Well, yes. But it's non-binding! So clearly the Grand-poster is in favor of just lying to the rest of the world. Keep agreeing to this arrangement until the invoice comes, and then just say no?
Or as part of the ongoing negotiations about how we reach the $100 billion mark, we put forth arguments about other things we are doing which would allow us to not put money towards the $100 billion. Perhaps we invest more than any other country in clean energy technology instead. There are plenty of ways we as a country can show we are serious about climate change without giving money to other countries if that was really the problem.
But in reality this figure is just a scapegoat used by children who want to pretend climate change is not a problem worth trying to fix. Trump just wants to pull out and it grasping at straws to find excuses some people are stupid enough to listen to.
If your argument is Trump is the only leader wise enough to see that the agreement's problems are worse than its benefits, then there is no reason to discourse with you. If this was a case of only 60% of world leaders being part of the agreement then you would have at least some argument. But there is no sanity in a man who thinks Trump's opinions about this agreement are far more insightful than every other executive leader in the world.
Actually, the Paris agreement required developed countries to provide *at least* $100B per year by the year 2020...
And if we don't do it, what is the penalty? If you can find that in the agreement you get a gold star, because you would then know more than I do about it.
Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.
You can spout off about globalist vs nationalist policies all you want, but even the hermit nation of North Korea understood this issue was important enough to show solidarity with the rest of the world on. When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.
When 100% of the countries invited to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement felt the agreement was either worth signing or didn't go far enough to curb emissions, its safe to say you can objectively say what the reasonable opinion is. There are no other world leaders ignorant enough to do what Trump did, we have the worst one. Even North Korea ratified it.
Here's another idea, why not keep our money and spend it on developing natural gas and reducing the cost and danger of nuclear by undoing the regulations that prohibit fuel rod recycling. That would do more for reducing CO2 emissions than throwing our dollars into a U.N. black hole ever will.
You unveil your intense ignorance with each sentence. There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain. It is hard to not just spout expletives when responding to your comment since it shows such an immense lack of knowledge and the belief your ignorance should be considered in public policy.
No part of the US Climate Action Plan included sending money overseas. It was about investing in industries and technologies so we could reduce our damage to the planet while being leading innovators in the fastest growing energy sector in the world. Stop reading Breitbart and get your head out of your ass.
If any of your proposed solutions could reduce carbon emissions while not damaging the environment even more in other ways, then sure they should be considered. The Paris Climate Agreement didn't stop us from building nuclear plants or developing natural gas.
I think most people going to see Baywatch are not concerned with RottenTomatoes scores. They are there to see the shirtless guys or the bouncing girls.
Maybe they were in the 80's, but no one cares about that enough anymore to prop up sales. Look at Playboy for another example of a brand built on T&A which cannot keep up with past success with only that going for it. T&A still sells, but only when combined with quality.
You are correct that the people going to see Baywatch are not concerned with RottenTomatoes. But there are plenty of people who would have seen it but didn't because it is a crappy movie. My opinion on both Baywatch and Pirates 5 was that I would see them if they were good. There are at least a couple dozen movies per year I put in that category.
Yes but it was the first one and showed a little creativity and risk taking. By sequel 5 or whatever they are up to they are just milking the same idea for profit. I suppose it's possible for it to actually be good but it's not likely. They deserve to be spanked
Marvel has shown you can make a dozen superhero movies with none of them being bad. The worst one was Thor: The Dark World with a 66% score. With some creativity you could also make a dozen great supernatural pirate movies if they wanted to.
Baywatch? How many times can you make a beach movie? You don't make a movie like this to compete with "My dinner with Andre"...
It doesn't have to be Oscar worthy to get great reviews from critics. 21 Jump Street wasn't competing with "My dinner with Andre" either but it was a success in the box office and with critics.
Between California regulations, consumer-driven conservation, the increasing market for electric cars, and the price drop in renewable energy, aren't Americans on track to seriously cut CO2 emissions anyway?
It is impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good. All but two nations signed this agreement, with one rejecting it because it didn't go far enough (Nicaragua) and one not even being invited to the table because of its government's legitimacy problems (Syria). The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.
It now becomes harder to get countries to work with us on just about anything if we aren't even willing to be part of a goodwill gesture that had no real consequences to us if we stayed in it. It shows the world grown ups are not in control of the executive branch.
Can't really blame a guy for following through with his campaign promises.
Why not? He said "piss off" to his constituents on plenty of other topics, such as Nafta or his hard stance on China. This is simply the willful ignorance of a single man. Individual voters can at least say they voted for him for other reasons and climate change wasn't a litmus test for them, but Trump has no excuse.
Never mind that all they're able to do is either come up with sequels or prequels, or movies with brain-dead characters and insipid stories filled with impossible computer-generated action scenes.
None of that even prevents a movie from being great. There are plenty of great movies based on previous IP, and even great movies with little to no story.
I strongly disagree with the submitter's comment: "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales and Baywatch were never going to be critical darlings." That is bullshit. The first Pirate of the Caribbean movie had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 79%, so obviously a good movie can be made with this subject matter. And 21 Jump Street had a score of 85%, so obviously a movie adaption of an 80's/90's TV show can be a great movie.
Either of these movies could have been great with a 70+ Rotten Tomato score. But they would have had to be good.
That's not how he phrased it in his innitial communication with the egg heads at the Engineering Board.
But they are still being a bunch of Pedantic fools.
Perhaps I am misreading the court documents, but this is the document presented by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying investigator when informing Mats Jarlstrom he was in violation of their laws. It appears to be the first communication, and it would be odd for them to only attach this communication if there were other communications where he actually did potentially violate their laws.
From:
Mats Jarlstrom [mailto:mats@jarlstrom.com Sent:
Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:24 AM To:
OSBEELS Subject:
Help and support "to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public"
To whom it may concern,I would like to have your support and help to investigate and present the laws of physics related to transportation engineering in the State of Oregon. I am already working to “protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public” especially in the City of Beaverton where the two transportation engineers are misreading Oregon Vehicle code, how the law applies to the laws of physics for a vehicle in motion traveling through an intersection and the well-known engineering practices. By misapplying engineering practices and Oregon law they are putting the public at risk.
I have spent a year investigating and I have a clear understanding how the law should be applied and why it is written the way it is. I have source documents for the wording of ORS811.260(4) which is the main misunderstanding by the City of Beaverton but also by the Oregon Department of Transportation. I would like to present these facts for your review and comments.If you are looking for a Board member I might be interested since I’m already doing this kind of work and it would be nice to get paid.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
Thank you.
Best regards, Mats Järlström 13520 SW Hart Road Beaverton OR 97008 USA 503-671-0312 Phone 503-671-0454 Fax mats@jarlstrom.com www.jarlstrom.comwww.jarlstrom.com/redflex
Complaint Ex. 1 Page 2 of 2 Case 3:17-cv-00652-SB Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 2
Nevada's were found to be strong enough to control the use of the word engineer in any circumstance when the state went after Novel Certified Engineers.
Do you mean the case where Novel won? Because the only case law I could find was one where Nevada's Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors conceded they had no authority to limit the use of the word engineer as used by Novell Certified Engineers. The board even had to pay Novell damages as part of their settlement.
You forget the part where he offered engineering advice under the guise that he's an engineer and did so directly to the licensing authority.
You forget the part where he specifically described what his engineering credentials were to alleviate any confusion. Which means you either didn't read my whole post or have a very short memory.
That is not what he stated in his complaint. He said he was an engineer.
In a later document he did use the words: "And yes, I'm an excellent engineer." This was after he had specifically established his credentials as an engineer, which was very specific. Once again, no reasonable person could look at his discussions with the Oregon Board and believe he was presenting himself as a licensed professional engineer in the state of Oregon.
I did not say anything to counter your arguments. I merely said that other states restrict the term "professional engineer" or" licensed engineer" to distinguish those who have a license as opposed to simply "engineer" to those that do not.
Sorry, I thought your statement was trying to refute the one you were replying to. If it was meant to back up his statement then I read it wrong.
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.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this analogy. Are you claiming that if a Swedish judge writes to the Oregon State Bar and says "I am a Swedish judge" he would be breaking the law? Because that is how your analogy would apply to this case.
Dropping the title "engineer" to reinforce your point when discussing a technical subject, meets the test of implying professional engineering.
It isn't clear that the case law actually says this, and even if it does it isn't clear that this would pass a first amendment test. If you have links to actual case law backing up your point that is one thing, but your baseless statements are meaningless. The Oregon statutes mentioned in the complaint only claim he cannot practice engineering, so any case law which defines practicing engineering as merely mentioning your prior education in engineering in a public discussion would suffice to back up your claim.
Although even if you do that, it doesn't have much bearing on this case. He was very specific about his credentials and no reasonable person could assume he was implying he had a PE license. His words were as follows:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
He is not a licensed engineer in the state of Oregon. Claiming to be an engineer is lying about his qualifications, because to claim to be an engineer you must be licensed.
His exact words were:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
No reasonable person could believe he is implying he is a registered professional engineer in the state of Oregon from this statement.
So much wrong here. No, you don't have to add PE to the title engineer for it to be the illegal use of the term. Using the title engineer where professional engineering can reasonably be assumed is the test. He crossed the line on this by using "engineer" to reinforce his opinions on a technical subject. I hope it costs him a small fortune in court.
But it could not be reasonably assumed that he was a PE based on his words, which were as follows:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
He doesn't even call himself an engineer. He just says he has an engineering degree from Sweden.
Common sense would be not to write to the engineering licensing body while illegally and falsely claiming to be an engineer.
Common sense would dictate it, which is why Mats Jarlstrom never did that. Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. 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. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
Under Oregon law, you have to be a licensed engineer to call yourself one publicly. For other states, they add clarifications like "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer"
No, Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. 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. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
Requires no constitutional amendment. States are free to assign E.C. seats as they please. Easy to implement.
The reason it is not easy to implement is each strongly red or blue state only hurts their own party if they enact proportional electoral college assignments. If California implemented it and Texas did not, it would be a big win for the Republicans. And vice versa. While the states do have the power to do this, without nationwide collaboration it is unlikely.
And that collaboration is also unlikely because the electoral college currently favors one party, since 2 of the last 3 Republican victories would have been losses without it. I don't see Republicans giving up that edge (I wouldn't see Democrats doing it either if the roles were switched).
You can also time shift all movies by a year, and get them much cheaper.
And miss out on any social aspect of discussing recent movies with friends, or reading entertainment related news without things being spoiled. Granted that isn't important for everyone, but it is a big reason I see Marvel / Star Wars movies within a couple weeks of their release.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes. But it's non-binding! So clearly the Grand-poster is in favor of just lying to the rest of the world. Keep agreeing to this arrangement until the invoice comes, and then just say no?
Or as part of the ongoing negotiations about how we reach the $100 billion mark, we put forth arguments about other things we are doing which would allow us to not put money towards the $100 billion. Perhaps we invest more than any other country in clean energy technology instead. There are plenty of ways we as a country can show we are serious about climate change without giving money to other countries if that was really the problem.
But in reality this figure is just a scapegoat used by children who want to pretend climate change is not a problem worth trying to fix. Trump just wants to pull out and it grasping at straws to find excuses some people are stupid enough to listen to.
If your argument is Trump is the only leader wise enough to see that the agreement's problems are worse than its benefits, then there is no reason to discourse with you. If this was a case of only 60% of world leaders being part of the agreement then you would have at least some argument. But there is no sanity in a man who thinks Trump's opinions about this agreement are far more insightful than every other executive leader in the world.
Actually, the Paris agreement required developed countries to provide *at least* $100B per year by the year 2020...
And if we don't do it, what is the penalty? If you can find that in the agreement you get a gold star, because you would then know more than I do about it.
Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.
You can spout off about globalist vs nationalist policies all you want, but even the hermit nation of North Korea understood this issue was important enough to show solidarity with the rest of the world on. When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.
reasonable = people who agree with me
When 100% of the countries invited to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement felt the agreement was either worth signing or didn't go far enough to curb emissions, its safe to say you can objectively say what the reasonable opinion is. There are no other world leaders ignorant enough to do what Trump did, we have the worst one. Even North Korea ratified it.
You are objectively wrong on this one.
Here's another idea, why not keep our money and spend it on developing natural gas and reducing the cost and danger of nuclear by undoing the regulations that prohibit fuel rod recycling. That would do more for reducing CO2 emissions than throwing our dollars into a U.N. black hole ever will.
You unveil your intense ignorance with each sentence. There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain. It is hard to not just spout expletives when responding to your comment since it shows such an immense lack of knowledge and the belief your ignorance should be considered in public policy.
No part of the US Climate Action Plan included sending money overseas. It was about investing in industries and technologies so we could reduce our damage to the planet while being leading innovators in the fastest growing energy sector in the world. Stop reading Breitbart and get your head out of your ass.
If any of your proposed solutions could reduce carbon emissions while not damaging the environment even more in other ways, then sure they should be considered. The Paris Climate Agreement didn't stop us from building nuclear plants or developing natural gas.
I think most people going to see Baywatch are not concerned with RottenTomatoes scores. They are there to see the shirtless guys or the bouncing girls.
Maybe they were in the 80's, but no one cares about that enough anymore to prop up sales. Look at Playboy for another example of a brand built on T&A which cannot keep up with past success with only that going for it. T&A still sells, but only when combined with quality.
You are correct that the people going to see Baywatch are not concerned with RottenTomatoes. But there are plenty of people who would have seen it but didn't because it is a crappy movie. My opinion on both Baywatch and Pirates 5 was that I would see them if they were good. There are at least a couple dozen movies per year I put in that category.
Yes but it was the first one and showed a little creativity and risk taking. By sequel 5 or whatever they are up to they are just milking the same idea for profit. I suppose it's possible for it to actually be good but it's not likely. They deserve to be spanked
Marvel has shown you can make a dozen superhero movies with none of them being bad. The worst one was Thor: The Dark World with a 66% score. With some creativity you could also make a dozen great supernatural pirate movies if they wanted to.
Baywatch? How many times can you make a beach movie? You don't make a movie like this to compete with "My dinner with Andre"...
It doesn't have to be Oscar worthy to get great reviews from critics. 21 Jump Street wasn't competing with "My dinner with Andre" either but it was a success in the box office and with critics.
And if a President doesn't follow through on his campaign promises? He's still attacked.
I'm glad I'm not President, half the [unreasonable] people would be pissed off one way or another.
But in cases like this, you will piss off half the unreasonable people and 100% of the reasonable people.
Between California regulations, consumer-driven conservation, the increasing market for electric cars, and the price drop in renewable energy, aren't Americans on track to seriously cut CO2 emissions anyway?
It is impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good. All but two nations signed this agreement, with one rejecting it because it didn't go far enough (Nicaragua) and one not even being invited to the table because of its government's legitimacy problems (Syria). The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.
It now becomes harder to get countries to work with us on just about anything if we aren't even willing to be part of a goodwill gesture that had no real consequences to us if we stayed in it. It shows the world grown ups are not in control of the executive branch.
Can't really blame a guy for following through with his campaign promises.
Why not? He said "piss off" to his constituents on plenty of other topics, such as Nafta or his hard stance on China. This is simply the willful ignorance of a single man. Individual voters can at least say they voted for him for other reasons and climate change wasn't a litmus test for them, but Trump has no excuse.
Never mind that all they're able to do is either come up with sequels or prequels, or movies with brain-dead characters and insipid stories filled with impossible computer-generated action scenes.
None of that even prevents a movie from being great. There are plenty of great movies based on previous IP, and even great movies with little to no story.
I strongly disagree with the submitter's comment: "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales and Baywatch were never going to be critical darlings." That is bullshit. The first Pirate of the Caribbean movie had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 79%, so obviously a good movie can be made with this subject matter. And 21 Jump Street had a score of 85%, so obviously a movie adaption of an 80's/90's TV show can be a great movie.
Either of these movies could have been great with a 70+ Rotten Tomato score. But they would have had to be good.
That's not how he phrased it in his innitial communication with the egg heads at the Engineering Board.
But they are still being a bunch of Pedantic fools.
Perhaps I am misreading the court documents, but this is the document presented by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying investigator when informing Mats Jarlstrom he was in violation of their laws. It appears to be the first communication, and it would be odd for them to only attach this communication if there were other communications where he actually did potentially violate their laws.
From:
Mats Jarlstrom [mailto:mats@jarlstrom.com
Sent:
Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:24 AM
To:
OSBEELS
Subject:
Help and support "to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public"
To whom it may concern,I would like to have your support and help to investigate and present the laws of physics related to transportation engineering in the State of Oregon. I am already working to “protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public” especially in the City of Beaverton where the two transportation engineers are misreading Oregon Vehicle code, how the law applies to the laws of physics for a vehicle in motion traveling through an intersection and the well-known engineering practices. By misapplying engineering practices and Oregon law they are putting the public at risk.
I have spent a year investigating and I have a clear understanding how the law should be applied and why it is written the way it is. I have source documents for the wording of ORS811.260(4) which is the main misunderstanding by the City of Beaverton but also by the Oregon Department of Transportation. I would like to present these facts for your review and comments.If you are looking for a Board member I might be interested since I’m already doing this kind of work and it would be nice to get paid.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
Thank you.
Best regards,
Mats Järlström
13520 SW Hart Road
Beaverton OR 97008 USA
503-671-0312 Phone
503-671-0454 Fax
mats@jarlstrom.com
www.jarlstrom.comwww.jarlstrom.com/redflex
Complaint Ex. 1 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00652-SB Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 2
Nevada's were found to be strong enough to control the use of the word engineer in any circumstance when the state went after Novel Certified Engineers.
Do you mean the case where Novel won? Because the only case law I could find was one where Nevada's Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors conceded they had no authority to limit the use of the word engineer as used by Novell Certified Engineers. The board even had to pay Novell damages as part of their settlement.
You forget the part where he offered engineering advice under the guise that he's an engineer and did so directly to the licensing authority.
You forget the part where he specifically described what his engineering credentials were to alleviate any confusion. Which means you either didn't read my whole post or have a very short memory.
That is not what he stated in his complaint. He said he was an engineer.
In a later document he did use the words: "And yes, I'm an excellent engineer." This was after he had specifically established his credentials as an engineer, which was very specific. Once again, no reasonable person could look at his discussions with the Oregon Board and believe he was presenting himself as a licensed professional engineer in the state of Oregon.
I did not say anything to counter your arguments. I merely said that other states restrict the term "professional engineer" or" licensed engineer" to distinguish those who have a license as opposed to simply "engineer" to those that do not.
Sorry, I thought your statement was trying to refute the one you were replying to. If it was meant to back up his statement then I read it wrong.
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.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this analogy. Are you claiming that if a Swedish judge writes to the Oregon State Bar and says "I am a Swedish judge" he would be breaking the law? Because that is how your analogy would apply to this case.
Dropping the title "engineer" to reinforce your point when discussing a technical subject, meets the test of implying professional engineering.
It isn't clear that the case law actually says this, and even if it does it isn't clear that this would pass a first amendment test. If you have links to actual case law backing up your point that is one thing, but your baseless statements are meaningless. The Oregon statutes mentioned in the complaint only claim he cannot practice engineering, so any case law which defines practicing engineering as merely mentioning your prior education in engineering in a public discussion would suffice to back up your claim.
Although even if you do that, it doesn't have much bearing on this case. He was very specific about his credentials and no reasonable person could assume he was implying he had a PE license. His words were as follows:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
He is not a licensed engineer in the state of Oregon. Claiming to be an engineer is lying about his qualifications, because to claim to be an engineer you must be licensed.
His exact words were:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
No reasonable person could believe he is implying he is a registered professional engineer in the state of Oregon from this statement.
So much wrong here. No, you don't have to add PE to the title engineer for it to be the illegal use of the term. Using the title engineer where professional engineering can reasonably be assumed is the test. He crossed the line on this by using "engineer" to reinforce his opinions on a technical subject. I hope it costs him a small fortune in court.
But it could not be reasonably assumed that he was a PE based on his words, which were as follows:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
He doesn't even call himself an engineer. He just says he has an engineering degree from Sweden.
Common sense would be not to write to the engineering licensing body while illegally and falsely claiming to be an engineer.
Common sense would dictate it, which is why Mats Jarlstrom never did that. Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. 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. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
Under Oregon law, you have to be a licensed engineer to call yourself one publicly. For other states, they add clarifications like "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer"
No, Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. 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. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
Requires no constitutional amendment. States are free to assign E.C. seats as they please. Easy to implement.
The reason it is not easy to implement is each strongly red or blue state only hurts their own party if they enact proportional electoral college assignments. If California implemented it and Texas did not, it would be a big win for the Republicans. And vice versa. While the states do have the power to do this, without nationwide collaboration it is unlikely.
And that collaboration is also unlikely because the electoral college currently favors one party, since 2 of the last 3 Republican victories would have been losses without it. I don't see Republicans giving up that edge (I wouldn't see Democrats doing it either if the roles were switched).
You can also time shift all movies by a year, and get them much cheaper.
And miss out on any social aspect of discussing recent movies with friends, or reading entertainment related news without things being spoiled. Granted that isn't important for everyone, but it is a big reason I see Marvel / Star Wars movies within a couple weeks of their release.