5 ms·

> He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information] No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particula

by echion 9y ago

> He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information] No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular: By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b). ...and summarizing: By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Yes but he wouldn't be engaging in the practice of engineering if he were to disclaim the title of engineer. Of course, if Jarlstrom were to disavow being a licensed engineer, he might not have garnered as much as interest for his proposals as he did by implying he possessed the relevant credential.
- echion 9y ago
  He clearly would. Just doing the things is deemed "engineering", even if he called it "monading".
  - rmxt 9y ago
    Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here. If he had merely submitted the "critique and calculations" for "consideration" as a concerned citizen, he would have not gotten a fine. Simply put, he called himself an engineer and suggested that public infrastructure be changed. In Oregon, when you're not licensed by the state, you can't use the title "Engineer", and you definitely don't want to use it while trying to suggest modifications to public infrastructure. I'm not equating the two in terms of "I believe both situations are completely just"... but doing what he did is akin to a thief walking himself into the police station. The purpose of the Board of Engineers in most states is not to decide what is "good engineering practice" and what is "bad engineering practice", it's to regulate licensure and set the bar for who is qualified to be an "Engineer" in the eyes of the state. He mis-navigated the American system, for better or worse, and paid a fine that is meant to dissuade people from doing things like this: http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_built.php http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
    - echion 9y ago
      > Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here. I hear you, and agree that when he says "I'm an engineer", we have a certain set of laws that apply to that speech. I'm saying there is another aspect which is the the crux of the reply-to-top-level comment to which I objected: that Final Report is saying "doing [math and stuff] on [public things] is engineering, and you did [math and stuff], so you're doing engineering without a license". I don't think my "the Final Report is saying..." is unfair: check the Final Report sections 8,9, and 10. I bet there are a lot of confounding issues in this particular case, but, very narrowly, what I'm saying is that using publicly-available data and speaking (without saying "I'm an engineer") of applications of "special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences" cannot be illegal or fine-able, yet this is pretty literally what sentence three of section 13 (Final Order, Page 6) says is happening.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    No. See my other reply above. You're ignoring important context that defines personal behavior separately from defining what the professional duties of an engineer include. As a simple example, if you have a faint and I ask you if you're all right, what you're feeling etc., that doesn't mean I'm practicing medicine without a license despite the diagnostic nature of my questions.
    - echion 9y ago
      I'm saying the Board's justification clearly says, irrespective of whether he said he was an engineer, just engaging in the practice of [creative work using mathematics and engineering knowledge] is subject to registration. I mean, if he hadn't said he was an engineer to Licensed Engineers many times, I agree nobody would have bothered. But now that they've bothered, their justifications matter.
      - dsp1234 9y ago
        is subject to registration. You are incorrect. See my other post with a link to the clear exceptions baked directly into the law. If what you said were true, then he literally would not have had an affirmative defense to plead at all, which is plainly wrong as the final order specifically notes his pleading of 2 affirmative defenses. You can find these analysis of those affirmative defenses by reviewing the sections of the final order starting at 19
        echion 9y ago
        Paragraph 14[0] clearly states violations as a consequence of ORS 672.007(1)(c)[1] using the definition in ORS 672.005(1)(b)[2]: "by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)". I agree his affirmative defenses are inadequate, but I'm not taking issue with the analysis of his defense. I simply am pointing out the justification used in Paragraph 14 is concerning. ORS672.005(1)(b) is way too broad. [0] - https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed [1] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 [2] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005
- xkcd-sucks 9y ago
  ORS 672.005(1)(b) simply describes 'stuff an engineer does', in terrifyingly broad strokes. If "professional services or creative work" could be read as "services or creative work, either of which are done for money," perhaps it would be okay?
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    It's a mistake to pick out individual phrases and treat them as if they were mathematical equalities. Look at the preamble to that section: 'As used in ORS 672.002 (Definitions for ORS 672.002 to 672.325) to 672.325 (Civil penalties), unless the context requires otherwise:' It's terrifying because you are reading bits of it out of context and extrapolating incorrectly to the broadest scope imaginable. I perform some of the activities on this list on almost a daily basis just in the normal course of making things and being an artist (the old-fashioned variety slapping paint on canvas). I have exactly zero fear of ever being prosecuted for unlicensed engineering activities. How you should be reading it: ORS 672.005 described things that an engineer does as part of their work. Then you go on to look at ORS 672.007 which talks about how (1) A *person* is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person: (a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer; (b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or (c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 (Additional definitions) as the practice of engineering. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 You are not going to get fined just for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public. In programming terms, you're worrying about the value of a variable without considering its scope. Forgot to mention that all emphases are added by me.
    - echion 9y ago
      > You are not going to get fined just for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public If the argument is "he said he was an 'engineer' and he isn't licensed", that's fine. And the Board's Final Report contains a lot of language establishing that, and for that he can be fined. But the Board's Report goes out of its way to say that ORS 672.005(c) and ORS 672.002 define "practicing engineering" as quite close to just "calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public", and that just practicing engineering in this manner without registration is not allowed. Check Section 14 of the Final Report. It makes no reference to "purporting to be an engineer": it's "by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".
sillysaurus3 9y ago
Offtopic, but I just wanted to point out that your comment looks like this: http://imgur.com/FGi9jsv http://imgur.com/FGi9jsv It's quite difficult to read, and even harder for mobile users. It might be better to use > or asterisks for quoting. For anyone else who was trying to read the quoted parts, here they are: He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information] No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular: > By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b). ...and summarizing: > By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.
- echion 9y ago
  Thanks -- I did use '>' but didn't wrap the lines myself, assuming the single '> lots of text here' was enough.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    I think I figured out what happened. It looks like the source you were copying from was indented with five or six spaces. HN interprets two leading spaces as "code formatting," which turns off line wrapping.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

by echion 9y ago

anigbrowl 9y ago

Yes but he wouldn't be engaging in the practice of engineering if he were to disclaim the title of engineer. Of course, if Jarlstrom were to disavow being a licensed engineer, he might not have garnered as much as interest for his proposals as he did by implying he possessed the relevant credential.

echion 9y ago
He clearly would. Just doing the things is deemed "engineering", even if he called it "monading".
- rmxt 9y ago
  Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here. If he had merely submitted the "critique and calculations" for "consideration" as a concerned citizen, he would have not gotten a fine. Simply put, he called himself an engineer and suggested that public infrastructure be changed. In Oregon, when you're not licensed by the state, you can't use the title "Engineer", and you definitely don't want to use it while trying to suggest modifications to public infrastructure. I'm not equating the two in terms of "I believe both situations are completely just"... but doing what he did is akin to a thief walking himself into the police station. The purpose of the Board of Engineers in most states is not to decide what is "good engineering practice" and what is "bad engineering practice", it's to regulate licensure and set the bar for who is qualified to be an "Engineer" in the eyes of the state. He mis-navigated the American system, for better or worse, and paid a fine that is meant to dissuade people from doing things like this: http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_built.php http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
  - echion 9y ago
    > Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here. I hear you, and agree that when he says "I'm an engineer", we have a certain set of laws that apply to that speech. I'm saying there is another aspect which is the the crux of the reply-to-top-level comment to which I objected: that Final Report is saying "doing [math and stuff] on [public things] is engineering, and you did [math and stuff], so you're doing engineering without a license". I don't think my "the Final Report is saying..." is unfair: check the Final Report sections 8,9, and 10. I bet there are a lot of confounding issues in this particular case, but, very narrowly, what I'm saying is that using publicly-available data and speaking (without saying "I'm an engineer") of applications of "special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences" cannot be illegal or fine-able, yet this is pretty literally what sentence three of section 13 (Final Order, Page 6) says is happening.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  No. See my other reply above. You're ignoring important context that defines personal behavior separately from defining what the professional duties of an engineer include. As a simple example, if you have a faint and I ask you if you're all right, what you're feeling etc., that doesn't mean I'm practicing medicine without a license despite the diagnostic nature of my questions.
  - echion 9y ago
    I'm saying the Board's justification clearly says, irrespective of whether he said he was an engineer, just engaging in the practice of [creative work using mathematics and engineering knowledge] is subject to registration. I mean, if he hadn't said he was an engineer to Licensed Engineers many times, I agree nobody would have bothered. But now that they've bothered, their justifications matter.
    - dsp1234 9y ago
      is subject to registration. You are incorrect. See my other post with a link to the clear exceptions baked directly into the law. If what you said were true, then he literally would not have had an affirmative defense to plead at all, which is plainly wrong as the final order specifically notes his pleading of 2 affirmative defenses. You can find these analysis of those affirmative defenses by reviewing the sections of the final order starting at 19
      - echion 9y ago
        Paragraph 14[0] clearly states violations as a consequence of ORS 672.007(1)(c)[1] using the definition in ORS 672.005(1)(b)[2]: "by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)". I agree his affirmative defenses are inadequate, but I'm not taking issue with the analysis of his defense. I simply am pointing out the justification used in Paragraph 14 is concerning. ORS672.005(1)(b) is way too broad. [0] - https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed [1] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 [2] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005
xkcd-sucks 9y ago
ORS 672.005(1)(b) simply describes 'stuff an engineer does', in terrifyingly broad strokes. If "professional services or creative work" could be read as "services or creative work, either of which are done for money," perhaps it would be okay?
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  It's a mistake to pick out individual phrases and treat them as if they were mathematical equalities. Look at the preamble to that section: 'As used in ORS 672.002 (Definitions for ORS 672.002 to 672.325) to 672.325 (Civil penalties), unless the context requires otherwise:' It's terrifying because you are reading bits of it out of context and extrapolating incorrectly to the broadest scope imaginable. I perform some of the activities on this list on almost a daily basis just in the normal course of making things and being an artist (the old-fashioned variety slapping paint on canvas). I have exactly zero fear of ever being prosecuted for unlicensed engineering activities. How you should be reading it: ORS 672.005 described things that an engineer does as part of their work. Then you go on to look at ORS 672.007 which talks about how (1) A *person* is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person: (a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer; (b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or (c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 (Additional definitions) as the practice of engineering. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 You are not going to get fined just for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public. In programming terms, you're worrying about the value of a variable without considering its scope. Forgot to mention that all emphases are added by me.
  - echion 9y ago
    > You are not going to get fined just for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public If the argument is "he said he was an 'engineer' and he isn't licensed", that's fine. And the Board's Final Report contains a lot of language establishing that, and for that he can be fined. But the Board's Report goes out of its way to say that ORS 672.005(c) and ORS 672.002 define "practicing engineering" as quite close to just "calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public", and that just practicing engineering in this manner without registration is not allowed. Check Section 14 of the Final Report. It makes no reference to "purporting to be an engineer": it's "by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".

sillysaurus3 9y ago

Offtopic, but I just wanted to point out that your comment looks like this: http://imgur.com/FGi9jsv http://imgur.com/FGi9jsv It's quite difficult to read, and even harder for mobile users. It might be better to use > or asterisks for quoting. For anyone else who was trying to read the quoted parts, here they are: He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information] No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular: > By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b). ...and summarizing: > By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.

echion 9y ago
Thanks -- I did use '>' but didn't wrap the lines myself, assuming the single '> lots of text here' was enough.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  I think I figured out what happened. It looks like the source you were copying from was indented with five or six spaces. HN interprets two leading spaces as "code formatting," which turns off line wrapping.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]