Slashdot Mirror

There are so many weasel words baked into this that no ISP on the planet could be confident they wouldn't fall afoul of it, and so many exceptions that state agencies can pretty much do whatever they want anyway.

Here's the relevant language from the enrolled version of the bill:

(3) A public body may not contract with a broadband Internet access service provider that, at any time on or after the operative date specified in section 3 of this 2018 Act:
(a) Engages in paid prioritization;
(b) Blocks lawful content, applications or services or nonharmful devices;
(c) Impairs or degrades lawful Internet traffic for the purpose of discriminating against or favoring certain Internet content, applications or services or the use of nonharmful devices;
(d) Unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably disadvantages an end user’s ability to select, access and use the broadband Internet access service or lawful Internet content, applications or services or devices of the end user’s choice; or
(e) Unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably disadvantages an edge provider’s ability to make devices or lawful content, applications or services available to end users.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, a public body may contract with a broadband Internet access service provider that:
(a) Is the sole provider of fixed broadband Internet access service to the geographic location subject to the contract;
(b) Engages in any of the activities described in subsection (3) of this section in the process of addressing copyright infringement or other unlawful activity or the needs of emergency communications, law enforcement, public safety or national security authorities;
(c) Engages in paid prioritization if the Public Utility Commission determines that the broadband Internet access service provider’s paid prioritization provides significant public interest benefits and does not harm the open nature of the provided broadband Internet access service;
(d) Engages in any activities described in subsection (3)(b) to (d) of this section if the Public Utility Commission determines that the broadband Internet access service provider’s engagement in the activity is reasonable network management. An activity is reasonable network management if the activity:
(A) Has a technical network management justification;
(B) Does not include other business practices; and
(C) Is narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology
    of the broadband Internet access service; or
(e) Engaged in any of the activities described in subsection (3) of this section at any time on or after the operative date specified in section 3 of this 2018 Act if:
(A) The broadband Internet access service provider certifies that it has ceased engaging in all of the activities described in subsection (3) of this section; and
(B) The Public Utility Commission determines that allowing a public body to contract with the broadband Internet access service provider provides significant public interest benefits.

(5)(a) A broadband Internet access service provider engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service to a public body shall publicly disclose information regarding the provider’s network management practices and performance characteristics and the commercial terms of the provider’s broadband Internet access service sufficient for end users to verify that the service is provided in compliance with subsections (3) and (4) of this section.

This is a non-issue.

Will the poor be affected? Not really; the law only applies to new bicycles, and the poor buy used. There is a massive economy in secondhand bicycles; I am a dozen blocks from a secondhand bicycle shop, not because I happen to live in a particular neighborhood, but because it's hard not to be a dozen blocks from a secondhand bicycle shop in the Willamette Valley.

Is this an unfair amount? Well, the same law in the same package also applies a tax to new motor vehicles, and it's 0.5% of retail price. A $20k car comes with a tax of $100. Nobody seems to be complaining about that!

I suspect that bicyclists are irritated that this tax is brand-new, smells like a sales tax, doesn't exist anywhere else, and seems disproportionate. I'd like to remind them that the extensive and amazing bicycle paths that cities like Eugene and Portland have are not free for the cities to maintain.

Make sure to read the law; it starts at page 187 of https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/12431

I can use all the basic controls in my car without looking.

Not everyone can, because not everyone memorizes where they are or which function is at which detent. And advanced controls are worse. But then, there are people who can operate their phone without looking at it, too, so if the controls of your vehicle are exempt from consideration as distractions, so to should cell phones be exempted.

Note that the "controls" of your vehicle would include the display from your Sirius radio, and if you don't think that looking at the display to see the name of the artist playing that song you're listening to is a distraction, then you don't own a Sirius radio.

The problem is, the issue is not what highly capable people can and are doing, it is what normal people do. Normal people are distracted by tuning the radio and other people in the car.

I don't care what someone does with their phone while driving, as long as they don't have to look at it.

Perhaps you missed the point that I was making, in that the argument about distracted driving that most people make regarding phones applies just as much to a lot of other things, like tuning the radio, and sometimes even just listening to it.

But that's not what happens - people read social media while driving, FFS.

Sadly, while that is the way the argument against using cell phones while driving is typically presented, eliminating that is not the result that anti-phone zealots seek. They wish the elimination of the "use" of phones, not just the obviously serious distractions they can present.

Oregon House Bill 2597 says, in part:

(c) "Using a mobile electronic device" includes but is not limited to using a mobile electronic device for text messaging, voice communication, entertainment, navigation, accessing the Internet or producing electronic mail.
(2) A person commits the offense of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device if the person, while operating a motor vehicle on a highway:
(a) Holds a mobile electronic device in the person's hand; or
(b) Uses a mobile [communication] electronic device for any purpose.

The emphasis is mine. The law is specific in saying that you cannot use them for entertainment (playing audio) or for navigation. That means it would be illegal to start up a five hour audio book on your cell phone to listen to during your one hour commute, even though you don't have to touch the phone in any way from the time you press play while parked in your garage until you press "stop" after parking at work. "Any purpose" would be illegal. As is just holding it in your hand.

But holding a cup of coffee in your hand is not illegal.

The existing Oregon law has exemptions for ham and other licensed radio operators, and people participating in emergency service or public safety activities, but those exemptions would be removed.

So, while you cry about "people read[ing] social media", stopping just that is not the goal. If eliminating distracted driving were the true goal, then there would be a law that children under the age of 14 would need to be stored in the trunk.

I would argue that there be sanity in any regulation on "distracting" devices. Either accept that there are a lot of them and go after them all, permanently installed or not, or accept that there are times when it is NOT a problem for someone to use a cell phone in a car.

For example, while at a complete stop at a red light. OMG, someone stepped out in front of your car and you didn't see them! BFD. You aren't moving, and the only way they will come in contact with your car is if they walk into it themselves. They can do that whether or not I'm changing the playlist on my audio player.

Since the court went the way they went, expect some companies in Oregon to go back and spell out very clearly that when you are using company equipment in violation of company policy, your authorization to use the equipment is immediately suspended for the duration of your out-of-policy use and, as a result, you are violating Oregon state law and that the company reserves the right to press charges.

Personally, I think the court made the right decision, because 1) it's very easy for companies to "work around it" by modifying their policies...

Which will have absolutely no effect. The court opinion does not leave room "suspension for the duration of out-of-policy use." It's quite clear (pp. 41-42) in that respect:

"Viewed in that light, the text supports defendant's assertion that her use of the lottery terminal to print Keno tickets -- as she was trained and permitted by her employer to do -- was "authorized" use. The fact that she printed the tickets for her own use and did not pay for them may have violated company policies and other parts of the computer crime statute (in addition to the theft statute), but her use was not "without authorization" as that term is used in ORS 164.377(4). That conclusion is supported by the evidence that, once a store manager had signed into the terminal and activated it at the beginning of the work day, employees such as defendant could use the terminal to print Keno tickets without additional authentication or permission. When defendant physically accessed and used the terminal to print Keno tickets, that access and use was authorized by her employer. Moreover, there was, for example, no evidence that defendant circumvented any computer security measures, misused another employee's password, or accessed any protected data. The sole basis for the state's claim that defendant's printing of Keno tickets was "unauthorized" was the employer's policy that employees were not supposed to print tickets for their own use and were supposed to obtain payment for tickets before printing them."

Saying that "we really, really mean that our policy is that you are not authorized to print tickets for your own use and without obtaining payment" does not change that analysis. It's not a "magic word" case, it's a physical process case. If you authorize an employee to access the computer and do not set up actual access controls to prevent an employee from engaging in misuse, such misuse might be a crime, but cannot be this crime.

all I could find is that the _sewage_ cannot be used in _organic_ plants. So I call bull

Before making a fool of yourself, you should be looking for the opposite... ANYONE who says human excrement CAN be used on food crops. You won't find it.

But I can give you a start:

(a) Humus from composting toilets may be used around ornamental shrubs, flowers, trees, or fruit trees and shall be buried under at least twelve inches of soil cover. Deposit of humus from any compost toilet around any edible vegetable or vegetation shall be prohibited;
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/...

You'll find mostly the same restrictions, in almost every state.

Federal rules are... less concise. They require permitting, long time periods between last applying waste and when crops can be harvested, lots of remediation steps, etc., etc.:

Food, feed, or fiber crops may not be grown on an active biosolids unit unless the owner or operator of the surface disposal site can demonstrate to the permitting authority that through management practices public health and the environment are protected from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain pollutants that may be present in biosolids.
https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/...

I've had no contact with the Care Oregon people, but my 20-plus years of contact with State Department of Human Services (DHS) IT management (as a contractor to local governments) has shown me just the opposite. Over that time what I observed was a massive NIH complex that can reasonably be described as arrogant, paired with equally massive incompetence.

Their trail is littered with failed projects. For example, look at Oregon Pathways, with which I was closely involved in its early stages. Pathways spent more than $500k and actually won national awards for excellence--without producing more than a mocked-up demo. Lots of time and money sent swirling down the drain.

Better still, look at a project that actually was built and is in use today: Oregon Access. It was conceived in the 1990's by DHS as a PC-based (Sybase/Powerbuiler) replacement for mainframe systems used to administer Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. It also was intended to give local governments that do the actual case work extensive 'access' to client data in the system for their own use in management--hence the project name. The first parts of the system were put into production use in the late '90s (I worked on some local-gov installs).

The first casualty occurred early on and it was. ironcally, access. Only one county (Lane) was able to connect to the system before direct database access was eliminated, so that only the inteface devloped by DHS could be used. The mainframes never were replaced, so the poor users had to learn two systems: Windows-based Access and text-based mainframe running in a terminal emulator (later replaced by an IE6-only Web interface).

My view of Access was from the user end. A substantial amount of my business came from developing software for users that filled gaps in Access. For example, Medicaid-funded Adult Protective Services. State management decided that they needed extensive statistics that Access did not provide. Their solution was simple: tell the local offices to generate it themselves. I was engaged by one to develop a database application that would enable them to do that. Plus, we added such obvious things as searching cases by name so they could get a case number--which was the only way to find a case in Access! (When, a few years later, that unit was transferred to the State, they killed the application so that the work had to be done by hand.)

For the user, Oregon Access is a nightmare. Consider this page of case management tools for APD (Aging and People with Disabilites) staff. I particularly like the 191-slide Powerpoint stack that explains the "basics" of using just the client assessment portion of Access. And note the PDF forms that have to be filled out and emailed to Salem.

Better still are the forms (not seen there) that are generated from within Oregon Access using internal data, which are then printed by the case manager and faxed or mailed (USPS) to Salem, where they are processed by someone using Oregon Access. Duh. I can't tell you the hilarity that ensued when the local folks received notice of the State's response to complaints about this lunacy: install a "Print to file" printer and PDF-conversion software, then for each use of a form, go through the many-step process of printing, converting, and attaching it to an email instead of fax or surface mail. Problem solved!

Now, Cover Oregon is a product of the Oregon Health Authority, which was split off from DHS. Bruce Goldberg, OHA director during this mess, was previously director of DHS. The evidence seems to refute the notion that all the incompetence of DHS was left behind when OHA branched off.

My personal view is that this affair is nicely characterized by: "Incompetent Mark Meets Con Artist".

Whoa, what country are you from? Blinking yellow is a yield, just like any 2 way stop intersection. When you don't have a stop sign in your direction, it is, and has always been, an implied yield. The yield signs just emphasize the point because a lot of people won't yield properly and think they own the road.

Here in the United States, in the state of Oregon, a blinking yellow is a cautionary signal, it is not a yield. Here is the driver's manual as a reference. Same rules in the state of Washington and Calfornia. I haven't checked the rest of country but to my knowledge the rules for basic traffic signals are consistent across the entire US.

Where are you from where this is not the case?

If you want the real scoop, check out what our local newspaper wrote:
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/12/oregons_health_exchange_woes_s_1.html

TL;DR: Someone thought control should be handed over to private industry, Oracle was signed up to create the website, they totally screwed it up, and now the website is basically useless and for a long while wasn't even able to sign people up.

So while the public/Democrat finger pointing is good and all (and I don't know who wrote up this summary, they're totally ill informed, outside of Portland Oregon is mostly conversative, in fact here is a map http://bluebook.state.or.us/facts/almanac/almanac10.htm ), it's really that Oracle screwed everyone over. That's the real story, and the state is looking for a way to get their money back.

Well, GP is blabbering on without a clear idea of what he's talking about, but given that the military (and IMO only legitimate) definition of the "assault rifle" is a rifle or carbine that is (1) select-fire and (2) chambered for an intermediate cartridge, he's not quite wrong about the deer-hunting thing. (Most states actually forbid use of legally-owned select-fire weapons for hunting, but we'll focus on part 2.) Note however, that "small arms" in military parlance includes everything from handguns to sniper rifles to 7.62 machine guns -- the word "small" is meant in comparison to crew-served weapons -- so if he's right about the cartridges it's more due to luck than knowledge.

OTOH, the news and entertainment media generally don't know or don't care much about firearms, and the general public (including witnesses of this attack) learn from there, so there's no telling what the term "assault rifle" actually refers to, so trying to figure out what cartridge he was using from the use of that term is a singularly foolish pursuit.

Can you elaborate, and provide sources. I am not aware of specific rifles being banned for deer hunting. Nor am I aware of cartridge rules, other than a centerfire requirement.

Of course cartridge legality varies state to state. Many states have rules based on some combination (rational or not) of one or more of: caliber, velocity, case length, and energy; the effect in most states is to prohibit modern assault rifle cartridges (e.g. 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39). Sometimes 7.62x39 is OK, sometimes not.

I can't be bothered to make sure it's right, but a brief google for your state turned up this, which suggests that Oregon is more permissive and simple than most, apparently permitting any .22 caliber or larger centerfire for taking deer, while taking e.g. elk requires .24 caliber or larger.

(Note that, if Oregon law is as simple as that page suggests, it's so loose as to defeat the point of having cartridge restrictions in the first place, as it seems to permit a carbine in .25 ACP for taking elk, while forbidding .220 Swift for elk or .17 Remington for deer.)

If a specific cartridge, say the .223 were banned for its inability to kill, why is a bow legal?

Well, there's two answers to that. The physics-geek one is to do some math about momentum and/or kinetic energy of arrows (which are much slower, but much, much heavier) vs. bullets, maybe throw in some notion of the difference between the wound channels produced by broadheads and bullets, and argue that some arrows are rather more lethal than some assault-rifle rounds (which, despite not having done the math, I'm pretty sure is true).

But the real answer is: because laws aren't rational. Bowhunting is, at this point, a traditional sport pursued for fun, and banning it on humane grounds (whether or not this would make sense from a physics perspective) will be perceived as a killjoy assault on tradition, and will not be politically viable. As I said, I'm pretty sure some arrows exceed the performance of the rifle rounds in question anyway, so I suspect a more rational approach would involve requiring bowhunting setups to meet a minimum momentum or energy standard. However, this would be effectively banning bowhunting for those too small and/or weak to draw a bow with enough energy to meet the requirements, and would be portrayed as an assault on tradition and discrimination against women bowhunters, and would likewise be politically unviable. By contrast, a restriction on rifle chamberings just means a few hunters need to buy a new rifle, then go on hunting -- some will grumble, some will see it as a good excuse to buy the gun they wanted but their wife wouldn't let them buy, but it won't be near as disruptive to the sport.

OBVIOUSLY a city person then. I actually find the smell of several varieties of burning organics to be quite pleasant, which is why I own one of these babies to flavor my food:
http://www.smokehouseproducts.com/prod_lure_select.cfm?Stock=9900&ProductNo=9900-000-0000

and go to a church that uses one of these occasionally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurible

and used to look forward to the end of my allergies every year when the farmers did this:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/factsheets/07aq019_field.pdf
at least until the city people in Eugene and Salem complained (gee, what part of "don't drive through a dense cloud of smoke" is so hard to understand?!?!?).

When it comes to the smoke from untreated paper (which is really, just finely ground wood mixed with water), it isn't my favorite burning smell, but it's a good sight better than the carcinogenic, oily, black stuff that you get burning plastic.

Commercial vehicles in Oregon purchase PUC fuel, which has no state tax because they pay per mile, depending on their weight.

http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/motcarr/reg/9928.pdf

Cite: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/reuse/docs/graywater/FinalGWACRecommendations.pdf

This is the document my state's DEQ used to back up changes to the laws that required all greywater be treated.

They didn't try him twice. The prosecutor decided what to charge him with, and decided instead of charging him with a "misdemeanor" or "felony" (where he'd obviously have the option for a jury trial), they instead decided to charge him with a "violation." A violation in Oregon is an offense like a traffic ticket, parking ticket, possession of a small amount of some drugs for personal use such as less than one ounce of marijuana, etc. Penalties for a violation generally just consist of a fine, can also include other penalties, but cannot include jail time.

Here's some more information about violations in Oregon:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/153.html

The article says it was a cat. Cats, by definition, are not wild. Some of them may be feral, but they are never wild.

Apparently you don't live in Oregon. We have wild cats. We call them cougars or mountain lions and they can fuck your day up. They have been getting a bad rep for pouncing on mountain bikers. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cougar/

Having recently looked at the Oregon version, your scenario fails:

Lockheed Martin (assuming oregon jurisdiction applied) would need to use products of company B, for the suit to apply.

Possibly, the product from B would need to /include/ the "misappropriated information technology". I was uncertain of the wording.

On the other hand, a) Lockheed Martin would have to defend itself regardless of the truth of the allegation, b) L.M. would have to prove compliance with "force your suppliers to submit to the BSA", and c) the law would permit Chinese company A to do an on-site inspection of L.M.'s products, /information technology/, files, records, etc. during discovery.

Sue someone, look at their IT and products. How great is that?

After Facebook gets the "Face" trademark, they can start sueing right away. These businesses (in Oregon only; first google hit) have been using the word "Face" in their business names for many years already, so clearly they are violating Facebooks trademark.

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.do_name_srch?p_name=FACE&p_regist_nbr=&p_srch=PHASE1&p_print=FALSE&p_entity_status=ACTINA

Oregon Statute 480.315

480.315 Policy. The Legislative Assembly declares that, except as provided in ORS 480.345 to 480.385, it is in the public interest to maintain a prohibition on the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
(1) The dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by dispensers properly trained in appropriate safety procedures reduces fire hazards directly associated with the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids;
(2) Appropriate safety standards often are unenforceable at retail self-service stations in other states because cashiers are often unable to maintain a clear view of and give undivided attention to the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by customers;
(3) Higher liability insurance rates charged to retail self-service stations reflect the dangers posed to customers when they leave their vehicles to dispense Class 1 flammable liquids, such as the increased risk of crime and the increased risk of personal injury resulting from slipping on slick surfaces;
(4) The dangers of crime and slick surfaces described in subsection (3) of this section are enhanced because Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse, causing wet pavement and reduced visibility;
(5) The dangers described in subsection (3) of this section are heightened when the customer is a senior citizen or has a disability, especially if the customer uses a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, walker, cane or crutches;
(6) Attempts by other states to require the providing of aid to senior citizens and persons with disabilities in the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail have failed, and therefore, senior citizens and persons with disabilities must pay the higher costs of full service;
(7) Exposure to toxic fumes represents a health hazard to customers dispensing Class 1 flammable liquids;
(8) The hazard described in subsection (7) of this section is heightened when the customer is pregnant;
(9) The exposure to Class 1 flammable liquids through dispensing should, in general, be limited to as few individuals as possible, such as gasoline station owners and their employees or other trained and certified dispensers;
(10) The typical practice of charging significantly higher prices for full-service fuel dispensing in states where self-service is permitted at retail:
(a) Discriminates against customers with lower incomes, who are under greater economic pressure to subject themselves to the inconvenience and hazards of self-service;
(b) Discriminates against customers who are elderly or have disabilities who are unable to serve themselves and so must pay the significantly higher prices; and
(c) Increases self-service dispensing and thereby decreases maintenance checks by attendants, which results in neglect of maintenance, endangering both the customer and other motorists and resulting in unnecessary and costly repairs;
(11) The increased use of self-service at retail in other states has contributed to diminishing the availability of automotive repair facilities at gasoline stations;
(12) Self-service dispensing at retail in other states does not provide a sustained reduction in fuel prices charged to customers;
(13) A general prohibition of self-service dispensing o

According to the Oregon Driver's Manual of 2010-2011, "Round Yellow – Do not enter the intersection if you can stop safely. Pedestrians facing a yellow light must not start across the street unless a pedestrian signal directs otherwise."

In your instance, then it's considered valid since to stop would be unsafe. In most instances (i.e. when jackasses plow through instances to beat the red), a traffic violation has been committed when the motorist is entering the intersection on the yellow.

I have read that before the Civil war, even Lincoln expressed the opinion that states had the right to secede. He just believed that it would destroy the Union, and so could not allow it. (There is a long history of Presidents doing things they believed were not constitutional, including Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase.)

There are those who believe that this and other Lincoln policies really began the inexorable slurping of power from the states to the federal government. Prior to the Civil War the government was so small that it was supported largely by revenues from the Post Office (mail was a lot more expensive then than now). The first individual income tax was passed in 1862 to fund the costs of the Civil War. It was later ruled unconstitutional, and in 1913 a constitutional amendment was passed specifically for this purpose.

OTOH, it is not at all obvious that secession is a right:

If one grants that the states had a Constitutional "right" to secede, then after secession the seceded states quickly become hostile belligerents, and those who seceded after the attack on Fort Sumter became traitors. If you have the right, we have the right to come kick your ass. (Mighty generous of us to restore the rebel states to full status and let them resume self-governance!) If one does not grant such a right exists in the Constitution, then it was indeed a "civil war," and falls under the insurrection clause. Which clause itself seems to argue against secession as a right.

Secession and the Constitution

I recall from my childhood that Oregon, which became a state in 1859, had a clause in its1857 constitution, approved by Congress at statehood, specifically giving it the right to secede. (I could not find a reference in my quick online search.) Much to my dismay, in the 1970s or 1980s when Oregonians approved a new constitution that clause was dropped. That leaves open the question of whether in so doing they gave up that right.

No, GP is right. Under my state's law (YMMV) the victim's disposition has nothing to do with the initial crime. It may serve as a mitigating factor (again YMMV) if the crime boss extorted the defendant, but he's still going to go down for murder, and possibly burglary depending on where the crime is committed. ORS163.005 Criminal homicide. (1) A person commits criminal homicide if, without justification or excuse, the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another human being. (2) “Criminal homicide” is murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide or aggravated vehicular homicide. (3) “Human being” means a person who has been born and was alive at the time of the criminal act. [1971 c.743 87; 2007 c.867 4] Source: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html

The Oregon situation isn't this eggregious. Oregon does not charge for access to the state laws, in fact, the state has had them online for years, persuant to the Oregon Sunshine Act of 1973

The Oregon situation isn't this eggregious. Oregon does not charge for access to the state laws, in fact, the state has had them online for years, persuant to the Oregon Sunshine Act of 1973

What biosafety level (if any) is the lab?

From TFA: "Lab researchers who work with the bacteria would typically wear gloves, a lab coat and protective goggles, and the bacteria would be disposed of in a biohazard bag and heated for about two hours, Alexander said."

So, BSL1, the "Maybe don't keep it in the same fridge as your lunch" level.

Apparently you only need BSL2 to work with (unmodified) Y. pestis, though (CDC link), so it's not exactly "special procedures", either.

We're not talking about actual laws here but just the Oregon DOJ's interpretation of how to apply them. The actual laws are available here (although with the disclaimer that in the case of discrepancies the printed version is the official version).

The document is question is not the law but the Oregon DOJ's interpretation of it for practical application by other state agencies. The actual laws are available somewhere in the links on this page.

The latest absurdity to come out of my home state.

If you're an Oregonian and you think this is stupid, tell John Kroger.

Even more Ironic: Many of these came about due to complaints from the media, caused by one School district.

A few years ago, the publicly elected board of a very small rural school district in southern Oregon decided to investigate some reports of fraud, embezzlement, unfair contract favoritism, and lots of other nasty allegations about some employees at the school. Not the teachers, but, if I remember right, the food service, facilities, etc. So the board hired someone they liked to investigate. (He happened to also be the school board's lawyer). So he did his investigation, and when they did the presentation to the board, they kicked everyone out of the room, chatted for a few minutes, and let everyone back in.. then the board said "there was nothing in the report that showed any truth the rumors". So people asked to see the damn report. And the board claimed it was Attorney client privilege under state of Oregon law, which is not available under the open records laws.

Basically, the Gist of why every newspaper and TV channel (and a bunch of citizens) were filing objections, was the district was arguing that even if they pay a lawyer to do anything for the district (even write a book report) that could be considered client-attorney privilege, if the board decides.

Well, that and the people were pissed that the Small school district, that had huge money problems, had a roof collapse in a school they couldn't afford to fix, etc.. spent huge amounts of money, appealing rulings too keep secret a report paid for with tax payer dollars, about how tax payer dollars were potentially being abused. (I don't miss living in the small towns)
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A126655.htm

The "official" reason why you are not allowed to pump your own gas in Oregon
is that ...

way back in the Year of Our Lord 1982 the good people of Oregon rejected an initiative to permit self service gasoline.

November 2, 1982 -- Item 4 -- "Permits Self-Service Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel at Retail"
FOR: 440,824 AGAINST: 597,970

While I agree that coming from a culture that does not value education does put you at a disadvantage, your generalizations come off as racist. Look at my daughter's school district. At Barnes Elementary, 87% of blacks meet the state math minimum proficiency standard, as opposed to 86% for whites. At Hazeldale Elementary, only 33% of blacks meet the math proficiency standard, as opposed to 83% of whites. This is not a cultural difference -- Barnes has far more lower income students; if anything they should have more anti-learning culture. I believe the difference lies almost entirely in the teachers' expectations of students. Hazeldale has a (literally) all white staff that doesn't expect minority students to do well and thus focuses their attention on the white students. Barnes has a Latino principal and a more racially diverse staff; apparently they have the same high expectations for all their students.

While I agree that coming from a culture that does not value education does put you at a disadvantage, your generalizations come off as racist. Look at my daughter's school district. At Barnes Elementary, 87% of blacks meet the state math minimum proficiency standard, as opposed to 86% for whites. At Hazeldale Elementary, only 33% of blacks meet the math proficiency standard, as opposed to 83% of whites. This is not a cultural difference -- Barnes has far more lower income students; if anything they should have more anti-learning culture. I believe the difference lies almost entirely in the teachers' expectations of students. Hazeldale has a (literally) all white staff that doesn't expect minority students to do well and thus focuses their attention on the white students. Barnes has a Latino principal and a more racially diverse staff; apparently they have the same high expectations for all their students.

For Oregon the office to report Judge misconduct is http://www.ojd.state.or.us/aboutus/cjfd/index.htm I bet there is one for Illinois. File a report even if you think it will not help. Can someone forward this to the folks who wound up in court and to the legal staff at EFF. I had a judge ignore the rule of law in lower court and I later won on Appeal with only a written brief, no oral argument needed. In addition to his disregard for the rule of law, he was on transcript for cutting me off and declaring me guilty before I could finish any statement. I quote him "let me clue you in" and telling me if the cops tell me to do something ( turns out it was illegal ) I had "better do it or wind up back in court". Judges, Lawyers and cops are all in a close circle and they all look out for each other. I'd post more links if I thought it was safe here.

Funny thing about tracking http://www.leg.state.or.us/senate/senateset.htm Check the state house, and the governor. They seem to be mostly Democrats 7-to-2.

A little while back, the law that did not allow liquor stores to be open on Sundays was changed. Now, it is up to the leasee whether or not they want to be open on Sunday or not. You can see which ones are open from their list.

So does Oregon and most state's that don't have 100's of thousands of lawyers.

Sometimes such evidence can be thrown out of a case (see STATE OF OREGON v. VITALIY V. MATVIYENKO). In such an event, only the circumstantial or eyewitness evidence will be admissible -- the officer's testimony that the driver was drunk, and (if we're lucky) his video, or maybe a few additional witnesses.

Imagine, if you will, that someone gets pulled over for swerving erratically. The officer gives him a sobriety test, which he fails, and then breathalyses him, which he also fails. However, the breathalyzer is thrown out for a reason such as the one above, and then in court the man swears up and down that he wasn't even drinking that night, that maybe he was just a little tired. Now, the officer's testimony might not be enough to convict him in this case. But imagine if the cross examiner could come up immediately afterwards and grill the witness about the information in this database which shows he was at a bar just an hour earlier?

Don't get me wrong, I like my privacy. I also don't like bloated federal programs that may not have any tangible benefit whatsoever. But I don't think that busting someone who is DUII is ever a bad thing; I mean, to sound perfectly cheesy, when you drive drunk, everyone loses. Pointing out that this system might reduce DUII's is really a bad argument for axing it.

Okay, I'm going to second the AC before me: What the hell is a sur-reply? I can't find a definition online nor in Black's Law Dictionary for it.

Here's a link to Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, if that'll help, but I can't find anything to suggest whether that's true or what that might even mean. Oregon still retains fact pleading rules instead of FRCP pleading rules, but I'm not sure if that's relevant.

... but I am as confident as I am that the Sun will rise tomorrow that it will be safe from terrorists. After all, we have the children to think about.

July 12, 2005

Copyright © 2005 Michael David Crawford.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

It seems that David Clark, who led the development of the Internet way back in the '70's - did you know there even was a '70's? - wants to create a whole new Internet that will fix many of the problems the current Internet is plagued with. The New Internet's engineers will be much more careful this time around to make sure it works better than the first one did.

I'm afraid, though, that the engineers are not the only ones who will be deciding how our New Internet will work.

If one is able to find any privacy or anonymity in this New Internet, it will be because of some undiscovered security hole, which will be quickly repaired, rather than any kind of conscious design decision. Probably one reason they are accepting proposals before rolling it out is to avoid the sort of accidental security holes that enable pr0n, peer-to-peer filesharing and left-wing political activism.

Microsoft, a leading contributor both to this nation's technology base and to the campaign coffers of its leaders, will embrace this new technology and extend it in such a way that the development and dissemination of Open Source software will be, if not mathematically and physically impossible, at least as intractible as factoring a 2048-bit public key.

Imagine, if you will, Trusted Computing implemented at the router level, in such a way that any packets that go farther than one hop are certified not only to support protocols whose patent licenses are fully paid-up and on file with the legal department in Redmond, but whose content is compliant with the Windows standard. The faintest whisp of a Public License, GNU or otherwise, will result in the dropping not only of the individual packet, not only in the cancellation of the entire file transmission, but, within microseconds, the reporting of the physical location of the offending server to responsible law enforcement personnel. The identities of its rogue administrators will be fetched instantly from the database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. (You will have to submit fingerprints and DNA samples to obtain a Windows server license, as after all, Internet servers can be used to disseminate explosives r

The problem you run into is, what happens if you lose your citizenship? Take a gander at section 501 of the (poorly named) Patriot Act of 2001:


Section 501 would allow the federal government to strip the citizenship of an American citizen, if that person provided "material support" to a group the United States has designated as a terrorist organization. If you gave money to an overseas religious charity-later classified as a front organization for a terrorist group-you could lose your citizenship.

(From here: http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/pipermail/libs-or/2003-February/000739.html)

This looks ripe for abuse, especially when you can start to include just about anything in the incredibly vague category of "material support".

He could have been accused of terrorism.. These days, pretty much anything can fall in that category. See: http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.d ir/sb0742.intro.html
Note that merely conspiring about "disrupting commerce," or even the "free and orderly assembly of inhabitants" could get you a life sentence, if some people get their way. So, I am surprised the mention of "missiles" doesn't qualify...

The manager from the State Library wrote back with this explaination:
Hello Ted,

Thank you for your email. No, you aren't obtuse in the slightest. We do not use any Eastern Oregon newspaper sources for our eClips product. We review 3 valley titles (Oregonian, Salem Statesman-Journal, Eugene Register-Guard), and one from Southern Oregon....the Medford Mail-Tribune.

Why don't we use content from Eastern Oregon? Here's the reason. The content from the larger Eastern Oregon sources like the Bend Bulletin or the East Oregonian (Pendleton)) requires a subscription. That is, the content is not readily available by clicking a link contained in our eClips alerts. The East Oregonian allows access to their front page however, when you attempt to access a story in full you are prompted with subscription information to the paper. Along with your paper subscription, you are granted full web access. The Bend paper selectively allows access to *some* stories and requires viewers to subscribe to their "e-edition" for access to the remainder of their stories. The other Eastern Oregon news outlets are pretty sparse with respect to regularly containing stories of interest.

Hopefully, we do not ignore stories from east of the Cascades if they are picked up in the newspapers that we do review which allow more complete access. So, I do apologize that eClips is lacking in Eastern Oregon coverage. We would like to address this if we can identify an "open" news content source from that part of Oregon.

There is good news, however. We do have a database, America's Newspapers, where I can set-up a customized "current awareness news alert" on any topic (or source/sources) you would choose. These sources can include Eastern Oregon sources.

This database contains content from 800+ newspapers, including 11 Oregon titles. These alerts can be customized to include any individual paper, group of papers, or all papers.

Below I'll list the 11 Oregon titles.

America's Newspapers:

http://library.state.or.us/databases/subjects/subj ect.php?SID=28

You can also access this database at any time and simply browse the East Oregon sources. Please let me know if this is something you would be interested in.

Thank you for your e-mail and please let me know if I may be of additional service.

Regards,

Jerry Curry

You should spend some time here reading about Oregon's exlusive vote-by-mail (VBM) policy. In particular, there is an excellent and balanced analysis (PDF!) by Jimmy Carter and James Baker III -- you may have heard of these guys. From the report:

The official guide to VBM, published by the Secretary of State's office, claims that it "raises voter participation, decreases costs and increases the overall integrity of the election process. It is a system that the vast majority of Oregonians love."

The report continues to note that the voter participation claim may be exaggerated, though it admits to a 10% increase mostly in primary elections. There is also meager evidence to support an overall cost savings, though the administrative costs are lower a "hybrid" ballot-box and absentee system common most everywhere else. And to directly refute your concerns over the integrity of the system, the report notes "Despite having moved to an all by mail voting system in 1998 and having been a battleground state in the last two presidential elections, Oregon has been relatively free from the controversies that have dogged some absentee ballot systems." The report notes that of six supposed double-votes in the 2004 election, five were false and the sixth had already been caught and was being investigated prior to the complaint.

Let us not forget, too, that VBM has been exceptionally well-received by Oregonians across every spectrum you can think of, be it political, social, economic, educational, etc.

The key here is that everyone votes by mail. If you have the more typical hybrid system of ballot boxes and absentee VBM, you open yourself up to the kind of deceptive practices you warn against. A nationwide exclusive VBM system would probably solve a great number of the "voting irregularities" that continue to surface every couple of years.

You should spend some time here reading about Oregon's exlusive vote-by-mail (VBM) policy. In particular, there is an excellent and balanced analysis (PDF!) by Jimmy Carter and James Baker III -- you may have heard of these guys. From the report:

The official guide to VBM, published by the Secretary of State's office, claims that it "raises voter participation, decreases costs and increases the overall integrity of the election process. It is a system that the vast majority of Oregonians love."

The report continues to note that the voter participation claim may be exaggerated, though it admits to a 10% increase mostly in primary elections. There is also meager evidence to support an overall cost savings, though the administrative costs are lower a "hybrid" ballot-box and absentee system common most everywhere else. And to directly refute your concerns over the integrity of the system, the report notes "Despite having moved to an all by mail voting system in 1998 and having been a battleground state in the last two presidential elections, Oregon has been relatively free from the controversies that have dogged some absentee ballot systems." The report notes that of six supposed double-votes in the 2004 election, five were false and the sixth had already been caught and was being investigated prior to the complaint.

Let us not forget, too, that VBM has been exceptionally well-received by Oregonians across every spectrum you can think of, be it political, social, economic, educational, etc.

The key here is that everyone votes by mail. If you have the more typical hybrid system of ballot boxes and absentee VBM, you open yourself up to the kind of deceptive practices you warn against. A nationwide exclusive VBM system would probably solve a great number of the "voting irregularities" that continue to surface every couple of years.

The postal method [Wikipedia] used in Oregon combines convenience with a paper trail. From the article:

Concerns have been raised about the possibility of election fraud in vote-by-mail elections, varying from risks of multiple voting to the destruction of mailed ballots, but actual incidents are rare in practice and not known to be more likely than elsewhere.

It is generally agreed that most people appreciate the convenience of voting by mail...

A link to the arguments pro and con is provided.

Look for the college being regionally accredited. If it says something like accreditted by the state of xx, then it is garbage. Also, read this page: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html [state.or.us] This page is the state of Oregon tracking down which schools are valid and which are crap. A really great reference.

Well my college is a state college. I find it hard learning some subjects the way a certain professors teach and retaining what I learned between long breaks. What I'm interested in is finding another way to learn then go back to the college and where they can test me. In most of my classes most of the class period was spent on lectures with very little if any tyme spend actually applying the skills. I need that tyme and someone there who can help me when I get stuck. They have labs but the labs don't have knowledgable people on given subjects. I'm basically a hands'on type in how I learn but having someone I can ask questions of really helps.

Personally, I don't think that the current crop of certs are worth the paper they are printed on. As for the general managers in the industry, some swear by them, some swear at them. You pays your money, and takes your chances.

Look for the college being regionally accredited. If it says something like accreditted by the state of xx, then it is garbage. Also, read this page: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html This page is the state of Oregon tracking down which schools are valid and which are crap. A really great reference.

1)Power. The area is on the Columbia river, which has some very impressive Dams. Very cheap power up there. There is a reason that there used to be 2 Aluminum plants there, the Power is freaking cheap compared to California and elsewhere. Along with the Power comes the proximitiy to water (my stupid guess) the columbia stays pretty cool year round, think water cooling for some of the equipment. Much cheaper than AC, and cold year round.

2)Fiber. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA, Runs all the dams) has run Fiber all over the states of OR and WA to support the Power grid it has put in place. And as long as they were running one fiber, might as well pull 100. Because of the BPA, there is Dark fiber all over Oregon and Washington, especially to rural communities. They have 2 companies managing all that dark fiber for them. In washington, its NoaNet and in Oregon its LS Networks. Then take a look at this map and notice how many oversea fibers come ashore in oregon. Most of Aisa, Hawaii, Austrailia, and Alaska. That makes Oregon a fairly "close" location to many other nations.

3)Brains. The Dalles is 80 miles east of Portland. Portland is crazy for Open source, thats where OSDL are, (including Linus!), several universities, intel has 2 fabs there that hire 15,000 engineers, etc. Lots of smart, educated engineers an hour away..

even though nuclear power releases less radioactive material than burning coal.

Yeah, until the waste containers start leaking and leach material into water tables.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for nuclear power, but I'm not convinced that we've got a decent mechanism for storing the waste yet. Maybe we could team up with these guys.

Incidentally, is there a nuclear physicist in the house? How does the waste from pebble reactors compare to traditional rod reactors when it comes to waste disposal? --- SER

http://www.ossc.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

This is a website maintained by the University of Oregon that details all the SCAM online Universities for you. So, this is important to check out first, before you spend any money online.

Also, having checked them out, I consider University of Phoenix a lousy University, as their teaching methods are suspect for technical degrees. I found that out when I interviewed as a teacher with them.

An interesting side note on this is that Hermiston, OR is where Umitilla Ordinance Depot is located. For those who aren't familiar with this facility, this is one of two places in the United States where chemical weapons are destroyed, the other being in Arkanasas. About 12% of the US stockpile of VX and GB (nerve agents) and HD (blister, or "mustard" agent) are stored as liquid in various types of munitions and containers, including rockets, bombs, projectiles, mines, bulk containers, and aerial spray tanks.

You can find information on this here:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/umatilla/

Maybe it's time to take Google Earth for a spin.