The Tool and the Liberation
[Cross-posted from The Cannon Newspaper's January feature to reach a wider audience]"The Tool", for those unacquainted, is a 60" long triple-chromed pipe wrench made by the Ridge Tool Company (known for its Ridgid brand of hand tools and power tools). This particular tool is a 42-year-old specimen that now serves as the mascot of the University of Waterloo Engineering Society.
Cannon on top of The 'Ridgid' Tool
Forged in Elyria, Ohio, the $350 Tool was donated to the then cash-strapped UWaterloo in 1967 by the Ridge Tool Company on two conditions: that it be named "The Ridgid Tool" and that it be kept in its original Ridgid orange and black colours. Waterloo, of course, took these to heart - and promptly dipped the whole thing in a bath of chrome just hours after its reception. The "Ridgid" brand name was dropped shortly thereafter.
The Mighty Skule Cannon: 80 Years Old and Still Mighty
Cannon circa 1999
[Cross-posted from The Cannon Newspaper's January feature to reach a wider audience]
The year is 1929. It is a calm and quiet evening on the picturesque University of Toronto campus. Students could be seen relaxing at the then 10-year-old Hart House, the central community hub built for students of all faculties and colleges alike.
Suddenly, a loud thundering boom rocked the foundations of the building. Was it a bomb? Are we under attack? Is the war returning? These thoughts raced through the minds of surrounding students, caught unaware by the apparent explosion, as they searched simultaneously for cover and the source of the outburst.
Engineering: Passion Lost and Found
[Cross-posted from Richmond Hill High School Alumni Association blog found here.]
What follows is a story I have told only to a few of my closest friends (and probably not in its entirety), because of its complexity, personal nature, and my own confusion. It’s taken me a long time to formulate this into a coherent message to share. I think it is worth reading for anyone who is considering a career in (or at least an academic foray into) the field of Engineering. I apologize in advance for the length, as this may read more like a journal than an essay. I hope, though, that you will appreciate the sentiment behind the words.
—–
High School Blues
It was the final year of high school. Some say it’s the best year of their life – not yet an adult, but old enough to do all the cool things you never could when you were ‘just a kid’. I, however, spent most of this year in confusion and stress. Up to this point, I had been fairly academically accomplished. I’d been regularly getting those revered 90’s in all of my classes. I’d written all the toughest math contests and placed well. I’d just placed in the top 60 in the Canadian Computing Competition. Actually, I was really bored by school. It provided no challenge, and it gave me no direction.
What Separates Engineers from Politicians?
This piece was written as a reflection for the ESC202 Praxis IV course.
Much has been said about the difference between politicians and engineers. This is a debate that has gone on for ages. Why do Engineers not engage in public debates? Is it because engineers do not know about public policy?
When I sit around my engineering peers, and discuss politics, I often get noncommittal responses and shrugs of indifference. There are never any heated debates about politics, and never any emotionally charged tirades about one’s favourite political party. Engineers do not seem to be interested in public policy.
Mostly, this is because engineers don’t connect to politicians. They feel like politicians don’t make a difference. Like talking to a less intelligent friend, engineers find discussions with politicians useless – they spend much of their time explaining technical concepts without getting much progress. By the time an engineer figures out a way to get the politician to understand the technical details, the politician has long since lost interest.
Their goals, of course, are also different. Despite the public claim that politicians are supposed to serve “the people”, there are countless instances where special interest groups and lobbyists manage to sway politicians to a direction away from the majority view. These political battles create endless red tape – the kind of bureaucracy that engineers despise. Such an efficient workplace would instantly turn off an engineer.
Engineers find public policy important, but do not have time to deal with the implementation of the policies. The fundamental difference between engineers and politicians working on public policy is the time scale. Politicians, by nature of their job, think only in terms of years. Promises on public policy often happen in 5?year election cycles, and then get pushed aside when they are actually in office. Meanwhile, engineers and scientists have to deal with technology that changes on a constant basis – for example the tech sector progresses in maybe 6?month cycles, much faster than the politicians. By the time public policy is able to get past all the red tape, the science world has already leaped eons ahead.
So why bother with public policy? Politicians will always be playing catch?up anyway. There isn’t much reason to explain technical concepts to politicians and have to wait for them to accept technological progress. Perhaps the whole concept should just be scrapped: instead, let scientists and engineers do whatever they want to advance the field of science and technology, and let the public reap the benefits directly, without going through the government.
Why Don’t Engineers Rule the World?
This piece was written as a reflection for the ESC202 Praxis IV course.
It is perhaps somewhat arrogant to say Engineers would make the world better if only we could run the government. There is a reason that engineers do not run for positions in government, and do not get into bureaucratic positions of power.
Many engineers approach social situations as nuisances. This attitude is not shared by politicians, who use social events to their advantage in gaining political support. This alone makes engineers seem lofty and unapproachable by the average person, who may not have the same intellectual ability as an engineer. For this reason alone, it may be hard for engineers to understand the needs of society – because they think in a way that is so vastly different from other people.
While engineers certainly have a good grasp of scientific problems and can easily problem solve, engineers are not particularly well suited as leaders. The type of people that the engineering profession attracts is not representative of the majority of the population. Engineers are usually the types of people who prefer objective reasoning with numbers and equations rather than with subjective realities like most societal issues are.
Engineers have no trouble coming up with solutions to most problems, with their trained analytical skills. Unfortunately, much of the time engineers solve the wrong problem altogether. While some solutions may make some scientific sense to the engineer, they do not necessarily have the same charm to the average Joe. Engineers, having solutions to problems, are generally progressive in nature. They want to see their solutions implemented as soon as possible, and are often frustrated when their proposals to politicians get stuck in red tape for years.
What engineers often do not see is that some people do not wish for a change. Despite glaring social problems, people get comfortable in their social niche, and do not necessarily want change. Like the engineers who work with the disadvantaged developing world with EWB know well, the engineering solution is not always aligned with the cultural values of the majority, and do not serve the needs of people.
If the world were run by engineers in government, things would surely get done. Engineers hate bureaucracy. But there is no guarantee that the things that get done would be the best things for society. While technological advances would be easily accepted, their social impacts may not be so easily realized.
Human Factors Design
This piece was written as a reflection for the ESC202 Praxis IV course.
Human factors are rarely considered in any engineering design. Often, it is the last step considered. Take for example, the personal computer. Hailed by some as the greatest invention of the 20th century, it is one of the least accessible and understandable pieces of technology ever created. Everyone knows this, but hardly anybody but engineers can change this. Computers are near impossible for anyone to use. Even the most experienced user with the best programs can sometimes fail to get a computer to do what they want.
Countless man-hours of productivity are lost in corporations by the inability of staff to use these supposedly great 'tools'. IT departments are becoming disproportionately large, and huge sums of money are poured into maintaining and fixing computers on a daily basis. Most people simply do not know how to work a computer, despite its ubiquity in society.
Why is this the case? The first personal computers were designed by and designed for engineers. Even in the 70s, when Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak founded the company Apple and designed the first personal desktop computer, it was the result of circuit design, hacking, and input from other computer hobbyists. When it was invented, it was lauded as the technology that would bring computers to the masses. All of this, without much thought into how non-technical users would feel.
These engineers never considered that some users would not be familiar with keyboards, command lines, and installation routines. Despite the advances in computer design and graphical user interfaces, many of computing's most archaic practices are still in place. Let's take, for example, installing a new hard drive. Let us draw analogies between this installation and a similar installation in the physical world – let's say, putting up a new bookshelf to put more books.
First, let's look at the bookshelf installation. To install a new bookshelf, one could simply move one in from the store and place it in a room. In the worst case, the bookshelf would need to be assembled – but bookshelves are intuitive things. You build a frame with the given instructions and tools, and then you place the dividers into the shelf.
Now let's look at the computer. To install a hard drive, you need to first unplug your computer, unscrew its cover, and take it apart. This is akin to removing your door to move in a bookshelf. Next, you would have to locate a slot in your computer to place it, then put the new hard drive in place and plug it in to the motherboard. That is the most straightforward part. If the hard drive were anything like a bookshelf, one would expect the computer to work by now. Unfortunately, this is not the case – there are still many more steps before this task can be fully accomplished. (On older hard drives, you even had to change the settings on the old hard drive to tell it to become the 'slave' drive, and the new one to be the 'slave' drive.)
After putting the hard drive in place, we must turn on the computer (and hope that nothing was damaged in the installation process). Then, after the computer has taken its time to load, you have to wait an even longer time for it to 'detect' the new hardware. This is like waiting for your room to figure out it's got a new book shelf in it. In many instances, the computer will not do this automatically. You actually have to go to the 'Control Panel' and tell the computer to look for a new drive. Then, you would likely have to install new software to get the hardware working. If this were really a bookshelf, you would be extraordinarily exasperated by now, after having to tell your room to look for the bookshelf, and then asking it to learn about the bookshelf before it can use it. Putting it in this light, it is clear that computers are not well designed for human usage.
This brings us to the cause of the problems. Computer and software engineers seem to have no idea what level of knowledge the general public has. Their expertise in computers has blinded them to the fact that most users have no idea what goes on when you install some hardware or some software. In fact, most users shouldn't need to have any sort of idea in order to use it. Does a pedestrian need to know how a bridge holds forces to walk across the bridge? Does a driver need to know how the internal combustion engine produces kinetic energy to drive a car?
Programmers often begin to write code based on solving a technical problem. They figure out what needs to be improved with the algorithms and all the 'internal' stuff that goes on in a computer. They spend so much time on their own program that they become intimately familiar with all its parts. They forget that outsiders have never seen anything like it before. Many software engineers have a natural fear of visual and industrial designers. They figure that a person not trained in programming shouldn't have a say of what goes on in their program.
The cure to the computer complexity problem, is of course Human Factors Design. It has already been proven to work. Observe the latest phenomenon in technology – the Apple iPod and iPhone. When these products were designed, they were not designed to solve a technical problem. Rather, the focus was on the human. The iPod and iPhone were designed to have the least number of buttons on it as possible. Whereas most electronic gadgets have a plethora of switches, buttons, and status displays, the iPod has only one scrollwheel and a handful of buttons. The iPhone has even less buttons – in fact, it only has one. These products are a runaway success simply because they are easy to use. Users who see these products in a store realize how easy it is, and are instantly hooked.
There is no reason that people should be fighting their technology – they should be embracing it, and be aided by it. There is still a long way to go for computer design for humans, and engineers need to be up to this task.
Engineers in the Public Eye
This piece was written as a reflection for the ESC202 Praxis IV course.
It is true that engineers have an understated and sometimes negative public image. Much of the public does not understand what it is that engineers do, or what engineers stand for. The public perception of engineering is that of a profession occupied by nerdy folks who spend their days tinkering with gadgets. In the media, engineers are never mentioned. In schools, where science and math are taught, there is little to no mention of engineering. "Engineering" is never taught as a subject at the elementary and secondary levels of education. There are famous scientists and mathematicians that every schoolkid can name, but not one famous engineer is ever remembered.
The question is, should engineers remain behind the scenes? On the one hand, engineers do indeed have to deal with many technical details which the public knows little of (and likely does not need to know). On the other hand, engineers have a moral obligation to serve the public interest. Building a bridge over a deep valley, while a feat of modern technology to be sure, is no feat of engineering unless it truly satisfies a societal need.
Often, though, engineers feel estranged from their surroundings by a blissfully ignorant public. At the recent Engineering Society meeting regarding the proposal to separate from the University of Toronto Students' Union, many engineering students voiced their opinions on university culture. Many students felt that it was necessary to separate from UTSU simply because they do not understand "us". We are misunderstood and portrayed as rebels, often isolated by the rest of the university. It was said that UTSU rarely acknowledged our needs, and treated us with little respect.
While it was not my intention at first to join this particular debate, I have since developed an opinion opposing that of the Engineering Society's. In my view, it is a waste of financial and human resources to isolate ourselves further from the rest of the university. It is exactly this kind of view that demonstrates a lack of holistic thinking that engineers ought to possess. While this students' quarrel is not in itself a symptom of the engineering profession at large, it should still be noted that engineers should be embracing, not rejecting, the public. Our attitudes towards the rest of the world need to be fostered at an early stage in our professional development, beginning at the university level.
Engineers, of course, have good reason to be intimidated by public consultation. Faced with equations and schematics, we have no problems getting our hands "dirty". But when confronted by politicians with agendas to push and lobbyists with special interests (just the kinds of people most likely to show their faces at a public consultation), we feel uncomfortable and out of place. Like a partial differential equation, many of society's complex problems cannot be solved using tried-and-true formulas. Engineers often have no background in the sociological or economic issues that underscore most of the situations they deal with. This lack of understanding leads to public distrust, making engineers seem to society as aloof.
Regardless of opinion, we live in a democratic society - and public consultations are one of the many checks and balances needed to make everything fair. For the public, these consultations are one of very few opportunities to talk to engineers. For the engineers, these may be a necessary "evil" of the occupation.
Sustainable Engineering
This piece was written as a reflection for the ESC202 Praxis IV course.
In modern society, prices are going down, and sizes are going up. This is in part due to economic pressure; in part due to consumer culture; but it is largely also due to the technological advancements from engineers and scientists.
Engineers are largely the ones responsible for driving prices down. Without their technological innovations, it would not be economically feasible to mass produce ans slash prices. The engineering profession, in fact, prides itself on making better and better things at the lowest possible cost. Engineers today work tirelessly to satisfy these consumer demands for better and cheaper goods.
Mass production, automation, artificial materials, and many more technologies of the post-industrial age are all engineering achievements. Engineers, who are the first to create new technologies, are also the first to find out the side effects. To promote a new technology without considering its side-effects would be morally irresponsible for anyone, especially engineers who are taught to hold public safety above all else.
While it is the moral obligation for everybody to look out for the well-being of our home - the Earth - it is the engineers who have the know-how and the ability to really do it. Bureaucrats and politicians, who do not have the technical background that engineers do, can only see the immediate effects of new developments and not the theoretical long-term consequences.
Ideally, engineers should be able to refuse morally irresponsible jobs. It is everyone's duty to protect the Earth - because we all share the same fate in the end. Engineers who have the power to change the world with technology should be able to do so with pride.
Why I chose Engineering
(Ed note: This post receives a lot of Google hits. For those stumbling upon this post, I also recommend this one, which is more in-depth and updated.)
Yesterday, amidst a rather empty convocation hall, I attended the Engineering Science overture lecture for the 2007 Winter Term, themed "Systems and States". Giving the lecture was one Professor Thomas Homer-Dixon. The director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program, and an MIT graduate, Mr. Homer-Dixon's lecture for the day had a sobering message. By all scientific accounts, modern human civilization is heading towards collapse in many different directions. The time to act against it is now. Yes, climate change is occurring. Yes, population growth is at an unprecedented high. Yes, energy production is slowing down. There are numerous factual evidences that support these phenomena. It's happening. Now.
---
Not too long ago, I was contemplating what I would do after high school. For me, there was almost no doubt I was going to be doing something science-related. Being practical, I chose to study engineering rather than purely theoretical science. I wanted to do something with knowledge. Learning is exhilerating, but alone, it serves no greater purpose.
Something else had always been troubling me for a while. Why aren't the smartest people in the world making the decisions about the world?
Our world, for the large part, is run by the great democratic political machines of industrialized western nations. Yet this same political machine regularly fails at recognizing what I feel are the most important issues of today - the human impact to environment.
Now, I've never called myself a tree-hugger, or anything of the sort. I don't have that sense of activism. But, I do maintain that many governments of today seem only to be concerned, with great hubris, about their own infinite 'economic' growth.
I am fascinated by politics. I read the newspaper regularly, just to catch up on the latest political scoop. I am fascinated, by the way politicians continue to sidestep real and important issues, with great deftness of words. Politics, to me, is nothing more than a play on words with some basic economic management.
So I figured long ago, that democracy is broken. Sure, if you ask me now, I'll tell you that I'll go out to vote, but for me, the impact of government is too slow, and too little. There are things going wrong with the world today, and political manuevering is not the way to solve it.
I was shocked, one day, about a year ago, to learn that there were still a great many important international figures who contest the notion of global warming, or even climate change. (Here's a list of some: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptics) It shouldn't take so much work to convince the public. And it sure as hell shouldn't be so hard to realize how it's bad for the Earth.
With my faith in politics and the media shaken, I resorted to the conclusion that the only way to get things done is to do things yourself. Of course, it's a long road, and it's hard to see where to begin on something so monumental.
---
Professor Homer-Dixon listed the problems, and offered a great many solutions. He articulated what I had been thinking, unconsciously and in abstract. But now I see it more clearly.
As an engineer, in the 21st century, these problems will be up to us to solve. So we can avoid a catastrophe in the future (near or far). Will we be able to engineer ourselves out of this problem? Well, we can only try and see now.
Latest Tweets
- Every time I go to Indigo to buy a particular book I end up buying 3 others but not the one I went for. 20 hours ago
- Re-found my love/hate relationship with programming. #codingallnight 4 days ago
- Coding in #Python really screwed up my #PHP... damn you semicolons! 4 days ago
- Time to start work. Good thing first meeting isn't till 11! 1 week ago
- Freedom! First year law is done! party time!! #lawschoollife 3 weeks ago
Recently Read Books
by Jared Diamond
Steve Jobs
by Walter Isaacson
The Rule of Law
by Tom Bingham
Outliers
by Malcolm Gladwell
Rubicon
by Tom Holland
Categories
- Academics (5)
- Canada (1)
- Education (1)
- Engineering (9)
- Law (2)
- Opinion (3)
- Personal (4)
- Politics (5)
- Religion (1)
- Sports (1)
- World (3)
Tags
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- April 2011
- March 2010
- January 2010
- March 2009
- August 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- June 2007
- January 2007
- February 2006