"Past performance is no guarantee of future results." This disclaimer is required by the SEC and NASD. It is often ignored by naive investors.

Consider that the vast majority of trips driven are 30 miles or less in length, so those 100 mile range cars gets you there and back with charge to spare. About 1/3 of households have one car, and they'll likely want a hybrid or conventional gas car, but multi-car families can usually work things out so that range is not a problem. Electrics can be more convenient since there is rarely a need to charge them away from from (when home charging is available), they need less maintenance, and are exempt from emissions testing. And, despite high sticker prices, total cost of ownership for EV is lower than for comparable conventional cars.

My first thought on reading your post defending ether (aka aether) was "don't feed the trolls". The fact that observers moving at different velocities observe the same beam of light traveling at the same velocity (C) easily disproves classical notions of ether, dynamic or otherwise. In order to be consistent, your dynamic aether will have to obey exactly the space-timer warping properties of general relativity and thus cannont be detected or falsified.

However, your comment raises a crucial point about physics: We have no freaking clue what truly underlies the universe. String theorists suggest we are holographically encoded on a brane a higher dimensional space. But not only do these proposed models seem more ridiculous that luminous aether, they are incomplete and untestable. The standard model is accurate and predictive, but also arbitrary - hinting that there must be something more fundamental. Neither explains gravity/relativity. Physics is still (or again) waiting for someone to find new unifying principles. And that is certainly something I would explain to a young scientist to be.

Explain that Einstein grew up in a time when physicists were looking for the materiel makeup of the universe, referred to as "ether", but they had so far failed to provide an explanation. Famously, the Michelsonâ"Morley experiment showed no changes in the speed of light moving in different directions, which makes no sense if Earth is moving through the ether.

Einstein had the brilliance and audacity to reject common sense models of the universe and ask what would it be like if the speed of light really is constant: That the photons leaving a headlight on a moving train move at the same rate whether we measure them standing on the train or on a platform at the train station. From there, using wonderful "thought experiments," relativity was born.

Next, you can introduce concepts like red/blue (doppler) shift, time dilation, and the effect acceleration has on changing otherwise invariant properties of physics (special relativity).

I think it is informative to explain the awesome scope and mathematical complexity of general relativity, which re-imagined the universe as a four dimensional space-time whole. That even Einstein had welcome help with the mathematics. That today's physicists have yet to resolve this apparently correct theory of the large with quantum mechanics, the physics of the very small. And that black hole, which were only things of science fiction when I was a kid, offer the best promise of tying these together of anything in the cosmos.

Not so. The gas powered generator turns on when the battery charge drops below a factory set threshold, and the car keeps running though with greatly reduced performance.

Are you saying that all of the LAPD's marked vehicles are used for this type of driving? I had not considered that possibility (because it is untrue).

Don't forget horrific understeer and a suspension lacking the ability to keep the car's bicycle-width tires on the road. On the other hand, the last time I was there, LA freeway traffic moved at speeds closer to 9.3mph than 93. Moreover, I seems to me that you are missing the point if you think all police vehicles need to be chase cars, but then there must be some reason these cars are not being driven.

That range is worrisome. Fortunately, it is also incorrect. Read that article again and you'll see its author drove 100 miles before needing the range extender (the first leg was 50 highway miles). That 100 mile range is about what I get in my (battery only) i3. Hot and cold weather reduce the distance the car will go, but the range extender on those LAPD i3s eliminates the risk of being stranded in urban areas since the gas tank can be refilled indefinitely (though with very poor performance).

These cars are plainly useful for trips taking up to about 2 hours; they are fun to drive if not particularly sporty; their small size makes them easy to pack and maneuver; and a level 3 charger will top off the battery in an hour. Also, range anxiety disappears for most EV drivers as they get familiar with driving their cars.

Something else is going wrong with this program, but TFA doesn't provide a satisfying answer. I wonder what it is.

Centurylink has not been able to connect me at modern broadband speeds in Fort Collins in two separate locations. The old overhead twisted pairs are badly mangled, with a splice every block or two, and many of those splices were made before the DSL era with hardware that can't handle high frequencies. One location was newer construction that promised higher speeds, but the modem would never connect reliably.

But that's only half of the problem. CL has also under-provisioned our connection so speeds sometimes slow way, way down across disparate connections. Comcast, as the only provider offering broadband speeds in my neighborhood, looks like a monopoly from where I sit.

The old wires really ought to be replaced with fiber... Oh, wait. We just voted to do that!

Not only did we elect the city council, we voted twice in favor of this municipal broadband. And not only did city council vote to proceed with implementation, but they did so unanimously. All this despite a state law hindering city run internet services and 60:1 spending by opposition groups trying to influence last November's election.

I am delighted to say you misread the proceedings. Rather than having to wait until Nov, 2018, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 011, 2018, which authorizes "the City Electric Utility to begin implementing its provision of broadband facilities and services and to receive and expend the General Fund loan through the Light and Power Fund."

Regarding your other arguments:

First, Fort Collins has pledged to uphold net neutrality as an ISP. Municipal efforts like this on are the best solution currently suggested by net neutrality advocates in response to the FCC's new approach to regulation. In response to the FCC, Comcast has withdrawn their promise to provide net neutrality in their services.

Second, we can argue whether Comcast is a de facto mopnopoly or a de jure monopoly in Fort Collins, but whatever name you choose way, Comcast has exclusive access to the cable through which they provide internet and they are my only choice if I want a broadband connection at my house in this city.

The notion that Comcast cannot compete is ludicrous. Their profits are too high for them to leave town, as evidenced by the $900,000 ($55 per vote) they (along with Centurylink) spent trying to influence the municipal broadband election. They will continue to offer cable, internet, telephone, security, and other services, with all the advantages of a major content producing conglomerate.

Finally, you ask why many government distrusting slashdotters are willing to take their chances with Fort Collins' city government? I can only speak for myself, and the reasons are twofold: First this is a case of trust governement or trust a company that has already proven itself duplicitous. But more importantly, the city government here in Fort Collins does a darned good job of governing and has earned my trust.

Read my lips: no internet taxes! At least not for Ft. Collins, Longmont, and cities like them. I'm not going to explain debt (bond) funding here, which you plainly do not understand, but in my city's case the bonds are funded by fees not taxes.

Regarding Colorado's DORA Broadband Fund: This fund supports underserved areas of the state which cannot obtain adequate internet connectivity. Personally, I think this is the right thing to do. DORA grants are not going to cities like mine.

First, let me say this. We won. You lost. Nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

I know that was childish, but it actually does make me feel better and may well be the best way to address your misinformation and conspiracy theory.

OK. Here's the deal. Ft. Collins taxpayers have agreed, by vote in this election, to allow the city to issue bonds for the broadband enterprise fund, to be repaid by network subscribers. In doing so, we collectively agreed that the benefits outweigh the risks, and we implicitly accept that in the unlikely event of failure we will cover the bonds or face city bankruptcy.

Your objection has been noted, but you have been outvoted,.

You are plainly wrong here. The new utility is an enterprise fund, which, in this case, has its finances separated from other city funding.

Well... Taxation is constrained by TaBOR, so I would not be surprised to learn that some creative redirection has been enacted. But the point here is that you can choose to use other broadband providers, and if you do so you won't have to pay any of the fees charged by the Ft. Collins municipal internet.

In reality, Coloradans are excited about having additional options for broadband that compete with commercial offerings without touching taxes. For me, this means faster speeds from a company that is not using their profit to lobby against my values. If the the "market" provided this service, we wouldn't have voted for local government intervention.

Perhaps, but this point is moot if other local governments in Colorado use the model that the city of Fort Collins just approved. Our plan creates an "enterprise fund" whiose funds "can only be spent on a specific purpose and rely on charges and user fees generated by the service to recover cost." [private communication from city manager's office]. Users of competing broadband providers will not be taxed in any way to subsidize the city's program.

I have received three mailings and seen ads on Satellite TV "local" channels from a coordinated disinformation campaign opposing the city's proposal. The points made are carefully crafted to scare voters into believing in highly unlikely risks and that municipal internet will take away from other priorities (specifically road maintenance). While I do consider this free speech, the views expressed appear carefully crafted talking points that have distinctly false implications rather than honest "ideas and opinions".

Not true. While, the taxpayers are the ultimate guarantor of the bonds, it will be subscribers to this network who pay the costs, including the interest and principal on this debt. The proposal has to be revenue neutral - otherwise it is a tax which the city cannot under Colorado law raise without a new vote.

Boo, hoo! The sole reason the city is looking into this is that the "market" has failed to provide the options that many of us want, and has unreasonably elevated prices due to lack of competition.

The franchise model is a choice a city makes coupled with an agreement with a franchisee to provide access to the internet to the people in the city. When better options become available, it is the city's duty to explore them. Comcast is working hard to prevent this, having lobbied hard to pass a ridiculous anti-municipal-competition law, and now flooding the city of Fort Collins with misinformation. We owe them no duty of "fairness" vis-a-vis existing franchise fees here. Indeed, if Comcast cannot provide better service than the city at a better price, then they should no longer be entitled to a privileged monopoly withing the city.

Giant cable companies are the opposite of naive in business dealings like this, taking advantage of loopholes and lobbying strongly (>$18M, in the case of Comcast) to get what they want. This is the big league and if Comcast can't make it, they don't deserve to play.