For starters, they have an engineer in training exam, which is a step toward registering. Second, you can do what qualifies as engineering tasks without calling yourself an engineer. Third, one can show experience from out of state.
This is just common practice in many states. These laws have been in place and actively exercised for years. So, no, it is not likely at all you found something that was overlooked. There is absolutely nothing unique about this case that would make it different than the many that have come before.
What are the ecological impacts of boring thousands of miles of tunnels? What is the cost? Do we really need to get places that fast if we are in automated cars and can use that time to be productive or be entertained?
You are just being stupid. Your description of requirements to register is only partial. Its not that hard to figure out and I don't have the patience to walk you through it. Or, I suppose you are the first person to figure out the law makes no sense based on cherry picked statements.
In this case, a poorly written description is calling yourself as an engineer in a state where you are not allowed to do that in that manner. A better description would be to say one held a degree in engineering, or some other compliant statement. Engineers should be good at writing compliant statements.
The wording does not prevent anyone from doing anything DIY. But you can't publicly claim you are an engineer while doing it. If you do, and someone reports you, you will get fined. Engineers carry special responsibilities to the safety of the public. The average person doesn't distinguish between a 'professional engineer' and an 'engineer' by claim.
No, its a poorly written description by the 'engineer'. Those laws are common in many states, and they are typically enforced when infractions are reported to the board. There is absolutely nothing unique about this case, it is being handled consistent with many similar instances.
"That is one of the many things we don't know about this case."
yah too bad there's no way to know, other than maybe, reading the article?
From TFA:
"About a month before his suicide, Joseph Thomas disclosed his work stress in a Facebook chat to a close friend of more than a decade, Neil Mirchandani.
“Man words can’t really describe. I’m not dead but I wouldn’t describe myself as ok,” Thomas wrote, according to screenshots of the chat provided by Mirchandani.
“The sad thing is this place (Uber) has broken me to the point where I don’t have the strength to look for another job,” Thomas wrote."
OK , so by that you think you know everything you need to pass judgement. How wonderful it must be to be able to ignore so much.
But if you said "I'm an engineer, but I'm not registered in Oregon" that still means you called yourself an engineer, and thus, you're practicing engineering without registering, thus you've broken the law. That's broken.
That would be a good enough clarification for Oregon.
He claimed he was an engineer. That is B quite clearly. If you don't believe it, ask a lawyer, don't debate it with me. Anyhow, you are just going to argue with anybody else's point with your shifts. I showed you the definition that matters, you can dismiss it if you like.
No, it was their backup. When it went away they should have created another one.
The problem of course, is that cloud storage was touted as a backup. So if you have to have a local backup, it kind of makes the cloud storage backup redundant and pointless.
Some people have multiple backups in different locations. That redundancy is not pointless.
Did his claims have merit? If so, do they constitute an indirect criticism of the quality of the board's licencing process ?
Seriously? It doesn't matter if his claims have merit or not, the law applies equally either way. It says nothing about the board's licensing process, because this person never participated in it. Please apply some common sense.
Because a better job just presents itself whenever you want it?
Was he even looking for another job? That is one of the many things we don't know about this case. We certainly don't have enough information to make any kind of judgements about him or his choices other than he was troubled enough to take his own life.
Regardless of this case, its not good to get yourself into a situation where you are making that kind of money and not providing yourself an escape fund. That said, high cost of living in the area makes it harder to do so.
That is not a definition, its a legal advice brochure. Have a look at the state where the law is. That is the only definition that matters in this case.
Most states have some protection around advertising yourself as a "Professional Engineer" (PE) or similar term that implies you are licensed by the state to provide engineering services to the public. Only a few states apply this sort of orthodoxy to the general term "engineer", and the enforcement tends to be pretty lax.
These boards rarely go out looking for violators. They simply respond to items brought to their attention, and they respond exactly the same way when that happens. There is nothing unique about this case, only that it is being publicized.
Also, sending this complaint to the Board in charge of enforcing these laws was a bad move. Engineering for public works, such as yellow lights, and bridges, has required more licensing than just a degree for many years.
I think he would have been fine sending such things to Senators/Representatives/etc., it's just "send to board in charge mainly of professional licensing and not much else" was not the smartest plan if you don't want a fine. That's pretty much the only thing that board is interested in, licensing, and the enforcement thereof. It has nothing to do with traffic light setting standards, or much beyond several tests full of engineering questions.
This is like sending the Arizona Bar complaints about how the traffic lights are a problem, claiming to be a lawyer in the letter, and not having any credentials they recognize as "licensed lawyer".
The board is just doing their job, just like any other time they are sent something where someone claims to be an engineer. They are paid to enforce the laws regarding engineering practice. They have no choice. If they guy sent them a copy of his complaint, it tells me the guy is a complete idiot that really doesn't understand the professional practice of engineering. I assumed someone else sent this to the board, I didn't think they guy would be that stupid.
He IS an engineer, he is not practicing in the state of Oregon. Practicing is the part that requires registration, so this falls somewhere between a quick cash grab and wanting to shut him up.
What are his qualifications? He is not legally an engineer in Oregon, the law if very clear on that. The board doesn't care about his complaint, they only care about his claim of being an engineer. Someone brought it to their attention, and they responded like the do in any other similar case that is brought to their attention on a regular basis. The only difference here is someone is publicizing it as some sort of conspiracy, and people here love conspiracies.
In reality, the board cares nothing about the claim or whether it is taken seriously or not. That is not their job. Their job is to enforce the engineering practice laws of their state, and that is what they are doing. For all we know the DOT traffic engineering unit is actually looking at the recommendation, you'll find there was no effort on anyone's part to find out.
I find that a bit strange if your degree says you're an engineer.
Your degree does not say you are an engineer. It says you have a degree in engineering. If this guy said he had a degree in engineering instead of claiming he was an engineer, the board would not have fined him.
Thought experiment. Let's suppose you're a CIVIL engineer -- the type of engineer the regulations are intended to target. You're on vacation in Oregon, and you notice a serious structural fault in a bridge which means that it is in imminent danger of collapse.
Under this interpretation of the term "practice engineering" you wouldn't be able to tell anyone because you're not licensed to practice engineering in Oregon.
You certainly can tell someone, just don't claim to be something you are not. All you have to do is to be clear to state something like "I am a licensed Civil Engineer in the state of Utah, but not in the State of Oregon", or "I hold a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Southern Calbabies", etc. Its really not that hard.
Not planning to help them with this, but this board has nothing to do with the yellow-light timing in Oregon. It's only interest is making sure people claiming to be engineers to the public (or the board apparently) have the appropriate license. They aren't the right people for this complaint.
Bingo. Somebody made the board aware of the claim, and they just responded in the required manner. The traffic engineering unit of the DOT might be looking at the recommendation and considering it, we don't know because they article is focused on making this sound like some kind of conspiracy, and a bunch of slashdotters are slurping it up.
Regarding this particular case it's all legal skullduggery in order to shut him up instead of taking his complaint serious.
No, the board will allow him to make his complaint as long as he doesn't do it under the guise of being something he legally isn't. The board NEVER said he cannot make the complaint. Nobody ever said his input was not being taken seriously either. The board could care less about that. What bugs me most about this article is the sim-representation of the board's response. He legally can't claim to be an engineer. Its pretty simple.
The board MUST respond the way they did when it was brought to their attention. They have no choice. If they arbitrarily allow people to claim they are engineers then they can't enforce it at all. Someone reported it to the board, they responded just as they do the many other times this has happened but not publicized.
I am a registered electrical PE in two states. If I were to make such a complaint, and if I were to feel the need to mention I am an engineer, I would clarify that I am NOT qualified in traffic engineering, and would state where I was registered.
I wish they had something similar for all the idiots who claim they are 'scientists' and give the public bad information.
Slashdot Mirror
2013: http://m.slashdot.org/story/18... 2009: http://m.slashdot.org/story/12...
How long until someone else "discovers" the same thing again?
According to the pattern, 2021
For starters, they have an engineer in training exam, which is a step toward registering. Second, you can do what qualifies as engineering tasks without calling yourself an engineer. Third, one can show experience from out of state.
This is just common practice in many states. These laws have been in place and actively exercised for years. So, no, it is not likely at all you found something that was overlooked. There is absolutely nothing unique about this case that would make it different than the many that have come before.
Musk seems to have a tunnel & tube fixation. I wonder what Freud would say about that.
What are the ecological impacts of boring thousands of miles of tunnels? What is the cost? Do we really need to get places that fast if we are in automated cars and can use that time to be productive or be entertained?
You are just being stupid. Your description of requirements to register is only partial. Its not that hard to figure out and I don't have the patience to walk you through it. Or, I suppose you are the first person to figure out the law makes no sense based on cherry picked statements.
In this case, a poorly written description is calling yourself as an engineer in a state where you are not allowed to do that in that manner. A better description would be to say one held a degree in engineering, or some other compliant statement. Engineers should be good at writing compliant statements.
The wording does not prevent anyone from doing anything DIY. But you can't publicly claim you are an engineer while doing it. If you do, and someone reports you, you will get fined. Engineers carry special responsibilities to the safety of the public. The average person doesn't distinguish between a 'professional engineer' and an 'engineer' by claim.
No, its a poorly written description by the 'engineer'. Those laws are common in many states, and they are typically enforced when infractions are reported to the board. There is absolutely nothing unique about this case, it is being handled consistent with many similar instances.
"That is one of the many things we don't know about this case."
yah too bad there's no way to know, other than maybe, reading the article?
From TFA: "About a month before his suicide, Joseph Thomas disclosed his work stress in a Facebook chat to a close friend of more than a decade, Neil Mirchandani.
“Man words can’t really describe. I’m not dead but I wouldn’t describe myself as ok,” Thomas wrote, according to screenshots of the chat provided by Mirchandani.
“The sad thing is this place (Uber) has broken me to the point where I don’t have the strength to look for another job,” Thomas wrote."
OK , so by that you think you know everything you need to pass judgement. How wonderful it must be to be able to ignore so much.
But if you said "I'm an engineer, but I'm not registered in Oregon" that still means you called yourself an engineer, and thus, you're practicing engineering without registering, thus you've broken the law. That's broken.
That would be a good enough clarification for Oregon.
He claimed he was an engineer. That is B quite clearly. If you don't believe it, ask a lawyer, don't debate it with me. Anyhow, you are just going to argue with anybody else's point with your shifts. I showed you the definition that matters, you can dismiss it if you like.
Cloud storage is their backup.
No, it was their backup. When it went away they should have created another one.
The problem of course, is that cloud storage was touted as a backup. So if you have to have a local backup, it kind of makes the cloud storage backup redundant and pointless.
Some people have multiple backups in different locations. That redundancy is not pointless.
Did his claims have merit? If so, do they constitute an indirect criticism of the quality of the board's licencing process ?
Seriously? It doesn't matter if his claims have merit or not, the law applies equally either way. It says nothing about the board's licensing process, because this person never participated in it. Please apply some common sense.
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors...
Because a better job just presents itself whenever you want it?
Was he even looking for another job? That is one of the many things we don't know about this case. We certainly don't have enough information to make any kind of judgements about him or his choices other than he was troubled enough to take his own life.
Regardless of this case, its not good to get yourself into a situation where you are making that kind of money and not providing yourself an escape fund. That said, high cost of living in the area makes it harder to do so.
Living within your means allows you more choices.
That is not a definition, its a legal advice brochure. Have a look at the state where the law is. That is the only definition that matters in this case.
Cloud storage is their backup.
No, it was their backup. When it went away they should have created another one.
That is YOUR personal definition of practice. But the law says differently.
Most states have some protection around advertising yourself as a "Professional Engineer" (PE) or similar term that implies you are licensed by the state to provide engineering services to the public. Only a few states apply this sort of orthodoxy to the general term "engineer", and the enforcement tends to be pretty lax.
These boards rarely go out looking for violators. They simply respond to items brought to their attention, and they respond exactly the same way when that happens. There is nothing unique about this case, only that it is being publicized.
Oregon state law is wrong, and in violation of the first amendment.
Next topic.
Yup. Just like someone claiming they are a doctor and giving medical advice to the public. Its our first amendment right to do so!
Also, sending this complaint to the Board in charge of enforcing these laws was a bad move. Engineering for public works, such as yellow lights, and bridges, has required more licensing than just a degree for many years.
I think he would have been fine sending such things to Senators/Representatives/etc., it's just "send to board in charge mainly of professional licensing and not much else" was not the smartest plan if you don't want a fine. That's pretty much the only thing that board is interested in, licensing, and the enforcement thereof. It has nothing to do with traffic light setting standards, or much beyond several tests full of engineering questions.
This is like sending the Arizona Bar complaints about how the traffic lights are a problem, claiming to be a lawyer in the letter, and not having any credentials they recognize as "licensed lawyer".
The board is just doing their job, just like any other time they are sent something where someone claims to be an engineer. They are paid to enforce the laws regarding engineering practice. They have no choice. If they guy sent them a copy of his complaint, it tells me the guy is a complete idiot that really doesn't understand the professional practice of engineering. I assumed someone else sent this to the board, I didn't think they guy would be that stupid.
He IS an engineer, he is not practicing in the state of Oregon. Practicing is the part that requires registration, so this falls somewhere between a quick cash grab and wanting to shut him up.
What are his qualifications? He is not legally an engineer in Oregon, the law if very clear on that. The board doesn't care about his complaint, they only care about his claim of being an engineer. Someone brought it to their attention, and they responded like the do in any other similar case that is brought to their attention on a regular basis. The only difference here is someone is publicizing it as some sort of conspiracy, and people here love conspiracies.
In reality, the board cares nothing about the claim or whether it is taken seriously or not. That is not their job. Their job is to enforce the engineering practice laws of their state, and that is what they are doing. For all we know the DOT traffic engineering unit is actually looking at the recommendation, you'll find there was no effort on anyone's part to find out.
I find that a bit strange if your degree says you're an engineer.
Your degree does not say you are an engineer. It says you have a degree in engineering. If this guy said he had a degree in engineering instead of claiming he was an engineer, the board would not have fined him.
Thought experiment. Let's suppose you're a CIVIL engineer -- the type of engineer the regulations are intended to target. You're on vacation in Oregon, and you notice a serious structural fault in a bridge which means that it is in imminent danger of collapse.
Under this interpretation of the term "practice engineering" you wouldn't be able to tell anyone because you're not licensed to practice engineering in Oregon.
You certainly can tell someone, just don't claim to be something you are not. All you have to do is to be clear to state something like "I am a licensed Civil Engineer in the state of Utah, but not in the State of Oregon", or "I hold a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Southern Calbabies", etc. Its really not that hard.
Not planning to help them with this, but this board has nothing to do with the yellow-light timing in Oregon. It's only interest is making sure people claiming to be engineers to the public (or the board apparently) have the appropriate license. They aren't the right people for this complaint.
Bingo. Somebody made the board aware of the claim, and they just responded in the required manner. The traffic engineering unit of the DOT might be looking at the recommendation and considering it, we don't know because they article is focused on making this sound like some kind of conspiracy, and a bunch of slashdotters are slurping it up.
Regarding this particular case it's all legal skullduggery in order to shut him up instead of taking his complaint serious.
No, the board will allow him to make his complaint as long as he doesn't do it under the guise of being something he legally isn't. The board NEVER said he cannot make the complaint. Nobody ever said his input was not being taken seriously either. The board could care less about that. What bugs me most about this article is the sim-representation of the board's response. He legally can't claim to be an engineer. Its pretty simple.
The board MUST respond the way they did when it was brought to their attention. They have no choice. If they arbitrarily allow people to claim they are engineers then they can't enforce it at all. Someone reported it to the board, they responded just as they do the many other times this has happened but not publicized.
I am a registered electrical PE in two states. If I were to make such a complaint, and if I were to feel the need to mention I am an engineer, I would clarify that I am NOT qualified in traffic engineering, and would state where I was registered.
I wish they had something similar for all the idiots who claim they are 'scientists' and give the public bad information.