Slashdot Mirror

Since it does not have a motor with _any_ displacement, wouldn't it be closer to a motorized bicycle? At least that mentions electric drive.

400. (a) A "motorcycle" is a motor vehicle having a seat or saddle
for the use of the rider, designed to travel on not more than three
wheels in contact with the ground.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc400.htm

405. A "motor-driven cycle" is any motorcycle with a motor that displaces less than 150 cubic centimeters.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc405.htm

Unless the law is amended, this thing is a "motor-driven cycle" and will require an M1 license.

400. (a) A "motorcycle" is a motor vehicle having a seat or saddle
for the use of the rider, designed to travel on not more than three
wheels in contact with the ground.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc400.htm

405. A "motor-driven cycle" is any motorcycle with a motor that displaces less than 150 cubic centimeters.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc405.htm

Unless the law is amended, this thing is a "motor-driven cycle" and will require an M1 license.

there is no such thing as "keeping up with the flow of traffic." when it is in excess of the posted legal speed limit

Actually that varies by state. The California law explicitly states "Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits". https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...

"Weaving" occurs within a single lane, so I really doubt that. Anyway, here's the part of the California traffic code that mandates keeping right. Consider yourself informed.

It looks like you got your 11% figure from the official CDFA statistics pages, which quotes 11.3% by the way. It's significant.
Puns aside, you fail to mention that California is the single largest contributing state to U.S. Agriculture. And that 11.3% figure is 42.6 billion dollars. If all that California produce up and vanished, your pocketbook would notice.

Be less stupid.

Pushing hard to increase demand and manufacturing is only one step. Another is to subsidize where necessary - ensuring the current tax credits continue (and hopefully making them a point-of-sale rebate) and considering making ZEV purchases sales-tax-free if necessary. There are a half dozen others. The governor's ZEV plan is two seconds of googling away: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Governo...

There is no regulation requiring electric alternatives be less than n% more than gas. There's no way to even enforce it. The Fiat has to be sold for $30k at a loss but the Tesla can go for $80k because the government things its so much nicer? No, Fiat just knows they are competing with the Nissan Leaf and no one would buy their car for 50% more than the Leaf is going for. He just wants to whine and make it sound like the government is ruining him, not that he's being beat in the market.

And as for that Executive Order, its directed at the California government as a goal to strive towards. You are trying to make it sound like he has passed some sort of law directed at car manufacturers which would be illegal, and impossible as there's no legal definition for "cost competitive".
http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=...

There is no law requiring a Fiat 500e to be sold for less than 200% the price of a regular 500.

You mean the article is misleading? Doesn't give a proper context? And a company is trying to blame someone else for their difficulties?

I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!

There is no regulation requiring electric alternatives be less than n% more than gas. There's no way to even enforce it. The Fiat has to be sold for $30k at a loss but the Tesla can go for $80k because the government things its so much nicer? No, Fiat just knows they are competing with the Nissan Leaf and no one would buy their car for 50% more than the Leaf is going for. He just wants to whine and make it sound like the government is ruining him, not that he's being beat in the market.

And as for that Executive Order, its directed at the California government as a goal to strive towards. You are trying to make it sound like he has passed some sort of law directed at car manufacturers which would be illegal, and impossible as there's no legal definition for "cost competitive". http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=...

There is no law requiring a Fiat 500e to be sold for less than 200% the price of a regular 500.

Care to back up your claim that California prevents car companies from selling ZEVs beyond certain prices? Because neither the rebate implementation guide nor the California ZEV regulations make any mention of vehicle price, even though they do provide definitions for the vehicle classes.

When the normal speed of traffic is above the posted speed limit, self-driving cars will drive the speed limit as legally required but will cruise in the right lane as legally required when driving below the normal speed of traffic.

So what happens when the right lane is an unmarked or badly marked exit lane?

Personally, I think most of the collision avoidance stuff has been worked out now. It's the road navigation quirks that I'm more concerned with, as it seems it'd be pretty easy to force one of these off the road or into an exit lane. Just look at some of the mistakes professional GPS systems make; a car depending solely on these and immediate visual navigation are going to have a pretty hard time navigating complex shifting laneways and new routes.

When the normal speed of traffic is above the posted speed limit, self-driving cars will drive the speed limit as legally required but will cruise in the right lane as legally required when driving below the normal speed of traffic.

How many ISP's would you say is reasonable to have hanging off those poles outside? There is only a finite amount of space available on those poles and they are rated to handle a specific amount of load. Who should be responsible for engineering this? How many companies do you want climbing up and down them, interfering with existing power and telco infrastructure? Who would pay for the pole change-outs necessary to accommodate all of this? The small ISP who wants to hang a cable or two?

Can the "small" ISP carry a sufficient amount of liability insurance for such an installation?

There are specific requirements for the construction and maintenance of overhead lines. In California, that's the PUC and General Order 95. Who would monitor and inspect for compliance when all these "small" ISPs start hanging stuff on the infrastructure?

I agree with you in principle, but there are a number of practical considerations beyond simply un-fucking the local government, who oftentimes don't even own the poles...the utility does with right-of-way authority granted by the state. Local governments are a small part of the overall problem.

Reading is a useful skill

So true. Here's the actual bill itself (it's a short and relatively easy read). I stand by what I said: the bill puts no limits on the feds, and deals merely with the people in the state's jurisdiction. Two things I missed: corporations are affected by this as well, so they can't share the information either, and it also treats evidence obtained by the feds without a warrant as off-limits and inadmissible in state courts (which your quote mentions). Even so, it does nothing to stop the feds from collecting or using that evidence for their own purposes.

So, once again, it does nothing to limit the feds. It merely prevents the state from assisting the feds in these illegal activities or making use of the evidence the feds obtain this way.

What's really going on is that pro-gun groups are pretty certain (with good reason!) that these smart guns don't work reliably, and likely never will. Plus there's some concern about backdoors that might allow the guns to be deliberately disabled, which could enable smart gun mandates to easily turn into forcible disarmament.

One concern that I have is regarding Copyright/patents on this smart gun. Considering it is a new direction in firearms it would be naive to assume this weapon does not have any intellectual property restrictions regarding the technology. Coupling the smart gun mandates already proposed in places like California and New Jersey with the defacto monopoly on smart guns that the patent/copyright provides would mean that where the mandate is in place the smart gun manufacturer would have total monopoly on new weapons sales for at least 20 years. Unless of course they chose to license the technology, but they may not as is their right. Still one easily see how IP law and knee jerk feel good legislation can combine to create market monopolies or even destroy potential markets.

The screenshot of what the Google car sees approaching a right turn (scroll almost halfway down the page) shows the car about to violate CVC 22100(a) and possibly also CVC 21717. So there are still some bugs to fix in Google's code.

Another company ought to build a robotic traffic enforcement cop as a way to check Google's work.

The screenshot of what the Google car sees approaching a right turn (scroll almost halfway down the page) shows the car about to violate CVC 22100(a) and possibly also CVC 21717. So there are still some bugs to fix in Google's code.

Another company ought to build a robotic traffic enforcement cop as a way to check Google's work.

The First Amendment protects us from prosecution by the government. It doesn't protect us from civil matters with private companies. This Pérez guy should know that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress makes laws. Corporations do not.
A contract limiting one's freedom of speech is entirely unenforceable, presuming our government is functioning properly.

If you sign an NDA, a "I won't post a bad review" clause, or whatever else, and then proceed to blab, you cannot be convicted of a crime. There is no crime and according to the First Amendment there can be NEVER be a crime based on speech. I am perfectly aware that our government is fucked up and we throw people in jail for speech.

You CAN be sued for any ACTUAL damages DIRECTLY related to your speech, IF it was defamatory / libelous.

You CAN be found to be in breach of contract, and subject to fines, termination of accounts, or whatever else you agreed to. Though you CANNOT be held to such terms if you didn't actually have a reasonable expectation to know about them. A contract is a legal meeting of the minds, and courts can and will throw out contracts when it's clear that they are presented in a dishonest, confusing, vague, or otherwise bullshit manner, or where it is clear there was no realistic expectation of all parties actually seeing, reading, understanding, and agreeing (see all the click-wrap horse shit, a site's terms of service, etc.).

Furthermore, Perez isn't stating that contracts between a private entity and an individual which have clauses restricting speech are unconstitutional - he's stating that such clauses need to be clear and upfront, and that sneaking them in is bullshit, as I've already explained. The bill reiterates that it's bullshit, and provides fines for assholes trying to write contracts in such a way.

Read the fucking bill:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...

This bill would declare a contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services unlawful if it contains a provision requiring the consumer to waive his or her right to make any statement regarding the consumer's experience with the business, unless the waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, as specified.

I'm going to assume that your question was presented because you genuinely don't know.

New Jersey and California have laws on the books that will take this from being an optional feature of a few firearms to being a mandated feature on all new firearms. That's unacceptable to us.

LK

CA will make all guns that do not have "smart gun technology" illegal to purchase unless you are a cop.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca....

SB 293 would require guns submitted for testing to incorporate owner authorization ability starting two years after two “smart guns” have been approved for sale. The Armatix iP1 is the first of the two.

Yes, you can:
http://arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpo...

Whoa, what country are you from? Blinking yellow is a yield, just like any 2 way stop intersection. When you don't have a stop sign in your direction, it is, and has always been, an implied yield. The yield signs just emphasize the point because a lot of people won't yield properly and think they own the road.

Here in the United States, in the state of Oregon, a blinking yellow is a cautionary signal, it is not a yield. Here is the driver's manual as a reference. Same rules in the state of Washington and Calfornia. I haven't checked the rest of country but to my knowledge the rules for basic traffic signals are consistent across the entire US.

Where are you from where this is not the case?

Chart here . 50% if you include other carbon.

and it really worked cause no one smokes anymore.

You think you are being facetious, but in many areas it's the truth. In the most populous state in the US, these sorts of initiatives have been pretty fucking effective...

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/N...

Why didn't you just apply for a State of California ID? The card can be used for identification in place of drivers license. http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.h...
If your friend was willing to vouch for you at the post office surely he could have driven you to a DMV office.

The plants are breaking down. They are used. Decommissioning Maine Yankee (900 MWe) took eight years and cost $500 million. It ran for 25 years. For Humboldt Bay(63 MWe) it is $982.3 million http://www.dra.ca.gov/general.... it ran for 13 years. Vermont Yankee (620 MWe) is expected to cost $1 billion to decommission http://cleantechnica.com/2014/... after a run of 42 years. This estimate will likely balloon. There is severe ground contamination at the plant site and perhaps beyond its perimeter as well. Crystal River (860 MWe) ran for 32 years and is estimated to cost $1.18. billion http://www.tampabay.com/news/b... This is low ball because sea level rise will make the site vulnerable to storm surge and letting it sit for 60 years will not be an option. The more contamination, the greater the decommissioning cost. Extending licenses for power plants may double or triple the decommissioning cost owing to larger contamination and for sea level plants, a rush to decommission as the storm surge risk becomes higher.

Actually, they do not have that right. Employers in California are explicitly prohibited from doing that. See California Labor Code section 1102 at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-...

You obviously don't live in any densely populated enough area (say, Southern California) where there in fact are any car-pool lanes, do you? Where do you think that extra lane came from? The meta-plane of elemental freeway lanes? No, they blocked a regular lane to turn it into a carpool lane and now, one-by-one, they're beginning to systematically charge you extra to use them .

Actually, CalTrans is not allowed to convert an existing lane to an HOV lane, only "new" lanes can become HOV lanes:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffa...

Regular "mixed-flow" lanes are never converted to HOV lanes. Rather, HOV lanes are always added to existing facilities.

no big surprises in the study. California established all of this a while ago when they enacted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Here is the lookup table of GHGs from all fuel alternatives: link. Once you include "upstream" emissions, the corn ethanol comes out pretty bad. Depending on the source of the corn and the way it is processed, many of the ethanol options are more carbon-intense than corn. The reason to push for ethanol is that corn ethanol could be a temporary bridge to cellulosic ethanol, which is much lower in GHGs. The science isn't there yet to do cellulosic at scale, but regs like the LCFS or EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard guarantee that there will be a long-term market, and make private industry more comfortable in investing in the technology. Of course, the fuel with the lowest GHGs is CNG made from landfill gas (or manure, or wastewater treatment plants). Otherwise it just escapes into the atmosphere!

I agree that leaks are worrying, but in this case I'd argue that donations to political campaigns should be public. If someone without money to spare wants to endorse or promote a cause they have to speak, revealing their position. Just because you can afford to give up $1000 shouldn't excuse you from that responsibility. Yes, you are free to say what you want, but you are never free from the consequences.

Leaks? You mean leaked from the publicly available, state mandated, campaign donation reporting database? Which, we both agree is a good thing.

I don't think I agree, but I admit I may be wrong. I'm very sure that it would be very bad to have to disclose how you vote. But with regards to monetary contributions to a Proposition ballot advocacy group, I'll have to think about it more. I do think it's proper to disclose contributions to nominees running for office, but I feel that way because it represents influence the donor has on the candidate, not because the candidate then spent money on advertising. And if PAC contributions weren't disclosed, that would just be a glaring loophole for candidate contributions through a middle-man.

But a $1000 donation to a Proposition group? I don't know. I agree there's a problem if someone wealthy can donate $1 Million, but a small monetary contribution feels more like a donate-to-your-cause type thing than try-to-influence-others type thing. On the other hand, you're right that ultimately it's spent on trying to influence other people, and that should not be done with secret backers. So maybe you're right and I'm wrong.

(I'm the AC you responded to)

Ballots are supposed to be secret, yes. However, campaign contributions are highly regulated (both federally via the Federal Elections Commission and in most states.

In California, campaign contributions (including donor names) are reported to the California Secretary of State. This link will take you directly to the reporting for Prop 8.

I don't think I agree, but I admit I may be wrong. I'm very sure that it would be very bad to have to disclose how you vote. But with regards to monetary contributions to a Proposition ballot advocacy group, I'll have to think about it more. I do think it's proper to disclose contributions to nominees running for office, but I feel that way because it represents influence the donor has on the candidate, not because the candidate then spent money on advertising. And if PAC contributions weren't disclosed, that would just be a glaring loophole for candidate contributions through a middle-man.

But a $1000 donation to a Proposition group? I don't know. I agree there's a problem if someone wealthy can donate $1 Million, but a small monetary contribution feels more like a donate-to-your-cause type thing than try-to-influence-others type thing. On the other hand, you're right that ultimately it's spent on trying to influence other people, and that should not be done with secret backers. So maybe you're right and I'm wrong.

(I'm the AC you responded to)

Ballots are supposed to be secret, yes. However, campaign contributions are highly regulated (both federally via the Federal Elections Commission and in most states.

In California, campaign contributions (including donor names) are reported to the California Secretary of State. This link will take you directly to the reporting for Prop 8.

Have you ever actually looked up a single California state regulation? CCR Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 14 "Petroleum Safety Orders -- Drilling and Precaution" is comprised of a "whopping" 56 articles. http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sub14.html. Most of those articles are comprised of 1 to 3 sections (sections are the individual 'regulations'.)

Given how specific the equipment and services related to petroleum safety will necessarily be, that's... well it's actually not much regulation, AT ALL. Yet thanks to the tireless efforts of talking heads to plant into your head that (1) there are just too darn many regulations covering everything to the point that businesses can't operate, darnit, and (2) California is particularly over-regulated, you are part of millions of folks who simply guess, assume, and believe that over-regulation is actually a real thing, a real thing that is a problem.

First off, your guess is inaccurate. Secondly: even if overregulation *were* an actual, real, not-being-made-up problem, seems like some additional paper pushing is less grave a price to pay than putting up with negligent industrial accidents that destroy neighborhoods, either through toxic exposure, explosions, or both.

It is precisely because Prop. 8 domestic partnership doesn't confer the precise legal status of marriage that it failed: it confers no federal benefit, and a lot of what you get when you marry _is_ federal benefit. Very little is state-specific.

And in regards to this, please familiarize yourself with state laws on marriage. I'll start you with the California Family Code

Technically, it is neither legal nor illegal in California. It's just tolerated and there is no relevant law.

In other states it is explicitly illegal.

Like some of the other posters have stated, no law means LEGAL. California goes so far as to mention it in their motorcycle handbook:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl...
"Lane splitting should not be performed by inexperienced riders. When choosing to lane split, skilled motorcycle riders..."

I have lane split once (I live in Arizona and it is illegal here). They had closed/diverted I-10 (2 lanes each direction) due to an accident and it was 5mph traffic into Phoenix for about 10 miles, I have an aircooled 1970's bike which does not like idling in arizona's heat for that long (neither do I). I sat in that traffic for about 45min before another bike passed by lane splitting. I carefully followed and cut about an hour out of my trip. What pisses me off are the cars that use the shoulder to do the same thing :P

No, they aren't. It entirely depends on each state. Many states have no inspections whatsoever, and I've never heard of any state where they make sure you maintain your car. The most stringent is probably California, and some other states, where they check emissions (in CA, I think they even check them at checkpoints as people drive by); that doesn't check maintenance at all, but a poorly-maintained car engine will eventually fail emissions tests. Of course, this doesn't mean the suspension or brakes have been maintained correctly; someone could change their oil regularly and pass smog tests with flying colors, but still have unsafe brakes or something wrong with their suspension.

Just because the state doesn't inspect your vehicle to ensure that it's safe doesn't mean that the owner is not responsible for doing so:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...

V C Section 24002 Vehicle Not Equipped or Unsafe

Vehicle Not Equipped or Unsafe

24002. (a) It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in an unsafe condition, or which is not safely loaded, and which presents an immediate safety hazard.

Sounds more like California.

Oh and California you still owe me a bag of oranges. I was planning to use those to sell in LA and pay for the family trip to Disneyland. F-Wads!

Don't forget he also wanted to licence 3d printers during the 3d-printed gun hysteria.

"While I am as impressed as anyone with 3-D printing technology and I believe it has amazing possibilities, we must ensure that it is not used for the wrong purpose with potentially deadly consequences," said Yee. "I plan to introduce legislation that will ensure public safety and stop the manufacturing of guns that are invisible to metal detectors and that can be easily made without a background check.".

No. Refusing to do a task is insubordination and grounds for termination.

See http://www.edd.ca.gov/UIBDG/Ab...

If you have an ethical or philosophical objection to training a replacement on the basis of the company terminating you afterward in order to save money, and they have no other reason (which they could not, given they feel you are qualified to train), then you can refuse, and if terminated for refusal, claim benefits.

I will be tracked everywhere all the time with these scanners

Most scanners are mounted on vehicles like parking ticket authorities and tow trucks. The drive up and down the street scanning parked vehicles. There is no way every vehicle will be scanned all the time.

What about stationary cameras?

Where would these tow companies place these stationary cameras and get a lot of coverage? Sure they could try to place them on every light pole but I doubt local authorities would approve. Sure they can scan as people come and go from a lot but if you don't want to be scanned don't use the lot.

I will be tracked everywhere I go

No, your license plate will be tracked when a scanning vehicle comes by or you use a lot that scans. The piece of information that the scanning company does not have is any information about the owner of the license plate. The information can be obtained but only for a few specific reasons. California for example, look at the "Permissible Use" section. I don't see "Because I want to sell tracking information" there as permissible use.

These databases will contain license plate numbers and not people's names.

San Francisco isn't part of a "targeted employment area" (or TEA) so it doesn't get the half off. The green card would have to put in at least $1 million in theory. Similarly, Florida only has one such TEA.

The easiest way to deal with this would be to buy the property in one of the TEAs (and yes, SF has large swaths of them). That's pretty trivial; here are the California TEAs: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/ez/en... and here is the map of TEAs (Enterprise zones) that qualify under the EB-5 program in San Francisco: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/ez/pd...

[...]So yes, this sort of activity could be driving the market or conversely, this sort of activity could be attracted to unusually high volume, high price markets because that is more efficient.

Well, there are 10,000 EB-5 program slots available per year, and if we apportion EB-5 activity proportionally to percentage of foreign property purchases, then that's 1,700 home purchases a year (this is being very generous).

Assuming we ignore the $500,000 end run around the problem by investing in a real estate holding company in a TEA, rather than directly in real estate, and those purchases are all in the $1,000,000+ range, then there is a huge incentive to push equity values above the $1,000,000 mark - just barely - when they would be closer to the $800,000 mark. This both guarantees you a winning bid (the +25% I mentioned earlier), and it pushes up the median prices by a like amount.

Unfortunately, this is a cascade effect - as anyone who listens to the radio in the Bay Area can tell you, there are huge numbers of companies trying to sell you "How to flip property in the Bay Area" seminars, books, software, kits, and so on. As the median price goes up for a reason other than an actual increase in value, the available real estate is additionally squeezed by this "band wagon" effect.

But then we get to your recommended solution. Why would it be a good idea to ban foreign ownership of US real estate? That remains a non sequitur. Even if we are truly seeing yet another immigration policy gimmick pumping up the price of real estate in San Francisco, the solution would be to fix or eliminate the policy not screw with ownership of property.

This would be perhaps a good way to deal with the immigration policy "gimmick", but unfortunately that gimmick is there as a matter of economic and immigration policy (a policy I'd probably agree with you is bigoted, due to it's emergent properties, assuming they're intentional). The purpose of the policy is to stem a tide of immigration by making a carrot available, and putting the carrot mostly out of reach of the average person in the countries people would like to leave in order to come to the U.S.. It's there so that we can point at it and say "look, if you don't want to wait, you can always buy yourself to the head of the line instead".

So in answer, I have about as much hope of that particular loophole being closed as I do seeing government switch from giving tax breaks to giving grants so that they have to account for the money changing hands through political cronyism, instead of hiding it in some obscure part of the tax code.

As Minnesota has demonstrated with their agricultural land purchase policies, it's within the boundaries of states rights to prevent foreign purchase of real estate, without running afoul of the Constitution's Article I Section 8 Commerce Clause, and so it's addressable at a state level. Obviously, if you have a huge project that's not going to get funded without someone like an Adnan Khashoggi footing the bill, you can either take that up at a legislative level to grant an exception.

But more likely, what will happen i

San Francisco isn't part of a "targeted employment area" (or TEA) so it doesn't get the half off. The green card would have to put in at least $1 million in theory. Similarly, Florida only has one such TEA.

The easiest way to deal with this would be to buy the property in one of the TEAs (and yes, SF has large swaths of them). That's pretty trivial; here are the California TEAs: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/ez/en... and here is the map of TEAs (Enterprise zones) that qualify under the EB-5 program in San Francisco: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/ez/pd...

[...]So yes, this sort of activity could be driving the market or conversely, this sort of activity could be attracted to unusually high volume, high price markets because that is more efficient.

Well, there are 10,000 EB-5 program slots available per year, and if we apportion EB-5 activity proportionally to percentage of foreign property purchases, then that's 1,700 home purchases a year (this is being very generous).

Assuming we ignore the $500,000 end run around the problem by investing in a real estate holding company in a TEA, rather than directly in real estate, and those purchases are all in the $1,000,000+ range, then there is a huge incentive to push equity values above the $1,000,000 mark - just barely - when they would be closer to the $800,000 mark. This both guarantees you a winning bid (the +25% I mentioned earlier), and it pushes up the median prices by a like amount.

Unfortunately, this is a cascade effect - as anyone who listens to the radio in the Bay Area can tell you, there are huge numbers of companies trying to sell you "How to flip property in the Bay Area" seminars, books, software, kits, and so on. As the median price goes up for a reason other than an actual increase in value, the available real estate is additionally squeezed by this "band wagon" effect.

But then we get to your recommended solution. Why would it be a good idea to ban foreign ownership of US real estate? That remains a non sequitur. Even if we are truly seeing yet another immigration policy gimmick pumping up the price of real estate in San Francisco, the solution would be to fix or eliminate the policy not screw with ownership of property.

This would be perhaps a good way to deal with the immigration policy "gimmick", but unfortunately that gimmick is there as a matter of economic and immigration policy (a policy I'd probably agree with you is bigoted, due to it's emergent properties, assuming they're intentional). The purpose of the policy is to stem a tide of immigration by making a carrot available, and putting the carrot mostly out of reach of the average person in the countries people would like to leave in order to come to the U.S.. It's there so that we can point at it and say "look, if you don't want to wait, you can always buy yourself to the head of the line instead".

So in answer, I have about as much hope of that particular loophole being closed as I do seeing government switch from giving tax breaks to giving grants so that they have to account for the money changing hands through political cronyism, instead of hiding it in some obscure part of the tax code.

As Minnesota has demonstrated with their agricultural land purchase policies, it's within the boundaries of states rights to prevent foreign purchase of real estate, without running afoul of the Constitution's Article I Section 8 Commerce Clause, and so it's addressable at a state level. Obviously, if you have a huge project that's not going to get funded without someone like an Adnan Khashoggi footing the bill, you can either take that up at a legislative level to grant an exception.

But more likely, what will happen i

You are exactly correct. In California, all autos with 2 or more occupants (3 in a few places), or motorcycles can use the HOV lane. Zero-tailpipe-emmissions vehicles can get a sticker that gives single occupant access until 2019. There is another sticker with a quota cap (these are about 1/2 gone) for gas/electric vehicles that run on battery for some minimum number of miles before their engine starts. I think alternative fuels vehicles are also eligible for this one. This sticker also expires Jan 1, 2019. Hybrids like the Prius used to get a sticker, too, but no longer. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/c...

So, yes, a Tesla gets the HOV sticker, too. But if all you want to do is get to and from work as cheaply and quickly as possible, the Leaf is perfectly adequate. If you want more range, or want to impress your friends, then the Tesla is for you -- if you have the cash.

Actually, here in Sili Valley it is a good place for electric vehicles. I see multiple Leafs and Teslas on the road every day. We have that magic thing called "infrastructure" -- charging stations at shopping centers and employer parking lots are actually relatively plentiful compared to most places. Multiple Nissan and Tesla dealers within a few miles. Then, too, we have climate going for us -- not too cold in the winter, not too hot in the summer -- so you don't have cabin climate control eating into your battery range. Plus, the Leaf's battery pack does not have cooling lines running through it -- Leafs in hot places have had some issues where batteries go to an early grave because of poor temperature management. A Leaf outside of a mild climate is a questionable choice.

I just got back from a couple of days in Minnesota where i did two 200-mile days in a rental car, driving mostly in rural areas, with day-time high temperatures of -2F. A Leaf would have been completely unusable for that trip. A Tesla would have been a risky adventure, assuming I could have strung together enough charging stations, which would have required considerable logistical planning.

...there is nothing about LA that precludes you from setting your 4-ways, pulling over, checking the phone, and safely entering traffic again.

That's also illegal, at least on the freeways. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vct...

Except ironically that would require repealing laws in California since windshield mounts were made illegal many years ago.

Whatchotalkin' 'bout Willis?

Cal. Veh. Code 26708(b)(12): “A portable Global Positioning System (GPS) ... may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver ...”

Here's the full text of the opinion: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F066927.PDF

They are still around but soon they will be no more. You will have to subscribe to a cellphone service and have a connection (lots of luck in rural areas). There is nav systems built into cars that contains maps in memory (but have to pay I heard a few hundreds every year to upgrade). Call me a luddite but I liked the Thomas Guides (map page and grid). Unlike large foldout maps, these are like a book. With paper maps I can quickly look at general spot of my destination, then do an overview on how to get there, then zoom in with my eyes to see specifics and cross streets. But the Thomas Guides are now out of print, I heard new versions are all screwed up.

These days you address by GPS coordinates (great for flying a helicopter or firing a cruise missile) but give me an address. These car nav systems are kind of dumb if you ask me. Ok so you key in the address and it will speak specific directions. But geez I don't want it to say, "turn on El Camino, drive 1.73 miles, turn right to enter hwy 85. turn left to 280, turn. " I know how to get on freeway to SF, it is the specific address in the big city I am interested in seeking.

I don't like using maps such as http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/ on smartphones, screen too small to see detail unless I zoom in but then lose the overview.

Each passenger must have a valid ticket.
The same ticket must be used for Entry and Exit.

The moment you exchange your ticket with someone else you are no longer in possession of a valid ticket and thus broke the law, specifically Section 640 (c) (1) and (2) of the California Penal Code:

(1) Evasion of the payment of a fare of the system. For purposes of this section, fare evasion includes entering an enclosed area of a public transit facility beyond posted signs prohibiting entrance without obtaining valid fare, in addition to entering a transit vehicle without valid fare.
(2) Misuse of a transfer, pass, ticket, or token with the intent to evade the payment of a fare.

Just curious, have you ever taken public transit? Because every single public transit system that I've used had some variation of "fare is non-transferable" printed on the back of the ticket. Government bureaucrats might not be efficient but they're not stupid, you know.

At this point, yes you are wrong. The whole point of the Police for is not to protect and serve but to take in enough money to stay alive. If you look at a police department and look at the "crimes" people are arrested and fined for you will see that the vast majority are revenue collection under the guise of breaking a law and nothing more.

You sir, are an idiot.

Police do not get to keep the money they collect. None of that money is allowed to go back to the police department.

Sorry, but you are wrong, especially to assert that "none" of that money goes back to the police department. It's different state-by-state and by jurisdiction, of course, but you'll find that most fines from local tickets go directly to that jurisdiction. For a small town, it could be a significant amount of the municipality's revenue, and of course, the more revenue they have the more they can budget for the police department.

There actually are some jurisdictions where the police department gets a percentage of each fine, and even more have something like a "public safety fund" (controlled by the police department) that gets some amount from each fine. Direct revenue from fines is probably rare, but there are jurisdictions that do that.

And, of course, the worst abuse happens with "asset forfeiture", which allows the police to retain a significant portion of all the assets (including cash) that they confiscate, regardless of whether any charges are even filed against the original property owner. This policy was actually put in place to encourage police, who were becoming skeptical of the US "drug war", to continue to participate.

Make sure to read the CVC definition of a speed trap before you assume what you consider a "speed trap" is illegal: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...