What Are You Doing Right Now
-
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.
-
I could have easily said "all of their teams" for example, but did not. I only observed some (and only one region.) I'm sure that they vary and obviously somewhere they must hire someone who actually is an engineer. But their teams, all that were encountered, were the same. They were their teams.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I could have easily said "all of their teams" for example, but did not. I only observed some (and only one region.) I'm sure that they vary and obviously somewhere they must hire someone who actually is an engineer. But their teams, all that were encountered, were the same. They were their teams.
That is not implied in your original statement at all. It is implied that only against Lockheed Martin. Not against one region or division. If you are calling out one region or division, then state as much.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I could have easily said "all of their teams" for example, but did not. I only observed some (and only one region.) I'm sure that they vary and obviously somewhere they must hire someone who actually is an engineer. But their teams, all that were encountered, were the same. They were their teams.
That is not implied in your original statement at all. It is implied that only against Lockheed Martin. Not against one region or division. If you are calling out one region or division, then state as much.
Okay, I will accept that it was worded poorly and I should have said something like often, commonly, sometimes, in my experience, at the site where I was or something to that nature.
I don't see how that would be arrogance, though. In correct or poorly worded, okay. But I didn't state that teachers or retirees were below engineers or that either was somehow below me. I was only pointing out a process that government contractors have been known to use (LH being a contractor for the gov't) to make money. That retired teachers are cheaper to pay or easier to find than engineers is implied, but that doesn't isn't a any kind of statement about their quality, value, intelligence and certainly nothing about me.
-
Playing Minecraft Pocket Edition with my kids. Playing on the Amazon Fire TV works really well. I wonder if the Shield will be even better.
-
@johnhooks said:
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1416696-intern-trouble
So he hired an intern and the kid has been there for 3 weeks. The guy is complaining because the kid isn't learning:
The work ethic seems to be OK, but he just isn't learning anything. He has no idea how to go about solving a problem; the practice eludes him. We had him do a "test" before he hired on and he did a decent job, but I later found out it was a conglomeration of code from the Internet and other homework projects. That in itself is not a problem, I have no issue with that, I have an issue because he has no idea what the code means or what it's supposed to do.
It sounds exactly like he can solve a problem, just not the way the guy wanted him to.
Ok so here's wha the guy just said:
I don't have an issue with him pulling code from the Internet or any of his friends, but I'll bet if I asked him to step through the code and tell me what he was thinking when he "wrote" it or how it's supposed to work, he couldn't do it.
That wasn't the problem that needed to be solved. If the problem was to "understand why this code does what it does" then yes the kid wouldn't be able to do it. It just sounds like he's changing goals to find everything wrong he can with this intern.
-
That's called "moving the goalposts."
