Slashdot Mirror

Since it was you gentlemen (and ladies) who popularized the phrase "RTFA", we thought some of you might actually do so before overreacting. Since you gentlemen are famous for your hatred of the "mainstream media" and its poor reporting, we thought some of you might look to source material rather than unfair media soundbytes. It seems our hopes were misplaced.

Please don't call us names without actually reading at least a few of our new standards. You can find them, in an easy-to-read, color-coded format, at the Texas Education Agency website (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/) under Curriculum. You can also follow a direct link here. You will find that the new standards are accurate, equitable, honest, historically strong, and, contrary to popular belief, include quite a lot of both Thomas Jefferson and the Establishment Clause. Our previous standards were good, but the new ones are a clear improvement.

We thank you in advance for your measured consideration.

Sincerely,
Texas
"The One State That'd Dare Give Dark Helmet A Raspberry"

I did originally speak about the short shrift you mention. I was not implying that such material needed to be included in textbooks, I was saying (and did say specifically) that the changes made were in reaction to the slow push against public expression of religion in the modern day United States.

The schoolbook policy as described by Slashdot is reason to look at what the proposed changes are, I agree. Which is why I read the proposed changes before commenting.

Again, I agree that integrating religious doctrine in public schools runs afoul of the first amendment of the constitution. Again, I agree that the government is not permitted to tell people how or who to worship, and again, you're confusing my argument with that of someone who is both religious (which I'm not), a proponent of Christianity over other religions (which I'm decidedly not), and who has not taken the time to read about the proposed changes (which I have...well, am still doing...haven't found anything unconstitutional in the past few hours of browsing).

Before you rail about the failures of a document you haven't read, read it.

We do not differ philosophically, we differ in what we are seeing in this proposition. If you have something specific you can point to and say "right there...that's unconstitutional", then show me where and lets argue the merits, rather than being a pair of seemingly unsuccessful pedants.

Oh, stop getting your panties in a twist, Slashdot, and RTFS: Here are the curriculum documents, with the TEKS and SBOE changes-color coded.

The wild-eyed claims being made about these very mild, mostly correct changes are absurd. Jefferson is not being cut or even importantly sidelined, the Founding Fathers are not being portrayed as Christian Righties, and anyone who's mentioned Orwell in this thread should be beaten to death with a bat made of cliches. So everybody calm the frak down and get informed.

Not true, section B.2 of the law says that FMNV can't be given to students by pretty much anyone while on school grounds.

Then the friend should be punished according to the state's policy. Oh, wait, there's no punishment mandated for students violating the policy (it's enforced against the schools by the Dept. Of Agriculture). Sounds like another case of the local school administrator thinking with something other than his or her brain.

• Iraq under Sadam after first Gulf war, wasn't producing oil at 100% therefore; the price of oil was historically (at the time) high.
• When oil prices are high, US economy goes into the toilet because our economy is based on cheap oil.

I would argue with that; you have to remember that there were oil men from Texas in the White House.

• Increasing tension in the Middle East drives speculation which in turn increases oil prices
• Speculation enables plain old-fashioned price gouging and thus incredible profits
• High oil prices are good for Texas as they subsidize their state government with healthy severance taxes on the market value of oil
• High oil prices provide an excellent lever to use to force the opening of near-shore drilling as well as ANWR
• The Bush Administration was so interested in seeing the right people make a lot of money that when energy prices really began getting out of control they flat-out refused to do anything about the hedge funds

My point being that the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with lowering the price of energy, which would have been good for ALL of the American people; rather, it had to do with enabling a few people to increase their rate of wealth accumulation. Consider: The former objective is Democratic; the latter, Republican.

In fact, when first getting a drivers license (in Texas so your state may be different,) we are required to present a Birth Certificate.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/identificationrequirements.htm

Looks like Arizona allows a lot more, though.
http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

Fox News and the Texas board of Education.

You know what's really funny? When those two collide.

I'm quite sure that an engineer gone dentist is the right person to decide on a social science curriculum: This is the leader of the conservative majority. I think the next Oscars should be awarded by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.

In Texas, if your residence has been declared a homestead, it cannot be taken to pay a debt except for debts taken for the purchase of the home (ie, a mortgage in default), for home improvements, for home equity loans or to pay certain taxes. Wages may be garnished only to pay debts related to court-ordered child support, back taxes, and defaulted student loans. Debt collectors cannot garnish wages for repayment of consumer debt.

Here is the needed citation
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/debt_collection.shtml

I get a bit sick of the hyper-polarization of politics these days, particularly when someone has a very practical problem like wanting to leave the corporate world and is scared about his family's health well-being. Enough of you pulpit-pounding blowhards, on both sides.

Unlike most of these folks, I didn't really know about this myself, but are likewise interested in this for similar reasons to you - I hope to get out of the corporate world at some point in the next few years and had the same question. What I found was more encouraging than what many of these folks would have you believe. Unfortunately, I also found the the options appear quite regional, so my answer will only help you get looking at it for yourself, unless you happen to live in Texas, just like me.

The most wonderful finding I came across, for Texas, was this: http://www.txhealthpool.com/

Basically, it appears that in my state this issue was tackled by the state legislature, and they set-up a state-wide health insurance purchase pool for people who fall through the cracks in the current system (e.g. If you're eligible for company-insurance, you can't buy this). In has multiple deductible/co-insurance levels to choose from, and also has a prescription drug plan too. It's not too expensive, sounds about the same or less than what my company would pay for individual coverage for myself. If you have a local equivalent, this might be just what you're looking for...if you don't have too many dependents.

The other big findings I came across that is worthwhile were a battery of health insurance cooperatives whose existence was made possible by state legislation about 5 years back. Some examples of the types of coops this allowed for: http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/health/lhcoopdefintyps.html

In short, I think if you do some research at the state and local levels, you might find similar programs for your area which would help. I know I feel much better about the prospects, now that I know there are better options for me in the future besides simple individual health insurance and all the risks that entails.

No, I don't think you understand HIPAA very well. It DOES allow for a number of disclosures without patient consent:

To law enforcement

To treating physicians and other clinicians, for public health activities, for health oversight purposes, to protect against personal and material harm

Even for marketing

And a raft of others.

This is not the bogeyman you are looking for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
...should be a good start as evidence that idiots have gotten themselves elected by idiots and forced their religion into school science curricula. Fortunately, in this case the courts, and eventually an election where more enlightened voters than idiots turned out, turned this around, but the battle continues. Here in Texas, the battle continues...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/education/24texas.html
That's right. Until early this year, there was a state law that requiredthat creationism (and yes, "intelligent design" is indeed just another term for this or that religion's version of how things came to be the way they are) be taught in our public schools. Don McLeroy, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=3713 , has made it quite plain that he believes in the Biblical version of creation and that it should be given equal time in schools. Don is free to believe any idiotic "theory" that he wants, but to advocate pushing into public schools? Well, it's no wonder that we are losing ground when it comes to the teaching of science. Our priorities are seriously fucked up. That someone with such an agenda is allowed to waste the public's time and money with such distractions from the real business of education is a disgrace.

Sorry, but you're wrong, at least for Texas (I've seen mention of similar laws for other states, but only verified them for Texas). Also, look how the government conveniently excludes itself from this restriction. I also thought that there was no way surcharges could be illegal, that surely it was just in the contract between the merchant and the card processor, but I shouldn't be surprised at the reach of government these days.

Texan executions: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm
US executions: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exetab.htm

They are bordering on 50% of all executions in the US. Seems pretty valid.

Here's the text. Basically all it targets are people who harass others online assuming another person's identity. One girl creating a profile for another, where she claims to be a homosexual drug user who steals to support her habit would fall under this. Generic harassment doesn't. About the only thing that is far-reaching, and it's likely based on ignorance, is the "domain address" language which could be twisted by a prosecutor.

Perhaps the law goes too far on the punishment side, but it doesn't prohibit any behavior which is protected by the first amendment. Only a moron would say "there are first amendment issues" since this law is little more than a double whammy on libel and slander.

12.34. THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.

(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

Of course, she's a minor being 16 so the punishment will most likely be up to the judge and expunged at age 18 but for you adults who like to poke and prod people online ... better think twice in states where these kind of laws are enforced lest you target the wrong person.

Crap, that other post got screwed up:

I do not how they are supposed to convey these facts in a more unbiased manner. I'm interested in seeing how you would do it.

On Wikipedia those two things (indecency and pot) would have a cite needed note on them.

This is fairly simple to do in a modern society with public access to court records.

As it happens you can find Shawn Thomas Powell in the Texas Sex Offender list. I'm curious about the Ending Registration Date NON-EXPIRE bit though. Haven't looked at any other people on the list, but it would be interesting to know how many are on a non-expiring list. Especially considering that he has a Risk Level LOW note on his sheet.

In the interest of fairness I decided to do a little digging, and I haven't been able to find a non-pay site for the non-sexual offence, so I coughed up the money to search that registry: COURT OFFENSE 35620008 ( POSS MARIJ < 2OZ ). Btw, paying for automated access to a public database? WTF? Since when did public interest become a matter of profit?

He's obviously a really really scary pusher. Less than 2 ounces. That's an arbitrarily high limit to set. I don't smoke, but I suspect that a packet of cigarettes has less tobacco than that.

Now, the pot history has the court date, cause number, tracking number etc. Why isn't any of that on the sex offenders list? Surely, if they are as bad as we are led to believe (and some of them probably are), wouldn't it be in the best interest of the public, that we get easy access to public court records, like how the person pleaded, possible testimony, evidence etc.?

The sex offenders registry says TX:36010001 INDECENCY W/CHILD SEXUAL CONTACT on his info. The Smoking Gun says he took pictures of a nude child. Where did they get that info? Why not share it with the rest of the world?

Back to the question:

I do not how they are supposed to convey these facts in a more unbiased manner. I'm interested in seeing how you would do it.

I would have liked them to show their sources. The sex offender registry in Texas is available free of charge, so that would have required what - 10 seconds more to write the article. And since they obviously have access to something more detailed than the sex offender registry why not link to that? If it's a fax or letter - post a copy of it. It's really not that hard.

I do not how they are supposed to convey these facts in a more unbiased manner. I'm interested in seeing how you would do it.

On Wikipedia those two things (indecency and pot) would have a cite needed note on them.

This is fairly simple to do in a modern society with public access to court records.

As it happens you can find Shawn Thomas Powell in the Texas Sex Offender list. I'm curious about the Ending Registration Date NON-EXPIRE bit though. Haven't looked at any other people on the list, but it would be interesting to know how many are on a non-expiring list. Especially considering that he has a Risk Level LOW.

In the interest of fairness I decided to do a little digging, and I haven't been able to find a non-pay site for the non-sexual offence, so I coughed up the money to search that registry: COURT OFFENSE 35620008 ( POSS MARIJ . Btw, paying for automated access to a public database? WTF? Since when did public interest become a matter of profit?

He's obviously a really really scary pusher. Less than 2 ounces. That's an arbitrarily high limit to set. I don't smoke, but I suspect that a packet of cigarettes has less tobacco than that.

Now, the pot history has the court date, cause number, tracking number etc. Why isn't any of that on the sex offenders list? Surely, if they are as bad as we are led to believe (and some of them probably are), wouldn't it be in the best interest of the public, that we get easy access to public court records, like how the person pleaded, possible testimony, evidence etc.?

The sex offenders registry says TX:36010001 INDECENCY W/CHILD SEXUAL CONTACT on his info. The Smoking Gun says he took pictures of a nude child. Where did they get that info? Why not share it with the rest of the world?

Back to the question:

I do not how they are supposed to convey these facts in a more unbiased manner. I'm interested in seeing how you would do it.

I would have liked them to show their sources. The sex offender registry in Texas is available free of charge, so that would have required what - 10 seconds more to write the article. And since they obviously have access to something more detailed than the sex offender registry why not link to that? If it's a fax or letter - post a copy of it. It's really not that hard.

Also some states (NJ, Indiana in 2007) change their rate on occasion.

I didn't think of it until you mentioned it, but some states have temporary sales tax "holidays" every year. Texas has a "back-to-school" tax holiday every year:

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxpubs/tx98_490/tx98_490.html

.

A store, bar or restaurant might or might not sell alcohol to a person with an out-of-state driver's license, military ID, or passport. What's acceptable in any establishment is a matter of that establishment's private business policies.

If you think that's bad, teenagers don't even need to take the driving test in order to get a license in Texas. From http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/parenttaught.htm

The student must take a written and vision examination prior to receiving the Texas Driver License Instruction permit. However, the skills (driving) test will be waived for teenagers who complete both classroom and behind-the-wheel portions of a Texas driver education course. The instructor participating in the Parent Taught Driver Education Program has the option to waive the skills (driving) test or require the student to pass the skills (driving) test administered by DPS prior to issuing a Class C driver license.

So: adults must take the test, teenagers don't need to. Why are my insurance rates so high again?

Not true. While speeds below the speed limit may still be considered unsafe and attract a summons, any speed over the posted limit is prima facie evidence of unreasonable speed and is illegal on that basis alone.

It's not like you needed it, as anybody can tell, but you should have added in a little IANAL into your post - which, by the way, is absurd. You may not say that something is prima facie and therefor illegal; really, what are you thinking? Never the less, how about a little knowledge showing how horribly wrong you are:

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 545. OPERATION AND MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES


SUBCHAPTER H. SPEED RESTRICTIONS

Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
(a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing; and
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.
(c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;
(3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway; and
(5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.
(a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

Text of subsec. (b) as amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 663, Sec. 2 and Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 1

(b) Unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with Section 545.351(b), the following speeds are lawful:
(1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley and 15 miles per hour in an alley;
(2) 70 miles per hour in daytime and 65 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car, motorcycle, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer bearing a vessel, as defined by Section 31.003, Parks and Wildlife Code, that is less than 26 feet in length, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer used primarily to transport a motorcycle, or passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer designed and used primarily to transport dogs or livestock, on a highway numbered by this state or the United States outside an urban district, including a farm-to-market or ranch-to-market road;
(3) 60 miles per hour in daytime and 55 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car or motorcycle on a highway that is outside an urban district and not a highway numbered by this state or the United States;
(4) 60 miles per hour outside an urban district if a speed limit for the vehicle is not otherwise specified by this section; or
(5) outside an urban district:
(A) 60 miles per hour if the vehicle is a school bus that has passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection under Section 548.201 and is on a highway numbered by the United States or this state, including a farm-to-market ro

There's an argument to be made that the evidence wasn't gathered legally. Clearly, had MediaSentry been hired by RIAA's attorneys instead of by the contracting arm of the company (and they might have been), there work would be fully protected under MN law. And under Texas law , Texas Occupational code Sec. 1702.324(9); I'm an attorney's consultant in Texas, and it pays to know these things! Further more, Section 1702.104 of the state occupations code waives the requirement of a PI license for the investigation of data available to the general public. The counter-arguments are that the defendant was engaging in public discourse rather than private, protected speech and that MediaSentry was simply a witness of this event. The defendant sent packets to the MediaSentry computer, which MUST process the contents of those packets, including the IP Addresses that were recorded, in order to be able to understand the communication. Therefore, MediaSentry is as much a witness to the event as would be a bystander on the street who sees a car wreck. The PI law certainly doesn't require that a witness of a public event be a licensed private investigator. The court's decision in this matter is not a foregone conclusion.

Carrying the rest of the country economically? bullshit

Economist Bernard "Bud" Weinstein probably would agree. He says "North Texas Best Place to Be in Recession". Now if I recall right, from threads yesterday and the day before we've conversed in, you think Obama is doing the right thing. Well so does "Bud". He "believes the steps are headed in the right direction." Further, "He believes North Texas will fare better than most of the country, as the area's economy was strong as it headed into the global recession. People already were reported to be flocking to the region from all over the United States, especially from California and Michigan, with the surge expected to increase once the economy improves later this year or in early 2010."

Now I don't agree, or disagree, but your bullshit statement caused me to look it up so I found that article.

Middle ranking? is 49th a middle ranking as that was the last ranking I heard for Texas [last few years]

You're still right, Texas is near the bottom in education. However New Hampshire, the state for the libertarian Free State Project, is ranked number 1 by at least one calculation. It looks like New Hampshire high school students also score higher on the SAT than average.

Libertarians and Republicans might have their differences but they tend to vote together, are cut from the same cloth

I started out as a democrat, though not registered. The first tyme I voted I voted for Jimmy Carter. I don't recall who I voted for in '84 but then in '88 I voted for Ron Paul on the Libertarian ticket. During the 2004 campaign there were some Libertarians for Howard Dean. And in 2008 there was a debate on who would be better, or less bad, McCain or Obama. I think I told you before, but I may be wrong, I voted for Obama myself. So while the Libertarian Party was started by people who left the Republican Party not all are or vote for Republicans.

My problem with Texas is that a whole bunch of stupid radiates from that state every year and is mucking up the country I live in and Love.

I sometimes feel the same about both Democrats and Republicans.

Falcon

2. Media Sentry not holding state investigative licenses is irrelevant because the information they gathered was publicly available.

In Texas, at least, it doesn't matter if it's public info or not. You have to have a license for your company if it:

:(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;

Check Texas Penal code 1702.104 here if you don't believe me.

The 40 billion Yuan cost is not for one reactor; it is for two of the same kind.

OK, looks like I got that wrong, at least for this press release. But those costs do not seem to be in line with what U.S. nuclear plant developers expect to pay.

For example, this Wall Street Journal article (follow first link for full text) indicates that FPL Groups expects new AP1000's at its Turkey Point plant in Florida to cost $6-$9 billion each, and Georgia Power Co. expects a 45.7% stake in two similar reactors (i.e., 90% of one reactor) to cost $6.4 billion. (The first two reactors at Georgia Power's plant cost nearly $4.5 billion each 20 years ago, over 10 times the $330 million per plant originally estimated.)

So I'd be pretty skeptical of anyone who claims they can deliver nuclear power for less than $0.06-$0.10 per kWh. On the other hand, lots of wind power is being delivered at those costs or lower.

Texas passed a law in 1999 requiring 2 GW of wind power by 2009, but they keep exceeding their goal. By 2007 they had around 2.7 GW of wind capacity. Then they added another 1.6 GW in 2007, and another 2.7 GW in 2008, bringing the total to around 7 GW. This is driven hardly at all by the Texas requirements, a little bit by the federal tax incentives (around $0.01/kWh), and mostly by the fact that Texas has great wind sites and wind power is now competitive with other sources of electricity.

The industry has been growing by 30-40% per year worldwide, and that kind of growth has a way of sneaking up on you.

I do run a business, but I don't do accounting. I hire accountants because I know things are complex--and I have been audited.

But I do know the law. If you talked to those in jail, or read through their cases, you would find they are materially different that what Daschle did.

I'm not making up Civil vs. Criminal law. Or, to quote on source "the difference between tax law and the IRS rules and regulations, the monetary and non-monetary penalties imposed for understatements of tax liability, and finally provide a means for preventing and defending understatements of tax liability"

Daschle violated rules and regulations. If hadn't paid, he would have violated the law. If he'd lied about having the car and driver, he would have violated the law. If he made a math error, its rules and regulations and a chance to pay.

For an example go here:
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/tax/manuals/law/law_ch5_0.html#5.2.1.1

Notice that there are several monitary penalties for violations, as well as a few that are misdemeanors. The financial penalties are civil matters, the others criminal.

Totally OT, but there you go.

Btw, I'm also a Texan. It's my understanding that only a few states in the U.S. order textbooks at the state level. You are missing something: Letting conservative think-tanks prescribe curriculum is an unambiguously bad thing; this isn't a law, it's action by the SBOE to amend the curriculum to include language written by the Discovery Institute.

SBOE TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills)

Since Texas buys textbooks for the whole state, the TEKS curriculum has influence over what publishers put in their textbooks (nation-wide).

Your last sentence is odd. The statehouse is absolutely dominated by business-worshipping Republicans, and the judiciary is the same (unfortunately, imo, we elect our judges). We have no state income tax for individuals. If you wanted less government, you'd have to move to Somalia.

Yeah, it was late, and I wasn't thinking straight! Texas is actually a pretty fair state when it comes to regulation. It's usually the federal level that screws things up, although our state does occasionally make a few boneheaded decisions. I always thought something was odd with the way the state handles education here. I'm not even sure the way the US handles education as a whole is good. It seems like each independent school district should be able to make decisions for itself regarding education. Don't like the way your school district educates? Home school, private school, or move to another school district.

Actually, quantum gravity has been a fruitful line of inquiry.

Recent observations of super-distant, super-energetic gamma-ray bursts (specifically, GRB 080916C) have led to some validation of the quantum view.

Totally OT, but there you go.

Btw, I'm also a Texan. It's my understanding that only a few states in the U.S. order textbooks at the state level. You are missing something: Letting conservative think-tanks prescribe curriculum is an unambiguously bad thing; this isn't a law, it's action by the SBOE to amend the curriculum to include language written by the Discovery Institute.

SBOE TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills)

Since Texas buys textbooks for the whole state, the TEKS curriculum has influence over what publishers put in their textbooks (nation-wide).

Your last sentence is odd. The statehouse is absolutely dominated by business-worshipping Republicans, and the judiciary is the same (unfortunately, imo, we elect our judges). We have no state income tax for individuals. If you wanted less government, you'd have to move to Somalia.

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist6/berman.php

Then the greedy-ass city council wanted more revenue, so they shortened the yellow-light timing. They now have yellow-light times that are around 2 seconds on most of the camera-watched intersections.

Do you have anything to back that up?

This report suggests that rumour isn't true, and the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices defines 3 to 6 seconds for the yellow light. ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trf/final_report_rlc_1008.pdf (last page).

Hey, Carlos Norris wants to be the president of Texas. I say, let him have it. And then watch the Mexican drug lords eat his lunch for him without federal troops from Washington.

Because Texas wouldn't have any troops of it's own would they?

http://window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/use/

Many state do require you to report items purchased in another state, based on how long ago you bought it.
You might want to find out about that tax fraud you've been committing.

At least down here in Texas, any grant money funded through DSHS as well as HRSA at the federal level have specific sections that state that any system proposed that makes use of the VistA system will receive higher consideration to getting funded above any proprietary solution. Unfortunately the available solutions are still very high risk and many hospitals and other healthcare entities really don't like the look and feel when compared against proprietary browser-based systems.

At least down here in Texas, any grant money funded through DSHS as well as HRSA at the federal level have specific sections that state that any system proposed that makes use of the VistA system will receive higher consideration to getting funded above any proprietary solution. Unfortunately the available solutions are still very high risk and many hospitals and other healthcare entities really don't like the look and feel when compared against proprietary browser-based systems.

In Texas, it's the other way around...

As long as you don't lie about the ex-employee, you appear to be covered legally.

When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash.

No, congress had a short leash, states had more power. That ended with the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about states rights. Amendment XVII: Election of senators further strengthened congress. Prior to it's ratification state legislatures chose senators. With it's ratification though people voted directly for senators. this removed power from the states. Many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government.

Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.

Originally representatives and senators had to work for a living, as business owners, farmers, or employees and because of this they didn't spend much tyme in Washington DC. Today that I know of only Texas still follows this. The Texas legislatures can only meet for regular sessions in odd numbered years, not every year, and only for a maximum of 140 days.

Falcon

When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash.

No, congress had a short leash, states had more power. That ended with the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about states rights. Amendment XVII: Election of senators further strengthened congress. Prior to it's ratification state legislatures chose senators. With it's ratification though people voted directly for senators. this removed power from the states. Many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government.

Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.

Originally representatives and senators had to work for a living, as business owners, farmers, or employees and because of this they didn't spend much tyme in Washington DC. Today that I know of only Texas still follows this. The Texas legislatures can only meet for regular sessions in odd numbered years, not every year, and only for a maximum of 140 days.

Falcon

...from the Department of Information Resources (SRRPUB09). A little-known document outside of OSS circles, unfortunately.

...not going to happen, under this or any administration I fear.

I infer you mean Federal government shrunk to its constitutional tasks only. Then there's the government of the states, and local governments. Consider, for example, the scope of the Texas constitution, which is or would become more than enough to make up for any efficiencies one might hope to achieve at a federal level.

It appears that a lot of people want a lot of stuff, and they don't want to know how it's paid for. You're fighting not only the institutional tendency for continuity, but also the people who want stuff that isn't readily available in the market. (Relative lack of "free market" and reasons for that discussion not included here, though that may be a requirement for an in-depth discussion of more efficient and on-task government.)

* The traded-in vehicles must have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon;

So, the program wouldn't really replace those fuel efficient cars with gas wasters. Additionally, emissions are a priority in this program. Although those old civics, etc. were super light and nimble, many of them have been poorly maintained over the years and the piston rings are worn, etc. which reduces fuel efficiency and increases their emissions footprint.

I agree, though, that I'd really enjoy a mint 1989 Civic hatchback.

The state of Texas has a similar voucher program that's been in place for a while now. Residents can get a $3,000 voucher for replacing a 10+ year-old car with a three-year-old or newer car. Perhaps I'd be able to double-up on the vouchers and get something like $7,000 for my 1988 Ford Ranger. Unfortunately, neither the proposed federal bill or the existing Texas program offer vouchers for automobiles that are replaced by motorcycles or scooters.

Seth

In a former life I did high balance corporate skip tracing for collection purposes. I just did a quick skip on IPAT Texas Comptroller's Filing Record. I haven't called yet but there's a nice lady that works there that will usually pull up the actual files and get all the goods from the original filings i.e. who signed the original corp documents. However if you look Fischer is the only registered "member" of that corp. Usually in Texas that means he was on the original papers as President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Which if I had to guess means he registered the corporation and "sold" his ideas to it in order to protect himself from backlash of a fraudulent lawsuit. This will be fun to see go to court.

Violating a sign that says "no X allowed" isn't breaking the law.

No, but doing X where it isn't allowed is. (How does one "violate a sign", anyway?)

The signage merely informs you of the fact that no privately owned guns are allowed to be carried on the premises in a ready state. The most common reasons are that either the location is excluded by the carry law itself (hospitals, etc), or that carrying is against the wishes of the property owner, which makes entering those premises while carrying an act of trespassing.

In some states, e.g. Texas, the signage must meet specific requirements in order to be enforceable, but since you didn't refer specifically to ignoring non-compliant signage in the state of Texas, I'll just leave that as a sidebar.

A carry permit comes with responsibilities, which include respecting the wishes of private property owners and the other conditions of the permit. See http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf#page=76 if you'd like to read up on the subject a bit more. (Sorry, it's a poorly scanned PDF.)

So, unless your argument is that a carry permit somehow trumps all other laws, including the carry permit legislation itself, I can't see how your original claim that "these [sign ignoring gun carriers] are law abiding citizens" can be justified.

You forgot those evil drug dealers. Just check out Texas's law on possessing lab glass:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/criminal_law_enforcement/narcotics/narcprecursor.htm

Um... when someone takes your $1700 and then never sends you the item you purchased that is is not "poor customer service." It is, in fact, a violation of the law.

Here's two important links for you:

Texas Attorney General Consumer Complaints
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/complain.shtml

Texas State Statutes:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/
Look under "statutes" for 'Business and Commerce Code".

Find some relevant section of the law and quote it via email to every contact you have at Dell. Tell them that you are reporting the situation to the Texas AG IMMEDIATELY and that you expect them to get your computer into your hands within X days or face the full penalty of the law.

I used a similar tactic recently on a cellphone provider and received a prompt and personal resolution.

Good luck.

Um... when someone takes your $1700 and then never sends you the item you purchased that is is not "poor customer service." It is, in fact, a violation of the law.

Here's two important links for you:

Texas Attorney General Consumer Complaints
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/complain.shtml

Texas State Statutes:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/
Look under "statutes" for 'Business and Commerce Code".

Find some relevant section of the law and quote it via email to every contact you have at Dell. Tell them that you are reporting the situation to the Texas AG IMMEDIATELY and that you expect them to get your computer into your hands within X days or face the full penalty of the law.

I used a similar tactic recently on a cellphone provider and received a prompt and personal resolution.

Good luck.

"Modified marijuana"? "Filled with additives"? I've never heard of this. Please, provide citations.

Well, there are plenty of cases related to that. On most cases, they mix PCP with cannabis. As PCP is kind of hard to obtain, embalming fluid was chosen by a lot of kids to be the perfect replacement. As you wanted a citation, I looked for something better than a news article, so I got this research paper here. This variation of pot is known as "Illy".

Your first sentence is trivially true, as if one purchases "illegal" items - whether a "loosey" or a bootleg tape or a nuclear weapon - you're buying them from a "criminal".

This is not just about semantics. We are talking about different kinds of criminals and you know it.

But the allegation in your second sentence that all drug purchases finance murder is simply not true. Buying some homegrown cannabis or psilocybin mushrooms or even home-brewed LSD - or buying from someone who bought from such a supplier - is not financing murderous behavior. Thanks to the prohibition that you love so much, buyers can't check on the ethical and social responsibility of their suppliers. If you want drug users to buy from people who are not engaged in violence, you need to bring the drug market out of the underground, make it possible for a sort of "Shopping for Better World" to the drug trade.

I'm not here to defend prohibition. My points are: It's a lie to say that you're controlling the drug and not the other way around; Prohibition it's not about trying to control people, just for the fun of it, but it's mostly related to avoiding a negative cultural shift that might affect weak people; These drugs ARE illegal at the current moment, so discussing proper ways of making this law achieve it's full effect is a valid discussion.

When you say "if you want drug users to... bla bla", it doesn't mean anything for me. I don't care about drug users. But I do care about laws and personal ethics. I would never, ever, ever, deal with a criminal (no, not someone selling bootleg tapes) just to have some fun. It's not an acceptable attitude just because society is trying to keep you away from your "recreation".

What's next? Stealing cars just because your local auto dealership is closed?

Making teenagers behave is the responsibility of parents. You don't get to point a gun at me just because you don't want your kid doing what I'm doing.

You can always let go off society and go back to the caves. We'll still be here, accepting the fact that civilization comes with a price. Being stopped from doings things that might not be good for others is part of coexisting with other people.

If Texas has this rule in place, I'm sure there's some other sub-rule or exception that allows for reserving the nominee's spot, or the 70-day rule only applies to non-Dem/GOP people.

I reckon it's easy to be sure there's such a provision if you haven't read the statute. I haven't seen any such provision.

It doesn't make any sense to have such a rule when both parties nominate their candidates later in the year than that.

Or perhaps it doesn't make any sense for the parties to nominate their candidates so late in the year when Texas has such a rule. It's entirely reasonable for states to establish filing deadlines. The two big parties were fully aware of the Texas law, and chose to ignore it by scheduling the latest pair of conventions in history.

Sure, the law might be smudged. Judges reinterpret laws all the time. However, most courts are unlikely to smudge a law like this in a politically unfavorable way when there is a plausible interpretation that won't generate mainstream criticism. The plausible interpretation in this case is that the law is designed to guarantee that third-party candidates have access to the ballots if they follow minimal procedure.

Take a look at the Texas Supreme Court opinion that, according to this press release, supposedly states that Texas law "does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines." The case actually allowed a candidate to get on the ballot despite filing mistakes (the quote simply limits the scope of the opinion as opposed to carving out the meaning of the statute in stone as Mr. Barr seems to claim).

The courts have a bias in construing election law to favor allowing candidates onto the ballot (thus letting voters ultimately decide the issue of electability) instead of disallowing candidates from the ballot (thus effectively taking the final decision away from voters).

Ultimately, you don't need to apply strict rules of interpretation to guess which way the Texas Supreme Court is likely going to go with this case. You just need to know what interpretations of the statute are plausible and what is most likely important to the judges.