Slashdot Mirror

Read the law in question, which was from 2009 and amended in 2012. It's made with modern phones in mind, and it was specifically written to combat texting:

As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.

Using GPS is not manually communicating with a person. The law does not apply to reading text on a phone in any context other than communications with another person.

If the judge's interpretation was the one the legislation intended, why would we have CVC 23123.5, that explicitly forbids texting. Why would the DMV note that it does "not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name" or the CHP advise safe ways to dial? The judge over-stepped in this case & is legislating from the bench.

In 2010, I was written a citation for using my phone when I had passed it to a passenger. I was (rightfully) found not guilty. Because merely "touching" your phone is not using it as a communications device. Nor is the cell phone magically more distracting than other objects in a car.

A stand-alone GPS or a paper map can be at least as distracting, so why is there no provision banning their use? Because, while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm. It is easier to defend them than eating, applying makeup, listening to music, etc. that we permit.

If the judge's interpretation was the one the legislation intended, why would we have CVC 23123.5, that explicitly forbids texting. Why would the DMV note that it does "not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name" or the CHP advise safe ways to dial? The judge over-stepped in this case & is legislating from the bench.

In 2010, I was written a citation for using my phone when I had passed it to a passenger. I was (rightfully) found not guilty. Because merely "touching" your phone is not using it as a communications device. Nor is the cell phone magically more distracting than other objects in a car.

A stand-alone GPS or a paper map can be at least as distracting, so why is there no provision banning their use? Because, while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm. It is easier to defend them than eating, applying makeup, listening to music, etc. that we permit.

If the judge's interpretation was the one the legislation intended, why would we have CVC 23123.5, that explicitly forbids texting. Why would the DMV note that it does "not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name" or the CHP advise safe ways to dial? The judge over-stepped in this case & is legislating from the bench.

In 2010, I was written a citation for using my phone when I had passed it to a passenger. I was (rightfully) found not guilty. Because merely "touching" your phone is not using it as a communications device. Nor is the cell phone magically more distracting than other objects in a car.

A stand-alone GPS or a paper map can be at least as distracting, so why is there no provision banning their use? Because, while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm. It is easier to defend them than eating, applying makeup, listening to music, etc. that we permit.

When I come up on a traffic light that is green I cannot really slow down trying to anticipate if/when it goes to yellow for I still need to maintain traffic speed. When that light goes yellow I have an instant to make a decision, because I cannot hit the brakes hard and throw 3000 lbs of horse forward.

It sounds like you're very nearly breaking the Basic Speed Law. Yes, you can be technically speeding even when you're driving below the posted speed limit. Other examples include driving in fog or on icy roads.

Nope, not in California anyways. There is no way the Ferrari would come even close to meeting the tailpipe emissions requirement with that engine. "Hybrid" is not an automatic qualification.

You are right but telling your congressman to support FASTR (Fair Access to Science and Technology Research) is much more useful. You can do so quite easily thanks to the EFF and Alliance for Taxpayer Access. FASTR would make federally funded research (non classified and funded by a federal agency with a budget over 100 million$) freely available after 6 months of publication. This would go far beyond the disappointing recent White House OSTP policy where the embargo is 1 year and doesn't include any resuse rights.

If you live in Illinois or California, please consider supporting similar legislation for state funded research. See
Open Access to Research Articles Act for Illinois and California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act.

When a person resigns, they are not eligible for unemployment insurance.

That's not really true. A friend of mine runs a small business in silicon valley (Fremont), and one of her workers quit and moved with her husband 60 miles away to Stockton. When she applied for unemployment, California classified this as "voluntary quit with good cause" and granted her full benefits even though her husband was commuting from Stockton to Milpitas (about 5 miles from Fremont) every day. After 3 protests with the mediation board and eventually a full hearing with the board, the inital ruling didn't change.

My friend was not necessarily trying to invalidate her benefits, just trying to avoid the ex-worker's UI benefits charged to her UI account which caused her UI premiums to rise, but of course CA being broke they certainly wanted to bill her UI benefits to some company and not the general funds, so I guess all this protest was futile.

Short story, unemployment benefits can be granted for just about any reason you can convice a bunch of government bureaucrats is a good reason. Don't believe that whole "when you quit, you don't get unemployment benefits" nonsense. I'm guessing that changing the terms of employment causing travelling or relocation hardship will definitely be judged as "voluntary quit with good cause" and eligible for full benefits.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_5.htm

The only question is what happens with cross-state employment (e.g., say an employee in Nebraska). I'm not so sure they are eligible for CA unemployment, so they would have to apply for unemployment in their own state (or country), which may not be so lenient (or generous) with UI benefits.

Please check your facts. I'm sure Illinois has an equivalent to: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/sa/cefavgsalaries.asp

Teachers' salaries have plummeted since the late 80's. In california, the average salary is around 68k (up 1% from 2011!) and under 50k for new teachers. This is common knowledge at every california university, so there's a lesson in here somewhere. What I was interested in, is where you get this outrageous number of 75k from? http://dianeravitch.net/2012/09/16/correction-chicago-teacher-salary-average-is-74000/ --- probably something related to this.

There isn't a DMV per municipality. There are about a hundred and sixty scattered around the state.

This has been a complaint too. For a state with a population of 38 million is (figure half of them drive) it's about 119,000 per DMV office. At 250 working days a year, that's 475 per office per day, or about 59 people per hour. That shouldn't be that hard, but the lines there are typically 1-3 hours long. They have a reservation system where you can make an appointment in advance. But the last time my registration came up for renewal, there was a problem which required me to visit the DMV instead of renew by mail. I tried to use their reservation system, only to discover that even though I was trying to make an appointment the day after I got the mailed notice, all the nearby DMV offices were booked solid until 3 weeks after the renewal deadline. I ended up making a reservation at some DMV office in the desert 70 miles away (still had to wait in line 45 min), and used the trip as an excuse to do some sightseeing and visit some friends in the area.

If you have a AAA membership, that's by far the best way to get your DMV stuff done in California (if it's a service they can do - they don't do driving tests and a few other things). I've never had to wait more than 30 min there, and usually they get to me within 5 minutes. They charge a few dollars more, but it's worth it compared to wasting several hours at the DMV.

In contrast, the RMV in Massachusetts and the DMV in Washington had wait times very similar to the AAA. Massachusetts even puts offices in the mall so parking is convenient and you can drop by while getting other shopping done. So I dunno what California is doing wrong, but whatever it is they're doing it very, very wrong.

Out here in California the public schools are ranked between 48-50th in the nation. They suck despite receiving over 50% of the state budget every year. Yes, that's right. California is a large state that takes in vast amounts of tax revenue every year, at least 50% of which goes to schools, and yet our public K-12 education system is among the worst in the nation. Yes indeed, we sure are getting a good value for our tax money here. I'd rather have the money in my pocket and send my kids to private school, thanks.

This statement seemed like bullshit, so I did some digging:

The latest Quality Counts report from Education Week ranks California 47th overall in how much it spends per student.
Here's a nice map that shows K-12 spending per student for FY2010.

So it seems your per-student spending is right in line with your ranking...

Further, from the CA Dept of Finance:
All Education As a Percentage of General Fund Expenditures, 2012-13: 51.7% (PDF)
All Education as a percentage of total funding, 2012-13: 27.7% (PDF)

So your cited figure is a bit disingenuous, being that it ignores roughly 60% of the state's actual funding.

Out here in California the public schools are ranked between 48-50th in the nation. They suck despite receiving over 50% of the state budget every year. Yes, that's right. California is a large state that takes in vast amounts of tax revenue every year, at least 50% of which goes to schools, and yet our public K-12 education system is among the worst in the nation. Yes indeed, we sure are getting a good value for our tax money here. I'd rather have the money in my pocket and send my kids to private school, thanks.

This statement seemed like bullshit, so I did some digging:

The latest Quality Counts report from Education Week ranks California 47th overall in how much it spends per student.
Here's a nice map that shows K-12 spending per student for FY2010.

So it seems your per-student spending is right in line with your ranking...

Further, from the CA Dept of Finance:
All Education As a Percentage of General Fund Expenditures, 2012-13: 51.7% (PDF)
All Education as a percentage of total funding, 2012-13: 27.7% (PDF)

So your cited figure is a bit disingenuous, being that it ignores roughly 60% of the state's actual funding.

On the other hand, I've been spammed by people I've bought goods from through Amazon's Marketplace.

Are you in California? Sue them.

Merchants are not allowed to ask for your zip code or any other personally identifiable information except in rare circumstances. Furthermore, using said collected information for any other purpose (such as marketing) is illegal as well.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/11/business/la-fi-0211-privacy-20110211
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1747-1748.95

IANAL, so, obviously I don't know what I'm talking about. But now that I know Google shares this stuff you can be sure I'm going to go check my spam box to see if I'll be taking Google to small claims court.

According to the Antitrust & Business Competition Law of the state of California, we do have a right to the parts in question. "Antitrust enforcement is an important component of a sound free-market economy. Vigorous, competitive marketplaces established through antitrust vigilance help consumers by ensuring fair prices for goods and services, an array of products to choose from, quality goods and services, and the steady introduction of innovative new products." Please visit this link for more information: http://oag.ca.gov/antitrust

Is this nation not founded on principals of fairness and equality? As citizens of the United States of America, we have the right to stand up when we feel like we are being taken advantage of whether it be an issue of race, gender or as consumers and businesses. We have the right to a democratic process. We also have freedom of speech. Mr. Kelly Chong is reaching out to the consumers and businesses who are affected by this new change in policy in hopes that they will join him in speaking out for change. To assume this small camera repair store is the only one suffering the consequences of a disregard for fair business practice shows ignorance. The State of California enforces an Antitrust & Business Competition Law. This law protects small business like Pro Camera Repair, Inc. from “unfair competition”. The availability of repair parts to a repair business is vital. Therefore, the removal of Nikon parts which have been supplied to this specific company amicably for decades would be considered “unfair”. This law was set in place to create a balanced competition between businesses and corporations. Just because a small business does not have thousands of dollars to pour into a large Civil lawsuit does not mean they do not deserve the rights which have been laid out for them in the Antitrust & Business Competition law. What better way to reach out for help, than to inform the public (consumers and businesses) that Nikon’s new policy is against California Law and takes advantage of businesses that have been working with them for decades. For more information visit: http://oag.ca.gov/antitrust

Most tech companies claim ownership of anything created by employees, whether created at work or on their own time.

But, the students are not employees, and signed no waiver when they enrolled. Claiming ownership of the student's creations is rediculous.

That's not the case in California. Or rather, companies may still claim ownership of all inventions in their employment contract, but it's not enforceable. If the invention is done on the employee's own time and equipment and is not related to or derived from the employee's work at the company, the company has no right of ownership:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872

Full stop on yellow is the law in pretty much every state.

Not California. Not Arizona. So when you say "pretty much every state," which states are you referring to? I think you made that up.

That is, of course, pure nonsense. There are situations where your wheels are short of the intersection, the light turns yellow, and it is physically impossible to stop "before the intersection." In fact, I'd wager that cars are in that situation every single time that the light changes at a busy intersection. It IS a violation to enter the intersection after the light turns red. But that's why the yellow is there: to warn you of the pending red. It is up to you to gauge how much time is left on the yellow and whether to stop or not. Not being an AC, I feel somewhat obliged to back up my comments: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm

The rules of the road state that you DO NOT enter an intersection if you cannot make it all the way through that intersection before light turns red then you should have never entered the intersection if the first place.

You're close. The rules say that you should not enter an intersection if there isn't enough space on the other side of the intersection for your vehicle. That means you can be in the intersection when the light turns red as long as you can immediately clear the intersection. (This is a rule to prevent blocking traffic, not a rule for safety.)

Low taxes, low cost of living, great climate, great freeways, first class universities, an influx of returning GIs, marijuana and LSD.

Now California is verging on a failed state. High taxes (a rate of 9.5% for those millionaires making $48,942), high cost of living, a bloated state bureaucracy in league with public employee unions to bankrupt the state, decaying infrastructure, a failing education system on par with Mississippi, one third of the nation's welfare recipients, an outflux of Americans and an influx of low-skill illegal aliens. The only things left are the marijuana and LSD.

The future of business in general and startups in specific are low-tax, now-state-income tax, low-regulation state like Texas and Florida.

Not in California

Like in California, where a criminal can walk into your house and rape your daughter, but if you shoot him he can sue your ass into oblivion.

Can you provide some more information on this? I was under the impression that stopping an assault (including rape) in progress was considered one of the few times where using lethal force is allowed.

CA penal code (section 197) [ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199 ] seems to indicate that homicide is justifiable when resisting attempts of a person to commit gross bodily harm, or to protect family members from the same.

He said sue. That has nothing at all to do with the penal code. That would be a civil, not a criminal, matter.

I guess you haven't read this document. Here is a quote from it:

Instead of being sentenced to state prison, many defendants will be serving their "prison" term in county jail.

The juveniles are also not in County Jail but Placer County Juvenile Hall along with other juveniles. That looks like a very scary place. We have no information whether or not they have been released to or bailed out by their parents. Lets wait till things pan out before condemning the parents over what might or might not happen.

Maybe this will be a wake up call for a couple pf entitled teens and may even turn their lives around.

I guess you haven't read this document. Here is a quote from it:

Instead of being sentenced to state prison, many defendants will be serving their "prison" term in county jail.

The juveniles are also not in County Jail but Placer County Juvenile Hall along with other juveniles. That looks like a very scary place. We have no information whether or not they have been released to or bailed out by their parents. Lets wait till things pan out before condemning the parents over what might or might not happen.

Maybe this will be a wake up call for a couple pf entitled teens and may even turn their lives around.

Like in California, where a criminal can walk into your house and rape your daughter, but if you shoot him he can sue your ass into oblivion.

Can you provide some more information on this? I was under the impression that stopping an assault (including rape) in progress was considered one of the few times where using lethal force is allowed.

CA penal code (section 197) [ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199 ] seems to indicate that homicide is justifiable when resisting attempts of a person to commit gross bodily harm, or to protect family members from the same.

Proposition 35 - Oppose
Proposition 35 increases criminal penalties for sex offenses and imposes new restrictions on registered sex offenders. For example, the measure requires that registrants provide online screen names and information about their Internet service providers to law enforcement - even if their convictions are very old and have nothing to do with the Internet or children. This provision essentially eliminates the ability of registrants to engage in anonymous online speech and imposes a substantial burden whenever a registrant wants to use a new online platform to speech, infringing on registrants' First Amendment right to free speech.

This was buried in an otherwise good proposal (human trafficers should be registered as sex offenders) and wasn't even visible from the official voter guide summary. It has the same problems.

This proposition also passed and I believe goes into effect on in just over a week.

Not to mention, if you're collecting unemployment benefits and you turn down a job, you disqualify yourself from any further benefits.

I was fired from my job at Edgewave for standing on principle regarding a proposed change in my contract (to never take the company to court for any reason), and the California unemployment system disqualified me on the grounds that I had "turned down the job". I had to appeal and find a friendly judge to get the decision reversed.

As for GP's discussion of signing away invention rights, California has Section 2870. The situation surely varies in other states.

Firstly, IANAL, so this isn't legal advice.

The practice of forcing employees to assign patents is specifically against the CA labor code 2870-2872.

AFAIK here are couple cases are often cited by law firms as a warning to companies attempting to assert strong patent assignment clauses against their employees: DDB Technologies LLC v. MLB Advanced Media LP, case number 1:04-cv-00352 and Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment, Inc., No. 2007-5248 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2009).

The general outline of the DDB vs MLB case was that a couple of the principals of DDB were working for this other company (Schlumberger) when apparently on their own time they worked on a patent. Although the patent was disclosed to Schlumberger, it didn't pertain to their business, and the patent was pursued independently by the people who later went on to found DDB. Later, Schumberger on the basis of a patent assignment clause transfered whatever interests (and legal rights) they had to the patent to MLB, which later attempted to gain ownership of the patents from DDB on the basis of this patent assignment clause whist they were employeed by Schlumberger. They failed.

The general outline of the AMat case was that AMat had a patent assignment clause in their employment agreement that presumed that patents related to employment filed within one year of leaving the company were owned by AMat, unless a conception date after the AMat employment could be proved. The court invalidated this patent assignment as being an illegal non-compete restriction on the employees that went on to found AMFE.

Of course with any case law, your milage may vary...

It depends. In California, that answer according to California Labor Code sections 2870-2872 the answer is a very definitive "No.".

CALTRANS uses loop detectors in freeways and major roads to monitor congestion. They just count cars in each lane and measure how fast they're going. They've been doing that for over two decades. You can see the result at . LA used to have a dedicated cable channel with that data. No privacy-invading user-identifying technology needed.

The data is used in several ways. The most important one is that when the system detects high traffic density at slow speed at one sensor, and lower density at higher speed at the next one in the same direction, it means trouble, usually an accident. The traffic detectors report the lanes separately. If something is blocking a lane and traffic is going around it, that's detected too. Cell phone and Bluetooth monitoring won't give you that.

CALTRANS has had cameras (which you can watch on line) on high poles over freeways for decades. Some have pan, tilt, and zoom capability, so when the automated system detects trouble, someone can use a camera to look at the problem area and dispatch whatever is needed.

Another use of this data is to control the metering light system at on-ramps. Freeway throughput peaks at 35 MPH (at higher speeds, the cars have to space out more) and cars are deliberately delayed a few seconds at on-ramps when speeds drop below that level.

Both of these functions require reasonably accurate data, but there's no need to identify cars individually. This all works quite well without it. Probably better. Counting all the cars on a second by second basis is more useful for detecting problems fast than some statistical measure of some of them.

The data also goes out to web sites, apps, driving time predictors, etc. There's an free API, integration with transit data, integration with CHP incident info, a developer group, etc.

A truism of traffic management is that fast response to trouble on a freeway increases the capacity by about one lane, and it's a lot cheaper than adding a lane.

So I'm not too impressed with some small-scale trial that snoops on Bluetooth headsets.

That's already been a law for years in many places. Though you don't process someone for "receiving stolen goods" unless they knowingly received stolen goods. And if they knew, obviously they are not going to report it. So, it doesn't really help if the recyclers are crooked and find a way to break the law as well.

Just like Interstate purchase tax laws shouldn't be necessary because most states that consider it taxable already require you to keep records and report all Internet purchases on your tax return. Yeah... right...

The first-ever “National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers”, conducted by NHTSA, found that 16.3 percent of nighttime drivers were drug-positive, with marijuana (THC) at (8.6 percent) being the most commonly detected drug.

and

In fall 2010, six cities in California (Anaheim, Bakersfield, Eureka, Fresno, San Rafael, and Torrance) conducted nighttime weekend “voluntary” roadside surveys primarily to gather data on marijuana use among nighttime drivers. The results were that 8.4 percent of the drivers providing oral fluid were positive for marijuana and 7.6 percent of the breath tested drivers tested positive for some amount of alcohol.

These are two different surveys, but the second one shows a slightly different picture than "half them high on marijuana". 8.4% in this study showed some presence of marijuana in their saliva. From the summary, I gather that all that really means is that 8.4% had smoked pot some time in the last couple weeks. 7.6% had had some amount of alcohol still detectable in their breath, although that includes people with a trace amount, well under the legal limit. So, I'm not going to adjust my general expectations of other drivers to think that one in every 6 drivers at night is drunk and/or high.

And yet the California Traffic Code knows of no other road but "highway."

Actually, the California Vehicle Code does know of other roads besides "highway". Inside the General Provisions and Divisions Section is a section for Words and Phrases basically describing Freeway, Highway and Expressway.

And yet the California Traffic Code knows of no other road but "highway."

Actually, the California Vehicle Code does know of other roads besides "highway". Inside the General Provisions and Divisions Section is a section for Words and Phrases basically describing Freeway, Highway and Expressway.

And yet the California Traffic Code knows of no other road but "highway."

Actually, the California Vehicle Code does know of other roads besides "highway". Inside the General Provisions and Divisions Section is a section for Words and Phrases basically describing Freeway, Highway and Expressway.

And yet the California Traffic Code knows of no other road but "highway."

Actually, the California Vehicle Code does know of other roads besides "highway". Inside the General Provisions and Divisions Section is a section for Words and Phrases basically describing Freeway, Highway and Expressway.

And yet the California Traffic Code knows of no other road but "highway."

Actually, the California Vehicle Code does know of other roads besides "highway". Inside the General Provisions and Divisions Section is a section for Words and Phrases basically describing Freeway, Highway and Expressway.

CA users just take 3 min to file here. https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/cimsapp/

California's K-12 has been gutted by repeated budget cuts

Spending can vary greatly by area. LAUSD spends $25,208 per student.

For CA Statewide K-12, "Total per-pupil expenditures from all sources are projected to be $10,610 in 2011-12 and $11,246 in 2012-13".

There are indeed huge variances by region. Districts with higher costs of living, high growth (necessitating new construction), and more special needs students will have higher per pupil costs.

But always be careful when citing CATO, they're not exactly...rigorous... in their methodology. See this EPIC review of CATO's per-pupil claims. And I quote: "The report presents large “real” costs per pupil. However, the spending numbers calculated for the report actually double count, adding in both capital construction and debt service. The use of flawed data renders the report to be of limited value in policymaking." (emphasis added).

I would provide my own analysis of the LAUSD claims, but the CATO report failed to properly cite its sources (it actually indicated an incorrect page number) and methodology. Per the review I am citing, another group was able to nearly replicate the CATO result by double-counting capital construction and debt services (which the author compares to adding the purchase price of a house plus the mortgage payments).

California's K-12 has been gutted by repeated budget cuts

Spending can vary greatly by area. LAUSD spends $25,208 per student.

For CA Statewide K-12, "Total per-pupil expenditures from all sources are projected to be $10,610 in 2011-12 and $11,246 in 2012-13".

Okay. I'll concede California. I haven't considered it part of the actual United States for a long time anyway.

The same is true in every state. I just have where to find California law memorized, so it was the easiest example to present in detail. For instance, in North Carolina, votes for a named candidate on the ballot are legally votes for the electors nominated by that candidate's party (for a party candidate) or by that candidate (for an unaffiliated candidate), per North Carolina General Statutes Sec. 163-209:

The names of candidates for electors of President and VicePresident nominated by any political party recognized in this State under G.S. 16396, or nominated under G.S. 1631(c) by a candidate for President of the United States who has qualified to have his or her name printed on the general election ballot as an unaffiliated candidate under G.S. 163122, shall be filed with the Secretary of State but shall not be printed on the ballot. In the case of the unaffiliated candidate, the names of candidates for electors must be filed with the Secretary of State no later than 12:00 noon on the first Friday in August. In place of their names, there shall be printed on the ballot the names of the candidates for President and VicePresident of each political party recognized in this State, and the name of any candidate for President who has qualified to have his or her name printed on the general election ballot under G.S. 163122. A candidate for President who has qualified for the general election ballot as an unaffiliated candidate under G.S. 163122 shall, no later than 12:00 noon on the first Friday in August, file with the State Board of Elections the name of a candidate for VicePresident, whose name shall also be printed on the ballot. A vote for the candidates named on the ballot shall be a vote for the electors of the party or unaffiliated candidate by which those candidates were nominated and whose names have been filed with the Secretary of State.

What voters are choosing at the polls in a "Presidential election" is, as it is in every state, the slate of electors who will cast their State's electoral votes.

How's that Prop. 35 coming?

That's a weird non-sequitur, but election results are available online.

That's why it passed with such a high percentage of Yes votes. The part about sex offenders' Internet activity was a single sentence buried in the middle of the voter pamphlet's summary description, so probably was glazed over by most voters.

This.

I was all set to vote for this one until I read that sentence, I would not be surprised if most people just went into the voting booth and were like "Increase penalties for human traffickers, sure, why not" as opposed to actually read what they were voting for.

You're both wrong, from both a factual and procedural point of view.

Actually, we're both right and you're wrong.

PEOPLE vote for CANDIDATES.

To the extent that's true, the "candidates" are the candidates for positions as electors, who are proposed by the parties and elected, in most states, as a statewide slate.

People do not vote for electors. That's just wrong. That's not the way it works.

Repeating an assertion four times in the same post doesn't make it true. Presidential elections are governed by State law. As a concrete example, here's the online index to the California Election Code. Note the title of Division 6, Part 2 ("ELECTIONS FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS"). Now look at Chapter 1 of that Part, an particularly Section 6902: "At the general election in each leap year, or at any other time as may be prescribed by the laws of the United States, there shall be chosen by the voters of the state as many electors of President and Vice President of the United States as the state is then entitled to." (emphasis added)

The voters are choosing slates of electors.

The Wired article doesn't provide it, and makes it sound like the proposition passed with an 81% Yes vote because people want to track registered sex offenders' Internet activity.

The proposition was billed as the human trafficking and penalties initiative. Its main focus was on increasing penalties for those convicted of human trafficking (mostly kids and women into prostitution). That's why it passed with such a high percentage of Yes votes. The part about sex offenders' Internet activity was a single sentence buried in the middle of the voter pamphlet's summary description, so probably was glazed over by most voters.

I was baffled why something whose main provision seemed like such a no-brainer was even a proposition. It sounded like something the legislature should've been able to pass in 5 minutes. So I did a bit more research and dug up this article explaining why it may not be very helpful, counter-intuitive as that seems. That's something you have to be careful of with these ballot propositions - if it sounds like a simple Yes vote, you need to ask yourself, "What's the catch? Why hasn't the legislature passed this already?"

The sad thing is, it passed by a bigger margin than a proposition whose sole argument against and rebuttal to the argument for was "we are no longer asking for a NO vote".

Yet one more piece of evidence that the California electorate, by and large, is both ignorant and stupid. Clearly those who voted "Yes" didn't even bother to read the summary of the proposition in the election guide, never mind the full text of the proposition (PDF) or Section 236.1 of the California Penal Code to determine whether or not the proposed amendments are even necessary. This really is classic California: people too lazy, ignorant and stupid to be bothered with attending to their duties as citizens. Meanwhile, they whine for more entitlements, complain that companies are "cheating" them and blame everyone but themselves for their own situations. It's depressing, but not surprising.

No they don't. Oregon, Montana, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Delaware don't have sales tax. You know, a tenth of the country's states.

It may also be a surprise to you that some of the states don't double dip on income tax, either: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming

(If you're observant and knowledge inclined, you may note a pattern/trend amongst these states which is not present in places like NY or CA, where sales and income taxes are high but the states are still completely strapped.)

Is the pattern that the only state that collects neither has massive oil revenues? Alaska forecast a $10B oil revenue in 2012, with another $1B coming from other taxes and fines and $3B in federal revenue. Alaska's 2012 forecast revenue was $17.757 billion. With a population of 722,718 (2011), this works out to a per capita tax of $24,569.75.

For 2011-2012, California's enacted budget forecast revenues of $95.887 billion. CA's population was 37,691,912 (2011). This works out to a per capita tax of $2,543.97.

California's per capita taxes are 10.4% of Alaska's, and the majority of the state's operational expenses go to Health and Human Services and education. For the services it provides, it is amazing that California isn't bankrupt.

If you want to make an anti-tax argument, maybe you shouldn't laud (as your shining example of fiscal responsibility) a tax-loving, socialist state that redistributes wealth from job creators directly to all of its citizens.

California actually has laws governing this if personally identifiable information or medical info is breached. Unfortunately many companies do not know about these laws or do not follow them. Also, by the nature of how the law is worded, it may effectivly affect companies all over the US (anyone that does buisness with CA or a CA resident)...

1798.29
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/civil/civ1798_29.htm

1798.82
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/civil/civ1798_82.htm

California actually has laws governing this if personally identifiable information or medical info is breached. Unfortunately many companies do not know about these laws or do not follow them. Also, by the nature of how the law is worded, it may effectivly affect companies all over the US (anyone that does buisness with CA or a CA resident)...

1798.29
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/civil/civ1798_29.htm

1798.82
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/civil/civ1798_82.htm

Have a look at this FAQ entry on the California Board of Equalization website:

Are delivery and handling charges taxable?
Delivery charges.
You have the property delivered directly to your customer using a common carrier, the U.S. Mail, or an independent contractor

Tax does not apply to the delivery charges under these conditions if the charges are clearly stated as a separate entry on the invoice or other bill of sale. If the delivery charges are not stated separately, they are taxable.

Example.

You sell a refrigerator and have it delivered by an independent contract carrier. On the invoice, you show a $750 charge for the refrigerator plus a separately stated $50 charge for delivery (the amount charged you by the carrier). Since the delivery charge is stated separately, tax applies only to the charge of the refrigerator ($750). If the invoice had shown a single charge of $800, tax would apply to the entire amount.

Note: If you charge more for delivery than your actual costs, the added amount is subject to tax. In the example above, if you had charged your customer $60 for delivery, but your actual delivery cost was $50 (the amount charged by the independent contract carrier), tax would apply to the additional $10 charge.
You use your vehicle to make the delivery

Tax applies to the delivery charges if you use your own vehicle, whether or not those charges are separately stated on the invoice.

Example. You sell a refrigerator and deliver it to your customer using your own vehicle. On the invoice, you show a $750 charge for the refrigerator plus a separately stated $50 charge for delivery. Tax applies both to the delivery charge and the charge for the refrigerator.

Note: Tax does not apply to delivery charges using your own vehicle if there is a written contract of sale, signed before delivery, that transfers ownership of the property to the purchaser prior to delivery.

Handling charges. Handling charges are generally taxable.

Combined charges. If you charge a single amount for delivery and handling (for example, the invoice shows a single amount for "postage and handling" or "shipping and handling"), the portion of the charge that represents handling is generally taxable, while the portion that represents delivery may or may not be taxable.

Note: It is important to use terms such as "delivery," "shipping," or "postage" on the invoice to represent delivery charges. A separately stated charge that says only "handling", for example, is not considered a delivery charge and the entire handling charge is taxable--even if postage or shipment charges are indicated on the package.

For more information on delivery charges, or information on how tax may apply to a specific transaction, please see Regulation 1628, Transportation Charges or publication 100, Shipping and Delivery Charges. You can also contact the Board's Information Center 800-400-7115 or your nearest Board office.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/faqpurch.htm#10

You ship directly to the purchaser by common carrier, contract carrier, or US Mail

Your invoice clearly lists delivery, shipping, freight, or postage as a separate charge

The charge is not greater than your actual cost for delivery to customer

The first item is basically a distinction between bringing the product to the customer yourself and using a service (like USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc.). Amazon isn't delivering the item itself, so this doesn't apply to them.

The second item is making a distinction between including the cost of shipping in the cost of the item and breaking it out as a line item. Since Amazon does list shipping separately, this doesn't apply to them.

The third item makes a distinction between simply charging the customer for the cost of the shipping and making a profit on the shipping cost. Amazon is charging you more than UPS/USPS/etc charges them to ship the item, therefore they are making a profit off the shipping costs. And that is why the BOE is requiring them to collect sales tax on the charge. They're selling you something extra, they're making a profit off of it, and as a result you as the consumer have to pay tax on their profit. The fact that the extra cost is controlled by them and of no use to you is immaterial. The state treats it like Amazon raised the price of the item but tried to make it look cheaper by including a portion of the cost in with the shipping.

By doing this, the state is ensuring it gets everything it's entitled to, and making consumers aware that when they buy from Amazon, they are paying an Amazon tax, and a sales tax on the Amazon tax.