Slashdot Mirror

I have come to expect that the majority of the posters here on Slashdot haven't read the article.

It happens less often, but even Slashdot submitters sometimes fail to read the article they are submitting.

What's really sad is when the person who wrote the article didn't even research the subject they are writing about.

According to the article, "The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, allows moviegoers to make a citizen's arrest if they see someone in a theater with a recording device." Recording devices are illegal in a movie theatre! The cops are busting everyone with a PDA or a cellphone! That thought has understandably got everyone here all up in a lather.

The actual law states (emphasis is mine):

Section 653z is added to the Penal Code, to read:

653z. (a) Every person who operates a recording device in a motion picture theater while a motion picture is being exhibited, for the purpose of recording a theatrical motion picture and without the express written authority of the owner of the motion picture theater, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Question - did anyone actually bother to read the bill? Quoting:

This does not cover talking on a camera-equipped cellphone, working on a camera-equipped PDA, or even having a camcorder in your purse. The law only prohibits pointing the camera at the screen while a movie is being shown. It's a very narrowly tailored law that addresses what it seeks to address - piracy.

Speaking of which - take a look at VCDQuality and note the number of movies that show up as "CAM" or "Telesync" first, and then tell me camcording in a movie theater isn't occurring.

Then, skip on over to VCDMovieBox.com and note the movies being offered for sale that are obviously camcords (Master and Commander, Brother Bear, Elf, etc....

3rd generation iPods (recording feature is part of the rom.)

Pretty much every PDA manufactured after 1999.

All cellphones (if you use the transmitter interpretation that I put out above.)

Very interesting to note (from the text of the bill):

(1) Existing law provides that a person admitted to a theater in which a motion picture is to be or is being exhibited who refuses to cease the operation of a video recording device upon the request of the theater owner is guilty of intentionally interfering with and obstructing the operation of a lawful business, a misdemeanor.

This bill would provide, in addition, that every person who operates a recording device in a motion picture theater while a motion picture is being exhibited, for the purpose of recording a theatrical motion picture and without the express written authority of the owner of the motion picture theater, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or by both that fine and imprisonment. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.[italics mine]

(1) "Recording device" means a photographic, digital or video camera, or other audio or video recording device capable of recording the sounds and images of a motion picture or any portion of a motion picture.

Bollocks! The word 'unwanted' doesn't even appear in the bill. (err... does /. have censors - oh right- no just moderators that vote posts up or down).

Note page 15 of this PDF'd election manual. (The document is an election workers manual from the County of San Francisco, I've worked polls in Santa Clara County myself.) Note that it does not state that ID is illegal to ask for, but does say that "Voters are NOT required to provide proof of identity or residence."

I will add that many voters do bring their voting booklet, or present an ID, and it definitely helps poll workers when you do that, it's somehow just slightly quicker to look something up when you have a nicely printed version fo what you're searching for, particularly with hard-to-spell names.

Here is the text of a proposed law, from February 2003, to require IDs to be checked by precinct workers.

I can't, in the few moments I've looked today, find an explicit prohibition, although I believe I've seen one, I'm willing to drop the assertion that it's directly illegal until I can find direct proof of that statement. I will note, however, that if it's not required, it'd be a pretty bad idea to demand it of voters, since it'd be a direct opening to charges of discriminatory, selective checking of IDs.

On the other hand, a mistake by a polling worker on this point is far more likely to be a mistake than a serious attempt at fraud, poll-workers don't get a ton of training.

Tell that to the California State Government. The DMV allows you to pay fees online with a credit card but charge an additional fee to do so. I also think the IRS has something similar.

"Note: A $4 convenience fee will be added to the amount shown on your renewal notice."

Cute. This fee only applies to (online) credit card transactions of course. The flip side is hoping you get an appointment before your license expires or wait in horrid lines.

I had this problem when I was required to appear this year to get a renewal, though I made it with a few day's leeway. I paid cash, but they got their revenge: I now have jury duty the week of Dec 22nd.

With proof in hand that the court does have jurisdiction you shouldn't have much trouble getting it pushed through. Anyhow IANAL but I drool over the ADA's assistants on TV. :-) Best of luck.

I looked into going this route, however I was told by the court clerk that this wouldn't work. See: this. I was told that I would need to sue where the defandant is located. I explained to the clerk that the defendant was a canadian company. She went and consulted with the judge that she works for and told me that if I filed this case the judge would be forced to tell me that it wasn't covered by her jurisdiction. I wish it were that simple, but it's not.

This is even weaker than Verisign's lower class of SSL certificate. Verisign at least requires a Dun and Bradstreet number.

There are far better seal programs, such as the classic Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. That's an actual warranty. "If a product bearing the Seal proves to be defective within two years of purchase, Good Housekeeping will replace the product or refund the purchase price." "Entrust" doesn't come anywhere near that.

Then there's the question of whether BitPass is a payment service or a reseller. iBill, for example, is a reseller. When you buy something through iBill, the actual "merchant" is iBill, and if you want a refund, you can get it through iBill's customer service operation. Getting it back from the site operator is iBill's problem, which is why they take a big cut and hold back payments for weeks.

BitPass doesn't seem to be set up that way. BitPass is, in a sense, "selling money" That may create problems. Credit card issuers don't allow merchants to "sell money"; that's a loan, which comes under banking laws. Also, the U.S. Government has a monopoly on money. Casinos in Las Vegas used to take each other's chips, but that was ruled to be a "currency" years ago, and they had to stop.

Worse, the BitPass site does not disclose the name and address of the business before asking for a credit card number. They've set things up so it's hard to get a refund. They don't disclose their refund policy. That's a criminal offense in California (B&P code 17538), where BitPass apparently is located. That's good for six months in jail. Here's the law, which is very specific, so sleazy operators can't hide the required info and claim they comply.

• (d) A vendor conducting business through the Internet or any other electronic means of communication shall do all of the following when the transaction involves a buyer located in this state:

  (1) Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication, such as e-mail or an on-screen notice, the vendor's return and refund policy, the legal name under which the business is conducted and, except as provided in paragraph (3), the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted.

  (2) If the disclosure of the vendor's legal name and address information required by this subdivision is made by on-screen notice, all of the following shall apply:

  (A) The disclosure of the legal name and address information shall appear on any of the following: (i) the first screen displayed when the vendor's electronic site is accessed, (ii) on the screen on which goods or services are first offered, (iii) on the screen on which a buyer may place the order for goods or services, (iv) on the screen on which the buyer may enter payment information, such as a credit card account number, or (v) for nonbrowser-based technologies, in a manner that gives the user a reasonable opportunity to review that information. The communication of that disclosure shall not be structured to be smaller or less legible than the text of the offer of the goods or services.

  (3) The complete street address need not be disclosed as required by paragraph (1) if the vendor utilizes

There are plenty of existing laws already on the books to deal with misuse of these devices. As one example, in my own home area, RCW 46.37.190, Section 4, clearly states (among other things) that "Optical strobe light devices shall not be installed or used on any vehicle other than an emergency vehicle authorized by the state patrol, a publicly owned law enforcement or emergency vehicle, a department of transportation, city, or county maintenance vehicle, or a public transit vehicle."

The section goes on to define, in very specific detail, what the state of Washington considers to be an "Optical strobe light," and it explicitly includes devices to control traffic signals.

As another example, the California Vehicle Code, Section 25258(a), explicitly authorizes traffic control strobes only for emergency vehicles.

Final example: Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 816, Section 12, prohibits any kind of flashing light, other than the normal turn signals or hazard lights, on any vehicle other than an emergency or school bus type.

Now, you might be thinking "Hey, these things emit in the infrared region, so they're not visible to the unaided human eye. No problem!"

Well, there is a problem. First, 'unaided' is the keyword here. Normal video cameras see into the infrared region very well indeed (I know -- I've experimented along those lines), and many intersections now have these cameras installed in the interests of catching red light jumpers, speeders, etc.

That same camera will, if you're using one of these devices, pick up your strobe flash, IR or no IR, with no problems at all.

As if that's not enough, lots of cities have remote telemetry and monitoring of their traffic signals, and that monitoring includes an indicator that the pre-emption device has been tripped. Couple that trip indication with an image from the intersection camera, showing a nice bright white light from your dashboard where there's not supposed to be one, and you could be in big trouble really quick.

The thing that'll really kill the sales of these things is digital encoding of the strobe flash. King County (WA state again) has already done this. I've noticed that the Opticom emitters on our local fire and PD vehicles are all flashing in a very distinctive pattern, compared with six or so years ago where they were simply flashing at a certain frequency.

I guess the short way to say it is that there's going to be an awful lot of ticked-off people when they discover that their $300 time-saver either gets them at least the same amount in a traffic ticket, or when said device suddenly ceases to have any effect.

Aside from the US Code, many states have laws that explicitly make anyone eligible a member of the militia. For example, California law:

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I guess you have heard of a law ON THE BOOKS.

Nope.

According to pretty much every state's Alcohol Beverage Control Department (name may vary from state to state), bars close at 1:59 AM, NOT 2:00 AM, for this very reason. Technically, the bars close at 1:59:59 AM. The instant it hits 2:00 AM, they have already been closed. Which is why, by the way, a lot of bartenders yell at you to finish your drinks around 1:57. If you're still around at the stroke of 2, technically you and they are breaking the law.

Contrary to popular belief you can be on salary and still get paid overtime. Exemption from overtime is based solely on what you do at your job.

For example I work in California, get salary, but not enough to be considered a "well compensated computer professional" and so therefore I am entitled to overtime. Of course, my coworkers aren't but that is just because they don't like to read labor laws.

More information can be found here. Section 515.5 is the part about software programmers.

There's also a site called Power Line Facts that may be helpful. Like they say, go buy a power meter, then do another house inspection. If the meter's reading 4mG or higher, run away. Fast.

And what's Power Line safety without a blog?

I just as soon would like to have bubble in the choice pencil and paper ballot that could be scanned electronicly similar to what I used to vote absentee in the recal other than thjs Diebold crap.

At least for California is to download the DRGs, DEMs, DOQQs, road data, hydrography data, landmarks, and anything else that you might find interesting from here CASIL. Also download a GIS viewer, such as Global Mapper runs great under Wine BTW. Get a nice serial interface GPS receiver. Plug them all into your Sony VAIO R505 running Gentoo and go flyfishing where no man has been before ;)

My family and I did this over labor day and the amount of detail I was able to extract from the maps was amazing. I could call out the curves on a logging trail to my dad as he was driving. I was also able to identify water metering stations, survey markers, etc. It also blew away any in-car navigation system I have ever seen. Being able to turn on elevation mapping is a huge help.

The state of California does many things very badly, but I have to hand it to them and thank them as well for making all of their GIS data publicly available free of charge. Keep in mind though that NASA does not always look kindly on someone downloading 9GB of data from them in one night :)

Somewhere I remember hearing that if we wanted to build the Golden Gate Bridge today, we couldn't. So I guess you can add "Bridge building" to the list.

I don't think this is true. A new (smaller) suspension bridge is opening in the SF Bay Area in three weeks. Here's a link. Also, construction is starting on a new eastern span for the SF Bay Bridge, which is a project of comparable difficulty (and a partial suspension bridge design).

Somewhere I remember hearing that if we wanted to build the Golden Gate Bridge today, we couldn't. So I guess you can add "Bridge building" to the list.

I don't think this is true. A new (smaller) suspension bridge is opening in the SF Bay Area in three weeks. Here's a link. Also, construction is starting on a new eastern span for the SF Bay Bridge, which is a project of comparable difficulty (and a partial suspension bridge design).

Despite the Slashdot editor's incompetence about UCSD here, there is an important point to make about all this. The California law on the matter:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sect ion=edc&group=91001-92000&file=92000-92001 is a violation of the 1st amendment as it stands. It is clearly going much farther than the normal trademark protection.

I voted by absentee ballot so I would have a paper ballot. I don't trust "electronic voting" no matter who builds or makes it.

I have seen some post indicating that the recall election here in Califorina was "stolen" perhaps because of these machines. With total Democratic control of the all State offices I don't buy into this idea. It just shows how out of touch the bay area and costal California is with the rest (majority) of the state when they makes such statements. This map shows that clearly. recall map by county This map show how many counties actually went for Schwarzenegger Votes on who will succeed Gray Davis he won in all but 7 counties. So much for saying he has no mandate

I have also read the some democrats in the bay area think they are "better" and "smarter" than the rest if Califorina and they don't matter. Discounting the equality of fellow citizens is offensive. Marginalizing those you disagree with is a huge turn off and your political ideas are suspect from then on. This is a boner move and will come back to haunt bay area and coastal democrats in the future. I suggest you STFU and concentrate on finding out why the rest of the state doesn't agree with you. This SacBee article dispells lots of myths I have heard and read (even on /.) about the nature of the recall Daniel Weintraub: Facts and fiction about the California recall election

Once again paper ballots are a must for free and fair elections. Any election can be stolen no matter what method is used but it seems that a paper ballot properly cast is much harder to tamper with.

I voted by absentee ballot so I would have a paper ballot. I don't trust "electronic voting" no matter who builds or makes it.

I have seen some post indicating that the recall election here in Califorina was "stolen" perhaps because of these machines. With total Democratic control of the all State offices I don't buy into this idea. It just shows how out of touch the bay area and costal California is with the rest (majority) of the state when they makes such statements. This map shows that clearly. recall map by county This map show how many counties actually went for Schwarzenegger Votes on who will succeed Gray Davis he won in all but 7 counties. So much for saying he has no mandate

I have also read the some democrats in the bay area think they are "better" and "smarter" than the rest if Califorina and they don't matter. Discounting the equality of fellow citizens is offensive. Marginalizing those you disagree with is a huge turn off and your political ideas are suspect from then on. This is a boner move and will come back to haunt bay area and coastal democrats in the future. I suggest you STFU and concentrate on finding out why the rest of the state doesn't agree with you. This SacBee article dispells lots of myths I have heard and read (even on /.) about the nature of the recall Daniel Weintraub: Facts and fiction about the California recall election

Once again paper ballots are a must for free and fair elections. Any election can be stolen no matter what method is used but it seems that a paper ballot properly cast is much harder to tamper with.

for any other computer game concern.
they can't work just about anywhere else other than a "competitor".

Clearly they can work anywhere else but a competitor. Thats all I said, thats what the article said. Where did this higher standard in your head come from?

#2 The clause is certainly not illegal in California, nor is an "Invention and Confidentiality" agreement. Hell I can point you to the labor code that specifically allows such agreements in CA if it'll shut your ignorant arse up. If its legal in crazy California I promise its legal there.

When you want to work in games you sign a contract. A contract is considered legal when both sides benefit. The potential employee gets a job for agreeing to not compete with the company for a year after leaving. This is fine and fair. If you cannot agree to this DONT SIGN UP IN THE FIRST PLACE. If you do sign up, be smart enough to save enough money to work at the grocery store for a year. Though I hear those cats make 17.00 an hour so it can't be that bad.

1633.7. (a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect
or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
(b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability
solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
(c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic
record satisfies the law.
(d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature
satisfies the law.

I work in california.us, where we have laws about this kind of thing, for example:

2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides
that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her
rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an
invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time
without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or
trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of
the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably
anticipated research or development of the employer; or
(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the
employer.
(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports
to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from
being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision
is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

2871. No employer shall require a provision made void and
unenforceable by Section 2870 as a condition of employment or
continued employment. Nothing in this article shall be construed to
forbid or restrict the right of an employer to provide in contracts
of employment for disclosure, provided that any such disclosures be
received in confidence, of all of the employee's inventions made
solely or jointly with others during the term of his or her
employment, a review process by the employer to determine such issues
as may arise, and for full title to certain patents and inventions
to be in the United States, as required by contracts between the
employer and the United States or any of its agencies.

Larry

For those interested, here is a link to the text of Assembly Bill 213, sponsored by Assemblyman Tim Leslie:

CA Assembly Bill 213

The reference for this I found was on a California state website and was measured in terms of Gross Product in 2001. Here's the page:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2002/cal_facts/econ.html

Courtesy the California Legislature web site.

In the newsgroups, no, since this law deals only with e-mail.

As for email, well, I suggest you read the law itself.

I think it depends on the person's post -- did they give "direct consent" to be contacted with email advertisements from you? If they are just griping and not asking for alternatives, then I would say they did not.

This was SB 186

For all you trolls blaming Davis for the actions of the legislature, you can read the actual vote record, and see how the final votes went.

For all you armchair leigslators making guessing about how they define spam, read the bill itself, as enrolled.

This was SB 186

For all you trolls blaming Davis for the actions of the legislature, you can read the actual vote record, and see how the final votes went.

For all you armchair leigslators making guessing about how they define spam, read the bill itself, as enrolled.

This was SB 186

For all you trolls blaming Davis for the actions of the legislature, you can read the actual vote record, and see how the final votes went.

For all you armchair leigslators making guessing about how they define spam, read the bill itself, as enrolled.

Try this clicky for California Small Claims info.

So if you really, really want to you can do it yourself. Granted, it is not the most fun thing in the world, and can be a real PITA. On the other hand you might have some fun with it, and it can be a learning experience. The cost is not very high if you do it yourself.

If a supplier finds it cheaper to buy from someone else rather than produce his own, it indicates either: (a) the supplier is a less efficient producer. Someone else is able to do it more cheaply., or (b) the cost of building new capacity is so high that the cash flow from the new capacity does not justify the cost to build it.

If the problem is (a), then as a consumer, you want the supplier to outsource the work to someone else, because you get a cheaper product.

If the problem is (b) and the demand for the product is increasing in the long run, then as a consumer you will likely start to face spot shortages and price spikes caused by those shortages, since the outside supplier will eventually have less and less excess capacity to sell.

California has had experience with (b) in two markets, the electric power market and the gasoline market. In the former, the power outages were caused by high demand and insufficient generation capacity (only part of which was due to attempts to manipulate the spot price of energy). The major culprit was the length of time it took to get State regulatory approval to build new power plants. When Gov. Davis finally realized there was a problem, he relaxed the approval process and dozens of new plants were built.

The gasoline market suffers from regulatory restraint as well. Since 1985, not a single new oil refinery has been built in CA. Ten have closed. (See this for info. Now, refineries are running at over 90% capacity, rather than the 65% capacity they ran at in the mid-80s. Every time a refinery has a problem, the supply is out-stripped by demand and prices spike. The refiners, needless to say, love this. The are making huge profits because the government has imposed an almost complete barrier to new competition. (Presumably there is some price of gas at which it would be profitable to run the regulatory gauntlet.) The situation will get worse, since it is expected that in the new 5 years about 10% of CA refining capacity will be closed down.

As the two examples suggest, regulation of the market between suppliers and consumers is not the issue. The issue is government regulation by of the suppliers which restricts capacity. The government has some legitimate reasons for those regulations (such as protecting the environment), but their citizens must accept the consequences of growing demand and static supply. Those consequences will include outages, shortages and higher prices.

In the state of California, certain ultra low emission vehicles can use the car pool lanes even with only a single pasaanger. I have a neighbor who has such a vehicle strictly for his daily commute between Orange County and Los Angeles.

A list of qualifying vehicles may be found here.

If you know what LA traffic is like, then you know what a huge benefit this could be to the right person.

Natural gas is almost entirely domestically produced. It costs less than $1.50 a gallon of gasoline equivalent, and it is renewable and clean. Plus, here in California an alternative fuel and low emission vehicle gets you permission to use the commuter lanes, even over toll-bridges, which can save considerable time and money.

And in case you hadn't guessed, I like mine pretty well. Range and trunk space aren't good, but they aren't embarrasing either. Availability needs to be improved, but I happen to have a PG&E station just along my commute path, so it works out fine for me.

What's childish is how /.'ers wet their pants over one little piss-ant company that hasn't been incorporated a year, hasn't even released a fucking product and probably never will. All they want to talk about is illegal this, sue that, and unhireable. And then they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

WAKE UP KIDS! This is the real world! Perception is reality. Companies do this sort of thing all the time. How easy do you think it is for someone with, say, Arthur Andersen to get a job?

Mod me flamebait, but please don't be confused by the facts.

It's not against the law to fool people. The RIAA isn't lying. They won't press charges. Ommision of information isn't a crime.

1709. One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.

1710. A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;

3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,

4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it.

1711. One who practices a deceit with intent to defraud the public, or a particular class of persons, is deemed to have intended to defraud every individual in that class, who is actually misled by the deceit.

It's not against the law to fool people. The RIAA isn't lying. They won't press charges. Ommision of information isn't a crime.

1709. One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.

1710. A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;

3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,

4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it.

1711. One who practices a deceit with intent to defraud the public, or a particular class of persons, is deemed to have intended to defraud every individual in that class, who is actually misled by the deceit.

It's not against the law to fool people. The RIAA isn't lying. They won't press charges. Ommision of information isn't a crime.

1709. One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.

1710. A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;

3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,

4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it.

1711. One who practices a deceit with intent to defraud the public, or a particular class of persons, is deemed to have intended to defraud every individual in that class, who is actually misled by the deceit.

As someone who is interested in becoming a Notary, I would really advise against this. A notary is someone who is recnogized by their state to authenticate signatures on documents. If forged notarizations start floating around, it makes the rest of the notaries look bad, and weakens the system as a result.

Compare this with being a sysadmin. It's one of the cardinal rules of being a sysadmin that you NEVER read users' e-mail without their explicit permission. If there ever ends up being a high profile case of a sysadmin who did that (without being ordered to be law enforcement), it would only serve to make the rest of us look bad, don't you agreee?

If you, as a consumer, get taxed on something, can you pass along that cost to your employer? Hardly.

Where do you live? Where I live, I am allowed to consider the wages offered by an employer when I decide whether I'll work for them. Naturally, I consider my income requirements, of which taxes are a factor. So do all the other consumers where I live. Taxes are, therefore, a factor in the cost of labor which is a cost that employers must bare. This is why wages in large metropolitan areas with high costs of living are considerably higher than less densely populated areas having lower living costs.

I used this example as a very specific case where the costs are "passed on" directly to the consumer. The consumer

2) What you are talking about is indirect costs. The fact that commerce is a closed system means that I can at any point stop and "prove" that whoever I am pointing at right now has to pay for those costs.

Take, for instance, a single sector, say advertising or IT, and look at the consumer's point of view: If the consumer chooses a firm from NYC, most likely they will pay more than a firm from St. Louis. By your logic, whoever employs that consumer must bear the brunt of that cost differential. Your little lecture about how wages are different in different locations is neither here nor there when talking about passing along costs. The day someone can get directly reimbursed by their employer for a tax is the day your argument is within context.

3) The consumer is NOT NECESSARILY an individual. In many cases the very use of the term "Employer" is moot.

Choose any of these three reasons for my original assertion that the statement that "costs are passed onto the employer" is untrue.

The original assertion that taxes on business are simply passed on to consumers is wildly over generalized drivel. It appears on the right the whole idea of taxes on business is being questioned, and it appears on the left when someone want's to claim some injury to... someone. The fact that both side appear to find it useful does not improve it's credibility. It only demonstrates that it's generalized beyond reality, much like fortune teller claiming that you'll have a bad day at some point in the future, and claiming supernatural abilities. I simply juxtaposed that statement with nearly opposite non-sense. While you seem quite capable of recognizing the failings of my assertion, you still appear to be bamboozled by the first.

We produce things. We means everything involved in the process, and produce means create value. If we're good at it we create more new value than we consume in the process. Taxes are a means of siphoning off some of that value. Eventually, the value siphoned off by taxes just represents more consumption in the process of creating value. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter where in the process the value gets taken. What matters is how much and, more importantly, why.

The opinion says that this is a narrow decision.

"Today we resolve an apparent conflict between California's trade secret law (Civ. Code, [sec.] 3426 et seq.) and the free speech clauses of the United States and
California Constitutions. In this case, a Web site operator posted trade secrets owned by another on his Internet Web site despite knowing or having reason to know that the secrets were acquired by improper means. The trial court found that the operator misappropriated these trade secrets in violation of section 3426.1 and issued a preliminary injunction pursuant to section 3426.2, subdivision (a), prohibiting the operator from disclosing these secrets. Accepting as true the trial court's findings, we now consider whether this preliminary injunction violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution. We conclude it does not."

The opinion says that this is a narrow decision.

"Today we resolve an apparent conflict between California's trade secret law (Civ. Code, [sec.] 3426 et seq.) and the free speech clauses of the United States and
California Constitutions. In this case, a Web site operator posted trade secrets owned by another on his Internet Web site despite knowing or having reason to know that the secrets were acquired by improper means. The trial court found that the operator misappropriated these trade secrets in violation of section 3426.1 and issued a preliminary injunction pursuant to section 3426.2, subdivision (a), prohibiting the operator from disclosing these secrets. Accepting as true the trial court's findings, we now consider whether this preliminary injunction violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution. We conclude it does not."

CA Health and Safety Code Section 11357(b)

The maximum penalty for one joint is a $100 fine.

No jail time.

Granted, she's got the nerdy young male vote, but when I looked at her stand on issues, I had to do a double take to make sure that she wasn't Cruz Bustamante in drag!

No thanks for me... I want someone who will attempt to cut the ultrafat budget that California has now.

Just check out the turnout figures from the last election there in California...

6.8 million people voted, so 1.7 million signatures is equivalent to 25% of the number of active voters !

By the way, there are 34.5 million people in California now of which, there are 15.3 million registered voters. That 1.7 million is 5% of the population and around 11% of registered voters.