Slashdot Mirror

Is it just me, or does http://www.ca.gov/ still work? I mean, I just went there and got a page reading "Welcome to the State of California." I guess this problem's already been resolved.

Then you have no idea how much energy it saving every year in the US alone.

As in, practically none?

Chances are, the lost productivity from screwing with everyone's schedules twice a year far outweighs any energy savings.

1) One who brandishes a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner or uses any firearm unlawfully in a fight is guilty of a misdemeanor. This action is a felony if it takes place on the grounds of any day care center or in the immediate presence of a peace officer. (Penal Code section 417.)

(copied from here)

The "threatening manner" is hard to prove if you are armed on a hunt, and trivially easy to prove if you are armed on campus (where usually weapons are banned, except the police.) And once a police officer approaches you this instantly becomes a felony.

Additionally, it's not just ANWR, but the Florida and Californian coasts. A find last year in the Gulf of Mexico will increase US reserves by 50%. There's another BILLION barrels off the coast of California. And those oil shales - enough to power us for decades.

So, since you want to take new drilling, oil shale, and coal liquefaction off the table, then what the heck do we run on for the 20 years while alternative energy sources AND infrastructure are deployed? What powers airplanes, ships, trains, streetlights, IC fabs? What creates the plastics, drugs and fertilizers that modern society needs? What's your solution?

I say - if you're serious about wanting to be out of the Middle East because of our dependency on their oil, then we immediately develop our existing oil reserves so we have the energy to use while we transition to a different source. But we have to have the intermediate step.

This is the sort of bullshit that the rest of the world likes to accuse the US of.

There's an old saying, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

After all, it's not like California had a state lottery. As much as it may be a shock to you, that's gambling! And it's not like you don't have bingo, or poker establishments in plain view, or even casinos. And let's not overlook the horse racing, complete with off track betting. Those things are all legal in California. I suppose if you want to make book on sports (other than horses) you may have to pop across the border to Nevada.

Californians (and inhabitants of the other states) obviously gamble. Aside from the fact that commercial gambling is a tax on people who didn't do well at math, how else is that anti-American? Because the vendors are in another country? That "free trade" stuff is hard to keep straight, isn't it?

Fine, I went and looked it up. Proposition 224 in 1998, rejected by the voters 38% in favor to 62% against, would have altered the process for bidding as the following text from the proposition states:

This section shall apply to contracts for engineering, architectural, landscape architectural, surveying, environmental, or engineering geology services awarded by the State of California or by any state agency to any public or private entity. ...
Prior to the award of any contract covered by this section, the Controller shall prepare and verify an analysis of the cost of performing the work using state civil service employees and the cost of the contract. In comparing costs, the cost of performing the work using state civil service employees shall include only the additional direct costs to the State to provide the same services as the contractor, and the cost of the contract shall include all anticipated contract costs and all costs to be incurred by the State, state agencies, and the contracting entity for the bidding, evaluation, and contract award process and for inspecting, supervising, verifying, monitoring, and overseeing the contract.

Emphasis added.

As I stated, CalTrans wanted to skip the cost of using its own staff, thereby artificially lowering the overall cost of their bid through deliberate understatement of the true cost. That is all the required data, with a straight story. I should have done a quick bit of research to find out what the result was, but the fact that it was put forward by CalTrans and some of the legislators of California strongly suggests an attempt to undermine the process and channel almost every contract to CalTrans for no practical reason. That is why I consider it a reason to distrust California government.

U of CA may be more comprehensible, but its NAME is UCSD. You call something by its name, not its descriptor. People don't call you "Human slashdot poster from outside America," or "the letter m followed by chanaud," they call you mchanaud. I have no idea what an mchanaud is, but it's incumbent upon me to learn what one is if I'm interested in a story about you.

The University of California is a public trust defined by the California Constitution (article 9, section 9, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdoc id=8871818784+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve) which specifically names it as "The University of California." This name is protected by California statute and the associated campus nicknames, e.g., UCSF, UCSD, UCLA, are protected trademarks (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/ucpolicies/ trademarks/ucname_bg.html).

It is never, ever referred to as "U of CA," and calling it "U of CA" is confusing to people who actually know what the University of California is, so forgive me if I seem unsympathetic to the Human Slashdot Poster from Outside America Who Uses Descriptors Instead of Names When Identifying Things to Avoid Confusion for Those of Us Who Care About non-American Readers.

they have to obey traffic laws so I think a pedestrian (hit and run) is 2 points

Some examples of one point violations:

        * A traffic conviction.
        * An at-fault accident.

Examples of two point violations:

        * Reckless driving or hit-and-run driving
        * Driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs
        * Hit-and-run driving
        * Driving while suspended or revoked
from: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs71thru76.htm

TFA - The best view of the meteors will be from the west coast of North America, before dawn on 1 September.

It's a good time to be a dove-hunter/amateur-astronomer in California. That's going to be a beautiful pre-dawn.

I find that hard to believe. Who likes to go to the doctor to get shots, blood drown, and a finger shoved up their arse? I don't know anyone that perverse. If these people are so common, how come we don't hear about them going to the doctor 50 times per year now? I mean, what's stopping them? A $10 copay?

Wikipedia talks about copays. It says copays are to prevent an economic problem known as a "moral hazard". Feel free to read more about it. I am, but don't feel like c/p'ing the Web for you.

You'll have a hard time convincing me of that without a citation. The whole health care system is structured around disease management, not disease prevention. Why do you think that is? Why don't they pay me to get a physical if it helps their bottom line so much?

They don't pay you because you're already asking them to take on your own financial risk. It doesn't shower them with money for you to go to the doctor. A pay-out is a pay-out. Notwithstanding, basic care is far cheaper than a hospital visit. Insurance wants to allow sufficient preventive care to reduce the number of emergency room visits (which reduces their costs because the hospital is a zillion times more expensive) while not going overboard and paying for too many unnecessary tests and whatnot (c.f., copays).

Why is the damn emergency room so damn expensive, driving up my damn rates? It is illegal to deny emergency treatment to patients simply because they cannot afford treatment. Translation: The uninsured are the source of these hidden costs. http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/5937/ Even the damn Mises Institute, a bunch of anti-government religious zealots, agrees with this assessment (though they disagree with the solution -- duh).

Think about how much money the US government would have to borrow in order to pay for such a program. When the government borrows money, that crowds out other borrowing. Say "hello" to high interest rates and high loan rejection rates.

Nah, you'd just pay the same premiums to the government instead of the insurance company. It's a wash except more people will be covered and, as inefficiencies are reduced, costs will go down.

I'll let you have the last word in this thread. Cheers and nice discussion.
-l

There were three source code reports released -- for Diebold, Hart, and Sequoia, not just Diebold. All three systems had serious weaknesses, including viral propagation vectors. All of the reports are worth checking out.

There were three source code reports released -- for Diebold, Hart, and Sequoia, not just Diebold. All three systems had serious weaknesses, including viral propagation vectors. All of the reports are worth checking out.

There were three source code reports released -- for Diebold, Hart, and Sequoia, not just Diebold. All three systems had serious weaknesses, including viral propagation vectors. All of the reports are worth checking out.

This is a duplicate of the (still front-page Slashdot) story posted by CowboyNeal.

Please post a story about the Secretary of State's decision restricting the use of these machines.

First, I am not a lawyer.

Linden Lab, the company responsible for Second Life [SL] is physically located in California, therefore it seems that they would fall under that jurisdiction in taxation matters.

There are no California taxes collected on monies paid to Linden Lab, AFAIK, unless they are bundled into the cost. Neither the TOS nor the membership plan page nor the pricing plan page nor the billing policies make any reference to any included taxes.

The California Tax Service Center page says clearly that "Retail sales of tangible personal property in California are generally subject to sales tax." However, software delivered over the net is *not* taxed by CA under Reg. 1502of the California State Board of Equalization. {From LinkScan(tm)}.

State of California

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

SALES AND USE TAX REGULATIONS

Regulation 1502. COMPUTERS, PROGRAMS, AND DATA PROCESSING.

Reference: Sections 995.2, 6006, 6007, 6010, 6010.9, 6011, 6012, 6015, and 6016, Revenue and Taxation Code.

(b) DEFINITIONS OF TERMS.

Prewritten Program - A program held or existing for general or repeated sale or lease. The term also includes a program developed for in-house use which is subsequently offered for sale or lease as a product.

(f) COMPUTER PROGRAMS.

(D) The sale or lease of a prewritten program is not a taxable transaction if the program is transferred by remote telecommunications from the seller's place of business, to or through the purchaser's computer and the purchaser does not obtain possession of any tangible personal property, such as storage media, in the transaction.

-----

This is certainly the case with Second Life software. The server software remains in California while the client is downloaded to your computer. This is the general business model for most MMORGs. However, not all states support this model of software taxation. This non-uniformity between states is the wedge that will be seized upon by Congress (under its interstate regulation powers (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec.8) to tax virtual wealth.

Of course, they *could* just as easily apply the over-the-net exemption as the state of California does. Considering how godawful-friendly they are to the business community, and how much they scream about "new taxes", you'd think that they would. Unfortunately, their second loyalty is to themselves and the "public pocketbook" (citizens, of course, are dead last), and so they are likely to grab that pie with both hands and start stuffing their faces (after assuring their corporate overlords that it is an unfortunate "necessity".)

Top to bottom review docs:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm

Also the public hearing where a university computer science professor describes the results of the red team testing. The audio starts very poor but improves after 25 minutes, but I've ONLY been able to watch it *streaming* (which is a drag). The hearing is 6 hours long and if anyone can provide a download link, I'd be grateful.
http://www.calchannel.com/search.php?date=073007&s ource=All&type=All&title=&Search=Submit

At 5 hrs, 26 min. Jim Soper presents a very good technical rebuttal to the manufacturers official positions, and receives some good applause from the crowd.

Well, not so fast, He has to be convicted first, then go through all the appeals etc. Word is out that he has hired Washington's most powerful and expensive lawyer[1], Brendan Sullivan [2]. You may know Sullivan as he was the attorney for Oliver North during the Iran contra affair. Sullivan was also hired as the lead attorney against Microsoft, on behalf of nine state attorneys general who were unhappy with the federal government's decision to drop an antitrust case against Microsoft.[3] You may remember him from this quote:

"Internet Explorer, your honor, is the fruit of Microsoft's statutory violations and it should be denied them."[4]

Oh my, so do I root for Stevens to get convicted, or do I want to see his attorney fail? I mean, gee nine attorney generals hired this guy to fight Microsoft, he's gotta be a heck of a lawyer.

1) http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/capitalcomme nt/4457.html
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Sullivan
3) http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1061
4) http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/18/technology/microso ft/index.htm

California has implemented something like this already.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/ewfaqsgen.htm

I think the fee is only collected on displays, but you are allowed to drop off/recycle most electronic goods and unsafe chemical items. I don't know if the fee is covering this service.

http://www.lacity.org/san/solid_resources/pdfs/saf e-ucla-flyer_english.pdf (pdf)

I've dropped off my old 386/486 computers, CRT, and accessories (mouse, joysticks, floppy disks, dead HDs).

[2] This is often called "security through obscurity".

Irrelevant. State & Federal law override the municipal law. But that has never stopped the People's Republic of Berkeley from making a statement.

This isn't just about Berkeley making a statement. There are dozens of Cities in California who have voted on similar regulations. Federal law might override municipal law, but the Feds have not closed down all of the Marijuana clubs in California.

Proposition 215, which allows some Medical Use of Marijuana, passed back in 1996. However, the measure left alot of ambiguity, and the State government has never stepped up to clarify some issues.

Local governments have taken it upon themselves to clarify some of the vague portions. For example, should Marijuana Clubs be allowed only after a public hearing or not? Berkeley's Measure R states that public hearings should not be required. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently passed a law requiring Marijuana Clubs be subject to the same health code as many other businesses, in an attempt to remove some of the scam operations.

It sounds like they don't even check whether any copyright violations occurred, they're just sending bills to any business that may or may not have live music.

It sounds like they don't even check whether any copyright violations occurred, they're just sending bills to any business that may or may not have live music.

... Going to be a flywheel. While it might not be the most "practical" solution, you just KNOW the DoD would be all over it, because it would mean discs spinning super fast strapped to soldiers' backs -- I repeat, DISCS SPINNING SUPER FAST. (For the benefit of those in management, I've prepared a preliminary sketch). Remember, this is the same DoD whose idea for an "indigo night light" is radioactive decay.

Seriously, though, of course, the level of maturity the DoD wants from its "battery pack" is worth way more than $1,000,000 on the open market. For the first one. However, I'm sure whatever Acme Co. first comes to market with this stuff would be more than willing to accept the DoD's $1 million, since that only leaves $30+ million (but $1 million less!) to recoup in development costs. (My figure of $31+ million annual budget comes from this document (PDF - html version -- of course, that's a figure that hasn't been enough to produce something meeting the DoD's needs, so obviously we're being optimistic. But you know what, let's double that $30 million - no, make it $90 million a year in battery research. We could win... 1 ... MILLION ... dollars.)
--
The free market is not the solution to every problem that has a free market solution.

Good luck getting past the "mandatory arbitration" clause in the "contract".
Sure, the same clause in T-Mobile's contract was ruled "Unconscionable" and "Not Enforceable", but a legal battle with a cell phone carrier is a great way to piss away money.

See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A11 2082.PDF

If this passes, the average US driver will lose the benefit they're already getting due to the average temperature being less than 60 F.

There's no extra benefit. There's no extra expense. This is merely a futile exercise in dividing up the final cost of gasoline and assigning the divided costs various labels.

End users buy gasoline to obtain energy, and the cost of that energy is set by a supposedly free market. The density of the energy storage medium is an engineering and logistical, not economic, concern. The means of measuring the energy or even storing the energy isn't going to change the overall energy that is available, or the quantity of energy that an end user wishes to consume at a certain level of cost. [Recognize that while written broadly, we're essentially discussing an abstract "temperature-compensated gasoline" versus an abstract "non-temperature-compensated gasoline".]

Temperature correcting a volumetric measurement is not going to alter the cost of an end user's energy needs, even though it may affect the price per unit. The end user is ultimately transforming the energy storage medium into something entirely different, like a trip to the grocery store, so that the question is not "do I want to burn 0.5 gal (or 4.0 lbs, or 0.48 temperature corrected gallons) of gasoline to go to the grocery store" but "do I want to spend $1.60 to do to the grocery store." You could sell the gasoline at $20 per flarg and the cost to an end user population would remain essentially unchanged, especially since gasoline prices typically vary by ~5% within distances as short as 3-4 miles, with the lowest cost station typically not running its storage tanks dry, and the highest cost station typically not starving for business.

On the other hand, temperature correcting a volumetric measurement could affect an intermediary because that intermediary does not transform the energy storage medium, but makes its profit by both buying and selling it and, ideally, making a profit on margin (Neglect Convenience Item Sales Here). An expansion factor of 1-2% would significantly affect the seasonal net margin of a retailer that is making a gross margin of 6% on sales. See California Estimated 2007 Gasoline Price Breakdown & Margins Details. The intermediary is going to be particularly sensitive to measurement and pricing because that's the entirety of its business, and provides a basis for consistent decisions on quantity to be bought, quantity to be sold, and the prices at which it is profitable to buy and/or sell.

The economic characterization of the lawsuit embodies a fundamental logical mistake (which does not mean that it will not succeed because, if true, there is an element of false advertising even if the practical effect is negligible). The end user only cares about the final cost, in which volumetric expansion is buried in the noise (do they accelerate and brake hard, do they check tire pressure and alignment, do they use that magical motor oil, do they buy at a particular gas station for convenience, etc.) but nevertheless present on average. That cost is compared against the individualistic value of a particular activity, and not by sort of strict accounting. The intermediaries, on the other hand, care about how the final cost is allocated because in the abstract they are trying to divide up that final cost amongst themselves and with the source. If the consumer won't buy, then the retailer won't sell, and the distributor won't sell, and the refiner won't sell, etc. When you're a distributor or a resaler and the entire basis of your business is buying an reselling gasoline, without transformation, against competing distributors and retailers you are likely going to strictly account for quantities and prices as a best practice to fuel your decisionmaking. Or simply buy and sell based on price and seek to achieve an average profit. You cannot realistically argue that end users engage in anything like

Are you referring to these live camera shots of the freeways? I wished there was a way that pulbic can view specific freeways. :(

CALTRANS has had that operational on Bay Area and LA freeways for the last ten years.

Here's the current status for the SF Bay Area.

The detector loops on the freeways report speed and traffic density data ("70 MPH, 14 veh/30 seconds"). A map display at the local CALTRANS control center shows spots where there's an unexpected discontinuity with the previous section. The control center then turns on the appropriate traffic cameras, which have pan, tilt, and zoom, so they can get a close look at the problem. They they can send tow trucks, ambulances, police cars, fire trucks, road repair crews, cleanup crews, or whatever's needed.

You can watch much of the camera output, alhough, being an old system, it's RealPlayer. Most of the cameras are pointed in somewhat random directions, because they're usually just left pointing at whatever incident needed to be looked at last.

You can see the incident log at the CHP incident log site. The control center sometimes initiates entries, but the guys who actually go to the site finish them.

Typical entries:

• Incident: 1662 Type: Traffic Hazard Location: SB I110 JSO W ADAMS BLVD
  1:09PM VEH STALLED IN LANES, PTY UNDER VEH WORKING ON IT
  1:13PM CHP Unit Enroute

1. Section 3, Paragraph 9(f)(3) requires voting machine vendors to also provide "Any vendor-authored proprietary binaries used in the compilation of source code for voting systems." meaning a vendor would be foolish to hide his exploit in the source code when it could be inserted by the compiler (which is exempt from source requirements) at compile time.
2. Section 3, Paragraph 9(h) provides "Each county shall make available for public inspection one sample of any voting system that is used to present one or more contests to voters. Any sample voting system inspected by the public may not be used in any public election." (emphasis added) ensuring the vendor must only provide but one clean system per county, need never fear that one system inserting fairness into a rigged election, and when the bugs are inevitably found in that one system, can claim it was inserted by a prior 'tester'.
3. and removes the requirement "Validating information must include proof that hardware and software certified for use is the same claimed to have been used."

I work for Paul Krekorian and I hope that all Californians here will call their state legislators and ask them to support AB 852, the Secure, Accurate, Fair Elections (SAFE) Act, a bill that would require disclosed source code for all election systems. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_n umber=ab_852&sess=CUR&house=B&author=krekorian The bill is currently in Assembly Appropriations Committee and won't move until January, but it's a very important piece of legislation that we hope will reach the governors desk and receive the governor's signature.

52.7. (a) A person shall not require, coerce, or compel any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device. ... (h) For purposes of this section: (1) "Identification device" means any item, application, or product that is passively or actively capable of transmitting personal information, including, but not limited to, devices using radio frequency technology.

(L) Photograph. (O) Any unique personal identifier.

SB 362. "A person shall not require, coerce, or compel any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device."

Wow, now I know who for sure not to hire when I need an attorney. ...tho curiously, according to the california bar association, he hasn't been eligible to practice law since 1/1/01. ...Plus, there's this other little thing: he doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.. Forgive me if I find this guy less than credible. (and of course, since I'm posting AC, you shouldn't take my word for it. Look for yourself.)

California (first sentence under "Ask questions when they ask...")
Colorado (two paragraphs under "Requests by Businesses")

No written opinion was offered with either decision, though all other court filings are available.

No written opinion was offered with either decision, though all other court filings are available.

To deny you your right to Appeal to a real court would be to deny you your right to due process.

In some states, one is not allowed to be represented by a lawyer in small claims court. In others, one needs special permission from a judge in order to use a lawyer. Who will Gateway send? Seems to me that whomever the plaintiff named in the complaint will have to represent their case. IANAL, of course.

Not that you're an arithmetically challenged moron, but a barrel of oil costs $66 today. Each barrel produces about 30 gallons of gasoline (some estimates are even lower, down to 20 gallons/barrel). Add in transportation costs and refining, and yes, $2.15 is a fair price. I'm sure the big oil companies have hedged in costs, so their effective cost is less than $66/barrel. But even if they are paying $45/barrel, that's still $1.50/gallon before transport and refining. But go here, and see the California Energy Commissions estimate for refining costs: it was about $0.60/gallon early this year, now it's over $1.00. http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.ht ml#1-2 I'm not some fanboi for the oil industry, but let's get a little sanity and reality into the debate, OK?

c'mon... that information is readily available.

Some important notes... Oil is in the $60/barrel range (you can go check commodities but it's there +/- $10 from my recollection).

A barrel of oil has 42 gallons

In refining, typically a bit over 50% makes it to auto gas:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_ oil.html

So we're talking $50 to $60 to get 21 gallons of motor fuel. That's a fair chunk of change.

Oh, and I found this all in about 30 seconds with Google. Ever heard of it?

Even if you're in a 1-party notification state, you can still be sued by someone calling from another state that has 2-party notification required. Going the other way - according to the California court case Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (July 13,2006) if you call from a one party consent state into California, then the Californian two party consent law outweighs the one party consent law. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S12 4739.PDF here].

Many web businesses do not list a mailing address on their site.

Yes. And SiteTruth downgrades their rating accordingly. That's by intent. We're in California, and apply California law on Internet businesses: "Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication, such as e-mail or an on-screen notice, the vendor's return and refund policy, the legal name under which the business is conducted and, except as provided in paragraph (3) [about registered post office boxes], the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted.
...
Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine."

That law gets used, too. It's rare to have a prosecution for just failing to disclose business location. But businesses where consumer complaints reach the level that prosecutors get interested have been cited for that violation. It's easy to prove and carries a jail term. That tends to get a business owner's attention.

Anonymity is for individuals. Not businesses.

In some states you are required to declare out of state purchases (Internet purchases) in some form or another. A lot of people ignore it though or argue the interpretation. Wisconsin also requires out of state purchases to be declared on income taxes.

http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/ise/usetax.html
http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub79b.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-perfin18mar1 8,1,6878957.column

I have a hunch that we needed to go with more nuclear plants and hydrogen fueled cars all along.

In a free market, ie one without government subsidies, nuclear power would never be built.

Personally, I'm hoping for a solar and hydrogen revolution

Same here. That's why I like the Governator's push for a hyrdrogen economy.

Can someone explain why he is in jail now? If the case were in 2001... And it's a misdemeanor?

I called the Attorney General's office, they said there were ways to protest against judges and whatnot. I'm not sure what a really useful thing to tell them is, but presumably more public exposure would help.

So far /. seems to be the biggest news outlet this has hit. So he's probably screwed.

To contact the California Attorney General's office, there is
http://ag.ca.gov/contact/index.php
(916) 322-3360

But what do you say? Are we already overtaken?

shouldn't it be http://bugzilla.ca.gov?

If you cannot avoid an accident in front of you, then you are probably following too close. If the driver behind you is following too close, then that driver will probably rear-end you when you slow down to avoid an accident. Let that driver pass you and increase your following distance just like you would on a rainy day. Why is this so hard to understand?

CA legislation authored by my boss, Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank) will require all new voting systems to have source code disclosed on the website of the Secretary of State. Already certified machines will have to have their source disclosed by 2012.

The bill is AB 852 (the Secure, Accurate, Fair Elections [SAFE] Act of 2007) and CA residents are urged to contact their state legislators and ask for their support for the bill!

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_n umber=ab_852&sess=CUR&house=B&author=krekorian

Additionally, I appreciate and agree with the sentiment that the paper record of the electronic machines should be the ballot of record (as does the assemblymember), but the goal of the bill is to allow sunlight on the democratic process and ensure the security of the voting process at all levels. Thanks slashdotters!