No LEAF has a 3.3kW charger any more. All models, including the base S support 6.6kW beginning with the (now current) 2014 models.

One of the companies who makes the launch system was required to take out a license to produce the boosters themselves. This is the backup plan.

It's not a great backup plan, because just having the plans and license doesn't mean you necessarily can make them, especially with the reliability needed for defense launches.

What 900 lumen light are you using?

I've got a couple 900 lumen lights and they're bright enough that if I shine them at cars the drivers are mildly upset about the brightness. It's like hitting them with high beams (although not covering as much area as a headlight).

I agree 200 lumens and the down-facing output is strange. I expect this is for urban riders who mostly use the streetlights to see.

And why do they use TCP if they are trying to avoid retransmissions due to lost/corrupt packets?

This seems to say that it's most trying to avoid link-layer retransmission, not transport-layer. So somehow I need to figure out all the links my transmission is traversing and disable link-layer retransmission on all of them?

And 4.6kW isn't that much power anyway. About 60HP.

I've seen resistor boxes used for testing EVSEs that take 6.6kW and of course don't fail.

Not much grip though.

But there is no legal alternative. AACS may suck in principle, but it has been broken. I can buy a Blu-Ray and rip it bit-for-bit. There is no other HD content you are offered you can do this for. Netflix? Nope. Amazon/iTunes/UltraViolet/etc.? Nope.

And HDCP? It sure is a pain in the butt. But it is on every other bit of legal HD studio content too. You cannot watch Hollywood HD content on any device in your house unless it has a built-in display (like a laptop, tablet or phone) or has HDCP. It's not just Blu-Ray, it's Netflix, iTunes, etc. So if you're going to put down Blu-Ray for that, you're just going to have to turn pirate or else watch in SD.

The thing that really gets me about Blu-Ray, which other systems don't have, is all those stupid forced previews before the movies. As long as the studios put that junk on their Blu-Ray discs, they are going to discourage people from buying Blu-Ray discs. And that's on top of the existing discouragement of having to buy a drive.

3/4 U-matic was a huge success. Betacam was a huge success. 8mm was a big success. 3.5" floppy was a HUGE success.

DAT was a failure.

MiniDisc was not a failure. It was big in Europe and Japan.

DVD was partially Sony's work (split with Matsushita, just as CD was split with Philips).

A lot of the reason people think Sony has a penchant for failed formats is Sony creates a lot of formats. You can't fail if you don't try.

Come on guys.

Given Wells Fargo is currently accepting these people as customers, I think you need to produce a higher standard of proof before this conspiracy becomes believable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Although most of these attacks require you be able to clone the data reaped from EMV onto a stripe card and use it in a place that accepts stripe swipes. If the US stops accepting those, it will reduce fraud by presenting less opportunity. But it won't be because EMV prevented data extraction, but because you can't (currently) clone onto an EMV card.

It still has to be swiped in Europe.

You need a Chip and PIN card. Wells Fargo issues them now. And Chase does for some cards too. You really should be getting one of those before you go.

If you don't have the PIN for your card, you don't have a Chip and PIN card and you'll be in a slightly worse boat in Europe than a card that doesn't have a chip because you'll usually have to tell them "ignore that chip, you have to swipe that" every time you use the card.

The terminals that had the problem were their new (few months old) chip and PIN-capable EMV terminals.

Chip and PIN doesn't fix the breach Target had. Only Chip and PIN with tokenization does.

I already have one Chip and PIN card from my bank (US bank) and I'm trying to get my other one switched too. But it doesn't fix this problem.

Target, if you replace your terminals again, please get ones that do Chip and PIN and also NFC and PIN please?

Sorry, that 2nd number should be $0.027/kWh, not $0.0027. They are getting a 5:1 spread, not a 50:1 spread. My error.

Still, the users are currently getting a huge subsidy, one they would lose if they went to battery storage and off the grid.

So they are not going to go off-grid if their subsidy gets merely slightly smaller.

These customers currently (using OGE, one of the utilities for Oklahoma as an example) get to sell power during the day at $0.14/kWh and buy it back at night at $0.0027/kWh. They are using the grid as a 500% efficient battery.

If they go to using an actual battery, will have to increase the size of their array many times in order to reach the same level of monthly bill reduction they currnetly have. And they have to buy a battery.

The current plan is an enormous subsidy to solar customers. That's why they will stick with it. Even if a fee is tacked on top which reduces their financial advantage it will still be far more financially advantageous than going off-grid.

The utilities were already required by law to buy customers' solar power at full retail price. That eliminated any free market angle right then.

This just modifies the laws.

If you are a huge free market fan, would you agree that removing the regulatory requirements on these utilities and letting them determine what to pay for customer-generated solar power would restore the proper order?

We all know that wouldn't work. With only one way to sell their solar power (through the utility) the utility would just refuse to pay them anything.