Slashdot Mirror

In the State of Washington, they compare the signatures on the petition to the voter rolls to see if the signature matches.

Here is an interesting link to the details of the petition on the referendum that actually triggered this Supreme Court case:

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Pages/R-71SignatureStats.aspx

This year in Washington state there are more than 50 initiative petitions filed. To actually get on the November ballot, each such petition needs 241,153 valid signatures. Most of these are unlikely to get anywhere near that, but if even a half dozen do, that leaves a million or so signatures to be verified between July and whenever the ballots are finalized (September?). Surely making these public would help remove invalid signatures, do it quickly and well - and how is this a bad thing?

On average sex offenders serve longer terms in prison and jail than persons convicted of other felony offenses. In fiscal year 2003, the average sentence length for all felonies was 37.3 months, compared to 90.8 months for sex offenses.

Then there was the recent Supreme Court ruling that "federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous," even after they complete their prison terms." which you can read more about at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126887029. The case itself can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf .

There's already a legal definition of signature so people can't go around redefining it for fun. As it turns out a signature doesn't have to a an autograph. It can be literally just anything.

Radiation used in medicine is the largest source of man-made radiation to which people in the United States are exposed. Most of our exposure is from diagnostic x-rays. Physicians use x-rays in more than half of all medical diagnoses to determine the extent of disease or physical injury. Radiation is also used in cancer treatments, where precisely targeted radiation destroys diseased cells without killing nearby healthy cells. Radiopharmaceuticals, another medical treatment, are used to locate tumors in a patient's body and to treat cancer. One-third of all successful cancer treatments involve radiation.

The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

• Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem
• Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem
• Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem
• Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid
• Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm

In law, yes. But in fact, not so much. The law almost always sides with the landlord in these cases. The tricky part in that law is this other one that basically nullifies it if they call it a 'lease' instead of 'rent'.

or rental agreements (which can override a renters right to privacy (i.e. your landlord gets a key to your place if the agreement says so)).

Interesting. In fact, I'd ask YOU for a citation. For example, in Washington state, RCW 59.18.230, "Waiver of chapter provisions prohibited", specifically prohibits, and voids, any clause in any rental agreement that is an attempt to extend privileges of the landlord over the tenant beyond what is allowed within the Residential Landlord Tenancy Act. For example, Washington requires three days written notice for a landlord to make an inspection. My landlord can't put a clause in my lease that says "24 hours notice required", and even if I sign it, it is unenforceable. Any remedy by the landlord (withholding deposit, assessing a fee, beginning eviction processes) as a result of distress from such is also null and void, and can even be grounds for the tenant to claim damages from the landlord.

but the fact remains that being in the intersection when the light turns red is technically illegal in every state in the nation.

Not in Washington State. We seem to have a sensible legislature & judiciary.

There is nothing in the laws that say the intersection has to be clear on a red light; you just can't enter the intersection on red. In fact, you are obligated to stop in the middle of the intersection to allow legal traffic to pass. It seems perfectly legal to enter the intersection on green or even yellow and finish your left turn on red. And (news to me) we can even make a left turn at a red light from a two-way street onto a one-way street going left; this is explicitly stated.

RCW 46.61.055

(1)(a) Vehicle operators facing a circular green signal ... turning left or right shall stop to allow other vehicles lawfully within the intersection control area to complete their movements.
(2)(a) Vehicle operators facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal are thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection.
(3)(a) Vehicle operators facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line ... or, if none, then before entering the intersection control area and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.

Or, they could be honest and raise the money though an old-fashioned income tax, or sales tax.

Washington state doesn't have a state income tax. As a side-effect of this, every other thing you can imagine is taxed as highly as the state government thinks they can manage. (Except car licensing... that used to be hundreds of dollars per year, but an initiative slashed that to a flat $30 per year. But that was years ago... I just re-licensed a car and paid about $120 so I guess it is ratcheting back up to where it was.)

In Washington, a state income tax is very nearly a "political third rail" issue. You can't get elected governor here without piously promising that an income tax would be your absolute last emergency resort. Our current governor and the one before here both started talking about a state income tax shortly after being elected, though.

This month, our state legislature seriously debated a proposal to enact a state income tax, only on "the rich", and with a sales-tax reduction as a bribe to make the rest of the voters happy. This was not a popular idea; I think most people view this as the camel's nose entering the tent. (Certainly that's how I view it... once we have the income tax, every year the definition of who is "rich" will be revised downward.) That idea is dead for now.

As for sales tax:

The sales tax is already 9.5% in the Seattle area; of that, 6.5% goes to the state. (Numbers from here.) I suspect that nobody quite dares yet to hit the threshold of 10% sales tax or higher. Double digits? That might get some headlines.

But surprise surprise, the state legislature is seriously debating a proposal to add 0.2% to the state sales tax rate, at least temporarily. This would bring sales tax new me to 9.7%.

But I'm sure they'd rather hide the tax burden from the people who are ultimately paying it. Gotta love the government.

They'd certainly rather find creative ways to hike taxes than ever to cut spending. It's a down economy, everyone is hurting, tax revenues have fallen, but they can't possibly cut spending. I wonder how long this can last.

steveha

Not to the state, unless their personal accountant screwed up big time. No income tax in WA.

It sounds like that is exactly what they want to do: treat the delivery of the final product as a sale and apply sales tax to it. Open source or not wouldn't matter.

Which wouldn't be horrendously unreasonable. But that's not what they're doing. Washington state sales tax is 6.5%. It appears this _already_ applies to services. This is a special "punish the little guy for the sins of Microsoft" 10% tax, probably in addition to the 6.5% sales tax.

http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/retailsalestax/

Is Senator Margarita Prentice. According to her bio, she is a member of:

"American Civil Liberties Union; Amnesty International; Democratic National Committee; First Vice President, Washington State Nurses Association, 1968-1972; Labor Officer, Washington State Nurses Association, 1974-1978; Sierra Club; Renton Historical Society; Audubon Society; Humane Society of United States."

http://www.senatedemocrats.wa.gov/senators/Prentice/biography.htm

I was looking over the proposed law and found some interesting information on this.

First, I'm not a lawyer or politician. Be ye forewarned.

Page 87 makes it seem that this isn't a new tax, but a removal of an exemption. From the document:

(7)(a) The term also includes the sale of or charge made for custom software and the customization of prewritten computer software to a consumer, regardless of the method of delivery to the consumer. (b) The term also includes the charge made to consumers for the right to access and use custom software and customized prewritten computer software, where possession of the software is maintained by the seller or a third party.

In other words, the following are taxable:

1) The sale of "custom software"
2) The amount paid to customize software that's already written
3) Licensing fees to access custom software

Back to the original question in this thread, it seems that FOSS could fall under 2) in my list -- developers are often paid to add specific features (thereby customizing the software) by individual or companies. As nothing is charged for the sale and licensing of FOSS (generally), 1 and 3 woudn't apply.

I will say, however, that "custom software" is not defined in said document.

How did you get from "chip implant" to "track every move"? The read range for many RFID technologies is measured in centimeters, not meters.

Ah, not true. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/goodtogo/

Read range is a function of power. Improvements in technology may increase read ranges for tags. Generally, the read range of a tag is limited to the distance from the reader over which the tag can draw enough energy from the reader field to power the tag. Tags may be read at longer ranges than they are designed for by increasing reader power.

The limit on read distance then becomes the signal-to-noise ratio of the signal reflected from the tag back to the reader. Researchers at two security conferences have demonstrated that passive Ultra-HighFID tags, not of the HighFID type used in US passports, normally read at ranges of up to 30 feet, can be read at ranges of 50 to 69 feet using suitable equipment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-frequency_identification

All large business attempts to minimize their tax burdens via legal means.

Funding: $17.5 million Microsoft. Redmond $5.4 million. Other: $7.1 million. NE 36th/31st Street Bridge "The bridge includes pedestrian access and bike connections across the SR 520 freeway and to the SR 520 Bike Trail."

The median household income in Redmond, population 49,000, is $88,000. [2008] The median value of a Redmond house or condo is $496,000. Redmond, Washington

It's fair to suggest that most employers of 40,000 whose workers take-home pay generates numbers like these would probably get the campus bridge for free.

The proposed 4.5 mile bike and pedestrian trail across the 520 pontoon bridge is worth a look: A new way across Lake Washington for cyclists and walkers

The graphic may also give you some sense of how much adding a rail link now would add to the cost and complexity of the project.

The 520 is the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. across Lake Washington - a pontoon bridge.

March 8, 2006 - 5:10 p.m. to 4 a.m. March 9, 2006 Crews closed the bridge after on-site inspectors heard unusual noises. Those noises prompted a closer look inside the mechanical parts of the draw pontoons. They found one bolt sheared off, several loose bolts, and flaking paint which is an indication of weakening steel. They immediately closed the bridge to conduct the safety check and make repairs.

Feb. 4, 2006 - 9a.m. to 2 p.m., Feb. 5 Emergency closure due to wind gusts of up to 67 mph. Crews repaired three drawspan hooks that were torn off during the storm. Bridge crews performed a preliminary ultrasonic test during the closure and detected a small crack in the mechanical equipment for the drawspan. The last time the bridge was closed for high winds was March 1999. Recent SR 520 Bridge Closures

The 520 is the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. across Lake Washington - a pontoon bridge.

March 8, 2006 - 5:10 p.m. to 4 a.m. March 9, 2006 Crews closed the bridge after on-site inspectors heard unusual noises. Those noises prompted a closer look inside the mechanical parts of the draw pontoons. They found one bolt sheared off, several loose bolts, and flaking paint which is an indication of weakening steel. They immediately closed the bridge to conduct the safety check and make repairs.

Feb. 4, 2006 - 9a.m. to 2 p.m., Feb. 5 Emergency closure due to wind gusts of up to 67 mph. Crews repaired three drawspan hooks that were torn off during the storm. Bridge crews performed a preliminary ultrasonic test during the closure and detected a small crack in the mechanical equipment for the drawspan. The last time the bridge was closed for high winds was March 1999. Recent SR 520 Bridge Closures

The constitution sets the limits of the powers of jurisdiction of the states to within their own borders. It doesn't allow taxes or imposts of any kind to be levied against people and companies operating within another state unless they do business within the state itself.

Since the corporate headquarters are in Washington State, Washington State takes the view that the corporation IS operating entirely within the state. You can argue with them about that all you want, but you probably won't get anywhere. Nobody else has. Also, you should know that is the same reason Boeing moved their corporate headquarters OUT of Washington, but their main manufacturing facilities are still there. If Boeing couldn't beat the tax (and they tried), there's not much chance Microsoft will, either. If registering the corporation in Nevada or Delaware instead would have beaten the tax, don't you think they would have done that? Boeing has lawyers, too, and they aren't stupid.

I do not know why you are concentrating on a sales tax, the issue isn't taxes in general, it's jurisdiction.

I was not "concentrating on a sales tax". Twice each I stated that it was neither a sales or income tax. And see just above about jurisdiction.

Like it or not, a subsidiary entity incorporated and legal in another state is for all intents and purposed an separate company operating within that other state. It doesn't matter who owns what or who the parent company/entity is, it's completely separate and within the sole jurisdiction of the other state except where it's business activities interact within the state of Washington.

Go to Washington and prove it in the courts, man. The corporations would pay you many millions of dollars to do so. So far nobody else has managed to do it.

Why don't you name some cases and we will see if there is a problem with the facts being different.

Why don't you just ask any corporate officer in Washington State? And the case law is not exactly hidden, I am sure you can find it on the internet. But I am not going to go out of my way to provide it for you; I already know this to be fact. You can waste as much time as you like on it. But just for some basics, I spent about 10 seconds to Google "washington state B&O tax", and HERE is the first returned entry. It doesn't cover the legal cases but it does tell you something about the tax. And HERE is the fourth entry, about SCOTUS refusing to hear an appeal from Ford Motor Co.

Ford couldn't beat it. Boeing couldn't beat it. But you think you can? (BTW, the Ford case was about dealers in WA state, not the whole corp.)

Now, maybe you should do a little research on the subject.

Been there, done that. You are the one who needs to do the research. Like I mentioned before, if you can get them out of it, I am sure they will literally heap money all over you.

Hint: It ain't gonna happen.

Sorry but you are absolutely WRONG on this. B&O tax allows no deductions of any kind for expenses. See Washington State's DoR FAQ on this.

Grishnakh, I know something about business. I worked for Boeing for 11 years. And I had software development and contracting businesses in Washington for 6 years. You would think that what you're saying would be true, but it didn't seem like it in Washington. You see, Washington doesn't have an income tax on corporations OR individuals. They have sales taxes, but not that much more than Oregon and certainly less than California. They have property taxes too, but lots less than in Texas or California. The thing you didn't mention about profit taxes is what a windfalll it is for accountants who get to classify this or that boondoggle as "expenses". A gross revenue tax at a reasonable rate is simple (although there are some deductions) and it works for Washington. Are you really arguing for more dependence on the U.S. Federal Tax Code? Most states piggyback of the feds and then make their own modifications. Have you ever (if you had a business, owned business property or sold investments) been absolutely positive that your federal income tax return was absolutely correct? If so, you're in the minority. Look at the size of the section for accountants in the Yellow Pages for proof.

You obviously know nothing about Washington's B&O Tax. The rate is different BY INDUSTRY. You pay a different rate if you create software than if you build airplanes and yet another rate if you grow lentils or make wine. And if you don't think Boeing has influence on the rate it pays, you're smoking something. Here is a list of the rates: http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/BAndOTax/BandOrates.aspx. Please notice the manufacturing rate of .00484 and the "Manufacturing of Commercial Airplanes, Components, or Aerospace Tooling" rate of .002904. In the list, I count 4 classifications specific to Boeing business and 1 specific to PACCAR (Kenworth, Peterbuilt, etc).

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=3176&year=2009

Doesn't look like its passed yet.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=3176&year=2009

Alot of stupid bills get submitted, luckily most don't get passed.

If this one gets enough notice perhaps the bill will be killed.

The bill's lead sponsor is Ross Hunter of Medina ...

The article's update notes:

Update: Rep. Hunter is a former Microsoft general manager.

As does his bio:

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
I retired from Microsoft in 2000 after 17 years of service ranging from program manager for Microsoft Access to general manager of the Microsoft Commercial Internet System.

At this point apathy consumes the rage that would normally well up inside me ... Halliburten got contract after contract with a former employee as vice president of the United States ... should this sponsorship surprise me? I guess it doesn't fall under conflict of interest though a large part of me feels it should ...

I didn't intend to make a 14th Amendment argument, rather the antecedent of the people is usually considered to be The People, from the introduction.

It may be so, but the U.S. courts have interpreted "people" more extensively in the past - for example, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" was considered by a Washington State court to be sufficient reason to strike down a state law prohibiting gun ownership by aliens as non-constitutional - the state is allowed to discriminate by e.g. instituting licenses for non-citizens where citizens wouldn't need one, but cannot deny the right altogether.

Similarly, in many U.S. states in the past, non-citizens could vote in local elections after residing in the state for a certain period of time (e.g. a year).

http://images.wsdot.wa.gov/nwflow/cctv509.jpg

Washington State has no income tax, and reasonable property taxes.

And the base State rate is like 7.5%... everything above that goes to the County and City governments. I'm guessing the grandparent lives in Seattle, which I believe is the only one near 10%...

Take a look at our state's tax tool: http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/salesandusetaxrates/lookupataxrate/

The base rate in (incorporated) King County is 8.6% for retail, 9.1% for food. Pick a point in Seattle, and you get 9.5% for retail, and 10% on the button for food.

If I look up my little city in Snohomish County, the rate is 8.6% across the board. Unincorporated Snohomish County is 7.7%.

Note that virtually everything east of the Cascades, and most of the Olympic Peninsula, is definitely charging only the base State rate. (Except some of the bigger cities, probably.) That's the majority of the State geographically.

That all said, next time I buy from Steam, I'm going to double-check their tax calculation, because I have a hunch they might be over-charging me... giving me the Seattle rate instead of my local rate.

Anyway, long story short: I like how Washington does taxes, and I think the rates I pay are reasonable. They only upset me when they give us taxpayers the "we're low on money" sob story while, simultaneously, paying pilots to fly "Click it or Ticket" banners over sporting events. That one pissed me off.

Where the hell did people get the notion that prison is meant to reform criminals?

You mean the Department of Corrections, incarcerating someone at a correctional facility?

Where the hell did people get the notion that prison is meant to reform criminals?

You mean the Department of Corrections, incarcerating someone at a correctional facility?

The important thing to know about the situation in Washington is that no one is actually looking to change that. R-71 is not in any way shape or form about gay marriage. It's about domestic partnerships. In May of 2009, Washington governor Christine Gregoire signed into law Senate Bill 5688, the "everything but marriage" bill, which makes it so that within the state of Washington, domestic partnerships will have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney rights, the right to adopt and raise children... All the things that two consenting adults who love each other and are genuinely committed to each other oought to have. This bill did not in any way shape or form suggest that domestic partnerships should be recognized as marriages, though. (See this article and the actual text of the bill).

And before someone tries to argue with me about the right to adopt... I'd like to point out that the reality of the situation is that there's tons of kids out there growing up in foster care, and that growing up in a home with 3-4 other children you aren't related to, some of whom were taken from their parents because the parents were neglectful or abusive, is known to frequently be a very traumatic experience. Whereas being raised by a gay couple would, at most, subject you to some teasing from other children at school.

R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688. Plain and simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. It is not in any way shape or form related to any religious belief. Washington State has never contemplated the issue of gay marriage. I've seen plenty of conservative literature claiming that gays "already have all the same rights" so that the "attack on traditional marriage" has to be about something other than basic human rights.

Well, at least in Washington, it very definitely isn't. (Oregon has actually had similar legislation in place for a few years now.) Gays are in no way shape or form interested in being allowed to legally use the word "marriage" to refer to our relationships here. We're only interested in having all the equivalent secular, legal rights. And R-71 is a vote about whether or not we should have those rights. But of course... There's a highly deceptive campaign going on with regards to it... And many of the people going in to vote on it may in fact have been led to falsely believe that they're voting on something related to gay marriage.

The important thing to know about the situation in Washington is that no one is actually looking to change that. R-71 is not in any way shape or form about gay marriage. It's about domestic partnerships. In May of 2009, Washington governor Christine Gregoire signed into law Senate Bill 5688, the "everything but marriage" bill, which makes it so that within the state of Washington, domestic partnerships will have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney rights, the right to adopt and raise children... All the things that two consenting adults who love each other and are genuinely committed to each other oought to have. This bill did not in any way shape or form suggest that domestic partnerships should be recognized as marriages, though. (See this article and the actual text of the bill).

And before someone tries to argue with me about the right to adopt... I'd like to point out that the reality of the situation is that there's tons of kids out there growing up in foster care, and that growing up in a home with 3-4 other children you aren't related to, some of whom were taken from their parents because the parents were neglectful or abusive, is known to frequently be a very traumatic experience. Whereas being raised by a gay couple would, at most, subject you to some teasing from other children at school.

R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688. Plain and simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. It is not in any way shape or form related to any religious belief. Washington State has never contemplated the issue of gay marriage. I've seen plenty of conservative literature claiming that gays "already have all the same rights" so that the "attack on traditional marriage" has to be about something other than basic human rights.

Well, at least in Washington, it very definitely isn't. (Oregon has actually had similar legislation in place for a few years now.) Gays are in no way shape or form interested in being allowed to legally use the word "marriage" to refer to our relationships here. We're only interested in having all the equivalent secular, legal rights. And R-71 is a vote about whether or not we should have those rights. But of course... There's a highly deceptive campaign going on with regards to it... And many of the people going in to vote on it may in fact have been led to falsely believe that they're voting on something related to gay marriage.

The important thing to know about the situation in Washington is that no one is actually looking to change that. R-71 is not in any way shape or form about gay marriage. It's about domestic partnerships. In May of 2009, Washington governor Christine Gregoire signed into law Senate Bill 5688, the "everything but marriage" bill, which makes it so that within the state of Washington, domestic partnerships will have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney rights, the right to adopt and raise children... All the things that two consenting adults who love each other and are genuinely committed to each other oought to have. This bill did not in any way shape or form suggest that domestic partnerships should be recognized as marriages, though. (See this article and the actual text of the bill).

And before someone tries to argue with me about the right to adopt... I'd like to point out that the reality of the situation is that there's tons of kids out there growing up in foster care, and that growing up in a home with 3-4 other children you aren't related to, some of whom were taken from their parents because the parents were neglectful or abusive, is known to frequently be a very traumatic experience. Whereas being raised by a gay couple would, at most, subject you to some teasing from other children at school.

R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688. Plain and simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. It is not in any way shape or form related to any religious belief. Washington State has never contemplated the issue of gay marriage. I've seen plenty of conservative literature claiming that gays "already have all the same rights" so that the "attack on traditional marriage" has to be about something other than basic human rights.

Well, at least in Washington, it very definitely isn't. (Oregon has actually had similar legislation in place for a few years now.) Gays are in no way shape or form interested in being allowed to legally use the word "marriage" to refer to our relationships here. We're only interested in having all the equivalent secular, legal rights. And R-71 is a vote about whether or not we should have those rights. But of course... There's a highly deceptive campaign going on with regards to it... And many of the people going in to vote on it may in fact have been led to falsely believe that they're voting on something related to gay marriage.

The peter-puffers don't need to know WHO, specifically, is opposed to their agenda.

Really? As a free-thinking citizen of these United States, I can assure you that I do need to know who is attempting to oppress the rights of others. Surely you would want to know who is proposing to lock the people of Westboro Baptist Church away in a mental institution? Or who is proposing that black people are (again) not actual human beings?

More importantly, these signatures are not votes on a ballot. There is no expectation of privacy when signing a public petition and indeed, there can be none. This is why online petitions are typically useless; I can go create one for any topic I want and write a script to generate as many signatories as I desire. Petition signatures need to be verified to establish that they do reflect the will of a significant percentage of a population.

All they need to know is, they can't get "married".

Most gay people that I know don't care about getting "married," they just want the same legal protections guaranteed to heterosexual couples. What this usually means is that they want civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever other term you want to come up with. Now here's the important part: The State of Washington already offers domestic partnerships. It's not perfect though and that's why the State Senate passed SB 5688 to expand the rights guaranteed by a domestic partnership. So what we're actually talking about here is a group of people trying to take away rights that have already been guaranteed by their governing body.

The ONLY reason they want to know who signed is to start harassing people.

Incorrect. A simple name and shame can be quite effective and sufficient (and if you truly believe that some people should have fewer rights simply because their brain is wired differently or were created differently, then why would you be ashamed to have anyone know this? Most bigots are proud of their delinquencies). It's drawing a line in the sand saying put up or shut up. If you don't want to be on the public record for having opposed civil rights, rescind your signature.

Wanna get married, dude? Go find a woman. Dick are for chicks, you silly faggot.

Oh, I'm terribly sorry; I thought I was having an adult conversatation.

The point isn't whether the flu vaccine is necessary or not. The point is you are mandated to get it if you work in a NYS article 28 facility (section 205 of the NYS public health law specifically) you are forced to get this shot if you want to keep your job. This includes care agencies, Hospitals, Nursing homes etc...

Is the vaccine safe, who knows? They just started clinical trials. This is the problem Health care workers are being forced into the clinical trial. I know for a fact that it is not FDA approved yet, and because it is a vaccine for a "pandemic" disease it is allowed to bend the rules of acceptable ingredients. The mercury content of the vaccine is higher than normally allowed. available here While a healthy male may have no problem with this, how about a pregnant female? Some of the ingredients are known to worsen thyroid conditions . The problem is no one really knows what will happen.

Also why mandate the swine flu shot but not the regular flu shot. 12% of people die from the flu every year (CDC reports) yet as of June of 2009 the swine flu has about a 6% mortality rate (Again CDC reports).

This disease is less deadly than most other strains of the flu yet there is panic over it. The big deal is while the normal flu may put you out of commission for 3 days the swine flu can knock you out for 6 days to 2 weeks.

The CDC is not mandating health care workers get the shot, only NYS is. Plus you have to sign multiple wavers that you won't sue anyone should you end up sick from it. Basically you are given the choice of playing Russian roulette or lose your job. You have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the bullet but if you get the bullet your chances don't matter you are stuck with the reality. A lot of the people educating people on the Vaccine when asked if they will get it, turn around and say no. How can they truthfully educate people on how safe this vaccine is if they refuse to get it?

I know in Manhattan on Oct 13 an injunction is being filed by PATRICIA FINN on behalf of all health care workers, and it may go class action suit if the injunction is approved.

Fyi I just gave a lecture on swine flu and have a ton more info if any one wants it, most of it is available off CDC websites though.

...and don't dare mark this shit without reading it! You drones need to wake up.

The following is a list of some of the very nasty side effects that the vaccine package insert admits to.....

*Local injection site reactions (including pain, pain limiting limb movement, redness, swelling, warmth, ecchymosis, induration)
*Hot flashes/flushes
*Chills
*Fever
*Malaise
*Shivering
*Fatigue
*Asthenia
*Facial edema.
*Immune system disorders
*Hypersensitivity reactions (including throat and/or mouth edema)
*In rare cases, hypersensitivity reactions have lead to anaphylactic shock and death
*Cardiovascular disorders
*Vasculitis (in rare cases with transient renal involvement)
*Syncope shortly after vaccination
*Digestive disorders
*Diarrhea
*Nausea
*Vomiting
*Abdominal pain.
*Blood and lymphatic disorders
*Local lymphadenopathy
*Transient thrombocytopenia.
*Metabolic and nutritional disorders
*Loss of appetite.
*Arthralgia
*Myalgia
*Myasthenia
*Nervous system disorders
*Headache
*Dizziness
*Neuralgia
*Paraesthesia
*Febrile convulsions
*Guillain-Barré Syndrome
*Myelitis (including encephalomyelitis and transverse myelitis)
*Neuropathy (including neuritis)
*Paralysis (including Bell's Palsy)
*Respiratory disorders
*Dyspnea
*Chest pain
*Cough
*Pharyngitis
*Rhinitis
*Stevens-Johnson syndrome
*Pruritus
*Urticaria
*Rash (including non-specific, maculopapular, and vesiculobulbous).

- http://www.fluscam.com/Vaccine_Package_Inserts_files/Novartis_A-H1N1_2009_Monvalent_VaccinePackageInsert_BasedOn1980Approvalfor%20Fluvirin_UCM182242.pdf

http://www.doh.wa.gov/Publicat/2009_news/09-154.htm - "Mercury limits suspended for H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine to improve access" (bullshit, but ok)

FYI, squalene, mercury, adjuvants(look it up), cancer virus cell base = your H1N1 Vaccine

Die slow, and a happy new year to all.

The following is a list of some of the very nasty side effects that the vaccine package insert admits to.....

*Local injection site reactions (including pain, pain limiting limb movement, redness, swelling, warmth, ecchymosis, induration)
*Hot flashes/flushes
*Chills
*Fever
*Malaise
*Shivering
*Fatigue
*Asthenia
*Facial edema.
*Immune system disorders
*Hypersensitivity reactions (including throat and/or mouth edema)
*In rare cases, hypersensitivity reactions have lead to anaphylactic shock and death
*Cardiovascular disorders
*Vasculitis (in rare cases with transient renal involvement)
*Syncope shortly after vaccination
*Digestive disorders
*Diarrhea
*Nausea
*Vomiting
*Abdominal pain.
*Blood and lymphatic disorders
*Local lymphadenopathy
*Transient thrombocytopenia.
*Metabolic and nutritional disorders
*Loss of appetite.
*Arthralgia
*Myalgia
*Myasthenia
*Nervous system disorders
*Headache
*Dizziness
*Neuralgia
*Paraesthesia
*Febrile convulsions
*Guillain-Barré Syndrome
*Myelitis (including encephalomyelitis and transverse myelitis)
*Neuropathy (including neuritis)
*Paralysis (including Bell's Palsy)
*Respiratory disorders
*Dyspnea
*Chest pain
*Cough
*Pharyngitis
*Rhinitis
*Stevens-Johnson syndrome
*Pruritus
*Urticaria
*Rash (including non-specific, maculopapular, and vesiculobulbous).

- http://www.fluscam.com/Vaccine_Package_Inserts_files/Novartis_A-H1N1_2009_Monvalent_VaccinePackageInsert_BasedOn1980Approvalfor%20Fluvirin_UCM182242.pdf

http://www.doh.wa.gov/Publicat/2009_news/09-154.htm - "Mercury limits suspended for H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine to improve access" (bullshit, but ok)

FYI, squalene, mercury, adjuvants(look it up), cancer virus cell base = your H1N1 Vaccine

Die slow, and a happy new year to all.

make Microsoft pay what they owe to maintain the infrastructure that their employees use.

Except this isn't about infrastructure costs. It isn't about court costs. It isn't even about really about education costs. According to this, over 1/3 of the state government budget goes to "Social and Health Services" (read: handouts). Microsoft employees, being paid on average a middle- to upper-middle-class salary, subsidize these handouts, not the other way around.

Let me know how that 0% tax goes for you. http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/IncomeTax/

Where "taxes the shit out of" means, "swapping a high percent of the net with a much lower percent of the gross". The tax rates are posted at http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/BAndOTax/BandOrates.aspx. Note that the highest normal rate is 1.5% of the gross (Radioactive waste disposal has a 3.3% tax). Frankly, if that 1.5% is the difference between your small company making money and not, you've got other problems. The B&O tax, by being on the gross and not the net, means that the tax revenues don't totally dry up in bad years.

(7) "Machine gun" means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.

Same with silencers under RCW 9.41.250(1)(c):

(1) Every person who: (c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

So you can own a silencer, but you cannot use it. We're working on getting the silencer law amended/removed, but dealing with a public that has learned about suppressors from Hollywood makes it difficult at best. However, we are an open carry state, I do it all the time without issue, as do many people I know. Police harassment is rare, and becoming rarer still. Generally we're seeing progress in a good direction.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.

Same with silencers under RCW 9.41.250(1)(c):

(1) Every person who: (c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

So you can own a silencer, but you cannot use it. We're working on getting the silencer law amended/removed, but dealing with a public that has learned about suppressors from Hollywood makes it difficult at best. However, we are an open carry state, I do it all the time without issue, as do many people I know. Police harassment is rare, and becoming rarer still. Generally we're seeing progress in a good direction.

I was astonished to find that in WA state, many geek jobs are not exempt from OT. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=296-128-535

I don't know which part of Seattle you're in, but some of them are accessible. And as for accidents on the bridges, you could check first before leaving. That would save you a lot of time no matter what you are driving.

"I'm not sure about that. I thought there was something about the equivalent of "trade" vs. sales? Sort of like craigslist? I didn't think those sorts of "sales" counted as a sale, and thus didn't have to be reported for tax by the use tax."

Well, I can't comment on the other 49, but here in Washington State, one of the descriptions of use tax is, "Goods are purchased from someone who is not authorized to collect sales tax. For example, purchases of furniture from an individual through a newspaper classified ad or a purchase of artwork from an individual collector", (emphasis mine).

Citation here.

There are other differences from a 'regular' sales tax, (the rate, the location of the sale, etc.), but let's be clear; the state definitely wants their slice of every pie imaginable.

No. According to line 33 of page 4 in the bill, computer software is not a digital good. Perhaps not the reason you were hoping for, but it does answer your question.

No problem, then. Just distribute music in self-extracting zip files. It is an EXE, which is clearly a program, which simply has the side-effect of creating a music file for you. You could do the same on Linux with shar archives, which are just shell scripts.

No. According to line 33 of page 4 in the bill, computer software is not a digital good. Perhaps not the reason you were hoping for, but it does answer your question.

a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425

Actually it's 40 MPG, not 50, so you should qualify.
See this: http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Pubs/SpecialNotices/2008/sn_08_GreenVehicleExmpt.pdf

He's not wrong on the training. Washington State has crazy liqour laws that no one seems to be particularly happy with, but part of that is special required training for anyone that serves alcohol:

http://liq.wa.gov/licensing/mast.aspx

Not to mention a ridiculous markup on liquor in Washington (and Oregon too). I just moved to Seattle from California and most hard liquor costs roughly twice as much as it did in California, and can only be bought from State-owned-and-run liquor states. (Ex. I could often get a handle of Captain Mo for $18-19 on sale at Albertsons or Costco in California, the same costs $36 at a WA State Liquor Store)

I don't think they are thinking of Mormons or religious tolerance or anything. Many Islamic employees are present too and many of them don't do the alcohol thing either because of religion.

But MS is attempting to get bail out money for a bridge connecting two campuses across a busy highway separating the them. I'm betting this pub looked too much like posh benefits like resort business meetings or GM jumping on private jets to go to Washington and ask for money and so on that MS decided to can the idea for fear of backlash if they got the bail out money.

I also think your fear of the "religious" might be a bit unhealthy. MS, or the pub owner would have had to of gotten a liquor permit to sell the beer/alcohol. If the religious underground was going to stop them, it would have been at that time, not in some covert operation 3 days before the opening that only you and your mental might could recognize and expose. Seriously, think about that. They are not out to get you. And if they were, you would know it long before you spent the time and resources necessary to open in 3 days. The story would have also been about some church forcing MS to drop the bar instead of about MS dropping it.