Slashdot Mirror

Speedtraps can pose a substantial danger, especially at high speeds (folks slam breaks, cops pull into the left lane from a standstill, or like they like to do it in Mass, back up on the emergency lane to get back into the trap). That's why they are made illegal in some states. And if there's a hazard down the road, you bet I should have a right to warn and be warned about it!

Exemptions to the CPPEA 2009. Notice the big one: schools charging a tuition of $2500 or less. That should outright exempt a lot of places once they file the right paperwork. The target of these regulations isn't the small places or pay-as-you-go classes. It's places like Silver State Helicopters that take in large tuition payments and then evaporate without delivering classes. That's why the regulations are light on teacher qualifications and heavy on the financial aspects of the schools and their owners including things like the required tuition recovery funds.

94930. Deposit of Fees, Adjustment of Fees, Reserve Balance
(a) All fees collected pursuant to this article, including any interest on those fees, shall be deposited in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund, and shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for expenditure by the bureau for the administration of this chapter.
(b) If the bureau determines by regulation that the adjustment of the fees established by this article is consistent with the intent of this chapter, the bureau may adjust the fees. However, the bureau shall not maintain a reserve balance in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund in an amount that is greater than the amount necessary to fund six months of authorized operating expenses of the bureau in any fiscal year.

94930.5. Fee Schedule
An institution shall remit to the bureau for deposit in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund the following fees, in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) The following fees shall be remitted by an institution submitting an application for an approval to operate, if applicable:
(1) Application fee for an approval to operate: five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(2) Application fee for the approval to operate a new branch of the institution: three thousand dollars ($3,000).
(3) Application fee for an approval to operate by means of accreditation: seven hundred fifty dollars ($750).
(b) The following fees shall be remitted by an institution seeking a renewal of its approval to operate, if applicable:
(1) Renewal fee for the main campus of the institution: three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500).
(2) Renewal fee for a branch of the institution: three thousand dollars ($3,000).
(3) Renewal fee for an institution that is approved to operate by means of accreditation: five hundred dollars ($500).
(c) The following fees shall apply to an institution seeking authorization of a substantive change to its approval to operate, if applicable:
(1) Processing fee for authorization of a substantive change to an approval to operate: five hundred dollars ($500).
(2) Processing fee in connection with a substantive change to an approval to operate by means of accreditation: two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(d) (1) In addition to any fees paid to the bureau pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, each institution that is approved to operate pursuant to this chapter shall remit both of the following:
(A) An annual institutional fee, in an amount equal to three-quarters of 1 percent of the institution's annual revenues derived from students in California, but not exceeding a total of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) annually.
(B) An annual branch fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each branch or campus of the institution operating in California.
(2) The amount of the annual fees pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be proportional to the bureau's cost of regulating the institution under this chapter.
(e) If the bureau determines that the annual cost of providing oversight and review of an institution, as required by this chapter, is less than the amount of any fees required to be paid by that institution pursuant to this article, the bureau may decrease the fees applicable to that institution to an amount that is proportional to the bureau's costs associated with that institution.

94931. Late Payment
(a) A fee that is not paid on or before the 30th calendar day after the due date for the payment of the fee shall be subject to a 25 percent late payment penalty fee.
(b) A fee that is not paid on or before the 90th calendar day after the due date for payment of the fee shall be subject to a 35 percent late paymen

I had the same question and started clicking around. I came up with this:

http://www.bppe.ca.gov/lawsreg...

Just browsing through the dense wall of legalese, it seems largely related to being clear (and documented) in purpose and intent, having structured hierarchy of responsibility, good record keeping practices, providing appropriate resources (access to staff, libraries/labs, equipment etc), having clearly defined financial policies in place, making sure your faculty is competent and up to date on their subject matter, have clearly defined admission standards, etc.

I don't see anything particularly onerous in these requirements.
=Smidge=

When you factor in the cost of living in CA, $70k doesn't go all that far....

Maybe not, but it beats the median household income in California by about $10k source. And it beats the median 1-earner income by $20k.

If teachers make $22k in Brevard, FL, that's pretty tragic, but this lawsuit is about teachers in California, who can be well compensated, depending on the district they're in. Also, as the post you responded to pointed out they get extremely generous benefits. It's easy to disregard them as you did, but the pension contributions and lifetime medical benefits are unimaginably expensive.

That's a bit disingenuous for multiple reasons. First, you are comparing an average to a median. Second, you are comparing salaries to median household income, not median income for people with a bachelor's or higher, a post-secondary credential, and no criminal offenses that would bar them from teaching.

Pulling from the original source, LAUSD's lowest offered salary was $39,788. That should be just enough money for a new teacher to afford a single bedroom apartment, unless they have to pay student loans or something... The average was ~$69k, and the highest $78k. In a place where modest 3-bedroom homes go for $400k or more.

Do you think initial CA teaching salaries are high enough to attract top talent? Good talent? Mediocre? Could your IT department attract good talent with salaries like that? It sounds more like the pay is low, and the only financial incentive to become a teacher is job stability. Which went away ca. 2009.

As for the benefits, I would agree. They are quite generous. But I would only favor cutting benefits and job stability if we boosted salaries drastically to make them competitive with the private sector. Real figures on total compensation would be far more useful in this discussion.

There has been a ruling by one low level court official. It is not binding on anyone else. Take a look at the law. The ticket was pulled because the officer could not show that the glass was operating. Using Google glass while in a vehicle is still illegal in California.

Oh I respectfully disagree. It specifically says "television" in the law's title right here:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

It always happens that old laws need to be revised to accommodate new ideas and technology. Google Glass may turn out to be widely useful and who knows if in some way it won't ultimately save lives by disseminating the power of information. The California legislature may pass some crackpot laws occasionally but I have a hard time believing they're anti-technology. The court will have to interpret the law and the lawmaker's intentions.

I agree. The law needs to be changed to specifically mention wearable screens as banned devices. If the car manufacturer builds it into the vehicle as a HUD, then fine. But user devices should not be allowed.

Oh I respectfully disagree. It specifically says "television" in the law's title right here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

It always happens that old laws need to be revised to accommodate new ideas and technology. Google Glass may turn out to be widely useful and who knows if in some way it won't ultimately save lives by disseminating the power of information. The California legislature may pass some crackpot laws occasionally but I have a hard time believing they're anti-technology. The court will have to interpret the law and the lawmaker's intentions.

There are plenty of cars available now with legal HUDs, no training required. Your arguement doesn't work.

(b) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver's clear view through the front windshield.
346.88(3)(c)
http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/346/346.88

(2) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle that obstructs or reduces the driver’s clear view through the windshield or side windows.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm

So... sun visors are illegal.

There are plenty of cars available now with legal HUDs, no training required. Your arguement doesn't work.

(b) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver's clear view through the front windshield.
346.88(3)(c)
http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/346/346.88

(2) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle that obstructs or reduces the driver’s clear view through the windshield or side windows.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm

Here's the relevant California Law, there's a specific exemption for GPS devices:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:

(1) A vehicle information display.

(2) A global positioning display.

(3) A mapping display.

(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.

(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any othersimilar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:

(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.

(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.

Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"

If proven true in court, this justifies a boycott of Oracle products.

It wasn't the public shaming and mudslinging between Oracle and Google, or the dozens of lawsuits Oracle has brought on with various companies, like those providing Solaris support "illegally", or even the controversies surrounding the company and it's business tactics. No, one racial comment and termination in an at-will state is what's going to cause the boycott.

Your numbers are very wrong and you clearly did not do any research.

California is 49th in school spending across the nation.
- They spend $8,482 per student.
- That is $3,342 below the national average of $11,824 and $10,332 below the top spending state of Wyoming ($18,814).

California is 45th in percentage of state/local resources spent on education.
- California spent 2.9 percent
- The national average was 4.4 percent. Vermont was at the top with 5.8 percent.

California spends an average of (in unified school districts of 1,500-5,000 students):
- $38,578 for beginning teachers
- $59,799 for midrange teachers
- The highest teacher salary is $78,044
- $106,787 for a High school Principal
- $150,595 for a Superintendent
- Approximately 6% of a school's budget is allocated for Administrative salary
- Approximately 38% of a school's budget is allocated for Teacher salary

Across the state, four-fifths of school budgets look like this:
- 38.6% for Teachers' Salaries (Teachers, Nurses, and Librarians)
- 24.4% for other staff:
-- Superintendent, Principals, Vice/Assistant Principals, Directors, Coordinators, Managers, etc
-- Secretaries/Clerical, Janitors, Bus Drivers
-- Instructional Aides, Interpreter for the deaf, Special Ed, Speech and Hearing, etc
-- Tech support
-- Food services/Health services
-- Counselors, Psychologists, Therapists, Student and Family support
- 20.4% on employee benefits
- 12.2% on Services and Operating expenses
- 4.3% on books and supplies
- this budget excludes capital projects like building the school in the first place

Spending source
Salary source
California school budget breakdown

In other words, we should raise the cost of all consumer goods...

And reduce or eliminate transportation sales taxes, which hurt the poor the most.

Get rid of all sales, gas, and registration taxes, all tolls, all property tax, and have the sole source of government income be income tax (including inheritance as income).

We built our society on the principle that the people who benefit the most from a product or service should pay the most for it. People do not benefit from the roads in proportion to their income, so using the income tax to pay for roads violates this principle.

All taxes should be minimized, not just taxes that aren't the income tax. Taxes should be replaced with user fees wherever it's feasible. This helps explain what is and isn't a tax.

In California, slow vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic according to the law. But because slow vehicles in the left lane arguably aren't impeding traffic if traffic can change lanes to pass, this law is rarely enforced.

On the Autobahn, it's illegal to pass on the right; therefore, a vehicle being driven slowly in the left lane is unambiguously impeding traffic. Would you be in favor of a similar law in your state or country?

an autonomous car would have to obey all laws of the road. Thus, instead of two cars driving side-by-side blocking others from passing, you'll have ALL cars moving at that speed.

Legally, on a two lane road where passing is prohibited, if there are five or more vehicles...formed in line behind, you must pull over. So maybe we'll see autonomous cars playing a sort of "musical chairs" where the lead car pulls over and lets the other cars pass, only to have the new lead car do the same at the next opportunity for the same reason, and so on.

So if EVERY car was autonomous with no override, we could do away with things like lights at intersections...

We can do that now, no stop lights or stop signs and no autonomous cars necessary.

Interesting battery. Submarines of World War II also used "open jar" type batteries, since they are infinitely serviceable. They were lead-acid, though.

I checked my power bill, and the fees for connection to the grid were $9.17, as of 11/29/2013. In previous month they were $8.50. I have two meters (it's a large property,) so each meter is about $4.50/mo, and most of that cost is minimal charge as set by CPUC. The "Distribution" part of it is $3.96/mo per meter.

In your area the cost of connection is higher, and it is understandable why that is so. However it is not important. These are fixed costs, and you pay those fees as long as you want to have electric power at your home. They do not affect how much power you want to buy, or to sell, or to trade. Up to a point, of course - if you want to produce more than your local transformer can support, the utility will have to spend money on a larger transformer. But we are not going that far. A minimum power panel for a house is 100A. At 120V this amounts to 12 kW per phase. A 200A panel will give you 24 kW per phase. Both of those numbers are high enough for any reasonably priced PV system (in other words, your PV system will not overload the grid - you'd run out of PV installation money first.)

This means that once you are connected, there ought to be no reason why you cannot buy and sell power for the same price. Moneychangers (banks) charge you for services when you exchange currencies; but that's their entire revenue - you do not pay them a monthly fee for the privilege of changing USD to CAD. Utilities do charge that fee; therefore they are not entitled to tell you in what direction to transfer the power, as long as it is within technical constraints of the grid.

Utilities buy power from generators in bulk, and usually with guaranteed delivery, and always from a high capacity plant (2 GW is typical for a coal- or gas-fired powerplant.) Economy of scale makes a huge difference there. Your energy will be more expensive, as you purchased your PV for retail prices, from a small time installer. If your energy is sold for more than the utility charges, nobody would buy, and then the point is moot. But if you can sell for the same cost as utility's own - or some %% less - then the society will benefit. There will be fewer losses, and less fuel will be burned at remote generating stations. The society, however, is not interested in developing locally produced power. Perhaps in AK this is not such a hot item, but CA has plenty of sun. Even today, around Christmas, the sky was perfectly clear. My weather station measures solar radiation and UV, so I checked. Unfortunately the RS485 cable to the PV inverter is not connected, so I can't tell you how many kWh my setup produced today.

I must say I do not associate myself with any political party and do not even live in US.

But anyway, since you mentioned DOT, I'd assume you are in US. And as a matter of fact there is a standard 'Yellow change intervals' in US: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/trafficmanual-current.htm , chapter 9, section 9-04.5. It didn't take me too long to find that.

So, this effectively means that either US authorities on some levels were engaging in awfully dangerous and illegal activities by shortening yellow light time or that shortening is purely perceptual. I'm not sure which one it is :).

You got it. It's the first one. Dangerous and illegal. As measured in the real world. How are you not sure? I just told you which it is.

But RLCs have really nothing to do with any of this. If some authority can go against the law and make yellow light shorter than required - that is the problem unrelated to RLCs. It's like banning bullet proof vests after some policeman suffocates his wife in it.

RLCs act as a deterrent for some drivers to run red lights, and as such they can save lives, and so they should be used, not banned.

Wait, no, you didn't get it at all. And that's the most nonsensical analogy I've heard in a long time.

Statistically red light cameras DO NOT increase safety. Statistically they DECREASE safety. We have years of actual traffic and accident data now to support the statistics. These are now established facts. We know WHY they don't increase safety. How the hell is this difficult to understand? Stop listening to the echo in your own head. Just because you think something SHOULD work in theory doesn't mean that it WILL work in the real world. Red light cameras DON'T work to increase traffic safety in the real world. Fact, not opinion.

I can't rightly fathom how anyone could have such poor reading comprehension as to continue to fail to understand how the yellow light delays and increase in accidents at red lights is directly related to the (usually marred by corrupt profit motives) installation of red light cameras. I was as explicit and thorough as I could be. I'm sorry that I've failed you.

- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.

That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license.

It is true; congress passed a law in 2000 requiring states to adopt the 0.08% limit by 2004 or lose highway funds. All 50 complied. And how in the world is it an easy out?

The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test.

Which link? And since when does a driving test carry the force of law? Here is a direct link to the relevant law: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm

No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.

The exception could be stated that a person refusing a test can be used as a confession.

False. Refusing the test is grounds for a one year suspension (with increasing penalties for repeat refusals). It is NOT a confession, and cannot be used for one. No, don't take my word for it - here's the handy linky: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13353.htm

The chemical test is still the tool used in this case, in a very literal sense.

The threat may be implicit, but again - not a confession, not a conviction.

Go back to my original point, which stated that a Police officer simply claiming "they smelled like alcohol" is good enough for conviction is wrong. That statement is still correct.

To repeat (yet again):

"[...] but your assertion was that a drunk driving (DUI) conviction required a chemical test, vs. other evidence. And that is where I disagree."

and from an earlier post:

"The point I was making is that a Breathalyzer is NOT a requirement (as you asserted) for what is commonly referred to as a "drunk driving" conviction. Nor did I did suggest that alcohol on the breath (alone) was sufficient for such a conviction."

- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.

That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license.

It is true; congress passed a law in 2000 requiring states to adopt the 0.08% limit by 2004 or lose highway funds. All 50 complied. And how in the world is it an easy out?

The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test.

Which link? And since when does a driving test carry the force of law? Here is a direct link to the relevant law: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm

No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.

The exception could be stated that a person refusing a test can be used as a confession.

False. Refusing the test is grounds for a one year suspension (with increasing penalties for repeat refusals). It is NOT a confession, and cannot be used for one. No, don't take my word for it - here's the handy linky: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13353.htm

The chemical test is still the tool used in this case, in a very literal sense.

The threat may be implicit, but again - not a confession, not a conviction.

Go back to my original point, which stated that a Police officer simply claiming "they smelled like alcohol" is good enough for conviction is wrong. That statement is still correct.

To repeat (yet again):

"[...] but your assertion was that a drunk driving (DUI) conviction required a chemical test, vs. other evidence. And that is where I disagree."

and from an earlier post:

"The point I was making is that a Breathalyzer is NOT a requirement (as you asserted) for what is commonly referred to as a "drunk driving" conviction. Nor did I did suggest that alcohol on the breath (alone) was sufficient for such a conviction."

The California DMV guide for the drivers test is an easy source. It provides the definitions for 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 as impaired vs. drunken driving.

It may be an easy source, but:
  - It is does not carry the force of law. The vehicle code can be found at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/. If it isn't there, it doesn't apply.
  - It is off by an order of magnitude. BAC levels of 0.7 - 1.0 percent are in the fatal range. I have to assume that the intended values are 0.07 - 0.10 percent.
  - It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.

The reason I point out the pedantic issues is that you don't come out and claim "In CA it's called DUI not drunk driving like most other States", or "in CA it's called under the influence and not impaired like most other States". Perhaps that was your point, however you never communicated that point. If you had communicated those thoughts I would have agreed. Numerous States have different names for the same crime.

No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.

I must say I do not associate myself with any political party and do not even live in US.

But anyway, since you mentioned DOT, I'd assume you are in US. And as a matter of fact there is a standard 'Yellow change intervals' in US: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/trafficmanual-current.htm , chapter 9, section 9-04.5. It didn't take me too long to find that.

So, this effectively means that either US authorities on some levels were engaging in awfully dangerous and illegal activities by shortening yellow light time or that shortening is purely perceptual. I'm not sure which one it is :).

But RLCs have really nothing to do with any of this. If some authority can go against the law and make yellow light shorter than required - that is the problem unrelated to RLCs. It's like banning bullet proof vests after some policeman suffocates his wife in it.

RLCs act as a deterrent for some drivers to run red lights, and as such they can save lives, and so they should be used, not banned.

He should turn over all of his submission records, in essence handing over the information on hundreds of men who could be charged for posting the photos. They would probably offer him quite the plea deal if he were to do this.

Read the Arrest Warrant: http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Arrest%20warrant_0.pdf

There are 31 Felony Counts listed in it. He's not going to get much of a plea deal; the police seized his computers, so they already have "all of his submission records."

There is this thing called "encryption." js

He should turn over all of his submission records, in essence handing over the information on hundreds of men who could be charged for posting the photos. They would probably offer him quite the plea deal if he were to do this.

Read the Arrest Warrant: http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Arrest%20warrant_0.pdf

There are 31 Felony Counts listed in it. He's not going to get much of a plea deal; the police seized his computers, so they already have "all of his submission records."

Here's the link to the Arrest Warrant: http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Arrest%20warrant_0.pdf

California's list is a little longer, such that (it seems like) nearly every consumer product and many places of business must be, by law, clearly labeled as potentially cancer-causing. Wish I had mod points for that AC!

Californians should look on the bright side....

It's actually got to the point where tourists go around taking photos of those signs, so they now count as a tourist attraction.

California's list is a little longer, such that (it seems like) nearly every consumer product and many places of business must be, by law, clearly labeled as potentially cancer-causing. Wish I had mod points for that AC!

"His contract said he could release the passwords to one person. Other people in the organization demanded the passwords after he left. He refused and they arrested him. When the one person to whom his contract allowed him to release his passwords asked, he gave it to him. For this, he was sent to prison."

Perhaps you should read this - http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A129583.PDF

Are actual court documents alright? Here ya go.

You're welcome.

All of your questions are answered in the article. Specifically in the actual appeal, http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A129583.PDF

Maybe if the retailer did collect it I wouldn't buy it at all because I couldn't afford it?

That's pretty much the argument from brick and motar retailers for forcing online retailers to collect sales tax. Otherwise, if you can't afford it at Best Buy, you're more likely to buy from B&H because it's x% cheaper there without the sales tax. And for a big dollar item (the kind that's expensive for retailers to keep in stock because it is so expensive), the savings often far exceeds to cost of shipping.

You should call your representatives and demand a 100% sales tax, because it's probably going to cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to punish me for not giving the government a couple of hundred dollars that I earned.

As a private citizen (as opposed to a business) there's probably a very slim chance of non-payment of sales/use tax being discovered, even during an audit, Unless you're making any large deductions of items that you should have paid tax on. I have significant self-employment income and deduct everything legally possible, which includes significant out of state purchases, so I do track and pay my use-tax accordingly. The savings from the business deduction is worth more than the savings from not paying the use tax.

California has a simple use-tax table that seems would get you off the hook for use tax liability by paying the tax in the table for all purchases less than $1000. For larger purchases you should still itemize.

In Australia and New Zealand we also have a GST system just like Canada. And Simgapore.

It's what a sensible country does. Your state based tax system is pretty brain damaged and only going to cause more and more problems as time goes on..... goodluck with that.

State taxes (or provincial ones in Canada) are bad enough but manageable due to limited numbers, and you usually know if you're in one state/province or another.

But the US goes even further and has county/district sales and use taxes, adding thousands of slightly different tax rates across the country. Check out California's... and that's just for locations starting with "A"! Texas has an an equally ridiculous long list of slightly different rates.

This means that the shop down the street, but in a different county, may charge you slightly more or less for a product that has the same sticker price (which are almost always pre-tax numbers in the US... Canada does too but at least we don't do local sales taxes). I suppose locals know exactly where the county lines are, but what a mess to keep track of.

I get the historical reasons why this is--it's similar to why there's no federal or even in-state standards for election systems. Each county is theoretically independently managed and sets their own rates. This works for property taxes and infrequent purchases, but not online goods and services.

It's no wonder US online retailers and services have resisted sales tax for so long, it's a logistical nightmare to set up the database of thousands of tax rates across the country and keep them up to date.

Actually, the law is about television screens.

More specifically it is about prohibiting drivers from operating a vehicle with a television broadcast or video signal in view in front of them. With regards to the television broadcast, Google Glass would not be considered a violation. However, the video signal is being displayed literally right in front of the driver's eye, so that is the part that the law that is being violated. California is not alone with this statute and other states have amended theirs specifically to include devices like Google Glass to remove any ambiguity. Specifically exempted by the CA law are displays related to the operation of the vehicle and gps devices. Here is the actual law: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

Actually, no, California law explicitly allows you to hold a cell phone to place a call, but only in conjunction with a hands-free device, and only when dialing. The cell phone law merely says that it must be configured to support hands-free listening and talking, not dialing. Similarly, the highly problematic anti-texting law that has been used to prosecute people for such things as changing to the next song also has an explicit exception for using the phone to actually call someone, including the use of the phone's address book.

Thus, the law (at least in California) makes it very, very clear that it is acceptable to hold the device in your hand for the purposes of placing a phone call. Helpful tip: if you ever get pulled over and you have your phone in your hand, you should make certain that you are on the phone using your hands-free device when the officer walks up to your car. When the officer asks why you had the phone in your hand, the answer is always, "I was dialing someone on my phone." This has three effects:

1. The officer should say, "Have a nice day," and the traffic stop should end right then. At most, the officer should ask for your license and registration and ensure that they are valid and the vehicle isn't stolen.

2. If it goes to court, you have a legally admissible record of having placed a phone call at the time the officer pulled you over.

3. If the officer issues you a citation anyway, you can potentially sue the prosecutor and the officer for malicious prosecution (or even vexatious litigation if you can show a history of similar prosecutions).

Actually, no, California law explicitly allows you to hold a cell phone to place a call, but only in conjunction with a hands-free device, and only when dialing. The cell phone law merely says that it must be configured to support hands-free listening and talking, not dialing. Similarly, the highly problematic anti-texting law that has been used to prosecute people for such things as changing to the next song also has an explicit exception for using the phone to actually call someone, including the use of the phone's address book.

Thus, the law (at least in California) makes it very, very clear that it is acceptable to hold the device in your hand for the purposes of placing a phone call. Helpful tip: if you ever get pulled over and you have your phone in your hand, you should make certain that you are on the phone using your hands-free device when the officer walks up to your car. When the officer asks why you had the phone in your hand, the answer is always, "I was dialing someone on my phone." This has three effects:

1. The officer should say, "Have a nice day," and the traffic stop should end right then. At most, the officer should ask for your license and registration and ensure that they are valid and the vehicle isn't stolen.

2. If it goes to court, you have a legally admissible record of having placed a phone call at the time the officer pulled you over.

3. If the officer issues you a citation anyway, you can potentially sue the prosecutor and the officer for malicious prosecution (or even vexatious litigation if you can show a history of similar prosecutions).

You obviously didn't read the rest of the statute.

A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(emphasis mine)

Luckily, it also specifically permits "A mapping display." Google glass obviously fits into that category. So any able-minded lawyer should be able to get that part of her speeding ticket thrown out. But even she admits to the speeding part.

Putting aside the fact that said laws are illogical - the reason you don't do that is because there is a law explicitly forbidding it. Last I checked there is no law explicitly forbidding wearing Google Glass.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

Here in California, we've got a law that says you can't have a video display operating anywhere the driver might see it, with exceptions for dedicated GPS/Nav/vehicle status displays.

A friend of mine used to have an online store for GPS navigation devices. Many of the manufacturer's had "California" versions of the ROMs that he was required to ship to customers in California. The difference is that all the non-nav-related features (like games, calendar apps, etc.) were disabled when the device was in motion. This was to comply with the aforementioned law. While this was a long time ago, and the law has been amended substantially since then, I believe it still applies to this situation, but, of course, I am not a lawyer.

I can't pull up the Google Plus link at work (it's blocked) but it does say San Diego law enforcement. So, there are roads with 75mph speed limits inside of the San Diego city limits? I find that hard to believe - California may be different, but most of the country limits you to speeds of 60 or 65 inside of the city (some toll roads may go up to 70), but you really only see speeds higher than that on straight roads outside of the city.

The California Department of Motor Vehicle website says this:

The maximum speed limit on most California highways is 65 mph. You may drive 70 mph where posted. Unless otherwise posted, the maximum speed limit is 55 mph on two-lane undivided highways and for vehicles towing trailers.

http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/speed_limits.htm

75mph zone my foot! And inside of city limits? She was speeding - that is why she was pulled over.

The first line in the violations section contains "65 mph" but I can't read the rest, so it looks like that was the main reason for stopping. The next line starts with 27602 which is the code for driving with a TV or monitor visible to the driver.

And neither does a mileage based tax! What a coincidence! No one is required to report their mileage for taxes, and there's no infrastructure to handle the case where someone drives outside of the state.

You're apparently unfamiliar with the logistics and politics surrounding the particular crossing that I spoke of.

No politician, sane or not, would propose putting even a voluntary border stop at that particular crossing without also solving the current congestion issues in the area - which requires replacing the bridge, and that is currently DOA because of the politics involved.

You didn't describe any particular crossing - the Washington/Oregon border is nearly 300 miles wide with several interstate and state highway crossings.

But if you're describing a crossing that's already capacity constrained due to the size of the roadway, an optional border crossing checkpoint needn't add to the congestion - just make it an exit - cars/trucks that want to report their mileage can take the exit, others can proceed on.

If you want to see a border checkpoint, drive farther south to California where you'll see agricultural check stations.

I'm well aware of the border stops in California for the purpose of enforcing California laws. Know of any operated by Oregon? Or operated by anyone else for the purpose of enforcing Oregon law?

Read backwards through the thread - this thread is discussing something that Oregon is apparently not considering -- doing simple odometer reads instead of a GPS or other electronic solution. So this thread is discussing how such a system might work, including border crossings that don't yet exist, but that could exist and would likely be cheaper than buying a tracking device for every car.

And neither does a mileage based tax! What a coincidence! No one is required to report their mileage for taxes, and there's no infrastructure to handle the case where someone drives outside of the state.

You're apparently unfamiliar with the logistics and politics surrounding the particular crossing that I spoke of.

No politician, sane or not, would propose putting even a voluntary border stop at that particular crossing without also solving the current congestion issues in the area - which requires replacing the bridge, and that is currently DOA because of the politics involved.

If you want to see a border checkpoint, drive farther south to California where you'll see agricultural check stations.

I'm well aware of the border stops in California for the purpose of enforcing California laws. Know of any operated by Oregon? Or operated by anyone else for the purpose of enforcing Oregon law?

What if I take my car and drive across the country and back?

You stop at the border inspection station [...]

I'm sorry, you stop at the what?

I cross the Oregon-Washington border at least twice every weekday, and I can assure you that no such thing exists on that particular border crossing - or any other within the state of Oregon, for that matter.

And neither does a mileage based tax! What a coincidence! No one is required to report their mileage for taxes, and there's no infrastructure to handle the case where someone drives outside of the state.

If you want to see a border checkpoint, drive farther south to California where you'll see agricultural check stations.

And if you hit them, you will be the one in the wrong.

No, you won't. Not if they haven't taken the proper steps to be visible.

Here, for example, is the California law that includes what cyclists must do to legally ride on the road after dark.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21201.htm

And the legal requirements are very weak -- I'd like to see a rear light become mandatory because reflectors are hard to see when you're off axis from the bike (i.e. going around a curve). But more than that, I'd like to see these legal requirements *enforced*. I see too many unlit unreflectorized bikes on the road.

And if you hit them, you will be the one in the wrong.

No, you won't. Not if they haven't taken the proper steps to be visible.

Here, for example, is the California law that includes what cyclists must do to legally ride on the road after dark.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21201.htm

Uh, you DO realize that lane-splitting is perfectly LEGAL and SAFE in California, right?

By riding in between the lanes you can see MUCH further ahead to get a gauge of what road traffic is like. Why do you think the California cops embraced it?

http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitguide.html

Why is it that people get this Pollyanna idea that a meaningful percentage of government spending goes to actually accomplishing meaningful expenditures such as, "building and maintaining roads and bridges"?

The vast, vast, VAST majority of spending goes to administration. Most of that "administration" is used to administrate other administrators. The quantity of money that is used to accomplish ANYTHING by a government entity is nothing short of astounding.
A simple roadwork example: A public works engineer explained to me the cost of converting a simple 90 degree intersection of two 2-lane roads, from Stop signs to a traffic light. The bill for the studies, planning, engineering, purchasing, and installation? ...
[... wait for it ...]
Total cost was $250,000 ...
[... wait for it ...]
in 1990 dollars.

People complain that schools don't have enough money. Bull! School districts get plenty of money but the quantity of administration has grown to the point where the majority of money goes to support the disproportionately large percentage of "administrators" who of course, because they are in positions of power, command higher salaries. And at the same time they don't actually educate a single child.
Think I'm exaggerating? Download the 2011-2012 report: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/currentexpense.asp
Column "F" is the dollars that are spent annually per student. The statewide calculation works out to $8382 (cell F962). Figure a small average class size of 20 children and that works out to $167640. For that kind of money don't you think you could hire a well paid teacher, get a great building, fill the classroom with new books each year, buy cheap desks every few years, have a part time assistant, pay the electric bill, and in the end make one hell of a profit? Then to add to it, instead of just doing one room of 20 kids, do 20 rooms of 20 kids. If you couldn't siphon off an astounding quantity of money while vastly improving the service you aren't trying.
Well an astounding quantity of money IS being siphoned off by extraneous administration (which describes most of government). And it isn't providing anything to justify the burden to the taxpayer.

In reality class sizes are more like 30+ children ($251460) so we are really being bilked. BTW - This isn't hard to see if you are looking. I haven't been studying this or working in the industry. I found and calculated ALL of these numbers while I was writing this post so it isn't hard to figure out and see that we are being used.

Even more to the point, only if you drive on public roads (don't need insurance to drive on private roads). Furthermore, at least here in California you can legally self-insure and not buy car insurance. That option isn't available in Obamacare - even if you're insanely wealthy like Gates, Brin, or Zuckerberg and can easily afford to pay for your own medical care - you can't. You have to buy insurance regardless of ability to pay for your own costs.

I don't know where you live, or your financial situation.. but my wife and I qualify for a California government assistance program called "Healthy Families" (http://www.healthyfamilies.ca.gov). If you have a family size of 4, and make less than or up to $4,900/month net household income, then you can get some pretty good insurance for your kids for about $670 - $838 per year, per child (full monthly income guidelines). That comes out to about $56 - $70 per month per child. The insurance is actually better than anything my company offers me too (summary of benefits).

If you aren't in California, I would recommend seeing if your state has something similar, if not, possibly medicaid could help you out. All I know is that if I didn't have this coverage, there is no way I could also pay rent and all the other bills we have. Despite my profession, I suck at negotiating with companies for pay and am usually paid at the bottom of my professions bracket after all negotiations are done. :(

Hopefully you'll find some help though, because you really should be able to make a living, support your family, and still have some money left to save for the future. It isn't really fair otherwise. I wish you and your family the best.

I don't know where you live, or your financial situation.. but my wife and I qualify for a California government assistance program called "Healthy Families" (http://www.healthyfamilies.ca.gov). If you have a family size of 4, and make less than or up to $4,900/month net household income, then you can get some pretty good insurance for your kids for about $670 - $838 per year, per child (full monthly income guidelines). That comes out to about $56 - $70 per month per child. The insurance is actually better than anything my company offers me too (summary of benefits).

If you aren't in California, I would recommend seeing if your state has something similar, if not, possibly medicaid could help you out. All I know is that if I didn't have this coverage, there is no way I could also pay rent and all the other bills we have. Despite my profession, I suck at negotiating with companies for pay and am usually paid at the bottom of my professions bracket after all negotiations are done. :(

Hopefully you'll find some help though, because you really should be able to make a living, support your family, and still have some money left to save for the future. It isn't really fair otherwise. I wish you and your family the best.