4 ms·

He clearly would. Just doing the things is deemed "engineering", even if he called it "monading".

by echion 9y ago

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
    That's because you're lifting it out of the relevant context. He has already messed things up for them by previously claiming to be an engineer to government agencies and local and national media. He can't unring that bell because he already accepted a warning (absent any fine or penalty) and agreed to abide by the Code on not calling himself an engineer and then repeatedly broke that agreement, so he doesn't get to keep selling his proposed traffic solution because of his demonstrated bad faith. It's like someone who called themselves a doctor and turned out to have no medical qualifications being enjoined from wearing a white coat and a stethoscope and hanging around hospitals offering unsolicited medical advice.
    - dnautics 9y ago
      If I'm not mistaken, he is an engineer, and even a licensed one too, just not licensed in the Oregonian jurisdiction.
      - notlob 9y ago
        > If I'm not mistaken, he is an engineer, and even a licensed one too, just not licensed in the Oregonian jurisdiction. You are mistaken: I told you in an earlier reply that the first linked document states he is not licensed to practice in any state.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - dsp1234 9y ago
        According the final order, he is not. Page 2 of [0]. "Jarlstrom is not now, and never has been, registered to practice engineering in Oregon, or any other state in the United States. Jarlstrom has claimed to be a Swedish engineer. However, engineering is not a regulated profession in Sweden. No licensure, registration or certification is offered or required to practice engineering in Sweden" [0] - https://www.scribd.com/embeds/346354146/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-N5mRlfsw8brJVdlmtLw0&show_recommendations=true https://www.scribd.com/embeds/346354146/content?start_page=1...
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

He clearly would. Just doing the things is deemed "engineering", even if he called it "monading".

by 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
  That's because you're lifting it out of the relevant context. He has already messed things up for them by previously claiming to be an engineer to government agencies and local and national media. He can't unring that bell because he already accepted a warning (absent any fine or penalty) and agreed to abide by the Code on not calling himself an engineer and then repeatedly broke that agreement, so he doesn't get to keep selling his proposed traffic solution because of his demonstrated bad faith. It's like someone who called themselves a doctor and turned out to have no medical qualifications being enjoined from wearing a white coat and a stethoscope and hanging around hospitals offering unsolicited medical advice.
  - dnautics 9y ago
    If I'm not mistaken, he is an engineer, and even a licensed one too, just not licensed in the Oregonian jurisdiction.
    - notlob 9y ago
      > If I'm not mistaken, he is an engineer, and even a licensed one too, just not licensed in the Oregonian jurisdiction. You are mistaken: I told you in an earlier reply that the first linked document states he is not licensed to practice in any state.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - dsp1234 9y ago
      According the final order, he is not. Page 2 of [0]. "Jarlstrom is not now, and never has been, registered to practice engineering in Oregon, or any other state in the United States. Jarlstrom has claimed to be a Swedish engineer. However, engineering is not a regulated profession in Sweden. No licensure, registration or certification is offered or required to practice engineering in Sweden" [0] - https://www.scribd.com/embeds/346354146/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-N5mRlfsw8brJVdlmtLw0&show_recommendations=true https://www.scribd.com/embeds/346354146/content?start_page=1...

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