Slashdot Mirror

What you are linking to is *NOT* the law.

Moron. I gave you 4 links. The first link was to the online dmv handbook. The next 3 links were to the actual vehicle code. Its that simple. It really is. Read the fucking posts.

The law is the vehicle code.

Duh. That is why I provided both.

That is not in the handbook you dumb lump.

3rd and last time. I know. You're the only one that even suggested such.

What you are linking to is *NOT* law

Wrong. Again. The first link I provided:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm
Is to the DMV Handbook (which, again, is not the law).
After you said "but the courts go by the law", I provided the next three links:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22526.htm
And You can confirm all of this by just reading the entire thread, which I already summarized and linked for you in my last response.

Notice how they are *NOT* the same?

My god you're dumb. Your mom help you figure that one out?

They may *SOUND* similar, but one is backed by the legislation and courts of California (with the associated court ruling precedents and the other is simple laymans language.

Think so? Huh, oh ya, I said the same thing in my 2nd post.

What a stupid, dense, obtuse, witless fuck! You may THINK "A = a" because, well... they SOUND alike, but they ARE different.

I'll just ignore your morning mirror pep talk. You must have accidentally posted it.

Go back and read *MY* first post, nimrod. Tell me how I'm wrong. Show me where the *LAW* appears in the handbook.

I never said your first post was wrong. Never. I simply corroborated my original statement that the AC is wrong and that CA law is the same as Florida's as posted by NormalVisual. I did so by providing links to the actual CA vehicle code, which was summarized in my original link to the DMV handbook.

It doesnt.

Round the mulberry bush we go.

But I could be wrong.

You are. Again. Read the entire fucking vehicle code if you like. Please quote the section that says "If you are in an intersection when it turns red, you have violated the law."

You won't find it, it's not there.

What you are linking to is *NOT* the law.

Moron. I gave you 4 links. The first link was to the online dmv handbook. The next 3 links were to the actual vehicle code. Its that simple. It really is. Read the fucking posts.

The law is the vehicle code.

Duh. That is why I provided both.

That is not in the handbook you dumb lump.

3rd and last time. I know. You're the only one that even suggested such.

What you are linking to is *NOT* law

Wrong. Again. The first link I provided:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm
Is to the DMV Handbook (which, again, is not the law).
After you said "but the courts go by the law", I provided the next three links:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22526.htm
And You can confirm all of this by just reading the entire thread, which I already summarized and linked for you in my last response.

Notice how they are *NOT* the same?

My god you're dumb. Your mom help you figure that one out?

They may *SOUND* similar, but one is backed by the legislation and courts of California (with the associated court ruling precedents and the other is simple laymans language.

Think so? Huh, oh ya, I said the same thing in my 2nd post.

What a stupid, dense, obtuse, witless fuck! You may THINK "A = a" because, well... they SOUND alike, but they ARE different.

I'll just ignore your morning mirror pep talk. You must have accidentally posted it.

Go back and read *MY* first post, nimrod. Tell me how I'm wrong. Show me where the *LAW* appears in the handbook.

I never said your first post was wrong. Never. I simply corroborated my original statement that the AC is wrong and that CA law is the same as Florida's as posted by NormalVisual. I did so by providing links to the actual CA vehicle code, which was summarized in my original link to the DMV handbook.

It doesnt.

Round the mulberry bush we go.

But I could be wrong.

You are. Again. Read the entire fucking vehicle code if you like. Please quote the section that says "If you are in an intersection when it turns red, you have violated the law."

You won't find it, it's not there.

1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook.

No I don't think you do. Besides, I already posted the handbook link... you responded to it.

If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.

Uh, ya. I'm the one that mentioned the handbook, and I replied to your comment by giving you the links to the actual California laws. Are you smoking something? Read what you replied to.

2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.

Not true at all. You get ticketed if you enter the intersection when there is not sufficient room on the other side. It has nothing to do with the light color.

Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket.

Still wrong.

Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.

Always they are for these.

Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.

I do. I already posted the yellow and red light vehicle code. Here they are again though, along with the law concerning blocking:
Yellow light
Red light
Entering an Intersection

Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.

No, it wasn't. He lost because the actual vehicle code states that the RIGHT side tires must be less than 18" from the curb. Because your friend parked facing the wrong direction, unless his car was less than 15" wide (you said he was 3" from the curb), he is violating that law. Care for the link? How to park legally

1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook.

No I don't think you do. Besides, I already posted the handbook link... you responded to it.

If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.

Uh, ya. I'm the one that mentioned the handbook, and I replied to your comment by giving you the links to the actual California laws. Are you smoking something? Read what you replied to.

2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.

Not true at all. You get ticketed if you enter the intersection when there is not sufficient room on the other side. It has nothing to do with the light color.

Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket.

Still wrong.

Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.

Always they are for these.

Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.

I do. I already posted the yellow and red light vehicle code. Here they are again though, along with the law concerning blocking:
Yellow light
Red light
Entering an Intersection

Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.

No, it wasn't. He lost because the actual vehicle code states that the RIGHT side tires must be less than 18" from the curb. Because your friend parked facing the wrong direction, unless his car was less than 15" wide (you said he was 3" from the curb), he is violating that law. Care for the link? How to park legally

1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook.

No I don't think you do. Besides, I already posted the handbook link... you responded to it.

If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.

Uh, ya. I'm the one that mentioned the handbook, and I replied to your comment by giving you the links to the actual California laws. Are you smoking something? Read what you replied to.

2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.

Not true at all. You get ticketed if you enter the intersection when there is not sufficient room on the other side. It has nothing to do with the light color.

Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket.

Still wrong.

Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.

Always they are for these.

Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.

I do. I already posted the yellow and red light vehicle code. Here they are again though, along with the law concerning blocking:
Yellow light
Red light
Entering an Intersection

Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.

No, it wasn't. He lost because the actual vehicle code states that the RIGHT side tires must be less than 18" from the curb. Because your friend parked facing the wrong direction, unless his car was less than 15" wide (you said he was 3" from the curb), he is violating that law. Care for the link? How to park legally

1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook.

No I don't think you do. Besides, I already posted the handbook link... you responded to it.

If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.

Uh, ya. I'm the one that mentioned the handbook, and I replied to your comment by giving you the links to the actual California laws. Are you smoking something? Read what you replied to.

2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.

Not true at all. You get ticketed if you enter the intersection when there is not sufficient room on the other side. It has nothing to do with the light color.

Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket.

Still wrong.

Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.

Always they are for these.

Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.

I do. I already posted the yellow and red light vehicle code. Here they are again though, along with the law concerning blocking:
Yellow light
Red light
Entering an Intersection

Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.

No, it wasn't. He lost because the actual vehicle code states that the RIGHT side tires must be less than 18" from the curb. Because your friend parked facing the wrong direction, unless his car was less than 15" wide (you said he was 3" from the curb), he is violating that law. Care for the link? How to park legally

1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook.

No I don't think you do. Besides, I already posted the handbook link... you responded to it.

If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.

Uh, ya. I'm the one that mentioned the handbook, and I replied to your comment by giving you the links to the actual California laws. Are you smoking something? Read what you replied to.

2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.

Not true at all. You get ticketed if you enter the intersection when there is not sufficient room on the other side. It has nothing to do with the light color.

Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket.

Still wrong.

Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.

Always they are for these.

Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.

I do. I already posted the yellow and red light vehicle code. Here they are again though, along with the law concerning blocking:
Yellow light
Red light
Entering an Intersection

Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.

No, it wasn't. He lost because the actual vehicle code states that the RIGHT side tires must be less than 18" from the curb. Because your friend parked facing the wrong direction, unless his car was less than 15" wide (you said he was 3" from the curb), he is violating that law. Care for the link? How to park legally

The document to which you refer is out of date. Try this one.

1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook. If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.

2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.

Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket. Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.

Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.

Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.

I believe the article is wrong. It states "that they had set the yellow signal time at Union City Boulevard and Lowry Road at 3 seconds, despite the state law mandating the time be 4.3 seconds or greater." There is no 4.3 seconds or greater mandate. I assume a boulevard has a speed limit of 45 MPH or less. The law, as set by Caltrans, states at 45 MPH the yellow light can be 3.1 seconds, Source: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_667_cfa_20010712_151407_asm_comm.html, even though other studies have found it causes more accidents. I've timed the yellow lights here in San Diego and in most cities they lower it to the minimum of 3.1 seconds for the red light cameras. If I am wrong, please show me where yellow light have to be greater than 3.1 seconds, and please link to a government site if possible. I've seen many articles discussing this and how cities profit at the expense of safety, and the truth is Caltrans and the California city governments are more interested in stealing your money than keeping you safe. Radar detectors are available with an updating GPS that warns of red light cameras. I suggest we give these companies our money rather than a third party whose best interest is a dishonest profit at the expense of our lives.

But the handbook is not the law. The courts go by the law.

Well, the Florida link clearly states the law. And since you asked, here is the California laws:
Yello light definition: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm Red light definition: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm So that is two states guaranteed, being in the road on a red is not a violation.

I recall my friend got a parking ticket. He was parked facing opposite of traffic on a residential street. The ticket was for parking "more than 18 inches away from the curb". He was 3 inches away from the curb and he started to go ballistic. I laughed my arse off and pointed "Not away from THAT curb!" pointing across the street.

Sure enough -- that's what it was. It's all about the revenue.

Yup. They count on you not contesting.

But the handbook is not the law. The courts go by the law.

Well, the Florida link clearly states the law. And since you asked, here is the California laws:
Yello light definition: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm Red light definition: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm So that is two states guaranteed, being in the road on a red is not a violation.

I recall my friend got a parking ticket. He was parked facing opposite of traffic on a residential street. The ticket was for parking "more than 18 inches away from the curb". He was 3 inches away from the curb and he started to go ballistic. I laughed my arse off and pointed "Not away from THAT curb!" pointing across the street.

Sure enough -- that's what it was. It's all about the revenue.

Yup. They count on you not contesting.

Ya, and that is the tricky part that makes me think the cameras are illegal.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm
The California DMV handbook as well states that

Solid Yellow– A yellow signal light means “CAUTION.” The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you can not stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.

Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
If I do get a ticket in the mail, I would contest it on those grounds I think.

As to the OP, absolutely this is all about revenue, and they are being as greedy as possible because they know that 99.9% of people will not contest it. Ever dropped a few quarters into a parking machine and looked at the time you get?
Last time I dropped in 4 quarters in SF @ 5 minutes per quarter... Yet only got 17 minutes of time.

It wasn't really a political jab, it was more of a personal one. :)

    For those who have personally known me, they know I don't hold back very much. So, I may be offensive, or cause other psychological harm. That's why I do IT work. I do what needs to be done, and don't really spare anyone's hurt feelings. If you screw up, I'll tell you so. "You fucked up. Don't do that again." Which is better? To sugar coat the world, or let people know the truth. I'm not without somewhat politically and socially correct filters though. If the company is about to tank, and I already know it, but if we need to get the project done to stay in business, that's a good time to be strong and supportive of the staff. "I talked to accounting. The bank messed up. Your payroll will come through this week. Lets get the project done to make the bosses happy."

    I did take liberties with the standard California warning. Hell, they put it everywhere. That's the only place I've ever been where buildings have had warning signs (see California Proposition 65). The fun part was, I'd ask building security which parts were dangerous, and they couldn't tell me. I opted to assume it means don't eat the paint nor chew on electrical wiring. :) The entire Prop 65 list (PDF) is a pretty impressive list of just about every chemical used. :)

California: $450/week
http://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de1275a.pdf (page 12)
I call bullshit on your bullshit call... sir :-)

Yeah indeed. An interesting comparison to make too is the 25 years estimated to build the measly 800-mile high-speed train project in California (est. completion by 2035), whereas China is planning what appears to be a roughly 10000-mile project to be completed in 10 years...

It's almost as if they were some of the same people responsible for building a trans-continental railroad

Yeah indeed. An interesting comparison to make too is the 25 years estimated to build the measly 800-mile high-speed train project in California (est. completion by 2035), whereas China is planning what appears to be a roughly 10000-mile project to be completed in 10 years...

If you dig a little deeper, you'll find what that "Commission on Professional Competence" GGP's link refers to actually is:

(b) (1) The hearing provided for in this section shall be conducted by a Commission on Professional Competence. One member of the commission shall be selected by the employee, one member shall be selected by the governing board, and one member shall be an administrative law judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings

I don't know what the ratio has been recently, but those commissions many years ago rejected more than 3/4 of the appeals they heard.

So after being presented with the administration's best shot and the teacher's, this commission, which in all practicality boils down to the judge who chairs the commission, decided the allegations are overblown, that he isn't a danger to anyone, he's a good teacher, and the administrators didn't even care enough about firing him to document their case.

You'll also discover that the commission's decision is final

(4) The decision of the Commission on Professional Competence shall be deemed to be the final decision of the governing board.

and that their decision was plainly that the employee should not be dismissed or suspended — since that's the only one of their three options that fits the story at all. It's remarkable that he's not back in the classroom.

Read this again: the appeals are over. The district lost. The judge who saw all the evidence rejected their allegations and said the district administration didn't do their jobs.

Yes, it's VERY hard to do your job if you can't be bothered to, you know, actually do it.

If you dig a little deeper, you'll find what that "Commission on Professional Competence" GGP's link refers to actually is:

(b) (1) The hearing provided for in this section shall be conducted by a Commission on Professional Competence. One member of the commission shall be selected by the employee, one member shall be selected by the governing board, and one member shall be an administrative law judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings

I don't know what the ratio has been recently, but those commissions many years ago rejected more than 3/4 of the appeals they heard.

So after being presented with the administration's best shot and the teacher's, this commission, which in all practicality boils down to the judge who chairs the commission, decided the allegations are overblown, that he isn't a danger to anyone, he's a good teacher, and the administrators didn't even care enough about firing him to document their case.

You'll also discover that the commission's decision is final

(4) The decision of the Commission on Professional Competence shall be deemed to be the final decision of the governing board.

and that their decision was plainly that the employee should not be dismissed or suspended — since that's the only one of their three options that fits the story at all. It's remarkable that he's not back in the classroom.

Read this again: the appeals are over. The district lost. The judge who saw all the evidence rejected their allegations and said the district administration didn't do their jobs.

Yes, it's VERY hard to do your job if you can't be bothered to, you know, actually do it.

No. First of all, animals raised in human company are pretty much permanently stuck in a juvenile state. They have not been taught to fend for themselves and the urban and suburban environments aren't the same thing as "the wild" - available resources are far more restricted. Don't think that because your cat occasional brings a bird to the stoop that it could live a healthy life without any human support.

I think we should do an experiment. Release pets into the wild and see what happens.

Nature always finds a way.

Remember, "Silicon Valley" used to be "The Fruit Basket of the World". Probably too toxic for export any more. If it wasn't all paved over anyhow.
Here's one site for California, I don't think it's the one you remember, try not to lose sleep. http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/

In California, most defendants have a right to trial within 60 days. (Cal. Penal Code section 1382.) I'm not familiar with the details of this case, but he almost certainly waived his right to a speedy trial so that he could prepare. That's typical for defendants in high stakes cases, especially in highly technical cases or when you have an overworked public defender. You'd rather make sure you can get it right than push for trial and end up spending a lot longer behind bars.

That is not going to help when they collect your DNA. In California, they must collect your DNA if you are an adult and have been arrested for a felony. It goes into the state's DNA bank, where they keep it forever and share it with the feds. The law allows people to have their DNA profile removed from the database and destroyed if they have been found innocent or released without charges; it is not an automatic procedure, it requires the person to initiate a lengthy process leading to a court order.

http://ag.ca.gov/bfs/pdf/69IB_121508.pdf
If the adult is arrested for a crime that could be charged as a felony or misdemeanor (i.e., it is a wobbler offense), the arrest is considered to be a felony arrest for the purposes of determining qualification for collection under Penal Code section 296.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-lawsuit-challenges-california-s-mandatory-dna-collection-arrest
In March 2009, Lily Haskell attended a peace rally in San Francisco and was arrested. She was not charged with a crime and was quickly released, but not before being required to provide a DNA sample.

"When your DNA is taken after an arrest at a political demonstration, it can have a silencing effect on political action," said Haskell. "Now my genetic information is stored indefinitely in a government database, simply because I was exercising my right to speak out."

You get care on a par with most everyone else.

The Emergency Room is the only access to the medical system for those without insurance (some 45 million people). ER is the most expensive place to receive care (e.g. $75 aspirin). The uninsured statistics get marginal attention in the corporate press, for obvious reasons, but you can find them:

• All people are at risk for traumatic accidents, but the uninsured are twice as likely to die (if you can believe Harvard).
• One new study by Oregon State University's Sheryl Thorburn found that pregnant Oregon women with annual incomes below $50,000 were three times more likely than other pregnant women to report getting worse treatment at the doctor because of their insurance.
• A new American Cancer Society study published in the journal Lancet looked at 3.7 million cancer patients - the largest study of its kind - and found that uninsured and underinsured patients are twice as likely to learn about their cancer in its late stages of cancer as people who have private insurance.
• Getting treated in an emergency room is 3-4 times more expensive than a trip to the doctor’s office, according to the California Health care Foundation.

Billing is up to each doctor, to each hospital, to each billing service (collection department), sometimes even to each collection agent. Some write off bills far more willingly than others. Some never let go, and your credit report reflects these choices.

Try a thought experiment: you have 3 new clients with broken computers. Client 1 is well off and will pay you $120 per hour, plus parts, no questions. Client 2 can afford a $60 repair. Client 3 has no money, but needs their computer operational. Which one gets most of your attention, has priority? Sure every analogy is flawed, and a broken computer does not equal a sick person and the difference in consequences are huge (and give me credit for not using a car analogy). Still, how much difference is there between your ethics and a doctor's?

In California, for a long time, you've needed to provide a thumbprint to get a driver's license.

The time to worry about slippery slopes is when you're at the top, not hurtling down them as we are now.

I've spent several hundred hours researching this issue. Frankly, you're wron.g

>>1/Nuclear energy does not make economic sense. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308 (translation: it is expensive)

The actual cost of the plants they're building in the south are half this. And a lot of the cost has to do with NIMBYs and (ironically enough) environmentalists, who ought to all be very pro-nuclear. The actual cost of nuclear per KWH is the only source comparable to coal. Dirty coal. CC Coal Plants are 2x to 3x the cost per KWH of dirty coal.

You want to know what doesn't make economic sense? Anything that costs more than double or triple the current cost of energy. Guess what that includes? All green technologies. Solar costs roughly 6x to 150x the cost of coal.

Look up the costs yourself, and become educated. This is a mix of government, industry, and hippie cost estimates:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/eiaenergy2016.png
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007-011-SD.PDF
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/ocean_policy/documents/te_workshop_cost_compare.pdf

>>2/Having to store waste for over 100000 years is not what someone with any common sense would call 'green'.

The waste problem is a social construct, not a technical one.

>>3/limited liability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

It's a good thing. Because of idiot movies like the China Syndrome, people think that nuclear power is dangerous, when nuclear plants are actually quite safe. Even left-wing France produces the lion's share of its power through nuclear, and has done so very safely for the last 30 years. Compare this with the huge numbers of people killed every year in coal mining accidents and indirectly through the radiation released into the atmosphere by coal.

>>4/fuel-dependency

There's plenty.

you missed something, or didn't mention something..
a mere million dollars in a new business makes a green card very easy

http://www.business.ca.gov/page.asp?o=cabth&s=cabusiness&p=390346&i=273647

Under federal law, 10,000 immigrant visas per year are available to qualified individuals seeking permanent resident status on the basis of their engagement in a new commercial enterprise. This visa program is popularly called the EB-5 visa program.

Permanent resident status based on EB-5 eligibility is available to investors who have invested - or are actively in the process of investing - at least $1,000,000 into a new commercial enterprise that they have established. A new commercial enterprise includes creating an original business; purchasing an existing business and restructuring or reorganizing the business such that a new commercial enterprise results; or expanding an existing business to a certain extent. Applicants wishing to seek status as Immigrant Investors must demonstrate that their investment will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 qualified individuals; or maintain the number of existing employees in a "troubled business."

If the investment in a new commercial enterprise is being made in a "targeted employment area," the required investment is at least $500,000. A "targeted employment" area is either a "high unemployment area" that has experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate or a "rural area."

Applicants for EB-5 visa filing an application with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) must demonstrate they meet all requirements under the immigrant visa program. Investors may be granted conditional permanent residence status for two years if they meet and document the investment criteria. With timely filing to remove the conditional status, a permanent green card may be issued; five years after the initial grant of conditional permanent residence, an investor may apply for U.S. citizenship.

lol... it doesn't deny climate change, what it does do it show where source material came from

And my science link didn't sat where it came from? If you want me to believe that then you didn't read it.

also i think you'll find that little things such as the CRU data leak which showed them to be a bunch of number fiddling and lying turds also throw doubt on the human cause of any climate change.

Where did I say anything about CRU? Without googling it I don't even know what the CRU is.

now where you have people fiddling numbers and using dubious sources i think it's not unreasonable to have reasonable doubt.

Oh, I agree. Let's take for instance where deniers are saying we're in a cooling trend. If fact the 2000s were the hottest decade on record. The only way to make it look like there's been some cooling is by using 1998 as the starting date. Because of El Nino that was a hot year and temperatures spiked as shown by this graph. There is no cooling, in fact the 2000s was the hottest decade.

however i think it you google a little you will find the net awash with 3660 hits for "IPCC student dissertation climbing magazine"

And if you google Syed Hasnain new scientist magazine ipcc you'll find about 200,000. The first one is the link I provided with the two following also from "New Scientist". I don't know, maybe they were both used, so I'm willing to let that go for now.

there also happens to be an ASSLOAD of people making truckloads of money out of ittwinned with a mass of rank hypocrisy

And just as above, about "people fiddling numbers", there are lots of people who could make tankers full of money out of disproving Global Warming. Coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuel industries stand to lose a lot of money if their products are regulated and or taxed. Now which has the deeper pockets, Exxon-Mobile or Greenpeace?

Now I'm not saying we have to do whatever it takes to stop Global Warming. I don't even like that term and prefer Climate Change. What I would like to see is alternative energy sources developed and for the US to work on them before we become has-beens. While China is busy building new coal fired power plants they are also busy building massive wind farms and installing solar energy systems. Mexico and the Philippines are using geothermal energy and so can the US. By one estimate, SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan, solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electricity and 35% of it's total energy by 2050 using just a part of the Southwest. And the NREL's Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States lays out the wind potential of different areas of the US. The Rockies from Canada to northern Texas for instance contain enough potential energy to supply all 48 continuous states with electricity. However they aren't the only places. On the West Coast from British Columbia to Southern CA then east through AZ and NM to west Texas there's good wind sites. To the east from the Appalachians in the south up through the Northeast there is good wind potential both on-shore and off-shore. NIMBYs, notably the deceased Ted Kennedy, did whatever they could to stop offshore wind farms. In 2007 California, already mentioned for solar and wind power, got 4.5% of it energy from geothermal sources.

Also don't

First off, wind power is a great supplement, not a replacement. It suffers from too much variability to be a reliable power source, and therefore replace fossil fuels.

True but geothermal is a reliable and steady energy source. It's also available in many places. Iceland, in the Arctic, gets a lot of energy from geothermal sources. California gets 4.5% of it's energy from geothermal sources. In Hawaii the Big Island gets 20% of it's energy from the Puna Geothermal Venture which supplies geothermal energy. Heck even the Philippines harvests geothermal energy. Mexico has 853 MW of installed geothermal energy.

That energy does not depend of sunlight or the wind. It is a steady source of energy. New York state has the webpage Geothermal Heat Pumps with contacts that can install both commercial and residential systems.

at least with nuclear power, the pollution is contained.

No it's not. Mining is not contained. Neither are leaks, spills, and other releases. Such as the tritium spills at Exelon Nuclear-owned plants in IL.

As for your road tax solution, who cares if we pay it with income taxes or fuel taxes?

I do as do many others. Only those who use the roads should have to pay for them. If a person does not directly pay for something they have no idea how much it costs for one Now if you have to pay say 10 cents a mile, in addition to gas costs, unless you're wealthy you will pay attention. And I say that as someone who loves driving and will not give up my car unless I have to.

Everyone uses and benefits from the roads.

And they will pay for it, but not with income taxes. You may walk or ride a bike everywhere but as long as you buy items you will still pay for the roads. Sellers raise their prices to cover their expenses, they are in business to make money afterall. Heck even when you order a physical object online, you're paying. Say you order a printed book from Amazon you pay shipping and the shipper pays for the roads.

Falcon

Meanwhile, in the USA, they bailed out the oligarchy that runs the banking system, and then gave money to a bunch of aimless projects that just put band-aids on current infrastructure. There was no national call to action (for example..."we're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas" or "we're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid, because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines") that would have solidly improved the country for the long-term, improve its ability to transact business.

High Speed Rail? Check
Smart grid? Check

This is exacly what the stimulus is going for. The stimulus is working. If anything, the stimulus isn't big enough, given the problems this country has.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It might be a policy at your company, but a look at California's Web sites shows there's still a clear overtime exemption for "employees in the computer software field." Governor Schwarzenegger clarified the law in 2008, by specifying that any software developer who is paid a minimum of $75,000 is exempt. So maybe they just changed the salary range at your company, and rather than divide developers into exempt and non-exempt ones, they decided to treat them all as non-exempt.

I'm to late for good karma whoring but..

There is a man created sea in California called the Salton Sea. Originally freshwater, it was fed from the runoff of the central valley farmers. Eventually the salt levels in the sea rose enough that it went full salt.

Every year there is an algae bloom, as well as a talipia die off. Both of which are currently being investigated for use as biofuel.

Sources:
http://www.saltonsea.ca.gov/ss101.htm
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/SaltonSeaHomePage.html

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcAllList?QueryLpllcNumber=200731810144

http://firewi.com/businessplan.pdf

The answers are no. California was granted the right to impose their own air quality standards way back when because of the terrible air quality issues in California at the time. That was granted by an act of the US congress so it was constitutional.
All states can tax alcohol as as that right was given in a constitutional amendment.
It is simple.
1. A state can not regulate an industry in another state.
2. A state can note tax interstate commerce.
So MN could tax ALL electrical power or it could tax coal fired plants in state but it can put a special tax on electricity that comes in from an other state just because it thinks that it comes from coal fired plants.
  Just like California can not forbid you from drive your none California emissions car in California.
Here are the rules.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr29.htm
You are only not allowed to register a new car bought from out of state but they can not tax that car or forbid you to buy.
Florida used to have an impact fee for cars bought out of state even if they where old. If you bought any car into Florida it was a $500 fee. That was thrown out as well.

The problem with building a 10% scale device is that you can't find as many excuses for not actually, you know, building one. This project is intended to extract money from investors and governments, not extract energy. When the first one you want to build is ridiculously big, you really don't intend to build any.

For instance, in this solar thermal plant they built the first few to prove the concept. Makes perfect sense if you're actually intending to generate power.

. . . the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.

Absolutely untrue, the other natural source is H2O. There are methods to seperate Hydrogen from water as shown in this simple experiment one can do at home. It is indeed true that there is a net LOSS of energy when using electricity to seperate hydrogen, and it is essentially true that it's main use is to store energy. There is a lower energy cost for methods which use fossil fuels, but they are far from the only ways to get pure hydrogen.

The US is home to huge numbers of institutes, universities, and foundations that are directly responsible for TONS of science coming out. Matter of fact, I have a subscription to Science Magazine and many of the articles are in part or wholly by the US.

We are a bit behind in stem cell research training and skills, relative to other countries, but CIRM is working to catch that up.

http://www.cirm.ca.gov/node/278

---

I think the article is a bit shallow and assumptive, and does not wholly encompass (or ignores for sake of proving a point) the massive science we are responsible for producing.

See The Thugs At Apex Technology Group.

There's nothing there which could possibly be a copyright violation of Apex's content. They're quoting from "Tunnel Rat" on "endh1b.com".

"...I would like to take this oppurtunity to highlight several aspect''s of the 9 page legal agreement which might be important for you. For example: 30 day termination notice or forget your last paycheck when you quit, If you join a company (including any level between you and Apex) then pay $35000 or face a law suit, $9000 for legal,training and guest services when you quit. $35000 if you quit in between a contract...etc. The legalities of the agreement are convoluted,complex and can/will be used against you if you displease Apex technology Group Inc. So once you sign that document you are at the mercy of the employer and much worse than a bonded labour in India. Apart from above, employees don''t receive their salary at the end of the month. It is usually received @ a random date in the following month, provided you are lucky. Else you would have to chase HR/Accounting to get your pay check. This process helps Apex technology group inc to hold back pay incase you choose to accept employment at another location. The most important aspect of your transaction''s with Apex Technology Group Inc is that they tell you one thing before you transfer your H1B to their consulting firm and then later do not stick to what they say(aka lies & cheating). In other words once you file/transfer your H1B to them you more or less become their slave and you will get entangled in thier web of lies and legal documents..."

That sounds like a legitimate labor complaint. Some of those terms are probably illegal under U.S. labor law. See, for example, California law on prompt payment of wages.

Yes, it's not SF to LA via Sacramento. It's two branches from Fresno to SF and Sacramento. You can see the proposed map here.

There is no such ban. I have no idea if there was ever a ban (I would suspect not).

What there are are emissions restrictions. If diesel vehicles can meet or exceed the restrictions, then they can be sold/used. In the past, presumably they were not able to typically meet those restrictions (at prices where consumer vehicle buyers were willing to pay).

A bit of googling finds http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/carb_pm_regs.pdf, which contains this:
Adopted: September 2003, Effective: December 2004 ...
Highway and Non-highway Diesel Fuel Requires the use of ultra-low sulfur (ULSD) (15 parts per million) diesel fuel for highway and non- highway applications starting in June 2006. California's diesel fuel regulations are concurrent with US EPA highway diesel fuel regulation, but accelerate the use of ULSD in non-highway applications by three to five years. ARB regulatory information: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/diesel.htm

So obviously they're not banned now.

On the main topic, aren't 2 stroke engines WAY louder than 4 stroke engines? The only 2 stroke engines I remember are (I think Yamaha) dirt-bike motorcycles.. and they were always REALLY annoyingly loud with a high-pitched whine. I guess leaf blowers are 2 stroke too.

You know what forget this 'slavery' crap. He was 8 when he started, it's on page 2 people in black and white. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/MinorsSummaryCharts.pdf Although I have no idea how the statute of limitations applies for this individual I would guess that they are doing the same crap to other kids.

Indeed. Presentation on the law: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009_tvregs/documents/2009-10-13_hearing/2009-10-13_STAFF_PRESENTATION.PDF

Test Method: ...
Tests the luminance of televisions in both its default/home mode and the retail or brightest (aka torch) selectable mode. ...

Also, both technology and the desire to reduce manufacturing costs have been driving down TV power consumption already. It's cheaper to make smaller power supplies and have smaller heatsinks and heat shields, and if adding a 3M film to the panel increases light output 30%, you need that much less backlight power.

Still, it would probably be a better idea if the law just required TV makers/retailers to put a sticker on the front of each set indicating the power consumption in dollars and cents (units people understand). Indeed, they should do this for everything with a plug.

Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.

First, here are the actual regulations. All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line. Some of the better ones:

• Best Buy did comment. What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet, making Best Buy look non-competitive. They're also complaining about the label placement requirement.
• Sony has a long list of complaints. An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ("download acquisition") when turned off. They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units.
• Panasonic wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard. They have no other complaints.
• Sharp is concerned about hotel TVs. "Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server". (Sending what data, one wonders.) So they have trouble with the standby power limit.
• The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition wants a six-month delay because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year, and the regulations change at January 1.

Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.

Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.

First, here are the actual regulations. All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line. Some of the better ones:

• Best Buy did comment. What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet, making Best Buy look non-competitive. They're also complaining about the label placement requirement.
• Sony has a long list of complaints. An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ("download acquisition") when turned off. They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units.
• Panasonic wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard. They have no other complaints.
• Sharp is concerned about hotel TVs. "Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server". (Sending what data, one wonders.) So they have trouble with the standby power limit.
• The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition wants a six-month delay because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year, and the regulations change at January 1.

Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.

Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.

First, here are the actual regulations. All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line. Some of the better ones:

• Best Buy did comment. What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet, making Best Buy look non-competitive. They're also complaining about the label placement requirement.
• Sony has a long list of complaints. An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ("download acquisition") when turned off. They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units.
• Panasonic wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard. They have no other complaints.
• Sharp is concerned about hotel TVs. "Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server". (Sending what data, one wonders.) So they have trouble with the standby power limit.
• The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition wants a six-month delay because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year, and the regulations change at January 1.

Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.

Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.

First, here are the actual regulations. All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line. Some of the better ones:

• Best Buy did comment. What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet, making Best Buy look non-competitive. They're also complaining about the label placement requirement.
• Sony has a long list of complaints. An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ("download acquisition") when turned off. They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units.
• Panasonic wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard. They have no other complaints.
• Sharp is concerned about hotel TVs. "Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server". (Sending what data, one wonders.) So they have trouble with the standby power limit.
• The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition wants a six-month delay because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year, and the regulations change at January 1.

Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.

Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.

First, here are the actual regulations. All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line. Some of the better ones:

• Best Buy did comment. What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet, making Best Buy look non-competitive. They're also complaining about the label placement requirement.
• Sony has a long list of complaints. An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ("download acquisition") when turned off. They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units.
• Panasonic wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard. They have no other complaints.
• Sharp is concerned about hotel TVs. "Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server". (Sending what data, one wonders.) So they have trouble with the standby power limit.
• The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition wants a six-month delay because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year, and the regulations change at January 1.

Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.

Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.

First, here are the actual regulations. All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line. Some of the better ones:

• Best Buy did comment. What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet, making Best Buy look non-competitive. They're also complaining about the label placement requirement.
• Sony has a long list of complaints. An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ("download acquisition") when turned off. They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units.
• Panasonic wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard. They have no other complaints.
• Sharp is concerned about hotel TVs. "Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server". (Sending what data, one wonders.) So they have trouble with the standby power limit.
• The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition wants a six-month delay because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year, and the regulations change at January 1.

Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.

(Assuming global warming is caused by California's use of hydroelectric power - which seems unlikely.)

You're 100% right about the GP being a troll, but only 14.5% right about CA using hydroelectric power.

Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of land (hopefuly not arable) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need.

Just as almost everyone else does, you're concentrating on the One Big Energy Source instead of looking at what sources can be harvested in different locations. The "Economist" has the article A new look at solar power about a solar farm in the Mojave Desert in CA. Both it and the article Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? says it produces 350 megawatts of energy, enough to power 90,000 homes. According to the SciAm article using the technology available in 2006 building solar farms on a piece of land 92 miles squared in Nevada, that's just 10& the Bureau of Land Management's land, would produce almost all of the electricity of the US.

That's just solar power. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the wind potential of different regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply all of the 48 continuous states with electricity. Then there's geothermal, which is a baseload provider, hydroelectric, and tidal power sources. One geothermal power plant on Hawaii's Big Island provides 25% of the island's electricity. Geothermal generated 13 terawatts hours of electricity in California. Combine these with a rebuilt smart national electric grid, which needs to be done anyways, and almost every coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear power plant can be closed. Until the bulk energy storage problem is solved some plants can be kept running for more of the baseload.

Falcon