🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 8, 4:01 pm, Larry Scholnick <larry_scholn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> They have moved all L.A. city codes to a different web site:
>
> http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/lamc/municipalcode/...
>
> Every segment of every street with a speed limit other than 25 is
> listed, along with major streets with a 25 MPH speed limit.

Link doesn't work for me, that dll in the link kinda concerns me.

Sounds interesting though, could you post how you got there?  I can
see some things at http://www.amlegal.com/los_angeles_ca/ but didn't
quite see how to get to the streets.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/08/-duty-chp-officer-arrested-2-charges/

"Larry Scholnick" <larry_scholnick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eea4b66a-9351-4e18-a080-268d2191a6f7@y12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> They have moved all L.A. city codes to a different web site:
>
>
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/lamc/municipalcode/chapterviiitraffic?f=templates$fn=document-frameset.htm$3.0
>
> Every segment of every street with a speed limit other than 25 is
> listed, along with major streets with a 25 MPH speed limit.

Yet another BROKEN website that "requires" javascript to be enabled in
order to function.

On Jul 9, 9:52 am, jgar the jorrible <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Link doesn't work for me, that dll in the link kinda concerns me.
>
> Sounds interesting though, could you post how you got there?  I can
> see some things athttp://www.amlegal.com/los_angeles_ca/but didn't
> quite see how to get to the streets.
>
> jg
> --
I started out looking for the Los Angeles Municipal Code at:
http://www.lacity.org/SubMenu/CityCharterRulesCodes/index.htm

I clicked on Municipal Code, which got me to:
http://www.amlegal.com/los_angeles_ca/

Once I reached that screen, I expanded Municipal Code,
then expanded Chapter VIII - Traffic.

If you select OPEN IN A NEW WINDOW at the top, it opens in a new Tab
or Window.

Select Division P - Schedules

This gets you the full listing of roads with a speed limit of 30, 35,
40, 45, 50 (13 of these), then 25 (only the major streets that you
might expect to have a higher limit), then 55 (only 2 of these), then
15 (just 3 of these) and 20 (none of these).

Elsewhere in the document are listings of roads with a 6000 pound
weight limit,
in special Harbor zones,
and in various parking meter zones.

Interestingly enough, although they changed Santa Barbara Avenue to
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd in most places, they missed 6 segments of
other streets where MLK (formerly SB) is the boundary of a speed zone
on a north-south street (such as Hill Street between Olympic Blvd and
Santa Barbara Avenue).

On Jul 9, 4:01 pm, "D. Stussy" <spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
wrote:
> Yet another BROKEN website that "requires" javascript to be enabled in
> order to function.

I disagree with your assessment that the fact that it requires
javascript to run makes it BROKEN.

You made the choice not to enable javascript, and your inability to
access this website is a natural consequence of your decision.

If I chose not to install Adobe Reader, would I be justified in
calling many more websites that require Adobe Reader BROKEN?  I don't
think so.

"Larry Scholnick" <larry_scholnick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdcbbb87-e41e-43d5-8b0f-9d0088ff4f19@t13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 4:01 pm, "D. Stussy" <spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
wrote:
> Yet another BROKEN website that "requires" javascript to be enabled in
> order to function.

I disagree with your assessment that the fact that it requires
javascript to run makes it BROKEN.

You made the choice not to enable javascript, and your inability to
access this website is a natural consequence of your decision.

If I chose not to install Adobe Reader, would I be justified in
calling many more websites that require Adobe Reader BROKEN?  I don't
think so.
------------
90% of all sites that use javascript do so when the same constructs are
available in HTML.  The only reason to require CLIENT-SIDE services is to
access the local filesystem and thus steal information.  Javascript is an
extreme security risk that should never be mandated by any web site in
order to function.

I stand by my position:  Dependence on javascript by any site means it's
broken.

On Jul 15, 3:18 pm, Larry Scholnick <larry_scholn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 4:01 pm, "D. Stussy" <spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Yet another BROKEN website that "requires" javascript to be enabled in
> > order to function.
>
> I disagree with your assessment that the fact that it requires
> javascript to run makes it BROKEN.
>
> You made the choice not to enable javascript, and your inability to
> access this website is a natural consequence of your decision.
>
> If I chose not to install Adobe Reader, would I be justified in
> calling many more websites that require Adobe Reader BROKEN?  I don't
> think so.

Funnily enough, I do loudly complain about such sites, some required
in my work (though the usual complaint these days is flash, pdf was
more a problem in the past).  Some places even listened and would post
both pdf and html.  They each have their uses, not having both points
up the difference between printing things out and looking at them on a
screen.  I'm happy to have a printout of the train schedule when
trying to decide whether to drive or not.  Javascript has some serious
problems, as well as simple ones that just show a basic
misunderstanding of the whole idea of having urls - such as the post I
had to make to find what was really being pointed at.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/16/ashton-kutcher-fender-bender-car-accident-malibu-photos/