Slashdot Mirror

Fun fact, in some state, like Washington I know of, social media impersonation is a crime in and of itself.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/docume...

> No. You overestimate the effectiveness of the vaccine.

You'll note that nearly all the people (mostly children) who got sick in Clark County were unvaccinated. Of the 53 sickened, 1 was vaccinated, 5 are unknown. Seems pretty effective to me.

Source: Clark County Gov Website:
https://www.clark.wa.gov/publi...

Sorry, but Clark County is populated mostly by people who prefer Democrats, including voting for Democrats 52% to 48% in the last election. You are misinformed, probably because they may not be quite as left-wing progressive as other nearby urban areas, although that doesn't make them a conservative bastion.

Regarding your supposition that those ill were unimmunized... yep, spot on.

  Age
                1 to 10 years: 21 cases
                11 to 18 years: nine cases
                19 to 29 years: one case

  Immunization status
                Unverified: four cases
                Unimmunized: 27 cases

Souce: Clark County website.

TL;DR: The whole outbreak appears to have been rather preventable, but you apparently can't immunize against stupidity and willful ignorance.

How do you account for the fact there are 27 major fault lines in the LA Metro area?

That's EXACTLY why tunnels are the future in places like LA, because they are way safer than surface structures in an earthquake.

As Musk pointed out, rescue workers were able to get inside Mexico City after the huge earthquake there by using the UNDAMAGED subway lines.

You could almost imagine a large network of tunnels under a city as a vital emergency services access measure.

And someone with a state Engineering license has to sign off on the design.

Nope. Industrial exemption.

The State of Washington public education system and related interest groups are engaging in fraud and embezzlement: http://www.courts.wa.gov/appel...

>"the Washington attorney general argued that the State Department settlement violated the Administrative Procedure Act and also infringed upon states' Tenth Amendment right to regulate firearms within their own states."

That is a pretty weak cry. In the Bills of Rights, the 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (and we know how much THAT is followed already). As an aside, would these same people argue that the Department of Education should be eliminated because it [actually does] violate the 10th? Education is certainly NOT listed in the Constitution as a Federal power, in any way.

In any case the 10th doesn't overturn the 2nd. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That is a specifically listed Constitutional right of the PEOPLE, not the Fed, not the States.

And the 10th also doesn't overturn the 1st. It says "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" which applies to the States too, who all wrote it into their State Constitutions. Yes, even in Washington State: http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagenc... Article 5 is freedom of speech " Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being
responsible for the abuse of that right." Article 24 is right to bear arms " The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired"

In any case, knowing HOW to build something doesn't make it legal to do something. It even says that RIGHT IN THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION. You can post information about poison to the Internet, but that doesn't mean you can legally make it, or legally administer it to someone. You can post information about a kewl motor vehicle, but that doesn't mean you can legally drive it on public roads.

Information is just that.... information.... this isn't a case of threats, slander, libel, state secrets of national security, or inciting a riot, or similar, so why is information about making PARTS of a firearm suddenly off-limits? It's what you might DO with that information that could be made criminal, not the mere existence or sharing of that information. And if it were illegal to just exist or be posted, what information or ideas are next to be made illegal? Shall we ban all videos about how most house locks can be "bumped"? Ban marshal arts books? Ban wiring diagrams about radios that could be used to broadcast on restricted airwaves? Ban articles on Socialism or any other hot topic?

IIRC, you pay the state, along with a report of where the goods were sold to just like a photographer does when they shoot at different locations, as it's based on where the photos are delivered to. The state then distributes the city and county portions of sales tax to those municipalities.

see: Washington Photography Tax Guide

Sigh, reading the bill.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets...

Protect Washington Act - Relating to reducing pollution by investing in clean air,
clean energy, clean water, healthy forests, and healthy communities
by imposing a fee on large emitters based on their pollution;

Its really, the CLEAN out your wallet act.

you have any idea what you are talking about? this is the legal def. of theft:

I think I do. You're just quoting Encyclopedia Britannica. In what jurisdictions is that definition true and relevant? In my state, at least, theft is defined in a more general way, which covers services and value as well as property.

people llike you can push your "theft" agenda all you want. it is copyright information [sic], not theft.

You mean, people who read their laws? There may also be copyright infringement for the content, but the wrongful use of services is black letter theft.

what about theft from the public domain?

I see no law against that. Every definition of "theft" in my state hinges on "the property or services of another", and "public domain" is not a person. You started your comment by trying to define a legal term, and you ended up speaking in metaphors to try to overextend your claims.

The only exception I see for theft from the public is RCW 79.02.310, which states that taking a tree or earth (only) from public land while trespassing is also considered theft.

you have any idea what you are talking about? this is the legal def. of theft:

I think I do. You're just quoting Encyclopedia Britannica. In what jurisdictions is that definition true and relevant? In my state, at least, theft is defined in a more general way, which covers services and value as well as property.

people llike you can push your "theft" agenda all you want. it is copyright information [sic], not theft.

You mean, people who read their laws? There may also be copyright infringement for the content, but the wrongful use of services is black letter theft.

what about theft from the public domain?

I see no law against that. Every definition of "theft" in my state hinges on "the property or services of another", and "public domain" is not a person. You started your comment by trying to define a legal term, and you ended up speaking in metaphors to try to overextend your claims.

The only exception I see for theft from the public is RCW 79.02.310, which states that taking a tree or earth (only) from public land while trespassing is also considered theft.

"Coal power in Australia is incredibly cheap at under $40/MWh (about USD $30)"

In the US, electricity rates have been decoupled from production and maintenance. Electric utilities such as PSE, when you look at their balance sheets, make more from financial investments than from customers. Rate charges are icing on the cake, unnecessary to fund operation and maintenance. Rates are not connected with usage.

Quoting the aforementioned PSE filing:

The revenue recorded under the decoupling mechanisms will be affected by customer growth and not actual consumption.

PSE is a subsidiary of Puget Holdings, LLC. The entire conglomerate of firms makes more than enough money from financial operations, playing with pension fund money and equity while producing electricity way over demand at very low cost.

Tl;dr: rates have been decoupled from production and distribution costs. Electricity prices are arbitrary.

"2) It's WASTE heat dude."

That's what Thermodynamics teaches, so don't even try to use it, right? If you try to use waste heat for something, you'll violate the second law and no one will talk to you.

"Or do you think having a cheap bread baking oven is going to offset the cost of running a RAIL ROAD LINE from the coal mine to the coal plant?"

If you look at a utility's financial report, you will notice they make more than enough money from buying and selling financial assets to pay for electricity production, maintenance, and a handsome profit. Fees are just icing on the cake. They have decoupled fees from supplying electricity. They charge fees just because they can, not because they need fees to supply electricity.

Power plants produce far more electricity than demand asks for. Electricity should be free.

They're going to toll every single upgrade. The Alaska Viaduct upgrade will be tolled once complete:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projec...

The far left "extortion" lane, you know, rather then add more driver lanes to an traffic system over capacity - State DOT added "toll" lanes and charges $12 per pass, or $24 per day (2 ways)

This page says it costs between 75 cents and $10 based on real-time traffic conditions. How did you get $12?

If paying market rates is"extortion", then is eBay "extortion bay"? Have you ever felt cheated when you won an auction?

Meanwhile, does the freeway finally pay for itself now, or is it still being subsidized by taxpayers? Who's extorting whom?

The bill only has three sponsors. It's scheduled for a public hearing on January 31st and isn't scheduled for an executive session. Bills have to be voted out of committee no later than February 2nd to survive the legislative session. This bill isn't going anywhere beyond the public hearing.

You really want to do some preparation since your situation improves considerably with it. Neither a standard wood frame house nor car is going to be much protection if you are in them, and remember the radiation would come from above as well. You want to be in the shelter for 14 days if possible to allow the radiation levels to drop. If possible you want to get at least a meter of soil between you and the radiation - in all directions, including above you. The radiation will be the worst at the beginning and then fall off over time.

If nothing else, you could dig a trench and park the car over it. Ideally the engine would be over you, and you could put sandbags on the floor.

Maybe you want to peruse the following.

General background is here:
Fallout Protection - What to Know and Do about Nuclear Attack
FEMA TR-87 Standards for Fallout Shelters

Plans for Expedient Fallout Shelters
Below Ground Corrugated Steel Culvert Shelter Model

There are, of course, companies that sell shelters.

You might even be able to use something like this for a starter, just put about 3+ feed of earth around / above it.

SafRoom 8 ft. x 8 ft. x 7 ft. Steel Tornado Shelter
8 ft. x 7 ft. 14 Person Underground Tornado Storm Shed

Bring them to shelter. People have survived nuclear attacks before, no doubt they will in the future as well. If you avoid being killed by the initial blast and radiation you want to shelter from the fallout, most of which fades in two weeks.

Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Fallout Protection - What to Know and Do about Nuclear Attack

Nuclear Strike Drills Faded Away In The 1980s. It May Be Time To Dust Them Off

Nuclear weapons and their effects operate according to the laws of physics, not magic. The physics, effects, and countermeasures are known.

Yes - oh wait, that's not a good metaphor, since the baker served everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.

Nope. They indicated in the fact that they did not serve people who wanted a cake for their same-sex wedding.

So a more appropriate analogy would be an atheist milk bar owner who makes burgers for everyone, but when asked, refused to pronounce a blessing to Allah over a burger when serving a burger to a customer who wanted that service.

There was no request to pronounce a blessing, or any religious function at all, in fact, the stipulation of facts expressly indicates that any discussion was pre-emptively refused.

What obligation does the owner have to find halal meat for making a burger in this case? Wouldn't the best plan be for the Muslim to take his custom to a place that advertises and makes halal burgers?

In this case, it's more like this:

Customer: Hi, I'm a Muslim, I'd like

Baker: We don't serve Muslims

Then what is the problem in this case?

See above. Except replace Muslim with "Gays" or whatever term said couple would use.

There is no evidence that the baker would have sold a gay wedding themed cake to anybody, If a heterosexual, white male went to his shop and asked for a wedding cake themed appropriately for a gay wedding, the baker would have refused to make a cake styled in that fashion.

There was zero mention of any particular theme to the cake. This also happened in Colorado, and other places like Washington.

Just a flat-out refusal. No particular objection to content. Sorry, but you're relying on a false premise.

Freedom of religion is not passe, it is not somehow a 'lesser right'. It is a fundamental right, enumerated in the UN DHR (and in the US constitution). People fought and died to defend that right. That implies that sometimes, protecting that right will occasionally inconvenience people.

People fought and died to defend the right not to be denied the right to buy goods and services because of other people's discrimination. That implies, sometimes, that asserting those rights will occasionally inconvenience people, even if they believe their religion somehow gives them the right to treat others however they want, even declare them to be abominations.

The problem arises when some services are offered to customers and forbidden to others based only on those customer's protected class.

There is no evidence that this happened. He was asked to provide a specific service he'd never provided before, and refused to do it.

Except the stipulation of facts indicated that the cakes for weddings were provided to other customer, and no specific services were identified as objectionable in particular.

some doper wants to "blaze up" in a bar/restaurant

Welcome to Washington State.

I'm not sure what you meant by this, but the law in Washington State is clear: marijuana consumption is not legal if done in public. "Blazing up" in a bar/restaurant is illegal in Washington State.

Hotels and restaurants often post signs reminding people of this, and threatening to call the cops if this law is broken. The places I go don't seem to have a problem with people trying to break this law.

Read for yourself:

Public Use – It is illegal to consume marijuana in view of the public.

https://lcb.wa.gov/mj-education/know-the-law

Moof, Hams are perhaps a little too good at getting press coverage relative to their impact. I would agree that Ham radio is falling by the wayside, due to the ubiquity of cell phones. Without a doubt cell phone are ubiquitous, easier to use for the general population and provide much greater and richer range of services. Indeed cell should be the perfected initial line of communication. This wonderful cell technology is predicated on a brittle infrastructure of cell towers.

I happen to live in the mountains along a the only east bound interstate out of Seattle which normally has great cell service. Even though I am only an hour away from Microsoft and Amazon HQ, several times a year we have weather events the close the roads and knocks-out power that results in loss of land, cable and cell service. Due to our continued power disruptions the cell providers have bolstered their back-up power, but power still runs out and we lose all "consumer" communication. I shudder to think what would happen in Seattle when the overdue big earthquake hits. We have another mountain pass that has had landlines taken-out by a 2015 landslide and is still waiting for landlines/Internet and local towers to be restored. This pass currently only has one distant cell tower that provides only weather dependent dodgy connectivity.

The old AT&T infrastructure (circa 1950/60) was designed to even be replaceable after a nuclear attack. Go look at an old Ma'Bell microwave tower site. They were literally concrete bunkers. I just don't see modern quarterly profit driven cell providers building to survive 500 year events. Resiliency requires more and better fall back options. Infrastructure seems to work great until they suddenly don't.

If I were you, I'd contact a lawyer. It seems the state of Washington is very friendly to employers. There is no law that requires employers to provide leave time (vacation, sick, bereavement, or otherwise.) However, if an employer offers leave time, you must be allowed to take it. Here's an excerpt from the state website for the Department of Labor and Industries. Note my emphasis.

An employer is not required to give workers paid holiday, vacation, sick or bereavement leave.

Paid leave for holidays, vacation, sickness or bereavement following the death of a close family member are considered "benefits" that may be paid by the business under a policy, written agreement, personal contract, oral agreement, collective bargaining agreement or other form of agreement. There are no state laws requiring that such benefits be given.

If the business agrees to give these benefits and then does not do so, workers may sue the business in a private legal suit in small claims court or through a private attorney. L&I does not enforce these agreements.

Some municipalities (like the cities of Seattle and SeaTac) have passed local ordinances that require businesses to provide for certain types of sick and safe leave. It is suggested that you check with your local ordinances to ensure compliance with local laws.

IANAL, but I think that management, while they have a right to approve vacation, cannot adopt a policy that makes it so difficult to take vacation that it effectively makes it impossible to do so. Note also that the same website says that paid sick leave will be a requirement for some jobs as of January 1, 2018.

First off, wow, you're being an ass.

Second off, instead of bashing me as Some Guy On The Internets, put on your critical thinking cap, read the source text, and educate yourself.

I'll even make it easy for you and copy out the relevant section from page 26 (bolding mine):

Article VII Section 1 SECTION 1 TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.

So for Washington state law, as relates to the state Constitution, "property" would include income.

If your beef is with the word "levy" instead, again, read the source text. You'll find that the word "levy" is used in the more general sense of "to impose or collect by legal authority; the imposition or collection of an assessment". See the Merriam-Webster entry if you'd like.

Search the text of the Constitution itself, and you'll find collocations like the one in the blockquote above, where "taxes" are "levied". Notably, this is not the same thing as a federal IRS levy, which is what you seem to be thinking about. It's important to recognize that different branches and levels of government sometimes use the same terms in different ways.

Cheers,

RCW 36.65.030
Tax on net income prohibited.
A county, city, or city-county shall not levy a tax on net income.

Searching the Revised Code of Washington for the single word "income" results in 2,266 hits.

Search Results: Total 2,266 >Query: 'income'

Please penalize yourself 10 Karma points for sloppy research.

---

First and foremost they are in favor of Rule of Law.

More the pity to them then, the devotion to the Rule of Law is the most abusable sentiment there is.

A man who stands by the judgment of what he finds to be of sound moral rectitude is one who stands for the weight of his own conscience. A man who stands by the proclamation of law, who speaks not against it, but adheres to it, is one who has subsumed his own will to that of another.

Unconstitutional things remain unconstitutional regardless of how you feel about it.

Nope. Even the US Constitution exists on the weight of people FEELING they needed to do something different.

Did you not study history? Did nobody tell you how the United States Constitution was adopted? Not to mention that whole Revolution, perhaps you missed the Declaration of Independence?

In fact, the Washington State Constitution expressly provides for the following:

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights./

SECTION 32 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government.

That's right, right triumphs over law in that state. The people are supreme, not the laws.

On the left tho.... that whole Rule of Law thing just gets in the way.

Really? Then good for them, that is the morally sound position, and it isn't even hypocritical, unlike the right-wing that insists on their slavish devotion to the law except when they find it inconvenient or when they simply want to fondle their precious firearms. Then, of course, they suddenly forget about it, or rather, don't admit they are doing what they wanted to do, not what the law provided.

That's the right's greatest failing, a sublime lack of integrity, though they don't let that get in their way. They change their tunes as whim and convenience suit them, and pretend they never did, that they were always at war with EastAsia.

I would respect them much more if they simply admitted to their own behavior in an honest fashion, but of course, being right-wing, they can't, as lying and deceit is deep in them to their core, due to their level of personal shame.

The relevant sections are on pages 26 and 27 of the Constitution's text, available online here:

http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/documents/12-2010-wastateconstitution.pdf

Specifically (italics mine):

Article VII Section 2 SECTION 2 LIMITATION ON LEVIES. Except as hereinafter provided and notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the aggregate of all tax levies upon real and personal property by the state and all taxing districts now existing or hereafter created, shall not in any year exceed one percent of the true and fair value of such property in money. Nothing herein shall prevent levies at the rates now provided by law by or for any port or public utility district. The term "taxing district" for the purposes of this section shall mean any political subdivision, municipal corporation, district, or other governmental agency authorized by law to levy, or have levied for it, ad valorem taxes on property, other than a port or public utility district. Such aggregate limitation or any specific limitation imposed by law in conformity therewith may be exceeded only as follows:...

There follows three long passages describing the conditions under which such a "taxing district" may exceed the 1% aggregate taxation limit defined previously on page 26. Whether Seattle's particular circumstances meet those conditions, I have no particular comment. I post this merely to point out that Seattle, as a city government, does have a constitutionally viable mechanism for imposing its own tax scheme.

Cheers,

A segment refers to the concrete liner rings. So actually, using Seattle's project with the world's largest boring machine as an upper limit seems more like a couple orders of magnitude less. The tunnel is lined with 2-ft thick by 6.5ft long concrete panels or segments.

Here is more information on the so-called "Use Tax".

"Geotechnical and structural engineers agree that tunnels are among the safest places to be during an earthquake."

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Status/Blog/tunnels-and-earthquakes

"... Nevada, a state which just happens to have no income tax."

Nevada has no Corporate taxes or personal income taxes.

Washington state has no personal income tax, but has taxes "based on gross receipts of businesses".

Microsoft Is Filled With Abusive Managers And Overworked Employees, Says Tell-All Book (May 23, 2012)

I realize they theoretically "can" hold more capacity, but I would suggest that they WON'T move more people per hour than the two dedicated traffic lanes do today.

according to the DOT, I90 express lanes move about 7,000 vehicles an hour at peak, including buses and carpools https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/North...

ST projects (and they usually offer VERY optimistic projections) that in 2030, the entire eastlink project will carry 50,000 riders/day. So, in 13 years, along the whole route, ST "projects" that the trains will "almost" carry the amount that cars carry today, for free.

http://www.soundtransit.org/ea... (bottom right rail has the projection)

but overall, yeah, they're a great boondoggle. tell me again why not just more buses,a nd keep the lanes available for carpools, buses, ambulances, etc?

The difference here is that somebody was actually hurt by his actions. Being rendered unconscious by an impact to the head is not something to just blow off.

Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor in WA. If the woman was actually knocked unconscious, then it seems like a pretty fair description of what he did.

How big was this thing and why did he feel ok flying it above bystanders? If the "guy next to him" ran a stop sign and hit a pedestrian and knocked them unconscious, he may end up with a little jail time, too.

Yeah, that whole "sellers, not buyers location" thing? We did away with that a few years ago here. And trust me, as someone who writes ecommerce software, this has been one of the largest fucking pains in the asses ever since. http://dor.wa.gov/content/find...

Washington State of course. How could you not see EV's? They're everywhere. Leafs, Chevy Volts especially. And I have a little game I play. I count the number of Tesla's I see each day. It averages about 4-6 and it seems the number is increasing.

The state tacks on a $100 fee for registering an EV in addition to any other fees car owners pay to register their vehicle. This is to offset the loss of gas tax revenue and to pilot a transition away from fuel taxes as the primary finance device for road maintenance.

Here's the relevant state law: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/defa...

Why not watch OTA broadcast digital television (DTV)? However, if you watch too much of it, you might end up here: https://www.dshs.wa.gov/bha/di...

Don't ask me how I know.

Limited distance of the signal. I live between 20 and 34 miles for all the local station antennae.. on a clear day I can pick up 20 stations, while
on a stormy day I might, mind you might, get 1.

When you return ballots in Washington State, you put the ballot in a secrecy envelope, and then put that envelope in a return envelope which you sign. The state checks your signature when it receives your envelope. "If you fail to sign the ballot declaration, or the signature on the ballot declaration does not match the signature in your voter registration record, your county elections department will contact you. If you are unable to sign the declaration, make a mark in front of two witnesses and have them sign in the designated spaces." from https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/... If your signature is OK, the secrecy envelope is put in the stack of ballots to be opened and counted. No one who handles the stack of ballots to be counted has any idea whose they are. There are also bar codes on the envelopes so making duplicate copies and mailing them in won't work either. Washington State has been voting by mail for many years, and it works very well. You get your ballot in your mail, can take your time to fill it in at your leisure, and either mail it back or drop it off at a collection box through election day. You don't have to worry about taking time off from work, standing in line, or any of that. The biggest plus is that since there are no polling stations, there are no exit polls. The media has to wait until the results come in before they can say how a vote is going down. They can't say, 20% of this group is voting this way and 40% of that group is voting that way.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2354

Dropped the issue. Right. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

With this particular law it is, actually. The problem is that the class of weapons banned by SAFE Act, and other similar "assault weapon" bans, is fuzzily defined, but more importantly, that definition doesn't have any rational explanation. An Australian-style full semi auto ban is at least justifiable on the basis of increased lethality, and there is an objective difference between semi-autos and manual action. Banning "military style" rifles with features that are mostly or wholly cosmetic does nothing useful whatsoever.

To remind, the firearm used in the single deadliest mass shooting spree to date - the one perpetrated by Breivik - was done by a firearm (Ruger Mini-14) that is not considered an assault weapon under any existing or past AWB laws, nor under any AWB proposals on either federal or state level, that I'm aware off. That alone should tell you all you need to know about those laws.

Why it's a slippery slope? Well, if you can enact a ban without a rational justification for the list of banned features, then that list of banned features can be extended arbitrarily in random directions at a whim.

Worse yet that these laws are usually written by people who have no clue about guns, and so they e.g. ban "barrel shrouds", and define them in such a way that practically every forend on any shotgun or rifle manufactured to date would be considered one (and so make it banned). That's not a hypothetical - it actually happened with an AWB bill that was proposed in Washington State this year:

"A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel"

This definition practically implies that it's illegal to shoot a firearm while gripping it anywhere around or under the barrel. Makes you wonder if the person that wrote this have ever shot a rifle or a shotgun, or at least seen one being shot.

The quoted "source" is a guest column advocating a particular position; it is not a traffic report. In fact, it misrepresents what was behind the reduction in trips in the Seattle DOT traffic report. The author attributes the reduction to increases in use of alternate forms of transportation, but completely ignores an even bigger for reason for the reduction in the number of trips, the Great Recession, which hit in the middle of the reporting period.

Since 2010, the number of trips has been increasing.

Here is the actual 2015 Seattle DOT traffic report. Here is the 2015 Washington state DOT traffic report. Check the numbers for yourself.

Just based on what I have observed, traffic has increased significantly since 2014, but the data does for 2015 does not seem to be available yet to confirm this.

It sounds like these guys committed "patronizing a prostitute", which is a misdemeanor:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...

They've been charged with "promoting prostitution"( being a pimp), which a felony:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...

Maybe the charge is felony-level because they submitted numerous reviews of the prostitutes online? It won't stick, but the DA always goes for the maximum charge that can conceivably be "not thrown out immediately."

Maybe these guys would hire several at a time and throw a party. That might class them as "pimps." Such details are not in the article – if they were, they might be blocked from admission as evidence in the actual trial. The guts of any such prosecution don't come out until after the trial, to avoid the possibility of "tainting the jury."

But $75,000 bail for a well-documented, long-standing and repeated commission of a Felony? Come on!!!

It sounds like these guys committed "patronizing a prostitute", which is a misdemeanor:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...

They've been charged with "promoting prostitution"( being a pimp), which a felony:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...

Maybe the charge is felony-level because they submitted numerous reviews of the prostitutes online? It won't stick, but the DA always goes for the maximum charge that can conceivably be "not thrown out immediately."

Maybe these guys would hire several at a time and throw a party. That might class them as "pimps." Such details are not in the article – if they were, they might be blocked from admission as evidence in the actual trial. The guts of any such prosecution don't come out until after the trial, to avoid the possibility of "tainting the jury."

But $75,000 bail for a well-documented, long-standing and repeated commission of a Felony? Come on!!!

It sounds like these guys committed "patronizing a prostitute", which is a misdemeanor:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...

They've been charged with "promoting prostitution"( being a pimp), which a felony:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...

It sounds like these guys committed "patronizing a prostitute", which is a misdemeanor:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...

They've been charged with "promoting prostitution"( being a pimp), which a felony:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...

IANAL, but my understanding of the definition of "Contribution" as described in 42.17A.005 (13)(a)(iii), (13)(b)(iv), and (13)(b)(vii) suggests that it wouldn't. Also, that's only the Washington state legislature's rules, so they probably don't apply to federal elections (unless Facebook is based there, I suppose).

My guess is that it would count the same as any other earned media. However, if it hypothetically were considered an in-kind contribution to Trump's opponents (e.g., if none of the above exceptions existed), then that would also imply that the ~$2 billion of free media coverage Trump has received to date was also a contribution in kind.

If Facebook did work to defeat Trump, could that be seen as In Kind contribution to his opponents?

Strictly speaking he didn't get convicted until 2012.

So the FBI couldn't find jack in the late 50s, then some local prosecutor (from the article, I'd guess a County Prosecutor) decided to close the case, this poor guy a) was fired from a job for a reported statutory rape (the crime he was convicted of seems to be attempting to seduce her, but not actually seducing her), b) did not actually have any of the paperwork he'd used to establish his alibi in 1957 because that was 55 fucking years ago, and c) gave off a really weird confused vibe when the cops demanded he start spilling the beans about a 55-year-old-murder.

It seems like they actually had these records at trial, but they were excluded by the trial judge, and that's both how he got convicted and how he won his appeal.

Space requirements. A high-traffic roundabout requires more land area than a cross intersection.

That's partially correct, sometimes:

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

It should be noted that 600 Rem in a short period is the point where you have a significant chance of dying

I would advise against betting your life on that as a cutoff point. The human LD50 for acute whole-body radiation exposure without medical intervention is about 350 rad. There will be cases of death for "only" 200-300 rad. A level of 600 rad is essentially LD100.

That's certainly what the Washington State Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health, Office of Radiation Protection believes, anyway. I would be inclined to believe they know what they are talking about. Hanford Nuclear Reservation is in Washington.

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission pegs the LD50 at 400-450 without specifying whether or not medical intervention is made. If you want to be a little more daring, use that.

None of these figures even count deaths which take longer than 30 days following exposure to occur.

Bitcoin miners are only making money speculatively. No reason the power company shouldn't treat servicing them the same way.

Ughh..... come on internets. Electricity pricing policy is a very complex subject, involving everything from the ethics of cross-subsidization to the physics of power generation to the logistics of long-term capacity planning. Remember, your local power company has a government-granted monopoly on your power demand. To top it off, in this particular case the power company is a public entity (a public utility district--PUD). They definitely have an obligation to keep rates "fair", and they probably have to get approval from these guys too.

Now, reading between the lines, it sounds to me like they successfully attracted economic development to the region with their low rates, but they realized they didn't attract very good economic development. Server farms don't employee a lot of people, and these server farms might be empty warehouses overnight if Bitcoin crashes or gets regulated out of existence. The new demand will naturally raise prices, possibly forcing the PUD (or whoever operates their generation balance) to investment capital in new generation or go to market where there's not going to be any of that sweet cheap hydro for sale. So they roll a plan to target these new businesses without pissing off the incumbent customers, even though the apple storage folks presumably use a lot of power too.

I don't know enough to pick sides in this fight, though personally I'd be screaming to the PSC, FERC, and my state legislators if I moved my business to the area and then they deliberately targeted me with a price increase. The PUD may not actually expect to get their rate hike: putting up a good fight in the public eye may be their real goal, and any concessions they can squeeze out of these "outsiders" is just gravy on top. The key quote from the PUD official at the end of the article sums it up: “It would be interesting if they could provide a nexus between their businesses and economic development in the community.”