Readers weigh in on . . .

Re: IT industry wins round in engineering name debacle (Jan. 6)

So, would professional engineers ( P.Eng) prefer that Doctors of Philosophy, Education, Administration, or for that

matter, Engineering or Science, not be called Dr. any longer? Should anyone without a real teaching degree be allowed to teach? C’mon, guys and girls, get off your high horse and get over it. We all think our occupations and designations are important too but let’s not all get silly. The “”problem”” engineering societies paint has simply NOT been a problem. Move on. We need you to set your energies to solving real problems: traffic, infrastructure degradation, stuff like that!

Peter Flasko

Re: IT industry wins round in engineering name debacle (Jan. 6)

Engineers, join the club! as an architect we have seen the use of the term “”data architect”” and “”architecting”” even in government ads. It is illegal under the architects act to do this but everyone in IT seems to think that if the job description is not impressive enough they can just grab a term from someone else.

Get your own names and stop stealing ours. I spent eight years in school and three years in apprenticing and I have been doing it for 20 years and the average wage for someone like me is about $50,000. so be thankful you have the money and leave us the title, you have enough going for you without stealing this.

Lloyd Alter

Re: Dell vs. the CIA (Jan. 5)

In your recent article, you made the following statement:

“”When the computer industry developed in the 1980s, many IT professionals may have been attracted to the nuts-and-bolts ingenuity behind the first PCs . . .””

I am sure you are aware that the computer industry was booming long before the 1980s. I got my first computer industry job in 1972 — attracted by the potential of using IT to change the way things are done in industry, government and education. I was part of a team that developed an online interactive system used by deaf kids to learn to read.

Frank Arthur

Re: 2.0 (Dec. 8)

Just thought I’d drop you a note about the new style of your Web magazine.

Change can be a good or bad thing. Over the last 25 years, I’ve often encountered situations where I couldn’t figure out why someone was changing a program or process as the old one was working just fine and the new one wasn’t much if any improvement. But we all sometimes feel we have to change in order to keep things interesting or “”fresh”” or “”keep up with the times”” and of course make more sales.

In terms of your new Web magazine, it seems to fall into the category where I wonder why they changed other than the “”new and improved”” reasoning. It’s hard to explain what I do and don’t like, but one thing I can say is that the new one is “”busier”” and I find it a bit more distracting (I’m not sure if that’s a good word) or confusing because of that.

However already I’m getting used to it and can’t remember what the old version looked like.

Keep the articles interesting and relevant and I’ll keep reading your magazine no matter how busy it gets.

Wayne Matt

Re: 2.0 (Dec. 8)

Hey Shane,

You’re looking pretty formal these days, according to your latest photo. Change is good, clothes make the man. Rock on dude!

Mike Morneau

Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name and company name along with an e-mail address or other contact information. All letters become the property of Editors reserve the right to edit submissions for length and content.

Would you recommend this article?


Thanks for taking the time to let us know what you think of this article!
We'd love to hear your opinion about this or any other story you read in our publication.

Jim Love, Chief Content Officer, IT World Canada

Featured Download

Related Tech News

Get ITBusiness Delivered

Our experienced team of journalists brings you engaging content targeted to IT professionals and line-of-business executives delivered directly to your inbox.