Slashdot Mirror

Not in California, which is where the buyer was.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub100.pdf

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe I'm reading the wrong thing (someone please correct me if you have a better reference) but I don't see anything in here which suggests a client application which interoperates with an online service is an online service

The app is just the mechanism by which a consumer "visits" the online service, which is the point at which the cited law requires the operator of the online service to make the privacy policy available.

or that a client application which downloads other clients, is somehow governed by this law to display those other applications' policies in addition to its own.

If you are referring to the App Store as the "client application which downloads other clients", that's not mandatory under the law, but it is the subject of an agreement between the AG and many app store operators (the original agreement is announced here, and Facebook joining the agreement is announced here; its also a mechanism by which the operator of the online service accessed through the mobile act could mean the "reasonably accessible means" requirement of the law without actually including the privacy policy within the application itself.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe I'm reading the wrong thing (someone please correct me if you have a better reference) but I don't see anything in here which suggests a client application which interoperates with an online service is an online service

The app is just the mechanism by which a consumer "visits" the online service, which is the point at which the cited law requires the operator of the online service to make the privacy policy available.

or that a client application which downloads other clients, is somehow governed by this law to display those other applications' policies in addition to its own.

If you are referring to the App Store as the "client application which downloads other clients", that's not mandatory under the law, but it is the subject of an agreement between the AG and many app store operators (the original agreement is announced here, and Facebook joining the agreement is announced here; its also a mechanism by which the operator of the online service accessed through the mobile act could mean the "reasonably accessible means" requirement of the law without actually including the privacy policy within the application itself.

Non-competes have been invalid in California since the 19th century. There are a few exceptions, like you can sell your business to someone and agree to not create a new business to compete against the old one, but they don't apply to regular employees.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe I'm reading the wrong thing (someone please correct me if you have a better reference) but I don't see anything in here which suggests a client application which interoperates with an online service is an online service, or that a client application which downloads other clients, is somehow governed by this law to display those other applications' policies in addition to its own.

You might say this is splitting hairs and ignoring the spirit of the law, but the text I'm reading is already so hair-splitting (talks about icons and color contrasts?!) and detailed that I'm not sure it's fair for AG to expect anyone to infer spirit.

That itself doesn't mean he's wrong in his interpretation (though I happen to think he is) but he sure seems to be going above-and-beyond the call of duty, in interpreting it so .. um .. progressively instead of leaving it to the legislature.

The content of such a class, at least, is already part of many education standards. In California for example the key material pertaining to the world's major religions is all covered as the genesis of those religions is reached in the (basically chronological) study of history. You can see it all in the standard for grades 6-9.

If this happened in California, you should report it to the California Labor Board:

    http://www.labor.ca.gov/

Most companies are breaking CA labor laws in one way or another, and even if you don't get a positive resolution, you'd get all the facts of the case in official records, where it can be used against them later (Senate H-1B visa hearings?).

Meanwhile, I do believe that companies "can't find" potential employees... Because the recruiting situation is a complete shit-hole, where most jobs are un-advertised, employers only look for people after they need them and insist on immediate placement, NEVER offer things like relocation assistance, and they keep wages low, and keep squeezing more effort and unpaid overtime out of their employees, causing insane turnover which is why they need so many new employees...

I certainly don't change jobs every few years because I enjoy packing up and moving (I'm not a fan of crazy long commutes that have a high likelyhood of resulting in my firey death). I keep switching companies because every last one of them treats even their most valuable employees like crap, though some have been much worse than others.

"The Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program, authorized by Education Code (EC) sections 52200-52212 (Outside Source), provides funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop unique education opportunities for high-achieving and underachieving pupils in California public elementary and secondary schools who have been identified as gifted and talented. Special efforts are made to ensure that pupils from economically disadvantaged and varying cultural backgrounds are provided with full participation in these unique opportunities. "

Source : http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/gt/

Just read some of the letters filed by Hans in his civil trial and tell me that you're still surprised he did it. A real doozy is this 269 page rant. In addition to his usual blaming of Nina and insistence he had to kill her to protect his kids, he says stuff like (pg 229)

It is something of a testimony to how doing legal work has warped my mind that I argue here that cloning Nina constitutes a morally necessary act to reduce her death to the minimum force necessary to the protection of my children from her (given her desire to harm them through proxies protected in their harming by State Actor proxies too powerful for me to timely overcome.) I knew Nina better than all but a very few, and I know that Nina would have liked to have been cloned."

He goes off (starting on page 249) about how Einstein was wrong and Hans' new "Theory of Absolutivity" will make him trillions if he would just be allowed to conduct some experiments. Those trillions could be used to pay off the damages Hans thinks he is owed:

• Rates Of Actual Damages and Actual Damages Before Applying Multipliers (Based On Disproof Of Relativity Being Found Valid)

$1 trillion+ for each of myself, Rory, and Niorline for each year from Sept. 8th 2006 until our reunification and my release, as actual damages for our separation and my non-heightened aspect of my imprisonment, fractional yers prorated.

$500 million per hour for each period of heightened imprisonment (C-Status and Ad-Seg) experienced, for actual damages.

$250 million per hour for each period of being wrongfully placed in an environment of a higher security level prison, as actual damages.

$500 million per day of being wrongfully kept 'Closed A', as actual damages.

$1 billion per hour for every hour of my time consumed by overcoming interference, with my effective access to the courts, obstruction of justice, denials of due process (including within the prison grievance process), and other tortious or wrongful acts. (This is distinguished from attorney fees.)

Hans Reiser is a sick fuck who is right where he belongs. The jury saw that very clearly during his two weeks on the stand. It's sad that he didn't end up there before he killed someone but we can all take relief in the fact that the parole board is unlikely to ever release him.

Just read some of the letters filed by Hans in his civil trial and tell me that you're still surprised he did it. A real doozy is this 269 page rant. In addition to his usual blaming of Nina and insistence he had to kill her to protect his kids, he says stuff like (pg 229)

It is something of a testimony to how doing legal work has warped my mind that I argue here that cloning Nina constitutes a morally necessary act to reduce her death to the minimum force necessary to the protection of my children from her (given her desire to harm them through proxies protected in their harming by State Actor proxies too powerful for me to timely overcome.) I knew Nina better than all but a very few, and I know that Nina would have liked to have been cloned."

He goes off (starting on page 249) about how Einstein was wrong and Hans' new "Theory of Absolutivity" will make him trillions if he would just be allowed to conduct some experiments. Those trillions could be used to pay off the damages Hans thinks he is owed:

• Rates Of Actual Damages and Actual Damages Before Applying Multipliers (Based On Disproof Of Relativity Being Found Valid)

$1 trillion+ for each of myself, Rory, and Niorline for each year from Sept. 8th 2006 until our reunification and my release, as actual damages for our separation and my non-heightened aspect of my imprisonment, fractional yers prorated.

$500 million per hour for each period of heightened imprisonment (C-Status and Ad-Seg) experienced, for actual damages.

$250 million per hour for each period of being wrongfully placed in an environment of a higher security level prison, as actual damages.

$500 million per day of being wrongfully kept 'Closed A', as actual damages.

$1 billion per hour for every hour of my time consumed by overcoming interference, with my effective access to the courts, obstruction of justice, denials of due process (including within the prison grievance process), and other tortious or wrongful acts. (This is distinguished from attorney fees.)

Hans Reiser is a sick fuck who is right where he belongs. The jury saw that very clearly during his two weeks on the stand. It's sad that he didn't end up there before he killed someone but we can all take relief in the fact that the parole board is unlikely to ever release him.

The price of crude is pretty consistent around the globe, as are the fixed costs of refining said crude to gasoline and other products. Your fuel prices are the same as the US's. What is different is that your government taxes gasoline at about 200%, $6 per gallon. Strip out all the taxes and gasoline costs around $3 a gallon virtually everywhere on earth.

They had the right idea back in '78, The Price of Oil and Natural Gas Should Be Regulated by the Fed. Govt.

No, those numbers represent electricity sold in California, hence the significant fraction of hydro (probably mostly from WA).

That electricity comes from somewhere...

And that gasoline comes from somewhere too. Funny how people who drag out this dead horse of an argument so easily overlook that.

But whatever. For California the electricity source breakdown looks something like this:

46% Natural Gas
18% Coal
14% Nuclear
11% Hydro
11% other renewable (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, etc)

Probably newer data out there but I'm fairly confident it's close enough for our purposes. So if we weigh emissions by source type and assume a miles-per-gallon and miles-per-kWh for ICE and Electric vehicles, we can get an approximation for how the two compare emissions-wise.

Natural Gas = 0.46 * 443 = 203.78
Coal = 0.18 * 1050 = 189 (being pessimistic here)
Nuclear = 0.14 * 66 = 9.24
Hydro = 0.11 * 10 = 1.1
Other = 0.11 * 30 = 3.3 (also pessimistic)

Total: 406.42 (Say 407) grams of CO2 per kWh generated. We'll bump that up a bit to account for transmission losses (90%) to 452 g/Kwh. Gasoline gives about 8,200 grams of CO2 per gallon. That's just basic a chemistry.

We'll be again generous and say 30MPG for gasoline and again pessimistic and say 3 mi/kWh for Electric - really stacking the odds against EVs here.

Gasoline vehicle @ 30MPG = 8200 g/mi / 30MPG = 273 grams CO2 per mile.
Electric vehicle @ 3 mi/kWh = 452 g/kWh / 3 mi/kWh = 151 grams CO2 per mile.

So even being pessimistic we see that driving electric vehicles, with their electricity coming from "somewhere", releases nearly half the CO2 as their gasoline counterpart. More importantly - and the brunt of what the OP was saying - is that the local in-city pollution is reduced to zero. Not only are you producing less pollution, you are producing that pollution away from population centers where it does the most harm.
=Smidge=

The vast majority of EV charging occurs between midnight and 4am, when there is ample capacity, esp from wind, so EVs actually use the cleanest part of the grid.
Which in California is quite clean to start with: most of its electricity is coming from carbon-neutral sources (hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind...); only 7% was coal in 2010 and getting lower.

Another sobering thought: the energy spent refining gasoline alone (6kW*h / gallon) for a 20-some mpg vehicle would be enough to propel an EV the same distance.

Nuke plants don't pollute. Natural gas pollutes less than gasoline, so if the electricity is generated by gas, it would pollute less.

A Tesla in Clinton, IL wouldn't pollute at all. A Tesla in Springfield, IL would pollute more than an Escalade or a Hummer; its electricity is from coal and gas.

The challenge undertaken by MIT researchers is making these cars aware of dangers lurking around corners and behind buildings... This can be accomplished by compressing and sharing the data that autonomous vehicles generate while they're in motion...

So in other words, instead of slowing to what would be a reasonable and appropriate speed, the cars are able to maintain high speeds without sacrificing safety by informing each other of hidden hazards.

It's an interesting solution, but it could actually sacrifice overall safety by showing a bad example to human drivers.

Well, in Washington State, most of the power is hydroelectric. 80% - 90%

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter12.html

Well, cigarettes and tobacco ARE taxed. In California the rate is 87cents per pack of cigarettes and 31.73% on other tobacco products (pouches of tobacco, snuff, cigars, etc.). Earlier this year a proposition got shot down that would have added an extra dollar to that 87cents.

Since they are already taxed at the counter your example sounds more like a "Getting Caught" tax (I know that sounds dickish over the internet, but I'm not trying to be).

According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), while this bill is well-intended, it conflicts with the duty of securities firms to supervise, record, and maintain business-related communications as required by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). They argue that if this bill passes in its current form, firms will be in the untenable position of having to violate either state law or their FINRA obligations. SIFMA argues that while they have no interest in accessing employee accounts that are used exclusively for personal use, the problem is that many people use the same account for both personal and business activity.

SIFMA contends that in order to protect investors, FINRA requires, among other things, that securities firms supervise, record and maintain their employees' business communications - including those disseminated on social media sites. They argue that these requirements are spelled out in several different FINRA rules and regulatory notices and denying securities firms access to social media accounts where business is being conducted directly conflicts with FINRA regulations. Additionally, they argue that it also puts customers at risk, as it will be much harder for firms to detect serious problems, including (1) misleading claims by an employee, such as the promise of an unrealistically high rate of return on investment; (2) insider trading, Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent activity; and (3) inappropriate conduct such as the selling of investment products that are not approved by the firm.

Furthermore, SIFMA argues that the bill does not address the increasingly common scenario where a financial services employee seeks and obtains firm approval to use his or her personal site for business use. In these instances, firms must have the ability to monitor, record, and retain these employee communications. Therefore, the opponents are requesting an amendment to carve-out financial service firms from the requirements of the bill which would allow them to access a personal social media accounts or devices of a financial services employee. They believe that this carve-out would allow them to comply with both this bill and FINRA regulations.

Draw your own conclusions about what this says of the interests of these particular Senators. While I believe the argument is actually describes a reasonable concern, it seems the easy approach is not to complicate the law by carving out a statutory exception for certain industries, but rather for these firms to adjust their policies accordingly. For example, they could both prohibit the use of personal personal networking accounts for business purposes, by making it a firing offense, and actively warn investors to contact them if any investment-related claims appear on the personal accounts of their employees.

Seems like these "be pro-business and reduce government red tape!" types are those most interested in creating complicated laws and regulations to suit their special snowflake needs.

According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), while this bill is well-intended, it conflicts with the duty of securities firms to supervise, record, and maintain business-related communications as required by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). They argue that if this bill passes in its current form, firms will be in the untenable position of having to violate either state law or their FINRA obligations. SIFMA argues that while they have no interest in accessing employee accounts that are used exclusively for personal use, the problem is that many people use the same account for both personal and business activity.

SIFMA contends that in order to protect investors, FINRA requires, among other things, that securities firms supervise, record and maintain their employees' business communications - including those disseminated on social media sites. They argue that these requirements are spelled out in several different FINRA rules and regulatory notices and denying securities firms access to social media accounts where business is being conducted directly conflicts with FINRA regulations. Additionally, they argue that it also puts customers at risk, as it will be much harder for firms to detect serious problems, including (1) misleading claims by an employee, such as the promise of an unrealistically high rate of return on investment; (2) insider trading, Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent activity; and (3) inappropriate conduct such as the selling of investment products that are not approved by the firm.

Furthermore, SIFMA argues that the bill does not address the increasingly common scenario where a financial services employee seeks and obtains firm approval to use his or her personal site for business use. In these instances, firms must have the ability to monitor, record, and retain these employee communications. Therefore, the opponents are requesting an amendment to carve-out financial service firms from the requirements of the bill which would allow them to access a personal social media accounts or devices of a financial services employee. They believe that this carve-out would allow them to comply with both this bill and FINRA regulations.

Draw your own conclusions about what this says of the interests of these particular Senators. While I believe the argument is actually describes a reasonable concern, it seems the easy approach is not to complicate the law by carving out a statutory exception for certain industries, but rather for these firms to adjust their policies accordingly. For example, they could both prohibit the use of personal personal networking accounts for business purposes, by making it a firing offense, and actively warn investors to contact them if any investment-related claims appear on the personal accounts of their employees.

Seems like these "be pro-business and reduce government red tape!" types are those most interested in creating complicated laws and regulations to suit their special snowflake needs.

Given that speed limit signs are fairly standardized and well-defined, having the system recognize them and act appropriately shouldn't be an insurmountable problem.

Except that the posted speed limit only applies in ideal conditions. You can be driving below the posted speed limit yet still be ticketed for driving at an unsafe speed.

So the self-driving vehicle would, at all times, need to choose a reasonable and prudent speed that is equal to or less than the posted speed limit.

And I wonder how often the human behind the wheel will get impatient with the computer for driving so slowly and take the wheel, or how often a following motorist will get impatient and honk or whip around, or how often rear end collisions will occur as a result of following motorists driving too fast for conditions.

That might actually be a fairly significant issue.

People tend to be better at waiting when they're actively doing something (hence all the walking in the airport), I'm guessing a lot of the tendency to speed is due to the fact that drivers generally aren't doing much, and if the computer is in charge they'll be doing even less. Will people just lay back and accept the computer driver, or will they get missed off at doing the limit and just sitting there, so they'll take over so they can go faster.

Given that speed limit signs are fairly standardized and well-defined, having the system recognize them and act appropriately shouldn't be an insurmountable problem.

Except that the posted speed limit only applies in ideal conditions. You can be driving below the posted speed limit yet still be ticketed for driving at an unsafe speed.

So the self-driving vehicle would, at all times, need to choose a reasonable and prudent speed that is equal to or less than the posted speed limit.

And I wonder how often the human behind the wheel will get impatient with the computer for driving so slowly and take the wheel, or how often a following motorist will get impatient and honk or whip around, or how often rear end collisions will occur as a result of following motorists driving too fast for conditions.

if you are making enough money to pay $250 a year in tax for a corporation, you should probably file for incorporation.

For those in California, LLCs pay a $70 fee for the paperwork and $800 minimum in annual taxes to the state.

if you are making enough money to pay $250 a year in tax for a corporation, you should probably file for incorporation.

For those in California, LLCs pay a $70 fee for the paperwork and $800 minimum in annual taxes to the state.

And then there's the MTC in the San Francisco Bay Area (funded through sales tax and bridge tolls among other sources) that purchased an entire building in downtown San Francisco and is renovating it to become offices for $170M. It's not clear why they couldn't stay in Oakland where office space is much cheaper than downtown San Francisco. Well, it is clear -- they have unlimited funding since residents are forced to fund them, if they need more money they can just raise tolls and/or taxes.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21418357/mtcs-san-francisco-office-building-purchase-bridge-tolls
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/MTC-project-may-cost-Bay-Area-drivers-more-3822760.php

When confronted with the fact that their purchase may not have been cost effective, the MTC rep said:

a San Mateo County supervisor who chairs the commission, insisted that the agency's goal was never to make money - or even necessarily to break even.
"We're not looking at it as investment per se," Tissier said. "We look at it as moving into your own home."

That's the problem with government agencies - what incentive do they have to spend money wisely?

Here is the summary:

"Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

Odd that it's not in the linked article. It seems strange to me that someone would write a piece about the ballot measure without actually summarizing what it says, or even *linking* to a summary.

A discussion of prop 37 can be found on ballotpedia and on the CA Secretary of State's voter information website. What should be clear is that much of what we're talking about here (e.g. labeling of accidentally contaminated crops, mandatory testing for genetic alterations) has no bearing on the actual proposal.

If you live in California, why do a class action lawsuit when you could just as easily sue them in Small Claims Court? Even if $499 (minus the small filing fee) for a half-days' work is not reward enough for you, at least do it for the fame and karma that Slashdot will bestow upon you for posting back your results on here.

(2) Baseball rolls out into street in residential area, followed soon by child who was initially invisible behind a parked minivan. I knew ball might be followed by someone, and slowed way down so this wasn't a problem. At normal speed, it would have been.

False. You are required by law to slow down when your visibility is limited. This is known as the "basic speed law."

This is the way to take it out to protect home lans.
However a trend I have noticed lately is where government now requires 1. Facebook. 2 Google 3 Twitter account to interact look at the bottom of the page here http://ca.gov/
I first noticed this on some live townhall event. If you were not one of the three you didn't get to interact. (which was a rotten joke anyway)
The templated responses from officials are well known as well. Where they ignore the body of your topic and email you their party bullet talking points.

This is nothing short of electronic warfare by government (Federal, State, Local) against the people.

Top rate in CA is 9.3% - https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2011_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemptions.shtml Federal rate is 35% - http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm Total is 44.3% Also note that effective tax rate is somewhat lower than that because the 9.3% bracket doesn't kick in until $48k ($96k married). The 35% doesn't kick in until $380k (regardless of status).

You omitted Medicaid (2.9%, uncapped) and SS ( 10.4% up to 110k). So, if the extra 11.44k makes up for the phasing in of the highest rate (not willing to do the math), the highest rate is actulally 47.2%. Which makes GP closer.

Also factor in unemployment/disability, and possible city taxes.

For someone living in California, the top tax bracket is 48.3% for salaried income.

Top rate in CA is 9.3% - https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2011_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemptions.shtml

Federal rate is 35% - http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Total is 44.3% Also note that effective tax rate is somewhat lower than that because the 9.3% bracket doesn't kick in until $48k ($96k married). The 35% doesn't kick in until $380k (regardless of status).

I would ask the California Utilities Commission. There may be a law that grants access to the meters that is different than the one in BC.
Counties have no authority over state institutes. The California Utilities Commission governs what the utilities can and can not do. That is to stop the creation of patchwork laws that govern utilities. A county can make any law it wants but if it a state matter then the county laws are unenforceable.

I have no idea if that $300K is true for other states. For CA, that's almost an order of magnitude away from the true amount..

From http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm#minliareq:

Types of financial responsibility
* A motor vehicle liability insurance policy
* A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV
* A DMV issued self-insurance certificate
* A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

GST wouldn't be included in those numbers as it is a percentage of the total, not on a per-gallon basis. Ref. http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/tax_rates_stfd.htm#9f.

That puts the total tax on gasoline at about $0.84 in California, and the delta to Alaska would be close to $0.50.

Relative to national averages though, I agree it is less than a $0.25-30 difference.

Not that I really give a shit... I ride my bike.

Exactly, the differential between CA gas prices is NOT because of extra taxes, it is the result of bill AB32's Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

AB32's LCFS mandates a special formulation which will change for the next few years, so refineries will be constantly having to change to accommodate this. There hasn't been any increase in refineries or production on the West coast as far as I know. Therefore, this is a reduction in supply, thus the increase in CA price over other states (such as AZ).

Back in another life when I worked in law-enforcement the correct term to use was "traffic collision." This is how you will see it reported on the California Highway Patrol incident page: http://cad.chp.ca.gov/

Bacteria love milk. Pasteurisation and refrigeration reduce the risk of contracting food-born illnesses. Recent documented outbreaks

more support

see here as well

and this

These are *descriptions* of the questions, ffs, not the questions themselves - it's a multiple choice test.

Go look at the questions on a sample test and tell me how unreasonable and unfair these questions are. They are simple math and science questions, and not exactly full of ambiguity.

On the Autobahn, it's perfectly safe to drive the speed limit while others whip around you at tremendous speeds. The reason is because slow moving vehicles stay to the right, and fast moving vehicles always pass on the left. Consistency is good for safety. So the moral of the story is, if you're going slower than the normal speed of traffic, stay in the right lane. In fact, it's the law in some places.

The problem is too many people try to do the speed limit and stick in the left lane for a variety of reasons - smoother road surfaces, they just feel like it, they want to limit traffic speed, etc. Sometimes it is necessary (right lane has too many pot holes); but most of the time it's for illegit reasons.

Sadly, states passing laws about sticking to the right lane unless passing are not helping much.

In fact, it would be highly dangerous to go 55mph. You'd get rear ended in no time not to mention road rage.

In the presence of lawbreakers like the ones you describe, driving is unsafe at any speed. But don't worry, getting rear ended with a closing speed of 15 mph (the difference between 55 and 70 mph) is much safer than a side impact collision or a head-on collision.

On the Autobahn, it's perfectly safe to drive the speed limit while others whip around you at tremendous speeds. The reason is because slow moving vehicles stay to the right, and fast moving vehicles always pass on the left. Consistency is good for safety. So the moral of the story is, if you're going slower than the normal speed of traffic, stay in the right lane. In fact, it's the law in some places.

Anyway, here's a few less-impressive but still revealing facts:

41% of public school students in California live in homes where the most frequently spoken language is not English. [1].doc

English fluency rate in the LA school district has risen from a mere 16% in 2001 to an unsatisfying 49% in 2005. [2]

This is a great idea, but may be difficult to put into practice. Here in California, then-gov. Schwarzenegger tried to do essentially what you're describing with the Free Digital Textbook Initiative. I was involved in that as an author. AFAICT, the FDTI was a complete failure. State senator Darrell Steinberg is trying to do something similar, but I don't know if it will work any better this time around: [1], [2]. I think there are a number of fundamental problems. One is that textbook selection in K-12 education in the US tends to be extremely bureaucratic and top-down, and it's virtually impossible to change that overnight, as Schwarzenegger tried to do. It's completely different from higher education, where the assumption is that professors can choose whatever text they like as a matter of academic freedom. My experience is with writing free physics textbooks. They're written for college students, but have also been adopted by a bunch of high schools. However, almost all of the high school adoptions have been from private schools, mainly Catholic schools.

There is also a huge financial incentive for the non-free textbook publishers to maintain their positions in the market. The really enthusiastic supporters were hardware manufacturers. For them it looked like a huge opportunity, because they thought they could sell a ton of computers to schools in order to give students access to the electronic books.

If no one receives 50%, the top two vote earners go into a runoff. This would allow voters to vote for a third party without fear that a vote for and independent would ensure that your last choice wins.

People make fun of California a lot, but California moved to a top two primary system, where the top two vote getters in a primary, regardless of party, move on to the general election.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/june-primary/pdf/new-open-primary-info.pdf

California does, by the "State Bureau of Electronics and Appliance Repair".

http://www.bearhfti.ca.gov/

There's even a license lookup site for the ever-growing list of professions that CA requires licensing for:
http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllquery$.startup

California does, by the "State Bureau of Electronics and Appliance Repair".

http://www.bearhfti.ca.gov/

There's even a license lookup site for the ever-growing list of professions that CA requires licensing for:
http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllquery$.startup

OK, what can we find out about ZionEyes? The site tells us who the CEO is Carlos Becerra. He's an attorney. He's licensed to practice in California. He's been licensed for a little more than a year, and went to Hastings, UC's law school.

Their business location is a hacker space/business incubator in Seattle. Tiny, but not unreasonable.

I'm not seeing major red flags. This may have ended up as a flop, but it doesn't look like an outright scam.

I meant to post the link as well, doh. From the CA Attorney General's office (is that official enough? ;)

http://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/refund_policies

Consumers have come to expect stores or catalog companies to offer a refund, credit or exchange when they return items. Sellers are not required by law to accept returned items unless they are defective. However, California law requires that retailers who have a policy of not providing a cash refund, credit or exchange when an item is returned with proof of purchase within 7 days of purchase must inform consumers about their refund policies by conspicuously placing a written notice about their policies, in language that consumers can understand, so that it can be easily seen and read.

As I said in the other comment, it doesn't have to be as-is (which is a separate statue) - as long as it's not defective when purchased they don't have to take it back...

> in the production of gasoline, almost as much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline as is made available from the refined gasoline itself.

I highly doubt that, Refining+distribution of gas = 17% of the total cost From what I see Electric transmission distribution costs to a home is at least $.13 /kwhr (based on electric production cost of $.03 to $10, and avg home cost $.20+ local line cost $.03.) While Fuel distribution cost to a gas station is $.25 per gallon [ca.gov] (1 gallon = 33 kwhr.) so gasoline costs $.0075 /kwhr to distribute.
If used for charging a electric car vs hybrid, add in the weight savings of gasoline over electric (more tire wear, more road wear/maintenance), storage costs, charger costs. The reduced transportation cost of fuel could easily pay off, even if efficiency at the car is 35% (especially if it is cold out, and you have a need for some of that combustion waste heat for warmth.)

>electricity generating facility has likely been used to produce the energy you are using in your automobile anyway
And what about ignoring the amount of fossil fuels used in mining, refining materials for building and maintaining power lines, building plants, transporting coal, etc, etc. If we start using electric for our cars, the electric infrastructure will likely have to be doubled or tripled, putting a big hit on fossil fuel used to get to that point.

No, "use taxes" happened after Internet purchases became widespread; the first one was created in the 1990s.

According to the California State Board of Equalization: "The use tax was enacted effective July 1, 1935." http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/taxrateshist.htm

No, "use taxes" happened after Internet purchases became widespread; the first one was created in the 1990s.

According to the California State Board of Equalization, "[t]he use tax was enacted effective July 1, 1935." http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/taxrateshist.htm