Does this post offend you?
-
thank you for demonstrating an essay
-
Errors like telling me I'm wrong, then suddenly switching to saying you are generally correct, and then telling me it's because it is not statistically significant. And you cannot answer me when I questioned you back if examples need to be statistically significant.
Let me see... in the whole argument here, I only see u fumbling and unable to answer for many areas and u giving out animalistic one liner grunt back. I told u u r wrong, and u grunt back a vague one liner without elaboration at all. Since u say so, then prove it. Wat have u really shown me ? Your one example is struggling under the sea, u cannot prove why an example shown can say the definition made by experts in tis field to be wrong, u cannot explain why your view is so limited tat if a fact is true under 0.1%-99.9% of the situation is is viewed as truth.
Obviously, you still cannot reconcile the fact that you have been stupid and tried to prove me wrong in all the below facts just because I gave you valid real-life examples. And when you realised it, you suddenly switched tune to you being generally correct. That is really extremely stupid.
Valid real life example ?
*look around*
WHere ? U mean u claim to have some real life examples isn't it ? U probably listed out many examples of engineers and u know wat, all r thrown under the sea. Do u know wat is really stupid ? U r trying to prove the professional of engineering board tat they do not know wat they r working as. U want to prove the dictionary wrong. U want to prove wiki is inadequate. And how do u do it ? By wrongly using examples which u cannot substantiate.
Not only that, you suddenly tell me your "generally correct" means it is not statistically significant. Now you are so silent and speechless when challenged whether examples, something which I have been saying all along from the start, must be statistically significant. Already further proof that you do not even understand words properly.
I have been answering tat point since u wrote it but the problem is u never reply to it at all. Then u blame on me for been silent ? Wat a joke. How r u gonna do the stupid task of trying to prove the professional of engineers tat they do nt know wat they r working as, u try to prove by thinking if u show one example of engineer not doing engineering work (which u have not shown) then the whole definition is throw off.
However tis approach is just wishful thinking on your side. Not everyone knows wat engineers (someone like u who do not know wat an engineer do) as well as the board of professional engineers and there is the likelihood tat they had mislabel the title of the job. Lets say one chinese firm who do not know english well put up a job for a secretary/sweeper/cleaner and label it as engineer. Does tat means the board of engineers r wrong ? It is rather the chinese firm to be wrong isn't it ? However tat is wat u r trying to do in tis case. U r trying to find mistakes made by people or firms in their lax definition of the word and thinking tat if u find such idiots in the world the whole definition of the word is thrown off. U just shown the other party wrong, not the dictionary or board of engineer or wiki. It is like someone trying to find someone who made a vocab error in using the word "idiot" and then proclaim the word listed "idiot" in the dictionary to be wrong. Do u think tat line of argument is fair ? Nah... u r just trying to be funny and it is rather foolish. Tat is why I stated before tat unless u can find a whole bulk of examples of wrong usage of the word engineer, then can u consider it as a valid argument on the word. Otherwise u only find a group of people who do not know the meaning of engineer. Is tis too hard for u to understand ?
How many times must you act dumb?
Look at tis. An animalistic one liner. I will repeat the reply again untill u come out with a good explaination
Now quote me the original statement which I had made with the word "probably". Which particular usage of the word r u displeased of ? The probably used by the school itself or one of the many uses I had made in the replies ?
Furthermore u seemed to completely ignore the paragraph which I had quoted. i had proved tat TUD does not give oral exam for all the subjects which u claim they do. SO now u got another foot in your mouth ?
And with that statement in bold, you tell me that the official stand about oral exams is that it is easier.
Why not ? U knwo wat is probably ? Probably can means from most of the time to all the time. Isn't tat already much more significant than lesser number of time to none of the times. The school is not as dumb or limited in view like u and know tat freak cases do happens and the politically right word to use such facts r "probably"
No you didn't. I'm asking you to prove that all subjects which do not state that they have oral exams, do indeed have zero oral exams. You don't understand or what? Still evading.
Wat evading ? U r evading yourself ba. I have proved from a neutral 3rd party person who had personally go through TUD education to proclaim tat they have one exam and it is only common for the exam to be oral, not all the time.
Most classes you will be taking, will not have any homework assignments and you will have only one exam. In germany you do not register for courses. Just show up for lectures and sign up for the final exam. The grade you will receive will singly determine the note you'll earn. Also know that it is common for exams to be oral.
Wat have u shown instead ? Do u show anything ? Nothing because even idiots can tell u there r so many subjects tat r offered in NTU tat some subjects do not even require exams like some courses in NTU and NUS. (literature based, critical thinking)
Does that or does that not tell us that there will be at least one module with oral examinations for modules? Can you prove to us it does not include at all?
You think you represent MIT ah? Can twist and turn what they say, and tell me it does not include because that statement may mean FYP defence. Wow.
U claim MIT has courses with oral exams in their courses. U claim it u prove it. U think u represent MIT ah ? Can twist and trun wat they say and wat u said must means it is right.
Challenge you back? You are the one who challenged to see who's the first to be speechless. In no way did I challenge you.
Stupid, aren't you? Especially when you are telling me I'm wrong with what I experienced first hand from information you gotten and do not even comprehend or understand properly.
Why don't u look at history and I am trying to exit the thread at page 1 or 2 of tis thread. Who is the idiot who wanna conclude I have limiting views over nothing ? U tell me your first hand experience and when I question the exams u don't dish out facts but dismissed all question with empty claims.
So why did you quote my post if you were not referring to what I was stated in my post?
This is a public forum. Must quoting your post be talking to you? You are so full of yourself, it seems.
I did quote your post but I did not realise u have typed in a wrong figure.
It is simply because I think people do not talk to themselves or their imaginary friends in the forum. If u say it is not talking about me, then u have to show who u r talking to and all the logic must fit it
Only failed to be listed as equally important by this forumer called stupidissmart.
Till now, you cannot find any source at all that others do not list it as equally important.
How about the remarks made by u here ?
Previous reply I had made
I am telling u the MORE IMPORTANT skill is still to come out with the SOLUTION to the practical problem. And if u look at my statement on research, it is to write paper too. If u do not come out with any results, r u even doing research ?? And if u consider "writing paper" as education, then my previous statement is still correct.
Your reply
I didn't deny what you said is wrong.
I have been telling you all the while that is only part of the scope
So u agree with me tat the more important skill is to come out with the solution than can u write the solution. It is something which u clearly NEVER reply to after repeated asking. Wat u do is totally ignore the point and act blur. Sorry man, tis time I make sure all my enquiries r drilled into your thick skull and u cannot avoid it anymore
Switch the question? Are you talking rubbish?
Animalistic one line grunt again. The question which u challenge me before is tat i have never said process of writing is part of the equation. I shown u tat u had said so and therefore u have youf foot in your mouth. I paste it for u to see again
U r talking rubbish here. U challenge the below.
Don't put words into my mouth again.
Since when did I tell you that the process of writing is part of the equation
Then when I prove it to u, by tis statement,
You will now have to establish whether a research engineering job encompasses education as part of the equation. Something which I have been telling you all the way since the first 2 pages.
u dishonestly switch the question to another one
Where have you proved that writing a paper is not part of the equation?
DO NOT SWITCH THE QUESTION !
What do you mean by proving it to me by this statement? This statement was made by me!
And you take a statement made by me and tell me you prove something to me by my statement?????????
U challenge me with tis statement
Since when did I tell you that the process of writing is part of the equation
I proved it by showing u indeed say the above by using your statement
You will now have to establish whether a research engineering job encompasses education as part of the equation. Something which I have been telling you all the way since the first 2 pages.
So wat is your answer to it then ?
You don't understand what is meant by part of the equation, do you?
It is just an analogy meaning it is a part of it. However we r not talking about equations here and u claiming it is part of the equation must mean it is equally important
Don't evade and switch away. I showed you real-life examples to tell you examples, till you can only tell me you are generally correct, hence agreeing with me on my statement using 'examples'.
Then you raise your example, and tell me it is valid. To be valid, it has to be real-life examples, not purely imaginations as what you have stated. Don't evade simply because you came up with a stupid example. I'm still waiting for you to tell me there are such things, before showing you your flaws.
Real life example ? Ok I saw my niece playing and using her eyes to push things in. TAt is the example. U think tat is hard to believe ? U think in tis whole world nobody play and try to use their eyes to push things before ?
As said before, it is an example and illustration. It is like aesop fable where many element of his tales never happened or could ever happened but it bring forward the intended message. However a person whose view is as limiting as u cannot understand illustrations at all.
You are still taking the whole field of product engineering, when we are talking about the job scope of a product engineer. I didn't disagree with you on your definition of the field of product engineering; I'm discussing with you the job scope of one of the product engineers.
I think u got mixed up. U r talking about job scope while I am talking about the definition of product/software engineers. Since u agree with my definition of the engineer, u agree tat software engineers have to do some programming and product engineers have to do some engineering and engineering is on solving practical problems, then how have u shown my statement tat the more important skill of an engineer is to solve practical problems to be wrong ? They r called engineers because they r doing engineering and tat is the main reason why they r hired to do.
So are you still avoiding the ethics part of NPSE that engineers are encouraged to impart knowledge?
Fight vainly? NPSE has clearly been engaging in education, and part of the ethics talks about imparting knowledge. Wiki however did not mention this.
Not to mention that you are indeed the one fighting vainly to tell me the HRs of different companies are wrong.
U r mixed up and trying to argue on a different thing altogether. The earlier reply is like tis
I think u r getting more and more crappy as time progresses. It is really interesting to see u trying to fight vainly against the professional of engineer board, dictionary and wikipedia on wat the engineer is about. U tell me the word depend on society to defines. Now the society includes the professional board of engineers, the school of engineer, the engineers themselves and many other people and they all give the same definition of wat an engineer is about. U think the definition is wrong, then PROVE ANOTHER DEFINITION FROM ANOTHER REPUATBLE SECTOR OF SOCIETY IN THEIR WEBSITE.
I issue u a challenge to find for me a definition from another reputable sector of society tat show the definition from the board of professional engineer to be wrong. I want DEFINITION. Simple clear statement showing wat engineer is about. I am following NSPE definition and mentionign them do u no good. Tis is the main point here. Instead of standing the challenge, u cowardly fail to address the above and talk about completely different issues altogether. U claim society defines the word engineer and I ask u to show which part of society disagree with the definition and u r speechless. Com'on don't talk cock here and refuse to handle the challenge given to u. If u cannot handle tis challenge, then it shows tat engineers r viewed as such in society and it is right since u claimed earlier society defines the word
So who are the "many other people" you have raised? You mean you are the one to represent "many other people"???
Let me see, I have board of professional engineers, I have the editor and press for dictionary which also includes the english users and teachers, I have wiki and its authors and their reference and if u want others, I can show u another website tat support my definition of engineers
http://www.iram.fr/~lucas/almassr/SSR-UC-Glossary.html
engineer: A person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems
Now look at the list of people on your side. Nobody EXCEPT U. U cannot find ANYBODY who agrees with u tat the definition of engineers r wrong or inadequate. U think u alone can offset the view of the whole world. U think u alone constitute society. I challenge u ro find some reputable people tat agrees with u tat he definition of engineer is wrong. Go on ! Handle the challenge !
Can improve your english a not? Pls rephrase your statement in red.
What is meant by finding the source of problem on a chip is not engineer.
U claim tat finding the source of problem on a chip is not engineering before isn't it ? So wat is your view on tis matter ? U knwo u made many embarrassing mistakes in the past before like saying professor is an address and twisting the job scope of professor to engineer etc. I can bring out more and more of your stupid logical mistakes into the thread u know.
Don't be stupid (yet again, sigh)
Is japanese part of the main syllabus? Or even part of the specialisation tracks?Japanese can be part of the syllabus. U know in NTU they do teaches art to student and talking about "space" and "matching of colors" to aesthetically appeal people and virtually look at drawings made by previous artists etc. Tis is to help them design better in future and not because they r training them to be artist.
Don't be stupid la. I use something that software engineers study in uni, and it's part of their job scope.
Lets look back at wat u had used before
So why can it not be that a software engineer is engaged in only using photoshop to design complicated graphics within a software engineering team tasked to program a game?
Now your statement is stupid because u assume just because he is in a software team, he can do watever job he like and still is a software engineer. Tat is wrong because if he do nothing but design from photoshop, he is a graphic design. Full stop. If using your obscene example, then a sweeper in a software team can be a software engineer too.
Please harp on it, because until you accept the fact that taking a whole field of software engineering to prove that a single job scope is impossible is extremely stupid of you, you will just continue to disgrace yourself.
Wat english r u talking here ? taking a whole field of software engineering to prove a single job scope impossible ? Taking to where ? DO u need to take back fundamental english before posting here ?
I told you there's no professional engineer for research engineering. I asked you that question to confirm you do indeed agree with the previous sentence, because somehow, you keep disagreeing with it. Or rather, you continue to misunderstand it by thinking that I said professional engineers cannot do research.
I think u r really going more and more stupid as time progresses. U agree tat professional engineers can do research right ? Then why can't NSPE do reseach since they r professional engineers ? Since they can do research, why can't they define wat is engineer when they have explicitly mention it is for all field ?
When I have already told (and replied) you that I did not deny that you need to have research results to publish, but it is equally important to be able to publish and educate. If not, what's the use of having the research results if you cannot educate others properly about it? => This has already been told to you. Go read back if you forget.
Who says so ? In military research, u CANNOT publish research result out for other countries to copy. U have research result, u apply to your own device and tat is already very good. As said before, u must be able to generate results first then can u publish a paper. U know wat is the objective of engineering researchers and how they can make money back for government and companies ? They manage to come out with a commercial or usable product. To protect themselves from competition, they often do not publish out results for others to copy.
We were talking about job scopes hor, not about requiring a person trained in engineering for the job. Different things, and don't twist away (yet again!)
I told u before. U show me 3 job scopes and one of them is on engineering. U conclude wrongly saying tat since only 1 job scope is on engineering, engineering is not the more important skill to have. It is wrong. They require other skill doesn't means engineering is not the more important skill. How do we know tat. They ask for people trained as engineers to apply, not business or admin or other professions.Tis clearly shows tat engineering is the more important skill to have.
When wiki clearly does not state that a professor is an occupation, but rather, a title, a form of address, an honorifc term.
Do u really read properly ? Who says tat professor is not an occupation but merely a title ?
Look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor
Professors are qualified experts, of the various levels described above, who may do the following:
- conduct lectures and seminars in their field of study (i.e., they "profess"), such as the basic fields of science, humanities, social sciences, education, literature or the applied fields of engineering, design, music, medicine, law, or business;
- perform advanced research in their fields.
- provide pro bono community service, including consulting functions (such as advising government and nonprofit organizations);
- teach campus-based or online courses with the help of instructional technology;
- train young or new academics (graduate students).
Isn't tat already describing an occupation. Lets look at some other statements
In some English-speaking countries, it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair, especially as head of the department, or a personal chair awarded specifically to that individual. For example, in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand it is a legal title conferred by a university denoting the highest academic rank, whereas in the United States, Canada and Hong Kong, the term professor is used as a form of address for any lecturer or researcher employed by a college or university, regardless of rank.
Now wiki state it is a title and an occupation. Who say it is not an occupation ? Only a person who claims to have go to a university claims professor is not an occupation. Why don't u read wiki yourself and tell me which part of it is wrong ?
This is where you are wrong. It can be inadequate if it misses some information on the area too. The definition can be correct but inadequate.
Yet you are still telling me I said wiki is wrong when I merely said it was inadequate???
If it misses out some part, then it is still wrong because it fails to address the term fully. If the definition is right, it must be able to address all reasonable and correct usage of the word. If it cannot, then it is wrong. We r talking about definition here. If it cannot address fully then it is the wrong definition.
Inadequate answers get half the marks in your exams. It can mean some areas are wrong, I'm not denying. But it can also mean that some areas are not stated/listed/answered.
If it is not listed or answered, it is deemed u have done it wrong and marks r still deducted. Missing is considered as a wrong.
-
Let me see... in the whole argument here, I only see u fumbling and unable to answer for many areas and u giving out animalistic one liner grunt back. I told u u r wrong, and u grunt back a vague one liner without elaboration at all. Since u say so, then prove it. Wat have u really shown me ? Your one example is struggling under the sea, u cannot prove why an example shown can say the definition made by experts in tis field to be wrong, u cannot explain why your view is so limited tat if a fact is true under 0.1%-99.9% of the situation is is viewed as truth.
One example?
I have told you all I need is one example. I proved to you, and you changed your tune to being generally correct. Wow!
Valid real life example ?
*look around*
WHere ? U mean u claim to have some real life examples isn't it ? U probably listed out many examples of engineers and u know wat, all r thrown under the sea. Do u know wat is really stupid ? U r trying to prove the professional of engineering board tat they do not know wat they r working as. U want to prove the dictionary wrong. U want to prove wiki is inadequate. And how do u do it ? By wrongly using examples which u cannot substantiate.
Somehow you cannot read. I have already shown you NPSE involves education, and the ethics include encouraging engineers to impart knowledge.
Still so silent???
All thrown under the sea? You sure? All you did was take the whole field to tell me a single job scope is not possible, is wrong, and that a software engineer must die die do every single thing as defined by wiki because of the 'and' word.
Look at tis. An animalistic one liner. I will repeat the reply again untill u come out with a good explaination
Now quote me the original statement which I had made with the word "probably". Which particular usage of the word r u displeased of ? The probably used by the school itself or one of the many uses I had made in the replies ?
Furthermore u seemed to completely ignore the paragraph which I had quoted. i had proved tat TUD does not give oral exam for all the subjects which u claim they do. SO now u got another foot in your mouth ?
Why not ? U knwo wat is probably ? Probably can means from most of the time to all the time. Isn't tat already much more significant than lesser number of time to none of the times. The school is not as dumb or limited in view like u and know tat freak cases do happens and the politically right word to use such facts r "probably"
Probably and definitely are two different things.
Till now, you still cannot understand the difference, and use the "official stand" of probably to tell me what I experienced first hand is definitely wrong?????
Your argument is indeed getting weak.
Wat evading ? U r evading yourself ba. I have proved from a neutral 3rd party person who had personally go through TUD education to proclaim tat they have one exam and it is only common for the exam to be oral, not all the time.
Most classes you will be taking, will not have any homework assignments and you will have only one exam. In germany you do not register for courses. Just show up for lectures and sign up for the final exam. The grade you will receive will singly determine the note you'll earn. Also know that it is common for exams to be oral.
Wat have u shown instead ? Do u show anything ? Nothing because even idiots can tell u there r so many subjects tat r offered in NTU tat some subjects do not even require exams like some courses in NTU and NUS. (literature based, critical thinking)
Still evading, and your sentence in red is definitely from that of an immature mind.
Can you tell me whether all modules in NUS that did not list having mid term exams in their descriptions, have indeed no mid-term exams?
No double standards (again).
And neutral 3rd party. Why don't you tell me now that he's the official stand and word of TUD too, and what other credibility he has. Duh.
U claim MIT has courses with oral exams in their courses. U claim it u prove it. U think u represent MIT ah ? Can twist and trun wat they say and wat u said must means it is right.
Double standards again.
If you can tell me that the TUD statement on their official website definitely means oral exams are easier, why is it that by stating oral examinations are conducted in English in the MIT official website, there is definitely no oral exams in MIT?
Don't be illogical (yet again)
Why don't u look at history and I am trying to exit the thread at page 1 or 2 of tis thread. Who is the idiot who wanna conclude I have limiting views over nothing ? U tell me your first hand experience and when I question the exams u don't dish out facts but dismissed all question with empty claims.
Why don't you look at history and relook who wants to revive the discussion, and not just once. I offered you a truce, you are the one who wanted to revive the whole discussion with the sentence on "who's speechless first". Every single thing, till you showed you could not understand what is meant by the word 'examples'
I did quote your post but I did not realise u have typed in a wrong figure.
It is simply because I think people do not talk to themselves or their imaginary friends in the forum. If u say it is not talking about me, then u have to show who u r talking to and all the logic must fit it
So you are putting the blame on me just because you did not realised I typed in a wrong figure, and thus quoted me and answered accordingly???
Wow!
How about the remarks made by u here ?
Previous reply I had made
I am telling u the MORE IMPORTANT skill is still to come out with the SOLUTION to the practical problem. And if u look at my statement on research, it is to write paper too. If u do not come out with any results, r u even doing research ?? And if u consider "writing paper" as education, then my previous statement is still correct.
Your reply
I didn't deny what you said is wrong.
I have been telling you all the while that is only part of the scope
So u agree with me tat the more important skill is to come out with the solution than can u write the solution. It is something which u clearly NEVER reply to after repeated asking. Wat u do is totally ignore the point and act blur. Sorry man, tis time I make sure all my enquiries r drilled into your thick skull and u cannot avoid it anymore
Who says so ? In military research, u CANNOT publish research result out for other countries to copy. U have research result, u apply to your own device and tat is already very good. As said before, u must be able to generate results first then can u publish a paper. U know wat is the objective of engineering researchers and how they can make money back for government and companies ? They manage to come out with a commercial or usable product. To protect themselves from competition, they often do not publish out results for others to copy.
Combine both to show your extreme stupidity, because I have clearly answered you, yet you want to post questions again and again that have been answered.
In military research, u CANNOT publish research result out for other countries to copy.
But you publish the results to your colleagues! And those that will continue your work when you die! DUH. STUPID!
If you cannot educate your peers around of the results of your military research, please tell me how your research is going to contribute to national defence at all.
TOTALLY INVALID AND STUPID OF YOU.
So what is wrong with research as part of the equation, and education as another part?
Animalistic one line grunt again. The question which u challenge me before is tat i have never said process of writing is part of the equation. I shown u tat u had said so and therefore u have youf foot in your mouth. I paste it for u to see again
U r talking rubbish here. U challenge the below.
Don't put words into my mouth again.
Since when did I tell you that the process of writing is part of the equation
Then when I prove it to u, by tis statement,
You will now have to establish whether a research engineering job encompasses education as part of the equation. Something which I have been telling you all the way since the first 2 pages.
u dishonestly switch the question to another one
Where have you proved that writing a paper is not part of the equation?
DO NOT SWITCH THE QUESTION !I believe I have already replied you.
Selective understanding from you again.
As long as they are writing a paper, they are educating.
There are many ways to see this.
1) In the midst of writing, they can have further discussions to confirm their thesis statement, and thus educating among themselves
2) As long as you are writing, your goal is to impart knowledge.
3) "As long as they are writing" is in no way the same as the "process of writing"Don't put 2 unrelated phrases together and tell me I'm wrong.
Please go back to PSLE.
Cannot read is it? http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/327598?page=7
Real life example ? Ok I saw my niece playing and using her eyes to push things in. TAt is the example. U think tat is hard to believe ? U think in tis whole world nobody play and try to use their eyes to push things before ?
As said before, it is an example and illustration. It is like aesop fable where many element of his tales never happened or could ever happened but it bring forward the intended message. However a person whose view is as limiting as u cannot understand illustrations at all.
So if you agreed that there's a real-life example of using eyes to push things in.
So what is wrong with saying there are examples of people using eyes to push things in when there are examples?
All the while, I was talking to you with examples. You instead try to tell me I'm wrong, but finally got convinced and changed tune to you being generally correct.
WTF? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing because you cannot bear to admit you made a mistake in understanding that I'm talking about examples all along?
I think u got mixed up. U r talking about job scope while I am talking about the definition of product/software engineers. Since u agree with my definition of the engineer, u agree tat software engineers have to do some programming and product engineers have to do some engineering and engineering is on solving practical problems, then how have u shown my statement tat the more important skill of an engineer is to solve practical problems to be wrong ? They r called engineers because they r doing engineering and tat is the main reason why they r hired to do.
You are the one that got mixed up. We were talking about job scopes all the way, and you suddenly brought out the whole field of it and tell me a software engineer must do every single thing wiki has said because of the word 'and'.
Wow
U r mixed up and trying to argue on a different thing altogether. The earlier reply is like tis
I think u r getting more and more crappy as time progresses. It is really interesting to see u trying to fight vainly against the professional of engineer board, dictionary and wikipedia on wat the engineer is about. U tell me the word depend on society to defines. Now the society includes the professional board of engineers, the school of engineer, the engineers themselves and many other people and they all give the same definition of wat an engineer is about. U think the definition is wrong, then PROVE ANOTHER DEFINITION FROM ANOTHER REPUATBLE SECTOR OF SOCIETY IN THEIR WEBSITE.
I issue u a challenge to find for me a definition from another reputable sector of society tat show the definition from the board of professional engineer to be wrong. I want DEFINITION. Simple clear statement showing wat engineer is about. I am following NSPE definition and mentionign them do u no good. Tis is the main point here. Instead of standing the challenge, u cowardly fail to address the above and talk about completely different issues altogether. U claim society defines the word engineer and I ask u to show which part of society disagree with the definition and u r speechless. Com'on don't talk cock here and refuse to handle the challenge given to u. If u cannot handle tis challenge, then it shows tat engineers r viewed as such in society and it is right since u claimed earlier society defines the word
Let me see, I have board of professional engineers, I have the editor and press for dictionary which also includes the english users and teachers, I have wiki and its authors and their reference and if u want others, I can show u another website tat support my definition of engineers
http://www.iram.fr/~lucas/almassr/SSR-UC-Glossary.html
engineer: A person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems
Now look at the list of people on your side. Nobody EXCEPT U. U cannot find ANYBODY who agrees with u tat the definition of engineers r wrong or inadequate. U think u alone can offset the view of the whole world. U think u alone constitute society. I challenge u ro find some reputable people tat agrees with u tat he definition of engineer is wrong. Go on ! Handle the challenge !
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/engineer
–noun
1. a person trained and skilled in the design, construction, and use of engines or machines, or in any of various branches of engineering: a mechanical engineer; a civil engineer.
2. a person who operates or is in charge of an engine.
3. Also called locomotive engineer. Railroads. a person who operates or is in charge of a locomotive.
4. a member of an army, navy, or air force specially trained in engineering work.
5. a skillful manager: a political engineer.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engineer
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English engineour, from Anglo-French, from enginer to devise, construct, from engineering
Date:
14th century1: a member of a military group devoted to engineering work
2: obsolete : a crafty schemer : plotter
3 a: a designer or builder of engines b: a person who is trained in or follows as a profession a branch of engineering c: a person who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance
4: a person who runs or supervises an engine or an apparatushttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/engineer
en·gi·neer (nj-nîr)
n.
1. One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering.
2. One who operates an engine.
3. One who skillfully or shrewdly manages an enterprise.So can you say definitely that of those in red, your strict definition of engineer covers all of their job scopes? Every single they do?
A person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems
I'm waiting for your limited vision replies.
U claim tat finding the source of problem on a chip is not engineering before isn't it ? So wat is your view on tis matter ? U knwo u made many embarrassing mistakes in the past before like saying professor is an address and twisting the job scope of professor to engineer etc. I can bring out more and more of your stupid logical mistakes into the thread u know.
I believe I have already answered you.
Japanese can be part of the syllabus. U know in NTU they do teaches art to student and talking about "space" and "matching of colors" to aesthetically appeal people and virtually look at drawings made by previous artists etc. Tis is to help them design better in future and not because they r training them to be artist.
Don't talk rubbish. I'm asking you whether it is part of the specialisation tracks. Not whether it can be a not.
Be definite.
Lets look back at wat u had used before
So why can it not be that a software engineer is engaged in only using photoshop to design complicated graphics within a software engineering team tasked to program a game?
Now your statement is stupid because u assume just because he is in a software team, he can do watever job he like and still is a software engineer. Tat is wrong because if he do nothing but design from photoshop, he is a graphic design. Full stop. If using your obscene example, then a sweeper in a software team can be a software engineer too.
Stupid again. He is part of the software engineering team engaged in a game design, and is employed as a software engineer.
There's no stopping the company if they want to engage this contract engineer in another project that requires programming skills.
Your sweeper example is totally invalid, because you cannot tell me that software engineers do study how to be a sweeper in their specialisation. Yet I can tell you they study graphic designing.
Are you still going to tell me a software engineer die die cannot be engaged only in graphic design within a software engineering team?
Wat english r u talking here ? taking a whole field of software engineering to prove a single job scope impossible ? Taking to where ? DO u need to take back fundamental english before posting here ?
If you are stupid, don't need to push the blame. It is already very obvious you cannot understand the word 'examples'.
Are you still telling me a software engineer must die die do everything mentioned in your definitions because of the word 'and'?
You are still taking a whole field of software engineering to prove a single job scope of software engineering impossible. Means, you are telling me that because software engineering is the application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of software, a software engineer can definitely not be engaged merely in graphic designing because he must do everything due to the word 'and'.
Understand it a not, stupid?
I think u r really going more and more stupid as time progresses. U agree tat professional engineers can do research right ? Then why can't NSPE do reseach since they r professional engineers ? Since they can do research, why can't they define wat is engineer when they have explicitly mention it is for all field ?
No, you are the one who is getting more and more confused as time goes on.
Professional engineers for electrical works means that these professional engineers are engaged in taking legal responsibility for electrical works being done because they approved it. Anything wrong, the law goes for the one who gave the stamp and legal approval.
Similarly, professional engineers for research means that these professional engineers are engaged in taking legal responsibility for research being done because they approved it. I say there's non of this at all, and you have agreed.
This is different from what you have said and misinterpreted consistently, that I said professional engineers cannot do research.
So if you have agreed that there's no such things as PEs to give legal approval for research work to be done, are you still going to tell me NSPE is going to include PEs for research work only?
I told u before. U show me 3 job scopes and one of them is on engineering. U conclude wrongly saying tat since only 1 job scope is on engineering, engineering is not the more important skill to have. It is wrong. They require other skill doesn't means engineering is not the more important skill. How do we know tat. They ask for people trained as engineers to apply, not business or admin or other professions.Tis clearly shows tat engineering is the more important skill to have.
You still cannot answer me. Can you say for sure that the main job scope of the sales engineer in question is only 1 out of the 3 job scopes listed?
We are talking about job scopes, not talking about why the person was employed.
Do not twist away yet again.
Do u really read properly ? Who says tat professor is not an occupation but merely a title ?
Look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor
Professors are qualified experts, of the various levels described above, who may do the following:
- conduct lectures and seminars in their field of study (i.e., they "profess"), such as the basic fields of science, humanities, social sciences, education, literature or the applied fields of engineering, design, music, medicine, law, or business;
- perform advanced research in their fields.
- provide pro bono community service, including consulting functions (such as advising government and nonprofit organizations);
- teach campus-based or online courses with the help of instructional technology;
- train young or new academics (graduate students).
Isn't tat already describing an occupation. Lets look at some other statements
I just love to see you shoot yourself yet again.
Are qualified experts considered occupations? The next things just list what they may do. It does not state that a professor is an occupation. The list tells us that because someone is a professor, is an qualified expert, he has the ability to do the following with credibility.
Not to mention that those in red also mean that the professor can be engaged in research engineering (an engineer) and education at the same time. Remember that you are the one who said a professor is not an engineer.
Try again.
In some English-speaking countries, it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair, especially as head of the department, or a personal chair awarded specifically to that individual. For example, in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand it is a legal title conferred by a university denoting the highest academic rank, whereas in the United States, Canada and Hong Kong, the term professor is used as a form of address for any lecturer or researcher employed by a college or university, regardless of rank.
Can't you read the word 'refers'?
It means that it is a reference to a senior academic. They explained it further with examples.
Try again to find where in wiki was it stated that professor is a job, an occupation, as what you have said.
If it misses out some part, then it is still wrong because it fails to address the term fully. If the definition is right, it must be able to address all reasonable and correct usage of the word. If it cannot, then it is wrong. We r talking about definition here. If it cannot address fully then it is the wrong definition.
If it is not listed or answered, it is deemed u have done it wrong and marks r still deducted. Missing is considered as a wrong.
If it misses out some part, then it is inadequate. It is not wrong.
Example:
Saying Newton's 2nd law is force = mass * acceleration is not wrong. It is inadequate.
Saying electrons are particles is not wrong; it is inadequate.But saying Newton's 2nd law is V = IR is wrong
Saying electrons are anti-matter is also wrongThis is also extremely common in O level trigonometry.
Are you sure you completed O or A levels? I repeat for you:
Inadequate answers get half the marks in your exams. It can mean some areas are wrong, I'm not denying. But it can also mean that some areas are not stated/listed/answered.
Wrong answers get zero marks.
Saying that I said wiki is wrong is saying that I gave wiki zero marks for their answer, totally no credit at all. But that clearly wasn't the case.
You had clearly misunderstood multiple times.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You would think it is subjective because you have not experienced it. Go enroll in a German university to find out. It's way too long to explain to you how it works. You will be grilled even more intensely in a particular portion if the lecturer manage to find out which portion of the module you are unclear of.
Written examinations are way too easy to score; they are no brainers. I'm sure many had experienced being able to score As for some modules even though they do not fully understand it.
basically u have said what i have to. Overeas Uni is indeed more harder as u have to do much research and come up with conclusions to your findings. Their main emphasis is not on getting grades but quality of effort put in. Idf u are attending overseas uni, put yr sg ways behind.
Try to adapt to the overseas uni culture and if u dont, u will get marked as being lazy. its not yr fault cause so many years of written exams in sg, and u cant take it when someone ask u to do reseach.
-
Originally posted by SPLIT SECOND:
basically u have said what i have to. Overeas Uni is indeed more harder as u have to do much research and come up with conclusions to your findings. Their main emphasis is not on getting grades but quality of effort put in. Idf u are attending overseas uni, put yr sg ways behind.
Try to adapt to the overseas uni culture and if u dont, u will get marked as being lazy. its not yr fault cause so many years of written exams in sg, and u cant take it when someone ask u to do reseach.
I guess the main thing is that when we go overseas, you will find it much more difficult because the system of education is totally different from what we are used to. I can only say I'm glad to have the priviledge and opportunity to experience both local and Germany's uni education.
Certain things might probably be easier for locals who are already used to their own country's education system, but for us, it could likely be much more difficult (but some bugger have difficulty understanding that). Similarly, if they come to NUS, they might find it difficult to cope as well. This is probably a reason why NUS made it such that exchange students only need to pass modules overseas to get the credit.
-
Hey, oral exams made me nervous because there's no 10-year series on orals questions.
Orals examiner can spot that you are clueless about the subject right away.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Hey, oral exams made me nervous because there's no 10-year series on orals questions.
Orals examiner can spot that you are clueless about the subject right away.
EXACTLY.
The examiners are well trained to do so, and for Singaporeans like us, our education system make it all the harder for us to properly prepare for oral exams. We are so used to having 'TYS' questions ready for us to do. For Germans, it might be easier though, since they will most likely be used to their own system.
Then again, because of 10-year series, for Singaporeans, there are many ways to score. Once you know a system, it's always easy to score. :D Just keep doing and doing and doing questions, of course, in the right way. I have a method which I'm teaching all my tuition students right now. It's effective till the point where even if you are slightly clueless about the question, you could still answer well.
Anyway, this is where I try to help students by providing questions and solutions for them. Do help spread to those who need the help :D
http://examworld.blogspot.com => Sort of like building an online ten years series. As long as exams here are written based, it will stay useful :D -
One example?
I have told you all I need is one example. I proved to you, and you changed your tune to being generally correct. Wow!
U r dreaming in your own world. WHo ever acknowledge u need one example to prove it ? U dream up of your own criteria and when i told u tat is rubbish u cannot take it and blame it on me ? Did I ever say u only need one example ? U r the one tat keep harping on it and dreaming tat is all u need to do
Somehow you cannot read. I have already shown you NPSE involves education, and the ethics include encouraging engineers to impart knowledge.
Still so silent???
I had answered u multiple times tat NSPE publish research paper however u must have research result before u can publish anything. Why do u fail to mention about tis point at all ? Being dishonest ? Furthermore wat happene to your point on giving examples ? U realise u have not given a good example in the end isn't it ?
All thrown under the sea? You sure? All you did was take the whole field to tell me a single job scope is not possible, is wrong, and that a software engineer must die die do every single thing as defined by wiki because of the 'and' word.
U r really dreaming in your own world. If your single job scope is on doing things like graphic design, then u r a graphic designer. And u saying a stupid thing here. I told u software engineer has to do some form of programming, tis one thing and then u say tat I force the software engineer to do everything defined by wiki. U r the stupid person who even deny such a basic requirement on wat a software engineer should do
Furthermore, how come u r silent to the major point I have come out ? U r speechless over it ?
I have been answering tat point since u wrote it but the problem is u never reply to it at all. Then u blame on me for been silent ? Wat a joke. How r u gonna do the stupid task of trying to prove the professional of engineers tat they do nt know wat they r working as, u try to prove by thinking if u show one example of engineer not doing engineering work (which u have not shown) then the whole definition is throw off.
However tis approach is just wishful thinking on your side. Not everyone knows wat engineers (someone like u who do not know wat an engineer do) as well as the board of professional engineers and there is the likelihood tat they had mislabel the title of the job. Lets say one chinese firm who do not know english well put up a job for a secretary/sweeper/cleaner and label it as engineer. Does tat means the board of engineers r wrong ? It is rather the chinese firm to be wrong isn't it ? However tat is wat u r trying to do in tis case. U r trying to find mistakes made by people or firms in their lax definition of the word and thinking tat if u find such idiots in the world the whole definition of the word is thrown off. U just shown the other party wrong, not the dictionary or board of engineer or wiki. It is like someone trying to find someone who made a vocab error in using the word "idiot" and then proclaim the word listed "idiot" in the dictionary to be wrong. Do u think tat line of argument is fair ? Nah... u r just trying to be funny and it is rather foolish. Tat is why I stated before tat unless u can find a whole bulk of examples of wrong usage of the word engineer, then can u consider it as a valid argument on the word. Otherwise u only find a group of people who do not know the meaning of engineer. Is tis too hard for u to understand ?
Probably and definitely are two different things.
Till now, you still cannot understand the difference, and use the "official stand" of probably to tell me what I experienced first hand is definitely wrong?????
Your argument is indeed getting weak.
Tis is really rubbish u know. U knwo wat is a weak argument ? When TUM stated tat oral exams r probably more advantageous to the people taking the exams, the only thing u can do is just saying they use the word "probably". PROBABLY IS ALREADY A VERY STRONG WORD TAT IS USED. It meant in all likelyhood very likely, with a very high confidence level about 80% and u view tat as nonsense ? Wat do u have ? NOTHING. U only get the remaining scrap after the word "probably" and u feel proud of it. I think u did not come out with anything and playing with tis single word is the nonsensical guy here
Still evading, and your sentence in red is definitely from that of an immature mind.
Can you tell me whether all modules in NUS that did not list having mid term exams in their descriptions, have indeed no mid-term exams?
No double standards (again).
And neutral 3rd party. Why don't you tell me now that he's the official stand and word of TUD too, and what other credibility he has. Duh.
U r talking rubbish here again. Tis neutral 3rd party had stated there is ONLY ONE EXAM. And he say tat it is COMMON for it to be oral, not all. Tat is already ample evidence. Now u tell me NUS. Why has NUS got to do with tis ? NOTHING. We r talking about TUD here. I already shown evidence to believe tat not all modules r written in nature. Did u show anything ? ZERO. U shown ZERO. Wat give u the right to say anything ?
If you can tell me that the TUD statement on their official website definitely means oral exams are easier, why is it that by stating oral examinations are conducted in English in the MIT official website, there is definitely no oral exams in MIT?
There is oral exams. In your FYP presentation and PhD thesis defence which is the same as most universities. Tat is why they list up oral exams in english but it doesn;t mean they have oral exams. Since u claim they do have, then u have to prove it out. SO far u shown nothing. U r just a bag full of hot air
Why don't you look at history and relook who wants to revive the discussion, and not just once. I offered you a truce, you are the one who wanted to revive the whole discussion with the sentence on "who's speechless first". Every single thing, till you showed you could not understand what is meant by the word 'examples'
Wat truce have u ever offer ? NONE. U once offer a truce but laid it filled with insults and demeaning sentences and therefore I defend myself against these statements. However u view tat as a sign of war and carry on the fight. I went for vocation for 3 weeks and when I am back u immediately issue back the challenge. U wanna get a fight u have a fight.
So you are putting the blame on me just because you did not realised I typed in a wrong figure, and thus quoted me and answered accordingly???
Then wat happened is when a mistake is realised, u blame me for failing to do maths properly when u r the one who quotes wrongly first. And yes, I do not realise u put in the wrong figure because u did not mention where the figure is from and I do not remember where it is from. Only when u say I made an error then I go back and serach and finally find out the problems lies on u. So wat is wrong with it ?
Combine both to show your extreme stupidity, because I have clearly answered you, yet you want to post questions again and again that have been answered.
In military research, u CANNOT publish research result out for other countries to copy.
But you publish the results to your colleagues! And those that will continue your work when you die! DUH. STUPID!
If you cannot educate your peers around of the results of your military research, please tell me how your research is going to contribute to national defence at all.
TOTALLY INVALID AND STUPID OF YOU.
COm'on la ! If passing notes to your colleagues and people taking over u is "education", then everyone is a teacher ! And all the jobs most important task is simply to educate and not work ! Tis is again rubbish statement from u again. So passing down work is more important than building the system up ? If u have done no work, wat r u passing down ?Of course someone as stupid and stubborn as u will refuse to acknowledge your points r broken and u just keep repeating points which I have systematically shot down.
So what is wrong with research as part of the equation, and education as another part?
To a engineering researcher, obviously building the system is more important than passing down to their junior. Passing down is only a small component of their work and they only do it probably when they wanna change job or something
I believe I have already replied you.
Selective understanding from you again
your points r not answering the question at hand. U challenge me to prove u said tat
Since when did I tell you that the process of writing is part of the equation
U said the below 2 lines
As long as they are writing a paper, they are educating.
You will now have to establish whether a research engineering job encompasses education as part of the equation. Something which I have been telling you all the way since the first 2 pages.
Now u said tat as long as they r writing a paper, they r educating and then later said tat it is part of the equation. Your defend is tat the educating is educating among themselves. However tat is out of point since it can be seen tat some reseach is done by a single author and they r not discussing. The only logical conclusion is tat writing paper is for educating other people. Then how about tis statement u made
Writing of papers of your solution, presenting of your research/solution to sponsors, giving lectures and presentations of your solutions, etc,e tcSince u wanna play such stupidity, then I can also play the same game.
Are all not different actions on educating the same solution?
So if you agreed that there's a real-life example of using eyes to push things in.
So what is wrong with saying there are examples of people using eyes to push things in when there are examples?
All the while, I was talking to you with examples. You instead try to tell me I'm wrong, but finally got convinced and changed tune to you being generally correct.
WTF? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing because you cannot bear to admit you made a mistake in understanding that I'm talking about examples all along?
I think u really messed up with your english. U think u r telling examples out when u r really saying an illustration to tell your message (the story u tell of the hand etc). If u claim tis is a real life example, then u r gonna show me the tape on tis 2 people conversation or prove it to me tat such conversation do happens. Otherwise u r not giving me a real life example and then talking rubbish here.
If u can manage to make a video of 2 people talking such rubbish out, I can also generate a video of the comversation made by my 2 characters. Then everything become real life examples and then can u manage to understand it ? Tat is why u have a limiting view
You are the one that got mixed up. We were talking about job scopes all the way, and you suddenly brought out the whole field of it and tell me a software engineer must do every single thing wiki has said because of the word 'and'.
The only thing tat is required for a software engineer is to developed software. And u think tat is an unreasonable job requirement of software engineer ? Man, tat is really dumb of u. Do u remember wat u initially said about software engineer ? U claim tat using software make u a software engineer. Then my kid is also a software engineer in tis case since he use the video game program as well. Shows how stupid u r in your knowledge of engineering
I think u really messed up big time man. Engineers can mean a person who is skilled in engineering and also mean a person in charge of engines. HOWEVER, the person tat we r interested in the discussion is on the person who is skilled in engineering. Therefore the definition is on tis group of people and not on other group of people. So wat is the definition on tis group of people who is skilled in engineering (software, product) ? Someone who solved practical problems. SO why do u bring in other group of people which we r not discussing on ?
Since we had established tis same group of people, then wat is the definition u wanna use on them ? I repeat the passage for u to see
I issue u a challenge to find for me a definition from another reputable sector of society tat show the definition from the board of professional engineer to be wrong. I want DEFINITION. Simple clear statement showing wat engineer is about. I am following NSPE definition and mentionign them do u no good. Tis is the main point here. Instead of standing the challenge, u cowardly fail to address the above and talk about completely different issues altogether. U claim society defines the word engineer and I ask u to show which part of society disagree with the definition and u r speechless. Com'on don't talk cock here and refuse to handle the challenge given to u. If u cannot handle tis challenge, then it shows tat engineers r viewed as such in society and it is right since u claimed earlier society defines the word
I believe I have already answered you.
No u did not. If u have then paste it for me to see again. I repeat the same passage again
U claim tat finding the source of problem on a chip is not engineering before isn't it ? So wat is your view on tis matter ? U knwo u made many embarrassing mistakes in the past before like saying professor is an address and twisting the job scope of professor to engineer etc. I can bring out more and more of your stupid logical mistakes into the thread u know.
Don't talk rubbish. I'm asking you whether it is part of the specialisation tracks. Not whether it can be a not.
Be definite.
U have not answered the second part of the reply
U know in NTU they do teaches art to student and talking about "space" and "matching of colors" to aesthetically appeal people and virtually look at drawings made by previous artists etc. Tis is to help them design better in future and not because they r training them to be artist.
Tat is one of the subject tat u r forced to take if u take mechanical engineering.
Stupid again. He is part of the software engineering team engaged in a game design, and is employed as a software engineer.
There's no stopping the company if they want to engage this contract engineer in another project that requires programming skills.
Your sweeper example is totally invalid, because you cannot tell me that software engineers do study how to be a sweeper in their specialisation. Yet I can tell you they study graphic designing.
Are you still going to tell me a software engineer die die cannot be engaged only in graphic design within a software engineering team?
Wat r u talking about here ? He develop software then he is a software engineer. Then they want to engage tis engineer to do another project requiring programming (using photoshop is not programming or developing software), he is still doing his job as a software engineer. Then ? If tis guy is employed as a software engineer and do a graphic designer job, then similarly a software engineer can be employed to do a sweeper job too. However tat will make them technically a graphic designer and a sweeper and NOT a software engineer
You are still taking a whole field of software engineering to prove a single job scope of software engineering impossible. Means, you are telling me that because software engineering is the application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of software, a software engineer can definitely not be engaged merely in graphic designing because he must do everything due to the word 'and'.
I said tat he has to do the job of programming, and despite the chunk of words there is basically meant programming. A software engineer can be engaged solely in doing graphic design BUT he is not a software engineer anymore. Don't u get it ? Wat u r working as determine wat is the name of your job. R u so dumb u fail to understand tis ?
Professional engineers for electrical works means that these professional engineers are engaged in taking legal responsibility for electrical works being done because they approved it. Anything wrong, the law goes for the one who gave the stamp and legal approval.
Similarly, professional engineers for research means that these professional engineers are engaged in taking legal responsibility for research being done because they approved it. I say there's non of this at all, and you have agreed.
And a person writing reseach report has to give their names and if their reseach result is wrong, they have to be responsible to it. The famous korean scientist on cell cloning give fake results is condemned and get sacked because of it. They do carry a legal responsibility. Do u read newspaper ? And I am gonna tell u NSPE do include engineers doing research only.
You still cannot answer me. Can you say for sure that the main job scope of the sales engineer in question is only 1 out of the 3 job scopes listed?
I am gonna tell u the more important skill tat person require is on engineering. Wat r we arguing on ? DO u remember at all ? It is on the statement the more important skill of an engineer is to solve practical problems. So the point we should argue on is the mroe important skill which is clearly shown in the requirement.
I am not twisting away. U r. U simply refuse to comment on tis point which I have stated many times
I just love to see you shoot yourself yet again.
Are qualified experts considered occupations? The next things just list what they may do. It does not state that a professor is an occupation. The list tells us that because someone is a professor, is an qualified expert, he has the ability to do the following with credibility.
Not to mention that those in red also mean that the professor can be engaged in research engineering (an engineer) and education at the same time. Remember that you are the one who said a professor is not an engineer.
I think u really nail your last coffin in the grave. In the definition they already stated they will do the following, conducting lectures, perform research, provide concultation etc. ALL THESE R VERBS. They r performing actions ! It is something they do. Now u dare to say tat it is not an occupation simply because they never mention it is occupation ? COm'on la... are u dumb or something ? Because they never write occupation it means it is not occupation ? U cannot understand simple english and cannot understand wat the passage mean ? How about the word "employed" ? U failed to understand tis word ?
Can't you read the word 'refers'?
It means that it is a reference to a senior academic. They explained it further with examples.
Try again to find where in wiki was it stated that professor is a job, an occupation, as what you have said.
U really fail to understand basic english. Tat is why u make so much english errors
In some English-speaking countries, it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair, especially as head of the department, or a personal chair awarded specifically to that individual. For example, in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand it is a legal title conferred by a university denoting the highest academic rank, whereas in the United States, Canada and Hong Kong, the term professor is used as a form of address for any lecturer or researcher employed by a college or university, regardless of rank.
Look at the para above. Professor is used as a form of address on ANY lecturer or reseacher EMPLOYED BY THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY. The para is understood as tat professor is a senior academic holding a department chair and includes lecturer or researcher emplyed by the university or college. Tis is already a clear sign it is an occupation. With your broken english how can u even try to claim wiki is wrong ?
Saying Newton's 2nd law is force = mass * acceleration is not wrong. It is inadequate.
Saying electrons are particles is not wrong; it is inadequate.But saying Newton's 2nd law is V = IR is wrong
Saying electrons are anti-matter is also wrongI think u totally miss the point. We r not talking abotu maths or science here but on "definition". For a thing such as definition, it can only be right or wrong. If u say it is u inadequate, then u r necessary saying it is the wrong definition. U can tell me all the bull about missing info not necessary means it is wrong, but in the usage of the word "definition", it means everything. If it miss out an important part of the word, then it is the wrong definition.
So can you say definitely that of those in red, your strict definition of engineer covers all of their job scopes? Every single they do?
-
..
-
I'm busy right now setting up websites, so I'm going to show you your most major errors first. I will address the rest later tonight.
U r dreaming in your own world. WHo ever acknowledge u need one example to prove it ? U dream up of your own criteria and when i told u tat is rubbish u cannot take it and blame it on me ? Did I ever say u only need one example ? U r the one tat keep harping on it and dreaming tat is all u need to do
This is where you are stupid. Because I have clearly told you right from the start that examples include blah blah blah and you are trying to prove me wrong. Then all of a sudden, you tell me you are generally correct and it just means that what I said is not statistically significant, hence agreeing with me.
You tell me... How many examples do I need to show you that there are examples in which your definitions do not cover? Duh...
U r talking rubbish here again. Tis neutral 3rd party had stated there is ONLY ONE EXAM. And he say tat it is COMMON for it to be oral, not all. Tat is already ample evidence. Now u tell me NUS. Why has NUS got to do with tis ? NOTHING. We r talking about TUD here. I already shown evidence to believe tat not all modules r written in nature. Did u show anything ? ZERO. U shown ZERO. Wat give u the right to say anything ?
We have already at least one more 3rd party forumer lending his support to oral exams. What say you?
Why I ask you NUS? If you can answer me my question, then I will tell you.
The question again is
Can you tell me whether all modules in NUS that did not list having mid term exams in their descriptions, have indeed no mid-term exams?
Don't evade and twist away (yet again).
I think u really nail your last coffin in the grave. In the definition they already stated they will do the following, conducting lectures, perform research, provide concultation etc. ALL THESE R VERBS. They r performing actions ! It is something they do. Now u dare to say tat it is not an occupation simply because they never mention it is occupation ? COm'on la... are u dumb or something ? Because they never write occupation it means it is not occupation ? U cannot understand simple english and cannot understand wat the passage mean ? How about the word "employed" ? U failed to understand tis word ?
You are the one who is nailing yourself in your coffin.
It describes what a professor may do. It can also be said that they had described what a qualified expert can do. In no way does it say that it is an occupation.
Similarly, NSPE described what a PE can do, but a PE is in no way an occupation. It is a form of address.
Are you really that dumb? It is already stated clearly in black and white that a professor is a qualified expert.
So, is a qualified expert an occupation?
U really fail to understand basic english. Tat is why u make so much english errors
In some English-speaking countries, it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair, especially as head of the department, or a personal chair awarded specifically to that individual. For example, in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand it is a legal title conferred by a university denoting the highest academic rank, whereas in the United States, Canada and Hong Kong, the term professor is used as a form of address for any lecturer or researcher employed by a college or university, regardless of rank.
Look at the para above. Professor is used as a form of address on ANY lecturer or reseacher EMPLOYED BY THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY. The para is understood as tat professor is a senior academic holding a department chair and includes lecturer or researcher emplyed by the university or college. Tis is already a clear sign it is an occupation. With your broken english how can u even try to claim wiki is wrong ?
Look at your own sentence in red.
Professor is still used as a form of address, not occupation. It can be used on a lecturer or researcher. A lecturer or researcher is the occupation, not the professor!
Don't be dumb.
I think u totally miss the point. We r not talking abotu maths or science here but on "definition". For a thing such as definition, it can only be right or wrong. If u say it is u inadequate, then u r necessary saying it is the wrong definition. U can tell me all the bull about missing info not necessary means it is wrong, but in the usage of the word "definition", it means everything. If it miss out an important part of the word, then it is the wrong definition.
You really have nothing to say. Are you to say that those above were not defining Newton's 2nd law? Not defining what an electron is?
If those were not definitions, tell me, what are those.
Really, your argument on this point is clearly weaker.
-
This is where you are stupid. Because I have clearly told you right from the start that examples include blah blah blah and you are trying to prove me wrong. Then all of a sudden, you tell me you are generally correct and it just means that what I said is not statistically significant, hence agreeing with me.
You tell me... How many examples do I need to show you that there are examples in which your definitions do not cover? Duh...
Tat is why I u r dreaming all the way. U r showing examples, but all portray wrongly, and I am busy correcting your stupid mistakes. Now your stupid dream has broken and u blame other for failing to wake u up earlier. And did I agree with u ? I am just stating clear tis basic fact first before u think u hit treasure island only to discover it is just all rubbish.
How many examples have u muster ? zero. Keep trying
We have already at least one more 3rd party forumer lending his support to oral exams. What say you?
Why I ask you NUS? If you can answer me my question, then I will tell you.
The question again is
Can you tell me whether all modules in NUS that did not list having mid term exams in their descriptions, have indeed no mid-term exams?
Don't evade and twist away (yet again).
U r evading the main point of tis argument. The school has stated oral exams r easier. And tis forumer which u claim give u support probably does not go through oral exams at the university level and his opinion is basically neutral. Does him being scared of oral exams means it is better ? As said before, it is unfair for people who r more shy and subjective.
On your question, it is out of point. I am NOT talking abut NUS at all. Did I ever ask about NUS ? Did I say all modules in NUS does not require mid term exams ? NO. The point is always about TUD and whether they have oral exams for all their subjects which is NO. U ask me to prove tis point and I proved it out, then u completely act ignorant to it
You are the one who is nailing yourself in your coffin.
It describes what a professor may do. It can also be said that they had described what a qualified expert can do. In no way does it say that it is an occupation.
Similarly, NSPE described what a PE can do, but a PE is in no way an occupation. It is a form of address.
Tis is stupid. The title is "professor" and they r talking about professor. Now u r playing with words and ignored "employed", "perform" the following and u forced professor not to be an occupation. I thought even road sweeper know professor is an occupation but not u.
If u talk about NSPE, an engineer is an occupation. And it is defining the word for engineer. I really felt u r running out of ideas and talking literal rubbish now. U do not understand basic statements ? Why don't we poll other people to see if engineer and professor can be occupation.
Are you really that dumb? It is already stated clearly in black and white that a professor is a qualified expert.
U know wat is dumb ? U making a mistake u tell others to be careful about. Let me quote back your own statement to u
A is not B doesn't mean B is not A. Surely, you as an engineer, should be able to understand this simple logic.
SImilarly, A is B doesn't mean B is A. Teacher is a man and man is nt an occupation. SO teacher is not an occupation ? Wat a stupid idiot. Tis is beyond spastic
You really have nothing to say. Are you to say that those above were not defining Newton's 2nd law? Not defining what an electron is?
If those were not definitions, tell me, what are those.
Really, your argument on this point is clearly weaker.
And wat is the outcome ? It is not the right definition for the two since the right one can be found from wiki again
Newton's laws of motion describe the acceleration of massive particles.
- Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle is proportional to the time rate of change of its linear momentum: F = d (mv) / dt.[3][4][5][6][7] Momentum mv is the product of mass and velocity. Force and momentum are vector quantities and the resultant force is found from all the forces present by vector addition. This law is often stated as "F = ma: the net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration."
For electron it is
The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It is a spin ½ lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions, and its mass is approximately 1 / 1836 of that of the proton. Together with atomic nuclei, which consist of protons and neutrons, electrons make up atoms. The electron(s) interaction with electron(s) of adjacent nuclei is the main cause of chemical bonding.
U r NOT defining the words. U r telling me just part of the characteristics.
-
And how about the many other arguments which u have not answered. Those r points tat show the many errors and silly mistakes u have made along the way. Don't forget to answer all the points tat I have listed before. U want to play a game of patience and tolerance then u have found a match here.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Tat is why I u r dreaming all the way. U r showing examples, but all portray wrongly, and I am busy correcting your stupid mistakes. Now your stupid dream has broken and u blame other for failing to wake u up earlier. And did I agree with u ? I am just stating clear tis basic fact first before u think u hit treasure island only to discover it is just all rubbish.
How many examples have u muster ? zero. Keep trying
U r evading the main point of tis argument. The school has stated oral exams r easier. And tis forumer which u claim give u support probably does not go through oral exams at the university level and his opinion is basically neutral. Does him being scared of oral exams means it is better ? As said before, it is unfair for people who r more shy and subjective.
On your question, it is out of point. I am NOT talking abut NUS at all. Did I ever ask about NUS ? Did I say all modules in NUS does not require mid term exams ? NO. The point is always about TUD and whether they have oral exams for all their subjects which is NO. U ask me to prove tis point and I proved it out, then u completely act ignorant to it
Tis is stupid. The title is "professor" and they r talking about professor. Now u r playing with words and ignored "employed", "perform" the following and u forced professor not to be an occupation. I thought even road sweeper know professor is an occupation but not u.
If u talk about NSPE, an engineer is an occupation. And it is defining the word for engineer. I really felt u r running out of ideas and talking literal rubbish now. U do not understand basic statements ? Why don't we poll other people to see if engineer and professor can be occupation.
U know wat is dumb ? U making a mistake u tell others to be careful about. Let me quote back your own statement to u
A is not B doesn't mean B is not A. Surely, you as an engineer, should be able to understand this simple logic.
SImilarly, A is B doesn't mean B is A. Teacher is a man and man is nt an occupation. SO teacher is not an occupation ? Wat a stupid idiot. Tis is beyond spastic
And wat is the outcome ? It is not the right definition for the two since the right one can be found from wiki again
Newton's laws of motion describe the acceleration of massive particles.
- Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle is proportional to the time rate of change of its linear momentum: F = d (mv) / dt.[3][4][5][6][7] Momentum mv is the product of mass and velocity. Force and momentum are vector quantities and the resultant force is found from all the forces present by vector addition. This law is often stated as "F = ma: the net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration."
For electron it is
The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It is a spin ½ lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions, and its mass is approximately 1 / 1836 of that of the proton. Together with atomic nuclei, which consist of protons and neutrons, electrons make up atoms. The electron(s) interaction with electron(s) of adjacent nuclei is the main cause of chemical bonding.
U r NOT defining the words. U r telling me just part of the characteristics.
Tat is why I u r dreaming all the way. U r showing examples, but all portray wrongly, and I am busy correcting your stupid mistakes. Now your stupid dream has broken and u blame other for failing to wake u up earlier. And did I agree with u ? I am just stating clear tis basic fact first before u think u hit treasure island only to discover it is just all rubbish.
How many examples have u muster ? zero. Keep trying
Nah, you have yet to prove the examples wrong.
Don't continue in denial, and in the illusion that you have proven all the examples wrong. Because you have clearly not done so at all for any of them.
U r evading the main point of tis argument. The school has stated oral exams r easier. And tis forumer which u claim give u support probably does not go through oral exams at the university level and his opinion is basically neutral. Does him being scared of oral exams means it is better ? As said before, it is unfair for people who r more shy and subjective.
On your question, it is out of point. I am NOT talking abut NUS at all. Did I ever ask about NUS ? Did I say all modules in NUS does not require mid term exams ? NO. The point is always about TUD and whether they have oral exams for all their subjects which is NO. U ask me to prove tis point and I proved it out, then u completely act ignorant to it
No no no.
You answer me my question in red, then I tell you.
Can you tell me whether all modules in NUS that did not list having mid term exams in their descriptions, have indeed no mid-term exams?
Because from your answers, I will be able to tell if you are either ignorant or practicing double standards.
And now you are telling me you know a lot about the forumer who gave the support. Using your logic, are you going to tell me you know for sure that the 3rd party you have for support really did go through a german university? How do you know he's not faking anything?
Tis is stupid. The title is "professor" and they r talking about professor. Now u r playing with words and ignored "employed", "perform" the following and u forced professor not to be an occupation. I thought even road sweeper know professor is an occupation but not u.
If u talk about NSPE, an engineer is an occupation. And it is defining the word for engineer. I really felt u r running out of ideas and talking literal rubbish now. U do not understand basic statements ? Why don't we poll other people to see if engineer and professor can be occupation.
See. You cannot even understand
An engineer is a profession. A Professional Engineer is a title.
ignored "employed", "perform" the following and u forced professor not to be an occupation
Don't be stupid yet again. Tell me what is stated in wiki hor. Who is employed?
Is it the professor who is employed? Or is the professor a form of address for a lecturer or researcher who is employed.
There's a difference. And your question in red is clearly unrelated again. This is a discussion on whether wiki has stated that a professor is an occupation, not whether a professor can be an occupation.
U know wat is dumb ? U making a mistake u tell others to be careful about. Let me quote back your own statement to u
A is not B doesn't mean B is not A. Surely, you as an engineer, should be able to understand this simple logic.
SImilarly, A is B doesn't mean B is A. Teacher is a man and man is nt an occupation. SO teacher is not an occupation ? Wat a stupid idiot. Tis is beyond spastic
Thanks for the joke on you again.
Really, talk about being dumb, you are really first class in that.I said A is B doesn't mean B is A.
Yet you are telling me A is B, and B is not C, hence A is not C. WTF is wrong with your logic? The correct logic is Teacher is man doesn't mean man is a teacher. Call yourself an engineer indeed when you cannot even handle such simple logic.Really, you are right in saying that you are a stupid idiot and that your logic is beyond spastic. Definitely commenting on yourself
Try harder. You being so spastic really need to try that much harder.
So how, still want to tell me you really have a logical mind? Proven once again that your logic is flawed.
And wat is the outcome ? It is not the right definition for the two since the right one can be found from wiki again
Newton's laws of motion describe the acceleration of massive particles.
Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle is proportional to the time rate of change of its linear momentum: F = d (mv) / dt.[3][4][5][6][7] Momentum mv is the product of mass and velocity. Force and momentum are vector quantities and the resultant force is found from all the forces present by vector addition. This law is often stated as "F = ma: the net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration."
For electron it is
The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It is a spin ½ lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions, and its mass is approximately 1 / 1836 of that of the proton. Together with atomic nuclei, which consist of protons and neutrons, electrons make up atoms. The electron(s) interaction with electron(s) of adjacent nuclei is the main cause of chemical bonding.
U r NOT defining the words. U r telling me just part of the characteristics.
This is where you are stupid.
What I have told you is clearly common questions from O and A levels.
E.g. Define Newton's 2nd law.
What you have just posted is that I'm right in those answers being inadequate, not wrong. Thanks.
-
And how about the many other arguments which u have not answered. Those r points tat show the many errors and silly mistakes u have made along the way. Don't forget to answer all the points tat I have listed before. U want to play a game of patience and tolerance then u have found a match here.
Obviously you cannot read properly what I have said just now
I'm busy right now setting up websites, so I'm going to show you your most major errors first. I will address the rest later tonight.
Any reason why yet again, you like to miss out things? Perhaps because you are really limited.
U want to play a game of patience and tolerance then u have found a match here.
So you one who is looking to play a game of patience and tolerance, and totally not interested in discussions at all. No wonder you like to doggedly harp on issues with weaker and more illogical posts as time goes on => you are only trying to tell me that you have much more free time on your hands to play a game of patience, and not interested in valid discussions.
My websites and my time are mainly used for helping people who needs it, not playing a immature game of patience like what you are doing. Really, I don't see any contribution from you in helping anyone at all in this forum. Perhaps you are really just posting around to tell everyone you are immature and up for a game of patience and tolerance anytime (similar to something you have posted to redDust about you and Atobe before).
Wat truce have u ever offer ? NONE. U once offer a truce but laid it filled with insults and demeaning sentences and therefore I defend myself against these statements. However u view tat as a sign of war and carry on the fight. I went for vocation for 3 weeks and when I am back u immediately issue back the challenge. U wanna get a fight u have a fight.
I gave you my honest opinions of you, not meant as an insult, not meant as a declaration of war or anything. There's absolutely no necessity for you to accept the opinions, and all you need to do is just to tell me you do not accept it and brush it away as immature. I wouldn't have mind at all.
But now, you are the one who is viewing my honest opinons as a declaration of war. You are the one who cannot accept my honest opinions. And you are the one who made the declaration to see who is speechless first. Until you withdraw your this challenge, it is obvious that you are the one who is being idiotic. Any reason why you are more sensitive than a teenage girl to take opinions as "declarations of war"?
Humble and mature people will accept opinions, be it true a not. I have already set an example by allowing you (and Gazelle) to throw insults and give bad opinions. Really, this paragraph of you portrays you as an arrogrant and immature person who cannot handle any sort of opinions (given virtually somemore) at all.
I didn't issue you a challenge when you are back; I merely reminded you on what you have said. I asked perhaps you would like to continue. Really can't imagine how you would see it as a challenge. Be more mature can a not. You how old already.
I shall still answer you in case you decide you want to continue your flailing discussion. Note: Not playing the game of patience and tolerance like what you stated that you are doing.
I had answered u multiple times tat NSPE publish research paper however u must have research result before u can publish anything. Why do u fail to mention about tis point at all ? Being dishonest ? Furthermore wat happene to your point on giving examples ? U realise u have not given a good example in the end isn't it ?
No no no. I have already told you NSPE can conduct education, can publish research papers, and that PEs can do research as well.
Why is it that despite me having told you all those, you are telling me now that i failed to mention about your point? Selective reading from you again?
U r really dreaming in your own world. If your single job scope is on doing things like graphic design, then u r a graphic designer. And u saying a stupid thing here. I told u software engineer has to do some form of programming, tis one thing and then u say tat I force the software engineer to do everything defined by wiki. U r the stupid person who even deny such a basic requirement on wat a software engineer should do
Furthermore, how come u r silent to the major point I have come out ? U r speechless over it ?
I have been answering tat point since u wrote it but the problem is u never reply to it at all. Then u blame on me for been silent ? Wat a joke. How r u gonna do the stupid task of trying to prove the professional of engineers tat they do nt know wat they r working as, u try to prove by thinking if u show one example of engineer not doing engineering work (which u have not shown) then the whole definition is throw off.
However tis approach is just wishful thinking on your side. Not everyone knows wat engineers (someone like u who do not know wat an engineer do) as well as the board of professional engineers and there is the likelihood tat they had mislabel the title of the job. Lets say one chinese firm who do not know english well put up a job for a secretary/sweeper/cleaner and label it as engineer. Does tat means the board of engineers r wrong ? It is rather the chinese firm to be wrong isn't it ? However tat is wat u r trying to do in tis case. U r trying to find mistakes made by people or firms in their lax definition of the word and thinking tat if u find such idiots in the world the whole definition of the word is thrown off. U just shown the other party wrong, not the dictionary or board of engineer or wiki. It is like someone trying to find someone who made a vocab error in using the word "idiot" and then proclaim the word listed "idiot" in the dictionary to be wrong. Do u think tat line of argument is fair ? Nah... u r just trying to be funny and it is rather foolish. Tat is why I stated before tat unless u can find a whole bulk of examples of wrong usage of the word engineer, then can u consider it as a valid argument on the word. Otherwise u only find a group of people who do not know the meaning of engineer. Is tis too hard for u to understand ?
Wat r u talking about here ? He develop software then he is a software engineer. Then they want to engage tis engineer to do another project requiring programming (using photoshop is not programming or developing software), he is still doing his job as a software engineer. Then ? If tis guy is employed as a software engineer and do a graphic designer job, then similarly a software engineer can be employed to do a sweeper job too. However tat will make them technically a graphic designer and a sweeper and NOT a software engineer
I said tat he has to do the job of programming, and despite the chunk of words there is basically meant programming. A software engineer can be engaged solely in doing graphic design BUT he is not a software engineer anymore. Don't u get it ? Wat u r working as determine wat is the name of your job. R u so dumb u fail to understand tis ?
Combine again because you still cannot answer a pertinent yes-no question:
No no no. You are still taking the whole field of product engineering, when we are talking about the job scope of a product engineer
A long wall of text from you, but you are still evading a yes-no question.
Are you still going to tell me a software engineer die die cannot be engaged only in graphic design within a software engineering team?
Tis is really rubbish u know. U knwo wat is a weak argument ? When TUM stated tat oral exams r probably more advantageous to the people taking the exams, the only thing u can do is just saying they use the word "probably". PROBABLY IS ALREADY A VERY STRONG WORD TAT IS USED. It meant in all likelyhood very likely, with a very high confidence level about 80% and u view tat as nonsense ? Wat do u have ? NOTHING. U only get the remaining scrap after the word "probably" and u feel proud of it. I think u did not come out with anything and playing with tis single word is the nonsensical guy here
Definite is 100%. Now you are telling me probably is about 80%
So can you say 100% for sure that my first-hand experience is definitely wrong?
Simple yes-no question, and you are using another long paragraph to evade it.
There is oral exams. In your FYP presentation and PhD thesis defence which is the same as most universities. Tat is why they list up oral exams in english but it doesn;t mean they have oral exams. Since u claim they do have, then u have to prove it out. SO far u shown nothing. U r just a bag full of hot air
This is where you are confused again.
I showed you clearly that MIT tells us oral examinations will be conducted in English. There may be oral exams, there may be not. But the probability is there that there is.
You are the one who is claiming they do not have at all, thus you should be the one that should prove that the statement I quoted indeed refers only to FYP presentation and thesis defence.
Don't get the logic wrong again.
Then wat happened is when a mistake is realised, u blame me for failing to do maths properly when u r the one who quotes wrongly first. And yes, I do not realise u put in the wrong figure because u did not mention where the figure is from and I do not remember where it is from. Only when u say I made an error then I go back and serach and finally find out the problems lies on u. So wat is wrong with it ?
Be logical please.
I made an error in quoting the wrong values. You made an error by doing calculations when quoting a wrong value of me without realising. This has already been said to you.
COm'on la ! If passing notes to your colleagues and people taking over u is "education", then everyone is a teacher ! And all the jobs most important task is simply to educate and not work ! Tis is again rubbish statement from u again. So passing down work is more important than building the system up ? If u have done no work, wat r u passing down ?Of course someone as stupid and stubborn as u will refuse to acknowledge your points r broken and u just keep repeating points which I have systematically shot down.
Read carefully again.
If you cannot educate your peers around of the results of your military research, please tell me how your research is going to contribute to national defence at all.
Are you to tell me that all your colleagues definitely know what you are doing? DUH.
The first part of your sentence in bold perfectly describes the need for a CKO in a big organisation. Passing down work is not more important than building the system up, nor is it the other way round; both are equally important.
Of course, someone as stupid as you (especially when you can come up with a stupid nick called stupidissmart) will just keep repeating and fantasizing that you have indeed shot down points when you have been clearly illogical and proven to misunderstand many times when you twist words here and there. What's more, you have to resort to attempting to coerce me to saying something I did not mean just to further a point.
Says a lot about you, doesn't it?
To a engineering researcher, obviously building the system is more important than passing down to their junior. Passing down is only a small component of their work and they only do it probably when they wanna change job or something
Passing down is not a small component at all. I don't know about your company, but my department itself have minimum a weekly technical presentation, a monthly cross countries presentation, a daily email report educating us on the changes made in devices and the reliability of the devices. Furthermore, there's annual technical presentations for the whole company. There's a reason why my company is among the top few in coming up with patents worldwide, just a few ranks lower than companies like IBM and Intel.
I don't know about your company. Perhaps your work does not include reporting and documentation at all.
your points r not answering the question at hand. U challenge me to prove u said tat
Since when did I tell you that the process of writing is part of the equation
U said the below 2 lines
As long as they are writing a paper, they are educating.
You will now have to establish whether a research engineering job encompasses education as part of the equation. Something which I have been telling you all the way since the first 2 pages.
Now u said tat as long as they r writing a paper, they r educating and then later said tat it is part of the equation. Your defend is tat the educating is educating among themselves. However tat is out of point since it can be seen tat some reseach is done by a single author and they r not discussing. The only logical conclusion is tat writing paper is for educating other people. Then how about tis statement u made
Writing of papers of your solution, presenting of your research/solution to sponsors, giving lectures and presentations of your solutions, etc,e tcSince u wanna play such stupidity, then I can also play the same game.
Are all not different actions on educating the same solution?
I have already told you that your phrase "process of writing" is clearly different from "as long as they are writing". Any reason why you still cannot understand and attempt to divert and tell me my points are not answering? If you cannot even paraphrase properly, how are you going to ask proper questions at all?
And with regards to your last question, it already showed you agreeing with me that education is indeed present. And my point to you is still the same: education is as important as finding the solution itself.
Till now, you still cannot tell me, if you cannot educate others about your solution, how will your research benefit any others in the first place?
I think u really messed up with your english. U think u r telling examples out when u r really saying an illustration to tell your message (the story u tell of the hand etc). If u claim tis is a real life example, then u r gonna show me the tape on tis 2 people conversation or prove it to me tat such conversation do happens. Otherwise u r not giving me a real life example and then talking rubbish here.
If u can manage to make a video of 2 people talking such rubbish out, I can also generate a video of the comversation made by my 2 characters. Then everything become real life examples and then can u manage to understand it ? Tat is why u have a limiting view
No no no. I want you to say specifically that there's indeed a real-life example you have mentioned in case you twist and divert away again, to put forward a simple question to you again:
So what is wrong with saying there are examples of people using eyes to push things in when there are examples?
Now you give me two paragraphs to evade this question again?
The only thing tat is required for a software engineer is to developed software. And u think tat is an unreasonable job requirement of software engineer ? Man, tat is really dumb of u. Do u remember wat u initially said about software engineer ? U claim tat using software make u a software engineer. Then my kid is also a software engineer in tis case since he use the video game program as well. Shows how stupid u r in your knowledge of engineering
I think u really messed up big time man. Engineers can mean a person who is skilled in engineering and also mean a person in charge of engines. HOWEVER, the person tat we r interested in the discussion is on the person who is skilled in engineering. Therefore the definition is on tis group of people and not on other group of people. So wat is the definition on tis group of people who is skilled in engineering (software, product) ? Someone who solved practical problems. SO why do u bring in other group of people which we r not discussing on ?
Since we had established tis same group of people, then wat is the definition u wanna use on them ? I repeat the passage for u to see
I issue u a challenge to find for me a definition from another reputable sector of society tat show the definition from the board of professional engineer to be wrong. I want DEFINITION. Simple clear statement showing wat engineer is about. I am following NSPE definition and mentionign them do u no good. Tis is the main point here. Instead of standing the challenge, u cowardly fail to address the above and talk about completely different issues altogether. U claim society defines the word engineer and I ask u to show which part of society disagree with the definition and u r speechless. Com'on don't talk cock here and refuse to handle the challenge given to u. If u cannot handle tis challenge, then it shows tat engineers r viewed as such in society and it is right since u claimed earlier society defines the word
Firstly, point out where I said I think that developing software is an unreasonable job requirement of software engineer?
Do you agree a not that graphic design is a part of software development?
Your challenge? I have already answered you from 3 dictionaries. Go ahead and prove the dictionaries wrong. Don't talk cock that I didn't handle the challenge. Or are you going to tell me that definitions from dictionaries have less credibility than definitions from WIKI?
And again hor, NSPE has already stated clearly in their ethics that they encourage engineers to impart knowledge hor.
No u did not. If u have then paste it for me to see again. I repeat the same passage again
U claim tat finding the source of problem on a chip is not engineering before isn't it ? So wat is your view on tis matter ? U knwo u made many embarrassing mistakes in the past before like saying professor is an address and twisting the job scope of professor to engineer etc. I can bring out more and more of your stupid logical mistakes into the thread u know.
I have already explained to you that finding the root of a problem is not solving the problem, because you are defining engineering as using scientific knowledge to solve problems.
It's you who till now cannot understand that, and continuously tell me that finding the root of a problem = to finding solutions.
I have already given you this reply:
So in your logic, having solve the questions by telling observations, a teacher does the same job as an engineer, because by solving questions, they are providing solutions
Which is in line with your 2nd defintion on this page and in which till now, you have no counter. Any reason why you want to say again that I have not given you my view?
U have not answered the second part of the reply
U know in NTU they do teaches art to student and talking about "space" and "matching of colors" to aesthetically appeal people and virtually look at drawings made by previous artists etc. Tis is to help them design better in future and not because they r training them to be artist.
Tat is one of the subject tat u r forced to take if u take mechanical engineering.
Well, that means they can be employed as mechanical engineers in part of a mechanical engineering team to look at design and space in the project.
Similarly, software engineers can be employed to do graphic design in part of a software engineering team.
Still, you diverted again. Why are you changing from sweepers to mechanical engineers now?
Are you diverting (yet again) because you are merely looking for a game of patience and tolerance, and totally not interested in discussions?
And a person writing reseach report has to give their names and if their reseach result is wrong, they have to be responsible to it. The famous korean scientist on cell cloning give fake results is condemned and get sacked because of it. They do carry a legal responsibility. Do u read newspaper ? And I am gonna tell u NSPE do include engineers doing research only.
See, you still cannot understand. There's absolutely no legal requirement for a PE's approval for a research to be started.
But there's a legal requirement for a PE's approval for major electrical works to be started.
Gosh, you really don't understand, do you?
I have not said that NSPE do not include engineers doing research only. I'm asking you if there's no PEs for research (to satisfy the legal requirement), are you still going to tell me NSPE includes such non-existent PEs in their definition?
I am gonna tell u the more important skill tat person require is on engineering. Wat r we arguing on ? DO u remember at all ? It is on the statement the more important skill of an engineer is to solve practical problems. So the point we should argue on is the mroe important skill which is clearly shown in the requirement.
I am not twisting away. U r. U simply refuse to comment on tis point which I have stated many times
Refuse to comment? You are really dumb I guess, telling me I didn't answer you when I have already answered you that we are talking about job scopes, not skills, for the sales engineer.
You are still twisting away from the yes-no question (again):
Can you say for sure that the main job scope of the sales engineer in question is only 1 out of the 3 job scopes listed?
-
And how about the many other arguments which u have not answered. Those r points tat show the many errors and silly mistakes u have made along the way. Don't forget to answer all the points tat I have listed before. U want to play a game of patience and tolerance then u have found a match here.
Oh ya, stupidissmart
If you are posting merely for playing a game of patience and tolerance, then sorry, I have much better things to do with my time than showing you patience and tolerance. Because you are clearly evading yes-no questions with long paragraphs, and telling me I have not answered you when clearly, the answers have been provided to you. => That is clearly your M.O. of answering to play a game of patience and tolerance; just divert and evade by posting longer paragraphs so as not to answer a yes-no question.
Another proof of the spastic you. I told you A is B doesn't mean B is A and you can misinterpret (again) and tell me that I meant A is B, and B is not C, hence A is not C. Yet again, it is clear you are not interested in discussions, but coming up with stupid logics or understanding wrong logics. I have lost count of the number of wrong logics and misunderstanding you made in this whole thread.
If you want to win in a game of patience and tolerance, I will gladly let you win. Just state to me that you are indeed playing such a childish game. Why should I show patience and tolerance for virtual things that do not give any benefit to me or anyone else at all?
I come to Speaker's Corner to give my views and opinions, not to play a game of patience and tolerance like what a troll does. I can tell you that my time is being used to increase my side income to at least match that of your supposed salary by the end of next year, so as to nearly double my monthly income.
There's a difference between being able to tell with conviction how much income you are getting monthly, and not being able to tell how much income you are getting. I'm aiming for the latter. An engineer's job in Singapore is too under-paid. Even at 3700 monthly, it's only nearly 21 bucks per hour for a 22 day month, 8 hour day. I'm aiming for triple that at least for my side income. So far, I have only reached 1.5 times to 2 times of that. :(
So this is the 3rd time I'm offering this to you again, because you have clearly told me your main aim is playing a game of patience and tolerance, and not discussing at all. I wished you a good day the other time to end this, but you viewed the whole post as declaration of war. I really have no idea why you would do that. Are you going to withdraw your challenge of seeing who is speechless first. It's your challenge hor. So it's up to you to make the decision now. I merely gave you a reminder that our discussions was not resolved yet, and you can tell me you see it as a challenge. -.-" Super sensitive new-age guy?
P.S. If you really have that much free time, I suggest you use your spare energy to explore ways to secure your personal financial freedom, not playing games of patience and tolerance. You can support the PAP for all you want, but a word of advice, don't rely on them for the rest of your life. It's for your own good if you can secure your own retirement without looking forward to things like GST offset packages.
Oh ya, do a google search for ExamWorld ;)
-
Nah, you have yet to prove the examples wrong.
Don't continue in denial, and in the illusion that you have proven all the examples wrong. Because you have clearly not done so at all for any of them.
U mean the process engineer which u r quiet about ? How about the software engineer which u claim only uses photoshop ? Wat examples have u shown correctly ? Zero.
No no no.
You answer me my question in red, then I tell you.
Can you tell me whether all modules in NUS that did not list having mid term exams in their descriptions, have indeed no mid-term exams?
Tis is rubbish u know, to talk about something totally irrelevant to the main point. Why don't u ask Beng Wan Primary school or bendemeer scondary school or Anderson junior college whether they have some silly exams or not ? Wat has tat got to do with the topic at hand ? I have proven to u tat there r people who had already claimed tat not all exams have oral. I have also raised the point tat even in NTu and NUS, they do not have exams at all. Instead of dwelling on the relevant points, u choose to talk about something irrelevant.
And now you are telling me you know a lot about the forumer who gave the support. Using your logic, are you going to tell me you know for sure that the 3rd party you have for support really did go through a german university? How do you know he's not faking anything?
Tis is because in the absence of evidence tat say he is wrong, it is obvious more reasonable to say tat he should be right. There is nothing he can earn from telling peopel tat oral exams r common. Looking at your side, wat have u shown ? U ask me to prove tat they do not have oral exams for all modules and I have done it. Wat about u ? Isn't it time u show your evidence ? Otherwise given the situation here it is obvious your claim is worth lesser than mine
An engineer is a profession. A Professional Engineer is a title.
ignored "employed", "perform" the following and u forced professor not to be an occupation
Don't be stupid yet again. Tell me what is stated in wiki hor. Who is employed?
Is it the professor who is employed? Or is the professor a form of address for a lecturer or researcher who is employed.
There's a difference. And your question in red is clearly unrelated again. This is a discussion on whether wiki has stated that a professor is an occupation, not whether a professor can be an occupation.
Com'on la. Don't give such crap in here. I do not talk about professional engineer here but the word professor. Now u tell me the word professor is not an occupation at all ? DO u think tis argument will hold water. Why don't I ask u back. A lecturer who is employed in a university in USA. Is he a professor or not ? According to wiki, he is a professor. If u look at the job title of the lecturer in a university in their name card, it is stated as "professor". Look at the CV below and u can find their job title as "professor".
http://cires.colorado.edu/jimenez/CV_JLJimenez.html
Assistant Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry; Fellow of CIRES
http://arrow.utias.utoronto.ca/~ogulder/CV.htm
Professor: Institute for Aerospace Studies, U of Toronto (since 2001)
I can show u 100 of such CV and they just write themselves working as professor for here and there. R they stupid or is the university stupid ? If u look at the university website, they also show their lecturers as professors too. So does the school not knowinghow to give out the right title ? Only idiots fail to realise professor r not occupation and dare to argue over such silly facts
http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/scbe/bioe/staff.html
said A is B doesn't mean B is A.
Yet you are telling me A is B, and B is not C, hence A is not C. WTF is wrong with your logic? The correct logic is Teacher is man doesn't mean man is a teacher. Call yourself an engineer indeed when you cannot even handle such simple logic.Really, you are right in saying that you are a stupid idiot and that your logic is beyond spastic. Definitely commenting on yourself
Try harder. You being so spastic really need to try that much harder.
So how, still want to tell me you really have a logical mind? Proven once again that your logic is flawed.
I think u r the one with the failing logic. A is B doesn't mean B is A. Tis is because B can be a big group where A is just a subset to it. Some characteristics of A doesn't necessary be reflected in B.
Wat u had said
A= professor, B=expert
Professor is a qualified expert, qualified expert do not have the chracteristic of occupation and therefore professor do not have such characteristic
A = teacher, B = Man. A teacher is a man but a man does not have the characteristic of occupation and therefore a teacher do not have such characteristic
U know wat is the funny joke ? U prove yourself tat either u r a lier or u r stupid enough to make tis mistake when u say the below. Then u have not mention any recourse for such a stupidity and dare to laugh at other people about it.
Are you really that dumb? It is already stated clearly in black and white that a professor is a qualified expert.
So, is a qualified expert an occupation?
This is where you are stupid.
What I have told you is clearly common questions from O and A levels.
E.g. Define Newton's 2nd law.
What you have just posted is that I'm right in those answers being inadequate, not wrong. Thanks.
However if u give the answer u provided, they would not get the full mark because they r wrong in missing out important details on the word. I am still right about inadequate means something is still wrong somewhere
Obviously you cannot read properly what I have said just now
Unless u tell me why can u give such conclusions, it is really avoiding the issue. i will simply repaste my previous para again
U r dreaming in your own world. WHo ever acknowledge u need one example to prove it ? U dream up of your own criteria and when i told u tat is rubbish u cannot take it and blame it on me ? Did I ever say u only need one example ? U r the one tat keep harping on it and dreaming tat is all u need to do
Any reason why yet again, you like to miss out things? Perhaps because you are really limited.
Maybe because u like to give one line animal grunts with no head and no tail like the above ? The real person with a limited view. In fact, u have not answered any of the previous points before ? Why ? Cat caught your tongue ? If u wanna discuss, surely u should answer back other people enquiries and not just shoot a one liner and run away. Don't u appear to be like a dog who bark once and run with his tail caught between his legs ?
I had answered u multiple times tat NSPE publish research paper however u must have research result before u can publish anything. Why do u fail to mention about tis point at all ? Being dishonest ? Furthermore wat happene to your point on giving examples ? U realise u have not given a good example in the end isn't it ?
U r really dreaming in your own world. If your single job scope is on doing things like graphic design, then u r a graphic designer. And u saying a stupid thing here. I told u software engineer has to do some form of programming, tis one thing and then u say tat I force the software engineer to do everything defined by wiki. U r the stupid person who even deny such a basic requirement on wat a software engineer should do
Furthermore, how come u r silent to the major point I have come out ? U r speechless over it ?
I have been answering tat point since u wrote it but the problem is u never reply to it at all. Then u blame on me for been silent ? Wat a joke. How r u gonna do the stupid task of trying to prove the professional of engineers tat they do nt know wat they r working as, u try to prove by thinking if u show one example of engineer not doing engineering work (which u have not shown) then the whole definition is throw off.
However tis approach is just wishful thinking on your side. Not everyone knows wat engineers (someone like u who do not know wat an engineer do) as well as the board of professional engineers and there is the likelihood tat they had mislabel the title of the job. Lets say one chinese firm who do not know english well put up a job for a secretary/sweeper/cleaner and label it as engineer. Does tat means the board of engineers r wrong ? It is rather the chinese firm to be wrong isn't it ? However tat is wat u r trying to do in tis case. U r trying to find mistakes made by people or firms in their lax definition of the word and thinking tat if u find such idiots in the world the whole definition of the word is thrown off. U just shown the other party wrong, not the dictionary or board of engineer or wiki. It is like someone trying to find someone who made a vocab error in using the word "idiot" and then proclaim the word listed "idiot" in the dictionary to be wrong. Do u think tat line of argument is fair ? Nah... u r just trying to be funny and it is rather foolish. Tat is why I stated before tat unless u can find a whole bulk of examples of wrong usage of the word engineer, then can u consider it as a valid argument on the word. Otherwise u only find a group of people who do not know the meaning of engineer. Is tis too hard for u to understand ?
Tis is really rubbish u know. U knwo wat is a weak argument ? When TUM stated tat oral exams r probably more advantageous to the people taking the exams, the only thing u can do is just saying they use the word "probably". PROBABLY IS ALREADY A VERY STRONG WORD TAT IS USED. It meant in all likelyhood very likely, with a very high confidence level about 80% and u view tat as nonsense ? Wat do u have ? NOTHING. U only get the remaining scrap after the word "probably" and u feel proud of it. I think u did not come out with anything and playing with tis single word is the nonsensical guy here
There is oral exams. In your FYP presentation and PhD thesis defence which is the same as most universities. Tat is why they list up oral exams in english but it doesn;t mean they have oral exams. Since u claim they do have, then u have to prove it out. SO far u shown nothing. U r just a bag full of hot air
So you one who is looking to play a game of patience and tolerance, and totally not interested in discussions at all. No wonder you like to doggedly harp on issues with weaker and more illogical posts as time goes on => you are only trying to tell me that you have much more free time on your hands to play a game of patience, and not interested in valid discussions.
Tis is really rich. If u wanna discuss, why do u avoid answering other people point ? And wat is the things u r discussing ? U want to redefine the word engineer for wiki ? Or u want to prove my view r limited ? Professor is not an occupation, software engineer doing only phtotoshop, trying to prove prosfessional engineers they do not know their job, wiki is wrong, tell people not to trust TUM website and even say tat website r not reliable at all since we do not know who is the webmaster. Now u tell me u r gonna set up a website to help people. My god man... u do not trust website yet set up websites ? Wat a hypocrite. U yourself even stated tis is a stupid topic. If it is stupid, why r u still writing ?
I gave you my honest opinions of you, not meant as an insult, not meant as a declaration of war or anything. There's absolutely no necessity for you to accept the opinions, and all you need to do is just to tell me you do not accept it and brush it away as immature. I wouldn't have mind at all.
Do u think u have the right to say anything after coming out with so many replies ? If u wouldn't mind at all, u could have just shut up yourself but tat is not the case. U r just all talk and not following your own advise
But now, you are the one who is viewing my honest opinons as a declaration of war. You are the one who cannot accept my honest opinions. And you are the one who made the declaration to see who is speechless first. Until you withdraw your this challenge, it is obvious that you are the one who is being idiotic. Any reason why you are more sensitive than a teenage girl to take opinions as "declarations of war"?
Humble and mature people will accept opinions, be it true a not. I have already set an example by allowing you (and Gazelle) to throw insults and give bad opinions. Really, this paragraph of you portrays you as an arrogrant and immature person who cannot handle any sort of opinions (given virtually somemore) at all.
I didn't issue you a challenge when you are back; I merely reminded you on what you have said. I asked perhaps you would like to continue. Really can't imagine how you would see it as a challenge. Be more mature can a not. You how old already.
I shall still answer you in case you decide you want to continue your flailing discussion. Note: Not playing the game of patience and tolerance like what you stated that you are doing.
Wow... if u think a person defending about his character is wrong, wat do u think about a guy who makes groundless conclusion and refuse to take back his silly comments even when it is clear he cannot substantiate any of them ? A humble and mature person would not have said another person's views r limited over silly things. In fact thinking yourself as high already show u r not humble nor matured.
If u think tis is about "dicsussion" and u wanna come out with some "conclusion:, then u should continue isn't it ? The conclusion is not out yet
Combine again because you still cannot answer a pertinent yes-no question:
No no no. You are still taking the whole field of product engineering, when we are talking about the job scope of a product engineer
A long wall of text from you, but you are still evading a yes-no question.
Are you still going to tell me a software engineer die die cannot be engaged only in graphic design within a software engineering team?
Why must u do all the questioning and never answer other people ? I have answer and face your challenges multiple times but u simply refuse to answer any of my enquiries. I am telling u, a software engineer in training can do graphic but he is not doing software engineer anymore. I have answered tis many times and u refuse to accept the answer nor comment on it
Definite is 100%. Now you are telling me probably is about 80%
So can you say 100% for sure that my first-hand experience is definitely wrong?
Simple yes-no question, and you are using another long paragraph to evade it.
Well, if it is on your first hand experience, it is 99.99% false. In fact it is so low u can say it is "almost crap". I also can claim I have first hand experience too (oral exam) and it is not as good as u said it before. So r u gonna say 100% tat my first hand experience is definitely wrong too ?
So wat is your comment on the website u have given ? U have no problem with the word "probably" now ?
This is where you are confused again.
I showed you clearly that MIT tells us oral examinations will be conducted in English. There may be oral exams, there may be not. But the probability is there that there is.
You are the one who is claiming they do not have at all, thus you should be the one that should prove that the statement I quoted indeed refers only to FYP presentation and thesis defence.
Don't get the logic wrong again.
U got it wrong again. Who started talking about MIT ? it is u. U said tat MIT do provide oral exams in the first place and u cannot substantiate the claims. Since u make such a claim, u have to back it up. There is a probability and the probability is tat there is no such oral exams and thus u do not have any evidence on your side
Be logical please.
I made an error in quoting the wrong values. You made an error by doing calculations when quoting a wrong value of me without realising. This has already been said to you.
Then fine. So your very initial point tat I had made a calculation error which u had harped for many replies is wrong. Even if u wanna trace back the error it originates from u first. Just a question, when have u ever said tat to me ?
If you cannot educate your peers around of the results of your military research, please tell me how your research is going to contribute to national defence at all.
Are you to tell me that all your colleagues definitely know what you are doing? DUH.
The first part of your sentence in bold perfectly describes the need for a CKO in a big organisation. Passing down work is not more important than building the system up, nor is it the other way round; both are equally important.
Of course, someone as stupid as you (especially when you can come up with a stupid nick called stupidissmart) will just keep repeating and fantasizing that you have indeed shot down points when you have been clearly illogical and proven to misunderstand many times when you twist words here and there. What's more, you have to resort to attempting to coerce me to saying something I did not mean just to further a point.
Says a lot about you, doesn't it?
Again u failed to answer tis point I have repeated many times
Which is more important ? Doing the work or telling people the work u had done ? If u do not do the work, can u tell anything at all ? Telling only become important only after u have the capability to do the job. If u cannot do the job no matter how good your talk cock skill is, u cannot say anything.
I have been repeating the above so many times and u just choose to ignore it. R u here for discussion or just testing my patience ?
Passing down is not a small component at all. I don't know about your company, but my department itself have minimum a weekly technical presentation, a monthly cross countries presentation, a daily email report educating us on the changes made in devices and the reliability of the devices. Furthermore, there's annual technical presentations for the whole company. There's a reason why my company is among the top few in coming up with patents worldwide, just a few ranks lower than companies like IBM and Intel.
Sure your company can have many meeting etc however as said before, u still have to be able to do something before u can say something. If u cannot repair a machine, the machine just sit there idly. If u cannot find the fault on the chip, the chip just stopped producing. If u cannot think of a patent, u cannot write it. If u cannot do your work, u cannot show it at the meeting. So the bottomline is u still need to perform something then can u start your "education" shit. If everyone is your company just know how to talk cock without doing actual work, your company is gonna sink
I have already told you that your phrase "process of writing" is clearly different from "as long as they are writing". Any reason why you still cannot understand and attempt to divert and tell me my points are not answering? If you cannot even paraphrase properly, how are you going to ask proper questions at all?
If so, then u surely can answer the question I posed with ease.
However tat is out of point since it can be seen tat some reseach is done by a single author and they r not discussing. The only logical conclusion is tat writing paper is for educating other people.
And wat about the statement u write below ?
Writing of papers of your solution, presenting of your research/solution to sponsors, giving lectures and presentations of your solutions, etc,e tc
Are all not different actions on educating the same solution?
Therefore your point saying tat "process of writing" is clearly different from "as long as they are writing" and the rationale u listed is not valid. If so then explain the statement u made as well as when u r a lone researcher
No no no. I want you to say specifically that there's indeed a real-life example you have mentioned in case you twist and divert away again, to put forward a simple question to you again:
I have told u my points before and u refuse to answer them. I had said before, your question is invalid. I just paste for u to read again.
I think u really messed up with your english. U think u r telling examples out when u r really saying an illustration to tell your message (the story u tell of the hand etc). If u claim tis is a real life example, then u r gonna show me the tape on tis 2 people conversation or prove it to me tat such conversation do happens. Otherwise u r not giving me a real life example and then talking rubbish here.
If u can manage to make a video of 2 people talking such rubbish out, I can also generate a video of the comversation made by my 2 characters. Then everything become real life examples and then can u manage to understand it ? Tat is why u have a limiting view
Firstly, point out where I said I think that developing software is an unreasonable job requirement of software engineer?
Do you agree a not that graphic design is a part of software development?
Because u clearly refuse to answer wat I have said on software engineer. Now sweeping floor around your cubicle (keeping your area clean) can be part of the software engineer job too. Tat doesn't mean anything.
U said it is the sole duty of the software engineer. Then it is talking cock.
Your challenge? I have already answered you from 3 dictionaries. Go ahead and prove the dictionaries wrong. Don't talk cock that I didn't handle the challenge. Or are you going to tell me that definitions from dictionaries have less credibility than definitions from WIKI?
And again hor, NSPE has already stated clearly in their ethics that they encourage engineers to impart knowledge hor.
I told u tat u have mininterprete the dictionary. Did I say they r wrong ? I say u r not talking about the right group of people which is engineer as we know.
And again hor, NSPE has already stated clearly in their ethics that they encourage engineers to impart knowledge hor.
And again hor.. u need to have knowledge first then can u impart it. How many times must I drill tis into your thick skull ?
I have already explained to you that finding the root of a problem is not solving the problem, because you are defining engineering as using scientific knowledge to solve problems.
It's you who till now cannot understand that, and continuously tell me that finding the root of a problem = to finding solutions.
Which is in line with your 2nd defintion on this page and in which till now, you have no counter. Any reason why you want to say again that I have not given you my view?
Finding the problem to the solution is solving the problem. I already told u repeatedly the problem is "finding the source of the problem". Wat is your answer to it ?
About your teacher thingy, they r solving simulated problem not the actual practical problem when u do some engineering. So your definition is not correct
Well, that means they can be employed as mechanical engineers in part of a mechanical engineering team to look at design and space in the project.
Similarly, software engineers can be employed to do graphic design in part of a software engineering team.
Still, you diverted again. Why are you changing from sweepers to mechanical engineers now?
Are you diverting (yet again) because you are merely looking for a game of patience and tolerance, and totally not interested in discussions?
However the main job of a mechanical engineer is still to design and a software engineer is still to program. Take note tat u say software engineer "only" to do photoshop which is really rubbish. As said before, a software engineer can be tasked to claen up his own cubicle in a small company and he can sweep his own office after eating some biscuits with crumbs all over. So is he a sweeper ? U r the one who is diverting n lying by bringing in a completely different question not
See, you still cannot understand. There's absolutely no legal requirement for a PE's approval for a research to be started.
But there's a legal requirement for a PE's approval for major electrical works to be started.
Gosh, you really don't understand, do you?
I have not said that NSPE do not include engineers doing research only. I'm asking you if there's no PEs for research (to satisfy the legal requirement), are you still going to tell me NSPE includes such non-existent PEs in their definition?
Tat is funny. Earlier u r talking about legal responsibility now u suddenly switch completely and talk about requirement ? Realised tat your earlier argument about legal responsibility is sh!t ? Well if u talk about "requirement', then u surely have to know tat u need to be deemed adequate as an engineer before u can start your engineering research. Isn't tat already your "legal requirement' ?
Refuse to comment? You are really dumb I guess, telling me I didn't answer you when I have already answered you that we are talking about job scopes, not skills, for the sales engineer.
You are still twisting away from the yes-no question (again):
Can you say for sure that the main job scope of the sales engineer in question is only 1 out of the 3 job scopes listed?
I told u we r arguing on the definition of engineer. Did I agree we r talking abut job scope ? I thought we r talking about the more important skill to have ? Wat is your answer on
I am gonna tell u the more important skill tat person require is on engineering. Wat r we arguing on ? DO u remember at all ? It is on the statement the more important skill of an engineer is to solve practical problems. So the point we should argue on is the mroe important skill which is clearly shown in the requirement.
I told u my rationale the more important skill is to be able to engineer and tat is why they need an engineer.
-
So this is the 3rd time I'm offering this to you again, because you have clearly told me your main aim is playing a game of patience and tolerance, and not discussing at all. I wished you a good day the other time to end this, but you viewed the whole post as declaration of war. I really have no idea why you would do that. Are you going to withdraw your challenge of seeing who is speechless first. It's your challenge hor. So it's up to you to make the decision now. I merely gave you a reminder that our discussions was not resolved yet, and you can tell me you see it as a challenge. -.-" Super sensitive new-age guy?
Wow... if u think using such words is calling for a truce, it sure lack sincerity or even friendiness here.
Why don't I write a truce myself here and see if u will accept it
Looking at the many things u do not know such as maths etc, it is clear u have a very limited and poor vocabulary. However the sad thing is, stupid people do not really know their level of stupidity and therefore make groundless false accusations and unable to back up their claims. Tis make them even look more stupid and on many occasions have to eat back his own words. If u think tis is a discussion, then i really wonder how come u r interested in redefining the word for the board of professional engineer or professor or software engineer. U really have too much time
Since u think u have many a great deal of productive things to do, I can offer u a possible route to go. U retract your statements tat I have a limited view and many other remarks on me and I will retract back my challenge as well as my remarks on u. Clearly an idiot can know tat tis are fair conditions and should take up the offer, making everybody use their time for more productive matters. U can concentrate on tripling your income instead of staying at sgforums. Failure to do so will result in the continuing of tis discussion and I am sure the conclusions will come eventually.
For your PAP advise, I just have to tell u tat u really understated their work and contributions. Furthermore many people and points here r really biased and untrue and it makes me have the desire to correct these opinions. PAP is not perfect but it is not like some hellish despot, lawless country or incompetent group of people as they like to perceive it. If u think PAP is really tat lousy, then u should really consider emigration eventually.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Wow... if u think using such words is calling for a truce, it sure lack sincerity or even friendiness here.
Why don't I write a truce myself here and see if u will accept it
Looking at the many things u do not know such as maths etc, it is clear u have a very limited and poor vocabulary. However the sad thing is, stupid people do not really know their level of stupidity and therefore make groundless false accusations and unable to back up their claims. Tis make them even look more stupid and on many occasions have to eat back his own words. If u think tis is a discussion, then i really wonder how come u r interested in redefining the word for the board of professional engineer or professor or software engineer. U really have too much time
Since u think u have many a great deal of productive things to do, I can offer u a possible route to go. U retract your statements tat I have a limited view and many other remarks on me and I will retract back my challenge as well as my remarks on u. Clearly an idiot can know tat tis are fair conditions and should take up the offer, making everybody use their time for more productive matters. U can concentrate on tripling your income instead of staying at sgforums. Failure to do so will result in the continuing of tis discussion and I am sure the conclusions will come eventually.
For your PAP advise, I just have to tell u tat u really understated their work and contributions. Furthermore many people and points here r really biased and untrue and it makes me have the desire to correct these opinions. PAP is not perfect but it is not like some hellish despot, lawless country or incompetent group of people as they like to perceive it. If u think PAP is really tat lousy, then u should really consider emigration eventually.
No, I'm not retracting my statements on you at all. You are still in my eyes someone of limited view. That's my opinion. You have no right at all to ask me to retract my opinions at all.
You can write a truce yourself, and give all your opinions and remarks on me if you wish. I do not need you to withdraw any at all. I have already mentioned I will not be as childish and immature as you to take it as a challenge and take it so personally, and have already set many examples.
Oh ya, do write that truce that you said if you decide that you cannot answer the set of illogical statements you have made that I have pointed below. I do want to see it. Really, why don't you write it and see if I will reply with whatever I said you should reply with if you are someone more mature? Go ahead.
And since you have clearly stated that you are playing a game of patience and tolerance, and your M.O. is clear in using long paragraphs to avoid answering simple questions again and again, in addition to telling me I have not given my views on matters which I have clearly given you my views on, I'm not even going to bother reading all the stupid answers you have posted.
Think of this, I can tell you I have stated examples. Yet only after 6 pages, you tell me that you are generally correct, hence stepping yourself heavily on your own foot. You further compounded your stupidity by commenting it's because it is not statistically significant. And when challenged if examples must be statistically significant, you slunked away, defeated.
Not only that. When I asked you your views on the statement from NUS that "Engineering is fun", you tell me that it can be fun. It is not even the text "Engineering is probably fun". Yet now, you are telling me that because of the phrase "probably to your advantage", I must be wrong. Wow... Blatant double standards (lost count also) in playing your game of patience and tolerance.
You have truly proven yourself stupid at that point in this thread.
You also tell me this:
SImilarly, A is B doesn't mean B is A. Teacher is a man and man is nt an occupation. SO teacher is not an occupation ?
Clearly, "A is B doesn't mean B is A" have no relation at all with your comparisons of "A is B and B is not C, so A is not C?"
Of course, you saved yourself in your skin later when you attempt to explain away your illogical paragraph. However, you still failed to explain how when wiki says a professor is a qualified expert, how can a professor thus be an occupation?
And because you have said, "A is B doesn't mean B is A" means that A contains certain characteristics which B doesn't have, you nailed your stupidity again. I'm not disagreeing with that logic, but clearly, with that logic, "a professor is a qualified expert" is an inadequate explanation of what a professor is. With your same logic, you will have nailed yourself a 2nd time on the statement that "an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah" because clearly, an engineer will also contain characteristics (or in other words, do other things) that is not included in the subset of pple concerned with blah blah blah. This effectively cancel all your previous logics.
You tell me what they described is for an occupation, that's why wiki states professor is an occupation. You know your logic? A may do a set of actions B, the set of actions B describes what C do, hence A is C... or... Wiki states that a professor may do { }. You tell me that { } describes the job scopes of an occupation. Hence, wiki did state that a professor is an occupation...
i.e. Stupidissmart may talk lots of rubbish and may make lots of illogical statements. Talking rubbish and making illogical statements describes what a lunatic do. Hence, stupidissmart is a lunatic... ???????
I also challenged you that what they described is also what a qualified expert can do. Thus the simple question if the qualified expert is an occupation, which you failed to answer, but divert again using a long paragraph in your game of patience and tolerance.
To further nail in your stupidity:
In the definition they already stated they will do the following, conducting lectures, perform research, provide concultation etc. ALL THESE R VERBS. They r performing actions ! It is something they do. Now u dare to say tat it is not an occupation simply because they never mention it is occupation ? COm'on la... are u dumb or something ? Because they never write occupation it means it is not occupation ?
Because no one wrote that education is an equally important skill for engineers means it is not equally important?
Isn't that the logic I have been attempting to drive into your skull all along??? And you tell me the same logic?
Really, you practice double standards in your logics throughout this whole thread.
Finally, for my PAP advice (note your grammar, it's advice, not advise; you like to get mixed up frequently between the usage of nouns and verbs), it's standard advice for anyone. I have not understated their work anyway, and if you have read every single thread here, I have attempted to be as objective as possible. Pls don't tell me you plan to work for money way past your retirement age.
Oh ya, thanks for alerting me that you are just someone here to play a game of patience and tolerance. You have already a history of it with Atobe, when you mentioned it to redDust. I will keep this in mind.
Now u tell me u r gonna set up a website to help people. My god man... u do not trust website yet set up websites ?
Sigh... shows your stupidity yet again...
First, I set up concrete solutions which you can easily check and verify, not giving opinions with a word of 'probably'. There's also absolutely no need to consider if professors (or anyone else) really do follow what has been said on the site so that it will be true. There's no denying that the solutions could be inadequate, and I have already set up many avenues for feedback.
Second, what I have done is setting up a site by someone who has been through the Sg education system for another person who is going to go through the next part of the Sg education system. This is unlike your website of someone who has most likely gone through the German education system commenting on an exam which is probably to the advantage of those from the German education system as well, and which is in my opinions not to the advantage of pple from the Sg education system.
Third, I'm doing it for the sake of contributing back to society, and not for the sake or benefit of any institutions at all. I'm not employed by anyone to do this.
Fourth, I do not need others to trust my website, but as I have said, the concrete solutions are there for them to check and verify, and that it is my way of contributing back to society.
Fifth, everyone who access the website will know immediately exactly who put up those information, the contact and the qualifications of the webmaster. Immediately, they can decide whether they want to trust, which, as stated, do not bother me if they do not in the end.
-
this is getting insane..
-
yup, it is kinda... epic. quite sure no 3rd party will have the heart to see what they are debating about.
-
Summarize the most illogical statement for you
Wiki states that a professor may do { }. Person S tells me that { } describes the job scopes of an occupation. Hence, according to person S, wiki did state that a professor is an occupation...
-
No, I'm not retracting my statements on you at all. You are still in my eyes someone of limited view. That's my opinion. You have no right at all to ask me to retract my opinions at all.
You can write a truce yourself, and give all your opinions and remarks on me if you wish. I do not need you to withdraw any at all. I have already mentioned I will not be as childish and immature as you to take it as a challenge and take it so personally, and have already set many examples.
Ok lor fine. Then I am not gonna end the discussion and lets see who ends up speechless first.
Since u r so keen on discussion, the point I wanna discuss is on why u think I have a limited view and your rationale for doing so. Since u r so confident of your points in the discussion, surely u can continue.
BTW I can retract my statement on u even though I think u r still the most stupid person in tis forum. However I can keep tis sort of flaming incendiary comments in my heart and refrain from shooting them out simply because it is an unfair statement to make unless i am really sure who is he. U have shown yourself to shoot yourself in the foot by sending out 2 apologies to me on conclusions u have set without verification. Lets see if u will continue here
Oh ya, do write that truce that you said if you decide that you cannot answer the set of illogical statements you have made that I have pointed below. I do want to see it. Really, why don't you write it and see if I will reply with whatever I said you should reply with if you are someone more mature? Go ahead.
It is already written. Too bad u fail to see it. I think u r avoiding the many issues which u cannot answer at all. I can write my summary as well
And since you have clearly stated that you are playing a game of patience and tolerance, and your M.O. is clear in using long paragraphs to avoid answering simple questions again and again, in addition to telling me I have not given my views on matters which I have clearly given you my views on, I'm not even going to bother reading all the stupid answers you have posted.
Stupid answer ? Tat is really the whole problem u see. U just throw your propaganda without even listening. u refuse to hear other people point and when u cannot answer, attempt to ask a totally irrelevant question and when I answered it, u just ask another irrelevant question or repeat the same old question again. U think tat is discussion ?
Think of this, I can tell you I have stated examples. Yet only after 6 pages, you tell me that you are generally correct, hence stepping yourself heavily on your own foot. You further compounded your stupidity by commenting it's because it is not statistically significant. And when challenged if examples must be statistically significant, you slunked away, defeated.
First, u cannot come out with any examples. Second, i have given u the rationale why an example cannot show anything and u refuse to comment on tis point. Third, i have never told u before just an example can refute the whole definition of wiki, dictionary or board of professional engineer. However U refuse to comment on it and just repeat
Not only that. When I asked you your views on the statement from NUS that "Engineering is fun", you tell me that it can be fun. It is not even the text "Engineering is probably fun". Yet now, you are telling me that because of the phrase "probably to your advantage", I must be wrong. Wow... Blatant double standards (lost count also) in playing your game of patience and tolerance.
Tis is ridiculous u know. Who says engineering cannot be fun ? If engineering can be fun, u can write the statement "engineering is fun" without a problem. I think u r having confusion with the word probably. U ask me wat is probably and I answered u the question. However u simply refuse to say your punchline or anything despite me answering u multiple times
Because no one wrote that education is an equally important skill for engineers means it is not equally important?
I have given u tons of evidence tat shows why professor is an occupation in the paragraph and tat is why I can justify my conclusion. However there is not a shred of evidence tat point your above conclusion. Why don't u say
"because no one wrote tat sweeping is an equally important skill for engineer means it is not important"
or a million kind of action into the line. U knwo who is the retard here ? U
Clearly, "A is B doesn't mean B is A" have no relation at all with your comparisons of "A is B and B is not C, so A is not C?"
Of course, you saved yourself in your skin later when you attempt to explain away your illogical paragraph. However, you still failed to explain how when wiki says a professor is a qualified expert, how can a professor thus be an occupation?
I think it is more like u got the whole idea wrong in the first case and attempt to make a big hoo haa out of it. I have given u an example how ridiculous and stupid your statement
a professor is a qualified expert, how can a professor thus be an occupation
I change the word "professor" to be a "teacher" here and "qualified expert" to be "man".
Then the statement becomes
a teacher is a man, how can a teacher thus be an occupation ?
U see how ridiculous and stupid your logic is ? Then there is no such thing as occupation in tis world since I can put all the job to replace the word "teacher". I have told u before already. A "professor" is a subset of "qualified expert". However a "qualified expert" can means many other things such as a cook, an engineer, and architect, a surgeon etc. All the characteristics of professor need not be reflected in qualified expert except one. So your logic is really just sh!t. Since u like to give such stupid logic, I will have to keep a record of it and see your explanation
And because you have said, "A is B doesn't mean B is A" means that A contains certain characteristics which B doesn't have, you nailed your stupidity again. I'm not disagreeing with that logic, but clearly, with that logic, "a professor is a qualified expert" is an inadequate explanation of what a professor is. With your same logic, you will have nailed yourself a 2nd time on the statement that "an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah" because clearly, an engineer will also contain characteristics (or in other words, do other things) that is not included in the subset of pple concerned with blah blah blah. This effectively cancel all your previous logics.
Tis is again riduculous. U make another logic error here. A is similar to B and C is similar to D. If it is found tat some characteristic of A is not similar to B, then can we conclude C has some characteristics not similar to D ? Com'on la ! The 2 r completely different items and r mutually exclusive of each other ! Wat happen to your logic ?
You tell me what they described is for an occupation, that's why wiki states professor is an occupation. You know your logic? A may do a set of actions B, the set of actions B describes what C do, hence A is C... or... Wiki states that a professor may do { }. You tell me that { } describes the job scopes of an occupation. Hence, wiki did state that a professor is an occupation...
I told u from the university they give the job scope of people as "professor" which u did not comment at all. Wiki even states tat a professor is employed by the university as a lecturer in USA.
Do u know wat is the problem with u ? U r making claims based on absence of a specific word instead of the meaning and understanding of the whole passage. In the description of "professor", they never explicitly say tat professor is a man as well. So professor is not human ? Going by your logic, then we have to write "professor is a man, occupation, job, career, human, homo sapiens, wears clothes, wear shoes, can grow moustache" etc etc. Tat is only wat an incredibly stupid person can propose
However if u read the passage, u can understand tat it is indeed a man since they described human activity etc. In your case of occupation, if u read it naturally and interprete normally, u can get the idea tat professor is an occupation as well since they mention job scopes, employed by the university and below tons of example of people employed by the University etc. However because u r so dumb and thick skulled, u cannot interprete and comprehend passages.
First, I set up concrete solutions which you can easily check and verify, not giving opinions with a word of 'probably'. There's also absolutely no need to consider if professors (or anyone else) really do follow what has been said on the site so that it will be true. There's no denying that the solutions could be inadequate, and I have already set up many avenues for feedback.
Second, what I have done is setting up a site by someone who has been through the Sg education system for another person who is going to go through the next part of the Sg education system. This is unlike your website of someone who has most likely gone through the German education system commenting on an exam which is probably to the advantage of those from the German education system as well, and which is in my opinions not to the advantage of pple from the Sg education system.
Third, I'm doing it for the sake of contributing back to society, and not for the sake or benefit of any institutions at all. I'm not employed by anyone to do this.
Fourth, I do not need others to trust my website, but as I have said, the concrete solutions are there for them to check and verify, and that it is my way of contributing back to society.
Fifth, everyone who access the website will know immediately exactly who put up those information, the contact and the qualifications of the webmaster. Immediately, they can decide whether they want to trust, which, as stated, do not bother me if they do not in the end.
First, the website in the university is free for people to verify and check as well. However u simply conclude they r wrong just by doubting them and because they r against your stand. Using tis logic of concluding everyone to be wrong in website, then nothing can be trusted
Second, if we make use of your logic to doubt people without reason or rhyme, u telling me u gonna make a study on bla bla can be doubted as well. Who knows u may not even study in singapore before.
Third, u tell u u r gonna do it to benefit society can be doubted as well. Who knows u do not have some secret worms or virus in your website whereby u can leech money from unsuspecting people ? U do not trust website, why should people trust yours ?
Fourth, u need people to trust your words somewhere otherwise all the content is rubbish. Wat evidence can u show ? Pictures can be photoshoped, website cannot be trusted and physical evidence is too hard to verify. So how to verify and check as u claim it ?
Fifth, who knows u ? U think your reputation is better than some institute like a top five university in germany ? U can even doubt their words, why should we trust yours ? If nobody trust wat u wrote, then why bother forming a website ?
BTW, wat happened to the rest of your arguments ? I am waiting for your reply to them. I don't see those points as lesser than your selected biased few. Please do reply and keep the discussion going. Tis is your objective and I can continue it the way u want it.
-
Let me tell u some key points tat eagle is fighting on
1) he claims software engineer can just use software applications. In tis way my son who plays game is a software engineer
2) He claims professor is not an occupation. He say it despite many or all universities and name cards show people refering their job as professor.
3) He claims all website cannot be trusted. He had said tat TUM official website is not to be trusted, a website informing other people of their experience is not to be trusted and even wiki is not to be trusted while his claims can
4) He felt the definition made by the board of professional engineer on their job to be badly defined and want to define the word for them. He think he knows their job better than the board of professional engineer
5) he make logical errors such as saying ' A is similar to B and C is similar to D. If A is found to have some difference with B, then C has the same problem with D". He do not know wat is mutually exclusive.
6) He make the error of saying "professor is a qualified expert and since qualified expert is not an occupation a professor is not an occupation". Using his logic, then a teacher is a man and a man is not an occupation. A teacher is not an occupation.
7) he kept telling people "educating" is as important as "work". However without result to show, he cannot educate. If he cannot repair the machine, he cannot educate. If he cannot find the source of problem he cannot educate. He refused to comment on tis point.
8) he had made error in referencing other people claims and then insist his conclusion based on the wrong evidence. He claims I make 2500 when I never specifically mentioned tis and he have to apologise for it
I can keep going on and on u know of the many blunders u had made u know
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Ok lor fine. Then I am not gonna end the discussion and lets see who ends up speechless first.
Since u r so keen on discussion, the point I wanna discuss is on why u think I have a limited view and your rationale for doing so. Since u r so confident of your points in the discussion, surely u can continue.
BTW I can retract my statement on u even though I think u r still the most stupid person in tis forum. However I can keep tis sort of flaming incendiary comments in my heart and refrain from shooting them out simply because it is an unfair statement to make unless i am really sure who is he. U have shown yourself to shoot yourself in the foot by sending out 2 apologies to me on conclusions u have set without verification. Lets see if u will continue here
It is already written. Too bad u fail to see it. I think u r avoiding the many issues which u cannot answer at all. I can write my summary as well
Stupid answer ? Tat is really the whole problem u see. U just throw your propaganda without even listening. u refuse to hear other people point and when u cannot answer, attempt to ask a totally irrelevant question and when I answered it, u just ask another irrelevant question or repeat the same old question again. U think tat is discussion ?
First, u cannot come out with any examples. Second, i have given u the rationale why an example cannot show anything and u refuse to comment on tis point. Third, i have never told u before just an example can refute the whole definition of wiki, dictionary or board of professional engineer. However U refuse to comment on it and just repeat
Tis is ridiculous u know. Who says engineering cannot be fun ? If engineering can be fun, u can write the statement "engineering is fun" without a problem. I think u r having confusion with the word probably. U ask me wat is probably and I answered u the question. However u simply refuse to say your punchline or anything despite me answering u multiple times
I have given u tons of evidence tat shows why professor is an occupation in the paragraph and tat is why I can justify my conclusion. However there is not a shred of evidence tat point your above conclusion. Why don't u say
"because no one wrote tat sweeping is an equally important skill for engineer means it is not important"
or a million kind of action into the line. U knwo who is the retard here ? U
I think it is more like u got the whole idea wrong in the first case and attempt to make a big hoo haa out of it. I have given u an example how ridiculous and stupid your statement
a professor is a qualified expert, how can a professor thus be an occupation
I change the word "professor" to be a "teacher" here and "qualified expert" to be "man".
Then the statement becomes
a teacher is a man, how can a teacher thus be an occupation ?
U see how ridiculous and stupid your logic is ? Then there is no such thing as occupation in tis world since I can put all the job to replace the word "teacher". I have told u before already. A "professor" is a subset of "qualified expert". However a "qualified expert" can means many other things such as a cook, an engineer, and architect, a surgeon etc. All the characteristics of professor need not be reflected in qualified expert except one. So your logic is really just sh!t. Since u like to give such stupid logic, I will have to keep a record of it and see your explanation
Tis is again riduculous. U make another logic error here. A is similar to B and C is similar to D. If it is found tat some characteristic of A is not similar to B, then can we conclude C has some characteristics not similar to D ? Com'on la ! The 2 r completely different items and r mutually exclusive of each other ! Wat happen to your logic ?
I told u from the university they give the job scope of people as "professor" which u did not comment at all. Wiki even states tat a professor is employed by the university as a lecturer in USA.
Do u know wat is the problem with u ? U r making claims based on absence of a specific word instead of the meaning and understanding of the whole passage. In the description of "professor", they never explicitly say tat professor is a man as well. So professor is not human ? Going by your logic, then we have to write "professor is a man, occupation, job, career, human, homo sapiens, wears clothes, wear shoes, can grow moustache" etc etc. Tat is only wat an incredibly stupid person can propose
However if u read the passage, u can understand tat it is indeed a man since they described human activity etc. In your case of occupation, if u read it naturally and interprete normally, u can get the idea tat professor is an occupation as well since they mention job scopes, employed by the university and below tons of example of people employed by the University etc. However because u r so dumb and thick skulled, u cannot interprete and comprehend passages.
First, the website in the university is free for people to verify and check as well. However u simply conclude they r wrong just by doubting them and because they r against your stand. Using tis logic of concluding everyone to be wrong in website, then nothing can be trusted
Second, if we make use of your logic to doubt people without reason or rhyme, u telling me u gonna make a study on bla bla can be doubted as well. Who knows u may not even study in singapore before.
Third, u tell u u r gonna do it to benefit society can be doubted as well. Who knows u do not have some secret worms or virus in your website whereby u can leech money from unsuspecting people ? U do not trust website, why should people trust yours ?
Fourth, u need people to trust your words somewhere otherwise all the content is rubbish. Wat evidence can u show ? Pictures can be photoshoped, website cannot be trusted and physical evidence is too hard to verify. So how to verify and check as u claim it ?
Fifth, who knows u ? U think your reputation is better than some institute like a top five university in germany ? U can even doubt their words, why should we trust yours ? If nobody trust wat u wrote, then why bother forming a website ?
BTW, wat happened to the rest of your arguments ? I am waiting for your reply to them. I don't see those points as lesser than your selected biased few. Please do reply and keep the discussion going. Tis is your objective and I can continue it the way u want it.
First, u cannot come out with any examples. Second, i have given u the rationale why an example cannot show anything and u refuse to comment on tis point. Third, i have never told u before just an example can refute the whole definition of wiki, dictionary or board of professional engineer. However U refuse to comment on it and just repeat
I gave you examples. Your logic has clearly failed you in proving those examples wrong. We shall see all of it below:
Just look at this
And because you have said, "A is B doesn't mean B is A" means that A contains certain characteristics which B doesn't have, you nailed your stupidity again. I'm not disagreeing with that logic, but clearly, with that logic, "a professor is a qualified expert" is an inadequate explanation of what a professor is. With your same logic, you will have nailed yourself a 2nd time on the statement that "an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah" because clearly, an engineer will also contain characteristics (or in other words, do other things) that is not included in the subset of pple concerned with blah blah blah. This effectively cancel all your previous logics.
and your answer
Tis is again riduculous. U make another logic error here. A is similar to B and C is similar to D. If it is found tat some characteristic of A is not similar to B, then can we conclude C has some characteristics not similar to D ? Com'on la ! The 2 r completely different items and r mutually exclusive of each other ! Wat happen to your logic ?
Realise that you are twisting words yet again. In no way did the logic I stated used the word similar. A is similar to B is different from A is B.
Twisting words yet again to suit your own objectives eh.
And you are yet again taking a different logic again. Sure, A&B and C&D are mutually exclusive; you don't conclude the relationship between C & D because of A & B. But that's not what was done here at all.
Let me state to you in a way that your stupid brain can analyse:
An engineer is concerned with blah blah blah means that an engineer can do other things that does not concern with blah blah blah as well.
BTW, wat happened to the rest of your arguments ? I am waiting for your reply to them. I don't see those points as lesser than your selected biased few. Please do reply and keep the discussion going. Tis is your objective and I can continue it the way u want it.
What rubbish again. Your logic is already wrong, as pointed out when you said that from A is B doesn't mean B is A means A contains characteristics, it merely means that the statement that "an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah" because clearly, an engineer will also contain characteristics (or in other words, do other things) that is not included in the subset of pple concerned with blah blah blah.
From there, all your previous logics are gone. Poof! Vanished. There's already no need to reply you all those because it is clear that your logic is haywired. You have truly nailed yourself to the wall.
And ya, if a company states that they want to employ a software engineer as a sweeper, then yes, the sweeper is a software engineer.
And one more thing, you have not yet explained how teachers are excluded from your definitions. They do face technical constraints in delivering their presentations you know?
I told u from the university they give the job scope of people as "professor" which u did not comment at all. Wiki even states tat a professor is employed by the university as a lecturer in USA.
Do u know wat is the problem with u ? U r making claims based on absence of a specific word instead of the meaning and understanding of the whole passage. In the description of "professor", they never explicitly say tat professor is a man as well. So professor is not human ? Going by your logic, then we have to write "professor is a man, occupation, job, career, human, homo sapiens, wears clothes, wear shoes, can grow moustache" etc etc. Tat is only wat an incredibly stupid person can propose
However if u read the passage, u can understand tat it is indeed a man since they described human activity etc. In your case of occupation, if u read it naturally and interprete normally, u can get the idea tat professor is an occupation as well since they mention job scopes, employed by the university and below tons of example of people employed by the University etc. However because u r so dumb and thick skulled, u cannot interprete and comprehend passages.
I have given u tons of evidence tat shows why professor is an occupation in the paragraph and tat is why I can justify my conclusion. However there is not a shred of evidence tat point your above conclusion. Why don't u say
"because no one wrote tat sweeping is an equally important skill for engineer means it is not important"
or a million kind of action into the line. U knwo who is the retard here ? U
You mean this?
the term professor is used as a form of address for any lecturer or researcher employed by a college or university,
And you are still using the same stupid logic:
Wiki states that a professor may do { }. You tell me that { } describes the job scopes of an occupation. Hence, wiki did state that a professor is an occupation...
All you can manage still is to explain your 'evidences' and 'tons of evidence' as describing the job scopes of an occupation, hence still using the above logic. Do try again.
Going by your logic, then we have to write "professor is a man, occupation, job, career, human, homo sapiens, wears clothes, wear shoes, can grow moustache" etc etc.
In the description of "professor", they never explicitly say tat professor is a man as well
Using your exact same logic, when NSPE gives the definition, they never explicitly state that the skill of education is not equally important for an engineer as well. In fact, NSPE itself is heavily involved in the education of engineers, and even in it's ethics, it encourages engineers to impart knowledge.
So who are you again to say the skill of education is not equally important? Just because it was not stated explicitly?????
I think it is more like u got the whole idea wrong in the first case and attempt to make a big hoo haa out of it. I have given u an example how ridiculous and stupid your statement
a professor is a qualified expert, how can a professor thus be an occupation
I change the word "professor" to be a "teacher" here and "qualified expert" to be "man".
Then the statement becomes
a teacher is a man, how can a teacher thus be an occupation ?
U see how ridiculous and stupid your logic is ? Then there is no such thing as occupation in tis world since I can put all the job to replace the word "teacher". I have told u before already. A "professor" is a subset of "qualified expert". However a "qualified expert" can means many other things such as a cook, an engineer, and architect, a surgeon etc. All the characteristics of professor need not be reflected in qualified expert except one. So your logic is really just sh!t. Since u like to give such stupid logic, I will have to keep a record of it and see your explanation
See how stupid you are?
Till now, you are still telling me: A is B, so how can A be C?
Compare this to A is B doesn't mean B is A.Do note that I'm talking about only 2 variables. Is there any reason why you fail to understand, and consistently go out of point to use 3 variables?
And following your explanation of the logic which I gave you:
A "professor" is a subset of "qualified expert". However a "qualified expert" can means many other things such as a cook, an engineer, and architect, a surgeon etc. All the characteristics of professor need not be reflected in qualified expert except one.
Again, an engineer is concerned with blah blah blah. However, someone concerned with blah blah blah can mean many other things, such as teachers, etc. All the characteristics of an engineer need not be reflected in your statement of being concerned with blah blah blah, except that one.
I guess you do hold the record for having the most stupid logics.
First, the website in the university is free for people to verify and check as well. However u simply conclude they r wrong just by doubting them and because they r against your stand. Using tis logic of concluding everyone to be wrong in website, then nothing can be trusted
Notice how you missed all the key words I bolded for you? Let me repeat to you the words:
1) Concrete solutions, not opinions with the word 'probably'
2) Easily verified and checked by the surfer on the spot (the only way to verify first-hand in your case is to go enrol into it yourself)Btw, one should always doubt the solutions too, because that is how a inquisitive and smart brain works. Don't remain spoonfed and think everything must definitely be right, be it from books written by professors or websites. My NUS class have cases in which a textbook published by a well-known overseas professor was a little wrong, and we emailed to confirm with him.
And thanks for reminding me that there might be some pple like you waiting to be spoonfed without critical thinking because they might not doubt the solutions at all. I was going to write on how to use the blog for them to succeed. Will definitely remind them to doubt all solutions and redo everything to check and verify it themselves. Thanks! At least you managed one contribution to the students and society now. Congrats!
Second, if we make use of your logic to doubt people without reason or rhyme, u telling me u gonna make a study on bla bla can be doubted as well. Who knows u may not even study in singapore before.
You only need 2 clicks to access the certs. Sure, it might be fake, but you can easily call and check it out, both the webmaster and NUS. At least it's a much simpler and better comparison
Third, u tell u u r gonna do it to benefit society can be doubted as well. Who knows u do not have some secret worms or virus in your website whereby u can leech money from unsuspecting people ? U do not trust website, why should people trust yours ?
Suits you, if you think that Google is that dumb to allow you to put a virus into their blogger server. Or if you think I'm that much better than google to be able to put a virus into their server.
Using your logic, if Warren Buffett donates a large portion of his wealth to charity, it is to be doubted as well because he definitely has some secret motives we do not know about?????
And using your logic, when PAP gives Growth dividends to help the poor, it is to be doubted as well! Who knows if they are really buying votes?
And finally, I have already mentioned that I do not need pple to trust my website. Any reason why you can still be so spastic to ask me "why should people trust yours"?
Fourth, u need people to trust your words somewhere otherwise all the content is rubbish. Wat evidence can u show ? Pictures can be photoshoped, website cannot be trusted and physical evidence is too hard to verify. So how to verify and check as u claim it ?
Somehow you cannot read:
I do not need others to trust my website
It's up to them to do so. Whether the content is rubbish is for everyone else to judge. As I have already said, the surfer can easily check and verify everything, all by himself.
And well, since it is in Singapore for Singapore, I have already said that the contacts are there. 2 clicks, that's all you need.
Fifth, who knows u ? U think your reputation is better than some institute like a top five university in germany ? U can even doubt their words, why should we trust yours ? If nobody trust wat u wrote, then why bother forming a website ?
Till now, you still cannot tell me what gives the webmaster the qualifications to assure you that it is definitely true?
As I have already said in point 4, I do not need them to trust. They have the right to judge from the full content. And again, they can do that easily because it is concrete solutions in which they can easily check and verify all by themselves, first-hand.
Tis is ridiculous u know. Who says engineering cannot be fun ? If engineering can be fun, u can write the statement "engineering is fun" without a problem. I think u r having confusion with the word probably. U ask me wat is probably and I answered u the question. However u simply refuse to say your punchline or anything despite me answering u multiple times
Note that you still cannot tell me engineering is definitely fun because NUS website states so.
Now you are telling me I'm wrong because TUD website states that it is probably so.
Either you are confused with words, or you are still practicing double standards.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Let me tell u some key points tat eagle is fighting on
1) he claims software engineer can just use software applications. In tis way my son who plays game is a software engineer
2) He claims professor is not an occupation. He say it despite many or all universities and name cards show people refering their job as professor.
3) He claims all website cannot be trusted. He had said tat TUM official website is not to be trusted, a website informing other people of their experience is not to be trusted and even wiki is not to be trusted while his claims can
4) He felt the definition made by the board of professional engineer on their job to be badly defined and want to define the word for them. He think he knows their job better than the board of professional engineer
5) he make logical errors such as saying ' A is similar to B and C is similar to D. If A is found to have some difference with B, then C has the same problem with D". He do not know wat is mutually exclusive.
6) He make the error of saying "professor is a qualified expert and since qualified expert is not an occupation a professor is not an occupation". Using his logic, then a teacher is a man and a man is not an occupation. A teacher is not an occupation.
7) he kept telling people "educating" is as important as "work". However without result to show, he cannot educate. If he cannot repair the machine, he cannot educate. If he cannot find the source of problem he cannot educate. He refused to comment on tis point.
8) he had made error in referencing other people claims and then insist his conclusion based on the wrong evidence. He claims I make 2500 when I never specifically mentioned tis and he have to apologise for it
I can keep going on and on u know of the many blunders u had made u know
You do realise your logic is all haywired, and you have clearly put many words into my mouth, and twisted almost everything to a different meaning from what I have implied.
Why don't you prove all the 8 points you have said by quotations? Because especially for points 5 and 6, those were from you, not me. Don't go and take your stupid logics and fallacies and put it into my mouth.
Somehow, you are twisting words (yet again) and logics (wrongly) to suit your arguments, because it is already clear your arguments are weak.
And for other points, it was from your own misunderstanding (yet again).
I challenge you to prove all 8 points, else you are merely talking rubbish and putting words into my mouth.
Do keep going on and on on the "blunders", because it really shows how you like to misinterpret things and put words and logics into my mouth when it was not stated.
Somehow, especially for points 5 and 6 again, you are saying 100% of your blunders to me. Wtf? You are the one who said those, then now you tell me I said it?????
But glad you admit what you said was illogical.
Even for point 7, I have already told you, that without education, how are you going to spread your research knowledge to benefit others? You failed to reply, but instead gave an invalid example of military research in which one would still need to educate, and which is important because it is needed to spread to others for national defence.
Come on, prove it. Show that I actually said them. ALL of it.