This new model permits full time students or incumbent workers in training programs to earn competency-based credits and credentials without having to repeat classes in topics that the student has already mastered. As industries close and dislocated workers need to transition to new industries and new jobs, the schools evaluate students based upon industry-identified needs and customize programs that fill in the students’ gaps in competencies rather than force students through one-size-fits-all classes. Industrial training articulates to college credit without significant additional fees. Credit classes include hands-on experience and lead to industry certifications.

Traditionally, credit and non-credit programs have sometimes found themselves at odds within educational institutions. Students, employers and workers have paid the price. Purdue and RACC seem to have found the solution and hopefully other schools will follow.

Another technology being displayed by both Jacobs Automation and Magnemotion is linear motors where the movers can be independently controlled on the same section of track. The Magnemotion demo, fresh out of the lab in June of this year, is the first of a size that lets one readily visualize the potential for doing things like replacing a lug chain with linear motors. When you watch the demo, be sure to see the three movers on one track section going in different directions and speeds at the same time.

Little did I know when I first wrote this article a month ago, what would transpire in the following two weeks. Since that time, we have seen some extreme examples of the lack of civility and the mainstream press has been commenting on them. Perhaps I scooped them, and I believe that my thoughts are still appropriate.

Yet, there is still a problem. I was taught that it is best to disagree without being disagreeable. I must admit, sometimes I'm not very good at that. And in general, I think that our society is much less eloquent in expressing itself, most especially when we are disagreeing with someone. Being civil and disagreeing in an affable way takes practice, and that is something that succeeding generations have had less and less of.

It's apparent to most of us that the television, the computer and the video game console have lead to a less eloquent society. Not many of our kids participate in debating teams, and even our political debates provide adequate example of our general loss of prowess in discussing controversial topics. Our kids have few examples of "proper" debate or disagreement.

This is where packaging comes in. Let me cite two examples of how packaging has affected our civility.

The dreaded clam shell package has been berated on numerous media outlets as a source of frustration. How civil is it to have to resort to the use of saws and large knives to open a gift? The opening of clam shell packaging results in curses, insults and 100's of emergency room visits each year. Our children learn that frustration leads to violent outbursts. It's an unnecessary bad example repeated thousands of times each day.

The second more subtle example relates to the preponderance of pre-packaged goods that greets us and our kids every day as we shop. A way to practice civility is to practice negotiating. As a youth, I recall that shopping trips were always an exercise in negotiation. Shopping required a constructive interaction with one or more elders, which, if not handled in a civil manner, resulted in not achieving the goal.

Buying a radio or a pair of socks often began with a negotiation to convince a clerk that I was a serious buyer. If I was rude, the clerk would ignore me. If I wanted to touch the radio or choose the color of my socks, the clerk needed to bring the item to me. The clerk and customer might debate the merits of the various radios or discuss which color of socks went best with a particular pair of shoes. All of these discussions were practice at civil discourse.

Our pre-packaged world has ended all of that. Packaging is designed specifically to eliminate the need for clerks. I can purchase a radio, six pairs of socks, my groceries, a new watch and some nails and never speak to a single soul. The only utterance out of my mouth from the time I leave home until after I return with my purchases may be an expletive when I try to remove the packaging from my purchases.

All good things have unintended consequences. In this case, packaging, which most of us agree is a good thing, has had the unintended consequence of contributing to our lack of civility. As a result, we must all try harder, especially as we debate the big issues of our time.

In the second instance, I read over my cell phone bill to see that a new $30 per month charge was to be paid for all smartphone users to cover the excess usage of internet surfing. I have had a Treo smartphone for at least 8 years. I pay full retail price for my phones from a third party so the phone company has no discount to amortize over my bill. I have never sent a text message or used my phone to access the internet. I use it to make phone calls, carry information on 2500 contacts, update documents and spreadsheets, and run a myriad of other software programs that I've accumulated over the years. How is it that a phone company can arbitrarily charge a fee for a service that I don't use? Apparently the regulating bodies are ok with this too. Is this ethical? I think it stealing.

In reading over the various e-magazines and blogs that I receive each month, I found another editor also complaining about the ethics of the new internet world. Would we as packagers or packaging machine suppliers be able to get away with false advertising and charging for services not used? If anyone sees a machine at PackExpo that doesn't actually "package" for the price paid or a service that one must buy even though the customer doesn't use it, let us all know. I hope that none are found.

Capital spending analysis has as one of its components the salvage value of the investment. Does late model packaging machinery sold used in Mexico have the same salvage value as it would have in the US? One could make lots of arguments about why it would not, but once again, I don't know. My curiosity is getting the better of me, so I'd appreciate your incite.

Is the increased availability of used packaging equipment hurting new machinery sales? If so, whose; sales from Europe, North America, South America or the Far East? Or, are the technology gains of new equipment depressing used equipment prices even more as packagers go after higher productivity? Does a used mechatronic machine depreciate at the same rate as did older mechanical machines?

Whatever the used equipment market is experiencing, at least we needn't expect to deal with a cash-for-clunkers program for packaging machinery - or might we?

Share you experiences with us about what is happening in the used machinery market - especially as it relates to Mexico. Thanks.

What makes it more obscene is that Goldman Sachs took $10 billion of our tax money in the form of TARP payments. A lot of entrepreneurs might be able to turn $10 billion of free capital into a 34% profit, if given the chance; but how many of us are given a chance like that?

Another sad truth of the matter is that companies like Goldman have used their projected $800,000 AVERAGE employee salaries to siphon off the best and brightest engineers, scientists and mathematicians to create the mathematical models and computer algorithims to implement their reverse-Robin Hood strategies. These are the very people that should be employed in constructive pursuits of innovation and technology development.

Well now that I've told you what ground my gears this month, let's hear your opinions!

Two weeks ago, the governor of Pennsylvania announced the awarding of a $210 million contract to develop tests to determine if students were ready to graduate from high school. Are we the first nation in the world to establish such requirements? Haven't any of the other 49 states in the USA developed such questions? My grandmother taught in a one room school. She could have developed that test. This doesn't pass my common sense test.

I'm no historian of education, but my experience tells me that this all began in the late 60's and early 70's as folks began to understand the role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As the result of fear of possible non-common-sense EEOC enforcement actions, many companies closed down established training programs. The word "validation" entered our vocabulary and every training exercise focused not on what needed to be taught but on whether the need for teaching it could be validated and whether any testing that might be used could be defended in court. If companies chose to teach anything at all, it was the least common denominator of the knowledge used.

Over the next 35 years, the skills gap in industry grew wider. This gap has been recognized as one of the principal reasons that companies move operations overseas. Voluntary training programs have become more popular as both labor and management have come to understand that this is an issue of survival. But voluntary programs can take us only so far. Companies need and deserve a means of identifying and promoting people with skills. Enter the New Haven controversy and the Obama administration's announcement that they are increasing EEOC enforcement funding by 34%.

This is a pathetic situation. I'm all for fairness, but let's look at the real situation. Is it really wrong to promote someone who has too much knowledge? Should each state really have to spend $210 million to make sure that we ask the right questions in the right way of high school students? The same standards don't apply to college testing or to employee selection based upon requiring a college degree. Should trade associations and corporations have to jump through hoops and hire psychometric experts to validate basic manufacturing skills that should be taught in middle school? And in the end, are we improving our society as a whole or are we facilitating mediocrity?

We have lots of laws and policies on the books involving testing. Why can't we pass a law that requires our education policies to pass the common sense test?