6 ms·

The order cited him for calling himself an engineer. It ALSO cited him for doing math. See paragraph 14.

by wl 10y ago

GavinMcG 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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...

The order cited him for calling himself an engineer. It ALSO cited him for doing math. See paragraph 14.

by wl 10y ago

The order cited him for calling himself an engineer. It ALSO cited him for doing math. See paragraph 14.

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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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...