Does this post offend you?
-
No no no, don't change the question yet.
You have a long reply, but you still failed to answer me
If NUS website tells you that engineering is fun, are you going to tell me engineering is fun because NUS website says so? Your support must be because it is on the official website and it is the official stand of the university.
Is it so hard to answer? Because if you still cannot answer the bolded question, there's no point in continuing.
If NUS website tell me tat it is fun, then it can be fun.
Then wat is your answer to the below points ? I mean I answer all your questions, how come u never answer any of mine ?
Now if NUS tell me tat Law is Harder to enter than Arts and Social science, where they have compared between 2 entities, r u gonna doubt their words ?
And how about
2) U claim it is good, simply because u claim it is good. There r NO OTHER supporting evidence. I have challenged u repeatedly for other evidence which u give out NONE
3) I stated in TUD, even they do not put oral exams for all their modules.
4) I stated NO OTHER university other than your 2 examples r using oral exams
6) I also pointed to u the flaws of oral exams which u never answer
Since I'm not referring to stupidissmart, who gives you the right to ask me? And if you don't have the right to do so, why should I oblige?
You have to get past this stage before you can continue other questions, because all other questions from you are totally invalid if you cannot give proof that the word "you" was referring to stupidissmart in those posts.
Since u want to play tis game, then fine la. SO u claim do not do any wrong, NEITHER DO I ? U cannot prove "tat" refers to your statement and to my statement as well. So there is nothing left to be said here. If u wanna pin point I made an error, then u make an error as well. If u wanna say u r innocent, then I am equally innocent too. SO fair enough. So which one do u wanna choose ?
If i am not wrong, u started off tis whole thing claiming "someone" make a calculation error. Then u r probably mentioning someone else isn't it because it cannot be me
Well, have I ever tell you that it is not the more important skill? Did I even tell you that the more imporant skills is not what you have said?
PROVE THAT I SAID YOU WERE WRONG HERE. No point putting words in my mouth (yet again) and tell me I'm wrong.
Because u had put
Are you even an engineer or a researcher?
Then
Limited views ? I don't think disagreeing with u automatically place my views as "limiting". Based on wat can u say tat
Base on you saying things like
written examination cannot skip questions too
and
The more important skills for an engineer or a research is to come out with the solution or write a world class research paper.
U say tat I have limited view over the statement
The more important skills for an engineer or a research is to come out with the solution or write a world class research paper
Now tell me why do u say I have limited view over tis statement ? U agree with my statement then claim I have limited view over it ? R u the one with the limited view instead ?
Don't put words into my mouth again.
Since when did I tell you that the process of writing is part of the equation?
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 tell me u have not stated the process of writing is part of the equation. Then how do u explain the two lines which u had written before ? Putting your foot into your mouth again ?
Then now you tell me it is generally correct when all the while, I was telling you that by saying what you said is merely part of the equation?
I think u totally mistaken the word "generally". It means the things tat do nto follow the law stated by wikipedia do be so statistically insignificant tat it is virtually ridiculous to point it out. Instead of listening to my explanation, u make it a big hoo haa and conclude tat the society of professional engineer do not know their job. Why don't u read the below analogy for a better understanding
For your 5 fingers example,
You: Human has 5 fingers on one hand
Me: But there are examples of humans not having 5 fingers on one hand
You: How many fingers do you think there is then?
Me: For example, there are humans with 6 fingers on one hand.
You: (Show wiki's page) BUT WIKI SAYS HUMAN HAND HAS 5 FINGERS, NOTHING ELSE. YOU CAN'T CHALLENGE WIKI OR PROVE WIKI WRONG.
Me: I will only need to show you just one example of a human hand with 6 fingers. Wiki is inadequate in its definitionLet me give a better explanation of wat happen
Me: The MORE IMPORTANT use of the eye is to see things
You: You have a limited view
Me: Why do u say tat ? Even encyclopedia also stated tat the eye is more important for human to see thing
You: No no no .. the eye can be use for other extraordinary things... like seeing the traffic lights and crossing the road
Me: Tat is using the eye for seeing
You: Like watching TV
Me: Tat is still using eye for seeing
You: Well ! U can use your eye to push thumbtacks in !
Me: .... Com'on la... generally speaking an eye is to see things.
You: Ah ah ah... u use the word "generally". So u r wrong about the use of an eye and the explanation from encyclopedia is nonsense
Me: Huh ?!?! Is it wrong for the encyclopedia to say the eye is for seeing thing ? If u insist all the freak cases in tis world is included, like using your eye for pushing thumbtacks, then u r just trying to be stupid and ridiculous
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? Because of your "generally correct", it follows logically that not all software engineers will have to definitely do what wiki defined them to be doing.
If a person do photoshop to make complicated design, he is a GRAPHIC DESIGNER. Do I have to repeat tis simple fact for u ? Why can't a team include a graphic designer ? As said, u r abusing the word "generally". U better get the right idea first
I have asked you if there are any Professional Engineers for the field of research, and your reply implied no. Then now you tell me that the job scope and definition of a research engineer is also inside the definition from the Professional Engineers Board?????? There are no two ways about it.
R u reading my reply at all ? I said tis before which u chose to be quiet over
The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) is the national society of engineering professionals from all disciplines that promotes the ethical and competent practice of engineering, promotes licensure and enhances the image and well-being of its members.
and if u look at their website, they r talking about research and publishing research material
http://www.nspe.org/PEmagazine/pe_0408_Earthshaking_Rsearch.html
Instead of looking at wat the society represent, u chose to see the word "professional engineer". Even if u see the word, it doesn't mean they exclude research out. Why can;t an engineer researching and building up a component stamp his sign ? U see the word "study", "design" and "analysis". Why can't a researcher do tis ?
I have already told you the job scope. Why do the job scopes differ from those listed in wiki???? This, why don't you go and ask all the different companies in Singapore, and see if all their engineers do what wiki has said? You want to talk about main jobs, I gave you examples of engineers who have a different main job from what you said. Anything wrong with that???? Obviously yes to you when you stated with conviction that the main job of an engineer is to come out with solutions
Wat is different ? U show one job and it do list out he got to do engineering. Then wat is wrong ? He do engineering and he is an engineer and I really don't see wat u r driving at. Even in the requirement he requires someone with an engineering background. If he cannot help his customers in technical issue, then wat good is he ? If engineering is not important, why don't he chose any other profession making the whole cost cheaper ? Why don't they just find a sales man ?
And u still fail your english at PSLE level since u do not know the definition of words, u need me to spoonfeed u on how to interprete certain phases on the definition.
I'm asking you how providing engineering service is the same as developing solutions. Because to me, providing engineering services clearly encompasses more things than your key word of "developing" (new) solutions.
I thought I had replied u. Look at the
Engineering is the discipline and profession of applying technical and scientific knowledge and utilizing natural laws and physical resources in order to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that realize a desired objective and meet specified criteria.
U see the black words in bold ? Isn't tat the solution ? U see the words in red. Isn;t tat developing using science and maths ?
Then wat is wrong ?
-
Wah the vocabulary .... Feel like replacing my well-used Longman Dictionary (recommended by my primary sch tution teacher) with a new one. Will still stick to Longman over Oxford for better accuracy in the meaning of words. Oxford sounds more prestigious but Longman is still better for me.
-
The blogger is full of crap anyways. Some people may agree with her post but it is a view from an elitist . She studied at a UK boarding school, bypassing our secondary school system, which is probably exclusive and very expensive. Money allowed her to continue to Cambridge.
If she ever comes back to be part of the ruling party, you guys are pretty much screwed up. Just another Wee Shu Min on the prowl but worse , this girl probably was not educated for a long while in our system to know the system and she chooses to make those scalding remarks without understanding anything.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
If NUS website tell me tat it is fun, then it can be fun.
Then wat is your answer to the below points ? I mean I answer all your questions, how come u never answer any of mine ?
Now if NUS tell me tat Law is Harder to enter than Arts and Social science, where they have compared between 2 entities, r u gonna doubt their words ?
And how about
2) U claim it is good, simply because u claim it is good. There r NO OTHER supporting evidence. I have challenged u repeatedly for other evidence which u give out NONE
3) I stated in TUD, even they do not put oral exams for all their modules.
4) I stated NO OTHER university other than your 2 examples r using oral exams
6) I also pointed to u the flaws of oral exams which u never answer
Since u want to play tis game, then fine la. SO u claim do not do any wrong, NEITHER DO I ? U cannot prove "tat" refers to your statement and to my statement as well. So there is nothing left to be said here. If u wanna pin point I made an error, then u make an error as well. If u wanna say u r innocent, then I am equally innocent too. SO fair enough. So which one do u wanna choose ?
If i am not wrong, u started off tis whole thing claiming "someone" make a calculation error. Then u r probably mentioning someone else isn't it because it cannot be me
Because u had put
Are you even an engineer or a researcher?
Then
Base on you saying things like
and
U say tat I have limited view over the statement
The more important skills for an engineer or a research is to come out with the solution or write a world class research paper
Now tell me why do u say I have limited view over tis statement ? U agree with my statement then claim I have limited view over it ? R u the one with the limited view instead ?
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 tell me u have not stated the process of writing is part of the equation. Then how do u explain the two lines which u had written before ? Putting your foot into your mouth again ?
I think u totally mistaken the word "generally". It means the things tat do nto follow the law stated by wikipedia do be so statistically insignificant tat it is virtually ridiculous to point it out. Instead of listening to my explanation, u make it a big hoo haa and conclude tat the society of professional engineer do not know their job. Why don't u read the below analogy for a better understanding
Let me give a better explanation of wat happen
Me: The MORE IMPORTANT use of the eye is to see things
You: You have a limited view
Me: Why do u say tat ? Even encyclopedia also stated tat the eye is more important for human to see thing
You: No no no .. the eye can be use for other extraordinary things... like seeing the traffic lights and crossing the road
Me: Tat is using the eye for seeing
You: Like watching TV
Me: Tat is still using eye for seeing
You: Well ! U can use your eye to push thumbtacks in !
Me: .... Com'on la... generally speaking an eye is to see things.
You: Ah ah ah... u use the word "generally". So u r wrong about the use of an eye and the explanation from encyclopedia is nonsense
Me: Huh ?!?! Is it wrong for the encyclopedia to say the eye is for seeing thing ? If u insist all the freak cases in tis world is included, like using your eye for pushing thumbtacks, then u r just trying to be stupid and ridiculous
If a person do photoshop to make complicated design, he is a GRAPHIC DESIGNER. Do I have to repeat tis simple fact for u ? Why can't a team include a graphic designer ? As said, u r abusing the word "generally". U better get the right idea first
R u reading my reply at all ? I said tis before which u chose to be quiet over
The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) is the national society of engineering professionals from all disciplines that promotes the ethical and competent practice of engineering, promotes licensure and enhances the image and well-being of its members.
and if u look at their website, they r talking about research and publishing research material
http://www.nspe.org/PEmagazine/pe_0408_Earthshaking_Rsearch.html
Instead of looking at wat the society represent, u chose to see the word "professional engineer". Even if u see the word, it doesn't mean they exclude research out. Why can;t an engineer researching and building up a component stamp his sign ? U see the word "study", "design" and "analysis". Why can't a researcher do tis ?
Wat is different ? U show one job and it do list out he got to do engineering. Then wat is wrong ? He do engineering and he is an engineer and I really don't see wat u r driving at. Even in the requirement he requires someone with an engineering background. If he cannot help his customers in technical issue, then wat good is he ? If engineering is not important, why don't he chose any other profession making the whole cost cheaper ? Why don't they just find a sales man ?
And u still fail your english at PSLE level since u do not know the definition of words, u need me to spoonfeed u on how to interprete certain phases on the definition.
I thought I had replied u. Look at the
Engineering is the discipline and profession of applying technical and scientific knowledge and utilizing natural laws and physical resources in order to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that realize a desired objective and meet specified criteria.
U see the black words in bold ? Isn't tat the solution ? U see the words in red. Isn;t tat developing using science and maths ?
Then wat is wrong ?
If NUS website tell me tat it is fun, then it can be fun.
Then wat is your answer to the below points ? I mean I answer all your questions, how come u never answer any of mine ?
See? You cannot tell me it is the official stand of the school that engineering is fun just because it is stated on the official website of the school.
Now if NUS tell me tat Law is Harder to enter than Arts and Social science, where they have compared between 2 entities, r u gonna doubt their words ?
Yes, I will have to check the requirements (which is totally objective) and make a final conclusion myself. Also, if my grades are sufficient to go in, I will still check around the internet, forums, and get from people who has experienced it first hand to have a more well-rounded idea.
And how about
2) U claim it is good, simply because u claim it is good. There r NO OTHER supporting evidence. I have challenged u repeatedly for other evidence which u give out NONE
3) I stated in TUD, even they do not put oral exams for all their modules.
4) I stated NO OTHER university other than your 2 examples r using oral exams
6) I also pointed to u the flaws of oral exams which u never answer
2) As mentioned above. This is first hand experience. Still asking for evidence for first hand experience?
3) I have attended modules who didn't put oral exams for their modules, yet have oral exams. Just like not all NUS modules state that they will have mid-term exams, yet they have it.
4) I have already told you the example of MIT. And yes, the single statement of 'proof' you quoted from TUM contained the word "probably", in case you missed it out.
5) What valid flaws have you pointed out when you do not even understand the format of examinations? Go read back on your statement not to comment on something you don't know about.
Since u want to play tis game, then fine la. SO u claim do not do any wrong, NEITHER DO I ? U cannot prove "tat" refers to your statement and to my statement as well. So there is nothing left to be said here. If u wanna pin point I made an error, then u make an error as well. If u wanna say u r innocent, then I am equally innocent too. SO fair enough. So which one do u wanna choose ?
If i am not wrong, u started off tis whole thing claiming "someone" make a calculation error. Then u r probably mentioning someone else isn't it because it cannot be me
Glad you finally understood. But you should, because that logic stems from you.
U say tat I have limited view over the statement
The more important skills for an engineer or a research is to come out with the solution or write a world class research paper
Now tell me why do u say I have limited view over tis statement ? U agree with my statement then claim I have limited view over it ? R u the one with the limited view instead ?
You still have not proved to me where I disagreed with you. Don't put words into my mouth yet again if you have selective reading disorder.
Saying you have a limited view is merely telling you that there are other equally important skills as well.
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 tell me u have not stated the process of writing is part of the equation. Then how do u explain the two lines which u had written before ? Putting your foot into your mouth again ?
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.
I think u totally mistaken the word "generally". It means the things tat do nto follow the law stated by wikipedia do be so statistically insignificant tat it is virtually ridiculous to point it out. Instead of listening to my explanation, u make it a big hoo haa and conclude tat the society of professional engineer do not know their job. Why don't u read the below analogy for a better understanding
So must examples be statistically significant?
And which statement did I conclude that the society of professional engineers do not know their job??????????
Let me give a better explanation of wat happen
Me: The MORE IMPORTANT use of the eye is to see things
You: You have a limited view
Me: Why do u say tat ? Even encyclopedia also stated tat the eye is more important for human to see thing
You: No no no .. the eye can be use for other extraordinary things... like seeing the traffic lights and crossing the road
Me: Tat is using the eye for seeing
You: Like watching TV
Me: Tat is still using eye for seeing
You: Well ! U can use your eye to push thumbtacks in !
Me: .... Com'on la... generally speaking an eye is to see things.
You: Ah ah ah... u use the word "generally". So u r wrong about the use of an eye and the explanation from encyclopedia is nonsense
Me: Huh ?!?! Is it wrong for the encyclopedia to say the eye is for seeing thing ? If u insist all the freak cases in tis world is included, like using your eye for pushing thumbtacks, then u r just trying to be stupid and ridiculous
Your example is totally invalid.
I gave you real-life examples of job scopes of engineers whose main job do not fit your strict definitions. Furthermore, in my 5-fingers drama, I gave you real-life examples as well.
Please try again, unless you want to tell me there are real-life examples of people who use the eye to push things in, otherwise you have been using unrealistic examples.
Not only that. I gave you job scopes of real-life engineers (product, software). You took textbook definitions of the whole/entire field of product engineering and software engineering. Dumb or what? Obviously you do not know what is working in teams, what is division of labour, etc. In a big company, the whole field of product engineering within the company is managed by a large team of product engineers.
If I give you the job scope of one of the product engineers, you don't go and take the whole field of it and tell me I'm wrong. Totally illogical.
If a person do photoshop to make complicated design, he is a GRAPHIC DESIGNER. Do I have to repeat tis simple fact for u ? Why can't a team include a graphic designer ? As said, u r abusing the word "generally". U better get the right idea first
Still evading a question. The main point here is not whether the team can include a graphic designer. Of course they can. The main point is:
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?
The key word here is "can". Understand a not?
R u reading my reply at all ? I said tis before which u chose to be quiet over
The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) is the national society of engineering professionals from all disciplines that promotes the ethical and competent practice of engineering, promotes licensure and enhances the image and well-being of its members.
and if u look at their website, they r talking about research and publishing research material
http://www.nspe.org/PEmagazine/pe_0408_Earthshaking_Rsearch.html
Instead of looking at wat the society represent, u chose to see the word "professional engineer". Even if u see the word, it doesn't mean they exclude research out. Why can;t an engineer researching and building up a component stamp his sign ? U see the word "study", "design" and "analysis". Why can't a researcher do tis ?
Read again
The earmark that distinguishes a licensed/registered Professional Engineer is the authority to sign and seal or "stamp" engineering documents (reports, drawings, and calculations) for a study, estimate, design or analysis, thus taking legal responsibility for it.
You tell me.
Is it legally required to have a PE signature, seal and stamp for a research paper to be written? Or for a presentation to educate sponsors? Are there such PEs around at all?
And if you look at their website, NSPE conducts education too.
And as part of the engineering ethics:
Engineers are encouraged to extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and its achievements.
Is the above statement not encouraging a form of education, where knowledge is to be imparted?
Instead of looking at wat the society represent, u chose to see the word "professional engineer". Even if u see the word, it doesn't mean they exclude research out.
You know where you have been wrong and dumb all along? The society doesn't represent or define the job scopes of engineers.
NSPE, in partnership with the State Societies, is the organization of licensed Professional Engineers (PEs) and Engineer Interns (EIs). Through education, licensure advocacy, leadership training, multi-disciplinary networking, and outreach, NSPE enhances the image of its members and their ability to ethically and professionally practice engineering.
So how, still want to use NSPE and what it represents to continue talking about the job scopes of engineers?
Wat is different ? U show one job and it do list out he got to do engineering. Then wat is wrong ? He do engineering and he is an engineer and I really don't see wat u r driving at. Even in the requirement he requires someone with an engineering background. If he cannot help his customers in technical issue, then wat good is he ? If engineering is not important, why don't he chose any other profession making the whole cost cheaper ? Why don't they just find a sales man ?
And u still fail your english at PSLE level since u do not know the definition of words, u need me to spoonfeed u on how to interprete certain phases on the definition.
You really have to improve your English. Afterall, you are the one who had been telling me that saying wiki's definition is inadequate is same as saying wiki is wrong. Wtf?
If he cannot help his customers in technical issue, then wat good is he ? If engineering is not important, why don't he chose any other profession making the whole cost cheaper ? Why don't they just find a sales man ?
You mean you can't read that it is 1 out of 3 jobs scopes?
You want to prove to me that the 1 out of 3 jobs scopes is the main job of the sales engineer?
I thought I had replied u. Look at the
Engineering is the discipline and profession of applying technical and scientific knowledge and utilizing natural laws and physical resources in order to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that realize a desired objective and meet specified criteria.
U see the black words in bold ? Isn't tat the solution ? U see the words in red. Isn;t tat developing using science and maths ?
Then wat is wrong ?
Your concept of develop is about "new"
Develop is the key word. If he develop a new method to sweep floors, then congratulation, he is indeed an inventor and depending on the method, an engineer
Till now, you still have not answered me how your definition of an engineer who is concerned with developing solutions encompasses the full job scope of the sales engineer, of which one of it is providing engineering services.
-
Originally posted by fymk:
The blogger is full of crap anyways. Some people may agree with her post but it is a view from an elitist . She studied at a UK boarding school, bypassing our secondary school system, which is probably exclusive and very expensive. Money allowed her to continue to Cambridge.
If she ever comes back to be part of the ruling party, you guys are pretty much screwed up. Just another Wee Shu Min on the prowl but worse , this girl probably was not educated for a long while in our system to know the system and she chooses to make those scalding remarks without understanding anything.
but you know, one thing's for sure, i'm sure everyone'd agree that her blog makes for fascinating reading .... love her or hate her, one just can't dismiss her ...
I suppose i should feel offended by some of her posts, but strangely, you can't help agreeing with her on some points ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
but you know, one thing's for sure, i'm sure everyone'd agree that her blog makes for fascinating reading .... love her or hate her, one just can't dismiss her ...
I suppose i should feel offended by some of her posts, but strangely, you can't help agreeing with her on some points ...
I am fine with her but she is not doing Cambridge any favors by being arrogant. Silence always make one look wiser and humble pie is good . She should try some.
-
it's the internet we're talking about ... people are entitled to be a little different since we're all annonymous i guess .... i mean, to get pissed off by someone you can't put a face too, that's a bit silly neh ? ...
but here ... her latest post .... it hurt guys a bit, but it's awesome ! ...
A MisMatch Made in Peasant
The government is worried that Singaporeans are not getting hitched - there are increasing number of singles in Singapore. The government is offering a slew of incentives, and even advice on how to date, how to get married, but I doubt it will work. The problem I think is because these measures target the symptoms and not the cause of the problem; in my opinion, the root of the problem lies in the minds of peasantboys and peasantgirls.
Singaporean peasantboys are one of the most boring members of the adult male species - dating them is often a somniferous experience. Ever notice that the only topic of conversation that excites them, other than their jobs, is National Service? Yes we really want to hear about your days in the army, crawling through mud, or gory tales of training accidents - that really gets our loins burning. The added irony is that despite their macho tales, most peasantboys are mummy's boys - what self-respecting man would continue staying with his parents till the late 20's and even early 30's , letting his mum cook, clean and wash for him? Real women want to date grown up men, not little boys staying at home.
Peasantboys are also wimps - they let peasantgirls walk all over them. They act as their chauffer, their ATM machine and chaperone all rolled into one. Yet, in another ironic twist, they are also male chauvinists, hanging on to anachronistic notions of submissve virginal women who would do as they are told and go off looking for Vietnamese village brides when they don't get what they want here. A message for you peasantboys: most women would love to defer to their men, but strong men who know what they want, who have strength of character. We are not going to submit ourselves to wimpy mummy's boys.
Peasantgirls are not any better - they suffer from the 'I want the cake and eat it syndrome'. Singaporean women want the rights of Western Women and none of the obligations. They also want all the rights of Eastern Women and none of their obligations either.
If you want to be treated as an equal - behave like an equal. Don't expect your man to pay for everything and not even thank them for it. Go dutch sometimes. Take a taxi to the place that you are going to meet your peasantboy and not expect to be driven around like an invalid all the time. If you want to be an equal in marriage, contribute equally to the family accounts - in what world do you think it's fair that you get to spend your husband's money whilst keeping your salary for yourselves?
On the other hand, if you want to be treated like an Eastern Woman, for the husband to take care of you financially, materially, drive you around, do things for you then be prepared to take on the obligations of an Eastern Woman. Go learn how to cook - and not just instant noodels and fried eggs. Learn how to sew. Defer to your husband as the head of the household, and learn how to care for him as the primary caregiver (whilst he is the primary breadwinner).
Neither Western or Eastern Woman is superior; however the Singapore Peasantwoman who wants the best of both worlds is definitely inferior. Make up your mind - choose one or the other. Even Peasantboys wake up one day when they have been screwed over in a bad deal for too long.
So the problem as I see it is that the Peasantboy and the Peasantgirl are fudamentally a bad match, to the extent that they probably hate the sight of each other. Peasantboys complain about Peasantgirls all the time, Peasantgirls whinge about Peasantboys, and neither the twain shall meet.
Therefore, until the mindsets of peasantboys and peasantgirls are changed, no amount of economic incentives or nagging by the government will turn things around.
The illnesses of the peasant are of the mind, and unless it's cured, it's probably better they don't get together and procreate. -
stupidissmart
since you are back, as seen here http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/330236?page=2
Perhaps you would like to continue the discussion. Because this was what you have said
Come la ! U started tis game first. Lets see who ends up speechless la
-
Why not ?
See? You cannot tell me it is the official stand of the school that engineering is fun just because it is stated on the official website of the school.
Let me get wat u r trying to say here. U r saying we should not trust the website of the school who set the exam paper but we should trust u, somebody who is unreliable and unverifiable. Who is more reliable ?
Yes, I will have to check the requirements (which is totally objective) and make a final conclusion myself. Also, if my grades are sufficient to go in, I will still check around the internet, forums, and get from people who has experienced it first hand to have a more well-rounded idea.
But i will never take an advise of someone who u do not know, who is shown to make false references and who pulls out figures without substantiating their stand and is shown to be totally against the stand of schools and other institutes like professional engineers
2) As mentioned above. This is first hand experience. Still asking for evidence for first hand experience?
As said, I also have first hand exprience and oral exam r crap. Tis is not first hand experience, tis is claim and claims r cheap
3) I have attended modules who didn't put oral exams for their modules, yet have oral exams. Just like not all NUS modules state that they will have mid-term exams, yet they have it.
U r not answering the question. Can u prove ALL MODULES in TUD have oral exams ?
4) I have already told you the example of MIT. And yes, the single statement of 'proof' you quoted from TUM contained the word "probably", in case you missed it out.
MIT DO NOT GIVE ORAL EXAMS FOR THEIR COURSES. U only show they do oral defense which is completely out of scope for tis topic. And Probably is already a very strong word and can implied at least "most ". DO u wanna me to define the word for u on probably ?
5) What valid flaws have you pointed out when you do not even understand the format of examinations? Go read back on your statement not to comment on something you don't know about.
Again u refuse to comment on the question given except to avoid it. How do u know I know nothing on it ? How do I know u actually know something about it ?
Glad you finally understood. But you should, because that logic stems from you
Lets see... I explained my rational on why a mistake is present, I have made the whole scenario possible but u on the other hand refuse to do any explanation at all except to just repeat. So if u think tat is a good explanation, then so be it
You still have not proved to me where I disagreed with you. Don't put words into my mouth yet again if you have selective reading disorder.
Saying you have a limited view is merely telling you that there are other equally important skills as well.
Did tat contradict my stand tat the more important skills for an engineer is still to come out with practical solutions ? Did my stand excludes other skills ?
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.
I think u should go to nursery school since u clearly avoid to answer the second 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.
I am just quoting your own words and u make a big hoo haa out of it and claim u never make such statements
Your example is totally invalid.
I gave you real-life examples of job scopes of engineers whose main job do not fit your strict definitions. Furthermore, in my 5-fingers drama, I gave you real-life examples as well.
Please try again, unless you want to tell me there are real-life examples of people who use the eye to push things in, otherwise you have been using unrealistic examples.
My example is totally valid. In fact u canot find any loophole in the example and u can only make a claim which is unsubstantiated. I already say tat the definition is supposed to work for the "general" case and not freak cases and my examples do clarify tat stand. Up till not, u did not show me any examples or engineers tat remove the skill of solving practical examples as unnecessary. The example u given also states they need people who can solve engineering problem
Not only that. I gave you job scopes of real-life engineers (product, software). You took textbook definitions of the whole/entire field of product engineering and software engineering. Dumb or what? Obviously you do not know what is working in teams, what is division of labour, etc. In a big company, the whole field of product engineering within the company is managed by a large team of product engineers.
If I give you the job scope of one of the product engineers, you don't go and take the whole field of it and tell me I'm wrong. Totally illogical.
I think u miss the whole point of th argument. When u talk about software engineers, u tell me they use programs and not do ANY programming at all and even challenge me on tis point. True or false ? Only when i show u the definition of the job then u realise tat software engineers has to do programming and your work is merely on graphis designer. When u talk about product engineers, again u show your limited view by claiming they do not do engineering by looking at chips and finding the source of problems. Again I have to guide u to say tat looking at chips and finding the source of problems is engineering and they r solving practical problems. Do u knwo wat is the problem ? U do not know wat is engineering
Still evading a question. The main point here is not whether the team can include a graphic designer. Of course they can. The main point is:
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?
The key word here is "can". Understand a not?
I think u r really lame here. Of course there can be a graphic designer in a team or a coffee lady or a secretary or a technician or a sweeper or a machinist in the team. But these people R NOT SOFTWARE ENGINEERS. Software engineer have to program ! SO r u saying the sweeper for the department of software engineer is a software engineer himself ?
You tell me.
Is it legally required to have a PE signature, seal and stamp for a research paper to be written? Or for a presentation to educate sponsors? Are there such PEs around at all?
I think u r missing the point.
They INCLUDE RESEARCH ENGINEER AS ENGINEERS. I have stated from their website tat they r publishing research material to the public. They r doing research ! How can u say research engineer r not professional engineer !??!
To answer your question, no u do not need a seal to publish a reseach paper but tis point is out of meaning because it doesn't mean research engineer r not professional engineers. Then the professional engineer r not professional engineers too because they never let the department of professional engineers chop on all their drawings and calculation as well.
And if you look at their website, NSPE conducts education too.
Educating about engineering. Engineering is still important and it is still the mroe important skill of an engineer
You know where you have been wrong and dumb all along? The society doesn't represent or define the job scopes of engineers.
Tat is stupid. Then who defines the job scope of engineer ? U ? U think the world revolves around u only ?
So how, still want to use NSPE and what it represents to continue talking about the job scopes of engineers?
Of couse. They certainly hold more words than u who cannot come out with any other definitions from any other reputable organisations tat follows your argument
You really have to improve your English. Afterall, you are the one who had been telling me that saying wiki's definition is inadequate is same as saying wiki is wrong. Wtf?
Wow man... u r talkign about something completely different from my response and u say tat my english is bad ?
Wat is different ? U show one job and it do list out he got to do engineering. Then wat is wrong ? He do engineering and he is an engineer and I really don't see wat u r driving at. Even in the requirement he requires someone with an engineering background. If he cannot help his customers in technical issue, then wat good is he ? If engineering is not important, why don't he chose any other profession making the whole cost cheaper ? Why don't they just find a sales man ?
Wat is your answer to the above ? U say I said tat wiki is wrong, then u really need to refresh my memory on when have I said tat
You mean you can't read that it is 1 out of 3 jobs scopes?
You want to prove to me that the 1 out of 3 jobs scopes is the main job of the sales engineer?
I think tis is again stupid. If he cannot do engineer can he be a sales engineer ? No. So it is important for him to be an engineer in order to get the job. Even the requirement is stated as such. And remember the earlier statement I made. The MORE important skill. It is not the ONLY skill. U cannot prove my stand wrong either.
-
Originally posted by fymk:
The blogger is full of crap anyways. Some people may agree with her post but it is a view from an elitist . She studied at a UK boarding school, bypassing our secondary school system, which is probably exclusive and very expensive. Money allowed her to continue to Cambridge.
If she ever comes back to be part of the ruling party, you guys are pretty much screwed up. Just another Wee Shu Min on the prowl but worse , this girl probably was not educated for a long while in our system to know the system and she chooses to make those scalding remarks without understanding anything.
I'll agree with fymk.
The blogger needs to learn humility. It is a skill that allows you to be heard instead of forcefeeding walls of text to the reader.
I could not be bothered reading the entire post ... after the first few lines the blogger's arrogant & repulsive attitude was stifling me and I moved out of the cubicle.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Why not ?
Let me get wat u r trying to say here. U r saying we should not trust the website of the school who set the exam paper but we should trust u, somebody who is unreliable and unverifiable. Who is more reliable ?
But i will never take an advise of someone who u do not know, who is shown to make false references and who pulls out figures without substantiating their stand and is shown to be totally against the stand of schools and other institutes like professional engineers
As said, I also have first hand exprience and oral exam r crap. Tis is not first hand experience, tis is claim and claims r cheap
U r not answering the question. Can u prove ALL MODULES in TUD have oral exams ?
MIT DO NOT GIVE ORAL EXAMS FOR THEIR COURSES. U only show they do oral defense which is completely out of scope for tis topic. And Probably is already a very strong word and can implied at least "most ". DO u wanna me to define the word for u on probably ?
Again u refuse to comment on the question given except to avoid it. How do u know I know nothing on it ? How do I know u actually know something about it ?
Lets see... I explained my rational on why a mistake is present, I have made the whole scenario possible but u on the other hand refuse to do any explanation at all except to just repeat. So if u think tat is a good explanation, then so be it
Did tat contradict my stand tat the more important skills for an engineer is still to come out with practical solutions ? Did my stand excludes other skills ?
Selective understanding from you again.
I think u should go to nursery school since u clearly avoid to answer the second 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.
I am just quoting your own words and u make a big hoo haa out of it and claim u never make such statements
My example is totally valid. In fact u canot find any loophole in the example and u can only make a claim which is unsubstantiated. I already say tat the definition is supposed to work for the "general" case and not freak cases and my examples do clarify tat stand. Up till not, u did not show me any examples or engineers tat remove the skill of solving practical examples as unnecessary. The example u given also states they need people who can solve engineering problem
I think u miss the whole point of th argument. When u talk about software engineers, u tell me they use programs and not do ANY programming at all and even challenge me on tis point. True or false ? Only when i show u the definition of the job then u realise tat software engineers has to do programming and your work is merely on graphis designer. When u talk about product engineers, again u show your limited view by claiming they do not do engineering by looking at chips and finding the source of problems. Again I have to guide u to say tat looking at chips and finding the source of problems is engineering and they r solving practical problems. Do u knwo wat is the problem ? U do not know wat is engineering
I think u r really lame here. Of course there can be a graphic designer in a team or a coffee lady or a secretary or a technician or a sweeper or a machinist in the team. But these people R NOT SOFTWARE ENGINEERS. Software engineer have to program ! SO r u saying the sweeper for the department of software engineer is a software engineer himself ?
I think u r missing the point.
They INCLUDE RESEARCH ENGINEER AS ENGINEERS. I have stated from their website tat they r publishing research material to the public. They r doing research ! How can u say research engineer r not professional engineer !??!
To answer your question, no u do not need a seal to publish a reseach paper but tis point is out of meaning because it doesn't mean research engineer r not professional engineers. Then the professional engineer r not professional engineers too because they never let the department of professional engineers chop on all their drawings and calculation as well.
Educating about engineering. Engineering is still important and it is still the mroe important skill of an engineer
Tat is stupid. Then who defines the job scope of engineer ? U ? U think the world revolves around u only ?
Of couse. They certainly hold more words than u who cannot come out with any other definitions from any other reputable organisations tat follows your argument
Wow man... u r talkign about something completely different from my response and u say tat my english is bad ?
Wat is different ? U show one job and it do list out he got to do engineering. Then wat is wrong ? He do engineering and he is an engineer and I really don't see wat u r driving at. Even in the requirement he requires someone with an engineering background. If he cannot help his customers in technical issue, then wat good is he ? If engineering is not important, why don't he chose any other profession making the whole cost cheaper ? Why don't they just find a sales man ?
Wat is your answer to the above ? U say I said tat wiki is wrong, then u really need to refresh my memory on when have I said tat
I think tis is again stupid. If he cannot do engineer can he be a sales engineer ? No. So it is important for him to be an engineer in order to get the job. Even the requirement is stated as such. And remember the earlier statement I made. The MORE important skill. It is not the ONLY skill. U cannot prove my stand wrong either.
Before we start, let me point out what you have missed answering/reading, because if you cannot understand those, it makes your argument looks all the weaker and showed you as someone who is prone to selective reading.
Parts of ethics:
Engineers are encouraged to extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and its achievements.
and is there any compelling reason why this cannot be answered? Because you have been proven wrong and stupid again?
So must examples be statistically significant?
And which statement did I conclude that the society of professional engineers do not know their job??????????
Let me get wat u r trying to say here. U r saying we should not trust the website of the school who set the exam paper but we should trust u, somebody who is unreliable and unverifiable. Who is more reliable ?
Try harder
You quoted the word 'probably' and try to tell me it is the official stand? Wow
But i will never take an advise of someone who u do not know, who is shown to make false references and who pulls out figures without substantiating their stand and is shown to be totally against the stand of schools and other institutes like professional engineers
Well, no one expects you to, since you can quote the word 'probably' and tell me it is the official stand of the school.
As said, I also have first hand exprience and oral exam r crap. Tis is not first hand experience, tis is claim and claims r cheap
First hand experience in German oral exams? I can show you my cert if you want you know? You have?
U r not answering the question. Can u prove ALL MODULES in TUD have oral exams ?
You still didn't get the point. I said I have attended modules who didn't put oral exams for their modules, yet have oral exams. Just like not all NUS modules state that they will have mid-term exams, yet they have it. And why should I prove something I have not said?
Why don't you prove that ALL MODULES in TUD that did not state that they have no oral exams have indeed no oral exams.
MIT DO NOT GIVE ORAL EXAMS FOR THEIR COURSES. U only show they do oral defense which is completely out of scope for tis topic. And Probably is already a very strong word and can implied at least "most ". DO u wanna me to define the word for u on probably ?
What a strong statement you have made.
Any reason why they would include oral exams in qualifying exams?
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:lrSm6bF9hYQJ:web.mit.edu/game/www/quals/QE_Guidelines_and_Formats.pdf+MIT+undergraduate+oral+examinations&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=sgAnd that oral examinations was mentioned here:
Facility in English
Lectures, laboratory sessions, and written or oral examinations at MIT are conducted in English.
http://web.mit.edu/catalogue/overv.chap3-adm.shtml
Again u refuse to comment on the question given except to avoid it. How do u know I know nothing on it ? How do I know u actually know something about it ?
Go on. The posts and questions you made about the oral exams already showed that you have little knowledge of it.
Those who knows how it worked wouldn't have asked stupid questions like you did.
Lets see... I explained my rational on why a mistake is present, I have made the whole scenario possible but u on the other hand refuse to do any explanation at all except to just repeat. So if u think tat is a good explanation, then so be it
Well, I used your logic. Please tell me why is it that using your logic on what I have said, the whole scenario I told you is not possible?
Did tat contradict my stand tat the more important skills for an engineer is still to come out with practical solutions ? Did my stand excludes other skills ?
Selective understanding from you again.
Obviously reading comprehension from you.
Are you tell me that you do not understand my statement of "there are other equally important skills"???
I think u should go to nursery school since u clearly avoid to answer the second 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.
I am just quoting your own words and u make a big hoo haa out of it and claim u never make such statements
Big hoo ha? Come on, you have been shown aplenty to take something I said, twist it with different words to selectively misunderstand, then tell me I'm wrong.
So is education a main job too of research engineering?
My example is totally valid. In fact u canot find any loophole in the example and u can only make a claim which is unsubstantiated. I already say tat the definition is supposed to work for the "general" case and not freak cases and my examples do clarify tat stand. Up till not, u did not show me any examples or engineers tat remove the skill of solving practical examples as unnecessary. The example u given also states they need people who can solve engineering problem
Don't be so full of yourself yet.
I'm waiting for you to tell me that there is indeed real life examples of people using their eyes to do what you have said. Once you tell me that sentence exactly, I will show you how flawed you are.
Go on. You want to tell me your example is valid, you have to tell me there's such practical examples. Please state that there are such examples.
I think u miss the whole point of th argument. When u talk about software engineers, u tell me they use programs and not do ANY programming at all and even challenge me on tis point. True or false ? Only when i show u the definition of the job then u realise tat software engineers has to do programming and your work is merely on graphis designer. When u talk about product engineers, again u show your limited view by claiming they do not do engineering by looking at chips and finding the source of problems. Again I have to guide u to say tat looking at chips and finding the source of problems is engineering and they r solving practical problems. Do u knwo wat is the problem ? U do not know wat is engineering
Take note. You showed the definition of the whole field of software engineering and product engineering, not the job scope of a normal software engineer and product engineer.
Don't be stupid. There's a difference between the field and the job scope. Try again.
In a big company, the whole field of product engineering within the company is managed by a large team of product engineers. If I give you the job scope of one of the product engineers, you don't go and take the whole field of it and tell me I'm wrong. Totally illogical
The same can be said of software engineering.
I think u r really lame here. Of course there can be a graphic designer in a team or a coffee lady or a secretary or a technician or a sweeper or a machinist in the team. But these people R NOT SOFTWARE ENGINEERS. Software engineer have to program ! SO r u saying the sweeper for the department of software engineer is a software engineer himself ?
Show me one a job application or explain a real life example that says they employ a software engineer to be a sweeper. I will believe you.
I think u r missing the point.
They INCLUDE RESEARCH ENGINEER AS ENGINEERS. I have stated from their website tat they r publishing research material to the public. They r doing research ! How can u say research engineer r not professional engineer !??!
To answer your question, no u do not need a seal to publish a reseach paper but tis point is out of meaning because it doesn't mean research engineer r not professional engineers. Then the professional engineer r not professional engineers too because they never let the department of professional engineers chop on all their drawings and calculation as well.
No, you are the one missing the point. I didn't say research engineer are not professional engineers. All along, I have been telling you there's no professional engineers for researching.
A is not B doesn't mean B is not A. Surely, you as an engineer, should be able to understand this simple logic.
Educating about engineering. Engineering is still important and it is still the mroe important skill of an engineer
So is that education? Is that part of the main jobs of NPSE?
Tat is stupid. Then who defines the job scope of engineer ? U ? U think the world revolves around u only ?
Of couse. They certainly hold more words than u who cannot come out with any other definitions from any other reputable organisations tat follows your argument
Don't be stupid. NPSE is a society that represents professional engineers. It is not a society that is the main body to define the job scopes of engineers.
Wat is different ? U show one job and it do list out he got to do engineering. Then wat is wrong ? He do engineering and he is an engineer and I really don't see wat u r driving at. Even in the requirement he requires someone with an engineering background. If he cannot help his customers in technical issue, then wat good is he ? If engineering is not important, why don't he chose any other profession making the whole cost cheaper ? Why don't they just find a sales man ?
I think tis is again stupid. If he cannot do engineer can he be a sales engineer ? No. So it is important for him to be an engineer in order to get the job. Even the requirement is stated as such. And remember the earlier statement I made. The MORE important skill. It is not the ONLY skill. U cannot prove my stand wrong either.
I combined 2 into one ans:
Because they need only one man to cover all 3 issues. Does not mean that engineering must definitely be the main job. Duh.........
He's still a sales engineer, the link I showed you has defined the job scope of the sales engineer.
Wow man... u r talkign about something completely different from my response and u say tat my english is bad ?
Wat is your answer to the above ? U say I said tat wiki is wrong, then u really need to refresh my memory on when have I said tat
I said that you told me that I said wiki is wrong when I told you that wiki is inadequate.
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/327598?page=6
Tis is comical. If u feel it is inadequate, then u want to correct wikipedia and professional society of engineer isn't it ? U r still trying to change their definition of the word isn't it ? Then u r still trying to prove them wrong (in their definition of the word engineer) isn't it ?
U can try. I still have not seen anything yet. Even ifu manage to find one example, wat have u proved ? U proved wiki to be wrong. And since I used the definition of wiki, u cannot default me for anything. Go on lor... try to redefine the word of engineer
Go on. Show your stupidity further.
-
Before we start, let me point out what you have missed answering/reading, because if you cannot understand those, it makes your argument looks all the weaker and showed you as someone who is prone to selective reading.
Yeah yeah yeah... look at who is the oen with the weak arguments. All your points just show how shallow and limited your views r and yet have the audacity to comment on other people. Tis is really the classical example of the pot calling the kettle black
Try harder
You quoted the word 'probably' and try to tell me it is the official stand? Wow
Wow... u have not answered anything at all and u consider tat as a response ? Wat is probably to u ? According to the dictionary is meant
probably: in all likelihood; very likely
So wat is your point ? Probably is already in all likelihood very likely. Is tat not enough ? wat do u propose ? Something tat is out of probably. Which do u think carries more weight ?
Well, no one expects you to, since you can quote the word 'probably' and tell me it is the official stand of the school.
It is the official stand of the school. And u have nothing. No website no other school except your bunch of bullsh!t and claims.
First hand experience in German oral exams? I can show you my cert if you want you know? You have?
U wanna show u show la ! And even if u show, it is still just claims tat oral is better than written exams
You still didn't get the point. I said I have attended modules who didn't put oral exams for their modules, yet have oral exams. Just like not all NUS modules state that they will have mid-term exams, yet they have it. And why should I prove something I have not said?
Why don't you prove that ALL MODULES in TUD that did not state that they have no oral exams have indeed no oral exams.
Now look at the website
http://www.saahbs.net/germany/tud.html
Wat is tis guy opinion of TUD. Look at the following lines
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.
The above para has suggested tat not all exams r oral in nature. Notice "common" is not "all"
What a strong statement you have made.
Any reason why they would include oral exams in qualifying exams?
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:lrSm6bF9hYQJ:web.mit.edu/game/www/quals/QE_Guidelines_and_Formats.pdf+MIT+undergraduate+oral+examinations&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=sgAnd that oral examinations was mentioned here:
now if u see from the website in MIT
Searching "qualifying examination in MIT website produces these
1) From CSB, a GRADUATE program in MIT
Qualifying Exams: In addition to coursework and a research thesis, each student must pass a written and an oral qualifying examination in the second year.
2) Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Science
In outline, the requirements include a general qualifying examination to be taken in the third semester of registration in the program and completion of a minimum of 132 units
3) Post doctoral position
The degree is awarded at the end of the two-year period upon successful completion of didactic coursework, a research project, a thesis or thesis equivalent, and a qualifying examination
and so on
even your page on "qualifying exams" is derived from the website
Mechanical Engineering Doctoral Qualifying Exams
http://web.mit.edu/game/www/quals/
Is graduate qualifying exams the same as undergraduate courses exam ?
Facility in English
Lectures, laboratory sessions, and written or oral examinations at MIT are conducted in English.
So ? Oral exam r still for graduate student when they r trying to defend their first/second year or thesis defence
Go on. The posts and questions you made about the oral exams already showed that you have little knowledge of it.
Wow. Do u have anything to show u got great knowledge of oral exams ? Nothing
Well, I used your logic. Please tell me why is it that using your logic on what I have said, the whole scenario I told you is not possible?
Wat is the logic ? I have stated clearly multiple times whichu clearly refuse to even read. U quote the number to my salary, u make the wrong quote I refer to your figure and tat is how the error appears. So wat is the logic u have used ?
Are you tell me that you do not understand my statement of "there are other equally important skills"???
Then wat other EQUALLY IMPORTANT skills have u successfully stated ?
Big hoo ha? Come on, you have been shown aplenty to take something I said, twist it with different words to selectively misunderstand, then tell me I'm wrong.
So is education a main job too of research engineering?
I think u r missing hte original point. U askme to prove u claim writing paper is part of the equation. I proved it out isn't it and u have nothing to say on it. SO is the foot in your mouth now ?
The more important skill to write a research paper is to have research result. U have already admitted to the above point before. So is it "equally" important ? Nope
I'm waiting for you to tell me that there is indeed real life examples of people using their eyes to do what you have said. Once you tell me that sentence exactly, I will show you how flawed you are.
U just prove to fail in the comprehension of the example. It is about the stupidness of throwing away general facts because of an absurb example.
There r example of people using their eyes to open beer bottles though
search youttube "wickmans eye bottle opener finally works"
Take note. You showed the definition of the whole field of software engineering and product engineering, not the job scope of a normal software engineer and product engineer.
Don't be stupid. There's a difference between the field and the job scope. Try again
Tis is again rubbish. The definition already stated wat is the engineer of interest. Wat r u trying to do now ? Trying to act stupid or something ? Wat do u understand from the word "definition" ? Now I know wat is the problem with your english, u do not care about definition of words ! U also claim tat the "society" does not define the word. SO wat is your answer to it ? Who defines the word engineer ? U ?
The same can be said of software engineering
Nah... u r avoiding the original question. U say tat studyng a chip and finding the problem to it is not a engineering. Wat is your comment on tis statement now ? Why do u talk about somethign totally out of point ?
Show me one a job application or explain a real life example that says they employ a software engineer to be a sweeper. I will believe you.
U r the one tat talk rubbish here ma. Look at the statement u said 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?
The answer is: U can ask a person to design complicated graphics within a software engineering team but tis guy is a graphic designer.
If being in a team of software engineer will make u a software engineer, according to your incredibly stupid logic, then any sweeper in a software engineering firm is a software engineer. But because u r so dense, u do not know the joke is on u and ask stupid questions
No, you are the one missing the point. I didn't say research engineer are not professional engineers. All along, I have been telling you there's no professional engineers for researching.
A is not B doesn't mean B is not A. Surely, you as an engineer, should be able to understand this simple logic
First, professional engineers can do research. Who say tat professional engineers cannot do any research at all ? If an engineer discover a great way to solve a practical problem, define and fine tune it and publish the result, he has done a great research for the people. U know who is nikola tesla ? He has devised a lot of theories on electricity and his job is an electrical engineer under edison.
Then u ask a stupid question on
Is it legally required to have a PE signature, seal and stamp for a research paper to be written?
Why do u put it there ?
However a person who do not know wat is engineering probably does not know professional engineers can do research
So is that education? Is that part of the main jobs of NPSE
So u r saying u r wrong about NSPE not including research and not trying to talk about another point altogether ? Wat is your answer to NSPE does not include research engineers ? Another false lie u made again ?
And if u talk about NSPE "education", it is still on research and getting the research result is more important than just educating people about tis same result tat u need to get first.
I combined 2 into one ans:
Because they need only one man to cover all 3 issues. Does not mean that engineering must definitely be the main job. Duh.........
He's still a sales engineer, the link I showed you has defined the job scope of the sales engineer.
U only show there r other skills necessary. Surely u will know tat I can have a more important skill and hundred of other skills.
It has 3 job scope but it require only engineers to apply, not business or salesmen or admin. So we should know the priority of the skills necessary.
I said that you told me that I said wiki is wrong when I told you that wiki is inadequate
as said before, u demand changes to be made to it regardless of whether u think it is wrong or inadequate. Logically speaking, it can only be inadequate only if it is wrong on some area.
Go on. Show your stupidity further
r u talking about yourself for trying to prove wiki and the professional engineers wrong ? Tat is really the real stupidity
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Yeah yeah yeah... look at who is the oen with the weak arguments. All your points just show how shallow and limited your views r and yet have the audacity to comment on other people. Tis is really the classical example of the pot calling the kettle black
Wow... u have not answered anything at all and u consider tat as a response ? Wat is probably to u ? According to the dictionary is meant
probably: in all likelihood; very likely
So wat is your point ? Probably is already in all likelihood very likely. Is tat not enough ? wat do u propose ? Something tat is out of probably. Which do u think carries more weight ?
It is the official stand of the school. And u have nothing. No website no other school except your bunch of bullsh!t and claims.
U wanna show u show la ! And even if u show, it is still just claims tat oral is better than written exams
Now look at the website
http://www.saahbs.net/germany/tud.html
Wat is tis guy opinion of TUD. Look at the following lines
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.
The above para has suggested tat not all exams r oral in nature. Notice "common" is not "all"
now if u see from the website in MIT
Searching "qualifying examination in MIT website produces these
1) From CSB, a GRADUATE program in MIT
Qualifying Exams: In addition to coursework and a research thesis, each student must pass a written and an oral qualifying examination in the second year.
2) Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Science
In outline, the requirements include a general qualifying examination to be taken in the third semester of registration in the program and completion of a minimum of 132 units
3) Post doctoral position
The degree is awarded at the end of the two-year period upon successful completion of didactic coursework, a research project, a thesis or thesis equivalent, and a qualifying examination
and so on
even your page on "qualifying exams" is derived from the website
Mechanical Engineering Doctoral Qualifying Exams
http://web.mit.edu/game/www/quals/
Is graduate qualifying exams the same as undergraduate courses exam ?
So ? Oral exam r still for graduate student when they r trying to defend their first/second year or thesis defence
Wow. Do u have anything to show u got great knowledge of oral exams ? Nothing
Wat is the logic ? I have stated clearly multiple times whichu clearly refuse to even read. U quote the number to my salary, u make the wrong quote I refer to your figure and tat is how the error appears. So wat is the logic u have used ?
Then wat other EQUALLY IMPORTANT skills have u successfully stated ?
I think u r missing hte original point. U askme to prove u claim writing paper is part of the equation. I proved it out isn't it and u have nothing to say on it. SO is the foot in your mouth now ?
The more important skill to write a research paper is to have research result. U have already admitted to the above point before. So is it "equally" important ? Nope
U just prove to fail in the comprehension of the example. It is about the stupidness of throwing away general facts because of an absurb example.
There r example of people using their eyes to open beer bottles though
search youttube "wickmans eye bottle opener finally works"
Tis is again rubbish. The definition already stated wat is the engineer of interest. Wat r u trying to do now ? Trying to act stupid or something ? Wat do u understand from the word "definition" ? Now I know wat is the problem with your english, u do not care about definition of words ! U also claim tat the "society" does not define the word. SO wat is your answer to it ? Who defines the word engineer ? U ?
Nah... u r avoiding the original question. U say tat studyng a chip and finding the problem to it is not a engineering. Wat is your comment on tis statement now ? Why do u talk about somethign totally out of point ?
U r the one tat talk rubbish here ma. Look at the statement u said 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?
The answer is: U can ask a person to design complicated graphics within a software engineering team but tis guy is a graphic designer.
If being in a team of software engineer will make u a software engineer, according to your incredibly stupid logic, then any sweeper in a software engineering firm is a software engineer. But because u r so dense, u do not know the joke is on u and ask stupid questions
First, professional engineers can do research. Who say tat professional engineers cannot do any research at all ? If an engineer discover a great way to solve a practical problem, define and fine tune it and publish the result, he has done a great research for the people. U know who is nikola tesla ? He has devised a lot of theories on electricity and his job is an electrical engineer under edison
However a person who do not know wat is engineering probably does not know professional engineers can do research
So u r saying u r wrong about NSPE not including research and not trying to talk about another point altogether ? Wat is your answer to NSPE does not include research engineers ? Another false lie u made again ?
And if u talk about NSPE "education", it is still on research and getting the research result is more important than just educating people about tis same result tat u need to get first.
U only show there r other skills necessary. Surely u will know tat I can have a more important skill and hundred of other skills.
It has 3 job scope but it require only engineers to apply, not business or salesmen or admin. So we should know the priority of the skills necessary.
Yeah yeah yeah... look at who is the oen with the weak arguments. All your points just show how shallow and limited your views r and yet have the audacity to comment on other people. Tis is really the classical example of the pot calling the kettle black
What???? STILL ESCAPING FROM YOUR ERRORS? SPEECHLESS? Really lost count on the number of quotes you evaded answering because you have been proven speechless again and again.
Continue to tell me you are generally correct when I have long ago mentioned to you examples.
Wow... u have not answered anything at all and u consider tat as a response ? Wat is probably to u ? According to the dictionary is meant
probably: in all likelihood; very likely
So wat is your point ? Probably is already in all likelihood very likely. Is tat not enough ? wat do u propose ? Something tat is out of probably. Which do u think carries more weight ?
It is the official stand of the school. And u have nothing. No website no other school except your bunch of bullsh!t and claims.
So does your probably word means that it is the official stand as you have stated?
Afterall, this was what you have said
If NUS website tell me tat it is fun, then it can be fun.
You can't even tell me for sure that it is indeed the official stand of NUS that engineering is fun, with the reason being that it is on their website.
Any reason for the double standards?
now if u see from the website in MIT
Searching "qualifying examination in MIT website produces these
1) From CSB, a GRADUATE program in MIT
Qualifying Exams: In addition to coursework and a research thesis, each student must pass a written and an oral qualifying examination in the second year.
2) Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Science
In outline, the requirements include a general qualifying examination to be taken in the third semester of registration in the program and completion of a minimum of 132 units
3) Post doctoral position
The degree is awarded at the end of the two-year period upon successful completion of didactic coursework, a research project, a thesis or thesis equivalent, and a qualifying examination
and so on
even your page on "qualifying exams" is derived from the website
Mechanical Engineering Doctoral Qualifying Exams
http://web.mit.edu/game/www/quals/
Is graduate qualifying exams the same as undergraduate courses exam ?
This part was pointing out to you your whole statement is inadequate.
MIT DO NOT GIVE ORAL EXAMS FOR THEIR COURSES
Your sentence in red does not state graduate or undergraduate courses at all.
So ? Oral exam r still for graduate student when they r trying to defend their first/second year or thesis defence
Look at the header carefully for the 2nd website
International Undergraduate Admissions
Understand?
Wow. Do u have anything to show u got great knowledge of oral exams ? Nothing
Well, it seems like you are the one who had been asking stupid questions all along about oral exams. I don't need to show you I got great knowledge of it; I only need to show you I know much more about it than you, having experienced it first-hand.
I tell you my first-hand experience, and you want to continuously tell me what I experienced is wrong, and you have nothing to prove yourself at all, other than a single statement from a website, in which you practiced double standard with what is stated on the NUS website. -.-"
Wat is the logic ? I have stated clearly multiple times whichu clearly refuse to even read. U quote the number to my salary, u make the wrong quote I refer to your figure and tat is how the error appears. So wat is the logic u have used ?
So back to the question. Using your logic, do you have any proof I was referring to the forummer stupidissmart? How do you know I wasn't referring to someone else in another thread?
Then wat other EQUALLY IMPORTANT skills have u successfully stated ?
The skill of educating, the job scope of education. You mean you do not understand what is being discussed all along???
Afterall, engineers are encouraged to do so in the ethics in your NPSE.
I think u r missing hte original point. U askme to prove u claim writing paper is part of the equation. I proved it out isn't it and u have nothing to say on it. SO is the foot in your mouth now ?
The more important skill to write a research paper is to have research result. U have already admitted to the above point before. So is it "equally" important ? Nope
Where have you proved that writing a paper is not part of the equation? Please quote it.
And does saying that it is part of the equation means it is equally important or more important? Again and again, you like to put words into my mouth.
Maybe you should go back to O level E maths to re-do your Sets and Venn diagram questions.
U just prove to fail in the comprehension of the example. It is about the stupidness of throwing away general facts because of an absurb example.
There r example of people using their eyes to open beer bottles though
search youttube "wickmans eye bottle opener finally works"
Come on, you want to prove to me your example is valid, you have to specifically tell me that there are indeed examples of people using their eyes to push things in.
Don't evade and twist away (yet again) by using a different example.
Tis is again rubbish. The definition already stated wat is the engineer of interest. Wat r u trying to do now ? Trying to act stupid or something ? Wat do u understand from the word "definition" ? Now I know wat is the problem with your english, u do not care about definition of words ! U also claim tat the "society" does not define the word. SO wat is your answer to it ? Who defines the word engineer ? U ?
No no no
You are obviously having problems understanding that the definition of a whole field does not mean that a job of that field have to do every single thing in that field.
I quote to you again since you cannot understand
If I give you the job scope of one of the product engineers, you don't go and take the whole field of it and tell me I'm wrong. Totally illogical.
Who defines the word engineer? The society as a whole, not just NPSE. This include the different companies and HRs, of which I have already showed you one example of a sales engineer.
Nah... u r avoiding the original question. U say tat studyng a chip and finding the problem to it is not a engineering. Wat is your comment on tis statement now ? Why do u talk about somethign totally out of point ?
Back to the above point. Since you are still stupid and cannot understand explicitly.
If I give you the job scope of one of the software engineers, you don't go and take the whole field of it and tell me I'm wrong. Totally illogical.
U r the one tat talk rubbish here ma. Look at the statement u said 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?
The answer is: U can ask a person to design complicated graphics within a software engineering team but tis guy is a graphic designer.
If being in a team of software engineer will make u a software engineer, according to your incredibly stupid logic, then any sweeper in a software engineering firm is a software engineer. But because u r so dense, u do not know the joke is on u and ask stupid questions
If software engineers can study graphic designing as part of their modules, what gives you the right to tell me that a software engineer cannot be employed to do graphic design????
Please use your own incredibly stupid logic, and tell me software engineers study how to be a sweeper in uni.
First, professional engineers can do research. Who say tat professional engineers cannot do any research at all ? If an engineer discover a great way to solve a practical problem, define and fine tune it and publish the result, he has done a great research for the people. U know who is nikola tesla ? He has devised a lot of theories on electricity and his job is an electrical engineer under edison
However a person who do not know wat is engineering probably does not know professional engineers can do research
See, you still cannot understand.
Obvious twisting of words yet again (lost count how many times already)
I said there's no professional engineers for research engineering. It is different from the statement that professional engineers cannot do any research. Try again.
So u r saying u r wrong about NSPE not including research and not trying to talk about another point altogether ? Wat is your answer to NSPE does not include research engineers ? Another false lie u made again ?
And if u talk about NSPE "education", it is still on research and getting the research result is more important than just educating people about tis same result tat u need to get first.
Again, same as above. Get clear in your skull the logic first.
And so? Just answer me. Is education part of the main jobs of NPSE?
Don't need to twist and turn away from your flailing and weak arguments by twisting words (yet again)
U only show there r other skills necessary. Surely u will know tat I can have a more important skill and hundred of other skills.
It has 3 job scope but it require only engineers to apply, not business or salesmen or admin. So we should know the priority of the skills necessary.
I'm talking about the main job scopes. So can you say for sure that 1 out of the 3 job scopes listed is definitely, and must be, the more important job scope of the sales engineer?
as said before, u demand changes to be made to it regardless of whether u think it is wrong or inadequate. Logically speaking, it can only be inadequate only if it is wrong on some area.
Demand changes?
You have already told me indirectly that wiki's definition of professor is inadequate because it states that the term 'professor' is a title that is a reference to an expert when you tell me professor is an occupation.
Yeah... Go on and contradict yourself by practicing double standards.
r u talking about yourself for trying to prove wiki and the professional engineers wrong ? Tat is really the real stupidity
See how stupid you are? Still trying to tell me that I'm proving wiki wrong when all along, I told you it is inadequate.
Pls continue to post that inadequacy is the same as being wrong. You are just proving yourself someone of poor english.
-
I think all of you guys here just prove Lady Melissa right with regards to Village Graduates. The very least that is expected of a graduate is an independent mind. If not, what's the point of having a university education?
Originally posted by ivebeenhad:To answer your question, this post is not offensive, i find that it makes sense because Singapores education system is a big screw up in the first place. Singaporeans are hardworking people, they aren't smartworking people, so hardwork will enable them to memorise very well but they cant think with their brains and its kinda sad to see every smart singaporean bark, sit, roll over and play dead at the command of a figure of authority.
I don't find Lady Melissa's post offensive at all. From my personal experience, I encounter a lot of hardworking Singaporeans in Singapore, but few has an independent mind and original insight into things. Our education system is built on spoon-feeding the students with information, whereas a proper education should focus on providing one with the framework to process information rather than telling you what to think. Isn't it a failure that our education system tends to produce exam-smart people rather than problem-solvers?
-
Our education system is build spoon-feeding the students with information, whereas a proper education should focus on providing one with the framework to process information rather than telling you what to think. Isn't it a failure that our education system tends to produce exam-smart people rather than problem-solvers?
Given our education system, as graduates, we do have the ability to contribute, no matter how small our influence, to those that we are able to reach out to be exam-smart as well as being a good problem-solver. Isn't it good to be both exam-smart and a problem-solver as well? :D
And with the above statement, it also represents various business opportunities, of which foreigners will find it extremely hard to compete in some of it. Not sure if you get what I mean.
-
What???? STILL ESCAPING FROM YOUR ERRORS? SPEECHLESS? Really lost count on the number of quotes you evaded answering because you have been proven speechless again and again.
Continue to tell me you are generally correct when I have long ago mentioned to you examples.
Wat errors ? I don't see u capable of establishing any fact out but just one sided claims. If u talk about pevious errors, u hit the roof. There r so many issues which u suddenly cease when u see the error of your way such as do not know wta is "maths", do not know wat is "software engineer", do not know about engineering, quoting the wrong number and many hilarious examples
So does your probably word means that it is the official stand as you have stated?
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 ?
This part was pointing out to you your whole statement is inadequate.
Wat cock r u trying to say ?
Your sentence in red does not state graduate or undergraduate courses at all
From the first time u stated oral exam, I already clearly told u tat thesis defense and course oral exam r totally different and u agree with me. The one tat u have listed r thesis or first year presentation. SO wat happened to your original stand ? If thesis defence is included, then NUS and NTU also got and wat u said is nothing special or different
Look at the header carefully
International Undergraduate Admissions
Understand?
Do they say tat they have to go through oral examinations ? They r just trying to tell people they use english throughout. Furthermore oral examination may mean FYP defense and like NTU NUS, they r already present.
Up till now u still cannot show the modules in MIT having to take oral examination
Well, it seems like you are the one who had been asking stupid questions all along about oral exams.
The stupid person is the one who wanna fight with people on oral exam, call other people's view limiting and challenge people back for a long argument fight. Furthermore u cannot answer the so called "stupid" questions yourself. Maybe tat is wat u really r
So back to the question. Using your logic, do you have any proof I was referring to the forummer stupidissmart? How do you know I wasn't referring to someone else in another thread?
If u say u r not mentioning to me, how come u reply to my question, mention about my salary, quote it badly, then no one else is responding to u ? How can u justfiy all the words u said in a logical format if u r not implying me ?
Wat is my logic ? U had twisted my logic out of context.
Education. You mean you do not understand what is being discussed all along???
U failed to understand your "education" failed to be listed as equally impotant as solving practical problems
Where have you proved that writing a paper is not part of the equation? Please quote it.
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 !
And does saying that it is part of the equation means it is equally important or more important? Again and again, you like to put words into my mouth.
I think u r missing the whole point. U like to put your foot into your mouth though
Come on, you want to prove to me your example is valid, you have to specifically tell me that there are indeed examples of people using their eyes to prove things in.
Don't evade and twist away (yet again)
U really lack a sense of imagination. It is an example, an illustration. Why do I have to show u cases of people using their eye to push things ? Without tat u cannot visualise the message behind the example ? Wow man I can really imagine how difficult it is for your teacher to teach u. I show u examples of people using their eye to do other things other than seeing. U have a problem with tat ? Or u really lack a sense of imagination ?
You are obviously having problems understanding that the definition of a whole field does not mean that a job of that field have to do every single thing in that field.
Do u have a problem with the word "definition" ? It is the description tat everybody can understand , it is used for explaining wat it is about and it is stated in the dictionary for all to refer to. Now u r telling me tat the definition is wrong, u do not understand when everybody else does and u wanna define it otherwise. Do u know wat does tis imply ? U r more stupid than normal people
Who defines the word engineer? The society as a whole, not just NPSE. This include the different companies and HRs, of which I have already showed you one example of a sales engineer.
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.
U show me an ad for a sales engineering requesting people to do engineer and without giving any definition of the word engineer and tat is a proof ? Did your ad claims wat is an engineer ?
Back to the above point. Since you are still stupid and cannot understand explicitly
U r avoiding the question. U claim tat finding the source of problem on a chip is not engineer. true or false ? SO wat do u have to say about it now ? I wanna hear an answer on tis issue u know
If software engineers can study graphic designing as part of their modules, what gives you the right to tell me that a software engineer cannot be employed to do graphic design????
Wa... engineer can also take up japanese as part of their module. So they r japanese ? Wat a lousy conclusion
Please use your own logic, and tell me software engineers study how to be a sweeper in uni.
The example of sweeper in a software engineer team is a mockery of your stupid logic which u clearly r speechless over. If I use my logic, then I wouldn't make such a silly statement. However u r more stupid and come out with stupid logic and therefore a sweeper can become an engineer in tis case. U say
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?
SO using your twisted logic a sweeper can be an engineer isn't it ? COm'on tell me la ! I will keep harping on tis point till u either apologise and put your foot into your mouth by u claiming u made a stupid conclusion.
See, you still cannot understand.
Obvious twisting of words yet again (lost count how many times already)
I said there's no professional engineers for research engineering. It is different from the statement that professional engineers cannot do any research. Try again.
Tis is another stupid thing u have said. Lets put is in simple logic for u. NSPE have researchers in their ranks. True or false. Instead of beating around the bush and talking about crappy items, why not answer to the point instead. And a reminder for u below
Then u ask a stupid question on
Is it legally required to have a PE signature, seal and stamp for a research paper to be written?
Why do u put it there ? Why do u refuse to answer tis same question repeatedly ? Because it had proved u made the wrong stand on obtaining signatures ?
And so? Just answer me. Is education part of the main jobs of NPSE?
I can answer u but will u answer me ? U just feign ignornace and refuse to answer questions asked repeatedly. NSPE publish reseach papers. True.
Let me ask u back. To publish a reseach paper, u need to have research result. And tat is the more important skill because without results u cannot publish anything. Wat is your answer to it ? Why ? Your balls dropped off ? Why r u not answering questions I posed ?
I'm talking about the main job scopes. So can you say for sure that 1 out of the 3 job scopes listed is definitely, and must be, the more important job scope of the sales engineer?
Because they require a person trained in engineer for the job, not a sales person or a business person or an admin person. I have told u tis multiples times.
Demand changes?
You have already told me indirectly that wiki's definition of professor is inadequate.
Yeah... Go on and contradict yourself
Really ? Show me when have I said tat the definition of professor is inadequate. I really cannot remember such incident had happened and want my memories refreshed.
And wat about the statement below ? WHy r u speechless over it ?
as said before, u demand changes to be made to it regardless of whether u think it is wrong or inadequate. Logically speaking, it can only be inadequate only if it is wrong on some area.
So am i wrong to use the word "wrong" here ? If not, then u surely have to apologise for framing me isn;t it ?
See how stupid you are? Still trying to tell me that I'm proving wiki wrong when all along, I told you it is inadequate.
Inadequate means it is wrong in some areas and u wanna correct it. AM I wrong to say u want to prove wiki wrong ?
-
you know, i think you guys broke some record for longest average post. seriously, i don't want to read what you guys post... it's too long!
-
not offensive..very true and accurate...sg uni top 100 in the world cuz like wat the blog says, jus lao sai of memorised pages...
-
Originally posted by domonkassyu:
not offensive..very true and accurate...sg uni top 100 in the world cuz like wat the blog says, jus lao sai of memorised pages...
ah, a short post... simple idea simple to understand.
but for uni level, lao sai memorised pages is not enuff.. you need to understand it... so is not total idiot studying there....
-
not offensive..very true and accurate...sg uni top 100 in the world cuz like wat the blog says, jus lao sai of memorised pages...
U know more and more exams at Uni level r open book exams. It has nothing to do with memorising
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U know more and more exams at Uni level r open book exams. It has nothing to do with memorising
yes, another bite sized post! think we are on a row here! and i agree that there is alot of open book exams nowadays
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Peer appraisal has a big weightage for the ranking so the quality of the student do affect the result
If u talk about examination, I felt written examination to be the most fairest. To really make sure the person understand the subject, u just ask good questions in the written examination. Oral examination is subjective since they can really see who u r.
i think asking good questions during exams is really impt..
the motive of asking is to see if the student understand the essence of what he's studying right? but some lecturers forget that, and it becomes a mind game of "student spot questions, lecturer try to put questions which student may not study"
-
the motive of asking is to see if the student understand the essence of what he's studying right? but some lecturers forget that, and it becomes a mind game of "student spot questions, lecturer try to put questions which student may not study"
If u ask me the really good questions r those u will face in society and u know how to solve them.
-
that is what essay question is about.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Wat errors ? I don't see u capable of establishing any fact out but just one sided claims. If u talk about pevious errors, u hit the roof. There r so many issues which u suddenly cease when u see the error of your way such as do not know wta is "maths", do not know wat is "software engineer", do not know about engineering, quoting the wrong number and many hilarious examples
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 ?
Wat cock r u trying to say ?
From the first time u stated oral exam, I already clearly told u tat thesis defense and course oral exam r totally different and u agree with me. The one tat u have listed r thesis or first year presentation. SO wat happened to your original stand ? If thesis defence is included, then NUS and NTU also got and wat u said is nothing special or different
Do they say tat they have to go through oral examinations ? They r just trying to tell people they use english throughout. Furthermore oral examination may mean FYP defense and like NTU NUS, they r already present.
Up till now u still cannot show the modules in MIT having to take oral examination
The stupid person is the one who wanna fight with people on oral exam, call other people's view limiting and challenge people back for a long argument fight. Furthermore u cannot answer the so called "stupid" questions yourself. Maybe tat is wat u really r
If u say u r not mentioning to me, how come u reply to my question, mention about my salary, quote it badly, then no one else is responding to u ? How can u justfiy all the words u said in a logical format if u r not implying me ?
Wat is my logic ? U had twisted my logic out of context.
U failed to understand your "education" failed to be listed as equally impotant as solving practical problems
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 think u r missing the whole point. U like to put your foot into your mouth though
U really lack a sense of imagination. It is an example, an illustration. Why do I have to show u cases of people using their eye to push things ? Without tat u cannot visualise the message behind the example ? Wow man I can really imagine how difficult it is for your teacher to teach u. I show u examples of people using their eye to do other things other than seeing. U have a problem with tat ? Or u really lack a sense of imagination ?
Do u have a problem with the word "definition" ? It is the description tat everybody can understand , it is used for explaining wat it is about and it is stated in the dictionary for all to refer to. Now u r telling me tat the definition is wrong, u do not understand when everybody else does and u wanna define it otherwise. Do u know wat does tis imply ? U r more stupid than normal people
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.
U show me an ad for a sales engineering requesting people to do engineer and without giving any definition of the word engineer and tat is a proof ? Did your ad claims wat is an engineer ?
U r avoiding the question. U claim tat finding the source of problem on a chip is not engineer. true or false ? SO wat do u have to say about it now ? I wanna hear an answer on tis issue u know
Wa... engineer can also take up japanese as part of their module. So they r japanese ? Wat a lousy conclusion
The example of sweeper in a software engineer team is a mockery of your stupid logic which u clearly r speechless over. If I use my logic, then I wouldn't make such a silly statement. However u r more stupid and come out with stupid logic and therefore a sweeper can become an engineer in tis case. U say
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?
SO using your twisted logic a sweeper can be an engineer isn't it ? COm'on tell me la ! I will keep harping on tis point till u either apologise and put your foot into your mouth by u claiming u made a stupid conclusion.
Tis is another stupid thing u have said. Lets put is in simple logic for u. NSPE have researchers in their ranks. True or false. Instead of beating around the bush and talking about crappy items, why not answer to the point instead. And a reminder for u below
Then u ask a stupid question on
Is it legally required to have a PE signature, seal and stamp for a research paper to be written?
Why do u put it there ? Why do u refuse to answer tis same question repeatedly ? Because it had proved u made the wrong stand on obtaining signatures ?
I can answer u but will u answer me ? U just feign ignornace and refuse to answer questions asked repeatedly. NSPE publish reseach papers. True.
Let me ask u back. To publish a reseach paper, u need to have research result. And tat is the more important skill because without results u cannot publish anything. Wat is your answer to it ? Why ? Your balls dropped off ? Why r u not answering questions I posed ?
Because they require a person trained in engineer for the job, not a sales person or a business person or an admin person. I have told u tis multiples times.
Really ? Show me when have I said tat the definition of professor is inadequate. I really cannot remember such incident had happened and want my memories refreshed.
And wat about the statement below ? WHy r u speechless over it ?
as said before, u demand changes to be made to it regardless of whether u think it is wrong or inadequate. Logically speaking, it can only be inadequate only if it is wrong on some area.
So am i wrong to use the word "wrong" here ? If not, then u surely have to apologise for framing me isn;t it ?
Inadequate means it is wrong in some areas and u wanna correct it. AM I wrong to say u want to prove wiki wrong ?
Wat errors ? I don't see u capable of establishing any fact out but just one sided claims. If u talk about pevious errors, u hit the roof. There r so many issues which u suddenly cease when u see the error of your way such as do not know wta is "maths", do not know wat is "software engineer", do not know about engineering, quoting the wrong number and many hilarious examples
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.
Go on and show some more evasion.
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.
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.
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 ?
How many times must you act dumb?
Professors are not obligated to offer an oral test, but if they do it will most probably be to your advantage.
And with that statement in bold, you tell me that the official stand about oral exams is that it is easier.
i had proved tat TUD does not give oral exam for all the subjects which u claim they do.
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 cock r u trying to say ?
Probably not the first time you cannot understand things (again). Why don't you poll around and see if others can understand?
Do they say tat they have to go through oral examinations ? They r just trying to tell people they use english throughout. Furthermore oral examination may mean FYP defense and like NTU NUS, they r already present.
Up till now u still cannot show the modules in MIT having to take oral examination
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.
The stupid person is the one who wanna fight with people on oral exam, call other people's view limiting and challenge people back for a long argument fight. Furthermore u cannot answer the so called "stupid" questions yourself. Maybe tat is wat u really r
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.
If u say u r not mentioning to me, how come u reply to my question, mention about my salary, quote it badly, then no one else is responding to u ? How can u justfiy all the words u said in a logical format if u r not implying me ?
Wat is my logic ? U had twisted my logic out of context.
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.
U failed to understand your "education" failed to be listed as equally impotant as solving practical problems
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.
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 !
Switch the question? Are you talking rubbish?
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.
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?????????
I think u r missing the whole point. U like to put your foot into your mouth though
You don't understand what is meant by part of the equation, do you?
U really lack a sense of imagination. It is an example, an illustration. Why do I have to show u cases of people using their eye to push things ? Without tat u cannot visualise the message behind the example ? Wow man I can really imagine how difficult it is for your teacher to teach u. I show u examples of people using their eye to do other things other than seeing. U have a problem with tat ? Or u really lack a sense of imagination ?
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.
Do u have a problem with the word "definition" ? It is the description tat everybody can understand , it is used for explaining wat it is about and it is stated in the dictionary for all to refer to. Now u r telling me tat the definition is wrong, u do not understand when everybody else does and u wanna define it otherwise. Do u know wat does tis imply ? U r more stupid than normal people
You still don't understand the point. I'm repeating to you a third time.
If I give you the job scope of one of the product engineers, you don't go and take the whole field of it and tell me I'm wrong. Totally illogical.
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.
Seems like you are more stupid than normal. Really.
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.
U show me an ad for a sales engineering requesting people to do engineer and without giving any definition of the word engineer and tat is a proof ? Did your ad claims wat is an engineer ?
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 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.
So who are the "many other people" you have raised? You mean you are the one to represent "many other people"???
U r avoiding the question. U claim tat finding the source of problem on a chip is not engineer. true or false ? SO wat do u have to say about it now ? I wanna hear an answer on tis issue u know
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.
Wa... engineer can also take up japanese as part of their module. So they r japanese ? Wat a lousy conclusion
Don't be stupid (yet again, sigh)
Is japanese part of the main syllabus? Or even part of the specialisation tracks?Duh....
The example of sweeper in a software engineer team is a mockery of your stupid logic which u clearly r speechless over. If I use my logic, then I wouldn't make such a silly statement. However u r more stupid and come out with stupid logic and therefore a sweeper can become an engineer in tis case. U say
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?
SO using your twisted logic a sweeper can be an engineer isn't it ? COm'on tell me la ! I will keep harping on tis point till u either apologise and put your foot into your mouth by u claiming u made a stupid conclusion.
Don't be stupid la. I use something that software engineers study in uni, and it's part of their job scope.
I will let you keep harping on this point, because it shows your stupidity aplenty.
Repeat for you:
If I give you the job scope of one of the software engineers, you don't go and take the whole field of it and tell me I'm wrong. Totally illogical.
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.
Tis is another stupid thing u have said. Lets put is in simple logic for u. NSPE have researchers in their ranks. True or false. Instead of beating around the bush and talking about crappy items, why not answer to the point instead. And a reminder for u below
Then u ask a stupid question on
Is it legally required to have a PE signature, seal and stamp for a research paper to be written?
Why do u put it there ? Why do u refuse to answer tis same question repeatedly ? Because it had proved u made the wrong stand on obtaining signatures ?
See, you still cannot understand. What's the difference?
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.
Why do u refuse to answer tis same question repeatedly ?
Did you ask me back the same question? I don't remember seeing it. Pls show. I will reply to you.
I can answer u but will u answer me ? U just feign ignornace and refuse to answer questions asked repeatedly. NSPE publish reseach papers. True.
Let me ask u back. To publish a reseach paper, u need to have research result. And tat is the more important skill because without results u cannot publish anything. Wat is your answer to it ? Why ? Your balls dropped off ? Why r u not answering questions I posed ?
Just continue to act stupid that I have not answered.
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.
Because they require a person trained in engineer for the job, not a sales person or a business person or an admin person. I have told u tis multiples times.
I didn't disagree with you. It's only you who want to say multiple times. The pertinent question is still:
So can you say for sure that 1 out of the 3 job scopes listed is definitely, and must be, the more important job scope of the sales engineer?
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!)
Really ? Show me when have I said tat the definition of professor is inadequate. I really cannot remember such incident had happened and want my memories refreshed.
And wat about the statement below ? WHy r u speechless over it ?
as said before, u demand changes to be made to it regardless of whether u think it is wrong or inadequate. Logically speaking, it can only be inadequate only if it is wrong on some area.
So am i wrong to use the word "wrong" here ? If not, then u surely have to apologise for framing me isn;t it ?
This is what you have said:
U have a wrong understanding of professor. A professor is an occupation. If u see the person name card it stated "professor". If he tell people wat he do, he say he is a professor on which school and field. He is not an engineer with the title professor, he is a professor. It is completely different from an engineer. Do u know wat job do wat ? u clearly do not know wat tis occupation do and wat tat occupation do.
When wiki clearly does not state that a professor is an occupation, but rather, a title, a form of address, an honorifc term.
And wat about the statement below ? WHy r u speechless over it ?
I'm awaiting your comments on your statement on what a professor is and what wiki's definition is before continuing on that part. Why should I answer if you have been shown to practice double standards?
Logically speaking, it can only be inadequate only if it is wrong on some area.
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???
Inadequate means it is wrong in some areas and u wanna correct it. AM I wrong to say u want to prove wiki wrong ?
Did you even pass O levels?
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.