Slashdot Mirror

If it's true that availability and ownership of guns is a powerful influence on murder rate while income inequality, government safety net policies, organized crime activity, and other social factors are not, then tell me, which population group has the lower homicide rate: Ireland, or Texas concealed handgun licensees?

One group has a confirmed 100% firearm ownership rate, and the other, as you heavily implied does not. You can get the data you need here and here.

If it's true that availability and ownership of guns is a powerful influence on murder rate while income inequality, government safety net policies, organized crime activity, and other social factors are not, then tell me, which population group has the lower homicide rate: Ireland, or Texas concealed handgun licensees?

One group has a confirmed 100% firearm ownership rate, and the other, as you heavily implied does not. You can get the data you need here and here.

The problem with guns is what they do to people's attitudes when they're perceived of as something you should own for use on other people. If everyone agreed guns are only for hunting, for instance, they could have more guns than the US and still have few issues. (As I understand it, this is the case for some countries).

I have great news! You can test your hypothesis.

The Texas Department of Public Safety tracks stats on Texas Concealed Handgun licensees. It includes total count of licensees from 1996-2011, which you can cross-reference with the overall state population. It also includes conviction totals and rates of CHL holders vs. the rest of the state across that same time period, so you get a clear picture of what proportion CHL holders make up in crime rate relative to their population.

So I invite you to review the info, and then cross-reference the crime rate and murder rate of Texas CHL holders per 100,000 population vs. Texas as a whole, with the US and other states, and any other population you wish for that matter.

Does the data support your hypothesis? Does it contradict it?

The problem with guns is what they do to people's attitudes when they're perceived of as something you should own for use on other people. If everyone agreed guns are only for hunting, for instance, they could have more guns than the US and still have few issues. (As I understand it, this is the case for some countries).

I have great news! You can test your hypothesis.

The Texas Department of Public Safety tracks stats on Texas Concealed Handgun licensees. It includes total count of licensees from 1996-2011, which you can cross-reference with the overall state population. It also includes conviction totals and rates of CHL holders vs. the rest of the state across that same time period, so you get a clear picture of what proportion CHL holders make up in crime rate relative to their population.

So I invite you to review the info, and then cross-reference the crime rate and murder rate of Texas CHL holders per 100,000 population vs. Texas as a whole, with the US and other states, and any other population you wish for that matter.

Does the data support your hypothesis? Does it contradict it?

The problem with guns is what they do to people's attitudes when they're perceived of as something you should own for use on other people. If everyone agreed guns are only for hunting, for instance, they could have more guns than the US and still have few issues. (As I understand it, this is the case for some countries).

I have great news! You can test your hypothesis.

The Texas Department of Public Safety tracks stats on Texas Concealed Handgun licensees. It includes total count of licensees from 1996-2011, which you can cross-reference with the overall state population. It also includes conviction totals and rates of CHL holders vs. the rest of the state across that same time period, so you get a clear picture of what proportion CHL holders make up in crime rate relative to their population.

So I invite you to review the info, and then cross-reference the crime rate and murder rate of Texas CHL holders per 100,000 population vs. Texas as a whole, with the US and other states, and any other population you wish for that matter.

Does the data support your hypothesis? Does it contradict it?

Hi. Have you examined the Texas Department of Public Safety stats on Texas Concealed Handgun licensees? It includes total count of licensees from 1996-2011, which you can cross-reference with the overall state population. It also includes conviction totals and rates of CHL holders vs. the rest of the state across that same time period, so you get a clear picture of what proportion CHL holders make up in crime rate relative to their population.

If you haven't already examined those stats, I invite you to do so, and then cross-reference the crime rate and murder rate of Texas CHL holders per 100,000 population vs. Texas as a whole, with the US and other states, and any other population you wish for that matter. Then answer this: does the data support or contradict your assertion?

Hi. Have you examined the Texas Department of Public Safety stats on Texas Concealed Handgun licensees? It includes total count of licensees from 1996-2011, which you can cross-reference with the overall state population. It also includes conviction totals and rates of CHL holders vs. the rest of the state across that same time period, so you get a clear picture of what proportion CHL holders make up in crime rate relative to their population.

If you haven't already examined those stats, I invite you to do so, and then cross-reference the crime rate and murder rate of Texas CHL holders per 100,000 population vs. Texas as a whole, with the US and other states, and any other population you wish for that matter. Then answer this: does the data support or contradict your assertion?

Hi. Have you examined the Texas Department of Public Safety stats on Texas Concealed Handgun licensees? It includes total count of licensees from 1996-2011, which you can cross-reference with the overall state population. It also includes conviction totals and rates of CHL holders vs. the rest of the state across that same time period, so you get a clear picture of what proportion CHL holders make up in crime rate relative to their population.

If you haven't already examined those stats, I invite you to do so, and then cross-reference the crime rate and murder rate of Texas CHL holders per 100,000 population vs. Texas as a whole, with the US and other states, and any other population you wish for that matter. Then answer this: does the data support or contradict your assertion?

The airline industry has a much better safety record than the nuclear power industry.They can tout the millions of people they don't kill each year because they intentionally work on safety. The nuclear industry argument is much the same argument that NASA used to launch Challenger. Just because it hasn't blown up yet means it's safe. We still haven't come up with a solution to deal with the tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel sitting in cooling pools at nuclear power plants all over the US. Sure can pretend that clean up of Fukushima and Chernobyl won't take decades if not centuries and will be off limits to human habitation for the same amount of time. But are you aware of all the nuclear accidents, military and civilian? Not to mention the worst nuclear contamination in US and Mexican history involving the recall of thousands of tons of contaminated steel. But you guys keep fucking that radioactive chicken.

Don't know where you're at but there's more than one place you can visit. This one is in Texas. And right next door is Dinosaur Valley where you can check out some dinosaur tracks.

You can send a similar one from here: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/email/?district=4&session=83 Representative Gooden, I am writing to alert you to public opinion that is forming about your new HB912. A consensus is bubbling up on internet forums that your intention in drafting this bill was to protect corporations like Columbia from incidents similar to the Oak Cliff pig blood dumping which resulted in criminal charges. I have not found any post yet that interprets this new bill as protecting the privacy of individual citizens. I know that this was not your intention and I urge you to take action by retracting the bill and releasing a clarifying statement. Regards, Terbeaux Nou P.S. Please find attached links for two popular internet sites which are discussing your new bill: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/03/01/153241/texas-declares-war-on-robots http://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/18v0xr/hey_texas_time_to_start_writing_those_emails/

Or at least require a police permit taking up to 60 days before you can possess an erlenmeyer flask: http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5&ti=37&pt=1&ch=13&sch=E&rl=Y

If by private you mean publicly funded infrastructure such as roads, bridges, highways, traffic systems and policing then you are correct. The only thing private are the cars.

And cars are a huge component to "only" about. Consider this report. It claims just under $0.05 per mile of road travel in costs on the road, including maintenance and interest payments on road-related debt. In contrast, one has to pay quite a bit for the car or other vehicle, gas, maintenance, and insurance. I figure a bit less than ten times as much (based on reimbursement rates which probably overstate the average cost by a set fraction).

The best I've seen, also in Texas, is an animal friendly plate with the license "YIFFY". This was a few years ago.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm#30.05

I've show you mine, now you show me yours.

California property taxes aren't particularly low. They rank 17th out of 50 states as a percentage of median income (in 2005).

But, per your source, they ranked 45th as a percentage of home value (0.48%), whereas Texas ranked 2nd (1.82%). Median income may be low, and housing values were extremely inflated in 2005 (which your data comes from), but there's no denying that California takes a lower percentage of the home's value than most states. This is primarily due to Prop 13, which capped property taxes and shifted the state towards sales and income taxes.

Texas property taxes are lower. Texas also has no state income tax and much lower sales tax than California. Texas public schools rank higher in math and science education than California.

California's K-12 has been gutted by repeated budget cuts, but I would argue it has much better universities than Texas. As I showed earlier, Texas also has much higher property tax rates as a percentage of home value.

Texas has plenty of revenue sources. Feel free to review the Texas budget, specifically numbered pages 32-33. Their data doesn't provide an easy method of comparison, but it seems they take in some hefty federal "revenues". I don't know if this is from defense spending, assistance with medicaid and HHS, energy subsidies, or what. I can say that both states are reporting around $90B/year in revenue, which would place TX a bit ahead of CA in state revenue per capita.

Then again, it's all moot since those Patriotic Texans are going to secede soon anyways.

The Texas statute specifically prohibits loitering, but loitering is hanging around without purpose. Some sort of identifying badges could easily make the purpose apparent. The statute also spells out other restrictions, like "watchers" not disclosing any election results before the close of elections. Since there are conditions imposed on "watchers", it is implicit that there can be watchers. The intent of the statute is pretty obvious.

I think the observers should show up, with tags that say OSCE Watcher. There should be no problem fighting any illegal arrest. Any responsible for illegal arrests should be removed from their positions.

The statute is relatively easy to read/comprehend.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.61.htm

FYI here is the registration.

https://webservices.sos.state.tx.us/vrapp/index.asp

Anyone see where you check democrat or republican? OP is so high they think they are in a different state than where they are, or lying to make Texas look bad.

Note that moral obligation is independent of, as you say, "effectiveness." If something is immoral, you must abstain, and if something is moral, you must obey, regardless of the cost or practicality. That's why it's a moral point and not an ethical one; there are no norms involved, no question of best efforts, if it happens you've failed, end of story. If abortion is murder, then compulsory, state-enforced pregnancy must be tolerated, regardless of the "effectiveness" in regulating this. Similarly, if it is immoral for a man to die for want of money, this must be prevented, by whatever means and with whatever compulsory forces are available -- at least as much force as we apply to keep the fetal hearts beating.

On this, I wonder how many people would vote for national health insurance if we passed a law forcing everyone to work for a psychiatric services charity once a year, or to look at pictures of untreated gum disorders? These are no coercive than forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds or ritualistic, politician-dictated recitations in the doctor's office.

When someone starves, American religious conservatives don't see themselves failing their moral obligations, and they hem and haw on "the role of government" and they concern-troll on costs. But when a baby is aborted, they do see themselves as failing their moral obligations, and nothing can stand in their way to prevent it, personal liberty, the doctor-patient relationship, the integrity of the body and science be damned. Why is this?

From the picture

They photographed it alongside a metric ruler? Blasphemy!

From the picture I would say that if you get close enough to read the "Danger Radioactive" you've already got problems.

We don't have a right lane for passing only law here, so you're stuck with them. So it may be 85 mph, but in practice you're stuck with the slowest person on the road.

You mean left lane for passing only? If so, sure we do... Texas Transportation Code Sec. 545.051(b)

(b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:
(1) passing another vehicle; or
(2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Wouldn't have matter if it did work. Texas law prohibits any and all methods of obstructing license plates (that would otherwise obstruct automated OCR based technology).

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00369F.pdf

I wouldn't be surprised if the next version of plates have RFID tags built into them. It would certainly make their job easier and the technology would be cheaper than it is with complicated and software. It would also cost the tax payer less money in equipment costs. Think of it as rape with lube thrown in to make the experience better. And remember to say "Thank You".

You're welcome citizen.

The Lone Star State, like the other States, needed to be a self-governing body before joining the federation of states. With its own constitution and all. So... yeah.

First, you keep posting a link to the group's own press release. That's not exactly an unbiased source. But let's just go ahead and use their numbers, because they're still very obviously wrong about the overall argument.

Second, the Rio Grande Valley is much bigger than the 49 acres of land SpaceX is asking for, and the Boca Chica site is at the very farthest eastern end of the river. In fact, it's probably more accurate to think of Boca Chica as part of the Gulf Coast rather than part of the Rio Grande Valley. For reference, the Rio Grande Valley is the southern bottom of Texas, and Boca Chica is pretty much a dot on the Gulf Coast just above the Rio Grande. I don't have the exact numbers, but I'd guess that it doesn't quite make up 1% of the land area of the RGV.

Third, Boca Chica State Park is completely undeveloped, and is only open during the day. There are no, repeat, no facilities in the park. The road doesn't even stay paved up to the beach. Your precious hotel taxes? Not from Boca Chica, because there are no hotels there. Sales taxes? Not from Boca Chica; there isn't so much as a lemonade stand. So the money that your group is mentioning does not even a little bit come from Boca Chica, unless you count any parking fees, of which there appear to be none, as there don't appear to be any parking spaces at the park. It is literally just a beach.

So, no, it doesn't affect jobs, and I wish you'd quit tossing out the same link to the same damn article from TFA above. Here, here's a link from Texas Parks and Wildlife: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wildlife/wildlife-trails/coastal/lower/boca-chica-loop. Boca Chica is #43 on the map.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boca_Chica_State_Park. You can see some pictures of the place. The only development appears to be two old wooden fenceposts which show where the road stops, and a rusted-out oil drum for trash. Unless Texas hired someone specifically to drive out, straighten the fenceposts, and empty the trash, Boca Chica does not currently offer any significant employment opportunities.

"Why are corporations people? Because otherwise, they couldn't own property, and could not be sued."

Sure, because no partnership or sole proprietorship has ever controlled property or been sued... *eyeroll*

Snowgirl then goes on with a convoluted discussion of how the existence of corporations protects workers from illegal actions they undertake on behalf of their employers, while simultaneously ensuring company assets and directors are held responsible for their misdeeds.

The mind just reels...

OK, now for an update from the soft green fields of reality. Workers for corporations are held responsible for their misdeeds all the time -- in fact, they are scapegoated on a regular basis. The system is specifically set up to blame the workers and shield the corporation. See those Fedex Home Delivery trucks? The Drivers -- not FedEx -- carry the insurance and take the hit for accidents. Back when Domino's had their "30 Minutes or Less" suicide jockeys on the road, guess who paid for the accidents? The CEO of Dominos used to brag about how he had a fleet of vehicles he got other people to pay to insure and maintain.

Need another example? If you're an eighteen-year-old kid waiting tables for the "Tomato-Paste-R-Us" corporation, and you give someone a beer because your manager told you to, and that customer goes out, has an accident, kills someone and blows a 0.0800000001 BAC, YOU will be held criminally responsible while the company is specifically shielded from repercussions by the law.

Either Snowgirl is breathtakingly out of touch with reality, or she's unbelievably disingenuous...

There's some info on texas department of public saftey's site

You need a permit to buy/possess:

(A) a condenser
(B) a distilling apparatus
(C) a vacuum drier
(D) a three-neck or distilling flask
(E) a tableting machine
(F) an encapsulating machine
(G) a filter, Buchner, or separatory funnel
(H) an Erlenmeyer, two-neck, or single-neck flask
(I) a round-bottom, Florence, thermometer, or filtering flask
(J) a Soxhlet extractor
(K) a transformer
(L) a flask heater
(M) a heating mantel or
(N) an adaptor tube

I didn't realise it was so broad. I suppose the condenser bit bans refrigeratiors and air-conditioning. 'Transformer' bans almost all electronics. Obviously it isn't enforced like this, but that's not really the point.

Apparently glassware (and chemistry in general) is only useful for making bombs and drugs, right?
Then they wonder why there is a shortage of scientists and engineers. It would be funnier if it wasn't so sad.

It would go a long way toward ensuring a safer, happier humanity instead of this "Well I carry a gun everywhere because it's better me than him." Are you fucking retarded? Try understanding why someone might flip out and start shooting up a post office, for instance.

Actually, you'd find it surprising how few crimes are committed by people who are carrying firearms legally. The criminals don't bother to jump through the hoops of registering, training, getting a license, etc. You'd find it even more surprising how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens.

Not to mention the supreme court has explicitly ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.

True. I looked up the statistics for Texas concealed carry permit holders:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

If you have a concealed carry permit in Texas you are about 90% LESS likely to commit a violent crime.

Texas
In 2005 Texas passed House Bill 94[31] which created an exception to a 1973 statute,[32] which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack.
In 2007 Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 which extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:
Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.[33]
Senate Bill 378, made effective September 1, 2007, also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."[34]

IANAL and law is about interpretation... I do interpret that to
extend further than you take it.

But I live in AZ, where it's not restricted, so I may be skewed.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.HTM

-AI

I think what set them off was the Erlenmeyer flasks. They seem to scream mad scientist to non chemistry people.

Erlenmeyer flasks (and much of the other glassware you mention) are illegal to possess in Texas without a permit--and in order to get a permit, you must allow the police to search your house (or place of business) unannounced: The Precursor Chemical Statute

That's insane!! Didn't expect that from Texas. CA maybe...

I think what set them off was the Erlenmeyer flasks. They seem to scream mad scientist to non chemistry people.

Erlenmeyer flasks (and much of the other glassware you mention) are illegal to possess in Texas without a permit--and in order to get a permit, you must allow the police to search your house (or place of business) unannounced: The Precursor Chemical Statute

LOL. ROFL.
IER is a tax-exempt public foundation and is funded entirely by tax deductible contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. No financial support is sought for or accepted from the government.[1] According to the liberal watchdog group, Media Matters,[2] since 1996, $110,000 of IER's funding has come from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, a trust set up by private energy company Koch Industries. IER also received over $300,000 in funding from ExxonMobil, [3], but Exxon has not given to IER since 2007.[4]

The Institute's CEO, Robert L. Bradley, Jr., was formerly a director of policy analysis at Enron, where he wrote speeches for Kenneth Lay. Bradley has written books indicting Enron's crony capitalism including "Capitalism at Work"[5] and "Edison to Enron."[6]
Here is a real report from the state of Texas's government.
Now, here is the break-down from about 5 years ago.
And if you want to use biased info, well, here you go. In this case, they include the direct money AND THE TAX breaks. Though to be honest, I find it is as worthless as your original link above. But, hey....

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/

That is for 2006 only. 20% of all Federal energy subsidies went to Nuclear.

I like nuclear power, I wish private industry did as well. I wish we could make a post office of electricity and have it build these reactors instead. What I don't like is people bashing sources of power private industry is actually adopting.

If you live in Texas, you'll still get paid. State law trumps any HR policies your company might have.

Travis County disagrees with you.
      http://www.co.travis.tx.us/district_clerk/jury/E2.asp
The Texas Workforce Commission disagrees with you
      http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/jury_duty.html #3

So...

It is illegal in some U.S. States to charge more for a product or service if the buyer is using a credit card. Also, it is a violation of the merchant agreement with Visa, MasterCard, and American Express. This policy at Verizon is essentially a surcharge for payment via credit card. If one uses cash (cheque by mail, or ACH bank transfer), then there is no fee.

If one pays with credit card, then there is a "convenience fee" (surcharge). I suppose that their legal department could argue that they provide the Auto-Pay option for credit-card users to avoid the surcharge, but it remains debatable.

It certainly is not customer friendly. A more friendly way to cover their credit-card fees is to make the higher rate the standard price, and provide a discount for cash payments (cheques and ACH).

Get your facts straight. Fossil fuels are never subsidized

Oh no?

http://www.atstrust.com/sn/oil-tank-removal/oil-tank-grants

"Entering the intersection is one thing. However, stopping in an intersection in Texas is prohibited at any time."

That is incorrect. It is not prohibited "at any time". There are specific times at which it is not prohibited, as described in the law. You are referring to Sec. 545.302,

(a) An operator may not stop, stand, or park a vehicle ... (3) in an intersection

However, go further in the same section and there are specific instances in which it isn't prohibited:

(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not apply if the avoidance of conflict with other traffic is necessary or if the operator is complying with the law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device.

I interpret that to mean that if you legally enter the intersection on a green light but there is a conflict with other traffic, you may stop in the intersection until it clears and you are able to proceed. You are complying with the laws by yielding the right of way to oncoming traffic and you are obeying the traffic-control device.

This web site takes the same interpretation of that section of the Texas transportation code. Also, the Texas Drivers Handbook(PDF) states that when making a left turn you should "Stay to the right of the centerline as you enter the intersection" and then "Yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction". The accompanying graphic shows the vehicle in the intersection at that step.

Oh Good Grief. REALLY? That's the best you can do?

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/largepamp.shtml

Texas has more stringent requirements because they have issues with illegal aliens. A student ID card doesn't prove citizenship and neither does a VA card.

Beyond that your point is ridiculous on its face. Veterans are more likely to vote conservative so why would they want to stop them from voting?

So basically you, and the Guardian, need to go in the "Trolling trolls that trolling" bin.

Consider yourself fed.

In theory. These days, possession of the tools -ven potential tools - is enough to brand you as a taihrst. Remember the slashdot story about the guy who got busted for having a few jars of chemicals in his garage?

Or how about this: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RegulatoryServices/narcotics/narcprecursor.htm
I'd suspect most cooks or homebrew enthusiasts would have something from that list - as indeed would most schools.

From the Texas Administrative Code: (a) The department administers a road test to determine an applicant's ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable control of a motor vehicle; such applicant must meet a predetermined score. The road test will be given in English or Spanish only and will consist of three separate standalone examinations, designated as the on-street test, the backing test, and parallel parking test, and will include the following maneuvers:

Looks like Texas requires a road test. Try again.

Yes, she was disabled, per 22.04(c)(3). That makes the offence covered by 22.04, and therefore we can potentially consider the 2 longer SOL terms (longer as in not the default 3 year). However, being disabled does not in and of itself make it a 10 year SOL. The 10 year SOL requires a 1st degree felony (the most serious level); all other offenses under 22.04 are covered by the 5 year SOL.

22.04(e) makes the standard for a 1st degree felony be that it was serious injury (it references only those offenses under 22.04(a) and 22.04(a-1) which have the serious modifier). The standard for serious injury is really high, aka sent to the hospital & crippled for life; it wasn't a serious injury. (e) is the only part of 22.04 that makes anything a 1st degree felony; no other part of 22.04 makes anything higher than a 2nd degree felony. 22.04(f) makes what he did a 3rd degree felony; that is less serious than 1st degree. The longer stature of limitations requires it be 1st degree under 22.04. No serious injury implies not 1st degree under 22.04, implies 5 years is the longest SOL.

I notice you did reference some sections of Texas family statute, and you implied that they had bearings on the penalty. I looked, but those just seemed to be definitions; if you still consider them relevant could you re-cite, including year?

Another possibility is that you believe that the offense is indeed covered by 22.04(a)(1) or 22.04(a)(2), rather than 22.04(a)(3). (a)(2) seems most likely, since the legislature does not seem to have crisply defined serious mental injury. However, in comparison to the difference between bodily injury and serious bodily injury, a "serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury" would have to be pretty bad, and claiming there was one would seem to be quite a stretch.

Another possibility is that you looking at a different version of the SOL statute; I'm looking at the summary of it that you linked too at http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html under the presumption it is what you're using.

Finally, it could be a different version of the Texas penal code; I'm using http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.22.htm which seems to be updated for at least as far as 2009. Note that the (a) subheadings are included immediately under the main section heading; bad formatting on the part of whoever assembled the statutes.

First, dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com isn't an authority to cite on Texas law. You should be linking to http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CR/htm/CR.12.htm.

Second, if you read that page and the other referenced sections of the law carefully, you'll find that for the purposes of *most* Texas criminal statutes, "Child" means a person 14 years of age or younger.

Third, A diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy does not in and of itself mean that a person is considered a "Disabled Individual" under the law.

I just love how so many people on the internet consider themselves experts on everything simply because they know how to use a search engine and tabbed browsing.

Your quote is screwed.

"Ten Years- theft of any estate by an executor/administrator. Theft by a public servant of government property, Forgery. Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code;"

A child with cerebral palsy that has been terrorized into a state of fear and unable to defend themselves is a felony, according to Penal code 22.01 with the provision of it being a THIRD DEGREE FELONY if conducted against a person described in Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code (in this case, it's 71.005 that applies - Household member) and also in Section 22.04, which the entirety of the section shall be hereforth linked

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.22.htm

  ""Disabled individual" means a person older than 14 years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself."

By reason of age - 16 years old is not old enough to reasonably live on your own, especially with cerebral palsy, which happens to fall under physical disease.

Hi, I can read in-depth and reference multiple law requirements at the same time thanks to tabbed browsing. SOL has very clearly not expired due to these conditions.

>> 4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/

The other some odd 2,487,922 are paying Texas traffic ticket SURCHARGES.

I hadn't heard of this, so I googled "texas ticket surcharge."

If you go to Texas, you'll pay for it the rest of your life.

Unreal. I don't even have it in me to make a jab at Republicans over this. I mean... holy shit, Texas. Holy fucking shit. I'm not mad, or angry, or even disappointed. I'm stunned.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/
2.8% of energy subsidies go to solar. 20.2 to coal, 25.7 to oil and gas (not counting the war efforts of course ...)

The concept of work DOES change.

Don't forget what the "Foxconns" of today replaced. Chinese have never in their history lived better than today and are making stunningly rapid progress.

Here's what "work" used to look like in the US.
Have some routine news from the transportation industry:

https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/railroad/fight/explosion.html

"Railroad work was extremely dangerous. Nationally, between 1890 and 1917, a staggering 72,000 employees were killed and over two million injured on railroad tracks; an additional 158,000 were killed in repair shops and roundhouses. The total casualties from this period are more than the combined casualties from every war ever fought by the United States. Steam boilers were a particular hazard. Since the beginning of the steam era, there had been literally thousands of explosions, some with horrific loss of life. Back in 1865, the steamboat Sultana exploded with the loss of 1,238 lives, most of them Union POWs just released from Southern prisons. In 1905, the naval gunboat Bennington exploded, killing 62 sailors, and an explosion at the Brockton Shoe Factory in Massachusetts killed 58 and leveled the factory. Explosions of railroad steam boilers took place on a regular basis."

Further, since everyone is caught up in the notion that this applies to religious organizations and that they are the only ones exempt, it might also behoove you to read that specific part:

You don't mention non-profit or public sector here. If this wasn't an attempt to assert that I was saying that only religious organizations were exempt, I'm not sure what you were getting at.

To be fair, there were others further up the reply chain who were specifically mentioning religious institutions; although that I neglected to include all other edge cases seems moot considering my immediate quote from the FLSA site thereafter specifically points out non-profits, humanitarian organizations, and so forth.

I didn't gloss over your post - I read it carefully and it failed to effectively convince me of your point. Your blockquotes, in particular, don't actually constitute any sort of rebuttal to the statements I made, and you didn't explain why FLSA doesn't apply in this case. If you'd care to make that clear, I'll be glad to read it, but honestly, all you did was make an unfair claim about my comment and fail to back it up.

I recall quoting, from the FLSA link provided by one of the OPs, that SCOTUS declared that FLSA was not unnecessarily broad in that all volunteer labor could be classified as falling under its auspices, regardless of how it related to non-profits, religious organizations, and so forth. Unfortunately, the FLSA site seems to offer an extremely truncated review of both the ruling and the rules. My reading of the material provided in that link is mostly what lead me to believe that Valve would not fall under the scrutiny of FLSA, and why I believe that your speculation is incorrect. For instance:

While this mostly outlines public service, I believe it covers at least part of the spirit of the FLSA in regards to volunteer service by defining what is meant by "volunteer." Being as the translations were offered without "pressure or coercion" and that they are neither employees of Valve nor expect compensation for their labor, they are likely classified as volunteer labor.

Further, I also believe that the volunteer clause in the FLSA is intended to prevent companies from "forcing" employees to volunteer part of their time unfairly in effort to circumvent paying them overtime for their labor. This might also explain why the language used to define volunteers and their role for the organization is mostly concerned with compensation, their existing status with the company, and so forth. That said, according to this, it might be useful to Valve for those volunteers to sign a volunteer agreement, which would certainly give them legal backing if a suit were raised (I don't think one will be).

In particular, I could see where the Department of Labor may side with you since "the DOL has 'a long-standing policy of limiting volunteer status to those individuals performing charitable activities for not-for-profit organizations.'" So yes, you are absolutely correct that there are few exceptions to the rule. However, if you consider these factors listed:

To determine if a person is truly a volunteer and not an employee, the DOL ordinarily will consider the following factors:

1. How much the organization benefits from the services performed;
2. The time spent in the activity (the activity is less than a full-time occupation);
3. The individual's services are of the kind typically associated with volunteer work; and
4. The individual does not expect pay for the services.

It could be argued thus

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/poe/how_much_can_i_bring_back.asp

Also, you can't order (for delivery) alcohol from the other states in the US unless the state has a reciprocity agreement with the state Alcoholic Beverage Commission or the brewery/winery/distillery has a National Distributor licensed with the State ABC. So for example, I can't order wine from Door County Winery (Door County, WI) or Thomas Tew Rum from Newport Distillery in Newport, RI.

This despite the fact that constitutionally, the states have No Fucking Business Whatsoever passing laws that interfere with the interstate commerce of any substance.

And all to appease a bunch of wack-job religious fundamentalists that make up the core of the Retardican Party.

Yeah, but look at the documentation you need to get a Texas a Non-Driver Identification Card. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/identificationrequirements.htm

Primary identification
Must include full name, date of birth, and photo

You need a *driver's license* to get a non-driver's ID. Either that or a current passport or military ID, or non-citizen IDs.

I couldn't get this non-driver's ID in Texas without using my current driver's license. I don't even have a current passport (which cost over $100). To get a passport, I needed -- a driver's license.

This is like the "turtles all the way down" joke.

But don't try to make wind/solar artificially cost effective my making coal/natural gas/nuclear more expensive by taxing it via "carbon credits" or some other half baked idea.

Maybe we could start by ending the subsidizes that make oil and coal cheaper. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/ check out Exhibit 28-5