Have you got a cite on that?

Car and Driver said that, "The 60-kWh lithium-ion battery pack and the software that manages it were developed by the Formula 1 experts at Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains. The 1208-pound pack contains 864 South Korean battery cells" (http://tinyurl.com/pt7wds6).

In comparison, a Tesla battery contains over 7,000 cells.

Google "robot vacuum self emptying" and dig out your wallet. Yes, they're out there.

Electric heating is typically the most expensive way to heat, but that is because electricity is typically more expensive than fossil fuels - not because the heaters are "horribly inefficient." In fact, every electric heater (be it resistive, ceramic, infra-red or whatever) boasts 100% efficiency: every single watt that it uses is converted to exactly one watt of heat. The $14, 1500 watt space heater that you buy at your local big box store puts out exactly the same heat as the 1500 watt unit with the Amish mantle, cured copper cores, etc. that you see advertised for several hundred dollars in the Sunday newspaper (remember newspapers?).

An ICE powered generator has the advantage of being able to use a fuel with a high energy density, but will always lose heat through the exhaust - as well as other inefficiencies relating to the fact that it is separated from the passenger cabin. And how much heat would it actually provide? (That last question was somewhat rhetorical; I certainly don't know the answer.)

That's because the letters aren't silkscreened. Instead, the keys were 'double shot' in which the lettering is a different color plastic, molded into the key. Google "double shot keycaps" for better explanations.

[Typed on one of my three Model Ms.]

He definitely had me on board when he mentioned "blancmange "

Here's your starting point: http://www.irobot.com/us/learn/Educators/Create.aspx

Because you can read it any time you have either an expected or unexpected down time. I've been reading "Great Expectations" on both my HP tablet and Android phone, switching from one to another, and never losing my place.

I spent a few minutes and found the 1966 Penguin version for under $10, shipping included: http://tinyurl.com/q2hf2rr

And I'd really like to hear the rest of the story. It would be trivial to rant against fireworks in general, without using the manufacturer's name. So what pressure could they bring about? And why are there no cites? (They do preface the article with the "This article needs additional citations for verification" disclaimer).

A major purpose of the test is to encourage thought, and to replace the traditional linear political map (left/centrist/right) with the two dimensional one, where you'll find people (such as myself) who might take a conservative view on the economy, but who also have a fairly absolute view on a woman's right to an abortion. Or someone who believes in the right to own guns (right wing), but also the right to take drugs (left wing).

Why should the government censor "hate speech"? And who defines just what it is? Slander is a civil tort and should be remedied in court - but after the fact. Penalties s/b based actual damages - if any. Allowing the gov't to censor such speech means that someone has to make the decision of whether or not it is slander. A person s/b allowed to say whatever he likes, but allowing such speech does not absolve him from responsibility for his speech's effects. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (or incitement to violence) should not go unpunished, but the crime should not be that he yelled. Libertarians take a firm view that a person is responsible for his actions.

I disagree. Google "how charitable are americans" and you'll find that we are actually a very charitable nation - see http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682100 as an example. Religious areas tend to give more, and private (especially religious) charities tend to pass on far more to those in need than do gov't charities. (I am an atheist, but I am in awe of the benefits coming from religious based charities). And how much more generous might we be if our disposable income went up? As in with lower taxes?

Is is only unrealistic if you maintain the current gov't services. Smaller (cheaper) gov't is a Libertarian mantra. The key part of the phrase is to cut spending - the tax reduction follows.

This is a problem for every political stance.

Yes, without such regulation there would be a great disparity in rates in different areas to the point that few people in rural areas could afford TV. By setting rates thaty allow easily serviced areas to subsidize areas where service is difficult.

I've had neither cable nor broadcast TV for at least two decades (I live in the mountains where reception is spotty). I could buy cable or satellite, but I choose to do without. I simply don't consider TV to be a basic right, to be defended by the gov't. But I'm more amenable to universal phone coverage, which means that I'm not really a hard-core Libertarian.

Again, these are areas that should be served by the private sector. If I paid less in taxes I'd be more prone to increase my local public radio membership level. Consider National Public Radio and American Public Radio. NPR used to receive around half their funding from the gov't tit - but now they're down to around 11%. APR was more private from the start, receiving about 2%. I don't believe that the founding fathers had any intent that the gov't s/b the one to support those activities.

Yes, I'd like the options to choose what I pay for. In fact, I already have tens of thousands of options of where I spend my money. I don't object to paying for gov't services (police, fire, armed forces, etc.), I simply want the gov't out of businesses that it isn't uniquely required to provide.

All too (unfortunately) true. We'll never see a truly Libertarian world, just as we'll never see a truly socialistic or any other extremism. But I'd like to see the pendulum at least swing a bit towards smaller government. (BTW, thanks for your thought out replies.)

Your points are valid, and there is certainly no way to actually apportion exact usage (or benefit) to every person, much less charge them on that basis. But toll roads can shift a great deal of the cost to those who receive the most benefits.

In an ideal libertarian world, the Clean Air Act would be unnecessary - instead, those creating the bad air would be legally accountable to those who suffer, and would either clean up their act or be driven out of business. But this is the real world, where such legislation as the CAA is far more effective at keeping us healthy. As a Libertarian, I don't oppose ALL taxes; nor do I believe that all government is bad. But I do believe that it is far too large, and involved in far too many areas. Do we really need a national agency to monitor local cable TV rates? Should it be a government function to support the arts?

BTW, I've been a registered Libertarian for close to 40 years. It is refreshing to finally see the party making the news, but distressing when extremists such as the Tea Party overshadow the rest of us. For an interesting look at the party's principles, take the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Ten questions - five on personal freedom, five on economic freedom. It may not convert you, but you may find that you agree with more of our principals than you'd expect.

You have that a bit wrong. A Liberatarian is more amenable to actually paying for services used, rather that paying general taxes that go to who knows where. Example: a Liberatarian would support toll roads over freeways, so that the actual commuters would pay for the roads, not the folks who rarely venture thereon. A Liberatarian is hugely opposed to using services that are paid for by others.

Newsflash: No one is obligated to accept dollars, either. The familiar phrase: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" only means that the good ol' USA will back the bills, no matter how they are used. It does not place an obligation on the seller to accept them.

Obsolete DMV info has nothing to do with current law. CA has had the .08 limit for around a decade or so. Can you cite ANY current DMV info that backs up your claims? You've made reference to some sort of driving test

Your original claim was that a breathalyzer was required for a conviction. That is the only point that I have argued against.

You further claimed that "The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test." Do you have a copy of the test?

And you claimed that "The California DMV guide for the drivers test is an easy source. It provides the definitions for 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 as impaired vs. drunken driving."

What guide? Is it on line? Do you have a copy? If so, when is it dated? And in response to my rebuttal:

you replied: "That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license."

Can you explain that conclusion?

I've provided links to the DMV code, you've provided vague, unverifiable references. You're free to believe that you can beat a drunk driving charge because you didn't blow up the balloon. I just don't think your defense will hold up in court.

It is true; congress passed a law in 2000 requiring states to adopt the 0.08% limit by 2004 or lose highway funds. All 50 complied. And how in the world is it an easy out?

Which link? And since when does a driving test carry the force of law? Here is a direct link to the relevant law: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm

False. Refusing the test is grounds for a one year suspension (with increasing penalties for repeat refusals). It is NOT a confession, and cannot be used for one. No, don't take my word for it - here's the handy linky: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13353.htm

The threat may be implicit, but again - not a confession, not a conviction.

To repeat (yet again):

"[...] but your assertion was that a drunk driving (DUI) conviction required a chemical test, vs. other evidence. And that is where I disagree."

and from an earlier post:

"The point I was making is that a Breathalyzer is NOT a requirement (as you asserted) for what is commonly referred to as a "drunk driving" conviction. Nor did I did suggest that alcohol on the breath (alone) was sufficient for such a conviction."

It may be an easy source, but:
  - It is does not carry the force of law. The vehicle code can be found at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/. If it isn't there, it doesn't apply.
  - It is off by an order of magnitude. BAC levels of 0.7 - 1.0 percent are in the fatal range. I have to assume that the intended values are 0.07 - 0.10 percent.
  - It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.

No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.