What Are You Doing Right Now
-
Ah IC because Systems Engineer also has the word Engineer, so an Engineering degree is the same thing.
searching for a Senior Systems Engineer/Administrator to support the Engineering group and tools. The incumbent will have a minimum of a Bachelor Degree in Engineering or Computer Science.
Education:
Bachelor Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Electrical EngineeringI applied anyway.
-
@johnhooks said:
Ah IC because Systems Engineer also has the word Engineer, so an Engineering degree is the same thing.
searching for a Senior Systems Engineer/Administrator to support the Engineering group and tools. The incumbent will have a minimum of a Bachelor Degree in Engineering or Computer Science.
Education:
Bachelor Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Electrical EngineeringI applied anyway.
Not a single degree with any relationship to SE.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Ah IC because Systems Engineer also has the word Engineer, so an Engineering degree is the same thing.
searching for a Senior Systems Engineer/Administrator to support the Engineering group and tools. The incumbent will have a minimum of a Bachelor Degree in Engineering or Computer Science.
Education:
Bachelor Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Electrical EngineeringI applied anyway.
Not a single degree with any relationship to SE.
It's a Gov't contractor so I'm not surprised.
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Ah IC because Systems Engineer also has the word Engineer, so an Engineering degree is the same thing.
searching for a Senior Systems Engineer/Administrator to support the Engineering group and tools. The incumbent will have a minimum of a Bachelor Degree in Engineering or Computer Science.
Education:
Bachelor Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Electrical EngineeringI applied anyway.
Not a single degree with any relationship to SE.
It's a Gov't contractor so I'm not surprised.
When I worked at Lockheed Martin, their "engineers" were mostly old retired teachers that they used to pad their numbers. No one who even know what engineering was in their engineering teams.
-
below 30 PMs!!
-
I think we just had a drone fly overhead. Not hobbyist, but gov't drone. Didn't look big enough to be a plane, and had smaller wings.
-
We have NATO fighters and bombers buzz us every three days or so.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
We have NATO fighters and bombers buzz us every three days or so.
Creepy. We live kind of in the middle of nowhere, so it was kind of surprising. Unless it had to do with that job I just applied for......
-
I'm way out in the middle of nowhere. Village of 160 people! On a small island in the sea!
-
Of course, while we are pretty remote, there is only one island between us and Syria so.....
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
When I worked at Lockheed Martin, their "engineers" were mostly old retired teachers that they used to pad their numbers. No one who even know what engineering was in their engineering teams.
See, it is blatant arrogant declarations like this that make serious and thinking people ignore even the intelligent things that you espouse.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
When I worked at Lockheed Martin, their "engineers" were mostly old retired teachers that they used to pad their numbers. No one who even know what engineering was in their engineering teams.
See, it is blatant arrogant declarations like this that make serious and thinking people ignore even the intelligent things that you espouse.
No, they were ACTUALLY old retired teachers. It's not opinion. That's what they were. They told me themselves. It's not arrogance to repeat the information given by the company. None of them were doing technical work, they just hung around.
In what way was that arrogance?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
When I worked at Lockheed Martin, their "engineers" were mostly old retired teachers that they used to pad their numbers. No one who even know what engineering was in their engineering teams.
See, it is blatant arrogant declarations like this that make serious and thinking people ignore even the intelligent things that you espouse.
No, they were ACTUALLY old retired teachers. It's not opinion. That's what they were. They told me themselves. It's not arrogance to repeat the information given by the company. None of them were doing technical work, they just hung around.
In what way was that arrogance?
You are generalizing and claiming a fact for an entire global company based on your limited experience with the company.
-
And like high school English teachers, not engineering professors or something like that. They were actually just college grads hired because they met a government legal regulation for who could staff the project and they projects were paid by the number of people that were hired. So they staffed up with non-technical people because the contracts were for head count.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
When I worked at Lockheed Martin, their "engineers" were mostly old retired teachers that they used to pad their numbers. No one who even know what engineering was in their engineering teams.
See, it is blatant arrogant declarations like this that make serious and thinking people ignore even the intelligent things that you espouse.
No, they were ACTUALLY old retired teachers. It's not opinion. That's what they were. They told me themselves. It's not arrogance to repeat the information given by the company. None of them were doing technical work, they just hung around.
In what way was that arrogance?
You are generalizing and claiming a fact for an entire global company based on your limited experience with the company.
I didn't say globally. I said in the engineering teams. I worked with a few, they were all the same. I didn't generalize, I provided the information that was observed (and provided by the people who represented their engineering department.)
You always add implications to what I say. You assume arrogance and so you find it where it does not exist. You carry that prejudice into your reading of the statement. While my statement did not say that this was global and every team, it left it open, sure, and because you decided that is what I must mean, you treated it as if I said it when I did not.
-
@JaredBusch said:
See, it is blatant arrogant declarations like this that make serious and thinking people ignore even the intelligent things that you espouse.
How is that not arrogant?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
When I worked at Lockheed Martin, their "engineers" were mostly old retired teachers that they used to pad their numbers. No one who even know what engineering was in their engineering teams.
See, it is blatant arrogant declarations like this that make serious and thinking people ignore even the intelligent things that you espouse.
No, they were ACTUALLY old retired teachers. It's not opinion. That's what they were. They told me themselves. It's not arrogance to repeat the information given by the company. None of them were doing technical work, they just hung around.
In what way was that arrogance?
You are generalizing and claiming a fact for an entire global company based on your limited experience with the company.
I didn't say globally. I said in the engineering teams. I worked with a few, they were all the same. I didn't generalize, I provided the information that was observed (and provided by the people who represented their engineering department.)
You always add implications to what I say. You assume arrogance and so you find it where it does not exist. You carry that prejudice into your reading of the statement. While my statement did not say that this was global and every team, it left it open, sure, and because you decided that is what I must mean, you treated it as if I said it when I did not.
I am not adding any implication. Your exact words were, "in their engineering teams."
By that very definition that means the entirety of all of their engineering teams are "mostly old retired teachers that they used to pad their numbers."It is extremely arrogant of you to assume you know that much about the entirety of Lockheed Martin's engineering teams.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
See, it is blatant arrogant declarations like this that make serious and thinking people ignore even the intelligent things that you espouse.
How is that not arrogant?
It completely is, and that does nothing to invalidate my point. It was used intentionally and with a slight bit of sarcasm.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
When I worked at Lockheed Martin, their "engineers" were mostly old retired teachers that they used to pad their numbers. No one who even know what engineering was in their engineering teams.
See, it is blatant arrogant declarations like this that make serious and thinking people ignore even the intelligent things that you espouse.
No, they were ACTUALLY old retired teachers. It's not opinion. That's what they were. They told me themselves. It's not arrogance to repeat the information given by the company. None of them were doing technical work, they just hung around.
In what way was that arrogance?
You are generalizing and claiming a fact for an entire global company based on your limited experience with the company.
I didn't say globally. I said in the engineering teams. I worked with a few, they were all the same. I didn't generalize, I provided the information that was observed (and provided by the people who represented their engineering department.)
You always add implications to what I say. You assume arrogance and so you find it where it does not exist. You carry that prejudice into your reading of the statement. While my statement did not say that this was global and every team, it left it open, sure, and because you decided that is what I must mean, you treated it as if I said it when I did not.
I am not adding any implication. Your exact words were, "in their engineering teams."
By that very definition that means the entirety of all of their engineering teams are "mostly old retired teachers that they used to pad their numbers."It is extremely arrogant of you to assume you know that much about the entirety of Lockheed Martin's engineering teams.
I didn't state all and I don't believe that that English implies all. I have experience with several and there were no excepts in the observed groups. I made no intentional assumption and stated only what was both observed and stated by them.
