Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Man Fined For Writing 'I Am An Engineer' Temporarily Wins Right To Call Himself An 'Engineer' (vice.com)
Mats Jarlstrom, an electrical engineer fined by the Oregon engineering board for calling himself an "engineer" and talking about traffic lights, has been granted the temporary right by a judge to both publicly call himself an "engineer" and talk about traffic lights. Jason Koebler reports via Motherboard: Last month, Jarlstrom sued the engineering board for violating his First Amendment rights, and Tuesday a federal judge gave Jarlstrom the temporary right to call himself an engineer, pending the results of his case. "Plaintiff Jarlstrom may study, communicate publicly about, and communicate privately his theories relating to traffic lights throughout the pendency of this litigation as long as [his] communications occur outside the context of a paid employment or contractual relationship," Anna Brown, a federal district court judge for the district of Oregon, ordered. He "may describe himself publicly and privately using the word 'engineer' throughout the pendency of this litigation." Jarlstrom's attorneys say this is a promising sign and a "critical first step in protecting Oregonians' First Amendment rights."
Trump is president.
For now.
This is surely a triumph for sanitation engineers everywhere!
It's so great how the courts have the time to deal with frivolous crap like whether one guy can or cannot call himself an engineer. Our society must have have solved all the important problems already like war and poverty and unemployment and homelessness. Truly this is a gay time to be alive.
seems to prevail. But until a decision has been made I remain sceptical.
Why not? If you don't have to earn a title anymore to use it, why aim low?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The first time I saw that was probably more than a decade ago. Right after I was kicked out of an electrical engineering degree.
you ignorant cunts.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I agree that Mats should be free to talk about the design, but he made a mistake using the title of engineer in his public communications. I disagree with the judge allowing him to use the title, as it dilutes the prestige and the specific legal meaning of the Professional Engineer designation.
I have my BSEE, E.I.T., and > 20 years of experience, but I do not advertise myself as an engineer, nor do I describe my work as engineering services.
Being unlicensed, I just call myself a hardware/software designer with a BSEE. He should have just said "hardware designer" or "product designer". Good ideas rise to the top. People can figure out his background and experience on LinkedIn, so he didn't need to say engineer in his formal writing. I think he could have presented his ideas without the legal issues.
Did you get that degree in Oregon? If not I assume you also support yourself being fined.
That or you are a hypocrite.
Having an engineering degree makes you an engineer, in the same way that having a PhD makes you a doctor, or having a masters in the universe makes you He-Man. If Oregon wants to legislate having a specific certification to call yourself a very specific title and practice a very specific profession, fine but they can't change the English language where the word engineer has already meant something for centuries, nor can the change the fact that he practices electrical engineering in a professional manner.
"Allie, he came in my mouth, and then he tried to beat the shit out of me because I wanted to tell you. You know... It was an accident. But... He deserved it."
"Did you know that identical twins are never really identical. There's always one who's prettier. And the one who's not does all the work. She used me, and... Then she left me. Just like you. "
"Well, he will cheat on you again. That's a promise. And when he does, don't come running to me, okay? Because I've had it with you. You're so fucking weak! "
Reminds me of a Jewish clerk in a Swiss patent office who dabbled in physics and thought he was a Physicist.
I agree with you.
I'm an engineering technologist and a licensed tradesman. I've designed systems, and saved companies millions of dollars or helped protect lives. Regardless, I'm not an engineer.
If I want to become an engineer, I can do the same as the engineers did: go through the process, write my FE exam, check all the boxes and get my stamp in the mail.
Part of the job is knowing the rules and sticking to them. Even if this guy wins his case, the first Google hit on his name is going to be "unlicensed designer charged for breaking Oregon law about use of title". That would definitely give me pause if I was hiring the guy. If he can't follow a simple rule like "don't call yourself an engineer if you're not licensed", what other rules is he going to break in the workplace? Am I going to have to go to bat for this idiot because he thinks seat belts don't apply to him? Or that the national electrical code is merely a suggestion?
There should be a distinction between an engineer (as in any person performing engineering actions or with such knowledge) and a diplomed 'Engineer' (a formal title received upon graduation from specific studies). Similar distinction already exists in Germany and other countries with "Dipl.Ing." or Poland with "mgr inz." - these are formal titles.
Some jobs would require "Dipl.Ing.", you could be still sued for naming yourself "Dipl.Ing." without completing specific education, but you may freely call yourself an engineer.
I've read this news on Reddit a month ago...this is not good for Slashdot
You may or may not be an engineer, but you're clearly a moron. A fucked-up shitwad who shouldn't be given air to breath.
> t's his BRAIN that is detachable.
His WAT? You sure he has that?
There's no right to defraud in the constitution. Care to point it out? There's no right to misrepresent yourself either.
The main problem is that English calls anybody working with an engine for an engineer. In addition to the university trained people, it includes car mechanics, train drivers, anybody working the engine room on a ship and likely many more people. If you look at Swedish (or Danish, or German or many other languages), those types of engineers are all translated into different words. This means when Mats calls himself engineer, the word he is thinking of in Swedish applies only to engineers with a minimum of a bachelor's degree from a university of a reputation where the quality is known to be ok. Generally it's accepted from anything we considers universities, but if you had a 12 week education to repair cars in Africa, don't count on it to be recognized as an engineering diploma, even if Africans call it that (yeah, there are people claiming to be engineers with such a background)
In countries where university trained engineers have a special name, claiming to be one without having the degree is illegal as it is viewed the same as faking your identity or faking documents. This means unlike English, just saying engineer carries the weight that you went through university, which means you know about math and scientific approaches etc regardless of if you studied computer science, buildings or chemistry.
In other words if Mats had written under Swedish law, he would be allowed to write as he did and it would have to be viewed as an expert contribution. It's my impression that Oregon once tried to do the same, which is a good thing, but their implementation is severely broken as it never dealt with the underlying problem of using words for each type of engineer. Also I suspect somebody in administration spotted this as a potential way of fining people, hence a new income.
One interesting note on this is that as an engineer, I get less respect in English. "Master of science in Electrical Engineering" is too long to use naturally in normal conversation and people outside the university environment doesn't really get the title anyway and just view using such a long title as a sign of being a snob. All they get is that it's something about electrical engineering. Might as well be an electrician, who can install an electric stove for me. Using a protected title avoids that problem. I noticed this particularly when I was in Germany. One word and people instantly viewed me with more respect than the word engineer has ever given me. Granted it's hard to tell apart from the impression I leave from being able to communicate well in German, which apparently isn't that common with foreigners on temporal visits.
Never saw that one during my engineering degree.
But I do remember "Economics degree. Please take one." written above the toilet paper dispenser in one toilet.
The only bit of specific engineering mockery I recall (it was a long time ago) is it being said that the Yellow Pages entry for boring said "See civil engineers".
Not meaning to offend any 'official' engineers here - I understand the work that goes into an engineering degree, and I understand the legal and ethical need to protect the title from pretenders. What I really don't get is that people automatically place more trust in the opinions of an engineer, (or a doctor, etc), than people who don't hold the title, yet have similar or greater accomplishments in the field.
I've spent my life working in the electronics field. I once worked for a degreed electrical engineer whose idea of heatsinking a component on a PCB was blobbing some heatsink compound on it. (No, I'm not kidding). This same engineer casually implemented some resistor-diode logic between 74HC logic inputs and the outside world, without so much as a couple of protection diodes from the inputs to the supply rails. In this case the 'outside world' happened to be various points in the noisy, spikey electrical system of a large military vehicle. The design was being field-tested just prior to production. 'Nuff said. A bit later in my career, I worked for a guy who, (thankfully), actually merited his engineer's title. But he told me about an engineer who once worked for him, who couldn't understand why trying to start his car with a 12-volt lantern battery wasn't working.
There are smart, knowledgeable, competent people, and there are incompetent fools. In my experience, a degree, (or lack thereof), is no kind of an indication of which category a given person falls into.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Because he was offered a seat at a university as a professor but didn't want to take that job and took a job as patent officer because he still needed to eat food and couldn't get it for free.
He was already qualified to call himself a Physicist. He could even call himself a professor since he had the qualification. And he could call himself a patent officer.
So you clearly could not be thinking of Einstein since he was already a physicist before he took a job at the patent office.
As to the case of this oregon man, there was fuck all need for him to claim himself a professional engineer. Either his work was valid or not, it wouldn't have mattered if he was the head of the board of engineers or the janitor at a sunday school. And if he's unwilling to either inform himself of the codes or abide by them, what else would he arbitrarily decide to discard or remain willingly ignorant of? Would you want someone like that to design your skyscraper and say "Trust me, I've obeyed all safety regulations (that I can think of)"?
Earnest trainspotters in Britain (and we are many) mostly would have preferred in another, steam-age, life to have been long-apprenticed 'engine-drivers' (Brit-English), but have always understood that that function in the USA has been called 'engineer' for a century. How do such (esteemed) USians describe their job-title today?
I don't remember anywhere that Jarlstrom was banned from talking about traffic lights. What he was fined for doing was using the term "engineer" to describe himself while doing it. In this particular case, the State Board told Jarlstrom very early in his complaint that the traffic lights in question were under the control of the city (I think it was Beaverton) and that he needed to bring the issue up with them.
Something less reported was that Jarlstrom was interested in an upcoming seat on the State Board; however, the position he wanted requires a license which he does not have. I believe there are positions that do not require licenses but they are not open at the moment.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I have both undergraduate and graduate degrees in engineering disciplines. I even have a doctorate in electrical engineering. I am more than qualified to say that I am an engineer. I cannot, however, say that I am a professional/licensed engineer, since I have not taken the PE exam.
It's not that difficult to understand the distinction between the two terms.
It's arrogant presumption for some engineering board to claim ownership of a word. I'm a Network Engineer. Did I go to the engineering school, take the classes and tests related to levers and gears? No. But when it comes to computer Networks I will do circles around some snot nose kid that thinks those degrees are the most important thing.
He Did Nothing Wrong.
and I know, I'm an engineer and a lawyer.
-Dr. Admiral Anne Nonymous, Esquire, Ph.D, M.D, P.Eng, D.M.A I.R.Q
Back when I was a kid my parents had a player piano and one of the rolls was "Ramblin' Wreck From Georgia Tech" which was probably the one we used the most.
Despite not having attended Georgia Tech my father taught my siblings and me the words....
"I'm a ramblin' wreck from Georgia Tech and a hell of an engineer"
He did have an engineering degree but never worked as an engineer. I did eventually earn an engineering degree not from GA Tech too, but also never worked as an engineer.
We totally got away with it too.
And we've done quite well at not being engineers.
And you clearly have no argument.
In this case, the law says he can't call himself that.
Part of being an engineer is knowing and following relevant laws and regulations.
Everyone knows that EEs aren't REAL Engineers.
Until they pass the EIT, are mentored for 5+ yrs and pass for the PE exam.
Just like all other engineers in most other states.
I don't see what he big deal is, nothing has stopped visa/outsourcing maggots from calling themselves engineers especially things like education or experience.
Look at me I'm claiming I'm a judge so now the public must treat me as a fully qualified judge even though I have not government accreditation as a judge.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Engineering degree and certification be damned. I am an engineer.
Apart for the detail that a judge just said he can, and that you're just some dumb shit who can't tell the difference between an engineer and a P.E. Or wait, you do, you're just the dipshit who felt the need to justify your stubbornness by lying about the guy claiming to be a PE, which he never did.
With such a cavalier attitude to truth and facts, I sincerely hope you are just some random troll and not someone who actually calls himself "Engineer" in real life.
Before it was Keep Portland Weird. Now it's Keep Oregon Weird?
Is it possible for any government in the U.S. to make any law, no matter how confusing, and not care about whether someone may make a mistake, or whether they may not know the law?
To me, anyone who has a Tektronix oscilloscope on a shelf above his desk is likely to call himself an "engineer".
Part of using a language is knowing the meaning of words and using them that way.
The word "engineer" has a very clear meaning (which can be observed in every day communication, job titles, and university degree names for example).
Why in all the world do you think that a silly law in some backwater US state should have absolute authority over language and be allowed to define the meaning of words to whatever it want?
If some US state made a law that "car" now meant "dead rat", would you then tell everyone buying a "car" there to not be an idiot and that they should have know that they would get a dead rat? Or what about that law defining PI to 3 (not quite what happened, but still)? Should everyone have changed their calculations accordingly, no matter that nothing they'd design would work?
Nope. Having a degree in engineering makes you a person with student debt. Engineer is a legal title, protected by whatever state or province you're in.
Having a law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, you gotta go through the bar.
He was just publicly commenting on public infrastructure and stated the qualifications he has to form those opinions - he didn't try to get employment.
...and he was being deceptive about his qualifications. You wouldn't defend some yahoo entitled to call himself "doctor" because of his divinity degree from Oral Roberts University who was commenting on public funding for a hospital and was using his title of "doctor" to imply he had medical expertise. Why are you defending an electrical engineer who doesn't state that he is an electrical engineer while commenting on something outside his particular field of engineering? He is an electrical engineer. He is not a civil engineer, nor is he a traffic engineer, which are two recognized disciplines within the broad field of engineering.
Face it: He was being deceptive, and he was called out for his deception. He should be excoriated, not defended, because he just lowered public opinion for all engineers.
Or the headline might have read, "unlicensed designer charged for breaking Oregon law about use of title, identified the flaws of a professional engineer's design in traffic light system". Let's face it, when something is crap and it is proven to be crap who cares what title they use.
Jim, I'm not an engineer - I'm a Doctor!!
Having a law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, you gotta go through the bar.
False equivalence.
Stop.
"Doctor" is the precedent here. Doctor's of geography, mathematics, art, even are all over the world. But you wouldn't expect them to be able to work in a hospital performing surgery without being appropriately qualified. You wouldn't expect them to be able to misrepresent their doctorate (e.g. by saying "it's okay, just take your top off and show me, I'm a doctor"). You also wouldn't expect them to be fined to oblivion for booking a restaurant table in the name of Dr Smith, either. Because that's what they are and referring to that title isn't compulsory or indicative of a specific qualification at that point.
Doctor comes from the latin "I teach", and the association of physicians with the term is both a modern trend and mostly limited to the US. A doctorate is not supposed to be a professional distinction but an academic one. The idea is that you have added to the sum total of human knowledge in some way, which take note is not what medical students actually do. In the UK and related countries the initial degree would be a Bachelor of Surgery and an M.D. would be a research degree.
Your overall point may be good, but you picked the worst possible example.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Just go on the Internet and tell lies?
I don't think it's possible.
I'm an Engineer who specializes in Traffic lights.
They go Green, Amber, Red. Then in America they turn Green again. (other more sophisticated countries they go red and amber together before turning green).
Suck it Oregon!
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The point of confusion is that the US awards a "doctorate" for what should be a professional certification or bachelor's degree. A doctor is someone who holds a doctorate, and as a rule this is a research degree, denoting academic distinction. In any other field and many other countries, it would be considered unusual for a doctor to have a professional practice. That is to say, one can certainly hold a doctorate of mathematics or computer science and have a professional practice, but that's not the point of the Ph.D.
US medical practitioners have co-opted the word 'doctor', or tried their best to do so at any rate, and a century or so of use has legitimized it. However, it should be in no way surprising or negative that a person in medical research does not hold a license to practice medicine, and whether or not that person also has a doctorate of some sort is probably their own concern.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I think it is about time "The Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying" proves they are licensed to that title. I mean just because they are part of that board and do their job on it means they can be honest about who they are. They better start proving that they have licenses for claiming to be Oregon State as well as being Board of Examiners. And I don't mean some dumb PE license, that doesn't give you the right to call yourself that. Hell, while they are at it, I'm sure they've claimed to be human at some point and they better show the paperwork that they are licensed to call themselves human.
Of course i'm being tong in cheek here. But I don't see why anyone would have respect for people who say someone who has been educated and works as an engineer isn't an engineer? Forget about any kind of legal implication, that is just pure rude. I say they aren't human, they better get to start proving it, the dumb-asses.
There are thousands of working engineers in Oregon who do not have any "Professional Engineer" licensure but yet have engineering degrees, refer to themselves as engineers, practice engineering, and get paid for it. For example, think of the thousands upon thousands of engineers that work at Intel in Oregon. Is there a PE exam for semiconductor engineering? Hardware design verification?
You DO NOT need a state license [even in Oregon] to get hired as an engineer by a private company. If you are an engineer working for Intel, you don't need a license. The PE license is focused on engineers who market themselves to the public and/or work on public works projects (bridges, buildings, drainage, etc.)--the idea being that you need some level of state license to prevent charlatans from building bridges that collapse.
Now it turns out that if you read the letter of the law in Oregon, they have pretty restrictive laws on referring to oneself as an "engineer"--whereas most states just protect the term "Professional Engineer" (or similar). However those laws are clearly not enforced, or enforced very asymmetrically, because it would take 5 minutes on LinkedIn to find 10,000 violators.
You have to be licensed to work as an engineer in certain narrow fields related to public safety. There are thousands of engineers at Intel [for example] in Oregon who do not have any PE license.
The engineers who designed every facet of the computer you are using right now did not have any sort of state-granted license. The state license law does not apply to engineers engaged in R&D for private companies. Intel is in Oregon and they employ thousands of degreed engineers (and they are called engineers in the job listings, LinkedIn profiles, tax forms, etc.)--and they don't have any state license.
To the first order, PE licenses are for people who design roads and dams and bridges. There is a whole lot of engineering that does not fall into that category.
Most engineers in the US don't have any sort of license--it's just absurd to get & maintain one if you work in a field where it is irrelevant.
but they can't change the English language where the word engineer has already meant something for centuries.
Which I think we all know, means you can drive a train.
In this case, the law says he can't call himself that.
Bzzzzt. WRONG! Obviously YOU don't understand the difference between an engineer and a professional engineer. Oregon Administrative Rule 820-010-0730 states that no unregistered persons may hold themselves out as an engineer in Oregon by use of the title “professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or any of their abbreviations or derivatives. You see that? They specifically say "professional engineer" and "registered professional engineer", neither of which he claimed. He merely stated that he had an EE degree.
Now get off my lawn.
Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
The point of this whole thing is it was just a stupid gimmick they used to censor what he was saying about the traffic lights. Face it, common sense tells you he IS an engineer just by the fact he was able to deduce a problem that their so-called engineers could not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
"I am Mats Jarlstrom, ... and I am an Engineer."
If I have a doctorate in philosophy and tell someone "I'm a doctor" while giving them medical advice, that's obviously a problem. This guy just didn't do that exactly. If he had been, say, giving someone plans for a bridge or a structure or something while claiming to be an engineer, I don't think anyone would have a problem with penalizing him for that since he'd potentially be putting lives at risk while definitely misrepresenting himself.
Maybe he's a social construct engineer? I don't see the difference in any of the other ways that this is used.
If he claimed he was a professional engineer, or an engineer licensed to practice in Oregon and he was not, I could see the state having a case. But since he has an engineering degree, the statement "I am an engineer" is factually correct, and should not be illegal.
Otherwise, states could fine people with Ph.Ds for stating "I am a doctor" because they're not a licensed medical practitioner.
Who is giving all these unelected non-government entities the right to levy fines against people? Why is the government enforcing fines some assholes just made up?
(This actually varies by province so ymmv) In the ethics and law classes I took ... we were encouraged NOT to label yourself as an engineer in public discourse unless specifically discussing your area of authority. Even then most may not as it opens you up to litigation if someone relies on what you say (even if free or offhand ..). This is why I rarely see anyone in the media throwing around the "I am an engineer so speaking form authority ..." Unless they are a public servant for obvious reasons, or sometimes large companies. These are all well covered by professional liability insurance ...
Six months ago I couldn't spell engineer and now I are one
You're half right; Engineer is a legal title, but engineer is just a word. I know, millennials have trouble with syntax such as capitalization, but it's really not that difficult to follow if you slow down and realize that taking the extra second to apply what you were taught in middle school English class isn't going to cause you to miss out on life.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
In fact, having a law degree does make one a Lawyer, just as holding a doctorate makes one a Doctor. Passing the BAR makes one an Attorney at Law and passing medical licensing exams and meeting various other requirements makes one a Medical Doctor.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"Under the First Amendment, you don't need to be a licensed lawyer to write an article critical of a Supreme Court decision, you don't need to be a licensed landscape architect to create a gardening blog, and you don't need to be a licensed engineer to talk about traffic lights," Sam Gedge, a lawyer at the Institute for Justice, said in a statement.
New finding: Rigol owners are engineers, obviously.
Good. In Oregon, "Engineer" is a protected title along with "Professional Engineer" for people who has passed the PE license exam and is in good standing with the Oregon State Board for Engineering and Land Surveying. This is a mistake, everywhere else, it's just "Professional Engineer" and related that are protected titles.
APEO (now called PEO) has not required, until recently, any exmaination on technical ability. They figured that, if you got the engineering degree, then you are technically competent. The professional licensing exams are all about Law and Ethics in engineering.
When I called to ask in detail, they even said specifically: once you are a Professional Engineer, you are always qualified to be a professional engineer even if you haven't taken any exams since first doing the licensing exam (even if it was decades ago).
So, is it forever? Once you get a Professional Engineer's license from Ontario, isn't there anything that you need to do to maintain the license? The answer is: yes.
You have to pay your fees; otherwise you lose the license.
Shows you where their values lie. More recently, they are implementing a "competency upkeep" type system, which makes much more sense and should have been done in the first place.
So, no, not quite the same as a US engineering license.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Having a degree in engineering makes you a person with student debt.
Not really...he's from Sweden, not from the US. :-p
Ezekiel 23:20
The letter Mr. Jarlstrom received stated he violated two laws. The first was claiming to be an engineer without being registered as an engineer in Oregon or any other jurisdiction in the USA. The second was "practicing engineering" without a license. By writing his letter stating he did a study on traffic patterns and the layout of the roadway he "testified" or "investigated" on matters concerning "public utilities, processes, works, or projects" as defined in 2007 ORS 672.005.
What is worse is that the law defines such acts on private property as "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering without a license is a violation of the law. So, you measure a room and compute the wall area so that you can make sure you buy enough paint to cover the walls you are "practicing engineering" under the law. If you take those calculations to the hardware store to buy paint, and you are not a licensed engineer in Oregon, then you have violated the law.
If you measure out your yard so that you can buy enough fertilizer for your grass then you have done "surveying to determine area or topography" or "surveying to establish lines, grades or elevations, or to determine or estimate quantities of materials required, removed or in place" as defined by the law. Even on private property this applies. Since Mr. Jarlstrom did some surveying on public property, the intersection in question, and stated so in his letters to the various government agencies then he's been "practicing engineering" without a license.
The $500 fine he paid was for claiming to be an engineer when he was not, under the law. What got him in trouble in the first place was showing expertise in engineering and using that knowledge to complain, or "testify"", to the government. It seems they thought they could not get him on that law, or they didn't want to bother arguing that to a judge. I lost where I saw it but it seems there is a statute of limitations of two years on this violation. Since he keeps talking about the problems with the traffic lights to anyone that asks him about it the clock keeps getting reset on this violation and/or he is committing multiple violations of this law. Each violation carries a possible fine of up to $1000.
After receiving these letters the Oregon state government could have done one of two things, fine him for violating the law, or shut up and listen to what he was telling them. If they didn't fine him then others would have got the crazy idea in their head that they could use devices that measure time and distance, and "apply special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences" to check the work of government "engineers". I suspect the government wants him to shut up so that they can keep collecting fines on people running red lights.
He's paid his fine, can the government come back and fine him again if he doesn't stop talking? I guess that's why the federal courts are now involved.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAHH
April 25 2017
I've found this on Reddit
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government?utm_source=mbfb
That is like having someone with a Doctorate in Women's Studies operate on you to remove your spleen because they are a "Doctor".
Not all engineering degrees are the same. Not all Engineers are qualified to do all "engineering" work. Do you want a civil engineer to do your electrical work, or an electrical work done by a civil engineer?
Also he is a "Software Engineer" which in many circles is not actually considered a real "engineer". At best it might mean they may adhere to a specific code of ethics and conduct... maybe. In most areas (also in this case) unless you pay your dues and belong to your association, you lose the right to call yourself an engineer.
I think the judge is just waving his hand here to get at the crux of the argument to say, "OK OK for the sake of argument you are an fracking engineer, and you can make engineering kind of noises, wtf are you getting on about these traffic lights and why is it such a big deal to you and the association?"
It is about PROFESSIONAL accountability.
I may not be a Doctor, but I'd recommend some rino horn for your sore thumb, and perhaps some tincture of ham. No because you are not PROFESSIONALLY a Doctor, so you cannot give that advice, and yes it is illegal to do so and call yourself one. Similar for a Lawyer, or an engineer, or any "profession". Yes there are those that skirt that definition and rules, which is why their associations (the BAR, the College of doctors, the engineering association, etc...) try to come down hard on those that do, to protect the INTEGRITY of their profession. Because if they don't anyone can say anything, and it will be a mess. What the court has to decide is if this bums rights to bitch and complain about a traffic light is more important than that (which it might be, who cares really)... Honestly I think the association made a mountain out of a molehill, and I bet they are regretting everything now that this has blown up in their faces legally.
I'm a Doctor. Here take this drug.
I think it is mostly for ease of use than anything else.
I used to be involved with some legislation that had some very flexible wording around it. It was a nightmare to actually use. Certain individuals needed to be vetted as to their qualifications, work experience, background, education, etc... while those engineers that belonged to the association did all the vetting for you. In the end after years of having to deal with that (with no staff or resources to do it or managers willing to sign off on the responsibility should something go wrong), the wording was changed to "engineers".
This isn't a slight against you or that you are any less qualified, it is just because it is easier to administer, as you are basically outsourcing all the vetting and the responsibility to the association.
Interesting, BronsCon states he is an "Engineering Lead" (note the capitals) on his web page and he is not licensed in CA (where his office and residence is). A bit of hypocrisy here? Of course, he may be a millennial.
https://bronstrup.com/team/
Well, in fact a lawyer is someone who practices law. I don't know about other countries, but in the USA in most jurisdictions if you want to practice law (with the exception of representing yourself), you need to have more than a law degree---in fact you need to pas the bar; i.e. meeting the qualifying procedure by which a person is licensed to practice law in a given jurisdiction. An "attorney at law" is one who is practicing law (i.e. a lawyer) in certain jurisdictions.
I don't see why this is so hard for people like you to grasp that.
There is no formal licensing requirement for Software Engineering. In fact, there 's no Software Engineering license at all. If there were, I would be licensed.
Also, consider that the word "engineer" may be capitalized for reasons other than its use in a title; for example, being the first word in a sentence or standalone phrase like... oh... engineering lead. Thanks for the publicity, though; I did just finish a round of hiring, perhaps I'll need to hire a few more.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
In fact, there 's no Software Engineering license at all.
That's because "software engineering" isn't engineering at all. It's a bunch of script kiddies like you producing shit products that nobody will stand behind. Licensed engineers have skin in the game with real responsibilities and liabilities.
LOL: "finish a round of hiring"
Hmm. It looks like you only have one "employee". Also, it's kind of strange that a website developer hasn't even updated his own website in several years and only mentions one paltry website project.
Now you say you just finished a round of hiring? What for? Updating your website? Did you finally give up on surfing Stack Overflow for help on HTML or that crappy framework your website is built on?
Do you know Mr. Rogers? I only ask as it sounds like your business is based in his land of "Make Believe". Does Daniel Striped Tiger have a big web portal project for you? Oh, now I see. That's why you are staffing-up. I'll also bet your employees get perks like free use of the Fisher-Price phones and all the Pull Ups they can wet.
Let's face it. You are such a blowhard it isn't funny. So, let the grownups finish discussing this. You are out of your league.
I stand behind my work, I support what I put out there, and I write liability clauses which very much mimic the liability your typical PE might face, as well as the protections they enjoy, into my contracts. That last one, I bet you're asking yourself "why in the hell would you codify your own liability into a contract?" Well, it's simple: it keeps my head on straight and, oh, did I mention I charge a premium for that?
As for the legal aspect of calling myself an Engineer, well... Again, the capitalization of "engineer" on that page is stylistic, rather than syntactic; having "engineering Lead" next to "Design Lead" would look silly, wouldn't it? Meanwhile, there's nothing stylistic about capitalizing it in the middle of a sentence; that's pure syntax; and when it's not capitalized at all, it's clearly not being used in the legal sense. The exception to that last bit, of course, being its use in a legal document defining the term, where it may or may not be capitalized depending on stylistic decisions made earlier in the document; you'll find an example of that below.
That said, if I wanted to use it in the legal sense in the state of California, I sure as hell could, so long as I don't
practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering
and avoid using the titles
“consulting engineer,” “professional engineer,” or “registered engineer,” or any combination of those titles or abbreviations thereof
and, even then, there are well-defined exceptions where someone may be allowed to practice Engineering and/or use those titles without a license. Keep in mind that those are quotes, used in the correct context, from California Business and Professions Code Chapter 7 Paragraph 6704.
As defined by the law that governs the use of the title of Engineer in my state (you can find these definitions in the same above-linked document):
Civil engineering embraces the following studies or activities in connection with fixed works for irrigation, drainage, waterpower, water supply, flood control, inland waterways, harbors, municipal improvements, railroads, highways, tunnels, airports and airways, purification of water, sewerage, refuse disposal, foundations, grading, framed and homogeneous structures, buildings, or bridges
which I don't do professionally,
Electrical engineering is that branch of professional engineering described in Section 6734.1 that embraces studies or activities relating to the generation, transmission, and utilization of electrical energy, including the design of electrical, electronic, and magnetic circuits, and the technical control of their operation and of the design of electrical gear
which I don't do professionally,
Mechanical engineering is that branch of professional engineering described in Section 6734.2 that deals with engineering problems relating to generation, transmission, and utilization of energy in the thermal or mechanical form and also with engineering problems relating to the production of tools, machinery, and their products, and to heating, ventilation, refrigeration, and plumbing
which I also don't do professionally. Those activities, and the use of the titles specifically mentioned above, are the things I can't do without a license (and, in the case of the activities themselves, I can do them under the supervisio
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I can only imagine how rattled this little prat is.
Just picture the frantic typing while stuttering
I--AM--A--EN--GIN--EER-.
I--WILL--SHOW--THEM--I--HAVE--A--REAL--COM--PAN--Y.
What a complete loser!
No, it's because software alone does not put lives at risk.
Way to pass the buck there.
Maybe if you read the entire post you'd realize there's no buck-passing going on here and that I actually support licensing the use of the title. I was merely pointing out why it's not currently a licensed title.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Do you seriously believe that software alone does not put lives at risk? If so, you are a fool.
I don't know about anyone else, but I take issue with his use of the term "lead". Sounds like there he is the leader of nobody.
I went through a bar once during a pub crawl. Does that make me a lawyer?
It seems that you have too much free time to keep responding to all of the flames fanned your way. Kinda pokes holes in your "too busy to update my webpage in 3-years" argument you professed. But since you seem to be a addle-minded moron hogging the troll bait, is anyone surprised?
What a pathetic loser.
You could use some pondus minuere.
Do you seriously believe that a lack of physical safety interlocks in hardware is the fault of software? Take Therac-25 as a prime example. Yes, the radiation overdoses were caused by a software glitch; however, it was the lack of physical interlocks that allowed that glitch to cause damage. The software running on the Therac-25 was reused from an older model which did have hardware interlocks; the developers who wrote it did not intend it to be used in an application without such safety measures and certainly did not sign off on that use. The damage it caused was entirely a failure of the physical design; specifically, that it was used with hardware for which it was not intended.
Provide a counterexample and I'll be more than happy to pick it apart, as well.
Software merely controls hardware. Hardware that is not sufficiently designed to prevent unsafe operation is what puts lives at risk; that's why we require licensing for the people who design it.
Now, were Software Engineering a licensed profession as well, a Software Engineer would have had to sign off on the reuse of the existing software for Therac-25. No licensed Software Engineer would have taken that liability; they would have insisted on hardware interlocks and kicked the design back down to the ME who signed off on it.
And that's why I believe it should be a licensed profession.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The posts get more frequent...
And he claims he is doing work while in a flame war.
Sounds like the typical developer to me.
Well, if software alone cannot put lives at risk, there is no need for licensing software engineers. So, programmers will always be subordinate to other engineering disciplines.
OMG! This is the same neck beard that claims he pulls in a 7-figure salary.
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10664343&cid=54508381
Provide a counterexample and I'll be more than happy to pick it apart, as well.
Well, since you mentioned the Terac-25, let's go medical here. Hospitals are full of examples:
Of course, I suppose you will assert some lame theory such as the "engineer" that designed the shoes worn by the nurse didn't have an interlock that prevented the wrong entry on the database to be displayed on the medication order from being provided to the patient, so software isn't to blame here.
All of those represent situations where bad *data* can put lives at risk. If the software pulls the incorrect record from the database, its output would also show the incorrect patient name, which is something the human handing out the medication, performing the procedure, or treating the patient should be reviewing; if they're not verifying the patient name, they're going to kill someone eventually even if the software is perfect.
Mind you, I never said that software doesn't or can't contribute to putting lives at risk; it certainly did in the case of Therac-25. But cause? No. Relying on software as the sole safety mechanism in a system is the cause of many dangers, but that's a fault in the system itself.
If you think I'm wrong, buy a 737 and strip out any physical safeties that are made redundant by software, and see if you can find a pilot willing to fly it. If you manage to find one dumb enough, plan yourself a route that's mostly over water, buckle up, and enjoy the flight.
I specified a water route to limit casualties, because there will be at least two.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Oh, so now you can predict how software will fail without looking at a line of code or anything else. Delusional!
So, tell me, what is the weather like in your castle in the sky?
If an algorithm allows bad data to pass unchecked, it is a bad algorithm.