Slashdot Mirror

How exactly does the state get a copy of my financial statements? Seems to me they would need a little thing called a warrant to obtain them.

There are many things that are not subject to use tax. For CA there's a 45 page document listing everything that is exempted -- including fun stuff like SPACE FLIGHT PROPERTY, RAIL FREIGHT CARS, WHEELCHAIRS, etc. I purchase a lot of spacecraft parts for handicapped people.

> I don't suppose the people who designed the Bay Bridge asked themselves, "Will this structure still work five hundred years from now?

Actually, they built it expecting it to last 150 years. Which ain't too shabby.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/eastspans/index.html

Links to credible information on that. In particular, I will bet 20 right now that hydropower is CHEAPER than coal or nukes. Hell, if you use a LITTLE bit of intelligence, you would realize that hydropower will be cheaper than either coal or nukes. Why? Because it is STILL cheaper to put in a dam than either coal, gas, or nuke plant (assuming suitable location). In addition, you have free energy after that. And geo-thermal has already been shown to be cheaper than nukes (but there are few locations for shallow geo-thermal).

You'd lose your bet. Unless you're talking about the amortized price. The CEC was primarily interested into the 10-year amortized wholesale cost of building a new plant, which hydro is not especially cost-efficient at. Of course, it gives you flood control and other benefits as well.

Here's some links to get you started. Enjoy:
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

Well fuck that. I'd like to think we're all equal in the eyes of the law, no matter what our profession is.

Next you'll try to claim that any citizen has equal rights to own guns instead of just sworn police officers. Although I don't understand what bad language has to do with it.

You are correct the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) handles maintenance of the Bay bridges:

BATA oversees the administration of toll collection and maintenance activities for the seven state-owned bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area about BATA

However, funding for this maintenance comes in part from tolls collected, part from the state of California, and part from the federal government. These funds are overseen by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC):

MTC devotes considerable energy to advocacy efforts in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C., to ensure an adequate flow of funding for the maintenance and expansion of the Bay Area's transportation network about MTC

On page 24 of the MTC Annual Report 2008 , I see that BATA took in about $492 million dollars in toll operations revenue. BATA also received $126 million in grants from Caltran and other agencies.

However, on the same financial statement I see $807 million was given to Caltrans and another $27 million given to the MTC. This proves my point that money flows in and out of both agencies. Caltrans, MTC, and BATA are intertwined.

What I cannot prove from the financial statement is whether maintenance was neglected so money could be diverted elsewhere. It is possible that even with 100% funding for maintenance & inspections, no amount of inspection would have prevented the bridge failure. My point in posting what I did was to show that California is diverting funds from transportation which may be the cause of bridge failure.

I live on the East Coast so my West Coast knowledge does not come from personal experience. I think from my research I've learned quite all I want to know concerning Bay Area bridges.

You are correct the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) handles maintenance of the Bay bridges:

BATA oversees the administration of toll collection and maintenance activities for the seven state-owned bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area about BATA

However, funding for this maintenance comes in part from tolls collected, part from the state of California, and part from the federal government. These funds are overseen by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC):

MTC devotes considerable energy to advocacy efforts in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C., to ensure an adequate flow of funding for the maintenance and expansion of the Bay Area's transportation network about MTC

On page 24 of the MTC Annual Report 2008 , I see that BATA took in about $492 million dollars in toll operations revenue. BATA also received $126 million in grants from Caltran and other agencies.

However, on the same financial statement I see $807 million was given to Caltrans and another $27 million given to the MTC. This proves my point that money flows in and out of both agencies. Caltrans, MTC, and BATA are intertwined.

What I cannot prove from the financial statement is whether maintenance was neglected so money could be diverted elsewhere. It is possible that even with 100% funding for maintenance & inspections, no amount of inspection would have prevented the bridge failure. My point in posting what I did was to show that California is diverting funds from transportation which may be the cause of bridge failure.

I live on the East Coast so my West Coast knowledge does not come from personal experience. I think from my research I've learned quite all I want to know concerning Bay Area bridges.

You are correct the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) handles maintenance of the Bay bridges:

BATA oversees the administration of toll collection and maintenance activities for the seven state-owned bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area about BATA

However, funding for this maintenance comes in part from tolls collected, part from the state of California, and part from the federal government. These funds are overseen by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC):

MTC devotes considerable energy to advocacy efforts in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C., to ensure an adequate flow of funding for the maintenance and expansion of the Bay Area's transportation network about MTC

On page 24 of the MTC Annual Report 2008 , I see that BATA took in about $492 million dollars in toll operations revenue. BATA also received $126 million in grants from Caltran and other agencies.

However, on the same financial statement I see $807 million was given to Caltrans and another $27 million given to the MTC. This proves my point that money flows in and out of both agencies. Caltrans, MTC, and BATA are intertwined.

What I cannot prove from the financial statement is whether maintenance was neglected so money could be diverted elsewhere. It is possible that even with 100% funding for maintenance & inspections, no amount of inspection would have prevented the bridge failure. My point in posting what I did was to show that California is diverting funds from transportation which may be the cause of bridge failure.

I live on the East Coast so my West Coast knowledge does not come from personal experience. I think from my research I've learned quite all I want to know concerning Bay Area bridges.

Perhaps if the state...

Perhaps if you know what the fuck you were talking about. This is why it is pointless to listen to anobody on Slashhdot, 99% of the comments are bullshit.

All the bay bridges, except the Golden Gate, are managed be the Bay Area Toll Authority and funded by tolls. Educate yourself.

http://bata.mtc.ca.gov/

lack of a personal income tax doesn't mean tax free.

And then there's California where there's state income tax AND sales tax of almost (if not over) 10%

you could trap the squirrels alive and neuter them, so they can't reproduce!

California Fish and Game regulations have this to say:

475. Methods of Take for Nongame Birds and Nongame Mammals.
(d) Traps may be used to take nongame birds and nongame mammals only in accordance with the provisions of Section 465.5 of these regulations and sections 3003.1 and 4004 of the Fish and Game Code.

465.5. Use of Traps.
(1) Immediate Dispatch or Release. All furbearing and nongame mammals that are legal to trap must be immediately killed or released. Unless released, trapped animals shall be killed by shooting where local ordinances, landowners, and safety permit. This regulation does not prohibit employees of federal, state, or local government from using chemical euthanasia to dispatch trapped animals.

As you can see, people already thought of all possibilities and made sure that only sufficiently humane ones are permitted. In fact, hunters are required to understand ethics and the exam includes quite a few questions on the subject. If you don't have a hunting license yet I recommend you to go to a weekend course and get one, the course costs only $15 and it's extremely interesting, even if you do not plan to ever hunt. The certificate that you get is yours for life, and it gives you the right to get a hunting license whenever you need it (most people apply immediately, of course.) And, as a bonus, you'll be well prepared for survival if that is ever needed.

you could trap the squirrels alive and neuter them, so they can't reproduce!

California Fish and Game regulations have this to say:

475. Methods of Take for Nongame Birds and Nongame Mammals.
(d) Traps may be used to take nongame birds and nongame mammals only in accordance with the provisions of Section 465.5 of these regulations and sections 3003.1 and 4004 of the Fish and Game Code.

465.5. Use of Traps.
(1) Immediate Dispatch or Release. All furbearing and nongame mammals that are legal to trap must be immediately killed or released. Unless released, trapped animals shall be killed by shooting where local ordinances, landowners, and safety permit. This regulation does not prohibit employees of federal, state, or local government from using chemical euthanasia to dispatch trapped animals.

As you can see, people already thought of all possibilities and made sure that only sufficiently humane ones are permitted. In fact, hunters are required to understand ethics and the exam includes quite a few questions on the subject. If you don't have a hunting license yet I recommend you to go to a weekend course and get one, the course costs only $15 and it's extremely interesting, even if you do not plan to ever hunt. The certificate that you get is yours for life, and it gives you the right to get a hunting license whenever you need it (most people apply immediately, of course.) And, as a bonus, you'll be well prepared for survival if that is ever needed.

They're already talking about banning dark color cars: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032603316.html
While at the same time mandating that we only use darker color paints: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/draft_regs_coolcars_032709.pdf

My big problem with all this behavior legislation is that I want a black sports car because it makes me happy, and I'm willing to pay a lot of extra money in order to get it. The government of a free country should not stop that pursuit. The stupid car is supposed to get poor MPG! It's a damn race car! And it's black because black is the best color and I'll keep driving black race cars until they make a darker color race car. It costs me more money not you. So stay the hell outa my business!

and see the nice little FAQ they have. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/coolcarsfaq.pdf ...placing the GPS device or the external antenna within the deletion window allows the device to operate as effectively as in a car with no reflective glass.

You read the parent article and even went so far as to read its linked articles? Turn in your Slashdot card, sir. You don't fit in here!

CARB "scientists" aren't really considered as scientists by real scientists.
Shoot, even one of the "scientists" from CARB faked his credentials.

CARB's also behind MTBE which nationally was mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 but was predated by California's own state law, California Clean Air Act of 1988.
And as early as 1986, there was a scientific report that stated that MTBE was a "bad cookie" (finding the exact copy is a tad difficult but it is referred by the USGS in a 1993 report)

A major local (to the Bay Area) opponent to CARB is Dr. Bill Wattenburg (an older version of his site is here)

And apparently, CARB wants to require particular" paints (PDF) and barring any scientific/engineering breakthrough, that probably means dark colored cars (black, dark blues, etc.)

And dang, CARB's budget for 2009-2010 is over 600 million, just the imagine how many teachers would have been spared lay-offs...or how many professors, TAs, faculty at UC/CSU schools would have been spared from furloughs.

Not to forget the CARB vs Diesel fiasco

CARB "scientists" aren't really considered as scientists by real scientists.
Shoot, even one of the "scientists" from CARB faked his credentials.

CARB's also behind MTBE which nationally was mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 but was predated by California's own state law, California Clean Air Act of 1988.
And as early as 1986, there was a scientific report that stated that MTBE was a "bad cookie" (finding the exact copy is a tad difficult but it is referred by the USGS in a 1993 report)

A major local (to the Bay Area) opponent to CARB is Dr. Bill Wattenburg (an older version of his site is here)

And apparently, CARB wants to require particular" paints (PDF) and barring any scientific/engineering breakthrough, that probably means dark colored cars (black, dark blues, etc.)

And dang, CARB's budget for 2009-2010 is over 600 million, just the imagine how many teachers would have been spared lay-offs...or how many professors, TAs, faculty at UC/CSU schools would have been spared from furloughs.

Not to forget the CARB vs Diesel fiasco

and see the nice little FAQ they have. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/coolcarsfaq.pdf Will my GPS still work? Yes. Many automobile manufacturers currently equip their vehicles with external antennas to ensure proper functioning of factory installed GPS devices. For aftermarket GPS devices, deletion windows, or areas without reflective coatings, will be created in the windshield and the location of these windows noted in the owner’s manual. ARB tests showed that placing the GPS device or the external antenna within the deletion window allows the device to operate as effectively as in a car with no reflective glass.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-cars/cool-cars.htm http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1600586/california_will_not_ban_black_cars.html http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/25/california-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-by-banning-black-cars/ Oh that reflective coating for the windows it blocks radio frequencies so anyone with a GPS / cell that doesn't support an external antenna connection will have to buy a new one so it will produce more waste.

better story: OSI attempts earth-shaking announcement about GPL to draw attention away from fact that their status as nonprofit in California is suspended. Perhaps it was due to failure to file required tax documents (for California and U.S. IRS) for many years, that issue was discussed on Bruce Peren's now-defunct site Technocrat

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2224685

Californians thought so, that's why they approved the California High Speed Rail

Some how I found a site, not quite what I was looking for, that mentions submitting filings on IBM 3480 or 3490 tape cartridge. Perfect!

I think I'd like to do this just to see the look on the face of the state employee that has to take such a cartridge...

Let it never be said California is some how behind the times technologically!

Ok Perhaps I'm missing something obvious...

They spelled phish wrong - they spelled it with an 'F' - that's government for you!

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2001/education/ed_08_esy_anl01.htm

Since all of you have studied the educational system from other countries

Trains are great for crossing urban centers. A train from San Diego to LA would have been great when I lived in SD and worked in LA. Fix that problem, then we can talk about bullet trains.

And that's EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT! 1 hour 18 minutes.

Actually, it hasn't been kicked off of the SF Peninsula... http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm Quite the opposite, in fact.

Per the CA high speed rail site Sacramento to San Diego would take 3 hours 35 mins and cost $68.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm

Granted, you may not trust those numbers, but still, I'd say that's comparable. Plus, you don't have to deal with the cattle-car rush that is the boarding on a Southwest flight. I'd take the train in this case... similar price, reasonable speed and none of the hell that comes along with modern air travel...

And, this will be a train from San Diego to LA as well...

...What sort of magical juice about hybrids lets them use the carpool lane that very efficient ICE-only cars don't have?

Permits to use HOV lanes were available for both hybrids (if they had 45 miles per gallon or greater fuel economy highway rating) and non-hybrid ultra-low pollution vehicles in California. These were only offered for the first 85,000 qualifying vehicles as a way to jump start the market. These were exhausted some years ago.

See: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/decal.htm .

BTW were there any very efficient ICE-only cars that rated 45 miles per gallon or greater at the time? I think the notion that there is an arbitrary bias of substantial effect is false.

It seems to me that democracy results in a sort of populistic legalism where you have thousands and thousands of little laws trying to create the perfect existence. But you can't make a perfect existence by putting strings on everyone and letting everyone else play everyone else's puppet master. Nobody can know even a fraction of the laws, yet break one that gets enforced and you're fined or jailed or forced into temporary involuntary servitude. Democracy may be freedom of the masses, but it's not freedom of the individual. The machine may be free to operate but the cogs are not free to turn. Is that really how you envision a free society?

I think the problem with your view is that you think there's supposed to be some kind of idealized "free society" where we're all, you know, free. The problem is that no two people define "free society" in exactly the same way.

I've thought about this exact issue; the proliferation of thousands and thousands of laws, governing finer and finer aspects of life. The reason this happens, and is unavoidable in a democracy, is because the population of the society exceeds the size at which everyone can trust everyone else.

Take, for example, California's state laws about fish and game, found here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=fgc&codebody=&hits=20

That's a lot of laws. Take, for example, sections 331-332, Antelope and Elk: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fgc&group=00001-01000&file=331-332

Now, do we REALLY need these sections? What good are they? Well, they help ensure that the state's population of elk and antelope don't get wiped out by hunters. The state game commission can set regulations limiting or prohibiting how many elk hunters are allowed to shoot each year, to make sure that those populations endure. Why is that important? Well, we as a society have come to the conclusion that it's good to preserve native animal populations, because of all the detrimental effects on the ecosystems and environment that unfettered hunting has caused in the past. It's not feasible for individuals to make and enforce rules about elk and antelope hunting, so we have the government do it. And probably every single other regulation in that title of California state law is (ostensibly) there for the same reasons: society has deemed it important, we need to have public rules that everyone can be aware of if they need to be, and so we write regulations.

But why so many? Well, mostly because the world is complicated! There's thousands of animal species that might need protection, and sometimes we need separate regulations for each one. We need regulations about all the different ways it's possible to run a commercial fishing operation, or all the ways it's possible to use public lands. If we don't, then they'll get abused or destroyed by small, powerful groups or individuals, to the detriment of society as a whole. We cannot trust that everyone will behave properly all the time.

It's obviously necessary (and important) that we be able to look at any PARTICULAR law and say, This law is bad, let's change it -- but you can't say there's some artificial line where now we have too many laws, and we should just cut back by 20% or so. There are three hundred million people in the United States, and hoping that they'll all behave without having a set of laws to work with is naive in the extreme.

I used to feel the same way, but it's become clear to me that there's really no way around having a huge number of laws, if you want an orderly, peaceful society (and don't kid yourself -- even the most crime-ridden parts of the USA still don't have machete-wielding death squads running around wiping out entire towns, like has happened in Rwanda or the

It seems to me that democracy results in a sort of populistic legalism where you have thousands and thousands of little laws trying to create the perfect existence. But you can't make a perfect existence by putting strings on everyone and letting everyone else play everyone else's puppet master. Nobody can know even a fraction of the laws, yet break one that gets enforced and you're fined or jailed or forced into temporary involuntary servitude. Democracy may be freedom of the masses, but it's not freedom of the individual. The machine may be free to operate but the cogs are not free to turn. Is that really how you envision a free society?

I think the problem with your view is that you think there's supposed to be some kind of idealized "free society" where we're all, you know, free. The problem is that no two people define "free society" in exactly the same way.

I've thought about this exact issue; the proliferation of thousands and thousands of laws, governing finer and finer aspects of life. The reason this happens, and is unavoidable in a democracy, is because the population of the society exceeds the size at which everyone can trust everyone else.

Take, for example, California's state laws about fish and game, found here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=fgc&codebody=&hits=20

That's a lot of laws. Take, for example, sections 331-332, Antelope and Elk: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fgc&group=00001-01000&file=331-332

Now, do we REALLY need these sections? What good are they? Well, they help ensure that the state's population of elk and antelope don't get wiped out by hunters. The state game commission can set regulations limiting or prohibiting how many elk hunters are allowed to shoot each year, to make sure that those populations endure. Why is that important? Well, we as a society have come to the conclusion that it's good to preserve native animal populations, because of all the detrimental effects on the ecosystems and environment that unfettered hunting has caused in the past. It's not feasible for individuals to make and enforce rules about elk and antelope hunting, so we have the government do it. And probably every single other regulation in that title of California state law is (ostensibly) there for the same reasons: society has deemed it important, we need to have public rules that everyone can be aware of if they need to be, and so we write regulations.

But why so many? Well, mostly because the world is complicated! There's thousands of animal species that might need protection, and sometimes we need separate regulations for each one. We need regulations about all the different ways it's possible to run a commercial fishing operation, or all the ways it's possible to use public lands. If we don't, then they'll get abused or destroyed by small, powerful groups or individuals, to the detriment of society as a whole. We cannot trust that everyone will behave properly all the time.

It's obviously necessary (and important) that we be able to look at any PARTICULAR law and say, This law is bad, let's change it -- but you can't say there's some artificial line where now we have too many laws, and we should just cut back by 20% or so. There are three hundred million people in the United States, and hoping that they'll all behave without having a set of laws to work with is naive in the extreme.

I used to feel the same way, but it's become clear to me that there's really no way around having a huge number of laws, if you want an orderly, peaceful society (and don't kid yourself -- even the most crime-ridden parts of the USA still don't have machete-wielding death squads running around wiping out entire towns, like has happened in Rwanda or the

1,350,000,000kwh/yr * 0.005 = 6,750,000kwh/yr
Not an insignificant amount of energy by any means.

It's not exactly impressive either. A Kilowatt is equal to one thousand watts. A Gigawatt is equal to one billion watts. Your 6,750,000 kwh is more like 6.75Gwh. In contrast, California's in state electricity production in 2007 for only the plants larger the .1 MW capacity was 209,856 gigawatt-hours. It should also be noted that they only produce about 70% of their electricity in state. By not including the out of state production or the smaller plant production, we find that the 6.7GWH is really only about 3% This number would drop largely if the other sources of electrical energy is used.

It's a start but not all that impressive of one.

Lets add some numbers together and see what the difference between costs and savings might actually look like.

In my neck of the woods, the electricity is something like 9 cents per kilowatt hour. In California, according to the DOE, the average residential consumer rates are 15.01 cents per kw. At 220w, the first tier reducing energy consumption by 33%. That turns the power consumption into about 147 watts with roughly 72 in savings. Now lets say you (your family) watch the TV for 3 -4 hours a day on average. 4 times 365 days would be 1460 hours a year at 72 watts (105120 watt hours 105.12kw hours)on 8 cents a kilowatt hour. This gives me a savings of about $8.40 per year. In CA, it works out to about $10.62

Not knowing your brand of TV or anything more then the size of the screen, I can't get exact but I can find 40 inch LCDs for between $775 and $899 at various places on the internet. Of course 10% of that would add $77.50 and $89.90 respectively to the costs. At this 10% increase in costs, your TV will have to last a little over 9.2 years and 10.7 years respectfully in order for the savings to pay for the increased costs if they are sold in my area and 7.6-8.4 years in California.

That is of course, if it only adds 10% to the costs and electric rates do not change. How they arrive at the $18.48 savings per household per year is beyond me unless they are attempting to calculate different usage pasterns or multiple TVs. A Samsung LN40B750 40 inch TV that already meets the California requirements retails for about $1,899.99. The model UN40B6000VF, another Samsung 40 inch TV which doesn't meet the California requirements (PDF) retails for $1,599.99. A difference of about $300 which comes out to about an 18% increase in costs assuming nothing else is radically different between the two TVs. That would require about 28 years for the savings to pay for the costs in CA. I think your right, the TV will not last long enough to cover the increased costs by saving electricity.

if your going to use links using the words panties the size of an eyepatch at least give a link to the lobbiest such as http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/Lobbyists/Detail.aspx?id=1268268&session=2009

no panties in view on this page but

ETHICS COURSE COMPLETION DATE REGISTRATION DATE STATUS
11/12/2008 -------------------- 04/14/2009 ------------ Active

deserves some sort of appreciation of her erm dedicated lobbying.

Actually, this isn't true. In Ca, for example, to use an AK-47 (without the pre-ban registration) you would have to buy the specially modified version with a 10-round magazine that can't be removed without tools.

Same as any other assault-type rifle. They have quite a list of what are considered "evil features", and any of these, when combined with a center-fire gun with a removable magazine, are illegal.

See here: http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23indx.php

Oops, it looks like he's in California State Prison at Corcoran. http://www.insideprison.com/California-State-Prison-Corcoran.asp.

But the education opportunities there don't appear to be much better http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/COR-Inmate_Programs.html. "Computer Technology". Woooo.

I think it could be a valid reason. Robocalls says something about the character of the candidate.

That was exactly my reasoning. I live in California where robocalls are only legal if they are introduced by a live person. The law applies to political calls as well. The calls I received were not introduced by a person. If the candidate will break the law to get into office, what will they do once they are in office.

After receiving three of these robocalls for the candidate over a week and a half, I called his local office and spoke to someone. I told them how disappointed I was with them robocalling me, told them that what they were doing wasn't following the law, and asked for them to take me off their call list. The guy on the other end started getting belligerent with me. That pretty much made up my mind not to vote for him.

Besides, the other candidate never called, but sent someone door to door. I had a nice chat in front of my house about the candidate and what their plan was were they to be elected. They never bothered me on the phone.

And what constitutes a crime can be downright specious, especially if instituted at the behest of special interest groups.

Here's a good example: Say you have a litter of puppies for sale, and you take them to the park to play. California Legislature is presently considering a bill (which will probably pass) that will make this a CRIMINAL ACT, solely because the puppies are offered for sale and can be seen in a public place. (AB1122. You can look it up. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1122_cfa_20090420_115409_asm_comm.html)

By that you mean the California voters who voted to deregulate to the system we got? I really wish I could blame the officials, but we did that to ourselves... sort of like our current budget.

Lest we forget...

Electricity deregulation began in 1996, not with an initiative as you implied, but rather with The Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890). Perhaps you were confused with 2005's Proposition 80 that re-regulated the industry.

Lest we also forget that this deregulation law was primarily written and supported by Enron and the utility traders. From that perspective, it worked perfectly. (Now tell me again why deregulation is axiomatically good?)

As a California resident and a voter, I agree that the initiative process is a crock and prone to manipulation (Perhaps not quite as trivially easy as Oregon's. (I'm looking at you Bill Sizemore!)) using the extreme rhetoric ("Oh won't someone please think of the children!") and feel good measures that it's wrought the current budget crisis. Initiatives that tie the hands of the legislature when making budget cuts, a 30 year old initiative that limit property taxes at essentially 30 year old levels, and requires an asinine two-thirds majority to increase revenue in order to pass a balanced budget? And oh yeah and the minority party is so beholden to Grover Norquist's dogma to become completely irrational and oppose any long term solution to the state's sadly predictably recurring and worsening budget problems.

We are state ruled be the extremes of the political spectrum, and thus so throughly a reflection of the schizophrenic political views of the populace. We are state that wants it all, but at the same time refuses to pay for any of it.

Or as Walt Kelly put it, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

I'll save you some time, there is no such law. Accrual rates can be capped even in employee friendly California.

On the other hand, Californians are protected from "use it or lose it" plans.

See here.

In California they don't specifically say you cannot change lanes in an intersection. According to V.C. section 21658:

A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.

They must change lanes with reasonable safety. That is up to the discretion of the officer, so if in traffic then yes it is not safe to change lanes in an intersection and someone will most likely get a ticket, but just changing lanes by itself is not against any vehicle code in California.

All lanes of traffic are free for general travel, and it is expected that faster traffic moves left.

If someone is driving in the fast lane at the same speed as other traffic in slower lanes, assuming they are going below the speed limit, they must pull to the right to allow faster traffic to pass. So I wouldn't necessarily so all lanes are free for general travel, at least in respects to the speed that drivers can go. V.C. Section 21654:

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

(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.

Unfortunately this law is not enforced enough as it should be. I agree it is expected that drivers should use the left lane to pass, but more importantly drivers should use the right lane to go with the flow of traffic. In my opinion a driver on the highway in the fast lane that is slowing down traffic behind them - even if the driver is going the maximum speed limit - is causing more of a danger to the roadways than drivers who might want to go 10mph above the speed limit.

Who cares if they are the one using that computer, it was assigned to one individual. Just like a license plate is assigned to one individual. It doesn't identify who was driving the car, but it identifies SOMEBODY.

Too bad the statutes in most states identify the DRIVER as being the entity that is in violation of a moving violation. That means the license plate number identifies the owner, but the owner IS NOT and CANNOT be found guilty of running a red light or speeding, unless you can prove they were the DRIVER.

Here are some citations.... Click here for California's statute on running a red light, where it explicitly says DRIVER. And Click here for California's definition of "Driver", as being the OPERATOR of said vehicle.

So like I was saying, your own argument should prove the judge correct. The license plate can identify the owner of the car, as it is "somebody", but that is pointless if that "somebody" is not the CORRECT "somebody", which is EXTREMELY important if you are bringing about criminal charges against somebody...

Who cares if they are the one using that computer, it was assigned to one individual. Just like a license plate is assigned to one individual. It doesn't identify who was driving the car, but it identifies SOMEBODY.

Too bad the statutes in most states identify the DRIVER as being the entity that is in violation of a moving violation. That means the license plate number identifies the owner, but the owner IS NOT and CANNOT be found guilty of running a red light or speeding, unless you can prove they were the DRIVER.

Here are some citations.... Click here for California's statute on running a red light, where it explicitly says DRIVER. And Click here for California's definition of "Driver", as being the OPERATOR of said vehicle.

So like I was saying, your own argument should prove the judge correct. The license plate can identify the owner of the car, as it is "somebody", but that is pointless if that "somebody" is not the CORRECT "somebody", which is EXTREMELY important if you are bringing about criminal charges against somebody...

With many red light cameras, the fact that you weren't driving doesn't matter.

Whoever made this statement, is ignorant... Here are some links to California Statutes...
On this page it says that the driver shall not cross a red light...
On this page it defines driver as being the person that is operating the vehicle... Therefore if you are not the operator, you CANNOT be found guilty of this violation.

With many red light cameras, the fact that you weren't driving doesn't matter.

Whoever made this statement, is ignorant... Here are some links to California Statutes...
On this page it says that the driver shall not cross a red light...
On this page it defines driver as being the person that is operating the vehicle... Therefore if you are not the operator, you CANNOT be found guilty of this violation.

Cost overruns are just the result of sloppy accounting, not some overall problem with the business of Nuclear Power Plant construction.

p>Can you point out one nuclear power plant that did not have cost overruns?

As for you oft-claimed "Hooked on Subsidies" argument, I would say that .

I often claim it because people like you keep on saying nuclear power is profitable. For some reason it doesn't penetrate the skulls of enough people, even when it comes from business and libertarian publications. Instead excuses are made up, such as "any business would be crazy *not* too take free money being handed it".

However, Nuclear Power has always been at a disadvantage simply because the *total* cost of burning Coal has never been factored into the argument.

Nuclear power is at a disadvantage because it is dirty and dangerous. And if the total cost of nuclear power were factored in, like both you and I want the total cost of coal to be factored in, nuclear power would cost even more.

Once the environmental impact of burning coal *is* factored in (which, under the new "Cap and Trade" bill currently under consideration, that is *PRECISELY* what will happen)

According to a table on Levelised energy cost. And "Comparative Cost of California Central Station Electricity" [pfd] (Table 23: Instant Cost Adjustments) says wind is cheaper. However Table 24: Effect of Tax Credits on Costs says wind cost more, and Figure 15: Effect of Tax Credits on Costs says less.

Nuclear can stand straight and tall on it's own too feet because not one of the over 100 Nuclear Plants currently in operation (and the *SEVEN* NEW ones that have been ordered that you conveniently forgot to mention) produce anything but steam and hot water as a byproduct.

Really? Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey didn't leak? Trojan Nuclear Power Plant in Rainier, Oregon, wasn't closed after only 16 years in operation? Here's a List of civilian radiation accidents. And it does produce radioactive waste as well.

No CO2

No CO2? Right, NOT! Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of both concrete and steel. Cement is used to make concrete and the "cement industry produces 5% of global man-made CO2 emissions". And to make steel coke from coal is needed to generate the heat.

no Mercury, and no *radioactive* fly-ash

Oh, I agree. When others have said CFLs, Compact Florescent Lights, contain mercury I've pointed out burning coal releases mercury too. I don't have stats now but I've read how using CFLs will prevent more mercury from being emitted from coal fired power plants than the bulbs contain. Then there's the radioactivity released as well, I see you know it but many others don't know radioactive stuff is released when coal is burned. I oppose coal fired power plants, building of most nuclear power plants, and natural gas fired power plants. If built and paid for by Wall Street, and not government, I may support building reprocessing plants, but that's it.

Try factoring all the legal costs for every person involved. (lawyers, clerks, judges, jury (lost time form work)), also factor in any kind of incarceration/home arrest/ probation etc. It's easily 100 Billion a year. I won't argue the DEA figure cause it looks like you are right. But the other 90 million...see my post above.

Don't worry - I often get my billions and millions confused too. It's why I'm such a great economist.

Even if you add in the cost for states (in California http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/ it is about $9B a year for corrections, of which a certain fraction would go toward marijuana, and the total state DOJ budget is $800M) I doubt it would add up to $100B. And we're talking about the entire budget here - everything from travel for special agents to go to the Bellagio in Vegas for the International Fraud Convention (yep, it was last weekend) to paying for their copier expenses. The fraction devoted to marijuana prevention and et cetera is probably not insubstantial, but probably not anywhere near the numbers you're talking about.

If schools really cared about anything but profits, then we'd have a mandatory open-source textbook market where academia would be free to create and modify textbooks. These textbooks would cost nothing. Certainly, there would still be a need for private market textbooks (on arcane and/or rapidly changing subjects) but I can see a substantial portion of textbook requirements displaced by an open system.

The "mandatory" part doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't force authors to write books for free. And although a lot of free textbooks do exist already (see my sig), you can't guarantee that for a particular subject, the best book will always be a free book rather than a non-free.

But other than that, what you're suggesting seems similar to something California is doing now. Motivated by the California state budget crisis, Governor Schwarzenegger has announced a Free Digital Textbook Initiative, which has gathered a list of free, online high school math and science textbooks that are aligned with state content standards. The intention is to have the books used in classrooms in fall 2009. This article has some useful background, but it mistakenly suggests that the arduous state adoption process will be an obstacle to the FDTI; statewide adoption only applies to K-8, but FDTI is doing high-school books. There was a previous, unsuccessful effort called COSTP, which tried to produce a history textbook using Wikibooks. Here is a BBC article about the present effort, and here is a newspaper opinion piece by the Governor. This is a transcript of a speech by the Governor, with some interesting Q&A at the end. Twenty books were submitted (press release, links). The four books from traditional publisher Pearson are consumable workbooks, not actual textbooks.

If schools really cared about anything but profits, then we'd have a mandatory open-source textbook market where academia would be free to create and modify textbooks. These textbooks would cost nothing. Certainly, there would still be a need for private market textbooks (on arcane and/or rapidly changing subjects) but I can see a substantial portion of textbook requirements displaced by an open system.

The "mandatory" part doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't force authors to write books for free. And although a lot of free textbooks do exist already (see my sig), you can't guarantee that for a particular subject, the best book will always be a free book rather than a non-free.

But other than that, what you're suggesting seems similar to something California is doing now. Motivated by the California state budget crisis, Governor Schwarzenegger has announced a Free Digital Textbook Initiative, which has gathered a list of free, online high school math and science textbooks that are aligned with state content standards. The intention is to have the books used in classrooms in fall 2009. This article has some useful background, but it mistakenly suggests that the arduous state adoption process will be an obstacle to the FDTI; statewide adoption only applies to K-8, but FDTI is doing high-school books. There was a previous, unsuccessful effort called COSTP, which tried to produce a history textbook using Wikibooks. Here is a BBC article about the present effort, and here is a newspaper opinion piece by the Governor. This is a transcript of a speech by the Governor, with some interesting Q&A at the end. Twenty books were submitted (press release, links). The four books from traditional publisher Pearson are consumable workbooks, not actual textbooks.

clear water

*duh*

Still the economics of this are a bit puzzling. In 2008, California used 285 million megawatt-hours of electricity, so even if this project could generate 200 MW 24x7 that still comes to just 511,000 megawatt-hours per year, or a little under 0.2% of Californian consumption. At a wholesale price of $50 per megawatt-hour, that would earn Solaren about $25 million per year. Even over the fifteen year projected lifespan that comes to just $375 million (actually less if you take inflation into account). Is $375 million anywhere near what the actual cost of this project will be? Space engineers, please help here.

The reason they are manufacturing this in the SF Bay area is due to California making a deal with Tesla.