4 ms·

This might actually be a bigger deal than people realize. This sets a precedence of being able to submit engineering publications and work without being licens

This might actually be a bigger deal than people realize. This sets a precedence of being able to submit engineering publications and work without being licensed. Sure you can't still perform commercial or public engineering works unless licensed but you can speak publicly on technical matters.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
uniformlyrandom 9y ago
It shocks me that we literally have a license to speak about some matters in some states, and some people are OK with that.
jostmey 9y ago
So what? I don't want to live in a society governed by titles. Real talent doesn't need to rely on titles. I have titles but so what?
- larrydag 9y ago
  I wasn't speaking of titles. I was speaking of submitting technical work on engineering related ideas. Typically this is highly regulated under U.S. state laws.
  - mindslight 9y ago
    The generally-good requirement that plans are stamped by a "Professional Engineer" is required by public AHJs/codes and private regulations (eg insurance), and is not under dispute here. Meanwhile much engineering work is not under this regime, but checked by market demand and testing (eg software/electronic). As an Electrical Engineer that has little interest in power systems and isn't looking to rewire other people's houses for money, I have very little use for a PE. I still have the basic right, along with everyone else (regardless of education), to make technical judgments of any situation. How these judgments are valued can (and should) be questioned, but our right to speak them cannot. These laws you speak of are a mix of unenforced, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and unconscionable. Their actual effects are constrained between nothing (ie most people accept the concept of free speech) and the harmful thuggish behavior described in the article.
    - someguydave 9y ago
      <i>These laws you speak of are a mix of unenforced, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and unconscionable.</i> Would you say the same thing about doctor licensing laws?
      - mindslight 9y ago
        Yes, if those laws were able/used to silence PhDs using the title Doctor and/or nurses giving informal friendly diagnoses. The proper test is fraud, not trademark or unauthorized subject matter.
        someguydave 9y ago
        Are you using your own common sense for determining the boundaries of legal doctoring or are you using your State's statues?
    - xigency 9y ago
      I agree. The laws themselves read very anachronistically and I can only hope over time they are rolled over to have a much smaller scope. i.e. the government can require specific well-labeled qualifications for its own projects. There are millions of examples of the law being broken in its literal form that would show its absurdity, ranging from computers to cars to banks to universities and classrooms. Good on this man for fighting it in court.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

uniformlyrandom 9y ago

It shocks me that we literally have a license to speak about some matters in some states, and some people are OK with that.

jostmey 9y ago

So what? I don't want to live in a society governed by titles. Real talent doesn't need to rely on titles. I have titles but so what?

larrydag 9y ago
I wasn't speaking of titles. I was speaking of submitting technical work on engineering related ideas. Typically this is highly regulated under U.S. state laws.
- mindslight 9y ago
  The generally-good requirement that plans are stamped by a "Professional Engineer" is required by public AHJs/codes and private regulations (eg insurance), and is not under dispute here. Meanwhile much engineering work is not under this regime, but checked by market demand and testing (eg software/electronic). As an Electrical Engineer that has little interest in power systems and isn't looking to rewire other people's houses for money, I have very little use for a PE. I still have the basic right, along with everyone else (regardless of education), to make technical judgments of any situation. How these judgments are valued can (and should) be questioned, but our right to speak them cannot. These laws you speak of are a mix of unenforced, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and unconscionable. Their actual effects are constrained between nothing (ie most people accept the concept of free speech) and the harmful thuggish behavior described in the article.
  - someguydave 9y ago
    <i>These laws you speak of are a mix of unenforced, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and unconscionable.</i> Would you say the same thing about doctor licensing laws?
    - mindslight 9y ago
      Yes, if those laws were able/used to silence PhDs using the title Doctor and/or nurses giving informal friendly diagnoses. The proper test is fraud, not trademark or unauthorized subject matter.
      - someguydave 9y ago
        Are you using your own common sense for determining the boundaries of legal doctoring or are you using your State's statues?
  - xigency 9y ago
    I agree. The laws themselves read very anachronistically and I can only hope over time they are rolled over to have a much smaller scope. i.e. the government can require specific well-labeled qualifications for its own projects. There are millions of examples of the law being broken in its literal form that would show its absurdity, ranging from computers to cars to banks to universities and classrooms. Good on this man for fighting it in court.