Slashdot Mirror

The amount of money MS gives the community is far less than 11 million dollars.

[citation needed]

Or, to put it another way, you are making shit up so STFU now.

I did a couple quick google searches. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, Microsoft had about $60 billion in revenue. Based on the Washington state B&O tax rate, I calculate that Microsoft must have paid over $290 million in B&O tax alone. Now, that's paid to the state, not directly to Redmond, but Redmond gets some portion of that, and Redmond gets to collect property tax on microsoft's fucking huge corporate campus, which is prime commercial real estate with lots of improvements (buildings, parking garages, etc).

In August 2007, Redmond's property tax rate was $1.18 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Currently, Redmond's property tax rate is $1.33 per $1,000. In the 2008 Microsoft annual report, Microsoft said it has over $6 trillion in "property and equipment". If we suppose that only $3 trillion of that is real estate in Redmond, and use the lower $1.18 rate, then Redmond is collecting $3.5 billion in property tax per year. At that rate, $11 million is a little over ONE FUCKING DAY'S WORTH OF TAX.

Then there is the fact that Microsoft employees spend money in Redmond, which means the city collects sales tax and restaurant tax. And the fact that many Microsoft employees live in expensive houses in Redmond, which means more property tax for the city... the city would collect that property tax whether or not the employees lived there, but if Microsoft were not there, the property values would be much lower and the tax revenues much lower as well.

So it looks to me like Washington state and the city of Redmond are getting lots of tax money from Microsoft. And you are making shit up.

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY08/earn_rel_q4_08.mspx

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

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar08/10k_fr_bal.html

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=23329&eid=1219

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:O_VYWHm8NLAJ:https://redmond.gov/insidecityhall/finance/budget/0910AdoptedPDFs/MiscellaneousStatistics.pdf+city+of+redmond+property+tax+1.18&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Indeed, see: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/Viaduct/

They were actually honored by the Washington Legislature twice, once from the Senate and once from the House. Of course I suspect that this has far more to do with PAX bringing in 50k+ visitors than it does with anything else, but hey, an honor is an honor.

And I think The Escapist put it best: Jack Thompson's brain is dangerously close to exploding.

They were actually honored by the Washington Legislature twice, once from the Senate and once from the House. Of course I suspect that this has far more to do with PAX bringing in 50k+ visitors than it does with anything else, but hey, an honor is an honor.

And I think The Escapist put it best: Jack Thompson's brain is dangerously close to exploding.

States' rights isn't a 'discredited ideology', it's the Tenth Amendment. WA (where I live) put together a similar memorial legislation for the new administration.

You're conflating states' rights with full-fledged secession, which is what I'd expect of a Hamiltonian.

This started in 1913 with the passage of the Income Tax Amendment AND the Federal Reserve Act.

At this point, the government had a higher power - a bank - and the means to confiscate wealth at an alarming rate.

Things were quiet - even including the Great Depression, the only notable happening was the Fed grabbed some more power to prevent it from happening again (lets see how that worked out).

Then in 1945 Congress passed the Victory Tax act. This was an unconstitutional law that actually taxed people's individual wages. But in patriotic America, no one date question it, like the invasion of Iraq. The law was repealed two years later before anyone dare challenge it and replaced with one that was constitutional.

The precedent was set though - Through a Patriotic Campaign people were convinced to pay taxes on their "wages". Forms were set up and (W-2, W-4, etc) and used to collect the unconstitutional tax. After the Victory Tax Act was replaced, the precedent had been set, and a large wage tax the database established. The forms were kept the same, so no one was the wiser.

Today you can read for yourself the constitutional definitions in 3401 and 3121 of title 26. Note the definition of wages" "employment", "United States", and "State". If you doubt the meaning of "United States" contrast it with 4612.

Further more, Senator Bailey, the biggest income tax proponent had this to say:
"I have no hesitation in declaring that a tax on any useful occupation cannot be defended in any forum of conscience or of common sense. To
tax a man for trying to make a living for his family is such a patent and gross injustice that it should deter any legislature from perpetrating it." 44 Congressional Record 1702 (1909)

Well, Senator Bailey had no idea just how bad things would get. After WWII, we had a great sense of accomplishment. But we found ourselves in a cold war, and quickly moved into the Korean and Vietnam wars. All the while the expectations and budgets increased.

We are incredibly guilty of this today. We have run up a $10T deficit, and we owe it to the Federal Reserve. Our money is has dropped to 1/25 its value, by moving from US Notes to Federal Reserve Notes.

It is our demands on the government that are to blame. Before we were all paying federal income taxes (and specifically the wage tax) there could be no consolidation of power in Washington DC. But now they have a vacuum into every household of America, called the wage tax which allows them to control both sides of the equation. This is very attractive target for lobbyists. Once you only have one city to work in, you have less to concentrate on and can do so much more effectively rather than persuade hundreds in state legislatures everywhere.

But still I continue to blame us. We must reject the idea of government being the solution. It has proven that unless it is war, it is not. All the solutions have come at a cost to future generations. They don't fix the problem they just sweep it under the rug for future generations. If we relied on government less, we'd not have to worry about these gross abuses of power because 1) they couldn't afford it. and 2) no one would pay attention.

Recently several states sent letters to Washington reminding D.C. that state sovereignty still exists:
Washington State
Arizona
Oklahoma

These tests don't identify the same DNA sequences that are used in criminal databases, and they can't be used to identify people. If an infant does have one of those diseases, that fact eventually goes into their medical record when the parents bring their (dying) child to the pediatrician or emergency room.

Of course it's not the tests for diseases that are at issue - it's the retention of the blood specimens obtained to perform these tests.

Retention policies vary by state - in Washington State, the policy is to retain specimens until age 21, though as far as I know there's no way to verify destruction of the samples (it's not as though they're returned to the parents, for example.) See http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehsphl/PHL/Newborn/privacy.htm.

When I had my child in Washington, I had the tests performed - but subsequently contacted WA DOH to have the sample destroyed pursuant to WAC 246-650-050.

-Isaac

Quite so.
It was a World War.

And spewing radioactive dust out of a high enough chimney was supposed to diffuse it into harmelessness by the time it reached the ground.
That chimney only stopped in the early 80's, if I remember correctly. Er, wrong again, it seems. Alas.

"Currently the stored (highly radioactive) waste is leaking into the groundwater, but has not yet reached the river. "

  Oh? Not everyone agrees with you.

http://www.doh.wa.gov/Hanford/publications/overview/columbia.html

  Note the date.

SB

We do need to have some harsh regulations so that assholes like Comcast and the telecom cartels don't abuse us. But that is another story...

I agree with your "another story", and I have the "harsh regulation" you're looking for:

A public utility district is authorized to provide telecommunications services. - (PDF) WA SB 6102 2007

That's all it takes. Ten little words. Surely an idea so simple could get some support? Are not "telecommunications services" a "public utility"? Do they not own the poles, the rights of way? And are those essential infrastructure components not of necessity amply provided with the power elements needed to power the IT infrastructure? Do they not have ample resources for funding and implementing Internet as a public utility like power or water? Several successful projects have been completed, delivering 100Mbps or better bandwidth at nominal cost - and turning an embarrassing profit in the mean time.

The only problem is the incumbent providers. They will sue. That needs to be nipped right in the bud, harshly and completely. They can't be allowed to stand in the way of progress.

I haven't found anything like Washington's voter pamphlet elsewhere in the US. It's something I really miss from there. For those outside the state the secretary of Washington State prints a book sent to every house and available in many other places free, with statements by each person running for every office on the ballot and a pro and con statement as well as rebuttal for each ballot issue. It's really, an excellent product. http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/Pages/OnlineVoterGuideGeneral2008.aspx?ShowAll=True&ElectionID=26 It's online. I was pretty surprised when I found it difficult to find anything about the candidates running for local offices here in Virginia.

"Generally, a person must complete all the requirements of all felony sentences before the right to vote may be restored. This also applies to the right to serve on a jury, sign an initiative, or run for office."

"Each state has its own laws regarding losing the right to vote if convicted of a felony. For example, some states restore the right to vote as soon as the prison term is completed. In Maine and Vermont, a convicted felon does not lose the right to vote. In every other state, persons convicted of a felony lose the right to vote for a period of time."

So at least in Washington State, he couldn't run for office until AFTER completing his sentence.

tm

Revised Code of Washington 46.61.630 is one example.

Stop posting these long-winded inexpert screeds on the law. You simply don't know what you're talking about as demonstrated repeatedly in article after article, and you do a great disservice to the Slashdot community by foisting your uninformed opinion on us as fact.

Let me point out two parts of Washington law that you might not be aware of that I was able to dig up with mere Google searches (and no need of Westlaw or any other expensive legal tools):

The judge still said I couldn't use it as evidence in Washington. This raises an interesting question. My understanding is that the rules of evidence in Washington don't say "You can't use a secretly taped phone call as evidence."

Perhaps you should look at RCW 9.73.050. While the court doesn't have jurisdiction to see you fined or prosecuted for actions taken outside of the state completely that would be a violation RCW 9.73.030, they are not obligated to treat your out of state acts as not an ones that would be proscribed. You can't do an end-run around evidentiary rules that way. Note how nothing in the statute requires either party to be in Washington to count as a violation under the section 030 definitions referenced in 050. You conversation, therefore, still meets the exclusion rule.

Evidence are sometimes relaxed in the other direction -- evidence that would be excluded from a regular trial is sometimes allowed to be presented -- but what's the point of making Small Claims more restrictive, excluding evidence that is explicitly allowed under the rules?

Evidence rules are normally relaxed in Small Claims Court for two reasons:
1) To keep the court proceedings simple for non-lawyers.
2) To keep the case from becoming overly long and complicated.

It seems like the second rationale controlled here. Whether you think that's right or not is a matter for Washington voters to fix and not grounds to question the moral integrity of the judges before everyone. The judge may have well only been doing what the law requires. See RCW 12.40.090 mandating informal hearings "with the sole object of dispensing speedy and quick justice between the litigants."

Small claims court is a different animal from real court. It's supposed to be court without need for lawyers. One of the consequences of that is that it doesn't follow all the rules. You've made an impressive effort to learn Washington law, but you haven't researched the problem deeply enough, so please stop writing these screeds about how awful your local judges are.

Lastly, your article once again reached its conclusion very early on and should've stopped there:

The traditional cost-benefit analysis of prosecuting people who lie under oath in a civil trial, is that it's just not worth it.

Since the title of this article is that that's not true and you haven't really provided any evidence the cost-benefit analysis is any different (instead of rehashing whining about how small claims court didn't go your way AGAIN), the rest of this article should've been cut.

Stop posting these long-winded inexpert screeds on the law. You simply don't know what you're talking about as demonstrated repeatedly in article after article, and you do a great disservice to the Slashdot community by foisting your uninformed opinion on us as fact.

Let me point out two parts of Washington law that you might not be aware of that I was able to dig up with mere Google searches (and no need of Westlaw or any other expensive legal tools):

The judge still said I couldn't use it as evidence in Washington. This raises an interesting question. My understanding is that the rules of evidence in Washington don't say "You can't use a secretly taped phone call as evidence."

Perhaps you should look at RCW 9.73.050. While the court doesn't have jurisdiction to see you fined or prosecuted for actions taken outside of the state completely that would be a violation RCW 9.73.030, they are not obligated to treat your out of state acts as not an ones that would be proscribed. You can't do an end-run around evidentiary rules that way. Note how nothing in the statute requires either party to be in Washington to count as a violation under the section 030 definitions referenced in 050. You conversation, therefore, still meets the exclusion rule.

Evidence are sometimes relaxed in the other direction -- evidence that would be excluded from a regular trial is sometimes allowed to be presented -- but what's the point of making Small Claims more restrictive, excluding evidence that is explicitly allowed under the rules?

Evidence rules are normally relaxed in Small Claims Court for two reasons:
1) To keep the court proceedings simple for non-lawyers.
2) To keep the case from becoming overly long and complicated.

It seems like the second rationale controlled here. Whether you think that's right or not is a matter for Washington voters to fix and not grounds to question the moral integrity of the judges before everyone. The judge may have well only been doing what the law requires. See RCW 12.40.090 mandating informal hearings "with the sole object of dispensing speedy and quick justice between the litigants."

Small claims court is a different animal from real court. It's supposed to be court without need for lawyers. One of the consequences of that is that it doesn't follow all the rules. You've made an impressive effort to learn Washington law, but you haven't researched the problem deeply enough, so please stop writing these screeds about how awful your local judges are.

Lastly, your article once again reached its conclusion very early on and should've stopped there:

The traditional cost-benefit analysis of prosecuting people who lie under oath in a civil trial, is that it's just not worth it.

Since the title of this article is that that's not true and you haven't really provided any evidence the cost-benefit analysis is any different (instead of rehashing whining about how small claims court didn't go your way AGAIN), the rest of this article should've been cut.

Stop posting these long-winded inexpert screeds on the law. You simply don't know what you're talking about as demonstrated repeatedly in article after article, and you do a great disservice to the Slashdot community by foisting your uninformed opinion on us as fact.

Let me point out two parts of Washington law that you might not be aware of that I was able to dig up with mere Google searches (and no need of Westlaw or any other expensive legal tools):

The judge still said I couldn't use it as evidence in Washington. This raises an interesting question. My understanding is that the rules of evidence in Washington don't say "You can't use a secretly taped phone call as evidence."

Perhaps you should look at RCW 9.73.050. While the court doesn't have jurisdiction to see you fined or prosecuted for actions taken outside of the state completely that would be a violation RCW 9.73.030, they are not obligated to treat your out of state acts as not an ones that would be proscribed. You can't do an end-run around evidentiary rules that way. Note how nothing in the statute requires either party to be in Washington to count as a violation under the section 030 definitions referenced in 050. You conversation, therefore, still meets the exclusion rule.

Evidence are sometimes relaxed in the other direction -- evidence that would be excluded from a regular trial is sometimes allowed to be presented -- but what's the point of making Small Claims more restrictive, excluding evidence that is explicitly allowed under the rules?

Evidence rules are normally relaxed in Small Claims Court for two reasons:
1) To keep the court proceedings simple for non-lawyers.
2) To keep the case from becoming overly long and complicated.

It seems like the second rationale controlled here. Whether you think that's right or not is a matter for Washington voters to fix and not grounds to question the moral integrity of the judges before everyone. The judge may have well only been doing what the law requires. See RCW 12.40.090 mandating informal hearings "with the sole object of dispensing speedy and quick justice between the litigants."

Small claims court is a different animal from real court. It's supposed to be court without need for lawyers. One of the consequences of that is that it doesn't follow all the rules. You've made an impressive effort to learn Washington law, but you haven't researched the problem deeply enough, so please stop writing these screeds about how awful your local judges are.

Lastly, your article once again reached its conclusion very early on and should've stopped there:

The traditional cost-benefit analysis of prosecuting people who lie under oath in a civil trial, is that it's just not worth it.

Since the title of this article is that that's not true and you haven't really provided any evidence the cost-benefit analysis is any different (instead of rehashing whining about how small claims court didn't go your way AGAIN), the rest of this article should've been cut.

And thus I say unto you: Poof! http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/SAR/ELT_History.htm However, ELT's frequently fail to be of any use, as they are often too damaged in the crash to send a full-strength signal or sometimes even operate at all.

Is this a design issue or simply a limitation of what can be achieved?

And thus I say unto you: Poof! http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/SAR/ELT_History.htm However, ELT's frequently fail to be of any use, as they are often too damaged in the crash to send a full-strength signal or sometimes even operate at all.

Can't we have a legal system that would just dismiss something so ridiculous and unreasonable???

This actually happened just the other day. A court in Washington state struck down the AT&T long distance Terms of Service. The court ruled that the TOS was "'unconscionable,' meaning that no reasonable individual would have agreed to them had he or she realized their full scope." (quoting from the Ars Technica story).

A PDF of the decision is here. The interesting bits seem to start around page 23 or so, though my eyes glazed over fairly quickly.

-- Laura

I am so tired of people always screaming for long prison terms. The priorities people have make me sad. It used to be that murder and rape were considered the worst crimes yet your bound to get less time for these than many of the new crimes that we invent. When you can take a life and get less time than for taking their money the society you live in has a serious problem.

That's like comparing apples to soda cans, which has never been very effective. That aside, a little bit of digging shows that your assumption that financial crimes are receiving higher jail terms/sentences is a bit flawed (the 'other' category is the one of interest here).

funny how many of the people who will complain about computer crime are all for having the government take stuff from other people.

Um, huh? What's this relevant to?

They actually put this bill before the state senate in Washington:

A public utility district is authorized to provide telecommunications services. - WA SB 6102 2007

A few days later it was replaced with a substitute bill which calls this a "test" and then lays out a list of restrictions on the counties that qualify to engage in the test. Strangely, not one of the counties in the state qualifies - making the entire thing void.

The first bill was a much better bill. Maybe somebody else can take this up. The prior "test" happened in 1990 and is meeting with some success.

You're learning. Now enable comments on your journal so your detractors have a harmless way to lose Karma.

Oh, yeah, and read up about public information infrastructure. It turns out that the evil telecoms are not the only option. Try WA SB 6102 2007 (pdf) for an example.

If you think you understand how taxes work, you aren't looking hard enough.

When something is purchased through amazon.com, usually the point of purchase is in Washington state (I therefore have almost always paid sales tax through Amazon). It shouldn't matter where the item is shipped from. A warehouse is not a retail location. They pay taxed for property, employment, ect. Why should they double dip for the sales tax?

Now this maybe changing on Monday with destination -based sales tax reform. I know that this is causing my company a lot of headaches because we are having to deal with municipalities in some states that are straight up ridiculous ( I am looking at you Colorado and Oklahoma).

The burden of paying a tax is always on the company. You could have a Tax in Tinyshittownville that you would never know about until you get a letter requesting back taxes. It is a freaking nightmare to manage. Municipalities can just keep piling things on.

MS is not a US corporation any more than it is a European, African, East Asian or Indian.

MS is not a US corporation any more than it is a European, African, East Asian or Indian.

MS is not a US corporation any more than it is a European, African, East Asian or Indian.

Pedestrians always have the right of way. If a crossing guard runs out and tells you to stop, THEY have the right of way.

No, a crossing guard does NOT have the ability to arbitrarly enter a crosswalk. For example, Washington State has this to say: "Feeling safe, they may aggressively enter crosswalks without proper consideration of approaching traffic in the mistaken belief that the motor vehicle can -- and will -- stop for them. "

This is how it has been everywhere I have lived; it is ALSO the responsiblity of the pedistrian to ONLY enter the crosswalk when it is safe. That's perfectly reasonable; we expect cars not to plow over peds, and we expect peds not to blindly run into the street at any point, even a crosswalk.

State laws usually say "yield to pedistrians IN crosswalks"; clearly not saying NEXT TO them. The crosswalk is the part of the STREET where peds may cross; it stops at the curb.

He's not saying we should get rid of fences, gates and lifeguards. He's saying that we should ALSO teach our kids to swim in the event that children somehow get around the precautions we set up. I see it this way, it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to swim. It is the state's responsibility to build fences around pools for the idiot parents who don't and for the kids that have not learned YET.

Where did I say we should remove crosswalks? What I was driving at was that peds ALSO need to be taught how to safely cross the street; in other words, we don't put all of the responsiblity on one person and not the other.

Yes, a child is the parent's responsibility. However, kids occasionally wander from their parents watchful eye. It happens to ALL parents at least once. Does that mean the child deserves to die to teach the parents a lesson? Of course not. So a second level of defense is a good idea for those rare occasions that good parents are not able to watch their kids and for the parents who NEVER watch their kids.

Watchful eye? The only reason I see to have crossing guards is because the the parent has left the child to his / her own devices. If your child doesn't fully understand how to cross the street safely, or why, you probably shouldn't be letting him walk alone.

Or maybe doesn't have time to hang out on Slashdot. Actually, the GP comment was based off of inaccuracies in LynnwoodRooster's other comment. Here's a couple that stand out from this one:

The SLUT is actually named the South Lake Union Streetcar. It's unclear if it was never officially named the SLUT, or if the name was changed quickly. Ha ha.

Highest gas tax in the nation? Try http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/upload/State-Motor-Fuel-Tax-Rates.pdf and see it's the 6th highest. High, but not the highest in the nation.

I want to know where this 33% 'actual cash being spent' number came from, because the best I can find is the 2007-09 budget compared to the 2003-05 budget, at 28% increase. That's without any correction for inflation, either, or for additional services needed for the 6.4% population growth in that time. http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Oversight/histtot.pdf http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/poptrends/poptrends_07.pdf

And that that '3 times the workforce' growth of the state? Well, let's see: http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Oversight/histfte.pdf Looks like a 5.75% growth in FTEs at the same time as that 6.4% population growth. You're right! That's CRAZY!

Seriously, not everything you say is wrong, but there's plenty of unsourced, fluffed up statements in there. Next time, try showing us where you got the numbers from so that we can look and decide for ourselves. I don't totally disagree with you, either. Government spending is growing too quickly in this state. But the doom and gloom that you're presenting? It's over the top and alarmist.

Or maybe doesn't have time to hang out on Slashdot. Actually, the GP comment was based off of inaccuracies in LynnwoodRooster's other comment. Here's a couple that stand out from this one:

The SLUT is actually named the South Lake Union Streetcar. It's unclear if it was never officially named the SLUT, or if the name was changed quickly. Ha ha.

Highest gas tax in the nation? Try http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/upload/State-Motor-Fuel-Tax-Rates.pdf and see it's the 6th highest. High, but not the highest in the nation.

I want to know where this 33% 'actual cash being spent' number came from, because the best I can find is the 2007-09 budget compared to the 2003-05 budget, at 28% increase. That's without any correction for inflation, either, or for additional services needed for the 6.4% population growth in that time. http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Oversight/histtot.pdf http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/poptrends/poptrends_07.pdf

And that that '3 times the workforce' growth of the state? Well, let's see: http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Oversight/histfte.pdf Looks like a 5.75% growth in FTEs at the same time as that 6.4% population growth. You're right! That's CRAZY!

Seriously, not everything you say is wrong, but there's plenty of unsourced, fluffed up statements in there. Next time, try showing us where you got the numbers from so that we can look and decide for ourselves. I don't totally disagree with you, either. Government spending is growing too quickly in this state. But the doom and gloom that you're presenting? It's over the top and alarmist.

Or maybe doesn't have time to hang out on Slashdot. Actually, the GP comment was based off of inaccuracies in LynnwoodRooster's other comment. Here's a couple that stand out from this one:

The SLUT is actually named the South Lake Union Streetcar. It's unclear if it was never officially named the SLUT, or if the name was changed quickly. Ha ha.

Highest gas tax in the nation? Try http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/upload/State-Motor-Fuel-Tax-Rates.pdf and see it's the 6th highest. High, but not the highest in the nation.

I want to know where this 33% 'actual cash being spent' number came from, because the best I can find is the 2007-09 budget compared to the 2003-05 budget, at 28% increase. That's without any correction for inflation, either, or for additional services needed for the 6.4% population growth in that time. http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Oversight/histtot.pdf http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/poptrends/poptrends_07.pdf

And that that '3 times the workforce' growth of the state? Well, let's see: http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Oversight/histfte.pdf Looks like a 5.75% growth in FTEs at the same time as that 6.4% population growth. You're right! That's CRAZY!

Seriously, not everything you say is wrong, but there's plenty of unsourced, fluffed up statements in there. Next time, try showing us where you got the numbers from so that we can look and decide for ourselves. I don't totally disagree with you, either. Government spending is growing too quickly in this state. But the doom and gloom that you're presenting? It's over the top and alarmist.

Note that the State classifies your B&O rate per where you "add" the most value. Meaning that if you design unique products THEN manufacture those products, the State most likely will assume the value is in the design stage so you have to pay the service B&O rate, not the manufacturing rate. I know, I fought them for 2 years over that and ultimately lost. And three months later they lost my business - I relocated overseas.

Oh, and a heads up - if you accept resale certificates, WATCH OUT. Just because you get a valid cert from someone does NOT mean you're exempted from collecting/paying the sales tax. If the State determines it wasn't a valid cert (which also happened to me, because my client - based in WA - exported ALL his product overseas so he didn't ever pay any sales tax in WA), you're screwed. Even with a signed and notarized affidavit stating the cert provider WAS allowed the exemption, the State is the ultimate arbiter. And then you're liable for all the back taxes AND the penalties, too... My advice? Never allow a sales tax exemption - ever. You are stuck with the bill if/when the State decides so.

Heck, you should see the charges that the State, county, and cities rack up on Boeing and Microsoft in terms of "environmental and community abatement" when they expand their campuses. Not just fees for actually widening roads and putting in dedicated transit centers (which they do), but for adding drainage ponds or parks MILES away from where the campus is.

More power to Microsoft, I say... This State doesn't have a clue about spending taxes or actually DOING what it says it'll do. And too many sheeple here just blindly select the current (D) candidate to keep things going the way they're going. The ONLY way you can effect change in this State is to cut revenues, and bully for Microsoft for doing so, at least in one small way...

The problem I can see with the MIT solution (centrally calculated 'optimum' routes) is that the availability of better routes might be made available based upon a drivers willingness to pay. Much like the 'Lexus Lanes' in California, rich folks will be steered onto relatively empty routes while po' people will be packed onto crowded, less desirable routes. Certain routes and shortcuts through politicall $ensitive neighborhoods may be kept clear by diverting traffic elsewhere.

I'd rather plan my routes locally.

In the US, is it required to take a slippery driving course to get a drivers' license?

No, there is no course at all required to get a drivers' license in the United States, as long as you're over 18. You just have to pass a "written" test, which covers material from a booklet like this one, and there's a driving test. Neither one is very difficult, as I'm sure everybody who has ever driven in America can tell.

For example, the written test in my state is 25 multiple choice questions; a score of 20 or higher is passing. One of them showed a red octagonal sign, and asked what it meant, with choices like "Pull over and wait for help to arrive". The person ahead of me when I tested got 18, and was trying to argue with the examiner that it should count as a pass. (Uh, no, sorry. First, you can't win an argument with an examiner, and second, if you can't get 20 right, you're a friggin' moron and shouldn't be on the road.)

The driving test is rather brief. There's no inclement weather, and not even any freeway driving (I remember being scared the first time I merged onto the interstate). It's also on a point system, and I don't remember the scoring exactly, but you can miss a couple major sections and still pass. I don't know anybody who passed the parallel parking section.

Another thing which we don't have (but I think some other countries do) are license qualifications for transmissions. It's perfectly legal to test in an automatic, and then go out on the road and try to drive a standard. In fact, since most people here have automatics, that's how their kids learn (and test). I don't think the high school courses even teach standards any more. Most people I know learned to drive stick by practicing in a friend's car in a parking lot for a few minutes, and then going out on the roads and learning by trial-and-error. Fun for all.

Or is it up to the individual states?

Pretty much everything is up to the individual states. There's no national drivers' license in the United States.

sexual crimes have a high recidivism

It's interesting that the post just below yours linked to this report (PDF). In Table 4, sex offenses show the second lowest recidivism rate of all categories. (Manslaughter has the lowest rates). Yes, that's only the state of Washington in 2004, but it does suggest that your assumption is unfounded.

So the guy "protected" his son from molestation (even though the risk was pretty damned small),

A 30% recidivism rate for sex offenders (at least in the state of Washing for the year 2004) is not what I'd call "pretty damned small".

Not that I'm agreeing with the murder or the publishing of these terrible lists.

...fear based culture that suggests criminals can't reform...

That and insanely high recidivism rates in the US.

Personally, I am totally against garbage like these "sex offender" lists. IMHO, the proper course of action is to put murders, rapists, child molesters, etc. to death and be done with it. When the government doesn't properly punish crime, the individuals have little recourse but to take the law into their own hands (whether it be murdering these people, or ostracizing them for being on "the list").

> a big juicy way to tax the Federal government (and itself) to suck
> some money into their own pockets.

IANAL, but I don't think states can tax the US government.
I suppose it depends on the specifics of the situation.

The following page is a Washington state page, but it seems to refer to
federal law that may apply to all states, not sure:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-20-190

"(1) Introduction. Federal law prohibits Washington from directly imposing taxes
upon the United States."

"(3) Prohibition against taxing the United States. The state of Washington is prohibited
from imposing taxes directly upon the United States."

19.190 doesn't say anything about bulk mail, in fact it specifically says "a" message, meaning a single email can be in violation. Nor do the definitions mention bulk messaging at all. It doesn't matter if you know the person or how many they send. Why didn't you point this out to the judge?

19.190 doesn't say anything about bulk mail, in fact it specifically says "a" message, meaning a single email can be in violation. Nor do the definitions mention bulk messaging at all. It doesn't matter if you know the person or how many they send. Why didn't you point this out to the judge?

The leap the author of this article makes is an astounding logic error. He is basically saying "Since the judge thinks this is a personal email (because the spammer signed it with his name), does the judge also think that I really own Slashdot?"

(2) "Commercial electronic mail message" means an electronic mail message sent for the purpose of promoting real property, goods, or services for sale or lease. It does not mean an electronic mail message to which an interactive computer service provider has attached an advertisement in exchange for free use of an electronic mail account, when the sender has agreed to such an arrangement.

RCW 19.190.010(2)

(1) No person may initiate the transmission, conspire with another to initiate the transmission, or assist the transmission, of a commercial electronic mail message from a computer located in Washington or to an electronic mail address that the sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident that:
* * *
(b) Contains false or misleading information in the subject line.

RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)

The leap the author of this article makes is an astounding logic error. He is basically saying "Since the judge thinks this is a personal email (because the spammer signed it with his name), does the judge also think that I really own Slashdot?"

(2) "Commercial electronic mail message" means an electronic mail message sent for the purpose of promoting real property, goods, or services for sale or lease. It does not mean an electronic mail message to which an interactive computer service provider has attached an advertisement in exchange for free use of an electronic mail account, when the sender has agreed to such an arrangement.

RCW 19.190.010(2)

(1) No person may initiate the transmission, conspire with another to initiate the transmission, or assist the transmission, of a commercial electronic mail message from a computer located in Washington or to an electronic mail address that the sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident that:
* * *
(b) Contains false or misleading information in the subject line.

RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)

Think I found it here: http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_dir/orgs/190.html The address: judith.eiler@kingcounty.gov

The point of the heat in a dishwasher is to sterilze with heat rather than, say, chlorine.

However, from the data I've seen, dishwashers use about the same power as an electric iron, coffee maker, or electric hairdryer. So I don't know where you get your ideas about them.

This doesn't count as a statistical study, but discusses how accurate
the count would have to have been in Florida to have a determinate result in
Bush v. Gore:

http://web.jhu.edu/president/articles/2000/wpnov00.html

Here is a claim by Washington State electoral officials that studies had shown
their elections to be 99.99 % accurate. Even if true, that represents
an error of 10,000 votes in a 100million voter federal election.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002185379_accuracy20m.html

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/office/osos_news.aspx?i=U4SQ5nub4drPOpM60107aQ%3D%3D

Note that the claimed accuracy is not enough to have determined the
Florida presidential vote in 2000.

Here's a typical Mexican election:

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/3344

More anecdotes:

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MISCOUNT-ELECT-12-20-04&cat=AN

The web page for the code Quoted below is 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.

[1979 ex.s. c 177 2.]

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.

--RCW 49.44.140(1)

http://www.ncdot.org/projects/hov/faqs.html#q2
Do children and infants count as passengers?
Yes. All states with HOV facilities count children and infants as passengers.

Why do children count as passengers in the HOV lane?
The main law governing HOV lane use is WAC 468-510-010. This law merely states "occupants." HOVs may therefore include passengers who are not licensed drivers. These can include senior citizens, people with disabilities, and children as well as other people who do not, or can not, obtain a drivers license for various reasons.

HOVs with non-licensed passengers do not always help to remove cars from traffic. However, one of the Department's considerations in determining HOV eligibility policy is the degree to which the policy will be enforceable by the State Patrol. It can already be challenging to accurately determine how many occupants are in a vehicle. It would be much more difficult, and more expensive, to additionally be required to determine occupant age or licensing status. Another consideration is that carpools are sometimes driven by parents or caretakers who transport groups of children to activities. This does keep additional vehicles off the road.
http://www.rtc.wa.gov/Studies/Archive/hov/faq.htm#Q12

Why are people with children allowed to use the HOV lane?
HOV policies everywhere have allowed children to be counted as occupants of a carpool to meet the necessary occupancy requirement. While children may not be of driving age, there are two major reasons that we allow people with children to use the HOV lane: school and day care responsibilities and the idea of educating our children regarding ridesharing. Often, it is difficult to drop kids off at day care, drive to a park-and-ride, catch the bus, and get to work on time. Allowing parents to bring their kids along with them in the carpool, or on the bus, gives them an opportunity to use the HOV lane. This also keeps enforcing the lane very simple: two or more people per car.

and he didn't thats why he charges $1500 and in the grand scheme of things $150 is peanuts compared to your average rewiring a full house scenario, spread that 150 over a year and n jobs and it becomes insignificant especially compared to tools (even if you dont count a book as a tool

Absolutely true. Now look in another vein and apply it to other part time hobby work.. Take Fishing for example. A commercial Salmon gill net operator may be able to justify the regulation book to comply with state fishing regulations. Why should the weekend angler have to pay the same rate for the same book? I don't know if you are a fisherman, but if a salmon or steelhead tag cost the same as now, but the fishing regulations were tied up and hidden in a $150 book, it would put a serious damper on fishing.

Pole and tackle $150, Check.
Resident Saltwater Fishing License http://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/wdfw/licenses_fees.html $20.26 check
Tags and Etc... Unknown. Need to buy the regulations book just to find the season & Limit information and tags required $150.00... %%^$%((&^^)*%^$

You are correct in stating as a business, the cost is a drop in the bucket, but for the weekend warrier wanting to spend Labor Day on the river, It is a serious chunk of change.

If you're with an incumbent provider, you're not going to like this bill(PDF). It may not get through on the first try, but the people will pass it by initiative if the legislature won't. There will be fiber to every home and business.

If you're not... read the bill anyway. It'll warm your heart a little.

For new construction not laying fiber to the premises is just negligent. You're in the trench anyway. Lay the fiber.

So the 'bandwidth problem' is local access, where the local providers usually act pretty rationally to maximize profit:

Exactly my point. Their profit margins have nothing to do with our need for critical infrastructure. They're milking the consumer for every buck they can get and leaving us further and further behind in the global economy every day. If they won't build us a silicon bridge to the markets of today and tomorrow then they had better get out of the way because we're going to build it without them.