Your silly hand-waving isn't stopping companies from offering the service, or communities from creating special parking zones usable by commercially-marked shared vehicles...

If you're curious who offers the service, just find a website like car2go.com there is no need to invent imaginry ebil libraaaaaaaals that only exist on cable news, AM radio, and the minds of their fans.

I also use up valuable real estate to store an emergency kit full of items that I'll most likely never use.

And in my minivan it isn't just an extra jacket, (no, a couple jackets don't really add up to much) but 2 axes and a shovel. Required to have in the vehicle in order to drive on forest service or BLM roads during fire season. I probably use an extra gallon of gas by the end of the year carrying those around.

Those who can't imagine living a life where you have emergency equipment (like blankets) ready... are probably young and poor.

Heck, take you for example: you can't even afford a free registration!

Your idea that suburban cars collect personal items at a different rate than urban cars is hilarious.

But you're right that the model can be easily adopted. And has been. They are all over town now. You just walk up and wave your credit card at the reader under the driver side windshield. Very popular with young people.

Not a problem really. With a small flywheel for in-town, it does pull to the side a bit when you engage, but not worse than wind, and people adjust to it easily.

The real problem regarding the forces are the accident danger. If you crash it can really tear your car apart.

My friend had flywheel assist before he went electric. That was in the early 90s. Trust me, the reason you don't see it around very often isn't because of viability concerns; mostly cost/result/accident danger. It is expensive to install, uses up limited space, and isn't a miracle at all.

Yes.

As far as efficiency, you fell on your face. Sorry man. The 35% for the car is the engine. That's the max possible, real IC engines in consumer cars are closer to 25%. Your novel idea that that is higher than electric cars get is funny, but no. Also, battery charging using the battery technologies already used in cars is closer to 85% in the worst case, and over 90% average. Nobody is building cars with lead acid. And "battery discharge" is not 75%, the average is over 90%. 75% is the lowest efficiency, which you get briefly at the end of the cycle when the battery is already charged and you're only using a tiny bit of current to top it off. The main part of the charge that uses most of the power is at the higher end of the efficiency range for the battery. You're whacking battery efficiency down twice with made-up numbers and pretending to be science-y.

Battery charging efficiency is actually near 100% below 70% charge. Remember, you're not doing much work here, physically. There is no reason to desire there to be an extra loss here. ;) Discharge loss is also normally only a few percent, not 25%. Almost all the losses in your "equation" are from made-up numbers that are nowhere close to reality.

Fuel cell storage efficiency is only 20-60%. No surprise, because hydrogen atoms are larger than electrons, and so filling up the cell requires vastly more physical work.

Flywheels are super-heavy. The funny part about what you say there is that small flywheels used the same way as electric regenerative braking can increase fuel efficiency in a city, with frequent start/stop, but the mass of flywheel you'd need to be useful at a 50+ mile range would be really heavy, and have huge friction losses. It can be done, it has been done, but you get a slow tank that is inefficient, not a fuel-saver.

Not having better numbers is no excuse for just making them up as if a guess what you use when you can't be bothered to look any of it up, and don't already know about the technologies.

Nope. The way "anybody" could question it is because you're simply wrong about what rights you have. My advice, learn about rights from books, not cable television.

You have no right to privacy, except where you maintained your privacy successfully. Or rather, you have a right to try to be private. Outdoors is not private. Never was. Never will be.

Yes, new laws will be written to regulate use of drones over private land, and they will require permission. But no, privacy won't be any part of it.

Your jammer idea is the pinnacle of idiocy. Yeah, just point electronic devices at the sky that you believe will cause small aircraft you don't like to fall from the sky! Nothing wrong there, that is safe enough to give to idiot rednecks that already discharge firearms in a city.

If you're surprised he was released the next business day, you probably don't read small-town newspapers. This sort of gun crime happens all the time in redneck towns. You also see lots of citations for "illegal burning" and "animal cruelty."

You don't actually even know the angle of fire, such is the depth of your ignorance.

If you knew the angle of fire, such comments might be worth considering. But since you don't, you can't even claim to think your comment is relevant.

"shotgun" doesn't mean, "shotgun shell loaded with birdshot." Man, people are sure ignorant.

Dictionaries, people. Dictionaries. I thought nerds had all read the whole thing multiple times?

Actually, no. Liberals support the clear view doctrine, because it is established legal precedent.

The people crying about the children are just idiots. Don't try to dump them on us. Liberals support the right of photographers to do whatever weird shit is legal, even when it is disgusting.

I tried to wave off the Russian satellite that is also photographing his daughters, but it is still up there, flying over again and again and again.

Maybe his daughters aren't invisible outdoors, even on privately-owned land.

With the added benefit, you know it might be back because after being arrested for shooting it, you had to buy him a new one.

If there is some "unauthorized recording device," that is a tort claim. Hire a lawyer, and file a lawsuit. Taking the law into your own hands will not end well for you.

Under 50' on private land isn't even regulated. There were numerous laws violated by various involved parties, but I really doubt that was one. Check the wording of the law to discover the other reasons.

If you try to understand legal issues, or issues where the community standards are embodied in law, then yes, you really do need to have found out the differences with some sort of help, either from lawyers or from books.

There are differences, but none of them involve privacy. ;) (no, you have no expectation of privacy outdoors)

And not all passers-by; if they're 9ft tall, or riding on their friend's shoulders, they can look at whatever is in view. They may or may not be allowed to loiter on the sidewalk to do it, of course, depending on local law. It might even be illegal "peeping" if they're already violating the loitering law, too.

They can absolutely look over your fence as they parachute down to their landing zone outside your property, or fly over looking for weed growing in your yard.