How do I build a career in engineering (hardware design) ??

the

of

entirely

cannot

someone

It's simply a matter of there being so many more jobs for embedded systems engineers in the defence industry than in the tobacco industry, or any other morally questionable industy.

Reply to
David Brown
Loading thread data ...

Ahem. The industry itself is not morally questionable.

Quick quiz: Categorize all of the following projects as either (A) Morally indefensible, (B) Morally sound, or (C) Depends on end-user's intentions.

  • Geiger counter
  • Seismograph
  • Retina scanner
  • Execution machine a la Leuchter
  • Motion-tracking camera
  • AA shell radar proximity fuze
  • Airplane navigation system
  • PLB
  • Atmospheric toxin scanner
  • ATC software
  • Ultrasound scanner
  • Encrypted videophone
  • GPS receiver with map display
  • Automotive ECM
  • Hydraulically powered fluffy cuddly lovable snuggly animal squisher

All of them are, or could be, contracts for the defense industry, except perhaps the last.

There is no such thing as an intrinsically evil project or industry. There is also no societal gain in you refusing to work on some project you've arbitrarily deemed to be "evil", unless you also had a way to guarantee that nobody else would work on it either. Since that's not going to happen, the societally best thing to do is to work on whatever is required of you, then make sure that the people in charge of deploying that item don't use it inappropriately.

That means you need to keep yourself informed of the intentions of leadership candidates, vote appropriately, and do your best to convince others to vote similarly.

Reply to
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards

systems

other

Sounds a lot like the projects I have laying around, half completed, on my bench.

(Except perhaps the last.)

(Right.... I wish.)

I read this thread differently. Here is somebody with *many* years of experience and a degree, looking for an entry level job, and guess what -- he can't find anything. I see excuse after excuse. To top things off, he's grouped together his most promising opportunities under the umbrella of evil and refuses to work in that area.

I know that the job market is tough, and I feel for the people who are having difficulty staying afloat. But the fact is that before somebody gets a job, they have to want a job in the first place.

Mike

Reply to
Mike Turco

How about: o engineering dispersion methods for anthrax spores o lawyers who defense tobacco industry in courts claiming it doesn't cause cancer

There is personal gain in refusing to work on a questionable project. If it goes against your values you don't do it.

The world would be a sorry place if everyone used the above reasoning to justify working on morally questionable projects.

Reply to
FirmwareMyster

evil

The original poster has not participated in this discussion of morals. Excuse after excuse? You obviously haven't been out looking lately. Personal bankruptcy and foreclosures are at an all time high because of the current very harsh downturn. A person who sends out a hundred resumes and can't get an interview is the norm.

gets

With the engineering unemployment rate hitting 20% in major cities, I think a large portion of these would still not take a defense job that was directly related in creating WMD becuase of the current administration deceptions and lies to start war.

Reply to
FirmwareMyster

I recall when I lived in the UK and about 20? years ago an electronics company in the West Midlands came to light in the press because it had designed and manufactured a piece of electronic equipment intended to torture people, the equipment was sold to Iran or Iraq as best I recall. Because this item was not "specifically" marketed as a torture item the UK government was powerless to do anything about it. I would not work for such a company, on moral grounds. So I'm afraid I must disagree with you Lewin.

Mike Harding

Reply to
Mike Harding

But that's the whole point isn't because the converse is demonstrably not true either.

Ian

Reply to
Ian Bell

One of the things I was trying to point out is that almost nothing is black and white.

For your first example, I would counter that it is necessary to understand state-of-the-art dispersal methods in order to counter them. Maybe this information can be used to develop an electrostatic Clump-O-Matic spore aggregator and air cleaner. Or a chemical agent that can be misted into the air that will coat the spores and render them largely harmless. Or a survey device that will allow authorities to monitor exactly where the boundaries of the spore cloud lie, and therefore where medical resources should be concentrated. You need to know what you're fighting if you want to develop defensive capabilities.

I could also counter with the hypothetical scenario that the evil insect creatures from the planet Trin are attacking, and the only defense is a dusting of anthrax - and if we don't use it, we lose the entire human race.

For your second example, I can weasel several ways, but the easiest is to point out that the lawyers are not arguing that tobacco does not cause cancer, they are arguing that there is insufficient evidence to be certain that it does, and that although the plaintiffs may be right, there is insufficient proof to justify a cash payout.

Those responses are obviously artificial and contrived, but so is the entire topic at hand.

Actually, just yesterday, due to my impending layoff, I was musing on the close similarity between engineering and prostitution. Compare:

I vastly prefer to work (at a day job) [for a pimp] than freelance. My (boss) [pimp] seeks out (customers) [johns] for me and brings them to a centrally located (workplace) [whorehouse]. I spend most of the day working (at a desk) [on a bed]. My (boss) [pimp] (keeps me in a regular paycheck) [supplies enough drugs to keep me alive] when times are lean. He protects me from (personal liability for product failures) [rival pimps]. There are (tasks) [tricks] I'd rather not (do) [turn] but I need to (eat) [fire up drugs] regularly, so I (suck it up) [suck it down] when I have to. I have a few unusual (skills) [piercings/tattoos/additional apertures] that, on occasion, command a (high price) [whole pile of green].

The world IS a sorry place, and it's partly because you can't rely on everyone regarding any particular project as morally questionable. So you need to be prepared to defend yourself against the worst imaginable assault, which is a moving target. You need to comprehend the weapon before you can engineer a defense.

Reply to
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards

I just hope your boss doesn't read CAE or you're a gonner for certain :)

Mike Harding

Reply to
Mike Harding

systems

other

I used the word "questionable", meaning that different people have different opinions on the industry, while carefully avoiding giving an opinion of my own (I could give you an opinion of the tobacco industry if you want - but it would have to be by email since I don't like swearing in public).

All true.

I disagree with most of that - it's close to the "just obeying orders" defense (as in, "If I hadn't massacared the innocent villagers, the others in my platoon would have done it anyway"). I believe that individuals can make a difference, and I believe in doing the right thing by my conscience even when I know the outcome will be the same in the end. If someone believes that it is wrong to treat farm animals in the way in which they are in most "developed" countries, then they can take a stanse and become a vegetarian. Will it save the animals? No, because someone else will buy the meat you avoid. But that doesn't make becoming a vegetarian, or refusing to work for defense contractors, a waste of time. Everyone plays their part in society, even if it is small.

It is seldom possible to achieve ones ideals. But you can draw lines somewhere. A geiger counter is a useful device - most people would feel it is "morally sound" to make them, even if a few get used by some military power that they object to. On the other hand, many would refuse a job making land mines or other items that they deem evil (subjectively, not intrinsically). It's a tiny step, but you *are* bettering society by making that choice (this of course assumes that you are in the position to make this sort of choice).

That's true, but horribly naive. Western countries are mostly representative democracies - you vote for people or parties that you think can best govern the country for a period of time. In the words of Winston Churchill, "democracy is the worst possible system - but it's the best we've got". Do you really think that voting makes that much difference? Remember, the majority of voters are not well informed about the intentions of the candidates, and a hefty proportion of candidates seem to change their mind as soon as the ballots are counted (or however they determine the "vote" in the USA these days). Sometimes it is because of unforseen circumstances, sometimes it is because the candidate made pre-election promises on the basis of what voters wanted to hear rather than on what s/he actually intended to do if elected. Even assuming that all politicians are honest, say what they plan to do over the next four years (using their prophetic powers to identify future events), and are competent and lucky enough to do exactly what they said, can you really say that when you choose between two or three candidates that one of them completely represents your wishes? Don't get me wrong here - I think voting in elections is extremly important ("it's the best we've got"). But it is equally important to vote with your feet and your wallet.

Reply to
David Brown

"FirmwareMyster" wrote

It doesn't matter whether there is one job per thousand people, or a thousand jobs per person. The number one factor in an individuals success is their desire to succeed. Did I peg the OP? Maybe, maybe not. -- Mike

Reply to
Mike Turco

is

Ironic you attempt to pick an absurd figure to prove a point but sadly you are right on the money. In NY the tech jobs are receiving 1,000 resumes per job.

Reply to
Ody

success

Ody,

That doesn't mean that there is only one job for every 1,000 people, or that all of those 1,000 resumes come from people who are out of work. (Not to minimize the impact of your statistic.)

I think the point I made is self evident. Success comes from within, it is not thrust upon you by the job market. Do you agree?

Mike

Reply to
Mike Turco

*shrug* I don't have much of a problem with the tobacco industry. The law allows them to lie and cheat up to a certain point, and they lie and cheat right up to that point; can't blame them. Anything you can say about the tobacco industry can certain also be said about the alcoholic beverage industry, or the prostitution industry, or the evil zealots who preach {insert name of any religion here}. I don't make a moral judgement about any of those industries either, though I would be unhappy to see my children go into them.

Uh, no. To continue your analogy, it's more like saying to your sergeant "I'll obey you unquestioningly, Sarge, right up to the point where you order me to violate the Geneva Convention - at which point, I'll tie you to a tree and we'll choose someone else to lead the platoon".

The problem with modern leadership is that it has virtually no accountability. In the good old days, the village planter examined the entrails and said "Today is the day for sowing our crops", and if there were floods next week that drowned all the fields, he'd be quietly executed to appease the gods. Accountability of modern leaders is:

  1. Diluted by unreasonably delayed repercussions. A President can almost do anything he wants, and remain in office until the next election.
  2. Diluted by tenuous causality. Nobody really knows who generates the ideas that steer government; it might be the figurehead, or it might not. So the head of state is probably frequently blamed for detrimental things he didn't order to be done, at least as often as he reaps undeserved acclaim for beneficial things he didn't cause but was lucky enough to SEEM to be involved with.
  3. Deflected by vocal minorities. A loud minority enthusiastically championing some self-serving cause (e.g. affirmative action) can make it seem morally right and

And all of these deflections are necessary because our political systems are built on consumer popularity, not competence.

It only makes sense if it's combined with a marketing campaign. It is necessary to *advertise* one's vegetarian stance, not merely live by it. Otherwise it's an utter waste of time, globally speaking.

What if the design challenge is to make land mines that are morally better than existing models? I.e. land mines that have an expiry date, or a remote deactivation mechanism, or that are designed to target some specific vehicle (e.g. magnesium-hulled ATCs) and can be guaranteed safe when singing children and fluffy bunnies are walking atop them?

I don't have any illusions about how effective democracy is. But like the man said, it's all we have.

The majority of voters have insufficient literacy and comprehension skills to prepare a microwave dinner according to the directions on the box.

Reply to
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards

that

As an employee, success comes externally from company job openings. If no company is hiring does that mean you a failure if you can't get a job? I know multiple talented engineers that have failed to get a job for 10 months to date. It is cruel and niave to blame the unemployed engineer for lack of employment right now.

"Success comes from within" would apply more to one starting a business totally relying on ones self.

Outsourcing of IT and engineering jobs to India will absorb 10% of US jobs by 2004. That figure is expected to swell to 40% in next few years.

Even if the economy rebounds to pre-Bush levels, the engineering market will still be flooded with unemployed IT/engineering workers. The only "sucess from within" for these folks will be to abandon their chosen occupation and take up some form of work that can't be exported ... like selling hotdogs.

Reply to
Ody

I recall when I lived in the UK and about 20? years ago an electronics company in the West Midlands came to light in the press because it had designed and manufactured a piece of electronic equipment intended to torture people, the equipment was sold to Iran or Iraq as best I recall. Because this item was not "specifically" marketed as a torture item the UK government was powerless to do anything about it. I would not work for such a company, on moral grounds. So I'm afraid I must disagree with you Lewin.

Mike Harding

Reply to
Mike Harding
[%X]

[%X]
[%X]

[%X]

Most interesting diversity of views in this thread of late and I can see quite a few arguments on most sides of the dice on this.

In order to work out where one stands morally you need a reference set of rules that you can measure up against. Not wishing to invent a new set I am borrowing four very good ones (you'll probably recognise where from) and adjusting the wording slightly to be more generally applicable.

  1. No person or body corporate shall by their action cause harm to humanity or through lack of action allow harm to be caused to humanity.
  2. No person or body corporate shall by their action cause harm to a human or through lack of action allow harm to be caused to a human except in compliance with rule 1.
  3. Every person or body corporate shall comply with the requirements of humanity and the societies within that they serve except where such compliance is disallowed by rules 1 or 2.
  4. Every person or body corporate shall protect their own existence except where their continued existence is disallowed by rules 1, 2 or 3.

The above are a tough set to live by and I know I am unable to measure up fully to the constraints they impose (my main problem area is in rules

1 and 2 - the "lack of action" bit mostly - but I am trying - honest).

I guess if you set yourself a high moral standard as a target you are not going to succeed fully. You just make your best efforts and hope not too many people notice the bits you were not able to fully live up to.

--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Paul E. Bennett
< Snip >

I'm sorry to be avoiding a proper discussion here - it's just a matter of lack of time to do it justice. I agree with a fair amount of what you're saying, especially about accountability (or lack thereof) of leadership, but I'll continue being a quiet vegetarian (here in Norway we're a rare breed, and commonly referred to as "grass eaters") and refusing to make any sort of land mine regardless of whether or not the defense company just gets someone else to do the work.

They should re-introduce the old Celtic tradition whereby tribal leaders were elected to serve for seven years (or less, if they did a poor job), and were then sacrificed to the gods. Under those circumstances, you do the job for the good of your people, since it is not really for your own gain.

Or the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy solution, in which the president of the galaxy is a hermit living in a wooden shack on a lonely planet. Every now and again, civil servants arrived to provide food supplies and ask for decisions on some of the major issues - it's as close to objectivity as could be achieved.

Reply to
David Brown

But desire to succeed is not enough, and probably not the most important factor to success. The real world does intrude, industries do vanish, economies do dry up, and definitions of success do vary. A well paying job doing something you don't like is not considered success by many people.

--
Darin Johnson
    "Particle Man, Particle Man, doing the things a particle can"
Reply to
Darin Johnson

I'm in need of a little moral input :)

This thread is as good as any to ask in and I don't exactly want to parade this issue by starting a new thread.

You may recall a post I made a few days ago in this thread:

Quote As an aside; whilst this thread has been in progress and I have been arguing that quality systems are very overrated I have discovered that a (electronic) product I own whose sole function is that of life saving in dire situations and is designed and manufactured by a company who proudly proclaim ISO9002 and a TQM Programme, and said product has been in production for at least five years, has a major design flaw which could easily render it useless on that single occasion it may be required to perform it's task. Looks like a quality system didn't work in this case. I'll provide full details at a later date. End quote

I have had discussions with the company concerned at very senior management level and their attitude is that whilst they are aware of the problem they do not consider it likely to occur [often?] in reality. Also they consider their set of do's and don'ts instructions covers it anyway. Whilst I agree they do mention the point it is only in passing and I don't believe anyone (including me and I'm a technical type) would recognise how sensitive the device is to this issue. Sorry to be obscure - if anyone want details please e-mail me.

I want the company to make clear in their documentation how big an issue this is and also to take out some advertisements in relevant magazines etc alerting existing users to this issue. They have agreed to the former (but watered down) but will not do the latter.

Question: Should I go the media with this issue given all the implications of that action? My feeling is to do so but I would appreciate input from others.

Mike Harding

PS. My e-mail address has a spam block

Reply to
Mike Harding

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.