Slashdot Mirror

There are many reasons, IMO

• We use most of it. As of 2007 data, we use 134.400billion gallons/year, almost as much as the next 25 nations combined
• Transportation - costs of shipping, storing, the risks associated (it is both a volatile liquid and a volatile market!)
• Added perks (42gallons of oil/barrel, only ~20 becomes gas, the other is kerosene, heating oil, with the ability, if I understand the process correctly to adjust these ratios to meet demand. Example more heating oil in winter, more gas (relatively) in the summer.
• US standards for gas are likely different than other countries (see next point)
• Weird Foreign Refinery Rules
• Like someone else mentioned, volatility in other refinery countries.

There are likely more, but this is not my area of expertise.

Sources:

Well first thing I was thinking was what can we do to stop it.

And I thought, I know call

Assemblymember Charles Calderon
Capitol Office: State Capitol P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0058 Tel: (916) 319-2058 Fax: (916) 319-2158

Except that he's the one that wrote it.

The rest of the assembly is voting on measure, AB 1956 we need THEIR NAMES NOT HIS.

So in that light I point you to The Member Directoy

Note: Not sure why they made this website so difficult to navigate. The map didn't work at all. So the next thing is to try to find your district. (or the district you want to leave the message for)

I just called and told them, that I would like the Assemblyman to oppose AB 1956 (the measure would tax downloadable music) and that it's because the Music Industry, just finally figured out how to make money with online music and the Assemblyman's measure would just make people not buy legitimate music and just steal it instead.

( A nice staffer answered, asked for my name, I gave her that and my ZIP CODE, said she would pass it on then I said thanks and hung up. )

Check out the shape of his legislative district (California #58). It's a true octopus.

"Is this even true? Source?"

It certainly is. Toolkits have historically been provided by the mechanic (I've been a mechanic for many years), as the selection reflects personal preference. I found the link below by Googling the common phrase in want ads for mechanics "Must have own tools". The reason it is used is that only extreme newbs (or screwups who pawned their gear!) DON'T have their own tools. Mechanics often start their careers by buying tools as students (hence the vendor student discounts on basic sets) and will buy tools throughout their careers. Tool vendors visit shops and sell toolkits to mechanics on payment plans. It is common for tools to be insured because they are so expensive.

http://www.careeroverview.com/auto-mechanic-careers.html

"The most important instruments a technician or mechanic uses are hand tools. Typically workers will use their own tools, and a lot of experienced technicians and mechanics own tool sets worth thousands of dollars."

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/occguide/MECHAUTO.HTM (note the date, the price figures are low)

"Most mechanics have to buy their own tools. As an apprentice, the mechanic
may have to spend up to $500 or more on tools. By the time they reach journey-
level, a mechanic may have spent up to $10,000 on tools. Mechanics with a
specialty like those who work on foreign cars may spend even more on tools
because foreign cars need metric tools."

In California, you need to take preventative measures by keeping the weapon(s) and ammunition unloaded, locked, and stored out of reach of minors, at all times.

If a minor harms/kills someone with use of an improperly stored firearm, in most cases it is the responsibility of the firearm owner to be held accountable.

Under the Children's Firearm Accident Prevention Act of 1991, any person who keeps a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, may be fined or sent to prison. (Penal Code 12035, 12036, 12071.) - California Firearms Laws 2007 - http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

For California residents, you can find additional information in the book entitled, "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail: What You Need to Know About the Law If You Own a Gun or Are Thinking of Buying One : California Edition 2007 (Paperback), Publisher: Gun Law Pr; Revised edition (November 15, 2006), ISBN-10: 0964286440, ISBN-13: 978-0964286443", or by contacting your local/state authorities, or reference http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/ for further laws governing the legal/illegal use of firearms in the state of California.

If you are outside of California, please consult both your State and Local authorities (yes, Local and State can differ just as State and Federal can differ, just look at the case of San Francisco vs State of California from a few years back regarding hand gun ownership) for the definitive legal terms regarding firearm ownership in the state for which you reside.

Also note: In most states, "Case Law" supersedes pre-existing laws. It is YOUR responsibility as a firearms owner to investigate such laws as the state does not send out memos to inform you of recent changes to firearm laws.

Happy gun toting!

In California, you need to take preventative measures by keeping the weapon(s) and ammunition unloaded, locked, and stored out of reach of minors, at all times.

If a minor harms/kills someone with use of an improperly stored firearm, in most cases it is the responsibility of the firearm owner to be held accountable.

Under the Children's Firearm Accident Prevention Act of 1991, any person who keeps a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, may be fined or sent to prison. (Penal Code 12035, 12036, 12071.) - California Firearms Laws 2007 - http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

For California residents, you can find additional information in the book entitled, "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail: What You Need to Know About the Law If You Own a Gun or Are Thinking of Buying One : California Edition 2007 (Paperback), Publisher: Gun Law Pr; Revised edition (November 15, 2006), ISBN-10: 0964286440, ISBN-13: 978-0964286443", or by contacting your local/state authorities, or reference http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/ for further laws governing the legal/illegal use of firearms in the state of California.

If you are outside of California, please consult both your State and Local authorities (yes, Local and State can differ just as State and Federal can differ, just look at the case of San Francisco vs State of California from a few years back regarding hand gun ownership) for the definitive legal terms regarding firearm ownership in the state for which you reside.

Also note: In most states, "Case Law" supersedes pre-existing laws. It is YOUR responsibility as a firearms owner to investigate such laws as the state does not send out memos to inform you of recent changes to firearm laws.

Happy gun toting!

I am neither and it is you who are ignorant.

I suggest you read up a little. I have included for your perusal section 502 of the California Penal Code, which points out, quite clearly, that is is theft and is punishable by a $10,000.00 fine and or up to 16 months in state prison, but read for yourself California Penal Code Sections 484-502.9

It never ceases to amaze me when people like you attack any argument that gives those who create software ownership and therefor the right to control the dissemination of that software in the way they see fit. You are quite free to write a program that performs in a way that people find valuable and then give it away for free and that is your right and I for one would not even dream of infringing on that right. But for people to say they have a right to give away, regardless of the entity that created it, and to further break mechanisms that are explicitly intended to control the dissemination of a software product, is completely and utterly devoid of any possible supportive argument(s).

MANY people do create software that they actively encourage to be given away and distributed in any manner possible. This is what FOSS is all about, and I applaud it, and I use it (yes I am writing this on a SUSE System, using FireFox ) I also use closed source proprietary software that I pay for, normally after I have used an evaluation version or have heard from colleagues is suitable to that task that I need to perform.

Have I let others come and sit in front of my computer and use said licensed software, yes many times. Is that sort of borderline, quite possibly. I really appreciated the old Borland "No nonsense License Agreement" which in essence said, and I am paraphrasing here, "Treat this software just like a book, make as many copies as you like, install it on as many computers as like as long as only one copy is being used at any one time". It was simple and relied on the honesty of the person who purchased the software. No activation codes, no phoning home, nothing, just buy it, install it and use it.

Perhaps this was meant as a "Sarcastic" post.
If there's any confusion let's clear it up now shall we.

The Citizens of the United States no longer have the luxury of fucking around with these lies and propaganda anymore, everything is at stake since these electronic voting machines are the "spark of life" that was needed to begin the negative downward spiral of the destruction of the constitution, the corporate media, the judicial, the executive, the senate, the economy and the delivery of the United States directly into the hands of fascism. All you need do is compare the Constitution before this administration to the constitution after this administration to understand what these oath of office breaking criminals are up to.

Who ever marked this as funny might want to understand that "Election Technology Council" is made up of the manufactures of these fucked up machines. Which is the same as the fox guarding the hen house. It's very similar to the ACVR saying that there's voter fraud. (When in fact there wasn't and isn't) and that also the ACVR was only a fucking MAILBOX address, and that the damage they did exists to this very day as propaganda, misinformation, and lies. There's nothing funny here. These electronic vote tabulation devices, broken chain of custody, voter roll purging have cost our veterans their lives.

Furthermore, out in California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Top-To-Bottom (which truly was independent) review resulted in every machine being de-certified because they all failed miserably.

They do have something to hide...

See the research done by Computer Science Department at UCSB for the California Secretary of State:

http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/common/wordpress/?p=73
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm

Not licensed as Safenet either. The California Department of Consumer Affairs makes it real easy to file a complaint online... http://www.dca.ca.gov/online_services/complaints/complfrm.shtml

>Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?.

They do not appear to be licensed in California. A check with the Department of Consumer Affairs license search does not show a license for MediaSentry. Searching on "Media" shows a delinquent license for Media Center Investigations in Kern County. It is, of course, possible that they are licensed under some other corporate identity.

Your information about H2 technologies is amazingly flawed. They're not made out of metal, they're made out of graphite composite. They can just about drop those things out of passing airliners without cracking them, and they don't have to be "several inches thick".

Pipe water using our existing system? most cities are already at or beyond capacity of their systems today, let alone adding this load.

You're obviously not grasping the scales involved here. The US uses somewhere on the order of 150 billion gallons of gasoline each year. We use three times that much water every DAY. I think that the system can handle it. Purification isn't nearly the problem you suggest it is. Existing filtration systems would be more than adequate to supply water to your typical hydrolysis system.

not only is parking a leaky tank in a garage a bad idea, so is any underground parking lot, dense parking area with low wind, or other places

This is amazingly poorly thought out. It's based on gasses that are about the same density as air. Hydrogen is much less dense than air (think twice as boyant as Helium), and doesn't require anything resembling a wind to disperse upwards. This stuff seeps through solid metal, you think a parking garage ceiling is going to stop it?

The entire logic of your argument is based on bad science and the idea that things will never improve. I don't buy it.

Most people stop sticking gum everywhere when they get above about the age of six.

It's not a red herring at all. If you've ever walked on the beaches in L.A. even for a few minutes, you'd understand why they passed anti-smoking laws. If you comb a ten foot by ten foot area, you'd probably find 50-100 butts within the top foot or so of sand. It's really disgusting. Basically, people used the beach as a giant ashtray---not down near the water so much as up near the entrances that everyone has to use to get there. Either way, the beaches are a mess.

Each year, California does a costal cleanup day. Last year alone, they collected more than 347,000 cigarette butts on the beaches (Source; www.coastal.ca.gov). For 22 consecutive years, cigarette waste was the largest single source of litter on the beaches, and at last count, made up a whopping 40% of the total debris picked up on the beaches. That's nearly half, which means it is almost as much as all the litter, driftwood, rotting fish, seaweed, etc. combined.

Give a hoot. Don't pollute.

larry Lessig lives in the 12th Congressional district. Until he died on Feb 11th, the congressman was Tom Lantos. Mr. Lantos is an extraordinary figure. I would say this is an appropriate vacancy suitable for a man who has performed distinguished advocacy for human rights and the intellectual commons over the encroachment of purely commercial business interests.

I agree, Larry Lessig would be a good candidate for this seat in Congress. If Davey Crockett wasn't copyright Disney corporation I'd say, lets adapt the tune and lyrics from the Davey Crockett Goes to Congress story for Larry Lessig.

Here are some of the organizations and companies that are in this district, I guess:

The district covers roughly the western half of San Francisco and the inland bay half of the San Francisco peninsula down to Redwood City. The district doesn't reach Stanford but it contains San Francisco State and Notre Dame de Nameur. Companies within the district include Oracle and some players in the secure mail and security businesses including Strongmail and Qualys (they host a LUG I attend). There are also a bunch of south of Market street web enterprises in the district ( I see them advertising on Craigslist ) and Youtube is in the district I think.

http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/cngplan/PDF_CD_ATLAS/cd12_new.pdf

To my great disappointment, I am outside of his district by about 1000 yards. Darn.

The other part of aptness is the times. Tom Lantos is the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress.

A different kind of appropriation of the spirit and ideas of our times and society is now taking place. Copyright has been warped into a theft of the commons. The forces for commercial copyright are aggressively removing from the public commons for a term of years longer than our lifetimes virtually all telecast sporting events, concert content, movies, textbooks, most published scientific journals, home videos made of concerts and sporting events, and everything published in a newspaper.

Mr. Lessig took a case to the Supreme Court over this misappropriation due to copyright. The answer of the Supreme Court was: It is exclusively Congress that establishes the term and law of copyright. So the point is: go to Congress and change it. Yes, Lessig for Congress. Right time, right guy.

The Constitution only requires that you live in the same state that the House district's in. (Verify here.)

Now this can be a problem if the opponent does live in the district and makes a big deal out of it (i.e. "I've lived in California's 25th all my life...my opponent only visits for good sushi") but the usefulness of that depends on how different the districts might be or how far away district lines are.

If someone gets elected to represent a district they don't live in, they typically go through the routine of pretending they live there. But even that's optional.

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h)[provided below], any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:

...

• (4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters, damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.
• (5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

...

• (7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network.
• (8) Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network.

...

(h) (1) Subdivision (c) does not apply to punish any acts which are committed by a person within the scope of his or her lawful employment. For purposes of this section, a person acts within the scope of his or her employment when he or she performs acts which are reasonably necessary to the performance of his or her work assignment.

High speed trains don't follow geography, they follow politics - the actual route includes Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, LA, San Diego, among other cities. Regardless of route, it's estimated to cost around $37B for 700 miles, which is what I was referring to.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/route/default.asp

If a cross country high speed rail route ever reached the planning stage, it would probably be a 5000 mile route that hits every congressman's hometown between LA and NY.

$1.00 per gallon to produce is not the same thing as $1.00 at the pump. According to California, producing 1 gallon of gasoline costs about $2.25 per gallon. So while this is cheaper, it's not going to mean $1.00 at the pump. (Using the California figures, assuming that no extra profit is made, this would be about $2.00 per gallon. Still better than $3.25 per gallon, but it was just three years ago $2.00 a gallon was a HIGH price.)

They already have!

California is in much the same state; They haven't been able to build a power plant (thanks to the NIMBY's) for at least 2 decades.

Why doesn't anyone know about Google anymore? (sigh) The CA state get-a-clue page. Generally speaking, all you have to do is call a local installer - they make a point to know about all the rebate programs applicable in your area, and will often even fill out the paperwork for you, and then their bills seem eminently reasonable, since they're basically being paid by the state. Some counties - Marin and San Diego for example - have incentives above and beyond the state incentives, too. Talk to a pro installer.

You aren't getting 100% from a single rebate. You're getting 100% from a stack of them.

According the the above mentioned dailykos diary entry,

... voters in every town in New Hampshire cast their vote on a paper ballot, and in more than half of the towns in New Hampshire, the paper ballots are counted by hand.

Fewer than half the towns in New Hampshire tabulate votes with optical scanners. More than half the votes cast are counted by optical scanners, as most of the bigger cities and towns--including Manchester, Nashua, Portsmouth, Concord, Claremont, Hanover, Keene and Plymouth--use the scanners. But more municipalities count by hand. And as someone relatively well-versed in the voting patterns of New Hampshire, let me tell you there appear to be no discrepancies in the Clinton/Obama/Edwards votes between the towns that tabulate votes by scanning and those that count by hand. Obama won many of the larger towns--Keene, Hanover, Concord, Portsmouth, Lebanon, Plymouth, Durham. Clinton won others--Manchester, Nashua, Berlin, Gorham, Claremont.

It might also be worth recalling that Clinton led almost every NH poll for the whole year before Jan 8. And that anecdotally, a number of indepentdents say they were going choose democrat and vote for Obama, but since he had it in the bag they instead chose republican and voted for McCain. And that exit polling says Hillary got a big chunk of women's votes. In other words there are enough other explanations that the instant assumption of a stolen election is rather absurd. Can we mod the whole story down as a troll?

The preceding apparently is someone unaware of the regulations trying to keep pest-friendly California from acquiring or exporting any more pests. "More than 33.5 million vehicles were monitored at the California border agricultural inspection stations in the 2000 calendar year..."

Maybe in your state. In California, from http://www.dca.ca.gov/bsis/customer_service/faqs/pi.shtml

What are the licensing requirements for a Private Investigator?

The general requirements for a Private Investigator are:

        * Be at least 18 years old.
        * Three years of compensated experience totaling not less than 6,000 hours in investigative work, while employed by law enforcement agencies, collection agencies, insurance agencies, banks, courts, and other private investigation agencies, etc.
        * A college degree in criminal law, criminal justice or police science can be substituted for part of the experience.
        * Pass a written exam.
        * Undergo a criminal history review.

Your solution to slow traffic is to - slow down -?

This is good if you are trying to avoid that next fender bender rear end collision - but the guys behind you are delayed by the gap in front of you - which in my neck of the road means someone from the next lane is getting in front of you - pushing your lane back a car - which means now you have to slow down again to get your cushon back in place. GOTO 10.

Speed up? Drive closer together? Can't do that either because you need a little buffer for reaction time.

Humans have this wet thing in their head that makes them do all kinds of crazy things. One of the key things here is that we tend to slow down when we get closer together. Not only in cars, but in walking down the street, running in a marathon, escaping a burning building... Think I'm wrong? Check your distance at heavy traffic and then try to do that same distance at normal traffic - It's called tailgating. Try the 3 second rule (1-2 seconds around here) and you will see that speed and distnace between cars is directly proportional.

So - we can establish that when traffic slows down, we get closer - and stay slow and closer until traffic speeds up again. Or - to flip this around - traffic will be fine until someone/something slows us down and we get closer together and slower, and will remain so until traffic speeds up and spreads out.

Your 'solution' is based on spreading out - but not speeding up - which will compound the traffic behind you by taking up more volume of driveable road than other cars, and keeping a reduced speed - thereby occupying the same distance of road for a slightly longer period of time (because speed = distance over time).

One factor that seems to be key is traffic volume and additional traffic coming into the freeway. If the road is at capacity and additional traffic is trying to get in, there will be a slowdown at the merge point. Simply speaking - you are putting an additional car inbetween every car already on the road. And if the cars already on the road are slow and close together, they have no choice but to slow down to make space to accomodate the oncoming traffic. After the cars are merged together, spaces between the cars and speeds both rise and the traffic congestion eases until the next merge point. These are usually predictable places where traffic is always bad.

Next - the mystery of the random slowdown. You sit in traffic and then later it suddenly goes away and you see no cause. Coming from a family of firefighters and police, there are often times when an accident will block a lane because the car is disabled or the occupants are too dim to pull over to the shoulder (or better - off the freeway) to exchange information. So they sit in a traffic lane and look at the damage and write down information - creating a jam from people having to merge into another lane to get around them. And sometimes another car will crash into them, creating a bigger mess and great risk to the people standing outside in the middle of the freeway writing down a license number and insurance information for a fender bender. I used to teach and I had a student of mine killed in this exact scenario - minor fender bender in a car pool lane, got out to look at the damage and exchange info, stood between the two cars and then a 3rd car plowed into them, killing my student. But I digress - Around here (let's call it Los Angeles) traffic accidents are everpresent. Take a look here for current info: http://cad.chp.ca.gov/ And typically an accident blockinglanes will be moved to the shoulder or off the freeway in about 10-20 minutes. So if it is a minor fender bender, the people get out IN LANES to look at the damage, then agree to pull off the freeway to exchange info, you could easily sit in traffic and then have it suddenly evaporate by the time you get around the bend.

The CHP will also get reports of a traffic hazard (usually a ladder) in the lanes and run a traffic break where they get in front of the free fl

There's an amazing phenomenon where I live in California caused by "Amber Alert" signs and retarded (or possibly illiterate) drivers.

A boatload of tax money was used to erect these signs on major freeways throughout the state, supposedly so that we can quickly disseminate vehicle descriptions to the public in the event of a kidnapping. (Space constraints usually cause the info to be abbreviated beyond all recognition, though, like "BLK CHVY SUV LIC 5TRG345 CALL CHP." Try parsing that while driving by a 65 mph...)

Anyway, these signs rarely have kidnapping info on them. But I guess someone thought it was a waste to have all these signs if they are always going to be dark. So they now cycle through "helpful" tips from the California Highway Patrol. "Don't Drink and Drive." "Speed Kills." "Click it or Ticket" (oh, that one's cute, isn't it?). And sometimes weather or wind advisories that never seem to actually be correlated with current conditions (I'll be battling wind gusts one day with the signs off, then the next day when it is clear the signs have a warning on them. Gee, thanks, but a bit late.)

What I've noticed, though, is that whenever the signs have a message on them traffic inexplicably backs up around them. I'm convinced that it is because drivers are slowing down while attempting to read the signs. I kind of like the irony that wrecks are going to be caused by people trying to read highway safety information. But it is really annoying.

These signs ought to be used only in the case of a real emergency, because they seriously compromise driving conditions when they are lit up. And it burns me up that someone took my tax money to erect a sign to tell me not to drink and drive (while pretending it was to save kidnapped children). For every drunk person who reads it and decides to stop and call a cab, there are going to be 100 collisions between people trying to sound out the words while simultaneously eating and talking on a cell phone.

The most horrible thing about those 101/intersection cameras are how blindingly bright and distracting the flash is at 1:30 in the morning - when your reactions are already sub-par. It is actually illegal for someone to have a "fish eye" bit of different color on their brake lights because the distraction may cause an accident. (Here's some Cali laws, too lazy to search for the Arizona Laws, or the specific one I'm thinking of.) How can this be any better?

I almost feel like getting into an accident every time someone around me sets one off, simply so I can sue them out of existence. I just want to concentrate on the other drivers, instead of searching for cameras and religiously checking my speedometer.

I remember driving in San Francisco, my first time driving in the US. I only got caught the once being beeped because I'd just stopped at red and didn't turn right although it was clear, but my other local transgression was a lot worse. We came up to some flashing red lights - I had no idea what they were for. There was one car in front of us before the lights, it stopped for a while and then went. I thought "ah ha - flashing red means stop and go if clear".

It doesn't. It means "tram coming". I found this out at the end of the week we stayed there, suddenly realising I'd spent the entire week running red lights against trams...

No, the state of California disagrees with you. A flashing red light is equivalent to a stop sign: A flashing red signal light means "STOP." After stopping, you may proceed when it is safe. Observe the right-of-way rules.

That is the case in Canada as well.

Now maybe a tram/trolley has a device to trigger a flashing red light...

a search on autism and Japan showed that Japan banned the MMR vaccine in 1993 not thermisol.

In addition to the considerations noted above, individuals using DDS Quarterly Client Characteristics Report data for any type of trend analysis should be informed about the causes of increased CDER population numbers first reflected in the report for the quarter ending September 2002. Over 4,000 CDER records were added to the CDER database in July 2002 due to a revision in the information system transmission program and a change in DDS policy to include the records of CDERs not updated within the required three years of last report date. For more information, please read the page on "Changes to CDER Quarterly Reports" http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/CDER_QtrlyReport_Consideration_Limitations.pdf

You still havent read the article have you?

If you had read my post you'd realize I did read it. Maybe you didn't comprehend that.

Maybe we will use a transporter to get it out... or... wait... what else could we do? Oh, I know! We can DRILL... DEEP! Sorry about the sarcasm... but I even quoted the article and bolded the relevant sections...

"Deep within" is NOT "Deep Drilling".

with today's technology, is a deep drill reservoir/plant combo. There isnt ANY other way. I provided a BUNCH of links in my other posts.

And elsewhere I provided links showing deep drilling isn't necessary. Another example that shows deep drilling isn't needed is Iceland. The same can be said of Yellowstone, Hawaii, and I'm sure there are many others such as along the Ring of Fire and near Hot Springs. One person used geothermal produced electricity for a resort. Here are more examples where geothermal can be used while drilling less than 10,000 feet, that's no where near the depth of the Mariana Trench. Maybe you have a different definition of "deep drilling" but that's not too deep to me. Here's a page showing 14 places in California that produces geothermal electricity.

Try again.

Wait, you're suggesting by "I dont know of any company that could afford to beat out the fossil fuel companies to do so." that there aren't companies in the US trying to make money off alternative energy? Further, lots of state governments are actively trying to promote alternative energy, which undermines the theory that the government is afraid of a tax revenue collapse. State governments are subsidizing alternative energy using those very tax revenues, in the hopes that home-grown alternative energy producers will create even more tax revenue in the future.

I hate to sound like a slashvertisement, but I think the following US companies and groups would all disagree with you:

Evergreen Solar (producer based in Mass.)
Heliodyne (producer based in California)
Google (installing panels on its roof)
Solar Energy Industry Association (US trade group)
Tesla Motors) (selling 100% electric cars in the US)
List of solar manufacturers in the US
US solar power installations increase 33% year-to-year

The New York Times has a story about this issue: "Venture Capital Rushes into Alternate Energy" suggesting that $1.5 billion in VC money was invested in 2006 alone in new companies who hope to profit from overthrowing the energy status quo. If you add private equity money then there was $18.1 billion in dealflow in 2006 in the alternate energy sector. Or listen to a 2004 story about the same issue.

It's nice to think that there's some great conspiracy against alternate energy, but the simple truth is that there is a lot of market action in the field and nothing stopping people from making money in it. There is a HUGE amount of money to be made from alternate energy and plenty of people are trying to make it.

I can't find a shred of evidence anywhere stating that the 911 system today will intentionally route calls differently based upon if they were placed via a landline or a mobile phone.

In California, 911 from a cellular phone is routed to a central dispatch center run by the California Highway Patrol. 911 from a landline typically goes to a traditional 911 dispatch center run by a local law enforcement agency.

Cellular 911

Our crime prevention coordinator for our Neighborhood Watch confirmed this and suggested programming the local police department's emergency number into our cell phones.

Check your math on that $40/hour number.

A quick Google search on "wholesale power rates" gave me http://www.mpei.com/new-defaultrateincrease.htm as the third link. This utility is grumbling about their wholesale rate going up to 6.3 cents per kWh. 8 megawatts is 8,000 kilowatt hours (per hour). 8,000 kWh times 6.3 cents per kWh gives $504/hour.

Note that 6.3 cents per kWh is for baseload power, but this design is automatically load following. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant for what that means.) At http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/levelized_cost.html you'll notice that load following or peaking power can cost 3-8X as much as baseload. (3X for simple cycle natural gas, 8X for load-following photovoltaic).

How does your economic analysis change if you're talking between $1500 and $4000 per hour instead of $40?

And why should we be suprised by this?. The last time I took my car in for repair, I paid sales tax on part and labor. When I have my car parked Valet, taxes are factored into the the cost. And when UPS delivers a package for me, I pay tax on that too.

Talking about how much energy is lost in the transfer of electricity in and out of batteries is one of the least significant inefficiencies in the process of getting electricity in and out of EVs (you yourself tout it is being low). Comparing this efficiency to the overall efficiency of the electricity production process of a fuel cell while ignoring what the "thermodynamic efficiency" of the process which creates the electricity that goes in the battery-only cars is asinine and misleading.

I'm starting them all on the same footing. With the exception of a few technologies (such as this one; also hydrogen generation from hydrocarbons (which nobody likes), and some potential thermolysis capability in next generation nuclear reactors), hydrogen generation is produced from electricity. I.e., the same losses.

Oh, and that movie about the EV1 was a crock of bullshit. Please be smart enough to get your information from more sources than propoganda movies and other people who don't know what they are talking about.

I never saw the movie. Don't pretend that you know me.

The EV1 was just ahead of its time.

The EV1's failure was a combination of a number of factors. Arguably, the technology was the least of them. The most important factor was likely the fact that GM felt compelled to make them in the first place by the state of California, then was no longer required to. Thus, they were left with a loss-leader that they never wanted to have in the first place.

Maintaining tiny number of vehicles is simply uneconomical for large auto manufacturers. When they think it will get them somewhere -- publicity, past regulations, or whatnot, they'll do it. But don't consider it to be a stunning endorsement.

Remember, even the 1st gen of Prius didn't sell worth a damn in this country for the first few years.

Huh? They sold 15k-25k/year in the US for their first few years, almost a thousand in the first month alone. Compare this to a measly hundred hydrogen vehicles *total*, on lease only, and you'll see what I mean about it not being promising. It's a lot more like the EV program than a serious profit-making vehicle.

And that was many years later when gas was much more expensive.

Gas is more expensive now than it was in '05, which had peak sales. Their top sales month was April 05. The retail average then was only around $2.50.

GM spent and lost billions of dollars on it for two primary reasons. one was that battery technology had nearly completely stopped improving during the 90s right when it was expected to really start taking off (thus, the EV1 having to use lead-acid batteries and having 55mile range). The second was that even the people who had told GM they would buy one ended up buying SUVs instead -- people talk a lot more than they walk when it comes to really caring about the environment -- certainly they did when troops weren't dying "over oil" and gas was 1/3 the price it is now at least.

*Any* vehicle that GM makes that has such small numbers will never be profitable unless they charge the sort of prices Tesla charges. Cars are only affordable due to economies of scale. GM did it because they were essentially forced to.

No the Tesla is not nearly as advanced -- it's a mechanical system car (a GM car, I might add -- the Lotus Elise/Opel Speedster) designed for an IC engine with the engine plucked out and some really good batteries put in along with a motor.

The engine is more advanced, the electric power system is far more powerful and (unfortunately) an order of magnitude more complex (thanks to the peculiarities of lithium-ion -- but the extra power density is worth it), and essentially every part of the car is more advanced. Name a single component that you think is more advanced in the EV1. Just one. And why should we hold it *against* the roadster that it used a sleek, lightweight chassis from a top performing sports car?

In the Massachusetts, adults may serve alcohol to their own children or underage spouse in a private setting (i.e. Not in a bar). It is probably the same in many, if not all, other states.

From California:

" SUMMARY : Creates a new misdemeanor for any parent or guardian who knowingly permits his or her minor child and others, as specified, to drink alcohol or consume a controlled substance at his or her home."

In Virginia:

"Even if the above negative situations do not occur, you may face legal charges for providing or allowing alcohol to be used by minors in your home (including your own teen). For example, it is against state law to allow (aid or abet) underage persons to possess or consume alcohol. This is a Class 1 misdemeanor and is punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a $2,500 fine. Purchasing, aiding and abetting or giving alcohol to minors is against the law."

Notice the part about "including your own teen". In Minnesota:

"7: Can Parents Or Social Hosts Face Criminal Charges? Yes, any adult who supplies a minor with alcohol could face charges of contributing which carries a maximum fine of $3,000, 1 year in jail, or both." And "Could Parents Be Held Liable If Their Minor Child Consumes Alcohol Obtained From Their Home? The parents could be liable in a civil lawsuit. If the parents knowingly and willingly provide the alcohol to the minor, the outcome of the lawsuit would be very predictable."

Admittedly they are different but in each case a parent can be held liable for giving or allowing their children to drink alcohol.

He could get a non-driver ID.

I don't even live in California and it took me less than 10 seconds to find it:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm

Look at the Stirling engine projects.

I don't know the rules of civil procedure in California, but most jurisdictions have rules of civil procedure with a couple options for service instead of personal service.

Big companies often have no problem accepting alternatives to personal service. Call them and ask how they would accept service of originating process. Ask if they would accept it by fax, mail or email, and whether they would confirm it's receipt.

I think the rules are CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 415.10-415.95 . It's convoluted, to be sure, but I think it covers personal service and alternatives to personal service.

Greenpeace is to the environment and public safety as Pat Robertson is to Christianity.

This is a hugely important insight. Groups that are on the extreme in the environmental movement such as Greenpeace have unfortunately come to be the image that the general public thinks of when they think of environmentalism, despite the fact that many environmental groups are much more moderate; just one example (among many) is the Nature Conservancy, which makes a point of partnering with hunters, fisherman, loggers, ranchers and other groups that are typically viewed as "enemies" by the more extreme elements in the environmental movement.

Unfortunately the habit of stereotyping a group by its most extreme elements is common today. When people think of Republicans they think of Dick Cheney and John Boehner, not the Governator or John Warner; when they think of Democrats they think of Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi, not Jim Webb or Joe Biden.

Extremist make it much easier to discredit an entire movement, but just because a group like Greenpeace is making a huge racket about Apple as a publicity stunt (and that's what this is) doesn't mean that groups arguing for clean air, clean water, and open space are all fringe whackos. The same applies to politics, business, etc - despite the occasional extremist, on the whole the world contains much more of a nuanced mix than most people acknowledge, and taking the time to look past the fringe and towards the center can go a long way towards helping us all find some common ground.

WiMax 802.16 as I understand it would have no functional problems using spread-spectrum frequency-hopping software programmable radio technology. Just search and read "spread-spectrum" "frequency-hopping" "802.16" WiMAX, most of this technology was available a few years ago, but the Telcos & congress .... Yep, could cause the cable carriers to become the WiMAX carriers to the home for TV, Radio, Phone ....

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/services/arterial_operations/downloads/wireless/Wireless_Overview.pdf
http://www.telecoms.gov.bb/Documents/Fact%20Sheets/Fact%20Sheets_MS%20Word/factsheet16.doc
http://www.bbwexchange.com/turnkey/howrfworks_page_6.asp
http://www.willtek.com/english/technologies/wlan

Not to sound like a dick but this sounds pretty anecdotal. I'd be willing to bet 90%+ will still be going right back to Microsoft.

Considering LA has the worst traffic in the country, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they "did it right." And the point stands that there would be more lanes for most traffic if the HOV lanes were transitioned back into general lanes.

It's unclear that HOV accomplishes anything at all, except making the commute faster for an exceptionally small minority of commuters at great expense to everyone. Oh, and HOT creates another way to monetize commuters and a disincentive for DOT to alleviate general traffic congestion. After all, if traffic was flowing smoothly in the general lanes, why would anyone pay to use the HOT lanes?

And speaking of California, Senator McClintock wrote an excellent piece on the insanity of HOV.

Relates to the PEBKAC Still Plagues PC Security, yes? Ha!

CA's DMV site is working fine here, tho. =)