Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer" - Slackware

This is a discussion on Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer" - Slackware ; krw trolled: >01.iinet.net.au>, ChuMaiFat@nowhere.com.au says... >> Guy Macon wrote: >> > Exactly so. In the state of California there is no requirement >> > that an engineer has a degree or license. A California >> > engineer can have a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73

Thread: Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer"

  1. Re: Guy Macon misusing the term "Professional Engineer"

    krw trolled:
    >01.iinet.net.au>, ChuMaiFat@nowhere.com.au says...
    >> Guy Macon wrote:


    >> > Exactly so. In the state of California there is no requirement
    >> > that an engineer has a degree or license. A California
    >> > engineer can have a license without a degree, a degree without
    >> > a license, neither, or both.


    >> If you are talking about an engineer, how the hell could he have
    >> both "a license without a degree" and a "degree without a
    >> license" at the same time?


    >Try reading the paragraph again. Two binary variables, "license"
    >and "degree":


    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".

    >> Obviously something you'd have to be an engineer to understand,
    >> or it some sort of laid back, California thing?


    >No, just an elementary understanding of English.


    We love it when people try to insult others and end up insulting
    only themselves.

    Bye.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  2. Re: Guy Macon wrong again!

    Guy Macon trolled:
    >ChuMaiFat wrote:
    >>Guy Macon wrote:


    >>> Exactly so. In the state of California there is no requirement
    >>> that an engineer has a degree or license. A California engineer
    >>> can have a license without a degree, a degree without a license,
    >>> neither, or both.


    >>If you are talking about an engineer, how the hell could he have
    >>both "a license without a degree" and a "degree without a license"
    >>at the same time?


    >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).


    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

  3. Re: Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer"

    anon wrote:
    >
    > Physics relaxed? I studied physics and electronics to BSc level and I can


    I said more relaxed - I never impled that it was easy. No degree, even
    a dual major in Arts & Crafts (one for the Arts, and the other for the
    Crafts - no, I'm not joking) is easy.

    > say that I thought they were both very hard and I was very well qualified
    > with pre degree qualifications and expected to go on and do well at degree
    > level.


    To put it very simply, at the undergraduate level, an engineer is much more
    employable than a physicist. Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal
    of respect for physics degrees - I much prefer their curriculum. Still,
    you really need to look for one with a Masters to fill the position that
    you might be able to squeeze out of an undergrad engineer.

    > Physics is the most intellectually demanding subject with chemistry,


    Maybe so, but getting a degree in it is not as grueling as what is expected
    of you as an engineering student. I'm sure it depends somewhat on the
    school one goes to, but most of our engineering programs were on the verge
    of being 5 year degrees. Aside from two english classes, two history classes,
    and two philosophy classes, the entire course work was made up of technical
    classes. There was very little time to breath.

    > electronics and mech eng (including related) coming up close behind. The
    > rest of the subjects are orders of magnitude behind.


    Look at the stats on what percent manage to graduate, and over what period
    of time it takes them (I have no idea where to find this online - it was
    available at my school when I went there - that was in the pre-AOL days).
    At my school, I believe it was the chemical engineers who had the lowest
    percent of people to complete their major. The aerospace engineers were
    second, but took the longest to finish. As an engineering student, you
    were probably going to have to take summer school to graduate on time.
    I did not see these issues with undergrad physics, at any of the schools
    I was familiar with.

    - Kurt

  4. Re: Guy Macon misusing terms such as "Professional Engineer"

    ~kurt trolled:
    >anon wrote:
    >>
    >> Physics relaxed? I studied physics and electronics to BSc level and I can


    >I said more relaxed - I never impled that it was easy. No degree, even
    >a dual major in Arts & Crafts (one for the Arts, and the other for the
    >Crafts - no, I'm not joking) is easy.


    >> say that I thought they were both very hard and I was very well qualified
    >> with pre degree qualifications and expected to go on and do well at degree
    >> level.


    >To put it very simply, at the undergraduate level, an engineer is much more
    >employable than a physicist. Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal
    >of respect for physics degrees - I much prefer their curriculum. Still,
    >you really need to look for one with a Masters to fill the position that
    >you might be able to squeeze out of an undergrad engineer.


    >> Physics is the most intellectually demanding subject with chemistry,


    >Maybe so, but getting a degree in it is not as grueling as what is expected
    >of you as an engineering student. I'm sure it depends somewhat on the
    >school one goes to, but most of our engineering programs were on the verge
    >of being 5 year degrees. Aside from two english classes, two history classes,
    >and two philosophy classes, the entire course work was made up of technical
    >classes. There was very little time to breath.


    >> electronics and mech eng (including related) coming up close behind. The
    >> rest of the subjects are orders of magnitude behind.


    >Look at the stats on what percent manage to graduate, and over what period
    >of time it takes them (I have no idea where to find this online - it was
    >available at my school when I went there - that was in the pre-AOL days).
    >At my school, I believe it was the chemical engineers who had the lowest
    >percent of people to complete their major. The aerospace engineers were
    >second, but took the longest to finish. As an engineering student, you
    >were probably going to have to take summer school to graduate on time.
    >I did not see these issues with undergrad physics, at any of the schools
    >I was familiar with.


    >- Kurt


    --
    http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/R...lishments.html


  5. Re: Guy Macon misusing the term "Professional Engineer"

    In article <7Frmi.99327$mZ7.86386@fe01.news.easynews.com>,
    rm@baseballproctologist.com says...
    > krw trolled:
    > >01.iinet.net.au>, ChuMaiFat@nowhere.com.au says...
    > >> Guy Macon wrote:

    >
    > >> > Exactly so. In the state of California there is no requirement
    > >> > that an engineer has a degree or license. A California
    > >> > engineer can have a license without a degree, a degree without
    > >> > a license, neither, or both.

    >
    > >> If you are talking about an engineer, how the hell could he have
    > >> both "a license without a degree" and a "degree without a
    > >> license" at the same time?

    >
    > >Try reading the paragraph again. Two binary variables, "license"
    > >and "degree":

    >
    > 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".


    I see. You're Rich Grise, in drag.

    > >> Obviously something you'd have to be an engineer to understand,
    > >> or it some sort of laid back, California thing?

    >
    > >No, just an elementary understanding of English.

    >
    > We love it when people try to insult others and end up insulting
    > only themselves.


    You forgot to mark your post with "Comma Police".

    > Bye.


    I sure hope so.

    > cordially, as always,


    Liar.

    ;-)

    --
    Keith

  6. Re: Guy Macon misusing the term "Professional Engineer"

    Roger Manyard wrote:
    >
    > We love it when people try to insult others and end up insulting
    > only themselves.



    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

  7. Re: Guy Macon misusing the term "Professional Engineer"

    In alt.os.linux.slackware krw trolled:
    >rm@baseballproctologist.com says...


    >> 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".


    >You forgot to mark your post with "Comma Police".


    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
    >I sure hope so.
    >
    >> cordially, as always,


    >Liar.
    >
    >;-)



    --
    http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/R...lishments.html


  8. Re: Guy Macon wrong again!

    Roger Manyard wrote:
    > Guy Macon trolled:


    >> 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).

    >
    > 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.


    Common sense should be elementary too.
    The beauty of natural language is that it is not written or spoken by
    lawyers or mathematicians. Most people don't try in their normal
    conversations to formulate in a way that can impossible be understood
    wrongly. This means that most natural language will be prone to
    misinterpretations. Often the intended meaning is absolutely clear,
    but a different interpretation can be defended somehow.
    Comedians and fools often have a special sense of feeling for such
    -clearly wrong but nevertheless directly understood by the audience-
    different interpretation of the used wording.
    The comedians are often right in that aspect - the fools never.

    Regards,

    Kees.

    --
    Kees Theunissen.

  9. Re: Guy Macon wrong again!

    Kees Theunissen trolled:

    >Common sense should be elementary too.


    Common sense is elementary. But we are talking about logic and
    since Mr. Macon decided to use formal logic "correct" somebody who
    was quite correct in their interpretation of what he said, then that
    leaves Mr. Macon's explanation open to the same kinds of tests.

    Furthermore, Mr. Macon portrays himself as an embedded
    systems/binary programmer/Engineer and if he wishes to be taken at
    all seriously, then he should be careful about what he writes. Of
    course, Mr. Macon is not a lawyer or a mathematician.

    Mr. Macon has no education at all, so in this case he would have
    programmed the chips wrong, the traffic light would have failed, and
    several pedestrians would have been killed.

    Hopefully he learned something today.

    >The beauty of natural language is that it is not written or spoken
    >by lawyers or mathematicians. Most people don't try in their normal
    >conversations to formulate in a way that can impossible be
    >understood wrongly. This means that most natural language will be
    >prone to misinterpretations. Often the intended meaning is
    >absolutely clear, but a different interpretation can be defended
    >somehow. Comedians and fools often have a special sense of feeling
    >for such -clearly wrong but nevertheless directly understood by the
    >audience- different interpretation of the used wording.


    The comma is the most common delimiter with respect to data.
    Obviously you don't understand this, and since you don't, what seems
    to be "natural" to you, is not going to seem natural to those
    trained in the arts of which Mr. Macon claims expertise.

    We will leave Mr. Macon alone now, if you folks leave us alone.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  10. Re: Guy Macon wrong again!

    Roger Manyard wrote:
    > Kees Theunissen trolled:
    >
    >> Common sense should be elementary too.

    >
    > Common sense is elementary. But we are talking about logic and
    > since Mr. Macon decided to use formal logic "correct" somebody who
    > was quite correct in their interpretation of what he said, then that
    > leaves Mr. Macon's explanation open to the same kinds of tests.


    Mr. Macon just used formal logic to clarify his original wording,
    which was stated in natural language.
    I'm not sure whether the interpretation he tried to correct was
    intended to be humorous or just plain stupid, but I'm sure it was a
    malicious interpretation of his wording.

    [ ... ]

    > The comma is the most common delimiter with respect to data.
    > Obviously you don't understand this, and since you don't, what seems
    > to be "natural" to you, is not going to seem natural to those
    > trained in the arts of which Mr. Macon claims expertise.


    I'm trained in those arts too.
    I do understand the use of the comma as a delimiter with respect to
    data. There is no doubt at all about the comma being used as a delimiter
    of data. But let me first quote the wording of Mr. Macon you snipped:

    "Person X can have attribute A without attribute B, attribute B
    without attribute A, neither, or both"

    Two independent variables A and B which can each have two values:
    true or false. Mr. Macon lists the four possible combinations of A
    and B, delimited by commas.
    Sure the comma is a delimiter but in this case it delimits the
    four different _combinations_ of A an B.

    I said in my previous message that comedians and fools often have a
    special sense for different interpretations of common natural language.
    I think I should add malicious persons to that list.

    Like I said: comedians are often right, despite their wrong
    interpretation of the language, because they reach the comic effect
    they intend to reach.
    And fools or malicious persons? Never mind.... They're just fools.

    Regards,

    Kees.

    --
    Kees Theunissen.

  11. Re: Guy Macon wrong again!

    Kees Theunissen trolled:
    >Roger Manyard wrote:
    >> Kees Theunissen trolled:


    >>> Common sense should be elementary too.


    >> Common sense is elementary. But we are talking about logic and
    >> since Mr. Macon decided to use formal logic "correct" somebody
    >> who was quite correct in their interpretation of what he said,
    >> then that leaves Mr. Macon's explanation open to the same kinds
    >> of tests.


    >Mr. Macon just used formal logic to clarify his original wording,
    >which was stated in natural language.


    Mr. Macon's formal logic was inconsistent with what was stated in
    "natural language." Our formal logic was consistent.

    >I'm not sure whether the interpretation he tried to correct was
    >intended to be humorous or just plain stupid, but I'm sure it was a
    >malicious interpretation of his wording.


    ?!?

    >> The comma is the most common delimiter with respect to data.
    >> Obviously you don't understand this, and since you don't, what
    >> seems to be "natural" to you, is not going to seem natural to
    >> those trained in the arts of which Mr. Macon claims expertise.


    >I'm trained in those arts too.
    >I do understand the use of the comma as a delimiter with respect to
    >data. There is no doubt at all about the comma being used as a delimiter
    >of data. But let me first quote the wording of Mr. Macon you snipped:


    > "Person X can have attribute A without attribute B, attribute B
    > without attribute A, neither, or both"


    But that's not the sentence we're parsing, is it sweetie? Why don't
    you post the sentence we're parsing?

    You're unbelievable.

    >Two independent variables A and B which can each have two values:
    >true or false. Mr. Macon lists the four possible combinations of A
    >and B, delimited by commas. Sure the comma is a delimiter but in
    >this case it delimits the four different _combinations_ of A an B.


    Who's talking about 4 possible combinations of A and B? We aren't.

    The four variables, or premisses, that Macon is talking about, are:

    1. degree and no license
    2. license and no degree
    3. neither, degree and no license, nor, license and no degree.
    4. degree and no license, and, no license and degree.

    Now if you are trained in the "art" as you say, go ahead and parse
    the variables. You'll soon see that we are right and Macon is
    wrong. That's all there is to it. Premiss 4 is internally
    contradictory.

    >I said in my previous message that comedians and fools often have a
    >special sense for different interpretations of common natural
    >language. I think I should add malicious persons to that list.


    Didn't you say something about lawyers and mathematicians?

    >Like I said: comedians are often right, despite their wrong
    >interpretation of the language, because they reach the comic effect
    >they intend to reach.


    And this is your attempt at comedy?

    Don't give up your day jop.

    Again, you leave us alone and the Guy Macon **** dies. Guy Macon is
    really, really, boring and we want to move on. And if you keep
    posting this kind of drivel, we think we know of a new direction to
    take.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  12. Re: Guy Macon misusing the term "Professional Engineer"

    In article ,
    rm@baseballproctologist.com says...
    > In alt.os.linux.slackware krw trolled:
    > >rm@baseballproctologist.com says...

    >
    > >> 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".

    >
    > >You forgot to mark your post with "Comma Police".

    >
    > Commas are pretty standard delimiters. You do know that, don't you?


    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.

    > 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?


    No, the context made the logic clear, even with bollixed delimiters.

    > cordially, as always,


    /S/cordially/sarcastically/

    --
    Keith

  13. Re: Guy Macon misusing the term "Professional Engineer"

    In alt.os.linux.slackware krw trolled:
    >rm@baseballproctologist.com says...


    >> >You forgot to mark your post with "Comma Police".


    >> Commas are pretty standard delimiters. You do know that, don't
    >> you?


    >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, reading people their "rights" has absolutely nothing to do with
    parsing statements for their logical meaning.

    >> 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?


    >No, the context made the logic clear, even with bollixed delimiters.


    Oh, so we should ignore the commas and go with what you feel is
    "clear?"

    English major?

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  14. Re: Guy Macon misusing the term "Professional Engineer"

    In article ,
    rm@baseballproctologist.com says...
    > In alt.os.linux.slackware krw trolled:
    > >rm@baseballproctologist.com says...

    >
    > >> >You forgot to mark your post with "Comma Police".

    >
    > >> Commas are pretty standard delimiters. You do know that, don't
    > >> you?

    >
    > >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, reading people their "rights" has absolutely nothing to do with
    > parsing statements for their logical meaning.


    You're humor challenged too? guessed>

    > >> 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?

    >
    > >No, the context made the logic clear, even with bollixed delimiters.

    >
    > Oh, so we should ignore the commas and go with what you feel is
    > "clear?"


    Rather then being a nit-picking jerk, yes.

    > English major?


    Of course not. Perhaps you're in the wrong newsgroup. This isn't
    alt.english.composition.

    > cordially, as always,


    Horsefeathers.

    --
    Keith

  15. Re: Guy Macon misusing the term "Professional Engineer"

    In alt.os.linux.slackware krw trolled:
    >rm@baseballproctologist.com says...


    >> No, reading people their "rights" has absolutely nothing to do
    >> with parsing statements for their logical meaning.


    >You're humor challenged too? >guessed>


    Apparently you're the one who is "humour challenged", since what you
    said couldn't be considered remotely funny by a reasonable person.

    And you are an English Major! Good for you.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  16. Re: Guy Macon misusing the term "Professional Engineer"

    krw wrote:

    > Of course not. *Perhaps you're in the wrong newsgroup. *This isn't
    > alt.english.composition.


    Is there an alt.english.composition newsgroup? My news server doesn't seem
    to carry it. I can find alt.english and alt.english.usage.
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  17. Re: Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer"

    krw wrote:
    > In article <469a016a$0$12807$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    > 01.iinet.net.au>, ChuMaiFat@nowhere.com.au says...
    >> Guy Macon wrote:
    >>
    >>> Exactly so. In the state of California there is no requirement
    >>> that an engineer has a degree or license. A California engineer
    >>> can have a license without a degree, a degree without a license,
    >>> neither, or both.

    >> If you are talking about an engineer, how the hell could he have both "a
    >> license without a degree" and a "degree without a license" at the same time?

    >
    > Try reading the paragraph again. Two binary variables, "license" and
    > "degree":
    >
    > Neither = no license and no degree
    > Both = licensed and degreed.


    I did try and read the paragraph again, but I think you've confused me.

    I thought he was talking about a California Engineer (Mr Macon is not
    one, by the way) and he wrote that a California Engineer can have a
    license without a degree, a degree ......hang it, just read it for
    yourself at the top of the page.

    You explanation using binary variables looked very impressive (however I
    do think this is what has confused me) so lets stick to engineers from
    California, the subject of this post.

    How can this California Engineer have a both a license without a degree
    and a degree without a license? How many engineers are we talking about?
    Is that where the binary variable comes in, there are two engineers?

    If we are suddenly talking about two engineers, well then yes, this all
    makes sense now and I see where I went wrong. Thank you for enlightening me.

    With kind regards

    Chu

  18. Re: Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer"

    ChuMaiFat wrote:

    > How can this California Engineer have a both a license without a degree
    > and a degree without a license? How many engineers are we talking about?
    > Is that where the binary variable comes in, there are two engineers?
    >
    > If we are suddenly talking about two engineers, well then yes, this all
    > makes sense now and I see where I went wrong. Thank you for enlightening
    > me.
    >
    > With kind regards
    >
    > Chu


    It looked to me that it must be TWO Engineers, one who has a degree, and
    another who has a license, but not a degree. I think the demonstration was
    that one 'could' be an Engineer, as he had a license to practise as an
    Engineer, and the other 'was' an Engineer as he was qualified to be an
    engineer. It can't be the same individual as he would have either the
    degree, OR, the license, or both, but surely not be an engineer without
    either, perhaps an Engineer who has either a degree or a license from
    California could enlighten us.

    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  19. Re: Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer"




    >ChuMaiFat wrote:


    >I thought he was talking about a California Engineer (Mr Macon is not
    >one, by the way)


    If you don't think I am an engineer, how do you explain the
    following?

    Six million toys were sold by Mattel with me listed as the lead
    engineer.

    Every Boeing 777 aircraft is safety-of-flight certified using
    test equipement that I designed.

    Every C17 military transport is built with components that
    I designed.

    Millions of DVDs are produced every day from masters created
    on mastering equipment that I designed.

    Care to list *your* engineering accomplishments?

    --
    Guy Macon



  20. Re: Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer"

    In article <469b8738$0$12820$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    01.iinet.net.au>, ChuMaiFat@nowhere.com.au says...
    > krw wrote:
    > > In article <469a016a$0$12807$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    > > 01.iinet.net.au>, ChuMaiFat@nowhere.com.au says...
    > >> Guy Macon wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Exactly so. In the state of California there is no requirement
    > >>> that an engineer has a degree or license. A California engineer
    > >>> can have a license without a degree, a degree without a license,
    > >>> neither, or both.
    > >> If you are talking about an engineer, how the hell could he have both "a
    > >> license without a degree" and a "degree without a license" at the same time?

    > >
    > > Try reading the paragraph again. Two binary variables, "license" and
    > > "degree":
    > >
    > > Neither = no license and no degree
    > > Both = licensed and degreed.

    >
    > I did try and read the paragraph again, but I think you've confused me.


    Aparently a simple task.

    > I thought he was talking about a California Engineer (Mr Macon is not
    > one, by the way) and he wrote that a California Engineer can have a
    > license without a degree, a degree ......hang it, just read it for
    > yourself at the top of the page.


    I did, several times.

    > You explanation using binary variables looked very impressive (however I

    ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
    > do think this is what has confused me) so lets stick to engineers from
    > California, the subject of this post.


    Really? Want to try that again? The meaning, if not the grammar,
    was quite clear. I used binary variables as a way of trying to
    translate the (obvious) meaning to other engineers (or not .

    > How can this California Engineer have a both a license without a degree
    > and a degree without a license? How many engineers are we talking about?
    > Is that where the binary variable comes in, there are two engineers?


    Read it again. Do you know what "OR* means?

    > If we are suddenly talking about two engineers, well then yes, this all
    > makes sense now and I see where I went wrong. Thank you for enlightening me.


    Read it again and think *OR*.

    > With kind regards


    There seems to be a lot of that **** going around.

    --
    Keith

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast