Slashdot Mirror

The only ones to blame, are not Microsoft who followed the tax laws, but the poltiicians who failed to REWRITE the tax laws such that MS and other corporations would have to pay on all their income (since they reside in washington).

Failed to REWRITE the tax laws?

I see you are totally unfamiliar with Washington State tax policy.

The state has bent over backwards giving concession after concession to Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, to keep them from moving out of state lock stock and barrel. Not only have the rewritten the tax laws, they have done so repeatedly and done so in a manor that these companies qualify for special exemptions, carefully worded so as not to call attention, but exemptions that realistically can only be taken advantage of by these big companies.

See http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/taxincentives/incentiveprograms.aspx for a partial list of highly preferential tax dodges.
Once passed, these tax breaks are never subjected to a vote again.

Yes, it can.

I rather wonder why it's not a universal rule - surely, basic justice dictates that someone wrongly accused should be fairly compensated by someone for lost time and other associated expenses?

My state has a law for just that in some very narrow circumstances, namely when a person accused of assault successfully pleads self-defense. I understand why they wanted a law on that occasion, as expenses involved in such a trial are necessarily much greater, but surely the same basic principle can and should be applied across the board?

Other than small slivers of shining light that may peek up through the cracks, the "justice" system you're referring to was paved over long ago by a thick layer of greed and corruption, and what remains is a legal system. There is little Justice to be found in it today, if you're even one of the lucky ones who can afford to pursue it.

I rather wonder why it's not a universal rule - surely, basic justice dictates that someone wrongly accused should be fairly compensated by someone for lost time and other associated expenses?

My state has a law for just that in some very narrow circumstances, namely when a person accused of assault successfully pleads self-defense. I understand why they wanted a law on that occasion, as expenses involved in such a trial are necessarily much greater, but surely the same basic principle can and should be applied across the board?

Denver gets about 52mSv/year

[citation needed]

The exposure of an individual to cosmic rays is greater at higher elevations than at sea level. The cosmic radiation dose increases with altitude, roughly doubling every 6,000 feet. Therefore, a resident of Florida (at sea level) on average receives about 26 mrem, one-half the dose from cosmic radiation as that received by a resident of Denver, Colorado, and about one-fifth of that by a resident of Leadville, Colorado (about two miles above sea level). A passenger in a jetliner traveling at 37,000 feet would receive about 60 times as much dose from cosmic radiation as would a person standing at sea level for the same length of time

So uh, I get 52mrem, and as One sievert is equal to 100 rem so then 52mS would be 5,200 mrem. Wikipedia also says "The conventional units for its time derivative is mSv/h." so nobody knows why you're using mSv/Y, either.

If you come to Washington and tell your checker, at whichever store you choose, that you are from out of state and so are to be charged no sales tax; you still have to pay the tax

Actually, you'd be surprised, but you can avoid paying sales tax in Washington State in precisely that way. The way the law works is, if you come from a state that has sales tax of 3% or less, and you have documentation to provide it (e.g. a driver's license issued by that state), and if you're purchasing something in a brick and mortar store for use outside of Washington - a "qualified nonresident sale" - the sales tax does not apply.

On the other hand, if you come from the state which has a >3% sales tax, then, when you pay the sales tax in Washington, you're not required to pay the use tax in your state of residence. Similarly, if, as a Washingtonian, you buy something in a state with higher sales tax, and pay it there, you're not required to pay the Washington sales tax; on the other hand, if you buy something from e.g. Oregon, you have to pay use tax when you bring it to Washington.

It's not a tax on the seller. It's a tax on the buyer. So while I would pay no sales taxes on something bought from Virginia online. You on the other hand would pay taxes on purchases made from a Washington based seller.

Except in a few situations

Maybe your state has a similar law?

From http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140

RCW 49.44.140

Requiring assignment of employee's rights to inventions — Conditions.

(1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable.

(2) An employer shall not require a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) of this section as a condition of employment or continuing employment.

(3) If an employment agreement entered into after September 1, 1979, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work preformed [performed] by the employee for the employer.

There is quite a bit of variation to be found in the practices of companies with regard to this issue.

A good write up is found here: http://www.ieeeusa.org/members/IPandtheengineer.pdf

The article suggest there are two or three broad models of what is acceptable practice in this ares.

First

The Massachusetts Model is so called because it is prevalent in the northeastern United States. It was developed toward the end of the industrial revolution as a response to shop rights. Agreements written on this model tend to imply that the intellectual life of the employee is company property.

Never backed by law, this model is the most restrictive,

The cycle of innovation and renewal is fundamental to a healthy market economy. To foster this cycle, individuals require the same protections for non-work-related intellectual property that employers enjoy for work-related creations. In 1977, Minnesota formalized this concept with a law limiting the enforceable terms of pre-invention assignment agreements. The Minnesota Model adopts the philosophy that while the employer should enjoy protection, it should not come at the expense of today's employee to become tomorrow's new employer.

In California there are similar laws to the Minnesota system:

The State of California followed in 1980, by implementing protection for its famous entrepreneurial culture. As of this writing Utah, Washington, North Carolina, Kansas, Delaware, and Illinois have also promoted new business formation by means of
similar laws

The text of the California law is on the web here. Washington state Here.

Appendix B of the above linked article has a summary of legislation in various states and list of states where such agreements are already limited by state law.

If that computer screen is sitting on top of a desk, and is a reasonably large size, and facing an open public space, what makes you think there's any expectation of privacy there? It's not a question of minding your own business, it's a question of public display of pornographic material.

Yea, having actually RTFA after making that comment, I see the issue: he was at a very public terminal, was asked to relocate to somewhere less public, and refused. What an asshat.

The Washington State Human Rights Commission says, quite plainly that such a display of pornographic material is sexual harassment.

Lol, reminds me of that old joke, "What's the difference between art and pornography? A government grant!"

The US First Amendment guarantees free speech, yes, but there are numerous cases where it is trumped by another statute.

Just so we're clear on how Constitutional law is *supposed* to work: Nothing can legally 'trump' the Constitution or any of the Amendments, save an Amendment itself. All federal legislation that contradicts the Constitution and existing Amendments is, technically, not law. /rant

In other words, the library is wrong in this case. They are creating a hostile environment by allowing sexual harassment to continue, and they had better hope they have a *really* good lawyer if this woman decides to take it further.

Agreed; they definitely screwed the pooch (no pun intended) when the woman requested the librarians ask the man to move to a more private terminal and they refused. Changing to a less public terminal would not constitute a violation of his rights.

I just pray the inevitable court case doesn't end up setting a precedent for government censorship of library materials; those places, as necessary as they are to a free and educated society, have enough trouble staying open as it is.

Ever heard of sexual harassment? The guy watching porn was doing it.

Because the guy watching the porn is in the wrong, as what he's doing is considered sexual harassment in WA?

There are circumstances that trump the first amendment, and human rights law is one of them. The library's wrong here, as is the guy watching the porn. It has nothing to do with whether he decides to whip it out and start pleasuring himself.

If that computer screen is sitting on top of a desk, and is a reasonably large size, and facing an open public space, what makes you think there's any expectation of privacy there? It's not a question of minding your own business, it's a question of public display of pornographic material.

The Washington State Human Rights Commission says, quite plainly that such a display of pornographic material is sexual harassment. The US First Amendment guarantees free speech, yes, but there are numerous cases where it is trumped by another statute. You are not, for example, allowed to walk into a crowded theatre and yell "fire!" Similarly, you can't walk into a public school and start shouting obscenities over the PA system. Human Rights, and specifically to this case Sexual Harassment, are one of these cases. The First Amendment is *not* a carte blanche.

In other words, the library is wrong in this case. They are creating a hostile environment by allowing sexual harassment to continue, and they had better hope they have a *really* good lawyer if this woman decides to take it further.

The problem is that the law is illegal. Private security doesn't have arresting powers in any state except under very specific conditions. Around here Joe Blow has authority to arrest than private security does. The airports are not Federal property and anybody operating on it has to comply with state law on the matter.

Around here indecent liberties are a forcible felony, which means that legally speaking you have authority to use deadly force if they force you to let them touch your genitals for any reason.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.100

I don't personally recommend trying anything like that as I doubt that the courts would recognize the behavior as legally justifiable, but it is one of your rights around here.

For an example of how goofy these laws can be (and how heavily influenced by the hands-free-headset lobby), take a moment to peruse my state's cellphone-while-driving law: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.667

Things to take note of:
1) It is ok for me to talk on my cellphone (with it held to my ear), provided it is in speakerphone mode.
2) It is ok for me to talk on my cellphone IN FRONT OF MY FACE as long as it is in speakerphone mode.
3) It is ok for me to operate my amateur radio while driving, because dialing in a faint SSB signal from Japan on 10m while driving down the road, swapping callsigns and signal reports and having a FB QSO is apparently safer than holding a cellphone to my head while driving.

Anyways, if anyone wants to call me while I'm driving, I'll be on 146.52

And then get either fired, sued, or even jailed for illegal wiretapping.

The fact that you recorded the conversation in the first place can get YOU in hot water more than the person you burn lying, and you may well be sent packing yourself before you can bust them.

In Washington state for example, recording a private conversation without consent is a gross misdemeanor.

See:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.080

And then get either fired, sued, or even jailed for illegal wiretapping.

The fact that you recorded the conversation in the first place can get YOU in hot water more than the person you burn lying, and you may well be sent packing yourself before you can bust them.

In Washington state for example, recording a private conversation without consent is a gross misdemeanor.

See:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.080

've been refitting an ocean cruising sailboat and learning more about metallurgy and materials science than I ever imagined

the corrosion and other effects mean that few commercial vessels last over 20 years - it's cheaper to buy a new one than to fix the old one.

You may have learned more about metallurgy and materials science than you ever imagined, but you know much less than than you think you do. Commercial ships routinely last more then 20 years, as do warships. The usual killer for commercial ships isn't corrosion, it's being outmoded. The usual killer for warships is the systems being worn out, hull corrosion is rarely a factor.
 
Look at the Fleet Guide for the Washington State Ferries - the bulk of the fleet is over thirty years old. (Though you'd never know it to ride aboard them.)

As mhajicek mentions, it'd most likely be done by automated machinery.

The battery pack for a tesla roadster weighs ~450kg/~1k pounds. Even if you split it into 4 seperate standardized 'packs', that's 250 pounds apiece, or 5 times the limit of what you can ask a worker to routinely lift. Even if he could, do you really want to have him make 4 trips for every exchange?

A pallet changer sort of robot is indeed the best answer. Could be completely automated, and you'd improve stability by mounting the batteries low on the undercarriage.

I don't think what you're saying makes sense.

Take Washington state for example.
According to this, I think the average sales tax rate is 8.2%. http://www.dol.wa.gov/vehicleregistration/ftrefunds.html

So, if an out-of-state retailer, which has no nexus within Washington state, were to pay sales tax, instead of having to figure out which locale to base the sales tax on, then keep it in their records what amount was collected goes to where, they'd just collect 8.2% under a special code in my idea.

Then we'd look at statistics. Based on non-online sales, we'd look at the total gross receipts. We'd also look at the gross receipts for all the locales. Let's say a given taxing locale is responsible for 0.31% of all the gross receipts. Then that locale would get 0.31% of the revenue collected under this special code. The algorithm may be readjusted if it turns out some locales tend to do way more online purchases than others, possibly due to remoteness.

But yes, some people may be paying more in sales tax than if the online retailer were to collect based on their taxing locale. But unless someone is making large purchases, I can't imagine it being more than a hand full of dollars per year. I mean, if someone is "overpaying" in taxes 1% per year, and that person only spends $1k per year on online purchases from out-of-state businesses, that'd be $10 more per year.

Another option would be instead of having the sales tax rate based on the average sales tax rate, it could be based on the lowest sales tax rate in the state, which, in Washington state, would probably end up being 7.0%. Although, that still would be restricted to out-of-state businesses which have no nexus within the state. While it still wouldn't equalize things with brick and mortar stores, it would bring them closer.

If it is possible for a driver to go the wrong direction, it's not a roundabout. So please don't call it one.

What you think is a roundabout probably isn't.

roundabout
traffic circle

Notice the difference in shape? The roundabout has a geometry that is designed to point vehicles into the circle. The traffic circle is just a round road with four T-intersections.

Also, roundabouts always have a Yield-on-Entry rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Difference_from_traffic_circles

Now pardon me while I get that damned Yes song out of my head.

I wonder how similar that is to some ACH things.
(This is pulled from: http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/PublicationBySubject/TaxTopics/MandatoryE-file.aspx because they are now requiring businesses to pay stuff by electronic methods and no longer accept paper checks)

# Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT)
You must register to use EFT.

        * EFT Debit: You authorize the Departmentâ(TM)s bank to withdraw the amount you owe from your bank account on the date you select. This happens automatically when you submit your return.
        * EFT Credit: You authorize your bank to send funds to the Departmentâ(TM)s account. You must initiate this payment each month.
E-check
You enter your bank account number and routing information to make a one-time payment. The transaction is free and only gives the Department permission to withdraw the amount that you authorize.

Physician advocacy groups say 60% of liability claims against doctors are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed without payment. However even those cases have a price, costing an average of more than $22,000 to defend in 2008 ($18,000 in 2007). Physicians are found not negligent in over 90% of cases that go to trial - yet more than $110,000 (2008 estimate, $100,000 in 2007) per case is spent defending those claims

A little more Googling found this: which reports approximately 850 malpractice cases in a state with 19,000 doctors. That means on average each doctor will have to defend approx one malpractice case every 20 years. In other words, for a doctor, a malpractice case is more a question of "when" than "if."

There are more accurate numbers I'm sure but you stop being lazy and find them yourself.

Don't lie, credit freeze wont affect you.

11. Will a freeze lower my credit score?
ANSWER: No.

http://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_consumers/finance/creditfreeze.htm#11
http://www.atg.wa.gov/freeze.aspx
http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Debt-Consolidation/Freezing-Credit-Reports/
 

Err, you're mistaken. The law states that: "Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person operating a moving motor vehicle while holding a wireless communications device to his or her ear is guilty of a traffic infraction."

Talking on the phone is fine if you don't hold the phone to your ear. So is talking on the phone if the car isn't moving. And there's a bunch of other exemptions.

Distracted driving is still illegal, though.

Now if they could learn RCW 46.61.100.

Varies by state. In Georgia, where that video was shot, you can't legally exceed the speed limit, ever. As such, it actually is a video of the insanity the law requires. The idea here is to demonstrate that the law is wrong. You think it's ok, but that's because you don't understand it.

GA Code 40-6-1, can't find an authoritative linkable version.

In Washington state, for example, you can exceed the speed limit to pass, provided the vehicle you are passing is going less than the limit.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425

You typically receive a breakdown pie-chart of how the taxes are spent each year, by your state (usually around January or February). I haven't looked at every state, but the two that I've lived in most recently have shown education expenses between around 55% to 60% despite the states having frequent loud "we don't spend enough of the money on education and we can't give the students quality schooling, because of it!" contingent. Namely, Oregon and Colorado.

I only did minimal digging around, so I didn't grab it straight from the source, but here's a chart sourced from the state of Oregon that shows 54% spent on education, 17% spent on prisons, 24% spent on human services. Colorado is at about 49% on education. Washington looks to be about 40%. Other states that I've looked at seem to show education as the biggest chunk of expenses and often accounting for around half of all expenses.

In addition, the federal government also budgets for education to supplement this.

Oregon Tax Dollars: Where do they come from and where do they go?

Colorado Tax Expenses Breakdown

Washington Tax Expense Breakdown

As a result, I have always had a difficult time taking complaints of "we don't have enough money!" seriously, when they often consume more tax resources than every other expense, combined.

Some counties in WA vote exclusively by mail in ballots already

MOST counties in Washington vote by mail. 38 of Washington's 39 counties vote by mail. Pierce County still maintains poll sites.

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/voterinformation/Pages/VotebyMailFAQ.aspx

The Department of Revenue says that it depends on what type of coupon.

http://taxpedia.dor.wa.gov/ - lookup "Coupons Used in Retail Sales" 2nd result is a Word file with that title.

This is what it looks like (IANAL, tax guy, what ever, and all that, but I think this is what it is saying here)
Says that if the coupon is issued by the retail store and redeemable only at that store, or at the affiliated stores of a chain is an actual discount, the the sales tax is the final value since the retailer will only get what the consumer pays.

A coupon issued by manufacturers or distributors and redeemable anywhere the manufacture's products are sold, since the retailer will get the full price of the good(minus maybe a handling fee), the full sales tax value has to be paid (usually by the consumer...)

So I guess that if you are paying the tax on the $1000, but only paying $800 for the TV, then it means that they are getting $200 from someone else.
(And 9.5%? You must be either buying somewhere in King or Snohomish counties since those are the only 2 counties that have any places with the combined rate at 9.5%)

It is charged as interfering with a flight crew and does not carry much of a penalty.

The article you linked to is wrong. In Washington State, unlawful discharge of a laser in the first degree is a felony unless you're a juvenile without a prior.

It is charged as interfering with a flight crew and does not carry much of a penalty.

The article you linked to is wrong. In Washington State, unlawful discharge of a laser in the first degree is a felony unless you're a juvenile without a prior.

Under the "Engineer" category the following P.E. licenses are given:

Agricultural

Architectural

Chemical

Civil: Construction

Civil: Geotechnical

Civil: Structural

Civil: Transportation

Civil: Water Resources and Environmental

Control Systems

Electrical and Computer: Computer Engineering

Electrical and Computer: Electrical and Electronics

Electrical and Computer: Power

Environmental

Fire Protection

Industrial

Mechanical: HVAC and Refrigeration

Mechanical: Mechanical Systems and Materials

Mechanical: Thermal and Fluids Systems

Metallurgical and Materials

Mining and Mineral Processing

Naval Architecture and Marine

Nuclear

Petroleum

Generally speaking, even the folk in very rural areas generally live in clusters. This notion that because there are solitary family farmhouses surrounded by miles of open fields, that fiber can't be delivered to the metropolitan areas is just nonsense. In fact, there are so few homes like that statistically that the cost of digging their trench could be consumed in the general mass without significantly altering the cost for everybody else.

The ISPs aren't giving the broadband for a different reason: they don't have to. They lobbied congress and the state legislatures and so on to put up barriers to competition. They sue municipalities who try to run their own fiber.

More of the wrong thinking that goes into the prevention of broadband can be found in this pdf. Particularly dire is the notion that paying the incumbent telecoms vast sums to provide broadband to schools and libraries as "anchor tenants" will somehow translate to the availability of broadband for homes in general. That's just absurd. Also ridiculous is funneling more money to the incumbents by subsidizing broadband for the poor. The notion that engaging the telecoms in a "public - private ventures" will result in anything but a bonfire of public dollars ignores the history of such ventures.

All this in a state where two of the most rural counties offer gigabit fiber to the home at reasonable cost through the county government owned power utility district, and a fair-sized city offers both cable and broadband to 100mbps through the city-owned power utility. One county had a 2000 census of 11 people per square kilometer and the other was at 14. And they turn a profit doing it.

We will not have broadband that competes on a local, state, national or global level until we build it ourselves. The telecoms will not build it for us, no matter how much we pay them. We've already paid them billions for the empty promise.

Now picture, if you will, a land (we'll call it Illinois) where sales tax is 8-10% (Chicago being the higher end, rest of the state 8-9%). In this land, the ruler runs for election on a platform of increasing the state income tax by 33%. The results on Wikipedia show how he won, the counties around Chicago and St Louis only. It's a crazy land to live.

So, you pay up to 9.5% (per Washington DOR) in sales tax. Consider yourselves lucky. Politicians will continue to try to get more money for themselves.

A corporation is required to maximize the profits for its share holders. Ballmer is a major share holder. Of course Ballmer's profits matter more than public education.

Let me be blunt: Fuck you. I am not a billionaire, millionaire, or even a thousandaire. After all my bills are paid, I'm lucky to have $100 in the bank when my next paycheck comes around.

Let me be blunt again: Fuck public education. It's not more important than educating my children. I care about my family. That's it. My wife, and my children. I will make sure my children are educated because that is my responsibility as a parent. If that means I have to pay out of my own pocket to send them to private schools and/or pay private tutors for certain things, I will do so. (For example, I absolutely suck at anything above basic algebra because I have no interest in math). And I'm not speaking from a position of "poor me, I'm being taxed for public education", I'm speaking from the standpoint that it is wrong for one group of people to pay for another group. People who don't have children shouldn't be taxed to pay for my children to go to school. Taking money from someone to give to someone else is theft. Even if government does it.

I don't want this tax in my state. It's wrong. If you want other people to pay for your kids to go to school, move somewhere else.

For FY 2010, we paid 27.4 billion dollars to schools to cover an estimated 2.5 million children (2008 numbers)

That's just under $11,000 per child per year. I pay a few thousand per year in state and federal taxes--so how do my children get $11,000 per year in schooling? Other people. You poor saps without children are being robbed to pay for my children.

Even worse--a significant amount of that $11,000 goes towards teacher salaries, nice new school buildings, new vehicles for administrators, and gold-plated retirement plans...so in reality when they are bitching about not enough money for kids, they are really bitching that they are spending too much on administrivia and retirement. If I had $11,000 every year for each of my children, they would be getting one hell of an education. If my child was interested in space, I could easily send him to space camp, visit NASA and see a shuttle launch, travel to the Air and Space Museum, and get flight-time with a pilot to do the weightless dive thing. ...and I would still have about $7,000 left over for the rest of the year. In two years, I could pay off a real nice 'field trip bus' (aka minivan), and I could very quickly pay down the mortgage on my house^H^H^H^H^Hbuilding in which I instruct my students.

Taxes are supposed to be laid across the people equally, no sales tax for me also means no sales tax for Ballmer. The government can't start playing 'favorites' by taxing Ballmer and not taxing me.

Why don't socialist retards get this stuff? Is it because you were educated in government-run public schools?

A corporation is required to maximize the profits for its share holders. Ballmer is a major share holder. Of course Ballmer's profits matter more than public education.

Let me be blunt: Fuck you. I am not a billionaire, millionaire, or even a thousandaire. After all my bills are paid, I'm lucky to have $100 in the bank when my next paycheck comes around.

Let me be blunt again: Fuck public education. It's not more important than educating my children. I care about my family. That's it. My wife, and my children. I will make sure my children are educated because that is my responsibility as a parent. If that means I have to pay out of my own pocket to send them to private schools and/or pay private tutors for certain things, I will do so. (For example, I absolutely suck at anything above basic algebra because I have no interest in math). And I'm not speaking from a position of "poor me, I'm being taxed for public education", I'm speaking from the standpoint that it is wrong for one group of people to pay for another group. People who don't have children shouldn't be taxed to pay for my children to go to school. Taking money from someone to give to someone else is theft. Even if government does it.

I don't want this tax in my state. It's wrong. If you want other people to pay for your kids to go to school, move somewhere else.

For FY 2010, we paid 27.4 billion dollars to schools to cover an estimated 2.5 million children (2008 numbers)

That's just under $11,000 per child per year. I pay a few thousand per year in state and federal taxes--so how do my children get $11,000 per year in schooling? Other people. You poor saps without children are being robbed to pay for my children.

Even worse--a significant amount of that $11,000 goes towards teacher salaries, nice new school buildings, new vehicles for administrators, and gold-plated retirement plans...so in reality when they are bitching about not enough money for kids, they are really bitching that they are spending too much on administrivia and retirement. If I had $11,000 every year for each of my children, they would be getting one hell of an education. If my child was interested in space, I could easily send him to space camp, visit NASA and see a shuttle launch, travel to the Air and Space Museum, and get flight-time with a pilot to do the weightless dive thing. ...and I would still have about $7,000 left over for the rest of the year. In two years, I could pay off a real nice 'field trip bus' (aka minivan), and I could very quickly pay down the mortgage on my house^H^H^H^H^Hbuilding in which I instruct my students.

Taxes are supposed to be laid across the people equally, no sales tax for me also means no sales tax for Ballmer. The government can't start playing 'favorites' by taxing Ballmer and not taxing me.

Why don't socialist retards get this stuff? Is it because you were educated in government-run public schools?

At the beginning I guess: Evidence, the links you provided have plenty, thank you for saving me answering this part.

The fact is that public transport at least, consumes more energy per mile than cars.

Actually if you read that table again, you will see that cars are the worst on the list, with the exception of light rail. I could not find the light rail figures in the data linked (no I didn't read all of it so if someone could point me to the relevant table I would appreciate it) so I can only presume the examples cited are among the worst run and designed public transport systems in the world. Apart from this the car is the worst, followed by buses.

the incredibly cheap costs of highway construction

What evidence do you have to back up this? Highways are massively expensive especially in city centres. Highways cost around $1 million per lane mile in the most simple circumstances and as commuter tansit around a large already built up city they are astronomical, not to mention the upkeep and repair costs of highway are much higher than rail. some figures if you have as much trouble accessing that link as I am at the moment you can view screenshots of it here

In addition these figures are for mass transit in the USA, an unashamed car culture. As your own link notes:

Don't Europe and Asia do better? Much better. This Australian Study cites figures saying that Western Europeans use only 76% of U.S. BTUs/pm in their private transport, and only 38% in their transit -- 2.5 times more efficient. Rich Asians do even better at transit -- they are almost 4 times as efficient in terms of energy/passenger-mile.

So it is possible to do it 4 times better than those figure that the car is already at the second to last place on.

Finally

Finally, repeat after me, there is no energy shortage. There is no energy shortage. There is no energy shortage. There is an energy collection, storage, and distribution problem.

Well I hate to break it to you, but collection, storage and distribution problems result in there being less energy available for use than we want and need, this is the definition of a shortage

Yah, I belatedly realised I was partially conflating ideas here, and posted a separate question to commodore64_love directly.

To belabor the point however :), if the required insurance is liability coverage for a driver, then technically speaking the insurance is not on the car itself. WA, for instance, requires insurance for the driver, regardless of car ownership (link). But then again maybe I'm misunderstanding something here; I'm no insurance expert.

Be that as it may, I'm curious to see what commodore64_love has to say.

Cheers,

Small correction here. Most states allow you to get a license without any insurance at all.

What they don't allow you to do is register a vehicle without insurance.

Thanks, Firethorn. It's been a while, so clearly my memory's a bit rusty.

Digging around, it sounds like WA does not require liability insurance to get a license itself (link), but they do require either insurance or some guaranteed means of paying up to $60 K in liabilities by way of either a bond or certificate of deposit (link) before allowing someone to drive. I'm not sure how this is enforced; it would make more sense to require the insurance/bond/COD before giving someone a license, rather than after the fact, but far be it from me to understand bureaucracy.

Cheers,

Small correction here. Most states allow you to get a license without any insurance at all.

What they don't allow you to do is register a vehicle without insurance.

Thanks, Firethorn. It's been a while, so clearly my memory's a bit rusty.

Digging around, it sounds like WA does not require liability insurance to get a license itself (link), but they do require either insurance or some guaranteed means of paying up to $60 K in liabilities by way of either a bond or certificate of deposit (link) before allowing someone to drive. I'm not sure how this is enforced; it would make more sense to require the insurance/bond/COD before giving someone a license, rather than after the fact, but far be it from me to understand bureaucracy.

Cheers,

As there has been a lot of incorrect speculation in the discussion for this story, here is the actual text of I-1098 (PDF!). Before you post things such as "$200k is too high for families" or "if only they'd lower other taxes - but it's never gonna happen", please go and actually read it.

(yeah, yeah, I'm new here etc)

The State of Washington does not have personal or corporate income tax at this time. So to add a 5% income tax, which has very little deductions, would obviously sounds like a big change for the State.

WA does have corporate taxes, they are called Business & Occupation taxes and are between about .5% and 1.5% of GROSS receipts.

http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/BAndOTax/BandOrates.aspx

Yes the American and English cultures diverged a few hundred years back. Which means we're different not inferior. If we seem more violent then perhaps there's a reason behind the desensitization toward distant and/or fictional occurrences such as the far more personal association we have when we still to this day need to worry about our children being eaten by the wildlife on their way to school.

Perhaps instead of condemning the US culture it may be worth asking "why?" do the US and Europe have different views on sexuality and nudity. And before you call the US position of viewing sexuality as a more private aspect than Europeans view it "wrong," you may wish to ask "does it cause unjust harm?" (Such as withholding suffrage, property inheritance, educational, or human rights). Cultural judgments are a tricky thing and obviously a majority (because we are a republic) of the culture here has a different opinion than you do.

Synonyms for immature could also be: young, fresh, or enthusiastic. Synonyms for "more mature" in this case could also be: jaded, desensitized, bored, or tired. You're arguments (as are mine) are a matter of perspective and opinion whereas your claims about the US culture seem to be more of a value claim based on right or wrong (which one hopes would be argued from fact, statistics, or at least logic).

So please do explain to me why public nudity (in a sexual way) is absolutely wrong as opposed to different than the culture you opine to be superior. Please don't bring up breast feeding as that's a straw man argument. It's perfectly legal and accepted in US public locations (and in my personal experience the small minority who do have a problem will generally be run off by everyone else in the room if they voice an objection during a nursing).

The Department of Ecology says otherwise. Seattle Public Utilities even has a whole site devoted to helping people use rain water.

"Well, in other news, it is illegal to collect your own rainwater in Washington state."

Happily, not true, which is actually surprising considering how power-mad the Dept of Ecology usually is.

"On October 12, 2009, Ecology issued an Interpretive Policy Statement clarifying that a water right is not required for rooftop rainwater harvesting."

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/hq/rwh.html

Where they do care is if you intend to catch the rain in one watershed, then move it to another watershed, a restriction that actually makes sense.

I disagree. You get arrested by a public law enforcement agency, have a public trial, and essentially no rights (depending on the crime).

While I'm not for the police state, I do believe that those convicted of a crime need to have their mugshots put up, especially for the following crimes:

DUI/DWI (doc, specifically Colorado's numbers but I imagine the true holds same in TN given the number of those in court for it repeatedly)
Pedophilia
Rape (pdf, specifically Deleware's statistics)
Murder (pdf, Washington state)
Scam/Con

People should know who you are and what your proclivities are. In the above cases you should expect no right to privacy after your first conviction (recidivism in these crimes is high, see links and also this document on recidivism).

I couldn't find numbers for scammers/con artists, though I'm sure they don't give up after their first arrest either. If anyone could find national averages it would be appreciated. All the above docs referred to national averages that I didn't turn up in my searches (search term: <crime> recidivism)

That surprising, my local theater now has some threatening-looking posters (or was it a preview spot?) about grabbing movies with a video camera.

A lot depends on intent, and it all depends on the state you are in. The federal law cedes to the state laws, and they vary. You must check your state law.

There has been some case law in regard to providing blank CDR's to get a copy, and whether that was "personal gain". The courts have said trading blanks does Not constitute personal gain. IANAL.

To be clear, I support prosecution of bootleggers - those who are trying to make a buck on someone else's work.

In Washington State:

RCW 19.25.030
Use of recording of live performance without consent of owner unlawful -- Fine and penalty.

(1) A person commits an offense if the person:

          (a) For commercial advantage or private financial gain advertises, offers for sale, sells, rents, transports, causes the sale, resale, rental, or transportation of or possesses for one or more of these purposes a recording of a live performance with the knowledge that the live performance has been recorded or fixed without the consent of the owner; or

It going to cost Washington state 4 billion dollars to build one lousy fucking bridge:

SeattlePI
WS DOT

By government standards, a billion dollar is hookers-and-blow change.