Very click baity headline. Good article none the less.
Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
201–210 of 258 posts
Re: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
#202Professional licensing of just about every kind serves one and one purpose only: Fatten someone's pocket and artificially restrict the labor supply to favor those already licensed. Period. You can certainly make an argument that it looks like he went out of his way to piss 'em off, but the fact that he could be charged for calling himself "an engineer" -- and the fact that we all have come to a point where we think i…
Nope. Rent-seeking is A Thing but it's far from being the Only Thing as you assert.
I've gotta tell you that concluding your argument with 'Period' makes you sound exactly as convincing as Sean Spicer, ie not at all. Same thing with phrases like 'case closed!' and so on. Solid arguments don't need rhetorical flourishes like this.
Re: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing got trumped. He would have been fine if he had made the exact same argument with asserting that he was an engineer, a claim that has specific legal implications that are easily verified. If you wrote an article on cardiology, and you said 'I am a doctor' but you hadn't kept your medical license current, then it would be a false claim, regardless of the fact that your article on cardiology was 100% true. Asser…
> ... with asserting that he was an engineer, ... without?
Yeah the edit clock had run out by the time I noticed that. sorry for the confusion.
Re: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
#204Re: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fining the man was probably what the law dictates. Yet, it feels so wrong in this case. Reminds me of this talk by Barry Schwartz: https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisd...
They didn't fine him at first. They warned him not to do it, and explained why. He acknowledged this and agreed in September 2015 not to present himself as an engineer again. Then he changed his mind and resumed doing so. Barry Schwartz specializes in telling only half the case to people who know nothing about law, while leaving out any facts that would show his clients in a bad light. Like he'll tell you about the p…
I'm not an expert in Barry Schwartz but I think you're just making his argument stronger.
Focusing on the usage of the term "engineer" when what was in discussion was the traffic lights, which was much important, shows such a shortsightness. Of course, everybody was just doing their job, just following the rules.
Re: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was because of the engineering license issue, most or all states have similar laws.
I don't think the issue is the law, it's the seemingly capricious enforcement.
What's capricious? They gave him a polite warning with an explanation and no penalty which he agreed to abide by, and then promptly broke. He only made it onto their radar because he contacted them in the first place to try and lean on a city that had issued a traffic ticket he was upset about.
Re: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
#207In context: The guy was a swede. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that in general we in the nordic countries don't have an additional licensing scheme for engineers. Having a university degree is considered sufficient proof of skill to get hired by an engineering company. And, the last I looked, our houses and bridges were pretty okay. Nobody designs stuff alone - most structural engineers work for one engineerin…
For sure. But they took time to explain the issue to him in an agreeable way, and then he broke the agreement. As a Euro myself, my experience is that many Americans' complaints about governance turn out to be, well, exaggerated. Of course one runs into unhelpful bureaucrats from time to time and some cases are egregious but on the whole it's not nearly as bad as you might imagine from reading discussions like that.
It's worth bearing in mind that there are multiple different legal philosophies at play in the USA, some of which have historically been violently opposed to each other. If you are interested in these social dynamics (and you probably should be at this point in history) then I strongly recommend American Nations by Colin Woodard as a guide for the perplexed.
Re: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Board's Final Report said, in a separate paragraph (14), that because "thinking and speech" (speech about his thinking, not "I'm an engineer")[1] were a violation of the law. If you're arguing the board doesn't actually think that's a violation unless one also said one is an engineer, great, I've never disagreed with that; but they explicitly said "because [action definition X] you are in violation" and [definiti…
Stop ignoring the context in which the violation occurred. You are treating them as two separate behaviors when one is in fact pendant on the other. I've seen this in so many legal cases - people file appeals arguing that the law is terribly wrong and their arguments are beautifully logical but for the fact that they are asking the appeal court to forget some very salient fact. Imagine you go to a party and pee in th…
The final court document does not seem to conform to your argument. Section 13 for example, does conform to your points. It states that "By purporting to be able to perform engineering services or work, Jarlstrom engaged in the practice of engineering...".
However, section 14 is very different. It does not rely on his use of the title of engineer. Instead it states "By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and "worldwide" traffic signals... Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such create work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b). (...) By engaging in the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration, Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c) on a second occasion."
Section 14 never cites the use of the title "engineer" as relevant for violating ORS 672.020(1), only his engaging in the "practice of engineering." As a practical matter, they may not have brought legal action if he had not used the title, but they certainly believe the law states that disseminating his findings certainly count as "practicing engineering" and is illegal without certification.
Actually, I wonder if the court didn't misinterpret 672.005(1)(b). I've cited it below and it seems to rely on the work in question being used for the purpose of ensuring compliance.
672.005(1) states: "Practice of engineering" or "practice of professional engineering" means doing any of the following:
(b) Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects.
Re: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unwise to rely on a Wikipedia for legal analysis; at best you should treat it as a good starting point for your more detailed research.
I was quoting OP's link and not providing legal analysis - just demonstrating faulty reasoning provided by OP. Meanwhile I'll keep on being an engineer all the live long day :)
There's no achievement in pointing out 'faulty reasoning' when the OP explicitly stated that it was a simplification. You just complicated it again to feel like you had a point.
Re: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
#210I am frankly both surprised and unsurprised at the same time with the comments from those supportive of government regulation of software engineering. If your a hack who didn't learn to program until you went to school, I suppose I understand, you want to limit those entering your field to those who paid the same to play. However, how about all of those who are likely far smarter than you and learned to program as ch…
Literally nobody is making that argument, but have a good day.