Slashdot Mirror

If he repeatedly called himself an engineer, that would imply that he felt using the title would convince people that they should follow his advice because he has the requisite knowledge and experience.

Show that the inference is untrue. Why do you presume that he does not have the requisite knowledge? What requisite experience is required to determine that yellow light timing does not comply with a transportation agency guideline?

I could easily see someone considering that to be providing a professional service.

I could not, since by definition professional services must be provided to the public, which is categorically different than petitioning a governmental body to address an issue.

I don't think it's unreasonable to argue either side.

Well, I do. But then again I'm an attorney actually licensed to provide opinions on such matters, and you'd apparently argue that it's not unreasonable to accuse you of engaging in the practice of law without a license (hint: it's not; you're not providing a service, you're merely spouting off).

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors...

I just read ORS 672.007. Under Oregon law saying "I'm an engineer" counts as "practicing engineering". There is still a first amendment issue.
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors...

Still, I must say:
I'm the tooth fairy.
I'm an engineer.
I'm a unicorn.
Fuck you, Oregon.

The Oregon statute also defines what practicing engineering means under the law. The statutory definition, while overbroad, covers *working* as as engineer, not *saying* you're an engineer.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors...

1) "Practice of engineering" or "practice of professional engineering" means doing any of the following:
(a) Performing any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training and experience.
(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 ...

To any Oregon bureacrats who happen to be reading this:
I'm an engineer. I'm also a train conductor. And a unicorn. Fuck you, Oregon.

Knowing how citizens of the left coast tend to think, they'll decide that the solution to this abuse of an overbroad regulation by power-hungry bureaucrats is to create more regulations, to be wielded by more power-hungry bureacrats.

Yes. I just double checked: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors...

Pedestrians *in* a crosswalk have the right of way; however, at signalized intersections, pedestrians waiting to enter the crosswalk do not. They must obey the signals.

That's right. And the countdown doesn't change that. Once the DON'T WALK signal lights up, you cannot legally enter.

In other words, if someone is waiting at the curb to use a crosswalk in the middle of the street somewhere, you are legally obliged to stop and let them cross.

Not in Oregon. Drivers in Oregon are not required to stop for people standing on sidewalks, only for pedestrians who have actually entered the crosswalk. And even though the definition of "enter" is very liberal, it still requires an act on the part of the pedestrian to show he's intending to cross, not just standing on the sidewalk watching traffic go by.

An interesting twist in Oregon law is that a crosswalk does not have to be marked to exist. By default, crosswalks exist at all intersections.

The law cited does not differentiate between how the person gets into the crosswalk, so it applies even when the pedestrian has broken the law to enter the crosswalk in the first place.

Pedestrians *in* a crosswalk have the right of way; however, at signalized intersections, pedestrians waiting to enter the crosswalk do not. They must obey the signals.

That's right. And the countdown doesn't change that. Once the DON'T WALK signal lights up, you cannot legally enter.

In other words, if someone is waiting at the curb to use a crosswalk in the middle of the street somewhere, you are legally obliged to stop and let them cross.

Not in Oregon. Drivers in Oregon are not required to stop for people standing on sidewalks, only for pedestrians who have actually entered the crosswalk. And even though the definition of "enter" is very liberal, it still requires an act on the part of the pedestrian to show he's intending to cross, not just standing on the sidewalk watching traffic go by.

An interesting twist in Oregon law is that a crosswalk does not have to be marked to exist. By default, crosswalks exist at all intersections.

The law cited does not differentiate between how the person gets into the crosswalk, so it applies even when the pedestrian has broken the law to enter the crosswalk in the first place.

Part of my understanding is that a 501(c)3 is a public, mutual benefit corporation where all assets are actually owned by the public, should push come to shove.

I'm sorry, but you're confused -- that's not correct at all. The assets of a 501(c)3 have to be transferred to another exempt organization if the organization shuts down, but they are in no way owned by the public. We had that baked into our articles of incorporation but I'm not sure if that's a requirement.

501(c)3s can include religious corporations and public-benefit nonprofit corporations. A public corporation is something completely different, a corporation set up by a government; for example, some state universities are set up this way. A mutual-benefit corporation, which includes some co-ops, insurance companies, and other groups set up to benefit their members, cannot be a 501(c)3.

which is what I'm guessing you're trying to do with using a 'legal" term like harrassment.

Why the scare quotes? Harassment has a very specific legal definition, punishment, and course of action (note that this is for my home state. Other states may vary.)

And yet there are private "club" gas stations in Oregon. You have to be a member/owner, but they are becoming popular in rural places.

These fall under an exemption in oregon law http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/480.345

Mostly used by fleet (truckers) but also has private party memberships.
Pacific Pride is one such organization. http://www.medfordfuel.com/Pacific_Pride.htm

In spite of this Full Service Only policy in Oregon, gas there is cheaper than it is in Washington state, due mostly to taxes.

Especially in Oregon, where public nudity isn't even against the law:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.465

And generally, nudity is considered free speech here.

It's not against the law in Oregon to be naked in public, unless the purpose was "arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person", or it includes "an act of sexual intercourse". As a fellow Oregonian, liberal, and opponent of these ever-increasing draconian searches before flying, I think it's great he made this political statement.

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.465

But not in Oregon. Public nudity isn't even against the law here, unless there is "the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person" or "an act of sexual intercourse" is involved.

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.465

Nudity is generally considered "free speech" here. Our free speech laws are MUCH stronger than most states' are, and much stronger than the federal laws are. This guy may get off with just a charge of disorderly conduct, or if he has a decent lawyer may get off completely. There were lots of witnesses, and from all accounts he wasn't disregarding any of the screeners' commands...except removing all his clothes of course.

One of the problems is that "following too closely" isn't an offense, or any kind of problem at all. Simply put, there's absolutely nothing dangerous about it. If it were, there would be some kind of enforcement against it.

You don't know what you are talking about.

These days all businesses are required to have doors that open outward, primarily due to the Cocoanut Grove fire way back in 1942, which killed 492 people.

Effectively what occurred is many of the exit signs were obscured, and there were no doors that opened outward. This caused massive traffic jams as people futilely attempted to escape the fire.

Quite a sad story.

Here's the wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoanut_Grove_fire

Here's an example of such a law from the Oregon state fire code: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/479.150.html

Privacy? I don't think so. Bicycling on public streets (with some conditions) is legal in all 50 states.

In my state, a cyclist must right as close to the curb as is practical, but may take the lane "on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side." The law also allows for choosing a lane position that avoids other hazards.

You're not paranoid -Âjust misinformed. Can you cite one state (you've claimed to live in the U.S.) that doesn't permit cyclists on roadways?