Slashdot Mirror

It seems premature. According to Google's last disengagement report, humans had to take control of the wheel at a rate of 0.2 per 1,000 miles, or 1 per 5,000 miles. While this is significant improvement from their previous report, which showed human intervention once every 1,000 miles, it would not give me confidence that the cars are ready to be in public streets without a driver present. They should be aiming for a rate of human intervention of no more than once per the lifetime of the vehicle (1 per 200,000 miles) before allowing the cars without a human driver.

"The hard, manual labor we put in to make Tesla successful is done at great risk to our bodies."

Tesla's plant is heavily automated so I find this unlikely. I also find it unlikely that OSHA has not inspected a 5,000 employee plant for safety and health hazardous issues given how OSHA operates, so this is a questionable statement.

Actually Tesla has failed inspections.

http://insideevs.com/tesla-mot...
Tesla Motors Fined $89,000 For 7 Safety Violations Linked To Fremont Factory Incident

        “Tesla employees Jesus Navarro, Kevin Carter and Jorge Terrazas were taken to Valley Medical Center in San Jose with second- and third-degree burns. Carter and Terrazas have returned to work. Navarro, who had burns on his hands, stomach, hip, lower back and ankles, was hospitalized for 20 days and continues to recuperate at home.”

        “Cal-OSHA’s investigation found that Tesla failed to ensure that the low-pressure die casting machine was maintained in a safe operating condition and allowed its employees to operate the machine while the safety interlock was broken. It also found that the employees had not been properly trained regarding the hazards of the machine, and were not wearing the required eye and face protection.”

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/cit...

4/25/2014 Tesla Motors, Inc. Fremont Fremont District Office
Serious – 6
General – 1
Total
Violations - 7

  Citations were issued to Tesla Motors, Inc. for six Serious and one General violation. The employer did not conduct periodic inspections of use of a low pressure die casting machine, and allowed employees to continue using the machine after a safety interlock had been damaged, which resulted in injuries to three employees who were sprayed with molten metal. The employer failed to release the air pressure used to inject molten aluminum into molds before servicing, did not maintain the machine in safe operating condition and did not use a protective shield. The employer did not ensure that employees were trained in the hazards of using the machine, and did not ensure that employees used eye and face protection.

It's very clear what he's saying there. He also doesn't deny anything else, such as mandatory overtime. That's the classic way companies worldwide are now getting around minimum wages and cutting corners - by making you work more than your 'official' hours for the same money. H1B visas work on exactly that principal, so wait until Trump gets around to them ;-).

Huh? The worker says they were forced to work overtime, not that they weren't paid for it. California has relatively generous overtime laws, guaranteeing 1.5x time for over 8 hours in a day or 40 in a week and double time for over 12 hours in a day or over 8 hours if you have worked more than 6 days in a row. H1b visas have nothing to do with it, those are usually salaried positions and auto workers are hourly.

How can anyone with any intelligence protest voter ID laws?

Because people with intelligence realize that oppressive manifestations of even the most genuine and benign laws exist.

If you weren't a dishonest liar, you're realize that, and account for it, instead of trying to disingenuously dismiss any challenges at all.

Voting is a PRIVILEGE in the USA reserved only for citizens.

Technically no, there are many cases where residents or property owners are allowed to vote. Regardless of citizenship.

California allowing anyone obtaining a driver's license to register to vote without verification of eligibility could, in theory, allow non-citizens (including illegals, since they don't check that when issuing a driver's license either) to register to vote.

We need stricter voter ID laws.

Nope. You need some regard for the truth, as what you're saying about California is a malicious lie.

Really, what is the purpose of making such easily disproven lies?

Why do you repeat such things? Are you a mindless shill, or are you intent on making Republicans look bad? Which is it?

I suspect H actually didn't know. Most of, perhaps all, of the "problem emails" were sent TO her by others. She wouldn't just automatically know; should she keep asking for all 40,000 sent? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? 40,000 fricken times.

It shouldn't be her job to vet them anyhow, a low-level grunt could vet them for say 1/5 the cost. As far as the "(c)" markings, those are commonly used for many different things.

Example:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca....

The only "barriers" that exist are those created by Republican politicians.

Then explain why California has such a crappy broadband law. It does seem that deep Red states have the worst laws (outright bans), but the major ISPs are "friends" of every government and are just as happy with planting minefields. As long as it stops municipalities from solving the last mile, it's a good deal for them.

yeah- the crime thing sounds like a right wing talking point.

https://oag.ca.gov/crime

not seeing that big increase in crime.

Don't make the mistake of confusing capacity with ridership.

Oh, I think it's precisely because they know the difference that they choose to compare capacity.

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/abo...

This is the report where the 158 billion came from. They included a section explaining why they choose to compare capacity instead of ridership. Not gonna bother arguing for them. You can read the report and their rationale yourself.

it's ridership may well be amply covered by $68 billion in road and airport construction.

Oh, the ridership may well be amply covered by $1 billion in guns and bullets: cull the population until the existing roads can accommodate the survivors!

And most of the culled would be gun fearing liberals. It's win-win!

As Kohath said, why tell merely a dramatic story when you could tell a fantastic one?

Happens all the time.

Nope. If it happened all the time, then no trains, highways, or airplanes would be used at all.

Reality, of course, is that while people can be wrong, they are fallible human beings after all, they aren't always, and they do think about what they're doing.

I think the current story is such an example.

You can think a lot of things, but often enough, they aren't true. Not when you dig down.

We also have the "bridges to nowhere", many which were constructed by precisely the lack of competence and judgment you seem to think doesn't exist.

On the other hand, which were constructed with thought and consideration. I'd add more, but my sentence was getting awkward.

You seem to not realize that you are arguing against a priority in transportation based on nothing more than offering a handy catchphrase, when in reality, the bridge which you so blithely dismiss, did go somewhere, and did have a purpose. In fact, it even had a planning document which you could review, and see that it was not simply, as many people seem to think, and as its destractors certainly want to portray, a bridge being built for no purpose at all. It's one thing if you disagreed with the priority, but again, that would require reviewing the actual documents involved, and making an evidence based decision. Not simply standing at a podium and ranting.

Like a certain senator, it simply became a political tool, but reality, well, may be different.

That's right, if you dare to go to the people impacted by the decision, and they'll resent you for using them as a pawn in a bunch of grandstanding.

At least give them the courtesy of some effort towards thoughtful consideration, rather than whatever popular slogan grabs your attention. Reserve that for after school television programs. Let's get the next ten words. Ante up, poindexter.

Here's the Board Meeting Schedule. Let me know which one you want to attend.

HSR safety document. AFAIK, true grade separation isn't fully funded. The quad gates described in the PDF are said to reduce "collisions" 98%, but I'm inferring that as vehicle collisions. They don't look like they would do much for pedestrians.

Fair enough: "In the Central Valley, where trains will be capable of running at speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour, the high-speed rail system is being built fully grade separated." But in the denser regions (which have more people, albeit lower running speeds) it looks like grade separation will not be complete, at least in the regions with blended service. I find that pretty disappointing -- but thanks for pointing it out.

HSR safety document. AFAIK, true grade separation isn't fully funded. The quad gates described in the PDF are said to reduce "collisions" 98%, but I'm inferring that as vehicle collisions. They don't look like they would do much for pedestrians.

You improperly inferred that I was saying CA HSR won't match the eastern corridor for speed. In fact, it will exceed it. I was only making a statement regarding the expense of building out HSR in populated areas of the US, and why it's a problem; namely the fact that it's a retrofit. This is why they're doing the Central Valley first--it's more like a clean slate, and they're counting on the sunk cost mentality to keep the project going once it starts.

You improperly inferred that I was suggesting we build Hyperloop. I simply stated that if it proved out, HSR would be an obsolete technology when complete.

Finally, you opined that electrified and self-driving cars are in irrational idea. The self-driving tech is already out there, and open-road convoys are one of the easiest things for self-driving tech to do. OTOH, pulling electricity from the grid in a personal vehicle isn't tested and in retrospect something I didn't need to thrown in to the vision because battery tech is pretty good now, and some people will still want to run ICE or other technology in their cars. Dedicated self-driving lanes are the main idea, and that's very doable, don't you think?

trucks and buses tested in Germany and Finland emitted about 210mg NOx per kilometer driven, less than half the 500mg/km produced by diesel cars that meet the highest "Euro 6" emission standards.

The current standard for diesel passenger vehicles in CARB states (California Air Resources Board, which sets the limit for California and 16 other states) is 0.05 grams/mi, which is 80 mg/km.

And if you're curious, here's how much the cheating 2.0L VW diesels were emitting. If the Euro 6 standard is 500 mg/km (0.310 g/mi), it looks like the 2015 VWs were already in compliance, and the 2013-2014 VWs were just barely out of compliance.

So, I was curious about this, and did a little digging. For reference:

The elements of California extortion are:

        The defendant threatened to do one of the following to the alleged "victim":

                a. Unlawfully injure or use force against him/her, a third party, or his/her property,
                b. Accuse him/her or a relative or family member of a crime, OR
                c. Expose a secret involving him/her or a family member, or connect any of them with some kind of crime, disgrace, or scandal;

        When making the threat or using force, the defendant intended to force the "victim" into consenting to give him/her money or property or to do an official act;
        As a result of the threat, the "victim" did consent to give the defendant money or property or do an official act; AND
        The "victim" then actually did give the defendant money or property or perform the official act.

So the exchange of the ransom is required to meet California's legal definition of "extortion". Naturally, most professionally run IT shops or prudent individuals will have backups and may not pay the ransom, but the damage still may be substantial simply due to lost time and productivity. This new law creates a specific exception for ransomware, making the deployment of it a crime equivalant to extorsion, regardless of whether or not a ransom payment is made. From the text of the bill itself:

This bill would define ransomware as... [describes ransomware]... The bill would provide that a person who, with intent to extort money or other consideration from another, introduces ransomware into any computer, computer system, or computer network is punishable as if that money or other consideration were actually obtained by means of the ransomware...

Given this information, it appears that unpaid ransomware attacks were NOT considered "extortion" under California law. This new law provides both a legal definition for ransomware (must have gotten some help from a competent IT person here), and closes that loophole... which, btw, seems like sort of a terrible loophole for extortion as well, but whatever.

We see further evidence of this in the first sections of the bill, which pretty much seems designed to shut down this loophole:

523. (a) Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519 is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.
(b) (1) Every person who, with intent to extort money or other consideration from another, introduces ransomware into any computer, computer system, or computer network is punishable pursuant to Section 520 in the same manner as if such money or other consideration were actually obtained by means of the ransomware.
(2) Prosecution pursuant to this subdivision does not prohibit or limit prosecution under any other law.

TLDR version: This law was needed due to the peculiarities of California's extortion laws.

Actually Uber's argument is that their technology is not really fully autonomous and it's more like Tesla calling their system auto pilot.

So if you have Teslas driving on california why can't you have Ubers'?

Aside from the point that you seem to be conflating production vehicles with test rigs, how about the fact that Tesla went and got their $150/year permit in CA?

The following companies have their CA permits. Only Uber is being an uber douchebag about it.

Volkswagen Group of America
Mercedes Benz
Google
Delphi Automotive
Tesla Motors
Bosch
Nissan
GM Cruise LLC
BMW
Honda
Ford
Zoox Inc.
Drive.ai Inc.
Faraday & Future Inc.
Baidu USA LLC
Wheego Electric Cars Inc.
Valeo North America, Inc.
NextEV USA, Inc.
Telenav, Inc.
NVIDIA Corporation

Taken from the CA DMV site Application Requirements for Autonomous Vehicle Tester Program

If you want to do cool stuff on the streets, then expect some oversight -- a $150 permit and reporting requirements sounds like pretty light regulation for something that's being tested alongside the general public.

that is not true, its not only 150$, you are also forbidden to drive real customers and take their money, until its done test phase, and this part could cost millions in lost revenue, just because something is being tested does not mean it is not allowed to make money

Is that true? There's nothing on the permit application that mentions any restrictions on carrying passengers for hire:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...

, regarding reporting, i am sure they don't need company help, all they need to is tell traffic cops "if you see one of this bling-y cars in accident forward us detailed report"

The reporting goes beyond simple accident reporting, the state also requires autonomous disengagement reports, which sounds quite useful for determining how useful the technology is and areas where it needs improvement:

Program Participant Annual Reporting of Disengagement
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 227.46, a manufacturer shall retain data related to the disengagement of the autonomous mode caused by the failure of the technology or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires the test driver to take immediate manual control of the vehicle. Data shall be reported annually by January 1st of each year, which summarizes the prior month(s) specified activities.
A form is not provided by the department; however, the report should summarize the following:

The total number of disengagements
The circumstances or testing condition at the time
The location or environment (i.e. highway, rural, parking facility)
A brief description can include weather conditions, roadway, etc.
The total number of miles each vehicle traveled in autonomous technology mode on public roads.
The period of time elapsed from when the autonomous vehicle test driver was alerted of the failure and the when driver assumed manual control of the vehicle.

Companies sell quality products because they want to make money.

Explain counterfeits.

Explain the garbage that comes from china.

Explain Walmart.

Explain Comcast.

You aren't living in a libertarian utopia. Abusing your customers and paying off politicians is more profitable than producing quality.

Imagine how that went before the State started inspecting the rides! Probably crashes and deaths all the time, right?

Yes. If you need more, check out how many people die in areas that don't have stringent inspections.

There are plenty of other people in CA doing exactly the same 'cool stuff' that Uber is trying to do. In fact, there are 20 companies in CA who are using the Autonomous Vehicle Testing Permit system from the DMV, including VW, Ford, Honda, Google, Tesla, BMW, NVIDIA and more (list here https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...). Clearly the regulations are not so burdensome that they are limiting this type of testing. They mostly require reporting to the DMV of any accidents involving the autonomous vehicles.

The bigger problem here is the standard Uber business practice of 'we don't need to follow the rules' that we've seen before. And its not the first time they've been affected by that stance, and it certainly makes them look like petulant whiners when they don't get their way, even when breaking the law.

"California had a terrible smog problem in the 1970s and early 1980s"

With such a low UID, one would think you could remember that CA smog problems went back much, much further.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/html/br...

The CA DMV has this page listing the requirements for testing self driving cars. They are not onerous. Speculate as you will why Uber doesn't want to comply. It could be anything from having to report incidents on a per yearly basis to not allowing commercial operation (eg not picking up actual customers) or even just a general "fuck you, we're Uber".

Application Requirements for Autonomous Vehicle Tester Program

From a legal point of view, adding autonomous features to cars have not required special permission so long as a driver is in control for liability purposes.

Do you actually know if that's true, or are you just saying what you think the law ought to say? What matters is what it actually says. And yes, the law does distinguish between fully autonomous vehicles and ones with driver assistance abilities.

Don't take my word for it. It took me about one minute to look it up. California Vehicle Code Section 38750 provides the following definitions:

"Autonomous technology" means technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.

"Autonomous vehicle" means any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle. An autonomous vehicle does not include a vehicle that is equipped with one or more collision avoidance systems, such as electronic blind spot assistance, automated emergency braking systems, park assist, adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, lane departure warning, and traffic jam and queuing assist.

Uber's cars have "the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator." Yes there's a human in the car, and hopefully that human is actively monitoring what the car does. But the car has the capability to keep driving itself even if the driver takes a nap, which is what the law cares about.

I spent about 10 min researching the CA DMV web site looking for this. Perhaps 10 min isn't enough but would you mind providing a citation. This is the closest I've been able to find... https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...

Specifically, I'm looking for information on the "reasonable speed which is defined as 85 percentile of all the cars on the road" part. I see a reference to "reasonable speed but my own interpretation of this doesn't agree with your assessment.

You think an autonomous permit has anything to do with certification of software and systems of an autonomous vehicle?

Yes,
because that's
EXACTLY
what it does.

You think an autonomous permit has anything to do with certification of software and systems of an autonomous vehicle?

Yes,
because that's
EXACTLY
what it does.

You think an autonomous permit has anything to do with certification of software and systems of an autonomous vehicle?

Yes,
because that's
EXACTLY
what it does.

You think an autonomous permit has anything to do with certification of software and systems of an autonomous vehicle?

Yes,
because that's
EXACTLY
what it does.

I did read the article.

It is a puff piece. What do you expect?

which tells me nothing at all (for example: I build my own computers. Will the standards apply to self-built systems? Cause if so, that's really, really bad news for computer enthusiasts, whose systems frequently consume well over the average amounts of power). Will it constrain overclocking or otherwise tampering with the computer's power consumption? I don't know, because the article not only doesn't say, it doesn't link to anything that says.

Here you go, the draft notes.

It'll be at the part level, and no impact for you at all.

I agree. What they should have done is sit down and look at homes throughout the state, monitor their power usage, come up with a breakdown of the heaviest hitters, then have a plan of attack for those.

I'd bet it's things like HVAC, fridges, and then a bunch of phantom power gear as these are things that run often. Then intermittent stuff like washers, dryers, dishwashers, and ovens.

Maybe you should have asked yourself a question as well. What are they actually doing? Namely, sat down, and looked and seen if they are doing that.

Because they are.

So um...did you not bother to check, or did you just think your idea was so intelligent and clever that they'd never think of it on their own?

oh my, the captcha is remiss. Slashdot knows!

What's more interesting to me is that San Francisco's population (2015) is 864,816. Whereas California's population (2015) is 39,144,818. So San Francisco is home to 864,816 / 39,144,818 = 2.2% of the state's population, yet their homes account for 3% of the state's residential and 7% of the state's commercial power consumption. I guess they're not exactly environmentally friendly up there.

What's interesting to me is that you didn't read the line correctly. It's actually saying:

"devices that account for 3 percent of home electric bills and 7 percent of commercial power costs in the state"

You are talking about the overall residential and commercial power consumption in California. For some reason. Perhaps you are suffering from a severe concussion.

Which means your comparative value judgment is useless. Unless you aren't suffering from a concussion, in which case we can know you're an ass who needs to learn to think before running his or her mouth.

But let's assume you are honest, and you want to learn how San Francisco's energy consumption, compares to the state. Well we can get that.

Start here.

San Francisco Residential consumption is 1,467 GWh. California total is...284,911 GWh. 0.51% of the total electrical consumption. Residential consumption is 91890 GWh. 1.6% of the residential total. By your own math, that's less.

Guess you suck at reading comprehension Solandri, as usual, you are fact deficient.

No actual specifics to be found in anything this is just a fluff piece.

Well, while it is true that Slashdot is linking only to the fluff PR pieces, there is A staff report that gives more details and figures.

Sometimes you have to do a little legwork.

Explain to me how this isn't government over-reach and not just another thinly veiled tax on the poor that liberals supposedly hate so much but only when they disagree with the reason?

What you're describing is a tax on the poor that allows some rich folks to make money, so no wonder Republicans support it, and probably explains why my State's US Senator owns a share in the emissions testing station companies which were mysteriously privatized.

But none of this has anything to do with California's regulations which are on new equipment, not old.

I didn't say that. I said, "Why start nibbling at things that eat smaller amounts of power?"

You actually said "we have to start nibbling at things that eat smaller amounts of power rather than the largest consumers of electricity - HVAC and other AC motor-driven devices" which implies that they aren't working on those larger users. Maybe you should have chosen your words more carefully if you didn't mean that, but you should certainly quote your words as you said them.

It's fishy that you didn't. Very suspicious. Like you're trying to hide something.

I should have added, "Because one thing isn't working doesn't mean that you can't just throw in the towel and admit defeat, you have to go and attack something else to feel like there was a win and the "project" was accomplished. Self-aggrandizement isn't "savings."

No, that just makes you sound like you didn't know how much the HVAC regulations are working. Well, I mean, if you wanted to make it clear that you were just reacting with snark and a gut-level emotional reaction, it'd have helped, but really, you are making it more than evident that you are consumed with feelings yourself.

If you want to actually talk about the real story, you can read the staff report from September. It may have been somewhat revised by now, but at least you'll have read something.

Here's a link to the CEC's news release. It contains a link to a more detailed report in PDF format.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2016_releases/2016-09-09_computer_standards_nr.html

I'm guessing they haven't made the proposed legislation available yet; I haven't been able to find it so far. It looks like they're dividing everything into different regulatory tiers (desktop/workstation/laptop/server etc), and measuring compliance based on that.

Except for not being registered [snopes.com].

As usual for Snopes, they are not answering the question, they have created a straw man instead. "While California did pass a law to increase voter turnout, the state has not made it legal for undocumented people to vote." That's not the issue. At all. Snopes likes creating straw men because they are easy to knock down. They don't address the automatic registration at all. That's why people shouldn't be citing Snopes - it's a biased and useless source.

You're welcome to call the California Secretary of State's office and ask them about their verification procedures. (916) 653-6814

You could just go and read the bill. There is literally no information from the DMV to the Secretary that could be used to confirm citizenship other than that the person did not "opt out" of registration. And section (e) provides no requirement for the Secretary to do so. The "confirmation" is that the person applying for the driver's license knows the law and opted out if they know they are not allow to vote. That's it.

In fact, the Secretary does not now and has never verified voter eligibility. That's entirely the responsibility of the counties. Like Los Angeles County. Which apparently requires proof of citizenship for a marriage license, but only an "affirmation" for voter registration.

Except for not being registered [snopes.com].

As usual for Snopes, they are not answering the question, they have created a straw man instead. "While California did pass a law to increase voter turnout, the state has not made it legal for undocumented people to vote." That's not the issue. At all. Snopes likes creating straw men because they are easy to knock down. They don't address the automatic registration at all. That's why people shouldn't be citing Snopes - it's a biased and useless source.

You're welcome to call the California Secretary of State's office and ask them about their verification procedures. (916) 653-6814

You could just go and read the bill. There is literally no information from the DMV to the Secretary that could be used to confirm citizenship other than that the person did not "opt out" of registration. And section (e) provides no requirement for the Secretary to do so. The "confirmation" is that the person applying for the driver's license knows the law and opted out if they know they are not allow to vote. That's it.

In fact, the Secretary does not now and has never verified voter eligibility. That's entirely the responsibility of the counties. Like Los Angeles County. Which apparently requires proof of citizenship for a marriage license, but only an "affirmation" for voter registration.

...but if they sell them, http://www.eyeflare.com/articl...

Where to buy TSA confiscated items for sale:

US state Website address
Alabama www.adeca.alabama.gov
Alaska www.publicsurplus.com/
Arizona www.azdoa.gov/agencies/msd/surplus_property/public_auctions.asp
Arkansas www.arstatesurplus.com
California http://www.dgs.ca.gov/ofam/hom...
Colorado www.cijvp.com
Connecticut das.ct.gov
Delaware www.state.de.us/dss/surplus/index.shtml
District of Columbia app.ocp.dc.gov/RUI/information/ppd/ppd_main.asp
Florida dms.myflorida.com/dms2/business_operations/
Georgia surplusproperty.doas.georgia.gov - Online auction sales
Hawaii auction.ehawaii.gov
Idaho fsp.idaho.gov/
Illinois ibid.illinois.gov
Indiana www.state.in.us/idoa/surplus/index.html
Iowa www.iaprisonind.com
das.gse.iowa.gov
Kansas da.state.ks.us/surplus/default.htm
Kentucky finance.ky.gov
Louisiana doa.louisiana.gov/lpaa/auction.htm
Maine www.maine.gov/bgs/centralserv/surplus/
Maryland www.dgs.maryland.gov
Massachusetts www.mass.gov/portal/
Michigan www.michigan.gov/dmb/
Minnesota www.fss.state.mn.us/auction.htm
Mississippi www.dfa.state.ms.us/Offices/SurProp/SurProp.htm
Missouri www.oa.mo.gov/purch/surplus.html
Montana gsd.mt.gov/local/publicauctions.asp
Nebraska www.corrections.state.ne.us/federal_surplus/index.html
www.das.state.ne.us/materiel/surplus/surplus.htm
Nevada purchasing.state.nv.us/property/auction.htm
www.das.state.ne.us/materiel/surplus/surplus.htm
purchasing.state.nv.us/property/vehicle.htm
New Jersey www.state.nj.us/treasury/dss
New Mexico www.generalservices.state.nm.us/transportationservices/publicstorefront
New York www.ogs.state.ny.us/supportServices/fedSurplus
www.ogs.state.ny.us/supportServices/stateSurplus
North Carolina www.surpluspropertydivision.com/
www.ncstatesurplus.com/ssp/public/ssphomepage/ssp.htm
North Dakota www.nd.gov/surplus/
Ohio www.das.ohio.gov
Oklahoma www.ok.gov/DCS/State_Surplus/index.html
Oregon oregonsurplus.com

surplus.oregonstate.edu
Pennsylvania www.dgs.state.pa.us/surp_prop/site/default.asp
Puerto Rico No website
South Carolina www.ogs.state.sc.us/OGS-disposable-index.phtm
South Dakota www.state.sd.us/boa/Prop. Mgmt/propmgt.htm
Tennessee www.state.tn.us/generalserv/ba04s/
Texas tfc.state.tx.us
www.sugarlandtx.gov/online_auction
Utah fleet.state.ut.us/
Vermont bgs.vermont.gov/business_services/surplus
Virginia dgs.virginia.gov
Washington www.washington.edu/admin/surplus
www.des.wa.gov
West Virginia www.state.wv.us/admin/purchase/surplus
Wisconsin www.doa.state.wi.us/
Wyoming ai.state.wy.us/GeneralServices/index.asp

Where California's water really goes. It's not 80% to agriculture. Not even close. In fact, the majority tends to go to keep high flow rates in "scenic and wild" rivers. Basically - dumping extra water from dams to keep some rivers pretty.

It's closer to 30-50%, not 75%. The majority of water is used for scenic and wild river enhancement - keeping flow rates high so they look good.

Nearly ONE IN THREE CALIFORNIANS VOTED TRUMP! Who is enslaving whom exactly you insensitive clod?

This is simply untrue. Population of California: 39,144,818 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Ballots Cast in California: 9,430,998 - http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns... Only one in four Californians even bothered to vote, let alone voted for Trump.

You might try spending 30 seconds looking up Prop 54 on Google before becoming "pretty sure". It does more than one thing:

Key Changes That Would Happen if Proposition 54 Passes: ... The legislature would have to ensure that all of its public meetings were recorded, with videos posted on the Internet within 24 hours.

Someone should go to jail for a very long time as soon as we figure out exactly what was screwed up.

Really. Criminal conviction, huh? Programmer in prison? Are you even listening to yourself?

Real engineers go to jail when they fuck up.

Maybe a little accountability for you "coding is an art" folks would be a good thing?

What UCSF is doing is not only morally and ethically wrong

In what way?

So you may unchallenge yourself, UCSF is supposed to be a state/people sponsored school for :

“A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.”

Now how is not hiring local talent that you're training to do these same jobs, and instead outsourcing said work to overseas workers that you're paying less promoting any improvement of the people of the state. Morally, they're bound to work for improvement, ethically they are required to do so by law and expectations.

it is directly against the H1-B hiring clauses, i.e., illegal.

I don't see how. These are temporary workers and presumably paid more than their US equivalents while in the US.

First, all workers are temporary. H1-Bs with potential 7 year ability to work are more permanent than many IT workers. Federal Law, as stated elsewhere, only requires a minimum salary of 60K.

The state of CA has to cut its public sector workforce b... It can't cut teachers or police. It can cut jobs that it can outsource.

I see no reason why the bulk of police or teachers cannot be outsourced the same way IT jobs can. In fact isn't one of the major complaints against universities the large number of TAs that cannot speak English? Sounds like teachers are already outsourced. For police, just add "must be able to enter tickets into computerized system" as a requirement - voila - H1-B parking ticket writer. Shortly after that, you can outsource all those other expensive police jobs too.

This already made the rounds at Ars. The current spat has nothing to do with Section 230. The warrant states that BackPages was complicit in editing ads to hide their illegality befor posting. That makes them complicit. Section 230 won't protect you if you edit the stuff your users post.

Anyway, the formal charges are here. Pimping is defied in teh CA Penal Code as profiting off of someone else's prostitution. I'd like to note that further reading of the Ars thread brings to light that things like Overt Act 9 are not nebulous "some child", but rather, that they have children who are testifying.

tl;dr: this is about section 230. This is about a company taking an active role in prostitution and sex trafficking.

I was under the impression that Birth, Death, and marriage information was publically available in California.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic...

It would seem that this law is in violation of the existing laws, but IANAL, nor am I a rich 'celebrity'. Hollywood folks seem generally above most laws, or at least shielded from them.

Every country with electricity had decades of exposure to lead. Kettles, coffee-makers, percolators, etc. - all used lead solder.

Every other country had everyone exposed to lead piping for decades as well.

So why is it the US that has these problems, and nowhere else? American culture. Everything else, from exposure to lead paint to lead in gasoline was the same. Correlation is not causation, not when the correlation only works in the US.

There's a much stronger correlation with poverty. Quit blaming your problems on lead. As I said, lead doesn't cause employers to reject people with black-sounding names. That sort of racism is a stronger factor than lead. Especially since the people doing the shooting today are mostly not living with lead in the plumbing. Flint was for a couple of years, but the violence there pre-dated that, and the municipal and residential plumbing with lead pipes is not unique to Flint.

City and state governments are still advising people to run their cold water tap for 30 seconds before using the water for drinking or food preparation because of lead, and 2 to 3 minutes if it has not been used for a few hours (overnight when everyone is sleeping, or at work).

Even brass keys, handled twice a day, exceed exposure limits.

handling keys - ordinary brass keys like you'll find in your pocket or pocketbook to lock and unlock your house door - may expose you to the toxic chemical lead at levels that exceed Proposition 65 limits," Lockyer said. "Given this discovery of lead exposure, parents may want to rethink using their jangling keys as a convenient toy for their toddlers and small children.

In laboratory tests for the state, researchers looked at more than three dozen keys from 13 different makers. While the researchers found widely varying levels of lead on the hands of test subjects, the very lowest test results still exceed the Proposition 65 "No Significant Risk Level" of 0.5 micrograms per day when doubled on the assumption that people handle keys at least twice a day. While the highest testing results were 80 times the 0.5 micrograms per day limit, the average of all keys tested was about 19 times the "No Significant Risk Level." Both new and old keys tested were found to release lead at fairly similar rates.

Brass taps, fittings, etc., all leach lead. Everyone was exposed, many are still exposed.because they don't run the water for 30 seconds to 3 minutes. And yet, the problem of violence at levels like those in the USA isn't seen in other OECD countries that had/have the same lead exposure. Next you'll be claiming that Rome fell because of lead in the plumbing ...

Makes you wonder how bad the health effects of indoor laser printer pollution will turn out to be. The toner nanoparticles are much more dense in operation than people realize. See serious academics:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-co... "Effects of Laser Printer–Emitted Engineered Nanoparticles on Cytotoxicity, Chemokine Expression, Reactive Oxygen Species, DNA Methylation, and DNA Damage: A Comprehensive in Vitro Analysis in Human Small Airway Epithelial Cells, Macrophages, and Lymphoblasts"
http://www.scientificamerican....
https://www.arb.ca.gov/researc...

California has given up on bringing new power generation online,

"Almost half of all capacity added in 2013 [across the US] was located in California." "Nearly 60% of the natural gas capacity [across the US] added in 2013 was located in California." http://www.eia.gov/todayinener...

California's total electrical generation capacity has gone from 55,344 MW in 2001, to 79,359 MW in 2015. That's an average increase of 1,644 MW of new capacity going online each and every year.

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/el...

Energy standards in California call for 33 percent of the stateâ(TM)s power to come from renewables by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030, and so the state is building new wind and solar capacity as fast as possible. The recently built Ivanpah plant was the world's largest, and it's in California, not Arizona, for good reason.

In fact you can get a current list of power plants planned, under construction, and newly online, here:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitin...

Conservation is fine is a short-term solution to shortage - of anything - but in the long run there is no substitute for generating more power

California "has one of the lowest per capita total energy consumption levels in the country. California state policy promotes energy efficiency. The state's extensive efforts to increase energy efficiency and the implementation of alternative technologies have restrained growth in energy demand." https://www.eia.gov/state/anal...

California has given up on bringing new power generation online,

"Almost half of all capacity added in 2013 [across the US] was located in California." "Nearly 60% of the natural gas capacity [across the US] added in 2013 was located in California." http://www.eia.gov/todayinener...

California's total electrical generation capacity has gone from 55,344 MW in 2001, to 79,359 MW in 2015. That's an average increase of 1,644 MW of new capacity going online each and every year.

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/el...

Energy standards in California call for 33 percent of the stateâ(TM)s power to come from renewables by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030, and so the state is building new wind and solar capacity as fast as possible. The recently built Ivanpah plant was the world's largest, and it's in California, not Arizona, for good reason.

In fact you can get a current list of power plants planned, under construction, and newly online, here:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitin...

Conservation is fine is a short-term solution to shortage - of anything - but in the long run there is no substitute for generating more power

California "has one of the lowest per capita total energy consumption levels in the country. California state policy promotes energy efficiency. The state's extensive efforts to increase energy efficiency and the implementation of alternative technologies have restrained growth in energy demand." https://www.eia.gov/state/anal...

Right, because it's not as if California is having enough drought to have a government site for it, or western canada. Or how about the oceans, where marine-life can be *very* temperature sensitive.

Or how about a change in parasites, which affects both humans and food-chain animals? The good news is that some parasites that like it cool may die out, but those that prefer warmer temperatures (the majority) will spread more readily.

Sounds like they were ahead of their time. That must have been more than seven years ago.

California employment law changed in 2009 to explicitly allow what they call an "alternative workweek schedule" (Title 8, Section 11170, part 5). That allows employees to work up to 10 hours per day without overtime as long as your total hours don't exceed 40 per week and as long as it doesn't result in any shifts less than four hours long.

There are specific rules and exceptions, of course:

• The workers have to vote to enact the policy. It cannot be forced upon them by management.
• If the employer cuts someone's hours below the number agreed upon in the original policy, they have to pay according to the normal overtime rules.
• The employer must make a reasonable attempt to accommodate any employees hired prior to adopting the alternative schedule who cannot make that schedule work for them.
• Certain fields have different rules for safety reasons.

But otherwise, what you described is perfectly fine in California now, unless I'm missing something.

Yep, Arizona has this option too. I guess this is just another one of those things where "the west is the best". AZ and OR aren't all that similar politically (AZ always votes red, OR blue), but I find it very interesting that they both have voting handled so much better than the "liberal" east coast states where people are always whining about voting access and wanting a day off to vote, but apparently these fools can't seem to figure out that mail-in voting would obviate this problem.

Well, I think it may have something to do with the precinct captains and ward bosses who don't want to give up their control (and the money for running things), but they also tend to have off-set elections, both state-wide and civic. What's the point of having an election in August, after having a primary in March? And then a third in November?

Any idea how it's done in California?

You can request it for any election, or even permanently.

They have also adopted jungle primaries and a Citizen's Districting Commission.