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

The dangers of unlicensed engineering

newsobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#61

Post by j_baker »

gloob wrote: post #45
amh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the uncertainties inherent in writing software that depends on many other complex libraries/frameworks will tend to discourage strong liability for bugs. The average Win32 program or Java web app has a dizzying list of dependencies and it would be impossible for the programmer sitting on top of that software stack to make any guarantees about the stuff underneath. In certain highly restricted domains (typical…

The average Win32 program or Java web app has a dizzying list of dependencies and it would be impossible for the programmer sitting on top of that software stack to make any guarantees about the stuff underneath. That, divorced from further arguments, is not an extraordinarily strong argument against liability for defects. After all: the engineer who builds upon such a stack has presumably, more or less consciously,…

Yes. The fact that more than likely it was their PHB who made the decision, not them.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#62

Post by URSpider94 »

I don't want to defend the idiocy discussed in this article, but it's useful to try and understand where Cox is coming from.

Traffic engineering is one of those fields where there probably haven't been a lot of hobbyists, until recently, when the Internet has allowed geeks to become expert on pretty much any subject with a few weekends of study. I would also imagine that the PE licensing rate among practicing traffic engineers is pretty close to 100%, whereas I have yet to meet a PE-licensed software engineer... I'm sure the half-dozen or so licensed engineers at NCDOT were probably pretty freaked out to see a study like this from an amateur. Who knows, maybe the group did blow a lot of the conclusions -- it's almost certain that Cox's team disagree with the report, since it is counter to their recommendations. Anyway, the last thing the state engineers want to do is to validate the standing of the community group by engaging with them on the issues, even if it's to educate them on where they made mistakes, so they're going to look to discredit them.

As an analogy, practicing medicine without a license is a crime, even if you're really good at it, and even if all of your patients know you're not licensed.

Again, I think this is a terrible way to try to solve the problem, even if it is supported by laws or regulations. Professional fields of all kinds need to cope with the fact that organized groups of laypeople are going to be able to mount credible challenges to their opinions, on their turf and using their tools.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#63

Post by siculars »

arch_hunter wrote: post #6
pyre wrote: post #2

> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT > and the public were misled by "engineering-quality > work"- even if the authors did not claim to be > engineers. Isn't this essentially saying that you can be too smart/thorough for your own good, and that the government is going to punish you for not getting a license to use your abilities? What the hell is 'engineering-quality work' anyways? Talk about an amorph…

This is sounding a lot like a profession making it illegal for others to do anything that could decrease their own income.

re. unions.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#64

Post by notahacker »

sofuture wrote: post #46
notahacker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However dubious this instance of censuring someone's comments simply because they've bothered to do some research to support their case may be, I think it generally is in the public interest that people actually representing themselves as engineers have a sound understanding of what they're actually doing (e.g. designing bridges that don't fail and kill people). I doubt civil engineers in the US are disproportionatel…

I wholeheartedly disagree. While this instance is especially compelling, certainly, you're still attempting to argue that someone might invalidate their point by making 'too good' of an argument without the qualifications. Someone presenting an argument to whomever (the public, the city, etc.) has every right to make their case to the full extent possible (implied: honestly, without representing themselves falsely).…

I'm not attempting to argue that someone might invalidate their point by making "too good" an argument, or that it wouldn't be an overreach for a board to censure someone not practising as or representing themselves as an engineer.

I'm arguing that the implicit argument that state engineering boards exist and act [primarily] to protect the jobs of engineers overlooks the benefits of ensuring that people actually representing themselves as engineers are suitably qualified and competent. I also seriously doubt it's in the financial interests of engineers to reduce the amount of paid work they need to do to to alleviate public concerns over their plans.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#65

Post by OO7 »

arch_hunter wrote: post #6
pyre wrote: post #2

> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT > and the public were misled by "engineering-quality > work"- even if the authors did not claim to be > engineers. Isn't this essentially saying that you can be too smart/thorough for your own good, and that the government is going to punish you for not getting a license to use your abilities? What the hell is 'engineering-quality work' anyways? Talk about an amorph…

This is sounding a lot like a profession making it illegal for others to do anything that could decrease their own income.

What about the licensed to kill? Pirates and Emperors?

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#66

Post by davidcoallier »

This is fairly interesting, in the Jan-Feb 2011 edition of "American Scientist" [2] (The magazine) there's an article entitled "A troubled tradition" that outlines a few issues in academia with reviewing papers.

Peer reviewers traditionally have 5 main rules to follow when reviewing papers and one of them is "Fairness" which essentially states: "Avoid biases based on gender, institution affiliation, nationality, and career status."

Interesting to finally have proof that this doesn't only apply to academia but also to "real-life" engineering and that people discriminate no matter what.

Considering that the definition of engineering is: "The discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems" — I can't even imagine why one wouldn't have the right to do "engineering" studies.

I digress, my point is made and I'm sad to still see such reaction to well put studies—Assuming it was well put [1]

[1] David M. Cox — PhD: http://bit.ly/hyf5Lj The aforementioned assumption is made based on the academic knowledge of Dr. Cox and that he would know how to make a study and make an elaborated point explained in details.

[2] American Scientist — Volume 99 — Number 1 — January-February 2011

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#67

Post by barefoot »

joe_the_user wrote: post #51
notaddicted wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're refuting the weakest possible interpretation of his statement. "This" is essentially saying, that it is possible to mislead the public by producing work that has some of the qualities of engineering work, but is not actual engineerng work. The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put together some official looking research to support it ... one of the many things you learn not to do in eng…

So a convincing argument with "maps, diagrams and traffic projections" and referencing information on official documents, is ipso facto itself "official"? Amateurs then must be forced to make unconvinced arguments unless licensed by the state? It may be that there's a danger of ignorant people being fooled by those who can spout seemingly convincing, technical arguments. But in a democracy, the only defense is to arg…

Today I Learned: "unconvinced" is an adjective.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#68

Post by barefoot »

URSpider94 wrote: post #62

I don't want to defend the idiocy discussed in this article, but it's useful to try and understand where Cox is coming from. Traffic engineering is one of those fields where there probably haven't been a lot of hobbyists, until recently, when the Internet has allowed geeks to become expert on pretty much any subject with a few weekends of study. I would also imagine that the PE licensing rate among practicing traffic…

I think this touches on an interesting point: A few weekends worth of study can produce a short term "unlicensed" practical grasp on pretty much any subject.

In the startup world this is almost taken for granted. For example, I needed to learn how to collect money from customers and didn't want to use PayPal. One weekend later I had a basic understanding of payment gateways, merchant accounts, PCI compliance, etc... The next, I had working code processing customer transactions that has been running for years now without a single issue.

I've learned a lot about payment processing since then but I _still_ trust that code and by extension my former self that was able to quickly get up to speed on a specialized topic.

I imagine the NCDOT engineers had ascribed a lot of value to the time spent obtaining their degrees and licenses ...instead of the practical benefits obtained. They anchored that pride and sense of accomplishment to the specialized format of the reports they work in.

It's interesting to see these two world views collide and certainly this won't be the last time it happens.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#69

Post by jarek »

jbri wrote: post #47
gloob wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average Win32 program or Java web app has a dizzying list of dependencies and it would be impossible for the programmer sitting on top of that software stack to make any guarantees about the stuff underneath. That, divorced from further arguments, is not an extraordinarily strong argument against liability for defects. After all: the engineer who builds upon such a stack has presumably, more or less consciously,…

The question is, would we expect authors of libraries to indemnify other developers against liability if the fault is in the library itself?

If it's life critical software, then yes.

You don't get to blame civil engineers for structure failure if the steel provided had material faults (that couldn't be detected by said engineers exercising due diligence).

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#70

Post by jarek »

j_baker wrote: post #61
gloob wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average Win32 program or Java web app has a dizzying list of dependencies and it would be impossible for the programmer sitting on top of that software stack to make any guarantees about the stuff underneath. That, divorced from further arguments, is not an extraordinarily strong argument against liability for defects. After all: the engineer who builds upon such a stack has presumably, more or less consciously,…

Yes. The fact that more than likely it was their PHB who made the decision, not them.

That just shifts the responsibility onto whoever made the decision after being presented with an accurate assessment, PHB or not.
Post reply on HN