Slashdot Mirror

Comments like that are exactly why we keep getting the same crap over and over. Have you never looked at your state budget? Heck, the single largest line item for the California STATE budget is public education. The Federal Highway funds are a classic example of the Federal Government taking money from the states, and holding it hostage, only to be given back if the states relinquish control in other areas.

I'm not going to deny that I like my internet, pictures from Mars, GPS, and a wealth of other benefits the Feds have supplied us, but to claim that the states will stop offering services that they currently offer if the feds stop taking money from them to run their own program, show a complete misunderstanding of where resources come from, and complete support for our current Federal corruption.

Citations for my state:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/
http://www.dot.ca.gov/

Comments like that are exactly why we keep getting the same crap over and over. Have you never looked at your state budget? Heck, the single largest line item for the California STATE budget is public education. The Federal Highway funds are a classic example of the Federal Government taking money from the states, and holding it hostage, only to be given back if the states relinquish control in other areas.

I'm not going to deny that I like my internet, pictures from Mars, GPS, and a wealth of other benefits the Feds have supplied us, but to claim that the states will stop offering services that they currently offer if the feds stop taking money from them to run their own program, show a complete misunderstanding of where resources come from, and complete support for our current Federal corruption.

Citations for my state:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/
http://www.dot.ca.gov/

Comments like that are exactly why we keep getting the same crap over and over. Have you never looked at your state budget? Heck, the single largest line item for the California STATE budget is public education. The Federal Highway funds are a classic example of the Federal Government taking money from the states, and holding it hostage, only to be given back if the states relinquish control in other areas.

I'm not going to deny that I like my internet, pictures from Mars, GPS, and a wealth of other benefits the Feds have supplied us, but to claim that the states will stop offering services that they currently offer if the feds stop taking money from them to run their own program, show a complete misunderstanding of where resources come from, and complete support for our current Federal corruption.

Citations for my state:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/
http://www.dot.ca.gov/

Comments like that are exactly why we keep getting the same crap over and over. Have you never looked at your state budget? Heck, the single largest line item for the California STATE budget is public education. The Federal Highway funds are a classic example of the Federal Government taking money from the states, and holding it hostage, only to be given back if the states relinquish control in other areas.

I'm not going to deny that I like my internet, pictures from Mars, GPS, and a wealth of other benefits the Feds have supplied us, but to claim that the states will stop offering services that they currently offer if the feds stop taking money from them to run their own program, show a complete misunderstanding of where resources come from, and complete support for our current Federal corruption.

Citations for my state:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/
http://www.dot.ca.gov/

Comments like that are exactly why we keep getting the same crap over and over. Have you never looked at your state budget? Heck, the single largest line item for the California STATE budget is public education. The Federal Highway funds are a classic example of the Federal Government taking money from the states, and holding it hostage, only to be given back if the states relinquish control in other areas.

I'm not going to deny that I like my internet, pictures from Mars, GPS, and a wealth of other benefits the Feds have supplied us, but to claim that the states will stop offering services that they currently offer if the feds stop taking money from them to run their own program, show a complete misunderstanding of where resources come from, and complete support for our current Federal corruption.

Citations for my state:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/
http://www.dot.ca.gov/

The search warrant was illegal. It had been procured under false pretenses and so it was no search warrant. The act was a "break in" even if the individual officers may not be able to be found culpable for it.

What are you basing this conclusion on other than the assumptions and the misinformation written in both of those articles? What California or federal court has stated that the search warrant was illegal? Where has the DA "admitted" that the search warrant was issued under "false pretenses"?

Under what "false pretenses" was the search warrant supposedly "procured", or issued?

The search warrant was for the recovery of Apple's stolen property (the iPhone prototype). The prototype was originally lost property, but became stolen property when the individual who discovered it sold it to Gizmodo for several thousand dollars. The seller and Gizmodo agreed on such an outrageous price because they both knew the phone to be authentic and understood its value as an un-announced iPhone prototype.

That knowledge and transaction is what made this a crime involving stolen property. Being the home of silicon valley, California takes its trade secrets laws (of which there are many) very seriously. There are criminal penalties for stealing, misappropriating, and publishing trade secrets:

Cal. Penal Code ÂÂ 499c, 502
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9

Steve Jobs personally requested that Gizmodo return the iPhone prototype. Gizmodo refused and attempted to extort an official press statement or exclusive interview out of Jobs instead as a "condition" of the iPhone's return. That is extortion.

Correspondence between Jobs and Gizmodo, five Gizmodo front page articles about the iPhone prototype, editor Jason Chen's videos handling and dissecting the iPhone prototype, as well as police interviews with the seller of the iPhone prototype, were all more than what was needed to meet probable cause and issue a warrant on Chen's residence to recover the phone and collect evidence.

What evidence do either of these article authors have that the warrant was illegal?

I've yet to see any.

Just because one thing is true does not mean that another is not true. In this case the DA suddenly realised that he had broken the law (or less charitably, realised he had been caught breaking the law)

If either of these article authors are going to insist that the DA acted a certain way because he "knew he had broken the law", then why can't they meet their burden of proof and produce a single statement by the DA, or any US court, intimating as much?

and, correctly, attempted to minimise the damage this would do by also petitioning to withdraw the search warrant.

The DA's Office signed an order withdrawing the search warrant because they had already collected all of the evidence that they, or Apple, would need in any subsequent legal proceedings against editor Jason Chen and/or Gizmodo (Gawker Media). The DA's withdrew the search warrant and returned Chen's property to him under the following conditions:

Further, the parties involved shall waive all authenticity and foundational objection in any future proceedings regarding any documents found or discovered between the parties. The images returned to counsel shall remain sealed and in the possession of counsel until such time as necessary, or upon application to the Court with due notice to all of the parties involved.

If the search warrant was "illegal", then why did neither the court, nor Jason Chen's counsel have anything to say about the evidence that the DA's office collected and documented for any future legal proceeding -- civil or criminal?

There are terrific similarities between the two groups. They are both angry about the bank bailouts, but one focuses its rage on the government for providing the bailout and the other focuses its rage on Wall Street for taking it. In fact, the biggest difference between the two may be their demographic: Tea Party is mostly older and OWS mostly younger, making this a conflict of generations rather than classes. The problem is the manipulators are hard at work keeping people from finding any common ground by demonizing the other side instead of addressing their grievances.

The Tea Party got this treatment from the Huffington Post, who focused on the most racist signs from the protesters. Now we're seeing the same thing, with Andrew "we have the guns" Breitbart's photographer blatantly staging a photo of a protester supposedly defecating on a police car. Brietbart's previous credits include videos edited to make USDA employee Shirley Sherrod look like a racist and ACORN employees look like they were giving tax evasion advice on running child prostitution rings.

I sympathized with the early Tea Party. Now I sympathize with these protesters, and this constant demonization of them is so heartbreaking. For the first time in my life I'm confronting these people on Facebook, forcing them to support their statements with references or showing them how they are being manipulated (90% of the time by a story I can trace back to Breitbart). For a week they fought back, but then they toned down their attacks... Unfortunately, watching the new Facebook Ticker, I can see that they have merely taken their hatred to where they think I can't see it. Wonderful social experiment that new Facebook Ticker, see what you're "Friends" are saying about you behind your back and there's no way to turn it off.

All we can do is try to get people to see the human beings behind the villainous caricatures. When they try to connect the movement to the "sinister machinations of George Soros," I point out that Soros is a prolific philanthropist and humanitarian. When they call the protesters scum, slackers, and anarchists, I point them to the We are the 99% blog and ask them to justify their position with references from that site.

People in the Tea Party should be doing the same thing, putting a human face on their movement. We should be finding common ground. Keeping us fighting each other is exactly what the powers that be need to prevent any significant change.

Actually it's two terms total since November 6, 1990. So he is NOT term limited because both of his prior terms were before that. I was originally thinking it was 1980 and his second term counted, but I was wrong. However there is nothing in the qualifications about them being "consecutive".

Well gosh, I guess I can do your research for you. I'm a bit busy, but you can start here:

http://www.privacy.ca.gov/privacy_laws.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm

http://www.law.state.ak.us/department/civil/consumer/4548.html

http://government.dc.gov/DC/Government/Data+&+Transparency/Consumer+Protection/Consumer+Information+101/Consumer+Personal+Information+Security+Breach+Notification+Act

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/30_14_17.htm

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1349.19

http://www.cdt.org/privacy/guide/protect/laws.php

Telecommunications Act (1996) Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI)

Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003

Shall I keep going? or are you prepared to admit that in this very same universe that we share, here in America, there are in fact laws governing the use, protection, and sharing of personal information? The laws aren't what I personally want them to be, but they exist, and the whole point of what I was saying is that the current hands-off free-market approach is BAD, and would be LESS BAD if there were MORE LAWS in this area -- a point which survives your assertion that the laws don't exist. Actually I don't have time to keep looking things up for you, so if you aren't prepared to admit it, then your denial will have to be the end of the discussion.

My final point, as a question to you, would be why would Borders even have a contract, if the contract didn't expand its rights beyond the legal defaults? Why would it bother to pay a lawyer to make up such a contract? Why would it bother to present the contract to consumers? If there were no laws governing it, and they could do whatever they want, then they would, no contract required. It doesn't even make sense that they would tie their own hands with their own contract, resulting in a lesser ability for them to do what they want to do.

Grid-tie solar systems aren't going to be counted in those numbers (PG&E only meters the net, they don't collect statistics on how large a chunk the solar takes out of it). Only solar power plants were counted in those statistics.

Still, grid-tie systems probably do not reduce total system demand by a whole lot. From my read we have ~252MW of residential solar installed and ~356MW non-residential, which comes to around ~600MW. It's unclear whether the non-residential is just counting commercial retain installations or whether it is also counting solar power stations but I think it's just commercial retail (the number would be too low if it counted both). And, of course, that's just peak generation.

http://californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/reports/agency_stats/

The wind numbers are quite impressive. There are some excellent wind corridors in CA.

-Matt

For comparison, for the crime of assault, California state law allows a penalty of up to $1000 for ordinary assault, or up to $10000 for assault on a police officer with injury resulting.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=240-248

http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi?LETTER=Y&LIST=COUNTY

Look at the link above for Yolo County California, and in particular the Davis, CA entry. Now lets consider 3 addresses:

617 2nd Street, Davis, CA 95616

1 Shield Avenue, Davis, CA 95616

1204 Landra Avenue, Davis, CA 95616

If you are Amazon.com what sales tax do you charge to send to each of these addresses? Well, the first is the address of one of Amazon.com's competitors, The Avid Reader. It charges 7.75% sending 7.25% to the state and 0.50% to the city of Davis. The Avid reader need only know about the tax laws in the location it has a store. The second location is in the city limits, but is the address for the residents halls at UC Davis. As you will note in the link, the University of California is exempt from local sales tax. The same book bought at the campus bookstore, or shipped to the residents halls should be charged 7.25% tax. The campus book store knows this but does an online retailer? Then there is the final address. It is in the same Zip Code as the city of Davis, and in fact uses the Davis post office, but it also should be charged 7.25% because it is actually just outside the city limits in unincorporated Yolo County.

This is a City listing at one point in time. On October 1 tax rate will change in some places and there are literally 1000s of different sales tax zones. A brick and mortar store need only know about one but an online retailer would have to keep up with all of them, in every state!. As you can see in the example above, you cannot go by city or Zip Code. Each address needs to be tagged with its correct zone.

As anyone can see, to compare a 7-11 to a major on-line retailer is just absurd.

An unsolicited finger in the anus, while crude, is not criminal.

Its usually criminal, though usually as some other form of sexual assault and not rape, per se.

To use the law of one particular jurisdiction as an example, see Section 289 of the California Penal Code.

http://www.borsaitaliana.it/borsa/notizie/mf-dow-jones/internazionali-dettaglio.html?newsId=893539&lang=en

In short, solar manufacturers around the world are taking a hit due to an oversupply of panels. America actually exports more solar technology than it imports, to a tune of $2 billion a year (study funded by solar industry so take it with a grain of salt).

A lot of the discussion around here seems to focus on individuals purchasing solar panels. That thinking is too small. The real solar projects in America are happening on larger scales with companies like Southern California Edison, PG&E and other utilities. They are bringing hundreds of megawatts online every year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

In another article I read recently, solar companies struggling to survive are integrating vertically and offering consulting and design services on larger projects. The margins are too slim on the manufacturing side.

From the article,

"While solar-panel manufacturing is likely to continue migrating to China and other Asian countries, U.S. companies do supply many of the Chinese manufacturing giants. U.S.-based MEMC Electronic Materials Inc. (WFR) and Hemlock Semiconductor supply the raw silicon needed to make solar wafers, while Applied Materials Inc. (AMAT) makes solar-product manufacturing equipment. "

We have a couple of years until these Chinese manage to reverse engineer the equipment that Applied Materials is selling them.

Once again it comes down to the labor advantage that the Chinese have. American companies are making the equipment that the Chinese are using to crank out the product. They are able to produce the product for less because they have lower overhead and can pay their people less.

In the end, are we really losing here? We develop the technology. The Chinese make it for us for less than we would have to spend to make it ourselves. We buy it from them and then use it in projects designed by Americans and built by American companies. I'm pretty sure that these projects were not built by Chinese contractors.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

On the other hand, we are getting screwed on the R&D front.

http://blog.appliedmaterials.com/worlds-most-advanced-solar-rd-center

And it depends on the prevailing speed, not the speed limit. Speed limits are supposed to be set at the 85th percentile, i.e. a properly-set speed limit will be exceeded by 15% of the traffic.

The 85th percentile rule is a bad way to set speed limits, because 93% of Americans think they are better than average drivers. Why should we allow people with poor judgement to set speed limits?

It would be equally dangerous if they were puttering along at 40 MPH on a downhill slope where the traffic coming from behind them doing 70 MPH couldn't see them until cresting the hill, which isn't a merge at all.

In your scenario, the traffic going 70 mph despite a limited line of sight is breaking the Basic Speed Law, just as if they were driving the speed limit on a foggy or icy day.

Therefore, in the absence of lawbreakers, driving well below the speed limit is just as safe as driving the speed limit.

People travelling above or below the speed limit +/- 10% ish are the ones who cause traffic jams and accidents.

Absolutely false! Driving below the speed limit is perfectly safe and legal. Otherwise, it would be illegal to drive farm equipment on public roads.

What isn't safe is tailgating, which is "driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible."

That's right. It isn't the people who legally drive under the speed limit who are dangerous, but the ones who illegally tailgate and plow into them.

It was a ballot initiative, but I wonder how many voters knew what they were voting on.

I skimmed the beginning of the initiative just now and you have to get to the third page of it -- section 296(a)(2) -- to see that it applies to arrests. The "Findings and Declarations of Purpose" section at the beginning keeps talking about how it's to protect the innocent. Once you actually get to the body of the proposition, it's really easy to see "section 296" referenced earlier in the text, skip over to page 137, see that 296(a)(1) applies to convictions, and there's a whole ton of stuff crossed out below that, and completely miss the second column that says it applies to arrests as well. (I knew what to look for and I missed it the first time!) There's no indentation or other visible structure so it takes a bit of work just to know what section you're in.

The whole thing is over 15,000 words, so reading at 250 words per minute, it would take an average person over an hour just to read it entirely. There were 15 other propositions on the ballot at the time, and not all of them were as long as Proposition 69, but I really doubt the average voter spent even a few hours reading these.

Also: the law, read it. For instance, in California contracts with your employer governing IP ownership are subject to California Labor Code Section 2870-2872. That law limits the claims to ownership such a contract can make, and makes any such contract void to the extent that it purports to reach beyond what the law allows. I make it a point to amend any IP agreements to mention that any claims they make are limited to what's allowed by that section of the labor code, it's not necessary but it makes it completely clear that they and I understand the rules that apply. Given the breadth of claims in the standard contracts, if you work in California then any claims are more likely governed by the law rather than the contract.

Please at least post a link to backup that claim. Here's my link showing the education spending by % of GDP. As of today(24.7.2011), the United States are #37. Maybe the annual total of U.S education spending is more, but you also have what ~300M people.

And I think at least Californian students would disagree with your claim that

Spending is NOT the issue.

after the major budget cuts.

In closing I would claim spending might not be the only issue for education in the U.S, but it is high up there with the education system being a mess itself. Fear not America ! You are not alone with your crappy educational system !

Capacity factors I found online for wave power put it at 30%-45% with a suggestion that 35% was a good average. That is, if the unit is rated at 800 kW peak, you can expect it to produce 280 kW averaged over the entire year.

Onshore wind farms have a 20%-25% capacity factor. Offshore wind seems to have a 30%-40% capacity factor, with turbines in the 1 - 4 MW range. So this wave power unit will on average generate slightly less energy than one of the smaller offshore wind turbines. In the KE = 0.5mv^2 equation, water has about 800x more mass than air, but the average wind speed is a lot higher than the average speed of the waveheight up and down. Enough so that it seems wind ends up having the advantage. (This is just a comparison, not a trade-off. You could for example install these wave power machines in between your offshore wind turbines.)

Comparing to conventional energy sources, the typical coal plant in the U.S. is about 340 MW with a 65% capacity factor, for about 220 MW average generation. So that's about 800 of these wave energy generators. The typical nuclear plant is about 1.55 GW with a 90% capacity factor, for about 1.4 GW average generation, or about 5000 of these wave energy generators. So we've still got a long way to go before these can truly replace conventional energy sources.

Unfortunately I can't find the price for one of these units, probably since they're still very much in the R&D phase. So I can't do a cost comparison. Also note that the Wikipedia entry for this project says it has three flaps each of which is capable of 800 kW. So depending on if the summary or wikipedia is right, the average power generated may be a factor of 3 higher.

In my area, the problem is more cyclists who hop two-lane roads with 45mph speed limits and take up the lane going 10mph.

That's perfectly legal in certain situations. For example, if there's no traffic, or if the lane is a "substandard width lane."

I'm all for treating cyclists equally, and if a car got decided to consume the only lane with no intention of going even a quarter the speed of the flow of traffic, then I would be justified in honking at them.

In what state is it legal to honk at someone just because they inconvenienced you? Not in California.

In my area, the problem is more cyclists who hop two-lane roads with 45mph speed limits and take up the lane going 10mph.

That's perfectly legal in certain situations. For example, if there's no traffic, or if the lane is a "substandard width lane."

I'm all for treating cyclists equally, and if a car got decided to consume the only lane with no intention of going even a quarter the speed of the flow of traffic, then I would be justified in honking at them.

In what state is it legal to honk at someone just because they inconvenienced you? Not in California.

Cyclists are supposed to be riding on the shoulder and if traffic is slow enough for them to be passing you, well you're in a traffic jam and they do not have to pull out into traffic to get around you.

There is no such law that says cyclists should ride on the shoulder. Maybe you mean the bike lane?

Even then, there are some good and legal reasons to venture out of the bike lane, such as when the bike lane is full of debris, or when preparing to make a left turn, or to avoid being on the right side of right-turning traffic. And the requirement to ride in the bike lane only applies as long as the bicyclist is traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic.

Cyclists are supposed to be riding on the shoulder and if traffic is slow enough for them to be passing you, well you're in a traffic jam and they do not have to pull out into traffic to get around you.

There is no such law that says cyclists should ride on the shoulder. Maybe you mean the bike lane?

Even then, there are some good and legal reasons to venture out of the bike lane, such as when the bike lane is full of debris, or when preparing to make a left turn, or to avoid being on the right side of right-turning traffic. And the requirement to ride in the bike lane only applies as long as the bicyclist is traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic.

Not really. A national chain has to keep track of the rates just where their stores are located. An online seller would have to keep track of it for each jurisdiction with a sales tax and match customers to the jurisdictions: a chain with 200 stores would need to keep track of, at most 200 rates, most likely far fewer. Here's the list of special tax districts just in California, some of which overlap: http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/pdf/districtratelist.pdf There are at least 117 just for California.

Yep and in fact Amazon has even publicly stated that they believe a national system is the reasonable way to go.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/members/runner/newsreleases/Amazon_Letter_to_Senator_Runner.pdf

In particular near the end:

"A national resolution, involving tax simplification evenhandedly applied, is the legally-permissible path for states to follow."

And here is the raw data where there is a column showing gadget use: http://iswitrs.chp.ca.gov/Reports/jsp/RawData.jsp (You need to register) You will find it nowhere near 25%.

These statistics are completely false. Anyone can download California's statistics right here: http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/ Notice they care about alcohol drugs as a special category despite being responsible for less than 10% of accidents, but not gadgets because they are even less than that.

>>As opposed to nuclear and it's ability to operate in the free economic market without government handouts, protections and subsidies? Ah, I get it. Or, rather not.

Nuclear has the lowest subsidy rate of any green technology. NIMBY protection isn't exactly a subsidy, either.

For solar, wind, biofuel, etc., the subsidy rates are much much higher. You can find out the subsidy rates for each type of power plant in California here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/

Hell, if you count all the money we've put into "clean coal", then in just pure dollars coal probably comes out on top, though I'd have to look at the actual numbers.

Nope, the lion's share of the money that was made in the Gold Rush was made by the merchants. Here's an example of the prices for some staples along with how much the average gold panner/miner brought in per day.

The US, all 50 states and territories are broke. Don't expect to get away tax free for long. My own company had to start paying local sales tax in all states on internet sales. Well we didn't have to _yet_. However some states are suing companies retroactively for taxes so we are paying to cover our collective ass. It's an accounting nightmare. In California alone there are over 100 different local county tax rates. You need to check each sale by address to determine the sales tax. http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub71.pdf for the list from California.

How is a statistic that takes the entire time period from '81-'05 relevant? Give me something that shows just the last decade please, you know the decade where California ended up owing 78 Billion (at last count) http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/bonds/debt/201008/authorized.pdf (Prior to 2003 California only owed ~23 Bil)

There are lots of excellent alternatives to fossil fuels coming down the pike: solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, fuel cells. I like the idea of solar cells on every rooftop, with hydrogen fuel cells in the basement to capture the surplus daytime power and recharge the electric cars overnight. I also like the idea of a windmill at every major intersection, to power a square mile or so of residences and businesses.

They're building a big solar thermal power plant in the Mojave desert, to accompany several others already up and running. Arizona's building a big one as well.

Solar photovoltaic technology is advancing, both in efficiency and in cheaper manufacturing costs. I think ultimately solar will provide 20-25% of people's electric needs.

And transportation is going to be electric, as batteries improve. Hybrid car sales are huge, and every manufacturer is getting into the act. They're somewhat expensive today, but economies of scale and improvements in the tech will only bring down costs and increase profits. Probably in 20 years every car on the road will be either a hybrid or fully electric.

What'll be interesting will be to see just how much impact this eventual shift away from combustible carbon fuels has on the climate. The scientific community largely agrees that humans have caused global warming, but what happens if we stop being the cause and it still gets warmer? All that carbon we've already produced is to blame? Or is it a few major volcanoes in the past century? Or climate shifts that have little to do with human activities? Should be an interesting 88 years coming up; wish I could be around to see it happen. But my daughter will, I hope.

I only need two premises.

1. The First Amendment applies to state laws.
This is based on establishment clause in the 14th amendment. Specifically the text: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The supreme court has ruled that this amendment extends the protections in the First Amendment to state laws.

2. State laws are used to enforce civil contracts.
You can look this up for your state if you don't believe me. In California where I live civil contracts are enforced by the California Civil Code. This is a collection of laws that was passed by the state legislature.

The only logic I need to use that since the First Amendment applies to state laws and state laws are used to enforce contracts then a contract that violates the First Amendment cannot be enforced by the state.

This wouldn't automatically invalidate all NDA's because the Supreme Court has ruled that trade secrets are not protected by the First Amendment. It does mean that a person can't put any conditions they want into a contract and expect the government to help them enforce it.

My argument is that the Judiciaries's power to enforce civil contracts is based on state laws and is therefore subject to the First Amendment.

For example any civil contract I agree to is enforced by the California Civil Code. This is a collection of laws that were passed by the legislative branch of the California state government, therefore they are subject to the First Amendment.

Citation needed.

Gas taxes and fees and what not might fund road *maintenance* on their own but they don't pay for road *construction* and major repairs.

I'm mostly familiar with my own state (California). Your mileage may vary.

Maintenance is only 33% of our budget, with 47% going toward "Rehab, Construction, and Lighting".

You can read more here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/osp/ctp2025_files/ctp07.pdf

Your example, the "Coke recipe", is the textbook definition of trade secret. Stealing a trade secret in some places is a felony (California, for example, which is why the Gizmodo editors shit their pants when APple involved the police over the iPhone 4 prototype), due to the magnitude of economic harm. However, it's not a copyright issue. It's a separate body of intellectual property law.

In the case of a trade secret, once it's revealed, it's no longer a trade secret. The original holder of the trade secret can go after the person who revealed it, very strongly, but unless there is something else involved (copyright, contract, trademark, patent), others could exploit that info. A recipe, unless covered in some way by a patent, would be usable by anyone. So if Coke's recipe were made public, the persons responsible would be pauperized and sent to jail, but others could make that recipe. They just couldn't call it "Coke" or use Coke's trademarks, visual designs for packaging, etc.

Just because it is not widely reported does not mean it doesn't happen.

Solar kills too, see bottom of the page: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ohb/Pages/New.aspx

And don't give me the crap that is not "solar thermal". Fact is that accidents happen and people may die as a result. Now gtfo.

>>While I'm not going to enjoy paying the CA sales tax it will at least narrow the gap that makes it so hard for brick and mortar shops to compete

Hey, guess what? If you buy a $2000 TV on Amazon, you owe CA sales tax anyway. It's called Use Tax, because you bought it out of state but used it in California.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/sutprograms.htm

The state hasn't been enforcing it for individuals, but it has been on the books since the 1930s. But they've been stepping up enforcement for corporations, so I assume personal Use Tax will be next.

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/

There is a bill before the California state legislature right now that would make it a crime to offer, in a public location, to sell a dog or cat. (No actual animal need be present.) "Hey Joe," you tell your huntin' buddy as you walk from the parking lot into the bar, "my dog had pups. Still want to buy one?" Under this bill, you've just committed a crime. The penalty? Up to $20,000 fine and one year in jail.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_917_bill_20110218_introduced.html

Where is the outcry over this absurdity?

I have said this before, but it will bear repetition:

Your state or county registry of sexual offenders is easily accessible online.

It will be in no way pleasant - but an hour spent there will erase every fantasy the geek holds dear about who makes these lists and why.

Okay, I believe in giving people with different views a fair shake; so I took your advice and checked out my local witch list. The vast majority of offenders on there look like homeless street people. There are a few real forcible rapists, including a handful of kidnapper-rapists. There are also a good number of kiddie porn enthusiasts and sexters. But by far the most common offences are "Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years" or "Annoy/Molest Children". Neither one sounds very nice - but both of them sound really, really broad. Also worth noting that quite a few people are on the list for "Oral Copulation".

So can I collect on your guarantee? Maybe your local witch list includes a lot more detail; but I can confirm that reading mine didn't particularly sicken, nor even surprise, me. Pretty much what I expected - a motley collection that tosses "lewd" acts in the same class as violent kidnapping & rape.

Employee salaries and benefits only make up about 10% of the state budget ($7B salaries + $3.4B benefits) (p.177). This can hardly be blamed for the budget woes of California. Much more serious are Prop 13 and 2/3 majority needed for the state senate to pass any tax increases.

Unfortunately, the current budget does not account for deferred pension obligations. Those could amount to an order of magnitude more. Think about an additional $25 billion per year.

The public doesn't want to pay taxes to fund 6-figure public sector salaries and pensions, and the people making that pay decide to cut libraries and schools instead of their own pay

That maybe true, but the public is grossly misinformed if they think there are many public sector workers making those kinds of salaries. The average salary of a local public library librarian was $47,940 in 2008, for example. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos068.htm

Lgw's point that "the people making that pay" (i.e. - 6-figure salaries) in California are the ones making decisions to cut libraries is only somewhat correct. Those decisions about library funding are typically made at the City Council and County Supervisor level. In a handful of big cities, councilors can make 6 figures, but the vast majority of City Council members make far less than that. Members of the Board of Supervisors of populous counties do make 6 figures, but there are counties (Mariposa, where I used to live, springs to mind) where the position of Supervisor is a part-time one, and it pays quite modestly.

Employee salaries and benefits only make up about 10% of the state budget ($7B salaries + $3.4B benefits) (p.177). This can hardly be blamed for the budget woes of California. Much more serious are Prop 13 and 2/3 majority needed for the state senate to pass any tax increases.

And even Prop 13 and the supermajority required under California's constitution aren't the worst contributors to the state's current financial quagmire. The worst and most intractable malefactor is California's staggering bonded indebtedness. Decade after decade, California voters have endorsed one multi-billion-dollar bond issue after another, all payable from general tax receipts. When times were good, the state could more-or-less easily afford these obligations. However, when the economy nosedived, that debt remained - and the vast majority of bond issues are payable over the course of decades, so those payments won't be going away any time soon. And the U.S. Constitution forbids states to go bankrupt, so the money to pay those bond obligations - as well as to pay all the other core costs of running the state HAS to come from somewhere. Public employee pension funds are just a convenient piggy bank for lawmakers to raid for the money. Politics being politics, however, it's necessary for those who are eyeing the pension funds to demonize those whose property they are (i.e. - the public sector employees) in order to build support for raiding their pensions and stiffing them on their retirement income.

Thus Wisconsin, and the infinitely regrettable Scott Walker - and the same war drums are now beating in California: the real enemies of the citizenry are the arrogant, greedy bastards who teach our children, sweep our streets, patrol our neighborhoods, and fight our fires. Them and their high-falutin' middle-class lifestyles ...

...if they were willful, intentional, or reckless, and if they weren't, they still owe you $500 if you ask them to disclose to you any personal information disclosures and they don't. In either case, this only applies if you're Californian.

The relevant law is CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1798.80-1798.84 which you can find here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1798.80-1798.84
(1798.83 and 1798.84 are the most relevant.)

I'm currently (still!) suing TD Ameritrade for covering it up when they were hacked and the names, addresses, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, etc, of 6.4 MILLION customers were compromised. (See amtd.elvey.com.) ...
      (b) Any customer injured by a violation of this title may
institute a civil action to recover damages.
      (c) In addition, for a willful, intentional, or reckless violation
of Section 1798.83, a customer may recover a civil penalty not to
exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000) per violation; otherwise, the
customer may recover a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars
($500) per violation for a violation of Section 1798.83.. ...and you can file for an injunction to force them to disclose.

The public doesn't want to pay taxes to fund 6-figure public sector salaries and pensions, and the people making that pay decide to cut libraries and schools instead of their own pay

That maybe true, but the public is grossly misinformed if they think there are many public sector workers making those kinds of salaries. The average salary of a local public library librarian was $47,940 in 2008, for example. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos068.htm

(shocking, I know - but to give some excuse, at the state level the constitution requires pensions be funded first), and the public is outraged.

And why shouldn't pensions be funded first? They are nothing more than deferred payment of a worker's salary. Not paying a paying the pension is basically saying "We'll give you $100, $80 now and $20 later, to do x amount of work." Then after the work is done only paying them $80. I can't imagine any other scenario where that would be fair or legal.

Cali is doomed anyhow - we may be the pioneer of state bankruptcy before much longer here, and many local governments are in crisis already (as the state's ability to bail out local governments is quite limited), and things like keeping the streeghlights on, the roads patches, and the trees clear of the power lines are fading before the all-consuming pension costs.

Employee salaries and benefits only make up about 10% of the state budget ($7B salaries + $3.4B benefits) (p.177). This can hardly be blamed for the budget woes of California. Much more serious are Prop 13 and 2/3 majority needed for the state senate to pass any tax increases.

In principle, you're right. There are both legal (HIPAA) and ethical concerns involved in releasing medical patient records. An earlier version of this article stated that Heritage Health Care was already aware of the privacy issues, and was trying to minimize potential risk by performing anonymization. As we've seen in the past with other competition such as the Netflix Challenge, anonymization schemes don't always work. On the other hand, there's already a precedent for releasing anonymized medical data into the public domain.

Also, on your own link, the data is far closer to what I sourced than what you said was in that link.

http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

These details matter because its the difference between the cost I projected and the cost you projected. One thing we've learned is that the truth is closer to what I said rather than your 'trillions' assumption, and that not all solar energy fields are equal -- some are of more efficient design.

Could you please show a direct link to where you came up with 560M MwH? I looked on your source and found 296,827 GwH (52%).

few numbers you got wrong or neglected.

1. The energy consumption is off by a factor of 2. According to the ECDMS http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ total electrical consumption in 1009 was 560 million Mwh.
2. Solar plants to not generate peek power 24/7. There are days, especially winter when the sun is low on the horizon that you will get less energy. Stormy days also cut power production.
3. The 7 acre number is the mirror size. Look at the Rice Solar energy Power project http://ricesolarenergy.com/project_overview.html. It will produce 150Mw and take up 1,500 acres. Scales to 5 Mw that would be 50 acres.
4. You don't factor interest into the costs of building.
5 Cost $750M-$850M for the Rice Project. Scaled would be $25M to $28

So run the numbers again.
560,000,000 Mwh/24/365 = 12785 plants
50 acres per plant = 639,250acres
28 million per plant = $358B= 9609
37,253,956 = $9,609/resident
Amortized over 10 years with a 5% interest rate = $1224/year.
Remember that is just the cost of the plant and not the total cost of running it.
So for a family of three that would cost $3600/year to build these plants.

If you factor in redundancy for low sun days it may even be twice those figures. All my figures are cited or just math. Where are your citations?

K-12 education does not take up 55% to 65% of the CA state budget, but it does make up almost a third of it.

Of the $127 Million budget, $48 million is earmarked for education and $37.5 million of it is set for K-12.

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/agencies.html

So, while the OP is wrong in his numbers, and that should be called out, he is not wrong in his general point that the public school system has plenty of money.

Public education is the single largest line item in the states budget.

Yes, because we don't have *any* nuclear power plants in earthquake prone territory in America. We're way smarter than that.