Slashdot Mirror

Here's a well-traveled street straddling Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. It has no longitudinal traffic markings, and particularly from 3:00PM to 7:00PM has heavy traffic. The accident rate is modest, particularly given its narrow width and placement parallel to and between two major arterials.

Here's a well-traveled street in Fairbanks, AK. From October until April there is regularly snow that can quite effectively cover lane markings for days or months at a time. For example: I noticed this morning, only because the packed snow and ice had finally worn away enough to make the markings faintly visible, that I was driving through a painted median. A week ago I noticed three cars side-by-side to make left turns into two receiving lanes because snow had obscured the lane markings; they worked it out when the light changed and nobody died.

Three years ago, as the traffic & safety engineer, I was designing the signs and markings for a rural two-lane road that hadn't been previously paved. One discussion was the necessity of the inclusion of longitudinal markings. In the end, we painted the center lines and excluded the edge lines.

In the US, the MUTCD establishes a base requirement for center line markings on roads "that have a traveled way of 20 feet or more in width and an ADT of 6,000 vehicles per day or greater" or on two-way roads "that have three or more lanes for moving motor vehicle traffic." On many roads, center lane lines are already optional and their exclusion isn't an inherent problem. I might argue differently about reactionary idiots, however.

I do IT for my parents' small medical practice. They went for meaningful use phase 1, which was something like 30k to cover new equipment, training and software. They did not go for phase 2 and phase 3, since there were a bunch of additional requirements that they did not believe would add anything to patient outcome.

As a result, they started receiving something like 2% less reimbursement from medicaid and medicare (like 80% of their practice.) So, for my parents, the "negative impact" was worth slightly less than 2% of their income. My mom mentioned that she'd let it get to about -5%, and then reevaluate.

This is another attempt by the Feds to become involved in things which generally do not make any sense. There is not any kind of meaningful comparison that can be made between a physician's practice in rural Texas, as compared to one at Mayo Clinic in Washington, D.C., in terms of "EHR negative impact." The difference in electronic health record systems is insane, and compound that with the difference between practice sizes, available resources, and base population, make it so the Federal "one size fits all" bureaucratic program is simply not worth it for people to participate in. Eventually, the Federal pressures will become so high that doctors simply will not accept the crappy Federal insurances, such as has been happening in Alaska.

Wait a minute...Louisiana? The state that has drive-through daiquiri bars ?

Driving with a Big-Gulp sized Hurricane in your lap (no straw of course, *wink* *wink*), that's OK, but powdered alcohol is irresponsible?

Alaska is still trying to figure out how this ever got on the voting ballot.

Most of them were stoned out of their mind and kept thinking how this shit would be really good sprinkled on Taco Bell right about now...

Don't give us any ideas.

The big issue is Alaska is dry / damp towns. There are a number of Native American villages that ban alcohol or limit it very rigorously. Alcoholism is an enormous issue for Native Americans (and, truth be told, the rest of us) and the smaller villages have adopted this form of control. Little tiny one ounce packets would be ridiculously easy to smuggle in. Of course, this is a fool's errand in a sense - you can rarely stop a social problem using prohibition, but the communities feel that it helps.

The rest of us are too stoned and confused to notice much (Where'd the snow go?).

Why is everything couched as if it's either; a tiny pittance of responsibility or "they go out of business -- JOBS - OMG!!!"? That was a rhetorical question. It's advantageous to companies like Exxon that the argument always be; Free Enterprise vs. No Enterprise.

Exxon got the contract to extract the oil from the Inuit because they PROMISED to have radar and warning systems set in place and not crash their tankers. The "big lie" is that a one drunk captain crashed the ship -- and he went along with it. There are more than one person driving that tanker and warning alarms should have gone off -- if they had not powered down their expensive warning system to save money.

After all the stalling and court cases -- Exxon still saved more money than if they had made good on their original deal. And a lot of Inuit lost their only source of income and died bankrupt while asking Exxon to pay up for their cost cutting catastrophe.

The Exxon Valdez was preventable pretty much like the BP oil gusher under the Gulf was preventable -- but actuarial science says it's much cheaper to do nothing and argue in court -- and spend money on lobbyists and a-holes to champion Torte reform.

It's amazing that the information is readily available on the TRUE CAUSES:
http://www.adn.com/evos/storie... >> they skimped on staff and not following requirements for double-hulled vessels.
http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/... >> The Radar didn't work because they didn't MAINTAIN IT -- not because of design flaws; Government negligence in oversight is a direct result of company influence on them.

-- criminal negligence by the company and lax supervision by the regulators (who were known to not only sleep with the corporate reps, but have meth filled orgies with the corporate reps). (no really, not kidding; http://www.motherjones.com/blu... )

The media of course, doesn't bother to investigate crap if they already have a great story to tell about one drunk sea captain -- truth be damned.

I guess $900 million is equivalent to nothing in your world? I mean, Alaska even has a fund set up to manage those payments. Perhaps you need to look outside your little "ThinkProgress" world...

Sharon Cissna is a Democrat.

Well gosh, I guess I can do your research for you. I'm a bit busy, but you can start here:

http://www.privacy.ca.gov/privacy_laws.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm

http://www.law.state.ak.us/department/civil/consumer/4548.html

http://government.dc.gov/DC/Government/Data+&+Transparency/Consumer+Protection/Consumer+Information+101/Consumer+Personal+Information+Security+Breach+Notification+Act

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/30_14_17.htm

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1349.19

http://www.cdt.org/privacy/guide/protect/laws.php

Telecommunications Act (1996) Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI)

Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003

Shall I keep going? or are you prepared to admit that in this very same universe that we share, here in America, there are in fact laws governing the use, protection, and sharing of personal information? The laws aren't what I personally want them to be, but they exist, and the whole point of what I was saying is that the current hands-off free-market approach is BAD, and would be LESS BAD if there were MORE LAWS in this area -- a point which survives your assertion that the laws don't exist. Actually I don't have time to keep looking things up for you, so if you aren't prepared to admit it, then your denial will have to be the end of the discussion.

My final point, as a question to you, would be why would Borders even have a contract, if the contract didn't expand its rights beyond the legal defaults? Why would it bother to pay a lawyer to make up such a contract? Why would it bother to present the contract to consumers? If there were no laws governing it, and they could do whatever they want, then they would, no contract required. It doesn't even make sense that they would tie their own hands with their own contract, resulting in a lesser ability for them to do what they want to do.

Do you have a reference for Sarah Palin's position on fruit fly research? I would be fascinated to see that.

To quote the woman herself, from her 10/24/2008 policy speech in support of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA):

"You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not."

She made no specific reference but it can be presumed she is referring to the 2008 appropriation for research into controlling the olive fruit fly by California Rep Mike Thompson, of which ~$211,000 did in fact go to research performed in France. The olive fruit fly is a harmful pest that causes considerable damage to crops in California and many other places. Rep Thompson defended this appropriation and it's allocation as follows:

"The Olive Fruit Fly has infested thousands of California olive groves and is the single largest threat to the U.S. olive and olive oil industries. I secured $748,000 for olive fruit fly research and irradiation in the (fiscal year 2008) appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA will use some of that funding for their research facility in France. This USDA research facility is located in France because Mediterranean countries like France have dealt with the Olive Fruit Fly for decades, while California has only been exposed since the late 1990s. This is not uncommon; the USDA has several international research facilities throughout the world, including Australia, China and Argentina.”

This says nothing of the valuable research into genetics and other biological systems that frequently utilize the more common drosophilla fruit fly, such as this, which could actually lead to treatment for the very people she claims to be supporting in the aforementioned speech. This dismissive attitude toward legitimate and useful science is very disturbing in a publicly elected official who should have a mature and non-simplistic understanding of how science and technology policy lead to practical benefits. But it would appear she either has a grade school understanding of the topic, or she was attempting to manipulate her constituency through sound bites that give the impression of a scrappy everywoman fighting senseless waste of taxpayer money. If the former, she is unqualified to participate and should keep quiet. If the latter, her image is tarnished by hypocrisy. (WARNING: PDF. See $1.5M in FY08 and $400K in FY09 for fighting invasive species in Alaska)

...rather than a Daily Kos Obamista screed...

Your bias is evident and name calling simply makes your argument less credible

Yes, let's talk about politicizing science:

Supporting your views I found:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/03/21/politicizing-science/

Indeed, your entire argument appears to presented there.

The left does it even more egregiously:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/08/is-there-no-limit-to-obama-epas-politicization-of-science/

The first is a scathing indictment of BOTH parties for trying to force the square peg of science into the round holes of their ideologies. The second is simply evidence for more of the same on one side of the political spectrum. I'm not sure what your point is here...are you trying to counter my statement or simply restating what I said? Maybe I wasn't clear initially, so I'll make up for it now - I find the politically motivated manipulation of science to conform with an ideology to be a

To place even more limits on his time, he's probably had meetings with lawyers, and anything that he thinks is marginal goes to the lawyers for review. To make matters worse, Alaska has long had a shortage of technical types: Engineers, IT, et c. I've been in southern CA for a while, but the recession left me with nothing but the occasional odd job. I recently started applying with the state of Alaska (where I'm from) and have received the following advice: Apply early and often, because of a shortage of engineers has left the state in a bit of a bind. Because of the shortage of talent overall, they apparently have a single hiring manager (the person who checks references and processes applications) and won't even be able to call my references for another week. (If you're looking for work and don't mind the cold, look at the state of Alaska's job page.)

It's not risky at all. Read the Alaska Department of Revenue's forecast report.

You are correct. Unlike other states Alaska does increase the tax as oil prices rise. But guess who is responsible for that, Palin:

"Under Palin's plan, called ``Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share,'' oil company profits are taxed at a 25 percent base rate, up from the previous 22.5 percent. When the price rises to $30 over cost, or about $52 a barrel, the tax rate rises 0.2 percent for each dollar."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYdZoyTvFrTc&refer=home

Folks should flame her when she does something silly, but folks should also give her credit for things she got right.

It's not risky at all. Read the Alaska Department of Revenue's forecast report.

I'm confused. "It is not legal to grow AND sell marijuana anywhere" was my statement. You respond "Wrong, it's illegal to grow and sell marijuana in Alaska, but you can possess it."

You're confused because you've combined 2 things, the possession and the sale of marijuana. In Alaska possession of small amounts is legal but sales is illegal.

I know what the law in Alaska is better than some outsider that gets his news from blogs.

And I suppose Alaska's Attorney General and the Alaska Police Standards Council are wrong too.

it's still a violation of federal law

Federal law yes but not state law.

Oh, it would have been nice if you had included a link for this: Then respond to this comment in November.

That's almost like if they catch you with a coffee, right? Another drug that is legal. I had two bags of fresh ground on me the other day, good thing I didn't get caught or I'd be spending 10 years in prison.

Now I think you're trolling. First you make stuff up saying people oppose it when anti-prohibition votes comes up. They have not come up until now in CA and it's likely voters in CA will make it legal. Next you say troopers report those they catch to federal officials even if they can't arrest the person themselves, yet you ignored the list of law enforcement officials who support legalization I posted. Then you say "If that's the case, then we get what we deserve" as regards J Edgar Hoover. However most Americans never did have the opportunity to decide if he would head the FBI. Now you make up stuff about coffee.

However, in case you're not I invite you to prove the people have had the opportunity to make hemp, aka marijuana illegal then to make it legal again. And saying people could vote for politicians who opposed prohibition or support legalization now does not work, very few people vote for candidates based on the position of one issue only, unless it's abortion. Show me when and where a vote came up to make hemp illegal and where and when a vote came up to make legal again. That is in the US.

Yes, Palin only said that you could see Russia from Alaska, which is only a hair less idiotic when you consider that she was trying to claim that as a reason for why she has experience in international politics. Most people don't differentiate because both comments are so idiotic that there isn't a difference worth caring about.

Well, this proves the first statement is not idiotic, as you put it, but is factual.

From: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/trade/2003/tad/russia/facts.htm

"At their closest Alaska and Russia are 2.5 miles apart – the distance between Little Diomede Island, Alaska, and Big Diomede Island, Russia. The two islands straddle the U.S.-Russian maritime border in the middle of the Bering Strait. In mid-winter, when the Bering Strait freezes, it is possible to walk between the two islands – from American to Russia, from today to tomorrow, or from Russia to the United States, from today to yesterday. It is even possible to stand on the frozen Bering Strait, with one foot in America and one foot in Russia, straddling the frontiers of distant boundaries and time travel."

If you don't get the part about "today to tomorrow" and vice versa, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Date_Line

"In the north, the date line swings to the east through the Bering Strait, and then west past the Aleutian Islands to keep Alaska (part of the United States) and Russia, which are due north and south of each other in that region, on opposite sides of the line and in agreement with the date in the rest of those countries. As a result of this line-adjusting, the right to call itself "The Last Place on Earth" (that is, the latest place) goes to the westernmost Aleutian Island of Attu.

The date line passes equidistantly between the two Diomede Islands—Little Diomede Island (US) and Big Diomede Island (Russia)—at a distance of 1.5 km (1 mi) from each island."

Palin's foreign policy experience remark regarding the proximity of Russia was a humorous rebuttal and counterattack on Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. Neither of them had any. Palin was saying, humorously, that she has slightly more foreign policy experience than Obama because Russia is right next door to Alaska. This remark was twisted by the liberal mainstream media, as usual, to make a Republican candidate look bad. If you have seen the video of that rally, it is abundantly clear she was poking fun at the opposition, _not_ making a serious statement about her foreign affairs experience.

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/sp08-13.pdf

This appears to be a current summary of the Prince William Sound fisheries. Since the oil spill, PWS has been quite well studied.

http://www.lib.noaa.gov/japan/aquaculture/proceedings/report22/kron.html

The above report gives a summary of the historical data, which seems damn hard to come by online. The short form is that salmon stocks fluctuate wildly for reasons that are little understood.

The cleanup effort was a media circus. Nobody had any idea what to do about it, there were no preparations*, no science, and very little thought involved. The primary method of oil removal was to spray boiling water on the beaches. I think the idea was that if the oil didn't kill everything, the cleanup would fix that. I was reading a NOAA paper earlier on the effectiveness of that technique, which was negative, but I seem to have lost the link.

Beyond that, I can try to dig up more local sources tomorrow, if you'd like. Certainly I could provide a wealth of anecdote, but I'm sure that more concrete data is available within the community.

I am referring to Alaska Resource Rebate Palin signed in:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/487182.html
http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/ResourceRebate.aspx

The Permanent Fund was set up long ago, but the rebate bill imposed so-called windfall tax on oil industry and distributes the money as extra dividend from the Fund.

Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.

Now, let's talk about Alaska. They don't pay income tax up there. In fact, every single man, woman, and child (even infants) get paid by the government to live there. Alaskans all receive an "equitable share of the state's non-renewable resources." That certainly doesn't happen in Texas!

Now, let's talk about Palin.

Palin said: "Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"

Palin passed a windfall profits tax , literally taking profits away from oil companies, and redistributed it amongst every man, woman, and child in America, to the tune of an extra $1200 on top of what Alaskans got that year from the Permanent Fund Dividend.

Here's the one I read about earlier, I could dig through some more but I don't recall any keywords to ease my search:
http://gov.state.ak.us/print_news-23157.html/

... tax the oil (I read about $49/barrel) and give all the extra money away to all the residents while we pay for it at the pump.

First off, where do you get the "49 /barrel" from? The new formula is so complicated that I couldn't give you half an idea what it costs, although that seems a tad high.

Second, the new tax formula doesn't give it "all away" to Alaska residents. The $1200 one time (bitterly fought in the legislature) check is designed to cover the extremely high cost of retail oil in Alaska - we pay lots more than most people in the US do. Last No.1 heating oil bill I paid was $4.82 / gallon. Gas is $4.62 / gallon in SE Alaska. Both are higher in the interior.

The Permanent Fund Dividend which is given out yearly is money invested from various mostly oil related fees and taxes that goes into a special fund whos interest is proportioned on a rolling five year average. It was designed to prevent the Alaskan legislature from spending ALL the oil money on the "state" and give it back to the, ahem, citizens of said state.

Yes, it's a pretty weird situation. Alaska is a pretty weird place. I can't imagine how Ms. Palin in going to react to the weirdos inside the Beltway, but hell, she's a big girl.

About 90% of the energy involved is for (a) fertilizer

Actually the fertilizer used in conventional western farming is a petrochemical. As are the herbicides [pdf] sprayed on crops.

And don't worry, I'm plenty pissed at the Japanese for their whaling, too. When I'm given the option, I try to buy my electronics etc from other sources, and I'm happy to tell them why.

I wonder what phone number you call to explain your convictions. 10 bucks says you've never told "them" why you don't buy their electronics.

If anyone wants an actual perspective on this situation, Alaska has a FAQ about subsistence fishing and how it really works, not in the make believe world the parent is trying to describe. Don't mod me up, I'm just copying the link from someone else.

You're talking out of your ass. I don't believe you've been in a real Eskimo village. Maybe you spent some time in Barrow or Bethel or Nome or Kotzebue. Those are *towns*, not villages, and the people living there often have jobs that pay real money. In the villages where most Eskimos (and other Alaska Natives) live the unemployment rate is closer to 70%, and you hunt and fish to survive, not just for fun. You said "the parents go to work, if they are lucky enough to have a job". What do you think all those people who don't have jobs do? Wish their food into appearing?

The people living in towns also often get their food from relatives living out in the villages. They send back stuff that they can buy at the store in return. It's a fair trade, since the town people are too busy working their jobs to go out and put up food.

I grew up in Anchorage, but my father worked in construction all around the state doing mostly school repair. I traveled with him to some really remote places like Taititlek, St. Paul & St. George, Gambell & Savoonga, Point Lay, etc. I got to see what life is like in these places up close and in person. Also a number of my friends growing up were Eskimos and Indians from out in the Bush. Since I'm Tlingit, we'd go back to Southeast Alaska to visit family and go out fishing and hunting with relatives. I've never been anywhere off the road system where people didn't survive on subsistence foods to some extent, if not more than half of their diets. What you're talking about is complete nonsense.

And further evidence you have no idea what you're talking about: whales are hunted in small open boats. There are no such things as "factory killing ships". You've clearly never seen a whale hunt, and I'd be surprised if any Eskimos would invite your privileged white lazy fat ass along. I'd bet you've never gone subsistence hunting or fishing either. I certainly wouldn't invite you out or even share any of my traditional foods with you.

Come back when you've actually seen subsistence hunting and fishing, and have actually been in communities where it is the only option for the majority of the diet. And please remember to leave your bigoted opinions back in the Lower 48 where they belong.

Oh, for reference, check the State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game web page on subsistence before pulling any more bullshit out of your ass. http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/
Their FAQ is more enlightening than any of your uninformed and opinionated nonsense: http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/ab out/subfaq.cfm

You're talking out of your ass. I don't believe you've been in a real Eskimo village. Maybe you spent some time in Barrow or Bethel or Nome or Kotzebue. Those are *towns*, not villages, and the people living there often have jobs that pay real money. In the villages where most Eskimos (and other Alaska Natives) live the unemployment rate is closer to 70%, and you hunt and fish to survive, not just for fun. You said "the parents go to work, if they are lucky enough to have a job". What do you think all those people who don't have jobs do? Wish their food into appearing?

The people living in towns also often get their food from relatives living out in the villages. They send back stuff that they can buy at the store in return. It's a fair trade, since the town people are too busy working their jobs to go out and put up food.

I grew up in Anchorage, but my father worked in construction all around the state doing mostly school repair. I traveled with him to some really remote places like Taititlek, St. Paul & St. George, Gambell & Savoonga, Point Lay, etc. I got to see what life is like in these places up close and in person. Also a number of my friends growing up were Eskimos and Indians from out in the Bush. Since I'm Tlingit, we'd go back to Southeast Alaska to visit family and go out fishing and hunting with relatives. I've never been anywhere off the road system where people didn't survive on subsistence foods to some extent, if not more than half of their diets. What you're talking about is complete nonsense.

And further evidence you have no idea what you're talking about: whales are hunted in small open boats. There are no such things as "factory killing ships". You've clearly never seen a whale hunt, and I'd be surprised if any Eskimos would invite your privileged white lazy fat ass along. I'd bet you've never gone subsistence hunting or fishing either. I certainly wouldn't invite you out or even share any of my traditional foods with you.

Come back when you've actually seen subsistence hunting and fishing, and have actually been in communities where it is the only option for the majority of the diet. And please remember to leave your bigoted opinions back in the Lower 48 where they belong.

Oh, for reference, check the State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game web page on subsistence before pulling any more bullshit out of your ass. http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/
Their FAQ is more enlightening than any of your uninformed and opinionated nonsense: http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/ab out/subfaq.cfm

The Alaska point still stands (or Antartica, if you prefer): Why aren't modern "frontiersmen" mining the mountains of the south pole? It's orders of magnitude easier to reach than the moon.

If this service is available, how long till Law Enforcement starts using it? 2 seconds after you can say "um...".

Of course it could be used in a good way or a bad way by law enforcement. A good way is that Fire and Police could tie it into the 911 database. When a call is sent to the police or fire dept from 911, besides the map they currently get, they could get a picture of the house in question. Up here in Alaska a few years back, an off duty Alaska State Trooper died because the emergency response couldn't find the house. Maybe a photo of the house would help, letting them know if they can or can't see it. Of course the report linked also mentions how information can be misused.

"I know a guy who got one of the few available legal permits for grizzly bears..."

Err...few available? The license to shoot a Grizzly is $25.00 at the local supermarket. I bought one last year. Your friend could kill one Grizzly per year in some game management areas.

Link: http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=bear hunt.black_brown

Blind people also need cash to pay for their discounted hunting licenses.

Pretty much the only way Alaska could come up with that money is to increase taxes.

On some level that's true, but is it an informed opinion? Are you aware that basically Alaska doesn't have any taxes?

In fact, Alaska gives away money to residents due to its huge oil surplus.

But they still want everybody else's money for their pork.

How about a sitting senator that considers naming everything in West Virginia after himself to be his top priority? That, and having his friends in the road business pave it over with your tax dollars.

Ted Stevens is from Alaska.

In case you're wondering who's in your neighborhood...

Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Alabama [state.al.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Alaska [state.ak.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Arizona [az.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Arkansas [megans-law.net]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of California [ca.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Colorado [state.co.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Connecticut [state.ct.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Delaware [state.de.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Florida [state.fl.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Georgia [ganet.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Hawaii [megans-law.net]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Idaho [state.id.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Illinois [state.il.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Indiana [in.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Iowa [iowasexoffender.com]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Kansas [accesskansas.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Kentucky [state.ky.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Louisiana [lsp.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Maine [megans-law.net]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Maryland [state.md.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Massachusetts [mass.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Michigan [state.mi.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Minnesota [state.mn.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Mississippi [state.ms.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Missouri [missouri.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Montana [state.mt.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Nebraska [state.ne.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Nevada [nvsexoffenders.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New Hampshire [nh.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New Jersey [njsp.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New Mexico [state.nm.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New York [sta

Vegan Kha-Nyou. Excellent pet. No worries for the babies toes.

One of my favorite activities when travelling is 'local' food. It's also a great ice-breaker. With the damn animal 'rights' activists browbeatings approaching the level of 18th centiru missionaries, many people are embarrased by what the eat. As a 'westerner' travelling in 'the bush', I've found that eating the occassional fruit bat, mongoose, fetal pig, snake, insect, etc makes all the difference in getting past stereotypes. After enjoying at the 'table', asking how to catch and prepare some of these animals for consumption is even better. I know how to trap, clean, and cook a mongoose, but even better, I've made some good friends amongst people who thought all westerners looked down upon them.

If it's the government, you're stuck with it.

I guess you don't vote, do you? If your democracy works, you're not stuck with anything.

If Verizon was your carrier and they were doing it wrong, you could stop supporting them.

Not if they have a monopoly. Well, you can, but it's easier to vote for your gov't to do the same thing. Verizon is supposed to represent its shareholders. Gov't officials are supposed to represent you.

Also, the government should not do it because the government has a tendency to do things wrong.

I don't consider private enterprise to be any better. A lot of them are every bit as crooked as any politician. I find it to be very appropriate for citezens to use its gov't as a weapon against corporate bums as any other kind of bums. It gives us a way of keeping them honest, and gives the corps some honest competition. If we don't use our money to control them, then there's nothing wrong with using our vote. Either way, the choice is ours to make. We have a right to use our gov't any way we wish. If your gov't is doing things wrong, then change your gov't. Most of the world's democracies give you that option. Use it or lose it.

texas law

alaska code

findlaw's link to various state codes so you can check for yourself.

MA law is vague

KY or AK? They speak the same way in Kentucky and Alaska now?! That's pretty impressive.

One of the big problems to date has been NASA's overwhelming insistence on safety at the expense of actually developing the technology. Exploring a new, developing frontier is going to be dangerous, especially when that frontier is inimical to human life. People will be killed doing so. We lose how many people per year doing things like catching fish and crab in Alaska? (I saved you the trouble of looking it up: By the latest 5-year average, about 34 vessels sink each year, with about 24 lives lost annually.) The human cost is acceptable, though tragic. Ask the people taking these risks what they'd view as acceptable...it's a lot higher than the pundits that want to shut down space exploration. You're right....it's time, or past time, to severely thin NASA and have the government space business contracted out to private industry.

Actually Russia and Cuba are separated by International waters.

How much of international waters can you squeeze into the 2.5 mile strait that separates the Diomede Islands from each other? Ok, it's not a land boundary, but a maritime one, so maybe it doesn't count anyway. Now look for a weird case in Malaysia, two parts of the same country divided by international waters (somewhat like Hawaii and mainland USA), each sharing land boundaries with two other countries (not at all like Hawaii)...

...clueless rich people...

The clueless rich person who died in the first picture was a Boeing 777 pilot for United. His passenger who survived was in the Air Force Academy. Nobody on the ground was hurt in either of the incidents cited.

By the way, this airstrip was in the flight path of his plane after his engine failed - in fact about a mile from the crash site - and he could have easily made it before he ran out of altitude. Why didn't he use it? Because it is now a housing development.

Light aircraft serve remote areas and help people who otherwise could not afford transportation to distant hospitals. There are more people killed on the ground by lightning and falling off ladders and other ridiculous things. "Clueless rich people" keep the industry alive at a sufficient scale to make these services affordable and possible at a statistically insignificant personal risk to the rest of us.

This website is mine

Alaska Resident Search

I have linked in the (mailing) addresses of virtually the entire State of Alaska thanks to our Permanent Fund Dividend program. I also purchased a copy of the Voter Registration database, and the Division of Occupational Licencing db (that one has DOB's).

Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets

The tiny rod-shaped bacterium known as Thiobacillus ferrooxidans gets energy by oxidizing some inorganic materials such as sulfide-containing minerals. As the bacteria metabolize, they release acid and an oxidizing solution of ferric ions, which can wash metals right out of ore. The copper industry quickly and enthusiastically put this discovery to work.

Biological heap leaching is an inexpensive way to extract the metal from low-grade ores where copper is bound in a sulfide matrix. As the microbes chew up the ore, which has been treated with sulfuric acid to encourage them, the copper is released and concentrated in a solution that flows into a catch basin. The metal is extracted, and the acid solution is recycled. According to the journal Science, from which I gathered this information, fully 25 percent of the world's copper--worth about $1 billion annually--comes from such bioprocessing.

Though the busy bacteria may some day help extract copper from Alaskan ores, it's a sure bet they'll first see employment here as gold bugs. Elsewhere, T. ferrooxidans is pretreating gold-bearing ores to the satisfaction of mining companies ... to their considerable profit. Low-grade gold ore often contains the metal bound up with sulfides, and typically requires roasting or pressure oxidation to burn off the sulfides before the gold can be extracted with cyanide. Using bacteria does away with the need for the costly cooking treatments, and in at least one instance has improved the rate of gold recovery from 70 to 95 percent.

Now, I have to live here, too. I don't want my work area looking like a moonscape, so we actively reclaim the ground as we mine it. As a result, not only do we make a very small impact while we are mining, but we also leave behind habitat for wildlife (example: Moose love shallow ponds, as do migratory birds-they also love the grasses we plant to stabilize the soil). We also reclaim areas left by others. It is unfortunate that the miner has been vilified by the popular press.

I couldn't find anything out about the UK but this is what I found out about the US and Alaska specificaly is the following.

Alaska has "23 miles of road per 1,000 population. This is 50% more than the US average of 15 miles of road per 1,000 population"(DoT Alaska)

The same Libertarian Party that believes that govt is evil and corporations would never choose profits over the public welfare?

How big does it look on this map?

Oh please. Do you know any facts about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, details of cleanup, or just how much money Exxon spent in the process?

Let's see, according to details found throughout the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council web site, Exxon:

• spent 2.1 billion on cleanup
• employed, at the peak of the cleanup effort, 10,000 workers, and used over 1,000 boats and 100 airplanes & helicopters

  The small town of Valdez literally exploded in size due to the army of people who arrived to aid in cleanup efforts.

• was fined $150 million in criminal liabilities, of which $125 million was forgiven "in recognition of Exxon's cooperation in cleaning up the spill and paying certain private claims"
• paid an additional $100 million in criminal restitution
• paid another $900 million in civil settlements over the next 10 years

What other consequences were there as a result of the spill?

• Captain Hazelwood was fined $50,000 and ordered to serve 1,000 hours of community service. Incidentally, he was found not guilty of the charge of operating the vessel while under the influence of alcohol.
• The ship was repaired, renamed, and now hauls oil in the Mediterranean.
• The ship is prohibited by law from returning to Prince William Sound.

Furthermore, spill preparedness and response capabilities have increased drastically. I won't go into details (read the web site if you're interested), but the industry and local communities are much more capable of handling a similar accident today. Most importantly, they'd be able to contain it before it gets as out of hand as the Exxon Valdez spill did.

Was the accident a tragedy? Sure it was. But basically what you have is a big company taking the heat for what was basically the crew screwing up. Am I saying Exxon shouldn't have been held responsible? Not at all. But "complete disregard for the people of Alaska...", that's a bit far-fetched.

Here we are, over 14 years later, looking at a disaster some said at the time would NEVER reach any sort of decent recovery. For the most part, you can't find any obvious signs of the spill throughout the areas affected. Local fishing and other industries have been restored, and wildlife is on the mend. Many of the wildlife species still recovering are admittedly unknown in their progress, as environmentalists are unsure of pre-spill conditions and are unable to accurately guage their condition today.

Accidents happen. Sometimes BIG accidents happen. That's the price we pay for progress and modern conveniences. But the world didn't end. In fact, here in Alaska, things cleaned up rather well and there were several positive results that wouldn't have happened had the spill not occurred. Sure, we'd all rather these things not happen, but they do. I'm no corporate apologist, but I'm tired of the attitude that corporations are basically evil (except for the people they employ and the nice products they provide for us). I really wouldn't care to go back to the days where everything is handmade at home, grown at home, or purchased from the local general store. Hmm, let's go back 100, 200, why not thousands of years? Anybody?

As a miner, I think I'll stick with my metal bike for now. Unfortunately, since I mine for gold and platinum-group metals here in Alaska, and a little gemstones and other interesting minerals, I'm holding out for a gem-encrusted strategic-and-critical minerals bike.

Plus I grow weary of this save the earth crap.

"If there's no time for fun, then what are we saving the planet for?"

So, let me see if I've got this right. You have an indeterminant amount of time to spend in the US. You can go anywhere you want to go and do anything you want to do. And you want to spend it in computer museums, big bookstores, and the Smithsonian? Granted, these are all neat places to visit, but why do you want to geek up a perfectly good vacation?

My advice? Ditch the nerd stuff and do something outside.

Learn to kayak in Colorado.
Hike in one of the last beautiful places on Earth.
Play in the water at a beautiful beach in Florida.
Or go to one of the best beaches in Mexico.
Slide around on snow on purpose.
Go to one of the last truly wild places.

There is so much to see in North America. Please don't spend your whole trip at Frys.

Come to Alaska, enough of an existing libertarian mindset and only 600,000 some residents to overpower. I think most would enjoy the economical benefits of being a major technology hub anyway. Residents get free money, too.

1. Google Cache of State Do Not Call lists which has been relaced by FTC List of State Registries
   
   
2. The DMA's list Useful cache versus the Real soon now revised list
   

require[s] that [telemarketer's] do-not-call request records must be maintained for 10 years after a request is
made.

The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the
establishment and operation of a single national database to compile
a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to
receiving telephone solicitations,

"Do Not Call Law"(Alaska's Black Dot Law)
AS 45.50.475 prohibits telephone solicitation of persons identified in a telephone directory as not wishing to receive telephone solicitations. These telephone customers have a "black dot" by their name in the directory. The statute also requires local telephone companies to provide a list of "black dot" customers to telephone solicitors who request one.
For a small fee, your local telephone company will identify your residential listing in your telephone directory with a

• black dot.
• This informs telephone solicitors that you do not want to receive telephone solicitations.

Invest in some skepticism.

Fair enough.

"In our next story, the economic downturn hasn't been affecting everyone. Manokotak, a tiny village in Alaska has been experiencing a huge tourism boom, after villages reported sightings of a "fucking huge, pterodactyl-like beast". Asked whether he feels the creature will show itself soon to any tourists, the village mayor responded, "Sure, and you can make your chances even better by investing in a pair of official Manokotak beast-spotting binoculars. And perhaps you'd prefer to do your watching through the enormous plate-glass windows of our comfortable beast-themed Manokotak restauraunt."

Claims that the beast is a hoax have been violently rejected by villages. One man said, "That's stupid. Who would have anything to gain in making up a story about a giant bird?"

Visit the Alaska Community Database for more info on Manokotak (including a better location map).