I recall the Oregon case and looked into it extensively while it was happening. This seems to me to be a different scenario.

I am a licensed PE, and my guess is that this dispute is not about whether he can call himself an engineer or not. It's perfectly acceptable to list "electrical engineer" or "mechanical engineer" etc., on your resume. The issue is that he has advertised his company as an engineering firm, selling engineering services, and nearly every state has a very specific and definite legal meaning for that.

If a customer knows this, and then goes to a company who indicates they are an engineering firm, and the expectation is that this is an engineering firm, then this is false advertising. Additionally, all PEs are accountable to the state board for ethical business practices. Whether or not this should be the law is up for debate, but the guy broke the law by calling his company "Southwest Engineering Concepts" and selling "engineering services".

PE exams are open-book. There were people bringing small bookshelves on handtrucks when I took it.

Different state boards have different requirements. I had to have a recommendation from two PEs who had worked with me, but there was no requirement to work under one for multiple years. The primary requirement for was for me to have worked with progressive responsibilities in an engineering role for four years.

That's what I was thinking too: I'd assume it would be like being at a bank drive-through window and that someone is watching me through a camera, so might as well tell that person thank you. Or some people might assume the car is being remote-controlled, and be telling that person thank you. Doesn't seem like odd behavior to me. I doubt many of those people are actually just thanking the car.

I saw an interview with him where he described himself as a "classical liberal".

I'm sorry, what? Three sharks wash up on the beach and die and it's suddenly an article on climate change and Trump hating? Really grasping for newsworthy stuff?

Something here doesn't pass the sniff test. I mean, articles are often biased but the headline says "dismissed" while the text states that the expired three-year terms weren't renewed. Goldman says "what's the scientific reason for removing...", thereby both indicating that this is anti-science, and they they are being forcibly removed. Then she says that it's the other people inserting politics into science.

I don't know the whole story but just offhand this sounds incredibly one-sided. The EPA spokesman said there are hundreds of applicants, yet another individual stated that he has never known someone on the board to not be reinstated at the end of their term. So there's basically been the same 18 people for years and years? How open-minded and non-political is that? Sounds like the three-year term has been merely formal. Is there anything "scientific" about that?

Many commenters here seem to not have grasped the entire story. I am a licensed professional engineer so I had an interest in finding out what was going on.

Review the article and you'll see a series of letters spanning a couple of years. The first at the bottom was (I thought) gracious, requesting more information, who he had talked to, and what "services" he referred to providing, and kindly informing Mr Jarlstrom that he really ought not to advertise his services as engineering services, since that is a violation.

He repeatedly insisted on doing so, until the most recent letter informed him that since he insisted on it, he was to be fined for it. It is him who is making a big deal out of this, not the board.

Now whether or not he actually does have good information is a different point, but so far I have not seen any indication that he was willing to work with the board in providing them with the requested details.

I used it recently at work to write a research paper. The formatting and presentation is much more professional than anything created in Word. My wife and I also republished some public domain works, re-typesetting the books and cleaning up the pictures. The Memoir class was invaluable for this. Other than that I guess it's mostly letters and little projects of my own.

Once the police begin using these "safety" devices that prevent others from using the gun, then it should become widespread.

Extra safety measures sound great until you try to implement them. I don't know of any biometric safety method that is reliable enough to stake your life on. Grip recognition sounds great until the system fails, you don't get your "calm and collected grip", you have to use your other hand, or you get injured somehow. There are some magnetic ones that work if you are wearing a magnetic ring and these seem reliable but only work for revolvers. People who want to impose these measures don't shoot guns themselves apparently. It's like imposing efficiency standards that are unattainable.

When it's reliable enough for the police, it will be reliable enough for everyone else.

I thought Roger Ebert's comments after Columbine were interesting:

"Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."

That's right. I hardly see why because one guy predicts the end of the world, it's Slashdot worthy. And as is pointed out below, Christians for the last 1900 years have understood the "this generation will not pass away" as referring to the judgement at Jerusalem in the destruction of the temple (a sort of coming of Christ). And keep in mind that some of the best logicians in history have been Christians. There are some in modern times that send their brains on a vacation but Scripture has been well-defended over the years as completely consistent with itself. Every single supposed contradiction has been dealt with if you're willing to give an honest look and not quote out of context.

You definitely have a favorite adjective...

This type of language doesn't convince anyone of your point, and most of you are preaching to the choir in any event. Though you rail on Christians and their stupidity (or at the very least, religious "nuts"), there are a decent number of agnostic or atheist who find evidence for the evolutionary theory lacking.

Let's get one thing straight: I don't know of anyone who questions micro-evolution so arguments with those examples are straw men. Everyone recognizes changes in successive generations of dogs. However, many, including scientists, are skeptical of macro-evolution, or that a dog will become anything but a dog. Bacteria has been cited. At the end of 10,000 generations it is a different bacteria, yet it is still bacteria.

The problem is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Evolution is a uniform theory that explains the world in a naturalistic way. If you assume it is a purely naturalistic world, it's the only option you've got. Otherwise the only alternative appears to be belief in some higher intelligence or God.

I've searched for evidence. Unbiased evidence. Pored over Wikipedia articles, websites, I read "Origin of the Species", and frankly, the rosy evidence that is presented is shown through rose-colored lenses. The problem is, everything looks like evolution if you assume it, and evolutionists make a priori assumptions just like everyone else. Don't pretend it's purely unbiased science, recognize your assumptions, study your epistemology. Many clever people can make up reasons behind why things happened the way they think it did. Darwin and Dawkins both talk about the eye and explain how it could have evolved step by step. That doesn't prove that it did though, or even prove that it is possible. Darwin's book gives many "stories" of how one thing could have led to another. It's a good explanation of how things got from point A to point B, but it doesn't prove that it actually did. It only looks that way if you assume that's how it happened.

And as a Christian myself, I have absolutely no problem studying the world. I am fascinated by every part of science, by exploration, by discovery. Yet I do so with the base assumption that God made it for our enjoyment. I can think and reason for myself too, but my basic assumptions are different. Are my discoveries then invalid or diminished? What about those of Newton, Henry, Faraday, or Maxwell (all Christians by the way)?

Mod me down for a rant AND for being off topic but....

I love how every time a story like this comes out somebody immediately, unprovoked, starts bashing Creationists. Is it because of insecurity or do you think it's cool? Well it isn't. It's puerile.

Oh, and while I'm here, posting something and appending "you insensitive clod" is way too overused. Just like the "3. ?????? 4. Profit!!" used to be.

I appreciate the informative posts that break out of the mold and actually give reasons, rather than an aping conformity to what is posted over and over again.