If you have a camera embedded inside a side panel and it needs to be replaced, the cost of the camera will often not be your biggest issue...

When you see the cost of replacing a mirror, it'd be cheaper to have a camera and a 7" screen inside.
On the other hand, night vision would suffer from having a screen on.

And I know more than one person who has saved their cars' doors by having the mirror remind them how close they really were to that post...

Use your gun analogy properly: make the astronaut push the launch button, and the manufacturer is immune from any harm...

I apologize for not having mod points.

There's a severe shortage of programmers with 25 years experience in Java, gimme more H1B.

Graduate first. Then go for your dreams.
Because if you fail and you have to fall back on normal employment, dropping out has just put you all the way back to the end of the line, behind all the unemployed educated people.

You can waste a few years after college in dead-end attempts. You can explain that in an interview, it might be a positive (because you're entrepreneurial, and because you've failed and won't be running off again soon).
But if you didn't graduate, you aren't likely to get the interview in the first place.

Are they trying to go around the (few) GCHQ monitoring limits by going straight into NSA-friendly territory?

Because it works. Check the incumbent election rates.

next question?

Considering the drought in many parts of the US, any accident which causes more dangerous (hotter, longer-lasting) sparks then steel does is bad news.

The advantage of the current version is that the batteries rarely burn, and always in a contained environment, usually on pavement. If the new version throws sparks 10m away after every shock, it's worse for anyone except the car owner...

My argument on the turbo point was that, while the turbo gives you more engine power, it doesn't output it itself. I honestly don't know what the actual energy usage of the engine component "turbo" is, but it's a fraction of the "80HP for 10s". And that energy is not delivered via mechanical linkage straight to solid wheels, it's compressing air.
Therefore saying that a turbo turns 5x faster is a false equivalency, because the amount of stress on the components, and therefore the required care and maintenance (the original point), is orders of magnitude different.

> Doesn't exist

Moon... finger... see other reply
or go get a motorcycle

>Turbochargers don't explode all the time, and they spin at even faster speeds (around 5 times)

Educate me. Are turbochargers designed to provide "80HP for 10s" (through a mechanical linkage), as another poster put it?

I my point invalid if I write 4l (essentially 60mpg) or 5l (~50mpg)?

I point at the moon-sized battlestations driving by, don't stare at my finger

It's flawed from the first second.

Really...

1969 is before the fractional second correction at the end of 1971, so the moment you try to convert, you're off.
How far are you? I don't know, because they also changed the definition of a second, so you don't get the same time if you count seconds up from 1969 than if you count down from 1970 or 1972...

Sure, let me give it a try:

The heavier the car, the more energy there is to store when you stop.
So you add a device to store the energy for later.
BONUS: you just made the car heavier, which means you have even more energy to store.
So now you can restart from scratch easier using the stored energy, unless you didn't have energy stored and have to restart a heavier car.
But you can't have bad performance when starting, so you need a bigger engine.
BONUS: you just made the car heavier again
So you add a few more bars to protect you in case of a crash, what with all these heavy vehicles on the road, you know...
BONUS: you just made the car heavier yet again, man do you have a lot of energy stored in that bigger flywheel that you put in to better recover the bigger energy of the heavier car!
You're definitely saving a lot of gas, in stop-and-go traffic, compared to the other huge cars!

On the other hand, an econobox will get you from the same point A to the same point B for 3l per 100km (or over 60mpg) and cost a quarter of the price.

Of course, we can trust the average Joe to properly maintain a piece of hardware designed to rotate at 60000 RPM, right?
I'm looking forward to cars just blowing up when they come to a stop because unmaintained flywheels explode and shrapnel likes gas tanks, according to hollywood.

"I didn't microwave the cat, a hacker did"