12/31/2010 3:54 am
. said: You two get a room.
I don't understand why this guy is getting so damn butthurt. I told him about five times that we were basically singing the same fucking song.
12/31/2010 3:53 am
. said: Your average engineer could figure out turning a prop upside down and changing lighting.
Your average engineer may not even see the possibility.
12/31/2010 3:51 am
Scottish Guy said: Stop behaving like a precious little faggot. You are SUCH an academic. If you behaved like this in any place I ever worked you would be fucked-up and fired in that order.
Grow the fuck up.
Don't put words in my mouth if you can't back that haggis shit up, freckle face
12/31/2010 3:50 am
Scottish Guy said: Engineers can't or shouldn't be business people according to Sean
Cite precisely where I said that.
What you fail to understand is that you originally implied that a B.A. was worthless. That a liberal arts education was the domain of fruits who contributed little to business, and none to engineering.
You implied that engineers can solve any kind of problem. You implied that MBAs and liberal arts fruits were responsible for outsourcing and other business travesties.
I pointed out that in the last two decades, the largest percentage of business managers have engineering backgrounds.
I then took you by the hand (gently, mind you) and tried to reason with you. I told you that most MBAs also have engineering backgrounds. They were people similar to yourself. Thus, instead of blaming others for the business travesties you have observed during your life, you should blame you and your ilk first.
I stated very clearly that engineers are trained to solve engineering problems, and you stated clearly that people who weren't engineers should stay the fuck away from anything technical. I countered this by saying that complex business problems are best solved by a diverse team which would naturally include engineers. You dismissed this.
Adjust the lighting, dude. Effective solutions are often the least elegant.
12/31/2010 3:43 am
. said: wtf, engineering is applied math and physics...you are a total moron, congratulations on wasting 15 years of your life on a publicly funded college education!
Re-read my post and cite precisely where I claimed that engineering was not applied math and physics.
12/31/2010 3:34 am
Scottish Guy said: So being an Engineer precludes us knowing about anything other than Engineering?
DUDE! you are putting words in my mouth.
I said no such thing.
Your perspective is that an engineering problem should be solved mainly by engineers.
My perspective is that not all business problems are engineering problems.
In some cases you need your math and physics. In others, you turn the spacestation upside down and alter the lighting.
12/31/2010 3:27 am
Scottish Guy said: Yeah, maybe we should take more whalesong classes and try to re-write the laws of physics while we're at it...
Because the laws of physics so accurately predict human behavior
12/31/2010 3:22 am
Scottish Guy said: Your first two paragraphs are unrelated wank so I'll ignore them.
The whole point of Engineering is making the path where one wasn't before. It's not an Engineers job to understand the market, although it would help if he was in business on his own; it's an Engineers job to solve a problem or find a solution.
Unrelated wank? Those two paragraphs describe solving a problem.
Engineers are trained to solve SPECIFIC kinds of problems. They mistakenly believe that because they are skilled at math that they can solve ANY kind of problem. Not true.
12/31/2010 3:16 am
Scottish Guy said: The point Sean misses completely is that a lot of Engineering IS actually visionary and almost spiritual. I guess he maybe tried for Engineering and failed miserably so now Engineering is bad and the root of all evil despite having a hand in just about everything he does, sees or experiences.
Engineering is but one element of business. It takes a particular type of mind to construct a product, but it often takes another to sell it.
12/31/2010 3:15 am
Scottish Guy said: You're resorting to clichés now.
I know what I'm talking about. I have experience of your type of management where soft-and-fluffies have been allowed into the hallowed halls of the big balls where real decisions are made. It's usually a massacre and lots of times I've seen some faggot running down a corridor in tears because their suggestions were laughed out of the room.
Why do we have to buy these silly markers anyway?
Because legislation states that 25,000 volt cables NEED TO BE FUCKING MARKED!
OK, fine, next item...why do we need such a big ugly hoarding up all the way around the site?
Dylan, get out, now! Otherwise they may try to eat you!
For the film 'stargate', a technically competent but non-engineer figured out the design of a spaceship by turning a piece of metal upside down.
For Star Trek II, a non-engineer took the space station from Star Trek I, turned it upside down, and created a new space station. New sets were created by adjusting the set dressing slightly and then adjusting the lighting.
Engineers might discover that their current path is unattainable. A different path is needed. It might take a non-engineer who understands the project to communicate these changed needs and win over top management.
If psychology wasn't essential in business then understanding consumer behavior would be irrelevant. Engineers can't craft a successful new product if the market is misunderstood.
12/31/2010 3:08 am
Scottish Guy said: Why?
What possible input could they have? From experience this breeds absolute 100% FAIL every time.
Engineers built that bride to nowhere in Alaska. Perhaps a non-technical person might have suggested that it wasn't a good idea.
You wouldn't employ a non-engineer to solve an engineering problem. But you might employ a non-engineer to eliminate or consolidate a couple of business processes, resulting in cost-savings.
12/31/2010 3:01 am
Scottish Guy said: We have a choice to make. Bridge or ferry?
Love can build a bridge!
Errr...no...but we have a preliminary design using concrete, steel and...
Can't we build a bridge which encompasses a ferryport?
Engineers rise to their level of incompetence. Especially in management.
12/31/2010 2:58 am
. said: This statement sums up why technical positions should be staffed by technically minded people.
If you had ever managed a project you would understand.
Technical positions should be staffed by technically-minded people. Absolutely. However, for large projects requiring a team of engineers, there should be a couple of people who are not engineers who should have a "vote" toward the direction of the project.
12/31/2010 2:49 am
Scottish Guy said: Imagineer me a 300-seat, 5,000 mile airliner!
Engineer me a vision.
12/31/2010 2:43 am
. said: A compelling argument. Why don't you read a book or manage a project and then get back to us? Men are talking here sugartits.
It is a compelling argument.
Most of the world economy is stagnant and failing. Especially in the U.S. Most of the business leaders in the U.S. have an engineering background. It has been this way for nearly two decades. Outsourcing has increased with their leadership. So has financial engineering. Is the answer to continue this trend?
Further, intellectual diversity has shrunk, not increased in U.S. Corporations. Intellectual diversity helps to reduce uncertainty in business decision making processes because you are able to sample a wider variety of options. Some of these options are counter-intuitive to the engineer and can only be developed by those who are not engineers.
12/31/2010 2:37 am
. said: US manufacturing is about 10% of US GNP. In still healthy Euro nations its like 30% of GNP. The US bureau of statistics considers Mcdonalds to be a manufacturing company - they manufacture hamburgers. With shit statistics like that you cant get any overview.
Cuba manufacturing is 40% of its GDP.
12/31/2010 2:35 am
Scottish Guy said: So, what? Get faggots in to run everything? Pack the Engineering offices to the rafters with howling Gen-Y queers listening to Gregorian chants and 'imagineering' shit? That would never work in any technical-based field.
Take Google for example; a huge fucking company who own all their shit and when they need to develop for something they just build a new data centre and start hiring talent from that area. They provide the vision, Management provide the oversight and the foot soldiers churn out the product. I can understand a company like Google needing a global footprint more than Boeing.
But go ahead, fill Boards everywhere with your hooting gaylords who need four hour lunches, office massages and dark rooms to contemplate. Worked so well for the DotCom boom.
I am saying that the intellectual capital of big biz needs to be more well-rounded.
If you can't see it, that's not my problem.
12/31/2010 2:29 am
. said: That will be very difficult to do if there arent enough or even any US factories - which is the case for many things. There are tons of things that simply ARENT MADE in the USA any more. And no matter how much companies want to source them in the USA again, they cant, because there arent any production facilities that make the things these companies want. This isnt like software or tech support where the only things you need are some cheap consumer electronics and an internet connection to set up a shop.
Things will slowly come back.
12/31/2010 2:22 am
Scottish Guy said: Cut sensible costs? Sure.
Outsource particularly specific or resource intensive areas of work? Sure.
I already gave you examples.
Buying assemblies from Italy? Fucking dumb. Poor QA oversight (because they're thousands of miles away) and more resources dedicated to fixing the problems (what are you going to do? Ship it back and wait?)
It's the MBA mentality which fucks companies up. It's fashionable to slash short term overheads and bury the real costs or spread them out over years while crowing about increased shareholder value. What good is saving $10,000 on a shipped in faulty assembly if it costs you $30,000 to put it right, more so if it runs long term.
Dude, you are missing the big picture. MANY OF THESE MBAS ARE ENGINEERS, OR WERE ENGINEERS.
So it isn't the MBA that is the problem, it is the "engineering mentality". It is the desire to control uncertainty over the short-term via the employ of quantitative techniques.
Corporations have loaded themselves to the hilt not with MBAs or other duck-faces, but with those who think that the path to sustainability is paved by attempting to control and manage uncertainty.
12/31/2010 2:19 am
Shiny New Kid said: Many of them actually think like Blankfien that they're "Doing God's work"
They've paid a lot of intellectuals to come up with a rationale for their behaviour. That its somehow good for everyone if they get rich.
Many others simply don't think about it. There are a lot of low intellect people making a lot of money on Wall St precisely because they're not troubled by deeper thoughts
For god and for profit. An extension of Puritanism.
Link to this intellectual rationale?
I can kind of see it......here is a strange but possibly true perspective:
I have had friends who wanted to start a "ministry". They were motivated to earn money to start a successful ministry. With this ministry they believed they could change the world.
So, is it possible that these elite bankers, or at least some of them, believe that once they accumulate or corner most of the wealth of the world that they could then enact real change?
12/31/2010 2:15 am
Shiny New Kid said: What happens is that the bank has to buy back the MBS at full value.
They are then in possession of a box of mortgages.
Many of these mortgages will be in default.
There are significant questions as to whether they'll be able to foreclose
Even if they can foreclose they could be looking at only getting back, after all costs, 20% of the money they paid to buy back the mortgage.
Its going to kill the banks next year as right now they have accounted for only a few billion for putbacks. It could cost 100s of billions per bank, which they obviously don't have, but this time they can't rely on Congress passing a law allowing them to fiddle their accounts, they have to come up with CASH to pay the counterparty for the fraudulent MBS when its putback
I think the U.S. will instigate another war before this happens. The elites will find a way to distract the population. They'll find a legal way out of their predicament.
That is.....if....they are as powerful as you assume.
I suppose the limits of their power will be discovered soon.
12/31/2010 2:13 am
Shiny New Kid said: For the bankers its rational. They get rich.
For a society and a nation its irrational to allow these sociopaths to gut the economy for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else and future generations.
But people have foregone their obligations as citizens to be eternally vigilant
What do you think is behind the mentality of these elite bankers? What motivates them toward this insatiable greed?
12/31/2010 2:09 am
Scottish Guy said: No, retard, the MBA mentality is what sunk everything.
Most business leaders have an engineering background. Most MBA's have an engineering degree.
At it's root is a defunct and non-sustainable "quantitative" way of solving business problems.
The engineer will be the first person to suggest cutting costs. The engineer will be the first person to recommend outsourcing as a solution.
It is in your nature, dude.
12/31/2010 2:07 am
. said: Look, you have no clue. Do you think it takes a couple of weeks to build a large manufacturing facility? It took generations to build the US manufacturing base but about 15 years to gut it. There wont be much insourcing because there are no idle, empty plants waiting to be crewed. The only thing left after a plant closure is an empty shell. The machinery inside has been sold off or scrapped.
Corporations have over-outsourced. They'll return some of the manufacturing back to the U.S.
12/31/2010 2:02 am
Shiny New Kid said: The powerful government officials ARE the bankers. Its a revolving door and they go back and forth.
Is their behavior rational or irrational?