Slashdot Mirror

I read that post a couple of time, and really the only think I can think of is that you are either really stupid, or a troll.

The Bill is in CA, written and passed by Ca elected officials. Of course it only applies to California. No one is saying other wise.
The context is California, and it even says it in the bill.
  Froms the Bill:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Why would you think they are trying to apply it anywhere else?

Let me help you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568

You could have at least tried to post something useful, instead of requesting more JavaScript bloat. Here's the link to the actual bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568. I hope clintonthegeek@gmail.com gets lots of hate mail from people who don't want more JavaScript on slashdot.

TL;DR: Yes, yes, no, probably not.

I am not a lawyer, I am certainly not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I just read a lot of laws, and have far too many lawyer friends for my own good...

aren't they giving permission to publish it online? Can they really revoke that permission later?

Per the conditions of your site's Terms of Service (you do have them, don't you?), the content your users give you may or may not be retained, retransmitted, adapted, or whatever else. By using the site, your users agree to that and grant you permission. Those terms govern what you can do with what you're given. For example, Slashdot's terms say that by commenting, you're giving them permission to publish your comments indefinitely, in pretty much any form they want. Under Slashdot's terms, that permission cannot be rescinded.

Minors are special. Despite the apparent common opinion here, they can enter into a contract... they just usually can't be forced to uphold their end of it. As far as copyright permission goes, this means you probably are already under a legal obligation to remove it if they want, because they can choose to void the contract giving you the permission... but to make you do that, the minor would have to realize the intricacies of contract law, realize that they still have exclusive copyright over their posting, and figure out how to contact you to request removal.

California's law requires an accessible way to remove (or request the removal of) a minor's own posting, that stops whatever's deleted from being published further. It's practically irrelevant, since most sites already have such a function... the problem is that it's hard to find, and people don't use it nearly as quickly as they should. The law only requires that such a function be "clear". Good luck with that.

Aren't there First Amendment issues here?

The First Amendment has no real part in this. The First Amendment is between you and the government, only. It does not come into play in contracts between you and a web site operator, unless the operator is a government entity itself. That might involve the First Amendment, but I doubt it will be a significant issue.

am I legally obligated to maintain that site forever

The law doesn't have any time limit built into it, so time limits will be up to the courts to decide, but the law also doesn't require you to actually erase the data. You're only forbidden from retransmitting it, so if your site has a self-service delete button, that's probably fine. If you take your whole site offline, nobody can get to it, so that's probably fine, too. Bringing it back later with all the old content intact is riskier. The exact type of site also matters, because the law only comes into effect if you know that minors are using it. A forum dedicated to the latest teen heartthrobs would obviously fall into that category, but a forum for discussing do-it-yourself RV repairs probably wouldn't.

I highly recommend reading the actual text of the law. The first part is prohibiting certain advertisements toward minors, but the erasure part starts at section 22581. As with all legal text, realize that it's written to cover as much as possible, so try to ignore the repetition and it becomes much easier to read.

> when and if sea level actually starts to rise... we'll talk

Water level measurements from the San Francisco gage (CA Station ID: 9414290) indicate that mean sea level rose by an average of 2.01 millimeters (mm) per year from 1897 to 2006, equivalent to a change of eight inches in the last century. The rate of rise has increased to about 3 mm per year over the past 15 years.

This is the oldest tidal guage in continuous operation in the United States, and is located near the Golden Gate.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-014/CEC-500-2012-014.pdf

On the other hand... if they allow power to be not operating in San Francisco for a significant length of time; global warming could be reduced due to reduction in capacity requirements from power plants in the area, resulting in more generators being turned off.

However, there are factors making the global warming thing go in the opposite direction. Fwiw, 15% of California's electricity is generated by hydroelectric plants. A legend showing all of the operational plants in California makes it easier to see what might happen if they stop producing power — the oil powered plants will compensate for the loss by kicking in with extra output. This is what happened during the Enron fiasco 12 years ago when the State experimented with private sector market pricing.

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Let us take "the normal speed of traffic" to mean the median speed. If you're among the slower 50% of the drivers on the road, then according to the law I quoted and linked to above, you must drive in the rightmost lane.

Some enlightened states (CT, MA, NJ, RI, TX) take it even further by prohibiting passing on the right in some cases, thereby giving authority to ticket motorists driving slowly in the left lane because they are obstructing traffic.

Oh yea of little faith in California:

http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/UCCTR.cfm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/landfills/landfills.htm

All part of AB32.

The Tesla S is considered an eligable vehicle to use CA's HOV lanes with a single occupant.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm#vehicles

Here's the official list, proving you wrong.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm#vehicles

I implore you to point to the federal law that makes this universal in the USA.

There may be no single US CFR one could point to on the matter, but remember that some employee/employer relationships are governed by state laws, rules, and regulations. and also possibly under a collective bargaining agreement or other types of contractual stipulations (some which are covered by a multitude of federal laws).

Here's a toilet read on California's thoughts on vacation pay... tl;dr - if you've followed your employer's vacation policy, they owe you.

Under California law, unless otherwise stipulated by a collective bargaining agreement, whenever the employment relationship ends, for any reason whatsoever, and the employee has not used all of his or her earned and accrued vacation, the employer must pay the employee at his or her final rate of pay for all of his or her earned and accrued and unused vacation days. Labor Code Section 227.3. Because paid vacation benefits are considered wages, such pay must be included in the employee's final paycheck.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_vacation.htm

There are remedies for employees whose employer fails to meet these obligations.

[Reply to self]

Oops, I linked the amendment to the California law that strengthened it, rather than the law itself. Here's the full codified law.

Are they going to start controlling what type of spectacles people wear when they drive?

Start?

I got a ticket for driving with designer Sunglasses

In this California case, the driver's designer glasses were obstructing his peripheral vision and he was hit with a $500 fine. The law has been on the books since 1959.

V C Section 23120 Temple Width of Glasses

As far as the GP's assertion that if an engineer designed it, then it's good. That's bullshit too. Many jurisdictions base their codes on national standards, and the engineer needs to be familiar with the codes for the property in question. For example, if code says a 2x10 floor joist can span x feet. The engineer can't make the span x+1 and say "a little deflection is acceptable". It will fail inspection, builder will have to remedy the problem, and the person paying the bills is going to sue the engineer for the additional costs.

Of course, you neglect to mention that any engineer who wants to keep his stamp won't actually use it on something he knows is against code. It's not just a ring you get when you graduate.

Here's an example from my part of the world.

Yet another reason that I'm glad that I do not live in California. Because apparently, somehow, every civilian has what amounts to very nearly full arrest powers in California. Yeah... That couldn't go terribly wrong or be abused.

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

was driving around a car that was 12 years old at one point, but I still tried to make sure it was being maintained properly, and that any replacement parts were the proper parts as proscribed by the manufacturer.

OEM Catalytic converter (x2) = $2400 + installation
Quality Aftermarket converter (x1) = $500 installed
Emissions Results? Pretty much identical.
California (CARB) mandates exactly which parts you must have on your car, even on things which have no negative effects on emissions instead of simply checking the emissions results and calling it a day.

I'm with you on spending money on healthcare of all kinds, but the AMBER stats I'm finding are nowhere like what you're claiming. They look pretty effective from http://www.statisticbrain.com/amber-alert-statistics/ and http://www.chp.ca.gov/amber/ - do you have some sources for the stats and studies you're citing? It would be most helpful.

even events like hurricanes, where there is no scientific consensus on the matter - are as big a problem as the "I don't believe in global warming" crowd.

Well, the problem with that statement is that except for the "I do not believe in global warming" crowd, there's an awful lot of scientific consensus on the topic.

Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.

Oh really. What "guide" is that? Or is it something you are simply parroting because someone else claimed it was so on the internet?

Nothing like that in this guide.

An easier way to see it is if Martin had been a woman. Zimmerman has a gun and starts following a woman.

Yes, it's pretty clear to me that had a woman thrown Zimmerman to the ground and started beating him senseless simply for following her and asking why she was there, he should have shot her also. Because RATIONAL people do not throw people to the ground and start beating them to death without ANY physical provocation. And It's pretty sexist of you to think women cannot be criminals either.

She uses pepper spray and while he's blinded, she kicks him. So he shoots her. No one would be sympathizing with Zimmerman.

In that case it's pretty obvious she would not be shot because she was not trying to kill him, just get away. So no, we would not be sympathizing with Zimmerman because shooting her would be obviously wrong.

The reason Zimmerman shot a guy is the same reason he was found not guilty. Because he only did so when his life was threatened, and unreasonable reaction from someone merely being followed. Do you honestly consider it OK to start beating a guys head against the pavement just because he annoys you?

It's young enough to not be protected under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Interesting loophole there -- it's illegal to discriminate against people 40 and over based on age, but the 35-year-olds are, apparently, out in the cold. IANAL and I am definitely not a lawyer licensed in California.

Not quite. First, "EVs produce lower global warming emissions ... even when the electricity is produced primarily from coal in regions with the “dirtiest” electricity grids."
Next, most EVs are sold in California, state in which only 8% of electricity comes from coal. Furthermore, 39% of plug-in drivers have solar panels on their home/garage.

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong (at least in California's case). California labor law does stipulate that anything given in lieu of actual cash must be redeemable at no discount. However, California's labor enforcement agencies have taken the position that payroll cards are a form of direct deposit in California, and as such, are only required to be redeemable at a location "within the state". It is not unusual for a paycheck to be delivered on a card offered through, as you put it, "a bank in some other state with only 3 branches in that state". Additionally, the categorizing payroll cards as direct deposit means that once the wages hit the "account" attached to the card, they are no longer considered wages subject to the "no discount/fee" rules.

Here is the opinion of the California Department of Industrial Relations on the legality of payroll cards.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/opinions/2008-07-07.pdf

Even though the opinion letter is targeted at larger banks(and even then, only the ones mentioned in the letter), smaller ones have used it as a mandate to run their cards in California.

This issue has been brewing in California for a while and several bills have been run in the state legislature there. None have passed and been signed into law.

The (democratically elected, BTW) AG, in her professional opinion as, you know, an attorney, determined that the law was unconstitutional and refused to enforce it.

He, under oath, swore to enforce laws passed by her constituents.

She swore, under oath, that she would "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's kind of a big deal. It's like, the granddaddy of all laws here in the US. All other laws, passed by constituents or otherwise, are secondary.

You should read it sometime. You'd learn a lot.

It isn't her job to determine where something in unconstitutional or not.

It absolutely is, firstly because she is a state officer [see above] and secondly, because she is the attorney general, who is first and foremost an attorney. And as such, she was required to give honest counsel to her clients, in this case the State of California.

People always complain around here about a theocracy and this sounds like a pure theocratical power grab by the AG.

I don't think you know what that word means. Are you alleging that the AG of California is claiming to be herself god? Or that she is claiming [a] god is guiding her legal opinions? On what do you base this assertion?

And yes, you can vote the AG out, eventually, but the AG in the case should be downright impeached for not upholding what he vowed to uphold.

You mean...the Constitution?

Well, yes, there is always the potential for the abuse of elected (or appointed, however your AG works) power.

That was the meat of the decision: The Supremes carefully considered whether anyone was screwed, and decided that the people complaining had, in fact, not been screwed.*

The people complaining just wasnt about them bring *screwed but all the of the people of the state of california being *screwed as well.

Seriously, go read that decision. It's linked. Go read it. Try to understand it.

Why have an amendment that the people of california vote on that can so easily be refuted?

That is, ironically, very close to what the Court asked. The Supremes said, "It doesn't affect you in any way that gay people are getting married. Therefore, it doesn't matter to anyone whether the ban is enforced or not. If it ever does harm you in any way, you can come back and we'll consider that, but right now, why should you or us give a rats ass?"

That doesn;t seem like something the founding fathers would have wanted or approved of.

Go read your history. And go read the Constitution, which you appear to be totally ignorant of.

The Founding Fathers were extremely suspicious of things like this ban, passed by majority vote of the population That's why they created things like the Electoral College, and Congress, and the executives, and all the other ways that our government is insulated from the whims of the majority.

On top of that the very same people (and a small group of people in question here that was sent to represent everyone else who voted for Prop 8.) can't even defend what was voted on because the AG refuses to enforce it? This just wasnt about harm to the 6 or 7 individuals before the court but to rest of the people of california and harm to amendment system as well.

This is the system working as designed: government working to restrict the whims of an angry majority to curtail the rights of a minority. Not one person or group was harmed in any way, so sayeth the Court.

As bjdevil said earlier, this is WRONG. He should be at least impeached. At least.

Okay, I have no idea

So, this enforcement happens just when the newly set up Department of Business Oversight comes into operation. Coincidence?

In 2012, Governor Brown introduced a wide-ranging government reorganization plan to improve efficiencies within state government. As part of the Governor's Reorganization Plan (GRP), the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) and Department of Corporations (DOC) will become divisions under the new Department of Business Oversight, effective July 1st.

The core functions of the DFI and DOC Departments will remain the same, and consumers, financial institutions and other stakeholders will continue to receive the same level of excellent service. The examination, enforcement, legal, licensing and other programs will be organized under the Division of Financial Institutions and the Division of Corporations under the new Department of Business Oversight (DBO).

The new Department of Business Oversight will license and regulate all state-licensed depository and non-depository financial services and institutions.

An operator of a payment system to the extent that it provides processing, clearing, or settlement services, between or among persons excluded by this section, in connection with wire transfers, credit card transactions, debit card transactions, stored value transactions, automated clearing house transfers, or similar funds transfers, to the extent of its operation as such a provider.

If they're going to claim that the Bitcoin Foundation is engaged in the business of money transmission, wouldn't it be because they consider them to be the "operator of a payment system" as described in the law? Which would appear to exempt them from the licensing requirement.

An operator of a payment system to the extent that it provides processing, clearing, or settlement services, between or among persons excluded by this section, in connection with wire transfers, credit card transactions, debit card transactions, stored value transactions, automated clearing house transfers, or similar funds transfers, to the extent of its operation as such a provider.

If they're going to claim that the Bitcoin Foundation is engaged in the business of money transmission, wouldn't it be because they consider them to be the "operator of a payment system" as described in the law? Which would appear to exempt them from the licensing requirement.

Don't try to trivialize Sony's rootkit fiasco, it was not just a matter of a company releasing an unpopular product and then recanting.

What Sony did was possibly illegal. "Possibly" only because they were never convicted -- they settled all the lawsuits -- but in many states there are specific laws against covertly installing spyware (a lot of states have a very similar piece of legislation called "Consumer Protection Against Computer Spyware Act", here are the ones for Texas and California, for example).

Not to mention that the rootkit opened vulnerabilities in the systems where it was installed (more details on Wikipedia). The federal government didn't sue, but the Department of Homeland Security made very clear that what Sony did was unacceptable.

They may not be spending as heavily on the actually-renowned-and-productive UC system; but they've been doing some amazing work in expanding graduate-level institutions for students enrolled in the school of hard knocks...

Nice link. Take San Onofre's annual power generation from that site. Average retail price of electricity in California per year is here. Adjust it for inflation (divide by GDP multiplier) to get 2010 dollars. Copy the power generation per year and multiply by electricity price per year, sum up the total and you get $26.8 billion.

So during its lifetime San Onofre generated $26.8 billion in revenue (2010 dollars) during the lifetime of the plant. Figure double that if the plant had lived out a full 50-60 years instead of being cut short at just over 29 years. TFA says decommissioning is estimated to cost $3 billion, or about 11% the plant's lifetime revenue (about 6% if it had lived a full life). There's a trust fund set up specifically for decommissioning the plant (part of your monthly electric bill goes into it) which contains $2.7 billion, so it sounds like the planning for paying for decommissioning worked out almost exactly as intended. If anything there's too much money being saved for decommissioning since the plant only operated about half its expected lifetime.

FWIW, the CA public VOTED for this in 2004. 62% to 38%.

They voted for Reagan more than any other group in the US. Four times, IIRC....

FWIW, california has been doing this for years.. If you are arrested (for anything-- political protest, for example), they will collect your DNA. This information remain in the state database, whether you are convicted or not-- even if you are not even charged. I'm trying to figure out if there's a consistent procedure to get your DNA removed if you're wrongly arrested, but can't find anything from a quick google. I only see a discussion of how it should work (A judge gets to decide) not how it's worked in practice.

FWIW, the CA public VOTED for this in 2004. 62% to 38%.

Also, there's a good chance that the John Doe company is Anthem Blue Cross. The accusation says that the IRS took records of essentially all California court employees; California court employees' health benefits are from Anthem Blue Cross. It fits the profile of a company having more than 10 million customers nationwide, with more than 1 million in California. I haven't confirmed this, but it's a place to start looking.

The UPI blog posting cites a Courthouse News Service article: John Doe Company sued 15 John Doe IRS agents in Superior Court. ...

Why publish a story no one can verify ...

You could verify it by going to the Superior Court for San Diego. There is one recently filed "John Doe Company v. John Doe", case number 37-2013-00038750-CU-CR-CTL, but I couldn't confirm whether or not this is the case as the John Doe Company v. John Doe et al IRS agents because the court charges $7.50 to pull a page of court records off their web site.

Fortunately, it got leaked onto the web:
http://www.phiprivacy.net/wp-content/uploads/37-2013-00038750-CU-CR-CTL_roa1_03-11-13_.pdf

Well, for like eight bucks, you can obtain the court records for the filing from the San Diego Superior Court Register of Actions. The case number is 37-2013-00038750-CU-CR-CTL and there appears to be a copy floating around on the net as well. It was filed on March 11, 2013.

EDIT: heh captcha was litigate

Understanding Californiaâ(TM)s Property Taxes

All Revenue From Property Taxes Is Allocated to Local Governments. Property tax revenue remains within the county in which it is collected and is used exclusively by local governments. State laws control the allocation of property tax revenue from the 1 percent rate to more than 4,000 local governments, with Kâ"14 districts and counties receiving the largest amounts. The distribution of property tax revenue, however, varies significantly by locality.

This is why many cities went broke after the real estate bubble popped...

"All speed limits are based on ideal driving conditions."

Please reread your driver's handbook before you get behind the wheel again.

Don't worry, we've already established he has no idea what he's doing behind the wheel. Unfortunately that makes him amongst the majority of drivers in our respective nations.

"All speed limits are based on ideal driving conditions."

Please reread your driver's handbook before you get behind the wheel again.

You really can't completely trust any episode of the Mythbusters where they test the myth on themselves instead of on volunteers because their expectations come into play. They could easily be subject to a placebo effect and because they believe they will perform better or worse, they do. Also, when they perform tests like this, they generally have a sample size of three, which isn't exactly statistically significant.

The Mythbusters aside....

California has already crossed this line.

If you inspect the California BAC chart there is a 0.01%-0.04 range and a 0.05-0.07% range + with annotations "May" and "Likely" DUI.
Most interesting they say Definitely unlawful if under 21. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/curriculum/Chart%2010%20BAC%20Chart.pdf The 0.01-0.04 May be DUI category is well below field sobriety testing and may well fall in the range of using mouthwash before leaving the house..

Since it is possible to have carbs ferment in the gut generating alcohol there is a risk there. Also Kefir can have 1-2% alcohol and a kid could chug a quart generating measurable levels.

The issue of measurable levels is interesting. As technology improves lower laws are being written to take advantage of the technology. i.e. a technology lobby can get the ear of legislatures and regulators and draft sample legislation that makes a market where one did not exist. This might be good or bad but just because the technology exists to measure does not imply that there is an issue to regulate.

All other speed limits are flexible, depending on driving conditions.

This is not true and based on a misinterpretation of the law. From the California DMV website:

Driving faster than the posted speed limit or driving faster than safe for current conditions on any road is dangerous and illegal.

I happen to agree that certain speed limits or laws are in sync with practical driving considerations, your argument about irrational laws "actively making the roads less safe" is completely off base.

...the definition of extortion? For example:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2905.11

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=518-527

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

No, unfortunately. For simplicity (though the analysis is the same), let's take the federal one at the end:

18 USC 875(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Well, that one clearly doesn't apply.

(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Again, no threat of injury or kidnapping, so not there.

(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

No again, for the same reason.

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

So, here's the one - threat to injure the reputation of the addressee with intent to extort money. However, remember that defamation must be false. For example, say you borrow my car while drunk and damage the bumper. If I send you a letter threatening to sue you for it if you don't pay for the repair, it would damage your reputation for your neighbors to know you were a drunk driver... but I'm not committing extortion or threatening to injure your reputation, because there's nothing defamatory in my statement: it's true.

Assuming in this case that they did detect a download of midget goat porn from the recipient's cable modem (because while the scummiest lawyer in the world may twist the truth and skirt the edge of an outright lie to a court, in this case, it's relatively trivial to monitor a bittorrent swarm, and then the letter has at least the barest sliver of truth as an excuse), then the letter isn't extortion or defamatory: they did detect the download, and they'll inquire of your neighbors whether they jumped on your access point to download midget goat porn or whether it someone else, like you.

So, yeah, it's sleazy, and they're still going to have the problems noted by the judge in the Prenda case, but it's not technically extortion.

...the definition of extortion? For example:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2905.11

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=518-527

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

Holy shit!

There are laws: http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/u-3.shtml

Per some Googling:
82 - 94, process engineer
94 - 96, manufacturing manager
96 - 97, plant manager
97 - 01, plant manager of another location
01 - 03, "responsible for implementation of 0.13-micron logic process technology"
03 - 10, "responsible for Assembly Test" (some sort of VP, not 100% on times)
10 - 12, senior VP of Manufacturing and Supply Chain
12 - now, COO

That is what's done to hourly (especially to min wage workers) workers all the time. They deduct for background checks, uniforms, etc ....

Not generally lawful

An employer can lawfully withhold amounts from an employee’s wages only: (1) when required or empowered to do so by state or federal law, or (2) when a deduction is expressly authorized in writing by the employee to cover insurance premiums, benefit plan contributions or other deductions not amounting to a rebate on the employee’s wages, or (3) when a deduction to cover health, welfare, or pension contributions is expressly authorized by a wage or collective bargaining agreement.
Some common payroll deductions often made by employers that are unlawful include: ...
Gratuities. An employer cannot collect, take, or receive any gratuity or part thereof given or left for an employee, or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity given or left for an employee.
Bond. If an employer requires a bond of an applicant or employee, the employer must pay the cost of the bond.
Uniforms. If an employer requires that an employee wear a uniform, the employer must pay the cost of the uniform.
Business Expenses. An employee is entitled to be reimbursed by his or her employer for all expenses or losses incurred in the direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s work duties. ....

....
...
Q. If I break or damage company property or lose company money while performing my job, can my employer deduct the cost/loss from my wages?
A. No, your employer cannot legally make such a deduction from your wages if, by reason of mistake or accident a cash shortage, breakage, or loss of company property/equipment occurs.
..
Labor Code Section 224 clearly prohibits any deduction from an employee’s wages which is not either authorized by the employee in writing or permitted by law, and any employer who resorts to self-help does so at its own risk

Facebook is located in California and here in California impersonating somebody online without their permission is now a crime punishable by a $1000 fine or up to a year in jail. It also creates an opportunity, independent of any other civil remedies which may also be available, to sue for injunctive relief (removal of Facebook page) and compensatory damages. At the very least this law could probably be used to get Facebook to remove the page for the price of a California attorney writing them a letter requesting that they do so and citing the statute.

If you'd like to actually make a difference, email your state assemblymember (and senator when it comes up).

Find Your Rep: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
Find Their Email: http://clerk.assembly.ca.gov//clerk/memberinformation/memberdir_1.asp

AB1291: The Right to Know Act

Dear Assemblymember,

I am writing you in support of retaining strong privacy safeguards in AB 1291: The Right to Know Act.

I am concerned that large data mining companies and their lobbyists are exerting significant influence over this legislation and individual consumers need strong defenders in our desire to control our own data. For all their protests of the expense of complying with this privacy law, these multinational corporations already have to follow much stricter EU privacy laws.

From the Mercury News: "Consumers who live in 27 countries that belong to the European Union already have the right to know what data companies have on them -- laws that are being complied by Facebook, Google and others that are opposing the California legislation." - http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_23067322/silicon-valley-companies-quietly-try-kill-internet-privacy

As mentioned by a former employee in the area: "As a former employee of a business that tracks a huge amount of personal information, I can tell you that most of these companies are already required to keep these records because of EU privacy records. Our databases were literally divided domestic and foreign for this reason.
So while it would take some effort in moving data and changing internal procedures, the bulk of the work is already done for most of these companies."

I hope you are one of us, someone who uses a credit card or spends time online, and want to know what data is being stored about us and how it is being used. Please support strong privacy legislation. Do not be swayed by big money lobbyists.

Thank you,
Me

If you'd like to actually make a difference, email your state assemblymember (and senator when it comes up).

Find Your Rep: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
Find Their Email: http://clerk.assembly.ca.gov//clerk/memberinformation/memberdir_1.asp

AB1291: The Right to Know Act

Dear Assemblymember,

I am writing you in support of retaining strong privacy safeguards in AB 1291: The Right to Know Act.

I am concerned that large data mining companies and their lobbyists are exerting significant influence over this legislation and individual consumers need strong defenders in our desire to control our own data. For all their protests of the expense of complying with this privacy law, these multinational corporations already have to follow much stricter EU privacy laws.

From the Mercury News: "Consumers who live in 27 countries that belong to the European Union already have the right to know what data companies have on them -- laws that are being complied by Facebook, Google and others that are opposing the California legislation." - http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_23067322/silicon-valley-companies-quietly-try-kill-internet-privacy

As mentioned by a former employee in the area: "As a former employee of a business that tracks a huge amount of personal information, I can tell you that most of these companies are already required to keep these records because of EU privacy records. Our databases were literally divided domestic and foreign for this reason.
So while it would take some effort in moving data and changing internal procedures, the bulk of the work is already done for most of these companies."

I hope you are one of us, someone who uses a credit card or spends time online, and want to know what data is being stored about us and how it is being used. Please support strong privacy legislation. Do not be swayed by big money lobbyists.

Thank you,
Me

In the meantime, the truly gifted are hitting the library, doing their own thing, and pretty much don't need no stinking program.

-see life of Linus Pauling, Einstein. etc ...

The "truly gifted" are also wasting a lot of time in "normal" classrooms. This is the 21st century. We should be using technology to customize education for each child, and let them learn at an optimal pace. This is easiest for subjects like math, and my son's school uses Khan Academy and IXL to make much of the math self-paced. They also let the kids pick their own books to read using AR Bookfind. My son has read over a hundred books this year, and has yet to find a book that isn't in their system.

Both of my kids qualified for California's GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) Program. But it seems to me that it could be expanded to include a lot more kids, because the parents do a lot of the grunt work. So if you double the number of kids, you are also doubling the number of parents. The school just needs to provide a framework. I take an afternoon off work each week to work with these kids and I love every minute of it. Some of these kids are amazingly bright. Last week I showed a fourth grader how to do a cross product of two vectors, and she "got it" in less than a minute. I walked away thinking "this kid is going to change the world someday." She also laughed when I told her a "math joke":

Q: What do you get when you cross a tsetse fly with a mountain climber?
A: Nothing. You can't cross a vector with a scaler.

Bullshit. Some towns became insolvent because they entered into agreements to pay employees some money now and some at a later time, and then so badly mismanaged their finances -- largely through giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthy -- that they couldn't follow up on their obligation to pay people the agreed-upon compensation. Blaming unions for right-wing policies that benefit the 1% while screwing workers is ludicrous.

While on the high end for public sector employees, "Public Safety" pensions in California most certainly do not fall into your rant above. They are, frankly, obscene and are indeed a large part of why many municipalities have financial problems. A police officer or firefighter can retire at 50 with 90% of their base pay (which is usually considerable--a CHP officer earns between $68-84k per year not including overtime pay (which is $48-61 per hour). Their pension is calculated based on the 3 highest earning years.

Please note that the above numbers are BASE pay, and they can (and do) earn significantly more. See here for details. I would assume that CHP officers are probably paid more than a local sheriff's deputy, but my understanding is that many municipalities in CA are competitive with this structure.

To sum up: While the devil is in the details, it quite easy to make the statement the OP did and NOT be full of shit.

Yes, but fortunately, it was only the appellate division of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, not the 5th District Court of Appeal. See California Appellate Districts map and Fresno County specifically [courts.ca.gov]. As such, it only has binding authority in Fresno County, not the rest of the state (although it may very well be persuasive in other jurisdictions.)

Stating "California has banned checking smartphone maps while driving" gives this court's opinion way too much authority. I'm pretty sure it would take a California Supreme Court decision to do that...

And yes, I am a lawyer in California, just not yours.

Yes, but fortunately, it was only the appellate division of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, not the 5th District Court of Appeal. See California Appellate Districts map and Fresno County specifically [courts.ca.gov]. As such, it only has binding authority in Fresno County, not the rest of the state (although it may very well be persuasive in other jurisdictions.)

Stating "California has banned checking smartphone maps while driving" gives this court's opinion way too much authority. I'm pretty sure it would take a California Supreme Court decision to do that...

And yes, I am a lawyer in California, just not yours.