>Hunters have two weeks.

For some hunting types, yes. Hunting seasons for other animals are much longer, in cases even year round.

Allowing Sunday hunting during two Sunday of (shotgun deer season?) could perhaps be a workable compromise, if all other Sundays stayed safe for woodland recreation.

But there's already a communication problem with a lot of the non-hunting public not knowing when the seasons are, and allowing hunting on two Sundays of the year would only further complicate that.

Frankly it's the bird seasons that cause more hassle to many of us who recreate in the woods, because they start when its still warm enough out to be doing a lot of that.

>Because kids can't do hunting

You'd be wrong, both as a matter of law and of tradition. There are even some reserved youth-only days in the season, though they're not restricted to that.

Chances are most multi-generational hunters grew up doing so with their parents.

Apparently in MA you need to be 12, and you need to be accompanied by an adult (1 per child) age 12-14, at 15 you need your own hunting license.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/hunting-information-for-minors

And no, FYI I've never gone hunting. But it's useful to have at least a vague idea of how things going on around oneself work, even if not interested in participating.

katy

>The problem with existing service is it requires going through South Station or Back Bay which burns a lot of time. If you live in Somerville, for example.

That's inevitably true of transit routes - they're built where the peak demand is.

We're yet to even get our act together to have one cross state rail service that runs more than at most once a day and that only as part of the Boston split of the water level Chicago service.

Actually building one beats musing about a second.

Note that if you try to drive from Somerville to Northampton you're probably going to take 90 south of the Quabbin rather than route 2 north of it, which is to say, you'll be roughly paralleling the train.

>Unfortunately the Worcester/Springfield route does nothing for people in the NW part of the region.

Because it goes west to Albany by way of Pittsfield rather than North Adams?

> At this point I would settle for a bus once an hour.

It looks like the bus from Albany to Springfield currently runs just three times a week.

Yes, there's a feedback loop there - service so infrequent as to not really be usable means no one even thinks to check if transit is possible for a given trip, which means low ridership and no justification for running the service.

How many 128 commutes are purely circumferential though?

Sure, the main distance might be around the ring, but the fatal problem with the concept of the suburban office park is that it means that there's a last mile (or two) problem on both ends, and not just one.

Imagine if there were a rail line that goes where 128 does. Now how many work place are truly walkable from it?

Lots are surprisingly close, but walkable?

>MBTA be like best we can do is a 40mph commuter rail train that runs every 2 hours.

In comparison to once-a-day cross-state rail that almost starts to sound good.

That cross-state service isn't really a goal, but more an artifact of the Boston split of the water level route to Chicago.

>Could you imagine a high speed train between Boston and Northampton?

No... because it would go to Springfield.

It should most definitely intersect with drastically improved service on the

[NY]-New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Northampton-Greenfield-Brattleboro-etc

route, but realistically the Boston-Albany track routing that's viable for a train in this millenium goes via Springfield, not Northampton.

Keep in mind there's never been a route west from Northampton other than the little spur to Williamsburg. To get to Albany, after a reverse move south from the bridge to the Northampton station you'd then have to turn head north up to South Deerfield Yard, then go west on the freight trackage through the Hoosac tunnel and then turn south to reach Albany.

>Looks like a BU key to me

Or likely half of the other schools within a 15 mile radius.

That particular key style is part of a removable cylinder and typically master keyed system making it quite likely a college dorm room, or similar. Also being by itself with nothing else like a car key. Most dorms long since having gone to key cards for the external door.

Though given being /r/boston "college dorm room key" could be guessed on a purely statistical basis, too

>paper map of the state showing every secondary road. Draw a dot on Somerville and a dot on Amherst. Tell him or her to create a route that goes north of Quabbin Reservoir

At least do that in daylight so you can enjoy how pretty it is while being slow as heck.

>Leave at 9pm.

Exactly. Once it's too late to make it to NYC or NJ things get better.

>So because NYC did it wrong initially,

There's no "initially" - they're still doing it wrong.

When you realize that much of the time the fastest moving element of manhattan traffic is the electric delivery "bikes", trying to put them in narrow mis-positioned lanes makes no sense at all - doubly so when those lanes double as the private parking for city employees and the pedestrian congestion overflow.

Especially if you believe as most advocates do that electric is the future, then you have to stop thinking of these smaller than car things as exceptions to traffic, and start working with the reality that their volume already requires being able to use all of the street space for non-car transit.

That requires dropping the pipe dream of segregation and getting back to the world or reality where all road users have to cooperate - a fact that the "bike lanes" fail to remove anyway, since the two modes have to cross paths at intersections regardless, and when the "bikes" are typically moving faster than the cars, you really really, don't want them trying to do that from the wrong lane.

>Taking some space away from cars and giving it to bikes is an improvement to our transportation infrastructre.

It would be if that worked, but it doesn't.

Notoriously obstructed and dangerously misrouted NYC bike lanes make for a truly terrible cycling experience, because they start from a fundamental misunderstanding of the ways that people making meaningful trips by bike are distinct - and more importantly, are NOT distinct from other road uses.

Also they completely forget that electrified things not only exist, but are often the fastest movement elements of traffic in Manhattan, forced into a layout mis-positioned relative to turning traffic in a way that makes it completely unworkable at even 10 mph.

> Im going to take a run at it anyway just to know I tried. Im going to do my best to avoid contracts but will just have to see what is offered in my area.

My gut feeling is that the only alternatives that would be worth considering are the city-level ones a few have mentioned.

>House temp. 64 Degrees during the day and 68 Degrees after 7pm. Layers are the key to survival haha.

That's rather warm for present prices. My system has a minimum of 61, and that's really higher than I can afford.

Electricity de-regulation meant that charges had to be split into two different categories.

Generation charges refer to the cost of actually generating electricity. This is where you have a choice of provider.

Distribution charges refer to the cost of maintaining the wires that bring power to your home, billing your account, etc. Because we can't have competing networks of electric wires running all over our towns and cities, you don't get a choice there.

During the summer, electricity generation charges can often be less per kilowatt hour than distribution charges. But during the winter that is less likely to be the case, because demand for power (and even more so for the fuels burned to create it) increases. In particular, while distribution charges tend to be in the range of 12-14 cents, your generation rates may have shot up to over 30 cents on November 1st due to the global shortage / price hikes of natural gas, which is what powers much of MA's electric generation.

You are in effect about to get what you believe you should - a bill where most of the cost goes to generation not distribution. But definitely not in the way you hoped to, because while the distribution cost won't have changed, the generation cost will have almost tripled.

And even that first bill may be misleading of the bills to come this winter, because if your billing period spans between October and November, that first winter bill may reflect an average of the old rate and the far higher new one. It's not until your next bill that you're going to see the true generation charge broken out, though you can see it on your electric supplier's website.

Sitting here in four layers...

>Once they don't find your marriage certificate, they will issue the Negative Statement.

Meaningless, since one could have been married in another state, or even country - a fact of which the local city or state registry would have zero knowledge.

On that absurd basis, likely more than half of actually married US citizens would be "single' because they were not married in their state (or worse, county) of current residence - we're a traditionally mobile population, especially in the "marrying years"

Now if the goal is purely bureaucratic plausible-fiction...

>Considering it’s this country where the recognition happened, claiming what you have is not reasonable.

You're being absurd.

The "recognition" that happened was not of the right of free choice - what's being recognized by choosing the victim of compulsion's birthday is not the right of free choice, but rather the abhorrent elsewhere tradition of misogynistic compulsion.

That's not something to celebrate in a free society, and none of your transparent lies can make it so.

If you want to celebrate the hijab as a personal choice, do it on some day of significance to that as a choice such as a religious holiday, or on a random day, but not on a victim's birthday specifically chosen to celebrate an act of literally murderous compulsion.

We see your lies for what they are.

>The hijab has nothing to do with her murder, and is importantly symbolic to many people who wear it.

That's tone deaf, too.

Being allowed to wear one by free personal choice is indeed important.

But being compelled to wear one is unacceptable.

And that's why the association with a person who's death resulted from events originating in the "crime" of not wearing one is absurdly intolerable

You have no idea what the term "basis in law" means.

Plonk.

You're still caught up in the idea that the tax is based on the sales price or the actual value of the car. But it's not.

According to the law, it's based on the greater of that or the book value.

You have due process, because you can inform yourself what the tax on the car is going to be before you decide to buy it. Apparently you assumed it would be based on the sales prices - that's an understandable mistake, but still a mistake of assumption contrary to the law on your part.

Now in terms of the distinct subject of excise taxes on already purchased vehicles, or property assessments, yes, the value of something you already own can go up, and long with it the taxes due. But the appropriate government process can also simply change the tax rate.

To win, you're basically going to have to show in court that you are being unfairly singled out, rather than being subjected to a policy that is the same for everyone.

>no basis in law.

On the contrary, it's literally the text of the law imposing the tax which says that this is how the taxable value is to be determined.

Clearly you disagree with that law.

But its basis in law is the fact that it's exactly what the law says.

They could have written the law to establish a fixed tax to be paid no matter what the value of the car, too - and that would be every bit as much a valid law, if perhaps one unlikely to have passed.

> Its a sales tax on a price negotiated by two parties.

Except that it's not.

The tax is imposed by law, and the law says that the taxable value is NOT simply the purchase price, but rather the higher of the purchase price or the book value.

Clearly you disagree with the law, but it actually is the law.