Prepare for major E-cycle-gasm. 140 miles per charge highway, 230 city. Full charge time 1 hour. Insanely fast.

https://youtu.be/W1CSdYsJIWQ

Even this one is reportedly quite fast, and being a replica of a "light cycle" from the movie "Tron", it *should* come with a gold-plated Nerd Card included.

https://youtu.be/6aC57JeJt44

They also makes more cosmetically-conventional (and affordable/practical) models as well.

Strat

Lead acid batteries are still about half the price per kWh (look near the bottom, at the 48v x 400Ah bank), and come with the same 10 year warranty. Cars care about weight, houses don't.

The new thing here isn't battery storage of solar power, it's lithium-ion batteries instead of lead acid. The price performance for lithium-ion can't compete with lead acid yet, when weight isn't a factor.

From owner's estimations, ~90% of the battery's stated capacity is actually available for use. The 10% is not so much "fail-over" capacity as it is a buffer to keep the battery away from the extremes of charge/discharge states, where most of the degradation occurs.

Your cell phone battery has no problems charging to 100%, since you want to get as much energy (and therefore use time) in there as possible for the weight. However, charging to 100% harms the chemistry, and after a few years the battery no longer lasts as long. That's fine for a cell phone - part of it is planned obsolescence, part of it is the reality that a lot of people won't keep their phone more than a few years.

In an EV you have the luxury of maintaining a charge buffer, since the added weight and cost is fairly minimal and people have a much higher expectation of long-term performance.

So usage pattern + design (thermal management) + energy management which does prevent the user from destroying it = significantly different performance degradation profile.
=Smidge=

>"I tried switching back last year and had issues with it. I'm the sort of person who likes to keep like 3 browser windows open, each with 20 tabs. So I'm at high risk for one tab going haywire."

Actually, that is how I browse at home with Firefox. Right now I have three windows open, one with 25 tabs, one with 6, and one with 10. I leave everything open and running for several days or weeks. Occasionally I need to log out or the browser sucks too much memory and I restart it.

>"Browser developers distribute the debugger with all copies of the browser to keep sites from intentionally detecting a debugger's presence and stopping working if one is found. If everyone has a debugger, the site operator can't block people who want to tinker, learn, and make a site more usable without blocking everyone."

You're kidding? Sites actually do that!? Why? And how are they detecting a debugger and couldn't that be spoofed instead?

Otherwise, 99.9+% of users have no need for debugging and development tools (and I am one of those- about the only thing I ever need to do is occasionally view the source). But it certainly looks like a LOT of code and UI goes into something that is almost never used.

>"They want to stop supporting http - what an idiotic thing to even talk about. There is lots of valid use for http"

Yep. Another unpopular move for many people. I don't need Mozilla trying to dictate how I want to use a web browser. No doubt this change will break lots of older stuff WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER and make corporate use of Firefox even that much more difficult. Plus, it will break centralized caching proxies that we use effectively at work to greatly reduce bandwidth usage. And with centralized caching we need no cache storage on the thin clients taking up TONS of space, since the the proxy *is* the cache. Not to mention it adds yet more CPU resources and memory use for all those things that didn't need encryption overhead in the first place.

>"I abandoned Firefox for Chrome long ago for one reason: I can kill individual tabs with runaway CPU usage without fscking the whole browser."

The funny thing is that I haven't seen that happen in Firefox (at least not under Linux, which is all I use) for many years. So I don't even think it is an issue.

>"A lot of sites are laid out so inflexibly that zooming in causes a horizontal scroll bar."

Bingo, and it really pisses me off. Not because I want to use a huge font, but because I DON'T WANT TO F'ING MAXIMIZE EVERY F'ING WINDOW. I actually do more than one thing at a time and need to see and maneuver through more than one thing at a time.

The other big pisser are all these sites using HUGE unnecessary graphical backgrounds with transparent scrolling and other annoyances that use 10 times the CPU and memory and slow down everything.... all while squishing all the useful information into ever smaller little containers. Yeesh.

>"Have your browser habits shifted recently?

No because

1) I don't want Google even further spying on me or my users.
2) Chrome is not open source, further allowing Google to do who-knows-what.
3) Chromium (which IS open source) apparently has build issues and isn't even in the normal Fedora repos.
4) Chrome is not community driven.
5) I hate the minimalistic UI with zero user control of Chrome.

>" Which browsers do you use most often? "

Only Firefox. It is multiplatform, open-source, community driven, fast, available in every repo, secure, and still has much better addon/customization support. This is not to say I don't have issues with Firefox- them trying to turn it into Chrome and pulling crap like not allowing us to have tabs-on-bottom, having the menus, hiding the URL prefixes, combining the buttons, etc is very irritating (yes, I know about Classic Theme Restorer). And the memory footprint of all browsers is crazy now. I also don't appreciate them throwing unnecessary crap into the browser like the web developer stuff, the "hello" junk, and other things.... all of which should be add-ons.

Just a personal opinion, so take it for whatever you think it's worth. But IMO, Sanders is more of a campaign disruptor than a serious contender for the next presidential election.

He's known as a political "Independent" but as others have already noted, he's more of a Socialist really. I see some value in him wanting to bring up the H1-B VISA issue, but primarily so it encourages the other candidates to debate it.

I also hear quite a few comments from those supposedly disillusioned with "free market capitalism", so some of these people will surely find Sanders an interesting alternative. I find that quite unfortunate though. Personally, I'm still pretty firmly convinced that free market concepts really never got a fair shake in the U.S. in the first place. So often, we're sold that label while reality is quite different. Heck, I was just debating the whole issue with a friend of mine last week about the deregulation of the power companies and the disaster that created for California. He used it as a prime example of why free markets aren't really viable or desirable. I countered that actually, that was FAR more an example of fraud than anything else -- a problem that transcends politics or the type of marketplace you're working with. In fact, much of the scamming going on with all of that was only made possible because GOVERNMENT was still expected to make payments towards keeping the infrastructure working! (They had legislation in place where government would start paying out money whenever the utilization of the power lines went above a certain percentage of their maximum capabilities. Therefore, crooked businesses like Enron would create false entries, reserving utilization that was never really happening to fake capacity limits being hit and profit from the govt. funding that was theoretically going to upgrading that infrastructure.)

Time and time again, this is what I really see happening.... People get frustrated or disgusted at something that supposedly happens because of a lack of governmental controls. But a closer look makes you realize it was only due to government interference or control in the FIRST place that the scenario was set up. The net neutrality debates would probably be another example of this. Sure, we need government to step in and tell Comcast, "No! You can't merge with Time Warner!" now. BUT that scenario was QUITE unlikely to have ever happened in the first place if broadband internet service was handled in the private sector in the first place, minus govt. regulated monopolies getting preferential treatment when the services were first getting built out.

Good question. The main problem with all of these is proof. How do you determine intent of a dropped packet? Was it congestion, a hardware failure, or did the ISP have it in for that packet specifically? The guy screaming "I'm gonna kill you!" is the top suspect when someone turns up dead, but the cops still have to prove he did it.

When Comcast was using Sandvine Comcast denied, denied, denied that they were doing anything to degrade their users' internet experience. It took the EFF and a massive coordinated traffic logging effort to prove that Comcast was lying about intentionally disabling Lotus Notes (and BitTorrent) connections.

a costlier service

There is very little technical reason for a byte of amazon to cost more than a byte of wikipedia. Once those packets reach the backbone networks (a process that Amazon and Wikipedia both pay for through their ISPs) they're essentially identical, except in the fact that Amazon has more money and they have more to lose if something were to happen to that packet, and that would be a real shame.

The original plan was simply "neutrality". All bytes are equal. More bytes can cost more money, but those additional bytes are equal too.

And that's where it started falling apart. Bytes delivered by copper all cost the same, bytes delivered by fiber all cost the same, bytes delivered by avian carrier all cost the same. Bytes delivered wirelessly... well, they cost the same too but some major neutrality players were doing deals with telcos to provide some services free on phones. Which was more important to them, neutrality? Or getting wikipedia to the mobile masses with no data charges? Well, as long as the net was mostly neutral (except when it suited them) it's a good thing, right? But hypocrisy is the moral rot, and rot spreads quickly.

Personally, I have two horses in this race: in my personal life I'm an internet user, at work I develop web applications. I had my experience with value-subtracted ISPs years ago. Before Time Warner traded an agreement not to compete here with Comcast for an agreement from Comcast not to compete elsewhere, one of our customers had Time Warner Cable at their office. One day I get an angry call from them that we're down. I check the status of our servers and say "no, we're up" and they insist we're down and I ask them if we're down why are they the only customer calling me. They insist. I do a traceroute from the development server and everything looks fine to me. They continue to insist. I remote into their computer and sure enough, the application isn't loading. I open a ticket with our colocation facility to let them know that some routing is fucked up specifically between IPs A and B. It's closed: nothing wrong. I tell them to call their ISP. TWC insists its on our end. I roll my eyes and mirror their database on the development server and call it a day. Day 2: we're "down" again. Neither the main server nor the development server are reachable from that customer now. TWC insists its on our end. I set up a mirror on our mail server. Day 3: we're down again. We have a three-way call with TWC. TWC insists it's on our end. I tell them that every single one of our customers using DSL are having no problems at all and offer to pay the cancellation fee so our customer has internet that works. (By this time I had reviewed all of our server logs and discovered that they were literally our only user in the city coming from TWC, everyone else had DSL). Tier 2 support is on the phone in 15 seconds. Now, this is probably about a decade or so ago, so these are not the exact words used but I won't forget the general gist of it any time soon:

Tier2: We changed a setting in their router to allow them to access their "business application". Everything should be fine now
Qz: Thank you. For future reference if we have other customers on TWC what setting is this so we can make sure it's configured correctly and avoid this problem in the future?
Tier2: Oh, it's not a setting that the customer can change.

So, what is the intent of a setting that blocks access to an ISP user's commonly used websites?

Your logic is sound for an eight year old. More mature logic has to deal with the fact that the drive does appear to work.

Try looking up Casimir-Polder force on wikipedia, for another example of quantum level physics producing classical level forces. Oh, I just did that for you.

While in a classical sense these phenomena appear to involve breakage in conservation of momentum, that apparent loss of momentum might well be explained through some aspect of quantum foam behavior. Can energy waves be transferred through quantum foam? Why would that not act like any other medium?

I'm guessing that as we learn more about manipulating quantum events like this drive and Casimir plates, we will get a better understanding of dark energy. But what do I know. I'm much more into woo-woo metaphysics than classical physics or quantum mechanics.

by telling carriers that they can't charge more for premium levels of service

Close.

The original plan was to tell carriers that they can't make Vonage and Skype a premium level service (add the voip package for only $15/mo!) to prevent them from competing with their phone service (only $9.99!). Or make Netflix an unusable service to stop customers from cutting cable. Or make browsing Amazon difficult because Barnes & Noble paid them to. Or sell 90% of the bandwidth they sold to me to their "fast lane" partners, while the sites I actually want to see get the last 10% of the bandwidth I paid for.

Much like the Occupy Movement, nobody took control to keep the message on point and eventually the whole thing devolved into a flaming mess, helped along by the telcos themselves spouting bullshit about how network neutrality meant you couldn't pay more for faster internet.

is your definition of that due to your political positions or is it a moral absolute?

Actually, it's pretty easy to decide if something is a moral absolute or not: If it's OK for everyone to do it then you can, if it's not OK for everyone to do it, then you Kant.