6 ms·

Yellow-Light Crusader Fined for Doing Math Without a License

36 points by Element_ 9y ago

GavinMcG 9y ago
The actual order [0] which the article links to is pretty clear about the fine being for describing himself as an engineer and practicing engineering, despite not being a registered professional engineer. The article eventually gets to saying that, but the headline isn't accurate, and most of the article is just making hay. [0] http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-Jarlstrom-Final-Default-Order-IJ084769xA6322.pdf http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-Jarlstrom-F...
- wl 9y ago
  The order cited him for calling himself an engineer. It ALSO cited him for doing math. See paragraph 14.
  - GavinMcG 9y ago
    I don't think you can separate out the "doing math" bit from the rest of paragraph 14: "and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and 'worldwide' traffic signals..." (Edit: Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree? Maybe I've been unclear, or something, but it seems obvious that paragraph 14 isn't about doing the calculations, it's about doing the calculations and presenting them as engineering work. The first clause of the sentence doesn't stand on its own.)
    - wtallis 9y ago
      What you've quoted does not describe anything that a member of the general public should not be allowed to do. Making informed proposals to your government is not something that requires a professional license. It would behoove the government to get a relevantly licensed professional to evaluate proposals before they are enacted, but that's the responsibility of the governing body, not the citizen making a proposal. The only thing that would make his traffic analysis and proposal fall under any sensible purview for the engineering licensing board would be if in presenting his proposal to the government and the public, he had misrepresented his qualifications. Paragraph 14 does not allege any such misrepresentation; it cites him for doing math and science.
      - GavinMcG 9y ago
        I don't disagree with you. But it's still disingenuous to claim that the board is punishing him solely for doing math. Maybe the law should be changed, but the law isn't against doing math.
        wtallis 9y ago
        Doing the math and telling anyone about it, then, if you want to be unnecessarily pedantic. They're counting it as a separate offense from anything relating to the use of the word "engineer". It's not disingenuous to claim that the board is punishing him for doing the math. It would be wrong to say that doing the math is the only offense they're citing him for, but it is an independent offense that they're complaining about.
        GavinMcG 9y ago
        The law is pedantic. Perhaps unnecessarily so, but an awful lot of law is there specifically to address issues that have come up due to prior ambiguities. That old saying comes to mind: "Don't tear down a fence until you know what's on the other side." On that note, I think there is a real and significant difference between just doing the math and doing the math and then telling people about it, especially when you're telling people about it under the guise of your engineering expertise. Similarly, there's a difference between me reading this document, and me reading this document and then writing this comment, especially if I were claiming to have expertise in the law. (Though just to be clear, I am not a lawyer.) You're right that there are separate offenses: asserting that he is an engineer, and practicing engineering. But the practicing engineering goes beyond simply doing the math. As section 8 of the document describes, it involves "Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects." So doing the math is not independent. The statute makes explicit that "special knowledge of the mathematical... sciences" must be "[applied] to such professional services or creative work as [examples]." Again, I'll agree that the law may be more pedantic than it ought to be. But "doing math without a license" genuinely misdescribes the issue in a way that should be clear with a reading of that paragraph. I'd expect better from a news agency that tries to be reputable, rather than trying to simply draw clicks and generate outrage.
    - mdekkers 9y ago
      Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree The idea of downvoting for not contributing to the discussion left HN a while ago. You are downvoted because you said something somebody doesn't agree with which is human nature: "our opinions differ, and I have the power to punish you for this, so you will be punished". Human nature, we suck as a species. They are just imaginary internet points. Don't worry about it.
      - GavinMcG 9y ago
        Or, I could genuinely be interested in having my false beliefs corrected, communicating more effectively next time, or promoting a good conversation that will be informative to others. You're right that the downvotes are an expression of disagreement, but I'm calling it out specifically because I think elucidating that disagreement is valuable.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Actually, it was for calling himself an engineer and presenting the results of the math for a particular application; doing the math wasn't the issue. OTOH, this (that is, recommending the new formula for the public purpose for which it is recommended) would seem to pure protected political speech (and exercise of the right of petition) under the First Amendment: if he was commercially offering this work professional regulation could certainly apply, but making a recommendation to the public and public representatives on public policy is core First Amendment protected activity. Other than the "calling himself an engineer" part, which is perhaps outside of the protected scope of the first amendment, what this cites him for seems Constitutionally dubious. On the third hand, since he's apparently not contesting the charges, none of that will be addressed in the context of this case.
    - wl 9y ago
      If you want to be pedantic, paragraph 14 covers doing the math and exercising his first amendment right to tell other people about it. Not a huge difference. It doesn't include when he calls himself an engineer, which are separate violations described in other paragraphs. He IS challenging this with the help of the Institute for Justice: http://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-challenges-oregon-law-prohibiting-mathematical-criticism-without-license/ http://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-challenges-oregon-law-pr...
- dismantlethesun 9y ago
  He is an engineer schooled in a country does not strictly licence engineers. When he mentioned this, they cautioned him not to practice engineering. He did so by submitting the calculations, even though in that further report he mentioned that he was not licenced. Someone else probably wouldn't have been fined only because they previously held themselves out as an engineer.
hprotagonist 9y ago
this has been discussed here previously. tl;dr: he was fined, correctly, for claiming a professional licensure and authority to which he's not entitled. Not for "using math". professional engineers are real in the same way board-licensed specialists or bar-admitted lawyers are, and you can't claim to be one unless you are one. end of story.
- astrodust 9y ago
  This is why the term "software engineer" is very divisive.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Not really. But there are specific situations, e.g. signing off on things related to regulatory agencies, where PEs are required. Lots of engineers in a variety of engineering professions have no need for PEs but some do.
    - GavinMcG 9y ago
      Keep in mind that "not really" may be dependent on where you're at. It is divisive in some places. More so Europe than the United States.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        Fair enough. In the US, "engineer" is used pretty widely--including by people who are clearly not engineers. (I could name a number of examples from the oil business.) PEs are mostly about certifications needed to sign off on things in some cases. I got an Engineer-in-Training certificate but never had the need to get a PE.
      - strictnein 9y ago
        Strangely, the first software dev title I got with "Engineer" in the title was from a European company. "Applications Engineer"
  - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
noonespecial 9y ago
When the credential becomes more about permission that proficiency, you'll get corruption instead of competence.
- dmix 9y ago
  It seems like "something needs to be done" is the motivation behind most of these licensing/regulations rather than "we should do this to have x result". A vast amount of these debates/flame wars are typically around does something need to be done rather than does this specific solution (centralized administrative oversight) actually help the problem. Not to mention the costs of unintended side effects that may outweigh the benefits of the oversight.
ClearAsMud 9y ago
Sensitive "engineers" hitting the down vote ... lmao. Ah well, truth can hurt the best of us.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Nah. I think it's more like you attaching some mythic significance to a title as if "science" doesn't/shouldn't have rigorous processes associated with it and engineering does. Computer Science/Engineering descriptions are often a historical accident given that, in many schools, CS grew out of the math department and, in other cases, it's part of engineering. (Although I'd note that MIT for example calls it CS even though it's part of the engineering school.) I agree that there is a base level computer programming that is neither science nor engineering but that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing.
  - ClearAsMud 9y ago
    CS is a sub-set of specialization from math - ergo a science. A scientist is one thing, as with an engineer is a very distinct animal separate from this. Opinion still holds.
    - strictnein 9y ago
      CS is also a sub-set of Electrical Engineering, ergo engineering. The work that people with CS degrees do is typically far more like Engineering (designing, testing, building, and fixing systems) than Science.
      - astrodust 9y ago
        Computer Science is in no way a subset of Electrical Engineering. I was in Computer Engineering, which is a subset of Electrical Engineering, and looked at transferring to Computer Science since I was more interested in software than hardware. The two disciplines are enormously different and I'd basically have to do-over two years. Engineering forces everyone through the same fundamentals, you learn about physics, chemistry, and do outrageous amounts of math. In Computer Science it's a whole different track apart from the small amount of overlap in the programming courses. At my university the Engineering Department was a separate entity from the entire school. Any engineering graduate was also on track to get their P.Eng. Computer Science students cannot get this without an engineering degree.
phoenixProgram 9y ago
I fear that because math research I did in K-12 math education research is being used as next-generation code breaking and encryption technology, I can no longer travel outside the country. The reason is that I am a target. Even our "NATO allies" are not safe for me because they are a bunch of worthless traitors :( who will happily torture me until they feel they know everything I know. It seems that fear of math and fear of inability to break codes and fear of being deprived of access to encryption technology has led to a crisis mentality. The answer, I think, is to force the empire to operate in a way that reduces the material, military value of code breaking and encryption technology. You don't need cryptographic codes if MITM attacks are prevented by something other than encryption like physical barriers. This is important because the first amendment is damaged when a national security concern makes speech difficult and dangerous. When the lives of American soldiers depend on my silence, it is a sad day in heaven AND hell because The Show Cannot Go On.
anotherevan 9y ago
“Once the last developer is locked up and the last idea patented you will realise that lawyers can’t program.” — Christian Heilmann (@codepo8) https://twitter.com/codepo8/statuses/79531211327930368 https://twitter.com/codepo8/statuses/79531211327930368

36 points by Element_ 9y ago

The actual order [0] which the article links to is pretty clear about the fine being for describing himself as an engineer and practicing engineering, despite not being a registered professional engineer. The article eventually gets to saying that, but the headline isn't accurate, and most of the article is just making hay. [0] http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-Jarlstrom-Final-Default-Order-IJ084769xA6322.pdf http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-Jarlstrom-F...

wl 9y ago
The order cited him for calling himself an engineer. It ALSO cited him for doing math. See paragraph 14.
- GavinMcG 9y ago
  I don't think you can separate out the "doing math" bit from the rest of paragraph 14: "and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and 'worldwide' traffic signals..." (Edit: Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree? Maybe I've been unclear, or something, but it seems obvious that paragraph 14 isn't about doing the calculations, it's about doing the calculations and presenting them as engineering work. The first clause of the sentence doesn't stand on its own.)
  - wtallis 9y ago
    What you've quoted does not describe anything that a member of the general public should not be allowed to do. Making informed proposals to your government is not something that requires a professional license. It would behoove the government to get a relevantly licensed professional to evaluate proposals before they are enacted, but that's the responsibility of the governing body, not the citizen making a proposal. The only thing that would make his traffic analysis and proposal fall under any sensible purview for the engineering licensing board would be if in presenting his proposal to the government and the public, he had misrepresented his qualifications. Paragraph 14 does not allege any such misrepresentation; it cites him for doing math and science.
    - GavinMcG 9y ago
      I don't disagree with you. But it's still disingenuous to claim that the board is punishing him solely for doing math. Maybe the law should be changed, but the law isn't against doing math.
      - wtallis 9y ago
        Doing the math and telling anyone about it, then, if you want to be unnecessarily pedantic. They're counting it as a separate offense from anything relating to the use of the word "engineer". It's not disingenuous to claim that the board is punishing him for doing the math. It would be wrong to say that doing the math is the only offense they're citing him for, but it is an independent offense that they're complaining about.
        GavinMcG 9y ago
        The law is pedantic. Perhaps unnecessarily so, but an awful lot of law is there specifically to address issues that have come up due to prior ambiguities. That old saying comes to mind: "Don't tear down a fence until you know what's on the other side." On that note, I think there is a real and significant difference between just doing the math and doing the math and then telling people about it, especially when you're telling people about it under the guise of your engineering expertise. Similarly, there's a difference between me reading this document, and me reading this document and then writing this comment, especially if I were claiming to have expertise in the law. (Though just to be clear, I am not a lawyer.) You're right that there are separate offenses: asserting that he is an engineer, and practicing engineering. But the practicing engineering goes beyond simply doing the math. As section 8 of the document describes, it involves "Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects." So doing the math is not independent. The statute makes explicit that "special knowledge of the mathematical... sciences" must be "[applied] to such professional services or creative work as [examples]." Again, I'll agree that the law may be more pedantic than it ought to be. But "doing math without a license" genuinely misdescribes the issue in a way that should be clear with a reading of that paragraph. I'd expect better from a news agency that tries to be reputable, rather than trying to simply draw clicks and generate outrage.
  - mdekkers 9y ago
    Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree The idea of downvoting for not contributing to the discussion left HN a while ago. You are downvoted because you said something somebody doesn't agree with which is human nature: "our opinions differ, and I have the power to punish you for this, so you will be punished". Human nature, we suck as a species. They are just imaginary internet points. Don't worry about it.
    - GavinMcG 9y ago
      Or, I could genuinely be interested in having my false beliefs corrected, communicating more effectively next time, or promoting a good conversation that will be informative to others. You're right that the downvotes are an expression of disagreement, but I'm calling it out specifically because I think elucidating that disagreement is valuable.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Actually, it was for calling himself an engineer and presenting the results of the math for a particular application; doing the math wasn't the issue. OTOH, this (that is, recommending the new formula for the public purpose for which it is recommended) would seem to pure protected political speech (and exercise of the right of petition) under the First Amendment: if he was commercially offering this work professional regulation could certainly apply, but making a recommendation to the public and public representatives on public policy is core First Amendment protected activity. Other than the "calling himself an engineer" part, which is perhaps outside of the protected scope of the first amendment, what this cites him for seems Constitutionally dubious. On the third hand, since he's apparently not contesting the charges, none of that will be addressed in the context of this case.
  - wl 9y ago
    If you want to be pedantic, paragraph 14 covers doing the math and exercising his first amendment right to tell other people about it. Not a huge difference. It doesn't include when he calls himself an engineer, which are separate violations described in other paragraphs. He IS challenging this with the help of the Institute for Justice: http://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-challenges-oregon-law-prohibiting-mathematical-criticism-without-license/ http://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-challenges-oregon-law-pr...
dismantlethesun 9y ago
He is an engineer schooled in a country does not strictly licence engineers. When he mentioned this, they cautioned him not to practice engineering. He did so by submitting the calculations, even though in that further report he mentioned that he was not licenced. Someone else probably wouldn't have been fined only because they previously held themselves out as an engineer.

hprotagonist 9y ago

this has been discussed here previously. tl;dr: he was fined, correctly, for claiming a professional licensure and authority to which he's not entitled. Not for "using math". professional engineers are real in the same way board-licensed specialists or bar-admitted lawyers are, and you can't claim to be one unless you are one. end of story.

astrodust 9y ago
This is why the term "software engineer" is very divisive.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Not really. But there are specific situations, e.g. signing off on things related to regulatory agencies, where PEs are required. Lots of engineers in a variety of engineering professions have no need for PEs but some do.
  - GavinMcG 9y ago
    Keep in mind that "not really" may be dependent on where you're at. It is divisive in some places. More so Europe than the United States.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      Fair enough. In the US, "engineer" is used pretty widely--including by people who are clearly not engineers. (I could name a number of examples from the oil business.) PEs are mostly about certifications needed to sign off on things in some cases. I got an Engineer-in-Training certificate but never had the need to get a PE.
    - strictnein 9y ago
      Strangely, the first software dev title I got with "Engineer" in the title was from a European company. "Applications Engineer"
- 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

noonespecial 9y ago

When the credential becomes more about permission that proficiency, you'll get corruption instead of competence.

dmix 9y ago
It seems like "something needs to be done" is the motivation behind most of these licensing/regulations rather than "we should do this to have x result". A vast amount of these debates/flame wars are typically around does something need to be done rather than does this specific solution (centralized administrative oversight) actually help the problem. Not to mention the costs of unintended side effects that may outweigh the benefits of the oversight.

ClearAsMud 9y ago

Sensitive "engineers" hitting the down vote ... lmao. Ah well, truth can hurt the best of us.

ghaff 9y ago
Nah. I think it's more like you attaching some mythic significance to a title as if "science" doesn't/shouldn't have rigorous processes associated with it and engineering does. Computer Science/Engineering descriptions are often a historical accident given that, in many schools, CS grew out of the math department and, in other cases, it's part of engineering. (Although I'd note that MIT for example calls it CS even though it's part of the engineering school.) I agree that there is a base level computer programming that is neither science nor engineering but that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing.
- ClearAsMud 9y ago
  CS is a sub-set of specialization from math - ergo a science. A scientist is one thing, as with an engineer is a very distinct animal separate from this. Opinion still holds.
  - strictnein 9y ago
    CS is also a sub-set of Electrical Engineering, ergo engineering. The work that people with CS degrees do is typically far more like Engineering (designing, testing, building, and fixing systems) than Science.
    - astrodust 9y ago
      Computer Science is in no way a subset of Electrical Engineering. I was in Computer Engineering, which is a subset of Electrical Engineering, and looked at transferring to Computer Science since I was more interested in software than hardware. The two disciplines are enormously different and I'd basically have to do-over two years. Engineering forces everyone through the same fundamentals, you learn about physics, chemistry, and do outrageous amounts of math. In Computer Science it's a whole different track apart from the small amount of overlap in the programming courses. At my university the Engineering Department was a separate entity from the entire school. Any engineering graduate was also on track to get their P.Eng. Computer Science students cannot get this without an engineering degree.

phoenixProgram 9y ago

I fear that because math research I did in K-12 math education research is being used as next-generation code breaking and encryption technology, I can no longer travel outside the country. The reason is that I am a target. Even our "NATO allies" are not safe for me because they are a bunch of worthless traitors :( who will happily torture me until they feel they know everything I know. It seems that fear of math and fear of inability to break codes and fear of being deprived of access to encryption technology has led to a crisis mentality. The answer, I think, is to force the empire to operate in a way that reduces the material, military value of code breaking and encryption technology. You don't need cryptographic codes if MITM attacks are prevented by something other than encryption like physical barriers. This is important because the first amendment is damaged when a national security concern makes speech difficult and dangerous. When the lives of American soldiers depend on my silence, it is a sad day in heaven AND hell because The Show Cannot Go On.

anotherevan 9y ago

“Once the last developer is locked up and the last idea patented you will realise that lawyers can’t program.” — Christian Heilmann (@codepo8) https://twitter.com/codepo8/statuses/79531211327930368 https://twitter.com/codepo8/statuses/79531211327930368