Slashdot Mirror

Besides reducing or eliminating the need to stop at intersections, roundabouts are much safer and often take up less space on the streets approaching the intersection than traffic signals or 4-way stops.

So we already have the technology to "save fuel and lower emissions without any physical changes to the car."

Did you stop to take fisheries into account? They release a ton of salmon and other fish every year.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hatcheries/...

While more spawning habitat would not be a bad thing, they're not the only source of fish.

Personally, I'd like to see hanging make a comeback.

It's available in Washington state as one of two options.

The other thing missing in your calculations is the cost of risk during bulb replacement. Climbing a ladder to replace a high outdoor lamp comes at an elevated risk of injury or death due to falling from the ladder (1:8689 odds of dying from a ladder fall in a lifetime.) (The average cost of a fall from a ladder in 2004) was over $11,000.) For an incandescent bulb, the cost of that risk is 25 times that of an LED. And that's not counting the labor time, or amortizing the cost of the ladder itself.

an autonomous car would have to obey all laws of the road. Thus, instead of two cars driving side-by-side blocking others from passing, you'll have ALL cars moving at that speed.

Legally, on a two lane road where passing is prohibited, if there are five or more vehicles...formed in line behind, you must pull over. So maybe we'll see autonomous cars playing a sort of "musical chairs" where the lead car pulls over and lets the other cars pass, only to have the new lead car do the same at the next opportunity for the same reason, and so on.

So if EVERY car was autonomous with no override, we could do away with things like lights at intersections...

We can do that now, no stop lights or stop signs and no autonomous cars necessary.

Have to call BS on this. Anyone in WA can choose to observe the vote counting process. Fraud by one party could only occur with exceptional incompetence by other parties and independents.

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/pdf/An_Observers_Guide_to_Washington_State_Elections.pdf

"Anyone has the right to observe any part of the election process. Major political parties also have a responsibility to provide observers to monitor the election process. A political party is designated as a major party if one of its nominees received more than 5 percent of the total votes cast for President, United States Senator, or a statewide office in a General Election in an even numbered year. Observers may watch all parts of the election including opening absentee ballots, counting ballots, and securing ballots. Prior to an election, County Auditors or Elections Departments contact the political parties to inform them of how many observers will be needed."

In 2002, researchers for another project — the replacement of the Alaskan Way viaduct — drilled down into the ground to take water samples.

The tunnel that Bertha's digging isn't another project — the whole reason for digging the tunnel is to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. See here.

The wells were drilled in 2002 to study the ground after the 2001 Nisqually quake. But that's a related project, because the Nisqually quake is the reason why we got to thinking about a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Am I making sense? I hope I'm making sense. At any rate, the story summary needs updating.

I came to read the replies to see if I was the only one, nothing information wise but at this moment it's (Jan 5 1:30 am PST, Sunday morning)
The article claims
"A buried steel pipe is mostly to blame for stopping the giant tunnel-boring machine Bertha, which has been stuck since Dec. 6 along the Seattle waterfront near South Main Street."

At first I thought the machine Bertha has sat for a year, looked at the date of the article January 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM...figured If nobody works till Monday, (taking the weekends off), there are better ways to mention it, if a part is needed and takes a day or two,,,, well you see the point.

But lower in the article:
"then on Friday night, Dec. 6, the cutting face rotated without catching soil."

The article most certainly needs a rewrite, and I figure your correct all the work put into this piece and all.

What’s blocking Bertha: a long steel pipe
  Posted by Mike Lindblom (author of referenced article)

In 2002, researchers for another project — the replacement of the Alaskan Way viaduct — drilled down into the ground to take water samples.

The tunnel that Bertha's digging isn't another project — the whole reason for digging the tunnel is to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. See here.

The wells were drilled in 2002 to study the ground after the 2001 Nisqually quake. But that's a related project, because the Nisqually quake is the reason why we got to thinking about a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Am I making sense? I hope I'm making sense. At any rate, the story summary needs updating.

That's not what the law in question says. It says that people don't have the authority over their children in life or death matters such as withholding treatment (and rightly so; children are not the property of parents, they have rights and freedoms, too, and right to life is among them), except when they claim a religious exception.

It's even worse when you read the texts of the state laws in question. In my state, for example, it specifically lists Christian Science practices as a valid excuse for not giving proper care (basically, defining CS as "proper care").

So yes, this has everything to do with religion.

Things like this report say essentially the exact opposite of every point you said: that bans and restrictions are related to pavement damage, that on non-iced surface studs have same or worse stopping distance, that even on some iced and snow conditions they have worse stopping distances, and the difference between studded tires and alternatives are shrinking to near insignificant levels in most cases.

It's 45 feet deep at this, the first section. It'll reach 200 feet below surface at the deepest point.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/About/FollowBertha

They will have to dig below the water line, which may be more expensive and dangerous with a trench. Besides having to move or work around tall buildings they would also have to remove more dirt. It would certainly be more disruptive to dig a trench. The more reasonable alternative would be to build an elevated highway rather than tunnel below the ground.

It can range from almost zero to very deep depending on the soil and the building. Heavy buildings require deeper foundations. Soft soils need to be deeper than solid rock.

I don't know how deep the foundations are in Seattle but I do know that the Columbia Center, which is the tallest building in WA state, has seven stories below ground. That's about 84 feet deep but the footings could be deeper. At it's deepest the tunnel will be about 200 feet below the surface. That should be deep enough to go under the Columbia Center if that's their route.

Right now the tunnel is in zone 1 of ten zones. It's hardly even started. That's probably good if they have to dig it out. But if it can't even get through this zone the project is in deep trouble.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/About/FollowBertha

Red light cameras, for example have been shown to lead to an increase in accidents at the intersections where they get installed.

This is true. The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.

Here's how to fix the increase in fender benders. Yellow lights timings are set to give you one second to react, plus enough time to slow to a stop or proceed through the intersection on the yellow. When you're speeding, you have less time to react and must brake harder or blow the red. If intersections with red light cameras also had speed cameras, people would no longer speed through those intersections and therefore wouldn't need to brake so hard when the light changes. As a result, there would be fewer rear-end collisions.

Of course the best solution of all is to eliminate traffic signals and their associated red-light cameras, and switch to roundabouts which not only can handle greater volumes of traffic more efficiently than signals but also result in a 37 percent reduction in overall collisions, a 75 percent reduction in injury collisions, a 90 percent reduction in fatality collisions, and a 40 percent reduction in pedestrian collisions.

In case you didn't get the memo, Ron Paul and Rand Paul sold out to big business years ago.

A month before the Snowden leaks began, Rand Paul proposed legislation to reform the Third Party Doctrine: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/senate-bill/1037/text

The 3PD is the principal that if you share information with a third party, even if that third party promises you confidentiality, and even if that confidentiality is never actually compromised, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply and the Feds can simply demand the information willy nilly. The 3PD totally guts the 4th Amendment -- it is the basis upon which politicians can say that the NSA's masspionage is "legal". Without the 3PD, everything the NSA is doing, at least with respect to people in America, is so unconstitutional a third grader could litigate and win the case against it.

Fortunately, even Justice Sotomayer is questioning the wisdom of this rule in the modern world where everything a person does requires sharing information with third parties -- you cannot navigate the modern economy without such sharing. See the paragraph beginning on PDF page 19 for her thinking on this issue: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

Whatever Rand Paul's faults are, he was aware of the eviscerating effect of the Third Party Doctrine and took action to protect the 4th Amendment PRIOR to the leaks. This is not the type of legislation that $megacorp loves and supports. It's a pure civil rights issue. However, I don't think his reforms don't go far enough because the only effect it would have is to exclude illegally obtained information at trial. Considering how the Feds engage in intelligence laundering, it is clear that a mere exclusion is insufficient -- there must be personal and agency penalties for a violation. To be fair to Paul, he didn't have this information when he wrote the legislation, but without personal consequences, it won't be that meaningful.

A decent example of such penalties is contained in the WA State statute regarding hidden mic recordings of conversations: See paragraphs 10 & 11: Violating the process for authorizing and recording a conversation surreptitiously, subjects the officers involved to personal prosecution for a class C felony and the agency to substantial fines ($25,000 per occurrence). The Feds need to have a little fear put into their hearts -- they need to ask themselves "If I can't do the time or pay the fine, do I really want to commit this crime?" And make no bones about it, the Federal government, due to its rampant lawlessness (e.g. collateral construction/intelligence laundering), is a criminal organization and needs to be treated as such.

Finally, back to the original point, Rand Paul might be a dick, but if you will step out of your partisan political mindset and consider the possibility that he just might have a good idea, we can get America back. Same goes for the tribal GOP -- both of you, Demoplicans and Republocrats alike, quit being so fricken tribal. The two parties are basically fungible anyway -- latch onto the very few good ideas and push them no matter who makes the proposal.

Turns out recording stuff in private without first obtaining active consent from everyone who's being record is illegal in Washington state (RCW 9.73.030). So if the Google Glass guy decided to turn on video recording while enjoying his dinner he wouldn't have just pissed off the owner/other patrons, but also broken WA law, too

Washington state has such a law as well - http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/DeathwithDignityAct.aspx . As does Vermont. I'm under the impression that the laws make it very difficult to get permission to snuff yourself, and that you have to be of reasonably "sound mind", not even depressed(!), to make use of them. So these laws really wouldn't help in the kind of end-of-life situations that most are talking about here, though I'd be happy to be corrected on that.

As is WORKING FAMILIES FOR MAYOR MCGINN a shell for the UFCW. And they contributed ten times more than Comcast. It is also difficult to call the "Civic Alliance for a Sound Economy" when the registered name is actually "CIVIC ALLIANCE FOR A SOUND ECONOMY SPONSORED BY THE SEATTLE CHAMBER". It seems pretty clear for me while the union shell is much more opaque.

Fine, that's your opinion. And I and others believe that $10,000 is a heavy donation when total donations are in the $120,000 range.

There are iver $2.5 million being contributed to all campaigns. How about the $100,000 contributed to the McGinn campaign by one union.

Or to lead up to how such is corruption...

Is the union corrupting the incumbent mayor? I am looking for balance. By reporting one contribution from a coproration and not a much larger donation from a union show bias.

Take a look at this. If $10,000 buys a McGinn' then the $100,000 contributed by the UFCW must mean that the incumbent must be a mere puppet of the union. Yet there is no issue with the union contribution. I see an imbalance here.

According to the numbers in the article a Comcat executive contributed $700 and the company contributed $10,000 to PACs. Sorry buit I doubt that $10,700 will buy an election.
Look at all contribution to People for Ed Murray. The total contribution are $122,800 making Comcast's contribution 8.7%.

I just re-read that post. I said "here" enough times to make it clear.

Laws vary by jurisdiction. That's why you won't get a New York attorney defending you in Florida. Or a US attorney defending you in China.

In my state, you *must* do it. I was wrong on the days. I thought it was 15. It's currently 10. That may have changed since last time I read the laws.

http://www.dmv.org/fl-florida/change-address.php

In Florida, by law you must notify the Driver License Division of a change of address within 10 days of moving.

If you have a driver license issued before July 1, 1997, you will receive a change of address sticker to place on the back of your license. If you have a digitized license (issued after July 1, 1997), you will receive a new license instead of a sticker.

Florida law requires that you destroy your old license as soon as you receive a new one.

Florida drivers have 20 days to notify their local tax collector's office about a change of address for tag renewal notices. You'll be required to provide the license plate number of the registered vehicle, as well as updated address information.

http://www.dmvflorida.org/drivers-license-identification.shtml
When I renewed my Florida license last year, I had to provide multiple pieces of identification. Check the above linked page for the options.

I provided ... birth certificate, social security card, car insurance with my new address, and copy of my bank statement for the new address. You need 4 pieces of identification now, if you're a naturally born citizen. More is required if you're an immigrant.

I was technically in violation for about a week, while I waited for stuff to come in the mail. The bank hadn't sent me a new statement yet. When I went back, there were plenty of people being turned away because they didn't have "enough" proof.

And for New York...
http://www.dmv.ny.gov/forms/mv232.pdf

f you have a New York State driver license, learner permit or non-driver ID card, or a registration for a vehicle, boat or snowmobile, you are required by law to notify DMV within 10 days of any PERMANENT address change.

Write your new address on your current state or enhanced license, permit, or non-driver ID card and/or registration document.

Motor Vehicles does not require you to get a new license, permit, non-driver ID card or registration document, but many people
prefer to do so. To purchase a replacement document(s) complete Parts 1 and 2 on Page 2.

And for Washington...
http://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/520039.html

You must report your new address to us within 10 days after moving. If you already have a Washington State driver license or ID card, you may change your address:

        Online:
                The address on your driving record will be updated at no charge.
                If you want a new license or ID card with your updated address, you can order one for an additional fee and pay with a Visa, MasterCard, or American Express debit or credit card.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.504

also fun reads:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-05-29/news/heather-squires-was-arrested-for-dui-without-drinking-a-drop-of-alcohol/
http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/562773

The Norwegian you responded to makes a fair point regarding vote selling.

If you can lock in your vote, then change your mind right up to the time polls close, buying votes would be a fools errand, and would simply disappear.

The Washington way is more prone to vote buying, (bring in your ballet down at the union hall, vote the union ticket, sign, seal and drop in the union mailbox and collect 50 bucks). Although I'm not aware of this being done anywhere, Cy Sun managed to get elected somehow.

Vote by mail is largely successful in Washington, with some of the highest turnout rates in the nation, triple the 21 percent quoted in TFA.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voter_participation.aspx
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

It might not be broken and may not need fixing.

I wrote up a plain text summary, from the /. submission, and personalized it a bit so, if you want to copy / paste and sign it and email it to your reps, senators and Obama you can grab it from here: http://pastebin.com/VvHbTaZ8

Find your reps and links to their contact info with your zip code here: http://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/

If you're too apathetic to think it can make any difference no need to reply. Thanks much!

You don't know a lot about Washington State, do you?

I live here, and own over a dozen firearms, including four handguns. I also have a WA CPL.

Washington State does not require registration of firearms. At all.

Have you ever purchased a handgun at the dealer in Washington State?

Like I said, the registration is only for handguns, and only when you purchase them from a dealer. When that happens, they make you fill a separate state form (distinct from 4473), which the dealer is then required to mail to Olympia. There's no specific provisions on what happens on it then (unlike 4473 forms, which the ATF legally cannot compile into a dababase), and the general assumption is that they're retained indefinitely, effectively creating a single centralized registry.

The law in question is RCW 9.41.110, specifically:

" (9)(a) A true record in triplicate shall be made of every pistol sold, in a book kept for the purpose, the form of which may be prescribed by the director of licensing and shall be personally signed by the purchaser and by the person effecting the sale, each in the presence of the other, and shall contain the date of sale, the caliber, make, model and manufacturer's number of the weapon, the name, address, occupation, and place of birth of the purchaser and a statement signed by the purchaser that he or she is not ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.

          (b) One copy shall within six hours be sent by certified mail to the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county of which the purchaser is a resident; the duplicate the dealer shall within seven days send to the director of licensing; the triplicate the dealer shall retain for six years."

You should review the results of your research, especially if you've actually made any actions or decisions based on them...

And while it is a shall-issue state, there are restrictions on concealed carry.

What state doesn't have restrictions on carry? At the very least there are federal restrictions on carrying firearms in general. Most states also ban carry on some premises (typically bars and other venues primarily serving alcohol, courts and schools). Washington does not differ from other gun-liberal states in that regard.

Or gophers.

I get kinda tired writing the same things over and over, here's the original press release. I am quite confident you can spot the problem.

Hint: It's not that they want their money. It's that they want it NOW.

That has never been an issue. The issue was that WHEN you add a phone to the contract, you MAY face a balloon payment. From TFPR (the f... press release):

The company also agrees that it will:

• Not misrepresent customers’ true obligations under the terms of its contracts for the sale of service or equipment;
• Make clear the consequences of cancelling T-Mobile service, including restrictions or limitations on cancellation; fees and costs; and early termination fees;
• More clearly state in all advertisements the true cost of telephone equipment, including the requirement the customer carry a wireless service agreement for the life of the 24-month financing plan;
• Instruct representatives to fully disclose obligations under the terms of its contracts, including developing a “Frequently Asked Questions” page; and
• Train customer service representatives to comply with the settlement within 21 days of signing.

Not unreasonable if you ask me. All they really have to do is point out that the rest of what you owe on the phone is due the moment you cancel your contract, and in the ads (which I don't know, I have to admit, so it may already be the case) they can't say that you could get a 0% financed cell with your non-contract, or somehow point out that bit about how all is due instantly if you cancel the contract.

What actually agitates me, and that's not limited to this article here, is that the quality of "reporting" on /. has been circling the drain for a while now. We get mediocre stories puzzled together from dubious sources that twist said sources around, only to have it twisted and warped out of shape again by the summary.

The summary here makes it sound like the GA has completely lost his marbles 'cause he goes after them just 'cause they want their customers to pay their bills. When you dig through the article and eventually to the original press release, which should have been linked in the first place instead of a source that turns an (actually quite sensibly worded) press release into something that isn't even remotely in the press release.

Then this stuff gets posted to /. and off we go, we can slam the GA of Washington back now, that old man's completely insane, how typically government, too stupid to tie their own laces, going after companies that DARE to want the money for things they sell. 5 car analogies and references to various online services that sell in installments too, we end with the general sentiment that it's business as usual: Government stupid, corporation greedy, but at least we didn't get caught in between them this time. Whew. Ok, next story...

What actually happened here is the GA wanting TM to point out that the moment you cancel your carrier contract with them, the rest of what you owe for your phone is due, and that they can't advertise that anymore in a way that makes you think you can walk away from them any time you please. If you have to get your phone in installments, you probably cannot afford that balloon payment, and hence can't move away, locking you to the provider.

Believe it or not, but (gasp) the GA did something good. (shocked silence filled /.) For the consumer ("how much was the brib... huh? Not some corporation?").

Of course, that's not really a story for /.

From the press release that is the base for the article (stress mine):

After an investigation of the company’s practices, the Attorney General’s Office learned that the company failed to adequately disclose that customers who purchase a phone using the 24-month payment plan must carry a wireless service agreement with T-Mobile for the entire 24 months— or pay the full balance owed on phone if they cancel earlier.

Consumers who cancel their wireless service face an unanticipated balloon payment for the phone equipment – in some cases higher than termination fees for other wireless carriers depending on how early they cancel. Instead of a “two-year sentence” for wireless service, consumers face a different two-year “sentence” to avoid a lump-sum balloon payment for the phone.

THAT is the problem. Because it indirectly entraps customers who cannot pay the rest of what they owe instantly, forcing them to stay with TM. Of course, it's an entirely different kind of payment than a cancellation fee, but for the customer, the problem stays the same: He cannot cough up a few 100 bucks now, so he has to stay with his carrier.

The law is actually pro-worker - it prohibits employers from demanding passwords (which is something otherwise legal in "at-will" states).

The abomination was not the bill itself, but an amendment that would grant the exemption in question, effectively rendering the bill useless.

The law is actually pro-worker - it prohibits employers from demanding passwords (which is something otherwise legal in "at-will" states).

The abomination was not the bill itself, but an amendment that would grant the exemption in question, effectively rendering the bill useless.

So basically, a company can put you over a barrel, threaten you, extort you, fire you, levy fines and penalties against you, and it's all totally legal. And thus, a law allowing them to demand these things, and the penalties being any of the above sanctions, would also be legal... even without the law. The law, as it were, is superfluous: Employers can do this right now without fear of reprisal.

The bill in question is actually the other way around - it tries to make it illegal for companies to extort employees, at least over this one specific thing. Quote:

"It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or the state of Washington, its political subdivisions, or municipal corporations to require, directly or indirectly, as a condition of employment or continued employment, that any employee or prospective employee submit any password or other related account information in
order to gain access to the employee's or prospective employee's personal account or profile on a social networking web site or to demand access in any manner to an employee's or prospective employee's personal account or profile on a social networking web site."

The controversy is over a proposed amendment to that bill, which would exempt "company investigations" from the above clause.

You can submit comments about the bill yourself at:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5211&year=2013

Even though the amendment has already been withdrawn, it never hurts to add your voice in opposition such that it won't be reintroduced. The new system where the public can comment on pending legislation is pretty cool

You're in Washington, right? Use Google. The very first hit is this, which tells you how to pay it either online or via paper. Might keep you out of the pokey one day.

the mere act of putting a credit fraud alert on your file with the credit agencies will reduce your credit rating

That is a common misconception.
Will a freeze lower my credit score? No. (Source: http://atg.wa.gov/freeze.aspx)

Well, I was talking about a fraud alert, not a freeze.

OK, a fraud alert won't reduce your numerical score. However, banks checking your credit report to consider issuing credit will see the fraud alert. Based on that, they chose whether to extend credit, and if so, what rate to offer. The law does not forbid them from taking the existence of a fraud alert on your account into consideration when deciding that, and you can expect that they will do so.

Your mileage may vary.

the mere act of putting a credit fraud alert on your file with the credit agencies will reduce your credit rating

That is a common misconception. Will a freeze lower my credit score? No. (Source: http://atg.wa.gov/freeze.aspx)

There's way too much liability to actually defending yourself in a proper manner with a firearm to report it.

Surely the liability that would be incurred if you failed to report it, and that was found out (which is pretty straightforward when there's a body or an injured guy - unless you happen to keep barrels of acid in your house ready for fast body disposal), would mean that most people who do so do report it? Not to mention that most states have "stand your ground", either on the books or in practice (because juries rule that way).

Heck, some states will even reimburse your legal expenses, should you be found not guilty on the grounds of acting in self-defense.

Head south to California, you will pay it there, unless it is for a business.

Head north, you will pay it there:

http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/RetailSalesTax/Exemptions.aspx#producer

Mmm, those are interesting numbers. They seem quite low, though.

How about these:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/economy/fig101.asp
http://www.demographia.com/db-pc1929.pdf
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php

Looking at the last one, it seems that the xls describes income levels for the 4th quintile. Do you have a link to the page that links to the xls?

and removing TSP (trisodium phosphate) removed an antropogenic source of phosphorus that was aggravating eutrophication of lakes; see, for example, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/phosphorus/HSphosphatepresent.pdf Lowered oxygen->fewer fish, etc.

and removing sulfur from diesel reduced the amount of SO2 in the atmosphere, which reduced the amount of SO3 -> H2SO4 production, which reduced the acidity of rainfall, which has a number of beneficial effects which you can explore if you're interested.

The price rises for consumers simply indicate the fact that the full costs weren't being accounted for in the first place. As we learn more about the various complex processes that sustain our lives, we're better able to determine what it actually costs us to live. Don't expect those data to be especially comforting.

I didn't realize there was a national move toward top two primaries, closing the election process even more... well, at least these four folks can agree to oppose that.

Also, they are behaving a lot better so far than Obama/Romney did. Maybe it's because of Zombie Larry King.

The 3rd party's opposition to top two primaries is actually a major reason I can't take them seriously.

With one very simple tweak this would be the best thing ever to happen to those parties. If there was only one guy from every party on the ballot then in most GOP Districts the Libertarians would come in second, which means that if there was an October Surprise for any Republican they actually win an election. Same with the Greens and the Dems. And every year somebody screws up.

But these chuckle-heads don't understand a politicians job is to find compromises. They think his job is to be totally righteous. Therefore instead of offering their support in exchange for the relatively minor concession of having every party caucus and nominate somebody prior to the first election, they go into full-opposition-to-the-death.

I didn't realize there was a national move toward top two primaries, closing the election process even more... well, at least these four folks can agree to oppose that.

Also, they are behaving a lot better so far than Obama/Romney did. Maybe it's because of Zombie Larry King.

Just looking at that, if you live in a solid $party state, you will only have a choice of that party only afterwards.... Sounds like a bad idea entirely.

I didn't realize there was a national move toward top two primaries, closing the election process even more... well, at least these four folks can agree to oppose that.

Also, they are behaving a lot better so far than Obama/Romney did. Maybe it's because of Zombie Larry King.

Washington State Electrical Power (2011) (PDF)

73% Hydroelectric
14% Coal
8% Natural Gas
3% Nuclear
1.12% Wind
0.49% Biomass
0.37% Waste
0.08% Petroleum
0.05% Landfill gasses
0.02% Geothermal
0.03% Other

When you have to lie to make a point, you should realize that your point is not worth making.
=Smidge=

Thank you, ColdWetDog

I find that many people who have not personally experienced years of serious chronic pain tend not have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. For these people Oxycontin=Rush. That's all they really need to know. Nevermind the solid, repeated research that shows only 2% of chronic pain patients on long term opiate therapy become addicted. Nevermind the conflation of addiction and physical dependence. Nevermind the studies showing that when properly managed, long term opiate therapy is both safe and effective over periods of 20 years or longer. Nevermind the strict protocols in place for both doctor and patient when initiating chronic opiate therapy (COT) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Nevermind the legally binding agreement

The truth is that for many people, opiates are the only medicine that provides relief from excruciating pain. But opiates do not make the pain go away, it only reduces the pain to the point where the other tools you are given - relaxation techniques, breathing, exercise, guided imagery, etc. to have a chance to make positive contributions to your condition.

Frankly, I'm not at all surprised that the community here at Slashdot would hold long-ago disproven ideas and stereotypes about opiate therapy. It doesn't bother me all that much - it is human nature to fear what we do not understand (take Linux for example). I won't try to change your opinion. But I am truly offended by the large percentage of medical professionals who are both willfully ignorant and tragically arrogant on this issue. And because these medical professionals have no desire to enlighten themselves, many people who are in constant pain will not recieve the relief they need.

"Fear paints pictures of ghosts and hangs
them in the gallery of ignorance."
~Robert Green Ingersoll

Thank you, ColdWetDog

I find that many people who have not personally experienced years of serious chronic pain tend not have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. For these people Oxycontin=Rush. That's all they really need to know. Nevermind the solid, repeated research that shows only 2% of chronic pain patients on long term opiate therapy become addicted. Nevermind the conflation of addiction and physical dependence. Nevermind the studies showing that when properly managed, long term opiate therapy is both safe and effective over periods of 20 years or longer. Nevermind the strict protocols in place for both doctor and patient when initiating chronic opiate therapy (COT) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Nevermind the legally binding agreement

The truth is that for many people, opiates are the only medicine that provides relief from excruciating pain. But opiates do not make the pain go away, it only reduces the pain to the point where the other tools you are given - relaxation techniques, breathing, exercise, guided imagery, etc. to have a chance to make positive contributions to your condition.

Frankly, I'm not at all surprised that the community here at Slashdot would hold long-ago disproven ideas and stereotypes about opiate therapy. It doesn't bother me all that much - it is human nature to fear what we do not understand (take Linux for example). I won't try to change your opinion. But I am truly offended by the large percentage of medical professionals who are both willfully ignorant and tragically arrogant on this issue. And because these medical professionals have no desire to enlighten themselves, many people who are in constant pain will not recieve the relief they need.

"Fear paints pictures of ghosts and hangs
them in the gallery of ignorance."
~Robert Green Ingersoll

I think that's the only thing blocking reciprocity. You do have to be 21 to get a Washington State CPL. http://www.atg.wa.gov/ConcealedWeapons/Reciprocity.aspx gives a state-by-state breakdown for Washington.

Why? In many countries, such as the United States, you can purchase all of the information that was lost here quite cheaply.

$7 for the U.S. Washington State's Voter Registration Database
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/vrdb_order.aspx

Boogers -- my mod points just expired and you need someone to mod you up.

Anyway, here's another example. WA state used to have state run liquor stores and used the profit from those stores to fund state services, like fire departments and whatnot. Now, WA did have some of the higher booze prices in the nation, but we also don't have an income tax, so it used a "sin tax" in part as a way to make up the difference. The stores had a really nice selection too.

Here is the last price list the state published:
http://whatcomnewsforums.com/misc/washington_state_liquor_control_board-MAY_2012_PRICE_LIST.pdf

On June 1st, the first day of privatization, selection went in the toilet, and prices skyrocketed. Here's one example from page 6 of the price list for Red Breast Irish Whisky.

The state store price was $49.95 out the door.
The state retail price was $39.11
The wholesale price can be calculated (*): $25.66

Fred Meyer is currently selling Red Breast at a special price of $60 (reg is $65). This is pretax.
Many voters favoring the initiative stupidly believed that "competition" was synonymous with "lower prices," but I-1183 included a provision that wholesalers would have to pay a 10% fee, and retailers a 17% fee, to make up for the loss to the state from losing the stores. The Office of Financial Management, as required by law, evaluated the law and concluded prices would rise. This summary was even in the voter's pamphlet, but if many slashdotters can't RTFA, most voters only watch TV and totally bought the notion that competition and lower costs go hand in hand -- they never read more than the title let alone the summary -- just voted like the ads told them to.

Anyhow, starting with a wholesale price then of $25.66, after the wholesale fee, it would be $28.23, and after the retail fee, $33.03. The reg shelf price at Fred Meyer is almost a 100% markup, and even the sale price is an 81% markup, to which the old state taxes are added, making the out-the-door price of the bottle of Red Breast, $75.13 (on sale) or $81.16 (reg price).

Now, certain store brand rotguts are perhaps 50 cents to a buck cheaper than rotgut carried by the state stores, but anything decent is at 25% more expensive and some things are substantially more, Red Breast being about 60% (reg price). Worse, the profit the state would have used to benefit all Washingtonians, is now largely exported. It has been partly replaced by the new fees, but surely an initiative will kill those in the future and it is at that point, a WA income tax would become more likely. I'd really rather just decide whether to "sin" and pay a sin tax, than to have an income tax shoved down my throat every year.

So, this is an example where privatization costs the public much more in the short run, AND increases the likelihood of an income tax, which will cost the public much more in the long run. But Costco will make gazillions so its all good right? Corporate socialism is the name of the game now.

(*) WA markup was 13c for a 750 ml bottle, plus 51.9% http://liq.wa.gov/stores/liquor-pricing