Capacity stays the same. Capability of discharging this capacity however decreases.

You just quoted a lie there. Logs clearly show that he never drove that slowly.

This car appears to have "reserve power" in the same way that cars have a "reserve tank". I.e. even after your fuel meter shows you're completely dry, your car should still be good for 50-70km at optimal fuel consumption speed on the highway (at least every car I've driven so far was).

Most people forget that "gas alleys" were staple of early ICE automobile age. You can still see their remains in big cities.

Law is not the issue though. Issue is him claiming to have to slow down to conserve battery. Essentially lying. Speed is in direct relation to range here.

Calling you ignorant. Most modern cars have traction control that will not let you spin your tyres at 80mph without traction.

Not only that, he actually claimed in the story that "he was freezing in his winter jacket" to juice his story up.

Do it on your own gasoline car. Follow this principle:

1. Clutch to the floor, gear in first.
2. Clutch up, accelerator pedal into the floor until you hit yellow line on tahometer
3. Hard brake, clutch to the floor.

Come back and tell us how you burned tens of kilometers worth of fuel in that one kilometer of testing.

As noted by many, those words raised a LOT of red flags. Basic lessons in physics would suggest to anyone that perpetual motion does not exist. That means slowing down and speeding up isn't going to magically charge the battery. So either reporter is lying or exceptionally stupid.

Considering that he reports on cars and has done so for a while, one would assume that he is familiar enough with physics not to be exceptionally stupid.

The idea is on a shaky ground. It's basically a corporate pharma interest (huge lobby) vs public interest.

Corporate pharma argues that to discover the exact gene, they need significant research, just like with medicine. This is true, though research requires much less then new medicine producing research. They also argue that it's an invention rather then discovery for the same reason why discovering certain molecules leads to new medicines. Molecules that existed in nature for ages, that can be transformed into some form of treatment therefore is patentable.

The obvious counter arguments are plentiful, but they lack the powerful lobby behind them, and current trend is "weak government representing people, strong corporate lobby representing potential profits". Results can be seen in the ruling on top of the page.

If you're talking about BBC's Top Gear, then question is "what is this review you're talking about?"

You would be surprised at how much easier it is to fool someone who is fairly disconnected from troubles of real life due to personal wealth.

Are you one of the people who thinks that US Chamber of Commerce is a government organisation because of the way its named?

It's actually a massive central lobbying arm for corporate interests.

Companies who get much of their revenues on massively overpriced, ah excuse me "high margin" proprietary spare parts.

This would actually not work too well in this case. Sure, you yourself can move out of jurisdiction, but where does your advertisement revenue comes from? Most likely vast majority of it comes from EU companies or companies with legal presence in EU..

So let us imagine that getting dinged by this legislation bans EU based advertisers from selling advertisements to you under penalty of significant fine if caught. Suddenly all large advertisers face a clear cut choice: continue ignoring the law and lose vast majority of targeted local clients or honor the law and gain them.

I suspect that losses for ignoring would demolish profits far more then obeying but gaining all the local clients. Some things like gambling sites and porn could probably ignore this, but most of the major advertising networks mostly sell ads for local companies.