Yes, because no women are engineers.
I mean, in addition to me, you have
http://www.engineeryourlife.org/http://www.engineergirl.org/
There are thousands of scientists and inventors that are women.
Of the dozen women I know reasonably well, three are engineers, one has a PhD in Physics, and one runs her own technical company. In addition, 5 of my doctors (out of 7 total) have been women.
So please, kindly shut the fuck up.
I still have business cards. I'm probably getting some more next year - and I just got this box of 250 in October. And no, I don't do random mailings of business cards, or anything like that. I had out one to each client, and sometimes give a client a small stack to give to their clients.
Nothing is earthquake-proof.
You can build an *incredibly* rigid structure. But when you do, the quake will be just that much stronger, and knock it down anyway.
Earthquake engineering isn't designing structures to not take damage. It's designing structures to take the minimum amount of damage. In some cases, entire sections of floor might be considered sacrificial - beams are designed to bend side to side (by cutting the top and bottom off the I) instead of passing the force to the column (causing the column, and everything above it, to fail).
The reason we have so few fatalities here isn't because we build our buildings strong. It's because we build our buildings flexible. Most areas of the world used brick, mortar and other rigid stone-like materials for hundreds of years. California is just plain newer, so while we have failures they tend to be less catastrophic because of the amount of steel (a ductile metal) and wood used in construction.
If the HOA wasn't his client, what was he doing? You'll notice this isn't one guy going out on a limb, he's convinced the local HOA's to go by his analysis. THAT is practicing engineering. I'd be perfectly fine with it if he hadn't been doing that.
I'm a licensed civil engineer, and I wouldn't touch most transportation issues with a ten foot pole. They can be extremely complicated, frustrating and irritating. I design structures.
(The Trans in my name is for Transgendered, not Transportation)
Actually I have my license based on experience, and while I have respect for other engineers I also know some mightily stupid ones. That part of the message got cut off when I cut & paste.
He was performing engineering because he was working for his HOA/whatever. If he'd done the same thing for his house, that'd probably be fine. But he didn't, he did it for the neighborhood.
Equally importantly, he delved into the more complex areas of engineering. A basic traffic study is a pain in the ass. If I were the jurisdiction, I wouldn't have accepted it either. I probably wouldn't have called the board down on him, but I certainly would have told him to get an engineer to sign off on it. If he argued with me that an engineer couldn't do a better job - that's when he's effectively claiming to be practicing engineering.
..., or who shall practice or offer to practice when not qualified,
This guy practiced engineering. Doesn't have to be paid, doesn't have to claim he's an engineer. Assuming he did the math by hand (as opposed to using an "engineering program") and it looked professional (as opposed to a "here's what we think" chickenscratch), he's probably SOL on fighting this. And rightfully so. Do you have any idea how many people out there think that they are engineers and have no CLUE what they are doing?
No, it's a crime to practice Engineering without a license. As a licensed Engineer, I support the complaint. There is nothing more dangerous than a half-trained or incompetent person that is practicing engineering.
Obtaining a license requires, at a minimum, passing 2 exams (one on general engineering, one on the specific subset you are doing) and generally having many years (between 6 and 10) of experience and/or education. Most states count at most 5 years of education towards the requirements, meaning you *must* have experience before you are licensed.
Some few states - Oregon, Washington, California & Alaska at least - allow you to obtain a license without the benefit of education, if you can pass the same exams graduates do and obtain an equivalent or greater amount of experience (varying per state; in WA, 8 years of experience, in OR 12, in AK 16, in CA 6). Said experience *must* be acquired under the direct supervision of a license engineer.
I've had very few issues with Clear. In fact, I prefer them as an ISP over Qwest or Comcast.
But, my wife ordered the better Qwest DSL recently, so we're using Qwest as a primary and Clear as our secondary network. Currently, Clear is plugged into our Wii.
You might not be a terrorist. Your wife might not be a terrorist. But you might be befuddled or confused and accepted something from someone else. You might be a home-grown terrorist. You could be a convert - yes, white muslims do exist - hell, Iranians are Caucasian. You might also have a completely different complaint - say, against taxes - and blow up a plane as a protest.
I think I was a little unclear.
A logger, fisherman, etc has a chance of becoming injured or killed due to effectively random circumstances. Yes, they are educated, but down at their core they don't believe it can happen to them - similar to people that buy lottery tickets for investment purposes.
A heroic policeman or fireman, on the other hand, knows that they have a statistically significant chance of dying by performing their job, but doesn't back down when the chips are down. I wouldn't characterize all cops as being heroes - just the ones that actually perform heroic actions. Take for example a policeman that involves himself in a shootout: It takes a little bit of hero to not back down to the impulse of "I don't want to get shot, I'm just going to wait around this corner." - similarly, I'd characterize the people running into a burning building - not a minor blaze, but the kind that destroys equipment - as being heroes.
I suppose what I mean is that a logger or fisherman has a comparatively low risk of death on a regular basis while a heroic policeman or fireman has a very low average with very high spikes.
I'd also argue that a policeman or fireman is less remarkable for being heroic than a person that risks their lives for others without it being part of their job.
There's a difference. Loggers, Fishermen, etc are doing what they realize is a dangerous job in order to get the benefits, and are wagering that the random chance of injury won't strike them. With a logger or fisherman, there's a chance of a problem - significant, but a chance. It could happen to anyone. They're basically gambling.
Police and Firemen are doing a dangerous job that places them in the line of fire, and are fully cognizant that the job is dangerous specifically because they may be called upon to sacrifice their life for the lives of others. They are making the choice not to gamble, but to be willing to do what is necessary.
For me, it is a principled stand. I refuse to purchase any Sony or Sony-family products. I also refuse to purchase anything from Target due to their poor choice in candidate to support, I refuse to eat Domino's Pizza due to the owner's support for Proposition 8, and I refuse to purchase things from companies I think are doing greater than necessary evil. I also refuse to support the music industry through primary channels: That is, I won't buy CDs or buy electronic music via iTunes. I will support Pandora, and I will support radio stations.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because no women are engineers. I mean, in addition to me, you have http://www.engineeryourlife.org/ http://www.engineergirl.org/ There are thousands of scientists and inventors that are women. Of the dozen women I know reasonably well, three are engineers, one has a PhD in Physics, and one runs her own technical company. In addition, 5 of my doctors (out of 7 total) have been women. So please, kindly shut the fuck up.
I still have business cards. I'm probably getting some more next year - and I just got this box of 250 in October. And no, I don't do random mailings of business cards, or anything like that. I had out one to each client, and sometimes give a client a small stack to give to their clients.
My wife and I have actually been watching more and more ads. They're making them funny and/or more interesting these days.
Nothing is earthquake-proof. You can build an *incredibly* rigid structure. But when you do, the quake will be just that much stronger, and knock it down anyway. Earthquake engineering isn't designing structures to not take damage. It's designing structures to take the minimum amount of damage. In some cases, entire sections of floor might be considered sacrificial - beams are designed to bend side to side (by cutting the top and bottom off the I) instead of passing the force to the column (causing the column, and everything above it, to fail). The reason we have so few fatalities here isn't because we build our buildings strong. It's because we build our buildings flexible. Most areas of the world used brick, mortar and other rigid stone-like materials for hundreds of years. California is just plain newer, so while we have failures they tend to be less catastrophic because of the amount of steel (a ductile metal) and wood used in construction.
Yes. And as one of his constituents, he has earned my vote over and over. Same with Peter DeFazio, though he's not quite as good at the tech stuff.
If the HOA wasn't his client, what was he doing? You'll notice this isn't one guy going out on a limb, he's convinced the local HOA's to go by his analysis. THAT is practicing engineering. I'd be perfectly fine with it if he hadn't been doing that. I'm a licensed civil engineer, and I wouldn't touch most transportation issues with a ten foot pole. They can be extremely complicated, frustrating and irritating. I design structures. (The Trans in my name is for Transgendered, not Transportation)
Actually I have my license based on experience, and while I have respect for other engineers I also know some mightily stupid ones. That part of the message got cut off when I cut & paste. He was performing engineering because he was working for his HOA/whatever. If he'd done the same thing for his house, that'd probably be fine. But he didn't, he did it for the neighborhood. Equally importantly, he delved into the more complex areas of engineering. A basic traffic study is a pain in the ass. If I were the jurisdiction, I wouldn't have accepted it either. I probably wouldn't have called the board down on him, but I certainly would have told him to get an engineer to sign off on it. If he argued with me that an engineer couldn't do a better job - that's when he's effectively claiming to be practicing engineering.
..., or who shall practice or offer to practice when not qualified, This guy practiced engineering. Doesn't have to be paid, doesn't have to claim he's an engineer. Assuming he did the math by hand (as opposed to using an "engineering program") and it looked professional (as opposed to a "here's what we think" chickenscratch), he's probably SOL on fighting this. And rightfully so. Do you have any idea how many people out there think that they are engineers and have no CLUE what they are doing?
No, it's a crime to practice Engineering without a license. As a licensed Engineer, I support the complaint. There is nothing more dangerous than a half-trained or incompetent person that is practicing engineering. Obtaining a license requires, at a minimum, passing 2 exams (one on general engineering, one on the specific subset you are doing) and generally having many years (between 6 and 10) of experience and/or education. Most states count at most 5 years of education towards the requirements, meaning you *must* have experience before you are licensed. Some few states - Oregon, Washington, California & Alaska at least - allow you to obtain a license without the benefit of education, if you can pass the same exams graduates do and obtain an equivalent or greater amount of experience (varying per state; in WA, 8 years of experience, in OR 12, in AK 16, in CA 6). Said experience *must* be acquired under the direct supervision of a license engineer.
I've had very few issues with Clear. In fact, I prefer them as an ISP over Qwest or Comcast. But, my wife ordered the better Qwest DSL recently, so we're using Qwest as a primary and Clear as our secondary network. Currently, Clear is plugged into our Wii.
I pay for all my media, and I don't support the MAFIAA's old methods.
How? Simple: I rent movies via Netflix Streaming and I don't buy music. At. All. Listen to it via Pandora, but never pay.
You might not be a terrorist. Your wife might not be a terrorist. But you might be befuddled or confused and accepted something from someone else. You might be a home-grown terrorist. You could be a convert - yes, white muslims do exist - hell, Iranians are Caucasian. You might also have a completely different complaint - say, against taxes - and blow up a plane as a protest.
I think I was a little unclear. A logger, fisherman, etc has a chance of becoming injured or killed due to effectively random circumstances. Yes, they are educated, but down at their core they don't believe it can happen to them - similar to people that buy lottery tickets for investment purposes. A heroic policeman or fireman, on the other hand, knows that they have a statistically significant chance of dying by performing their job, but doesn't back down when the chips are down. I wouldn't characterize all cops as being heroes - just the ones that actually perform heroic actions. Take for example a policeman that involves himself in a shootout: It takes a little bit of hero to not back down to the impulse of "I don't want to get shot, I'm just going to wait around this corner." - similarly, I'd characterize the people running into a burning building - not a minor blaze, but the kind that destroys equipment - as being heroes. I suppose what I mean is that a logger or fisherman has a comparatively low risk of death on a regular basis while a heroic policeman or fireman has a very low average with very high spikes. I'd also argue that a policeman or fireman is less remarkable for being heroic than a person that risks their lives for others without it being part of their job.
There's a difference. Loggers, Fishermen, etc are doing what they realize is a dangerous job in order to get the benefits, and are wagering that the random chance of injury won't strike them. With a logger or fisherman, there's a chance of a problem - significant, but a chance. It could happen to anyone. They're basically gambling. Police and Firemen are doing a dangerous job that places them in the line of fire, and are fully cognizant that the job is dangerous specifically because they may be called upon to sacrifice their life for the lives of others. They are making the choice not to gamble, but to be willing to do what is necessary.
For me, it is a principled stand. I refuse to purchase any Sony or Sony-family products. I also refuse to purchase anything from Target due to their poor choice in candidate to support, I refuse to eat Domino's Pizza due to the owner's support for Proposition 8, and I refuse to purchase things from companies I think are doing greater than necessary evil. I also refuse to support the music industry through primary channels: That is, I won't buy CDs or buy electronic music via iTunes. I will support Pandora, and I will support radio stations.