Slashdot Mirror

Seattle raised it to $15.45 for large chains this year, with exceptions for smaller businesses that go as low as $14 without benefits and $11.50 with them. Meanwhile, Portland's current minimum wage is actually $12.00 and not $11.25 as you've stated.

Thus, it is presently possible to actually earn a smaller official minimum in Seattle than in Portland, provided you work for a small company with tips and/or good benefits.

When actually considering the past the situation is not that different: In 2009, Seattle's minimum matched its state minimum at $8.55. Meanwhile, in Portland the minimum wage was $8.40.

In both cities, the minimum wage has been increasing at since the recession. In 2016, when it was $9.25 state-wide, Oregon assed a bill to increase it every year by 50 cents, with Portland having a dollar more than standard and $1.25 over rural. Although Seattle's minimum is higher, it has exceptions and a greater cost of living than Portland. Minimum wages will be pegged to inflation by 2021 for Washington and 2023 for Oregon, with continued cost-of-living adjustments for their respective urban juggernauts.

It might also be worth it to consider how different state regulations, port access, and local industries affect these cities and their unemployment rates. I don't have all day for that, but if you're truely interested in this subject feel free to dive in.

I'm a member - because I like the magazine - when I had time for HF the QSL bureau was quite useful - plus if your into contesting you really do need access to the logbook of the world (which I guess you don't really need to be a member for).

The ARRL does successfully lobby for our rights as well - if you live in Oregon for example the NW Division successfully exempted amateur radio use from recent mobile device distracted driving laws: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Sa... (section 4 - on early drafts and even later drafts of this law none of that was there).

Not to mention the ARRL made is much easier for people like yourself to even get a license (yes I know there are maybe 8-9 VEC's, but the ARRL is the only nation wide organization that proctors exams).

Despite the politics in Newington - they really are on our side - most of the organization is really being run by people like you and me on the division level.

Yes, I'd reDirect funding from .mil to complete R & D to bring Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) to approval & to market sooner...
Safe Small Liquid-Fuel Nuclear Reactors, eg, IMSR, LFTR, SSR, Thorcon, WAMSR's & the like)

In place of Trump's demand that NATO boost their .mil spending to 2% - we could all do Lots Morefor ourselves & the planet. IF we DROPPED our (USA's) 3.5% .mil spending to that same 2%, that Trump thought appropriate.

Renewables don't work; cf: RoadmapToNowhere.com (which rebuts Stanford Prof Mark Z Jacobson's [100% WWS] plan (a job-creation program? ;-)

Look, with Liquid-Fuel Nuclear (ie, Molten Salt Reactors = MSR) due~2025, the "Nu Clear" path becomes: "Build long-lasting MSRs, located near places where power is needed or is now used"

MSRs offer Sealed, Factory-made Cores (that later become "secure caskets" for their modest amounts of shorter-lived waste: eg, ~300 years vs Today's nukes' ~300,000 years); they need No Refueling across 7 years of operation.

How much down-time do Today's Fuel-Rod based dinosaurs lose, due to lengthy ReFueling stoppages (every ~18 months...)?

It won't be so different, even "newer" SMR designs, like (over-funded, IMO) NuScale - each of whose modules includes, eg, a 50 MW power-generator, & who's greater quantity of waste needs much longer-term secure storage.

I say to Greens who love Renewables: Do the Math.

Even with "Fukushima-era" (ie, Fuel-Rod based) NPP's, Renewables don't stand a chance of providing all the Energy we need, in the space, time & $$ we have to offer.

It gets even better when Thorium (which becomes U-233) replaces Uranium as MSR Fuel:

As if from an IQ test, ask: Which of these is preferable, eg, based on expected worker-injuries & -deaths?

3,000,000 tonnes toxic Coal;
= 200 tonnes Raw Uranium [in Fuel-Rod NPP];
= just 1 tonne Thorium (in an MSR), ...in that Each of the above quantities of Fuel can be used to make the SAME amount of Electricity.

(Source: "Thorium- Energy for the World" (2016, Springer)
It's in the Abstract of the intro by physicist Carlo Rubbia)

(Note: You don't need to buy that co$tly book to get the article; get Rubbia's eye-opening intro. free, eg, in the Amazon's Sample of its Kindle edition.

Concluding:

I Propose: THAT we Postpone all Fusion R+D, & redirect it's funding to MSR R+D Until MSRs are producing all the Energy needed for Fusion R+D

Easy to Predict: If we embrace & propagate MSRs, they will Preclude the need for Fracking (past, present & future), & enable us keep more of Earth natural for future generations, not to mention: greatly reducing the need for (& cost of) secure storage for Nuclear Waste, as well as the period over which it needs to be stored.

And - with the resulting huge reductions in CO2 + other GHG's - we can expect to see a healed Climate sooner, rather than later.

The rest is Commentary... So, go out there & do what you can to Bring MSRs Sooner. ;~)

PS 1: For NuScale's down-sides, hear the ~1 hour-long interview of its (CTO?) in Episode 14: "NuScale's New Scale for Nuclear" by Oregon Dept of Energy here: https://energyinfo.oregon.gov/...

I didn't read the news reports they cited. The Snopes.com article is well below their usual standards. However it contains a link to the formal proceedings, which includes the findings of fact. I'm going by that, which appears to disagree with what that news report claimed. I'm sticking with the results of formal investigation.

However, I'm referring to the Oregon Sweetcakes by Melissa case, which did indeed involve a bakery and a lesbian couple, and has been widely publicized, and therefore I assumed that was the incident being referred to. That newspaper article is about Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado, and I don't have the same quality of source on that one. Perhaps, when describing bakery incidents in a vague way, you could stop to check that everybody's on the same baked page.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shar...

Too stupid to know actual law, because you are NOT a contractor nor have you ever been a contractor, otherwise you'd know THIS EXACT LAW.

Which is why your lying ass posted as AC.

From your own link:

"A worker does not have to meet all 20 criteria to qualify as an employee or independent contractor, and no single factor is decisive in determining a worker's status."

Thank you Helpy Helpterton, for supplying overly vague bullshit from a single state in which Uber operates in. Clear as mud now.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shar...

Too stupid to know actual law, because you are NOT a contractor nor have you ever been a contractor, otherwise you'd know THIS EXACT LAW.

Which is why your lying ass posted as AC.

That seems to imply rather that they did NOT discriminate based on the sexuality of the person requesting a service, There is no evidence that they would have baked a cake for a same sex wedding, even if they were asked by a heterosexual person. So they did not discriminate based on the sexuality of the person asking, but rather refused to perform a particular service when asked.

Yep, the service for a same-sex wedding, which was based on the sexuality of the participants.

That's why the courts in both cases pointed out the fallacy of the assertion that the refusal had nothing to do with the sexuality of the persons being married.

And here, you are quoting from material relating to a different case.

You want to distinguish between the Colorado and Oregon cases? The same same assertions were made by the bakeries in both, so it's likely to be merit-less on your part. You can look at the order yourself, it's just a pain to quote it due to the formatting they used for their PDF.

Go to page 32 if you want to see it. Sorry, but the court already rejected that facetious argument.

I'd consider having to walk next door to buy a wedding cake for a same sex wedding an inconvenience, rather than some sort of forelock tug toward embedded discrimination based on sexual preference.

And the courts in both cases consider that the actions of the bakery violated the laws of the respective states.

If I walked into a cake shop to buy a cake for my wedding and someone refused to sell it to me because the cake required eggs and they were a vegan shop, or because the shop specialized in same sex weddings and didn't make cakes for heterosexual weddings, I supposed I would be cheesed off, but nowhere near cheesed off enough to send that business bankrupt.

The former, aka, services in a Vegan shop, and the latter, this idea of a same-sex wedding shop, are quite different and easily distinguishable. The one would be legal, the other not.

Of course, there ARE circumstances where dietary considerations can be expressly required, and there are people who have gotten in trouble for violations.

You really should stop trying to make such bad arguments though, they aren't helping you.

That's absurd. Maybe it's not ideal, but hey, there's lot's of compromise associated with living in a society with different world-views and trying to get along.

There's also a lot of not-compromising, associated with living in a society and having people get along.

That's back to my point about yes, sometimes asserting rights will occasionally inconvenience people.

Yes - oh wait, that's not a good metaphor, since the baker served everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.

Nope. They indicated in the fact that they did not serve people who wanted a cake for their same-sex wedding.

So a more appropriate analogy would be an atheist milk bar owner who makes burgers for everyone, but when asked, refused to pronounce a blessing to Allah over a burger when serving a burger to a customer who wanted that service.

There was no request to pronounce a blessing, or any religious function at all, in fact, the stipulation of facts expressly indicates that any discussion was pre-emptively refused.

What obligation does the owner have to find halal meat for making a burger in this case? Wouldn't the best plan be for the Muslim to take his custom to a place that advertises and makes halal burgers?

In this case, it's more like this:

Customer: Hi, I'm a Muslim, I'd like

Baker: We don't serve Muslims

Then what is the problem in this case?

See above. Except replace Muslim with "Gays" or whatever term said couple would use.

There is no evidence that the baker would have sold a gay wedding themed cake to anybody, If a heterosexual, white male went to his shop and asked for a wedding cake themed appropriately for a gay wedding, the baker would have refused to make a cake styled in that fashion.

There was zero mention of any particular theme to the cake. This also happened in Colorado, and other places like Washington.

Just a flat-out refusal. No particular objection to content. Sorry, but you're relying on a false premise.

Freedom of religion is not passe, it is not somehow a 'lesser right'. It is a fundamental right, enumerated in the UN DHR (and in the US constitution). People fought and died to defend that right. That implies that sometimes, protecting that right will occasionally inconvenience people.

People fought and died to defend the right not to be denied the right to buy goods and services because of other people's discrimination. That implies, sometimes, that asserting those rights will occasionally inconvenience people, even if they believe their religion somehow gives them the right to treat others however they want, even declare them to be abominations.

The problem arises when some services are offered to customers and forbidden to others based only on those customer's protected class.

There is no evidence that this happened. He was asked to provide a specific service he'd never provided before, and refused to do it.

Except the stipulation of facts indicated that the cakes for weddings were provided to other customer, and no specific services were identified as objectionable in particular.

This is the next problem. This E911 law needs to be more easily and automatically circumvented by default, if we can't get it repealed.

No.

First, if you need to call 911 for help, you want your phone to be able to do it even if you are in a place where your carrier has no service.

Second, if you don't want public safety to know where you are so they can come help you, don't call them. Or don't use the 911 number if you do. Use the regular numbers. If you are someone who doesn't want cops to know where you are but want them to come help, then I don't know how they are going to be able to help. Why bother calling in the first place?

One of the biggest hindrances to getting help to people who need it is that they are quite often unable to provide a good location. They may be unfamiliar with the area, or they may be disabled or agitated and just unable to think clearly. Sometimes they are someplace that has no address or clear way of identifying their location, especially if they are lost. (If they could identify where they are, they wouldn't be lost, now would they?)

It's ambiguously bad, and that's enough to keep it forever.

No, it is unambiguously good, and that's why it will stay forever.

What is the downside? The cops learn where you are when you call 911. Well, don't call 911. Problem solved. There are other numbers you can call. If calling 911 is a problem for you, then you can look up and program the numbers in advance. For example, if you are in Oregon, here is a list of all of the public safety answering points (PSAP), or 911 centers, in the state. I'm not going to waste time looking up other states, but I bet you can find them if you look.

Not true. Gasoline expenditure as percent of total spending is remarkably constant across income levels.

Rich people may be more likely to drive a Prius than the poor, but they're also more likely to drive SUVs, sporty cars, etc. And the total impact on fuel economy of common maintenance problems that leave a car legal to drive (passes safety and emissions) will practically always be less than 10%, and the majority of that is tire inflation (free to fix) or alignment. (Many of the maintenance problems mechanics commonly tell you reduce your mileage are shown in studies to have very little real world impact.) Even in California, the actual fuel efficiency of cars driven by people below the poverty level was 89% as high as that of people earning six figures (p. 8).

Even if it were true that the costs of a gas tax fell disproportionately on the poor, many of the externalities associated with high fuel use (e.g. inner-city pollution and related health issues) do as well, ergo so do the benefits of the fuel tax. There are vastly more effective ways to help the poor than by encouraging everyone in the country to drive inefficient vehicles.

As for who is subsidizing who regarding road costs: road wear is roughly proportional to the fourth power of axle weight, and weight is very well correlated with fuel use, so drivers of efficient lightweight vehicles are already unfairly subsidizing heavy vehicles and would be doing so even more under a miles driven tax.

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

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, “ I’m an excellent engineer 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 .” Jarlstrom claimed to be exempt from registra tion requirements because he was not offering engineering services to the public.

It seems like the board warned him that he could not use the title at least a few times and he simply disregarded that.

How do you know the board members party affiliations? Or are you just claiming they're Democrats, so it sounds like you actually have an argument?

Unless somebody it paying him to provide his qualified opinion, he isn't practicing shit.

The board members are certainly not the smartest bunch of people for conflating "practicing Engineering" with "expressing an opinion based on scientific knowledge". And if you're looking to point fingers at political parties for suppressing scientific facts, I wouldn't be pointing it toward Democrats.

(I will cite Oregon traffic regulations from https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DM... as those are what I have at hand and mjw has not idsmissed them out of hand.)

Not being able to clear the intersection is about whether there is sufficient space in the roadway leaving the intersection. This violation can happen even when the light is green, and does not necessarily happen when the light is red, E.g. ORS 811.290(2) "The offense described in this section applies whether or not a traffic control device indicates to proceed." Therefore being in the intersection is not equal to blocking the intersection and this case is orthogonal to the question of being in the intersection when the light turns red.

The rule for a green signal plainly states that a vehicle already in the intersection has right of way, e.g. ORS 811.260(1) "...A driver shall yield right of way to other vehicles within the intersection at the time the green light is shown."

If you participate in the SEA program you won't have work search requirements while claiming benefits. You can receive business start-up counseling and advice from Oregonâ(TM)s Small Business Development Center Network (SBDC) free of charge. *Classes and books are at cost to the participant, no training funds are available at this time. If you make money from your private enterprise, you keep the proceeds and still get your full weekly benefit payment. People come to the program in all states of readiness to do business, so we donâ(TM)t require applicants to wait for a class to start etc. When you are accepted in to the program is when you start.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Sit...

So if you simply file one of these... seems pretty easy to exploit, just need to prepare for the election a little further in advance by covering your bases and sending in one of those before you send in the fraudulent ballot.

Another problem with postal votes is what happens in a close election. In 2000 there were some attempts by the Dems to exclude Overseas Military Ballots, but it came too late and didn't have much impact. Next time there is a really close election both parites will have databases & software that based on individual voter profiles will allow then to identify postal votes that are more than X% likely to go "the wrong way" and assist in finding plausible reasons for challing these votes. That could get really ugly.

I don't see how this is a problem, not in Oregon anyway. Ballots for Overseas military (and regular citizens overseas) are the same as those for folks at home in Oregon. They are processed the same way and are not identified as "special" ballots during processing. The only difference is that they are mailed out earlier in order to give voters more time. For reference here are the details. There is an option for people to email or fax in their ballot, but you have to agree to give up your right to secrecy in advance to exercise this option. There is no extension in the voting deadline for overseas voters (or any other voter for that matter), ballots must be at the election office by 8pm on election day. Postmarks don't count.

More places haven't gone to mail-in-only voting because they don't want to disenfranchise the homeless, who have no mailing address, or the poor who might change their address upwards of three times per year often staying in transient housing. The poor often have a hard time finding a single place to live, and they already have the least time to deal with matters such as ensuring that their ballot is sent to the correct address.

An interesting point. So I checked into that.

http://sos.oregon.gov/voting/P...

I know the ballot would come with an official addressed envelope like our regular mail ballots. I suppose the issue then would be getting to the county clerk's office.

Oregon produced an audit of the Oracle Debacle here: http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/docs... The audit answered the wrong questions. It accepted the magical notions and vapor roles of Oracle's corporate propaganda. For example, it focuses on the need for a 'systems integrator', as if every engineer should -not- be responsible for integration. The two big problems: 1) The computer industry's current authoritarian obsession with subdivided tasks, specialization, core competence, detailed requirements, 'no surprises' (meaning no good surprises, either), and dogmatic 'best practices' has created a generation of corporate slaves who aren't allowed to use their minds or take responsibility for anything important. 2) Which brings us to motivation. Oracle and other corporate oligarchs only want money. They have no responsibility to do anything else. Maximizing the bill is the sole priority. Three programmers, picked at random, who live in Oregon, and who have friends that need insurance, would have finished this job with FOSS, not proprietary software, in half the time a fraudulent Oracle and a corrupt State's office took to generate a broken system.

"There was something about the way they awarded the contracts for the caping was inappropriate."
no, there was nothing wrong with it at all. Some people don't like it so the made shit up.

"the Portland Water Bureau didn't bother filing the paperwork for an exemption from the Department of Homeland Security"
nonsense.

Do you know why Rochester NY is allowed to have SOME open reserves? hmm? no? I thought not. Another ignorant fucktwad Portlander who think what he feels is correct.
I know, it's so much easier to scream and shout and believe in conspiracy theories then it is to research and think.
YOU, and you ilk are harming portlanders and cause millions to be wasted.
http://public.health.oregon.go...

http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/index.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act

Cannabis:

In summary, enormous doses of Delta 9 THC, All THC and concentrated marihuana extract ingested by mouth were unable to produce death or organ pathology in large mammals but did produce fatalities in smaller rodents due to profound central nervous system depression.

The non-fatal consumption of 3000 mg/kg A THC by the dog and monkey would be comparable to a 154-pound human eating approximately 46 pounds (21 kilograms) of 1%-marihuana or 10 pounds of 5% hashish at one time. In addition, 92 mg/kg THC intravenously produced no fatalities in monkeys. These doses would be comparable to a 154-pound human smoking at one time almost three pounds (1.28 kg) of 1%-marihuana or 250,000 times the usual smoked dose and over a million times the minimal effective dose assuming 50% destruction of the THC by smoking.

Thus, evidence from animal studies and human case reports appears to indicate that the ratio of lethal dose to effective dose is quite large. This ratio is much more favorable than that of many other common psychoactive agents including alcohol and barbiturates (Phillips et al. 1971, Brill et al. 1970).

http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/LIBRARY/mj_overdose.htm
http://www.oregon.gov/pharmacy/Imports/Marijuana/StaffReview/ReschedulingCannabis-NOTES_3-10.pdf

Only unlicensed vehicles are taxed as personal property. Vehicle taxes are collected when you license the vehicle and are not taxed as personal property. See column 1 page 1 near bottom: http://www.oregon.gov/dor/PTD/docs/personal-property-assessment-taxation_303-661.pdf

Yes it is.

http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/ptd/Pages/valfact.aspx

No it doesn't. You can buy untaxed dyed diesel fuel for use only on private property (commonly used in farm equipment) and if you're a regular user of gasoline on private property (commonly construction vehicles that are trucked from site to site) you can get your gas taxes refunded. Since we're talking about Oregon, here's their forms.

Oregon has legalized medical marijuana. I'm going to assume this isn't about fighting terrorism so much as it is relating to the government wanting to know who is taking medical marijuana so they can make more arrests and send more "criminals" to perform slave labor for their campaign donors in the private prison industry.

http://public.health.oregon.gov/diseasesconditions/chronicdisease/medicalmarijuanaprogram/documents/ommphandbook.pdf Oregon is just like California: Their doctors are restricted by the Federal Government due to MJ being a Schedule I drug. i.e., there is no such thing as an MJ prescription. It does not go on your medical record. You cannot pick it up from a pharmacy.

A doctor gives you a recommendation, which merely says the doctor believes you would benefit from using MJ.

No, this just more double-talk from Mr. Obama about fighting terrorism. Medical care is a right that everybody has... oh, but it also means the Feds get to see your records because you could just opt-out... Its not that much of a right. We're not listening to your phone calls, but we need warrant-less wiretaps too...

He is a nosy good-for-nothing prick.

You're talking about Hanford. Approximately one third of Hanford's waste storage tanks are known to have been or be leaking into the groundwater, having contaminated approximately 270 billion gallons or one billion cubic meters of aquifers. This contaminated groundwater is expected to reach the Columbia river in 7 to 45 years, and start contaminating everything along the river from Eastern Washington to Portland and the Pacific ocean shortly thereafter. The loss of real estate values along that river is a very real concern. Waterfront property is normally very valuable. Waterfront property on a radioactive river, less so.

Currently there is no practical plan to deal with this situation nor adequate budget to even stop it from getting worse. It is likely impossible to prevent this radioactive waste from reaching the Pacific. The Columbia river is quite a considerable river, 4th largest in the US by volume and the largest draining into the Pacific. Though Hanford is the most highly contaminated nuclear site in the US - containing approximately 2/3rds of all US high-level waste, it still retains an operating nuclear power generating station to this day. It uses a newer version of the type of reactor used at Fukushima, a General Electric Type 5 Boiling Water Reactor.

Over $30 billions (pdf) have been spent cleaning up Hanford already. 20 years into the initial 30 year plan only minor progress has been made. The vitrification plant, for example, is not expected to complete vitrification operations for another 34 years from now - and that may be optimistic, meaning we are further from the end now than when the work was begun. The estimate for the cost of the remaining cleanup is $112 billion and is, given the nature of such things, likely to be at least three times even that.

Although the so-far estimated cost of $145 billion is very high it is important to remember than Hanford was a critical part of the Manhattan Project, essential for developing the technology and materials that made the US the first nuclear weapon capable global power at a critical cusp of international relations. The cost of not doing that might have been much higher than cleaning up or living with this mess will be.

Cleaning up Fukushima will cost far more than cleaning up Hanford. Cleaning up Chernobyl will also be more costly, to the extent cleanup is possible at all. If you add up the cleanup costs of all three and the off-book costs of getting rid of the current stock of spent nuclear fuels you could probably outfit the entire world with alternative electrical energy solutions like geothermal, wind and solar for less. On this scale a manned Mars colony would be a trivial side project. Of more concern might be that cleaning up these messes entirely is quite simply not possible, even given the full weight of the national economies involved. It cannot be done. We have developed the power to create problems we cannot cure no matter how hard we try.

FFS that was my gut reaction, then backed up by someone from the article itself. You want a *study* to back up an ill-conceived move?

But fine, I'll expand on that and do the math for you.

The most popular hybrid, the Toyota Prius, has only sold a cumulative total of 3.3 million *worldwide* as of October 2012.

In the US alone, hybrids and non-traditional fuel vehicles make up only 3% of car sales, or about 2 million since 2007. Oregon has a population of about 3.9 million, or 1.25% of the US population. Despite this, Oregon makes up about 2% of hybrid and electric-only sales.

So, let's say all hybrid and electric vehicles since 2007 are still on the road, 2% of 2 million sold is a mere 40,000. Rates were deliberately left out in the proposed Oregon legislation, but let's use Washington's flat rate option of $100 a year. If all hybrid/electric car owners go with that, or we assume this is the average even if they track them using GPS or whatever, the state pulls in a mere $4 million each year.

In the Oregon DOT's 2011-13 budget, they have a total annual revenue of almost $2.5 billion ($5 billion revenue over the budget's 2-year span).

$4 million is peanuts for a government operation. It wouldn't even cover the cost of government-contracted development of the necessary devices for tracking in-state usage (you know they won't just re-use anything that's already out there).

In fact, the revenue from this is far worse than $4 million--I just realized that the Oregon tax only kicks in for vehicles rated at 55 mpg or better, but the Prius' official EPA rating is 50 mpg. The EPA actually rates none of the 2012 hybrids as 55mpg or better. So, remove the most popular non-traditional fuel cars from all the stats above and recalculate--downward. Going back to this chart, only around 70,000 plug-in hybrids and extended range vehicles have been sold since 2007. 2% of *that* is 1400, so you're pulling in a mere $140,000 a year.

Sure, this'll increase as years go by, and they even claim this is planning for the future, but that doesn't change the accuracy of the statement that fuel-efficient vehicles are still (i.e. right now) nowhere near the numbers they need to be for this to even make sense from a bureaucratic/administrative perspective.

So there's your study. The state of Oregon has been invoiced $10,000 in consulting fees, which I'm pretty sure is a bargain over whatever their regular consultants are charging for a "study" like this.

So let me get this straight. People that drive a hybrid are not paying enough to maintain the roads, therefore it is necessary to come up with this elaborate and costly to enforce tax. Which will also reduce the incentive to get a hybrid.

At the same time, Oregon provides a tax credit for everyone buying a Hybrid, because the government decided that people should have hybrids.

Maybe it is just me, but would it not just be simpler to eliminate the tax credit, tax everyone the same, and let people decide which is the best car for them based on whatever is most important to them, rather than more government distortions?

Awesome idea! Please impose a per-mile tax on fuel efficient vehicles such as hybrids.

By the way, you might want to review your existing $1500 rebate for purchasing said hybrid:
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/cons/res/tax/docs/hybridform.pdf

[reaches into bag of applicable figures of speech]

Let's see:

Left hand doesn't know what the right hand... no, wait...

Rebates giveth, and per-mile taxes taketh... WAIT, NO I GOT IT!

Stop being stupid.

The reaction time will become much smaller. We used to call it PIEV (Perception, Intellection, Emotion, Volition), but recently has been referred to as PRT (Perception-Reaction Time). Both terms are explained in this paper. In a nutshell, though, this process can take 1.5-2.5 seconds depending on the person, circumstances, et c. That doesn't count the stopping distance, which varies widely by person. Total PRT and Stopping distance from 65 mph will vary from 350-450 feet, depending on circumstances. As PRT approaches zero, the total distance traveled approaches the stopping distance, probably about 200 ft, depending on the vehicle.

Also, the post you were responding to assumes that the cars can communicate

He wants to do away with the Federal EPA, states will still have their versions (for example, http://www.oregon.gov/DEQ/). BP gets away with it because as a corp they have the rights of a person without the responsibilities of a person. No one holds corps accountable for its actions.

Making up stats is fun, I guess, but Oregon has it's energy production made up in the following manner:

Coal: 39%
Hydro: 38%
Natural Gas: 15%
Biomass: 3%
Wind and Geo: 1%

(source: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/docs/EnergyUseOR.pdf )

Also, you might try to make the point that the single coal-burning generation station is in Boardman, OR; which is ~100 miles from Prineville. However, you'll see from this map that Prineville is right next to a natural gas hub, and two hydro generating stations on the Deschutes River.

So, please cite where your 60% figure comes from? Thanks.

What wears out roads is mass per axle. This is a well known phenomenon. Not only do trucks have more mass per axle than cars by far, they are taxed per axle so they load each axle the maximum amount.

Road damage increases much more than proportionately with vehicle weight on a road surface. For example, if Vehicle A weighs 48,000 pounds and Vehicle B weighs 4,000 pounds, the damage done to the road by Vehicle A is far more than 12 times the damage done by Vehicle B.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/FTP_RES/docs/Reports/EffectWeightMileTax.pdf

Exactly! If this were not true the State of Oregon's State Data Center (SDC) couldn't charge what they do. Current charges: http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/SDC/docs/rates/Rates.pdf - we often try to host outside the SDC because of service level agreements, agency accessibility for managing the resource and price. If we were to pay what it costs, how would we support a bloated SDC staffing structure. The SDC now has more staff than the agencies who moved to the SDC did and the service quality is down (4 flipping weeks to open a firewall port), availability is down (nowhere near the promised 99.9% uptime), costs are up! Yes, sadly, I work for the state and helped move our agency, DHS, to the SDC a few years back - wish I could turn back time.

Move to Oregon. http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml

Every single word will generate a popup or link to some ad or other non sequiter .

Wow, you're retarded.

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/healthplan/app_benefits/main.shtml

Right, the rest is covered by use taxes on commercial trucks and shipping services. Just like they would be under a free market. Individuals would be able to use the road for little or no cost, perhaps a hundred dollar a year pass (which they would save in gas).

Wrong, fuel tax, taxes on commercial trucks, and shipping services does not fully cover the costs of roads. Here's a page from the Oregon state government: Road User Fee Task Force. In it they propose using a mileage fee to cover the cost of the roads. From Popular Mechanics, Should the US Tax Mileage or Fuel?: Guest Analysis. Heck some of the so called stimulus money is going to roads. A few miles from me a road is being repaired and there are signs all along it saying the work is being supported by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, notice how core investments are being made in roads

Falcon

You ask, you'll get ananswer

Since it doesn't look like anybody actually READ the report Oregon put out on milage taxes I'll provide a link to the report. The reports themselves are in the top right of the page. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/mileage.shtml They realize there is a privacy issue. Transportation Research Board (TRB) who conducts millions of dollars of research each year realizes there is a privacy issue. They are working on it. Please stop yelling "The sky is falling" so loudly and let's have a well informed, civil discussion about this. The gas tax hasn't been increased in ~20 years, so we'll have to pay for new roads somehow. If you hadn't received a raise in 20 years you'd be looking for new sources of income too. On top of that, vehicles are getting more miles to the gallon (a good thing), but are still damaging the road the same amount and paying less to do so (a bad thing). Either way, I think I'm late to this discussion, but they are worthwhile reports to read and should be attached to every discussion on this topic. I'd guess this paper should be read too, but I haven't read it myself. http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf

Oh I forgot, we're talking about Oregon, the state where cyclists (who pay nothing) have more rights on the road than drivers who's taxes and fees actually pay for the roads. We're talking about a state where cyclist "gangs" actively ride the streets of Portland and have been known to pull drivers out of their car for ALLEGED infractions and beat the crap out of them (google cyclist violence portland to see what I mean).

According to the ODOT budget (see page 4), nearly half of their revenue comes from federal funds which, shockingly, everyone pays into. And a bicyclist does not have more rights a car (although a pedestrian does), they are supposed to be treated the same as any other vehicle on the road. Not to mention that a car causes just a tiny bit more wear and tear on the infrastructure than bicycles do.

Finally, the top few hits for "cyclist violence portland" mention a few people encouraging violence against cyclists and a few hit-and-run cases, but I don't see anything like what you're describing; I heard about one isolated incident a couple of months back, where the cyclist was severely road burned, but the stories leading up to the confrontation were conflicting. And while I've seen a fair number of cyclist parades and whatnot, I have yet to see a "cyclist gang" in Portland. Gimme a fucking break.

As for the GPS idea being idiotic and probably overly expensive, I agree with you on that.

The church is the biggest reason we have laws against suicide. Taking your own life is the only real power we have, to live or to die and the bible says that only God has the right to decide who lives and who dies thus suicide is a sin.

Luckily, in the state I live in, we have dismissed these ignorant notions and we have a choice to die peacefully.

Trucking and farming require big, heavy vehicles that do far more damage to the roads then small hybrids. No reason they shouldn't bear most of the burden for maintenance.

From http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/EffectWeightMileTax.pdf

" The federal government and various state governments conduct studies to determine the appropriate allocation of costs among classes of vehicles. These studies find that the fuel taxes and registration fees, which provide a substantial amount of the funds for construction and maintenance, are not levied in proportion to cost responsibility. In particular, they conclude that heavy vehicles typically do not pay their share of the cost, while lighter vehicles tend to be taxed for more than their share."

Not in Oregon.

Well... Oregon law-givers also found it prudent to legislate and penalize carrying a child on an external part of the vehicle, such as hood, fender or a running board.

www.dumblaws.com/law/1416
811.205 Carrying minor on external part of vehicle;
penalty

Full text of the Law
811.205 Carrying child on external part of vehicle; penalty.

(1) A person commits the offense of carrying a child on an external part of a motor vehicle if the person carries any child upon the hood, fender, running board or other external part of any motor vehicle that is upon a highway.

(2) The offense described in this section, carrying a child on an external part of a motor vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation.

[1983 c.338 604; 1995 c.383 53]

Almost. The perception is that doctors should be like doctors were before a medical license became a ticket to becoming a millionaire. There was really a time when a successful doctor might have the nicest house on the block, but not also a nice house in St. Lucia and a nice house in Aspen and a nice apartment on the Gulf Coast.

You think so? A general practitioner might be earning as little as $80,000 per year after expenses because we don't pay doctors much for preventative care. And that is while working 70-90 hour weeks doing it. Add in the 8-10 years of medical school and residency and the fact that you don't really get to start practicing until you are in your thirties, long after most people have had a career and it starts to look not so attractive. Try working 60-100 hour weeks for a decade straight for little pay, a mountain of debt and see how idealistic you are afterward.

Yes some physicians earn a lot more but I'm around them and they earn every penny of it. Hardly anyone becomes a doctor strictly for the money. Most of the doctors I know will tell you that if you can imagine yourself doing anything else, you probably should do the something else. It's just too hard otherwise.

So now doctors fear that if we have universal health care in the US, they might have to go back to being part of the community in which they serve.

We already have something close to it and it's called Medicare. It's a huge part of the compensation for the majority of doctors. And frankly doctor compensation is not the big driver of health care expenses. The real drivers are problems of adverse selection and/or moral hazard to use economics terms. Look at ANY analysis of drivers of health care costs and physician compensation will be at the bottom of the list if it is even on the list at all. Don't take my word for it.

The people who are going into medicine these days are doing so because there were no more spots left at Northwestern's B-school.

Ha! You don't know a lot of doctors personally do you? I'm married to one and as a result I know lots of them. Most of them are among the smartest people I know and most of them got into medicine for reasons other than money. It's only after they get to med school that they have the honorable notions figuratively "beaten" out of them. Most of them could get into even the top B-schools easily and yet they choose not to. If your goal is to make a lot of money there are a lot easier ways to do it than being a doctor.

• United States Citizen.
• Possess a high school diploma or equivalent.
• Twenty-one years of age or older upon appointment.
• Possess and maintain a valid license to operate a motor vehicle.
• Applicants must be in good health and good moral character.
• Meet all applicable medical and physical requirements.

Can you point to the bullet that requires a BS, Criminal Science from Western Oregon University?

Maybe you'd like to amend your statement to indicate - as the Oregon State Police do - that becoming an OSP trooper requires 4 weeks (186 hours) of OSP-specific training prior to the 16-week Basic Police course?

But yes, I can see where you'd confuse 20 weeks of police academy with a 4-year Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice, or a 4-year Bachelor's degree followed by 3 or more years of legal training required to earn a JD and LLM. It's pretty much the same.

• United States Citizen.
• Possess a high school diploma or equivalent.
• Twenty-one years of age or older upon appointment.
• Possess and maintain a valid license to operate a motor vehicle.
• Applicants must be in good health and good moral character.
• Meet all applicable medical and physical requirements.

Can you point to the bullet that requires a BS, Criminal Science from Western Oregon University?

Maybe you'd like to amend your statement to indicate - as the Oregon State Police do - that becoming an OSP trooper requires 4 weeks (186 hours) of OSP-specific training prior to the 16-week Basic Police course?

But yes, I can see where you'd confuse 20 weeks of police academy with a 4-year Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice, or a 4-year Bachelor's degree followed by 3 or more years of legal training required to earn a JD and LLM. It's pretty much the same.

Yes, I generally try to do much what you describe -- although a "four second rule" just won't work in many situations I drive in -- people will just cut into the gap in front of you and cause you to slow down a bit more etc. until, at the limit, you've slowed traffic to a crawl such that a four second gap plus your added insurance for any tailgater(s) behind you leaves not much more than one car length between you and the car in front (i.e., the limit at which someone else can't "take" the gap ahead away from you causing you to slow down more). I think this limit works out to be about 3.5 miles per hour ignoring your additional "tailgater safety margin" (assuming that anything less than 20 feet between you and the driver in front prevents someone from cutting in and taking your "safety gap" away). Yes, I do know that I'm carrying this analysis to an extreme and that a rational person (as I assume you are) really wouldn't maintain the "four second rule" to this absurd level.

At 60 MPH, four seconds is 352 feet between you and the car in front of you - on dry pavement, some charts show the TOTAL stopping time (reaction plus braking) on dry pavement to be only 240 feet or 303 feet so your rule, while safe, seems to unnecessarily allow the car in front of you to stop instantly and you still to come to a stop 49 feet behind it.

Really, this is mostly about intersections with traffic lights and people who begin to tailgate you just as you're approaching the intersection.