Slashdot Mirror

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.

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.

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.

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.

Whites: 65%, Blacks 20%

California is already beginning to build an infrastructure for a hydrogen future. Thankfully there's no silly messing around with biodiesel (which is complicated and requires farming). Their main site is here:

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/ ..and there's a map here:
http://www.cafcp.org/fuel-vehl_map.html
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/cah2net_ma ps.pdf

(Warning, last link there is a PDF but it's more detailed). And these guys:

http://www.stuartenergy.com/ ..are one of the key companies that seem to be making the equipment for a fueling station. There are also a bunch of car manufacturers participating like GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Nissan and BMW... full list here:

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/partners/partner s.htm

Anyway, the plan seems to be to concentrate on the population centers first (cities), then to gradually build hydrogen fueling stations out along the highways connecting the major population centers. This should solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem of needing widespread hydrogen stations before anyone is able to sell hydrogen cars.

Eventually (I guess), there will be enough hydrogen stations to sell hydrogen cars outside of fleet leases, then hydrogen stations will gradually replace gasoline stations. And it'll spread. I know I'd buy a hydrogen car tomorrow if it had a comparable capacity to my existing vehicle, they were available, and there was a fueling station within a 10 mile radius!

The nice thing about Hydrogen is that development has come so far in so little time - and it looks like all the big problems are finally coming together: efficient solar electric generation is on the way (or there's always the genetically-engineered bacteria that produces hydrogen); nano-engineered nickel has the promise of efficient hydrogen storage (instead of using exotic metals); advanced fuel cells do a fantastic job at hydrogen to electricity conversion; ultracapacitors work better than batteries for storing energy stored during regenerative braking.

Yes, the biggest problem with hydrogen is currently production - but it's simply that we've not yet built such an infrastructure because there's not yet been the demand. It doesn't matter how you make the electricity required to extract hydrogen from water via simple chemistry (nuclear, solar, mirror in space, etc). But when you think of the logistics of digging up and transporting millions of barrels of oil halfway around the world - and that energy companies do this daily - it seems like there would be no problem for them to scale hydrogen production up if they wanted to.

Our hydrogen future is gradually coming together. I can't wait.

California is already beginning to build an infrastructure for a hydrogen future. Thankfully there's no silly messing around with biodiesel (which is complicated and requires farming). Their main site is here:

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/ ..and there's a map here:
http://www.cafcp.org/fuel-vehl_map.html
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/cah2net_ma ps.pdf

(Warning, last link there is a PDF but it's more detailed). And these guys:

http://www.stuartenergy.com/ ..are one of the key companies that seem to be making the equipment for a fueling station. There are also a bunch of car manufacturers participating like GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Nissan and BMW... full list here:

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/partners/partner s.htm

Anyway, the plan seems to be to concentrate on the population centers first (cities), then to gradually build hydrogen fueling stations out along the highways connecting the major population centers. This should solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem of needing widespread hydrogen stations before anyone is able to sell hydrogen cars.

Eventually (I guess), there will be enough hydrogen stations to sell hydrogen cars outside of fleet leases, then hydrogen stations will gradually replace gasoline stations. And it'll spread. I know I'd buy a hydrogen car tomorrow if it had a comparable capacity to my existing vehicle, they were available, and there was a fueling station within a 10 mile radius!

The nice thing about Hydrogen is that development has come so far in so little time - and it looks like all the big problems are finally coming together: efficient solar electric generation is on the way (or there's always the genetically-engineered bacteria that produces hydrogen); nano-engineered nickel has the promise of efficient hydrogen storage (instead of using exotic metals); advanced fuel cells do a fantastic job at hydrogen to electricity conversion; ultracapacitors work better than batteries for storing energy stored during regenerative braking.

Yes, the biggest problem with hydrogen is currently production - but it's simply that we've not yet built such an infrastructure because there's not yet been the demand. It doesn't matter how you make the electricity required to extract hydrogen from water via simple chemistry (nuclear, solar, mirror in space, etc). But when you think of the logistics of digging up and transporting millions of barrels of oil halfway around the world - and that energy companies do this daily - it seems like there would be no problem for them to scale hydrogen production up if they wanted to.

Our hydrogen future is gradually coming together. I can't wait.

California is already beginning to build an infrastructure for a hydrogen future. Thankfully there's no silly messing around with biodiesel (which is complicated and requires farming). Their main site is here:

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/ ..and there's a map here:
http://www.cafcp.org/fuel-vehl_map.html
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/cah2net_ma ps.pdf

(Warning, last link there is a PDF but it's more detailed). And these guys:

http://www.stuartenergy.com/ ..are one of the key companies that seem to be making the equipment for a fueling station. There are also a bunch of car manufacturers participating like GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Nissan and BMW... full list here:

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/partners/partner s.htm

Anyway, the plan seems to be to concentrate on the population centers first (cities), then to gradually build hydrogen fueling stations out along the highways connecting the major population centers. This should solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem of needing widespread hydrogen stations before anyone is able to sell hydrogen cars.

Eventually (I guess), there will be enough hydrogen stations to sell hydrogen cars outside of fleet leases, then hydrogen stations will gradually replace gasoline stations. And it'll spread. I know I'd buy a hydrogen car tomorrow if it had a comparable capacity to my existing vehicle, they were available, and there was a fueling station within a 10 mile radius!

The nice thing about Hydrogen is that development has come so far in so little time - and it looks like all the big problems are finally coming together: efficient solar electric generation is on the way (or there's always the genetically-engineered bacteria that produces hydrogen); nano-engineered nickel has the promise of efficient hydrogen storage (instead of using exotic metals); advanced fuel cells do a fantastic job at hydrogen to electricity conversion; ultracapacitors work better than batteries for storing energy stored during regenerative braking.

Yes, the biggest problem with hydrogen is currently production - but it's simply that we've not yet built such an infrastructure because there's not yet been the demand. It doesn't matter how you make the electricity required to extract hydrogen from water via simple chemistry (nuclear, solar, mirror in space, etc). But when you think of the logistics of digging up and transporting millions of barrels of oil halfway around the world - and that energy companies do this daily - it seems like there would be no problem for them to scale hydrogen production up if they wanted to.

Our hydrogen future is gradually coming together. I can't wait.

Slightly off . . . by more than $100k. According to the census, the median household income in San Francisco is $55k.

Furthermore, the electricity may not come from coal necessarily but instead can come from wind, solar, etc, or many other forms as it does in many states, not just California. The addition of even a small gasoline engine adds greatly to the total range of an electric-only vehicle. Combined with roof-top solar all across the southwest means that this is a very viable option and no one is "inflating numbers", so to speak.

Imagine if we start to use bio-diesel turbo-injected hybrid engines for our needs -- possibly hundreds and hundreds of miles per gallon. yes, the algae economic feasability tests are underway but I think at this point in our planet's history it is our money or our lives and not a great deal of money at that, either. I'm willing to pay a premium now rather than get a wrecked environment in the future (in our lifetimes!)

What do mean if?

GPW currently shows Nantucket, MA enjoying $3.15/gal gas.

The Gas Buddy affiliate site shows Bridgeport, CA paying $3.39/gal. The cheapest reported price in CA is $2.47.

I was going to comment that even these rates are comparable to past peaks when inflation is taken into account, but I would've been wrong.

CA gas prices adjusted for inflation

The highest yearly avg. in 2005$ is from 1981 - $2.50. The peak from that year is $3.08.

In other words, The lowest current price in CA is almost above the highest yearly average and the current peak is over 10% higher than the last record peak even after inflation is accounted for.

I am really confused as to whether everybody is still overcharging. Considering everyone has an endless queue list that seem to be sending things out of order again and again. There is still a real supply problem.

I should probably not give away a secret this good, especially on slashdot, but I've been renting newly released DVD movies from my local library for $1.50. Same length of time from the video store (About 3 days) and significantly cheaper than any of the local area chain video stores. Documentaries and TV series are free to rent, and you can keep some of those up to 3 weeks. Sometimes there is a wait on the TV series, but overall it's worked beautifully for me.

I haven't had the chance to read the entire article yet, but a quick web search on the author from my previous link led to this PDF document from a study by the State of California back in 2001. This study is filled with many statistical analyses. So, I assume that some of those will help explain the argument. Again, I have NOT read this document yet.

Oh, and here is the URL for the Verizon/MCI merger or purchase (the postcard mentions both terms):

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/proceedings/A0504020.htm

Perhaps because Google is based in California, where we are just getting used to exit numbers... http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/calnexu s/

---------

Dear Assembly Member Yee,

In reading my news for the day, I came across several articles referencing your "blasting" of the ESRB in regards to the rating it provided to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (Official Press Release: http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a12/press /p122005060.htm).

To begin, I am twenty-four years old, with a 14-month old son. I am very much a part of the 'video-game generation', as I often use video games to unwind after a days worth of work and caring for my son. These games range from the previous mentioned Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and beyond.

In reading the press release, I felt that you had a few good points, and a few points that were off-base. It is true that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained the remnants of a coded "sex mini-game", depicting animated characters going through previous choreographed motions of various acts of sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse between (in the theme of the game), consenting adults. However, what you failed to mention was that in order for anyone to access this minigame, they have to go to the lengthy trouble of modifying the actual game code for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I have been working with computers, for both work and recreational purposes, for a decade, and I can safely say that because it requires the modification of the game code beyond the parameters that Rockstar North coded, this is not something that an individual will just run into during the course of playing the game. An individual has easier access to "soft-core pornography" on late night cable; actual pornography, and not two rendered, clothed computer models going through the motions.

That was a lengthy discourse as to the point you missed. I will now address a point that you did address. The press release, and prior press releases, indicates that you feel that games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Manhunt, and other M-rated games (which, for the recorded, is defined on the ESRB {http://www.esrb.com/esrbratings.asp} website as a game which may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.). You are correct. Such games are not made for children. Not all games are made for children. Just as movies such as The Godfather (R), Apocalypse Now Redux (R), Scarface (R), and Saving Private Ryan (R) are classified by the MPAA (www.mpaa.org) under the Voluntary Movie Rating System as being not for children, these M-Rated games are also being classified under a voluntary rating system as not suitable for children.

I feel that voluntary rating systems are the key point here. Both motion pictures and video games carry a classification designed to inform the purchaser of the product as to what they will be experiencing in the normal course of viewing/playing. Video game producers such as Rockstar North are not forcing parents to buy Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for their 12-year old child, just as Francis Ford Coppola never forced parents to take their 12-year old child to see Apocalypse Now (or Apocalypse Now Redux, released in 2001 as a directors cut). It is up to the parent to decide, based on their own purchases and experiences and research, whether or not a product is suitable for their underaged child. No one forces these parents to buy such games as Manhunt or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The events that happen in the normal course of gameplay are not hidden from the purchaser; they are often depicted on the back of the box and in TV, we

---------

Dear Assembly Member Yee,

In reading my news for the day, I came across several articles referencing your "blasting" of the ESRB in regards to the rating it provided to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (Official Press Release: http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a12/press /p122005060.htm).

To begin, I am twenty-four years old, with a 14-month old son. I am very much a part of the 'video-game generation', as I often use video games to unwind after a days worth of work and caring for my son. These games range from the previous mentioned Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and beyond.

In reading the press release, I felt that you had a few good points, and a few points that were off-base. It is true that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained the remnants of a coded "sex mini-game", depicting animated characters going through previous choreographed motions of various acts of sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse between (in the theme of the game), consenting adults. However, what you failed to mention was that in order for anyone to access this minigame, they have to go to the lengthy trouble of modifying the actual game code for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I have been working with computers, for both work and recreational purposes, for a decade, and I can safely say that because it requires the modification of the game code beyond the parameters that Rockstar North coded, this is not something that an individual will just run into during the course of playing the game. An individual has easier access to "soft-core pornography" on late night cable; actual pornography, and not two rendered, clothed computer models going through the motions.

That was a lengthy discourse as to the point you missed. I will now address a point that you did address. The press release, and prior press releases, indicates that you feel that games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Manhunt, and other M-rated games (which, for the recorded, is defined on the ESRB {http://www.esrb.com/esrbratings.asp} website as a game which may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.). You are correct. Such games are not made for children. Not all games are made for children. Just as movies such as The Godfather (R), Apocalypse Now Redux (R), Scarface (R), and Saving Private Ryan (R) are classified by the MPAA (www.mpaa.org) under the Voluntary Movie Rating System as being not for children, these M-Rated games are also being classified under a voluntary rating system as not suitable for children.

I feel that voluntary rating systems are the key point here. Both motion pictures and video games carry a classification designed to inform the purchaser of the product as to what they will be experiencing in the normal course of viewing/playing. Video game producers such as Rockstar North are not forcing parents to buy Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for their 12-year old child, just as Francis Ford Coppola never forced parents to take their 12-year old child to see Apocalypse Now (or Apocalypse Now Redux, released in 2001 as a directors cut). It is up to the parent to decide, based on their own purchases and experiences and research, whether or not a product is suitable for their underaged child. No one forces these parents to buy such games as Manhunt or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The events that happen in the normal course of gameplay are not hidden from the purchaser; they are often depicted on the back of the box and in TV, we

For starters, without numbers I don't believe you.

A 1995 FHA study found that commercial trucking taxes cover up to 40% of the costs to design, build, repair, and maintain the roads on which they travel. It turned out to be about 15-percent of Michigan's road budget that year (position paper here). Michigan found that even after raising the fees and taxes on commercial trucks in 1997, there was still a gap between what commercial trucks were paying and the costs they were causing.

A 1994 report for the state of New York showed that all the money taken in for road and fuel taxes still left them $2B short to cover their costs.

Another study says that one tractor-trailer damages the road in an amount equivalent to 2000-3000 automobiles (the American Truckers Association believes it is only equivalent to 800-1000 automobiles). I do not believe that commercial trucks are paying anywhere near 800-3000 times what automobiles are paying in taxes. There are arguments about how the tax burden should be shared, but some numbers for South Carolina I saw suggested that commercial truck fees and taxes are up to about 10 times that collected from non-commercial fees and taxes.

In California the state and federal taxes and fees only cover two-thirds of the transportation budget. To make up the rest Californians have a local sales tax (on all sales, not just fuel) that goes for transportation.

Arizona has a voter-approved half-cent tax to cover their transportation costs. If you are a real numbers geek, you can sift through their transportation fiscal report and see that their transportation budget is heavily subsidized.

A different take on the issue is by these guys (or at least the people they quote) that talks about the tie between heavy suburban sprawl and the heavy automobile/truck subsidization.

I can go on and on and on like this, but hey, I do have to get some work done today. :)

Another idea, you could etch the patern into the metal using acid or electoplating. just paint the design in reverse using a template, then acid dip. Or paint the patern, then put it in salt water with a difrent kind of metal, and run some electricity through it. ahould create a nice etch. This is the basic idea: http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/split_h2o.h tml

Driving slower than other cars or stopping all of a sudden can be just as bad as speeding. It tends to make cars bunch up behind you and it could cause a rear-end crash. If many cars are passing you, move into the right lane and let them pass.

In other words, Arnie says get the hell out of the left lane if you're driving too slow.

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

Look at a map and discover that they live near parks, schools, bus stops, etc., and just look at how many are around Disneyland .

You can bet that these guys just didn't take a leak in public to get their "jacket".

Got it now?

Oh, one might look and see how many other states are doing what CA is doing and save himself some effort.

In case you're wondering who's in your neighborhood...

Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Alabama [state.al.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Alaska [state.ak.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Arizona [az.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Arkansas [megans-law.net]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of California [ca.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Colorado [state.co.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Connecticut [state.ct.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Delaware [state.de.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Florida [state.fl.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Georgia [ganet.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Hawaii [megans-law.net]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Idaho [state.id.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Illinois [state.il.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Indiana [in.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Iowa [iowasexoffender.com]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Kansas [accesskansas.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Kentucky [state.ky.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Louisiana [lsp.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Maine [megans-law.net]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Maryland [state.md.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Massachusetts [mass.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Michigan [state.mi.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Minnesota [state.mn.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Mississippi [state.ms.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Missouri [missouri.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Montana [state.mt.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Nebraska [state.ne.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Nevada [nvsexoffenders.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New Hampshire [nh.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New Jersey [njsp.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New Mexico [state.nm.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New York [sta

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdoc ID=4623769613+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Now, if you went in there to just look around, that's okay.

The details of the case can be found at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A10 5488.PDF

With a policy like this, CA (and probably any other state in need of some extra cash) could argue that the online company was just an extension of the brick-and-mortar Borders stores located in the state.

Let's say I'm sitting here in the Caymans, selling lemonade online. I've contracted with a loosely organized network of 7-year old kids, who deliver the actual product through a series of sidewalk stands across CA. I collect $.25/cup and I pay each kid $.10/cup they deliver. Am I liable for sales tax in this case? If so, how much?

Now pretend I sell books and that I have contracted with UPS to be my sole delivery service. Since UPS has outlets in CA, I tell my customers to make their returns at any UPS Store. Do I need to pay sales tax because of my implied presence in CA? If so, do I pay tax on the price paid for the product or for the delivery?

I am a resident of California, and honestly I feel a little bad when I buy something on the internet that I could have purchased at a retail outlet. This is because I want to do my part to help the state out of its current financial crisis, and sales tax is one of the little ways that I can do this.

So if you feel bad, send in the use tax. Otherwise you have a more important reason to feel bad, you're committing tax evasion.

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/quakes/eq_chron. htm

Since the 1700s, not a single earthquake in California that was over 6.5 has caused a tsunami there.

The media is so shit, scare scare scare scare scare, controlling US citizens with a blanket of fear :(

Retailers Reminded That District Tax is Not Based on Zip Codes
You are receiving this notice because you are a registered retailer with a business location in zip code 92019, 92020, or 92021, but which is located outside the city limits of El Cajon. It clarifies when you must charge the City of El Cajon Public Safety Facilities Transactions and Use Tax, and when you cannot charge the tax. The tax, which is 0.50 percent, became effective April 1, 2005.

For example, the California State Board of Equalization (now that's a rather scary concept, isn't it!?) publishes "Tax rates for California Cities (and Counties) in a comma delimited format. The rates in this file are effective 04/01/05." http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/CityRates040105.csv Oh, and you do have to pay the district taxes as well as the state tax -- http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/pam71.htm -- but then you need to know where you're shipping to, anyway.

For example, the California State Board of Equalization (now that's a rather scary concept, isn't it!?) publishes "Tax rates for California Cities (and Counties) in a comma delimited format. The rates in this file are effective 04/01/05." http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/CityRates040105.csv Oh, and you do have to pay the district taxes as well as the state tax -- http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/pam71.htm -- but then you need to know where you're shipping to, anyway.

Sales and use tax applies to the sale or use of tangible personal property in California. Section 6016 of the Revenue and Taxation Code defines tangible personal property as "personal property which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or which is in any other manner perceptible to the senses."

A few more:
- Garbage (the band)
- The Zucker Brothers (and Jim Abrahams)
- Cray Compter
- The Dells
- The Marquette Golden Eagles... Uh... Gold... Uh... Warriors? Hilltopers? Uh... Dwyane Wade went to school here!
- Fighting Bob La Follette
- Sewer Socialists
- Harley-Davidson
- They brought Arnold Schwarzenegger to America
- Douglas MacArthur
- Bratwurst
- Numbered Highways
- Birthplace of The Republican Party
- Svetlana Alliluyeva (Stalin's Daughter)
- Frank Lloyd Wright
- Heather Graham

can be found at:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/sections/ipse ction/2005_draft-patent-statute.pdf

(would someone like to mirror this?)

Neither New Jersey or Virginia makes any distinction between DUI and DWI. California's law talks about DUI only and covers both the categories you mention under that definition (details here). My previous impression was that they were just different acronyms used by different states. It's not like the distinction in the English words "under influence" and "while intoxicated" actually means anything - if anything, one implies the other. What you wrote seems to imply you see a distinction, but that's really determined by the legal definitions you're apparently familiar with.

Apparently some states use both, that's news to me. I've never lived in a state that does. The only thing I know about Maryland is that they have the worst speedtraps on I-95 when driving through on the way to DC, so it figures they'd also have confusing drunk driving laws... ;)

How about a car which:

* Uses absolutely no energy when stopped in heavy traffic

I don't think this is a realistic requirement. Real drivers will have their headlights on (daytime running lights are pretty much standard everywhere now), not to mention the radio, the Air Conditioning, and GPS navigation system. The A/C is the real killer there, but all of those things combined will suck the life out of any battery faster than you can say "zero emission baby!"

Also, I just want to point out that I don't think electric cars are the silver bullet panacea that they are being marketed as. It still takes x Newtons of energy to move y kilograms of mass over a distance of z kilometers. Utilising electric energy to perform the work isn't somehow "free." That electricity still has to come from somewhere. And if that source happens to be the existing power grid (i.e., you plug you car in while you're at home, or parked somewhere), then that power is still most likely coming from fossil fuels. It doesn't buy you anything.

I'm proud to live in a jurisdiction that is actually quite forward-thinking in this respect. Ontario derives less than half (42%) of its electricity from fossil fuel sources. But more than a quarter of our power is nuclear, and the US is still pretty resistant to dipping their toes back into that pool. California, for example, only uses nuclear for about 13% of their power, relying on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for almost 62% of their power (source).

For laughs, I looked up some info on Texas. I found that Texas derives only 7% of its electricity from "green" sources (I'm including nuclear in that number), with the remaining coming from coal, natural gas, petroleum (61%), and "dual fired" (what's that? Is that "green?") (32%). Source.

So until we address the root problems (most energy is still derived from fossil fuels, rampant overconsumption is a way of life in North America), all we're doing is moving the pollution from the highways to the power plants. We're not saving anything, it's not helping the environment, we shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back for buying an electric car... we should pat ourselves on the back for taking the bus, carpooling, telecommuniting, or just plain driving less.

built in. By CHP I mean California Highway Patrol. On their incident information page, updated every minute, a map link is preasent for each call shown. Even for trivial things.

http://cad.chp.ca.gov/

Already has this built into their website, except that it's updates as the call comes in. Even for things as small as animals in the road. Not to detract from the mans work, but it's not unique to the Chicago area, or an entirely new idea.

http://cad.chp.ca.gov/

PeopleSoft is kind of an open-ended money hole. The implementation at the CSU system is hundreds of millions of dollars over-budget

http://www.csulb.edu/~cfa/peoplesoftlat.html
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary.php?id=390
http://www.csus.edu/org/cfa/CFACMSBrief.htm

The CSU system did not do a feasibility study, they didn't establish a business case, it is not going to achieve the goals they did establish, it won't even have all the functionality of the systems it is replacing, it will cost more to maintain, and the money is coming out of the general fund.

I read the Wired article and became hopeful. I wasn't as turned off by the market-ish site as other Slashdotters.

I followed up with an "oculus site:.gov" search and found that the FDA has classified Microcyn as a disinfectant.

And, the California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation lists the evaluation of Microcyn as follows,

209086 - (NO NUMBER ASSIGNED)
OCULUS INNOVATIVE SCIENCES, INC.
OCULUS MICROCYN DISINFECTANT (OMD)
USE: DISINFECTANT - FOR THE CONTROL OF VARIOUS ORGANISMS SUCH AS SALMONELLA TYPHI, ESCHERICHIA COLI, AND PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA ON TUBS, DESKS, AND APPLIANCES
TYPE: SECTION 3 REGISTRATION -
ACTIVE INGREDIENT(S):
HYPOCHLOROUS ACID
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
CAS NUMBER(S): 7790-92-3, 7681-52-9

Maybe some /. chemists can explain the good of those ingredients.

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/draft_tritiu m.pdf

"The energy of
the tritium-emitted beta particles (maximum, 0.018 MeV) is quite weak, compared to the
range of beta particle energies (maximum, 1.7 MeV), but is sufficient to produce ionizations and excitations of molecules in their path. The average range of these beta particles in water is less than 1 m. Because of the low energy and short range of the beta particles, tritium does not pose an external radiation hazard; the radiation is not sufficiently energetic to pass through skin."

Tritium is present in drinking water and the atmosphere just like Deuterium is. When your atomic Tritium battery is dead, simply have it refilled - the previous "charge" can probably be safely vented outdoors.

Smoke detectors have a tiny bit of radioactive materials in them too.

In the UK, there are tritium-powered glow-lights on retail shelves and online stores... Tritium barely qualifies as a hazardous substance as long as you do not intentionally inhale or drink it.

No wonder they want to hide from society.

*see section (I)(2) here

I did a quick check and found that you can register deisel vehicles in MA if they pass LEV II statndards though no newer diesel vehicles to my kowledge have. MA follows CA emmissions statdards, as do 13 other states apparently; Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont. Here's a link to the LEV II standards.

California has a different list, but again, no mention is made of proving residence. Birth certificates feature prominently there as well, but they also grab a thumbprint and verify your SSN while you wait.

Establishing ID from scratch is always a problem.

Untrue. If that were the case, then states wouldn't alternatively issue an ID card that, with the exception of it not licensing you to drive, is identical to the driver's license. One might argue that it shouldn't be anything but a license to drive, but it is, in fact, your de jure state issued identification as well.

Your guess won't be allowed under Proposition 71 From a legislative analyst: "Under the measure, any funding needed for various bond-related costs (for example, the cost of administering the bond sales) would be deducted before bond proceeds were spent for other purposes. The institute would be able to use up to 3 percent of the remaining bond proceeds for general administrative costs and up to an additional 3 percent for administrative costs associated with grantmaking activities. The remaining funds would be used for the grants and loans for research and research facilities. Priority for research grant funding would be given to stem cell research that met the institute's criteria and was unlikely to receive federal funding. In some cases, funding could also be provided for other types of research that were determined to cure or provide new types of treatment of diseases and injuries. The institute would not be allowed to fund research on human reproductive cloning. Up to 10 percent of the funds available for grants and loans could be used to develop scientific and medical research facilities for nonprofit entities within the first five years of the implementation of the measure." http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop7 1-analysis.htm or you can read the whole thing here: http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop7 1text.pdf

Your guess won't be allowed under Proposition 71 From a legislative analyst: "Under the measure, any funding needed for various bond-related costs (for example, the cost of administering the bond sales) would be deducted before bond proceeds were spent for other purposes. The institute would be able to use up to 3 percent of the remaining bond proceeds for general administrative costs and up to an additional 3 percent for administrative costs associated with grantmaking activities. The remaining funds would be used for the grants and loans for research and research facilities. Priority for research grant funding would be given to stem cell research that met the institute's criteria and was unlikely to receive federal funding. In some cases, funding could also be provided for other types of research that were determined to cure or provide new types of treatment of diseases and injuries. The institute would not be allowed to fund research on human reproductive cloning. Up to 10 percent of the funds available for grants and loans could be used to develop scientific and medical research facilities for nonprofit entities within the first five years of the implementation of the measure." http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop7 1-analysis.htm or you can read the whole thing here: http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop7 1text.pdf

at least California does. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/idinfo/idcard.htm

Including San Francisco to LA. California High-Speed Rail Project is planning a 350kph (217 mph) that will beat a plane flying the same route.

California is officially trying to build high-speed rail. Unfortunately a little thing called a budget crisis came along because the Legislature couldn't control its spending during the bubble. But work is still underway, and hopefully something will come out of it. Last I heard, they were still wrangling over the exact route it's to take.

A couple clarifications.

The Amtrak Acela runs from Washington, DC to Boston, but its lacking speed is due to the condition of the rail. The non-"Acela" trains in the same corridor are nearly as fast, merely by running express.

Acela trains, of course, have been suspended, because Amtrak is too stupid to correctly maintain them. Go figure.

High-speed rail is being planned in California.

What it really comes down to is a lack of efficacy at Amtrak, most of which is fueled by a government that doesn't care.