Slashdot Mirror

"there's no such deadline. As a Texan, I can write in anyone I like..."

You can, but it only counts if the person you wrote in filed by August 26th.

From http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/runpres07.shtml:

Write-in candidates file a declaration of write-in candidacy with the Secretary of State. The declaration may not be filed earlier than July 27, 2008, or later than 5:00 p.m. of August 26, 2008. The declaration must also be accompanied with information about the vice-presidential running mate and the names and addresses of the presidential electors. Written-signed statements of each individualâ(TM)s consent to be a vice-presidential candidate or elector must accompany the application.

But the legislatures would have to be called into a special session, they are off this year. TX Legislative Calendar. If they are called into session, there is no guarantee that they won't flee the state, It's happened before

I think thats the sort of the point here, this is a basic law about elections, about as basic as "be at work by 9:00AM" and the fact that some campaign(s) with hundreds of lawyers, and assorted other people(s) can't even make a simple deadline, that by skimming a previous link posted seems to have been around for at least 23 years.

Everyone knows that (most, if not all) politicians are devious little shits that try to circumvent anything that might be in their way, law or otherwise, but now they can't seem to even (metaphorically) show up on time.

An on-line link to the Texas election code: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/EL/content/htm/el.011.00.000192.00.htm#192.031.00

What does it matter where I live? ... that does not change the fact that passing on the right is illegal.

It matters because in the states that I'm familiar with, passing on the right is not illegal, and as far as I know, it is not illegal in any US state, so I challenge you to cite the law that says that it is.

Some examples: California: basically says that it's legal if there are at least two lanes going in your direction (an in certain other situations too).

Louisiana: pretty much the same.

Missouri: pretty much the same.

Texas: pretty much the same, except you have to be on a one-way street or a divided highway.

In general, passing on the right is legal in the situations where one would normally want to pass on the right, as long as you actually stay on the road, rather than passing on the shoulder or the grass. So where do you live where passing on the right is illegal? Provide a citation to the statute.

But all of these comments on the legitimacy of global warming/cooling/climate change all ignore one very simple, inescapable fact: Most "carbon-neutral" energy forms can be generated locally. Windmills use the wind in your area. Solar panels use the sunlight from your roof. This is also true for geothermal, ocean-wave, and bio-fueled energy. All can be generated locally, with local resources.

Au contraire. You are failing to distinguish between utility-scale and non-utility scale generation. Distributed generation, micro grids, etc. are all fine ideas -- but the renewable component simply does not produce the amount of electricity, on a reliable basis, necessary to meet electric demand.

In fact, the major problem with renewables (other than their intermittent nature) is that large-scale wind farms and solar generation facilities are located in the middle of nowhere. Getting that power to load (i.e., users of electricity) is hugely exprensive and a real engineering challenge. Don't forget that our electric system in this country is still relatively primative and was designed to by integrated utilities to serve their own load in carefuly defined geographic areas. The system was not designed to transmit power hundreds of miles across the systems of multiple utilities. It's not as simple as just flipping a switch.

According to the primary wind energy trade association, the top give states in terms of wind capacity are: (1) North Dakota, (2) Texas (predominantly rural west Texas), (3) Kansas, (4) South Dakota, and (5) Montana (followed by such densely populated states as Nebraska, Wyoming, and Oklahoma). Even AWEA states that wind can only be used to provide 20 percent of the electricity we need -- and that ignores the need to have back-up generation on the days the wind does not blow.

Two major initiatives -- one in Texas and one in California -- give some sense of the location problem. The Texas energy regulators "CREZ" program is planning to spend over $6 billion to build upgrades necessary to build new transmisison lines to get wind to market. This is because the wind in Texas is largely located in the western positions of the state, while demand is predominantly to the east. This $6 billion is money that will eventually be paid by Texas consumers in the form of higher electricity prices.

The California problem is similar. California is requesting regulatory permission to spend billion in upgrades to the transmission system to interconnect (i.e., hook up a generator to the transmission system) what they call in California, Locationally Constrained Resources. These include most of the major wind and large-scale solar resources in the state. The California Public Utility Commission has a nice summary of the program. In California, the generators pay the initial costs of interconnection; however, these costs are then socialized to all energy users in California over 5 years. Again, the ultimate cost to California consumers is billions of dollars. Look at the large-scale solar projects scheduled to be built by OptiSolar for PG&E -- they are largely in the middle of nowhere.

Please not that I am NOT arguing that this is a bad investment or that it should not be done. But switching to renewables is going to be a long and economically painful process. People have to understand that no existing renewable resource, or even combination of resources, is reliable enough to supply the enormous amounts of power we consumer every day. Even if we built enough wind and solar *capacity* (i.e., theoretical ability to generate power) to power the entire nation, we would need to maintain as backup enough coal/nuclear/hydropower/natural gas to kic

You left out the part of "any item of equipment designed, made, or adapted to manufacture a controlled substance or a controlled substance analogue." This sounds like your standard burglary tools clause, and these are probably not actually illegal in TX on their own.

If intent to manufacture a controlled substance is what makes it illegal, why does TX require a permit to buy/sell/transfer laboratory glassware? And to obtain the permit, you have to allow them to come inspect your home (or wherever you're keeping the glassware) at "any reasonable time".

There are glassware retailers that won't sell to Texans without a permit. For example, this place. Some eBay sellers have the same policy too.

Besides "a filter" is on the list, and it would be laughable to think that everyone who goes to their local big box to buy an AC filter or some cheese cloth is now a criminal.

It actually says "filter funnels", not just any old filter. However, "transformers" are on the restricted list--everyone with any sort of electronic equipment owns dozens of those.

You had to make me look, as I was quite surprised about that law. But here it is: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/criminal_law_enforcement/narcotics/narcprecursor.htm

And there is in the law, too.

My guess is that the original poster is trying to talk about Texas penal code 9.42. The only language involving "criminal mischief" excludes criminal responsibility for using deadly force only when necessary to prevent or terminate trespass (e.g., other means of ending trespass must be tried first, such as asking the trespasser to leave), and when such deadly force is necessary to prevent "criminal mischief during the nighttime" (note the key word "criminal" -- commission of a crime must be active or imminent).

Those are actually some pretty high bars to clear; and, frankly, the only other real options are allowing people to trespass on your property and cause arbitrary and continuous property damage with no recourse other than waiting for the police to show up (which may take hours, depending on where you are).

Citation: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000261.00.htm

Texas Family Code, Chapter 261, Subchapter B, Section 101.

Someone took a piece of the bill, misunderstood it's meaning.

No, you read the bill incorrectly: the misunderstanding is yours.

It's a bit mis-formatted, so you missed which section (a)(1) it was referring to.

The correct reference is:

Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY.

(a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:

(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to:

(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;

(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;

(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or

(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;

[....]

(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.

If you don't believe me, look at the statute, as amended:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/OC/content/htm/oc.010.00.001702.00.htm#1702.104.00

Subsection (a)(1)(B) casts a really wide net, when combined with the subsection (b) that was added. It's basically defining what constitutes an "investigations company", and a literal interpretation of the law as written could apply to a lot of people that aren't investigating a crime.

Yes, I know the state agency says that wasn't the intention. But, they didn't write the law. And while there are legal doctrines that provide some protection (look up "equitable estoppel"), it can be an expensive day in court to prove you were not breaking the law.

And the quote is wrong.
"
                          (b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or
            furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished
            through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the
            content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
"
Subsection (a)(1):
"
                      (a) Unless the person holds a license as a security services
            contractor, a person may not:
                                      (1) act as an alarm systems company, armored car
            company, courier company, guard company, [or] guard dog company,
            locksmith company, or private security consultant company;"

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02833F.htm

What we have 'ere is, failure to communicate.

Someone took a piece of the bill, misunderstood it's meaning.

Err, TFA only consists of interviews. If I were a Texan and repaired computers, I don't think I'd want to stake my business on what the legislator said in a news interview, as opposed to the actual letter of the law, which quite frankly is very poorly written.

Not a good idea for the PI ... the law calls it "self-defense" in Texas for a property owner to kill someone threating him on his own property, further legitimized if the threatening person is armed.

The PI in your story is dead man in Texas.

Here is a link to the opinion summary by the TX PSB. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/docs/psb_opin_sum.pdf/

It makes specific reference to PC repair, and not needing to be a licnesed investigation company, unless you are creating reports based on recovered data.

An excerpt from the Opinion Summary: "Computer repair or support services should be aware that if they offer to perform investigative services, such as assisting a customer with solving a computer-related crime, they must be licensed as investigators. The review of computer data for the purpose of investigating potential criminal or civil matters is a regulated activity under Chapter 1702 of the Texas Occupations Code, as is offering to perform such services. Section 1702.102 provides as follows:"

As you can see, if you're fixing a dead MOBO, HDD, or other hardware, virus issues etc, you DO NOT need to be a licensed PI or Investigations Company.

Definitely shorter. And cheaper. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf Page 9 lays it all out. The biggies are 21, not a felon, no outstanding felony warrants (some misdemeanors can disqualify you too) no problems with chemical dependency, although, as written, we water enthusiasts could be in trouble. 1 background check, some fingerprints and a certified hand gun instructor that certifies your proficiency with handguns, and to renew, there's a continuing education requirement.

Nope, no license of any kind is required to keep a gun on you in your place of business if you own the property. Heck at your place of business, you can carry openly.

If you're renting though, you might run it by your landlord and ask first :)

Now, if you want to keep your handgun in a holster and under a jacket, and step outside, then you need a concealed carry permit.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm

2000 hrs. of schooling to become a licensed barber? That is nonsense.

___
State of Texas Licensing and Regulation:

http://www.license.state.tx.us/barbers/barberlaw.htm

Section 1601.253. Eligibility for Class A Barber Certificate

(a) An applicant for a Class A barber certificate must:

(1) be at least 16 years of age; and

(2) pass a written and practical examination demonstrating to the departmentâ(TM)s satisfaction the applicant's fitness and competence to practice barbering.

(b) The department shall issue a Class A barber certificate to an applicant who:

(1) complies with the application requirements of this chapter;

(2) passes the applicable examination;

(3) pays the required fee; and

(4) possesses the other qualifications required by this chapter.
__

Ther is NO schooling required to become a licensed barber in the state of Texas, but the passage of a test. Whether you choose to gain the knowledge and skills required to pass the test by attending evening classes somewhere, studying on the internet or hanging out at your aunt's beauty shop is up to you.

There IS a schooling requirement to earn a license to become a BARBER TECHNICIAN, however:

__

b) An applicant for a barber technician license must:

(1) be at least 16 years of age;

(2) have completed the seventh grade or the equivalent of the seventh grade;

(3) have completed a course of instruction in a commission-approved training program consisting of not less than 300 hours in a period of not less than eight weeks; and

(4) submit the required fee with the application.
___

300 hrs.schooling requirement to be named a "barber technician" is still a far cry from the 2,000 hrs. requirement you brought in here falsely just to call yourself a licensed BARBER.

Now, back to the point here: Taking the example of the barber, since it was brought up: You may practice the art of hair cutting, trimming, shaving, etc. without any license whatsoever, but you may not call yourself a BARBER (licensed or otherwise) without obtaining a license first. As mentioned above, obtaining said license does not require schooling or a degree of any kind. That is totally different from this new law which sipulates that to simply practice any kind of "investigative" PC repair, which means ALL PC repair in practical terms, one must not only acquire a LICENSE of some kind, but actually own or acquire a degree. And, no, not a computer degree, but a full-fledged 4-yr. CRIMINAL JUSTICE degree (or alternatively go through a 3-yr. apprenticeship under a licensed private investigator.)

I agree with the previous writer that this law will be reversed by higher courts on at least three grounds, perhaps more.

The law provides for fines of knowing use of someone who is not licensed.

But the law also is focused on those who call themselves "Security Services personnel" -- guards, those who do investigations (PI's).

I'm not sure how people are getting this applies to computer repairs....the security personnel must also be licensed to carry a gun....

This doesn't seem to be the run-of-the-mill computer repair situation. Maybe if you are investigating 'fraud' in a company...but, beyond that --

Someone want to 'enlighten' me how this applies to normal (i.e. not looking for forensic evidence of illegal activities) computer repair ops?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02833F.htm

Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts
      as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the
      person:
                                (1) engages in the business of obtaining or
      furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
      related to:
                                            (A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a
      state or the United States;
                                            (B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,
      knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations,
      associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a
      person;
                                            (C) the location, disposition, or recovery of
      lost or stolen property; or
                                            (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire,
      libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
                                (2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts
      employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board,
      officer, or investigating committee;
                                (3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts
      employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an
      individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice
      purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
                                (4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts
      employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the
      use of a personal protection officer.
                    (b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or
      furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished
      through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the
      content of, computer-based data not available to the public.

***
So, if you READ it, you'll see that it will require a PI license if your company engages in computer forensic activities. By extension, if you a computer tech attempts to turn in a customer for having incriminating data on their computer, the customer could probably sue and the tech could probably face whatever penalties for investigating without a license.

That's what the story by a Dallas channel 33, News at Nine Intern says, but that's not what the law says.

IANAL, but reading the law, I see that it is directed at Computer Security and Computer Forensics professionals, not the type of stuff the Geek Squad does. From the law: "review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data" and "including forensic analysis, burglar alarm system engineering, and necessary data collection." It is about gathering evidence for criminal prosecution.

The certification of computing professionals is not a new idea. There is already an organization that does it. The Institute for the Certification of Computer Professionals http://www.iccp.org/ has been doing it for decades. This certification was recomended by the DPMA (Data Processors Management Association) back in the 70's. The DPMA is now known as the Association of Information Technology Professionals http://www.aitp.org/.

Please follow the links and see that the summary is wrong. The new law requires a PI license if you act as a private security consultant company (which can be an individual).

The relevant qualification for the Slashdot crowd are that you must

engage ... in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;

and do so by

furnishing information ... obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.

IOW, you can't take into divorce court the notion that your spouse was having a cyber-affair based on having your computer looked at by the kid down the block. This doesn't appear to have much effect on most repair shops.

The text is here. Read it. The word "computer" appears in the text just once, so grep for the relevant part.

You seem to be under the impression I am advocating coal

No, I don't have the impression you're pro coal. I do think you're pro nuclear power, wanting to build more power plants "with only a few thousand nuclear plants, eventually, powering the US" .

Environmental impact of energy production comes from the waste emissions

Environmental impacts also come from mining as well as pre and post processing solid waste.

That's where nuclear becomes a very attractive option.

Uranium mining can be very dirty and destructive. "Uranium mining left a legacy of death". The Navajo have had to live with it. "Navajos won't allow uranium mining"[pdf]. Throughout the world it's mostly Indigenous peoples who carry the burden of uranium mining. "Indigeneous Peoples Call for Global Ban on Uranium Mining".

when we're redirecting enough solar energy to electricity that we start losing vegetation?

Any vegetation effected by solar power, PVs or concentrated, will only be where the concentrators or PVs are.

Nuclear, on the other hand, won't still the tides, it won't slow the winds, it doesn't soak up the sun's radiation, and it won't release the CO2 that we now know from experience warms the earth.

Forgetting mining, the construction of nuclear power plants releases a lot of CO2. Construction of plants require prodigious amounts of concrete and steel, both of which require massive amounts of heat energy to manufacture, and more than likely it come from coal. Then there's the need to transport them.

...the wind potential off the Mid Atlantic comes to 330 [gigawatts] Look at that another way - that's 330GW (but really a lot more, since windmills aren't 100% efficient) of energy getting taken out of the global airmass every year and put into our air conditioners and refrigerators. Nuclear takes that 330GW (again, more in reality) out of a fairly small amount of uranium or thorium.

Like there are air conditioners and refrigerators of the coast. There are more than likely houses with them near mining and manufacturing though. Then there's the need for water for the mining yet water isn't readily available where the uranium is. In Colorado "Gov. Ritter Signs Uranium Mining Water Protection Bill".

The Univ. of Delaware study you linked to (see, I click! I read! Feel the love, Falcon.) plans to generate 330GW of power annually - from 166,720 turbines floating on top of fifty thousand square miles of ocean.

That area is still capable of being used as it is now. Ships and sail boats can still sail. Fishermen can still fish, actually because of the platforms needed for wind ginnies more fish could live there. Then with more fish more people could be encouraged to swim or snorkel and dive, which could boost the economy of the area. This is being done in Florida, artificial reefs are made by sinking cleaned objects which then encourages coral to grow. The coral offers shelters and food to fish.

That's a wind farm roughly one-fifth the area of Texas

Texas, specifically west Texas has wind farms that prod

More and more, Texas rocks. They eve have their own power grid, exempt from federal oversight. How long before they break off and become their own nation again?

Too bad about this stuff. Then again, I live here. The way people in NYC talk you'd think Texas was a cesspool and NYC has flower-scented farts. Guess it's not true.

But, I DIGRESS.

Not all states. From Texas's Transportation Code, Chapter 544.007:

This is one where bureaucracy has gone awry. . .

I understnad the desire by the State of Texas to regulate a marketplace that has significant opportunities for abuse/legal ramifications. Hence, getting a Private Investigators license makes sense, as does a variety of security consultants. These people can carry guns, can directly interface with the populace and if the wrong characters were introduced to the field, well a lot of bad things could happen to people directly. So, I understand and agree with this form of regulation.

But then, it gets expanded in scope, without expanding the nature of the licenses . . .

Quoting from the Texas Private Security Bureau's http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/docs/psb_opin_sum.pdfpoint paper shows that computer forensics investigators - those that

"For example, when the service provider is charged with reviewing the client's computer-based data for evidence of employee malfeasance, and a report is produced that describes the computer-related activities of an employee, it has conducted an investigation and has therefore provided a regulated service. On the other hand, if the company simply collects and processes electronic data (whether in the form of hidden, deleted, encrypted files, or otherwise), and provides it to the client in a form that can then be reviewed and analyzed for content by others (such as by an attorney or an investigator), then no regulated service has been provided."

clear, huh . . .

and then

"The Private Security Act construes an investigator as one who obtains information related to the "identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person; the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property; or for the purpose of securing evidence for use in court. Tex. Occ. Code 1702.104. Consequently, we would conclude that the provider of computer forensic services must be licensed as an investigator, insofar as the service involves the analysis of the data for the purposes described above."

but in a cave to e-discovery (maybe they realized that this would open a big hornet's nest)

"With respect to the statutory reference to "securing evidence for use in court," we would suggest that the mere accumulation of data, or even the organization and cataloging of data for discovery purposes, is not a regulated service."

but, it gets better, later in the same document

"Thus, the industries that are directly regulated are the same industries about which one cannot consult without a license. Because the Private Security Bureau does not regulate software designers, installers, or suppliers, it also does not regulate those who provide consulting services related to computer network security."

This means that for a true computer forensic analyst - sitting in cube, analyzing digital evidence, they must be licensed, probably as a Class A PI, and work for a firm that is also licensed. But if you or your firm does network security work (risk assessments, pen testing, etc.) then you don't need a license.

As a computer security professional, with a PhD in the subject, and hears of experience, I can easily remember numerous risk assessments that also uncovered forensic evidence of separate unauthorized activity - so at what point do I stop and put on my PI hat and uniform?

Texas has made it simple for me - I will continue to consult in Texas, but only to Federal clients, where the state rules do not apply. Until the bureaucrats figure out how to do it right . . . erm, well don't hold your breath, this debate has been cooking for years.

Nope, it is done in the US to encourage rain to fall on the best areas. Like fields rather than cities. Texas is doing it and so are other states I'm sure. http://www.license.state.tx.us/weather/weatherfaq.htm

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions.php?headingID=36

"Magnetic stripe information contained on driver's license may be used only by law enforcement and other government personnel acting in official capacities"

A very basic road test has been required by Texas law since at least 2000 (that's when the current rule was adopted, at least).

I got my driver's license in 1996 under similar circumstances (Texas, high school, driver's ed taught by a coach). A (basic) road test was part of the course. I don't know whose requirement it was.

All Texans are responsible for paying occasional use tax when they buy taxable goods and services for use in Texas and the seller does not charge Texas sales tax, or does not charge the correct amount of Texas sales tax. Use tax is reported and paid directly to the Texas Comptroller's office.

According to http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/local/ Texas has both sales and use tax:

"The Texas state sales and use tax rate is 6.25%, but local taxing jurisdictions (cities, counties, special purpose districts, and transit authorities) may also impose sales and use tax up to 2% for a total maximum combined rate of 8.25%."

The TEA has a contarct with you (and the rest of the populace). Complain and they must respond within 60 days. A contact form is available.

The TEA has a contarct with you (and the rest of the populace). Complain and they must respond within 60 days. A contact form is available.

I sent a message to them this morning and then sent an email to thirty people who will likely also contact them. They can be reached here and it would be great if they received a whole lot of well-thought and considered messages from all over the world (either in support of their decision or against it--I'm not here to say which way you should lean).

In my message I complained that neutrality is a strange term in this argument since it's not an either/or thing. This is a case of apples and oranges.

Now, if someone wants to put up a scientific theory counter to evolution, well, then I'll listen and wait for someone to test it. As for Creationism/ID, the Kitzmiller v Dover Case took care of that for me.

In Texas - you need to register to use lab apparatus like condensor, flasks etc whereas you don't need to register for handgun - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/criminal_law_enforcement/narcotics/pages/chemicalsapparatus.htm
I have used half the apparatus mentioned in the above list.

No wonder home chemistry sets are dying. The priorities are messed up.

Just an afterthought:
Do we sue the gun makers when people get shot.....
My head just exploded.

So if there is a federal law prohibiting Internet access taxing, why do so many states actually have the tax? I know for a fact that at least Texas has a tax on it. It is only supposed to be collected on monthly amounts over $25, but the ISPs generally collect it on the whole thing (or at least Time Warner Cable does). This would probably be grounds for a class action suit against any ISP that does the same.

When I talked to a tax representative there a few years ago, she bluntly stated that "We don't care what tax laws Congress passes; we have an Internet tax here. You can try to not pay it and see what happens." Gotta love Texas pride!

this list is outdated by 2 years, but it's a start: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2005/112105sony_list.pdf

"Why don't we use some of that money we got for selling Spanish corporation Cintra our roads?"

Umm.... what? The 121 contract was awarded to NTTA...

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/news/014-2007.htm

"The committee," he said, "wanted a flat-out answer from the DIR. 'Was [moving to open document formats] something we should be doing right now? And did they need the backing of the committee to do it?' The answer in both cases was, 'No.'"

That's not to say you shouldn't write your local Texas Rep if you support either Microsoft's or IBM's position, but for now, the bill has been "quashed".

Looking at the links for Texas, it appears that the two bills in question, SB 446 and HB 1794 are not "defeated", but instead just pending in committee. I'm not naïve enough to believe they couldn't be left there, but they've *not* been voted down explicitly yet...

Looking at the links for Texas, it appears that the two bills in question, SB 446 and HB 1794 are not "defeated", but instead just pending in committee. I'm not naïve enough to believe they couldn't be left there, but they've *not* been voted down explicitly yet...

Umm...no, those are recorded *mortgage* figures, and do not necessarily reflect *actual selling price*. Please, do some research before you undersell your own home based upon county records. (In fact, the Texas Legislature just shot down a bill this session that would have mandated recording of actual selling prices rather than mortgage amounts.)

If you don't know the website for your state go to

http://www.traffic.com/ which has traffic information for many cities.

For Dallas-Fort Worth Area http://dfwtraffic.dot.state.tx.us/
For Houston Area http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/layers/ ( one of the best websites in USA)
For San Antonio http://www.transguide.dot.state.tx.us/
For El Paso http://www.transvista.dot.state.tx.us/homepage.htm l

If you don't know the website for your state go to

http://www.traffic.com/ which has traffic information for many cities.

For Dallas-Fort Worth Area http://dfwtraffic.dot.state.tx.us/
For Houston Area http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/layers/ ( one of the best websites in USA)
For San Antonio http://www.transguide.dot.state.tx.us/
For El Paso http://www.transvista.dot.state.tx.us/homepage.htm l

If you don't know the website for your state go to

http://www.traffic.com/ which has traffic information for many cities.

For Dallas-Fort Worth Area http://dfwtraffic.dot.state.tx.us/
For Houston Area http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/layers/ ( one of the best websites in USA)
For San Antonio http://www.transguide.dot.state.tx.us/
For El Paso http://www.transvista.dot.state.tx.us/homepage.htm l

I already covered this in a separate post, but...45% of teachers in Texas (almost half) work in districts that have starting pay of $40K or higher. This is all the big cities and the suburbs - the same places science majors would likely find jobs. See: http://www.texasisd.com/artman/exec/view.cgi/28/51 779

Texas base teacher salary for a starting teacher is $27,320. See... http://www.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/salary/s al07exp.html/ You need to check you figures. On top of the base salary, individual districts can add to the base salary from local funds. A base salary of $38 to $40K for an entry level position would only be acheived at a wealthy district or a district with crime/social problems.

my source is here.

Thats not a problem, everyone knows that THE supreme being is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

-RAmen

I don't quite remember (sorry, I don't live in the USA). Isn't Texas one of the state where you can't work as a government official if you're a bloody atheist?

i don't know about the 'bloody' part, but article 1 section 4 of the bill of 'rights' of the texas constitution states that people may not hold office if they don't "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being".

the full text is:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

my source is here.