G
Guy Macon
Irony does not imply falsehood.
Y
-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer"
Irony does not imply falsehood.
Y
K
krw
Try reading the paragraph again. Two binary variables, "license" and
"degree":
Neither = no license and no degree
Both = licensed and degreed.
No, just an elementary understanding of English.
G
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Don't forget, I am not only in California, but I work in
Hollywood and live in "The OC"...
Please forgive me if this is oversimplified; I don't know you
or your level of familiarity with the English language, so
I will try to lay out all the details.
When a statement in the English language is in the following form:
"Person X can have attribute A without attribute B, attribute B
without attribute A, neither, or both"
The correct parsing is:
X = (A AND (NOT B)) OR (B AND (NOT A)) OR ((NOT A) AND (NOT B)) OR (A AND B).
Your incorrect parsing appears to have been
X = (A AND (NOT B)) AND (B AND (NOT A)) -- Changing the OR to an AND.
In other words, A and B are independent 1-bit variables,
and can have any of the following values; 00, 01, 10, 11.
The following is a direct restatement of your question with
a different set of independent binary variables. Logically
it is the same.
MY STATEMENT (REWRITTEN): An Australian can be blond without
being female, a female without being blond, neither blond
nor female, or both blond and female.
YOUR RESPONSE (REWRITTEN): If you are talking about someone
living in Australia, how the hell could that person be both
a "blond without being female" and a "female without being
blond" at the same time? Obviously something you'd have to
be from OZ to understand, or it some sort of upside down
southern hemisphere thing?
The flaw in your reasoning being that in English a comma
separated list with "or" between the last two attributes
("X has attribute one, two, three or four") does not imply
that X has attributes one and two at the same time.
Again, I don't mean to insult you. I simply don't know
whether you are an accomplished English speaker who simply
read what I wrote incorrectly or a non-native who needs a
detailed explanation so as to understand how to correctly
parse the English language.
I hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In the state of California there is no requirement for any
degree or license in order to call oneself an "Engineer."
California employers use the term "Engineer" when referring
to degreed, non-degreed, licensed, or non-licensed engineers.
California employers use terms such as "BSEE" to refer to that
subset of engineers that has a degree.
California employers use the term "Professional Engineer" or
"PE" when referring to licensed engineers.
A California engineer can have:
A license and a degree,
A license without a degree,
A degree without a license,
No license, no degree.
What you call yourself depends on your degree or license.
It would be fraud to call oneself "Professional Engineer",
"Registered Engineer", "Licensed Engineer", "PE", or "P.E."
"EIT", etc. without the proper license.
It would be fraud to call oneself "BSEE", "PHD", "Degreed",
Dr.", etc. without the proper degree.
The applicable California law is:
Professional Engineers Act
Business And Professions Code sections 6700 – 6799
Effective January 1, 2007
Chapter 7. Professional Engineers
http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/pe_act.pdf
Section 6704 defines who may use various engineer titles:
"Only persons licensed under this chapter shall be entitled
to take and use the titles 'consulting engineer,' 'professional
engineer,' or 'registered engineer,' or any combination of
those titles or abbreviations thereof."
Wikipedia has a good overview of the law in various parts
of the world with links to authoritative sources:
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Engineer ]
Don't forget, I am not only in California, but I work in
Hollywood and live in "The OC"...
Please forgive me if this is oversimplified; I don't know you
or your level of familiarity with the English language, so
I will try to lay out all the details.
When a statement in the English language is in the following form:
"Person X can have attribute A without attribute B, attribute B
without attribute A, neither, or both"
The correct parsing is:
X = (A AND (NOT B)) OR (B AND (NOT A)) OR ((NOT A) AND (NOT B)) OR (A AND B).
Your incorrect parsing appears to have been
X = (A AND (NOT B)) AND (B AND (NOT A)) -- Changing the OR to an AND.
In other words, A and B are independent 1-bit variables,
and can have any of the following values; 00, 01, 10, 11.
The following is a direct restatement of your question with
a different set of independent binary variables. Logically
it is the same.
MY STATEMENT (REWRITTEN): An Australian can be blond without
being female, a female without being blond, neither blond
nor female, or both blond and female.
YOUR RESPONSE (REWRITTEN): If you are talking about someone
living in Australia, how the hell could that person be both
a "blond without being female" and a "female without being
blond" at the same time? Obviously something you'd have to
be from OZ to understand, or it some sort of upside down
southern hemisphere thing?
The flaw in your reasoning being that in English a comma
separated list with "or" between the last two attributes
("X has attribute one, two, three or four") does not imply
that X has attributes one and two at the same time.
Again, I don't mean to insult you. I simply don't know
whether you are an accomplished English speaker who simply
read what I wrote incorrectly or a non-native who needs a
detailed explanation so as to understand how to correctly
parse the English language.
I hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In the state of California there is no requirement for any
degree or license in order to call oneself an "Engineer."
California employers use the term "Engineer" when referring
to degreed, non-degreed, licensed, or non-licensed engineers.
California employers use terms such as "BSEE" to refer to that
subset of engineers that has a degree.
California employers use the term "Professional Engineer" or
"PE" when referring to licensed engineers.
A California engineer can have:
A license and a degree,
A license without a degree,
A degree without a license,
No license, no degree.
What you call yourself depends on your degree or license.
It would be fraud to call oneself "Professional Engineer",
"Registered Engineer", "Licensed Engineer", "PE", or "P.E."
"EIT", etc. without the proper license.
It would be fraud to call oneself "BSEE", "PHD", "Degreed",
Dr.", etc. without the proper degree.
The applicable California law is:
Professional Engineers Act
Business And Professions Code sections 6700 – 6799
Effective January 1, 2007
Chapter 7. Professional Engineers
http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/pe_act.pdf
Section 6704 defines who may use various engineer titles:
"Only persons licensed under this chapter shall be entitled
to take and use the titles 'consulting engineer,' 'professional
engineer,' or 'registered engineer,' or any combination of
those titles or abbreviations thereof."
Wikipedia has a good overview of the law in various parts
of the world with links to authoritative sources:
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Engineer ]
R
Rhonda Moffat
Guy said:
Mr. Macon has neither the education, nor the recognized
qualifications necessary to call himself an "Electrical Engineer",
and those who hire him as an Engineer should know that he is not
insurable as such and he is legally unable to sign off on jobs as an
Engineer.
To the extent that Mr. Macon misrepresents himself, he is a fraud.
R
Roger Manyard
krw said:
No, the two variables, clearly separated by commas, are not binary.
The variables are the conjunctives "license without a degree" and
"degree without a license." And, quite obviously, it is impossible
for Mr. Macon to have both a "license without a degree" and a
"degree without a license".
We love it when people try to insult others and end up insulting
only themselves.
Bye.
cordially, as always,
rm
R
Roger Manyard
Wrong. The correct parsing is:
X = (A AND NOT B) OR #license without degree
(B AND NOT A) OR #degree without license
NOT((A AND NOT B) OR (B AND NOT A)) OR #Neither
((A AND NOT B) AND (B AND NOT A)) #Both
Since it is impossible to have both A and !B and B and !A, your last
phrase is a contradiction. The logic is elementary.
And you are quite wrong. If you had the benefit of an education you
would know this. The notion of you programming anything at the
binary level is simply preposterous.
cordially, as always,
rm
In this particular case, an element of falsehood does seem to be
involved.
G
Guy Macon
You are incorrect.
What evidence would I possibly have to base a negative opinion
on? All the individuals mentioned either have a history of
posting material that shows a high degree of skill or have not
posted any material that tells me anything one way or the other
about their skills. Just because some folks set a rather low
evidentiary standard before engaging in flaming, that doesn't
mean that I should respond in kind. I find the resulting back-
and-forth flaming to be rather boring, so why not say something
that is niv=ce and likely to be true?
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self
esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their
self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react
defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility,
anger and aggression than other people.
"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the
bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary,
they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of
themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down
in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder
because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."
-Roy F. Baumeister, _Evil: Inside
Human Violence and Cruelty_ p 149
J
John Larkin
How's that misc.business.product-dev thing working out? Still
hijacking posts from other groups?
John
M
Michael A. Terrell
Fred said:
Why would they put YOUR face on an ESR meter?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guy said:
Want some Kool-Aid, and a dictionary?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
K
krw
I see. You're Rich Grise, in drag.
You forgot to mark your post with "Comma Police".
I sure hope so.
Liar.
;-)
M
Michael A. Terrell
Roger said:
That's what makes it worth the admission price. ;-)
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
R
Roger Manyard
In alt.os.linux.slackware krw said:
Commas are pretty standard delimiters. You do know that, don't you?
And in this case, since the commas define the variables, the commas
are just as important as the variables.
Or don't you think so?
cordially, as always,
rm
G
Guy Macon
John said:
When you objected and provided a valid agrument as to why
it was a bad practice, I apologized and stopped at once.
Apparently that wasn't good enough for you, and here you
are, months later, still flaming me over it. I would be
most interested in any hint you might be willing to give
concerning exactly what a person has to do to satisfy you.
G
Guy Macon
Michael said:
No thanks. I believe that the cult you referred to used
Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid. See the "Notable facts" section
at [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid ]. I wouldn't
want to not be authentic...
Normally I would run a spell-checker, but leaving in a few
typos helps the self-esteem of certain individuals, and who
am I to deny them happiness?
K
krw
Sure. I didn't realize you were nit-picking on commas because you
didn't announce the bust and read him his Miranda rights. That's
pretty standard procedure, these days.
No, the context made the logic clear, even with bollixed delimiters.
/S/cordially/sarcastically/
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guy said:
Excuses, excuses.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
R
Roger Manyard
In alt.os.linux.slackware krw said:
No, reading people their "rights" has absolutely nothing to do with
parsing statements for their logical meaning.
Oh, so we should ignore the commas and go with what you feel is
"clear?"
English major?
cordially, as always,
rm
K
krw
You're humor challenged too? <rhetorical question, if you hadn't
guessed>
Rather then being a nit-picking jerk, yes.
Of course not. Perhaps you're in the wrong newsgroup. This isn't
alt.english.composition.
Horsefeathers.
