flyfisher Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1391630170' post='2359523'] And how would you demonstrate that competency to a policeman, insurance company or prospective employer? [/quote] Well, I'd point to my 35 years of accident-free driving for a start . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391633287' post='2359616'] Well, I'd point to my 35 years of accident-free driving for a start . . . [/quote] And how would you prove that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1391635448' post='2359674'] And how would you prove that? [/quote] OT, so apologies, but the word 'obtuse' just sprang into my mind. Can't think why..! Sorry, as you were... Edited February 5, 2014 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1391635448' post='2359674'] And how would you prove that? [/quote] My absence of insurance claims would be a good start I would think. But what is all this big brother stuff anyway? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1391635683' post='2359677'] OT, so apologies, but the word 'obtuse' just sprang into my mind. Can't think why..! Sorry, as you were... [/quote] The point I'm making is that we don't live in 1940 where only one or two people in each street own a car. There's millions of cars on the road. You can't be asking people to be proving their competency every 10minutes. For a start everyone would be crying big brother when the police keep stopping them. The other is that people are (like it or not) very driven by money. They'll say they can do things if it means they can earn money. It's already been pointed out that you don't put out a chemical fire with water. How do you know this? Someone has told you or you've read it. How do I know you know this? I ask you at your induction, are you trained to use a fire extinguisher. If you haven't been then I'll ask you to avoid using them because we have people who are, and there is a likelihood that even with the best intentions you'll make things worse. Now we're back to the millions bit. There have been millions of events logged and examined that show this happens, it's not happened just once or twice and no one is trying to spoil anyone's fun or trying to nanny anyone. It's the way things work. If you've ever been in a serious incident and had to endure the picking over of events all this would all become very clear and you wouldn't question why it's done. Edited February 5, 2014 by TimR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyctes Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 [quote name='KiOgon' timestamp='1391598770' post='2358924'] Royal Mail issued a new booklet of prohibited & restricted items in July 2013, with particular sections on batteries of most types with specific rules for Lithium, which are banned UK & International if not within an electronic device. Every parcel I send I'm asked what's in it & if there are any batteries. [/quote] The three or four parcels I've sold recently, I've been asked what's in them, but not about batteries. Evidently the training lags in some places. Either that, or I exude an air of confidence so compelling that nobody's going to ask me to prove anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1391637555' post='2359718']The point I'm making...[/quote] It would be wonderful if we could be just a little bit less 'head on' in these debates. No-one is contesting the usefulness of adequate training, most especially where there is responsablility toward others. It seems to me, though, that there is also something to be learnt from notions such as 'Murphy's Law', where, despite all reasonable precautions having been taken, mishaps do and will occur. Godel's Theorem 'proves' this well enough; it is not possible to establish a complete, powerful system that does not contain paradoxes which destroy its completude. Sometimes it comes down to judgement, and the more all-round experience and common sense (allright, I know it's not fashionable...) one has, the more one is able to better deal with situations that are not in the rule book. This is why, in my view, the emphisis should be on general education and thinking for oneself, rather than obedience and line-toeing. Nowhere in the original article is there mention of what circumstances related to air travel could provoke these apparently serious consequences. Lack of air pressure..? Excessive cooling..? In the video shown, the cells were taken to 300° before exploding. Where is the credibility of such a scenario..? How to deal with a burning firework, or flare..? Anyone here trained for that..? Phospherous, anyone..? These are extreme, specialised cases which, if to occur in just about any 'normal' circumstances, would doubtless cause problems, whatever. It is unlikely that the specialist knowledge would be to hand. At a guess, for all 3 examples, I'd suggest covering with sand or earth, if possible, but could be very wrong. My main point is that, to go back to the 'frog' video, the temperature is rising, and folks don't seem to realise that their dependance on these measures and regulations is reducing in equal measure their own sense of taking responsability for themselves. Once we get to boiling point... Well, we'll all be shivering in a corner, too scared to move until the 'expert' comes along to shepherd us to 'safety'. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe not. I hopped away many decades ago... Edited February 5, 2014 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I think that pretty much covers it, except a couple of points: [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1391637555' post='2359718'] The point I'm making is that we don't live in 1940 where only one or two people in each street own a car. There's millions of cars on the road. [/quote] Indeed. How on earth do we all manage to cope? Well, actually pretty well as it happens, but that's not stopping people calling for regular testing of drivers to ensure they can still be trusted. Let's not take into account their years of actual incident-free driving experience over a 100,000 miles, no, best make them take another test every few years. It can't be long now! [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1391637555' post='2359718'] It's already been pointed out that you don't put out a chemical fire with water. How do you know this? Someone has told you or you've read it. How do I know you know this?[b] I ask you at your induction, are you trained to use a fire extinguisher[/b]. If you haven't been then I'll ask you to avoid using them because we have people who are, and there is a likelihood that even with the best intentions you'll make things worse. [/quote] There's that 'training' thing again. Another piece of paper or you don't know sh*t. So much for self-learning then. Good job my employers were enlightened enough to let me develop my career in embedded systems engineering despite not having a relevant engineering degree. Not bad for a biology graduate eh? Try doing that these days. One of them even let me run their European subsidiary for 8 years, despite not having an MBA. Shocking or what? At least the Engineering Council was enlightened enough to let me call myself a Chartered Engineer on the basis of my proven experience, even in the absence of all those bits of paper, so that was handy when people who didn't have a clue wanted to understand what I could do. Of course, I'm still not deemed to be competent enough to check a mains lead, so I'd have to pay someone who has likely never even heard of Ohms law but has done a one day course and can flourish their 'certificate of competence' with pride. I was never really sure whether to laugh or cry, so I just bailed out of all the madness as soon as I could. Edited February 6, 2014 by flyfisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icastle Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 My background has seen me as a fire marshal or first aider (or both occasionally) for most of my working life. Training and best practices may change, but the one constant has always been that my safety and the safety of those in my care (a euphemism for 'everyone') are the number one priority. Nobody knows how they're going to cope under pressure, these are generally ordinary employees who have opted in to offer a helping hand if needed. The last thing any employer wants is for their premises to burn down, and they certainly don't want a burnt down building with a dead employee who thought they were doing the 'right thing' in it as well. You can have as many goes at something in a training exercise as you like, but in real life, you only need one chance to get things badly wrong. Leaving a fire to burn and ensuring everyone is out of the building is the best option for inexperienced people, and most fire marshals are just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391653437' post='2359855'] ... At least the Engineering Council was enlightened enough to let me call myself a Chartered Engineer on the basis of my proven experience, even in the absence of all those bits of paper, so that was handy when people who didn't have a clue wanted to understand what I could do. Of course, I'm still not deemed to be competent enough to check a mains lead, so I'd have to pay someone who has likely never even heard of Ohms law but has done a one day course and can flourish their 'certificate of competence' with pride. I was never really sure whether to laugh or cry, so I just bailed out of all the madness as soon as I could. [/quote] Still missing the point. The chartered engineer 'piece of paper' is something that shows you have reached a certain standard, however you got there. It saves people having to ask you to prove yourself over and over again and people having to asses you individually on various criteria everytime they want to employ you. They just say they're looking for a chartered engineer. Same with a driving test. Imagine trying to employ a bunch of people to drive your fleet of vans. How do you assess hundreds of applicants and narrow them down to 20, if they all say they can drive but none of them have a licence and none of them have a 10year pile of insurance 'bits of paper' to prove their competency. As I say it's all about scale. We're operating on a European (even global) scale nowadays, where any one of several thousand million people could turn up on your doorstep looking for work. Not just one of a few thousand from your nearest town. Edited February 6, 2014 by TimR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Of course I understand that paperwork is convenient, my point is that our slavish dependence on such things is reducing people to no more than the handful of certificates they hold. The result is that a Chartered Engineer or a PhD-qualified research scientist or a Brain Surgeon is no longer deemed to be 'competent' when it comes to checking the safety of a mains cable, but the guy from the job centre who left school at 15 and is barely literate can go on a one-day PAT testing course and officially becomes a 'competent person'. Am I the only one to see the lunacy of such a system - not to mention the potential waste of good people simply because they don't hold the right bit of paper? I'm probably more sensitive to such things because of my personal experience. I'm pretty damn sure I couldn't repeat my life today because I had the wrong pieces of paper and no one would give me the same chances today. We're only as good as our pieces of paper. I just think it's terribly sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391691848' post='2360207']...I'm probably more sensitive to such things because of my personal experience. I'm pretty damn sure I couldn't repeat my life today because I had the wrong pieces of paper and no one would give me the same chances today. We're only as good as our pieces of paper. I just think it's terribly sad. [/quote] Presumably we have had similar (although far from identical...) experiences. My 'way' in the world has been mostly through doing, rather than prooving that I can do. My 'paper' qualifications are very modest, far below my achievements. Not to say that qualifications are per se useless or unnecessary, but, ime, 'hands on' experience can count for much more, depending on the individual. I've come across a significant number of qualified folks who could be complete dummies, even in the field for which they held diplomas. I'm sure most of you have met them, too. Again, this does not imply tarring all with the same brush. A real expert is invaluable, of course. No, I would not, in any field, rely solely on paper proof of competence. It may be a handy filter for some, but I'd rather rely on the experience of someone than their certificates. As for the scale mentioned (hundreds of applicants, world-wide economy etc...), this, to me, only proves further that we, as humans, are incapable of handling matters effectively on that scale. The current and future pickle that we are all witnessing bears this out adequately to me, at least. There is an inherent danger in relying so intensively on these anonymous judgements on an individual's value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 My degree is in electrical and electronic engineering. It taught me to question things I'm told and not follow blindly. I understand why people should be tested and proved competent by another person. This prompts me to ask two further questions about the boiling frog experiment: 1. Why did they use a stunt frog? 2. Why do they use a container with steep sides? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It's not an experiment is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1391704864' post='2360445'] My degree is in electrical and electronic engineering. It taught me to question things I'm told and not follow blindly. I understand why people should be tested and proved competent by another person. This prompts me to ask two further questions about the boiling frog [s]experiment[/s] demonstration: 1. Why did they use a stunt frog? 2. Why do they use a container with steep sides? [/quote] Fixed..? My own replies would be...[list=1] [*]To avoid having the death of a frog on their conscience..? [*]To keep the water in the pan..? [/list] Could be wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1391710572' post='2360530'] Fixed..? My own replies would be...[list=1] [*]To avoid having the death of a frog on their conscience..? [*]To keep the water in the pan..? [/list] Could be wrong... [/quote] No. It's an experiment. Several people have carried it out using different rates of heat and different types of pan. In all cases the frog gets agitated and tries to escape when the temperature reaches the critical point. So 1. Use a stunt frog in your 'demonstration' because the stunt frog won't show agitation at the high temperature. 2. Use steep sides so that when you initially heat the water the frog can't jump out. Dad, I thought your motto was always question everything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 [attachment=154480:facepalm.jpg] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1391713636' post='2360572']...Dad, I thought your motto was always question everything?[/quote] Motto, me..? No, sir, but I do like to quote a phrase picked up from this very forum: "Always question authority". There are others. As for the frogs, I'm not sure what that has to do with the notion of not jumping until it's too late, except to suggest that even frogs are more sensible than humans when it comes to gradual change. Edited February 6, 2014 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 It's a children's story. Frogs and people don't behave like that in real life. Of course the doom and gloom merchants like you to think this is how the world actually works and that they're somehow enlightened and the only ones that can see the 'danger'. Arrogance and pomposity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Oh dear. Now the personal insults begin. I'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Not really a personal insult. Just two character traits of people who believe they're better than everyone else and don't need a bit of paper to show it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I can't get over the carnage caused in the 90s by all those petrol stations exploding because people used their mobile phones on the forecourt. It was bedlam. I am all for risk management but sometimes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1391774091' post='2361103'] Not really a personal insult. Just two character traits of people who believe they're better than everyone else and don't need a bit of paper to show it. [/quote] ...but why this virulent exageration all of a sudden..? I don't recognise your descriptionabove from the posts in this thread. It's been stated many times that qualifications are indeed valued; it has simply been mooted that they are not the only and definitive way of establishing competence. Is that so terrible an assertion..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1391774172' post='2361106'] I can't get over the carnage caused in the 90s by all those petrol stations exploding because people used their mobile phones on the forecourt. It was bedlam. I am all for risk management but sometimes.... [/quote] I'm sure that was because a couple of people in the states caught fire when answering their phones while fuelling. Obviously it's pretty difficult to work out exactly why and the phone seems to be the obvious thing and easiest thing to avoid doing until investigations are conclusive that phones are ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakenewmanbass Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Dad and flyfisher, it strikes me that some people, when faced with the apparently abhorrent if not terrifying notion that not all peoples on Earth agree with them, get their knickers in a twist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.