Slashdot Mirror

Both parties have to agree to it.
Unless of course it's in public, but then it depends on who it is.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-...

It's nice the legislators give their preamble about protecting rights, when it's really about protecting themselves.

fee schedule

It's a sliding scale based on the crew size, as well as whatever extra work is required from the forest service to facilitate your activities. So yeah, if you have 60 people working as cast and crew, and a few rangers need to put in 50 hours of work managing your logistics, and it's a multi day shoot, it's going to cost more than if 2 or three guys take pictures for a couple of hours.

Commercial photography and filming request

The value of education isn't proportional to the property's value. Law enforcement probably is.

Fire protection should be billed to the property owner's insurance in order to provide the proper incentive to use fireproof building materials, and to clear away brush in areas prone to wildfires.

In California, we make a distinction between taxes and fees. For example, a fee is:

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

I would rather pay such fees than taxes, wouldn't you?

I can confirm that a broken CF bulb is nasty. I had one break while hot, it stank to the high heavens and also gave me a headache. Had to ventilate the room for hours. Given that mercury is odorless (pdf), I suspect some other chemical. In any case, if the cold bulbs have a similar odor I think it would be very unlikely for someone to get mercury poisoning from these, and there is also the matter of the mercury emitted by coal power plants to consider.

Overall I am pleased with CF bulbs, but one day hope to build a DC circuit with LEDs and battery backup for my lights.

...this was just simple, honest to god lying.

Turns out that is illegal, too. D.A. doesn't care, though.

You cannot be 'convicted' of entering the bicycle lane because that is not a criminal offense.

I believe you are mistaken.

Not defending the cop, but have a read of the law itself, not the FAQ. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123_5.htm.

Paragraph e in the section permits it for emergency services personnel in the course of their duties.

A lot of road rules have emergency services exclusions. e.g. driving against the flow of traffic, ignoring control and command signs and lights, ignoring speed limits etc. They ARE expected to be trained to do so safely and only when absolutely unavoidable. If the LA County Sheriff's Department didn't instruct the deputy properly, then they should be held liable.

Understood, thanks.

That being said, perhaps there are things that, even with training, cannot be done safely.

Not defending the cop, but have a read of the law itself, not the FAQ. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123_5.htm.

Paragraph e in the section permits it for emergency services personnel in the course of their duties.

A lot of road rules have emergency services exclusions. e.g. driving against the flow of traffic, ignoring control and command signs and lights, ignoring speed limits etc. They ARE expected to be trained to do so safely and only when absolutely unavoidable. If the LA County Sheriff's Department didn't instruct the deputy properly, then they should be held liable.

2. This was within standard operating procedure for the deputy.

This does not make it legal.

IANAL but it seems to me that only if it's not illegal to send text messages while driving then you would be correct. If, however, it is illegal, as is the case in CA, then the deputy killed someone by being negligent while breaking a law which seems like criminal negligence to me.

"...prohibits all drivers from texting while operating a motor vehicle (VC 23123.5)"
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/cellula...

It sounds like ATM overhead addresses your issue. However as far as who to talk to, in California measurement enforcement is handled at the county level: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/. In Texas this falls to the Department of Agriculture and I'm pretty sure they won't care. http://www.texasagriculture.go...

You must hate the governator. About 2.2 GW installed so about 4 TWH annual production. Looks like that more than covers lost hydro. http://californiasolarstatisti... Hasta la vista, baby.

Hydro replaced by solar? Jesus. Here are some facts. Please rely on them instead of fairy tales.

Looks like the tsunami risk is mostly from underwater landslides in that part of California. These can be started by an earthquake. But the risk will depend on the details of the sea floor near the plant. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/g...

Wouldn't it be keen if Diablo Canyon and the other operating nucleaar plants could rise up on giant clawed feet and saunter over to a state that actually wants a clean source of emissions-free energy.

It would also be cool if nuclear electricity was shaped a bit differently, perhaps a little series of dips in the sinusoid like tumblers in a lock... that way the grid could reconfigure itself to gather carbon free energy and pool it for use in states that are not driven by anti-nuclear hysterics.

Then the minions of Enron could come out of retirement, and just as the kind gentleman did for the Yellow Bellied Sneetches, they could install an Apparatus that smooths the sinusoid making the energy appear to have come from Solar or Wind -- for a good price, so the Californians could have Stars Upon Thars.

I recognize that this assessment of Diablo Canyon comes from the NRC, not California. But cue the hysteria as the San Onorfe haters gather their torches and march on to battle evil. Leaving in its wake peace and natural gas for all.

California is becoming more BLUE as time goes on. Hint: Take a peek -- that is not a political map.

"Weisenmiller holds a Doctorate in Chemistry and a Masters in Energy and Resources from University of California Berkeley and received his Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from Providence College." http://www.energy.ca.gov/commi... You walked right into that one....

Trusting someone you know; someone you legitimately know, not just someone you've met a few times, is not irresponsible, unless they've given you a reason not to trust them. I never said that was gender-specific, either. When you're out in public, you've got more than just the people you know and trust to worry about and it *is* irresponsible not to be vigilant in that situation. That you fail to recognize the difference between my scenario, trusting someone I had known or over a year, who had never done me wrong, and doing so in a private setting, versus trusting a crowd of people, most of whom you've probably never met, in a public setting, is your failing, and not mine.

I'm genuinely curious, though; what is the basis on which you are diagnosing me with PTSD and what credentials do you have that provide any validity to that diagnosis? My guess, none and none. If that's the case, you might find yourself afoul of the law (PDF warning; also, that document is specific to my state, but each state has their own, similar laws).

Okay, I tracked down the actual bill text:

SB 962

The bill says absolutely nothing about how the kill actually happens and who can do it. The EFF expressed that exact concern here:

EFF letter opposing SB 962

That could only work in a city where the police don't enforce laws against obstructing traffic.

You mean all of them?

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right....

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/ga...

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...

Basically if the traffic around you is speeding. Keep up.

Why would they write the law this way? Basically what causes many accidents is not the speed. But the differential between speed and other cars. Basically keep up with the flow. If everyone is going 5 mph and you go the speed limit of 55 you can get cited. If everyone is doing 75 and you are doing the limit of 55 you can also get cited. The ticket is NOT because you are going fast its because you are driving dangerous.

The driver's handbook in California explicitly states that you should at all times keep up with traffic, even if it means exceeding the speed limit a little bit, so that all cars are driving at roughly the same speed.

The 2014 manual says, on page 69:

Driving slower than other vehicles or stopping suddenly can be just as dangerous as speeding, if not more dangerous, because you may cause a rear end collision or cause other drivers to swerve to avoid hitting your vehicle. If you are in the fast lane and you notice vehicles moving to the right lane to pass you, or a line of vehicles is forming behind you, the best thing to do is move into the right lane, when it is safe, and let the vehicle(s) pass.

The driver's handbook in California explicitly states that you should at all times keep up with traffic, even if it means exceeding the speed limit a little bit, so that all cars are driving at roughly the same speed.

Got a citation for that? I just checked the California driver's handbook, and it said no such thing. (The relevant sections are Speed Limits and Traffic Speeds.) The handbook did warn against driving slower than other traffic, but that doesn't imply that there is an exception. The handbook only recommends keeping to the right-hand lane to allow faster traffic to pass, not exceeding the posted speed limit.

Note that the Driver's Handbook is not authoritative. The actual laws relating to speed limits can be found here. Again, no exceptions for keeping up with traffic:

22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit.

The driver's handbook in California explicitly states that you should at all times keep up with traffic, even if it means exceeding the speed limit a little bit, so that all cars are driving at roughly the same speed.

Got a citation for that? I just checked the California driver's handbook, and it said no such thing. (The relevant sections are Speed Limits and Traffic Speeds.) The handbook did warn against driving slower than other traffic, but that doesn't imply that there is an exception. The handbook only recommends keeping to the right-hand lane to allow faster traffic to pass, not exceeding the posted speed limit.

Note that the Driver's Handbook is not authoritative. The actual laws relating to speed limits can be found here. Again, no exceptions for keeping up with traffic:

22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit.

The driver's handbook in California explicitly states that you should at all times keep up with traffic, even if it means exceeding the speed limit a little bit, so that all cars are driving at roughly the same speed.

Got a citation for that? I just checked the California driver's handbook, and it said no such thing. (The relevant sections are Speed Limits and Traffic Speeds.) The handbook did warn against driving slower than other traffic, but that doesn't imply that there is an exception. The handbook only recommends keeping to the right-hand lane to allow faster traffic to pass, not exceeding the posted speed limit.

Note that the Driver's Handbook is not authoritative. The actual laws relating to speed limits can be found here. Again, no exceptions for keeping up with traffic:

22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit.

That could only work in a city where the police don't enforce laws against obstructing traffic.

We do indeed. They were created because Republicans (and in particular, Nixon) needed a new thing to harp on for the election, and they went for "tough on crime".

Not even close. You could just as well have answered "khrushchev" with no loss of accuracy.

Attorney General’s Commission on Special Weapons and Tactics (S.W.A.T.)

Beginning in the 1960’s, local police were confronted by increasingly well-armed individuals and groups who were willing to engage in armed confrontations with the police. The traditional method of response by uniformed patrol officers placed both officers and innocent bystanders at increased risk.

In many nations of the world, such situations would likely be handled by national police forces. However, the American people have historically been very wary of deployment of federal forces within local boundaries.

It became clear that a new method of response to such complex, high-risk and often high-energy situations was needed. Such a response required expertise and weaponry beyond the normal capability of local law enforcement agencies. Thus, the concept of SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) was developed by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Originally, the SWAT concept was for counter-sniper and other high-risk situations that in the past would have provoked an inordinate number of shots being fired, often with injuries to innocent persons. Over the years, SWAT has evolved into the management of barricaded suspect situations, the service of high-risk warrants, dignitary protection, and the actual rescue of hostages.

Under the SWAT model, verbal techniques and physical tactics would combine for seamless management of volatile situations confronting local police. The primary purpose behind this concept was to reduce risk to the police forces involved, to the suspects, and to the community at large.
Most of these situations are resolved with verbal tactics utilized by trained hostage negotiators who are frequently an integral component of SWAT teams. Seldom are physical tactics necessary, and even then the actual firing of shots rarely occurs.

------

And what are those "originally intended functions"?

I think that is answered above.

... there's no justification for having every police department, even those on university campuses ...

Whoever heard of shootings at schools or college campuses?

I'll leave it up to you to track down statistics on the practices of European gendarmes.

Well, I just wasted about an hour rummaging through California's law relating to waste water from industrial processes, as well as law relating to drinking water, and in that time could not find anything which either supports or refutes the parent poster's assertion that waste water from semiconductor plants must be cleaner than tap water (links to the law and regulations below). Nor could I find any support for the parent poster's claim just randomly googling around (I figured if it were true there'd be multiple references to it).

I agree with you that if wastewater from industrial processes is held to higher standards than tap water, then that's ridiculous. However given it's such an extrodinary claim, I'd also suggest that the burden of proof lies with those making it - here's the law; knock yourselves out.

CA law and regulation relating to drinking water: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic...

CA law and regulation relating to waste water: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/...

All code relating to water in CA: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/...

Well, I just wasted about an hour rummaging through California's law relating to waste water from industrial processes, as well as law relating to drinking water, and in that time could not find anything which either supports or refutes the parent poster's assertion that waste water from semiconductor plants must be cleaner than tap water (links to the law and regulations below). Nor could I find any support for the parent poster's claim just randomly googling around (I figured if it were true there'd be multiple references to it).

I agree with you that if wastewater from industrial processes is held to higher standards than tap water, then that's ridiculous. However given it's such an extrodinary claim, I'd also suggest that the burden of proof lies with those making it - here's the law; knock yourselves out.

CA law and regulation relating to drinking water: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic...

CA law and regulation relating to waste water: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/...

All code relating to water in CA: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/...

Well, I just wasted about an hour rummaging through California's law relating to waste water from industrial processes, as well as law relating to drinking water, and in that time could not find anything which either supports or refutes the parent poster's assertion that waste water from semiconductor plants must be cleaner than tap water (links to the law and regulations below). Nor could I find any support for the parent poster's claim just randomly googling around (I figured if it were true there'd be multiple references to it).

I agree with you that if wastewater from industrial processes is held to higher standards than tap water, then that's ridiculous. However given it's such an extrodinary claim, I'd also suggest that the burden of proof lies with those making it - here's the law; knock yourselves out.

CA law and regulation relating to drinking water: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic...

CA law and regulation relating to waste water: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/...

All code relating to water in CA: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/...

You could at least quote the actual list published under this law in California: http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pro...

I don't know about small windows- your car has to pass other safety laws and regulations.

As for HUDs I think you can have them if they can only show driver/rider related stuff while the vehicle is in operation, if the screen can be general purpose like Google Glass then it's illegal:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driverâ(TM)s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:

(1) A vehicle information display.

(2) A global positioning display.

(3) A mapping display.

[etc]

The law doesn't seem that crazy as laws go considering how crazy drivers can get ;).

but as long as there are cheaper places with less regulations to run a business (Texas, Mexico, China...), that's where industry's going to go. And California will continue it's steady slide down the economic toilet.

You think so? From here:

California added almost 320,000 new jobs in 2013 and over 1.17 million new jobs since the end of the recession.

California's GDP growth rate was 3.5 percent in 2012 – fifth best in the nation.

Where other states have one or two main economic sectors, California has several -- all of which lead the nation. California is first in high tech, biotech, agriculture, entertainment, manufacturing, tourism and more.

California is by far the number one state for manufacturing jobs, firms and output – accounting for 11.7 percent of the total output, and employing 9 percent of the workforce. CA manufacturing generates $229.9 billion, more than any other state.

Information technology jobs have rebounded and exceeded pre-recession levels. California remains the top state for information technology jobs which drives venture capital investment, patents, innovation and ultimately the strength of our workforce.

California’s 2,324 biomedical companies employ 269,976 people. This industry accounts for $115 billion in annual revenues – which is more than the annual Gross State Product of 18 U.S. states.

Where's that "economic toilet" you're talking about?

According to this site I ran across while checking to see if there had been any progress on this topic in recent years, we can look forward to a potential Notice of Proposed Rulemaking some time in November, which is expected to raise the exempt bar to ~$1,000/week and update some of the duties tests for what constitutes white collar work.

Additionally, it's worthwhile to note that many states have their own overtime exemption rules that already set the bar much higher than the current $455/week. For instance, in California the computer employee exemption rate(PDF) is $41/hour, indexed yearly to the state's CPI.

Don't know where you get your facts, but you might want to check out the California Highway Patrol's website. In the trucks section of the report, it comes in at #35 with 137 stolen in 2013. Compared to Honda Civics and Accords with ~20,000 thefts, that's nothing.

California surplus: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/... , median income: https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-p... , California industry: http://www.business.ca.gov/Why...

So yes, the tale of broke over-regulated union-overrun California is a bit dated. It was true when Republicans were in power in California.

California surplus: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/... , median income: https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-p... , California industry: http://www.business.ca.gov/Why...

So yes, the tale of broke over-regulated union-overrun California is a bit dated. It was true when Republicans were in power in California.

So where did that water go, genius? Reservoir levels, Stream flow. Most of those numbers look well below long term median/average to me. So if the water isn't in the reservoirs or flowing in the rivers, where exactly is it?

Maybe there's a lot of room in certain people's posterior orifices that isn't accounted for here.

Auto ... insurance are now mandatory by force of law.

Not true, as I said in another reply.

At least for CA:

What Are the Types of Financial Responsibility?

Motor vehicle liability insurance policy.
Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV.
DMV-issued self-insurance certificate.
Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

Source: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs%2Fb...

Yellow - if far enough in advance of intersection, come to a stop; if not far away enough to stop safely, proceed with caution

No, yellow means the light is about to turn red. It is implied that a motorist may stop, but is not required to.

Flashing red - Do not enter intersection; if already crossing street, proceed quickly to other side
Red - Do not enter intersection

Those two mean exactly the same thing.

I looked it up for Ca... "Crosswalks A crosswalk is the part of the roadway set aside for pedestrian traffic. Most intersections have a pedestrian crosswalk whether or not lines are painted on the street. Most crosswalks are located at corners, but they can also be located in the middle of the block. Before turning a corner, watch for people about to cross the street. Pedestrians have the right-of-way in marked or unmarked crosswalks. Crosswalks are often marked with white lines. Yellow crosswalk lines may be painted at school crossings. Most often, crosswalks in residential areas are not marked. Some crosswalks have flashing lights to warn you that pedestrians may be crossing. Look for pedestrians and be prepared to stop, whether or not the lights are flashing." http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hd...

Lane splitting is legal in California. The motorcycle handbook says "Never operate directly alongside another rider" but is it illegal?

Lane splitting is legal in California. The motorcycle handbook says "Never operate directly alongside another rider" but is it illegal?

California only says drivers "shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any...crosswalk at an intersection." There may be cities in California that prohibit cars from entering a crosswalk while a pedestrian is using it, but that one's not a California law.

That is NOT the law, that is merely how they enforce it. Yielding right-of-way would allow a car to pass a reasonable distance in front of, and certainly behind, the pedestrian. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-... Most Californians also mistakenly believe that motorcycles can legally ride side by side, or on the dotted line beside a car.

We do have a head version. Here's the federal: http://uscode.house.gov/

Here's california's: http://leginfo.legislature.ca....

Wait, is that a global warming joke?

As you and most probably already know, that line is more San Andreas Fault. An uban legend that has been written into not on movies but songs. As well as numerous hustles.

To address a few of your points:

  * We do plan for nuclear incidents, and it is one of the most strictly regulated industries. Annual radiation dosages are very, very closely monitored, and hitting the maximum indicates a non-measurable increase in health risks-- statistically it cannot be measured.
  * Falling off roofs can kill you, and in fact California (first google result) has a website talking about these risks. They list a few examples, including 2 examples of workers falling to their deaths in 2009 and 2010. Meanwhile, literally noone has died in the nuclear industry in that time.
  * Cancer is really, really nasty... and its also factored into Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc fatality estimates. Noone died from 3MI, and noone is expected to. Noone died as a result of the Fukushima meltdown, and the upper bound for expected deaths is lower than the actual number of people who died in the process of evacuating. That is, the panic over Fukushima literally killed more people (~600) than are expected to actually die from radiation related sickness from Fukushima (estimated at around 100). And so far, noone has actually died from radiation @ Fukushima.
  * The potential for disaster from nuclear disaster is moderately severe, but is balanced by the intense regulation and incredibly high reliability of the nuclear industry as a whole. Somehow you dont hear things like the Banqiao Dam disaster when discussing hydropower-- even though it has killed more people than could be projected to die from nuclear power since its birth up to 50 years from now. Somehow you just dont hear about the fact that coal mining alone kills ~1000 people yearly, or about the genesis of the rare earth metals used in solar cells.

Nuclear is an incredibly good source of energy that is incredibly reliable, but people choose to ignore facts and buy into the media-driven hysteria over the insidious nature of radiation-- despite their daily exposure to "radiation" that the body has no problem repairing. Coal right now causes massive breathing problems in cities like Shanghai where it is literally unhealthy to go outside many days due to the intense smog; nuclear would be a godsend, and appealing to incredibly expensive alternative energy in China is absurd.

Wind and nuclear I understand, but how does gas significantly reduce carbon emmissions? Isn't it still burning stuff and thus producing CO2? How is gas better than coal in this respect?

natural gas power plants emit half the CO2 of coal power plants, if you trust those commies at EPA:

At the power plant, the burning of natural gas produces nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, but in lower quantities than burning coal or oil. Emissions of sulfur dioxide and mercury compounds from burning natural gas are negligible.

The average emissions rates in the United States from natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides. Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant.

The average emission rates in the United States from coal-fired generation are: 2,249 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 13 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 6 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html

note that this is just at the smoke stack, not addressed here are emissions from extraction, refining, and transportation. I have little intuition of the magnitude or how coal stacks up to NG in this regard, other than in CA for natural gas fueling stations transport can add 10-25% more CO2 depending on the source (i.e. domestic pipeline, international shipped to US, international shipped to mexico then pipeline). http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lc...

Well, technically they aren't accessories. But that doesn't mean it's legal. Quite the opposite, in fact.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-...

All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it
be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act
constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not
being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, [...] are principals in any crime so
committed.

Since it does not have a motor with _any_ displacement, wouldn't it be closer to a motorized bicycle? At least that mentions electric drive.

I'd say no. First, the definition for motorized bicycle specifies top speeds which this device handily outpaces. Second, the definition for motor driven cycle specifies that the engine displacement be less than 150cc. Zero is less that 150.