with "engineers" / us technical people trying to re-frame questions & problems into terms thatweunderstand...)[Yes, you can probably take it as read that this particular relatively privileged white male has little time for the whining of other relatively privileged people over thingsthat will barely affect them, if at all. Other people worrying about & attempting to fix this kind of stuff for themselves is only a problemif you're hell-bent on making it a problem...]

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:32:34 am
content: I used to get angry about this nonsense. This is a self-defeating ideology that cannot stand long term. Now I'm just popping popcorn and watching it burn itself out.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:42:23 am
content: Quote from: IanB on September 05, 2017, 01:14:05 amThat is rather to my point. The only way to get more diversity into STEM fields is to give earlier encouragement into women entering those STEM fields. My point is that most SJWs look to force people to put more Women in as a diversity quota instead of getting more people into that ratio of people who want to do STEM and people who can/are going to do STEM.Quote from: Tac Eht Xilef on September 05, 2017, 01:23:12 amMy point is that I am afraid of people taking shit too far. SJWs tend to come in and hamfist their solutions without thinking them through because the people who tried to do that were beaten to death with a 2x4.What I am saying is that in order to get more women into the field, we need to get women to be more interested. It's not right to blame colleges for not having more women enrolled in STEM fields when they just don't have the pool of people who are interested in doing it. It's an interesting thought that women are more discouraged in public schooling from taking up STEM fields, and that I think is where the main changes should happen. Getting women interested in the field from the beginning, and get them thinking that if they work hard they will most definitely have the same chance as and man will ultimately be the solution to the problem, or at least bring us closer to it.Quote from: MarkS on September 05, 2017, 01:32:34 amIt is a thought often why to bother preaching to the choir, but it's something that I am passionate about changing. My anger comes from the people who are also passionate about changing it, but refuse to listen to any sort of reason or suggestions as to the right way of changing it.Equality is a two way road. It's impossible to reach true equality from one side of it. It will only take a true, reasoned, egalitarian approach to reach it.

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:54:49 am
content: Equality is a pipe dream. We are not equal, any of us. Each of us has our gifts and strengths and each of us has our weaknesses. Equal opportunity would be a much more attainable goal, but even then, we have to realize and accept there are going to be divides based on each person's gifts and strengths, some of which are even based on gender, class, race, etc. Wait, I can hear people losing their minds already, what you mean we are different? That can't be. Maybe, just maybe, celebrating our differences and working together to optimize our strengths would be better than pointing the finger and saying, "I want to be equal to that person even if I'm not.".

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 02:06:05 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 12:23:35 amI will add that 20+ years ago, I would have disagree strongly with what I stated above. I would have said that everyone attending college from an American public school had the exact, same opportunity regardless of race or gender, if not more given the preferential scholarships.Not now. I now have heard enough about the problem in the collegiate system to realize that there is a huge disparity in the system for first-generation college students. Second generation college students, regardless of race, have a large advantage of parental mentors to guide them and assist financially.The gender disparity in STEM is a different problem in that it tracks both the wealthy and disadvantaged. There is clearly a cultural bias affecting the system because what I saw was that females were as statistically good as any male in math and science when I attended school.

author: 691175002
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 02:06:42 am
content: I think most gender disparity starts very young. Young boys are often encouraged to pursue vastly different interests than young girls, and once people get comfortable with a set of activities it is very hard to get as good at something else.I'm not sure its productive to focus on fixing male/female disparity at the university level. Today we are in an environment where if a college-age womanwantsto be an engineer it will happen regardless of financial or academic ability; which is very damaging to everyone in the long run.If you want a real mind-bender ask a SJW why height and skin color are heritable, but personality and intelligence are not. I tried it many years ago (when we were still allowed to ask that question) and did not enjoy the experience. These days I'd probably just be fired.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 02:11:31 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 05, 2017, 01:56:56 amNo. This is not vector addition. Extremism in the opposite direction is not an antidote to extremism in first.You need the liberal arts side of an education. The lack of a balanced education hurts engineers.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 02:13:23 am
content: Quote from: 691175002 on September 05, 2017, 02:06:42 amEugenics went out of fashion in 1945. Give it a rest.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 02:52:29 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 02:13:23 amI don't think that a put down of eugenics is the response to this. Part of the answer is that we really don't know what part (if any) genetics plays in these or many other characteristics. There is strong evidence that it is not the only factor. And strong evidence that whatever part genetics plays it is not dominant, that the variability is so large that the differences in the means are not really meaningful.So the situation becomes just like skin color. Skin color is heritable. It might even make some difference in some situations, like vitamin D production in high latitudes, or sun burn sensitivity in equatorial regions. But overall it really doesn't make any difference, particularly in a modern society that understands vitamin supplements and sun protecting lotions. Apply the same reasoning to intelligence, personality or any other characteristic you want to think about.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:07:06 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 05, 2017, 02:52:29 amDear God. I really just read this ^^^^. Go read history and come back to me on this one.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:09:44 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 12:23:35 amRight, so it has absolutely nothing to do with equality of access toSTEM educationand is simply one of broader socio-economic issues in society.That's not what's being discussed here.QuoteYou'll get no argument there.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:15:28 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 05, 2017, 01:42:23 amI agree and may not have been clear. I do not oppose the desire to have more women in technical fields. I oppose the ideology that looks at the disparity, points the finger at a particular group and spouts off subversive and hateful rhetoric while making sweeping changes without understanding or even trying to understand the underlying reasons. The end result of the OP would be either a engineering program in which male candidates numbers are reduced, thereby increasing the female to male ratio within the group, but without actually increasing female participation, or a strong push within other technical and/or non-technical programs to get women to change majors to an engineering field. In either scenario the professors would, out of necessity, be required to pass a certain number of female students, possibly under penalty of loss of job or tenure, thereby flooding the market with potentially uninterested and unqualified engineers.The question no one wants to ask or tackle, one that will result in an immediate charge or sexism, "patriarchy" and bigotry, is why more women have no interest in engineering. The false assumption is that women are being excluded, and given the left leaning nature of the vast majority of universities, I seriously doubt that. They are actively choosing another degree path on their own volition.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:16:02 am
content: Quote from: IanB on September 05, 2017, 01:14:05 amAbility shouldn't be the driver,interestshould be the driver.You can build and learn ability, but it's much harder to build and instill interest in something to someone who doesn't have interest in that area.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:19:19 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 03:09:44 amYes it is. From the OP:QuoteYou're not going to see diversity in very difficult fields unless that diversity is properly prepared to succeed in college.As for the matter of "interest," that's a separate issue that is much more challenging to solve than the challenging problem of equal access to a quality education.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:29:03 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 02:11:31 amHaving read similar comments in another recent thread I find this curious (the expectation that engineers should be required to take arts courses).I consider myself fortunate that I did not come through a liberal arts system. When I studied engineering, every module required was directly related to the degree. However, my institution had a very broad extra-curricular program in the arts, music, sports and many other activities, provided for enrichment. The degree program was compulsory, the arts program voluntary.Therefore, I find the comparison between the systems in the USA and Europe slightly ironic. The American system is akin to socialism: you will study the arts whether you like it or not. The European system is more like capitalism: you can choose to broaden your education, but the "government" doesn't force you to.(And lest anyone question it, I would say writing, researching, communication and presentation skills are a core part of an engineering education. However, in Europe I think they are integrated within the core curriculum and not split off as separate modules.)

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:30:09 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 03:20:30 amMansplained, by a white, male.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:32:56 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 03:19:19 amEven if you do that you may not see a much greater diversity in gender in a field like engineering, and that I'm lead to believe is what happened in the Nordic countries who are probably as a egalitarian as you can get in this regard.Anyone who thinks we are going to see a natural 50/50 male/female in engineering will be dead wrong. As wrong as expecting to see a 50/50 split in child care and nursing.QuoteWhy does it have to be "solved"?

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:34:28 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 03:30:09 amPlease, for the love of God, tell me you're joking!Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 03:32:56 amBecause "equality", at least in the U.S., isn't about equal rights for all, a noble goal. It is about making everyone "equal". We are all different, and therefore, diverse. However, those differences are being singled out, one by one, as something to be eradicated and are being demonized and vilified at every turn. It is "sexist" and "bigoted" and "wrong" that more women are not interested in certain fields. It cannot be an internal desire; it MUST be an external force. So the finger pointing and demonizing and fear mongering begins.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:36:54 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 03:16:02 amWhile I would agree with the importance of interest, I would suggest a latent interest in a subject can be suppressed and prevented from developing by external factors like peer pressure and lack of encouragement. This is particularly important in the early years of a child's education.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:40:56 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 05, 2017, 03:29:36 amFirst off. Look up the word "eugenics" and understand its meaning.Second, the issue of buying into "good school zones" would not happen if money was equally distributed among all schools, as it damned well should be. Poor children do not deserve to be damned into an eternal cycle of poverty through enforced ignorance.Third, what you're describing is a caste system, which I will admit the US is all too close to having. And it is complete, utter bullshit. I need direct you no further than current events to illustrate the problems that forcing a large segment of society into an underclass of ignorance can create.There will never be complete fairness. But we can do a MUCH better job of equality of opportunity. Just because the outcome won't be perfect does not justify inaction.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:42:18 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 02:11:31 amOk, so what subject do you propose they take out of the engineering degree in order to study your "liberal arts"?Becausesomethinghas to give. EE is now (always has been maybe?) so ridiculously broad it's literally impossible to cover even close to everything expected of a modern engineer. And this of course is a much complained about problem with graduates.And you want to take away some engineering classes in order to study some "liberal arts" stuff? (what exactly BTW, please be specific)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:44:18 am
content: Quote from: IanB on September 05, 2017, 03:36:54 amIndeed.What I was really getting at is that many kids get pushed into professions they have little or no interest in, and that's bad.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:48:03 am
content: Quote from: MarkS on September 05, 2017, 03:34:28 amNo. Wouldn't one think to ask women *why* they choose nursing over engineering and base one's conclusions at least partly upon a response from the demographic? Wouldn't *that* be smart?

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:54:07 am
content: Quote from: MarkS on September 05, 2017, 03:15:28 amMy opinion is this:We can at least try to do it. Try to get female middle and high school students interested and introduce it to each sex equally. If at the end of the day we still don't have diversity, and we have made sure that we aren't steering women away intentionally, then that is all we should do.Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 03:48:03 amThere are so many levels of bait and stupidity here it's making me remember exactly why this shit normally doesn't fly on this forum.I just wish to remind everybody that just because thinks other than you, doesn't mean you have to go nuts on them. Civil discussions are all that are needed here. While we talk about SJWs, we need to be careful that we do not become them ourselves.Now to add my opinion, I hate the word mansplaining. It is a sexist word, and one that is only used when one has run out of arguments, and can only resort to suggesting the entire discussion is invalid because the guy in the conversation is making a statement.I have a new suggestion: Whenever we use a word like mansplaining, use it in the opposite way and see if it sounds fine.Womensplaining, when women derisively talk back to men as if they know everything and are simply talking down to them.That sounds terrible, but it's just a mirror of what mansplaining is.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:55:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 03:42:18 amI didn't suggest removing anything. You're making a false statement regarding something I never wrote. I do suggest adding summer school or an additional year to the degree program. Yes, you read that right.I meet too many STEM grads who can't write, can't spell, have no knowledge of philosophy, religion (as taught academically as opposed to church), history, art, psychology, music, logic as it pertains to making arguments, etc. to not admit that there's a problem.Engineers build the world, but there's also more to the world. They should get a little taste of the other side of college before leaving.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:59:15 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 03:07:06 amOK. I give. What is wrong with what I said? I did not endorse eugenics. I did not endorse any kind of genetic sorting for preference.I don't know if the original commenter was a proponent of genetic superiority in any form, although the way he put the question it would be easy to imply this. What I suggested was that if you disagreed with his point, saying that the idea went out of fashion in 1945 was not a powerful argument.I then gave a short summary of what I thought was a better argument for why eugenics or other concerns about genetic heritage are not important.Perhaps you have better way of saying this, or perhaps you have some nascent SJW in you. I would suggest a better way of saying it would be more powerful.

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:01:46 am
content: Great post TwoOfFive, spot on in every regard.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:07:07 am
content: Quote from: MarkS on September 05, 2017, 03:34:28 amBut there IS an external force. If you actually take the time to listen, any number of women could tell you about any number of times they've been discouraged--sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly--from pursuing STEM education. Sometimes it's peers, sometimes it's teachers. I've heard it directly from a number of women I know. The same goes for people of racial minorities. It doesn't matter if certain cohorts on the whole are less interested in STEM, the fact of the matter is that there are women and minorities who ARE interested and ARE discouraged. As far as race, there are whole schools full of children who could have the interest and the drive to get into STEM and succeed, but they're never exposed to the curriculum or given the support that their peers in more affluent (which in the US, means more white) schools are.So until there is demonstrably equal opportunity and equally available support and encouragement across the board, the whole "but maybe X people are just less interested" argument is a big fucking red herring. This is basic science: you can't isolate one variable unless you can control all of the others. You can't isolate interest without normalizing encouragement, instruction, funding, and culture.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:11:14 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 03:48:03 amStrangely enough, psychologists have indeed done surveys to determine personality traits and tendencies amongst populations.Jordan Peterson has released quite a wealth of knowledge onto the internet for those who are curious. Of particular interest is the idea of distilling essential psychological traits from large volumes of survey data and analysing the co-variance of answers to see if they measure a singular trait. Cultural, socio-economic, sex influences etc can all be factored for. As difficult as it is to ascertain comprehensive truths in a softer science like psychology, people like Dr Peterson are making an honest effort to apply the scientific method.Or, we could entertain the "alternative science" that he's just a big meany mansplainer.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:12:53 am
content: Quote from: ajb on September 05, 2017, 04:07:07 amThis is similar to my statement. We can't prove that women are or are not naturally more or less interested. We don't have the climate to test that, and there are too many variables to try and control. I do not think this matters, however. We can give as much encouragement to women as we do men, or maybe even a bit more, We will most definitely get more women into STEM fields, but if it ends in a 50/50 split is not something to get hung up on. It would be nice, but it will either happen or it won't happen. There is nothing reasonable that we can do to change that.Quote from: John B on September 05, 2017, 04:11:14 amI like this.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:18:21 am
content: SJW nonsense cannot be expressed in numbers, so as far as engineering is concerned it is an idea of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:21:05 am
content: Quote from: ajb on September 05, 2017, 04:07:07 amListen to Jorden Peterson above (who BTW, has spent his career researching such things) and follow the Nordic case studies.Apparently theyhavetried to level the playing field in almost every respect, anddidisolate the variable, bringing it back to inherent interest differences in men and women, and the result was that there was still that large split.I did go look into the references for this once but didn't get far, but I'm sure it's out there for those interested.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:27:57 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 05, 2017, 04:12:53 amI've seen a huge push in this in the last decade or so. In fact courses and programs encouraging girls into STEM seem to be prolific.There are even startup programs for females only, like this aussie one:https://www.shestarts.com

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:31:35 am
content: "SheStarts is powered by Australia's leaders in diversity & innovation"Diversity for women only.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:32:27 am
content: The one thing I do believe is thatdefiningequality by statistics is folly in the extreme. Forcing numbers only causes deeper problems. Putting anyone into a position that they could not have attained through their own abilities, purely because of "equality by statistics" is not only a false action, it is a delusional one. Not only that, but it causes resentment among those who did get there through ability.This also causes such persons' shortcomings - which will be noticed - to become a problem and actually feed the argument against the moves for "equality". It is entirely counter-productive.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:38:19 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on September 05, 2017, 04:31:35 amThat's a misquote if I ever saw one.I haven't checked out the SheStarts program - but by the title, I would presume it's an opportunity to encourage STARTING down that path.I expect it allows females to explore these areas without having to deal with put-downs from, say, a mysoginst.I expect this will allow them to then develop and compete with everyone - even the mysoginsts.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:38:42 am
content: Quote from: ajb on September 05, 2017, 04:07:07 amI am well aware of this and it does need to stop. What I'm suggesting is that it is not as prevalent as people assume. If you listen to those spouting "equality", you quickly get the thought that this is the primary factor. That is false. I have seen girls grow up in households where they were told they can grow up to be anything they want and they still want to wear dresses, play with dolls and dream of being a wife and mother. This isn't forced on them. They desire it on their own accord. There are inherent differences between male and female, but instead of cherishing these differences, we have begun to demonize them. If a girl dreams of being an engineer, do EVERYTHING to help her realize that dream! If she dreams of being a homemaker, do EVERYTHING to help her realize that dream!In the end, don't assume that female participation in engineering programs are 100% due to extretnal factors. Accept the fact that they just might not want to be an engineer.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:52:50 am
content: In the current social climate would the SJW crowd be satisfied if 50% of male engineers decided to identify as women?

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 05:46:35 am
content: Quote from: John B on September 05, 2017, 04:11:14 amThe only thing I saw resembling statistics there was his 20:1 ratio.Statistics reveal the what, but not necessarily the why. The why is what matters. Why are women avoiding STEM in far higher proportions that what most reasonable people would think that women could enter the field and be successful? For that, one actually needs to talk with women and listen to the answers.I'm fairly certain that society is worse off with this extreme representational bias in STEM. You can call it "disinterest," but I'm betting you'd hear the word "discouraged" if you actually asked and listened.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 06:04:01 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 05:46:35 amIn response to your mysteriously disappeared reply, youwillhave to watch more than 3 mins of video to find the answers to what you're asking. Luckily Dr Peterson has posted lectures on exactly these topics on his youtube channel. I've done the legwork. Yes, you'll have to listen to quite a few hours if you are genuine in getting a good feel for the topic, but that's always required if you want to achieve the rank of Mansplainer.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 06:15:40 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 05:46:35 amIMHO it's both.Engineering is hard for most and women have different goals and dreams (ie. motherhood) and this is not lost on those pushing them into/through career paths. It's only when they demonstrate they are indeed committed to a professional goal that they are taken seriously by most but not all. Unfortunately there are still some that think that investment in the fairer sex can be better directed into menfolk. My daughter encountered this in her chosen career of aviation and to her credit she recognised it early and tried all the harder to effectively poke a finger in the eye of her doubters.Captain today and regional pilot manager. I think she showed them but not all like her have the backbone and the support to get this far.It is indeed sad that there are not more women in engineering fields, it is rare that I ever come across any and this is also represented in forum statistics.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 06:39:42 am
content: Untill Mattel releases "Barbie's workshop" or "Barbie's science Lab" collection, nothing will change.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 08:06:31 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 05, 2017, 04:38:19 amNo, they get cash prizes and cash investment for equity etcThat means investment money that could have gone to anyone worthy, not just females.(Not that I'm implying it's bad, just a fact)Quote

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 08:12:47 am
content: Quote from: DimitriP on September 05, 2017, 06:39:42 amClose:https://www.goldieblox.com/

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 08:21:38 am
content: Quote from: tautech on September 05, 2017, 06:15:40 amA female tech hired me for my first job.And here is the interesting thing. Go and ask any engineering channel what their gender stats are and they willallsay it's only a few percent female.Why?Youtube is the ultimate gateway to free tech information that is available equally to everyone, everywhere, of every gender withoutanypressure at all from anyone on what you watch or why.Yet with countless programs encouraging girls to get into engineering over the last decades, many role models etc, it's still only a small percentage. Why...

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 08:57:59 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 08:21:38 amIt did partially cover why but there's another point I don't think's been mentioned.Educational careers advice.As parents we took careful notice of what our 3 were being pushed toward in their later years of schooling and IMHO all these so called professionals could offer was BS.In our case, in their formative years we'd get them to take on part time holiday jobs, any job, just to look into the big wide world that awaited them.We never had much spare cash to spoil our kids and they relished in some small opportunities to get some of their own....even though they hated the mundane tasks that school kids could only get. What they learnt was invaluable for their futures........they learnt just what jobs they didn't ever want to do.This in some way focussed them into their studies and also careful thought of the career that they might pursue.All along mum and dad pushed maths as the most valuable toolbox they could ever acquire, especially as neither of us had excelled but in later life saw just how extremely valuable maths is. More than all other subjects IMHO.Early in this thread a member mentioned that girls need be brought up to know they can do anything...they most certainly can but in some career paths it's harder for them to succeed, the tables are stacked against them and a good amount of content here supports this as what many of us already know.The way forward is to support our next female generations, not by some BS agency but the backing of parents and those all around them. Succeed they might if they try hard enough and they must prove they can by their results and commitment to their studies. They have to do it, not us, them !Go girls.

author: razberik
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 09:12:25 am
content: At the second largest university in CZ - biology, chemistry and medicine has more female students than males. And there are no encouragement campaigns. How it is possible ?

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 09:43:03 am
content: Can you spot any differences in the picture below?It's subtle; you might have to look closely.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 10:02:00 am
content: Even with all the best intentions, education of mentors and support, there is still the problem of personal influences that will operate at levels that are below detection.One example I recall is when I was in the senior years of High School, there were two people in my year that went for the highest level course in Science - Level 1 (now called 4 unit). Here, you chose the particular branch to study and you got the Science Master as your teacher. One chose Biology - and the Master was seen to sit down with them and help cut out pieces of celluloid to make up a model of DNA. The other chose Physics. They were given the Physics syllabus, pointed to the equipment cabinet ... and left to their own devices.While this example may be a bit uncommon, thissortof bias is going to be something which is going to be next to impossible to eradicate.Whether a student can rise to the challenge or simply capitulate is the key - and, I believe, the thing to do is to try and create an environment where they are less intimidated.I did have fun with all the neat gear, though.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 10:02:01 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on September 05, 2017, 04:52:50 amProbably yes:

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 10:19:19 am
content: Quote from: tautech on September 05, 2017, 08:57:59 amThat can apply equally well to anyone, not just girls.I grew up in a poor working class part of Sydney at a time whenno one I knew(apart from the teachers I guess) went to university or aspired to any form of high level education or profession. I'm not exaggerating, I literally didn't know a single person. Zero encouragement from anyone in any aspect of my life.School? Huh, high school was simply a matter of survival.The reason you went on to the HSC was so you could get a better job at McDonald's. If you had a job, any job that paid the bills, you were successful.Parents encouraged my electronics hobby basically by leaving me be, but it was me alone who had to have the drive to get into the industry.Entirely different world these days with the internet.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 11:02:27 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on September 04, 2017, 10:56:02 pmHeh, I thought it was just overreaction but this is pretty bad.Trying to reprogram male engineers to be less sexist, regardless how bad it is, is not the task of an engineering school. You can offer a small amounts of humanities, but in the end that's not what anyone is there for. White/Asian men or other minorities/women.Alumni should let them know this is undesirable ... everyone else just tell people to not send their kids there.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 11:24:33 am
content: Quote from: Marco on September 05, 2017, 11:02:27 amI know right?All that money wasted on the university lunch plan when beans, rice, and cheese would be a perfectly sustaining source of calories. All the money wasted on bringing in guest lecturers when YouTube, EdX, and Udemy are available. All that money wasted on the college health department when the city has a perfectly functional emergency room. /sTo be clear: I believe that university education should be multi-dimensional. Of course an engineering school should rigorously teach engineering, but writing, economics, history, and the social aspects of college should all be an integral and essential part of higher education, IMO.I say this having gone to MIT in the US. I bitched and moaned about having to take "dumb humanities" classes at the time. Now that I'm out, I believe that more of my success and "not being an A-hole" [to whatever extent that I am not] is due to the non-engineering curriculum and experiences than the direct engineering work. The latter qualified me and gave me the raw materials to succeed; the former amplified that success greatly as well as makes it more enjoyable to reflect on my condition in life, mostly good and some bad.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 11:38:07 am
content: Why can't people simply accept that only a few women are interested in engineering? It's neither a problem, nor does it need to be fixed.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 11:48:57 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 03:16:02 amExactly my experience of training University students in industry, it was very quickly obvious which ones had chosen the degree course because they were interested and which ones had chosen it because it looked like a good career, it's a fact of life that the best people in a job are the ones who can combine a passion for the work and ability, that's not always defined by level of salary either because those who have the passion are often 'stuck' at a level that makes them happy.I've met excellent engineers of all genders, I think the main reason for the disparity is the responsibility of a society where parents push gender roles on their children, subconsciously or consciously.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 11:56:18 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 04:21:05 amYou need to be really careful looking at research like that. If it were a fairly solid analysis of human behaviour you would expect a similar percentage of female engineers across the world. In practice you don't. In some Eastern European countries there appear to be a fairly large number of female engineers (I say appear as I have no first hand experience). You find a lot more female engineers in India than in Western Europe or the US, and a lot of the female engineers I encounter in the US are ethically Indian.Boys are bathed in male stuff and girls are bathed in female stuff from their day of birth. By the time you can start to study their preferences you are way beyond being able to separate nature from nurture. All we know is that by the time they grow up, in societies where people are not strongly coerced into a certain set of roles, girls will tend to chose different roles from boys.An important point people ignore, by looking too narrowly, is that in while in most engineering and physics related topics there are few women, women dominate in biology (although not as strongly as men dominate in engineering. Its more like a 2:1 ratio). If you look at the gender mix across all science and engineering roles the balance is far less skewed than just looking at engineering. WE NEED MORE BOYS STUDYING BIOLOGY, or not, as the case may be.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 11:59:12 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 03:16:02 amSaying one or the other should be a driver makes no sense. Without ability, interest is useless. Without interest, you just won't persist. People need a balance to be effective.Excellence comes from obsession, and obsession comes from interest, but the most obsessed person gets nowhere without ability.

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 12:25:43 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 04:21:05 amApparently, it would seem, that their assertion that men and women are exactly the same would be false... Who knew.Quote from: Circlotron on September 05, 2017, 04:52:50 amThey probably would be, except that they are never satisfied.Quote from: Marco on September 05, 2017, 11:02:27 amI agree, but now, we can't have men just going about mainsplainin' needlessly. Remember, men bad men bad. In fact, we need to make sure and teach that every masculine trait is labeled bad so that men will act like and operate just as if they were women. Who is oppressing who now? I guess it is all ok so long as the right people are being oppressed.Quote from: madires on September 05, 2017, 11:38:07 amIt goes against their untouchable core idea that men and women are exactly the same. And they will fight it with lies, deception, skewed statistics, and of course social change.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 12:51:24 pm
content: QuoteI'm not worried. I doubt they will succeed.Another area with female under representation is the trades. Especially electrical and plumbing.Probably carpenters and mechanics too but I haven't heard figures on these.Not as many complaints about this AFAICT.Plenty of female law students though. I don't know why they would choose Law over Engineering. Maybe someone should ask them.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 12:53:14 pm
content: I'd imagine that lawyers tend to make obscene amounts of money. If I was just concerned about salary I would not really be going into engineering. I'd probably become a doctor or a lawyer of some sort. If I really want to hedge my bets in life and get rich, I'd look into business, trade, and stock brokerage.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:14:46 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 05, 2017, 12:53:14 pmYou shouldn't be so casual about "settling" for being a doctor or lawyer.When I studied at Uni I was informed that EE was the third most challenging course. The next up was Law and the top was Medicine.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:16:34 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 03:48:03 amCould it not be due to innate differences between the male and female genders?Perhaps most women will select nurturing role, such as nursing, over engineering, because that's what interests them most?If so, then why? Some may call me sexist for saying this, but don't women generally have a more nurturing role in society? Irrespective of what any government does, females will always have a greater role in childcare than males. They're designed to carry the baby for 9 months, plus nurse it for another year. It's hardly surprising they tend to select a nurturing role, over a technical one!Human nature, i.e. instinct cannot be changed, even if many people believe it would be good for society if it could be.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:23:10 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 05, 2017, 01:14:46 pmI know exactly how difficult it is, and that's why they get paid so much. I'm just saying that I know I could do it. I've been incredibly successful in my schooling so far.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:30:45 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on September 05, 2017, 11:24:33 amThere wasn't enough time in the12 yearsof compulsory full time study previously?If someonepaysto go to university of their own free will tospecialisein a field of study, why on earth should they be forced to learn all that stuff?Make no mistake, engineering degrees that go down this path will have a very bleak future.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:36:45 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 01:30:45 pmI agree and disagree. There are some bullshit classes that they make you take (Like history. We've already been lectured on the same boring crap in the mandatory schooling, why do we gotta learn more about the same thing?) however there are examples like writing and different sciences that apply to the field of electronics engineering. It's those topics that will actually come in handy, and should be taught.It's also the matter that they either have to meet a certain credit quota for students, and that they want to sell more classes, (Even not for profit schools still need to make money to keep the lights on and the doors open.)There are things in the US like CLEP, which are tests you can take to immediately qualify for college credit without taking the class needed. It's basically like taking the final of a class without taking any of the lessons, and if you pass you get credit, and don't need to do any of that. I plan to take college composition (because I hate doing it) and history (something that I don't mind doing in general, but I don't really want to be forced into anyways).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:41:32 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 05, 2017, 01:36:45 pmSure, but that's not the example here in this thread.The alarming example at Purdue is:Quote

author: sibeen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:51:31 pm
content: Me think you doth protest too much , Dave. Surely a quick semester course in comparative religion would improve your skills. Somewhat. At least a bit. Maybe.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:53:01 pm
content: Quote from: sibeen on September 05, 2017, 01:51:31 pmOr some feline studies.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 01:54:16 pm
content: As a minor aside to add some levity to the discussion, if you key in to Google "internalized oppression", a phrase bandied about these days in connection with sexism, misogyny, racism etc, Google currently shows a picture of Youtuber Ethan Klein. Nice bit of Google AI at work there.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 02:22:19 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 05, 2017, 01:16:34 pmAs someone else mentioned before, if you are interested in this stuff then go watch Jordon Petersons videos and lectures on the subject, they are fascinating, he's one of the world's leading researchers in this area. And yes,on average, innate gender differences play a huge role, if not the dominate role in this case, there is a ton of research on the topic.But that's not the reason a lot of people want to hear.However, be careful, Peterson has become somewhat of a poster child for this topic, and just the act of posting one of his university lectures can get you branded a misogynist for life

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 02:29:56 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 01:30:45 pmThe problem isn't the 12 years, it's that the brain isn't/wasn't fully/sufficiently developed then. My 6 year old just went off to 1st grade. How much economics and history is he going to productively learn in the next 3 years?How much contextualizing of justice topics can a hormones-raging, not-working, allowance-receiving 15 year-old do?Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 01:30:45 pmI will be sad to see the sharp devaluation of my MIT degree then.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 02:49:13 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on September 05, 2017, 11:24:33 amThey should give the dorms better kitchens and induce the students to set up dining groups.QuoteYou don't have the time to get much deeper into all those than high school. Just let the student pick between some humanities courses related to engineering (ethics of engineering, philosophy of science etc) or humanities undergrad courses.Don't give them mandatory social justice courses though.Quote from: sokoloff on September 05, 2017, 02:29:56 pmHow much contextualizing of propaganda can a 20 year old student do?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:28:22 pm
content: OK, so we had topics about that "science is racist", now we have topics about "engineering is sexist". Great. Did anyone mention James Damore already? He said:-Maybe Google should hire people based on their knowledge and skill, not race or sex. You know, because that is racist and sexist.-You are racist and sexist and fired. - said google.So yeah. It is easy to make conversation about this. There is one group, which comes up with evidence supporting the claims, and another group, who said that "it should be this way and if you disagree, then I will publicly humiliate you and call you a Nazi." Education is a free market. Everyone has a choice. I never hear anyone crying that they wanted to be an engineer, but they couldn't* because they are born some way. So what should we do.Makepeople choose something they dont want to do?*Ah, that is actually untrue. There is something that can be in the way (for some 50% in my uni. class), and was in the way for a lot of people. They couldn't finish university, because their grades were bad.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 03:36:28 pm
content: I'm going to be awful misogynist , male chauvinist and incorrect politically.1.The medecine, biology , chemist, nursering ,etc all have some on common . The mayor part of the matter have to MEMORIZE. On resume ,the girls and women tend to memorize(like parrot) when they are learning.2.The girls and women tend to be very obedient and they don't tend to dispute the stuffs. They will tend to be lambs.3. The girls and women tend to lose the head with the babies and low-age kids and when they can't supply these wishes, they tend to work on place where there are children like kindergardens, schools and pedriatics.All these afirmations have been recompiled of my own experiences with classroom mates (both sex ).

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:05:32 pm
content: It doesn't have to be a good girl bad guy situation. It can be a good guy good girl situation. There are things women can do that men cannot. There are things men can do that women cannot. Both can do well, especially when leveraging these differences together. The truth is that with the current agenda (men and women are same) that not men nor women will be special, unique, appreciated, etc. for what each can bring. The entire idea is foolishness and it will only bring trouble and division to everything it touches...

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:58:33 pm
content: There is a brilliant book called:Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps (Allan Pease, 2001); with some luck it can be found online!In a few words, male and female mammals (really, have we ever stopped being mammals?) have a very different brain wiring; the book is about our archetypical (the deep-down instinctive) differences.-George

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 04:59:32 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on September 05, 2017, 09:43:03 amBoth these magazines are driven by market forces and are doing what sells. While they are strongly reinforcing gender stereotypes, the market has already been formed. In my family I have noticed these trends in children barely able to walk and talk. In spite of strong encouragement by parents and grandparents to be interested in technical topics and careers. I can't tell you whether this is the result of inherent characteristics, unconscious training by family members or societal influences but it is very real.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 05:09:33 pm
content: Quote from: vodka on September 05, 2017, 03:36:28 pmI'll bite.1) You've obviously not studied medicine, biology and chemistry. They rely on a deep level of understanding, not just memory.2) Probably true to some extent. Women do tent to be more submissive, than men and this is not a bad thing, just a difference.3) I wouldn't agree with that. Men tend to loose their temper with the children more often, than women and are more likely to resort to corporal punishment. Women are generally more empathetic, than men, which makes them better suited to caring for younger children.Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 02:22:19 pmI agree.Various counterarguments to what I've said rely on social pressure and that things have changed since the stone age, but the trend is similar across cultures and basic human psychology hasn't changed since the stone age. Another problem some people will have with my comment is that it's a generalisation and shouldn't be used as an excuse for sexism, which I happen to agree with. Generally women may be less interested in engineering, but that doesn't mean they should be discouraged from a career in engineering or discriminated against, if they are interested in it.I do think some feminists have a reason to be unhappy, with the status quo. I blame capitalism, rather than socialism. The problem is: a) society seems to value money over everything else and b) nurturing roles are typically paid less than technical ones. Perhaps both need addressing? Society needs to be less materialistic and pay nurturing roles more.Is there sexism in society? Yes. There is a problem with unequal pay. To some extent, this may be unavoidable, as more women will take career brakes, to raise a family, than men will but even when this is taken into account, the gap persists. Look at the BBC's top paid list, as an example. They're mostly men, who get paid for doing exactly the same as their female co-stars.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40653383

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 05:33:51 pm
content: The so called "equal pay" issue isn't specifically a male/female issue. There are many men who make more than other men because they are simply stronger, better, more capable, or simply a better negotiator. Men are not paid the same for the same job! They don't even perform the same from man to man. Yet we hear about how it is a male/female issue. It is not. It is the way capitalism works. Dare I say that capitalism doesn't care what sex you are - those in the most need will be paid the most. Those who have the most to offer a company will be the best paid. Everything else is just whining. Honestly, I think equal pay is just some sort of social back door to socialism or communism.Shouldn't a harder more specialized job like a technical one be paid more than a nurturing role that might be challenging, but more people can do it effectively? There is that capitalism again.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 05:52:29 pm
content: Quote from: alank2 on September 05, 2017, 05:33:51 pmDid you check out the BBC's top paid list?I disagree with the BBC's decision to pay Chris Evans more than his peers. He doesn't contribute more to ratings than the other stars, not that should be important to a public service broadcaster.I can see your point about negotiation, which may be true to some extent.

author: TheWelly888
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 06:13:29 pm
content: I was a schoolboy during the 1980s and I had a load of SJW-like crap forced down my throat by a few dogmatic teachers and some fellow pupils as well! All that put me off pursuing a career where politics rather than true objectivity reign which was why I choose engineering for university. I did notice a number of students were noisily sounding off about far-left wing stuff but they were just a noisy minority of the student body - everyone else were just down-to-earth people (both students and staff) and I had a good time at university.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 06:19:58 pm
content: This will be an interesting thread to read. Let me bookmark it before it gets locked...

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 06:24:30 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 05, 2017, 05:09:33 pmI can talk more of the medicine because i have a various familiar and 90% is memorize , the math almost dissappeared. The last time that i found with a parrot(female anesthesiologist doctor) ,practically it was a interrogation for knowing because i should take a gastric protector. Finally, i went out without she explained me the reason. Today i follow to think that she didn't known it to explain .The temper isn't the main reason ,you sight fine on the face of the women when they engage contact with low-age kids compared with aging kids(+10) , they show more enthusiasm and smile, and the women without sons is greater.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 06:46:35 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 05, 2017, 05:09:33 pmTheir female co-stars aren't being men ... if the audience prefers men their market rates will be higher.No idea if that is true for presenters, but it is almost certainly true for movie stars (well, except porn)

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 06:47:31 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 05, 2017, 05:09:33 pmActually, I'm not so sure about medicine. I think modern doctors are mainly trained to be technicians. Based on my experience of recent encounters with doctors they have a checklist of "if this, then this" to work through, and little ability to depart from the script based on root cause analysis. This is unfortunate because they will often fail to look at the individual circumstances of a particular patient and understand how a particular presentation requires different actions than the textbook says for the "general case".

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 06:57:46 pm
content: That Dean of Purdue, she seems misguided.University is the highest as far as education goes, and if STEM enrollment numbers are low there, well it'stoo late to fixat the university level, it's the end of the chain.STEM interest is the product of parenting, grade-school, society, stereotypes, media etc.It is something developed in children. I hopeAdafruit's educational effortssucceed in getting more children into STEM, electronics. A much better approach, bottom up.Socio-economic class is also a decider in not pursuing higher education.I was poor as a kid and collected electronics out of dumpsters. University is expensive, I'm amazed I got a degree but I worked and paid my way.The Dean, is she lowering tuition for the sake of "inclusion" ?

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 07:35:19 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 05, 2017, 05:52:29 pmI don't know enough about the metrics used or the organization. Isn't the BBC state funded? Some organizations are run on a capitalist model internally and some are run differently. I'm not sure we can assign the reasons without being privy to the way it runs internally or even the person who makes that decision or negotiates it. It is a different set of negotiating rules when we are talking about an actor or actress who is part of a bigger show. You can't just replace them as easily as you would a technical worker, thought replacing someone because of failed negotiation always has its costs unless they were not worth having in the first place.wait - I was thinking that he worked for the BBC. Now I think I'm getting what you are getting at. If you mean "cap", well, movie stars are in a category all their own. They negotiate and win or lose parts. They are paid what it takes to get them. Supply and demand like anything else.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 08:15:55 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on September 05, 2017, 06:46:35 pmThe audiences didn't know how much they're paid, until recently. Personally that list correlates quite will with my least favourite TV personalities.Quote from: alank2 on September 05, 2017, 07:35:19 pmThe BBC is funded by an annual fee, charged to anyone with a TV set or who watches online. It is the UK's main non-commercial public service broadcaster. It does not show advertising, other than trailers for its own shows.I would not agree with a pay cap. After all, the BBC has to compete with commercial broadcasters for talent.I admit this might not have been the best example to pick but my point is, sexism still exists today. It might not like it was 50 years ago but it's still there and it's still likely a major contributory factor to the pay gap.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 08:49:02 pm
content: <NON Politically Correct Message>Quote from: floobydust on September 05, 2017, 06:57:46 pmI think not!I think that she is an agent; a tool that promotes her masters's agenda. And this is the proof:Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 01:41:32 pmEmphasis is mine.Dave has nailed it!Classic Marxist (and Company; see: Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/etc.) propaganda of the globalist 'progressive' leftist point of view:Why, really, does she demonise 'capitalism' only? What about 'socialism' or, better put, 'communism'? Are the latter ones beyond criticism?Taking it a step further, what exactly does the Marxism (et al) dogma* preaching?1. All the people are the same and equal (despite that there are not even twoamoebas'same' or 'equal' in ANY sense), and2.- This was a nice presentation, dearHaim Mardochai Kissel.** Tell us, please, what is the role of Central Banks in that theoretical regime of yours that you presented to us?His answer was:- Central Banks? There is no such a thing, even over here...; even if two 75k Sterling Pounds checks, one for Marx and one for Nietzsche, signed by the Rothschildsarewere displayed at the British Museum until recently...Political Left & Right ideologies: When, how and by whom?Well, this is a piece of information that is not so popular as other ones are. The very instant thePolitical Leftideology was created, the same exactly moment thePolitical Rightone was also created by the very same people: In 1807 Napoleon Bonaparte reconvened the ancient Council ofGreat Sanhedrin(the ancient Palestinian council that convicted Jesus and turned him over to the Roman conquers for execution) and gave them a permanent seat in the French Imperial Parliament Assembly (they were mustered at the left side of the emperor --thus their characteristic name-- while the conservatives cringed at the right side of him!) in exchange for more loans from the Rothschilds he could not afford, in order to keep the French colonies of the New World. Keep in mind that the Great Sanhedrin were/are the policy makers; they were not the fanatical mob that [according to officially distorted History] started the French [so-called] Revolution that led all the following European (of the same kind) revolutions...So, the Left/Rightbipolar disorientation, as well as the Communist/Capitalist, the Socialist/Fascist, Stalinist/Hitlerist, Black/White, etc. ones (with the very recent additions of the Male/Female, Straight/LGBT, Specified-/Unspecified-gender children, and what other invention will they come up with...), are yet another form of the winning recipe called 'Divide and Conquer': As long as they are fighting each other they will never notice what we are doing to them...-George( * ) This 'divide and conquer'-based dogma has cost the world over 200 million people according toProffessor R. J. Rummelwho coined the term 'Democide' meaning the killing of people by their own governments),( ** ) This was Marx's real name before he changed it to Carl Marx; why would he do such a thing? Was he ashamed of something of his that needed to be changed, or was he losing customers because of his Mosaic-sounding name? Not to mention that he was the son of a very well-off lawyer of the Party as well as the nephew of a filthy rich Rabbi --yet he officially claimed that he new everything about poverty, while he divided the society in the less- and the more-privileged citizens and encouraged the former ones to be murdering the latter ones...

author: buck converter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 08:53:19 pm
content: I want there to be an equal number of female and male engineers as much as the next guy, but these are my observations as a high school student.I have not been to college yet, but many people hear forget what high school is like. I will descibe my high school, one that ironically ranks very high in the US.Honor and accelerated classes have an equal ratio of male to female students, but the robotics club has 30 male students and only one female student has walked into robotics the entire year.I find this very concerning and would try to fix this, but if the school one dayfundeda program encouraging female students to be engineers, I would be EXTREMELY upset. Why?because my school has not thrown a dime at the robotics club or any other engineering programMy club is going to spend more time trying tosurvivebefore encouraging female students to join.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 09:57:53 pm
content: Scientists, and people who think scientifically, should realize the war is being fought againstscience. Because science is seen as difficult to control, with money.Falling for calculated wedge tactics SCIENTIFICALLY calculated to divide otherwise good people is a good way to lose that battle.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 10:07:49 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 05, 2017, 05:09:33 pmAs Jordon Peterson said, girls (on average) tend to be less interested inthings. Engineering is primarily about buildingthings.This is one of the primary reasons (if not the primary reason) why the more pure sciences have a much higher female ratio.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 10:18:17 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 10:07:49 pmOur ancient (I despise this term, since it makes me feel more distant from my own ancestors) forefathers used to say that, women? ('tiktoun' transliterated) meaning that women are giving birth to life (to humans) while men? ('genoun' transliterated) meaning that men are giving birth to ideas.-George

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 10:22:24 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 10:07:49 pmI agree but wasn't actually disputing that. What I was disputing was the implication that medicine, biology and chemistry rely, less on understanding than engineering. They're STEM subjects.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 10:29:39 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 05, 2017, 10:22:24 pmYes indeed, no argument there.BuckConverters story above about the robotics club would be another classicthingsexample. Although I would have expected a better percentage then what he saw. IME with First Robotics the female percentage seemed quite high.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 10:58:24 pm
content: I think the bottom line here is that there is no reason women should be discouraged from joining STEM fields, but perfect diversity is not a goal we should be forcing ourselves to reach. There will always be a divide between the genders. All we must do is make sure that it's not an unfair one.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 11:25:12 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 05, 2017, 11:14:48 pmEmphasis is mine.Fair enough!But, then, the 'No Child Left Behind Act (of 2001)' dogma would crash and we would lose generously paying customers (along with the accompanying voters)... What gives?-George

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 11:49:38 pm
content: You shouldn't all waste your time arguing about affirmative action, and indeed, preferences of all kinds for national groups of any kind, because they have been functionally barred from use in anything involving trade in services under international trade agreements.They are deemed to be "protectionism" because they are alleged to be trade barriers, a crafty ruse to keep domestic services markets, such as in government services, including engineering, for example, public works, as well as academia, public education, free of the long promised privatization and globalization with international competition. Its anticipated that some of the biggest protests will come from organizations decrying the loss of diversity due to globalization. But, priorities have shifted.Wage rules and limits on visas for workers have also been framed as invidious discrimination.In the recent G20 meeting in Huangzhou, all the G20 members declared that all protectionist measured adopted after the 2008 crash would be eliminated by 2018.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2017, 11:59:33 pm
content: That's quite right.I guess that the problem is, WHY should some trade agreements be above ANY country's constitution?I also guess that obviousness needs not to be answered...By the way, hello cdev! This is an asmdev!-George

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 12:10:41 am
content: Good question, I think in services they just saw the market in services as huge and until 1995 it was largely immune to government using it as a bargaining chip. Imagine that. But they saw it- being as it is something like 80% of the world economy, as fertile ground for trading of various services to meet geopolitical goals. Also, its a way of locking the world into an increasingly restrictive system which is in many peoples eyes failed to justify its continued use, which many feel is already past its due by date.By trading services they turn the current system with all its problems, into an entitlement owned by foreign corporations, as a vested right that cannot be voted away without compensating them for expected lost profits. Basically they do this by giving corporations rights to sell things without government interference, especially the most necessary things which many feel should not be commercialized, even though they are the most profitable things.Also, its used as labor arbitrage, as international competition - when the foreign workers are in a state of disempowerment, lowers all wages.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 12:26:53 am
content: This topic brings to mind another quote I remember, something like this: "the laws of physics do not care about your race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, feelings, or political views; and if you try to fight them, you will lose."

author: buck converter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 12:36:37 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 05, 2017, 10:29:39 pmIn my experience FIRST robotics in general has great sex ratios. When I competed in FLL, my team of 6 had 1:3 ratio. At the tourtaments there are girl scout teams, no boy scout teams, so tourtaments are around 1:1, thanks to girl scoutsMost high schools in my area have FTC teams, and they are around 1:3 to 2:3. My club Is 1:30 because we lack the clout to even call ourselves a legitimate thing. We came in 24 out of 26th place!!! Having one girl in a team of 10 did not look good in front of the judges! With just $2000 a year we could be successful at tourtaments and focus on attracting more women(To those who have not coached First - a part of FTC is showing the judges how your team works etc)

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 02:28:12 am
content: Here's some anecdotal evidence to provide additional confusion:My sister did well in high school and got a full ride scholarship to do a Chemical Engineering degree at the state school. After 1 year she quit the program, much to the dismay of the Women in Engineering directors.Not because she couldn't handle it, she is quite sharp and good at math (finished Calculus BC before even leaving high school), but she simply didn't care for the engineering mindset as a whole. With a future of all day working in a bleak office slaving away over numbers, while she wanted to work with people.Forgoing the scholarship money, she graduated with a general degree and went off to become a housewife and run social programs. She was tested with 136 IQ when younger.

author: aandrew
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 02:40:17 am
content: QuoteI don't buy this, not for one damned minute.You can't take two steps in any high school without coming across some technology programme specifically and only for girls. You can't sign your kids up for camps without wading through tons of female-only camps designed to encourage girls to participate in STEM related topics. There are dozens of websites dedicated to making STEM palatable for the girls. Investors can't throw enough money at STEM, so long as it focuses only on the fairer sex.I don't mind trying to bring more women into tech, I truly don't. I have two daughters, neither of which have any interest in STEM (one started college today for paramedics and the other wants to be a surgeon). I also have four boys, two of which have some inclination toward my line of work.What really upsets me is how the boys are being left far, far behind in this race to make sure the girls are looked after. Instead of encouraging everyone to look at technology, the schools and camps fawn over the girls and in one particular case, there were no STEM type clubs for the boys. The camps fill up for the boys, but the "for girls" camps can't accept applications for boys to help correct this overflow, and the boys aren't keen on it either, since instead of being about STEM, it's about "for girls".We have seen this play out in the general operation of elementary classrooms for decades now. It seems that people can't aim for equality; the pendulum has to be at the extremes at all times.My boys are safe: I can teach them STEM. I'm not worried about my own kids. I'm worried about the 8 year old who's got some interest but is left to his own to struggle through it because all of the help is heavily gender-biased. What's so hard about a curriculum focused on cool tech that is able to accommodate both sexes? Surely this isn't a hard problem to solve, it just requires some thought rather than knee-jerk overreaction.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 02:46:27 am
content: Alank2, you're wrong. Your value judgment that some jobs"should"be paid more because its specialized is not capitalism. Capitalism is based solely on the market and supply and demand. You could be doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world but in the final analysis your pay will break down to how many other people (or machines) can do that job too - and if they will, for less. Thats capitalism, buy low, sell high. What you describe below is "living wag ism" and its anathema to capitalism which is based on the market price for services.Also, the real equal pay issue isn't between the sexes, its between the countries. The argument goes that certain restrictions placed on companies on one side of international borders act as non tariff barriers to trade. Not that international borders impede commerce.Neoliberalism seeks to create a world without walls for corporations. Why should somebody in one country have to artificially make 20 times more than an equally talented person somewhere else? This disparity is likely to be greatly reduced in the coming years by services liberalization. Its not, as they represent, a creation of equal playing fields globally for corporations. Its actually a form of affirmative action for them, with the intent of helping the poorest countries corporations more than the richest countries corporations.Enter the push to cross license - globally by theWorking Party on Domestic Regulation. Its fairly far along, but you wont read about it in the newspapers.The trend under globalization is for people who do highly technical tasks to run into something called Taylorism (redux- many have thought it was gone but its being pushed more now than ever) which tries to turn workers, especially the most skilled workers like engineers, into standardized, interchangeable parts so that nobody depends on anybody's "irreplaceable" skills. These changes are being forced on countries.Quote from: alank2 onTodayat 11:33:51

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 02:52:43 am
content: Quote from: marshallh on September 06, 2017, 02:28:12 amConfusion indeed. I graduated with a chemical engineering degree and have spent my career working as a chemical engineer. Now granted there are lots of numbers and calculations involved, but you would have to be very unlucky to end up "in a bleak office slaving away over numbers" (and if you did you would change jobs). Not only is engineering heavily about teamwork and communication skills, but I have had many opportunities for international travel and customer engagement (customers and projects can be anywhere in the world), furthermore chemical engineering gives many opportunities to put on a hard hat, leave the office and go outside into the plant.Overall I have been very happy with my choice of vocation.

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 02:53:09 am
content: Quote from: cdev on September 06, 2017, 02:46:27 amI'm not saying it should be paid more simply because it is specialized, I'm saying that:Specialized --> not as many people available and/or capable to do it --> supply and demand --> capitalism.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 03:02:19 am
content: There are very large numbers of engineers in countries like India and China. The argument goes (and there is some truth to it) that people in some countries demand more money than people in other countries, and wont do jobs that are offered them for perfectly good wages. meanwhile, lots of companies would like to do that job for a fraction of what it costs to be done now, but are prevented from doing so by protectionist quotas and various other rules.Thats now a trade barrier or market access barrier, and its being framed as the root of all evil, almost.. in Washington, Geneva, Brussels, London, Canberra, etc.Those barriers are not long for this world. They are under attack in a multiplicity of ways and from a multiplicity of different efforts.Perhaps its good that more people don't know this, I have heard a few times from people.I don't subscribe to that argument. We need to know because these deals end democracy, in all but name only, We also need to know because the shift will destroy the sciences and other professions in developed countries. It will destroy professionalism in a great many fields. It will leave people with nothing. They wont even be able to work, because their "rights" will price them out of a market dominated by a new form of modern day slavery. Its goal is to cheapen everything. And not in a good way. Its an attempt to enslave the planet in debt during the coming years by stealing everything away from people and giving it, gratis, to corporations by stealth to sell back to them. Things that humanity already owns. The EARTH.A "second enclosure". This is all in preparation for the biggest job losses the planet has ever seen. Changes that will leave most people unemployed globally. People ask, what will be done then? Its clear that many people will die because they wont be able to survive.These secretive deals are in a very real sense a preemptive strike against the entire body of humanity that is not in on it. An attempt to future-proof the future for the very wealthy. Which is impossible.The people who are pushing it pretend to mean well but they don't. They are greedy, profoundly misguided people.Engineers need to stop falling for their old trick. Time is running out.People should be paid equally for equal work but that means that workers in developing countries should get more, not that people in developed countries should get less. Even if that upsets their agenda. Keep in mind that this phase is basically the second phase of colonialism. Except this time its turning on its own people too. Nobody wins under this scheme.There is a big spin campaign whose goal is distracting all of us so we won't see this attack on working people everywhere.I'm not kidding. They are very well prepared and they have done extensive research on wedge issues and extensive simulation.All of this divisive spin. Its there to hide the fact that we ALL have common values and none of us would agree with their agenda.So think before you fall for it.Its a trap.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 03:37:26 am
content: Quote from: buck converter on September 06, 2017, 12:36:37 amWell there's the trick.Why should an all male robotics team have to focus on attracting more women?Why can't aroboticsteam just focus on doing cool robotics, and those who are interested will join, those who aren't interested won't.Where does it stop?Should a robotics team of all asian kids focus on attracting more non-asian kids lest those people feel like they don't belong?Should a robotics team of all skinny nerds focus on attracting huge overweight people lest those people feel like they don't belong?Should a robotics team of all black people focus on attracting white people lest those people feel like they don't belong?Should a robotics team of all algorithmic based math nerds focus on attracting creative mechanical types lest those people feel like they don't belong?etcPeople with similar interests will tend to naturally gravitate together, and by all means put up flags and try and attract people, but it shouldn't matter who those people end up being. The team will be what it will be.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 05:21:09 am
content: When i began the Bachiller(Highschool no mandatory) had three class(2 stems, 1 humanity) ,practically the proportional between boys and girls on the STEM classrooms were 60% girls and 40% boys , these the half were repeater of 1 course. On humanity was approximatly 50/50. At finish the course, the great majority of girl had approved and pass the last course Bachiller. At change the boys had failed approximatly the half.For accesing to the university had a minium scoring for going to enter to determinate career. Practicaly all the Enginnerings Career were 5, less Electrical(5,5) and Mechanical(6) the ratio of the women 1 for each 30 men. On front to "Memoristic Career" Medicine 8.92 ,physiotherapy 7.34 , Magistery 7.5 , engineering chemist 6.5 , all these dominatd by women.Here, anybody can say that there are discrimination versus women.QuoteSeeing the faces of the children(photo*) , it seems a poem. On compare with the teacher.*The photgrapher had the bad milk for shooting and published this photo

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 07:24:24 am
content: Quote from: cdev on September 06, 2017, 03:02:19 amPerhaps. But if you were in a lower caste in India (let alone some untouchable castes) - your only hope of getting OUT of REAL Slavery - is some engineering or technical job (or even a Tata call center). Mumbai and other cities have 1000's of signs for engineering and technical education.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 07:52:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 06, 2017, 03:37:26 amPerhaps the fact that they have just 1 woman (out of 30) means there is an underlying issue? Maybe women in the school or women in the district are actively discouraged from participating (for any reason like religion, sexism, stereotyping etc.)? If they were from a boy's only school one can rationalize an all boy club - but for a heterogenic environment I am 100% certain they are losing out on great talent - not just girls - it may even be off-putting for talented boys (not just equality minded boys - quite a few boys seem to like hanging around girls in high school :-).My Niece was in FRC competitions (they got quite a few prizes); quite a few girls there. My niece designed, built and tested a few iterations of the mechanical device. For whatever reason, the lathe and mill operations were guys, while the team management (handling funding, sponsor relationship, even handling the municipality relationship) was a 10th grade girl. An articulate but soft spoken laser focused go-getter that does not accept no for an answer she was able to get sponsors to donate machining time and help machine intricate mechanics for the team. It is a coed varsity that attracts the best in the school and ranks up there with the boys basketball and boys soccer teams .

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 09:53:04 am
content: I was a mentor on a student satellite project in Dubai a couple of years ago. Of the eight locally based engineering students on the project,fivewere female, and they were specialising in various fields including power electronics, control systems, and communications systems, as well as various mechanical engineering domains beyond my experience.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 10:07:40 am
content: Quote from: cdev on September 06, 2017, 03:02:19 amYou realize that the answer is both are going to happen. Demand will rise in developing countries for engineering and scientific talent (and prices will follow). Demand will fall in high-cost countries (and with it prices for that labor).Quote from: cdev on September 06, 2017, 03:02:19 amPeople in developing/low-cost countries will win/are winning massively under this scheme.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 10:26:46 am
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 06, 2017, 07:52:07 amSure, insert a dozen reasons here, not all of which might actually be problems that need solving.Perhaps it's as simple as a randomly small intake of female students that year, and very few of them (again randomly) happen to not be interested in robotics, nothing more sinister at play.Perhaps next year they'll naturally have a much bigger ratio?Perhaps it's just a group friendship dynamic thing. i.e. none of the leaders of the girl peer social groups happen to be interested in robotics, so their friends likely won't be interested either. Maybe all it takes is couple of girls to form a more nerdy social group that happen to find robotics interesting, and they could drag along their friends for the ride.The exact same peer group dynamics could also be true for males. One year you might end with a huge robotics group, and the next year you might end up with so few numbers of people interested that they don't bother running it.I go back to my channel (and every other electronics channel I am aware of stats of), why is it only a few percent female?Surely with Youtube,every barrierhas been stripped out of the equation, there is zero pressure from anyone, no religion, no stereotyping, no sexism, nothing, if they are free to search Youtube as they desire then why only a few percent viewership for electronics?I'm willing to bet even electronic channels with female hosts would have the same figures (IIRC Jeri Ellsworth had a similar figure back in the day).The problem with the whole debate is that people all too often think this is a major problem that needs solving, when in fact there could be no real issue at all.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 11:23:13 am
content: I chuckled when I got this in an email today........not saying it's right or wrong....just another POV.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 12:48:12 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 05, 2017, 11:14:48 pmIts worse than just discrimination. Its self defeating. In the 80s in the UK there were programmes to try to increase the number of women in engineering. These basically took women with high school results not good enough to get into any self respecting degree programme, and helped them to get through an engineering degree. If you REALLY want to reinforce the stereotype that women make bad engineers, attracting low talent candidates seems a fantastic solution.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 01:15:09 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on September 06, 2017, 12:48:12 pmIME there is no such stereotype.

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 01:53:34 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 04, 2017, 11:58:35 pmI know a local uni, that pays girls a stipendia, just for being girls.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 02:12:54 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 06, 2017, 10:26:46 amActually - since it is a varsity club sort of things - it is unlikely to undulate too much. Just like high schools and colleges have football and soccer teams - they don't go away when too few jocks sign up...Like sports varsity, robotics clubs (at least the competing kind) seem to be oversubscribed rather than undulating.... All the school gets behind the team. There is a history with anecdotes, a trophy cabinet and an entire wings of a building dedicated to the club. And they get use of the Gymnasium for robot practice (when the jocks are away).1 in 30 isn't a problem you say. Surely finishing 26 of 28 teams isn't "optimal"? I think the two are likely to be related.IMHO, the fact they have 1 gal is indicative of a problem. As you pointed out we don't know what the problem is (and if it is solvable). But 1 in 30? At the very least they are not a very attractive club for female talent. Maybe we should not expect 50% female (no dogma!) - but it can't be that there is nothing of interest in this varsity for all the smart gals (and it is highly likely that the smart guys are avoiding the club as well).

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 02:32:28 pm
content: The concern about women in some settings (ones where government funding is involved on some level) may be because there are job cuts on the horizon (few people seem to realize this, though) due to "services liberalization" and the fear is women will be impacted greatly and their replacements who might be likely to be from elsewhere may not be women. (The idea as its being pushed is to channel those jobs to developing country services export firms. There is a lot of concern that global "de-industrialization "will push the developing countries into a state of perpetual warfare or more likely encourage them to assert rights and develop more of a domestic employment capacity and charge more for raw materials - which the corporate world fears.The real conflict they fear is not the one because of jobs vanishing in great numbers and not enough to eat. Its the one where the children fo the elite in those countries demand - and get reforms and reductions in corruption and nepotism, and build their own industries that compete with the rest of the world -Instead these deals encourage patronage systems and corruption.And especially, the trickle down economics (help the rich and maybe they will help the poor someday, maybe not) which is a big part of that logic is utterly disproven.We don't help poor people by helping the richest and most corrupt insiders in the poor countries who are arguably responsible for them being poor, We shouldn't help those people stay in power at all, actually, if we want the poor people to actually get helped.So sacrificing the bird in the hand (precious, vanishing jobs) of our own (alleged to be "overpaid", which shows what the real motivators of the advocates for these schemes are) skilled workers' jobs to help the very few get even richer makes less than zero sense.This scheme was always being pushed in one form or another going back to the 1970s, with teh argument that it would vastly increase profits.Now they have changed how its marketedhowever adding in the assertion it will help poor countrie. The biggest advocate for this scheme internationally right now in that context is one of the most stratified and unequal countries, a country that has shared very little of its growing wealth with anybody other than its elite, India. (Contrast it with China where living standards for the vast middle and poor have steadily risen) You can read quite a bit about the services export agenda and the various issues - many focus on market access and visa obstacles - The best place really, the only place you can read about this dispute is in the Indian press. because its not covered at all in the US press, except in the very slightest of mentions. (Surprising for something that could literally change millions of peoples future lives overnight.)One can see right off the bat that they are looking at this scheme as some kind of savior which is inappropriate given that it depends on millions of existing workers being replaced by their firms.Even if the economics look compelling to them, the political aspects of it make it a nonstarter, unless some international organization can be enlisted to be the bad guy. Thats where the WTO comes in.india sees huge growth opportunities if they can just get the WTO to force the developed countries to open up. And indeed, that may happen. Similar things have happened before but coverage of all news of this kind, has been conspicuously absent from the Western media.Think of two basins filled with water with a hose thats plugged between then. Remove the plug and the levels equalize "somewhat". Well, technical people realize... they equalize.. its simple physics. Similarly with these schemes. I would be lying if I didn't say that the appeal of getting workforce for a third of what it costs today is substantial - and will become much more so if the global economy tanks as is expected, as a response to all these allegedly"long-promised", changes coming as they will, on top of automation.(which will also make the number of jobs actally traded much smaller than advocates anticipate, so why do it, if many of those jobs will vanish anyway, "naturally" soon?)In other words, its a vicious circle of economic implosion that will self perpetuateonce it begins! So why trigger it in the first place?Because the alternative is more equality, something they see as threatening their statuses as the rulers of all they survey. When you are on top, all movement is seen as a threat! And technology makes everything exponentially less predictable. Thats whats causing this panic reaction. or so it seems. But its also I think simply an attempt to extract the worst possible outcome for working people out of the shift to automation, instead of the best.because lets not forget, automation in theory means much more free time, and one would think, more time to spend with families and more time to become involved in governments, around the world, and less corruption. And maybe even new forms of direct democracy. To the elite, all this translates as "mob rule".Developing countries for the most part are fairly realistic about the chances for this scheme, with the exception it seems of India.The Indian government is much more inward looking than many others, they also dont want to have the people realize that- in the case of the US and to a lesser extent probably also the UK to really support the healthy growth rates they enjoyed in the past they would have to overcome a great many obstacles and pretty much turn back the clock on US public awareness of these programs.Which is still low but which is likely to expand substantially in the future, spoiling the still fairly good relationships that exist. because most Americans still are living in sort of a pre-WTO dream world adn polticians do their best to keep it that way. therefore in the US mindset, it still is 1993 before the WTO and all the things these indian firms do are framed in the US press as likely to be illegal, even thoughthey arguably are not, under WTO law. Which is seen as superseding national laws.. See the work of the WTO Working Panel on Domestic Regulation for the process and timetable of when those changes must be incorporated into Members national laws.Certainly currently, things like quotas DO currently limit the ability of Indian and other skilled services firms to supply the cut rate medium tech services they specialize in.They complain quite a bit about requirements they hire workers locally. (Its SOOO expensive! Luckily, they only have to hire the less skilled ones. As it was previously pointed out, (Thank you!) they only have to hire cheaper, less skilled workers here, to make up some arbitrary percentage, 50%. imagine if they had to hire 50% of their engineers!)Still, to expand they have to hire local workers who cost them several times more, and they have - in international neoliberal media, framed this as discrimination.After all, if an American firm were to set up a factory in India, bringing Americans along, to work there, would they choose to hire only the lowest skilled Indians ? To save money? No, because wages there are much lower. but this selective myopia to the key economic issues is a hallmark of all the media coverage of these issues. And that should be a red flag to everybody about whats being planned and executed.Up until now, they have successfully framed rules that make them pay workers prevailing wages or minimum wages as discriminatory. And its likely the various international bodies will rule their way, potentially disrupting a great many careers. there needs to be much more awareness of this and there needs to be a discussion about it. One which brings in all the various groups involved. that has not happened in even the slightest amount.So, we move closer and closer to irreversible changes which may make a number of "tradable" professions - quite likely including portions of the engineering professions an even less attractive career choice for developed country young people.Changes that could make some of the most difficult professions into low paid, precarious work on a large scale. as long as the workers are temporary.in the case of the US, typical trade deal based visas are for six years. For 'body shops' that supply tech workers to firms, this is a way of getting their high skill workers for less than US minimum wage.They get a way of having high skill workers working for far less than what would be considered the norms. And they work very very hard. And cant get raises for six years.I think that all workers in a country should be subject to the same rules. And get the same opportunities as much as possible. And should be able to negotiate raises.Creating a new system thats often been compared to slavery (the WTO GATS Mode Four visa tied to corporate employer system) isn't working out in the Middle East and its not working out in the US.Its a bad bad thing.Get rid of the low wage slavery and then the visas can be based on merit. Not cheap labor. THEN their numbers dont have to be limited to some arbitrary number. BUT only award those visas to people who are really good. NOT to people who are simply okay- and cheap.But, then they HOWL that that gets rid of their chief "compatitive advantage" cheap labor. Under the"global value chains" system countries like the US and Australia produce high value products and ideas, countries like india produce labor. So "Global Value Chains" is a recipe for mass unemployment in developed countries on a scale its never been seen before, and those people will never get jobs again once it happens, because they will be priced out of their old proessions by competition that gains an irreversible right to stay. After all, this right "is the repayment of a debt" they are claiming. they "kept their part of the bargain" and privatized their education. If you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that there is a widespread perception that there was a tit for tat involved. A promise of jobs in exchange, in the form of market access.They got rid of their social programs, claiming they were promised jobs in return..What it really is is a backroom deal between the rich in both countries that does away with democracy and is intended to make all of our problems impossible to fx by the means which make the most sense and are time proven. instead, globalization, more globalization and more deregulation becomes the proffered cure for everything. the very worst kind of cult-like, delusional logic.Its real goals are not altruistic in any way. Quite the opposite. Its all to lock us in to bad policy and business models that are already old in the tooth, without any means of escaping them. To increase profits, and provoke a race to the bottom on wages, and steal all the gifts of technology for a very few people who will use the situation to prevent the positive changes the entire planet deserves and substitute oppression.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 03:16:36 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on September 05, 2017, 06:47:31 pmI'd agree with you, with one proviso - it's been my experience that female doctors are more likely to do proper root cause analysis and less likely to take the 'tick box' approach. And note that I say 'more likely' not that 'men always do this and women always do that' and further note that this is purely anecdotal, i.e. based on just my experience.Furthermore, it's not recent training, as I've seen the tick box approach taken by doctors trained a long time ago. I think it's a particularly recent British thing based on financial incentives being handed out for following practices decided at a policy level. i.e. NICE guidelines say that the 'gold standard' treatment for X is Y, and doctors get a payment of Z for following that guideline for x% of their patients. My other half worked on the admin side for a British GP practice and saw evidence of this first hand.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 03:37:10 pm
content: You say:Quote from: alank2 on September 05, 2017, 05:33:51 pmQuote from: Karl MarxSo you seem to be saying that capitalism follows one of the principal aims of Marxism. As Private Eye's editor was want to say, "Shome mishtake shurely".Anyway, the mantra isnot"equal pay", it's always been "equal pay for equal work". Nobody, outside of a dyed-in-the-wool communist, sees a problem with the Tea lady getting paid less than the Chief Executive* but a lot of people see a problem if a man and woman do comparable work on an assembly line but the woman gets paid less than the man for the same level of skill and effort simply because she is a woman.*Actually, if you knew how effective most Chief Executives really are, and how little they really contribute to the average business you'd probably opt for paying themlessthan the Tea Lady, but that's another argument.

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 03:55:26 pm
content: When I mentioned "most need" I am referring to it from the employers side/need, the quote you brought from Marx is probably talking about the employee's need which is irrelevant to an employer except for its bearing on the negotiation of pay that benefits the employer.How do you quantify "same work". We have that problem everywhere already. We have good teachers that should be paid more and we have crap teachers who whine about about how they should be paid more and don't deserve what they are being paid now. That is what "equal pay for equal work" gets us, "equal pay for any work". If you had an administrator with the power to decide what the salaries were who could reward/negotiate the exceptional ones and not reward the ones who don't deserve it, then schools would be better. The administrator of course has to have a stake in things and be accountable for whether the school performs well or poorly as well, if they don't manage their job well, then their boss will not reward them accordingly or they might be fired. When all that is thrown out the window for "equal pay for equal work" then we have a system where mediocrity and laziness rules, much like the failures of communism where no one gives a crap because it won't make a different whether they excel or not. It is also a system that breeds discontentment, malaise, whining, and pity party of all sorts which basically undermines the entire operation until it is swirling the drain in failure. Take a look at any organization where unions get in the middle of it and try to govern it away from capitalism. They always end up ruining the very thing they were supposed to protect by putting employers out of business quickly followed by employees who have no job."equal pay for equal work" is a pipe dream that completely undermines capitalism. It is a socialist/communist idea being thrust onto capitalism like that is somehow going to work. But hey, like a lot of things, let's just get people fired up over social media and make this thing happen without really thinking it through. Or have they thought it through and that is exactly what they want.....hmmmm.....

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 04:22:42 pm
content: Social Injustice Warriorsis more like it!(note:satire in part)if that was the title of this thread it would be more accurate. BecauseSIWsare trying to turn back the clock of progress!Sure, the equal pay for equal work concept is totally anathema to market based capitalism which says that people should have the freedom to contract, even if that means sell oneself into slavery for food.It also says that all of you GUYS and women too. make too much,way too much!How do you think they feel having to pay you humans more. Especially now as more and more we see a future coming where smarter and smarter machines can do almost any job!See the problem?In their ideal world, we ignore the fact that technology is producing ever improving almost free "workers" (computers) at a prodigious rate.And that those workers are getting better doubling in value for any given price every 18 months (approximately)Instead we assume that all workers who lose jobs just have to tweak their resumes to get new ones. Or maybe they"made bad life choices".In their nonsensical world, all restrictions on multinational corporations, all global business rules and laws should be eliminated "deregulated" and replaced by "global economic governance" that reduces everything to price differentiation.Want clean water, pay more for it, or quite possibly eventually, slowly die of pollution caused cancers. "its natural for rich people to be able to buy better water than poor" the same thing with health care and education too, OF COURSE.. Its the natural order of things! -So what they are really selling is a return to the past and the law of the jungle.. But they are framing it as the way of the future.. by shameless lying and spin. After all, if there are no rules, except for "sound science" - (bought and paid for spin with a scientific looking cover) then logic goes out the window. (So does science. If it doesn't listen to logic in the form of cash*.)Want clean air, pay more for it, or pay the consequences.(*1 What you don't know cant hurt you.. right? heh heh..if the warning signs started being published about 30 years ago, then only 35 year old and older science is allowed on the panel.)In their ideal world, every person is alone against the market. All forms of bargaining should be allowed. Prostitution? Sure! Organ sales? Sure!After all, history shows us that starving people will do almost anything for food, even cook and eat their own children. Bon appetit!They can serve as an example of what happens to countries that don't play the game.This means huge profits are in the future, if the race to the bottom could only be made to happen FASTER.Its onlycommon sense logicthat stands in their way.That's why they are trying todivide you all.US all-I am acutely aware of the growing wall thats being erected not just in engineering but really, everybody in the world who lacks some advanced credential of some kind is being silenced in the media. because what we're seeing is nothing less than a global coup. Against democracy and the very concept of merit for its own sake and science being a system of discovering facts and improving life FOR EVERYBODY.The wedge politics is a calculated attempt at distraction.As so many other things are these days.They are pros. And so far its been terrifyingly easy for them to hijack the direction the world had been going without most people even realizing that it had been done, starting 20 years ago.We should be waking up to this agenda.Not fighting over things which arecalculatedto distract everybody from the big picture.What they are pushing is not communism or capitalism, its basically a coup to put in place- under the radar- a very ugly new kind of corporate fascism. Which I think most of us- even corporate officers I've met, would instinctively oppose.Worth thinking about?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 05:08:40 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 06, 2017, 01:15:09 pmHave you asked any women engineers about that? in the 70s, when I started my career, there was considerable bias against women by many male engineers. By the 80s that was fading a lot, but what hasn't faded is how women engineers are seen by non-engineers, especially non-engineering women. How many women engineers have experienced a female non-engineer in their company making the assumption that the engineer couldn't possibly by an engineer? I hear anecdotes of this nature so often from women engineers that I assume is an almost universal experience.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 05:13:07 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on September 06, 2017, 05:08:40 pmSo the libtards better blame ALL non-engineers and ALL women, and leave engineering alone.

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 05:25:19 pm
content: cdev you make some interesting points. FWIW I am not all capitalism with no regulation. Look at the medical industry (hospitals, doctors, insurance companies) and how they are now what like 25% of the economy. Clearly this is an industry that the populace needs that has gone wildly out of control. I know I'm not speaking capitalism now, but there are some things that I think should be regulated even in capitalism. Not micromanaged like each person's salary necessarily, but corporations that own hospitals can't turn more than X profit each year or they are penalized for it. Look at the all the utilities, after deregulation it seemed the price of gas, electricity, and water skyrocketed out of control. Some thing need regulation not from the bottom up, but from the top down. If it is something where there exists the risk of monopoly and out of control costs, it might need to be regulated be folks who aren't in the back pocket of said industry.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 05:54:10 pm
content: Alank..Not speaking to what you said but just something you said reminded me of a paper I read a few months ago that goes right to the heart of a certain part of what I am describing, its entitled "HOW TO DESIGN TRADE AGREEMENTS IN SERVICES: TOP DOWN OR BOTTOM UP?" and its WTO document ersd201308_e.pdf Google should find it.Just so you can see that I am not speaking out of my ass as they say.At some point a few decades ago, all these policies and jobs became "tradable" services and everything changed, but people dont realize it AT ALL yet.And thats a very dangerous situation for democracy. In fact, as it stands right now we almost no longer have democracy. Its hanging by a thread. And people who want deregulation arent getting that either, instead they are going to get more regulation than they ever thought was even possible. And not in a good way.We all need to wake up and get involved. (Even though we're not supposed to, as the entire system has been designed to COMPLETELY REMOVE HUMAN INPUT FROM THE EQUATION. Only corporations and the countries (many of which they keep as pets) get a voice.)People are on the table being carved up. We're the meal.Silence will not serve anybody's interests.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 06:11:55 pm
content: Alank,Which economy? You have to remember its global now. To get the business "we" want, very high margin rich peoples business, we may have totradesick poor peoples business away to other countries. making them uninsurable helps.. which is easy because we already agreed to freeze insurance regulation to its state on February 26, 1998. the day a certain document was signed. So, in the US, that means a simple WTO procedure could be used to force us to revert any objectionable (unprofitable) changes in our financial services laws (yes, the same ones that regulate banking and there is another terrifying situation!) So, in 1998, no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions (the expensive ones) was required. People who had had some health condition had to negotiate coverage from a position of extreme weakness.Also, genetic discrimination, so called "genelining" was allowed. As was dumping people like that retroactively (claw back of befits already paid) if they could be shown to have made a "material misrepresentation" to get benefits.. "they were not entitled to" Can you see where this is going?As well as a zillion other things which are now, not so coincidentally, on the chopping block in the US.This isnt some little thing I am talking about here.See "Does Health Insurance Impede Trade In Healthcare Services" by Matoo and Rathindran - World Bank publicationsthe goal is to force large numbers of people out into the global marketplace and create a fake "emergency" which can be used to suspend common sense thinking. An "emergency" get it?Into that void they will step with their arguments.. "Its that pesky lack of health insurance portability across international borders" - and "standards" of professional behavior, in developed countries, where people have certain expectations - that are in the way!Also, expectations of all kinds held by those in developed countries - some say, have to be lowered or eliminated..expectations which are absent in the developing world, where people die every day because they don't have enough money for a $5 medication, and 9/10 of all the lives are wasted because nobody can afford an education beyond whats supplied by the state. (Which in Indiadidn't even BEGIN until recently)In some peoples eyes, giving peple a chance to go to SCHOOL is too MUCH "government regulation". Where does that take us?As Richard Feynman once said, "There is plenty of room at the bottom".Since jobs are going away, a lot of people will be joining the poor soon. The road needs to be made clear for the profit making! Other countries banks want in on that action. They are willing to make concessions in other areas so they can all be included.Its all those social justice expectations that are standing in the way of (in?)equality for all.Goodbye middle class. The 99.99% % is about to get even more inclusive!get the picture?

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 06:19:23 pm
content: you won't get any argument from me that globalization is a bad thing, but I suppose we are getting off topic here.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 06:34:12 pm
content: What they are really trying to do is prevent real globalization. Which is less and less one where people are needed at all, although the framing now is that the market should determine everything.But in that world, wages in developed countries fall a lot and wages in developing countries dont go up, they merely get more work for a short time during the transition to automation. careers are cut short because people "make too much". thats not a good thing because people with technology skills need to keep their skills sharp to maintain them.In the scenario thats being pushed on us that wont happen, people will just suddenly find themselves excluded from economic life by sudden shifts in the regulatory situation. Dont forget were it not for regulation, there would be no reason to pay people in any country more.Supply and demand would determine everything. Period. Same with safety. And of course, many people woudl get sick never knowing why, and with no way of ever finding out. Because chemicals used in everything would be closely guarded trade secrets. Also, doctors main jobs would be preserving state security, not curing anybody.Under totalitarianism, typically a third of society are informers for the state security apparatus. Even though the Internet simplifies that, we should expect something similar. because the difference between right and wrong is being intentionally blurred to enable the legitimizing of totally profit mad behaviors. We've lost democracy in this global governance layer already. Its been replaced by something much more like the divine right of corporations and those that own them.This will lead to a total breakdown of the trust which keeps society together. Conservatives today who claim to want deregulation - as you just implied, have limits. You clearly dont want total deregulation, because then basically everything weve gained over the last century and a half would be lost. Only a madman would want that. No, what they are forcing us into is a least common denominator approach which will freeze further progress at the lowest level. they are doing this because they feel entitled to all the benefits of technology - even when they dont deserve them they are working very hard to make up phony arguments to get them. Because the alternative would lead to reductions in inequality which would be shared across the board. They have successfully reversed that trend now for 22 years. Since the WTO was instantiated basically.In order to have progress begin anew, we need the world to get the benefits of technology, not the 1%. Thats what this is really all about. Otherwise, as jobs go away, the global standard of living will crash. Businesses of all kinds will fail and a monoculture of megacorporations and a cult of "efficiency" will mop up the remaining pockets of decent quality of life where they exist one by one, using their "shock therapy" of austerity to strip nations and taxpayers of anything that could be said to be a legacy of public interest.In their version of globalizationeverybodyis enslaved by debt to them. the experiment with having a middle class and innovations like public higher education, rules regulating things like toxic chemicals and drugs and insurance and trying to make products safer are all framed as bad, depriving people of their rights, and even public primary education that characterized the postwar labor scarcity era will be ended. After all, people don't need education if there are no jobs for them, right?Maker culture and tools as well as all uncontrolled knowledge sharing, would be tightly controlled, like in North Korea.Engineers would likely have to be from the engineer caste which will likely be separated from the rest because of the need for security clearances. (And kept on a very tight leash by the threat of losing it, and likely death or imprisonment. With ones entire family also being locked up for the rest of your short lives, because you all likely know too much.)Because to maintain the tightest level of control devices of every kind will likely have embedded surveillance. Thats the cost of intentionally dumb people, smart machines. Think Orwell's 1984, THX-1138, or Terry Glliam's "Brazil" except much worse.Free simple devices like the ones we have or had in the recent past will be made intentionally unbelievably complicated to add DRM and a million other hooks for various things which are above all of our pay grades to even know about. Thats just one of a million reason why knowledge will become tightly controlled.Totalitarianism should be understood for what it is. An attempt to take over the entire world and poison its future.It doesn't tolerate any other systemsor even other thoughtsco-existing alongside it.

author: buck converter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 08:17:58 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 06, 2017, 02:12:54 pmI think it is a problem, but not anyone's fault. The solution is simple on paper, but hard to implement. The solution solves multiple problems. WHAT IS HE MAGIC CURE FOR MY CLUB?............My school does not hand over a dime because giving the robotics team money means giving money to all the other clubs. Today, we had a meeting to discuss how to get $2000 in the next 2 weeks (donations accepted hinthintsendmeapm). Other schools give their club unlimited money, and they have girls.The middle school in my district has a FIRST FLL team. They get all the funding they need, a coach who is an engineer, and guess what, their ratio is 1:3, now this club is new, and these female students are now freshmen, hopefully they will join to replace the "1" female I have been talking about who graduated.My club is anything but varsity. We get no professional coach, no money, no busses.I see a direct correlation between robotics budget and the sex ratio.There is no other solution without funding a universal program first.Makeing sure schools have afundedrobotics program is the first solution

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 10:02:51 pm
content: I don't know if a robotics club with money will attract more girls,but I do think that a robotics club with girls will attract more money.

author: Neomys Sapiens
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 10:06:07 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on September 04, 2017, 10:56:02 pmTHOSE other cultures and civilisations that have previously contributed significantly to humanities' technological prowess would have made post-68 garble-talkers like Miss Riley run crying home for mommy.I doubt very much that the major cultures of Asia would have entrusted her even with driving geese.Quote from: floobydust on September 04, 2017, 10:56:02 pmThis polit-wench has no idea of the astronomical distance, from which the Ladies Hopper, Lamarr, Widnall, Tereshkova, Saenger-Bredt and many others are looking down upon her kind.Quote from: floobydust on September 04, 2017, 10:56:02 pmNow I am too disgusted to follow this thoughts further. Even too disgusted to go into satirical mode, which would be quite easy here.Fortunately, such problems can be solved by pure engineering.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 10:26:46 pm
content: Quote from: buck converter on September 06, 2017, 08:17:58 pmI think you are wrong.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 10:31:45 pm
content: Quote from: alank2 on September 06, 2017, 06:19:23 pmGetting back to the root of the topic, is SJW style thinking destroying engineering?Well, does anyone here agree that what Purdue are doing is a good thing?i.e. taking degree time away from studying actual engineering (whichmustbe the case) to study this:QuoteAnyone think that's making an engineering degree better?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 10:45:35 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on September 05, 2017, 03:00:02 amThat's completely untrue. Intelligence is related to ALL of those things.People often seem to (perhaps willfully?) not understand that the above descriptors do not pigeonhole someone into a specific box that they will never escape from, it simply describes the preponderence of characteristics among the group.If you look at the bell curve for IQ between genders, you can see the difference. The curve for males is wider (at the top and bottom), and corrected for other factors, there is still a difference between the two. That doesn't mean men are smarter (it means that only as much as it means men are dumber). But there is more clustering around the mean for women.Ignoring the realities of our DNA is foolish and achieves nothing other than pretending these differences don't exist. The differences in gender, race, etc should be celebrated and welcomed - not swept under the rug as if they don't exist.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 11:07:45 pm
content: Dave,Historical context is always important but also there needs to be a priority of getting people what they need to know. yes, I do think humanities education is important for any degree granting institution - But four years are also surprisingly short.She makes a very real point in that the model of what many mean by globalization is badly impacting a lot of people. Its increasing poverty.But, bringing that point closer to home, shes saying this to a captive audience. Is it appropriate to teach young would be engineers that? I think it depends on how much time and money they have to spend on it and what they want. It seems as if many people are already over extending themselves financially to go to college, and if that is the case, and they dont want to spend more, no, I dont think they should have to spend their money on non-engineeringIf it could be proven that varying the content more made for a better engineering education (and I dont think thats unlikely) then I think sure, do it.. but unless it is proven, I dont think people should have to take that content if they don't want it.Am I getting across what I am trying to say here, I dont know. We need to stop pretending we're rich or somehow exempted from the world in such a way that we can ignore economics of employment. For many people going to college is an attempt to improve their chances of getting a job in a tight job market. Other people have family money and dont care as much about getting the most education in hard core specifics perhaps. I dont know. Given the economy I think the "default" should be to spend the most time as possible on engineering.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 11:11:29 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on September 05, 2017, 03:48:03 amYour initial response is ridiculous.Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and professor of Psychology. The video shown is a clip from a lecture he gave on agreeability, aggression and empathy. If you think he is unqualified to speak on the topic of gender/personality and career, then you are making that claim for no other reason than the fact that he's a male - which is pure misandry and bigotry. And if you wanted to be logically and ethically consistent, you would have to discount any teachings from anyone who isn't part of the thing they are teaching about. So we can discount all political science teaching by anyone who isn't a politician, and any teachings of an economist about the stock/bond market if they aren't an active fund manager or trader, etc, etc.You can quickly see that such claims are utterly ridiculous and serve no purpose other than to try to silence and shame others when their opinion doesn't match that of the critic.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2017, 11:39:58 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 06, 2017, 10:31:45 pmI think something's passed us by here. Dr. Donna Riley, who's quoted above isn't in the Purdue School of Engineering, she's in the Purdue School of EngineeringEducation.A quick random sample of the staff ofthatschool shows about half the staff with engineering qualifications and the rest education or social sciences qualifications. So her quote isn't about educating engineers it's about educating people studying engineering education.To slightly misquote a joke from my late friend Fred Wedlock:QuoteIn that context it makes alotmore sense; it may still be as futile (or not, as your opinion wishes) but it's not forcing "Gender is a key…… the course" etcetera into the engineering degrees, just the engineeringeducationdegrees. That puts a very different complexion on it. I suspect an engineeringeducationdegree is as highly sought by the employers of philosophy**, sociology**, and "X** studies" graduates as any other degree. At least if they go to Purdue they will understand the gender implications of asking "Do you want fries with that?".*The original ended, 'become education officers'.** Fill in your own bogeymen, sorry bogeypersons. Personally, I've enjoyed many a beer fuelled discussion with graduate philosophers, and I think that only, at most, 50% of sociology majors should be burned at the stake.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 01:10:10 am
content: Quote from: razberik on September 05, 2017, 09:12:25 amBecause males have not yet figured out that the ""future"" is not electronics with tinn, silicon and copperclad rather circuits built by genes and DNA sequences. For the lucky Californians you havehttp://biocurious.org/Look, most male engineers dont have a female they are to nerdy, just look how Dave had to struggle with all that dating book and stuff, so what could be better then to apply for a session of genes mixing ,loads of chick's there they say!Besides females are the greatest engineers ever, your mother was the lab that constructed you not even doing a prototype first, serial no1 from start, some of you got buggy software but that's your dads fault!https://diybio.org/QuoteThe most egalitarian experiment was the former sovjets, there you really got 50% female engineers, and just look how it turned out: Lada cars!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39579321

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 01:20:42 am
content: Something that needs to be clarified is the idea that what is being pushed into STEM (and almost everywhere else) is just broadening ones education to include "humanities". We aren't talking about engineers and scientists taking some light course in French literature, glass blowing or nude drawing. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what students are being pushed into (in some cases forced to study in order to complete their degree) is very far left, post-modernist, marxist feminist, thrown in with some american-centric racialist ideology.If the one promoting this stuff were honest and just admitted that they were essentially religious colleges where you can expect to be preached to, I would still think it's cancerous but they have the right to be cancerous I suppose.However these are universities that take taxpayer money, and then require students to accept certain political ideas. At least to extent that you do not voice any disagreement, lest you be labelled as transgressive and face the consequences. This feels perilously close to forced political speech and belief with government backing.Plus, the consequences for disgreement are not just imagined or hypothetical. Termination of employment, expulsion, physical verbal and legal harassment, facing down angry mobs andliteral riots with people beaten, buildings and cars smashed and burnedare all observed consequences.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 02:00:11 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 06, 2017, 10:31:45 pmCertainly not.Want to influence those that will appreciate that BS, shove it down the throats of those in management and political studies or qualified engineers that for some reason want to go back for a second dose ofbrainwashingschooling.There's an old saying that should also apply to education of the specialized subjects: stick to your knitting !

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 04:29:14 am
content: Quote from: cdev on September 06, 2017, 11:07:45 pmWe are talking about forcing education about gender/race/colonialism here, not income inequality etc.Does anyone really believe this is appropriate in an engineer degree?QuoteLet's not mince words, I think it's a complete load of horse shit to have that in an engineering degree. Purdue are a joke.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 04:29:55 am
content: Apply these Purdue Engineering Head's principles to any other profession, such as aviation, sports. I could do others but any proves how out to lunch this educator's perspective is.In sports, we will lower the basketball hoop for inclusion's sake. Short people need to play too.In aviation, we studied how technology influences things, gender, racism, colonialism and... did anyone learn how to land the airplane? Surely the plane will land itself.In engineering, it's a bunch of bridges and buildings collapsing, some explosions and fires due to a SJW corrupting a profession."... applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women's studies and ethnic studies to engage students in creating a democratic classroom that encourages all voices."Dr. Donna Rileyat Smiths women's college.Dr. Donna Riley, Kamyar Haghighi Head of the School of Engineering Educationthe same person?She has no place leading engineering unless this secures more funding and grants for Purdue

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 04:33:57 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 06, 2017, 11:39:58 pmAh, interesting:https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/Academics/GraduateQuoteAnd their strategic plan:https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/AboutUs/StratPlan.pdf

author: X
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 05:05:40 am
content: The way things are going on right now, it may not be long before the Backyard Brainiac, Garage Genius, Basement Scientist, or Midnight Engineer will be selected over a university graduate. This kind of rubbish makes the latest engineering degrees a complete joke. Even if it is "Engineering Education" there will be companies smart enough to avoid Purdue as a result of this inappropriate association.Sometimes things become aworld firstbecause nobody else was stupid enough to bother.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 07:21:20 am
content: Bang bang. Goes the discussion. The bang bang police will force a solution to social problems by skewering the symptoms!None, or one, woman of thirty men in the robotics club is a symptom of a malady. Money? perhaps. Money will attract talent? perhaps. But my experience has always been that it is far easier to attract money (e.g. sponsors) with talent, than it is to first have money and then attract talent (unless daddy is rich).The main problem is the lack of talent. NOT the fact that few woman sign up to the club. Perhaps the women realize that the club isn't that good and would rather spend their precious time doing more effective things. Perhaps the club should supplicate for a local figurehead take the club under their sponsorship or do a really tough hackathon. But find away to attract the talent.The major problem with the bang bang police approach is that they will try to force woman to join the club rather than figure out how to solve the talent problem with the little resources they have.Now - Most of the best and brightest engineers are multi-disciplinarians. Many have more than one degree. I personally know people with engineering + philosophy, + law, +biology, +literature, +filmmaking, + agriculture, +finance, +physics & math, even psychology! for some reason I do not know any with sociology or anthropology as an additional subject.Many of the greatest have hobbies we love to read about. Physicist idolize Feynman, engineers love to read Bob Pease's essay about what to do if a Porsche's alternator is falling - do you let it fall or - perhaps - sacrifice your foot? In fact all of the greats have big stories. Everything from pranks, sheep, weird projects they somehow got attracted to - and even - in time of war - build virtually impossible things (like torpedos, nuclear bombs, etc.) for social purposes or ideas.But the postmodern police will have us believe that if one takes a third class physicist - and teach them to crack safe's (like Feynman loved to do at Los Alamos) - you'll end up with a Feynmen. This is where the seductive power of postmodern thinking invalidates itself as wishful thinking. It is BS and it doesn't work.A third class engineer will be hard pressed to find solutions to the drift equation or Maxwell's equations. They will also find it hard (if not harder) to explain what tenets of universalism are at odd with postmodern ideas - or how the concepts of common law (obviously British) are implemented in the US - in constitutional as well as the laws of the land (statutes and case made).In the broader context of thinking - the problem is what Kahneman and Tversky described as Heuristics in Decision Making. That the bang bang police people cannot really make a rational assessment of cause an effect (causality). Feynman had various interests because he was a maverick. He was not a maverick because he had various interests. They confuse cause and effect.Same goes for woman in a particular field. Assuming you believe that intelligence is omnipresent, having few woman is a symptomatic of a problem What that problem is - and whether solving it is possible - demand a far more nuanced discussion than "affirmative action" or bang bang police - would have us believe.And yes - the fact that there are few woman on this forum is a problem. What the problem is - and does it have a solution - I do not know. At the very least it will limit the participation on this forum to 1/2 of what it could be. Perhaps all we are is a geeky equivalent of a bike gang comparing the sizes of our - ahem - long range multimeters... Not very attractive...But forcing women to join - that is not the solution.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 11:52:32 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 07, 2017, 04:33:57 amThat plan calls for behaviours which are:QuoteInclusive sounds pretty good. Collegial sounds a bit woolly. Mutually supportive? Do these people know what science and engineering are? If it ain't about people aggressively tearing holes in other people's work until a consensus emerges, it ain't science. Mutually supportive sounds warm and fuzzy, but its the path to irrelevance. Perhaps they really mean something like cooperative, and if they did, perhaps they should have said so.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 11:58:25 am
content: Quote from: coppice on September 07, 2017, 11:52:32 amThey mean precisely what they say, at best.

author: alank2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 12:06:55 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on September 07, 2017, 04:29:55 amYep. Let's keep lowering the standards for everything until we get to our future... maybe sooner than the year 2500https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 12:51:08 pm
content: This kind of crap has been spreading through universities for years now. It started with all the bullshit degrees (anything ending in "studies") and soft subjects, then into science, and has now reached engineering.I've given up arguing against it. I know that the sneering snowflake lefties that look down their noses at me for being a thick, ignorant, uneducated tradesman - will one day need me or one of my ilk when the lights go out or there's water pouring through the ceiling. Let's see how your gender studies degree compares to my misogynistic, colonial, old fashioned toolbox!

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 01:17:12 pm
content: Dismantling western society is easy. You have not seen communism up close and cannot even imagine how it will feel for small man. In my childhood I got some of it on softest possible form (Estonia was sort of elite place in CCCP). It was ok for us since did live in countryside but in cities one essentially had no property or control over his life. You were assigned where state needs you. Now they groom whole western to feel more at home without home (constant travel), have no important belongings besides phone, carefully avoid creating family and when by accident succeed trust state. State knows best what to do with your kid.But with all this there wassomesanity in CCCP system. There was no praise of violence or abnormality, it was about engineering/building better country. Your goal was to be healthy sane worker bee and for good bees there were semi-ok apartments and even cars, boats, hunting, fishing etc basics for interesting down-to-earth life. But with this modern european policy when you should give jihadists your children to rape and home to live in it will be different form of communism without goal to build anything, only to destroy.Interesting part will be when they start to heavily implement AI to keep stuff at bay becauseobviouslyhumans cannot handle things. Suppose there will be no argument or discussion. AI said so, so it's optimal.But before that there needs to be total chaos. Currently busy here to implement new govt worker policy where you have no specific workplace or physical document storage / belongings. Its all in the cloud and you pick some available desk from desk pool, or better sofa...

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 01:29:17 pm
content: Here , for all you angry middle aged white engineering males! (The modified libertardian slogan).During her Virginia tech years, lot of social science talk, such as global competence whatever that means. Covfefe! Enjoy!During her Smith College time:During Program Officer in the division of Engineering Education for the National Science Foundation.https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/08/engineering-education-social-engineering-rather-actual-engineering/

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 03:00:49 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on September 07, 2017, 11:52:32 amI think you just created a good example of why some people from non-science and engineering backgrounds might think that engineers and scientists need some civilising. Your choice of wording of "aggressively tearing holes" sounds very much like clawing your way to the top over the mangled bodies of your former colleagues. I'm sure that's not what you really mean, I'm sure you really mean rigorously examining each other's work for flaws or opportunities to improve the work (in a mutually supportive fashion, naturally).Of course I might be wrong, you might be the sort of sociopath whose pre design review meeting ritual involves sharpening knives, but I suspect not; that kind of behaviour is reserved for board meetings.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 03:13:39 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 07, 2017, 03:00:49 pmDo you think friends playing sports are not taking an aggressive approach as they play? This has nothing to do with how they get along outside the game. Typically when I am in technical discussions where people feel unable to apply a little aggression in finding fault with something proposed, they end up with a rather pear shaped solution.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 03:52:16 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on September 07, 2017, 03:13:39 pmYou miss the point, almost beautifully well. I knew what you meant, I think I made that clear; I also think I made it clear I was talking about how, say, a bunch of sociologists would perceive yourchoice of words. Then you go on to apparently argue for aggression as necessary or desirable, when I'm sure you mean 'energetic' or 'assertive' or 'determined'. Surely you can see how that would be perceived by exactly the kind of people we are talking about here, and exactly how they can use that to justify (even if only to themselves) the need to press some form of reform on us unreconstructed, middle aged, white, male engineers.This struggle with, for want of a better moniker, these navel gazing pseudo-leftist 'equalizers' is one of words. We recognize them because of the phrases and words they use. In this case, words matter.Oh, and now you're back in Blighty it's 'sport' not 'sports' - we'll have none of those Americanisms here thank you very much.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 04:03:21 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 07, 2017, 03:52:16 pmI'm not missing anything. I just object to the corruption of language. I do indeed mean 'energetic' or 'assertive' or 'determined' or "aggressive".

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 04:10:49 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on September 07, 2017, 04:03:21 pmThis, from an Briton who used 'sports' in stead of 'sport' not ten minutes ago!Quote from: coppice on September 07, 2017, 04:03:21 pmPersonally, I wouldn't count aggression as a characteristic I'd like to encounter in dealing with a colleague.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 04:44:43 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 07, 2017, 04:10:49 pmWhat about energetic? Are your hyperactive colleagues more palatable than the aggressive ones?

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 05:09:08 pm
content: Come on, guys!Can't you see what is the outcome of non-engineers (a bunch ofcorporate clowns, in the following case) messing with engineering equipment?MDO4000 ReviewThis is the price you will have to pay as a leading T&M company when you letmarketing peopledecide what engineers really need.Just imagine, now, what will happen when these monkeys instead of being corporate agents (ruthless opportunists being driven by profit only, no matter what) becomefanatical globalisation agents(intolerant individuals without principles or remorse) promotingMarxism, one of themost blood-stained doctrineknown to mankind, along with the Abrahamic Delusions that follow in that unfortunate ranking...RegardingIdiocracy (2006), that fine follow up of the dystopian novel calledThe Marching Morons (1951)by C. M. Kornbluth, I have one question:Are we there yet?-George

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 05:42:03 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on September 07, 2017, 04:44:43 pmErmmm, I'll get back to you on that...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 05:43:35 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on September 07, 2017, 05:09:08 pmCalm down, take someSoma.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 06:22:12 pm
content: BTW highly recommended conceptual movie targeted perhaps more at directing class:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071615/The Holy Mountain (1973)...and recent from same dude but for more simple audience:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4451458/Poesía sin fin (2016)If still feeling all too warm and fuzzy good bed-time read:"Ecoscience" co-authored by John P. Holdrenhttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 06:52:28 pm
content: What about Sante Sangre? El topo? And Fando Y Lis?Btw - there is a very nice documentary about Alejandro Jodorowsyi called Constellation Jodorowsky.NB - Poesia Sin Fin was a very nice Kickstarter. I was happy to be on that one.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 07:01:26 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 07, 2017, 06:52:28 pmDid not watch these so cannot recommend. Since you seem to know about this more closely. So is he educated watcher or rather insider?

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 07:11:33 pm
content: Educated watcher. Of people. Almost psychology.The documentary shows nicely how (I won't spoil it for you - but the director of the documentary becomes a part of this process - piercing what Slavos Zizek calls the magical plane). Very cool.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 07:41:49 pm
content: Talking of films and undergrad education, Think soft subjects have it easier? I have an anecdote to share.I was in a jacuzzi in Waikiki beach for work, when I was joined by undergrad gals and guys studying film making. (I am an engineer but do like movies).Anyway, we end up discussing David Lynch. Two of the guys favorite film: Lost Highway.I was like "nice joke"."No - we really like it. The camera and direction are very tight. "So I was perplexed: " you know what it is about?""Well a gangster".So since someone has to break the psychological reality of the film to them: "nope - male impotence and performance anxiety. The violence (in this case murder) that comes from impotence; everything that happens after she taps her impotent husband on the back - is his dream of being a better man which he fails yet again; hence the transition shots".As Zizek like to say "violence is a form or impotence".Quiet. Film students leave quietly.This thread is about how they teach engineering.Ever wonder what and how they teach in film school?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 11:32:28 pm
content: https://youtu.be/LbE_AaquL5E?t=44s

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 11:38:51 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 07, 2017, 11:32:28 pmOooooh, its big sister

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2017, 11:43:06 pm
content: She's written a book, guess what the title ishttps://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Synthesis-Lectures-Engineers-Technology/dp/1598296264/ref=sr_1_6Quote

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 12:02:15 am
content: Two philosophical questions:Can God make a rock so heavy that God himself cannot lift it?Is there a thread so political that Dave himself cannot stop it from being locked?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 12:13:43 am
content: The difference now is the state and the corporations that own it now really does not want to "need" anybody who it does not control, or might be seen as owing some obligation to.Thats were AI comes in.Our one hope would be open algorithms and FOSS so attempts are being made to demonize all the things that could stop it.Also, the people here who are deluded into thinking socialism is taking over are profoundly ignorant, as its capitalism thats doing it. (but pretending its the opposite)So, were seeing an attack on civilization by Social Injustice Warriors.Yes, everything they do is backwards. That's a characteristic of anyextrinsic fraud.Under corporate fascism there is no requirement to maintain a system that works for anybody. Right and wrong is replaced by the marketplace. Money is everything.Quote from: MrW0lf onTodayat 07:17:12somesanity in CCCP system. There was no praise of violence or abnormality, it was about engineering/building better country. Your goal was to be healthy sane worker bee and for good bees there were semi-ok apartments and even cars, boats, hunting, fishing etc basics for interesting down-to-earth life. But with this modern european policy when you should give jihadists your children to rape and home to live in it will be different form of communism without goal to build anything, only to destroy.Interesting part will be when they start to heavily implement AI to keep stuff at bay becauseobviouslyhumans cannot handle things. Suppose there will be no argument or discussion.AI said so, so it's optimal.But before that there needs to be total chaos. Currently busy here to implement new govt worker policy where you have no specific workplace or physical document storage / belongings. Its all in the cloud and you pick some available desk from desk pool, or better sofa...Under "liberalisation" there will be huge winners and huge losers. Basically global value chains focuses on efficiency. So there will be a few huge companies (in terms of resources) but they may not employ many people.The rest will be on their own - This is why I tell people to try to make as much money as they can now and remember that savings and investments may crash as everybody tries to extract value from what they have at the same time as we hit the exponential part of the curve.Indeed, you are right in that the neoliberals acknowledge that tey are trying to break down society on a global scale, but they misrepresent their reasons for doing so. Its not out of altruism, its out of a desire to capture all the gifts given the planet by technology for themselves. This is because classical economics predicts a race to the bottom on wages and benefits and really the entire social contract as billions of jobs dry up. Obviously the planet will end up with a welfare state of some kind but the questions of how that would be implemented and who would come out on top are very much on the minds of those who are on top now. They want to lock themselves into power with trade agreements, which are forcing a dismantlement of safety nets and safety regulations, globally.The most extreme vision of globalization - pushed by my own country, is basically an extension of colonialism - without the obligation to take care of anybody..Some rich governments and their allies in the developing world, the most corrupt governments, which are very highly stratified - Their rich want to shed all of their responsibilities to anybody for anything before the world realizes what these deals do.I see them as attempts to lock in failing business models and permanently (they hope) stifle creativity and innovation.Money isnt everything, but these deals basically could be encapsulated as saying exactly that, and giving it legal teeth.For example, in the UK the Tories there push a new sort of reverse precautionary principle for corporations.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 07:18:25 am
content: Quote from: cdev on September 08, 2017, 12:13:43 amFor architects of developing mess money is rather tool to control "peasants" incl those quite high up in biz world. Control is everything. For example IoT is damn good tool for that. Especially good for AIs inputCCCP was different in that way - sniffing on someone was aneffort.Edit: Probably end times to be something but extremely approving of social justice movement from here :http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/06/report-eu-presidency-calls-china-style-internet-censorship/"A Council of the European Union document leaked by Statewatch on 30 August reveals that during the summer months, Estonia (current EU Presidency) has been pushing the other Member States to strengthen indiscriminate internet surveillance, and to follow in the footsteps of China regarding online censorship"And youre right that system does not need to work for everybody, only step further - system does not need everybody at all. Thats what Ecoscience book was about.But back to fun stuff:Quote from: Assafl on September 07, 2017, 07:11:33 pmI suspect he have "watched" more than psychology. That sex scene with midget-on-period alone was worth it

author: BBBbbb
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 11:27:34 am
content: Really not sure how we got to even discuss mental demands of the "social justice warriors" for STEM education reforms. Basically "social sciences" take care of our primary and secondary education, and that is where the fuck up happens (poor quality of education in some "minority dominant" schools and poor interest of girls in going into STEM), so why propagate the fuck up to the universities thinking it will solve the issue.I really do have hard time understanding them. I'm still scratching my head over the toilet issues. You go to the toilet to piss or take a shit, there is nothing sexual about it. I'm really close to advocating unisex toilets, only reason I'm not doing it is because ladies toilets are always overcrowded.Quote from: MrW0lf on September 07, 2017, 01:17:12 pmNeither have you nor have I. Communism is more of a philosophy than something that can be done in real life. It is in it's core absolutely altruistic, but not plausible.What you're talking is dictatorship and absolute utilitarianism.If you doubt this tell me one country that called itself communist? - answer: none, communism negates a country, they were called socialist. I'm not saying I'm pro communism (I think it is impossible), I'm just trying to show the difference.Many people in countries of ex Yugoslavia remember fondly of the socialist era, as we were taking loans all over the world (both USA and SSSR) and living nicely off of them, once the money dried the wars started.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 01:05:27 pm
content: Quote from: BBBbbb on September 08, 2017, 11:27:34 amWell, Communism is a THEORETICAL (and practically inapplicable, due to human nature) economic theory (please search for and read the book: "Behind Communism (Frank L Britton)" --it exists online as a .PDF file), while Socialism is merely a secular religion, where the State becomes a god; it has its good and evil, its creation myths, its eventual heaven where the State withers away, its ruling class of ethical liars, and so on. Suddenly, instead of heaven existing in the afterlife, it was promised in this life, as soon as government programs succeeded (The afterlife is far more likely...). The new Socialist clergy promised an end to poverty, injustice, illiteracy, shortness, baldness – any word they could get their grubby hands on --and of course anyone who disagreed with these fantasies was immediately portrayed as pro-poverty/injustice/illiteracy/etc. Of course, just as the moral guilt of religion can never create virtue, government programs can never create paradise, and so a perpetual motion machine of social control was started, where the supposed 'solutions' just created more of the same problems.Now, as Communism is the opposite of Capitalism, Socialism is the opposite of Fascism. Where Socialism would ideally have a physically impossible world ofequal people(after the elimination of theeducated individuals, the only ones able to restore the traditionary character and values of any targeted and decimated nations after the war) via 'class struggle' [meaning thatsome peoplewill have to be murdered in order forsome other peopleto become prosperous...]), Fascism embraces the class structure acknowledging thehavesandhave nots, perpetuating the conditions for class separation. Mussolini, who created the political Fascism, famously said 'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.' It is obvious, though, to the inquiring mind that there is no room for the most creativeMiddle Classin either system... So, the answer for a prosperous and balanced society must probably be lying somewhere in between, as our fifth-century Athenian ancestors have successfully demonstrated.But, asboth thePolitical Leftand thePolitical Rightideologies were created the same exactly instant (in 1807) by the same people, please watch thesimilaritiesof the Nazi and Soviet regimes, while contemplating the similarities between Capitalism and Communism:...The Soviet Story (Edvins Snore, 2008):-George

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 01:21:20 pm
content: Is STEAM (adding Art to STEM) still a thing? Or has that educationalist fad been buried now?

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 01:39:09 pm
content: Quote from: BBBbbb on September 08, 2017, 11:27:34 amI said we lived in softest conditions. However some ancestors that had to do with Russian emperor surroundings encountered sailors high on communist ideas... So while maybe strictly unobtainable communism is surely something that may lead to misfortune of those in disagreement.

author: JoeO
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 02:54:54 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on September 08, 2017, 01:21:20 pmNo, it is still around and I hate it. STEM is almost totally about teamwork. Art is for the most part about an individual's work.Books, plays, art works etc. are done by one person.If I was a student, I would much rather do STEM than STEAM.I tell everyone that STEAM is just a lot of hot air!

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 03:37:33 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on September 08, 2017, 01:21:20 pmErm, isn't a play almost quintessential teamwork? Even if it is a monologue end-to-end, there is still at the absolute minimum an author, an actor, a director, lighting engineer and a bored stage hand. I've been involved with stage and screen drama and they are probably the most social, team-work oriented environments I have been in.Books, even pure fiction, aren't solo enterprises either, there's at least the writer and their editor involved.I'd go so far as to say that the more 'artsy' the environment I've worked in the more real team-work was involved and the more 'engineering' the environment the less real teamwork involved. I won't say who, but I spent about a year working in the design department at one well known manufacturer of networking equipment and the only time I got out of my solo cubicle to do any 'team-work' was when I had to physically chase down people to twist their arms to get around to doing their sign-offs on my work.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 04:44:25 pm
content: Yes, STEAM is still around. And leads to the question. What isn't in STEAM?STEM was a movement predicated on the lack of interest and education in the sciences resulting in a shortage of qualified technical talent to keep our technology based society going. Was there concern that there isn't enough art based talent to keep Hollywood going that resulted in the addition of arts? Nah, it was just that the band, music and art teachers saw a good bandwagon and jumped on.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 05:15:37 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on September 08, 2017, 12:13:43 amIn your previous posts you draw'd the opposite conclusion now your contradict your self, your ignorant.Basically neo liberals and neo conservatives (just a lose definition) is the same thing they just have the same goal using different roads to it. Both are the same highway hijackers. Trump Hillary,Lepenn Macron, Stalin Hitler, same totalitarian garbage.In 1936 language, Nazism, Communism, Fascism, same tree just different branches.Read some of the contemporary crowd psychologists, e.g Gustaf Le Bon etc, The psychology of peoples, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind etc. Hitler did as well as Theodore Roosevelt.Also a read on Karl Marx 1832 paper i think it was is interesting, the two siblings Nazism and Communism is outlined there.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 05:30:10 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 08, 2017, 04:44:25 pmI think the argument for including some liberal arts content in STEM subjects was simply a well intentioned attempt to ensure a broader education in an era where STEM subjects are becoming narrower and narrower as time goes on. Don't forget that some of the founding fathers of our art had incredibly broad educations and were arguably the more capable for it. Check out how good the, admittedly autodidact, Michael Faraday's English is when he's tackling what is, for him, a secondary subject:Quote from: Michael FaradayNowadays he'd learn no English, no Chemistry and would be stuck studying just electricity and the world would subsequently be the poorer for it.I doubt that I'll find much objection here if I say that those taking the liberal arts ought to be exposed to more mandatory science and technology eduction. After all, most of our politicians and other 'leaders' come from the liberal arts or law - ought not they be exposed to enough science and technology to stop them from making stupid mistakes and encourage more well informed decisions in later life?I'll bet that the average sociologist or lawyer, faced with the prospect of some mandatory technology education for liberal arts undergraduates would bitch just as much as the average engineer here does at the idea of a little mandatory arts eduction for undergraduate scientists and engineers.

author: 691175002
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 05:54:06 pm
content: I greatly regret not learning to draw well in school. Having an eye for design is universally useful, and it is very hard to cultivate directly. Experiencing and analyzing a certain amount of art/architecture/design is one of the best ways to improve your skill.On the other hand, I'm sure the present-day definition of "art" is just code for political agendas infiltrating STEM. I think a course that analyzes the history of architecture or industrial design would be very valuable; a sermon on how engineering has subjugated minorities for centuries not so much.My personal experience with "arts" in STEM education was very poor. We were forced to take a class called "English for Math Majors" - the only course I have ever experience that was so banal it had mandatory attendence. Half the class was ESL students, and it was a full semester of 1.5 hour lectures by an unenthusiastic grad student on middle-school spelling and grammar. We even had to write multiple 5 paragraph essays on assigned topics. I'm not sure who graded them; I can only imagine how torturous that process must have been.Funny how the hardest part of getting a degree is the pointless bullshit.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 07:19:34 pm
content: Quote from: 691175002 on September 08, 2017, 05:54:06 pmIf, however, your teacher was Steven Pinker (and not the bored and boring grad student) you and your classmates would bubble over how awesome it was and how it changed your life.English (or arts in general) as a subject isn't a problem. Teachers, and the quality of teaching however, do matter. Unfortunately, the arts and English departments won't waste their good teachers on engineers. Making most people bored and resent what should be highly inspiring subjects.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 07:47:48 pm
content: Quote from: 691175002 on September 08, 2017, 05:54:06 pmI think drawing something one is either good at or not. Of course practise will lead to improvement, but it won't make up for lack of talent. I was always poor at drawing. It was a problem at school, in design and technology and art classes, but then I grew up and used CAD, so I have no regrets in not wasting my time.QuoteI agree, but one can be good at that and poor at getting it down on paper.QuoteDid it have to be handwritten? If so, I would have stood no chance whatsoever at passing. My handwriting is very slow and illegible. I remember having to take a written communication exam at college. I took it three times and failed each time. The problem for me, was I had to write too much, in too little time. Even if I'd been given an A grade paper to copy, I still would have failed to re-write it, in the allotted time. Initially I was given 25% extra time, but that wasn't enough. I asked if I could type it, but the examining board refused. In the end, they gave a full day to take the exam, because they knew my problem was getting it down on paper and I passed the fourth time!

author: BBBbbb
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 09:18:42 pm
content: Quote from: MrW0lf on September 08, 2017, 01:39:09 pmThis sounds similar as blaming Catholicism for pedophilia of Islam for terrorism. Only people that have misinterpreted and misused the idea are to be blamed not the idea itself.A Hellene did a much better job of elaborating the difference of communism and its impossibility and regimes that misused the idea.Anyways I know very well what you were trying to say, pretty much any "socialist" country that was within the SSSR or under the Soviet influence got screw up, and by this I mean the people living in them. I'm just trying to correct the bad labeling, although widely accepted in masses and media.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 09:42:25 pm
content: I think (this is my personal opinion, not one I'm repeating) a lot of the core methods neoliberalism is pushing to try to lower wages for skilled work and diminish the earning power of people whom have learned practical skills that society "needs" are bade on the work of Fredrick taylor, which is to say they are heavily influenced by Taylorism.That is not to say that many of the points he made were and remain legitimate and true. I just think we need to weigh things we go in a number of different lights.I agree with what you said about both extreme communism and extreme corporato-fascism being two sides of the same ugly coin. That seems obvious to me and many others. I always mistrust people who put any ideology above humanity and who fail to show flexibility when confronted with a situation where their previously espoused conclusion doesnt fit. Smart people are constantly re-evaluating their own feelings and try to focus on smart goals. I think the best goal is for our species to not only survive, to thrive into the future and move towards a society that conquers things we all agree are bad such as hynger, hate, intolerance, and ignorance of science, and life. We can always do better than we are doing now, and surprise, its in many ways its own reward.. money is not the only motivator or even the best one.. What is? lots of things but I would nominate both altruism and flow.. the pleasre from doing something well. Also teaching others things they want to do is very pleasurable as is learning. I think learning is a fabulous motivator. In fact I think the engineer will be a model for the future society. The engineering, can do mindset is special enough to become a much larger part of humanities priority system.. and it will if we let it.Engineering also can tell us that sometimes, inefficiency is good if it gives us redundancy and fault tolerance. And when the stakes are so high, a lot of inefficiency which can also be seen as diversity is good. thats how nature has optimized our planet and how life has survived and thrived and we can learn a lot from nature, more than we can learn from mankind, certainly, much more.The real problem as I see it is we have a world with gifts that is not telling us we NEED to be so "efficient" and indeed if the price of that efficiency is going to be the lives and futures of nearly everybody its telling us we need to be less efficient and relax more and be fruitful and multiply if thats what we want, because we can survive and do much more with less. The conspicuous consumption were being told is the right way to live is totally unnecessary and it will only live to misery and war..They are pushing us towards w world where almost nobody can survive comfortably. Is this what we are working for? No its not, its what they are trying to sneak upon us by stealth. Via FTAS.What they are seeking are trust misalignments which work to the very few advantages, situation where there is a lie, an incomplete contract where they hope we are filling in the blanks missing some important information that works to their advantage to lock groups of people into very bad, nonworking situations. Preventing these situationists (that was a typo but a fun one) is what democracy's main function is and thats why all these trade agreements are supposed to be "forever". Democracy greatly increases the difficulty of corruption because one corrupt leader or government can only lead to bad decisions whose impact is only a few years until they are voted out. In contrast under trade agreements, one corrupt group as many countries have today, can sign that countries regulatory policy space in some are or indeed all areas of economic importance, away "frever" in a way thats almost impossibly costly to reverse. After this the only solution for those impacted will be emigration elsewhere. But the agreements set up a system where both corporations and corrupt governments can get the "benefit" to them of immigrants WITH NO OBLIGATIONS at a cut rate. This undermines almost all the assumptions in a society and screws very greatly almost everybody except for them.It undermines the current inhabitants both citizens and noncitizen permanent residents of the country by creating a way to get skilled labor for 'whatever the market will bear" internationally.Say the prevailing wage rate for Potemkinists was $70k a year. But in the huge country of Vlugaria Potemkinists are on every corner and they can be hired fresh out of school for $3500 a year. The country's largest business the Thievery Corporation hires them houses them in dormitories around the world and resells their services for $35000 a year while paying them $3500 This is all made legal by the GATS agreement. Who does this benefit? Well, it benefits the government of Vlugaria, who doesnt have to improve the situation for their people, especially Potemkinists who otherwise might unionize and demand higher wages. Instead they ship them away to the other side of the world.Meanwhile in the Untied Republic of Pflug people are pushing for the privatization of everything. Reason being given, everything is too unpredictable, plus we can get Potemkinists from the Thievery Corporation for less than it costs us to educate our own. Plus, the foreign workers will be on a very short leash which is valuable in these uncertain times. If we cut out the essential zorbing, they wont point out the problems caused for our Schemeotrons. Because if they did they would lose their jobs and be on the next hovercraft back to Vlugaria. It also undermines all of our own Potemkinists who all are now losing their jobs, many of whom are very good, the envy of the rest of the world. But the job market has been hollowed out. But it continues and everything falls apart.Quote from: MT onTodayat 11:15:37>Quote from: cdev onYesterdayat 18:13:43In your previous posts you draw'd the opposite conclusion now your contradict your self, your ignorant.Basically neo liberals and neo conservatives (just a lose definition) is the same thing they just have the same goal using different roads to it. Both are the same highway hijackers. Trump Hillary,Lepenn Macron, Stalin Hitler, same totalitarian garbage.In 1936 language, Nazism, Communism, Fascism, same tree just different branches.Read some of the contemporary crowd psychologists, e.g Gustaf Le Bon etc, The psychology of peoples, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind etc. Hitler did as well as Theodore Roosevelt.Also a read on Karl Marx 1832 paper i think it was is interesting, the two siblings Nazism and Communism is outlined there.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 10:04:13 pm
content: One thing I do remember well is that in what was it, the very late 1980s and early 1990s when the USSR and communism in Europe could be said to have suddenly or not so suddenly disintegrated there was a lot of envy here in the US among the wealthy of the gangsters or oligarchs or whatever you want to call them in communist countries for how rapidly and completely they snapped up all the valuable assets of former state owned companies in a manner so as to share practically none of the wealth with the people of those countries (they should have)That change was looked at with amazement here and it seems to have inspired a copycat sort of audacity, I think which has manifested itself in teh incredibly sordid and audacious GATS and its ilk which are so unbelievably obvious scams that its hard to believe its really being done, but of course it is. Nobody has had the guts or perhaps nobody except a few really see it for what it is because they ave been literally brainwashed.. its as if they are in a dream state where they are accepting the abuse - its an abuse, make no mistake of it.I think the theft in Europe emboldened many, no small way that huge theft was part of the model situation for GATS which could be said to be the second "enclosure" sort of it attempts to eliminate all shared assets, and all expectations of things working for people and instead it explicitly says that corporations have a right to sell those things and deny them to those who cant pay if thats what a country wants. The only other possibility is for that service to be totally free and noncommercial. So virtually nothing passes that test.. . And they admitted that in a leaked document about medical tourism and TISA. Which is on some icelandic whistleblowers site..neoliberals and neoliberalism is nothing less than Social Injustice Warriors.. fighting to make the world end its attempts to improve the life of anybody and instead let them be exploited and economically raped "equally". But of course that is in and of itself, part of the con job.. taking in gullible oligarchs from poor countries and telling them they wont be conned when of course they and everybody else will be. All the con artists will cn one another nobody will get anything near or even remotely resembling a good outcome and the best thing to do would be to dump the whole thing and everybody who has been pushing it should be shamed and exposed.Not punished for treason, although it is indeed that, (TO THEIR/OURCOUNTRIES AND INDEED ALSO TO THE ENTIRE PLANET) because that and subsequently the 'persecution' they no doubt would attempt to exploit would perpetuate a bad cycle of greed and intolerance, (thats what always happens) no the appropriate response for society is for it to be exposed and then for society to thrive.. on a basis of honesty and mutual respect, real honsety and mutual respect- not their 'rights for corporations and fellow oligarchy to steal equally'.Then the attempted coup should be endlessly analyzed in such a way that it will be a VERY long time before they try to trot it out again. making that time as long as possible should be the goal. because the last two times (MAI and FTAA) they did this it wasnt really understood to have happened and failed by any but a small sort of wonkish group and you know what, they were already working on the next ones by those points. They are very very sneaky.Especially we should be wary of anything involving "investment protection" or "trade in services"

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2017, 10:04:59 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 08, 2017, 07:47:48 pmParallels to my experiences.Thesystemas it was and still is struggles to identify the good/skill in many of us.If we're not all little clones of the ideal student, some succeeding, others not when they don't know how to assess us.A generation later when my son (1st) had failed his English public speaking....a few months later at an end of year function for our district Gateway work experience programme he was asked to speak to a gathering of 400 parents, employers, students and educators. Nervous as hell he was, so was I as I'd been asked to follow him.As a typical 16 year old his speech was written the night beforebut news just before the event that his efforts over that year had landed him with the job he'd been in the programme for. He was definitely the last to know about landing the job he soooo wanted and luckily the HR person was at this function so we bailed him up to ensure our boy knew the play.So most of his notes went onto the floor and he winged his way through a magnificent speech that ended with everyone on their feet applauding.Anyways, a couple of days later when word got back to the principal of this west Auckland HS, he took some time to call us one evening and commend us on the great speech our son had made and how good it was for the image of his school.Of course the words were barely out of his mouth when I informed him of our son's public speaking fails during the year and that he had some serious unfinished work to do with the competency of his teachers.That phone call didn't run on much longer.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2017, 03:14:15 pm
content: Quote from: BBBbbb on September 08, 2017, 09:18:42 pmI leave you connoisseurs at discussing of subtle nuances of various magnificent ideologies circulated in materialistic world. My interest in them is below -100dB so indeed maybe better not discuss. However what you must not forget that at receiving end there is not much difference is it drunk sailor or some jihadi. End result is dictated by same recipe: carefully groom large part of society to have no belongings, family ties or intellectual goals. Remove responsibility. Unleash at middle class & intellectuals.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2017, 05:12:53 pm
content: If engineers are gonna be schooled and get competent in humanitarian and social(istic) stuff, what are the libtards gonna do in life?Giving engineers communication skills already replaced the global communication jobs with an app.Seems better to me to include math, physics, engineering, economics in libtard studies.It's their department that is in problems, it's them who fail to get a decent job, it's them who always need somebody else's money.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2017, 05:38:19 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on September 09, 2017, 05:12:53 pmCheck how many leaders of countries and big companies have engineering degrees compared to people with a 'soft' degree. I think you'll find yourself eating your words. Ladies and gentlemen, we engineers are not the ones in charge, we just think we ought to be.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2017, 06:20:54 pm
content: People actually can "see communism" and extreme levels of oppression from outer space now.See attached "people1.jpg". They are prisoners in a large, a very large outdoor prison.There are two groups of two people each in this picture. why are they walking that way?Answer, they have to work in groups of two so they don't try to escape.What is the encircled area with the path from it going only leftward in the left center area?The thing on the left is a machine gun/guard post so people working in this field which is very near the border of the camp, can be fired on if they try to get out.Internet picture... speaks for itself..DMZ picture. shows construction details of deadfall traps/trenchs alongside electric fences

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2017, 09:39:49 pm
content: QuoteBoth Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel both started as recearch chemists and yet depending on who you ask they are as good or better or as bad or worse as any other politician in their position.Wierd.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 09, 2017, 11:07:48 pm
content: As for different types of university courses these days, I like professor Peterson's suggestion, paraphrasing:Cut every university budget by 30% and let them fight it out among themselves which ones are the most valuable.I suspect Prudue's "Engineering Education" department would get the chopAs for Purdue, what do theyactually do? It's a whole department devoted to what? Trying to figure out the direction of engineering? For who?Far as I can tell engineering education has been just fine for the last century and has progressed well enough on it's own. Why the need for an entire "Engineering Education" department and producing graduates in that field?If anything I can see myself, in theory, being a prime candidate for such a course, but I'm buggered if I can see any actual value in it?Quote

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2017, 11:15:09 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 09, 2017, 11:07:48 pmCourses without lab work are much cheaper to run. The last time I knew specific numbers for UK universities, a humanities course cost less than half as much to run as the average science or engineering course. It can't be much different other countries. This has regularly caused a tightening of belts to result in science and engineering courses being cut first, with no regard for their utility.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2017, 11:25:22 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on September 09, 2017, 11:15:09 pmI thought that is why many departments find their own sponsors.Getting a reactor or a fab in place is usually sponsors (industry and philanthropy) or government (like DARPA or NASA money).That is also why US universities are high on all the lists. Lots of money sources.In any case I don't see how these "warriors" can destroy engineering. They best they can be a temporary distraction for students. At the end you have to go through the curriculum. Just like you can't hurt math or chemistry (but you can destroy an English curriculum with puffery).

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2017, 11:51:24 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 09, 2017, 11:25:22 pmDon't underestimate quite how much of a university faculty's time is wasted on internal politics and on Politics. For most departments this is an unwelcome distraction, but if ignored can be fatally destructive. For the class of people obsessed with sexual politics and other -isms, the internecine politics is their raison d'etre.

author: JoeO
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 01:07:44 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 08, 2017, 03:37:33 pmPlease notice my use of the word "MOSTLY".You have stated some of circumstances that required me to use the word MOSTLY.MOSTLY!

author: JoeO
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 01:09:54 am
content: Now STEM is too white!" In “STEM has a Diversity Problem,” she blames racial disparities on textbooks with too many pictures of white scientists. "https://www.nas.org/articles/what_damores_memo_taught_google

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 01:21:07 am
content: Quote from: JoeO on September 10, 2017, 01:07:44 amYou can say it three times, but it still doesn't appear even once in what you quote;which was written by someone completely else.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 01:25:50 am
content: My engineering program has mandatory arts/humanities electives. ~1-2 a year.You are so swamped with workload- labs, assignments, project courses that the arts courses were really holidays. You skipped them to catch up on the "real" work.If you fail a math course, you are out of sequence and all courses with a prerequisite for that math course, well you can't take. It's a disaster.So Philosophy 125 gets ignored to pass that vector calculus course. It takes no effort to get a medium mark in an arts course anyway.Engineering students know priorities, they aren't that dumb. Yet.Adding artsy kitten courses just dilutes the engineering program and is a loss of the fundamental core material, for those courses deleted to make room.

author: JoeO
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 01:55:16 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 10, 2017, 01:21:07 amGO back and read it again. Somehow you took my post and attributed it to HowardLong.You are right. It doesn't seem that you can do things by yourself. You need someone to correct your work.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 12:20:23 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on September 07, 2017, 05:43:35 pmI am sorry I overlooked your message; I thought it was a caustic joke in reply to mine about 'Idiocracy'...Apparently,it is not:-Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection-Study: Doping Western Cultures With Oxytocin Will Cure Hatred Of Refugees-Oxytocin and social norms reduce xenophobia-Giving people the 'cuddle hormone' oxytocin can increase kindness towards refugees-Oxytocin And Social Norms Reduce Xenophobia-The Dark Side of Oxytocin... et cetera...It seems that they are in a great hurry to be forcing 'everyone to becomeequal to each other' since 'equalisation' according to them must not be the strengthening of any weaker groups of people but the elimination of the other ones --who are also unable to buy their 'humanitarian' propaganda and keep awakening any potential 'Useful Idiots' (a Stalin's quote)...Quote from: EEVblog on September 09, 2017, 11:07:48 pmIs not amassive dumbing-downwhat they seem to be pushing to the Academia also, since they have already succeeded in the degeneration of elementary education? Of course, there will always be special classes or seminars in some of their 'institutes' for the 'obedient' only engineers, as it has always been happening within their 'Clubs' in order to be keeping their clueless members on a short leash for the rest of their lives, under their absolute submissive control...In a few words, this sounds to bebusiness as usualfor a certain misanthropic group of anthropomorphous monsters:Quote from: A Hellene on September 08, 2017, 01:05:27 pmNow, since those pathological liars are usingthe excuseof financial cuts it must be obvious that this must not be the case really; because those who are creating money on demand out of thin air DO NOT really care about money --they can print any monetary amount they wish.So, if moneyis not a goalfor them, it isa means to a purpose; might I ask, which exactlypurposewould that be?-George<EDIT>: Corrections and additions...

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 02:49:40 pm
content: Quote from: JoeO on September 10, 2017, 01:55:16 amYup, my bad, I stuffed up the quoting. No need to be abusive though, the only thing it does is make your argument look even weaker than it already is. What I said still stands - you didn't say "mostly" at all, and you did say:QuoteWhich has no qualification whatsoever.

author: JoeO
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 07:18:35 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 10, 2017, 02:49:40 pmI made a simple statement. If your level of reading comprehension can't understand what I wrote, then please don't comment.Also learn how to quote.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 08:22:20 pm
content: Quote from: JoeO on September 10, 2017, 07:18:35 pmLike I said, when you get allad hominemrather than addressing the point, we all know that you've lost the argument.

author: Naguissa
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2017, 09:12:11 pm
content: My opinion is like Google fired person: all this "positive discrimination" only breaks real talent because shitty quotas.Enviado desde mi Jolla mediante Tapatalk

author: jhalar
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2017, 12:03:31 am
content: Quote from: Delta on September 07, 2017, 12:51:08 pmThe crap has been at the university I attended in the late 80's. When I did my degree back then my EE 3rd and final years had to include one humanity subject each year from the "Science and Technology Studies" department, part of the Faculty of Arts.A bunch of us managed to convince the EE dept dean that the "Studies" subjects were utterly useless for EEs that it was better to take the "Introduction to Management" subject than the wishy washy "Studies" subjects for our final year.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2017, 01:11:35 am
content: It seems to me that there may be more to this situation than meets the eye.What is being done is REALLY dishonest. Divisions are being deliberately sown in the US and the EU and Australia by professional spin organizations in order to alienate groups against one another who would need to unite against a global attack on all decent paying jobs with the intent of using them as sort of bargaining chips to use to keep the most unequal and corrupt developing world governments in power. Why unite? People may not see this now, but you will eventually see that the treaties being used to hijack democracy are so restrictive and have all the angles locked up such thatone of the only arguments which has any chance of saving literally millions of jobs in the expensive developed countries is the loss of diversity that will occur.They are very slick.People need to know however that their economics are BS. You don't help the poor in Myopia by helping the richest Myopian billionaires, with internship-like guest worker jobs which have been compared to slavery that their body shop MNCs can give away to the children of the well connected. Nor do cross border data flows help people, they just ruin any chance of communities having decent local employment for workers and move good jobs away to new foreign workplaces that become places of misery and despair because people have no time to spend with children, often having to work in the middle of their night. These deals are also trickle down economics which has been repeatedly discredited.It makes no sense to turn technology's gifts into misery - which impacts the whole planet negatively, for everybody except owners just because thats what capitalism "is supposed to do". We can change that. Its not just about making sure the poorest starve more efficiently either, A lot can be said for the value of slack, redundancy which makes societies resilient. We should not worship efficiency and global value chains are chains of oppression. We should not give up millions of good jobs just to increase profits which likely will never come because owners elsewhere are unlikely to share them. Jobs there wont suddenly create a middle class. Those "gains" to them are really losses to all of us, that will trigger a global economic implosion. And as said, its not helping anybody, certainly not those in poor countries, except keeping them poor by keeping the worst and most corrupt leaders in power and unaccountable to anybody. Any deal that is irreversible needs to be voided as against the public interest. This is why we have to get together.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 11, 2017, 01:53:23 am
content: Quote from: cdev on September 11, 2017, 01:11:35 amThis thread is about social justice in engineering and the Prudue thing, please keep it on topic.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2017, 02:09:13 am
content: Okay, I'll condense it down into a very short argument that encapsulates what I am trying to say.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2017, 08:59:57 am
content: I think that almost every participant in this discussion thread agrees that these clowns (the SJW) are hurting Engineering --and not only...Another strange thing is that, since WWII, those in power recruited every bright mind in Academia in order to make advancements in technology. Well, the strange thing about this isthe fateof some of these bright minds that made technological advancements: A great deal of them died unexpectedly after presenting their work (see:Dead Scientists And Microbiologists List). While these scientists have disappeared (one way or the other) from the face of the Earth, where is their work that left behind? Well, a great deal of it is still being 'protected' by 'classified patents', remaining far from the reach of today's university students --with some exceptions maybe... Is this why those clowns are pushing non-scientific education as Engineering? The technological knowledge for much better quality education standards is already there.Quote from: A Hellene on September 10, 2017, 12:20:23 pmJust see the information of that (highest authority) 'scientific publication' abomination above (full of sentimental buzzwords), which was published by PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is the official scientific journal of the National Academy of Sciences, published since 1915):'Edited by Bruce S. McEwen, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, and approved July 10, 2017 (received for review April 7, 2017)'Additionally, these links above seem to be a sequence of acts of the same unfortunate theatrical play, we are participants of (with or without our consent), that was introduced in 1925 by one of them, in honour of whom they created yet another of those shiny prizes they have for their minions.Here is one of their plans that is still in motion:-Ideological and Geopolitical Origins of the EU, by Clare Ellis:Part 1andPart 2,and, without chewing their words,-The Coudenhove Kalergi Plan, by The Occidental Observer:Part 1andPart 2.Quoting The Occidental Observer article above, 'It was Count Richard Eljiro von Coudenhove-Kalergi who in 1950 won the first Coudenhove-Kalergi prize, now better known as the Charlemagne Prize.'I really hate quotingWikipediaas a source: 'The first Charlemagne Prize was awarded to Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the Pan-European Movement, and the founder of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan.'A few words about Charlemagne Prize, by François Asselineau:According to his own literature, this isCoudenhove Kalergi's plan that dictates those Marxist clowns what to be doing, not only to the education sector but to the whole global society:Praktischer Idealismus (Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove Kalergi, 1925)Practical Idealism ('Praktischer Idealismus' English translation)Epitomising, there have always been and there will always be creatures of that pathetic mindset, being filled with hatred to mankind, that will be trying anything they can in order to eliminate everyone they hate, while sugarcoating their actions by usingCultural Marxism(orPolitical Correctness, as it is widely known) crafty communication methods...-George

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2017, 06:06:59 pm
content: I actually disagree that social justice warriors are hurting engineering.Rigor prevents engineering (or math, or chemistry, or biology) from being prone to whimsical thought or social warrior noise.Engineering can't be hurt because as much as one wants (and as much vitriol and silly ness that they can expostulate) a zener diode will stay a zener diode, an inverting opamp will continue to invert, and the GCC compiler will continue to issue error messages when they get creative.You can direct racial justice vitriol at Uncle Tom's Cabin or Mark Twain or Afrikaners.But last I verbally abused a zener for being reddish with a black band - it continued to zen.Take the DPRK. Awful social justice Juche studies. But the engineers that are building their missiles and a-bombs? The fact that they seem to be working Is a sure bet that Juche is only a tiny portion of their studies (if at all).I'd even propose that funding problems are a substantially greater risk to engineering department relevancy and quality than any social warrior.

author: 691175002
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2017, 06:35:13 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 12, 2017, 06:06:59 pmThis is only true in the long run. Politics and motivated reasoning can still do massive damage to science and engineering - a notable historical example being the church. Its harder to kill or jail scientists we disagree with, but getting them fired serves a similar purpose.Scientists observe the enviornment and adjust their studies accordingly, so the damage is more widespread than it might appear.Writers have been very vocal about this issue. It is no longer acceptable for a white person to write from the perspective of another race (among many other potential faux-pas), so authors and publishers are limiting their creativity to avoid potential blowback.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2017, 07:59:49 pm
content: Quote from: 691175002 on September 12, 2017, 06:35:13 pmThat happens between the world and science - and inside the scientific world.The scientific world has a long history of fighting inconvenient observations. From Darwin, to Oliver Heaviside, to Tesla, to Shechtman's quasi periodic crystals to ....Interests corrupt - alwaysIt is true that interest groups have interests. But they are not alone: governments have interests (e.g. The fight for or against global warming), industry as well (lead poisoning and the petrol industry), religion (obviously the fight against reality), guilds and unions (doctors and lawyers fighting progress and new business models)., and quack groups (e.g. The anti vaccination quacks)...We all know engineering has had its share of interests represented by guilds and nepotism and monopolistic practices..

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2017, 11:39:01 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 12, 2017, 06:06:59 pmI think you run the risk of anthropomorphising the field of study. It's very easy to say the principles of a field are going to stand strong, however the people comprising that field may not. Is there any scientist or engineer who doesn't know that they need to watch what they say and do, often to an absurd degree? Look at Tim Hunt, Lawrence Summers, Matt Taylor etc... the knowledge that a political mob can sabotage your career on a whim is bound to have a chilling effect. The self-censorship only gives more room for authoritarians to seize more control and tighten the cycle.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 12, 2017, 11:53:32 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 12, 2017, 06:06:59 pmGood point, engineering will always ultimately win, but it's possible for engineering education to suffer.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 12:56:50 am
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 12, 2017, 06:06:59 pmThe day will come when a zener diode is part of a self-aware machine that has rights.That may complicate things.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 12:57:33 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on September 13, 2017, 12:56:50 amAll diodes matter.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 01:47:47 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 13, 2017, 12:57:33 amSo a cat's whisker detector in a crystal set would have the same rights as a synchronous rectifier?Another layer in the stratification of society occurs...

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 02:02:27 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 13, 2017, 12:57:33 amNo, diode left behind!(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 07:26:55 am
content: Quote from: John B on September 12, 2017, 11:39:01 pmBut that is not new! We all know the sad story of Edwin Armstrong inventor of the Superheterodyne receiver who got to enjoy the sharper side of David Sarnoff's business savvy.Business (like Sarnoff and RCA), as anyone, can be a bitch to science and scientists.But the worst are other scientists: While it is annoying that the poor and ignorant don't understand - there is nothing quite like discovering that the department head, or a world renowned professor - is gunning after your discoveries; and that the scientific community is so unable to cope with it - that they are turning their backs are on you.Dan Shechtman (from Wikipedia):From the day Shechtman published his findings on quasicrystals in 1984 to the day Linus Pauling died (1994), Shechtman experienced hostility from him toward the non-periodic interpretation. "For a long time it was me against the world," he said. "I was a subject of ridicule and lectures about the basics of crystallography. The leader of the opposition to my findings was the two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the idol of the American Chemical Society and one of the most famous scientists in the world. For years, 'til his last day, he fought against quasi-periodicity in crystals. He was wrong, and after a while, I enjoyed every moment of this scientific battle, knowing that he was wrong."[citation needed]Linus Pauling is noted saying"There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists."Pauling was apparently unaware of a paper in 1981 by H. Kleinert and K. Maki which had pointed out the possibility of a non-periodic Icosahedral Phase in quasicrystals (see the historical notes). The head of Shechtman's research group told him to "go back and read the textbook" and a couple of days later"asked him to leave for 'bringing disgrace' on the team." Shechtman felt dejected. On publication of his paper, other scientists began to confirm and accept empirical findings of the existence of quasicrystals.But it isn't new: One of the best examples relevant to EEVBLOG is Oliver Heaviside.Oliver Heaviside was one of the first AC theory warriors. And he paid an unimaginable price and died poor... Even AT&T tried to give him a stipend (which he refused).He battled the last of a DC world. Where transmitting a character transatlantic took many minutes. They resented anyone who came in with an AC theory.Oliver Heaviside developed the transmission line theory, reduced the 12 Maxwell's equation to 4 (by innovating using Vector representation), coined the terms admittance and conductance and electret and impedance and permeability, discovered the Poynting Vector (albeit he was beat to that by Poynting), invented the coaxial cable for transmission, impulse response, etc.He lived on 40 pounds a year writing for a magazine after having upset the powers to be in the post office (inventors of the British telephone). From Wikipedia:"In 1887, Heaviside worked with his brother Arthur on a paper entitled "The Bridge System of Telephony". However the paper was blocked by Arthur's superior, William Henry Preece of the Post Office, because part of the proposal was that loading coils (inductors) should be added to telephone and telegraph lines to increase their self-induction and correct the distortion which they suffered. Preece had recently declared self-inductance to be the great enemy of clear transmission. Heaviside was also convinced that Preece was behind the sacking of the editor of The Electrician which brought his long-running series of articles to a halt (until 1891). There was a long history of animosity between Preece and Heaviside. Heaviside considered Preece to be mathematically incompetent; an assessment supported by the biographer Paul J. Nahin: "Preece was a powerful government official, enormously ambitious, and in some remarkable ways, an utter blockhead." Preece's motivations in suppressing Heaviside's work were more to do with protecting Preece's own reputation and avoiding having to admit error than any perceived faults in Heaviside's work.: xi–xvii, 162–183 "But always remember: Even the ISIS creeps used Facebook, sold Petrol, stole cash, paid salaries, and stole missiles and weapons. God is nice. But even the Allah version of god ends up needing an Arduino to time the explosion needed to blow up a Shiite mosque or Facebook to get in touch with a disgruntled convert in Louisiana (whatever happened to a talking burning bush or popping up in their dreams I don't know).

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 07:38:43 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 13, 2017, 12:57:33 amForget diodes. There is a special place in EE hell for those that purposefully used tantalum caps as squibs.For agents of the dark lord await those with a sinister device: polystyrene capacitors purposefully dipped in epoxy to make them look like tantalums. Upon arrival they are given a challenge upon which they'd go through the silkscreened gates: blow up these "tantalums" with a 12v battery.Obviously they fail, upon which they are corralled to hell to clean up PCBs with used toothbrushes or solder ground planes with underpowered irons.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 03:02:10 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 12, 2017, 06:06:59 pmRigor won't protect you from Title IX.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 04:25:28 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on September 13, 2017, 03:02:10 pmRigour however will protect you from failing to state your assumptions, like "Title IX" ofwhat.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 04:34:49 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on September 13, 2017, 03:02:10 pmAh - title IX.>10 year before Title IX was making its way in congress Tom Lehrer said the following: “The Army has carried the American ideal to its logical conclusion. Not only do they prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed and color, but also on ability.”Quote from: Cerebus on September 13, 2017, 04:25:28 pmIgnorantia legis neminem excusat.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 06:57:33 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 13, 2017, 04:34:49 pmYou do know what that Latin tag means, don't you - usually rendered "ignorance of the law is no defence". Quite what is the relevance here?Or are you one of those strange norte-americanos who thinks that everybody in the world is subject to your laws and are accusing me of some inexcusable ignorance of US domestic law for not automatically recognising "Title XI" as one of your laws?

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 08:11:14 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 13, 2017, 06:57:33 pmLOL - I am not Norte Americano... I am located in the Mediterranean. However unfortunate, that does not imply I am not strange. Indeed I probably am.Anyway, it was a joke and I apologize. Here it is hot and humid and dusty and people are rude and therefore Latin amuses us (i.e. it was a joke).In the spirit of good will - Title IX is the god daddy of affirmative action. But over many years it has backfired due to the test the court apply: proportionality (are the number of participant proportional to their representation in the student body); growth (are barriers in the process of being removed) and last - interest from the student body (is there sufficient interest in the student body to say - have a female or Hispanic team). Obviously this can - and has been - abused.

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2017, 10:13:50 pm
content: Maybe I'm missing the point here..but..an undergraduate engineering degree was never intended to teach youeverythingin your field. That's physically impossible. Hell, when you die, you still won't know everything.The attitude here seems to be "arts/humanities classes are eating away at engineering education!", as if the 3 or 4 humanities classes you take will genuinely make you a less competent engineer in the long run. An undergraduate degree is just the start of your education; You have your entire career to continue learning, and you will have to.Yes, I love engineering, with all my heart, but that doesn't mean I can't also be interested in society, human behavior, history, art etc. I went to a liberal-arts college and studied EE. Yes, sometimes my required liberal arts classes were a pain in the ass, but do I really wish I hadn't taken them? No! Many engineers who graduated with me would tell you the same thing. There's nothing wrong with gaining a little perspective, challenging your worldview, etc.And, if you are a person who doesn't want this kind of education, then don't go to a liberal arts school!

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2017, 01:39:25 am
content: I see a lot of people who seem to be really threatened by anything they cant buy off. Right now in our society, pretty much all of the institutions that are supposed to help us find our way are "captured" meaning varying degrees of corrupt and dishonest.For example, the media now is largely intentionally, systematically omitting all important key facts or context from the news, such as to make whats reported varying degrees of deceptive at best (and quite oftentimes its intentionally spun so as to be quite wrong.)Not so coincidentally, there is a huge outcry in that same media about "fake news" - which sometimes is true, and their protests are really protests that the people who used to believe every word they said, now are starting to figure out they are being manipulated.Only a very few media outlets are willing to admit when they made a mistake and even fewer make an effort to find out what the truth is when some fact emerges showing that their take on something is really wrong, when "news" or spin is wrong. A glitch in the Matrix.. so to speak.Instead of fighting for the truth, more and more media's first reaction is anger at being exposed as dishonest.. Rather than correct themselves, media are grasping at various means and appeals to authority in various ways to spin themselves as the accurate ones. What was it Shakespeare said, the lady she doth protest too much.Similarly with politics, often the political discussion isengineeredto be adistractionfrom whats really going on, not reflect or God forbid govern or regulate it. If it did, corporations would go beserk, and lacking any context to understand what was happening, many peoples heads would explode.Why is this being done? Its a form of sophisticated theft.There is a concept in law called "Adverse possession" - it basically says that you can steal anything from anybody by taking it notoriously - basically you are challenging them to stop you, they are supposed to go to court in some manner. Of course, thats an illusion, the courts are closed to that kind of case, also, people have to know the planet is being taken from them, they have to realize they own something. In an abuse scenario people have been brainwashed into silence anddisempowerment.There I said it, thats what these alleged "social justice warriors" (people with common sense) are saying to would be engineering EDUCATORS.. not engineering students, teachers of engineering, who likely are already engineers or close to it. But of course, thats not what people repeating the story are assuming. No as they are spinning it, young people are being forced to pay for content they dont want -an argument that speaks to a great many people, because money is being used as a costly screen to keep a great many people from pursuing an education. Dnying more and more people a voice that can be heard. Large numbers ofpeople are beingdisempowered. And we need some way to re-empower people to speak. thats true.Those social justice warriors are right, and its easy to proveto a logically minded person.The big theft could also be stopped by these logically minded people.I think the point should be recognized that the big losers when technology is abused are the common people, you and I, all of us, and that families and society often pay a huge price for decisions made by corporations knowing that they could likely get away with it.They make a conscious decision to steal, secure in the knowledge that they are not alone, other thieves will prevent their ever being held accountable .This is getting worse and worse and the cost in monetary sense is already astronomical and growing exponentially due to things like pollution and shifting of innumerable costs of disinvestment to society while profits are being concentrated in fewer and fewer people. Its like a curve thats going from horizontal to vertical very rapidly. And people always underestimate the rate of change because they base it on the past. Not the future. At the same time, scientists know whats happening, that the future is rapidly growing more and more unpredictable, ad the only logical response to that rising level of risk if bad decisons are made is precaution. Its been spelled out formally in something called the precautionary principle. Nothing is more under attack today than policies which reflect the precautionary principle. Whats being forced on us is every person atomized and alone against a united front of bad actor corporations and politicians who all have a vested interest in ever increasing dishonesty. ans elimination of any accountability. A case in point is the pressure thats being put on professionals by the harmonization of all regulations to their lowest common denominator, even when they should be harmonized upward. Only professionals have a voice to speak. So they must speak or society loses its one opportunity to save itself.Many people now make the point that some (I think its a minority of corporations, still but the institutions driving this are pushing to make them worse) bad actor corporations (all corporations have been mistakenly given the same rights as people) are out of control. Around 1995 there was a legal shift and they now regulate countries, and not the other way around. But were being consciously deceived into thinking nothing has changed, when legally, things have a great deal. The effect is to try to make it impossible to get any accountability, ever.Ever see "the old shell game" its a gambling game where people are asked to visually track money and guess what shell its under. A skilled shell game master will always have the people guess the wrong hand and they win a lot of money. Well, the same thing is being done to everything of value in the world. And its a huge social injustice that if left to continue has only one possible end, one so unspeakable I wont go into it. But, its totally wrong, and backwards. They dont own the world, we do. But they are so skillfully convincing us that they do because they intend to steal it, they are in fact stealing it. Because people have been dropping the ball, exhausted as they are by the fight for survival.Technology is making it so nobody has to work, we often say.the benefits of technology really should be shared with everybody in the work-less future. But of course thats the oposite of capitalism which says that the investors get it all. And there is no accountability. Its as if the whole world is being stolen by use of a straw man transaction, in order to insulate the illegitimate "owners" from the crime. But to pull this theft off requires society's consent, and to steal democracy requires them to be told its happening. So, those who steal it create unusual sets of circumstances that coincidentally, end up with them owning teh world. Our big mistake was putting trust in people who arent even people, they are legal fictions. Corporations.corporations are designed so that the officers of the corporations are insulated from any responsibility for their actions.This has turned out to be a huge disaster and now we're headed towards an environmental apocalypse in a number of terrifying ways. Understanding them requires an understanding of science. Speaking about them (and having the media or any public entity listen to you, especially in a formal setting requires credentials at a higher than undergraduate level, usually a doctorate in some field. Occasionally a masters degree. Engineers seem to be the sole exception, a profession that may be instantiated with some level of authority after only six or perhaps even four years. The era of the self taught expert in any field who is actually quoted in the media or respected as such, is being hastened to a close "on principle" globally even when there are no academic experts in a field because its so new. That should scare people.So, increasingly, the only people entrusted by society with the authority to speak are those with formal academic credentials in a field. Nobody else is allowed to speak. So they want those people with voices to be controllable, which often means misinformed. They also want to make their jobs precarious. Like so many others. People in a state of economic fear are more amenable to "reason" as they put it.. (which in that context means corruption) Play the game and you'll be rewarded, stand up for the truth as you see it and you'll be ostracized or lose your job.After all, in a factless scienceless world, money is everything.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2017, 03:03:50 am
content: Nailed it. ^^^

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2017, 08:12:41 am
content: Quote from: tautech on September 14, 2017, 03:03:50 amWhat nailed it? The world isn't about money. Never was. It was about resources and dividing up resources. Money is just a convenient way to enumerate resources. Resources, to their owner, provide a sense of security and, over time, power. That drives everyone. The alt left and right, the center, the workers, the bosses, everyone. Even the altruists.The alt universe media (like Radio Pacifica and now the alt right phenomena) have always been around. They are not new. Neither is corporation playing with the truth to get an advantage (and doing things like poisoning us with lead). What is new - and the only thing that is new - is the direct access to a never ending multiplicity of narratives.Try experiments with your browser. Write vaccination and illnesses and death and Auspergers and autism. Suddenly Google and the rest of the popup world (and facebook) will start giving you access to the sinister world of people devoid of epidemiologists and immunologists - but they will have a doctor - maybe physics, maybe a math teacher, maybe a dentist - who'll say vaccinations are no longer important.By typing a few words into Google and Facebook - the view of reality changed (Google's algorithms will serve as Blinkers do to horses - see the straight and narrow - what you want to see - nothing else). You'll actually have to spend time on the Sanofi Pasteur and Novartis sites and WebMD to get back to the "real" world (and how "real" is that "real" world - just a narrative favored by epidemiologists and immunologists).Want a progressive agenda (possible close to what - I assume - cdev is looking at) - no problem. Be careful of Radio Pacifica and its ilk - and be careful of activism. Somewhere between CNN and Radio Pacifica. (albeit activists must be careful as they are routinely wooed by left and right anarchists). But be careful of the libertarians - they seem to be on the other side.In the modern world you pick your reality. I don't know if it is scary or not - but some of my favorite SF writers (Philip K. Dick and Stanislaw Lem) wrote about confusing planes of reality and at least for them - the outcome was never good.BTW - Think engineers are immune? Just read the thread where a noob asks about buying test equipment like a DMM. Two realities: 1. Buy cheap - and if you like it upgrade; 2. Buy the most expensive Cat III rated you can afford - since you are a NOOB you are likely to stuff the probes where no NOOB probe should go... and the Cat III will therefore save your life.Two contradicting realities - both make logical sense and both can be argued ad-nauseum. In a post modern world both automatically have validity (which is where the problems start). The NOOB is asked to make a decision on something he can't. That is why he asked for our help in the first place! Acting like post-modern beacons of idealism - we let the Noobs down.BTW - I don't believe both are valid. On a historical test - one would always buy a cheap Micronta - and if one were to find he likes the hobby - end up with a Fluke or an Amprobe or a Metrawatt. Or a VTVM. Not that Cat III is bad to have - but it was never a necessity - we are all here and alive.However it is neglecting the simple realities that safety is a statistics game. An electrician wiring up distribution boards, is far more likely to make a mistake ONCE than a person who only ever works on mains rarely, and if that, at home. As for a NOOB using a Cat III in a distribution panel??? Somehow the ratings on the DMM would be the least of my worries: "See that bright copper bar? Please don't touch it.".And consider the alternative. Supposing one cannot afford a Fluke. My landlord in Los Angeles would check the live wire by touching it (I literally cringed and never invited him to fix electricity again). Compared to touching a phase - the risk of an old Micronta multimeter is orders of magnitude better. So what if Gossen is even better....But the alternate reality where everyone needs a Cat III DMM certainly looks good. I am sure it makes Danaher happy...

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2017, 09:23:25 am
content: Having a few years under my belt and gone most of way through the education system and watched my kids go through it but I've had a stint in school governance and IMHO we have a lot to question of the manner in which our next generations are being molded for adulthood.....poorly !! Social agendas are laid before adulthood, before they have the ability to think for themselves.Sure many just listen, watch or read most of the crap in the media today.....the wife calls them 'non-thinkers' and we see a good many here that couldn't be called such.Only the very lucky have the luxury to think the world isn't about money......it can't buy you everything but most things it can.Buying equipment.......well circumstances dictate only one thing....budget. Want to spend bugger all on some POS that won't last, then do so. Spend a bit more and know it should last....been there done that. When experience follows, safety and capabilities required dictate future choices. I'll stick with my USD70 Chinese Fluke 15B thanks, even for dist panel work around home and down the 3 phase shed.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2017, 01:44:37 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 14, 2017, 08:12:41 amYou misrepresent that discussion because there was at least one other argument put forward: buy a cheap secondhand Fluke, which seems to satisfy all the arguments.I mention it for two reasons:Firstly it's further evidence, as if that's needed, of my legendary wisdom and judgement, because it was I who proposed that solution.It demonstrates that even engineers can overlook inconvenient facts, and be selective in reporting the facts, in supporting their position in a political argument/discussion. Strangely this both supports your argument and simultaneously undermines your making of it. I find that perversely satisfying.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2017, 07:22:01 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 13, 2017, 12:57:33 amBan diodes, they are racist and discriminating, letting some electrons through, and others not.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2017, 07:50:47 am
content: Quote from: Galenbo on September 15, 2017, 07:22:01 amThat's the spirit!-George

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2017, 08:04:09 am
content: Ban, also,this Battery Desulfator: It is chauvinist, speaking Hellenic, the national language of its designer!-George

author: Ducttape
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2017, 05:21:17 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on September 14, 2017, 01:39:25 amI remember reading (quite some time ago) that a way to prevent that, without an immediate fight, is to give a potential 'adverse possessor' specific, but clearly temporary, permission to possess whatever is at stake. To be rescinded at whatever point in the future you change your mind. That prevents them from having the ability to possess adversely. I'm not a lawyer though.

author: Cubdriver
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 15, 2017, 06:16:46 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on September 12, 2017, 06:06:59 pmYes, but when the SJWs get into positions of power that let them hold the purse strings, they can then defund those evil, patriarchal engineering programs because they're not 'diverse' enough, any legitimate reasons for that lack of diversity (such as a lack of interest on the part of those they want more of in the programs) be damned.-Pat

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2017, 08:40:30 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on September 15, 2017, 07:22:01 amBecause diodes are privileged, you can't be discriminatory towards them. In fact, you can only be.........reversed biased.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2017, 08:51:53 pm
content: Quote from: John B on September 15, 2017, 08:40:30 pmThe cloakroom's that way ...

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2017, 09:17:16 pm
content: If those people who want to empower engineers don't succeed at that, as jobs dry up, the meritocracy of the talented that scientifically minded people idealize (for good reasons) and which characterizes high functioning organizations) will happen less and less - it will be replaced by something quite unpleasant.Who is willing to pay a bribe under the table to get this or that assignment? Whose family has the best connections, so the jobs can be steered to them? Every exercise of discretion will become more likely to be poisoned by these external considerations, (literally.. consideration=bribe)That will make all professions tedious and unpleasant for most people. Also it will make people sick. A growing body of science, onneuroimmunologyandallostasisshow these stressful situations cause illness at a level that makes them as dangerous as almost any other danger that scientists track statistically.Certain kinds of threats (from things high on Maslow's hierarchy of needs) over short periods of time sharpen the senses but over long periods of time they kill brain cells and make people old before their time. The science is compelling, they make people sick.-----So what has changed in the world and society that people feel so strongly that people need re-empowering? (this is a very unscientific gut feeling analysis, but - you can take it as such and just weigh it, I may be right and I may be wrong- its a quite unpolished and somewhat unscientific and hypothetical guess at what might be happening.There has been a fundamental shift in the law, driven by new theories in economics (that basically are another area I am unqualified to speak about), but my gut feeling is there is now a sort of cult of efficiency based around the concept of transaction costs which is being used to justify the quit shifting away from promises which are costly to keep, when other opportunities might present themselves.This shift has resulted in a push to change all the rules all around the world, and thats so far been largely successful. But peoples awareness of this shift is seen through the lens of class and most people in the US have only the vaguest idea of what might have changed. However, they do know something has changed.the powerful, have managed to create new rules that give them their way, in a plethora of situations which in my opinion is a very ugly thing. For example, these changes basically end democracy as we all define it.Which is why its been done. Whats replaced it is a sort of might makes right, based on a narrow definition of short term economic output, in some cases, and long term economic output in others, with the powerful always getting the benefit of the laws falling tehir way, so its not fair nor is it a coincidence.. Its sort of alike heads I win, tails you lose.and nothing else.However, this breaks the social contract at many levels. However, its kept quiet because then the benefits of an incomplete contract accrue to the powerful for as long as possible. One side is getting the benefit of the others ignorance and they - therefore perform their side of a bargain they cant win based on assumptions which are unlikely to ever come trueFor one thing, they would have to bring the potential conflict out into the open, something poor people never do, because they cant afford to. The system is set up to punish people for asserting they even have these rights. Its very different than the situation as little as a few decades ago.This is especially tryue, even ow for nonwhite people and women.We desperately need higher rates of participation in society in technical professions. More viewpoints need to be heard and we need to recognize their value. There are numerous women whose contributions to science and engineering are largely unknown. Its also true they often feel marginalized. The highest functioning organizations are generally more inclusive ones.My gut feeling has always been that women are the missing half of technology it needs to successfully navigate a complex future. Yes, they see things differently. Women often have common sense men lack on an issue. And they often have technical abilities that go under-recognized.Also- there is the question of fitness to lead.If a technical education is viewed as the gateway to managerial or leadership positions, (and in many contexts they are) people need balance.There are all sorts of fundamental questions that a technical education should include at least some of as it makes for a more balanced and thoughtful individual.Maybe some dont see it but there is an extremely aggressive push now to cheapen and turn all the technical professions into low valued cogs in a machine, low paid precarious jobs that require a difficult, often expensive education. This is a passive aggressive way of discouraging people from pursuing them so they can be given to others, for low pay.If engineers and other technical professionals are stripped of their humanities education, they will be seen by society as high tech plumbers, which is what some want.The push to turn technical work into precarious work will then be far more likely to be successful.Society will be poorer and less likely to thrive because logically minded people (as opposed to game insiders) may eventually be shut out of leadership roles in society.-----Science is important..For example, Assafi, you mentioned the phobia some people have for "immunizations" (and the phobia people have for discussing theissue in a scientific manner, which is not as simple as some would have us think.The fears were at one point in time,somewhat based in an unfortunate use of a substance that had asmall but nonzero chance of causing birth defectsif a mother who was pregnant was exposed to it during pregnancyandshe had lowglutathionestatus. Its logical to extrapolate that from what we know about how pro oxidant substances cause changes in gene expression. The controversy over vaccines was based in fact to some extent, but, as far as I know, thimerosal is no longer used. Now peoples main sources of mercury exposure are environmental sources - some of which are far more toxic because one form of mercury, methylmercury is extremely toxic. all emerged from the use of thimerosal, a preservative made with mercury that is no longer used. However, there is some important science that underlies the whole issue and its the science of toxicology which is choosing to ignore an important fact that engineers should be able to grasp. That a substance called glutathione - one of the most important ways our bodies cope with toxic substances, is a finite resource in the body that can be used up by increased exposure to a plethora of toxic substances, making them all additive. Their effects on fetuses during a particular period of cell differentiation are mediated by reactive oxygen species. Taking more of the precursor of glutathione, cysteine, an amino acid, blocks the toxicity.Some parts of society refuse to integrate this knowledge because they dont want to deal with the fact that a good percentage of toxic substances haveadditiveeffects and should be regulated in a manner that recognizes that - recognized as such, so it attempts to hide the facts which will inform that debate by attempting to turn issues that might lead to an informed, scientific discussion of glutathione trigger attacks as nonscientific. However, the underlying fact that ones glutathione status often determines the effect on the body a toxic substance has, is long proven science.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2017, 08:12:52 am
content: Sience is the ONLY truth and is valid everywhere in the universe... Even if we have baised textbook, those who are willing to see the truth behind the bais shall be successful and archive great potential, those who won't will fail to do so.Engegneering is not an opinion... And mixing science with politics, society or other things is just pointless...About an open education: it might be a good thing, since anyone could be a new genius and don't even know it yet..

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2017, 08:47:50 am
content: Quote from: cdev on September 15, 2017, 09:17:16 pmNo-one (especially me) argued that continually checking the best available knowhow isn't critical. That is how we discovered that the sage advise that sugar is good - isn't really so. Or that AC theory beats DC theory for communications (poor Oliver Heaviside).But people live longer. Unfortunately (or fortunately) - they still die. And they are afraid to. And because keeping them alive is complex (example is giving the worst of poisons - called chemotherapy - to cancer patients) - and complexity is a bear to the intellect - the SJW decide to compromise and go to "something" simpler - like organic. Or faith healers (I mean - it worked in the past when people died in their 50s-60s - didn't it?), or avoiding vaccinations or treating cancer.So from a scientific perspective all SJW do is fight for the right to be wrong. Their choice. It may work well in philosophy school. But it doesn't work in a scientific context or a university engineering or science major.(note - edited to stay OT based on Dave's comment below - at least I hope this is now OT...).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 16, 2017, 08:53:43 am
content: If we can't stick to the topic here then the thread will be locked.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2017, 10:53:50 am
content: Unfortunately, those fanatical followers of any any kind ofsociety degradation doctrinesare not only hurting Science, since they are hurting Education in parallel. And a widespread, but unofficial also, form of mass education isthe recreational films industry, where the vast majority of our global society of uneducated individuals is 'learning' the officially distorted form of history from.Explaining myself, a good movie may appear every once in a while. In my opinion, this could be Christopher Nolan's historically accurate anti-war drama 'Dunkirk (2017)', being 'dressed' by the outstanding music of Hans Zimmer, whose imposing tempo peaks the intensity and the anxiety of the viewer. According toUSA Today, Brian Truitt review,'It’s less a movie and more a close encounter of the combative kind: You feel every bolt rattle in the cockpit of a dogfighting Spitfire, every stressful moment with the choice of drowning or surfacing in an oil fire, and every thought of certain doom for the infantrymen trapped on a beach when a bomb comes whizzing out of the sky.'In my opinion, this is a wonderful movie worth watching on the screen and not on a DVD.But the sick media world, horrendously saw a film in which there are no female heroines and no black protagonists. And they shuddered... Some others were annoyed because they did not hear the word 'Nazi' or even 'German', but only the word 'enemy', while others broke their garments because the 'Nazi barbarism' was not highlighted in the film; let that there was not even a mention of the mandatory 'Holocaust (TM)'...For example:-Too Many White Men At Dunkirk,-Review of war epic ‘Dunkirk’: Film shows just ‘a couple of women and no lead actors of color’,-Dunkirk: the film that has rightwing writers itching for a culture war,-Twitter unhappy about ‘Dunkirk’ being historically ... accurate?, et cetera...-George

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 16, 2017, 12:04:18 pm
content: Someone doesn't listen and we get Godwin's law. Thread locked.