Slashdot Mirror

You'd be surprised what's still on the books:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codes ection=edc&codebody=communist&hits=20

The first is a hit for a form that all people must sign to use school property saying they aren't communists. 2, 3 and 4 are hits for staff retention policies throughout the California education system.

It had been their intention to keep him for the two weeks, however once they notified him that he was in the hole on his vacation time and they'd be docking his paycheck, he started going from cube to cube complaining to everyone about the unfair treatment.

Q. My employer allows its employees to take their vacation before it is actually earned or accrued. Last month I took my three weeks vacation before I had actually earned all of it. I quit my job this month and my employer deducted all of the unearned vacation days that I had taken from my final paycheck. Can he do this?

A. No, your employer cannot deduct "advanced" vacation (i.e., vacation that is taken before it is earned or accrued) from your final paycheck. Because of work schedules and the wishes of employees, many employers allow employees to take their vacation before it is actually earned. Under California law, vacation benefits are a form of wages, and an employer's practice of allowing employees to take their vacation before it is actually earned or accrued is in effect an advance on wages. Thus, if an employee takes an advance on vacation and then quits or is discharged before all of that advanced vacation is earned or accrued, the effect is that there has been an overpayment of wages which is a debt owed to the employer.

The California courts have noted on a number of occasions that an advance on wages, as with any other debt owed (either to the employer or a third party), is subject to the provisions of the attachment law. However, since wages are exempt from prejudgment attachment, neither the employer nor any third party can recover the debt by way of attachment of the employee's final pay, as to do so would violate the public policy considerations underlying the wage exemption statutes. Thus, in California since the wage garnishment law provides the exclusive judicial procedure by which a judgment creditor can execute against the wages of a judgment debtor, an employer may not resort to self-help to recover debts owed to the employer by an employee from the wages then due to the employee.

I didn't say thrown out of the car, dumbass, I said out of the seat. Try driving with the front seat passenger in your lap (who is also required to be belted). It's the same reason racing cars have bucket seats, which basically prevent the driver from sliding side to side, unlike bench-style seats.

You'll claim this is prattle, but I'm certainly http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=1388&q=259430 >not the only one who claims what I have said. But if you want to be an organ donor, by all means, be my guest.

A consumer boycott could possibly make SONY management act responsibly, meaning they actually admit responsibility for the rootkit, but I doubt it unless the boycott spreads outside of geekdom. Well, maybe. But if it doesn't here's what you can do personally: sue them yourself.

In California (where I live), we have a thing called "Small Claims" court. It's a civil court where an ordinary citizen can sue another ordinary citizen or a company for monetary damages. Punitive damages are not awarded and neither are "pain and suffering" damages. You actually have to have been damaged in a way that cost you money in order to collect in small claims court. The good thing about small claims court is that lawyers are not allowed. The bad thing is if you're suing a corporation they can send an employee (such as a laywer they have on the payroll). This this is a good thing in a way as you will see.

First of all, you need to be damaged by SONY. That's easy: put one of the XCD music CDs in your PC. Of course, you should not do this knowing about the rootkit. But if it happened before you learned about it or if you happened to get one of those XCD disks and didn't notice it then it's a different matter.

Second, you need to pay someone to clean your PC. Make sure you get a receipt.

Third, you need to follow the rules regarding filing a claim, getting court papers served, making sure you're prepared to present your case, etc. All this is here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/smallclaims/s cbasics.htm

The neat thing about small claims court is that if the defendant (SONY in this case) doesn't show up, you are entitled to ask for a summary judgment which means you win your case by default. You can then proceed to collect your damages from SONY. Companies tend to pay such claims because the cost of having assets attached and liquidated (such as one of their bank accounts) exeeds the cost of just paying it.
If they send someone it's an employee of the company which means they are paying wages for someone to be there. If you win your case, you've not only made SONY liable for your damages (plus your court costs) you've also cost them probably more than your damages especially if they send one of their legal department lawyers. If you lose, you've still won a moral victory that cost you no more than the cost of one of SONY's CDs and some of your time.

If enough people did this SONY will take notice. So if you've been damaged go for it. If you know someone whose been hit by the rootkit, perhaps they can be urged to do it. You can even make some money on the side if you're the one cleaning the PCs.

"No, the #1 reason public schools in CA are crap is because 80% of the school budget goes for ADMINISTRATION. Only 20% goes to pay teachers, supply classrooms, and keep facilities in good repair."

Umm, I think you reversed those numbers. The largest operating largest cost in any school district is salaries. And the largest number of salaried bodies tends to be teachers.....

Oh, gee, here is something useful "The average spent on administration in California districts is about 7.3 percent." (http://www.sen.ca.gov/sor/policy/education/prop22 3.htm)

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your opinion :)

Wow!! You have taken missing the point to an entirely new level!

Since everything following your first paragraph is complete merde, I will refrain from taking you to task on each point.

However you did get off to a good start in the first paragraph...

True less plush green lawn would be a great step, except that is being addressed already. As land prices rise, homes are being built on smaller and smaller lots - each one comes equiped with a driveway, walkway, and patio all built of concrete and none of them are shrinking in size (significantly) thereby reducing the percentage of each lot available for a plush green lawn.

However that being said, there is always the 2 ton elephant in the room that noone seems to want to talk about. Residential water use ammounts to about 10% of total usage in the state. The VAST majority goes to agricultural uses, for instance growing RICE, of all things, in the desert. You try and convince the rice lobby to just stop. Aside from the difficulty we seem to have controlling corporations though, it points up the crux of the problem and its national impact. For all of the economic and cultural impact of the NO area (http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/LA.htm which the first poster was not denegrating) it can not compare the the national impact of the California economy (http://www.lao.ca.gov/2002/cal_facts/econ.html.) As far as culture goes, you are quite correct, NO is a fantastic bruepot for music, food and the arts, I have no quibble with that. But if California were not a cultural powerhouse - none of the rest of you would bitch endlessly about "those damn Californians" the way you do!

As far as the the missinformed posters comments about everyone paying the same federal taxes, that is true, but for every dollar Californians pay, less than one dollar is received in federal funding. We already are keeping the rest of you layabouts living better than you would without our help. So the next time you want to bitch about California, stop succling on our teat first. And another thing, while you are bitching please stop moving here. Infact just stop moving here at all - especially if your from Kansas.

Hmmmm.

Yeah, these concepts have been kicked around some.

The single nastiest:

Let's say that in order to avoid "specialty hardware" like this meant to beat such code-checks, we went with open-source software that runs on any reasonably standard PC, bought from Dell, a local clone shop, whatever Best Buy has on sale, etc.

But somebody REALLY wanted to hack elections, on a massive scale.

They find some piece of "motherboard guts chip" that nearly everybody uses, or they infiltrate Intel or something, and put something nasty in that gets called by the voting application software and nothing else. And the various source code reviewers (pro and amateur) all miss the trigger code.

How likely is this?

Well...something sorta similar did happen once before. Remember years ago when there was a speed war between various video card makers, and one of the big magazines (PC Mag?) had a video performance benchmark, and several video card makers were caught doing firmware that looked for that magazine's benchmark and when they found it, they stripped error checking and whatnot to the bare bones and ran balls-to-the-wall just to make pretty numbers on the benchmark?

Sorta similar. But it DID get caught and we even figured out exactly who did it. No crime was committed though.

I don't know...on the one hand, the leadership of the free world is at stake, on the other the penalties for getting caught are pretty nasty.

One thing we can do better (in addition to source code review) is better software test procedures in the elections biz.

Oh man. You're not going to believe this, but it's true: in the "logic and accuracy tests" before and after elections, you know what they do to the various voting machines?

As God is my witness: they set them to "test mode" instead of "election mode".

I mean, the first time I saw that, I knew something Dilbert's-boss-level-stupid was going on.

REAL testing would happen in "election mode", with the date/time set to the actual election(!) and with every other possible parameter same as the real deal, right?

Here's the manual for a real voting machine in use in California, from the SecState's site:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/091404_5a_p.pdf

On page 9:

---
4.3. Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Test (Pre-LAT)
The local election official shall have the entire system, both machines and central system, tested
to ascertain that it will properly count the votes cast for all offices and all questions. The test
shall be conducted by manually and/or electronically performing Vote Simulation Cartridge in
the Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Test mode of the voting machine. The test must utilize a
pre-determined test script of at least one vote for each possible selection within an office of
question. To test the central system, a number of results cartridges from the machines will be
tallied. The printed results from the central system are compared to both the machine results
and the test script. If a voting machine or the central system does not accurately count the test
script or test vote, the cause for the error shall be ascertained and corrected and an errorless
count shall be made before the system is approved for use of counting votes.
---

Doh!

Our school district had a program called GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) and basically did what you wanted, putting the gifted kids together and having the teacher(s) teach to their level. Something you must understand is that teachers don't teach at the level of the bottom of the class nor at the level of the top of the class. They cater towards the center, where the top feel it's not challenging enough, and the bottom feel it's going too fast. That is why the educational systems I've been have classes for the "not-as-bright" kids, and classes for the talented kids.

CalTrans already has a very complicated, however effective, publicly viewable system which, if you read their main page lists "motorist cellular calls" as one of the many sources of information. I was alerted to this site by a vigilant friend concerned about his motorist calls made in and north of L.A. and there may have been some outbursts against this policy, but I know of none.

If you have a secret to tell, meet in person, and whisper. --Tom Clancy

Jeez!

CalTrans already has a very complicated, however effective, publicly viewable system which, if you read their main page lists "motorist cellular calls" as one of the many sources of information. I was alerted to this site by a vigilant friend concerned about his motorist calls made in and north of L.A. and there may have been some outbursts against this policy, but I know of none.

If you have a secret to tell, meet in person, and whisper. --Tom Clancy

Jeez!

Your post made me do some more research. I was off. It's substantially better, but still there. 70-92% efficiency. The problem comes from not being able to get things as close together as in a sealed transformer. Conductive systems are qouted at "usually over 92% efficient", Inductive chargers are quoted at "Although inductive charging systems may have a peak efficiency of up to 92%, this efficiency drops off substantially with power level. If EVs are frequently "topping off" at lower power levels staff believes that the overall charging efficiency of inductive systems will be much lower."

It also incures extra cost in needing a $2000 system to provide the connection.

source

240 volts x 30 amps = 7,200 watts. I really don't see why you couldn't either. Unless you are a complete dumbass about it 240 volt electric out of a dryer/range socket is no more dangerous then 120 out of a household one. Hell, it's good enough for Europe....

I looked up some data, a EV1's power cells seem to be rated at around 30kw/h. Five hours at 7000 watts give you 35kw/h. You generally don't want to push an electrical circuit right up to the breaker blowing point regularly, so give it 6-8 hours. 8 hours at 25amps gives you 44kw/h of power, easily enough to charge the batteries from 'dead' to 'full'. And you're not paying $2k for a charger, you're paying maybe $200 for a electrician to run a 220 socket out into your garage.

It also gives you a chance to charge your car at, say, a friend's or relative's house, you just 'borrow' their dryer socket, as that tends to be near the garage. It might take borrowing the garage and a heck of a extension cable, but it can be done. An external switchmode power supply could make the cable quite a bit lighter(up it to something like 400 volts), and allow you to 'trickle charge' if all you can get is 110.

Driving solo in the carpool is worth getting a Hybrid for!

Umm, the U.S. does tax gasoline.

On 2005-11-21, the California Secretary of State will hold a hearing regarding the recertification of several Diebold voting systems. Anyone in the Sacramento area with something to say, please attend.

The Notice: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/agen da_112105.pdf

Is china actually that bad of a polluter? Let's talk per capita.

Screw "per capita". When pollution from china floats across the Pacific Ocean and poisons my water supply here in California, no amount of BS rationalizing is going to fix it.

(link)

"one which is as close to being carbon neutral as possible within economic constraints." (emphasis mine)
Nothing new here. They're going to scavenge waste heat from their power plant, do some intelligent rain water capture, and put the sewage through a wetlands for treatment. Mix in a decent recycling program, modern building standards on par with ASHRAE 90.1 2004 or California's Title 24, and efficient buildings and you're there. Pull in Amory from the Rocky Mountain Institute if you want a touch of inspiration (Solar powered traffic lights? Communal electric cars? Sewage fermented into methane for generators?) and call it a day. Not entirely carbon neutral, but as carbon neutral as possible within 'economic constraints.'

Is Arups any relation to Ove Arup? I think they're the guys who once put in a 5 acre lake to provide evaporative cooling for an adjacent office building (along with synergistic landscape and park benefits yadda yad). Sigh. I wish I had that kind of economically 'constrained' budget on my next building.

If she had property or a job in California, supposedly you could have garnished them or placed a lien on them.

If she had property or a job in California, supposedly you could have garnished them or placed a lien on them.

FYI - There IS a fuel efficiency requirement for hybrid vehicles in California carpool lanes. As a result, only the Honda Civic Hybrid, the Honda Insight Hybrid, and the Toyota Prius Hybrid are actually eligible, and on top of that, there's only a limited number of permits available, so even some eligible vehicle owners will be left out.

Here's the California DMV's chart on eligible vehicles (hybrid, electric and CNG): http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm

Those CA hippie Democrats (you know, the ones who are suppposed to save the country from those nasty conservatives) are the ones who voted for the bill! Both the senate and the assembly!

I keep reading on Slashdot how we need to be saved from those stupid and mean conservatives. Yet, they voted squarely AGAINST this bill, and those smart and worldly knowledgable hippies voted squarely FOR this bill! Is what I've read on Slashdot not true?

PS, if you're going to knock on the girly man Governator (as he didn't have the guts to veto this legislation), also give some time towards the sponsers of this bill as well: AUTHOR(S) : Yee (Coauthors: Coto, Leslie, Levine, Mountjoy, Mullin, and Vargas) (Coauthors: Senators Florez and Kuehl). All smart, in-the-know, liberal Democrats if I'm not mistaken.

Hmmm... Maybe those hippies aren't so much for your rights after all...

Those CA hippie Democrats (you know, the ones who are suppposed to save the country from those nasty conservatives) are the ones who voted for the bill! Both the senate and the assembly!

I keep reading on Slashdot how we need to be saved from those stupid and mean conservatives. Yet, they voted squarely AGAINST this bill, and those smart and worldly knowledgable hippies voted squarely FOR this bill! Is what I've read on Slashdot not true?

PS, if you're going to knock on the girly man Governator (as he didn't have the guts to veto this legislation), also give some time towards the sponsers of this bill as well: AUTHOR(S) : Yee (Coauthors: Coto, Leslie, Levine, Mountjoy, Mullin, and Vargas) (Coauthors: Senators Florez and Kuehl). All smart, in-the-know, liberal Democrats if I'm not mistaken.

Hmmm... Maybe those hippies aren't so much for your rights after all...

(1) Last time I took civics class, I was told a bill had to be passed by the state legislature (both senate and assembly) before the governator (terminator) signs it. Well guess who voted for the bill in the senate and assembly? Democrats, that's who! Those same hippies that Slashdot thinks is going to save the country are actually the ones who are taking your liberties away! Gasp! Look at the votes in the link, all those mean and stupid conservatives voted AGAINST the bill and all those fucking smart and worldly knowledgable fucking hippies voted FOR the bill! Explain that one away...

PS: Arnold should not have been such a girly man and signed this legislation, but just think of the press he would have gotten if he DIDN'T sign it. All the union ads would have put every soccer mom on TV to cry "think of the children"...

(2) The bill states it's against the law to sell a MINOR a violent game. The law does NOT prevent the PARENT to buy the violent game for the child. The law does NOT prevent someone over 18 to buy the game. Therefore, the law only only affect kids who's parents don't give a shit about them. If you're a parent who cares and doesn't feel the game is healthy for them, they shouldn't get the game anyway, right? If you're over 18, then this law doesn't apply to you.

What the fuck is this hypocritical bullshit about "well, caring parents shouldn't let their kids play the game" and then spew "well, that's infringing upon my rights". No it doesn't, unless you're a minor who's not supposed to play the crappy game in the first place, right? Kids can't buy cigaretts or beer, and a bunch of hippies decided that they should not play violent video games as well. So what's the problem?

(1) Last time I took civics class, I was told a bill had to be passed by the state legislature (both senate and assembly) before the governator (terminator) signs it. Well guess who voted for the bill in the senate and assembly? Democrats, that's who! Those same hippies that Slashdot thinks is going to save the country are actually the ones who are taking your liberties away! Gasp! Look at the votes in the link, all those mean and stupid conservatives voted AGAINST the bill and all those fucking smart and worldly knowledgable fucking hippies voted FOR the bill! Explain that one away...

PS: Arnold should not have been such a girly man and signed this legislation, but just think of the press he would have gotten if he DIDN'T sign it. All the union ads would have put every soccer mom on TV to cry "think of the children"...

(2) The bill states it's against the law to sell a MINOR a violent game. The law does NOT prevent the PARENT to buy the violent game for the child. The law does NOT prevent someone over 18 to buy the game. Therefore, the law only only affect kids who's parents don't give a shit about them. If you're a parent who cares and doesn't feel the game is healthy for them, they shouldn't get the game anyway, right? If you're over 18, then this law doesn't apply to you.

What the fuck is this hypocritical bullshit about "well, caring parents shouldn't let their kids play the game" and then spew "well, that's infringing upon my rights". No it doesn't, unless you're a minor who's not supposed to play the crappy game in the first place, right? Kids can't buy cigaretts or beer, and a bunch of hippies decided that they should not play violent video games as well. So what's the problem?

What kind of creature is Bowser? You may be right, but per the bill, Bowser must have substantially human characteristics. This is where the jurors will get to go all syllogistic in the courtroom. "Well, that acid-dripping, fire-breathing boss that stands between the player and level 4 has ears, and I have ears, so it must be substantially human."

The one thing you MUST realize is that this is not a bill being pushed by the Right-Wing Conservative Nut Jobs (granted they aren't really all against it), this is being pushed by DEMOCRATS.

The one thing you MUST realize is that this is not a bill being pushed by the Right-Wing Conservative Nut Jobs (granted they aren't really all against it), this is being pushed by DEMOCRATS.

The VSDA, according to the headline, suggests that juries will be the sole determinant in whether or not a game is "violent". The bill, however, is fairly explicit in its definitions:

(A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict a high degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim in addition to killing the victim.
(B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.
(C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depicted in a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts of torture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart from other killings.
(D) "Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerable amount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse, unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing.
(E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of the victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
(3) Pertinent factors in determining whether a killing depicted in a video game is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved include infliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim's body, and helplessness of the victim.

Interesting that mental torture is included in the definition; so much for Medal of Honor: Abu Ghraib. There does seem to be a theme that simply blowing away your enemies isn't enough -- you have to relish it, go out of your way to cause extra pain to the digital victim -- "gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing."

For what it's worth, here's what California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has about Diesel:

Diesel Environmental Effects (including long-term)

I couldn't find anything about hybrid emissions, but the search continues.

Just my two cents - leave the change in the penny tray.

SB 355

Page with information on votes

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 33 (commencing with Section 22948) is added to
Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:
CHAPTER 33. ANTI-PHISHING ACT OF 2005

22948. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the
Anti-Phishing Act of 2005.
22948.1. For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms
have the following meanings:
(a) "Electronic mail message" means a message sent to a unique
destination, commonly expressed as a string of characters, consisting
of a unique user name or mailbox (commonly referred to as the "local
part") and a reference to an Internet domain (commonly referred to
as the "domain part"), whether or not displayed, to which an
electronic message can be sent or delivered.
(b) "Identifying information" means, with respect to an
individual, any of the following:
(1) Social security number.
(2) Driver's license number.
(3) Bank account number.
(4) Credit card or debit card number.
(5) Personal identification number (PIN).
(6) Automated or electronic signature.
(7) Unique biometric data.
(8) Account password.
(9) Any other piece of information that can be used to access an
individual's financial accounts or to obtain goods or services.
(c) "Internet" shall have the meaning as defined in paragraph (6)
of subdivision (f) of Section 17538.
(d) "Web page" means a location that has a single uniform resource
locator or other single location with respect to the Internet.
22948.2. It shall be unlawful for any person, by means of a Web
page, electronic mail message, or otherwise through use of the
Internet, to solicit, request, or take any action to induce another
person to provide identifying information by representing itself to
be a business without the authority or approval of the business.
22948.3. (a) The following persons may bring an action against a
person who violates or is in violation of Section 22948.2:
(1) A person who (A) is engaged in the business of providing
Internet access service to the public, owns a Web page, or owns a
trademark, and (B) is adversely affected by a violation of Section
22948.2.
An action brought under this paragraph may seek to recover the
greater of actual damages or five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000).
(2) An individual who is adversely affected by a violation of
Section 22948.2 may bring an action, but only against a person who
has directly violated Section 22948.2.
An action brought under this paragraph may seek to enjoin further
violations of Section 22948.2 and to recover the greater of three
times the amount of actual damages or five thousand dollars ($5,000)
per violation.
(b) The Attorney General or a district attorney may bring an
action against a person who violates or is in violation of Section
22948.2 to enjoin further violations of Section 22948.2 and to
recover a civil penalty of up to two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500) per violation.
(c) In an action pursuant to this section, a court may, in
addition, do either or both of the following:
(1) Incre

SB 355

Page with information on votes

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 33 (commencing with Section 22948) is added to
Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:
CHAPTER 33. ANTI-PHISHING ACT OF 2005

22948. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the
Anti-Phishing Act of 2005.
22948.1. For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms
have the following meanings:
(a) "Electronic mail message" means a message sent to a unique
destination, commonly expressed as a string of characters, consisting
of a unique user name or mailbox (commonly referred to as the "local
part") and a reference to an Internet domain (commonly referred to
as the "domain part"), whether or not displayed, to which an
electronic message can be sent or delivered.
(b) "Identifying information" means, with respect to an
individual, any of the following:
(1) Social security number.
(2) Driver's license number.
(3) Bank account number.
(4) Credit card or debit card number.
(5) Personal identification number (PIN).
(6) Automated or electronic signature.
(7) Unique biometric data.
(8) Account password.
(9) Any other piece of information that can be used to access an
individual's financial accounts or to obtain goods or services.
(c) "Internet" shall have the meaning as defined in paragraph (6)
of subdivision (f) of Section 17538.
(d) "Web page" means a location that has a single uniform resource
locator or other single location with respect to the Internet.
22948.2. It shall be unlawful for any person, by means of a Web
page, electronic mail message, or otherwise through use of the
Internet, to solicit, request, or take any action to induce another
person to provide identifying information by representing itself to
be a business without the authority or approval of the business.
22948.3. (a) The following persons may bring an action against a
person who violates or is in violation of Section 22948.2:
(1) A person who (A) is engaged in the business of providing
Internet access service to the public, owns a Web page, or owns a
trademark, and (B) is adversely affected by a violation of Section
22948.2.
An action brought under this paragraph may seek to recover the
greater of actual damages or five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000).
(2) An individual who is adversely affected by a violation of
Section 22948.2 may bring an action, but only against a person who
has directly violated Section 22948.2.
An action brought under this paragraph may seek to enjoin further
violations of Section 22948.2 and to recover the greater of three
times the amount of actual damages or five thousand dollars ($5,000)
per violation.
(b) The Attorney General or a district attorney may bring an
action against a person who violates or is in violation of Section
22948.2 to enjoin further violations of Section 22948.2 and to
recover a civil penalty of up to two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500) per violation.
(c) In an action pursuant to this section, a court may, in
addition, do either or both of the following:
(1) Incre

some links:

CARB's Fuel Cell Detour on the Road to Zero Emission Vehicles (pdf) (complete)
Perspectives on Fuel Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles (problems w/ fuel cells)
Letter to California Air Resource Board [CARB] against watering down the ZEV mandate (by requiring advanced technology batteries.. Later they watered it down even more by giving in to the fuel cell bait & switch)

The lightbulb was not one of Edison's first, but it is over 100 years old, and has been burning for over 800,000 hours continuously.

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/time_machine/centenn ial_lightbulb.html

The fewer laws we have, and the clearer they are, and the less they depend on fine distinctions, the better off we will all be, in my estimation.

By extrapolation, we would be best off with no laws at all. That claim is clearly false. (If you really think we would be best off with no laws at all, then we should be having a different discussion. The rest of this post assumes that our society will be better off with some laws than with none.)

There are a lot of different areas of law. California state law alone is divided into 29 separate codes: Business and Professions Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Corporations Code, Elections Code, Family Code, Fish and Game Code, etc. Here's a full list. None of those Codes can be thrown out in its entirety; so we'd have to remove extraneous subsections from each code in order to reduce the number of laws.

Let's pick one: the Fish and Game Code. I didn't count them, but at a minimum it's got maybe a thousand sections. And that's just ONE code. A small one. There must be a hundred thousand specific subsections across all the codes. (That's not even taking Federal law into account.) Do we really need all those laws?

Probably not ALL of them. I imagine there's a nonzero number of codes in there that were put in at the behest of specific special interests, and do not serve the public interest as a whole. But probably the overwhelming majority of those laws are somewhere in the ballpark of "serving the public interest." Let's take a specific regulation, section 1124:

1124. It is unlawful to take any fish in any pond or reservoir belonging to or controlled by the department and used for propagating, protecting, or conserving fish.

Section 1124 refers to ponds and reservoirs owned by the Department of Fish and Game. Specifically, ponds and reservoirs used for the purposes listed above. Should this section exist? Probably; the DFG uses those ponds for, well, protecting certain species of fish for purposes of maintaining California's ecology.

You might then ask, should the DFG exist at all? Well, if it didn't, it's fairly obvious that the state's ecology would suffer greatly, since there is very little financial profit in preserving the environment, but a great deal of money could be made by abusing it until it's destroyed. (It's the tragedy of the commons.) It's clearly in our interest to have an entity like the DFG, assuming that entity is effective and not impotent, draconian, or corrupt. Does the DFG necessarily do everything the best way possible? Almost certainly not; it's run by humans, after all. ;) But if it's going to exist, we need to detail exactly what powers and responsibilities that department has, and that has to be done in detail, lest some overzealous bureaucrat grab too much power simply because the law is ill-defined.

But... when a law is broad and general, it accounts for much more than a law that is nit-picky and has a large number of metrics to meet.

Laws that are too broad are useless. A law against (e.g.) "killing" would be not only useless but unjust; it would make killing in self-defense illegal. It's got to specify that only certain kinds of killing are unlawful... and it has to specify what kinds of actions constitute those kinds of killings... and what the penalties are for those actions. And it's got to use very precise wording. That's a lot of verbiage. California's section on the crime of murder (Penal Code sections 187-199) alone is ten thousand words. That's to cover ONE kind of act. (The entire Penal Code is about a million words.) You really think it's possible to have a just murder code that's a couple of sentences long? Or even a few paragraphs?

I agree that we should try to el

The fewer laws we have, and the clearer they are, and the less they depend on fine distinctions, the better off we will all be, in my estimation.

By extrapolation, we would be best off with no laws at all. That claim is clearly false. (If you really think we would be best off with no laws at all, then we should be having a different discussion. The rest of this post assumes that our society will be better off with some laws than with none.)

There are a lot of different areas of law. California state law alone is divided into 29 separate codes: Business and Professions Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Corporations Code, Elections Code, Family Code, Fish and Game Code, etc. Here's a full list. None of those Codes can be thrown out in its entirety; so we'd have to remove extraneous subsections from each code in order to reduce the number of laws.

Let's pick one: the Fish and Game Code. I didn't count them, but at a minimum it's got maybe a thousand sections. And that's just ONE code. A small one. There must be a hundred thousand specific subsections across all the codes. (That's not even taking Federal law into account.) Do we really need all those laws?

Probably not ALL of them. I imagine there's a nonzero number of codes in there that were put in at the behest of specific special interests, and do not serve the public interest as a whole. But probably the overwhelming majority of those laws are somewhere in the ballpark of "serving the public interest." Let's take a specific regulation, section 1124:

1124. It is unlawful to take any fish in any pond or reservoir belonging to or controlled by the department and used for propagating, protecting, or conserving fish.

Section 1124 refers to ponds and reservoirs owned by the Department of Fish and Game. Specifically, ponds and reservoirs used for the purposes listed above. Should this section exist? Probably; the DFG uses those ponds for, well, protecting certain species of fish for purposes of maintaining California's ecology.

You might then ask, should the DFG exist at all? Well, if it didn't, it's fairly obvious that the state's ecology would suffer greatly, since there is very little financial profit in preserving the environment, but a great deal of money could be made by abusing it until it's destroyed. (It's the tragedy of the commons.) It's clearly in our interest to have an entity like the DFG, assuming that entity is effective and not impotent, draconian, or corrupt. Does the DFG necessarily do everything the best way possible? Almost certainly not; it's run by humans, after all. ;) But if it's going to exist, we need to detail exactly what powers and responsibilities that department has, and that has to be done in detail, lest some overzealous bureaucrat grab too much power simply because the law is ill-defined.

But... when a law is broad and general, it accounts for much more than a law that is nit-picky and has a large number of metrics to meet.

Laws that are too broad are useless. A law against (e.g.) "killing" would be not only useless but unjust; it would make killing in self-defense illegal. It's got to specify that only certain kinds of killing are unlawful... and it has to specify what kinds of actions constitute those kinds of killings... and what the penalties are for those actions. And it's got to use very precise wording. That's a lot of verbiage. California's section on the crime of murder (Penal Code sections 187-199) alone is ten thousand words. That's to cover ONE kind of act. (The entire Penal Code is about a million words.) You really think it's possible to have a just murder code that's a couple of sentences long? Or even a few paragraphs?

I agree that we should try to el

That is the pitfall of having a business that brokers a constitutional right.

Uh huh, so newspapers (which broker speech) have no right to refuse advertising they find offensive? Nice try.

You could possibly have a legal reason to refuse to sell someone a gun, but if it's not one of the clearly defined reasons, you're gonna get rocked in a court house.

Do you have any link to substantiate that? I don't think so. (That NRA page you keep linking absolutely doesn't qualify. As has been explained, it mentions laws PROHIBITING sale, not OBLIGATING it)

If you do, then please forward it to Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose organization is refused as a customer by Barret firearms.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/driversafety/dsadminvscri minal.htm#restr

Pwned!

I had completely lost my temper yesterday when I wrote to Assembly member Yee which wrote the crappy bill theyre trying to get passed in California that is ALMOST as bad as the one in MI. Unfortunately I was so mad that my grammar and writing suffered horribly, not even sure how much sense I ended up making to tell the truth, but at least I said something so I felt better getting it off my chest.

To: Assemblymember.Yee@assembly.ca.gov Subject: I dont want to live in your Utopia Mr. Yee, Since you are going to go ahead and decide what My kids can experience instead of me why don't you go Ahead and raise them yourself. That way you make sure They legally can't have a McDonalds Happy Meal more Than once a month, they have to eat at least one green Vegetable a day and the police can throw you in jail If you don't stand guard over them while they brush Their teeth three times a day? I think what you Should do is get a grip on your self righteous save The world attitude and worry about saving yourself From the "utopian" society you are eventually going to Create by pushing bills like this through. Oh yeah There are hundreds if not thousands of studies that Show conclusively that "utopian societies" are a Horrible idea and inhumane at the basest levels. We are doing just fine without you and all the Other control freak politicians that would like to have The government do everything for us including wiping Our asses. There is a major flaw in your bill Mr. Yee, I can still rent video games for my kids... or is that going to be illegal also? You going to throw me in jail for making the decision on what is ok for my kids to do and what's not? You better hurry up and edit that bill to include that if not, we wouldn't want you To leave a loophole for us Satan worshipping, video Game supporting, heavy metal listening parents to slip Through now would we? Spend your time on something Useful Mr. Yee, like fighting Porn, Now there is a real Threat to our society, never mind the terrorists. Sincerely, Jason D. Blevins Living in Indiana instead of Caly for a reason!

I wrote to Arnold against this bill, you can too: http://www.govmail.ca.gov/

But this is really an anti-business bill. The bill will over-regulate one of California's biggest growing industries. Even Silicon Valley's own legislators have reliable anti-business anti-technology voting records. Arnold's veto pen is California's tech industry's best friend.

You can call Schwarzenegger at (916) 445-2841, or email opposition. But if he does veto this, Democrats will claim that it is a conflict of interest because he appears in Terminator video games. Ignore them!

But this is really an anti-business bill. The bill will over-regulate one of California's biggest growing industries. Even Silicon Valley's own legislators have reliable anti-business anti-technology voting records. Arnold's veto pen is California's tech industry's best friend.

You can call Schwarzenegger at (916) 445-2841, or email opposition. But if he does veto this, Democrats will claim that it is a conflict of interest because he appears in Terminator video games. Ignore them!

Perhaps one should consider what the bill actually says. It defines "minor" as:

"Minor" means any natural person who is under 18 years of age.

And it defines "person" as:

"Person" means any natural person, partnership, firm, association, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity.

Which means if your company wants to purchase or rent violent video games (for example to sell them), it must be at least 18 years old.

My big problem with this is that it's not saying that M rated games shouldn't be sold to minors, it's saying that "violent" video games can't be sold to minors. How do they define violent? ""Violent video game" means any video game or any copy of an electronic game that may be played using a portable electronic device or hand-held gaming device using a television or computer, that, taken as a whole, to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to minors' morbid interest in violence, that enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, and that, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." However! "This paragraph shall not apply to a game in which the visual depiction of violence occurs as a result of simultaneous competition between two or more players" link to bill

I'm not quite sure what games exactly are covered, but I guess gory fighting games and shooters aren't, as long as they're two-player! Seriously, I used to work at a game store, and I feel bad for anyone who has to figure out which games this actually covers, and if they get it wrong, it's a $1000 fine. Now you could say that they just shouldn't sell M-rated games to minors and they should be fine, but then why doesn't the bill just say M-rated games shouldn't be sold to minors if that's what it's supposed to mean?!?

Also, oddly enough, the bill doesn't have an exception for family members. So technically, if I gave my (future potential) 17 year old daughter GTA, I could get fined $1000. Wouldn't that be great?

And stickers annoy me.

Don't know where the asker lives, but in California at least, I'd definitely skip the hybrid conversion and go for hydrogen, even if it meant waiting a couple of years. Going hybrid is admirable now, but I think of it as only a stop-gap measure, until we have the means to really cut our dependence on oil. Bush has proposed and Congress has passed funding for hydrogen fuel cell R&D -- http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/article_default_vie w.fcm?articleid=9961&subsite=2541 -- but don't know how long before the average citizen sees anything come from it. But our "Governator" here is more aggressively pursuing this, and plans to have hydrogen refilling stations accessible by every Californian by 2010 (sooner in San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco) -- http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/faq/faq.ht m

Inflamatory rhetoric aside, this seems like an OK bill. Basically, it is saying that certain types of media can't be sold to kids without parental permission. This is consistent with movies and other forms of entertainment.

The whole "2-inch sticker" seems a bit ridiculous, especially because it implies a new ratings system, a new ratings board, etc. But that's a pragmatic problem, not an ethical one. Both sides come out smelling like zealots here, with one side saying that it will destroy first amendment rights, and the other saying that videogames are as bad for you physically as smoking.

I also don't necessarily agree with the findings of the bills, that "Even minors who do not commit acts of violence suffer psychological harm from prolonged exposure to violent video games." Taken literally, this is true of basically anything. It does go into some lovingly crafted detail on what constitutes violence. I'll be amused to find out how the courts decide to interpret the requirement that a virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted.

Full text of the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1151-120 0/ab_1179_bill_20050908_amended_sen.html

How do we pay to build and repair the roads if everyone switched to electric cars? Excise taxes on electricity? Tolls? "Tax the Rich"?

Yeah, Nixon was an economic idiot as well and instituted widespread price controls, as had been done in previous wars. From your source, the restrictions had been abolished by 1976. Of course, the wikipedia isn't always 100% accurate.

From the wikipedia, during the 1979 oil crises, the Carter administration instituted price controls.

Carter's administration worked on reducing them as unecessary any more at times, but not as a bad idea. Instead in 1979 he increased them again.

There is simply no way you can make a case that Carter was against price controls in principle or that he really made much of an effort to end them. His administration did some deregulation of the industry, but they didn't get rid of price controls on gas.

The reality is that Reagan did on January 28, 1981, within a week after he took office (actually, I think he signed the order the day he took office, but it only took effect on the 28th), what Carter should have done long before, end the price controls.

Who ended them? Reagan did.

Read through all the links from research institutes, economic histories and newspaper articles and columns.

Try searching for carter ended price controls in contrast and you'll still get articles about Reagan ending them.

See, contrary to the unkown "experts" at wikipedia (whom you may now go correct), the law Carter signed wouldn't have ended price controls on gas until 1985.

So you can stop crediting Carter with ending price controls on gas, since nothing he did actually ever ended them.

Perhaps you should have done a little more reading than just relying on contradictory wikipedia articles?

Suggestions for next steps:

1. Contact the California Dept Financial Institutions and tell them one of their licensees is committing financial embezzlement and racketeering under the guise of operating under their granted license
2. Contact the Santa Clara Country District Attorney's office and tell them a Santa Clara Country corporation is committing embezzlement and racketeering with charitable donations for Katrina victims.
3. Contact SF Bay Area news media (SJ Mercury News, SF Chronicle/Examiner, KRON 4 TV, KTVU 2 TV, KPIX 5 TV, KGO 7 TV) and tell them a Santa Clara Country corporation is committing embezzlement and racketeering with charitable donations for Katrina victims. Send E-mail and call them - hearing the story from multiple channels adds credibility.
4. Collect documentation of previous malfeasance (e.g. PalPay Sucks!) and broadcast it as widely as possible. That especially includes personal networks: make it a point to tell 5 friends and 5 strangers about PayPal's unacceptable behavior in the next 24 hours. Ask those you tell to investigate the truth themselves and tell 10 people they know also. Lather. Rinse. Repeat as necessary.

This ongoing and repeated abuse must stop now!

As much as I disagree with you entirely... and I really mean the idea of wealth redistribution through taxation fucking infuriates me, your request for more interesting statistics is RIGHT on the dot!

From CA Commerce dept website:
- $1.4 Trillion Gross State Product
- Fifth largest economy in the world
- Largest state economy in the U.S.
- State's economy is 13% of GDP

Now, keep in mind that California has many EXTREMELY HIGH COST OF LIVING areas such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Silcion Valley, etc. These areas are responsible for a lot of income, but are also very expensive to live in. The federal tax system doesn't properly adjust to that. Where I grew up, making $100,000 a year meant you MIGHT be able to afford having your own house if you managed your money well. Other places I've lived, $40,000 a year was good money, you could own your own house and car, etc, and of course the federal tax burden on such an income is significantly lower.

So, I personally feel that living in california is a higher tax burden, despite what all the statistics seem to say! But here is a great link with information on that:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/443.html
spreadsheet here
Now THEY say we pay 19.6% of the federal taxes, which ranks us as #10.

But, and here is the big difference, California doesn't get it's share of federal money. In 2002, California paid $58 billion more to Washington than it received. This includes federal salaries in california, grants, etc. California only got 77% of the money back in some way. This is probably mostly attributable to the large base of defense contractors and some major military bases.

$58B might not sound like a lot of money for such a large state, but keep in mind the total state taxes paid every year totals to only $130B. If california received that extra $14B the budget would be balanced again.

I strongly recommend you also read http://www.caltax.org/research/taxburdn.htm which does a great job of explaining why the simple tax burden measurements used above are terribly ineffective.

A typical "Rich" family
To sum it all up, a family of five making $100,000 in Los Angeles (at least the area I lived) would be lucky to be able to purchase a home. Let's estimate about $600,000 for a decent home. With a downpayment of $100,000 (which would take a real long time to save up while renting for $2-3K/month), and a mortgage at the current average of 5.30%, they could come away with a 30-year mortgage at $2776/month. Keep in mind this is paying almost exactly $1,000,000 for a $600,000 home. Now, because their income is so high ($100K, very wealthy) they can expect to be in the upper tax bracket. Not just federally, but state-wise. This is because california has a progressive tax system, where the wealthy people (and $100K is wealthy, isn't it?) pay the majority of the taxes, in terms of a percentage of their income! All said and done, this family would require a skillfull tax advisor to get their annual tax burden down to $40,000. So now they have $60,000 left, of which they would already be paying ~$3000/month for their house (homeowner's insurance, etc.). So that leaves...
$100,00 - $40,000 - $24,000 = $36,000

Now, I'm going to go ahead and PRETEND that they don't have to pay for their own medical insurance. Wealthy people should pay for the medical insurance of those who make under $100,000 a year, not the other way around, RIGHT?

So let's go ahead and say this family needs two vehicles, both costing approx $20,000. So let's do a loan for $40,000, assuming the national average of 6.51% for a 48month loan. This comes out to payments of approx $949/month for both vehi

I know it is fashionable to claim anything wrong with the status quo are all fabrications perpetuated by lying moronic tree buggering ultra-uber-satanic-leftwing "liberals". But if you actually did your own damn research instead of taking the word of some GOP pundit, you'd know you where full of shit.

1997-2001 Branded Graphs
1997-2001 Unbranded Graphs
Estimated 2002 Gasoline Price Breakdown & Margins Details
Estimated 2003 Gasoline Price Breakdown & Margins Details
Estimated 2004 Gasoline Price Breakdown & Margins Details

You can tell that at times the refinery cost+profit sinks to as low as .10 to .20 cents, meaning this is probably close to the minimum amount they can sell and still make a profit. Notice how they like to hump their price? Raising it up to 70 cents a gallon and then dropping it back into the twenties for a short period after several weeks of the high prices, mostly 40 to 60 cents a gallon? This market instability creates a panic in the market driving up commoditites prices in which justifies raising the refinery part of the cost up again.

Many of these oil companies also own, or own the rights to use, the oil wells with a few exceptions. The Saudi's and Kuwaiti's are owned by the royal families that run their countries and Venezuala's are owned by a state controlled, privately managed oil company, which owns Citgo BTW. I think Shell got the rights to pump Kuwait's wells in a deal after Gulf War I. The Saudi's still control theirs with thier state oil company Aramco. And the US has been trying to unseat the dualy elected president of Venezuala to try to remove his grasp from the state oil company there. [1 supported coup attempt, 1 federally funded media campaign and recall attempt] Basically, they make money of the price of crude as well, even though a portion does go to the people that actually own it and the country of origin.

The data indicates refinery profit skyrocketed in 2001 and has since been on a slow average growth since. It seems to be kept about 40 to 60 cents a gallon for the most part. This makes their profits from about 20 to 50 cents a gallon from the refineries alone. This is up from about 20 to 30 cents a gallon. The raises in 2004 have been on crude hikes, marketing campaigns, and gas stations getting in on the action and gouging as well.

Oh, and another thing, these guys just got a 15 billion dollar handout, after previous handouts since 2001, from the guys in the Whitehouse and Congress that have been in power for over 4 years that basically said corporations can dump any shit in rivers they want and it's the problem of the people downstream, removed the federal requirement for companies to pay for the cleanup of their own superfund sites, and reduced the EPAs enforcement budget to $0 can't relax the rules to make it so they can build refineries? Please... You can drink all of that special koolaid you want, but don't force it down our throats as well.