How do you know it is right?

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:yOKdnRqspf98uozeRVn-pA@rcn.net...
> dbell wrote:
>> Randy,
>>
>> Almost every commercial job in the DC area in DSP (there was an
>> abundance) has disappeared (est 95% decrease).  I am assuming they went
>> overseas to some of the people who I have been speaking about where you
>> can hire 5 engineers for the price of 1.  I know that these locations
>> have their fair share of good/great engineers, but the evidence is that
>> the amount of 'off-shoring' has exceeded these people.  I think we are
>> seeing managers trying to achieve the appearance of good short-term
>> performance ($$$) at the cost of long-term performance ($$$ and
>> success). In the process the good engineers here are shortchanged in
>> opportunities and compensation. I have a friend who was a high-paid
>> embedded SW programmer who went to being a security guard and is now a
>> truck driver.  I am sure that wasn't in his career plan when he became
>> an engineer.
>
> How do you suggest we behave? I would not object to the silent treatment of 
> those who are uninformed and want their jobs done for them, if we could 
> distinguish them from confused DIYers and students. I know I can't do that, 
> but I'm willing to be guided.

Personally, I don't think we need to make any drastic changes.  My theory is 
that those who are clueless and don't want to invest the time to learn won't 
know enough to understand our answers anyway (kind of like Jerry's "You don't 
know enough for me to tell you anything" story).  It is pretty hard to explain 
difficult concepts to the level that someone could create a commercial product 
in a few paragraphs of plain text.  Answer the basic questions and steer them 
toward good resources (web and print).  The sincere ones will learn on their own 
and those that can't or won't will get stumped and give up.  At least that's how 
it seems to me!
-Jon 

Jon Harris wrote:
> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message 
> news:yOKdnRqspf98uozeRVn-pA@rcn.net...
> 
>>dbell wrote:
>>
>>>Randy,
>>>
>>>Almost every commercial job in the DC area in DSP (there was an
>>>abundance) has disappeared (est 95% decrease).  I am assuming they went
>>>overseas to some of the people who I have been speaking about where you
>>>can hire 5 engineers for the price of 1.  I know that these locations
>>>have their fair share of good/great engineers, but the evidence is that
>>>the amount of 'off-shoring' has exceeded these people.  I think we are
>>>seeing managers trying to achieve the appearance of good short-term
>>>performance ($$$) at the cost of long-term performance ($$$ and
>>>success). In the process the good engineers here are shortchanged in
>>>opportunities and compensation. I have a friend who was a high-paid
>>>embedded SW programmer who went to being a security guard and is now a
>>>truck driver.  I am sure that wasn't in his career plan when he became
>>>an engineer.
>>
>>How do you suggest we behave? I would not object to the silent treatment of 
>>those who are uninformed and want their jobs done for them, if we could 
>>distinguish them from confused DIYers and students. I know I can't do that, 
>>but I'm willing to be guided.
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't think we need to make any drastic changes.  My theory is 
> that those who are clueless and don't want to invest the time to learn won't 
> know enough to understand our answers anyway (kind of like Jerry's "You don't 
> know enough for me to tell you anything" story).  It is pretty hard to explain 
> difficult concepts to the level that someone could create a commercial product 
> in a few paragraphs of plain text.  Answer the basic questions and steer them 
> toward good resources (web and print).  The sincere ones will learn on their own 
> and those that can't or won't will get stumped and give up.  At least that's how 
> it seems to me!
> -Jon 

This whole thing has extended beyond groups like ourselves. In 1984 
there was a TV program in the UK comparing things in 1948 with things in 
1984 (yeah, there were lots of shows like that in 1984, but this one was 
  by a well known figure in UK science and technology - Heinz Wolff). 
His conclusion was that in 1948 most people roughly understood how most 
things around them worked, but could afford very few. In 1984 they could 
buy almost anything, but understood almost nothing. In the last 5 or 10 
years we seem to have moved into a new phase. The consumer now demands a 
mass of things, without the slightest clue what they are even supposed 
to offer them. People won't buy a DVD player unless it has a suitably 
long list of TLAs on the the front. What those features actually offer 
(or are supposed to offer) is mystery even to most engineers. There has 
always been a tendency for people to buy into things like blue crystals 
in soap powder, but at least they had a notion that these were in some 
way supposed to make the laundry look better. Most people have no clue 
whether DTS gives them better sound or better pictures, but they know 
they must have it.

My point is, people across the whole of society are deploying things 
without the slightest idea how to test whether they actually got what 
they thought they were getting.

Regards,
Steve

You are unable to distinguish the paid incompetents
from people like you?

You said it.

Following on from the habitually infantile way in which
you have conducted yourself in this NG, I won't disagree
with you.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> If you can find a way to distinguish the paid incompetents from people
> like me, I'm with you.

That ignorance even extends to those who would be
the authors and experts in this NG; those who
claim that their sampled signals have the dimensions
of Diracian impulses and yet are completely unable to
substantiate their claim.

My point is, people across the whole of this NG are deploying things
without the slightest idea how to test whether they actually got what
they thought they were getting.

Steve Underwood wrote:
>
> This whole thing has extended beyond groups like ourselves. In 1984
> there was a TV program in the UK comparing things in 1948 with things in
> 1984 (yeah, there were lots of shows like that in 1984, but this one was
>   by a well known figure in UK science and technology - Heinz Wolff).
> His conclusion was that in 1948 most people roughly understood how most
> things around them worked, but could afford very few. In 1984 they could
> buy almost anything, but understood almost nothing. In the last 5 or 10
> years we seem to have moved into a new phase. The consumer now demands a
> mass of things, without the slightest clue what they are even supposed
> to offer them. People won't buy a DVD player unless it has a suitably
> long list of TLAs on the the front. What those features actually offer
> (or are supposed to offer) is mystery even to most engineers. There has
> always been a tendency for people to buy into things like blue crystals
> in soap powder, but at least they had a notion that these were in some
> way supposed to make the laundry look better. Most people have no clue
> whether DTS gives them better sound or better pictures, but they know
> they must have it.
>
> My point is, people across the whole of society are deploying things
> without the slightest idea how to test whether they actually got what
> they thought they were getting.
> 
> Regards,
> Steve

Polymath <aiyr.r.bean@lycos.co.uk> topposts:

>That ignorance even extends to those who would be
>the authors and experts in this NG; those who
>claim that their sampled signals have the dimensions
>of Diracian impulses and yet are completely unable to
>substantiate their claim.

>My point is, people across the whole of this NG are deploying things
>without the slightest idea how to test whether they actually got what
>Steve Underwood wrote:

>> People won't buy a DVD player unless it has a suitably
>> long list of TLAs on the the front. What those features actually offer
>> (or are supposed to offer) is mystery even to most engineers. There has
>> always been a tendency for people to buy into things like blue crystals
>> in soap powder, but at least they had a notion that these were in some
>> way supposed to make the laundry look better. Most people have no clue
>> whether DTS gives them better sound or better pictures, but they know
>> they must have it.

Absolutely right.  I've designed chips that go into DVD players
(I think my customer had a very large market share, for an 
interval of a couple years), and I have NO idea what DTS is.

To use another TLA... WTF?

Steve

dbell wrote:
> Randy,
>
> My main point is the very noticable increase of people who ask
> questions of this group but don't have a clue; those people would not
> know how to test their code.  I think this group has moved too far
> towards a place for people to find quick solutions they don't
> understand.  Nobody benefits from that.

I agree with your sentiment in general, although my impression of
comp.dsp is that the "homework alarm" is finely tuned with most
of the regulars here. There have been one or two reactions against
it, but that's the price to pay.

> I am not talking about the
> questions of those who are starting out (or been at it for ages), have
> given something some thought, and have come here to clear something
> something up or engage in discussion.  It is the 'pretenders' who want
> solutions without learning something that scare me (posts like "Please
> send me the code cuz I am in a hurry. Thanks"). They put qualified
> people out of work, many will invariably produce substandard work or
> fail in their task, and in some applications endanger people with their
> solutions. I wish we could filter them out, or force them into the
> learning group.

Over here, the educational system is funded by the government and
"student-driven". This means that the students only pay for material
and lodging, and nothing to the university. The university gets
its funds from the ministry of education on a "per student" basis.

This means that it pays for the university to admit as many students
as possible. A few months ago, there was some articles in the press
about Teacher's Colleges that were loosing funds because they all
of a sudden had to admit students based on performance in certain
subjects. Until recently, one could become a maths teacher with
only the lowest "passed" grade in maths, now the students need
better grades in maths and a couple of other subjects.

The consequence was that some 25% - 30% lower admittance numbers to
these courses. Which basically made a very clear point about
what people do become teachers.

My point is that the system has broken down once getting enough
students become an interest in itself. In my own field of work,
I have seen problems when courses were taught that had been
planned with certain pre-requisites (previous courses) in mind,
but where students that did not formally qualify were admitted
anyway.

Everybody loose, the qualified students because they have to recap
basic stuff, the unqualified students because they are in beyond
heir heads, and the teachers because the course plan gets messed up.

All students get their grades, but are they capable of doing
any work? Who are to say if the are? Their seniors by two or
four years, who got a similarly poor education?

Rune