OSBEELS investigator Wilkinson reviewed Jarlstrom’s communication as well as his website and then responded, explaining that the traffic formulas the City of Beaverton utilizes are governed by the Oregon Department of Transportation ( ODOT ) and are not within OSBEELS’ jurisdiction
If you are educated as an engineer and passed all exams, you're an engineer, no matter what a state board says.
You are aware that to be a Professional (or Licensed) Engineer requires you to pass at least two exams, right? By your logic, he's not an engineer because he didn't pass his final two exams. An accredited university or college can grant you a degree; they cannot grant you a license in by a state board to be an engineer. Now for some engineering disciplines, it is not absolutely necessary to have the license; however, it is absolutely required if you want to sign off on any construction diagrams or blueprints.
According to his reply it's because he isn't offering services 'to the public', whatever that may mean, and some reply above [slashdot.org] seems to explain that in fact it's because (he claims) he's not 'practicing' engineering in Oregon.
What is missing from the articles and are in the minutes are specific reasons by the board: "Jarlstrom had verbiage on his website where he claimed to be an engineer, as well as referring to himself as an engineer in multiple emails to OSBEELS and other members of the public. Jarlstrom modified a commonly used traffic engineering formula and submitted it to various public entities while claiming to be an engineer. "
As an analogy, I would say if I hold a medical degree but never passed my boards, I am not a doctor. However if I make statements about medical treatments to the public about while proclaiming that "I am a doctor" would you say that I am operating without a license? Most people would probably say yes.
Jarlstrom initially cont
acted OSBEELS via email requesting assistance
investigating transportation engineering in Beaverton, Oregon. In that email, Jarlstrom stated
that he was already working to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. He
claimed that two City of Beaverton engineers were misapplying engineering practices and
expressed interest in being a Board member because he was, “
already doing this kind of work
Wilkinson cautioned Jarlstrom that claiming to be an engineer
or using the title of engineer
without registration is a violation. Jarlstrom responded, stating that he would correct his website
and refrain from use of verbiage indicating he is an engineer. .
In subsequent emails Jarlstrom sent to OSBEELS, he stated, “
as you can see from the results I can deliver to the world
” and further asserted
that he is exempt from licensure which is, “
why I can call myself an engineer
It seems like the board warned him that he could not use the title at least a few times and he simply disregarded that.
I don't waste my time digging up facts for you anymore;
You didn't bring up a single fact at all. It's your speculation; it's your guess. These are not facts.
when I do, you break out the insults.
And in this thread, please point out a single insult that I levied.
Me? I simply referenced your username. You want facts? You picked the name and that's a fact.
This is what you said: "In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever." Do you stand by your words?
Beyond that, an opinion can neither be lroven nor disproven and we will see what you call my "opinions" either proven or disproven during the trial.
Opinions can be wrong; if your opinion is that the Earth is flat; you're wrong. If your opinion is that the Earth is a sphere, you're still wrong. If your opinion is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, you are still wrong but you are closer to being correct.
I may have my facts wrong, but they're certainly not opinions.
The problem is not that you have opinions; it's that you seem to assert that they are the truth.
Call it an educated guess.
No it's your opinion.
The assertion being made by Qualcomm... you know... in the lawsuit TFS mentioned... is that they did exactly that. I guess we'll find out soon enough as the trial plays out. In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever.
And no party to a lawsuit has ever stretched the truth to the point where people call it a lie? I take it you believed SCO when they said that IBM stole their IP and put it in Linux?
By the way you have yet to back up anything you've said with facts. All you seem to have is insults.
Right. Apple didn't know about the performance difference between the two radio chips, they jsut restricted the performance of the Qualcomm part on a whim. I'll buy that for a dollar (before $1 instant rebate).
Again, your assertion is that Apple restricted the performance "on a whim". Unless you happen to work inside Apple you can't claim that. Also I already said that parts from different vendors are not always equal. The question is do they meet the specifications. The A9 is the best example. Apple designed the chip but because two different fabs made the same design, the performance was slightly different. In the real world would it make much difference? I would say no.
Sure there will be an effect.
The question is was there harm. Effect is not the legal standard.
If yellow pages lies and says that Jim's 10 minute locksmith and Bob's 30 minute locksmith are the same speed, then Jim's going to lose business, even though he's faster. If Apple lied and claimed that the phones are equivalent, when they're not, then the qualcom iphone sales will be artificially depressed (yes, there are people who care).
The problem with this analogy is manifold. 1) Yellow Pages is in the business of providing listings and do not evaluate the performance of the listings. 2) Consumers really choose (or know sometimes) either modem. They choose the phone, the choose the carrier; they don't choose the chipset. 3) The only parties that might be affected are manufacturers as they are the ones that have a real choice in the matter are other manufacturers. Normally they will do their own testing. LG, Samsung, Huawei, are not simply going to take Apple's word that one chipset is better or equal to another mainly because they will use different components in their models and have to do their own testing.
The real story, here, is that the iPhone could have faster connectivity. That it doesn't isn't even a financial decision, as Apple has opted to use the better part in some production runs and the inferior part in others, and hinder the performance of the superior part to negate any possible advantage it may bring. If it were a financial decision, they'd have used only the cheaper Intel chips.
All of which is an assertion that may not have evidence. Are all parts equal from all vendors? No. But that does not automatically equate to Apple knowing about the difference in performance and making a conscious choice to screw over the customer or that Apple hindered the performance of one part.
If you remember chipgate, A9 chips made by TSMC ran cooler and laster longer than A9s made by Samsung. Apple said that both versions still met performance standards but one version just ran better than the other. Now bear in mind that these were exactly the same design by Apple but were made in two different fabs and that the main difference was TSMC used a 16nm line while Samsung used a 14nm line.
And the lawyers are more interested in that, since Apple may be making false claims which harm Qualcomm
The problem is that Qualcomm must prove "harm". Apple merely selecting two vendors and claiming they performed equally when one beat the other does not "harm" either vendor. What damages did Qualcomm suffer? Apple was never going to use 100% Qualcomm chips anyways. Other manufacturers are going to run their own tests and not accept Apple's word because their phones would have different performance results.
So in other words, Qualcomm is saying that the fact that consumers could not self-select Qualcomm iPhones materially affected its business. It further alleges that consumers were not properly informed, not just because Apple withheld information, but because Apple deliberately misrepresented the facts by stating publicly that the performance of both models was identical.
I can't see any justifiable claim that Qualcomm could reasonably make in those statements. Even if Apple did everything Qualcomm said they did, Qualcomm has no standing to sue Apple as the consumers would be hurt not Qualcomm. Now if Apple ran ad after ad saying that Qualcomm chips were terrible, they could sue Apple for those statements.
Keep typing away, I'm not going to read any of it after having already not read what you wrote above, and told you so.
So again what you are saying is that not only are you wrong you will never admit you're wrong. Secretary Tillerson says you're wrong. Everything I know about military ordinance says you're wrong. What is it like to be so wrong all the time?
You wanted to disagree with me, but you were only starting from an elementary-school "do you know what an airbase is" level. And before that you were already saying stupid, ignorant thing
Because you seem not to know that an airbase without a functioning runway isn't much of an airbase. The runway is the most important thing about an airbase.
So no, there is no way I will care what you say, or read it. Next time, start out by saying something insightful. If you start out being an idiot, I'm not going to dredge around in your comment looking for some minor redeeming value.
Your problem is that you ignored basic information about military ordinance because in your childish demeanor you insult people because you simply don't know anything about military ordinance. You don't seem to know much about other topics but refuse to admit it. Facts have a place in this world; you simply ignore them.
The wages of sin are unreported.