FTFY

If you do wish to bring that concern forward, do make it against the OP, and then I'll make a modified reply to them once they do so, should I feel it is warranted.

I'm not sure why I would have to. The article stated the government of California which is the only entity that could be by California. This is the context the OP's comment should be examined in. You stated "in California" which is not the same thing but could encompass the same things.

Absent that, I hold them to their words as expressed, which was not engaging in any such differentiation, but simply lambasting California in the stereotypical fashion that would lead to outrage if it were another locale.

No, it is clear from the context of the reply and even just the summery that the GP was talking about the government of California.

Me, I was just highlighting how they didn't make the differentiation, but painted the whole state with a broad brush. I guess you didn't get the point of my words. Please understand, you didn't get my purpose at all, so no, you were not comprehending what I was speaking about. I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear to you.

Ok, you do understand that there is/can be a difference between from or in a geographical area and caused by the leaders of that geographic area right? In other words, I understood your point or purpose but showed how it was not relevant to the situation due to nuances in language. Now if I say go get me some ice cream, and you say why, I would expect any other person wishing to comment to be commenting to your why within regard to my telling you to get me ice cream. It's just how language works. It would be silly for someone to chime in with "Your wrench is the wrong size" as a reply to your "why". In order for their comment to have bearing on the conversation, it would have to apply the presupposition that I told you to get me ice cream in order to be congruent with the conversation. Made "in" is simply not made "by" therefore bringing in the problem.

Which part of what he said is not true? Talking points or not, he did not mention the mass exodus from California so your setting up strawman just to knock down seems like a convoluted ploy to ignore the realities mentioned.

In California and by California are not the same things even though they sound similar.

I'm not supporting the parent's position but please understand that you are not speaking about the same things.

Yes, it is. Which is why the very smart people who wrote the US constitution chartered the country as a republic, not a democracy. And a good thing, too.

Actually, a lot of the state's got rid of the air brake endorsements. I was completely shocked when I was purchasing a class 7 medium duty single axle box truck that came stock with air brakes as it's a non-CDL truck and I was under the old assumption that the air brakes made it a CDL truck because of the endorsement. My state got rid of the requirements and I can no longer find them on the FMCSA website and a search shows a lot of other state's do not bother any more.

I think it has to do with technology that is mandatory now like ABS and self adjusters. But I have no idea why it went away or when it did.

This is the stupidest concept application I have ever heard and you are not the first person to do it. You are likely following the uninformed logic of someone else so I will not fault you directly.

All vehicles will have their fuel mileage impacted by the weight of the vehicles. All larger and heavier vehicles will by default pay more from the simple act of being used. The roads are repaired with taxes collected from fuel sales and either more friction from their foot print (less aerodynamic) or power needed to overcome the extra weight will cause more fuel to be consumed thereby already increasing the amounts they pay by default. There is no way around it.

If we compare two identical drives made at 100 miles a day, 5 days a week. and a hybrid car gets 45 mpg average of fuel use and a 1/2 ton pickup truck uses 20 mpg (both a low end combined city/highway average for the vehicle types), we will see how much of a difference there is. Let's take California's fuel tax for comparison sake. California has a 35.3 cents per gallon state fuel tax and an18.4 cents per gallon federal tax obligation (most of which they get back in highway trust fund projects). So the hybrid drives 500 miles a week at 45 MPG and uses 11.11 gallons of gas. The Pickup truck drives 500 miles a week and uses 25 gallons of fuel. In a weeks time, the hybrid pays $3.92 in state gas taxes and $2.40 in federal gas taxes. This is $6.32 a week in total or $328.64 for the year. The truck pays $8.82 a week in state and $4.60 in federal gas taxes. Combined, this is $13.42 a week in gas taxes or $697.84 a year in gas taxes for the same amount of driving.

Notice how the heavier pickup is more than double what the lighter hybrid pays? This is compounded even more when larger trucks are in the mix and more fuel is used. And this is before the various sales taxes which can be different county to county are applied but those increase with volume also.

> Why do we need yet another language, that has no particularly useful features?

You do understand that Pascal was first released in 1970, right? Many Pascal programmers in the 1970s asked the same question - why do we need C, with its dangerous string handling and obtuse preprocessor, if it doesn't solve any new problems?

> I used Pascal in some college courses, and felt that my productivity went down by about 50% compared to C

I felt the same when I switched from Pascal to C. I had to spend half my life squinting at curly braces and trying to track down what the origin of some multi-level-#defined thing was. It is normal to feel a reduction in productivity when changing languages, but that doesn't mean the new language is worse.

You can purchase an 18 wheeler for private personal use and drive it as a camper. The problem is the federal law designates anything with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds as a commercial vehicle or if the vehicle is designed to seat more than 16 people including the driver. There are exceptions for private non-commercial uses. Some 3/4 ton pickup trucks and almost all 1 ton or better pickup trucks fall within this category. The state however does the licensing and can be a little loose with these definitions pertaining to cuts in highway trust money from the feds. But they don't have much wiggle room and it's easier to just include everything. This is the reasons for the pickup truck license issue and it is likely the same in most states.

What I find interesting is that many of these people, and probably most of the people upset over the laws and rules trying to be enforced, are the same people who think businesses need strict regulation and so on. Most of these people got what they wanted and are now realizing how much what they wanted sucks. People like me who hold that this excessive regulation makes it harder to competition to start and compete, that think this excessive regulation benefits not hurts the established businesses, who think less regulations but more proper and enforced or effective regulation would be the best solution, are called racist conservative libertarian kooks who know nothing. And even when those who do the calling get ensnared in their own traps, they will not admit they were wrong or even the opposing views were the slightest bit right. It's just the man putting their boots on their necks with little to no lessons learned.

No, but money changing hands (commerce) impacts whether it is "commercial", and requires a commercial license.

"Impacts", perhaps. But it's not definitive. Especially in California.

For instance: I bought a pickup truck, to use as a tow vehicle for my camper and my wife's boat. Then I discovered that CA requires pickup trucks to be tagged with a (VERY pricey) commercial license, regardless of whether they're used for business. (You CAN petition to tag a particular pickup truck as a personal vehicle - but are then subject to being issued a very pricey ticket if you are ever caught carrying anything in the truck bed - even if it's personal belongings or groceries, and regardless of whether you're being paid to do it. (Since part of the POINT of having a pickup truck is to carry stuff home from the store this would substantially reduce its utility.)

The one upside is that I get to park for short times in loading zones.

If we aren't going to require commercial licenses for commercial driving, then why even have them at all?

And if we ARE going to require them for clearly personal, non-commercial vehicles that happen to be "trucks", why NOT impose this requirement on putatively commercial vehicles that happen to be cars as well?

The real answer to your question is "because the state wants the tax money, and the legislators and bureaucrats will seek it in any way that doesn't threaten their reelection, reappointment, or election to higher office" - in the most jerrymandered state in the Union. The Uber case is one where an appraent public outcry arose, bringing the bureaucrats' actions, and public outcry about them, to the attention of elected officials.

The full form of the so-called "Chinese curse" is: "May you live in interesting times and come to the attention of people in high places."

So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that.

I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.

Unless the pilot has X-ray vision, his eyeballs ain't gonna help. Fighter Pilot: Yes, confirmed it's a plane that hasn't been hijacked and may or may not have a bomb on board. Commercial Pilot: Told you so.

SquirrelMail has changed in the last 13 years?

And no one believed that idiocracy was a documentry from the future.

The was my first though with a cursory vieeing of the article headlined. I naturally went to thinking wow, that many people support labeling GMO foods.

It wasn't until i read more that i realised this was about DNA alone. I have no doubt that othes did the same but didn't bother going deeper into it.