Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

ij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 408 posts

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#371

Post by stickfigure »

ddingus wrote: post #363
stickfigure wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think there's some other job they could be doing that benefits society more?

Second point: I do not feel it is necessary to maximize to that degree. We do not need to do that. A little slack in the system is a very good thing. Think people with troubled past getting a start to build on. That is necessary, or we pay much harder in other ways.

These are whole human lives, paid to do nothing but pour liquid from one container to another. That doesn't seem like "a little slack", that seems like a sad waste of human capital.

Pay them to attend junior college or something. The payoff is a million times higher.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#372

Post by mrow84 »

geoduck14 wrote: post #307
Swenrekcah wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front of some car, getting killed in the process and traumatizing some driver I think this comment demonstrates the perverse value system I’m commenting against. I don’t mean this as an insult to you, merely to point out how people have been programmed to think people shouldn’t be able to live in a city without being terrified of their lives so…

> Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet. Where do you live where you think it is reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph?

The UK has 20 mph limits in many residential areas, and they are often quite popular with (most) locals, who specifically ask for them.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#373

Post by ddingus »

stickfigure wrote: post #371
ddingus wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second point: I do not feel it is necessary to maximize to that degree. We do not need to do that. A little slack in the system is a very good thing. Think people with troubled past getting a start to build on. That is necessary, or we pay much harder in other ways.

These are whole human lives, paid to do nothing but pour liquid from one container to another. That doesn't seem like "a little slack", that seems like a sad waste of human capital. Pay them to attend junior college or something. The payoff is a million times higher.

They are paid to perform basic labor like tons of people are paid, and with that comes all sorts of other things, including going to school. I had a traffic ticket nicely handled by an attorney who bagged groceries to get through school.

A while back, my kid was on a baseball team coached by a guy who included pumping gas in the set of things he does to exist, show up for work and do things in this world.

Who are you to judge and put such shame on work that has respectable value? I will answer for you: nobody, same as me, that's who.

And "attend college" = not waste? I must be frank: implying people who do basic labors are somehow wasted, or in need of education is not a reputable assessment. Not to mention, "who pays?" Are we going to put free college out there? I sure hope so, and support that idea. In that scenario, one could pump gas, live small and get an education. More of that in our society please!

The place I get my gas from does my windows, we sometimes catch up on a bit of local news, exchange a joke, "you want that to go?" got that started, and yeah, I chuckled. And more.

"Human capital"

I reject that idea entirely. There is no waste in any of this.

Lives break down into thirds, one of which is work, one is sleep, and the remaining one, ideally funded reasonably by the work and a healthy society, is for people to just be people. Maybe that means hanging out with family, coaching a team, making art, fixing stuff, who knows, and more importantly, who cares?

"A life", "wasted", why? Because you do not feel good about how other people live their lives? Let them do that, you have your own to manage.

I sure do not need my entire life judged by the work I do, nor do I care to have that other third be anything other than what I feel makes the most sense for me, mine, others who I value.

In the scale of things? Yeah, it is a little slack. Easy work. And plenty of people value it. I sure do.

Frankly, in light of the massive abuse, killing, poisoning of "human capital" we do globally, along with our general apathy when it comes to taking care of our own people, I find this line of discussion laughable!

Seriously.

In simple, priority terms, as in something we really should get after?

This does not rate. At. All.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#374

Post by jmholla »

dasudasu wrote: post #108
nomdep wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article it says he declared that he wasn’t a licensed engineer. At most, you could argue that his expert testimony is not valid, saying that it is illegal it is a whole different deal. It smells like corruption of the NC government to me.

"I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Either you have the expertise to make such judgments, or you don't, and shouldn't try to pass off legal opinions you can't legally make with a disclaimer, as if that absolves everything. I can fully understand someone getting irritated at this and trying to go one…

> "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant."

On a side note, I think you'd be sad to learn how common it is for this to apply to testifying coroners.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#375

Post by morelisp »

lupire wrote: post #325
mcguire wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much doubt the federal courts are going to agree that free speech applies to expert testimony. And if you attempt to provide expert testimony in your own defense, the court will likely laugh at you. You will have to hire an outside expert to provide expert testimony.

It's hard to imagine a place where free speech is more important than in Court testimony. Suppressing testimony by punishing people for speaking honestly (nor merely disregarding their testimony) undermines the very foundation of thr legal system.

> It's hard to imagine a place where free speech is more important than in Court testimony.

This is obviously wrong. Lying is broadly protected by free speech but firmly illegal, not just inadmissible, in court testimony. Courts also have the ability to compel testimony under criminal penalty, while free speech includes the right to say nothing or dissemble. Evidentiary standards place further requirements even on the source of what you are saying, regardless of its truth.

Or as the 6th Circuit put it, "The courtroom is a nonpublic forum, where the First Amendment rights of everyone (attorneys included) are at their constitutional nadir."

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#376

Post by ivan_gammel »

beerandt wrote: post #289
ivan_gammel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Court itself can decide what proof of expertise is acceptable. It should not be just a license.

The judge can decide who gets to testify in his own court, but that doesn't preclude a licensing board from sanctioning the witness as practicing without a license.

>that doesn't preclude a licensing board from sanctioning the witness as practicing without a license

Yes, according to the current law, which is not serving the needs of society well. If an engineer has been working for many years for a company which was not required to have a license, this is already a sufficient proof of qualification and licensing board should not be able to sanction anyone in such case. On the contrary, they should offer a way to obtain a post-factum license either as a result of exam or based on audit of previously implemented projects, and the cost of such license should not be prohibitive, only covering the reasonable share of the expenses of the board.

The purpose of licensing for society is to restrict certain activities only to qualified individuals and businesses to reduce risks of unacceptable damage. This restriction does not imply that a license should be obtained in order to do something, only that there must be a proof of qualification and a license is a sufficient proof. When and how this proof is presented, should not matter, as long as it happens. The law must only create a liability for those people, who cannot present a verifiable proof.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#377

Post by withinboredom »

dotancohen wrote: post #46
the_lonely_road wrote: post #20

What a fascinating case. There are so many details in such a short articles that is each worth its own discussion! Let’s start with my personally theory that hopefully won’t color all of the conversation about the individual points. This guy pissed off some people and those people are using their petty power to make his life hell. It’s like the 10’s of thousands of people jaywalking without issue and then the homeles…

> It’s like the 10’s of thousands of people jaywalking without > issue and then the homeless guy that gets arrested for jaw walking. I'll take the opportunity to branch OT. This selective enforcement has always been such a problem, has there ever been any attempt - anywhere - to address it? Such that if a citizen can demonstrate selective enforcement he can also be absolved of the same crimes that the rest of the pop…

I wonder if someone could get arrested for jaywalking across a street that bordered two states. Then get out of it because the state was interfering with interstate commerce.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#379

Post by vharuck »

Buttons840 wrote: post #295
mcguire wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy provided expert testimony in a court. The opposition reported him to the Board of Examiners. The Board of Examiners requires a PE license for those who provide expert testimony. He is going to get to pay the fine. " Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’? " Giving the speech in a court, on the witness stand, under oath, claiming to be an expert in treating broken…

Your last example is backwards. In this case the guy without an engineering license is demonstrating what is wrong. So the example should be: A bridge collapses and people die. In the resulting lawsuit a licensed engineer says, with many pages of reports, that everything was done correctly and the collapse was "an act of god". But an amateur who only knows a little about civil engineering points out one single thing…

The prosecution should take the amateur's opinion to a certified expert to (1) meet the legal requirements for an expert witness, and (2) verify the amateur is correct. Trial lawyers do this kind of thing all the time with experts. Even if the lawyer understands and can explain the problem, in the US at least, he cannot himself give testimony. He needs to present it through a witness.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#380

Post by ineedasername »

ddingus wrote: post #362
ineedasername wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

queue a show up for driving shouldn't you not be watching shows while driving? Or do you mean podcasts or something?

Shows are aural, visual, etc.. when driving, I listen, though the content may contain video. Love listening to all sorts of stuff in the car. I may abuse the general term "show", and am happy to own that as well as can't be arsed to improve. To me, it is all just a show.

Ah, that makes sense, I've done that once or twice, but now I listen to audiobooks. Pretty much constantly actually, even at work. Especially at work: helps me concentrate without getting distracted. Unless something requires my absolutely full attention.
Post reply on HN