That's my age. I do notice tt takes just a wee bit more effort to cram more stuff in my head than it used to. Other than that, I still enjoy my ability to recall ridicules bits of obscure minutia that when viewed in total aren't enough to get me a good job, but are just enough to be annoying.
Seriously, though. My ability to commit stuff to memory and recall it *IS* one of my marketable skills. And anything that can help prolong the decline is welcome news.
I believe that is exactly what the entire "hubbub" is about.
I'm a bit of an amateur historian. Particularly when it comes to Colonial America and the American Revolution. I get real pissy when I hear the average high-schooler's entire understanding of the US Revolution was that Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal", "Washington was our first President" and "blacks were 3/5ths of a person". ARG!!!!!!!!!
Worse so when people want to focus that Washington was a slave holder -- or that Jefferson didn't even free his slaves when he died.
I could go on an on about the transformation Washington underwent with regards to slavery -- or the obvious moral dilemma Jefferson found himself in (and wrote about quite a bid) with regards to his economic standing and is ownership of slaves. But these really are not the topics for 5th graders.
Did you know that Washington, as commander-in-chief, received, read, and responded to a letter written by a slave? The letter was a poem -- and the author Phillis Wheatley. Further, Washington invited Ms. Wheatley to his home and graciously thanked her. Or the incredibly favorable conditions Washington under which Washington freed his slaves? Or that Jefferson on several occasions used the phrase "we have the wolf by the ear" with regards to slavery and that Justice dictates one path, but self-preservation the other.
The main problem is attempting to look at our 18th century forefathers through 21th century sensibilities. This is just wrong on so many levels and would be maddening in and of itself if it was ONLY focused on OUR ancestors -- and not on the contemporary peoples they "injured"... Those people get the benefit of cultural objectivity.
My point was mostly that your response still painted an overly simplistic view of the situation (which I would say is the wrong tack to take when you are complaining that they have poorly characterized things).
Actually, to go back to topic, elementary books *SHOULD* "paint an overly simplistic view of the situation". We're talking about the education of children -- not upper division courses required for a masters.
When kids are hungry, you generally give them SIMPLE foods. Mac and Cheese, plain hamburger or hot dog, with simple vegetables. Most simply don't have a mature enough palate to enjoy pâté de foie gras or offal. You start them off with the simple stuff, then as they mature, you introduce them to the nuances and differences in various foods. Likewise, history is EXTREMELY nuanced. Introduce them to the simple stuff first. Basic US history, in this case. Then as they get older, THEN start down the path of trying to deconstruct it and analyze it.
From my point of view, a 12 year old should be aware that Jefferson wrote the DoI, was our third president under the Constitution, and arranged and approved the Louisiana Purchase. I hardly think they should be introduced to his failures as a slave holder, failures as Governor of Virginia (which lead directly to his running out of the state as Cornwallis invades Virginia), that he was a vicious backstabbing politician who paid to have lies published about political enemies in various news papers, and his utter hypocracy with regards to the size and role of the federal government (see the Louisiana Purchase). I also don't think Jefferson should be made to appear as some type of demigod.
Personally, I have no problem with Texas moving away from the focus of Jefferson so long as it doesn't exclude him and focuses on the contributions of other founders like Adams, Morris, Hamilton and Franklin.
And the changes to the CRA in the 90's forced banks to make bad loans.
There are arguments on both sides of the fence. I've looked up the facts and I've drawn my conclusions. Any reasonable person can look at the facts and say that CRA *DID* contribute -- but argue on the degree. I believe that the crisis was caused in no small part to lending practices forced on lenders by the CRA -- and made difficult to get out of by those mortgages getting broken up and mixed in with securities. And further compounded by congress blocking a review of Fanny and Freddy in 05.
Of course, if it makes you "feel" better to dismiss "me" by saying the words "Glenn Beck" and putting the word "facts" in "quotes", be my "guest". Says more about your reasoning ability than anything else...
The expectation was that people would somehow automagically be changed by home ownership -- that they would start paying their bills on time, save for or insure against a catastrophic event -- in generally, act financially responsible.
Not to mention that the legislation did not actually require banks to lend money to people without the ability to pay it back.
The amendments made in the 90s *DID* force bank to lend to people without the ability to pay it back. Not directly, but by forcing arbitrary "numbers" (based on race and location) that the institutions *MUST* meet or be found in non-compliance and penalized under USC 1818. This went well past the original function of the CRA which basically just said "all things being equal, you can't red-line an area if the applicant otherwise meets all lending criteria.
Yeah... let a lender lose it's CRA rating and see how well it does...
Oh, that and various amendments to the CRA made in the 90's:
regulations state that an institution rated by an agency to be in "Substantial Noncompliance" with that obligation shall be subject to enforcement actions under 12 U.S.C. 1818, which authorizes the agencies to issue cease-and-desist orders and levy civil monetary penalties. See id. at 67,480 ( 25.6(b)). The potential monetary penalties the institutions would face range from not more than $5,000 a day for each day during which a "first tier" violation continues to a maximum daily penalty of $1,000,000 or one percent of the institution's total assets, whichever is lower, for a "third tier" violation. See 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2).
According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history--the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.
You:
All the feds did was to outlaw redlining. Banks were simply forced to use the same standards regardless of the skin color of the applicant.
Way to totally ignore the amendments to the CRA -- particularly those made during the late 80's and early 90's. It set silly and arbitrary targets lenders must make by location and race. CRA forced lenders to lend to uncreditworthy persons to satisfy the CRA.
Now, I'm not suggesting the CRA was the SINGLE cause -- but it certainly was a major contributor. As well as many other points of government involvement.
Do you REALLY want to discuss? Or just be an ignorant name-calling prat?
They dumb down the rest of the nation, and they are also probably largely responsible for most of the failed mortgages.
I would suggest that those "probably largely responsible for most of the failed mortgages" would be the US Government. By forcing banks and lenders to loan money to people without the ability to pay it back or face stiff penalties.
(sarcasm) YAY trying to legislation equal results! (/sarcasm)
No you cant -- but the GP brought up an excellent point.
A copyright holder as the rights to a "thing", and demands payment for you to have/use that thing. You copy/use the thing without payment. You now have it. There is now an extra "thing" out there for which the copyright holder has not been paid. You got value at his expense.
So, if the expectation is that if his intellectual property or whatever is *USED* on the condition of payment, then it's a fair argument that he lost "expectation of income" from you from your direct actions. It's not "theft" -- but arguably an intellectually similar act.
I believe there's also a good argument to be made that the act of violating copyrights devalues the intellectual property. If it's "easier" to get free, then less will buy. You can cite one-offs, but there will be a percentage who WOULD have purchased the IP had it not been available for free or there were higher risks and penalties for getting caught.
> YOU have denied them the money they would have made.
They wouldn't have made any money, ergo I denied them nothing.
While I agree with your overall point, I think this one is inaccurate. I don't believe they would have made money off *YOU* (or anyone infringing on a copyright), but I do believe the overall value is diminished. You've essentially made "more" of something -- and if there's "more" of something, it's worth less than if it's scarce. So, you MAY be denying them value on future sales -- but certainly not a sale to *YOU*.
I do stuff like that on a much smaller scale. I have an old acoustic modem sitting next to a 1960s phone in my office. Both the phone and the modem are busted -- but it looks just too damn cool.
At home, I have an Atari 1030 sitting under my bedroom phone. I also turned an old dual mobo server case in to a small chilled wine cellar (it's about the size of a small fridge anyway).
I usually pry off the CPUs of any processor I don't have in my collection. I've got everything from 8088 to present. A few flavors of 6800x, 650x, to name a frew. I even have an 8186 pulled from an old palmtop.
Everything else goes in a pile which twice a year goes to the e-dump which rotates around our city collecting toxic chemicals and e-waste.
Does disruption of service mean service is unavailable? Or could it mean that service was in a state that was endangered (no access to administrative accounts should something go wrong)? If something like that happened in my shop, I know at least one or two levels of management that would be devoting huge resources trying to "fix" this problem.
I'm not saying it wasn't a problem they didn't create themselves -- but I am suggesting it could definitely be a considered a disruption.
Think about it. Do you toss out EVERYTHING good done by someone who lives in a time when the abolition movement is starting? "Well, Benjamin Rush started PSAS -- in the mid 18 century, so the ENTIRE culture is against slavery!" Doesn't work that way.
Why do so many look at OUR OWN history with our own contemporary values but not that of other cultures? We look at the damage done to native Americans by our ancestors for example -- but fail to ever talk about the slavery endemic to many of the native cultures at the time. We fail to talk about the cannibalism and human sacrifice that was frequently practiced as well. Had history not progressed the way it did, how many people would have been enslaved? Hunted? Killed? Eaten? But that would just be "all ok then"?
If we're going to turn a blind eye (as we should) and make observations about a given society and culture in a given time in which they lived -- and judge them by their own standards -- we should do the same to our own ancestors.
On a side note (and not an attempt to justify slavery, but to put the USs part of it in perspective), I suggest you look at the average life expectancy of a slave in colonial and the post federal US and compare it to the life expectancy of slaves in the French and Spanish controlled "Americas".
"Call center work (or 7-11 clerking, or construction, or industrial farm work, or any 'unskilled labor') is drudgery no Americans are willing to do!" Bullshit.
I'll agree with you, but for different reasons. Americans *ARE* willing to do these jobs. Hell, I did such work -- when I was 16 -- and for a couple of years after that. These are jobs (not necessarily construction or farm anyway) that have been traditionally done by high-school or college students trying to make some spending money. I honestly don't think a full time job serving burgers was EVER meant to support one person in economic luxary, never mind a family of four.
When I was at age to work, the ethic in my house (and many other houses judging by my co-wokers) was "if you want money to spend, get a job". I think it's a good ethic. It teaches us a few lessons -- at an IMPORTANT time in our development -- independence, that "stuff has a price" and if we want more "stuff", we have to work harder or find a way to do without.
You are. Again. Read the entire fucking vehicle code if you like. Please quote the section that says "If you are in an intersection when it turns red, you have violated the law." You won't find it, it's not there.
Read my entire "fucking" posts if you like. Please quote the section where I say this isn't TECHNICALLY correct?
For that matter, read to me where it says in ANY of CAs penal code that it is illegal to steal gummie bears from 7-11s on Tuesday. You wont find it, it's not there. BUT there are other laws which cover this. The same is true for your "red light while in the intersection" scenario.
If you deny this, you are reality challenged. I spent an entire summer in traffic and SC court as an intern. I've heard the arguments. I'm telling you, *IF* you are in the intersection when it turns red, you CAN and WILL get a ticket. Most likely for vc 23103. You either had enough time to SAFELY stop before entering the intersection and failed to (reckless driving) or you sped up to "beat" the red light with a "disregard for safety" I believe the argument went. Don't believe me? Call up any local CA PD. I called up mine and got quoted vc 23103 and a few others. And it WONT be a violation of yellow or red light laws. I've also heard, though less frequently, anti gridlock laws used -- in that when ENTERING the intersection on a yellow, the intersection was not clear. Doesn't matter that traffic was moving at the speedlimit -- and it doesn't matter that you CLEARED the intersection before it turned red -- if there was a car ahead of you, the intersection was not clear and you violated gridlock laws.
So, quote bits and pieces of the VC if you like. Ignore the rest. Ignore the courts. "But VC 1234 says I can do this!" Not really.
Ok... spoon feeding is over. You are stupid. What you are linking to is *NOT* the law. The law is the vehicle code. That is not in the handbook you dumb lump. What you are linking to is *NOT* law -- but a simple verbal summary which attemps to state in simple language what the vc states using specific parsed language.
VC:
21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter. (b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the roadway.
Handbook (from your very first post):
Solid Yellow- A yellow signal light means "CAUTION." The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you can not stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.
Notice how they are *NOT* the same? They may *SOUND* similar, but one is backed by the legislation and courts of California (with the associated court ruling precedents and the other is simple laymans language. What a stupid, dense, obtuse, witless fuck! You may THINK "A = a" because, well... they SOUND alike, but they ARE different.
Go back and read *MY* first post, nimrod. Tell me how I'm wrong. Show me where the *LAW* appears in the handbook. It doesnt. Either walk away and pretend you are right in your own head and maintain some sense of weird pride or man up and admit "Oh... you are right".
The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance can be cured. You seem to have the incurable form. But I could be wrong.
No I don't think you do. Besides, I already posted the handbook link... you responded to it.
Sadly, I don't think you know how to read or know exactly WHAT the handbook is -- or perhaps I'm just not very good at communicating simple concepts. Click on the link I provided above (it's a PDF of the handbook available at any DMV (the english version)) and please tell me what page your other links appear in (and it's not page 22 -- that's just plain english, not VC). Just because the VCs appear on the DMV web page does not mean they appear in the handbook. It's really not that complicated of a concept.
With regards to the rest of your post, I would suggest you call a local CA police department. They'll be happy to tell you. Again, I said TECHNICALLY, it is legal to enter the intersection on a yellow light -- but if you aren't OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, be ready for a ticket. The typical argument in court goes something like "(S)He was driving recklessly by speeding up to make the light. It was evident in that they entered the intersection on the yellow, but failed to be completely out of the intersection upon the light turning red. Had (s)he been traveling the speed limit, either (s)he would have cleared the intersection before the signal turned red or (s)he would have safely been able to stop before entering the intersection".
If you've got the time, spend the day in traffic court. Listen to the arguments on both sides. See if I'm wrong.
And if its not that, it will be a gridlock violation, or some such. I'm not saying it's fair and I'm not saying it's the exact letter of the law. But I *AM* speaking reality.
1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook. If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket. Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.
Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.
Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.
But the handbook is not the law. The courts go by the law. Now -- theoretically, you COULD sue the state for providing misleading information that led to your getting a ticket.
On a side note -- about revenue. I agree. I recall my friend got a parking ticket. He was parked facing opposite of traffic on a residential street. The ticket was for parking "more than 18 inches away from the curb". He was 3 inches away from the curb and he started to go ballistic. I laughed my arse off and pointed "Not away from THAT curb!" pointing across the street.
Sure enough -- that's what it was. It's all about the revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my age. I do notice tt takes just a wee bit more effort to cram more stuff in my head than it used to. Other than that, I still enjoy my ability to recall ridicules bits of obscure minutia that when viewed in total aren't enough to get me a good job, but are just enough to be annoying.
Seriously, though. My ability to commit stuff to memory and recall it *IS* one of my marketable skills. And anything that can help prolong the decline is welcome news.
Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the vote.
I believe that is exactly what the entire "hubbub" is about.
I'm a bit of an amateur historian. Particularly when it comes to Colonial America and the American Revolution. I get real pissy when I hear the average high-schooler's entire understanding of the US Revolution was that Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal", "Washington was our first President" and "blacks were 3/5ths of a person". ARG!!!!!!!!!
Worse so when people want to focus that Washington was a slave holder -- or that Jefferson didn't even free his slaves when he died.
I could go on an on about the transformation Washington underwent with regards to slavery -- or the obvious moral dilemma Jefferson found himself in (and wrote about quite a bid) with regards to his economic standing and is ownership of slaves. But these really are not the topics for 5th graders.
Did you know that Washington, as commander-in-chief, received, read, and responded to a letter written by a slave? The letter was a poem -- and the author Phillis Wheatley. Further, Washington invited Ms. Wheatley to his home and graciously thanked her. Or the incredibly favorable conditions Washington under which Washington freed his slaves? Or that Jefferson on several occasions used the phrase "we have the wolf by the ear" with regards to slavery and that Justice dictates one path, but self-preservation the other.
The main problem is attempting to look at our 18th century forefathers through 21th century sensibilities. This is just wrong on so many levels and would be maddening in and of itself if it was ONLY focused on OUR ancestors -- and not on the contemporary peoples they "injured"... Those people get the benefit of cultural objectivity.
Actually, to go back to topic, elementary books *SHOULD* "paint an overly simplistic view of the situation". We're talking about the education of children -- not upper division courses required for a masters.
When kids are hungry, you generally give them SIMPLE foods. Mac and Cheese, plain hamburger or hot dog, with simple vegetables. Most simply don't have a mature enough palate to enjoy pâté de foie gras or offal. You start them off with the simple stuff, then as they mature, you introduce them to the nuances and differences in various foods. Likewise, history is EXTREMELY nuanced. Introduce them to the simple stuff first. Basic US history, in this case. Then as they get older, THEN start down the path of trying to deconstruct it and analyze it.
From my point of view, a 12 year old should be aware that Jefferson wrote the DoI, was our third president under the Constitution, and arranged and approved the Louisiana Purchase. I hardly think they should be introduced to his failures as a slave holder, failures as Governor of Virginia (which lead directly to his running out of the state as Cornwallis invades Virginia), that he was a vicious backstabbing politician who paid to have lies published about political enemies in various news papers, and his utter hypocracy with regards to the size and role of the federal government (see the Louisiana Purchase). I also don't think Jefferson should be made to appear as some type of demigod.
Personally, I have no problem with Texas moving away from the focus of Jefferson so long as it doesn't exclude him and focuses on the contributions of other founders like Adams, Morris, Hamilton and Franklin.
Except that was written in 1994 -- which misses discussion of the amendments made in 1995 onward which actually address this.
No... they shouldn't.
And the changes to the CRA in the 90's forced banks to make bad loans.
There are arguments on both sides of the fence. I've looked up the facts and I've drawn my conclusions. Any reasonable person can look at the facts and say that CRA *DID* contribute -- but argue on the degree. I believe that the crisis was caused in no small part to lending practices forced on lenders by the CRA -- and made difficult to get out of by those mortgages getting broken up and mixed in with securities. And further compounded by congress blocking a review of Fanny and Freddy in 05.
Of course, if it makes you "feel" better to dismiss "me" by saying the words "Glenn Beck" and putting the word "facts" in "quotes", be my "guest". Says more about your reasoning ability than anything else...
Review this.
The expectation was that people would somehow automagically be changed by home ownership -- that they would start paying their bills on time, save for or insure against a catastrophic event -- in generally, act financially responsible.
The amendments made in the 90s *DID* force bank to lend to people without the ability to pay it back. Not directly, but by forcing arbitrary "numbers" (based on race and location) that the institutions *MUST* meet or be found in non-compliance and penalized under USC 1818. This went well past the original function of the CRA which basically just said "all things being equal, you can't red-line an area if the applicant otherwise meets all lending criteria.
Yeah... let a lender lose it's CRA rating and see how well it does...
Oh, that and various amendments to the CRA made in the 90's:
But it's a "libertarian urban myth", right? Feh.
Lovely. Zero to 'racist' is 4.3 seconds. What a lovely rhetorical tool! Almost as good as tossing out "nazi" or "Hitler".
Let's not have an honest discussion...
Some background
Re: CRA
You:
Way to totally ignore the amendments to the CRA -- particularly those made during the late 80's and early 90's. It set silly and arbitrary targets lenders must make by location and race. CRA forced lenders to lend to uncreditworthy persons to satisfy the CRA.
Now, I'm not suggesting the CRA was the SINGLE cause -- but it certainly was a major contributor. As well as many other points of government involvement.
Do you REALLY want to discuss? Or just be an ignorant name-calling prat?
I don't disagree with anything you stated.
I would suggest that those "probably largely responsible for most of the failed mortgages" would be the US Government. By forcing banks and lenders to loan money to people without the ability to pay it back or face stiff penalties.
(sarcasm) YAY trying to legislation equal results! (/sarcasm)
No you cant -- but the GP brought up an excellent point.
A copyright holder as the rights to a "thing", and demands payment for you to have/use that thing. You copy/use the thing without payment. You now have it. There is now an extra "thing" out there for which the copyright holder has not been paid. You got value at his expense.
So, if the expectation is that if his intellectual property or whatever is *USED* on the condition of payment, then it's a fair argument that he lost "expectation of income" from you from your direct actions. It's not "theft" -- but arguably an intellectually similar act.
I believe there's also a good argument to be made that the act of violating copyrights devalues the intellectual property. If it's "easier" to get free, then less will buy. You can cite one-offs, but there will be a percentage who WOULD have purchased the IP had it not been available for free or there were higher risks and penalties for getting caught.
While I agree with your overall point, I think this one is inaccurate. I don't believe they would have made money off *YOU* (or anyone infringing on a copyright), but I do believe the overall value is diminished. You've essentially made "more" of something -- and if there's "more" of something, it's worth less than if it's scarce. So, you MAY be denying them value on future sales -- but certainly not a sale to *YOU*.
Yeah... I pull those, too. LOVE the magnets.
I do stuff like that on a much smaller scale. I have an old acoustic modem sitting next to a 1960s phone in my office. Both the phone and the modem are busted -- but it looks just too damn cool.
At home, I have an Atari 1030 sitting under my bedroom phone. I also turned an old dual mobo server case in to a small chilled wine cellar (it's about the size of a small fridge anyway).
I usually pry off the CPUs of any processor I don't have in my collection. I've got everything from 8088 to present. A few flavors of 6800x, 650x, to name a frew. I even have an 8186 pulled from an old palmtop.
Everything else goes in a pile which twice a year goes to the e-dump which rotates around our city collecting toxic chemicals and e-waste.
Does disruption of service mean service is unavailable? Or could it mean that service was in a state that was endangered (no access to administrative accounts should something go wrong)? If something like that happened in my shop, I know at least one or two levels of management that would be devoting huge resources trying to "fix" this problem.
I'm not saying it wasn't a problem they didn't create themselves -- but I am suggesting it could definitely be a considered a disruption.
Think about it. Do you toss out EVERYTHING good done by someone who lives in a time when the abolition movement is starting? "Well, Benjamin Rush started PSAS -- in the mid 18 century, so the ENTIRE culture is against slavery!" Doesn't work that way.
Why do so many look at OUR OWN history with our own contemporary values but not that of other cultures? We look at the damage done to native Americans by our ancestors for example -- but fail to ever talk about the slavery endemic to many of the native cultures at the time. We fail to talk about the cannibalism and human sacrifice that was frequently practiced as well. Had history not progressed the way it did, how many people would have been enslaved? Hunted? Killed? Eaten? But that would just be "all ok then"?
If we're going to turn a blind eye (as we should) and make observations about a given society and culture in a given time in which they lived -- and judge them by their own standards -- we should do the same to our own ancestors.
On a side note (and not an attempt to justify slavery, but to put the USs part of it in perspective), I suggest you look at the average life expectancy of a slave in colonial and the post federal US and compare it to the life expectancy of slaves in the French and Spanish controlled "Americas".
I'll agree with you, but for different reasons. Americans *ARE* willing to do these jobs. Hell, I did such work -- when I was 16 -- and for a couple of years after that. These are jobs (not necessarily construction or farm anyway) that have been traditionally done by high-school or college students trying to make some spending money. I honestly don't think a full time job serving burgers was EVER meant to support one person in economic luxary, never mind a family of four.
When I was at age to work, the ethic in my house (and many other houses judging by my co-wokers) was "if you want money to spend, get a job". I think it's a good ethic. It teaches us a few lessons -- at an IMPORTANT time in our development -- independence, that "stuff has a price" and if we want more "stuff", we have to work harder or find a way to do without.
Putz.
Read my entire "fucking" posts if you like. Please quote the section where I say this isn't TECHNICALLY correct?
For that matter, read to me where it says in ANY of CAs penal code that it is illegal to steal gummie bears from 7-11s on Tuesday. You wont find it, it's not there. BUT there are other laws which cover this. The same is true for your "red light while in the intersection" scenario.
If you deny this, you are reality challenged. I spent an entire summer in traffic and SC court as an intern. I've heard the arguments. I'm telling you, *IF* you are in the intersection when it turns red, you CAN and WILL get a ticket. Most likely for vc 23103. You either had enough time to SAFELY stop before entering the intersection and failed to (reckless driving) or you sped up to "beat" the red light with a "disregard for safety" I believe the argument went. Don't believe me? Call up any local CA PD. I called up mine and got quoted vc 23103 and a few others. And it WONT be a violation of yellow or red light laws. I've also heard, though less frequently, anti gridlock laws used -- in that when ENTERING the intersection on a yellow, the intersection was not clear. Doesn't matter that traffic was moving at the speedlimit -- and it doesn't matter that you CLEARED the intersection before it turned red -- if there was a car ahead of you, the intersection was not clear and you violated gridlock laws.
So, quote bits and pieces of the VC if you like. Ignore the rest. Ignore the courts. "But VC 1234 says I can do this!" Not really.
Ok... spoon feeding is over. You are stupid. What you are linking to is *NOT* the law. The law is the vehicle code. That is not in the handbook you dumb lump. What you are linking to is *NOT* law -- but a simple verbal summary which attemps to state in simple language what the vc states using specific parsed language.
VC:
21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter.
(b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the roadway.
Handbook (from your very first post):
Solid Yellow- A yellow signal light means "CAUTION." The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you can not stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.
Notice how they are *NOT* the same? They may *SOUND* similar, but one is backed by the legislation and courts of California (with the associated court ruling precedents and the other is simple laymans language. What a stupid, dense, obtuse, witless fuck! You may THINK "A = a" because, well... they SOUND alike, but they ARE different.
Go back and read *MY* first post, nimrod. Tell me how I'm wrong. Show me where the *LAW* appears in the handbook. It doesnt. Either walk away and pretend you are right in your own head and maintain some sense of weird pride or man up and admit "Oh... you are right".
The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance can be cured. You seem to have the incurable form. But I could be wrong.
Sadly, I don't think you know how to read or know exactly WHAT the handbook is -- or perhaps I'm just not very good at communicating simple concepts. Click on the link I provided above (it's a PDF of the handbook available at any DMV (the english version)) and please tell me what page your other links appear in (and it's not page 22 -- that's just plain english, not VC). Just because the VCs appear on the DMV web page does not mean they appear in the handbook. It's really not that complicated of a concept.
With regards to the rest of your post, I would suggest you call a local CA police department. They'll be happy to tell you. Again, I said TECHNICALLY, it is legal to enter the intersection on a yellow light -- but if you aren't OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, be ready for a ticket. The typical argument in court goes something like "(S)He was driving recklessly by speeding up to make the light. It was evident in that they entered the intersection on the yellow, but failed to be completely out of the intersection upon the light turning red. Had (s)he been traveling the speed limit, either (s)he would have cleared the intersection before the signal turned red or (s)he would have safely been able to stop before entering the intersection".
If you've got the time, spend the day in traffic court. Listen to the arguments on both sides. See if I'm wrong.
And if its not that, it will be a gridlock violation, or some such. I'm not saying it's fair and I'm not saying it's the exact letter of the law. But I *AM* speaking reality.
1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook. If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket. Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.
Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.
Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.
But the handbook is not the law. The courts go by the law. Now -- theoretically, you COULD sue the state for providing misleading information that led to your getting a ticket.
On a side note -- about revenue. I agree. I recall my friend got a parking ticket. He was parked facing opposite of traffic on a residential street. The ticket was for parking "more than 18 inches away from the curb". He was 3 inches away from the curb and he started to go ballistic. I laughed my arse off and pointed "Not away from THAT curb!" pointing across the street.
Sure enough -- that's what it was. It's all about the revenue.