I'm sorry, maybe there is something that I'm not understanding here, but I do not believe that you answered my question.
You don't explicitly say this, but I am going to make an assumption from context that you are trying to lead me to what you believe is an obvious conclusion that Rice is the only possible person with access to this information and therefore must have been the source of the leak. If this is your logic and the only evidence that you are providing, it's easily falsifiable since more than one person (Susan Rice) knew that she requested that the names be unmasked, and more than one person had access to the intelligence report (e.g. members of the intelligence agency/agencies briefing her). Certainly, it's possible that she leaked classified information, but it's just as possible that anyone else with access to this information leaked classified information. I apologize in advance if I'm putting words mouth here, I'm just trying to find meaning in your response. Did I read this wrong?
If I'm reading this right, what actual evidence exists suggesting that Susan Rice leaked classified information in this case (again, remembering that there is no equivalence between unmasking and leaking)?
the Good Old Days when America was built by... LEGAL immigrants. FTFY
In those Good Old Days when America was built by legal immigrants were also the days when America had an open immigration policy. Our current policy is broken, and the situation reflects this. We're too mired by politics to even address the policy issue, let alone the issue that it has created (approximately 7M illegal immigrants). However, the GPP argument that these immigrants are essentially eating your lunch is old and tired. It's the same argument for racist policies against the Chinese, Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc. Same as it ever was.
I'd pay 10x as much for my groceries if that means my wife has less chance of being raped, and my children have less chance of being groomed by drug dealers.
Blaming rape and drug dealing on illegal immigrants is a ridiculous scapegoat with absolutely no basis in fact. The reality is the opposite of this - illegal immigrants (not accounting for the crime of illegal immigration itself) commit a tiny fraction of the crime in America, and it's very much disproportionate to their population. Illegal immigrants are less likely than natives to commit violent crime or be incarcerated.
You seem very certain of the future. I am not so certain. That is not to say that I disagree, I just don't share your degree of certainty.
I would be very surprised to see anything akin to Moore's law apply to battery and charging technology. Pumping more electricity into a car means dealing with not only serious heat dissipation issues but also requires a more and more massive cables. Scaling up today's 120 kW superchargers to charge in 10 to 20 minutes requires something more like 700 kW. Technically possible, but really pushing the limits.
Now, tripling the size of the batteries and then charging completely in 15 minutes will require a massive amount of electric current. Again, pushing the boundaries of thermodynamics. Possible? Yes. Probable? That's another story.
Since you can install ten Superchargers for the cost of one H2 station and since existing electric infrastructure is ubiquitous and there is no H2 infrastructure, it would seem a fools errand to start building H2 infrastructure when we already have EV infrastructure in place. You can do all the R&D you want but you'll never overcome the basic thermodynamic inefficiency of H2 which is about 30% of an EV.
I never debated the efficiency of hydrogen. However, you can have all the infrastructure you want and you still can't get around the fact that it takes longer to charge a car than it does to fill up a tank of gas (or hydrogen).
You are missing a point. Interstate travel simply does not matter to many many (my estimation the large majority of people).
I'm not sure that I missed that point. If this was of paramount importance to all buyers, there would not be a market for EV's - and there clearly is a market. However, the market hasn't exactly eroded the ICE market (around 60k BEV's against over 17m ICE cars and light trucks sold in the US in 2015). There are many people who do enjoy the convenience that ICE's offer. Others have jobs that keep them on the road all day, and EV's just don't work for that yet.
Collectively we are sick and tiered of paying for features (massive towing capacity and huge ranges on vehicles) that people neither want nor need.
Who is we? Are you speaking for every vehicle consumer in the world? I mean, certainly you're not speaking for the massive amount of Americans who purchased pickup trucks last year. Do you have some sort of data to suggest that Americans are collectively sick of paying for this utility? On the contrary, light trucks outsell cars by quite a large margin. Surely, there are a whole lot of buyers who prefer having this utility available to them.
. The dude who needs to tow his boat long distance can go screw himself, he will have to pay double in a few years as others (via economics of scale) are subsidizing him.
That's an interesting attitude. How are others subsidizing towing? My understanding is that roads are mainly funded by fuel taxes, and towing (or even having a large vehicle that is capable of towing) uses more fuel, generating more taxes. Anyone hauling a boat around is already paying more than double than someone driving a mid-sized sedan. Interestingly, we're subsidizing EV's significantly more than large vehicles towing boats. Beyond the state and federal subsidies for the vehicles themselves, EV's don't generate any tax revenue and do not help to fund the roads that they travel on. Even further, due to the weight of batteries, most EV's are very heavy and thus cause more wear and tear on the road than lighter vehicles. I'm not suggesting that subsidizing EV's is a bad thing...but it's disingenuous to suggest that heavy ICE vehicles are somehow subsidized and EV's aren't.
I'm not trying to suggest that electric cars are terribly impractical and will never feasible. However, your position doesn't reflect the reality of the current market.
So why can't existing gas stations install superchargers, or something similar? They all have electric service, and H2 pumps would necessitate installing new tanks and new pumps.
Sure - why not? It seems like a lot of the discussion revolves around a notion that these two energy storage technologies must be mutually exclusive. I don't think that it has to be. Perhaps FCV's will never live up to their promise. I'm just not ready to write them off just yet...especially based on what is said by a co-founder of an electric car company.
Why not simply have replaceable batteries that you swap?
That's an awesome idea. I'd love to see it play out.
Take a look at Tesla's map of Superchargers. They might be plentiful where you live, but they're not ubiquitous in many parts of the country. There are massive gaps, including three large states that do not have any Superchargers, which means that even if you're willing to put up with a 30 minute charge every few hours, you're not making a cross-country trip on I-40, I-80, or I-94. Even doubling the number of Supercharger stations will not live up to the needs of many people for long distance travel (or be nearly as practical for people who travel long distances in ICE vehicles). Further, how does the existence of Superchargers fix the problem of range and amount of time to charge the battery (30 minutes every 250-300 miles is a lot of time)? Certainly, not everybody drives long distances, but at the moment, electrical cars aren't nearly as practical as ICE cars for long distance travel.
So your suggestion is to abandon development of FCV's because electric cars exist and FCV cars don't? That doesn't make sense to me. I've never suggested that EV's don't work. I believe that ongoing research & development in FCV's is a good thing. Excuse me for taking it with a grain of salt when the co-founder of an EV company says that FCV's are a terrible idea.
So, where do you recharge your H2 vehicle on long trips? I charge my Tesla at Superchargers which are already installed just about everywhere. Drive 3-4 hours, charge 30 minutes (usually ready for some food and a break by then), drive another 3-4 hours, repeat... Tesla Model X can tow your boat (it has a 5000 lb rated hitch).
First, you're mistaken when you say that Superchargers are installed just about everywhere. There are only 624 Supercharger stations in the entire country. There are a few very large states that do not have a single Supercharger. That just doesn't compare to the estimated 126,000 gas stations in the US.
Secondly, I believe that you're missing the point. Batteries are still not the most ideal energy storage mechanism for long-distance travel because of the time required to charge a battery (30-minutes) when compared to a more portable energy storage mechanism that can flow at up to 10 gallons per minute. Your asking where to fuel a hydrogen vehicle on a long trip is disingenuous, because a network does not exist yet. However, with sufficient demand (and technology that does not exist yet on a commercial basis), there is no reason why existing gas stations couldn't update to include hydrogen - and maybe even replace fossil fuels with hydrogen.
Finally, while a Tesla Model X can tow up to 5000 lbs, doing so reduces the vehicle range by 60%. It's great that you have a Tesla and really like it. I'm glad that it works for you. However, the idea that these cars can be all things to all people is incorrect.
Any given program will expand to fill available memory.