Slashdot Mirror

One smart thing to do if you're concerned about your privacy is to go to optoutprescreen.com and opt out of receiving unsolicited credit card offers. A lot of people become victims of identity theft because someone gets ahold of one of these offers, and obtains a credit card in their name. You can also look at your own credit report, for free, three times a year at annualcreditreport.com. If you're super paranoid, you can also freeze your credit files so that no new credit can be issued to you unless you unfreeze your files first; however, it costs money and it's a hassle, so it's really more of a reasonable option for people who have already been victims of identity theft (and IIRC it's free in that situation).

We don't have ID cards

The new name was registered just before Xmas -- someone poking around could have found it online:

http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?Query CorpNumber=C2814078

Corporation
APPLE INC.
Number: C2814078 Date Filed: 12/21/2005 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
ONE INFINITE LOOP
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
Agent for Service of Process
WENDY L HOWELL
P O BOX 802
ALAMEDA, CA 94501

The "well-to-wheel" emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. California Air Resources Board studies show that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67% lower greenhouse gases than gasoline cars -- even more assuming renewables. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range is 62% lower (see printed page 95 in the 2004 study).

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/grnhsgas/isor.pdf

Nationally, two government studies have found PHEVs would result in large reductions even on the national grid (50% coal). The GREET 1.6 model in 2001 by the DOE's Argonne National Lab estimates hybrids reduce greenhouse gases by 22%, and plug-in hybrids by 36% (see table 2). An Argonne researcher reached consensus with researchers from other national labs, universities, the Air Resources Board, automakers, utilities and AD Little to estimate in July 2002 that PHEVs using nighttime power reduce greenhouse gases by 46 to 61 percent. This is summarized in slide 11 at the November 2003 presentation by EPRI. For more in the media on this, see also the May 2, 2005 followup to the April 11 Business Week story.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/153.pdf

I am an architect who deals with building codes every day at work. As $1uck points out, it is far better for engineers (plus architects, fire marshals and other parties specifically interested in public safety/welfare) to write building codes than politicians, who are much more likely to be influenced by big donors and other "special interest" parties specifically interested in lining their own pockets.

Unfortunately, this means that you have a private third-party developer that is essentially writing your laws -- which is actually not much different from the way most laws are written by lobbyists anyway. But the difference here is that the group writing the building code "law" is made up of construction industry representatives and extensively peer reviewed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Each major building code organization used to develop different building codes (ICBO, BOCA, SBBCI, NFPA, etc.). Near the turn of the century, most of them (notably not NFPA) got together to form the ICC (International Code Council), and to develop and publish the so-called I-codes, of which the International Building Code forms the flagship product. The goal of the ICC was to develop a single, unified building code that would be adopted throughout the world -- a stark contrast to the balkanized state of building regulations that existed less than a decade ago.

These codes are marketed to various jurisdictions that range in size from cities and states up to entire countries. The way it generally works is that the building code group (ICC) lobbies the powers-that-be to adopt "by reference" their publication as the official building code for that jurisdiction. Many (but not all) jurisdictions follow up the adoption of the "standard" version with jurisdiction-specific amendments. California in particular modifies a significant portion of the underlying UBC (soon to be IBC) publication -- I'd estimate somewhere in the range of 80% of the language is expanded, deleted, revised or completely replaced.

In California, the Building Standards Commission (CBSC) is given the authority to adopt and revise the varioius construction industry codes for the entire state. California law then requires each jurisdiction within the state (counties, cities, etc.) to adopt the California versions of the codes, but also allows them to make further restrictive amendments. (Los Angeles, for example, uses a much more restrictive version of the CBC.)

Okay, so what does this matter? The code organizations publish their codes and "give them away" to various jurisdictions with the understanding that their expenses will be recouped through protected retailing of their copyrighted products. However, in most jurisdictions -- I can't speak for the Texas case OpenGLFan noted, but this is the case in California -- copies of the building code are available to view for free at public depository libraries. The "copy protection mechanism" employed is pretty low-tech: You can't check out the codes, so by the time you photocopied the entire code on the library's pay-to-use photocopiers you could have purchased several legitimate copies for the same price. (I suppose you might try taking digital photos or bringing a portable scanner with you, but the CBC is something like 900 pages long... I hope you have good batteries!)

It is interesting to note that 5 of the 11 parts of the California Building Standards Code are free to download from the CBSC's Title 24 website. Granted, only errata and supplements are available for the other six parts -- including the most-frequently used

I am an architect who deals with building codes every day at work. As $1uck points out, it is far better for engineers (plus architects, fire marshals and other parties specifically interested in public safety/welfare) to write building codes than politicians, who are much more likely to be influenced by big donors and other "special interest" parties specifically interested in lining their own pockets.

Unfortunately, this means that you have a private third-party developer that is essentially writing your laws -- which is actually not much different from the way most laws are written by lobbyists anyway. But the difference here is that the group writing the building code "law" is made up of construction industry representatives and extensively peer reviewed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Each major building code organization used to develop different building codes (ICBO, BOCA, SBBCI, NFPA, etc.). Near the turn of the century, most of them (notably not NFPA) got together to form the ICC (International Code Council), and to develop and publish the so-called I-codes, of which the International Building Code forms the flagship product. The goal of the ICC was to develop a single, unified building code that would be adopted throughout the world -- a stark contrast to the balkanized state of building regulations that existed less than a decade ago.

These codes are marketed to various jurisdictions that range in size from cities and states up to entire countries. The way it generally works is that the building code group (ICC) lobbies the powers-that-be to adopt "by reference" their publication as the official building code for that jurisdiction. Many (but not all) jurisdictions follow up the adoption of the "standard" version with jurisdiction-specific amendments. California in particular modifies a significant portion of the underlying UBC (soon to be IBC) publication -- I'd estimate somewhere in the range of 80% of the language is expanded, deleted, revised or completely replaced.

In California, the Building Standards Commission (CBSC) is given the authority to adopt and revise the varioius construction industry codes for the entire state. California law then requires each jurisdiction within the state (counties, cities, etc.) to adopt the California versions of the codes, but also allows them to make further restrictive amendments. (Los Angeles, for example, uses a much more restrictive version of the CBC.)

Okay, so what does this matter? The code organizations publish their codes and "give them away" to various jurisdictions with the understanding that their expenses will be recouped through protected retailing of their copyrighted products. However, in most jurisdictions -- I can't speak for the Texas case OpenGLFan noted, but this is the case in California -- copies of the building code are available to view for free at public depository libraries. The "copy protection mechanism" employed is pretty low-tech: You can't check out the codes, so by the time you photocopied the entire code on the library's pay-to-use photocopiers you could have purchased several legitimate copies for the same price. (I suppose you might try taking digital photos or bringing a portable scanner with you, but the CBC is something like 900 pages long... I hope you have good batteries!)

It is interesting to note that 5 of the 11 parts of the California Building Standards Code are free to download from the CBSC's Title 24 website. Granted, only errata and supplements are available for the other six parts -- including the most-frequently used

I am an architect who deals with building codes every day at work. As $1uck points out, it is far better for engineers (plus architects, fire marshals and other parties specifically interested in public safety/welfare) to write building codes than politicians, who are much more likely to be influenced by big donors and other "special interest" parties specifically interested in lining their own pockets.

Unfortunately, this means that you have a private third-party developer that is essentially writing your laws -- which is actually not much different from the way most laws are written by lobbyists anyway. But the difference here is that the group writing the building code "law" is made up of construction industry representatives and extensively peer reviewed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Each major building code organization used to develop different building codes (ICBO, BOCA, SBBCI, NFPA, etc.). Near the turn of the century, most of them (notably not NFPA) got together to form the ICC (International Code Council), and to develop and publish the so-called I-codes, of which the International Building Code forms the flagship product. The goal of the ICC was to develop a single, unified building code that would be adopted throughout the world -- a stark contrast to the balkanized state of building regulations that existed less than a decade ago.

These codes are marketed to various jurisdictions that range in size from cities and states up to entire countries. The way it generally works is that the building code group (ICC) lobbies the powers-that-be to adopt "by reference" their publication as the official building code for that jurisdiction. Many (but not all) jurisdictions follow up the adoption of the "standard" version with jurisdiction-specific amendments. California in particular modifies a significant portion of the underlying UBC (soon to be IBC) publication -- I'd estimate somewhere in the range of 80% of the language is expanded, deleted, revised or completely replaced.

In California, the Building Standards Commission (CBSC) is given the authority to adopt and revise the varioius construction industry codes for the entire state. California law then requires each jurisdiction within the state (counties, cities, etc.) to adopt the California versions of the codes, but also allows them to make further restrictive amendments. (Los Angeles, for example, uses a much more restrictive version of the CBC.)

Okay, so what does this matter? The code organizations publish their codes and "give them away" to various jurisdictions with the understanding that their expenses will be recouped through protected retailing of their copyrighted products. However, in most jurisdictions -- I can't speak for the Texas case OpenGLFan noted, but this is the case in California -- copies of the building code are available to view for free at public depository libraries. The "copy protection mechanism" employed is pretty low-tech: You can't check out the codes, so by the time you photocopied the entire code on the library's pay-to-use photocopiers you could have purchased several legitimate copies for the same price. (I suppose you might try taking digital photos or bringing a portable scanner with you, but the CBC is something like 900 pages long... I hope you have good batteries!)

It is interesting to note that 5 of the 11 parts of the California Building Standards Code are free to download from the CBSC's Title 24 website. Granted, only errata and supplements are available for the other six parts -- including the most-frequently used

51.4% of a barrel of oil goes towards gasoline according to the state of California.

In a large library, only a small percentage of books get checked out at all within a year, and many never get checked out over a period of decades.

That said, the books circulating the most are not generally the public domain books. They are the current bestsellers, which this POD service probably will not be allowed to print. Even if they were to kick back the royalties, the middlemen (warehousers, jobbers, retailers) are too powerful to let the business pass them by.

Better yet, call 1-800-843-9053 (State bar of California) and lodge a complaint.

December 12, 2006

Dear Friend,

UCLA computer administrators have discovered that a restricted campus database containing certain personal information has been illegally accessed by a sophisticated computer hacker. This database contains certain personal information about UCLA's current and some former students, faculty and staff, some student applicants and some parents of students or applicants who applied for financial aid. The database also includes current and some former faculty and staff at the University of California, Merced, and current and some former employees of the University of California Office of the President, for which UCLA does administrative processing.

I regret having to inform you that your name is in the database. While we are uncertain whether your personal information was actually obtained, we know that the hacker sought and retrieved some Social Security numbers. Therefore, I want to bring this situation to your attention and urge you to take actions to minimize your potential risk of identity theft. I emphasize that we have no evidence that personal information has been misused.

The information stored on the affected database includes names and Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses and contact information. It does not include driver's license numbers or credit card or banking information.

Only designated users whose jobs require working with the restricted data are given passwords to access this database. However, an unauthorized person exploited a previously undetected software flaw and fraudulently accessed the database between October 2005 and November 2006. When UCLA discovered this activity on Nov. 21, 2006, computer security staff immediately blocked all access to Social Security numbers and began an emergency investigation. While UCLA currently utilizes sophisticated information security measures to protect this database, several measures that were already under way have been accelerated.

In addition, UCLA has notified the FBI, which is conducting its own investigation. We began notifying those individuals in the affected database as soon as possible after determining that personal data was accessed and after we retrieved individual contact information.

As a precaution, I recommend that you place a fraud alert on your consumer credit file. By doing so, you let creditors know to watch for unusual or suspicious activity, such as someone attempting to open a new credit card account in your name. You may also wish to consider placing a security freeze on your accounts by writing to the credit bureaus. A security freeze means that your credit history cannot be seen by potential creditors, insurance companies or employers doing background checks unless you give consent. For details on how to take these steps, please visit http://www.identityalert.ucla.edu/what_you_can_do. htm.

Extensive information on steps to protect against personal identity theft and fraud are on the Web site of the California Office of Privacy Protection, a division of the state Department of Consumer Affairs, http://www.privacy.ca.gov.

Information also is available on a Web site we have established, http://www.identityalert.ucla.edu. The site includes additional information on this situation, further suggestions for monitoring your credit and links to state and federal resources. If you have questions about this incident and its implications, you may call our toll-free number, (877) 533-8082.

Please be aware that dishonest people falsely identifying themselves as UCLA representatives might contact you and offer assistance. I want to assure you that UCLA will not contact you by phone, e-mail or any other method to ask you for personal information. I strongly urge you not to rel

"For people convicted of kidnapping children and coercing them into child porn, this might very well be reasonable. But for the 25 yr old convicted of statutory rape of the 17yr old, this is quite questionable. Or the father who molests his daughter (and has never touched another child), or any number of other situations that are significantly milder."

I fail to understand why you consider child porn to be more important than molestation/incest or statutory rape. I'm also inclined to believe that your statement that "Most people who have to register do not deserve to be treated the same as the worst of the class" is not accurate, simply because one look at the Sex Offender Database here in California tells me that a large number of individuals were convicted of serious crimes, i.e. not just a simple molestation incident, but things like sexual battery, attempted rape by force, lewd or lascivious act with a minor, etc. If you think I'm making it up, just go look it up yourself: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/

The bottom line is that the second they committed the crime they were convicted for, they made the conscious decision to become second-class citizens themselves. This was not forced upon them, but it was their own choice, for which they have to, and should be made to pay forever if need be.
While their so-called 'debt to society' might have been paid, the emotional scars of their victims will probably never heal.

Think about that for a while.

Name one standardized exam that provides a comprehensive assessment of everything that needs to be considered to "certify" college graduates as qualified and hireable employees in any field, scientific/technical or otherwise.

Off the top of my head, how about:

(1) The ACS exams in chemistry.

(2) State RN license exams and board certification exams in medical specialties.

(3) The bar exam.

(4) The FAA exam for getting a license to fly an airplane on instruments.

(5) The CPA exams.

Need more? I'm sure I can find a round dozen with a few more minutes thinking.

Does it measure every area of knowledge...blah blah blah

In other words, is any test absolutely perfect? Of course not. Nothing is. But I believe we were talking about the real world, not Black 'n' White Land were anything not utterly perfect is ipso facto utter garbage. In our real world, "imperfect" exams do a damn good job sorting out competents from lookalike fools. A much better job than such feel-good fluffy stuff as recommendations from people who like you, or grades assigned according to some mysterious secret formula by someone of whom I've never heard.

How about we reverse the challenge? Why don't you find me a job in which people's lives are directly in your hands (like surgery, piloting, or critical care nursing), and which does not require a comprehensive exam before you start the job?

Here's what happens if you implement a do-or-die exit exam: learning of any important area of knowledge, skill, or ability that is not on the exam will get worse, because students will shift focus to learning (by rote memorization, if possible) all the things on the exam and they will ignore all the things that aren't.

Well let's hope so. See, either it's a good exam or it's not (in my case "good" would have been defined as "testing the skills employers really want.") If it's a bad exam, well, a poor or half-assed implementation doesn't prove an idea is shit. Otherwise Linux 0.1 would have been the death of Open Source Software, ha ha. But if it's a good exam, then students should not be spending time learning what's not on it, because that stuff isn't, in fact, "important." You just think it is, or wish it was. And a nice side-effect of the exam would be that it will dispel that illusion.

you'll see that overreliance on exit exams is at the top of most experts' lists of what has gotten the Indian educational system into this mess in the first place.

Sure. And lots of "experts" have theories about what makes the stock market go up and down, or how to boost employment without waking up inflation, or which team is going to win the Rose Bowl. Get back to me when there's factual measurable proof of this remarkable (and to my ear laughable) proposition.

Printing more money has proven in the past to be inflationary, and that it would be makes sense. While a little bit of inflation is the friend of of the working man, a lot of it at once is bad for everybody. A balance might be struck there that does indeed help, but it can't be taken to extremes.

One of the biggest problems with the U.S. economy is the whole Information Economy idea. Yes, computers and networks and the right kinds of software make work much more efficient. No, having enough computers, software, and networks will not make any real work get done if we're not making anything in the first place. We're making intellectual property investments protected by U.S. laws, spending our money from that on Chinese goods, and seeing the money spent in China spent on counterfeit Chinese versions of our U.S. software, movies, music, and whatever else. Meanwhile, China is not being punished but is officially enjoying "Normal Trade Relations". China, of course, is only one example, but is the biggest example. Unless counterfeit goods can be stifled, manufacturing is still the answer to long-term stability and prosperity.

The U.S. has always been a manufacturing powerhouse, and it still is. The US does not have the kind of manufacturing leadership role it could though because it's cheaper in the short term to outsource labor or to build whole American-owned factories in China, India, Guatemala, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, or any number of other countries than to streamline manufacturing processes and automate factories in the U.S. for long-term prosperity. One of the biggest reasons for this is health-care costs in the U.S. -- GM and Ford, for example, have health care for current and retired workers as one of their biggest line items in their budgets.

In 2004, GM reported its liabilities for retiree health benefits alone to exceed $61,000,000,000 USD. That's 2004 dollars unadjusted for inflation, as far as I can tell. Compare that to New Zealand's 2005 estimated GDP of $101,685,000,000 USD. Maybe compare it against the 2005 GDP of Latvia at $29,214,000,000 USD. It's not hard to see that unfettered lawsuits against doctors, huge inefficiencies in health care, huge drugs costs, and other things are damaging the bottom line for big manufacturers in the U.S. at all. How to best solve the health care issue may not be clear, but that it needs to be solved should be like plate glass to anyone concerned.

California law (Penal code 261.5(a) through (c)) specifically exempts sex with minors from the definition of statutory rape when the difference in age between the two parties is three years or less.

Just google for the right thing. Important ideas in bold
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c7a1.htm
Basic Speed Law
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
Speed Law Violations
22351. (a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law.
(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

> Maybe this professor was mistaken, but it was a Criminal Justice intro class at the local Cal State.
> The prof made a point about pointing out that California was the only state that required citizens to have a state ID or drivers license on them.

You have every reason to believe the professor was mistaken, or possibly you misunderstood him, unless you can find a law which says otherwise.

The California Senate website has an analysis of bill AB 1944 which says (as of 2002 anyway) that "there is no requirement in California or in the United States that people carry identification with them at all times."

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1901- 1950/ab_1944_cfa_20020625_143825_sen_comm.html

It is a misdemeanor, though, to provide a false name or false ID to a police officer who has detained or arrested you, per California Penal Code Section 148.9.

I believe the law you are referring (Electronic Eavesdropping Law) to only applies to private communications. I can't see the article in question (slashdotted), but if this was a private school there may be some truth to what you say, but in public schools are public places and there is no law against recording in public places.

There are impermeable asphalt roads all over the world, of course. Think of all the drainage pipes in Manhattan that just empty into its rivers. Maybe there is some clever way with old tires filter that water passively.

I'm wondering if there isn't some way to use that sort of filtering as a good base for roads made from the old tires themselves.

The tires that run on the road become the roads and filter water as an added bonus.

IANAL, but it may be legal. Here is the relevant portion of the California Penal Code (on citizen's arrests). However, please don't try this. It would be colossally stupid. The police have guns, and you don't. They also know the law better than you. Note that the way many California police departments apparently suggest handling citizen's arrests is to sign a card with the complaint, and then letting the officer do all the hard work.

Again, regardless of whether this actually ends up being legal or not, I would strongly recommend that you do not try to arrest the police. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Take a look at California Penal Code section 830.2 (b). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sect ion=pen&group=00001-01000&file=830-832.17

According to most of the sources a quick google search picks up, we are paying just about as much for oil now as during the '70s when adjusted for inflation. Maybe a little less, but I suppose it depends on how you define "nearly".
For example:

Oregon State estimate
  California gas prices

So, write your legislator(s) and demand that they change the law in your sorry state. One model is the California data security disclosure law:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1351- 1400/sb_1386_bill_20020926_chaptered.html

Adding some teeth to it, like credit monitoring, or penalties would help people like you.

Like another poster said, get the students in an uproar...

Well, I would argue that automobiles are a symbol of freedom. Automobiles allow us to get from door to door, without having to walk for over 5 minutes to a transit stop and without having to transfer buses a few times if you're going longer than a few miles. Automobiles allow us to travel anywhere we choose, instead of wherever the bus or train line goes. With an automobile, getting a load of groceries is easy. Try getting groceries without a car; you wish that you had one by the time you finally carry your groceries over (or give up and pay the taxi). Automobiles allow us to mind our own business. I don't want to listen to a passenger curse somebody out on a cell phone, or deal with some of the seedier characters on the bus or train (this is actually a common occurrence riding public transportation in Sacramento). Finally, with an automobile, we don't have to revolve our lives around other peoples' schedules. You can leave whenever you feel like it with a car. You can't do that with public transportation.

Am I saying automobiles are perfect? No. They are energy inefficient, for one, and I wish hybrid technology will further improve. Our roads are getting much more congested everyday, and our political leaders (in California) refuse to do anything about it (they have refused to build any roads on a large scale statewide since the Jerry Brown administration started in the mid-1970s. Don't get me started. To make a long story short, the Jerry Brown administration dismantled California's grand statewide freeway plans of the 1950s and 60s [which would have been completed by the 1990s], helped cancel many freeways in metro areas [Sacramento, Los Angeles, Bay Area except San Jose, and other areas], and left current construction projects abandoned. Thanks to his administration, and the lack of will from subsequent administrations to roll back his changes, California's highway system went from the best to the worst. Read more about it here.). However, we, as Americans, appreciate to mobility and convenience that we get from automobiles, and I do not feel that public transportation is as flexible or as convenient as automobiles are. We are willing to suck up congestion and higher gas prices in order to ride our automobiles.

It's a hard problem for more than one reason. The first is the issue of jurisdiction. How exactly do you hold someone responsible for theft or fraud that is in a another state, or even better--another country? And how exactly are you sure that this is the perpetrator? People in the underground have been using botnets for years to do their bidding, I'm sure they couldn't hide their tracks by some sort of proxy... Not to mention the fact that the IP address used could be dynamically changed by the ISP. See RIAA suing grandmas without computers etc. This whole thing goes back to the issue of identity and IP address. You can't be sure one implies the other without strict technological barriers. I'm not quite sure that erecting such barriers would be a wise idea though. Think of a government like China being able to trace every word on the internet to a particular person. I'm afraid that is the price of Liberty in cyberspace. You just have to take precautions in meatspace.

Basically, it says if you maintain personal information of California residents and if that info *might* be compromised, then you *must* notify all affected parties. The information includes first name (or initial) and last name, plus one or more of SSN, driver's license #, CC number, bank account, and a few others.

The fine for failure to notify is $10,000 *per account*. The first big story on this was a few months after the law became effective. A consultant for Wells Fargo (I think), took home (on a laptop) info on 50,000 high level accounts to do marketing analysis. The laptop was stolen (but recovered). Wells Fargo was all over the evening news telling everyone in California that they had screwed up. Why? They were looking at a potential fine of $500,000,000, that's why.

Since then, there have been many breakins/screwups that have been announced by national and multinational corps. because some of the data was about California residents. Personally, I consider this a Very Good Thing®. Too bad they don't have similar fines connected with producing broken/fraudulent voting systems.

If the compromised data might contain anything covered by CA AB 700, Salvance's friend should, at the very least, write a letter to his boss (and boss's boss, etc. if necessary) informing them of the company's extreme exposure on this matter. He just might save them from self-disctructing.

===
HBO: Hacking Democracy
Be afraid. Be very afraid.

It's state law.
California has one, up to 2 hours to vote without loss of pay, Elections Code 14000
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sect ion=elec&group=13001-14000&file=14000-14003

"Yes, the Republicans freed the slaves, but that was almost 150 years ago -- I'd say the GOP's more than a little different now"

In this idea, at least, they are the same. Efforts to support equal treatment regardless and rights regardless of race find the most support among Republicans, and the Democrats tend to strongly oppose equal/fair treatment. (Here's an excellent example where the Republicans tended to side with equal rights and the Dems went with the racists.)

"In fact, all of those Democrats who sought to maintain segregation? They've long since switched parties and are Republicans now."

Men such as KKK Grand Wizard Senator Robert Byrd? (D-WV).

You need to look up the laws for your state. In California judgements are enforceable for ten years, and they are renewable for another 10 years after that. On top of this you accrue 10% interest on the settlement every year it goes uncollected.

This can add up to a tidy sum. So, if you still have your paperwork and your state has laws similar to California you are in luck. Now, if your roommate still has no money you might be out of luck, but there are ways of getting money from them. Look it up for your state; in California there are a lot of ways to force payment of a settlement.

Good luck!

I'm not sure I believe they're only using 10MW across their entire worldwide campus. I would bet that's a fair number for their datacenter(s).

If they were to do this via solar:

    315 peak watts per pannel at 1560mm x 800mm per pannel
    31,746 pannels required assuming peak of 10MW and not constant
    1.248 square meters per pannel times 31,746
    425,000 square feet of space (approximately)

    For those still with me, that's 9.8 acres of solar pannels, producing [in that region of CA] approximately 18GWh per year. That's about $3,600,000 worth of energy per year in CA.

Some recommendations: Don't just cover the tops of your buildings. Created additional semi-covered parking with solar pannels atop, consider wind. GE makes one of the most efficient wind turbines out there. For each one of those you can fit on your property, you're likely to save about an acre of land required for solar. And though their peak power coverage isn't as great, they're in operation when the sun's down :)

Unfortunately for google, the wind in cali is not that good for wind power [except offshort]. Though, some parts near the SF area do have slightly better ratings.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/wind/WIND_POWER_50M. jpg

I think the one thing that companies overlook is. There's no absolute requirement that being carbon neutral requires you to power your own stuff with the energy. How about investment in a wind farm in southwest kansas [excellent location for wind power]. Or 10 acres of Solar pannels in Mexico? I think helping Mexico reduce carbon usage is probably better (polution wise) than helping the US...

The general public should be informed about this new economic market segment.

A local control automation panel manufacturer here in Cedar Falls, IA who works with regional recycling centers nationwide described to me that many of the systems have a conveyor that in the case of computer monitors feeds the monitors into a 'crusher' which breaks it into small pieces.

These pieces are then mechanically and automatically separated into plastic, glass, and electronics bins each of which are then sold. The state of California has a good general information website about recycling plastic here .

The Control Panel Manufacturer also described how recycling centers alternatively have people take the plastic off first before it gets fed into the conveyor depending on their respective equipment and capabilities.

Regarding the electronics:
With gold ~$600/ounce, silver at ~$13.00/ounce, and copper at ~3.40/pound it's more economical to recycle these metals than to mine new.

Some additional recycled plastics prices:
12-27 cents per pound on the west coast.
Market prices for recycled plastic are currently $200 to $1000/ton from local recycling centers based on recent surveys in selected regions...

Sounded pretty mandatory last time I read it...

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

I would not be so sanguine about "This peak oil fearmongering is just silly." Here are some points to consider:

1.) We are still using 6 barrels of oil for every barrel that is found and it is getting worse.

2.) The tar sands require a lot of natural gas. Lee Raymond, ex-CEO of Exxon-Mobile thinks we may have peaked in natural gas production in North America (http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2005/06/exxon_na tural_g.htm, http://www.energy.ca.gov/naturalgas/documents/2005 -04-19_WIEB_workshop/Dave%20M-Overview.ppt - slide 23). This means that we will have to import ever increasing amounts of LNG from the Middle East. This puts us at a strategic and economic disadvantage.

3.) In the mid 1980's, OPEC decided based their quotas on proved reserves (Ref:http://www.theoildrum.com/storyonly/2006/3/1/ 3402/63420). These are the reserves that you are very confident that are in the ground. Saudi Arabia went from around 170GB to 261GB. Kuwait went from 67GB to 99GB. Recently, Kuwait announced that their biggest field, Burgan was in decline. The Oil Minister was called in by the Kuwaiti Parliament and asked if they had 99GB or 48GB in the ground. The Kuwaitis believed their inflated numbers!!!! A similar question is being asked of the Saudis with regards to Ghawar and their other gigantic, but very aged, oil fields. Recent leaks of graphs concerning Ghawar do not bode well. Ghawar at its peak was prodcuing 5.4 Mbpd. Recently, the official estimates are down in the 4.x range.

4.) With regard to my statements in 3, the National Geographic published an article entitled: The End of Cheap Oil. On page 92 was a graph of orange boxes showing the oil reserves from around the world (Ref: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/featu re5/). The squares represent the sizes of the oil fields ***when they were full.*** You'll note that National Geo used the inflated OPEC numbers...

5.) The Oil Shale of Colorado should be called Wax Shale for a better descriptive title to the actual consistency of the hydrocarbon. When oil gets expensive enough to actual make the Wax Shales profitable, we will be in a world of financial hurt.

6.) Yes Venezuela is sitting on top of some really large deposits of heavy crude/bitumen. This is expensive to refine. Projections are for it to grow at a 3% rate from a base of 600kbpd until 2015 and then it forecast to start to decline.

7.) Where are we exploring for more oil? The high artic, near Greenland, deep oceans, and there is talk of exploring in Antartica. The only place we have not thought about exploring for oil is the moon. The National Geo was right in its title. This is the end of **cheap** oil.


We could argue all we want to about how much oil is left and when the world will peak in production. The problem is that demand is increasing into a supply that is getting harder and harder to find and extract. Meanwhile, the results of using fossil fuels is contributing to wide spread climate change and environmental damage. We need to abandon use of fossil fuels and concentrate on using and developing alternatives.

My money is on: 1.) solar cells (http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2004/051904/Solar_c rystals_get_2-for-1_051904.html),

2.) long life batteries (http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communiqu e&newsid=10734), and

3.) fun EVs to drive (http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1 ). Note that a "100 mile pack" capable of 9,000 cycles is 900,000 miles of driving. That's about a human life time of driving...

After reading JFK Jr.'s article, I went to the CA state voter information web page to see whether my state had any plans on implementing electronic voting systems. I was a bit surprised and dismayed to find that 51.6% of Californians voted to "upgrade" our voting systems in the 2002 primary elections. What was even more surprising though was that in this primary election, a slim majority of the votes were Republican (roughly 51% vs. 47%), whereas in the 2002 general election a far greater majority of the votes were Democrat (about 48% vs. 42%). To be fair, the incumbent usually enjoys a swing of votes in his or her favor between the primary and general elections.

Another interesting item I found on the CA government web site was a letter to Diebold essentially certifying their voting systems for use in the 2006 elections with the condition that they fix the machines' security and reliability problems in the long term. The fact that the state would allow a system with known vulnerabilities to be used in this upcoming election has me worried.

After reading JFK Jr.'s article, I went to the CA state voter information web page to see whether my state had any plans on implementing electronic voting systems. I was a bit surprised and dismayed to find that 51.6% of Californians voted to "upgrade" our voting systems in the 2002 primary elections. What was even more surprising though was that in this primary election, a slim majority of the votes were Republican (roughly 51% vs. 47%), whereas in the 2002 general election a far greater majority of the votes were Democrat (about 48% vs. 42%). To be fair, the incumbent usually enjoys a swing of votes in his or her favor between the primary and general elections.

Another interesting item I found on the CA government web site was a letter to Diebold essentially certifying their voting systems for use in the 2006 elections with the condition that they fix the machines' security and reliability problems in the long term. The fact that the state would allow a system with known vulnerabilities to be used in this upcoming election has me worried.

California already taxes about 50 cents a gallon (the third highest) . Shouldn't they already be funding alternative transportation with that money?

When the issue is a California proposition, the best article we could find to link to was from the "Northwest Florida Daily News"??? Huh?

Here are some more local sources that might be useful in the debate... and yes, the critical sites do raise the same point... from within California.

(Neutral)
Secretary of State's Analysis

(Critical)
Local Blogger
Official "No" Site

(Favorable)
Official "Yes" Site

So, according to Bill AB 424 in the Great Sovereign State of California, any company negligent in the protection of customer identity data must immediately inform the offended party upon being made aware of the breach.

I understand that there have been several attempts to leverage that law on behalf of US citizens who can't afford to live in California (us poor, ol' east coast folks!) to require major corporations transacting any business in California to immediately disclose based on that law.

I'm sure there's jurisdictional issues, but there's at least some chance in hell that virtue jurisprudence will prevail.

Anyone with an actual Litt.D, SJD, or otherwise more qualified care to add fact to my hype and speculation? :)

In the banking industry, the applicable regulation is fairly strict... the institution must "promptly" notify customers of a material breach and there are relatively few loopholes. So if your broker or whoever was part of a bank, then this would apply. However, if your e-mail address was all that was compromised, they don't really need to notify you. By definition, e-mail addresses are not private information, any more than your physical address is. A number of states, notably California, have privacy laws that can be invoked, but the trigger for a material breach is usually the compromise of a combination of personal identifying data such as name and address (including e-mail addresses) and sensitive nonpublic personal information such as login credentials, account numbers, etc. You might see whether there is a law in your state that applies.

Uh huh.... and what is your take going to be Lockyer? Oh, just a small percentage you say, but a small percentage of an obscenely large number of dollars is still lots of dollars, right? Will you be buying a new Bentley with your share? Or will it be a party in your Escalade?

For what it's worth, Bill Lockyer is the attorney general. So unlike private lawyers who bring class action suits, his take will be $175,525 a year, which is exactly what it would be if he didn't bring this suit.

Which raises a really interesting question: Why is Bill Lockyer doing this? Does he think he can convince his constituents this is a good idea?

Who are these "people" you talk about that sit in poorly ventelated rooms with smokers. Neither I, nor anyone I know falls into that category. Of course I know people that do sit in poorly ventelated rooms with cars. Many, many mechanics, both amature and professional, inhale large quantities of car exaust. As for frequency. You have to be kidding when you imply that the general public is exposed to more cigerette smoke than car exaust. It is everywhere.

As for the money. You simply have your head in the sand. Just here in California, just one anti-smoking industry recipient takes in 700 million a year! First 5 That money is going somewhere. It's people like you that keep the anti-smoking industry alive. You take something that is bad for you, and villinize it to the point that people are afraid to call the industry on it's lies. I mean really, do you think the actors in the anti-smoking commercials are volenteers? Do you think the TV stations just give that air time away? Heck, vertually every daycare in California is part of the anti-smoking industry. (I don't know if other states have similare situations.) If you are unwilling to even question an industry that is bringing in billions of dollars a year, your arguments simply carry no wieght.

No doubt you breath better when you quit smoking. That's why it is in the "just" bad for you category. Things that are "Extremely" hazardous kill most people that do them in a short period of time.

Bike lanes are often way more dangerous than riding in the street. Read:
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzo ne/laird1.htm

Here in California the law recognizes that lots of bike lanes are substandard and can be legally ignored:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm

As for your feelings about erratic sidewalk cycling, I'm with you. Bicycles belong out in the traffic lane.

It's not the autolane, it's the lane. You're allowed to ride your bike there to stay clear of the parked cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_lane

Here's the relevant bit of the California-specific vehicle code:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

We're not all cyclists, I know, but we're all geeks, we all use the roads, and of course nobody likes to see comrades die under any circumstances. I thought it would be appropriate to point out some cycling related tips to go along with the parent's "always wear a helmet" statement.

USE LIGHTS: Lights on your bike are to BE SEEN, even in daylight. Use them front and back, flashing. Many drivers subconsciously associate flashing lights with cars, and hence they will factor you into their driving logic, which in some cases means they'll notice you at all when they otherwise wouldn't have.

Back Roads: One thing about biking is that you can take back roads which are more direct but have slower speed limits, since you won't be hitting that 50mph expressway speed limit anyways. This puts you around far fewer cars which are also going slower, and often in neighborhoods where people are more aware things other than cars. I know two great sites to find bike routes: www.bikely.com and www.motionbased.com

Use Mirrors: There are a variety of mirrors, mostly cheap. You want a mirror which lets you see behind you without moving your head so that you don't swerve, even slightly, while glancing. One popular mirror which can be purchased off eBay for very ~$23 is the Italian Racing Mirror which mounts on end of the drop handlebars of a road bike.

Know the Rules of the Road: Other people in this thread have pointed out that it doesn't require a license to ride a bike in the street. All of us, even we cyclists, have been pissed off by somebody on a bike who was doing something stupid. The laws may be different in each state, but sensibility isn't. If you ride a bicycle, or drive a car, take even just a minute to skim over this link: CHP - Bicycle Riding. (I include drivers too because they probably don't know that "Bicycle riders and automobile drivers follow the same rules and have the same rights.")

Of course, this being the internet, there are plenty great resources to find information about cycling related stuff, including commuting, safety, etc.. bikeforums.net is a fantastic place to start.

The funny thing is, I do the exact same thing these guys did all the time. I'll be looking fo information on a product and get to an address like www.example.com/products/detail?id=34512 and I'll just delete the last part of it to get to www.example.com/products. If the site is well designed I get a listing of all of that company's products. Little did I know I was hacking their site.

Hell, I could just slip up in copy and pasting to change http://speeches.gov.ca.gov/dir/speech?id=453 to http://speeches.gov.ca.gov/dir. I think when yout website can be "hacked" by a screw up in copy and pasting you really have some serious problems.

This is quite a bit different from typing in "www.example.com/products/detail?id=34512;UPDATE Products SET product_info='I pwn joo!!!'". I would consider that pretty nefarious, even though it really shouldn't do anything if the site is properly built. But that's quite a bit different from doing the equivalant of 'cd ..' using HTTP.

The funny thing is, I do the exact same thing these guys did all the time. I'll be looking fo information on a product and get to an address like www.example.com/products/detail?id=34512 and I'll just delete the last part of it to get to www.example.com/products. If the site is well designed I get a listing of all of that company's products. Little did I know I was hacking their site.

Hell, I could just slip up in copy and pasting to change http://speeches.gov.ca.gov/dir/speech?id=453 to http://speeches.gov.ca.gov/dir. I think when yout website can be "hacked" by a screw up in copy and pasting you really have some serious problems.

This is quite a bit different from typing in "www.example.com/products/detail?id=34512;UPDATE Products SET product_info='I pwn joo!!!'". I would consider that pretty nefarious, even though it really shouldn't do anything if the site is properly built. But that's quite a bit different from doing the equivalant of 'cd ..' using HTTP.

Here ya go.

All fixed for ya now, your good to GO!

The CHP merged with the California State Police in 1995. They are the law enforcement authority on CA state property.

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/history.html

How about this, from a CNET interview with the Calif. AG Bill Lockyer:

"Q: What is covered under California law with regard to pretexting?
Lockyer: There are two relevant statutes that may provide for criminal liability to someone who does pretexting. There's an identity theft statute, and there's a law that was designed to mostly address computer hackers, but it's getting information illegally from someone's computer system. Essentially it's pretending you're some other person to get a business that has a lot of personal information about a customer, to get that information disclosed by pretending you're that customer.

This practice is not illegal under federal law with respect to telephone records, correct? But from what I understand, that's not the case in California.
Lockyer: Yes, we have a stronger California law than the federal statute."

(probably this section)

Sooo, the AG believes that the pretexting, while not specifically addressed by statue, may fall under these other state laws. That'll be fun to watch in court, if it ever gets there.

Then there's the matter of the all-but-fraadulent SEC report on Perkin's resignation. HP just left out one or two minor details - such as the reason for his departure. Details that are *required* in an 8-K. All they said was:

"On May 18, 2006, Thomas J. Perkins announced his resignation as a director of Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP"), effective immediately. The text of HP's press release relating to Mr. Perkins' resignation is filed with this report as Exhibit 99.1." (link)

That's all.

So HP's in a bit of a fix with the State of CA, *and* with the SEC. Not to mention their customers, who've noticed the decline in product and support quality over the last decade. Sad really - they used to be great.

(b) This section shall only apply to devices that include an integrated and enabled wireless access point and that are used in a federally unlicensed spectrum.