The technical is not just the machinery. The technical is a disposition to life.
What we look for are people that are technically competent. You need a background in a scientific field, whether it's as a scientist, an engineer, medical doctor, or, you know, a person that's in the military with some kind of technical background.
Our all-volunteer force continues to prove itself with a great level of professionalism, personal commitment and a technical competence that is quite remarkable.
In any software work, you have IT consultancy competence required to build the systems.
Competence is the creed of the technocrat who makes sure the gears mesh but doesn't for a second understand the magic of the machine.
You can't participate in agriculture or redesign of aircraft for making them safer if you know nothing about it. So, whenever a person says 'will I be participating in the new world?' Only in areas that you can participate it. Areas that you have competence in. I'm not talking about self confidence, I'm talking about the ability to solve problems. Electrical, chemical, technical. I don't know of any other kind of problem.
Technical understanding should be a core competency of any company.
95% on content and the computer language remains the same.
Over the years I have tried to develop something which is technically assured.
Indeed, the woes of Software Engineering are not due to lack of tools, or proper management, but largely due to lack of sufficient technical competence.
To address questions of scientific responsibility does not necessarily imply that one needs technical competence in a particular field (e.g. biology) to evaluate certain technical matters.
I'm a victim of Developaralysis: the crippling sense that the software industry is evolving so fast that no one person can possibly keep up.
