Once electric cars become prevalent, the charging time doesn't really matter for the supply and HV distribution side of the grid - each car sucks either 10.2MW for 30s or 10.2kW for a bit over eight hours (30,000s). Once there are enough that the spikes in charging smooth out, the demand increase is the same whichever charging rate you use. The only problem really comes at the edge of the grid, with the connection to individual houses currently being sized about three orders of magnitude wrong for this use. At this point, it's probably not too unreasonable to ask homeowners to pay to have their grid connection upgraded to give them the privilege of a 30-second charge for their car.

Let's see, a 4,700mAh 5V battery has a capacity of 23.5 VAh or 84.6kJ. To charge that in 30s, you'll need a 2.82kW charger output. So whether it's feasible or not probably depends on what jurisdiction you're in - a British 240V 13A socket will give you 3.12kW, so as long as your losses are below 10% you'll just get it. An Australian 240V 10A socket will give you 2.4kW, so allowing for 90% efficiency of the charger you'll get about 40s to charge. A US 110V 15A socket will give you 1.65kW, requiring about 57s at 90% efficiency to deliver a full charge.

Of course, I'm sure now I'll be buried in crap telling me either a) how crap Wordpress is and how much better blogging-platform-XYZ is or b) how useless the advice is because Bennett will never follow it and how my metrics for assessing the advice I give out is all wrong.

Seriously, Bennett? You don't think maybe researchers who devote their lives to figuring out good advice on health, diet and exercise know just a teeny bit more about experimental design than you? Sorry, I forgot, teenagers know everything.

Uh huh. Can someone tell Bennett about Wordpress so he can go get a real blog, please?

In Soviet Russia, dash cams are compulsory!

Hmmm, that didn't quite work out like I wanted.

I dunno; put it in an acid bath and see what happens.

Seems to have missed out on recent election results, that man.

Shill.

You've not understood the situation. Locking them out of the Google Play store doesn't prevent them starting their own app store and installing that as the default app store on their Android phones. It'd then be up to each app developer whether to sell their apps through that new store. For the average developer, why not? It's minimal extra effort for extra sales. And it would make sense for Microsoft to do it; after all, the most-often-cited problem with Windows Phone is that it doesn't have the range of apps that other platforms have.

Google, on the other hand, would have to decide if it was worth their while to not sell their apps (maps, now, search, play movies, play music etc) through the Microsoft store. Actually they might well decide it was worth it for the advertising revenue, just as they sell some of those apps for iOS.

Selling a platform that supports Android apps is well worth it, even if it doesn't get access to Google Play; just look at Blackberry.

You can still be had for patent infringement if your product reproduces an invention claimed in the patent.

I think that'd stand up in court for all of about four seconds. Telling your engineers not to do patent searches in case they come across something similar to what they are working on that they didn't already know about is one thing; setting your engineers to deliberately copy someone else's work is rather another. At any rate, ignorance is no defence to patent infringement, it just helps you avoid the triple damages for wilful infringement.

The whole story is a horrendous beat-up, though. Android is open-source and MS are free to copy it any time they like. There are no proprietary parts of Android that Microsoft would have to replace. The Google Play store *is* proprietary and some Google apps are only (officially/legally) available through it. So Microsoft would have to supply their own implementations of maps (hint: they already have one) their own app store (hint: they already have one, albeit not for Android) and, erm, any other Google apps they thought they couldn't survive without. Since most of the money in Android comes from the Play store and ads in the search and maps apps, I don't think Microsoft are going to be too upset about this revenue going to them and not to Google.

From my skim reading of the interwebs, studies vary enormously. While the one cited by the ISNA gives a total of 1 in 100, the other studies I found all gave numbers between 1 in 4,200 and 1 in 5,000. Of course the result is going to depend heavily on just how you interpret the phrase "differ from standard male or female", but one can't help the suspicion that just maybe ISNA has a bit of an agenda to push and has chosen its referenced study accordingly.

I don't know anything about it, but the "this aspect of the native culture survived the ruthless cultural destruction by Christian missionaries" narrative seems a bit unlikely, since the Tongan word for it is derived from the English word 'lady' (at least according to the Wiki page you cite).

There's, like, this series of books? Something about low-resolution monochrome?

Really?