Slashdot Mirror

Basically, Frontier is letting their copper rot on the ground, but still charging everyone full freight.

But surely you aren't claiming that we should all be able to erratically stop for no reason whenever we want on any public road

Yes I am claiming this 100% and the law will claim it too.

You should reconsider your position.

Basic gov't-issued photo ID is free at every state DMV that I know of.

Not Minnesota. You heed to have a qualified disability, verified by a medical professional:

“The fee for a Minnesota identification card is 50 cents for a person who is either: developmentally disabled as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 252A.02; physically disabled as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 169.345, subdivision 2; or has serious and persistent mental illness as described in Minnesota Statutes, section 245.462, subdivision 20, paragraph (c).”

source

On your other two points, 100% in agreement. No ID=No bank account=no job=no car=no renting=no [basically, anything]. I just can't fathom being a functioning adult and not being able to scrape together $50 to get an ID card. But I guess if I were in that situation, the ability to vote would probably be pretty low on my priority list.

I think that if you are married to a woman, you do not have to ask her "May we hold hands?......may I kiss you?..... May I hug you?.... every time I wish to engage in sex.

No, and there's nothing in your cite that says you have to. Assuming you're going by those rules, you have to get affirmative consent, which doesn't have to be verbal. In my case, a certain short hum with a sharply rising note is consent if my wife indicates, and a question if I'm initiating.

Define an intimate area.

In my state, according to the appropriate statute, it is "Subd. 5.Intimate parts. "Intimate parts" includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.". Touching fingers without permission can't be criminal sexual conduct in Minnesota.

What is a non-verbal consent that would hold up in a court of law if the man was being charged with rape?

Sure. In a criminal trial, it is necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that it's up to the prosecution to show that there was no consent, or that consent was withdrawn. Rape is a difficult crime to get a conviction on, except in clear-cut cases. If there's doubt that consent existed, that's not enough for a conviction. (I'm assuming you're getting a fair trial. Actual results may vary with skin color.)

In addition, what of a young woman in college dating a townie - who's rules govern their interactions? the college cannot touch him, but the courts can. There will be test cases.

There have been. This doesn't seem to change anything off-campus. If you were worried about a rape charge before, (a) you should be worried about a rape charge afterwards and (b) you really need to rethink your approach to women.

You think about some impromptu fun with the wife, she's looking good today, you second guess it, then go out ot the garage and work on the lawnmower.

Then you take your wife to marriage counseling, and strongly consider divorce. If you're worried that impromptu fun will result in legal action, you've got an awfully dysfunctional marriage going on. I'll also suggest that you talk to someone to try to figure out how you got into that horrible state in the first place.

If I were in college now, (and single) I'd simply avoid contact with women other than that needed to complete my studies, and definitely stay away from any relationships.

I've known lots of people who did things with fellow students and didn't get into serious legal trouble. Do you have any statistics to show that this is a real problem? It looks like a real problem because you see individual cases mentioned, and therefore think there's a lot of it going on. There's a name for it: the availability heuristic, and it simply doesn't work in the modern world. There's lots of bad things that could happen on campus. You could be hit by a car. You could be shot. You could lose your wallet, and the person who finds it might try some "identity theft".

Bear in mind also that you won't get the whole story from a news source, particularly one that likes to whip up controversy. In general, when I read some startling news, if I can investigate it, it turns out not to be so startling. That guy claiming he was falsely accused of rape? Try to find some other account of what he actually did. I know it's a Slashdot tradition to believe the first story you read about something or some person and stick to it, no matter how implausible it is or whatever else you hear about it, but I'm sure you can follow things up on your own.

No, he didn't make any claim he just pointed out that your words were irrelevant. The claim that I did make was that she can't be convicted because she lacked intent..

Of course she lacked intent to kill. That's why it is a charge of second degree manslaughter, which seems pretty consistent with what she did.

The additional location information you provide suggests a reason for your friend's failure: the cost of living in the Twin Cities area is about 1.4 times that of, say, Brown County. The average hourly wage in Twin Cities is around $15 to $16. In Brown County it's $11.50. The reported yearly COL for Twin Cities is more than $32K; for Brown County it's $24K (for a single individual with 0 children).

https://mn.gov/deed/data/data-tools/col/

So let me amend my statement; your friend is papering the Twin Cities with ads for jobs that pay slightly less than average. Tell her to go a little further into Minnesota where people would be happy to earn $3.50 per hour more in a full time job with benefits.

Minnesota:

Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway . [1]

D.C. :

Stop - controlled or
uncontrolled intersection
Pedestrians may cross the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. However,
no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb, safety platform, safety zone, loading
platform or other designated place of safety and walk or turn into the path of a vehicle
which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. [2]

Crossing at spots other than crosswalks - If a pedestrian crosses a roadway at any point other than in a marked crosswalk at an
intersection, the pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle [2]

[1] https://www.revisor.mn.gov/sta...
[2] http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/defau...

Parts bolded for reference.
Hmm, who doesn't know the law properly?

Just as likely true:

http://www.dli.mn.gov/ls/Termi...

Minnesota is an employment "at will" state. An employee can quit for any reason; an employer can fire any employee for any reason as long as that reason is not illegal, such as discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation or marital status.

Notice of separation
No notice of separation is required by law, by either party, upon separation of an employee for any reason. Courtesy and time to collect accrued benefits are reasons why notice is given.

petrol stations make less than 5 cents a gallon typically from fuel sales

Not in Minnesota where they are by law guaranteed the lesser of 6% or $0.08/gallon profit as my state has one of those minimum markup laws.

I was apparently unclear. "Could be a felony" referred to 609.765 . The full statute is at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/sta..., it's fascinating reading if you're interested in free speech. Whether it's a felony or not is unclear to me at first reading, but whether it was criminal according to that statute would seem pretty clear.

I'm _pleased_ that the statute was struck down later as overbroad and unconstitutional.

The more clear misdemenator reference you mention is for 609.77, which cites a misdemeanor for passing falsehoods to media.

In Minnesota, the public sector is mandated by statute to release information to the public and be setup in a way which facilitates this action:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/sta...

13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA.
Subdivision 1.Public data. All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential. The responsible authority in every government entity shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Photographic, photostatic, microphotographic, or microfilmed records shall be considered as accessible for convenient use regardless of the size of such records.

I have used this exact quoted statute many-a-time to force local government agencies in Minnesota to not only provide me information, which they were usually willing to do, but for free or very low cost.

I made a request once to a public transit agency who told me it would be several hundred dollars to do. I told them if they had followed the statute to make the data readily accessible by the public, it wouldn't require the work they were trying to charge me to do. Their legal counsel informed them I was indeed correct and I got it for the cost of the media.

Maybe there is a similar statute in this case which drove the decision?

All plates must be (1) securely fastened so as to prevent them from swinging, (2) displayed horizontally with the identifying numbers and letters facing outward from the vehicle, and (3) mounted in the upright position. The person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the plate legible and unobstructed and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so that the lettering is plainly visible at all times. It is unlawful to cover any assigned letters and numbers or the name of the state of origin of a license plate with any material whatever, including any clear or colorless material that affects the plate's visibility or reflectivity.

So this makes it illegal to use the most effective method of stopping these things. Also it makes almost all of those vanity license plate holders illegal so consider that as it just gives them an excuse to pull you over. The other popular method of attempting to defeat ALPRs seems to be to use a few high output IR LEDs in attempt to dazzle the sensor by flooding surrounding pixels but in those don't seem to work all that well. Others have tried to flash IR LEDs but this may also be illegal in your state as it is in mine as there are usually laws governing flashing lights in motion.

My take would be instead to pump out enough IR over a large enough are to mess with the camera's exposure. Bye enough IR over a large enough of an area I am thinking of a few hundred watts over an area slightly larger than the license plate immediately surrounding it, but not covering the plate at all. From what I can tell this hasn't been attempted, but now we are talking real bright as the sun levels of power and that should screw up the metering on the camera. For LEDs I am thinking these as they appear to be about as high efficiency as I can find that put out a lot of IR.

All plates must be (1) securely fastened so as to prevent them from swinging, (2) displayed horizontally with the identifying numbers and letters facing outward from the vehicle, and (3) mounted in the upright position. The person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the plate legible and unobstructed and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so that the lettering is plainly visible at all times. It is unlawful to cover any assigned letters and numbers or the name of the state of origin of a license plate with any material whatever, including any clear or colorless material that affects the plate's visibility or reflectivity.

So in my state any cover one were to put over their plate, including those license plate frames dealers put on, would be illegal. At the same time if one were to rig up a system where one was dumping out massive amounts of IR around the plate in an effort to flood the image that would be legal. Also for the record there are no laws covering the IR emission from vehicles in Minnesota as all light emissions regulations deal with specific colors (white, blue, amber, and red) light, or with flashing lights.

I have done some digging into seeing if flooding ALPRs with IR is possible and while some people seem to say it isn't it seems like their efforts have been fairly half assed. They only put out a few watts of power instead of going for a few hundred watts of power. I want to build a frame that covers no part of my plate but will draw 20 amps at 12V and dump it into a large array of these IR LEDs. From the pictures I have seen where people photograph a 100 equivalent watt bulb showing that even that doesn't flood the image they just didn't take it far enough so ~200W going into some IR LEDs would be about as bright as a 1000 watt bulb which now is starting to get up into the range of back lit by the sun range type of power which will mess with the picture.

I have thought of building an LED license plate frame to mess with the cameras and others have tinkered with the idea some. The results at best could be considered hit or miss but that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon since most I have seen only output a few watts of power. I have been trying to figure out if I could build one with a power draw of 100-200W using some high output IR LEDs (the new license plates Minnesota uses are designed to be highly viable in the IR spectrum). Having a frame that isn't covering the license plate at all is perfectly legal in Minnesota but other things are not Minnesota statute 169.79 Subd. 7. Also the existing laws on vehicle illumination would also not prohibit this.

By frame I mean many concentric rings of LEDs packed tightly around the license plate so that you have 100 watts of IR LEDs shining around each plate. One of these days I will get some time to do it, and may also look into illuminating the front and rear windshield with IR LEDs as well in a similar fashion to further flood the image with IR.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/sta...
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/sta...

So in MN, there is a minimum list of information, and that information, agreed upon, is an employment contract. If there is no contract, then the employer accepts increased legal risk. So I'd presume that every job in MN has an "employment contract" as defined in the first link. That you don't think an offer letter defined in MN law as an "employment contract" is an employment contract doesn't change reality, or MN law.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/sta...
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/sta...

So in MN, there is a minimum list of information, and that information, agreed upon, is an employment contract. If there is no contract, then the employer accepts increased legal risk. So I'd presume that every job in MN has an "employment contract" as defined in the first link. That you don't think an offer letter defined in MN law as an "employment contract" is an employment contract doesn't change reality, or MN law.

The reason charter schools are cheaper is that they can pass the difficult kids on to the public schools.

I keep hearing this but in Minnesota this isn't the case.
Charter schools are, for the most part, not allowed to be selective in the students (see Subd. 9. Admission requirements.) they accept as charter schools are publicly funded. The only preference that a charter school can offer is in also allowing siblings to attend, which makes sense given that charter schools will likely have a slightly different schedule than the schools in the surrounding district.

Because most of the charter schools offer smaller class sizes as one of their selling points the local schools like to encourage the parents of "problem" children to enroll at a charter school so they can get more individual attention. So it isn't uncommon here for the local charter school to have a higher percentage of "difficult" children than the surrounding schools. For example the last year my wife taught at one she had 12 out of 28 children in her class on IEPs (Individual Education Plans for children with special needs) and this was a regular class. It usually takes a few years for this to happen since the schools initially are populated by founding families children but once space starts to open up then the dumping begins. I am actually amazed that the charter schools manage to do as well as they do.

The other big problem I have seen is that within charter schools there is a lot more office politics since in Minnesota the teachers at charters are not part of a union and do not get tenure. The administrators tend to be very petty and seek their own fiefdoms.

Subd. 7.Plate fastened and visible.
All plates must be (1) securely fastened so as to prevent them from swinging, (2) displayed horizontally with the identifying numbers and letters facing outward from the vehicle, and (3) mounted in the upright position. The person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the plate legible and unobstructed and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so that the lettering is plainly visible at all times. It is unlawful to cover any assigned letters and numbers or the name of the state of origin of a license plate with any material whatever, including any clear or colorless material that affects the plate's visibility or reflectivity.

I'm not putting any cover over the plate or slopping it up. I would also not be affecting the reflective properties of the plate. The plate would still be legible, unobstructed, and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so I wouldn't run afoul of the law. The Minnesota law seems pretty specific about physical things and lighting isn't a blurring material as it isn't changing the reflected ray's path (I would really worry if I was spot heating pockets of air enough to do this). Even if given a ticket the defense is to show the judge the plainly visible plate which it would be. And on that note my mind has wandered off and wondered if cops can be charged with making false reports and perjury in a case like that.

Go look out your window. Check out the gas prices. Check around the block. Check out 10 different stations from different gas companies. What do you notice. How's that competition working for you? You guys keep spouting this stuff, and its like your talking in your sleep.

I did but in my state we have a law that mandates the minimum price for which gasoline can be sold:

325D.01 DEFINITIONS
Subd. 5. Cost. The term "cost", as applied to the wholesale or retail vendor, means:

(1) the actual current delivered invoice or replacement cost, whichever is lower, without deducting customary cash discounts, plus any excise or sales taxes imposed on such commodity, goods, wares or merchandise subsequent to the purchase thereof and prior to the resale thereof, plus the cost of doing business at that location by the vendor;

(2) where a manufacturer publishes a list price and discounts, in determining such "cost" the manufacturer's published list price then currently in effect, less the published trade discount but without deducting the customary cash discount, plus any excise or sales taxes imposed on such commodity, goods, wares or merchandise subsequent to the purchase thereof and prior to the resale thereof, plus the cost of doing business by the vendor shall be prima facie evidence of "cost";

(3) for purposes of gasoline offered for sale by way of posted price or indicating meter by a retailer, at a retail location where gasoline is dispensed into passenger automobiles and trucks by the consumer, "cost" means the average terminal price on the day, at the terminal from which the most recent supply of gasoline delivered to the retail location was acquired, plus all applicable state and federal excise taxes and fees, plus the lesser of six percent or eight cents.

Your number aren't totally accurate given the $5.25 is for companies making less then 500k a year and it's $6.15 is they make less then $635k a year and that's only for companies exempt from the federal min wage of $7.25 and only 3.1% of the population in Minnesota makes $6.55 or less and that doesn't include tips and such

http://www.dli.mn.gov/RS/PDF/09minwage.pdf

Okay. Heeeere's your sign:

"Flashing lights are prohibited, except on an authorized emergency vehicle, school bus, bicycle as provided in section 169.222, subdivision 6, road maintenance equipment, tow truck or towing vehicle, service vehicle, farm tractor, self-propelled farm equipment, rural mail carrier vehicle, funeral home vehicle, or on any vehicle as a means of indicating a right or left turn, or the presence of a vehicular traffic hazard requiring unusual care in approaching, overtaking, or passing. "

Next up, flashing your high beams. If you flash your beams to warn other drivers, you very likely will be doing that when they are less than 1,000 feet away. Hello ticket!

You may be right that coming straight out and saying warning motorists of an upcoming speed trap is protected speech today, in Certain jurisdictions, but there has been no nationwide precident, and it's quite clear that the laws have been rewritten so officers can continue to punish you for warning other motorists, they simply now classify it as either an equipment malfunction (if you say you didn't flash your lights), or a moving violation (if you say you did). Oh, point of note: The fines for each cost the same. Choose well, young grasshopper.

Sec. 17. Laws to embrace only one subject. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.

The problem is that it requires that a judge find that the law or statute was illegally passed and then repeals it. This situation came up several years ago when the current version of Minnesota's carry law was passed. It was attached to an unrelated bill and a lawsuit was filed. The law was struck down and was re-passed the next year as a standalone bill. The problem arises when judges then won't overturn a statute that was passed using the same method which is what happened after this when it was discovered that the most recent (at the time) law raising the pay for state judges was passed.

Any offer for sale of gasoline by a retailer by way of posted price or indicating meter that is below cost, as defined by section 325D.01, subdivision 5, clause (3), is a violation of section 325D.04, except that the criminal penalties in section 325D.071 do not apply. In addition to the penalties for violations and the remedies provided for injured parties set forth elsewhere in this chapter, the commissioner of commerce may use the authority under section 45.027 for the purpose of preventing violations of this section. A retailer who sells gasoline at the same or higher legally posted price of a competitor in the same market area, on the same day, is not in violation of this section.

A retailer who offers gasoline for sale at a price below cost as part of a promotion at an individual location for no more than three days in any calendar quarter is not in violation of this section.
325D.01 DEFINITIONS sub division 5 clause (3)

(3) for purposes of gasoline offered for sale by way of posted price or indicating meter by a retailer, at a retail location where gasoline is dispensed into passenger automobiles and trucks by the consumer, "cost" means the average terminal price on the day, at the terminal from which the most recent supply of gasoline delivered to the retail location was acquired, plus all applicable state and federal excise taxes and fees, plus the lesser of six percent or eight cents.

So here we have a case where the minimum price is mandated. Add in the zone pricing for delivery and individual stations have basically a fixed predictable minimum price, they could charge more but most don't as typically stations make very little on gasoline sales (probably 8-9 cents a gallon in Minnesota). They make most of their money on inside sales of things like pop, cigarettes, candy, coffee, ice, chips, etc as most of these are high margin items especially fountain pop and coffee which can easily exceed 90% margin. If you want to complain about gas prices it is not the individual stations you should be mad at, it is farther up the supply chain in the refiners, terminals, shippers, and oil producers. For the record I worked at a gas station for years in high school and college where I made my way up to assistant manager and thus got to see all the various invoices, zone maps, daily reports, monthly reports, and other stuff.

Any offer for sale of gasoline by a retailer by way of posted price or indicating meter that is below cost, as defined by section 325D.01, subdivision 5, clause (3), is a violation of section 325D.04, except that the criminal penalties in section 325D.071 do not apply. In addition to the penalties for violations and the remedies provided for injured parties set forth elsewhere in this chapter, the commissioner of commerce may use the authority under section 45.027 for the purpose of preventing violations of this section. A retailer who sells gasoline at the same or higher legally posted price of a competitor in the same market area, on the same day, is not in violation of this section.

A retailer who offers gasoline for sale at a price below cost as part of a promotion at an individual location for no more than three days in any calendar quarter is not in violation of this section.
325D.01 DEFINITIONS sub division 5 clause (3)

(3) for purposes of gasoline offered for sale by way of posted price or indicating meter by a retailer, at a retail location where gasoline is dispensed into passenger automobiles and trucks by the consumer, "cost" means the average terminal price on the day, at the terminal from which the most recent supply of gasoline delivered to the retail location was acquired, plus all applicable state and federal excise taxes and fees, plus the lesser of six percent or eight cents.

So here we have a case where the minimum price is mandated. Add in the zone pricing for delivery and individual stations have basically a fixed predictable minimum price, they could charge more but most don't as typically stations make very little on gasoline sales (probably 8-9 cents a gallon in Minnesota). They make most of their money on inside sales of things like pop, cigarettes, candy, coffee, ice, chips, etc as most of these are high margin items especially fountain pop and coffee which can easily exceed 90% margin. If you want to complain about gas prices it is not the individual stations you should be mad at, it is farther up the supply chain in the refiners, terminals, shippers, and oil producers. For the record I worked at a gas station for years in high school and college where I made my way up to assistant manager and thus got to see all the various invoices, zone maps, daily reports, monthly reports, and other stuff.

I stand corrected. Minnesota apparently does allow for an increased speed limit, but only when passing on a 2-lane highway (one lane each way) with a speed limit over 55mph.

Not the most likely conditions to find a camera, either, but just in case, that's why you have a right to contest the ticket.

Sounds like you found some people who got suckered. Random mystery chemical added to counteract the ethanol won't decrease your stops for fuel, I know for high alcohol concentrations (think alcohol fueled race cars) they have additives to add to the ability to lubricate to the fuel (gasoline and diesel have this ability already) or decrease the corrosion caused by alcohol fuels but those aren't needed in the mostly gasoline blends or even in the E85 blend in the US.

The addition of alcohol (specifically ethanol) doesn't cause the problems people claim it does. I have heard people claiming to loose 10% of their mileage by running on the E10 blend, claiming it clogged their fuel filter, rusting out their gas tank or fuel lines, destroys small engines in lawn equipment. A properly running vehicle would see a 3%-4% drop in mileage by running on E10 when compared to straight non-oxy gasoline. I have tried to test this but the difference is so small that my rather crude tests can't confirm it but would seem to indicate that those number are about right. There are a few stations that sell non-oxy gasoline but you need to put it into a gas can or a collector car that will accept the larger nozzle, but there are a large number that sell E85. I have tried different blends from non-oxy up to what would be E20 (the new Minnesota standard in 2013) and apart from actually being able to notice a consistent decrease near the E20 (lower blends it wasn't as consistent or large) haven't had any problems. There are a lot of things that have a greater impact on fuel economy than a 5% or 10% ethanol blend. Some good examples would be: Proper tire pressure
Proper vehicle tune
Proper oil
Proper oil level
Head or tail wind
The stupid cargo container strapped to the top of the vehicle
Driving habits/style
The speed at which you drive

Not that I know for sure of but it wouldn't surprise me as they are know for finding ways to get out of warranty repairs and being as dodgy as possible about it. I wonder what will happen here shortly in Minnesota with our 20% ethanol requirement that starts in 2013 since all of them have claimed that it is unapproved fuel for non flex fuel vehicles and will not cover fuel related warranty problems. So basically anything that fails that the fuel or exhaust touches won't be covered.

Simple answer: No.

The E10 blend is used because ethanol is in general more environmentally friendly that the other oxygenators and octane boosters that are available. We could use TEL to boost octane or we could also use TAME or MTBE for octane booster as they are less toxic than TEL but still pretty toxic when compared to ethanol. The other solution would be to better refine gasoline so it is higher octane to begin with but expect to pay more per gallon. Ethanol also does have an added benefit of holding water in solution instead of it freezing up in your fuel lines. You are especially unlikely to see it go away if you live in Minnesota which has a law that mandates 20% by volume of all motor vehicle fuel sold be ethanol.

Subd. 7.Plate fastened and visible.
All plates must be (1) securely fastened so as to prevent them from swinging, (2) displayed horizontally with the identifying numbers and letters facing outward from the vehicle, and (3) mounted in the upright position. The person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the plate legible and unobstructed and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so that the lettering is plainly visible at all times. It is unlawful to cover any assigned letters and numbers or the name of the state of origin of a license plate with any material whatever, including any clear or colorless material that affects the plate's visibility or reflectivity.

As I wouldn't be covering the plate with anything and it would be clear of debris it would be fine and not run afoul of the law especially since I could prove to any cop or judge that the plate was legible because they could go and look at the damn thing. I have a feeling that the laws in other states are similar in that they deal with covering the plate with something not overexposing an image.I have thought about doing this not to avoid speed cams or red light cams as those have been banned in my state as unconstitutional at the state level, but more to avoid being automatically tracked.

I scour publicly available records for fun stuff all the time. I not only find it online but I also request it from government agencies (not Federal usually but local/county/etc).

In Minnesota data must be, "easily accessible for convenient use." While that has specific wording related to historical records, it basically means that on recent data it must be in some sort of electronic format or otherwise easily found and presented, free of charge as long as you do it in person, to anyone who asks--even anonymously. Now. This is great in theory. Unfortunately just because it's easy for the agency to use it doesn't mean it's easy for you to use or interpret.

Let's take for instance data on bus ridership data. It's not well organized for outsiders to read it and due to collection methodologies (not explained to the general person who had to pay $50 to get the data in the first place) is basically useless.

They have the data and after months of fighting with them for how much they claimed it cost (they wanted to charge me more than $300 IIRC) I got it down to $50 and got what you see above even though they already pulled it (and summarized it) for the mass media but wouldn't release it in a raw format.

So. It's in a format which isn't standard. It's methodology is questionable and it's expensive. So no matter the mandates, the promises, etc, the data is not terribly useful across agencies or to the public without some intermediate steps which costs the taxpayers more than doing it right the first time around.

It might not be the oil companies fault as is some states there is a minimum markup that must exist on gasoline. Here in Minnesota it is $0.08 a gallon. Also the states and federal government ($0.184 per gallon) make far more money from gasoline taxes than the oil companies make in profit from the sale of gasoline. Also keep in mind how many billions of gallons of fuel we burn each year (about 378 million gallons a day). What you have is a low margin very high volume product.

Also for the exact Minnesota the defines that cost of gasoline and states that is can't be sold for below cost. Below is the section defining cost:
(3) for purposes of gasoline offered for sale by way of posted price or indicating meter by a retailer, at a retail location where gasoline is dispensed into passenger automobiles and trucks by the consumer, "cost" means the average terminal price on the day, at the terminal from which the most recent supply of gasoline delivered to the retail location was acquired, plus all applicable state and federal excise taxes and fees, plus the lesser of six percent or eight cents.

I should have included this initially, but here is the link to the Minnesota statute that mandates 20% ethanol. Also here is the MN senate file on the bill.

I should have included this initially, but here is the link to the Minnesota statute that mandates 20% ethanol. Also here is the MN senate file on the bill.

I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.

In Minnesota it is a separate crime to refuse to a blood, urine, or intoxilyzer 5000 test after being read the implied consent advisory. This is almost exclusively done at a place of detention. If you give them the finger they charge you with refusing to take the test. They can not forcibly take blood without a warrant unless there is an accident involving a fatality (or one of the other few exceptions). Minnesota law says if the test is lawfully refused then a test must not be given. IANAL but i suspect they would have to adjust this statute in order to force blood draws on people who refused, at least in Minnesota.

See MN SS 159A.51 and 169A.52 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.51 & https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.52

I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.

In Minnesota it is a separate crime to refuse to a blood, urine, or intoxilyzer 5000 test after being read the implied consent advisory. This is almost exclusively done at a place of detention. If you give them the finger they charge you with refusing to take the test. They can not forcibly take blood without a warrant unless there is an accident involving a fatality (or one of the other few exceptions). Minnesota law says if the test is lawfully refused then a test must not be given. IANAL but i suspect they would have to adjust this statute in order to force blood draws on people who refused, at least in Minnesota.

See MN SS 159A.51 and 169A.52 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.51 & https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.52

"It was beneficial for [Seagate] to have a yield engineer on staff to give the appearance of a complete organization with a project that was further along in development. They were not able to sell or find a partner for the ATG group despite having him on board as the placeholder yield engineer."

The inference was that SeaGate bought Vaidyanathan on as a little corporate theatrics, manipulating appearances while they looked for a partner organization.

He was able to sue under a Minnesota law that makes it illegal for

any ... company...doing business in this state...to induce, influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this state, or to change from any place in any state, territory, or country to any place in this state, to work in any branch of labor through or by means of knowingly false representations

No, but park it in my parking space, don't remove it after I have you served with a notice to either do so or that I will go to court and get title of it, and guess what - I *can* go to court and get title transferred. Uhhhh...what?? What law is this? IAAL and I've never heard of this legal maneuver.

I believe what is being referred to (and misinterpreted) are abandoned vehicle laws. Some states have abandoned vehicle laws where a property owner can file a title claim on vehicles that are determined to be abandoned. Different states have different rules for what qualifies as "abandoned". For example, Minnesota Statute 168B.

Libel per se, in Minnesota, does not require proof of damages. This hypothetical would also fall under Minn. Stat. 325D.44 DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES.:

A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, the person:...(8) disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact;...Subd. 2.Proof....In order to prevail...a complainant need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.

I was sued under this statute in 2006 for allegedly misleading members of the public, whom were never identified by name or testified to being misled. It went to trial (I won).