The Ethics of a Litt -le Software Timebomb

In the last few years, I have learned not to post things like this publicly. They do little good, and in general, cause some serious issues. People who have not merely just misrepresentation but deep and repeat ethical issues expose themselves and "assassinate" their own character. And no matter how much they ask people to delete their posts from public archives, word spreads. I have also avoided even "challenging" these people, avoid even warning others about them (even if a few came to me later and said, "yeah, you warned me beforehand, and I didn't listen") and have largely just stopped trying to pull them out of their own issues as situations as of 2005+ (no matter how much they ask for help, and no matter how much I try to "do it for free" so there are no expectations of further support).

Recommended, Prerequisite Reading:

• Open Source Solution Providers' Code of Ethics

• Open Source Solution Providers' Mission Statement

Why I am posting this ...

But I'm making an exception in this one case. The reason is that this "quote" has been attributed to myself by the "professional" who actually made these statements, as well select others. I want to set the "record straight." In fact, I largely avoided that portion of the thread once the was made (I also noted several "harsh" responses by others have been removed from the thread, which is a common request made by this person of the group), it was not worth getting in the middle of it (and other threads I had nothing to do with are often attributed to me as well on this same list). I know times were tough in 2002-2003, I ran into it myself. But when you cross some lines, or even think such, you are undermining your entire profession -- as well as yourself. Especially when the fault lies with crossing not merely Ethic One and Two, but the Ethic Reality that you start to excuse your crossing of basic ethics.

It's beyond just the lack of attention to the Mission Statement I recommend professionals, especially those that consult around Open Source (e.g., Linux) solutions. Overselling Linux and, worse yet, overselling yourself and your experience (which is beyond just poor marketing, but misrepresentation), leads to much of this. And no one, especially not a consultant, likes to be in a situation when they have failed to meet customer expectations, and especially when they are either too prideful or, worse yet, do not have the backbone to bring in another consultant. And even when they do in the case of the latter, they have often embarrassed themselves in front of the client to the point there is an expectation of non-payment. In my case, that is why I have always help these people out "for free" and that way they have no reason to dislike me (although they find other ways).

Now I have been rather "harsh" with people at times when their misrepresentation of themselves and when their ethics have crossed boundaries. I have learned in the last few years that it is best just avoid people that make these type of unethical statements, because they not only hurt themselves, but anyone who tries to help them. And being "harsh" not only makes you a target, but people tend to "remember" you were part of the thread as well -- regardless of what you were saying or pointing out.

Projects Don't Fail, Consultants Fail Their Projects ...

As I always say, "Projects don't fail, consultants fail their projects." You can preprend both nouns in each phrase with "Linux" or "Software" or whatever project or context is under discussion. Basic engineering project management and lifecycle 101 here -- client/customer discovery, requirements, specifications, statements of work, etc... These help you avoid issues with clients/customers. If you do not want to deal with them, then just consider doing the work for free, or finding a more charitable adventure where you should donate your time.

Because if you are not a responsible, professional consultant, all you are going to net is frustration and financial loss -- and it's your fault, as the consultant. And if you bring others into that pit with you, it's your fault, as the consultant. And we all net what you have sown (even if we did it for free, we will eventually direct our charity towards more fruitful endeavors).

QUOTE:
'One more thing, and this is sad. I'd imagine that 1/3 of the business owners will try to stiff you out of your money. Some will invent excuses why the software isn't what you promised, some will endlessly repeat that they'll pay you "next week", and some will say "tough luck".'

I am starting with this because it is "the setup." Here we have a "professional" that is looking at "the problem" incorrectly. When you choose to be a consultant, you inherit the responsibility of basic project management. You do not have to be anal, but you have to set expectations with the client, analyze, discover and inform them of requirements, including the deliverables in a statement of work (which can be done in one page, or even half). Whether they are big or small, whether they are a formal corporation and want you to take the client-vendor agreement to an anal level of documentation, or you merely condense that down into 30 minutes with a prospective small client so they are aware of what factors into why and how you get paid -- it is just unavoidable.

Transgressions Against Others Begin By Excusing Ethics ...

The crossing of Ethics quickly spiral beyond just the obvious. It is beyond lack of setting client/customer expectations, beyond poor marketing and direct misrepresentation, beyond not having the experience or the experience under the client's need or context. It reaches the point where the transgression of others becomes a way of conducting yourself, largely because you have already transgressed yourself by not putting forth your limits (for whatever reasons, usually market driven -- like bashing one company or other organization and seeing the number of hits go up 10 times over on your web site).

If you enter any market, ensure you respect yourself and your own abilities before doing so. Otherwise -- again -- if you are already transgressing against your own limits and misrepresenting yourself, you are not only going to transgress others, but even excuse it.

QUOTE:
'You need to put a time bomb in your software. Make it 4 days out. If the check clears, email him, tell him you made a little mistake, and tell him to install the file attachment from the email in directory /usr/local/bin/mycustomapp. That will difuse the timebomb without his ever knowing there's a timebomb. But if he doesn't pay, he's got 4 days of data entry in there, and he's going to have to pay you before you lift a finger.
Once again, before you show up initially, it should be agreed that at the end of the day, he gives you a check for $400 (or $600 when the economy gets better). No net 15 or net 30 -- not on a $400 piece of software. TODAY. If he does that, and if the check clears, you'll disable the timebomb before he ever knows you had one.'

Now this was a message to a young, up-in-coming IT candidate. It was well off-the-tangent of the inquire and discussion, but that is not uncommon when a select "professional" wants to take point on bashing clients/customers, companies and organizations, especially when they are not so different than his small endeavors. I still neither know what he was attempting to accomplish nor why he commonly takes this approach, even against community-developed software that others do find very useful, but try as many of us might, we cannot get him to stop and think of what ethical message (beyond the "subjective" ones) he is sending about himself (much less those who associate with him).

Why Did I Stop At Only This One Post?

I will leave it to only this one (1) reference because it is the one that he, and select others, have attributed paraphrased versions of these quotes to myself. For the original source and proof I did not say it, the archive is this link. I am not posting it to 'bash' him publicly, of which I stopped doing in 2004 (after a heavy and very accurate / "3rd party verifiable" list of transgressions in a post made to an off-topic list the year before), but to set my name clean -- and make a point of why I do not associate with such people anymore (it should be noted that everything I did for this individual was for free and of my own charity, without call for thanks or anything else as others can attest). I am sure he will threaten myself with a lawsuit as he has done before with myself, others, groups he disagrees or forks from with (only to turn around and use the same organization to his advantage when it does so), etc...

Please understand that virtually every "strong" post I have made has been aimed at such behavior, especially when it was very repeatable and clearly driven. I have spent the last few years reserving my comments publicly, even keeping the overwhelming majority of my posts off-list, to avoid running into these select, few, but far too commonplace and unethical approaches to clients, customers and -- especially so -- peer professionals. It is not worth my time or bother, let alone the focus that results on myself, or anyone else associated with myself they can contact.

Besides, it would cross my nature to question others before myself. I do not like to use people or organizations to do my bidding, and I respect the "greater efforts" of what people and organizations attempt to do. My only problem is with ethical issues, and I have just learned to realize that such people are left to be, as any attempt to help them (no matter how you do it) is futile. Especially when they excuse their unethical actions -- that is really the "litmus test" if someone can be helped, or not.

Open Source Solution Providers' Code of Ethics

Some dozen years ago I was a brash, but experienced technologist fresh with a traditional engineering education. Over those years, my professionalism matured. But one thing has never changed. It has been my Code of Ethics. Not rules. Not laws. Not anything I wished to enforce on anyone else, but the Code of Ethics that has driven my every consideration and, most importantly, the rock solid integrity I have. It is my name. It is what I share with select, other peers of the same value and integrity in approach, in drive, in truth.

In early February, I realized and documented my approach to clients in the The Open Source Solution Providers' Mission Statement. Now I wish to document The Open Source Solutions Providers' Code of Ethics. This is the Code of Ethics professionals apply to one another as much as their clients and customers, as it is directly reflected in their approach to life as much as profession.

Ethic One: Ethics Are Not Rules, They Are Obvious
- There are no rules, no violations, no reprimands, no politics

Rules are for politics. Rules are subjective and, when wielded from someone in a position of authority, they may be unobjective. Although due process does often solve some of this, many smaller groups also break down into singularities and cults of personality.

Without rules, there are no violations. Without violations there are no reprimands. This removes any formal enforcement, which is often driven by politics more than people, let alone ethics. Ethics are obvious. Ethics are not governed by politics. Rules can be used to excuse agendas. Ethics cannot. Rules can be used to violate ethics. Ethics are obvious. With no rules, this removes agendas and politics, and unethical behavior cannot be excused by them.

Ethics thus become about peer professionals pointing their peers to the obviousness of the truth, when they are overlooked. Peer professionals need not and should never expose statements or actions against ethics publicly, they can merely do so privately. Ethic One then become about the self-responsibility of one recognizing the care and consideration of fellow peer professionals to do this privately, one's responsibility to one's name and integrity, one's responsibility to put forth the Ethics in not merely statement but action forward, for one's own integrity.

Ethic Two: Know Oneself, Limitations and Harmony
- No professional is more dangerous to others, especially oneself, than one not self-aware

We are all inexperienced, unaware, ignorant and naive of many things. Our experiences drive our knowledge, approach, theory and practice. The second ethic is the responsibility to know when to admit fault, to admit ignorance, to admit naivety, to admit wrong.

Most of all, this responsibility is to oneself. No one likes to be told they are at fault, they are ignorant, they are inexperienced, they are naive. This begins with the ethic to oneself, to contribute experience, not marketing, not hearsay, not assumption. Because when someone is told they are wrong, it begins with oneself, not the messenger -- because it is up to them to accept their limits, for only then can they move beyond them. Otherwise they will run into their same, own, self-imposed limit and issue again and again.

There are no less than seventeen (17) dead astronaunts, and more scheduled, due to lack of self-awareness, self-admission, self-respect to know when it is time to admit, time to disclose, time to move on, for even just oneself, first and foremost. No one was unable to feed their family because they said "I do not know" to a question or "I am not an expert on this subject matter" to a prospective client.

Unfortunately, there have been many people put out of work, or put six feet under, because professionals did put forth, "I know" or "I am an expert on this subject matter" or, far worse, did not stop themselves when they thought they knew, but did not -- when they claimed first-hand, customer or client applied experiences, but they had not.

[2007-Aug-27] Clarification: There is a fine line between "marketing" and "misrepresentation." With peer professionals, marketing is often misrepresentation, let your experience under a specific context or subject matter do your marketing.

Ethic Three: Do Not Market, Respect the Context of Experience
- Share only what you know and only what you have experienced first-hand at customers and clients

Customers and clients have always been best served by those who have had first-hand experience at clients, and not those who wish to challenge themselves with something they have never done before or outside of a customer or client, but market themselves to the customer or client as otherwise.

Likewise, peer professionals have an ethical responsibility in shared knowledge to approach their peers with respect, courtesy and equality. Equality is about respect of first-hand, customer and client applied experience, mentoring and valuing differences in experience. The context of experience is key. The context of a customer or client application drives the solution. Solutions will there differ between different applications.

There is no one solution for all situations, so peer professionals of different experiences of different contexts will differ. The only unwelcome context of experience is that is not from first-hand experience at a customer or client, but projected to be otherwise. This is obvious to a peer professional with experience, while it takes far more time to earn the trust -- not mere respect -- of other peer professionals that one provides sound, repeatable solutions with experience.

Ethic Summation: Peer Trust is Years of Sound, Helpful Experience
- Credentials are nothing. Respect is not trust. Trust is absolute. Trust takes years.

While lack of experience is obvious, and because experience is varied and differing under different context, it takes years to gain the trust of peer professionals that you are experienced, and only in and under the context of that subject matter. And this trust is earned over years of repeat, sound, helpful experience to other peer professionals.

Credentials cannot be trusted. Many credentials easy to earn or, worse yet, do not reflect experience well. Credentials may be required to conduct or merely enter business with certain entities or gain approval by a department or organization, but peer professionals know they are nothing on their own.

Trust that a professional addresses Ethic Three, by not marketing, not soliciting, by only sharing their experience under a specific context, for the solutions they have delivered. Trust that what the peer professional shares is genuine, actual, implemented and completed, not merely devised, designed and never actually attempted.

Trust that a professional addresses Ethic Two, by knowing their limitations in the context of the experience they share, any limitations in experiences they have run into and possible stepped back and admitted their shortcomings, consulted other professionals, and learned from. Trust that the peer professional will separate experience that is applicable to the context and not to another.

Trust that a professional addresses Ethic One, providing peer professionals experience and considerations that is based on a strong attention to these Ethics. A peer professional you would conduct business with, be able to hold accountable, be able to rely on for deliverables, to entrust with your co-professional livelihood. A peer professional who will tell you when they are outside their first-hand, customer and client implemented experience, and not leave you alone with a customer, or privately consulting a lawyer in order to secure and leave you as the sole liability in a project.

Ethic Reality: Transgressions Against Others Begin By Excusing Ethics
- No one can read the minds of others, much less know where everyone else comes from

Nearly all alleged transgressions begin as misunderstandings or annoyances. Transgressions and counter-transgressions become true transgressions when they cross Ethics. There is no excuse to ever cross Ethics, ever, and only undoes the values of and against oneself.

No one can read the minds of others. No one can understand where everyone else comes from. Everyone has quirks. Everyone has been taught differing values. Everyone has opinions on what matters and what does not. Transgressions begin with these and other differences, from misunderstandings to annoyances.

In group organizations and assemblies, even as a common group, the audience varies at the individual. One person's direct answer is not enough information for another. One person's verbosity and completeness is another's talking down to their experience. Equality is key, equality in peer consideration, equality in peer tolerance. Petty are those who do not find tolerances in the variety of audience as individuals.

The ultimate transgression is of oneself, envy. Envy goes against every Ethic above -- Knowing oneself and harmony, sharing experiences not marketing and recognizing the context of varying, differing experiences, and the summation of the trust that should be earned between peer professionals for their experiences of varying application and context. Envy leads to marketing, statements of falsehood, the general lie that you can state more than you are, which is tiny compared to the collective knowledge around you.

If we are all peer professionals with our varying experiences, we will never cross each others' experiences, but complement them. We will never be at odds in learning, but only augmenting our knowledge with each others' experiences -- including tapping one another for projects and contracts, so one can gain first-hand, customer and client experience from another. And most of all, we will be putting forth the ethic that serves ourselves, individually, as a support group of peer professionals of equality, of peer professional Ethic.

Transgressions against others begin by excusing statements or actions going against these Ethics, which are against ourself and merely spread to others -- undoing their summation and value, undoing the reality of that value.

People Too Ignorant To Vote

Every year I go to vote. I feel everyone should register to vote and go to the polls. I take the ballot. I only vote what I know about, not what I read on the ballot, or see next to some party or other affiliation. I don't like to vote in ignorance. I leave much of my ballot blank as a result. Ignorance is not something to wield in a vote.

I'm Just a Generation-X Engineer, Traditionally Educated and Experienced

Unfortunately, I am increasingly in the minority. In fact, I'm in the minority on a lot of things.

First off, I'm a degreed, traditional engineer. We are rare now. There is a great number of not even engineering technologists (who are often much more skilled than us engineers), but a huge number of service technicians who consider themselves engineers. I am constantly faced with dumb stares when I start talking risk analysis, sigma statistics, elementary issues with feasibility and countless microeconomics concepts.

Secondly, I am a staunch American Libertarian Capitalist. I believe the concept of the social contract is very compatible with capitalism. I believe individual choice to assemble towards the greater good is about the individual's right to do or not to do so. I do not believe in group rights and forcing people to do things against their will. Because at some point, group rights become about what a majority wants, not the individual.

Lastly, I am a generation-X male entering the prime income earning years of my life. I have decided to marry early, and have an outstanding marriage now into the double digit years. As a member of generation-X, I have accepted the stigma that we are clueless, faceless and don't know where we stand. But we stand a very small generation between the larger boomers, and the even larger Generation-Y.

The former generation fought for their rights, and are being rewarded with a busted Social Security system. That's why I plan on helping take care of my parents, as any other self-sufficient Generation-X member should. The latter generation has grown up largely envious of what Paris Hilton has, and as more and more of them vote, they believe successful, self-made (although largely thanx to my parents insisting I go to and paying for college) middle class person "makes too much."

Ignorance: Tax Cuts For Millionaires

More and more Generation-Y members assume higher income taxes mean better taxing people like Paris Hilton. They don't understand the first thing about the difference between earning income, having discretionary income and turning that into investments, which create private sector jobs which help them accrue wealth they didn't have prior -- versus those who already have wealth, and don't pay income taxes, people like Paris Hilton.

They don't understand how in a progressive tax system how high income earners get at least the same tax cut as lower income earners, if not (and quite often) more, even if only the rate is cut for the lower bracket. No matter how many times I try to explain it to them, the simple math, they call it "Voodoo Math" and that people like me are easily debunked. They say the same thing about discretionary income versus existing wealth. And trying to get them to read even just the cliff notes of a book like The Millionaire Next Door (90% of millionaires are self-made, have a 4 bedroom or less house and drive a non-luxury sedan) is right wing rhetoric (Just when am I right winger? Oh, that's right, for the same reasons a right winger calls me a left winger -- because I don't agree with either!).

Probably the funniest thing is when they make fun of the beat-up pickup that I drive. They associate people who pay the highest income tax rate with Paris Hilton, and there is no way you can break them of that. They are dumbfounded when they see the pickup I drive, and wonder why I'm defending not raising income taxes -- all while they make fun of me as well.

Ignorance: The Return of the 90% Tax Bracket

Some are even more dangerous, and they have read about the former 90% tax bracket in years past. I have seen a great number of Generation-Y folk talk about how $100,000 is enough for anyone to live on, and that anyone making more than $100,000 should pay 90%. And stupid me, I try to educate them on that too -- especially since the marriage penalty takes effect for anyone who makes around $70,000 total. I.e., married couples who make more than $70,000 start paying significantly more tax than those "shacking up" who make only $35,000 each upward.

Let's see here, if anyone who made over $100,000 had to pay 90%, guess what? I wouldn't work! I wouldn't travel. I wouldn't leave my wife. I'd let her work, or I'd take some part-time work and she could stay home. And we'd be far more happy and not worrying about our future anymore -- that future where we have enough money so we are not a burden on society, let alone I can help take care of my parents because Social Security isn't going to be there. I'll let other people worry about that.

Now what does that "cost" us -- and the country -- for me not to work? Yep, this is where I smack the heck out of their ignorance!

Ignorance: We Collect Those Higher Taxes, More Than Before

You see, you now do not get all those taxes you raised. Not only that, you don't even get the former taxes I was paying at the bracket. No one gets anything anymore -- not even the taxes I made before! And if I can figure this out, you can be sure any other successful, American Libertarian Capitalist can. They stop working to, or reduce their amount of work, and income, which also means less tax.

And you still don't tax those who already have wealth a dime! But it gets better!

Ignorance: Will Still Have Discretionary Income To Invest

We no longer have discretionary income. What's discretionary income? If you ask such a Generation-Y'er, it's that "bling bling" we spend all our money on. Wrong! It's all those investments we make for our future, investments that create private sector jobs. Now those are gone. I'm not working, making that money, paying those taxes -- even less than before -- and I'm not investing most of that money into new jobs for others -- not luxuries, new jobs.

Remember, I'm the guy you're making fun of for driving that beat-up pickup! And yet it still gets better!

Ignorance: My Productivity Still Exists And Adds to the GDP

Unless people force the government go to all the houses of people like me, hold a gun to my head and force me to leave my wife and work, I don't produce. I don't add to the GDP. I reduce our country's output. But that doesn't matter, right? Because I'm like Paris Hilton, I'm off doing "the simple life."

I'm not off designing telecommunications equipment so the Coast Guard can save lives during Katrina. I'm not off designing that Tivo so you can record your Paris Hilton shows and yell at the TV when watching it for the 10th time. I'm not designing anything you can use. I'm an engineer, that evil person who destroys the environment with the creations that I force you to use.

So who cares if I work. Heck, we've already shipped off our non-service technical jobs like manufacturing to China anyway. So why not just gut our engineering intelligence too by taxing engineers to the point they don't want to work, and will just let their spouses work. It's enough to live on for us, and since I can't make any more money for discretionary investments and actually outputting to our economy -- the limited technology we have left -- I won't bother working and you won't get the new tax, much less not even the tax I was paying before.

Brilliant!

Now that's just taxes. We can hit on other things.

Ignorance: I'll Power My Car With Hydrogen

There is no end to people who say they are going to buy a hydrogen car and get a home, electrolysis hydrogen generation kit. Of course I have to ask, "and what does the kit run on?" And there is no end of people who will argue with this engineer -- an electrical engineer -- on how "efficient" it is at generating hydrogen from the elctricity that comes out of their wall. They will miss quote "efficiency" of motors and the electrolysis process not thinking of where and, more importantly, how that electricity is generated!

Ignorance: We're All Going Solar Power

Let me introduce you to the first father of the Solar Panel, Albert Einstein. Yes, the guy you heard about that theorized relativity did not win the Nobel Prize for relativity (and it was generally disregarded by many at the time), but the photoelectric effect. What is the photoelectric effect?

Well, it talks about that whole direct photon to electricity conversion. And when you start talking about the materials, area and all those other goodies, there is actually a limit to how much energy you can get from a solar panel. "Oh, but we have breakthroughs all-the-time!" Sigh, what do I know about this, I'm just a "dumb" electrical engineer who has had modern physics and other study, let alone practical applications.

Heck, I'm still arguing with people over ...

Ignorance: The Moon Landings Were Faked!

After all ...

- The flag Neil Armstrong planted couldn't "wave" because there is no air on the moon.
- Alan Shepard's golf ball couldn't "wobble" because there is no air, and ...
- How could they film Apollo 17 when it lifted off because no one was left?

Ah no, Neil just planted it too close to the lander and its upper assent engine! You know, the whole action-reaction of particles being sent one direction so it causes the other direction to move (and those particles do strike other things, like the ground, the flag, etc...?).

I talk about the "Angular Momentum" on Neil's ball and they call it "Voodoo Engineering Talk." Sigh, what did I go to college for?

Well, duh, remote control. In fact, it takes 2 seconds for the signal to travel, and we didn't have control systems technology back then like we do today, so that's why we do not have good video of earlier Apollo lunar ascents -- we got lucky after several tries by Apollo 17.

Ignorance: Well, We Only Need To Focus On "Renewable Energies," I'm Against Anything That Is Not

So we have environmentalists that make it a living, lawyer hell for any engineer who wants to build newer, cleaner refineries, newer, cleaner fossil fuel plants and countless other things. So what do we get? California. No new plants for 10 years = Rolling Blackouts.

You know, people like yourself want to power your TV and TiVo to catch and re-watch those Paris Hilton shows for the 10th time -- only to have the power cut out because there is insufficient supply. And now you're complaining about the cost of gas to power that $40,000 SUV daddy and mommy bought you after fighting to prevent any new refineries being built. I mean, if we stop engineers from building those evil things greedy oil companies want that "Captain Planet warned me about," then they will have to use those plentiful, "renewable resources" that engineers just refuse to use, right?

Brilliant!

Ignorance: Nuclear Power? One Word: Chernobyl

And how many graphite nuclear reactors does the US operate? What is the "worst case scenario" for a US nuclear power plant? Why does France (a country I typically make fun of) have such a clean power grid? Why are nine (9) other countries -- including the US -- causing a major resurgence of French engineering leadership? Why did the 2005 Energy Act put $4B into nuclear power research? And why did the co-founder of Greenpeace -- an organization entirely founded after the Three Mile Island nuclear incident -- change his mind?

Because other than Wind Power -- which senators like Ted Kennedy is fighting against "not in my back yard, it's an eyesore!" -- the only other, feasible alternative to fossil fuels for mass power generation is nuclear fission.

Yeah, I know, "feasible" it's one of those "trick engineering terms" that we use to fool smarter people like yourself. It's one of those terms the Army Corps of Engineers tried to use to explain why they couldn't prevent the flooding of New Orleans in 2005 any more than they couldn't in the '60s or '20s before that, or for many other cities like Houston, etc.. as well.

After all, we put men on the moon, right? We can do anything? We can stop a massive hurricane with tens of thousands of times the Newtons of force in a second than the mighty Saturn V was capable of in the few minutes! Doh! That's right, we faked those too -- yeah, we engineers just go around faking everything to pay our big salaries so we can lobby government to keep our taxes low.

Ignorance: Well, the US Imports Far More Oil From the Middle East than Anyone!

Well, depends on "who" you are talking about. If you mean individual countries, yes, guilty as charged! Now add up population, GDP and other things until you get an "equivalent." By God, look at the European Union (EU)! Unlike the US, that actually has extensive coal reserves and even trades with countries that have "All Pro-Chavez TV, All-the-Time, You're Watching the New State-Run-Only Media Country" for its oil, it's not so surprising why the US has 42 allies supporting us in Iraq. ;)

That's not saying I agree with the Iraq war. But if you think the US is the only country securing petroleum reserves for ourselves ... ha ... ha ha ha ... ha ha ha! In fact, there's far more at stake for the EU with Russia than the US, because it wants to tap those resources to ease it's greater dependence on the middle east, like the US has with Chavez and other nations in South America, Africa, etc...

Select Generation-Y'ers, and You Should Know By Now Who You Are ...

At some point you have to ask yourself ... are you too ignorant to vote on many things?

No child left behind? I think Generation-Y is a perfect example of why some people need to be left behind! They will not listen to logic or reason, do not want to bother with learning the physics or microeconomics that goes against their political alignments. After all, they can find nearly all TV newspeople and analysts, all completely removed from an engineering education, to agree with them! And if not, they can always find a blogger or two as well.

In all honesty and self-realization, my generation -- Generation-X -- wasn't exactly the shining star compared to my parents in education either. But one thing we didn't do was hold kids behind and focus on standardized tests well below their capability. We let kids excel if they could and we realized what some were and were not capable of. This "everyone is special" non-sense didn't exist as a government -- i.e., forced community (socialist) -- institution. Why? Because they were our future, even if only a subset of them.

And most of all, in Generation-X, we didn't expect ... well, we just didn't "expect." Today, "entitlement, entitlement, entitlement" is all I hear from Generation-Y'ers. If you're a Generation-Y'er, and you don't believe so, you have my sincerest appreciation and my sincerest apologies. But too many are otherwise, and they believe the ignorance above. They moan about the rich having all the cars they want. They believe socialized medicine will result in everyone being able to have the latest million-dollar medical procedures or the latest drug research has to offer (let alone can't comprehend why drugs cost a lot of money -- duh, R&D costs? Even if other countries don't want to respect that and pay as well?).

Heck, for years we at least let in foreign nationals to pick up the slack in our ever shrinking engineering student body. We let them have Green Cards and become American citizens with American families for generations to come. Now we don't even have that with indentured survitude programs like H1B, with a sponsoring employer who can deport them if they don't like the "terms" of their employment, let alone take a cut of their pay, which is already low because they they can't leave their "sponsor" and go to another employer and demand the same wages as Americans (no, we can't have that -- that would -- gasp -- basically be to just like hiring Americans in the first place at full pay!). People who actually come in the country legally and want to speak English (if they don't already) because they recognize the importance of communicating with the majority of the people already here.

The ideal immigrant is the one we do our best to deny -- especially when they often have educations in engineering. Not the IT H1Bs -- that's to keep IT costs low, even though we have plenty of Americans in IT (which is not engineering, although some can be engineering technology, but not in the overwhelming cases of H1Bs justified for IT) -- but the real engineers who actually studied concepts like engineering mechanics, microeconomics, etc... At least the ones that would agree with me. As much as I'll make fun of the average Frenchmen and their hypocritical history (criticize us on Vietnam?), I'll take a French engineer first and foremost any day! ;)

And yes, this was a rant. The one, cool thing about Generation-X is when we retire -- we'll have Generation-Y in their prime, income earning years. There are just so many of them that even if they are all working low-paying service jobs -- well -- there's just still so few of us retiring in comparison! I'm not worried for me -- just my parents. I just want to keep my money so I can help people the way I want, not what some majority thinks I should do with my money, not theirs. Oh, duh, I forgot -- I'm a stupid engineer who doesn't know better! Sorry, I promise not to think like a successful individual anymore.