Slashdot Mirror

Ah, if *most* jurisdictions have provisions, that means it's not a problem? For example, feel free to peruse the relevant WA state legal code and point out the relevant provision (spoiler: the ACLU doesn't seem to think it exists). In any case, 18 US code 2251, a law against child porn is a federal law and - while I believe it only covers inter-state or foreign transmission - contains no such provisions. Fortunately, minors are definitely never in a different state from their SOs, and if they somehow were, would never request or send naughty pictures, right? Not that I know of any cases of the feds prosecuting such a case of private communications between consenting teens, but if they did the law would appear to be on their side.

While states certainly have some de facto control over what cases they will prosecute, in many cases they have certainly attempted to convict sexting teens as child pornographers, and sometimes they have succeeded. The situation does seem less outrageous than I believed it to be, especially after the first few cases to make the news generated enough outrage at this travesty, but it's still far from perfect.

http://www.cnet.com/news/polic... - 17 and 16 year old in Florida prosecuted, found guilty, conviction upheld on appeal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... - 15 year old arrested on felony charge (apparently got put on no-cell-phone-or-unsupervised-Internet probation, charges probably dropped afterward)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... - 7 teens charged with felonies, at least 6 plea bargained to misdemeanors (better than it could have been, still very wrong)
http://laist.com/2013/05/17/re... - Key quote: "... anyone who sends obscene images of persons under the age of 18, whether it’s of themselves or someone else, are violating child pornography laws,” San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Dept.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... - Cops photographing a 17-year-old's junk to try and enter the pictures as evidence. They eventually backed down, after massive public ridicule, on the plan to have him given an injection to make him erect before photographing him *again*.
http://pilotonline.com/news/go... - Provisions, you say? Nope, can't even downgrade it to a misdemeanor, gotta stay a felony!

Sorry for doing the research...

Federal poverty line is a bullshit number.

I did my calculations using the retail price of goods, plus risk reserves. A surprising amount of that is just extra cash thrown in because my calculations may be off, there may be a recession, prices may spike now and then (look at eggs), or people may occasionally spend irresponsibly (a monthly payment instead of lump-sum per year *really* provides a huge control for that particular risk, since you can only screw up one month; I do expect people to learn, readily, if they're not already fiscally-responsible accountants. They're poor, not retarded).

The Federal poverty line for a single individual is around $12k, and the numbers I give are well below that.

If you're on the bottom economic rung, an apartment/house of your own should not be expected.

224sqft. Enough for a 6'x9' bedroom (I actually spend much of my time in a room that size, with a futon, a computer desk, a 32 inch TV, video games...) and a 10'x9' common room, plus a bathroom and small kitchen tacked on. Low-income apartments have a median cost per square foot of roughly $1, although I've seen as low as 60 cents; with the risk reserve, I accounted $1.33/sqft.

That's for one individual, no room mates, no kids. If you've got a room mate (married?), you're getting twice the income. I pegged immigrants and families to a legacy public aid system, which doesn't support the adult population at all (except non-natural-born citizens) and so is much smaller--consequentially, less risk of abuse, so we can accept proportionally more fraud and focus on getting aid to families who need it. That means $1,100/month (in 2013) plus aid to feed and clothe your kids.

This is tied to the total income, and essentially to the per capita income, which always grows (GDP is the same number). You'll notice it's not a straight line; while there's a constant growth trend, the fluctuations are risk. That risk reserve thing I talked about? It's for that, too. In theory, as long as we don't dip below, say, 2013 (my established baseline), it continues to work without activating risk reserves; the minimum viable is a 2009 baseline.

By the by, being in the military counts as "Resident". On top of your military pay, you'd have the dividend going home to your spouse, or whatever you want to do with it. I advocate against paying citizens who don't live here; if a Chinawoman comes to Hawaii to birth a baby and then goes back to China, we shouldn't pay that kid money when he turns 18, having lived his life in China, living in China, working in China, having American citizenship. If he lives in America, well... he's a natural-born American and entitled to that money. Yes, I have thought of every possible risk--even the risks I can't name (most of which would just tank the economy anyway, so my answer is "nothing works then, so I haven't bothered").

Finances, economics, taxes... I've juggled too much money looking at this. I even wrote my own economic theories because the state-of-the-art was inadequate and couldn't explain a lot of economic behaviors. Can you believe nobody could explain why we have welfare systems, why welfare systems are possible *now* but not in 1750, or what causes Supply and Demand and scarcity? Like they could tell you prices increase when demand outpaces supply, but they couldn't tell you why supply wouldn't just increase to keep up with demand. (Hint: it's labor. Supply lasts as long as linear scaling; scarcity occurs when labor requirements scale superlinearly. That's part of why the per-capita incom

Thanks - that pointed me in the right direction. They did it, for the most part, in-house. A recently deceased Ralph Iboshi was brought on with the design team. He passed away back in 2012(ish), as I recall. He was with KPFF (they had at least one good employ - namely Mr. Iboshi) but KPFF's name is not on any of the documents that I'm finding. I'm only finding Mr. Iboshi's name.

It took me a minute to make the connection but you can find him listed on page 24 in this PDF:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projec...

But, when I look here:
http://www.scatnow.com/FEIS%20...

I see him listed as still being with KPFF. It makes me wonder if he simply ended up staying on with the muni and left KPFF or what. Given the date of the RFP, 2006, I'm a little concerned that I know nothing of the project. (The companies that you listed are the guys that are doing the construction - there's surely someone, perhaps from KPFF, still on-site though they have an office in Tacoma as I recall.)

At any rate, I noticed a fairly typical thing... Someone (probably Iboshi) came up with a bunch of great ideas and the State of Washington cut it down and they're implementing only five or six. (I'm willing to bet the additional costs would have been a percentage point or two.) This is why you can't have nice things. I've ranted about it on Slashdot before.

I'll keep reading and looking up more information. I'm just getting back in a little while ago. I'll make a phone call tomorrow or later tonight and see what pops out. If I saw the project, I don't believe we put a bid in on it. I don't even recognize it which is, well, a bit odd given the time frame. I'll dig back through and see if they did a regional RFP only and/or only sought an in-state business. Sometime around that point (around the time of the quake) was when KPFF opened an office up in Washington. They're usually out of Oregon - I think... Yeah, Oregon, I'll Google if need be.

At any rate, Iboshi's got some quality work out there. Years ago, he did some work on the PCH. One of the primary things that PCH tries to maintain is aesthetics (there's an interesting history going back through - the design work on the bridges is amazing) and there was a need to optimize throughput with growing traffic demands in the mid 1990s. I'd trust his work - but I'd keep in mind that they only acted on some of the proposals and it looks like quite a bit of work was done in-house.

The price doesn't look too bad. I suspect the insurance company is going to be pissed with the delay but that's what insurance is for. If you live out that way, you should call it some part of it, just a small part, Iboshi Way. Unless it turns out to suck, in that case - I mention again that municipalities are horrific about only implementing a part of the proposed solution - often at trivial cost savings and will only lead to much more expensive expansions or alterations in the future.

Having done a whole lot of work, across this country and in others, specifically with with government workers - I can answer your questions with one word:

Municipality.

But, some more of the story... No, I'm not saying all government is bad. I am saying that, for whatever reason, highway/transportation departments do some amazing things but sometimes they're amazingly inept.

Here's a Wikipedia article about the project:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Here's a section on the WSDOT site about the history (and has more information):
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projec...

They mention a muni engineer but I'm unable to find any information about the traffic engineers or the traffic modelers. I can almost guarantee that they exist, especially with the FHWA involved, and the timing on the project is interesting. I'd have had zero personal involvement but I may be familiar with the company who provided the above mentioned services. Very, very few municipalities (even at the State level) have the staff, education, or compute power to actually model their own traffic (in a timely fashion) and then make accurate predictions and suggestions. Thus, I'm almost willing to wager that it was contracted out and there were few companies doing so at the time (though there were more coming online starting a few years prior).

If anyone's in the area and wants to find out who did the work then I just might be able to get some sort of preview about real expectations (those expectations not given in the city council meetings or in press releases) and find out any scuttlebutt - though it might be a bit dated, I suspect the modeling company and/or traffic engineers have someone either on-call or on-site and they'll be capable of recommending, designing, and remodeling - or at least collecting the data and pushing it back to be done on big iron. I can say that I'd be a combination of pissed off for tying up the personnel and happy for the money because they've been paying some guy to hang out in WA for two years while the project went nowhere - and he's got no input, expertise, or willingness to accept liability for making any decisions as to what to do with broken equipment.

(They probably did work with others to look at alternative routes but I'm not seeing much about that.) Usually, it is me me picking people's brains on Slashdot. For once, I might actually know something or be able to find it out. It's really a bad idea to do a project this size completely in-house. They're just not really equipped for it and, more often than not, you end up with a combination of seemingly good ideas that really don't work that well but someone read an article and maybe a book. There's everything from seismic activity to psychology that goes into modeling traffic effectively and (in my not-so-humble opinion) very few providers of that service that are actually qualified.

Ah well... I don't have any insight at all on this project but if someone can find out who did the modeling then I might be able to connect with a people or two. When you let a muni do the work, you end up with stuff like bicycle racks in an island at the end of a closed highway's on ramp. You end up with things like half the parking spots being taken away - to encourage walking, but no new spots added on the outskirts. You end up with short merge points and a need to go from city-street speeds to highway speeds in a few hundred feet. It's not really their fault, they simply don't have the capacity to look at the larger picture and the experience to optimize the throughput. It's also pretty expensive.

... with metered plans. Just as long as the billing meter is certified by the Washington State Department of Agriculture weights and measures program.

INB4 not applicable because FCC. The airlines tried claiming this due to their status as regulated by the FAA. They got slapped down hard by the courts and must comply with state regs.

The state of Washington, and the Mythbusters would tell you that roundabouts are safer (for cars and pedestrians), cheaper to build, and more economical for drivers than either a 4-way stop, or light controlled intersection. There seem to be multiple other studies with similar results, a search for "safety of roundabouts vs. 4-way stop" brings up pages full.

I'm from MA where we have rotaries all over the place, and while I agree that in theory they are a good idea, in practice nobody knows how to use them. People routinely refuse to yield when entering, don't move left to let others enter, and ignore exit-only lanes. And that's with people who for the most part grew up with them, never mind introducing them in a new area. You can also end up with monstrosities like this, which aren't really that small compares to a couple of intersections.

Four way stops are the safest intersection. And much cheaper than traffic lights. They are only 'retarded' if you don't care about pedestrian safety.

The state of Washington, and the Mythbusters would tell you that roundabouts are safer (for cars and pedestrians), cheaper to build, and more economical for drivers than either a 4-way stop, or light controlled intersection. There seem to be multiple other studies with similar results, a search for "safety of roundabouts vs. 4-way stop" brings up pages full.

When the residents have appealed to the Congress to carve a chunk out of the Oregon Territory and make it separate, they have initially proposed naming it Columbia Territory. It was changed to Washington during the discussions in the Congress, because someone suggested that it would be confusing because of District of Columbia...

OTOH, when Washington became a state, there was a plebiscite for its constitution, which spelled out the name. So one could argue that it was, in fact, approved by the populace in the end. There's certainly no significant movement contesting the naming at this point, unlike with Denali.

Here's a better example, then - Revised Code of Washington:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/

Most recent version is searchable online HTML. It, and all the previous editions, are also available as downloadable PDFs, exactly as they are published on paper. All of these are free.

Exactly. I just saw Neal Stephenson tout his new book at a church up on pill-hill.

Myself? I moved north to Tulalip and work tech in Everett for an aerospace firm. More people coming up here too. The whole I-5 corridor is getting slammed: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planni...

Not sure what the straw man is for, but I think it's strange for you to assume science isn't a method for ascertaining the truth. If you weren't trying to imply that, then it's not immediately apparent to me.

If someone wants to disagree with science and the scientists who advance it, simply because they don't trust it and the implications are inconvenient, I don't see why I should respect that wholly uninformed opinion. Not all skepticism is reasonable. Again, not that it always matters, since many things are not cut-and-dry, or life-and-death. But I was (and still am) specifically talking about cases where having ignorance of widely accepted and tested science can cause REAL harm, which many controversial topics have the opportunity to introduce. Knowledge is never static forever and research is subject to corruption, but there's a point where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 90% of scientists and their scientific contributions COULD be dead wrong for various reasons, but proving their work wrong should more thorough than "No I don't like them because I do not trust them". A spokesperson/religious leader/etc with their own motives telling uninformed citizens that scientists are ideological or greedy whenever the results disagree with their narrative is not evidence against anything. Scientists being imperfect doesn't change that in any way.

Excellent example: http://www.doh.wa.gov/Newsroom...
Not to say extra vaccinations would have absolutely stopped this person from dying from measles, but people who deny the very reputable and sound science on vaccinations (and vehemently distrust the scientists who work on them without exception) make this sort of event way more likely to take place. When a scientist is provably correct, denying that knowledge is effectively denying science.

It's a good thing you're posting as AC, because you're wrong:

A roundabout may need more property within the actual intersection, but often take up less space on the streets approaching the roundabout. Because roundabouts can handle greater volumes of traffic more efficiently than signals, where drivers may need to line up to wait for a green light, roundabouts usually require fewer lanes approaching the intersection.

Many newer systems have a plate based option and they send you a bill in the mail.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/GoodTo...

What they are doing is well within the regulations preventing ambulance chasing. Those are ethics violations. There is actually a good amount of flexibility in what an attorney can be disbarred for in almost every State. The issue is really getting the action started. This one, pulled at random, says (pardon the formatting, I'm lazy but you have the original link).

(1) His or her conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, in which case the record of conviction shall be conclusive evidence.
(2) Willful disobedience or violation of an order of the court requiring him or her to do or forbear an act connected with, or in the course of, his or her profession, which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear.
(3) Violation of his or her oath as an attorney, or of his or her duties as an attorney and counselor.
(4) Corruptly or willfully, and without authority, appearing as attorney for a party to an action or proceeding.
(5) Lending his or her name to be used as attorney and counselor by another person who is not an attorney and counselor.
(6) For the commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, whether the same be committed in the course of his or her relations as an attorney or counselor at law, or otherwise, and whether the same constitute a felony or misdemeanor or not; and if the act constitute a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding shall not be a condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice therefor.
(7) Misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact made in his or her application for admission or in support thereof.
(8) Disbarment by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction.
(9) Practicing law with or in cooperation with a disbarred or suspended attorney, or maintaining an office for the practice of law in a room or office occupied or used in whole or in part by a disbarred or suspended attorney, or permitting a disbarred or suspended attorney to use his or her name for the practice of law, or practicing law for or on behalf of a disbarred or suspended attorney, or practicing law under any arrangement or understanding for division of fees or compensation of any kind with a disbarred or suspended attorney or with any person not a licensed attorney.
(10) Gross incompetency in the practice of the profession.
(11) Violation of the ethics of the profession.

Items 10 and 11 are why attorneys don't pursue cases of people spitting on sidewalks even such a Law exists. They are also the reason that attorneys have been disbarred for "ambulance chasing". It may be hard to get things started because attorneys starting these always fear retribution (and some of the pot calling the kettle black).

Further, if they are not actually filing court cases and just settling things out of court.. the Police could arrest them for blackmail and press charges. The charges alone could surely result in them being disbarred.

The people with the power and authority to collect and present the evidence are the people with the power to suppress the evidence about themselves.

Not so much in Washington State (Seattle). Body cam and dash cam videos are available via the Public Records Act. So, not much suppression going on here. In fact, adoption of body cams has been hindered. Not by concerns of the authorities, afraid that their behavior will be observed, but by members of the public who might end up as the subject of a recording and want to protect their privacy.

police aware they are being recorded while they are committing what you perceive as a criminal act then you endanger yourself.

This needs to be fixed. Probably at the federal level*. If members of the public are far enough back from some activity to not be interfering with it, then holding a camera shouldn't change that. And if the police can't tolerate observation of their conduct, then its not legitimate police business and deserves no protection from 'interference'.

*There are still some law enforcement personnel (in Seattle and surrounding cities) that talk like Sheriff Bull Connor with his, "We don't need any feds telling us how to run our business" language. In spite of the high tech image, there's a strong streak of embedder redneck trash in this part of the country.

Washington says otherwise: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

Governor Inslee expands drought emergency to include more of Washington

This seems like a bad idea. It doesn't solve the issue of them wanting to grow crops in a dessert. And they have the audacity to suggest building a pipeline to an area that is currently suffering from a drought? Sure, Washington state won't be drought-stricken forever, but what will they do when both states are in a drought?

How about build a desalination plant with use of nuclear power in California?

True, today they would just bore a tunnel .

Federal waste is a problem. Education funding is not part of that problem. In Washington State, two thirds of school funding comes from the state, and the tax Microsoft is ducking is state revenue. The Feds and bridges to nowhere have nothing to do with this, but MS is refusing to pay its share of the cost for services that it is demanding from the state. It would be one thing if they were using tax loopholes to avoid paying for something irrelevant to them, but the fact that they have their fingers in the pie and don't want to pay for it is as reprehensible as it gets.

Washington state. http://dor.wa.gov/content/Find...
For example: "Sales of food and food ingredients are exempt from retail sales tax. However, prepared foods, dietary supplements, and soft drinks are taxable."

They still need to know the components of an air-brake system, for example.

Air Brakes
5.1 The Parts of an Air Brake System
5.2 Dual Air Brake
5.3 Inspecting Air Brake Systems
5.4 Using Air Brakes

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driversl...

Public Disclosure Commission records show that five of those who signed the letter calling for increased WA State spending - Microsoft General Counsel and Code.org Director Brad Smith, Code.org CEO Hadi Partovi, Madrona VC and Amazon.com Director Tom Alberg, Ignition Partners VC Brad Silverberg, Trilogy VC John Stanton - contributed money in 2010 to defeat I-1098, an initiative for a WA state income tax. Other contributors to Defeat 1098 included Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Amazon exec and Code.org Director Jeff Wilke, Microsoft Corporation, and other Microsoft execs, including then-CEO Steve Ballmer. After I-1098 went down in flames, Ballmer announced plans to sell $2B of Microsoft stock that might have been subject to as much as $180 million in state taxes under the quashed proposal.

In this state, it is illegal to keep a license plate for over eight years.

It looks like that changed as of January 2015.

You're not required to replace your plates every 7 years. Instead, when a vehicle changes ownership, the new owner will need to replace the plates.

You state should have a state agency that deals with insurance. You need to lodge a complaint with them.

I'm guessing you are in Washington because of your health insurance provider's name. Of course some companies will have providers from the corporate areas but it will transfer to local when making claims. If this is the case, http://www.insurance.wa.gov/ will give you more information and where and how to complain.

In almost all states, almost all insurance is highly regulated and both the companies and often the agents need to be registered and/or licensed by the state in order to operate there. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you meant Premera and not Primera. It looks like they had 149 complaints in 2013.

Try that with the cops next time they question you and let us know how it works out.

Can't do that with the FBI — that's illegal, but with local cops — sure.

It varies by state, but you're still committing at least a misdemeanor. Washington State is one example.

Official enough for you. Doesn't make for a good talking point in an article, but it's out there and it's in common use by those who actually do things.

Whether or not the public have access to public records is up to the public to decide.

Take a look at the laws surrounding public records. There are several instances where records that are held by public agencies are not required to be available to the public. Here is an exerpt from the Washington Law;

RCW 42.56.050
Invasion of privacy, when.

A person's "right to privacy," "right of privacy," "privacy," or "personal privacy," as these terms are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Sorry but a poloce officer talking to a drunk on the sidewalk is not "of legitimate concern to the public". Look at this whole list of exemptions.

Wrong. In Washington, every record made by a public agency is public record unless it is exempted from our Public Records Act. Public is the default. There is no need for anyone to classifiy a record as public in order to make it so.

Public agencies in Washington are not allowed to discriminate as you suggest. That would be a violation of RCW 42.56.080, which states, "Agencies shall not distinguish among persons requesting records, and such persons shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request except to establish whether inspection and copying would violate RCW 42.56.070(9) or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records to certain persons."

Public agencies in Washington are not allowed to discriminate as you suggest. That would be a violation of RCW 42.56.080, which states, "Agencies shall not distinguish among persons requesting records, and such persons shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request except to establish whether inspection and copying would violate RCW 42.56.070(9) or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records to certain persons."

We had to sue Seattle Police Department to get them to provide dashboard camera video. Until recently, they refused to provide it to uninvolved parties until the statutes of limitation on civil and criminal lawsuits ran out. That's three years. They also had a policy of purging video after three years.

See this report, published yesterday:

An important precedent for public access to police video was set in June, when the state Supreme Court ruled that the Seattle Police Department had wrongly withheld dashboard camera footage from a KOMO-TV news reporter. The reporter filed a request in 2010 for "any and all" in-car footage the department had tagged to keep since 2007.

Washington's Public Records Act does not require a requester to state the reason for his or her request. We have to identify specific records, and "all incident reports" or "all suchandsuch videos" is sufficiently specific. Refusing the request as you suggested would be a violation of the PRA. Revised Code of Washington 42.56.080 states, "Agencies shall not deny a request for identifiable public records solely on the basis that the request is overbroad."

Washington's Public Records Act does not require a requester to state the reason for his or her request. We have to identify specific records, and "all incident reports" or "all suchandsuch videos" is sufficiently specific. Refusing the request as you suggested would be a violation of the PRA. Revised Code of Washington 42.56.080 states, "Agencies shall not deny a request for identifiable public records solely on the basis that the request is overbroad."

First, laws like the freedom of information act refer to federal institutions,

Most jurisdictions have some sort of FOI legislation. I Washington State it is the Public Records Act

Second, someone has to classify the police video as 'public records'.

From the quoted law;

"Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.

          (4) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.

From that it appears that police video would be Public Record in Washington.

Additionally, 3 years to provide the video is complete bullcrap, and I think anyone even remotely involved would understand that. Unless they really are thinking they need to get consent forms from every person.

So someone has to review every piece of video for every officer on the force to ensure that the video is not exempt from being released. There are 17 officers and probably 5 police cars in the Poulsbo police force. Say 5 officers on a shift that would mean that up to 120 hours per day or a total of 43000 hours of video to review. That takes a lot of time even for a dedicated person to do. Then any possible denial would have to be reviewed again by a lawyer to ensure that it is outside the request. Three years to review 24 hour video from ten sources is lot that much time.

I did see that section of the law.
I-594 does not ban borrowing your friend's gun.

You're wrong, simple as that. You guys have been misquoting that bill for months now, taking 2 sentences out of context of a larger section and ignoring the rest of that section that proves you wrong.

The relevent text, ie, the ENTIRE section on temporary transfers:

(4) This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if: ....(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and ....(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;
Code Rev/AI:eab 9 I-2745.1/13
(e) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm ....(i) between spouses or domestic partners; ....(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located; ....(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance; ....(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or ....(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or

(there was another subsection (g) after this, but it dealt with inheritance transfers)

Sources:
Full Text: http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elec...
KXLY local news: http://www.kxly.com/news/spoka...

No, it's not.

Technically this isn't FOIA, but the Public Records Act of Washington (state).

That said... just look at the shit-ton of exemptions in there already from industries with strong lobbying groups:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/defa...

Anybody who defends this guy - his intentions are clearly not that as honorable as simply wishing to pray for these strippers - on grounds of "what are they going to block next?" should have a look at that list, and realize that their concerns materialized before they ever realized they had them.

How about wolves guarding the henhouse? The economic, social, and political ramifications of allowing females to be placed in any position of authority is huge. As an example, the following court case: http://www.courts.wa.gov/appel...

To be blunt, the state supreme court is shaking down the legislature to dump more tax dollars into the public education system using the most laughable reasoning I’ve ever seen. The sanctions the court is considering imposing on the legislature are just as laughable. And yes, the presiding judge is a female. At some point, if female-induced corruption is allowed to continue and fester, this state (WA) will go bankrupt.

How about wolves guarding the henhouse? In the state where I live (WA), we have a problem, known as corruption. Females that work in law enforcement, particularly in positions of authority, have a remarkable tendency to abuse their power, authority, and privileges to an extreme, such as:

1) Place anyone under warrantless surveillance for any reason; men are their primary targets.
2) “Vanish” anyone they don’t like, particularly men.
3) Go around posing as fake FBI/DHS/CIA/NSA agents, shaking down anyone they feel like for monetary & political gain. Again, men, particularly ones they don’t like, are their primary targets.
4) They will stop at nothing to make the lives of men they don’t like miserable. Eventually, these men will be killed by these corrupt female cops. If you’ve ever watched how a cat likes to play with a mouse before it kills & eats it; same thing.
5) The local police dept. has a group of power-hungry, authoritarian, murdering, self-righteous, female douchebags that keep a “kill-bill”, or a list of people they don’t like, mostly men, that, according to them, must be exterminated.

This happens in the city that I live in, at the local level. The economic, social, and political ramifications of allowing females to be placed in any position of authority is huge. As an example, the following court case: http://www.courts.wa.gov/appel...

To be blunt, the state supreme court is shaking down the legislature to dump more tax dollars into the public education system using the most laughable reasoning I’ve ever seen. The sanctions the court is considering imposing on the legislature are just as laughable. And yes, the presiding judge is a female. At some point, if female-induced corruption is allowed to continue and fester, this state (WA) will find itself bankrupt.

Here's the first result to a .gov page on "how to use a roundabout"
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/safety...
Looks like instructions to me.

However the point is that Microsoft is a victim of unconstitutional, illegal government system that usurped power and is stealing people's money. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally for a wide range of reasons.

The state of Washington is not held to the constitutional taxation restrictions of the US federal government. Collecting income tax is quite legal for them.

What is more, Washinton State has no income tax.

...Look at FL TX and TN no state Income tax. TX none on Corps either. Why? Because its easy to game and hard to Admin. Sales/Use and property taxes.

Yep. Just like Washington State. Sigh.

The companies *are* paying taxes. Through you. They hire thousands of people and those people, by law, have to pay x% of their wages in taxes. Government makes it as painless as possible (low corporate tax) to operate any business that employs large numbers of tax-paying worker bees. "Government", in this case, being people that you elected to look after these things for you.

In Washington State, not so much. You're talking out of your ass, and it smells like it too.

Whether or not Mitsubishi fucked up their cutter head bearing design, or Seattle Tunnel Partners forgot to read the documents that described the exact location of the previous exploratory bore pipe, regardless of if it's even possible to sucessfully extract the cutter head without sinking the current viaduct with all the additional excavation and ground water pumping, this virtual video flythrough from four years ago is my favorite thing to come out of the project.

And if you enjoy crappy flash web cam software, you can watch the current progress on the cutter head replacement shaft here.

It's not clear yet how the the layoffs will be distributed, but they certainly won't be all in Finland. Microsoft's already given notice of 1351 layoffs in Redmond, and that's likely only the first round of Redmond layoffs.

Replace traffic lights with roundabouts a.k.a. traffic circles. As a bonus, it also saves electricity and reduces light pollution.

You people have ruined this site.

I posted the truth. You lied. Yes, I ruined the Internet by calling out a lying AC on their lying lies.

Aeropress reccomends 175 F, which is still hot enough to cause third degree burns.

The Puget Sound region (Seattle area) has Orca cards. And Washington State DOT has their Good To Go pass. These are all stored value systems where the issuing entity gets to sit on your cash between the time you load it until you use it. They all profit from the float inherent in the system. Same thing for gift cards and customer accounts at the local coffee shop. Everyone want you to hand them a lump of cash that they can invest until they need to pay expenses.

Nobody want to give their little pile of cash to a bank or other third party. So its in every businesses' (and gov't agencies) best interest to use a proprietary system.

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

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

Where are you from where this is not the case?