Slashdot Mirror

It costs a whole ZERO dollars to go get a State ID in any state [...]

Under CA law, a state ID card cost $29. If you're on public assistance, it costs $8. Seniors can get a state ID card for free.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/dl/fees/idCard_fees

In California, as in many other US states, voters need to register their political party choice with the secretary of state before being able to vote. Just imagine these databases being hacked.
I think it's a good thing that Turkey has a secret ballot, otherwise many more could be in jail by now.

> You can not enter in to contract with a minor. It is legally invalid. That is the law.

A minor *can* disaffirm a contract in most cases. The contract is neither "invalid" nor "void", until the minor declares that they wish to disaffirm. There are several exceptions.

Here's the actual text of the statute in California which lays out the general rule. It also includes one of the exceptions:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-...

Exceptions aren't all listed in one place. Here's an example - for a high value contract like Justin Bieber's recording contract, the parties can have a court to approve the contract. The contract must set-aside some of the earnings in a trust fund for the minor to have later and meet other conditions. Once approved by the court, it cannot be disaffirmed.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-...

> You can not enter in to contract with a minor. It is legally invalid. That is the law.

A minor *can* disaffirm a contract in most cases. The contract is neither "invalid" nor "void", until the minor declares that they wish to disaffirm. There are several exceptions.

Here's the actual text of the statute in California which lays out the general rule. It also includes one of the exceptions:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-...

Exceptions aren't all listed in one place. Here's an example - for a high value contract like Justin Bieber's recording contract, the parties can have a court to approve the contract. The contract must set-aside some of the earnings in a trust fund for the minor to have later and meet other conditions. Once approved by the court, it cannot be disaffirmed.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-...

>The cops around me start at only $32k-38k max out at less than $70k unless they make at least watch commander, get only 50% pay for pension, and the minority of the pension fund comes from payroll deductions.

Here's rates for California:

$74,700 to start, 5% raises annually, capping at $92,640. Plus full benefits, plus other bonuses (worth probably another 10k or so) that you can go through here:

https://www.chp.ca.gov/chp-car...

That's more than they pay software engineers working for the department (I just went through their job listings).

Retirement is based on 90% of their highest three years of salary, plus health and dental.

In California, virtually all public roads (including streets) are highways - see part 360 of Section 100-680 of the California vehicle code:

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly
maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of
vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

I would expect that any reported statistics are using the legal, not the colloquial, definition of 'highway'.

You are proposing to move the coal from the mines to near the oil fields then the electricity from the oil fields to where it is needed. That is a lot of moving to sequester some CO2.

As for Southern California the coal would need to be shipped quite far. California only produces 5% of it's electricity from coal
I agree that sequestration is a temporary measure but temporary can be a long time.

You are reading the wrong part of the vehicle code.

Uh no

This isthe section that applies,

No, not it is not. Sadly, it seems we are both wrong; I had read in multiple sources that they had changed it to one vehicle, but it's still five; also, it only applies to highways, although that comes up surprisingly frequently in California, in fact it's the place where I see cyclists shirk the law most frequently. We have a lot of highways. Nevertheless, here is the applicable section:

On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, any vehicle proceeding upon the highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed.

Note wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, which for a bicycle is almost anywhere. Yet they are constantly clogging North 1, or any of the little highways around the Napa area, and holding up whole long lines of cars.

a...group...who believe bicycles belong in the middle of regular motor vehicle lanes

Actually, what vehicular cyclists really believe is that bicyclists should act "as drivers of vehicles." Did you know that slow-moving vehicles are already required to be driven as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb? A bicycle is (usually) a slow-moving vehicle, so why should it be treated differently under the law than other slow-moving vehicles?

Sometimes it's safer to ride in the middle of the lane, such as when the bike lane is full of debris, or there's no bike lane, and the regular traffic lane is too narrow to share side by side with a vehicle. Riding in the center of the lane makes the bicyclist more visible and forces motorists to change lanes to pass instead of passing unsafely close to the bicyclist.

Yes, passing and the use of the turn signal have become a lost art among motorists. This is why self-driving cars can't arrive soon enough.

Luckily I live in a country where that is explicitly forbidden and all code automatically belongs to the creator (unless in a work contract).

I don't think the situation is different here than in your country. You can read the UCLA copyright policy...

According to UCLA policy, the copyright on Student work is owned by the Author if it was produced by a registered student without the use of University funds (other than Student Financial Aid), that is produced outside any University employment. Includes all coursework, term papers, theses and other work, as long as the student is not employed as a participant in a sponsored project where research results may be obligated to a third party.

Given that Professor Klug's research areas was Computational Biomechanics at UCLA, I would speculate that nobody forced him to sign rights to the professor, the lab nor the university. However, if there was sponsored research that was related to his thesis (apparently he was working on his thesis for 10 years someone was probably paying him something), perhaps there might have been some copyright ambiguity is some of his research was paid for by other companies (which is akin to a work contract). if this was the case, perhaps other researchers on the same research contract could presumably get access to the software that he wrote because it might have been allowed by the sponsor (even if the student didn't *like* it).

In addition, in California, an employer cannot simply force an employee to assign copyrights to software that they develop on their own time independent of employment. The employment law as it is written is here... If there was such an agreement, it would be void as it is unenforceable under California law.

Women are definitely underrepresented. But if the article's numbers are accurate; 47% white with the remainder consisting of minorities is within a reasonable margin to the demographics of the community.

http://www.bayareacensus.ca.go...

As of the 2010 census, whites make up 52.5% of the Bay Area's population, with the remainder again consisting of various minorities. A 5.5% discrepancy is not unreasonable, and quite possibly within the combined margin of error of the census and the study. Asians appear to be somewhat overrepresented, but I would guess that would come from the Indian-American population self-reporting as Asian.

Labor laws are state specific - In California anything over 8 hours a day is overtime.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq...

Wrong
on all counts. Any lawyer would have told you the truth
The cop claim is a complete lie.
Cops are taught exactly as much as they need to know to lie effectively on the stand, no more.

Sorry, WRONG.
My own state, California, defines such threats without ability to implement as criminal threats
other jurisdictions call it Terroristic Threats. In both cases the crime is charged as assault.
Did you get your law degree from Liberty University, like 1/3 of Bush's Prosecutors?

WARN Act numbers only tell part of the story, as they only reflect mass layoffs. And even then, there are reporting exemptions. For example, "California WARN does not apply when the closing or layoff is the result of the completion of a particular project or undertaking of an employer". And then, there's this loophole: "Notice of a relocation or termination is not required where, under multiple and specific conditions, the employer submits documents to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the DIR determines that the employer was actively seeking capital or business, and a WARN notice would have precluded the employer from obtaining the capital or business."

Not every (unit of currency) paid to a government is a tax. Some are fees, some are fines, and so on. California's official definition of a tax starts with:

any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government, except...A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.

Making a distinction between a tax and a user fee is not "weaselly," it's a definition encoded in law.

Let's be clear about what is going on here.

1) The laws already require you to pay sales taxes on EVERYTHING you buy.

False. Not everything is taxable. Here in California, they've even created an easy-to-use 45-page document that clearly outlines the exemptions and exclusions for sales and use taxes. Behold:

http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub6...

So easy, even a caveman can do it! Now imagine having to go through that guide, comparing it to all of your out of state invoices and receipts collected through the year, and calculate your taxes due to the penny. Fuck that shit. When they can get corporations to pay their fair share, and quit pissing away all the tax revenue they do collect, then we can talk about the extra $12 grandma owes because she bought a box of beanie babies off eBay

"California *is* suffering blackouts"

Is that so? I hadn't heard.
Sounds like it's more related to AC demand than pesky EVs.

The historic peak demand for the state fluctuates from year to year and 2014 was about the same as 2006 and only slightly higher than 2007
http://www.energyalmanac.ca.go...

The data I've found doesn't show dramatic increases in state-wide electricity consumption over the past couple decades so even the most EV-friendly large jurisdiction in the world is not yet affected by the theoretical demands of large numbers of electric vehicles.

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

"California *is* suffering blackouts"

Is that so? I hadn't heard.
Sounds like it's more related to AC demand than pesky EVs.

The historic peak demand for the state fluctuates from year to year and 2014 was about the same as 2006 and only slightly higher than 2007
http://www.energyalmanac.ca.go...

The data I've found doesn't show dramatic increases in state-wide electricity consumption over the past couple decades so even the most EV-friendly large jurisdiction in the world is not yet affected by the theoretical demands of large numbers of electric vehicles.

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

If the Russians did not have nuclear weapons they would be just another 3rd world wannabe power.

This is factually wrong. Russia will always be "2nd world" by definition.

It's good you posted as A/C so as to prevent such a post from being associated with your identity. Words have meanings.

Coupled with the fact that the state of California has a higher GDP than Russia also means they have no economic leverage to on the international stage.

Big freaking deal. I have no love for Russia (or the mad man they have as a leader), but Caliornia's economy is HUGE.

The big surprise is that China has let NK get to this point without intervening. They could close their border and stop all deliveries of food, oil, and coal shipments. This would give NK just enough rope to hang themselves. Any hostile response directed from NK to China would give the Chinese all the reason they need remove all existing NK leadership and install their own people to govern the state. China would not face any criticism from the international community for their actions. As it stands NK actions have resulted in all the surrounding countries upgrading their missile defense systems that when coupled with the increase in US missile defense systems could weaken China's nuclear deterrent.

China needs an unstable NK, but not too unstable. Too stable or unstable, they risk the Koreas reuniting and China does not want a powerful ally to the US right on their border.

40 cents/W was probably some clearance price by a warehouse trying to move old stock. Average total installed costs for PV solar (including mouting, inverter, switching equipment, labor) is around $4 per Watt. (I should note that California tends to be on the expensive side. Arizona is below $3/W installed median price.) Remember folks, marketing brochures use the lowest cost. For real-world policies and implementations, you need to use the average cost.

$4/W gets you $4000/kW. Capacity factor for fixed panels in the continental U.S. (ratio of actual generation to peak generation) is about 0.145. So the price per kW of actual production is $4000 / 0.145 = $27586 / kW.

$0.115 / kWh is the average retail residential price for the U.S. A good chunk of that is transmission fees (installation and maintenance for all the wires, poles, transformers, etc), which is why net metering won't be coming back. If you can actually use all the electricity the PV panels generate on-site, then great! You're saving yourself a net $0.115/kWh and will pay for the panels in $27586 kW / $0.115/kWh = 239878 hours = 27.4 years. (It's lower in California because residential electricity prices are about $0.18/kWh, capacity factor for Southern California is around 0.18, which puts payback at around 14 years. And the state was giving large rebates to encourage people to get PV solar installed, dropping the net payback for the homeowner in some cases to around 7 years.)

From the standpoint of a power company though (which TFA is about), you need to compare this to the wholesale price of electricity. For coal that's about $0.03-$0.04 / kWh. So to recover $27586 / kW at a rate of $0.04 / kWh = 689650 hours, or a hair under 79 years for the U.S. India's payback time will be shorter because they're closer to the equator so their capacity factor will be higher. Levilized cost will be higher though because solar and wind costs are nearly all up-front meaning you have to take out a bigger loan than for other power sources. Other types of power costs are partly up-front, partly for fuel during the lifetime of the plant. But it's still getting close to the expected 30-50 year lifetime of a power plant.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca....

A new business that isn't a startup is the same as a traditional business; they don't want to pay overtime, and they don't want to get sued for back overtime later if they abuse an employee by not paying overtime just because they're on a salary. By law that salary is only for regular time, and an office worker isn't like a doctor or lawyer where it just might take more hours to finish the work; the company could let them go how after 8 hours, they're fully in charge of the schedule.

That's nice, but Silicon Valley is still in California, and California has rather forward-thinking views on which employees qualify as exempt from overtime.

I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.

In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.

anyone have a link to the DMV rules about that?

"Never assume other drivers will give you the right-of-way. Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions." http://test-www.dmv.ca.gov/pub... My understanding is that this is a paraphrasing of what is in the Motor Vehicle Code.

Yielding right of way is not the same as requiring someone to avoid accidents. Of course you are expected to follow at a safe distance and allow yourself room to stop. This is to prevent rear end collisions. but if someone runs a red light and pulls out in front of you and your options are A) Make an unsafe lane change and B) plow into the guy then everyone will reasonably expect you to do B. Your requirement to avoid an accident is on the basis of you driving in a safe manner and requiring someone to take any other measure besides braking to avoid an accident is dangerous. In the case of yielding right of way, you are slowing or stopping to avoid an accident.

The CA DMV manual explicitly says to not bunch up, to leave an open space in one's adjacent lane so that one can make such an emergency maneuver. The manual instructs you to do so if necessary and safe to do so. The DMV instructions with respect to avoiding an accident are not only about yielding.

I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.

In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.

anyone have a link to the DMV rules about that?

"Never assume other drivers will give you the right-of-way. Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions." http://test-www.dmv.ca.gov/pub... My understanding is that this is a paraphrasing of what is in the Motor Vehicle Code.

Yielding right of way is not the same as requiring someone to avoid accidents. Of course you are expected to follow at a safe distance and allow yourself room to stop. This is to prevent rear end collisions. but if someone runs a red light and pulls out in front of you and your options are A) Make an unsafe lane change and B) plow into the guy then everyone will reasonably expect you to do B. Your requirement to avoid an accident is on the basis of you driving in a safe manner and requiring someone to take any other measure besides braking to avoid an accident is dangerous. In the case of yielding right of way, you are slowing or stopping to avoid an accident.

That is true, the bus was behind the google car while the car was blocked from advancing. Then the light turned green and the bus and the rest of traffic started moving and the the google car tried to switch lanes...

That's the nuance previously referred to. Technically it did not try to switch lanes. It tried to move to the left side of the lane it already occupied. According to California law ...

Pass traffic on the left. You may pass on the right only when: An open highway is clearly marked for two or more lanes of travel in your direction.

The driver ahead of you is turning left and you do not drive off the roadway to pass.

Never pass on the left if the driver is signaling a left turn.

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

By that time the google car was signally left.

The bus should have yielded.
OTOH, never, ever cut off a bus. Which the google car did.

I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.

In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.

anyone have a link to the DMV rules about that?

"Never assume other drivers will give you the right-of-way. Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions."
http://test-www.dmv.ca.gov/pub...

My understanding is that this is a paraphrasing of what is in the Motor Vehicle Code.

I narrowly avoided getting T-boned by a car that had come from several positions behind me, driving in the generously wide lane/shoulder, to make a right turn. He didn't see my signal and was assuming we were all going straight, and had reached my bind spot at just the moment I was starting my turn.

That means either the other car drove off the road, or you weren't far enough to the right. In California, what you did would be a violation of CVC 22100(a):

Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway

Also in Arizona:

Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

The two are almost word for word identical. Your state probably has the same law. If I were the judge, you would both be charged, you for violating the above law, and the other driver for reckless driving or unsafe pass.

Most of the time Google's AVs drive in the middle of a lane but "when you're teeing up a right-hand turn in a lane wide enough to handle two streams of traffic, annoyed traffic stacks up behind you.

"So several weeks ago we began giving the self-driving car the capabilities it needs to do what human drivers do: hug the rightmost side of the lane.

The law says a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. So Google's self-driving cars have been making their right turns illegally until just recently.

I expected better from Google.

I actually speed up a bit before turning to maximize distance between myself and driver behind and turn shallow. This is a bit hard to explain but you angle into the turn and actually do most of your slowing when you are already in the turn

That's illegal in California. You're supposed to make the turn from as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

http://www.americanbar.org/gro... It's also illegal in California: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-... A problem with computerizing government is that they make the rules. Idk how English government works, but in the US tickets are issued by a county government who also prosecutes unauthorized legal practice cases. I'm sure any county would miss $3m.

Matthew McLaughlin is the real deal, and you can read his proposal for the Sodomite Suppression Act on the California Attorney General website. Now, it's not anything introduced in the legislature (no legislator wanting to keep his job would be so stupid), it's just one guy trying to get attention for the cause who was willing to pay the $200 filing fee.

I thought at first this a Jonathan Swift style satire, but after reading through McLaughlin's WordPress site I have to think he's actually a true believer. He was also pushing for an initiative twelve years ago to have all California public school students read the King James Bible in literature classes (with students being able to opt-out).

About 80 years ago, sure, but that's still a pretty big gift, and one that would let them spend more a) initially on setting up the grid and b) spend more on upgrades over time, as they don't have to pay loans back. The original money isn't relevant to rates now, but it may be relevant in how it shaped the grid's formation.

Those are all pretty good points. I do think CA's infrastructure would be harder to maintain still - they certainly don't have ice storms, but as you said, there are earthquakes. It may also be more expensive to get permission to run lines in CA (whether that's through buying rights to put lines up or lobbying politicians to use eminent domain).

I think property taxes are more important than you're giving them credit for - they're often the largest tax people pay, as CA's rates (and property) are much higher than TN's - TN also only applies their tax rate to 25% of the property's assessed value.

There's also state regulatory costs to take into account - I don't know how I'd go about finding those, but I would have a hard time believing CA has less stringent regulations. How much that affects the price of electricity, I don't know.

Ultimately, I think the TVA does good work, but I'm not sure a TN/CA comparison is the best, since there are a lot of other differences between the two states. I'm certainly willing to admit that in some cases, non-profit power companies are better, but at this point I'm not going to say they're inherently better.

How old are you 12? Just try and use cash at the DMV or any government agency.

All DMV offices accept payment by cash, check, and money order and ATM/Debit cards for payment of fees. Credit cards are not accepted in any DMV office.

You want crazy? Most companies won't sell below a $100k/$300k policy, but my state requires even less:
State of Alaska requirements: $50k/$100k/$25k - per person, per incident
Yes, I buy 'underinsured' insurance. What this means is that if I get hurt by a motorist with less insurance than me, my insurance picks up the difference to their limit. So I get hit by somebody with a $50k policy, my insurance picks up the next $200k because I have a $250k policy per person.
Florida is downright insane: $10k personal injury and $10k property damage.
California: $15k/$30K/$5k
A collected list of all states, though since it's not from the states themselves, may not be accurate.

As for Germany, you guys must of really cranked up the levels since I was there.
I find your German insurance levels crazy, but in a better way - of course, the last dollar(or Euro) of insurance are cheaper than the first, so those levels aren't as expensive.

Still, from what I can find German limits are a bit less than you said - 2.5M/7.5M/500k Euros

6.4% coal as of 2014.
5.5% large hydro.
8.5% Nuclear
44.5% Natural Gas
20.1% Renewables(Wind, geothermal, Solar, Biomass, small hydro).

15% unspecified.

BILL NUMBER: AB 174 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY
Assembly Member Bonta
JANUARY 24, 2013

An act relating to weapons.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 174, as introduced, Bonta. Weapons: grandfather clauses.
Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

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

SECTION 1. Under current law, certain banned weapons are permitted under various "grandfathering in" clauses. It is the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this measure to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...

Can you provide ANY evidence of this ? Any ...

Mandatory smart guns.
"{New Jersey] Assembly Bill No. 700, is a law that makes the sale of handguns "illegal" unless it is a smart gun that "can only be fired by an authorized or recognized user" and would take effect three years after the technology is available for retail purposes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Remote Disabling.
"TriggerSmart has also patented and developed Wide Area Control ( WAC) where weapons can be remotely enabled and disabled using various wireless protocols. Safe zones can be created around schools and airports so that only authorised guns can operate in the designated area. Alternatively, when authorized guns leave the authorised area they can be tracked and disabled outside the safe zone."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Political willingness to confiscate legally registered firearms.
California’s Assault Weapons ban of 1989 allowed those who owned covered firearms the opportunity to register those firearms and keep them. Registration involved fingerprinting and background checks. This ban also outlawed use of these firearms for hunting, and target shooting in many formerly legal venues. California Bill 2013 AB 174 would revoke these registrations and render these firearms illegal. AB 174 would force current owners to render their formerly legal and registered firearms inoperable, surrender them or remove them from California.
"Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...

Do you really think it much of a leap for politicians who would revoke registrations for fingerprinted and background checked owners, registration for rifles that were arbitrarily limited in terms of where they could be used (no hunting, only certain shooting ranges/sites), ... to think smart guns should be default disabled until entering approved firing ranges?

Recently chaptered SB 178 adds some pretty stringent requirements on who can get access to electronic communications and how.

It's now incorporated into law as California Penal Code 1546

Your best bet would be to contact the Assemblyman for your own district, inform them of this odious bill, and instruct them to oppose it.

Cali just wants your money, it's not unheard of to have 1000 dollar yearly car registrations there.

Well yeah, if your car is brand new and you paid over $138,000 for it. Otherwise, not so much.

I'm with you, though, on the ease of getting a driver license. I have personally witnessed people taking tests at the local DMV office being allowed to use "translators" who were openly coaching them on the correct answers.

Very interesting how different countries handle this. In the US, I believe the Statute of Limitations pauses ("tolls") when someone is "on the run" and outside of the arm of the law. Basically, if you cannot be arrested, the clock is stopped. You have to be where they can arrest you for the clock to be moving, at least in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#Tolling_and_the_discovery_rule

http://www.courts.ca.gov/9618.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tolling+the+Statute

Article shows California is doing better than the U.S. overall and slightly worse in 4 industries out of 16 employment areas.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...

Graph here shows that california GDP growth is slightly exceeding U.S. GDP growth in 2012 to 2014.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/Blog/Med...

It fell a little harder in 2008, 2009 than the rest of the U.S.

Seems like this is just business turnover which is happening everywhere all the time.

Personal income growth exceeded all but four out of fifty states in 2015.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...

http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbe...
2013- California surpasses Italy and Russia to become the 8th largest economy in the entire world.

Looks like California is fine.

see also
http://www.statista.com/statis...

Article shows California is doing better than the U.S. overall and slightly worse in 4 industries out of 16 employment areas.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...

Graph here shows that california GDP growth is slightly exceeding U.S. GDP growth in 2012 to 2014.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/Blog/Med...

It fell a little harder in 2008, 2009 than the rest of the U.S.

Seems like this is just business turnover which is happening everywhere all the time.

Personal income growth exceeded all but four out of fifty states in 2015.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...

http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbe...
2013- California surpasses Italy and Russia to become the 8th largest economy in the entire world.

Looks like California is fine.

see also
http://www.statista.com/statis...

Article shows California is doing better than the U.S. overall and slightly worse in 4 industries out of 16 employment areas.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...

Graph here shows that california GDP growth is slightly exceeding U.S. GDP growth in 2012 to 2014.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/Blog/Med...

It fell a little harder in 2008, 2009 than the rest of the U.S.

Seems like this is just business turnover which is happening everywhere all the time.

Personal income growth exceeded all but four out of fifty states in 2015.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...

http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbe...
2013- California surpasses Italy and Russia to become the 8th largest economy in the entire world.

Looks like California is fine.

see also
http://www.statista.com/statis...

After seeing peoples' replies below, I did a little math. SoCal residential uses about 244 billion cf gas each year (ref and ref ) and let's assume that is what this inventory is used for. 244 billion cf gas = 20.2 billion pounds (using 12.076 cf per pound of standard gas ref).

So according to the article, 150 million pounds have been leaked, or 0.7% of the above annual usage.

If the rate of 110,000 pounds per hour continues for 2 months, making some assumptions from the article, then 158 million pounds more will leak, or another 0.8% of the stockpile.

Why can't anyone put it in terms like this for people to better visualize the issue...

After seeing peoples' replies below, I did a little math. SoCal residential uses about 244 billion cf gas each year (ref and ref ) and let's assume that is what this inventory is used for. 244 billion cf gas = 20.2 billion pounds (using 12.076 cf per pound of standard gas ref).

So according to the article, 150 million pounds have been leaked, or 0.7% of the above annual usage.

If the rate of 110,000 pounds per hour continues for 2 months, making some assumptions from the article, then 158 million pounds more will leak, or another 0.8% of the stockpile.

Why can't anyone put it in terms like this for people to better visualize the issue...

Beginning Jan 1, California Senate Bill 570 will come into effect. (Until going into effect, sections 3 and 4 of the bill refer to section 1.3 (for agencies) and section 2.3 (for individuals or businesses).

People holding unencrypted license plate data along with people's names, that then lose that data, know of unauthorized access to that data or improperly share it will be required to notify all individuals in that dataset within 10 days.

California Senate Bill 34 covers automated license plate reader operators and their requirements for operation and disclosure of that operation, its purpose, etc.

The long story (short) is that in California, there are upcoming regulations (enacted Jan 1, 2016) about how this data is to be collected and used, and responsibilities for those who collect it.

Beginning Jan 1, California Senate Bill 570 will come into effect. (Until going into effect, sections 3 and 4 of the bill refer to section 1.3 (for agencies) and section 2.3 (for individuals or businesses).

People holding unencrypted license plate data along with people's names, that then lose that data, know of unauthorized access to that data or improperly share it will be required to notify all individuals in that dataset within 10 days.

California Senate Bill 34 covers automated license plate reader operators and their requirements for operation and disclosure of that operation, its purpose, etc.

The long story (short) is that in California, there are upcoming regulations (enacted Jan 1, 2016) about how this data is to be collected and used, and responsibilities for those who collect it.

California has every single law you asked for except an insurance requirement, and it still happened here. I seriously doubt adding an insurance requirement would have stopped this.

"We should be doing the same for guns at a minimum."

California already requires a license, with an associated test to purchase a firearm. The license is called a Firearms Safety Certificate. It has been required here for years.

The license needs to be renewed every five years, and you must pass the test again in order to renew.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fs...

It used to be called the HSC for handguns, but a few years back they changed it to the FSC for all firearms.

" If your gun is stolen and used in a crime you would share in the liability, - especially if your gun was not stored in a safe manor. "

Safe storage in a secure container is the law here. It is a misdemeanour with loss of firearms rights for 10 years if you are caught not storing it correctly. Additionally you are liable for any crime that was caused by your firearm if it was not stored properly and an unauthorized individual got a hold of it.

"A gun should have a title associated with it that gets transferred even in the event of a private sale"

All guns must have a serial number on the frame. The serial number is registered to the owner and the registration is transferred even with a "private sale", inheritance, or any other legal transfer.

As an aside, there are no "private sales" in Californa. All sales must go through a licensed gun store. Even gun shows.

The only exception to this is "Curio and Relic" firearms, meaning the gun 50+ years old, and they have to be on a list designating them as such. Usually to get on this list it means they no longer make ammo for the gun. Last time I looked, there was only a handful of times a C&R firearm was used in a crime since they time they started keeping records.

"gun dealerships should be expected to perform due diligence before selling anyone a gun"

California requires a background check on all persons, they must also wait 10 days and posses a valid FSC before taking possession of a firearm. The purchaser must show two forms of ID, one must be a California state ID (or driver license) the other must have your address on it. The address must match your ID. California also requires a safe handling demonstration where the buyer must show they know how to safely load, unload, and operate the safety of the firearm they wish to purchase. The firearm shop is expected to do these checks.

The owner of the gun shop faces criminal liability (meaning go to jail, not just fines) if the shop does not follow the law. Some gun shops were shut down in the southern part of the state recently due to the owner being "not good".

"More to your point, certain kinds of mental illness would lead to the loss of gun licensure and if your mentally ill son shoots up a mall with your guns, you will be held responsible. "

This is already law here. A 5150 (going nuts and being admitted to the hospital for observation) results in an automatic 10-year loss of guns rights.

The state department of justice has a group called APPS, (that had some growing pains when they first started) that goes out and confiscates the firearms of people who were 5150ed before they get out of the hospital.

Any persons who provides a firearm to an ineligable person is guilty of a felony. If you give a gun to your crazy kid and the cops find out then you go to jail, even if your crazy kid didn't shoot up the mall.

More firearms laws won't fix this. All they will do is annoy the folks that have firearms as their hobby.

We need a culture change where crazy people don't feel that killing a bunch of people is the solution to their problems.