The biggest issue with converting a vehicle to an electric vehicle is getting light relatively inexpensive batteries. These might just be the ticket to that problem for DIY electric vehicle. Previously getting and making a LiON pack was either more expensive or harder to source the cells. This may solve the battery and charger issue and allow people to make decent ranged electric conversions for a lot less money.

The real issue, is the grid tie in inverters. You'll go through a few of them in the life of the panels, and they are expensive. If they get those down to a couple hundred dollars, the rest will fall in place. Installation and power electronics is over half the installed system cost. This also makes it not financially feasible to buy a couple panels and roll out more as you save money; the price difference between the whole system and the two panel system designed to be upgraded is negligible.

Looks like MS is going to kill McAfee's application control(used to be solidcore) product.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

Any warrant that doesn't list the particular; one that authorizes a general collection is unconstitutional and illegal regardless of what the Judge says. In this case the Judge ruled they could generally collect any electronic phone data in range of the stingray. Judges can and do make illegal orders. They just have ruled that they're immune from punishment for their illegal actions, and we let them. Note that in the United States, judicial immunity is not by any statute passed by a legislature. Its by Judicial order. Its just another brick in the tyranny we live under.

If they do this, they're going against the magnuson moss act.

In a just world they would lose copyright when they stop warranting the product. You want copyright of that ecu? You give a permanent warranty on it and replace them every time they fail, for free. Don't want to have to replace it? then you give up copyright to the code on it because user needs to fix it. I'm not holding my breath though.

Oil is not the complete set of fossil fuels. It may be that we have run the oil age too long and it would be hard to get to oil again, but lets look back 100 years ago and notice that it was the coal age then. We switched from coal to oil not because we ran out of coal; we did it because the oil was more efficient. If we needed to reboot it would go back to coal, and there are still vast easily exploited coal fields. We could coal power civilization until we got back to petroleum; but really we're already changing over to a natural gas age, just like 100 years ago they were changing to petroleum. And we could just skip petroleum, do coal, and then gassified coal and go on towards whatever we have next, which really could be fusion.

1.5Million crimes per year prevented in the United States by guns.

In UK most home robberies are home invasions when the victims are home. In the United States, that is rare. Most home robberies are done when people aren't home.

So we Americans also price these benefits against guns and find that they are a net positive.

Moving the goalpost I see. From "No courts have ruled that way" I found that the 7th circuit did in fact rule that way, and they based it on a Supreme Court Ruling as well(that would be the second quote). So I said that courts recognize that Atheism is a religion. The courts agree.

My viewpoint is that the government should not favor one religion over another religion. I, like the courts, have a broad construction of what a religion is. This after all being a legal argument.

You think that theistic religions should be disadvantaged, and that Atheism and Secular Humanism should be advantaged in government, to protect that separation of church and state, changing their definition to suit your argument. Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't protects against all kinds of offense. It doesn't protect based on sexual orientation. And that is what the nexus of this Indiana law is about. So no bullshit about that ending action at the cash register. That's false.

I'm done with this goal post moving and your rhetoric. If you want to come back with some logic and facts have at it, but quit calling me a liar when you don't have a clue what the fuck your talking about.

IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").

KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, 7th Circuit, rules Atheism is a Religion.
But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).

Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.



So tell me about this "aTooth-Fairyist" religion of yours. Are you sure you're not the ignorant one here?

But I will contend the state is become atheistic. So the state is acting on behalf of atheists constantly and it is disadvantaging all other religions.
This is because while courts do in fact acknowledge that Atheism is a religion, they are applying a Separation of Church and State doctrine to prevent any religion or mention of God from the state.
And no God is Atheism.
Thus my problem with the courts ruling based on a nonexistent separation of church and state in the constitution rather than the clear freedom of religious express and prohibition of the establishment of a state religion(which the courts have established defacto instead of dejure, re atheism.)

Since you haven't actually read the first amendment to the constitution, let me break it down for you:

.. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So there is "freedom of speech" right in the Amendment. Right next to the prohibition on congress to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, Which is right next to the prohibition of Congress to create a Federal Government's officially established religion(i.e. a state religion). No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion. In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.

As for things grownups understand; they understand the difference between violence which is not protected and being an asshole, which is protected by the aforementioned freedom of speech. So your law preventing someone from being an asshole to people they don't like is oppressing not only their religious rights but their speech rights as well. Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.

Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.

Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.

Conversely you can let me know how respecting the religious views of others (i.e. not " prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

If you ask very nicely I may actually tell you where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from, but if/when I do the whole quote will undermine your beliefs.

I wish there were a rant+1 mod for this.

They will constantly be replaceing because of the number of packs in a large system and the fact the packs are on the downside of their cycle life, and thus why they were removed from cars. NiFe doesn't really have a cycle life like LiOn does. These will be cycling daily for night discharge; this will be an issue. Why not install a low maintenance system to start with rather than be replacing battery packs constantly, or at least several times, throughout the 30 year( 10,000cycle) life of the system?